EU-UK SPS Agreement: Food-related Standards

Lord Lansley Excerpts

Monday 18th May 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My understanding is that it is business as usual and that will continue while the negotiations are going on. If I am wrong, I will write to the noble Lord.

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

I declare an interest, as my wife’s company in Brussels works on the new genomic techniques that have been filed with the European Commission. The Minister might like, in the negotiations, to treat the question of alignment between our precision-breeding regulations and new genomic techniques from the European Commission as an opportunity for the European Commission to align with the United Kingdom or, in this case, with England. Perhaps we should also bring Scotland and Wales on board to our PBO regulations too.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I would be very happy to make the suggestion.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Lord Lansley Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 17th September 2025 Lords Chamber

as paragraph (d) says, are relevant, but it is crucial that Natural England, when preparing EDPs, has regard to development plans, current environmental improvement plans and any strategies under the Environment Act. It seems obvious to me that it should be that way. The amendment is very simple. It would be delightful if the Government agreed to at least one of the 400 amendments we have looked at over these eight days.

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

On the assumption that the Minister is not going to speak to her amendments in the group at this point, I would like to speak to my Amendment 344.

The noble Lord, Lord Teverson, was talking about Clause 58 as it is in the Bill at present, but the effect of two amendments in this group—government Amendments 278A and 346E—is to delete the current Clause 58 and replace it with the new clause proposed in Amendment 346E, which will come before Clause 88. Just so that noble Lords are aware, that new clause more or less reproduces Clause 58, but extends it. The Minister will want to explain why that is the case. However, the point made by the noble Lord is exactly the same for the replacement text.

My noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe, who tabled Amendment 275A in this group, is unable to be with us this morning. The purpose of the amendment is very straightforward and it will, I hope, be agreed on all sides of the House: when making an environmental delivery plan, regard should be had to small house- builders—indeed, so far as possible, account should be given and possibilities exercised to enable small housebuilders to conduct their business. The most important thing when the Government publish viability assessment guidance is that, as the Minister said in an earlier debate, the objective of the EDP is not to make development economically unviable. That being the case, this is an issue for smaller housebuilders, which find it most difficult to bear the burden of regulation and cost when preparing development. I hope that the Minister will be able to give reassurance on the point about small housebuilders made in the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe that the viability assessment guidance will specifically mention them and make allowance for them.

My Amendment 344, which is also about making an environmental delivery plan, makes a very simple point: at some point, Natural England needs to know in which potential developments it needs to consider making an environmental delivery plan. I do not see that in the Bill at the moment. The purpose of my amendment is to say that when local planning authorities are ready to put sites forward in, for example, a submission to the Secretary of State for the adoption of a local plan—not when they call for sites or are considering sites; this can be in guidance—they should notify Natural England of sites which have protected features, with protected sites or protected species involved. We know those sites are going to be pretty evident, so they should identify those themselves and notify Natural England.

I hope the Minister will say that this is intended to happen anyway, but it would be a good idea if it were expressed in the Bill, so that local planning authorities, which, of course, operate in their plan-making processes according to statutory timetables and statutory provisions, have a statutory requirement to notify Natural England about the potential need to make an environmental delivery plan. That is all I wish to say about this.

I just want to note something so that noble Lords are not surprised: when we get to Clause 58, we are going to take it out. But it is now that we are discussing what is effectively the language of Clause 58, and it is worth being aware that this is the case.

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 242B tabled by my noble friend Lord Lucas. I strongly support the part of his amendment that inserts proposed new subsection (2A), but I am not so sure about proposed new subsection (2B)—(2B) or not (2B), that is the question he is proposing. Nevertheless, my suggestion to him is that I do not think anybody concerned about nature should then also try to limit growth; the two can be done hand in hand.

If Natural England or the Secretary of State for Housing need more resources or decide to subcontract to any designated person, that could be a private developer, which could come up with an EDP under the laws proposed by the Government. I am not saying that would be right, but people should be aware of the scope of where we are going. I would not support my noble friend if he re-tabled this amendment on Report to the full extent.

I think proposed new subsection (2A) is a very sensible approach on nutrient neutrality, the consideration of which is one of the issues that is particularly holding up aspects of development. This is the reason the Government have given more broadly. Of course, they have also latched on to a variety of things like jumping spiders and even ancient woodland, while still expressing concern for irreplaceable habitat. Nevertheless, we should have that very specific focus on what has been holding up the 1.5 million homes that the Government have promised to deliver by the end of this Parliament. We should keep focused on where these potential EDPs need to be, and that will keep Natural England focused as well.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Gascoigne (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 286 and 300, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Willis of Summertown, who, alas, gives her apologies that she is unable to speak today. I have signed the amendments, alongside other noble Lords, and hope I do them some justice.

As noble Lords will see, these two amendments—and pretty much this whole group—seek to improve the overall improvement test and ensure that EDPs deliver significant improvements. I echo the opening the remarks from the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, and welcome the letter this morning and the amendments put forward previously. That demonstrates movement.

I am afraid I will deviate a little. I do not think it has been incredible or extraordinary. I am glad that the Ministers—as I always say, my two favourite Ministers —have their doors open for us, though they may regret making that promise, as I have some concerns still with this. It is not just what has been expressed in this Chamber; it goes beyond this Chamber, on all sides of the debate, from ecologists and conservationists to developers, lawyers and so-called yimbys.

To turn to the specific amendments, Amendment 286 intends to strengthen the overall improvement test, and I welcome Amendment 286A from the Government, which seeks to do this. However, there are still questions. We hear that it is up to the Secretary of State for Defra and their judgment, ahead of any evidence to the contrary. Amendment 300 is related, and seeks to ensure that significant, measurable improvements to nature are achieved by the EDP. While I recognise and welcome what the Government have sought to do by putting in place back-up measures, what is the baseline evidence that the Secretary of State for Defra is looking at when making that judgment? It sounds like this is a recent development, but what are the so-called good reasons that it may fall outside the remit of the Secretary of State for Defra? If, hypothetically, it is just the Secretary of State for Defra—to park the “good reasons” wording—is it envisaged that that would be done in consultation with other departments, such as MHCLG or even HMT?

