Draft Common Fisheries Policy (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 Draft Common Fisheries Policy and Aquaculture (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 Draft Common Fisheries Policy (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) (No. 2) Regulations 2019

Mike Hill Excerpts

Monday 25th March 2019 General Committees

[Mr Goodwill]

I am as keen as anyone to make progress on not only the environment Bill but the Fisheries Bill and the Agriculture Bill. It would certainly help if we can clear the decks for them, and one way to do so is to get the withdrawal agreement through so that we can move forward into the new phase and have new legislation from which the UK would benefit as an independent coastal state in terms of fisheries.

The hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport talked about pulse trawling, which is very much at the forefront of my mind. Article 31 of Council regulation 850/98 contains a prohibition on fishing with beam trawl using electrical pulse current in specified areas in most of the southern North sea. Part of that area falls in UK waters, and article 31a contains a limited derogation from the prohibition. That derogation has been amended so as to apply only to UK fishing vessels after EU exit—in other words, non-UK vessels will not be able to take advantage of it in our waters.

Third-country vessels cannot be authorised in UK waters when we leave the EU. The UK currently has three authorisations linked to pulse use, which are in the process of being reviewed with a view to withdrawing them, irrespective of the proposed EU time line to implement a pulse trawling ban effective from July 2021. Once again, the UK is moving ahead of our European partners on that method of fishing, which is deemed unacceptable by many and particularly members of the public.

[Mike Hill (Hartlepool) (Lab)]

I know we are going to move on to pulse fishing, but the Minister will recall that it is allegedly so cruel that it breaks the backs of fish. He will also recall that the number of vessels in the UK is pretty limited, and that other countries, such as the Netherlands, have much bigger fleets. Given that the EU has voted to completely ban pulse fishing by 2021, should we not be following the same lead?

[Mr Goodwill]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for the question; Hartlepool is an important port just up the coast from my constituency. As I said, only three authorisations are in place for UK vessels. We are proposing to review that, with a view to withdrawing them. I am confident that we may well be in a position to be ahead of the EU in getting that ban in place.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Goodwill]

The hon. Gentleman cannot have it both ways. I have given him assurances that the SI is merely updating EU legislation to take account of the fact that the UK will be an independent coastal state with control of its own fisheries, and we will be leaving the European Union. At the same time, he is tempting us to add additional measures. This is a business-as-usual measure that will reassure the industry that things are not going to change. When the Fisheries Act, as it will become, is on the statute book, we will have the opportunity to make changes.

The hon. Gentleman can be assured that on the day that we leave the European Union, none of the 87 Dutch-registered vessels using this fishing method will be able to fish in our seas. We will review the three UK boats, with a view to stopping that activity; it would then be banned.

[Mike Hill]

Earlier, the Minister was talking about making improvements. I understand that improvements can be made further down the line, but some matters are simple. Marine protected areas are protected for a reason—they are vulnerable or important ecosystems. Why is there no protection for them against pulse fishing? Why is pulse fishing not kept away from marine protected areas?

[Mr Goodwill]

Marine protected areas are there to allow habitats to build, and fishing can be limited or banned altogether in those areas. One of the big conversations I have with the charter boats in my constituency is whether they should be allowed to fish using conventional rod-and-line methods in those areas. The Fisheries Bill gives us the opportunity to make further changes unilaterally, without having to get the agreement of 27 other nations, many of whom do not have a coastline and have no real interests in fisheries, but do have votes in the Council.

Listening to the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport, one would assume that the common fisheries policy had been an unqualified success, and that we were being dragged kicking and screaming from its clutches. I do not need to remind the Committee of, for example, the effect of discards on fish supposedly being conserved and having their stocks improved; it has been very destructive. It is only in recent years that we have brought in the landing obligation and more reasonable methods. We can build on that as an independent coastal state without waiting for the others. When we come to the annual fisheries negotiations, we will be there in the same way that Norway and the Faroes are there. I hope we will have close links with them so that we can work together with the EU as another part of the process to ensure that we continue to build stocks in the North sea and have fewer stocks under threat.

Draft Plant Health (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 Draft Plant Health (Amendment) (England) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019

Mike Hill Excerpts

Tuesday 19th March 2019 General Committees

[Dr Coffey]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today, Mr Marsha. The regulations, together with the Plant Health (Amendment) (England) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, amend the existing domestic legislation that implements the EU’s plant health directive. That directive is implemented in England by the Plant Health (England) Order 2015 and, in relation to forestry matters, by the Plant Health (Forestry) Order 2005, which extends to Great Britain. The existing orders set out obligations for the control and management of plant health risks arising from import from third countries and movement within the EU single market of plant material in order to protect biosecurity and the £8 billion value of plant material to the economy, society and the environment.

