Modern Farming and the Environment

Luke Pollard Excerpts

Tuesday 12th March 2019 Westminster Hall

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

I thank the hon. Member for Gordon (Colin Clark) for securing this debate, and for the thorough way he presented his speech. It is good to have such expertise in the Chamber when discussing a sector as important as farming. I also welcome the new Minister to his place. The former Minister, the hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice), was known to many of us, and his work commanded respect across the House. Indeed, since he left the Government, many of his statements have also commanded respect across the House, and I hope that that honesty will continue. There has been a trend of declaring interest in this debate, which I must also do. That is not because I have a farm tucked away, but because my wonderful baby sister is a rare breed sheep farmer in Cornwall. She does a fantastic job, and she has some chickens, too.

We have had an important debate so far, with good contributions from across the House. The Opposition Benches might not have quantity today, but we certainly have quality; I will come on shortly to the contribution by my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) about agroecology.

Farming plays a vital role in promoting sustainability and nurturing biodiversity. It has shaped our landscapes through continual management, creating a patchwork of unique environments across the uplands and lowlands, and has adapted to the pressures of a growing population. We must ensure that we provide our farming communities with the resources they need to continue that stewardship of our agricultural land. Farmers must be well resourced, and incentivised to continue to fight climate change and to reduce the carbon emissions caused by their activities.

Almost every Member in this debate has said something about the new system that we will move to once we leave the European Union. Farmers are absolutely key to tackling climate change. We must welcome the work they have done across the country, but also re-commit to supporting them in continuing that work.

The National Trust, which is the largest private landowner in the UK, has called for the introduction of a new environmental land management system based on the principle of delivering public goods. Introducing such a system would help with heritage conservation, public access, adapting to climate change and improving water quality, but it must be supported by long-term funding based on an independent assessment of need, alongside the provision of good-quality advice for farmers, safeguards against the import of low-standard food—mentioned by a number of Members—a complementary approach to improving productivity and a strong regulatory baseline. The way that farmers manage their farms can have a positive or negative impact on the surrounding environment, and we need to support, especially through a decent financial and information support system, those who are taking extra steps to protect not only their local environment but the national one.

The National Farmers Union argues that if farmers are struggling financially, prioritising environmental objectives is nearly impossible. I would like to highlight the importance of linking the plans to reform agriculture with the existing challenges that farmers and land managers face. We all know stories of farmers struggling financially; we must ensure that the new regulatory environment supports farmers in both large and small landholdings, because we need farming to be sustainable, both environmentally and economically.

We cannot ignore the need to invest in new technologies and innovative infrastructure to provide farmers with efficient systems that work to reduce their carbon footprint. Many new innovative methods have been spoken about today; it is important that we take the public along with the farming community, especially when it comes to genetic engineering and technological interventions on our farming estates. It is important to have public confidence in new methods. Farmers should have access to the necessary data and information not only to link farming methods with the environment but to allow for continual exposure to the most up-to-date methods and environmental land management strategies, and partnership is key in that.

Encouraging farmers to engage in agri-environment schemes has to be done alongside a commitment to environmental targets. The Government have the responsibility to lay out those targets, especially in legislation such as the Agriculture Bill, which the Opposition believe is missing such commitments. I would be grateful if the Minister could set out when he expects the Bill to come back to this place. I know he is new in office, but I am sure that that was one of the briefings he would have been given.

For centuries, farmers and land managers have closely engaged with ecosystems, using the land and nature around them to build a home for their livestock and to create businesses. Farmers understand, more than most, the interdependent relationship between agriculture and the environment, not only because of their daily interactions with nature but because climate change has directly affected them, and will continue to do so.

With the necessary support systems, growing numbers of farmers would undoubtedly turn to agro-ecology. The Landworkers Alliance has spearheaded some great work on agroecology, making it a viable farming method for more people through initiatives such as the whole -farm agroecological scheme. There are key examples of the impressive nature of agroecology in its integrated production, which, on mixed farms, recycles biomass and reduces waste, using by-products from one process as inputs in others. Nutrient availability is optimised over time by generating fertility on the farm, instead of using artificial fertilisers. That theme of reducing the amount of fertiliser through the use of new methods has come up in a number of interventions. With the optimal use of sunlight, space, water and nutrients, and through synergistic interactions between biological components, fewer resources are lost. These practices conserve and encourage biodiversity in agricultural species and the wider environment, creating diverse ecosystems that are more resilient to climate change.

A great example of agroecology is agroforestry, which has not been mentioned as much as I expected. Agroforestry includes traditional practices that are easily recognised in British landscapes, such as hedgerows, as well as new innovative systems such as silvo-arable cropping, a method of growing alleys of productive trees through arable land. If more farmers were supported with accessible information, relevant data and long-term multi-year funding, more of them could adopt agro-ecological approaches. The benefits would not only directly benefit the farmers’ land; they would help to fight climate change. The Soil Association has said that integrating trees into farms on a significant scale could dramatically increase the amount of carbon sequestered on those farms, as compared with farms where there are monocultures of crops or pasture—a point made by the hon. Member for Gordon. The Committee on Climate Change has highlighted that converting just 0.6% of agricultural land to agroforestry could contribute significantly to our meeting the fifth carbon budget target by 2030.

Alongside carbon emissions, we need to deal with a big issue facing the agricultural industry: soil erosion. As mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East and my west country neighbour, the hon. Member for Taunton Deane (Rebecca Pow), soil erosion costs England and Wales £1.2 billion annually, a cost we cannot continue to afford. Trees integrated into arable settings have been proven to reduce soil erosion by up to 65%. Agriculture is unique when it comes to dealing with the challenges of improving air quality and reducing greenhouse gas emissions, because it can remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and store it in vegetation, generating low-carbon renewable energy. It also has a really important role in upstream flood prevention, as has been hinted at by Members.

This debate is so important because although the interdependence of the environment and farming is clear, unless the right structures, funding and support are provided for those working the land, we will not see the much-needed improvement to the environment that we all want. The environment must be at the heart of our future agriculture policy. Public subsidies have been used to fund destructive food and farming practices for too long. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East, I am no fan of the common agricultural policy, and we must take time to ensure that the systems we introduce do not replicate its problems or create new ones. The Opposition are pleased to see pesticide reduction, improving soil health, cutting climate change emissions and supporting wildlife on the Government’s to-do list, but to deliver those things in a way that reverses the current damage, we will need adequate funding and bold ambition, including clear targets. How does the Minister intend to do that, given the scale of subsidy-related cuts we are expecting after leaving the European Union?

We recognise the interdependence of modern farming and the environment, but a fresh approach to agriculture cannot work by itself. The Government must introduce appropriate provisions to protect against unfair buying practices and to promote fairness in the supply chain. The EU regulations that protect our environment must be maintained, and we should look to build on them. For the avoidance of doubt, I invite the Minister to confirm that it is his personal as well as his ministerial position that environmental protections must not be reduced after Brexit. Will he reconfirm that any new trade deals that undermine our green standards or animal welfare must be rejected? If they were not rejected, the Government would be turning their back on British farmers.

This is a really important debate, and Members from right across the House have raised appropriate and timely issues. With that, I will sit down so that the Minister can respond to those points.

[Mr Nigel Evans (in the Chair)]

I welcome the Minister to his new position and remind him to leave at least a minute for Mr Clark to wind up.

Rivers Authorities and Land Drainage Bill (First sitting)

Luke Pollard Excerpts

Committee Debate: House of Commons
Monday 11th March 2019 Public Bill Committees

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

I thank the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome for introducing the Bill. He spoke with detail and authority about its contents. I am pleased that we nearly have a south-west majority in Committee—it is about time that the south-west got its fair share, and if we have to get it by taking control of Bill Committees, I support that. We also have several hon. Members from SERA—Labour’s Environment Campaign, which is good.

The Opposition welcome and support this good Bill, because changes to flood protections for communities are long overdue, but I hope that the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome will not mind my asking a few questions to understand how the powers will be implemented. Some of my questions will be for him, but I suspect that the Minister and her officials will have some insight on the more technical ones.

The Bill is timely, because there have been flooding incidents not only in the south-west. In the Lake district and across the country, flooding has had huge and disproportionate effects on small communities that often do not have the resources to provide the protection they need on their own. It is important that we set out a regulatory framework that will help them to pool the risk and the effort.

The Bill is also long overdue. Many of its measures should have been introduced by the Government long before they were proposed in a private Member’s Bill and we would have liked Government time to have been used for debating its provisions. None the less, we welcome the effort that the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome has put into introducing the legislation. We need to invest time and energy in considering the proposals to make sure that they work for all our communities. We know that not every community will be affected by flooding and that not every community affected by flooding will be affected by the same type of flooding—coastal flooding and river flooding are very different.

[Sandy Martin]

Does my hon. Friend agree that although it is true that coastal flooding and river flooding are different and occur at different times for different reasons, the effects of climate change will tend to exacerbate both through increased and unpredictable rainfall and through rising sea levels?

[Luke Pollard]

My hon. Friend is right and pre-empts one of my questions for the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome about how the provisions will work in coastal communities. From my reading of the provisions, it seems that many of them work for inland communities and river flooding in particular. I would be grateful if he set out how he envisages the provisions working in an environment where there is the risk of both river and coastal flooding, especially with regard to the cost implications that he just spoke about. Clearly, the responsibility for coastal flooding is much more expensive and, with the risk of climate change, can have much bigger impacts.

As I said, the Opposition welcome the Bill. Although we have no problem with the clauses, I have a few questions that I hope will provide some clarity about how the provisions will be implemented. As is outlined in clause 1, a rivers authority established under the Bill will be a locally accountable body with the powers to issue precepts to billing authorities that will collect money from council tax payers for additional local flood management work.

I understand from the Association of Drainage Authorities that the Department is not expecting a flurry of requests for the establishment of rivers authorities. The Bill does not impose rivers authorities on local councils, so it is for those that want them to be proactive. How will that work for councils that have suffered huge cuts and might not have the in-house resource to do that? How does the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome envisage rivers authorities being rolled out? Will there be additional support for the pilot rivers authorities to effectively overcome the early administrative obstacles that will inevitably come with the formation of a new rivers authority, so that pioneer projects can share best practice with the ones that follow?

How will local communities challenge and hold accountable local river and drainage authorities for their actions? It is good to hear that the majority of members of those committees will be from local councils, and so will be elected; that flow through of democratic accountability is important. On Second Reading in the main Chamber, I asked whether the Department would publish guidance on the composition of those boards, particularly on their gender balance. Having observed several such committees, they can be quite bloke-heavy—and, indeed, retired bloke-heavy—which, as a general rule, we should try to avoid when creating new public bodies. I will be grateful if the Minister or the Member in charge sets out whether there will be any guidance to that effect.

Will there be guidance on whether the heads of those authorities should serve for a fixed period, or will that period run and run? In some communities, the people who will be in charge of such bodies have also been in charge of everything else that came before. I just want to understand whether there will be accountability and a rotation of those roles. I assume that there will be the usual registers of interest to avoid any conflicts of interest, especially because these authorities will be dealing with small communities, where expertise is essential. There is a risk of a conflict of interest, so will the Minister set out how we will engineer out any of those risks at an early stage?

It seems that many of the provisions regarding rivers authorities’ proceedings in proposed new section 21D apply to local government, such as access to agendas, inspection of papers and inspection of minutes. Will there be guidance that such meetings should be open to the public to ensure full accountability, and that any private proceedings should be limited and face proper scrutiny? What input will members of the public have into the exercise of the duties of a rivers authority, especially in how the provisions in new section 21D will be implemented?

We know that there is an awful lot of experience in how to deal with flooding in our local communities, especially among farmers who have farmed land affected by flooding for many generations. A yearly flood risk management plan seems like a good option. I will be interested to see how the new bodies interact with water companies, particularly with the upstream thinking pioneered by many water companies that cover water catchment areas. A few of us in the Committee are covered by South West Water, which has pioneered upstream thinking for some time. We need to make sure that we are not setting up two bodies with slightly different agendas. That interaction needs to be there.

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

I am a representative of Leeds, which has had significant flooding. Some of the solutions that local communities want involve upland management, which provides better long-term solutions in terms of the risks of climate change than large, built flood management schemes. However, those upland areas are in a different local authority. Rivers authorities only operate in one local authority, so I am interested in my hon. Friend’s and the Minister’s opinion on how it will work across authorities.

[Luke Pollard]

I thank my hon. Friend for that. It is worth saying that, even though the Committee has a south-west majority, those people with a south-west link, even if they represent a different part of the country, are very welcome as well.

That question relates to the patchwork quilt of responsibilities that is the underlying context for rivers authorities. How will these new authorities work with different local authorities? My hon. Friend is entirely right that we are moving to an era where we want fewer carbon-intensive end-of-pipe solutions, which are both expensive for those who pay for them and have a large carbon impact in their construction. Lower-carbon interventions, such as the re-wetting of peat bogs or the planting of more trees, are frequently required in an area other than where flooding takes place. I would be grateful if the Minister addressed that.

Proposed new section 21F provides powers to acquire and dispose of property. I am working on the assumption that those powers will be deployed in the same way as local councils deploy them at the moment, with authority and judgment. I would be grateful if the Minister set that out for the record. I am interested to know whether the Minister is confident that the Secretary of State’s framework under proposed new section 21G will not inhibit the autonomy of rivers authorities in relation to how those powers are implemented.

On proposed new sections 21H and 21A, we hope that rivers authorities will be a success and that there will be no need to abolish them, but it is useful to look ahead at all scenarios when creating them in the first place, so what criteria will there be for abolishing a rivers authority? Will there be any scrutiny or appeals in relation to that? A concern from time spent observing the coalition Government is that many bodies were swept away and some of the people who relied on those bodies did not have a say in the process, so I would like to understand how that might work.

It is important, when we talk about flooding, to recognise that with the advent of additional flood planning when new developments come through, those new developments are well protected, but bringing forward flood defences for new developments sometimes means that communities that were not previously affected by flooding now will be. It would be useful to get a sense of how rivers authorities, which will look at flooding in the wider sense, will have an eye on not only the area that they cover, but the impact of their work on other areas.

We have no opposition to the clause, but I would be grateful if those questions could be clarified.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Dr Thérèse Coffey)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Bailey, and I thank all hon. Members present for taking an interest. The Government support the Bill and all the clauses and amendments that will be discussed today.

It is fair to say that the creation of the rivers authority came about because of the situation in Somerset. To answer the question about pilot authorities, Somerset has effectively had a shadow rivers authority running, so I would expect any learnings to be taken from what has happened there to other councils. If communities wish to come forward and take advantage of these powers, we will consider them, but as it stands the only expression of interest so far is from Somerset, which is the reason the Bill has arisen.

It is worth pointing out to the Committee that one of the reasons for creating this wider opportunity for other people to come forward was to avoid the political difficulty of what is called a hybrid Bill to create a specific authority, which can take anywhere between five and 10 years to get through, if it ever does. The Bill provides that opportunity, but it is not the Government’s intention to go around proactively creating rivers authorities. However, the door will be open if there is local support to do that.

Quite a lot of the powers will be set out in regulations. My hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome talked about the majority of members being from the local authorities comprising the rivers authority. It could be the case that every single member is from those local authorities, but it might make sense to put the Environment Agency on as a member. That will vary from area to area. As things stand, that level of detail has yet to be discussed with the councils from Somerset, but it is something that the Government are open to and it is important that we have that consultation discussion up front.

On the coastal situation, obviously Somerset has a coast. The Bill is intended to address the issue that was identified of a special coming together of a series of rivers, particularly in the levels, which can create a particular situation. All of those rivers are in Somerset and do not go across authorities. However, in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for North Devon, a rivers authority would be required to complement and work with neighbouring areas, as he would expect.

It is important to point out to the hon. Member for Leeds North West that these areas can cover more than one local authority area, so a rivers authority could go across borders if it was deemed appropriate by the councils that wanted to take it forward. The Bill is not prescriptive about there being only one local authority; as I say, there will be ongoing collaboration. I stress that this is not about trying to replace things, but about complementing what already exists by pulling together this new authority concept, which can have a separate precept on a council tax bill. In order to have that privilege, of course the rivers authority will be subject to the elements of local government legislation that were set out.

I do not think that public access to meetings is written into the Bill, but if it were necessary and it needed to be in legislation, I am sure it could be put into the statutory instrument that will be required to create the Somerset Rivers Authority. In effect, the authority would be subject to investigation by the local government ombudsman for England, so protections are in place to ensure there is accountability.

--- Later in debate ---

I do not want to delay things any further, so I hope that hon. Members agree with all that I have said and I commend these clauses to the Committee.

[Luke Pollard]

The Opposition have no problem with the clauses that the hon. Gentleman has talked us through. However, we have one question about charges for non-rate payers: do businesses have similar protection against increases? Beyond a certain percentage, council tax payers have the protection of the referendum; is there a similar protection for businesses, and small businesses in particular? Small businesses affected by flooding frequently use up available capital to restore their businesses and sometimes struggle with insurance. We would not want a situation whereby businesses in an area affected by flooding face increases that are greater in proportion than the increases rate payers face. We should make sure that there is an element of fairness, and I would be grateful if the hon. Gentleman set that out for the record.

[Matt Warman (Boston and Skegness) (Con)]

I will be brief and will begin, as others have, by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome on bringing the Bill forward. When a number of constituents wrote to me urging that I support it, I wrote back confident that it would face either the chop or the Chope. However, it has got through, which we should all be grateful for. According to the Association of British Insurers, my constituency is the most likely in the country to flood, and in 2013 it did so, which is why the Minister is spending £100 million on a flood barrier for it. I am as grateful for that as I am for the five IDBs that work in my constituency.

I want to ask two brief questions. First, the Bill is clearly aimed at the south-west, and I will not pretend for a moment that I begrudge that. However, I would like some reassurance that the IDBs in my constituency that work so well together could, if they wanted, avail themselves of the opportunity to form a rivers authority. Would the Government look favourably on that sort of thing? I say that without wishing to indicate that those IDBs necessarily want to do so, but that option is working well for Somerset in its shadow form and will hopefully work well in the future. I would like to think that we, too, could have that potential benefit.

Secondly, as the expansion of areas that are rated for IDBs is permitted elsewhere in the country, and since we all know that drainage boards work and that their benefits often extend well beyond the areas that pay for them, I hope that the expansion of IDBs will reach not just Somerset but other areas. Unfortunately, councils such as mine in Boston are often affected financially by necessary and sensible rises in drainage rates filtering through to their bottom line. That effectively means that borough councils cannot responsibly raise taxes as much as they wish to, because the 2% cap on council tax might be disproportionately taken up by that rise in drainage rates. A rivers authority is one way of solving that problem, but it strikes me that it is not the only way.

I commend this excellent Bill, and the excellent Member who has brought it forward. I hope that he and the Minister will be able to tell me that it is not only the south-west that will benefit from it.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Warburton]

I turn to the last four clauses of the Bill, which are the usual final provisions that generally are found in one form or another at the end of a Bill.

Clause 5 confers powers on the Secretary of State to make consequential amendments by regulation. Any such regulations may amend, repeal or revoke any enactment, and where they amend primary legislation, they will be subject to the affirmative procedure to ensure parliamentary scrutiny. The Bill makes a number of consequential changes in the rather dense and opaque field of local government finance legislation, so it is possible that not all necessary changes have been identified. As such, it is prudent for the Bill to contain a power to deal with those in secondary legislation. Subsections (3) and (4) provide for the parliamentary procedure to apply to regulations made under the Bill.

Clause 6 simply covers the extent of the Bill—the legal jurisdictions in which the Bill forms part of the law. The Bill extends to England and Wales, subject to subsections (2) and (3). Subsection (2) sets out that an amendment made by schedule 2 has the same extent as the legislation it amends. That ensures that the Government can amend legislation with a wider extent than England and Wales. For example, the provisions of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 amended by paragraphs 5 to 7 of schedule 2, extend to Scotland, although the amendments made are relevant only to rivers authorities in England. Subsection (3) sets out that clauses 5, 6, 7 and 8 extend to England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, because of the possibility that regulations under clause 5 may need to amend legislation that extends to Scotland or Northern Ireland as well as to England and Wales, for example tax legislation. Clause 1 and schedules 1 and 2 apply to England only. Clauses 2, 3 and 4 apply to England and Wales, for which the Welsh Government will secure a legislative consent motion from the Welsh Assembly.