Overall, it is important that we put in checks and balances, and these amendments seek to do that. They would not wreck the Bill but seek to ensure the improvements that we all, including the Government, want. They would, I hope, ensure that development continues.

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak to my Amendment 289. Before I do so, I am pleased to follow my noble friend Lord Gascoigne, as he came to what I think is the nub of this group and what the question really is. In my mind, it is this: are we content with the Government’s amendment, which changes the overall improvement test so that the wording is “materially outweigh”, or do we want it to be, as in the amendment from my noble friend and others, significant and measurable? As it happens, I agree with my noble friend and others that “measurably” and “materially” probably have meanings that are alike, but “significantly” should tell us something about the nature of the guidance.

However, we need to think very carefully about putting in “significantly”, because there will be material improvements that are not regarded as significant. Would that mean that there would be environmental delivery plans that could not be made because they would not pass the overall improvement test, even where they would lead to a material improvement? We need to think about this carefully. There is no simple way to use particular words in legislation. They have their plain meaning, and if we were to say “significantly and measurably”, we mean that there is something beyond measurable that is significant. The guidance would need to say that. I raise this point because, if I were looking for the plain meaning, “materially” helps us a lot because it shows that there must be something where you can literally distinguish between the present situation and the future situation.

On Secretaries of State, I am confused. I always thought that, conventionally, we just put “the Secretary of State” into legislation. As a former civil servant, I remember people who sat in the same office, behind the same desk, working for Secretaries of State whose titles and departmental boundaries regularly changed. Therefore, trying to specify the Secretary of State for anything in legislation is a mistake—you just put in “the Secretary of State” and work out which one it is subsequently.

My Amendment 289 is about the conservation measures that are identified but not expected to be needed. This is quite interesting because, if they have been identified but are not needed to secure the overall improvement test, they wait there, as it were, until we reach the point at which the Secretary of State is making the decision.

If the Secretary of State determines that the overall improvement test has been met but in doing so has had to take into account conservation measures that were not expected to be needed, as referred to in Clause 55(5), my amendment would require that determination to make it clear that those conservation measures have been added, just so there is transparency and clarity. Of course, that flows into what is required in terms of the levy and the obligations that have to be met out of the nature restoration fund.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I was just coming to that. The performance of EDPs will be monitored in the ways that have been set out. There will be oversight from the department and a process for monitoring the EDPs. It might be helpful if, between Committee and Report, the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, and I can set out exactly how that process will work, and we will aim to do that.

The noble Baroness Coffey talked about the environmental principles policy statement, and I can confirm that the Bill must have regard to that statement, in line with the Environment Act 2021. With all those comments, I hope that noble Lords will not press their amendments.

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

My Lords, I wonder if I might just ask the Minister, after her helpful and interesting points, about the back-up conservation measures that are included in the EDP but are not expected to be needed. That being the case, can we have conversations about the calculation of the cost of the EDP, the amount of the levy, how the levy and the liabilities for the levy are to be determined and when they are to be paid? Can we talk about how that applies to back-up conservation measures? Clearly, developers do not want to be in a position of paying them, or expecting that they have to, then finding that they do not have to pay them.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I understand the point that the noble Lord is making. When a developer opts for an EDP, there will be a clear statement of the costs. But I think it would be useful to have a conversation between now and Report, so I am very happy to do that.

Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Regulations 2025

Lord Lansley Excerpts

Tuesday 6th May 2025 Lords Chamber

[The Earl of Caithness (Con)]

My Lords, I would briefly like to support the statutory instrument before us. There have been very many good speeches and some that I disagree with, which are fighting battles that we have already fought, discussed at length and voted on—and here we are still raising them—and then people bring in the red herring of genetically modified foods, which is not what we are talking about at all.

There has been quite a lot about labelling. I repeat what the noble Lord, Lord Trees, said. All the food that we eat now has been genetically altered. It is not labelled—there was no labelling on Golden Promise, that wonderful barley in the 1950s. That started life in a nuclear reactor subjected to gamma rays; there has been no labelling about that. As the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, said, by the time it gets into the food chain, it is a very different plant from what originally happened.

I believe that the Government have absolutely got it right and have struck the right balance. The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, says that she wants healthy foods; we all want healthy foods. But the food that we are eating, which is healthy, is all genetically modified. If the noble Baroness wants really healthy food, she should go back to basics, when mankind first appeared on the planet—she would be dead of starvation. She would not have a hope.

I wish also to support the noble Lord, Lord Trees, in asking the Government to move forward on the animal front, too. These regulations are hugely important for farmers and consumers and for feeding the world’s population in the years to come.

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

My Lords, I want to intervene briefly just to agree with my noble friend Lady Coffey and the noble Lord, Lord Rooker. I will not repeat their points, but I think it is important for us to ask the question of whether it is right to use a debate on statutory instruments to try to revisit arguments that were, as far as I am concerned, thoroughly discussed during the passage of the originating legislation. Likewise, perhaps the Secondary Legislation Committee should not have treated people raising concerns with the committee as a basis for asking questions to the Minister. The committee should have examined some of those questions itself.

Avian Influenza

Lord Lansley Excerpts

Tuesday 4th February 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

Yes, we of course work internationally on issues such as this and we are currently monitoring the situation in the USA. It is important to point out that the influenza of avian origin in the USA is a single genotype—B3.13—of highly pathogenic avian influenza. It has been identified in lactating cattle, as the noble Baroness pointed out, and we are trying to understand the virus strain associated with those cases. We have published a case definition to allow us to monitor, triage and, if necessary, test any reported cases so that we can focus any resources appropriately. But it is important to stress that this does not change the risk level for mammalian livestock in the UK, which is currently very low. We have no reason to suspect that the virus is circulating in our cattle, and nor is the virus strain circulating in Europe.

