Draft Fisheries (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019

Luke Pollard Excerpts

Tuesday 29th January 2019 General Committees

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The explanatory note states:

“An Impact Assessment has not been prepared,”

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

“no, or no significant, impact”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

He then said:

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

He gave assurances that

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

and said:

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

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

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

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

[George Eustice]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

and, secondly,

“forms part of retained EU law”

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

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

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

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

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

[Luke Pollard]

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

[George Eustice]

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

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[George Eustice]

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

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

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

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

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

[Luke Pollard]

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

[George Eustice]

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

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

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

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

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

Luke Pollard Excerpts

Monday 28th January 2019 General Committees

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

but two points down it states,

“we expect it to have no impact”.

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

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

The note also states that

“no review clause is required.”

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

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

“Article 10 is to be ignored”,

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

Paragraph 15 in part 1 states:

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

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

“points (iv) to (ix) were omitted”.

Why does it not say they should be ignored?

In part 3, regulation 30 states:

“Article 6(1)(c) and (2)”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Luke Pollard]

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

[Dr Coffey]

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

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

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

Question put.

Water Industry

Luke Pollard Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd January 2019 Westminster Hall

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

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

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

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

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

[Richard Benyon]

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

[Luke Pollard]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Our “Clear Water” plan states:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fisheries Bill (Ninth sitting)

Luke Pollard Excerpts

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

[Mr Carmichael]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Peter Aldous]

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

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

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

[Luke Pollard]

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

[George Eustice]

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[George Eustice]

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

[Luke Pollard]

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

[George Eustice]

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

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

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 27 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 28

Financial assistance: powers of Secretary of State

[Luke Pollard]

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

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

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

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

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

“(e) commissioning scientific research to support—

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

(ii) the development of low impact fishing techniques.

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

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

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

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

New clause 21—Proceeds of charges and fees—

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

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

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

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

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

[Luke Pollard]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Peter Aldous]

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

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

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

“administrative function relating to fisheries management”.

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

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

[Luke Pollard]

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

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

Question proposed, That the amendment be made.

Division 12

Ayes: 6

---

Labour: 5
Liberal Democrat: 1

Noes: 9

---

Conservative: 9

[Luke Pollard]

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

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

[The Chair]

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

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

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

(a) promoted recreational fishing, and

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

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

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

[Luke Pollard]

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

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

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

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

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

[Owen Smith (Pontypridd) (Lab)]

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

[Luke Pollard]

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

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

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

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

[Mr Carmichael]

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[George Eustice]

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

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

[Luke Pollard]

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

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

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 28 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 4

Financial assistance

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

[George Eustice]

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

Question put and agreed to.

Schedule 4 accordingly agreed to.

Clause 29

Power of Marine Management Organisation to impose charges

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[George Eustice]

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

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

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

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

[Luke Pollard]

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

[George Eustice]

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

[Luke Pollard]

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

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 29 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 5

Power of Northern Ireland department to impose charges

[Luke Pollard]

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

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

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

[George Eustice]

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

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

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

[Luke Pollard]

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

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

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

--- Later in debate ---

[George Eustice]

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

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

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

[Luke Pollard]

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

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 31 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 32

Section 31: interpretation

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

[George Eustice]

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

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 32 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 33

Power to make provision about aquatic animal diseases

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

--- Later in debate ---

[George Eustice]

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

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 35 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 36

Procedural requirements for regulations under section 31 or 33

[Luke Pollard]

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

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

[George Eustice]

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

I call the Minister—sorry, Mr Pollard.

[Luke Pollard]

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

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

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

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

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

[George Eustice]

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

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 36 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 37

Powers of Scottish Ministers, Welsh Ministers and NI department

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

Fisheries Bill (Tenth sitting)

Luke Pollard Excerpts

Monday 17th December 2018 Public Bill Committees

Powers relating to the exploitation of sea fisheries resources

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Luke Pollard]

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

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

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

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

[George Eustice]

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

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

Question put and agreed to.

Schedule 7 accordingly agreed to.

Clause 39

Regulations

[Luke Pollard]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Luke Pollard]

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

[Alan Brown]

Correct.

[Luke Pollard]

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

[George Eustice]

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

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

[Luke Pollard]

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

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 39 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 40 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 41

Extent

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

--- Later in debate ---

[George Eustice]

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

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

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

[Luke Pollard]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

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

Amendment 112 agreed to.

[Luke Pollard]

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

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

[The Chair]

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

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

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

(a) the Scottish Ministers,

(b) the Welsh Ministers,

(c) the Northern Ireland department,

(d) representatives of the fishing industry,

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

[Luke Pollard]

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

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

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

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

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

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

“skills as one of its core pillars”,

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

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

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

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

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

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

He is right.

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

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

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

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

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

[The Chair]

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

--- Later in debate ---

[George Eustice]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Luke Pollard]

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

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

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

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

[Luke Pollard]

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

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

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

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

[David Duguid]

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

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

[Luke Pollard]

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

[George Eustice]

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[George Eustice]

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

Question put and agreed to.

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

Clause 43

Short title

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

[Luke Pollard]

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

[Mr Carmichael]

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

[Luke Pollard]

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

[The Chair]

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

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 43 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

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

Fisheries Bill (Tenth_PART2 sitting)

Luke Pollard Excerpts

Committee Debate: 10th sitting (part 2): House of Commons
Monday 17th December 2018 Public Bill Committees

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

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

New clause 5 essentially addresses an inconsistency between the devolution settlements for Wales and for Scotland and Northern Ireland. Unlike the devolution settlements for Scotland and Northern Ireland, the National Assembly for Wales does not currently have legislative competence in relation to fisheries in the offshore area, although it already has executive competence for those areas. The Bill, combined with our withdrawal from the European Union, will mean that the devolved Administrations will have more powers than ever before, and we believe it is right for this modification to be made so that the Welsh Government can exercise their legislative competence as set out in the Bill.

The new clause, therefore, will enable the Assembly to make primary legislation on fishing, fisheries and fish health for the whole Welsh zone. The Welsh offshore region is the area of sea outside the territorial sea—that is, beyond 12 nautical miles from the coast, but within the exclusive economic zone. It is a relatively small area, stretching at its greatest extent to 30 nautical miles from the coast of Wales. Without this new clause, the National Assembly for Wales could not make its own primary legislation relating to fisheries in the Welsh offshore region and the management of fisheries in Welsh waters would be more piecemeal and less effective.

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

There are a couple of points I want to make on this new clause. I understand that the Welsh Labour Government have raised concerns with the Government regarding the National Assembly’s legislative competence for fisheries matters beyond Welsh inshore waters. The Welsh Government are seeking to bring the National Assembly’s competence in line with Welsh Ministers’ Executive competence, which would make the introduction of a pan-UK framework less complex. The Minister’s letter to the Committee about new clause 5 explained that this is designed to address the need for an extension to the Welsh Government’s legislative competence to bring Wales in line with Scotland and Northern Ireland.

Can the Minister formally confirm for the record that new clause 5 adequately addresses the issues raised by the Welsh Government regarding the Bill, and that they have been consulted on and have agreed to the terms of new clause 5? Can he also explain why this issue was not addressed at an earlier stage, so that the Bill could be introduced in a more complete form? Furthermore, I understand that the Welsh Government have also raised concerns in relation to clause 18 and the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009. Can the Minister tell the Committee when discussions on those issues will be concluded, and whether he plans to table further amendments to deal with them during the Bill’s progress?

[George Eustice]

I can indeed confirm that we have developed the new clause in conversation with the Welsh Government. It was a specific request that they made after the Bill had been published and as it approached Second Reading, and we needed to go through the Government write-round process to get agreement to make the change. Obviously, there was earlier legislation as recently as two years ago in which Executive competence was given to the Welsh Government. At that point, they did not ask for legislative competence; I think everybody can agree that that was probably an oversight at the time and it is now important that they have that legislative competence. I can reassure the hon. Gentleman that this amendment, as drafted, enables the Welsh Government to have the legislative competence that they seek, that it has been developed in discussion with them and that it therefore addresses their concerns in that regard.

Question put and agreed to.

New clause 5 accordingly read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 22

Fisheries agreement between the UK and the EU

“(1) This section applies if—

(a) the United Kingdom and the EU enter into a withdrawal agreement, and

(b) pursuant to that agreement, the Secretary of State enters into negotiations with the EU, on behalf of the United Kingdom, for an agreement about the management of shared stocks (a ‘fisheries agreement’).

(2) The Secretary of State must pursue the following two objectives when negotiating a fisheries agreement.

(3) The first objective is that the agreement should provide for annual negotiations to determine fishing opportunities.

(4) The second objective is that the agreement should have the effect that Union fishing boats are not granted access to UK waters in any year unless the fishing opportunities for that year that are available for distribution by the United Kingdom are (looked at in the round) greater than those that would have been so available under relative stability.

(5) The reference in subsection (4) to the fishing opportunities for any year that would have been available for distribution by the United Kingdom “under relative stability” is to the fishing opportunities that would, in the opinion of the Secretary of State, have been so available for that year under the common fisheries policy, were the United Kingdom still a member of the EU.

(6) In this section—

‘exclusive economic zone’ has the meaning given by Part 5 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea 1982 (Cmnd 8941);

“fishing opportunities” means—

(a) the maximum quantities of shared stocks of particular descriptions that may be caught annually in particular areas within UK and Union waters, and

(b) the maximum number of days that fishing boats may spend at sea annually, in particular areas within UK and Union waters, fishing for particular descriptions of shared stocks;

‘shared stocks’ means stocks of sea fish which are found—

(a) in waters within the exclusive economic zone of the United Kingdom, and

(b) in waters within the exclusive economic zone of a member State;

‘UK waters’ means waters within British fishery limits;

‘Union fishing boat’ means a fishing vessel flying the flag of a member State and registered in the EU;

‘Union waters’ has the meaning given by Article 4 of the Common Fisheries Policy Regulation;

‘withdrawal agreement’ means an agreement setting out the arrangements for the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the EU in the terms (or essentially in the terms) endorsed by the meeting of the European Council held on 25 November 2018.”—(George Eustice.)

This new clause would require the Government, when negotiating an agreement with the EU about fisheries, to pursue the objectives that fishing opportunities should be subject to annual negotiation, and that the UK should receive more fishing opportunities than it does under the common fisheries policy.

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 1

Sea Fish Industry Authority: powers in relation to parts of UK etc.

“(1) The Fisheries Act 1981 is amended as follows.

(2) In section 2(1) (duties of the Authority)—

(a) after the third “of” insert, “(amongst other things)”,

(b) delete the words “as a whole”.

(3) After section 3 (powers of the Authority), insert—

“3A Exercise of functions in relation to different parts of the UK etc.

The Authority may exercise its functions separately and differently in relation to—

(a) the sea fish industry in different parts of the United Kingdom,

(b) sea fish and sea fish products landed in different parts of the United Kingdom,

(c) sea fish and sea fish products trans-shipped in different parts of the sea within British fishery limits adjacent to different parts of the United Kingdom.

3B Delegation of functions

(1) The Authority may authorise any other person to exercise on its behalf such of its functions and to such extent as it may determine.

(2) The Authority may give to any person authorised under this section to exercise any of its functions—

(a) financial assistance (by way of loan, grant or guarantee),

(b) other assistance including assistance by way of the provision of property, staff or services, for the purposes of those functions.

(3) The giving of authority under this section to exercise a function does not—

(a) affect the Authority’s responsibility for the exercise of the function, or

(b) prevent the Authority from exercising the function itself.”.

(4) In section 11 (accounts and reports), after subsection (7) insert—

“(7A) The report must include details of how income received from levies imposed under section 4 has been applied in the financial year in respect of each part of the United Kingdom by the Authority in exercising its functions including in particular details, in respect of each part of the United Kingdom, of how the income has been applied by the Authority in—

(a) promoting the efficiency of the sea fish industry in that part,

(b) promoting the marketing and consumption of, and the export of, sea fish and sea fish products relating to that part.”.

(5) In schedule 1 (the Sea Fish Industry Authority), in paragraph 16—

(a) before sub-paragraph (1) insert—

“(A1) The Authority must appoint a committee for the purpose of assisting the Authority in the exercise of its functions in relation to the sea fish industry in Scotland.

(A2) The committee is to consist of or include persons who are not members of the Authority.

(A3) The Authority must consult the committee on the exercise of its functions in relation to the sea fish industry in Scotland.”,

(b) in sub-paragraph (1), before “committees” insert “other”,

(c) in sub-paragraph (2), for “such committees” substitute “committees appointed under this paragraph”.”—(Brendan O'Hara.)

This new clause would give the Sea Fish Industry Authority greater flexibility to exercise its functions separately and differently in different parts of the UK. It would also require Seafish to report how income received from the levies it imposes has been applied in respect of each part of the United Kingdom.

Brought up, and read the First time.

--- Later in debate ---

[George Eustice]

EMFF comes from the EU budget and is part of the EU’s budget when it is set. It is typically set for a period of five years and is reviewed periodically. As recently as 10 December, the Secretary of State announced that the Government will put in place new domestic long-term arrangements for post-2021, which will enable us to create schemes similar to the EMFF in each of the four Administrations. In addition, he announced an extra £37.2 million of funding to boost the existing EMFF programme, to help the fishing industry prepare for the opportunities coming its way, as my hon. Friend the Member for Banff and Buchan pointed out.

I do not, therefore, believe that the new clause is necessary or appropriate. We have demonstrated, as recently as last week, our commitment to funding fisheries in the future. The Bill makes explicit provision for grants to be made in three of the four Administrations and I would simply say that the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun should first consider obtaining the legal powers.

[Luke Pollard]

In response to an earlier intervention from the hon. Member for Stafford the Minister set a baseline, effectively, on relative stability—about what that meant. Is not it appropriate that there is also a baseline set on funding shares, which is effectively what the amendment says—so that no pennies are lost for Scotland or, indeed, any other part of the UK? Is not that a key attribute, which should be embedded, to follow the logic of what the Minister said to one of his hon. Friends?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Carmichael]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

We come back almost full circle to how we deal with what are known as shared stocks. It is pretty clear that that is going to be a subject of some political and commercial significance when we move to the next stage of negotiations on the future relationship with our current EU neighbours.

We have observed a number of times that the principle of sustainability was front and centre in the White Paper when it was published, but somehow does not seem to have made the transition into the Bill. New clause 11 would put sustainability back into the Bill as it relates to our management of shared stocks. It seeks to give a framework under which we would seek to reach agreement with neighbouring countries, third countries and the EU. I would suggest that the principles are fairly straightforward and sound and that this is exactly the sort of thing that the Government should have in the Bill if it were to be, as the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport suggested earlier, a sustainable Fisheries Bill.

[Luke Pollard]

The Bill makes no firm commitment on how a shared stock should be sustainably managed, which was one reason why we spoke about shared stocks in the objectives right at the start of our consideration of the Bill. That is extremely concerning, as setting clear sustainability criteria in relation to negotiations with other countries would help to avoid, for example, another mackerel wars scenario.

However, I have some questions about subsection 6 of the new clause, in particular about its unintended consequences for the total allowable catch. It suggests that if, for any reason, a country reduced its allowable catch on sustainability grounds, the other countries in that shared stock would ramp up to get to the total allowable catch, which could have implications for sustainability. It would be interesting to know from the right hon. Gentleman how that might work and how he might allay any concerns on that point.

[George Eustice]

I do not agree with the new clause. It is unnecessary and could have unintended consequences.

As a country, we already have clear obligations under international law—under both the UN convention on the law of the sea and the UN fish stocks agreement—to co-operate on the management of shared stocks. That is an international obligation that we have as a signatory to both UNCLOS and the UNFSA. Notably, article 63 of UNCLOS requires the UK and all other signatories to

“seek, either directly or through appropriate subregional or regional organizations, to agree upon the measures necessary to coordinate and ensure the conservation and development of such stocks”.

Both UNCLOS and the UNFSA also contain obligations to achieve maximum sustainable yield.

I do not accept the analysis that there is nothing on sustainability in the Bill. Clause 1, right at the start of the Bill, contains a list of sustainability objectives, including a commitment to MSY and all the objectives that are currently written in the basic EU regulation on the common fisheries policy.

A more likely scenario is that other countries, whether that be Norway or the European Union, would choose to fish unsustainably. In the event that we could not get an agreement, the suggestion here is that we would still set our own catch well below that of other member states. Subsection (6) seems to suggest that other states might set their quota well below maximum sustainable yield, meaning that we could set it higher, provided we had the permission of other member states.

I am not sure what scenario the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland envisages. A more likely scenario is that the UK will insist on sustainable fishing, as we always have, since ours is the country that champions sustainable fishing more than any other, but another country might not agree to do so. If we could not get an agreement, that other country might fish unsustainably outside of an agreement.

Our remedy for that, as things stand, is to be very clear, as we were in our White Paper, that access to UK waters is conditional on other foreign countries fishing sustainably. We will have strong leverage to be able to say to our neighbours: “Unless you fish within an agreement and within levels that are sustainable, we will not grant you the access to our waters on which you depend.” That puts us in a strong position. The new clause seems to suggest that the UK is the country that will want to fish unsustainably while everybody else—our neighbours—are the good guys. I suspect the opposite will be the case, but we have other remedies to ensure that we can deliver sustainable fishing by our neighbouring countries.

For all those reasons, and because we already have legal commitments, including in clause 1, and to a joint fisheries statement, I oppose the new clause.

[Mr Carmichael]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

This is a very much a probing new clause. There is little in the Bill—arguably nothing—that deals with monitoring and enforcement. This proposal, authored by Greener UK, is to have real-time reporting with technological devices and CCTV cameras. Those are live issues within the industry, and between industry scientists and conservationists. It is unfortunate that there is nothing at all in the Bill on the matter, so I have tabled the new clause to give the Minister an opportunity to explain what the Government will do about monitoring and enforcement, close to the implementation of the Bill.

[Luke Pollard]

We heard evidence on this subject from the director of the Marine Management Organisation, Phil Haslam, who said in relation to enforcement activities around fishing:

“The budget reduction since inception has been in the order of 60%”.––[Official Report, Fisheries Public Bill Committee, ; c. 50, Q101.]

That is simply unsustainable if we are to have properly enforced, well-protected and well-managed fisheries after Brexit. A number of concerns were voiced in the evidence sessions and since. We know that the number of hours of surveillance has dropped significantly since 2010, from 16,000 to just 2,000 now.

If we are to avoid a repetition of the scallop wars, but in UK rather than French waters, we need to ensure that we have sufficient levels of enforcement. It is good news that the Government have decided not necessarily to scrap all the Batch 1 River class offshore patrol vessels. That is a positive step forward, but there has still been no commitment on the number of hours those OPVs may be deployed for enforcement activity; there has just been a headline about their continued service, but with no certainty as to what that will mean.

We need to get much better on enforcement. There are serious concerns in the fishing industry about the focus on enforcement activities by UK ships enforcing in UK waters, which are targeting UK boats rather than foreign boats, which seem to have a lower standard when it comes to a number of different areas. The Government need to get better at enforcement, because the Opposition do not currently have confidence in their ability to enforce in our waters properly, especially when quota will be drawn down against our EU friends after Brexit, as we move from relative stability to zonal attachment. There are serious concerns about whether there is sufficient capacity within the enforcement branches of the Royal Navy’s fisheries squadron.

I will also press the Minister on what that means for inshore vessel monitoring systems. Earlier we asked whether EU boats should have the same requirements to obey the high safety standards and marine environmental protections. Can he confirm that all foreign boats will be required to have IVMS if they are in UK waters after Brexit, as that will help us in our enforcement activities?

[George Eustice]

I shall try to strike a more conciliatory tone in my response to this new clause, following the comments from the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland. I believe that the new clause is unnecessary, although it does highlight an important issue: enforcement. The new clause duplicates existing legislation, including the so-called control regulation—Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009—which will be rolled forward into retained EU law. Therefore, the requirements for vessel monitoring systems and data transmission and the provision of information such as logbooks will continue to apply to any vessel fishing in our waters.

