Draft Armed Forces Act (Continuation) Order 2022

Debate between Robert Goodwill and Luke Pollard

Tuesday 6th September 2022 General Committees

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

It is good to see you in the Chair again, Mr Dowd. On what could be the Minister’s last appearance in a statutory instrument debate I feel somewhat cheated on behalf of the Committee that his remarks were so brief. We wanted to hear more from him, but fear not, I have plenty of words to share.

We are considering an important piece of legislation, because it is an opportunity to demonstrate on behalf of all political parties in the House that we back our armed forces. Labour backs our armed forces. They embody the very best of Britain from deployments abroad in response to the invasion of Ukraine to deployments at home, especially during the covid pandemic. Our armed forces are therefore an essential part of our national defence, our national resilience and our NATO obligations to our allies. We are all proud of how our servicemen and women demonstrate the finest of British values, at home and abroad, and it is right that we give them another year to do so, with the continuation of the Armed Forces Act 2006.

We have a real responsibility to reflect on the service of our armed forces, the men and women who put themselves in harm’s way to guarantee our safety and that of our friends and allies. We should be incredibly grateful for their continued service. That is why military personnel must continue to be at the heart of our defence plans. It is not just about the equipment; it is about the people who serve, both those in uniform and the civilians who support our armed forces.

Labour’s support for our armed forces is unshakeable. Indeed, we are here because the last Labour Government passed the Armed Forces Act 2006, and we will of course support this draft order so that the provisions of that Act can remain in force. However, while expressing Labour’s pride in our armed forces, I must draw the Committee’s attention to some issues and ask the Minister to provide an update. It is the moral imperative of any Government to keep our country safe from hostile threats and to protect our citizens. If we have learned anything from the past year, it is that the increasing threat posed by Putin’s illegal invasion of Ukraine means that we need to solidify our nation’s defences. The withdrawal from Afghanistan also shows that our commitments to the people we support around the world must be long-lasting.

Regrettably, after the past 12 years of government, some of our armed forces are in a much weakened state than we would all like them to be. At a time of increased tension and threats to our country, now is not the time to cut our armed forces. Indeed, were the Minister to ask each Conservative Member present whether now is the time to make such cuts, I suspect that they would agree with what I am about to say, so I encourage him to look at their nodding faces every now and then.

We must not continue the cuts to our armed forces. Reductions over the past 12 years have meant that our Army is now the smallest it has been in 300 years. The Minister and his colleagues do a good job, and Labour acknowledges the defence leadership over the past six months. I hope that the new Prime Minister keeps the Defence Secretary and his team in place so that that work can continue. However, I want Ministers to reflect on some of the changes that are necessary to ensure that our armed forces are as capable as possible.

[Sir Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con)]

I join in with the hon. Gentleman’s admiration for our armed forces. Indeed, the Minister himself served with distinction before coming to this place. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that we should not fall into the trap of just looking at the armed forces headcount? For example, a new tank with a three-man crew can be just as effective despite having fewer people in it. We should look at capability rather than just at the straightforward headcount, which may fall at the same time as we increase our ability to hit the enemy where they fear it most.

[Luke Pollard]

I am grateful for the right hon. Gentleman’s intervention, because it allows me to talk about Government cuts to our tanks. I recognise what he is saying: this is not just about the size of our armed forces, but the capability as well. However, when cuts are made to both capability and size, we must challenge whether decisions about the size, strength and structure of our armed forces are the right ones. I am deliberately trying to make my points as non-partisan as possible, because I want the Minister to reflect on the legitimate concerns about the structure and size of our armed forces that are shared by both sides of the House.

General Sir Patrick Sanders, the head of the Army, said the UK must

“forge an Army capable of fighting alongside our allies and defeating Russia in battle”,

but the Government continue to push ahead with a planned cut of 10,000 troops by 2025. It is a significant worry that, during this period of elevated threat against our country and our friends, Ministry of Defence statistics published this month reveal that the strength of our armed forces has fallen by 2,631 personnel in the past year alone. I want the Minister to look again at the figures and to check that our military has the necessary size and strength. The best way of doing that is to halt the cuts now.

It is right that our regular forces get much of the attention in this debate, but the Government also plan to cut our reserves by 10%. These are the civilians who undertake another job, but have the ability to be called up. Indeed, the armed forces are using reserves much more as part of regular operations. The interoperability between reserve and regular forces is welcome, and it is good that those who sign up to the reserves have experience and can seamlessly integrate into regular units when required. However, if we are to continue with cuts to regular forces, cutting our reserves at the same time does not seem the best of plans. Will the Minister set out whether it is still his Government’s plan to cut reserve forces by 10%, and what impact that will have on operations?

As a Devonport MP, let me say that cuts are not confined to the Army. The Royal Navy has seen cuts too. I fought against the sale of HMS Ocean to Brazil without replacement, and I led efforts to see off plans to scrap the Albion class amphibious assault ships. HMS Albion and HMS Bulwark will now remain in service until the early 2030s, and that is a good thing, but as yet we have no plans set out for how they will be replaced. Will they be replaced on a like-for-like basis with large, amphibious ships with command and control centres as part of them? Or, with the development and evolution of the new royal marine strategy—which is good and welcome—will they be replaced by greater use of the Royal Fleet Auxiliary Service Bay class in its amphibious capability? Could it be new, multi-role smaller ships or souped-up Point class ships, for instance? I would be grateful if the Minister could set out the direction of travel.

As the right hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby set out, it is not only a question of the shape, but the capabilities. We have one of the finest navies in the world but it is very small, and orders for many of the high-end ships that were originally planned— the 13 Type 26 frigates for instance—have now been slimmed down. We are seeing fewer high-end ships and they are less capable in a military sense, but there are more hulls in the water. There is a balance between more hulls and high-end capability that needs to be achieved, and with the increasing development of autonomy in the maritime space there is an opportunity to look afresh at some of those areas. I would be grateful if the Minister could set out what he expects to happen with our amphibious capabilities.

Turning to Ukraine, the ongoing aggression inflicted by Vladimir Putin’s regime on the world stage is surely paramount among the threats facing our country. It is vital that we, as politicians but also as people in the public eye, do not become normalised to the situation in Ukraine. The war is entering a critical new phase, where the direct threat posed by Putin’s Russia does not stop at Ukraine’s borders. International support cannot falter at a time when we know Russia’s aggression against Ukraine is expected to continue in the long run. We must be strong in our unwavering support for Ukraine and in doing so, we must better protect ourselves and our NATO allies. Labour’s commitment to NATO is unshakeable, and I place that firmly on the record again today.

That turns me to the integrated review because our armed forces operate under the strategy set out in it. Labour has long argued that we need to reboot our defence plans and review our defence spending. Until recently, Ministers have opposed those plans. That was until the new Prime Minister said that it was time to reboot defence plans and review defence spending. I am glad that we have seen a change in approach from Main Building, but it would be useful if the Minister could set out what he expects that to mean.