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

My Lords, while I entirely agree with the Minister that the risk to humans is very low, none the less, more than once in the past we have used H5N1 as a basis for potential pandemic preparedness. Would this not be a wise moment to re-enter the question of pandemic preparedness, with a training exercise looking at the risks associated with the mutation of this virus, so that it is transmissible between humans?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

Of course, it is critical that we are on top of the issues that the noble Lord raises, because I think we all agree that there is likely to be another pandemic on the horizon at some point in the future. We need to ensure that we look at all areas where we could potentially have problems. We are looking closely at what has happened where there has been transmission from birds to humans. At the moment, it is clear that this happens only when poultry owners spend a lot of time handling infected birds, so it is not a general concern for human contamination— but we absolutely have to be prepared for the next pandemic.

Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Bill

Lord Lansley Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 21st November 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

My Lords, I am very glad to follow the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington, who gave us a further excellent example of the expertise brought to this House by so many noble Lords in support of the Bill. I also support the Bill and I very much welcome it. I look forward to the further speeches to come, not least the maiden speech by my noble friend Lord Roborough. I do not want to hold up the House too long, because I do not bring the scientific expertise that so many noble Lords do.

However, I have taken an interest in this issue since I was first elected to the other place in 1997, when I was involved in the Plant Varieties Bill, not least because of my own constituency interest. As with my noble friend Lord Lilley, in my constituency, when I was first an MP, we had the Plant Breeding Institute. We still have in my old constituency the National Institute of Agricultural Botany, and I thank the people there for the conversations that I have had with them over a number of weeks about this Bill and its implications.

In a sense, I approach this from the standpoint not of the science, but of the policy. I was very much against the view taken early in this century that genetic modification by its nature should be resisted rather than be embraced. The point was to embrace it and regulate it in ways that gave us great confidence. However, there is an essential point in this Bill that was referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Krebs—who is not now in his place, but he will doubtless read it—and I thoroughly agree with him. It is in Clause 1(2)(c), which says that an organism is precision-bred if

“every feature of its genome could have resulted from … traditional processes, whether or not in conjunction with selection techniques, or … natural transformation.”

If one thinks back to the point at which so much of our public debate about GMOs was distorted, the distinction was because that which is the result of gene editing, which is essentially adding pace and precision to what would otherwise be achievable through natural transformation or traditional breeding, was being conflated with transgenics. This Bill is absolutely right in principle because it separates those two things out so that we can look carefully to ensure that we are regulating proportionately.

That is why—if I may just add this point in response to the speech with which I otherwise agreed from the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch—I do not agree with the point made by Daniel Zeichner in another place and the Labour Party that we need a new and separate regulatory function. So far as I am particularly concerned with plant varieties, we have a perfectly acceptable regulatory mechanism with the specific authorisation requirements, broadly speaking, set out in this Bill, allied to the existing use of the recommended list—the national list—and the related authorisation. That should give people confidence.

It does not give people confidence to have a separate regulatory function and a separate regulatory body in order to arrive at a decision in relation to something that is, in fact, indistinguishable as a product. If people think there are two separate regulatory processes, they think there will be two separate, distinguishable products. In that sense, the Labour Party’s proposals, which were not accepted in the other place, were wrong. They would not have given the public confidence; they would have raised public concerns. That would have been a mistake.

My final point is very much to agree with my noble friend Lord Jopling about the importance of this in the context of our relationship with EU regulation. I am a remainer and I would have stayed and fought the argument, but we did not win this argument about genetically modified organisms with our EU colleagues. I remember in particular having debates with my colleagues and friends in the European People’s Party, who had what amounted to an ideological—one might almost say theological—objection to the use of GMOs, which, because of the conflation with gene editing, has prevented us making steps in this direction and having a regulatory structure for it.

As we change this, we should try to avoid regulatory divergence from the EU, which I want us generally to avoid, but in this particular instance we should continue to argue that we are doing things the right way. Frankly, it is time for the European Union to think about whether it, too, bearing in mind the advantages and the progress that has been made in gene editing, should distinguish between transgenics and gene editing of this character and should change European regulation.

Here we are, only a few days after the United Nations declared that there are 8 billion people in the world and that there are going to be 9 billion. If we are going to feed people, use fewer pesticides and synthetic fertilisers—as the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, rightly said—and achieve the kind of progress that we need to make, not least in plant varieties, I very much support the Bill. I hope it will be of benefit not only to British industry, which is very important in my part of the world in East Anglia, but, equally, across the globe in terms of enabling us to feed the planet.

Food Security

Lord Lansley Excerpts

Monday 13th June 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Benyon (Con)]

I absolutely assure the noble Earl that we are working closely with our devolved colleagues on this, because the environment clearly does not respect boundaries. We want to make sure that our policies are very closely aligned with them. The issue is perhaps more pertinent in Scotland and Wales, where we have seen some of the concerns which have led to this title of a “wild west” in how private sector finance is applied. We want the highest standards applied. There are good examples right across the United Kingdom and we want to make sure that the tweaks and the measures that we impose favour those who are showing virtue rather than those who are not.

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

My Lords, I declare an interest as I live quite close to Newmarket, where an exceptionally large solar farm is proposed on high-quality farmland. I wonder whether my noble friend will say, in light of the food strategy today and the desire for greater food security, what steps the Government are taking to ensure that the desirable use of solar farms and renewables is not prejudicial to our environment or indeed our food security?

[Lord Benyon (Con)]

I am well aware of this case in Suffolk and the concerns of local people about loss of good agricultural land. The food strategy published today sets out the ambition to maintain our high levels of food security and production. Those sorts of developments need to be seen in the context of that ambition, and very strict rules relate to both planning and the use of the best agricultural land. That may well apply in the case that my noble friend refers to.

Fisheries Bill [HL]

Lord Lansley Excerpts

Consideration of Commons amendments & Ping Pong (Hansard) & Ping Pong (Hansard): House of Lords & Ping Pong (Minutes of Proceedings): House of Lords
Thursday 12th November 2020 Lords Chamber

[Viscount Hanworth (Lab)]

My Lords, I wish to address the Government’s amendment to Clause 1 and the amendment of noble Lord, Lord Randall. The Government have proposed replacing subsections (2) and (3) of Clause 1 with a single subsection. To understand the implications, one must look carefully at the deletions. Subsection (3), which the Government would delete, states that the sustainability objective is the prime fisheries objective. It is reasonable to infer that the removal of this is tantamount to its negation. If sustainability is not the prime objective of fish stock management, it is logical to infer that the depletion of fish stocks would be regarded as a tolerable outcome if their preservation would stand in the way of the realisation of more favoured objectives.

