Brexit: Fisheries (EUC Report)
Viscount Ridley Excerpts(7 years, 3 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Viscount Ridley (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate the sub-committee on an excellent and very interesting report and welcome, in particular, the opening remarks of noble Lord, Lord Teverson, about the opportunity that this represents and about the need to manage being crucial to delivering an improved fisheries policy.
It is worth starting with the point that, despite recent improvements that have been mentioned, the common fisheries policy has been an abject failure in comparison with other policies around the world. Some 80% of EU fish stocks are still overfished, which compares without about 25% globally. EU catches are 25% below their peak in 1997. Most other fisheries are getting better at managing stocks. The EU is getting better, but it is rather too slow, and 1 million tonnes of fish have been thrown back in some years, which is equivalent to 2 billion fish dinners.
Rightly or wrongly, the common fisheries policy was seen as a great act of betrayal in 1973, so it is symbolically important that we should regain control of it in leaving the EU and that we should resume our full place on the North East Atlantic Fisheries Commission alongside Norway, Iceland, Russia, Greenland, the Faroe Islands and, of course, the European Union.
The report states:
“The UK Government will be in a position to renegotiate its quota of Total Allowable Catches”.
Can the Minister explain how that point interacts with the historic rights issue raised by a number of other speakers—in particular, the sale of fishing licences to foreign vessels over the past few decades? I do not fully understand that spider’s web myself. The organisation which I think is called fishermen for Britain says that 70% of the total allowable catch is likely to come back; some are bound still to remain in foreign hands. Is that number right, and what can we expect?
My main point is that, outside the perverse incentives of the common fisheries policy, which has imposed rather than evolved solutions to fisheries management top-down, whether from politicians or scientists, we should be in a position to design from first principles, on a blank sheet of paper, using best practice from recent experience around the world, a system of fisheries management that works much better. In taking best practice from around the world in casting the net as wide as we can, we should take into account the possibilities opened by new technology, in particular, to make fisheries management much more robust and sustainable than it has been in the past.
I want to touch on two examples of good practice from around the world that emphasise individual as opposed to national quotas. The first is the Falklands, which fortunately has something to do with this country, where the squid fishery was a free for all from 1986; by 2007, it was decided to impose individually transferable quotas, whereby each vessel bought a proportion of a total quota and was able to transfer it through sale. Since it was a proportion, it could increase in total tonnage. Therefore, they had skin in the game—they had the right incentives, and they were interested in policing the management of the fishery themselves. It has turned into a highly sustainable and successful fishery, economically and ecologically; it is very productive, and it deals with the problem that is rightly addressed in the report, that of shared stock. In this case, it deals with the illex squid, which come in from Argentinian waters at a certain time of year. Likewise, a similar system is working extremely well in South Georgia.
The other system, which is slightly different, is in the Faroe Islands, at the other end of the Atlantic, which regulates fishery by days at sea—by regulating effort rather than catch—and insisting that all catches be landed on shore so as to be able to check that there is no bad practice going on at sea. Again, it is crucial that those days at sea are transferable between vessels; in a sense, you can sell your days at sea.
In both cases, the Falklands and the Faroes, real-time information is being used to manage the fisheries. Instead of politicians sitting around a table in Brussels at two o’clock in the morning using two year-old data to decide a quota, in the Falklands there is live transmission of data overnight on what each boat is catching. Any vessel taking on too much by-catch is moved on the next morning. Iceland does the same thing at an hour’s notice. So technology has brought great improvements as a management tool, with transponders on vessels and things like cameras on nets.
In designing that blank sheet, we need to take into account the latest science on no-take zones. It seems clear that, if you shut off certain parts of the ocean from fishing, you have remarkably good effects on the ability of stocks to replenish themselves, as long as you choose the zones carefully. Practice around the world has proved surprisingly successful in that respect.
