Fisheries Bill [HL]

Lord Faulkner of Worcester Excerpts

Report stage & Report: 2nd sitting (Hansard) & Report: 2nd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 24th June 2020 Lords Chamber

[The Deputy Speaker (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)]

My Lords, I have received a request from the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, to ask a short question for elucidation.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering [V]]

I am increasingly alarmed by what my noble friend says. This seems to be a step backwards. We heard clear undertakings at Second Reading and in Committee that we would continue to take the science from the tried-and-tested research capability to which we contribute financially at present and whose excellent experts we previously heard from in the EU Environment Sub-Committee of our European Union Committee. I am alarmed that there is any question of us moving away from the international science community. As we have established, we do not have unique control over the fish. They move around. I want an assurance that we will not look at moving away in the next five or 10 years, as well as a further commitment from my noble friend that our current commitment to financing ICES after 31 December this year is assured.

--- Later in debate ---

Amendment 21 agreed.

[The Deputy Speaker]

We now come to the group consisting of Amendment 22. I remind noble Lords that Members other than the mover and the Minister may speak only once, and that short questions of elucidation are discouraged. Anyone wishing to press this amendment to a Division should make that clear in debate.

Amendment 22

Moved by

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Young of Old Scone [V]]

My Lords, I support this amendment in the name of my noble friend Lady Jones of Whitchurch. The situation reminds me of what used to happen with EU structural funds, which were intended to promote regional development and often funded roads and railways into remote rural areas. These promptly allowed all primary agricultural and other products and skills to be sucked out of those rural areas and processed elsewhere, which resulted in more impoverishment of the very areas the investment was intended to help. We do not want an example in the Fisheries Bill of inadvertent consequences of this sort.

Bearing in mind that we are repatriating and setting forth towards a brave new world of our own fisheries management independence, it is highly appropriate that this amendment aims at ensuring that our new fisheries regime will make sure that UK producers, processors and coastal communities play a full role in a thriving and sustainable fisheries market, and at the promotion of UK jobs and skills. This is a highly appropriate amendment.

[The Deputy Speaker]

I call the noble Lord, Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale.

[Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale (Lab)]

I pay tribute to the Deputy Speaker for getting my title right; many before him have tried and failed.

I very much welcome this debate and the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lady Jones. I am minded to support it on the principle of the coastal town economies affected by the historical decline in activity around the fishing industry. This is a very important debate and amendment; the issue is absolutely central to wider economic regeneration, if that is to be one of the objectives of the repatriation of powers from Brussels. However, I have some concerns about the constitutional principles relating to this amendment and would be very grateful if my noble friend could perhaps clarify her thinking on these issues if she intends to push this amendment to a Division.

I am concerned that the amendment simply talks about “consulting” the devolved Governments—particularly the Scottish Government, who have clear legislative authority—rather than “agreeing” with them a national landing requirement. I am interested in knowing the thinking on having a UK-wide national landing requirement imposed from the centre rather than agreed by consensus across the four nations, and how that would work in practice.

As was mentioned regularly in your Lordships’ House on Monday afternoon, the Scottish Government have already indicated their support for a legislative consent Motion for the Bill as it currently stands. Notwithstanding that, I was willing to support amendments on Monday that might challenge that position. What consultations, if any, or thoughts might there be in relation to the position of the Scottish Parliament on a national landing requirement? I would be interested in knowing that in advance of the House dividing on the amendment, perhaps creating a situation where the legislative consent Motion is withheld because of this or other amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Deputy Speaker]

The next speaker on the list was the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of Cradley, but she has indicated that she does not wish to intervene at this stage. Therefore, I now call the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra.

[Lord Blencathra (Con) [V]]

My Lords, although subsection (2) of the new clause proposed in the amendment states that the UK Secretary of State must consult fishing bodies and the devolved Administrations of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, the clause would require this United Kingdom Parliament to legislate for the devolved Administrations in a manner that is not consistent with the devolution settlement. I do not think that Mrs Sturgeon would like that very much, and I agree entirely with the noble Lord, Lord McConnell.

The Bill is carefully constructed to devolve as much power to the devolved Administrations as legally possible, and we should not adopt an amendment that requires the UK Secretary of State to legislate for the devolved Administrations on a devolved issue. Furthermore, it is not necessary. I refer noble Lords to Schedule 3 to the Bill, which states, inter alia:

“Power to attach conditions to sea fishing licence


1(1) A sea fish licensing authority may, on granting a sea fishing licence, attach to the licence such conditions as appear to it to be necessary or expedient for the regulation of sea fishing (including conditions which do not relate directly to fishing).


