Fisheries Bill (Ninth sitting)

Debate between George Eustice and Owen Smith

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

[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.

[Owen Smith]

I am also a recreational sea angler for bass. Does the Minister agree that we could do much more for our economy in many parts of the country—not just the south-west, but off Wales and Scotland—if we did more to promote the prospect of bass angling?

[George Eustice]

It would be something if we could conserve bass. Indeed, that will be another important agenda item at this year’s December Council.

--- Later in debate ---

[Owen Smith]

Does the Minister agree that one of the ways in which we might conserve bass is by reserving those stocks solely for recreational angling?

[George Eustice]

I would not reserve them solely for recreational angling, but I have been in the vanguard of arguing for them to have a more generous bag limit than the Commission has hitherto granted.

I know that the Angling Trust has been promoting the amendment, and I am a big fan of Martin Salter. I bumped into him after the evidence session when he raised these points, and I said that I felt that he had a rather “glass half empty” view. As the shadow Minister knows, clause 28(1)(e) is absolutely explicit that we are creating powers to give financial assistance for

“the promotion or development of recreational fishing.”

That is a first. The EMFF and the European schemes have never had any provision whatever for targeted grant support for recreational angling.

--- Later in debate ---

[Owen Smith]

I have seen Mr Salter with a glass full or half full on many occasions.

[George Eustice]

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman has; I think I have, too.

Having given an undertaking to look specifically into the possibility of making reference to recreational angling in the SSFS, where it best sits, I hope that the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport will not see the need to press his amendment.

Fisheries Bill (Eighth sitting)

Debate between George Eustice and Owen Smith

Thursday 13th December 2018 Public Bill Committees

[Owen Smith (Pontypridd) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hanson. I rise briefly to support my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport and the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland and the spirit and intention behind all the amendments.

It seems to me quite straightforward that the Bill takes a retrograde step by not including MSY, which is so clearly hard-wired into the CFP and into UN sustainability goal 14. The Minister has on other occasions argued that including it is unnecessary, on the basis that it is captured by the Bill�s intention to not harvest biomass at levels above MSY.

However, it should worry us all that the real experts in this area�those in the third sector concerned with conservation in our seas�clearly see it as a mis-step by the Government not to put MSY in the Bill in the way that other legislatures have, including in Australia, New Zealand, the States and Canada, especially as the evidence from our own waters and elsewhere is that MSY targets have been very effective. Hake and North sea plaice are two recent examples of stocks recovering brilliantly as a result of MSY policy. I therefore cannot understand why the Minister is so coy about maintaining this standard.

The concern, bluntly, is that not including MSY in the Bill will give this or any future Government the wriggle room not to pursue sustainable fishing policies and to set catch levels above MSY, out of line with scientific evidence. If that is not the case, the Minister, who is evidently very expert in this field, has to explain to us, the House, the wider industry and those concerned with conserving stocks in our seas why he is determined not to put MSY in the Bill, which seems to fly in the face of the evidence.

[George Eustice]

Let me make clear from the outset to the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland that we are not walking away from the principle of MSY, and to the hon. Member for Pontypridd that MSY is indeed in the Bill. It is right there in clause 1(3)(b):

�to ensure that exploitation of living marine biological resources restores and maintains populations of harvested species above biomass levels capable of producing maximum sustainable yield.�

The only bit that is not in the Bill but is in the current EU regulation, which was drafted as long ago as 2013, is the 2020 target.

As I have described, it makes no sense whatever to include a statutory target that will already have lapsed and expired in a Bill that will probably not commence until January 2021 or the end of 2020. The right place to reflect any kind of timescale or commitments, or even on species, is in that joint fisheries statement, which will describe how all the Administrations will work together to deliver those objectives, including MSY. I therefore put it to hon. Members that the right way to replace the EU legislative commitment of 2020 is not to have an already-expired date in the Bill, but to reflect that commitment in the joint fisheries statement.

The other issue relates to effort and setting the maximum number of days that British boats may spend at sea. All the amendments, including the one tabled by the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport, would delete clause 18(1)(b), which covers the maximum number of days at sea. As he seemed to acknowledge, that would be counter-productive, as we already have something called the western waters regime, which is an effort-based regime that regulates the catches of crab, and in particular of scallops, of the over-15 metre sector.

Hon. Members may recall that scallops are a part of the fishery that can lead to conflict at times, not least over the summer. There are fishermen fishing out of Brixham, not far from the hon. Gentleman�s constituency, who have an allocation of kilowatt-hours at sea to catch scallops in the EU exclusive economic zone�in other words, on the French side of the channel. If we were to make it unlawful to allocate days at sea, the hon. Gentleman would have a scallop war of his own, probably outside his constituency, because he would find that those scallop fishermen would no longer be able to access French waters because we would no longer be participating in the western waters regime.

