Fisheries Bill [HL]

Debate between Baroness Byford and Lord Teverson

Committee stage
Monday 2nd March 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Byford (Con)]

My Lords, I have the great pleasure of speaking to the amendments standing in my name and that of my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern. Unfortunately, he is delayed. He had hoped to arrive in time, but I have the pleasure of moving the amendment anyway. Together, the two amendments call for collaborative working on the Bill. While in our earlier discussions we asked whether 10 objectives were plenty, here we are calling for one extra. To a certain extent we will understand if, standing alone, it is not accepted. However, the point behind collaborative working is very important.

Amendment 5 speaks for itself, so I turn to Amendment 26, which itemises the intentions behind this whole idea. The “collaborative objective” is to ensure that

“the fisheries policy authorities receive guidance on fisheries management from the fishing industry, scientists and other relevant stakeholders.”

That engagement has not been as close as it could have been over the years. The amendment would provide the opportunity to establish a proper common base on which these decisions can be made. Proposed new subsection (9B) says that guidance under proposed new subsection (9A)

“must be formally established and shared by a consultative group”—

in other words, there will be a direct link to make sure that it is established and that working together happens. Proposed new subsection (9C) states:

“Within six months of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must issue a consultation on the establishment of a consultative group under subsection (9B) or an alternative vehicle for producing guidance under subsection (9A).”


I am very grateful to the National Federation of Fishermen’s Organisations for its help in putting this amendment together. If my noble friend the Minister cannot accept it, I hope he will look carefully at what is being suggested, which is the need to make sure that we bring together all those who work in the fishing industry to come up with positive suggestions for future sustainability. The consultative group would guide and advise on policy; promote collaboration between central government and the devolved Administrations; allow ongoing dialogue on the viability of the industry; and channel the fishing industry’s knowledge and experience, about which I spoke earlier, into the design and implementation of management measures. This would be hugely helpful.

The consultative group would play a leading role in the use of secondary legislation—as we all know, the Bill will set up systems, but a lot of the detail will come in the secondary legislation—to ensure that we have an agile and responsive approach to future fisheries management. The inclusion of the consultative group of fishery experts would guarantee that sustainability issues are fully considered. It would also play a valuable role in the development and operation of the management plans proposed later in the Bill.

As I said, we might be adding an 11th objective—I still think number one, sustainability, is the most important overall—but it is important that those who work on the sea, those who plan for what is happening, the scientists and the data collected should work together. I have great pleasure in moving the amendment.

[Lord Teverson (LD)]

My Lords, I agree that there needs to be far more collaboration. It is the big missing thing in the Bill in many ways. We have a Bill that covers the whole of the United Kingdom. We have devolution in Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales but I am concerned that we have no devolution in England despite the fact that the English fishery is diverse—as are those of the other nations—and I have amendments later in the Bill that seek to tackle that in a sensible and not too radical way.

I welcome the spirit of the amendments. They are the basement of what we need but I hope the Minister will take strongly the message that there needs to be consultation and working with not only the industry but, as the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, said, the larger stakeholders to make this sector work. I will be interested to hear the Minister’s response to this proposal.

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

Debate between Baroness Byford and Lord Teverson

Tuesday 22nd January 2019 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Byford (Con)]

My Lords, I will add just a couple of things. I thank my noble friend the Minister for so clearly setting out the objectives of these transfer regulations, because that is what we are discussing, while looking to the reports in the future. Like other noble Lords, I look forward to the setting up of the environmental body, because it is key to future regulation and checks and balances on what happens. Clearly, it is not good just to have reports; actions need to follow on from them. That has not quite been touched on today.

I will follow the noble Lord who spoke just now of droughts and the rain position. The Minister will know, because I raised it with him quietly earlier, the difficulty that some farmers are having in drought areas. I refer in particular to the position of Norfolk, which was referred to earlier, and the difficulty that farmers there are having because the Environment Agency is dragging its feet and not getting on with the business of giving answers to questions that are raised. Although it is not clear, because it does not quite fall within the remit of these regulations, it raises another issue altogether. We want to make sure that the various organisations that exist now and which are responsible for making things happen are doing the job that they should be doing. If they are not, who then holds them to account? I think it would be the new environment body, but I worry that if we are not careful, we will have so many different bodies, and at the end of the day, who will be in control of saying yes or no? It should be the Government of the day, but the Government of the day have passed some of these responsibilities on to well-established bodies. Clearly, however, in this case the job is not being done, which is causing immense angst for those who are in business there. Without having those sorts of issues settled on what they can and cannot abstract, in future their businesses will be very much in jeopardy.