This is a new statutory instrument covering obligations on plant health authorities, relating to retained EU law on plant health, which arise when we leave the EU. The instrument contains amendments to retained EU law to address technical deficiencies and inoperability issues. It sets out the import requirements from exit day to trading partners around the world regarding the harmful plant pests we want to stay free from, and the plants and plant products for which we require assurances that they have met our prescribed requirements. It also provides clarity to businesses on the pests, plants and plant products that will be regulated within the UK.

The requirements complement the Plant Health (Amendment) (England) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, which set out the processes that businesses must follow regarding imports and internal movements of the plants and plant products subject to regulation. The instrument’s main purpose is to re-enact the existing list of harmful pests and plant material that apply in England, Wales and Northern Ireland and related import and movement requirements, with appropriate amendments to reflect the UK’s withdrawal from the EU.

Scottish Ministers have decided to introduce separate legislation in Scotland and their equivalent legislation will include the existing risks, and thus give effect to UK-wide arrangements. Even though plant health is devolved, the devolved Administrations have worked closely in developing their EU exit legislation to ensure a co-ordinated approach. As a result, these regulations apply to England, Wales and Northern Ireland, with the equivalent arrangements in Scotland. In practice, this means we have a common list of regulated pests and plant material across the UK on exit day that remain the same as in our existing list, which transposes the EU’s list of harmful pests and material.

The instrument also sets out amendments to deal with technical deficiencies and retain directly applicable EU legislation to ensure plant health legislation operates effectively. For example, it provides derogations to facilitate the import of specified material, such as bonsai plants from Japan, to ensure this trade can continue under the same conditions after exit. Similarly, the instrument sets out the actions required by UK plant health authorities in England, Wales and Northern Ireland to control certain pests, such as Xylella fastidiosa, in the event of outbreaks—not that we want an outbreak of that. For this instrument, the plant health authority is the Secretary of State in relation to England; the Welsh Ministers in relation to Wales; and the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs in relation to Northern Ireland. The forestry commissioners are the relevant authority for timber and forest pests in England.

Technical expertise and advice to Ministers, as well as actions to control outbreaks, will continue to be provided by Government officials and agencies, including the Animal and Plant Health Agency. Our long-established UK plant health risk group provides a good example of how the UK’s plant health authorities and agencies work together to develop specific technical and scientific advice to UK Ministers on managing risks to plant health. This instrument is necessary to ensure that an operable legal framework is in place for exit day and to facilitate the flow of goods, while preserving the current plant health regime’s overall aim of preventing and managing pest disease and disease threats. I assure the Committee that Welsh Government Ministers and the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs in Northern Ireland have given their consent for this instrument.

The Plant Health (Amendment) (England) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 are complementary, as I indicated. The existing orders set out obligations on businesses on the control and management of plant health risks arising from the import from third countries and movement within the EU single market of plant material in order to protect biosecurity and the £8 billion value of plant material. As I have set out, the instrument amends the existing orders to address technical deficiencies and inoperability issues relating to retained EU law on plant health. The key point of this second instrument is that it provides clarity to businesses on the requirements that they need to meet and the authorisations and checks they will be subject to when importing or moving regulated plants and plant products. As is set out in the other regulations, they will set out the list of pests and diseases in plant material that is subject to regulation.

I should make clear that, although businesses will see some changes to import arrangements, those are risk-focused, avoiding unnecessary new burdens while, importantly, preserving the current plant health regime’s overall aim of preventing the introduction and spread of pest and disease threats. They do not in any way diminish our controls in this important area and seek to protect biosecurity, while continuing to facilitate trade in plant material.

As I have said, the purpose of the regulations is to correct technical deficiencies—for example, revising definitions to be UK-based instead of EU-based. The instrument also transposes provisions in certain Council directives in relation to the control of relevant potato pests. The aim is to provide clarity to third countries that, following exit, the UK will continue to maintain the same control over the production of potatoes.

There are two aspects in the instrument in relation to the changes to import arrangements that I highlighted. First, regulated plant material that currently enters the UK from the EU or Switzerland with an EU or Swiss plant passport will in future require a phytosanitary certificate, in line with international obligations. This applies mainly to plants for planting and will ensure that we maintain the biosecurity assurances currently provided by the EU plant passport regime once we leave. In order to maintain the flow of goods, this regulated plant material from the EU or Switzerland will not be subject to routine physical checks at the border. That recognises that biosecurity risks from such material do not change immediately on exit day.

Secondly, businesses wishing to bring third-country regulated goods, such as tomatoes from Morocco and cut flowers from Israel and Turkey, into England via the European Union and through roll-on/roll-off ports in England will be required to facilitate plant health checks, which will take place inland at approved premises prior to their release. These new inland checks are necessary to maintain the biosecurity assurances currently provided by checks at the EU border given that other EU member states will no longer be required to carry out those checks on goods in transit for the UK after we leave the European Union.

