PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES HOUSE OF COMMONS OFFICIAL REPORT GENERAL COMMITTEES

Public Bill Committee

FISHERIES BILL

First Sitting

Tuesday 4 December 2018

(Morning)

CONTENTS Programme motion agreed to. Written evidence (Reporting to the House) agreed to. Motion to sit in private agreed to. Examination of witnesses. Adjourned till this day at Two o’clock.

PBC (Bill 278) 2017 - 2019 No proofs can be supplied. Corrections that Members suggest for the final version of the report should be clearly marked in a copy of the report—not telephoned—and must be received in the Editor’s Room, House of Commons,

not later than

Saturday 8 December 2018

© Parliamentary Copyright House of Commons 2018 This publication may be reproduced under the terms of the Open Parliament licence, which is published at www.parliament.uk/site-information/copyright/. 1 Public Bill Committee 4 DECEMBER 2018 Fisheries Bill 2

The Committee consisted of the following Members:

Chairs: †JAMES GRAY,DAVID HANSON

† Aldous, Peter (Waveney) (Con) † O’Hara, Brendan (Argyll and Bute) (SNP) † Brown, Alan (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP) Pennycook, Matthew (Greenwich and Woolwich) † Carmichael, Mr Alistair (Orkney and Shetland) (Lab) (LD) † Pollard, Luke (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) † Debbonaire, Thangam (Bristol West) (Lab) (Lab/Co-op) † Duguid, David (Banff and Buchan) (Con) † Smith, Owen (Pontypridd) (Lab) † Eustice, George (Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries † Stewart, Iain (Milton Keynes South) (Con) and Food) † Sweeney, Mr Paul (Glasgow North East) (Lab/Co- † Grant, Bill (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (Con) op) † Hill, Mike (Hartlepool) (Lab) † Tracey, Craig (North Warwickshire) (Con) † Hollinrake, Kevin (Thirsk and Malton) (Con) † Jones, Mr Marcus (Nuneaton) (Con) Gail Poulton, Lis Gerhold, Committee Clerks † Lefroy, Jeremy (Stafford) (Con) † Morris, James (Halesowen and Rowley Regis) (Con) † attended the Committee

Witnesses

Bertie Armstrong, CEO Scottish Fishermen’s Federation

Barrie Deas, Chief Executive, National Fishermen’s Federation Organisation

Andrew Kuyk CBE, Managing Director, UK Seafood Industry Alliance

Paul Trebilcock, UK Association of Fisheries Producer Organisations

Martin Salter, National Campaigns Co-ordinator, Angling Trust 3 Public Bill Committee HOUSE OF COMMONS Fisheries Bill 4

Public Bill Committee Date Time Witness Thursday Until no Macduff Shellfish; Interfish/ 6 December later than Northbay Pelagic; Whitby Tuesday 4 December 2018 1.00 pm Seafoods Ltd; Scottish White Fish Producers Association Ltd (Morning) Thursday Until no New Economics Foundation 6 December later than 2.30 pm [JAMES GRAY in the Chair] Thursday Until no Carl O’Brien (Chief 6 December later than Fisheries Science Advisor, Fisheries Bill 3.00 pm Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs) 9.25 am Thursday Until no Coastal Communities The Committee deliberated in private. 6 December later than Alliance; Communities 3.30 pm Inshore Fisheries Alliance 9.28 am (3) proceedings on consideration of the Bill in Committee The Chair: As you all know, we are here to consider shall be taken in the following order: Clauses 1 to 4; the informative bit of the Fisheries Bill. We will first Schedule 1; Clauses 5 to 13; Schedule 2; Clauses 14 consider the programme motion, which is on the to 17; Schedule 3; Clauses 18 to 28; Schedule 4; amendment paper. After that we will consider a motion Clause 29; Schedule 5; Clauses 30 to 37; Schedule 6; to enable the reporting of written evidence for publication Clause 38; Schedule 7; Clauses 39 to 43; new Clauses; and then a motion allowing us to deliberate in private. I new Schedules; remaining proceedings on the Bill; call the Minister to move the programme motion. (4) the proceedings shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at 5.00 pm on Ordered, Wednesday 19 December.—(George Eustice.) That— (1) the Committee shall (in addition to its first meeting at The Chair: Under the programme order, the deadline 9.25 am on Tuesday 4 December) meet— for amendments to be considered at the first line-by-line (a) at 2.00 pm on Tuesday 4 December; sitting of the Committee will be the rise of the House (b) at 11.30 am and 2.00 pm on Thursday 6 December; on Thursday, so if Members wish to table amendments (c) at 9.25 am, 2.00 pm and 5.00 pm on Tuesday to be considered next week in Committee, they must 11 December; table them by the rise of the House on Thursday. (d) at 11.30 am and 2.00 pm on Thursday 13 December; Resolved, (e) at 4.30 pm, 7.00 pm and 9.00 pm on Monday That, subject to the discretion of the Chair, any written evidence 17 December; received by the Committee shall be reported to the House for publication.—(George Eustice.) (f) at 9.25 am and 2.00 pm on Wednesday 19 December; (2) the Committee shall hear oral evidence on Tuesday The Chair: Copies of written evidence that the Committee 4 December in accordance with the following Table: receives will be made available in the Committee Room. Resolved, Date Time Witness That, at this and any subsequent meeting at which oral evidence Tuesday Until no Scottish Fishermen’s is to be heard, the Committee shall sit in private until the 4 December later than Federation; National witnesses are admitted.—(George Eustice.) 10.25 am Fishermen’s Federation Organisation The Chair: Why on earth we have agreed to potentially Tuesday Until no UK Seafood Industry meet in private now, I have no clue. However, the 4 December later than Alliance learned Clerks know better than I. We will now move 10.55 am on to the interesting part of the session. Tuesday Until no UK Association of Fisheries 4 December later than Producer Organisations; Examination of Witnesses 11.25 am Angling Trust Bertie Armstrong and Barrie Deas gave evidence. Tuesday Until no New Under Ten Fishermen’s 4 December later than Association 2.30 pm 9.30 am Tuesday Until no Marine Management The Chair: I am delighted to welcome the Scottish 4 December later than Organisation Fishermen’s Federation and the National Fisherman’s 3.00 pm Federation Organisation to give evidence. For the sake Tuesday Until no Blue Marine Foundation of Hansard, will you kindly introduce yourselves before 4 December later than we start questions? 3.30 pm Bertie Armstrong: Certainly, in alphabetical order, I Tuesday Until no Fishing for Leave am Bertie Armstrong, chief executive of the Scottish 4 December later than Fishermen’s Federation, which is the trade association 4.00 pm that looks after the catching sector in Scotland. It has Thursday Until no Greenpeace; Pew; Greener nine constituent associations and a geographical spread. 6 December later than UK; Marine Conservation 12.15 pm Society It covers some 450 fishing boat businesses from smallest to largest. 5 Public Bill Committee 4 DECEMBER 2018 Fisheries Bill 6

Barrie Deas: I am Barrie Deas, chief executive of the Q2 George Eustice: Obviously, at the moment every National Federation of Fishermen’s Organisations, which part of the UK has access to each other’s waters. The is the representative body for fishermen in England, Bill protects that in the first clause by having a key Wales and Northern Ireland. purpose of equal access. Are you happy with that approach? Barrie Deas: Yes. I think there always has been the Q1 The Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food right of UK fishing vessels from any part of the country (George Eustice): What have been the main shortcomings to fish anywhere in the waters. We think that is an of the common fisheries policy from your perspective, important principle that should be retained. The NFFO and what would you hope to achieve through a domestic has some problems with the impact of the devolution fisheries policy? settlement on fisheries, which makes it much more Bertie Armstrong: The central ill of the common complex, but the fundamental principle of equal access fisheries policy is the matter of the distribution of for UK vessels is one that we support. catching opportunity—the so-called relative stability— Bertie Armstrong: Likewise, the Scots fleet would like which places us, from our waters, in the position of to continue to be able to catch its prawns off South 60% of the seafood assets removed from our waters Shields as well as in the Fladen Ground, but we are too being in the hands of non-UK EU fishing nations. The small. I think the central and relevant point is that there relative figures for other coastal states, one of which we has been no arm-wrestling and no desire for regionalisation will become on Brexit day,are Norway 85% or thereabouts of the catching area. The heft of the UK exclusive and Iceland 90%. So the primary ill is common access economic zone is great because of the area and its to our waters and statutorily giving away that amount seafood contents; it is not great in terms of home nation of our natural capital. fleets. I do not think there is any sense in splitting it up, or any requirement to do so. The second ill of the CFP is that it is distant and remote, and the process is effectively moribund. It is Q3 George Eustice: Finally, on the issue of a fair dysfunctionally distant. It is centralised by treaty and sharing methodology in future international negotiations, cannot be uncentralised or regionalised to any proper do you share the approach outlined in our White Paper, extent. The Bill must seek not to replace one unworkable which is a move to using zonal attachment as the basis system with another. for future sharing arrangements? Thirdly, and finally, some political elements of the Bertie Armstrong: From my point of view, in the CFP in terms of practical fisheries management are strongest possible terms, there has to be some sort of counterproductive and unworkable. For instance, no principle for division. Given the fact that there will be one wishes to discard our perfectly edible fish, but the access as we have access, for instance, to Norway, there way it is linked to the CFP will simply not work. will be access by European boats to UK waters. We need to be very careful not to put anything on the face Barrie Deas: I very much share Bertie’s views. The of the Bill that is obstructive. essential problems with the common fisheries policy for the United Kingdom lie in its inception, which was Barrie Deas: The most extreme example of the distortion based on the principle of equal access, and ten years in quota shares is English channel cod: the UK share is later, the principle of relative stability that allocated 9% and the French share is 84%. Other examples include shares that do not reflect the resources that are in our Celtic sea haddock: our share is about 10% and the waters. The comparison is with what we would have French share is 66%. Those kinds of distortion have been had we been an independent coastal state for the been part and parcel of relative stability and equal last 45 years, like Norway. It is a huge disparity. access, and they need to be addressed as a matter of urgency. We are tied into an asymmetric and exploitative The principle of zonal attachment is used in the arrangement. The departure of the UK from the EU division of quota shares between the EU and Norway, and therefore from the common fisheries policy provides so it is already accepted by the EU in that context. us with the first opportunity to break free of that. The Obviously, it does not work to their advantage in relation content of the Fisheries Bill is extremely important in to the UK, which is why it is not unexpected that they terms of taking the powers to control who fishes in our are very unhappy about the change. The broad picture waters—the access arrangements—and to renegotiate is that the principle of zonal attachment, reflecting the the quota shares. resources that are in the UK water, should be the basis I very much share Bertie’s view that the common for allocating quotas in the future, in our view. fisheries policy has been cumbersome to deal with and Bertie Armstrong: May I add a practical example of very remote from where the impact of the decisions are the ills of not doing that? To make a discard reduction felt, which has led to a huge gulf between fairly grandiose or ban, or a landing obligation, work, the fishing legislation and failure at implementation level. The gulf opportunity in the area has to resemble what is in the between primary legislation and its implementation has ocean. The great distortions of the CFP mean that you been recognised by the Commission and in the common simply cannot make that work, because you get choked fisheries policy. In recent years there has been an attempt immediately on having caught all of one species and to address it by introducing an element of regionalisation. still having quota for another. There needs to be an Unfortunately, the treaty of Lisbon and the introduction underlying principle, and zonal attachment is the one of co-decision making into fisheries involving the European that, by common sense and instinct—apart from the Parliament has moved active decision making even fact that Norway has accepted it—makes the most further away from where it counts and where its sense. If we approach the whole of our new role as a effects are felt. In that sense, we have moved in the coastal state with the idea that common sense and opposite direction. sustainability are central, we will do well. 7 Public Bill Committee HOUSE OF COMMONS Fisheries Bill 8

Q4 Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) shares. Those two things should be inextricably linked, (Lab/Co-op): The Minister asked about redistribution and that is where our leverage lies in addressing the of quota from our EU friends to UK fishers. Do you quota distortions that are there at the moment. feel that there are enough powers in the Bill to give certainty about how redistribution will take place, and Q6 Luke Pollard: Okay, but there is nothing in the is redistribution a nice-to-have aim and objective, or is it Bill necessarily that gives certainty about when that something that will actually happen if it is included in drawdown period will take place against it. the Bill? Witnesses indicated assent. Bertie Armstrong: The Bill in its present form enables the UK to work as a coastal state in the way that other Q7 Luke Pollard: On the economic link, having fish coastal states do, so the answer to that is yes. We would caught under UK quota but landed in foreign ports be greatly comforted by the insertion into the Bill of a means that the economic link between the UK quota—fish date of assumption of sovereignty. The self-suggesting in UK waters—and the benefits to the UK is not always date is the end of the transition period—the implementation naturally construed. How much fish, especially from period, in our parlance. In other words, the end of quota owned by foreign boats and caught by our EU December 2020. friends, is landed in UK ports at the moment? How much should be landed, if we are to impress that an The Chair: I am very sorry, but I am finding it hard to economic link should be included in the Bill? hear you, perhaps because I am a bit deaf. Would you Bertie Armstrong: It is a complicated question. We mind speaking up a bit? should look to other coastal states. There is great assistance Bertie Armstrong: I will, forgive me. The date of the in looking at other models. Iceland and Norway—to end of December 2020 should therefore be inserted into cite the pair of them again—place much stronger economic the Bill so there is a commitment to becoming, in links on ownership of vessels and ownership of the practical terms, a coastal state. stewardship of the fishing opportunity, which is less strong in the UK because of EU regulation. Everyone Q5 Luke Pollard: Do you get a sense that there is a will know that in the late 1970s the UK attempted to plan for how quota will be drawn down against our EU apply a 75% ownership limit to foreign investment in friends, rather than our having the ability to have control fishing vessels and lost in the European courts because our waters, and then have the same quota share between that was illegal under European law. It had to be 75% UK and EU fishers? European ownership. There is an opportunity downstream Bertie Armstrong: There is a whole fisheries agreement to have another look at ownership. laid down in the withdrawal agreement, which is yet to happen. That is the point. Your question does not Q8 Luke Pollard: But that is about ownership rather indicate from whom I would seek that answer. There is a than about landing, is it not? whole fisheries agreement to be negotiated. Well, we say Bertie Armstrong: The first thing that happens if you negotiated, but you need to ask, “Who owns this place?” make rules about landing is that you have a boat full of After Brexit, we own this place. This is the UK’s natural mackerel and you cannot land it until Friday, which is capital. That places a pretty strong trump in your hand very prejudicial. If we are to make rules about landings of cards for the negotiation. which make instinctive perfect sense, to capture the At one end of the spectrum of the fisheries agreement economic activity into the land, we must have a sensible is, “None of you get in at all and fish anything,” which vision of how much volume we will need to cope with is absurd. At the other end of the spectrum is, “We’re and how that will be done seasonally. Making simple going to give up and shut the fleet down. You can have rules is likely to produce more problems than it will at it and have the lot.” The negotiating ground is in solve. It would be more helpful to have a vision for the between. We would like to see, in the fullness of time, UK fishing industry. In the withdrawal from the EU lies the UK’sfishing opportunity representing zonal attachment the opportunity effectively to double the economic activity or something close to it. That is what should be the associated with UK fishing, including the whole of the result. supply chain. As long as we are ready for that, the Barrie Deas: The UK will be an independent coastal landings will take place into the UK. We look forward state under international law. The United Nations to the day when all UK fishermen will want to land convention on the law of the sea carries certain rights their fish into the UK, because we are a world seafood and responsibilities, including the responsibility to leader and that is where they will get their best price. co-operate on the shared management of shared stocks. Barrie Deas: The principle is that UK quotas should That is a starting point. There is a very important link bring proportionate benefits to the UK. That is the between access rights and the renegotiation of quota starting point. The question is how you do that. The shares. You can use the EU-Norway example as the obligation to land a certain proportion of the fish is most relevant model for future management. The UK is there in the current arrangements—the current economic engaged in bilateral negotiations with the EU. That will link—but there are other options to meet that question be about setting quotas and total allowable catches at of equivalence. Requiring all fish to be landed in the safe levels. It will also be about access arrangements for UK would mean an intervention in the market, because the coming year, and it will be about quota shares. That if there are economic benefits to landing particular link between access and quota shares is the key to species abroad where there is higher value, there is delivering a change and rebalancing of quotas to the obviously an economic purpose to doing it that way, so UK, where needed. There will be a certain degree we have to be careful about that. It is right that the of access for European fleets—how much is to be economic link requirements are reviewed in the new negotiated—and there is the rebalancing of the quota circumstances, but I quite like the idea of having the 9 Public Bill Committee 4 DECEMBER 2018 Fisheries Bill 10 flexibility, as long as there is an equivalence, and it is all fleet in Scotland has a different character and tends to linked back to the fundamental principle that UK quotas use creels, or pots, to catch shellfish—that is a great should bring proportionate benefit to the UK. generalisation; there are others—so there is a different set of problems. It is generally inshore and small scale and is therefore best sorted out locally, but I think there Q9 Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con): I have two questions. will be a better deal for all with the uplift in opportunity. Do you think the Bill will lead to increased fishing There is another abiding principle here. If you are opportunities both for new entrants and for what until going to make alterations to arrangements for fishing, now have been called the under-10s, although I think it the fish need to be there to be caught. It is one thing to is important we try to get away from that descriptor? give someone tons of fish; it is quite another if the fish Picking up on the Minister’s comments about equal are not there in prime condition with a business plan for allocation across all UK fisheries for all UK boats, do getting them landed and into a logistics chain. Much is you think that principle lies comfortably with the sustainable made of the big mackerel catchers in the pelagic fleet, management of individual fisheries? I say that because and much is made of rather lurid statistics about what there is a concern that it is difficult to do that when you percentage is held by what number. You cannot catch get boats from other parts of the UK coming into 250,000 tonnes of mackerel in winter, 100 miles to the waters off the East Anglian coast, and not only off the west of the British Isles, with hand line under-10s—you East Anglian coast. It is a concern that has been raised simply cannot. But a few hundred tonnes to the hand with me about waters off the north-east. Yesterday I line under-10s, provided the local arrangements pay was hearing about problems with managing cuttlefish attention to making sure there is a whole logistics chain down off the south-west where this problem had arisen. and they are going to get that fish to a place where I would welcome both your views on those two issues. somebody wants it, is where the opportunity lies. Barrie Deas: On increased fishing opportunities and My final input, on behalf of slightly larger-scale how they could be allocated, for a number of reasons, fishing, is: be careful what you mean by low impact. The including case law in the English courts, but also the carbon footprint per kilogram of fish of a pelagic stewardship that comes along with rights of tenure, trawler catching mackerel is very much smaller than any which have been an important factor in stabilising our other form of fishing, because you catch volume efficiently fisheries over the last 20 years, our federation takes the and quickly. There are many aspects to this. view that for existing quota it should remain the same, but for additional quota we think there is a conversation In answer to the question, yes, there is extra opportunity, to be had on the most appropriate use of that. There is a but there has to be extra opportunity to distribute. The range of options. problems are largely regional and should be sorted out Perhaps we are being a bit narrow here. You alluded regionally. We need to be careful not to place excessive to the division line at under-10, which has, I think, caused detail on the face of the Bill. I suggest that a lot of this distortions in the fleet and unintended consequences is best done by secondary legislation. —you have a cohort of high-catching under-10s, sometimes called rule beaters or super-under-10s, that have kind of Q10 Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP): distorted fishing patterns. There is recognition that we Mr Armstrong, in answer to an earlier question you need to move beyond that now. In that context, there is suggested that we might see a date of what you called an issue about how you define genuine small boats—genuine sovereignty over quotas and waters. You suggested that low-impact vessels—and I accept that. My organisation the end of the implementation period as it is now— would be very interested in taking them out of the December 2020—was the ideal date. How does that quota system altogether. That does not mean not taking square with the fact that there may be a backstop into account their contribution to mortality. In a sense, arrangement and the Prime Minister has said that, it is a reversion to what we had in the early days of depending on what happens, we might need to extend under-10 metre management, where sufficient quota the implementation period? How would inserting a date was allocated and we did not have to have monthly in the Bill work with the other flexibilities that are still quotas for that class of vessels. There is a very interesting to be resolved? conversation to be had about the future and new entrants Bertie Armstrong: I would wish to dispense with the and how the genuine low-impact fleets fit into that. flexibility to extend for fishing the implementation period Equal access has been an important principle and by placing a date on the face of the Bill. There will there are dissatisfactions wherever you have a nomadic undoubtedly be some resistance, but that would not be fleet arriving on the doorstep of a local fishery. That up to me. That is why we would like to see that in there. would be true of our boats fishing in bits of Scotland, I We are on record as being less than completely happy suppose, and certainly you hear these kinds of things that the implementation period applies to fishing at all, about Scottish boats fishing off the Northumbrian coast because legal sovereignty over the waters and the resource or down in the south-west. Fishermen are competitive. therein comes on Brexit day. However, we are where we They are competing with each other as well as with are, and we recognise that the withdrawal agreement foreign fisherman. That is the context in which you have has compromises all over the place. We therefore, with to situate that particular issue. reluctance,acceptedtheimplementationperiodcompromise, Bertie Armstrong: Mr Aldous, your question was but we would not wish to see it extended at all. about new entrants in under-10s. The enabler for a The backstop has been much described, particularly better deal for new entrants in under-10s will be the over the last few days. Clarity is helpful on what happens. uplift in opportunity for fishing that comes with Brexit; There are two preconditions: if the backstop clicks in otherwise, we presumably have fixed the problems already and is applied and there is no fisheries agreement in with the fishing opportunity available. The situation is place by that stage, and there is no prescription of what different as you go around the coast. The small-vessel is in the fisheries agreement, tariffs will apply. Fishing 11 Public Bill Committee HOUSE OF COMMONS Fisheries Bill 12 will be cherry-picked out of the trade arrangements. Bertie Armstrong: I would reinforce that. At the Tariffs will apply to fish—which, by the way, the Scottish slight risk of crossing the red line again, and as I keep Government study indicates would not necessarily be a saying, the elevation of the UK to the world stage terminal problem—and access to our waters for other would mean that, in the simple arithmetic of volume UK fleets would cease. So it would be a mess of large and value, we would overtake Iceland. It would allow us proportions and we are rather hoping that it would not the sort of conditions that our own processing industry apply. would want to entice not only all our own landings but I see some puzzlement about the lack of access for perhaps some from others as well. However, it is a anybody else. If there is no fisheries agreement—and matter of commerce and business, generally. there is precedent on this, with EU-Norway arrangements, for instance—there is no access to each other’s waters. Q12 David Duguid: So there is the favourable price that you might get from landing elsewhere, but is there something about the ports or the processing facilities, in The Chair: May I lay down a red line, particularly for Norway for example, that the UK needs to catch up on? our detailed consideration of the Bill, starting next Could we do something through the Bill to help improve week? The backstop and all that is not in the Bill. Those that? When you mentioned money, I thought you were are, of course, important matters and they do have talking about investment in our onshore facilities as some relevance to and bearing on it, but our purpose well as the price on the market. today—and, indeed, during the process of consideration in detail, as of next week—is to consider in detail the Barrie Deas: Over time, and with rebalanced quotas, words that are on the face of the Bill. Therefore, next there would be opportunities, because of the greater week I will take a tough line on the broader political throughput, to look again at all these issues. I am not considerations and say that they are, I am afraid, simply sure what you could put in the Bill particularly that out of order. They are important, but let us focus on would be helpful, given that this is a dynamic commercial the Bill. issue that you are addressing. I certainly think that it is an important issue, but I would have to be persuaded that the Bill is the right place to address it. Q11 Alan Brown: I accept your guidance, Mr Gray, but clearly there is the suggestion of the clear date Q13 Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) versus how that would fit into the bigger picture. It is (LD): Good morning, gentleman. I do not want to the same thing when we talk about future quota allocations dwell on the date, but I think it will be an important and how that will work. Mr Armstrong mentioned the part of our discussions when we come to line-by-line issue of tariffs in his answer. In yesterday’s questions to scrutiny. Your suggestion is that the date would be the Attorney General he said that the backstop 31 December 2020, which is the currently envisaged end arrangements meant that Northern Ireland would have of the transitional period. You are resistant to any idea tariff-free access to the EU and tariff-free access to that we should extend the transitional period. How do Great Britain, whereas no other market will have that. you see fisheries management working from 29 March Is that a concern, and how could that be addressed in 2019 to 31 December 2020? this Bill? Bertie Armstrong: The provisions, as we understand Bertie Armstrong: To be honest, that is not where our it, are that we will act as a coastal state-designate during focus lies at this point in time; it is on making sure that that period, participating fully in the coastal state the Bill as an enabler of—I will use the phrase “the sea arrangements that will set the catching opportunity of opportunity”—makes it on to the statute book, for 2021. rather than on the details of what does and does not happen to Northern Ireland in the event of a backstop. Q14 Mr Carmichael: What does that mean in practical terms? David Duguid (Banff and Buchan) (Con): Going Bertie Armstrong: It would mean that, between now back to Mr Pollard’s question about UK vessels landing and then, there would need to be the construction of elsewhere, for example Norway, can you say a little coastal state arrangements that include the United Kingdom about what motivates fishermen to land elsewhere? as a stand-alone coastal state, and for the United Kingdom What changes are required in our ports or onshore to participate in that. This is probably in 2020, but not infrastructure to make landing in the UK more attractive, before. and is that covered by the Bill? Barrie Deas: Money. That’s it, really. [Laughter] I had Q15 Mr Carmichael: That is the December Fisheries better say a bit more. Over the last 20 years, markets for Council in 2020 anticipating the conclusion of the fish have developed and diversified. Peterhead has become transitional period. You say that that is the position as the pre-eminent white fish port in Europe. Flat fish you understand it. Is that on the basis of your discussions tends to go to Urk in the Netherlands. South-west ports with the Government? are sending prime, high-value fish to the continent, and then there is the shellfish market. From time to time Bertie Armstrong: It is also as laid down in the there will be price differentials. Also, it can reflect where withdrawal agreement. Happen as may, it turned up in a the vessel is fishing: for example, it might make sense to paragraph of the legal advice yesterday, which was not go to Denmark and land for one trip and then land actually advice on what we ought to do on fisheries but back into Peterhead for the next, or to land into France. was a repeat of what was in the withdrawal agreement. Fishermen are commercial animals. They are very much Barrie Deas: The December Council later this month driven by catching fish but also by marketing fish, and will be the last time that the UK participates as a price is key. member state. The whole apparatus of European decision 13 Public Bill Committee 4 DECEMBER 2018 Fisheries Bill 14 making will then not apply to us; we will not have Barrie Deas: I think the answer is that a transition or MEPs and we will not be involved in any of the decision- implementation period was agreed to give business a making forums. The transitional period is a little bit chance to adjust to leaving the EU— anomalous and strange, because the UK will be part of the EU delegation to EU-Norway next year but will not Q20 Mr Carmichael: But why was fisheries put in that? be in the room for co-ordination. There is some uncertainty Barrie Deas: The whole acquis—the whole body of about how that will work in practice, and we need EU law, including fisheries law—applies. As much as we clarity on that. I agree with Bertie that an implication of would have liked to sidestep that, the Government the withdrawal agreement is that in autumn or made a calculation that that was not available or realistic. December 2020, there will be bilateral or trilateral Bertie Armstrong: Clearly the industry was not in the negotiations with Norway that will set the quotas, quota room when that happened. As I understand it, there shares and access arrangements for 2021. That is my would have been no agreement and it would have been understanding. stuck with four or five nations. Of the 27, half do not have a coastline. These pressures apply to a maximum Q16 Mr Carmichael: That is in 2020, but not in 2019. of 11, but more like four or five, nations— Barrie Deas: No—in 2019 we are in the implementation period. It is slightly anomalous that there is a lack of Q21 Mr Carmichael: So it was in order to get a deal? clarity about how that will work in practice. It is governed by a good faith clause for both parties, but it is still The Chair: Mr Carmichael, that is your last question. uncertain how that would work in practice. Weare all drifting beyond the Bill. Wehave four questioners and 10 minutes to get them in. Q17 Mr Carmichael: For the purposes of what would Bertie Armstrong: There is certainly a matter of relevance, currently be the divvying up of whatever comes out of although it remains subjective rather than objective. If the EU-Norway arrangements, what is our status at the we become dish of the day, there will be a time when we December Council in 2020? Are we there as the start of are a sovereign state with a complete grip on what a new bilateral—is that how you understand it? happens in our waters. It would therefore be unwise for Bertie Armstrong: I know for a fact that you understand short-term gain to be exacted at that stage, providing this, Mr Carmichael, but there is a point of principle that the Government of the day retained their backbone. that is worth mentioning. The December Council is something of a distortion of importance,because effectively Mr Carmichael: Indeed. it takes the pie piece—the amount of opportunity that was agreed in coastal states arrangements for the EU—and, Q22 Brendan O’Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP): in terms of relative stability, it fiddles about with the Mr Armstrong, the Scottish Fishermen’s Federation details and ratifies them. That will be of no real interest suggests that you represent every owner and skipper to us in times to come. This year it will be of extreme from Solway to Shetland. For the record, could you tell importance, but in times to come we will be involved in us who you represent and about the diversity of the the rather more important division of the north-east fishing community in Scotland? Atlantic fishing opportunity. As an owner of a very Bertie Armstrong: We represent the 450 businesses significant piece of the north-east Atlantic, we will that are responsible for most of the quota species. For genuinely be at the top table, to use a hackneyed phrase. the non-quota species, a large number of vessels are one The December Council is not any form of top table; it is handed or two handed. They belong to no associations— arm wrestling inside the EU for an already settled that is not being dismissive, but if you are a one-handed fishing opportunity. fisherman, you do not have much time for politicking. We have the whole of the Shetland Shellfish Management Q18 Mr Carmichael: We anticipate that this year we Organisation and the whole of the Orkney Fisheries will have a difficult December Council, given the science Association, but not the Western Isles Fisherman’s and what we know about North sea cod and other Association or some of the smaller associations down species. In my experience, these years very rarely come in the Clyde. along in isolation. I think the anxiety is about how we are able to influence these decisions. The decisions that Q23 Brendan O’Hara: Clause 1(7) on page 2 and were made back in 2002 and 2003 about cod stocks in clause 10 on page 6 talk about the location of home the North sea were central to the prosperity of the fleet. ports and how licences will be administered by Scottish If we are not at the table in 2019 and 2020, how will we Ministers or by a Northern Ireland department. As avoid becoming the dish of the day? regards your membership, how important is it that, Barrie Deas: Those concerns have to be there for the within the confines of the Bill, there is a level-playing negotiations in 2019 for 2020. Science is going to be the field across the United Kingdom post-Brexit, and that basis of the decisions on total allowable catches. There one part of the UK is not given a competitive advantage is the good faith clause, but we do not understand the over another in fishing? mechanics of how the UK will be consulted as we have Bertie Armstrong: I am not seeing much in the Bill been promised. However, 2020 for 2021 is an entirely that awards that. Be aware of the stats here—I am different scenario: all other things being equal, the UK about to make a statement of fact, not opinion. About will be negotiating as an independent coastal state and 60% to 65% of the UK’s fish landings by volume and will carry a great deal more political weight as a result. value come from the Scottish fleet. That is just an observation of the facts. With access to waters, the Q19 Mr Carmichael: Have the Government ever given position of the ports, where the fish live, and a couple of you any explanation of why they put us in this position decades of contracting and rationalising the industry, in the first place? They were not going to give in, but we have ended up with quite a lot of concentration in then they gave in. Did they tell you why? the core areas of Scotland. 15 Public Bill Committee HOUSE OF COMMONS Fisheries Bill 16

I am aware—I am very concerned—that there should Q27 Mr Paul Sweeney (Glasgow North East) (Lab/ be a level-playing field and no prejudice against any Co-op): Clause 19 sets out that the Secretary of State area, but I am comforted by the fact that business will must consult devolved Administrations and the Marine take care of that, as long as there is nothing obstructive. Management Organisation when setting total levels of The whole point of the future is the increased economic catches and days at sea. However, the clause does not activity, which business will take care of. define the manner or rigour of that consultation, or indeed any other form of consultation with stakeholders Q24 Brendan O’Hara: So you have no concerns that or interested parties. Do you feel that there could be an any one part of the United Kingdom may be given a opportunity to enhance the Bill and clause 19 with competitive advantage against another post-Brexit? further definition of what that should entail? Bertie Armstrong: It would be helpful if you framed Barrie Deas: That relates to the idea of an advisory the question as to which part you think is prejudicial. council to run new ideas through a panel of experts—people who understand the complexities and nuances. It would Q25 Brendan O’Hara: If Northern Ireland were given be advisory. We understand that the job of Ministers preferential treatment ahead of Scotland, Wales and an and fisheries managers is to manage, but we think that English fleet. an advisory council could add something, as it does in Bertie Armstrong: We are back to the backstop, and other countries—I would certainly recommend looking that will kick in only if the backstop kicks in. Anybody’s at the Australian model. It could make recommendations guess around this room is as good as anybody else’s and provide advice on new legislation coming through. guess. That is one of the areas where the Bill could be tweaked in the right direction. The Chair: We are drifting a little. I am keen to Bertie Armstrong: In that clause, there is the little extract maximum benefit from our witnesses. We have anomaly of adding the Marine Management Organisation. three more questioners, so I will move on, if you do not It is an organisation good and true, no doubt, but if you mind, Brendan. are talking about, as Barrie has described, a council of administrations, it is rather an ill fit for the MMO. Q26 Bill Grant (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (Con): Perhaps it would be a technical adviser. Gentlemen, notwithstanding the desire to have a date of sovereignty in the Bill, which may or may not be possible, Barrie Deas: To build on that point, when you see in general terms are you content with the Bill? that consent is required from the Secretary of State, Ministers for Scotland, for Northern Ireland and for Barrie Deas: Yes, I think the broad thrust of the Bill Wales, and then the MMO, which is the delivery arm of goes in the right direction. We have some concerns the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, about particular aspects of it, but the Bill is necessary in it does seem, as Bertie says, an anomalous situation. order to give Ministers the power to set quotas, albeit in the context of international negotiations, to negotiate The Chair: I apologise to the remaining questioners, as an independent coastal state, to control access to our whom we have not been able to squeeze in. We have run waters, and, on that basis, to renegotiate our quota out of time, bar a few seconds, so I shall simply say shares. That is the main thrust of the Bill, and that is thank you very much to both witnesses for extremely really important. useful evidence that will greatly add to our consideration We also completely understand, having been within of the Bill next week. Thank you very much for taking the common fisheries policy for so long and having had the time and trouble to come and give evidence to us direct experience, that top-down, over-centralised this morning. management is not effective, sustainable management. We need the flexibility to adapt. Fisheries seem to be particularly prone to unintended consequences; you Examination of Witness think you are doing one thing, and it generates perverse Andrew Kuyk gave evidence. outcomes. We need to be able to address those in an agile, very prompt fashion, and the Bill contains those 10.25 am delegated powers. I know that there are political concerns Q28 The Chair: With no further ado, I welcome the about Henry VIII powers, and so on. I think those are representative of the UK Seafood Industry Alliance. valid concerns. As parliamentarians, you have a role in Will you kindly introduce yourself for the record? scrutinising secondary legislation. Andrew Kuyk: Thank you, Mr Gray. My name is We would also like to see an advisory council. They Andrew Kuyk. I am director general of the Provision have something similar in Australia. They actually have Trade Federation, which is a food trade association, but something similar within the common fisheries policy, as part of that role, I also represent the UK Seafood not that we would necessarily want to follow that particular Industry Alliance, which represents UK fish processors model. An advisory council of people with experience and traders. of the industry, who understand the complexities of a highly diverse, complex industry, would be a kind of Q29 George Eustice: We heard earlier about the filter for legislation. We would like that counterweight, problems with relative stability as a sharing basis. I as well as parliamentary scrutiny, but we absolutely know that in a former life you had a role in the Department understand the need for delegated powers. for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when things Bertie Armstrong: We met, discussed and agreed that such as relative stability were set up and principles such as the common position for the two main federations in as the Hague preference were established. Could you the UK. We would be a little more concerned about explain to the Committee the genesis of the existing excessive additions to the Bill, rather than dissatisfied relative stability shares and why the UK ended up with with the Bill as it stands. a smaller share than has seemed appropriate? 17 Public Bill Committee 4 DECEMBER 2018 Fisheries Bill 18

Andrew Kuyk: How long have you got? caught by UK vessels is exported, mainly to the EU. The reasons for that are largely to do with consumer The Chair: We have until 10.55, so let us try to keep it choice. The main species consumed in the UK are cod, brief. salmon, haddock, tuna, shrimps and prawns. Obviously, Andrew Kuyk: This is going back into history. At the the tuna and most of the shrimps and prawns are not time, I was first secretary, fisheries, in the UK permanent available in UK or EU waters. The salmon is largely representation in Brussels, so I was the desk officer for aquaculture. On species such as cod and haddock, we these negotiations. I will not go into it in too much are very far from self-sufficient. Our total consumption detail, but Committee members may recall that we had of cod in the UK is about three times the total EU TAC already joined the EU by that stage. The common for cod, so we are about 10% self-sufficient in cod. fisheries policy had to wait another four or five years; it We import that raw material because that is the was a lengthy and difficult negotiation. The background market demand. A lot of that does not come from the was that, at the time we joined, we did not have an EU, but a lot of it comes via the EU, which complicates exclusive 200-mile zone, although the concept existed. the trade statistics. The Minister has referred to the We joined the EU and became subject to what was autonomous tariff quota system—ATQs. This system is known as the common pond. There was equal access a regulation that normally runs for three years.It recognises within that, save for some coastal rights under the that the EU, not just the UK, is a deficit market in fish. London convention. Also, prior to the CFP, fisheries That relativity—about two thirds imports—applies to were managed by things such as the North East Atlantic the EU market as a whole, so the EU recognises that the Fisheries Commission—NEAFC. There was a concept fish to meet consumer need are not available under its of high seas and so on. Total allowable catches and jurisdiction. Although there is an external tariff, it has quotas, as a management instrument, were familiar, but these autonomous tariff quotas. Specified quantities they were not done within the EU, so we had to invent are admitted, either tariff-free or at a reduced tariff, and that system. they are negotiated on a three-yearly basis. We are just The reason why there is an apparent imbalance in about to conclude the next agreement, which will run some of the quota shares is that the negotiation was for only two years, rather than three. done with reference to what was called track record, Most of those imports come in through some kind of which was the catches historically taken by the various preferential arrangement. We pay some tariffs on some component parts of the EU fleet. Prior to our joining, of them. There is the complication of trans-shipment most of the fish that were relevant to our domestic through the EU; some of those are landed in, say, market were fished off countries such as Iceland and Rotterdam, Bremerhaven or wherever and then come to Norway. We had what then was our distant water fleet— us as part of free circulation within the single market. large vessels based in Hull and Grimsby that went quite In summary, imports come through a variety of far afield to get the main species on which our market arrangements; some come as a result of the EU-Norway depended. Therefore, our track record was on those agreement. Various agreements are in place that give us vessels, in waters that were not immediately covered by the benefit of significant tariff reductions. Those are the EU common pond. necessary, because otherwise we would not be able to Also at the time—this is going back some 30 years—there supply market demand in the UK. was not— Q31 George Eustice: Finally, leaving aside shellfish The Chair: Mr Kuyk, I am keeping a close eye on the and some of the species that we export for which tariffs clock and would be most grateful if you would restrict are quite low, and looking specifically at your members your remarks as much as you can. who predominantly process highly processed cod products, Andrew Kuyk: I will get there quickly now. The what proportion of their production is re-exported to smaller vessels were not subject to logbooks and recording the EU, and what proportion of those highly processed of catches. Our track record was good in relation to the products is sold in the UK? bigger vessels, and the track record used for the decisions Andrew Kuyk: I am not sure I would use the term was going back 10 or 20 years prior to 1980. The track “highly processed”. Quite a lot of it is things such as record for the smaller vessels was not so good. Therefore, bread-crumbs; I do not know whether you regard that one of the reasons why the quota shares do not necessarily as a high degree of processing. It is to do with the reflect current realities is that they were backward-looking presentation. These are consumer-ready, convenience and based on partial data. That is the short answer to products—fillets with some kind of coating. There is a your question, Minister. growing line in ready meals—a meal opportunity: a fish product with vegetables and a sauce, and so on. Most of Q30 George Eustice: Thank you. Now I fast-forward those imports are for domestic consumption, because to your current role. Most of your members import we are a deficit market. There is some re-export. I do large quantities of cod, predominantly, from Iceland, not have an exact figure, but I would imagine it is Norway and even, I think, Russia, Finland and the something like 10% or 15%—not more than that. The Barents sea. Can you explain the nature of the preferential vast majority is to supply our domestic market. trade agreements we have with Iceland and Norway, and also the process of autonomous tariff rate quotas for other countries? Q32 Luke Pollard: The Bill does not talk very much Andrew Kuyk: Briefly, for the benefit of the Committee, about processing. If we were to include an economic we have what I term the supply paradox. Roughly two link for anyone catching fish under a UK quota, where thirds of what we eat in this country, we import, and a more fish was landed in the UK ports, what would the lot of that is not from the EU. Some 80% of what is impact of that be on the UK processing sector? 19 Public Bill Committee HOUSE OF COMMONS Fisheries Bill 20

Andrew Kuyk: It is difficult to say. Again, without of the Bill is that it is a piece of framework legislation, going too much into the history, we used to have what I which gives the Government the necessary tools to would call an end-to-end processing industry in the manage fisheries in the UK and the marine environment, UK, where a whole wet fish would go in one end of the in a changed legal situation where we become a sovereign factory and a product would come out of the other. coastal state. It is the tool box for the management of Over the years,that has become rationalised and specialised, fisheries. It does not address those issues. Do we have and a lot of that first-stage processing now happens concerns about those issues? Yes, we do, but I am not elsewhere. Some of it happens on board vessels, on sure that the Bill is the appropriate place for those factory ships. Some fish—I know this sounds anomalous, concerns to be addressed. but it is sheer market economics—are sent to places such as China, where they are filleted, and come back as Q34 Luke Pollard: I was just going to say that I think frozen blocks. The raw material for quite a lot of our you are underselling the success story of British fish processing industry at the moment is a pre-prepared processing. I think the vast majority of our jobs in product—it is not the fish straight from the boat. fishing are in processing. If more fish were landed, there That could be a problem on two or three different would be a commensurate increase in potential jobs in levels. It is a problem and an opportunity. Clearly, if processing. Earlier, you mentioned statistics about how there was more domestic supply available, the UK much fish we export and how much fish we import, processing industry would do its best to cope with that, because there does seem to be an imbalance there. I do but that would require investment. I was listening to the not think it is widely understood that we mainly export earlier session. The front end of the processing factory the fish we catch and import the fish we eat. does exist on a smaller scale in some parts of the Andrew Kuyk: It is because they are not the same country,but for the people who supply the vast volumes—a species. sort of 80:20 thing—that front end, the lines of people physically filleting the fish and so on, does not exist any Q35 Luke Pollard: Exactly.What are the complications? more. To reinvent that, you would need the labour, What situations would you want referenced in the Bill which I know is a tangential issue not to do with the to ensure that there is easy and free trade in those fish Fisheries Bill, but it is a broader issue for the food products? I imagine that any tariff could have quite an industry in relation to Brexit—the supply of labour—and impact on the level of trade across our boundary. Is you need the skill. You need both the people and the there anything that needs to be included in the Bill to skill, and you would need some physical investment in give fish processors the confidence that they need to capacity, more storage, more chilling and so on. invest in more facilities in UK ports and elsewhere? It is not as if there is under-utilised capacity. It is a Andrew Kuyk: I am not a parliamentary draughtsman, function of modern business that capacity matches and I am not sure it is relevant to the subject of the Bill. throughput and the market, so there is not excess processing I suppose it would be possible for the Government to capacity waiting for new supplies of fish. It would have include a trade section in the Bill. One of the things that to be put in place. It would require money, people and unites the people I represent and your previous witnesses skills. To invest the money, you would need a sound is that we do not think there should be a link between business case that could give you a projection of what trade, access to waters and quotas. We think those are your price and what your market share would be. The separate issues. I know, Mr Gray, that you do not want price, critically, would depend on what your broader to go too near Brexit and the backstop, but there is a trading relationship was—tariffs and currency—and relevance, given that in the backstop you have a carve-out what the competition was. It is quite a complex jigsaw, in article 6 of the Northern Ireland protocol, which but the short answer is that there is not significant exempts fish and fishery products from the single customs under-utilised capacity that, at the flick of a switch, territory that would otherwise apply in the backstop, so could suddenly cope with an influx of domestically there is the potential for tariffs to be imposed on UK caught fish. exports. To recap, the main things we catch are things like Luke Pollard: Thank you. I think you are underselling herring, mackerel and shellfish, for which there is not the success story. great demand on our domestic market—people prefer cod, tuna and salmon—but there is a good market in The Chair: Before we go on, Mr Grant looks as if he the EU. In that succession of hypotheses if there is not has a question on this particular point. an agreement and we come into the backstop, UK exports would potentially face significant tariff barriers. Q33 Bill Grant: The processing industry accounts for There may be opportunities elsewhere, but that would more than 50% of those employed in the fishing industry have a significant impact on the trade. I genuinely do as a whole. Is there anything in the Bill that gives you not know how you would guard against that in the concern that the security of those 14,000-plus jobs Fisheries Bill. could be affected, or is there anything that gives you In terms of our access to the raw materials we need, concern about the supply of fish, which is essential to we have the ATQ system and the benefit of some EU secure the jobs? Is there anything in the Bill that concerns trade agreements with third countries. Again, I do not you in relation to job security and the security of the know how you make a reserve carve-out and preserve supply of fish? that position in the Fisheries Bill. That would be our Andrew Kuyk: I think not, in the sense that those are aspiration. As processors, we want free and frictionless not areas that are covered in the Bill. It does not cover trade, like any other part of the food industry. That is trading relationships or the kinds of issues that you are our headline message: free and frictionless trade. The raising. From our point of view, is that a significant deal on the table—the political declaration—holds out omission? Not necessarily, because my understanding the prospect of free trade. That would be very good. 21 Public Bill Committee 4 DECEMBER 2018 Fisheries Bill 22

The friction will depend on the degree of regulatory Government chose to make grants available to do that, alignment. Fish fall into the category of products of clearly that would help the business case for those kinds animal origin, to which certain special rules apply in the of investment. EU. As a third country, things would have to go through a border inspection post, and so on. Clearly, for a highly Q40 David Duguid: I have anecdotal evidence that perishable fresh product, any increase in the degree of Dutch fishermen are currently catching about 80% of inspection control is potentially detrimental if it leads their small pelagic species in UK waters, and about to delay.Even if the product is not spoiled, its commercial 90% of that is being exported, with minimal processing, quality and its value will have reduced. straight to west Africa. What can we do in this country to essentially cut out the middleman and make sure that The Chair: We have 10 minutes for five questions. Let the UK fleet is able to catch, land and export straight to us be quick. these third countries? Andrew Kuyk: Again, that is straying outside my territory as representing processors and traders. Your Q36 Peter Aldous: You said that 80% of our exports previous witnesses would be involved in that. Without go to the EU. going into the history too much, the Committee will be Andrew Kuyk: We export 80% of what we catch. The generally aware of the ability of people to buy quota majority of that goes to the EU. and so on; it was freely sold and it was freely acquired. That is the way that the market has operated up until Q37 Peter Aldous: Is there any scope for increasing now. Clearly, were more quota available it would be exports outside the EU? possible for the UK fleet to seek to exploit these value Andrew Kuyk: That is not really within my area of added opportunities and, as you say, to cut out the responsibility, because we are processors and traders. middleman. Quite a lot of that is exported as fish; it is not processed. It would not necessarily be my members who would You could argue from first principles that, as a UK be involved in that at the outset, because that it is not industry, we should be getting more added value from business that we are currently involved in. The people that. Some of that fish is landed directly in EU ports. who export those pelagics are not my members; it is the Although there is a market for that, you could argue large pelagic companies on the catching side of the that there would be greater economic benefit if we industry.It is done with minimal processing and minimal could get some of that value added and export. value added. I think that is a missed opportunity for There clearly are markets elsewhere in the world. We UK plc, but I am not sure how much you can legislate are a deficit market. Just a bit of propaganda for the for that. If you provide a framework that is conducive fish industry: fish is a healthy, nutritious product, and is to that, then clearly business will step in with the right a renewable resource if managed properly and sustainability. incentives and will do its best to take advantage of There are a lot of people in the world for whom fish is those possibilities. their sole source of protein. There is a big demand for fish in the global trade, so there will be opportunities Q41 David Duguid: Going back to what you said there, but as in any kind of market, it depends on how earlier about how the majority of our exports go to the competitive you are. For the sorts of export that we EU, do you have any data on how much we export to have at the moment, which are predominantly fresh the EU that is just minimally processed and further exports, not processed products, you have obvious barriers exported to third countries? of distance. You would have to do something to make it Andrew Kuyk: I do not have an exact figure, but I a product that you could sell further afield. There is imagine that a clear majority of that would have no or potential there, but going back to my earlier point it minimal processing. would require investment and to make the investment there has to be a sound business case. Q42 Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con): You mentioned earlier the import of cod from the Barents sea, Russia, Q38 Mr Sweeney: The Faroe Isles require boats fishing which is obviously outside the EU and the European in their waters to land their catches in their ports, economic area. What sort of friction is there in bringing therefore benefitting their fish processing industry. Do that into the UK market, in comparison with what you envisage similar provisions in the Bill to make that might be experienced in the future. arrangement for Scottish ports? Andrew Kuyk: Virtually none, in the sense that quite Andrew Kuyk: I think that harks back to an earlier a lot of this stuff is transshipped through other countries, question. There is no surplus processing capacity to do as I have already explained. If it comes in to us through that at the moment. You could legislate for what people the tunnel there is no friction at all, as it has already have to do, in terms of where they land things, but I do entered the single market, so any formalities—border not think you can legislate for how the processing inspection and any controls—have taken place elsewhere. industry or investors would respond to that opportunity. The same is true of some fish that comes from Norway; They might or they might not. some of that comes overland into Sweden on lorries. It is not quite just-in-time in the same sense as in the automotive industry, but there is a narrow window— Q39 Mr Sweeney: As a supplementary, clause 28 something like 48 hours maximum—for getting those mentions a grant scheme, which may be an opportunity. lorries through and into the UK market. At the moment, Andrew Kuyk: Clearly, that would help solve the that is frictionless. investment problem. Again, it would not be for me to pronounce on the use of public funds in that way for a Q43 Jeremy Lefroy: Do we import any fish from particular sector of a particular industry, but if the outside EU markets? 23 Public Bill Committee HOUSE OF COMMONS Fisheries Bill 24