Clause 7 sets out the arrangements for commencement of the different provisions in the Bill and how they will be brought into force. Subsection (5) allows the Secretary of State to include transitory or saving provisions in commencement regulations. That does not apply to clauses 2, 3 or 4 insofar as they relate to internal drainage districts that are wholly or mainly in Wales. Subsection (7) gives Welsh Ministers the equivalent power for clauses 2, 3 and 4 insofar as they relate to internal drainage districts that are wholly or mainly in Wales.

Finally, clause 8 provides for the short title of the Bill once it becomes an Act, as I hope it does, on Royal Assent. The short title will be the Rivers Authorities and Land Drainage Act 2019.

[Luke Pollard]

The Opposition have no problem with any of the clauses. It would be good if the officials who beaver away behind the scenes could make the manuscript change to correct “2018” to “2019”. I thank the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome for the way he has conducted himself and listened to cross-party concerns during the Bill’s passage. The Opposition will support these clauses, and the entire Bill, should they be pressed to a vote.

[The Chair]

May I say that the Public Bill Office has that message?

Draft Conservation (Natural Habitats Etc.) (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 Draft Environment (Miscellaneous Amendments) (Northern Ireland) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019

Luke Pollard Excerpts

Monday 4th March 2019 General Committees

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hosie, I think for the first time. May I place on the record Opposition Members’ regret that the former DEFRA Minister, the hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice), resigned from the Government? He was a good Minister and we enjoyed many Committee sittings debating with each other. I know that he will offer a formidable Back-Bench critique to whoever replaces him on the Front Bench.

The Opposition will not oppose either of the statutory instruments we are considering, because we believe that our environment faces a climate crisis and that we must be able to protect it properly after the UK leaves the European Union. However, as with the other DEFRA statutory instruments we have considered, we have serious concerns about the scale and pace at which these SIs are being considered and the potential lack of proper scrutiny.

On environmental protections and governance in Northern Ireland, the Opposition are increasingly concerned that, due to the lack of an Executive, Northern Ireland not only faces unique challenges because it shares a border with an EU country but is not sufficiently well equipped to stop it lagging behind the rest of the EU on the environment in the future. I appreciate the Minister setting out the case for the two SIs. In the absence of an Assembly in Northern Ireland, it is important that Westminster scrutinises them, but we have particular concerns about several elements of them.

According to the World Wide Fund for Nature, humans have wiped out 60% of animal populations since the 1970s. Now, more than ever, is the time to strengthen our conservation efforts. The Government must be careful not to dilute any current environmental protections with these or any other SIs. We have a number of questions about that. I would be grateful if the Minister reflected on those and provided reassurance that there is no reduction in protections for our environment in the two SIs we are considering.

Both SIs seem uncontentious—they seem to effect a very simple transposition of regulations on to the UK statute book—but the Opposition are concerned that there is stakeholder fatigue among those people who would normally provide the expert advice that enables us properly to review SIs on the basis of an informed legal framework, especially at the pace we are going through them, to ensure there are no errors or problems with them. My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton North East pointed out potential errors in the explanatory memorandum, or areas in which it may be seen as obscure. What else might have slipped through?

[Emma Reynolds]

Does my hon. Friend agree that this situation was totally avoidable? If the Government had gone ahead and started to put these SIs through Parliament earlier last year, we would have had more time for scrutiny.

[Luke Pollard]

I entirely agree. There is speed and pace to our considerations. In previous SI Committees, we have spoken about the importance of strong and robust pre-legislative scrutiny for such SIs. I have asked the Minister previously whether the particular SIs we were considering were part of the Department’s online reading room, which was made available to some stakeholders. She has suggested that those reading rooms are not suitable for parliamentarians to undertake pre-lay scrutiny of SIs. I would be grateful if she set out what stakeholder feedback, if any, was received about these two SIs in particular. It is important that we have decent scrutiny of them.

The Minister will be familiar with my concern about the impact assessments of SIs because we have spoken about them in every single Delegated Legislation Committee that we have sat on together, and I am sure that will be a feature of the one that she mentioned in her opening remarks. The explanatory notes state that the two SIs will have

“no, or no significant, impact”.

I say again that “no impact” and “no significant impact” are two different things. Although we are coming to an end of the SIs that she and I are doing together, I remain concerned about that, given that no impact assessment has been carried out. Although these are very technical and, on the face of them, uncontentious SIs, I am still concerned that Ministers will potentially have a “get out of jail free” card if an impact is discovered in the future.

Species are declining and we must do more to protect our natural habitats. The special areas of conservation included in these SIs protect 78 types of habitat and 43 species that are native to the United Kingdom and Ireland or are normally resident here. Throughout Europe, such areas protect 189 habitat types and 788 species. Their importance cannot be overstated. It is therefore very important that we transfer those protections to UK statute after we leave the European Union.

The Opposition are worried that this draft SI will dilute the current designation process, as outlined in regulation 7(1) of the Conservation (Natural Habitats, etc.) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1995, which state:

“Once a site of Community importance in Northern Ireland has been adopted…the Department shall designate that site as a special area of conservation as soon as possible and within six years at most.”

This draft SI removes the provision and does not replace it with a similar time requirement. Will the Minister explain why the time limit for establishing special areas of conservation has been removed from the SI? It could be because all those areas have been designated, or the Department expects no new ones, but that clarity would be welcome. We cannot afford to lose protections and accountability for protecting those habitats.

Regulation 9 outlines the duty to designate special areas of conservation. Proposed new regulation 6(8)(a) states:

“in relation to the application of stage 1 of the Annex III criteria, have regard to the advice of the appropriate authority”.

Sub-paragraph (b) states:

“in relation to the application of stage 2 of the Annex III criteria, have regard to the advice of the Joint Nature Conservation Committee.”

Will the Minister clarify what is meant by “have regard to”? How does it differ from “have the consent of” or “have consulted with” the JNCC? Those three phrases are very different and are contained in different elements of Northern Ireland environmental regulation.

Regulation 8 states that the Department shall publish reports

“in such form as it sees fit”.

That does not seem to match the current scrutiny outlined in article 17 of the habitats directive, which says:

“The report, in accordance with the format established by the committee, shall be forwarded to the Commission and made accessible to the public.”

I know, from having raised similar concerns relating to these points with the former Minister, that the format of reports was about reporting from the UK to the European Commission. I am concerned that the lack of definition of what the format should be could open the opportunity for reports not to be as full, and not to provide a paper trail, which would allow scrutiny by stakeholders and parliamentarians at a devolved or UK level. We have concerns that the regulation makes no provision for the reports to be reviewed or for any failings to be identified and addressed, as is currently required by the European Commission. The format of a report is about data collection, and it is also important that we ask about what happens to the report afterwards.

The Opposition are doubtful that the mere act of publishing the reports will be sufficient to match the current level of scrutiny. We suggest that this SI or a future one should include a requirement that reports are also reviewed and assessed. This draft SI revokes the agreed format for the reports to the European Commission. It merely requires that they are published in a way that the Secretary of State considers appropriate, with no reference to format in the future. In our view, that is too open to interpretation by the current and future Secretaries of State, and by those preparing the reports. It is likely to lead to reduced quality and possibly less effective monitoring and security of important environmental commitments in the future.

Proposed new schedule 3A, on the prohibited means of killing mammals and fish, raises the most concern for the Opposition. Regulation 36 is being amended to remove paragraphs (3) to (5) and place them into proposed new schedule 3A. Those paragraphs deal with animal welfare and conservation protections that we categorically believe should not be rolled back. They outline prohibited means of taking or killing mammals and fish. We know of the recent penchant among those on the Government Benches for the killing of foxes and the inhumane cull of badgers and our concern is to prevent the rolling back of animal welfare or environmental protections, in relation to the killing of mammals or fish, as an inadvertent consequence of any changes.

The draft SI gives Ministers powers to amend the list of prohibited methods of taking or killing. The explanatory note states that the new powers will allow for future amendments for scientific or technical reasons, but those terms are undefined. I should be grateful if the Minister would make a commitment not to use the powers to roll back animal welfare standards as the Government please.

It is important to say that I appreciate that, as Northern Ireland does not currently have a functioning Assembly and Executive, the Minister cannot bind future Administrations in Stormont as to what they might do with the powers. However, we have concerns about the mere creation of the potential for change. In the absence of an Assembly, I should be grateful if the Minister would also explain what scrutiny, if any, the changes will be subject to. Will the process for amending the methods for taking and killing mammals and fish set out in new schedule 3A be subject to any public consultation?

I mentioned stakeholder fatigue earlier. In relation to the brief review of the SIs, some stakeholders are concerned that there is no specific requirement for expert input or even a duty to consult relevant statutory nature conservation advisers or take account of their advice. I should be grateful if the Minister would set out the type of consultation that she envisages as most likely in the event of the list of killing methods being changed. The issue is of particular concern with respect to those changes that can be made without an affirmative SI, with its scrutiny processes in this place.

I now want to talk about the draft Environment (Miscellaneous Amendments) (Northern Ireland) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019. I am concerned that we are rushing to pass such items before the 29 March deadline. I have previously raised a concern about how this bit of the SI jigsaw fits with other SIs—already passed, or yet to be passed—to provide a coherent picture. There are elements of Northern Ireland regulation, especially in the absence of a functioning Assembly—and, I believe, as I look around the Room, Members from Northern Ireland reviewing the measures—that concern me. I want to make sure that their implementation in Northern Ireland will fit with the implementation of other SIs that have been passed, and those that may be passed in future.

The example used by my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton North East, of EU exit day being less than a year away, raises concerns about what additional elements have been included in a generic form or held in a fridge in Whitehall waiting to be defrosted and warmed up again when the Government decide to put the SIs through Parliament. I appreciate what the Minister said about standard wordings but, as I have said in relation to impact assessments, standard wordings—such as the phrase

“no, or no significant, impact”—

still cause me concern. I am also concerned about standard wordings in some explanatory notes. I suggest to the Minister that it might be prudent at this point to have words with officials to make sure that any standard wordings do not raise such concerns as have been highlighted today.

The Opposition have no major issue with the draft regulations, but I would like to ask the Minister a number of questions about how they fit into the Government’s proposed regulatory environment, so that they can be implemented and can continue to protect the environment in Northern Ireland as currently happens. Given the lack of an Executive in Northern Ireland, can the Minister set out what plans there are for an environmental protection agency with responsibilities to ensure that there is sufficient oversight of these SIs as they are implemented, and whether the environmental protection agency as envisaged in the draft legislation that the Government are proposing would extend to Northern Ireland in the absence of an Assembly or an Executive in that respect?

I turn next to the question of how the protections that people in Northern Ireland have become accustomed to enjoying, due to Northern Ireland’s being part of the European Union, can be rolled over when there is no system necessarily to do so in the absence of a fully functioning Executive. The European Union has been acting as a stopgap, or backstop, to ensure that those protections are enforced; I would be grateful if the Minister could set out what conversations she has had with colleagues in Northern Ireland to ensure that there are no gaps and no concerns about what is happening in relation to that.

I have set out the Opposition’s case for wishing to scrutinise these two SIs. I say to the Minister and particularly to any Whips who might be sitting next to her that, when considering Northern Ireland SIs, it would be helpful if the Committee could at least include some hon. Members from Northern Ireland. I would feel uneasy if an SI Committee without any Plymouth MPs on it looked at regulations affecting Plymouth. That is a concern that I am sure colleagues on both sides of the Committee, without partisan interest, may feel about ensuring that regulations are drafted and implemented to ensure the fullest effect, especially because climate change is real, we know it is getting worse and we must ensure that the environmental protections that we as a House have put in place are not only effective, but implemented and scrutinised properly.

[Dr Coffey]

It is a pleasure to respond to some of the queries that the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport has raised. On the professionalism of the civil service in Northern Ireland, I have full confidence that it will continue the effective regulation that it undertakes today, including its regulators, the Northern Ireland Environment Agency. I expect it to be enforcing the law in exactly the same way on 29 March as it will from 30 March onward. The point of these statutory instruments is to allow it to do so and to ensure that the obligations and the law continue as they are.

On the question of fatigue among non-governmental organisations and time to consider stakeholder feedback, there has been considerable time to consider these particular statutory instruments. Some of the stakeholder feedback was received before Christmas and some has been received since—a discussion about whether the ongoing status of the special areas of conservation was clear in law. We agreed with certain things that the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds said and not with others, but the feedback prompted us to make the statutory instrument clearer. We chose to withdraw and re-lay it to ensure that it was clear, and the RSPB confirmed, as did Greener UK, that that was welcome.

I am conscious of the hon. Gentleman’s concern about the phrase,

“no, or no significant, impact”.

I tried to explain to him in a previous Committee that that is a standard of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, the body that has set out how certain things must be drafted and laid out in the explanatory memorandums. I suggest, since he has taken a huge interest in the JCSI, that the Opposition Whip might wish to volunteer the hon. Gentleman to sit on that Committee in future. “Due to have regard” is a fairly standard legal phrase that is used, in effect, where Government or a regulator must look at regulations and those regulations are what they follow. That is the intent of that phrase.

Regarding the report format, I understand the hon. Gentleman’s concerns about how it might be scrutinised and whether it will lead to reduced quality, but it is fair to say that the reports sent to the Commission at the moment are all done to accommodate the needs of the EU 28. It may be that in future it is decided that there is a simpler way of preparing the information required, and we may want a more tailored way of doing so. I know that we regularly see minor changes here and there from the Commission, where we update how we report on certain matters; this SI just leaves us the power to make similar changes.

[Luke Pollard]

Could the Minister set out how any changes in format would work with the Republic of Ireland, given that Northern Ireland shares a land border with another EU member state and there are some habitats that cross the land border between Northern Ireland and the Republic?

[Dr Coffey]

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the Good Friday agreement requires both countries to have regard to each other, to collaborate and to co-operate, but not, even now, to be identical in every aspect, although of course EU regulations apply directly to both. However, for example, directives can allow legislation to be written somewhat differently if it achieves the same outcome.

I expect that that co-operation will continue, whether through the North South Ministerial Council or the British-Irish Council, a meeting of which I attended about 10 days ago. Lough Foyle and Carlingford Lough each have one management body, involving the north and the Republic working together, so there are already good examples of direct collaboration on different things that are needed. However, I expect that DAERA will consult on any changes to formats.

On scrutiny, obviously the regulator will still be in place and will be able to scrutinise exactly what is going on, and it will be for the Administration to decide whether to scrutinise the reports that are generated. It will be open to the Assembly to undertake that role in due course. A lot of those reports, especially on habitats, have to be presented to the Council of Europe, through the Bern convention secretariat, which again offers opportunities for scrutiny. There is also the ongoing scrutiny that is often done outside Parliament, which I expect will continue.

On the different aspects of new schedule 3A, scientific and technical progress comes up quite a bit when discussing elements of the environment or animal welfare. Quite straightforwardly, the new schedule recognises, as happened not that long ago when we discussed updating humane trapping standards—I think several Committee members were there—that there is some progress for which we need to update the law, rather than its being stuck in aspic. The new schedule gives us the opportunity to do that.

The hon. Gentleman asked whether that means that animal welfare standards could be lowered. It would be a brave Northern Irish Administration that wanted to do that. Nevertheless, it is fair to say that we are committed to the non-regression clause of the withdrawal agreement, which I expect includes animal welfare. I say again that my hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth has been one of the biggest champions of ensuring that we preserve our animal welfare standards. In fact, it will actually go the other way; it will be the United Kingdom pressing the EU 27 to make sure that they keep up with the animal welfare standards that we have championed for so long.

On scrutiny of Northern Ireland after we leave the EU, the Northern Irish Administration have asked us to consider including them in the remit of our proposed Office for Environmental Protection, which we are considering as part of our pre-legislative scrutiny. However, it is my understanding that it is not the case that Northern Ireland will automatically come under the scrutiny of that office; that will be a decision for Northern Irish Ministers to make in the future. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that both the Welsh and Scottish Governments have chosen to not join the OEP, but I am pleased to see that DAERA wants to at least set in place the possible opportunity and mechanism for such scrutiny and ongoing monitoring in the future.

The hon. Gentleman asked specifically about aspects of new schedule 3A. I understand that the new schedule allows us to mirror, if appropriate, future changes to the corresponding annexe of the directive, or to the Bern convention. We have talked about designations of special areas of conservation under the amended regulation 7(1) of the Conservation (Natural Habitats, etc.) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1995. Existing sites of Community importance are mostly designated. That is my understanding of the situation in Northern Ireland. They certainly have to be designated within six years, which is the current practice.

In essence, the obligation is on member states to designate sites as soon as they meet the selection criteria, as we have seen in the UK recently with the designation of sites for harbour porpoise. They have gone through the process of being deemed of Community importance, and now have gone or are going through the SAC process. Those things all take a certain amount of regulation to take them forward, but there is no change, as far as I am aware, in the regulations from how we operate today. That is relevant to the retained EU legislation.

I know that the hon. Gentleman is frustrated about the pace of trying to get through a lot of statutory instruments. I assure him that I have met the Democratic Unionist party spokesman to discuss a lot of these Northern Ireland statutory instruments, just as I have extended the offer to the Opposition and to the Scottish National party to come to us in advance with queries about any of the statutory instruments. That offer still stands for the remaining few statutory instruments related to my portfolio.

I am conscious that I may not have addressed all the hon. Gentleman’s concerns. I hope he accepts, however, that we are not changing policy—that is an opportunity for Parliament in the future—but making sure that the important legislation that we have in place for preserving the natural environment and trying to do more to address its decline, as he rightly pointed out, especially when it comes to species conservation, will still be in place in Northern Ireland, and that the regulators will have the powers, through the amendments in the second set of regulations, to ensure that there is proper ongoing environmental assessment and management.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That the Committee has considered the draft Conservation (Natural Habitats, etc.) (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019.

Draft Environment (Miscellaneous Amendments) (Northern Ireland) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019

Resolved,

That the Committee has considered the draft Environment (Miscellaneous Amendments) (Northern Ireland) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019.—(Dr Thérèse Coffey.)

Rivers Authorities and Land Drainage Bill

Luke Pollard Excerpts

2nd reading: House of Commons
Friday 8th February 2019 Commons Chamber

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

It is good that there is cross-party consensus for this Bill, because my fearful band of Opposition MPs and I have been waiting in the Chamber to deal with these measures.

It is good that this debate has had so many contributions from the west country. As a fellow Devon MP, I will not go quite as far as the hon. Member for North Devon (Peter Heaton-Jones) did in praising the south-west. None the less, it is important to say that the south-west has been affected by flooding over many years and it is an area for which the regulatory environment has not always worked in the best way. That is why the Opposition welcome this Bill and thank the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (David Warburton) for bringing it forward.

The Bill is long overdue. It is important to state here that many of its measures should have been introduced long before they were proposed in this private Member’s Bill. We have had plenty of parliamentary time recently to have discussed a Bill of this technical nature. Government time should have been used much earlier on this Bill, because my fear is that regulation in relation to flooding tends to be a kneejerk reaction to a large flooding event. We need to invest time and energy in the consideration of proposals to make sure that they work for all our communities. We need measures to deal with climate change, the increased risk of flooding, and the amount of house building on our floodplains to make sure that we have a regulatory system that is fit for purpose.

This Bill aims to provide local communities with new powers to organise and protect themselves from flooding. That is hardly controversial given the increased likelihood of extreme weather events due to climate change in the next few years ahead. This Bill receives strong backing from the Environment Agency, the National Farmers Union and the Association of Drainage Authorities to name but a few.

The rivers authorities that would be established under the Bill would be a good thing. They would be locally accountable with powers to issue a precept to billing authorities, which would then collect the money from council tax payers for additional local flood risk management work. I understand from the ADA that the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is not expecting a flurry of requests for the establishment of new river authorities. Local councils and authorities will not be compelled to create them; they are there for those who want to be proactive. Does the Minister think that that is the correct approach? Given the amount of pressure on our local authorities at this moment, with cuts and increased demand on services, is it right that the work is not done at a national level to help identify and encourage those local authorities, many of which might not have the capacity or the in-house expertise to realise the benefits that could be derived from the implementation of this Bill?

I note that the hon. Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster) did not go into the composition of the new authorities, but I would like to ask the Minister whether there has been any thought about the personnel on these new drainage authorities. Can he tell us how they will be drawn and selected from the local community and what effort has been made to make sure that those authorities will be gender-balanced in the future?

