Oral Answers to Questions

Luke Pollard Excerpts

Thursday 9th May 2019 Commons Chamber

[Michael Gove]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right and we are absolutely committed to supporting the work in St Fergus. Technological breakthroughs in institutions such as Robert Gordon University in Aberdeen are also precisely the sorts of work that we should be getting behind.

[Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)]

Today the Environment Agency announced that it is preparing for a catastrophic 4° rise in global temperatures and huge sea level rises. The EA says it needs £1 billion a year for coastal defences, but the Government have allocated only £2.6 billion over six years —less than half of what the EA says is needed. When should we expect the necessary increase in funding and a plan to protect our vulnerable coastal communities?

[Michael Gove]

The hon. Gentleman raises an important issue. First, I record my thanks to Emma Howard Boyd and Sir James Bevan, the chair and chief executive of the Environment Agency, for the leadership that they have shown on this issue. Under this Government, record amounts have been spent on flood defences and record efforts have been made to combat climate change. However, in both cases, more needs to be done. The national policy statement will be forthcoming shortly.

World Health: 25-Year Environment Plan

Luke Pollard Excerpts

Tuesday 9th April 2019 Westminster Hall

[Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Walker. I congratulate my fellow west country MP, the hon. Member for St Ives (Derek Thomas), on securing this important debate, and for introducing it so eloquently. I especially liked his phrase that we have to “up our game”. He rightly encouraged ministerial colleagues to do that. Our environment needs to be taken more seriously by all Members of Parliament and all those in public office if we are to meet the challenge that we face.

It has been a good debate. The Division has led to a slightly emptier Chamber than we had a moment ago, but we heard some fantastic contributions from speakers from right across the political spectrum. I especially pay tribute to my hon. Friends the Members for Great Grimsby (Melanie Onn) and for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy), who spoke about the importance of bird nesting—a subject that now has media attention, not only because of the horrendous footage on social media today of sand martins trying to get through nets to get back to their nests.

There is also concern about the practice of developers netting trees to prevent birds from nesting, and the sense that that is being done against the best interests of our natural world. Hon. Members on both sides of the House feel aggrieved by that, but we have the powers in this place to do something about it. We must call out developers who use cruel, inhumane tactics against our wildlife and, if they persist in such behaviour, we must introduce regulation to prevent it.

I also pay tribute to the Chair of the Select Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mary Creagh), who spoke so eloquently about microplastics. We need Ministers to rise to the challenge of how we test for microplastics, ensure that we are using common science across all forms of testing and create a safe level and an action plan not only to reduce microplastics and microfibres but to tackle what is already in the natural world.

I pay tribute to those Members across the House who mentioned insect loss, a subject which my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North West (Alex Sobel) led a good debate on only a few weeks ago. Despite many of us not being huge fans of creepy crawlies, we need to spend more time on that. We need to focus not only on bees but on a wide variety of insects that are vital to our natural world.

I pay tribute to the hon. Member for St Ives for talking about public engagement with nature. If we are truly to value and protect our natural habitat, we need to ensure that people visit it, understand the value of it, and get something from it. It is deeply disturbing how few people engage with our natural world. I am leading the campaign for Plymouth Sound to be designated the country’s first national marine park—the first, but I hope the first of many. Some 20% of our young people in Plymouth, Britain’s ocean city, have not even seen the sea, and 50% have not visited a beach. Those were the findings of the fairness commission that was run by Plymouth City Council. Those should be the type of statistics that scare us all. That is a city right on the coast, so much more needs to be done.

At the last DEFRA questions on 28 March the shadow Environment Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Sue Hayman), declared a climate and environment emergency, on behalf of the Opposition, at column 534. She challenged the Minister to join us in cross-party working to jointly declare a climate crisis. Ministers did not agree to do that, but I hope that the Minister will recognise the importance of cross-party working in relation to declaring a climate crisis. In local government up and down the country, Conservative, Labour, Green and Liberal Democrat councillors, and others besides, have been working in collaboration to declare local climate crises. The public and the young people whom the right hon. Member for Newbury (Richard Benyon) spoke about expect politicians in this place to do something similar and declare a climate crisis at national level. We can then take cross-party action against it.

The 25-year environment plan is a good start, but we need much more besides. My hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman) spoke with passion about the need for action and that is something I want to impress on the Minister. Since the Environment Secretary took office there have been 76 DEFRA consultations, but only one piece of primary legislation. It is not good enough to be the Secretary of State for consultations. We need to tackle climate change properly, which means that we need proper action. I implore the Minister to tell the House when the Agriculture Bill and the Fisheries Bill will make a comeback, and when the environment Bill, for which the hon. Member for St Ives made a good case, will be seen. We need action, not just warm words.

[Mr Charles Walker (in the Chair)]

A beautifully timed speech from the shadow Minister.

Oral Answers to Questions

Luke Pollard Excerpts

Thursday 28th March 2019 Commons Chamber

[Michael Gove]

The fishermen of Strangford and the Ards peninsula are people close to my heart. It is absolutely right that since the recent actions we have been in touch with the Irish Government specifically in order to ensure that we can have a fair allocation of fishing opportunities across the island of Ireland and its waters. The Republic of Ireland Government know how seriously we take this issue, and how urgent it is to reform.

[Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)]

I was amazed and disappointed this week that the Government whipped their MPs to vote for a huge loophole in post-Brexit fishing rules that would allow a cruel and inhumane method of fishing to continue. The 5% loophole that allows electro pulse beam trawling is cruel and destructive. It destroys our seabeds and kills juvenile fish, and it is so intensely destructive that it breaks the vertebrae of cod. Will the Secretary of State now work with the Opposition to bring forward a brief statutory instrument to close this loophole that allows UK boats to use this cruel and inhumane fishing method?

[Michael Gove]

We always want to work with the Opposition to ensure that the highest standards of environmental and marine welfare are maintained, but I should say that it is one of the opportunities that leaving the European Union gives us to ensure that Dutch vessels that have been using pulse fishing in our waters end that cruel practice.

--- Later in debate ---

The right hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington, representing the House of Commons Commission, was asked—

[Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)]

7. Whether the House of Commons plans to stock Plymouth Gin during the Mayflower 400 commemorations.

[Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington)]

The House of Commons catering service does not currently stock Plymouth Gin, but will seek to stock some for the Mayflower 400 commemorations.

[Luke Pollard]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that answer, which will warm the spirits of people in Plymouth. Plymouth Gin is a fantastic gin, and Mayflower 400, which marks the 400th anniversary of the sailing of the Mayflower from Plymouth to America, is a great opportunity. In these tough times, may I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that we look not only at the standard-strength gin, but Plymouth Gin’s Navy strength as well? We could all do with a little bit extra in these tough times.

[Tom Brake]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that. He may be aware of moves within the House to look at the availability of alcohol in this place; I am not sure whether the House will want to entertain the idea of double or triple-strength gins. However, he has put his point on the record and I will take it back to the catering services, including whether they want to stock the double or triple-strength gin that he proposes.

draft Common Organisation of the Markets in Agricultural Products Framework (miscellaneous amendments, etc.) (eu exit) Regulations 2019 Draft Common organisation of the markets in agricultural products and common agricultural policy (miscellaneous amendments) (eu exit) regulations 2019 Draft Agriculture (Legislative Fuctions) (EU Exit) (No. 2) Regulations 2019

Luke Pollard Excerpts

Tuesday 26th March 2019 General Committees

[Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)]

As the Minister is double acting with his former Minister, he will excuse me if the shadow team does the same. I have only a few technical questions.

In the draft Agriculture (Legislative Functions) (EU Exit) (No. 2) Regulations 2019, explanatory note 7.5 on page 4 states:

“The Secretary of State may also exercise the functions on behalf of a devolved administration, but only with their consent.”

Can the Minister provide clarification with regard to the concerns he raised earlier about the functions being used in relation to powers in Wales? What type of consent does the Minister need to seek? For the sake of clarity, can the Minister set out whether he can exercise those powers in Wales without the consent of the Welsh Assembly due to the devolution settlement being confused?

The Minister, and certainly his predecessor, will know that I have been critical about the wording of impact assessments throughout this entire process and the phraseology that said there is no or no significant impact was used in earlier statutory instruments. As we are coming to the end of these DEFRA SIs, I wish to put on record that impact assessment paragraph 12.3 on page 5 is significantly better than the wording when we started the process. I am grateful to officials for beefing that up. I am also especially grateful for the addition of the understanding about the financial threshold and the impact the instrument suggests. In this case, it states that

“the change in regulation falls below the £5m p.a. threshold for net direct costs to business.”

In my mind, £5 million seems to be a significant impact for businesses. I believe that threshold level is still too broad, but it is good to see that a threshold level is being inserted at all.

On the draft Common Organisation of the Markets in Agricultural Products Framework (Miscellaneous Amendments, etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, can the Minister explain the revocations in part 4? My understanding is that this SI revokes geographical indication protection for a series of incredibly posh wines that I have not been fortunate enough to try, including Bürgstadter Berg and Monzinger Niederberg, which according to my friends at Google is a wonderful Riesling. I would be grateful if the Minister set out whether those protections are replicated elsewhere, or whether what we are doing here is removing geographical indication protections. As the Minister will know, and the former Minister will certainly know, I am a big fan of keeping geographical indication protections so that the GI status of, for example, Cornish pasties can be protected after whatever form of Brexit we have. I am concerned that revoking protections on certain types of wine will be the start of a reduction in GI protections that could encourage our European friends to further remove protections on UK products.

Finally, in the explanatory memorandum for the draft Common Organisation of the Markets in Agricultural Products Framework (Miscellaneous Amendments, etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, paragraph 7.3 on page 4 states:

“With exit day less than one year away, and in the continued absence of a Northern Ireland Executive”.

That is technically correct—three days is certainly less than one year away—but I wonder how long this SI has been sitting on the books. There is a point here about how late we are looking at so many of these SIs, ahead of what was previously exit day on 29 March. That sentence suggests to me that this SI has been sitting around for a long time.

[George Eustice]

Perhaps officials in the Department could foresee that Parliament would baulk at the idea of leaving without a deal. “One year” might be a reference to the extension.