Until a new defence review is published, the current defence review continues, and that sees a reduction in the headcount of our Army and cuts to our reserve forces. If the new defence review is to say that now is not the time to cut our forces—as I suspect it will—does it not seem prudent to pause further reductions in our armed forces so we do not lose expertise, headcount and experience, before we seek to re-establish that at greater cost of training and recruitment?

A debate on our armed forces so quickly after the summer recess also allows Members a chance to ask the Minister for updates on some live defence issues that affect those forces. I would be grateful if the Committee bears with me as I ask a few questions. I like to think we are all friends in this room, so as the Minister is among friends, will he give us an update on the status of HMS Prince of Wales? We were all concerned when she broke down, and we would like to know how long she is likely to be out of action, the plans for her recovery and repair, and whether there is a cost and a timeline available at this point.

Having two carriers operate around the world is a real show of strength and ambition for our country. One breaking down is embarrassing, but I want to give credit, especially to the senior Royal Navy officers, who were so clear and transparent through social media about what had happened and what they were doing about it. I think we can agree that has not always been the military way, but it is welcome that we are seeing that transparency, especially in a ship as important as the HMS Prince of Wales. Secondly, there were a number of disturbing reports over the summer from the Royal Air Force, which highlighted unfair and what could be seen as unprofessional practices in some of our most decorated and important squadrons. It was good to see the RAF move swiftly to address those reports, but can the Minister offer an update about what happened, what the rot is that needs rooting out and when Parliament will be updated about the full changes?

Thirdly, I would be grateful if the Minister could set out what the changes in the basing strategy that were announced just before the summer recess mean for our armed forces. For those who were not following it closely, a number of bases throughout the UK had their closure dates delayed quite considerably, including two bases in Plymouth. In nearly all cases, those changes were welcome, not only by the units involved, but by the communities in which those bases are located. However, now that there is a large delay in the closure, could the Minister set out whether it is now the Government’s intention to invest in those bases, especially in the accommodation, to make sure that our armed forces enjoy suitable and safe accommodation when stationed at home? We all need confidence in that, and I would be grateful if the Minister could look at that.

Finally, I come to the Ministry of Defence’s energy bills. We all know that bills are going up, and there has rarely been a military building I have been in that is not really warm.

Zero-emission Buses

Debate between Robert Goodwill and Luke Pollard

Tuesday 5th July 2022 Westminster Hall

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

It is good to see you in the Chair, Mrs Murray. With your permission, I will talk about the bus service that covers my constituency and the one you represent.

I thank the right hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Sir Robert Goodwill) for introducing this debate so well. Buses matter, and there are not enough debates about them in this place. There seem to be five debates on trains for every debate on buses, and I am afraid I am as guilty as other hon. Members for ranting about trains all the time, missing the fact that far more people use buses every day than use trains.

The right hon. Gentleman made a strong case for having a clear plan to move the propulsion of our bus fleet from diesel to electric or hydrogen. That matters. I will talk about the difference between electric and hydrogen buses—especially those that serve parts of the world such as the far south-west, where we have very intense urban areas in Plymouth but the bus network also provides lifeline services for our rural communities. There is not currently a single propulsion method that would work for both environments. That is why, when we look at zero-emission buses and the green buses of the future, we need to understand that fast-charging electric buses are a good idea for urban areas, and that we must invest in hydrogen to sustain rural routes, especially those with long distances between stops. That means a different type of infrastructure to go with the buses.

I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that we need more British-built buses on our roads, but we also need more British-built infrastructure to support them. It is not only the capital cost of the buses that we need to look at: currently, a zero-emission bus is considerably more expensive than the equivalent diesel bus. That is result of the market not being able to sustain the volume of bus construction that we need to reduce those costs, and of the capital cost of innovation and experimentation on those buses to ensure we get the technology right. We need to order at scale to reduce the per-unit cost of buses, but we also need a plan so that local authorities, bus companies and transport bodies can invest properly in their communities.

Last week, I met our brilliant local bus company, Citybus—which also provides the Go Cornwall services that you will be familiar with, Mrs Murray—to discuss the ideal solution in Plymouth, which is additional fast-charging locations in Plymouth and a hydrogen network to sustain routes from Plymouth into Cornwall, west Devon and the South Hams. That means doubling the infrastructure that is required for a single bus company, although buses would be operated under different brands in different parts of the region. That is quite a considerable capital outlay.

The industry is looking for a clear direction. The right hon. Gentleman asked when the promised buses will come, which is fair. I think the Government have over-exaggerated and over-spun the policy.

[Sir Robert Goodwill]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that the up-front cost of an electric battery or hydrogen bus is more, but of course the lifelong cost of the bus is less. It is a bit like nuclear energy: it is all up front. That is why the Government are introducing the scheme to reassure the market that it can invest in the buses. Incidentally, the majority of bus routes can manage on an overnight charge, but there are certain routes that might need a top-up during the day. Electric might not be the answer for very steep routes, which is where hydrogen comes in.

[Luke Pollard]

I think the right hon. Gentleman has been to Plymouth and has seen our hills. We certainly have a need currently for mixed-mode propulsion as a transition technology until we get to a 100% green bus fleet, so we need capital investment in that, and I agree with what he says about the per-unit price. Investing in low-emission and zero-emission buses is good not only economically, but for our public health and our planet, and we need to make that case much more.

When we look at how to support bus infrastructure, one of the things we need to decide is what that means in practical terms. Does it mean fast-charging bus locations that are not located at the bus depot, for instance? Do we need to encourage bus companies to buy up interim stops? They could simply be warehouse slots along major routes, for instance, where fast charging might sustain a bus and enable it to continue all day. However, Citybus has said it would need more buses to sustain a fully electric fleet. That is simply a factor of how long it takes to charge a bus and what the demand is during a particular period.

[Luke Pollard]

I am grateful for that intervention, because it leads me to my next point, which is about how we create that infrastructure. It needs to be created against a plan, which is one of the areas in which the Government could do more work, to put it kindly. Transport is a patchwork quilt, with devolved responsibilities, retained responsibilities and different councils having different responsibilities regarding bus services, let alone the procurement of transport systems—for instance, we have a very mixed picture on that score in the far south-west compared with areas such as Manchester or the west midlands. We need to have a clear plan so that we know that investment is timely and well spent. If, for example, we do not have an understanding that we will need more superfast chargers for bus services—but not at the main bus depot—to be built into the economic plan for our location, it is going to be harder for us to get the bus services that we need and the transition away from diesel engines that we all want.

When it comes to bus infrastructure, it is not only the charging infrastructure that matters: we have to make sure that people actually get on the buses. Bus patronage is a key factor in the transition to zero-emission buses, because if it continues to be below pre-pandemic levels, it will not be economically viable for many bus companies to invest in higher unit price buses, nor to run the frequency of services that communities deserve to keep them going. In Plymouth—as you know very well, Mrs Murray—our council plan to remove one third of Plymouth’s bus shelters, which makes waiting for a bus in a city famous for its rain a little bit more awkward. I want to encourage more people to get on a bus; I want people to use buses more frequently. That means the entire end-to-end journey for a passenger getting on a bus needs to be made more efficient, more comfortable, ideally cheaper, and more environmentally responsible.