We must ask ourselves why these reforms have taken so long to appear and whether they should have been brought forward in Government time, rather than have this Bill sitting at the back of a line for a sitting Friday for almost a year. This Bill is being introduced to rectify well known long-standing issues. In many cases, the data that would be used to create some of the new river authorities and internal drainage boards is quite historic in itself.

The ADA first raised the potential need for legislative change with DEFRA during proceedings on the Water Bill in 2014. I think the Government are adopting a twin-track process. A Government consultation entitled “Improving our management of water in the environment” was launched in January, alongside the efforts in this private Member’s Bill. If the Bill fails to progress via the usual channels, Ministers will have the opportunity to pick up its content in the consultation, but I ask the Minister not to rest on his laurels in that respect because it is important that we have clarity.

The debate about flooding has historically occurred at certain times of the year, and we are in one of the times of year when flooding is particularly significant. I represent a constituency that is at the end of a fragile and precarious train line, which passes not only through Dawlish—that beautiful stretch of track is in desperate need of Government funding to make it more resilient—but through the Somerset Levels, an area that is also prone to flooding. We must recognise that flooding not only affects the communities in which it occurs—where there is far too much water—but can cause disruption to large parts of the country that may not experience it in their locality.

I want to ask the Minister who should pay for some of these costs. It is noticeable that the proposals will be funded either by local authority taxpayers or by landowners, but not necessarily by those who use land for business purposes. I would be grateful if the Minister looked at whether they might be an alternative source of revenue to help to drive this activity, rather than relying on the local tax base. Has he assessed whether the “polluter pays” principle could also be used to fund some of the schemes from industries that exacerbate climate change, which causes extreme weather events?

Looking back to storm Desmond, rainfall on that scale used to be described as a one-in-100-year, one-in-200-year or one-in-1,000-year event, but more extreme weather events are now occurring every single year as a result of man-made climate change. We need to make sure that our regulatory system and our flood defences are fit to meet that challenge. George Monbiot said:

“Exceptional events are…no longer exceptional.”

The Committee on Climate Change recently warned that rises in sea level of more than one metre could occur this century, and 200 km of coastal defences in England are projected to become vulnerable to failure during storm conditions. That does not include defences on river systems further inland.

We face unprecedented challenges in defending our lowland areas and coastal communities from flooding. The Bill is welcome, and it will help communities if local authorities use the powers. We need to look at how we can incentivise communities to get there, and we need a comprehensive plan for every community at risk of flooding. If we cannot get this private Member’s Bill through Parliament, I encourage the Minister to ensure that the Government swiftly adopt the measures to make sure that communities that could benefit are not hindered by the fact that the Bill was not introduced in Government time.

Animal Welfare (Service Animals) Bill

Luke Pollard Excerpts

3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Friday 8th February 2019 Commons Chamber

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

indicated assent.

[Kevin Foster]

I see my friend on the Opposition Front Bench nodding. I hope the Bill will receive support from all Members present and will soon be, not just a Bill before this House, but an Act of Parliament.

--- Later in debate ---

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

I particularly thank the right hon. and learned Member for North East Hertfordshire (Sir Oliver Heald) for bringing forward this Bill and for his persistence in championing the cause of police dogs for so long. As in the previous stages, the Opposition will fully support this Bill as it corrects a crucial imbalance in animal welfare. Service animals are sentient beings that bravely and loyally serve the public. The law should recognise them as such and give them the protections that they deserve.

I join hon. Members in paying tribute to the brave police dog Finn. Opposition Members could not quite see him when he made his tour de force in the Public Gallery, but we look forward to being invited to the Government Whip’s Office for a photo later. This is not something that normally happens to Opposition Members. [Interruption.] Ah, there he is—brilliant. I look forward to visiting the Whip’s Office to see Finn in person, and to say thank you to PC Dave Wardell and all those who have campaigned for Finn’s law.

As we have heard from the right hon. and learned Gentleman, Finn protected PC Wardell from an attack that might have cost him his life or at least given him serious injuries. Finn’s case was extreme but, sadly, not unusual for police dogs. Life is rough, so we are told, and police animals are routinely put in harm’s way to protect us in the name of the law. Surely the time has come for the law to protect them as well. Every service animal matters and this Bill, when implemented, will make that true for police dogs. Police dogs and police horses are valued public servants and, like Finn, can be real victims of violence and animal cruelty. The law must give them the protection they deserve.

I am sure many Members in this House are followers of Devon and Cornwall police dogs on Twitter—DC_PoliceDogs. Rightly, it is one of the most popular Twitter accounts in Plymouth and the far south-west. It is a reminder of the daily work that police dogs do not just in big cities, but in rural areas such as the far south-west. It is fantastic to see how they join up with other service animals, such as the Devon and Somerset fire and rescue service specialist search dogs. All of them deserve good protection.

Labour Members have been at the forefront of protecting animal welfare for many years. Indeed, we like to believe that we are the party of animal welfare. From bringing forward the landmark Hunting Act 2004 to protecting domestic animals under the Animal Welfare Act 2006, Labour has always placed the welfare of animals high on the policy agenda. At a European level, Labour secured better welfare standards for battery hens and chickens, and tightened the rules on the transport of live animals. It is a record that my party can rightly be proud of, but it is also a record that requires us to support—and ensure that we support—all those who are fighting for animal welfare. It is the reason why we are very pleased to support this Bill.

The right hon. and learned Gentleman rightly mentioned that animals are not property and should not be treated as such under the law. The current law is inadequate in that respect, and the omission of service animals from the protection of animal cruelty legislation needs to change. It is fantastic and overdue that this Bill creates a specific offence for those who seek to injure service animals. They deserve appropriate recognition for the vital role they fulfil.

Recourse to the Criminal Damage Act 1971 is not good enough, and in cases such as Finn’s, it has been shown that that approach simply does not work. Some 1,200 police dogs are protecting us at any time, and their protection must be made clear in law. Labour welcomes the Sentencing Council’s updated sentencing guidelines on animal cruelty, which now include a new aggravating factor of causing unnecessary suffering to an animal that is being used in public service or as an assistance dog.

In reality, however, we know that we need to go much further. The law as it stands is not a successful deterrent, and many people who work with service animals think it is failing to offer protection. The Animal Welfare Act was a watershed moment in animal rights, but we must continue to build on the progress that we achieved over a decade ago.

[Sir Oliver Heald]

The hon. Gentleman may be aware that his right hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw), who was the architect of the 2006 Act, is one of the Bill’s co-sponsors and agrees that this change is needed to improve that landmark piece of legislation.

[Luke Pollard]

I thank the right hon. and learned Gentleman for that intervention, and it is good to see on the back of the Bill the list of luminaries who are backing it. I note that my right hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw) is among those champions. Indeed, his work in supporting the welfare of animals is something that I think all of us on both sides of the House can be proud.

I am pleased that the Government have announced increased sentences for animal cruelty. That is an important step forward for which Labour has been arguing for some time. I would be grateful if the Minister told the House when he intends to bring forward legislation to put that into practice. Sadly, on every single day that goes by without that strong deterrent being put into law, examples of animal cruelty are being carried out across the country for which there are insufficient criminal penalties. I would be grateful to the Minister if he clarified the position.

Let me turn briefly to implementation. This really important Bill extends to England and Wales. As was said by the right hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Sir Mike Penning) on Second Reading, there is the question of how we can extend the Bill’s provisions to the entire United Kingdom, with devolved Administrations making the appropriate decisions for their locality, but may I ask in particular about Northern Ireland? Northern Ireland does not have a sitting Assembly at the moment, so the devolved legislature does not have the ability to take action. I would be grateful if the Minister outlined what discussions have taken place with the Northern Ireland Office about how these really important provisions can be extended to police dogs in Northern Ireland.

[Sir Oliver Heald]

I am very eager that the law covers the whole United Kingdom. The position in Northern Ireland is slightly difficult because it has a different animal welfare law from the 2006 Act, which covers only England and Wales. When I looked into this with the House authorities, I found that it would be very difficult to amend my Bill to cover Northern Ireland, for example because the long title refers to the 2006 Act, which applies only to England and Wales. I was told that if I tried to amend the Bill to include Northern Ireland, I might lose it. However, this is clearly a very important thing to look at, and I am certainly supportive of doing something for Northern Ireland.

[Luke Pollard]

As someone who grew up watching films of dogs travelling the country to protect their owners and rescue people, I know that where there is a will, there is a way. I hope that Ministers will take forward the belief that extending Finn’s law to cover all parts of the United Kingdom is a sensible and prudent way for us to make sure that police dogs, wherever they are serving, enjoy the same protection as they will in England and Wales under the Bill.

The concerns raised by the hon. Member for Harborough (Neil O’Brien) about safeguards are important, and we must also consider concerns about self-defence. I know that the right hon. and learned Member for North East Hertfordshire addressed such concerns in the Bill’s early stages, but as we close one loophole regarding cruelty towards police dogs, we must not risk opening another. That is especially important when considering the implementation of the Bill and how it will be judged by the courts, and we must send the strong message today that we do not seek to create new loopholes around self-defence, especially regarding the excessive use of force.

The Opposition fully support the Bill. Animals do not have a voice in politics, and it is our job to give them one. There will be people across the country who, over the past few months, might not have looked at the House of Commons and decided that it is politics at its best, but today they will see hon. Members on both sides of the House coming together in favour of something that carries the overwhelming support and good will of the British people.

I hope that the Bill will create headlines in the media today. It is up to us all to show that when considering important matters such as protecting animals from cruelty, we will close any loopholes in the law that enable the perpetrators of such cruel violence to get away with it. That is something of which the House can be rightly proud. It has never been more important to have an ambitious animal welfare agenda, and the Opposition fully support the Bill.

Draft Fisheries (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019

Luke Pollard Excerpts

Tuesday 29th January 2019 General Committees

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Robertson. The Minister says that the purpose of this SI is to preserve and protect the existing EU policy regime, rather than to introduce new policies. He has stood up and told us that there is nothing to worry about—his colleague, the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey), did the same yesterday in a similar Delegated Legislation Committee—because all they are doing is transposing EU law into UK law, replacing “Europe” with “UK” and “EU Commissioner” with “Secretary of State”, so we have nothing to worry about.

However, as we saw with the Fisheries Bill, at the start the Minister said the objectives were simply being copied over from the CFP, but we know that the date for maximum sustainable yield by 2020 was removed from the Bill and two new objectives were added. Things can change when laws are transposed. Secondary legislation ought to be used for technical, non-partisan, non-controversial changes, but the Government are continuing to push contentious legislation with high policy content through the SI process. I said last night in another Delegated Legislation Committee that we are concerned that we are being asked to wave through statutory instruments at breakneck speed without sufficient scrutiny.

A total of 343 SIs have been laid since June 2018. I did not get a reply to this question last night, so I would like to ask the Minister now. How many of those does he expect to be completed by exit day on 29 March? How many of those does he expect to be Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs SIs? The Government expect us to wave through hundreds of these hurried SIs. This particular one combines 13 pieces of legislation, and yesterday’s contained 21. That seems a lot of change to debate in such a short amount of time.

What methodology is the Minister’s Department using in grouping these 13 pieces of legislation, especially as this is a two-part SI, as he mentioned? There is a deep irony that Brexit was sold to the country as a way of taking back control when at every turn the Government have tried to thwart decent parliamentary scrutiny. We have an SI Committee here with a Government majority, even though they do not enjoy one in the House.

I worry about the Minister, because I know he is a very busy man, with two pieces of primary legislation and an awful lot of SIs, as well as running large chunks of the Department while his Secretary of State goes on manoeuvres. I do hope he has had enough time to look through all these SIs to ensure that there are no drafting defects, because we have had drafting defects in SIs before, which we need to look at.

My hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian rightly raised concerns about the difference between retained EU restrictions and retained EU obligations. In regulations 3(4)(d), 3(5)(d), 4(2)(b), 4(4)(b)(ii) and 4(5)(b), references to “enforceable EU restriction” and “enforceable EU obligation” in the Fisheries Act 1981 and the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009 are replaced with references to “retained EU restriction” and “retained EU obligation”. Although the SI includes a definition of EU restriction, there is no corresponding definition of retained EU obligation. I would be grateful if the Minister could clarify whether, as defined in the European Union (Withdrawal) Act, that applies to specific regulations and not SIs more generally. Will he clarify whether that was an intentional discrepancy or difference, and what the difference is between the retained EU obligation and that retained EU restriction, in how it will be enforced?

As I said to the Minister when we debated the Fisheries Bill in Committee, we do not leave the common fisheries policy every day—we do not leave the EU every day—so we need to ensure that we get it right. Because so much legislation is being amended in one bash, debated at most for the length of a football game, without the chance for amendments, without impact assessments or pre-impact assessments and with limited consultation, I am concerned that there may be unintended consequences. I am sure the Minister will recall when the Government had to amend their own red tape challenge a few years ago. The Government’s own memo said at the time:

“Defra is introducing this instrument to provide Inshore Fisheries Conservation Officers with powers to enforce a list of EU fisheries technical and conservation measures that were inadvertently revoked as part of the Red Tape Challenge.”

We know that such errors can and do happen and that there is a risk they will happen more frequently when SIs are hurried through without substantial stakeholder feedback.

Although a different Minister introduced yesterday’s statutory instrument, I spoke about the need for impact assessments, to ensure that the impact of these SIs is adequately understood. The explanatory note for this SI states:

“There is no, or no significant, impact.”

However, below that it states that there is to be no impact. There is a difference between no impact and no significant impact. I know that the Minister will not want to hide behind parliamentary protocol to define the difference between the two. Can he tell us whether there is to be an impact, no significant impact or some impact?

The explanatory note states:

“An Impact Assessment has not been prepared,”

because it is expected to have no impact. If no impact assessment was prepared, how does the Minister know that there will be no impact? Can he go into more detail? Was there a pre-impact assessment to inform whether an impact assessment was required? The wording of

“no, or no significant, impact”

is problematic. As we get through as many of these SIs as the Government intend to, will the Minister clarify this point. “No impact” and “no significant impact” are two very different things, and clarification would help stakeholders and parliamentarians to understand whether the Government have done their homework. They have put a broad spectrum between “no” and “no significant” impact.

Yesterday the Minister’s colleague told me that this was simply parliamentary drafting and that she herself had wanted to change the wording of the SI. Does today’s Minister agree with yesterday’s Minister that there is no or no significant impact, and did he too ask for the drafting to be changed? There is a difference and it really matters.

One of the huge unintended consequences of the SIs that we are considering is the potential loss of access to independent scientific expertise currently provided at EU level. We currently have access to EU-wide research and analysis that can help shape our decisions, but in future that will not necessarily be available to us. I want to look, in particular, at the Eels (England and Wales) Regulations 2009, which I am sure we have all familiarised ourselves with in advance of the Committee. Regulation 8(3) of this SI removes regulation 11 from those eels regulations, which states:

“This regulation applies where the Agency determines that a reduction in the fishing effort for eels is required in order to comply with Article 5(4) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1100/2007.”

That is about establishing measures for the recovery of European eel stocks.

When those elements are removed, it is important that we consider the potential for overfishing in this area. It also provides me with the opportunity to put the Minister on the spot in relation to recent news stories about coked-up eels in the River Thames becoming hyper-active because of the high levels of cocaine in the river. It could be that the eels are considering a future career in advertising or financial services, but I suspect that there are problems with high levels of cocaine. The Department has not yet commented on that story, so will the Minister say what steps it is taking to ensure that the high levels of cocaine do not affect our eels in future?

Concerns have also been raised about the changes to inshore fisheries and conservation officers. Regulation 14(3)(b) removes references to article 42 of the control regulation from the Sea Fishing (Enforcement) Regulations 2018, which were introduced only last year. I am concerned that regulations introduced only last year, effectively by the same Government pursuing the same policy on Brexit, now requires amendment less than 12 months later. People will not have confidence that the Department drafted complete legislation in the first place if, less than 12 months later, we have to redraft elements that were passed only a year ago, when our exit from the European Union was established Government policy.

The effect of that change is that inshore fisheries and conservation officers will no longer have the power to enforce article 42 of the control regulation, which states

“fishing vessels engaged in fisheries subject to a multi-annual plan shall not tranship their catches on board of any other vessel in a designated port or in places close to the shore unless they have been weighed in accordance with Article 60 of the Control Regulation.”

That presents a risk that the rules on weighing catches will be evaded and could result in overfishing. Will the Minister explain why the change has been made and whether the consequences have been mapped out?

Turning to the European maritime and fisheries fund, regulation 13 amends the Grants for Fishing and Aquaculture Industries Regulations 2015 procedures by omitting the EMFF. Following our departure from the EU, EMFF subsidies, which are worth around £30 million a year to coastal communities, will cease to be available to the UK industry. Although many fishing communities’ access to waters has often been limited by the CFP, they have benefited from EMFF funding. In our discussions on the Fisheries Bill, the Minister alluded to changes to the EMFF being announced in future. Given that this SI creates restrictions on access to that funding, will the Minister clarify whether the Government are committed to match every penny that goes to coastal communities from a replacement EMFF fund and when the details of that fund will be announced, especially as we are now fewer than 60 days away from leaving the European Union? It will be a requirement for those coastal communities to have access to funding, which is currently uncertain.

I know that the Minister and the Government are under huge pressure to dot all the i’s and cross all the t’s before we leave the EU, but the number of concerns raised by stakeholders, combined with the manner in which these SIs are often rushed out, suggest that there has not been enough time offered for consultation and pre-lay scrutiny. In yesterday’s SI we heard about the wondrous reading room that DEFRA has assembled for its SIs, which has been offered to stakeholders for prelegislative scrutiny of some SIs. Can he tell us how many stakeholders have taken part in the reading room activities on this SI? How much notice are stakeholders given to access SIs in the reading room, and will he publish details of their concerns? We have also had questions on how stakeholders who are not currently privy to the reading room can gain access.

In yesterday’s discussion I raised with the Minister a suggestion from a noble Baroness in the other place about parliamentarians’ access to the SI reading room. Before SIs are formally laid in the House, we could have access to that pre-lay scrutiny, as other stakeholders have. It is important that Members of different parties are willing to get these regulations right. Access for parliamentarians, especially those with a particular interest in these regulations, could help improve the legislation.

Before I conclude, I remind the Minister that there is something missing from this SI, which relates to a commitment he gave in the Fisheries Bill to ban electric pulse beam fishing. He promised in Committee that he would share a draft SI to ban the cruel use of electric pulse fishing in UK waters when we leave the common fisheries policy. He will recall that the Opposition tabled amendment 66 to the Fisheries Bill on 13 December 2018. On the Government side, the hon. Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous) tabled amendment 92. Both amendments aim to prohibit electric pulse fishing within British fishery limits, a policy proposal that enjoys cross-party and large stakeholder support, especially in our coastal communities.

Members of different parties made good arguments in support of those amendments. They were supported by the Liberal Democrats and the Scottish National party but, due to assurances made by the Minister in his response, neither I nor the hon. Member for Waveney pushed the amendments to a vote, which would have likely secured a change in the wording of the Bill and a Government defeat. In his response, the Minister proposed that

“the pulse trawling prohibition and the derogation are contained in technical conservation regulation 850/98. Article 31 of that regulation establishes the pulse trawling prohibition, and article 31a establishes the derogation. Under the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, regulation 850/98 will be coming across into UK law.”

He then said:

“We anticipate laying a statutory instrument to give effect to that in January”.

He gave assurances that

“placing this new clause on the face of the Bill is unnecessary”

and said:

“I am happy to share the draft of the statutory instrument that we intend to introduce in January with my hon. Friend and the shadow Minister before Report”.—[Official Report, 18 December 2018; Vol. 652, c. 232-233.]

I had hoped to work with the Minister on drafting that important SI. I politely remind him that we have two days left in January for that SI to be shared with me. I have written to him to ask for a meeting to discuss the SI but am yet to receive a response. I ask him to address in his remarks how much of that SI has been drafted already, and whether stakeholders have been consulted. When he lays it, does he intend to put it in the reading room for stakeholders’ pre-lay scrutiny, and will he give parliamentarians, especially Members who sat on the Fisheries Bill Committee, advance notice to feed into that debate?

