Fisheries Bill

Alistair Carmichael Excerpts

2nd reading: House of Commons & Money resolution: House of Commons & Ways and Means resolution: House of Commons
Wednesday 21st November 2018 Commons Chamber

[Michael Gove]

The short answer is yes.

[Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)]

I am grateful to the Secretary of State for giving way on that point, because it is germane to the point about co-operation with our neighbouring states and the implications arising from the transitional arrangements. Can he tell the House how the EU-Norway-Faroes mackerel deal, which is currently up for renegotiation and renewal in 2020, will be handled in practical terms, and what his Government are doing to ensure that the voice of our fishermen is heard in that important negotiation?

[Michael Gove]

We will be taking part in bilateral and multilateral negotiations in the run-up to December 2020, in anticipation of being, as I have said, a fully independent coastal state from January 2021. We will be negotiating with all our neighbours to ensure that we get the very best deal for our fishermen. On the right hon. Gentleman’s second point, which was very fair, about collaboration with fishing organisations, in preparing the Bill we have worked with the Scottish Fishermen’s Federation, the National Federation of Fishermen’s Organisations and a variety of other producer organisations, and every single one of them has said that it wants to see the Bill on the statute book. Of course there will be debate in Committee, and there may well be amendments that can refine and improve what we want to do, but there is not a single representative organisation that speaks for the fisheries industry or for fish processors anywhere that does not want to see the Bill on the statute book as quickly as possible.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Carmichael]

The hon. Gentleman makes a very important point. The root of the disjunction between science and the industry is the fact that the advice that is given is often based on data that are very old—almost two years old by the time they are used for decision making. Does he agree that in this brave new world of fisheries management, one of our first priorities ought to be the quick and dirty use of the data that are being harvested by the scientists?

[Neil Parish]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention—he is right. I think that DEFRA is working much more with fishermen, and they will need to work more closely to ensure that the collection of that information happens more quickly. We also need to learn from the monitoring of how fish are caught and what is happening on the fishing boats, because all this is important. There needs to be trust between the fishermen and DEFRA officials, because that is sometimes lacking. There is a great deal that can be positive. I know that the Secretary of State and our Fisheries Minister are really driving towards that, and I think we can do it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)]

I just hope that we get through the next six minutes without any major developments of that sort.

May I first associate myself with the remarks of the Secretary of State and others who have spoken in this debate about the very dangerous nature of fishing as an occupation? I was born and brought up on Islay on the west coast of Scotland, and I attended Islay High School, which, from memory, had in the region of 300 pupils. I calculate that at least five men have died in the course of their work as fishermen since I was at school with them. That is one very graphic illustration of the genuinely perilous nature of the work done by these men.

I very much welcome this Bill and the opportunity to contribute to the debate on it. Although my party does not have an automatic right to a place on the Public Bill Committee, I hope it might be possible on this occasion, as the Bill progresses, for me to serve on the Committee. Fishing is an enormously important industry in the constituency that I represent. In Shetland, it accounts for about one third of the local economy.

We essentially have a piece of enabling legislation before us. I have some concerns about the inclusion of some of the rather broadly drawn powers for negative resolution, but that was always going to be the case, because unless and until we know the full picture of the political settlement on which the future management arrangements will have to be constructed, it will not be possible to have an awful lot more.

It is clear, however, that the fishing industry looks forward to the next few years with a great deal of expectation. Clear promises have been made, particularly on the Government’s refusal to allow access to waters for foreign vessels in return for access to markets. The Minister will be aware that the industry looks to him and his colleagues to ensure that those promises are kept, but it is clear from—[Interruption.] I do hope my speech is not interrupting the conversation on the Back Benches. It is clear from the answer that the Prime Minister gave me last week that that argument is still very much in play, and it is something on which those of us who represent communities where fishing is important will have to work together.

There has been a lot of knockabout. There was talk of the Fisheries Jurisdiction Bill, which was a 10-minute rule Bill brought forward some years ago by Alex Salmond. Among the supporters of that Bill were Alex Salmond, Roy Beggs, Eddie McGrady, Austin Mitchell, Ann Winterton, Elfyn Llwyd, Angus Robertson, Michael Weir and me. As the last man standing from that somewhat eclectic group, it is useful to remind the House why that Bill was brought forward and supported by that coalition.

The context was that the industry was under the cosh as a result of the cod recovery programme that was then being imposed by the European Commission through the December Council arrangements. As representatives of an industry that did not have a lot of political clout or commercial force, we understood that we would be able to make its voice heard only if we worked together. Many of us came to that position from different starting points and through different routes. I say to all the hon. Members who have succeeded the former Members in that list that the same remains true today. We will get what we need only if we work together. I encourage hon. Members from both sides of the House to understand that.

The question that I want the Minister to answer is how the voice of our fishermen will be heard during the period after March next year and before the end of 2020, when the transitional arrangements will come to a conclusion. It was put to me rather graphically, and rather well, by a representative from Shetland Fishermen today, who said, “If you are not at the table, you will be on the menu.” We face that real risk during the transitional period.

How will we influence things such as the annual EU-Norway talks? I asked the Secretary of State and received a fairly broad answer, but perhaps I can get some more detail about how, in practical terms, when it comes to the renegotiation of the mackerel deal between the EU, Norway, the Faroes and Iceland, we will be able to get our point across. Essentially, we were rolled over once by the EU Commission on that. When we are not sitting at the table at the end of next year, how will we ensure that that does not happen again? Those concerns are not fanciful or insubstantial.

[Angus Brendan MacNeil]

Surely, fishing was important enough to the Conservative Government for them to have thought about that in their transitional agreement with the European Union. It must be on page something-or-other.

[Mr Carmichael]

The hon. Gentleman will have heard my comments in March when the agreement was concluded. It was apparent then that the Government—certainly the then Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union and probably the Prime Minister—did not understand its importance. I hope that subsequent events have persuaded them of its importance and that we will not see any backsliding in the future, because they would pay a heavy political price for that.

This is not a fanciful or insubstantial concern. The Minister will know that the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea advice in relation to North sea cod will be looking at substantial reductions again this year. I hope we are not back to the situation in which we found ourselves at the turn of the century, but it is not impossible that we will be. The truth of the matter is that it was almost impossible at that point, with our Ministers sitting at the table, to make our voice heard and to get the deal that was needed. Without anybody at the table, I have to say that I think it will be impossible. The price for that failure to deliver during the transitional arrangements stands to be paid by our fishing fleets.

Fisheries Bill (First sitting)

Alistair Carmichael Excerpts

Committee Debate: 1st sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 4th December 2018 Public Bill Committees

[David Duguid]

Q So there is the favourable price that you might get from landing elsewhere, but is there something about the ports or the processing facilities, in Norway for example, that the UK needs to catch up on? Could we do something through the Bill to help improve that? When you mentioned money, I thought you were talking about investment in our onshore facilities as well as the price on the market.

Barrie Deas: Over time, and with rebalanced quotas, there would be opportunities, because of the greater throughput, to look again at all these issues. I am not sure what you could put in the Bill particularly that would be helpful, given that this is a dynamic commercial issue that you are addressing. I certainly think that it is an important issue, but I would have to be persuaded that the Bill is the right place to address it.

[Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)]

Q Good morning, gentleman. I do not want to dwell on the date, but I think it will be an important part of our discussions when we come to line-by-line scrutiny. Your suggestion is that the date would be 31 December 2020, which is the currently envisaged end of the transitional period. You are resistant to any idea that we should extend the transitional period. How do you see fisheries management working from 29 March 2019 to 31 December 2020?

Bertie Armstrong: The provisions, as we understand it, are that we will act as a coastal state-designate during that period, participating fully in the coastal state arrangements that will set the catching opportunity for 2021.

[Mr Carmichael]

Q What does that mean in practical terms?

Bertie Armstrong: It would mean that, between now and then, there would need to be the construction of coastal state arrangements that include the United Kingdom as a stand-alone coastal state, and for the United Kingdom to participate in that. This is probably in 2020, but not before.

[Mr Carmichael]

Q That is the December Fisheries Council in 2020 anticipating the conclusion of the transitional period. You say that that is the position as you understand it. Is that on the basis of your discussions with the Government?

Bertie Armstrong: It is also as laid down in the withdrawal agreement. Happen as may, it turned up in a paragraph of the legal advice yesterday, which was not actually advice on what we ought to do on fisheries but was a repeat of what was in the withdrawal agreement.

Barrie Deas: The December Council later this month will be the last time that the UK participates as a member state. The whole apparatus of European decision making will then not apply to us; we will not have MEPs and we will not be involved in any of the decision-making forums. The transitional period is a little bit anomalous and strange, because the UK will be part of the EU delegation to EU-Norway next year but will not be in the room for co-ordination. There is some uncertainty about how that will work in practice, and we need clarity on that. I agree with Bertie that an implication of the withdrawal agreement is that in autumn or December 2020, there will be bilateral or trilateral negotiations with Norway that will set the quotas, quota shares and access arrangements for 2021. That is my understanding.

[Mr Carmichael]

Q That is in 2020, but not in 2019.

Barrie Deas: No—in 2019 we are in the implementation period. It is slightly anomalous that there is a lack of clarity about how that will work in practice. It is governed by a good faith clause for both parties, but it is still uncertain how that would work in practice.

[Mr Carmichael]

Q For the purposes of what would currently be the divvying up of whatever comes out of the EU-Norway arrangements, what is our status at the December Council in 2020? Are we there as the start of a new bilateral—is that how you understand it?

Bertie Armstrong: I know for a fact that you understand this, Mr Carmichael, but there is a point of principle that is worth mentioning. The December Council is something of a distortion of importance, because effectively it takes the pie piece—the amount of opportunity that was agreed in coastal states arrangements for the EU—and, in terms of relative stability, it fiddles about with the details and ratifies them. That will be of no real interest to us in times to come. This year it will be of extreme importance, but in times to come we will be involved in the rather more important division of the north-east Atlantic fishing opportunity. As an owner of a very significant piece of the north-east Atlantic, we will genuinely be at the top table, to use a hackneyed phrase. The December Council is not any form of top table; it is arm wrestling inside the EU for an already settled fishing opportunity.

[Mr Carmichael]

Q We anticipate that this year we will have a difficult December Council, given the science and what we know about North sea cod and other species. In my experience, these years very rarely come along in isolation. I think the anxiety is about how we are able to influence these decisions. The decisions that were made back in 2002 and 2003 about cod stocks in the North sea were central to the prosperity of the fleet. If we are not at the table in 2019 and 2020, how will we avoid becoming the dish of the day?

Barrie Deas: Those concerns have to be there for the negotiations in 2019 for 2020. Science is going to be the basis of the decisions on total allowable catches. There is the good faith clause, but we do not understand the mechanics of how the UK will be consulted as we have been promised. However, 2020 for 2021 is an entirely different scenario: all other things being equal, the UK will be negotiating as an independent coastal state and will carry a great deal more political weight as a result.

[Mr Carmichael]

Q Have the Government ever given you any explanation of why they put us in this position in the first place? They were not going to give in, but then they gave in. Did they tell you why?

Barrie Deas: I think the answer is that a transition or implementation period was agreed to give business a chance to adjust to leaving the EU—

[Mr Carmichael]

Q But why was fisheries put in that?

Barrie Deas: The whole acquis—the whole body of EU law, including fisheries law—applies. As much as we would have liked to sidestep that, the Government made a calculation that that was not available or realistic.

Bertie Armstrong: Clearly the industry was not in the room when that happened. As I understand it, there would have been no agreement and it would have been stuck with four or five nations. Of the 27, half do not have a coastline. These pressures apply to a maximum of 11, but more like four or five, nations—

[Mr Carmichael]

Q So it was in order to get a deal?

[The Chair]

Mr Carmichael, that is your last question. We are all drifting beyond the Bill. We have four questioners and 10 minutes to get them in.

Bertie Armstrong: There is certainly a matter of relevance, although it remains subjective rather than objective. If we become dish of the day, there will be a time when we are a sovereign state with a complete grip on what happens in our waters. It would therefore be unwise for short-term gain to be exacted at that stage, providing that the Government of the day retained their backbone.

[Mr Carmichael]

Indeed.

[Brendan O'Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)]

Q Mr Armstrong, the Scottish Fishermen’s Federation suggests that you represent every owner and skipper from Solway to Shetland. For the record, could you tell us who you represent and about the diversity of the fishing community in Scotland?

Bertie Armstrong: We represent the 450 businesses that are responsible for most of the quota species. For the non-quota species, a large number of vessels are one handed or two handed. They belong to no associations—that is not being dismissive, but if you are a one-handed fisherman, you do not have much time for politicking. We have the whole of the Shetland Shellfish Management Organisation and the whole of the Orkney Fisheries Association, but not the Western Isles Fisherman’s Association or some of the smaller associations down in the Clyde.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

We have eight minutes for five questions.

[Mr Carmichael]

Q Paul, I think I agree with you that the work of the POs is much undervalued, and frankly not much understood. Tell us a little bit about the work of POs in terms of trading quota across the different parts of the UK.

Paul Trebilcock: One of POs’ functions is quota management. Part of that involves getting quota to those who need it—fishermen. That can be done through the swaps and transfer mechanism, which has evolved and developed over many years. Those can be swaps involving different quota stocks swapped for those needed. It can be leasing, it can be gifting, it can be borrowing and it can be a form of banking—it is quite a sophisticated and complex, or flexible, way of doing things, which enables it to be moved around to where it is needed, wherever possible.

[Mr Carmichael]

Q What happens if the Administration in one part of the UK, for example, tries to restrict quota trading among other parts?

Paul Trebilcock: At the moment we have the ability to trade across all parts of the devolved Administration quota tonnages on an annual basis, but it is not possible to move the fixed quota allocation units across Administration borders, which hinders business and stops FQAs getting to where they need to be—fixed quota allocation units for stocks off the south-west probably are not needed in Shetland and vice versa. The ability to rebalance that and free that movement would be welcome, but at the moment there is free movement of quota tonnages across the devolved Administrations, which is absolutely essential in getting quotas.

[Mr Carmichael]

Q And the Bill as it stands would allow that to continue free of political interference?

Paul Trebilcock: The Bill as it stands, as I read it, does allow for that. The risk, of course, is that there is the signal towards devolution that means the different devolved Administrations can, I think, as I read it, choose to have their own quota management rules. That is certainly a risk, but it does not appear on my reading to be a high risk. I would hope that all devolved Administrations were trying to work collectively for the benefit of their respective fishing industries and the UK as a whole, so retaining flexibility and restoring the flexibility to move FQAs would be a welcome addition.

[Jeremy Lefroy]

Mr Salter, you rightly placed great emphasis on sustainability. Given that in the UK we export most of our fish and export most of what we catch, most of what is consumed comes from places in which as an independent coastal state we rightly have no control over whether things are fished sustainably. Do you see a role for consumer-type markings on sustainability? Should that be left up to the industry or should there be some kind of legal basis so that we walk the walk on sustainability as well as talking the talk?

Martin Salter: I think consumers welcome guidance. It is a matter for you whether you think legislation is required, but when you walk into a supermarket you see a very complicated tapestry in front of you.

We have a very real problem with farmed salmon. Our colleagues from Scotland recognise it as an important industry, but if it were a land industry it would be shut down tomorrow given the appalling levels of pollution. The amount of sewage that is discharged as a result of the Scottish salmon farming industry into pristine marine lochs is quite horrendous. The wrasse that are prevalent around Mr Pollard’s constituency in the south-west are slow-growing fish of very little commercial value—often the first fish that youngsters catch when they go sea angling. They are being shipped live to the Scottish salmon farming industry as a cleaner fish to eat the lice because that is cheaper. That is a double bad whammy. The industry really needs to improve its act—I notice that Norway is moving a lot of its agriculture on to land so that it can deal with the effluent.

I still see an awful lot of people eating Scottish farmed salmon. I am sure Scottish MPs welcome the fact that they do so, but in sustainability terms and environmental terms it is a dreadful product—doubly dreadful because of its impact on sea fish down in the south-west. Perhaps statutory guidance would be welcome, or at least a level playing field in which agriculture was forced to clean its act up as farming practices on land have been forced to do over the years.

Fisheries Bill (Fifth sitting)

Alistair Carmichael Excerpts

Committee Debate: 5th sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 11th December 2018 Public Bill Committees

[Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)]

I will speak to amendment 36 in addition to amendment 78. It is an honour to speak on behalf of the Opposition, not only as Labour’s shadow fishing Minister, but as an MP who represents a constituency that has nearly 1,000 fishing jobs in both the catching and the processing sectors. The Bill is a missed opportunity, and although we do not oppose it we have tabled a significant number of amendments to improve it and reflect the changes that the industry needs from a new regulatory framework. We seek to ensure that there are enough fish to catch in our ocean, and that the industry is truly sustainable, both economically and, importantly, environmentally.