In addition, as I made clear earlier, DEFRA has recently consulted on extending VMS requirements to UK vessels under 12 metres in length. Work on this is at an advanced stage and we anticipate bringing forward the regulations next year. The UK also has obligations under the United Nations convention on the law of the sea and the regulations on illegal, unreported and unregulated fisheries, and that requires effective monitoring and enforcement in any event. Also, clause 31 enables the Secretary the State to make regulations to introduce further provisions pertaining to enforcement and control.

The shadow Minister questioned the capacity for enforcement. As we discussed earlier, the three existing fisheries patrol vessels will remain in service—the decision to decommission them has been delayed. In addition, four new offshore patrol vessels will come into service next year. Finally, we have been doing some work with the Border Force cutters, and four vessels operated by the Border Force are capable of doing fisheries work. We have been training Border Force personnel to do fisheries protection work. Finally, on top of all of that, we are in discussions with the Maritime and Coastguard Agency on aerial surveillance, so there will be a substantial uplift in enforcement capacity.

The hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport mentioned funding. That will depend on how much of that capacity we need according to the type of scenario. At this stage, the important thing is to ensure that all of the capacity is there. If we need to access it, we can do so very quickly.

[Luke Pollard]

Briefly, EU boats are currently required to have IVMS, but there is a data-sharing agreement between all EU member states. Will the Minister confirm that data sharing agreements are in place for IVMS on EU boats and the UK authorities after we leave the EU?

--- Later in debate ---

[Luke Pollard]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

The debate on new clause 25 was a good one, and we can always revisit it. This new clause is about the duty to co-operate. The Minister has already decided that there is no need for a dispute resolution mechanism in relation to the different national fishing authorities in preparing the joint fisheries statement, or the Secretary of State’s fisheries statement—a position that the Opposition disagreed with. In the event of not having a system for resolving disputes, it would be important to have a duty to co-operate in the Bill.

The amendment has been drafted with the support of the Blue Marine Foundation. The CFP provides the glue that currently holds UK fisheries governance together. Without it there is a danger that the various devolved Administrations, the MMO and the IFCAs will draft different regulations, since they will essentially have control over their own areas with no statutory obligation to speak to anyone else or have due regard to what happens in neighbouring waters. The effect of this fracturing of regulation was highlighted by the Pitt review after the catastrophic 2007 floods, where administrators had differing operational practices and poor communication within them. The new clause seeks to resolve that in relation to fisheries.

The fracturing of regulation was deemed to exacerbate the harm caused by flooding. Marine regulation faces the same problem. Two different landing sizes for the same species in different adjacent areas, for instance, would have the effect of making some regulations inoperable and confusing. Without a duty to co-operate, fisheries administrations would be acting together in an ad hoc manner and co-operation would be seen as an add-on to their core purpose. This duty would put co-operation at the centre of the administrations, where it needs to be.

The new clause is similar to section 13 of the Flood and Water Management Act 2010, which followed the recommendations of the Pitt review. It does not replace the arrangements of the CFP but would go part of the way towards putting EU law into workable UK law.

[Alan Brown]

Given that we already have co-operation on the joint fisheries statement, can the hon. Gentleman explain how his new clause would create an additional level of co-operation?

[Luke Pollard]

Effectively, because the Government have decided to vote down the very sensible proposal of having a dispute mechanism to resolve any disputes in preparation of the joint fisheries statement and the Secretary of State’s fisheries statement, the new clause seeks to ensure that all national fisheries bodies have a duty to co-operate and that there is no dispute in the preparation of the joint fisheries statement policies. That is why it is so important that an obligation to co-operate is placed on all authorities, to avoid some of the disputes that we otherwise anticipate, especially in the complex waters between England and Scotland, and ensure that the Scottish and English fisheries authorities can set appropriate levels.

[Alan Brown]

How would we define and assess that co-operation, and who would make the call on how effective it is? I might argue, for example, that the UK Government are not co-operating on a certain aspect, whereas the UK Government might say, “Well, we are co-operating.” Different people would have different perceptions. How would this function in reality?

[Luke Pollard]

The duty to co-operate is a well-established legal text within primary legislation, so there is already an established understanding of what that means. On that basis, I will sit down and let the Minister respond.

[George Eustice]

I know that we have discussed this issue earlier, but it is already provided for elsewhere in the Bill. I invite the hon. Gentleman to look at clause 5(1), in particular, which states:

“The fisheries policy authorities must prepare and publish a JFS before 1 January 2021.”

There is therefore already a legal obligation on all the fisheries policy authorities. Also, clause 3(1) states:

“A JFS may only be prepared by the fisheries policy authorities acting jointly”.

The fact that every fisheries policy authority is under a legal obligation to agree a JFS, and the fact that statement can be established only by those authorities acting jointly, already gives effect to a legal requirement to act jointly and in good faith to agree such a statement.

[Luke Pollard]

The title of clause 5 refers to “the first fisheries statements”. Can the Minister suggest what will happen in the event of a dispute on the second or third statements?

[George Eustice]

In the event that the statement is amended, the same rules apply. It can only be applied by the authorities acting jointly and we will have to agree these things. The first statement must be done by 2021, but any statements after that will obviously also be required, because there is a requirement to have a JFS. There will be more than one and the Bill also sets out that the statement must be reviewed at least every six years.

[Luke Pollard]

I thank the Minister for those remarks. They do not go much of the way towards reassuring us that the second or third fisheries statements will have any element of co-operation. Therefore, in the absence of a dispute resolution mechanism, which would address disputes in preparation for fisheries statements, and in the absence of him taking on board the duty to co-operate, I think we are storing up trouble that we can quite clearly anticipate in future. I suspect that, as I mentioned previously, some industrious journalist will dig out this Hansard report when there is a dispute between the different national fisheries authorities, and it will then be flagged to the wider public that this was anticipated and not resolved.

[The Chair]

I think that was an intervention on the Minister, who will now conclude his remarks.

[Mr Carmichael]

I support the new clause, which I think would improve the Bill. I certainly take the view that a dispute resolution mechanism would be preferable. In the absence of that, however, having a duty to co-operate would at least allow for a situation in which any party that was not co-operating could be subject to judicial review, because they would be in breach of a duty given to them under the law. For the Minister to say that there is an imperative to reach an agreement on the face of the Bill presupposes that everybody will work in good faith. In the event that people are not working in good faith, there has to be a mechanism for identifying that. The Bill is currently deficient in that regard. The new clause is second best, but it would be better than nothing.

[Luke Pollard]

I think that the points have been well established, but I suspect that the Minister will not accept the new clause. I suggest that he thinks carefully about the context in which we are raising concerns here, in good faith, to avoid trouble in future. I suggest that he considers bringing back an element of it when the Bill is considered in the other place. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 15

Expert advisory council on fisheries

“(1) The Secretary of State must establish a body called the Expert Advisory Council on Fisheries for the purpose of exercising the functions in subsections (4) to (6).

(2) The Expert Advisory Council on Fisheries shall consist of as many people as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.

(3) Before appointing any person to the Expert Advisory Council, the Secretary of State must consult with—

(a) the other fisheries policy authorities, and

(b) any other such organisations as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.

(4) The Secretary of State must have regard to the advice of the Expert Advisory Council on Fisheries before—

(a) publishing or amending a Secretary of State fisheries statement,

(b) making or withdrawing a determination of fishing opportunities under section 18, and

(c) making any regulations under this Act, unless those regulations are made under—

(i) this section, or

(ii) section 42.

(5) The Secretary of State shall publish the Expert Advisory Council on Fisheries” assessment, for a calendar year, of the state of UK fisheries, including—

(a) current stocks and their sustainability,

(b) species distribution within the Exclusive Economic Zone,

(c) the status of employment and skills in the fishing industry,

(d) present total catches and future projected total catches, by both volume and monetary value, and

(e) the economic and social value and impact of the fishing industry on coastal communities.

(6) The first annual assessment under subsection (5) shall be published within 12 months of this section coming into force, and each subsequent assessment must be published within 12 months of the previous such assessment.

(7) For a calendar year, no determination may be made under section 18 until the annual assessment under subsection (5) has been published for that year.”—(Luke Pollard.)

This new clause would place a duty on the Secretary of State to establish the Expert Advisory Council on Fisheries, and provides for the Council’s membership and functions.

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Luke Pollard]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

It is important that we stop using the fishing industry as a political football. This is what the expert advisory council would seek to do, and it would do so by giving a say to those who know the industry best and have its best intentions at heart. The new clause has the industry’s support. Barrie Deas from the National Federation of Fishermen’s Organisations told the Committee in evidence that his organisation would like to see an

“advisory council of people with experience of the industry, who understand the complexities of a highly diverse and complex industry”

as well as being

“a kind of filter for legislation”

that could also

“make recommendations and provide advice on new legislation coming through.”—[Official Report, Fisheries Public Bill Committee, 4 December 2018; c. 15-16, Q26-27.]

An advisory council would run new ideas past a panel of experts who understand the complexities and nuances of fisheries. The NFFO recommends the Australian model for reference. It suggests that an advisory council would formally guide policy and promote collaboration between central Government, the devolved Administrations, industry, scientists and other key stakeholders, allowing for

“an ongoing dialogue in a naturally variable industry”

and guaranteeing that sustainability issues are fully considered, as well as playing a leading role in the use of secondary legislation to ensure an agile and responsive approach to fisheries management.

On a final point, the NFFO has also pointed out that the Bill is right to forecast an important role for secondary legislation. It suggests that the common fisheries policy would be inflexible and rigid, and that it is therefore more important for there to be expert input. Further talks about delegated powers used appropriately would allow a more dynamic approach and would protect against unbridled use of such delegated powers. The NFFO would like to see an advisory council playing an influential role in advising the Government on the requirements of each piece of secondary legislation.

Phil Haslam backed up this argument in our evidence session, saying that anything that increases the dialogue between scientists “can only help” in that respect. He was referring to the provisions of an expert group that would include scientists, conservationists, industry representatives and those responsible for enforcement. We hope that the Government can support this very sensible amendment, which has industry backing.

[Mr Carmichael]

Fisheries management, and the politics surrounding it, is always at its worst when all the various stakeholders and parties retreat to their own silos and just lob howitzers at each other. We have seen how that works at different points over the years. It is unproductive. The secret to effective fisheries management, in my view, has always been to require there to be credibility from the system in the eyes of the industry, meaning that the industry has to be involved in the dialogue every step of the way. Getting fishermen, scientists, conservationists and the various Government agencies all in the room at the same time makes perfect sense. We have seen some measure of progress in this regard since 2002 and then in 2012, with the creation and then the strengthening of regional advisory councils, which—although they are an imperfect animal—have been a vast improvement on what we had before. This is a mechanism by which the industry, scientists, conservationists and others can all be kept in constant dialogue.

That would be an eminently sensible move, and the Minister would do well to note that this is essentially the policy put forward by the National Federation of Fishermen’s Organisations. Its willingness, as the voice of our industry, should be rewarded and encouraged. For that reason, I support the new clause and hope that the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport will push it to a vote if the Minister does not have something positive to say about it. If he does push it to a vote, I will support it.

--- Later in debate ---

[George Eustice]

In fairness to all my predecessors, I should say that the convention that I have abided by was established a long time ago. Indeed, after the devolution settlement, the last Labour Government established the convention of a UK-wide delegation and we have had these stakeholder meetings annually ever since.

As I said, a number of other ad hoc advisory groups have been set up. The problem with putting a statutory body in the Bill in the way proposed is that that might become too rigid. The ability to bring together the relevant group of experts to address a particular challenge, through a particular taskforce—as we have done on scallops and EU exit, for instance—gets weaker.

We would also have to give a lot of thought about who should be on that advisory group. For example, we would need to consider which of the green NGOs had to be on there: it could not just be fishing interests, but would have to include many others besides. Nor is it clear that even a so-called panel of experts from the fishing industry and green NGOs would be able to do the work needed to draft and provide an annual assessment of the stocks; CEFAS does that highly technical piece of work—rightly, our technical and scientific experts provide that work for us. It is, of course, open to those who think they can to challenge such assessments, but the issue is not a matter of opinion but of scientific assessment that must be provided by groups such as CEFAS.

This raises an important point about how we engage with industry and green NGOs. I believe that we do so very effectively. We are not saying that we have a closed mind on having advisory groups in the future; we simply do not believe that the matter needs to be placed on a statutory footing—that would be too rigid and prevent us from being able to bring on board the expertise we need.

As I said, we will be talking with industry in the months ahead. I hope that I can reassure the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport that when we return on Report we may be in a stronger position to outline the type of approach we intend to take, to ensure that we have input from industry and environmental NGOs.

[Luke Pollard]

I realise that I have committed a schoolboy error in not following the advice of the Environment Secretary. The amendment starts:

“Expert advisory council on fisheries”.

If only we had called it the pre-eminent voices’, the greybeards’, the boffins’, the experienced practitioners’, the aficionados’, the hotshots’ or even the maestros’ advisory council, we might have got it through.

The new clause is the only real change that the NFFO wanted to the Bill. Although I would have liked the NFFO to push further on a number of areas, it decided to push only on one—this area. To deny the key concern of the key stakeholder for the fishing industry across the UK and describe it as too rigid will not sit well with the fishing federations across the country.

[Brendan O'Hara]

The hon. Gentleman is making a compelling case. Can he guarantee that his new clause will not impinge on the devolution settlement, but will fully respect the devolved competencies in Edinburgh, Belfast and Cardiff?

[Luke Pollard]

It absolutely should do that. That gives the Secretary of State the ability to have some flexibility. Effectively, we have a Government who consult, but do not like a requirement to consult, and who are engaging with expert voices, but do not want an expert group. I have to say to the Minister that his reassurance, “Don’t worry, this will be okay on Report,” would have been a lot more reassuring if that engagement and work had been done prior to the Bill’s coming out.

[George Eustice]

Does the hon. Gentleman not accept that it is already there? I have just explained in great detail how, every year as we approach a December Council, we engage a wide range of organisations.

[Luke Pollard]

Indeed, and Barrie Deas of the NFFO described the advisory set-up that exists already under the CFP. He has noted that its abolition via our exit creates a gap that needs to be filled by expert advisory groups, which is what the new clause suggests.

I understand that the Minister may not want to accept an amendment from the Opposition, so I encourage him to take the wording of it and tweak it ever so slightly, so that he can “make it his own”—to borrow a bit of Louis Walsh from “The X Factor”—and then bring it back later in the Bill’s progress, because this is something that the fishing industry wants. On that basis, I will be pushing the new clause to a Division.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

--- Later in debate ---

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Luke Pollard]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

We are nearly there now. We can all agree that more needs to be done to tackle the global crisis that is marine pollution, but better regulation is needed to ensure that the fishing industry plays its full role in tackling marine plastics.

The statistics on marine plastics waste are really shocking. Greenpeace estimates that 12.7 million tonnes of plastic end up in our oceans each year—the equivalent of a truckload of rubbish every minute. The waste includes everything that you might expect from our throw-away society, from plastic bottles and bags, to fruit stickers and disposable razors. It also includes plenty of waste produced by the fishing industry itself.

It has been heartening to see the war on plastics go from being something of a fringe issue to entering the mainstream, particularly since the broadcaster David Attenborough’s “Blue Planet II”. People across the country are switching to reusable bags, bottles and coffee cups, but the fishing industry has not yet fully faced up to the damage that some of its practices and its use of plastics are doing to the marine environment. The Environment Secretary found “Blue Planet II” so upsetting that he told The Guardian he had been “haunted” by images of the damage done to our oceans. I therefore wholeheartedly expect the Minister to support the new clause, which would help exorcise the Secretary of State’s demons.

[Mike Hill (Hartlepool) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend mentions plastics. In the light of the proven effects of microplastics on the marine environment and wildlife, does he agree with me and environmental movements such as Plastic Free Hartlepool that the Bill presents a perfect opportunity to introduce long-overdue protective measures?

--- Later in debate ---

[Luke Pollard]

I agree that to tackle microplastics, especially the plastic waste generated by the fishing industry, we first have to deal with the macroplastics that are breaking down to form microplastics in many cases.

To take one example, which shows the scale of the problem, a study by the conservation group The Ocean Cleanup looked at the so-called great Pacific garbage patch—an area of floating rubbish estimated to be three times the size of France. It found that most of the 79,000 tonnes of plastic in the patch is abandoned fishing gear, as opposed to the plastic bottles or packaging that we tend to focus our efforts on. That rubbish included fishing nets and a range of other abandoned fishing gear, such as ropes, oyster spacers, eel traps, crates and baskets.

In the EU, it is estimated that approximately 20% of gear is lost at sea. The reasons for that range from accidents, storms and entanglement to intentional abandonment. A particular concern with fishing waste is that, by design, it will cause problems for marine life. Much of the waste has been dubbed “ghost nets”, a term that may be familiar to hon. Members, which refers to purposefully discarded or accidentally lost netting that drifts through the ocean and entangles whales, seals and turtles. Some estimates suggest that 100,000 marine animals are strangled, suffocated or injured by plastics every year.

Today, I met Christian Marr from Andrew Marr International—the fishing company, rather than the BBC journalist—who set out the extra steps to which his Jubilee fishing boats go to retrieve car tyres, plastic pollution and even washing machines from their nets while at sea. He also explained that he wants more ports to provide rubbish facilities so that waste generated by fishers at sea is landed and disposed of responsibly—which, to be honest, does not always happen—rather than discarded overboard. He made the good point that, if fishers leave for a week with their shopping delivery and get back without any shopping waste, there is only one place where that waste could have gone. The issue is partly about encouraging behaviour change in the fishing sector. Not all fishers do it, but some do, which is why tackling plastic waste is important.

It is clear that more can and should be done to tackle fishing’s plastic pollution problem, but progress has so far been slow. Conservation efforts would benefit from better data on the problem. The new clause would enable the Secretary of State to ensure that the amount of plastic waste produced during fishing activities is recorded and widely understood. It would also allow Ministers to regulate to prohibit the disposal of plastic items while at sea and to require plastic items to be disposed of at specified onshore processing facilities.

The new clause contains common-sense enabling steps that would strengthen the Secretary of State’s powers to tackle the problem. The Government like to say that marine waste is a priority for them, so I hope that the Minister will support the new clause.

[Mr Carmichael]

The inclusion of such a clause should be supported. If someone walks along any beach these days, they will see discarded rope, net, broken floats and old floats. Unfortunately, a lot of the plastic waste on our beaches comes from the fishing industry. There is a mixed experience with regard to the industry and its approach to that. There have been several really good initiatives over the years, some of which I have supported, particularly Fishing For Litter. Such things should be encouraged.

It is in the industry’s interest to ensure that the amount of plastic in the oceans, which then breaks down and becomes the microplastics that the hon. Member for Hartlepool referred to, is not there, because it will have an adverse effect on the fish that are caught. What enters the food chain has a consequence. What we have here is a power—a stick that the Minister may hold behind his back—to concentrate minds in the event that the initiatives taken by the industry are not pursued as universally and rigorously as the gravity of the situation demands.

[George Eustice]

This is an important issue. We all know that the challenge of plastics in our ocean has risen up the agenda significantly since “Blue Planet II”. As the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland pointed out, there are a number of important initiatives out there. We have supported, for instance, the Fishing For Litter initiative that he cited. In addition, the Government recently made available £200,000 to support a research project looking specifically at microplastics derived from tyres and clothing. However, we all know that in the context of fisheries the biggest challenge is perhaps that of ghost nets or lost nets, particularly when they have the monofilaments that can cause so much damage to our marine environment. I will address those areas specifically.

First, I draw hon. Members’ attention to clause 31(4)(i), which specifically cites

“the retrieval of lost or discarded sea fishing equipment”

as one of the areas where the Government can legislate through technical measures to address a particular challenge. I believe that the Bill already, through that subsection, addresses the issue of lost fishing equipment, including nets.

