Agriculture Bill

Lord Grantchester Excerpts

2nd reading & 2nd reading (Hansard) & 2nd reading (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 10th June 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Grantchester (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for his introduction to the Bill. I declare my interests in having a career from dairy farming, through processing and manufacturing to retailing, as well as serving on a public-private partnership.

Agriculture has been subject to many crises and constant change, albeit incremental, shaping and responding to each reform package as a member state in the EU. With all areas being repatriated, the House rightly recognises that the Bill creates a rare opportunity to make a clear strategic leap into new but familiar territory by designing new support systems to underpin sustainable agriculture.

I congratulate the Government on this second, revised version of the Bill after the one originally proposed. The first Bill was roundly criticised for being a misnomer of a Bill. Although it was called an Agriculture Bill, it did not include much agriculture and provided only a delivery mechanism for environmental payments. That would have been a tremendous lost opportunity. This improved Bill provides better balance. It recognises the importance of food production in ongoing reforms, balanced with the need to refocus on environmental sustainability. With all trading blocs around the world supporting their agriculture, Labour recognises that the UK’s departure from the common agricultural policy creates a unique opportunity to change the way that the UK supports its domestic farms and food producers, and welcomes the environmental focus underlying aspects of the new policy. We will work across parties to ensure that the final version of the Bill strikes the right balance between production and environmental protection. Labour endorses the concept of public money for public goods.

The Government set out their changed priorities in two important policy documents in February this year: Farming for the Future, and Environmental Land Management. My first question to the Minister is: having written these before the arrival of the coronavirus pandemic, do they wish to amend their approach in the light of its experience? My second question seems to follow: is food a public good? These two documents do not explicitly recognise that it is, yet with the experience of severe disruption in supply chains, access challenges to food banks and challenges to safeguarding vulnerable and shielded persons, debate may well move in the future towards recognising food as a fundamental right, with its provision in some aspects becoming a public service.

The additions in the Bill now include provisions on safeguards on the support of domestic food production by focusing on soil protection, investments in technology and equipment, improving environmental sustainability, and innovation through future research and development; while reducing carbon emissions. Additionally, the Government have recognised the importance of food security by commissioning Henry Dimbleby to lead an independent review into the UK’s food system. It could be argued this review should have appeared before the Bill to provide a back-cloth to the Bill’s provisions. This review, with recommendations for a national food strategy, must not be delayed.

Does the Minister also recognise the importance of the UK’s self-sufficiency? His department has been reluctant to do so in the past, such that the UK’s self-sufficiency in food has declined to 53%. We welcome the Bill’s provision that the Government must report on food security, but call on the Government to recognise that, in relying on imported food, it is exporting decision-making on food policy to overseas countries with differing priorities. This may not be consistent with the Bill’s focus on the environment.

We also welcome the importance of providing a better balance of economic returns to agriculture through transparent and fair markets. The coronavirus disruption to supply chains once again has exposed poor behaviour, especially in the food service sector, where enterprise risk was pushed down on to the primary producer. While recognising the benefits that have come through the retail market with the work of the Groceries Code Adjudicator, how and through what mechanisms will the statutory code of practice for contracts, outlined in the Bill, be enforced in this food service sector?

Competition law needs to be re-examined in light of the pandemic experience. How will the obligation to establish fair dealing be brought forward? Bearing in mind the Groceries Code was the responsibility of the Department for Business, can the Minister say which department will take overall responsibility for business practice enforcement to make it effective?

The key feature of the Bill is to replace direct payments with environmental land management, characterised as providing public support for public goods. While we welcome these provisions, the policy document and the Bill are both scanty on the final details of what ELM will look like. I know these provisions will form the basis of many questions for other speakers. Everyone will praise the intentions of the Government. Environmental degradation is abhorrent. But there are many concerns regarding baseline standards without meaningful enforcement through cross-compliance for basic environmental conditions to receive payment and how this can be replaced with meaningful incentives to enhance the countryside if the food producer does not want to enter into any scheme.

Direct payments have provided a large element of financial support to a lot of farmers, especially in the uplands. The first change to agricultural experience in the transition is a cut next year to its funding, with few alternative schemes being ready. If agriculture is to be encouraged to take up environmental improvements, these schemes must be seen to pay, with schemes recognising opportunity costs of value rather than being based on income forgone. The Government must learn from having already experienced a huge shortfall in the expected take-up of environmental stewardship schemes recently.

Aspects regarding climate change mitigation must also be a fundamental priority. I welcome such projects as the carbon credit schemes on woodlands and warn against fixed, bureaucratic approaches that fail to recognise local farming conditions.

The improved balance of the Bill will nevertheless be a severe challenge to achieve. The Bill omits, and needs, a vital third element and focus to provide better stability. This key element would be provided by the introduction of food standards into the Bill. For agriculture to thrive, for the countryside to be enhanced, food standards must underpin the provisions in the Bill and be maintained. I want to make it clear that dealing with the issue of standards is one of our top priorities. Domestic standards of production are a clear commitment and all imported produce must comply with food, environmental and animal welfare standards that domestic production has to adhere to. This has been the key concern of every submission, letter and email I have received on the Bill. I thank everyone and all the organisations who have sent me their thoughts.

The joint letter issued recently from the Secretaries of State of Defra and DIT still does not recognise the strength of feeling that a clear majority of the public want the certainty of the law to put this commitment beyond dispute, prevarication and back-tracking. Labour will look to support this commitment by writing amendments also into the Trade Bill. We will be tabling an amendment on the matter, and I expect to see several others tabled at Committee. We wish to work with all voices around the House who share this concern, to find the correct formulation to write this into law, be that through a food and trade standards commission to adjudicate on equivalence of standards or through other statutory provisions.

The Bill has been recognised as a framework Bill that is scantily dressed in detail. Your Lordships’ Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, in its 13th report of the Session, outlines the major transfer of powers from the EU to Ministers, bypassing Parliament and devolved legislatures. The skeletal framework of the Bill gives extensive powers for future regulatory changes without clear detail and with correspondingly few duties. Yet the Government acknowledge that the new agricultural support system will take time to develop. We will wish to draw out in Committee as much detail as possible on relevant principles, policies and criteria underpinning ministerial decision-making that will eventually arrive through statutory instruments. As your Lordships know, statutory instruments are not generally subject to amendment.

There are so many aspects of the Bill that time precludes me from discussing. This is a significant piece of legislation, and it is disappointing that speakers are under such time constraints. The three key tests of the Bill are that: first, it must secure a safe and traceable supply of nutritious food; secondly, it must ensure ELM schemes are effective, supporting jobs, investment and research for a sustainable environment and planet; and, thirdly, it must insist on high standards, clear equivalence and a level playing field to enhance the health of the nation.

Direct Payments to Farmers (Crop Diversification Derogation) (England) Regulations 2020

Lord Grantchester Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd June 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Grantchester (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for his introduction to the instrument. I declare my interest as a farmer in receipt of BPS payments. He gave an excellent explanation of the legislative framework behind the instrument and the effects of the wet weather over the 2019 winter and this year’s spring on good husbandry practices, making it uneconomic at best, if not impossible, to comply with crop diversification requirements.

The instrument has led to a wide-ranging debate. I am grateful to all the speakers who have contributed with many questions for the Minister to answer. I approve of the instrument and I thank him for initiating a meeting with his department’s officials last week. I understand the exhaustive legislative requirements involved in the delay to introducing the instrument. As the Explanatory Memorandum says, this derogation is applicable to only this one year, 2020.

The three-crop rule was introduced to widespread dismay in the agricultural industry as bureaucratic, market-distorting, and reducing production efficiencies, without enhancing positive advantages of crop rotations that would happen anyway as part of good agricultural practice without encouraging monoculture. At the time of its introduction, the Government claimed that they were also against this requirement but had to comply as a member state of the EU. These payments to farmers will be replaced in the Agriculture Bill, which is due its Second Reading in the House next week. Bearing in mind that the transition phase involved is to 2028, could this derogation be made multiannual through an amendment to the Direct Payments to Farmers (Legislative Continuity) Act 2020 to dispense with the requirement to be contingent on specific problems in an emergency, and could more positive arrangements be brought forward? Would it be possible for the Government to amend the rolled-over EU regulations 1305, 1306 and 1307? Will they commit to dropping the three-crop rule in all eventualities?

While I have not been specifically affected by flooding, nevertheless it was extensive and the Severn catchment area was only 30 miles away. All soil structures were at risk in cultivations, as there was no continual five-day dry period between September and March. The farming industry is grateful to the Government for introducing the farming recovery fund, the application of which was broadened to all affected areas. With the continuing unpredictability of extreme weather patterns from climate change, will the Minister examine further investments in better geographically focused metrological forecasting, as well as flood defences?

I return to the iteration of policy in the remaining years of the continuity payments. Have the Government given any consideration to the request to delay the introduction of the transition provisions necessary for payment reductions due to begin in 2021? Bearing in mind the disruption from the weather, followed by the disruption to the food chain and labour supply issues in the coronavirus crisis, and the fact that cropping decisions and farm budgets will largely be set in autumn 2020, have the Government robust reasons why they must cut farming payments immediately for 2021? Given their commitment to a £3 billion annual payment to agriculture in the Direct Payments to Farmers (Legislative Continuity) Act 2020, what will the Government transfer the savings towards? No payments under the new environment land management schemes will be accessible. Once the ELMS are operating, the phasing out of continuity payments is understandable. What will happen in the meantime to the money saved? The Government must have regard to maintaining sustainable food production.

The instrument is applicable to England only. While I am sure that there have been extensive discussions with the devolved Administrations, as the Minister said in his introduction, can he update the House on this derogation in the other areas of the UK? Will the policy derogation be operable equally throughout the UK by 15 June 2020—the delayed date for submission of applications this year?

This measure has widespread support throughout the agricultural industry and its representatives. While there are many other questions to be asked, these could be more pertinent to the forthcoming debate on the Agriculture Bill next week. Nevertheless, I would be grateful if the Minister would reply as fully as possible to all the queries raised in the debate.

Food Supply and Security

Lord Grantchester Excerpts

Thursday 14th May 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Grantchester (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, for introducing this debate and I declare my interest as someone running a dairy farm business which includes a farmers’ co-operative and a farm shop. Ever since food from our own resources, the answer has not resulted in more self-sufficiency or a greater food supply being needed. Can this pandemic be different and the food supply be re-engineered? While recognising the huge inequalities that have resulted in more food banks, the supply resilience of food has not been a problem in our rich western democracy. However, we must not overlook the increasing problems of food poverty in modern Britain. Shorter local food chains are needed.

The pandemic led to an immediate shutdown of the food service sector. Some 50% of food is consumed outside the home, and the supply chains of supermarkets and the retail sector displayed great resilience after the initial disruption of the switch. Online demand and supply increased rapidly, but underlying food issues remain. In the short term, the Groceries Supply Code of Practice and the adjudicator have embedded food supply governance in the reputational risk management of the retail supply chain. As in health, where the contrast has been between the NHS and the care sector, retail contrasts with the multifaceted disparities in food service, where bad behaviour has pushed supply chain risk down into the farming sector. How will food chain service behaviour be made to respond, become Covid 19 -compliant and adapt to social distancing?