There is perhaps just one sector of our entire United Kingdom economy that could be better on day one of Brexit—fishing—but only if we can ensure that our fish exports to markets are free of burdensome and expensive customs checks, and free from tariffs. Brexiteers and those behind the 2016 referendum made much of promises to the fishing industry, and Labour’s amendments seek to make real many of the promises that were made during the leave campaign, and since by Ministers, but that are missing from the Bill as drafted. Labour wants to work constructively with the Minister to improve the Bill, and I hope that he does, too.

This is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to start afresh and create a truly world-leading fisheries policy, and we must not waste that opportunity. There are good things in the Bill that we want to support, but there are far too many missing pieces. As I said on Second Reading, the Bill smacks of something that was pushed out hurriedly to ensure that a regulatory framework is in place in the event of a no-deal hard Brexit.

The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has committed the UK Government to leaving the natural environment in a better state than we found it, and rightly so. That is good and welcome, but we need more than soundbites—we need action, and many of our amendments would put such measures into legislation. There are significant concerns about the gap between the Government’s stated ambition, as set out in the White Paper, to deliver world-leading fisheries, and the duties currently in the Bill to deliver that goal. It is critical for the health of our oceans that the Bill includes a duty to deliver sustainability objectives as set out in clause 1. Without such a duty, targets are established but there is no clear obligation on authorities, other than the Secretary of State, to deliver them. There should also be a requirement for annual updates on progress made against those objectives.

Amendment 36 is vital. I am glad that the hon. Member for Waveney tabled a very similar amendment. He and I may sit on opposite sides of the House, but we have both spent a lot of time listening to our fishing communities in our respective constituencies, so we seem to be doing a cross-party tag team on many of our amendments. The purpose of the Opposition amendment is to place a legal duty on any public authority with any fisheries-related function to achieve the objectives set out in the Bill. Without such a duty, objectives are established but there is no clear obligation for authorities to deliver them. The Opposition seek an explicit carry-through of duties, rather than an implied or suggested one, as is currently the case.

We heard last week from Debbie Crockard, senior fisheries policy advocate for the Marine Conservation Society. She said:

“The ambition here is for world-leading sustainable fisheries management. At the moment we do not have a duty in this Fisheries Bill to meet the objectives in the Bill. Those objectives cover a lot of very good things—sustainability and a precautionary approach—but without the duty there is no clear obligation to deliver those objectives. Without that clear obligation you are in a situation where they might not be met and there is no obligation to meet.”––[Official Report, Fisheries Public Bill Committee, 6 December 2018; c. 80, Q157.]

Our amendment would make a simple but effective change. We are pleased with many of the words in the objectives, but it is important that we carry those through. I would be grateful if the Minister would say how he will ensure that those objectives are properly implemented and do not just exist on paper in the Bill.

[Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)]

I commend the hon. Members for Waveney and for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport for tabling these amendments, which deal with an important point. I have a concern about what is described in the briefing we received today from Greener UK as a “fundamental flaw”. The more I think about it, the more I understand that to be the case. The concern is that public bodies currently have to act in accordance with the joint policy statements. That may be good in so far as those statements marry up with the Bill’s objectives, but it leaves rather a lot depending on the content and substance of the statements.

The advantage of the amendments, which are essentially the same in their import, is that they would place a duty on public bodies to have regard to the objectives. Those objectives are good—there is broad consensus that they are exactly the objectives we ought to set in respect of fishing policy. It seems to me that tying public bodies into the objectives, rather than just the policy statements, is a good idea that would strengthen the Bill significantly. I suspect such a provision might have been put in the Bill anyway, had it spent a little longer in the oven of Government.

I am interested to hear the Minister’s thinking. I do not know whether the hon. Member for Waveney intends his amendment as a probing amendment, but Members inevitably will wish to return to this matter, either in Committee or at a later stage.

[The Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (George Eustice)]

It is a pleasure to start with this very important clause, which sets out our sustainability objectives. I hope I am able to reassure hon. Members that the two amendments are unnecessary because of other provisions in the Bill.

The fisheries administrations are already covered by the joint fisheries statement and, in the case of England, the Secretary of State’s fisheries statement. Clause 2 sets out a clear requirement to publish a joint fisheries statement explaining how we intend to achieve the objectives set out in clause 1. Clause 6(1) contains a requirement that the functions of national authorities must be carried out in accordance with the joint fisheries statement.

One of my issues with amendment 36 is that it uses the words “must have regard to”. I believe that the structure we have put in place—with a joint fisheries statement that explains in great detail how we intend to achieve the objectives, is regularly reviewed, can be updated when circumstances change, and must be followed—is more powerful than saying simply that authorities must have regard to the objectives. We want this to be an obligation that we seek to follow in the best possible way, while recognising the complexity of the marine environment and how things are subject to change.

--- Later in debate ---

[George Eustice]

I concede that I started this by mentioning clause 6, but I did so in the context of obligations that were to give effect to the measures in clause 1—we will return to that issue in further detail later on.

My third point is that the Environment Agency has a role when it comes to fisheries, and particularly freshwater fisheries—for example, the regulation of salmon. It is covered by separate legislation, and the Environment Act 1995 places a duty on the EA to promote the conservation and enhancement of the natural beauty and amenity of inland and coastal waters, and land associated with such waters, as well as the conservation of flora and fauna that are dependent on the aquatic environment.

For the reasons we have set out, we believe that the joint fisheries statement and obligations in clause 6 already give effect to the obligations and objectives in clause 1. Public bodies that are not covered by the joint fisheries statement are covered by other legislation, notably the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009 and the Environment Agency.

[Mr Carmichael]

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way, as I sense he is coming to the end of his remarks. Will he confirm that the contents of the joint policy statement could be subject to judicial review?

[George Eustice]

Lots of things in our constitution are subject to judicial review. If a joint fisheries statement were published and there was some doubt as to whether those objectives were being delivered, there is always a basis in our constitution for that to be legally challenged. However, I believe we will be able to work together with all Administrations to ensure that the joint fisheries statement sets out how we intend to deliver our objectives.

On the right hon. Gentleman’s point about why we chose to do that via a joint fisheries statement, he will know that the marine environment is a very dynamic place where new challenges present themselves. To have a dynamic, detailed plan that is updated periodically and remains relevant, which refocuses us on our objectives and learns lessons from what may or may not have worked, is more powerful than the two amendments would provide.

[Mr Carmichael]

The Minister is being generous with his time. He sets out a process that we hope would be followed in optimum circumstances. In fact, very often that is not the case; other considerations come into play. We have to produce legislation suitable to deal with the worst possible circumstances, not just the base that we hope for. Surely, the advantage of putting this into the objectives, rather than just remaining with the policy statements, would be that those who wanted ensure that the policies meet the objectives would not have resort to that sort of expensive legal procedure.

[George Eustice]

I simply believe that the approach we have set out, of a joint fisheries statement that can be regularly updated and can express in great detail how we intend to deliver those objectives, is more powerful than a simple addition to the clause. In this Bill we give legal effect, via the joint fisheries statement, for a requirement on Administrations to follow those objectives.

There are occasions, as the right hon. Gentleman will know from his constituency, when we have to do annual fisheries negotiations with Norway and the Faroes, and we have to do the coastal states negotiations on issues such as mackerel. Sometimes, countries such as Norway use other scientific measures, although maximum sustainable yield is one of their approaches, too. Sometimes, we have to reach an agreement, and if we are too inflexible in our approach to reaching an agreement with countries in those circumstances, everybody unilaterally sets their own quota and goes their own way, and the marine resource suffers. It is important that our plan has the flexibility to enable us to reach a settlement with our near neighbours such as Norway and the Faroes.

I hope I have been able to persuade hon. Members that the approach we have set out deals with the intention behind the two amendments, and that they will not feel the need to press them.

--- Later in debate ---

[George Eustice]

I do not believe the amendment is necessary, for reasons that I will set out. I will describe in a moment what we intend to do on quota allocation.

As the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport highlighted, case law in this area is very clear. We have an unwritten constitution, elements of which do not need to be put in statute. We do not need to put in statute that Parliament is sovereign. We do not need to put in the Bill that fish live in water. Certain things are facts, not objectives. We do not have an objective to make fish a public asset; it is a statement of fact that they are a public asset, and our common law tradition enshrines that.

The case law is very clear. The UK Association of Fish Producers Organisations brought an important test case in 2013, when my predecessor moved some quota. Mr Justice Cranston, the judge who took the case, noted Magna Carta and what it sets out, and its implications were that fish stocks are a public resources. As he stated:

“Consequently, there can be no property right in fish until they are caught.”

The nature of our unwritten constitution, our common law tradition and our case law make it clear: fish are a public asset. Furthermore, articles 2 and 56 of the United Nations convention on the law of the sea recognise that coastal states have sovereign rights over their resources, including fisheries in their territorial waters and exclusive economic zone, and we are signatories to that convention.

I do not believe it necessary, but I wish briefly to explain why in our White Paper we set out clearly that fish are a public asset. As we diverge from relative stability shares and additional fishing opportunities come in, we have been explicit that those new fishing opportunities will not be allocated along current fixed quota allocation lines, and that initially, as a first step, we will allocate the quota differently. We are considering a number of measures. First, we could put additional fish into the under-10-metre pool—the inshore pool—to give extra fishing opportunities to our smaller inshore fleet. Secondly, other parts of the Bill we set out an ability for us to use some of that additional quota to create a national reserve to help manage the landing obligation and deal with the problem of choke species and discards. Thirdly—again, this is set out elsewhere in the Bill—we have outlined the possibility for a producer or organisation to tender for fishing opportunities for a year or a number of years, based on their track record on issues such as creating opportunities for new entrants, their sustainability, the amount of benefit they deliver for coastal communities and so on.

We have been clear that new fishing opportunities will be allocated differently. In the longer term and once we have established alternative methodologies, if we gave sufficient notice—the judgment I mentioned earlier suggested that the Government would need to give seven years’ notice to people who currently hold FQA units—it would be possible gradually to start to move away from the FQA system altogether. We do not want to do that expeditiously, for the reasons set out in our White Paper. Complex business models have been built under the current FQA regime, and people have borrowed money to buy vessels with FQA units attached. As we leave the EU, a lot of changes will already be happening and we do not want to compound them by destabilising the system entirely. We have been clear that we will stick with existing FQA units for existing fishing opportunities, but we will diverge from that over time. To do that, we must simply give notice in a policy statement or document that we intend to do so; it does not need to be placed in the Bill.

[Mr Carmichael]

Would the insertion of the amendment prevent the Minister from doing that?

[George Eustice]

It would not, but nothing in the amendment is necessary, and when we draft legislation, it is important to include that which is necessary. Arguably, there would be nothing wrong with a piece of legislation that stated “Parliament is sovereign”, except that that which can be given can be taken away. We have an unwritten constitution and a common law tradition in this country because there are certain things that we do not want to call into question by including them in a Bill. We certainly do not want to downgrade this to a mere objective when it is about a long-established right and a national resource that cannot be turned into a property right, and that is a long-standing point in our constitution.

I understand the thinking behind the amendment and the points raised by the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport. I hope I have been able to reassure him that is unnecessary and, more important, that I have enlightened him of the Government’s intentions and approach as we move to a new system and regime for allocating quota.

[Mr Carmichael]

I confess I was not much exercised about this amendment until I heard the Minister’s explanation of why the Committee should not accept it. The Minister says that we do not need to put in the Bill the fact that fish swim in the sea. That is absolutely correct, but that is different from parliamentary sovereignty—the other example he cited. If I dredge the depths of my memory, that is the difference between a praesumptio iuris and a praesumptio iuris et de iure: there are some things that are irrefutable—fish swim in the sea, for example. Parliamentary sovereignty is not necessarily part of nature; it is part of the decisions we take. Jurists have wrestled with that for centuries.

Our own definition of parliamentary sovereignty has changed many times over the years. The whole question of sovereignty is seen differently in different parts of the United Kingdom. It is well established in Scots law that sovereignty is vested in the people and given to Parliament; the Diceyan definition of parliamentary sovereignty is not necessarily accepted. I did not particularly anticipate employing this line of argument, but as the hon. Member for Pontypridd said, the Minister started it.

[The Chair]

We are slightly off the topic.

[Mr Carmichael]

We are, but if the basis of parliamentary draftsmanship is that the Government will do things only that are necessary, that is quite welcome. However, given the direction of travel of legislation over the 17 years I have been in the House, that would be a fairly normal one and something of a departure from the way we have done things recently.

The Minister brought forward various policy objectives that would sit well in the policy statements at that point, but I do not see anything that contradicts the need for this to be put into the policy objectives. Whereas initially I was of the view that this was not something of greatest moment, now I understand the reasons why the Government resist it I am somewhat more impressed with the idea behind it.

[The Chair]

Does the Minister wish to reply?

--- Later in debate ---

[Luke Pollard]

Fish is a public asset and that should be in the Bill. That is the position of my hon. Friends, and I am disappointed that we have not been able to find a form of words to convince the Minister to be clear that fish is a public asset and should be in the Bill. This is one of the fundamental principles that fishers say to me when I go down to the quayside in Plymouth: they want the Government to come to an honest set of words that says, “Fish is a public asset.”

[Mr Carmichael]

The hon. Gentleman and I need to challenge the assertion that the inclusion of an asset is a downgrade from what was already there in common law. There is no such thing. All it says is that this is a fisheries objective; it does not change the status of public assets or the view of fish being a public asset in the way of jurisprudence.

[Luke Pollard]

I agree with the right hon. Gentleman. We need to make that clear, because this is not a Bill that seeks just to refresh and update the regulatory environment around fishing. It is a Bill laced with politics and other meaning, because of the importance of fishing to the Brexit debate. That is why setting a tone for fishing is so important.

The Minister claims that that is not necessary, but it is certainly desirable. We should ensure that the Bill, and all the fishers who will be governed by it, have a sense of the Government’s priorities. Having fishing as a public asset should be high up as one of the key priorities of the Bill and the Government. It is fine to mention it in statements, which we will come to in due course, but being clear that fish is a public asset should be at the front of the Bill, because that is what our fishing communities want it to be. That is why I will not withdraw the amendment but will push it to a vote.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

[Luke Pollard]

My hon. Friend is exactly right. It is important that we set high levels of safety standards for all fishing boats in UK waters, whether they are UK or foreign-registered. The highest safety standards, including wearing lifejackets with personal locator beacons, should be something that we demand. I would like to see every fisher in UK waters wear a lifejacket with a personal locator beacon. I want to stress the feedback from families of fishers who have been lost at sea. Wearing a lifejacket with a PLB might keep someone alive if the boat sinks or they go overboard, but if the worst happens and that life is lost, the PLB means there is a body for the family to bury or cremate. It is important that we recognise that feedback from families. There seems to be universal agreement that PLBs attached to lifejackets are a good thing, but we know that there is a cost to fishermen of buying new lifejackets with PLBs and registering them. That is why we have tabled the amendment, to make it clear in the Bill that marine safety is important.

Our amendment also deals with the subject of modern slavery. As well as enhancing safety standards, the amendment would address the minimum wage and tackle the issue of modern slavery, which unfortunately can persist far out at sea. Only last year in December, nine African and Asian crew members working on a pair of British scallop trawlers were taken to a place of safety by police as suspected victims of modern slavery. The men were alleged to have worked unlimited hours at sea with very little rest. That is why it important, when we deal with marine safety, that we recognise the pernicious behaviour of those people who are engaged in modern slavery. We need to ensure that has no place in the UK fishing industry, by including it in the Bill. The Prime Minister herself has championed the case against modern slavery. I am certain that if the Prime Minister, who does not seem to have much going on today, were serving on the Committee, she would vote in favour of the amendment, to support action against modern slavery and ensure not only that our fishing industry is as safe as such a dangerous pursuit can be, but that there can be no examples of modern slavery in it.

[Mr Carmichael]

Like many Members of this House, I am often wary about using legislation to send signals, because most of the time I do not think it necessarily ends well. However, from my experience personally and as a constituency MP, I think the hon. Gentleman’s amendment would send a very important signal, so I commend him for tabling it.

One of my formative experiences in the area came when I was still in legal practice. I was instructed to appear at a fatal accident inquiry at Lerwick Sheriff Court on behalf of a family from Banff, or perhaps Macduff, whose son had been swept overboard from a trawler, the Alandale, which is no longer at sea. In a force 7 or force 8 gale, the young man had gone over to the ledge around the side of the boat to fix a trawl door. The boat was hit by a big wave—a lump of water—and he was washed away. The skipper said that the crew saw a flash of orange oilskin in the water, but that was the last they saw of him. They looked for him for some time, but the search was ultimately futile.