One does not have to look far to discover what these objectives might be. The Government have encouraged an expectation that Brexit will result in a bonanza for British fishermen. They are keen to avoid an immediate disappointment of this expectation by restraining the fishermen. Fish are not vital to the UK economy. The incentive to conserve them is liable to be overshadowed in the short run by the desire of the Government to appease UK fishermen and supporters of Brexit in general.

That this is the immediate objective is confirmed by another deletion from subsection 2(a)—the deletion to which the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Randall, draws attention. The original clause declared the intention to avoid compromising environmental sustainability either in the short term or in the long term. The Government now propose to do this only in the long term. This invites the danger that, in the long term, there would be little left to sustain. The noble Lord, Lord Randall, has proposed that the remaining qualification, which refers to the long run, should also be deleted, so that the objective of environmental sustainability can be asserted unequivocally. I believe this to be his intention and I support his Motion strongly.

Thankfully, there are other passages in the confused text of this Bill that might give us greater hope for the survivability of fish stocks than the Government’s proposed version of subsection (2) of Clause 1. Clause 1(3)(b) asserts the objective of exploiting the marine stocks in such a way as to maintain the populations of harvested species above the biomass levels capable of producing the maximum sustainable yield. Notice that this is not an injunction to fish at the maximum sustainable yield—which would imperil the fish stocks—but to fish at a lesser rate, which would allow stocks to regenerate.

I am unaware of the provenance of this clause. It must have been placed there by someone with a proper understanding of fish stock ecology. It makes good sense and I wish to commend it.

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

My Lords, I am glad to have the opportunity to contribute briefly on this group of amendments. I wish to speak to nothing other than Commons Amendment 3, relating to the deletion of Clause 18, which deals with the national landing requirement. I support the Government going down this path of accepting that we do not want to impose the rigidities of that formulation, and I entirely agree with what my noble friend the Minister said in introducing his amendments and speaking to that particular one.

As was said by my noble friend, and by the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, this is about achieving economic benefits through economic linkage. The Government are pursuing this through their consultation. We must understand that the most important economic benefits will be derived from the new relationship we establish with the European Union and our role as an independent coastal state. We must make this happen.

I remind noble Lords—I know those present will know only too well—that we import two-thirds of the fish that we eat and we export two-thirds of the fish that we catch. The market and trading relationship that we have with our neighbours is as important as the relationship that we have around the allocation of fishing opportunities. It is said that a deal can be done: both sides are saying a deal can be done but both sides continue to say that such a deal has not yet been done in relation to fisheries. That is a sad fact, because it should be the case that a deal should be available. Some considerable time ago, the European Union accepted the proposition that there would be a move to zonal attachment rather than relative stability. It cannot deny the simple legal fact that we have now, and will have in future, sovereign control over our waters, but I think we all accept that there is a need to co-operate.

The noble Lord, Lord Teverson—he understands this far better than I do—made the point that what we require for our UK fishing fleet is, in the years ahead, a reversal of the experience they have had in the last decades. Instead of the progressive reduction of capacity of the UK fishing fleet—which I think is something around 30% down over 20 years, and halved over the last 40 years—we want in the decade ahead to see the capacity of the UK fishing fleet increase, year on year. It is not simply about the allocation of additional quota, because, as the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, said, that could end up quota that is sold back to foreign boats.

What we want to see therefore—and what is, I think, the basis of a deal—is an acceptance on the part of the EU that there is a progressive increase in UK quota that is then made as additional quota available to UK boats at a pace realistic to their ability to increase capacity. They have been losing capacity, on average, at 2% a year, and we could maybe be more ambitious in recovering it—at perhaps 5% a year, and a 50% increase in capacity over 10 years.

It may be that this is not achievable in a straightforward deal with our European partners. But in the broader context of the relationship with the EU, such a shift and reduction in the available quota to our neighbours in the European Union is entirely negotiable, with compensation for those who lose access to quota in some of these other countries. That may be something we have to accept in the context of the deal.

However, it seems to me that one of the ideological barriers to understanding the nature of the deal that has to be struck is the proposition, constantly made by the Government, that there is no relationship between market access and quota. That is clearly not true. It was not true for the Norwegians: the European Economic Area discussions that Norway had with the European Union were about financial contributions, fishing opportunities and market access. Our deal with the European Union must include all those three aspects too. When we accept that, and the fact that we are substantial importers and consumers of fish caught by our neighbours, just as they buy from us, we then begin to realise that there must be a deal and how it might be achievable. We will then get the economic benefits through the expansion of our fishing fleet over a period of time at a sustainable rate, which, I believe, should be accepted, even by the most fervent advocates of the Brexit process—which I am not. But even those who are must accept that simply, for example, giving all the quota back to the English fishing fleet tomorrow will not suddenly create a large capacity that does not presently exist.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

I shall speak in support of the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Teverson. I would like to say what a privilege it is to serve under his chairmanship on the EU Environment Sub-Committee.

I have spoken at every stage of this Bill about the benefits of remote electronic monitoring, and I very much support the conclusions that we reached in the other place when I was chairman of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Select Committee. As the number one admirer of my noble friend the Minister, I believe that this amendment should be extremely helpful to him. I would like to quote what my noble friend the Duke of Montrose would have said had he been here. He feels that at the moment we are missing answers to the main questions about reasonably accurate records of stocks, and I think that this amendment serves to plug that gap. In my noble friend’s words, it

“might remove some of the resistance in the under 10m fleet”,

because we are exposing that. The amendment addresses what is missing at the moment, which is the scientific data that we need. I welcome the fact that under-10-metre vessels will be excluded and that that exclusion will apply to both UK vessels and other vessels fishing in our waters.

I want to impress on the Minister a sense of urgency in this matter. I welcome the fact that he has made a call for evidence and that we are to have a consultation in the first half of next year, but there will then be a further delay before the regulations are drafted and come into effect, and that is the missing link. Therefore, I urge the Minister to show a sense of urgency in this regard.