When we considered amendments to the Fisheries Bill, I said that if we did not have a sufficiently robust SI, the Opposition would table an amendment on Report. I know that the Minister takes this area very seriously, and I say to him in all sincerity that we have 48 hours to make good on his commitment. I would be grateful if he not only replied to my letter on this, but addressed the substantive subject of electric pulse beam fishing. There is cross-party agreement that we should not have it in UK waters and that we should not allow access to Dutch trawlers that, in effect, now operate a commercial fishery for electric pulse beam trawling. It causes so much devastation, especially in the North sea.

I am concerned that there is not enough in this SI that has been properly consulted on, and stakeholders have concerns about the speed with which these SIs are being hurried through. I think there is genuine concern about some elements of this SI, and I would be grateful if the Minister addressed those when he makes his concluding remarks.

[George Eustice]

The hon. Gentleman’s comments went somewhat outside scope towards the end. I will first address those pertinent to this particular order and then touch on some of the points he made at the end, although obviously they are also for discussion at a later date.

The first point to make, which is important, is that it is great that Parliament has—for the first time—the opportunity to debate these issues at all. Let us not forget that, as an EU member, our Parliament scarcely debated these technical issues: they came down through delegated Acts from the European Commission, and there was no parliamentary scrutiny or involvement at all.

Indeed, in the context of the so-called Henry VIII powers, it is important to recognise that probably the largest Henry VIII power used in recent times was the European Communities Act 1972 itself, which used to change our primary legislation willy-nilly. Many of the changes we are making to primary legislation here are simply changing a reference from EU law to retained EU law, when the power itself was initially created by that 1972 Act. Let us recognise that, in bringing forward these statutory instruments, we are re-establishing parliamentary scrutiny to this area for the first time in almost half a century. I welcome that.

The hon. Gentleman asks how many of these statutory instruments the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has; he mentioned that there were over 300 in total. As he may know, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has 98 statutory instruments to get through. He asks when we will get those passed. We will do that by exit day on 29 March. We all recognise—and it has been speculated about—that, if necessary, Parliament may have to sit longer hours to ensure that we get this job done on time. But it is absolutely our plan and intention to lay all those 98 regulations, and to pass them in time for exit day on 29 March.

The hon. Gentleman asked about the grouping. There is a large number of these SIs, so it makes sense to group them. The methodology we are applying is simply to do with the similarity of subjects. I will explain this in the context of these SIs: had we laid the second SI that deals with directly applicable EU law in time, I probably would have advised that we group the two together. But in the event, that one was not laid before this one had a debating slot, so I said we should press ahead with this one anyway. The two go reasonably well together, however, and that is why I alluded to it in the first instance. One deals with directly applicable EU law and the other deals with consequential amendments to domestic EU law, particularly around enforcement. In all other areas, where they cover similar subjects but where—for good legal order—it makes sense to have them on separate orders, we are seeking to group those.

The hon. Gentleman also asked about the term “retained EU obligation” and wanted me to explain what that means. That meaning is set out clearly in schedule 8 to the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. On page 92, it defines a “retained EU obligation” as meaning an obligation that, first,

“was created or arose by or under the EU Treaties before exit day”

and, secondly,

“forms part of retained EU law”

as modified from that time. That interpretation was set out in the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, and that amendment made consequential changes to the Interpretation Act 1978. The legal understanding of a “retained EU obligation” is clear and already in statute, and therefore does not need to be addressed in this order.

The hon. Gentleman asks what we mean by “no impact”, and how we can possibly know that there is no impact, or no meaningful impact. I simply say this: it is because, right across the board, these statutory instruments are—by definition—about simply continuing, as far as we are able to, the legislative book that we have, so that on day one of leaving the European Union our legal book is exactly the same as it was on day one before we left, save that there will be different institutions and Government Ministers responsible for enforcing those.

The reason why we can confidently say that there will be no impact is that we seek to make no change with the regulations. On whether there will be any meaningful impact in some cases, one could argue that if someone was changing currency from euro to sterling, there might be some familiarisation issues. If one was changing the precise nature of what needs to be recorded on a particular piece of paper, there might be some mild familiarisation issues. We think that those will be negligible, but they are why we include the term “no significant impact”.

The hon. Gentleman asked about our scientific expertise. We will be re-joining the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea and will play a full part, as an independent coastal state, to develop science for our fisheries. It is also important to recognise that, although the European Union has a role in interpreting some of the science and making recommendations based on it, the collection of the science is done largely by CEFAS—our own fisheries science agency—through its survey vessels, such as the Endeavour, and through some of the other data that it captures. The collection of the raw data of the science is currently done by CEFAS, which is a world-leading agency. Indeed, it is probably the most important contributor to the EU understanding of fisheries science, and we will continue to have access to that after we leave.

The hon. Gentleman made a number of other points. He asked me to comment on coked-up eels in the Thames. Obviously, that is some way outside the scope of the regulations, but I am sure that we will be able to address the issue should it become a problem once we are an independent coastal state and can tackle such issues. Obviously, the report was a matter of some concern. He also asked specifically about the eel regulations and, in particular, why regulation 11 had been omitted. I am told that that was a time-limited provision applicable only in 2010, so it was therefore a redundant provision that it would have made no sense to keep in the SI.

[Luke Pollard]

Coked-up eels are an important issue, although I did seek to make light of it. There are two paragraphs in regulation 11 of the 2009 regulations, which was omitted. Paragraph (2) is the time-limited element and came to an end in 2010. Paragraph (1), however, did not. I would be grateful if the Minister asked his officials to look at the difference between paragraphs (1) and (2).

[George Eustice]

I will seek clarification and may get an update on the difference between paragraphs (1) and (2) before I conclude my comments.

The hon. Gentleman also made some comments about the replacement for the EMFF. As he will know, the Fisheries Bill, which we debated in Committee, creates the powers for us to issue grants to coastal communities and to fishermen to help them invest in more selective gear. It is absolutely our plan to replace the EMFF funds with future fisheries funds to support selective fishing and our coastal communities.

On pulse fishing, nothing has changed. Our intention is absolutely to bring a statutory instrument forward. Hon. Members will have noticed that these days, the House has a just-in-time delivery approach to legislation and agreements, but I absolutely stand by the undertaking that I gave.

Our intention is to lay the instrument during the month of January, but I will share it with the hon. Gentleman and with my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney, who tabled an amendment to the Bill on the matter, before the Bill reaches Report. I repeat that undertaking, which I gave to the hon. Gentleman, and I hope that we will lay that particular instrument before the end of the month. If we do not, because we are unable to achieve those best endeavours as we had hoped in December, we will nevertheless not move to Report until we have done so and the hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend have had an opportunity to debate it.

In conclusion, these amendments are simple but necessary to ensure that certain CFP and marine management measures continue to operate effectively and can be enforced after the UK leaves the EU. The technical connections to domestic legislation are important to enable the continued enforcement and maintenance of sustainable fisheries management in the UK. The instrument marks an important step towards having a cohesive statute book for exit day and provides us with a solid foundation.

--- Later in debate ---

[George Eustice]

What I will do is check the hon. Gentleman’s point and write to him. This is a point he has persisted with. I feel I have answered him, and from the notes I have seen, I am satisfied that the regulations address the two things and catch all the possibilities. I will double-check the specific point he makes just to ensure there are no omissions in the language.

I turn to the point that the shadow Minister raised about the all-important eels regulations. Regulation 11(1) states that it

“applies where the Agency determines that a reduction in the fishing effort for eels is required in order to comply with Article 5(4)”.

Article 5(4) is being deleted, because it relates to the setting up of eel management plans. That has already been completed. The two provisions are linked, in that one was effectively a requirement on the Environment Agency to determine those reductions, but that was in the context of the bit we deleted. Both become redundant, since they relate to one another.

In conclusion, we have had a comprehensive discussion on the regulations. I am grateful to Members for raising points of detail on them, which are important. The shadow Minister is right that we need to get it right. We have embarked on a huge endeavour.

[Luke Pollard]

Before the Minister sits down, will he address the point about parliamentarians having access to the pre-lay reading room? If he cannot answer that immediately, will he endeavour to write to us? An element of additional scrutiny is needed, especially considering the volume of SIs and the speed with which the Government intend to bring them forward. There is a lack of an opportunity to scrutinise. Scrutiny of SIs would normally happen every now and again, but in this time there is a risk of it happening every single day, and we may miss out on the opportunity. It should be made easier. Will the Minister endeavour to write to me?

[George Eustice]

The hon. Gentleman raises a valid point, but it goes beyond something I am able to agree here, since the Government across the board are looking at the issues and different Departments are approaching them in different ways. I will take away his suggestion.

The hon. Gentleman asked a question about stakeholders. We are fairly open to allowing them to come in and discuss any concerns they have with us. We have a comprehensive list of fisheries stakeholders, notably the green NGOs, which already attend a number of the events we have. All the fishing representative organisations are invited as well. I commend the regulations to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That the Committee has considered the draft Fisheries (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019.

Draft Floods and Water (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019

Luke Pollard Excerpts

Monday 28th January 2019 General Committees

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. I am only disappointed that there are no cameras in the Committee Room; the people who normally watch proceedings on parliamentlive.tv can only listen, and will miss out on the lovely little dogs that the hon. Member for Milton Keynes South has on his tie, and the lack of jacket of the hon. Member for Isle of Wight. Hopefully my carefully chosen water-themed jokes will get belly laughs from Members, rather than just smiles. [Interruption.] Thanks for the laughs.

In all seriousness, the purpose of the statutory instrument, as the Minister says, is to preserve and protect the existing EU policy regime, rather than introduce new policies. The Minister told us that all she is doing is transposing EU law into UK law, deleting “Europe” and inserting “UK”, and deleting “EU Commission” and inserting “Secretary of State”, and that we have nothing to worry about. The Opposition fear that that is simply not the case. We have seen with the Fisheries Bill that sometimes one thing is said, and another is done in practice, such as removing the date for achieving maximum sustainable yield while adding new objectives.

With today’s SI, we believe that the Government are again trying to pull the wool over our eyes. I am concerned, as are many environmental groups, that Ministers are picking and choosing, as we feared, which protections to keep and which to bin. We intend to vote against the motion, because the SI does not prevent a roll-back of environmental protections. It also lacks detail on transparency, impact assessments, reporting, governance and consultation.

I am concerned that we are being asked to wave through SIs at break-neck speed as we approach Brexit. They are starting to look a bit like a bad Brexit mash-up; pieces of EU legislation are left in or out at the Minister’s choosing, and many SIs are put together along vague themes, as we see today. The Opposition have serious concerns about the scale and pace at which the Government are ramming Brexit legislation through to minimise scrutiny. Since June 2018, 343 statutory instruments have been laid before Parliament. How many does the Minister expect to be completed by exit day on 29 March, and how many does she expect will relate to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs?

The SI deals with both flooding and water legislation. The typical length of an SI is 19 pages, yet this one is 27 pages. This single SI seeks to amend four pieces of primary legislation and 17 pieces of secondary legislation, and to amend or revoke five EU decisions. The Water Industry Act 1991 alone is 279 pages. We have only up to 90 minutes to scrutinise the changes made by the SI. I fear that the Minister is trying to cram too much in for consideration.

For the record, Labour believes that there is insufficient time for proper scrutiny of the SIs that the Government are introducing. We do not have time to review the SI line by line, and we cannot table any amendments, as many environmental stakeholders have asked us to. The Government expect us to wave through hundreds of such hurried SIs. We are expected not to make a fuss. If we asked for more time for scrutiny, we would somehow be accused of trying to block Brexit. Far from it. There is a deep irony: Brexit was sold to the country as a way of taking back control, but at every stage the Government have tried to thwart parliamentary scrutiny, and have loaded Committees such as this with a majority, even though they do not enjoy one in the House.

I worry whether the Minister has enough time in her schedule to review carefully all the SIs that her Department is seeking to introduce. I know that her colleague the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has two Bills as well as all his SIs. The Department has a considerable work load that risks SIs being accepted by the House without proper scrutiny. The hon. Lady should be prepared for me to ask a series of questions, and I am glad to see that she has her pen out already. I fear that she might not be able to answer some of them, and if that is the case I would be grateful if she and her officials prepared the answers and wrote to me.

It is the inconsistencies in the SI that worry me most. Greener UK has raised technical concerns about the wording, and I am sure the Minister is familiar with those. It is concerned about the compliance rules, which have been removed inconsistently. For example, measures required under the Water Environment (Water Framework Directive) (England and Wales) Regulations 2017 will no longer be in compliance with article 10 of the water framework directive, which covers issues such as the implementation of emission controls, emission limits and best environmental practices. At the same time, references to directives, such as those on integrated pollution prevention, urban waste water treatment, and protection against water pollution caused by nitrates from agricultural run-off have all been removed, seemingly without explanation.

Are arrangements for consulting non-governmental organisations in advance of the publication of SIs in place, and have they been used for these regulations? That process is meant to prevent such inconsistencies and omissions from creeping in. Does the Minister feel that those pre-scrutiny arrangements are working well for SIs? If so, how come so many inconsistencies need to be raised at this point? Will she publish the consultation feedback from the relevant bodies and the devolved Administrations that she mentioned earlier?

The key question Members must consider is whether the regulations enable a roll-back in environmental protections and set us up to fall behind current, and any future, EU standards. Lord Gardiner of Kimble, the DEFRA Minister in the Lords, said last week, as that House considered the SI:

“We will retain our rigorous parliamentary scrutiny and strong domestic legal framework for environmental protection, but we want to go further.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 22 January 2019; Vol. 795, c. 687.]

However, there is no requirement on the Government to transpose future European directives after exit day.

On water regulation, we have benefited over the years from robust EU regulation, which has helped drive up the quality of our drinking water, bathing waters and groundwater, something I know, as a Plymouth MP, from the improvements in quality we have seen in the far south-west. It is vital to hold on to those benefits for the future and not allow standards to fall back.

My noble colleague in the other place, Baroness Jones of Whitchurch, rightly said that the EU had saved the UK from

“our reputation as the ‘dirty man of Europe’”.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 22 January 2019; Vol. 795, c. 686.]

If we do not keep pace with Europe’s environmental legislation we risk reclaiming that title, and the dirty man of Europe runs the risk of becoming the sick man of Europe.

I have a number of concerns about the SI that represent roll-back in environmental protections, and I would be grateful if the Minister could address them. The Water Resources (Control of Pollution) (Silage, Slurry and Agricultural Fuel Oil) (England) Regulations 2010 are amended to allow products that are of an equivalent standard to the British standards to be installed. The amendments align our legislation with World Trade Organisation principles. Does she agree that moving from EU regulation to WTO principles would potentially be a downgrade for keeping pace with our EU standards in the future?

The SI applies to England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. Can the Minister confirm that it preserves the current devolution settlement and that all those devolved Assemblies have consented to all parts of the regulations? Some powers are extended to the UK and some to Great Britain. Can she set out what happens where there has been application to other parts but not to Northern Ireland, to ensure that we have complete coverage of the topics after the SI comes into effect?

I am concerned that insufficient care has been taken in the drafting of the document, which is, I believe, in part due to the sheer volume of work that DEFRA officials are confronted with. Proposed new schedule 5, part 1, paragraph 13 says to omit “Community, local and national” from paragraph 2, annex 4 of the water framework directive. However, that paragraph of the water framework directive says, “Community, national or local”. Does the Minister believe that the order of the words is important, and can she say what legal effect the different order and co-ordinating conjunctions may have?

In part 4 of the same schedule, paragraph 27 revokes a number of decisions, including EU decision 2455/2001, which establishes a list of priority substances in the field of water policy, Commission decision 2005/646 on the establishment of a register of sites to form the intercalibration network in accordance with directive 2000/60, and Commission implementing decision 2014/431 concerning formats for reporting on the national programmes to be implemented. Why has that legislation been retained only to be revoked, and what will replace those elements if nothing is offered in return? I understand revoking intercalibration and Commission reporting, but revocation of decision 2455/2001/EC on establishing a list of priority substances in the field of water policies appears to hack away at important rulings on water substances. Some stakeholders have raised concerns particularly about that element. Will the Minister confirm what consultation has taken place to ensure there is no roll-back of protections that will undermine environmental quality in that respect?

On the impact assessment—or lack of—the SI’s explanatory note states:

“There is no, or no significant, impact”,

but two points down it states,

“we expect it to have no impact”.

Is it no impact or no significant impact? If there is no impact, what assessment has taken place to establish whether it is no impact or no significant impact?

The note states that no impact assessment has been prepared to establish whether there is an impact or not. If there has been no impact assessment to establish where there has been no impact, can the Minister establish whether there is no impact or no significant impact, because the two things are different? It would be interesting to understand whether a pre-impact assessment has taken place to establish whether an impact assessment were necessary, because no impact and no significant impact are indeed two separate bits. This is the moment when Members are not supposed to smile—they are supposed to guffaw. [Laughter.] Thank you very much. However, a serious point is raised in terms of what level of pre-scrutiny has taken place to establish the measures in this SI.

The note also states that

“no review clause is required.”

Perhaps the Minister will think again about that, given the pace and scale at which these SIs are flying through our Parliament. This single SI seeks to amend four pieces of primary legislation and 17 pieces of secondary legislation, and there is no review clause and no sunset clause for review.

I also want to press the Minister on an odd choice of wording. Why does part 1 of proposed new schedule 5 state:

“Article 10 is to be ignored”,

and not omitted? That choice of language is used throughout the SI. It is the same for articles 12, 15, 24 and annex 1. Will she set out, especially for those listening at home, the difference between “omitted” and “ignored”? What does it mean for the courts, regulators and future Ministers? It is the same for paragraph 30 in part 3. Why are the articles to be ignored and not omitted? What is the Minister trying to bring about with that different use of language?

Paragraph 15 in part 1 states:

“Annex 6 is to be read as if Part A were omitted.”

What is the difference between something being omitted and something being read as if something were omitted? Why not simply omit them? Paragraph 14(e)(ii) states that annex 5, section 1.4.1, is to be read as if

“points (iv) to (ix) were omitted”.

Why does it not say they should be ignored?

In part 3, regulation 30 states:

“Article 6(1)(c) and (2)”

of the environmental quality standards directive “are to be ignored”. Why are those to be ignored and not omitted or read as if they were omitted? The detail really matters. I am tired of Brexit soundbites. I am talking about the detail of getting Brexit right. It is on those aspects of the difference in language that complications with the implementation and reporting of this SI could be caused in future legal cases.

Environmental stakeholders and colleagues in the other place have raised legitimate concerns about the lacklustre proposals that this SI sets out for reporting on transposed regulations. Part 3, paragraph 11(3)(d), states that

“the report is published in such manner as the Ministers consider appropriate.”

Can the Minister provide an example of what format she would consider appropriate in relation to that paragraph, and what criteria she would deem appropriate?

In part 3, on the Private Water Supplies (England) Regulations 2016 and “Reporting 21A”, what guidance has the Minister received to keep reporting on the quality of water for human consumption at a maximum of three years? Why not two or four?

In part 4, what additional funding will be given to the Environment Agency, the National Resources Body for Wales, the Scottish Environment Protection Agency, and Northern Ireland’s Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs to cope with the new demands? The Opposition welcome the fact that the draft SI introduces specific reporting requirements into domestic legislation and provides for reports to include the results of quality assessments and description of any measures taken or proposed to be taken. Frankly, we have concerns that the measure makes no provision for the reports to be reviewed or for any failures to be identified and addressed, as is currently required by the European Commission. That is important.

Environmental stakeholders have highlighted that the UK can grant several derogations under the directive. The draft statutory instrument provides for derogations to be decided and granted by the Secretary of State alone. At the moment, the Commission reviews such decisions and determines whether the application is valid, but there is no equivalent review process in the instrument—only a requirement to publish the grounds for the notification. Unless the Minister can suggest otherwise, that is a lowering of environmental oversight. The Opposition doubt that the mere act of publishing the reports will be sufficient to match the current level of scrutiny. We suggest that the statutory instrument, or a future one, should include a requirement for reports to be reviewed and assessed.

The statutory instrument also revokes the agreed format of reports for the European Commission on the urban waste water treatment directive. Will that be just an administrative change, as the Minister suggested, or will it change how data is transferred between devolved Administrations in the United Kingdom, or between us and our EU friends in relation to pollution controls across boundaries, or the system that UK regulatory bodies and commercial entities have invested in? In our view, the lack of reporting is too open to interpretation by the Secretary of State and by those preparing the reports, and it could contribute to reduced quality and less effective monitoring and scrutiny of important environmental commitments.