--- Later in debate ---

[George Eustice]

In which case, I withdraw the comments that I made in the context of amendment 59. I am afraid that the speaking notes that I have been given have an error in them.

On an effort-based regime, the wider point is that we made a clear commitment in the White Paper to explore the idea of using an effort-based regime, particularly for the inshore fleet. Sometimes, when small amounts of quota are attached to vessels�for instance, little more than 20 kilos of cod a month�it is very difficult and administratively burdensome to operate such a scheme.

We were clear that we would pilot an effort-based regime, because we recognise that there are also risks in moving to one. Generally speaking, such regimes work well for low-impact mixed fisheries where it is harder to run a quota scheme. Quota schemes work best in the pelagic sector, where a single species can be accurately targeted.

We have not made reference to an effort-based regime in the Bill because we do not need to. The Bill gives us all the powers we need to run such a pilot before considering rolling it out. Our White Paper was also clear that, for the time being, we will use existing fixed quota allocations as the basis for fishing opportunities. It is already implicit in our commitment to that effect that we are not going to make a rash move to an effort-based regime, but it could have a role for some of those inshore under-10 metre vessels. That is why we have said that we will consider a pilot.

[Owen Smith]

I may have missed my chance, as the Minister sat down rather briskly, but I was merely trying to ascertain something. I fully accept that the Government are clearly trying, in the language in the initial clause in respect to objectives, to state that they want to set catch limits in line with MSY, but is there anything in the Bill that would prevent Ministers in future from diverging from that and setting catch limits above MSY? As far as I can see, there is nothing that would stop Ministers from doing that, if they chose. That is the reason for wanting a rather tougher duty on Ministers to ensure they adhere to those limits.

--- Later in debate ---

[Owen Smith]

It is again a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hanson. I did not intend to speak to these amendments, but as a former shadow Secretary of State for Wales and for Northern Ireland I have a few things to say.

I heard with interest the contribution from the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute�the beautiful Argyll and Bute. I would say straightforwardly that I think he is wrong to say that the clause is contrary to the devolution settlement�I think the reverse is true. The clause reflects the current devolution settlement. It is for the UK as the sovereign body to determine our engagement with and adherence to international treaties, and to therefore determine what the fishing opportunities for the whole of the UK would be, in accordance with the agreements that are reached internationally on fishing.

My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North East is completely right that the reality of the amendments is that they seek to change the devolution settlement by the back door. Given the long-standing and perfectly admirable�although, in my view, entirely wrong-headed�view of the SNP that it wishes to have an independent Scotland, it is entirely understandable that it should try to use this mechanism to get closer to that objective, but it is the wrong mechanism and the wrong Bill in which to seek to fundamentally change the nature of our devolution settlement, and my colleagues on the Front Bench are completely right to oppose it.

I would also add that I cannot understand the value of striking Scottish Ministers out of clause 19. That would be a retrograde step because it would mean no consultation with Scottish Ministers, which would be a fundamental mistake.

[George Eustice]

The purpose of clause 19 is to establish a requirement for the Secretary of State to consult the devolved Administrations. As other hon. Members have pointed out, this matter and the powers outlined in clause 18 are incontrovertibly a reserved UK matter. The amendment would undermine the power of the UK to determine UK resources for the purposes of international law, and relates directly to a UK function.

Where the UK is subject to an international obligation to achieve a result by reference to a fixed quantity for the UK as a whole, the UK Government are responsible for determining how that is achieved. In this case, the responsibility will fall on the UK, under the UN convention on the law of the sea, after we leave the EU.

Compliance with or implementation of international obligations is devolved, but determining UK fishing opportunities is not a function that is exercisable separately in or as regards Scotland or any other part of the UK. It is not within devolved competence to determine, or to block the UK Government from determining, fishing opportunities for the UK as a whole.

Clause 18(2) explicitly sets out:

�A determination under subsection (1) may be made only for the purpose of complying with an international obligation of the United Kingdom to determine the fishing opportunities of the United Kingdom.�

It makes crystal clear the scope of clause 18. It cannot relate to any devolved matter at all; it can relate only to matters relating to the UK�s compliance with international obligations. It would therefore not be appropriate to seek consent from any devolved Administration when determining fishing opportunities. In clause 19, we set out something that we think is reasonable: a requirement to consult.

--- Later in debate ---

[George Eustice]

The simple reason that we have not included the Scottish Ministers, Welsh Ministers and Northern Ireland Department in this particular clause is that they did not want us to do so on their behalf.

As I have said many times, the Bill sits within the devolved settlement and it is for each Administration to make the changes that are needed to retained EU law to make it operable. The devolved Administrations are currently drafting many statutory instruments and other legislative vehicles to make retained EU law operable. In this Bill, we have chosen to make the changes that are necessary to make article 17 operable. None of the other devolved Administrations wanted us to include that in the Bill on their behalf. That may be because they intend to address these issues through legislation of their own.

