Fisheries Bill [Lords]

Robert Goodwill Excerpts

Ways and Means resolution & 2nd reading & 2nd reading: House of Commons & Money resolution & Money resolution: House of Commons & Programme motion & Programme motion: House of Commons & Ways and Means resolution: House of Commons
Tuesday 1st September 2020 Commons Chamber

[George Eustice]

My hon. Friend is a long-time expert in fisheries policy, with direct experience of all the difficulties and shortcomings of the CFP, and she makes an important point. We have a particular problem, due to the unfair sharing arrangements under relative stability, of what is called choke species affecting our fleet, where there simply is not enough quota for fishermen to even be able to land their by-catch. As she says, the lack of quota for choke species causes a risk that the fleet has to tie up because they simply do not have the quota available to them. We set out in our White Paper a fairer sharing arrangement, so that there will be fewer choke species, but also an approach to managing discards that will enable us to charge a disincentive charge on fishermen who land out-of-quota stock, rather than force them to discard it at sea in a very wasteful way—so we remove the incentive to target vulnerable species but give fishermen left in a difficult position an option that they can exercise.

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

Will the Bill allow us to give grant aid to fishermen to have more selective fishing tackle, to enable them to not catch the choke species that cause these problems?

[George Eustice]

My right hon. Friend makes a very important point. I know that he was involved in crafting some of these measures during his time in DEFRA, and I can confirm that those measures remain in place. We have powers in the Bill to make grant payments to fishermen, in particular to support them in fishing in a more sustainable way and investing in the gear that enables them to do that. I was about to come on to that point.

As we plan for our future, we need to recognise the immense value of fishing to our local communities, and we want to ensure that our own industry is able to benefit from the new opportunities that will arise. The powers in clause 35 mean that we can set up new funding schemes and grants to support the development of port infrastructure, the development of our fishing industry and its capacity to manage an increased catch and to manage those sustainability issues.

--- Later in debate ---

[Luke Pollard]

I hear that argument, but I also hear that it is not in support of British ports when landing more fish could create more jobs, and I think we need to think about what benefit will be gained from leaving the common fisheries policy. If there is an argument for only supporting those with fish caught under a UK quota and landed in foreign ports, creating jobs in foreign ports, that is an argument the hon Member is free to make, but it is not one that will be made by the Opposition.

Labour’s jobs in coastal communities amendment is designed to ensure that whether the boat is Dutch, Spanish, French, actually British or just flagged that way, boats fishing under a UK quota would be required to land the majority of their fish in British ports. This would create a jobs boom for fish markets, processers, fuel sellers, boat repairers and distributors. With the virus, the recession and the consequences of austerity, could our coastal communities not do with more jobs? I hope the Government will agree with that, not continue to support fish being landed in foreign ports and not creating jobs in our communities.

[Mr Goodwill]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Luke Pollard]

No. I am going to make some progress, because I have gone on for some time.

The backbone of British fishing is our small boat fleet. These boats and businesses are the ones the British public want to see benefit most from our exit from the common fisheries policy. While industrial fishing has its place, I make no apology for wanting a fairer share for our small fishers. With just 6% of the quota, the small boat fleet has two thirds of the jobs, and I think it could have more quota. Reallocating quota along social, economic and environmental grounds, even if just 1% or 2% of the total catch were to be reallocated, could increase what small boats can catch by 25%. This is the second jobs multiplier that Labour has proposed in this Bill. It would be huge for our small boat fleet, helping give them a platform to invest in new gear and boats and to hire more crew.

Such rebalancing could easily be absorbed by the big foreign-owned boat operators within the current range of variation of total allowable catch, yet this is a policy yet again opposed by the Conservative party. I know the largest fishing companies, mostly foreign-owned, are strong supporters of the Conservative party, but, to borrow a phrase, Labour’s policy is for the many fishers, not the few. I hope Tory MPs will not be looking at their feet as the Whips demand total loyalty to Downing Street and require them to vote this amendment down when the time comes, because our fishing communities need a strong voice in Westminster, not just more Whips’ instructions at the expense of coastal towns.

Labour will be tabling an amendment to ban supertrawlers pillaging Britain’s marine protected areas. The Greenpeace campaign on this issue has attracted the signatures of a number of Ministers, but, sadly, of not a single DEFRA Minister. Labour will table an amendment to ban supertrawlers of over 100 metres fishing in marine protected areas. Britain has not one supertrawler of over 100 metres, so Ministers and Conservative Members have an easy choice to make: whether they are on the side of British fishers or foreign-owned industrial supertrawlers, harvesting huge quantities of fish and plundering the very habitats that Britain regards as special. I hope that would be an easy decision, but we will have to see.

--- Later in debate ---

[Deidre Brock]

I absolutely agree. I think there are major concerns on this and the Bill does not provide any sort of genuine framework. It is full of unknowns. It is built on the shifting sands of a Trade Bill where we have no idea what the outcome will be. Should we just shrug our shoulders and crack on? The fact that this Government have had more than four years to come up with this Bill and this is what they have arrived at is a disgrace. [Interruption.] I am sorry, but the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) is interrupting from a sedentary position.

We may be no longer contributing to the discussion on the common fisheries policy at the EU, but we will still, in effect, be subject to it or, even worse, getting the even less savoury end of the stick. Scotland’s fishing community is being sold out by the Tories once again: they were sold out as they went in and they are being sold out again as we leave the EU. Control of who can fish in Scotland’s waters will not be exercised by the Scottish Government, control over fishing in Wales will not belong to the Welsh and control over Northern Ireland’s fishing will not be decided in Stormont. Despite the bluff and bluster, that back door is wedged open.

There is a similar situation on the landing requirement, which was a creation of the amendment in the Lords—that only goes to show that it is not just the Government who do not get devolution. The landing requirement would be decided in Whitehall, after a brief consultation with the devolved Administrations—not an agreement with them, but a consultation. There is no scrutiny role for the legislators of the devolved Administrations, which are, after all, supposed to have a devolved competence in this area. The Scottish Parliament is being sidelined, as are the Senedd and Stormont.

Jack McConnell is the UK Government’s latest great champion in their futile campaign against Scottish independence, so it might be advisable for them to listen to him when he says, as he did in discussing this amendment, that he had

“some concerns about the constitutional principles relating to this amendment...I am concerned that the amendment simply talks about “consulting” the devolved Governments—particularly the Scottish Government, who have clear legislative authority—rather than “agreeing” with them a national landing requirement. I am interested in knowing the thinking on having a UK-wide national landing requirement imposed from the centre rather than agreed by consensus across the four nations”.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 24 June 2020; Vol. 804, c. 270-71.]

I think that is code, from a former First Minister of Scotland, for, “It will never work.” So fishing devolved is fishing retained, and it does not end there. The right of foreign fleets to fish in Scottish waters will be determined more by the actions of the UK Government in entering into international agreements than it will be by the Scottish Government and the Scottish Parliament, as will be quotas and days at sea—or “fishing opportunities”, to use the jargon of the Bill. There is, in black and white, the preparation for the UK Government rendering our fishing communities subject to the CFP even after we have left the EU. Clause 24 allows the Secretary of State to determine the maximum quantity of seafish that may be caught by British fishing boats and the maximum number of days that they may spend at sea. That is qualified in subsection (2) as being exercisable in relation to satisfying

“an international obligation of the United Kingdom to determine the fishing opportunities of the United Kingdom.”