[Mike Hill (Hartlepool) (Lab)]

On a point of clarification, by “plants”, does the Minister also mean trees? I have recently met with the Woodland Trust, which is very concerned about diseases such as ash dieback. They want to properly protect our indigenous species, and this is the way to go about it.

[Dr Coffey]

Yes, I do. The forestry commissioners will be the relevant authority in that regard. The majority of ash dieback issues are blown in, so there is nothing we can do about that anyway. The key issue for us is to protect our domestic forests and woodlands from biosecurity risks.

The direct cost on businesses arising from these changes to import arrangements is expected to be low. Officials have held discussions with key stakeholders on the development of our approach to this instrument and the changes to import requirements, and they continue to engage with businesses to support preparation for day one changes.

This instrument also provides for a system of UK plant passports to replace EU plant passports to maintain existing safeguards, to protect biosecurity from the trade in regulated plant material within the UK. The costs and burdens on businesses using plant passports should not change.

The other amendments are: a new offence in relation to the new import regulations just outlined; a new offence to force any failure by businesses or landowners to comply with pest control measures specified in a statutory notice in demarcated areas where there is a pest outbreak; and consequential minor amendments to inspection fees. These regulations apply to England only. Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland will hold separate equivalent legislation just as they do now. This second instrument is necessary to ensure that an operable legal framework is in place for exit day to facilitate the flow of goods while preserving the current plant health regime’s overall aim of preventing and managing pest and disease threats.

Fisheries Bill (Ninth sitting)

Mike Hill Excerpts

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

[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.

[Mike Hill (Hartlepool) (Lab)]

Hartlepool has a much-depleted offshore fleet these days, so recreational fishing is very much in the ascendency, particularly because we have got wrecks that generate good fish stocks. Does the Minister agree that that is important for tourism?

[George Eustice]

Yes, I very much agree. I hail from a Cornish constituency that is surrounded by water, so recreational angling is an important tourist activity. These issues are indeed very important. I have seen estimates that put the commercial value of recreational fishing at about £2 billion. We always have to be slightly suspicious of some of these figures, but there is no doubt that it is a commercially important sector.

Amendment 111 and new clause 25 seek to achieve slightly different things. With respect to amendment 111, I do not think that it is necessary to require a consultation, since in clause 28(1)(e) we have taken—for the first time and with very good reason—a power to give grants for recreational fishing. As I have said many times, DEFRA needs no encouragement to issue consultations. We have regular consultations on all sorts of issues—I think last year we had something like 50—and sometimes only a handful of people reply. I can guarantee the Committee that before introducing any grant scheme under clause 28(1), we would consult on its design and purpose, so I do not think that it needs to be placed in statute that we must run a consultation.

Fisheries Bill (Tenth_PART2 sitting)

Mike Hill Excerpts

Committee Debate: 10th sitting (part 2): House of Commons
Monday 17th December 2018 Public Bill Committees

[Luke Pollard]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

We are nearly there now. We can all agree that more needs to be done to tackle the global crisis that is marine pollution, but better regulation is needed to ensure that the fishing industry plays its full role in tackling marine plastics.

The statistics on marine plastics waste are really shocking. Greenpeace estimates that 12.7 million tonnes of plastic end up in our oceans each year—the equivalent of a truckload of rubbish every minute. The waste includes everything that you might expect from our throw-away society, from plastic bottles and bags, to fruit stickers and disposable razors. It also includes plenty of waste produced by the fishing industry itself.

It has been heartening to see the war on plastics go from being something of a fringe issue to entering the mainstream, particularly since the broadcaster David Attenborough’s “Blue Planet II”. People across the country are switching to reusable bags, bottles and coffee cups, but the fishing industry has not yet fully faced up to the damage that some of its practices and its use of plastics are doing to the marine environment. The Environment Secretary found “Blue Planet II” so upsetting that he told The Guardian he had been “haunted” by images of the damage done to our oceans. I therefore wholeheartedly expect the Minister to support the new clause, which would help exorcise the Secretary of State’s demons.

[Mike Hill (Hartlepool) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend mentions plastics. In the light of the proven effects of microplastics on the marine environment and wildlife, does he agree with me and environmental movements such as Plastic Free Hartlepool that the Bill presents a perfect opportunity to introduce long-overdue protective measures?