[Luke Pollard]

I am grateful to the former Minister, who is again backseat driving the Minister’s role. I would like to think that officials are that prescient about the Government’s inability to bring forward a deal that they can get a parliamentary majority for, but I suspect the answer is that this SI has been sitting on a desk in DEFRA for some considerable time, and we are waiting until the last moment for these SIs to be given the scrutiny they deserve. As my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud said, driving through so many SIs means that the level of scrutiny that stakeholders and the Opposition can give them is more limited than if we had been given more time. However, I would be grateful if the Minister set out answers, particularly about the geographical indications and what they mean for the read-across of UK protections.

Draft Agriculture (Legislative Functions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 Draft Common Agricultural Policy (Financing, Management and Monitoring) (Miscellaneous Amendments) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 Draft Common Agricultural Policy (Financing, Management and Monitoring Supplementary Provisions) (Miscellaneous Amendments) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 Draft Common Agricultural Policy and Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019

Luke Pollard Excerpts

Monday 25th March 2019 General Committees

[Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)]

The Minister will be pleased to know that I have just a small number of technical questions. Before I turn to agriculture, I briefly want to mention fisheries. The explanatory memorandum for the Agriculture (Legislative Functions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 talks at the bottom of page 3 about the EMFF funding. It was asked during the passage of the Fisheries Bill what happens in the event that the powers jointly exercised by the Secretary of State and the devolved Administrations cannot be exercised with complete unanimity because one of the devolved Administrations object to the Secretary of State’s policy. That is referred to on page 3 of the explanatory memorandum. Page 16 states:

“Any changes as a result of the use of powers after EU Exit will only be carried out with the consent of the devolved administrations.”

The Opposition proposed an amendment that would have created a dispute mechanism to ensure that, if that happens, there will be a plan in place to resolve it. The Government disagreed with that dispute mechanism, but I note that there is no method of dealing with the issue in this instrument. I will be grateful if the Minister sets out how he intends to deal with it.

On the Agriculture (Legislative Functions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, I would be grateful if the Minister set out, in relation to financial discipline in England, the different thresholds specified in the regulations. I have two questions about the regulations. First, the SI suggests that the threshold for the financial year ending 31 March 2020 is £2.093 billion, and the financial threshold for the year ending 31 March 2021 is £2.095 billion. That is an increase of only £2 million. What calculation and rationale was there for that £2 million? Why is there no reference to any retail prices index or consumer prices index calculations?

Secondly, I want to press the Minister on the exchange rate used. Throughout the document, euros, rather than pounds, are used for financial payments. I could not see anything about the exchange rate. Any big fluctuations, such as the fall in the value of the pound after the 2016 referendum, could have a substantial effect on the exchange rate. Is there a mechanism to adjust that to ensure that our farmers do not lose out?

I am grateful that the Minister set out the gremlins that he discovered in the explanatory note. In a previous SI Committee, I asked him to assure us that there were no gremlins in the explanatory notes or the SIs, but one was pointed out in the very next SI Committee. I am glad that he spotted that one, but I wonder how many other gremlins in these SIs have not been spotted. I do not anticipate that the Minister has a list of how many have not been spotted; the point is that there could be others.

Finally, I want to ask the Minister about the agriculture support. The Government have committed to continue funding until the end of the Parliament, rather than a certain date. What happens to the funding if the Parliament ends before 2022, especially if there is a shortfall? My understanding from Ministers’ statements is that the post-CAP funding settlement is expected to lead to an above 40% reduction in the total value of agricultural support. If the Parliament ends before 2022, what measures are in place to provide the same timeframe for farmers and others in the agricultural sector, so they can adjust to what could be quite a substantial difference in agricultural subsidies?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Goodwill]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that question. We are keen to make progress on the Agriculture Bill. We will get it on the statute book as soon as possible, and it will certainly be on the statute book as and when it is required.

I was asked about cross-compliance. The European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 does not give us the power to make wholesale policy changes, and we do not think it would be appropriate to use the powers in the Act to omit cross-compliance from retained CAP legislation. Instead, we have the flexibility to amend cross-compliance within the confines of the current legislative framework. Further substantive changes to cross-compliance will be able to be made through the Agriculture Bill.

I was also asked why the devolved Administrations have taken a different approach to agriculture. Agriculture is a devolved policy area, and the devolved Administrations are currently able to operate CAP schemes within the legislative framework. It is for each Administration to decide how these EU regulations should be made operable.

The hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport raised issues to do with EMFF funding and the Fisheries Bill. I had been doing so well, but that is one that I will need to write to him about, as it is quite a technical issue and I do not want to get it wrong—similarly with the dispute mechanism, although of course that is one of the things for the future. As I said, at the moment, we are keeping measures in place as they are; there is no change.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned the exchange rate. The exchange rate for payments is fixed in September. That has been the case for some time. He also mentioned fixed-term Parliaments. As I said, no Government can tie the hands of a future Government, and it will be up to the parties what they put in their manifestos.

[Luke Pollard]

On the technicalities of the two threshold levels, I would be grateful if, when the Minister prepares his note to me, he set out the thinking behind the €2 million mark, whether that is RPI or CPI-related, and what formula created those two levels.

[Mr Goodwill]

I will ’fess up: I was not aware of that difference. There may be a perfectly logical explanation that is not policy related.

Draft Common Fisheries Policy (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 Draft Common Fisheries Policy and Aquaculture (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 Draft Common Fisheries Policy (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) (No. 2) Regulations 2019

Luke Pollard Excerpts

Monday 25th March 2019 General Committees

[Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to see you back in the Chair, Mr Davies. It is good to be in Committee for a second time today, albeit not in the same room—this time to debate fisheries.

I begin with the usual health warnings about the speed and the volume of the statutory instruments that are being pushed through. The Opposition believe that there are several glitches and gremlins in them that would have been caught with greater scrutiny and that could have severe consequences when it comes to implementation. We have concerns, which I will set out in turn, about all three instruments that the Committee will consider today.

Combined, the instruments represent about 190 pages of additional regulation. Concerns have been voiced by many of the stakeholders that we on the Opposition side work with about the sheer volume of legislation being pushed through, and about their ability to adequately scrutinise dense legal text and provide good scrutiny from a stakeholder perspective. Some 80% of UK environmental laws come from the EU.

[George Eustice (Camborne and Redruth) (Con)]

The hon. Gentleman will no doubt be aware that when these original regulations came from the EU, drafted by the European Commission, they probably came in the form of delegated Acts or implementing Acts that would have received little or no scrutiny in this House. These regulations, as with others under the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, are just about making those powers operable.

[Luke Pollard]

I am grateful for that intervention. It is good to see the former Fisheries Minister, the hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth, in his place, and good to know that the Government now need not only a Fisheries Minister but a former Fisheries Minister to rebut some of the Opposition’s scrutiny.

The concerns that we are raising sometimes relate to the implementation and drafting of the regulations. As the hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth will know from the statutory instrument Committee we sat on earlier today, the Minister himself acknowledged that there was a gremlin in that particular statutory instrument, which we flagged up. Our concern is about what other gremlins are in the statutory instruments we are considering today, and how they will affect future considerations.

[Mr Goodwill]

I appreciate that it is possible for oversights or mistakes to be made, but the gremlin that the hon. Gentleman describes was something that the EU had changed and that we had not quite caught up with. It was not something that was going to have a massive effect; it was just that there had been a change, which we will now reflect in future.

[Luke Pollard]

I am grateful to the Minister for making my point for me. The fact that mistakes have been made in that respect means that other mistakes could be made, which is why enhanced scrutiny is important in making sure that the regulations we are considering today—all 190 pages of them—are dealt with sufficiently robustly. These regulations affect one of our most important sectors, one that is especially important for those Members who represent coastal communities. As Business Green has noted,

“The pace at which draft legislation has been processed has been relentless…Parliamentary scrutiny has been creaking at the seams with MPs and peers often admitting they haven't had enough time to review the legislation thoroughly.”

I will now set out the Opposition’s concerns about these SIs, starting with the draft Common Fisheries Policy (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019. We have a number of concerns about how the powers provided for in section 8 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 are being used. The drafting in a number of areas appears to be defective: it often fails to adequately correct the provisions of EU law, and makes a number of policy changes to the current provisions. Environmental organisations have got in touch with us to recommend that these common fisheries policy SIs be annulled and updated, because they fall short in a number of areas. I will take the Committee through the areas in which we believe the SIs, and this one in particular, are falling short.

These SIs risk creating a governance gap, placing responsibilities from EU bodies on to organisations that are yet to be created or sufficiently financed. They leave gaping holes in the area of enforcement, leaving fishers less safe and our waters less protected—a concern that the Opposition have raised about previous SIs. There is a risk that these SIs could degrade environmental standards, a point to which I will return when we consider electric pulse trawling. We have specific concerns about the Government’s ban on electric pulse trawling: it is a good example of a policy change hidden within these SIs, notwithstanding the Minister’s statement that there are normally no policy changes in such SIs.

I understand that the Minister will want us to hold our nose and vote these SIs through, because we are at risk of careering towards a no-deal Brexit. In the area of fisheries, unlike in other areas of Government scrutiny, the regulations are not necessarily in place if we do not pass these SIs, so we need to make sure we are using our time properly. However, given the extension from 29 March to 12 April, I suggest to the Minister that some provisions in these SIs should be looked at again and the instruments re-laid, so that they can be comprehensive and fulfil the role they are supposed to.

I am not trying to be difficult or fly a partisan flag, but the concerns about this SI were also highlighted last month by the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, on 6 February. Its report states:

“Given the significance of fisheries as a policy issue, the House may wish to explore further the approach the Government have taken with this instrument.”

We also reject these SIs being grouped together. That is one reason why we have asked for them to be taken individually, and why I will focus my remarks on each in turn.

