Fisheries Bill [ Lords ] (Fifth sitting)

Luke Pollard Excerpts

Committee stage & Committee Debate: 5th sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 15th September 2020 Public Bill Committees

[Stephanie Peacock]

I, and no doubt my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport, are pleased to see that features of archaeological or historic interest are included in the definition of the marine and aquatic environment in the Bill. Amendments 139 to 142 would give the Secretary of State and relevant Ministers the explicit authority to regulate in that regard in the areas surrounding archaeological and historic features to ensure that they are preserved.

I am sure that we agree on the importance of protecting our historic marine environment, including our heritage assets on the seabed. They are part of our history, and many are monuments to lives lost in treacherous circumstances. As we create a new legal framework for our future as an independent coastal nation, it is important that we are clear about our commitment to the protection of those important parts of our history and archaeology.

The intention of the amendment is not to limit or harm the fishing industry, but to ensure that our maritime heritage is preserved, not harmed, by fishing or aquaculture activities, by giving the Secretary of State the power to make regulations in that regard. I understand that the Government receive advice from Historic England about the historic environment in English waters, so they must be aware of the importance of protecting and preserving our marine archaeology. The amendments would be a step in the right direction, to ensure that the Secretary of State will be able to regulate effectively to protect features of archaeological and historical interest. I hope that the Government will support them.

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

I am grateful to the Minister for listening, and agreeing to the amendments that were tabled, effectively, by Labour, in the previous iteration of the Bill, for protection of marine archaeology. Today, through these amendments, we are making the case for additional powers for the Government to ensure that marine archaeology is protected. I uage the Minister to adopt them in the good spirit in which they have been tabled.

[Victoria Prentis]

I thank the hon. Members for Barnsley East and for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport. The issue is an important one, but we do not feel that the additional powers in the amendment are needed. I want to reassure Members that, while it is not explicit in clause 38 or schedule 8, the provisions are already wide enough to include making regulations to protect these features.

Regulations can be made under clause 38 and schedule 8 for a conservation purpose, including

“the purpose of protecting the marine and aquatic environment from the effects of fishing or aquaculture, or of related activities”.

The marine and aquatic environment in the context of the Bill is defined in clause 51 as including

“features of archaeological or historic interest”,

which means that clause 38 may be used to amend or introduce legislation to protect those sites individually or collectively. With those assurances I hope the hon. Lady will withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Victoria Prentis]

These are technical amendments, which I commend to the Committee.

Amendment 51 agreed to.

[Luke Pollard]

I beg to move amendment 98, in schedule 9, page 95, line 16, leave out “and” and insert “or”.

This amendment would enable the Marine Management Organisation to make byelaws to protect marine features in circumstances where the need for protection is not urgent.

The amendment is designed to strengthen provisions already in the Bill. It ensures more protections for sea features by changing an “and” to an “or”, so that a feature can be exempted from the MMO byelaws if there is an urgent need or if the Secretary of State sees fit to do so. It also removes Whitehall red tape by allowing the MMO to designate a protected sea feature if there is an urgent need to do so. I hope the Minister will accept this friendly amendment.

[Victoria Prentis]

However friendly it is, I feel that the amendment would duplicate powers elsewhere in the Bill. Paragraph 11 of schedule 9 to the Bill adds new section 129B to the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009, giving the MMO the power to make byelaws to conserve marine features in the English offshore region where the need for protection is not urgent. For any urgent need to protect a marine feature, the Bill provides the power to make emergency byelaws through paragraph 13 of schedule 9. I therefore ask that the amendment be withdrawn.

[Luke Pollard]

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment made: 52, in schedule 9, page 96, line 37, leave out “2010 (S.I. 2010/940)” and insert “2017 (S.I. 2017/1012)”.—(Victoria Prentis.)

This technical amendment updates a cross reference to a set of regulations so that it refers to the current version.

Question proposed, That the schedule, as amended, be the Ninth schedule to the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

The question is that schedule 9, as amended, be the Ninth schedule to the Bill.

[Luke Pollard]

rose—

[The Chair]

I do apologise, shadow Minister. I got carried away.