The statutory instrument contains examples of specific reporting requirements, such as regulation 7(3), which introduces regulation 12A into the Urban Waste Water Treatment (England and Wales) Regulations 1994 for situation reports every two years; regulation 15, which introduces regulation 15A into the Bathing Water Regulations 2013 for annual reports; and regulation 16, which introduces a new requirement to the Nitrate Pollution Prevention Regulations 2015 under regulation 40A for an implementation report every four years.

When we considered the Fisheries Bill in Committee, the then Minister quizzed me at length about why we were proposing an amendment of six years. That was a good question and I would like to turn it back to this Minister. Why are there different lengths of time for reporting? Have any changes been made in transposing them into the statutory instrument?

Environmental stakeholders have expressed concerns about the future reporting of the provisions. Is the Minister aware of those concerns? The statutory instrument has been through some form of consultation, but how far into the process was that—pre or post drafting? What changes did she make to address the valid concerns of stakeholders that have been expressed to me and, I am sure, to her?

When the statutory instrument was considered in the other place, Baroness McIntosh of Pickering expressed concerns about who will review the reports. Due to the lack of time, her question was not answered by the Minister there, so I would be grateful if this Minister set out her answer to that question. The baroness rightly said:

“although these reports are being made public, the draft statutory instrument makes no provision for these reports to be reviewed if any failures emerge from them. Such failures would currently be addressed by the European Commission…what body will deal with any future…failures?…What mechanism will there be to make sure that these are reviewed?”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 22 January 2019; Vol. 795, c. 681.]

It is up to the Secretary of State to indicate only what he or she deems an appropriate form of report and there is no requirement for any flaws to be dealt with subsequently. In the other place, Baroness Young said:

“The Government are not just filling in their own report card—they are designing their own report card”.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 22 January 2019; Vol. 795, c. 683.]

I could not have put it better myself. The lack of proper scrutiny of the reports is deeply worrying.

There is a real danger of a governance gap in this statutory instrument and many of the others that the Government are introducing. We are hurtling towards exit day on 29 March without the appropriate mechanisms in place for 30 March, as the statutory instrument may come into UK law before we have the new environmental regulator that the Secretary of State has announced. Does the Minister have a contingency plan for the gap between those two events? How does she plan to bridge the gap between us being released from the EU Commission’s oversight and the setting up of the new Office for Environmental Protection, especially in relation to the reports that I mentioned?

The instrument mentions the cross-border Solway Tweed river basin district and the Northumbria river basin district, with which I am sure we are all deeply familiar. Lord Gardiner of Kimble said,

“we have consulted with the devolved Administrations on the instrument, and they have given consent where appropriate.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 22 January 2019; Vol. 795, c. 678.]

As well as the devolved Administrations, what was the feedback from local councils on the draft instrument?

I also read in the debate in the other place that various environmental NGOs and others were given sight of the draft instrument before it was laid before Parliament. Peers asked if there was any opportunity to bring parliamentarians into this process, to which Lord Gardiner said that pre-laying scrutiny of statutory instruments by interested MPs was an “interesting and legitimate point”. Will the Minister consider adopting this sensible proposal, given the scale and pace at which the Government are pushing out these SIs? Every little helps, and given the mess that the draft SI is in, every little bit would certainly help it.

A common thread in the tidal wave of rushed SIs is the loss of the independent scientific expertise currently provided at the EU level. We are all aware that the Secretary of State is tired of experts, but important issues, such as the setting of water quality standards and acceptable nitrate levels, as well as advice on what is technically feasible and not disproportionately costly, depend on the advice of experts. It is crucial that this expertise remains robust and independent in the future, to avoid our risking not only an incorrect application of the law but the adequate protection of environmental standards.

For example, the water framework directive requires that any changes to standards, values, substance lists and best environmental practices should be made only in the light of expert advice. To what extent will UK law be meaningfully interpreted if we do not have those supporting mechanisms? What additional funding will be provided for scientific expertise following the loss of our access to EU scientific expertise, and does the Minister have any plans to increase science funding in that respect?

At the moment, we have access to Europe-wide research and analysis to shape our decisions on such things, but that will not necessarily be available to us in future. That point was made very well by my noble Friend Baroness Jones, who stated:

“While I do not doubt the expertise within our own scientific community, there are issues about the considerable extra workload, in terms of depth and quantity, that we will be placing on our own scientific advisers.” —[Official Report, House of Lords, 22 January 2019; Vol. 795, c. 687.]

I echo those concerns. What steps are being taken to ensure that scientific advice will be of the same technical and authoritative standard after we leave the European Union?

Opposition Members share concerns about unexplained changes to the UK’s legal framework. The draft SI sets out which aspects of key EU directives will continue to apply in future. Some key provisions have been retained, such as regulation 3 of the Water Environment (Water Framework Directive) (England and Wales) Regulations 2017. However, some parts of the directives that the UK must comply with are not considered in the draft instrument. While some of these removals are understandable, the reasons for other omissions are less obvious and even appear arbitrary, according to stakeholder feedback.

For example, measures required under the 2017 regulations, as well as specific regulations on Northumbria and the Solway Tweed river basin districts, will no longer need to comply with article 10 of the water framework directive, which requires our taking a combined approach in establishing and implementing emissions controls, relevant emission limit values and, in the case of diffuse impacts, controls including, as appropriate, best environmental practices. The reason for that is unclear. We are concerned that specific references to several highly relevant directives have been removed without explanation, including on integrated pollution prevention and control, urban wastewater treatment and the protection of water against pollution caused by nitrates from agricultural sources. Will the Minister explain on what basis elements of EU law have been retained or removed?

Unfortunately, time does not allow me to go into details of the eel management element of the draft instrument. However, I know that Members of all parties will be concerned about recent media reports of coked-up eels that have absorbed the cocaine that goes into the River Thames. That was not included in the draft instrument, but we forgive the Minister for that inadvertent oversight.

The Opposition have serious reservations about approving the draft instrument. I expect Government Members to vote for whatever they are told to, so I appeal not to their better judgment, but to that of the Government Whip, from whom they take their instructions. Because the Government have a compliant majority on the Committee, the draft instrument will probably be voted through; from the looks on the faces of Government Members, many just want the Committee to end. However, it should not be, as it is messy, open to serious concerns and does not adequately answer the concerns of stakeholders that I have set out.

We are worried about the Government’s cavalier approach to transposing current EU legislation. The SI attempts to do too much without careful consideration of the detail. It is only to be expected, given the Government’s sometimes cavalier approach to exiting the European Union, that we have such a messy SI in front of us. The Opposition find that this process of picking and choosing parts of EU law to keep and bin has been arbitrary. We have ended up with a pick-and-mix bag of laws that does not match the current standards of EU laws. That concern is shared by stakeholders. The draft SI falls short of preventing a roll-back on environmental protections. It falls short on transparency, in its impact assessments and on reporting, governance and consultation, and it lacks clarity on what is being changed or transposed. On behalf of those environmental stakeholders who have got in touch with the Opposition, I say that the SI is not good enough, so the Opposition will not support it.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Dr Thérèse Coffey)]

It is a pleasure to respond to the points made by the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport. I recognise that the hon. Gentleman wants to get into politics, and I am sure that the Labour Government in Cardiff will be disappointed to hear that the Westminster Labour Opposition have decided to vote against the SI to which the Welsh Government had consented and participated in drafting. I hope he will consider that carefully when he has the conversation with Lesley Griffiths to discuss their approach and why they do not believe the assurances given by the Welsh Labour Government.

I am conscious that a number of different words and terminology are used in the SI. I do not pretend to be a lawyer; I rely on my lawyers for that. I am pleased that we have got them here today to help answer many of the questions that the hon. Gentleman asked, but there are some procedural points for Parliament. First, the explanatory note states that

“no, or no significant, impact…is foreseen.”

I challenged my lawyers about it, but that is the wording that the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments stipulates for such instruments. I wanted to remove the words “or no significant”, so that the wording would read “no impact”, but the procedures of both Houses did not allow me to take that approach. Further examples of wording decreed by the JCSI will continue to arise in every statutory instrument that we lay before Parliament.

The hon. Gentleman asked for clarity on some other legal elements, particularly with respect to the words “omitted” and “ignored”. The Government have adopted the drafting approach of using the word “omit” in reference to UK regulations that we are amending, but “ignore” in reference to EU directives that we are modifying. It would not surprise me if hon. Members wanted even more clarity, so I am happy to send a note to Committee members to set out the matter in more detail. The draft regulations use legislative wording in a technical format to ensure consistency; I will not pretend that every piece of legislative phrasing will necessarily be what we would use in general speech.

The hon. Gentleman spoke about stakeholders. I have to say that the document from Greener UK and Wildlife and Countryside Link was brought to my attention only today. Our reading room system, which is also available online, is open to a number of stakeholders, including stakeholders from Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, so that they can see our statutory instruments and comment on them. No stakeholder made any comment about the draft regulations, so the concerns raised today by the Opposition come as news to me, but I hope to address them.

The hon. Gentleman spoke in detail about how there will be no requirement to transpose future EU directives. He described that as a problem with the draft regulations, but the point is that we are leaving the European Union, so we will not be subject to future European directives as we have been before. It will be for this Parliament to decide what changes and enhancements to make to our environmental standards.

I assure the hon. Member for Bassetlaw that the draft regulations are not about trying to roll back or do different things; they are about ensuring that the law that we have today will still work on the day after we leave.

With respect to scientific expertise, updates and so on, it is fair to say that the United Kingdom has a strong record of contributing to EU-wide research. It is my understanding that the research used by the Commission is publicly available, so it will be open to us to use research shared across the European Union about any changes made, as well as research available domestically. I do not think that there will be an extra onus on advisers beyond what there is today. We work with other member states of the European Union when we are considering making changes to regulations, and I expect that that will still be the case.

The Greener UK briefing—which, as I say, was not presented to the Government with any questions in advance of this Committee—refers to article 20 of the water framework directive, which permits certain technical annexes and articles to be adapted by the European Commission based on scientific and technical progress. The concern has been raised that such powers will somehow no longer be in place. The power will be transferred to the Secretary of State and to Ministers in the devolved Administrations in a future DEFRA cross-cutting statutory instrument that will be entitled Transfer of Functions (Environment Directives) (EU Exit) (Miscellaneous Amendments). That instrument will be made under the affirmative procedure, but we deem that the functions that it transfers—including the function in question—are not time-critical for day one. We would be aware today of any changes that the European Commission proposed to make through the European Parliament and the European Council. No such change has been proposed at this stage; therefore, that function does not need to be ready for day one. We believe that laying the SI before Parliament in April will give us the powers and functions necessary for the future.

The hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport referred to WTO rules. I assure the Committee that this is about WTO rules that say, “You cannot treat one country differently from another.” The SI is about making that change. As it stands, standards in the United Kingdom are the same as in the rest of the European Union. We are bringing over those standards, and it will be for the United Kingdom to decide what standards are appropriate in the future. I remind the Committee that there are a number of differences, albeit not in this case, between us and most of the European Union, such as the way we treat electricity and our plug system. That does not mean that we will make big changes going forward, or would make them for the WTO.

I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman is right about insufficient care in drafting. I believe that we have covered the points that he made on the intercalibration network. The reality is that that work has already been done. It will not be done again; we do not see the need. As I said, the Scottish Government, the Welsh Government and directors on behalf of the Northern Ireland Administration agreed to revoke that decision, as well as to make some other changes.

On different levels of reporting—on whether reporting should be every three years, five years or two years—the point is that we are not changing what we have to do today. If we decide in the future that we want to change the reporting cycles, we can, but we will not do it through this legislation. We will bring over what we have to today, and that will become the requirement from day one.

I do not think that there is a need to introduce a review clause, or a sunset clause for review of any of the regulations. That would add unnecessary uncertainty—and, by the way, I would then be in contravention of what statutory instruments are allowed to do under the European Union (Withdrawal) Act, which allows me to make regulations only so that the system is operable, not to introduce new conditions. We are not trying to change stuff for the future; we are actually trying to keep it the same.

On the governance gap, the hon. Gentleman will be conscious of the draft clauses that the Government have tabled. So far, only in England is a proposal in place for a similar body to the European Commission in terms of scrutiny and powers. Other Governments will have to make their own decisions. Although Northern Ireland is interested in consulting on having an office for environmental protection, alongside that for England, we have not been advised by either the Welsh or the Scottish Government that they would like to do the same as us.

The hon. Gentleman asked why the amendment to annex IV of the water framework directive omits the words “Community, local and national” from the annex. The annex states:

“The summary of the register required as part of the river basin management plan shall include maps indicating the location of each protected area and a description of the Community, national or local legislation under which they have been designated.”

Such a description is required because that information would be pertinent to the European Union; it is not necessary in our domestic legislation.

I understand what the hon. Gentleman said about derogations. It is important to state that the Commission does not decide about a derogation; my understanding is that it will give advice. The Secretary of State will take over any function that the Commission has in relation to derogations; as now, they will continue to make decisions on derogations by considering the evidence against specific criteria. Those criteria are being brought into domestic law through the SI, both for drinking water and for nitrates. The basis for decisions will remain the same.

On drinking water, the United Kingdom has used derogations in the past. In England, the last one to be granted was in 2006 for a period of one year. I believe that it is fair to say that the UK has extremely high-quality drinking water, and we can meet all the standards in the drinking water directive. For that reason, we do not intend to use, or envisage using, the derogative provision in the future. With regard to nitrates derogations, the Secretary of State is required to publish on a regular cycle an explanation of why they have been allowed. For drinking water, the water supplier must publish the information; that will continue.

In my opening comments I went into some detail about why we have made changes to article 10. I explained to the Committee that the directives linked to article 10 have already been brought into UK law. I also explained to the Committee that if we do not do it this way, we will have even longer SIs, and more of them, to deal with those cross-cutting references. We believe that it is straightforward—I appreciate that not everybody is an environment lawyer—to make these changes. Greener UK did not raise this point with the Government before it published its concerns just a couple of days ago. I am very happy to take those away and explain to it why what we have done absolutely keeps our current obligations in our transposed law.

[Luke Pollard]

The example the Minister has just given sums up perfectly the concern that environmental stakeholders have about the volume of SIs coming out. Perhaps the Minister could reassure stakeholders that there will be additional scrutiny of future SIs, in order to give them, the Opposition and parliamentarians the chance to review properly what is being proposed.

[Dr Coffey]

As I say, the reading room—the pre-legislative procedure—is deliberately open to stakeholders. I shall take away the hon. Gentleman’s request for pre-access for Members of Parliament; I am not aware of that being the normal procedure, but I am very happy to check that. In essence, stakeholders did not share any of these concerns with the Government, even though they saw the regulations a week before they were laid before Parliament, which is why those concerns came as a surprise.

It is important to state that the reports that we will publish will be exactly what is provided for in current legislation. On formatting, we must recognise that the Commission puts forward proposals for 28 EU member states; we will be reporting on something that is fit for the United Kingdom. As for other nations in the UK, my expectation is that when we try to agree common frameworks, which we are starting to do, we will have regard to each other in how we go about reporting on different elements. At the moment, no change is required; the regulations just stop us from having to change our reporting in future if the European Commission decides to do something for the EU27, should we not think it necessary to change our reporting format. This will kind of ensure that we are not locked into certain aspects of the EU’s operational activities when we are no longer part of it.

I hope that I have answered a number of questions from the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport. I am conscious that the legal wording can get rather technical, but I believe that the regulations do exactly what they say on the tin: they bring over the regulations that are required to ensure that the day after exit, things operate just as they did the day before—no more and no less. Otherwise I would have been breaking the Ministerial Code when I signed the transparency statement. There is no change in policy; the regulations are simply technical. I therefore encourage the hon. Gentleman to reconsider voting against the regulations. I point out that the Labour-run Welsh Government and the Scottish Government, run by the Scottish National party, have both endorsed this SI.

Question put.

Water Industry

Luke Pollard Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd January 2019 Westminster Hall

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

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow West (Gareth Thomas). As a Labour and Co-operative Member of Parliament, I listened intently to what he had to say with great interest and much nodding. He has been a real champion of the Co-operative movement over many years. My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North West (Alex Sobel) and I, as young Co-operative MPs in this place, have a lot to learn about the championing of the Co-operative cause from the Obi-Wan Kenobi of the Co-op party— my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow West.

This debate has long been due. As someone who has worked for a water company, I believe we do not talk enough about water policy in this place; we need to talk more about it if we are to meet our Paris climate change commitments to create a fundamentally sustainable water industry, in terms of water usage, the chemicals used in it, and the contribution to the natural world.

Clearly, some serious and genuine concerns are being raised by members of the public and Opposition Members about the way that our privatised water system is run. The privatisation of water has not worked to deliver the benefits that it should in 2019. Too much money is being paid out in dividends and not enough investment is being made in fixing leaks and reducing water usage. Not enough is being spent on climate change mitigation or fundamentally fixing the broken system. We need better water resilience and better value for money for our customers.

The water companies are only part of that. My hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (John Grogan) was right when he talked about the need to look at regulation as well. I am certain that he and the right hon. Member for Newbury (Richard Benyon) will read carefully the water policies that I hope to publish, as Labour’s shadow water Minister, in the next couple of months. They will describe how we should deal with the fact that we need a better, reformed system, and additional policy levers to address climate change.

[Richard Benyon]

Can the hon. Gentleman give us a taster of those policies by saying whether he will compensate shareholders for the £90 billion that they own, and where he will find the money?

[Luke Pollard]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that. As his intervention came only on page 1 of my 12-page speech, perhaps he is pre-empting some of it. I suggest that he looks at the proposals that the shadow Chancellor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), and the shadow Business Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Salford and Eccles (Rebecca Long Bailey), have published that talk about replacing the share capital ownership with bonds. There are already details of that available.

It is important to consider the debate in context, because large parts of the UK, as well as the rest of the world, are experiencing a water crisis. We like to think of England as a notoriously damp place where water is plentiful, but that is not the case for large parts of the country. We need to recognise that England is in fact in the lower quartile globally of available water resource per capita. More people are living in areas of water stress, and more population growth and house building is planned in areas of water stress—especially in the east of England, London and the south-east of England; we will need to not only reduce water use but transfer more water there. That suggests that we need a different system to handle some of those challenges.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley hinted, droughts cause hundreds of millions of pounds of damage, and have led to hundreds of thousands of fish dying from over-abstraction and to serious decline in our wetland species. Sewage has also been pumped into our rivers. It is worth saying that thankfully that is less common than it was. Indeed, when I was a boy growing up in the west country, at one of our glorious beaches, swimming past floating turds was commonplace. It is not anymore, thanks to the investment that has been made, but more needs to be done on that with regard to our rivers. [Interruption.] The right hon. Member for Newbury throws his hands in the air, but bill payers in the far south-west know about that investment, because we paid for it with what for many years were the highest bills in the entire country—not just a wee bit higher, but double the nearest amount. We have paid for what has gone out in dividends, as well as for what has gone into the system.

We need better water resilience, because there is simply more demand. The latest statistics show that there will be 4.1 million more people in the south-east by 2045, and by 2080 there could be an extra 10 million. We need to think about how to deal with the amount of water used, where it comes from and how it is treated, to ensure that we minimise the effect on our climate. We are also facing increased flooding. That context is really important; it is why we need more debates about the structure and operation of our water industry, and why today’s debate is so important.

I have to say that we have seen moves in the right direction under this Government, but they frequently come from DEFRA press office announcements rather than from policies being fully implemented. I do not think that Ministers are cranking the handle sufficiently to achieve the change that could be delivered to our water industry if we showed greater concern about pricing and about investment in climate change, flood and drought mitigation. We know that more can be done, because in the latest round of price reviews and business plans, companies have published proposals that hint at a slow move in the right direction. One such proposal, which I am sure my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow West will have seen, is in the south-west: South West Water has proposed an element of mutual shareholding as part of its wider ownership base. If it can be done in the west country, it can be done elsewhere, so that could be encouraged as part of the wider debate.

Labour’s water proposals are pretty clear—and pretty popular, as it happens. Some companies have engaged in good practice, but not enough; as the right hon. Member for Newbury says, there are bad players and bad behaviour in our industry. Thames Water is the poster child for such bad behaviour, but sadly it is not the only one. We need better regulation and better ownership, so Labour has set out plans to take our water companies back into public ownership.

