Fisheries Bill [HL]

Baroness Henig Excerpts

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

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, as the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, has just pointed out, we seem to be repeating ourselves because we are going around in circles. As I said the other day, if you do not have environmental sustainability, you do not have social or economic sustainability. The Minister is not hearing that, or certainly not agreeing with it, and nor are his advisers. They just do not seem to get the basic premise that if you do not have a healthy planet, you do not have anything else. You cannot make deals with nature. Nature can heal itself, but not with all our interventions. The noble Baroness, Lady Worthington, has pointed out that we are essentially the voices of the environment here because there are no huge and powerful pressure groups supporting it.

I am also going to have to repeat the fact that the Conservative Party manifesto made a commitment to the people of Britain who voted for the Conservatives that there would be a legal commitment to fish sustainably, so it should be in this Bill. It is no good saying that it is in other places; it has to be in this Bill because only then will people understand that it is an incredibly important component of the whole fishing industry. Ecosystems are part of that sustainability and it all has to work together holistically. At the moment, the mechanisms in the Bill are quite disjointed and have to be tidied up, and presumably an awful lot of Members of this House would be very happy to contribute to that.

Amendment 33 aims to ensure that the fisheries management plans are made in the context of the ecology that they will affect. It is impossible to change the dynamics of one species without creating a whole load of repercussions, possibly unknown ones, within the ecosystem. More predators might lead to fewer prey, for example, while more prey might lead to more predators. Sometimes, the best interventions might be farther down the food chain, such as increasing the population of microscopic plankton which will then support higher populations all the way up the chain. The fisheries management plans would better be regarded as being ecosystem management plans and should be made with the purpose of achieving the ecosystem objective. I beg to move.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Henig) (Lab)]

I should tell the Committee that if Amendment 33 were to be agreed to, I would not be able to call Amendment 34 on the grounds of pre-emption.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering]

My Lords, I should like to speak to Amendment 49A in this group, which would insert the words

“having regard to the precautionary criteria for stock biomass.”

I am wedded to the idea of the importance of a fisheries management plan to embellish what is set out in Clause 2 on the joint fisheries statement. My noble friend has spoken at some length elsewhere about the importance to the UK of mixed fishery issues, but my reading of Clause 6 is that we are focusing on a single stock-by-stock basis. However, a number of noble Lords have said that the current cause of overcatch is quota catch and excess bycatch. Does my noble friend not agree that the current drafting misses an opportunity to specify multi-species plans by area, with proposals for how to address mixed fisheries with quotas? If there is a reason for that, perhaps he will explain it. I understand that the Faroe Islanders have tried to control their fisheries through quotas, but it has not gone entirely well.

Clause 6(2)(c) seeks to use indicators, but the objectives do not refer to the precautionary criteria, which is why I would like to take this opportunity to stress that those criteria are important to the drafting of fisheries management plans. The reason is twofold. One is, as my noble friend has stated, that we need the scientific evidence to be specific and required to do much more than just assessing maximum sustainable yield and to work within the context of the fisheries management plan. The science will need to be sufficient to monitor the status against indicators and to inform with sufficient accuracy catch options required by the Secretary of State in order to set quotas. That, I presume, is the purpose of what a management plan should be: to identify this, not just the ability of assessing maximum sustainable yield. It goes to the Minister’s earlier comments about why it is important to have the most accurate data and science available.

Fisheries Bill [HL]

Baroness Henig Excerpts

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

In previous debates the Minister has sought to characterise the sustainable economic and social objectives as a “three-legged stool”, with each leg having equal weight. I would put it differently. I would say that environmental sustainability is the rock, the solid foundation on which to build our future fishing prosperity, and therefore it needs to have a status that reflects that. I only studied Classics to O-level as well, but to my mind the phrase “primus inter pares”, which I think the Minister has used before, well reflects that: first among equals. We are not talking about ignoring the other objectives; we are ensuring that the environmental sustainability objective is prime. I think that is quite clear and it takes into account all the other objectives as well. I therefore urge all noble Lords to support Amendment 2 should it be put to the vote.

[The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Henig) (Lab)]

Before I call the Minister, I shall call the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington, who was not able to get in earlier. Lord Cameron? Well, we tried. I call the Minister to respond to the debate.

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

My Lords, what an interesting debate. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, for initiating it and to all noble Lords. It gives me an opportunity to reiterate the Government’s commitment to supporting the seafood industry in developing sustainably. Across this House we are seeking the same thing: a vibrant and sustainable fishing industry with a greatly improved marine environment and a healthy and valuable food source for millions of people in the UK and abroad.

