Marine and Coastal Access Bill [Lords]

That is one of the few illuminating pieces of evidence in this part of the debate. Right hon. and hon. Members will not be surprised to learn that Wolverhampton is one of the furthest places from the sea in the United Kingdom, and as far as I am aware—I am aware of my family history back to 1050 on my father's side—I have no fisher folk in my family. Surprisingly, however, SBS/Fletcher, which manufactures boats, is in my constituency. One piece of evidence that stood out, as several hon. Members have mentioned, came from the hon. and learned Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr. Cox), who was briefly in the Chamber and spoke about the experience of the fishery closure in Lundy. Another piece of connected evidence was provided by the hon. Member for St. Ives (Andrew George), who spoke about the success of the closure of a spawning area between January and March or April each year. Those relatively small-scale—relative to the geography and the coast of the United Kingdom—schemes have worked to the benefit of not only conservation but the commercial fishing industry in those areas. Those are two pieces of evidence for my assertion that the Aunt Sally contradiction simply does not exist. I want to consider the other red herring suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby. When talking about criminal sanctions and so on, he referred to accidents. Perhaps he will intervene to tell me where the Bill refers to accidental damage. What I do see is a reference to recklessness, in clause 140(2). The word "recklessly" appears in paragraphs (a), (b), (c) and (d). Subsection (2) contains only those four paragraphs, and they all contain the word "recklessly". As a lawyer, I must tell my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby that the term "accidental" means something rather different from what is meant by the term "reckless". Perhaps he sees no difference between the two, but I assure him that there is one. I do not think that the Government should get rid of clause 141(4)(b), as amendment 23 suggests. Government amendment 5 and amendment 42 also seek to alter the subsection. Paragraph (b) states that it is a defence for a person who is charged with an offence to show that""the effect of the act on the protected feature in question could not reasonably have been avoided."" That takes us to the reckless rather than the accidental end of the scale. Government amendment 5 states:""The Secretary of State may by order amend this section so as to remove, or restrict the application of, the defence provided by subsection (4).'" That is relevant to the passage that I quoted a moment ago. Amendment 5 would give the Secretary of State regulatory powers to remove the defence in subsection (4)(b). I believe it was the hon. Member for St. Ives who seemed to have gained the impression from the Government that, if granted by the House tonight and enacted by Parliament, those powers would be used quite quickly, and I am concerned about that for constitutional reasons. I freely admit that my lack of knowledge is to blame, but I hope that, when he winds up the debate, the Minister will tell us where else in statute a provision exists enabling a Secretary of State, by regulation, to remove a defence. We all know that regulations create offences from time to time, but removing a defence and doing it so quickly—if that is the Government's intention—strikes me as very surprising. I hope that the Minister will tell us whether the Government have any such ideas, if not a fixed intent. If they have such ideas, perhaps he will explain why the removal of the defence in subsection (4) is not itself a Government amendment, rather than the Secretary of State's being given an order to take such action on a whim and on the basis of regulations that will have much less scrutiny.