Andrew Kuyk: Yes, and we have some stuff that is old friend of mine, and Paul Trebilcock from the UK landed directly in the UK. There are well tried and Association of Fish Producer Organisations. Mr Salter trusted systems, and any necessary adaptations have is from the Angling Trust. Perhaps you could kindly already taken place. We have the facilities to cope with introduce yourselves briefly for the record. fish that are landed directly in the UK—from Norway, Martin Salter: Thank you, Mr Gray—I miss our Iceland or anywhere else—because that is established late-night train journeys back to Swindon. My name is trade. It is well run-in, it functions smoothly and it is Martin Salter, formerly of this parish and now head of not a problem. My general answer is that at the moment campaigns for the Angling Trust, the national representative we do not have friction either through the EU route or body for all forms of recreational fishing. That includes directly. There are controls and rules that have to be sea angling, which according to figures from the Department complied with, but there are tried and trusted systems. for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is an industry The relevant capacities for handling at ports and for in its own right worth £2 billion to the UK economy, storage are all there for existing trade. generating 20,000 jobs and supporting thousands of coastal businesses. Q44 Luke Pollard: I have a quick question. On supply One of the reasons we were very keen to give evidence chain fairness, there have been concerns in the media before you is that, despite the warm words from Ministers about the involvement of modern slavery in the employment and in the White Paper, recreational sea angling is not practices of foreign food processors. Can you give a mentioned in the Bill, and we are hoping that you will sense of what the UK processing sector is doing to put that right. ensure that no fish in our system are processed or Paul Trebilcock: I am Paul Trebilcock, chairman of caught using methods of modern slavery? the UK Association of Fish Producer Organisations. Andrew Kuyk: We certainly recognise that that is an All producer organisations in England, Wales and Northern issue in global supply chains. I think that both our Ireland are in our membership. Our members account members and our retail customers do their utmost for more than 40% by value of fish and shellfish landings through due diligence and audits to try to ensure that in the UK. our own supply chains do not suffer from that. This is an issue in the textile industry and others; it is not Q46 George Eustice: I will start with a question for restricted to the food industry. Part of our industry’s Paul Trebilcock. The very first clause of the Bill sets out overall corporate responsibility is not just sustainability a number of important environmental targets for the of the resource, but ethics and employment practices. sustainable harvest of our marine environment. In the That is part of the sustainability agenda of all major south-west we have particular challenges with maximum processors and retailers, and we do everything that we sustainable yields in a mixed fishery. Would you explain, can to ensure that poor practice is eliminated. from the point of view of fishermen in the south-west, the types of challenge we have as we try to abide by that Q45 Luke Pollard: So an objective in the Bill to target? ensure supply chain fairness—to ensure that there are Paul Trebilcock: I should probably say at the outset no practices like modern slavery going on—would not that the fishing industry clearly has an interest and a be an obstacle to your sector operating? priority to ensure the long-term sustainability of all our Andrew Kuyk: No. As you said, there is already fisheries. Sustainability is at the very core of what we modern slavery legislation. Companies over a certain want from the Bill and the UK acting as an independent size must have policies in place. We would have no coastal state. However, in the words of Karl O’Brien at difficulty with that. Obviously there are some practical the Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture issues in supply chains in terms of tracing things back Science, the MSY concept is scientifically illiterate. To and assigning responsibility. On the aquaculture side— have all stocks at MSY at a particular point in time is without going off at too much of a tangent—the fish just not possible. In particular, in ultra-mixed fisheries, feed might come from less well-regulated fisheries, but as we have in the south-west, there will always be ups those are known problems in the industry and people and downs and natural variants. We are trying to manage are doing all in their power to tackle them, including a dynamic natural resource. using the commercial power not to source from areas The concept of MSY is a good principle. Working where there is dubious practice. There is also the EU towards MSY proxies on the key driver stocks is probably regulation on illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing, more practical than what we have at the moment, with which I know we will wish to continue. There is no an arbitrary legally binding commitment in the common social chapter in IUU, but that is part of the approach fisheries policy that gives us some perverse pieces of to ensure that things are sustainably and ethically sourced. advice. Zero TACs on stocks does not mean they will not be caught in mixed fisheries; it just means they are The Chair: Mr Kuyk, I thank you very much for your not taken account of in practical fisheries management. most learned, well informed and well expressed evidence, A far better way would be to have the MSY framework which will be extremely useful to the Committee. as an aspiration and to move towards it, and wherever possible have as many stocks as possible in that MSY Examination of Witnesses range. Paul Trebilcock and Martin Salter gave evidence. Q47 George Eustice: Some people say we can learn from Norway, which uses MSY and other approaches, 10.54 am too. Is there anything you think we can learn from that? The Chair: It is a great pleasure to welcome back Paul Trebilcock: As I say, I think there are lessons to Mr Martin Salter, who was the Member of Parliament be learned from independent coastal member states for Reading West for a number of years and is a dear such as Norway. Its approach to fisheries management 25 Public Bill Committee 4 DECEMBER 2018 Fisheries Bill 26 takes the whole ecosystem into account and does not Conservation and Management Act 1976 puts a statutory try just to manage stock on arbitrary numbers. There duty on the eight regional fishery councils to take are lessons to be learned, such as using proxies or other action to rebuild fish stocks. indicators to ensure that the whole mix of stocks is You asked what we are seeking. We would like to see going in the right direction and perhaps using the MSY on the face of the Bill a binding duty for Ministers to set as the driver for some of the key economic stocks. It is total allowable catch limits in line with scientifically about trying to take into account that we are trying to recommended evidence, rather than this dreadful horse manage a dynamic natural resource rather than something trading that takes place every year at the European that neatly obeys some scientific modelling. Fisheries Council, which is no model of sustainable fisheries management at all. Q48 George Eustice: Mr Salter, I feel you are a bit glass half empty about the Bill. Clause 28(1)(e), which I Q50 George Eustice: Do you not think that that is am sure you have read, creates the powers to give there in the very first clause of the Bill, in subsection (3), financial assistance for which states that the “precautionary objective” is to ensure that “living marine biological resources” are “the promotion or development of recreational fishing.” exploited in such a way that they are harvested That is in the Bill and it is the first time ever that we “above biomass levels capable of producing maximum sustainable have created power to give financial assistance to angling. yield.” Is that something you welcome? There is a legal commitment there. Martin Salter: What do you think, Minister? With Martin Salter: There is, but there is a section in the due respect, it is obviously right and proper that the Bill about binding duties. Frankly, Minister, if I were in European maritime and fisheries fund makes some of it your shoes, I would want a binding duty. I would want available to the commercial sector. That is fine, but you to make it crystal clear that we are going to end the had six direct references in the White Paper to recreational discredited system that has operated under the common fishing. One of the great failures of the common fisheries fisheries policy and replace it with a legally backed duty policy is the failure to recognise recreational angling to fish at sustainable levels, just as we have legally as a legitimate stakeholder in the European fishery. backed targets for climate change and emissions. That is a failure of the CFP that the Bill could put right. You could do that, as we state in our evidence, by I am afraid I do not agree with Paul and my colleagues putting on the face of the Bill, “The UK Government in the commercial catching sector about having MSY as recognise recreational sea angling as a direct user and an aspiration. Minister,you have piloted bass conservation a legitimate stakeholder in the fishery.” That would be measures more than anybody else, but usually in the a win-win situation and it would add to the very face of opposition from the commercial catching sector. welcome news that we are going to have access to We have seen those conservation measures start to lead EMFF funding. to the rebuilding of bass stocks in the UK, which is really to be commended. We need to be bold, we need to be outliers, we need to learn from the best in the world, Q49 George Eustice: I have done this job for five years. and we need it clearly and simply on the face of the Bill. We meet every year—you are always invited ahead of the December Council, along with the commercial fishing Q51 Luke Pollard: Paul, at the moment, not all UK sector, to discuss our priorities. Bass has dominated fisheries are classed as sufficiently sustainable under discussions, certainly in the past three years. What is it the UK Government’s procurement policies for the that you seek for us to do with legal powers? Obviously Government to buy fish from them. What needs to the Bill is about legal powers. Are you saying you would happen for all UK fisheries to be classed as sustainable, like a licensing regime for recreational anglers? In what so the UK Government’s procurement policies enable way would you like us to legally recognise you? their fish to be bought and so we can be proud that all Martin Salter: We, like you, are looking forward to our fisheries are sustainable? saying goodbye to the annual horse trading that takes Paul Trebilcock: I think we are well down the track place at the Fisheries Council. It is worth putting on the on that one. Increasing numbers of UK fisheries have record that, despite the reform of the CFP, some 44% of either achieved accreditation and are now Marine total allowable catch limits were set above scientifically Stewardship Council-accredited, or are going through recommended limits. That process is far from perfect, the process. Growing numbers by volume and across and it is to be welcomed that the Bill and particularly Scotland, England and Northern Ireland are achieving the White Paper talk in terms of world-leading fisheries that. We are definitely moving in that direction, and the management. UK fishing industry is currently on a trajectory toward However, the point for politicians is that it is easy to having all its fisheries on a sustainable footing. Contrary claim that we are going to be an independent coastal to Martin’s view, I think the people who will deliver a state, but that does not deliver sustainable fisheries. sustainable fishery and fishing industry are the fishermen Senegal is an independent coastal state, and its fisheries themselves, those who are actively at sea. Currently, have been wiped out by super-trawlers, which are mainly there are elements of the common fisheries policy, European and have used their economic power to destroy whether it be relative stability shares, access arrangements the livelihoods of artisanal fishermen in independent or some of the technical measures, that hamper the coastal states. You will deliver sustainable fisheries travel toward that sustainability. management by having world-leading sustainable fisheries The UK operating as a genuine independent coastal policy. You will deliver that by looking at the very best state, with a practical and balanced fisheries policy that in the world. You should look at Norway and in particular takes into account all three pillars of sustainability—not at the United States. The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery just the environmental but the social and economic 27 Public Bill Committee HOUSE OF COMMONS Fisheries Bill 28 pillars—will in a very short space of time take the UK stock recovery programme.That stock recovery programme further down that track and ultimately toward our has seen the global quota increased to something like shared aspiration of all UK fisheries operating in a 38,000 tonnes. The EU gets 20,000 tonnes of that. sustainable way that will allow the UK Government Under ICCAT rules, the EU has to allocate a small and anybody else to buy with a clear conscience. proportion to a non-commercial interest—in other words, a recreational catch-and-release interest. The recreational Q52 Luke Pollard: Martin, I agree that this Bill seems sector only ever needs a very small part of that quota to undervalue the contribution of recreational angling because of the mortality rate for bluefin tuna. They are and fishing to the UK economy, especially our coastal big, tough animals, and the Canadian model shows that communities. You mentioned in your earlier remarks their mortality rate is around 3.6%. that recreational angling was a key stakeholder in other You can therefore have a very small quota in the UK jurisdictions around the world, with the US, Canada, and develop a thriving recreational tuna fishery. Given Australia and New Zealand all recognising recreational that the stock is slowly recovering, I should imagine angling as a key stakeholder. Do you think it should be that ICCAT would consider it far too early to start included as part of this Bill that recreational angling is a thinking about cranking up commercial exploitation in key stakeholder and should be regarded as such as the an area of the globe where it has not traditionally new fisheries policy is introduced? happened. A first run at tuna, if you like, really needs to Martin Salter: Yes, thank you for that. Weare promoting be a tightly licensed, properly controlled recreational an amendment that states: fishery that sits alongside the tagging programmes that “Promoting the sustainable development of public access to the World Wildlife Fund is currently doing in Sweden recreational fishing opportunities as both part of the catching and has also done in the Mediterranean. sector and the leisure and tourism industries, taking into account We need to know a lot more about these wonderful socio-economic factors.” creatures before we open the door to commercial What is interesting, if we look across the pond at exploitation, and the first stage would be to set up a America, is that they have fishery management policies recreational bluefin tuna fishery. That would generate on some stocks. It is worth bearing in mind that those an awful lot of money for the south-west and for fish stocks that are of interest to the recreational sector Ireland, and it would also mean—this is really important— do not clash desperately with the fish stocks that my that there would be anglers out there looking after this colleagues from the catching sector wish to exploit. We resource. Frankly, if stakeholders are not engaged in the are not interested in monkfish. We are not interested in fishery, bad people will do bad things to fish, as can be hake. We are not interested in crabs. We are not interested seen in the amount of illegal and black fish landings in lobsters. We are actually only interested in something that take place every year in this country. like 20% of fish landed into UK ports, so there is plenty of opportunity to look at sensible resource-sharing. In America, the striped bass fishery, which was driven Q54 Peter Aldous: I have a couple of questions. to extinction by commercial overfishing, has recovered Mr Salter, the highlight of the Second Reading debate as a result of tough conservation measures. They now was the vision of my hon. Friend the Member for have in place a resource-sharing operation where X Broxbourne (Mr Walker) for what recreational fishing percentage of the stock each year is reserved for the might do for local economies. Does recreational fishing recreational sector, which generates huge value for the need to be mentioned in the Bill for you to actually US economy. I can read the figures into the record if achieve that objective? you like. We have the potential to do that over here. We can look at certain fish stocks and say, “Do you know Mr Trebilcock, the Bill suggests an enhanced role for what? We could deliver better for UK plc by managing producer organisations. Are you fit for purpose—not that stock recreationally, or at least sharing a proportion your specific PO but generally—to fulfil such a role? At of that stock.” the beginning of last month the European Commission issued a reasoned opinion to the UK Government, which admittedly was about the management of POs Q53 Luke Pollard: On that point, we have had but in which there was a strong suggestion that you are representations about Cornish bluefin tuna effectively not doing what you should be. being allocated as a catch-and-release stock in future. That seems to be an area where there might be a tension Paul Trebilcock: You are absolutely right. The between recreational fishing and those commercial fishers Commission is certainly having a look and gave a who might want to catch and use that in the food supply reasoned opinion about POs functioning in the UK, chain. How can the tension be resolved for a stock such although that focused primarily on the compliance as that, and is there anything that needs to go in the Bill checks and the audit process by the Marine Management about how stocks could be better managed where there Organisation rather than the functioning of particular POs. is a potential clash? The short answer to your question is that, yes, I think Martin Salter: To be honest, Mr Pollard, I do not POs are fit for purpose. They are primarily fishermen’s think that is a matter for the Bill. We are looking organisations, entirely funded by fishermen and run by forward to meeting the Minister on bluefin tuna, although and for fishermen to manage quota, market and represent. we accept that he is pretty busy at the moment with two They have an extremely valuable role. Is there room to Bills going through Parliament. It is interesting that the improve as we enter a new regime? Absolutely.Clarification bluefin tuna is still on the endangered list, but the of a standard that all POs across the country must International Union for Conservation of Nature list deliver to, clarity of function and a greater understanding goes back to 2011, which predates the International from people outside POs of what they actually do Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas would all be really useful. 29 Public Bill Committee 4 DECEMBER 2018 Fisheries Bill 30

Q55 Peter Aldous: If I could just come back on that, policy. What I think the Bill is really about is recognising you said POs function very much for the benefit of their that this is a new chapter for fisheries management. local communities. The Lowestoft producer organisation That is why I would urge you to support our amendment. in my constituency is made up of three or four accountants in the town but seven trawlers that never come near the The Chair: We have eight minutes for five questions. port. I do not think that that is functioning properly. Paul Trebilcock: No, but in response I argue that the Q56 Mr Carmichael: Paul, I think I agree with you Cornish PO, for example,is made up of around 150 different that the work of the POs is much undervalued, and fishermen, from small handliners catching mackerel frankly not much understood. Tell us a little bit about and bass through to beam trawlers. That is an example the work of POs in terms of trading quota across the of how a producer organisation might work. different parts of the UK. Paul Trebilcock: One of POs’ functions is quota In the Lowestoft example, the local boats sold to management. Part of that involves getting quota to Dutch interests, and there was an evolutionary process. those who need it—fishermen. That can be done through The Lowestoft PO functions as a producer organisation, the swaps and transfer mechanism, which has evolved securing maximum price for its members and that sort and developed over many years. Those can be swaps of thing. The local community in Lowestoft chose not involving different quota stocks swapped for those needed. to be part of that. It is important that, as we enter the It can be leasing, it can be gifting, it can be borrowing UK operating as an independent coastal state, all parts and it can be a form of banking—it is quite a sophisticated of the commercial industry are encouraged into producer and complex, or flexible, way of doing things, which organisations to ensure that they collectively understand enables it to be moved around to where it is needed, and drive the function and operation of producer wherever possible. organisations wherever they might be. You really have to be seeing the benefit. Perhaps that Q57 Mr Carmichael: What happens if the Administration is a role where UK Association of Fish Producer in one part of the UK, for example, tries to restrict Organisations and producer organisations in general quota trading among other parts? have not particularly done well in explaining to and Paul Trebilcock: At the moment we have the ability to educating people outside the PO movement what they trade across all parts of the devolved Administration actually do for fishing communities. The reach and quota tonnages on an annual basis, but it is not possible effect of producer organisations goes beyond their to move the fixed quota allocation units across membership in a lot of areas. I know that the south-west Administration borders, which hinders business and and east of England POs will help those in the local stops FQAs getting to where they need to be—fixed community who are not even in membership. I strongly quota allocation units for stocks off the south-west feel that producer organisations do a tremendous job probably are not needed in Shetland and vice versa. The around the country at the moment, and have the scope ability to rebalance that and free that movement would to build on that and do better things as we go into the be welcome, but at the moment there is free movement post-Brexit era. of quota tonnages across the devolved Administrations, Martin Salter: The highlight of any debate is the which is absolutely essential in getting quotas. contribution from the hon. Member for Broxbournero, as we know. Q58 Mr Carmichael: And the Bill as it stands would allow that to continue free of political interference? Do we need recreational fishing on the face of the Bill? It is great when the White Paper says: Paul Trebilcock: The Bill as it stands, as I read it, does allow for that. The risk, of course, is that there is the “We will consider how we can further integrate recreational signal towards devolution that means the different devolved angling within the new fisheries framework recognising the societal benefits of this activity and impacts on some stocks.” Administrations can, I think, as I read it, choose to have their own quota management rules. That is certainly a However—your constituents who fish recreationally will risk, but it does not appear on my reading to be a high tell you this—for many years they have been a bit sick risk. I would hope that all devolved Administrations and tired of seeing their recreational sea angling experience were trying to work collectively for the benefit of their fall off a cliff edge as stocks are overfished, and in some respective fishing industries and the UK as a whole, so cases get driven into parlous conditions. They feel that retaining flexibility and restoring the flexibility to move the recreational sector,despite its economic significance—its FQAs would be a welcome addition. significance for jobs and for coastal communities—is basically being left to feed on the crumbs that are left Jeremy Lefroy: Mr Salter, you rightly placed great over after commercial exploitation has had its whack. emphasis on sustainability. Given that in the UK we If you look at quality fishery management—at America export most of our fish and export most of what we and Magnuson-Stevens, and the New Zealand fishery catch, most of what is consumed comes from places in conservation legislation—shares are allocated. There is which as an independent coastal state we rightly have proper resource sharing. There is consideration in a no control over whether things are fished sustainably. sensible, grown-up, policy development way—recognising Do you see a role for consumer-type markings on the social and economic impacts of the exploitation of sustainability? Should that be left up to the industry or different stocks for different purposes. It might not just should there be some kind of legal basis so that we walk be for recreational fishing. It might be for diving or the walk on sustainability as well as talking the talk? other forms of tourism. It might be for conservation. Martin Salter: I think consumers welcome guidance. Yes, putting it on the face of the Bill would send a It is a matter for you whether you think legislation is strong signal, and would also mean a sea change from required, but when you walk into a supermarket you see the very discredited policies of the common fisheries a very complicated tapestry in front of you. 31 Public Bill Committee HOUSE OF COMMONS Fisheries Bill 32

We have a very real problem with farmed salmon. come back to Parliament to change quotas and reallocate Our colleagues from Scotland recognise it as an important bass stocks from 30% recreational to 37% recreational, industry, but if it were a land industry it would be shut for example. That clearly would not work. They have to down tomorrow given the appalling levels of pollution. have that power, but that is why it is important that we The amount of sewage that is discharged as a result of put a duty in the Bill for Ministers to set sustainability the Scottish salmon farming industry into pristine marine targets. lochs is quite horrendous. The wrasse that are prevalent The point about resource sharing is more about achieving around Mr Pollard’s constituency in the south-west are an optimal economic and societal return for the stock. I slow-growing fish of very little commercial value—often find it very sad that protected species such as the grey the first fish that youngsters catch when they go sea mullet that we see swimming around harbours in the angling. They are being shipped live to the Scottish UK have very little commercial value, yet at times of salmon farming industry as a cleaner fish to eat the lice spawning aggregations we see entire year classes of those because that is cheaper. That is a double bad whammy. stocks totally netted, flooding the market and getting The industry really needs to improve its act—I notice less than £2 a kilo. This is a slow-growing species: a grey that Norway is moving a lot of its agriculture on to land mullet takes anything from 10 to 12 years to achieve a so that it can deal with the effluent. size that makes it a useful recreational angling target. It I still see an awful lot of people eating Scottish is a very poor use of that resource. As a good business farmed salmon. I am sure Scottish MPs welcome the calculation, which is the better use of that stock? Would fact that they do so, but in sustainability terms and reserving more of it for recreation give us more jobs for environmental terms it is a dreadful product—doubly the UK economy—more bites for our buck, if you like? dreadful because of its impact on sea fish down in the That is something that good fishery management practice south-west. Perhaps statutory guidance would be welcome, would seek to achieve. It will not be achieved by legislation or at least a level playing field in which agriculture was as such, but it could be assisted by a power and duty for forced to clean its act up as farming practices on land fishery Ministers. have been forced to do over the years. Alan Brown: That is a complication, because trying to The Chair: We are running out of time. May we have get a legislative framework that gives that certainty— a last question from Alan Brown? The Chair: Order. We are strictly limited by time and it is now 11.25 am, so I fear I have to call this evidence Q59 Alan Brown: Mr Salter, you seem to be talking session to an end. The Committee will meet again at about having a percentage of quotas ring-fenced for 2 pm. The Committee Room will be locked in the recreational angling. How would getting that into the meantime, so hon. Members may leave their papers here Bill work? Would it apply to future quotas to allow if they wish. I thank the witnesses very much indeed for expansion of the sector? their useful evidence. Martin Salter: We are not calling for that to be in the 11.25 am Bill; it would tie the Minister’s hands. If we are to adopt world-leading sustainable fishery management practice, The Chair adjourned the Committee without Question it is important that Ministers and decision makers are put (Standing Order No. 88). able to take the best scientific advice without having to Adjourned till this day at Two o’clock.

PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES HOUSE OF COMMONS OFFICIAL REPORT GENERAL COMMITTEES

Public Bill Committee

FISHERIES BILL

Second Sitting Tuesday 4 December 2018

(Afternoon)

CONTENTS Examination of witnesses. Adjourned till Thursday 6 December at half-past Eleven o’clock. Written evidence reported to the House.

PBC (Bill 278) 2017 - 2019 No proofs can be supplied. Corrections that Members suggest for the final version of the report should be clearly marked in a copy of the report—not telephoned—and must be received in the Editor’s Room, House of Commons,

not later than

Saturday 8 December 2018

© Parliamentary Copyright House of Commons 2018 This publication may be reproduced under the terms of the Open Parliament licence, which is published at www.parliament.uk/site-information/copyright/. 33 Public Bill Committee 4 DECEMBER 2018 Fisheries Bill 34

The Committee consisted of the following Members:

Chairs: JAMES GRAY,†DAVID HANSON

† Aldous, Peter (Waveney) (Con) † O’Hara, Brendan (Argyll and Bute) (SNP) † Brown, Alan (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP) Pennycook, Matthew (Greenwich and Woolwich) † Carmichael, Mr Alistair (Orkney and Shetland) (Lab) (LD) † Pollard, Luke (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) † Debbonaire, Thangam (Bristol West) (Lab) (Lab/Co-op) † Duguid, David (Banff and Buchan) (Con) † Smith, Owen (Pontypridd) (Lab) † Eustice, George (Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries † Stewart, Iain (Milton Keynes South) (Con) and Food) † Sweeney, Mr Paul (Glasgow North East) (Lab/Co- † Grant, Bill (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (Con) op) † Hill, Mike (Hartlepool) (Lab) † Tracey, Craig (North Warwickshire) (Con) † Hollinrake, Kevin (Thirsk and Malton) (Con) † Jones, Mr Marcus (Nuneaton) (Con) Gail Poulton, Lis Gerhold, Committee Clerks † Lefroy, Jeremy (Stafford) (Con) † Morris, James (Halesowen and Rowley Regis) (Con) † attended the Committee

Witnesses

Jerry Percy, Director, New Under Ten Fishermen’s Association

Phil Haslam, Director of Operations, Marine Management Organisation

Dr Tom Appleby, Director, Blue Marine Foundation

Aaron Brown, Fishing for Leave 35 Public Bill Committee HOUSE OF COMMONS Fisheries Bill 36

Jerry Percy: You will not be surprised to hear that I Public Bill Committee am very supportive of the idea, having written the initial paper back in 2012. There is absolutely no doubt Tuesday 4 December 2018 about that. To put it into perspective, at the moment I gather that the UK has had infraction proceedings (Afternoon) served upon it by the European Commission for failure to manage and regulate its producer organisations adequately. I have not seen the detail but I would have [DAVID HANSON in the Chair] thought that the Commission was concerned that, despite the fact that the coastal PO—the producer organisation Fisheries Bill dedicated to the under-10-metre sector—has had official recognition by the UK Government and by the Commission Examination of Witness for over a year, we are still refused the ability to manage Jerry Percy gave evidence. the quota of our own members. This is particularly important with the run-up to the landings obligation, 2 pm where the ability to acquire quota retrospectively will be vital. The Chair: In this afternoon’s sitting we will first hear oral evidence from the New Under Ten Fishermen’s With the greatest respect to the Marine Management Association. Will the witness please introduce himself? Organisation, the disparity between the rationale for MMO management of quota and that by the producer Jerry Percy: Good afternoon. Thank you for inviting organisations, which are very focused on the commercial me. My name is Jeremy Percy. I am the director of the benefits of their particular members, is huge. This has New Under Ten Fishermen’sAssociation, the representative resulted in this year to date, for example, in only just body for 80% of the UK fleet, which operates from over 50% of the under-10-metre quota actually being vessels of less than 10 metres in length. fished, although that is down to a number of issues. One of them is undoubtedly the inflexibility in the The Chair: I shall hand over to the Minister for the Government trying to manage the quota, so I am first questions. particularly supportive of the coastal PO. I fail to understand why the Government have not Q60 The Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food permitted us to have exactly the same rights—no more; (George Eustice): This morning we heard in evidence no fewer—as the existing POs. In fact, in your own that the principle of relative stability had served the words, Sir, in a letter earlier this year, you said that as inshore fleet particularly badly because of the data and soon as we had the correct infrastructure in place you the absences of data in the ’70s and ’80s when the track would like to see us going ahead and doing this sort of record was established. What are the key priorities of management. We have had the infrastructure in place the inshore sector as we leave the European Union and for a considerable amount of time, yet we are still set our own domestic policy? refused the ability to manage for the benefit of our Jerry Percy: We have long argued that relative members. stability needed to be reviewed, primarily because of the very bad deal that the under-10-metre sector has always had in the UK, not just because of relative Q62 George Eustice: But do you accept that there stability but because of the way in which quota was could be more than one PO covering the inshore sector? allocated back in the ’90s, when we did not have a seat Jerry Percy: I do not think so. at the table and therefore, despite being nearly 80% of the fleet, ended up with less than 2% of the overall UK Q63 George Eustice: You shouldn’t force everyone to quota. Relative stability really does need to change. join it if they don’t want to. Our priorities are, overall, to ensure that the under- 10-metre fleet—unquestionably, it has been massively Jerry Percy: No, there is always a choice about whether disenfranchised over the past few decades—comes out you join a producer organisation or not. To be honest, of it with a significantly increased allocation. We have there is absolutely no reason why any under-10 metre argued strongly that the current method for allocating vessel even slightly reliant on quota should not join the quota is unfair and discriminates against the under-10s, coastal PO. The membership fee is £1. More importantly, and of course the myriad coastal communities they however, membership should give those vessels access support. I have been in the fishing industry as a fishermen to far more flexible and user-oriented management of and in other roles off and on for over 40 years, and I their quota, rather than the current situation. have seen the demise of any number of coastal communities, the fleets that they supported and the people who Q64 George Eustice: I have two other points that we supported them over that period. Our main aim is to raised in the White Paper that I want your views on. ensure that the under-10s specifically get a fair deal First, do you think that the under-10-metre category is come the new horizon. still the right criteria to use, or should we look at other measures, such as engine capacity or the zone in which Q61 George Eustice: On management, we outlined a they fish, so that there would be a different way of number of ideas in the White Paper. Some have suggested defining the artisanal, small-scale fleet? Secondly, we that we should move away from a Marine Management have obviously had quite a lot of representations about Organisation-administered under-10-metre pool and the possibility of moving more to an effort-based regime towards a producer organisation for the inshore sector. for the inshore fleet rather than a quota system. What is What is your view of such an approach? your view of that? 37 Public Bill Committee 4 DECEMBER 2018 Fisheries Bill 38

Jerry Percy: In response to your first question, there As I said, I go back far too many years in this is no doubt that the arbitrary under-10/over-10 metre business. In the 1990s, the Government said to the divider has been an unnecessary nuisance,frankly,especially over-10-metre vessels, “Go out and fish and record all as time has gone on. Yes, 20 or 30 years there was a very your catches, and we will take a three-year average and significant difference between what was in the ’90s a provide you with your fixed quota allocation—your much more artisanal fleet and today’s under-10 metre proportion of the overall UK cake.”Not surprisingly—the boats, which can be 9.99 metres and highly efficient. larger-scale representatives admitted this in the judicial One of the purposes of developing the coastal PO review I mentioned—they did ghost fishing. If you went initiative was that, rather like other examples one might out and caught 10 tonnes, you might put down 12 or think about in the current climate, you tend not to go to 14 tonnes just to make sure that you had good opportunities. war with people you are trading with, and there has I dare say that if I had been in that position I might have always been a difference of opinion between under-10s thought the same. The whole thing was predicated on a and over-10s and their POs. lie, frankly, and it has gone on ever since. Historical Losing the 10-metre measure in the fullness of time rights are really not an effective method, for any number would be a very positive step forward. Clearly, if you of reasons. look at the breakdown of the under-10s, which are The answer to your question, which we put forward some thousands of vessels, you see that the vast majority in our response to the Bill, is that clause 20 effectively are less than 8 metres in length, and again you can go takes in article 17 of the common fisheries policy. We down. So there is a strong argument for taking any boat suggest that should be amended so that quotas are up to 6 metres completely out of the quota system, allocated according to social and environmental criteria whether or not you replace it with something like effort and economic benefit for coastal communities. Some management. I can speak from experience. While a 80% of the under-10 metre fleet use passive rather than modern under-10 metre boat has a very significant mobile gear, so their environmental credentials are fishing capacity, far in excess of what it would have been better, and their economic credentials are certainly more 20 or 30 years ago, it remains the case that boats that significant. We would take our chances with everybody are less than 18 feet would really struggle to make any else, but that would provide a level playing field, irrespective significant impact on stocks. of size of vessel, and your allocation of the resource At the same time, we have said all the way along that would be based on environmental, social and economic although the effort management suggestion is ostensibly criteria. a fairer way of allocating access to the resource than Q66 Luke Pollard: This morning I asked about quota, with all its issues and problems, we really need to strengthening the economic link, so if you catch fish have a proper, full-scale and focused trial before anybody under a UK quota you should land at least half of it in could say unequivocally,“This would be the most effective a UK port. Can you explain where the under-10 fleet—the and efficient way forward.” small boats—mainly land their fish? Do they land it in UK ports already, or is a sizeable portion landed in Q65 Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) foreign countries? (Lab/Co-op): A real consensus is emerging around the Jerry Percy: No, it is almost exclusively landed into Bill that there should be more focus on giving more UK ports, although of course a very significant element quota—more fishing opportunities—to the smaller is then exported to markets in France, where our European boats. The question is about how we do it. From your neighbours tend to pay far more for it. I think it is point of view, what would be the best way within the relevant to mention at this point that, with all due Bill, and within the powers it contains, to encourage respect, we must not focus just on the quota issue, more fishing opportunities to be held by smaller boats, although that is vital because the quota has been so which generally speaking are the least impactful on the unfairly dealt out in the past. A very significant proportion environment and contribute more to their coastal of the under-10-metre fleet relies on non-quota species communities? such as cuttlefish, shellfish, lobster and crab, and Jerry Percy: There are two main answers to that they in turn rely on direct export. About 90% gets question. At the moment, despite the claims that we are exported, mainly to France and Spain, so the export going to be an independent coastal state and take back market is key. control, nearly 50% of the UK’s allocation of quota is Q67 Luke Pollard: Finally, I have a question that is held in foreign hands. Now, although a lot of that is the not about quotas—it is about marine safety. The Bill pelagic species, such as mackerel, herring and blue talks about our potentially being able to allocate quota whiting, nevertheless fish quota, whether we like it or that is drawn down from our EU friends in a slightly not—we do not—has become a commodity and gaining different manner from the FQA system we have at the more access and a fairer balance post Brexit, when the moment, and to apply different conditions to that. You Bill comes in, would be a particular opportunity. mentioned social, economic and environmental criteria There are opportunities. The Government have always potentially being some of those conditions. Marine been concerned that if you tried to repatriate quota, safety is an issue for many small boats because of the then you get a whole queue of people lining up for a pressures on those boats and the fact that the 10-metre judicial review, but it was clear from the judicial review limit has led to lots of dumpy boats with strength rather in 2012 and from legal advice subsequently that that is than stability.Would you give us a sense of the implications entirely practical. In fact, the Faroe Islands has just for the sector of amendments to the Bill that introduced instigated a similar sort of system. Rather than us a requirement for marine safety to be such a condition, arguing that one should rob Peter to pay Paul, it is at to ensure that people who go out to catch our fish are heart the allocation system that is at fault. It is based on safe, and tell us what the current safety levels are in the historical rights. sector? 39 Public Bill Committee HOUSE OF COMMONS Fisheries Bill 40

Jerry Percy: Fishing, unfortunately, still carries the surprisingly, we disagree with that version and there is record as the most dangerous occupation in the world. I legal argument that they could do so, albeit slowly—that sit here having lost any number of friends and colleagues was said by the judge in a judicial review in 2012. over the years in pursuit of fish. I do not think having to I gave an answer earlier about moving the method of carry more fish should be a significant safety issue. It is allocation to become genuinely reliant on the social, going to be more relevant in terms of the forthcoming environmental and economic criteria, but I do say genuinely landings obligation, under which we can no longer because the UK Government are also already subject to discard any fish so we have to keep it all aboard. There article 17 of the common fisheries policy, which says are of course safety issues in that respect. something similar about allocating quota on those three The Sea Fish Industry Authority monitors and measures, criteria. The Government have argued that they meet and ensures that vessels are safe to go to sea. We are those criteria. I personally do not think that they even effectively talking about capsize as a result of overloading, remotely reach them in many respects. If we are going which is actually quite rare. It is perhaps more common to have a revised method of allocation, we need an in the pelagic fisheries, where a great bulk of fish is undertaking or to ensure that the Bill does what it says landed. For most small-scale fish fleets, I think fishermen on the tin. and the authorities would ensure that there was no safety issue. Even in my wildest dreams, safety has never Q70 Brendan O’Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP): Thank come to mind as being an issue if we had significantly you for coming along, Mr Percy. We have heard a lot more quota. I have never thought, “Oh, I’m going to about control of our own waters, but that has to be set catch too much fish and put myself at risk.” It does against access to markets, particularly for your members. happen—even now, with non-quota species, you never How confident are you that the interests of your members throw it back. are fully understood and fully protected by what is in the Bill? Q68 Luke Pollard: On that point, there seems to be Jerry Percy: I do not think it goes far enough in some universal agreement that personal locator beacons attached respects. Again, going back to the common fisheries to lifejackets are a good thing, but we know there is a point, the European maritime funding document says cost to fishermen of buying new lifejackets with PLBs that member states shall produce an action plan for the and registering them. Do you think that, if there were a development of their small-scale fleets. To date, we have specified improvement on marine safety in the Bill, not really seen anything to that extent, and there is lifejackets with PLBs could be one area that might nothing specific in the Bill in that respect. make a big improvement in marine safety? Our main concern is that, from a non-quota, shellfish Jerry Percy: Yes. Under the International Labour perspective—this is particularly reflected in our members Organisation’s convention 188, it is now mandatory for and colleagues in the Scottish Creel Fishermen’sFederation, fishermen to wear lifejackets unless the owner and/or who asked me to mention it, which I am more than skipper of the vessel can prove that he has sufficient happy to do—the whole business of hundreds, if not guards in place to ensure that fishermen do not go over well over 1,000, boats around the west coast especially, the side. and the east coast of Scotland to some extent, as well as I still go to sea quite often. I have a personal locator Wales and the rest of the UK, is based on seamless beacon that I bought myself for about £170. It will tell transport across the channel to our markets in France the rescue people where I am in the water anywhere in and Spain. Their main concern, of course, is that if any the world. It is cheap. As far as I understand it, European issues come up in a post-Brexit scenario where we seek funding would probably cover it because it is not a to take back control, not only will we get tariffs, which mandatory requirement, but surely, in terms of safety, it will make a big difference, but what is more, there will is a few pounds and it makes all the difference in the be non-tariff barriers in terms of the requirement for world. veterinary inspections of live shellfish. At the moment, the only two ports with those facilities are Dunkirk and Q69 Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con): My question is a Rotterdam, neither of which we use and neither of variation on the Opposition spokesman’s point. It is which, effectively, is a Channel port. To date, the French commonly recognised that the inshore fleet—the under- have not exactly been quick off the mark in building 10s—has had a raw deal as far as access to quota and new facilities in time for next year. fishing opportunities is concerned. The Bill is largely We are equally concerned about the fact that French based on the assumption that an increase in opportunities, fishermen, like French farmers, are renowned for taking as a result of taking back control of our waters, will very direct action should they feel that something has give us an uplift that will provide additional fishing upset them. You will remember that when the French opportunities for the inshore fleet. Do you think that farmers got upset about some aspect of Welsh lamb goes far enough, or do we need to look at something exports, they actually burned the lorries as they came bolder and more radical in terms of quota allocation or off the ferry in France. We are very concerned that if we fishing opportunities? do have an independent coastal state, and so on and so Jerry Percy: Our main concern is that the Bill is forth, it would kill that transport overnight. We only predicated on a successful fisheries Brexit, if I may call need a few hours’ delay for it to make all the difference it that, with a significant windfall of quota. Again, with in the world. the greatest respect, that would get the Government out of the hole that successive Governments have painted Q71 Brendan O’Hara: As the Member for Argyll and themselves into—if I may mix my metaphors—in that Bute, I take on board what you are saying. We are because there is only so much in the UK pie of quota, absolutely dependent on speed of access to market. they are somewhat hamstrung, in their view, in their What should we in this Committee be looking at over ability to reallocate more fairly and effectively. Not the next few weeks to ensure that vital shellfish market 41 Public Bill Committee 4 DECEMBER 2018 Fisheries Bill 42 remains open and there is that speed of delivery from that our industry could be revived if fairer quotas were Loch Fyne to Madrid, for example? How do we ensure allocated. In your opinion, how many ports would that that is as seamless as possible, and that we keep benefit from an uplift in quotas? those vitally important markets? Jerry Percy: It is not just ports; there are harbours, Jerry Percy: There has to be a balance in the negotiations, coves, small areas and small coastal communities. It permitting some level of access to our waters—although would be dozens, if not hundreds. Going back 40-odd much less than currently—to ensure that we do not have years, I can remember fishing out of Lowestoft as a boy those non-tariff barriers, and that the facilities, including fisherman. There were myriad groups of small boats all on the French side, permit us to have that seamless the way up and down the coast, all providing a significant transport and that there are no road blocks in the benefit to those local communities. They may not show meantime. up on an economist’s spreadsheet, but those people are nevertheless paying their mortgage, taking their kids to Q72 David Duguid (Banff and Buchan) (Con): On school and keeping the local infrastructure going. I am access to market versus access to waters, I think you not exaggerating; it could certainly be in the hundreds mentioned that there would be some exchange of access that we could revive and have some level of renaissance. for quota in any future arrangement. I presume you There is no doubt whatever. would agree that it is important that, as an independent coastal state, we have full control of that access so that Q76 Mike Hill: I get the impression from representatives we can use it as leverage. I hesitate to use the phrase from the larger fleets that they would oppose quota “bargaining chip”, but when we go into future annual redistribution. What arguments are there against that? negotiations, that has to be the leverage that we have. Jerry Percy: Well, why should they get more? To an Jerry Percy: Absolutely. We should start with a clean extent, it is based on greed. They already have approximately sheet: “We are an independent coastal state. That’s 98% of access to the quota, 50% of which is in foreign that.” We have a clean sheet and nobody has the right of hands, and a very significant proportion is in the hands access. Then there will inevitably be negotiations and of the five richest families in this country. It has become bargaining, and that balance is going to be extremely a fundamental nonsense and is grossly unfair socially, difficult, because Mr Macron, the Commission and environmentally and economically that nearly 80% of others have already made clear that they want the status the fleet in the UK has access to only 2% of the quota. quo to be the basis of any further negotiation. The The idea or argument that any additional quota should Government will have their work cut out to try to sort be allocated according to the existing fixed quota allocations that out. frankly is just grossly unfair. There is no sensible economic or social reason why that should be the case. Q73 David Duguid: Is there anything in this Bill that you think we should focus on, in order to add more power to our elbow in those future negotiations? The Chair: Does any other Government Member wish to ask a question? Jerry Percy: Our concern about the Bill is that there are a lot of phrases in it like “intend to”, “will consider”, “could include”, “aim to”, or “DEFRA intends to be”. Q77 Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con): Thank you very There is not a great deal of certainty about some much, Mr Hanson. I am very interested in what you elements on which we would have liked to have seen said about 50% of the quota being in foreign hands. more certainty and absolutely unequivocal statements: Is there an example, as far as you are aware, of any “We will do this.” The Government have made it clear EU coastal state that makes better use of the to date that they want an unequivocally clean sheet common fisheries policy for under-10 metres or smaller start. Whether we actually achieve that, of course, is boats, or is it just universal that it is dominated by large open to significant debate. vessels? Jerry Percy: You could say that across Europe the Q74 David Duguid: One more question, if I may. scene is dominated by the larger scale vessels. They have Going back to what you were saying earlier, I think more resources, more PR companies and more paid your exact words were along the lines of “Unfortunately, lobbyists; they were at the table when the rules were set, quotas have become a commodity.” With quotas being and we were not. It is only in recent times—NUTFA sellable and buyable, they are an asset, at least. If was created in 2006—that we have had actually had a quotas were to be more fairly distributed among the voice, and it takes time to build up. Hopefully with the smaller vessels in future, how would you avoid them just Fisheries Bill we are now on an equal footing with a becoming sellable commodities, bought up by others? seat at the table to ensure that the 80% of the fleet gets a Jerry Percy: There are a number of global examples fair deal. where you can retain quota as a national resource without allowing its sale. There obviously needs to be Q78 Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) flexibility in-year to move quota about, to ensure that (LD): Briefly, I want to explore with you how we get those people benefit from it. It is not an easy situation from here to there. As you say, there is a case for the to resolve, but there are global examples of what can be redistribution of quota. I am very interested in your done to ensure that almost half of our national resource thoughts about how you stop quota or other management is not in foreign hands, as has happened here. tools from becoming a tradeable commodity. As you say, some of these interests are big and well resourced. Q75 MikeHill (Hartlepool) (Lab): I represent Hartlepool, Rich people have good lawyers and a legitimate expectation which is one of those coastal communities affected long in their property rights. How do you get to the point ago by unfair quotas for under-10s. There is an argument where you can change the nature of quota? 43 Public Bill Committee HOUSE OF COMMONS Fisheries Bill 44

Jerry Percy: By negotiation, but our response to the says. We understand where risk may arise and we have a Fisheries Bill was the first step. We are particularly level of intelligence that we apply to that, which can concerned that there is a suggestion within the Bill that make our operations targeted. an element of the UK’s fishing opportunities should be At sea, our surveillance is conducted by vessels from put up for auction. I struggle to understand the logic in the Royal Navy fishery protection squadron, which we that when the whole thrust is in terms of environmental, contract on an annual basis for a set number of hours. social and economic criteria. The Government Minister They conduct patrol and inspection routines on our identified the fact that we need to support and enhance behalf on the direction of the Newcastle fisheries the small-scale fleet for all the very tangible benefits monitoring centre ops room. The way that works that are there to be taken. I struggle to understand why operationally is that we direct them to conduct a you would then take a piece and sell it off to what will patrol in a certain area, we direct the outcomes we wish inevitably be those who already have financial resources. to see, and then it is down to the commanding officer in If we are going to have flexibility in the quota, we need the vessel to deliver them. On the number of ships to bring in new entrants and we need to make it attractive. that are available to us, both because of budgetary The cost of quota is one of those significant areas that restraint or constraint within the MMO and the availability keeps out new and young entrants. of Royal Navy vessels, the Royal Navy is this year providing 2,000 hours of patrol time within English Q79 Mr Carmichael: So the idea of auction does not waters. recommend itself to you. Q81 George Eustice: I understand that at the moment Jerry Percy: Anything but, sir. there are three offshore patrol vessels, two of which are normally on duty in English waters. Could you explain The Chair: We have 35 seconds if anyone has a what has taken place, as part of your planning over the one-word question and a one-word answer. Is there last year for enforcement after we leave the EU, to get anything else you wish to say to the Committee, Mr Percy? additional offshore patrol vessels from the Royal Navy? Jerry Percy: Thank you for the inquiry. The Fisheries What discussions have been had and what work has Bill gives us an opportunity. There are some failings in been done with Border Force on the ability to redeploy it, but we seriously look forward to conversations with some of its assets? Could you explain anything you have Government and others in that respect. I am grateful done by way of procuring aerial surveillance from, say, for the opportunity to talk to you. the coastguard service? Phil Haslam: As a result of the referendum and the fact that we will be becoming an independent coastal Examination of Witness state and taking back control of our waters in the Phil Haslam gave evidence. future, a risk-based analysis has been done of what could happen after that exit moment, and based on that 2.30 pm analysis we have identified increased risk across the The Chair: Good afternoon, Mr Haslam. For the piece. Our work has driven us to look at our current benefit of the Committee, could you introduce yourself surveillance levels and to judge what we will need to and your organisation? effectively enforce the integrity of the exclusive economic zone from the fisheries point of view. That has led us to Phil Haslam: Good afternoon. My name is Phil bid for an uplift in surface surveillance and within that Haslam and I am the operations director of the Marine to move away from having all our eggs in one basket in Management Organisation, which is an arm’s length relation to the Royal Navy, to come to a mixed economy body of the Department for Environment, Food and of providers for both the inshore and the offshore Rural Affairs with the competence to deliver marine element of the patrol requirement. planning and licensing and, in this context, fisheries We have come up with a greater amount of surface management, control and enforcement regulation. surveillance that we need in the round, and the mechanism to deliver that will of course include the Royal Navy. We Q80 George Eustice: I am sure that the Committee have dialogue with Border Force as well, to see what will have noticed from your biography that you have utility there is within its vessel fleet—it is predominantly long experience in the fisheries protection fleet and the its cutters. Similarly,the inshore fisheries and conservation Royal Navy, and most recently at the MMO. Before authorities, which are the small English-based regional getting on to the work we have done on future enforcement, organisations that have a jurisdiction of the nought to I wonder whether you could describe to the Committee 6 miles of inshore fisheries, have a fleet of vessels that what the MMO control room in Newcastle does, how we may be able to get some utility out of. Also, we are we monitor fishing vessels and how many fisheries speaking with colleagues in the devolved Administrations protection vessels we currently have access to. to see what utilities are there. We are trying to get a Phil Haslam: The mechanism we use to conduct blended provision of surface surveillance. fisheries control and enforcement is risk-based and Aerial surveillance is a capability that is being intelligence-led. The mechanism by which we do that reintroduced. The idea is to have routine overflight of ashore is to have up to 75 warranted officers who can be our waters so that, should there be vessels that should deployed—routinely,circa 50 are able to be deployed—and not be there and are not discernible through remote we are situated at 14 offices around the coast of England. location devices, we have, basically, a set of eyes in the The MMO regulates only within English waters. That is air that can see them. In terms of monitoring vessels at one element of our business: shore-based inspections of sea at present, there is a system called the vessels monitoring landing, marketplace inspections and the like. The risk- system, which gives us the position statement of vessels based, intelligence-led description is basically what it of 12 metres or longer. 45 Public Bill Committee 4 DECEMBER 2018 Fisheries Bill 46

Q82 George Eustice: Finally, the Ministry of Defence you think sufficient resource is provided to ensure that recently announced that it had delayed the decommissioning UK waters are kept safe and protected and that our of the existing three offshore patrol vessels, and it regulations are properly enforced? intends to introduce four new ones, I think. How much Phil Haslam: There is always a risk of tensions unearthing difference will having that extra capacity in reserve themselves within a fishing thing, but I must say that make, should it be needed? what we saw with the baie de Seine scallop wars was an Phil Haslam: It will make an enormous difference. As expression of discontent based on using fishing vessel you stated earlier, at the moment the fishery protection rather than on non-compliance with fisheries regulation, squadron is relatively constrained in the number of which is what the MMO does. There is a risk—that is vessels it can put to sea, and that matches our constraint the risk we have analysed—and against that risk we in being able to contract them. Having more vessels have built a bid for increased surveillance to meet and available to us to police a very large EEZ gives us that mitigate it. flexibility to deploy ships to the right place at the right time. By keeping the batch one offshore patrol vessels in Q86 Luke Pollard: The Batch 2 River class that you service for longer and introducing the batch twos are getting as part of the fishery patrol vessels are very incrementally, as they come off the build, there will be a capable ships, and not having the Batch ones retired is a larger hand of cards to be played with. good move. That total fleet, though, relies on numbers of people to put them to sea and we know that there is Q83 George Eustice: I have one other final point. huge pressure within the Royal Navy to provide people. Enforcement is obviously devolved, so what you have Given your former experience with the Fishery Protection described is what is taking place and what is planned for Squadron, could you enlighten us a little bit? Having in England. Could you describe how the challenge more hulls is a good thing, but is there a sufficient differs, for instance in Scotland, where we obviously number of people to man those hulls to ensure that we have a large interest? What work do we do with Marine have the necessary enforcement capacity? Scotland and its enforcement vessels? Phil Haslam: We have to be careful. The vessels the Phil Haslam: Fisheries enforcement is devolved, as Royal Navy deploys to meet any MMO contract that is you state. The way the Scottish do it is to have three signed in the future is within its gift. It may be Batch 2s vessels that conduct enforcement up to 330 days a year or Batch 1s, but that is the call of the commander of the within their waters. They contract two aircraft as well, squadron. In terms of manning the ships, it is similar. If to provide oversight. At this moment, they have the the demand is there and it is required, the Royal Navy, kind of surveillance capability and control and enforcement being as innovative as it is, will come up with manning capability that we are building up to. solutions to meet what it needs to do.