(2) The conditions that may be attached to a sea fishing licence include, in particular, conditions—


(a) as to the landing of fish or parts of fish (including specifying the ports at which catches are to be landed);


(b) as to the use to which the fish caught may be put”.


There is more but it is not relevant to this part of the debate. Therefore, the Bill already provides the powers necessary for each of the fisheries Administrations of the United Kingdom to introduce a landing requirement designed by them for their own specific national conditions. Thus, it is not a national landing requirement for the UK; it is four national landing requirements for each of the countries of the UK.

Indeed, each fisheries Administration has a landing requirement as part of the economic link condition in the licences it issues. This is one of several economic link criteria that ensure that the UK receives economic benefit from UK-registered vessels that fish against UK quota.

The amendment requires 65% of fish caught in UK waters to be landed in the UK. That is a desirable aspiration. Superficially it is appealing, and it appeals to me instinctively. However, at the moment there are good reasons—commercial or economic—why a vessel might want to land its catch abroad. The current economic link criteria allow this flexibility while requiring vessel owners to contribute to the UK economy in another fashion. The amendment would seem to place unjustified restrictions on the ability of vessels to seek the best market for their catch and therefore would not necessarily be in the best interests of the industry.

I suspect that I am the only Peer taking part who is a supporter of Fishing for Leave. Indeed, I am probably the only Peer in the whole House who is a member and supporter of this organisation. I commend Fishing for Leave for its splendid work during the referendum and its campaigning on fishing issues since. I think I am right in saying that it is a Fishing for Leave point that the UK has lost fish processing capacity. It must be a key objective to rebuild that capacity in our ports once again. However, at the moment our UK fishing ports cannot handle and process the fish which British boats could land. The noble Baroness made the point that some ports cannot take big boats, and time is required to reconstruct those ports. Now that our fishing grounds, catches and landings will be back under UK control, I look forward to that capacity being rebuilt, but we are not nearly there yet.

Finally, the fishing industry has long objected to the inflexibilities imposed by the common fisheries policy. One of the much-anticipated outcomes of Brexit is the opportunity to move away from the CFP. That was a key demand from Fishing for Leave, which I strongly support. The amendment requires that the landing requirement be imposed by secondary legislation, but the current economic link criteria exist in licensing conditions, enabling alterations to be made fairly quickly in response to changing circumstances. I do not think that we want to leave the CFP while introducing a more restrictive approach to our management of the economic link policy. That would seem to waste the opportunity that leaving the EU has provided us with to improve our fisheries management.

Therefore, although the amendment is well intended, I submit that it is wrong in devolution terms; it is unnecessary, since Schedule 3 already provides for it; and it is inflexible when there are faster solutions.

--- Later in debate ---

Amendments 56 and 57 agreed.

[The Deputy Speaker (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)]

We now come to the group beginning with Amendment 58. I remind noble Lords that Members other than the mover and the Minister may speak only once, and that short questions of elucidation are discouraged. Anyone wishing to press this amendment to a Division should make that clear in debate.

Clause 48: Interpretation

Amendment 58

Moved by

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

My Lords, I am particularly grateful for the noble Lord’s amendment because it gives me the opportunity to expand further on how our definition of MSY relates to the fisheries objectives, in particular the precautionary objective, and to our ecosystem approach to fisheries management. I found it immensely rewarding to have early conversations with the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, and fisheries scientists to explore these matters. I am most grateful to the noble Lord and the scientists for their consideration and time in these helpful discussions.

Under the common fisheries policy, fisheries management has largely focused on the management of individual stocks. Clearly fish stocks interact, however, and fisheries activity also has wider impacts on the marine environment. That is why in our 2018 White Paper we committed to moving towards a more holistic ecosystem approach to fisheries management. This approach is supported by emerging best practice in fisheries science. For example—I emphasise this to my noble friend Lady McIntosh—ICES, the international body that advises on fish stocks, now provides advice on sustainable range alongside the traditional point estimate for MSY. Rather than trying to fish all stocks simultaneously at the point of MSY, setting harvest rates within a sustainable range provides flexibility when dealing with the complex interactions in mixed fisheries.

I say to my noble friend Lady McIntosh that we will be continuing to work with ICES, which, as I say, is an international body of great reputation. For instance, when scientifically justified, the provisions in the Bill would already allow us to underexploit some stocks marginally in the short term in order to seek to ensure that all stocks can be fished sustainably. Given that MSY assessments can fluctuate significantly due to scientific uncertainty, it would also allow us to smooth out year-by-year changes in catch limits to help to stabilise progress towards MSY and provide the industry with greater certainty. Such an approach better reflects the future direction of UK fisheries policy.