I have mentioned the governance gap, which was raised by a number of stakeholders. That is a common theme that Ministers and Government Members will have heard about from the Opposition when responsibilities, especially oversight responsibilities, are being moved from EU bodies to UK bodies. Several provisions in the first common fisheries policy SI remove functions currently carried out by EU bodies, such as the European Commission, the Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries, the European Fisheries Control Agency and the Advisory Council, which are not replaced in this particular SI. The loss of monitoring, reporting and other governance requirements will seriously undermine the functioning and effectiveness of the law. I would be grateful if the Minister came back on that point when he gets to his feet.

Obligations to provide assessments from reports to the European Commission and the European Parliament have been removed, including the provision of data on stock quantities. Given the fact that we are leaving the European Union, that might not be an unreasonable assumption, but our concern is that no subsequent scrutiny functions are inserted. The oversight role that we are looking for is no longer there.

[George Eustice]

Surely when we become an independent coastal state we will re-join other bodies, such as the North East Atlantic Fisheries Commission. Through those bodies and our membership of the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea we will contribute our own scientific evidence. Does the hon. Gentleman not understand that the UK, year in, year out, regularly corrects data from the European Commission, through our Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science?

[Luke Pollard]

I am grateful to the former Minister. Our CEFAS scientists are brilliant. He will know our concern that there is insufficient focus on science in creating truly sustainable fisheries with the Fisheries Bill. I take your note, Mr Davies, about not talking about things that are not in these SIs, but these SIs need to fit together with the Fisheries Bill, and that Fisheries Bill has sunk without trace. It is no longer being tabled. I am really concerned that the lack of a Fisheries Bill—indeed, of an Agriculture Bill for the associated one—means that the jigsaw that is being put together with these SIs is incomplete, and the fishers cannot see what type of environment is being created for them after we leave the European Union.

The former Minister is right about one element: after we leave the EU, some of those functions will be carried out by other bodies. However, there is no requirement in these SIs for those other bodies to pick up those requirements, nor is there a home for those scrutiny functions to sit in between leaving those EU bodies and becoming part of any future bodies. That is a concern, because it assumes that we will participate in those bodies in the future. I think some of the examples that the former Minister just raised are fair. However, the situation does not sit easily with me. We need to ensure that there is adequate scrutiny throughout.

[George Eustice]

Is that not just a product of the fact that we are becoming a self-governing nation again? We do not need to be held to account by an external body, but should hold ourselves to account.

[Luke Pollard]

Indeed. I suggest that the former Minister lobbies his colleague, the new Minister, to bring forward the Fisheries Bill, because without a Fisheries Bill we have no legal and legislative framework to hold ourselves together. The former Minister proves my point again, because we lack a Fisheries Bill. That may have been a concern of his when he was at the Department.

I return to this SI in particular. The key role that the Commission plays in the control and enforcement of the rules of the CFP has been removed and not replaced by this SI. Regulation 4(43) of this SI removes articles 96 to 118 relating to the European Commission’s control of the application of the CFP and Council regulations 1224/2009 by member states, including the requirement on member states to report on implementation. That reporting requirement is important, because it is about how we have decent scrutiny of any of the implications of this SI and how hon. Members—assuming they fulfil the role of scrutiny of the European Commission, previously performed by the European Parliament—are able to scrutinise the outcome of this SI.

References to “advisory councils” have been removed and not replaced in this SI. The Minister will know that the Opposition tabled amendments to the Fisheries Bill, to include advisory councils in the future fisheries regulation—a proposal that the former Minister encouraged Members on the Government Benches to vote down. The lack of formal stakeholder engagement means that the involvement of the fisheries industry is removed with the direct implementation of this SI, which is a point of concern not just for the Opposition, but many of those stakeholders.

The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee highlighted in its report that the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs argued:

“The oversight function that the Commission currently holds over Member States could, for England at least, be provided by the Office for Environmental Protection (OEP)”.

But in the event of no deal, that will not necessarily be provided. That is where stakeholders have created a governance gap. Indeed, the Office for Environmental Protection is, as hon. Members will be aware, coming down the track—not something that we can implement today. That creates the risk of a governance gap in this particular SI.

[Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab/Co-op)]

In the Environmental Audit Committee last week, the Secretary of State said that there would be interim arrangements in the event of a no deal, but there would not be an environmental agency until 2021. That creates a huge governance gap.

[Luke Pollard]

My hon. Friend has highlighted my point better than I was doing in my speech. Creating governance gaps in our regulations is deeply worrying. We need certainty. With the absence of a Fisheries Bill—I will return to this time and again—the jigsaw piece of the fisheries regulation is incomplete. If we look at regulations in future, the omission of advisory councils and other types of governance oversight included in the SI is deeply worrying, because it does not provide the same type of oversight as we have currently.

There are concerns around enforcement in the first SI, which was also a weak area in the Fisheries Bill. Provisions remove the requirement to establish

“effective, proportionate and dissuasive penalties”.

Why have those penalties not been replaced in this SI? Perhaps the Minister will set that out when he gets to his feet. Regulation 4(10)(c) removes the ability for a member state to share vessel monitoring system, or VMS, data of its flag vessels with another member state where its flag vessel is in that state’s waters. That presents a risk that the UK will not have access to other countries’ data, which risks overfishing. What is replacing that provision? We know that data sharing between the UK and the remainder of the European Union after Brexit has not yet been fully established.

Regulations 4(69), 4(74), 4(78) and 4(81) of this SI again remove the obligation on member states to carry out certain inspections and requirements on what actions should be taken for infringements. Again, what replaces those provisions? We are led to believe that all we are doing is simply swapping out European Commission functions for member state or UK functions, so it is worth asking whether we are removing functions as well as transferring them over. Where does all that sit? We saw tensions flare in last year’s scallops war, but there could be additional risks in future, and enforcement is an important part of ensuring that our fishing sector is able to succeed. We need more protection for our fisheries after we leave the EU, not less.

Finally, I turn to conservation. When it comes to sustainability, certain provisions of the CFP in relation to emergency measures have been removed entirely from this SI. Regulations 4(35), 4(53) and 4(54) remove the ability of the member state or the Commission to close fisheries or prohibit fishing where a stock has been exhausted. Stakeholders have raised concerns with us about the thoroughness of the provisions that replace the ability that is now being removed from this SI. Will the Minister address those concerns?

The Opposition have concerns about these statutory instruments, many of which are comprehensive and detailed and require good legal knowledge if their full implications are to be understood. I am aware that the Minister has opened a DEFRA reading room for some stakeholders, but not all. Indeed, parliamentarians have been explicitly excluded, which means that the time available for scrutiny has been limited.

If we were dealing with only one SI at a time, the issues might be understood, but we are dealing with dozens at the same time. That means that many of the concerns could have been raised at a pre-legislative stage rather than their having to be dealt with as a simple binary yes/no approval in relation to this SI, for example. Will the Minister address those concerns? I am concerned that this first SI fails to deliver the comprehensive governance arrangements that we need for fishing in future. Will the Minister set out a detailed response to those points?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Goodwill]

The fundamental point that I need to make at the very outset is that this SI is a business-as-usual SI: nothing is changing. It is indeed the case that once the Fisheries Bill is on the statute book, there will be a lot of opportunities to change policy, but this SI maintains the current situation. Many of the concerns the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport raised are possibly ones he might raise in the future when policy changes; indeed, they are ones he might wish to build into his party’s policies to ensure that these issues are addressed. However, this is a business-as-usual matter.

I also have to say, as a former Member of the European Parliament, that I was always struck by the lack of interest in Westminster in legislation that was being passed; indeed, when legislation did arrive in this building, the stable door had generally been well and truly shut after the horse had bolted, and it was generally a case of just rubber-stamping it. There was little engagement with the way legislation was being considered through the conciliation procedures and through the way the Parliament and the Council worked together. Yes, Ministers were engaged, and certainly British MEPs were engaged, but Parliament was pretty much out of the loop. Leaving the European Union will give us a chance to put Parliament back in the loop, and laws will be properly scrutinised as they are enacted.

The hon. Gentleman said that issues had been raised by non-governmental organisations and talked about bodies being funded. I have to say that, to a large extent, the enforcement, scrutiny and management of these schemes are already administered by the UK on behalf of the European Commission; we do not have an army of European Union fisheries inspectors marching up and down our quaysides and going on to our vessels to enforce these schemes, so the issue is something that, in many ways, we already have covered.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned CEFAS and the excellent science that is done by it, and my hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth also mentioned the work it does. Science can be the only basis on which the available fish is allocated and we consider our conservation measures. Having been to an EU Fisheries Council with my hon. Friend’s predecessor, I saw first hand the horse-trading whereby countries with no coastline and no fishing industry traded away the interests of fishermen in other member states to gain favours. Being an independent coastal state will give us the opportunity to set our fishing policy in a way that benefits our own economy and our own fishermen, rather than being subject to the horse-trading in smoke-filled rooms in Brussels—or rather rooms that used to be smoke filled.

The hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport talked about sharing vessel monitoring system data. One reason why it is important that we get the deal across the line is that we will then move into the implementation period, when a lot of these things can be hammered out. If we go for a no-deal scenario, then, yes, there could be problems; that is why I have now voted twice to get the deal over the line. If Members of the Committee would really like to avoid even the possibility of a no-deal scenario, they will have a third opportunity to act very soon.

[Luke Pollard]

I am reading into what the Minister has just said. The criticism I raised about VMS data-sharing is real, and it is a concern. When he gets to his feet, could he confirm that there are no data arrangements about VMS data-sharing? It sounds like he just admitted there were. For the record, it is really important that we are certain: is there data-sharing or is there not in relation to this SI?

[Mr Goodwill]

As far as I am aware, this is one of the issues that needs to be dealt with during the implementation period.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Goodwill]

The guy I spoke to was on the east coast and very keen to exploit the opportunity. However, I am aware of some of the west coast issues as well, and they would need to be addressed. East coast fishing is big business, and its fishermen are concerned for us to move ahead. In that regard, fishermen on the east coast are absolutely out of step with the SNP’s view.

The Labour Front Bencher, the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport, asked why we had removed the requirement to enforce compliance with the rules effectively and proportionately. Under common law, the UK Government are already required to act in that way, and that is well established.

