Fisheries Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Lansley and Lord Randall of Uxbridge

Report stage & Report stage (Hansard): House of Lords & Report: 1st sitting & Report: 1st sitting: House of Lords
Monday 22nd June 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Lansley]

My Lords, I want first to say a warm thank-you to my noble friend the Minister and officials in his department for the very constructive discussions we have had on this issue following the debate in Committee. However, I want to recall that debate, because it makes the point forcefully as to why we now have these amendments before us. We reached Clause 25 of the Bill in Committee and realised that we were debating what appeared to be a very straightforward architecture of the Bill, with a structure that perhaps I oversimplify but would characterise as: there are fisheries objectives and it is the job of the policy authorities to get together and to publish statements showing how they propose to implement those objectives, which then gives rise to fisheries management plans. The legislation makes it clear that, where they are using their powers, the fisheries policy authorities should do so by reference to the joint fisheries statements.

That all seemed very clear, and then suddenly we were presented with this central activity, the distribution of fishing opportunities, along with the distribution of catch quota and effort quota, which are central activities. It became obvious that we were not doing this by reference to the structure of the new UK legal framework, but by reference to Article 17 of the common fisheries policy. Quite understandably noble Lords, in particular the noble Baroness, Lady Worthington, asked, “Why are we doing that? I thought that the point was not to be within the confines of Article 17 of the common fisheries policy.”

Indeed, when one looks at it, in future, now that we have left the European Union, we would expect to have two—arguably we will have three, but let us leave it at two—sources of UK law, one of which is retained EU law. So we are not escaping entirely from that, but in the context of the Bill before us, with a new legal framework and an architecture for the UK fisheries regime, it seemed perfectly possible, in the light of that discussion, to have a structure for the Bill that no longer proceeded in this central aspect by reference to Article 17 of the common fisheries policy.

When noble Lords look to Amendment 28, they will see that it effectively rewrites and relocates the distribution of fishing opportunities into UK law. It does not do so using new criteria. There are still transparent and objective criteria that use exactly the same language that is present in the current Article 17 including, of course—which is important—reference to historic catch levels. That is because, among other things, the Government’s commitment has been to ensure that those who are presently in receipt of fixed quota allocation units should continue to benefit from them in the same way in the future. Where new quota is accessible, that of course offers new opportunities.

That being the case, after discussion with Ministers and in the format I have arrived at, we now have a simple way of restating and relocating the distribution of fishing opportunities into UK law in UK terms. That removes all the risks that we would otherwise be talking about, such as the interpretation of retained EU law. It removes the risk that Article 17 could change at some point in the future without any reference to us, so that people would become confused about the relationship between the new Article 17 and our old Article 17, along with any other confusion that would arise in any case when one does not set out one’s intention on the face of the Bill.

That brings me to Amendment 9, which of course leads the group. Now that we have relocated the distribution of fishing opportunities into UK law, it should be fitted into the architecture of the Bill. The logical place for that is in the joint fisheries statement, and that is what this amendment would do. So not only is Amendment 9 about the achievement of the fisheries objectives but in addition to that, not in conflict with it, it would incorporate the way in which the fisheries policy authorities will be distributing fishing opportunities and it would create—as we will come on to discuss a little more in a later group—the ability for the co-ordination and consistency of the quota allocation to be set out in the joint fisheries statements.

I am encouraged that Ministers are forward-thinking enough to have seen fit to incorporate, although they are in a subsequent group, the group of government amendments, Amendments 39, 40, 42 and 43 and part of Amendment 55, which give effect to the relocation into UK statute of what is going to be the new Clause 25 if Amendment 28 is passed. That of course includes—I end with this thought—the immortal sentence in the new proposed Schedule 10 in Amendment 55: “Article 17 ... is revoked.” I beg to move.

[Lord Randall of Uxbridge [V]]

My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Lansley not only on bringing forward Amendment 9 but on so eloquently, in his usual erudite manner, explaining what it is all about. Bearing in mind the relative lateness of the hour and the fact that it is not for me just to repeat these things, all I can say is that I thoroughly welcome the amendment and I support it completely.

Fisheries Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Lansley and Lord Randall of Uxbridge

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

[Lord Randall of Uxbridge (Con)]

My Lords, I support the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Worthington. I regret that we have to say it, but it is important to point out that there will be no socioeconomic benefits if there are no fish left. The cod fishermen of Newfoundland would understand this clearly. Apart from that, the noble Baroness said exactly what I needed to say.