I say directly to the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, and others, that, in future, fisheries management decisions for both single and mixed fisheries will be based on data-driven science and will include broader ecosystem considerations, including environmental change, together with improving the alignment of fisheries management with fisheries science. Our fisheries science specialists at Cefas are already developing cutting-edge mixed fisheries modelling for the North Sea, the Irish Sea and the Celtic Sea to understand better the benefits of future fisheries catches when moving towards MSY and even to lower exploitation rates, and to reduce the risks of stock depletion.

I thank my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay; I have found that it is essential to hear an expert lawyer’s view. The current definition of MSY in the Bill includes references to theoretical MSY and is linked to the reproduction process of stocks because doing otherwise would in practice further restrict the definition and make it more difficult to follow. Giving other factors equal weight as part of the MSY definition in itself, as these amendments propose, could dilute the key criterion of maintaining the reproduction process of stocks.

The MSY definition as currently worded will instead permit us to set harvest rates within sustainable ranges. This provides the necessary flexibility to look at fish stocks collectively within the ecosystem. It enables us to balance complex biological and ecological interactions within our fisheries as we work to rebuild stocks while allowing a sustainable fishing industry. Our definition is compatible with the current ICES interpretation of MSY.

With that explanation of the wider elements of managing our complex mixed fisheries, as well as the commitment around the use of data-driven science to ground our fisheries management decisions, I very much hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

[The Deputy Speaker]

My Lords, I have received no requests from any noble Lord wishing to come in with a short question for elucidation, so I call the noble Lord, Lord Krebs.

[Lord Krebs [V]]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for taking part in this short debate on a key concept in fisheries management, and for the support for my amendment from across the House. I also thank noble Lords for their kind words about my contribution. I will take this opportunity also to thank the Minister not only for his reply to this amendment but for what in my view has been his outstanding handling of the Bill on Report with great patience, dignity and a positive spirit.

I refer noble Lords to the comments made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern. He explained to us, I assume from a legal point of view, that when it says “theory” it actually means “data”, and when it says “reproduction process” it actually means “viability of stock”. I am only a scientist, as I gather the noble and learned Lord was when he started out, but he progressed to becoming a lawyer, and I accept that if it is not what it says on the face of the Bill in legal terms, perhaps that is right. However, it would have been nice to put the words on the face of the Bill.

MSY is one of those ideas that simply will not lie down and die. We could have taken the opportunity in the Bill to kill it off and move into the 21st century. Instead, we are fossilising our system in an out-of-date framework, apparently because we want to remain aligned to the common fisheries policy. We could have changed the definition of MSY in the Bill to meet the concerns that I have expressed.

Although the Minister explained why he was not prepared to change the wording, I see a glimmer of light. He acknowledged—I am most grateful to him for saying so—that fisheries management decisions will be based on data-driven science and will include broader ecosystem considerations, including climate change or environmental change. Although that is much less than I would have originally hoped for, I accept that it is a concession to the point in my amendment and I therefore beg leave to withdraw.

Fisheries Bill [HL]

Lord Faulkner of Worcester Excerpts

Consideration of Commons amendments & Ping Pong (Hansard) & Ping Pong (Hansard): House of Lords & Ping Pong (Minutes of Proceedings): House of Lords
Thursday 12th November 2020 Lords Chamber

It is genuinely puzzling that there seems to be no compelling reason to have precipitated such a potentially damaging conflict. For many years, as the Minister acknowledged, Guernsey and Jersey have found ways of scrupulously giving effect to their international obligations while preserving their constitutional autonomy. By threatening that autonomy for no specific reason this clause sows discord where there was, constitutionally if not always politically, harmony. I regret that we are asked to accept it and that the request has come so late in the parliamentary process. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Beith, for his amendment, which has allowed these important issues at least to be aired.

[Lord Faulkner of Worcester (Lab)]

My Lords, it a privilege to follow the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, and, like him, I declare a Channel Island interest in that I chair the Alderney Gambling Control Commission and am a vice-chair of the Channel Islands All-Party Parliamentary Group. To say that the inclusion of the permissive extent clause in Clause 52 has upset the bailiwicks of Guernsey and Jersey is an under- statement. They are affronted by it, and for very good reason. The clause is neither necessary nor appropriate; it respects neither the bailiwicks’ legislative autonomy nor their centuries-old constitutional relationship with the Crown. This is almost exactly the view taken by your Lordships’ Constitution Committee, to which the noble Lord, Lord Beith, referred.

