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

Luke Pollard Excerpts

Monday 25th March 2019 General Committees

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Luke Pollard]

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

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

[Mr Goodwill]

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

[Luke Pollard]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[George Eustice]

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

[Luke Pollard]

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

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

[George Eustice]

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

[Luke Pollard]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Luke Pollard]

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

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

“effective, proportionate and dissuasive penalties”.

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

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Goodwill]

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

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

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

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

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

[Luke Pollard]

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

[Mr Goodwill]

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Goodwill]

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

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

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

[Luke Pollard]

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

[Mr Goodwill]

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Luke Pollard]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[George Eustice]

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

[Luke Pollard]

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

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

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

[George Eustice]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Luke Pollard]

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

[George Eustice]

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

[Luke Pollard]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[George Eustice]

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

[Luke Pollard]

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

[Hugh Gaffney]

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

[Luke Pollard]

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

[Mr Goodwill]

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

[Luke Pollard]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[George Eustice]

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

[Luke Pollard]

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

[George Eustice]

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

[Luke Pollard]

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

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

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

[Luke Pollard]

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Goodwill]

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

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

[Luke Pollard]

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

[Mr Goodwill]

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

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

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

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

Question put.

--- Later in debate ---

[Luke Pollard]

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

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

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

[George Eustice]

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

[Luke Pollard]

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

[George Eustice]

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

[Luke Pollard]

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

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

Insect Population

Luke Pollard Excerpts

Wednesday 20th March 2019 Westminster Hall

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

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

[Alex Sobel]

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

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

Luke Pollard Excerpts

Wednesday 20th March 2019 General Committees

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

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

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

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

I also point out that the note says:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The explanatory note states that

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How much is defined as negligible in relation to this?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Goodwill]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Luke Pollard]

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

[Mr Goodwill]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

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

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

Resolved,

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

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

Luke Pollard Excerpts

Tuesday 19th March 2019 General Committees

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

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

[Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West) (Lab)]

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

[Luke Pollard]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“no, or no significant, impact”,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

My noble Friend continued:

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

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

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

Leaving the EU: Fishing

Luke Pollard Excerpts

Wednesday 13th March 2019 Westminster Hall

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Mrs Sheryll Murray]

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

[Luke Pollard]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Graham Stringer (in the Chair)]

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

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.)

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.

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.