In addition to that provision in the Bill, there are existing provisions that we intend to retain. Notably, the Council control regulation 1224/2009 is being brought across through the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. That control regulation already requires that lost fishing gear retrieval must be attempted as soon as possible. It also requires that if retrieval is not possible, fishermen must inform the UK authorities within 24 hours —by notifying the UK Fisheries Monitoring Centre or through an electronic logbook. There is already a reporting requirement for lost gear that cannot be retrieved. The Marine Management Organisation also has guidance in place to assist fishermen to comply with those regulations.

I think that the combination of the powers set out in clause 31 and the retained EU law that already exists on the problem of lost fishing gear addresses the issue sufficiently, and there is therefore no need for the additional powers outlined by the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport in new clause 16.

[Luke Pollard]

I thank the Minister for that response. Again, it is disappointing. Given that we have an urgent crisis around marine plastics, the strong voice of this House, united on a cross-party basis, should go out to say that extra steps will be taken to tackle marine waste. Putting that in the Bill, not hidden away in a subsection about the retrieval of lost gear—not something that I am convinced takes place in the way that the Minister suggests—would have sent a better tone to the industry, and to all voters concerned about marine plastics.

I am disappointed that the Minister has not picked this up. Again, I suggest that he looks seriously at the wording and considers tabling an amendment of his own on this matter later on. I would like to press the new clause to a vote.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

--- Later in debate ---

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Luke Pollard]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Members will be pleased to hear that this is the last new clause that I will move this evening, but it is an important one. The Labour party has a manifesto commitment to double the size of the co-operative sector. The UK fishing industry contains a range of co-operatives operating in the catching, landing and processing sectors. The UK fishing industry, specifically the concentration of ownership and quotas, is in need of reform.

As we have already discussed, as we seek to gain greater and more sustainable use of the vast resources in the seas that surround our islands, we need to do so in a way that spreads wealth and ownership in the UK fishing industry. Greater diversity in ownership will benefit the industry and the communities that rely on it by challenging the dominant players and giving access to new entrants.

The fishing community has a long history of co-operation and co-operatives. The benefits of co-operatives are clear: increased productivity, increased resilience and the spread of economic democracy.

[Mr Sweeney]

Does my hon. Friend recognise that an exemplar of co-operation in the fisheries sector is the Scottish Seas co-operative, which covers numerous ports from Fraserburgh and Peterhead to all round the west coast? It encompasses 60 vessels and more than 250 fishermen, which is a huge opportunity for smaller fishermen to make a significant economic impact and to exert leverage on a market that is increasingly dominated by larger retailers and processors.

[Luke Pollard]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. The success of the co-operative sector in the fishing industry has been a hidden secret. People who advocate co-operatives, as I do as a Labour and Co-operative MP, need to speak louder about that success story.

Further encouraging co-operative ownership and ways of working is common sense in many ways. New co-operatives in the differing aspects of the industry can be the building blocks of new community wealth for communities around the coast. We believe in the co-operative model, which is an important tool for rebuilding a fairer, and therefore better, fishing industry. The Government have important role to play in encouraging that development.

The Bill provides the opportunity to place new duties on the Secretary of State to support the expansion and development of co-operative businesses in all aspects of the fishing industry. Alongside our proposed quota reallocation to extend opportunities, support should be given to existing fishing co-operatives to grow, and to new co-operatives to start up. That should be targeted at coastal towns and communities where the fishing industry has been in the steepest decline. By supporting the new duties, the Government will show that they are interested not only in the status quo but in embracing their role in reshaping the industry and spreading economic democracy.

[George Eustice]

I agree that co-operatives have an important role to play in the fishing industry. In many ways, the industry is already dominated by producer organisations, which are a form of co-operative. Those organisations are formed by effectively pooling the quota that was attached to individual vessels. The vessels that join the producer organisation then pool their fishing opportunities and fish against them as a co-operative movement. They already dominate.

DEFRA has supported discussions and plans on the development of producer organisations in the inshore sector. When Jerry Percy gave evidence, we heard that he was keen to progress that. Some of the inshore under-10-metre fleet seek to support one another, come together as a co-operative and manage their own quota. We in DEFRA have said that we are open to doing that and to facilitating that for the inshore fishermen who would like to join such a co-operative.

I also point out that clause 28(1)(c) creates a power for Secretary of State to give financial assistance for the

“reorganisation of businesses involved in commercial aquaculture activities or commercial fish activities”.

There is provision in that clause for the Secretary of State to give financial assistance to co-operatives or to support producer organisations, so the power is there, should it be needed.

In conclusion, I agree that the co-operative model has an important role to play, but I argue that the sector has long co-operated through the existing producer organisation structure, and that the powers exist in the Bill to support that model further.

[Luke Pollard]

I think what the Minister said at the end was, “We support co-operatives and want to further their development,” but he just chose a way to shoot down the new clause nicely

[George Eustice]

What I was actually saying was that we do not need the new clause because there are powers elsewhere in the Bill to support co-operatives.

[Luke Pollard]

I am very pleased that the Minister managed to end the discussion by pointing out a clause that includes the word “aquaculture”, because that is one of our favourite points. Supporting the development of co-operatives is important and something that we should be encouraging, so I encourage the Minister to take it seriously. As a result, for the final time, I will press the new clause to a vote.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

--- Later in debate ---

[George Eustice]

On a point of order, Mr Gray. I do not want to detain hon. Members any longer than necessary but I want to record my thanks to the Clerks and all hon. Members for their work on the Committee, and in particular for staying so late this evening when the House has long since adjourned.

[Luke Pollard]

Further to that point of order, Mr Gray. I add my thanks to the Committee staff, the Clerks and all the stakeholders who have contributed so much to the passage of the Bill, and I wish it best speed.

With your permission, Mr Gray, I also wish the Minister the best of luck at the fisheries summit. As he controls the programme motion, perhaps next time he finds himself with a fisheries Bill and a fisheries summit at the same time, it might be wise to adjust one so that he can attend the other. I wish him the best of luck for the remaining sessions of that summit and hope he comes back with a good deal for our fishers.

[Mr Carmichael]

Further to that point of order, Mr Gray. I associate myself with those comments. It is at least eight and possibly nine years since I last sat on a Public Bill Committee. In fact, if I say that the last time I sat on a Bill of this sort it was a Standing Committee, you will understand, Mr Gray, that that takes us back to at least before 2010.

In addition to those we have already thanked, we should record our thanks to those who gave evidence to the Committee. As a neophyte in that regard, I thought that was enormously helpful. That innovation has enormously improved our procedures. Finally, I associate myself with the best wishes with which we send the Minister to Brussels. It has clearly not been an easy year but I hope he will do everything he can to bring home the best possible settlement because the sustainability we have spoken about in theoretical terms during the Committee is very much at stake in practical terms.

Fisheries Bill (Seventh sitting)

Luke Pollard Excerpts

Committee Debate: 7th sitting: House of Commons
Thursday 13th December 2018 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

I welcome everybody back to this line-by-line consideration of the Fisheries Bill. We start with clause 12, which I think we discussed reasonably well on Tuesday, and I will therefore put the question without further debate.

Clause 12 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 13 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 2

Sea fishing licences: further provision

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

I beg to move amendment 64, in schedule 2, page 31, line 16, at end insert—

“(2A) A sea fishing licensing authority must attach to any sea fishing licence appropriate conditions with respect to the safety of the boat and its crew.”

This amendment would require the licensing authority to set appropriate conditions regarding safety when granting a sea fishing licence.

It is good to see everyone back for more fish fun and games. The amendment relates to the conditions attached to a sea fishing licence. As Jerry Percy, who represents the New Under Ten Fishermen’s Association, said in last week’s evidence session:

“Fishing, unfortunately, still carries the record as the most dangerous occupation in the world.”––[Official Report, Fisheries Public Bill Committee, 4 December 2018; c. 39, Q67.]

Just last week, a report came out on the tragic sinking of the Solstice, a trawler from the constituency I represent. It is a tragedy that too many fishermen die each year catching our fish suppers. We touched on safety during our discussions of amendments 41 and 42 to clause 1, “Fisheries objectives”, and schedule 2 provides another opportunity to address the urgent need for improvements to safety in the industry by setting suitable conditions in relation to sea fishing licences.

Yesterday, in the annual fisheries debate—because we have not had enough debates about fishing, so one more was welcome—I paid tribute to all the fishers who lost their lives at sea. Normally the debate starts each year with such tributes, but yesterday it kicked off with an argument over Brexit and fishing. I welcomed the Minister sticking to that convention in his remarks and paying tribute to the six people who died at sea in the past year. It showed his class in not forgetting, or allowing Brexit to overshadow, that important tradition, and I thank him for that.

Returning to amendment 64, fishermen surveyed as part of Seafarers UK’s recent “Fishing for a Future” research publication reported that

“accidents at sea were commonplace”

with many

“having experienced capsized and sinking vessels as well as falling overboard, while over a third reported…injuries received as a result of accidents.”

Others reported an impact on their health as a result of their working conditions. Those research findings are supported by the latest statistics from the Marine Accident Investigation Branch, which revealed that five fishermen died in separate incidents between the months of September and November 2017, while the Sea Fish Industry Authority has identified 535 serious injuries to fishermen in the past 10 years. Sadly, there were six deaths in the past year, as the Minister noted in yesterday’s debate. Back pain and arthritis are common health conditions experienced by fishermen as a consequence of their work environment. Typically, injuries experienced by fishermen surveyed in the “Fishing for a Future” report included

“fractures, partial loss of fingers and fingertips and a lost thumb. While many hand injuries were caused by filleting knife accidents, others were winch or hauler accidents. Jellyfish stings and various crush injuries from equipment such as a clam dredge, pots, net bins,”

and other gear were also reported.

The Opposition would like to use this Bill to make the case for fishing to be a better and safer place to work for all our fishers.

Marine safety is an issue for many small boats because of the pressures on those boats, and because—as we discussed the other day—the 10-metre limit has led to different configurations of fish for strength and capacity, rather than for stability. There seems to be good universal agreement that personal locator beacons attached to lifejackets are good things, but buying new lifejackets with PLBs and registering them involves a cost to fishermen.

Seafarers UK, responding to the fisheries White Paper, made other recommendations, which we also want to flag in relation to the requirements for sea fishing licences. The first of those recommendations is the maintenance of a UK-wide standard for

“fishermen’s health, safety and welfare”

to ensure a commonality of approach among all the UK’s Administrations. The second is the establishment of a successor to the European maritime and fisheries fund to support small-scale, low-impact, inshore fishermen and small fishing ports in making enhancements to vessels, infrastructure and ports, particularly in respect of enhancing safety. I am grateful that the Minister spoke about the money allocated to that in the Budget.

Seafarers UK also recommended that a co-ordinated approach should be developed to training new entrants to the fishing industry to help future generations of fishers to begin their careers in a safe and sustainable manner; that the views of small-scale, low-impact fishermen should be heard during consultations on legislative changes and fisheries management; and that the proposed changes should be financially supported and/or proportionally costed according to their impact on a fisher’s livelihood and their ability to pay. Finally, it recommended that we share the ambition of the Fishing Industry Safety Group and many others to reduce fishing fatalities at sea and in port to zero.

The amendment is about how we can ensure that sea fishing licences take proper regard of the safety considerations that affect the day-to-day lived experience of our fishers. I will be grateful to hear the Minister’s response.

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

We discussed safety under a previous group of amendments. Safety is incredibly important, as fishing is the most dangerous occupation. As the hon. Gentleman said, tragically in the past year six people have lost their lives while fishing to put food on our table, so we absolutely recognise the importance of the issue. As he is aware, this is a priority for my hon. Friend the Shipping Minister, who held a summit with representatives of fishing organisations this summer. The hon. Gentleman will also be aware that in the most recent Budget, the Treasury announced a fund to support investment to help safety at sea. Also, we recently announced additional matched funding for the EMFF fund to support coastal communities and measures including safety improvement.

As I explained in a previous sitting, we do not believe it is necessary to add a safety requirement to a fishing licence for the simple reason that provisions on the safety of any vessel, whether a fishing vessel or another type of vessel, are already covered by the Merchant Shipping and Fishing Vessels (Health and Safety at Work) Regulations 1997, which applies to all domestic vessels. It is not possible for a person to get a fishing licence at all unless they have already crossed that threshold and their vessel has passed a seaworthiness test. In the absence of that, it is not possible to get a fishing licence. That provision has already been made.

As I also mentioned previously, there are some issues with some of the under-10-metre vessels. I described the rather bizarre practice that some people engage in of chopping the end off their boat, selling their quota and then claiming that they are under 10 metres to access the pool. There are some concerns about the resulting stability, so we are looking at a different way of measuring inshore, low-impact fishing vessels—perhaps by looking at vessel size or another measure. Our White Paper highlights that and makes provision for us to consider a better way.

From next year, we will require that an inshore vessel monitoring system be used. The new IVMS system will be a requirement for all smaller vessels. It sends a signal every two minutes, so if there is a problem, the Maritime and Coastguard Agency will easily be able to detect where those vessels are.

--- Later in debate ---

[George Eustice]

My hon. Friend makes a very important point. As I said, other pieces of primary and secondary legislation make provision for the seaworthiness and safety of vessels, so it does not need to be a condition of a fishing licence. It is absolutely the case that we need to take safety more seriously. As the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland said in a previous debate, sometimes attitudes to safety are not what they ought to be.

A lot is done by way of training. Seafish runs a number of projects in this area, and there are marine schools around the country. Indeed, when I visited Shetland several years ago with the right hon. Gentleman, we went to a marine school that trains fishermen in safety and vessel handling. We have a number of institutions, establishments and projects that support training, and over the past few years about 500 fishermen have been through those training courses and gone on to enter the industry.

I hope that I have been able to reassure the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport. As I said in our previous debate, we absolutely take safety seriously. He makes an important point, but it is covered already under the merchant shipping and fishing vessels regulations and therefore does not need to be added to the schedule.

[Luke Pollard]

I am grateful to the Minister for setting out that position. It would be useful if he and his colleagues in the Department for Transport reflected further on certain areas. He spoke about dumpy boats—boats with the ends cut off to get under the 10-metre limit—but another concern on those smaller boats is swapping the type of gear, which can affect stability: gear types might be swapped over without the stability assessment taking place to ensure that the vessel goes to sea safe.

The Minister should also reflect on where EMFF funding goes, to ensure that safety is one of the criteria applied to new sea fishing licensing so that we have the highest standards possible. I know that he is working with DFT colleagues to do that, but the opportunity for us to reset our fishing framework and to have high levels of marine safety is one that we need to seize with both hands, whether it is a Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs responsibility or a DFT one.

I would also be grateful if the Minister continued conversations with his colleague the Shipping Minister, especially to pick up some of the recommendations that have come out of marine accident investigation branch reports that have not yet been implemented by the Government—a number are still outstanding. Further consideration of those recommendations would greatly enhance the marine environment. However, on the basis of the Minister’s response, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Luke Pollard]

I beg to move amendment 65 to schedule 2, page 31, line 24, at end insert—

“(6) The conditions attached to any licence must include a national landing requirement prescribed in regulations under section (National landing requirement).”

This amendment would require a ‘national landing requirement’, defined in NC13 to be attached to licence conditions for any boat specifying the percentage of the boat’s catch which must be landed at a UK port.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 13—National landing requirement—

“(1) The national landing requirement is the percentage of the boat’s catch that was caught within British fishery limits in any given quarter which must be landed at a port in—

(a) the UK

(b) the Isle of Man

(c) Guernsey, or

(d) Jersey.

(2) The Secretary of State must by regulations define the national landing requirement for each species in each UK fishing zone, and any such requirement must be not less than 50%, except where the Secretary of State determines it would be inappropriate to have a national landing requirement of 50% or more.

(3) Where the Secretary of State determines that the national landing requirement for any species is to be less than 50%, the Secretary of State must publish the reasons for such a determination.

(4) Regulations under this section are subject to the affirmative procedure.”

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to set a ‘national landing requirement’ to be attached to licence conditions for any boat specifying the percentage of the boat’s catch which must be landed at a UK port.

[Luke Pollard]

We have heard from Ministers that we will get more fish as we move from relative stability within the common fisheries policy to zonal attachment outside the CFP. That is welcome and something that the Minister knows the Opposition support as much as Government Members.

Given that we are to get a whole lot more fish, we believe that the Bill misses a trick when a requirement to land fish in UK ports is omitted. For every one job at sea, there are 10 jobs at home in fish processing. Indeed, fish processing is a part of the fishing industry that does not get the attention it deserves—it was briefly mentioned in the annual fisheries debate yesterday, including by my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Melanie Onn)—but we need to talk more about how a new and refreshed fishing framework could provide more jobs on land as well as at sea.

We call on the Government to make it a requirement for anyone fishing under a UK quota to land at least 50% of that catch in a British port, which would support port and fish processing jobs. We also want them to consult on increasing that in line with increased investment in our ports and coastal communities, as and when more capacity can come online. Along with reallocation of quota, which I will speak about later, that would bring about a renaissance in the UK fishing industry. Such a measure would show firm determination to make real the promises of taking back control, and the benefits of a revised fishing framework to help all our coastal communities.

A national landing obligation requiring 50% of fish caught under a UK quota to be landed in a British port could make a real difference to coastal communities. Such communities have been held back by an unfair system, as well as the impact of austerity which, as we know, has been hardest felt in coastal communities such as the one that I represent in Plymouth. They are some of the most beautiful and historical places in the UK, but there is a genuine feeling in those communities that they have been held back and that the system is not working for them. Whether or not Members agree entirely with all the principles expressed in our amendment and new clause, that is a sentiment that anyone representing a coastal town or city will be familiar with.

--- Later in debate ---

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

The hon. Gentleman is making a valuable point. We have heard evidence about rejuvenating coastal communities, and he has given examples from his constituency. Would the amendment and new clause deliver what he hopes they will deliver? They might lead to additional landings going to existing big ports. Is there not also a risk that they would impinge on devolved settlements by not allowing devolved Governments to set their own landing criteria?

[Luke Pollard]

In fact, much of the inspiration behind the amendment and new clause came from some of the work by the Scottish Government, who looked at having a Scottish landing obligation to land fish caught under Scottish quotas in Scottish ports. There needs to be agreement with the devolved Administrations that more fish caught under UK quota being landed in UK ports is a good thing and that the benefits can be shared across our United Kingdom.

Fishing is an important source of income for some of the most deprived communities in Europe. West Wales, including Milford Haven, is ranked as the poorest area in Europe. West Cornwall is second; Lincolnshire, including the Grimsby area, comes in fifth; Devon is 13th and Tyne and Wear is 20th, according to Eurostat statistics. Many others are rural areas that have fewer alternative employment opportunities, such as Shetland, Stornoway and Brixham, as we heard in the fisheries debate yesterday.

The amendment could and, I think, would create more jobs in those coastal communities and was backed by Members from all parts of the House speaking on Second Reading. My hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith) said that

“the fishing industry is not just about the catching side; there is still a very important processing and aquaculture industry alongside it…It is an important provider of jobs in…Grimsby…with some 4,200 jobs dependent on the sector. These processing plants also export much of their product into the EU, in a market worth £1.3 billion, where we still enjoy a trade surplus. It is therefore vital in the drive to create world-leading fisheries that processing is not forgotten”.—[Official Report, 21 November 2018; Vol. 649, c. 926.]

My right hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Mr Campbell) said that he believes

“that there is still a strong case for ensuring a link between landings and home port, because it is important to recognise that fishing is more than just about catching fish; there are also issues about the sustainability of ports and port jobs.”—[Official Report, 21 November 2018; Vol. 649, c. 936.]

[Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)]

The hon. Gentleman is making a good point. As we will see during the course of the day, he and I have a lot in common in what we are trying to achieve through the Bill. My concern about the amendment—it was raised just now by the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun—is whether it would just result in more of the opportunities and landings going to those ports with existing infrastructure. I think of the Lowestoft producers organisation, which lands all its fish in the Netherlands or in Peterhead, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Banff and Buchan.

[Peter Aldous]

Is there not a concern in that situation that those fish might just all be landed by the Lowestoft PO in Peterhead?