That brings me to my final point, which is about air quality. A key factor in the drive to move from diesel buses to zero-emission ones, be they electric or hydrogen, is the impact of diesel bus fleets on the air quality of our communities. The air-quality improvements that we have seen in London since the ultra low emission zone was introduced, and in the trials that Transport for London has done in removing diesel buses from certain routes, have been considerable. I want a clean air Act to be introduced, and Labour has been making that case, but such an Act needs to be backed by actions to deliver cleaner air. One of those is to set a clear date for phasing out diesel engines, not just in cars and vans but in buses, too. Buses have greater usage than cars: a bus that is used nearly the entire day will clearly have a bigger air-quality implication than, for instance, a diesel car that is used twice a day for short journeys. That is why we need extra urgency when it comes to removing diesel buses: not just because of the carbon emissions, but because of the air-quality improvements, especially the reduction in the NOx—nitrogen oxides—that have such a bad effect on our lungs and our hearts in particular.

[Sir Robert Goodwill]

The hon. Gentleman is making absolutely the right point. One of the problems we have is that some very old buses still operate on routes around the country. Some of those buses—and, indeed, taxis—were displaced from London as the clean-air technology came in. We need to get rid of those old buses. The Euro 6 buses perform well on our streets, but we have all seen some very old buses up and down the country that still contribute a lot to poor air quality.

[Luke Pollard]

I agree with the right hon. Gentleman. The cascading of older stock—be that train rolling stock or buses—to the regions means that, in many cases, they receive the poorer-quality engines and have poorer air quality. They will continue to have poorer air quality for a lot longer than some of our big urban cities, which are able to use their mass to invest in addressing the problem.

I am grateful for the opportunity to talk about Plymouth Citybus and its plans for the future. I want every bus in Plymouth and throughout the country to be a zero-emission bus, and I want to see more people use our bus services. I want to see them being made cheaper, but for that to happen we need bus companies and bus manufacturers to have the confidence to invest. I want to see more of those buses being British-built, and I want to see us proudly manufacturing the future of green transport in this country. I think that is possible, but for it to happen, we need the Government to have a clearer plan on the production and manufacture of not only the bus but the battery, and we need the infrastructure plan to accompany it. I sometimes feel that the infrastructure plan does not get a fair hearing in this debate, so I hope the Minister will respond on that.

Fisheries Bill [ Lords ] (Fifth sitting)

Debate between Robert Goodwill and Luke Pollard

Committee stage & Committee Debate: 5th sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 15th September 2020 Public Bill Committees

[Luke Pollard]

The amendments are in my name and that of the shadow fisheries Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley East. Although the amendments are grouped, there are a number of issues here that I wish to deal with in turn. They have partly come from conversations with our Welsh colleagues to ensure a clear devolution angle on the Bill. I do not always agree with everything the SNP spokesperson, the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute, says, but on the matters before us, it is important that the Bill respects devolution. I think the Minister shares that view. I commend the Welsh Government’s leadership and clarity on fishing.

The amendments would adjust the well-meaning and positive additions made to the Bill in the other place to reflect the devolution agreement. They would make a number of those additions England-only, while affording the devolved Administrations the ability to make their own powers. In the areas we are dealing with, I think we are able to flex those powers, and afford the devolved Administrations different powers.

Amendment 143 makes provision for personal flotation devices to be monitored to ensure they comply with regulations. The Minister knows my passion for safety. The fact that six fishers died last year, and that Seafish gave out incorrect advice on how to refit some personal flotation devices over the summer, proves that the measure is needed more than ever.

Amendment 109 makes a distinction between British fishing vessels and English fishing vessels. The Bill has an English problem, as do a number of Bills in the post-devolution world, where “England” and “Britain” are frequently used interchangeably, although they are different and represent a very different approach. We are seeking to clarify in the wording the Minister’s dual role as the English fishing Minister and the British fishing Minister.

[Mr Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con)]

Is it not the case that many English boats fish in Scottish waters? Many of the boats based in Whitby fish in Scottish waters, landing in Peterhead and Fraserburgh. Would having different rules for different devolved areas not cause confusion for those vessels?

--- Later in debate ---

[Luke Pollard]

I am grateful to the former fisheries Minister for raising that. Those boats would have difficulty only if they did not read the equal access objective in clause 1 of the Bill. As the right hon. Gentleman will know, that deals with the ability of any English boat to fish in any other waters, and of Scottish boats to fish in any other British waters, and so on. I do not share his concern, but it is important to place that on the record.

[Mr Goodwill]

So if an English boat was fishing in Scottish waters, would it need to comply with the English regulation or the Scottish regulation?

[Luke Pollard]

I think there is different regulation for enforcement; this is on access. Amendment 109 seeks to clarify the difference between a British fishing vessel and an English fishing vessel. As the right hon. Gentleman will know, the devolution agreements enable the fisheries authorities in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland to have a slightly different view from the one we hold in England—and I mean England, rather than Britain, because Britain and England are different things. As an English MP, I find it frustrating that “England” and “Britain” are used interchangeably. They represent different geographies and identifies, and we should be unafraid of speaking about England more frequently. The Bill has an English problem, because it makes a distinction between Welsh, Scottish, Northern Irish, British and UK fishing boats, but it does not deal with English fishing boats. That is an issue of identity that we need to come to.

Amendment 109 seeks to set out clearly that clause 48 applies to English fishing boats. It would thus deal with the devolution concern expressed by our SNP colleague, the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute, which the Minister will no doubt address. These amendments teach us all the lesson that devolution-compliant amendments are much more complicated to draft, but it is important that we take time to draft them in such a way that they respect the devolution agenda. That is not just about making sure that our friends in Cardiff, Belfast and Holyrood are comfortable; provisions must work for the English as well, which is what the amendment seeks to ensure.

--- Later in debate ---

[Luke Pollard]

Labour supports these amendments and we will not vote against them.

Every seal matters and the discussions that we have had with stakeholders show strong support for the measures outlined by the Minister. Indeed, the changes to the Conservation of Seals Act 1970 and the Wildlife (Northern Ireland) Order 1985 prohibit the killing, injuring or taking of seals, as well as limiting the circumstances in which those activities can be permitted. Previously, these activities were prohibited only if particular weapons or poisonous substances were used. These changes provide a broader set of protections for seals.

Seals form an important part of the UK’s marine ecosystem, but face an increasing threat from climate change and hunting. Indeed, seals eat a lot of fish and there is sometimes a sense that killing seals protects fish stocks. In fact, such killing damages the fragile ecosystem that supports all life in our oceans, which is why we need to protect seals.

These amendments will help to protect an iconic and much-loved species, and we welcome them. However, when the Minister responds, I would be grateful if she set out why this amendment and the new schedule have been introduced so late in the Bill’s progress and were not originally included in the Bill when it was published, because they seem to be changes that would carry strong support and are worthy of good scrutiny by stakeholders.