Q84 Luke Pollard: A moment ago you gave the figure Q87 Luke Pollard: Finally, you mentioned the of 2,000 hours of surveillance. Could you give us a consultation on inshore vessel monitoring systems. It sense of how the number of hours that have been seems to be a good thing to switch from an automatic deployed for enforcement has changed since 2010? identification system. Anecdotal evidence suggests that Phil Haslam: Yes. Royal Navy vessels used to be fishermen turn their AIS off if they find fish so as not contracted on a 24-hour-day basis. That was always to alert their friends as to where there is a good catch, non-exclusive, so they were not passed to the MMO, but I-VMS does not come with that switch. Is that where we would have command and control of them; right? Can you explain what difference that would make they would conduct our business but always with the to vessel monitoring with regard to enforcement and risk of higher priority national tasking taking them safety? away. But we did have more of them in 2010, and over Phil Haslam: The automatic information system, which time, with reductions in the MMO budget, we have had is fitted to vessels of 300 gross tonnage and above is to roll back the number of hours, or days, we can predominantly an anti-collision device. It is to create contract, moving from 24-hour days to 12-hour days situational awareness at sea. It is an open-source mechanism and then to nine-hour days. by which you can find out information about any given When I came into this job we were relatively constrained ship, where it is going and what type it is. In fishing, a regarding where we could deploy them for that part of fisherman’s mark of where he is fishing and what he is the day. The idea of going to hours was to give us the getting from it is commercially sensitive and we would flexibility to deploy them where the need was, rather not wish to openly display that. I-VMS—the inshore than where they were shackled. So there has been a vessel monitoring system—is a similar system to the reduction, but on the other side of that, with the vessel one on smaller vessels. It gives us a picture of what is monitoring system we have an understanding of what is going on within the fishery. To conduct a fishery, you going on in our waters. We have a picture against which need to know what the input is so that you can control we can patrol. So it was risk-based. the output. That is not something we have at the moment. Also, it covers off that commercial sensitivity. We are Q85 Luke Pollard: The figures I have seen suggest not transmitting where a fisherman is. There is a point- that in 2010 there were 16,000 hours, and now we have to-point transmission of that data, which we will take 2,000. That trajectory, that path, that reduction of into a hub so that we have a picture of what is going on enforcement, at a time when we will probably, based on in our waters, but that is not widely accessible. risk assessments, need to protect and enforce our waters to a greater extent than in the past, concerns me. It Q88 Jeremy Lefroy: Could you give us a brief insight seems quite a challenge. What is your assessment of into the kinds of enforcement actions you have to take whether we will see more things like the scallop wars, now and whether they are likely in future to be different not in French waters but in UK waters, after Brexit? Do in type or in quantity, or in both? 47 Public Bill Committee HOUSE OF COMMONS Fisheries Bill 48

Phil Haslam: The enforcement action we take now is Phil Haslam: That is where our judgment has been that we enforce the requirements of the common fisheries made, and that is where the bid has gone in. We are policy. In a routine inspection, when you board a fishing building that capability in order to be able to deploy it vessel you check the paperwork. Is the vessel licensed, in within the timescales, so by March. the first instance? Does it have quota for its catch? Then you would go into the mechanics of, “What have you caught? How have you caught them? Which area have Q93 David Duguid: Still on the subject of fisheries you caught them in?” Then you do an inspection to see protection, you mentioned airborne surveillance earlier. whether what is reflected in the logbook is manifest One of the questions that fishermen in my constituency within the fishing vessel. That is what we do at sea in keep asking is: how does the eye in the sky seeing terms of inspection. It is everything from paperwork, to something wrong—somebody shooting their nets where gear inspection, through to the actual catch. Ashore it is they should not be shooting their nets, or whatever it similar: it is about taking data from the logbook and is—turn into some kind of enforcement or some kind of then inspecting to see whether what is being landed actual protection, particularly in the future when there matches that, and then goes through to the marketplace is no automatic equal access to our EEZ? as well. All of it is in pursuit of assuring sustainable Phil Haslam: The intent of redeploying aerial surveillance practice, but also the traceability of fish. That underpins on a more routine basis is to cover off any risk that we the sustainability. do not continue to receive data that we receive now through the vessel monitoring system and the like. We Q89 Jeremy Lefroy: Would you envisage it to be would need a mechanism to build a picture of what was similar in future or different in the nature or quantity of happening in our waters. If it is not derived remotely inspections? from a location device on board a vessel, we will have to Phil Haslam: I would expect it to be similar in future. actively go out and build that picture. We do controlled enforcement now. There may be a What the aerial surveillance does in the first instance requirement to do much more of it in the future, and is build situational awareness of what is going on in the there may be additional complexity, such as different water. If, once you have that, you see in among it permissions to be able to access our waters and the like. non-compliant behaviour, it can operate as a queueing All of that will just become another thing that we have platform. Either it can queue in a surface vessel to come to understand, inspect and ensure compliance with. and take subsequent action, or you can warrant the air crew so that they can issue lawful orders, whether it be, Q90 Jeremy Lefroy: Finally, what percentage of “You are required to recover your gear and exit our inspections result in you finding that rules have not waters,” or whatever it is. That can be passed from the been complied with? aircraft. Phil Haslam: At sea, it can be as much as one in three It is not an entire panacea. It cannot stop non-compliant where you find some level of non-compliant behaviour. activity, because it is clearly airborne, but it gives you, Not all of that ends up in a court room. Some of that first and foremost, that picture. It has a very clear can be covered off with a verbal re-brief, because it is a deterrent capability, and it can start a compliance regime genuine misunderstanding. At the other end of the by queueing. spectrum is known behaviours. That is where we will have prosecution. Q94 Mr Paul Sweeney (Glasgow North East) (Lab/ Co-op): Although it is encouraging that the Royal Navy Q91 Brendan O’Hara: Following on from what is making contingency plans with the River class, there Mr Lefroy was saying, in planning for a no-deal Brexit is still concern about the differential in policing standards or a much-changed situation, what analysis has been to which foreign vessels will be held relative to domestic carried out by your department about the different vessels. I am just looking at what the planning is for that nature of the increased threat post-Brexit? Based on and at how you address the 80% fall in boardings in the that, what assessment has been made of how your past six years, from 1,400 to 278. That indicates a clear capability is going to have to grow to meet that increased reduction in capability. Would it be helpful if the Bill threat? defined that the Royal Navy has to provide a statutory Phil Haslam: The project that I am driving has basically capability, along with the Scottish Fisheries Protection considered several options, one of which is no deal. Agency, to deliver that enforcement in UK waters? Access would no longer be guaranteed; therefore, a risk Phil Haslam: Taking the first point, we work, as I that comes off that would be illegal incursion to the said, on a risk-based, intelligence-led basis, so refining EEZ. There are others options where access is permitted where we deploy our assets is based on that outlook. and there is non-compliance with the conditions of that That is how we would deploy it. In terms of the differential access, so something has to be done about that. The between inspection rates of foreign vessels and UK other thing is that there could be a risk of non-compliance vessels, I think that comes under the same cover. Where from home fleet, based on difficulties with the outcome we perceive that there is risk and intelligence, we will of the negotiations or whatever. However, from a purely take action on where it needs to go. regulatory enforcement perspective we have weighed I am sorry, but I missed the second point about those risks, and that is the way we have built the including something in the Bill. additional capability.

Q92 Brendan O’Hara: Do you have the capacity, the Q95 Mr Sweeney: I was asking whether there should capability and the funding to meet the worst-case scenario be a specific capability defined in the Bill about what that we have talked about? our asset should be for fisheries protection. 49 Public Bill Committee 4 DECEMBER 2018 Fisheries Bill 50

Phil Haslam: No, because I think it involves over in the pursuit but within the bounds of the regulation. time the introduction of technology that may come As I understand it, that is what we are working towards— downstream. At the moment, the reason we do what we that is rather more of a strategic partnership. do in the manner that we do it is to get evidential quality, should we need to take compliance activity. We Q99 Mr Carmichael: One proposal that has come still need inspectors to step on board fishing vessels. from the NFFO is for the establishment of formal advisory councils, so that you would be bringing scientists, Q96 George Eustice: I want to come back to a couple conservationists, industry representatives and perhaps of points that were raised earlier. Could you tell us what even those responsible for enforcement around the table. work has been done in terms of personnel to identify Do you think that would be effective in terms of delivering people who have recently served in the Fishery Protection a management system that would be less reliant on Squadron and who, if you needed a surge in capacity, enforcement? might be able to be deployed again and already have the Phil Haslam: Personally speaking, yes, because anything required training? that increases the dialogue between the cadre of people Phil Haslam: We have spoken about increased you have mentioned can only help. This has to be a surveillance as part of the package to deliver an enhanced process of shared understanding and pursuit of common control enforcement capability. People are central to objectives. that. In the first instance, we are recruiting additional people into the MMO, so I will go from the cadre of Q100 Mr Carmichael: So you get away from that warranted officers I have now to an increased number. adversarial approach to enforcement? That is actively under way. Also, to provide contingency Phil Haslam: Yes. planning, we have looked within the Royal Navy at who is currently qualified to conduct warranted fisheries Q101 Owen Smith (Pontypridd) (Lab): Good afternoon, business and who has recently been qualified. There has Mr Haslam. You said earlier that the MMO budget has to be a cut-off, because obviously you will time out. been cut. How much has it been cut by since 2010 in There is a cadre of people still within the Royal Navy cash or percentage terms? Secondly, related to that, you who could, should the need arise, be deployable to carry put in a big bid for an increase in resources in order to a warrant and conduct the inspection capability. deal with a no-deal scenario. How much extra have you asked for and has the Minister indicated that he is going Q97 George Eustice: Secondly, in terms of managing to provide it? access, additional access is sometimes granted in fisheries Phil Haslam: The budget reduction since inception agreements. We do this in Scotland now; for instance, has been in the order of 60%, but that is counterweighted we allow the Faroes to catch 30% of their mackerel in by the fact that the MMO can accrue income through UK waters. Could you explain how that process works? services delivered. That has provided a relatively stable, How does Marine Scotland enforce that process of if declining, budget. In terms of the bid for additional managing conditional access? capability going forward, a bid has been made and we Phil Haslam: Basically, if you allow access to your are just in the process of finessing that. waters you have to control who is coming in and who goes out. There is quite a sophisticated way of checking Q102 Owen Smith: Can you tell us how much more in and checking out: a vessel has to declare its catch on you have asked for? entering and its catch on exit. Indeed, the point of exit Phil Haslam: How much more in terms of actual— and point of entry is conditioned as well, so you can establish gates at sea where people have to actively come Owen Smith: Percentage versus current budgets, or in through, so you can understand who is in your waters at cash terms. any given time. I know that within Scottish waters quite Phil Haslam: It is basically a doubling of the budget a dynamic mechanism has to be in place to manage the at the moment. inflow and outflow of vessels. Q103 Owen Smith: Has the Minister indicated that Q98 Mr Carmichael: Youhave a tremendous range of might be forthcoming? experience. To what extent do you think that non- Phil Haslam: Support in delivering it, yes. I have not compliance can be driven in the mismatch between seen any resistance in terms of, “We need this capability.” quota and stocks? Let me give you an idea of my The scale and volume is the bit, because it is based on thinking. Some 20 years ago I used to make modest judgments of risk, but nobody has said they have any sums of money in Banff sheriff court defending constituents doubt about the operational need. of Mr Duguid who had caught their monkfish one side of the 4 degree line when all the quota was on the other, Q104 Owen Smith: But hitherto, this Government which led to misreporting. That was just a classic mismatch have cut 60% of your funding. between where the quota was and where the stock was. Phil Haslam: Under austerity,in line with all Government To what extent do you think that that sort of mismatch spending, there has been a decline. drives non-compliance? Phil Haslam: It provides an opportunity for non- The Chair: We have five minutes left for any further compliance, provided you are minded to do that. I questions from the Government side. If not, Luke Pollard. would not want to perceive something adversarial, with the regulator running around trying to catch fishermen Q105 Luke Pollard: I want to pick up on your earlier out. The way this works best is that the rules work for answer where you described the inshore vessel monitoring the industry. We, as an enabling regulator, support them system. Will foreign boats fishing in UK waters have a 51 Public Bill Committee HOUSE OF COMMONS Fisheries Bill 52

[Luke Pollard] we are not confined to permitting vessels simply from Europe.My question is how do we ensure the seaworthiness requirement to have IVMS on their boats, so you will be of those vessels that may or may not receive a permit or able to track where they are when they are in UK licence to operate in our seas? waters? Phil Haslam: Taking what happens now for a UK Phil Haslam: We have the latitude to make that a vessel or an English vessel, the Maritime and Coastguard condition of the permit to enter. Agency issues a certificate of seaworthiness, and that is the first thing we need to see in granting a licence to Q106 Luke Pollard: So you have that power currently. fish. Phil Haslam: That is what we can do as an independent coastal state. Access to our waters will be granted by a Q111 Bill Grant: No matter where that vessel emanates permit, and the conditions we put on that permit are for from. the country to determine, so yes we can. Phil Haslam: We would expect a similar behaviour. If that vessel was applying for a licence to fish in UK Q107 Luke Pollard: Just so I understand, you are waters, one of the checks and balances you would have saying that the UK will have that power in the future. is asking, “Is it fit to conduct itself at sea? Is it seaworthy?” Should that power be set out in the Bill—that this That would be the first check. should be a requirement? My concern is that UK boats might have to have IVMS, but foreign boats might not, Bill Grant: Thank you. depending on what option we decide to put in the licence. There should be a level playing field between The Chair: On behalf of the Committee, Mr Haslam, UK boats and foreign boats in UK waters, so should all I thank you for your attendance and your evidence. boats not have to have IVMS on them? Phil Haslam: The power in the Bill gives us the ability Examination of Witness to regulate who comes into our waters by granting Dr Tom Appleby gave evidence. permission. I do not think the conditions of permission need to be explicit in the Bill, but they can be part of 3 pm that, among other things that we would require any The Chair: We now move on to our sixth witness, vessel within our waters to comply with. from the Blue Marine Foundation. Would you please introduce yourself and your organisation? Q108 Mike Hill: On the point you made about IVMS, Dr Appleby: I am Dr Tom Appleby.I am a non-practising would that extend to what I consider to be leisure solicitor but I have been in property law for about fishing craft as well? 20 years. I am also an associate professor of the University Phil Haslam: There will be a cut-off of who actually of the West of England, and I have been operating in gets fitted with it, because the point is to try to develop this sphere—ports, marine conservation and fisheries—for a picture of what is the main input into the fishery in about 15 years. terms of effort on vessels out there. There will be some vessels—there will be a line below which we will not Q112 George Eustice: May I ask for your general need to go. At the moment we are looking to catch—not impressions of the Bill? Does it do the things that catch, that is the wrong word—fit IVMS to the active you would expect a domestic fisheries policy to do, or fishing vessels. are there other elements that you would like to see included? Mike Hill: To commercial vessels. Dr Appleby: First off, it has been drafted in short Phil Haslam: Tocommercially active fishing vessels, yes. order to deal with the situation that we have. By and large, and given the constraints that the drafters had—you Q109 Luke Pollard: The Bill includes provision for can see that it is drafted in different forms and it does the Secretary of State to allocate fishing opportunities not sit together very well; it is not very beautiful—it based on days at sea, as well as the fixed quota allocation. does what it says on the tin, but it could be improved. I How does your enforcement action differ when you are was looking at some other legislation. The Australian looking at a boat using days at sea versus looking at a Fisheries Management Act 1991 has 168 sections, the boat fishing against an FQA? MACA—the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009—has 325, but this has 43. You can see that more could have The Chair: Can you answer that question quickly, gone in here, but there were time constraints on the Mr Haslam, because one other Member wishes to ask a people who drafted it, and I think that they produced question? what they could in the timescale. Phil Haslam: Okay. In terms of an effort scheme, we would just need a data flow to track how often that Q113 George Eustice: Are you happy that clause 1 vessel is put to sea, and whether it is in the bounds of broadly brings across the marine environment objectives the effort that is available. We have effort schemes that from European legislation? we run now. Dr Appleby: It does. Clause 1 leads you into the devolution minefield. One thing it has to try to deal Q110 Bill Grant (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (Con): with in drafting is repatriating legislation on the one I was also thinking about the licensing of vessels for hand, and then delegating it around the four nations of fishing. Licensing of vessels or permits to fish in our the UK on the other. It tries to do that. Given the waters may go to vessels not from within the EU 27. I constraints on the drafters, there are fisheries plans to assume that they can come from elsewhere in the globe; bring these objectives in. 53 Public Bill Committee 4 DECEMBER 2018 Fisheries Bill 54

There are potentially some bits missing. We do not is settled, and that we can do some interesting things have marine planning in there, which we could possibly with it. I think that balance is there if you pull back just put in. Quota could possibly go in there. There could be slightly on the prescriptive language about what you do a method of dealing with quota at that stage, on how, if with it. and when quota comes back, what happens with climate change and fishing opportunities. That could be put Q115 George Eustice: Do you think a legal power is into the plans as well. needed to do that? They passed legislation in the However, I recognise that the drafters sat there not Faroes that effectively put people on notice, and said only having to operate from the UK perspective but that after 10 years they would depart from an FQA also having to take the devolved Administrations with system. Our view is that the Government could state them, which inevitably is slow. The clause could be that intention, at which point the clock would start improved if we had a little more time. ticking without the need to have a provision on the face of the Bill. Q114 George Eustice: We obviously have to look at Dr Appleby: We reallocated quota last time—unused marine planning in the context of the retained EU law quota—without compensation or additional legislation, coming across and that we have other bits of legislation. so I think we could do that. I think you have to be Some of those things are already provided for. careful when you do that, because a lot of people The second point I want to raise is on the fixed quota borrow money by using their quota as collateral. One allocation—the FQA units—which has been the basis the one hand, there are some very rich people sitting on of quota allocation inside the UK, attached to individual quota—the quota barons we read about—but on the vessels, as you know. We have been explicit in the White other hand, there are people who use quota to support Paper, and we take the powers in the Bill to make a their running a business. Youwould need to think about break from that, and to say that any additional fishing what you will do, but I think you can do that under the opportunities that come as we depart from relative current legislation. stability could be allocated on a different basis. What is What has happened here is that it has been beefed your view of the FQA units system? up. We have put some more suggestions forward. There Dr Appleby: What has happened is that the UK are two things that you could do. You could vest the fishery has essentially been, for want of a better word, fishery so that it actually becomes public property. We squatted. We gave it out free to two people, who then have done a heck a lot of research at UWE on who sold it and it became propertised. The UK Association owns it, and we reckon it was set up by some sort of of Fish Producer Organisations case held that unused implied Crown trust that goes back to the middle ages. FQA became a property right. One of my PhD students is working on this at the moment. The White Paper talks about quota being a public It would be easier just to state in the Bill that it is a asset, so we have to make a decision on whether the UK public asset and put it in some sort of trust, and then fishery—particularly if we are getting more back; it will you would get the kind of things that you would normally be very expensively brought—starts off as a public expect when disposing of a public asset to the commercial asset. That means unwinding the FQA system. You can sector. That is the way I would approach it. I appreciate potentially do that under existing powers, or you can do that we did not start there; we started with an open-access it under some things in the Bill. When you actually look resource, which we have tried to deal with through at the auction, I think you have probably constrained legislation. We are in a transition. yourself a bit too much. If you auction off quota, you are looking at people who have the cash to buy the quota in the first place. A royalty, for instance, is the Q116 Luke Pollard: You mention fisheries management sort of thing that you would charge—I think we would and how that is missing from the Bill. In particular, call it turnover rent in the property sector. That would fisheries management and how that fits with marine be a way of charging people and then not having to plans in the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009 seems come up with the cash. Even in the Bill, it only says to be omitted. Can you just expand on what you think “may” use an auction. Without constraining yourself, the Bill is missing in fisheries management? you could expand your powers on what we do with Dr Appleby: I am not sure. In common with previous repatriated quota and, indeed, what we do with FQA speakers, I liked the idea of a scientific adviser, which generally. would be a lovely thing to have. Its constitution is We went through some debate when first drafting probably the same size as the Act, so you can imagine our amendments. We thought that we needed to put a the bunfight about who sits on the advisory panel, stop to FQA, but a legal argument will come back the whether it is peer reviewed and whether it is other way that says quota is a property right. We devolved. That is a huge conversation to have, and it thought, “Well, if you give eight years’ notice, that’s needs to be had in public. That is something I would probably sufficient to deal with any compensation that like to see. If we had more time, I would like to see that would arise,” but even then, I did not feel comfortable go in the Bill. putting that in the Bill, because you reify the situation There is a mirror piece of legislation, which is the as soon as you do that. We put it in to start with, then Environmental Principles and Governance Bill. Does we took it back out again on the basis that there that apply to fishing or not? When we leave the EU, we needs to be a proper conversation about what we do will lose the right to infraction proceedings against with quota. Given the time restraints, we will not be recalcitrant UK—all parts of the UK. Should Scotland able to do that in the Bill, even with the best will in the do something, it is the UK that gets infracted. We will world. We can reserve the powers in the Bill to ensure lose that, and we have not quite been able to replace that whatever we decide to do with FQA in the long run that kind of thing. 55 Public Bill Committee HOUSE OF COMMONS Fisheries Bill 56

Those are just two examples: a good, robust, scientific, after itself. From an environmental charity point of forward-looking body that looks at how to make the view, we are not so concerned as long as there is most of our resources, and some sort of regulatory something in there that does allow some conversation regime to punish the hindmost, if you want to be quite about moving to the right stocks that produce more so curt. fish, more jobs and a better environment. We could get hung up on this if we are not careful. Q117 Luke Pollard: On the dispute resolution mechanism that you are talking about, the Government seem to Q119 Peter Aldous: Tom, you were expressing concern think that they have the powers to resolve disputes at how a public asset might have inadvertently become a between the devolved administrations and the UK property right, and how that might constrain more Government at the moment. Is it your view that that is radical reforms of the quota system. Could we go back the case, or would an explicit dispute mechanism to the court case of 2012-13 when Lord Justice Coulson requirement in the Bill make that easier in the future? put down his determination? I have heard some suggestions Dr Appleby: I think you can put one in. I would love that the Secretary of State won that case against the to, but given the timeframe to which we are working— POs, because what he was proposing was very reasonable having this Bill ready for March—it would almost be a and small-scale, and the POs were acting unreasonably. wrecking amendment if we tried to put something like Is that a view that you would share, or would you say that in. You are going into devolution which is an that Coulson allows one to go a step further? enormously emotive topic, especially at the moment. In Dr Appleby: An FQA is a possession under the European terms of the Government’s position of being able to hit convention on human rights. There is a distinction. the devolved administrations with a stick: it is a devolved “Quota” is once it is distributed, and FQA units are matter. I do not think the Government can do that. about your expectation of how much of a share of the When you look at most of the Act, it is consensual UK’s TAC you are going get every year. That was based and they are consulting one another. That is how it on the historical landings data, traditionally. He said should be, to be honest. The four nations should be able that unused FQA units could be reallocated without to work together and that is right. At some level we have compensation. FQA units are a possession, so the lost the outside influence that we had. The way everything corollary of that is that used FQA units—and most of is drafted is, unfortunately, currently predicated on having them are used—would require some sort of compensation a common fisheries policy that kept everything together. payment. I have not been privy to the subsequent I am talking around the subject because were you to put legal advice, and I took a sharp intake of breath when a drafting pen in front of me and say, “Get on and draft he said that at the time. In fact, I went to court to that,” it would be incredibly difficult. My sympathies go watch some of the court proceedings—it was quite out to the Government for what they have done. interesting; it was right up my field. It is inherent in the UK that we do not take assets off people without Q118 Luke Pollard: Finally, one of the areas that compensation. It is part of our culture—way before the seems to be weaker in the Bill than in the common European convention. fisheries policy is the area around maximum sustainable There is another point about that redistribution and yield and the removal of a commitment to achieve it by the immediate way it would have ramifications on how 2020. Where there are difficulties in achieving maximum the whole commercial sector is constructed, which you sustainable yield by 2020, do you think that the MSY need to be mindful of. Once you put that whole lot into provisions in the Fisheries Bill are sufficiently robust to a bag and shake it up, you could design a scheme to make sure that we are restoring stock levels in our reallocate quota, but it would need to be done in a oceans, especially as climate change seems to be missing sensible, crafted way. as a theme from much of the Bill? Is that something that we could address? Q120 Owen Smith: Dr Appleby, you say that MSY is Dr Appleby: What does maximum sustainable yield not necessary, and that hardwiring a greater onus on actually mean? The European Union defines it as something Ministers to adhere to MSY in terms of the allocation like the highest theoretical equilibrium yield. It says of future quotas is not necessarily the way to go. If we something like that in the basic regulation. You take a had more time—I take what you say about there being basket of theories and you use the highest one. It has limited time—is there a way in which we could hardwire been knocked around as a term for a long time. Our sustainability in respect of future fisheries management rights in our EEZ only go up to maximum sustainable into this Bill? yield and we do not have a right to fish beyond it. We Dr Appleby: That is a good question. There are things can take the interest off our fish stock outside our that you can do. The Australian legislation, for instance, territorial waters, but we cannot spend the capital. This makes it a legal duty to fish sustainably and according is the way to look at it. to the plans that they come up with. We could put that To some extent, that is all the rights we have. I have in. Our fisheries statements are a bit woolly. I notice not explicitly looked at that, but my sense on the way that there is a bit in here that says that they do not have this works is that we would be bound by MSY targets to adhere if relevant considerations are taken into account. anyway. The other thing is that the UK has access to What is a relevant consideration? I could not find a judicial review, whereas trying to review the European definition of that. Commission is interesting. It is very difficult to get a We have not nailed the Secretary of State to the floor standing in the European Court of Justice, particularly in this Bill, and that could be done. Again, it would have on maximum sustainable yield. A few years the World to be done in the context of devolution, so we would Wildlife Fund tried to get access on cod quotas, I think, have to nail everybody’s feet to the floor around the and they failed. So the European Union is good at UK, because we cannot have a situation in which one giving rules to other people, but not so good at looking part of the UK can fish non-sustainably and the other 57 Public Bill Committee 4 DECEMBER 2018 Fisheries Bill 58 parts cannot. There are things that you can do. There certain way or if you want some sort of flexibility. are tweaks and modifications that can be made to Again, it is interesting that, coming from a conservation harden up that duty. point of view with my Blue hat on, I am not uncomfortable with just leaving it at MSY. Q121 Owen Smith: For clarification, you were saying that it is in Australian legislation that there are fisheries The Chair: I have Alistair Carmichael and then Mike policies? Hill, unless anybody else wishes to contribute. Dr Appleby: Yes, I think that their fisheries plans are statutory. Q125 Mr Carmichael: May I just tease out for a second or two the question of property rights as they Q122 Owen Smith: And they are legally binding on pertain to FQA? As I understand your evidence so far, Ministers to ensure those things are observed? if we were to get to somewhere sensible on this, we Dr Appleby: They have a management board. We are would not start from here. Is that a fair comment? I can looking at the scientific advisory panel that has been understand why you would take the idea of eight years put forward. Those scientific recommendations are binding and then think no—if I came to you and said I will take in some way. your house away in eight years’ time, you would not be very happy about that. At the same time, does the whole Q123 Owen Smith: I have one separate question. Do idea of quota auction not put beyond any doubt that you take an environmental view of what the potential this is a tradeable commodity? benefits might be of preserving certain fisheries or Dr Appleby: You can write that into the legislation. stocks for recreational fishing, as has happened elsewhere? The Americans, in the Magnuson–Stevens Fishery Dr Appleby: You are looking at a public resource, so Conservation and Management Act, just write in that it how do we make the best of that public resource? Some is not a property right. You can make it terminable, so of that is going to be to the commercial sector and some that it kind of becomes a contractual right. of it is undoubtedly going to be to the recreational sector. The whole thing is so political because we are Q126 Mr Carmichael: But that is what you could trying to carve up this public resource through regulation. do with a blank sheet of paper. We do not have a Undoubtedly, the recreational sector is an important blank sheet of paper; we have a history here of people part of this conversation, too. Historically, although it borrowing large sums of money on the basis of their has recently been included in the common fisheries then having property rights that they can then offer up policy, it has come to the table late. as security. Dr Appleby: One way of dealing with that is to inflate Q124 George Eustice: I want to come back to this your way out of it, so that you do not punish one point about some of the environmental criteria and individual. You could say that, this year, you are going potentially having a hard nib point for MSY,for instance, to topslice 20%. as a statutory target. One unique thing about fisheries is that, in or out of Q127 Mr Carmichael: So do you think that it would the EU, they are subject to annual international fisheries be possible for repatriated quota and existing quota to negotiations. Norway, for instance, follows MSY but have different rights? also follows lots of other scientific metrics that it thinks Dr Appleby: I think you could. We are straying into are superior to those that we use. In such a situation, do an area for which you need explicit legal advice, but I you think it is important to keep that flexibility, so that see no reason why not. You are not disappointing you can actually land an agreement with Norway, the somebody. The other thing about doing this sort of Faroes, Iceland and the EU, or is it preferable to make it thing with this sort of asset is that you cannot target unlawful for the UK to reach such an agreement and one individual and say that you are going to take their just have everyone go off on their own and unilaterally quota off them and off they go. That really is compulsory set a tax? purchase. When you water down the entire pot, it is Dr Appleby: That is an interesting question; theoretically, much harder for somebody to make a claim, particularly we cannot fish beyond MSY,because that is all we have. if fish stocks start to come back and the inherent value Under the United Nations convention on the law of the of the asset has not really changed. sea, our rights extend to MSY and that is it. You cannot The price of quota pings around like anything, depending have an agreement on what you do not have. on how much fish has been landed that month. It is not However, the question is: what is MSY? It comes a very stably priced asset anyway. Again, if in the Act down to the definition. The Norwegians would probably you use robust wording about this, the first thing the argue that, by taking a basket of different theories, we courts will look at is the Act and ask what Parliament achieve MSY, because one stock can be plotted on a has said. It comes back to reasonableness, I think. graph and another cannot. I am not a fisheries scientist— you would have to ask them—but it seems that you are Q128 Mr Carmichael: You can slice it and dice it any essentially looking at something like a repairing obligation way you like, but in essence you are talking about on a lease. How far can you go with this and do it in a nationalising a private resource. You compensate for sensible way? that, do you not? The difficulty with going into, say, MSY or BMSY or Dr Appleby: The thing is that it was never privatised all those things, which I have never completely got my properly in the first place. Normal squatter’s rights head around, is that you define a particular scientific would be 12 years, but this is based on three years. It is a methodology in your Bill. I think that could come back much shorter timeline that people have a track record to haunt the draftsman if stock does not behave in a for. We did the same thing with the milk quota—that 59 Public Bill Committee HOUSE OF COMMONS Fisheries Bill 60 was wound down—and various other farm subsidy Examination of witness payments were wound down, too. This is not a sector Aaron Brown gave evidence. where this sort of thing happens. The duty of the public administrators is to make sure 3.29 pm there is no undue shock on the fishing industry by pulling the rug out from everyone, and otherwise to The Chair: We now move to our final session of the make sure we safeguard what is, at least nominally, a day, which I remind colleagues must finish at 4 pm. The public asset. Elsewhere, in the UK Association of Fish final witness is Aaron Brown of Fishing for Leave. Producer Organisations case, which is a slightly funny Could you please introduce yourself as the witness? case, Justice Cranston says that it is a public resource. Aaron Brown: I am Aaron Brown of Fishing for There is some force in the intervenor’s point that it is a Leave; thank you to hon. Members for having me along public resource. today.

Q129 Mr Carmichael: Just 30 seconds on devolution, because I want to give colleagues some time. Is there not Q132 George Eustice: Thank you very much for a conflict of interest where the United Kingdom is joining us. I know you have long been an advocate of an holding the reins but is parti pris in respect of the effort-based regime, rather than a quota-based regime English interest as well? or potentially a hybrid model. You will be aware that Dr Appleby: That is a very good question. I put my the White Paper sets out a commitment to pilot that, amendments together in two parts. The Secretary of particularly with the inshore mixed fisheries. Could you State is doing two roles; I am sitting here with two roles just set out what your thoughts are in that respect and myself, so I appreciate that. One is being the Secretary why you think an effort-based regime would be better of State on behalf of the UK—he is a trustee of the than a quota-based regime? UK’s public fishery—and the other one is being English Aaron Brown: To start with, overall we were very Fisheries Minister. That is why I do not like the way happy with the White Paper. The Bill is somewhat clause 20 is drafted, because I thought you would split disappointing, because a lot of what was good and gave the functions. The trouble is that it goes into some very a lot of hope to people has disappeared, and an effort difficult water when we start to look at the different pilot was one such thing. We have been staunch advocates devolution settlements. of that, because over 30 years with increasing regulatory burden we have tried to go up a cul-de-sac and it has not worked. We have had black fish and discards, and now Q130 Mike Hill: I have two simple questions. In your we are on to choke species. opinion, does the Bill provide the requirement for the UK fisheries to be sustainable? Should the Secretary of We sat back and said, to use a phrase the Minister State provide annual statements on stock levels? likes to coin himself, “What are the first principles of management?”, and that is the ecosystem. You have to Dr Appleby: I will take the second question first work with mother nature. Currently, all the problems, because the second one leads to the first. How can you many of which Members have discussed today—whether define “sustainable” if you do not know what the stock that is enforcement, science or shares of resources—all levels are? There is a massive absence of science on this. stem from the current quota system. What we said is If we get money back in from the fishery, I would like that the only way to manage a dynamic mixed fishery, the commissioning of decent science so we can look where you catch a mix of species that fluctuate up and ahead and plan forward. We seem to be navigating down and it is difficult to determine exact, quantitative, while looking behind us. We need to get better data to arbitrary figures such as quotas, is to say to vessels, manage the stock. We also need to have a conversation “What is a sustainable level of time that vessels need to about which stock we want to fish. What are the stocks catch a sustainable amount of fish from an ecosystem? that live best in our waters that we want to feed the If in the North sea you can take 200,000 tonnes of country in the 21st century? biomass, combined, from that ecosystem, how long does it take your fleet collectively to do that?” The Chair: Mr Aldous wants to ask a question and we have just less than a minute left. That allows vessels to land all catches. It means you see exactly what the fluctuations and dynamism in the marine environment are, which generates accurate science, Q131 Peter Aldous: The Secretary of State has to and you are flowing along with the environment rather consult with Welsh and Scottish Ministers and the than what we are trying to do just now, which is to Northern Irish on this. Are the English put at a impose arbitrary theoretical targets and then try to hit disadvantage? them. That has been proved not to work. Dr Appleby: There is an argument. If we were to try Just to finish, before Mr Aldous asks a question, we to stick an English Fisheries Minister into this Bill, quickly concluded that effort control alone does not which is kind of where you are going, that is the West work, and that is what we brought to the Department as Lothian question. I almost feel we should ask the a solution that answers most questions. Blunt time at Minister what he feels. sea, especially in a blunt measurement such as days at sea, does not work. What we have developed is a system The Chair: The Minister will have several hours over where you adopt FQAs, so there is no contention about the next few weeks to tell us what he thinks. Time is at a people losing their investment in that, and turn them premium. On behalf of the Committee, I thank you into percentages that people should be aiming to catch. Dr Appleby and the organisation for your submission. It is not an arbitrary weight that you are aiming for; Watch the Bill with interest as it progresses. what you are aiming for is a percentage-based mix of 61 Public Bill Committee 4 DECEMBER 2018 Fisheries Bill 62 what is deemed to be sustainable. If you catch outside That would solve the bass problem. You could put in that percentage, what happens is that you lose time in a zero catch composition for bass. Any catches would compensation. have a time penalty. Boats could be tied up on the Therefore, as a vessel is losing time for catching the Monday but they would have that bass landed, and the wrong fish that he is able to land for that time penalty, financial benefit of it. It would work for spurdogs. We his effort burden on the environment is coming back. really believe there is a system here that merits a good Since the fish that has been landed has almost been time look, and proper scrutiny and trial. As we say, we lose for the crime, scientists know that is a true representation nothing if it fails and we gain everything if it succeeds. of what is going on. I have worked on this for over two years; we have not asked for it to be dropped out of the Q134 Luke Pollard: Do you think that fish should be sky, as some of the amendments to the Bill seem to a public asset and that that should be defined in the be—for an enabling Bill, there are some clauses that seem Bill? to be a shopping list for DEFRA. What we are asking Aaron Brown: I think that absolutely, yes. I think for is a trial, because we truly believe that for a unique there has always been that case. I was very pleased to system anywhere in the world, we have a system here hear Dr Tom Appleby state that, and many of the other that could get us away from poor science, solve the problem non-governmental organisations have said it, about the of FQAs and who owns them, and get us towards a far idea of privatisation. Even with the FQA system, it says more sustainable fisheries management system. in the paperwork that people get through, that it should We implore hon. Members to put in a legislative not be bartered, sold or bought. It just happens to be requirement that a trial across the fleet, not just inshore, that the industry has gone and done it. is enacted to give us an alternate solution. If it fails, it Fish always has been a public resource. Various judicial fails, and if it is proved right, we have lost nothing but hearings have defined that as well. Indeed, it probably gained a lot. stretches all the way back into Magna Carta, right back through our constitution. At the end of the day, we as Q133 George Eustice: Just to clarify, there is a different fishermen, as the members of the public who catch, are purpose behind a White Paper, which sets out your only custodians of what is the nation’s; we look after it policy and what you seek to do with the powers, and a and husband it well for current generations and future Bill that establishes the legal powers you need to deliver ones. We would very much like to see a clause put in your policy. We would not need a specific clause to say, towards that. “You must run a trial,” in order to be able to run a trial; the legal powers to run a trial are in the existing clauses Q135 Luke Pollard: One of the questions asked earlier of the Bill. was about auctioning additional fishing opportunities, Coming back to the principle, the difficulty with and one of the key concerns that Fishing for Leave has fisheries is that, while you have said effort does not raised when we have met has been about how auctioning work, nothing quite works on fisheries. That is why it could favour people who already have a quota, who becomes a circular argument. You seem to be arguing already have cash, which would not support the small for a return to catch composition rules, which themselves boats, on which there should probably be the greater became slightly discredited so that people tried to move focus. Do you have any concerns about where auctioning away from them. The challenge is that an effort regime sits? works best in a mixed fishery where it is harder to Aaron Brown: That is one of the main five things that segregate out the fish, but a tonnage system works best are in the Bill. As I said at the start, one thing that in, say, the pelagic. disappointed us more was what was missing from the Aaron Brown: Absolutely. We would say for pelagic Bill rather than what was in it. But out of the five things species, where you are catching an individual bulk species we are deeply concerned about, that auctioning clause is and vessels can reasonably accurately target that, although one of them. It runs coach and horses through the at times you do get it wrong, a quota system is fine. The principle of it being a public resource. Practically, it will problem is that dynamic mixed fishery—the white fish; end up in the hands of the highest bidders. we include nephrops in that mixed fishery. What we are There is no tightening of the economic link in the saying is catch compositions but not arbitrary limits, Fisheries Bill, which is one of the things we really want which, again, is a problem. It has flexibility. to see included, so without that, combined with auctioning, To avoid a race to fish, to avoid giving people a blunt you could have massive, multinational, hugely wealthy dollop of time and their going off and targeting the seafood companies saying, “British fishing is on the up highest value species because the economic incentive is so we’ll come in and wave our cheque book and outbid there, what you are effectively doing under this system is everyone else.” Even the biggest companies in Britain a buffer scheme, if you like. It is a trading scheme. could not compete with some of those far eastern ones. “Okay, I’ve caught the wrong fish. It’s worth money”. If we go down the auctioning route, we have an Then, rather than discard it into the sea unrecorded and opportunity to draw a line, as I think the right hon. keep on fishing and killing more of that species while Member for Orkney and Shetland said, between the trying to find one you can keep, what you are moving current quota resources—how it has been divvied out, towards is trading overall ceiling of effort for that not in the way we would have chosen—and this clean wrong fish. So it is a compensation scheme, effectively, slate of what comes back. If we go down the auctioning in which you get the financial benefit of that fish and route, where it is monopolised into the hands of a few your men get their pay—we will come on to that with big interests, with their financial firepower, it rides the system that DEFRA proposes for discards—but, coach and horses through the Government’s objective overall, your ceiling in the year comes down to meet of rebuilding coastal communities and supporting family- you. based fishing. 63 Public Bill Committee HOUSE OF COMMONS Fisheries Bill 64

Q136 Luke Pollard: You mentioned effort, and you fishing—is of benefit to any UK vessels, and with suggested a hybrid scheme between FQAs and days sandeel fishing you have the double dunt that the sandeels at sea. There are concerns that the Bill gives the are taken for pig feed, so the British bacon industry Secretary of State powers to allocate fishing opportunities could see a competitor’s food costs go up. simply on days at sea, without any qualification after There would be a massive environmental gain if we that. But the White Paper spoke about there being a banned both practices. That would not affect any British series of trials to assess whether days at sea would industry. I am actually very surprised that a Government deliver against the objectives. Do you think that the who extol their environmental credentials with plastic simple inclusion of days at sea without any qualification cups and wars on wet wipes have not taken the easy win that comes afterwards could make that more of banning pulse fishing. problematic? Aaron Brown: One of the amendments we put in was The Chair: There is considerable interest in asking to amend it to hours at sea. It might seem contrary to questions in this session. We have to finish at 4 pm, so Members that fishermen would want to tighten what can I ask for short questions and shorter answers, could be perceived as a noose on themselves. That please? amendment was to get towards what we really need to get towards, which is some kind of catch-per-unit effort Q138 Peter Aldous: I will not comment on pulse system of fisheries management. fishing, because I agree with you, Mr Brown. I think the Minister said that the Government are happy to look at Over the years, one of the clauses in the Bill we would an effort-based pilot. I am conscious that there was a like to see amended is right at the start: clause 1. It says pilot in the past. What was the outcome of that? What that management will “ensure that…activities are”, which shortcomings were there, and what lessons might we suggests that the Government kind of take a hammer learn for future pilots? and beats down the industry to meet their requirements. We would like to see that reversed so that policy requires Aaron Brown: That is one of the areas where, when management that delivers. In other words, the onus we devised this system, we realised there had been a should be on the Government to say, “Okay, here are massive failing. The days at sea scheme was blunt and the objectives we want to meet. How do we move there was no effective monitoring. Generally, it was towards that?” We want it changed to hours of soak with smaller boats in south-east England. I think even time at sea, because that is a far more accurate method the fishermen themselves would hold their hands up of delivering catch-per-unit effort. You would be getting and say they really knocked the backside out of the accurate data to deliver management that actually achieves pilot. There was mis-reporting going on—they just objectives rather than just trying to take a hammer to went out and kind of went Tonto on it. the industry to make it comply. We are advocating an hours-based system. You would obviously have vessel monitoring systems. We want to get towards a fully integrated monitoring/management Q137 Luke Pollard: Finally, we have heard today that system. Vessels would have sensors, which are not expensive the way fishing is conducted in UK waters has changed to put on—vessels use a similar technology for gear over many years, with new technologies and greater telemetry and door sensors—and go on any type of efficiency in catching fish. There is a new development fishing gear, to monitor soak time, so you would know called electronic pulse-beam fishing, which I have a lot the exact time a vessel’s gear was in the water. There of problems with. Although this level of detail might would be a stipulation to monitor where vessels were not be included in a framework Bill such as this one, we through your inshore VMS or your full-on VMS, and received representations—I tend to agree with them—that also to fill out electronic logbooks, which are here now. that practice should be banned. Do you have strong You would get an up-to-date, haul-by-haul update on views about where electronic pulse-beam fishing sits how much fishing effort was going in. You would know, within acceptable fishing practices? “That boat towed six hours in this area and he caught Aaron Brown: Absolutely. We feel it should be banned x amount of fish for this size of gear. The chap over to outright immediately. You could put a sub-clause in the side towed similar gear and caught half the amount that says it should be banned until it is proved that it is of fish.” You would start to know where the abundancies not responsible for the environmental degradation that were. has been reported by fishermen all around the southern The one main control to go for with a pilot is making North sea, where the derogation has happened. I certainly sure it is rigorously enforced and it is an hours-based do not think anyone could say that the Dutch, who are scheme. The other main thing is the catch composition primarily responsible for this, have not taken the Michael— thing. That really is the main control for regulating the that’s the polite word. It started as a derogation against industry. Rather than everybody going Tonto, like the ban on electric fishing that the European Commission they did last time, and targeting Dover sole, cod or itself got—let us remember that it was a derogation bass, you would say, “Yes guys, you can catch them against the EU’s own scientific advice—for a trial of the and keep them, but be aware that if you do that, your method. That trial has gone on for 10 years and has ceiling of hours is going to come clattering down to 100 boats on it. That is a commercial fishery masquerading meet you.” as a trial. Even the Dutch now hold their hands up to that. We would like to see that banned. Q139 Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP): We would also like to see sandeel fishing banned in I think you touched on this topic earlier on; you said the central North sea. For years and years, that has you would probably come on to it. Do you have a view taken away a key component of the food chain—the on the discard prevention charging scheme that is in the base of the food chain—for sea birds, fish and obviously Bill and on how transparent it is and how it would fishermen. Neither method—pulse fishing or sandeel actually work? 65 Public Bill Committee 4 DECEMBER 2018 Fisheries Bill 66

Aaron Brown: That is one of the things in the Bill that taking them up the road. Obviously at the ceiling, you very much seems to ride coach and horses over the idea could say, “Well, the tally was wrong.” There is some that the Bill is just an enabling Bill. Obviously, there is a degree of openness to abuse. bit of reticence—okay, you could say, “Understandably However, the thing that disappoints us most, where so”—to career on towards a different type of management our system works but this one allowing fish to come in on an effort-based system, yet somehow we have a does not, is that it does not address the fundamental scheme here that has dropped out of the air, with no flaw: arbitrary quotas do not work in mixed fisheries. prior piloting and no prior consultation, and that has All that happens is that we are now setting an just arrived on the table. We are vehemently against it, arbitrary target that we try to hit, and all this scheme because we personally feel—and everybody who has does is allow you to make it right up to that target. It read the Bill, both among our membership and in other does not actually tell you, “Is that more abundance of organisations, feels—that only an idiot who could not fish?” understand the practical implications of such a scheme In the south-west with haddock, say, or in the North would propose it. sea with hake, you could lift the quota up—double We feel that the scheme is there to administratively it—and the fleet would still catch it. Does that tell you abrogate the failings of the current system. The Government there is a greater abundance of species, or does it are proposing to take all the repatriated resources and basically show that you have given more legislative use them as headroom to avoid choke species, whereby, headroom to bring fish ashore? The only way that as of 2019, vessels have to cease fishing on the exhaustion scheme would work is if you increased the quota of their lowest quota. What will happen is that you will disproportionately high, which no one is going to agree have vessels going to sea. Many hon. Members are from to. Since there would be no economic incentive for the the south-west, as the Minister is, and haddocks are a boats to go off and handle all these fish that they are huge problem there—in the North sea, it is hakes. The not profiting from, you would see where the fleet came Government then say, “We will honour the fish that up to and what a natural abundance catch was. That would choke you or would tie you up. We will give you might be 60,000 tonnes, but if you had set the quota at fish to keep fishing, but so that there is no economic 100,000 tonnes, you would know that there was not that incentive to target that species, you must land it for abundance. The scheme, effectively, does not work. It free.” That scheme effectively creates a giant shuttle needs taking out. service, where boats are going to have to run in and out, in and out of harbour, landing all this fish that they Q141 Bill Grant: I noted that you were very much cannot profit from, to allow them to keep fishing. against the big boys, or the financially powerful, coming The first big problem with that scheme is retention of in on an auction system to buy up the quotas or the crew. Lads are not going to work to retain—well, just right to fish. Bearing in mind that skippers with smaller now it is a 40% discard rate, so if they have to retain that quotas or rights to fish sold them on to those people, 40% for free, you are going to lose your crew very quick. what is your alternative to that system? How would you The next problem is that there is no provision in the Bill make it fair? as to what happens to this fish when it is landed: you Aaron Brown: The way we want to see it is with the cannot turn around and allow processors, hauliers, auction clause taken out and a direct replacement put in markets or shore-based people to profit from it, because on what we call the 1 tonne to one boat principle, that would disadvantage the fishermen. Really, the logical whereby the resource is seen as a national resource and question about that clause is, “Are we going into some legislated as such. What happens is that all the repatriated sort of Soviet system, where the fishing industry is resource that we gain under zonal attachment—anything going to work for free for the Government?” It is an about that is missing from the Bill—that national pot of ill-thought out thing, and I think it needs taking out of resources, gets allocated to all vessels in a sea area fairly, the Bill. It needs to come back once it has been properly equally. For the west coast of Scotland, where we are tested and run in to see if it actually works, because we both from, about 60,000 tonnes of mackerel could be see such pitfalls in it, and it does not actually— repatriated—worth about £60 million—and about 100 vessels are left there with the capability to go to that The Chair: We have to move on, sorry. We have to fishery, so what you would turn around to say, therefore, finish at 4 pm and we may have a Division in the House is that each west coast fishing boat in the ICES sea area before then, so we have to be quick on questions, or all for that stock gets 600 tonnes. That applies across any Members will not get in. Any further questions, Mr Brown? stock. What we would like to see with that is, instead of it Q140 Alan Brown: In terms of perverse incentives just being administrated on a spreadsheet like the non-sector and the process of making money out of these fish, you is, which ends up with DEFRA just saying that we get said that they would be landed for free. Could there not 12 tonnes for 12 months, spread out equally over the be a risk of collusion, with fish being landed and months, is that that fish can be held in a PO—not processed so that some of that money is recouped? monetarily traded, rented, bought or sold, but held in a Aaron Brown: To some extent, that would be difficult PO—as a kind of holding vessel to use it at the best time now. It would come back to black fish, which were of year, when that fishery may be on, rather than trying really stamped out through the vessel monitoring system to spread 600 tonnes over 10 months. Also, if you and designated ports legislation, whereby vessels now cannot use that resource, it goes back into the national have to book in three hours in advance and declare their pot. We believe that has a huge degree of simplicity to catch. Effectively, the only way to do it would be coming it, legislatively and operationally. It would provide the in and mis-declaring that you did not have those fish— flexibility for vessels to use that fish at the best time of because otherwise you would be declaring them, and year and, obviously, it would allow it to be reabsorbed the Government would know they were there—and into the national pool. That is what we would like to see. 67 Public Bill Committee HOUSE OF COMMONS Fisheries Bill 68