When I was instructed in that case, the grief of the young man’s parents formed my view, which I hold to this day, that the matter requires our attention and every possible signal needs to be given. The other thing that struck me during the fatal accident inquiry was the evidence of the other deckhand, who was still in his late teenage years. He said that for a few weeks after the incident, he had worn a life vest of some sort; when asked on cross-examination why he had stopped wearing it, he said that he had been subject to ridicule from others in the industry. Nobody of that age, and nobody who had witnessed what that young man had witnessed, should be subject to such pressure. I have noticed that the situation has improved since, but there is still a lot to do. I still hold the view that there is a job of education to be done within the industry, and making it an objective of the Bill would be a significant improvement.

Locator beacons are another matter that I have formed a view on over the years as a consequence of my experience of dealing with families. One constituent, with whom I worked for some years, had a brother working on a single-handed creel boat who was caught in a rope—we think—when shooting his creels and went over the side of the boat, which was on automatic pilot. The boat was eventually found a considerable distance from where the family thought he had been fishing. A locator beacon would not have saved his life, but it would have saved his family immense pain and grief to know sooner where he was. It is a relatively small and inexpensive innovation, but it highlights the importance of putting safety objectives in the Bill.

Finally, let me make a point about modern slavery. The modern slavery that we have identified in the fishing industry has generally been a consequence of the operation of transit visas in relation to crews of non-European economic area nationals. The hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport has heard me speak about that in the House times without number. It is a ridiculous use for transit visas and the Government should get real and identify the need for non-EEA nationals to be employed in the industry, and make a sectoral provision about it.

If the objective were included in the Bill, arguably the Home Office’s current approach to visas for non-EEA nationals would be in breach of it. For that and other reasons, the proposed change to the Bill is eminently sensible and supportable.

[Brendan O'Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray.

The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland is right. Any of us who represent fishing communities know the devastation that can be caused when a boat is lost. Indeed, just at the start of this year in my constituency, the Nancy Glen sank off Loch Fyne with the loss of Duncan MacDougall and Przemek Krawczyk. The devastation felt is something I never want to see again. Anything that improves safety on board has to be supported.

I question the amendment in relation to wages and salary protection, but the SNP supports the principle. The Scottish Government—notably Fergus Ewing, the Cabinet Secretary—have written to industry stakeholders along those lines and spoken to the Government and officials about regularising the visa situation to ensure that non-EEA workers are subject to UK employment law. We are keen to get full implementation of ILO 188, the International Labour Organisation work in fishing convention. We have concerns that the wording of the amendment means it would not apply to the many fishermen who are self-employed, or to the significant proportion of the industry who are share fishermen, to whom such things as the national minimum wage do not apply. We need to ensure that anything in the licence works in tandem with existing law and check the exact implications of the amendment.

It is complex, so although we agree with the spirit of the amendment, particularly about safety on board, we must ensure that we get things right. If the amendment is pressed to a vote we shall support it but, if the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport does not press it, we will have an opportunity to work on a proposal covering more of the industry. We could work on that together and perhaps bring it back on Report.

--- Later in debate ---

[Brendan O'Hara]

Although these are all good aspirations, and we recognise the need to continually improve our data and the need to contribute to better science, we have concerns about some of the practical aspects. For example, who will pay for the very costly technological change that is proposed? I also question whether primary legislation is really the place for determining such scientific measures.

I caution that some of the technological measures are still in their infancy or, in some cases, not yet possible. For example, as I understand it the knowledge around identification and sizing of catches has only just been developed in terms of camera technology.

Finally, is it not for the devolved Administrations of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland to determine how to collect data, and indeed what data is to be collected? I fear that the amendments might inadvertently cut across that devolution settlement.

[Mr Carmichael]

To pick up on that last point, my amendment is probing, albeit with a serious purpose at its root. Essentially, the problem is that for years we have had conflict between what fishermen believe is in the sea and what scientists say is in the sea on the basis of the data that they have. The data that would be produced by the full documentation of catches—which is an important principle, whichever jurisdiction we are dealing with—would be the best possible evidence. It would be in the interests of the industry, and it would certainly be in the interests of the scientific community as a whole.

For years, I have complained about the fact that the source of the conflict between the industry and the scientists is that much of the data collected is almost two years old by the time it is used for the purposes of decision making. We know the situation in the marine environment can change massively over that time. As a consequence, we have a mismatch between the scientific evidence and what fishermen believe is in the sea.

What we propose would allow for a much earlier “quick and dirty” analysis of what is in the sea, and would offer the opportunity of different fisheries management systems. At the moment, given the way in which we use science, I would be very cautious about the idea of moving to anything like a real-time closure, for example. The science, of course, is always evolving and improving, but this is not a novel process; this approach is taken in a number of other fishing jurisdictions. If reliable data is coming from the industry itself, the objectives of real-time fisheries management will be much more easily achieved.

Amendment 24, which stands in my name, is probing, but it strikes at the heart of the approach that the Government will be taking, especially in later parts of the Bill, which deal with the practical ways in which fisheries management is to be undertaken. The National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations, for example, is keen to see the creation of advisory councils.

[George Eustice]

I will begin by setting out what is required now, what regulations we will have as a starting point, and some of the things that the Government are already doing in this area. First and foremost, the EU Withdrawal Act 2018 will incorporate all existing EU rules on data collection on to our domestic statute book. A significant amount of data is already collected: for instance, vessels over 10 metres in length are required to provide logbook data, which includes details of fishing activities, the catch, the type of fishing gear used, and the area where the fish were caught. Landing declarations are required, with information on the weight and representation of fish, and sales notes on the first sales of fish are also required. There is a comprehensive system of data collection, right from the point of catching and where those fish were caught, through to sales.

We have taken some steps in the past year to begin to improve data collection on the inshore fleet. Traditionally and currently, the under-10-metre fleet has been required to provide only sales notes. We have said that from next year, we will introduce a requirement for IVMS on inshore vessels, so we will know where those vessels are catching their fish. We will also introduce catch reporting as part of a step towards a new settlement with the under-10s: we intend to give them more quota but, in return, have a better understanding of how they are fishing and what they are catching. I believe that through those steps, by extending some of those provisions to the under-10-metre fleet, we will improve the documentation of where fish are caught and how they are caught.

The amendments are unnecessary, because they attempt to dip a toe into the type of detail that would be covered, in my view comprehensively, through the joint fisheries statement. Under that statement, we would have to demonstrate how we are delivering on that scientific objective. That is inevitably going to include how we are funding fisheries science, what the priority species are to move from a data-limited assessment to a full MSY assessment, what the challenges are, and what other issues we need to address. The matters that the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport seeks to cover in the scientific evidence objective should be picked up in much greater detail in the joint fisheries statement.

On the point made by the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland, who has lots of fishermen in his constituency, as long as I have been in post, I have been told that the scientists are always out of date and do not know where the fish are anyway, so they send survey vessels to the wrong place. I have looked at the issue in depth. We use a range of data, as Dr Carl O'Brien pointed out. We look, in real time, at landings data and the size of the fish being caught. There is the Endeavour—the survey vessel that CEFAS operates out of Lowestoft, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney—which goes to the same grounds every year to sample fish. There is an important reason for that: although the fish might move, there has to be a consistent yardstick to assess the same area; otherwise the control and the ability to monitor trends are lost.

That is not the only data that the scientists use. They use landings data and the survey vessel that goes to the same locations, but they also place observers on fishing vessels with the fishermen who say, “We know where the fish are and CEFAS don’t,” so we are monitoring that as well. We will never perfect the science, but the algorithms and models that the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea uses to predict stock trends factor in that some of the data may be a little dated. A constant refrain of fisherman is that the science is out of data and the scientists are in the wrong place anyway but, although we will never get it perfectly right, we do everything that we can to mitigate the types of effects that the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland described.

[Mr Carmichael]

The Minister actually makes the case for moving towards full documentation of catches very well.

[George Eustice]

As I explained earlier, we already have full documentation of catches on the over-10s, and next year we will introduce full documentation of catches for the inshore fleet. A linked issue is so-called remote electronic monitoring, which is basically cameras on vessels. Other parts of the Bill give us the power to require cameras on vessels, which could improve our abilities on enforcement and data collection.

We have the ability now, which we will retain in future through provisions in later clauses, to make real-time expeditious changes where required. We have had, for instance, issues with spurdog bycatch in parts of the west country. We had a successful spurdog bycatch avoidance programme, which was put together expeditiously in partnership between CEFAS and the industry in the west country, to assist fishermen to avoid those bycatches or to help them deal with them when they have been unable to avoid them.

I hope that I have reassured the right hon. and hon. Gentlemen of our progress in that area and of our commitment to science. The joint fisheries statement will cover those issues in greater detail.

--- Later in debate ---

[Luke Pollard]

I can deal with this quickly. The amendment relates to adding fishing opportunities or entitlement to the provision that is already in clause 1(7), so there can be no get-out-of-jail card. Fishers expressed concerns about ensuring that we have as robust a set of criteria as possible for foreign boats having access to UK waters. In the amendment, we ask the Minister to ensure that the clause and the criteria are as robust as they can be.

[Mr Carmichael]

Amendment 30, which stands in my name, is probing. I confess that its genesis is in briefings from the National Federation of Fishermen’s Organisations. I eventually tabled it because, on balance, it is an important issue that needs to be teased out. The amendment may not be the ideal way of doing it, because the enforceability of the duties of the other Administrations—Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish Ministers and Governments—is questionable, but the thinking behind it is important.

Essentially, given the devolved nature of fisheries and the fact that we will have the objective of equal access, we have to find a way around the conflict between the different systems that will be put in place in the different jurisdictions. If opportunities for fishing are to be taken up in England by boats from Scotland, or vice versa, or in Northern Ireland by boats from the west of Scotland, or vice versa, we need to find a way to ensure that the regulation is as accessible as possible.

Devolution is a good and worthy objective, which my party has supported for many years, but it can occasionally trigger the law of unintended consequences. If we do not manage the different systems in good faith, the people who have to comply with or enforce the regulations may be left in a difficult position. That is the issue that we seek to bring to the Minister’s attention by way of the amendment. I will not press it to a vote, but I am interested to know how exactly he envisages that will work in everyday, or every year, fisheries management considerations.

[George Eustice]

To address the amendments, I probably need to explain how quota flows through the various systems at the moment from the point at which it is created internationally. Both amendments stumble into the thorny area of our devolved settlement, as the right hon. Gentleman pointed out.

As an overarching point, we have sought to achieve through the Bill a system that enables us to manage our fisheries domestically in a way that respects the devolution settlement that has been established. To be honest, we sometimes have particular challenges in fisheries, because on one level they are about international agreements with other countries, which are a reserved UK competence, but on another level many elements of fisheries management have been devolved. In some areas, it has been challenging to put together arrangements that ensure that we have a UK framework, where it is needed, in a way that respects the devolution settlement, but I believe the Bill achieves that.

Let me explain how quota is created. First, we have an international fisheries negotiation between the UK and the EU, or the UK and a third country in the future, where, species by species, a total allowable catch and an allocation to the UK of that TAC are agreed. The UK Government then allocate that quota—our share of the TAC—to the devolved Administrations, currently following FQA units attached to the vessels where they are registered. That means we give Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales an allocation of quota. How they allocate that within their fleet is then a devolved competence.

A few years ago, the Scottish Government did a consultation on moving away from the FQA unit approach and allocating quota in a different way. Although they ultimately stepped back from that, it is a devolved responsibility for them to decide how to allocate that bit of the quota that the UK Government have allocated to them. The difficulty with both amendments is that they cross a line in terms of the devolution settlements, because they start to fetter the ability of the Scottish Government, the Northern Ireland Administration or the Welsh Government to allocate their own quota in the way they see fit.

We intend to pick up these sorts of issues through the joint fisheries statement. Indeed, we already wrestle with these challenges and we have a concordat and memorandums of understanding to manage these issues. Sometimes we have some tension between Scotland and other Administrations over where vessels are registered and where they are fishing, which can lead to disputes that we have to resolve. Due to the nature of our devolved settlement, the one thing we have become used to in fisheries is finding a way through the concordats, the memorandums of understanding or, in future, the joint fisheries statement. The challenge that both amendments alight on is not new; indeed, we have wrestled with it for some time. The solution to the problem lies in the joint fisheries statement that will set out common understandings in the way we approach these particular issues.

While I recognise that both amendments highlight an important issue, the issue goes wider than the Bill because it goes right to the heart of the devolution settlement. One thing we resolved not to do with this Bill is to attempt to rewrite or overturn the devolution settlement. In the absence of that, the joint fisheries statement is our solution to some of the problems the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland has highlighted.

Fisheries Bill (Sixth sitting)

Alistair Carmichael Excerpts

Committee Debate: 6th sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 11th December 2018 Public Bill Committees

[The Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (George Eustice)]

All the amendments seek a statutory requirement for the Government to publish an annual statement, updating the House and others on progress towards the fisheries objectives, but we already have a number of plans that mean we do not need to place a statement on a statutory footing. The White Paper commits us to an annual statement on our assessment of the state of stocks that are of interest to the UK and of our approach to setting fishing rates and other management measures.

Fisheries negotiations take place annually, which is why we have an annual fisheries debate. Next week is December Council, at which fishing opportunities for next year will be discussed. We have just been through the various coastal states, and the EU-Norway negotiations are concluding as I speak. To inform our approach to annual negotiations, we will inevitably feed data into organisations such as the International Council for the Exploration of the Seas—ICES—and publish both the data we have on progress on the state of fish stocks and our approach to doing that, so we do not need to place this on a statutory footing.

If something more formal were to be done, if it were judged that there needed to be more formal oversight of our progress towards the objectives, the right place to do that would be in the forthcoming environment Bill, which will establish an independent environmental body to monitor our progress towards the objectives set out in the 25-year environment plan. In relation to a more strategic approach to the delivery of the objectives and the plan, that is the right place to consider such an oversight role. We have in the Bill a statutory requirement for a joint fisheries statement and for a Secretary of State fisheries statement setting out our approach to delivering the objectives.

Finally, it is important to recognise what we already do. Every year, before we go to December Council we lay before the House a written ministerial statement that sets out our approach to the negotiations and the agenda for them, and we always lay a written ministerial statement after the negotiations have concluded, to update the House on progress.

[Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)]

I appreciate that we have other Bills coming and that there are other ways in which the reports may be obtained, but we have this Bill before the House at the moment, and it is this Bill that establishes the objectives and then the policy statements. Surely the mechanism for accountability should be within the Bill also, if it is to be meaningful.

[George Eustice]

The method for accountability is indeed in the Bill. There is a statutory requirement to publish a joint fisheries statement and for all the Administrations to pursue that statement to deliver those environmental outcomes and the fisheries objectives set out in clause 1. The issue here is whether it is necessary to place on a statutory footing the idea of publishing an annual statement. My contention is that there is no need, since we already have annual debates.

The hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport made an important point: there is a strong case for saying that, in the new world we are going into as we leave, rather than having that debate brought by the Backbench Business Committee, there should be a debate in Government time at the point the negotiations take place. I would certainly be willing to have conversations with colleagues in other Departments ahead of consideration on Report to see whether we could give such an undertaking.

We have already made a clear commitment in the White Paper to publish an annual statement of the state of the stocks. I do not believe it is necessary to put that on a statutory footing.

--- Later in debate ---

[George Eustice]

We regularly do triennial reviews. I do not think that the triennial reviews stem from the 2009 Act. I think there was a requirement to review the MMO after four or five years, and my recollection is that that did indeed take place.

My point is that it is not necessary for every report we might publish to be put into statute. I made the point in debating an earlier Bill that DEFRA produces many reports. Every June my box is inundated with annual reports of one sort or another. Some of them are required by statute. The vast majority are not, but we publish them anyway, as it is a means of being transparent with the public. Since we have given an undertaking in the White Paper, I do not believe any of the amendments is necessary. However, as I have said, I undertake to have conversations before Report with Government colleagues, to see whether we can give a more formal undertaking on the idea of the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport about a more formal debate in Government time on the Floor of the House, rather than in Westminster Hall.

[Mr Carmichael]

The Minister will remember, as I do, the days when the annual fisheries debate was held in Government time. When the Backbench Business Committee was introduced, it seemed logical that those general debates would go into Backbench Business time. The Government have now taken that on a step. It is not impossible that one day we may have a Government with sufficient authority and a sufficient majority to see a full and comprehensive programme of legislation through the House, in which case it is eminently foreseeable that the time available for a debate of the kind we are discussing will be squeezed out again. I suggest that that is why there is some force to the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport.

[George Eustice]

In DEFRA we have brought in more Bills—more significant pieces of legislation—in the past 12 months than at any time in recent history. Parliament is currently considering an Agriculture Bill that is the first such major piece of legislation since 1947. Of course, the Fisheries Bill will give us control of our waters for the first time in more than 40 years. So, at DEFRA at least, we are making good progress in getting through some critical legislation.