Finally, it is worth mentioning that we are seeing competition increasing for taking fish in the sea. What I mean by that is that seal and whale numbers are recovering remarkably well throughout the north Atlantic. For example, off Iceland, humpback whale numbers have gone from 1,800 in 1987 to 14,000 today. They are now eating 6 million tonnes of fish around Iceland. That compares with the total Icelandic catch of 1.5 million tonnes, so the whales—all of the whales, not just the humpback whales—are taking four times as many fish as the fishing fleet. That does not mean that we should kill all the whales or anything like that, but it does mean that we have to take these factors into account.
The UK grey seal population has grown from 30,000 in 1985 to roughly 100,000 today. Of course, as was mentioned by my noble friend Lady Wilcox, that is all pointing in the direction of aquaculture. It is very important to note that the proportion of fish eaten in the world that comes from farmed, as opposed to wild, fish—I had very nice piece of farmed salmon for lunch today—is now about 50%. It is overtaking wild fish, and that is the right way to go, because it worked on land to go from hunting-gathering to agriculture, and it will work in the sea as well, although, of course, marine aquaculture still depends heavily on wild-caught fish as a feed stock.
Single Use Carrier Bags Charges (England) Order 2015
Viscount Ridley Excerpts(9 years, 2 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Viscount Ridley (Con)
My Lords, I want to make a couple of quick points and press a couple of questions similar to ones that have already been made. What we are talking about is known in economics as a Pigovian tax. I know this is not a tax but Pigovian taxes are intended to discourage activity. The one thing economists say about them is that they should be as technology-neutral, as transparent and as even as possible, otherwise they simply push down something that pops up somewhere else. I worry that we are talking about dealing with what is a very small part of the amount of plastic litter that ends up in the countryside. The point has been made that there is an awful lot of litter on roadsides, particularly at this time of year, and relatively little of it consists of supermarket plastic bags. I have heard the figure of 1%, although I do not know if that is right. Is it not possible to come up with something much more neutral about plastic technology generally across the board, to see whether we can discourage it without picking on this one bag?
I find it very hard to believe that the savings in littering and CO2 will be in the region of £780 million— I think that was the number I heard. This is only a relatively small part of the litter that is around. I cannot believe that 10 minutes less spent picking up litter on the side of the road because there are no plastic bags there will add up to £780 million. On the CO2 point, I echo what the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chester said. It is not at all clear that the alternatives will produce less CO2—unless we all use the equivalent of the right reverend Prelate’s bag and I am not sure that everybody will. We know that more energy often goes into making paper bags by the time that transport and everything else is taken into account, whether or not, as my noble friend Lord Holmes said, that paper bag gets reused. We also heard from my noble friend Lord Lindsay that oxydegradable plastic bags will have an impact on the recycling chain. Can we make absolutely sure that, when we quote figures for the amount of carbon dioxide that will be saved by this measure, they are honest and properly audited? One hears some claptrap in this area and it would be nice to be sure that the figures are right.
The hypothecation of taxes—that is, when a tax automatically goes to one use rather than just into the Treasury—is something that the Treasury has always resisted. I know that this is not a tax—it is a charge—but none the less it has been hypothecated to certain good causes. On the whole, that is quite a good idea, as long as the customer is allowed to direct where it goes. I hope that that becomes a slightly more general point across government.
Lord Whitty (Lab)
My Lords, I suspect the Minister was hoping for full approval for this government initiative. I am gratified that the Government have finally got around to it. I have been campaigning on this front for at least 15 years, so I am glad that, 13 years after the Republic of Ireland, and then following the devolved Administrations within the UK, we have at last reached this position. To continue the scriptural allusions of my noble friend Lord Dubs, there is always much joy in heaven for a sinner who repenteth, and we should all appreciate that. Nevertheless, we could have had a much clearer policy announced today—one that would have been better understood by the public. I was struck by the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, that it is people who litter, not bags. That is absolutely true. However, as the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, said, the whole point of this tax is effectively to change behaviour. It is not a tax; it is a levy.