In regard to the quotas for under-10-metre fishing vessels, when I was MEP for Essex North and Suffolk South, the whole of the Essex coast was in my constituency. This issue is of immense concern to fishermen there and to fishermen in Filey and other parts of Yorkshire. I am sure that my noble friend will confirm that we do not need to have left the EU fisheries policy to achieve this, so, again, I hope that we can proceed rapidly to the donations and to allowing unused quotas to be used by the under-10s.

The noble Lord, Lord Krebs, always speaks with authority. If the Minister is not able to accept his amendment, I hope that he will say what vehicle he will use in this House to inform us how the three legs of the sustainability objective will be retained.

Finally, expressions such as “long term” and “shortly” always amuse me. Now, we learn from the Minister that we will hear before the summer about the regulations to bring part of these provisions into effect. Can my noble friend point to the specific part that “in the long term” will apply to? Is it the habitats directive? Which legal provision would prevent any possible future development of ports if the words “in the long term” were removed from Amendment 1? What specific legal provision can he refer to in that regard? I am struggling to understand, unless there is a specific provision in the habitats directive or other parts of what are now EU retained law in UK law.

With that, the one amendment that I would support, if he were to put it to a vote, is Amendment 14B, standing in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Teverson.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Deputy Speaker (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall) (Lab)]

I call the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, to ask the next short question of the Minister.

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

I am a member of the EU International Agreements Sub-Committee of your Lordships’ House. We are spending a lot of time not only looking at the content of treaties, but also understanding how these are implemented into domestic legislation. I am confused. Can my noble friend explain how the 1999 treaty to which this refers was implemented into domestic legislation? Why did this not lead directly to its continuation or amendment? This is the second time we have looked at this Bill; in the first draft, licensing of fishing boats in our EEZ was considered.

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble (Con)]

My Lords, I may need to clarify this again. We were not able to open discussions with the Faroe Islands while we were still members of the EU. It was only in January 2020—at the same time as the Bill was introduced—that we were able to begin discussions and explore options to implement this change. I am not an expert on the 1999 legislation. It would be more helpful to my noble friend if I wrote to him with a detailed answer.

Agriculture Bill

Lord Lansley Excerpts

Consideration of Commons amendments
Monday 9th November 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Cormack (Con)]

My Lords, in politics you never get everything you want, but this is a very good illustration of the workings of your Lordships’ House. It shows how justified was the terrier-like insistence of the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, over many sessions in Committee and on Report, and how justified those of us who voted for the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Curry, and who carried on ping-pong were in supporting that. But most of all it shows that if you have a sensitive and listening Minister who is prepared to say quite openly and honestly what this House will put up with and what it will not—there is an enormous amount of agricultural experience here—you can make real progress.

I thought that it was rather appropriate and, in its way, delightful that the Minister handling these things in the other place was Victoria Prentis, the daughter of our much-loved colleague, the noble Lord, Lord Boswell of Aynho. I am sure that he is tuned in but I think that, if he were here today, he would be very proud of the constructive part that his daughter played, along with my noble friend on the Front Bench, in bringing this matter to a pretty desirable consummation—one “devoutly to be wished”, as the great playwright would say. However, obviously we are not completely there yet. It depends on the wording of the amendments to the Trade Bill. The proof of the pudding will be in the eating. We have to have a Trade and Agriculture Commission with teeth, and people of the calibre of Henry Dimbleby have to be kept in office. Of course, we have all been assisted by the indefatigable Minette Batters, president of the NFU, who has proved an outstanding leader at a very difficult time.

We are, as they say, where we are, and we are in a much better place than many of us feared we might be in just a couple of short weeks ago. The overwhelming credit for that must go to my noble friend Lord Gardiner. I thank him for his behind-the-scenes negotiating skills, his willingness at all times to talk to anyone who wishes to talk to him, and clearly his very constructive relationship with his colleagues in the department and in the other place.

Therefore, this is, I think, a good day for your Lordships’ House, because it shows how our sometimes apparently cumbersome machinery really works. I am delighted to be able to thank and congratulate my noble friend and his colleagues, and all those in all parts of the House who played a part in making a Bill that had its deficiencies very much better than it was when it came to us.

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

My Lords, I am delighted to speak after my noble friend Lord Cormack, because I agree wholeheartedly with everything that he said. I especially express appreciation of the role played by my noble friend Lord Gardiner, the Minister, and our honourable friend in the other place, Victoria Prentis. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, for what he has done.

I just want to add one point, which I consider to be important. I participated in the Trade Bill discussions this time and on the previous occasion, in the last Session, when the Bill was in this House. Of course, on Report we will look at the Government’s amendment on the Trade and Agriculture Commission, and I look forward to that. However, on the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Krebs: the issue is not enforcement; it is what is in the domestic legislation, and enforcement follows from that.

The point I would make to my noble friend is that, while he said correctly that it is the Government’s practice not to ratify a treaty before it has been implemented in domestic legislation and before a debate has been concluded, not least in the other place, which might have the effect of withholding approval for ratification, neither of these things are required under CRaG. CRaG, in my view, is not yet sufficient, and when we look at the Trade Bill on Report, I will suggest that we have a report from Ministers on an international trade treaty that shows what the domestic legislative implications would be of such a treaty, which of course would embrace any changes that might be required on agriculture and food standards in this country, and would highlight that point, but might also cover environment and sustainability issues, health and related issues. So there is a more general issue about understanding that, if a treaty requires changes to our domestic legislation, we need to know what they are.

Secondly, the CRaG would require that Ministers should not ratify a treaty before the implementation of domestic legislation unless there are exceptional reasons, which the later sections of CRaG allow for. Unless there are exceptional reasons, they should not do so.

Thirdly, if there is a report to either House from the relevant committee—in our case, it would be the International Agreements Sub-Committee, on which I have the privilege to sit, and in the other place, the International Trade Select Committee would be presumed to be the relevant committee—that calls for either House to have a debate, then Ministers would be required to extend the 21-day period until such a debate had taken place—which is not what the CRaG currently says.

I am sorry, I am slightly advertising what I think we need to do on Report on the Trade Bill. I hope my noble friend will forgive me; what he said was indeed the Government’s practice, but it is not what CRaG says. I think it is important that it does say it, because that will further reinforce the parliamentary scrutiny aspect.