That is the CFP in a bilateral agreement. Again, the Secretary of State must consult, but does not have to reach agreement with the devolved Administrations. But those Administrations will be responsible for ensuring that the rules laid down by Whitehall are enforced—hardly a partnership of equals, is it?

In clause 38 more powers are reserved to Whitehall that would be more useful in the hands of the devolved Administrations, including provision about fisheries, aquaculture and other things, again sheltering under the umbrella of international obligations. There are powers to impose quotas, limit time at sea, mandate processing procedures, determine what gear can be used and how, decide how fisheries products can be marketed, impose regulations over landings, setting targets on marine stock and to monitor and enforce compliance with all those powers. That takes enforcement away from the devolved Administrations. Again, the requirement is only to consult, not to agree with the devolved Administrations.

[Mr Goodwill]

I am confused. If the hon. Lady had her way, she would give control back to Brussels, including Ministers from many countries that do not even have a fishing industry and have other fish to fry.

--- Later in debate ---

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

The waters around the UK are some of the richest fishing grounds in the world. I am sure the right hon. Member for Tynemouth (Sir Alan Campbell) will be pleased when I quote Nye Bevan, who famously said:

“This island is made mainly of coal and surrounded by fish.”

It is not so well known that he went on to say:

“Only an organising genius”—

I think he used those words ironically—

“could produce a shortage of coal and fish at the same time.”

Of course, Nye Bevan never knew about the common fisheries policy and the destructive effect that it could have.

The coal industry is being consigned to the history books, but our departure from the EU will open a whole ocean of opportunities for UK fishermen. While one could, during the European referendum debate, debate the pros and cons of EU membership for many sectors, such as agriculture, no sane person could argue that the common fisheries policy has not been an unmitigated disaster. The hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Deidre Brock) said that no one could see the benefits of Brexit for fishermen—well, no one apart from every single fisherman I have ever spoken to. It is amazing that the SNP, while talking of independence, wants to consign the control of our fish stocks to the European Union once again.

It is often said that Ted Heath sold out the British fishing industry. It is not quite as simple as that, because at the point that we joined the European Union, the interest of most of the fishing industry, including boats from Hull and Grimsby, was in Icelandic waters. It was only after the seventh cod war—I think the first one was in 1898, when the steam trawler was introduced—that the Icelandics increased their limit from 3 miles, ultimately to 200 miles. The relative stability calculations were based on a British fishing industry that was in those distant waters around Iceland and the Faroes, which is why we got a bad deal at the start.

The problem is that at the same time that we were catching cod and haddock—the two most commonly eaten fish here; you can have them in either breadcrumbs or batter, and that is basically what the British people eat in terms of fish—foreign vessels were catching all those other species that are often on menus abroad but rarely on menus in the UK, such as the John Dory, the megrim, the saithe and the ling. We have tried time and again to get British people to eat those species, but no British person seems to want to eat a fish that looks you in the eye while you are eating it. That is one of the problems. We lost a vital source of that fish from Iceland, and we still import most of the fish we eat and export most of the fish we catch. We now have the opportunity to increase our share of quota over time. Just as importantly, as the right hon. Member for Tynemouth said, we need to secure a trade deal, so that lobsters caught off Scarborough and Whitby can be exported free of tariffs or impediments to France, Spain and so on.

Many wish that we could impose a strict 200-mile limit from day one, like Iceland did, and exclude foreign vessels at the beginning. That is not realistic for a number of reasons. The need for agreement on trade is one. Some of the foreign skippers bought quota fair and square from British skippers, and we need to treat them fairly. Most important, fish stocks do not respect our 200-mile exclusive economic zone. Relative stability has been replaced by zonal attachment, so the UK will, like Norway already does, have to agree the sustainable catch for each quota species and then divvy up between the EU and the independent coastal states such as the UK. Our share needs to increase progressively, by negotiation. We have a great Minister to do that, and great officials, such as Nigel Gooding CBE, who understand the complexity of the zones and species very well.

The Bill also underpins the sustainability of our seas. I mentioned the advent of the steam trawler. As vessels become more powerful and technically more advanced, it has never been more important to limit fishing to sustainable levels. If, as a farmer, I sent all my sheep to market, I would not be surprised if there were no newborn lambs the following year. We must make sure that we get the export markets, as several Members have said. On that point, I hope the Minister will say something about the nomadic scallop fleet. It is an internal issue, but every year we get nomadic scallopers off the coast of Yorkshire, destroying our crab and lobster beds, smashing up the fish and, more important, often towing away whole fleets of pots, which cost thousands of pounds.

The Bill is an important element of taking back control. I hope it reaches the statute book quickly, unsullied by any Lords amendments.

Fisheries Bill [ Lords ] (Second sitting)

Robert Goodwill Excerpts

Committee stage & Committee Debate: 2nd sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 8th September 2020 Public Bill Committees

[Brendan O'Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to see you in your place this afternoon, Sir Charles. As much as I can see what the hon. Member for Barnsley East is trying to do in proposing this amendment —seeking to establish a dispute resolution mechanism—and while I of course understand that it would be better for the four nations of the United Kingdom to enter into discussions in good faith and to work collaboratively to seek that joint fisheries statement, I cannot accept that this is the best way to take this forward. There should be, I agree, a mechanism to resolve any conflict that might arise between the four nations of the UK, but we do not think that giving power to the Secretary of State to establish such a mechanism is the way forward.

There has been nothing in the last few years, particularly around fishing and agriculture, to suggest that the interests of the devolved nations would be protected if the UK Secretary of State—particularly from the current Administration—was asked to establish a system in which to resolve disputes. Quite simply, we do not trust the Government to produce a mechanism that would not centralise power and decision making at Westminster. We do not think that the needs of the Scottish, Welsh or Northern Irish fishing industries would be adequately protected if a Secretary of State based in Whitehall was given the power to establish that dispute mechanism.

Immediately, questions would arise. What would the system to resolve these disputes look like? How independent of Government would this be? Who would appoint the members of that committee, if it were independent of Government? Would its membership be based on the nation’s fishing industry, percentage share of coastline or the size of its population? Who would ultimately decide which side was right and which was wrong, and what criteria would they use to decide that?

I struggle to see how it would be possible for the four nations of the United Kingdom to be put on a fair and equitable footing, and for a transparent dispute mechanism to be put in place, when to all intents and purposes in these matters Westminster acts as the English Parliament, and when the right hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice) doubles as the UK Secretary of State and also the person in political charge of English fisheries.

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

Having been in the Second Reading debate, does the hon. Gentleman think we should have some sort of dispute resolution system in place for the Scottish National party position in Edinburgh and its position here in the House of Commons?

[Brendan O'Hara]

I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman. That has taken an awful lot longer than I imagined it would. I was primed for that one at 9.35 am morning. Obviously, clearly not, but I appreciate his sentiment.

Given the circumstances in which these resolution mechanisms have been put in place, there is a massive potential conflict of interest if the UK Secretary of State, who is also in charge of English fisheries, is the person we charge to found that dispute resolution mechanism. Rather than the Secretary of State having this power, surely any dispute resolution mechanism would have to be created by all four nations, which would be bound by it. It should be something that all four nations and Administrations can agree to. I do not think anything else would work practically or politically.