The overriding answer lies in food nutrition. The health of a nation is determined by the quality of the food it eats; the answer does not lie in even more poor-quality food becoming ever cheaper. Nor is it to do with exports. The emphasis must be on increasing food quality standards, as displayed yesterday in Labour’s amendment to the Agriculture Bill. Can people become obese through eating only highly nutritious food? Where is the Government’s food policy document? Another problem relates to competition law. If this law has had to be put aside during this crisis, is it really fit for purpose?

Fisheries Bill [HL]

Lord Grantchester Excerpts

Committee stage & Committee: 4th sitting (Hansard) & Committee: 4th sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 11th March 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Teverson]

I shall speak also to Amendment 119. When I looked through the list of items that the Marine Management Organisation should be able to charge for, I was surprised that it did not include fishing vessel licensing. It is like saying that people do not have to pay road fund licence tax for their cars, which I am sure we would all like individually but would not be a good idea for the environment. In this case, for incumbents, we are not even charging for quota, or whatever, and yet vessel licensing is an important activity. I just do not understand why that is not in the list. The majority of the fishing industry can well afford to pay the administrative cost of licensing. All sorts of Treasury rules limit how much public charging can take place to ensure that it is reasonable. I know that variation of licences can take a lot of the regulator’s time, so I do not understand why it is not included. It should be. I shall be interested to hear from the Minister.

My other amendment states that the Marine Management Organisation should not be dependent on public funding. A huge number of regulators in this country do not receive any public finance. Two years ago, I asked a Question about that and the Government kindly sent me a list of 25 regulators in the UK that require no public funding because they charge the industry for regulating it. I will not read them all out, but it goes from the Animals in Science Regulation Unit, which I must admit I had not heard of, to much more important organisations, such as the Land Registry, the Office for Nuclear Regulation, the Office of Rail and Road, Ofwat and the Oil and Gas Authority. In financial services, there is the PRA and the Financial Conduct Authority. There is Ofgem in energy. There is the Civil Aviation Authority. All those organisations just say, “We provide an important public good, the regulation of an industry, and we expect the industry to pay for doing it.”.

I do not understand why we as taxpayers should have to pay subsidy for the industries that the MMO regulates, from offshore wind through to fisheries, all of which are extremely profitable. Why do the Conservative Government not expect the taxpayer to be relieved of that burden? That is obvious to me. That is why I have tabled the amendment. The Marine Management Organisation should fend for itself. It should be able to set sensible charges, as any other UK regulator does. I should be very interested to hear from the Minister why taxpayers should subsidise those extremely profitable industries, which include, as I said, offshore wind, marinas and most of the fishing industry. I beg to move.

[Lord Grantchester (Lab)]

I rise to speak to Amendment 118 in my name, which is a probing amendment and seeks to upgrade the regulations on this matter from negative to affirmative. While the Bill’s negative procedure has not been commented on by your Lordships’ Delegated Powers Committee or Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, and may seem technical, it involves money.

Under Clause 34(5), the MMO has considerable discretion. The initial charging structure becomes important as the UK sets up the fisheries framework outside the CFP. Some questions arise, to which it will be important to have answers. Will the MMO undertake this charging function on the basis of full cost recovery? That lies behind the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Teverson. Schedule 7 replicates that clause in relation to Scotland on page 74, Wales on page 75 and Northern Ireland on page 76. Is it expected that all the Administrations will set up identical charging structures to avoid any competitive imbalances?

I acknowledge that the MMO is an existing body with an excellent track record; its relationships with stakeholders are usually very positive and productive. However, if this legislation established a new public body, your Lordships’ House and the other place would have a strong interest in the exercise of this power and the procedure attached to it. When the Minister replies, I would be grateful if he could give as much detail as possible on the level of charges, the frequency of any changes envisaged and the relevant percentage of cost recovery that any sector of the industry will be required to cover.

This last point is of particular interest, as I have noted, and covered by Amendment 119 in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell. I am curious about the noble Lord’s use of “appropriate” in proposed new paragraph (b) in relation to his subsequent use of “must” in proposed new paragraph (c), in that there may be some implicit contradictions in the amendment. I ask the noble Lord: does the maximising of charges on the 10 metre-plus fleet mean that it could pay more pro rata and therefore be seen, in some way, as partly subsiding the under 10-metre fleet? This amendment also seems to mandate the MMO to make full cost recovery across all its responsibilities. I await the Minister’s reply.

[Lord Berkeley (Lab)]

My Lords, I support the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, relating to the charging, or not, of the MMO’s services. He is absolutely right that in most other industries the regulators are funded by the industry.

I had cause to write to the MMO because a neighbour of mine in Cornwall had a problem with it over a small planning issue. I do not want to get into the rights and wrongs of it except to say that the general reaction of the neighbour and others was that the service was incredibly slow. In fact, it took a whole year for them to get an answer on whether they needed to apply for a licence. I suspect that this had a lot to do with the fact that the MMO was probably subject to government financial cuts and was not allowed enough people. I am sure that it is very good at what it does, technically and commercially, but it did not have enough people to answer on this small issue.

Looking at all the regulated industries mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, some of which I know about and some of which I do not, whatever one thinks of their decisions, they usually operate in a timely and professional manner. If they do not, we can still raise issues in your Lordships’ House. At least it is not an issue that they do not have enough money to employ the right people. I would be very interested to hear from the Minister why this sector gets all the regulation for nothing while in virtually every other sector, the people who are regulated have to pay.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Randall of Uxbridge (Con)]

My Lords, I support the noble Baroness in her amendment; she spoke very eloquently about the need for it. Having been in the other place for some considerable time, I know that it is always easier to change legislation when it is in the draft form. I have found that Governments of all colours are more loath to change once they have laid the actual regulations. Some of these are of sufficient importance that interested parties, including Parliament, should have a good look at anything being brought forward. That is the way forward and it will allow us to improve not just regulations. I am very keen to see this type of amendment in this Bill and others.

[Lord Grantchester]

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Young of Old Scone for moving Amendment 121, which allows the Committee to probe into the consultation process, the input consultation and from where it comes, in relation to the regulation-making process powers in the regulation concerning fisheries and aquaculture, and to the devolved Administrations and the joint fisheries statements.

This proposed amendment to Clause 41 widens the consultation process to include Parliament in a quasi super-affirmative, as well as wider industry bodies under proposed subsection (1A)(d). The drafting of subsection (2) makes the resolution affirmative—that is, with the express approval of Parliament—in certain fundamental aspects only. Yet this does not include the wider industry. Can the Minister confirm whether the affirmative procedure necessitates a wider industry consultation in this respect only?

As my noble friend has said, this wider consultation allows for ideas and concerns to be fed into the system and duly considered before a final instrument is laid. I am also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Randall, for his remarks. The Committee, over the past three sessions, has expressed disappointment at the lack of ambition in the Bill: it does not take UK fisheries much further than replicating the CFP. It is vital that forthcoming regulations have the full scrutiny that this wider consultation would demand.

Should the Minister consider that there are adequate opportunities for scrutiny and consultation in this clause—and the Bill in general—I hope she will provide additional assurances by specifying how this would work.

[Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone; I understand her desire to support better scrutiny of secondary legislation.

Amendment 121 would add a new enhanced parliamentary procedure for regulations made under Clauses 36 and 38. Under this amendment,

“The Secretary of State must … have regard to any representations”


made during the consultation period, and respond to any resolutions of either House and any recommendations made by the Select Committee. The powers under Clauses 36 and 38 will, among other things, allow us to continue to meet our international obligations as members of the regional fisheries management organisations, make amendments to technical requirements in retained CFP measures and keep our aquatic animal health regulations up to date.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Teverson]

My Lords, one of the central themes of Brexit was escaping the common fisheries policy. However, a bedrock of that policy is the producer organisations and I do not think that the Bill refers to them anywhere. They are effectively co-operatives in the fishing industry, but they are an essential part of the common market organisation which is the core of the common fisheries policy. They have important powers and abilities, which stem from the fact that they allocate the vast majority of quota—itself a very valuable national resource—among their members.

I am not against producer organisations. There might be better ways of doing this in future, but I do not disagree with the Government ejecting them and finding some other method. What is exceptionally important, given the value of the assets they distribute, is that there is maximum transparency about who owns them, their legal structure, how they make decisions about their constitution, how they distribute their assets and who their members are—all information we want to know when taking about valuable assets that are part of the national resource of fish stocks and quotas.

This is a probing amendment more than anything else, to try to understand the Government’s approach to producer organisations. Will it be just carry on as you are? I believe there is a need for full transparency about how these organisations operate. I will be interested to hear from the Minister how the Government will ensure transparency about this key national asset. I beg to move.

[Lord Grantchester]

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, for tabling Amendment 122 on producer organisations. It is right to say that the more someone learns about the fishing industry, the more they realise they know very little. This is certainly true of a key part of the fisheries industry: the boat fraternity, its ownership, quota and producer organisations. It is far from transparent, which makes for a difficult task when trying to appreciate the consequences and implications of Government policy. This amendment is one way to shed light into this opaque part of the industry. Whether it is the right or best way to bring transparency the Minister can help to determine. If there are other, better ways, perhaps he can bring them to our attention, which would be to the benefit of everyone.

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his amendment. We fully support the move towards greater transparency within the fishing industry, including producer organisations. Our fisheries White Paper recognised that producer organisations have a key role to play in managing our fisheries. This includes managing quota for their members, supporting their members to fish sustainably, matching supply with consumer demand and adding additional value to their catches through effective marketing. All of this is to support our industry to get the best possible price for the fish it catches. In future, as we reform our domestic fisheries management, implementing polices which are tailored to our fisheries, Defra will continue to work with English producer organisations to build upon their strengths. This work will also consider how to improve transparency.

The amendment would require corporate information about members, accounts, constitutions, funding and boards to be published on each producer organisation’s website. It would also require information about quotas and management plans to be published. It is worth noting that much of the corporate information on producer organisations, such as their annual accounts and details of their directors, is already published in public registers such as Companies House and the Mutuals Public Register. On top of this, some producer organisations also choose to publish further information. For instance, the Cornish Fish Producers’ Organisation has a clear, published list of board members and their vessels on its website.

It is important that any requirements to publish additional corporate information add to, rather than duplicate, the information already available. However, I acknowledge that not all producer organisations routinely publish all this information—at least, it is not published on their websites in an easy-to-access location. More could be done here, and we encourage all producer organisations to do so, but we must consider this matter carefully before introducing new statutory requirements. As well as not wanting to duplicate existing requirements, we must also consider whether such information would ordinarily be considered commercially confidential. It is not clear, for example, what exactly would be covered by information on sources of funding and what the impact of requiring disclosure would be.