The hon. Gentleman talked about why the draft SI might result in a lack of regulatory oversight, which follows on from my previous point. It is not possible to create equivalent bodies through these SIs. Instead, the Environment (Principles and Governance) Bill will create the office for environmental protection and introduce other measures.

[Luke Pollard]

The Minister is making a good fist of this, but I worry that he is placing much of the key emphasis—the foundation of his arguments—on Bills that might appear in the future. As we know from the Fisheries Bill, however, Bills can go missing—that Bill has gone missing without any date set for it to come back. We are placing hope in a Fisheries Bill that does not exist in the current parliamentary schedule—it stands no chance of coming back—and in an environmental protection Bill that might face a similar fate if introduced in the next Session of Parliament. We need to look at the protections in this piece of legislation, within our existing regulatory framework. Doing that reveals a governance gap, because we do not have the primary legislation in place. Does the Minister agree with that concern?

[Mr Goodwill]

I am as keen as anyone to make progress on not only the environment Bill but the Fisheries Bill and the Agriculture Bill. It would certainly help if we can clear the decks for them, and one way to do so is to get the withdrawal agreement through so that we can move forward into the new phase and have new legislation from which the UK would benefit as an independent coastal state in terms of fisheries.

The hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport talked about pulse trawling, which is very much at the forefront of my mind. Article 31 of Council regulation 850/98 contains a prohibition on fishing with beam trawl using electrical pulse current in specified areas in most of the southern North sea. Part of that area falls in UK waters, and article 31a contains a limited derogation from the prohibition. That derogation has been amended so as to apply only to UK fishing vessels after EU exit—in other words, non-UK vessels will not be able to take advantage of it in our waters.

Third-country vessels cannot be authorised in UK waters when we leave the EU. The UK currently has three authorisations linked to pulse use, which are in the process of being reviewed with a view to withdrawing them, irrespective of the proposed EU time line to implement a pulse trawling ban effective from July 2021. Once again, the UK is moving ahead of our European partners on that method of fishing, which is deemed unacceptable by many and particularly members of the public.

--- Later in debate ---

[Luke Pollard]

This draft instrument bears the brunt of my concern and the Opposition’s concerns about electric-pulse beam fishing. I am grateful to the Minister for doing my job for me by saying that there will be no changes in behaviour because of the draft instrument, and then in the next sentence saying that changes over time will build a more sustainable fisheries industry. Both cannot be true.

My concern relates mainly to the electro-pulse beam fishing method. There is widespread, cross-party condemnation of this method, as was raised in the Fisheries Bill Committee. I will spend a bit of time talking about those concerns in relation to the draft instrument.

The explanatory notes to the draft Common Fisheries Policy (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 say:

“The technical changes made by this instrument are necessary to ensure that the rules contained in the CFP continue to operate effectively, so that fishing within UK waters continues to be regulated in a sustainable manner.”

However, our concern is that how sustainability will be provided is open to broad interpretation.

Provisions of the draft Common Fisheries Policy and Aquaculture (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 replace certain duties on authorities to take action with powers. This is not only a legal change, but also potentially undermines the effectiveness of the law. The main concerns around this raised by stakeholders—some environmental and some from the industry—relate to conservation. Regulation 25(7) removes reference to article 7(3) of Council regulation 2018/973, which provides that emergency measures under the CFP should form part of remedial measures to restore stocks above maximum sustainable yield. That sounds very technical, but what it effectively says is that we must ensure there are sufficient fish in the sea for our fishing industry to fish, and the changes to that could be quite considerable. Provisions on conservation measures have also been removed and not replaced; regulation 3(5) of this statutory instrument removes articles 6, 7 and 8 on types of conservation measures and the establishment of fish stock recovery areas. That is a concern to a number of stakeholders who have got in touch.

Certain provisions of this SI, such as regulation 25(11), remove requirements for the UK to co-operate with other countries when taking measures to protect fish stocks. That presents a risk that the important role that other countries and European functions play in ensuring that fish stocks are maintained will be lost and not replaced. Further to the concerns raised about the first SI, the question is how we ensure that we have a functioning fisheries regulatory environment, especially when it comes to sustainability, as soon as we leave the European Union.

[George Eustice]

Is the hon. Gentleman not just alighting on the simple fact that after we leave the European Union, it will no longer be the role of the European Commission to enforce these things? Instead, it will be for us to enforce them ourselves. He is referring to the removal of a function from the European Commission, which is absolutely right and proper in the context of our leaving the European Union.

[Luke Pollard]

I like to think that scrutiny is a bit like energy. We cannot destroy it; it can only be moved from one function to another. If we are taking scrutiny away from the European Commission, it must be placed somewhere else, and that is not what this SI does.

Our main concern with this SI relates to the phony ban on electric pulse beam trawling. Crucially for us, this SI had the potential to create commonality—a common bond between the Opposition and the Government on the need to ban this cruel fishing method. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool said, this fishing method is cruel. The voltage used by some fishers can be so high that it breaks the vertebrae of the fish they are dealing with. Given how strong a fish is, a considerable amount of force is needed to break those vertebrae, and that involves a level of cruelty that I think the people who sent us to this place would find completely unacceptable.

The Minister will know that the Opposition have significant concerns about this ban. It does not go far enough, it is open to abuse and it fails to make good on the promises that I believe were made by his predecessor in the Fisheries Bill Committee, where the Opposition tabled amendments that, by my rough arithmetic, would have passed if we had not withdrawn them.

[George Eustice]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Luke Pollard]

I have not even got to my main point, but I am happy to give way.

[George Eustice]

As the Minister at the time who made that offer, I completely refute the hon. Gentleman’s allegation that this does not live up to what was offered. It was made clear in Committee that the derogation that applied particularly to the 87 or so Dutch vessels would not be carried into domestic law, but it was also made clear that the small number of Scottish vessels—I think there are three or four—that practise that method would still be subject to that derogation, but obviously it would be open to the current Minister, or indeed a future Minister, to change that through licensing regulations.

[Luke Pollard]

The hon. Gentleman tempts me to move ahead with my speech; I will run through the first bits, and then, if that does not address the point, I am happy to come back to it.

This controversial form of fishing in UK waters is done mainly by Dutch trawlers operating under a phony scientific derogation. They have effectively built a commercial fishery in electric pulse beam fishing—a fishing method that has caused excessive harm to our marine life. British fishers and conservationists warn that it is wreaking havoc on our sea bed, and there are reports that large parts of our sea bed have been turned into graveyards after this method has been used in the waters above them. It is powerful enough to break the vertebrae of large cod, and it is thought that similar damage and suffering is being inflicted on other sea life.

The previous Minister and I were corresponding on this issue before he resigned from the Government. I thank him for responding to my feedback, but it was unfortunate that he decided not to accept it. The Opposition were trying to create a comprehensive ban that would have ensured that this fishing method was not seen in our waters. In Committee, we withdrew an amendment that would have put a ban in the Bill. Following the Minister’s response to the amendment, I was more than happy to grant him the opportunity to correct the situation.

Although we welcome the idea of introducing a provision in the SI to ban electric pulse beam fishing, we do not believe that this one goes far enough, because, as the explanatory notes state, far from removing the ability for any boats to fish with this method, it includes a derogation. Page 16 of the explanatory notes—hon. Members may wish to read this for themselves—states:

“The derogation will therefore permit the authorisation of up to 5% of all the beam trawlers in the United Kingdom fleet to use the electric pulse trawl, along with certain other conditions that remain the same as before EU Exit.”

To me, a ban on a fishing method means that no one can use it. Allowing 5% of beam trawlers to use that method sounds like authorising a large number of fishing boats to use it.

[George Eustice]

Is that not simply a product of the fact that the EU withdrawal Act says that we should not change policy? We should simply bring across EU policy, and the 5% the hon. Gentleman mentions is EU policy. The best that we could do with this SI is remove the derogation for the Dutch vessels that make up the vast majority of those using this technique.

[Luke Pollard]

The former Minister hits on the problem. The SI does not do what it needs to. The commitment given when the Committee amendment was withdrawn was that an SI would come forward that would comprehensively ban electric pulse beam trawling. That is not what the SI does. It opens the window for up to 5% of all beam trawlers in the UK to use electric pulse trawl, and certain other conditions remain the same as before. That is not the ban that we need.

[Hugh Gaffney]

On that 5%, we need an agreement that sustainable fishing is an important goal for the industry. Does electric pulse fishing not put sustainable fishing at risk?

[Luke Pollard]

My hon. Friend is right. If we are to create sustainable fisheries, we need them to be sustainable, both environmentally, by dealing with climate change and its effects, and economically. The temptation to use this method is a real concern, which is why I want to see it banned comprehensively, with no provision for an opt-out.

[Mr Goodwill]

My hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth is absolutely right: under the withdrawal Act, we cannot move further than this legislation does, because that would be a policy change. We have clearly announced that we will review the three UK boats that pulse fish, with a view to stopping that activity. I cannot see owners of other vessels considering it to be a worthwhile investment to engage in that type of fishing and investing in the equipment, given the message that we have sent out.

[Luke Pollard]

When the Minister got to his feet, I was looking to him to commit to removing that 5% derogation and ban the practice completely. That is what the Opposition are looking for and what hon. Members on the Government Benches, who have fishing communities that have been trimmed from the SI, also want.

If we are to have truly sustainable fisheries, which is the ambition set out in the fisheries White Paper, we must not allow a loophole through which up to 5% of beam trawlers can use this method. Conditions might change; we need to ensure that fishing regulations are future-proofed. Otherwise, all we are doing is simply allowing a loophole that will need to be addressed in future.

We are very concerned about the 5% figure. I would be grateful if the Minister could set out how he intends to remove any loopholes from future regulations. Potentially allowing 200 boats—5% of beam trawlers—to use this fishing method in future opens the opportunity for considerable pain.

I would also like the Minister to edit this part of the SI to include additional protections. The former Minister set out the need for occasional scientific derogations, to investigate whether elements of technological change in pulse beaming could be more sustainable, but clear parameters should be set around that.