It is unusual in this place that we are adjusting our legislation to amend something that Donald Trump may want for trade with the US, and doing so with full enthusiasm from both sides of the House. However, there is popular support for these changes.

[Mr Goodwill]

I rise briefly to draw attention to the fact that we are often accused by the Labour party of trying to do a trade deal with the United States that would produce lower environmental standards and lower animal welfare standards than those we have. Actually, this amendment is an example of how, to comply with the US, which has higher standards of protection for marine cetaceans and seals, we have to change our law to bring it up to the American standard. In this case we can demonstrate that by having agreements for freer trade around the world, we are actually tightening up our standards to match those that some countries already have.

Fisheries Bill [ Lords ] (Sixth sitting)

Debate between Robert Goodwill and Luke Pollard

Committee stage & Committee Debate: 6th sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 15th September 2020 Public Bill Committees

[Luke Pollard]

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

New clause 11 relates to highly protected marine areas for England. This picks up on a running theme of contributions from the Labour Benches throughout these proceedings in relation to what happens next with the Benyon review of highly protected marine areas and what the next steps are.

The oceans treaty, which I have mentioned a number of times during the Committee’s discussions and which the Government have signed up to, seeks to protect 30% of the world’s oceans by 2030, and the UK Government have signed up to protect 30% of the UK’s waters by 2030 as well. The oceans treaty signs us up for full protection, which is in effect no-take zones for our fisheries’ waters, and it seems that the Government’s intention is to move marine protected areas into highly protected marine areas, thus creating no-take zones in what are largely MPAs as they currently stand.

The Benyon review, published over the summer, made a really important contribution to the start of the debate by setting out the value of highly protected marine areas and what the purpose was. Importantly for the Bill, Benyon also set out very clearly that fishers must be involved with the discussions around the designation of highly protected marine areas—and indeed, with you sitting in the Chair, Sir Charles, that should involve commercial fishing and also recreational fishing at the same time. It is important that we understand what Richard Benyon has proposed in his report, but also that it was only a first step in how highly protected marine areas can be created.

The new clause seeks to require that the Secretary of State publish a plan to designate highly protected marine areas, and before that plan is published, the Secretary of State should carry out a public consultation. Taken together, that should all be published by 31 December 2021, which is a realistic timeline for that work to be done. Indeed, at the conclusion of that, as the Committee will note, we have only eight years left for 30% of the UK’s waters to be highly protected marine areas, if the Government are to hit the commitment that they have signed up to in the UN’s oceans treaty. I am sure that Conservative Members would not want to breach a treaty in relation to this and would want to maintain the rule of law. This is a plan for how to do that.

It is important that we include input from fishers in how we designate highly protected marine areas. The Government have so far not responded to the Benyon review in a way that sets out a timetable for what follows next. They have said that the findings are interesting and they will take time to consider them, as I expect the Minister will say when she gets to her feet, but they have not set out a timetable.

The Government chose earlier in the Committee to whip their MPs against Labour’s sensible amendment to ban supertrawlers over 100 metres from fishing in marine protected areas. We know that a Greenpeace investigation has revealed that in the first six months of 2020, supertrawlers spent more than 5,500 hours fishing in these protected areas. If we mean to safeguard these vulnerable habitats, it is important that steps are taken to exclude not only supertrawlers, but trawlers with gear that is especially damaging to our oceans, which include electric pulse trawlers and trawlers that drag nets along the sea bed in particular.

I have, in a number of remarks, encouraged the Minister to start an honest conversation with fishers about how highly protected marine areas will be designated, what their input will be in that and how they will be compensated, encouraged or recompensed for the exclusion of fishers and certain types of fishing from those marine areas. When the Minister gets to her feet, I suspect she will say that this is not necessary because she has a cunning plan for highly protected marine areas that she will shortly be publishing, but I would be grateful if she could answer a few questions.

Which marine protected areas does the Minister feel that fishers will be able to fish in in 10 years’ time and which ones does she not? Will it be an assumption that all MPAs will be no-take zones, as the policy signed up by the former Environment Secretary, the right hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove), suggested? Will there be a phased approach to introducing no-take zones in marine protected areas?

For instance, will the Minister seek to restrict bottom trawling in those areas, or will she be taking the advice of the former fisheries Minister, the right hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby, who, when speaking about supertrawlers in the debates last week, spoke about fishing only in the water column? Will there be a stepped process to bring that about? Can she set out what the journey is between now and 2030?

There is a strong rationale for being clear with the fishing industry, coastal communities and those who seek to protect our marine environment about how these highly protected marine areas will be established in England in particular, although I appreciate that the commitment the Government have given is on the protection of UK waters.

[Mr Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con)]

I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman mentions supertrawlers, because I have been thinking about this quite a lot over the weekend. I recall when I was in Portavogie I saw a ship—not a supertrawler—having a couple of feet lopped off its prow in order to meet the recommendations. Does he not think that just banning boats over 100 metres would result in a proliferation of boats of 99.9 metres and that we need to be more intelligent in the way we manage fisheries in that regard?

[Luke Pollard]

I agree with the key point the right hon. Gentleman makes because, as a west country MP, I see an awful lot of dumpy boats around the west country that have been adjusted to be as broad as they possibly can while still coming under the designated length, be that 10, 12 or 14 metres or whatever. I share his concern about retrofits to fishing boats; in particular, he will know of my concern about retrofits to boats that do not come with the latest stability features, so that the retrofitting not only avoids certain fisheries regulations, which is the point he is making, but also potentially poses a greater safety risk to the lives of the crew, if they were to go over, and of those volunteers tasked with saving them in such an event.

I take the point that the right hon. Gentleman makes. However, when it comes to banning supertrawlers, although I know that the amendment that Labour tabled mentioned supertrawlers over 100 metres, he will be aware that there is a debate about whether a supertrawler at 90 metres is also sufficiently sized. To a certain extent, that is a moot point, because as he will know the oceans treaty that his Government have signed up to effectively seeks to ban all extractive activity in marine protected areas by 2030, working on the assumption that marine protected areas will be the ones that would become highly protected marine areas. I hope there is a strong case for that status being given to Wembury bay, around the coast from Plymouth. The Minister will know it. It has a beautiful diverse marine environment, and would be an effective highly protected marine area; it does not necessarily enjoy all the protections of other classifications at the moment. There is some wiggle room there.

The key point of the new clause is to seek clarity from the Minister and the Government on the journey ahead. My fear is that we will not see a clear plan produced, or a part two of the Benyon review. I would like Richard Benyon recommissioned to start a part two, because the questions of how an area is designated, and how commercial and recreational fishers are included in the process, are essential. The UK Government must not renege on their 2030 treaty obligations because they did not put in the advance work, and we must not have a rush to designate in the lead-up to 2030 that does not adequately take into account the livelihoods of fishers, who otherwise could have been supported for a period through re-zoning of fishing activity. That is the purpose of the new clause. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say about it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Luke Pollard]

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

New clause 13 would do exactly what it says on the tin: licence enforcement. Enforcement matters. Fishers need to know that everyone will be playing by the rules, because that is not always the case at the moment. That is an important part of the grumbles and gripes that I have heard from fishers over the past few years. Although they are playing by the rules, they can see others who are not and who are getting away with it, be they other British fishers or foreign fishers operating in UK waters. That legitimate concern is why enforcement matters.