I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington and my hon. Friend the Member for Salford and Eccles for putting together Labour’s clear water proposals, which set out our plan for public ownership of water companies. As our September 2018 booklet “The Green Transformation” states,

“Labour will…bring water back into democratic public ownership, lowering bills and providing levels of investment needed to drastically reduce leakage and tackle major sewage pollution incidents, which are still rising.”

I absolutely agree with the right hon. Member for Newbury that we need to guarantee the investment stream. There is a role for investment in our water companies, but our proposal is that the role of private ownership should come to an end.

Our “Clear Water” plan states:

“To ensure maximum openness, transparency and scrutiny, RWA boards will have a statutory duty to make information widely available and hold monthly public meetings in different locations each month. Meetings will also be broadcast live on the internet and all papers will be made public.”

Many good lessons can be learned from the operation of mutuals about how customers and employees can be brought into running better businesses. My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North West said it well: we need better value from our water industry. We also need to look at regulatory responsibility. Our plan further states:

“Regulatory responsibility…will be absorbed into Defra, which will form a new public regulatory system in the form of a National Water Agency responsible for economic and performance standards and capacity-building.”

As we get closer to publishing further details, more information will become available.

Labour is suggesting that our new water system needs to consider sustainability and the public interest, not just private profit. The shadow DEFRA team is exploring what other water policies should accompany our proposal, so that we can tackle climate change, flooding, water scarcity, water usage, water pollution from plastics and microplastics, lead pipes—an issue of particular interest in some parts of England—and water affordability. When the next election comes—many suspect that that will be very soon—our manifesto will offer a full suite of policies not only on public ownership, but on a better system.

I am aware that the Minister needs to sum up soon. This has been a good debate, and I hope there will be many more to come as we make our case. The hon. Member for Taunton Deane (Rebecca Pow), who is no longer in her place, spoke very well about the need to address personal water consumption—one of the reasons I carry around my own water bottle, rather than using the House of Commons’s supply of bottled water. Indeed, it seems ironic that in a debate about the water industry, we are still using bottled water in this place, so perhaps the House authorities could look at that. We can all do things to address the challenge in our water industry. Ownership, management and our own consumption are all part of the mix.

Fisheries Bill (Ninth sitting)

Luke Pollard Excerpts

Committee Debate: 9th sitting: House of Commons
Monday 17th December 2018 Public Bill Committees

[Mr Carmichael]

Indeed, Mr Hanson. I will simply say this: not only from the point of view of those of us who represent fishing communities, but from the point of view of Parliament as a whole, it will do no harm for MPs to be seen at least in this regard as behaving like mature grown-ups.

The Committee will be aware that clause 23 seeks to introduce a discard prevention charging scheme for those who, for whatever reason, have taken over-quota fish. The amendments try to add a little more focus to that. Amendment 103 allows for the money taken from these finds to be ring-fenced and a specific purpose for the money to be identified. The specific purpose that I have in mind relates to fisheries management, conservation, and perhaps maritime or marine environmental schemes—measures of that sort. Given the general nature of the Bill, and with a view to the durability of the legislation, we have not sought to tie the hands of any future Minister with regard to what that specific purpose might ultimately be. It is a fairly novel approach to a scheme of this sort, but it is not without precedent.

The precedent that springs most readily to mind is the aggregates levy, which allowed money to be ring-fenced for spending in communities situated next to aggregate excavation quarries because they were in some way affected by the industry. It would be a very good signal to send, and such a measure would bring about a bit of confidence in the industry itself with regard to how the discard prevention charging scheme is administered.

Amendment 104 would make provision for an annual review to account for the money raised and how it has been spent. That would follow on naturally from amendment 103—if the Committee were minded to incorporate such a measure. It is an important point, but not one that at this stage, subject to what I might hear from the Minster, I intend to push to a vote.

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

It is good to see everyone back here. I think we all agree that discards should be prevented, and we all want more sustainable forms of fishing, but the discard ban that will kick in on 1 January worries fishers from Cornwall and Plymouth to Peterhead and Fraserburgh. They worry that their boats will be tied up because the ban will prevent them from going to sea.

We need a system that prevents discards and means fish caught without a quota are not wasted, chucked overboard or discarded. We heard in our evidence sessions from Aaron Brown of Fishing for Leave, who feels there are major problems with this part of the Bill. Helen McLachlan, and Debbie Crockard of the Marine Conservation Society, referred to the uncertainty about the consequences—intended and, importantly, unintended —of the scheme. Even Dr O’Brien did not entirely convince us that he knew how the scheme would work.

The amendments tabled by the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland seem entirely sensible, but we are not convinced that the Government have suddenly found the right answer. It undermines this enabling Bill to set out the scheme in such detail without any scope for piloting or consultation to see what works and to develop the detail of the scheme in collaboration with fishers and marine conservation organisations.

I therefore would be grateful if the Minister answered a few questions about this part of the Bill. Where did the basis for the scheme come from? Are there any precedents in other countries? What evidence did the Department draw on when designing the scheme? What industry views were sought, what opinions were given, and how were they taken into account? Why does the Department consider that it is not appropriate to conduct a pilot or trial to test the key elements of the scheme before it is enshrined in primary legislation? Under the scheme, what will happen to the fish that are landed? How will the Department avoid requiring fishers to go to and from harbour to land fish, thereby increasing their carbon footprint?

[The Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (George Eustice)]

It is, perhaps, pertinent that the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland raised the December Council, since it will be dominated by the issue of choke species and making the discard ban work in practice. I can briefly reassure him that I joined our delegation by conference call at eight this morning and again at two, and I plan to be on the first train out there tomorrow, when the substantive negotiations will take place. In the meantime, my noble Friend Lord Gardiner is covering proceedings.

We looked at the idea of a discard prevention charging scheme because we all know, as we approach the final year of the landing obligation, that there are challenges with making it work as far as choke species are concerned. The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport, asked whether there is precedent for such a scheme. Iceland and New Zealand both have similar schemes, with a kind of overage charge.

I was attracted to that idea because it is rather similar to what we did when we first introduced dairy quotas. Initially, if a farmer went over his quota for milk production, he had to pour the milk down the drain—he could not sell it at all. The super levy was then developed, which meant he could sell it but there would be no economic value to him for producing it. We seek to do something similar here. We will establish a national reserve of quota to underpin the discard prevention charge. Rather than coming up with lots of complex rules, like we have now, to try to find exemptions or other de minimis ways of managing the discard ban, we want to ensure that there is no financial incentive for fishermen to target those fish. However, we do not want to prevent them from landing those fish should they run into stocks they had sought to avoid.

The shadow Minister also asked about consultation. This idea was set out in some detail in our White Paper. Since the White Paper was published, my officials have travelled the country—they have visited fishing communities from Newlyn right up to the north of Scotland—to talk to the industry about the plans we have outlined. I think it is fair to say that the industry recognises that there are many challenges with making the discard ban and the landing obligation work in practice as well as in theory. That is why it is open to this approach, which has a proven track record in some countries.

Finally, the shadow Minister mentioned that we had put the scheme in the Bill without having a pilot or any detailed consultation. I reassure him that clause 23(1) is clear that this will be done through regulations. Before we lay those regulations, we absolutely will consult thoroughly with the industry to ensure that we get the scheme design right. I also reassure him that it is absolutely my intention that we will pilot the scheme before rolling it out nationally. It is obviously quite an important policy and will be quite an important departure from the scheme we have now, and we want to make sure that we have the design right. I hope that, having given that reassurance, the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland will not feel the need to press the amendments to a vote.

--- Later in debate ---

[Peter Aldous]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hanson. The amendments are more of the probing variety and are not quite as intimidating and long as they might appear. They relate to clauses 24 and 29, which concern the charging arrangements for the administration of the disposal of English fishing opportunities.

I seek to address three issues through this group of amendments. First, I would add to the marine functions for which charges can be made. Secondly, I would expand the provisions to allow inshore fisheries and conservation authorities, not only marine management organisations, to recoup costs. Thirdly, while the level of charges is not likely to be great, I think it would be appropriate, wherever possible, to direct these funds to preserving English fisheries for future generations.

This particular group of amendments would allow IFCAs, not only the MMO, to recoup costs. I would welcome clarification from the Minister on whether it is appropriate to add IFCAs to the clause. If he does not think that it is, I seek his assurance as to why.

[Luke Pollard]

I will be brief. The hon. Member for Waveney raises some good points. I asked for further clarity on the role of IFCAs previously, because it seems to be an area that is missing from large parts of the Bill. I would be grateful if the Minister responds to that.

[George Eustice]

To reassure my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney, we have not included IFCAs in the clause in the way that his amendments suggest, in common with similar amendments that he has tabled, because IFCAs do not have any role in quota management. It is not appropriate for them to be covered by this clause, which is explicitly in relation to the discard prevention charge.

IFCAs do not carry out the functions for which we want the MMO to charge. In essence, the funding mechanisms for IFCAs are also different from the MMO. IFCAs are funded by a levy charged to their sponsoring local authorities. They receive around £8.7 million for that. Local authorities have a legal duty to pay the levy. Recovered courts costs awarded from successful prosecutions also appear as revenues. IFCAs are encouraged to explore ways of supplementing their income by creating commercial revenues—through survey work, for example. Their funding model is very different. They have no role in quota management and it is not appropriate to bring them within the scope of these clauses.

--- Later in debate ---

[George Eustice]

Clause 27 is about supplementary provisions. It includes provisions for a discard prevention charging scheme to include provisions for unpaid charges to be recovered as a debt, for masters of fishing boats to be jointly liable with licence holders for charge payments, and for how charge collectors must manage the receipt of charges. It also allows the Secretary of State to exercise discretion in the functioning of the scheme and to delegate any of their functions under the scheme. The clause provides necessary detail on the scheme to ensure its proper functioning.

[Luke Pollard]

I am grateful to the Minister for setting that out. I have a question for him on this scheme, in relation to equal access and shared access to waters. He is setting out a scheme for English fisheries, but could he set out what happens in the event of a fishing boat leaving English waters and travelling through to Scottish waters, for instance, and there being discards en route at some location between? Is there a way of meshing this together perfectly with what happens with a Scottish discard scheme to ensure that there are no loopholes because of the transition between two national fisheries areas?

[George Eustice]

The shadow Minister makes an important point. As I have said all along, this Bill tries to sit within our somewhat complex devolution settlement. I will make two points. First, Scotland is facing exactly the same challenges that we in England are facing, with regard to making the discard ban work in practice as well as in theory. From discussions with officials, I am aware that the Scottish Government are interested in looking at a similar scheme for fishermen in Scotland. It may be that this is something we can work on together across the UK.

Secondly, to answer the hon. Gentleman’s specific point about how we would deal with catches, some of which might have been caught in Scotland and some of which might have been caught in England, we have quite a detailed system of catch reporting. They have to log catches. We have vessel monitoring systems so that we know where vessels are catching fish. We have trained operators in our control room in Newcastle who monitor fishing patterns and can identify suspicious behaviour, such as a fishing vessel fishing in one area and then driving around to pretend it has fished in another, and we have ways of reconciling fishermen’s landing records with their catch records to ensure that we can manage this as an England-only scheme, should that be necessary.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 27 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 28

Financial assistance: powers of Secretary of State

[Luke Pollard]

I beg to move amendment 108, in clause 28, page 16, line 25, at end insert—

“(f) the gathering of scientific data relating to fishing, including but not limited to carrying out stock assessments, vessel monitoring and recording fishing catches.”

This amendment would enable financial assistance to be provided for scientific data collection.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 98, in clause 29, page 17, line 21, at end insert—

“(e) commissioning scientific research to support—

(i) fish stock management, food security and biodiversity, and

(ii) the development of low impact fishing techniques.

(f) any other administrative function relating to fisheries management.”

Amendment 109, in clause 31, page 18, line 24, at end insert—

“(d) the gathering of scientific data to inform management of fish stocks.”

This amendment would add scientific data collection to the conservation purpose for which Clause 31 enables the Secretary of State to make regulations.

New clause 21—Proceeds of charges and fees—

“(none) Any proceeds or charges received by the Secretary of State, the Marine Management Organisation or any Inshore Fisheries and Conservation Authority pursuant to sections 22, 23 or 29(3) shall be used to preserve the English fishery for future generations, which shall include—

(a) the commissioning of scientific research to support effective stock management and biodiversity;

(b) the commissioning of scientific or technical research into, and the development of, low impact fishing techniques;

(c) the administrative functions relating to fisheries management of the Secretary of State, the Marine Management Organisation and the Inshore Fisheries and Conservation Authorities; and

(d) such other objectives as may be set out in a JFS or SSFS.”

[Luke Pollard]

Amendment 108 would make it possible to provide funding for data collection, scientific research and better vessel monitoring. Just about everyone in this debate supports better data. Fishers would like the opportunity to prove that they are behaving sustainably and that there are more fish in the water than the scientists say. It would be money well spent, given the extra potential revenue if fisheries were recovered to their optimum economic output.

UK seas have historically been an abundant source of food, income and employment, but they are failing to meet their full potential. Government figures show that two thirds of our main commercial fish stocks are depleted, overfished or at risk of being depleted, or their status is unknown. With better scientific understanding of our fish stocks and the impact of fishing, fisheries management would be more effective, helping stocks to recover and our marine ecosystem to flourish.

Funding data collection makes good economic sense because the cost of stock assessments is very reasonable. Sustain calculates an initial cost of £190 million and then £19 million annually to assess all deficient stocks. Conservative estimates suggest that would catch £150 million more fish in the UK if all stocks were managed at their economic optimum. Better data could allow management to be more precise and responsive. It could give fishers the evidence that they argue for, for increased catches where sustainability is proven.

Data deficiency is a significant issue for the UK fishing fleet. Poor data is affecting the management of commercial opportunities for the most important species in the UK. As we heard in our evidence sessions, data deficiency is one of the main reasons why much of the fish caught in UK waters cannot be marketed as sustainable. For fishing to be sustainable there must be sufficient understanding of the population of the targeted species, and of the impact of fishing and/or the status of the sea floor ecosystems. Without that data, boats can be considered ineligible for Marine Stewardship Council certification, or receive a lower rating on the Marine Conservation Society’s “Good Fish Guide”. With better data, more UK fisheries would be eligible for sustainability certification, or would receive a better rating from the MCS. That would allow them access to the best markets for fish, including UK public sector catering.

In a recent report, Sustain found that UK fisheries are not verifiably sustainable and are losing out on millions of pounds’-worth of business, because companies look abroad for fish that meet their sustainable buying policies. Data deficiency particularly disadvantages small-scale fleets—80% of the stocks targeted by the large industrial fleet have stock assessments, whereas only 12% of those targeted by small-scale English fleets have adequate data to achieve sustainability certification. It is unfair on smaller boats if, even when they fish sustainably, they are unable to prove it. That is why amendment 108 would include the gathering of scientific data on fishing in the key provisions of the Bill. Amendment 109 would amend clause 31 to make

“the gathering of scientific data to inform management of fish stocks”

an additional conservation purpose under the Bill. So data collection and data deficiency would be dealt with in those two separate areas.

[Peter Aldous]

I want to speak to amendment 98 and new clause 21. The amendment would make two additions to the list of what are called “relevant marine functions”, for which charges can be made. The first addition, following on from the remarks of the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport, would be the commissioning of

“scientific research to support…fish stock management, food security and biodiversity”.

Improving our science is very important. Secondly, the amendment would add a general

“administrative function relating to fisheries management”.

New clause 21 sets out three uses for which the proceeds could be used: the commissioning of scientific research to support effective stock management and biodiversity; the commissioning of scientific research into the development of low-impact fishing techniques; and

“the administrative functions relating to fisheries management of the Secretary of State, the Marine Management Organisation and the Inshore Fisheries and Conservation Authorities”.

It is important to incentivise the collection of scientific data and research so as to support fish stock management and biodiversity. Fisheries science and accurate data are essential, as things move forward, to put fisheries management on to an effective footing that will be sustainable in the long term. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s plans for that.

--- Later in debate ---

Therefore, I understand the important point that the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport and my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney are making—we do need to fund science—but I do not think that it is appropriate to put that in these particular clauses. However, it is something that we are absolutely committed to doing. Indeed, I hope that when we consider the Bill on Report I will be able to give more information on how we intend to focus the discard prevention levy or charge and any moneys raised from the tender of future fishing opportunities to support this scientific objective.

[Luke Pollard]

I must say that I am troubled by a number of things that the Minister has said in his response. Given that the Government have not yet committed to replacing every single penny within the EMFF funding for our coastal communities, I do not think that we should base opposition to this amendment on trust that Treasury Ministers will side with us when it comes to delivering out the pennies because, quite simply, I do not trust the Treasury to fund our fishery science sufficiently on this issue. That is why an amendment that would provide for the Secretary of State to give factual assistance on the basis of supporting science is an absolutely key part of this process, because it would send a message about the tone and clarity that the Government are seeking to create that the funding of fishery science, the funding of stock levels and the funding of the ability to address data deficiency is a key priority.

We have already heard that there are a number of aspects to the Bill that are troubling in relation to the lack of clarity on data funding, and I have to say that I found the Minister’s reply unconvincing. I am glad that he is considering bringing elements back on Report, because clearly there is a problem here that he and his team have highlighted. I think this area is very important, so I will not withdraw the amendment.

Question proposed, That the amendment be made.

Division 12

Question accordingly negatived.

Ayes: 6

---

Labour: 5
Liberal Democrat: 1

Noes: 9

---

Conservative: 9

[Luke Pollard]

I beg to move amendment 111, in clause 28, page 16, line 25, at end insert—

“(1A) The Secretary of State must conduct a consultation on exercising the power to give financial assistance under subsection (1) to promote the development of sustainable public access to recreational fishing opportunities for the fish catching sector and leisure and tourism industries, taking into account socio-economic factors.”

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 25—Recreational fishing—

“(1) When any provision of this Act, including provisions inserted into other Acts by this Act, requires or permits the Secretary of State to consult with any person considered appropriate, the Secretary of State must consult with persons representing the practice of recreational fishing.

(2) The Secretary of State shall publish an annual report providing an assessment of the extent to which the provisions of this Act have—

(a) promoted recreational fishing, and

(b) had economic benefits attributable to the promotion of recreational fishing by the provisions of this Act.

(3) The first report under subsection (2) shall be published no more than 12 months after this section comes into force.”

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to consult on providing financial assistance for the promotion of recreational fishing, and to include representatives of recreational fishing when conducting a consultation under any other provisions of the Bill.

[Luke Pollard]

On Second Reading, I said that recreational fishing is entirely absent from the Bill at a meaningful level and that is not good enough. Recreational fishing is a vibrant, growing and important part of our coastal communities and needs due recognition by Ministers in the Fisheries Bill. Labour’s proposals are designed to give recreational fishing the prominence that a sector of this economic size deserves.

In the evidence session held by the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on Wednesday, Martin Salter from the Angling Trust talked about the vital economic link between recreational angling and coastal communities. The Bill is an opportunity to drive and create greater economic activity in our coastal communities. Mr Salter mentioned the booming recreational fishing sectors of Cape Cod and Florida, which are worth billions of dollars, as examples of what could be achieved in coastal communities in the UK. Wealth generated by recreational fishing boosts other industries such as tourism, including the bed-and-breakfast trade and all other aspects of hospitality and tourism.

Coastal communities depend on economic activity generated by the recreational fishing industry, but for recreational fishing to thrive and have a positive impact on our coastal communities, the industry needs investment, sustainable waters and healthy fish stocks. Amendment 111 would bring recreational angling within the new Government grants that will replace the European maritime and fisheries fund. The UK was allocated £190 million of EMFF funding for 2014 to 2020. It is vital that every penny from the EMFF be matched after we leave the European Union, but, sadly, Ministers have made no such commitment to date.

As well as the economic importance of recreational fishing to coastal communities, this activity plays a big part in the culture of those communities. Sea angling brings with it many social and health and wellbeing benefits. For children and young people, it is often their first experience of interacting with the natural world. The Bill must give us the ability to support recreational fishing. It could provide opportunities for young people to get involved in recreational fishing and encourage them to pursue a career or lifelong hobby in this sector. Nurturing this industry is crucial, because we know that that could lead to a renaissance of our coastal communities.

“Sea Angling 2012”, the study of recreational sea angling carried out by the Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science for the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, shows that total resident sea angler spending in 2012 was estimated to be £1.23 billion, equivalent to £831 million of direct spending, excluding imports and taxes. That directly supported 10,400 full-time jobs and almost £360 million of gross value added. The total economic impact was £2.1 billion of spending, supporting 23,600 full-time equivalent jobs and almost £980 million of GVA once indirect and induced effects were accounted for. That is a huge contribution to our coastal towns and cities.