I hope that I have reassured both my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney and the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport that while it is indeed our clearly stated intention to publish an annual statement of the state of stocks, it is unnecessary to make it a statutory requirement in the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Luke Pollard]

The Opposition will not vote against clause 1. However, I invite the Minister to reflect on some of the changes to the objectives that have been discussed. I also invite him to look at whether amendments can be introduced in the other place, especially in relation to fish being a public asset and marine safety. I think there was widespread agreement on that on both sides of the House, even if there was not necessarily agreement on the wording.

[Mr Carmichael]

Among those who gave evidence to the Committee last week, a common recurring theme was that there was something of a disparity between the vision that was laid out in the White Paper, which the Liberal Democrats broadly welcomed, and the rather narrower vision that was left in the Bill. It is also fair to say that we would have hoped to find in clause 1 a number of aspects of the White Paper’s vision. It is disappointing that we have not made more progress. I have been around this place long enough to know how these things work, so I am not necessarily very surprised, but it is fair to put the Minister on notice that the Liberal Democrats will wish to return to certain issues in relation to clause 1 when the Bill goes back to the Floor of the House. Failing that, I am fairly certain that my noble Friends at the other end of the building will also have thoughts on this matter.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 1 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2

Fisheries statements

[Peter Aldous]

I beg to move amendment 87, in clause 2, page 2, line 37, at end insert

“and their policies for distribution of fishing opportunities.”

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Sweeney]

It is an honour, as always, to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray. The hon. Member for Waveney puts forward a clear and cogent case. It is something that needs to be looked at carefully in the context of the sustainability of our current constitutional arrangements. The key frustration for a lot of us, particularly the generation who have grown up under devolution, is the lopsided and asymmetrical nature of our structures.

It certainly causes frustration in this place for Scottish MPs when we have to deal with structures and policies that are not geared up for or reflective of devolution, and that are not considerate of those issues. It is time to bear in mind and take cognisance of those issues, in order to look at a new architecture for our legislative framework in the UK that reflects the reality of the past 20 years of devolution.

[Mr Carmichael]

I confess that I did not anticipate, when we started scrutiny of the Fisheries Bill, that issues of such high constitutional importance would feature so prominently in the debate. One never knows how Committees will proceed.

The hon. Member for Waveney makes a good point. The current constitutional architecture remains unfinished. The unfinished business is the position of England, and whether it is England as a whole or the constituent parts of England is a debate that, frankly, people in England need to have. I wish them as much joy as we have had with that in Scotland for the past 30 years.

The hon. Gentleman’s amendment comes to the crux of the matter. As matters are currently ordered, the Secretary of State has a clear conflict of interest. On the one hand, he is expected to act as the UK Minister, holding the ring, as it were, between the different constituent parts of the United Kingdom, and at the same time he is supposed to be the English Minister. That is not a sustainable situation. It requires to be remedied and should be remedied, I suggest, through a more comprehensive and holistic approach to constitutional reform for our English cousins. It is also fair to say that this is not a situation that can last indefinitely. If we have to go through another round of salami slicing, taking it subject by subject, instead of region or nation by region or nation, then so be it, but clearly something has to change.

[Luke Pollard]

The amendment goes to the heart of many of the gripes about fisheries regulation in England. Who speaks for English fishing? There is an inherent conflict in the roles of the Fisheries Minister and the Secretary of State holding both English and UK-wide portfolios. Although it is tempting to engage in a debate about the emerging need for a federal settlement in the United Kingdom, that is probably a decision above our pay grades for the purposes of the Fisheries Bill.

However, the hon. Member for Waveney’s suggestion to look at where this will go is not necessarily a bad one. We have the opportunity to reset and reformulate fishing regulation and to start the journey on those bits that will take longer. The Minister has said that re-allocating FQA will take seven years, if that were to start straightaway. We recognise that some of the changes that the Bill is seeking to effect will not come into immediate force on the day that the Bill comes into force. The discussion that we need to have about the more devolved nature of fisheries is part of that.

If I may go further than the hon. Gentleman, there has also been talk about devolution within England. For instance, there is the potential with more empowered inshore fisheries and conservation authorities, and greater powers at a local level, to have a more thorough set of powers regionalised and localised, rather than just held in Westminster with an English Minister. This is therefore a good debate to have. I am not certain that the amendment will carry favour, but the hon. Gentleman is right to raise the concern.

On the question of who speaks for English fishing, I am sure the Minister will say that, currently, he does. That is something that we need to delve into, though it is probably a discussion for another day.

[George Eustice]

As my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney pointed out, this may be a variant of the famous West Lothian question. Perhaps we could dub it the Waveney question, as he has raised it. It is an interesting point, but as a number of hon. Members have pointed out, it goes much wider than what we will be able to resolve in this particular Bill.

In this country we have a devolved settlement; we do not have a federal system of government. The reason that a federal system of government would not work in the UK is that England is so much bigger than the other component parts. Under any kind of qualified majority vote we would still, effectively, have the dominance of England. It is because such a federal system would not work in reality, given the structure of the UK—unless we were to break up England, as the previous Government intended to do through a series of regional assemblies—that we need to make our devolution settlement work.

Devolution means that, ultimately, something is either devolved—in which case it is for the devolved Administrations to lead on—or it is reserved, in which case it is for the UK Government to lead on. Where there is a need for co-ordination and frameworks, it happens through a series of memorandums of understanding, concordats and other such arrangements, which feature prominently in this Bill and have always been prominent in our approach to fisheries.

The amendment would have no legal effect as it stands, because the Minister with responsibility for English fisheries is indeed the Secretary of State, so they are one and the same. For a Minister with responsibility for English fisheries to be able to do anything other than what the Secretary of State wanted, he would need to have an English Government who were separate from the UK Government; and if we had an English Government who were separate from the UK Government, we would need an English Parliament to hold that English Government to account. I do not think that that is an approach that we want to take at the moment, for all the reasons I have outlined.

[Mr Carmichael]

Can the Minister reconcile the objections that he has just outlined with the Government’s attitude to English votes for English laws?

[George Eustice]

I can, because that is an absolutely sensible compromise to ensure that only English MPs should vote on those pieces of legislation that affect only English matters. I believe that that is not about having an English Government, but a procedure in our Parliament to ensure that English MPs vote on laws that affect their constituents.

There is another issue. I might say, what about Cornwall? Cornwall is slightly different, as you will know. The Fisheries Minister at the moment represents a Cornish seat, but there are representations from organisations such as Cornwall Council that seek to have more of a formal role for Cornwall in decision making. That links to the point made by the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport, that there may be a more formal role for the IFCAs, which could draw them into the consultations that we have ahead of the annual fisheries discussions. At the moment, we have meetings with both environmental and fishing stakeholders, and engage closely with them in the lead-up, but it may be that we should have a process for involving the IFCAs in part of that discussion. That may be one way to address the issue.

My hon. Friend the Member for Waveney mentioned that parts of the Bill say “the Secretary of State” and others “the Marine Management Organisation”. This clause, which is about putting together a policy statement, clearly relates to the Secretary of State. The term marine management organisation tends to be used, in most clauses, in the context of its enforcement and licensing roles. Parts of the Bill use the term marine management organisation because of the powers it has under the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009 to manage licences and to carry out enforcement activities.

My hon. Friend raises an important point, but it goes well beyond the scope of the Bill. I would say this: in my time doing this job, I have never actually had any difficulty reconciling the role that I play as UK Minister in international negotiations, arguing the case for the UK, and the role that I play as an English Fisheries Minister, making decisions around the distribution of quota, technical measures to protect buried lobsters and a whole host of other things, which I agree for England only. It does not cause me any conflict. There are potential inconsistencies, as he highlighted, but I believe they are inherent in the devolved settlement that we have; over the last 20 years, we have learned to manage those effectively.

--- Later in debate ---

[Luke Pollard]

The point that the hon. Gentleman makes is a valid one, and it relates to the difficulty of having a UK role and English role simultaneously. The importance of creating a dispute resolution system ahead of any dispute happening is that the rules of engagement are already set out if those conflicts and the issues that may arise from people being double-hatted come about. That assumes that the English Fisheries Minister is indeed an English MP and there is not a Welsh or Scottish MP in that role, because that would create opportunities for other types of conflict within that scenario.

We need to get that settled from the outset and that is effectively what the amendment seeks to do. The amendment says, “In the event of there being a problem, how will it be addressed?” It would be good if the Minister set out his Department’s thinking. If there is a scenario in which conflict happens, we need to be clear about how it will be resolved, because fisheries is a very political issue. We know from the Fisheries Councils that there is an awful lot of national bravado, national posturing and national importance in respect of the deal, and the agreement that emerges is a really important one. I would therefore be grateful if the Minister set out how he would address that in responding to the amendment.

[Mr Carmichael]

We used to say that strong fences make for good neighbours, and the same is true when applied to the principles of constitutional law. The effective working of an emerging asymmetric system of devolution within our government requires strong systems to be put in place. Yes, as the Minister suggested this morning, it is all fine and well while everybody is happy, stocks are plentiful and there is no real disagreement. One of the difficulties with the operation of the devolution settlement between Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom was that such concordats as were put in place were put in place with little consideration of how they might work with Governments of different colours in Edinburgh and London. As a consequence, these areas have become fractious, and occasionally friction has ensued. We risk missing an opportunity, because there will be times when some sort of friction will occur.

To anticipate the question from the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun, such arrangements would have to be put in place after full agreement with the different devolved Administrations. It would be wrong of the UK Government—because they are the UK Government and the English Government at the same time—simply to go ahead. That is the essence of the conflict the Minister faces.

No one should have a veto in these matters, but that should mean that no one has a final say in defiance of everyone else either. A veto can block an arrangement, but a final say can force through an arrangement that does not suit and is not agreed by everyone in the different Administrations concerned. At the end of the day, we may need to come to something that looks much like a system of qualified majority voting. Heaven help us, but some mechanism must be found to resolve these matters.

The point the Minister hears from our discussion of this amendment, and from his hon. Friend the Member for Waveney on the previous amendment, is that once we have brought the powers back from the European Union, the status quo will no longer be fit for purpose.

[Owen Smith (Pontypridd) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray. I rise to support the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport. I do so as a former special adviser in the Wales Office and the Northern Ireland Office and as a former shadow Secretary of State for Wales and for Northern Ireland.

My experience and my observation is that even when Ministers in all corners of the UK have the best intentions of avoiding them, disputes regularly arise. As the Minister indicated, such disputes are normally dealt with on a pretty ad hoc basis, with an evolving series of concordats and memorandums of understanding. The memorable way in which the hon. Member for Waveney put it was that such matters are “the West Lothian question for fish”. Whenever such problems inevitably emerge, we traditionally kick the can, or the fish, down the road, rather than try to resolve them.

The Minister highlighted some of the thorny issues we have wrestled with over generations on both sides of the House in respect of devolution and the evolving devolution settlement. I put it to him that it is better, especially in an enabling framework Bill such as this, to try to shape future discussions and mitigate the emergence of problems and disputes, because one thing we can be certain of is that they will emerge in relation to fishing.

One simply need consider clause 3 in respect of the Secretary of State setting out his fisheries statement—the SSFS—and the joint fisheries statement being agreed between the devolved Administrations and the UK Government, to see that there is an immediate problem. It is not clear to me from reading the Bill which of those statements has precedence. I assume that the hierarchy is that, just as each succeeding SSFS supersedes the preceding one, the SSFS would also have precedence over the JFS, but if the JFS were legally deemed to be the more important document, given that it had arguably reached by a more important means of negotiation between the different parts of the UK, it would be good if the Minister were to clarify that.

What happens if there is a significant difference of opinion between the UK Secretary of State, who is also the English Fisheries Minister, and Fisheries Ministers for the devolved Administrations about their priorities for their respective fishing areas? That seems an obvious problem, although this is not the area of the Bill in which that problem becomes most obvious: it is in clauses 18 and 19, which deal with the setting of quotas, that the potential for discord between the UK Minister and the devolved Administrations Ministers becomes most acute and most commercially problematic. In respect of the fisheries statements and the setting of quotas, it is perfectly possible that in future, for example, the UK Minister may wish to set quotas for shellfish that we do not currently have, which may be seen as unfair to fishers in Scotland or Wales in particular.

I think we all recognise that there are myriad potential problems here, and that it would be better if the Minister were able to come up with some more concrete means of assuring people that the Government have an idea of how they would resolve those problems. That might be through a dispute resolution mechanism as recommended by our Front Benchers, or through some other means, but I do not think kicking the can down the road is the right approach.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Sweeney]

I think it should be an inclusive process; I am not prescribing any particular definition for that, but I do not think the Secretary of State should have untrammelled power over the ultimate decisions. As the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland suggested, it should be something that is equitable and democratic in nature. That would be the way to proceed.

[Mr Carmichael]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that now is the time to be make these arrangements? If we wait until there is a problem, then the creation of the resolution system itself will inevitably become contentious. This is the time for building strong bridges.

[Mr Sweeney]

I agree. It would be intelligent to set up this mechanism now, rather than when there is a heated dispute, which will inevitably emerge at some point in the course of history. It would be seen as enlightened to do that at this stage, and I urge the Minister to consider taking it forward as a matter of precaution, because we all share an interest in this legislation functioning as efficiently as possible and reflecting the realities of 20 years of devolution. As we have mentioned before, some of these provisions can form a blind spot in how the UK Government form their policies, and we have to be cognisant of the realities of how devolution functions.

This mechanism should not be monopolised by the devolved Administrations plus the UK Government; it could perhaps involve regional elements from all the devolved nations, which would be able to make submissions for dispute resolutions as well. It should proceed in an innovative and intelligent way. It would allow us to have properly functioning devolution, rather than simply devolving an issue and forgetting that it exists—throwing it over the wall and saying, “It is now branded with a saltire or a red dragon, and it is no longer our problem.” It should be an iterative process that everybody is involved with, because ultimately, fisheries are an common asset for all parts of the UK.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

You just need to say it is not moved; there is no need to speak to it. Unless anyone disagrees, I do not think there is any need to debate clause stand part.

Clause 10 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 11 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 12

Power to grant licences in respect of foreign fishing boats

[Mr Carmichael]

I beg to move amendment 33, in clause 12, page 7, line 32, at end insert—

“(1A) The Secretary of State must publish each year a report on—

(a) the number of licenses granted, and

(b) the country of origin of the boat to which each license is granted.”

To ensure transparency and accountability over the granting of licenses to foreign fishing boats by each relevant national authority.

Clause 12 centres on the power to grant licences in respect of foreign fishing boats. There is concern in the industry—principally on the part of the National Federation of Fishermen’s Organisations—that there is a need for greater transparency in the way and the extent to which that is done. For that reason, my amendment would require the Secretary of State to publish each year a report on the number of licences granted and the country of origin of the boat to which each licence is granted.

Currently, the Bill allows only the political representatives of each of the relevant national authorities to grant licences to foreign fishing boats. The purpose of the amendment is to bring in an element of transparency and accountability. It should not be particularly onerous—I would have thought the administrative procedure would be fairly straightforward—but it would allow the industry to have confidence in the way the system works and prevent, or at least highlight, any abuse of the system, ensuring fair and appropriate use of the powers.

[George Eustice]

I hope I can reassure right the hon. Gentleman that, in common with a number of similar amendments, the amendment is not necessary but we have nothing to hide in this regard. I anticipate that we would indeed publish the number of licences granted where we were able to, probably as part of the Marine Management Organisation’s annual report, which covers a wide range of issues. I am happy to explore with officials whether a section could be added to the report to include such data.

There is one potential technical flaw with that approach. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, the granting of licences is a devolved matter. We have been working with the devolved Administrations on a sensible and pragmatic approach. In all likelihood, there will be one issue of a licence to foreign vessels granted access to our waters. It will be issued by the Marine Management Organisation, but only with the consent of each devolved Administration. The purpose of that is to remove the pointless duplication of having to issue four separate licences covering each part of the UK for an internationally agreed arrangement to grant a particular cohort of vessels access to our waters.

If that administrative approach holds—the devolved Administrations show no appetite at the moment for issuing lots of separate licences for foreign access—the Marine Management Organisation would indeed have access to that information. If at some point one of the devolved Administrations decided to grant their own licence, the right hon. Gentleman might have to ask his colleagues in other devolved legislatures to table parliamentary questions to seek the answers that he is interested in.

The right hon. Gentleman raises an important point of principle, and I will seek to update the Committee on Report about whether we can include what he asks for as a convention to be included in the annual Marine Management Organisation report. I hope he will not see the need to make it a statutory requirement.

[Mr Carmichael]

We strike a recurring theme here: the Minister is determined to legislate for happy times. We all hope that happy times will last. By definition, to be a Liberal Democrat is to be an optimist, so I hope more than anybody else that happy times might last. However, the purpose of the legislation is to deal with occasions when there are differences, tensions and disagreements. I do not doubt that the Minister will continue to publish the information in the way that he describes, but it is just about conceivable that the day will come when the Minister is not the Minister and there might be another Minister who will do things very differently. That is why we put these things in statute rather than leaving them to the discretion of individual Ministers.