As we discussed earlier, we know there are gaps in enforcement and other problems. We do not have enough ships or aerial assets to enforce what we currently have, let alone deal with territorial disputes in the future. Enforcement is important because it acts as a deterrent as well as an opportunity for prosecution and investigation. I am sure the Minister was using a fishing boat tracking app on her phone last weekend—if she does not have one, it is well worth getting, because it is great fun—and saw a French trawler being intercepted by enforcement active in the English Channel and escorted into Plymouth to face questions about whether it was properly licensed or responsible for overfishing. I want to see more such examples of the enforcement of regulations—not necessarily the escorting into port—to ensure that the same standards are applied to foreign and UK boats, that there is a high degree of probability that enforcement action will happen while boats are at sea, and that prosecution will follow if they are found in breach of any of our rules.

[Mr Goodwill]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree with his predecessor, Elliot Morley, who came to Whitby and announced that, in his view, every single British fisherman was breaking the rules? Subsequently, it was only Mr Morley himself who was convicted of an offence.

[Luke Pollard]

I take the point, although it is brave of any Conservative MP to talk about rule breaking at the moment.

Returning to the issue at hand, rather than the game playing, it is important that we look at this issue. That is why in proposed new clause 13(6) we say that there must be “sufficient resources” available for proper enforcement, including

“an appropriate number of vessels…an appropriate number of personnel, and…any of other resource”

that is needed, such as new aerial assets and drones, as we have discussed. Joining together our Royal Navy assets, coastguard assets, the enforcement activities of the devolved nations, electronic monitoring systems, automatic identification systems and other electronic tracking systems gives us the ability to track vessels as well as giving us a better understanding of the reality at sea. That is important.

Frequently, in regulatory terms, there has been an idea that when a fishing boat leaves port some of the rules will not be enforced, even if it undertakes activities incorrectly. As we have seen, there is an appetite among fishers, coastal communities and the people we represent to ensure that fishing activities at sea are legal, sustainable and fair when distributed between British and foreign boats in our waters. At the moment, that is not the view of many fishers in the west country. There seems to be a bias towards prosecuting British boats rather than foreign boats that are potentially in breach. I encourage the Minister to look at the enforcement priorities of the authorities when she has a moment.

All of those who feed into enforcement need to ensure that people are playing by the rules; I do not think people are doing that at the moment. There needs to be sufficient enforcement of the standard that we want. As we become a newly independent coastal state, the message about our values and enforcement that we send now will be one that we are judged against in the future. I want the Government to use the powers that they already have and have had for many years—not new powers that may be afforded to them by any negotiations—to ensure sufficient enforcement of our marine laws, to make sure there is no bias in favour of prosecuting British boats at the expense of rule-breaking foreign boats in our waters, and that we have a higher standard regime for safety enforcement.

Many non-departmental bodies that the Minister has in her remit have an important role in sending messages about stability tests, proper training and wearing lifejackets, as well as the issues that she spoke about relating to discards and other matters. I am keen to hear what the Minister has to say.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Goodwill]

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Whitby town bid includes a marine academy, which will encompass Whitby Fishing School and also teach other skills? That is just the type of innovation we need to bring people into the industry.

[Luke Pollard]

I agree entirely. Plymouth’s plan for fish has a similar focus on marine skills, and again, if the hon. Member for Waveney were here, he would no doubt be talking about the skills in the Renaissance of the East Anglian Fisheries project. What is happening here, though—this is a good example—is that the responsibility for workforce is being shifted to local authorities and local initiatives, and is not part of a national strategy. If it is happening in certain communities, we can presume that it is not happening in others, and sharing best practice, though important, is no substitute for a national lead that would create such a strategy and make skills workforce development easier for people to undertake.

Fisheries Bill [ Lords ] (Fourth sitting)

Debate between Robert Goodwill and Luke Pollard

Committee stage
Thursday 10th September 2020 Public Bill Committees

[Mr Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con)]

I understand how contentious this is. Is it not the case that the marine protected areas are there to protect the seabed, and that most of the trawlers fish mid-water and catch species that move well beyond those protected areas? I am not seeking to defend them; I am simply saying that we need to understand exactly the impact that the trawlers have on the marine protected areas.

[Luke Pollard]

The former Minister raises a good question. Marine protected areas do not exclusively protect the seabed, although that is a clear part of the validity of any marine protection. Such areas also protect species mix and can also deal with bird life and other forms of ocean-going life. The issue is complicated by the diversity that we seek to protect. Marine protected areas protect the seabed, but they also apply in other ways as well. None the less, the commitment that the Government have made around the UN oceans treaty is one that the Labour party fully supports. I say in all candour to the Minister that it will be a difficult sell and a difficult journey between now and 2030 to pitch that to fishers, but we need to have that honest conversation with them.

The Benyon review’s remarks about how highly protected marine protected areas can be designated, which effectively make MPAs no-take zones, need to include fishers. There is huge support among British fishers, particularly among the small boat fleet, for the banning of supertrawlers. Apart from the supertrawler that I mentioned earlier that currently flies a British flag, but did not until very recently, all the supertrawlers that fish in UK waters, especially in marine protected areas, are foreign-owned boats. There is a huge advantage to our sustainability and our support for our domestic fishing industry if we make the case now to ban supertrawlers over 100 metres and if we start the conversation about how we move the Benyon review recommendations into a greater awareness with a plan as to how that comes about. I hope the Minister—no doubt she objects to this particular amendment—will set out how she intends to implement a similar ban, because I think a ban is coming. I cannot see that the Government’s position is sustainable if they do not ban supertrawlers over 100 metres, if only due to the very sincere and heartfelt public opposition to that method of fishing.

Fisheries Bill [ Lords ] (Fourth sitting)

Debate between Robert Goodwill and Luke Pollard

Committee Debate: 4th sitting: House of Commons
Thursday 10th September 2020 Public Bill Committees

[Mr Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con)]

[Luke Pollard]

Fisheries Bill [ Lords ] (Third sitting)

Debate between Robert Goodwill and Luke Pollard

Committee stage & Committee Debate: 3rd sitting: House of Commons
Thursday 10th September 2020 Public Bill Committees

[Mr Goodwill]

The UK intends to establish itself as a global trading nation, and part of that global trade is trade with the European Union, our most important neighbour in terms of trade. Many of the most valuable species that fishermen catch are valuable because they have such a premium in markets abroad. We are once again seeing the law of unintended consequences. When we look at our carbon footprint, we need to look at the carbon cost of a ship in, say, the channel that was intending to land in France having to steam back to the UK, put that fish on a truck and then take it back, possibly to the same port where it intended to go for that market. While I understand the sympathies behind the clause, the unintended consequences, both for value for our fishermen and the carbon footprint of the fishing industry, are both very negative.