We all recognise that we have a viable fishing industry in the long term only if that industry is environmentally sustainable, but in our view sustainability is like a three-legged stool, and the Government’s view is that we need to ensure that all three legs are balanced. My noble friend Lord Blencathra was the first to use the word “balance” and I will elaborate on that. It is why the Bill currently gives equal weight to environmental, social and economic considerations. That follows the concept of the three pillars of sustainable development, a concept that is well established in international law and practice. By contrast, the amendment that we are now considering would create a hierarchy in the objectives. It would mean that in any circumstances, short-term environmental considerations would need to override even critical economic and social needs.

I would like to take the opportunity to explain why the Government have significant concerns about the severe impact that the amendment could have on parts of the UK fishing industry. The Government are concerned that giving the environmental limb of the sustainability objective primacy would bring into question the weight that could be given to the other objectives in the Bill as we develop policies and negotiate with the rest of the world. Those are important objectives, developed with the devolved Administrations to ensure that we can agree a UK-wide approach to sustainable fisheries management.

I was somewhat surprised by what the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, said. If we had sought to separate all these matters and had not tried to go forward with a UK-wide approach, I think that many noble Lords would have considered that a retrograde step. Working at these matters at the UK level is advantageous. I will develop that point a little more because I disagree with the noble Lord.

The Government recognise that it might be vital to give more weight to one objective in a particular case, and the Bill recognises that. It requires fisheries administrations to set out in the joint fisheries statement how they have proportionately applied the objectives in formulating policies. The draft statement will be consulted on and laid before Parliament for scrutiny. The Government and the devolved Administrations have thought carefully about the balance here: we need stretching objectives but the weight that each is given may vary depending on the circumstances of a particular case. I say that being particularly mindful of the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick.

For example, the approach suggested by the amendment could lead to the closure of mixed fisheries where most fish stocks were at sustainable levels but some stocks were still in the process of recovery. This could severely restrict demersal fishing operations, as well as cuttlefish trawlers, in the south-west. Cuttlefish and demersal fish brought into south-west ports in 2018 alone were worth £57 million.

Introducing a hierarchy could also undermine the UK’s ability to engage constructively with other countries in international negotiations on shared fish stocks. Were the UK to go into negotiations on the basis that it could sign up only to agreements that met certain environmental criteria, we would run the risk of not having deals.

I return to the issue of devolution. This Bill is the result of all Administrations working collaboratively. My understanding is that the amendment does not command the support of the devolved Administrations.

I return too to the importance of the other objectives in Clause 1. I was interested in what the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, said about giving the environment a voice. I refer to the precautionary, ecosystem, scientific evidence, bycatch, equal access, national benefit and climate change objectives listed in the clause. If that is not giving a voice to the environment, I cannot imagine what is. I entirely agree with the point that the noble Lord, Lord Mann, made about Siberia. It is very important that we have the climate change objectives in the Bill. What my noble friends Lord Lansley and Lord Blencathra had to say on the matter was extremely pertinent. The breadth of the objectives in the Bill recognises the complexities of decision-making and is designed to deliver both environmental protection and a sustainable fishing industry in practice. This complex and dynamic balance lies at the heart of the Bill, and the amendment would upset that critical balance. As I said, it would throw doubt on the weight to be given to the other objectives and on when they could be taken into account as part of the decision-making process.

The balancing act of fisheries management—and, for that matter, of all sustainable development—lies in ensuring that we see social, economic and environmental progress. This is a balance enshrined in Clause 2, which requires the fisheries administrations to set out in their joint fisheries statement how they have interpreted and proportionately applied the objectives in formulating policies. The purpose of that is to ensure that policies do not give undue weight to one objective or element of an objective over others. It means that we must focus on win-win outcomes for the environment and industry, rather than prioritising one over the other. In addition—I say this particularly to my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering—the new framework of environmental governance and principles being created under the Environment Bill provides an additional safeguard to ensure that the UK Government act in an environmentally responsible manner.

What concerns the Government most about the amendment is that it appears to be based on the premise that you are either for the environment or for industry. The amendment squarely prioritises environmental sustainability, even at the cost of a viable UK fishing industry. We believe that that is a false dichotomy. This Government are both for the environment and for a thriving fishing industry. That is why the Bill as currently drafted recognises the complexity and challenges of fisheries management and sets a framework for addressing the challenges in a constructive way. It seeks to ensure that sustained environmental progress and social and economic considerations go hand in hand in a balanced way.