The Chair: I call Alistair Carmichael. We have nine Aaron Brown: I absolutely agree with you. That is minutes left, and four Members wish to speak. why Fishing for Leave has been absolutely explicit right from the start that FQAs as they stand—the current Q142 Mr Carmichael: The NFFO and the SFF told quota and the current FQAs—should not be touched. us this morning that they wanted to see a commencement We agree with you that it opens up a total legal and date on the face of the Bill, namely 31 December 2020. moral can of worms to turn round and say, “Okay, this What advantages would there be to such an amendment? shouldn’t have happened, but it has happened, but we’re Aaron Brown: We would agree with that. We have going to take it off you.” I absolutely agree. one—it is actually the first one that we have put together Our solution to preserving the FQAs, while moving ourselves—and we are obviously aiming for 2019. The to a more equitable system of management for both way that negotiations are going, it will probably end up fisherman and the fish was to convert them into this being 2019—hopefully, if God is merciful. Yes, we flexible catch composition entitlement. That is very would absolutely agree with that. Our big fear is that if simple to do. It is legislatively no problem, because all there is not a commencement date, the Secretary of you are doing is saying that your FQA is not an entitlement State has the powers to kick the can down the road—it to a kilogram; it is an entitlement to a percentage. So depends on what Government is there. We very much the resources all come back, and the current resources agree with a commencement date, preferably 2019, when go into a national pool; that is divided out as time and we actually are a fully independent coastal state. everybody gets an equal stake of time to reach their We have made it clear—I would like to put it on potential, but those biggest quota holders, both in the the record—that the transition is an existential threat to south-west and the north-east, which have heavily invested the industry: we leave, but we then sign up to re-obey the in FQAs, get the benefit of their investment, because CFP—we have to obey all EU law—and they can when the fleet’s national average might work out at enforce any detrimental legislation that they please, 5% cod in the North sea, those who have invested which they have every incentive to do, because under heavily in FQAs would get their 30% or 40% or whatever. UNCLOS article 62, paragraph 2, if a state cannot We think that is a fair way to do it. catch its own resources, it must give the surplus to its neighbours. The EU has absolutely every incentive—they The Chair: Okay. I call Owen Smith. have even mentioned it in their own studies by the PECH committees, that this could happen—to run a Q144 Owen Smith: Are you disappointed that, two bulldozer over the top of the UK fleet. and a half years after Brexit, so little seems to be We implore Members: fishing cannot be in a transition. resolved in concrete terms for the future of the fisheries? Obviously, with the wider deal, the big problem is that Aaron Brown: You have no idea the level of my the EU says that there must be a future relationship or disappointment. we are into the backstop, and that future relationship for fisheries will be based on current access and quota. Q145 Owen Smith: Perhaps you could tell us in a That is not conjecture; the EU has said quite clearly minute. Are you worried that several Cabinet members that Gibraltar and fisheries are getting it, in the words have warned that transition could go on for as long as of Mr Macron—via my rusty French translation. There four years? is a huge danger of fishing going into that, so as the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland said in the Aaron Brown: Yes, absolutely. That makes it worse. It Chamber, given the current poor state of the negotiations pours petrol on the bonfire that I have described to you. as they have been conducted, every red line has been In the transition, the EU has every incentive to run a breached. If the Government truly had a commitment bulldozer over the top of us. They can abolish the to fisheries not getting mangled again—bartered a second 12-mile limit; they could fully enforce the discard ban in time—they would not have been in the transition in the choke species and, obviously, we would not be able to first place. implement policy to mitigate that, such as suggested in the Bill. They would be able to barter UK resources in The Chair: Thank you. I want to get Members in. international swaps, because we will not be party to I call David Duguid. international agreements but the EU will be making them on our behalf. Q143 David Duguid: Thank you, Mr Hanson. Mr Brown, The other thing that is really devastating right round there has been a lot of talk today about the ownership the country is that currently the UK relies on a lot of of quotas. As Mr Carmichael said earlier, if we were to swaps in the EU, to get in fish that would otherwise design this again from scratch, we would not start from probably be ours under a zonal attachment. We will not where we are. A lot of what you describe sounds like it be able to do that because we will not actually be sitting might work if you were starting from scratch, but I at the table any more. So we will be trapped in this kind cannot help but feel a bit squeamish about the idea of of halfway house, where the EU has every incentive to taking something away from someone who owns take a great big stick and beat us with it like a piñata. It something—I am a Conservative; I cannot help myself. is not a position that I think is equitable for the survival I do not see that as being fair. Not only does it in of the industry. To be brutally honest, by the time we essence involve taking ownership of an asset away from get round to a new British policy, if we are not shovelled someone, even over time, but how fair do you think it is into the backstop, of which there is a high likelihood, that the fishermen who benefit, the smaller fishermen there will not be a fleet left to take advantage of anyway. who would get a bigger share of the quota, in some previous generations might have benefited financially Q146 Mr Sweeney: Whether it is the smaller under-10 from selling that quota to the larger fishermen in the shellfish boats working out of the west coast ports, such first place? as Stornoway or Oban, or the pelagic and white fish 69 Public Bill Committee 4 DECEMBER 2018 Fisheries Bill 70 fleets running out of the big commercial ports, such as just put them on the back of a lorry and run them down Fraserburgh and Peterhead, what benefit to Scottish the road. We want to see 60% beneficial ownership of ports would there be of introducing an economic link of any British vessel—that is no different from the other landing at least 50% of all fish in Scottish ports? Nordic countries—to avoid foreign nationals or Aaron Brown: I am fully supportive of that. We have conglomerates buying out the UK fleet. gone further and said 60%, and not just for landings. We would also like to see 60% British crew, but with a There is a huge benefit from that. Currently just now, five-year or thereabouts dispensation for foreign crew, the flagship problem that Britain has, after the Factortame until we rebuild the future generation back into the case, is that under freedom of establishment and freedom industry to replace the one we have lost. The economic of movement, any EU national could come in and buy link absolutely needs to be there and we implore you to up British entitlement. Obviously, with the British fleet accept that that is an amendment that needs to go in. struggling with so much loss of its own resources, and The Conservatives tried to do it in 1988 with the Merchant regulatory ineptitude,many family fishermen felt compelled Shipping Act. I argue that if it is good enough for to sell. That is huge problem just now as we see on the Mrs Thatcher, then it should be good enough for this west coast, in Lochinver. I think it was £30 million of Government as well. fish went through Lochinver and there was not a single indigenous fishing boat. That needs to be tightened up The Chair: I think that brings us almost to the end of on. There is a huge benefit, not just to the fisherman the session. It is good to hear Mrs Thatcher still being and their communities, but also to processors and market quoted 38 years after she gained office. On behalf of the share. Committee, thank you, Mr Brown, for your contribution. Norway’s crowning glory is not actually its fishing Ordered, That further consideration be now fleet. Norway’s crowning glory is its dominance in adjourned.—(George Eustice.) processing and marketing globally. That is something that Britain could equally compete in with the resource 3.59 pm we have got. We would like to see 60% landings into the Adjourned till Thursday 6 December at half-past UK, sold and processed, because otherwise people will Eleven o’clock. 71 Public Bill Committee HOUSE OF COMMONS Fisheries Bill 72

Written evidence to be reported to the FISH03 National Federation of Fishermen’sOrganisations House FISH01 Angling Trust FISH02 Greenpeace UK

PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES HOUSE OF COMMONS OFFICIAL REPORT GENERAL COMMITTEES

Public Bill Committee

FISHERIES BILL

Third Sitting

Thursday 6 December 2018

(Morning)

CONTENTS Examination of witnesses. Adjourned till this day at Two o’clock.

PBC (Bill 278) 2017 - 2019 No proofs can be supplied. Corrections that Members suggest for the final version of the report should be clearly marked in a copy of the report—not telephoned—and must be received in the Editor’s Room, House of Commons,

not later than

Monday 10 December 2018

© Parliamentary Copyright House of Commons 2018 This publication may be reproduced under the terms of the Open Parliament licence, which is published at www.parliament.uk/site-information/copyright/. 73 Public Bill Committee 6 DECEMBER 2018 Fisheries Bill 74

The Committee consisted of the following Members:

Chairs: JAMES GRAY,DAVID HANSON,†MR LAURENCE ROBERTSON,SIR DAVID CRAUSBY

† Aldous, Peter (Waveney) (Con) † O’Hara, Brendan (Argyll and Bute) (SNP) † Brown, Alan (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP) Pennycook, Matthew (Greenwich and Woolwich) † Carmichael, Mr Alistair (Orkney and Shetland) (Lab) (LD) † Pollard, Luke (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) † Debbonaire, Thangam (Bristol West) (Lab) (Lab/Co-op) † Duguid, David (Banff and Buchan) (Con) † Smith, Owen (Pontypridd) (Lab) † Eustice, George (Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries † Stewart, Iain (Milton Keynes South) (Con) and Food) † Sweeney, Mr Paul (Glasgow North East) (Lab/Co- † Grant, Bill (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (Con) op) † Hill, Mike (Hartlepool) (Lab) † Tracey, Craig (North Warwickshire) (Con) † Hollinrake, Kevin (Thirsk and Malton) (Con) † Jones, Mr Marcus (Nuneaton) (Con) Gail Poulton, Lis Gerhold, Committee Clerks † Lefroy, Jeremy (Stafford) (Con) † Morris, James (Halesowen and Rowley Regis) (Con) † attended the Committee

Witnesses

Rebecca Newsom, Head of Politics, Greenpeace

Andrew Clayton, Project Director, Pew

Helen McLachlan, UK Programme Manager for Fisheries at WWF, Greener UK

Debbie Crockard, Senior Fisheries Policy Advocate, Marine Conservation Society

Andrew Brown, Director, Sustainability and Public Affairs, Macduff Shellfish

Andrew Pillar, Director, Interfish/Northbay Pelagic

Daniel Whittle, Managing Director, Whitby Seafoods Ltd

Mike Park OBE, Chief Executive, Scottish White Fish Producers Association Limited 75 Public Bill Committee HOUSE OF COMMONS Fisheries Bill 76

difficult if there is a situation that requires reactivity. Public Bill Committee That is one of the biggest weaknesses, but one of the strengths—one of the strongest things that came out of Thursday 6 December 2018 the last reform of the common fisheries policy—was the legally binding requirement to fish at maximum sustainable (Morning) yield, which is definitely something that we would like to see. [MR LAURENCE ROBERTSON in the Chair] Rebecca Newsom: We would say that the strengthened Fisheries Bill version of article 17 of the CFP was an important step forward, but it has not been implemented in the way 11.30 am that we need in terms of environmental and social The Committee deliberated in private. criteria. We welcome the transposition of article 17 into the Bill, but it urgently needs to be strengthened in Examination of Witnesses order to deliver on environmental, social, and local Rebecca Newsom, Andrew Clayton, Helen McLachlan economic objectives. and Debbie Crockard gave evidence. Helen McLachlan: I agree with my colleagues and just add that the commitment to take a more ecosystems- 11.31 am based approach towards our fisheries management was The Chair: I welcome our witnesses. We have until a welcome inclusion in the CFP, and we need to take 12.15 for this session. Will the witnesses very briefly that broader perspective—take fisheries out of a silo introduce themselves, please? and look at the environmental impact, not just on target Debbie Crockard: Good morning. My name is Debbie stocks but broader than that, on other marine species Crockard and I am the senior fisheries policy advocate and habitats. for the Marine Conservation Society. Helen McLachlan: Good morning. I am Helen Q148 George Eustice: Is it your view that if we move McLachlan, fisheries programme manager for WWF away from the multilateral kind of discussion that takes UK. place at December Council, with qualified majority Andrew Clayton: I am Andrew Clayton from the Pew voting being the underlying principle for decision making, Charitable Trusts. and instead we move to something that is more of a Rebecca Newsom: I am Rebecca Newsom, heading bilateral agreement between the UK and the EU, and up the politics team at Greenpeace. We have a history of given that we have set out clear environmental objectives working on marine issues. that we have brought across from the EU in clause 1 of Helen McLachlan: I should have said that I am also the Bill, then to answer Andrew Clayton’s point, it here as chair of the Greener UK coalition of non- should be easier to deliver those objectives, because it governmental organisations, so representing the views will be a bilateral agreement rather than a qualified of Greener UK. majority vote? Andrew Clayton: I would agree that the deal making The Chair: Thank you very much for coming. Youare might be made a kind of cleaner process through that very welcome. I invite the Minister to ask the first bilateral discussion, but the big concern for me is that question. the precautionary objective brought into the Bill is insufficient. It actually undercuts the CFP; it is a lower Q147 The Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food level of ambition than exists in the CFP at the moment. (George Eustice): Could each of you explain to us what The UK is signalling with this text as it stands that it you think the main flaws and weaknesses in the current will aim lower, and that will certainly make it harder to common fisheries policy are, but also which of its get that kind of agreement. elements and principles you would like to be retained in a domestic Bill? Andrew Clayton: I think the biggest weakness in the Q149 George Eustice: Would you expand on that? I current common fisheries policy, following the reforms know that you have raised this point with me, and I can in 2013, is that those reforms have been under-implemented. make a direct comparison between what we have— For example, the legally binding requirement to fish at clause 1(3)—and article 2.2 of the CFP.With the absence sustainable levels that was written into the CFP was of targets that are now past, or they will be past by the classic EU fudge. It was put in there with a deadline of time this Bill is commenced, the wording is identical. 2015 where possible and by 2020 in any event, so we are Andrew Clayton: The fudge that was agreed in 2013, only now coming to the crunch in terms of delivering and the legally binding objective that at the time was that and making sure that fishing limits are sustainable welcomed as a big win for the UK in negotiating that when they are set each autumn. The Fisheries Minister legally binding requirement, was CFP article 2.2, which will no doubt have a torrid time in Brussels in two is written in two parts. The first part of the CFP weeks, trying to make sure that deadline is achieved. objective is an objective to restore biomass, defined in The fudges in agreeing those objectives have added terms of maximum sustainable yield. It was felt at the further delay to making that policy sustainable, even time that it was very difficult to make a biomass objective though a lot of work has been done in the four years legally binding, because you would be holding Ministers since the policy came into effect. to account for putting fish in the sea, so it was agreed at Debbie Crockard: One of the weaknesses of the CFP the time that there should be a second clause to that is its lack of flexibility and ability to react quickly when objective with the aspiration to restore biomass. The situations arise. That is something that can be quite second clause, which is the more important and more 77 Public Bill Committee 6 DECEMBER 2018 Fisheries Bill 78 binding, actually relates to exploitation rates—setting do not have a baseline stock assessment or an understanding fishing limits. It is that more binding clause that brings of how much fish is in the water that we may be in those legal deadlines, saying that by 2015 where catching off-quota. What could be improved in the Bill possible and by 2020 in any event, fishing limits should to address that data deficiency? be set in line with that scientific advice on maximum Helen McLachlan: That is one of our concerns. It is sustainable yield. It is that binding part that we can not really addressed fully by the CFP either, which is hold Ministers to account to and it is that binding part why we think the Bill is a great opportunity for the UK that is having an impact in the EU decision making. to start to fill that gap. You are absolutely right: we do That is the kind of element that is in the forefront of not have an effective means of documenting what we Ministers’ minds when they are setting fishing limits in remove from the oceans. There are requirements to log the December Council. what is taken. We have operated a landings-based system to date, but we should now move over to a catch-based Q150 George Eustice: But the use of the term system, with which we should be able to monitor what “exploitation rate” was only in the context of describing comes up in the net. We are not able to do that now; the the 2015 where possible and by 2020 on all quota systems are simply not in place. We would like to see the stocks. Bill address that with a verifiable, fully documented Andrew Clayton: Yes. catch commitment, supported by the use of electronic monitoring in the first instance, for example. Q151 George Eustice: So it is the date that is the only As you say, it is not only the catch but what else thing— comes up in the nets that we can start to gather data on, Andrew Clayton: Personally, I think the date is a which can be fed into stock assessments, increasing moot point, because the UK is committed to achieving confidence in those assessments. That, circularly, is that date by 2020. I realise the timing of this Bill taking good for best management practice. We advocate a effect is uncertain, but either way the UK is committing verifiable, fully documented fishery approach with the to achieving that job. support of electronic monitoring on the vessel. When The net effect of removing that second clause is that under a piece of legislation that prohibits discarding, as the future Fisheries Bill would therefore just have an we are now, that activity occurs at sea, so we need some aspirational objective to restore biomass at some point means of monitoring effectively at sea to take account in the future, with no deadline. That still leaves Government of that. Improving data collection would be absolutely and Ministers under short-term pressure every autumn fulfilled by that requirement. to take that short-term view, to overfish in any given year, and there is always an excuse that can be made Q154 Luke Pollard: The Minister asked about MSY that overfishing for one more year might be justified in by 2020. The omission of the “by 2020” part, although some way, with this longer term biomass objective in problematic because it looks like the UK will not hit the mind. The history of the CFP shows us this, but it is not 2020 date, means that there is no target date in the even a historical point that I am making. We have just legislation, which is a de facto reduction in environmental literally agreed and signed up to a deal this week to set standards compared with the CFP, which is something limits for 2019 for mackerel higher than scientists advise, my party has concerns about. Recognising that we will and the only kind of saving grace in that decision was probably miss the 2020 date, what level do you think that the Commission announced that they would not be would be appropriate for the UK to reach an MSY able to do this again next year because of this 2020 figure? deadline. This deadline is biting at the moment; we need Andrew Clayton: I certainly agree that it is a de facto to stick to that and not go backwards on the progress reduction as the Bill stands. I would not necessarily we have made. make the assumption that the UK will miss the 2020 deadline, because the power is with the UK to set Q152 George Eustice: Finally on that, there is something fishing limits, or for the Council as part of the EU else in the Bill that is not in EU law: the requirement for process. The only difference between an overfished stock a joint fisheries statement. That is a statutory requirement and a sustainably fished stock are those decisions, and to have a plan agreed by all parts of the UK that sets they are in the power of Ministers. I therefore think that out how we will deliver those statutory objectives in we should certainly stick to that MSY commitment. clause 1. Is that not the right place to define and We have made a huge amount of progress, which is describe in more detail how to deliver that biomass an important point. This is not about some far-off objective? aspirational aim when it comes to setting fishing limits Debbie Crockard: That may be a good place to define in line with the MSY objective. For 2018, about 44% of it, but the problem with the joint fisheries statement is fishing limits were set higher than the scientific advice, that, under clause 6(2), if a national authority takes the but for stocks with MSY advice the percentage in line decision to act other than in accordance with the JFS, it with that advice was about 75%. We have made good simply has to state the reason why. There is no binding progress; we have taken a lot of pain on the way but the duty to follow that JFS. If it goes against the JFS and UK’s stocks are moving in the right direction, with sets fishing limits that are not legally bound, there is fishing pressure being brought closer to scientific advice, nothing to hold it to account in that situation. biomass recovering as a result, and profits for the fleet on aggregate rising at an all-time high as a result of that Q153 Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) progress. The important thing is not to go backwards. (Lab/Co-op): One of my concerns about the Bill is that it does not go far enough in addressing data deficiency. Q155 Luke Pollard: Can I ask about stock levels in We have data for a number of stocks, but for an awful relation to non-quota species such as cuttlefish? Cuttlefish lot of stocks—some quota and some non-quota—we live for only about two years, so there is a risk that if 79 Public Bill Committee HOUSE OF COMMONS Fisheries Bill 80

[Luke Pollard] Debbie Crockard: The ambition here is for world-leading sustainable fisheries management. At the moment we you overfish in one year, you can significantly affect do not have a duty in this Fisheries Bill to meet the stock levels with huge potential future impact. We do objectives in the Bill. Those objectives cover a lot of not have a lot of data on cuttlefish at the moment. For very good things—sustainability and a precautionary those types of species, is there anything that could be approach—but without the duty there is no clear obligation included in the Bill to require or encourage greater data to deliver those objectives. Without that clear obligation collection? you are in a situation where they might not be met and Andrew Clayton: I would emphasise that the there is no obligation to meet. precautionary objective in the Bill refers to harvested species. The Bill aims to deal with all those stocks, Q158 Brendan O’Hara: Do you think that the Bill as whether they currently have a fishing limit or not. It is a it stands improves or will adversely affect conservation, note of concern that the CFP also does that—it talks sustainability and the eco-environment? about harvested species—and the CFP is going in the Debbie Crockard: It has the potential to improve it if opposite direction and removing fishing limits. Six limits it becomes binding. A lot of these objectives are very for deep sea species were removed just in November. It good, but they have to be binding; they have to allow us is a good opportunity for the UK to show more ambition to make those steps to world-leading sustainable fisheries. in managing those species better and gathering the data Without that binding obligation and without the obligation that is needed as the starting point. for MSY and without the improvements in CCTV and monitoring and information and data collection, we Q156 Luke Pollard: One of the areas about redistributing will struggle to prove that we are even making those quota, both new and potential if we get any drawdown changes to sustainability. from our EU friends, is allocating that on more economic, environmental and social grounds. Is that an area where, Q159 Brendan O’Hara: How confident are you that, from your point of view, there could be benefits in without that binding mechanism, this will work? terms of environmental protection and investment in Debbie Crockard: I think you just have to look, as coastal communities? Is that an area that you would Andrew said earlier, at the common fisheries policy. We support? have the binding objectives there, but there is still a lack Rebecca Newsom: Absolutely. Greenpeace is working of political push in many aspects to actually meet those with the Greener UK coalition as well as the New things. MSY was supposed to be put in place by 2015, Under Ten Fishermen’s Association, the Scottish Creel but it has been pushed back and back to the very last Fishermen’s Federation and Charles Clover’s Blue Marine point, which will be 2020. Without that binding obligation, Foundation, to push for a more robust approach to there is a lack of motivation. distributing quota—existing, new and future—on the Helen McLachlan: That was demonstrated by the basis of environmental and social criteria. It stands to CFP.The last reform introduced that binding commitment benefit the entire fishing industry in terms of driving a for a deadline. Prior to that, we consistently set limits race to the top for fleets of all sizes, which would have over and above that recommended by scientists. Since the opportunity to access fishing opportunities as long that binding commitment was brought in, we have as they conformed to environmental standards and started to see those trends going the right way: biomass things such as giving local employment to communities. increasing, fishing mortality decreasing, and trying to We see that as a huge opportunity. balance our fleet sizes appropriately to the resources available to them. This is good in terms of the commitment, Q157 Brendan O’Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP): but the application will be absolutely critical. To have What importance do you feel the Government attach in that duty and also the mechanisms around it in terms of this Bill to conservation, sustainability and protection monitoring what is coming up in the net, what we are of the ecosystem? removing from the sea and how we are being accountable for what we are removing, will be key to the success and Andrew Clayton: Referring to the objectives again, I the ability to say that we are talking about world leading think the fanfare with which the Bill was published fisheries. At the minute, without that, we are falling emphasised sustainability and put it at the heart of behind. what the Government are trying to achieve. The language in the objectives is ambitious to the extent that it Andrew Clayton: Also, it is not just about the application. mirrors some of the existing commitments. I have already The removal of the requirement to set fishing limits at described the serious concerns I have about the shortfall sustainable levels is a clear signal that we will aim lower, in the sustainability and precautionary objective. so it is not just the application. As drafted, it sends a message that we will go lower than the EU. Learning the lessons from the CFP, the important thing under this Bill is that the Government pave the way for implementation—that is why it requires slightly Q160 Mr Marcus Jones (Nuneaton) (Con): Sustainability more binding commitments in it—and through the is clearly important. Several of you have mentioned the joint statements, to ensure that is implemented in practice, remote electronic monitoring equipment, as have other with sufficient deadlines and some concrete detail. Fisheries witnesses. Is that technology sufficiently developed to is a policy area that suffers constantly from short-termism do what we want it to do? Is there any evidence from and highly politicised annual decisions. It is important where it is being used in other countries? that future Fisheries Ministers are not put under as Helen McLachlan: Yes, very much so. Electronic much pressure to make short-term, short-sighted decisions monitoring systems have developed quite rapidly in the as previous Fisheries Ministers have been. last decade and are now standard operational practice 81 Public Bill Committee 6 DECEMBER 2018 Fisheries Bill 82 in certain fisheries around the world. In the US, for Q164 Owen Smith (Pontypridd) (Lab): Good morning, example, the national administration there has taken everybody.Mr Clayton, could you give us more examples the decision that there is no need for further piloting; of species where there has been fishing well above the they just need to get on and do it. They currently have MSY in recent years? between 25% and 30% of their fleets covered by electronic Andrew Clayton: It might be useful to talk about a monitoring. New Zealand has just taken the decision to choke species, because that generates a lot of debate roll it out across the whole of their fleet. That is in the when we talk about setting objectives for sustainability process of happening. and the difficulties of dealing with stocks that have very Numerous other countries have started to adopt it, low levels of biomass and therefore very low levels in not just as a means of monitoring but in recognition the their scientific advice. There is a good example that will things that New Zealand cited, for example: reduction be discussed in the December Council: cod to the west of waste, so it incentivises more selectivity; reduction of of Scotland is a stock that has been overfished for discards; and greater economic returns, because you are decades. Fishing pressure is way too high and because no longer taking out lots of smaller fish but allowing biomass is so low, scientists advise a zero TAC or a zero them to stay in the water longer. Your biomass and the level of directed fishing. health of your stock in terms of the make-up of age That is proving very difficult because of where we are classes is better. Also, in terms of public confidence in in implementation of the CFP. In 2019, both a landing the fisheries, the ability to say, “This comes from a obligation and this MSY requirement—the deadline to highly sustainable fishery,” is a great thing. Coming end overfishing—will be approaching. What we need to back to your point on data provision, Mr Pollard, and do with those species is to find a way to reduce their catch. the data coming out of the system, being able to build Weneed to reduce bycatch and we need initiatives to ensure into the assessments gives greater confidence in that that they are not being fished at the high levels that they management. Quite often, if you have higher confidence have been under pressure from for years and years. levels in what you are talking about, your quotas start To meet the deadline, what is happening in the EU to increase because your confidence is greater. system at the moment is that they are considering There are benefits all around, and I think more and bycatch initiatives—small bycatch TACs that would be more Governments across the world are realising that. used to bring fishing pressure down. Member states It is a cost-effective and robust means of doing that. have plans to reduce the bycatch to try to restore that Here in the UK we have several vessels currently operating stock, because where we have stock that has been overfished with it and saying that they have benefited from it, to that level over such a long time, we have a huge because it has been able to demonstrate that sometimes disparity between the catches in that mixed fishery. what fishermen see in the water is not what they are That stock will hold back all the other perfectly sustainable being recommended by scientists, so they have said, catches that could be made in that fishery. What we “We can use this as a great tool to be able to say, have done for way too long is overfish and then hide ‘Actually, what we’re seeing is here.’” There is an ability discarding over the horizon. Now is the time when we to be very responsive in the management, turning it need to get to grips with the fishing mortality in that around very quickly—not quite in real time, but very fishery and allow that stock to recover so that we can close to it—and allowing adaptive management. get the highest yield out of the fishery overall. In this particular case it is not an example of MSY Q161 Mr Jones: From the New Zealand example that being used to set that limit; no fisheries scientist on the you cited, do you know how long it is taking New planet would advise catching that stock, because it is in Zealand authorities to make this happen on their fleet? such a dire state. The MSY level of catch for that would be about 500 tonnes, but zero catch is advised because it Helen McLachlan: They introduced the intent last is in such a poor state. That is one example of overfishing. year and they are phasing it in. I mentioned mackerel earlier, which is the UK’s most valuable stock. It supports so many jobs in the UK and Q162 Mr Jones: Over what period? is a really important iconic species for us. It is also a Helen McLachlan: I do not think they have a detailed stock that has been overfished in recent years. That is end point. The commitment is for all vessels going to partly to do with the lack of agreement between the sea to have this technology. They are rolling it out various coastal states that are fishing the stock. Not all currently. It is not something that will happen overnight. coastal states are within the CFP; we have to negotiate You cannot all of a sudden one day have a vessel that with Iceland, Norway and the Faroes. does not have the technology. The advice for this year was for a huge cut of that stock, because our luck ran out. We have been overfishing it, and taking too much of a gamble with that stock. Q163 Mr Jones: That is the point I am making here. Finally, a huge cut was proposed to try to get things You are asking for it to be put into the legislation, and back on track. That is, of course, unpalatable. The main clearly in that case at some point vessels would need to thing that we need to do is to move away from that be compliant, so I am trying to get a feel for what that boom-and-bust cycle, so that we do not keep fishing at really means, bearing in mind that there are some the absolute maximum pressure, or even overfishing, timescales that we are working to. and then find it surprising when scientists advise drastic Helen McLachlan: I think a reasonable timescale is cuts. We need to move away from drastic cuts and get perhaps over a two-year period. You have to make the some stability in our fisheries. decision about what system you are going to go with, you have to get the technology on to vessels and set up Q165 Owen Smith: You have obviously been very on the port side. Two years to get the fleet operational is clear that you think that this is a less ambitious set of reasonable. targets, and less binding on Ministers, than the CFP. 83 Public Bill Committee HOUSE OF COMMONS Fisheries Bill 84

[Owen Smith] Debbie Crockard: The advisory councils are also an example of collaboration between the other interest How would you repair the Bill to make it more ambitious groups—OIGs—rather than the NGOs, on the advisory and more binding? Would you simply transpose into the councils, and the industry. While we do not always Bill that second part of article 2.2 of the CFP, or would agree, and it can take a lot of time to come to any you do something else? agreement, there is a lot of really useful discussion and Andrew Clayton: I understand the head scratching collaboration in those groups. about the 2015 deadline and the 2020 deadline.I understand that that might not be appropriate for the Bill at this Q168 Mike Hill (Hartlepool) (Lab): This is a bit of a stage, but Greener UK has submitted amendments that repeat, but are you in favour of redistributing quotas would correct this and ensure that a fishing limit is set more fairly to under-10s? in line with scientific advice. Rebecca Newsom: Yes we are, but we want to stress that the way to achieve that is through introducing Q166 Owen Smith: Finally,do you think that recreational transparent and objective environmental and social criteria fishing could play a part in improving sustainability? that all fleets need to abide by. It is not necessarily a That is to say, certain stocks could be preserved for black-and-white dichotomy between small scale and recreational fishing, as has happened in New Zealand large scale, although of course the new approach would and elsewhere. stand to benefit the smaller-scale fleets significantly, Andrew Clayton: Yes, I think it is time that recreational given their current fishing practices where, for example, fishers were at the table and involved in management about 90% of the under-10s use passive gears. decisions, because they bring a large amount of money into the economy and are involved in fishing mortality Q169 Mike Hill: Do you think that would have a as well. They should be a player in the system. positive economic impact on localities such as Hartlepool, where we hardly have a fleet but where the fleet could The Chair: We have less than 15 minutes remaining, grow given a fairer distribution of quotas? so brief questions and brief answers might be helpful. Rebecca Newsom: Absolutely. I refer the Committee Q167 Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con): My apologies back to the evidence from Jerry Percy on Tuesday. To for arriving late. In my experience, fisheries management add to that, the social criteria that we would suggest is currently incredibly adversarial. We in this place, were used would need to be developed through public parliamentarians, and non-governmental organisations consultation and advice from experts. They should include, very much promote a more collaborative approach, but not be limited to, things such as local employment with the fishermen being the solution. Do you think and port and processing opportunities. That is a way to that that will be achievable in practice, and how do we bed in local economic benefits. make it achievable? We talk about collaboration the whole time, but in the real world it can be very difficult. Q170 Mike Hill: I have one last question on climate Helen McLachlan: Again, it comes down to the processes, change, which is hardly mentioned in the Bill. Are the the implementation and how we are going to take it provisions adequate to abide by international climate forward. There are some good models of collaboration change obligations? What are the implications of climate and effective delivery. For example, the Scottish change for fish stocks and marine ecosystems? Administration have taken a very strong approach to Andrew Clayton: I can say something about the level that, really bringing the catching sector, the processors of precaution and the importance of building resilience. and the NGOs around the table to have very frank As managers of fish stocks, as I said earlier, we cannot discussions about what needs to happen if we are to put fish in the sea and we cannot control biomass meet certain objectives. That is a good model, and one directly.All we can do, when we are managing exploitation that could be replicated by the different Administrations. and managing the fishing fleet, is operate with a suitable We will not deliver sustainable fisheries management by level of precaution and make sure that stocks can be having conflict and not having the catching sector working resilient if they face other pressures. alongside administrators and the NGOs, because we all Fishing pressure obviously has a huge impact on fish represent important constituents. stocks, but so do climate change, habitat degradation Rebecca Newsom: Adopting a more fair, equitable and acidification—there are all kinds of other threats and sustainable approach to the distribution of fishing that fish stocks face. It is about leaving them enough opportunities in the future is of fundamental importance space to be resilient to those other pressures as well. to securing the buy-in of fishers across our coastlines. On the economics, I wanted to say that the concept of We just have to look at the current unequal distribution, maximum sustainable yield is primarily an economic which can also contribute to unsustainable outcomes, concept that gained ground after the second world war. to recognise that we need to see urgent change. It is about providing as much protein for hungry people’s In practice, all we are saying is required to deliver on plates as possible. It is not a green benchmark; it is not that is a couple of small tweaks to clause 20, which something that you would start from if you were looking essentially removes historical catch levels as the prevailing only at the environment—you might want to be more criterion for determining the distribution of fishing cautious with some other measure. opportunities in the future and requires that environmental, It is a happy coincidence that we, as green organisations, social and local economic criteria are prioritised instead. find that we are advocating a high-yield, highly profitable, We need to think about the political buy-in that can be highly economically successful approach. That is what achieved by that and, in turn, how that helps us to other countries around the world have seen when they deliver on the higher-scale MSY objectives that we have have delivered MSY. It is win-win for the environment been talking about. and for the bottom line of fishing businesses. 85 Public Bill Committee 6 DECEMBER 2018 Fisheries Bill 86

Q171 Mr Paul Sweeney (Glasgow North East) (Lab/ that a few very small changes are made to that article Co-op): I would like to ask about the legal implications essentially to remove historic catch levels as one of the of potentially redistributing quotas. What do you envisage determining factors for distributing quota and to prioritise the complexities of that might be? How can we address environmental, social and local economic criteria instead. them as part of the process? What is your take on That would be the tangible, most important change on monopolistic activity in the fishing industry? the face of the Bill. In terms of the follow-up process, Rebecca Newsom: Greenpeace has taken independent the change in the Bill would set the principles and the legal advice on the issue. The conclusion was that, from legal framework for how quota should be distributed in a legal perspective, the Government and any other the future, but it would then become the responsibility relevant national authorities can feel very confident in and powers of the relevant national authorities, including proceeding with this new approach to quota distribution. the devolved Administrations, to run their own public, The prospects of a successful judicial review are very transparent consultation process to determine exactly low, and the reasons for that are twofold. First, in the what those criteria are, how it works in practice and to Brexit process, the proposed amendment is being put implement it. into a new Westminster Act of Parliament. As such, after we leave the EU, Parliament will be supreme and The Chair: We now have to conclude this session. I the law will have superiority to case law. Secondly, the thank all the witnesses for attending; your evidence has 2012 legal case discussed on Tuesday concluded that been very helpful. while there may be some property rights attached to fixed quota allocations, those are not applicable if the quota has not been used. In any case, it is within the power of Examination of Witnesses the Secretary of State to allocate as they see fit. Taken Andrew Brown, Andrew Pillar, Daniel Whittle and together, our conclusion is that such a measure would Mike Park gave evidence. be clearly compatible with national and international law. 12.15 pm The Chair: I thank our new set of witnesses for Q172 Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP): joining us. Could you please introduce yourselves very Good morning, everybody. We have not discussed the briefly? fact that the Bill includes a proposal for a discard Andrew Pillar: My name is Andrew Pillar. I am prevention scheme. Do you have a view as to whether representing Interfish and Northbay Pelagic, which are the measures are transparent enough? What are the primary processing and exporting businesses in Plymouth risks of doing that? Is it the right approach to avoiding and Peterhead, but I am also wearing a hat here on discards? behalf of the Scottish Pelagic Processors Association. Helen McLachlan: Discards are a major issue and we Mike Park: My name is Mike Park and I am chief welcome the continued commitment to trying to minimise executive of the Scottish White Fish Producers Association, discards overall. Our view on the measures in the Bill is representing over 240 businesses. that it is not quite clear what consequences or unintended Andrew Brown: My name is Andrew Brown and I am consequences might arise. We would like to see more the director for sustainability and public affairs at Macduff effort being placed on being clear about what it is we are Shellfish, which is the biggest shellfish processor in taking out of the water and how much we really do need Europe. to discard. Going back to electronic monitoring at sea, we need to get a clear case. What we are concerned Daniel Whittle: I am Daniel Whittle from Whitby about at the end of the day is what we are removing Seafoods, which is the UK’s largest scampi manufacturer. from our ocean systems and how we can account for We are somewhat unique, in that we are entirely supplied that sustainably. I think we would like to see more focus from the UK and supply into the UK. I would say we on that, rather than penalties per se, particularly as we are also representing Northern Ireland, because we are not quite clear on the intended or unintended have a factory there and are very dependent on its consequences at this point. supply. Debbie Crockard: Especially because the original intention of the landing obligation was to improve Q174 George Eustice: Obviously, some of our most selectivity, to make fishing more sustainable and to important fisheries agreements are those with Norway reduce waste. If there are uncertainties and things that and the Faroe Islands and the coastal states agreements are not clear within the Bill, we need to ensure that the on species such as mackerel, all of which are currently legislation is still trying to meet those initial intentions. handled by the EU, where we do not have a direct seat at the table in the way the other coastal states do. Would you explain some of the consequences of that lack of Q173 Alan Brown: Rebecca, if we go back to quotas representation by virtue of the fact that we are an EU and quota allocations, you are talking about wanting to member? see more transparency, environmental measures and Andrew Pillar: I have attended many of those meetings social benefits. You spoke about public consultation with teams travelling from the UK, and it is an extremely developing that. What do you actually want to see on frustrating position to witness that power being taken the face of the Bill? That is what we are looking at just out of the hands of a team representing the UK and now. How do we get those protections in the Bill? placed in the hands of the EU, making decisions that Rebecca Newsom: In terms of the Bill, we are talking are not best aligned with the interests of the UK catching specifically about clause 20, which starts off as a and processing sector. We have seen in recent years this transposition of article 17 of the CFP.We are suggesting becoming a very difficult issue in terms of negotiating 87 Public Bill Committee HOUSE OF COMMONS Fisheries Bill 88 away access to UK waters, in the coastal states agreements, now been balanced against north Norway cod, which for a period of time that has been inconsistent with the the Spanish and French are lobbying heavily to get. best interests of the UK. That could mean that we do not get the haddock we Mike Park: You will be aware that the EU-Norway want in the North sea. The answer to your question, negotiations are going on in London as we speak. They Minister, is yes, it works against us at times. failed to come to a conclusion last week. I have been going to these negotiations for over 25 years, I think, Q176 George Eustice: All of you export some of your and one aspect of the negotiations that we look at with products. In the event of a World Trade Organisation envy is the Norwegian Government always sitting with scenario with most favoured nation tariffs, how high is their sector. They normally have five or six fishermen the tariff on the fresh fish that you sell, and are you bound roundabout them so that they can feed from more worried about tariffs or the possibility of border one another in terms of what the appropriate output inspection posing some disruption to the supply chain? should be. Which concerns you most when it comes to trade? I also feel sorry for some of the member state officials, Andrew Brown: As a shellfish processor, we are highly such as the officials from the Department for Environment, reliant on exports, particularly to Europe, which is Food and Rural Affairs and Marine Scotland, who sit the destination for 95% of our scallops, for example. At in these meetings, because very often they are kept out the moment we enjoy free and frictionless trade, so the of the heads of delegation meetings, where the detail of implementation of MFN tariffs would have significant the discussions and sometimes the conclusion agreements effects. We have done some calculations for the shellfish are set. For 25 years, we have sat there, looking at industry as a whole. Weare looking at perhaps £43 million Norway with envy, thinking that at some point we in additional costs on shellfish exporters if we moved to would like to do that, and I think that, as we move that, plus, with third-country agreements with the likes forward, perhaps we will. For us, it has always been a of South Korea, probably another £5 million on top of negative that the fishermen of Europe are not talked to that—that is per annum. Whether some of that can be in any way other than a loose way, and we are certainly absorbed by the customers and buyers in Europe is a not bound into any of the negotiations to feed in in an difficult one to see. It is a competitive market; therefore, appropriate manner. we have concerns that this will have an impact on our Andrew Brown: I can say a little about this: I used to competitiveness and on how well we are able to sell our be involved in these negotiations for the Scottish product. Government. It was very difficult to try to continue the The non-tariff barriers are equally, if not more, dialogue with the industry as the negotiations went on. important. If we move to a stage where we need health One of the roles I had was to speak to Mike and his like checks and border checks at both sides of the border, as the negotiations continued. I think there is something that will cause a delay. For shellfish—a highly perishable, in what Mike has suggested. high-premium product—a 12-hour delay can reduce Daniel Whittle: I do not get to go to the negotiations, value by almost 50%. If you are delayed for 48 hours, but in the previous session there was talk about TAC you have more or less lost that consignment. The non-tariff being set above the recommended scientific advice, and aspects are really significant for the shellfish sector and I know a good example of where that happens: area 7 for other sectors. in the Irish sea, for nephrops, where there is a large, 20,000-tonne fishery. Every year they set it above that because the French and the Spanish have quotas that Q177 George Eustice: On scallops, the MFN tariff is are largely unused, so they set the TAC above what the 8%. Arguably, that is a bit like VAT—it is a tax on the recommended scientific advice is, to allow that to happen. consumer, ultimately. I know some in the fish processing There is nuance in when the TAC is set above what the sector have said, “Yes, we would obviously rather have scientific advice is. tariff-free trade, but don’t sell out the catching sector on our behalf.” I wondered whether an 8% tariff, at the end of the day, given the fluctuations in market price anyway, Q175 George Eustice: In conclusion on this point of is hugely problematic. the important fisheries in the North sea, is it your view Andrew Brown: Of course, we do not welcome such a that British interests get traded away by the EU in order tariff. We have to remember that the shellfish sector is to get advantages for other member states? not really gaining anything in additional quotas through Andrew Pillar: The opportunity for us is not to be Brexit. These are non-quota stocks, other than the underestimated—to be at the table as a coastal state. langoustine, which we already have a very large share That is the prize we in the industry see. Mike touched of, so there is no benefit to us—to the shellfish sector—from on that point about the industry working with Government the Brexit process. We do not expect our catches to be to best achieve those objectives. There will be some able to go up much, and we require access to some trading and negotiations, but they need to be right for European waters for scallops and crabs, so there are the UK and at this moment we are not in that position multiple threats to the shellfish sector. We need to because we are not a coastal state, but this framework ensure that the sector is not forgotten about in the will enable that and delivery of a coastal state has to be larger discussion on fin fishing. the objective. Mike Park: There is a typical example going on just Luke Pollard: In previous sessions, you might have now in the current negotiations, where the quota of heard me asking about a national landing obligation—a North sea haddock next year will come down by requirement to land fish caught under a UK quota in approximately 30%. We would like to get some trade in UK ports. Would that have an impact on the processing from Norway to help us through next year, but that has side of the businesses that you represent? In the interest 89 Public Bill Committee 6 DECEMBER 2018 Fisheries Bill 90 of complete disclosure, I also declare an interest, because To give our perspective on the landing obligation, in Mr Pillar and Interfish are based in the constituency Northern Ireland, it is challenging that there is a whiting that I represent. What impact would a landing obligation bycatch. There has been a lot of work on selectivity to to land fish in UK ports have on your sector? Would it reduce it. I fear that the approach being taken, which is be beneficial? “Let’s have a deadline,” is not a practical approach. The Andrew Pillar: One of the key things in the port that approach should be that fisheries continue to try to we originate from, in Plymouth, is the market—the remove unwanted catch from their nets, but it should auction—and the opportunity for fishermen at all levels not be deadline-driven; it should be a continuous to access that and sell their catch. That is from the improvement approach. under-10 fleet right through to larger vessels. As it Andrew Brown: On the foreign vessel conditions, the stands, that business has absolutely no security and no Bill needs a little more explanation. Each fishing certainty that there will be a supply of fish coming into administration is able to establish its own licence and that marketplace if operators were to choose to put therefore its own licence conditions, and each fishing their fish into the back of a lorry and send it directly administration can in principle establish licences for overseas, which can and does happen. In some ports foreign vessels as well. A problem could exist whereby a around the country, that has evolved under the CFP to British or a foreign fishing vessel, fishing in different a situation where markets have failed and there has not waters around the UK, might be subject to different been the opportunity to have a diverse marketplace for licence conditions. It is not clear to me in the Bill how small, medium and larger vessels. that will operate. That could indeed have an effect on In the pelagic sector, the opportunities around UK fishermen who fish in more than one fishing employment export, upstream and downstream, are administration’s waters and on what licence conditions wide-ranging. Tobe competitive in many of those markets, will apply. it is essential to have a critical mass—a business must Mike Park: In Scottish waters, we do a lot to try and have that critical mass. In the UK, we operate with very protect the stocks. We have closed areas for spawning different bases for business in terms of business rates, females of cod. We have other areas for abundances, labour costs and harbour costs,which do not put processing and of course we have a network of marine protected on an even playing field with many of our competitors, areas, like everyone else. One of the things that we ask but we must recognise that it is a competitive market. for going forward—it is a positive, but a negative for What we do have is some of the best, highest quality our fishermen—is that we avoid the areas of high seafood that we will stake our case for being sustainably density. Chances are that that means we catch less fish produced within British waters. That is a highly desirable in terms of economic viability. We could go to area A product and not to be undervalued. and catch loads of fish, but we do not; we avoid it. We Mike Park: From a Scottish perspective, in terms of go to area B where we catch less, but it allows stocks to landing to the market, up in Scotland all our vessels recover. We do not feel there is equivalence across the operate locally. We do not fish north Norway, the EU because some of our EU colleagues enter these Mediterranean or the Pacific or anything; we fish around areas while we have them closed unilaterally. On issues our coasts. like that, in the future we would have to ensure that whatever happens there is a degree of equivalence, so The vast majority of the demersal fish comes in to that when we make a rule in UK waters, that rule ports such as Peterhead, which is the largest white fish applies to everyone. I am sure it will. port in Europe, and Fraserburgh, which is the largest nephrops port in Europe. You see the investment going on there: we have a new fish market there, and last week Q178 Luke Pollard: We heard in one of our evidence we landed 36,000 boxes of fish into that fish market, sessions on Tuesday that some fish are caught in UK which is unprecedented elsewhere. You see a significant waters, exported to China for processing and then brought investment in new vessels—replacement vessels, not back. I think an awful lot of people will have found that additional vessels. You see an enthusiasm up there, very disturbing. The issue of food miles has dropped which is built on the fact that the stocks are on our from the political agenda, especially with the focus on shores, we take care of them and we land it back to our trade deals with countries far away. How do consumers markets. There is a small amount that goes to northern know whether they are buying fish that has been caught, Denmark for the Christmas market—we utilise their landed and processed in the UK, or something that has market for saithe over that period—but apart from that, travelled all the way round the world and back again to everything largely comes back home to Scotland. get to your plate? Daniel Whittle: Can I ask a question? Where did your Luke Pollard: One of our concerns about the Bill is suit come from? [Laughter.] And where was it made? the potential for standards to be different on British fishing boats versus foreign fishing boats fishing in Luke Pollard: It’s from Marks and Spencer, like all British waters. From your point of view, for those who the best suits. trade here, is there a concern that there could be a differential in terms of cost base, compliance and Daniel Whittle: Are you bothered about where it has regulations, environmental protections and marine safety or has not been in the supply chain? You trust Marks if there is not a level playing field between British and Spencer to act ethically, so why would you scrutinise fishing boats and foreign fishing boats in our waters? a fishery? Daniel Whittle: I have a suggestion on that front. There was discussion about remote monitoring. You Q179 Luke Pollard: The difference is that there is a could make that part of a requirement of fishing in UK label so that I can see where it is made. As a consumer, if waters, so that there would be a level playing field. I rock up to a supermarket and buy some fish, how do I 91 Public Bill Committee HOUSE OF COMMONS Fisheries Bill 92

[Luke Pollard] has been adequately heard in the debate, or do you feel that you have been slightly subsumed into the big know where it has come from? Can we get clarity for fishing producers and big organisations? Are your concerns British consumers who might be under the impression adequately covered in the Bill? that, because we are an island nation, the fish we buy Andrew Brown: Obviously, fisheries have played a have simply been plucked out of the sea and brought in? prominent role in Brexit and there has been a lot of Daniel Whittle: Ethically, should you not be wearing publicity about the possibility of additional quotas. a British wool suit? The fact that inshore fisheries and shellfish fisheries will not gain from that has probably been underplayed. Luke Pollard: Perhaps we can do less on suits and There is certainly that aspect to it. We want to see tools more on fish. in the Bill to allow Ministers to manage shellfish stock sustainably. If anything, shellfish stock management has probably lagged considerably behind demersal and The Chair: Order. pelagic management because of some inherent difficulties Mike Park: Perhaps I can answer the question that in the stocks, given their patchy distribution across UK the hon. Member posed. In Scotland, I chair a group waters. called the Scottish Fisheries Sustainable Accreditation However, it has always been the kind of fishery that Group. That group focuses on ensuring that we build new entrants have come into, because if you are a new stocks up to sustainable levels and that our fishermen entrant to a fishery you need three things: a licence, a harvest stocks appropriately in terms of selectivity and vessel and a quota. Those are all expensive, but to get other things. Once we reach a certain standard, we put into the shellfish sector you do not need your quota, them through the gold standard of the Marine Stewardship because they are non-quota stocks. The main way to get Council certification. The consumer is more concerned into the fishing industry is through the shellfish sector, about whether she is buying a sustainably caught fish— and to try to build up a quota from there. That means quality fish—than she is about where it is filleted. By that the entrance to shellfish fisheries is not very well attaching that mark we ensure we give comfort to the controlled. Consequently,it is difficult to use management consumer. I think that where it is filleted or whatever is levers. a bit of a red herring—excuse the pun. At the end of the day, the consumer is focused on whether the fish comes We would try to increase the significance, or the from a sustainable source and whether it is of good relative importance, that shellfish fisheries have in the quality. That is what we as an industry group actually Bill. Scallop shellfish fisheries are the most important ensure. fisheries in England, and the third most important fisheries in the whole of the UK, in terms of value. Andrew Pillar: One of the things that we would like They have not been given the kind of management, to see strengthened is the recognition around labelling attention and science that they need. and for labelling to be consistent with the chain of custody and provenance—where a fish has been through its life cycle. That really is driven by point of landing. If Q181 Brendan O’Hara: You talked about the financial something is British, that point of landing is key because and time cost of any barriers being put up. It is essential you start to derive the value upstream and downstream that a lot of the live product gets to continental in the chain of jobs dependent on that fish being Europe as quickly as it can. Are you confident from produced. what you have seen in the Bill, and from what you Andrew Brown: I agree with what Mike said about have heard from the debate surrounding the Bill, that accreditation. Macduff is working hard on accreditation those time costs in particular will not damage your for nephrops stocks and scallop stocks. That is important industry? to us, and, post Brexit, accreditation and certification Andrew Brown: I am not sure that much can be done will become that much more important to guarantee the on this on the face of the Bill, but obviously, on how sustainability of our stocks. ports are managed and facilities maintained, within the Bill there is certainly the power to award grants to Alan Brown: Andrew, you commented that access to support infrastructure to someplace where you might EU markets and the EU workforce is critical for business have looked into their storage and freezing facilities. and industry. What will the ending of free movement But yes, you are right; any kind of delay becomes quite mean for your industry? Have you seen any impact of significant. A two-hour delay on a motorway heading Brexit already since the referendum? Also, what are towards a port can mean you miss the ferry, which can your views on future immigration policy? The UK lead to a day’s delay. An awful lot needs to be done to Government are talking about not allowing what they ensure the smooth running of this. Local authorities call “low-skilled workers”, and having a £30,000 threshold are involved as well, because we need export health for qualification. certificates from them. There is a lot of work to be done to ensure that delays are minimised to the smallest amount possible. The Chair: Order. I am advised that free movement is beyond the scope of the Bill. Brendan O’Hara: Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr Robertson; I am sure my esteemed colleague has Q180 Brendan O’Hara: I have a question for Mr Brown now reworded his question. about the importance of the shellfish industry. As the Member of Parliament for Argyll and Bute, I understand the importance of shellfish to my west of Scotland The Chair: We will come back to Mr Brown, but we constituency the. Do you think that the shellfish industry have to move over to the other side. 93 Public Bill Committee 6 DECEMBER 2018 Fisheries Bill 94

Q182 David Duguid (Banff and Buchan) (Con): Earlier, Andrew Brown: Yes, there will be challenges going you talked about how the likes of Norway, Iceland and forward. Obviously it comes back to an earlier point others have been looked on with envy in negotiations, that Mr Brown made about EU migration policy. We probably not just by us, but by other EU member states. have a lot of reliance on that—76% of our workforce In the future, as an independent coastal state, when we are EU migrants. In the longer term, we hope to see end up in those negotiations with that increased power, commitment of investment from Government into what role do you see Ministers and officials from devolved vocational training for workers, both on land and at Assemblies playing, and how well is that covered in the sea. In the short term, it is very difficult to see where we Bill? can get staff. Retention of staff is really important for Mike Park: In the discussions that we have had with us. We do what we can to make the job as attractive as both the Scottish Government and with Ministers and possible and to look after our staff, but going forward it officials at DEFRA, we have always tried to put across is an issue we have to plan for. the point that now we have a blank sheet of paper, we Daniel Whittle: In both Whitby and Kilkeel, in Northern should look at governance structures and good governance. Ireland, about 80% of the workforce are local. I personally It is essential that one of the lessons we learn from the believe that a high availability of low-skilled and low-paid CFP is that we should start to build policy from the people has perhaps made life relatively easy—not easy bottom up. That is perhaps not how we should approach but easier—when businesses compete. I think the area international negotiations, but it aligns with where the of competition may lean more towards productivity— key areas should be. output per person and kilos per hour—and be much It is essential that we build a suitable advisory structure, more focused on automation. Not everything can be perhaps within the Administrations but certainly within automated, but if there is support to help with that the UK. I think, as we move forward into what will process, and I think there is a mention of that in the become trilaterals on setting tax and bilaterals on exchanges Bill, then that could ease the situation. and balances, we should start to bind the sector in there. Mike Park: May I mention the catching sector? It is You referred to my previous comments about looking perhaps not contained within the Bill. If you want me on in envy at our Norwegian colleagues, who are part of to stop I certainly will. This is in relation to our reliability the Norwegian delegation. We would ask Ministers—or on non-EEA crew in the fishing sector and the problems the people to whom we need to apply—to ensure that for communities in the west of Scotland, where we there are knowledgeable people sitting behind the officials cannot bring in non-EEA workers because they come in and doing the negotiations. on a transit visa and are not allowed to operate inside Andrew Pillar: In my experience—I have been to 12 miles. If you look at the west of Scotland, there are several rounds of mackerel coastal states talks this very few areas where they can work where they are not year—the officials representing the Scottish Government operating inside 12 miles, which means that they are and DEFRA are very competent, well informed and, struggling for crew. quite honestly, raring to go in what I see as individuals Daniel Whittle: Just to follow up, that has a significant lined up to be taking that seat negotiating on our behalf impact on the nephrops fishery, which has historically as a UK coastal state. We are very enthusiastic about been one of the top three high-value species in UK that. fishing over the past 10 years. This year—as of last I echo the points you have already heard about making week—that quota was 51% caught. It has been sure that the industry is close to that. I have seen first fundamentally undermined by the lack of crew available hand how that has happened, with the likes of the to fish on the boats, and that goes across the west of Faroese Government listening very carefully to their Scotland and Northern Ireland. In the North sea, where industry and acting on their instructions to deliver for most of the fisheries are outside the 12 miles, the them. landings have actually increased.