[Owen Smith (Pontypridd) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making a compelling case for including recreational fishing in the Bill. Does he agree that we are only starting to scratch the surface of the economic contribution that recreational fishing could make to our economy, and does he further agree that the Government could do so much to encourage, in particular, greater tourism into this country to take advantage of its great recreational fishing opportunities, if they were to highlight the importance of that in the Bill itself?

[Luke Pollard]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention: he is exactly right. Indeed, this weekend I had conversations with Destination Plymouth about the new tourism marketing plan for my own city. We were talking about how the value of recreational angling and sea fishing could be further embedded as part of the tourism product for the far south-west, which would create more jobs, so he is exactly right.

Coastal communities benefit when good fishing attracts anglers. Let us not tie any Minister’s hands but explicitly lay out in the Bill that they have the power to award recreational fishing the grants it needs to grow our economy and grow the love of our marine environment.

New clause 25 also relates to the ability to provide financial assistance for recreational fishing and its importance as part of the wider development of sustainable practices in recreational fishing. According to figures from DEFRA—the Minister’s own Department—recreational fishing and sea angling are worth about £2 billion to the UK economy, generate about 20,000 jobs and support thousands of coastal businesses. Sometimes the economic benefits of the recreational sector can outweigh those of the commercial sector, but as we have heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd, it is not spoken about enough. We need to be louder and prouder about the contribution that recreational angling can make to our coastal towns.

In this Committee’s evidence sessions on the Bill, the Angling Trust rightly said that one of the “great failures” of the common fisheries policy was the failure to recognise recreational angling as a legitimate stakeholder in European fisheries. The Bill could put right that failure of the CFP. We could do that today by stating in the Bill that the UK Government recognise recreational sea angling as a direct user and legitimate stakeholder in the fisheries. That would be a win-win situation, as it would add to the very welcome news that we will have access to EMFF funding—I hope the Minister will confirm that. We need recreational fishing to be loud and proud on the face of the Bill, to send a message to the people engaged in the sector that we want that part of the economy to grow further, and that we value it.

[Mr Carmichael]

I agree with just about everything the hon. Gentleman has said. This is a good example of how a small measure of Government investment could have a transformative effect and bring manifold returns. Some decades ago, the Highlands and Islands Development Board installed mooring buoys throughout the highlands and islands, which allowed many yachtsmen and other sailors to enjoy that part of the countryside. It brought in a tremendous amount of income, and tourism burgeoned over the years. The same is possible for those who are trying to increase recreational angling.

The hon. Gentleman’s amendment is very modest: it requires that consultation be held. It does not bind any Minister or future Minister to do anything. It is pretty clear that if we just leave this and wait for something to happen, it almost certainly never will.

--- Later in debate ---

[George Eustice]

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman has; I think I have, too.

Having given an undertaking to look specifically into the possibility of making reference to recreational angling in the SSFS, where it best sits, I hope that the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport will not see the need to press his amendment.

[Luke Pollard]

I thank the Minister for taking recreational sea angling and fishing so comprehensively on board in his response. It is good to hear that he intends to issue a consultation before any powers under clause 28(1)(e) are used. That commitment delivers on the intent of our amendment 111, and I am pleased that he is taking on board the concern expressed by recreational fishers that they should be given greater prominence in the Bill.

With respect to new clause 25, I will look carefully at what the Minister brings back on Report. There is an opportunity to do much more on recreational fishing; if he brings back the new clause, the Bill will be the better for it. On the basis of the commitments he has given, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 28 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 4

Financial assistance

Question proposed, That the schedule be the Fourth schedule to the Bill.

[George Eustice]

The Committee has already discussed the substance of the issues to which schedule 4 relates. The schedule will allow Wales and Northern Ireland to establish grant schemes after the UK’s withdrawal from the EU. Its provisions essentially mirror those set out in clause 28, which provide powers to introduce schemes of financial assistance for industries related to fish or fish farming, as well as for the purpose of improving the marine and aquatic environment or—as we have just discussed—promoting recreational fishing. The powers replace and broaden existing domestic funding powers, which are in the Fisheries Act 1981.

Question put and agreed to.

Schedule 4 accordingly agreed to.

Clause 29

Power of Marine Management Organisation to impose charges

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

In that case we will move on to an amendment that will be moved. I call Luke Pollard potentially to move amendment 70.

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

I beg to move amendment 70, in clause 29, page 17, line 42, leave out “negative” and insert “affirmative”.

I am definitely moving the amendment, which seeks to remove the negative procedure in relation to clause 29 and replace it with the affirmative procedure. The amendment reflects concerns expressed by fishers about the increasing powers of the MMO, which is developing the ability to impose charges without sufficient accountability and scrutiny of that work.

The amendment is designed to catch the Minister’s eye so that he can reassure us that the MMO will use any powers it is given wisely, to ensure that charges are proportionate and, importantly, that before any charges are imposed, there is sufficient consultation with fishers to ensure that those charges are correct and proportionate.

Given the considerable amount of concern expressed by fishers, it is important that there is sufficient parliamentary procedure, which is why we suggest the affirmative procedure. However, if the Minister can give a good answer as to why that should not be required, I would be prepared to withdraw the amendment.

[George Eustice]

We have had a number of discussions about the use of the negative procedure. As I have pointed out before, the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee considered the procedures for all delegated powers in the Bill and commented:

“Of the Bill’s 15 delegated powers that have a parliamentary procedure, only four are solely governed by the negative procedure, and justifiably so.”

It is usual for fees and charges imposed by arm’s length bodies to be set out in regulations made under the negative procedure. A recent example is the power of the Secretary of State to charge fees through regulations under the Ivory Bill, which will also use the negative procedure. We have considered the issue, but we think we have struck the right balance between the need for parliamentary scrutiny and the need to update MMO charges through secondary legislation.

If we were to accept this amendment and do use the affirmative procedure, every change made to the charges would have to go through an affirmative parliamentary process. We think that is excessive. We already have strict and tight Treasury guidance on when one can and cannot charge, and how one can charge for such charges that are passed on, and that is very much on a cost-recovery basis. That provision is set out in detail in other Government rules and guidance.

[Luke Pollard]

I invited the Minister to provide reassurance that the MMO would use the charging powers proportionately and subject to consultation. Could he say something about his approach to that?

[George Eustice]

I draw the hon. Gentleman’s attention to clause 29(7), which makes provision for consultation. I confirm that we would consult the industry before introducing such charges.

[Luke Pollard]

I appreciate that clarification. It is important that the Minister takes on board the concerns of fishers about the role and remit of the MMO in relation to the new powers that the Bill gives him. On the basis of the reassurance that he has given, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 29 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 5

Power of Northern Ireland department to impose charges

[Luke Pollard]

I beg to move amendment 76, in schedule 5, page 44, line 9, leave out “negative” and insert “affirmative”.

Briefly, the amendment seeks to amend schedule 5 to provide the affirmative resolution in relation to powers given to the relevant Northern Ireland Department. I would like to invite the Minister to comment.

Importantly, in the absence of devolution to the Northern Ireland Executive and the Northern Ireland Assembly at the moment, as the Assembly is not sitting, how can we ensure that there is sufficient scrutiny of those powers to the devolved Administration? In others circumstances, whether in Wales or Scotland, the powers would be given appropriate scrutiny in those devolved bodies.

[George Eustice]

The solution to the problem that the hon. Gentleman highlights is to get a political Administration back in Northern Ireland. We have that challenge on many fronts; this is one of the lesser challenges we face in the absence of a political Administration in Northern Ireland.

Our intention is that the Bill is built to last and that it will give us a basis and a framework with which to manage fisheries for at least the next few decades—I hope so, but obviously things change. The Bill is therefore built in the expectation that a political Administration will be back in place in Northern Ireland, as it should be. Indeed, I am sure we all hope that that might even happen before the provisions of the Bill commence.

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point about the lack of an Administration in Northern Ireland. We all know that the solution is not to amend the Bill but to get an Administration back in Northern Ireland. Again, I point out paragraph 7 of the schedule, which gives a clear undertaking that there must be a consultation before any regulations can be introduced under the negative procedure, even for Northern Ireland.

[Luke Pollard]

On the basis of the Minister’s response, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, That the schedule be the Fifth schedule to the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[George Eustice]

The clause will provide the Secretary of State with the powers necessary to manage our fisheries when we leave the EU and operate as an independent coastal state, enabling us to comply with the UK’s international obligations, manage our fisheries and keep pace with changes to EU law. When we leave the EU, it will be vital that the UK has measures in place to implement its international obligations and to move away from the common fisheries policy measures incorporated in retained EU law under the EU withdrawal Act.

Fisheries, and the management of the impact of fisheries on the marine environment, are dynamic, changing throughout the year. To manage fisheries effectively, we need delegated powers to be able to respond quickly to scientific advice. The CFP is due to be reviewed in the next few years. We need to ensure that the UK can introduce measures where appropriate for UK fisheries management. The clause confers regulatory updating powers on the Secretary of State. Equivalent powers are conferred on Welsh Ministers and the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs in Northern Ireland; we understand that Scotland will make its own legislative arrangements in respect of the powers set out in the clause.

The powers in the clause are necessarily quite broad in scope. In recognition of that, we have introduced several constraints to limit the powers as far as possible. They must be exercised for a purpose listed in subsection (1); they can only be exercised for the matters listed in subsection (4); and they cannot create criminal offences punishable by imprisonment. I hope I have been able to explain the purpose behind the clause, to ensure that we can have a dynamic and clear ability expeditiously to make minor technical changes to the technical conservation regulations that are important in fisheries.

[Luke Pollard]

Notwithstanding my earlier remarks, it is good to see the word “aquaculture” making it into the Government’s Bill at this point. I make fond mention of the occasion on which the Minister decided not to take amendments because of the mention of the aquatic environment. I am sure that aquaculture and the aquatic environment will make appearances later that will highlight the error of the Minister’s ways in his earlier remarks.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 31 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 32

Section 31: interpretation

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[George Eustice]

Briefly, the clause simply provides interpretation for certain terms related to fisheries used in clause 31. This is important to ensure that restrictions placed on the power in clause 31 are effective in limiting its scope to fisheries. It is a simple clause that deals with interpretation.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 32 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 33

Power to make provision about aquatic animal diseases

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[George Eustice]

This clause is about ensuring there is an ability—notwithstanding the fact that clause 34 is clear that it does not cut across the devolution settlement—to put in place a framework with the consent of each part of the UK so that a single authority can act with the consent of the others in an area that would otherwise be devolved. Subsections (1) to (3) require consent from the Scottish or Welsh Ministers or the Northern Ireland Department for regulations under clauses 31 and 33 to make provisions in areas of devolved competence. Subsection (4) requires consent from the Scottish and Welsh Ministers and the Northern Ireland Department for regulations on matters relating to powers to license fishing boats. I beg to move that the clause stand part of the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 35 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 36

Procedural requirements for regulations under section 31 or 33

[Luke Pollard]

I beg to move amendment 71, in clause 36, page 22, line 24, leave out “negative” and insert “affirmative”.

Briefly, we tabled the amendment so that we could ask the Minister to explain why he believes that the negative procedure is the best option for this clause.

[George Eustice]

As I said, the Government have considered carefully the delegated powers in the Bill and the procedures that should apply to regulations. I will not rehearse the points I made about delegated powers and the precedents for this, but I will give the hon. Gentleman an indication of the technical issues that regulations under this part of the Bill may deal with. They may cover issues such as the catching, landing or selling of sea fish below a certain size—the minimum conservation reference size, as it is sometimes called—and the design of sea-fishing equipment. They may involve introducing a new selectivity measure for the squid fishery off the coast of his constituency, for instance. They may also involve minor issues to do with monitoring or enforcement of compliance.

We have a large number of technical conservation regulations under the existing common fisheries policy—some 90 bodies of regulations cover all sorts of things, from landing sizes to mesh sizes and from closures to prohibitions on landing small-eyed ray. Those are generally dealt with through delegated Acts that come from the Commission. We must have the power to make in-year amendments so that we can react quickly to changing circumstances by taking a stock off the prohibited list or putting it back on, and it is important that we have the ability to act expeditiously to manage our marine environment. Given that we have some 90 bodies of EU regulations and some 300 or 400 different technical regulations in total, I question whether there is appetite in this place for debating each and every one of those changes. The situation can be very dynamic and dozens of changes are made in a typical year.

On that basis, I hope that the hon. Gentleman does not see the need to press the amendment to a vote, and that I have been able to reassure him why we chose the negative resolution procedure rather than the affirmative procedure in this case.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

I call the Minister—sorry, Mr Pollard.

[Luke Pollard]

You are getting ahead of yourself, Mr Hanson. I am not a Minister yet, but the coming general election will be upon us soon.

I am grateful for the Minister’s response. As he said, there will be a large number of changes. He might want to reflect on how any changes made under negative procedure can be reported in the Secretary of State’s fisheries statements, even though it is not necessarily required to do so.

There is an opportunity. Because we are expecting the Minister to deliver so much change in the first couple of years after we leave the common fisheries policy, having it summarised and repeated annually would enable greater scrutiny and understanding of those changes. That would be beneficial not only for the fishing industry but for those who seek to scrutinise the work of Government. On the basis of the Minister’s response, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[George Eustice]

I think we covered the key parts of the clause earlier. I again simply highlight that it sets out a number of cases where it is appropriate to use the affirmative resolution procedure under subsection (2). That includes any regulations that impose fees or create a criminal offence. The remainder of the largely technical conservation measures that are of a lower order and need to be changed regularly are provided for under the negative resolution procedure under subsection (3).

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 36 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 37

Powers of Scottish Ministers, Welsh Ministers and NI department

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Fisheries Bill (Tenth sitting)

Luke Pollard Excerpts

Monday 17th December 2018 Public Bill Committees

Powers relating to the exploitation of sea fisheries resources

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

I beg to move amendment 68, in schedule 7, page 57, line 15, leave out “and” and insert “or”.

This amendment would amend the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009 to enable the Marine Management Organisation to make byelaws to protect marine features in circumstances where the need for protection is not necessarily urgent.

It is good to see that Government Members managed to refresh themselves appropriately during our short break. I will not carry on speaking until Opposition Members return. You will be pleased to hear, Mr Hanson, that we have a long oratory ahead of us about the protection of the marine environment and shipwrecks, so you can look forward to that. In all honesty, this should be relatively brief. It picks up on the discussion that we had on the aquatic environment the other day.

The amendment seeks to expand the remit to protect marine features when it is not specifically urgent to ensure we care for our marine environment proactively. I will not go on about shipwrecks too much; we have already been through a number of reasons why protecting them is important. However, last week when I referred to archaeological and historic features, the Minister contended that archaeology is addressed by marine licensing under the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009 and the Protection of Wrecks Act 1973. It is important to note that fishing is not subject to marine licensing under the MCAA because licensing offers no protection in respect of wrecks. In addition, the Protection of Wrecks Act does not restrict fishing activity, and assurances were given during its introduction to that effect back in the ’70s:

“The situation of designated historic wreck sites is different. There will be no bar on any kind of fishing from the surface, either commercially or for sport.”—[Official Report, 4 May 1973; Vol. 855, c. 1706.]

So said a politician in the ’70s, long before I was born. A member of the Lords said:

“My Lords, the Bill does not prohibit navigation, anchoring, fishing or bathing within these restricted areas, except when those activities amount to obstruction of an authorised salvage operation.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 17 May 1973; Vol. 342, c. 931.]

That is why the Opposition believe that it is necessary to have specific provisions for archaeological and historic features within fisheries legislation. I am grateful for the support of the Honor Frost Foundation Steering Committee on Underwater Cultural Heritage, which dug out those records from the 1970s. The amendment is necessary to ensure that underwater and aquatic environments are protected, especially the historic wreck sites. Will the Minister address those concerns?

[The Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (George Eustice)]

I thank the shadow Minister for his contribution. The real purpose of schedule 7 is to make consequential amendments to the Marine and Coastal Access Act to ensure that the suite of powers contained in the Act, to make byelaws both within and outwith marine conservation zones, can be extended to the English offshore region: the zone that would currently be affected predominantly by EU law and the common fisheries policy.

Amendment 68 proposes deleting the word “and” and inserting the word “or”. The schedule states that

“there...may be reasons for the Secretary of State to consider whether to designate the area as an MCZ”.

The amendment would add the word “or” before the phrase,

“that there is an urgent need to protect the feature.”

New section 9 specifically relates to section 132 of the Marine and Coastal Access Act and the designation of marine conservation zones. It gives the powers to designate in those zones where there is an MCZ and where there is an urgent need to protect a feature: in other words, where it is under consideration to designate a zone as a marine conservation zone, but there is an urgent threat to that emerging policy and therefore a need to act expeditiously.

In the narrow context in which paragraph 9 operates, which is simply around the designation of marine conservation zones, the use of “and” is the appropriate link between paragraphs (2)(1A)(a) and (2)(1A)(b) because they are interdependent. This particular power would be used in circumstances only in which someone intended to have a marine conservation zone. Other parts of schedule 7, not least paragraph (6), set out broader byelaw-making powers that can be used, whether or not the feature that somebody attempts to protect is in a designated marine conservation zone.

I hope that I have been able to explain to the hon. Gentleman why “and” is used in the paragraph—because the sub-paragraphs are interdependent—rather than “or”, which suggests that they should stand alone. As I said, this is within the narrow context of a soon to be designated marine conservation zone.

[Luke Pollard]

I thank the Minister for his remarks. I suspect that his officials will revisit provisions on the protection of wrecks when the Bill goes to the House of Lords. The Minister will be relieved that he will not have to repeat his speech about the aquatic environment for a bit.

Importantly, the purpose of the amendment on protecting our marine heritage is to make sure that conflict between fishing and the protection of our natural and marine heritage sites on the seabed is understood and managed in advance of its arising. However, on the basis of the Minister’s remarks, and in anticipation of our friends down the corridor making similar forceful arguments on the basis of what the Minister said, I am happy to withdraw the amendment at this time. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, That the schedule be the Seventh schedule to the Bill.

[George Eustice]

Schedule 7 simply defines the byelaw-making powers, provided for under clause 38, conferred on the Marine Management Organisation and Ministers of the devolved Administrations for the enforcement of marine conservation standards. Schedule 7 defines the scope and procedure for creating byelaws in the UK’s exclusive economic zone by the MMO in England and Northern Ireland, or Ministers in Scotland and Wales, for the purpose of protecting the UK’s marine environment.

Paragraph 1 introduces an amendment to the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009, and paragraphs 2 to 5 address the nomenclature in that Act. Paragraphs 6 to 10 insert new clauses into the Act, providing the Marine Management Organisation with byelaw-making powers within the English offshore region for the purpose of preserving marine flora or fauna, marine habitats or types of marine habitat.

Question put and agreed to.

Schedule 7 accordingly agreed to.

Clause 39

Regulations

[Luke Pollard]

I beg to move amendment 67, in clause 39, page 23, line 30, at end insert—

“(4A) Before making any regulations under this Act, the Secretary of State, Scottish Ministers, Welsh Ministers or the Northern Ireland department (as the case may be) must consult with affected stakeholders”.

This amendment would require the Secretary of State Scottish Ministers, Welsh Ministers or the Northern Ireland department to consult with affected stakeholders before making regulations.

The Minister is keen to say that the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs consults constantly and does not need legislation to help make sure that it does so. However, there are already some requirements in the Bill to consult, and Government amendment 6 added another duty to consult in clause 22, in response to a recommendation from the House of Lords Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. Our amendment 67 simply seeks to put in place consistent duties to consult on all regulations provided for in the Bill.

As we have discussed, this duty is particularly important for regulations that receive less parliamentary scrutiny, or none at all, to make sure that affected individuals, businesses and communities have an adequate opportunity to make their views known before the law is put in place—especially when laws are introduced afresh after we leave the European Union. I am sure that the Minister will have spotted other duties to consult in clauses 19, 29, 36, and schedule 1, which requires an element of consultation on the joint fisheries statement, as well as schedules 5, 6 and 7. Our amendment seeks to make sure that, before any regulations are made, there is sufficient consultation with the relevant stakeholders.

[Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)]

The amendment refers to Scottish Ministers. Will the hon. Gentleman explain how it would work in practice? Who would decide whom Scottish Ministers had to consult? If they were somehow deemed not to have consulted the relevant stakeholders, what would be the repercussions? Would the matter be reported back to the Westminster Government? Clearly the Scottish Government are responsible for their own legislation.

[Luke Pollard]

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is not trying to suggest that the Scottish Government would make any regulations without consulting Scottish communities.

[Alan Brown]

Correct.

[Luke Pollard]

Therefore the point should be moot. The important thing is how disputes are regulated and managed in the Bill. We need to ensure that it gives confidence to environmental stakeholders operating in the sector, whether they are businesses, fishers or coastal communities, that they will be adequately consulted before any regulations are made under clause 39. It is an important principle to enshrine in the Bill that there must be sufficient good-quality consultation before any regulations are made.

[George Eustice]

As the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport points out, we have included an explicit requirement in some clauses to consult where appropriate, generally in cases that raise specific issues that have a bearing on cost recovery, on the proposed sale of fishing opportunities—as in our new clause 22 —or on devolved Administrations. However, I do not think it appropriate to have a statutory requirement to consult on every single measure that might be introduced under the Bill. Such a requirement would be very unusual; the Department’s existing statutory obligations to consult relate predominantly to issues of food safety and food standards. As I have said before, we generally do not need encouragement to consult. Many consultations come across my desk; I often ask officials whether a consultation is really required, but our very strict internal Government guidelines and Cabinet Office guidance mean that we consult regularly on most issues.

I envisage that most of the issues covered by the Bill would be subject to a consultation. We have chosen to introduce a statutory requirement to consult on very significant matters—those that have cost implications for industry or potentially serious implications for the relationship with devolved Administrations—but that does not mean that we will not consult on many, many other provisions in the Bill. Indeed, I anticipate our doing so, but I do not believe that it would be appropriate to put that in the Bill.

[Luke Pollard]

I thank the Minister for his response, but it is a bit disappointing. The principle of consultation is a fine one. I note what he says about DEFRA undertaking a range of consultations during his time as a Minister, but winning the confidence and trust of the fishing industry after Brexit will depend on any changes to the rules having its full consent and support, whether those changes relate to quota allocation, safety, licensing or any other aspect of fishing. The best way of achieving that is by following the principle of consulting. However, as the Minister has effectively committed to consulting on the key things, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 39 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 40 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 41

Extent

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[George Eustice]

New clause 22 is a significant new clause that the Government have tabled to address some concerns that have been raised in the context of the draft withdrawal agreement, which has returned. As hon. Members will be aware, the draft withdrawal agreement that the House will consider in the new year contains a provision that says that, in the event of there being a future partnership and an agreement with the European Union, it will be necessary by July 2020 to have in place a new framework agreement for fisheries management between the EU and the UK.

New clause 22 simply sets out in statute a point of Government policy that was set out very clearly in our White Paper. As we leave the European Union and become an independent coastal state, it is our clear intention to move away from the current relative stability shares of quota, which are unfair on the British fishing industry, and move towards something that is closer to zonal attachment for the majority of stocks—that is to say, it is about where the stocks reside. The effect of new clause 22 is to place a statutory obligation on the Government not to agree continued access at the current level for the European Union unless we receive an increase in fishing opportunities and secure that all-important departure from relative stability. That means that, in the event of our putting together a new partnership with the European Union, it will not be possible for the Government to conclude the partnership unless our fishing industry sees an increased share of the total allowable catch in return for that continued access.

The approach that we seek to take is similar to what already happens with the EU-Norway agreement, where a framework agreement runs for a number of years but certain presumptions underlie it. The presumption that will underlie our future economic partnership with the European Union, in so far as it relates to fisheries, is that, in return for granting continued access to the European Union, the quid pro quo for the British fleet will be a fairer share of the total allowable catch, which goes above and beyond that which is set out in the current relative stability shares.

[Luke Pollard]

I appreciate that the Minister is trying to put up a smokescreen by saying that this is a very important new clause and that this is the right place for it, but this justifies the critique of my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Sue Hayman), who said that the Bill was hurried out too quickly, and that its implications had not been fully understood. An element as important as the Minister suggested new clause 22 is should have been included in the Bill in the first instance, and not added only when the political problems with the withdrawal agreement emerged.

I have a number of questions about the new clause. It includes the new term “Union fishing boats”. Will the Minister set out how that differs from the term “foreign fishing boats”, which is used in the rest of the Bill? We must make sure there are no loopholes that can be exploited in relation to the distinction between Union and foreign fishing boats.

In the event of what some in the fishing industry regard as the inevitable sell-out by people above his pay grade, can the Minister tell me how this Bill would be changed when there is potentially no additional quota or fish allocated to UK fishers? Can that be done for this part of the Bill under the Henry VIII powers that the Government possess, or would it require new primary legislation to alter this part of the Bill, in the event that there is a betrayal of fishers in any future negotiations? I ask that because the experience of fishing is that it was promised that it would be excluded from the transition period, only to find that those promises from the Secretary of State and indeed the fisheries Minister himself were worth nothing, which remains a very raw sore for many of our colleagues in the fisheries sector. There are some important aspects to this.

The principle is one that I can support: we should get a fairer share of fish. Relative stability has poorly served our coastal communities and fishing industry, and the move to zonal attachment is one that is supported by Labour as well as the Government. How that is done is uncertain in this Bill, and what promises will be delivered is also uncertain in this Bill, because so many of those promises will be subject to the further negotiation that will follow if any deal is done and then if any economic and future partnership is put in place.

There is an awful lot of uncertainty in relation to that, and I would be grateful if the Minister could set out how the Bill can be changed should there be a betrayal of the fishing industry, and if he could explain the distinction between “Union” and “foreign” fishing boats.

[Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)]

Essentially, my position is not much different from that of the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport. I fear that the Minister perhaps slightly oversells the importance of new clause 22 as it is drafted. Largely, it is yet another statement of good intent. Ultimately, the extent to which these intentions are delivered will be determined by the political will and authority that is put into them by the Government.

We know that something in the region of 40% of the fish caught in UK waters comes to the UK. When the Minister talks about fairer shares, he has—let us say—some significant leeway. If he or any of his successors were to deliver a deal that produced 41% or 42%, then by definition it would be a fairer share, but it would be far from the promises that were made to the industry at the time of the referendum.

I have no objection to new clause 22; I certainly would not vote against it. It is useful to have a clause of this sort in the Bill, but it is capable of being improved. I think that is something we will consider on Report.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

We will come to the new clauses later in proceedings. The proposals before us at the moment is amendment 112 to clause 42.

Amendment 112 agreed to.

[Luke Pollard]

I beg to move amendment 110, in clause 42, page 26, line 29, after “43” insert “and section (Fishing industry skills strategy)”.

This amendment would require the Secretary of State to publish within 12 months of the Act coming into force a skills strategy for the fishing industry after consultation.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 24—Fishing industry skills strategy—

‘(1) Within 1 year of this section coming into force, the Secretary of State must publish a strategy for skills, employment and economic regeneration for the fishing industry.

(2) Before publishing a strategy under subsection (1), the Secretary of State must consult with—

(a) the Scottish Ministers,

(b) the Welsh Ministers,

(c) the Northern Ireland department,

(d) representatives of the fishing industry,

(e) any other person the Secretary of State considers appropriate.’

[Luke Pollard]

Amendment 110 and new clause 24 both aim to tackle one of the key issues currently facing the fishing industry, namely the shortage of skills and the potential for growing employment. Talking to those in the industry, I regularly hear concerns about the difficulty of attracting the next generation into fishing and the fears of people already engaged in the industry about the loss of European workers after Brexit. That is especially the case for those fishers in the north of England and Scotland.

We know that many crews contain no one under the age of 40. If boats are to capitalise on any increased quota in future, we will need a new approach to training and skills. By requiring the Secretary of State to publish a strategy for dealing with these issues, we hope that this problem will finally be taken seriously and steps put in place to address the skills and people shortages in fishing.

We appreciate the important role played by Seafish, the non-departmental public body sponsored by DEFRA. We are concerned, however, that Ministers have at times passed off their responsibility for training and skills by suggesting that that is mainly a matter for Seafish, not them. On this issue, we need leadership and strategy from the top, which is what the amendment seeks to create.

Looking at the Government’s approach, it may be helpful to remind hon. Members of what the Minister previously set out. In a debate last year, he said:

“To secure the skilled workforce that the food, farming and fisheries sector needs for the future, Government and industry must work in partnership to prioritise training and skills.”

He went on to highlight their industrial strategy and said that it would include

“skills as one of its core pillars”,

as well as reforms to apprenticeships and the post-16 plan that features T-levels, which he said would create

“clear routes into the sector.”—[Official Report, 25 April 2017; Vol. 624, c. 478WH.]

There is not time to pore over the Government’s entire skills strategy in detail, but it is worth looking at where we are on the areas that the Minister previously highlighted and why that demonstrates the need for a dedicated fishing industry skills strategy.

Although the industrial strategy is more than 250 pages long and contains plenty of general skills policy, it does not mention fish or fishing once, which seems to show a disappointing lack of cross-departmental working between the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy. It is all well and good for the Minister to state his commitment to improving fishing skills, but if he cannot convince his Government colleagues to mention fishing in the strategy papers, the problem will not receive the attention that all hon. Members present think it deserves. The obvious solution is for DEFRA to launch its own skills strategy with reference to what BEIS, the Department for Education and those in the devolved Administrations are doing, which the amendment would deliver.

On apprenticeships, we agree that they are a vital means of training up the next generation. The Whitby Fishing School, which has offered apprenticeships aimed at those newly entering the industry, is a good example. Andrew Hodgson, its business development manager, told The Daily Telegraph last year:

“We need some young blood coming in otherwise the industry is going to die a death.”

He is right.

When my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Holly Lynch) visited the school, however, she found that it was experiencing difficulties in securing funding for courses. She discovered that the school finds it incredibly difficult to deliver courses that truly equip young people to work at sea and that tick the relevant boxes to secure funding for that training. The school had asked the Government to reflect on whether the framework in place for developing apprenticeships and training programmes was fit for purpose in attracting and retaining the fishers of tomorrow. We hope that a new skills strategy could provide the answers to those exact questions.

On T-levels, the Government have said that the subject range of T-level programmes will be defined by the Institute for Apprenticeships’ occupational maps. We are glad that fishermen are mentioned in the maps, but under the agriculture operative/technician cluster. Looking more closely at how T-levels will function, it is T-level panels that will develop the outline content for qualifications. Those panels are currently made up of employers that define the skills and requirements for the qualifications.

When we analysed the Government’s picks for the agriculture, land management and production panel, which includes fishing, we were disappointed that not a single member was listed from the fishing industry. The Minister may be able to provide some explanation for that, but it certainly appears that T-levels, on their current design, will not provide any real focus on sorting out the skills shortages in fishing as a priority. Can the Minister also confirm that any T-levels that could cover fishing are not expected to be delivered until at least 2022? It is clear that the lack of detail about T-levels and fishing further proves the need for a dedicated skills strategy for the fishing industry.

Because of the effect that Brexit might have on the number of EU nationals able and willing to work at sea, an already dire recruitment situation is in danger of becoming catastrophic, particularly in several geographic locations around the UK. We face the real risk of fishers walking away from the industry as they cannot staff their boats. I hope that the Minister can offer some reassurance on that issue, which is made pressing by Brexit, and that hon. Members will consider backing this important amendment.

In particular, I ask the Minister to have words with his colleagues in the Home Office, who still do not regard fishing as a skilled profession. I challenge any Home Office Minister to go on a trawler and catch fish to see whether that is true or not.

[The Chair]

As a former Home Office Minister, I never went anywhere near a fish.

--- Later in debate ---

[George Eustice]

Right hon. and hon. Members have raised a very important issue. They will appreciate that it is predominantly an issue on which other Departments lead, such as the Department for Education on apprenticeships. Immigration, particularly of non-EEA crews, which is a contentious issue in parts of the UK—notably in Northern Ireland and Scotland—is a matter for the Home Office. Nevertheless, I have made representations on behalf of the industry to Home Office Ministers. At a recent debate, I said I would go back and have that discussion again. Right hon. and hon. Members will appreciate that I have not quite had the time to do that yet, but it remains on my to-do list. I will engage on the matter of non-EEA crews with the Home Office in the new year.

When it comes to skills, I am aware that some specific fishing issues have meant that the apprenticeships model has not always worked as well as it should. One of the issues that the industry has raised is that there is a practice of giving a share of the catch value to the fishermen on crews, which does not always sit very easily with how apprenticeships are structured, because those involved have to be on a fixed salary to access them. There are some challenging issues, such as that one, which the Department for Education is looking at.

However, I want to limit my comments to what the fishing industry is doing. The seafood industry leadership group, which has been sponsored and supported by the levy body Seafish, has established a special authority to deliver its Seafood 2040 strategy. Part of that includes delivery of a single cross-sector seafood training and skills plan and supporting businesses in the seafood supply chain to recruit workers with suitable skills.

We recently announced an additional £37.2 million of funding for new projects approved under the European maritime and fisheries fund during 2019 and 2020. Some of those projects could include the delivery of skills and training. In addition, we have announced that the Government will put in place new domestic long-term arrangements to support the UK’s fishing industry from 2021, with new schemes to support that.

Across the country we have some centres of excellence for training when it comes to fisheries. In England, we have the Whitby & District Fishing Industry Training School, which has a great track record. As a mentioned earlier, I visited Shetland with the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland a few years ago, which the marine training school is based. In recent years we have trained several hundred new fishermen through the various schemes, so it is not all bad news, but I recognise that there is more to do. In particular, that project of the seafood industry leadership group is best placed to pull together a skills plan in the area in question.

Skills is a devolved issue, and the inference with respect to new clause 24 is that there would be a UK-wide skills strategy, as there is a requirement to consult Scottish and Welsh Ministers and the Northern Ireland Department. I suspect that Scottish Ministers in particular would want rather more than a consultation on a devolved area. We can address the matter as England, and it will be for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland to address it for themselves.

I hope that I have reassured the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport that I agree that this is an important issue and that there have been difficulties in the past with some design features of the apprenticeship scheme. We have raised those previously with ministerial colleagues and they have sought to address them. However, the new clause goes somewhat beyond the scope of the Bill, which deals with fisheries management and opportunities, rather than skills. Skills are a matter for a different Department.

[Luke Pollard]

I assure the Minister that we tried to get a lot of items selected that were outside the scope of the Bill. If we managed to sneak something in, that is because it is within the scope of the Bill, not outside as he suggests.

I am disappointed that the Minister did not pick up the gauntlet that the Opposition have set down, on the matter of skills, and take it more seriously. There is a skills crisis in the fishing industry and if we are to realise the opportunities that will come from Brexit, which the Minister has been so keen to extol, we will need more people in the fishing industry, in the catching and other sectors. That is why we need a cross-Government skills strategy—to support the development of skills across the UK.

The Minister mentioned that there are a number of areas of best practice, and indeed there are. Several places are doing a good job with skills, but the problem is that they are all struggling for funding and to make what they offer fit with other bits of Government policy that the Minister has set out. A skills strategy would present the opportunity to identify some of the problems and support areas of additional growth. The seafood industry leadership group seems to be on to the right thing, but I have said that it is not enough to allow Seafish and its other bodies to do all the work. We need senior leadership from Ministers, and, sadly, that did not seem to be forthcoming in the Minister’s response. On that basis, we shall not withdraw the amendment, but press it to a vote.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

[Luke Pollard]

Earlier in the Committee’s deliberations, we considered whether the Bill needed more flexibility when it came to the commencement debate. It is noticeable that with amendment 1, which accompanies the amendment in the name of the right hon. Gentleman, my neighbours from south-east and north Cornwall, whose constituencies are close to the Minister’s, have tabled a similar amendment about the commencement date.

I share fishers’ concern about the upcoming betrayal. It is no secret that I fear that people above the fisheries Minister’s pay grade—the Environment Secretary, the Prime Minister and others—will be looking to betray fishing in the future negotiations. The idea of having a solid date for leaving the EU common fisheries policy is appealing to fishing and to people who do not disbelieve Ministers’ words but have concerns about whether it can be delivered, given the strong and firm negotiating position of some of our EU friends in relation to this.

The key thing that the Opposition want to highlight is that the industry has every right to be concerned about our departure from the common fisheries policy. It was made promises about departing the CFP in relation to the transition, and they were repeated week in, week out up until a week before the Government’s U-turn on that position. It has every right to be cautious and sceptical about the Government’s promises. The Government have seen fit to amend the Bill to require an improvement to our position in relation to relative stability in any future negotiations. Surely the same principle should apply to this area, and the Minister should want to attach a date to our exit from the CFP.

I want to ask a similar question to the one I asked about the Minister’s earlier amendment. Will this be subject to primary legislation, or are there any Secret Squirrel or Henry VIII powers up the Minister’s sleeve that will enable this to be adjusted in the event—or the inevitability—that article 50 is extended and the future of fishing within the CFP is betrayed?

[David Duguid]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hanson. Amendment 1 is a probing amendment relating to a concern raised by several hon. Members—[Interruption.] Give me a second to finish my first paragraph, and then I will give way to the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun.

The concern has been raised by hon. Members including those who tabled the amendment—my hon. Friends the Members for South East Cornwall (Mrs Murray) and for North Cornwall (Scott Mann)—the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland and the shadow Minister. I do not know whether this will reassure Opposition Members. I am sure the Minister will forgive me for reiterating this concern, which I have raised relentlessly, not just with him but with Ministers and Cabinet members above his pay grade, and I will continue to do so.

--- Later in debate ---

My hon. Friend the Member for Banff and Buchan made a telling point: we are obviously in a rather fluid situation at the moment, with a withdrawal agreement that is still under discussion and that will be debated by Parliament shortly. I therefore ask both him and the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland to keep their powder dry on the particular issue of the date, because by the time this Bill appears on the Floor of the House for Report stage, I am sure we will have greater clarity about the nature of the terms on which we are leaving the European Union. If we were to leave the European Union without an agreement, amendments of this sort would no longer be necessary. The right time to consider amendments to the commencement date will be when the terms of the withdrawal agreement are clearer.

[Luke Pollard]

The fishing industry is known for its plain talking and I think that many people watching this sitting will be confused as to the Minister’s choice of words. May I invite him to express himself in plain English, so that the entire industry can see that he is basically hedging his bets? Is that his message—that the industry should not take solace in the idea that the provisions will be delivered on that date?

[George Eustice]

That is not what I am saying at all. I am saying that the amendment is unnecessary because we are confident that we will get a withdrawal agreement with the European Union. I am confident that will take effect before the end of the implementation period, and therefore I am confident that we will be negotiating as an independent coastal state in December 2020.

In so far as some people may have some doubt about the nature of the withdrawal agreement and what type of arrangement we might finally get with the European Union, my message is this: let us see what happens in January. Those events will transpire before this Bill returns on Report, at which stage we will be in a more informed position to make a judgement on such amendments. Therefore, I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Banff and Buchan and the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland will keep their powder dry and consider this matter at a future date.

I do not know how many people are watching this sitting, but if there are many of them, as the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport has said, I am delighted that there is such interest in this vital industry and in our taking back control of our own waters.

--- Later in debate ---

[George Eustice]

My hon. Friend the Member for Banff and Buchan makes an important point. The provisions in clause 42 are set out as they for a good reason, which is that we need flexibility in subsection (3) to ensure we can commence different parts of the Bill at different times.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 42, as amended, accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 43

Short title

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Luke Pollard]

The Minister could have called this the sustainable fisheries Bill. That missed opportunity could have been reflected in the short title. It would have sent a strong message to the industry and to all those people in fisheries that we will create a sustainable fishery after Brexit. That could have been put on the face of the Bill, but as the Opposition are not allowed to table amendments to a short title, we were unable to do that.

[Mr Carmichael]

Given the refusal to include commitments to the principle of maximum sustainable yield or the multiple amendments that Opposition Members have tabled—all of which have been rebuffed by the Minister and the Government—does the hon. Gentleman not think that the Government have got the title right?

[Luke Pollard]

The right hon. Gentleman steals my final line. We would have tabled an amendment, but we needed to make sure that the content was right. As such, we cannot do anything with it, so I will sit down.

[The Chair]

We would all have done many things in different times, I am sure.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 43 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Iain Stewart.)