Fisheries Bill [ Lords ] (First sitting)

Robert Goodwill Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 8th September 2020 Public Bill Committees

Without delving into the complexities of maritime law too much, for fear of boring everyone to death, it is fair to summarise that not everyone who is on the sea is paid a national minimum wage. Indeed, one of the key parts of crewing vessels sometimes with foreign crews is that the levels of pay afforded them can be at a lower rate than for British fishers. The House needs to send a message, as we did with the passing of the National Minimum Wage Act 1998 and subsequent improvements to it, that there is a minimum standard for what we expect fishers to be paid in UK waters.

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

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that a large number of fishermen are paid a share of the catch? Therefore they may have a good day or a bad day. Were we to impose national minimum wage objectives, that type of payment system could well be disrupted.

[Luke Pollard]

The right hon. Gentleman is right to highlight the share fishing that many trawlers go with. I think the point is that there should be a base minimum. That debate on the consequences of a national minimum wage was held in Committee Rooms such as this when nearly all the Members now on the Opposition Benches were at school. The consequence of introducing a national minimum wage in fishing will be that all fishers are paid a basic level. That is especially true for those who are currently paid well below it, not because of a bad day at sea or weather obstructing fishing activity—I believe that that is what the right hon. Gentleman was suggesting—but because of the deliberate pay policy of the fishing organisation in question, to pay below the minimum wage, and in particular to pay foreign crews below the minimum wage.

The signal that the safety and workforce objective would send out in relation to that—although the Minister will no doubt say that subsequent work would be needed to sit behind it—would be a strong message that we expect a certain standard of pay for fishers. As to poverty pay for those fishing at sea, which is a dangerous profession, it would show that we as a newly independent coastal state, to borrow a phrase often used by the Conservative party, will set a high standard. Whether it is a matter of safety or pay, there is a profound case for high standards, especially for the foreign crews who are often paid less, which creates market distortion vis-à-vis the pay for British crews. There is an opportunity to level the playing field and create the basic standards that will say that safety and workforce issues matter. That is why the safety and workforce objective sends a clear message about our intentions.

I suspect that the Minister will disagree with most of what I have said, and I predict she will not want the objective to be in the Bill, but I hope she will be able to set out what measures the Government will take on the issue, recognising that there is a grey zone of responsibility, with safety sitting between the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the Department for Transport, while the minimum wage sits between that and fisheries.

[Mr Goodwill]

No one would doubt the importance of health and safety, but there is already an obligation in the Bill, in clause 35(1)(e), to be able to give help, in terms of health and safety funding. I suggest that the amendment is superfluous, given that the issue is covered elsewhere in the Bill.

[Luke Pollard]

The right hon. Gentleman highlights a good topic, which I did not touch on, but am happy to, about the optionality of safety. My view and that of the Labour party is that safety should be a minimum standard, not an optional extra. Under the clause 35 financial assistance powers, the Secretary of State has the ability to arrange financial assistance for

“maintaining or improving the health and safety of individuals who are involved in commercial fish or aquaculture activities”.

He has the ability to do that: there is not a minimum standard that insists on it.

If the right hon. Gentleman suggests that clause 35(1)(e), on which we can still table amendments as we have not reached it yet, should be a compulsory measure—that the Secretary of State should ensure that there is always funding to create a minimum standard—I would agree. In the absence of a minimum standard, clause 35(1)(e) solely suggests that the Secretary of State can fund such provision if he or she wishes. That is a very different point from a minimum standard, and that is why it is so important that there should be a safety and workforce objective that establishes at a high level the belief that there should be minimum standards.

--- Later in debate ---

[Victoria Prentis]

I appreciate the intention behind both amendments 71 and 72. However, as anticipated by the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport, I feel that the law is already clear on both those points. I do not think it is necessary to amend the Bill in this way and I will go into some detail about why that it is.

As the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport gets to know me better, he will learn that I am never happier than when discussing older laws. My personal university and legal background make the Magna Carta a fascinating document to me—indeed, I was discussing with the Fisheries Bill team yesterday. He should not set me down trains of thought unless he wants to hear the responses.

On the proposed public access objective, the United Nations convention on the law of the sea—UNCLOS—establishes that the UK has sovereign rights to manage the marine resources within our exclusive economic zone, which obviously includes fish. I can reassure the hon. Gentleman that UK case law, which is slightly more recent than the Magna Carta, recognises clearly that those fish are a public asset, held by the Crown, for the benefit of the public. The public right to fish was confirmed most helpfully in a case called Malcolmson v. O’Dea in 1863. Legally, it is well established that no one individual can own the fish.

In terms of the rights to exploit and fish the fish, most UK fishing opportunities are managed, as the hon. Gentleman set out, through fixed quota allocation units. As he said, the High Court has held those units as a form of property right. Fixed quota allocation holders do not own the fish in the sea, but the FQA units entitle those holders to a share of whatever quota is available in that particular year. That is quite clear in the legal cases.

[Mr Goodwill]

Will the Minister recognise that there are exceptions to that in terms of royal fish, in that whales, porpoises and sturgeon become the property of the monarch? Indeed, in Scotland, any fish of that type that cannot be pulled on to shore by six oxen pulling a wain would qualify as royal fish, be the property of the Crown and be dealt with by the Scottish Administration on the Crown’s behalf.

[Victoria Prentis]

It is always a pleasure to give way to the former fisheries Minister, who has knowledge of areas of law I can only dream of.

Fixed quota allocation units do not confer a permanent right to quota, but Government policy, as set out in the fisheries White Paper—a document particularly beloved of the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs—is to maintain the FQA system, which has provided certainty to the industry for many years. That is important to those who have invested money in FQA units and very important to those who have borrowed money in mortgage form using FQA units as collateral.

--- Later in debate ---

It is really important that that message is clear, because the changes necessary to protect our fish stocks, including ensuring that total allowable catches are not set above MSY levels—the level at which fish reproduce to replace fish lost through being caught—are really important. Sustainability has to be the future of the Bill. Indeed, later in Committee, the Minister should be prepared for our now annual amendment to change the Bill’s title to the sustainable fisheries Bill, rather than just the Fisheries Bill, because that message about sustainability is important and should be loud and clear.

[Mr Goodwill]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the wording proposed by the Lords would tie the hands of Ministers as they go to the annual fishing negotiations? Stocks are determined within a particular zone, and we could end up with the UK not being able to fish some of that stock because we could not take back to the UK the agreement that we would have made had we not been so encumbered.

[Luke Pollard]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for setting that out. Let me be clear: a Labour Government would not set total allowable catches above the maximum sustainable yield. Telling our European friends that we want a sustainable fishing industry is not giving the game away or betraying our fishers. It is setting out, clearly for all to see the fact that we manage our fish stocks sustainably and that we want a sustainable fishing industry, economically and environmentally. That is the level that we would approach this at. That is really important.

The right hon. Gentleman mentions the move to zonal attachment, rather than relative stability, which he knows Labour supports in relation to this. It is therefore important that we set the tone and the objective that our own fisheries waters need to be sustainable at that level. That is what the amendment to the Bill sets out—fisheries sustainability is the primary driver of fisheries management.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Goodwill]

Does the hon. Gentleman not agree that there is a certain contradiction between what he is saying now and later amendments that he has tabled, which would indicate that fish destined for, say, the European market should be landed in the UK and then transported on trucks to their main market, rather than being landed closer to the market where they are going to be sold?

