Fisheries Bill [HL]

Lord Lansley Excerpts

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

[Lord Krebs]

My Lords, I speak in support of my noble friend’s amendment, and apologise for not being here on Monday as I was overseas and unable to join the debate. However, I read the account in Hansard very carefully, and it seems to me that, as has indeed been said this afternoon, one of the key problems that a number of us have with the Bill relates not to its apparent intent—we are very happy with that—but the amount of wriggle room that is left in the Bill.

We heard again, in the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, a few minutes ago, about the wriggle room around the meaning of sustainability. We all agree that sustainability has three pillars—the economic, the social and the environmental—but there is a question of how you balance them. The Minister referred to the need to balance them, but how you do this leaves a great deal of wriggle room. I will not repeat the arguments that were rehearsed on Monday, and again briefly earlier this afternoon, about the way in which economic considerations will always tend to trump environmental considerations because the short term is here and now, and the long term is the next generation’s problem.

This amendment that my noble friend Lord Cameron of Dillington is proposing is attempting to narrow down a further possibility of wriggle room. As he has so eloquently explained, without a legally binding commitment on the noteworthy and honourable and desirable objectives, it is not clear whether they will be adhered to in the fisheries statements and fisheries management plans. So the question for me is: who is going to be accountable if the objectives are not met, and what sanctions will be placed on the fisheries authorities, or other bodies, if that happens? I do not wish to repeat the arguments that my noble friend Lord Cameron of Dillington rehearsed so eloquently, but I would like clarity on the question of accountability.

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

My Lords, I declare my interest again today—if I may do it once, rather than each time I speak. As I mentioned on Monday, the company of which I am a director is in a partnership with an agency whose clients include UK fisheries.

I know we discussed this, but with Amendment 28 the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, has enabled us to illustrate a question. It will be interesting to hear my noble friend’s answer, but I am afraid I cannot bring myself to agree that the amendment is needed. By virtue of Clause 10, national fisheries policy authorities are required to make fisheries statements—either a joint fisheries statement or a Secretary of State fisheries statement—and fisheries management plans, and they are obliged to do so in ways that show how they wish to balance the objectives.

We know that there are eight objectives. We discussed all that on Monday, as the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, quite rightly said. We acknowledge that this range of objectives presents a particularly testing task for the fisheries policy authorities. There is a relatively large number of objectives and several are, in themselves, relatively testing. As far as I can see, virtually none of them can be said either to have been achieved or not achieved. One is always in a process of seeking to achieve them. The balance that is struck, and the extent to which one achieves those objectives, is entirely the issue.

Clause 10 makes it clear that, whenever the national fishing policy authorities engage in anything to do with fishing or aquaculture, they must seek to apply the objectives in doing so. That is the link between Clause 1 and the rest of the Bill. Why then do I think that the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, has asked an interesting question, to which I do not know the answer? It is because he said that there are many public authorities that are not necessarily fisheries policy authorities. This is true. When setting objectives in relation to one sector of governmental activity, we would not normally expect to include a clause every time saying, “Oh and by the way, it must apply to every sector of government whatever it happens to be doing.” I do not go down that path; but, in this instance, we live in a world where the relationship between access to fish stocks and quota will potentially, in certain circumstances, be part of the same negotiation as the trade and market access relationships that we have with other countries.

My question, off the back of the noble Lord’s amendment, is: are the fisheries objectives—and, by extension, joint fisheries statements and the like—regarded as equally applicable to the Department for International Trade as to any national fisheries policy authorities?

[Lord Swinfen (Con)]

My Lords, perhaps I might seek clarification from the noble Lord, Lord Cameron. As I read his amendment, it could equally apply to fresh water—rivers, streams and lakes—as well as the sea. I do not think that that is his objective at all, or the objective of the Bill, but as I read his amendment, it could also deal with freshwater fishing.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords for contributing to the short debate on this important subject. I am particularly grateful for Amendment 28, proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington, which would require public authorities to exercise their functions in a manner to achieve the fisheries objectives.

While I fully support the principle that our public authorities should support the achievement of the fisheries objectives, I believe that the amendment, which would place a blanket duty on all authorities, would not be suitable, as my noble friend Lady Byford so rightly pointed out. For instance, there has been no consultation with local authorities, and the new duty could lead to them having to prioritise fisheries management over the many other responsibilities that they have. A number of noble Lords have commented on those tensions.

The role and function of each public authority is set out in its implementing legislation. Each authority will vary how it exercises its functions on a case-by-case basis, and any local responsibilities to manage the 0-6 nautical mile zone will be delivered through the inshore fisheries conservation authorities. In some circumstances, elements of an authority’s function may not accord with some of the fisheries objectives. It would therefore be impractical for the Fisheries Bill to place a legal duty on such an authority. As my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay pointed out, the local authorities and public bodies may well not have the power to achieve these objectives legally.