Information on quotas and management plans is often published already, or at least is available to producer organisation members and the MMO. For example, the MMO already publishes monthly information on quota statistics. From this, it is possible to see the quotas held by each producer organisation and how they vary throughout each year. Earlier I gave the example of the Cornish Fish Producers’ Organisation—this is for the benefit of the noble Lord and my noble friend Lady Wilcox, who is not in her place. It also publishes a monthly bulletin setting out the catch limits that apply to its quota pool, and other producer organisations also publish such information.

Producer organisations are also already required to submit production and marketing plans to the MMO. They require information about landings, turnover, volume of catches, marketing strategy and ways in which they will pursue their sustainability objectives. They also include a financial plan, which includes costs, expenditures and expected financial resources for each measure to be implemented within the plan. Progress against these plans is laid out within an annual report, which includes the expenditure associated with implementing the plans.

Again, I acknowledge that more could be done to improve transparency on quotas, but that is true of the quota allocation system generally and is not specific to producer organisations. In our debates so far on the Bill, we have discussed the complexity of the quota allocation system and how it makes it hard for lay persons to understand. We have undertaken work in the past to improve this—for example, through the introduction of the FQA register in 2013, which enables anyone to see who holds fixed quota allocation units. We aim to continue this work and to make the system easier to understand in the future. The Bill supports this aim by providing greater transparency through the Secretary of State’s determination of UK fishing opportunities, which will be laid before Parliament.

We have also said that we will continue to work with producer organisations, as well as other parts of industry and other stakeholders, to develop a new approach to allocating the additional quota that we expect to secure now that we have left the EU. As part of this, we will consider how to make quota management simpler and, importantly, more transparent.

There are also some practical issues relating to this amendment to draw to the attention of your Lordships. For example, the quota position of producer organisations will change during the year as a result of quota swaps carried out between them. It could therefore be administratively burdensome to have to produce an up-to-date record to comply with the provision as proposed here, especially if this is already published, albeit in a slightly different form, by the MMO. It is also unclear how this provision would be enforced in a practical sense and which body would have responsibility for doing so. It would not appear to form part of the existing compliance regime for producer organisations.

Therefore, I say to the noble Lord, in particular, that work is ongoing to explore the role of producer organisations in England and to move towards greater transparency within the fishing industry. In reviewing the functions and duties of producer organisations in the future, we will commit to consider specifically the need to improve transparency. We also recognise the need to improve the transparency of the quota system more generally. While this work is ongoing, we do not feel that it would be appropriate, or indeed probably wise, to include on in the Bill greater regulation for producer organisations.

I have a note from the Box to clarify for the noble Lord that producer organisations are mentioned in the Bill as a purpose for which regulations can be made. They appear in Clause 36(4)(m),

“the functions, objectives or regulation of producer organisations”.

I hope that that is helpful.

To clarify the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, about the allocation of quota, producer organisations have a number of functions including marketing and planning provisions. They do not allocate quota but manage their members’ quota. I say that from my knowledge; I am sure that the noble Lord is well aware of it.

Should we believe that legislation or legislative changes are required, then indeed Clause 36 would give the Government the powers to do so. We would, of course, consult stakeholders on the exercise of those powers as required by Clause 41. I fully appreciate that the noble Lord said that this was a probing amendment. I hope it is helpful to say again that this is a work in progress. The absolute guts of what the noble Lord said relate to work on which we are embarking. I hope that, with that explanation, the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

Fisheries Bill [HL]

Lord Grantchester Excerpts

Committee stage & Committee: 3rd sitting (Hansard - continued) & Committee: 3rd sitting (Hansard - continued): House of Lords
Monday 9th March 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Teverson (LD)]

My Lords, I also support Amendment 82 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester. Before I start, I will go back to the previous group of amendments and say how much I welcome the Minister’s statement on IUU fishing. This is absolutely fundamental to the wider global issues around sustainability of fish stocks, which are under great pressure. Unfortunately, a great deal of illegal fishing still goes on. The UK’s work in this area in the past has been really important. In many ways we have led the EU; let us remember the common fisheries policy. I am glad to hear reaffirmation of that today.

I move on to what I hope is a very easy amendment. It seems important that any foreign vessels allowed to fish in UK waters or our economic zone should have to comply at least with the same technical regulations as our own vessels. I have put that in as an amendment; I assume the Minister will stand up and say, “It’s already happening” or “We’re going to make sure it is”. I certainly hope that is the case with the excellent amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, about employment practices and safety standards. Obviously, we are all very aware of the safety issues on fishing vessels—on all vessels, indeed, but particularly in fishing, which is one of the most dangerous activities. I look for confirmation on both of those. I beg to move.

[Lord Grantchester (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, for tabling Amendment 81, and rise to speak to my Amendment 82, which is on the same matter. I hope that is helpful.

The noble Lord’s amendment requires foreign fishing vessels in British waters to comply with the same standards as British vessels. My amendment is very similar, making it clear that as the UK will be granting licences, the licensing authorities in the UK must make sure that all fishing boats, including foreign vessels, comply to UK standards on safety and employment practices.

Equal standards, the level playing field and equivalence have bedevilled all regulations between the UK, the EU and soon others, through all trade negotiations, not least with the USA. In fisheries, as in agriculture, there is clear interest that fair and equal competitive standards must be adhered to across the board. The Committee has recognised the tough and dangerous working conditions in which all UK fishers work; the whole of the UK would want these to be as safe as possible. It is equally important that employment standards and regulations in the UK must not be undermined by any lesser standards that may pertain overseas.

In conversations, officials in the Minister’s department have indicated that the technical side of this issue is dealt with in the Bill. Could the Minister specify its location? I am not sure whether employment law and practices are dealt with specifically, although the Minister may reply they are included in licence conditions. These amendments make sure they are, and that compliance is mandatory for both UK and foreign boats.

Election promises on standards must be upheld in legislation, not merely stating that we are leaving the EU on 31 January and that our future relationship must be decided by 31 December. These standards also need to be put in specific legislation.

[Lord Cameron of Dillington (CB)]

My Lords, I add my support for Amendment 81 on the equitable treatment of British and foreign-licensed boats. I would have added my support to the previous group of amendments on remote electronic monitoring, but the mood of the House was not for another person to stand up and agree. But I will do so now.

We will be in close negotiations with the European Union, and—we have been looking into this on our Select Committee—equitable treatment of our boats and foreign boats will be an important part of those negotiations. The point that this might involve the enforced application of REM can be made to the European Union. As I said in the debate on discards a week or so ago, the prevention of discards is European Union law. It is its policy; the EU passed it, not the British. So it cannot, in all equity, claim that having cameras is an ask too far, because it is its law we are trying to enforce.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Grantchester]

88: Clause 19, page 13, line 35, at end insert “not exceeding £50,000”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment replicates the level of fine in Scotland and Northern Ireland for England and Wales, in order to probe the maximum amount under Clause 19(1)(a).

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Grantchester]

My Lords, I shall move Amendment 88 and speak to Amendment 89. These are the subject of this group. Clause 19 provides for penalties to be imposed for offences under various other clauses. I am using these amendments to probe the sentencing regime in relation to offences and the relevant merits and parity between the UK Administrations.

Clause 19(1) deals with having a licence and licence conditions, as well as the part of Schedule 3 concerning complying with information. It specifies that, on conviction, the penalty will be a fine in England and Wales. The amount is not specified. In Scotland and Northern Ireland, information penalties can be up to the statutory maximum but do not exceed £50,000 for any other cases.

It may be that this is a little confusing—merely a fine being given in England and Wales and that fine being a maximum of £50,000 or, in Scotland or Northern Ireland, the statutory maximum for information breaches. Can the Minister explain these discrepancies across the Administrations? It may be that each have their own powers that they wish to defend certain aspects of, or it may signify that there are certain fundamental differences in approaches between the Administrations in their penalty schedules. Can the Minister also explain why fundamental licence breaches receive only a fine rather than any other sanction? I beg to move.

[Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist]

My Lords, this amendment had me a little puzzled. I wondered whether the noble Lord had, like me, been a magistrate prior to 2012, when the law changed in England. That is at the root of the differences.

Amendment 88 would bring fines in England and Wales for offences committed under Clauses 12(3), 14(6) or 16(6) or paragraphs 1(4), 3(2) or 3(3) of Schedule 3 in line with those in Scotland and Northern Ireland. It would similarly limit fines on conviction on indictment to the same amount through Amendment 89.

In England and Wales, the fines for offences align with the provisions of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012. Section 85 of that Act removed the statutory maximum fine on summary conviction and replaced it with a fine of any amount. This gave magistrates, who impose the vast majority of fines, greater flexibility to identify the most effective and proportionate punishment appropriate to the offences and offenders before them. These are not custodial offences in other areas of fisheries legislation, so this is the only penalty that can be imposed. The approach that we have taken on penalties in the Fisheries Bill is consistent with Section 85 of the 2012 Act and other existing fisheries legislation, and ensures a consistent and coherent sentencing framework in England and Wales. The reason for the difference in Northern Ireland and Scotland is that they are separate jurisdictions and the changes made by the 2012 Act applied only to England and Wales.

The reason no limit is placed on fines for conviction on indictment in the Bill, as Amendment 89 probes, is that the enforcement provisions mirror those in the Sea Fish (Conservation) Act 1967. The offences under that Act and other fisheries legislation provide that, where someone has committed an offence and been convicted on indictment, the court has the discretion to impose a fine without a limit. Not only is this consistent with the approach taken in other fisheries legislation, it is consistent with the underlying policy that the Crown Court should not be constrained in its ability to set a fine, in order that it may take into account both the seriousness of the offence and the financial circumstances of the offender. Finally, this amendment would change the position in Scotland and Northern Ireland, which would cut across devolved competencies.

With this explanation, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Grantchester]

I am grateful to the Minister for her complete explanation. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 88 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Worthington]

My Lords, I cannot say much more than the noble Baroness has already said, very eloquently. I lend my support to this amendment because it addresses a fundamental question about Clause 23.

In the next group we will discuss some of these issues in relation to Clause 25 in great detail. For now, I fully support the idea that we should be putting these conditions into this agreement. It is similar to my Amendment 103, so I do not want to rehearse it, but I was struck by the noble Baroness’s comments about the fact that we should be managing this stock for future generations and not simply for the short-term economic needs of those who are benefiting from the status quo.

Not to trivialise the debate, but my children are engaged in the marine environment for a number of reasons, not least through watching the wonderful BBC series “Octonauts”. The Octonauts’ phrase is that we should explore, rescue and protect. I hope that the Bill can be transformed into one which enables us to explore the fishing industry with data, rescue those stocks that are in need of respite and their levels to be restored, and protect the socioeconomic conditions of the whole fishing industry, not just a subset.

[Lord Grantchester]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, for tabling Amendment 93, which allows us to return to two previously debated topics: international co-operation and the need to ensure fishing at sustainable levels.

The noble Lord, Lord Teverson, has previously spoken cogently about shared stocks and the interdependency of sustainability across nation states. The Committee has had several assurances from the Minister on both these topics yet concerns remain. Despite many challenges, especially in relation to the UK and the devolved Administrations’ activities, NGOs and stakeholders remain concerned that the legislation before the Committee does not truly give effect to the Conservative Party’s manifesto commitment to introduce a legal commitment to fish sustainably.