[Luke Pollard]

Government amendment 5 goes against the very heart of what was promised to coastal communities in the referendum. It is a betrayal of our coastal communities that the Conservatives are supporting jobs in foreign ports. The clause, which was a Labour amendment, was deliberately designed to create jobs in our coastal communities, in ports from Newlyn, Plymouth, Portavogie in Northern Ireland, Peterhead, Fraserburgh, Fleetwood and Grimsby. It was designed to inject more energy and economic activity into those places.

I disagree with Government amendment 5, which seeks to remove clause 18, but more than that, I believe it betrays a promise made to many of those communities that Brexit would deliver more jobs and a revival of the fishing community. When I speak to fishers and the community around the fish quay in Plymouth, their model for whether Brexit is a success for fishers and fishing is whether they see more boats in our port, more fish being landed and more jobs created. That is what the clause, passed in the Lords, will do—create more jobs in our ports. The former fishing Minister, the right hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby, described it as perhaps only creating distribution jobs. At a time when our coastal communities have been hit hard by 10 years of austerity, and by under-investment for far too long, creating more jobs in our coastal communities is something that we should welcome and go for.

The debate on the clause in the House of Lords was good, with Conservative and Labour peers and those from the devolved Administrations of all parties making the case that we should be creating more jobs in our coastal communities. It was promised that Brexit would deliver that for fishing. It is bizarre that we now see the Government arguing against that very thing, supporting jobs in foreign ports and not in our own country. It is an odd reversal of a promise given to those communities, and why I cannot support the Government amendment.

The clause would create a jobs boom because, as has been said by several Members, every job in the catching sector creates 10 on shore. That is true. Those jobs are created in fish markets, in distribution—I do not pooh-pooh that at all; these are important jobs—and in processing. It will create an economic stimulus and an incentive to process more fish at the point of landing, rather than to have those processing jobs in foreign ports at the point of landing elsewhere, because it would mean fresher fish processed in our ports. It will create greater value from the processing of that fish. That is why all those are important.

[Mr Goodwill]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that if Iceland imposed a similar restriction on the processing of fish, it would decimate places such as Grimsby, which relies on processing fish imported to the UK?

[Luke Pollard]

Indeed, and if clause 18 were about processing fish, perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would have a point, but—I am sure he has read it—it is about landing fish, rather than processing them. That is a good cul-de-sac to try to take us down, but that is not what the clause actually says. I went to Grimsby recently and spoke to people on the fish quay, and they hark back to the days when there were 800 fishing boats in their port. They want more fish to be landed in their port, so it is bizarre in the extreme that the Government are arguing against more fish being landed there.

Having more fish processed in Britain will create more jobs. Interfish in Plymouth creates an enormous number of jobs from landing the fish that it catches in Plymouth and processing them there, supplying our supermarkets. I want to see more British supermarkets buying British fish. That would be greatly helped by this clause, because more British fish would be available in our markets.

A number of points have been raised about why the clause does not work, so let me briefly address them. First, the former fishing Minister, the right hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby, mentioned the increased carbon footprint. At a point when Conservative MPs voted against the net zero objective in the Fisheries Bill, I think that does not apply in the same way. We want fishing to be carbon free, and we want more fish to be landed in our ports. I agree that it is often argued that fishers chase the higher price that is delivered in foreign markets, and that if they if they landed in a UK port, the price would be lower. I hope the same arguments are used about any departure from any regimes in the European Union that make travel across borders easy. Delays at the border put an extra focus on this. I hope the argument that has been applied to this clause is applied equally to the Government’s policy, but I fear that it will not be. None the less, it was a good attempt.

As we said in the debate on Tuesday, fish should be a public asset. The economic link between the fish in our waters and the United Kingdom should be strengthened. That is what clause 18 does: it strengthens the economic link. I fear, on this point, that the arguments of Government MPs will need to be reversed when the licence conditions change.

I welcomed the consultation that the Minister has set out, but I disagree with her that the figure is 50% currently. As she knows, landing 50% of fish in the UK is potentially one of the licence conditions, but it is not the only one, and it is important to state that if a company has a brass plaque in the UK and employs UK crew, it can get out of that. That is why many fishers catching fish in UK waters land nearly all their catch in foreign ports. One trawler in Wales lands barely any of its catch in British ports; it lands 84% in foreign ports. That fish should be supporting the Welsh economy. There are examples of that in English and Scottish waters. That is why this matters so much. We will be betraying those coastal communities if we do not support job creation.

I hope the Minister, when she comes to her consultation, cuts and pastes this clause, as Ministers did for Labour’s last set of amendments to the Fisheries Bill, and makes it her own. I am a big fan of Louis Walshisms in politics. The Government should make it their own. I hope they copy this clause and put it into their consultation, because we need to create jobs in coastal communities, and that is what the clause seeks to do.

When this clause comes to a vote—surely it will do—and Labour and SNP Members vote in favour of the jobs in coastal communities clause and in favour of landing at least two thirds of fish in our coastal ports, I hope that every single Conservative MP who represents a coastal community will be able to explain to their electorates in those communities why they chose to support ports on the continent, rather than the port that they represent, why they chose to create and preserve jobs in foreign ports, not in their communities, and why they chose not to give the young people in their communities the opportunity that would come from enhanced employment not only in the catching sector but in processing, and the engineering jobs that accompany this. I hope they have a decent argument for that, because this flies in the face of everything that has been promised to coastal communities. That is why Labour will be supporting keeping clause 18 in the Bill to protect jobs in coastal communities, and opposing the Government’s plan to continue the export of those jobs to our European friends.

Fisheries Bill [ Lords ] (First sitting)

Debate between Robert Goodwill and Luke Pollard

Committee stage
Tuesday 8th September 2020 Public Bill Committees

[Mr Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con)]

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that a large number of fishermen are paid a share of the catch? Therefore they may have a good day or a bad day. Were we to impose national minimum wage objectives, that type of payment system could well be disrupted.

[Luke Pollard]

The right hon. Gentleman is right to highlight the share fishing that many trawlers go with. I think the point is that there should be a base minimum. That debate on the consequences of a national minimum wage was held in Committee Rooms such as this when nearly all the Members now on the Opposition Benches were at school. The consequence of introducing a national minimum wage in fishing will be that all fishers are paid a basic level. That is especially true for those who are currently paid well below it, not because of a bad day at sea or weather obstructing fishing activity—I believe that that is what the right hon. Gentleman was suggesting—but because of the deliberate pay policy of the fishing organisation in question, to pay below the minimum wage, and in particular to pay foreign crews below the minimum wage.

The signal that the safety and workforce objective would send out in relation to that—although the Minister will no doubt say that subsequent work would be needed to sit behind it—would be a strong message that we expect a certain standard of pay for fishers. As to poverty pay for those fishing at sea, which is a dangerous profession, it would show that we as a newly independent coastal state, to borrow a phrase often used by the Conservative party, will set a high standard. Whether it is a matter of safety or pay, there is a profound case for high standards, especially for the foreign crews who are often paid less, which creates market distortion vis-à-vis the pay for British crews. There is an opportunity to level the playing field and create the basic standards that will say that safety and workforce issues matter. That is why the safety and workforce objective sends a clear message about our intentions.