[Luke Pollard]

No, I disagree. I dislike the Conservative position of favouring landing fish in European ports, because we could be creating jobs in British ports. It is bad for our ports, and it betrays the promise that many people made during the Brexit referendum. It is something that we need to reflect on. We should land more fish in our ports, creating more jobs in our communities and, as a corollary, eating more of our own fish. We will return to that in future, but I do not feel that landing more fish in our ports and achieving net zero in fishing are in any way contradictory. Actually, both are necessary to have a fully sustainable fishing industry in the future, because sustainability needs to be economic and environmental—they go hand in hand.

Amendment 73 sends a really simple message: we want to see fishing achieve net zero, and we will require the Government to prepare a plan and to have an idea about how to achieve that. I hope the Minister has a plan for fishing achieving net zero, but I fear that this part of the debate has been wholly absent over the past few years. Outwith the larger debate about every single sector, but specifically on this sector, how will they work? We all know that fishing is not one sector but dozens of sectors operating within the wider remit, with different fishers catching different species of fish with different gear at different times of the year in different fishing zones. How does the plan to achieve net zero work for each of those sectors? There will be different approaches, especially with the carbon impact of certain boats.

I turn to the other amendments in this group, 74 to 79. I will talk only briefly, so that other speakers can contribute. On amendment 76, I suggest to the Minister that one thing she should take from this debate is that Ministers need to act faster than they have to date. In part, our sustainability work by Ministers, as a country, has been too slow and too passive. I hope that the Minister and her officials are hearing loud and clear from the Opposition that we want to see Ministers act faster on this.

--- Later in debate ---

[Luke Pollard]

One of the difficulties of having so many amendments grouped together is that we cannot get into each one individually. That is a probing amendment to find out what the plan is. I will return to species in a moment, but to answer the hon. Gentleman’s question on bycatch, the discard ban was introduced with good intentions—to borrow the Minister’s phrase from earlier.

There is a real crisis of fish being discarded over the side of boats because people do not have the quota to catch that fish. Fishers are being put in a difficult position by existing regulations—regulations that Ministers themselves may decide on, even if under an EU directive on how things work. In mixed fisheries—which I believe is what is around Scotland, and is certainly around the west country, which I represent—for fishers to target specific species is difficult, resulting in an inevitable bycatch. The difficulty is that the discard ban states that a fisher cannot catch that, discard it or land it.

That poses questions about how a reformed discard ban would work under the new freedoms that the Minister has set out. Greater quota pooling, for instance, might be one way, especially for smaller boats, to make sure there is sufficient quota within a pool to ensure that bycatch is adequate there. There needs to be a greater understanding of the need to allocate more quota for some of those things, especially in mixed fisheries, to cope with that. The fundamental point—which I think the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute was getting at, and to which I hope the Minister will respond in the spirit in which the amendment was tabled—is that the discard ban currently does not work for our fishers and certainly does not work for our environment. The intention behind it is good. We need to preserve that intention, but also ensure that the fish our fishers are catching get a good price and are preferably landed at their local port.

The hon. Gentleman also noted at the start of his intervention, in relation to the difference between commercial fishing and recreational fishing, that there is a real challenge, which we will come to later, in applying restrictions to recreational fishers who are not taking the volumes of fish out of the water that some of our commercial friends are. There is a tendency to regard the two slightly differently, which I think he hinted at in his intervention.

To briefly return to the amendments, I am grateful to hear the Minister say that the Government have declared a climate emergency. That is very welcome news. My recollection of the debate is that the Government did not oppose the declaration but did not support it either. I am very happy to hear that the climate emergency declaration is now Government policy and not just parliamentary policy. The subtle distinction is important, because if it is a Government declaration of a climate emergency, the Minister has made a bigger announcement today than perhaps she wanted to. It is important, because we are in a climate emergency and there is a climate crisis that affects our fish stocks.

One area that the Minister hinted at, which is important and why Government amendment 1 needs to be looked at again, is the changes in fish and where they reside. As the Minister knows, fish do not follow international boundaries. Laws that seek to govern fish to follow international boundaries are problematic. The Minister set out how she hoped to ensure that those fish with high survivability are returned to the sea and not landed dead —I think she mentioned that in relation to amendment 78. I agree with her, but the Minister’s statement is at odds with DEFRA’s decision not to grant the bluefin catch-and-release fishery in the south-west, because bluefin tuna, bless them, have very high sustainability and can be caught time and again. The experience for the fish might not be one that many of us would like, but a fish in the sea is worth so much more to our recreational fishing sector that charters boats to recreational anglers than it is from being landed and eaten in our food supply chain. I agree with the Minister when she talks about high survivability and hope she will respond to that point.

The bluefin catch-and-release fishery was something that I mentioned in my remarks, and the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Scott Mann) also made a powerful case in support of it. The catch-and-release bluefin fishery would not only enhance our scientific understanding of the changes causing these wonderful creatures to enter more of our British waters, or to return after a great absence to our British waters, but could create an enormous number of jobs across the west country, and they could in due course appear in the North sea, where tuna was present before the decline of fish stocks.

I have taken up enough time on this. Suffice it to say that Labour Members disagree with Government amendment 1. We would like to see sustainability as the primary mover of sustainable fisheries. The message that removing that sends to all those that care about our oceans is a poor one. Fishing should be sustainable economically and environmentally, and we should be unafraid of saying that sustainability is the primary driver of fisheries management. If we do not have sustainable fisheries, we will not have jobs in fishing or the fish in the sea that we need. To pre-empt what you might be about to say, Mr McCabe, the amendments sandwiched between that and amendment 73 are designed to probe the Minister for an explanation of the position on each of those points—which she has done in part, with the challenges that I have posed. However, amendment 73, which concerns net zero and decarbonising our industry, is absolutely critical to the future of the sector. I hope the Minister will set out the Department’s, and indeed the Government’s, plans to decarbonise the industry. She needs to be under no doubt about how seriously we take the importance of hitting net zero for fishing.

[Mr Goodwill]

I rise in support of Government amendment 1. Nobody so far has talked about the role of the courts. I suspect that if the wording proposed by the Lords stays in the Bill, there will be a field day for the courts and well funded environmental non-governmental organisations, which will be fighting every step of the way to ensure that the prime fisheries objective of sustainability is taken to the nth degree. We have seen that already in how the courts have been used with general licensing.

For example, at the annual fisheries meeting with other independent coastal states such as Norway, we may well decide that, as a one-off, to take account of choke species and mixed fisheries, perhaps some stocks would be fished above maximum sustainable yield, as a short-term measure to sustain our fishing industries. That additional quota could be assigned to the Norwegian waters and EU waters, but the British fishing Minister would say, “I’m sorry, but although there’s more quota on offer, we cannot take it because we would be shot down in the courts.” There are many other situations in which the suggestions made by the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport about being flexible and working with the sector would be tracked every inch of the way by environmental NGOs, which would be keen to take them to court.