Finally, it is clearly in the interests of the UK fishing industry to fish sustainably. We all know that with no fish, there is no industry. This Government believe that it is by working positively with industry to address this balance that we are most likely to succeed in achieving our environmental outcomes, alongside ensuring a thriving UK fishing industry into the future.

In the spirit of that final point, I turn to Amendment 20 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington. This aims to ensure that fisheries authorities still try to achieve the sustainability objective when diverging from policies within a fisheries statement or fisheries management plan due to a relevant change of circumstances. As the noble Lord’s speech was truncated, I will be pleased to hear his further remarks and will obviously take them on board.

As I have made clear, I support fully the principle that we should take decisions which ensure that our fishing sector is sustainable in the long term. The provisions for the fisheries statements in Clause 2(1) and the processes set out in Clause 10 clearly show that decisions will be taken with due regard for the sustainability objective, alongside the other objectives, while providing fisheries authorities with the necessary flexibility to respond to relevant changes of circumstances.

We cannot predict the future and we want legislation that allows adaptation to prevailing circumstances. The relevant changes of circumstances that enable deviation from policies within the fisheries statements are, rightly, set out in Clause 10(4) and are there to enable fisheries authorities to remain flexible and adaptable. For example, it could enable them to take account of new evidence that will require a divergence from policies to improve fisheries management.

I reassure the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, that the provisions in Clause 10 do not enable authorities to deviate from the objectives of the Bill on an arbitrary basis. Fisheries authorities must publish their reasons for deviating from any policy in the joint fisheries statement, explaining what they thought to be a relevant change in circumstance and how that affected their decision. Any unreasonable decision not based on a relevant change in circumstance could be challenged in the courts.

I say also to the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, that the Marine (Scotland) Act requires consideration of all three elements of sustainability—social, economic and environmental—in decision-making on the management of marine conservation zones, for instance. It requires any adverse impacts to be minimised so far as practicable and therefore does not provide an opt-out to prioritise one element of sustainable development over another.

I reiterate that I absolutely respect the views expressed by everyone who has promoted these amendments. However, as noble Lords would expect, it is my responsibility to say that the Government cannot accept them because they would undermine the heart of the Bill. What my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern said is relevant: we are dealing with the law, not with the spirit of what was intended. It is about how this proposal would be interpreted in law. At the heart of the Bill is a wish to find a balanced path towards an environmentally sustainable and thriving fishing industry, and of course to provide government accountability when doing so.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Henig) (Lab)]

We now come to the group consisting of Amendment 3. I remind noble Lords that Members other than the mover and the Minister may speak only once and that short questions of elucidation are discouraged. Anyone wishing to press the amendment to a Division should make that clear in debate.

Amendment 3

Moved by

--- Later in debate ---

[The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Henig) (Lab)]

My Lords, we now come to the group beginning with Amendment 9. I remind noble Lords that Members other than the mover and the Minister may speak only once, and that short questions for elucidation are discouraged. Anyone wishing to press this or any other amendment in the group to a Division should make that clear in debate.

[Lord Lansley]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Young of Old Scone [V]]

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, for sorting me out on Amendment 51 when I jumped the gun on the groupings. I also commend him for his two amendments in this group.

One regret with this Bill is that we did not have an opportunity to see a completely brand spanking new Fisheries Bill that codified all the legislation, irrespective of whether it came from Europe or was domestic. That would have been a once-in-a-generation opportunity. The noble Lord, Lord Lansley, has done that for this particular element of the common fisheries policy and has translated it into a brand spanking proposed new clause for the Bill. I very much support him in that. Perhaps we should have got him to write the fisheries legislation in its totality, but I remember what happened when we let him loose on the NHS legislation—we did not much like what he produced—so perhaps that is not such a good idea after all. Well done to him on this piece of redrafting. I hope that the Government accept that this particular piece of this patchwork Bill has been codified successfully.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, does not wish to speak on this amendment so I call the noble Lord, Lord Teverson.

[Lord Teverson]

My Lords, I will be brief. Something that I tried to do in Committee but have not pursued on Report is to get more transparency from the producer organisations on how much of this quota allocation works. I very much welcome the two amendments in this group, which seem to provide greater transparency. Indeed, I hope that the Government go ahead and accept them.

Fisheries Bill [HL]

Baroness Henig Excerpts

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

I still push for my amendment. However, I would be interested to hear from the Government on these other issues.

