Fisheries Bill [HL]

Lord Cameron of Dillington Excerpts

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

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op) [V]]

My Lords, I fully support Amendment 2, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, and others. It would make it clear that fish and aquaculture activities must not compromise environmental sustainability. The Government have said that they will continue to strive for the ambitions of the relevant directives in this regard, but many are concerned that these could be weakened. That is why it is important to set this out clearly in the Bill with the amendment.

If the Minister will not accept the amendment today, will he set out how the Government will ensure that the important principles in directives such as the European marine strategy framework, the bathing water directive and the water framework directive will be taken forward and not compromised, as my friend, the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick, highlighted in her speech? If they are compromised, what mechanism will there be to ensure that they are properly enforced, since we will have no access to the Court of Justice of the European Union? What mechanism is proposed by the Government?

Proposed new subsection (b) would put commitments in the Bill on economic, social and employment benefits and not overexploiting marine stocks. Again, it is important that this is clearly in the Bill because the devil will be in the detail and we must have clarity that the principles are set out without any dispute. The details will be issues such as licensing powers, catch limits and other restrictions on fishing.

As my noble friend Lord Hain set out in the previous debate, the reality of today’s British fishing industry is how much of the catch is in fact exported to the European Union and beyond, and how much of the fish we eat—cod, haddock, langoustine, salmon—is in fact imported into the UK. That has not been made clear in the debate, in the media and elsewhere over many years, much to the detriment of the debate, to the reality of the situation, and to the British fishing industry and the UK at large. The Government should aim to get this right by accepting the amendment.

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

My Lords, it is probably my naivety, but it seems to me that Amendment 2 is one of those amendments that really should not cause the Government too much of a problem. It just subtly tells them that their first attempt at outlining a sustainability objective is good, but not quite right or strong enough. It needs to emphasise more the importance of both a short-term and a long-term healthy marine environment, full of marine life and with a healthy variety of fish stocks. More importantly, as others have said, the amendment insists that the sustainability objective must be the prime objective. That fact makes it better than the Government’s first attempt.

It is probably platitudinous to say that if you have too many objectives or priorities, you have no priorities or real objectives at all. You cannot be all things to all men. I, along with the promoters of this amendment, believe that the preservation of our fisheries and marine environment for our grandchildren should always trump even the suspicion of overexploitation today. So I hope that the Government will accept that proposed new subsection (2) is better and more explicit than theirs. In that light, I hope that the Minister will accept the amendment.

My Amendment 20, would, in effect, put Amendment 2 into practical application. The problem, as I am sure everyone is aware, lies in the opt-out sections of Clause 7, notably Clause 7(7)(d), and Clause 10(2). If you are allowed to opt out or alter the fisheries statement or a fisheries management plan for socioeconomic reasons, there is a danger—maybe only a small one, but it is there—that the fisheries authority will support today’s fisheries at the expense of tomorrow’s fishers. So it is important to make it clear that the sustainability objective trumps all, which is what both these amendments seek to achieve.

Experience in Scotland, which has a similar opt-out provision in the Marine (Scotland) Act, has shown that, where an opt-out exists, environmental considerations can get pushed to one side for socioeconomic reasons. As I reported in Committee, six years after—

[The Deputy Speaker]

I think we have lost the noble Lord. We will go on to the next speaker and perhaps come back to him later. I call the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville.

--- Later in debate ---

I well understand that there may, for a number of reasons, be a desire to test the opinion of the House on this matter. However, the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, was generous enough to say that he would give consideration to what I said and, particularly, to what my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern said. Therefore, while mindful of that desire to test the opinion of the House, I respectfully ask the noble Lord to give due consideration to withdrawing his amendment.

[Lord Cameron of Dillington [V]]

My Lords, my reference to the Marine (Scotland) Act was really trying to say that the authorities up there went for the socioeconomic objective rather than the long-term environmental objective and, as a result, six years after the Marine (Scotland) Act, fishing continues in what should be a protected area. As the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, said in his introduction, short-term socioeconomic priorities always seem to trump long-term environmental objectives. Of course, we all know that such an approach is based on a false premise because securing good ocean health provides the strongest possible foundation for a sustainable industry. In response to the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, it is like a farmer nurturing his soil: without that long-term approach, the socioeconomic future of an industry is not realistically secure. Does the Minister not think that we should now endeavour to achieve the sustainability objectives instead of the eight objectives in Clause 1, which, put together, mean very little?