Q183 David Duguid: Do you think the role of the Q185 Mr Sweeney: Are you satisfied that the grant devolved Administrations is adequately covered in the provisions in clause 28 are robust enough? Would you Bill? like to see further definition of what those opportunities Mike Park: Personally I would have liked to see some might be, if you are looking at labour substitution with tighter wording around structures, governance and capital investment to offset the cost and scarcity of inclusion. The document talks about “interested persons” labour? being asked to comment. I am not entirely sure how Daniel Whittle: It is currently very vague in the Bill, I broad that goes. I would like to be classed as more than would say. an “interested person”—not just me personally, but across the broader industry sector. The Chair: We have only 10 minutes to go and I have four questioners. Brief questions and brief answers Q184 Mr Sweeney: There has been a focus on the would be appreciated. pricing aspects of the impact of Brexit, but I am also interested in the workforce aspects, particularly in more remote communities, such as the Western Isles, where Q186 Bill Grant (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (Con): there is a big shellfish industry. If we look at the skills I ask this to everyone, with the exception of Whitby profile of the fishing industry in the UK, 67% of the Seafoods, who I think source UK and sell UK catch for workforce is in the process. What long-term impact do the other three panel members. I am sure the movement you think that will have on the skills profile and the age of fish products—catch—will be dictated by the consumers’ of the workforce, and will that present any challenges palate rather than by any Bill. I understand that there is for you? a lot caught in UK waters and shipped abroad. There is 95 Public Bill Committee HOUSE OF COMMONS Fisheries Bill 96

[Bill Grant] when they renew some of the plans. It is difficult to see how they could impact on us, other than to ignore us. almost a reversal; we like what somebody else catches For instance, the December Council is coming up. We and somebody else likes what we catch. Is there anything are still a member state at that Council. Could they in the Bill that will impair that continued process, which ignore us during that? We normally go with a shopping is essential for the industry? Is there anything in the Bill list. As the Minister will know, England has normally that could improve that process for the future? got its requirements and Scotland has its requirements. Andrew Brown: I do not think there is anything in the Whether we are in the IP or whatever—if the IP comes— Bill. If you look at shellfish, for example, our only and whether we are ignored during those events could important market in the UK is for langoustine tails for impact on us. As yet that is an unknown, but yes, there scampi. Practically everything else goes abroad, mainly is the possibility. to the EU but to some other parts of the world as well. I think it is very difficult to change food culture.Traditionally, Q189 Owen Smith: On tariffs, the Minister was implying UK consumers have not eaten crab, scallops or dog that an 8% increase in tariffs on shellfish might not whelks to any great extent. It would take a long time to necessarily be a problem. You talked about £43 million change that, I think. Even if we could do that, we would of increased costs for the industry. Would we see more still have more product than would be consumed by a or fewer jobs in the industry if we had an extra 8% tariffs UK market. It would not be just be a case of changing on our shellfish? tastes. We would need to increase the general uptake of seafood in people’s diet as well. Even then, we would Andrew Brown: It is difficult to predict. Obviously, it still have more product than could be sold. will affect our competitiveness and it is a competitive market, so it cannot be a good thing for the industry, Andrew Pillar: In our experience of working with but different products have different premiums and can British retailers and consumer markets, there is a real absorb different levels of tariffs. It really depends what opportunity to engage people with what British-produced, stock you are talking about and what market you are good fresh fish looks like and what it tastes like. I was talking about. There is an average of an 8% to 9% tariff with the Minister in the last 12 months, eating gurnard value across all our stocks, so clearly that is not going to in a local restaurant in Plymouth. There is that opportunity, help us in terms of profitably. but we need to get the retailers and other points of the supply chain on board to recognise exactly what we have within our waters, and to think differently. When Q190 Owen Smith: Are you anticipating growth in we put that in front of consumers, in our experience your industry post Brexit? quite often we can see that they can be well-priced, Andrew Brown: Yes. I think we are, but it is reliant on competitive, very good offerings. We have to try to a number of factors and the sustainability and management market that and it is not straightforward. It takes effort. of the stocks. We are very dependent on, let us say, growth in China. Currently the situation is good, but Q187 Bill Grant: Going forward, do you see wider that market can be subject to sudden and unexpected markets beyond the European Union? Do you see regulatory change, which can close off markets just as opportunities for the products caught off UK shores quickly as they open up. There are risks associated with elsewhere in the world, other than the EU? that, and we have to build that into our business planning. Andrew Pillar: In our experience, very much so. We have experience already with exports throughout Asia Q191 Peter Aldous: There is a scenario at present in and elsewhere around the world. There is a very strong the southern North sea where a significant amount of demand, particularly for the pelagic products coming fish is caught, in particular by Dutch vessels, using from UK waters, based on the quality that we have particularly unsustainable practices such as electric pulse available. fishing, and it is processed in the Netherlands and then Andrew Brown: From our perspective, we have growing imported back into the UK. That presents three challenges: markets in Asia and north America, but they are not of allowing UK fishermen to catch more of the fish in our the scale that would be able to replace what we currently waters; promoting sustainable fishing so electric pulse export to Europe. fishing just cannot take place in the way it has; and Daniel Whittle: We have seen evidence of something promoting our own processing sector. Does the Bill similar of late, with brown crabs. There has been a help us achieve those three goals? significant increase in the price of brown crabs as a Andrew Pillar: We have expertise in the demersal consequence of exports of live brown crab to China, sector but also in demersal processing. This is a stepping which is driving up the price. stone in that direction. There is clearly other work that will need to be done, but it is part of the enabling Q188 Owen Smith: Generally, you have obviously set framework. It is clear from the work that was done in a lot of store by the prospect of us being at the top terms of the consultation and the White Paper behind table, as it were, when we are a so-called independent the Bill, and from my engagement with the team who coastal state. Are you worried that during transition we went out on the road and did the fact finding, that a are going to be even further away from the top table tremendous amount of work went into producing the than we are presently? Bill. We recognise that, and we recognise that it is not all Mike Park: There is some concern that Europe could going to be there on day one. This is part of the introduce some rules or plans that impact on us more framework. If we successfully implement the Bill and its than on other member states. There is that concern. spirit, we will set out a framework for sustainable How real those concerns are, I am not entirely sure. production—for harvesting fish, for having access to Pelagic is the area that should probably be most concerned, markets and for domestic processing—and for enabling 97 Public Bill Committee 6 DECEMBER 2018 Fisheries Bill 98 those people who are employed indirectly and have no The Chair: We have less than two minutes, but I call direct association with fishing opportunities or quotas Marcus Jones. to find employment. Mike Park: I guess the good thing is that the Bill does Q193 Mr Jones: The standards of foreign and UK not do anything horribly wrong. That is the main thing vessels have been mentioned. Mr Whittle, you mentioned for me. electronic monitoring equipment. I did not quite catch— pardon the pun—what you said, so would you elaborate on that? In that context, Mr Brown, will you say a little Q192 Peter Aldous: Should we have Bills that do not about licensing if we have time? do anything horribly wrong or Bills that promote the best possible practices? Daniel Whittle: I said if you were serious about implementing the landing obligation and seeing it as a Mike Park: It allows fisheries to develop in a positive source of data, which I believe it is, you should have way. It does nothing to restrict that, and it does nothing remote electronic monitoring of UK vessels and make overly to promote it. If you overly promote something that a necessary criterion for fishing in UK waters, and it is wrong, the chances are that is not a good thing. which would mean that any foreign boat wishing to fish It does nothing horribly wrong. It should allow fisheries in UK waters would need it, too. We feel it particularly to progress into this highly sustainable and sought after acutely because we buy the smaller end of our species, product. As an industry we are very aware of the and there tends to be high grading within the Irish fleet, marketplace and of regulation. For us, that is essential, which frustrates us. because as we leave Europe and the spotlight comes on us in terms of sustainability, we will have to do things Andrew Pillar: Can I very quickly interject? We have better than anyone else if we want to increase our experience of doing trial work for the REM equipment market share. That is where our awareness is currently with DEFRA on the demersal fleet in the south-west, focused, and the Bill does nothing to stop that. and— Andrew Brown: I agree with that. It is a framework Bill. The proof will be in the pudding—in the policies The Chair: Order. I am terribly sorry, but my hands that emerge from this framework. The principles of are tied; I have to end the session at 1 o’clock, which it sustainability and scientific basis, which we support, now is. I apologise to Mr Brown that I was not able to should stand us in good stead. bring him back in. Witnesses, thank you very much for joining us today. It has been very useful. Daniel Whittle: I echo that. There are a lot of excellent policies in the Bill. I particularly support the focus on 1 pm the devolution of licensing and so on. The challenges in Scotland and England are different from those in Wales The Chair adjourned the Committee without Question and Northern Ireland. Allowing devolved Governments put (Standing Order No. 88). to control effort is a big step forward. Adjourned till this day at Two o’clock.

PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES HOUSE OF COMMONS OFFICIAL REPORT GENERAL COMMITTEES

Public Bill Committee

FISHERIES BILL

Fourth Sitting

Thursday 6 December 2018

(Afternoon)

CONTENTS Examination of witnesses. The Committee adjourned till Tuesday 11 December at twenty-five minutes past Nine o’clock. Written evidence reported to the House.

PBC (Bill 278) 2017 - 2019 No proofs can be supplied. Corrections that Members suggest for the final version of the report should be clearly marked in a copy of the report—not telephoned—and must be received in the Editor’s Room, House of Commons,

not later than

Monday 10 December 2018

© Parliamentary Copyright House of Commons 2018 This publication may be reproduced under the terms of the Open Parliament licence, which is published at www.parliament.uk/site-information/copyright/. 99 Public Bill Committee 6 DECEMBER 2018 Fisheries Bill 100

The Committee consisted of the following Members:

Chairs: JAMES GRAY,†DAVID HANSON,MR LAURENCE ROBERTSON,SIR DAVID CRAUSBY

† Aldous, Peter (Waveney) (Con) † O’Hara, Brendan (Argyll and Bute) (SNP) † Brown, Alan (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP) Pennycook, Matthew (Greenwich and Woolwich) Carmichael, Mr Alistair (Orkney and Shetland) (LD) (Lab) † Debbonaire, Thangam (Bristol West) (Lab) † Pollard, Luke (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) † Duguid, David (Banff and Buchan) (Con) (Lab/Co-op) † Eustice, George (Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries † Smith, Owen (Pontypridd) (Lab) and Food) † Stewart, Iain (Milton Keynes South) (Con) † Sweeney, Mr Paul (Glasgow North East) (Lab/Co- † Grant, Bill (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (Con) op) † Hill, Mike (Hartlepool) (Lab) † Tracey, Craig (North Warwickshire) (Con) Hollinrake, Kevin (Thirsk and Malton) (Con) † Jones, Mr Marcus (Nuneaton) (Con) Gail Poulton, Lis Gerhold, Committee Clerks † Lefroy, Jeremy (Stafford) (Con) † Morris, James (Halesowen and Rowley Regis) (Con) † attended the Committee

Witnesses

Griffin Carpenter, Senior Researcher, New Economics Foundation

Dr Carl O’Brien CBE, DEFRA Chief Fisheries Science Adviser, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

Dr Amy Pryor, Programme Manager at the Thames Estuary Partnership and the Chair of the Coastal Partnerships Network, Coastal Communities Alliance

Elaine Whyte, Communities Inshore Fisheries Alliance 101 Public Bill Committee HOUSE OF COMMONS Fisheries Bill 102

“Rather than just transposing article 17, let’s put in Public Bill Committee actual criteria such as contribution to local economies or low environmental impact”, but that is not in there Thursday 6 December 2018 right now.

(Afternoon) Q196 George Eustice: A lot of this comes down to the difference between a White Paper, which explains the [DAVID HANSON in the Chair] Government’s policy on something and what they intend to achieve with a Bill, and the Bill itself, which is simply Fisheries Bill the legal powers required to carry out the White Paper. There is a clause in the Bill that gives us the power to 2 pm have a super-levy on over-quota fish or, indeed, to have The Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food a tender regime for different quota. Does that not give (George Eustice): I beg to move, all the powers we need? What powers are missing? That the order of the Committee of 4 December be varied, by Griffin Carpenter: The powers are there. I understand leaving out “and 5.00pm” in paragraph (1)(c). that the Fisheries Bill is enabling legislation and this This amendment has been agreed by the Whips. Committee has had to struggle with asking questions about an enabling piece of legislation. I have a couple of Question put and agreed to. comments. If we want to do something about existing quota—not just the idea of quota that is gained—we Examination of witness need to do something in the Fisheries Bill itself. For Griffin Carpenter gave evidence. example, you have heard other witnesses say, “With extra quota we can solve all problems—any issues around 2.1 pm new entrants, the small scale sector and so on—as long Q194 The Chair: I invite the witness to introduce as the existing quota is protected.” Of course, that is himself and his organisation. their interest—they are the quota holders. But we have been working with people who do not hold the quota Griffin Carpenter: My name is Griffin Carpenter and and they are interested in breaking the lock around I am a researcher at the New Economics Foundation. existing FQAs. My work on fisheries policy takes a mixed-method approach; for example, last year I produced an economic In essence, fisheries have been accidentally privatised. impact assessment of Brexit scenarios across the UK Every year, quota is allocated to the same holders, and fishing fleet—large and small quota holders and non- there is a legitimate expectation that that continues in holders—and followed up the work this year by going future. The Department for Environment, Food and to four case study ports and interviewing fishers about Rural Affairs and other organisations are too scared to what future fisheries legislation could deliver for them. break that hold on the quota and say, “This year we will allocate quota differently.” It has not been done; it is Q195 George Eustice: You will be aware that our basically privatised now the claim is so strong. If there White Paper on the Bill set out our intention to start to is ever a point to break that link, it is now. depart from fixed quota allocation units as the basis of We are redoing our fisheries legislation, so at the quota allocation, to create the possibility of tendering same time as allocating fishing opportunities, I would quotatoproducerorganisationsbasedontheirsustainability put something like a seven-year notice period. In seven track record, what they give back to local communities years, all quota goes back to the Government and we and what they offer new entrants, and to use quota to can decide who gets to fish 100% of our quota, rather help with the discard ban and possibly to put more into than just the idea that some quota will be gained. That the under-10 pool. Do you broadly support that direction is great if it happens, but we do not know for which of travel? species or whether that is the species required for the Griffin Carpenter: Yes, I was pleased to see what was landing obligation or the small-scale fleet. in the White Paper. We have been calling for some of those things for years. As the method of doing that we Q197 George Eustice: Do you accept that a lot of proposed something like a quota reserve, where the business models have been based on buying vessels with Government set aside some quota and some is allocated the quota attached and, therefore, there is a legitimate based on historical track record and some is set aside expectation, having paid money to get the vessel with its saying that we have multiple objectives for fisheries entitlement to some kind of property right, even though management—new entrants and the landing obligation, it is not an indefinite one? as you say—so this quota can be served for different Griffin Carpenter: Exactly. When those purchases are purposes. I think of it a bit like agricultural subsidies made, it is not known how strong that property right is. where, over time, some continue to be based on production There is an issue with banks not understanding if they or land area, but some are set aside saying that we have can give a loan to a fishing vessel because they hold a many objectives in this sector. The Government need to quota: how long is that good for? If the stocks go up retain some quota to do that. and down, what earnings will they have 10 years from The problem is that that is not followed up in the now? The point of the notice period is to get around Bill, which just transposes article 17, which, as written, that. To give a couple of examples people can look into, is not being implemented by member states. That is the Faroe Islands recently renationalised all their fishing the problem with article 17. I was a bit disappointed opportunities, and Denmark has a notice period and to see the Bill not go through with what was in the has extended it recently. It reallocated some quota from White Paper. I think it could be more specific and say, large to small and, as something of a compromise, 103 Public Bill Committee 6 DECEMBER 2018 Fisheries Bill 104 extended the length of the notice period, to say, “Okay, much pressure on shellfish, what will these guys do? we reallocated from large to small, but we won’t touch They need some quota to release the pressure on shellfish this again for 14 years—that’s your notice period.” stocks such as crab or scallops, so they have another seasonable fishery. Q198 George Eustice: Do you not think that might change from species to species? It might not be a Q200 Luke Pollard: Having the Bill list fish as a straightforward seven-year period if you were to do public good has been mooted by some stakeholders as things fairly. one way definitively to say that fish is a public good and Griffin Carpenter: Are you saying what will not be should be allocated for the benefit of the country. From fair by species? your research, is that something that would make a difference? George Eustice: Yes. A seven-year period might not Griffin Carpenter: Absolutely. When I have spoken to be fair for everyone because some might have paid more stakeholders, even the quota holders, everyone starts for different types of entitlement. from the same premise that fish is a public good, but from my perspective that has not been followed through Griffin Carpenter: No. If we are dealing with this as a in the way we treat the opportunity to fish that public public resource, the claim is the same no matter which good. It is only in a couple of hands. You and I cannot fish species it is. The idea is that it is a public resource. go fishing; we do not have fishing licences and we We are happy for some members of society to have that certainly do not have quota, so that opportunity is right to fish, and not others, but we still reserve the right limited. How do we think about that, as the public? I to change that in future. That is true whether it is think we do so through having conditions attached to mackerel, herring, cod or haddock. those licences: “If you’re going to fish, then X, Y and Z.” I know that you are interested in the economic link Q199 Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) as an issue, but allocating quotas and the distribution of (Lab/Co-op): The NEF study of small fishers around that matters as well. the UK was interesting in highlighting the views of the under-10 fleets in particular. If there is an opportunity, Q201 Luke Pollard: You have the allocation of quota— as the Minister outlined, to reallocate future quota or, who has the ability to fish—but the economic link is an subject to amendments being accepted, reallocate existing important additional, complementary policy.I am especially quota, what do you think the opportunity is for small concerned about those small communities around our fishers in particular and coastal communities from any coast for which fishing has historically been a very type of reallocation from our EU friends to those strong industry, but that strength has reduced over the communities, or from big boats to small boats? course of our involvement in the CFP. Would requiring Griffin Carpenter: There are two different types of a national obligation to land at least 50% of your catch potential reallocation: one from European fishers to in any one quarter, but allocated on a species-by-species UK fishers, including the small scale, and the question basis, make a difference? Where would the difference be whether we change those distributions in the UK share. most felt, in your opinion? Would it be in small communities The principle is the same: can the small scale benefit or larger ones? How would it be distributed? from having additional fishing opportunities, however Griffin Carpenter: I guess the first point to make is those come? Our research has shown that there is a that every trend or practice we see in the industry is desire for fishers. there for a reason. I am sure you are aware of that, but There is some confusion because small-scale boats we need to think, “Why are the landings not taking often target shellfish. They are not fishing a lot of quota place in the UK right now?” The first reason is probably right now; they are catching crab, lobster, cuttlefish and the price effect. If you can get a higher price elsewhere, anything they can get their hands on. Nephrops are you land it elsewhere. If we are going to change some of subject to quota. People say, “They don’t have quota so the incentives, or have a conditional policy such as the they don’t need quota,” but if you speak to them, they economic link, be aware that basically we are accepting say, “If we had it, we would love to use it,” because a lot a trade-off: fishers might not be as profitable in the of small-scale fisheries are mixed—they will do something catching sector because they are getting lower prices on for one season and then switch to quota species if they first sale in the UK, but we may well make up for that have it. later in the value chain. Just be aware that that is the There is also a problem with new entrants, which trade-off you are accepting. overlaps a bit. You heard earlier that, traditionally, the The idea of an economic link as a principle that the route into fisheries for young people—fewer are entering public resource should be landed in the UK is a valid at the moment—is through shellfish, because it is so economic one. I would go about designing the policy a hard to get your hands on quota. You might be able to bit differently. The economic link is very rigid; you are buy a fishing licence, but buying a quota is too much. either above the line or below it, whether that is 50% of Having some quota set aside for small scale, and the your landings or 60% or 70%. If you are already landing overlap of small scale and new entrants—young fishers—is 90% of your catches in the UK, this policy does not a huge opportunity. really address you at all. There is a sustainability point, too. There is increasing I would rather have a marginal incentive. For example, pressure on shellfish stocks and we do not have good funding for fisheries management is not really talked stock assessments on those. Some of the warning lights about in the Fisheries Bill, although it is in the White are coming up now: we are getting lower catch per unit Paper. That is fine, but let us think about it this way: if effort, which means that where you do not have stock we are going to have a landings levy—in the same way assessment, that is the warning light. If there is too that you might have a levy on stumpage fees in forestry—on 105 Public Bill Committee HOUSE OF COMMONS Fisheries Bill 106 aggregate extraction or on other resource industries, thinking about this issue. We are guaranteeing it is in and if we are going to have the fishing sector pay for the fisheries legislation, first and foremost.” From a management, why not differentiate so that 1% of your political perspective, that is valid. landed value in the UK goes to resource management, but if you land abroad it is 3%? The idea is that there is David Duguid (Banff and Buchan) (Con): On the a marginal incentive for every trip you make, rather redistribution of quota, obviously, if you are a larger than a threshold that, as far as I can see, would not owner of quota versus a smaller owner of quota, or an affect most of the fishers who already land in the UK. owner of no quota, you will certainly feel that you are going to be worse off in this situation. How do you Q202 Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con): Griffin, you cater for the fact that a lot of the smaller vessel owners have talked in quite a lot of detail about the reallocation perhaps previously owned quota that they sold, benefiting of quota. From my perspective, representing a community greatly financially, and then moved into smaller vessels that is a have-not, shall we say, that is music to my ears, for which they did not need quota? How would you but I am wary of the legal implications of that. I agree avoid that kind of gaming happening again in the that fishing is a public right, but as we have heard in our future? evidence sessions, by ill fortune or bad management, it Griffin Carpenter: That is a good question. The line has acquired certain proprietorial rights. How far, legally, that has always been used on quota allocation in the do you think we are able to go? The important thing is past was, “You’re robbing Peter to pay Paul, and we that this Fisheries Bill must be determined and made by don’t want that in the industry.” Now we have the idea this House, not by lawyers. of a Brexit dividend of extra quota, we are robbing Pierre to pay Paul, so that is fine. We are fine as long as Griffin Carpenter: Absolutely. I am not a lawyer—I Peter is protected. am an economist—but the legal advice I have heard is that the use of a notice period goes a long way. I The idea of quota shares is actually a bit confusing mentioned the international examples. We have to make because they are percentages rather than tonnage. Now some claim on FQAs as a public resource. Where you that stocks are recovering, and the quota increases each might get buy-in for this across the whole sector,including year, you can have a situation, even if you are taking the large-scale fleet, is on something such as flagged from Peter and giving to Paul, where everybody is better vessels. When you hear about Spanish vessels in UK off. You can have this as a conditional reallocation. Let waters, they are almost never Spanish vessels in the us say you get a certain share in the large-scale fleet—you sense that they have a Spanish flag and are fishing the have a large-scale vessel—and you are guaranteed Spanish quota; they have purchased UK fishing vessels 1,000 tonnes every year. If the quota is going up, some and are fishing with UK quota, and a lot of coastal of the surplus quota of that year can be reallocated to communities do not like that. For example, in Wales, the small-scale fleet in a pool or through whatever most of the quota is caught by those vessels and either system you do that. There is a bit of a difference landed in Ireland or taken straight to Spain. between tonnage, which is what actually affects your bottom line, and the percentage. I suggest that we can The problem is that, if you want to address this issue have these thresholds in place. of flagged vessels—those who are foreign nationals but The other thing is that, with additional fishing have UK quota—you must do so by saying, “FQAs are opportunities potentially coming in, hopefully, we can a public resource and we are going to take that away do a reallocation all at once so, again, the large-scale from you and then revisit the issue of distribution.” In a fleet will not necessarily be worse off. They might have a political sense, you can get buy-in for that idea. In a smaller percentage of haddock, let us say, or some legal sense, I get that the notice period goes a long way. demersal stock that the small-scale fleet really wants, We heard the point made this morning that, because but they are getting all the extra herring and other this is new legislation, some of the case law around the species from the North sea from our EU colleagues. previous FQA distribution under the common fisheries There is the potential for doing all this at once: policy might not apply. I am actually not sure about that. revisiting the allocation system and making everyone better off. Q203 Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP): Sticking to the quota theme, you have already touched Mike Hill (Hartlepool) (Lab): That was an interesting on the debate between this being enabling legislation answer to the question I was going to ask. I was going and how much detail needs to be in the Bill. Do you to ask you to clarify the position that the only way to think there needs to be more on how the quota allocation redistribute quota fairly, if I heard you right, is to break will work in future? You also mentioned potential quota the hold of the larger fishers and bring fisheries back reserves for new entrants—small-scale recreational anglers into public ownership. You suggested something like a have also been mentioned—so is it your view that there seven-year notice on that, but what you were just talking should be more in the Bill? was a potential incremental progression towards that Griffin Carpenter: I think that is a political question. through redistribution of surplus tonnage. Were you I understand the idea that it is enabling legislation and right in the first instance that fisheries have to be that for most fisheries legislation all the detail will come brought back into public ownership for fairer redistribution, in secondary legislation, but if you have some priorities but have you also realised that there can be incremental that you absolutely want to ensure are in future UK changes to benefit new starters or the under-10s as we fisheries, here is an opportunity to introduce them. I proceed? understand that some of the ideas we are discussing Griffin Carpenter: That is a good question. Unfortunately, might be incongruous with the tone, at least, of the rest it is an awkward one with Brexit timing, because we are of the Bill, but here is an opportunity where we can say, not sure if or when the additional quota will come “Starting now, we are only in 2018 and we are already online. One of the issues about not dealing with the 107 Public Bill Committee 6 DECEMBER 2018 Fisheries Bill 108 fixed quota allocations is that right now it really does Those bodies should be empowered to have jurisdiction not matter to a small-scale fisher if there is a theoretical up to 12 miles and control the number of pots, and extra quota that may or may not come. The more so on. important point is that, given the timeline right now, it will probably need to be incremental, where first we will Q206 Peter Aldous: The right hon. Member for Newbury deal with the additional quota, then we deal with the (Richard Benyon), when he was Fisheries Minister, existing FQAs. But that requires in the fisheries legislation fought very hard in the 2015 review of the CFP, and the at the first available opportunity to give notice, because general consensus was that it was a good deal. One of every year you delay is another year that you cannot do the main things won was article 17, so you worry me by the reallocation that we propose. The Fisheries Bill is basically saying that no one takes any notice of it. In the right place to do that. transposing article 17 to the Bill, what can we do to give it teeth, so that people take notice of it and it is implemented? Q204 Bill Grant (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (Con): On the same theme, I have come across the theory of Griffin Carpenter: Exactly. This refers back to the using days at sea. What are your thoughts on days at sea first discussion we had. We as an organisation were one in relation to quotas? It is admirable that you suggest of the groups advocating for article 17 in the CFP. The giving that time period of 14 years to reduce the larger CFP—people might disagree with this—actually gives quotas, to give a better share for the smaller vessels and quite a lot of power to member states, for better or under-10s. While the capacity for the last vessels is worse. The EU did not want to say exactly how each there, how do you see us increasing the capacity of the member state should allocate its fishing opportunities. smaller vessels over that period of time, and attracting It just says, “Tell us how you are doing it. Be transparent new people into the industry to absorb the redistribution and objective about how you are doing it. Is it based on of quotas? historical catch records? Are you giving more to the small-scale fleet?”and so on. Every member state continued Griffin Carpenter: There is lots going on there. allocating quota as they were. The UK has done some things with unused quota, but never actually referred The Chair: You will have to be relatively quick because back to article 17. It was just that the small scale wanted we are running short of time. more, so they gave some more. Griffin Carpenter: I will be as brief as possible. There The problem with transposing that is that it seems is a number of reasons why young people are not like we are missing an opportunity to be specific. Article 17 getting into fishing. Let us just stick with one of the was vague so that each member state could use their most obvious: it is expensive to get in and get that own criteria. Now we are transposing that, but we are quota. The UK could have a system, through the quota the member state—we are one entity—so we can say reserve, where it is allocated for free on a loan. Denmark exactly, especially in the case of England, how we are does that—it is called a fish fund—and you can get going to do it, and we can say that right now. It seems more detail there. strange to transpose something that was intentionally vague so each member state could be specific. The Chair: Exceptionally quick. Thank you. Q207 Owen Smith (Pontypridd) (Lab): As a Welshman, I am obviously worried about the prospect of robbing Q205 Brendan O’Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP): Dai to pay Pedro. On the issue of flagged vessels that Your report, “A Fair and Sustainable Fisheries Bill” you mentioned, is there anything in the Bill that would made a number of recommendations. How much of stop the Welsh from addressing that issue? that has been translated into what we have in front of Griffin Carpenter: Nothing that stops the Welsh from us? Do you think that the Fisheries Bill represents addressing the issue, but nothing that addresses the radical change or preservation of the status quo? Is it a issue per se. Again, devolution is extremely awkward in missed opportunity? fisheries, where we have a Bill that empowers the fisheries Griffin Carpenter: It has been discussed many times Administrations and stops there. It would be up to the that it is an enabling piece of legislation. Many of our Welsh Government to do something, presumably in policy ideas are not in there, for the reasons just discussed. their licensing. In my opinion it is a political choice whether you get overly detailed in one area. That is a trade-off, depending The Chair: We have just over three minutes, if there on what you want to prioritise now and your trust that are any further questions. it will come in secondary legislation. We were calling for redistribution of quota. Something Q208 George Eustice: The Bill envisages a joint fisheries I think is missing from the Bill, which was discussed statement, but also something called a Secretary of earlier,is commitments to maximum sustainable yield—not State’s statement, which would include a whole plan for just the stock commitment but the flow, so how much the English fleet about how it contributes to coastal you are taking out. Many of us were surprised that was communities and supports livelihoods. In what way not in the Bill. We would like more focus on inshore does that fall short of what you are seeking? It is a clear fisheries management; those are shellfish stocks that are commitment for a plan that will outline how we allocate left out of the discussion on quota. fishing opportunities to help those objectives. Also, there is a lack of trust in the fishing industry. Griffin Carpenter: It is a commitment for a plan, but I The way you build trust is through repeated social am saying we should think about that plan right now interaction. The only realistic way to do that is to have and what should be in it, rather than leave it to each inshore bodies, where all the stakeholders meet together Government to decide. We have seen that, through to discuss issues in the inshore waters within 12 miles. article 17, it has always been in UK jurisdiction to 109 Public Bill Committee HOUSE OF COMMONS Fisheries Bill 110 decide how to allocate quotas. That is not a power that Q211 George Eustice: Carl and I have worked together the EU had that we are taking back; it was always up to on many late nights at December Council. us and we have not taken that opportunity. Now is the The Committee is hearing a lot about MSY and the right time to have that conversation, and the Bill is a use of it as a guide to fisheries management, but I piece of legislation that we can put that in. wondered whether you might be able to explain to It is roughly the same with the discussion about everyone, first of all, the types of raw data that CEFAS MSYs. Yes, in the fisheries statement, they can say how collects through things such as a survey vessel, Endeavour, we are doing—how the stocks are doing in reference to the work done on fishing vessels and on landings to those MSY values—but we should have that as a duty. gather the raw data, and, secondly, how that data is Be specific in the Bill and say, “You cannot fish above used—as close to layman’s terms as you can—to create MSY.”We are going be post 2020, so you might as well the MSY position for a given stock. just say, “We will be fishing in line with MSY.” We are Dr Carl O’Brien: Before the common fisheries policy past the deadline. was agreed, most fisheries management went through the North-East Atlantic Fisheries Commission. The Q209 Alan Brown: A few witnesses have commented data that was used by the NEAFC and that is used by that they do not think there is enough information or the Commission comes from ICES. At the moment, transparency regarding the discards prevention scheme ICES is made up of 19 member countries that are not that is in the Bill and how it will actually work in future. just from Europe; it also includes Iceland, the Faroes, Do you have any views on that? Greenland, Norway, America and Canada. Griffin Carpenter: It is an interesting question. From Each country records landings data, which is done my reading of it, it seems to take from the Norway for us through the Marine Management Organisation. model, which is that some discards are landed but there It records effort data, which is the so-called fishery- is a fee attached to that. Instead of the landing obligation, dependent data. We also have fishery-independent data: we will say, “The quota is set at this level. You cannot in our case, we have the research vessel Endeavour, fish above that, otherwise you get choke problems.” It is which goes to sea and surveys around our waters for more of an economic incentive, rather than a hard line. distributions of individual species. We record the type That needs to be compensated for with lower quota, of species and their size. We take the little earstones, because we are saying that there is going to be some otoliths, out of their ears and age them in a way that is fishing above that line, but we will have an economic similar to ageing trees—if you slice through the otoliths, incentive so you do not land as much. I think the you can count growth rings. principle is a fair one—switching incentives—but that We have length measurements of fish, we have age should be compensated for in our expectations about readings, we have species composition, and we have how much above that quota we are actually going to species distribution. All that information is given to fish. ICES. In the case of the UK, because we have devolved Administrations, Scotland, Northern Ireland and Q210 The Chair: We are into the last 45 seconds or so England—England does some of the sampling for Wales— of the session. Is there is anything you wish to say that combine their data together and it goes in as the UK has not been said so far, Mr Carpenter? data. Countries within Europe, such as Germany and Griffin Carpenter: One quick point, if I may. We have France, do something very similar. spoken a lot about quota, but non-quota species are The landings data and the biological data are all put very important. More work should be done on stock together and we carry out formal assessment models. assessments. That is something that could be in the Bill These can be data-intensive and very complicated to say, “We are not going to be fishing stocks anymore if mathematical models, or they can be more simplistic we have no idea how much we can be fishing.” models, using life history characteristics—things based on growth rates and size of individuals. The Chair: Thank you for your evidence to the Committee. Essentially, the assessments are international. It is not the UK assessing our fish stocks in our waters; it is done internationally, there is international agreement Examination of Witness and it is not just within the EU but outside the EU, Dr Carl O’Brien gave evidence. as well.

2.30 pm The Chair: Welcome, Dr O’Brien. Could you please Q212 George Eustice: When we talk about data-limited introduce yourself and your role to the members of the stocks,what typically is lacking for a stock to be data-limited Committee? rather than one with a full dataset on which you can Dr Carl O’Brien: My name is Carl O’Brien. I am the judge MSY? chief fisheries science adviser for the Department for Dr Carl O’Brien: Before I joined fisheries in the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. I am also the mid-90s, virtual population analysis was used, which is UK delegate to the International Council for the an age structure-based model. You actually use age Exploration of the Sea and I am now one of its life data. As long as you can age fish, you can model the presidents. Also, I am from the Centre for Environment, development of fish as they grow, the same as you Fisheries and Aquaculture Science, which is one of would with human populations—one-year-olds become DEFRA’s Executive agencies. I attend Fisheries Council two-year-olds, who then become three-year-olds. You meetings with our Minister, and I have attended with can take into account natural mortality through natural previous Ministers, to negotiate quotas. deaths and also exploitation rates—death through fishing. 111 Public Bill Committee 6 DECEMBER 2018 Fisheries Bill 112

The typical data-rich models are those that have the could give you quite high Fs. ICES is being quite age-based data. The data-limited ones are those where, constrained in the way in which it is trying to manage for various reasons, we either cannot age the fish or it is the mixed fisheries and the choke issues. The reason for too expensive to age the fish, so we have simpler methods, the range is that it allows you to try to deal with some such as the size of the fish or maturity ogives, which are of the mismatches between the availability of fish on simpler types of metrics. However, we can still come up the ground and the fact that the gear may not be as with so-called proxies. Back in 2015, within ICES, I was selective as it needs to be. developing methods with our Portuguese and French colleagues to come up with MSY proxies, which, as the Minister knows, the Commission will now accept as Q215 George Eustice: Finally, Norway uses MSY,but MSY values. They are not treated as second-class MSY also uses a number of other measures. It is sometimes values. They are appropriate for the data-limited stocks. argued that following MSY on its own gives you too much volatility and year-to-year change in stock management. Is there anything that we can learn from Q213 George Eustice: Could you explain briefly the the Norwegians’ approach? Do they have a point in difference between the biomass MSY and fisheries MSY, terms of having a slightly more holistic approach to and why FSMY is deemed the right measure to use for sustainable fishing? fisheries management? Dr Carl O’Brien: Norway, like Iceland, although it Dr Carl O’Brien: Partly because it is a question of wants to follow the general principle of maximum input and output. To a certain extent you can control sustainable yield, is not wedded to it to the exclusion of fisheries exploitation—the harvest rate. You can control other principles. There may be reasons why one year how many boats go to sea and, by implication, how you might choose to exploit at a slightly higher rate many fish are taken out of the sea. The biomass is a than MSY, rather than at or below MSY. consequence of your management being appropriate or The Norwegians also have the idea of so-called “balanced right for the sea and for the species. If you get the harvesting”. Rather than trying to decide how much balance between exploitation or harvest rate correct, cod, haddock or whiting you want, you decide, based your biomass should continue to grow. One is input; on the trophic level of where species live, how much you one is output. could take out of that part of the system for it to remain balanced. That includes not only the fish species that we Q214 George Eustice: Would you explain where, from look at, but seals, seabirds, whales and other parts of a scientific point of view, using MSY throws up practical the ecosystem. problems—for instance, with mixed fisheries or where We can learn from Norway that if you focus just on there are choke species—and what we might do to fish themselves and the fisheries, you will lose a part of overcome some of those problems? the ecosystem around seabirds, cetaceans and whales. Dr Carl O’Brien: Do you want to know the history of That is something that we need to incorporate into our MSY before I answer that, or can I take it that you models. The Government’s 25-year environment plan know it? mentions an ecosystem approach to fisheries management, which I interpret as, starting with the mixed fisheries George Eustice: You gave us a bit of the history. My models, asking how you expand those to take into question is more about where it poses practical problems, account other aspects of the ecosystem. on mixed fisheries and choke species. Dr Carl O’Brien: The problem is that the stocks in Q216 Luke Pollard: One of the concerns that many European waters, Icelandic waters and Faroese waters, stakeholders have raised with us is about data deficiency, and in the Barents sea for Norway, are assessed on a especially on non-quota species. How would you single-species basis. The reference points that we have in recommend that the UK Government and the devolved terms of biological reference points and harvest rates Administrations address that data deficiency, especially are determined on a single-species basis. Unfortunately, among species where there might be concerns but not a when you put your fishing net in the water, you cannot huge amount of evidence gathered to date? catch just cod or haddock, or if you try to fish for plaice Dr Carl O’Brien: I think you would be surprised how you cannot catch just plaice; you end up with sole and much evidence has been gathered for non-quota species. other species, so you have the so-called mixed fishery Seafish had a project called Project Inshore, which I problem. think is now in its second phase, looking mainly at The reference points themselves would be fine in an shellfish species. Quite a lot of data has been collected ideal world where you could fish for just those species. from around the ports by Project Inshore, with the The mixed fishery issue is that you cannot simultaneously support of the fishermen and the IFCAs. There is a lot achieve all those single-species FMSY values.The approach of information from that project. that scientists have come up with is basically to ask, The Department for Environment, Food and Rural “Can you find a range around MSY?” The UK was Affairs is committed to progressing its assessments of very instrumental in this, and the Minister took our species like scallops, whelks and crabs. There is a paper to Council in, I think, 2013—the first time we commitment from the Minister’s Department to actually tried it with the Commission. improve data collection and the assessment of those The idea was to look at ranges. Can you find a range species. I think things are all going in the right direction. of fishing mortalities that are consistent with high At CEFAS, we started this work back in 2010 with long-term yield? The value that ICES took was 95% of ICES, recognising that not having assessments of non- the maximum. Some academics, such as Ray Hilborn, commercial species or data-limited stocks was a drawback take 80%, which ICES thought was going too far—that to fisheries management. 113 Public Bill Committee HOUSE OF COMMONS Fisheries Bill 114