[The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Henig) (Lab)]

The following Members in the Chamber have indicated they wish to speak: the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, and the noble Earl, Lord Caithness.

[Viscount Hanworth (Lab)]

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

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[The Earl of Caithness (Con)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, said that this Bill is not ambitious enough. I think that it is, and it is considerably more ambitious than it would have been if written a few years ago, as I am sure he would agree. In 10 years’ time, we might, with hindsight, say that it could have been more ambitious, but, given the current climate, I think that it is a pretty ambitious Bill.

I say that because one has to bear in mind the amount of detailed work and consultation that has gone on with the devolved Administrations. I will not point a finger at which of the devolved Administrations is not as keen on the environment as the Lords, Lord Teverson and Lord Krebs, and I might be and has blocked some of the amendments that we put forward.

The noble Lord, Lord Teverson, also talked about companies and business. I take a slightly different view from him on that. I welcome all investment in the fishing industry, wherever it comes from, as it is to the benefit of this country and the fishing industry. I hope that my noble friend Lord Gardiner will confirm that the taxpayer will not compensate or help English fishermen to buy back the quotas that they have sold but which the Scottish and other fishermen have not sold and who would therefore not benefit in the same way,

I join the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, in his concern that Clause 1(3) is being deleted. I listened to my noble friend’s opening speech, but I hope that he will come back to this point, because it seems to me that sustainability should remain a prime objective of the fishing industry.

On Amendment 1B, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, on his persistence and, I think, his victory with the Government. He was right to highlight what my noble friend Lord Gardiner had said. Provided my noble friend confirms that the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, has correctly interpreted what he said, I will stick with the Government on this.

I was initially attracted by Amendment 1A, in the name of my noble friend Lord Randall of Uxbridge, but he was wise to be pragmatic, because there are difficulties with deleting “in the long term”. However, I hope very much that in the short term we will get to where we are going.

Finally, on Amendment 14B, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, the Bill allows this to be introduced. I speak with the experience of having twice been a Minister for Fisheries many moons ago. I recall that the one lesson I learned from everybody I talked to in the fishing industry then was that, if you work with the industry, you get a better and quicker result than if you impose something on it. This is perhaps one situation where I suggest to the House that that bit of advice is the way forward. I know that my noble friend is keen to get this to work, but I think that working with the industry and getting it on side will be helpful. One has only to read the press reports of the great spat that is about to happen between President Macron and the French scallop fishers. Perhaps that is why President Macron is being so difficult over the fishing negotiations: he is trying to appease the industry on the one hand while clobbering it hard with the other.

We have made progress with the Bill. It is a substantial step forward, and I hope that none of the amendments is put to a vote.

[The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Henig) (Lab)]

I have had no further requests from the Chamber to speak, so I now call the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington.

[Lord Cameron of Dillington (CB) [V]]

My Lords, this group of amendments seems to put all the controversial fishing amendments—as opposed to the controversial Crown dependency amendment—into one group. I ask noble Lords to forgive the length of my intervention at this stage of the Bill but it will be my only intervention today.

On Amendment 1B, I support the principles being put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Krebs. One of the most unedifying parts of the common fisheries policy is the annual December bun-fight over future quotas and fishing rights. This is a party where too many Ministers try to represent the fishers of their country against the fishers of a neighbouring country; they try to represent the fishers of today rather than the fishers of tomorrow, who unfortunately do not get a vote. I remember the noble Lord, Lord Deben, telling me once about an occasion when he was representing the UK at that year’s fisheries meeting. The Danish Fisheries Minister tried to take a long-term view of fishing opportunities; when he got home, he was promptly sacked for letting down his fishing industry. That is an example of why the common fisheries policy has sometimes been described as a tragedy of the commons —in other words, today’s fishers say to themselves, “There’s no point in me not catching all the fish I can now because if I don’t catch them while they are there, the other blighters will”.

However, all that is now finished. These are our waters that we are discussing. The other blighters cannot catch them without a licence issued by us. When we get remote electronic monitoring on to all the boats in our waters, British and EU, we will know exactly who is catching what and where and thus be able to prevent overfishing for short-term socioeconomic gain. So there is no longer any excuse for not taking a long-term sustainable approach to our fisheries.

I quite like the use of “long term”. In saying that, I am not trying to oppose the amendment by the noble Lord, Lord Randall. I understand completely what he is getting at and I totally support his motives; he does not want short-term economic gain to trump environmental gain in either the short or the long term. However, I would quite like to have “long term” somewhere in this crucial Bill-defining first clause because it seems to me that that would make it clear that we are laying down these objectives for tomorrow’s fishers rather than today’s—for our current fishers’ grand- children rather than for those fishers themselves.