I could not vote for the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, because, as she admitted, it trespasses again into turning the legislature into the Executive, by trying to mandate what are in the Government’s negotiating objectives by virtue of legislative provisions. The other place has repeatedly resisted such amendments, and it would be unrealistic to take such an amendment back to it again.

[Lord Curry of Kirkharle (CB) [V]]

My Lords, my interests are as recorded in the register. I begin by congratulating the Government on recognising the importance of Amendment 18B and for their response. As I said previously in debates on this Bill, the weight of public opinion on the issue of food standards and the scrutiny of trade deals required a response, and it is reassuring that, even with a large majority in the other place, the Government have been willing to listen to reasoned arguments. I thank the Minister once again for his valuable help and patience in this matter, and for his open door—I fully endorse what others have already said. It is much appreciated.

The progress that has now been made with the tabling of this amendment is evidence once again, if we needed it, of the value of this House as a revising Chamber. Despite the fact that there remains huge uncertainty around many aspects of the Bill and how, as a framework Bill, it will be translated into policy and implementation, there is no question that it is now a better Bill as a result of our endeavours in this House. I am, therefore, very happy to support this new amendment. I had planned to comment on the issue of equivalence, but others have done so articulately.

In endorsing the Bill and this amendment, I am very aware that this is, as has been stated already, just one side of the coin. To change the metaphor: if this is the belt, the braces will be contained in the Trade Bill. The joint announcement by the Secretary of State for International Trade and the Secretary of State for Defra that the Trade and Agriculture Commission will be established on a statutory basis, and that that will be included as a clause in the Trade Bill, is of huge importance, as has been stated a number of times already.

I—and others, I am sure—will want to study the text very carefully when the Trade Bill arrives back in this House, to ensure the remit and the scope of the TAC are appropriate to the task. It is essential that in establishing the TAC on a statutory basis, its composition—its membership—is reviewed to make sure that it is more representative of stakeholders and that it has the appropriate skills and experience to scrutinise trade deals. Even though these two clauses are tabled in separate Bills, it is essential they are complementary.

It is also vital that the first report that the existing TAC has been tasked with producing is seriously considered. It is unfortunate sequencing that we are having to sign off the Agriculture Bill and will have to agree clauses and amendments in the Trade Bill before we have sight of the conclusions of the TAC’s initial report—which, I understand, may well be in March next year. It would be helpful, for example, if it said something about equivalence. It will hopefully provide essential guidance and recommend the principles that should inform free trade deals. It will be crucial that the Trade Bill wording ensures that the conclusions of the TAC report can be taken into account and embedded retrospectively within its future deliberations.

Can the Minister also reassure the House that we will have the opportunity to consider the report of the TAC when it is released—in March or whenever? I am grateful not only to the Minister, as I have stated, but to the many Members of your Lordships’ House who have supported my amendments, including the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, and, in particular, my noble friends on the Cross Benches. I shall also take the opportunity, as others have done, to express my personal appreciation of the National Farmers’ Union and, in particular, Minette Batters for her help and support throughout this process.

This is one of the most important moments in the history of agriculture in Britain. Under one guise or another, I have been privileged to be involved in agricultural policy development for over 30 years, so it is a great honour to be able to participate in this Bill. I look forward to an exciting new era in agricultural history. With those comments, I conclude.

Agriculture Bill

Lord Lansley Excerpts

Consideration of Commons amendments & Ping Pong (Hansard) & Ping Pong (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 20th October 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Carrington (CB)]

My Lords, I declare once again my farming interests, as set out in the register. I am extremely pleased to be able to support Amendment 18B, proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Curry. As we all know, the amendment has widespread support in this House and nationally, and, as it has returned in a slightly different format, it can be discussed accordingly.

I will make two very short points. I understand why the Government do not want to see their hands tied by a specific standards clause, as it would be wrong for trade deals to fail if one sector alone, accounting for a small proportion of GDP, has an implied veto. This amendment is a very sensible compromise, in that it enables a committee of experts to report to Parliament before a deal is signed, and then the pros and cons can be decided.

Secondly, other countries, notably the United States of America, have independent trade commissions that report to their assemblies, so no precedent is being set.

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

My Lords, first, I apologise for intervening on our consideration of the Agriculture Bill at this stage, having played no part whatever in any previous consideration of it. But I intervene today because I have played a part in the consideration at every stage of the Trade Bill—and, indeed, the previous Trade Bill, in the last Session. So I come as an emissary from the Trade Bill discussions.

Before I come to Amendment 16B, I will just say to my noble friend the Duke of Wellington that I have sat in a Reasons Committee in the House of Commons, and when such a committee is presented with a Lords amendment that breaches financial privilege, custom and the Standing Orders effectively require that it presents just that one reason. So he should attach no weight to the fact that no other reasons were presented. That is the form of how it is done.

On Amendment 16B, I start from the same place as my noble friend. We have a manifesto that commits us to the highest standards of environmental protection, animal welfare and food standards. However, I do not agree with her that we require Amendment 16B in order for this to happen.

I am a member of the EU International Agreements Sub-Committee of your Lordships’ House. We are looking at the trade agreements as they come through. At the moment we have only the Japan agreement to look at as a new, as opposed to a rollover, agreement. Of course, these issues have not arisen with the rollover agreements. The Japan agreement would be covered by this amendment, because it relates to agriculture and food—there are provisions relating to tariff changes and so on. Are we really suggesting, as a consequence of this amendment, that the British Government will now not enter into a trade deal with Japan on the grounds that the Japanese Government will not—I am sure that they will not—accept that UK standards should be applied in Japan? Their view may well be that their standards are equivalent, but they will not sign an agreement that says that they are committed to that.