Key fisheries regulators—the Marine Management Organisation and the inshore fisheries conservation authorities—also already have sustainable development duties under the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009, and I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, and other noble Lords are reassured by this. Contrary to the intention of the amendment, its effect could also be to dilute the accountability of fisheries administrations, which is clearly established by the Bill, by spreading responsibility for the objectives more broadly across public authorities.

In answer to the specific questions from the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, the current scope of the functions of the relevant national authorities cover the primary fisheries management tools and activities. We appreciate that local public authorities provide an important role in the achievement of successful fisheries management. However, key activities and functions are covered by the joint fisheries statement, due to their dependency in decision-making on national authorities—for example, in confirming by-laws. The fisheries statement is also legally binding.

Clause 2(1)(c), which the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, asked about, requires a statement on how fisheries objectives have been interpreted and proportionately applied. This will ensure a clear explanation of how the policies in the JFS meet the objectives and how their application is tailored to each specific case. It is worth highlighting that noble Lords will scrutinise the JFS before it comes into effect.

By holding fisheries administrations to account for the policies that they commit to in the statutory statements and management plans that will be created under the Bill, we are providing a strong framework for accountability that also recognises that fisheries authorities cannot unilaterally deliver on all these objectives but must to varying degrees work in partnership with industry. As the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, rightly pointed out, fisheries administrations will be accountable for meeting the policies in the JFS, and this could be something that the Office for Environmental Protection chooses to scrutinise.

Clause 10 makes the policies legally binding. Under these objectives, all must to varying degrees work in partnership with industry, stakeholders and international partners in some cases.

I was grateful to my noble friend Lord Lansley for his helpful comments. The range of objectives does present a challenge, but Clause 10 makes it clear that the policies are legally binding. I hope that, with this explanation, the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Lansley]

I asked a question, but I do not require an answer now. In so far as the Department for International Trade, for example, is engaged in trade negotiations that might impact on fish stocks because of market-access considerations, it will do so by exercising prerogative powers. It does not have duties derived from statute. So it might be interesting to know whether the Government regard these fisheries objectives as relevant to the task that the Department for International Trade will perform.

[Lord Teverson]

I will make a point very quickly. I was slightly disappointed in the Minister’s response when she said local authorities had not been consulted in any way on this Bill. The IFCAs—which are incredibly important vehicles for the conservation of sea fish within the six-mile limit around our coast—are very much creatures of local government. Some of their members are appointed by the MMO, but they are largely local authority organisations, and are significantly funded by local authorities. I wonder whether a consultation —at least with the LGA—might have been a good thing. So I do feel some disappointment.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Lansley]

36: Clause 2, page 3, line 36, at end insert—
“(5A) If the fisheries policy authorities (or any of them) believe that a statement under this Act is or would be, if made, inconsistent with their policies, they may request an independent reviewer, which the Secretary of State must appoint, to report within 6 weeks.(5B) The Secretary of State and fisheries policy authorities must have regard to the report of the independent reviewer appointed under subsection (5A) in making a JFS thereafter.(5C) The Secretary of State must have regard to the report of the independent reviewer appointed under subsection (5A) before setting out policies in a Secretary of State fisheries statement under section 4, which would otherwise be included in the JFS.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would interpose an independent review, if requested by an authority, if there is a difference of view over policies. It would seek to resolve disputes between authorities before policies are set out in a Secretary of State’s Statement, rather than in a JFS.

[Lord Lansley]

My Lords, I would be grateful if noble Lords would look at the revised version of Amendment 36 on the supplementary Marshalled List. It is revised not because I have changed my view about what it should say but because there was a transcription error on the Marshalled List. If one is referring to Amendment 36, I would be grateful if one would look at the version on the supplementary list. The difference is that the revised version says “6 weeks” for the report of an independent reviewer, not “six months”.

This is my best effort thus far to meet the test that my noble friend set us on Monday afternoon, when he said that this Bill had been through the mincer to an extent beyond that which most Bills do. He said any change had to meet the test of,

“Gosh, I wish we’d thought of that.”—[Official Report, 2/3/20; col. 421.]


So this is the amendment that I am hoping the Government might wish they had thought of.

Why do I put it forward? It is like lawyers writing contracts. When people write a contract together, they often sit down and write it on the basis of the agreement they plan to come to. The lawyers carefully explain to them that the purpose of the contract is not simply to give effect to the agreement but to explain what happens when things go wrong. Legislation has to be like this as well; it has to explain what happens if there is no agreement.

My Amendment 36, and indeed this group, provide an opportunity at this stage to look at the process of establishing joint fisheries statements and the Secretary of State’s fisheries statements. I think what we need to do is present that challenge in question. Discussions on the Bill, and between the fisheries authorities of the United Kingdom, have gone very well. However, this does not mean that we cannot be in a position where there might be an element of disagreement about the policies that should be pursued by the respective authorities.