There are negotiations on trade yet to come, where there could be little transparency regarding sustainable outcomes without a commitment to produce annual reports. Instead, we see a commitment subject to caveats of fishing sustainably when circumstances allow and when the UK can strike relevant agreements at international level.

I will not repeat instances from previous Committee debates, but careful consideration must be given to how this framework can add value to the ponderous steps in that direction in the CFP, and brought back on Report. Movement in these areas would give us a level of reassurance that we are heading in the right direction.

However, as it stands, and as Greener UK points out, the objectives on biomass do not go far enough, and in any event are not fully binding. The Bill does not include legal commitments on international co-operation, with the Government falling back on their participation in existing international agreements, even though these are limited in scope.

The Committee can acknowledge that there are areas where the UK will want to diverge from the common fisheries policy. We have all been critical of the CFP for failing to achieve its targets in relation to MSY. Here, I admit to being in the kindergarten stage, having not even reached undergraduate. The fact is that these targets are recognised at international level and the Committee will need to consider how pressure can be brought in this aspect.

If we do not improve the Bill, the UK could be left with a regression in environmental standards resulting from the CFP. We will be left in a situation where the Government say they want to go further than the EU has allowed us to, but where there is no statutory duty to match what came before. This is why those NGOs, and certainly those on these Benches, are so concerned. We cannot let sustainability be left to non-binding policy statements, which can, in a number of cases, be overwritten or overridden. This is no basis for a fully independent fisheries regime; nor will it give the UK any cast-iron basis on which to negotiate with international partners.

The Minister may resist this amendment, but I ask that in the meetings which he has assured the Committee can be undertaken before Report, we might bring forward further improvements that the Government may be willing to sign up to.

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her Amendment 93, which sets out a number of requirements relating to the determination of fishing opportunities by the Secretary of State and fisheries authorities.

Starting with subsection (2A), it is important to be clear that the UK is already required to comply with its international obligations, including those under UNCLOS to co-operate with other coastal states to manage shared stocks sustainably. When it comes to shared stocks, noble Lords can be assured that we will be engaging with the coastal states with which we share those stocks. Furthermore, when carrying out his functions relating to the determination of the UK’s fishing opportunities, the Secretary of State will also be bound by the policies set out in the joint fisheries statement and any Secretary of State fisheries statements, as well as by the fisheries management plans. Repeating these requirements in the way proposed by this amendment is not necessary.

Proposed subsection (2A)(b) seeks to ensure that fishing opportunities for shared stocks resulting from negotiations with coastal states are set on the basis of the maximum sustainable yield for those stocks. The UK remains committed to the principle of the maximum sustainable yield. However, our negotiating partners might not always attach the same degree of priority to realising this goal. In those circumstances, the UK must be able to take this into account and negotiate accordingly or risk parties walking away altogether, with potentially worse outcomes for the sustainability of those stocks.

The noble Baroness is right to raise the challenge of fisheries management with limited scientific evidence. Shared understanding between nations becomes imperative in these situations. That is why the UK is so committed to continued engagement through ICES as well as global objectives such as the UN’s relevant sustainable development goal.

Although we will seek to influence and engage responsibly, it is not appropriate for the United Kingdom to seek to solve problems which may be caused by other countries. Subsections (2C) and (2D) of the amendment would introduce duties requiring the United Kingdom to act unilaterally to set fishing opportunities consistent with MSY, irrespective of the behaviour of other coastal states. This could lead to a number of unacceptable outcomes, such as disadvantaging the United Kingdom in negotiations by imposing stricter responsibilities to achieve MSY than those applying to other coastal states; and, more seriously, risking the creation of a perverse incentive for other coastal states when negotiating with the UK to either set higher TACs, or unilaterally claim larger shares, in the knowledge that under our own legislation we would be legally bound to reduce our own quotas as a consequence.

These possible consequences would not be in the interests of fish stocks, our broader marine ecosystems or, indeed, our fishing communities. I must reiterate that creating an inflexible situation for UK negotiators could result in the United Kingdom having to walk away from negotiations altogether, with unilateral quota-setting as a consequence. Experience has shown that unilateral quota-setting in the absence of an agreement between countries is a recipe for overfishing—something we all wish not to happen.

Fisheries Bill [HL]

Lord Grantchester Excerpts

Committee stage & Committee: 3rd sitting (Hansard) & Committee: 3rd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 9th March 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Teverson (LD)]

My Lords, I shall speak to my own amendments in this group–Amendments 76A and 79. One of the characteristics of this Bill is that we start to talk about recreational fishing, which is an important leisure activity—not one I indulge in myself, but one I would certainly encourage.

However, there is a big difference between someone going out in their own unpowered vessel and the charter recreational sector, which could have a significant impact on local fisheries. In a way, this is a probing amendment to better understand the Government’s view on the recreational side, but there is a strong argument that charter vessels should be licensed. They are quite substantial, have a number of people on board who are fishing recreationally, and they may be targeting certain fisheries which are significant in terms of environment and biodiversity. Although this amendment does not cover it, there might be an argument that, now that Defra has invented the very simple catch app—controversial in certain areas, but I think it is a pretty good idea—we could easily use that for this type of fishing, as that would give extra information about the types of fish that are being caught and landed in the recreational sector.

My second amendment looks at the area of capacity. It has been mentioned by many noble Lords during Second Reading that the British fleet has gone down and down in size. Of course, the prime reason for that is that the efficiency of fishing vessels has increased hugely over recent decades, so you need much fewer vessels due to their power, fishing techniques, electronics, sonar and engine power. All of those features have led to a reduction in the fleet. In the past, we have had to have decommissioning schemes to equate fishing fleet levels with available stocks. They are never the best things to do, but sometimes they are necessary.

I am trying to find out how the Government expect the capacity of the fleet to be managed. I would be interested in the Minister’s comments and he may well be able to reassure me in this area. My amendment says that there should be no additional licences granted if there is already a sufficient capacity for the fishing stocks available for the total allowable catch. We know from history that a mismatch in that area, whatever the rest of the regulations are, is highly negative to sustainability.

[Lord Grantchester (Lab)]

I will speak to Amendments 85 and 87 in my name, tabled for probing purposes. Amendment 85 concerns conditions being imposed on sea fishing licences regarding matters that are not themselves directly related to the regulation of sea fishing. I am sure there will be a number of examples of conditions that it would be both logical and reasonable to impose, and I would be grateful if the Minister could clarify for the record what these include.

Amendment 87 deals with the duty of a sea fish licensing authority to comply or not with a request submitted by another licensing authority. In paragraph 4(3) of Schedule 3, there is an exemption to the statutory duty to comply:

“unless … it is unreasonable to do so.”

This amendment merely seeks clarity from the Minister to highlight the designation between reasonable and unreasonable, as presumably the requesting authority may consider the request entirely reasonable. What steps must a fish licensing authority take when a request is denied, and is that the end of the matter? Would the licensing authority need to justify that denial and, if so, is there a timetable for this, should the requesting authority wish to follow up?

I turn now to other amendments in this group. Amendment 76ZA in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, brings into focus in my mind the interplay between farmed salmon, which is not regulated in this legislation, and the Fisheries Bill. The Norwegian Government believe that farmed salmon escapes are the biggest threat to Norway’s wild salmon population. The Scottish Government are certainly aware of the significant risk to the vital recovery of remaining west coast salmon stocks. Experts estimate that the number of escapes—often laden with disease, especially lice burdens—is around double the number of wild Atlantic salmon that return to their spawning rivers on the west coast of Scotland. During Storm Brendan in January, around 73,000 farmed salmon escaped from the open-net cage near Colonsay. I draw attention to the considerable effect this may have on west coast fisheries.

I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, for his amendments in this group. In Amendment 76A, he poses the question of whether the recreational use of a charter fishing vessel requires a full licence and in what circumstances. Would the planned exemption for recreational activities still stand? The Committee has welcomed the previous positive comments from the Minister about recreational fishing. Indeed, my comments on salmon are apposite. It is an often overlooked yet important part of our fisheries industry, reported to be valued at over £2 billion annually and supporting more than 18,000 jobs. I am grateful to David Mitchell at the Angling Trust for making contact regarding the size of recreational fishing and the economic impact it has. This merits some attention.

Finally, I thank the noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose, for his careful scrutiny of the provisions under Schedule 3, seeking clarity on the balance and pertinence of information required by a licensing authority.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Gardiner of Kimble) (Con)]

My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend Lady McIntosh for her Amendment 76ZA. I understand her interest in querying eels, salmon and migratory trout’s apparent exemption from the licensing regime, as they are all valuable and vulnerable species. However, I think I can provide the reassurances that my noble friend and other noble Lords would expect—that they are licensed and controlled.

Legislation is already in place at the devolved level to manage the licensing or authorisation of fishing for these species. In England and Wales, it is the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Act 1975, as amended by the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009, that already makes provision for the licensing or authorisation of fishing for salmon and eels in England and Wales. Marine Scotland does not “license” fishing in inland waters as is done in England and Wales. Salmon fishing in rivers, estuaries and coastal waters is managed by way of the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries (Consolidation) (Scotland) Act 2003 and, more specifically, the Conservation of Salmon (Scotland) Regulations 2016, as amended annually.

For eels, the Freshwater Fish Conservation (Prohibition on Fishing for Eels) (Scotland) Regulations 2008 prohibit the taking of eel without a licence from Scottish Ministers. In Northern Ireland, the Salmon Drift Net Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2014 and the Salmon Netting Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2014 prohibited the use of any nets to catch and kill salmon and sea trout in tidal waters and inland fisheries. The Eel Fishing Regulations 2010 license only eel fishing activity using long lines and draft nets on Lough Neagh and eel weirs at Toome and Portna. Because of the state of both species, these fisheries are closely managed and heavily restricted in all four Administrations.

Should we need to vary the existing regimes in the future, the Fisheries Bill provides a mechanism for this. Clause 14(3) allows the Secretary of State to “add, remove or vary” the current exceptions by regulation. These regulations would be made based on evidence and following consultation.

I turn to Amendment 76A. According to research published in Defra’s report Sea Angling 2012, recreational fishers fishing from charter boats account for the minority of fishing days and a limited proportion of fish caught recreationally, compared with those fishing from the shore or from private boats. Research from 2015 to 2017, due to be released later this year, shows that the percentage contribution of charter boats to fish caught has remained relatively low over this period.

Measures are already in place across the United Kingdom to protect bass from recreational fishers, including those fishing from charter boats, through daily bag limit restrictions as well as via minimum landing sizes. In England, controls are also imposed through by-laws made by the inshore fisheries conservation authorities.

Taking into account the best available evidence, the Government are of the view that licensing charter boats at this stage, would be disproportionate and not driven by evidence. Instead, officials will focus on working with the recreational sector to drive improved voluntary data collection to support conservation and sustainability and, where necessary, to implement intervention at a species level.