[Luke Pollard]

I thank the hon. Gentleman. Actually, the next line of my speech says, “On the other side of the House my partner in crime, the hon. Member for Waveney said”. I think we are spending far too much time together.

In respect of what the hon. Gentleman has said now and on Second Reading, the economic link policy is important. Fishers want it to be included in the Bill. It needs to be conducted and implemented in conjunction with other policies around building port capacity and supporting smaller ports in particular. We know that the EMFF has been instrumental in driving and refreshing port capacity, such as fuel and ice plants. They are not particularly sexy topics, but they are vital to ensuring that our fishing works. We also know that many of the fish landed at smaller ports might be physically taken off the boat in a smaller port, but they are officially landed when they get to a larger port, where they can go into auctions. That is the case in much of the far south-west, for instance, where fish landed right across the peninsula are taken by truck to Plymouth. The majority of the fish landed in Plymouth are landed by truck rather than by boat. I think the policy that we are discussing needs to be viewed in conjunction with that. None the less, the economic link is a strong one. Indeed, the next line in my notes, under the hon. Gentleman’s speech, is “I could not agree with him more” on some of those things.

Importantly, our amendment has the support of the industry as well. Fishers want the creation of a strong economic link, because of the injustice of seeing fish caught under UK quota by foreign boats—caught, in some cases, within sight of our shores and then exported to foreign countries, where the jobs and the benefits of that economic activity are held by other people, rather than the people in the UK. That is a source of injustice and annoyance for many people across our fishing communities, and that is something that they are hoping the measure will reflect. Indeed, in one of the evidence sessions, we heard from Aaron Brown of Fishing for Leave that he backed this amendment.

I think that this is an aspect of the Bill that the Department overlooked in preparing the text, so I would like to make a sincere offer to the Minister. If he commits to working with the Opposition and the industry to craft a national landing requirement as an amendment to the Bill that he can table on Report, I will not feel it necessary to press this amendment to a vote and have the Minister vote against this most sensible principle. I think we have a real opportunity to create a provision that includes an economic link in the text of the Bill and that hon. Members on both sides of the House will be able to support when it comes to the Bill’s transition.

[Owen Smith (Pontypridd) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray. I rise to speak briefly in support of the amendment and new clause tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport. In doing so, I am also reflecting the views of the Welsh Government, who are very supportive of this idea. Complementing the remarks made by hon. Members from the Scottish National party, I think it could be reflected in the way in which subsequent legislation and regulations about both quotas and landing requirements might be applied in Wales and in Scotland.

Milford Haven, which my hon. Friend mentioned, is a classic example of an area of Britain where there was once a thriving fishing industry but there is now significant poverty and absolutely no fishing industry. I do not believe that any boats go out of Milford Haven now, and the only boats operating there with any significance are foreign-owned. There was once a processing industry in the area, not just in Milford Haven but in Pembroke Dock, Aberaeron, Aberporth and, indeed, lots of the villages along Cardigan bay—traditionally one of the richest fisheries off the UK. Small-scale and artisanal in many respects, it has completely disappeared.

If there is any opportunity to effect a renaissance of processing through the landing requirement, the changes to quota and that overall sense of an economic connection in the Bill and at the heart of future legislation, it would be remiss of us not to try to bring that about. I think that this is a very sensible suggestion from the Labour Front Bench and I hope that the Minister will reflect on how important it, or perhaps a similar measure, could be to bringing about a renaissance in the processing industry and in the towns that might thereby survive.

--- Later in debate ---

[George Eustice]

I will explain some of the background to the existing economic link, because my contention is that the amendment is both unnecessary and potentially unhelpful in that it could frustrate or limit our ambitions to improve that link. A landing requirement is already included on all UK fishing vessel licences as part of our existing economic link condition. Paragraph 1 of schedule 2 to the Bill already includes powers to attach licence conditions requiring the landing of a catch into the UK.

Hon. Members should understand the background. The genesis of the current economic link was an important test case, called the Factortame case, which gained notoriety because, rather shamefully, the European Court effectively held that European law was indeed supreme over laws made by this Parliament. It was a controversial judgment, because it was the first time that people started to realise that membership of the European Union was highly detrimental to our sovereignty. It was only through another notorious case a decade later, the “Metric Martyrs” case, that the judgment of our Supreme Court—I think it was the House of Lords in those days—held that if Parliament explicitly revoked the European Communities Act 1972 or explicitly set aside elements of EU law, Parliament’s supremacy could be restored. Thankfully, we have all voted to trigger the article 50 process, and the EU (Withdrawal) Act 2018 has now passed Parliament and revokes the European Communities Act. That is the background.

After we lost the Factortame case, the Commission held that the UK should benefit from UK quota, so in 1999 we introduced the economic link condition. The current condition, which is attached as a condition on all vessels, says that they must land at least 50% of their catch of quota stocks into UK ports, have at least 50% of their crew normally resident in the UK, spend at least 50% of operating expenditure in UK coastal areas or, finally, demonstrate other real economic links such as contributing some of their quota to the inshore pool. Thus, we already have a comprehensive set of economic links.

We intend to review the economic link to see whether it can be strengthened. Perhaps on certain species it would be appropriate to attach a condition that says the proportion should be higher than 50%—perhaps considerably higher. Earlier this summer I visited the Faroes, and the Faroese Fisheries Minister told me that he had a proposal that said all Faroese vessels must land 80% of their catch into the Faroes. The Faroese Parliament, in its wisdom, decided to move that to 100% of the catch. The difficulty, he explained to me, is that the Faroes now has a problem: its fishermen are sometimes effectively held to ransom by a small number of processors on the Faroes, because they are required by law to land all their fish in the Faroes, which means Faroese fishermen do not always get the price they should get.

That links to a very important point that we heard in evidence from Bertie Armstrong from the Scottish Fishermen’s Federation, also made eloquently by the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland: we want to be able to retain the ability for fishermen to land their fish in the place where they will get the highest price. If there are too many onerous restrictions on landing, on some species fishermen may be put in a position where they can be held to ransom and end up being price takers rather getting a fair price for their catch. I am sure that is not what the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport intends.

I can reassure the hon. Gentleman that the economic link already exists and provides for all the things he seeks to achieve in the amendment, and more besides. We should review and strengthen the economic link as we leave the European Union. We want to do that in collaboration with other parts of the UK; we want to talk to the Scottish in particular, who have strong views, so we can have an agreement for a UK economic link. We need some dialogue with the devolved Administrations, but we must recognise that we should be cautious on some species, since we do not want to put our fisherman at a disadvantage and force them to take lower prices than they could otherwise receive.

I hope, on that basis, the hon. Gentleman will withdraw the amendment. We would be more than happy to share with him some of our thinking about how we could improve and refine the economic link in time for Report.

[Luke Pollard]

I am grateful for hon. Members’ contributions. It might be helpful to direct the Committee’s attention to new clause 13, especially subsections (2) and (3). It talks about the ability of the Secretary of State to say that some species might not necessarily need to hit 50%, and if so to publish the reasons why. That would address the concerns the Minister raised. The example of the Faroes provides the reason the requirement is not 100%, but at least 50%, with the ability to vary it, should be required.

That is an important consideration because, at the moment, the fishing community does not believe the economic link works in the way the Minister tried to reassure us of. There is a strong sense that, actually, fish caught under UK quotas are not being landed in UK ports and we are not receiving the benefits. That is certainly a sentiment on every quayside, be it in Devon and Cornwall in the west country, through the east coast and up to Scotland.

[George Eustice]

Does the hon. Gentleman not accept, though, that in 1999 the Labour Government introduced the current economic link, which required 50% of quota stocks to be landed in a perfectly sensible way for 20 years? Given that attaching a condition to a vessel licence has worked for 20 years, why do we need to change that?

[Luke Pollard]

I simply do not think it is working—it is not carrying the confidence of the industry. Part of the amendment is about being clear to the industry what kind of objectives we want in a revised fishing portfolio. The contributions on Second Reading and the feedback on the White Paper from fishers show that a strengthened economic link is an important part of that.

It is important that we talk about why a strengthened economic link is so important. As the hon. Member for Glasgow North East mentioned, it provides the additional trades and jobs that come from that. The industry’s confidence in that economic link is not there. I invite the Minister to spend more time on the fish quays speaking to fishers about the economic link, because that is not the view that has been expressed to me and my colleagues.

I am slightly disappointed that the Minister did not take up the genuine offer I made to work to find a better form of words. There is a real sense that this provision should be better than it is at the moment. I would be very happy to see if, on Report, we can strengthen that economic link in the schedule. At the moment, 50% is required. The Minister seeks not to allow any changes in our quota allocation after we depart the EU unless they are better than we currently have—we will come to that. The same principle of getting a better deal than we have at the moment should apply to the economic link. If the Minister wants to work with us to improve schedule 2 to include “at least 50%”, I will be happy to work with him. As he is looking at me blankly, I suspect he has not been given permission to do so. I will therefore press the amendment to a vote.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

Division 6

Ayes: 6

---

Labour: 6

Noes: 12

---

Conservative: 10
Scottish National Party: 2

[Luke Pollard]

I beg to move amendment 66, in schedule 2, page 31, line 24, at end insert—

‘(6) Conditions attached to any sea fishing licence must include a prohibition on the use of any form of electric pulse beam trawl fishing.”

This amendment would require sea fishing licences to prohibit electric pulse beam trawl fishing.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 92, in clause 14, page 8, line 21, after “11(5)” insert

“or section (Ban on electric pulse fishing)”

New clause 9—Ban on electric pulse fishing—

“A person commits an offence if they use, in order to catch fish, any form of electric pulse fishing technology on towed or otherwise mobile equipment within British fishery limits.”

[Luke Pollard]

The amendment relates to creating a licence restriction that prohibits any form of electric pulse beam trawling in UK waters. We have heard in previous debates about that form of fishing and we have an opportunity in this Bill to set a clear direction that we do not accept it. It needs to appear in the Bill rather than as a commitment so that we send a clear message to our EU friends and anyone thinking about that type of fishing that it is not something the UK Parliament will accept.

The amendment aims to prohibit a form of fishing currently taking place in UK waters that is known to cause excess harm to our marine life and could have widespread negative effects that have yet to be adequately researched. Members will likely be aware that electric pulse beam fishing uses electrodes attached to nets to send electrical signals to the surface of the seabed, driving some fish into the nets. Although fishing with electricity has been banned in the EU since 1998, in 2007 an exception was made for electric pulse beam fishing, ostensibly to allow some boats to test the impact on fish stocks and the ocean ecosystem. It is currently centred on the Dutch fleet. According to some of the latest figures, 84 Dutch vessels use that method, but as we heard on Second Reading from my partner in crime, the hon. Member for Waveney, that is now up to nearly 100 vessels. We need to act now on this form of fishing, before it becomes more widespread and is seen as irreversible and as a standard for fishing to adopt. The Government have a choice with this amendment. I hope they will side with the environment and small-scale fishermen against that type of fishing and not with those who promote that untested and expensive new technology.

The Marine Conservation Society’s head of fisheries and aquaculture has made it clear that such a form of fishing cannot currently be permitted on a large scale if we are serious about protecting marine life. He said:

“There remain large gaps in understanding on impacts to other species and processes, especially after long-term exposure. The method is also known to break the vertebrae of large cod and it’s unclear if similar damage could be inflicted on other large animals.”

I invite the Committee to think for a moment about what it means to break the vertebrae of large cod in a marine environment and the physical force needed to break the vertebrae of large cod if it were due to electrical impacts. It is clearly a form of fishing that causes distress and harm. There are particular concerns about the magnitude of the fishing currently using this method. The MCS added:

“We’re not talking about a minor modification to net configuration—we’re talking about the industrial scale use of electricity on the seabed.”

It is not a test-bed fishery. It is now a de facto commercial fishery and we need to be aware of it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Bill Grant]

I have two concerns about a blanket ban. I sense that there is a degree of evidence, but we need to be absolutely certain about that evidence and the damage that the method is alleged to be doing before we comprehensively ban it. My other concern is whether there is a risk it might dilute the authority rightly placed with the devolved Governments. The Scottish Government are trialling electric pulse fishing in the Firth of Clyde. There have been some land-based objections, strangely enough, but do we risk taking away the powers that are rightly devolved to the various Administrations if we put a blanket ban on it?

[Luke Pollard]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I think there is a clear understanding in fishing communities that we should not be encouraging electric pulse beam trawling. There is a big distinction between a sensible trial that seeks to get scientific data and what we have now in UK waters, especially off the east coast of England, where we have a de facto commercial fishery, fishing at scale using this method and potentially causing huge environmental damage. I take his point about science and evidence, but that commercial fishery has existed for more than a decade.

[Mike Hill]

My hon. Friend mentions the east coast. He is right that such fishing has had serious consequences. Is it therefore not right to ban it, until the scientific evidence shows otherwise?

[Luke Pollard]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point. I would personally go further, but he makes a very good case for a precautionary ban, as has been imposed by a number of other countries. It is worth bearing in mind that the EU has already banned electric pulse beam trawling, but has allowed the trial. In setting a new framework for fishing after we leave the European Union, certain types of fishing gear and methodologies should be outlawed. We should make the case that we will not accept certain things in our waters, electric pulse beam fishing being one of them.

The stated objective of my party in relation to the Bill is to ensure that UK fishing has the most sustainable fisheries in the world. That means not only having the rules in place, and the enforcement, incentives and backing of the industry, but making clear statements that set the tone and approach for sustainable fishing. I want the message from the Committee to be that we stand united in banning electric pulse beam trawling because of its environmental impacts, and we support the fishing communities that want it to be banned. I ask the Minister to agree with that, to ensure that there is no division here between the Government and Opposition parties.

Electric pulse fishing is extremely lucrative. One study financed by the Dutch Ministry of Economic Affairs found that Dutch fishermen using standard beam trawlers broke even in 2014, while their electrically powered competitors earned a whopping €17 million. That is a huge difference, and it is a very powerful interest to go up against, but conservation means nothing if we are unwilling to go against well-financed groups intent on exploiting our natural environment and causing severe damage to our marine environment. I hope that all Members will take that concern on board, and support the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Peter Aldous]

I am grateful to the Minister for looking into that, and for the work he has done and the solution he outlines. I must say that, at face value, it appears to address my concerns and I believe the shadow Minister’s concerns also, although he will give his views in a moment. On that basis, I am prepared not to press my amendment or new clause to a vote, but I put the Minister on notice that, if his solution has not happened by the time we get to Report, I will take the matter up again. I am grateful to him for taking this seriously, because off the East Anglian coast people are absolutely livid about it. It is creating havoc and it must be addressed. I have met the Dutch Government, who were very pleasant, but it is clear that they will carry on until they are told to stop, and we must tell them to stop as soon as possible.

[Luke Pollard]

I am grateful to the Minister, who, as has just been mentioned, has clearly put a lot of thought and effort into looking at how this practice can be banned. If the statutory instrument is indeed laid in January before Report, that gives us an opportunity to consider all the detail. However, if that is insufficient, the amendment will be coming back on Report. The Minister specifically spoke about foreign boats in relation to this matter, but according to Marine Management Organisation figures there are 11 boats in the UK that were initially equipped with electric pulse beam trawling equipment, and three of them are still equipped with it. Can he confirm whether the SI that he mentioned would include UK boats as well?

[George Eustice]

There are currently six UK-registered vessels that are licensed to use the derogation. Only three currently do. I think they are Scottish vessels, and the Scottish Government have their own particular view on this, but only three UK vessels use it. If we were serious about doing a genuine scientific experiment to explore this further, doing so with three vessels would make sense. If we then wanted a total prohibition with no scientific exemption at all, we have plenty of powers in the Bill, once it is passed, to do precisely that. I believe the overwhelming pressure here is coming from those 84 Dutch vessels, and if we can deal with that, we will have solved the problem.

[Luke Pollard]

I am grateful for that answer. On the basis of the Minister’s commitment to lay the SI in January and to ensure that it is sufficiently robust to address the concerns that both the hon. Member for Waveney and the Opposition have suggested, I am happy to withdraw the amendment. However, I give notice that it will be coming back if the SI is not sufficiently robust to address those concerns. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Peter Aldous]

I beg to move amendment 22, in schedule 2, page 31, line 24, at end insert—

“1A The Marine Management Organisation must, within one week of a sea fishing licence being issued in respect of a foreign fishing boat, publish—

(a) any conditions attached to that licence, and

(b) the estimated monetary value of that licence.”

There is concern that there are no provisions in the Bill that foreign vessels must comply with the same standards as UK vessels. Access by foreign vessels to UK waters should be contingent on compliance with the same environmental standards that are applicable to UK vessels, to ensure a level playing field and a high level of environmental protection. I raised this concern on Tuesday when speaking to amendments 21 and 83 and new clause 8. That said, I would welcome the Minister’s reassurance that this is not what I would describe as the Bill’s Achilles’ heel.

[Luke Pollard]

Again, the hon. Member for Waveney has raised a good point about an issue on which we need greater transparency, to continue the theme we touched on with amendment 33. On that basis, the Opposition concurs with him.

[George Eustice]

I will take this opportunity to explain how the current licensing system works. I think I can reassure my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney that what he seeks to achieve is already in the public domain and published on the MMO website.

The UK has three different types of licence: categories A, B and C. In most cases, a category A licence is used, which is issued to both under-10 metre and over-10 metre vessels and allows them to fish for specific quota and non-quota species. Licences for certain other species, such as shellfish or deep-sea stocks, are granted in addition to, rather than instead of, that category A licence. Conditions attached to the licence set out the specific requirements to which the vessels must adhere, such as the economic link requirement and reporting obligations. Conditions related to different fisheries indicate the species that can be fished and the area where they can be fished.

The licences and conditions are already published, on the MMO website. When foreign vessel licences and associated conditions have been agreed, they will be published on the Government’s website and so will be accessible to the public, as they are now through the MMO website. The MMO already publishes on its website the conditions it places on English licence holders.

Our intention is for foreign licences to be time-limited and definitely not tradeable—another issue that my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney was concerned about—so there is no prospect of a foreign vessel licence accruing a monetary value. The other matters on which he sought assurance are already published by the MMO.

--- Later in debate ---

[Peter Aldous]

I am grateful to the Minister for his response and for clarifying the matter. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Luke Pollard]

I beg to move amendment 75, in schedule 2, page 34, line 19, leave out “negative” and insert “affirmative”.

The observant in Committee will have noticed that this amendment is similar to amendments 23, 70, 71, 76 and 77, but we have not yet reached those. Members will not have to endure this speech six times; they need not worry—I have six separate speeches.

The amendment might seem rather esoteric and, I dare say, boring, techy or legalistic, but it is an important part of how much transparency the new fisheries regime after we leave the EU will have, and how much scrutiny will be given. We have previously tested this important issue with the Minister, on the Agriculture Bill. The negative procedure is provided for in several places throughout this Bill. The Labour party was concerned about that during the passage of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, and we have not stopped worrying about where it sits in this Bill. Curiously, there are far fewer instances of the negative procedure in this Bill than in the Agriculture Bill. That is welcome.

The Bill also has a higher proportion of duties than powers. The opposite was the case in the Agriculture Bill, so some of our scrutiny of and pressure on the Minister has had some effect. The House of Lords Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee reports on both Bills helpfully drew attention to how they had been drafted differently, even though they were produced by the same Department and are the responsibility of the same Minister—he is a lucky gentleman to be covering so many important issues. That is curious, to say the least, and perhaps points to the enormous pressure that the Government’s approach to Brexit places on officials and Ministers.

I acknowledge that the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee report on the Bill was very kind to Ministers. It stated that of the 15 delegated powers in the Bill, “only four” were governed by the negative procedure and, according to the Committee, “justifiably so”. We seem to have identified two more instances than that Committee did, and we do not necessarily agree that all six are justifiable—hence our six amendments for a move to the affirmative procedure instead.

We believe that enhanced scrutiny is an important part of the process, so it should not simply go through on the nod. The amendment is concerned with regulations that might impose charges, so it is particularly important to consider the level of scrutiny. I would be grateful if the Minister would address those points.