One might say that the Secretary of State writes the policies that they want to pursue in a Secretary of State fisheries statement, that these will no doubt be the reserved matters, and that the respective fisheries policy authorities will set out their own policies on the non-reserved matters. It is not like that, in my view, for two reasons. First, with regard to replacing the common fisheries policy, the industry, if there is no common United Kingdom policy, wants to see at the very least a degree of consistency, not least because there are some objectives that have to be pursued together. We do not have to go back over all of these, but the equal access objective, for example, means that there must be a degree of co-ordination and consistency built into the structure of the licensing processes.

The second reason is that the Secretary of State’s fisheries statement is not simply about reserved matters: it is about quota and how it is used. As we will discuss when we come to Clause 23 and subsequent clauses, the use of quota and the determination of fishing opportunities can override all the devolved matters.

I should say that I was prompted to write Amendment 36 by the National Federation of Fishermen’s Organisations, which has said for some time that it wants a dispute resolution mechanism. It wants the fisheries policy authorities, so far as possible, to agree, and for their policies to be reflected in a consistent fashion in a joint fisheries statement. This is something we should endorse. The NFFO did not, however, suggest how the dispute resolution should function, so I took that upon myself—so any deficiencies in the drafting of the amendment or the proposed mechanism lie at my door, not at the NFFO’s.

The NFFO wants a dispute resolution mechanism because it is concerned that it will not otherwise be possible to deliver the equal access objectives, and that things like the economic link requirements under the licences would diverge significantly and cause difficulties for the industry. It feels that devolution is a highly desirable aspect of making decisions, but understandably it does not want this to be done at the cost of the industry finding conflicting and inconsistent decisions in relation to these objectives.

I commend Amendment 36 and will refer very briefly to Amendments 66 and 68, which are also in this group. This takes us into Schedule 1, which is about the process for making the joint fisheries statement and the Secretary of State fisheries statement. At the moment—and I find this interesting—the policy authorities will be publishing a consultation draft. Unless I am mistaken—and I will be glad to be corrected by my noble friend if so—this means that it is not a formal consultation but the publication of a draft at a suitable moment: one on which the Government say that they are happy to receive representations and that they will draw it to the attention of all interested persons.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist]

I think I had better write to the noble Lord in response to that question.

[Lord Lansley]

I am grateful to my noble friend. There were 14 amendments in this group, so it was not easy to tackle them all, not least since we managed to introduce them all in 18 minutes—it did not leave a lot of time for the preparation of notes on amendments. I am also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, because the point he just made in his further intervention illustrated forcefully the point I was making. This is all absolutely fine if everybody agrees; it is when they do not agree that we want the legislation to tell us what happens. I do not think it does that yet.

My noble friend has explained that there will be a memorandum of understanding and, as we have heard, there is the 2012 concordat relating to licence conditions and how the economic link requirement is implemented and so on. I do not dispute that non-legislative means may well deliver the co-ordination between the fisheries policy authorities that is required, but it is not transparent to us now; nor is it transparent yet to the industry. That is why the National Federation of Fishermen’s Organisations asked, quite properly, the questions and illustrated how problems could arise; for example, on the implementation of the equal access objective.

My noble friend quite rightly challenged my drafting, but we can deal with that if we need to. It could perhaps be “statements under this Section” and not “under this Act”; we can deal with that very easily. If necessary, we can make it very clear that the independent reviewer could be resorted to by any of the fisheries policy authorities before the point at which the joint fisheries statement is made—that is just to clarify; I thought it was clear but it clearly was not. We can deal with the drafting.

The issue that we come back to is: what happens when they do not agree? I am afraid that my noble friend lapsed straight into the problem that I think we are trying to avoid, which is that the fisheries policy authorities that have devolved responsibilities will set out their policies and the Secretary of State will set out policies on reserved matters in the Secretary of State fisheries statement. As I think the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, made perfectly clear, we want and the industry needs—and it will clearly be better—all the policies to be set out in the joint fisheries statement. They can be; there is absolutely nothing in the Bill that requires the Secretary of State to publish a Secretary of State fisheries statement on reserved matters. The Secretary of State can put it all into the JFS. It would be better if it were all in the JFS, but it will all get into the JFS only if there is agreement between all the authorities to this effect. But that is pretty important: remember that the reserved matters in this context include quota functions—the catch quota and effort quota—which could, in certain circumstances, completely override what might otherwise be the licensing of fishing boats by devolved authorities. If we can get it all into the JFS, it would be a better outcome.

I will happily beg leave to withdraw the amendment, but I do not think that we have concluded this conversation. We need to keep this conversation going, and I hope that my noble friend will make it clear that we will—she does not need to go back to the Dispatch Box. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 36 withdrawn.