Fisheries Bill (Seventh sitting)

Mike Hill Excerpts

Committee Debate: 7th sitting: House of Commons
Thursday 13th December 2018 Public Bill Committees

[The Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (George Eustice)]

We discussed safety under a previous group of amendments. Safety is incredibly important, as fishing is the most dangerous occupation. As the hon. Gentleman said, tragically in the past year six people have lost their lives while fishing to put food on our table, so we absolutely recognise the importance of the issue. As he is aware, this is a priority for my hon. Friend the Shipping Minister, who held a summit with representatives of fishing organisations this summer. The hon. Gentleman will also be aware that in the most recent Budget, the Treasury announced a fund to support investment to help safety at sea. Also, we recently announced additional matched funding for the EMFF fund to support coastal communities and measures including safety improvement.

As I explained in a previous sitting, we do not believe it is necessary to add a safety requirement to a fishing licence for the simple reason that provisions on the safety of any vessel, whether a fishing vessel or another type of vessel, are already covered by the Merchant Shipping and Fishing Vessels (Health and Safety at Work) Regulations 1997, which applies to all domestic vessels. It is not possible for a person to get a fishing licence at all unless they have already crossed that threshold and their vessel has passed a seaworthiness test. In the absence of that, it is not possible to get a fishing licence. That provision has already been made.

As I also mentioned previously, there are some issues with some of the under-10-metre vessels. I described the rather bizarre practice that some people engage in of chopping the end off their boat, selling their quota and then claiming that they are under 10 metres to access the pool. There are some concerns about the resulting stability, so we are looking at a different way of measuring inshore, low-impact fishing vessels—perhaps by looking at vessel size or another measure. Our White Paper highlights that and makes provision for us to consider a better way.

From next year, we will require that an inshore vessel monitoring system be used. The new IVMS system will be a requirement for all smaller vessels. It sends a signal every two minutes, so if there is a problem, the Maritime and Coastguard Agency will easily be able to detect where those vessels are.

[Mike Hill (Hartlepool) (Lab)]

On a point of clarification, will the IVMS be extended to what would be considered leisure fishing under-10 craft?

[George Eustice]

No. It will be a requirement for anybody who is engaged in commercial fishing, but there are other systems, including the automatic identification system, which some leisure craft use as a safety device. The IVMS system is for those who are fishing commercially.

--- Later in debate ---

[Luke Pollard]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I think there is a clear understanding in fishing communities that we should not be encouraging electric pulse beam trawling. There is a big distinction between a sensible trial that seeks to get scientific data and what we have now in UK waters, especially off the east coast of England, where we have a de facto commercial fishery, fishing at scale using this method and potentially causing huge environmental damage. I take his point about science and evidence, but that commercial fishery has existed for more than a decade.

[Mike Hill]

My hon. Friend mentions the east coast. He is right that such fishing has had serious consequences. Is it therefore not right to ban it, until the scientific evidence shows otherwise?

[Luke Pollard]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point. I would personally go further, but he makes a very good case for a precautionary ban, as has been imposed by a number of other countries. It is worth bearing in mind that the EU has already banned electric pulse beam trawling, but has allowed the trial. In setting a new framework for fishing after we leave the European Union, certain types of fishing gear and methodologies should be outlawed. We should make the case that we will not accept certain things in our waters, electric pulse beam fishing being one of them.

The stated objective of my party in relation to the Bill is to ensure that UK fishing has the most sustainable fisheries in the world. That means not only having the rules in place, and the enforcement, incentives and backing of the industry, but making clear statements that set the tone and approach for sustainable fishing. I want the message from the Committee to be that we stand united in banning electric pulse beam trawling because of its environmental impacts, and we support the fishing communities that want it to be banned. I ask the Minister to agree with that, to ensure that there is no division here between the Government and Opposition parties.

Electric pulse fishing is extremely lucrative. One study financed by the Dutch Ministry of Economic Affairs found that Dutch fishermen using standard beam trawlers broke even in 2014, while their electrically powered competitors earned a whopping €17 million. That is a huge difference, and it is a very powerful interest to go up against, but conservation means nothing if we are unwilling to go against well-financed groups intent on exploiting our natural environment and causing severe damage to our marine environment. I hope that all Members will take that concern on board, and support the amendment.

Fisheries Bill (Fifth sitting)

Mike Hill Excerpts

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

[Luke Pollard]

I am grateful for that intervention; it is a good question. The important thing about including this objective is that there would be a requirement for Ministers in their annual statements to report on progress on marine safety. As we have seen, sadly there has not been sufficient progress. Given that responsibility for marine safety is shared between a great number of stakeholders in government, it is important to have an opportunity to bring all those efforts together and share best practice. Having a clear objective that the regulatory environment we want to create around fisheries after Brexit is one where marine safety is prioritised is a key message that we should be sending to the fishing community.

The Minister will know of a brilliant scheme from Plymouth that provides lifejackets personal locator beacons to fishermen with. That is an example of how we can make real our proposed objective, if implemented. Personal locator beacons activate when they come into contact with water, enabling the search to be taken out of search and rescue. I have seen for myself the registry and met the team at Falmouth coastguard who manage this system: it is a good one that we need to roll out more comprehensively.