[George Eustice]

The right hon. Gentleman is aware that in such circumstances, there would be many other mechanisms available, not least simply tabling a parliamentary question. If the Marine Management Organisation had access to the information since it had issued the said licences, it would be inconceivable that it could avoid answering such a question were it tabled as a parliamentary question.

[Mr Carmichael]

That is undoubtedly the case, but I said right at the start that the issue is one of transparency and accountability. Such things are best hard-wired into the Bill, rather than being left to the vagaries of the written parliamentary question system. The Minister says he will take the matter away and report back to the Committee at a later stage, so I will not press the amendment to a Division, but, as a caveat to that, I reserve the position with regard to later procedure. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Luke Pollard]

I beg to move amendment 63, in clause 12, page 8, line 10, at end insert—

‘(3A) No licence may be granted under this section unless conditions are attached to that licence so as to require the foreign fishing boat to comply with any standards in relation to environmental protection and marine safety that would apply to the same boat if it were a British fishing boat.”

This amendment would require licences granted to require foreign fishing boats to comply with the same environmental protection and marine safety standards as British fishing boats.

Amendment 63 seeks to put into the Bill a common and very serious concern of many of our fishing communities around the country, which is that the regime that might exist after we leave the EU will see one set of rules for UK fishers and potentially another set of rules for EU fishers, because access to our waters will still be on the basis of fixed quota allocations and many foreign boats will still own quota to access UK waters after we leave the UK, and a drawdown period, if one exists, will take a while to achieve. The amendment seeks to create in the Bill the very clear, in stark plain English, description that says that foreign fishing boats should obey the same rules as British fishing boats. It is a principle to which there is huge agreement across the country from Plymouth and Cornwall right up to the north of Scotland. It would not create extra burdens for our EU friends entering UK waters. It would create the same burdens—the same regulatory requirements—to which any UK fisher must adapt.

In particular, the amendment deals with environmental protections and marine safety. It is vital, when it comes to safety, that we do not inadvertently create incentives for foreign boats to cut corners and take risks with their crews that we would not allow on our own boats. We already know from anecdotal evidence that safety standards on different EU countries’ boats are very different. There are different levels of enforcement and compliance with existing regulations.

If we say—rightly, and as the Minister did in the earlier discussion on marine safety—that we want high levels of marine safety for UK boats, we should require the same high levels of marine safety for foreign boats. If we do not, there will be a regulatory gap, potentially, between UK and foreign fishing boats. There will be an efficiency in having lower marine standards, in relation to the cost of compliance for UK and EU fishers. Potentially, a situation could be created where our EU friends might, while fishing in our waters, get into trouble more often because of the lower levels of protection.

The amendment is simple, and would put into the Bill something that fishers across the country want—a clear prescription that EU fishers will obey the same regulations as UK fishers. It is essential to the Bill, and I am surprised that it has not been included. There would, I think, be support for it on both sides of the Committee. I suspect that the Minister will oppose it, and I should be grateful if he set out his reasons for doing so, and explain how the same thing can be achieved by other means. There is concern in fishing organisations because the detail in the Bill includes no such clarity about the same regulatory standards applying to EU and UK fishers.

Fisheries Bill (Seventh sitting)

Alistair Carmichael Excerpts

Committee Debate: 7th sitting: House of Commons
Thursday 13th December 2018 Public Bill Committees

[Mr Paul Sweeney (Glasgow North East) (Lab/Co-op)]

rose—

[Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)]

rose—

[The Chair]

My brain has gone completely blank. The hon. Gentleman on the Opposition Front Bench—[Interruption.] It is Mr Sweeney.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Sweeney]

They would create a framework within which those opportunities could be generated by devolved Administrations. The Scottish Government could augment that. The amendment and new clause would create a fundamental framework that would drive demand into UK ports. That is the opportunity, which would be an important baseline measure in the Bill, and could be developed. We had an interesting debate yesterday on the centenary of the Iolaire disaster, and one of the conclusions was that highland and island communities suffer significant isolation, and that it is important that their distinctive economic and social needs should be met by Parliament. The amendment and new clause would benefit them a great deal.

[Mr Carmichael]

I have sympathy with the amendment, but I want to add a few words of caution. In my time in Parliament, I have often supported campaigns to land more fish in our own ports. Obviously it is important for the economic viability of coastal ports. My worry about the amendment is that the law of unintended consequences could come into play. Such a requirement would be quite challenging for some of the larger pelagic boats in my constituency. I anticipate that a significant proportion of their catch would probably currently be landed in Norway or Denmark. Essentially, my instinct is that fishing boats should be able to land wherever they get the best price for their fish. If the Government were to put into a Bill something that would limit that ability, it would be a bit of a blunt tool.

[David Duguid (Banff and Buchan) (Con)]

As the right hon. Gentleman and the Minister know, many of the concerns that the right hon. Gentleman raises would be shared by pelagic fishermen in my constituency as well. Clearly, they can, and choose to, land in Norway, Denmark and other places for economic and logistical reasons. Does he agree that if the Government or the Scottish Government or other devolved Administrations want to encourage the development of local industries, so that such economic and logistical benefits can be realised locally, that would be better than setting an arbitrary percentage limit?

[Mr Carmichael]

Yes. In essence I agree with the hon. Gentleman about that. When I practised law in his constituency, Macduff was omitted from the list of designated ports. That was virtually the end of—or it was at the time a real threat to—the processing that was done there. When we want to consider building infrastructure—not just landing infrastructure, but ice houses, processing plants and the rest—there are probably other ways we should go first, before doing something as blunt as what is proposed. In relation to this Bill, the National Federation of Fishermen’s Organisations is strongly advocating that we set up advisory councils for fisheries administration, for example. It seems to me that this is exactly the sort of decision that those advisory councils should be tackling, because the fishing industry itself knows best how to deal with that infrastructure.

--- Later in debate ---

[Peter Aldous]

It is a pleasure to serve again under your chairmanship, Mr Gray. I will speak to amendment 92 and new clause 9 in my name, which relate to electric pulse fishing.

As we heard from the Opposition spokesman, pulse fishing is the process by which commercial trawlers, towing electrodes, emit bursts of electricity into the seabed to force out fish such as flatfish, shrimp, sole and plaice buried in the mud. The electric shock makes the fish convulse and flip upwards into the trawler’s net. The method is not used by British-owned vessels; it is practised largely by the Dutch in the North sea, often in British waters. They argue that pulse fishing is better for the environment than traditional trawling and, as we have heard, they have issued permits for up to 100 pulse trawlers to operate. They point out that pulse trawlers use up to 46% less fuel and catch 50% less unwanted marine life than other trawlers.

However, the practice is strongly opposed by English and French fishermen, who have seen its devastating impact at first hand. Moreover, there is a lack of scientific evidence to justify it generally, although the Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science is carrying out extensive ongoing research. The feedback I receive from East Anglian fishermen is that pulse trawling has a devastating effect on the marine environment. They find dead fish left behind with broken backs. The practice rips up life on the seabed surface and uses large scouring devices to extract buried fish, damaging underlying sediment. The practice is indiscriminate and is destroying a variety of marine life and ecosystems, particularly in the North sea.

As we have heard, pulse fishing is technically illegal in the EU, the US and China. However, an exemption allows EU countries to catch up to 5% of their annual fishing quota in the North sea using what are termed “innovative” methods in the name of research. For some reason, pulse fishing is one of those methods. In January, the European Parliament voted to ban commercial fishing using an electric current in EU waters. The amendment calling for a total ban on pulse fishing was passed by 402 votes to 232, with 40 abstentions, although the ban has not yet come into place.

I summarise my thoughts as follows. First, in pursuing the precautionary approach, given the clear evidence of its devastating impact, pulsing should not take place at all. The Dutch argue that they are conducting a trial. In practice, it is no such thing. They have set up a whole industry based on a completely inappropriate fishing practice. They have exploited a loophole in the common fisheries policy and EU regulations for their own commercial advantage. There must be no such loopholes in our UK fishing policy, for which the Bill will provide the framework.

Secondly, pulse fishing has a devastating impact both at sea and on land. It destroys the marine environment and takes fish that should be caught and landed by UK fishermen and processed in Britain back to the Netherlands, and then, absurdly, often back to the UK for sale.

Thirdly, although the practice still takes place, it has been condemned and voted down by the European Parliament. The UK Parliament should do likewise. In some respects, I accept that primary legislation such as this Bill may well not be the right place for such a ban on a specific practice. However, we need to send a clear message right from the outset that there is no place for electro-pulse fishing in the future management of UK waters when we leave the EU and when the Bill, which I assume will receive Royal Assent, comes into effect. The Minister and I have spoken at length on this matter over the last few months. I am grateful to him for doing that. In answering, can he provide me with an assurance that electro-pulse fishing stops immediately that we leave the EU and the Bill comes into force? If he cannot, I believe the ban needs to be on the face of the Bill.

[Mr Carmichael]

I think it is fairly well known in the House that I am essentially a simple soul. I lead my life according to some basic rules, from which I do not depart. One of them is to never mix water and electricity. No good ever comes of it. This amendment touches on one other example of that basic truth, from which we should not depart. It is quite remarkable that occasionally the industry manages to throw up new, innovative ways of doing things that are self-evidently wrong.

When I was first elected to this House, one of the biggest complaints from the industry at that time was the operation of the Danish industrial fishery in the North sea hoovering up just about anything that was in the water, with mesh sizes in the region of 2 mm or 3 mm. It was as unsustainable a fishing method as one could imagine, and it was rightly stopped—eventually. This is another such example. It is self-evident that this sort of thing should not be allowed. The precautionary principle, about which the hon. Member for Waveney spoke, is absolutely the right approach to take. Whether that needs to done through primary legislation is another matter, but we have primary legislation. This is the first time in my 17 and a half years as a Member of Parliament that we have had a specific fishing Bill. Since we have it, why do we not use it?

[George Eustice]

This is an important issue, which I have discussed many times with my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney. I want to explain the arguments that advocates of pulse trawling put forward, the arguments against it, and my position and the one we have therefore adopted within the EU at the moment, as well as how I tend to address this issue. I think I have a solution that may be even faster than the passage of the Bill.

The advocates of pulse trawling make a reasonable argument that conventional beam trawling literally drags a chain across the seabed, destroying and crushing everything in its path, to get flat fish to jump up into the nets, whereas a pulse beam trawler does not drag a chain across the floor of the seabed, but hovers above the seabed and sends the electric pulse down. There is evidence that this type of fishing uses less fuel, so the carbon footprint of fishing vessels using this method is lower.

However, the opponents—I am one—point to a number of other problems. First—this is why fishermen in my hon. Friend’s constituency are so concerned—although pulse trawling does not disturb the seabed to the same extent as conventional beam trawling, it makes it possible to fish areas that could not otherwise be fished. Paradoxically, the ability to fish parts of the ocean where conventional gear types could not have gone means that areas of the seabed that might have been seen as a sanctuary for some flat fish, because it was technically not possible to fish them, can now be fished. That increases fishing pressure, because there are more vessels able to catch more fish in more areas, more quickly.

Secondly, as my hon. Friend pointed out, there are lots of anecdotal reports of gadoids, in particular cod, having their backs broken by this technique. There is evidence from some of the tank studies that it can affect the navigation of some fish. The electric pulse can disturb their navigation and affect their ability to feed and migrate. The third problem is that we do not really know what impact the electric pulse might be having on smaller organisms—young fry, small lobsters, eggs and other types of early-developing sea life. We do not know the full impact of that, and there are concerns that it could be having a detrimental effect, breaking the food chain and therefore causing other problems.

--- Later in debate ---

[Luke Pollard]

Following the hon. Gentleman’s speech, we are all now aware of the humble sand eel, which is an important component of food webs in the north Atlantic. It is at the bottom of the marine food chain and is part of the diet of cod, mackerel, porpoises and seabirds such as Arctic terns and kittiwakes, especially in breeding season.

We also need to be aware of research led by the British Trust for Ornithology and the Joint Nature Conservation Committee that indicates that populations of kittiwakes, terns, fulmars and shags are impacted by sand eel farming in the North sea. Those conservationists are concerned that the boats that catch thousands of tonnes of sand eels each year to be turned into animal feed and fertiliser deprive seabirds of a vital source of food.

We have heard calls for a ban on sand eel fishing in the central North sea, most recently from the Fishing for Leave representative in our evidence session, but we would like more evidence about the practice. I would be grateful if the Minister dealt with how we can pick up the points raised by the hon. Member for Waveney but also ensure there is sufficient scientific evidence and understanding of the stock baseline for sand eels, which seem at the moment to be missing from the debate.

[Mr Carmichael]

Anyone seeking evidence of the issue the hon. Member for Waveney raised is more than welcome to come and visit us in Orkney or Shetland and look at the cliffs. Cliffs that were once white with seabirds and other things—evidence of seabirds—are often empty at times of the year when they should be full. That causes enormous concern in our community. It is a good example of the way an ecosystem-based approach can bring benefits to the community beyond the fishing industry. Nature tourism is one of the liveliest and most rapidly growing sectors in our local economy, and it is a welcome boost. The sand eel fishery self-evidently has been a foolish enterprise for many years, and I very much endorse the hon. Gentleman’s comments and his efforts to end it.

[George Eustice]

My hon. Friend the Member for Waveney, having got important concessions on the Dutch fleet, turns his attention to taking on the Danes. As he knows, sand eels are a shared stock, but about 90% of the sand eels caught in the UK’s exclusive economic zone are caught by the Danish fleet around Dogger Bank, although Sweden also has some interest in this area.

We are giving consideration to the issue, but, as my hon. Friend acknowledges, access to the sand eel stock is the most important access that Denmark receives from the UK, so we will have to consider it in the context of our annual fisheries exchanges. There is a full data assessment for the stock, and ICES provides annual recommendations for a TAC on sand eels in the Dogger Bank area. In recent years, with the exception only of 2016, the TAC has been set in line with ICES recommendations.

The issue with a unilateral ban on the fishing of all sand eels in all UK waters is that we would be likely simply to displace that fishing activity, so there would be unsustainable catches of sand eels in waters outside the UK EEZ. However, my hon. Friend highlighted a number of measures we could consider to address that. First, as he pointed out, the so-called Wee Bankie sand eel fishery has been closed since 2000. As we leave the EU, I certainly would like to explore whether we could consider a similar closure in a particular area to try to protect the sand eel population closer to shore, where birds are more likely to be, so they have a food source.

The second approach to which my hon. Friend alluded is to do something more akin to what we do in some shellfish sectors. We have a principle in cockle fisheries of reserving a proportion of cockles for wading birds so we do not deprive them of a food source. Local inshore fisheries and conservation authorities take into account the needs of wild birds when setting catch limits for cockles. Given the way ICES advice is generated, based as it is on maximum sustainable yield, it tends not to place great weight on such considerations, but there is no reason why, in the context of future UK-EU bilateral negotiations, we should not seek to argue that there should be more restraint on species such as sand eels where they have an important role as a food source for birds.

This is a complex area, and some scientists would say that it is not just sand eels that are used but other species, too. However, I am certainly happy to say that we will look at it, and I hope my hon. Friend does not feel the need to press the amendment to a vote.

Fisheries Bill (Ninth sitting)

Alistair Carmichael Excerpts

Committee Debate: 9th sitting: House of Commons
Monday 17th December 2018 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

I welcome colleagues to a potentially full Monday.

Clause 23

Discard prevention charging schemes

[Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)]

I beg to move amendment 103, in clause 23, page 13, line 28, at end insert—

“(c) where monies raised through a charging scheme are spent.”

To bring transparency over use of money raised through a charging scheme, and to allow for it to be argued for a revenue to be ringfenced to be spent on research and investment in the industry.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 104, in clause 23, page 14, line 7, at end insert—

“(8) The Secretary of State must publish a report every year that reviews the charging scheme. This review will include—

(a) the amount of revenue raised through the scheme, and

(b) the use of revenue raised through the scheme.”

To require the Secretary of State to publish an annual review of the charging scheme.

[Mr Carmichael]

It is a pleasure to be back here under your chairmanship, Mr Hanson. If you will indulge me, I will say a brief word about the conduct of the Committee’s business, which has been exemplary so far. We have managed to get through a lot of business. Nobody has taken too long, but we have managed a thorough exploration of the issues. You might be aware, Mr Hanson, that this week is significant for fishing communities, coinciding as it does with the advent of the annual December Fisheries Council in Brussels. Many of us here represent fishing communities and we know the importance of having the best possible representation at the highest possible level from our own Government. It is a fairly common view within our communities that the Minister should be there in attendance if possible. We therefore wish to finish the business of the Committee tonight if possible. Obviously, the matter is of long-term importance, but, for the communities that we represent, what happens in Brussels in the next day or two will be significant.