Fisheries Bill [HL]

Lord Lansley Excerpts

Report stage & Report: 2nd sitting (Hansard) & Report: 2nd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 24th June 2020 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Lansley]

28: Clause 25, leave out Clause 25 and insert the following new Clause—
“Distribution of fishing opportunities
(1) When distributing catch quotas and effort quotas for use by fishing boats, the national fisheries authorities must use criteria that—(a) are transparent and objective, and(b) include criteria relating to environmental, social and economic factors.(2) The criteria may in particular relate to—(a) the impact of fishing on the environment;(b) the history of compliance with regulatory requirements relating to fishing;(c) the contribution of fishing to the local economy;(d) historic catch levels. (3) When distributing catch quotas and effort quotas for use by fishing boats, the national fisheries authorities must seek to incentivise—(a) the use of selective fishing gear, and(b) the use of fishing techniques that have a reduced impact on the environment (for example that use less energy or cause less damage to habitats).(4) In this section “the national fisheries authorities” means—(a) the Secretary of State,(b) the Marine Management Organisation,(c) the Scottish Ministers,(d) the Welsh Ministers, and(e) the Northern Ireland Department.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment relocates the rules relating to the distribution of quota from the Common Fisheries Policy Regulation to the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Lansley]

51: After Clause 45, insert the following new Clause—
“Duties of the Secretary of State in international agreements
The Secretary of State and Ministers of the Crown, when entering into or negotiating international agreements relevant to fisheries policy, must have regard to the fisheries objectives.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would require Ministers to have regard to the fisheries objectives in relation to all relevant international negotiations, not just those relating wholly to fisheries.

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

My Lords, as I did on Monday, I draw attention today to my interest in a company that essentially operates in Brussels but is in partnership with another agency, which, in turn, has UK Fisheries Ltd as a client. It is not our client but the client of the other agency.

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, for adding his name to Amendment 51. Its purpose is to provide that where the Secretary of State, although for these purposes it says:

“The Secretary of State and Ministers of the Crown”


to make it clear that it encompasses all members of the Government, is engaged in international agreements that could be “relevant to fisheries policy”, they should have regard to the fisheries objectives. Clause 10 makes it clear that if the fisheries policy authorities are exercising functions relevant to fisheries, fishing and aquaculture, they must do so by reference to the joint fisheries statement, the Secretary of State’s fisheries statement or the fisheries management plan. To that extent, in exercising any function—including, presumably, annual negotiations on fisheries, for example—the Secretary of State would do so by reference to and with regard to the fisheries objectives. That is not the issue.

The issue in my mind, which is why my amendment is here, is that there are agreements which would not necessarily be confined to fisheries but would be relevant to them and have impacts on fisheries negotiations. For example, if one were to look at the subsequent Clause 23, the power to determine fishing opportunities derives from international obligations. Those may be in international law but, more particularly, they may be derived from negotiations between the United Kingdom and the European Union—or, for that matter, between the United Kingdom and other states such as Norway or Iceland, the Faroe Islands or Greenland. My contention is that those international agreements would not necessarily be confined to fisheries.

While I might like to agree with the Government’s proposition in this respect, I have to say that it is unrealistic. The Government’s assertion is that fisheries, trade and market access must be kept separate. If that were indeed true, the problem that I perceive would not eventuate. But it is not true—there is a connection between the two.

I pray in aid the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, who, on 19 May in the other place—I believe he was physically in the other place, although it was a Hybrid Proceeding—made a Statement on the state of EU-UK fishing negotiations. He said of the EU’s approach:

“The EU … wants the same access to our fishing grounds as it currently enjoys while restricting our access to its markets.”—[Official Report, Commons, 19/5/20; col. 503.]


So I have it on the strength of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster that trade, market access and fisheries quota are linked—and they are linked in these negotiations. The Government have to acknowledge that their hope is wrong; they are not wrong to hope, but wrong to think that it will actually happen.

The Government’s position is very interesting. They say that they want to keep fisheries and trade issues separate. They also say that they want us, as an independent coastal state, to be like Norway. These are two perfectly reasonable propositions, but the trouble is that Norway does not keep trade and fisheries issues separate. So, the Government’s two propositions do not work. Why do I believe this to be the case? The House of Commons Library briefing from only some six weeks ago, in reference to Norway’s entry into the European Economic Area, said—I apologise that it is a longer quote—that

“at an early stage in the European Economic Area agreement negotiations, the European Community”—

as it then was—

“made it clear that the quid pro quo for any trade concessions it was prepared to make in respect of imports of fishery products from EFTA states would be increased access for EC fishing vessels to the fishery resources found in the waters of EFTA states.”

So market access and fishing quota are linked, and they have been linked even by the Norwegians.

Of course, the truth is that Norway and other states like it, including even Iceland, are surprised that we have not linked the two. As far as they are concerned, there is leverage on the UK’s part in that we are a very substantial market for the fishery products of the fishing fleets of Norway and other such states. They are expecting that leverage to be used to secure continuity arrangements for the United Kingdom fishing fleets in relation to the quota that we presently enjoy, not in Icelandic waters but certainly in Norwegian waters. More to the point, they are expecting us to seek additional access, and they are expecting these two things to be linked. I think they are surprised that the United Kingdom has not already proceeded down this path; perhaps the Government do not have the bandwidth to think beyond the EU negotiations to realise that it is perfectly possible to have these negotiations in a substantive way—with Norway, for example, or even with Iceland—before the point at which we have concluded our EU negotiations.

My contention is that there are negotiations that are not strictly fisheries negotiations—the EU-UK negotiation on a free trade agreement is a present and substantial example—being conducted by a Minister other than the Secretary of State and where this Bill, were it an Act, would not bear upon those negotiations. So, I am looking for the fisheries policy objectives—as stated, not least by the Secretary of State in the Secretary of State fisheries statement—to be reflected in the objectives of the Government in international negotiations. That is the message that I want to hear from my noble friend on the Front Bench.

I understand that putting into an Act of Parliament a duty for Ministers to have regard to specifics in international agreements is somewhat prejudicial to the prerogative power of Ministers in those negotiations. It happens sometimes, but it is generally avoided by Governments because, down that path, we arrive at the point where Ministers are mandated in international negotiations and are unable to reach the conclusions and comprises that they have to reach.

What does that compromise look like in the EU negotiations? It is interesting. It bears directly on the implementation of this Bill when it becomes an Act. I may be wrong but, in my view, what were originally apparently incompatible positions—those of the European Union and the United Kingdom Government—have moved, in the sense that the European Union has said that it is willing to accept the principle of annual negotiations. As I understand it, it has even accepted that zonal attachment may have a role to play in future, but its starting point, of course, is that there must be maintenance of the relative stability mechanism and adherence to historic catch levels.