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, that there have now been many iterations of the Bill and a lot of consideration has been given to it. We have a balance of objectives here: sustainability, the three-legged stool and all the many other essential objectives, including—as the noble Lord, Lord Mann, effectively mentioned—addressing climate change. There could be no more important objective than that. The Government believe that the balance we have created with the support of the devolved Administrations offers the strongest possible way forward.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Randall of Uxbridge [V]]

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

[Lord Cameron of Dillington [V]]

My Lords, it is always my ambition to kick-start a change in a Bill in Committee and, hopefully, persuade the Government to pick up the baton and run with their own amendment based on my and others’ suggestions—although in a better format, with better language and so on. However, it seems that an equal and alternative route to success is to get the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, to pick up the baton and table his excellent amendment—albeit, I understand, with a little help from Defra.

I spoke in Committee, probably for too long as usual, on the need to positively link the aspirations of the objectives in Clause 1 to some of the more practical implementation sections of the Bill. When it came to Clause 25 I highlighted, probably again at too great a length, that this was a key place for ensuring that the objectives, and what the Government meant by them, were spelled out loud and clear for the industry to understand. I believe I may even have mentioned virtually all the criteria listed in subsections (2) and (3) of this excellent new version of Clause 25.

So I strongly support Amendment 28. I support both its sustainability ambitions and its clarity, moving, as the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, said, from Euro-speak to British common sense. The only possible slight improvement that I might have made would have been to say that the fisheries authorities should have a duty to clearly communicate their criteria and the reasons for them to all fisher men and women in their area by whatever means possible. I have assumed that this is implicit in the amendment, but I would be grateful if the Minister could confirm that.

I know it is standard procedure for Governments of all hues to resist all amendments if they possibly can, so I really congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Lansley. I thank the Government, and in particular I thank and congratulate the Minister in advance for having listened and responded to the points made in Committee and for gripping this issue and thus greatly improving the Bill.

[Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick [V]]

My Lords, I find that I have a certain sympathy with Amendments 9 and 28. Like the noble Lord, Lord Lansley—who moved Amendment 9—and the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington, I think that it is important to link the fisheries objectives to the practicalities of the Bill in terms of outworking, effort quotas and quotas generally. Can the Minister clarify whether those will be based on the science in terms of historic catches?

For a long time, fishermen, the fishing industry and fishers generally were concerned that quotas did not always relate to what was in the sea—that is, the volume of particular species of fish. They felt that the science was not necessarily always accurate. I would appreciate it if the Minister could provide in his winding-up speech an update on how the outworking of the Bill, including the intentions of this amendment, will reflect the requirements regarding gear and the science, as well as how the science will direct and fuel the quota arrangements and allocations, so that fishermen do not feel that they are penalised in future.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Young of Old Scone [V]]

On Amendment 10, the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, talked about having ambition beyond simply restoring stocks. This is also an issue of practicability. Fisheries management plans will, I hope, be science-based, but on occasion the management of stocks with a precautionary approach will mean that the stocks recover above sustainability levels. Under the Government’s proposed arrangements, fisheries management plans might not have that flexibility and would not envisage going above those levels. Therefore, this amendment is required to give the flexibility of fish not obeying science in every jot and tittle.

[Lord Cameron of Dillington [V]]

My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 14 in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, and I apologise to him that I did not add my name to it. Somehow, in my muddle of the various sheets of amendments, I managed to miss this one until I saw it on the Marshalled List.

When I made my plea in Committee for the need for much firmer links between the aspirational objectives in Clause 1 and the more practical implementation details in the rest of the Bill, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, was sympathetic to the principles that I tried to set out but, rightly, with his superior expertise, was not in favour of the way that I approached it or, for that matter, the wording of my amendment.

This, of course, is a much better amendment, which is why I should have added my name to it. Instead of starting from the objectives and looking forward to the various plans and statements, as I did, it takes the fisheries management plans and ties them in and back to the objectives, which is a much more sensible way of doing it. The same applies to Amendment 51, which we will come to on Wednesday and which ties international agreements on fisheries back into the fisheries objectives. Therefore, rather than repeating myself then, I announce now my support for that amendment.

In the same way as the Government have just accepted that the principles inherent in the objectives should be spelled out in the new Clause 25 with reference to the distribution of fishing opportunities, it seems to me that Amendment 14, tying the fisheries management plans back to the objectives, would be a very useful improvement to the Bill and worthy of government support.

[Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for moving Amendment 10 and I welcome the opportunity to clarify how the Bill already meets its aims.

I reassure your Lordships that the Bill already enables fisheries managers to ensure that stocks are restored to MSY levels, and it is flexible enough for that to be future-proofed. Sustainable levels are at MSY or better, and this is made clear in the definition of “sustainable level” in Clause 48. Therefore, I cannot agree with the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, or my noble friend Lord Randall that we are not being ambitious enough. Indeed, where scientific evidence indicates this, the provisions would allow more ambitious alternatives to be used, and that is the direction of travel in which we are taking fisheries management in the UK.