[Luke Pollard]

It is lucky that you did not get too carried away, Sir Charles, because there are some important points I want to raise regarding schedule 9. I would like to take this opportunity to ask the Minister a number of questions about the MMO’s powers introduced by schedule 9, particularly in relation to the activity of pulse and beam trawlers and marine protected areas. As the Minister will know, we have touched on this issue a number of times. However, as the schedule directly relates to the powers of the MMO on licensing, which the Minister has touched on as the solution to a number of problems that have been highlighted, I want to take the opportunity to make some further inquiries.

We have already discussed in Committee that pulse trawling is devastating for the environment and not fit to be used in any part of the ocean, and the issue is incredibly timely. I hope the Minister is aware of the recent investigation that found Dutch electric pulse trawlers and beam trawlers fishing in Haisborough and North Norfolk marine protected areas, plus a couple of UK and German-flagged vessels that have been using pulse-trawling techniques.

I am no fan of the common fisheries policy; one of the reasons for that is that it has allowed the industry to bicker over environmental protections rather than implementing them in the way that we had originally hoped. For the past two years, a complaint has been progressing against the British Government and others, pursued by the European Commission’s environment directorate-general, for allowing the law to be ignored. I am keen to understand how the powers in schedule 9 will address that issue.

The regulations mean that from 1 January, the regulatory environment will be different from how it is currently. Are the Government proposing to allow foreign or domestic vessels to go on trashing some of our offshore marine protected areas after 1 January 2021? I believe the Minister said last Thursday in our discussion that a speedier and more efficient way to enforce the regulations on these very large protected areas in UK waters is via vessel licensing, not necessarily through byelaws. I am keen to understand how that environmental regulation will be enforced, in particular in relation to the powers in schedule 9. If the Government will now enforce offshore MPAs through vessel licensing, would it not be better to announce a full and transparent consultation now, rather than consulting only after 1 January on a process that is likely to allow damaging gears to be used by UK and foreign vessels in the MPAs for several years?

Clause 46 and schedule 9 give the MMO extended powers to create byelaws for the management of offshore marine protected areas from fisheries, but there is a problem with the byelaws: it is difficult to see how they meet the needs of a nation exiting from the EU and the common fisheries policy on a specific date. It is the activation date, rather than the powers themselves, that is the issue.

We all know that sometimes the application of byelaws can be extraordinarily slow and the results derisory in terms of protection. Returning to an example I mentioned earlier, the Haisborough, Hammond and Winterton special area of conservation off the East Anglian coast—some of which is from six to 12 miles offshore, and so is already managed by the same byelaw-making powers proposed in the Bill for MPAs—was designated a protected area under the habitats directive in 2010. Despite legal obligations for protections arising from that date, it took three years for the consultation process to begin. That took place between September and October 2013.

An impact assessment was carried out and submitted on 10 December and the byelaws signed off the next day, which is commendable speed for the last stage. If we look closely at the results, however, the SAC is meant to protect shallow sand banks and reefs, which comprise the vast majority of the SAC—around 1,500 sq km —but we would have to look very hard on the chart to find the two tiny isolated dots that have meaningful protection. The MMO byelaw process managed to protect less than 4 sq km from the harmful bottom-trawling towed fishing gears. That is 0.6% of the whole area that was originally designated for protection.

That is my concern about schedule 9. We have to make sure that the powers in the schedule will actually be used to deliver against the original purpose in the Bill. I am certain that the MMO understands the habitats directive and the habitats regulations, and so it is worth looking at why that delay took place and why such a small group of stakeholders were included in the discussions, when inshore fishermen were excluded.

The Minister will know that there has been real concern among inshore fishermen about the devastation caused to fisheries from certain gears. The regulations in schedule 9 must be used effectively, and I welcome the Minister’s reassurance that there will be faster use of those regulations than we have seen in the past.

It is shame that the Government Whips chose not to select the hon. Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous) for the Committee. He made a sound contribution the first time. If he had been here, I am sure he would have mentioned the importance of the Renaissance of East Anglian Fisheries group, which he mentioned on Second Reading. I must say, with the exception of its love of effort-based regimes, which is something I am still a bit sceptical of, it is a very good initiative with a lot of potential. However, its concerns around wanting an end to pulse beam trawling in the whole offshore area around the southern North sea, in particular the offshore marine protected areas, is something that I believe the measures take note of.