The Minister missed a trick with regard to public consultation, and when he said there was no prohibition on this type of fishing activity in marine protected areas, or within 12 nautical miles of the shore. We believe there should be strict punishments and proper enforcement.

I am conscious that hon. Members wish to return to the main Chamber, so I will not keep us on this point much longer. Our concern is that the SI creates a loophole in law and does not set out a clear enough vision or certainty that this method will be banned. I would like to see the SI brought forward again with that loophole removed, in which case the Opposition would be happy to support the Minister.

[George Eustice]

Does not what the hon. Gentleman is asking for violate the essential principle of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act? It is not there to change policy. What he is asking for should be delivered through the Fisheries Bill, which, as he knows, has passed its Committee stage and will, we all hope, return to the House shortly.

[Luke Pollard]

I am grateful to the former Minister for that comment. As he will recall, in a room very similar to this one, he made the commitment that an SI would be brought forward before we left the European Union that would comprehensively ban electric pulse trawling.

[George Eustice]

That is not what I said. I said that we would not bring across the derogation for non-UK vessels, and that is what the SI delivers.

[Luke Pollard]

I am grateful to the former Minister for seeking to clarify his words. The fact is that the SI provides a 5% loophole for this cruel and unsustainable fishing methodology to be used in UK waters. It does not provide a ban as soon as we leave the European Union—the Opposition withdrew the amendment to the Fisheries Bill because we thought it would—nor does it seek to close loopholes that could be used in the future.

[Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)]

The shadow Minister is criticising the deficiencies of the EU law that we are transposing into UK law via this SI, so will he join me in voting to leave the European Union at every opportunity?

[Luke Pollard]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his comments. The appropriate place to turn one’s fire on this would be the Minister, who said that this cruel fishing method needs to be banned. I believe that the hon. Member for North West Leicestershire sometimes makes the argument that we could have a more sustainable future after we leave the European Union. Although I disagree with him in some respects, if we are to have that more sustainable future, we need a commitment from the Minister that the 5% loophole will be closed and that a subsequent SI—outside the realms of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act, if the Minister so chooses—will be brought forward without delay to remove that 5% from our regulations. The SI creates a loophole that allows the cruel and unsustainable fishing method that is electric pulse trawling to continue. We are deeply concerned that that possibility remains through the SI, and that there is no commitment to there being no place for it in the future. The Minister may say that the place for that commitment is the Fisheries Bill; that suggestion does not stand much scrutiny, as the Fisheries Bill is missing in action and is probably not going to make a comeback.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Goodwill]

Marine protected areas are there to allow habitats to build, and fishing can be limited or banned altogether in those areas. One of the big conversations I have with the charter boats in my constituency is whether they should be allowed to fish using conventional rod-and-line methods in those areas. The Fisheries Bill gives us the opportunity to make further changes unilaterally, without having to get the agreement of 27 other nations, many of whom do not have a coastline and have no real interests in fisheries, but do have votes in the Council.

Listening to the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport, one would assume that the common fisheries policy had been an unqualified success, and that we were being dragged kicking and screaming from its clutches. I do not need to remind the Committee of, for example, the effect of discards on fish supposedly being conserved and having their stocks improved; it has been very destructive. It is only in recent years that we have brought in the landing obligation and more reasonable methods. We can build on that as an independent coastal state without waiting for the others. When we come to the annual fisheries negotiations, we will be there in the same way that Norway and the Faroes are there. I hope we will have close links with them so that we can work together with the EU as another part of the process to ensure that we continue to build stocks in the North sea and have fewer stocks under threat.

[Luke Pollard]

I am sure the Minister knows, having read back on fisheries debates in this House over the past year, that it is not my view that the CFP is a field of gold. Despite my being fond of Europe in many respects, the CFP is an example of where it went wrong. I am grateful to set the record straight. Improvements can be made, and banning electric pulse beam fishing is something that we could and should do now. If it is not to be banned in this SI, will the Minister commit to introduce a dedicated, tiny SI to remove the 5% so that when we leave the European Union—if that happens—a cruel fishing method will be banned in its entirety?

[Mr Goodwill]

I have made it clear twice that we will review the remaining three vessels. There are only three UK boats that are doing this and, following the review, we will consider how we can stop such activity. When we have left the European Union, none of the 87 Dutch vessels will be able to fish in our waters.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned why we have revoked emergency powers on recovery of stocks. I remind him that each UK fisheries administration already has existing powers to do that through licensing of fishing vessels under the Sea Fish (Conservation) Act 1967.

I think I have covered the points made during the debate. Once again I reassure the Committee that this is a business-as-usual statutory instrument. It reassures the industry, environmentalists and others that when we leave the European Union, as I am convinced we must and should if we are to deliver on the momentous decision made by the British people, we can do so in a way that is orderly. If Members are concerned about how that will happen, I have only one message for them: vote for the withdrawal agreement. Their third chance is coming up. We need to move into the implementation period where many of the issues raised can be sorted out. It seems nobody wants a hard Brexit. I do not look at anyone in particular, but if we can just get over the line we can move into a situation where we can resolve the issues.

We have had a constructive and useful debate and I commend the regulations to the Committee.

Question put.

--- Later in debate ---

[Luke Pollard]

The Minister will be unsurprised to know that I have similar concerns about the governance gap in these regulations, and about how they fit with the Fisheries Bill. I appreciate that the Minister may want to call it a Fisheries Act, wishing that it had gone through its parliamentary stages, but it is a Fisheries Bill—at the moment, it is a missing Fisheries Bill—and we need to ensure that it fits with this SI so everything works together.

The Minister talked about the removal of TACs, and I will return to that concern in a moment. More broadly, our concerns about this SI relate to conservation and governance gaps. They are similar to the concerns we set out in relation to the previous two SIs. The requirement to report certain catches against gear type has been removed—that is regulation 6(10)(c)(ii), for people following this closely—but it has not been replaced by an obligation to report that anywhere else instead. The Minister may say that that will be in the Fisheries Bill, but the Fisheries Bill does not exist in the way we want. It is not going through its parliamentary process, so that level of oversight and governance has been lost. The Minister says it is business as usual, but it is business as usual with only minor scrutiny. We have concerns about that. The provision stating that total allowable catches should be set in line with the principle of sustainable exploitation and consistent with maximum sustainable yield have been removed in this SI.

Regulation 6(7) omits article 6 of Council regulation 2019/124, which states that total allowable catches should be set in line with the principle of sustainable exploitation and should be consistent with maximum sustainable yield. The Opposition have raised concerns throughout the fisheries SI process, and during the Fisheries Bill, that if we remove the requirements to fish at a sustainable level and do not replace them with robust requirements to ensure our seas are fished sustainably, there is a risk that our fishing may be at unsustainable levels in future. When the hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth was the Minister, I had great confidence that he would not set catches above sustainable levels, although I recognise that they have been set in some cases leading up to this point. I hope that the current Minister would not do such a thing either, but that is not to say that any future Minister, buoyed by political concerns or otherwise, may not be tempted to do that.

[George Eustice]

Is it not the case that in doing so they would be in breach of other international fisheries obligations that we have?

[Luke Pollard]

I am grateful for the former Minister setting that out, but we know that there is fishing above sustainable levels today. Mackerel losing its sustainable status just a few weeks ago shows that all our fisheries in the UK are not being fished at sustainable levels at the moment, but they need to be. Given the risk of fishing populations changing due to climate change, we need to ensure that there is an adequately responsive deal on fisheries.

[George Eustice]

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the UK has no right to represent itself in the mackerel negotiations with countries such as Norway and the Faroe Islands? That is done by the European Union. Insofar as there is a problem, it is literally the fault of the European Union.

[Luke Pollard]

The lack of fish in the sea is also about overfishing and the regulatory environment that deals with overfishing. The solution to restoring mackerel stocks to sustainable levels will not be about pinning blame on whichever body, but about making sure that fishing levels are set at a sustainable rate, so we are not overfishing stocks, especially those on the decline due to poor recruitment or overfishing. We have to be clear about that.

I have been through most of my concerns about the governance gaps in the statutory instruments, so I will not keep the Committee any longer. I would be grateful if the Minister could set out where our total allowable catches lie, and his vision for the Fisheries Bill. Perhaps he could say when he expects the Fisheries Bill to return, so we can see how this statutory instrument would fit in with any provisions the Government propose in future.

Draft European Structural and Investment Funds Common Provisions (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 Draft European Structural and Investment Funds Common Provisions Rules Etc. (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019

Luke Pollard Excerpts

Wednesday 20th March 2019 General Committees

[Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Owen. It is also a pleasure to be back in another Committee for another Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs SI, which gives me an opportunity to ask the Minister similar questions to those I asked last time we were here, which was yesterday, about the missing pieces of primary legislation that are necessary to complete our exit from the European Union, namely the Agriculture Bill and the Fisheries Bill. Before I do so, I will talk about the SIs we are dealing with today, because all of those bits form a jigsaw that needs to be complete in order to ensure that those who work in farming and fishing have the correct regulatory environment and a working statute book.

As is usual when any Opposition Member responds to a statutory instrument, I place on record our concerns about the sheer volume and speed of SIs being pushed through. Personally, I fear that one of those SIs will contain a gremlin: a problem that will cause bigger complaints in the future, which the speed of this consideration does not allow us to spot and edit out. The Opposition will not be opposing these SIs, but these structural funds were recently debated in the other place. I will voice my concerns and reiterate some of the points made by my noble Friends.

The draft European Structural and Investment Funds Common Provisions (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 are a rare exception, in that minor consultation with the farming and fishing industries has taken place, for which the Opposition have called in relation to many of these SIs. Under regulations relevant to the European maritime and fisheries fund, no details regarding stakeholders are given, other than that there was “targeted engagement”. Will the Minister clarify what targeted engagement amounts to, and specify exactly what stakeholders, regions and nations were involved? As we are not dealing with one single fisheries industry, but with many different ones—from crabbing and scalloping all the way through to line hooks and big industrial fishers—will the Minister tell us which sectors were consulted? His answer will help determine whether the targeted engagement was sufficient to make this a credible consultation.