The potential prize here is high. Hake stocks in the north-east Atlantic are an example of how stocks can be rebuilt when managing fisheries to maximum sustainable yield principles. Between 1985 and 2003, these stocks were in continual decline owing to overfishing. As a result of international action, supported and encouraged by the UK, we have successfully reversed the decline in the stocks. They are now around five times larger, and the value of hake landed by the UK has grown in real terms from £7.6 million in 2003 to £28.2 million today.

I turn to Amendment 14, tabled by my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern. I recognise that this amendment is intended to help provide assurance that fisheries management plans complement the policies of the joint fisheries statement and are proportionate and balanced in their pursuit of the objectives contained in the Bill. I am grateful to my noble and learned friend for giving me the opportunity to explain how the Bill already seeks to address this aim.

Clause 2 integrates fisheries management plans into the structure of the JFS, requiring that the JFS contains a statement setting out how the fisheries authorities intend to make use of fisheries management plans to achieve the objectives. Each individual plan must then comply with this overarching statement. Fisheries administrations will also be bound by the provisions in Clause 2(2)(c) to explain how the objectives of the Bill have been interpreted and applied proportionately in relation to not only the joint fisheries statement but fisheries management plans. I think that that demonstrates the discipline that my noble and learned friend requires.

I turn now to Amendments 15 and 17, which deal with consultation matters. As your Lordships are aware, the Government will be under a statutory duty to consult on the draft joint fisheries statement, including on details of the Government’s proposals for fisheries management plans. Furthermore, there is a statutory duty to consult on those plans. Given that the JFS will set the policy framework that the fisheries management plans will help implement, it would not be desirable or practical to consult on the plans separately from, and potentially ahead of, consulting on the JFS. Using different timeframes would risk creating unintended consequences from a lack of consistency between the content of the plans and the statement.

The Government are committed to working in close collaboration with the fishing sector. We already regularly meet stakeholders from across the spectrum to discuss matters of interest. For instance, we are active participants in the Future of Our Inshore Fisheries project, as well as in industry-led groups, such as the scallop industry consultation group and the newly created shellfish industry advisory group. We have a monthly external advisory group, and meet stakeholders and industry on specific issues, ranging from the landing obligation to the impacts of Covid-19.

I very much agree with the principle that local stakeholders and industry representatives will often have the best understanding of their area and can offer more practical solutions to tackle pressing local issues, but I believe that the existing consultation requirements in the Bill are actually wider than those mentioned in the amendments. Schedule 1 to the Bill makes it clear that all the fisheries administrations must consult

“any persons appearing to the fisheries policy authorities to be likely to be interested in, or affected by, the policies contained in the consultation draft”.

This is true both in respect of the joint fisheries statement and individual fisheries management plans.

I can therefore confirm that the Bill already requires the Government to consult with all those parties listed in Amendment 17 on fisheries management plans and on policies in the joint fisheries statement. Furthermore, the provisions in the Bill would include other interested parties where relevant, such as environmental NGOs, recreational anglers or other sea users.

On Amendment 16, I reassure the noble Lord that the Government are committed to using the best available scientific advice. However, the drafting of this clause was a conscious and considered choice, and not an oversight. It is intended to ensure that we are able to take a flexible approach, and that includes considering all the available scientific evidence that can be turned into best advice. For example, if evidence suggested that a fish stock was suddenly in steep decline, the precautionary approach might necessitate that we take urgent action based on available evidence, even if, in parallel, we sought to commission new research to improve our evidence base. In these circumstances, we would not want uncertainty to lead to inaction.

Finally, turning to Amendment 54, we discussed a very similar amendment previously, and I welcome the opportunity to reiterate how the Bill, as drafted, with the objectives carefully balanced, will help us secure economic and social benefit for our fishermen and for the country. Economic benefit is already integral to the fisheries objectives and will be a key element of the joint fisheries statement. The sustainability objective explicitly includes an ambition to ensure that fisheries activities are managed to achieve economic and social benefits, and economic benefits are also explicitly recognised in the national benefit objective.

As my noble friend the Minister outlined earlier in this debate, the Government are committed to a balanced Bill, in which economic, social and environmental benefits are considered collectively. As your Lordships know, the Government believe that the joint fisheries statement is the right mechanism through which to balance these three equally important pillars of sustainable development. I am concerned that a statement on economic benefits, so early, and by the Secretary of State alone, would undermine the balance between the objectives and the consensus that we hope to achieve through the JFS. Furthermore, with the Bill not likely to receive Royal Assent before the autumn, the requirement to produce a statement by January 2021 would leave very little room for considered policy development in any event.

This is not to say that the Government cannot act in the meantime. For instance, as your Lordships will be aware, they have provided £10 million to support and sustain the industry through the current difficult times. That said, in setting out something as important as our longer-term policies to realise the environmental, economic and social benefits that the Bill enables, the Government believe that these belong in the joint fisheries statement.

With this explanation, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.