I shall quote another section of that report, which states:

“The long-standing practice of the United Kingdom when it ratifies an international agreement has been to do so on behalf of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and any of the Crown Dependencies that wish the international instrument to apply to them. Where legislation has been required, it has been enacted by the Crown Dependencies’ own legislatures, subject to the usual requirements for Royal Assent, and any potential differences of view have been dealt with in bilateral discussion rather than by the imposition of legislation from Westminster.”


The report goes on to state:

“We recommend that the Bill be amended so that consent of the governments of the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man (as appropriate) is required prior to the use of these powers.”


The crucial word here is “consent”.

Reading the Hansard report of the Bill’s Report stage in the House of Commons, I commend the speech of Sir Robert Neill MP, the chairman of the Justice Committee:

“There is a long-standing constitutional convention … that the normal process is that we legislate for the Crown dependencies only with their consent. They are not former colonies or British territories, and they are not part of the United Kingdom in the strict sense. They are possessions of Her Majesty the Queen, by right of her position as successor to the Duchy of Normandy. That is why they do not have representation here. Where necessary, their legislative dealings with the UK Government are dealt with historically through the Privy Council, and are now safeguarded by the Ministry of Justice via the person of the Lord Chancellor. So their constitutional position is different.


The Government have recognised that in the past, for example in tax transparency legislation, where this House accepted that although we have the power to legislate for overseas territories, we do not constitutionally have the power to legislate for the Crown dependencies in a like manner.”—[Official Report, Commons, 13/10/20; cols. 307-08.]


It is almost exactly one month since this government amendment was first considered. The Bill started in your Lordships’ House on 29 January. It received our normal thorough scrutiny, with four days in Committee in March and two on Report in June. Throughout all those stages, and indeed during the Commons consideration at Second Reading and in Committee, there was no reference to this new clause.

The Minister said that the Government would have preferred to introduce the new clause earlier with the consent of the Crown dependencies, and indeed there were discussions between Defra officials and the bailiwicks of Guernsey and Jersey in July, after the Bill had left your Lordships’ House, about the inclusion of a PEC. The island Governments, however, made it clear, verbally and in writing, that they did not want a PEC included; in other words, they denied their consent to it, pointing out that the bailiwicks are responsible for ensuring that they fulfil all the international obligations to which they have agreed to be bound, including by making legislation themselves in their respective jurisdictions.

The islands meet these international obligations by implementing appropriate policies and making and enforcing relevant legislation. The Channel Islands can legislate very quickly, if needed, to comply with international obligations and to resolve any international situations, as they have in the past. Any issues that arose could be dealt with effectively by the islands themselves, and the PEC is therefore unnecessary, and, from a constitutional point of view, wholly undesirable.

At this stage, I draw the House’s attention to the views of my noble friend Lady Pitkeathley, who is the only Guernsey-born Member of your Lordships’ House. She cannot take part in this debate but she has sent me this note:

“I was planning to focus on the issue of trust. Trust which has always existed … between the Channel Islands and what is affectionately known as ‘The Mainland’ or ‘The Other Side’. Every islander has relatives, friends, connections ‘over the other side’ and it is almost taken for granted that the interests of the two jurisdictions coincide, even while recognising and being proud of their own distinctions. It will be a source of great distress that this trust should be undermined as this legislation threatens to do and is surely not in the long term interests of either my home island or those of the government. The relationship between Guernsey and the UK government is based on mutual respect and an understanding of different perspectives and for the government to make these changes without any communication, let alone consultation, shows a gross lack of respect for the constitutional relationships which have worked well for decades. This is a constitutional issue, not one confined to fishing and would set a most unhelpful precedent for future relationships between ‘our dear Channel Islands’ and the UK.”


As I am sure your Lordships will be aware, “our dear Channel Islands” was how Winston Churchill described them in his liberation broadcast on 8 May 1945.

I do not want to be unfair to the Minister, or indeed to the Fisheries Minister, Victoria Prentis, as in recent days they have attempted to persuade Ministers in Guernsey and Jersey that what they are attempting to do is fair and reasonable. I should express my own appreciation that they took the trouble to talk to me last Tuesday.

I heard from Victoria Prentis’s office on Tuesday this week that Defra will

“establish a committee to discuss the Crown dependencies’ international obligations”.

We heard a similar commitment from the noble Lord, Lord Gardiner, this afternoon. That would be a tiny step forward, but it does not alleviate the Channel Islands’ concerns and would not justify the inclusion of the PEC in the Bill. In his letter to the Constitution Committee on 2 November, the noble Lord, Lord Gardiner, gave his

“absolute assurance that it is still government policy that legislation should not be extended to the Crown dependencies without first consulting their Governments and seeking their consent.”