I also point out that the note says:

“In addition, a ten-week consultation was conducted through the Fisheries White Paper. Stakeholders were broadly supportive of the approach being taken.”

The fisheries White Paper was published a very long time ago, and I do not think it fair to suggest that the detail of this SI was somehow included in that, because it was not. Suggesting that that consultation is also a consultation on a far more detailed piece of legislation is a bit cheeky.

It is important that this SI fits seamlessly with the other SIs that the House is considering, as well as the Fisheries Bill and the Agriculture Bill. I asked the same questions yesterday. I hope the Minister has had the opportunity in the last 24 hours to update his answer, and that he will be able to tell us when the Fisheries Bill will come back to the House. There needs to be seamless implementation of the SIs and the Fisheries Bill, particularly in looking at how the EMFF fund will work in any new regulatory environment.

The SIs ensure the programmes of EAFRD and EMFF can continue to be domestically deployed, and remove obligations that relate to the European Commission. Will the Minister set out who will be taking over the obligations that were previously exercised by the Commission? How much additional funding will be allocated to those organisations to cope with the new workload? The explanatory note says that the amendments

“will maintain a status quo position as far as possible.”

Will the Minister clarify his assessment of that? Will the industry be better or worse off because of these changes?

The explanatory note adds that the delivery requirements for the EMFF will be dealt with in the upcoming Common Fisheries Policy (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, but there is confusion, as some related responsibilities lie with the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and some with the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy. Will the Minister set out how that SI will deal with those two responsibilities? Will we have two separate SIs, or will the responsibilities be contained in one SI? If so, which Department will lead? Clearly, specialist scrutiny will need to be applied to make sure that it is proper.

It would have been helpful to have been able to look at all of the related SIs in the round. I know the Government are looking to pass many SIs, but it would make sense that SIs on a certain topic be considered together, or at least within the same broad window, rather than scattered around in the timetable as they seem to be.

The explanatory note states that

“the UK Government has guaranteed that any EAFRD and EMFF projects whose funding has been agreed before the end of 2020 will be funded for their full lifetime. This means that the UK Government will fund any remaining payments due after March 2019, ensuring continued funding for these projects until their end. The guarantee also ensures that new projects can continue to be signed under the current programmes after the UK leaves the EU during 2019 and 2020.”

Will the Minister confirm that those projects will still be funded regardless of whether the UK leaves with a deal—be that the Prime Minister’s or another that might command more support in the House—or in a no-deal scenario? That would provide certainty to those coastal communities and rural areas that depend on the funding.

We note that the amount of funding is calculated at £132.7 million for the remainder of the programme period for the EMFF, and between approximately £400 million and £450 million a year for the EAFRD, depending on exchange rates. Labour has called for every penny of EMFF funding to be protected, but we also want the Government to match the level of EMFF funding we would receive in the future. Will the Minister say whether we are on track to meet that commitment or whether, as we suspect, there will be a huge cut in the funding available for our coastal communities as we have seen with agriculture funding—Brexit has been a mask to cut 40% of funding for our rural areas? Is that also the case for our coastal communities? That was not in the prospectus on leaving the EU during the 2016 referendum campaign.

My colleagues in the other place echoed that point. On 14 March, in the debate on the draft regulations, Lord Stevenson of Balmacara said:

“The main point to make is that the Government are taking the opportunity to continue the existing funds either by paying through to the EU to continue with the existing schemes or by taking on the burden themselves. The problem is that of course the first approach is obviously right, given that these are contracts which are in place, commitments have been made, there are funding streams which are currently in process with recipients who are in urgent need of these moneys. Given that, it is right that they should be continued. However, the problem is that, as and when the Government take over responsibility for these schemes and for the payment of them, that will come under the cosh of the general economic situation at the time and the question of future budgetary opportunities for changing them. To what extent can the Government guarantee that the funding will be maintained at least at current levels and that schemes which need second and subsequent phases to complete will be considered fairly and on their merits as if the original arrangements were in place?”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 14 March 2019; Vol. 796, c. 1148.]

The latter point on phased funding streams is useful because, as we know, many of the funded projects take place over a number of years, both in terms of building capacity and building additional infrastructure. I would be grateful if the Minister could set out the certainty that can be provided to rural and coastal communities in relation to continuation of that funding.

The explanatory memorandum for the draft European Structural and Investment Funds Common Provisions (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 even suggests that it is more expensive for us to leave the EU:

“There may be a negligible increase in administration cost as notifications may go to responsible bodies within the UK rather than European institutions”.

How much is defined as negligible in relation to this?

Lord Teverson made a good point in the other place. He welcomes the continuation of funding, but there is again discrimination within that funding. Paragraph 7.6 of the explanatory memorandum states that there will be

“the same cash total in funds for farm support until the end of parliament, expected in 2022”.

That is farm support, but where is the fishing industry support in relation to those particular bits? Understanding the differences between our coastal and rural communities is important. Lord Teverson said that the fishing industry is

“funded only up to 2020. There is no commitment to fisheries for those final two years. Once again, I see discrimination for an agriculture industry that is, to be frank, pretty well off, against one, fisheries, where certain sectors are well off, but there is no government guarantee to continue that EMMF funding until 2022.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 13 March 2019; Vol. 796, c. 254.]

I hope Lord Teverson has that wrong, and I would be grateful if the Minister could clarify that fishing and farming have different end dates for their funding, because that would complicate the situation. We know that coastal communities need to be funded properly, and certainty for long-term investment in our coastal communities is important, especially if they are to believe to promise made during the 2016 referendum that there would be more fish available after Brexit, of which I remain sceptical. If that opportunity is to be realised, it is important that the EMMF funding provides additional capacity, especially in our smaller ports, to enable the landing and onward sale of more fish, following the promises that were made.

Will the Minister confirm what will replace the provisions that the SI omits? There is a requirement for an annual review meeting to be held with the Commission in order to review the regulations. Will that be replaced with an annual review meeting in the UK context? The Commission is right to participate in the programme’s monitoring committee. What oversight will take place if there is to be such a committee in the UK’s implementation of the regulations? What support will be implemented to replace the Commission’s ability to initiate technical assistance to those two funding streams?

There is a requirement to submit an ex-post evaluation to the Commission for each programme. Will that evaluation work still take place and, if so, what scrutiny of the effectiveness of funding will be available to Parliament or other bodies? The Commission is right to increase payments for member states with temporary budget difficulties. That is an interesting one, because it looks at how decisions will be made in relation to economic conditions in our coastal and rural communities, and whether that will be at the whim of any Government in power, or whether there will be more long-term certainty.

I suspect the Minister will say that this is all part of taking back control, and that the provisions will somehow slot into place, but we need to understand that the domestic arrangements for our coastal and rural communities will be properly resourced and, importantly, have proper scrutiny. My concern about these SIs and others is that we are only getting one jigsaw puzzle piece at a time in the hope that piecing them together will make the larger picture visible. At the moment, I am not certain that all the jigsaw pieces fit together or that there will be a picture visible at the end of it. I would be grateful if the Minister could provide clarification.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Goodwill]

Thank you, Mr Owen. Your constraints are welcome, but I will briefly say that the one important piece of business that we need to get over the line in this House is the withdrawal agreement. That is why many other measures are on ice and unable to make progress.

The hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport is absolutely right: there is a jigsaw of statutory instruments, and these are two important pieces that we need to put into place. He asked whether there will be gremlins, and whether mistakes will have been made. I can honestly state that that is not impossible, and if we spot gremlins and mistakes they need to be fixed as soon as possible. Yesterday, I said that we spotted that the European Commission was increasing the de minimis payment level for fishing communities, and we made that correction before the matter came to Committee.[Official Report, 29 March 2019, Vol. 657, c. 6MC.]

The hon. Gentleman talked about consultation. There is no statutory requirement to consult, because no changes are being made to the operation of the schemes. However, we carried out stakeholder engagement separately for the rural development, and maritime and fisheries elements of the SI, and I can go into that in some detail if he wishes.

That engagement targeted stakeholders on the approach of the broad set of common fisheries policy EU exit statutory instruments, which included those related to the European maritime and fisheries fund. It included meetings with the DEFRA-led external advisory group, and other separate meetings with the fishing industry and non-governmental organisations, involving key stakeholders from the fisheries sector, the food industry, and environmental non-governmental bodies.

Additionally, as the hon. Gentleman said, a 10-week consultation was conducted through the fisheries White Paper, which described future fisheries policy as well as the legislative approach taken in these instruments. Stakeholders were broadly supportive of the approach outlined in the White Paper, and did not raise concerns about the way in which funds are being delivered, which might have had a bearing on these two provisions.

Some of the stakeholders who were present in those meetings and engaged with the White Paper had an interest that went wider than England. For example, the Scottish Fishermen’s Federation is very keen to make progress on Brexit, unlike the Scottish National party, and NGOs. DEFRA was also in contact with the devolved Administrations, which confirmed that they are engaging with their own stakeholders about these statutory instruments.

In terms of rural development, on 25 September 2018 DEFRA met the Rural Payments Agency’s industry partnership group to update farming and land management stakeholders on the Government’s plans for EU exit. At that meeting, stakeholders were informed of the plans to make retained EU CAP legislation, and existing domestic CAP regulations, fully operable at the point of EU exit. That will enable DEFRA and the devolved Administrations to continue to deliver ongoing CAP pillar 1 and pillar 2 commitments to the agriculture sector in 2019 and beyond, in the event of a non-negotiated EU exit.

Stakeholders present at that meeting included the Tenant Farmers Association, the Country Land and Business Association, the Farming Community Network, the Institute of Agricultural Secretaries and Administrators, the British Institute of Agricultural Consultants, and the National Farmers Union. A subsequent meeting was held on 26 November 2018 between DEFRA and the Rural Payments Agency to update stakeholders further on legislative progress in preparing for EU exit.

The Welsh Government did not undertake a formal consultation on the statutory instruments, which officials considered to be technical in nature. However, stakeholders in Wales, including farming industry representatives, were invited to a workshop to learn about the approach, and they have been kept informed of progress by the Cabinet Secretary for Energy, Planning and Rural Affairs, and officials at the established EU exit stakeholder roundtable and legislation sub-groups. Chapter 8 of the Welsh Government document for the “Brexit and our land” consultation proposed an orderly exit from the rural development programme. That consultation received more than 12,000 responses, which are still being considered by Welsh Ministers.