--- Later in debate ---

[Victoria Prentis]

As I say repeatedly, this wonderful Fisheries Bill prohibits any commercial fishing vessel, including a foreign-registered vessel, from fishing in UK waters without a licence. It provides powers, as the hon. Gentleman said, to attach conditions to those fishing vessels, such as the areas that can be fished, the species that can be caught and the type of fishing gear that can be used. Foreign vessels operating in our waters will have to follow UK rules, including any conditions attached to their commercial fishing licence.

To briefly answer the hon. Gentleman’s questions, the MMO will be responsible for enforcement as we go forward with the powers in the Bill. Schedule 9 byelaws will apply to both UK and foreign boats. More than 90 marine protected areas in English inshore waters already have byelaws in place to protect them from damaging fishing activity.

On the hon. Gentleman’s main point, which was about speed, we aim to make rapid progress in protecting more sites from damaging fishing once the transition period ends. We cannot do it before the end of the transition period, but I assure him that we wish to move speedily afterwards, and we will then have the new byelaw powers proposed in the Fisheries Bill.

[Luke Pollard]

I think there is agreement across the House that we want to see further environmental protection from 1 January. Will the Minister deal specifically with the issue of consultation? There is nothing that prevents her Department or the MMO from starting consultations on those proper protections before the end of the Brexit transition period. It could save time and preserve many of those marine environments if those consultations were to start this side of the Brexit transition period, not the other side.

[Victoria Prentis]

The hon. Gentleman is very impatient. We have, I think, 108 days left until the end of the transition period and we have a great deal to do, including passing this piece of legislation. He makes an important point, though, so I will reassure him that the new procedures will be much quicker than those under the common fisheries policy, where member state agreement had to be obtained for management measures; that took a considerable period of time.

I have no doubt that the byelaw process will be much quicker, but, as has often been said on the Opposition side of the House, there is a balance to be struck between rigour and speed in all things. I can definitely reassure the hon. Gentleman that leaving the CFP gives us the opportunity to introduce a sustainable and responsible fisheries policy, which will enable us to put proper byelaws in place.

Question put and agreed to.

Schedule 9, as amended, accordingly agreed to.

Clause 47

Retained direct EU legislation: minor and consequential amendments

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Victoria Prentis]

As I have said repeatedly, the Government are committed to ensuring that our stocks are fished sustainably. We are working towards ending the wasteful practice of discarding. The EU’s landing obligation requires all stocks subject to catch limits to be landed and counted against quota. There are a number of limited exemptions to that blanket ban that permit a limited level of discarding for certain stocks under strict conditions and with scientific evidence to show that they will not have a detrimental impact on the stock as a whole. The flexibility provided by those scientifically justified exemptions is an important tool in addressing the risk of choke, especially in our very mixed fisheries.

These discard plans will form part of retained EU law. A number of exemptions are due to expire at the end of this year and needed further evidence to ensure that they are still justified. We now have the evidence, so we have decided to use this Bill to extend those exemptions from January. That was—I will be completely honest about this—to reduce pressure on an already tight secondary legislation timetable between now and the end of the year. I am conscious that, even in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, we have a large number of statutory instruments that we need in place in the next 108 days. This is merely to assist with the passage of legislation. I commend the amendment to the Committee.

[Luke Pollard]

The Opposition have no problems with amendments 59, 60 or even 53, which we will discuss shortly. The Minister talked about crowbarring statutory instrument content into primary legislation to speed up the process, but I ask her to be very careful with that approach. There are real democratic issues of scrutiny and oversight relating to that, because of the lack of scrutiny of this Government amendment, which was tabled after the publication of the Bill. We do not necessarily have any problems with that, but a stand-alone statutory instrument would go through a clear process and further stakeholder scrutiny.

It is important that Ministers do not get too attached to this method. Although I do not see too many problems with the content of the amendments, there is a risk that, if this method is used more frequently, the lack of oversight will produce a polluted statute book. As the Minister knows, that is something that I feel very strongly about. We have already removed statutory instruments that I cautioned about in Committee with this legislation. There is a democratic issue that needs to be addressed. I am not opposing the Government amendments, but I am keen that the approach that has been taken is not used subsequently.

[Victoria Prentis]

I have absolutely no intention of making this normal practice; I felt it necessary to explain to the Committee honestly and openly what is being done. These provisions will exist for only a year after the end of the transition period. I am extremely keen on legislative purity—I was a proud member of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments for many years—and I feel that what we have done is acceptable in this context. With that in mind, I commend the amendment to the Committee.

Amendment 59 agreed to.