[Mike Hill (Hartlepool) (Lab)]

As I recall, the Government considered it important that such health and safety provisions apply to vessels coming into our waters post-Brexit. Does my hon. Friend agree that that makes it doubly important that we include these issues in the Bill?

[Luke Pollard]

My hon. Friend is exactly right. It is important that we set high levels of safety standards for all fishing boats in UK waters, whether they are UK or foreign-registered. The highest safety standards, including wearing lifejackets with personal locator beacons, should be something that we demand. I would like to see every fisher in UK waters wear a lifejacket with a personal locator beacon. I want to stress the feedback from families of fishers who have been lost at sea. Wearing a lifejacket with a PLB might keep someone alive if the boat sinks or they go overboard, but if the worst happens and that life is lost, the PLB means there is a body for the family to bury or cremate. It is important that we recognise that feedback from families. There seems to be universal agreement that PLBs attached to lifejackets are a good thing, but we know that there is a cost to fishermen of buying new lifejackets with PLBs and registering them. That is why we have tabled the amendment, to make it clear in the Bill that marine safety is important.

Our amendment also deals with the subject of modern slavery. As well as enhancing safety standards, the amendment would address the minimum wage and tackle the issue of modern slavery, which unfortunately can persist far out at sea. Only last year in December, nine African and Asian crew members working on a pair of British scallop trawlers were taken to a place of safety by police as suspected victims of modern slavery. The men were alleged to have worked unlimited hours at sea with very little rest. That is why it important, when we deal with marine safety, that we recognise the pernicious behaviour of those people who are engaged in modern slavery. We need to ensure that has no place in the UK fishing industry, by including it in the Bill. The Prime Minister herself has championed the case against modern slavery. I am certain that if the Prime Minister, who does not seem to have much going on today, were serving on the Committee, she would vote in favour of the amendment, to support action against modern slavery and ensure not only that our fishing industry is as safe as such a dangerous pursuit can be, but that there can be no examples of modern slavery in it.

Fisheries Bill (Sixth sitting)

Mike Hill Excerpts

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

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

It is a pleasure, Sir Roger, to serve under your chairmanship. The hon. Gentleman’s amendment sits in conjunction with amendments 48 and 49, which I tabled, in making sure that we would have an annual report from Ministers on progress. Given this morning’s debates, it is really important that there should be an annual opportunity for the scrutiny of Ministers in relation to this issue.

Currently there is a very unsatisfactory situation, as hon. Members need to scramble away and persuade colleagues on the Backbench Business Committee to have an annual fisheries debate in Westminster Hall. Indeed, we have one tomorrow, but I suspect that it will not attract the attention it should, because it is not in the main Chamber. The ability to have that annual presentation of reports by the Secretary of State and a good debate, with all Members of the House able to contribute, is a really important part of this amendment—in effect, that is what we seek. It also relates to when such a debate must take place.

[Mike Hill (Hartlepool) (Lab)]

As I recall, the expert witness from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs was talking positively but incrementally about the movement towards opening out quotas, although that will take some time. Does my hon. Friend agree that such debates would help to monitor the situation?

[Luke Pollard]

I agree with my hon. Friend. When we are looking at such potentially seismic changes as doing away with the fixed quota allocation system and reallocating quota on a larger basis, it is important to have an annual opportunity in the parliamentary calendar for the Government to present the evidence, statistics and science behind where fisheries stocks are, along with progress towards any reallocation.

The other part of amendment 48 relates to the statement being published annually. There is confusion about when precisely the UK will exit the European Union and under what arrangements, but the amendment states in proposed new subsection (3B) that there would be a fisheries statement within 12 months of the provision coming into force. Effectively, whenever we left the European Union, be that in the fashion planned by the current Prime Minister or in a way not planned by her, within 12 months there would be a statement and we would have an opportunity to update and see progress against the fisheries objectives we debated this morning.

[James Gray in the Chair]

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Hill]

My hon. Friend is again quoting from the expert witnesses that came before us. Will he confirm that one of the ideas for fairer distribution of quotas was to regenerate coastal towns such as Hartlepool and regenerate their fishing communities?

[Luke Pollard]

I thank my hon. Friend for his point. The opportunity to redistribute quota could have a beneficial effect on coastal communities across the country, from the west country to other parts of the UK. That is effectively what Griffin was saying in his remarks about understanding how quota has been allocated, and it is why the amendment is so important. It would help us better to understand the basis on which quota is allocated, particularly as a quarter of the UK’s fishing quota is owned or controlled by just five families on The Sunday Times rich list.