The Scottish Government published a consultation in June 2018 entitled “Stability and simplicity”, which invited comments on Scottish Government proposals about dealing with the implications of leaving the common agricultural policy. It explained that the first stage would be to retain EU law in domestic legislation. The consultation closed on 15 August 2018, with 137 responses received. Overall, responders were broadly content for support to continue it in its current form to ensure a period of stability for the rural economy. The Scottish Government have been and continue to be in regular contact with stakeholders in Scotland regarding the implications of leaving the EU, and the effect of the statutory instruments is consistent with the proposal set out in that consultation. Last week, I spoke to Fergus Ewing on the phone, and I look forward to my first face-to-face meeting with him.

Let me turn to some of the other points raised by hon. Members. I was asked about continuity and the responsibilities of the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, which has tabled a separate SI that addresses the remaining funds. I was asked who takes responsibility for the roles currently held by the Commission. As I said in my opening remarks, the relevant authorities will be the Secretary of State in England, Scottish Ministers in Scotland, Welsh Ministers in Wales, and the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs in Northern Ireland. The relevant authority for fisheries is the Secretary of State in England, with the role delivered by the Marine Management Organisation.

There was some talk about how we will fund taking over these roles, but that exposes a degree of misunderstanding because the European Commission does not deliver those projects in the UK, and they are delivered by the UK Government on behalf of the Commission. For example, the environmental schemes were delivered by Natural England and are now delivered by the Rural Payments Agency. There will be no change in the way that happens, and it is similar for many of the fishing schemes.

[Luke Pollard]

My point was about not the implementation, but the scrutiny and overview. The Commission provides an overview function, which is being removed by this SI. What resources are being given for the overview functions contained in the SI, rather than the implementation?

[Mr Goodwill]

Farmers and fishermen will understand that scrutiny and checks are carried out not by the European Commission but by my Department, in order to ensure that rules are complied with. That will not change, but we will still have our homework checked nationally by the National Audit Office, for example, which will take on that role, and the MMO and DEFRA will publish a quarterly report on fisheries funding.

I was asked whether there will be any cuts to agricultural funding and what guarantees the Government can give. The EU funds will be replaced—£137.4 million for the remainder of the programme period of the EMFF and between £400 million and £450 million a year from the EAFRD. Those figures depend on the euro-pound exchange rate. The EMFF figure is higher than the figure in the explanatory memorandum. It is a more accurate figure, based on the most recent returns from each of the intermediate bodies. The Treasury has guaranteed funding to cover all European structural and investment fund projects entered into before the end of 2020 for their full lifetime, and I hope the hon. Gentleman takes that reassurance on board.

The Government have pledged to continue to commit cash totalling the funds for farm support until the end of this Parliament, and that includes all funding provided for farm support under the EAFRD. On 10 December 2018, the Government committed to provide £37.2 million of extra funding for the UK seafood sector for projects approved during 2019 and 2020, so as to boost the industry as we become an independent coastal state.

The hon. Gentleman asked whether fisheries will be better or worse off. There will be four schemes after 2020, when the EMFF ends. Those will be comparable to the EMFF, but designed for the UK fishing industry, alongside the devolved Administrations, and that will be detailed in the next spending review. The fisheries White Paper, which was published in 2018, asked the industry for its opinion on future funding and how it wants the industry to be reformed. Our approach was always going to be long term, and it will not change in several months.

I hope I have answered hon. Members’ questions. If they have any specific questions about the detailed financial information and funding—I would not want to mislead the Committee by winging it—I would be more than happy to give them that information. Indeed, it would be great to see the Labour party’s long-term plans for funding agriculture and fisheries. There seems to be a bit of a vacuum, which might need funding before farmers consider how they will cast their vote at the next election.

These statutory instruments are required for the continued operation of rural development programmes and the maritime and fisheries programme, and they will ensure that farmers, land managers and fishers are able to be paid after we leave the EU.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That the Committee has considered the draft European Structural and Investment Funds Common Provisions (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019.

Draft European Structural and Investment Funds Common Provisions Rules etc. (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019

Resolved,

That the Committee has considered the draft European Structural and Investment Funds Common Provisions Rules etc. (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019.—(Mr Goodwill.)

Insect Population

Luke Pollard Excerpts

Wednesday 20th March 2019 Westminster Hall

[Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)]

The debate is incredibly timely. In Plymouth we have planted wildflower meadows and bee corridors across the city. They save money, because there is no need to cut back grass, and provide an essential habitat for pollinators, spiders and ground-based insects. Does my hon. Friend support that model being rolled out across the country?

[Alex Sobel]

Absolutely, and that is a brilliant segue into my next point about ecosystem services.

Draft State Aid (Agriculture and Fisheries) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019

Luke Pollard Excerpts

Tuesday 19th March 2019 General Committees

[Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Robertson. I welcome the Minister to his re-debut. As is normal when the Opposition respond in a statutory instrument Committee, I place on record our concerns about the speed and volume of statutory instruments being pushed through the Commons, and our fear that, within those SIs, there could be a little nugget that might otherwise have been caught with greater scrutiny and which could have severe consequences in the future.

[Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend for giving way, unusually to his Whip, but on that point, does he agree that it is concerning that the Fisheries Bill and the Agriculture Bill appear to be missing in action? Will he join me in placing on record our concerns about those Bills being missing and about how they might relate to the SI?

[Luke Pollard]

My hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Sandy Martin) said yesterday that the Agriculture Bill is stuck in the long grass and the Fisheries Bill has sunk without trace. Notwithstanding the play on words, the mysteriousness is certainly true. Many of the SIs that we are considering are designed to fit into an administrative jigsaw alongside those two pieces of primary legislation, but they are nowhere to be seen. It would be good if the Minister, as the new Minister with responsibility for those Bills, confirmed on the record when he expects them to make a comeback. SIs such as this need to fit neatly with the provisions in primary legislation, and if we cannot see what the primary legislation looks like—especially if the cause of the Bills’ long delay is that the Government are rethinking large parts of them—it is uncertain how the implementation of the SIs will fit perfectly with it.

I appreciate that the Minister has said that the SI makes no new policy changes, but I have a few questions about how it will be implemented. Unfortunately, he dangled the hook of asking technical questions about the implementation, which I will take him up on, with apologies to him and his officials.

In a similar SI on state aid last week, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, Lord Henley, said:

“The main practical change under the new regime is that the rules will be regulated by the CMA. To prepare for EU exit and its new state aid role, the CMA received £20 million for 2019-20. This is in addition to the £23.6 million it received for 2018-19. The Government are working to ensure that the CMA will be ready to take on this new role and have every confidence in its ability to do so.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 14 March 2019; Vol. 796, c. 1146.]

That was a fine assertion from the Minister, but I would be grateful if this Minister also confirmed that he believes that the CMA has sufficient resources in place, and has hired sufficient additional staff to ensure that implementing the SI will not be put on the backburner, but will be done properly.

Concerns have been expressed by stakeholders in that regard. Dr Liza Lovdahl-Gormsen from the British Institute of International and Comparative Law talks about the significant challenges that the CMA will face at an administrative level, including the real risk of being under-prepared and under-resourced to take on the duties of the Commission. That is also our concern, as I will explain when I come to the SI’s implementation.

Dr Lovdahl-Gormsen sets it out that the challenges facing administrative bodies in the UK, particularly the CMA, can be understood as possessing three key dimensions: internal organisation issues, external co-ordination issues and substantive legal issues. She and her colleagues argue that, in many instances, those three dimensions will be in tension with one another, so the reality of reforming administration post-Brexit will involve trade-offs between questions of internal organisation, external co-ordination and substantive law. I would be grateful if the Minister addressed whether any of the challenges set out by Dr Lovdahl-Gormsen apply in relation to the powers contained in the SI.

The Minister will know—or if he does not, he will get used to it, because it happens quite a lot in SI Committees where I speak on behalf of the Opposition—that I remain concerned about there being no impact assessment. The explanatory memorandum states the SI has

“no, or no significant, impact”,

and also that no impact assessment has been done. The tension between confidently asserting that there is no impact, when there could be some, and saying that there is no impact assessment does not sit well with me. I know that in many cases the problematic tension comes from the text required by the House, but as the Government control the House—at least in theory—changes could be made to help hon. Members and those watching our proceedings to understand the distinction there.

In regulations 29 to 46, references to aid co-financed by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development —the EAFRD—are substituted with a loose ambition of “support for rural development”, which is not accompanied by any firm or tangible objectives. I would be grateful if the Minister set out how he intends to make that clearer. The EU framework for rural development programmes follows six priorities, and “support for rural development” in no way replaces the EAFRD’s objectives. Will the Minister set out how he intends to do that?

Those six objectives are good principles for rural stewardship. They are: fostering knowledge transfer and innovation in agriculture, forestry and rural areas; enhancing the viability and competitiveness of all types of agriculture, and promoting innovative farm technologies and sustainable forest management; promoting food chain organisation, animal welfare and risk management in agriculture; restoring, preserving and enhancing ecosystems related to agriculture and forestry; promoting resource efficiency and supporting the shift toward a low-carbon and climate-resilient economy in the agriculture, food and forestry sectors; and promoting social inclusion, poverty reduction and economic development in rural areas.

I hope that the Minister and members of the Committee realise that that is a much more comprehensive and important list of priorities than the simple phrase “support for rural development”. My concern is that some of the detail of those important programmes and priorities could be lost within such a vague, catch-all title.

Although Brexit presents an opportunity to re-write some of the rural objectives outside the CAP, Opposition Members have concerns about how that will be done without the firm commitments to supporting rural development I have just outlined, and which will be lost when the CAP moves off. I realise that some of those commitments may be contained within a refreshed agriculture Bill, but, as I noted earlier, without such a Bill it is hard to see the deletion from one set of principles and insertion into another that would greatly aid our scrutiny of the SI.