[Lord Lansley]

My Lords, I have just one thing to say about this group. Amendment 6 addresses an issue we discussed at Second Reading: managing so many objectives. The noble Lord, Lord Krebs, drew the attention of the House, forcefully and compellingly, to the way in which the sustainability objective in the Bill, as drafted, includes socioeconomic objectives. They ought to be identified and listed separately. To that extent, I support Amendment 6. Noble Lords will be aware that it includes the sentence:

“The sustainability objective shall be the prime objective”.


Not everybody is in favour of that, but I think we need to say it. My noble friend Lord Randall was talking about Amendment 7, but the same thought applies here. He is quite right that if we do not sustain our fish stocks all the other objectives will be vitiated. It has to be clear that there is a first objective, even though it would be beyond this Committee to list, sequence or rank the others. However, the joint fisheries statement will probably have to do something of that kind, at least, to show how they are being interpreted and balanced. I do not envy it that difficult task. The Committee should look carefully at Amendment 6 and see whether it is possible to incorporate its principles into the Bill before it leaves this place.

Business of the House

Debate between Lord Lansley and Lord Randall of Uxbridge

Thursday 5th June 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that matter. I am sure that all Members of the House want to express our deepest sympathy to the parents and family of the baby who died, and indeed our concern to the other parents whose children were infected and have suffered, but who hopefully are now recovering. As the hon. Gentleman may have heard, these issues are being pursued rapidly and urgently by Public Health England and the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency. It is clear from what they have said that the batch that may have been infected—we do not know precisely how, but this is where the evidence points—has been recalled. That batch has a short shelf life, so there is no prospect of further infections as a consequence. I feel strongly about this because two of the infected babies were at Addenbrooke’s hospital in my constituency. The first thing was to ensure that no further risk will result from this unfortunate event, and the second is to investigate and ensure that we know what happened, why it happened, and how to prevent it from happening again. If it is to do with the manufacturing process, the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency is responsible for that. I know that my hon. Friends at the Department of Health will want to report to the House when those two agencies have thoroughly completed their work.

[Sir John Randall (Uxbridge and South Ruislip) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend share my disappointment that the Opposition have not—for the second year running, I think—allocated a day during the debate on the Queen’s Speech to foreign affairs or defence? Perhaps he could organise that in Government time. There are many things going on in the world that cannot always be debated in these circumstances but on which we need a debate. Also, the Opposition have been talking about pubs, but does he agree that the last time they were in charge of the brewery, they could not organise any form of event at all?

[Mr Lansley]

I completely agree with my right hon. Friend: it is regrettable. Obviously, competing issues require time during debates on the Queen’s Speech—it is the Opposition’s choice in these matters—but for two years in a row they have chosen not to debate foreign affairs or defence. Frankly, this year, when the events in Syria and Ukraine are immediate, critical and of widespread concern, it is regrettable that the Opposition did not give the House an opportunity to have a debate of that kind.

Business of the House

Debate between Lord Lansley and Lord Randall of Uxbridge

Thursday 10th April 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

I think the hon. Gentleman is wrong in several respects. In particular, it is not possible to buy peerages, and the House of Lords Appointments Commission is clear about its responsibility to make sure that that does not happen. Additionally, the hon. Gentleman should recognise that the coalition Government had a coalition programme that included giving the public the opportunity to make a decision on changes to the electoral system, and the public—the people whom we represent—chose not to do so.

[Sir John Randall (Uxbridge and South Ruislip) (Con)]

Sometimes my motives are misconstrued, but I always strive to be helpful, and I would like to help the Leader of the House. He has been very generous in allowing an extra 60 minutes for the HS2 debate, but if he were happy to test our stamina by lifting the 10 o’clock rule and having the vote the following day, those Members who did not want to stay until the early hours for a vote could come back then, while those of us who really want to push the case for or against HS2 would have ample opportunity to do so. That may be a way forward.

[Mr Lansley]

I am always grateful to my right hon. Friend, not least when he is being helpful. The additional hour—if we are able to avoid urgent questions or statements—would give us substantial time for debate on that Monday. As a matter of principle, and especially on important matters, we should try to avoid separating the vote on an issue from the debate on it. It is also important for the House, notwithstanding your generosity, Mr Speaker, to try to achieve the conclusion of a debate and the vote at a time when our constituents might reasonably expect to be watching it.