[Lord Teverson (LD)]

My Lords, I strongly endorse the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Deben. We had real issues about water quality in the south-west, where I live, before we had the various framework directives, particularly the bathing water directive. Through the action of the European Union and a pressure group called Surfers Against Sewage, we now have fantastic beaches in the south-west.

I intervene because I want to personally thank the noble Lord, Lord Deben. Privatisation of the water industry meant that those improvements could be afforded, which meant that water bills in the south-west, and Cornwall in particular, went up by a huge amount. As a result, I was elected as an MEP for Cornwall, Scilly and Plymouth in 1994. I was one of the first two Liberal Democrats ever to be elected to the European Parliament, so I again thank the noble Lord. Perhaps that was not meant to be the result of that policy decision, but we still have excellent beaches in the south-west, and I encourage everyone to visit them, enjoy them and celebrate the European directive that meant that we could enjoy bathing in the clean waters of the Atlantic in the south-west.

European Union (Definition of Treaties) (Work in Fishing Convention) Order 2018

Debate between Baroness Byford and Lord Teverson

Tuesday 27th March 2018 Grand Committee

[Lord Teverson (LD)]

My Lords, I declare an interest as a board member of the Marine Management Organisation.

I thank the Minister for her explanation but I still do not get how we will use this legislation. This specifically is not EU legislation. The fact that this process might have been used before should not act as a precedent for repeating something that is wrong. None of the areas covered by this—minimum age and some on the medical side—are exclusively EU competencies. There is a number of EU competencies which are exclusive under the common fisheries policy, but these are not them. This is the wrong instrument with which to effect these measures and I will be interested to hear the Minister’s comments.

As this has an EU context, I am particularly interested in whether all 28 EU member states are signatories to the convention and whether there has been a pan-European signing-up to it.

I welcome the convention. The Minister made the valid point that the order applies to foreign vessels that might come into UK ports and enables us to enforce this. The vast majority of vessels will be from either EEA or EU member states and I would be surprised if they were not meeting the terms of the convention. However, it is an excellent backstop.

It is interesting that the Minister used exclusively the term fishermen whereas the convention refers to fishers. Certainly in North America, “fishers” is the English word that is always used in this context. Will the Government in future always use the term fishers rather than fishermen when they refer to this industry and its participants? Fisherman is an ancient term, it is gender-specific and inappropriate to this industry in the 21st century. I do not accuse the Minister of being inappropriate while she was making her explanation because that has been the way in which we do it in this country, but it is time for change.

[Baroness Byford (Con)]

My Lords, perhaps I might raise a query. I thank the Minister for introducing the convention order. My query is on the medical aspect that was picked up. Paragraph 4.2 of the Explanatory Memorandum refers to ILO 188 and “medical care”, but paragraph 4.5 refers to “shared competence”. It then goes on to describe,

“medical treatment on board vessels”.

Obviously the vessels will vary in size. Can we be given any clarification on what is expected in the difference between medical care and medical treatment on board vessels?

Renewables Obligation Closure Etc. (Amendment) Order 2016

Debate between Baroness Byford and Lord Teverson

Wednesday 16th March 2016 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Byford (Con)]

My Lords, I shall comment on some of the points made by the previous speaker. This Government are certainly behind renewables of all sorts for the future. I hope the noble Baroness accepts that we are working towards the benefits of a low-carbon economy and—she did not refer to this in her contribution—that the costs of producing solar energy have come down. Therefore, one of my questions to her is: if those costs have gone down, is it really right that we should maintain the subsidies envisaged when the costs were higher and, if so, what implications does that have for the people who have to pay for them—that is, the consumers? Does she also accept that, as the Minister said in his opening comments, we ran the risk of exceeding the budgets that were originally planned because of the wonderful response we had and that up to four times more could well be envisaged by the end of that time?

For me, it is a matter of looking at projects as they come up, be they in green energy or any other energy. As far as I am concerned, subsidies have always been there to pump-prime—to help new industries take off and become established. In this industry, that has clearly worked very well, and solar is a huge success. I have one or two very small solar panels on my garage, which do not bring in a big income, but we try to do our bit because we believe in renewable green energy, so we have them.

By considering the grace period, the Government have responded. When we debated this before, a question was raised about it. However, I find this quite hard and I say to the noble Baroness in all sincerity: when the industry has become successful and those costs have come down so much, the question must be whether those subsidies should be continuously maintained when the response we have had suggests that they might not be. Therefore, is it right to expect the consumer still to be paying for that project? The Government recorded that £52 billion has been spent on the renewables sector since 2010. That is a huge amount, as the noble Baroness knows from when she was in coalition. However, unless things are tackled, a balance has to be struck. I suspect she and I will not agree on how that should be done. It is a realistic challenge that any Government must face. At the moment, we are in government, and the costs and the response from the industry have done really well. The question is whether the order before us tonight is fair and appropriate. On that, I think the noble Baroness and I will agree to disagree.