--- Later in debate ---

[Brendan O'Hara]

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Luke Pollard]

I beg to move amendment 108, in clause 48, page 31, line 23, leave out

“the UK Exclusive Economic Zone”

and insert

“England or the English zone”.

This amendment turns the UK-wide requirements around remote electronic monitoring systems into England-only requirements.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 143, in clause 48, page 31, line 29, at end insert—

“(iii) monitoring compliance with personal flotation device regulations;”.

For boats over 10 metres in length, this amendment would require the on-board cameras to be used additionally to monitor compliance with regulations about lifejackets.

Amendment 109, in clause 48, page 31, line 30, leave out

“British vessels fishing outside the UK Exclusive Economic Zone”

and insert

“English vessels fishing outside England and the English zone”.

This amendment turns the UK-wide requirements around remote electronic monitoring systems into England-only requirements.

Amendment 110, in clause 48, page 31, line 43, leave out

“the UK Exclusive Economic Zone”

and insert

“England or the English zone”.

This amendment turns the UK-wide requirements around remote electronic monitoring systems into England-only requirements.

[Luke Pollard]

The amendments are in my name and that of the shadow fisheries Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley East. Although the amendments are grouped, there are a number of issues here that I wish to deal with in turn. They have partly come from conversations with our Welsh colleagues to ensure a clear devolution angle on the Bill. I do not always agree with everything the SNP spokesperson, the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute, says, but on the matters before us, it is important that the Bill respects devolution. I think the Minister shares that view. I commend the Welsh Government’s leadership and clarity on fishing.

The amendments would adjust the well-meaning and positive additions made to the Bill in the other place to reflect the devolution agreement. They would make a number of those additions England-only, while affording the devolved Administrations the ability to make their own powers. In the areas we are dealing with, I think we are able to flex those powers, and afford the devolved Administrations different powers.

Amendment 143 makes provision for personal flotation devices to be monitored to ensure they comply with regulations. The Minister knows my passion for safety. The fact that six fishers died last year, and that Seafish gave out incorrect advice on how to refit some personal flotation devices over the summer, proves that the measure is needed more than ever.

Amendment 109 makes a distinction between British fishing vessels and English fishing vessels. The Bill has an English problem, as do a number of Bills in the post-devolution world, where “England” and “Britain” are frequently used interchangeably, although they are different and represent a very different approach. We are seeking to clarify in the wording the Minister’s dual role as the English fishing Minister and the British fishing Minister.

[Mr Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con)]

Is it not the case that many English boats fish in Scottish waters? Many of the boats based in Whitby fish in Scottish waters, landing in Peterhead and Fraserburgh. Would having different rules for different devolved areas not cause confusion for those vessels?

--- Later in debate ---

[Luke Pollard]

I am grateful to the former fisheries Minister for raising that. Those boats would have difficulty only if they did not read the equal access objective in clause 1 of the Bill. As the right hon. Gentleman will know, that deals with the ability of any English boat to fish in any other waters, and of Scottish boats to fish in any other British waters, and so on. I do not share his concern, but it is important to place that on the record.

[Mr Goodwill]

So if an English boat was fishing in Scottish waters, would it need to comply with the English regulation or the Scottish regulation?

[Luke Pollard]

I think there is different regulation for enforcement; this is on access. Amendment 109 seeks to clarify the difference between a British fishing vessel and an English fishing vessel. As the right hon. Gentleman will know, the devolution agreements enable the fisheries authorities in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland to have a slightly different view from the one we hold in England—and I mean England, rather than Britain, because Britain and England are different things. As an English MP, I find it frustrating that “England” and “Britain” are used interchangeably. They represent different geographies and identifies, and we should be unafraid of speaking about England more frequently. The Bill has an English problem, because it makes a distinction between Welsh, Scottish, Northern Irish, British and UK fishing boats, but it does not deal with English fishing boats. That is an issue of identity that we need to come to.

Amendment 109 seeks to set out clearly that clause 48 applies to English fishing boats. It would thus deal with the devolution concern expressed by our SNP colleague, the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute, which the Minister will no doubt address. These amendments teach us all the lesson that devolution-compliant amendments are much more complicated to draft, but it is important that we take time to draft them in such a way that they respect the devolution agenda. That is not just about making sure that our friends in Cardiff, Belfast and Holyrood are comfortable; provisions must work for the English as well, which is what the amendment seeks to ensure.