The Minister answered a Parliamentary question in Q220 Bill Grant: Moving slightly off the Bill—I am January, when we came back from December Council, sure the Chair will forgive me as it is connected to the which quoted 31 stocks out of 45 being exploited at environment—we see birds gathering to migrate across MSY. We do not exploit just 45 stocks as a nation—we the globe, but we do not see the same movement of fish exploit in excess of 150. A lot of those are data-limited under the water. What sort of distance do the fish travel and they may be small tonnages, but they are very as they migrate from place to place? Environmentally, important species for local fishermen, certainly down we have believe that the temperature of the water is in the south-west. I think we are improving the going to increase, so could that increase in temperature quality of the data we have available. It is not just for alter where the shoals of fish go? Is that going to affect scientists; it is for the fishing industry and for the likes the fishery? of Seafish. Dr Carl O’Brien: The answer to the first part is that it is very species dependent. Species like North sea cod Q217 Luke Pollard: As another west country MP, I will live in the North sea, the eastern channel and the agree that we need more data to support the mixed Skagerrak. They mix quite happily.Species like mackerel, fisheries that we have. What is the progress that needs to blue whiting and Atlanto-Scandian herring travel over be made to get to fully documented fisheries? One of very large distances. Species like eels essentially travel the difficulties that some of our stakeholders have been around the globe, starting in the Sargasso sea. We have flagging up is that some of our fisheries cannot be a lot of data that has been funded by DEFRA, and the classed as sustainable simply because there is not enough Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in its previous data to prove that they are or not. What do we need to role, from tagging things like bluefin tuna. We have a lot do to get to fully documented fisheries? of data on migration, so we know roughly where fish Dr Carl O’Brien: I think it depends on the size of the are moving. vessel. Large offshore vessels already keep logbooks. A The issue of climate change has two aspects. One is lot of the English fleet has cameras on board, so that is that, as waters warm, you may see a movement of fish. helping the documentation. I am aware of projects We have seen northern hake move from the southern down in the south-west, such as Fishface, where they waters more northerly into the North sea, which is are trying to use cameras on under-10 metre vessels, causing some of our fishermen a problem at the moment, with quite a lot of success. It is making the best use of with choke issues. The other aspect is that you may the technology that is available. A few years ago, with suddenly find species that you have never seen before. DEFRA funding, CEFAS developed apps for mobile We are getting reports of cuttlefish, squid and even phones so skippers could go out on smaller vessels and jellyfish down in the channel. We are aware, through their positions were known through the apps. They questioning the public, that there is an Asian market for could also fill in electronic log sheets, certainly for jellyfish, so perhaps some time in the future there will be shellfish species, and record how many pots were put in a market for UK jellyfish. Who knows? We are looking the water and what quantity of shellfish was being lifted at that as part of this process; we are not focused just on from the sea. this year’s or next year’ fishing quotas. It is very much about where we might be in 50 or 100 years’ time. Q218 Luke Pollard: That is good. The UK has some of the best fishery science in the entire world, if not the Q221 Brendan O’Hara: I have a question about the best. discard prevention scheme: we have heard over the last Dr Carl O’Brien: I agree. couple of days from representatives from the fishing fleet itself, who think the system will not work, and Q219 Luke Pollard: That brings me to an allied from environmental groups, which think there is not question that goes along with access to waters. If we are enough information on how it will operate. Could you requiring British fishing boats to have this high level of tell us how the scheme will be implemented? Given that reporting—entirely appropriately—do we have the same both the environmental lobby and the fishing fleet have level of data coming from foreign boats accessing UK concerns, do you think we should put something in the waters? Bill to make it absolutely clear how it will work? Dr Carl O’Brien: The answer is that it is variable, Dr Carl O’Brien: I am a scientist, not a politician or a depending on the country. The Danes are quite well Minister, so I do not know how it will work. The advanced and are similar to us, in that they have thinking behind it is that, as we move towards fully cameras on board their vessels. If your question is implementing the landing obligation next year, there about vessels that might have access to our waters in will be some serious issues with choke species, as the the future, then I think whatever measures we use or Minister mentioned. My understanding of the discard apply to our own fishermen should be applied to prevention charging scheme is that you have two options: other vessels coming into our waters. If we require you either have such a scheme or you tie vessels up. As cameras then that should be a requirement for a soon as you have fished your quota, you can no longer French or German vessel to come into UK waters. It go to sea because you will not have the ability to has to be a level playing field. It is not necessarily just discard, which means you will not have the ability to to focusing on making life fair. What you do not land quota. want to end up with is very accurate data from our fleet, The discard prevention scheme is a way of saying to and very bad data from everybody else, because you fishermen, “If you have good ideas for selectivity measures know what the consequence of that is. You end up or ways of mitigating large amounts of discard and you penalising those that provide you with perfect information want to use those measures, if you catch a small amount and those that do not provide you with information of over-quota catch, through this scheme you can be get off. charged and incentivised to carry on fishing.” Where the 115 Public Bill Committee 6 DECEMBER 2018 Fisheries Bill 116 scheme moves from being an incentive to being a penalty Q224 Peter Aldous: Before the Dutch built a whole is that if you habitually overfish, there must be a point new industry on the back of this, should the science not at which it is a penalty to you and you have to stop have come to a conclusion as to whether it was a good doing it. Clearly, you would have to manage quota in thing or not? such a way that the system can cope with that bit of Dr Carl O’Brien: It came to a conclusion that there overfishing. But in principle, it is a good idea. was not a conclusion. ICES held a number of working groups that reviewed the evidence. It was not conclusive Q222 Brendan O’Hara: One final question, if I may, that pulse trawling is detrimental because there are which follows on from what Mr Grant said. I was in positive benefits from having a pulse trawl. There is Greenland recently. There are species that have been anecdotal information from our own industry that at caught off the coast of Greenland that have never been certain times of year, you find cod with broken backs. recorded as having been there before. I presume that as That is certainly so for the Thames estuary, and it could species move north, species from the south move into be the impact of pulse trawling. Talking to some of the UK waters. How fleet of foot is DEFRA in terms of food producers who deal with chickens, one of the whether our fishing fleet should begin to harvest stocks reasons for not electrocuting chickens is that you break of fish that are not usually there? their backs when they go into spasms. That is exactly Dr Carl O’Brien: The easiest answer to that is that, in what would happen to a cod; it would also break its 2003, MAFF created the fisheries science partnership, own back. which is still funded by DEFRA. We asked fishermen I think the answer to your question is that until you for their ideas on specific projects. A lot of the ideas are actually have the evidence and it is conclusive that you selectivity measures, but we had a project a few years should ban a method, it is quite difficult to ban it. The ago where there was an emerging cuttlefish fishery Commission has gone out of its way to allow scientists down in the south-west. The fisheries science partnership to collect the evidence. The slightly surprising thing is was used as a way for the fisherman to work with that I was around when ICES gave its original advice, scientists to see the viability of a cuttlefish industry which was for 10 or 12 vessels as a scientific trial. It is down there. The problem with cuttlefish is that they now about 100 vessels, and that clearly is not a scientific come and go. They had a couple of years of quite high trial. I think you have to be very clear about the parameters catches, but then basically they died away. are when you give dispensations for gears. There is a strong role for science and industry to work together, because you would not want the industry to Q225 Peter Aldous: So the new UK fishing policy can gear up for a cuttlefish fishery that will last for only two be better than the CFP when it comes to sustainable years. The way we have worked in the past is the way I fisheries management. hope we would work in future. But you are right—if Dr Carl O’Brien: I think so. I have forgotten who there are emerging new species, there should be a dialogue asked me the question earlier, but if you are going to between the industry and scientists and also Government allow vessels to come into our exclusive economic zone, to see whether you should develop fisheries. In some we can put conditions on their access rights. If we cases, these will be species that we may not know very decide we do not like pulse trawling and we have our much about, a bit like the jellyfish. You would not want own evidence base to say that, I assume we can just say, to gear up for a high extraction rate of jellyfish without although it would not necessarily ban it, that any vessel understanding the implications for the ecosystem. There with pulse cannot come in. will be other species that feed off jellyfish. If we as humans are removing them from the system, those species will not have access to a food source. Q226 Owen Smith: Dr O’Brien, given your long experience of going to Council, how do you envisage The Chair: Three more Members have indicated they our country being treated during the transition period, want to ask a question, and I want to try to get them in when we will effectively have observer status? before 3 o’clock. Dr Carl O’Brien: I do not know, because I am under the impression that this is my last December Council, as Q223 Peter Aldous: Good science and evidence should it is for the Minister, unless I have been misinformed. underpin sustainable fishing, yet at the moment electric pulse fishing is going on in the southern North sea. Q227 Owen Smith: Given your experience in the past, How can we devise a new framework that stops such do you think it will be a problem that we are effectively practices and ensures that we pursue a precautionary attending and being consulted with, but are not having approach to sustainable fisheries management? direct influence as we have had previously? Dr Carl O’Brien: The short answer to that is that Dr Carl O’Brien: My worry and fear is for the other DEFRA is funding a project that my colleagues in member states. I have been to a number of Council CEFAS in Lowestoft are undertaking to collect more negotiations, to coastal states negotiations on mackerel, evidence on the detrimental effects of pulse trawling. It blue whiting, Atlanto-Scandian herring and to EU-Norway has to be evidence-based. The industry is polarised. negotiations. The other member states look to the UK There are those who hate it just because they hate it and to provide a lot of the science and the technical arguments. there are those who have a slightly open mind. The Countries will wave their arms and say, “We do not like scientific evidence is not conclusive that pulse trawling the Commission’s proposals”, but when it comes to is bad. There are clearly environmental benefits from it. facts, hard data and evidence, the UK leads the world. It certainly reduces fuel consumption and the impact on We provide the arguments and we sit with the Minister, the seabed, but there are some side effects. Species such the presidency and the Commission and we argue our as cod and haddock can be damaged by the pulse case based on facts and science. Other countries do not trawlers. do that. 117 Public Bill Committee HOUSE OF COMMONS Fisheries Bill 118

Q228 Owen Smith: No wonder they are petitioning whether you are seeing aggregations of juvenile fish or for us to stay in. Can I ask you about recreational lots of older fish that are aggregating in certain areas fishing? We have heard people petitioning that the and being targeted by vessels. You would want to have a recreational fishing industry ought to have a more more adaptive management framework—certainly more official stakeholder role in future. Is that a view that you adaptive than we have with the common fisheries policy. have sympathy with? What is your view of the potential value of designating certain fisheries and species for Q230 David Duguid: Do you think the Bill creates an recreational fishing only? opportunity to do that? Dr Carl O’Brien: One of the problems with recreational Dr Carl O’Brien: I think it does, yes. As I say, it goes fishing, which is a disaster waiting to happen, is that hand-in-hand with the 25-year environment plan that when we carry out our bass assessments, we include you have an ecosystem approach to fisheries management. commercial catches from trawlers and larger vessels and We are in the process of defining what that actually recreational catches, but the only other assessment that means, but it is certainly not single species quotas; it is I am aware of that ICES carries out with recreational mixed fisheries and multi-species. catches is the western Baltic cod. In the case of the western Baltic cod, the recreational catch is far in excess The Chair: We are in the last minute. of the commercial fleet. In future, we need to have a better understanding of Q231 George Eustice: I have a quick question. We recreational fishing. We cannot ignore it, but we have to have heard some representations that we should make come up with a policy where you balance commercial the MSY commitment more rigid in the Bill. If the price and recreational anglers. I would not want to see them of getting an agreement with Norway is showing some being recognised independently of the commercial fisheries, understanding for their other scientific metrics, is it because in a sense, regardless of whether they are selling better to show that flexibility or to walk away and let their catch, they are competing with a commercial everyone unilaterally set their own quota? fishery. As I say, for the western Baltic cod, the catches Dr Carl O’Brien: No, I think it is better to be flexible. of the recreational anglers are far in excess of the I came into fisheries in the mid-’90s when exploitation commercial fleet. The CFP has tried to constrain the rates were horrendous—cod stocks were being fished to commercial fleet— fishing mortalities of 0.8; we are now down to levels of 0.4 or 0.3. We should still have that flexibility when we deal with Norway. I also think that it has to be an Q229 David Duguid: On the science, one of the major international negotiation. The UK cannot go it alone. frustrations—I was going to use the word “criticisms”, but that is too strong—I hear from fishermen is that the The Chair: On behalf of the Committee, Dr O’Brien, science tends to be at least two years old by the time it is I am grateful for your evidence today. We discharge you actually applied, and they are seeing more fish in their and invite our next witnesses to the table. nets or in the water than they are told to expect. Is there any way we can make the science more current, or is there anything we can do in the future to help with that Examination of Witnesses situation? Dr Amy Pryor and Elaine Whyte gave evidence. Dr Carl O’Brien: Our Minister will know, because 3 pm one of the first questions that every new Minister gets is, “Why are your scientists using data that is out of The Chair: I welcome our next witnesses and remind date?”. The reality is that, this year—2018—when we Members that we have to finish this session at 3.30 pm. carried out our assessments, we had landings data only Could the witnesses introduce themselves and their up to 2017. That is just a fact of life; we will not know organisations? the landings for this year until the end of the year. We Dr Amy Pryor: I am Amy Pryor. I am the programme have survey information, so when we predict next year’s manager at the Thames Estuary Partnership, chair of quotas, we are doing that based on 2017 landings data the national Coastal Partnerships Network, and a member and survey information that we have from this year, so of the Coastal Communities Alliance. that is where our two-year window comes from. Elaine Whyte: I am Elaine Whyte. I am a member of In terms of doing something that is more reactive, the Community Inshore Fisheries Alliance, and also of there are issues around juveniles. Certainly in Norwegian the Clyde Fishermen’s Association. waters, they have real-time closures that are almost instantaneous—certainly within 24 hours. In the past, if Q232 George Eustice: Obviously, a number of the fishermen found aggregations of very small fish, they areas that you cover will be highly influenced by the would have fished them and dumped them, but now if work of the IFCAs—the inshore fisheries and conservation they fish them they will have to land them, which will authorities. What is your view of how that model works? come off their quota. The sad thing is that by killing Dr Amy Pryor: From a wider stakeholder coastal those fish, they are then not there to reproduce into the communities perspective, we think IFCAs have grown future to rebuild spawning stocks. from strength to strength since they were set up under On the assessments, it is a fact of life that, essentially, the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009. I lived through they will be two years out of date in terms of the them being set up, and they have grown in terms of landings data, but we will have current information gaining the respect of the local fishermen and putting in from research vessels and from fishermen. In terms of place fisheries partnerships with those fishermen to get management, it would be a more adaptive and proactive better data and better science. I attended an IFCA management where you could keep an eye on what is meeting just last week, and the representation on the going on in the sea and within our waters, in terms of IFCA boards is second to none—it is absolutely fantastic. 119 Public Bill Committee 6 DECEMBER 2018 Fisheries Bill 120

The only thing I would say is that there is an opportunity Q236 George Eustice: Finally,some shellfish, particularly to get even better locally managed inshore fisheries by crabs and lobsters, tend at the moment to be managed formally empowering the IFCAs within the Bill, certainly predominantly by IFCAs through technical conservation. within England, instead of focusing just on the national Wealso have the western waters regime, which is effectively fisheries administrations. a days at sea quota regime, which is not very satisfactory. A number of people have said that we should move Q233 George Eustice: Obviously, IFCAs now have either to a catch quota system for crabs and lobsters, or the power to make bylaws through their local authority to restrictions on the number of pots that can be used, sponsors. What additional powers would you be seeking for instance, and try to do that nationally. Do you think through the Bill? that that is worth exploring, or should it just be left to Dr Amy Pryor: First and foremost, I was referring to the IFCAs? formal recognition in the wording of the Bill. However, Dr Amy Pryor: I really think it should be left to the if we could move to a more nimble, agile approach—as IFCAs. I must admit that I am not very up on lobster the scientist before us was saying—and have more locally and crab fisheries. We do not have them here in the based management of the fisheries based on local science, Thames estuary, as much as we would like them. It that ecosystem-based approach objective could be realised comes back to my point that, if it is locally managed much more easily. There could maybe be more formal and the IFCAs are running those decisions, they will powers in terms of quota allocation based on the science have all the information, along with the stakeholder of the local fishery. engagement consultation from the wider coastal community, to input into those management decisions. I think regional Q234 George Eustice: You would like almost a and local would work best. consultation role for the IFCAs in the way the quota Q237 Luke Pollard: Coastal communities have been allocation is done. among the hardest hit by austerity since 2010, but there Dr Amy Pryor: I am not sure about a formal consultation is a real chance that fishing could be part of a coastal role. Yes, that would probably work, but there could be community renaissance, if it is delivered in the right a better link between the fisheries data and the local way. What are the things that you are looking for in the situation, because each coastal environment has a unique Bill to deliver the renaissance that, whichever side of the set of challenges. Take the Thames estuary, for example. House Members are on, we all want to see in our It is an estuary; it is a highly dynamic mixed fishery. All coastal communities? of the fishing communities around the Thames estuary Dr Amy Pryor: There is actually a very large correlation are non-nomadic: they cannot go much further than a between small inshore fleets and coastal deprivation in few nautical miles offshore, so they are very restricted some of our most deprived areas along the coast. There by their quota allocations, which results in a large are two things. First, there is a lack of join-up between amount of discards and a large amount of bycatch. marine planning and land planning processes. Each They are the first ones who do not want to see that goes to the relevant high or low water mark, but they happen, so having additional powers within the IFCAs have different types of indicators and they do not link to work with the science on a more local, regional level in any meaningful way. would lead to more agile and much more relevant fisheries management in the local setting. Coastal areas tend to fall down the cracks between two planning systems, and what goes hand in hand with Elaine Whyte: It is slightly different for Scotland: we that are the financial funding streams that go along have the inshore fisheries groups, which are also fairly with it. The coastal communities fund, for example, is new in terms of taking on the same kind of role as the fantastic for the coastal communities that can access it, IFCAs. However, I agree that they have come on leaps but if you look at the local economic plans of each of and bounds in the past few years. Local management is the coastal community teams, very few of them even absolutely key, as is the socio-economic link to local recognise fisheries as an industry that is relevant for the communities. For instance, we often talk about choke area. That is obviously a massive missed opportunity. species; we hear a lot about whiting and cod on the west They also do not really recognise the water—the role of coast, but down in the south-west, it is spurdogs. Those the health of the marine environment—in driving the are the regional issues that we can work through with tourism that is central to their local economy. bodies like IFGs or IFCAs. In terms of the financial assistance elements of the Bill, it would be fantastic to see recognition of the need Q235 George Eustice: Wehave had some representations for a more holistic, integrated approach to our funding about the suitability of more of an effort-based quota, streams that recognises those multiple benefits so that particularly for the inshore fleet, rather than a tonnage we can really generate them. That would ultimately quota. As we set out in our White Paper, we certainly benefit the fishing industry, but in a way that better want to pilot and explore that for the inshore fleet. Do embeds it in the wider coastal community and opens up you think that would make more sense as a management the routes to market and the innovations in marine tool for fishing effort? businesses that we would all like to see on the coast. Elaine Whyte: Again, it is regional, and it depends That could contribute to the local economy, instead of on the fishery, but trials should certainly happen. We thinking that tourism alone will drive that. It would often say that the Clyde is already operating a days at also recognise that fisheries are a major part of tourism. sea scheme; we go to sea only five days a week in the They shape the cultural identity of— mobile fleet. There are various ways to look at it, but going regionally, looking at what works for each specific The Chair: Order. Apologies—with two witnesses, we fishery, and ensuring that we have trials is the right way have only half the time, so we have to keep the answers to go. short. 121 Public Bill Committee HOUSE OF COMMONS Fisheries Bill 122

Elaine Whyte: I see potential, because I see those Elaine Whyte: To be fair, it is not just in marine communities that are quite sea-blind at the moment. planning, but in science. We always find that the science Local authorities are saying that they have never had a is lacking at local inshore levels. Again, we should be fisheries policies, or that they do not know that they looking to Norway and look at our local fleets as have active fishermen on their doorstep. That is a massive reference fleets and get the fishermen working with opportunity. We just have to look at how Norway has the scientists to provide that reflexive data that is taken 60% of quota allocations and given them to the needed. A lot of planners and other people sitting coastal communities to see them thrive. I would like to around the table do not quite understand what is happening. see that. There is a major problem there for stakeholders as well. I am slightly worried about the concept of auctions, What we do have around these timetables are a lot of which is obviously more English-based. I do not know stakeholders; we are very happy to have them, but how that will be reflected in UK fisheries in general. sometimes they bring their own science and ideologies. However, I see potential here for all communities around What we really need is an honest broker—that is how the coast. we can do it through marine planning and through local authorities. Q238 Luke Pollard: In terms of supporting small fleets, which generally speaking are the ones that have Q240 Brendan O’Hara: This is more to Elaine. Clause 10 the potential to have the biggest impact as quickly as is about the power to grant licences. Scottish Ministers possible in coastal communities, what measures do you and Northern Ireland Departments can do it. The feel we need to ensure are in the Bill to support the Scottish west coast fishing fleet is in close proximity to small fleet in particular? Northern Ireland; they fish in the same water for the same stocks. How concerned are you and your Dr Amy Pryor: It depends on what you call the small members about the possibility of different regulatory fleet; I prefer to call it a coastal fleet. Again, I would say frameworks for Scotland and Northern Ireland, and that you should look at what Norway has—their coastal what damage could that do to the west of Scotland fleet is 5 metres up to 30 metres. I think the definition fleet? can be quite wide. We have mobile guides and keel guides. We have to be just a bit more flexible about Elaine Whyte: With the greatest respect to Northern opportunities. It is about ensuring that we have the Irish colleagues, who we have fished with for a long time quota and licences available and that we are providing and whom we respect entirely, we are concerned about grants to get new starts into the market and giving them this, because it is the same stock from the same area. If a leg up. there are different tariffs and different rules are applicable, that will of course impact on our trade and our entire Dr Amy Pryor: I agree with all of that. I also second ability to fish. It is a massive concern. what NEF said about using transparent and objective criteria in quota allocation so that you really do start to recognise the sustainability credentials of the small-scale Q241 Brendan O’Hara: Has there been any analysis inshore fleet; it is common sense that they are much of what damage that would do to places such as Tarbert more sustainable by being local and non-nomadic and or Oban? using smaller vessels. Seafarers UK is very concerned, Elaine Whyte: No, but there really should be. There is though, that that can lead to a lack of safety at sea, socio-economic work on the marine protected areas where individual fishermen are piling as much gear as going on at the moment, but we really need to look at possible on to tiny vessels and souping up the engines, what we are landing from such areas. Nephrops are which is highly dangerous. It is about finding a balance the second most valuable shellfish that we have in the between keeping fisherman safe and having a fairer whole country and we really have to look at where distribution of quotas. they are being landed—a lot of them coming from Scottish waters are going to Northern Ireland at the moment. Q239 Peter Aldous: You referred to the need for co-ordination between marine and land-based planning. Would you say that the same would apply for Q242 Brendan O’Hara: How important to Community economic regeneration and a role for local enterprise Inshore Fisheries Alliance members is keeping current partnerships? access to EU markets, and is there any analysis of the damage that time delays would have on your ability to Dr Amy Pryor: Gosh, absolutely. In the last year or export? two, some LEPs with coastal areas—in fact, most have them—are starting to look towards the coastal communities, Elaine Whyte: As an alliance we are constitutionally but it certainly has not been that way since the beginning. and politically neutral. We have always said that and we It was a fight to get them to take notice of the coastal will work with the best outcomes possible, but we are areas and the role that they play. I see a role for LEPs very worried about market access, as we have said from and for coastal partnerships, because they have a lot of the start. We are looking at the delays. A lot of people trust from the local community and have been around are saying that maybe there will be six months and that for about 20 years; they pool all the different strengths that will be a problem. Our fleets could not really together. I would like to see more formal recognition in handle six months.Weare more aligned with the Federation the Bill—perhaps an extra marine planning objective of Small Businesses in the sense that a month or two that could actually set out these things. The Fisheries would be enough to harm our fleets. Bill cannot remedy everything, but it could take steps towards providing that integration, which would also The Chair: Amy, do you have any comments on that? achieve the objectives of the 25-year environment plan Dr Amy Pryor: I am going to leave that to the that the Government are committed to. Scottish and Irish experts. 123 Public Bill Committee 6 DECEMBER 2018 Fisheries Bill 124

Q243 David Duguid: You started off by talking about That is something we should think about. We have a the local fisheries management, which was very interesting. gap at the moment in skills, and we possibly need to Harking back to what Dr O’Brien said about the data look at foreign workers. It is important, particularly for and how, by the time you have collected it all from the rural areas. I would look at things like the “become a whole country, a lot of it will be out of date, do you fisherman” scheme in Denmark, and how they have think the local fisheries management approach would managed to turn things around in their country and help that agility in making sure that the data is more up repopulate rural areas just by proactive marketing. We to date, particularly if the local fishermen are working need to do that. They are very skilled. with the scientists on a more real-time basis? Dr Amy Pryor: I personally do, yes. There are great Q246 Bill Grant: This question is for Elaine. You will examples all around the country where it is already notice from my accent that I am a west coaster. I am of happening. The next step is for that to actively inform an age where I have seen the demise of the fleets fisheries management. The IFCAs can create a byelaw running from Stranraer way up through to Oban, and I using that data, but if there was a more proactive would love to see that return. Do you think this Bill and approach rather than a reactive approach, we would other changes to the CFP, or the absence of the CFP, have very agile fisheries management. will give us an opportunity? Should we have better Elaine Whyte: A lot of people talk about training to make that industry more skilled than people environmentalists and fishermen, and I think a good perceive it to be? Should we have courses to encourage fisherman should be an environmentalist. We have been young men and women to go to sea and secure the fish to Norway, looked at their system and studied real-time that we have in relative abundance? closures, and they can close a fjord based on the patterns Elaine Whyte: Yes, absolutely. There is a generational that they see the fish recording. We could be far better issue. We have missed a generation, but we can catch up. at that, in terms of real-time closures, and that is We should have young men coming out of places such something that we would support. as Glasgow, where there is a port 30 minutes away, and Q244 Mr Paul Sweeney (Glasgow North East) (Lab/ thinking, “Actually, I could go to sea.” That is something Co-op): I would like to get your take on the prospect of that we have to be proactive on with Government. But I the redistribution of quotas. Obviously, on the west think we need to look at what has gone wrong. We can coast of Scotland there is a pattern of under-10s and look at somewhere such as Stornoway. Pre-1974, it was smaller boats prevailing, and they tend to land, by landing more than 85% of fin fish; it is now landing volume, a much smaller share of the UK catch, given 1% of fin fish. That possibly has something to do with the quantity of the fleet. What opportunity do you the EU; it possibly has something to do with domestic think there could be to enhance the distribution of allocations as well, so we have to look at it in a holistic quotas among the smaller boats, particularly those on way and try to give men, and women, a reason to want the west coast of Scotland? to go into the job. Nobody wants to tail prawns on minimum wage forever; people want the opportunity to Elaine Whyte: Again, a coastal fleet is not particularly have their own boat and to progress. just under-10s. Our median weight is probably about 14 metres, so I would consider them all in the same category.There is massive potential. Wehad some members Q247 Bill Grant: We should make the conditions and who are quota holders, and we spoke to them at the the financial rewards better and we could grow the beginning, thinking that they would want to protect industry in due course. their asset. They said to us, “We’ve had our money Elaine Whyte: Absolutely. 10 times over. Let’s look at doing something fairer for Dr Amy Pryor: I absolutely agree. The only thing I the new guys who weren’t born when the system was would add is that I think this is an opportunity to think brought in.” So yes, absolutely we see a fairer way to do about a more integrated approach to the way we do our this. training. I am talking about cross-sectoral training schemes and apprenticeships not only to spread the skills and Q245 Mr Sweeney: That is great. It is encouraging. highlight the fact that you can have multiple transferable The Department for Work and Pensions defines fishing skills, but to build relationships across sectors. We can as an unskilled industry. What is your take on that view? build those better relationships between the different Dr Amy Pryor: That is nonsense. Our fishermen have coastal sectors. To back that up, Sir John Armitt survived all sorts of adversity throughout the years. recommended this, as part of the Thames growth They are a massively untapped skill resource. You can commission, as a way forward, because we are lacking learn all sorts of skills through working in the fishing skills in all our coastal and estuarine areas. industry and not necessarily become a fisherman. You can also learn a lot of skills that are peripheral to the fisheries industry so that you are more agile as a fisherman. Q248 Owen Smith: We heard earlier from one of the When you do not have a quota or you have run out of big shellfish companies and we asked it about the days, whatever system is in place, you can move into impact of tariffs—potentially, 8% tariffs on shellfish. another sector like boat engineering or boat maintenance— How would that impact on smaller producers? all sorts of stuff. Just because they do not want to talk Elaine Whyte: We are extremely worried about that to you, and they might be secretive about what their and always have been. And apart from the tariffs, we are skills are, does not mean they do not have a huge extremely concerned about disruption and action, possibly, amount of skill. by French and continental fishermen, who might not be Elaine Whyte: I would add that if you can do your too happy about us getting access. That could be just as accounts and write a scientific report in a gale force big a problem as the tariffs, to be honest, so yes, we are wind while at sea, you are a very skilled businessman. very concerned. 125 Public Bill Committee HOUSE OF COMMONS Fisheries Bill 126

Q249 Owen Smith: This is an enabling Bill, but what Elaine Whyte: We have a gap at the moment, and we degree of certainty do you feel about what fishing is have to make sure we are getting skilled workers in from going to look like in Great Britain in the years to come wherever they come from. I would say that we are as a result of the Bill? Are you confident? working towards a long-term domestic policy through Elaine Whyte: I heard a comment yesterday, I think, marketing. I would use the example of Denmark again or the day before about how the market will take care of and say that, 10 years from now, that is what we fishing. I do not think that is fair. I think that we have to should have. For now, we have to be realistic and make try to support our industry, to get the best of national sure we have got people there to teach the new guys benefit for our fishermen. I am confident that we could coming up. have a better future, but it depends on a lot of things. Dr Amy Pryor: Can I add something to that? Certainly We are not quite clear when we are coming out. We are within the south-west and the south-east, fishermen not quite clear what this financial framework means, have told us that there are plenty of skilled crewmen out across all the sectors, for the UK. And what does that there, but they move around a lot. They go where the mean? Does it mean that every year that we are negotiating opportunity is. Something as simple as a database that a deal with the EU we could barter fishing rights away tells young fishermen where there is a fishing opportunity, for another sector? Those things are still a concern and for how long, would go a long way towards filling for us. those gaps and making it a bit more attractive to be a nomadic land-based fisherman going between different Q250 George Eustice: I want to come back to something fishing communities to fill those holes. that Elaine Whyte said earlier about the concern that there might be different rules for different parts of the Q253 Mr Sweeney: I would just like to ask for your fleet, with Northern Ireland having access to west of view of the grant system offered in the Bill. Do you Scotland waters, for instance. Could you explain a bit think it may support smaller fishermen, particularly more what your concern is? Obviously, the Bill is trying when we are looking at fleet renewal and the potential to resolve quite a difficult tension, which is that fisheries industrial benefit to the UK? Do you think it is an is a devolved matter, yet it is also highly affected by opportunity? Do you think it needs better definition, or international negotiations, which are reserved. The way is it too vague? it does that is by giving each Administration the ability, Dr Amy Pryor: I personally think it is a bit too vague through clause 10, to have licence conditions, but then at the moment. The examples that we have had separate to that, in clause 31 and schedule 6, it gives the through the European fisheries fund and the European Administrations the ability to set their own technical maritime fisheries fund have gone a long way to enabling conservation measures, so if they wanted to have a fishing communities—especially the community-led local closure, for instance, that would apply to everyone, development mechanism and fisheries local action groups. whether or not it was on the vessel licence. There are Where they have worked well, they have worked extremely two means of doing it, and I think the Bill squares that well. They have had a huge impact and have gone on to rather difficult circle through that means. bring millions in investment into the local economy, Elaine Whyte: It potentially does, but it does not benefiting the whole coastal community. As an enabling square the tariff issue, so that is something that we Bill that says, “We are committing to provide financial would still have a concern about. Some of our members assistance,” it is great, but it could be a lot more have mentioned the issue of nomadic rights, and of prescriptive and detailed. It could break that down and course we understand that, but we always think that really represent the different sectors of the wider coastal there should be some link to the coastal communities community, as well as the fisheries. around about. They should not be disadvantaged by Elaine Whyte: I would add that it is important that lack of access to their own stocks, in a sense, as well. we somehow define fisheries through this, because I That is important to us domestically as well as between know a lot of instances where fisheries funds have been different countries and the UK. used for something that fishermen on the ground have probably never had any benefit from. It is good that we Q251 Brendan O’Hara: Mr Grant said, and I think consider who the stakeholders are, how we want this to we would all agree, that we hope to see young men and be used and whether fishermen will ultimately get the women from throughout Scotland going into a revived benefit of it. It is particularly important at a time when indigenous fishing industry, but we need to have an there is a lot of money coming into the fisheries policy industry there for them to go into. How do we bridge sector from environment non-governmental organisations that gap? Who will crew the boats and the fish processing and charities and whatnot—I counted about £4 million plants while we wait for that throughput? Given the into Scotland in the last couple of months for people geography of the west of Scotland in particular, the influencing fisheries policy. We need to be enabling our inshore fishing fleet is now at a critical point, is it not? fishermen to do something positive. Elaine Whyte: Yes, it is. We have some boats that are about 60 years old, which is not right, so we have to Q254 Mr Sweeney: Do you think that the ending of look at how we can help our infrastructure. There are the European funding is a risk? It is not clearly defined ways to do that. The Western Isles had a very good what will substitute for it in the future. If anything, boat-building scheme, which was very low-risk and there might be a cut in the overall level of state aid into allowed people to come in. We need to start building up the sector. those facilities along the coast. I would say that we need Dr Amy Pryor: Absolutely.There are no other funding that not just on the west coast but all around the coast. streams that are specifically for fisheries. There are none—absolutely none. Fishermen cannot access any Q252 Brendan O’Hara: But, particularly on the west of the other regional development growth funds or even coast, how do we crew or keep that— the other European funding streams. Having something 127 Public Bill Committee 6 DECEMBER 2018 Fisheries Bill 128 to replace it is essential, but there is an opportunity here Dr Amy Pryor: We would like to see better recognition to do things in a bit more of a holistic way, while of our estuaries and the links with the land. Estuaries benefiting the fishing industry. are the ovaries of the sea, and having them recognised Elaine Whyte: A small investment can make a big formally as part of this, with potentially better and difference. Some of the ports in the Western Isles, such more sensitive management, would definitely be the as Ceallan, have been European funded, and that has way to go to safeguard our stocks for the future. been a massive benefit to the community. Particularly in rural communities, it is a lifeline. The Chair: I am grateful to both witnesses for their Q255 The Chair: I think we have come to a natural evidence, and I thank them for their attendance today. conclusion, unless there are any final 10-second points Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. that witnesses wish to put to the hon. Members. —(Iain Stewart). Elaine Whyte: My colleague would never forgive me if I did not mention this. Wewould like to see communities having an opportunity to access things such as bluefin 3.29 pm tuna, because it could make a difference to artisanal Adjourned till Tuesday 11 December at twenty-five fisheries around the coast. minutes past Nine o’clock. 129 Public Bill Committee HOUSE OF COMMONS Fisheries Bill 130

Written evidence reported to the House FISH06 Professor Richard Barnes, The School of Law and Politics, University of Hull FISH04 Historic England FISH07 Heritage Alliance FISH08 Daniel Whittle, Whitby Seafoods Ltd FISH05 ANIFPO/Sea Source FISH09 Greener UK

PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES HOUSE OF COMMONS OFFICIAL REPORT GENERAL COMMITTEES

Public Bill Committee

FISHERIES BILL

Fifth Sitting

Tuesday 11 December 2018

(Morning)

CONTENTS

CLAUSE 1 under consideration when the Committee adjourned till this day at Two o’clock.

PBC (Bill 278) 2017 - 2019 No proofs can be supplied. Corrections that Members suggest for the final version of the report should be clearly marked in a copy of the report—not telephoned—and must be received in the Editor’s Room, House of Commons,

not later than

Saturday 15 December 2018

© Parliamentary Copyright House of Commons 2018 This publication may be reproduced under the terms of the Open Parliament licence, which is published at www.parliament.uk/site-information/copyright/. 131 Public Bill Committee 11 DECEMBER 2018 Fisheries Bill 132

The Committee consisted of the following Members:

Chairs: †JAMES GRAY,DAVID HANSON,MR LAURENCE ROBERTSON,SIR DAVID CRAUSBY

† Aldous, Peter (Waveney) (Con) † O’Hara, Brendan (Argyll and Bute) (SNP) † Brown, Alan (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP) † Pennycook, Matthew (Greenwich and Woolwich) † Carmichael, Mr Alistair (Orkney and Shetland) (Lab) (LD) † Pollard, Luke (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) † Debbonaire, Thangam (Bristol West) (Lab) (Lab/Co-op) † Duguid, David (Banff and Buchan) (Con) † Smith, Owen (Pontypridd) (Lab) † Eustice, George (Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries † Stewart, Iain (Milton Keynes South) (Con) and Food) † Sweeney, Mr Paul (Glasgow North East) (Lab/Co- † Grant, Bill (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (Con) op) † Hill, Mike (Hartlepool) (Lab) † Tracey, Craig (North Warwickshire) (Con) † Hollinrake, Kevin (Thirsk and Malton) (Con) † Jones, Mr Marcus (Nuneaton) (Con) Gail Poulton, Lis Gerhold, Committee Clerks Lefroy, Jeremy (Stafford) (Con) † Morris, James (Halesowen and Rowley Regis) (Con) † attended the Committee 133 Public Bill Committee HOUSE OF COMMONS Fisheries Bill 134

Peter Aldous: It is a pleasure to serve under your Public Bill Committee chairmanship, Mr Gray. I will seek to abide by the house rules you set down. Tuesday 11 December 2018 I have tabled quite a few amendments, so, if I may, I will say a few words of introduction about what is (Morning) behind them. I represent Lowestoft—it is the largest town in my constituency—which I think we would say [JAMES GRAY in the Chair] was formerly the fishing capital of the southern North sea. It was possible to walk on water from trawler to Fisheries Bill trawler, from one side of Hamilton dock to the other. That is not the case today; the trawl basin is largely 9.25 am empty.In Lowestoft, we have the worst-case scenario—we The Chair: May I welcome the Committee to line-by-line have seen how fisheries management can go horribly consideration of the Bill and lay down a couple of wrong. parish notices? Most Members have probably sat on We have rich fisheries off the East Anglian coast that such a Committee before. For those who have not, the bring very little benefit to East Anglian coastal communities. rules of dress, address and behaviour are identical to We do have a producer organisation—it is run from those in the main Chamber. Those who have sat under Lowestoft and has accountants in an office overlooking my chairmanship before will know that I tend to the the trawl dock—but no fish are landed in Lowestoft. traditional end of that line of thinking—I tend to be The trawlers in the Lowestoft PO land fish predominantly quite strict in requiring no coffees, no mobile phone in the Netherlands. We are left with a small inshore fleet noises, proper means of address, proper behaviour and that lives a hand-to-mouth existence, unsure what quota all that kind of thing. of fish it will be able to catch from month to month. We We addressed this last week, but I remind Members might say it lives off the scraps from a rich man’s table. that amendments must usually be tabled by Thursday With that in mind, the Bill needs to address three to be considered the following Tuesday, and by Monday challenges. It needs to address the lack of fishing to be considered the following Thursday. However, next opportunities for fishermen such as those whom I represent; week we will sit on Monday, so it will be necessary for ensure we have a sustainable fishing management system; Members to table any amendments they wish to be and ensure that we can bring significant benefits to considered then before the rise of the House on Wednesday. coastal communities such as Lowestoft, many of which That is slightly complicated, but we need to stick closely feel they have been left behind over the past 40 years. to it. The Bill provides us with an opportunity to put The selection list is in front of you and shows how the things right. Taking into account the short time that the amendments have been grouped. Youwill know that the Government and officials from the Department for order of consideration of amendments is not necessarily Environment, Food and Rural Affairs have had to put the order in which they will be voted on. They will be the Bill together, we can say that they have done a good voted on as they turn up in the Bill itself. We may allow job with a lot to be commended. I acknowledge that it is a stand part debate at the end of the consideration of an enabling Bill, and we probably do not want to get each clause, or, at my discretion, we may not if we had a involved with or bogged down by a lot of detail. However, reasonably good Second Reading-type debate during over the next two weeks we have the opportunity to consideration of the amendments. We will try to avoid scrutinise provisions that will provide the framework having too many stand part debates, apart from where within which we can revive coastal communities—not there is a matter of great principle to be considered. I just Lowestoft, but all around the coast of this country. rely in particular on the Opposition to make it clear Let me turn to amendment 78—I am inclined initially when they wish to have a stand part debate. I will be to think of Julie Andrews, so I am starting at the very delighted to allow one if that is what you would like. beginning, which is a very good place to start. Clause 1 sets out the fisheries objectives. There is concern that as Clause 1 currently drafted it does not provide a binding legal duty on all public authorities to achieve those objectives, FISHERIES OBJECTIVES so the amendment seeks to address that concern. It will ensure that the environmental and socio-economic Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con): I beg to move protections that the authorities provide are implemented amendment 78, in clause 1, page 1, line 2, at end effectively, and it will help to secure the Government insert— objective of delivering a truly sustainable, world-leading “(A1) Any public authority with any function relating to fisheries management system. It is complemented by fishing activities or fisheries management must exercise those amendment 80, to which I will speak later in our functions to achieve or contribute to the achievement of the proceedings. Amendment 78 would impose an obligation fisheries objectives.” on all public authorities. I acknowledge that in drafting terms that may not sit all that well with the Bill, but it The Chair: With this it will be convenient to discuss raises genuine concerns,and I would welcome the Minister’s amendment 36, in clause 1, page 1, line 9, at end feedback on that issue and on how he will best take that insert— concern on board. “(1A) Any public authority with functions relating to fisheries activities or fisheries management must have regard to the fisheries objectives in the exercise of those functions.” Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/ This amendment would place a duty on public authorities to have regard Co-op): I will speak to amendment 36 in addition to to the fisheries objectives in exercising their fisheries functions. amendment 78. It is an honour to speak on behalf of 135 Public Bill Committee 11 DECEMBER 2018 Fisheries Bill 136 the Opposition, not only as Labour’s shadow fishing “The ambition here is for world-leading sustainable fisheries Minister, but as an MP who represents a constituency management. At the moment we do not have a duty in this that has nearly 1,000 fishing jobs in both the catching Fisheries Bill to meet the objectives in the Bill. Those objectives and the processing sectors.The Bill is a missed opportunity, cover a lot of very good things—sustainability and a precautionary approach—but without the duty there is no clear obligation to and although we do not oppose it we have tabled a deliver those objectives. Without that clear obligation you are in a significant number of amendments to improve it and situation where they might not be met and there is no obligation reflect the changes that the industry needs from a new to meet.”––[Official Report, Fisheries Public Bill Committee, regulatory framework. We seek to ensure that there are 6 December 2018; c. 80, Q157.] enough fish to catch in our ocean, and that the industry Our amendment would make a simple but effective is truly sustainable, both economically and, importantly, change. We are pleased with many of the words in the environmentally. objectives, but it is important that we carry those through. There is perhaps just one sector of our entire United I would be grateful if the Minister would say how he Kingdom economy that could be better on day one of will ensure that those objectives are properly implemented Brexit—fishing—but only if we can ensure that our fish and do not just exist on paper in the Bill. exports to markets are free of burdensome and expensive customs checks, and free from tariffs. Brexiteers and Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD): those behind the 2016 referendum made much of promises I commend the hon. Members for Waveney and for to the fishing industry, and Labour’s amendments seek Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport for tabling these to make real many of the promises that were made amendments, which deal with an important point. I during the leave campaign, and since by Ministers, but have a concern about what is described in the briefing that are missing from the Bill as drafted. Labour wants we received today from Greener UK as a “fundamental to work constructively with the Minister to improve the flaw”. The more I think about it, the more I understand Bill, and I hope that he does, too. that to be the case. The concern is that public bodies This is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to start afresh currently have to act in accordance with the joint policy and create a truly world-leading fisheries policy, and we statements. That may be good in so far as those statements must not waste that opportunity. There are good things marry up with the Bill’s objectives, but it leaves rather a in the Bill that we want to support, but there are far too lot depending on the content and substance of the many missing pieces. As I said on Second Reading, the statements. Bill smacks of something that was pushed out hurriedly The advantage of the amendments, which are essentially to ensure that a regulatory framework is in place in the the same in their import, is that they would place a duty event of a no-deal hard Brexit. on public bodies to have regard to the objectives. Those The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and objectives are good—there is broad consensus that they Rural Affairs has committed the UK Government to are exactly the objectives we ought to set in respect of leaving the natural environment in a better state than fishing policy. It seems to me that tying public bodies we found it, and rightly so. That is good and welcome, into the objectives, rather than just the policy statements, but we need more than soundbites—we need action, is a good idea that would strengthen the Bill significantly. and many of our amendments would put such measures I suspect such a provision might have been put in the into legislation. There are significant concerns about Bill anyway, had it spent a little longer in the oven of the gap between the Government’s stated ambition, as Government. set out in the White Paper, to deliver world-leading I am interested to hear the Minister’s thinking. I do fisheries, and the duties currently in the Bill to deliver not know whether the hon. Member for Waveney intends that goal. It is critical for the health of our oceans that his amendment as a probing amendment, but Members the Bill includes a duty to deliver sustainability objectives inevitably will wish to return to this matter, either in as set out in clause 1. Without such a duty, targets are Committee or at a later stage. established but there is no clear obligation on authorities, other than the Secretary of State, to deliver them. There The Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (George should also be a requirement for annual updates on Eustice): It is a pleasure to start with this very important progress made against those objectives. clause, which sets out our sustainability objectives. I Amendment 36 is vital. I am glad that the hon. hope I am able to reassure hon. Members that the two Member for Waveney tabled a very similar amendment. amendments are unnecessary because of other provisions He and I may sit on opposite sides of the House, but we in the Bill. have both spent a lot of time listening to our fishing The fisheries administrations are already covered by communities in our respective constituencies, so we the joint fisheries statement and, in the case of England, seem to be doing a cross-party tag team on many of our the Secretary of State’s fisheries statement. Clause 2 sets amendments. The purpose of the Opposition amendment out a clear requirement to publish a joint fisheries is to place a legal duty on any public authority with any statement explaining how we intend to achieve the fisheries-related function to achieve the objectives set objectives set out in clause 1. Clause 6(1) contains a out in the Bill. Without such a duty, objectives are requirement that the functions of national authorities established but there is no clear obligation for authorities must be carried out in accordance with the joint fisheries to deliver them. The Opposition seek an explicit carry- statement. through of duties, rather than an implied or suggested One of my issues with amendment 36 is that it uses one, as is currently the case. the words “must have regard to”. I believe that the We heard last week from Debbie Crockard, senior structure we have put in place—with a joint fisheries fisheries policy advocate for the Marine Conservation statement that explains in great detail how we intend to Society. She said: achieve the objectives, is regularly reviewed, can be 137 Public Bill Committee HOUSE OF COMMONS Fisheries Bill 138

[George Eustice] My third point is that the Environment Agency has a role when it comes to fisheries, and particularly freshwater updated when circumstances change, and must be fisheries—for example, the regulation of salmon. It is followed—is more powerful than saying simply that covered by separate legislation, and the Environment authorities must have regard to the objectives. We want Act 1995 places a duty on the EA to promote the this to be an obligation that we seek to follow in the best conservation and enhancement of the natural beauty possible way, while recognising the complexity of the and amenity of inland and coastal waters, and land marine environment and how things are subject to associated with such waters, as well as the conservation change. of flora and fauna that are dependent on the aquatic environment. Owen Smith (Pontypridd) (Lab): Is part of the problem, For the reasons we have set out, we believe that the as we heard during the evidence sessions, that other joint fisheries statement and obligations in clause 6 Administrations do not necessarily have to follow what already give effect to the obligations and objectives in is set down in the joint fisheries or ministerial fisheries clause 1. Public bodies that are not covered by the joint statement—they merely need to explain why they departed fisheries statement are covered by other legislation, from it? notably the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009 and the Environment Agency. George Eustice: That provision is only for a force majeure event such as a major crisis or something that Mr Carmichael: I am grateful to the Minister for would require an Administration to move outside the giving way, as I sense he is coming to the end of his plan, and they would have to explain why that had remarks. Will he confirm that the contents of the joint happened. The requirement to follow the joint fisheries policy statement could be subject to judicial review? statement applies equally to all Administrations in the UK and it is legally binding. Other public bodies—for example, the inshore fisheries George Eustice: Lots of things in our constitution are and conservation authorities—are already covered by subject to judicial review. If a joint fisheries statement legislation, and those obligations are set out in the were published and there was some doubt as to whether Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009, which was introduced those objectives were being delivered, there is always a by the previous Labour Government. Section 153 of basis in our constitution for that to be legally challenged. that Act sets out clear duties for IFCAs to However, I believe we will be able to work together with all Administrations to ensure that the joint fisheries “seek to ensure that the exploitation of sea fisheries resources is carried out in a sustainable way…seek to balance the social and statement sets out how we intend to deliver our objectives. economic benefits of exploiting the sea fisheries resources…with On the right hon. Gentleman’s point about why we the need to protect the marine environment from…the effects of chose to do that via a joint fisheries statement, he will such exploitation”, know that the marine environment is a very dynamic and finally to take any other steps that are necessary for place where new challenges present themselves. To have sustainable development. Obligations for the IFCAs are a dynamic, detailed plan that is updated periodically therefore already covered by the 2009 Act. and remains relevant, which refocuses us on our objectives and learns lessons from what may or may not have Owen Smith: I am grateful for the Minister’sexplanation, worked, is more powerful than the two amendments but I do not really understand what he means by force would provide. majeure events. This seems to me to be quite simple. Clause 6(1) states: 9.45 am “Arelevant national authority must exercise its functions…unless relevant considerations indicate otherwise.” Mr Carmichael: The Minister is being generous with his time. He sets out a process that we hope would be I would be grateful to know what “relevant considerations” followed in optimum circumstances. In fact, very often might mean, because that seems to be fairly broad that is not the case; other considerations come into play. criteria. Clause 6(4) states simply: We have to produce legislation suitable to deal with the “If a relevant national authority within subsection (5)(a) or (b) … worst possible circumstances, not just the base that we takes any decision in the exercise of its functions otherwise than hope for. Surely, the advantage of putting this into the in accordance with the policies contained in an SSFS that are applicable to the authority, the authority must state its reasons”. objectives, rather than just remaining with the policy statements, would be that those who wanted ensure that The Chair: Order. We might discuss that matter when the policies meet the objectives would not have resort to we consider clause 6, rather than now. that sort of expensive legal procedure.