My noble friend Lord Anderson referred to the experience in Wales. I happened to be in Tesco in Dundee on Sunday with a young lad. I would not say that he had great green credentials nor that he was always affected by prices, but he had already—this is relatively new in Scotland—changed his behaviour and brought a bag with him. That is the point. Yes, in the end, it is people who create litter and, by using these plastic bags, not only cause unnecessary carbon emissions but bring desecration to our countryside, wildlife, marine life, beaches and many of our city centres. I am glad that my noble friend Lady Golding found only one plastic bag in her car park, but I must say that that is not the general experience in either urban or rural car parks, or in other open spaces. It has been reported that some 2,000 of them can be found on every square kilometre of beach. That is atrocious from the aesthetic as well as the environmental and economic point of view.
I welcome the principle, but it has been unnecessarily curtailed, and in such a way that it does not do what it alleges it intends to do. The big exemption is for retailers with fewer than 250 employees, which exempts quite large retailers and represents around a third of all retail outlets. These exemptions do not exist in the devolved Administrations, but the exemption for very small retailers from completing the reporting mechanisms—the real red tape and administrative burden—is set at 10 employees. That seems to be a sensible approach. The exemption should be from the reporting and administrative burden, not from the requirement to impose the charge.
The exemption makes a big difference to the figures in the Government’s own impact assessment. The net present value of this over 10 years, according to the impact assessment set out on page 7 of the Government’s report and as indicated by the Minister, is £782 million. However, it would rise to more than £1 billion if all retailers were included. The Government’s position would be understandable if the retailers themselves were strongly pressing for this exemption, but I am sure that other noble Lords have seen the representations from a number of organisations that represent retail outlets, all of whom are saying, “This is daft and will actually impose a burden on retailers that will put them at a competitive disadvantage in certain respects”.
The British Retail Consortium has said that it is unfair to put smaller retailers in a position where they have to choose whether to charge. There are doubts about having an inconsistent position across the UK. The Association of Convenience Stores has said that some 60% of its members support a single-use carrier bag levy being applied, and in Wales, where it has actually happened, more than 80% of convenience stores support it. The association would strongly support its own membership being covered by this in England as well as in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. The British Independent Retailers Association, which is the voice of the independent retailer and is often critical of the red tape of government regulations, has said that this should cover businesses of all sizes and that the only exemption should be on the administrative burden, to which I have referred. The Government do not have the support of those who would allegedly benefit from the substantial exemption this order provides for.
There are other exemptions or potential exemptions which can also be queried. The noble Earl, Lord Lindsay, has spelt out comprehensively why the issue of oxo-biodegradable bags is not worthy of being considered as an exemption because of their knock-on effect on waste management and the reusability of plastics in general. Others have queried whether other sorts of bags that are being exempted should have that exemption. The big issue I refer to in that respect is: why should non-reused paper bags be excluded when they themselves have a very high carbon content and are a significant part of the litter around our towns and countryside?
Given, therefore, that there is now a general acceptance of this approach, and that the alleged beneficiaries of the exemptions do not seem to be in favour of the Government’s position, why do the Government persist in doing this? Why, in particular, do they do so when the rest of the United Kingdom does not provide for those exemptions, or most of them, and when we may well be faced with a European directive at some point, which will probably not have those exemptions either?
As I say, we should give at least two cheers for the Government for coming forward with this at last. Nevertheless, it is a pity that they have botched it a bit, and I hope that maybe they will fairly rapidly rethink this, and that, even if we adopt this statutory instrument today or when it is considered in the Chamber, they will come back and say, “Actually, these exemptions are pretty much a nonsense. Let’s make it straightforward so that everybody can understand it, and it will have the effect on everybody, whether they are a customer of a small or large business, whether they have a plastic bag or a paper bag, and whether they are in the country or the centre of our towns”. I hope that the Minister will take that at least as partial support, but some rethinking would be appropriate in his department.