[Owen Smith]

This is not something I can prove, but I understand from talking to colleagues in the Welsh Government that in an early draft of this clause, the Welsh Administration and others were included in subsection (6). I want to know why they were taken out.

Fisheries Bill (Fifth sitting)

Debate between George Eustice and Owen Smith

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

[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.

[Owen Smith (Pontypridd) (Lab)]

Is part of the problem, as we heard during the evidence sessions, that other Administrations do not necessarily have to follow what is set down in the joint fisheries or ministerial fisheries statement—they merely need to explain why they departed from it?

[George Eustice]

That provision is only for a force majeure event such as a major crisis or something that would require an Administration to move outside the plan, and they would have to explain why that had happened. The requirement to follow the joint fisheries statement applies equally to all Administrations in the UK and it is legally binding.

Other public bodies—for example, the inshore fisheries and conservation authorities—are already covered by legislation, and those obligations are set out in the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009, which was introduced by the previous Labour Government. Section 153 of that Act sets out clear duties for IFCAs to

“seek to ensure that the exploitation of sea fisheries resources is carried out in a sustainable way…seek to balance the social and economic benefits of exploiting the sea fisheries resources…with the need to protect the marine environment from…the effects of such exploitation”,

and finally to take any other steps that are necessary for sustainable development. Obligations for the IFCAs are therefore already covered by the 2009 Act.

[Owen Smith]

I am grateful for the Minister’s explanation, but I do not really understand what he means by force majeure events. This seems to me to be quite simple. Clause 6(1) states:

“A relevant national authority must exercise its functions…unless relevant considerations indicate otherwise.”

I would be grateful to know what “relevant considerations” might mean, because that seems to be fairly broad criteria. Clause 6(4) states simply:

“If a relevant national authority within subsection (5)(a) or (b) takes any decision in the exercise of its functions…otherwise than in accordance with the policies contained in an SSFS that are applicable to the authority, the authority must state its reasons”.

Fisheries Bill (Sixth sitting)

Debate between George Eustice and Owen Smith

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

[George Eustice]

As I said, the Cabinet Office is leading a wider review of the memorandums of understanding and the JMC processes to see whether they can be improved. It obviously affects many other Departments as well. It is probably not right for me to go beyond that. I can explain what we currently do on fisheries.

[Owen Smith]

Does the Minister not acknowledge that part of the reason that the Cabinet Office is undertaking that review is the widespread dissatisfaction over many years in the devolved Administrations with the working of the Joint Ministerial Committee? For example, I cannot think of a single substantive issue that has been properly resolved at the JMC in recent times. If the Minister can think of one, perhaps he could inform the Committee.

[George Eustice]

At DEFRA, we have many discussions with our counterparts in the devolved Administrations. We have highly constructive dialogue and reach a consensus. That brings me to another point I want to make. In this context, let us be clear that we are talking about the formation of a joint fisheries statement. By its very nature, we are not talking about an argument over the implementation of any kind of agreement. We are talking about what it is collectively we are doing by way of policy to deliver the legally binding objective set out in clause 1.

If we as politicians cannot work through our differences and work towards achieving a consensus on a legally binding requirement here, who can? Are we seriously saying that having a judge come in to arbitrate, or to have some sort of arbitration process or panel, is going to cut it if, for instance, the Scottish Government have a particular concern about Orkney crabs and what is said about that in the joint fisheries statement? I put it to hon. Members that that is not the case.

We politicians cannot abdicate our responsibility and role. Part of that role is to work through our differences to achieve consensus where it is required to get an agreed policy statement that is legally binding on all of us equally and severally. I believe that because we have that legal commitment enshrined in clause 5(1) and because we have a very strong track record in DEFRA of successful concordats and memorandums of understanding, and because the Cabinet Office is doing a wider piece of work in this area, this amendment is unnecessary. It is ultimately for us, as elected politicians, at the very least, to agree what we are going to do by way of policy.

--- Later in debate ---

[Owen Smith]

The Minister is offering some comfort to those of us who have expressed concerns about how loosely the clause seems to be drawn. I put it to the Minister that if what he is envisaging here are very exceptional circumstances—he keeps using the phrase “force majeure circumstances”—why is the language so loosely drawn? It says:

“unless relevant considerations indicate otherwise”

and this seems to be a fairly broadly drawn set of circumstances. Crucially, subsection (4) says:

“If a relevant national authority within subsection (5)(a) or (b) takes any decision”.

That is an extraordinarily broad set of circumstances. If it is intended to be so limited, why is it so broad?