The Fisheries Bill provides the mechanism to implement licensing in the future, should this be deemed necessary. Clause 14(3) allows the Secretary of State to “add, remove or vary” the current exceptions by regulation. This would be done based on evidence and following consultation. I am grateful to the noble Lord for raising this issue, which we wish to keep under review, but I hope my explanation of where we are provides some reassurance, and I emphasise that we take all these matters into account and take them seriously.

The noble Lord’s Amendment 79 seeks to ensure that fleet overcapacity does not threaten the sustainability of fish stocks when granting licences. The common fisheries policy requires member states to take steps to ensure that their fishing fleet capacity does not exceed the fishing opportunities available to them. Each member state is obliged to provide annual reports on the status of its fleets. These reports make clear that the United Kingdom has consistently operated within the capacity ceiling.

The licence system in place in the United Kingdom is designed to ring-fence the UK fleet capacity to the level seen at the creation of the UK licensing regime in the mid-1990s. No new capacity has been created in that time. No new licences have been issued and a new entry to the fleet can take place only when another vessel is removed from it. Any new entrant to the fleet must not be larger than the vessel that was withdrawn. Any vessel owner wishing to fish in UK waters in this scenario must purchase a licence entitlement from an existing registered vessel. The requirement on the UK to limit its fleet will become part of retained EU law. In addition, as we considered last week, the sustainability objective in Clause 1 requires that the fishing capacity of fleets is economically viable but does not overexploit marine stocks.

Fisheries Bill [HL]

Lord Grantchester Excerpts

Committee stage & Committee: 2nd sitting (Hansard - continued) & Committee: 2nd sitting (Hansard - continued): House of Lords
Wednesday 4th March 2020 Lords Chamber

Tabled by

[Lord Grantchester]

60: Clause 7, page 7, line 35, leave out paragraph (a)
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment removes paragraph (a) to probe whether the powers to amend or revoke a fisheries management plan can be used to implement the outcome of negotiations with the EU27.

[Lord Grantchester (Lab)]

If I may detain the House for a quick moment, I thank my noble friend Lady Jones of Whitchurch for pursuing this issue further with the Minister. I refer back to the probing done by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, on how far Ministers in the Department for International Trade will be abiding by the objectives mentioned in the Bill in their negotiations over fisheries trade with the EU. I just make that point, and I look forward to the Minister’s letter in that regard.

Amendment 60 not moved.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)]

My Lords, I support the amendments in this group, which are linked and would bring transparency and accountability to the process, as set out clearly by my noble friend Lord Teverson. As he said, in the absence of devolution in England, setting up an English advisory board would allow consultation on England’s fisheries plans with fisheries stakeholders.

On our first day in Committee, we heard much about the consultation that has taken place with the devolved Administration and the agreements reached with them. Some of your Lordships, including me, felt that English fishermen were being undersold. We heard that the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly agreed with the relevant clauses in the Bill, but we did not hear that the view of English fishermen and women had received quite the same input. Setting up an English advisory board and other advisory boards to oversee fisheries management plans would bring some accountability and transparency into the process and help English fisheries receive parity with their Scottish and Welsh compatriots.

The list of those to be involved would ensure that not only major fishing ports but smaller ports in a region would have a voice in how the fisheries management plans were drawn up and implemented. Although Amendment 65 is long, it is comprehensive and would ensure accountability, devolution and representation for the English fisheries. This is long overdue. I look forward to hearing from the Minister just how this might be achieved.

[Lord Grantchester]

My Lords, one of the puzzles in this Bill is getting to grips with the relative powers of, and interaction between, the Secretary of State, Parliament and the devolved Administrations. Into this mix, the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, has introduced a measure of devolution for England and its regions. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, for sharing his comments with the Committee.

In his Amendments 64 and 65, the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, has made a strong case for creating advisory boards for major fishing ports in England, giving the power of determination for fisheries operating within the six-mile limit to the relevant local inshore fisheries and conservation authority, and ensuring consultation with local bodies on matters that will affect them. It might even be said that, subject to consideration by the devolved Administrations, similar processes should be followed in the devolved nations.

It does not seem unreasonable for us to use this Bill to examine which level of government is best suited for the various activities and how best to ensure a level of local decision-making in England. At the very least, the Bill should make sure that in formulating policies the authorities engage properly with all relevant stakeholders, including port authorities, inshore fishers and so on.

In his Amendments 91, 98 and 99, the noble Lord distinguishes between the UK’s six-mile limit and its exclusive economic zone. He quite is right to challenge the Bill on its localism provisions.

[Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)]

I thank noble Lords for this short debate on a topic of real interest, but I believe that we can cover elsewhere the concerns that have been raised.

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, for his amendments, which would involve a proposed English advisory board and other boards in the process of preparing fisheries management plans. Such boards, as well as the IFCAs, would be involved in the determination of UK fishing opportunities. I understand the intention of noble Lords fully to involve local stakeholders in England in decisions that affect them, such as the development of fisheries management plans and determination of fishing opportunities.

The noble Lord, Lord Teverson, asked how we would achieve this. We intend to collaborate closely with local fishermen and stakeholders, who will often have the best understanding of their area. However, a statutory advisory board is not the most effective way to achieve such collaboration.

It is a long-established policy for the Government to consult widely on the use of statutory powers. Our provisions for fisheries management plans already require consultation through Clause 8 and Schedule 1. Fisheries policy authorities are required to consult with interested persons and have regard to their views when publishing the final plans. These interested persons will catch a wider range of stakeholders than those who would be required to sit on the English advisory boards according to this amendment.

I know that noble Lords are aware that fisheries management is complex. Our provisions for fisheries management plans need to have sufficient flexibility in design to ensure that we achieve our aim of fishing our stocks sustainably, wherever they live in our waters. Many stocks targeted by local fishermen in England are not restricted to their local area and, depending upon location, may be shared with devolved Administrations or neighbouring coastal states. Fisheries management plans will need to deal with specific geographic coverage of stocks. Plans must cover both inshore and offshore areas, possibly at the same time. They should not be restricted to administrative boundaries or ports.

The amendment would establish new bodies with defined formal responsibilities in the development and implementation of fisheries management plans. Public and private bodies, along with groups of individuals, would be required to field representatives to these advisory boards. The operation of the boards as set out could require a significant resource commitment from their members, and I do not think it is appropriate for the UK Government to place formal obligations on private individuals joining a board dealing in fisheries management. Local authorities would be given the responsibility to resolve any conflicts in finalising the membership of advisory boards, which seems inappropriate for a local authority.

The IFCAs already have sustainable fisheries duties under the Marine and Coastal Access Act and are required to consult formally on management measures. IFCAs produce management plans for species within their districts, working with local fishermen to achieve the best outcome. Each IFCA comprises members from relevant local authorities, general members representing local organisations, and statutory agencies. Requiring an IFCA to work with the proposed advisory board that itself will have representatives from some of the bodies on the IFCA has the potential to create conflicts of interest and operational problems. Adding this responsibility will create a further burden on the IFCAs themselves and local organisations.

The UK Government support last October’s Future of Our Inshore Fisheries conference organised by Seafish. Fishermen and stakeholders discussed themes such as greater collaboration and the devolution of decision-making responsibility. I highlight that Amendment 64 as drafted would give boards statutory responsibility to prepare and publish plans. We cannot pass the responsibility for developing statutory policy that imposes legal requirements on the Government and relevant authorities to an advisory board.

Amendments 91 and 98 would include the IFCAs in Clause 24—the clause that addresses the determination of fishing opportunities—and Amendment 99 would include the advisory body as a consultee on the determination of fishing opportunities. Clause 24 sets out the duties that will apply to the Secretary of State when determining UK fishing opportunities. It does not relate to the subsequent allocation of these opportunities to the fisheries administrations or to their distribution to the fishing industry. The aim of this clause is to ensure that, as far as possible, the interests of the whole of the UK are taken into account when the UK’s fishing opportunities are set.

I accept that the quota system is complex. However, enabling the IFCAs to determine fishing opportunities separately alongside the existing allocation methods could lead to confusion and inconsistency in allocation and put the UK at risk of breaching its international obligations and sustainability commitments.

If the objective is to enable English IFCAs to manage certain parts of the English quota pot, this is currently done by the Marine Management Organisation for vessels under 10 metres. The MMO manages a system of closures in English waters to help manage, for example, the cod effort in the eastern Channel. I note what the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, said about the lack of regard in which they are held. We note what was said; we have other information.

Inshore fisheries and conservation authorities play a key role in the management of inshore fisheries and can already make by-laws under Section 156 of the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009 to limit the amount of sea fisheries resources a person or vessel may take in a specified period, and the amount of time a person or vessel may spend fishing for or taking sea fisheries resources in a specified period.

To provide reassurance around the need for statutory engagement with stakeholders in the setting of fishing opportunities in relation to Amendment 99, in England, Defra and the MMO already regularly engage fishing industry representatives, and those with a wider interest, on fishing opportunities through a number of different routes. This engagement starts when the scientific advice arrives ahead of the annual negotiations. Industry is also engaged and consulted when changes are proposed to the allocation of fishing opportunities. Engagement continues through the subsequent management over the fishing season. In the UK Government’s fisheries White Paper, we committed to additional quota gained through negotiation being allocated in a different way. Engagement with the devolved Administrations on the intra-UK allocation has begun. Defra conducted a call for evidence in relation to the allocation in England last year, with more engagement planned.

With this explanation, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, is reassured that our fisheries management plans and approach to quota setting will provide sufficient opportunity for appropriate and local engagement, and so will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

Fisheries Bill [HL]

Lord Grantchester Excerpts

Committee stage & Committee: 2nd sitting (Hansard) & Committee: 2nd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 4th March 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Teverson]

My Lords, I strongly support the amendment. It is obvious common sense. When I first read the Bill I never even thought about there being a gap, but as soon as we see the amendment we have that lightbulb moment: there is a gap. As the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, said, if no duty is stated in the Act, this just will not happen. I have been critical of the number and style of some of the objectives, and the fact that there is no priority within them. However, I am clear that once this has been resolved—or even if it remains as it is—that duty must be there.

On Monday we had a debate on an amendment of mine about the office for environmental protection, and I would have thought that this amendment would strengthen that body’s role in making sure that some of the things in this area happen. I do not know whether or not the Government would like that, but if there is a duty there, there will be much more ability to enforce the objectives that the Government and the devolved authorities feel are so important.

I take the noble and learned Lord’s point about the range of authorities. Maybe that needs reconsidering; I am not sure. We should not forget that many unitary local authorities on the coast of England are strongly involved in inshore fisheries and conservation authorities —IFCAs—which in many ways are an animal of local government. We should remember that public authorities include not only the devolved authorities, the Secretary of State or the enforcement organisations, but local authorities, which are at the heart of much of the management of our territorial waters—the 0-6 mile limit.

I strongly support the amendment, and even if it is not perfect I encourage the noble Lord to bring it back on Report—if, indeed, he does not intend to test the opinion of the House this afternoon.