When he replies to this debate, can he clarify that absolute assurance: that, in consulting the bailiwicks, the Government would act only once they had not just sought but received their consent, and that that is not just government policy but long-standing, established constitutional principle and practice? If he accepted that, he would at least be following the recommendation of our own Constitution Committee. If he does not do that, I really cannot see any alternative other than to agree to the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Beith.

[Baroness Couttie (Con)]

It is a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, whose speech I entirely agree with. In the interests of brevity, I will not reiterate some of the points that he has made.

I begin by reminding the House of my interest as a Guernsey financial services commissioner. I am speaking today to support the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Beith.

The effect of Clause 52 is to require the Channel Islands to follow the law as it pertains to regulations within international fishing agreements that the UK signs with or without the islands’ consent. The Channel Islands are independent, sovereign states that can create their own laws without interference from the UK. Although it is true that the UK represents the Channel Islands on the international stage, and is therefore responsible for ensuring that they follow the international law that the UK signs up to, the Channel Islands believe that this relates only to areas such as defence, human rights and foreign policy, and that fishing in their own domestic waters is a domestic matter and therefore does not fall under this obligation.

The PEC created in this amendment also raises some broader sovereignty issues that other speakers have touched upon and the concern that the UK could, at some time in the future, seek to further undermine their independence. They fear for where this may lead. I would be grateful if my noble friend the Minister could confirm in his reply that that will not be the case.

I am grateful to my noble friend the Minister and to the Fisheries Minister in the other place for their time discussing this matter with me and for the progress we have made towards a level of compromise that, while not satisfying the Channel Island legislatures, mitigates to some degree what they see as an infringement on their sovereignty.

My noble friend the Minister agreed at our meeting that regulations that the Channel Islands are required to implement will be subject to consultation by the committees spoken about by the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, with the Channel Islands legislatures, and that all reasonable steps will be taken to respond to and mitigate the concerns that the consultation raises. I would be very grateful if the Minister could confirm that.

He also agreed that, in so far as the UK enters into international fishing agreements that contain regulations that are not relevant or appropriate to the Channel Islands, they will not apply. This situation could arise when developing regulations associated with fishing agreements signed with countries located some distance away from the Channel Islands, such as Norway and Iceland, and this can be achieved because of the regional structure of the plans to manage the fishing industry and trade in the UK, post Brexit. Again, I would be grateful if, in his closing remarks, my noble friend the Minister could confirm my understanding.

The Channel Islands and the UK have long enjoyed a constructive and positive working relationship, which I am sure we all hope will continue. It is unfortunate that the UK Government felt the need to include their amendment in the Bill and that they did not feel that the usual channels of communication, which have worked for so long, could be used instead to ensure that both the UK and the Channel Islands abide by their international obligations. It is doubly unfortunate that this issue has arisen around fisheries—an industry that, although not large on the Channel Islands, is nevertheless a vital part of the islands’ culture. I very much hope that the compromise I have outlined today is accepted.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Deputy Speaker (Lord Lexden) (Con)]

My Lords, I have received a request to ask a short question from the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner of Worcester.

[Lord Faulkner of Worcester (Lab)]

My Lords, I express my appreciation to the Minister for the considerate and thoughtful way in which he responded to the debate. I would just like clarification on that very last point. He has drawn attention, quite rightly, to the constitutional history between the United Kingdom Government and the Channel Islands. Does he not accept that the way in which harmony can be restored is by just saying “yes” to this question: if the Channel Islands do not consent to the use of the PEC, will the Government not insist on it?

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble (Con)]

My Lords, I understand the instincts of the noble Lord exactly. On international obligations, the whole point about the last resort is that, if international obligations were not being adhered to in a certain part of the British family, it would be the responsibility of the UK Government to act accordingly. All I say in answering the noble Lord— positively, I hope—is that I believe that everyone I have spoken to who would have responsibility would work collaboratively and exhaust every option available. It would be triggered only if all those options were exhausted in order to adhere to international obligations. This is my point.

Also—if I am allowed to say this and if this is the last moment—I respect immensely all noble Lords who have participated in the consideration of this Fisheries Bill. This is indeed my first experience of us dealing with a Bill as the first House; I can tell your Lordships that, when I saw the number of amendments coming back from the other place, I was not the only one whose heart may have sunk a bit. I think it shows that, when we are the second House and have other points to make, the other place sends us messages back as well. I place on record my deep appreciation of the Front Bench opposite and the Back Benches on all sides of the House for the collaborative way in which I believe we have worked, seeking to do the best we can for the marine environment and the future of our fisheries communities—which, after all, bring us such nutritious food, often in very difficult circumstances. I place my thanks on record and have no doubt that we will have further work to do.