[George Eustice]

As the hon. Gentleman has highlighted, the Government believe that in this Bill we have struck the right balance between the need for parliamentary scrutiny and the need to be able to react quickly. As he pointed out, although the Lords Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee was rather critical of the number of negative resolution powers the Government sought in the Agriculture Bill, it gave us a glowing report with respect to the Fisheries Bill. It said:

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

so our approach to those powers has that Committee’s support.

--- Later in debate ---

which were the terms used to indicate the negative procedure in 1967. I hope I have reassured the hon. Gentleman that the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee did a thorough job of examining the Bill and reached the conclusion that we are only mirroring what has existed since 1967, which pre-dates even our membership of the EU.

[Luke Pollard]

I am grateful to the Minister for those clarifications. In the time he took to respond, I managed to chop up my speech into seven small component parts, so we can revisit those points later. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[The Chair]

My instinct is that we have had sufficient debate on schedule 2.

Schedule 2 agreed to.

Clause 14

Penalties for offences

--- Later in debate ---

[Peter Aldous]

The amendment and new clause relate to sand eel fishing. The amendment raises similar issues to those we have debated on electric pulse fishing. I will not press the amendment or the new clause to a Division, but I raise the matter in order to highlight the importance of pursuing an ecosystem-based approach to future management of fishery stocks. I am particularly grateful to the RSPB, the Angling Trust and Fishing for Leave for their guidance and advice.

The sand eel, which is a small, energy-rich shoaling fish, is a key prey species for many seabirds, underpinning the breeding success of terns, kittiwakes and puffins. Sand eels are also eaten in large numbers by harbour porpoises, other sea mammals and commercially important table fish, such as cod, whiting and mackerel. As such, the sand eel plays a pivotal role in the food web between the primary productivity of plankton and the top predators.

Diminishing abundance of sand eels, however, in combination with other pressures in the marine environment, has driven a major decline in the UK’s seabird population. In Scotland, 12 indicator seabird species were 50% less numerous in 2015 than they were in 1986. To address that impact, in 2000 the EU created a closed area of 20,000 sq km extending offshore from the coast of north-east Scotland to Northumberland. It is a box that keeps the Danish sand eel fishing fleet, which has almost all the EU sand eel quota, away from sensitive seabed colonies. This industrial seabed fishery continues elsewhere in the North sea, mainly on the Dogger Bank, of which the UK part is a key focal area for the fleet. RSPB research indicates that the Dogger Bank fishery could have a detrimental impact on kittiwake productivity on the adjacent Yorkshire coast.

Related to that, the sand eel stock assessment model used by the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea to set EU catch limits does not address the needs of seabirds, cetaceans or other marine wildlife when setting levels of commercial exploitation of sand eels, such that insufficient sand eel is set aside for the wider ecosystem. In failing to cater adequately for the needs of seabirds and other marine wildlife, the management of the fishery at present falls short of meeting an ecosystem-based approach.

To improve the situation, the RSPB suggests three alternatives, the first of which is stopping sand eel fishing in UK waters. The UK could champion that approach as an exemplar in pursuing an eco-based system. That is already done off the US coast. There would be very limited financial cost to UK commercial fishing, though there is the risk of reciprocal denial by Denmark of UK fishing opportunities in Danish waters for white fish. I am also mindful of advice provided by the Angling Trust that there are five species of sand eel in UK waters, all with the genus Ammodytes. The only one that has generated widespread concern is the industrial fishery for Ammodytes marinus in the North sea.

The other four species are subject to very small levels of fishing mortality. Ammodytes tobianus is the species targeted for bait—both commercial and recreational—and it is estimated that the combined landings of both anglers and fishermen who catch their own and commercial catches are no more than 50 tonnes a year across the whole UK. The Angling Trust is concerned that the provisions would prevent anglers from fishing for tobianus to use as bait, as well as having a hugely negative impact on businesses in the angling bait market, such as the market leader, Ammodytes, a Cornwall-based company that catches and processes Ammodytes tobianus for the bait and aquarium markets.

The second option is to make the total allowable catch of sand eel more precautionary by reducing fishing mortality, leaving at least one third of the stock for the provisioning needs of seabirds, cetaceans and other marine wildlife. The third and final alternative is to extend the existing sand eel closed area south to Yorkshire and the Humber, to cover the Dogger Bank area.

I am conscious that I have probably delayed Committee members’ lunch, but I believe that how we manage sand eel fishing provides an extremely relevant case study as to how future UK fisheries can be managed in a sustainable and environmentally sensitive way, adopting an eco-based approach. I would welcome the Minister’s view of how he sees the system operating in practice according to the Bill’s provisions.

[Luke Pollard]

Following the hon. Gentleman’s speech, we are all now aware of the humble sand eel, which is an important component of food webs in the north Atlantic. It is at the bottom of the marine food chain and is part of the diet of cod, mackerel, porpoises and seabirds such as Arctic terns and kittiwakes, especially in breeding season.

We also need to be aware of research led by the British Trust for Ornithology and the Joint Nature Conservation Committee that indicates that populations of kittiwakes, terns, fulmars and shags are impacted by sand eel farming in the North sea. Those conservationists are concerned that the boats that catch thousands of tonnes of sand eels each year to be turned into animal feed and fertiliser deprive seabirds of a vital source of food.

We have heard calls for a ban on sand eel fishing in the central North sea, most recently from the Fishing for Leave representative in our evidence session, but we would like more evidence about the practice. I would be grateful if the Minister dealt with how we can pick up the points raised by the hon. Member for Waveney but also ensure there is sufficient scientific evidence and understanding of the stock baseline for sand eels, which seem at the moment to be missing from the debate.

[Mr Carmichael]

Anyone seeking evidence of the issue the hon. Member for Waveney raised is more than welcome to come and visit us in Orkney or Shetland and look at the cliffs. Cliffs that were once white with seabirds and other things—evidence of seabirds—are often empty at times of the year when they should be full. That causes enormous concern in our community. It is a good example of the way an ecosystem-based approach can bring benefits to the community beyond the fishing industry. Nature tourism is one of the liveliest and most rapidly growing sectors in our local economy, and it is a welcome boost. The sand eel fishery self-evidently has been a foolish enterprise for many years, and I very much endorse the hon. Gentleman’s comments and his efforts to end it.

Fisheries Bill (Eighth sitting)

Luke Pollard Excerpts

Thursday 13th December 2018 Public Bill Committees

[George Eustice]

Government amendment 4 is simply a technical amendment to ensure that clause 17 accurately describes the contents of schedule 3, which makes consequential amendments to existing legislation. The relevant legislation is the Sea Fish Industry Act 1962, the Sea Fisheries Act 1968, the Fishery Limits Act 1976, designation orders made under that Act, and the Sea Fish (Conservation) Act 1967 and orders made under that Act.

Amendment 4 agreed to.

Clause 17, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 3

Access and licensing: consequential amendments

Amendments made: 7, in schedule 3, page 39, line 15, leave out from �(interpretation),� to end of line and insert�

�( ) in subsection (1), at the appropriate place, insert�

�British fishing boat� means a fishing boat�

(a) which is registered in the United Kingdom under Part 2 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1995,

(b) which is British-owned, or

(c) which is registered under the law of Jersey, Guernsey or the Isle of Man;�;

( ) in that subsection, in the definition of �sea fish�, omit �4,�;

( ) after subsection (1) insert�

�(1A) In any order or regulations made under this Act �foreign fishing boat� means (unless the contrary intention appears) a fishing boat which is not a British fishing boat.��

This amendment would ensure that the expressions �British fishing boat� and �foreign fishing boat� bear the same meaning in the Sea Fish (Conservation) Act 1967, and subordinate legislation made under it, as they do the Bill.

Amendment 8, in schedule 3, page 39, line 19, at end insert�

�Fishery Limits Act 1976

5A In the Fishery Limits Act 1976, omit section 3 (which substitutes section 4 of the Sea Fish (Conservation) Act 1967).

Fisheries Act 1981

5B In the Fisheries Act 1981, omit section 20 (which amends section 4 of the Sea Fish (Conservation) Act 1967).

Sea Fish (Conservation) Act 1992

5C In the Sea Fish (Conservation) Act 1992, omit section 1 (which amends section 4 of the Sea Fish (Conservation) Act 1967).

Government of Wales Act 2006

5D (1) The Government of Wales Act 2006 is amended as follows.

(2) In Schedule 3A (functions of Ministers of Crown etc exercisable concurrently or jointly with Welsh Ministers)�

(a) in paragraph 1(2), in the table, in the entry for the Sea Fish (Conservation) Act 1967, in column 2�

(i) omit �(a) section 4 (licensing of fishing boats), and�;

(ii) for �sections 4 and� substitute �section�;

(b) in paragraph 2(2)(b), omit sub-paragraph (i);

(c) in paragraph 2(3), omit �4 or�.

Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009

5E (1) The Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009 is amended as follows.

(2) In section 4 (licensing of fishing boats)�

(a) omit subsections (1) to (6);

(b) in subsection (7), for �that section� substitute �section 4 of the Sea Fish (Conservation) Act 1967 (licensing of fishing boats)�.

(3) In section 7 (regulations supplementary to sections 4 and 4A of the Sea Fish (Conservation) Act 1967), omit �4 or�.

(4) In section 196 (charging for commercial fishing licences), omit subsection (1).

(5) Omit section 197 (grant of licences subject to conditions imposed for environmental purposes).

(6) In section 284 (power to require production of certain equipment), in subsection (2)(a), for �section 4(6) or� substitute �paragraph 1 of Schedule 2 to the Fisheries Act 2019 or section.�

This amendment would insert additional amendments in connection with the repeal of section 4 of the Sea Fish (Conservation) Act 1967 and its re-enactment in the Bill.

Amendment 9, in schedule 3, page 39, line 32, at end insert�

�Sea Fishing (Licences and Notices) Regulations 1994

6A (1) The Sea Fishing (Licences and Notices) Regulations 1994 (S.I. 1994/2813) are amended as follows.

(2) In regulation 1 (citation, commencement and interpretation)�

(a) in the heading, after �commencement� insert �, application�;

(b) after paragraph (1) insert�

�(1A) These regulations apply in relation to�

(a) licences granted under section 10 of the Fisheries Act 2019 (licensing of British fishing boats) in respect of Welsh fishing boats;

(b) licences granted under section 12 of that Act (licensing of foreign fishing boats) by the Welsh Ministers; and

(c) licences granted under section 4A of the Sea Fish (Conservation) Act 1967 (licensing of vessels receiving trans-shipped fish)�

(i) in respect of Welsh fishing boats, or

(ii) by the Welsh Ministers in respect of foreign fishing boats.�;

(c) in paragraph (2), for the definition of �licence� substitute�

��licence� means a licence to which these regulations apply (see regulation 1(1A));�;

(d) in paragraph (2), in the definition of �nominee�, in paragraph (b), for �in a member State and having a place of business� substitute �, and having a place of business,�;

(e) in paragraph (2), for the definition of �sea fishing licence� substitute�

��sea fishing licence� means a licence to which these regulations apply by virtue of regulation 1(1A)(a) or (b);�;

(f) in paragraph (2), at the end insert�

��Welsh fishing boat� means a fishing boat�

(a) which is registered in the United Kingdom under Part 2 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1995, and

(b) whose entry in the register specifies a port in Wales as the port to which the boat is to be treated as belonging.�

(3) In regulation 2 (communication of licences and notices)�

(a) in paragraph (1), in the opening words, for �a nominee� substitute �an appropriate recipient�;

(b) in paragraph (1), for sub-paragraph (d) substitute�

(d) subject to paragraph (6), transmitting it to the appropriate recipient by means of an electronic communication to an address which the appropriate recipient has specified in accordance with sub-paragraph (b) of that paragraph.�;

(c) for paragraph (2) substitute�

�(2) A notice shall be effected by communicating it to an appropriate recipient�

(a) in any of the ways specified in paragraph (1);

(b) by publishing it on a website, the address of which is indicated on the licence to which the notice relates; or

(c) in accordance with paragraph (3).�;

(d) after that paragraph insert�

�(2A) In this regulation, �an appropriate recipient� means�

(a) in relation to a licence or notice relating to a Welsh fishing boat�

(i) the owner or charterer of the fishing boat, or

(ii) a nominee of that owner or charterer; and

(b) in relation to a licence or notice relating to any other fishing boat, the owner or charterer of the fishing boat.�;

(e) in paragraph (3), in the closing words, omit �granted by the appropriate Minister,�;

(f) after paragraph (4) insert�

�(5) A notice, other than a notice published in accordance with paragraph (3), must�

(a) specify the name, port letters and number of the fishing boat named in the licence to which the notice relates, or

(b) in the case of a notice in respect of two or more licences, specify the name, port letters and number of the fishing boats named in the licences.

(6) A licence or notice may be communicated to a person by means of an electronic communication only if the following conditions are met�

(a) the use of the electronic communication results in the information contained in the licence or notice being available to the person in all material respects as it would appear in a licence or notice given in printed form, and

(b) the person has specified an address for the purpose of receiving such communications.�

(4) In regulation 3 (delivery of licences and giving of notices)�

(a) in paragraph (3), for �a nominee�s� substitute �an�;

(b) after paragraph (3) insert�

�(3A) A notice communicated in accordance with regulation 2(2)(b) (publication on website) shall be treated as given immediately it is published.�

(5) In regulation 4 (time at which licences and notices to have effect)�

(a) in paragraph (a) omit �, and a notice which is communicated in accordance with regulation 2(2)(b),�;

(b) in paragraph (b), omit the �and� at the end;

(c) after paragraph (b) insert�

�(ba) a notice which is communicated in accordance with regulation 2(2)(b) (publication on website) shall have effect 24 hours after it is treated as given in accordance with regulation 3; and�.

Scotland Act 1998 (Agency Arrangements) (Specification) Order 1999

6B (1) The Scotland Act (Agency Arrangements) (Specification) Order 1999 (S.I. 1999/1512) is amended as follows.

(2) In Schedule 1 (functions conferred on Minister of the Crown), omit paragraph 1.

(3) In Schedule 2 (functions exercisable by Scottish Ministers), omit paragraph 1.

Scotland Act 1998 (Concurrent Functions) Order 1999

6C (1) The Scotland Act 1998 (Concurrent Functions) Order 1999 (S.I. 1999/1592) is amended as follows.

(2) In Schedule 1�

(a) in column 1, omit the entry for section 4 of the Sea Fish (Conservation) Act 1967, and

(b) omit the corresponding entry in column 2.

Sea Fishing (Licences and Notices) (Scotland) Regulations 2011

6D (1) The Sea Fishing (Licences and Notices) (Scotland) Regulations 2011 (S.I. 2011/70) are amended as follows.

(2) In regulation 1 (citation, commencement, extent and application)�

(a) in paragraph (2), omit the words from �and the Scottish zone� to the end;

(b) for paragraph (3) substitute�

�(3) These regulations apply in relation to�

(a) licences granted under section 10 of the Fisheries Act 2019 (licensing of British fishing boats) in respect of Scottish fishing boats;

(b) licences granted under section 12 of that Act (licensing of foreign fishing boats) by the Scottish Ministers; and

(c) licences granted under section 4A of the Sea Fish (Conservation) Act 1967 (licensing of vessels receiving trans-shipped fish)�

(i) in respect of Scottish fishing boats, or

(ii) by the Scottish Ministers in respect of foreign fishing boats.�

(3) In regulation 2 (interpretation)�

(a) for the definition of �licence� substitute�

��licence� means a licence to which these regulations apply (see regulation 1(3));�;

(b) in the definition of �nominee��

(i) in paragraph (b) for �a member State� substitute �the United Kingdom�;

(ii) in the closing words, omit �Scottish�;

(c) in the definition of �Scottish fishing boat�, omit �; and in respect of which the Scottish Ministers may grant or have granted a licence�;

(d) for the definition of �sea fishing licence� substitute�

��sea fishing licence� means a licence to which these regulations apply by virtue of regulation 1(3)(a) or (b).�

(4) In regulation 3 (communication of licences and notices)�

(a) in paragraph (1), in the opening words, for �Scottish fishing boat� substitute �fishing boat�;

(b) in paragraph (1), in sub-paragraphs (a) and (b), after �charterer or� insert �, in the case of a Scottish fishing boat,�;

(c) in paragraph (2)�

(i) in sub-paragraph (a), at the beginning, insert �in the case of a Scottish fishing boat�;

(ii) in sub-paragraph (b), omit �Scottish�;

(d) in paragraphs (3) and (4), for �Scottish fishing boat� substitute �fishing boat�

(5) In regulation 4 (delivery of licences and giving of notices), in paragraph (3), for �a nominee�s� substitute �an�.

Sea Fishing (Licences and Notices) (England) Regulations 2012

6E (1) The Sea Fishing (Licences and Notices) (England) Regulations 2012 (S.I. 2012/827) are amended as follows.

(2) In regulation 1 (citation, commencement and application), for paragraph (2) substitute�

�(2) These regulations apply in relation to�

(a) licences granted under section 10 of the Fisheries Act 2019 (licensing of British fishing boats) in respect of relevant fishing boats;

(b) licences granted under section 12 of that Act (licensing of foreign fishing boats) by the Marine Management Organisation; and

(c) licences granted under section 4A of the Sea Fish (Conservation) Act 1967 (licensing of vessels receiving trans-shipped fish)�

(i) in respect of relevant fishing boats, or

(ii) by the Marine Management Organisation in respect of foreign fishing boats.�

(3) In regulation 2 (interpretation)�

(a) for the definition of �licence� substitute�

��licence� means a licence to which these regulations apply (see regulation 1(2));�;

(b) in the definition of �nominee��

(i) in paragraph (b), for �in a member State and having a place of business� substitute �, and having a place of business,�;

(ii) in the closing words, omit �relevant�;

(c) for the definition of �relevant fishing boat� substitute�

��relevant fishing boat� means a British fishing boat other than a fishing boat�

(a) which is registered in the United Kingdom under Part 2 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1995, and

(b) whose entry in the register specifies a port in Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland as the port to which the boat is to be treated as belonging;�;

(d) at the end insert�

��sea fishing licence� means a licence to which these regulations apply by virtue of regulation 1(2)(a) or (b).�

(4) In regulation 3 (communication of licences and notices)�

(a) in paragraph (1), for the words from �the owner� to the end substitute �an appropriate recipient (�P�);

(b) after that paragraph insert�

�(1A) In this regulation, �an appropriate recipient� means�

(a) in relation to a licence or notice relating to a relevant fishing boat�

(i) the owner or charterer of the fishing boat, or

(ii) a nominee of that owner or charterer; and

(b) in relation to a licence or notice relating to any other fishing boat, the owner or charterer of the fishing boat.�;

(c) omit paragraph (8).

Sea Fishing (Licences and Notices) (Northern Ireland) Regulations 2014

6F (1) The Sea Fishing (Licences and Notices) (Northern Ireland) Regulations 2014 (S.R.�(N.I.)�2014 No.�209) are amended as follows.