Owen Smith: The Minister mentioned clause 6 George Eustice: I simply believe that the approach we have set out, of a joint fisheries statement that can be The Chair: Order. The fact that the Minister mentioned regularly updated and can express in great detail how clause 6 is not a good reason to question the Chair’s we intend to deliver those objectives, is more powerful decision on the matter. than a simple addition to the clause. In this Bill we give legal effect, via the joint fisheries statement, for a George Eustice: I concede that I started this by requirement on Administrations to follow those objectives. mentioning clause 6, but I did so in the context of There are occasions, as the right hon. Gentleman will obligations that were to give effect to the measures in know from his constituency, when we have to do annual clause 1—we will return to that issue in further detail fisheries negotiations with Norway and the Faroes, and later on. we have to do the coastal states negotiations on issues 139 Public Bill Committee 11 DECEMBER 2018 Fisheries Bill 140 such as mackerel. Sometimes, countries such as Norway marine planning objective, a new safety and workforce use other scientific measures, although maximum objective, and a new climate change and international sustainable yield is one of their approaches, too. Sometimes, agreements objective. The first—the public asset we have to reach an agreement, and if we are too objective—would deliver on the pledge in the Government’s inflexible in our approach to reaching an agreement White Paper, which states: with countries in those circumstances,everybody unilaterally “We aim to manage these fisheries—and the wider marine sets their own quota and goes their own way, and the environment—as a shared resource, a public asset held in stewardship marine resource suffers. It is important that our plan for the benefit of all.” has the flexibility to enable us to reach a settlement with That sounds brilliant, but it should have been included our near neighbours such as Norway and the Faroes. in the Bill. I hope I have been able to persuade hon. Members Listing fish as a public good in the Bill would allow that the approach we have set out deals with the intention us to say definitively that fish should be allocated for behind the two amendments, and that they will not feel the benefit of the country. I am amazed that Ministers the need to press them. did not set that out clearly in Bill. I encourage the Minister to accept the amendment so there can be no Peter Aldous: I have listened carefully to the Minister’s doubt, no obfuscation and no sleight of hand in policy points. Although it was important to highlight the issue from this Government or any that might follow— we need to take into account, I am generally content particularly in the coming days—that fish is a public that the existing provisions, particularly the joint fisheries good and their benefits should be shared by the nation. statement, cover the matter On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. We heard evidence last week from Griffin Carpenter, an economist at the New Economics Foundation. He Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. agreed with that point, stating: Amendment proposed: 36, in clause 1, page 1, line 9, at “When I have spoken to stakeholders, even the quota holders, end insert— everyone starts from the same premise that fish is a public good, “(1A) Any public authority with functions relating to fisheries but from my perspective that has not been followed through in the activities or fisheries management must have regard to the way we treat the opportunity to fish that public good.”––[Official fisheries objectives in the exercise of those functions.”—(Luke Report, Fisheries Public Bill Committee, 6 December 2018; c. 104, Pollard.) Q200.] This amendment would place a duty on public authorities to have regard to the fisheries objectives in exercising their fisheries functions. The hon. Member for Waveney expressed similar concerns. I am sure hon. Members on both sides of the House Question put, That the amendment be made. know Aaron Brown from Fishing for Leave, who is a The Committee divided: Ayes 6, Noes 9. key supporter of the amendment. He said in evidence Division No. 1] last week: AYES “Fish always has been a public resource. Various judicial hearings have defined that as well. Indeed, it probably stretches all Carmichael, rh Mr Alistair Pollard, Luke the way back into Magna Carta right back through our constitution.” Debbonaire, Thangam Smith, Owen That is slightly before my time, I am afraid. He continued: Hill, Mike Sweeney, Mr Paul “At the end of the day, we as fishermen, as the members of the public who catch, are only custodians of what is the nation’s; we NOES look after it and husband it well for current generations and Aldous, Peter Jones, Mr Marcus future ones.Wewould very much like to see a clause put in”.––[Official Report, Fisheries Public Bill Committee, 4 December 2018; c. 62, Duguid, David Morris, James Eustice, George Q134.] Grant, Bill Stewart, Iain Importantly, clause 1 sets the tone for how the Bill Hollinrake, Kevin Tracey, Craig will be regarded. There is much discussion about fish in our political debate. It is vital that we make it clear right Question accordingly negatived. from the start that fish is a public asset and should be distributed accordingly—a key argument that I believe Luke Pollard: I beg to move amendment 37, in clause 1, Members on both sides of the House have advocated. page 1, line 9, at end insert— Its omission from the Bill is regrettable, which is why the Opposition seek to insert it as one of the Bill’s early “(g) the public asset objective.” objectives. This amendment would add to the fisheries objectives the “public asset” objective, defined in Amendment 38. Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP): It is The Chair: With this it will be convenient to discuss a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray. amendment 38, in clause 1, page 2, line 24, at end We will be happy to support the amendment if it is insert— pressed to a vote. Clearly, clause 1 is all about setting “(7A) The ‘public asset objective’ is to manage fisheries, and objectives. The Minister may argue that the amendment the rights to exploit those fisheries, as a shared resource and is superfluous, but we are setting objectives and, as the public asset held in stewardship for the public good.” hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport This amendment defines the “public asset” objectives. touched on, we heard clearly in evidence that there is a desire for the Bill to state that fishing is a public good. Luke Pollard: Members will see from the amendment That would set a marker for the future, when we look at paper that the Opposition propose a number of additional reallocating quotas for the benefit of that public good. objectives, including a new public asset objective, a new We are certainly happy to support the amendment. 141 Public Bill Committee HOUSE OF COMMONS Fisheries Bill 142

George Eustice: I do not believe the amendment is with existing FQA units for existing fishing opportunities, necessary, for reasons that I will set out. I will describe but we will diverge from that over time. To do that, we in a moment what we intend to do on quota allocation. must simply give notice in a policy statement or document As the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and that we intend to do so; it does not need to be placed in Devonport highlighted, case law in this area is very the Bill. clear. We have an unwritten constitution, elements of which do not need to be put in statute. We do not need Mr Carmichael: Would the insertion of the amendment to put in statute that Parliament is sovereign. We do not prevent the Minister from doing that? need to put in the Bill that fish live in water. Certain things are facts, not objectives. We do not have an objective to make fish a public asset; it is a statement of George Eustice: It would not, but nothing in the fact that they are a public asset, and our common law amendment is necessary, and when we draft legislation, tradition enshrines that. it is important to include that which is necessary.Arguably, there would be nothing wrong with a piece of legislation The case law is very clear. The UK Association of that stated “Parliament is sovereign”, except that that Fish Producers Organisations brought an important which can be given can be taken away. We have an test case in 2013, when my predecessor moved some unwritten constitution and a common law tradition in quota. Mr Justice Cranston, the judge who took the this country because there are certain things that we do case, noted Magna Carta and what it sets out, and its not want to call into question by including them in a implications were that fish stocks are a public resources. Bill. We certainly do not want to downgrade this to As he stated: a mere objective when it is about a long-established “Consequently, there can be no property right in fish until they right and a national resource that cannot be turned into are caught.” a property right, and that is a long-standing point in The nature of our unwritten constitution, our common our constitution. law tradition and our case law make it clear: fish are a I understand the thinking behind the amendment public asset. Furthermore, articles 2 and 56 of the and the points raised by the hon. Member for Plymouth, United Nations convention on the law of the sea recognise Sutton and Devonport. I hope I have been able to that coastal states have sovereign rights over their resources, reassure him that is unnecessary and, more important, including fisheries in their territorial waters and exclusive that I have enlightened him of the Government’sintentions economic zone, and we are signatories to that convention. and approach as we move to a new system and regime I do not believe it necessary, but I wish briefly to for allocating quota. explain why in our White Paper we set out clearly that fish are a public asset. As we diverge from relative 10 am stability shares and additional fishing opportunities come in, we have been explicit that those new fishing Mr Carmichael: I confess I was not much exercised opportunities will not be allocated along current fixed about this amendment until I heard the Minister’s quota allocation lines, and that initially, as a first step, explanation of why the Committee should not accept it. we will allocate the quota differently. We are considering The Minister says that we do not need to put in the Bill a number of measures. First, we could put additional the fact that fish swim in the sea. That is absolutely fish into the under-10-metre pool—the inshore pool—to correct, but that is different from parliamentary give extra fishing opportunities to our smaller inshore sovereignty—the other example he cited. If I dredge the fleet. Secondly, other parts of the Bill we set out an depths of my memory, that is the difference between a ability for us to use some of that additional quota to praesumptio iuris and a praesumptio iuris et de iure: create a national reserve to help manage the landing there are some things that are irrefutable—fish swim in obligation and deal with the problem of choke species the sea, for example. Parliamentary sovereignty is not and discards. Thirdly—again, this is set out elsewhere in necessarily part of nature; it is part of the decisions we the Bill—we have outlined the possibility for a producer take. Jurists have wrestled with that for centuries. or organisation to tender for fishing opportunities for a Our own definition of parliamentary sovereignty has year or a number of years, based on their track record changed many times over the years. The whole question on issues such as creating opportunities for new entrants, of sovereignty is seen differently in different parts of the their sustainability, the amount of benefit they deliver United Kingdom. It is well established in Scots law that for coastal communities and so on. sovereignty is vested in the people and given to Parliament; We have been clear that new fishing opportunities the Diceyan definition of parliamentary sovereignty is will be allocated differently. In the longer term and once not necessarily accepted. I did not particularly anticipate we have established alternative methodologies, if we employing this line of argument, but as the hon. Member gave sufficient notice—the judgment I mentioned earlier for Pontypridd said, the Minister started it. suggested that the Government would need to give seven years’ notice to people who currently hold FQA The Chair: We are slightly off the topic. units—it would be possible gradually to start to move away from the FQA system altogether. We do not want to do that expeditiously, for the reasons set out in our Mr Carmichael: Weare, but if the basis of parliamentary White Paper. Complex business models have been built draftsmanship is that the Government will do things under the current FQA regime, and people have borrowed only that are necessary, that is quite welcome. However, money to buy vessels with FQA units attached. As we given the direction of travel of legislation over the leave the EU, a lot of changes will already be happening 17 years I have been in the House, that would be a fairly and we do not want to compound them by destabilising normal one and something of a departure from the way the system entirely. We have been clear that we will stick we have done things recently. 143 Public Bill Committee 11 DECEMBER 2018 Fisheries Bill 144

The Minister brought forward various policy objectives environment around fishing. It is a Bill laced with that would sit well in the policy statements at that point, politics and other meaning, because of the importance but I do not see anything that contradicts the need for of fishing to the Brexit debate. That is why setting a this to be put into the policy objectives. Whereas initially tone for fishing is so important. I was of the view that this was not something of greatest The Minister claims that that is not necessary, but it moment, now I understand the reasons why the is certainly desirable. We should ensure that the Bill, Government resist it I am somewhat more impressed and all the fishers who will be governed by it, have a with the idea behind it. sense of the Government’s priorities. Having fishing as a public asset should be high up as one of the key The Chair: Does the Minister wish to reply? priorities of the Bill and the Government. It is fine to mention it in statements, which we will come to in due George Eustice indicated dissent. course, but being clear that fish is a public asset should be at the front of the Bill, because that is what our fishing communities want it to be. That is why I will not The Chair: He is not required to do so. withdraw the amendment but will push it to a vote. Question put, That the amendment be made. Luke Pollard: I welcome the Minister’s words about allocation of quota. We will come to that in due course. The Committee divided: Ayes 8, Noes 9. In consideration of the first two amendments, an awful Division No. 2] lot of fishers will watch this Committee and will ask AYES why Ministers are resisting fish being a public asset in this Bill. They will ask, “What are they trying to hide or Brown, Alan O’Hara, Brendan trying not to say?” Carmichael, rh Mr Alistair Pollard, Luke Debbonaire, Thangam Smith, Owen Hill, Mike Sweeney, Mr Paul George Eustice: The hon. Gentleman seeks to downgrade something that is a fact—fish are a national asset—to NOES become a mere objective. Aldous, Peter Jones, Mr Marcus Duguid, David Morris, James Luke Pollard: For someone who is still quite fresh in Eustice, George Parliament, it is very curious that a downgrade to an Grant, Bill Stewart, Iain objective is better than not having something in the Bill Hollinrake, Kevin Tracey, Craig at all. Not mentioning it seems to be the higher state for something—that is not what most fishers will take from Question accordingly negatived. this debate.

Mr Paul Sweeney (Glasgow North East) (Lab/Co-op): Luke Pollard: I beg to move amendment 39, in My hon. Friend will know that many fishermen will clause 1, page 1, line 9, at end insert— watch the Committee and note the rather peculiar point “(g) the marine planning objective.” made by the Government. Surely, this is a belt-and-braces This amendment would add to the fisheries objectives the “marine approach, not a mutually exclusive option to define fish planning” objective, defined in Amendment 40. as a public asset. Many small fishermen, particularly those who seem to be crowded out as a result of large-scale The Chair: With this it will be convenient to discuss private fishing interests dominating the sector, will view amendment 40, in clause 1, page 2, line 24, at end the Government’s proposals with cynicism. insert— ‘(7A) The “marine planning objective” is to ensure that any Luke Pollard: Fish is a public asset and that should be policies are compatible with any marine plans prepared pursuant in the Bill. That is the position of my hon. Friends, and to Part 3 of the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009.” I am disappointed that we have not been able to find a This amendment defines the “marine planning” objective. form of words to convince the Minister to be clear that fish is a public asset and should be in the Bill. This is Luke Pollard: The amendments relate to the importance one of the fundamental principles that fishers say to me of marine planning in the conservation and exercise of when I go down to the quayside in Plymouth: they want the fishing sector. We have tabled new marine planning the Government to come to an honest set of words that objectives and I am grateful for the work of many says, “Fish is a public asset.” stakeholders in reinforcing the importance of marine planning, in particular the Blue Marine Foundation. Mr Carmichael: The hon. Gentleman and I need to The UK and devolved Administrations are preparing challenge the assertion that the inclusion of an asset is a marine plans under the Marine and Coastal Access downgrade from what was already there in common Act 2009, the Marine (Scotland) Act 2010 and the law. There is no such thing. All it says is that this is a Marine Act (Northern Ireland) 2013. It is important fisheries objective; it does not change the status of that marine plans are incorporated in the joint fisheries public assets or the view of fish being a public asset in statement and the Secretary of State’s fisheries statement, the way of jurisprudence. and vice versa. It is vital that the Fisheries Bill works in concert and tandem with the existing legislative framework. Luke Pollard: I agree with the right hon. Gentleman. The Marine and Coastal Access Act is an important We need to make that clear, because this is not a Bill piece of legislation passed in the final years of the that seeks just to refresh and update the regulatory Labour Government, as was mentioned by the Minister. 145 Public Bill Committee HOUSE OF COMMONS Fisheries Bill 146

[Luke Pollard] The purpose of the amendment was to set out the importance of marine planning in general, and I am It is curious that there is not an automatic read-across grateful to the Minister for doing that. Some good steps from that Act to the provisions in the Bill. The amendment are being taken. I welcome the extension of the blue-belt seeks to reflect the importance of marine planning in policy. The Minister will know that my colleagues from the Marine and Coastal Access Act in the Fisheries Bill. Plymouth and I have been arguing for the creation of We heard in evidence last week from Dr Amy Pryor, the country’s first national marine park in Plymouth who is the programme manager at the Thames Estuary Sound. We also need look internationally, and I hope Partnership, chair of the Coastal Partnerships Network Ministers hurry up with the designation of the South and a member of the Coastal Communities Alliance. Sandwich Islands as a marine park. I do not feel that She said that she would like to see more formal recognition the amendment would duplicate the legislation, as the of that in the Bill and perhaps an extra marine planning hon. Member for Nuneaton said, but I am grateful for objective that could set out these matters. The amendment the Minister’swords, which make it clear to all stakeholders seeks to ask the Minister why marine plans are not how important marine planning is to our fragile marine mentioned in the Bill and I would be grateful for his environment. As a result, I will not press the amendment response. to a vote. I beg to ask leave that the amendment be withdrawn. George Eustice: The hon. Gentleman asks why marine Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. plans are not included in the Bill. The answer is really quite simple: the previous Labour Government did all Luke Pollard: I beg to move amendment 41, in that was required in this space. As he highlighted, the clause 1, page 1, line 9, at end insert— Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009 already sets out “(g) the safety and workforce objective.” our approach to marine management. Specifically, in This amendment would add to the fisheries objectives the ‘safety and chapter 4, section 58 (1) requires public bodies to consider workforce’ objective, defined in Amendment 42. marine policy documents in any decision making. Such documents include marine plans and UK marine policy The Chair: With this it will be convenient to discuss statements. amendment 42, in clause 1, page 2, line 24, at end A number of regional marine spatial plans are under insert— development, and under the Marine and Coastal Access ‘(7A) The “safety and workforce objective” is— Act, we have a network of marine conservation zones (a) to protect and enhance the safety of workers in fishing and are building a blue belt around our shores. Many activities, byelaws introduced by IFCAs give effect to the protections (b) to set and protect minimum standards for wages, terms required under the marine conservation zones. As with and conditions of employment in fishing activities, some of the other amendments that the hon. Gentleman tabled, we believe that this is unnecessary, since our (c) to prevent modern slavery in fishing activities, and approach to marine spatial planning is set down in the (d) to ensure the application and enforcement of the Marine and Coastal Access Act. I would also point out national minimum wage by HMRC on fishing vessels within the United Kingdom’s Exclusive Economic that it is not really an objective to have marine planning. Zone.” It has been a legal requirement since 2009, and those This amendment defines the “safety and workforce” objective. plans have been rolled out. It is already a legal requirement that decision makers and public bodies must follow those plans. Luke Pollard: Amendments 41 and 42 attempt to use the Bill to make fishing a better and safer place to work for all our fishers. As Jerry Percy said, when we heard Mr Marcus Jones (Nuneaton) (Con): Is the Minister evidence last week from the New Under Ten Fishermen’s saying that, if we accepted this amendment, we would Association, be duplicating the existing law and therefore creating a “Fishing, unfortunately, still carries the record as the most significant amount of confusion? dangerous occupation in the world.”––[Official Report, Fisheries Public Bill Committee, 4 December 2018; c. 39, Q67.] George Eustice: I would make two points. First, it is Every day around the world, people who go to sea to unnecessary,since we already have legislative requirements catch fish die. We should remember that important fact. that require public bodies to do this. Secondly, in common Fishing is a dangerous career. with the previous amendment, it does not sit easily as Since I was elected in June last year, two trawlers an objective. It is not an objective to have a marine plan; from Plymouth have sunk and a life has been lost on it has been a legal requirement for almost a decade. I each of them. To address marine safety, we need a hope that, given the fact that I have given credit to the number of things to happen. We need the rules and Labour party for introducing the Marine and Coastal regulations to be better and more appropriate to the Access Act, which has delivered these things, the hon. methods of fishing today. We need better enforcement Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport will not by authorities, and we need better adoption of those see the need to duplicate that which has already been standards and best practice by the industry. done. Only last week, a report came out on the tragic sinking of the Solstice trawler—one of the boats I Luke Pollard: I thank the Minister for his response mentioned earlier—which sunk in the patch I represent. and for saying more nice words about the previous It is a tragedy that too many fishermen die every year Government—more of his colleagues should receive catching our fish suppers. That is a reminder of just that memo. I hope that was not the last mention of it. how important fishing safety needs to be. I am aware 147 Public Bill Committee 11 DECEMBER 2018 Fisheries Bill 148 that fisheries safety is a responsibility of the Department lifejacket with a PLB might keep someone alive if the for Transport rather than DEFRA, but in setting the boat sinks or they go overboard, but if the worst tone, requirements and objectives for how fisheries should happens and that life is lost, the PLB means there is a be governed in future, it would be remiss of us not to body for the family to bury or cremate. It is important discuss the importance of marine safety. that we recognise that feedback from families. There Marine safety is increasingly an issue—in particular seems to be universal agreement that PLBs attached to for small boats, because of the pressures of the regulatory lifejackets are a good thing, but we know that there is a environment that have led to many of those boats cost to fishermen of buying new lifejackets with PLBs perhaps being slightly less stable than they were originally and registering them. That is why we have tabled the designed to be. In one of our evidence sessions, I spoke amendment, to make it clear in the Bill that marine about the development of dumpy boats, which has been safety is important. a direct consequence of the regulatory environment, Our amendment also deals with the subject of modern which has given rise to an under-10 metre fleet. Instead slavery. As well as enhancing safety standards, the of having a larger boat that trips over that line, boats amendment would address the minimum wage and have become dumpier. In addition, given the need for tackle the issue of modern slavery, which unfortunately small boats, especially, to be able change their gear, can persist far out at sea. Only last year in December, there have been concerns about stability. nine African and Asian crew members working on a pair of British scallop trawlers were taken to a place of 10.15 am safety by police as suspected victims of modern slavery. Alan Brown: Nobody is going to argue about the The men were alleged to have worked unlimited hours importance of improving health and safety. As the hon. at sea with very little rest. That is why it important, Gentleman rightly says, there are many risks in the when we deal with marine safety, that we recognise the fishing industry. I am just seeking clarification. Having pernicious behaviour of those people who are engaged the objective is fine, but how will the objective in itself in modern slavery. We need to ensure that has no place lead to improvements in health and safety? Regulation in the UK fishing industry, by including it in the Bill. and enforcement are required—we need that linkage. The Prime Minister herself has championed the case against modern slavery. I am certain that if the Prime Luke Pollard: I am grateful for that intervention; it is Minister, who does not seem to have much going on a good question. The important thing about including today, were serving on the Committee, she would vote this objective is that there would be a requirement for in favour of the amendment, to support action against Ministers in their annual statements to report on progress modern slavery and ensure not only that our fishing on marine safety. As we have seen, sadly there has not industry is as safe as such a dangerous pursuit can be, been sufficient progress. Given that responsibility for but that there can be no examples of modern slavery marine safety is shared between a great number of in it. stakeholders in government, it is important to have an opportunity to bring all those efforts together and share Mr Carmichael: Like many Members of this House, I best practice. Having a clear objective that the regulatory am often wary about using legislation to send signals, environment we want to create around fisheries after because most of the time I do not think it necessarily Brexit is one where marine safety is prioritised is a key ends well. However, from my experience personally and message that we should be sending to the fishing community. as a constituency MP, I think the hon. Gentleman’s The Minister will know of a brilliant scheme from amendment would send a very important signal, so I Plymouth that provides lifejackets personal locator beacons commend him for tabling it. to fishermen with. That is an example of how we can One of my formative experiences in the area came make real our proposed objective, if implemented. Personal when I was still in legal practice. I was instructed to locator beacons activate when they come into contact appear at a fatal accident inquiry at Lerwick Sheriff with water, enabling the search to be taken out of search Court on behalf of a family from Banff, or perhaps and rescue. I have seen for myself the registry and met Macduff, whose son had been swept overboard from a the team at Falmouth coastguard who manage this trawler, the Alandale, which is no longer at sea. In a system: it is a good one that we need to roll out more force 7 or force 8 gale, the young man had gone over to comprehensively. the ledge around the side of the boat to fix a trawl door. The boat was hit by a big wave—a lump of water—and MikeHill (Hartlepool) (Lab): As I recall, the Government he was washed away. The skipper said that the crew saw considered it important that such health and safety a flash of orange oilskin in the water, but that was the provisions apply to vessels coming into our waters last they saw of him. They looked for him for some post-Brexit. Does my hon. Friend agree that that makes time, but the search was ultimately futile. it doubly important that we include these issues in the When I was instructed in that case, the grief of the Bill? young man’s parents formed my view, which I hold to this day, that the matter requires our attention and Luke Pollard: My hon. Friend is exactly right. It is every possible signal needs to be given. The other thing important that we set high levels of safety standards for that struck me during the fatal accident inquiry was the all fishing boats in UK waters, whether they are UK or evidence of the other deckhand, who was still in his late foreign-registered. The highest safety standards, including teenage years. He said that for a few weeks after the wearing lifejackets with personal locator beacons, should incident, he had worn a life vest of some sort; when be something that we demand. I would like to see every asked on cross-examination why he had stopped wearing fisher in UK waters wear a lifejacket with a personal it, he said that he had been subject to ridicule from locator beacon. I want to stress the feedback from others in the industry. Nobody of that age, and nobody families of fishers who have been lost at sea. Wearing a who had witnessed what that young man had witnessed, 149 Public Bill Committee HOUSE OF COMMONS Fisheries Bill 150

[Mr Carmichael] It is complex, so although we agree with the spirit of the amendment, particularly about safety on board, we should be subject to such pressure. I have noticed that must ensure that we get things right. If the amendment the situation has improved since, but there is still a lot to is pressed to a vote we shall support it but, if the hon. do. I still hold the view that there is a job of education Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport does not to be done within the industry, and making it an objective press it, we will have an opportunity to work on a of the Bill would be a significant improvement. proposal covering more of the industry. We could work Locator beacons are another matter that I have formed on that together and perhaps bring it back on Report. a view on over the years as a consequence of my experience of dealing with families. One constituent, George Eustice: This issue is obviously incredibly with whom I worked for some years, had a brother important. Fisheries and fishing are one of the most working on a single-handed creel boat who was caught dangerous occupations. Every year we have a fisheries in a rope—we think—when shooting his creels and debate—we have one tomorrow. Tragically, we always went over the side of the boat, which was on automatic have to reflect on those who have lost their lives to put pilot. The boat was eventually found a considerable food on our tables. I know that there has been a tragedy distance from where the family thought he had been linked to the constituency of the hon. Member for fishing. A locator beacon would not have saved his life, Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport, with the loss of the but it would have saved his family immense pain and Solstice and a crew member. The report was published grief to know sooner where he was. It is a relatively recently and the hon. Gentleman has had a lot of small and inexpensive innovation, but it highlights the dealings with the family. importance of putting safety objectives in the Bill. The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland Finally, let me make a point about modern slavery. raised an important point and told a rather depressing The modern slavery that we have identified in the fishing story about a young man who was wearing a personal industry has generally been a consequence of the operation flotation device for his safety and was ridiculed. That of transit visas in relation to crews of non-European underlines an important issue. We need to try to get a economic area nationals. The hon. Member for Plymouth, culture change—a change in attitude in some sectors of Sutton and Devonport has heard me speak about that the fleet—so that safety is given more prominence. in the House times without number. It is a ridiculous I want to return later to a couple of issues raised by use for transit visas and the Government should get real the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Plymouth, and identify the need for non-EEA nationals to be Sutton and Devonport, which are covered elsewhere in employed in the industry, and make a sectoral provision the Bill, about how we define under-10s. There are also about it. other issues about monitoring of smaller vessels. However, If the objective were included in the Bill, arguably the first it is important to recognise that safety, as the hon. Home Office’s current approach to visas for non-EEA Gentleman acknowledges, is first and foremost a matter nationals would be in breach of it. For that and other for the Department for Transport. I think I am right in reasons, the proposed change to the Bill is eminently saying that he, along with me and many in the industry, sensible and supportable. attended a meeting organised by the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Wealden Brendan O’Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP): It is a (Ms Ghani), who has responsibility for shipping. As the pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray. hon. Gentleman is aware, she takes this very seriously. The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland is We got fisheries stakeholders together specifically to right. Any of us who represent fishing communities discuss what more can be done to promote safety. He know the devastation that can be caused when a boat is highlighted important schemes, including the use of lost. Indeed, just at the start of this year in my constituency, personal location devices. Quite a lot of progress has the Nancy Glen sank off Loch Fyne with the loss of been made, too, on personal flotation devices, which are Duncan MacDougall and Przemek Krawczyk. The discreet and do not get in the way of fishermen’s manual devastation felt is something I never want to see again. work but inflate when they come in contact with water. Anything that improves safety on board has to be supported. 10.30 am I question the amendment in relation to wages and The existing safety provisions are set out in the Merchant salary protection, but the SNP supports the principle. Shipping and Fishing Vessels (Health and Safety at The Scottish Government—notably Fergus Ewing, the Work) Regulations 1997. In addition, the Merchant Cabinet Secretary—have written to industry stakeholders Shipping Act 1995 provides the Maritime and Coastguard along those lines and spoken to the Government and Agency with all the powers it needs to implement safety officials about regularising the visa situation to ensure legislation. MCA officers are trained and empowered to that non-EEA workers are subject to UK employment do that. We therefore think the amendment duplicates law. We are keen to get full implementation of ILO 188, existing legislation sponsored by the Department for the International Labour Organisation work in fishing Transport. Safety infringements are not within the scope convention. We have concerns that the wording of the of fisheries legislation. A safety infringement on a fishing amendment means it would not apply to the many vessel is not a fisheries offence; it is a health and safety fishermen who are self-employed, or to the significant offence and would be a breach of the provisions of the proportion of the industry who are share fishermen, to 1995 Act or the 1997 regulations. whom such things as the national minimum wage do Turning to some other points that were made, minimum not apply. We need to ensure that anything in the licence wages and working standards are covered by the National works in tandem with existing law and check the exact Minimum Wage Act 1998, in addition to which this implications of the amendment. Government brought in the national living wage. The 151 Public Bill Committee 11 DECEMBER 2018 Fisheries Bill 152 hon. Gentleman cited the Prime Minister’s enthusiasm down from our EU friends. That level of detail is not and commitment to ending modern slavery. That of highlighted in the Bill, but the Minister and the Under- course culminated in the Modern Slavery Act 2015, Secretary of State for Transport who has responsibility which sets out detailed provisions that apply to the for shipping have great concerns about it, as do I. fishing industry. It is important also to say that EU and I am grateful to the Minister for his comments on the European economic area nationals who want to join the under-10 definition, which is unhelpful across the board. UK fishing industry must provide evidence of their I recognise that a lot of homework still needs to be done compliance with UK basic safety training to the vessel to find a better definition. Measuring engine size and owner before they can be employed. We have provisions hold size are two potential options. However, in the that require crew to be trained before they take a fishing area of DEFRA-land in the bigger sense,unintended position on a vessel. consequences can have the most profound effects. We The hon. Gentleman highlighted an important difficulty need to be cognisant of safety implications in respect of we have with some under-10-metre vessels, where a regulations in the Bill and in the Minister’s secondary rather extraordinary practice happens. In the recent powers, even if safety responsibilities sit with the past, some owners of over-10-metre vessels have chosen Department for Transport. sell their quota for a profit, chop the end off their boat The Minister is right to talk about IVMS, which will to bring it under 10 metres and seek to access the be a positive development as long as the technology under-10-metre pool. As he pointed out, that results in concerns can be addressed. It is certainly an improvement some rather odd-shaped boats in parts of the country, on the behaviour that we see around the automatic not least in his constituency. Having been adapted in identification system, which fishers sometimes turn off that way, those vessels are not necessarily as stable as when they find fish. I would be grateful if the Minister they otherwise might be. could maintain his focus on marine safety and continue Later in the Bill, we make provision to enable the the discussions with the Under-Secretary of State for redefinition of low-impact inshore fishing. The under- Transport. I am seeing her tomorrow to continue those 10-metre criterion is rather arbitrary. It would be entirely conversations on the Solstice incident. possible for us in the future to amend the Bill’s provisions On the basis that we will revisit marine safety in our so we have a different approach. We might look at consideration of later amendments, I beg to ask leave to engine size or another criterion to say that only a withdraw the amendment. certain type of vessel is able to fish in a particular inshore area. We are looking at whether we can get a Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. better approach to defining low-impact vessels. Finally, as the shadow Minister is also aware, DEFRA Luke Pollard: I beg to move amendment 43, in has consulted and announced its intention to require clause 1, page 1, line 9, at end insert— inshore vessel-monitoring systems on all the under-10 “(g) The climate change and international agreements inshore fleet. At the moment, those vessels are not objective.” covered by those requirements in the way that some This amendment would add to the fisheries objectives the ‘climate change larger vessels are. Requiring a relatively low-cost IVMS and international agreements’ objective, defined in Amendment 44. system on those vessels will mean that they emit a signal every two minutes to Government agencies, including the Marine Management Organisation and the Maritime The Chair: With this, it will be convenient to discuss and Coastguard Agency, giving their location. If there amendment 44, in clause 1, page 2, line 24, at end is an incident at sea, rather than having to try to work insert— out where the vessel might, as in the tragic case he “(7A) The climate change and international agreements highlighted, we will have reliable information, right up objective is to ensure that fisheries policy aims to ensure to the most recent two minutes on the location of the compliance with the United Kingdom‘s obligations under— vessel, which will assist the Maritime and Coastguard (a) the United Nations Paris Agreement under the United Agency. Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, I hope I have been able to reassure the hon. Gentleman. (b) the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Although I recognise that this issue is absolutely critical, Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, it is covered by other legislation, and we can address (c) the Convention on Biological Diversity, including the issues such as the definition of under-10 metres or low Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety to the Convention impacts through other parts of the Bill. on Biological Diversity, (d) the Convention on the Law of the Sea, (e) the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Luke Pollard: I am grateful to the Minister for those Cultural Rights (ICESCR), words. It is especially important that we look at marine safety in relation to fishing, because although marine (f) the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals.” safety is spread across different aspects of Government, This amendment defines the “climate change and international in many cases the unintended consequences of fishing agreements” objective. regulation have an impact on fishing operations and fishermen’s lives, so it is right that we consider it. Luke Pollard: The amendments, which aim to update When we consider what can be done to improve the objectives at the front of the Bill, refer to climate safety standards in fishing, it is also right that we change. It is important that we talk about climate consider the differing distribution methods to which the change in the context of fisheries. Climate change is a Minister referred in his opening remarks—he talked challenge facing every single sector of the UK economy, about the distribution of any additional quota drawn but the impacts of climate change are being felt in 153 Public Bill Committee HOUSE OF COMMONS Fisheries Bill 154

[Luke Pollard] George Eustice: As discussed under the previous amendment, climate change is obviously incredibly fishing communities in respect of the availability and important. As the hon. Gentleman points out, we have location of the fish stocks that our fishers are trying some fantastic marine science laboratories, including in to catch. his constituency, that study the long-term effects of climate change, and its impact on, for instance, the At a time of global uncertainty, we could not let the availability of plankton and, in turn, our fisheries food omission of the phrase “climate change” from the Bill chain. DEFRA is therefore responsible for mitigating slip by. We know from the evidence we heard last week the effects of climate change. However, the amendment, that climate change is affecting fishing, be that through in common with a number of the hon. Gentleman’s the availability of food stocks for fish, through the amendments, is not necessary, for reasons I will explain. changes in spawning and breeding grounds, or through different migration patterns, which affect where fishers I feel that, as a Conservative Minister, I am paying go to catch fish. Climate change is real and it affects too much tribute to legislation introduced by the last fishing, as it does every other economic sector, so it Labour Government, but—I am sure this will not have warrants a mention both in the Bill and in DEFRA’s escaped the hon. Gentleman’s attention—they introduced serious considerations and actions. the Climate Change Act 2008, which set out clear targets in a range of sectors, including marine and If Labour had been in government and we were shipping. The 2008 Act is the cornerstone of the approach introducing this Bill, I imagine that we would be doing of this Government and this country to tackling the it ever so slightly differently from how the Minister is effects of climate change. Although managing a reduction doing it. The amendment is key in addressing climate in carbon emissions is the responsibility of the Department change and reinforcing sustainability. for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy—energy sits within its remit—DEFRA is responsible under the I am grateful for the words of the Secretary of State Act for climate change mitigation. We produce regular on not rolling back environmental protections. It is reports to update both the House and the country at important that those words are met with actions, including large on our approach. in the Bill. In addition to talking about climate change, I will make a couple of points on the other international we talk about the international agreements objective, agreements. The UK is a signatory to those various which lists the other international agreements that have conventions and agreements and is therefore bound by a bearing on fishing, and in particular on the conservation them under international law. We do not need to state and environmental aspects of fishing—if we overfish, that in the Bill. there will not be enough fish in our seas to sustain a I also point out that the hon. Gentleman’s list is a fishing industry. We need fisheries that are sustainable partial one, omitting a number of important international both economically and environmentally.The amendment conventions to which we are a signatory. The problem seeks to make a reference in the Bill to the other with placing on statute a partial list is that it casts doubt international agreements. over our commitment to the other agreements. If we are to do a list, we must at least include them all but, in any Alan Brown: Perish the thought that I am starting to event, we believe that a list is unnecessary. However, I think like a Conservative. However, although those are will just point out some of the other important international laudable conventions by which we need to abide, is not agreements and conventions to which we are a signatory the key issue that, as a signatory to the treaties, the UK and which are not currently covered. There is the UN fish has to fulfil those obligations anyway? Therefore, it is stocks agreement, which sits alongside the UN convention superfluous having them in the Bill, regardless of the on the law of the sea, and the Oslo-Paris agreement, signals that would be sent by the amendment. which is the cornerstone of our international agreements dealing with challenges such as marine litter and marine pollution more widely. Luke Pollard: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that, because it brings us on to maximum sustainable 10.45 am yield, which is one of our rationales for talking about this. The UK is committed to achieving maximum There are then a number of regional fisheries sustainable yield by 2020—that commitment is in a management organisations, crucial among which is the variety of international treaties and agreements. That North East Atlantic Fisheries Commission, which we target is hard to achieve, according to the feedback we intend to rejoin. There is also the North Atlantic Fisheries have had from stakeholders and to some of the evidence Organisation and the North Atlantic Salmon Conservation we heard last week. That is why, in creating a new Organisation. None has been covered in the list and all regulatory environment for fishing, we need to have due of them are very important, particularly the North regard to the commitments the UK has signed up to Atlantic Salmon Conservation Organization, which relates elsewhere across our international conventions—MSY to how we deal with countries such as Greenland in by 2020 is one such commitment. It is mentioned elsewhere managing vulnerable salmon stocks. Then there are the but not in the Bill, which is why the Opposition seek to various tuna commissions that the UK is a signatory to, raise awareness of not only the importance of climate often on behalf of our overseas territories. The UK is a change to our fisheries but our international obligations very important voice in the International Commission and commitments as a nation. I would be grateful for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas. We also sit on therefore if the Minister could expand on the Government the Indian Ocean Tuna Commission. commitments given elsewhere to sustainability, and The list the hon. Gentleman proposes is partial, and on how they will be reflected not only in the Bill but in it is unnecessary, because as a signatory to the various its implementation. conventions, we are obliged to abide by them. I hope I 155 Public Bill Committee 11 DECEMBER 2018 Fisheries Bill 156 have reassured him that through the Climate Change objectives or within the scope of the fisheries statement. Act and the fact that we are signatories to these many Will the Minister confirm where we are in relation to conventions and agreements,the amendment is unnecessary. the aquatic environment, as well as the marine environment?

Luke Pollard: Given all the Minister’s praise for the George Eustice: First, I will explain the effect of good done by the last Labour Government, I am amazed expanding the provision to include the aquatic environment. at his temerity for even wanting to stand against them at The hon. Gentleman has defined it as covering heritage the 2010 election. assets on the sea bed, notably shipwrecks, and I will return to that, but first let me say that referring to the George Eustice: It would go well beyond the scope of aquatic environment as well as the marine environment the Bill, but I could give many reasons why I did not would also cover all our inland waters, so all of our stand for Labour. freshwater bodies. We already have a regulatory framework for the Luke Pollard: I am grateful to the Minister for stating management of freshwater fisheries, and the Environment that he remains a Conservative. Agency is the government agency that leads on the When considering this type of legislation, it is important aquatic freshwater environment. Relevant pieces of that we raise the volume on climate change. Labour’s legislation include the water framework directive—obviously genuine concern is that, since the abolition of the an EU directive, but all the domestic provisions put in Department for Energy and Climate Change, the political place under the water framework directive will come priority and the volume of the debate on climate change across as part of retained EU law under the European has been much reduced. It is not spoken about as Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018—and the Salmon and frequently and it needs to be. Freshwater Fisheries Act 1975, which governs in particular I am grateful to the Minister for setting out our waters in so far as they affect salmon conservation. international obligations and for spending so much There is also the Water Resources Act 1991 and, as I time talking about how it is in our country’s interest to mentioned earlier,the Environment Act 1995. Wetherefore pool our sovereignty and to work with our international have a comprehensive suite of existing legislation pertaining partners where there are common interests. I am also to the freshwater environment. grateful to him for expanding on the list of international Returning to the separate issue of heritage assets obligations that the UK has signed up to and that we such as shipwrecks, as the hon. Gentleman acknowledges, need to continue to be involved in to ensure that our the famous Marine and Coastal Access Act established waters are properly managed. a licensing regime for people exploring shipwrecks, for I beg leave to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. example. He may know of the frequent controversies, Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. with divers complaining that some of that licensing regime is too onerous and that it affects their ability to Luke Pollard: I beg to move amendment 45, in clause 1, remove ghost nets or litter from shipwrecks, for example, page 2, line 11, after “marine” insert “and aquatic” without a licence.There is therefore a comprehensive—some This amendment would add the avoidance of the degradation of the say onerous—licensing regime in place to protect aquatic environment to the definition of the “ecosystem objective”. shipwrecks. In addition to the licensing regime for the The amendment is about the ecosystem and aquatic marine management organisation established under the environment around our fisheries. The aim is to tidy up Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009, we also have the a part of the Bill that is inconsistent across the board by Protection of Wrecks Act 1973, which allows the Secretary enhancing the ecosystems objective and ensuring that it of State to protect wrecks in territorial waters and sites includes the avoidance of degradation of the aquatic of such wrecks. environment. We have comprehensive legislation that covers the Hon. Members who have had the fortune of sitting in issue of the aquatic freshwater environment and the Westminster Hall with me will know of my passion for protection of heritage assets such as shipwrecks. Therefore, protecting our marine archaeology, and shipwrecks in an expansion of the ecosystem objective to cover heritage particular.I talk a lot about shipwrecks and the importance assets in the way outlined by him is unnecessary in the of creating a wrecks at risk register to ensure that we light of the other legislation that we have in place. understand what those pieces of marine heritage are and better protect what lies under the sea. I am pleased Luke Pollard: I am grateful for the Minister’s response. that clause 40 refers to It is important that when we are looking at our marine “features of archaeological or historic interest” environment, we look at not only the fish in it but at aspects of human history. When we get to talking more in the definition of marine and aquatic environment, as broadly in this place about the wrecks at risk register, I it means that every time there is reference to the marine hope we have a new ally. Given what the Minister has environment, heritage should be included automatically. said, I do not wish to press the amendment. I beg to ask That is a useful inclusion, consistent with the Marine leave to withdraw the amendment. and Coastal Access Act 2009 in respect of the responsibilities of inshore fisheries and conservation Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. authorities. However, the definition and scope of the Peter Aldous: I beg to move amendment 79, in marine and aquatic environment is not taken up consistently clause 1, page 2, line 11, at end insert— in the rest of the Bill, which is a missed opportunity. “(c) to ensure that fishing activities are managed in a The matter should be dealt with consistently. It seems manner that contributes to the achievement of good odd, given the power of the Secretary of State and devolved environmental status as set out in Article 1 of Ministers to make provisions for a conservation purpose Directive 2008/56/EC and is consistent with all other which includes the marine and aquatic environment, international and domestic environmental legislation.” that this is not mentioned as an element of the fisheries 157 Public Bill Committee HOUSE OF COMMONS Fisheries Bill 158

[Peter Aldous] regional fisheries management organisations and other important conventions, and I believe that we will have The amendment would add to the ecosystem objective. more influence. I hope that I have been able to reassure Taking account of the fact that fishing can have significant my hon. Friend that we are not by any means retreating implications for the health of the wider marine environment, from the world. Indeed, as we leave the European it would impose a duty to deliver fisheries management Union and become an independent country again, we in a way that is coherent with other relevant environmental will be able to have our own independent voice on these legislation. It would also set ecosystem management in critical international organisations, where we are well an international context, ensuring that we adhere to placed to lead. international environmental legislation. In many respects, the amendment can be viewed as providing belt and Peter Aldous: I am grateful to the Minister for that braces—perhaps even duplication—but ecosystems around reassurance and confirmation that the UK is very much the world are interconnected and it is important that we aware of its environmental responsibilities and is thinking recognise that. I tabled the amendment to seek assurance globally. He is right to be adopting that approach. I will and confirmation from the Minister that the Government highlight two issues. The UK overseas territories might are thinking globally and are aware of their international be small in land mass, but many sit in enormous oceans. obligations and duties. We also have, in my own constituency, the Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science, which George Eustice: My hon. Friend highlights the marine is an arm of DEFRA. Over the last few years, CEFAS strategyframeworkdirective,whichsetsoutthecommitment has been very successful in winning work all around the to good environmental status. It is important to recognise globe. It is very important. We have a great opportunity. that we are already legally bound to deliver that commitment It is something that the British people feel very strongly to good environmental status, because the directive has about as well. already been put into our domestic law through the Marine Strategy Regulations 2010. We already have George Eustice: My hon. Friend raises an incredibly those on our statute book. important point. CEFAS is the world’s pre-eminent My hon. Friend will be aware that we are bringing fisheries science agency and its views are sought after across all retained EU law, including objectives of this around the world. Dr Carl O’Brien, the lead scientist at sort, under the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. CEFAS, spoke in the evidence session. It does a lot of We have been clear that we do not intend to have work in the middle east, in countries such as Kuwait, as regression in our approach to environmental protection, my hon. Friend will be aware. although once we are free of the European Union there will be things that we can do better and more effectively. Peter Aldous: I am pleased that the Minister has We can tailor legislation that works to deliver some of given me the assurance that I was seeking about the these objectives better than we can as a member of the Government’s aspirations and ambitions. On that basis, EU, where legal requirements do not always achieve the I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. desired outcome as effectively as they could. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. On my hon. Friend’s wider point about working internationally, we have been absolutely clear that we are leaving the European Union because we want to 11 am make our own laws again, but in doing so we intend to Luke Pollard: I beg to move amendment 46, in clause 1, reassert ourselves on many international conventions, page 2, line 13, at end insert— where we have, frankly, lost our voice. We find ourselves “(aa) to facilitate generation of accurate real-time in an extraordinary situation in many of the regional scientific data from both research and all fishing fisheries management organisations and in important vessels.” conventions, such as the convention on international This amendment would add the generation of accurate real-time trade in endangered species and the convention on scientific data to the definition of the “scientific evidence objective”. biological diversity,where, even though we are a signatory, we are not allowed to speak as an independent country. The Chair: With this it will be convenient to discuss The supposed duty of loyal co-operation means that amendment 24, in clause 1, page 2, line 15, at end we must always vote the way the EU tells us to vote. insert— This leads to situations, for instance on the International “(c) to ensure full documentation of catches.” Whaling Commission, where the UK would often wish The purpose of this amendment is to ensure the UK achieves full to go further than the European Union is willing to and documentation of catches to give a true picture of what is being we are forced to follow an EU line. In the final days of removed from the sea and in order to provide accurate scientific data to the last Labour Administration, the then Secretary of ensure effective management of the shared stocks in UK waters. State ordered officials to vote for a more restrictive measure to protect bluefin tuna under CITES regulations. Luke Pollard: We want to strengthen the objectives to The EU started infraction proceedings against the UK enhance the requirement for data collection. The UK’s as a result of us exercising that decision to try to protect seas have historically been an abundant source of food, bluefin tuna. Infraction was only avoided by the then income and employment, but at the moment they are Labour Government giving an apology and saying that failing to meet their full potential. Two thirds of UK they would not do such a thing again. stocks have been fished beyond their sustainable limits, Since the Lisbon treaty in particular, the UK’s voice but according to the New Economics Foundation, if on the international stage has been undermined. As we catches followed scientific advice, the yield could deliver leave the EU we will take our own independent seat on 45% higher landings and additional gross value added 159 Public Bill Committee 11 DECEMBER 2018 Fisheries Bill 160 of approximately £150 million across the UK coast, and Finally, is it not for the devolved Administrations of would support an additional 2,500 full-time equivalent Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland to determine jobs. how to collect data, and indeed what data is to be The UK’s fisheries are not being managed at their collected? I fear that the amendments might inadvertently optimum economic output. Government figures show cut across that devolution settlement. that two thirds of our main commercial fish stocks are depleted, overfished or at risk of being depleted, or their status is unknown. Only one third are currently Mr Carmichael: To pick up on that last point, my operating at maximum sustainable yield. There was a amendment is probing, albeit with a serious purpose at vague reference to improving data in the White Paper, its root. Essentially, the problem is that for years we but that is also no longer in the Bill. have had conflict between what fishermen believe is in the sea and what scientists say is in the sea on the basis Labour would like to create a road map to take us to of the data that they have. The data that would be fully recorded UK fisheries over time.That makes economic produced by the full documentation of catches—which sense. Sustain recently found that UK fisheries are is an important principle, whichever jurisdiction we are losing out on millions of pounds of business from the dealing with—would be the best possible evidence. It catering sector in the UK alone, as buyers look abroad would be in the interests of the industry, and it would for sustainable fish instead of buying from the UK from certainly be in the interests of the scientific community fisheries that are not currently classed as sustainable. as a whole. The market for sustainable seafood is growing 10 times faster than that for conventional seafood. The best For years, I have complained about the fact that the markets within and outside the EU require fish products source of the conflict between the industry and the to be demonstrably sustainable, including a number of scientists is that much of the data collected is almost markets within the UK public sector. That includes our two years old by the time it is used for the purposes of schools, prisons, central Government, Whitehall catering decision making. We know the situation in the marine and the NHS. At present, a large amount of fish caught environment can change massively over that time. As a in the UK is not verifiably sustainable, and that is consequence, we have a mismatch between the scientific affecting access to those markets within the UK. evidence and what fishermen believe is in the sea. We heard a lot about data deficiency during the What we propose would allow for a much earlier evidence sessions, and is one of the main reasons that “quick and dirty” analysis of what is in the sea, and much of the fish caught in UK waters cannot be marketed would offer the opportunity of different fisheries as sustainable. For fishing to be sustainable, there must management systems. At the moment, given the way in be sufficient understanding of the population of the which we use science, I would be very cautious about targeted species, the impact of fishing, and the status of the idea of moving to anything like a real-time closure, our sea-floor ecosystems. Without that data, boats can for example. The science, of course, is always evolving be considered ineligible for Marine Stewardship Council and improving, but this is not a novel process; this certification or receive a lower rating from the Marine approach is taken in a number of other fishing jurisdictions. Conservation Society’s “Good Fish Guide”. If reliable data is coming from the industry itself, the objectives of real-time fisheries management will be In January this year, the Environment Secretary said much more easily achieved. that Amendment 24, which stands in my name, is probing, “we can still do more to improve the procurement of British food across the public sector.” but it strikes at the heart of the approach that the Government will be taking, especially in later parts of He was right, but there is no mention of that here. If the Bill, which deal with the practical ways in which data deficiency is one of the things holding back the fisheries management is to be undertaken. The National sector, we believe that it should be addressed in the Bill. Federation of Fishermen’s Organisations, for example, According to Government data, the status of three of is keen to see the creation of advisory councils. the UK’s 15 main fish stocks is unknown. That would not be acceptable on a farm or in agriculture, and we should stop accepting it simply because it is underwater. George Eustice: I will begin by setting out what is I am grateful that this topic is taken up in a similar required now, what regulations we will have as a starting amendment tabled by the right hon. Member for Orkney point, and some of the things that the Government are and Shetland. I would be grateful if the Minister told us already doing in this area. First and foremost, the EU how the current data deficiency can be remedied. Withdrawal Act 2018 will incorporate all existing EU rules on data collection on to our domestic statute Brendan O’Hara: Although these are all good aspirations, book. A significant amount of data is already collected: and we recognise the need to continually improve our for instance, vessels over 10 metres in length are required data and the need to contribute to better science, we to provide logbook data, which includes details of fishing have concerns about some of the practical aspects. For activities, the catch, the type of fishing gear used, and example, who will pay for the very costly technological the area where the fish were caught. Landing declarations change that is proposed? I also question whether primary are required, with information on the weight and legislation is really the place for determining such scientific representation of fish, and sales notes on the first sales measures. of fish are also required. There is a comprehensive I caution that some of the technological measures are system of data collection, right from the point of catching still in their infancy or, in some cases, not yet possible. and where those fish were caught, through to sales. For example, as I understand it the knowledge around We have taken some steps in the past year to begin to identification and sizing of catches has only just been improve data collection on the inshore fleet. Traditionally developed in terms of camera technology. and currently, the under-10-metre fleet has been required 161 Public Bill Committee HOUSE OF COMMONS Fisheries Bill 162