[Lord Grantchester (Lab)]

I too am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, for tabling Amendment 28, and to other noble Lords who have made comments in this short debate. I agree that, although the drafting may not be entirely correct, we must not lose the crucial point. The amendment raises an important matter, because at this juncture, as the UK becomes an independent coastal state outside the EU, there must be a signal to the whole industry, including any relevant public authority or other body, that it must make sure that its strategic objectives align with this reality and that it sets its strategic direction towards supporting the fisheries objectives included in Clause 1.

It is worth repeating that, although many of those objectives are a legacy of the UK’s membership of the common fisheries policy, they have been expanded, updated and made more relevant to the UK, with the addition of three important key objectives. On Monday I drew attention to the new climate change objective. Adding this duty for public authorities to have regard to the objectives means that they must ensure that their activities comply and that any objective is not overlooked. My noble friend Lady Jones of Whitchurch, my colleague on the Bill, has tabled further probing amendments in the next group of amendments, which begins with Amendment 30, probing the use of the term “proportionality” in relation to the application of the objectives in future joint fisheries statements.

It is not just fisheries authorities that have a role in aquaculture activities in ensuring success. Other public authorities with responsibilities that will have an impact on the industry must play their part, be that regulating standards, carrying out inspections at ports and processing plants or whatever. There is little mention in any guidance on this matter, and perhaps that is something that should also be looked at. There is real concern that other priorities in different localities may take precedence over these national objectives, particularly in relation to the key objectives relating to sustainability and climate change. This is crucial to understanding the main reasons why the UK could make a difference to fisheries and fishing communities now that it is outside the CFP.

[Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords for contributing to the short debate on this important subject. I am particularly grateful for Amendment 28, proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington, which would require public authorities to exercise their functions in a manner to achieve the fisheries objectives.

While I fully support the principle that our public authorities should support the achievement of the fisheries objectives, I believe that the amendment, which would place a blanket duty on all authorities, would not be suitable, as my noble friend Lady Byford so rightly pointed out. For instance, there has been no consultation with local authorities, and the new duty could lead to them having to prioritise fisheries management over the many other responsibilities that they have. A number of noble Lords have commented on those tensions.

The role and function of each public authority is set out in its implementing legislation. Each authority will vary how it exercises its functions on a case-by-case basis, and any local responsibilities to manage the 0-6 nautical mile zone will be delivered through the inshore fisheries conservation authorities. In some circumstances, elements of an authority’s function may not accord with some of the fisheries objectives. It would therefore be impractical for the Fisheries Bill to place a legal duty on such an authority. As my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay pointed out, the local authorities and public bodies may well not have the power to achieve these objectives legally.

Key fisheries regulators—the Marine Management Organisation and the inshore fisheries conservation authorities—also already have sustainable development duties under the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009, and I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, and other noble Lords are reassured by this. Contrary to the intention of the amendment, its effect could also be to dilute the accountability of fisheries administrations, which is clearly established by the Bill, by spreading responsibility for the objectives more broadly across public authorities.

In answer to the specific questions from the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, the current scope of the functions of the relevant national authorities cover the primary fisheries management tools and activities. We appreciate that local public authorities provide an important role in the achievement of successful fisheries management. However, key activities and functions are covered by the joint fisheries statement, due to their dependency in decision-making on national authorities—for example, in confirming by-laws. The fisheries statement is also legally binding.

Clause 2(1)(c), which the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, asked about, requires a statement on how fisheries objectives have been interpreted and proportionately applied. This will ensure a clear explanation of how the policies in the JFS meet the objectives and how their application is tailored to each specific case. It is worth highlighting that noble Lords will scrutinise the JFS before it comes into effect.

By holding fisheries administrations to account for the policies that they commit to in the statutory statements and management plans that will be created under the Bill, we are providing a strong framework for accountability that also recognises that fisheries authorities cannot unilaterally deliver on all these objectives but must to varying degrees work in partnership with industry. As the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, rightly pointed out, fisheries administrations will be accountable for meeting the policies in the JFS, and this could be something that the Office for Environmental Protection chooses to scrutinise.

Clause 10 makes the policies legally binding. Under these objectives, all must to varying degrees work in partnership with industry, stakeholders and international partners in some cases.

I was grateful to my noble friend Lord Lansley for his helpful comments. The range of objectives does present a challenge, but Clause 10 makes it clear that the policies are legally binding. I hope that, with this explanation, the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

I also support Amendment 58 in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern. It would be great to have some of the changes that we want to fisheries management plans on the face of the Bill: but, if we cannot have that, guidance will be very important. Establishing that fairly swiftly, and consulting widely on it, would be extremely helpful.

[Lord Grantchester]

My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendments 61 and 71 in my name, as well as to speak in support of other amendments. I am grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Teverson and Lord Krebs, for adding their names to Amendment 61. While it adds merely one word to the Bill, it makes an important distinction that science and scientific evidence must be good and up to date.

At present, as my noble friend Lady Jones of Whitchurch will outline in relation to some later amendments, Clause 7 provides for fisheries management plans to be amended in the event of “relevant” changes in circumstances. These include changes to scientific evidence. Earlier in the Bill, there is a reference to drawing on the “best available” scientific evidence. The objective in question states that the management of fish and aquaculture activities should be based on this best evidence.

I am sure that the Clause 7 provisions do not intend to allow for any change in scientific evidence to be used as a justification for changing the ways in which fishing activities are managed. Peer review reports are a key aspect in coming to conclusions in scientific matters. Given that, sadly, we live in a world where a small minority of scientists still deny many aspects of the nature of climate change and other generally accepted problems, it seems curious that we should leave open the risk that a minority of scientific opinion could justify watering down important sustainability provisions. It is an important distinction to make sure that this safeguard is added in Clause 7.

Amendment 71 is a probing amendment relating to the issue of transitional provision as the UK becomes an independent coastal state. The amendment makes it clear that fisheries policy authorities must consult with one another in drawing up management plans. Clause 9 of the Bill makes it clear that interim fisheries management plans can be adopted prior to the full versions being published under Clause 2. This makes a great deal of sense in relation to authorities acting alone, which could lead to the adoption of contradictory —or, at least, not entirely complementary—interim measures. There should be some requirement for the policy authorities to discuss interim measures with each other. We need to be satisfied that joined-up policy-making remains a priority even during any transitional spells.

Of the other amendments in the group, Amendment 35, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, supplemented by his Amendment 46, makes common sense in saying that international co-operation should be achieved, as far as possible, in management plans.

My noble friend Lady Young of Old Scone tabled Amendments 51 and 52, which seek to strengthen the emphasis on pursuing sustainability in policies and actions, especially with deficient stock, by seeking scientific evidence. It is important that such evidence must support management plans.

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, tabled Amendments 57 and 58, which would require management plans to include a statement setting out how the overarching objectives have been interpreted and applied, and consultation on the design of the plans themselves. Those two amendments probe the element of consultation that must be undertaken by the relevant authorities, and how far consultation on these arrangements needs specifying in the Bill. I might say that those requirements could be added in relation to many, if not all, of the other objectives to which management plans need to have regard.

I also thank the noble and learned Lord for tabling Amendment 125A, which would introduce a requirement for the Secretary of State to provide more information on the realisation of economic benefits stemming from the new fisheries approach. The extra information that he requires could only help achieve greater degrees of success.

All these amendments raise valid points, and there is a common theme: we do not know nearly enough about the Government’s plans at this stage, which should be a concern to all noble Lords. At this point I thank the Minister for his offer to explore the workings of management plans in greater detail before Report. That would be very productive.

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

I thank all noble Lords who have tabled amendments in this group. Amendments 35 and 46, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, address our engagement with other coastal states in relation to fisheries management plans. As noble Lords know—we are going around in circles a bit—many of the fish stocks that are important to the UK industry are shared with our regional neighbours, inhabiting both UK and non-UK waters.

I fully support the intention behind the amendment, which is to ensure that we co-operate closely with our regional neighbours in the management of those shared stocks to ensure their sustainable management. Indeed, as I have said before, as a responsible independent coastal state, we of course seek to do that, both as members of the relevant regional fisheries management organisations and in line with our international obligations under UNCLOS. Indeed, we will seek international agreement on the management of shared stocks, and fisheries management plans could be a vehicle for delivering some aspects of those agreements in UK waters. But fisheries management plans are not just about agreeing quota; they are about managing the wider ecosystem impacts of fishing.

I am advised that the amendment is incompatible with the devolution settlements. In respecting the fact that most fisheries management is devolved, the Bill provides that individual fisheries administrations may produce fisheries management plans. However, as noble Lords know, and as I have said before, international negotiations are a reserved matter. Therefore, in practice, if this amendment were to become law it could restrict the devolved Administrations from implementing management measures in their own waters pending any international agreement, which would necessarily be led by the UK Government.

The UK is committed to continuing co-operation with other coastal states for the sustainable management of shared stocks. Were we to enter into joint regional arrangements for shared stocks, these would be set out in international agreements—although, as I have highlighted, any management aspects relating to the stocks that swim in our waters could be implemented through the fisheries management plans.

Amendments 51 and 52 are designed to ensure that all stocks within the fisheries management plans have an assessment to make sure that harvest rates are set to restore or maintain populations of harvested species above the biomass levels capable of producing maximum sustainable yield. I agree that it is important to have the best available scientific advice to support fisheries management, and this ambition is reflected in the Bill, principally through the scientific evidence objective. However, the Bill specifies that in cases where an assessment of a stock’s MSY cannot be made, steps are taken to obtain the necessary scientific evidence for that to be done.

For some stocks, it is not possible or appropriate to conduct assessments of their MSY. For example, this can be due to stocks such as bycatch or conservation species not being caught in large enough quantities, so that there is insufficient data. Clause 6(3)(b)(iii) contains the important provision that in such circumstances, the fisheries policy authorities must explain their reasoning as to why they are not setting out steps to understand the maximum sustainable yield of the stock. This, I hope, will provide noble Lords with the certainty that they will understand the reasoning if and when, in narrow cases, some stocks in a fisheries management plan do not have such steps set out.

Amendment 57 would include a requirement to state explicitly how each fisheries management plan’s policies link to the fisheries objectives. I recognise my noble and learned friend’s clear intention to ensure that there is a direct link in the Bill between the fisheries management plans and the fisheries objectives. My noble friend Lord Selkirk also made that point, and asked me what the Government’s desire through all this was. It is to have sustainable fisheries with vibrant and successful ecosystems, and a harvest that provides an important food source. However, the joint fisheries statement is already required to explain how fisheries management plans will contribute to all the fisheries objectives.

The plans themselves must be consistent with the joint fisheries statement and must, in accordance with the sustainability objective, set out how they will maintain stocks at sustainable levels. They must also set out how they will obtain new scientific evidence, which will meet the scientific evidence objective; and how they will take a precautionary approach, which links to the precautionary objective.

My noble friend Lord Selkirk also asked about shellfish. Shellfish can and will be covered by fisheries management plans. The newly formed Shellfish Industry Advisory Group is looking to create specific plans, and the scallop industry consultation group is looking at what could be considered in plans too.

The Government believe that the existing provisions for the joint fisheries statement and fisheries management plans, taken together, will clearly demonstrate how our future fisheries management regime will be underpinned by the fisheries objectives.