If I understand the United Kingdom Government’s position and the EU’s position, there is clearly room somewhere for a compromise. That compromise is that, starting from our position now and in a process of annual negotiations with some movement beginning in the first year, we move away from historic catch levels and the RSM and moving toward zonal attachment. The question is: at what pace? Finding that compromise and the pace of movement will be key because neither side will be happy. Of course, that is often the essence of comprise: nobody is entirely happy but, equally, nobody is entirely disappointed.

I use that as an instance. These are important negotiations. They will have significant impacts on the fisheries industry, clearly. They are being conducted not by the Secretary of State but by the Government and led by a Minister other than the Secretary of State who is not a fisheries policy authority. I therefore want to know from my noble friend that the Government will —in these negotiations and in those that they conduct internationally, such as with Norway, Iceland, the Faroe Islands, Greenland and others—have regard in future to the statements made about how they and the devolved Administrations propose to implement and achieve the fisheries objectives. I beg to move.

[Baroness Young of Old Scone [V]]

My Lords, this feels a bit like Groundhog Day because I jumped the gun yesterday and set off in support of Amendment 51 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, only to discover that it had been degrouped. Nevertheless, what was worth saying yesterday is worth saying today. I commend the noble Lord on a rather neat amendment. As he eloquently outlined, it aims to make sure that important elements that we are trying to deliver through this Bill are not traded away as a result of negotiations being run by people other than Fisheries Ministers.

Yesterday, I said that I remember vividly successive occasions when the noble Lord, Lord Deben, was Secretary of State—first for agriculture and then for the environment—and he used to come back and tell me and other NGOs in a rather crest-fallen voice that he had not been able to get what he wanted because a side deal had been done on something totally unconnected to the agricultural or environmental issue that he was trying to pursue. It could be as strange as an automotive deal, a backdoor pact on an immigration issue or whatever.

I support the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley: there is absolutely no point in having a Fisheries Bill that talks about fisheries and sustainability objectives if in fact they can be traded away in other negotiations elsewhere. I very much support this amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist]

My Lords, I am grateful for my noble friend Lord Lansley’s amendment, which would require any Secretary of State and other Ministers of the Crown to have regard to the fisheries objectives in Clause 1 when negotiating international agreements relevant to fisheries. I note his concerns and appreciate his usual analytical approach in supporting his arguments. I support my noble friend’s desire to ensure that relevant international agreements support the achievement of the fisheries objectives. I reassure noble Lords that there are already provisions in the Bill, along with cross-Whitehall processes, that achieve this. I therefore think that this point is already covered.

As the House heard on Monday in relation to the amendments discussed then, policies on international negotiations on fisheries will be included in the joint fisheries statement, as international co-operation will be essential to achieving the objectives defined in Clause 1. Clause 10(1) requires fisheries authorities to exercise their functions in accordance with the policies in the joint fisheries statement, unless a relevant change of circumstances indicates otherwise.

As a matter of collective responsibility, all UK Government Ministers are required to abide by decisions on government policy. The joint fisheries statement will therefore be binding across government. In exercising their functions with regard to international negotiations, Ministers would have to do so in accordance with the policies in the joint fisheries statement, and thus the fisheries objectives.

My noble friend will also be aware, from his time in government and in the other place, that a proposed negotiating position is subject to government write-round as a matter of course. This ensures that, as part of collective responsibility, the interests of all Ministers are represented and incorporated into decisions, and collective agreement must be obtained.

If a negotiating position on a matter relevant to fisheries was proposed by another department which was contrary to the achievement of the fisheries objectives, the Defra Secretary of State would therefore have the opportunity to resolve this through Cabinet committee discussion. This established process provides a further safeguard to ensure that international negotiations undertaken by other departments, and which may have an indirect impact on fisheries matters—for example, negotiations relating to product labelling and product standards—have due regard to the fisheries objectives.

Further, it is the intention of the Bill to focus on fisheries management and fisheries policies. There is a risk that this amendment, as worded, would significantly broaden that scope, requiring any Minister in any department, during any negotiation, to consider the impact on fisheries, however tangential this might be. The combination of the provisions in the Bill regarding the joint fisheries statement, and the existing collective responsibility obligations on Ministers, ensures that Ministers involved in international negotiations will have regard to the fisheries objectives.

My noble friend mentioned the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster’s Statement in the other place, on 19 May. He said that:

“The EU, essentially, wants us to obey the rules of its club, even though we are no longer members, and it wants the same access to our fishing grounds as it currently enjoys while restricting our access to its markets.”—[Official Report, Commons, 19/5/20; col. 503.]


The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster was actually setting out the EU’s position, not advocating it as the UK Government’s position.

I would also like to mention at this point that we have had several rounds of discussions with Norway about our future fisheries relationship. Those discussions have been very constructive, and we look forward to concluding an agreement with Norway in the coming weeks. As my noble friend also observed, there are indeed grounds for optimism, about both pace and compromise, in our negotiations with the EU.

With this explanation, I hope that my noble friend will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Lansley]

I am most grateful to all noble Lords who participated in this short debate. It was an important one, not least for the assurances that my noble friend has given us in response. That was very helpful in making it clear how government processes will ensure that while the fisheries policy authorities might apply to the Secretary of State, they will be treated as the responsibility of government as a whole in any international negotiations relevant to fisheries policy.

In customary times, my noble friend Lord Naseby and I are neighbours on the Benches back here. In best “Yes Minister” fashion, I shall say that, in future, I will always have regard to his views and take them into account.

I completely understand what my noble friend said about the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster’s remarks. He was describing the European Union’s position, and he was also describing the reality of negotiations. In these negotiations, trade, market access and quota will all be leveraged, one against the other; we have to understand and accept that, and deal with it. But that is a matter for the negotiations; what we are looking for in this debate is that the fisheries objectives are not pushed to one side. I am heartened by my noble friend’s response and her assurances. On those grounds, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 51 withdrawn.