[Victoria Prentis]

“English fishing boat” and “British fishing boat” are already defined in clause 51, so we feel that the amendments are unnecessary. The Bill already contains powers to take necessary action, such as introducing the mandatory roll-out of REM, for English vessels and in English waters.

I will answer a few others points raised by the hon. Gentleman. On the introduction of regulations for monitoring compliance of personal flotation devices, as we discussed last week, the Maritime and Coastguard Agency has fully implemented the legislation relating to the International Labour Organisation’s work on fishing conventions. Among other things, that makes the use of personal flotation devices necessary.

I am aware of the Seafish issue, but I reassure the hon. Gentleman that Seafish has worked collaboratively with the MCA on this matter, and the MCA is satisfied that Seafish has taken all necessary steps and did not promote unsafe or incorrect practices. There are other opportunities for checking whether flotation devices are being worn, and worn correctly: the MCA uses aircraft that can now identify vessels on which the crew are not wearing personal flotation devices, and take appropriate enforcement action.

We must all be open to innovation as times move, and we should take steps to find better ways of doing things. The upcoming call for evidence on REM is a first step in opening that dialogue. It is right that we wait for the results of our call for evidence and consultation before we commit to one approach. That will ensure that we have an approach that suits the fishing industry as well as our marine environment. I therefore ask that the amendment be withdrawn.

[Luke Pollard]

On the basis that we will revisit this matter when the consultation concludes, as well as in later amendments, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

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

[Victoria Prentis]

We feel that we cannot repeat the mistakes of the past. The CFP imposed very inflexible measures that quickly went out of date, and we now have the opportunity to change that. It is important that we do not prescribe one specific action in the Bill, when we very much hope that science and technology will move on and enable us to deal with the problem in a variety of ways. I urge the Committee to agree that the clause should not stand part of the Bill.

[Luke Pollard]

Remote electronic monitoring and cameras on boats are a practical and cost-effective fisheries management tool that brings many benefits. The Lords’ addition of the clause improves the Bill considerably, and I will explain why. Robust and verifiable data helps to inform scientific modelling. Many times, fishers have told me that they know that there are more fish out there than the science says, and we need to ensure that the data deficiency, gap and lag between collection and utilisation is reduced as much as possible. Providing assurances to seafood supply chains that seafood is being supplied and sustainably and legally sourced is an important part of that, which the clause seeks to address. It has the potential to transform UK fishing by providing the data needed to unlock the economic, environmental and social benefits of well-managed and sustainable fisheries, which will in turn help our fisheries and coastal communities to thrive.

The Secretary of State commented on Second Reading that the Government would be able to

“increase the use of remote electronic monitoring, which we will be able to do once we have a greater understanding of how it would be deployed.”—[Official Report, 1 September 2020; Vol. 679, c. 69.]

Trials of REM have been under way in the UK for some time, including voluntary schemes run by the MMO since 2011. It has been successfully implemented in other countries, particularly Canada, Australia and New Zealand. The Scottish Government have indicated support for REM, and said that they would support the REM amendment if it were devolution-compliant, as we spoke about when debating the previous set of amendments. The Government need to show leadership and commit to introduce REM via the Bill. It will set a clear direction of travel and a level playing field for all fishing vessels fishing in UK waters. It is important that it be for all fishing vessels, so that British boats are not, as I mentioned, held to a higher and therefore more expensive standard than foreign boats that are allowed to fish in our waters.

REM will also make our regulatory obligations as a coastal state, under the United Nations convention on the law of the sea, much easier. We have an enforcement problem and an enforcement gap. The Minister might not use those words, but she is aware that we have a problem enforcing our fisheries rules in the UK. There are insufficient resources focused on enforcement at present, let alone to deal with territorial disputes or access difficulties that might arise after 1 January next year. Remote electronic monitoring could help reduce the problem for Ministers.

I am concerned that the resources provided to the Royal Navy—for example, for English enforcement in English waters—will be insufficient. I support what the Minister has said about additional aerial methods. Indeed, one of the counterintuitive aspects of increased enforcement is that we might not need more boats, but we will definitely need more aerial assets. The combination of those assets is what makes the enforcement a key part of this endeavour.