Amendment 58 gives me the opportunity to set out the process of consultation already provided for in the Bill; we will explore it in more detail later. I support the principle of requiring consultation on the design and implementation of fisheries management plans. The Bill sets out in Clause 3 and Schedule 1 the process for statutory consultation on the joint fisheries statement. The statement will also be subject to parliamentary scrutiny before it is adopted. It will include a list of the proposed fisheries management plans and will necessarily set out general principles around how fisheries management plans will be developed.

The Bill also requires consultation on the fisheries management plans themselves. Part 3 of Schedule 1 is clear that the relevant authority or authorities must bring the consultation draft to the attention of “interested persons”. In addition, we want to learn lessons from other parts of the world and ensure that our plans are appropriate for our circumstances and fisheries. We may therefore trial different types of plans or have plans that nest inside others. Fisheries management is well known for bringing unintended consequences, and we need to be able to adapt, learn and build as we go. We believe that a one-size-fits-all process for the production of plans would therefore not be suitable, for the reasons I have outlined. I assure noble Lords that we intend that the whole process of developing the plans, including their design, be carried out openly and collaboratively.

I am grateful for the noble Lord’s Amendment 61, on clarifying the evidence used in fisheries management plans. I appreciate the importance of making decisions on the basis of the “best” science. I also appreciate the advantages of consistent terminology, as we want to ensure that the Bill’s purpose and ambitions are clear. However, the fisheries objectives already refer to the need to manage fisheries on the basis of the best available science. I am advised that including a reference to “best” science in the provision on fisheries management plans is therefore not needed.

Rules for Direct Payments to Farmers (Amendment) Regulations 2020

Lord Grantchester Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd March 2020 Grand Committee

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)]

My Lords I am grateful to the Minister for setting out so clearly the details of these two statutory instruments and for his time, and that of his officials, in providing a briefing last week. I have listened to the knowledgeable contributions of other noble Lords; this is a complex issue and one of the few where I wish I were a farmer. During our debate at Second Reading, we strayed into areas covered by the Agriculture Bill which had relevance to direct payments. I do understand that, due to the Brexit date of 31 January, the made affirmative process is needed to ensure that farmers get the payments they deserve, and are relying on, in a timely manner. Many of your Lordships would not have started from here, but here we are. We must make the best of it and ensure that our farmers do not suffer financially this year.

The EU makes CAP payments in arrears, to the UK Government and not to farmers themselves. As the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, has said, the euro to pound exchange rate is important during this process: I understand that this has previously been set in September each year. However, we were told at the briefing that this exchange rate will be calculated “soon”. Can the Minister be more specific on when soon will be? There are a number of aspects to these payments, including the young farmers’ scheme to encourage new entrants into farming. Farming is a vital industry on which we all rely, not only for the management of the land but to provide some of the food we eat. Despite what government advisers may think, farming, and indeed fishing, is a vital component in both social and economic prosperity. The basic payment awarded to young farmers, classified as newcomers under 40 years of age and established in the previous five years, is increased by 25% for the first five years and 2% of the national budget allocation is used to finance this supplement. This payment comes on top of other measures young farmers can benefit from under previous rural development programmes. Under the EU, this payment was mandatory for member states. Can the Minister give reassurance that this payment will continue, despite the leaked information over the weekend? I welcome the changes to guidance for young farmers, and the removal of the need for new entrants to produce a yearly certificate of proof of their youth. This change in the bureaucracy is welcome and I look forward to more of this in the Agriculture Bill.

At Second Reading, we debated the environmental land management schemes which are currently being piloted and are due to begin rollout in 2024. Under the previous EU regime, the greening scheme gave the farmers involved, in addition to the basic payment or the single area payment, an additional payment per hectare for using climate-friendly and environment-friendly farming practices. This was previously 30% of the national funding allocations for this greening payment. As the Committee has already heard, this included crop diversification, maintaining existing permanent grassland and maintaining an “ecological focus area” of at least 5% of the arable land. I am sure all noble Lords are aware that stiff penalties existed for failing to meet these greening requirements. Are these previous greening schemes the ones now being replaced by the environmental land management schemes? Is the money received under ELMS by farmers who previously participated voluntarily in the greening schemes likely to be equivalent to, more than or less than what they could have expected to receive previously?

Lastly, I understand that the payments due to be made under the Bew review do not form part of these two statutory instruments. Scottish and Welsh farmers are keen to know when these payments are likely to be made. When will the Bew review money pass through the statutory process and arrive with farmers? I look forward to the Minister’s response to this debate and am happy to approve these two statutory instruments.

[Lord Grantchester (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his clear introduction to the order before the Committee today. I also thank him for making himself available for the meeting he convened with the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, and myself in connection with these instruments. The regulations on the working of the CAP can have certain peculiarities. I am aware of many of these and declare my interest as a farmer in receipt of EU funds.

As the Minister explained, through the parent Act, the Direct Payments to Farmers (Legislative Continuity) Act 2020, and the withdrawal agreement, these regulations put the existing EU payment schemes into UK law to maintain continuity in the agricultural sector for the year 2020, pending the introduction of the Government’s new regime in the Agriculture Bill, presently in the other place. As he emphasised, this will not entail any changes in policy but will merely put the regulations on a UK basis, correcting inoperabilities and providing necessary continuity and certainty to the agricultural sector. Any disruption could have a severe impact on farmers’ financial viability, especially in Wales and other more disadvantaged areas, as my noble friend Lord Jones highlighted. One or two explanations necessarily need further clarity, which it would be helpful if the Minister provided. The noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, and others drew attention to many of these at our meeting.

The noble Baronesses, Lady Byford and Lady McIntosh, brought up the dreaded three-crop rule and the necessary financial disciplines being maintained by the RPA. To avoid the UK being drawn into the multiannual EU budget cycle, the withdrawal agreement disapplies the 2020 claim year from the implementation period. The payments will become the responsibility of the Treasury, yet the payment exchange rate, normally set each year in September, has yet to be set. Given that the EU will no longer be reimbursing the UK Government, could not the same payment in pounds be maintained as was implemented in 2019? Would that not provide further simplicity and clarity?

One of the challenges that Defra endured every year was having to make payments and then see them being examined by the EU, which led to disallowance from retrospective reimbursements when the EU determined that a member state had not made payments in conformity with the regulations. The Minister will confirm that this often came to many millions of pounds each year. I am sure that the Minister’s department will rejoice at disallowance disappearing; nevertheless, these are public funds and must be administered effectively. The memorandum accompanying the regulations does not entirely clarify whether there will be a distinct, similar process conducted over the year 2020 payments, other than stating that existing domestic public accountability frameworks will apply. I understand that the Rural Payments Agency will still maintain the scheme’s disciplines and infringement penalties, but will there be anything comparable to the specific auditing conducted by the EU, and will that operate this year? How will any potential operability shortcomings be satisfied? Any pursuit of scheme applicants would be a clear departure from previous policy.

A key feature of BPS is the distinguishing of Pillar 1 payments from Pillar 2 payments for rural development, whereby the EU scheme allows member states to convert up to 15% of Pillar 1 payments to Pillar 2—known as modulation. Will the Minister confirm that the Government will continue to apply a modulation rate of 12% for the 2020 year? Can he indicate whether the devolved Administrations will or will not depart from the rate they set in 2019? It would be helpful to have explicit reference today. Pillar 2 payments contribute to various multiannual schemes such as the Countryside Stewardship Scheme, which was the focus of questions from the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh. Can the Minister clarify that such schemes, and any new applications that may come forward this year, will continue to operate and be funded for the remainder of their respective terms, up to proposals yet to be implemented following the passage of the Agriculture Bill? Would any termination clause be in this year’s applications, should new measures become features of the new policy of reward for public goods? Can the Minister provide details of any pilot scheme under consideration?

Fisheries Bill [HL]

Lord Grantchester Excerpts

Committee stage & Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard - continued) & Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard - continued): House of Lords
Monday 2nd March 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

My Lords, perhaps I might add a question to this. To understand what the equal access objective is about, one should look at Clause 17 of the Bill. If a Scottish fisheries authority were to grant a licence to a non-UK fishing boat under the new regime, that would be a licence to fish in Scottish waters. Both this current objective and, indeed, the related amendment on the determination of fishing opportunities say that, when a ship is licensed, or when fishing opportunities are allotted, this cannot be done to British boats on the basis of where they come from. If I understand correctly—I put this simply because I am sure the Minister will put us both right when we have presented our questions—the object of the equal access objective is to make sure that, when the administrations put forward their joint fisheries statement, they must do so on the basis that a British fishing boat can go anywhere in British fishing waters. That seems a desirable objective because otherwise we could well end up with not British fishing waters but entirely separate Scottish, Welsh or English fishing waters. I do not regard that as the objective we are seeking, so to that extent, I rather like keeping the equal access objective and I would not see it removed from the Bill.

[Lord Grantchester (Lab)]

The noble Lord, Lord Teverson, poses some serious challenges in his amendment. Indeed, quota allocation is already a highly complex and opaque feature in fishing. The tabling of Amendments 17 and 95 affords us a brief opportunity to probe the Government over how equal access will work in practice once the constituent parts of the UK have the freedom, at least theoretically, to determine their own quota allocations and wider regulatory frameworks.

In view of the earlier discussion today, I am sure the Minister will argue that these amendments are unwise as they undermine the work that the Government have already undertaken with the devolved Administrations in drafting the Bill. I also pre-empt his commitment that the various issues raised by the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, will come out in the mix once the Bill is in place and the various statements and management plans begin to appear. Be that as it may, I am sure that fishers in different parts of the UK will be interested to hear his comments on how all of this will work in practice.

For example, how will the Government and devolved Administrations work together to ensure that the regulations of each part of the UK are compatible, being both available and accessible to those who will have to rely on them? How will issues such as enforcement be managed to ensure that the devolution settlement is upheld, while also respecting the equal access objective, as it is currently drafted, when they could diverge over time? This topic arose during the Commons Committee stage on the previous Bill, so I hope that the reassurances offered tonight will meet all the Committee’s expectations. A significant amount of time has passed since those debates and we are only a short time away from potential problems ceasing to be purely hypothetical.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Grantchester]

22: Clause 1, page 2, line 34, after “minimised” insert “, in particular through efforts to—
(i) improve the environmental performance of fishing ports, and(ii) promote the decarbonisation of fish and aquaculture activities”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment strengthens the “climate change objective” by requiring action to improve the environmental performance of ports and decarbonise the catching process.

[Lord Grantchester]

My Lords, in moving Amendment 22, I will speak also to Amendment 23. These amendments are tabled with slightly different intentions in mind, so while they may be grouped together, they address slightly different aspects of climate change. The addition of the climate change objective is very much to be welcomed, and must be fundamental to all policy developments, perhaps second only to the sustainability objective, as debated earlier tonight.