[The Chair]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his comments, but it is a matter for every member of the Committee to determine when we complete our business. Sittings are planned until Wednesday, but if Members restrain themselves, completing business tonight could be achieved.

[Mr Carmichael]

Indeed, Mr Hanson. I will simply say this: not only from the point of view of those of us who represent fishing communities, but from the point of view of Parliament as a whole, it will do no harm for MPs to be seen at least in this regard as behaving like mature grown-ups.

The Committee will be aware that clause 23 seeks to introduce a discard prevention charging scheme for those who, for whatever reason, have taken over-quota fish. The amendments try to add a little more focus to that. Amendment 103 allows for the money taken from these finds to be ring-fenced and a specific purpose for the money to be identified. The specific purpose that I have in mind relates to fisheries management, conservation, and perhaps maritime or marine environmental schemes—measures of that sort. Given the general nature of the Bill, and with a view to the durability of the legislation, we have not sought to tie the hands of any future Minister with regard to what that specific purpose might ultimately be. It is a fairly novel approach to a scheme of this sort, but it is not without precedent.

The precedent that springs most readily to mind is the aggregates levy, which allowed money to be ring-fenced for spending in communities situated next to aggregate excavation quarries because they were in some way affected by the industry. It would be a very good signal to send, and such a measure would bring about a bit of confidence in the industry itself with regard to how the discard prevention charging scheme is administered.

Amendment 104 would make provision for an annual review to account for the money raised and how it has been spent. That would follow on naturally from amendment 103—if the Committee were minded to incorporate such a measure. It is an important point, but not one that at this stage, subject to what I might hear from the Minster, I intend to push to a vote.

[Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is good to see everyone back here. I think we all agree that discards should be prevented, and we all want more sustainable forms of fishing, but the discard ban that will kick in on 1 January worries fishers from Cornwall and Plymouth to Peterhead and Fraserburgh. They worry that their boats will be tied up because the ban will prevent them from going to sea.

We need a system that prevents discards and means fish caught without a quota are not wasted, chucked overboard or discarded. We heard in our evidence sessions from Aaron Brown of Fishing for Leave, who feels there are major problems with this part of the Bill. Helen McLachlan, and Debbie Crockard of the Marine Conservation Society, referred to the uncertainty about the consequences—intended and, importantly, unintended —of the scheme. Even Dr O’Brien did not entirely convince us that he knew how the scheme would work.

The amendments tabled by the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland seem entirely sensible, but we are not convinced that the Government have suddenly found the right answer. It undermines this enabling Bill to set out the scheme in such detail without any scope for piloting or consultation to see what works and to develop the detail of the scheme in collaboration with fishers and marine conservation organisations.

I therefore would be grateful if the Minister answered a few questions about this part of the Bill. Where did the basis for the scheme come from? Are there any precedents in other countries? What evidence did the Department draw on when designing the scheme? What industry views were sought, what opinions were given, and how were they taken into account? Why does the Department consider that it is not appropriate to conduct a pilot or trial to test the key elements of the scheme before it is enshrined in primary legislation? Under the scheme, what will happen to the fish that are landed? How will the Department avoid requiring fishers to go to and from harbour to land fish, thereby increasing their carbon footprint?

[The Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (George Eustice)]

It is, perhaps, pertinent that the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland raised the December Council, since it will be dominated by the issue of choke species and making the discard ban work in practice. I can briefly reassure him that I joined our delegation by conference call at eight this morning and again at two, and I plan to be on the first train out there tomorrow, when the substantive negotiations will take place. In the meantime, my noble Friend Lord Gardiner is covering proceedings.

We looked at the idea of a discard prevention charging scheme because we all know, as we approach the final year of the landing obligation, that there are challenges with making it work as far as choke species are concerned. The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport, asked whether there is precedent for such a scheme. Iceland and New Zealand both have similar schemes, with a kind of overage charge.

I was attracted to that idea because it is rather similar to what we did when we first introduced dairy quotas. Initially, if a farmer went over his quota for milk production, he had to pour the milk down the drain—he could not sell it at all. The super levy was then developed, which meant he could sell it but there would be no economic value to him for producing it. We seek to do something similar here. We will establish a national reserve of quota to underpin the discard prevention charge. Rather than coming up with lots of complex rules, like we have now, to try to find exemptions or other de minimis ways of managing the discard ban, we want to ensure that there is no financial incentive for fishermen to target those fish. However, we do not want to prevent them from landing those fish should they run into stocks they had sought to avoid.

The shadow Minister also asked about consultation. This idea was set out in some detail in our White Paper. Since the White Paper was published, my officials have travelled the country—they have visited fishing communities from Newlyn right up to the north of Scotland—to talk to the industry about the plans we have outlined. I think it is fair to say that the industry recognises that there are many challenges with making the discard ban and the landing obligation work in practice as well as in theory. That is why it is open to this approach, which has a proven track record in some countries.

Finally, the shadow Minister mentioned that we had put the scheme in the Bill without having a pilot or any detailed consultation. I reassure him that clause 23(1) is clear that this will be done through regulations. Before we lay those regulations, we absolutely will consult thoroughly with the industry to ensure that we get the scheme design right. I also reassure him that it is absolutely my intention that we will pilot the scheme before rolling it out nationally. It is obviously quite an important policy and will be quite an important departure from the scheme we have now, and we want to make sure that we have the design right. I hope that, having given that reassurance, the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland will not feel the need to press the amendments to a vote.

[Mr Carmichael]

I am not entirely sure that the Minister embraced the substance of the amendments—that the money raised by this scheme could be ring-fenced, and that there should be some reporting mechanism or accountability for it. I am not trying to be difficult. Perhaps the Minister would like to intervene on me?

[George Eustice]

I did indeed miss out a part of my notes. I reassure the right hon. Gentleman that we are absolutely committed to transparency, and that existing Treasury rules require us to publish this information. Under the Government Resources and Accounts Act 2000, the Treasury has already directed the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to prepare, for each financial year, consolidated resource accounts detailing the resources acquired, held or disposed of, and the Department’s use of resources during the year. If the intention behind the amendment is that the money should be ring-fenced for conservation purposes, that is set out in clause 27(3)(c).

[The Chair]

This is an intervention, Minister.

[Mr Carmichael]

I am grateful to the Minister for that helpful intervention. I and others strongly suspected that the Treasury would be the least fond of this proposal. The Minister has confirmed those suspicions. However, that is not an unreasonable explanation, and on that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[George Eustice]

I think we covered the key issues of the clause when I set out the purpose and the thinking behind the charging scheme.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 23 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 24

Meaning of “chargeable person” and “unauthorised catch of sea fish”

--- Later in debate ---

[George Eustice]

The purpose of this clause is simply to enable the Secretary of State, when setting up a charging scheme, to determine the functions of a charge collector, together with certain details such as terms of appointment and termination of the charge collector. Subsection (1) states that the Secretary of State can appoint a charge collector to administer the scheme and to specify the terms and termination of their appointment and functions they will carry out. Subsection (2) details the nature of the functions that may be conferred on the charge collector. Subsection (3) provides that the scheme may allow for duties to be placed on a charge collector after their appointment has been terminated. Subsection (4) allows a scheme to contain provision about appeals against decisions of charge collectors. Subsection (5) provides for the possibility that any expenditure incurred by the charge collector when exercising their functions can be recovered.

[Mr Carmichael]

Can the Minister confirm that, although these provisions exist, they are permissive and it would remain possible for Government Departments to carry out those functions?

[George Eustice]

Yes, that is absolutely the case. Indeed, it is likely to be the case that the Marine Management Organisation would perform those functions on behalf of the Government. The clause simply provides the opportunity for others to be involved, should that be required.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 26 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 27

Discard prevention charging schemes: supplementary provision

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Luke Pollard]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention: he is exactly right. Indeed, this weekend I had conversations with Destination Plymouth about the new tourism marketing plan for my own city. We were talking about how the value of recreational angling and sea fishing could be further embedded as part of the tourism product for the far south-west, which would create more jobs, so he is exactly right.

Coastal communities benefit when good fishing attracts anglers. Let us not tie any Minister’s hands but explicitly lay out in the Bill that they have the power to award recreational fishing the grants it needs to grow our economy and grow the love of our marine environment.

New clause 25 also relates to the ability to provide financial assistance for recreational fishing and its importance as part of the wider development of sustainable practices in recreational fishing. According to figures from DEFRA—the Minister’s own Department—recreational fishing and sea angling are worth about £2 billion to the UK economy, generate about 20,000 jobs and support thousands of coastal businesses. Sometimes the economic benefits of the recreational sector can outweigh those of the commercial sector, but as we have heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd, it is not spoken about enough. We need to be louder and prouder about the contribution that recreational angling can make to our coastal towns.

In this Committee’s evidence sessions on the Bill, the Angling Trust rightly said that one of the “great failures” of the common fisheries policy was the failure to recognise recreational angling as a legitimate stakeholder in European fisheries. The Bill could put right that failure of the CFP. We could do that today by stating in the Bill that the UK Government recognise recreational sea angling as a direct user and legitimate stakeholder in the fisheries. That would be a win-win situation, as it would add to the very welcome news that we will have access to EMFF funding—I hope the Minister will confirm that. We need recreational fishing to be loud and proud on the face of the Bill, to send a message to the people engaged in the sector that we want that part of the economy to grow further, and that we value it.

[Mr Carmichael]

I agree with just about everything the hon. Gentleman has said. This is a good example of how a small measure of Government investment could have a transformative effect and bring manifold returns. Some decades ago, the Highlands and Islands Development Board installed mooring buoys throughout the highlands and islands, which allowed many yachtsmen and other sailors to enjoy that part of the countryside. It brought in a tremendous amount of income, and tourism burgeoned over the years. The same is possible for those who are trying to increase recreational angling.

The hon. Gentleman’s amendment is very modest: it requires that consultation be held. It does not bind any Minister or future Minister to do anything. It is pretty clear that if we just leave this and wait for something to happen, it almost certainly never will.

[George Eustice]

I declare an interest: my brother is a keen angler who targets bass off the Cornish coasts, so I regularly hear from him about these issues.

--- Later in debate ---

[George Eustice]

As I said, the Government have considered carefully the delegated powers in the Bill and the procedures that should apply to regulations. I will not rehearse the points I made about delegated powers and the precedents for this, but I will give the hon. Gentleman an indication of the technical issues that regulations under this part of the Bill may deal with. They may cover issues such as the catching, landing or selling of sea fish below a certain size—the minimum conservation reference size, as it is sometimes called—and the design of sea-fishing equipment. They may involve introducing a new selectivity measure for the squid fishery off the coast of his constituency, for instance. They may also involve minor issues to do with monitoring or enforcement of compliance.

We have a large number of technical conservation regulations under the existing common fisheries policy—some 90 bodies of regulations cover all sorts of things, from landing sizes to mesh sizes and from closures to prohibitions on landing small-eyed ray. Those are generally dealt with through delegated Acts that come from the Commission. We must have the power to make in-year amendments so that we can react quickly to changing circumstances by taking a stock off the prohibited list or putting it back on, and it is important that we have the ability to act expeditiously to manage our marine environment. Given that we have some 90 bodies of EU regulations and some 300 or 400 different technical regulations in total, I question whether there is appetite in this place for debating each and every one of those changes. The situation can be very dynamic and dozens of changes are made in a typical year.

On that basis, I hope that the hon. Gentleman does not see the need to press the amendment to a vote, and that I have been able to reassure him why we chose the negative resolution procedure rather than the affirmative procedure in this case.

[Mr Carmichael]

I have lost count of the number of debates I have sat through in which we discussed whether to use the negative or affirmative procedure—“must” or “may”—but on this occasion the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport hits on a substantial point.

As we heard, the scope of regulations made under clauses 31 and 33 is defined by clause 34, which provides inter alia in subsection (2) that regulations made under clauses 31 or 33

“may create a criminal offence, but not one punishable with imprisonment.”

I am not surprised that imprisonment is not included, because I suspect the bulk of the offences created would be committed primarily by bodies corporate rather than private individuals. Notwithstanding that, offences created by regulations of this sort often attract financial penalties that run to several thousand pounds—sometimes tens of thousands of pounds—so they are not insignificant.

I deeply regret not challenging the Minister on this point when we debated clause 34.

[George Eustice]

I draw the right hon. Gentleman’s attention to clause 36(2), which sets out clearly:

“Regulations under section 31 or 33 are subject to the affirmative resolution procedure”

if they cover a number of issues, including anything creating a criminal offence. Subsection (3) relates to the use of negative procedure on regulations left after those that fall under subsection (2) are taken out.

[Mr Carmichael]

That answers my point. I do not think I need detain the Committee any longer.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Sweeney]

I do not think that is how devolution works. Devolution is a collaborative process. That is my reading of it. It is not a zero-sum game.

[Mr Carmichael]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, even where the Government in Edinburgh have agreed something with the Government in London, neither Government should expect to be immune from scrutiny by Parliament?

[Mr Sweeney]

I absolutely agree with that. In any system of democracy, at every tier there should be an element of interface and interaction, and that will be an ongoing process. It is not about a gradualist approach to independence, which is how the Scottish National party would like to view devolution. That is not how we view it. I will conclude, because there is no point in labouring this—pardon the pun—by saying that we accept that there is no agreement. It is unfortunate that we keep losing these votes on the negative emphasis versus the affirmative, but we are where we are in terms of the arithmetic. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, That the schedule be the Sixth schedule to the Bill.

Fisheries Bill (Tenth_PART2 sitting)

Alistair Carmichael Excerpts

Committee Debate: 10th sitting (part 2): House of Commons
Monday 17th December 2018 Public Bill Committees

[Brendan O'Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray. I rise to speak to new clause 1, which has been tabled in my name and in those of my hon. Friends the Members for Kilmarnock and Loudoun and for Edinburgh North and Leith (Deidre Brock).

It has been a long-held view of the Scottish Government, and, indeed, of many in the sector, that Seafish, because of the way it is currently constituted, is not sufficiently flexible to meet the needs of the entire sector and requires radical reform. Many have made the case that there is an inherent flaw in Seafish attempting to represent all of the UK while operating in an area in which policy is devolved. In trying to represent the whole of the UK fishing industry, Seafish is viewed by many as providing insufficient support to the sector in Scotland, which all too often results in the poor or unsatisfactory marketing and promotion of Scottish seafood.

The main objective of the new clause is to devolve both the control over funding and the Executive powers of Seafish to Scottish Ministers. It would also devolve control of the Scottish aspects of the fishing levy, giving Scotland a key role in deciding how the Scottish share of the fishing levy should be spent. We believe that this new model will provide much greater flexibility for Seafish to exercise its functions separately and differently in the different parts of the UK. The new clause would also require Seafish to report the income it receives from the levies it imposes and how those are applied in each part of the United Kingdom.

As I have often said in Committee, not only is fishing devolved but there is absolutely no standardised version of the fishing industry across the UK. From Truro to Thurso and beyond, it is multi-layered, complex and nuanced, and is often very localised. Given that there is no one single fishing industry pursuing a common set of clear, shared objectives, it is surely ludicrous that we still have a one-size-fits-all fishing authority charged with securing a sustainable, profitable future for all parts of the seafood industry. How can Seafish practically offer regulatory guidance and service to the industry—including catching, aquaculture, processors, importers, exporters and distributors of seafood—as well as looking after restaurants and retailers in such a complicated and differentiated industry?

This is not an attack on Seafish or the people who work there. Rather, it is recognising that, with an aggregated coastline of almost 20,000 miles containing a host of different fishing practices and interests, it is in an almost impossible situation in trying to work in the best interests of everyone.

[Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)]

I have made the same point as the hon. Gentleman often enough myself. However, the industry in Scotland surely encompasses the full range of practices that he identifies across the whole of the United Kingdom. How would devolution help to address that?

[Brendan O'Hara]

I absolutely agree with the right hon. Gentleman. I represent a west coast constituency and he represents a northern isles constituency, which are vastly different from that represented by the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan. It is about devolving power to as local a level as one possibly can. If Scottish Ministers are given the power to act on behalf of a much smaller area and a much smaller concentration of the industry, I think it will much better serve the industry as a whole across Scotland.

The Bill gives us the perfect opportunity to reform the current system to ensure that that levy can be better used to promote the range and quality of Scottish seafood, both at home and abroad. If Scotland were allowed to take these investment decisions, it would allow us to properly support the industry by promoting the quality and excellence of Scottish seafood products, both at home and across the world. It would also allow us to maximise the benefits of Scottish provenance, which is so important when marketing ourselves, particularly abroad, while supplying top-quality products to consumers.

--- Later in debate ---

[George Eustice]

We disagree with the new clause and think that it is unnecessary. The issue of Seafish and the seafood levy was looked at in detail as part of the Smith Commission recommendations as recently as 2014. The new clause would go beyond what that commission recommended, which was that the power to impose levies should not be devolved to the Scottish Parliament.