[George Eustice]

I explained the genesis of that choice of words earlier. The Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009 also uses the term

“unless relevant considerations indicate otherwise”,

so it is not a new form of words in our legislation and it was used in our most recent piece of legislation dealing with the marine environment. As I said, I accept that we should go away and consider whether we can narrow the scope within which such a power could be used, and I have undertaken to give that further consideration by the time the Bill is on Report.

[Owen Smith]

I do not think anybody is suggesting that the problem is that the language is new. It is the fact that the language is so poorly and so broadly drawn.

[George Eustice]

Well, I blame the last Labour Government for the drafting of the legislation. We have reached a convenient conclusion and I have made an open offer to give this further consideration to see if we can narrow the scope so that it is closer to its intended use, rather than it becoming a simple get out of jail card in all circumstances. I look forward to updating my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney on Report.

Fisheries Bill (Fourth sitting)

Debate between George Eustice and Owen Smith

Thursday 6th December 2018 Public Bill Committees

[Owen Smith]

Q This is an enabling Bill, but what degree of certainty do you feel about what fishing is going to look like in Great Britain in the years to come as a result of the Bill? Are you confident?

Elaine Whyte: I heard a comment yesterday, I think, or the day before about how the market will take care of fishing. I do not think that is fair. I think that we have to try to support our industry, to get the best of national benefit for our fishermen. I am confident that we could have a better future, but it depends on a lot of things. We are not quite clear when we are coming out. We are not quite clear what this financial framework means, across all the sectors, for the UK. And what does that mean? Does it mean that every year that we are negotiating a deal with the EU we could barter fishing rights away for another sector? Those things are still a concern for us.

[George Eustice]

Q I want to come back to something that Elaine Whyte said earlier about the concern that there might be different rules for different parts of the fleet, with Northern Ireland having access to west of Scotland waters, for instance. Could you explain a bit more what your concern is? Obviously, the Bill is trying to resolve quite a difficult tension, which is that fisheries is a devolved matter, yet it is also highly affected by international negotiations, which are reserved. The way it does that is by giving each Administration the ability, through clause 10, to have licence conditions, but then separate to that, in clause 31 and schedule 6, it gives the Administrations the ability to set their own technical conservation measures, so if they wanted to have a closure, for instance, that would apply to everyone, whether or not it was on the vessel licence. There are two means of doing it, and I think the Bill squares that rather difficult circle through that means.

Elaine Whyte: It potentially does, but it does not square the tariff issue, so that is something that we would still have a concern about. Some of our members have mentioned the issue of nomadic rights, and of course we understand that, but we always think that there should be some link to the coastal communities around about. They should not be disadvantaged by lack of access to their own stocks, in a sense, as well. That is important to us domestically as well as between different countries and the UK.

Fisheries Bill (Second sitting)

Debate between George Eustice and Owen Smith

Tuesday 4th December 2018 Public Bill Committees

[Owen Smith]

Q I have one separate question. Do you take an environmental view of what the potential benefits might be of preserving certain fisheries or stocks for recreational fishing, as has happened elsewhere?

Dr Appleby: You are looking at a public resource, so how do we make the best of that public resource? Some of that is going to be to the commercial sector and some of it is undoubtedly going to be to the recreational sector. The whole thing is so political because we are trying to carve up this public resource through regulation. Undoubtedly, the recreational sector is an important part of this conversation, too. Historically, although it has recently been included in the common fisheries policy, it has come to the table late.

[George Eustice]

Q I want to come back to this point about some of the environmental criteria and potentially having a hard nib point for MSY, for instance, as a statutory target.

One unique thing about fisheries is that, in or out of the EU, they are subject to annual international fisheries negotiations. Norway, for instance, follows MSY but also follows lots of other scientific metrics that it thinks are superior to those that we use. In such a situation, do you think it is important to keep that flexibility, so that you can actually land an agreement with Norway, the Faroes, Iceland and the EU, or is it preferable to make it unlawful for the UK to reach such an agreement and just have everyone go off on their own and unilaterally set a tax?

Dr Appleby: That is an interesting question; theoretically, we cannot fish beyond MSY, because that is all we have. Under the United Nations convention on the law of the sea, our rights extend to MSY and that is it. You cannot have an agreement on what you do not have.

However, the question is: what is MSY? It comes down to the definition. The Norwegians would probably argue that, by taking a basket of different theories, we achieve MSY, because one stock can be plotted on a graph and another cannot. I am not a fisheries scientist—you would have to ask them—but it seems that you are essentially looking at something like a repairing obligation on a lease. How far can you go with this and do it in a sensible way?

The difficulty with going into, say, MSY or BMSY or all those things, which I have never completely got my head around, is that you define a particular scientific methodology in your Bill. I think that could come back to haunt the draftsman if stock does not behave in a certain way or if you want some sort of flexibility. Again, it is interesting that, coming from a conservation point of view with my Blue hat on, I am not uncomfortable with just leaving it at MSY.