Amendment 22 would strengthen the climate change objective by requiring two sets of actions: one on land to improve the green credentials of ports and the other at sea to help the fisheries fleet decarbonise. Both are important and must reflect together the environmental sustainability practices on landed catches while making the industry undertake precise measures on decarbonisation. Either step or both would have a positive impact on the country’s net zero aspirations. The amendment was tabled to probe how action the Government propose to take will be specified and measured, including what support they will provide in the future to allow the industry to improve its environmental footprint. The Bill allows financial assistance to be provided for a variety of purposes, including many linked with the overarching fisheries objectives. Can it, therefore, be safely assumed that such support would be made available to fishers who wish to fit cleaner engines, and perhaps to ports and processing plants that want to upgrade equipment to run on low-carbon technologies?

Amendment 23 deals directly with achieving net zero in the industry. I was disappointed to see no link between this framework legislation and the legally binding targets for the UK to achieve net zero by 2050. Amendment 25, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Worthington, seeks to achieve a link and we support such a consultation. However, we propose that the Government are not taking action quite as seriously as we would like and need to proceed faster, with more urgency.

We have been told time and again, and will no doubt be reminded in the Minister’s response, that the UK is a world leader in the race to decarbonise, with this Government being the first to adopt a binding target to achieve net zero by 2050. However, I hope the Minister accepts and can forgive that, across your Lordships’ House, many are sceptical of the Government’s claims. Reference need be made to the court’s ruling only last week on Heathrow expansion to see that, just because an environmental target has been adopted, it does not necessarily filter through to everyday decision-making in Whitehall. There remains a gulf between stated ambition and reality. The UK, working alongside others, needs to do more to tackle the climate crisis before it is too late.

As part of that, industries such as fisheries should be encouraged to be ambitious by working to an accelerated timescale. Although it would require significant effort, we believe this could be achieved. If the Minister rejects the premise of achieving net zero in fisheries by 2030, or if he believes that decarbonisation is better dealt with in the upcoming Environment Bill, he at least needs to indicate what progress he would like to see made in the next decade.

With this in mind, what will our fishing fleet look like after nearly 10 years of the UK operating outside the CFP? What is the size of the Government’s ambitions? What gear will our fishers be using? How will the way that their catch is processed and transported be different from today? When will emissions targets be made binding on international shipping? These are but a few of the questions to which we need answers, and we ideally need them before either this or the Environment Bill reach the statute book. To include ambition in the Bill, the House must be assured that it will be key feature in the drawing up of fisheries statements and management policies. There is a climate emergency now and every sector should play its part in addressing it. I beg to move.

[Baroness Worthington]

My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 125 in my name, also in this group. I also lend my support to the two amendments spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester. This is very welcome. I start by being positive about the climate change objective being added to the list of 12—or however many we have now. It is good to see it there. As I stated earlier, there really is no business as usual anymore. Climate change impacts are upon us and we are living through an age of consequences. This will permeate all the discussions around fishing policy that we bring on the back of the Bill. Fishing quotas will change, the availability of fish stocks will change and the resilience of the natural environment will be increasingly affected and diminished, so it is incredibly important that we take this seriously.

The amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, rightly goes to the heart of the definition here. It seems a little lacking in ambition and specificity, as stated in the Bill, which refers to

“the adverse effects of fishing and aquaculture minimised”.

What does “minimised” mean when, really, they should be eliminated? In fact, any economic activity now taking place specifically within the natural environment should not just seek to have zero emissions, it should be seeking to be a positive sink. We will have to use policies and the framework for managing the natural world to ensure that we are not just reducing our outputs, but seeking to enhance the ability of the natural world to absorb carbon dioxide.

That has to be an aim because we have left it so late. We are about 20 years behind where we should be in reducing emissions on a global level, so the challenge now will be that of eliminating emissions in a decade. Thereafter it will be about soaking out the greenhouse gases that have been emitted. The oceans and the marine environment are a huge component of that, so we should be ambitious. I think that the bare minimum should be to achieve net zero, not simply minimising adverse effects and adapting to climate change.

My third point is about accepting that we may have to implement the precautionary principle, which states that for the period we are in, where there is so much uncertainty, we will be allocating below scientifically determined maximum sustainable yields because of the risk of climate change that overlays everything. We might have to get used to allocating quota on a very precautionary basis because we are entering uncharted waters, if I may be excused the pun.

I turn to my Amendment 125. Amendments that seek consultation always feel a bit redundant in primary legislation, but my point is that, under the powers granted under the Climate Change Act 2008, we have the ability to introduce a policy. Before any activity that causes a net contribution to greenhouse gases, we can simply consult and then use secondary legislation to introduce that policy. If the Government were minded to get going on achieving the net zero target, simply asking for public consultation would be the trigger to introducing secondary legislation to bring in very targeted, market-based policies to encourage investment in low-carbon activities. The Government now have the opportunity to consult on how we can best make this sector carbon neutral and use the powers that already exist to bring in those policies; hence the quest for a public consultation.

It is worth stating that, at the moment, the fishing industry has an effect on climate change in a number of ways. It is not just about how vessels are propelled or the energy choices made by processing plants, it is also about how the degradation of the natural environment can release greenhouse gases. Trawling activities, for example, can disturb the sediment at the bottom of the ocean, which releases otherwise stored carbon. There are plenty of examples and reasons why one would want the sector to take this issue seriously.

This is an opportunity to do something really positive. We must think about the provision of licences to cover the activities that take place in this environment with a positive vision that will create jobs and allow activities to be carried out in the natural world that will help us as we seek to combat climate change. There is no reason why fisheries cannot be part of that process. There are particular types of fish stocks and particular ways of fishing that can lock carbon up while low-impact aquaculture can make a net-positive contribution to our carbon budgets. I hope this is not seen as an imposition; rather, it should be seen as an opportunity.

Again, to finish on a positive note, seeing this objective included is very welcome. I happen to be in the camp of thinking that sustainability is the primary objective, so this climate objective is integral to that. However, we need to see a little more action and commitment to some of the specifics of what making this a primary objective would really mean for how we manage our fisheries. I am glad to have had the opportunity to discuss these amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

My Lords, this Government have committed to ambitious action to tackle climate change, including reaching net zero by 2050. To support this objective, it is right that we have included a climate change objective in the Bill.

The Government share the ambition of Amendment 22, which is to make sure that we take meaningful action to decarbonise fishing and aquaculture activities and the infrastructure that supports them, as we must do across our economy. Indeed, I believe we are the first major economy to include an objective of this kind in legislation in relation to fisheries.

Evidence of the links between fishing and climate change continues to grow, and our approach must adapt to follow new evidence over successive iterations of the joint fisheries statement. Therefore, while I agree that action to support decarbonisation of ports and fishing activities must form part of our policies, I am reluctant to prioritise these in primary legislation ahead of the full development of, consultation on and scrutiny of the joint fisheries statement. This is also an issue for other departments, and we will work together to ensure that our functions under this legislation and other specific climate change and environmental legislation are carried out effectively.

The amendment would also have broader unintended consequences. For example, it could lead to future fisheries funding having to prioritise subsidies for fishing port energy efficiency measures that may better be delivered through measures other than fishing policy, such as planning and energy efficiency regulation, over measures to support directly the industry-focused infrastructure such as auction halls and landing sites. It could also lead to future fisheries funding having to priorities support for energy-efficient engines over more targeted fishing gear. The Government should be able to change their priorities for a future funding scheme in consultation with stakeholders so that it best delivers the government policies needed in response to the conditions at the time. We should always take an evidence-based approach to deciding which areas to prioritise in achieving this objective. We believe that the best way to do this is through the joint fisheries statement, rather than in the Bill.

Amendment 23 enables me to highlight that the UK—as the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, said—is at the vanguard of global ambition to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, having last year committed to achieving economy-wide net-zero emissions by 2050 through the Climate Change Act 2008 (2050 Target Amendment) Order 2019. While I fully support the noble Lord’s ambition to transition to net-zero emissions in the fisheries and aquaculture sector, we have a clear target already enshrined in primary legislation. To introduce a further acceleration of that target in the Bill would create a sectoral disparity that could unfairly disadvantage an industry already facing challenges to adapt to the impacts of climate change. This is not to say that we should not seek to be ambitious as we work towards decarbonising our fisheries and aquaculture operations, but rather that we take a measured approach that supports the sector through the transition on a timescale achievable for all—from small, single-vessel operators to large processing operations. Legally binding policies will be contained in the joint fisheries statement, which will set out in more detail the steps we will take to deliver against the objectives in the Bill.

Turning to Amendment 125, I take the opportunity to set out some of the work already going on across the UK to support the fishing industry’s progress, along with the rest of the country, towards achieving economy-wide net-zero emissions by 2050. I apologise to noble Lords who were aware of this, but I shall put this on the record.

The national adaptation programme—NAP—sets the actions that Government and others will take to adapt to the challenges of climate change in the UK. Published in 2018, it sets out key actions for the following five years across a wide range of sectors, including fisheries and aquaculture.

The UK Clean Maritime Plan, published by the Department for Transport, sets out a national action plan for the whole of the UK maritime sector. The plan includes commitments to support maritime innovation, establish a maritime emissions regulation advisory service and consult on how the renewable transport fuel obligation can be used to encourage the uptake of low-carbon fuels in maritime sectors. The aim of the plan is to achieve zero-emission shipping by 2050, as set out in the Government’s Maritime 2050 strategy. This recognises the need to take action to tackle greenhouse gas emissions in line with the Paris agreement and the UK’s 2050 net zero ambition. Together, both plans ensure the fishing industry will effectively contribute to the target for zero net emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases by 2050.

The climate change objective in Clause 1 will support this ambition by requiring the fisheries administrations to consider these matters in consultation with industry and interested parties, as they develop the policies that will sit in the joint fisheries statement. I recognise, and I am pleased, that a number of noble Lords have recognised, in the hurly-burly of the exchanges, that we did insert this new climate change objective. It is absolutely right we did so, because it is at the very heart of what we have to do. For the sake of tonight, I hope the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.

[Lord Grantchester]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that reply, and I take it entirely in the spirit in which he makes it. We are all committed to this objective, and we all work as fast as we may. We will study the Bill’s words very carefully, to look at where it is appropriate to put in a little more ambition, and whether it is right to leave it to the fisheries statement or whether we could devise some plan to escalate it up to being a stronger commitment. But at this stage—

[Baroness Worthington]

Before the noble Lord withdraws his amendment, I want to comment on the Minister’s list of activities that relate to this. It is welcome to hear about the marine plans and the alternative fuels. We also need to integrate into this that the Government are pursuing nature-based solutions and carbon stored in the natural environment. We are doing that in the Agriculture Bill, and will be talking about it a lot as we go into the Glasgow talks, but the definitions the department is thinking about in the fishing sector are quite limited; for example, just the propulsion of the vessels. We are not thinking holistically about nature-based solutions, which are very important. When we have discussions following on from today’s debate, I encourage us to think about this holistically to make this a positive thing the maritime sector can help deliver, as we think about the net zero question.

[Lord Grantchester]

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Worthington, for reminding me of the important issue of nature’s ability to store carbon at sea. This is part of the wider implications of what we are seeking to achieve through amendments to the Bill’s climate change provisions. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 22 withdrawn.