It is recognised by all involved that REM provides an important and powerful tool in supporting fisheries enforcement. The question is how that is implemented and included in the Bill. Indeed, the UK is leading in the use of satellite technology to support fisheries enforcement through the satellite applications catapult project. Given that we are aware of problems and gaps in enforcement capacity, and that we have a solution, there is a strong argument for requiring such measures to form a part of the enforcement framework under fisheries law in the UK, and to be part of the framework setting. That is why it is important that that be in the Fisheries Bill. The UK could demonstrate leadership in fisheries regulation and be world leading in this area.

I am in favour of strong data protection regulations to stop remote electronic monitoring being exploited, as I know the Minister is, and the concerns of fishers are understandable. One of the concerns that I hear is about how REM sits with automatic identification systems and some monitoring systems, especially those that show a fishing boat going back and forth on its track, which shows that it has found fish. That encourages other fishers to try to locate the fish found by the boat. We are aware that some of our fishers sometimes turn their systems off to prevent their location being tracked. In the previous iteration of the Fisheries Bill, and certainly in subsequent Delegated Legislation debates, the Minister gave commitments that although the new vessel monitoring systems would prevent fishers having their position shared, authorities could still pick up on the sharing of those positions to ensure that enforcement action took place.

Other important aspects of remote electronic monitoring is cameras on boats and the wearing of lifejackets. Remote electronic monitoring is not just about positioning; it is about cameras on boats. A safety aspect can be included here. If a camera, regardless of whether it is live-monitored or has its footage held in the cloud, is pointing at someone, they are much more likely to obey the regulations, wear a lifejacket and behave in a legal manner. Lifejackets are still not worn properly right across United Kingdom fisheries waters, but they need to be.

It is curious to look at what Ministers have said about closed circuit television in slaughterhouses, which is a parallel issue. Speaking in debate on the draft Mandatory Use of Closed Circuit Television in Slaughterhouses (England) Regulations 2018, the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs said:

“Access to CCTV recordings for monitoring, verification and enforcement purposes is essential, and will be especially useful where the official veterinarian undertakes other duties in the slaughterhouse and does not directly witness all incidents.”—[Official Report, Second Delegated Legislation Committee, 30 April 2018; c. 4.]

Although that is in the slaughterhouse context, the fishing boat context is parallel, as is well supported.

If the Minister will not support the clause, which was added by our friends in the other place, will she set out how she intends to bring forward greater provision for remote electronic monitoring, and cameras on boats in particular? This is about not just discard prevention but safety, and enforcement of rules about wearing lifejackets.

--- Later in debate ---

[Victoria Prentis]

The proposed amendments to the Conservation of Seals Act 1970 and the Wildlife (Northern Ireland) Order 1985 will provide new protections for wild seal populations in England, Wales and Northern Ireland from intentional or reckless injury, killing or taking. It will greatly restrict the circumstances in which any intentional killing of a wild seal is lawfully permitted—for example, animal welfare exemptions to euthanise a wild seal if found to suffer from irrecoverable injury, pain or disease. The amendments are highly beneficial from an animal welfare perspective, as seals are often intentionally killed during interaction with commercial fisheries. The amendments are necessary for the UK to comply with new import regulations being implemented in the USA. From January 2022, the USA will allow imports of fisheries products only from countries that do not allow the killing, injuring or taking of marine mammals as part of commercial fisheries.

In England and Wales, the Conservation of Seals Act 1970 permits commercial fisheries to kill seals under licence granted by the MMO, or without a licence in very special circumstances known as the netsman’s defence. Similarly, in Northern Ireland there is a provision that also allows for the killing of seals in the course of commercial fishing.

Exports from UK wild capture fisheries could be prevented from entering the USA, and UK businesses currently exporting wild capture fish, such as cod, mackerel or shellfish would no longer be able to do so. That would result in a significant loss of export revenue, because last year wild capture exports to the USA were worth well over £13 million. It could also preclude fishery businesses from taking advantage of a future free trade agreement.

The Scottish Government have separate legislation regarding seal conservation— the Marine (Scotland) Act 2010—which they have amended to comply with current requirements, as we intend to do by means of this amendment. These amendments have been developed in conjunction with colleagues in Northern Ireland to facilitate a whole-UK approach, and I commend them to the House.

[Luke Pollard]

Labour supports these amendments and we will not vote against them.