[Luke Pollard]

The right hon. Member raises a hypothetical about total allowable catches being set above MSY. He knows well that total allowable catches are routinely set above MSY levels. It is not a once-in-a-moment opportunity; it is a regular occurrence, and it is leading to a decline in fish stocks. Therefore, sending the message to our fisheries that we will have sustainable fishing in our waters is not a bad one, because we are ultimately saying to those fisheries that if we do not set at MSY levels, there will be fewer fish in the sea for the future. Whether we set levels above MSY in conjunction with our European friends or otherwise, that contributes to a decline in fish stocks. Does he agree with that?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Goodwill]

I agree with the hon. Member, but where levels are set above MSY levels, it is often for practical reasons to do with the sustainability of a particular fishing industry. It is also to do with choke species. We heard from the Minister how some fisheries would be closed completely were they not to be allowed a degree of choke species to be caught for which a quota is not allocated.

The point I am making is that the law of unintended consequences has not been seen clearly by the Lords. I believe many of our fishing communities would be decimated by action taken not by Ministers but by judges in interpreting the prime fisheries objective as sustainability. That would be an overriding objective and not one that Ministers could reasonably take to fishing communities in the four nations of the United Kingdom sustainably. I am therefore pleased to support the Minister in her amendment, which will prevent such an unintended consequence that even the shadow Minister, I think in his heart of hearts, understands could be a real problem.

[Rosie Duffield (Canterbury) (Lab)]

I echo the words of the shadow Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport. We must set the tone and objectives for the negotiations, so it is critical to retain the cross-party amendment passed in the other place to make environmental sustainability the driving force and priority of the legislation. Removing that objective would put the fisheries sector at risk in the long term.

On Second Reading, the Secretary of State warned against creating a hierarchy of objectives, but the simple truth is that environmental sustainability must go hand in hand with economic sustainability, as we just heard. We cannot have long-term economic sustainability without first prioritising environmental sustainability, and that means prioritising fish stocks. Fisheries businesses cannot operate if there are no fish left for them to catch.

The hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine made the good point that fisheries are striving to get those goals and achieve sustainability, but that must be enshrined in law. If we put environmental sustainability front and centre in the Bill, the rewards in the long term will be there for the fisheries sector to reap sustainably. We want fish stocks to recover and thrive, resulting in a more resilient marine ecosystem. That obviously leads to greater catches over the long term, supporting the fisheries sector and the coastal communities that rely upon it.

Fisheries Bill [ Lords ] (Third sitting)

Robert Goodwill Excerpts

Committee stage & Committee Debate: 3rd sitting: House of Commons
Thursday 10th September 2020 Public Bill Committees

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

Would my hon. Friend further agree that the Faroe Islands are an exemplar of how to maintain a sustainable fishery, using technology such as long lining, for example?

[Victoria Prentis]

I am very happy to agree with the former fisheries Minister on this point. I know he did a great deal of work with the Faroe Islands, and we have had a very constructive working relationship with them throughout the course of this year. The issue has now been resolved properly, as it should be, in the Bill.

International negotiations are reserved but implementing international agreements, for example by licensing fishing boats, is a devolved matter, so this is a complex area to legislate for. We have worked very closely with our Scottish Government colleagues, who I would like to thank, and colleagues across Government, to come to an agreed approach that respects both reserved and devolved competences. I am grateful that Scottish Ministers were prepared to and will play an active role in the delivery of this amendment. I commend the amendment to the Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Victoria Prentis]

I do believe that, under the laws that regulate the way that vessels fish internationally, it is right that flag states should be responsible for the licensing conditions and health and safety regulations of their own vessels. It may assist the hon. Gentleman to learn that under the Merchant Shipping (Registration of Ships) Regulations 1993, regulation 56(1), a foreign-owned UK flag vessel can be removed from the register like any UK vessel. What we cannot do is interfere in the licensing regimes of other flag states.

[Mr Goodwill]

I am not only a former Fishing Minister, but a former Shipping Minister. Is it not the case that if a vessel docks in a UK port, it could be subject to a port state control inspection, which would inspect safety equipment, as well as the welfare of staff? Indeed, following on from the point that the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport made, if we are going to have to inspect boats at sea for safety equipment, that is going to take pressure away from inspecting them for illegal fishing.

[Victoria Prentis]

I am grateful to the former Minister for making those points. They are points I had attempted to make earlier, but clearly not as succinctly.

--- Later in debate ---

[Cat Smith (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Lab)]

I am proud to represent the coastal town of Fleetwood, which is part of the fishing industry in Lancashire— or at least it was, before the last deep sea trawler left Fleetwood in 1982. After almost 40 years of fishing decline in the town, I have seen the knock-on effect on people’s earnings and on economic prosperity, and the struggles that we have in the town.

The decline of the deep sea fishing industry cannot be held solely accountable for the fortunes of the town that I am proud to represent in this House, but it is no doubt part of the wider picture, alongside other issues such as the Beeching cuts and the rise of cheaper and package holidays. The reality is that those in coastal communities have a lower wage than people who live inland—people earn around £1,600 a year less. The Bill could offer a framework by which coastal communities such as Fleetwood could really benefit from the kind of change they have been telling me they have wanted for a very long time.

My constituency voted leave. When my constituents voted to take back control, it was not just about fishing; it was also about the regeneration of coastal communities. The clause offers a framework by which we could see not just the economic benefits of fish landed in ports such as Fleetwood, but also the knock-on effects for jobs in fish processing. We still have hundreds of jobs in that sector. It would be of economic benefit to the wider town.

I represent one coastal community, but the clause would benefit isolated and rural fishing communities up and down the United Kingdom, including those communities that perhaps used to have a connection to fishing. The clause should stand part of the Bill.

[Mr Goodwill]

I understand the reasoning of those who support the clause. However, British fishermen land fish abroad because that is the market for which it is destined; the majority of fish caught by British fishermen is exported to those lucrative markets. While that is not an option for those catching crab and lobster off Scarborough and Whitby, when that is landed it is put on trucks—more often than not French or Spanish trucks—that transport it back there. I worry that the provisions in clause 18 would result in fishermen getting less for their fish because they have to add transportation costs. It would create jobs for French lorry drivers and for ferry workers and those who work on the tunnel, but it could have a negative consequence in terms of the income for our fishers.

[Brendan O'Hara]

On that point, the right hon. Gentleman knows we are on polar opposite sides of the Brexit debate, but if this idea is about taking back control and this sea of opportunity, as the hon. Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood said, who is that sea of opportunity for? Is it purely for those who own the quota? Is it purely for those who own the boats? Is it purely for those who work in the industry? Or is that sea of opportunity not meant to include the regeneration of the United Kingdom, and particularly its ports? The clause would do that, and by throwing it out, the Government are surely singularly failing to do that.

[Mr Goodwill]

The UK intends to establish itself as a global trading nation, and part of that global trade is trade with the European Union, our most important neighbour in terms of trade. Many of the most valuable species that fishermen catch are valuable because they have such a premium in markets abroad. We are once again seeing the law of unintended consequences. When we look at our carbon footprint, we need to look at the carbon cost of a ship in, say, the channel that was intending to land in France having to steam back to the UK, put that fish on a truck and then take it back, possibly to the same port where it intended to go for that market. While I understand the sympathies behind the clause, the unintended consequences, both for value for our fishermen and the carbon footprint of the fishing industry, are both very negative.

