Rivers and Estuaries: Derelict Boats
Debate between Lord Blencathra and Lord Katz
Lord Katz (Lab)
I will try my best again for my noble friend. He raises a specific case in Maidenhead; I will be honest with the House, I do not have the details of that case. He is absolutely right that we rely on our navigation authorities, local authorities, local landowners and the community to work together. It should not be up to just one landowner to do the right thing; we need everyone to work together. I will certainly undertake to examine the lacuna in law that he has identified; perhaps I can write to him with some more detail.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, abandoned and derelict vessels—that well-known acronym ADV, which I learned about yesterday—not only are unsightly and a blot on a landscape but cause terrible pollution from engine oils, diesel fuel leaking out, battery acid, and corroded metals and plastics. Ideally, the owners should be made to pay for their removal, but they are usually impossible to find, as the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, pointed out. I did not know about the Avon. Natural Resources Wales is paying for the removal of some boats in the River Dee, but I do not think we can ask the taxpayer to foot the bill in England.
Therefore, I think for the first time in 40 years, I am in agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours. I suggest that Defra should convene a conference of local authorities, river estuary owners, the Canal & River Trust and any other relevant authorities and marine experts to see whether a way can be found to deal with this problem, making the owners pay and not the taxpayer. If there is a lacuna in the law, let us deal with it.
Lord Katz (Lab)
My Lords, I too have learnt some new acronyms this week and ADV is one of them, so I join the noble Lord in gaining that knowledge, and in understanding the importance of the fact that, as I continue to repeat to this House, navigational authorities are independent of government but are also responsible for enforcement action. The funding agreement that I mentioned with the Canal & Rivers Trust will have particular KPIs attached, such as enforcement and ensuring good, timely and responsible stewardship of the land in its control, whether in terms of clearing litter off the towpath or dealing with abandoned boats. Both are absolutely part of that.
We believe in devolution and in making sure that bodies such as navigation authorities, which understand their patches best, can have control of them. We cannot have our cake and eat it and say there should be some national enforcement when we must support those navigation authorities on the ground to do the job right.
English Marine Protected Areas: Bottom Trawling and Dredging
Debate between Lord Blencathra and Lord Katz
Lord Katz (Lab)
My noble friend is absolutely right, and this is why we are serious about taking action in this area. When it comes to national security or promoting biodiversity and protecting our marine environment, we want to work with all stakeholders to get this right. I would be very interested to hear the views of the National Preparedness Commission and other such authorities in understanding the impact of bottom trawling on this important kind of national infrastructure.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, bottom trawling is an appalling way to fish but a superb way to destroy everything on the seabed. Last year, according to statistics from Oceana UK, just 10 fishing vessels of at least 20 metres in length were responsible for 27% of the suspected bottom trawling in our marine protected areas, wrecking fragile seabed ecosystems, releasing carbon and dumping tens of thousands of tonnes of discarded fish of the wrong sort. I say to the Minister that that applies to every single MPA, not just those with special species that he wants to protect. None of these 10 vessels was from the UK, and just 6% of the total 33,000 hours of suspected bottom trawling in MPAs was carried out by UK vessels. While we welcome the consultation, would the Government partly redeem themselves from selling out our fishermen to the EU by banning those 10 big foreign boats, which would lead to a 20% saving overnight, and then phase out the rest of bottom trawling over the next couple of years?
Lord Katz (Lab)
I think the noble Lord would agree that it is important that we have a comprehensive, fair and equitable approach to the way that we protect our marine environment. The noble Lord mentioned discard rates; at present, it is the case that the Cefas observer programme wants to provide estimates of the discard rates for a variety of quota species, including using methodologies aligned with the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea standards. Looking ahead, we want to implement a remote electronic monitoring programme, which involves installing cameras on vessels, which is expected to enhance our understanding and really understand the landscape of good behaviour and bad behaviour. In the meantime, I say to the noble Lord that we believe that the approach that we are taking is ground-breaking, but it is in line with what has happened before under the previous Administration. We are taking a whole-piece approach to this important issue.