[Lord Teverson (LD)]

My Lords, I will be extremely brief. Perhaps I may reply to the noble Baroness, Lady Byford—whose expertise in all these areas I admire greatly —as well as comment on one of the Minister’s remarks.

First, these Benches absolutely want to reduce renewable tariffs and subsidies as the costs come down. That is a fundamental point. We have a track record of doing that, and that is what we do. However, we are not into executing a particular technology. The way that this has worked is that the Government—interestingly, a Conservative Government—have been moving down the road of choosing technologies. The whole strategy of the energy market reform was to move gradually to a more market-based, less technology-specific situation as time went on—but we are doing the opposite.

We absolutely agree on the levy control framework and lowering costs to the consumer, but what have the Government decided to do? They have decided to invest in the two most expensive low-carbon technologies, offshore wind and nuclear, both of which are hugely more expensive than onshore wind and solar, the technologies that cost the least. So I say to both the Minister and the noble Baroness that if that is what the Government want, they need to change the strategy. They can achieve another strategy at the same time as meeting the carbon emissions target and lowering costs to consumers. That is the way it works—it is arithmetic. So, please, let us go for that.

I return very briefly to the issue of investor confidence. As noble Lords will know, the Select Committee on Energy and Climate Change in the other place recently looked at investor confidence in the energy sector. I hate round numbers, because one often does not believe them, but DECC itself estimates that we need some £100 billion of investment up to 2020, not just in generation but in the distribution system as well. As my noble friend said, to achieve that we need real investor confidence. What was the Select Committee’s conclusion? It said:

“It is clear that the confidence of many investors has been dented by the Government’s actions since the election. The sudden, unexpected nature of many of the announcements has unsettled investors who had been used to receiving more forewarning of policy changes. There is a high risk that a hiatus in new developments has been created, pending further clarity on short- and longer-term policy. The Government removed support for renewables due to concerns about costs for consumers. But they have not set out the evidence base for this conclusion or for other decisions, and engagement with the investment community has been poor”.

That is an all-party conclusion in a report on the Government’s action in this area, and the conclusion is to condemn it. The need for investment is huge. We need to make sure that investment is right and that subsidies are low—and we are absolutely for reducing subsidies—but it has led to a hiatus. We no longer have carbon capture and storage or appear to have nuclear, and as far as I can see we do not have a workable strategy to bring in gas—so we have a huge energy problem. We need those investors but we have thrown away their confidence, and through the decisions we have made on renewable energy, by picking expensive winners, we have ensured higher energy costs for the future.

Electricity Capacity (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2015

Debate between Baroness Byford and Lord Teverson

Tuesday 24th November 2015 Grand Committee

[Lord Teverson (LD)]

My Lords, it is the first time that I have spoken in any meeting of the House since the Secretary of State announced that coal was going to come to an end within 10 years, and I congratulate the Government and the Secretary of State on that announcement, which is a major step forward. I disagree with a great deal of government energy and climate change policy but that is an excellent move forward, and I would like the Minister to note that and pass it on.

I have a couple of questions about the capacity market, although I have no issues with this statutory instrument. Will the Minister update us on interconnectors and the capacity market? There have been plans to bring on demand reduction aggregators but in the short term rather than the long term. I would like to think that we can bring on institutionalised demand reduction and aggregation much more than we have done in the past, something which is very much in the Government’s interests. On the reduction of fossil fuels, I recall that quite a number of the successful tenderers for capacity payments were coal generators. Do the Government have any plans to exclude them as we move forward to auctions?

We are now down to a very low level of margin, yet the National Grid and the Government seem fairly relaxed. Does that mean that a 20% margin in the past has been a waste of expensive resource that was not needed and that we should have been managing on much smaller margins? I should be interested to hear the Minister’s response on those issues.

[Baroness Byford (Con)]

I should like to make two observations. The Minister has said that the vast majority accept the proposals, so which respondents did not? I have no difficulty with the proposed change from five working days to 15, but there has been a suggestion in the public domain that electricity supplies could be fairly fragile in the coming months, particularly if we have very cold weather. How has that been built into the system? I am glad that feasibility studies were done and were accepted, but what is the comfortable margin of security of supply in the months ahead? Those are my questions: who did not support these proposals, and what do the Government consider a comfortable margin of security supply?