[Luke Pollard]

Government amendment 5 goes against the very heart of what was promised to coastal communities in the referendum. It is a betrayal of our coastal communities that the Conservatives are supporting jobs in foreign ports. The clause, which was a Labour amendment, was deliberately designed to create jobs in our coastal communities, in ports from Newlyn, Plymouth, Portavogie in Northern Ireland, Peterhead, Fraserburgh, Fleetwood and Grimsby. It was designed to inject more energy and economic activity into those places.

I disagree with Government amendment 5, which seeks to remove clause 18, but more than that, I believe it betrays a promise made to many of those communities that Brexit would deliver more jobs and a revival of the fishing community. When I speak to fishers and the community around the fish quay in Plymouth, their model for whether Brexit is a success for fishers and fishing is whether they see more boats in our port, more fish being landed and more jobs created. That is what the clause, passed in the Lords, will do—create more jobs in our ports. The former fishing Minister, the right hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby, described it as perhaps only creating distribution jobs. At a time when our coastal communities have been hit hard by 10 years of austerity, and by under-investment for far too long, creating more jobs in our coastal communities is something that we should welcome and go for.

The debate on the clause in the House of Lords was good, with Conservative and Labour peers and those from the devolved Administrations of all parties making the case that we should be creating more jobs in our coastal communities. It was promised that Brexit would deliver that for fishing. It is bizarre that we now see the Government arguing against that very thing, supporting jobs in foreign ports and not in our own country. It is an odd reversal of a promise given to those communities, and why I cannot support the Government amendment.

The clause would create a jobs boom because, as has been said by several Members, every job in the catching sector creates 10 on shore. That is true. Those jobs are created in fish markets, in distribution—I do not pooh-pooh that at all; these are important jobs—and in processing. It will create an economic stimulus and an incentive to process more fish at the point of landing, rather than to have those processing jobs in foreign ports at the point of landing elsewhere, because it would mean fresher fish processed in our ports. It will create greater value from the processing of that fish. That is why all those are important.

[Mr Goodwill]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that if Iceland imposed a similar restriction on the processing of fish, it would decimate places such as Grimsby, which relies on processing fish imported to the UK?

[Luke Pollard]

Indeed, and if clause 18 were about processing fish, perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would have a point, but—I am sure he has read it—it is about landing fish, rather than processing them. That is a good cul-de-sac to try to take us down, but that is not what the clause actually says. I went to Grimsby recently and spoke to people on the fish quay, and they hark back to the days when there were 800 fishing boats in their port. They want more fish to be landed in their port, so it is bizarre in the extreme that the Government are arguing against more fish being landed there.

Having more fish processed in Britain will create more jobs. Interfish in Plymouth creates an enormous number of jobs from landing the fish that it catches in Plymouth and processing them there, supplying our supermarkets. I want to see more British supermarkets buying British fish. That would be greatly helped by this clause, because more British fish would be available in our markets.

A number of points have been raised about why the clause does not work, so let me briefly address them. First, the former fishing Minister, the right hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby, mentioned the increased carbon footprint. At a point when Conservative MPs voted against the net zero objective in the Fisheries Bill, I think that does not apply in the same way. We want fishing to be carbon free, and we want more fish to be landed in our ports. I agree that it is often argued that fishers chase the higher price that is delivered in foreign markets, and that if they if they landed in a UK port, the price would be lower. I hope the same arguments are used about any departure from any regimes in the European Union that make travel across borders easy. Delays at the border put an extra focus on this. I hope the argument that has been applied to this clause is applied equally to the Government’s policy, but I fear that it will not be. None the less, it was a good attempt.

As we said in the debate on Tuesday, fish should be a public asset. The economic link between the fish in our waters and the United Kingdom should be strengthened. That is what clause 18 does: it strengthens the economic link. I fear, on this point, that the arguments of Government MPs will need to be reversed when the licence conditions change.

I welcomed the consultation that the Minister has set out, but I disagree with her that the figure is 50% currently. As she knows, landing 50% of fish in the UK is potentially one of the licence conditions, but it is not the only one, and it is important to state that if a company has a brass plaque in the UK and employs UK crew, it can get out of that. That is why many fishers catching fish in UK waters land nearly all their catch in foreign ports. One trawler in Wales lands barely any of its catch in British ports; it lands 84% in foreign ports. That fish should be supporting the Welsh economy. There are examples of that in English and Scottish waters. That is why this matters so much. We will be betraying those coastal communities if we do not support job creation.

I hope the Minister, when she comes to her consultation, cuts and pastes this clause, as Ministers did for Labour’s last set of amendments to the Fisheries Bill, and makes it her own. I am a big fan of Louis Walshisms in politics. The Government should make it their own. I hope they copy this clause and put it into their consultation, because we need to create jobs in coastal communities, and that is what the clause seeks to do.

When this clause comes to a vote—surely it will do—and Labour and SNP Members vote in favour of the jobs in coastal communities clause and in favour of landing at least two thirds of fish in our coastal ports, I hope that every single Conservative MP who represents a coastal community will be able to explain to their electorates in those communities why they chose to support ports on the continent, rather than the port that they represent, why they chose to create and preserve jobs in foreign ports, not in their communities, and why they chose not to give the young people in their communities the opportunity that would come from enhanced employment not only in the catching sector but in processing, and the engineering jobs that accompany this. I hope they have a decent argument for that, because this flies in the face of everything that has been promised to coastal communities. That is why Labour will be supporting keeping clause 18 in the Bill to protect jobs in coastal communities, and opposing the Government’s plan to continue the export of those jobs to our European friends.

Fisheries Bill [ Lords ] (Fourth sitting)

Robert Goodwill Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 10th September 2020 Public Bill Committees

However, there is much more to be done. We cannot simply deliver such a policy by creating marine reserves around overseas territories. We need a policy for UK waters. That is what the Benyon review into highly protected marine areas effectively did. This amendment is a first step on the nine-year process that I spoke about at the start of my remarks that basically says that the Government have committed to make 30% of the world’s oceans fully protected with no-take zones, and as part of that they are taking the first step by banning supertrawlers. This is a very difficult debate. I say that knowing how hard this will be to discuss with fishers.

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

I understand how contentious this is. Is it not the case that the marine protected areas are there to protect the seabed, and that most of the trawlers fish mid-water and catch species that move well beyond those protected areas? I am not seeking to defend them; I am simply saying that we need to understand exactly the impact that the trawlers have on the marine protected areas.

[Luke Pollard]

The former Minister raises a good question. Marine protected areas do not exclusively protect the seabed, although that is a clear part of the validity of any marine protection. Such areas also protect species mix and can also deal with bird life and other forms of ocean-going life. The issue is complicated by the diversity that we seek to protect. Marine protected areas protect the seabed, but they also apply in other ways as well. None the less, the commitment that the Government have made around the UN oceans treaty is one that the Labour party fully supports. I say in all candour to the Minister that it will be a difficult sell and a difficult journey between now and 2030 to pitch that to fishers, but we need to have that honest conversation with them.