I suspect that the Minister will disagree with most of what I have said, and I predict she will not want the objective to be in the Bill, but I hope she will be able to set out what measures the Government will take on the issue, recognising that there is a grey zone of responsibility, with safety sitting between the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the Department for Transport, while the minimum wage sits between that and fisheries.

[Mr Goodwill]

No one would doubt the importance of health and safety, but there is already an obligation in the Bill, in clause 35(1)(e), to be able to give help, in terms of health and safety funding. I suggest that the amendment is superfluous, given that the issue is covered elsewhere in the Bill.

[Luke Pollard]

The right hon. Gentleman highlights a good topic, which I did not touch on, but am happy to, about the optionality of safety. My view and that of the Labour party is that safety should be a minimum standard, not an optional extra. Under the clause 35 financial assistance powers, the Secretary of State has the ability to arrange financial assistance for

“maintaining or improving the health and safety of individuals who are involved in commercial fish or aquaculture activities”.

He has the ability to do that: there is not a minimum standard that insists on it.

If the right hon. Gentleman suggests that clause 35(1)(e), on which we can still table amendments as we have not reached it yet, should be a compulsory measure—that the Secretary of State should ensure that there is always funding to create a minimum standard—I would agree. In the absence of a minimum standard, clause 35(1)(e) solely suggests that the Secretary of State can fund such provision if he or she wishes. That is a very different point from a minimum standard, and that is why it is so important that there should be a safety and workforce objective that establishes at a high level the belief that there should be minimum standards.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Goodwill]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the wording proposed by the Lords would tie the hands of Ministers as they go to the annual fishing negotiations? Stocks are determined within a particular zone, and we could end up with the UK not being able to fish some of that stock because we could not take back to the UK the agreement that we would have made had we not been so encumbered.

[Luke Pollard]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for setting that out. Let me be clear: a Labour Government would not set total allowable catches above the maximum sustainable yield. Telling our European friends that we want a sustainable fishing industry is not giving the game away or betraying our fishers. It is setting out, clearly for all to see the fact that we manage our fish stocks sustainably and that we want a sustainable fishing industry, economically and environmentally. That is the level that we would approach this at. That is really important.

The right hon. Gentleman mentions the move to zonal attachment, rather than relative stability, which he knows Labour supports in relation to this. It is therefore important that we set the tone and the objective that our own fisheries waters need to be sustainable at that level. That is what the amendment to the Bill sets out—fisheries sustainability is the primary driver of fisheries management.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Goodwill]

Does the hon. Gentleman not agree that there is a certain contradiction between what he is saying now and later amendments that he has tabled, which would indicate that fish destined for, say, the European market should be landed in the UK and then transported on trucks to their main market, rather than being landed closer to the market where they are going to be sold?

[Luke Pollard]

No, I disagree. I dislike the Conservative position of favouring landing fish in European ports, because we could be creating jobs in British ports. It is bad for our ports, and it betrays the promise that many people made during the Brexit referendum. It is something that we need to reflect on. We should land more fish in our ports, creating more jobs in our communities and, as a corollary, eating more of our own fish. We will return to that in future, but I do not feel that landing more fish in our ports and achieving net zero in fishing are in any way contradictory. Actually, both are necessary to have a fully sustainable fishing industry in the future, because sustainability needs to be economic and environmental—they go hand in hand.

Amendment 73 sends a really simple message: we want to see fishing achieve net zero, and we will require the Government to prepare a plan and to have an idea about how to achieve that. I hope the Minister has a plan for fishing achieving net zero, but I fear that this part of the debate has been wholly absent over the past few years. Outwith the larger debate about every single sector, but specifically on this sector, how will they work? We all know that fishing is not one sector but dozens of sectors operating within the wider remit, with different fishers catching different species of fish with different gear at different times of the year in different fishing zones. How does the plan to achieve net zero work for each of those sectors? There will be different approaches, especially with the carbon impact of certain boats.

I turn to the other amendments in this group, 74 to 79. I will talk only briefly, so that other speakers can contribute. On amendment 76, I suggest to the Minister that one thing she should take from this debate is that Ministers need to act faster than they have to date. In part, our sustainability work by Ministers, as a country, has been too slow and too passive. I hope that the Minister and her officials are hearing loud and clear from the Opposition that we want to see Ministers act faster on this.

--- Later in debate ---

[Luke Pollard]

One of the difficulties of having so many amendments grouped together is that we cannot get into each one individually. That is a probing amendment to find out what the plan is. I will return to species in a moment, but to answer the hon. Gentleman’s question on bycatch, the discard ban was introduced with good intentions—to borrow the Minister’s phrase from earlier.

There is a real crisis of fish being discarded over the side of boats because people do not have the quota to catch that fish. Fishers are being put in a difficult position by existing regulations—regulations that Ministers themselves may decide on, even if under an EU directive on how things work. In mixed fisheries—which I believe is what is around Scotland, and is certainly around the west country, which I represent—for fishers to target specific species is difficult, resulting in an inevitable bycatch. The difficulty is that the discard ban states that a fisher cannot catch that, discard it or land it.

That poses questions about how a reformed discard ban would work under the new freedoms that the Minister has set out. Greater quota pooling, for instance, might be one way, especially for smaller boats, to make sure there is sufficient quota within a pool to ensure that bycatch is adequate there. There needs to be a greater understanding of the need to allocate more quota for some of those things, especially in mixed fisheries, to cope with that. The fundamental point—which I think the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute was getting at, and to which I hope the Minister will respond in the spirit in which the amendment was tabled—is that the discard ban currently does not work for our fishers and certainly does not work for our environment. The intention behind it is good. We need to preserve that intention, but also ensure that the fish our fishers are catching get a good price and are preferably landed at their local port.

The hon. Gentleman also noted at the start of his intervention, in relation to the difference between commercial fishing and recreational fishing, that there is a real challenge, which we will come to later, in applying restrictions to recreational fishers who are not taking the volumes of fish out of the water that some of our commercial friends are. There is a tendency to regard the two slightly differently, which I think he hinted at in his intervention.

To briefly return to the amendments, I am grateful to hear the Minister say that the Government have declared a climate emergency. That is very welcome news. My recollection of the debate is that the Government did not oppose the declaration but did not support it either. I am very happy to hear that the climate emergency declaration is now Government policy and not just parliamentary policy. The subtle distinction is important, because if it is a Government declaration of a climate emergency, the Minister has made a bigger announcement today than perhaps she wanted to. It is important, because we are in a climate emergency and there is a climate crisis that affects our fish stocks.