However, we have taken account of some of the issues raised by the Scottish Government and by Richard Lochhead, the Minister at the time. In response, as well as having permanent Scottish representatives on its main board, Seafish established a separate Seafish Scottish advisory committee early this year to advise the board on how the levy should be invested in Scotland. The Scottish industry is also well represented in the sector panels that advise on Seafish’s UK priorities, as I have said.

In 2011, a consultation on the Sea Fish Industry Authority’s regional structures showed little industry support for the kind of devolution of the levy that the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute outlines. Indeed, just 20% of stakeholders supported such a model. A Scotland-focused levy would reduce Seafish’s overall ability to carry out its UK-wide priorities. It would reduce economies of scale and potentially cut across some of our other approaches as a UK-wide entity.

The levy setting already requires the consent of all the devolved Administrations. Periodically, when we want to review the levies, we have a discussion with the Scottish Government about exactly what they should be. There are arguments about which should go up and which should go down, but we have achieved unanimous agreement that we should make the levy change only once, so I do not accept that Scotland does not have sufficient influence at the moment.

Seafish publishes an annual report that sets out in great detail all its activities and funding, how it operates and what its priorities are. I therefore do not believe that we need additional requirements in that regard, since it is already done.

[Mr Carmichael]

I thank the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute for tabling the new clause, because it is an important topic to discuss and there is no doubt that our current system is capable of improvement. I sound a couple of notes of caution, however, in relation to the proposal for devolution.

We risk breaking up the support that is available by geography rather than by sector. The inshore fishermen in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency, who are catching nephrops, langoustines and others, probably have a fairly strong community of interests with those who are catching in the Irish sea and in the south-west.

Likewise there will be a community of interest in the other sectors, such as the pelagic sector at the other end of the country, the white fish sector and so on. Although I would never close the door on that sort of thing, from my experience, I would require a bit more persuasion that the industry wants or is asking for that kind of reform.

[Brendan O'Hara]

The Minister said that this issue was talked about in 2014. I think he would agree—I suspect that no one would disagree—that in politics 2014 seems a long time ago and much has changed.

I appreciate the support from the hon. Member for Glasgow North East, who talked about transparency, and he is absolutely right. In response to the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland, it is really important that this new clause is seen as a genuine attempt to improve Seafish. We are not seeking to undermine Seafish; we are seeking to improve how it works and how it can work best for the multitude of Scottish fishing industries. I agree that there is a community of interest, particularly in Northern Ireland, but that community of interest will be severely undermined by the imposition of the backstop that we talked about earlier this evening.

This change would work because it would allow a Scottish Seafish to promote all Scottish seafish across both coasts and the northern isles, and it could work. At the moment, Seafish does not work well for Scotland.

[Mr Carmichael]

I just want to tease out the issues here a little bit. I ask this question in a spirit of genuine inquiry, because I do not know the answer to it, but I would think that a lot of the inshore boats—the foreign boats in particular—around the hon. Gentleman’s constituency and certainly on the Clyde will fish as far down as the Isle of Man and around there, so what, in this context, actually constitutes “Scottish seafish”?

[Brendan O'Hara]

One would presume that it is where the catch is landed, or where the boat is registered. So when a boat comes back to Tarbert, or Oban, or the right hon. Gentleman’s home island of Islay, that would constitute “Scottish seafood”. I do not need to tell him how important that Scottish provenance is and how important it is to get those langoustines to Madrid or Paris as quickly as we possibly can. If we have an organisation that is at front and centre about Scottish provenance, I think that would certainly be a step in the right direction.

As I say, I do not think that Seafish is working particularly well for Scotland at the moment and that is something we have to address. So, with your permission, Mr Gray, I will push this new clause to a vote.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Sweeney]

Sorry, Mr Gray—it is rather late and I am forgetting my pronouns. I think they ought to stand here and support the new clause.

[Mr Carmichael]

I have essentially reached the same conclusion as the two previous speakers, for slightly different reasons. The EMFF money has been of massive significance to the industry and to communities around the UK coastline. I support some sort of guarantee that that money will continue to go to our fishing industries and communities. The amendment deals, of course, only with guaranteeing that the money will continue to go to Scotland, but it would be unthinkable that the same would not then apply to fishing communities in Wales, Northern Ireland and, indeed, England. I would not start from this position; but ultimately, from the point of view of the industry in the communities, I think the amendment would get us to where we need to be. For that reason I support it.

[George Eustice]

I disagree with putting a provision of this nature in the Bill, for reasons I shall explain. It is very important with legislation to separate the legal powers that we seek, to engage in such activities as giving financial assistance to the fishing industry, from the way those obligations are funded. That is, and always has been, predominantly a matter for the spending review. Such a provision would be unhelpful.

As to the legal powers, we have set out in clause 28, for England, the legal powers we need to make grant payments; so we are not, as was suggested, relying on some shared prosperity fund. There will be bespoke grants for the fishing industry, and we set out the powers to do that for England in clause 28. Clause 28(8) sets out the fact that there will under schedule 4 be similar powers for the Welsh and Northern Ireland Governments.

Ironically, at the time the Bill was drafted and on Second Reading, the Scottish Government told us they did not want the powers; so I put it to the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute that before the Scottish Government start to say that we must guarantee the money, they should work out how they will guarantee how they will get the legal powers to pay any money out in the first place. They are now asking us whether we may be able to make amendments later, to include those powers.

At the moment there is clearly a gap in the Bill, but that is a consequence of the position that the Scottish Government have adopted, so that they do not have the legal powers to make any grant payments.

[Mr Carmichael]

The Minister said earlier that the money should come through the spending review, as has long been the case. The EMFF funds have never been part of the spending review; he should know that. The amendment would guarantee the money as a funding stream for the future. What guarantees are there for that funding stream in clause 28?

[George Eustice]

EMFF comes from the EU budget and is part of the EU’s budget when it is set. It is typically set for a period of five years and is reviewed periodically. As recently as 10 December, the Secretary of State announced that the Government will put in place new domestic long-term arrangements for post-2021, which will enable us to create schemes similar to the EMFF in each of the four Administrations. In addition, he announced an extra £37.2 million of funding to boost the existing EMFF programme, to help the fishing industry prepare for the opportunities coming its way, as my hon. Friend the Member for Banff and Buchan pointed out.

I do not, therefore, believe that the new clause is necessary or appropriate. We have demonstrated, as recently as last week, our commitment to funding fisheries in the future. The Bill makes explicit provision for grants to be made in three of the four Administrations and I would simply say that the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun should first consider obtaining the legal powers.

--- Later in debate ---

[Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)]

New clause 8 relates to the West Lothian question set to fish, which we debated in some detail last Tuesday on amendments 15 to 19. I tabled the new clause as a probing amendment at that stage, and at this stage I do not wish to move it.

New Clause 11

Managing shared stocks

“(1) Where shared stocks of common interest are also exploited by other coastal states, the Secretary of State must engage with those states with a view to ensuring that—

(a) shared stocks are managed in accordance with the UK’s international law obligations and in accordance with the objectives of this Act;

(b) fishing mortality is below levels which will restore or maintain those shared stocks above levels capable of producing the maximum sustainable yield; and

(c) the impacts of fishing on the marine environment are avoided or, where avoidance is not possible, demonstrably minimised.

(2) The Secretary of State must endeavour to establish bilateral or multilateral agreements with other coastal states for the joint management of shared stocks of common interest.

(3) Where no formal agreement is reached, the Secretary of State must make every effort to reach common arrangements with other coastal states for fishing of shared stocks of common interest.

(4) Where neither a formal agreement nor a common arrangement is reached, the Secretary of State must—

(a) take all necessary steps to ensure that fishing of shared stocks of common interest is carried out such that the relevant stocks are maintained above levels capable of producing the maximum sustainable yield; and

(b) provide and make publicly available an annual report to the appropriate legislature outlining the steps taken pursuant to subsection (a) above.

(5) In setting total allowable catches in the UK exclusive economic zone for shared stocks of common interest, the Secretary of State may not increase the total allowable catch for any particular shared stock for UK fishing vessels apart from in the circumstances provided for in subsections (6) and (7).

(6) Where a coastal state with which a shared stock is jointly managed has reduced the total allowable catch available within its territory and—

(a) the Secretary of State is confident that this new total allowable catch will be complied with and enforced; and

(b) the coastal state consents to the UK increasing its total allowable catch,

then the Secretary of State may increase the UK total allowable catch by an amount not exceeding the amount by which the other coastal state has decreased its total allowable catch.

(7) Where the best available scientific advice on a shared stock confirms that fishing mortality of that stock can be increased without reducing the stock below a level capable of producing the maximum sustainable yield, then the Secretary of State may increase the UK total allowable catch in proportion to the change in recommend fishing mortality and the UK’s agreed share of total allowable catch for that stock.”.—(Mr Carmichael.)

The purpose of this amendment is to set clear sustainability criteria in relation to negotiations with other countries to ensure that a clear and robust process can be developed to prevent overfishing.

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Mr Carmichael]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

We come back almost full circle to how we deal with what are known as shared stocks. It is pretty clear that that is going to be a subject of some political and commercial significance when we move to the next stage of negotiations on the future relationship with our current EU neighbours.

We have observed a number of times that the principle of sustainability was front and centre in the White Paper when it was published, but somehow does not seem to have made the transition into the Bill. New clause 11 would put sustainability back into the Bill as it relates to our management of shared stocks. It seeks to give a framework under which we would seek to reach agreement with neighbouring countries, third countries and the EU. I would suggest that the principles are fairly straightforward and sound and that this is exactly the sort of thing that the Government should have in the Bill if it were to be, as the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport suggested earlier, a sustainable Fisheries Bill.

[Luke Pollard]

The Bill makes no firm commitment on how a shared stock should be sustainably managed, which was one reason why we spoke about shared stocks in the objectives right at the start of our consideration of the Bill. That is extremely concerning, as setting clear sustainability criteria in relation to negotiations with other countries would help to avoid, for example, another mackerel wars scenario.

However, I have some questions about subsection 6 of the new clause, in particular about its unintended consequences for the total allowable catch. It suggests that if, for any reason, a country reduced its allowable catch on sustainability grounds, the other countries in that shared stock would ramp up to get to the total allowable catch, which could have implications for sustainability. It would be interesting to know from the right hon. Gentleman how that might work and how he might allay any concerns on that point.

[George Eustice]

I do not agree with the new clause. It is unnecessary and could have unintended consequences.

As a country, we already have clear obligations under international law—under both the UN convention on the law of the sea and the UN fish stocks agreement—to co-operate on the management of shared stocks. That is an international obligation that we have as a signatory to both UNCLOS and the UNFSA. Notably, article 63 of UNCLOS requires the UK and all other signatories to

“seek, either directly or through appropriate subregional or regional organizations, to agree upon the measures necessary to coordinate and ensure the conservation and development of such stocks”.

Both UNCLOS and the UNFSA also contain obligations to achieve maximum sustainable yield.

I do not accept the analysis that there is nothing on sustainability in the Bill. Clause 1, right at the start of the Bill, contains a list of sustainability objectives, including a commitment to MSY and all the objectives that are currently written in the basic EU regulation on the common fisheries policy.

A more likely scenario is that other countries, whether that be Norway or the European Union, would choose to fish unsustainably. In the event that we could not get an agreement, the suggestion here is that we would still set our own catch well below that of other member states. Subsection (6) seems to suggest that other states might set their quota well below maximum sustainable yield, meaning that we could set it higher, provided we had the permission of other member states.

I am not sure what scenario the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland envisages. A more likely scenario is that the UK will insist on sustainable fishing, as we always have, since ours is the country that champions sustainable fishing more than any other, but another country might not agree to do so. If we could not get an agreement, that other country might fish unsustainably outside of an agreement.

Our remedy for that, as things stand, is to be very clear, as we were in our White Paper, that access to UK waters is conditional on other foreign countries fishing sustainably. We will have strong leverage to be able to say to our neighbours: “Unless you fish within an agreement and within levels that are sustainable, we will not grant you the access to our waters on which you depend.” That puts us in a strong position. The new clause seems to suggest that the UK is the country that will want to fish unsustainably while everybody else—our neighbours—are the good guys. I suspect the opposite will be the case, but we have other remedies to ensure that we can deliver sustainable fishing by our neighbouring countries.

For all those reasons, and because we already have legal commitments, including in clause 1, and to a joint fisheries statement, I oppose the new clause.

[Mr Carmichael]

It is a pity that the Minister’s appetite for declaratory clauses appears to have been sated by the introduction of new clause 22. I confess that I struggled to follow some of his reasoning. It comes to the point about subsection (6). Essentially, the Minister seems to be saying that we will behave in such a way that it is unnecessary for us to include the provision in the Bill, because those are our international obligations, although we are not expecting anybody else to follow their international obligations in the same way. I confess that I do not understand the logic of that.

However, having said that, the sustainability point remains. We know from experience of the common fisheries policy that, unless there are principles such as sustainability everywhere, Governments and fisheries managers are always very ingenious at finding ways not to follow them.

Given the lateness of the hour and the fact that we will probably want to return to this issue on Report with a broader audience, I am not minded to press for a Division at this stage, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the new clause.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 12

Duty to ensure adequate monitoring and enforcement

“(1) The fisheries policy authorities must ensure that all fishing vessels fishing within British fishery limits and all UK vessels fishing both within and outside of British fishery limits must have installed on board a fully functioning device which allows that vessel to be automatically located and identified through the vessel monitoring system by transmitting position data at least every 20 minutes and sharing such position data with the relevant fisheries policy authorities.

(2) The fisheries policy authorities must ensure that all fishing vessels over ten metres length overall fishing within British fishery limits and all UK fishing vessels over ten metres length overall fishing within and outside of British fishery limits must have electronic monitoring equipment in order to—

(a) provide detailed and accurate documentation of all fishing activities, monitoring of compliance with fisheries and marine management measures and the ability to record levels of discarding, as well as details of catch of species, whether subject to catch quota or otherwise, and

(b) enable the estimation of the size and quantity of the marine biological resources taken or transported and to enable the identification, to the extent possible, of—

(i) the species of marine biological resources taken or transported;

(ii) the types and features of fishing gear used, and

(iii) any technical bycatch mitigation measures used.

(3) The fishery policy authorities must ensure that a comprehensive enforcement framework is developed in accordance with Council Regulation (EC) No 1005/2008, as amended from time to time.

(4) The fisheries policy authorities must by regulations make provision for any technical requirements necessary to implement this section.”—(Mr Carmichael.)

The purpose of this amendment is to strengthen the existing mechanisms for monitoring and control to help prevent illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing. This includes requiring transmission of position data at least every 20 minutes and requiring electronic monitoring equipment on the majority of vessels capable of carrying such technology.

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Mr Carmichael]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

This is a very much a probing new clause. There is little in the Bill—arguably nothing—that deals with monitoring and enforcement. This proposal, authored by Greener UK, is to have real-time reporting with technological devices and CCTV cameras. Those are live issues within the industry, and between industry scientists and conservationists. It is unfortunate that there is nothing at all in the Bill on the matter, so I have tabled the new clause to give the Minister an opportunity to explain what the Government will do about monitoring and enforcement, close to the implementation of the Bill.

[Luke Pollard]

We heard evidence on this subject from the director of the Marine Management Organisation, Phil Haslam, who said in relation to enforcement activities around fishing:

“The budget reduction since inception has been in the order of 60%”.––[Official Report, Fisheries Public Bill Committee, ; c. 50, Q101.]

That is simply unsustainable if we are to have properly enforced, well-protected and well-managed fisheries after Brexit. A number of concerns were voiced in the evidence sessions and since. We know that the number of hours of surveillance has dropped significantly since 2010, from 16,000 to just 2,000 now.

If we are to avoid a repetition of the scallop wars, but in UK rather than French waters, we need to ensure that we have sufficient levels of enforcement. It is good news that the Government have decided not necessarily to scrap all the Batch 1 River class offshore patrol vessels. That is a positive step forward, but there has still been no commitment on the number of hours those OPVs may be deployed for enforcement activity; there has just been a headline about their continued service, but with no certainty as to what that will mean.

We need to get much better on enforcement. There are serious concerns in the fishing industry about the focus on enforcement activities by UK ships enforcing in UK waters, which are targeting UK boats rather than foreign boats, which seem to have a lower standard when it comes to a number of different areas. The Government need to get better at enforcement, because the Opposition do not currently have confidence in their ability to enforce in our waters properly, especially when quota will be drawn down against our EU friends after Brexit, as we move from relative stability to zonal attachment. There are serious concerns about whether there is sufficient capacity within the enforcement branches of the Royal Navy’s fisheries squadron.