The Benyon review’s remarks about how highly protected marine protected areas can be designated, which effectively make MPAs no-take zones, need to include fishers. There is huge support among British fishers, particularly among the small boat fleet, for the banning of supertrawlers. Apart from the supertrawler that I mentioned earlier that currently flies a British flag, but did not until very recently, all the supertrawlers that fish in UK waters, especially in marine protected areas, are foreign-owned boats. There is a huge advantage to our sustainability and our support for our domestic fishing industry if we make the case now to ban supertrawlers over 100 metres and if we start the conversation about how we move the Benyon review recommendations into a greater awareness with a plan as to how that comes about. I hope the Minister—no doubt she objects to this particular amendment—will set out how she intends to implement a similar ban, because I think a ban is coming. I cannot see that the Government’s position is sustainable if they do not ban supertrawlers over 100 metres, if only due to the very sincere and heartfelt public opposition to that method of fishing.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephanie Peacock]

I will speak to both amendments. Amendment 117 calls for public consultation prior to the Secretary of State making or withdrawing a determination of fishing opportunities under clause 24. Members on both sides of the House have mentioned that we need to restore public trust in fisheries management decisions and policy. For too long, the British public have had little say in what happens, with decisions made behind closed doors in Brussels. The feeling that decisions that affected the public were made by people far away who knew little about their lives and were not willing to listen has been incredibly powerful, and the frustration that that democratic deficit causes is real.

A public consultation would give the public, and particularly our coastal communities, a say in the fishing opportunities in UK waters. It would show that the Government want to give the public an opportunity to have their say and that they are committed to listening.

[Mr Goodwill]

The hon. Lady talks about a democratic deficit, but do not many Members of Parliament represent coastal ports, and indeed are there not councillors on the inshore fisheries and conservation authorities? Do not we already have quite strong democratic accountability for the fishing industry and environmental concerns within Parliament and local authorities?

[Stephanie Peacock]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman, who speaks with great authority on the subject. I guess that that argument could be applied to pretty much any public consultation. The idea of the amendment is that although, of course, people can come to their local MPs, who can make the case for them, they would be able to feed in directly on the specifics of fishing opportunities.

A public consultation would also, I believe, bring to light the current inequalities in the UK fishing fleet and give the public an opportunity to have their say on how to address bringing back prosperity to coastal communities. It would also give people the opportunity to ensure that the Government and fisheries authorities stay true to the objectives outlined in clause 1—most importantly, the sustainability objective. The British public are increasingly concerned about the climate emergency and the efforts being made to protect our environment. If we are to restore the confidence of the public that the British Government are in complete control not only of our maritime future, but of the conservation and protection of our marine environment, we must involve them in our fisheries management decisions. I believe we should give them a voice, and commit to listening.

Amendment 118 would require the Secretary of State to state what scientific advice was used when making or withdrawing a determination under clause 24. As discussed earlier, the scientific evidence objective requires fisheries authorities to draw on

“the best available scientific advice”

in making their decisions. The Opposition have argued that only that evidence will lead to world-leading sustainable fisheries management.

For the purposes of accountability and effective scrutiny, it seems clear that when making such determinations under clause 24 the Secretary of State should identify the scientific evidence on which the decisions are based. Such decisions by the Secretary of State will have significant impacts on operators and coastal communities, and I do not believe that it would be improper for the Secretary of State to confirm the scientific basis of a decision.

Independent peer-reviewed science must form the basis of all fisheries management decisions. Sadly, we live a world where a minority scientific opinion—the opinion of those who deny the existence of a climate crisis, for example—can cast doubt on the majority of scientific data and advice. It is important that we know who the Government are turning to when they determine the allocation of fishing opportunities under clause 24.

Fisheries Bill [ Lords ] (Fifth sitting)

Robert Goodwill Excerpts

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

[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?

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[Victoria Prentis]

In response to the question, “Why now?”, I will simply say that we did not include this amendment when the Bill was introduced last week because we could not ascertain at that stage whether a change to primary legislation was absolutely necessary. We also had to consult properly with the devolved Administrations and make the necessary changes to their legislation, working in conjunction with them. It was important that this UK-wide joined-up approach became real before we were able to table this amendment. We recognise, of course, that seal depredation of fish is perceived as being a major problem for some sections of the fishing industry, and we are working with the MMO to facilitate further research and development into non-lethal methods for—

[Mr Goodwill]

The Minister says that seals are perceived as being a problem. There are some serious problems, particularly with gill nets, where seals will go down with salmon or sea trout and rip out the livers of all those fish. The seals not only cause damage in that way but render those fish unmarketable.

[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.

Fisheries Bill [ Lords ] (Sixth sitting)

Robert Goodwill Excerpts

Committee stage & Committee Debate: 6th sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 15th September 2020 Public Bill Committees

[Luke Pollard]

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

New clause 11 relates to highly protected marine areas for England. This picks up on a running theme of contributions from the Labour Benches throughout these proceedings in relation to what happens next with the Benyon review of highly protected marine areas and what the next steps are.

The oceans treaty, which I have mentioned a number of times during the Committee’s discussions and which the Government have signed up to, seeks to protect 30% of the world’s oceans by 2030, and the UK Government have signed up to protect 30% of the UK’s waters by 2030 as well. The oceans treaty signs us up for full protection, which is in effect no-take zones for our fisheries’ waters, and it seems that the Government’s intention is to move marine protected areas into highly protected marine areas, thus creating no-take zones in what are largely MPAs as they currently stand.

The Benyon review, published over the summer, made a really important contribution to the start of the debate by setting out the value of highly protected marine areas and what the purpose was. Importantly for the Bill, Benyon also set out very clearly that fishers must be involved with the discussions around the designation of highly protected marine areas—and indeed, with you sitting in the Chair, Sir Charles, that should involve commercial fishing and also recreational fishing at the same time. It is important that we understand what Richard Benyon has proposed in his report, but also that it was only a first step in how highly protected marine areas can be created.

The new clause seeks to require that the Secretary of State publish a plan to designate highly protected marine areas, and before that plan is published, the Secretary of State should carry out a public consultation. Taken together, that should all be published by 31 December 2021, which is a realistic timeline for that work to be done. Indeed, at the conclusion of that, as the Committee will note, we have only eight years left for 30% of the UK’s waters to be highly protected marine areas, if the Government are to hit the commitment that they have signed up to in the UN’s oceans treaty. I am sure that Conservative Members would not want to breach a treaty in relation to this and would want to maintain the rule of law. This is a plan for how to do that.

It is important that we include input from fishers in how we designate highly protected marine areas. The Government have so far not responded to the Benyon review in a way that sets out a timetable for what follows next. They have said that the findings are interesting and they will take time to consider them, as I expect the Minister will say when she gets to her feet, but they have not set out a timetable.

The Government chose earlier in the Committee to whip their MPs against Labour’s sensible amendment to ban supertrawlers over 100 metres from fishing in marine protected areas. We know that a Greenpeace investigation has revealed that in the first six months of 2020, supertrawlers spent more than 5,500 hours fishing in these protected areas. If we mean to safeguard these vulnerable habitats, it is important that steps are taken to exclude not only supertrawlers, but trawlers with gear that is especially damaging to our oceans, which include electric pulse trawlers and trawlers that drag nets along the sea bed in particular.

I have, in a number of remarks, encouraged the Minister to start an honest conversation with fishers about how highly protected marine areas will be designated, what their input will be in that and how they will be compensated, encouraged or recompensed for the exclusion of fishers and certain types of fishing from those marine areas. When the Minister gets to her feet, I suspect she will say that this is not necessary because she has a cunning plan for highly protected marine areas that she will shortly be publishing, but I would be grateful if she could answer a few questions.