(2) In regulation 1 (citation, commencement and application), for paragraph (2) substitute�

�(2) These Regulations apply in relation to�

(a) licences granted under section 10 of the Fisheries Act 2019 (licensing of British fishing boats) in respect of Northern Ireland fishing boats;

(b) licences granted under section 12 of that Act (licensing of foreign fishing boats) by the Department; and

(c) licences granted under section 4A of the Sea Fish (Conservation) Act 1967 (licensing of vessels receiving trans-shipped fish)�

(i) in respect of Northern Ireland fishing boats, or

(ii) by the Department in respect of foreign fishing boats.�

(3) In regulation 2 (interpretation)�

(a) in the definition of �the Department�, for �of Agriculture and Rural Development� substitute �of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs�;

(b) for the definition of �licence� substitute�

��licence� means a licence to which these regulations apply (see regulation 1(2));�;

(c) in the definition of �nominee�-

(i) in paragraph (b) for �in a member State of the European Union and having a place of business� substitute �, and having a place of business,�;

(ii) in the closing words, omit �Northern Ireland�;

(d) for the definition of �Northern Ireland fishing boat� substitute�

��Northern Ireland fishing boat� means a fishing boat�

(a) which is registered in the United Kingdom under Part 2 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1995, and

(b) whose entry in the register specifies a port in Northern Ireland as the port to which the boat is to be treated as belonging;�;

(e) for the definition of �sea fishing licence� substitute�

��sea fishing licence� means a licence to which these regulations apply by virtue of regulation 1(2)(a) or (b).�

(4) In regulation 3 (manner in which a licence is granted etc)�

(a) in paragraph (1)�

(i) omit �Northern Ireland�;

(ii) for the words from �the owner or charterer of the boat� to the end substitute �an appropriate recipient (�the recipient�);

(b) after that paragraph insert�

�(1A) In this regulation, �an appropriate recipient� means�

(a) in relation to a licence or notice relating to a Northern Ireland fishing boat�

(i) the owner or charterer of the fishing boat, or

(ii) a nominee of that owner or charterer; and

(b) in relation to a licence or notice relating to any other fishing boat, the owner or charterer of the fishing boat.�;

(c) in paragraph (3), for the words from �the owner or charterer � to the end substitute �an appropriate recipient (�the recipient�).��(George Eustice.)

This amendment would add to Schedule 3 minor and consequential amendments of certain statutory instruments relating to the licensing of fishing boats, including (at the request of the devolved administrations) statutory instruments amendable by the devolved administrations.

Schedule 3, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 18

Power of Secretary of State to determine fishing opportunities

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

I beg to move amendment 58, in clause 18, page 9, line 40, leave out �may� and insert �must�.

This amendment would require the Secretary of State to determine fishing opportunities.

It is good to see you back in the Chair, Mr Hanson. The amazing thing about fish is that they are a replenishable resource if used correctly. We can all agree that if there were no fish in the sea, there would be no fishing industry. It is one of those inalienable truths that the Minister spoke of on the first day in Committee that Parliament is sovereign, which is a good debate to have, and that fish are a public good, as I hope to see in the Bill in due course.

This amendment would turn clause 18 into a duty and force the Secretary of State to commit to determining fishing opportunities annually, to determine the maximum quantity of fish that could be caught by British boats. If we are serious about preventing overfishing, the amendment is vital.

This is another example of the Government�s failure to take the issue of sustainability seriously, as it has not been included in the Bill. If it had been up to Labour, we would have called the Bill the �Sustainable Fisheries Bill�. The short title would have been the �Sustainable Fisheries Act 2019�. I understand we are not allowed to change the short title, so we could not table an amendment to do that.

In yesterday�s sitting of the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, Martin Salter, formerly a Member of the House who now represents the Angling Trust, raised concerns about the lack of care given to sustainability, when he said that the Fisheries Bill falls short of the White Paper and is much weaker than the common fisheries policy in binding Ministers to fishing sustainably. In July 2017, the Environment Secretary, the self-described �shy green�, said on �The Andrew Marr Show� that the common fisheries policy was an �environmental disaster� and that leaving it would ensure that Britain could

�have sustainable fish stocks for the future.�

Given that, it is important that there should be a commitment to stop overfishing.

On global fish stocks, 29% are overfished, 61% are fully fished and 10% are underfished. The UK has a leading role to play in stopping that overfishing. A 2006 article by Charles Clover, the then environment editor of The Daily Telegraph, who now heads the Blue Marine Foundation, said that if the rate of overfishing continued the world�s currently fished seafoods would reach what is defined as collapse by 2048. The World Wide Fund for Nature said this year that, worldwide, overfishing is one of the biggest threats to the health of seas and their inhabitants.

Today, each person eats on average 19.2 kg of fish a year, which is quite an image to put before ourselves�that is twice the amount people ate about 50 years ago. In 2013, about 93 million tonnes of fish were caught worldwide. Illegal and unregulated fishing constitutes an estimated 11 million to 26 million tonnes�about 12% to 28% of fishing worldwide. Almost 30% of fish stocks that are commercially fished are overfished. More than 50% of our imports are fully fished from developing countries. Over just 40 years, there has been a decrease in recorded marine species of about 39%. That is very worrying.

Overall, according to the Government�s own data, there has been a decline in commercial landings in the UK from around 300,000 tonnes of demersal species to less than 20,000 tonnes during the past 40 years. When thinking about landings, we should bear it in mind that in 2015-16 technology in relation to fish location and fishing gear was of an altogether different magnitude compared with the �70s, making many of the figures all the more alarming.

There is a global crisis and the need for the UK to lead the way is quite apparent. We cannot hide away from our responsibilities and the amendment would close the loophole that allows for overfishing beyond scientific levels. I urge Members to vote with us to protect our oceans from the curse of the �tragedy of the commons�.

[George Eustice]

There are a number of other amendments to clause 18 and I would like to cover some of the broader issues that the hon. Gentleman raised in relation to those later amendments.

[George Eustice]

Yes, exactly, but I shall address the point of amendment 58, which is simply to provide that under clause 18(1) the Secretary of State �must� rather than �may� make the determination in question for a calendar year.

The amendment is unnecessary and potentially counterproductive. Subsection (2) already makes it clear that the power will be used only in the context of international negotiations on quota species. The difficulty with introducing the word �must� is that that would have the perverse effect of requiring the Secretary of State to set the maximum quantity of sea fish for all sea fish, whether or not they were subject to quota. Species such as pilchards, which we get a lot of in the west country, and lemon sole and squid, which will be important to many fishermen in the hon. Gentleman�s constituency, are not currently subject to catch quotas. We do not want to introduce a requirement that they should be. We intend to use the power only for quota stocks.

I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not see a need to press the amendment, which would require us to set limits on all sorts of species where limits are not currently deemed necessary.

[Luke Pollard]

The amendment is intended to get a commitment from the Minister to seek not to set levels above those that are scientifically proven, and to prevent overfishing. The requirement to set that level is important and one we will revisit in future amendments. On the basis of the Minister�s comments and the fact that we will come to those other amendments, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Luke Pollard]

I beg to move amendment 60, in clause�18,�page�10,�line�2,�after �boats� insert �or foreign fishing boats holding rights to use British catch quota�.

This amendment would add foreign fishing boats to the determination made by the Secretary of State of the maximum quantity of sea fish caught, or of the maximum number of days at sea.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 61, in clause�18,�page�10,�line�3,�after �boats� insert

�or foreign fishing boats holding rights to use British catch quota�.

This amendment would add foreign fishing boats to the determination made by the Secretary of State of the maximum quantity of sea fish caught, or of the maximum number of days at sea.

[Luke Pollard]

Forgive me, I had no idea that I would be speaking so frequently. In Tuesday�s sitting, the Opposition were shocked to see the Government vote against an amendment that would have secured a level playing field in environmental standards for UK boats and non-UK boats using a UK licence in our waters. Time and again, the Minister�s tagline when it comes to fisheries has been �take back control,� but without this amendment we will have little control over what non-UK boats do in our waters, if the maximum of fish they can catch is not set.

In speaking to these amendments, we want to reacquaint ourselves with that notion of a level playing field and to have it in the Bill, so that there is no doubt about the difference between UK boats and boats from our European Union and Norwegian friends, in ensuring there is a level playing field at all times.

[George Eustice]

Although I understand the intention behind the amendment, I am afraid that it is, in my view, misplaced and this point is being raised with respect to the wrong clause, for reasons I will explain.

Foreign boats do not fish against UK quota limits, so they do not hold any rights to be managed under the terms of the clause. Only British fishing boats can fish against UK quota. British fishing boats are defined as those that are registered in the UK, are British-owned or are registered in the Crown dependencies. UK-flagged boats that are owned or part-owned by foreigners, as we discussed earlier, are covered by the economic link, but foreign-flagged vessels that have access to UK waters gain their quota from the foreign state that issues its share of the quota.

A French vessel fishing in UK waters off the coast of Devon is not accessing British quota, but is fishing against a quota allocated to it by the French Government. Clause 18 is very much about giving the British Government the power to set limits for British fishing boats. Separately, in other parts of the Bill, there are powers to grant access to foreign vessels, but we will not be giving British quota to those foreign vessels; they will be fishing against the entitlement from their flag state.

[Luke Pollard]

I thank the Minister for that clarification, but looking at the Public Gallery I see a few screwed-up faces, as if to say that foreign boats have to fish under British quota currently.

[George Eustice]

As I explained, there are foreign-owned British vessels, but that is different from saying that foreign vessels fish against British quota. They simply do not. French vessels in UK waters are not fishing against British quota; they are fishing against quota allocated to them by the French Government.

[Luke Pollard]

I suspect that this is an item we will revisit when considering a later amendment, so on that basis I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Carmichael]

I would very much hope that they, too, would be working with a maximum sustainable yield principle. I am not aware of any suggestion that they would not.

[Luke Pollard]

We appreciate the argument for amendment 25. The Opposition have committed to leaving the European Union without any roll-back of environmental standards and MSY by 2020 seems to be a glaring omission from this Bill. The Minister will know that we are signed up to that under the common fisheries policy and that it is Government policy under the UN sustainable development goals to continue to be signed up to MSY by 2020. However, I suspect he will say that, given that the Bill is set to come into force beyond that point, it is no longer necessary to have that commitment in the Bill. While I see his argument there, it is not good enough; we must strive to ensure that MSY is a guiding principle of how fisheries are looked at. That is why the Opposition have tabled amendment 59, in a similar vein to amendment 25, tabled by the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland.

We note that amendment 25 seeks to remove days at sea and effort-based quota provision. We will discuss days at sea in more detail later, on amendments 26 and 27 and our amendment 23, but in short, we do not want to exclude it from the Bill entirely, as some fisheries are already captured by this form of fishing. Any new effort-based quota allocation should be able to take place only following a robust trial�something that was featured in the White Paper, but which has mysteriously disappeared from the text of the Bill. We think amendment 59 is better placed than amendment 25: fishers need fish to fish, and thriving fish stocks are critical for a profitable and prosperous industry. They are affected by factors outside our immediate control�the temperature and acidity of the sea, for instance�but one thing we can and do control to ensure thriving and healthy fish stocks is how much fish we take from the seas.

Dr Abigail McQuatters-Gollop, a lecturer in marine conservation at the University of Plymouth, in the patch I represent, said:

�Decisions about how much we take from marine environment has to be based on scientific episode and needs to be a duty not an objective.�

The view that MSY is not firmed up enough in the Bill is shared by key environmental stakeholders and across the industry. Griffin Carpenter, from the New Economics Foundation, who gave evidence to this Committee, said,

�Something I think is missing from the Bill�is commitments to maximum sustainable yield�not just the stock commitment but the flow�Many of us were surprised that was not in the Bill.���[Official Report, Fisheries Public Bill Committee, 6 December 2018; c. 107, Q205.]

Helen McLachlan, also speaking to the Committee, said that the 2020 deadline turned things around in the EU from short-term policy making that overshot scientific evidence and increased biomass and decreased mortality and that, if we lose it, we take a backward step.

It is important that the debate around MSY is comprehensive and based on sound evidence. We must not lose that from the debate. We need to ensure that tone and that sentiment, which the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland raised, throughout the Bill and in the messaging we give. That is why MSY by 2020 is such an important consideration.

[Owen Smith (Pontypridd) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hanson. I rise briefly to support my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport and the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland and the spirit and intention behind all the amendments.

It seems to me quite straightforward that the Bill takes a retrograde step by not including MSY, which is so clearly hard-wired into the CFP and into UN sustainability goal 14. The Minister has on other occasions argued that including it is unnecessary, on the basis that it is captured by the Bill�s intention to not harvest biomass at levels above MSY.

However, it should worry us all that the real experts in this area�those in the third sector concerned with conservation in our seas�clearly see it as a mis-step by the Government not to put MSY in the Bill in the way that other legislatures have, including in Australia, New Zealand, the States and Canada, especially as the evidence from our own waters and elsewhere is that MSY targets have been very effective. Hake and North sea plaice are two recent examples of stocks recovering brilliantly as a result of MSY policy. I therefore cannot understand why the Minister is so coy about maintaining this standard.

The concern, bluntly, is that not including MSY in the Bill will give this or any future Government the wriggle room not to pursue sustainable fishing policies and to set catch levels above MSY, out of line with scientific evidence. If that is not the case, the Minister, who is evidently very expert in this field, has to explain to us, the House, the wider industry and those concerned with conserving stocks in our seas why he is determined not to put MSY in the Bill, which seems to fly in the face of the evidence.

[George Eustice]

Let me make clear from the outset to the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland that we are not walking away from the principle of MSY, and to the hon. Member for Pontypridd that MSY is indeed in the Bill. It is right there in clause 1(3)(b):

�to ensure that exploitation of living marine biological resources restores and maintains populations of harvested species above biomass levels capable of producing maximum sustainable yield.�

The only bit that is not in the Bill but is in the current EU regulation, which was drafted as long ago as 2013, is the 2020 target.

As I have described, it makes no sense whatever to include a statutory target that will already have lapsed and expired in a Bill that will probably not commence until January 2021 or the end of 2020. The right place to reflect any kind of timescale or commitments, or even on species, is in that joint fisheries statement, which will describe how all the Administrations will work together to deliver those objectives, including MSY. I therefore put it to hon. Members that the right way to replace the EU legislative commitment of 2020 is not to have an already-expired date in the Bill, but to reflect that commitment in the joint fisheries statement.

The other issue relates to effort and setting the maximum number of days that British boats may spend at sea. All the amendments, including the one tabled by the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport, would delete clause 18(1)(b), which covers the maximum number of days at sea. As he seemed to acknowledge, that would be counter-productive, as we already have something called the western waters regime, which is an effort-based regime that regulates the catches of crab, and in particular of scallops, of the over-15 metre sector.

Hon. Members may recall that scallops are a part of the fishery that can lead to conflict at times, not least over the summer. There are fishermen fishing out of Brixham, not far from the hon. Gentleman�s constituency, who have an allocation of kilowatt-hours at sea to catch scallops in the EU exclusive economic zone�in other words, on the French side of the channel. If we were to make it unlawful to allocate days at sea, the hon. Gentleman would have a scallop war of his own, probably outside his constituency, because he would find that those scallop fishermen would no longer be able to access French waters because we would no longer be participating in the western waters regime.

[Luke Pollard]

I invite the Minister to look at amendment 105, because we do not actually suggest deleting clause 18(1)(b). We suggest that

�No determination may be made�

under it, unless a trial has been completed. I would be grateful if he corrected his remarks.

[George Eustice]

My understanding, on the basis of my notes, is that amendment 59 would also delete clause 18(1)(b). It may be that the hon. Gentleman did not intend that to happen, but that amendment, which I understand is in his name, would also remove it.

I will make a point about amendment 105. Again, the western waters regime is already established and happening, so we would not necessarily want to subject it to a trial before being able to make any such determination, because if we were to leave the EU without an agreement at the end of March, we would nevertheless want to have some discussions and reach some agreements on scallops quickly.

[Luke Pollard]

Amendment 59 would actually be added at the end of line 4, rather than replacing it, so it would not remove it as the Minister has said. I appreciate that his notes on the amendment may be somewhat different, so perhaps he wants to reflect that in his remarks.

[George Eustice]

If the notes that I have before me have an error�

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Carmichael]

Amendments 28 and 29 can, I think, be dealt with in fairly short order. Again, they try to put a bit more environmental rigour into the Bill�the sort of thing that we saw in the White Paper, but which does not seem to have survived the translation from policy into legislation.

In relation to amendment 28, the Minister and the Committee will doubtless be aware that there are a number of species that are, to use the jargon, data deficient: that is to say, we do not have the useful data that we would require in order to set them as quota species. The procedures outlined in the amendment are guidelines that are to be applied to ensure that a lack of sufficient data is not used as an excuse, or a reason, for fishing those species irresponsibly. The amendment really is self-explanatory.

Likewise, amendment 29 sets a target of 2020 for fishing mortality to be set at a sustainable level for stocks that are not subject to catch limits, such as shellfish. It would bring to the overall framework of fisheries management a coherence that is currently lacking.

[Luke Pollard]

The principles contained in amendments 28 and 29 are good ones, as they deal with how to make sure that we are fishing sustainably.

Amendment 62, which we are also considering, talks about the need for baseline stock assessments by 2030. The reason I tabled that amendment is to try to get the Minister to set out his position on making sure that we are addressing data deficiency. A key reason why our fisheries cannot be classed as sustainable�as we have spoken about in previous sittings of this Committee�is that there is a deficiency of the data that guarantees those fish stocks are sustainable. Making a baseline stock assessment, especially of some of the non-quota species that are under severe pressure, is an important step towards achieving fully sustainable fisheries.

The Minister will know, for instance, about the importance of cuttlefish to the south-west�s mixed fisheries and to fishing fleets in the west country. The lack of a decent level of data regarding cuttlefish is one of the concerns about the future sustainability of that industry, especially as stock levels are going up and down. This year in particular, fishers have reported an alarming rise in smaller cuttlefish coming through where, in the past, they expected larger ones. The purpose of amendment 62 and, I believe, of the amendments tabled by the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland�the sentiment of which we can support�is to get better data, to make sure that no fishing levels are being set above the scientific data level.

[George Eustice]

I am grateful for this opportunity to explain the approach that we currently take to data-limited stocks, how we have refined that approach in recent years, and what we might do in future.

The International Council for the Exploration of the Sea has six categories of stock, according to the level of data and the analysis that are available. Categories 1 and 2 cover those stocks for which there is judged to be sufficient data for us to do a full forecast or a full stock assessment. Those are the stocks for which we use the maximum sustainable yield approach. Categories 3 and 4 cover the majority of our so-called data-limited stocks�those for which we have some reliable stock indicators but cannot do a full stock assessment. Category 5 covers those stocks for which we have little or no scientific data available other than the landings data. Category 6 covers those species for which there are negligible landings�typically those that are a bycatch only.

For category 3 and category 4 stocks, where we have some reliable stock indicators, the UK has been in the vanguard in the last few years in developing a methodology based on stock trends and biomass trends. My argument has always been that we should make the best assessment that we can with the knowledge that we have, rather than use too many other arbitrary proxies. Stock trends have therefore become the new methodology that we have tended to adopt for most of our data-limited stocks, where we have reliable stock indicators.

For category 5 and category 6 stocks, for which we really have only landings data, we do not really have any other option than to adopt quite arbitrary approaches to how we manage them. Typically, they tend to fall into two categories. One is called �use it or lose it��if a stock is not caught in sufficient quantities in the previous year, the quota is simply reduced to the level at which it was caught, and the landings are used as a proxy for the health of the stock. The other is the so-called precautionary principle, which is an automatic 20% cut, year on year, in the absence of data. That is also used on some of those very data-poor stocks.

Obviously, we want to improve the quality of the data, and we want to move more species to a full stock assessment so that we can do MSY. For instance, in the last two years we have moved megrim in area VII to a full stock assessment�previously it was data-limited. We want to make further progress on that. Dr Carl O�Brien explained some of the difficulties in his evidence. Some species are quite difficult to age, because the methodology where their eardrums are measured to work out their age is hard to use. With some species, there are technical challenges to getting to a full stock assessment. Nevertheless, we should continue to work to improve that, and to get more of those data-limited stocks into categories 1 and 2.

Finally, in his evidence, Dr Carl O�Brien said:

�I think you would be surprised how much evidence has been gathered for non-quota species. Seafish had a project called Project Inshore, which I think is now in its second phase, looking mainly at shellfish species.���[Official Report, Fisheries Public Bill Committee, 6 December 2018; c. 112, Q216.]

There is a lot of work going on to assess the health of scallop stocks and crabs, for instance. Quite a lot of data has been collected through Project Inshore. Obviously there is more to do, but a lot has been done, and work continues to be done in that space.

[Luke Pollard]

I am grateful for those remarks. The purpose of amendment 62 was also to try to put a date on when we will have better evidence. The fact that we have better science than people are aware of is useful, but does the Minister have any idea when we will have firm dates when data-deficient species will reach those points?