The small-scale fleet has generally been excluded from the FQA system and producer organisations. Quotas should be allocated on transparent social, economic and environmental criteria to the benefit of fishing communities and coastal communities. We heard that in our evidence sessions, and the idea enjoys support from both sides of the Committee, although we are yet to find a form of words on which we can agree. A greater share could be offered for complying with relevant regulations, such as taking part in data gathering, fully monitoring and recording catches, complying with discard rules and applying high standards of workers’ rights, welfare and marine safety. Through that, we have an opportunity to allocate quota in a fairer way that supports greater public goals and assets. Those are objectives that we all share.

There may be more fish after the UK leaves the common fisheries policy if we get a drawdown of the quota held by our EU friends, but not amending the distribution of quota would exacerbate existing levels of inequality between parts of the sector and would fail to incentivise best practice. Small boats provide the backbone of our fishing fleet and make up the majority of the fleet, in terms of employment. They generally use low-impact gear and provide more jobs per tonne, but their share of quota has been limited to 4% to 6% of the total available quota, even though they employ 49% of the fleet. A greater understanding of how that can go, how quota is currently allocated and how it will be allocated in future will help transparency and, importantly, confidence among fishers in the system.

--- Later in debate ---

[Luke Pollard]

In seeking to move from six to five, that was merely to move from six years to five years, rather than necessarily to align with that parliamentary cycle.

[Mike Hill]

Would moving the period to five not mean that the Government of the day were accountable for actions they had taken, rather than leaving it to a sixth year, when potentially it would be a different Government and it could trigger a new way of assessing things? It could be a false trigger for the future.

Fisheries Bill (Third sitting)

Mike Hill Excerpts

Thursday 6th December 2018 Public Bill Committees

[Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)]

Q My apologies for arriving late. In my experience, fisheries management is currently incredibly adversarial. We in this place, parliamentarians, and non-governmental organisations very much promote a more collaborative approach, with the fishermen being the solution. Do you think that that will be achievable in practice, and how do we make it achievable? We talk about collaboration the whole time, but in the real world it can be very difficult.

Helen McLachlan: Again, it comes down to the processes, the implementation and how we are going to take it forward. There are some good models of collaboration and effective delivery. For example, the Scottish Administration have taken a very strong approach to that, really bringing the catching sector, the processors and the NGOs around the table to have very frank discussions about what needs to happen if we are to meet certain objectives. That is a good model, and one that could be replicated by the different Administrations. We will not deliver sustainable fisheries management by having conflict and not having the catching sector working alongside administrators and the NGOs, because we all represent important constituents.

Rebecca Newsom: Adopting a more fair, equitable and sustainable approach to the distribution of fishing opportunities in the future is of fundamental importance to securing the buy-in of fishers across our coastlines. We just have to look at the current unequal distribution, which can also contribute to unsustainable outcomes, to recognise that we need to see urgent change.

In practice, all we are saying is required to deliver on that is a couple of small tweaks to clause 20, which essentially removes historical catch levels as the prevailing criterion for determining the distribution of fishing opportunities in the future and requires that environmental, social and local economic criteria are prioritised instead. We need to think about the political buy-in that can be achieved by that and, in turn, how that helps us to deliver on the higher-scale MSY objectives that we have been talking about.

Debbie Crockard: The advisory councils are also an example of collaboration between the other interest groups—OIGs—rather than the NGOs, on the advisory councils, and the industry. While we do not always agree, and it can take a lot of time to come to any agreement, there is a lot of really useful discussion and collaboration in those groups.

[Mike Hill (Hartlepool) (Lab)]

Q This is a bit of a repeat, but are you in favour of redistributing quotas more fairly to under-10s?

Rebecca Newsom: Yes we are, but we want to stress that the way to achieve that is through introducing transparent and objective environmental and social criteria that all fleets need to abide by. It is not necessarily a black-and-white dichotomy between small scale and large scale, although of course the new approach would stand to benefit the smaller-scale fleets significantly, given their current fishing practices where, for example, about 90% of the under-10s use passive gears.

[Mike Hill]

Q Do you think that would have a positive economic impact on localities such as Hartlepool, where we hardly have a fleet but where the fleet could grow given a fairer distribution of quotas?

Rebecca Newsom: Absolutely. I refer the Committee back to the evidence from Jerry Percy on Tuesday. To add to that, the social criteria that we would suggest were used would need to be developed through public consultation and advice from experts. They should include, but not be limited to, things such as local employment and port and processing opportunities. That is a way to bed in local economic benefits.

[Mike Hill]

Q I have one last question on climate change, which is hardly mentioned in the Bill. Are the provisions adequate to abide by international climate change obligations? What are the implications of climate change for fish stocks and marine ecosystems?