Which marine protected areas does the Minister feel that fishers will be able to fish in in 10 years’ time and which ones does she not? Will it be an assumption that all MPAs will be no-take zones, as the policy signed up by the former Environment Secretary, the right hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove), suggested? Will there be a phased approach to introducing no-take zones in marine protected areas?

For instance, will the Minister seek to restrict bottom trawling in those areas, or will she be taking the advice of the former fisheries Minister, the right hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby, who, when speaking about supertrawlers in the debates last week, spoke about fishing only in the water column? Will there be a stepped process to bring that about? Can she set out what the journey is between now and 2030?

There is a strong rationale for being clear with the fishing industry, coastal communities and those who seek to protect our marine environment about how these highly protected marine areas will be established in England in particular, although I appreciate that the commitment the Government have given is on the protection of UK waters.

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

I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman mentions supertrawlers, because I have been thinking about this quite a lot over the weekend. I recall when I was in Portavogie I saw a ship—not a supertrawler—having a couple of feet lopped off its prow in order to meet the recommendations. Does he not think that just banning boats over 100 metres would result in a proliferation of boats of 99.9 metres and that we need to be more intelligent in the way we manage fisheries in that regard?

[Luke Pollard]

I agree with the key point the right hon. Gentleman makes because, as a west country MP, I see an awful lot of dumpy boats around the west country that have been adjusted to be as broad as they possibly can while still coming under the designated length, be that 10, 12 or 14 metres or whatever. I share his concern about retrofits to fishing boats; in particular, he will know of my concern about retrofits to boats that do not come with the latest stability features, so that the retrofitting not only avoids certain fisheries regulations, which is the point he is making, but also potentially poses a greater safety risk to the lives of the crew, if they were to go over, and of those volunteers tasked with saving them in such an event.

I take the point that the right hon. Gentleman makes. However, when it comes to banning supertrawlers, although I know that the amendment that Labour tabled mentioned supertrawlers over 100 metres, he will be aware that there is a debate about whether a supertrawler at 90 metres is also sufficiently sized. To a certain extent, that is a moot point, because as he will know the oceans treaty that his Government have signed up to effectively seeks to ban all extractive activity in marine protected areas by 2030, working on the assumption that marine protected areas will be the ones that would become highly protected marine areas. I hope there is a strong case for that status being given to Wembury bay, around the coast from Plymouth. The Minister will know it. It has a beautiful diverse marine environment, and would be an effective highly protected marine area; it does not necessarily enjoy all the protections of other classifications at the moment. There is some wiggle room there.

The key point of the new clause is to seek clarity from the Minister and the Government on the journey ahead. My fear is that we will not see a clear plan produced, or a part two of the Benyon review. I would like Richard Benyon recommissioned to start a part two, because the questions of how an area is designated, and how commercial and recreational fishers are included in the process, are essential. The UK Government must not renege on their 2030 treaty obligations because they did not put in the advance work, and we must not have a rush to designate in the lead-up to 2030 that does not adequately take into account the livelihoods of fishers, who otherwise could have been supported for a period through re-zoning of fishing activity. That is the purpose of the new clause. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say about it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Luke Pollard]

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

New clause 13 would do exactly what it says on the tin: licence enforcement. Enforcement matters. Fishers need to know that everyone will be playing by the rules, because that is not always the case at the moment. That is an important part of the grumbles and gripes that I have heard from fishers over the past few years. Although they are playing by the rules, they can see others who are not and who are getting away with it, be they other British fishers or foreign fishers operating in UK waters. That legitimate concern is why enforcement matters.

As we discussed earlier, we know there are gaps in enforcement and other problems. We do not have enough ships or aerial assets to enforce what we currently have, let alone deal with territorial disputes in the future. Enforcement is important because it acts as a deterrent as well as an opportunity for prosecution and investigation. I am sure the Minister was using a fishing boat tracking app on her phone last weekend—if she does not have one, it is well worth getting, because it is great fun—and saw a French trawler being intercepted by enforcement active in the English Channel and escorted into Plymouth to face questions about whether it was properly licensed or responsible for overfishing. I want to see more such examples of the enforcement of regulations—not necessarily the escorting into port—to ensure that the same standards are applied to foreign and UK boats, that there is a high degree of probability that enforcement action will happen while boats are at sea, and that prosecution will follow if they are found in breach of any of our rules.

[Mr Goodwill]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree with his predecessor, Elliot Morley, who came to Whitby and announced that, in his view, every single British fisherman was breaking the rules? Subsequently, it was only Mr Morley himself who was convicted of an offence.

[Luke Pollard]

I take the point, although it is brave of any Conservative MP to talk about rule breaking at the moment.

Returning to the issue at hand, rather than the game playing, it is important that we look at this issue. That is why in proposed new clause 13(6) we say that there must be “sufficient resources” available for proper enforcement, including

“an appropriate number of vessels…an appropriate number of personnel, and…any of other resource”

that is needed, such as new aerial assets and drones, as we have discussed. Joining together our Royal Navy assets, coastguard assets, the enforcement activities of the devolved nations, electronic monitoring systems, automatic identification systems and other electronic tracking systems gives us the ability to track vessels as well as giving us a better understanding of the reality at sea. That is important.

Frequently, in regulatory terms, there has been an idea that when a fishing boat leaves port some of the rules will not be enforced, even if it undertakes activities incorrectly. As we have seen, there is an appetite among fishers, coastal communities and the people we represent to ensure that fishing activities at sea are legal, sustainable and fair when distributed between British and foreign boats in our waters. At the moment, that is not the view of many fishers in the west country. There seems to be a bias towards prosecuting British boats rather than foreign boats that are potentially in breach. I encourage the Minister to look at the enforcement priorities of the authorities when she has a moment.

All of those who feed into enforcement need to ensure that people are playing by the rules; I do not think people are doing that at the moment. There needs to be sufficient enforcement of the standard that we want. As we become a newly independent coastal state, the message about our values and enforcement that we send now will be one that we are judged against in the future. I want the Government to use the powers that they already have and have had for many years—not new powers that may be afforded to them by any negotiations—to ensure sufficient enforcement of our marine laws, to make sure there is no bias in favour of prosecuting British boats at the expense of rule-breaking foreign boats in our waters, and that we have a higher standard regime for safety enforcement.

Many non-departmental bodies that the Minister has in her remit have an important role in sending messages about stability tests, proper training and wearing lifejackets, as well as the issues that she spoke about relating to discards and other matters. I am keen to hear what the Minister has to say.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Goodwill]

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Whitby town bid includes a marine academy, which will encompass Whitby Fishing School and also teach other skills? That is just the type of innovation we need to bring people into the industry.

[Luke Pollard]

I agree entirely. Plymouth’s plan for fish has a similar focus on marine skills, and again, if the hon. Member for Waveney were here, he would no doubt be talking about the skills in the Renaissance of the East Anglian Fisheries project. What is happening here, though—this is a good example—is that the responsibility for workforce is being shifted to local authorities and local initiatives, and is not part of a national strategy. If it is happening in certain communities, we can presume that it is not happening in others, and sharing best practice, though important, is no substitute for a national lead that would create such a strategy and make skills workforce development easier for people to undertake.