I will also press the Minister on what that means for inshore vessel monitoring systems. Earlier we asked whether EU boats should have the same requirements to obey the high safety standards and marine environmental protections. Can he confirm that all foreign boats will be required to have IVMS if they are in UK waters after Brexit, as that will help us in our enforcement activities?

--- Later in debate ---

[George Eustice]

There will need to be an agreement on that, but obviously we have those data-sharing agreements with other neighbours, such as Norway, Iceland and the Faroes. In the absence of such an agreement, there will be no access whatsoever to European vessels. They will not be able to come into our waters unless they comply with our data requirements.

[Mr Carmichael]

Earlier this evening, when Mr Hanson was in the Chair—

[The Chair]

Happy times.

[Mr Carmichael]

The joy is matched by your own presence in the Chair, Mr Gray, I assure you.

The challenge was put down that we should have Home Office Ministers on our fishing boats. It seems that the best we are going to get is some Border Force officers on a fishing boat, and not necessarily in the circumstances that we might have voted on for the purpose that we were discussing.

I said at the start that the new clause was intended to be probing. I think that the Bill would benefit from the inclusion of provisions on enforcement and monitoring. I hope that the Minister will reflect on that. Otherwise, we might wish to return to the matter on Report. I am pretty certain that my noble friends will have an approach to this. In the meantime, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

[The Chair]

To keep the Committee up to date, there is some confusion about new clause 25, which appears on the selection list in error. There will be no further debate on new clause 25, which has already been voted on in a group earlier today.

New Clause 14

Duty to co-operate

“(1) A fisheries policy authority must co-operate with other fisheries policy authorities in the preparation and application of the JFS and any SSFS, the licensing of fishing boats, enforcement against illegal fishing activity, the determination and distribution of fishing opportunities and the prevention of discards.

(2) A fisheries policy authority may share information with another fisheries policy authority for the purpose of discharging its duty under subsection (1).”—(Luke Pollard.)

This new clause would place a duty to co-operate on all fisheries policy authorities in carrying out their functions under this Bill; and would provide for the sharing of information between fisheries policy authorities.

Brought up, and read the First time.

--- Later in debate ---

[George Eustice]

It was a long intervention, but I have been guilty of that myself at times.

I will just point out that clause 5 goes on to say, in subsection (3):

“The fisheries policy authorities must review a JFS they have prepared and published whenever they consider it appropriate to do so and in any event—

(a) before the end of the period of 6 years beginning with the day on which it was published, and

(b) before the end of the period of 6 years beginning with the end of the most recent review.”

I therefore do not share the hon. Gentleman’s analysis that the duty to co-operate and to work jointly, and the legal obligation to have a fisheries statement, expires after the first one. Clause 5(3) is clear that that becomes an enduring obligation, and I am happy to make that clarification.

Those are the reasons why I oppose the new clause. As I have said many times, the Bill respects the contours of our devolution settlement. We have a long-standing track record of successful concordats and memorandums of understanding that deal with fisheries. When we approach an issue such as the December Council and annual fisheries negotiations, we send a UK delegation. We have a good track record of working together and I believe that the approach we have outlined here is the best one to ensure that we have a UK framework to deliver on those sustainability objectives.

[Mr Carmichael]

I support the new clause, which I think would improve the Bill. I certainly take the view that a dispute resolution mechanism would be preferable. In the absence of that, however, having a duty to co-operate would at least allow for a situation in which any party that was not co-operating could be subject to judicial review, because they would be in breach of a duty given to them under the law. For the Minister to say that there is an imperative to reach an agreement on the face of the Bill presupposes that everybody will work in good faith. In the event that people are not working in good faith, there has to be a mechanism for identifying that. The Bill is currently deficient in that regard. The new clause is second best, but it would be better than nothing.

[Luke Pollard]

I think that the points have been well established, but I suspect that the Minister will not accept the new clause. I suggest that he thinks carefully about the context in which we are raising concerns here, in good faith, to avoid trouble in future. I suggest that he considers bringing back an element of it when the Bill is considered in the other place. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 15

Expert advisory council on fisheries

“(1) The Secretary of State must establish a body called the Expert Advisory Council on Fisheries for the purpose of exercising the functions in subsections (4) to (6).

(2) The Expert Advisory Council on Fisheries shall consist of as many people as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.

(3) Before appointing any person to the Expert Advisory Council, the Secretary of State must consult with—

(a) the other fisheries policy authorities, and

(b) any other such organisations as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.

(4) The Secretary of State must have regard to the advice of the Expert Advisory Council on Fisheries before—

(a) publishing or amending a Secretary of State fisheries statement,

(b) making or withdrawing a determination of fishing opportunities under section 18, and

(c) making any regulations under this Act, unless those regulations are made under—

(i) this section, or

(ii) section 42.

(5) The Secretary of State shall publish the Expert Advisory Council on Fisheries” assessment, for a calendar year, of the state of UK fisheries, including—

(a) current stocks and their sustainability,

(b) species distribution within the Exclusive Economic Zone,

(c) the status of employment and skills in the fishing industry,

(d) present total catches and future projected total catches, by both volume and monetary value, and

(e) the economic and social value and impact of the fishing industry on coastal communities.

(6) The first annual assessment under subsection (5) shall be published within 12 months of this section coming into force, and each subsequent assessment must be published within 12 months of the previous such assessment.

(7) For a calendar year, no determination may be made under section 18 until the annual assessment under subsection (5) has been published for that year.”—(Luke Pollard.)

This new clause would place a duty on the Secretary of State to establish the Expert Advisory Council on Fisheries, and provides for the Council’s membership and functions.

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Luke Pollard]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

It is important that we stop using the fishing industry as a political football. This is what the expert advisory council would seek to do, and it would do so by giving a say to those who know the industry best and have its best intentions at heart. The new clause has the industry’s support. Barrie Deas from the National Federation of Fishermen’s Organisations told the Committee in evidence that his organisation would like to see an

“advisory council of people with experience of the industry, who understand the complexities of a highly diverse and complex industry”

as well as being

“a kind of filter for legislation”

that could also

“make recommendations and provide advice on new legislation coming through.”—[Official Report, Fisheries Public Bill Committee, 4 December 2018; c. 15-16, Q26-27.]

An advisory council would run new ideas past a panel of experts who understand the complexities and nuances of fisheries. The NFFO recommends the Australian model for reference. It suggests that an advisory council would formally guide policy and promote collaboration between central Government, the devolved Administrations, industry, scientists and other key stakeholders, allowing for

“an ongoing dialogue in a naturally variable industry”

and guaranteeing that sustainability issues are fully considered, as well as playing a leading role in the use of secondary legislation to ensure an agile and responsive approach to fisheries management.

On a final point, the NFFO has also pointed out that the Bill is right to forecast an important role for secondary legislation. It suggests that the common fisheries policy would be inflexible and rigid, and that it is therefore more important for there to be expert input. Further talks about delegated powers used appropriately would allow a more dynamic approach and would protect against unbridled use of such delegated powers. The NFFO would like to see an advisory council playing an influential role in advising the Government on the requirements of each piece of secondary legislation.

Phil Haslam backed up this argument in our evidence session, saying that anything that increases the dialogue between scientists “can only help” in that respect. He was referring to the provisions of an expert group that would include scientists, conservationists, industry representatives and those responsible for enforcement. We hope that the Government can support this very sensible amendment, which has industry backing.

[Mr Carmichael]

Fisheries management, and the politics surrounding it, is always at its worst when all the various stakeholders and parties retreat to their own silos and just lob howitzers at each other. We have seen how that works at different points over the years. It is unproductive. The secret to effective fisheries management, in my view, has always been to require there to be credibility from the system in the eyes of the industry, meaning that the industry has to be involved in the dialogue every step of the way. Getting fishermen, scientists, conservationists and the various Government agencies all in the room at the same time makes perfect sense. We have seen some measure of progress in this regard since 2002 and then in 2012, with the creation and then the strengthening of regional advisory councils, which—although they are an imperfect animal—have been a vast improvement on what we had before. This is a mechanism by which the industry, scientists, conservationists and others can all be kept in constant dialogue.

That would be an eminently sensible move, and the Minister would do well to note that this is essentially the policy put forward by the National Federation of Fishermen’s Organisations. Its willingness, as the voice of our industry, should be rewarded and encouraged. For that reason, I support the new clause and hope that the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport will push it to a vote if the Minister does not have something positive to say about it. If he does push it to a vote, I will support it.

[George Eustice]

I do not think that the new clause is necessary, because we already have extensive involvement with stakeholders, including environmental NGOs and the fishing industry. We are working with the industry now to establish what type of advisory infrastructure we might want to put in place after we leave the European Union, but we do not believe that it is necessary to put that on a statutory footing.

I want to explain to hon. Members what we do every year in the December Council. Every year, in September, we rotate around the UK—this year we were in London and the previous year we were in Cardiff. Everyone with an interest comes, from green NGOs to fishing representatives. We talk them through the stock assessments and the approach that we intend to take at the December Council. Through a day-long session with DEFRA, that wide group has input on the negotiating stance that we will take. We follow that up with a series of smaller meetings with individual groups such as green NGOs, groups with fishing interests and producer organisations, to get a clearer and more detailed input on their own particular issues. That, of course, informs our negotiating position.

In addition, we have a number of other models, such as the scallop industry consultation group. We also work closely with other fisheries science partnerships around the country and have an expert advisory group already set up to consider EU exit issues. None of those bodies is on a statutory footing, but all of them are useful to us. Obviously, we are considering how those could play into the future.

[Mr Carmichael]

I commend the Minister for all those moves—they are exactly what he should be doing. However, this issue requires a Minister to be prepared to engage in that way. The Minister has been a Member for a good few years; he has certainly seen a few Fisheries Ministers in his time, and before he came to the House he saw other Fisheries Ministers who had a very different approach. Does he not understand that there is merit in putting the issue on the face of the Bill, to ensure that those who follow him will be required to undertake the same laudable steps that he himself has taken?

[George Eustice]

In fairness to all my predecessors, I should say that the convention that I have abided by was established a long time ago. Indeed, after the devolution settlement, the last Labour Government established the convention of a UK-wide delegation and we have had these stakeholder meetings annually ever since.

As I said, a number of other ad hoc advisory groups have been set up. The problem with putting a statutory body in the Bill in the way proposed is that that might become too rigid. The ability to bring together the relevant group of experts to address a particular challenge, through a particular taskforce—as we have done on scallops and EU exit, for instance—gets weaker.

We would also have to give a lot of thought about who should be on that advisory group. For example, we would need to consider which of the green NGOs had to be on there: it could not just be fishing interests, but would have to include many others besides. Nor is it clear that even a so-called panel of experts from the fishing industry and green NGOs would be able to do the work needed to draft and provide an annual assessment of the stocks; CEFAS does that highly technical piece of work—rightly, our technical and scientific experts provide that work for us. It is, of course, open to those who think they can to challenge such assessments, but the issue is not a matter of opinion but of scientific assessment that must be provided by groups such as CEFAS.

This raises an important point about how we engage with industry and green NGOs. I believe that we do so very effectively. We are not saying that we have a closed mind on having advisory groups in the future; we simply do not believe that the matter needs to be placed on a statutory footing—that would be too rigid and prevent us from being able to bring on board the expertise we need.

As I said, we will be talking with industry in the months ahead. I hope that I can reassure the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport that when we return on Report we may be in a stronger position to outline the type of approach we intend to take, to ensure that we have input from industry and environmental NGOs.

--- Later in debate ---

[Luke Pollard]

I agree that to tackle microplastics, especially the plastic waste generated by the fishing industry, we first have to deal with the macroplastics that are breaking down to form microplastics in many cases.

To take one example, which shows the scale of the problem, a study by the conservation group The Ocean Cleanup looked at the so-called great Pacific garbage patch—an area of floating rubbish estimated to be three times the size of France. It found that most of the 79,000 tonnes of plastic in the patch is abandoned fishing gear, as opposed to the plastic bottles or packaging that we tend to focus our efforts on. That rubbish included fishing nets and a range of other abandoned fishing gear, such as ropes, oyster spacers, eel traps, crates and baskets.

In the EU, it is estimated that approximately 20% of gear is lost at sea. The reasons for that range from accidents, storms and entanglement to intentional abandonment. A particular concern with fishing waste is that, by design, it will cause problems for marine life. Much of the waste has been dubbed “ghost nets”, a term that may be familiar to hon. Members, which refers to purposefully discarded or accidentally lost netting that drifts through the ocean and entangles whales, seals and turtles. Some estimates suggest that 100,000 marine animals are strangled, suffocated or injured by plastics every year.

Today, I met Christian Marr from Andrew Marr International—the fishing company, rather than the BBC journalist—who set out the extra steps to which his Jubilee fishing boats go to retrieve car tyres, plastic pollution and even washing machines from their nets while at sea. He also explained that he wants more ports to provide rubbish facilities so that waste generated by fishers at sea is landed and disposed of responsibly—which, to be honest, does not always happen—rather than discarded overboard. He made the good point that, if fishers leave for a week with their shopping delivery and get back without any shopping waste, there is only one place where that waste could have gone. The issue is partly about encouraging behaviour change in the fishing sector. Not all fishers do it, but some do, which is why tackling plastic waste is important.

It is clear that more can and should be done to tackle fishing’s plastic pollution problem, but progress has so far been slow. Conservation efforts would benefit from better data on the problem. The new clause would enable the Secretary of State to ensure that the amount of plastic waste produced during fishing activities is recorded and widely understood. It would also allow Ministers to regulate to prohibit the disposal of plastic items while at sea and to require plastic items to be disposed of at specified onshore processing facilities.

The new clause contains common-sense enabling steps that would strengthen the Secretary of State’s powers to tackle the problem. The Government like to say that marine waste is a priority for them, so I hope that the Minister will support the new clause.

[Mr Carmichael]

The inclusion of such a clause should be supported. If someone walks along any beach these days, they will see discarded rope, net, broken floats and old floats. Unfortunately, a lot of the plastic waste on our beaches comes from the fishing industry. There is a mixed experience with regard to the industry and its approach to that. There have been several really good initiatives over the years, some of which I have supported, particularly Fishing For Litter. Such things should be encouraged.

It is in the industry’s interest to ensure that the amount of plastic in the oceans, which then breaks down and becomes the microplastics that the hon. Member for Hartlepool referred to, is not there, because it will have an adverse effect on the fish that are caught. What enters the food chain has a consequence. What we have here is a power—a stick that the Minister may hold behind his back—to concentrate minds in the event that the initiatives taken by the industry are not pursued as universally and rigorously as the gravity of the situation demands.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

We now come to new clause 23.

[Mr Carmichael]

The issues that I sought to explore in relation to new clause 23 were well explored earlier in our proceedings, and accordingly I am not seeking to press it.

Title

Amendment made: 10, title, line 11, after “fisheries;” insert—

“to make provision about the legislative competence of the National Assembly for Wales in relation to fishing, fisheries or fish health in the area of the Welsh zone beyond the seaward limit of the territorial sea;”—(George Eustice.)

This amendment to the long title of the Bill is consequential on NC5.

[George Eustice]

On a point of order, Mr Gray. I do not want to detain hon. Members any longer than necessary but I want to record my thanks to the Clerks and all hon. Members for their work on the Committee, and in particular for staying so late this evening when the House has long since adjourned.

[Luke Pollard]

Further to that point of order, Mr Gray. I add my thanks to the Committee staff, the Clerks and all the stakeholders who have contributed so much to the passage of the Bill, and I wish it best speed.

With your permission, Mr Gray, I also wish the Minister the best of luck at the fisheries summit. As he controls the programme motion, perhaps next time he finds himself with a fisheries Bill and a fisheries summit at the same time, it might be wise to adjust one so that he can attend the other. I wish him the best of luck for the remaining sessions of that summit and hope he comes back with a good deal for our fishers.

[Mr Carmichael]

Further to that point of order, Mr Gray. I associate myself with those comments. It is at least eight and possibly nine years since I last sat on a Public Bill Committee. In fact, if I say that the last time I sat on a Bill of this sort it was a Standing Committee, you will understand, Mr Gray, that that takes us back to at least before 2010.

In addition to those we have already thanked, we should record our thanks to those who gave evidence to the Committee. As a neophyte in that regard, I thought that was enormously helpful. That innovation has enormously improved our procedures. Finally, I associate myself with the best wishes with which we send the Minister to Brussels. It has clearly not been an easy year but I hope he will do everything he can to bring home the best possible settlement because the sustainability we have spoken about in theoretical terms during the Committee is very much at stake in practical terms.

[Brendan O'Hara]

Further to that point of order, Mr Gray. I associate the Scottish National party with the previous comments. Our sincere thanks to the Clerks and all hon. Members who have made this such an interesting, good-natured and serious Committee investigation of the Fisheries Bill. As everyone does, I wish the Minister the best of luck in his endeavours when he meets the rest of his EU counterparts. Finally, Mr Gray, thanks to you and Mr Hanson for chairing the proceedings.