Andrew Clayton: I can say something about the level of precaution and the importance of building resilience. As managers of fish stocks, as I said earlier, we cannot put fish in the sea and we cannot control biomass directly. All we can do, when we are managing exploitation and managing the fishing fleet, is operate with a suitable level of precaution and make sure that stocks can be resilient if they face other pressures.

Fishing pressure obviously has a huge impact on fish stocks, but so do climate change, habitat degradation and acidification—there are all kinds of other threats that fish stocks face. It is about leaving them enough space to be resilient to those other pressures as well.

On the economics, I wanted to say that the concept of maximum sustainable yield is primarily an economic concept that gained ground after the second world war. It is about providing as much protein for hungry people’s plates as possible. It is not a green benchmark; it is not something that you would start from if you were looking only at the environment—you might want to be more cautious with some other measure.

It is a happy coincidence that we, as green organisations, find that we are advocating a high-yield, highly profitable, highly economically successful approach. That is what other countries around the world have seen when they have delivered MSY. It is win-win for the environment and for the bottom line of fishing businesses.

Fisheries Bill (Fourth sitting)

Mike Hill Excerpts

Thursday 6th December 2018 Public Bill Committees

[David Duguid (Banff and Buchan) (Con)]

On the redistribution of quota, obviously, if you are a larger owner of quota versus a smaller owner of quota, or an owner of no quota, you will certainly feel that you are going to be worse off in this situation. How do you cater for the fact that a lot of the smaller vessel owners perhaps previously owned quota that they sold, benefiting greatly financially, and then moved into smaller vessels for which they did not need quota? How would you avoid that kind of gaming happening again in the future?

Griffin Carpenter: That is a good question. The line that has always been used on quota allocation in the past was, “You’re robbing Peter to pay Paul, and we don’t want that in the industry.” Now we have the idea of a Brexit dividend of extra quota, we are robbing Pierre to pay Paul, so that is fine. We are fine as long as Peter is protected.

The idea of quota shares is actually a bit confusing because they are percentages rather than tonnage. Now that stocks are recovering, and the quota increases each year, you can have a situation, even if you are taking from Peter and giving to Paul, where everybody is better off. You can have this as a conditional reallocation. Let us say you get a certain share in the large-scale fleet—you have a large-scale vessel—and you are guaranteed 1,000 tonnes every year. If the quota is going up, some of the surplus quota of that year can be reallocated to the small-scale fleet in a pool or through whatever system you do that. There is a bit of a difference between tonnage, which is what actually affects your bottom line, and the percentage. I suggest that we can have these thresholds in place.

The other thing is that, with additional fishing opportunities potentially coming in, hopefully, we can do a reallocation all at once so, again, the large-scale fleet will not necessarily be worse off. They might have a smaller percentage of haddock, let us say, or some demersal stock that the small-scale fleet really wants, but they are getting all the extra herring and other species from the North sea from our EU colleagues. There is the potential for doing all this at once: revisiting the allocation system and making everyone better off.

[Mike Hill (Hartlepool) (Lab)]

That was an interesting answer to the question I was going to ask. I was going to ask you to clarify the position that the only way to redistribute quota fairly, if I heard you right, is to break the hold of the larger fishers and bring fisheries back into public ownership. You suggested something like a seven-year notice on that, but what you were just talking about was a potential incremental progression towards that through redistribution of surplus tonnage. Were you right in the first instance that fisheries have to be brought back into public ownership for fairer redistribution, but have you also realised that there can be incremental changes to benefit new starters or the under-10s as we proceed?

Griffin Carpenter: That is a good question. Unfortunately, it is an awkward one with Brexit timing, because we are not sure if or when the additional quota will come online. One of the issues about not dealing with the fixed quota allocations is that right now it really does not matter to a small-scale fisher if there is a theoretical extra quota that may or may not come. The more important point is that, given the timeline right now, it will probably need to be incremental, where first we will deal with the additional quota, then we deal with the existing FQAs. But that requires in the fisheries legislation at the first available opportunity to give notice, because every year you delay is another year that you cannot do the reallocation that we propose. The Fisheries Bill is the right place to do that.

[Bill Grant (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (Con)]

Q On the same theme, I have come across the theory of using days at sea. What are your thoughts on days at sea in relation to quotas? It is admirable that you suggest giving that time period of 14 years to reduce the larger quotas, to give a better share for the smaller vessels and under-10s. While the capacity for the last vessels is there, how do you see us increasing the capacity of the smaller vessels over that period of time, and attracting new people into the industry to absorb the redistribution of quotas?

Griffin Carpenter: There is lots going on there.

Fisheries Bill (Second sitting)

Mike Hill Excerpts

Tuesday 4th December 2018 Public Bill Committees

[David Duguid]

Q One more question, if I may. Going back to what you were saying earlier, I think your exact words were along the lines of “Unfortunately, quotas have become a commodity.” With quotas being sellable and buyable, they are an asset, at least. If quotas were to be more fairly distributed among the smaller vessels in future, how would you avoid them just becoming sellable commodities, bought up by others?