Deregulation Bill
Viscount Ridley Excerpts(9 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Viscount Ridley (Con)
My Lords, I have great sympathy with what the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, said about the need for people to feel safe in taxis, and with what the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, just said. However, I do not believe that the clauses weaken these aspects of the Bill. Clause 10 does not water down enforcement, policing or the responsibilities of local authorities. Local authorities can and do check the suitability of drivers. There is nothing to stop them sharing information with police. They do so already and they still will be able to do so. There is no change in the frequency of disclosure checks, for example.
As I said in Committee, it is worth bearing in mind that Clause 11 allows huge benefits from subcontracting for provincial taxi operators that are not available at the moment to taxis—except those in London. It allows better response times, reductions in dead mileage, subcontracting to trusted subcontractors when there is a sudden problem—in the event of a breakdown, for example—and more efficient deployment of vehicles. I gave examples in Committee of operators who must currently travel 50 miles to pick up someone to go two miles and then come all the way back again, and of vehicles that return empty from airports and hospitals, or that have to leave passengers in the lurch when there is a breakdown or accident outside their area.
All the subcontracting made possible in this clause is already possible for London. Operators are allowed to subcontract there. I do not see why it is not possible to make a level playing field. No one, not even the Suzy Lamplugh Trust or the Local Government Association, has suggested that there are peculiar problems arising in London as a result of subcontracting. Sure, there are problems in London, as elsewhere, but operators are still required to keep records so that there is an audit trail. Quite simply, it is already an offence to subcontract to an unlicensed operator. It is clear that there is an issue to be dealt with, but it is not dealt with by interfering with Clauses 10 and 11.
Lord Sutherland of Houndwood (CB)
My Lords, I understand the good sense of legislation taking account of the modern digital world in which we live. However, in the present context, relying on that for safety and security has two major problems. One has already been mentioned, that many older people—who are among the most vulnerable—are not particularly good at this. That is a generational thing that will change but it is the reality now. Secondly, we are talking, significantly, about areas of the countryside where—we are reminded once again today—there is not adequate digital provision. To assume that every house isolated in the countryside has a proper online service so that it can book taxis in this way rather than by the old, traditional method of telephone is simply a mistake—at the moment.
Peatlands
Viscount Ridley Excerpts(10 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord De Mauley
No, my Lords; that is why I mentioned the new environmental land management scheme.
Viscount Ridley
My Lords, is the Minister aware that it is not only in this country and not only with wind farms that some renewable energy projects are proving to be worse for carbon emissions, because of their effect on peat? For example, a study from Leicester University showed that biomass production from tropical peatland forests can worsen the effect of carbon dioxide emission.
Lord De Mauley
That is a very interesting point, but it strays a little wide of the Question.
Bovine Tuberculosis
Viscount Ridley Excerpts(10 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord De Mauley
My Lords, that is something on which we can all agree. Indeed, our strategy is based on TB being particularly rife in the south and west and moving northwards and eastwards, but in the part of the world that the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, comes from it is not yet endemic in the badger population. What we find in the high-incidence areas is that it forms a reservoir in that element of wildlife, unfortunately badgers. As I say, our strategy is built on trying to slow the spread across the country.
Viscount Ridley (Con)
My Lords, I declare an interest as somebody who has just sold a much loved White Park bull from Northumberland to Gloucestershire, where it promptly got TB and died. The lesson I have learnt is that in future I am going to use artificial insemination instead so as not to risk these animals.
Genetically Modified Crops
Viscount Ridley Excerpts(10 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord De Mauley
The noble Lord makes a really important point. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State and I have discussed this issue with Commissioner Borg in order to emphasise the importance of finding a solution that gets the current system working. The commissioner has signalled that he wants to try to resolve the problems at European level and we look forward to further discussions on this issue.
Viscount Ridley
My Lords, can my noble friend explain why, for 20 years, a group of environmental activists has been allowed to deny the British consumer choice in this matter: the choice to buy GM crops if they prefer them because they think they are good for human health and the environment?
Lord De Mauley
My noble friend is quite right that there are groups—interests—that have been successful in creating controversy around GM which has devalued the public debate and means that people have not been able to reach a balanced view of the pros and cons. We will strive to change that.