Coming back to Amendment 1B in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, a commitment by the Minister on the Floor of the House may suffice at this stage. However, although I may have missed this in his opening remarks, I ask that he considers in his final remarks committing to reporting on this matter more than just once after the Bill has been enacted. It would be good to know that this once-in-a-lifetime chance to embed the right principles in our fisheries legislation will be an ongoing commitment for the long term— which, as I say, is what really matters.

Turning briefly to Commons Amendment 3, I can see why, with the Brexit negotiations still ongoing, the Government did not want their hands tied by the details of our Clause 18 on the landing requirement. I can also see why they would want more flexibility—and time, perhaps—to consult on economic links. However, it is a pity, in spite of what the Minister said, that the Government did not feel that they could have replaced our Clause 18 with their own clause setting out the principles of an economic link. We have now lost all reference in the Bill to a landing requirement or an economic link; as I say, that is a pity, particularly bearing in mind the vision that the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, just gave us on how our negotiations with the EU might go over the next 10 years or so.

The same thoughts apply to Commons Amendment 4, which removed our Clause 27 on holding a reserve of quota for new entrants and smaller boats. The Minister in the other place said that

“the Government agree with the intention behind the clause, but disagree with the manner in which that intention is proposed to be delivered … It is our intention to consult on using some of the additional quota that I am convinced is coming to us to provide increased fishing opportunities for under-10 metre vessels … but I am afraid, because of the drafting difficulties, I cannot support the clause.”—[Official Report, Commons, Fisheries Bill Committee, 10/9/20; col. 123.]

If the Government support the clause but not its details, why not put in something better of their own in its place? Even if consultation has to follow, this seems to be an opportunity lost. After all, such schemes have worked successfully in Denmark, on a more local scale in the Shetlands and probably in other countries as well.

The impression given by the Government’s amendment just to delete our Clause 27 is one of Executive bulldozing—that is, “We don’t disapprove of what is proposed but, rather than sitting down and working out what is needed, let’s just scrap it altogether and leave it to us, the Executive, to work something out in future without the parliamentary scrutiny that words on the face of a Bill might require”. As I said about Amendment 3, this seems like a lost opportunity to put something in the Bill, which is a pity because this Bill sets the framework for our UK fisheries for probably a whole generation.

Turning to Amendment 14B, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, for bringing forward once again the question of having remote electronic monitoring, known as REM, on fishing vessels in our waters and trying to get some form of government commitment into the Bill. Having looked at fisheries several times over the years on the EU sub-committee that the noble Lord very skilfully chairs, and having heard hours—if not days—of evidence on this subject, I am convinced that REM is going to be the key element to the successful and sustainable fishing regime that we all wish to see in British waters after we regain control of our own fisheries.

As I made clear on Report, we need REM to manage all the fishing in our waters. One of the most important reasons is that we do not have the necessary fleet available to police either our new fisheries policy or the terms and conditions that will accompany the fishing licences for all boats in UK waters. Bearing in mind that some 70% of all fish currently caught in UK waters are caught by non-UK boats, the management role of REM will be really important to the equitable management of our fisheries and thus the long-term sustainability of our UK fishing industry. It is important that our own fishers realise that if we are to change the share-out of the fish in our waters, albeit gradually, we will have to accept that REM is inevitable as we cannot monitor non-UK boats without monitoring our own. The sooner we have REM, the better it will be for everyone.

In a similar vein, I acknowledge that the Scottish fishing fleet catches 64% of all UK fish landed compared to the English fleet’s mere 28%, so one might think that this compromise amendment—Amendment 14B—applies only to England and would put an unfair burden on the English fleet. It might, but then again we should note that the introduction of REM to the Scottish fleet was in fact a manifesto commitment of the SNP, so I do not believe that any disparity would last for very long.

In any case, without going into all the detail of the advantages of REM that I spoke about on Report—such as providing data for zonal attachment and avoiding choke species—I firmly believe that the large amounts of real-time data that would become available to fishers and fishing authorities as a result of the introduction of universal REM would become a hugely valuable asset to all parties, including to the fishers themselves. I am convinced that, if they try it for a few years, the fishermen will not want to go back. I realise that Amendment 14B does not go as far as universal REM but I hope that eventually we will get it on to all boats.