Jerry Percy: There are a number of global examples where you can retain quota as a national resource without allowing its sale. There obviously needs to be flexibility in-year to move quota about, to ensure that those people benefit from it. It is not an easy situation to resolve, but there are global examples of what can be done to ensure that almost half of our national resource is not in foreign hands, as has happened here.

[Mike Hill (Hartlepool) (Lab)]

Q I represent Hartlepool, which is one of those coastal communities affected long ago by unfair quotas for under-10s. There is an argument that our industry could be revived if fairer quotas were allocated. In your opinion, how many ports would benefit from an uplift in quotas?

Jerry Percy: It is not just ports; there are harbours, coves, small areas and small coastal communities. It would be dozens, if not hundreds. Going back 40-odd years, I can remember fishing out of Lowestoft as a boy fisherman. There were myriad groups of small boats all the way up and down the coast, all providing a significant benefit to those local communities. They may not show up on an economist’s spreadsheet, but those people are nevertheless paying their mortgage, taking their kids to school and keeping the local infrastructure going. I am not exaggerating; it could certainly be in the hundreds that we could revive and have some level of renaissance. There is no doubt whatever.

[Mike Hill]

Q I get the impression from representatives from the larger fleets that they would oppose quota redistribution. What arguments are there against that?

Jerry Percy: Well, why should they get more? To an extent, it is based on greed. They already have approximately 98% of access to the quota, 50% of which is in foreign hands, and a very significant proportion is in the hands of the five richest families in this country. It has become a fundamental nonsense and is grossly unfair socially, environmentally and economically that nearly 80% of the fleet in the UK has access to only 2% of the quota. The idea or argument that any additional quota should be allocated according to the existing fixed quota allocations frankly is just grossly unfair. There is no sensible economic or social reason why that should be the case.

[The Chair]

Does any other Government Member wish to ask a question?

--- Later in debate ---

[Luke Pollard]

Q Just so I understand, you are saying that the UK will have that power in the future. Should that power be set out in the Bill—that this should be a requirement? My concern is that UK boats might have to have IVMS, but foreign boats might not, depending on what option we decide to put in the licence. There should be a level playing field between UK boats and foreign boats in UK waters, so should all boats not have to have IVMS on them?

Phil Haslam: The power in the Bill gives us the ability to regulate who comes into our waters by granting permission. I do not think the conditions of permission need to be explicit in the Bill, but they can be part of that, among other things that we would require any vessel within our waters to comply with.

[Mike Hill]

Q On the point you made about IVMS, would that extend to what I consider to be leisure fishing craft as well?

Phil Haslam: There will be a cut-off of who actually gets fitted with it, because the point is to try to develop a picture of what is the main input into the fishery in terms of effort on vessels out there. There will be some vessels—there will be a line below which we will not need to go. At the moment we are looking to catch—not catch, that is the wrong word—fit IVMS to the active fishing vessels.

[Mike Hill]

To commercial vessels.

Phil Haslam: To commercially active fishing vessels, yes.

[Luke Pollard]

Q The Bill includes provision for the Secretary of State to allocate fishing opportunities based on days at sea, as well as the fixed quota allocation. How does your enforcement action differ when you are looking at a boat using days at sea versus looking at a boat fishing against an FQA?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Carmichael]

Q Just 30 seconds on devolution, because I want to give colleagues some time. Is there not a conflict of interest where the United Kingdom is holding the reins but is parti pris in respect of the English interest as well?

Dr Appleby: That is a very good question. I put my amendments together in two parts. The Secretary of State is doing two roles; I am sitting here with two roles myself, so I appreciate that. One is being the Secretary of State on behalf of the UK—he is a trustee of the UK’s public fishery—and the other one is being English Fisheries Minister. That is why I do not like the way clause 20 is drafted, because I thought you would split the functions. The trouble is that it goes into some very difficult water when we start to look at the different devolution settlements.

[Mike Hill]

Q I have two simple questions. In your opinion, does the Bill provide the requirement for the UK fisheries to be sustainable? Should the Secretary of State provide annual statements on stock levels?

Dr Appleby: I will take the second question first because the second one leads to the first. How can you define “sustainable” if you do not know what the stock levels are? There is a massive absence of science on this. If we get money back in from the fishery, I would like the commissioning of decent science so we can look ahead and plan forward. We seem to be navigating while looking behind us. We need to get better data to manage the stock. We also need to have a conversation about which stock we want to fish. What are the stocks that live best in our waters that we want to feed the country in the 21st century?

[The Chair]

Mr Aldous wants to ask a question and we have just less than a minute left.