Every seal matters and the discussions that we have had with stakeholders show strong support for the measures outlined by the Minister. Indeed, the changes to the Conservation of Seals Act 1970 and the Wildlife (Northern Ireland) Order 1985 prohibit the killing, injuring or taking of seals, as well as limiting the circumstances in which those activities can be permitted. Previously, these activities were prohibited only if particular weapons or poisonous substances were used. These changes provide a broader set of protections for seals.

Seals form an important part of the UK’s marine ecosystem, but face an increasing threat from climate change and hunting. Indeed, seals eat a lot of fish and there is sometimes a sense that killing seals protects fish stocks. In fact, such killing damages the fragile ecosystem that supports all life in our oceans, which is why we need to protect seals.

These amendments will help to protect an iconic and much-loved species, and we welcome them. However, when the Minister responds, I would be grateful if she set out why this amendment and the new schedule have been introduced so late in the Bill’s progress and were not originally included in the Bill when it was published, because they seem to be changes that would carry strong support and are worthy of good scrutiny by stakeholders.

It is unusual in this place that we are adjusting our legislation to amend something that Donald Trump may want for trade with the US, and doing so with full enthusiasm from both sides of the House. However, there is popular support for these changes.

[Mr Goodwill]

I rise briefly to draw attention to the fact that we are often accused by the Labour party of trying to do a trade deal with the United States that would produce lower environmental standards and lower animal welfare standards than those we have. Actually, this amendment is an example of how, to comply with the US, which has higher standards of protection for marine cetaceans and seals, we have to change our law to bring it up to the American standard. In this case we can demonstrate that by having agreements for freer trade around the world, we are actually tightening up our standards to match those that some countries already have.

--- Later in debate ---

[Victoria Prentis]

I accept that there are some real difficulties with seals getting close to commercial fisheries on occasion. Nevertheless, we feel that this is the right step to take at this time and we are very grateful for support from Labour.

[Luke Pollard]

I am grateful to the Minister for her support. Noting what the former Minister said, may I challenge the Minister about where the measure will apply to imports? She mentioned that it was being introduced to facilitate the export of British fish to American markets, but to take the example of the hoki fishery in New Zealand, where we know there is licensed and widespread killing of seals in the fishery, we may still import fish from that fishery. Will the Minister set out her intention for fish imports? The principle is a good one, but I want to understand how far it will go.

--- Later in debate ---

[Victoria Prentis]

The clause sets out the commencement date for each of the provisions in the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 53, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 54

Short title

[Luke Pollard]

I beg to move amendment 83, in clause 54, page 37, line 37, after “the” insert “Sustainable”.

I will beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment in due course, because the Bill comes nowhere near deserving “Sustainable” in its title. I have concerns that the Bill is not sustainable, and the Government voted down the Labour amendments to make it more sustainable, such as making sustainability the prime objective of fisheries management, including a net zero plan for how fishing will decarbonise. The Government also refused to ban supertrawlers fishing in marine protected areas. The Bill will therefore not be the world-beating one that it needs to be, and it does not deserve to be called the “Sustainable Fisheries Bill”. I will keep that title in my back pocket for Labour’s first fisheries Bill after 2024.

[Victoria Prentis]

The naming of the Bill is a matter for parliamentary counsel, for whom I have enormous respect. In fact, I take this opportunity to put on the record my thanks to them for their excellent drafting of the Bill. After careful consideration, parliamentary counsel determined that the Bill should be named the “Fisheries Act 2020” once it becomes an Act, which we hope it will.

Sustainability is one of the eight fisheries objectives set out in clause 1. It is an important part of the Bill but, as I have said repeatedly, a careful balance must be struck between the objectives. Including one of them in the short title will have no practical effect and will, none the less, make the function of the Act less clear.

Adding “Sustainability” might imply that the Bill has only one objective, and that the careful balancing of objectives to deliver a thriving fishing industry, rejuvenated coastal communities and healthy seas is unnecessary. That is not the case, so we do not feel that amendment of the short title—with or without legal impact—is useful. We care deeply about sustainability, but I prefer to reserve the word for actions with substance. Given that explanation, I hope that the amendment will be withdrawn.

[Luke Pollard]

Fearing that I would fall foul of the Trade Descriptions Act were I to seek amend the short title of the Bill, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment made: 84, in clause 54, page 37, line 38, leave out subsection (2).—(Victoria Prentis.)

This amendment removes the privilege amendment inserted by the Lords.

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