[George Eustice]

I do not have that data now, but I would be willing to bring the Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science�s current projections to the House on Report. The hon. Gentleman will understand that, although I have been in this job a number of years and understand quite a lot about the science, I am not a fisheries scientist. It is an incredibly technical, complex area, and I rely on advisers such as Carl to assist on it. I will happily give the most detailed update that we can on Report about the progress on moving some of the data-limited category 3 and 4 stocks to full stock assessments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)]

I beg to move amendment 23, in clause�18,�page�10,�line�36,�leave out �negative� and insert �affirmative�.

It is good to see you back in the Chair, Mr Hanson.

I will speak relatively briefly about this amendment. It is a tweak, but I sense that it is quite an important tweak. It is on an issue that was brought to my attention by Fishing for Leave and I know that the Opposition will also support it.

Clause 18 gives the Secretary of State the authority to determine fishing opportunities. It proposes that the regulations for determining the number of days that a boat can fish are to be established by negative resolution; we talked about that this morning. Given the importance of this issue�views on it are held passionately, both by those who favour a days-at-sea regime and those who oppose it�there is a strong case that the regulations should be established by affirmative resolution, so that any decisions can be taken in a transparent way, and do not just go through on the nod and under the radar, so to speak.

My concern is that I sense we could be storing up a problem for later in the day. I would welcome a bit of clarification from the Minister as to how he reached this decision and whether he might review it.

[Luke Pollard]

I rise to speak, briefly, in support of the hon. Gentleman�s amendment. When we are talking about allocating fishing opportunities, it is important that Parliament is given the opportunity to scrutinise them, especially at the start of a new fisheries period for our country, to ensure that the allocations carry the confidence of the fishing industry that they are being allocated in a robust way.

[George Eustice]

This is a similar discussion to the one we had earlier on the use of the negative resolution procedure rather than the affirmative resolution procedure.

As I said earlier, the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee considered the Bill and said that of its 15 delegated powers that require a parliamentary procedure, only four are solely governed by the negative procedure, and justifiably so. I will explain to my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney why I think the negative procedure is justified in this particular instance.

Clause 18(1) replaces powers that are similar to those set out in section 4(6) of the Sea Fish (Conservation) Act 1967, and those are also made under the negative procedure. We followed the approach that has been taken not only while we have been in the European Union, but even before we were in the European Union, to have the negative procedure in relation to this measure.

I point out to my hon. Friend that the actual power to determine the number of days at sea is a straightforward power that the Secretary of State has without even the need for regulations, under clause 18(3), and the issue in subsection (8) is that,

�The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision for determining, for the purposes of this Act, the number of days in a calendar year that a fishing boat is to be regarded as spending at sea�.

The purpose of the regulations is to establish what happens if they do six hours. Is that half a day or part of a day? The regulations basically govern how we measure a day at sea and whether it should be, as in some cases, kilowatt-hours at sea or a straightforward days-at-sea measure. It is because we may use slightly different effort measurements in different sectors that we need to be able to define in the regulations what a day at sea is. The power to determine the days at sea is a flexible power that the Secretary of State will have, and always has had, so that we can manage our fisheries effectively.

--- Later in debate ---

[Peter Aldous]

I beg to move amendment 84, in clause�20,�page�11,�line�26,�at end insert �and,

(ii) for �environmental, social and economic nature� substitute �environmental and social nature, thereby recognising the fishery as public property held on trust for the people�.�

I will start by giving some background information to the amendment, which sets out provisions on the distribution of fishing opportunities. At present, the distribution is inequitable and the system needs to improve. As we move to a UK fishing policy, we have a golden opportunity to bring about those improvements.

Article 17 of the common fisheries policy is retained and amended in clause 20 by stating that the relevant national authorities�the Secretary of State and the MMO�shall

�use transparent and objective criteria including those of an environmental, social and economic nature�

when allocating fishing opportunities. That is a good start, but the existing wording states that the criteria to be used may include �historic catch levels�, as well as the impact of fishing on the environment and its contribution to the local economy. The wording in the CFP, coupled with the lack of a requirement to prioritise environmental, social and local economic criteria, has meant that �historic catch levels� has often ended up being the sole basis on which quota is allocated, giving rise to the present inequitable and unsustainable distribution.

The five largest quota holders control more than a third of UK fishing quota. Four of them belong to families on The Sunday Times rich list and the fifth is a subsidiary of a Dutch multinational. Some 49% of English quota is held by companies based overseas. As is well documented and figures very prominently in all debates in this place, the small-scale fleet�the inshore vessels known as the under-10s�gets a raw deal. Those vessels hold only 6% of quota, notwithstanding the fact that for every fish caught, the small-scale fleet creates far more jobs than its larger scale counterparts. It lands 11% of fish by value in the UK, but employs 49% of all those in the industry. Similarly, more than 90% of the small-scale fleet uses passive gears, which are far better for the environment.

Solutions to the problems can be delivered through the amendments I have tabled to clause 20. Amendment 84 would legally enshrine fish as a public resource, as recognised in the Government�s White Paper. While the UN convention on the law of the sea already touches on the issue, we have a great chance to confirm in primary legislation the principle of the public resource. That in turn would establish the right foundation for distributing quota based on the delivery of public goods and environmental, social and local economic factors, as opposed to simply on the basis of historic catch levels. I look forward to learning from the Minister how we will take up this golden opportunity.

[Luke Pollard]

I am sure it will come as no surprise to members of the Committee that I agree with the hon. Member for Waveney on the amendment. When we considered amendments to clause 1, we spoke about fish being a public good. It is no surprise that fish is still a public good, and that should still be in the Bill. The White Paper states:

�We aim to manage these fisheries�and the wider marine environment�as a shared resource, a public asset held in stewardship for the benefit of all.�

That is the right objective, but it needs to be in the Bill.

The amendment gives the Minister a chance to do the right thing and include fish as a public asset for the benefit of all. The opportunity here is to be clear about the tone. In previous remarks, the Minister said that putting fish as a public good or a public asset in the Bill was unnecessary because it was already a de facto position, just as Parliament is sovereign. The argument about whether Parliament is sovereign is an argument because there are differing opinions on it, as we have seen in particular in the past fortnight. Just as the Minister has sought to mirror sections in other legislation, which he mentioned earlier, it would do no harm�I think it would be of huge benefit�if it were clear in the Bill that fish is a public good. I would have preferred that to be right up front, in the objectives in clause 1, but the hon. Gentleman is attempting to get it in at clause 20. That would be a good amendment and it is one that the Opposition will support.

--- Later in debate ---

Question accordingly negatived.

[Luke Pollard]

I beg to move amendment 106, in clause�20,�page�11,�line�28,�at end insert�

�(5A) After that paragraph insert�

�1A The relevant national authorities shall distribute fishing opportunities made available to them, and may redistribute any fishing opportunities that were made available to them prior to the United Kingdom exiting the European Union. Any such distribution and redistribution must be carried out according to social, environmental and local economic criteria following national and regional consultation from relevant stakeholder advisory groups, including representative groups from across the fishing fleet, scientists, and environmental groups.��

This amendment would allow the redistribution of existing fishing opportunities, would also set criteria for the distribution of future and redistribution of existing fishing opportunities and require consultation.

Amendment 106 relates to the redistribution of fishing opportunities. A key aim of the Bill is ultimately to create a fairer system, and Members will forgive me if I take a moment to read out why it is so important. This is a key amendment for Opposition Members, and one that we believe would, if taken up, have a transformational impact on the health of our oceans and on the local economies of coastal communities right across the UK.

The logic of the amendment follows from the principle of fish being a public good, which, as we have just discussed, is not yet on the face of the Bill, but is something we all agree on. To acquire the right to fish, and use that for the public good, there should be a set of criteria that need to be followed to ensure that what we are taking balances out. The current FQA system is broken: half of English quota is held by companies based overseas, the small-scale fleet only holds 6% of quota, and the five largest quota holders�four of which belong to families on The Sunday Times rich list�control more than a third of UK fishing quota. Small boats provide the backbone of our fishing fleet, making up the majority of that fleet. They generally use low-impact gear and provide more jobs per tonne, but their share of quota is limited to around 4% to 6% of the total.

While there may be more fish for the UK after we leave the common fisheries policy, not amending the distribution of quota will exacerbate existing levels of inequality between parts of the sector, and will fail to incentivise best practice. The fixed quota allocation system, which has been heavily criticised for being unfair from the outset, has not been updated since the 1990s. Again, in the words of the hon. Member for Waveney:

�It is commonly recognised that the inshore fleet�the under-10s�has had a raw deal as far as access to quota and fishing opportunities is concerned.���[Official Report, Fisheries Public Bill Committee, 4 December 2018; c. 39, Q69.]

As a result of the existing system, ownership of fishing quota has become increasingly consolidated among larger-scale interests.

I will make the same remarks as I made in yesterday�s debate on the UK fishing industry: in the fisheries sector, we do not talk about small and medium-sized enterprises in the same way as we would in manufacturing, but if fishing were like manufacturing, the small boats would be the SMEs of our economy. There would be a much greater focus on the support system given to them, the investment into them and the jobs they create, and on making sure that they have the right and fair allocation of quota.

In our evidence session, Griffin Carpenter from the New Economics Foundation said:

�In essence, fisheries have been accidentally privatised. Every year, quota is allocated to the same holders, and there is a legitimate expectation that that continues in future. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and other organisations are too scared to break that hold on the quota and say, �This year we will allocate quota differently.� It has not been done; it is basically privatised now the claim is so strong. If there is ever a point to break that link, it is now.���[Official Report, Fisheries Public Bill Committee, 6 December 2018; c. 102, Q196.]

I agree with him.

The small-scale fleet has generally been excluded from the FQA system and producer organisations, which has led to the decline of coastal communities and ports. Since 1938�a year I am sure we all remember well�the number of fishermen on UK-registered vessels has decreased by 76%. Fifty years ago, the UK had 50,000 fishers; now we have almost 12,000�a huge decline.

The small boat sector is shrinking every year. Between 2007 and last year, the number of fishermen on UK-registered vessels decreased by 9% from 12,871 to only 11,692. Since 2007, the number of fishermen on English and Scottish-administered vessels decreased by 10%. It has fallen by 22% in Wales, and in 2017, 42% of fishermen on vessels administered in Wales were listed as part time. Under the combination of an unfair system and Tory austerity, which mainly hits coastal communities, or has had a disproportionate effect on them, small-scale fishing activity in coastal communities the length and breadth of the UK is a shadow of its former self.

There is now an opportunity to reinvigorate our fishing industry through better and fairer distribution of quota. Fishing quota provides an opportunity to commercially fish a resource that belongs to everyone. Fishing should be seen as a privilege, not a right, but it has effectively been privatised, as I mentioned earlier. The Bill is our opportunity to change that. We do not want to rob big boats of quota and give it to small boats; we want to use the Bill to create a new criterion for allocating quota based on social, environmental and economic factors.

[Alan Brown]

I acknowledge the opportunity that the hon. Gentleman is talking about. We heard evidence about possible opportunities for some future reallocation. How would his amendment work in principle in terms of the devolution settlement? Would it allow UK Ministers to redistribute Scottish quotas, or would it be an England-only matter?

[Luke Pollard]

I am grateful for that intervention, because it goes to the core of the amendment, which basically sets a different criterion for allocation. At the moment, quota is predominantly allocated on the FQA system. We are suggesting that there should be redistribution based on social, economic and environmental criteria, done on a species-by-species, zone-by-zone basis to take into account the varieties in our different fishing industries around the United Kingdom.

It is important that, when we set the tone for how fishing quotas should be allocated in future, the economic link that I spoke about earlier and the environmental consequences that the hon. Gentleman spoke about earlier are taken into account. That should be done by all fisheries Administrations, not just England or Scotland. It should be done by the entirety of the United Kingdom.

Quotas should be allocated on transparent social and ecological criteria to benefit fishing communities�for example, by offering a greater share for complying with relevant regulations, taking part in data gathering, fully monitoring and recording catches, and complying with discard rules. The UK has always had the ability to reallocate quota to reward particular types of fishing practice or to support broader social or economic goals, but has chosen not to seize the full opportunities that come from that.

Article 17 of the reformed common fisheries policy urged European member states to consider environmental, economic and social criteria when allocating opportunities. It was heralded as potentially revolutionary by senior EU officials when it was launched as part of the overall reformed CFP, but its lack of mandate meant that it failed to be implemented effectively in any EU member state. Greenpeace recently lost a case in which it made that argument in the High Court, but the Bill is a chance to fix that, using fairer criteria for the benefit of the small fleet in particular.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Carmichael]

Does the hon. Gentleman have a mechanism for ensuring that that redistributed quota does not become a tradeable commodity in turn?

[Luke Pollard]

That is at the heart of the current problem. The quota has been traded; indeed, a future Opposition amendment will deal with the problem that the right hon. Gentleman identifies of slipper skippers who trade their quotas as a commodity, using them not to catch fish but as financial instruments to derive income from by renting them out to others. We need to ensure that the economic criteria for redistributing the fishing quota take into account the importance of the quota holder�s using the quota to catch fish rather than as a financial product. Deriving income from a quota without using it damages the viability of the sector by increasing costs without increasing productivity.

[David Duguid (Banff and Buchan) (Con)]

I sympathise with the requirement to allow new entrants to get into the industry by giving them access to the quota, and I was thankful to hear the hon. Gentleman say that his amendment does not propose to rob Peter to pay Paul�or rob Peterhead to pay Plymouth, for that matter. However, when we discussed safety, it was mentioned that fishermen whose vessels are slightly more than 10 metres have shortened them, arguably creating a safety issue, and sold off their quota. How would he address the fact that many of those who are now small fishermen have benefited financially from selling off their quota in the past?

[Luke Pollard]

The hon. Gentleman�s point relates to the question whether fish is a public good. At the heart of it, as the Minister says, fish is a public good. The problem with our current fixed quota allocation system is that in many cases possessing a quota has become more profitable than using it for fishing. That seems to be an inherent flaw in the FQA system, so I am grateful that the Minister has set out his long-term intention to look at FQA and see where it gets to. The important thing is to provide determination and steel to the endeavours of the Minister�in his role not only as an English Fisheries Minister, but as a UK-wide Fisheries Minister� and of the devolved Administrations. Setting out the basis for any redistribution is really important, which is why our amendment states:

�The relevant national authorities shall distribute fishing opportunities made available to them, and may redistribute any fishing opportunities that were made available to them prior to the United Kingdom exiting the European Union. Any such distribution and redistribution must be carried out according to social, environmental and local economic criteria�.

There is a concern among many fishers, with and without a quota, that the current system does not work in the best way.

Our amendment would not mean big boats losing out�far from it. In all likelihood, only a small proportion of opportunities would be redistributed to the smaller fleet in the first instance, making a big difference to their livelihoods and the environment. We need to bear in mind that only 4% to 6% of quotas are currently held by smaller boats. Representatives of larger scale fleets told me that they comply with the principle of fairer distribution based on economic, social and environmental criteria. If they are living up to those aspirations they should have nothing to fear from this policy, because it is about incentivising best practice.

This is an opportunity to create a race to the top, rather than a race to the bottom, which is why the Opposition are bringing this measure forward. This new approach is entirely consistent with the White Paper�s recognition of fisheries as a public resource. It is also backed by Greenpeace, the entire Greener UK coalition, the New Under Ten Fishermen�s Association, the Scottish Creel Fishermen�s Federation and Charles Clover�s Blue Marine Foundation, while 6,500 people in coastal communities called for this change to the distribution of quota in the White Paper consultation.

Many of the Government�s own Back Benchers support the principle of reallocating quota. The hon. Member for Hendon (Dr Offord) said on Second Reading:

�Given that this fleet is not only more profitable to local economies, but employs more local fishermen and uses more sustainable fishing practices, will the Bill allow larger quotas to independent vessels under 10 metres?��[Official Report, 21 November 2018; Vol. 649, c. 905.]

If we are to make real that hon. Gentleman�s aspiration, we must provide the ability and incentives to redistribute that quota, as amendment 106 seeks to do. Denmark�s fish fund�the quota reserved for new entrants or those with good environmental performance�shows that that is already happening. It is time we caught up.

My hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Sue Hayman), in her excellent speech on Second Reading, mentioned the hope placed in the Bill by people living in coastal communities across the UK. Without quota allocation there is no hope of taking back control. This attempt to redistribute quota is an attempt to make real the promises given by the leave campaign, and indeed by Government Ministers since�that taking back control will have a beneficial effect on those small coastal communities. If we do not provide the ability to redistribute that quota in support of those coastal communities, what are we doing here? That is why the amendment is so important. I will be grateful if the Minister could back it in his remarks.

[Mr Carmichael]

As previously, I am in broad sympathy with the approach taken by the hon. Gentleman, but I am concerned that he suggests a big and fairly open-ended commitment here. As I implied during the evidence session, I fear that we would probably be at risk of producing a dripping roast for lawyers for some time to come.

Although it was probably never intended to be the case, fish quota has become a tradeable commodity over the years. Several fishing businesses have made and taken on fairly substantial financial commitments secured against the fact that they own quota and can derive an income from it. The words that start to come to my mind are �legitimate expectation�, and once that is the case we know that we will be heading towards the courts to determine the extent of that legitimate expectation, who has it and the basis on which it can be traded.

Not everybody who owns fish quota is a robber baron. Shetland Islands Council owns a substantial amount of fishing quota that it leases to local boats. That is for the public good, and I would be careful about interfering with the council�s property rights in that way. I would be very open to the idea of returning quota�quota that we do not currently have access to�being dealt with differently; it could be distributed in different ways. Some of the lessons of the past could be learned so that it did not become a tradeable commodity. The property rights could be defined in a very different way, which, with hindsight, we might wish we had done 30 or 40 years ago but did not.

As I say, the amendment would make a fairly big and open-ended commitment. I do not know whether it would necessarily be the best use of the money required. Before I went down this road, I would want to know a bit more than the broad principles. I would want to know how the practicalities would work. As the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport said, fish quota have essentially been privatised. He is effectively talking about nationalisation, and that comes with a price tag attached.

[Luke Pollard]

It is not about nationalisation; it is about the redistribution of fish quota, and the amendment is about being able to do so without a time limit. As the Minister said, distributing FQA takes time, which is why there is deliberately no time limit in the amendment. However, there is a commitment to consult with those groups, including the fishing fleets, to ensure it is redistributed fairly.

[Mr Carmichael]

That is helpful, but I am not entirely sure about the hon. Gentleman�s distinction between redistribution and nationalisation. At the end of the day, we risk spending public money. I am not averse to that�it may ultimately be necessary, and I can certainly see the end that is to be met by it�but at the moment it is a little ill-defined. I would favour an approach that dealt differently with the returning quota, rather than mucking about with the existing quota. I am not averse to the idea, but we should not be blind to the risks that come with it.

--- Later in debate ---

It is something that very much can be done in the future, but that chronology of perfecting a new, fairer and better way of allocating fishing opportunities, with new opportunities coming in as we depart from relative stability, combined with a signal being given at the appropriate time that we intend to look at FQA units themselves�along with the commitment that I have already given to look at referencing fishing opportunities in the Secretary of State�s fisheries statements�is the right way to address this challenge.

[Luke Pollard]

I am grateful to the Minister for setting out why this is what he wants to do, but that it is too difficult to do it in the way that we have set out. That is how I have interpreted his response. The important thing is that we are talking about setting a fairer framework for smaller boats in particular. I know the Minister seeks to label this as a Greenpeace initiative, and indeed Greenpeace is one of its supporters, but so is the organisation that represents small boats.

The amendment makes real the promises of the leave campaign. If we do not find a way of giving powers to the national fishing authorities to reallocate the existing quotas, what happens if no quotas come back at the end of the negotiations with the EU? What happens if people, admittedly above the Minister�s pay scale, come back with no additional quotas whatsoever? That is a very real risk at the moment. What happens if there are no unicorns in the nets of our fishers? That is the problem that we face.