One area that the Minister hinted at, which is important and why Government amendment 1 needs to be looked at again, is the changes in fish and where they reside. As the Minister knows, fish do not follow international boundaries. Laws that seek to govern fish to follow international boundaries are problematic. The Minister set out how she hoped to ensure that those fish with high survivability are returned to the sea and not landed dead —I think she mentioned that in relation to amendment 78. I agree with her, but the Minister’s statement is at odds with DEFRA’s decision not to grant the bluefin catch-and-release fishery in the south-west, because bluefin tuna, bless them, have very high sustainability and can be caught time and again. The experience for the fish might not be one that many of us would like, but a fish in the sea is worth so much more to our recreational fishing sector that charters boats to recreational anglers than it is from being landed and eaten in our food supply chain. I agree with the Minister when she talks about high survivability and hope she will respond to that point.

The bluefin catch-and-release fishery was something that I mentioned in my remarks, and the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Scott Mann) also made a powerful case in support of it. The catch-and-release bluefin fishery would not only enhance our scientific understanding of the changes causing these wonderful creatures to enter more of our British waters, or to return after a great absence to our British waters, but could create an enormous number of jobs across the west country, and they could in due course appear in the North sea, where tuna was present before the decline of fish stocks.

I have taken up enough time on this. Suffice it to say that Labour Members disagree with Government amendment 1. We would like to see sustainability as the primary mover of sustainable fisheries. The message that removing that sends to all those that care about our oceans is a poor one. Fishing should be sustainable economically and environmentally, and we should be unafraid of saying that sustainability is the primary driver of fisheries management. If we do not have sustainable fisheries, we will not have jobs in fishing or the fish in the sea that we need. To pre-empt what you might be about to say, Mr McCabe, the amendments sandwiched between that and amendment 73 are designed to probe the Minister for an explanation of the position on each of those points—which she has done in part, with the challenges that I have posed. However, amendment 73, which concerns net zero and decarbonising our industry, is absolutely critical to the future of the sector. I hope the Minister will set out the Department’s, and indeed the Government’s, plans to decarbonise the industry. She needs to be under no doubt about how seriously we take the importance of hitting net zero for fishing.

[Mr Goodwill]

I rise in support of Government amendment 1. Nobody so far has talked about the role of the courts. I suspect that if the wording proposed by the Lords stays in the Bill, there will be a field day for the courts and well funded environmental non-governmental organisations, which will be fighting every step of the way to ensure that the prime fisheries objective of sustainability is taken to the nth degree. We have seen that already in how the courts have been used with general licensing.

For example, at the annual fisheries meeting with other independent coastal states such as Norway, we may well decide that, as a one-off, to take account of choke species and mixed fisheries, perhaps some stocks would be fished above maximum sustainable yield, as a short-term measure to sustain our fishing industries. That additional quota could be assigned to the Norwegian waters and EU waters, but the British fishing Minister would say, “I’m sorry, but although there’s more quota on offer, we cannot take it because we would be shot down in the courts.” There are many other situations in which the suggestions made by the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport about being flexible and working with the sector would be tracked every inch of the way by environmental NGOs, which would be keen to take them to court.

[Luke Pollard]

The right hon. Member raises a hypothetical about total allowable catches being set above MSY. He knows well that total allowable catches are routinely set above MSY levels. It is not a once-in-a-moment opportunity; it is a regular occurrence, and it is leading to a decline in fish stocks. Therefore, sending the message to our fisheries that we will have sustainable fishing in our waters is not a bad one, because we are ultimately saying to those fisheries that if we do not set at MSY levels, there will be fewer fish in the sea for the future. Whether we set levels above MSY in conjunction with our European friends or otherwise, that contributes to a decline in fish stocks. Does he agree with that?

Fisheries Bill [ Lords ] (First sitting)

Debate between Robert Goodwill and Luke Pollard

Committee Debate: 1st sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 8th September 2020 Public Bill Committees

[Mr Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con)]

[Luke Pollard]

[Mr Goodwill]

[Luke Pollard]

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Goodwill]

[Luke Pollard]

[Luke Pollard]

[Mr Goodwill]

[Luke Pollard]

--- Later in debate ---

[Luke Pollard]

[Mr Goodwill]

[Luke Pollard]

[Mr Goodwill]

Fisheries Bill [Lords]

Debate between Robert Goodwill and Luke Pollard

Ways and Means resolution & 2nd reading & 2nd reading: House of Commons & Money resolution & Money resolution: House of Commons & Programme motion & Programme motion: House of Commons & Ways and Means resolution: House of Commons
Tuesday 1st September 2020 Commons Chamber

[Luke Pollard]

I hear that argument, but I also hear that it is not in support of British ports when landing more fish could create more jobs, and I think we need to think about what benefit will be gained from leaving the common fisheries policy. If there is an argument for only supporting those with fish caught under a UK quota and landed in foreign ports, creating jobs in foreign ports, that is an argument the hon Member is free to make, but it is not one that will be made by the Opposition.

Labour’s jobs in coastal communities amendment is designed to ensure that whether the boat is Dutch, Spanish, French, actually British or just flagged that way, boats fishing under a UK quota would be required to land the majority of their fish in British ports. This would create a jobs boom for fish markets, processers, fuel sellers, boat repairers and distributors. With the virus, the recession and the consequences of austerity, could our coastal communities not do with more jobs? I hope the Government will agree with that, not continue to support fish being landed in foreign ports and not creating jobs in our communities.

[Mr Goodwill]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Luke Pollard]

No. I am going to make some progress, because I have gone on for some time.

The backbone of British fishing is our small boat fleet. These boats and businesses are the ones the British public want to see benefit most from our exit from the common fisheries policy. While industrial fishing has its place, I make no apology for wanting a fairer share for our small fishers. With just 6% of the quota, the small boat fleet has two thirds of the jobs, and I think it could have more quota. Reallocating quota along social, economic and environmental grounds, even if just 1% or 2% of the total catch were to be reallocated, could increase what small boats can catch by 25%. This is the second jobs multiplier that Labour has proposed in this Bill. It would be huge for our small boat fleet, helping give them a platform to invest in new gear and boats and to hire more crew.

Such rebalancing could easily be absorbed by the big foreign-owned boat operators within the current range of variation of total allowable catch, yet this is a policy yet again opposed by the Conservative party. I know the largest fishing companies, mostly foreign-owned, are strong supporters of the Conservative party, but, to borrow a phrase, Labour’s policy is for the many fishers, not the few. I hope Tory MPs will not be looking at their feet as the Whips demand total loyalty to Downing Street and require them to vote this amendment down when the time comes, because our fishing communities need a strong voice in Westminster, not just more Whips’ instructions at the expense of coastal towns.

Labour will be tabling an amendment to ban supertrawlers pillaging Britain’s marine protected areas. The Greenpeace campaign on this issue has attracted the signatures of a number of Ministers, but, sadly, of not a single DEFRA Minister. Labour will table an amendment to ban supertrawlers of over 100 metres fishing in marine protected areas. Britain has not one supertrawler of over 100 metres, so Ministers and Conservative Members have an easy choice to make: whether they are on the side of British fishers or foreign-owned industrial supertrawlers, harvesting huge quantities of fish and plundering the very habitats that Britain regards as special. I hope that would be an easy decision, but we will have to see.