In the Fisheries Bill, we see that the Government have made no commitment to matching the current funding from the European maritime and fisheries fund, which is essential for so many of our coastal fishing communities and the facilities infrastructure they rely on. In Plymouth in my constituency, EMFF funding has been instrumental in providing a new ice plant at Sutton harbour, which has been important in ensuring that fishers have the ability to get good-quality ice, which enables them to sell their products. Without the commitment to replace every single penny of EMFF funding, there is a concern that state aid rules, however drafted, may cause problems, because less money will be available to those coastal communities. Will the Minister set out when he will be in a position to announce whether the EMFF funding will be cut? We have seen with the agricultural subsidies that rural communities could lose 40% of the current subsidy level under the new public goods scheme.

Also on EMFF funding, I would also be grateful if the Minister set out, in relation to state aid rules, what criteria will be used, what projects and beneficiaries might be identified, and what sums will be made available. Is it the Government’s intention in their negotiations that, if we are to leave the European Union, parts of the UK will be able to continue bidding into European-funded projects, as in Norway? The Minister’s predecessor had a particular penchant for the Norway option in relation to the promotion of Brexit; I have not yet got to the bottom of where this Minister stands, but the example of Norway is a good one in understanding how, or whether, our farmers would be able to access European funding.

What constitutes state aid is a deeply political issue that has been debated on the Floor of the House and in Committee Rooms more than once. My noble Friend Lord Stevenson of Balmacara, when debating the State Aid (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, said:

“It is generally recognised that state aid can do more than simply reduce distortions in competition. It can enhance public welfare, address inequalities, allow for investment in research and development for which there is no direct benefit to individual companies—which is probably therefore a public good—and address inequalities across various areas and regions.”

My noble Friend continued:

“Who has the power to set the framework under which the state aid is to operate? I have already mentioned that variable limits exist across the EU at the moment. There is no absolute limit on what you can spend. There are general rules. These are all matters which should surely have political rather than administrative control. Where will that lie? As I understand it, Parliament will not have a role in this. This matter is being devolved solely to the Secretary of State, who can issue guidance on what is or is not state aid. That surely needs some further check.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 14 March 2019; Vol. 796, c. 1150-52.]

I would be grateful if the Minister set out what level of parliamentary scrutiny will be applied to any changes to the Government’s definition of state aid in respect of agriculture and fisheries, and what opportunities there will be for hon. Members to debate that to ensure that that definition is appropriate for all parts of our United Kingdom.

The Opposition do not intend to oppose the SI, but I would be grateful if the Minister provided clarity to ensure that there is good scrutiny of the provisions and that some of the concerns raised can be addressed.

Leaving the EU: Fishing

Luke Pollard Excerpts

Wednesday 13th March 2019 Westminster Hall

[Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)]

First, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Melanie Onn) on securing the debate. Her timing could not have been better, because this debate gives the Minister an opportunity to let us know what he thinks about fishing and to clarify some of the remarks on his website, which I hope he will do shortly.

This debate has also been a chance for Members to ask where the Fisheries Bill is, because as we approach the end of this parliamentary Session we want to know where it is, when it will make a return, and whether it will be carried over to the next Session or whether it will fall, meaning that the process would have to start all over again. I realise that the Minister’s views may be subtly different from those of his predecessor, and I would be grateful if he clarified that when he gets to his feet. Nevertheless, I welcome him to his post, as I did in yesterday’s debate about farming; then, I welcomed him as the new farming Minister and now I welcome him as the new fisheries Minister. He has quite a portfolio of challenges ahead of him and Labour Members wish him well, because it is really important that fisheries policy is got right.

I will spend the brief time I have today talking about what fishing should look like after Brexit. There is an opportunity to recast fishing policy and to address the genuine concerns that have been raised about the common fisheries policy; like my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby, I am no fan of the CFP. However, concerns have been raised about the additional powers that the Government are considering, how they will be used and whether the Government are using the powers they already have to make the lives of fishers better.

It is worth saying that the Labour party does not oppose the Fisheries Bill. However, like the hon. Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous), who mirrors lots of my views about fisheries, there are still improvements that should be made to it. In particular, we need to consider how the Fisheries Bill can create truly sustainable fisheries. Our fishing needs to be sustainable, both environmentally and economically. In the past, those two elements have been seen as being opposed to each other, when in fact they are the same thing. If we do not have a sustainable fisheries policy, we will not have the fish, which means we will not have the fishing fleet, the processors and the industry, which would further affect our coastal communities.

That is why sustainability needs to be at the heart of the Fisheries Bill. The Minister’s predecessor was not so generous as to accept an amendment from the Opposition that sought to change the name of the Fisheries Bill to the “Sustainable Fisheries Bill”. Nevertheless, I would like to see the new Minister to put sustainability throughout the Bill. We need to ensure that, regarding what comes after Brexit, the Fisheries Bill considers how we can regenerate our coastal communities, gives a fairer deal to our small fleets in particular, ensures a high level of marine safety by UK boats and—importantly—by foreign boats in our waters, promotes fishing co-operatives, and deals with the grand rhetoric and huge promises that the Secretary of State and others in Government have made about what fishing can get out of Brexit, because, as has already been mentioned, there have been concerns about the betrayal of fishers.

I encourage the new Minister to be cautious about making any grand promises, because, as we have heard about fishing in the transition period, promises that have been made to the industry and repeated time and again have not been delivered. I therefore invite him to be cautious about some of the words that he uses, to make sure that there are no additional betrayals or disruption.

The Labour party believes there is an opportunity to use the Fisheries Bill and post-Brexit fishing to consider redistribution of quotas. It is really important to consider how we can support the small-scale fleets in particular in post-Brexit fishing. There is an opportunity, with the powers that the Minister already has under the CFP, to consider reallocation of quotas and whether our quota system is the right one.

The Minister, writing on his own website, has come out in support of effort-based regimes regarding quota allocation. Many of us in this House hoped that that had been put behind us, so I would be grateful if he clarified his view on effort-based regimes, especially as they were not front and centre in the Fisheries Bill. As we go forward, it is important that the promise to coastal communities that Brexit will deliver more jobs and more fish is delivered, and it can be delivered through fair distribution, within the CFP and outside it. That needs to be written throughout the Fisheries Bill.

Another issue that we discussed in the Fisheries Bill Committee was marine safety. Brexit must be used as an opportunity to increase marine safety, for not only for UK boats but foreign boats. At that time, the Minister’s predecessor did not want to consider a suggestion from the Opposition to require foreign boats to have the same high environmental standards and marine safety standards as UK boats. However, there are great opportunities to adopt more widely what is already going on.

I invite the Minister to consider the lifejacket scheme being pioneered by Labour-run Plymouth City Council. This scheme has been developed with the industry to provide new lifejackets to fishers—let us face it: fishers do not always wear the lifejackets that we know they should wear—to ensure that the buckle does not get in the way of their work, and, importantly, that there is a personal locator beacon on every single lifejacket, so that if a fisher falls overboard or comes into contact with seawater, the PLB activates and the “search” is taken out of the search and rescue operation. Although responsibility for this scheme is shared with the Department for Transport, developing it further is something that the Minister could achieve a quick win on.

[Mrs Sheryll Murray]

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is very well aware that I have a personal interest in safety at sea. Does he welcome the fact, as I do, that in the last Budget the Government made quite a considerable sum of money available for safety equipment for fishermen?

[Luke Pollard]

I thank the hon. Lady, who has a neighbouring constituency to mine, for that intervention. It is good that we have two MPs from the far south-west championing fisheries in this debate. However, I would like to know what that money is being spent on, because I am cautious about press releases and announcements, and I want to see action, including action to spread the best practice of that lifejacket scheme to every single one of our fishing communities. That could be really strong action.

I agree with the hon. Member for Waveney, who made some compelling points about strengthening the economic link; we know that for every one job at sea, there are 10 jobs at home in fish processing. However, the Fisheries Bill does not strengthen that link; it is nowhere near strong enough in that regard. I therefore invite the Minister to consider how we can strengthen that economic link. Labour’s proposal to ensure that at least 50% of all fish caught under a UK licence is landed in a UK port could be a huge step forward in that respect.

I also press the Minister to do more to support the development of fishing co-operatives, in both the catching sector and the processing sector. Fishing co-operatives are a real success story; from the south-west of England to Scotland, they have prospered largely without Government support. Their potential for expansion, with a fairer share of wealth and power in our coastal communities, is vast.

I hope that the Minister will carefully consider ways to encourage the establishment of more co-operatives, and that he will work with Labour and Co-operative MPs to help double the size of the co-operative sector in fishing. There is a real opportunity to keep the money that is generated by fishing in those coastal communities by building more co-operatives.

Finally, because I realise my time is running out, I repeat that I share the concerns of my “double” from across the aisle—the hon. Member for Waveney—about electric pulse beam fishing. I know that we had a brief conversation about that in the margins of yesterday’s debate on farming, but I put on the record the Opposition’s real concern about electric pulse beam fishing. It is a cruel method of fishing. As a nation, we should be proud to say that we will not allow it in our waters. I know that the Minister is taking steps to look again at the licences of UK boats engaged in electric pulse beam fishing, but the statutory instrument that was tabled by his predecessor would allow 5% of the UK fleet—around 200 boats—to use this cruel method of fishing, which is simply not good enough. We should ban electric pulse beam fishing and allow it only under scientific derivations when there is a clear scientific case for it, and we should not use the case for science—as some of our Dutch friends do—to create commercial fisheries that use electric pulse beam fishing.

There is a huge opportunity to make sure that our coastal communities receive the investment they need, because in many cases those communities have been hit hardest by the austerity of the last nine years, and if we are to realise the promises made during the leave campaign, and since the referendum, about the benefits that can derive from a revised fisheries policy, we need the Minister not only to ensure that the regulations and laws that come after Brexit work, but to use the powers that he already has to ensure a fairer distribution of quota and more investment in our coastal communities.

[Graham Stringer (in the Chair)]

Before I call the Minister, may I ask him to leave a minute or 90 seconds at the end of his remarks for the proposer of the debate to wind up?