The Minister cannot have it both ways. He says that he wants to reallocate FQAs. So do we, and there is an opportunity to do that. It is about asking, �How will we make a fairer system if no additional quotas come back?� If they do, I agree with the Minister that we need to reallocate them in a fairer way. Economic, social and environmental criteria are the ones that we agree on�there is commonality on both sides of the Committee Room in that respect.

If no additional quotas come back, because there is a real risk that our fishers will be betrayed in the upcoming negotiations, no matter how many reassurances Ministers give them, what then? The amendment gives Ministers the power to signal, and suggests that Ministers signal, that they wish to reallocate quotas based on those sound economic criteria.

That relates to the point that the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland made regarding the notice period that someone is given. The Minister has answered that question by setting out from the legal judgment that it is a period of seven years. A proper period should be determined, via consultation with the industry and other stakeholders, for when those allocations should have their value reset. It should be set in the public�s best interest, as fishing is a public good.

It is important to set that notice period. That is why the amendment is so important: it encourages Ministers to signal their intention that they will reset FQAs and redistribute them in a fairer way. It might well be that there are whole areas and whole species that we would not want to redistribute. It might also be that there are zones and particular fisheries that we would want to prioritise, as the Minister has said in terms of the small amount of redistribution that his Department has done.

I am not asking the Minister to learn the words of �The Red Flag�, including the difficult second verse, nor to embrace socialism in a way that would offend his sensibilities; I am suggesting that he embrace an amendment that would make real the promises of the leave campaign to our small fleet and our coastal communities. Give the powers to the national authorities to redistribute, if they wish to�in effect, that is what this says. There is no compulsion on them to do so, but the strong indication is that that is the right thing to do.

That is why the amendment is so important. Without it, there is no focus either on redistributing existing quota or on correctly redistributing the quota that is coming over�if we get any. I caution that we should not presume that we will get any, because I fear that decisions made by pay grades far above those of all in this room�including yours, Mr Hanson, unbelievably�might be for quotas to stay as they are. No matter what amendments the Government make, I fear that those decisions are out of our hands. That is why the amendment is so important and why we will put it to a vote.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

[Luke Pollard]

The argument in favour of the amendment has been powerfully put by the hon. Member for Waveney, but the sentiment is worth echoing. It is really important that, as we set up a new fisheries management system after Brexit, fishers have confidence in that new system. As we have heard, there is a great deal of suspicion about how the current quotas are allocated, and the ability to have that available for public scrutiny is important. We support the amendment.

[George Eustice]

The methodology for distributing existing quota between the four Administrations is set out in the publicly available UK quota management rules. In addition, each Administration have their own rules for allocating their existing quota, which, again, are already publicly available. The rules are also subject to consultation.

In our White Paper, we set out very clearly that we would have a revised methodology for the allocations, and it is of course our intention that they will be published. I understand the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney, but I encourage him to read what we already publish before taking the decision to press the amendment to a Division. We already have publicly available rules, which are published, and we have committed to publish new ones. We publish a great deal of information.

As I highlighted earlier, in the judgment in the Greenpeace court case, Mrs Justice Andrews said that

�there is a large volume of detailed rules, licence conditions, schemes and policies...which are published and openly available and which have been notified to the Commission.�

A vast amount of information is already published. I would like to share some of those documents with my hon. Friend for his weekend reading, and then he could consider whether he still has a hunger for more statutory requirements of this nature.

--- Later in debate ---

[Luke Pollard]

We support the principles behind the amendment; it is extremely similar to amendment 106 and I refer back to the same arguments that I made on that.

[The Chair]

We will return to new clause 19 at a later date.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 20, as amended, accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 21

Duties to ensure fishing opportunities not exceeded

[Luke Pollard]

I beg to move amendment 107, in clause�21,�page�12,�line�5,�at end insert�

�(4) The relevant national authorities must publish, on at least an annual basis, a comparison of the number of each species of sea fish caught and�

(a) the catch quota for that species for that year, and

(b) the FMSY reference point for that species for that year.

(5) The publication under subsection (4) must, where the number of sea fish caught in a calendar year has exceeded the figures in paragraphs (4)(a) or (4)(b), note the impact on fish stocks that exceeding that figure is thought to have had.�

This amendment would require the publication of the quantity by species of fish caught to enable the impact on the sustainability fish stocks to be assessed.

This amendment continues the theme of transparency and freedom of information. Under clause 21, the fishery authorities have a duty to ensure that fishing opportunities are not exceeded in any year, whether by catch quota or by effort quota. To be able to hold the authorities to account for the exercise of that duty, we will need to have access to full, accurate and robust information. The amendment will also ensure that we have the necessary data to improve our scientific understanding of the seas, what is in them and how to ensure that we protect and conserve them for future generations.

The amendment, which is supported by various organisations, seeks to ensure publication at least annually of the number of species caught compared with the quota for that species and the reference points for fishing mortality at maximum sustainable yield. We want the publication to include an examination of the impact on stock for that species. I am sure the Minister already has plans for the publication of some of that data, but will he set out what information will be published and what the timescale will be?

[George Eustice]

It is important to note that, as drafted, this amendment cuts across the devolved settlement, because it would oblige not only the UK Government but the devolved Administrations to publish the data mentioned. Before accepting an amendment of this sort, we would need to seek the views and the consent of the devolved Administrations. It would also require the collection of data for each species of fish caught. With the landing obligation, that would include many species for which we did not have catch quotas or FMSY reference points, so comparisons could not always be made.

I invite the hon. Gentleman to take some weekend reading away with him. When it comes to statistics, we have incredibly detailed documents, including one from the MMO, which I have in my hands, and another from Marine Scotland. I urge the shadow Minister to read them on his train back to Plymouth this weekend and to then consider on Report whether he has an appetite for even more statistics than those that are already available in published form.

[Luke Pollard]

I wondered what the Minister�s little table was for, and now I understand it is to keep his reports on. I am grateful for the additional reading material. Transparency in this new fisheries management system is important. I am happy to take the Minister�s word that he already publishes a fair amount of data. We will look at this matter again and, if that turns out not to be sufficient, he should expect us to make a return trip to this amendment on Report. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 21 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 22

Sale of English fishing opportunities for a calendar year

[George Eustice]

I beg to move amendment 5, in clause�22,�page�12,�line�28,�leave out paragraph (h) and insert�

�() requiring or permitting rights to be sold, or not to be sold, to a person who meets such conditions (whether relating to the price offered for the rights or otherwise) as may be specified in or in accordance with the regulations;�.

This amendment would enable regulations to require or permit issues other than price to be taken into account when deciding who to sell fishing opportunities to.

[George Eustice]

In the fisheries White Paper, we made it clear that, on leaving the EU, any additional quota we may receive during the negotiations will be distributed using different methods from the current FQA allocation system. That will be done using a range of different mechanisms. We are amending the Bill to make it clear that quota will not necessarily be put up for sale to the highest bidder. We may allocate it on a range of other criteria, such as sustainability, the needs of coastal communities and the reliance of certain sectors on specific stocks.

Amendment 6 simply includes a duty to consult stakeholders prior to making any regulations governing the distribution of additional quota. That demonstrates transparency and supports our commitment to work with stakeholders to shape a new future for the UK industry.

[Luke Pollard]

I am grateful that the Minister has clarified that additional quota will not be auctioned to the highest bidder. Does he feel that that is sufficient to ensure that small fishers and new entrants to the sector will not be discriminated against? There is a real fear in the fishing sector that the auction function in the Bill will mean that if either this Government or a future Government want to earn some quick cash from the sector, they will seek to auction any additional fishing opportunities to the highest bidder, further cementing the huge monopoly that the large fishing organisations already have in the sector.

[George Eustice]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his brevity in making an important point. I have been very clear that one of the ways of allocating new fishing opportunities that we are considering is a competitive tender process, but the tender is not just about the price to be paid. We want to judge producer organisations on their compliance track record and what they are doing to improve selectivity and reduce their environmental impact; to encourage new entrants into the industry; and to put economic benefits back into coastal communities. I believe that is the right approach. I can confirm that, as amended, the clause will make that explicit and broaden it out to ensure that we can have the type of competitive tender process that I have talked about at many stages during the passage of the Bill.

UK Fishing Industry

Luke Pollard Excerpts

Wednesday 12th December 2018 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Henry. I thank my neighbour from the far south-west, the hon. Member for South East Cornwall (Mrs Murray), for introducing the debate so well.

I join in the tributes to all those fishers who have lost their lives since our last annual fisheries debate. Since I was elected last year, we in Plymouth have lost two trawlers at sea, with a death on each boat. I pay tribute to all those who risk their lives in the most dangerous peacetime activity in Britain to catch the fish that we have on our dinner plates. I also pay tribute to those who keep our fishers safe and supported: the Royal National Lifeboat Institution, HM Coastguard, the Fishermen’s Mission, the Royal Navy and a group that is so often overlooked—the family and friends of fishers, who provide the support network, encouragement and understanding, and without whom the industry would not work.

I speak not only as shadow Fisheries Minister, but as an MP who represents Plymouth—a proud and historic coastal community with 1,000 jobs in fishing, both in catching and in processing. We have not said much about processing today, but it is a vital part of our fishing industry.

[Melanie Onn]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for mentioning the processing sector, which employs approximately 5,000 people in my constituency and is intrinsically linked to the catching sector. It should not be forgotten in these debates.

[Luke Pollard]

My hon. Friend is exactly right. The question we need to ask about processing is where the fish will come from in the future. We need to ensure that fish can be imported and exported with the added value that comes from processing, creating more processing jobs in the UK rather than putting the jobs we have at risk.

Fishing was the poster child of the leave campaign. It is one of the few industries in the entire UK—if not the only industry—that could be better on day one of Brexit than before it, but only if tariff-free access and frictionless trade can be achieved, in terms of making sure that we can export to our important export markets. I am no fan of the common fisheries policy—that has been briefly discussed here—and it needs to change and reform, but whether we are in it, or without it, we need to make sure that our fishing is more sustainable, both economically and environmentally, for UK fishers.

There are big challenges for fishing, which have been discussed today. The Fisheries Bill currently in Committee smacks of legislation that has been hurried out to reach the exit deadline. It needs many amendments. The hon. Member for St Ives (Derek Thomas) spoke passionately about the advisory council and dispute resolution mechanisms, and I am grateful for that. I can see why the Whips kept him off the Fisheries Bill Committee, because, sadly, the Conservatives on the Committee voted down an amendment on the dispute resolution mechanism yesterday. More lobbying of the Minister to encourage him to bring back amendments at Lords stages will be gratefully received.

[Mr Paul Sweeney (Glasgow North East) (Lab/Co-op)]

We have seen that fisheries is a fraught sector, particularly with devolved Administrations now potentially having to come to a common arrangement. Does my hon. Friend share my dismay that in Committee yesterday both the Scottish National party and the Tories voted down or abstained on the crucial amendment on having a dispute reconciliation measure?

[Luke Pollard]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that point. I think it is best to create a dispute resolution mechanism before there is a dispute. We should have such a principle in the Fisheries Bill and I hope the Minister will reflect on that as the Bill progresses through its various stages.

Big promises were made to fishing by the Environment Secretary, the right hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove)—a key Brexiteer—during the referendum. They have not been matched by delivery. There is an inherent risk behind many speeches from hon. Members here: the fear is that fishing will be further betrayed in the withdrawal agreement and what follows after. We only have to look at the promises made by Ministers, right up until they U-turned, on removing fishing from the transition period, to find good evidence on why fishing has every right to be concerned about the promises it is receiving at the moment.

I fear that decisions above the Fishing Minister’s pay grade will betray fishing further as the negotiation continues. I wish him the best of luck in steeling the nerve of those people further up the Government food chain, to make sure that fishing is not further betrayed. Labour has tabled a significant number of amendments to the Fisheries Bill to make real the promises from the leave campaign and seize the once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to start afresh and create truly world-class, sustainable fisheries, following our exit from the CFP.

I turn briefly to the issue of quota, which a number of hon. Members have mentioned, including my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Melanie Onn), the hon. Member for St Ives and the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). Under the existing system, ownership of quota has become increasingly consolidated in the hands of a few.

[Mrs Murray]

I anticipate that the hon. Gentleman will move on to fixed quota allocations; before he does, I hope he will acknowledge that those allocations were introduced under a previous Labour Fisheries Minister. Another mess also created under the same Minister is the reason why the under-10-metre fleet finds itself in the position it does today. I will name the Fisheries Minister at the time—it was Elliot Morley.

[Luke Pollard]

I am always grateful for interventions from my neighbour. I suggest she reads the memo from the Fisheries Minister in Committee yesterday that said that this is about looking forwards, not back. Frankly, there are enough reasons to say that fishing was screwed over by a Conservative Government; I do not think it is appropriate to go into—

[Sir Henry Bellingham (in the Chair)]

Order. You cannot really use such language.

[Luke Pollard]

Okay, I withdraw that—I beg your pardon, Sir Henry. Fishing may have been betrayed by Conservative Governments in the past. Let us look forward, not back.

Labour wants smaller boats to be given a greater share of quota after Brexit. Small boats are the backbone of our fishing industry. They are the small and medium-sized enterprises of the sector. If this were any other sector, we would be talking about SMEs and multinationals, but we do not do that in fishing—we simply do not apply that phraseology. If we did, I think the tone of the debate around our fishing sector would be very different. Let us back the SMEs in the fishing sector. Let us make sure that the small-scale fleet, which generally uses low-impact gear, has a better environmental impact and, importantly, employs more people, gets a greater share of quota: 6% of quota and 49% of the workforce at the moment is not an equitable share.

In addition, we also need to make sure that more fish is landed in UK ports. Labour wants a requirement that at least 50% of fish caught under a British quota is landed in British ports, supporting the coastal communities—be they in the far south-west, the east coast or up to Scotland—and making sure that we can get the additional jobs that come with landing, processing and selling that fish, whether for consumption in the UK or for export. We want to make sure that we have more of it. It is a travesty that, at the moment, so much fish caught under a UK quota is exported immediately to foreign countries and not landed. We need to preserve that economic link.

I want to spend a moment on marine safety; we have an opportunity to talk more about that. Fishing is the most dangerous peacetime activity in the UK. We need to make sure that in any redistribution or reallocation of quota that may come from leaving the European Union, high standards of marine safety are embedded in every single quota allocation. That is precisely why we need to do more to make sure that EU and UK fishers obey the same high safety levels. Sadly, that is again something that the Minister decided to vote against in Committee yesterday.

We also need to do more to spread the best practice we already have. In Plymouth, a lifejacket scheme gives fishers better equipped lifejackets, to enable them to do manual handling in front, with a personal locator beacon. When someone goes overboard and the personal locator beacon is activated, it takes the “search” out of search and rescue. That is really important, and will help save lives when boats capsize or when people go over the side. When the worst happens, it will help with the retrieval of a body so that the family can bury that fisher. We need to be aware of just how dangerous fishing is. The Minister and I have had lots of conversations about the PLB and the lifejacket scheme and I will continue to have conversations with the Department for Transport to make sure that it happens.

I echo the comments from the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael), who was passionate and correct in the view that this debate should be held in Government time. He heard me make that point yesterday, and he made it with much more force than I did in Committee. There is cross-party agreement that this annual debate should be held in Government time and in the main Chamber to give it the prominence and importance that it deserves—not only to our coastal communities, but to our politics. In many cases, fishing is about politics and identity just as much as it is about our coastal communities.

There is a great opportunity to create a better system for fishing—more economically and environmentally sustainable, safer for those people who are fishing, and adapted to the changing nature of our marine environment, especially with the effects of climate change. It is an opportunity that we cannot afford to miss. I pledge to the Minister that if he wants to work constructively, in a co-operative, cross-party way to improve the Fisheries Bill, which needs improving, the Opposition stand ready.

[Sir Henry Bellingham (in the Chair)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his dynamic speech. The hon. Member for South East Cornwall (Mrs Murray) has indicated to me that she does not want time for a wind-up speech, so that leaves the Minister with 12 minutes. I call the Minister.

Thames Water Reservoir at Abingdon

Luke Pollard Excerpts

Wednesday 12th December 2018 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer.

I congratulate the right hon. Member for Wantage (Mr Vaizey) on securing this debate, which is a superb opportunity to talk about how the voices of local residents must be heard when addressing the genuine water crisis that the UK faces. He mentioned that we live in a damp country, and indeed we do, but according to the Environment Agency, we are actually in the lower quartile globally of available water resources per capita, which means that we need to value every drop—much more than we do at the moment.

Climate change is real and happening to us here in Britain. No single measure can tackle it, but no single measure of water policy is mitigating it. That is why we need a number of separate buckets of action, including: action on leakage, which was mentioned by the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran), to lower the amount of lost water, including the 30% lost on customers’ properties, not just on the public network; a focus on reducing per-person water usage from the national average of about 130 litres a day—some people use considerably more—and increasing grey water use, which was mentioned earlier and could contribute to that; building and supporting the construction of more water transfers; and the Severn option, which is important in this context. On that, we should focus on the use of canals as an option, instead of a big pipe, and the date that was mentioned, 2080, seems far too far away.

Other actions include a necessary look at how to build more water storage in areas of water stress. Although as a nation we have not built any new reservoirs, we have certainly provided additional water storage, sometimes using quarries and mines—nothing on the size and scale envisaged at Abingdon. Only then, at the very end of the scale, should we look at water desalinisation, which itself has a huge climate change effect.

The right hon. Member for Wantage talked about population change. When looking into the future, it is important for us to take a best guess at how many people will be using water. The latest statistics show that the south-east of England will have 4.1 million more people by 2045. To put that in a currency that we might all understand in this place, an additional 54 MPs would be required to represent that population. By 2080, that could be an extra 10 million, or 133 more MPs—heaven help us all! That will put pressure on an already water-stressed region.

With climate change, we have to recognise that we will not only have problems of water shortage at certain times of the year—we will also have problems with too much water at other times of the year. That issue was mentioned earlier in the debate.

I have to admit that I was not an expert in chalk rivers or streams before today, but I feel that I have learned an awful lot. The issue of over-abstraction from our watercourses and rivers is of importance because as our communities become more water-stressed and as the pressure to reduce per-capita consumption is applied, the temptation, sadly, is to abstract still more water from our precious river environments. We need to avoid that, to ensure that we preserve those fragile and precious natural wildlife habitats, whether of aquatic life, birds or mammals.

Before I was elected, I advised people on how to build controversial buildings, mainly skyscrapers and football stadiums. The same principle applies to reservoirs: the case must be clearly set out right from the start. To be honest, I do not think that Thames Water has put the argument for the Abingdon reservoir that well, and it needs to do better. Increasing supply, of course, has to be done alongside demand management, which also needs a conversation with water bill payers. If there is to be such huge investment, however—a carbon-intensive investment—the case must be put clearly.

The right hon. Gentleman said that it is important to be neutral in this debate, and that is how the Opposition come to it. We think, however, that a number of principles should apply in this case as we go forward, especially as the decision might well be taken out of the hands of local councillors and made at the national level through the NSIP—nationally significant infrastructure project—process. That is why genuine consultation and the voice of local people must be heard much more in the debate than perhaps it has been to date.

We need to ensure that the concerns about the new reservoir involve not only the size and scale but the construction, and the impact of that over many years, as well as the impact of many years of operation. Thames Water needs to make proposals, focused by genuine and intensive consultation. Such consultation should not just ask, “What do you think of our plans?”, but involve genuine engagement that listens to affected communities.

There is also a challenge for Government to look at what resources we need. At present, the water resource plan of each company sits as an island apart from the areas alongside. There is a clear case for joining up those plans into a national water resource plan so that we can understand the impacts, especially if we are to have more water transfer into areas of greater water stress. We need to understand the national picture.

I hope that Thames Water is listening to this carefully. If it is to make the case for the Abingdon reservoir, it needs to do so clearly, engaging local people and taking them with it. At the moment, my concern is that that conversation is not as full and as thorough as it could be.