[George Eustice] electronic monitoring, which is basically cameras on vessels. Other parts of the Bill give us the power to to provide only sales notes. We have said that from next require cameras on vessels, which could improve our year, we will introduce a requirement for IVMS on abilities on enforcement and data collection. inshore vessels, so we will know where those vessels are We have the ability now, which we will retain in future catching their fish. We will also introduce catch reporting through provisions in later clauses, to make real-time as part of a step towards a new settlement with the expeditious changes where required. We have had, for under-10s: we intend to give them more quota but, in instance, issues with spurdog bycatch in parts of the return, have a better understanding of how they are west country. We had a successful spurdog bycatch fishing and what they are catching. I believe that through avoidance programme,which was put together expeditiously those steps, by extending some of those provisions to in partnership between CEFAS and the industry in the the under-10-metre fleet, we will improve the documentation west country, to assist fishermen to avoid those bycatches of where fish are caught and how they are caught. or to help them deal with them when they have been The amendments are unnecessary,because they attempt unable to avoid them. to dip a toe into the type of detail that would be I hope that I have reassured the right hon. and hon. covered, in my view comprehensively, through the joint Gentlemen of our progress in that area and of our fisheries statement. Under that statement, we would commitment to science. The joint fisheries statement have to demonstrate how we are delivering on that will cover those issues in greater detail. scientific objective. That is inevitably going to include how we are funding fisheries science, what the priority species are to move from a data-limited assessment to a Luke Pollard: I am grateful to the Minister for setting full MSY assessment, what the challenges are, and what out measures to address the data deficiency. To realise other issues we need to address. The matters that the the aspiration of my party and, I hope, of the Government hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport to have the most sustainable fisheries in the world, it is seeks to cover in the scientific evidence objective should important that we match that with a commitment to be picked up in much greater detail in the joint fisheries having the best data in the world. Although we already statement. have the world’s best fisheries science, fishers and stakeholders are concerned that there is insufficient On the point made by the right hon. Member for coverage of that best science across every single fish Orkney and Shetland, who has lots of fishermen in his stock, so I am grateful to the Minister for setting out constituency, as long as I have been in post, I have been how that can be enhanced. told that the scientists are always out of date and do not know where the fish are anyway, so they send survey We must send a loud and clear message that we need vessels to the wrong place. I have looked at the issue in better data and baseline stock assessments. That needs depth. We use a range of data, as Dr Carl O’Brien to be done in conjunction, collaboration and co-operation pointed out. We look, in real time, at landings data and with the fishing industry, rather than science being done the size of the fish being caught. There is the Endeavour— to fishers, which is often their view. The more we can do the survey vessel that CEFAS operates out of Lowestoft, in a collaborative way, the better. In the light of the in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Minister’s remarks and as the Committee will discuss Waveney—which goes to the same grounds every year data later on, I beg to ask leave to withdrawthe amendment. to sample fish. There is an important reason for that: Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. although the fish might move, there has to be a consistent yardstick to assess the same area; otherwise the control Luke Pollard: I beg to move amendment 47, in and the ability to monitor trends are lost. clause 1, page 2, line 21, after “area” insert That is not the only data that the scientists use. They “, fishing opportunity, or entitlement for any resources” use landings data and the survey vessel that goes to the These amendments would extend the definition of the “equal access same locations, but they also place observers on fishing objective” to cover equal access to fishing opportunities. vessels with the fishermen who say, “We know where the fish are and CEFAS don’t,” so we are monitoring The Chair: With this it will be convenient to discuss that as well. We will never perfect the science, but the amendment algorithms and models that the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea uses to predict stock Amendment 30, in clause 1, page 2, line 24, at end trends factor in that some of the data may be a little insert— dated. A constant refrain of fisherman is that the “(c) individual measures introduced by— science is out of data and the scientists are in the wrong (i) the Marine Management Organisation place anyway but, although we will never get it perfectly (ii) the Scottish Ministers, right, we do everything that we can to mitigate the types (iii) the Welsh Ministers, or of effects that the right hon. Member for Orkney and (iv) the Northern Ireland department.” Shetland described. To ensure that any measures introduced by a ‘relevant national authority’ do not impact on the equal access objective. Mr Carmichael: The Minister actually makes the case for moving towards full documentation of catches very 11.15 am well. LukePollard: I can deal with this quickly.The amendment George Eustice: As I explained earlier, we already relates to adding fishing opportunities or entitlement to have full documentation of catches on the over-10s, and the provision that is already in clause 1(7), so there can next year we will introduce full documentation of catches be no get-out-of-jail card. Fishers expressed concerns for the inshore fleet. A linked issue is so-called remote about ensuring that we have as robust a set of criteria as 163 Public Bill Committee 11 DECEMBER 2018 Fisheries Bill 164 possible for foreign boats having access to UK waters. A few years ago, the Scottish Government did a In the amendment, we ask the Minister to ensure that consultation on moving away from the FQA unit approach the clause and the criteria are as robust as they can be. and allocating quota in a different way. Although they ultimately stepped back from that, it is a devolved Mr Carmichael: Amendment 30, which stands in my responsibility for them to decide how to allocate that bit name, is probing. I confess that its genesis is in briefings of the quota that the UK Government have allocated to from the National Federation of Fishermen’sOrganisations. them. The difficulty with both amendments is that they I eventually tabled it because, on balance, it is an cross a line in terms of the devolution settlements, important issue that needs to be teased out. The amendment because they start to fetter the ability of the Scottish may not be the ideal way of doing it, because the Government, the Northern Ireland Administration or enforceability of the duties of the other Administrations— the Welsh Government to allocate their own quota in Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish Ministers and the way they see fit. Governments—is questionable, but the thinking behind We intend to pick up these sorts of issues through the it is important. joint fisheries statement. Indeed, we already wrestle Essentially, given the devolved nature of fisheries and with these challenges and we have a concordat and the fact that we will have the objective of equal access, memorandums of understanding to manage these issues. we have to find a way around the conflict between the Sometimes we have some tension between Scotland and different systems that will be put in place in the different other Administrations over where vessels are registered jurisdictions. If opportunities for fishing are to be taken and where they are fishing, which can lead to disputes up in England by boats from Scotland, or vice versa, or that we have to resolve. Due to the nature of our in Northern Ireland by boats from the west of Scotland, devolved settlement, the one thing we have become used or vice versa, we need to find a way to ensure that the to in fisheries is finding a way through the concordats, regulation is as accessible as possible. the memorandums of understanding or, in future, the joint fisheries statement. The challenge that both Devolution is a good and worthy objective, which my amendments alight on is not new; indeed, we have party has supported for many years, but it can occasionally wrestled with it for some time. The solution to the trigger the law of unintended consequences. If we do problem lies in the joint fisheries statement that will set not manage the different systems in good faith, the out common understandings in the way we approach people who have to comply with or enforce the regulations these particular issues. may be left in a difficult position. That is the issue that we seek to bring to the Minister’s attention by way of While I recognise that both amendments highlight an the amendment. I will not press it to a vote, but I am important issue, the issue goes wider than the Bill interested to know how exactly he envisages that will because it goes right to the heart of the devolution work in everyday, or every year, fisheries management settlement. One thing we resolved not to do with this considerations. Bill is to attempt to rewrite or overturn the devolution settlement. In the absence of that, the joint fisheries statement is our solution to some of the problems the George Eustice: Toaddress the amendments, I probably right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland has need to explain how quota flows through the various highlighted. systems at the moment from the point at which it is created internationally. Both amendments stumble into Luke Pollard rose— the thorny area of our devolved settlement, as the right hon. Gentleman pointed out. The Chair: Mr Pollard, you might like to speak at As an overarching point, we have sought to achieve length and slowly. through the Bill a system that enables us to manage our fisheries domestically in a way that respects the devolution Luke Pollard: I am more than happy to, Mr Gray. As settlement that has been established. To be honest, we a Janner,speaking slowly is not something I am accustomed sometimes have particular challenges in fisheries, because to doing, but I will try my best. on one level they are about international agreements When considering these amendments, it is important with other countries, which are a reserved UK competence, to look at how devolution and access to water can be but on another level manyelements of fisheries management well managed through the Bill. We know that we have have been devolved. In some areas, it has been challenging problems relating to equal access, both in internal to put together arrangements that ensure that we have a jurisdictions within the United Kingdom and with our UK framework, where it is needed, in a way that respects friends from the EU and Norway. Any access must be the devolution settlement, but I believe the Bill achieves properly managed and properly understood. This concern that. is often raised by fishers in Plymouth, who sense that Let me explain how quota is created. First, we have the rule of equal access is not currently being obeyed or an international fisheries negotiation between the UK applied with the same level of effort and energy as it and the EU, or the UK and a third country in the should. That refers in particular to when there are future, where, species by species, a total allowable catch restrictions or a closure in a UK six to 12 miles area that and an allocation to the UK of that TAC are agreed. affects UK fishers but not necessarily others. The Minister The UK Government then allocate that quota—our talks about the importance of having a level playing share of the TAC—to the devolved Administrations, field between all those different bits. currently following FQA units attached to the vessels where they are registered. That means we give Scotland, George Eustice: Obviously,there will be licence conditions Northern Ireland and Wales an allocation of quota. on all foreign vessels fishing in British waters in future. How they allocate that within their fleet is then a Technical measures of that sort would be a requirement devolved competence. on those seeking access to our waters. 165 Public Bill Committee HOUSE OF COMMONS Fisheries Bill 166

Luke Pollard: I think both amendments in the group at 2 pm. What a very well mannered and intelligent are probing, designed to get confirmation. I beg to ask debate we have been lucky to have heard so far. It is leave to withdraw the amendment. funny how long a minute takes when you are watching Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. the clock. Order. 11.25 am The Chair: May I say what a great pleasure it has The Chair adjourned the Committee without Question been chairing the Committee this morning? I look put (Standing Order 88). forward to chairing this afternoon, when we meet again Adjourned till this day at Two o’clock. PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES HOUSE OF COMMONS OFFICIAL REPORT GENERAL COMMITTEES

Public Bill Committee

FISHERIES BILL

Sixth Sitting

Tuesday 11 December 2018

(Afternoon)

CONTENTS

CLAUSES 1 TO 4agreed to. SCHEDULE 1 agreed to. CLAUSES 5 TO 11 agreed to. CLAUSE 12 under consideration when the Committee adjourned till Thursday 13 December at half-past Eleven o’clock. Written evidence reported to the House.

PBC (Bill 278) 2017 - 2019 No proofs can be supplied. Corrections that Members suggest for the final version of the report should be clearly marked in a copy of the report—not telephoned—and must be received in the Editor’s Room, House of Commons,

not later than

Saturday 15 December 2018

© Parliamentary Copyright House of Commons 2018 This publication may be reproduced under the terms of the Open Parliament licence, which is published at www.parliament.uk/site-information/copyright/. 167 Public Bill Committee 11 DECEMBER 2018 Fisheries Bill 168

The Committee consisted of the following Members:

Chairs: †JAMES GRAY,DAVID HANSON,MR LAURENCE ROBERTSON,SIR DAVID CRAUSBY,†SIR ROGER GALE

† Aldous, Peter (Waveney) (Con) † Morris, James (Halesowen and Rowley Regis) (Con) † Brown, Alan (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP) † O’Hara, Brendan (Argyll and Bute) (SNP) † Carmichael, Mr Alistair (Orkney and Shetland) Pennycook, Matthew (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab) (LD) † Pollard, Luke (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) † Debbonaire, Thangam (Bristol West) (Lab) (Lab/Co-op) Duguid, David (Banff and Buchan) (Con) † Smith, Owen (Pontypridd) (Lab) † Eustice, George (Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries † Stewart, Iain (Milton Keynes South) (Con) † Sweeney, Mr Paul (Glasgow North East) (Lab/Co- and Food) op) † Grant, Bill (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (Con) † Tracey, Craig (North Warwickshire) (Con) † Hill, Mike (Hartlepool) (Lab) † Hollinrake, Kevin (Thirsk and Malton) (Con) Gail Poulton, Lis Gerhold, Committee Clerks † Jones, Mr Marcus (Nuneaton) (Con) † Lefroy, Jeremy (Stafford) (Con) † attended the Committee 169 Public Bill Committee HOUSE OF COMMONS Fisheries Bill 170

I tabled the amendment because I want to hear from Public Bill Committee the Minister what he plans to do to address these particular concerns. Tuesday 11 December 2018 Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/ (Afternoon) 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, [SIR ROGER GALE in the Chair] in making sure that we would have an annual report from Ministers on progress. Given this morning’s debates, Fisheries Bill it is really important that there should be an annual opportunity for the scrutiny of Ministers in relation to this issue. Clause 1 Currently there is a very unsatisfactory situation, as hon. Members need to scramble away and persuade FISHERIES OBJECTIVES colleagues on the Backbench Business Committee to have an annual fisheries debate in Westminster Hall. 2.7 pm Indeed, we have one tomorrow, but I suspect that it will not attract the attention it should, because it is not in PeterAldous(Waveney)(Con):Ibegtomoveamendment80, the main Chamber. The ability to have that annual in clause 1, page 2, line 32, at end insert— presentation of reports by the Secretary of State and a “(10) The fisheries policy authorities mush publish, on at least good debate, with all Members of the House able to an annual basis, an update on progress made against the fisheries contribute,is a really important part of this amendment—in objectives.” effect, that is what we seek. It also relates to when such a debate must take place. The Chair: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: 48, in clause 2, page 3, line 19, at end insert— Mike Hill (Hartlepool) (Lab): As I recall, the expert witness from the Department for Environment, Food “(3A) For the purposes of this Act, a ‘UK fisheries statement’ is a statement made jointly by the fisheries policy authorities on and Rural Affairs was talking positively but incrementally progress towards achieving the fisheries objectives. about the movement towards opening out quotas, although (3B) The first UK fisheries statement must be published within that will take some time. Does my hon. Friend agree 12 months of this section coming into force, and each subsequent that such debates would help to monitor the situation? UK fisheries statement must be published within 12 months of the previous statement being published.” This amendment would add a requirement on the fisheries policy Luke Pollard: I agree with my hon. Friend. When we authorities to publish a joint “UK fisheries statement” within are looking at such potentially seismic changes as doing 12 months of the section being brought into force away with the fixed quota allocation system and reallocating Amendment 49, in clause 2, page 3, line 19, at end quota on a larger basis, it is important to have an insert— annual opportunity in the parliamentary calendar for “(3A) The Secretary of State must annually lay a statement the Government to present the evidence, statistics and before Parliament on progress towards achieving the fisheries science behind where fisheries stocks are, along with objectives. progress towards any reallocation. (3B) The first such statement under subsection (3A) must be The other part of amendment 48 relates to the statement laid before Parliament within 12 months of this section coming being published annually. There is confusion about into force.” when precisely the UK will exit the European Union This amendment would add a requirement on the Secretary of State to and under what arrangements, but the amendment states lay before Parliament an annual statement on progress towards in proposed new subsection (3B) that there would be a achieving the fisheries objectives. fisheries statement within 12 months of the provision coming into force. Effectively, whenever we left the Peter Aldous: It is a pleasure to serve under your European Union, be that in the fashion planned by the chairmanship, Sir Roger. current Prime Minister or in a way not planned by her, Amendment 80 would add the proposed words to within 12 months there would be a statement and we clause 1 and it should be read in conjunction with would have an opportunity to update and see progress amendment 78. It provides for the fisheries policy authorities against the fisheries objectives we debated this morning. to publish, at least annually, an update on the progress that they have made towards securing the fisheries [JAMES GRAY in the Chair] objectives. It would give the objectives true meaning and day-to-day relevance, rather than their being somewhat The Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (George abstract from reality. Eustice): All the amendments seek a statutory requirement From the viewpoint of accountability and transparency, for the Government to publish an annual statement, which in so many respects are missing from the current updating the House and others on progress towards the opaque fisheries management regime, it is important fisheries objectives, but we already have a number of that this amendment should be considered. It would plans that mean we do not need to place a statement on help to deliver a truly sustainable and world-leading a statutory footing. The White Paper commits us to an system of fisheries management. annual statement on our assessment of the state of 171 Public Bill Committee 11 DECEMBER 2018 Fisheries Bill 172 stocks that are of interest to the UK and of our 2.15 pm approach to setting fishing rates and other management Mr Paul Sweeney (Glasgow North East) (Lab/Co-op): measures. Does the Minister find it troubling that despite the fact Fisheries negotiations take place annually, which is that the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009 has why we have an annual fisheries debate. Next week is required DEFRA to carry out triennial reviews of the December Council, at which fishing opportunities for Marine Management Organisation since 2009, only one next year will be discussed. We have just been through has taken place so far? Is he concerned that similar the various coastal states, and the EU-Norway negotiations failings might accrue with respect to the Bill? are concluding as I speak. To inform our approach to annual negotiations, we will inevitably feed data into George Eustice: We regularly do triennial reviews. I organisations such as the International Council for the do not think that the triennial reviews stem from the Exploration of the Seas—ICES—and publish both the 2009 Act. I think there was a requirement to review the data we have on progress on the state of fish stocks and MMO after four or five years, and my recollection is our approach to doing that, so we do not need to place that that did indeed take place. this on a statutory footing. My point is that it is not necessary for every report we If something more formal were to be done, if it were might publish to be put into statute. I made the point in judged that there needed to be more formal oversight of debating an earlier Bill that DEFRA produces many our progress towards the objectives, the right place to reports. Every June my box is inundated with annual do that would be in the forthcoming environment Bill, reports of one sort or another. Some of them are which will establish an independent environmental body required by statute. The vast majority are not, but we to monitor our progress towards the objectives set out publish them anyway, as it is a means of being transparent in the 25-year environment plan. In relation to a more with the public. Since we have given an undertaking in strategic approach to the delivery of the objectives and the White Paper, I do not believe any of the amendments the plan, that is the right place to consider such an is necessary. However, as I have said, I undertake to oversight role. We have in the Bill a statutory requirement have conversations before Report with Government for a joint fisheries statement and for a Secretary of colleagues, to see whether we can give a more formal State fisheries statement setting out our approach to undertaking on the idea of the hon. Member for Plymouth, delivering the objectives. Sutton and Devonport about a more formal debate in Finally, it is important to recognise what we already Government time on the Floor of the House, rather do. Every year, before we go to December Council we than in Westminster Hall. lay before the House a written ministerial statement that sets out our approach to the negotiations and the Mr Carmichael: The Minister will remember, as I do, agenda for them, and we always lay a written ministerial the days when the annual fisheries debate was held in statement after the negotiations have concluded, to Government time. When the Backbench Business update the House on progress. Committee was introduced, it seemed logical that those Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD): general debates would go into Backbench Business I appreciate that we have other Bills coming and that there time. The Government have now taken that on a step. It are other ways in which the reports may be obtained, but is not impossible that one day we may have a Government we have this Bill before the House at the moment, and it with sufficient authority and a sufficient majority to see is this Bill that establishes the objectives and then the a full and comprehensive programme of legislation policy statements. Surely the mechanism for accountability through the House, in which case it is eminently foreseeable should be within the Bill also, if it is to be meaningful. that the time available for a debate of the kind we are discussing will be squeezed out again. I suggest that that George Eustice: The method for accountability is is why there is some force to the amendment tabled by indeed in the Bill. There is a statutory requirement to the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport. publish a joint fisheries statement and for all the Administrations to pursue that statement to deliver George Eustice: In DEFRA we have brought in more those environmental outcomes and the fisheries objectives Bills—more significant pieces of legislation—in the past set out in clause 1. The issue here is whether it is 12 months than at any time in recent history. Parliament necessary to place on a statutory footing the idea of is currently considering an Agriculture Bill that is the publishing an annual statement. My contention is that first such major piece of legislation since 1947. Of there is no need, since we already have annual debates. course, the Fisheries Bill will give us control of our The hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport waters for the first time in more than 40 years. So, at made an important point: there is a strong case for DEFRA at least, we are making good progress in saying that, in the new world we are going into as we getting through some critical legislation. leave, rather than having that debate brought by the I hope that I have reassured both my hon. Friend the Backbench Business Committee, there should be a debate Member for Waveney and the hon. Member for Plymouth, in Government time at the point the negotiations take Sutton and Devonport that while it is indeed our clearly place. I would certainly be willing to have conversations stated intention to publish an annual statement of the with colleagues in other Departments ahead of state of stocks, it is unnecessary to make it a statutory consideration on Report to see whether we could give requirement in the Bill. such an undertaking. We have already made a clear commitment in the Peter Aldous: I have listened with interest to the White Paper to publish an annual statement of the state Minister’s reply. I do not necessarily want to overburden of the stocks. I do not believe it is necessary to put that the Bill—it is, as he says, an enabling framework Bill—with on a statutory footing. unnecessary rules and regulations. However, one of this 173 Public Bill Committee HOUSE OF COMMONS Fisheries Bill 174

[Peter Aldous] The Chair: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 88, in clause 2, page 3, line 17, at end Parliament’s best pieces of legislation was the Climate insert— Change Act 2008, and that contains an obligation to “(j) distributing fishing opportunities.” report annually to the House. I hear what he says about the emerging environment Bill. I confess that I have not considered every step of that emerging Bill, and I am Peter Aldous: These two amendments seek to obtain aware that certain organisations feel that we need to clarification on what one might describe as the elephant join up better the management of the marine environment in the room in current fisheries management—that is, and the land-based environment. On balance, being the fair distribution of fishing opportunities. The current kind to the Minister, I will not press my amendment to situation is one of haves and have-nots, and we have a vote at this stage, but I will bear in mind his undertaking heard that what is now known as the under-10-metre to look at this matter more fully on Report. I beg to ask sector falls into the have-nots. The Bill provides no clear leave to withdraw the amendment. forum for the four nations of the UK to discuss and consider appropriate methods of distributing fishing Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. opportunities to their fishing vessels, and that needs Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the to be better co-ordinated and more coherent. These Bill. amendments would require the pursuit of a detailed, decided and considered approach to the distribution of George Eustice: Wehave had a comprehensive discussion fishing opportunities, and I would welcome clarification about clause 1 through the consideration of a series of on the approach that the Minister is pursuing in order amendments. The key purpose of the clause is to set out to address this issue. our fisheries objectives, which are largely taken from the existing objectives in the common fisheries policy. The Luke Pollard: The hon. Gentleman’s amendments are clause also commits us to all those objectives and worthy of decent consideration, because the distribution includes descriptions of them. I do not intend to dwell and redistribution of fishing opportunities plays a key on the clause any further, since, as I said, we have spent part in what we are discussing today. It is therefore the past few hours discussing each of those objectives in worth spending a few moments reflecting on what has great depth. been said. The amendments are brief, in terms of the number of words, but substantial in their potential Luke Pollard: The Opposition will not vote against impact. clause 1. However, I invite the Minister to reflect on More transparency about how quota is allocated to some of the changes to the objectives that have been our fishing fleet would be welcome, because the allocation discussed. I also invite him to look at whether amendments causes much distress among fishers. Some want more, can be introduced in the other place, especially in relation and some do not have any at all. We would support to fish being a public asset and marine safety. I think transparency, but we would like to go further. We have there was widespread agreement on that on both sides tabled amendments, which we will come to later in our of the House, even if there was not necessarily agreement consideration, that would ensure that future and existing on the wording. allocations of quota were distributed under social, environmental and economic criteria. There was much Mr Carmichael: Among those who gave evidence to talk on Second Reading and in the evidence sessions the Committee last week, a common recurring theme about the unfair imbalances of quota between large was that there was something of a disparity between the and small fleets, and the amendments would improve vision that was laid out in the White Paper, which the transparency and accountability in how those quotas Liberal Democrats broadly welcomed, and the rather are given out. narrower vision that was left in the Bill. It is also fair to Even under the common fisheries policy, the Minister say that we would have hoped to find in clause 1 a has the power to reallocate quota, so it is important that number of aspects of the White Paper’s vision. It is we understand the approach taken to allocating quota disappointing that we have not made more progress. I annually, whichever party is in power. An often-cited have been around this place long enough to know how critique of the European Union is that the size of the these things work, so I am not necessarily very surprised, pie, in terms of quota, has been restricted. The debate but it is fair to put the Minister on notice that the needs also to focus on where that pie is shared out—how Liberal Democrats will wish to return to certain issues it is distributed between large and small boats and in relation to clause 1 when the Bill goes back to the different fisheries—and its economic contribution to Floor of the House. Failing that, I am fairly certain that the UK. my noble Friends at the other end of the building will The fixed quota allocation system, which was heavily also have thoughts on this matter. criticised for being unfair at the outset, has not really Question put and agreed to. been updated since the 1990s. Indeed, in the evidence Clause 1 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. session last week, the hon. Member for Waveney made a strong case as to why there is an opportunity for understanding how quota is allocated. As a result of the Clause 2 existing system of ownership, fishing quota has become increasingly consolidated among large-scale interests. FISHERIES STATEMENTS Griffin Carpenter from the New Economics Foundation said: Peter Aldous: I beg to move amendment 87, in “In essence, fisheries have been accidentally privatised. Every clause 2, page 2, line 37, at end insert year, quota is allocated to the same holders”.––[Official Report, “and their policies for distribution of fishing opportunities.” Fisheries Public Bill Committee, 6 December 2018; c. 102, Q196.] 175 Public Bill Committee 11 DECEMBER 2018 Fisheries Bill 176

Mike Hill: My hon. Friend is again quoting from the 2.30 pm expert witnesses that came before us. Will he confirm This is an important amendment and I am glad that that one of the ideas for fairer distribution of quotas the hon. Member for Waveney has tabled it, because it was to regenerate coastal towns such as Hartlepool and gives us a chance to start a discussion on how quota is regenerate their fishing communities? distributed and how it can be more fairly distributed in future to the benefit of our coastal communities with a Luke Pollard: I thank my hon. Friend for his point. greater share. The opportunity to redistribute quota could have a beneficial effect on coastal communities across the country, George Eustice: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the from the west country to other parts of the UK. That is Member for Waveney for introducing these amendments. effectively what Griffin was saying in his remarks about He has been a long-standing campaigner for a fairer understanding how quota has been allocated, and it is deal for our inshore under-10 metre sector in his why the amendment is so important. It would help us constituency. I want to set out what we have done to try better to understand the basis on which quota is allocated, to give more fishing opportunities to the under-10 sector, particularly as a quarter of the UK’s fishing quota is what we intend to do and set out in our White Paper, owned or controlled by just five families on The Sunday and finally address the specifics of his two amendments. Times rich list. First, my predecessor,my right hon. Friend the Member The small-scale fleet has generally been excluded for Newbury (Richard Benyon), introduced something from the FQA system and producer organisations. Quotas called fixed quota allocation permanent realignment, should be allocated on transparent social, economic where he took unused quotas from the producer and environmental criteria to the benefit of fishing organisations and effectively drew it back into the pool. communities and coastal communities. We heard that in That led to the legal challenge that I referred to earlier, our evidence sessions, and the idea enjoys support from which the Government won. We therefore secured that both sides of the Committee, although we are yet to fixed quota realignment of unutilised quota from producer find a form of words on which we can agree. A greater organisations. share could be offered for complying with relevant Secondly, when the discard ban was introduced and regulations, such as taking part in data gathering, fully the landing obligation came in under the new common monitoring and recording catches, complying with discard fisheries policy, I took a policy decision in 2014 that the rules and applying high standards of workers’ rights, first 100 tonnes of any additional quota through the welfare and marine safety. Through that, we have an discard uplift would be top-sliced and given to the opportunity to allocate quota in a fairer way that supports under-10 pool to boost the number of fishing opportunities greater public goals and assets. Those are objectives they had. Even if they have more haddock than they that we all share. could possibly catch, we could nevertheless give the There may be more fish after the UK leaves the pool the quota and the currency it needed to swap in common fisheries policy if we get a drawdown of the fish that it could select. These two measures together quota held by our EU friends, but not amending the have given a significant uplift in the baseline quota that distribution of quota would exacerbate existing levels the under-10 metre sector have. of inequality between parts of the sector and would fail We have set out clearly our approach to the future in to incentivise best practice. Small boats provide the our White Paper. As we diverge from relative stability backbone of our fishing fleet and make up the majority and have additional inward quota transfers, we will not of the fleet, in terms of employment. They generally use allocate that quota just by divvying it out along existing low-impact gear and provide more jobs per tonne, but FQA lines. While existing fishing opportunities for the their share of quota has been limited to 4% to 6% of the time being will remain on an FQA system to provide total available quota, even though they employ 49% of stability, we intend to allocate any new quota with a the fleet. A greater understanding of how that can go, different method. As I made clear this morning, one how quota is currently allocated and how it will be option we are looking at closely is whether an early allocated in future will help transparency and, importantly, priority should be to give additional fishing opportunities confidence among fishers in the system. to the under-10 meter pool in advance, and over and above that which we have already done, as we gain Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP): The additional quota and diverge from relative stability. I hon. Gentleman is right about the evidence and discussions think I have demonstrated in the last few years my about how future quota should be allocated. The benefits commitment to give more fishing opportunities to the need to be considered. Does he accept that the amendment under-10 metre pool, as did my predecessor. could impact on the devolution settlements, because Amendment 87 seeks to add a requirement to set out quota allocation is devolved to the respective objectives for the distribution of fishing opportunities Administrations? in the joint fisheries statement. In this clause, I think stumbles in a devolved issue, as the hon. Member for Luke Pollard: It is really important that we are part of Kilmarnock and Loudoun said. As I said earlier,although the devolution debate, to ensure that where powers have the UK Government have the power to allocate a quota been devolved to a devolved Administration, they can to the devolved Administrations, it is for each devolved take decisions on how to distribute their quota accordingly. Administration to decide how it allocates quota to its Quota drawn down from our EU friends is additional own fleet and to the fleet registered in its Administration. quota, which can, in theory, be shared across all The proposal made by my hon. Friend the Member UK fishers across the four home nations. An under- for Waveney in amendment 88 raises an interesting standing of how that is allocated is an important point. I have looked at clause 2(2), which sets out the function of transparency and part of how we make the existing scope of the Secretary of State fisheries statement. system work. Subsection (2)(e) talks about 177 Public Bill Committee HOUSE OF COMMONS Fisheries Bill 178

[George Eustice] stakeholders that we spoke to in advance of the Bill are keen that the relationship between those marine heritage “contributing to a fair standard of living for those who depend assets and the fishing industry is understood in the Bill. on fishing activities, bearing in mind coastal fisheries and socio- economic factors”. There are two elements. The Minister touched on the heritage aspect earlier when we discussed a Subsection (2)(h) talks about similar amendment. The application of the consistent “promoting coastal fishing activities, taking into account socio- wording of marine and aquatic environment is also economic factors”. worth looking at. Should at least one of those options that links the socio-economics of fishing communities make explicit George Eustice: We covered a lot of the substance of reference to the distribution of fishing opportunities? I this in an earlier group of amendments. However, in hope he will take a steer from me that it is my intention clause 2(2)(c), we already have measures to adjust the to have conversations with other Government colleagues fishing capacity of fleets to levels of fishing opportunity and Departments and, on Report, seek to suggest an consistent with the precautionary objective. The need to amendment to one or other of the existing factors fish sustainably and to control fishing so that it is outlined in subsection (2) that could make a more sustainableisthereforecovered.Deliveringtheprecautionary explicit reference—I think it is currently implicit—to objective is effectively to conserve and enhance the fish fishing opportunities. in our waters. Subsection (2)(d) promotes the development On that basis, and with such a concession, I hope my of sustainable aquaculture activities. The use of the hon. Friend will withdraw his amendment. words “sustainable aquaculture” picks up all that is needed in managing our approach to aquaculture. The final bit, which is new, is a repeat of a discussion Peter Aldous: I am grateful to the Minister for his reply. we had this morning regarding whether the wording I hear what he says about amendment 87 and the fact should be “marine and aquatic environment”. As I said that, as the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun this morning, this is a Fisheries Bill about the marine said, it stumbles into devolution issues. However, I am environment and marine fisheries. We have a suite of grateful for the Minister’s undertaking to look at clause 88 separate legislation that deals with our fresh waterways. in more detail with a view to coming back with more For instance, the Water Environment (Water Framework information addressing my concerns on Report. On that Directive) (England and Wales) Regulations 2017 cover basis, I do not wish to push the amendment to a vote. in detail the approach the Environment Agency should Amendment, by leave, withdrawn take to deliver good environmental conditions in the freshwater environment. Wehave the Protection of Wrecks Act 1973 and a licencing regime established through the Luke Pollard: I beg to move amendment 50, in Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009 that provides clause 2, page 3, line 17, at end insert— protection for heritage and shipwrecks and the like. The “(j) promoting the development of fishing and addition of “aquatic” is not appropriate for the reasons aquaculture activities that conserve, enhance or outlined this morning, but I hope the hon. Gentleman restore the marine and aquatic environment.” will recognise that fishing sustainably and having a This amendment would add promoting activities to conserve, enhance sustainable approach to aquaculture are already dealt or restore the marine and aquatic environment to the policies to be with in paragraphs (2)(c) and (d). included in the fisheries statements. Amendment 50 seeks to continue the discussion we Luke Pollard: There is an element of ensuring consistency. had this morning on aquatic environments and the The phrase “aquatic environment” is used in the later preservation of marine heritage on the seabed. Recognising parts of the Bill under clause 31, so there is a consistency the conversation we had earlier, I suspect the Minister problem. I take note of what the Minister has said and, may not be minded to support the amendment. However, as a result, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. it is worth spending a moment on the “marine aquatic Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. environment” wording to ensure that it is consistent Amendment proposed: 48, in clause 2, page 3, line 19, at throughout the Bill. The concern is that the wording is end insert— inconsistent with, for instance, clause 31(2)(b). The “(3A) For the purposes of this Act, a “UK fisheries amendment would ensure consistent application on the statement” is a statement made jointly by the fisheries policy same basis in promoting the development of fishing authorities on progress towards achieving the fisheries objectives. and aquiculture activities that conserve, enhance or (3B) The first UK fisheries statement must be published within restore the marine and aquatic environment. 12 months of this section coming into force, and each subsequent UK fisheries statement must be published within 12 months of The Minister spoke earlier about the importance of the previous statement being published.”—(Luke Pollard.) protecting the marine environment and I am grateful This amendment would add a requirement on the fisheries policy for his words. We recognise that the fishing industry has authorities to publish a joint “UK fisheries statement” within 12 played an important part over many years in discovering months of the section being brought into force. much of the marine heritage that has been snagged in Question put, That the amendment be made. its nets or gear and brought to the attention of archaeologists. Some of the UK’s most significant marine The Committee divided: Ayes 6, Noes 9. heritage assets have been discovered by fishermen. The Division No. 3] important part of this measure is recognising that, AYES although fishermen undoubtedly seek to avoid snagging their gear on underwater heritage assets because of the Carmichael, rh Mr Alistair Pollard, Luke hazards and costs involved, impacts that cause damage Debbonaire, Thangam Smith, Owen to underwater heritage sometimes still occur. The Hill, Mike Sweeney, Mr Paul 179 Public Bill Committee 11 DECEMBER 2018 Fisheries Bill 180

NOES There is a concern that the Bill currently leaves a Aldous, Peter Lefroy, Jeremy democratic deficit for English fisheries. The perception of that has the potential to be heightened in future Eustice, George Morris, James Grant, Bill should the Secretary of State for Environment, Food Hollinrake, Kevin Stewart, Iain and Rural Affairs represent a non-English constituency. Jones, Mr Marcus Tracey, Craig Looking around the room, I can see a lot of budding Ministers who fulfil that criterion. Question accordingly negatived. It is for those reasons that I put forward the amendments on a probing basis. I request that the Minister considers aconsultationtoidentifyappropriatepoliticalrepresentation Peter Aldous: I beg to move amendment 15, in and accountability arrangements for English fisheries clause 2, page 3, line 24, at end insert— management. At this stage, I would not be over-prescriptive “(e) the Minister with responsibility for English fisheries.” of the precise details of who should be accountable over To set the Minister with responsibility for English fisheries at an equal English fisheries or how the role should be established, level to Scottish Ministers, Welsh Ministers and the Northern Ireland but it is an issue that needs to be considered and I would department. welcome confirmation from the Minister that it is on his and his Department’s radar. The Chair: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment Mr Sweeney: It is an honour, as always, to serve Amendment 16, in clause 9, page 6, line 9, at end under your chairmanship, Mr Gray. The hon. Member insert— for Waveney puts forward a clear and cogent case. It is something that needs to be looked at carefully in the “(e) the Minister with responsibility for English fisheries.” context of the sustainability of our current constitutional To require the Secretary of State to secure the consent of the Minister arrangements.The key frustration for a lot of us,particularly with responsibility for English fisheries regarding any amendments concerning licensing of boats in England. the generation who have grown up under devolution, is the lopsided and asymmetrical nature of our structures. It certainly causes frustration in this place for Scottish Peter Aldous: The intent behind these amendments MPs when we have to deal with structures and policies applies also to amendments 17, 18 and 19, and new that are not geared up for or reflective of devolution, clause 8. I would be inclined to describe this as the West and that are not considerate of those issues. It is time to Lothian question set to fishing. In principle, there is a bear in mind and take cognisance of those issues, in lot to commend evolution in a fishing context. We are order to look at a new architecture for our legislative getting towards that regional, more local system of framework in the UK that reflects the reality of the past management, which a lot of people felt was one of the 20 years of devolution. problems with the common fisheries policy. There is a concern that the English are being left behind and that Mr Carmichael: I confess that I did not anticipate, we are not on equal footing with the other three nations when we started scrutiny of the Fisheries Bill, that of the United Kingdom. The amendments are tabled in issues of such high constitutional importance would the spirit of seeking to extract from the Minister a more feature so prominently in the debate. One never knows appropriate and consistent political accountability for how Committees will proceed. English fisheries. There may not be a problem immediately but I sense we might be storing one up further down the The hon. Member for Waveney makes a good point. line. The current constitutional architecture remains unfinished. The unfinished business is the position of England, and There is a concern that the arrangements in the Bill whether it is England as a whole or the constituent concerning what is known as each “relevant national parts of England is a debate that, frankly, people in authority” are asymmetrical to the exclusion of the England need to have. I wish them as much joy as we representative voice for English fisheries. There is a have had with that in Scotland for the past 30 years. worry that the political representation for English fisheries The hon. Gentleman’s amendment comes to the is inconsistent and, at times, lacking political accountability. crux of the matter. As matters are currently ordered, When the Bill refers to the national authorities, the the Secretary of State has a clear conflict of interest. On arrangements for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland the one hand, he is expected to act as the UK Minister, are consistent. Those authorities are the Scottish Ministers, holding the ring, as it were,between the different constituent Welsh Ministers and the Northern Ireland Office. However, parts of the United Kingdom, and at the same time in the case of England, the arrangements are inconsistent. he is supposed to be the English Minister. That is not In some cases, the Marine Management Organisation is a sustainable situation. It requires to be remedied identified as the national authority; in other cases, the and should be remedied, I suggest, through a more Secretary of State is identified as the fisheries policy comprehensive and holistic approach to constitutional authority. reform for our English cousins. It is also fair to say that this is not a situation that can last indefinitely. If we 2.45 pm have to go through another round of salami slicing, The amendments serve to highlight some of taking it subject by subject, instead of region or nation those inconsistencies. The democratic framework and by region or nation, then so be it, but clearly something accountability of the national authority are clear for has to change. Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales, but not for England. To have English fisheries represented by either Luke Pollard: The amendment goes to the heart of the MMO, which is the delivery arm of DEFRA, or the many of the gripes about fisheries regulation in England. Secretary of State, whose remit is UK-wide, is anomalous. Who speaks for English fishing? There is an inherent 181 Public Bill Committee HOUSE OF COMMONS Fisheries Bill 182

[Luke Pollard] than what the Secretary of State wanted, he would need to have an English Government who were separate from conflict in the roles of the Fisheries Minister and the the UK Government; and if we had an English Government Secretary of State holding both English and UK-wide who were separate from the UK Government, we would portfolios. Although it is tempting to engage in a debate need an English Parliament to hold that English about the emerging need for a federal settlement in the Government to account. I do not think that that is an United Kingdom, that is probably a decision above our approach that we want to take at the moment, for all the pay grades for the purposes of the Fisheries Bill. reasons I have outlined. However, the hon. Member for Waveney’s suggestion to look at where this will go is not necessarily a bad one. Mr Carmichael: Can the Minister reconcile the objections We have the opportunity to reset and reformulate fishing that he has just outlined with the Government’s attitude regulation and to start the journey on those bits that to English votes for English laws? will take longer. The Minister has said that re-allocating George Eustice: I can, because that is an absolutely FQA will take seven years, if that were to start straightaway. sensible compromise to ensure that only English MPs We recognise that some of the changes that the Bill is should vote on those pieces of legislation that affect seeking to effect will not come into immediate force on only English matters. I believe that that is not about the day that the Bill comes into force. The discussion having an English Government, but a procedure in our that we need to have about the more devolved nature of Parliament to ensure that English MPs vote on laws fisheries is part of that. that affect their constituents. If I may go further than the hon. Gentleman, there has also been talk about devolution within England. There is another issue. I might say,what about Cornwall? For instance, there is the potential with more empowered Cornwall is slightly different, as you will know. The inshore fisheries and conservation authorities, and greater Fisheries Minister at the moment represents a Cornish powers at a local level, to have a more thorough set of seat, but there are representations from organisations powers regionalised and localised, rather than just held such as Cornwall Council that seek to have more of a in Westminster with an English Minister. This is therefore formal role for Cornwall in decision making. That links a good debate to have. I am not certain that the amendment to the point made by the shadow Minister, the hon. will carry favour, but the hon. Gentleman is right to Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport, that raise the concern. there may be a more formal role for the IFCAs, which On the question of who speaks for English fishing, I could draw them into the consultations that we have am sure the Minister will say that, currently, he does. ahead of the annual fisheries discussions. At the moment, That is something that we need to delve into, though it we have meetings with both environmental and fishing is probably a discussion for another day. stakeholders, and engage closely with them in the lead-up, but it may be that we should have a process for involving the IFCAs in part of that discussion. That may be one George Eustice: As my hon. Friend the Member for way to address the issue. Waveney pointed out, this may be a variant of the famous West Lothian question. Perhaps we could dub it My hon. Friend the Member for Waveney mentioned the Waveney question, as he has raised it. It is an that parts of the Bill say “the Secretary of State” and interesting point, but as a number of hon. Members others “the Marine Management Organisation”. This have pointed out, it goes much wider than what we will clause, which is about putting together a policy statement, be able to resolve in this particular Bill. clearly relates to the Secretary of State. The term marine In this country we have a devolved settlement; we do management organisation tends to be used, in most not have a federal system of government. The reason clauses, in the context of its enforcement and licensing that a federal system of government would not work in roles. Parts of the Bill use the term marine management the UK is that England is so much bigger than the other organisation because of the powers it has under the component parts. Under any kind of qualified majority Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009 to manage licences vote we would still, effectively, have the dominance of and to carry out enforcement activities. England. It is because such a federal system would not work in reality, given the structure of the UK—unless My hon. Friend raises an important point, but it goes we were to break up England, as the previous Government well beyond the scope of the Bill. I would say this: in my intended to do through a series of regional assemblies—that time doing this job, I have never actually had any we need to make our devolution settlement work. difficulty reconciling the role that I play as UK Minister in international negotiations, arguing the case for the Devolution means that, ultimately, something is UK, and the role that I play as an English Fisheries either devolved—in which case it is for the devolved Minister, making decisions around the distribution of Administrations to lead on—or it is reserved, in which quota, technical measures to protect buried lobsters case it is for the UK Government to lead on. Where there and a whole host of other things, which I agree for is a need for co-ordination and frameworks, it happens England only. It does not cause me any conflict. There through a series of memorandums of understanding, are potential inconsistencies, as he highlighted, but I concordats and other such arrangements, which feature believe they are inherent in the devolved settlement that prominently in this Bill and have always been prominent we have; over the last 20 years, we have learned to in our approach to fisheries. manage those effectively. The amendment would have no legal effect as it stands, because the Minister with responsibility for English fisheries is indeed the Secretary of State, so they Peter Aldous: I accept that the Bill is not the right are one and the same. For a Minister with responsibility place to take account of these concerns, but it is important for English fisheries to be able to do anything other to air them, and that is what I have done. I sense that 183 Public Bill Committee 11 DECEMBER 2018 Fisheries Bill 184 there might be a problem further down the line. I hope jurisdiction has an impact on what happens in another that I have fired a warning shot that that might be a jurisdiction. Therefore, the amendment seeks to place problem and that we need to be awake to that, and to duties— address it. In the Fisheries Bill, we are setting out the new 3 pm UK fishing policy—the UKFP—which will replace the Alan Brown: Will the hon. Gentleman outline how he CFP, in which we had the EU. I am not saying the EU is sees this system being set up and how it will actually necessarily an umpire or an adjudicator, but it is another operate, because right now the amendment is structured party, and it will be removed from future discussions. so that the Secretary of State sets the system up, which I suggest that the Secretary of State’s role could well clearly indicates that there will be no input from the come under closer scrutiny, and I sense that this issue devolved Administrations into how the system will operate? could materialise as a problem sooner rather than He highlighted the example of a situation where one later. On that note, although it is important that we Administration might want to allocate in a way that is have aired the issue, I beg to ask leave to withdraw vastly different from the other Administrations, but the the amendment. Secretary of State might have too much control through Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. the way they have set it up. Is that not a risk with regard Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill. to the devolution settlement?

Clause 3 Luke Pollard: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his suggestion. In this amendment, we have not attempted PREPARATION AND COMING INTO EFFECT OF FISHERIES to prescribe exactly how the dispute resolution should STATEMENTS operate nor how it should be established; we have Luke Pollard: I beg to move amendment 51, in clause 3, merely said that there should be one. Given that the page 3, line 38, at end insert— powers flow from this Bill into the hands of the Secretary of State, it seemed logical that the Secretary of State— “(5) The Secretary of State must by regulations establish a whoever that may be—should have the initial responsibility system to resolve disputes between fisheries policy authorities that result in no joint fisheries statement being published. of establishing that mechanism, obviously in conjunction (6) In establishing the system under subsection (5), the with the other parties involved. Secretary of State must in particular ensure that the dispute We feel that a firm deadline should be set in the Bill resolution system makes provision to require the fisheries policy so that these matters are not allowed simply to drift. authorities to make use of the system if it appears that no JFS Therefore, the amendment proposes that the fisheries will be published by 1 January 2021 due to disputes between the authority should be required to use the system set out fisheries policy authorities.”. by the Secretary of State in regulations, as soon as it This amendment would provide for the Secretary of State to establish a becomes apparent that it will not be possible to have an system for resolving a dispute between the fisheries policy authorities which could otherwise result in no joint fisheries statement being agreed fisheries statement published by—in this case— published. 1 January 2021. Equally, the date could be set 12 months Amendment 51 seeks to establish a dispute resolution after the commencement of the Act. mechanism, should there not be agreement between the The Minister may try to persuade us that we are partners on a joint fisheries statement. This week is a perhaps being too gloomy and that the scenarios that perfect example of how dispute resolution mechanisms we are trying to prepare for are remote possibilities. If are actually quite useful and should be put in place he is not inclined to accept this amendment, as I suspect before the dispute that needs to be resolved has arisen, he may not be, it would be beneficial if the Minister and that is what the amendment seeks to do. explained to the Committee what plans he expects to be Of course, we hope that all fisheries policy authorities put in place if there is a situation where the fisheries representing each part of the UK will be able to agree authorities are unable to reach an agreement, and that their joint fisheries statement without problems or in itself causes a— roadblocks emerging in the discussions—the parties involved may even go into those discussions fully intending Brendan O’Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP): Further to to reach agreement as swiftly as possible—but we know that point, the Minister said previously that he would that in real life these things can sometimes turn out be, in effect, the English Fisheries Minister and the rather differently to what everyone intended. Secretary of State. Does the hon. Gentleman have The amendment, which has been suggested by the concerns that the English Fisheries Minister is also the National Federation of Fishermen’s Organisations and arbiter in such a scheme? How would that work out? the Blue Marine Foundation, therefore seeks to discover Would there not be a complete conflict of interests if we what the Government think should happen in the event were to put the Minister in that situation? that reaching an agreement on the joint fisheries statement proves to be a more difficult and protracted process Luke Pollard: The point that the hon. Gentleman than expected, or in the event that one or more of the makes is a valid one, and it relates to the difficulty of authorities wishes to have fishing opportunities distributed having a UK role and English role simultaneously. The on a very different basis to the others, where there is a importance of creating a dispute resolution system conflict between that distribution method and the methods ahead of any dispute happening is that the rules of of their neighbours. engagement are already set out if those conflicts and We need to bear it in mind that in many cases the the issues that may arise from people being double-hatted stock of fish will be passing between shared waters and come about. That assumes that the English Fisheries around our islands. In that respect, what happens in one Minister is indeed an English MP and there is not a 185 Public Bill Committee HOUSE OF COMMONS Fisheries Bill 186

[Luke Pollard] My experience and my observation is that even when Ministers in all corners of the UK have the best intentions Welsh or Scottish MP in that role, because that would of avoiding them, disputes regularly arise. As the Minister create opportunities for other types of conflict within indicated, such disputes are normally dealt with on a that scenario. pretty ad hoc basis, with an evolving series of concordats We need to get that settled from the outset and that is and memorandums of understanding. The memorable effectively what the amendment seeks to do. The way in which the hon. Member for Waveney put it was amendment says, “In the event of there being a problem, that such matters are “the West Lothian question for how will it be addressed?” It would be good if the fish”. Whenever such problems inevitably emerge, we Minister set out his Department’s thinking. If there is a traditionally kick the can, or the fish, down the road, scenario in which conflict happens, we need to be clear rather than try to resolve them. about how it will be resolved, because fisheries is a very The Minister highlighted some of the thorny issues political issue. We know from the Fisheries Councils we have wrestled with over generations on both sides of that there is an awful lot of national bravado, national the House in respect of devolution and the evolving posturing and national importance in respect of the devolution settlement. I put it to him that it is better, deal, and the agreement that emerges is a really important especially in an enabling framework Bill such as this, to one. I would therefore be grateful if the Minister set out try to shape future discussions and mitigate the emergence how he would address that in responding to the amendment. of problems and disputes, because one thing we can be certain of is that they will emerge in relation to fishing. Mr Carmichael: We used to say that strong fences One simply need consider clause 3 in respect of the make for good neighbours, and the same is true when Secretary of State setting out his fisheries statement—the applied to the principles of constitutional law. The SSFS—and the joint fisheries statement being agreed effective working of an emerging asymmetric system of between the devolved Administrations and the UK devolution within our government requires strong systems Government, to see that there is an immediate problem. to be put in place. Yes, as the Minister suggested this It is not clear to me from reading the Bill which of those morning, it is all fine and well while everybody is happy, statements has precedence. I assume that the hierarchy stocks are plentiful and there is no real disagreement. is that, just as each succeeding SSFS supersedes the One of the difficulties with the operation of the devolution preceding one, the SSFS would also have precedence settlement between Scotland and the rest of the United over the JFS, but if the JFS were legally deemed to be Kingdom was that such concordats as were put in place the more important document, given that it had arguably were put in place with little consideration of how they reached by a more important means of negotiation might work with Governments of different colours in between the different parts of the UK, it would be good Edinburgh and London. As a consequence, these areas if the Minister were to clarify that. have become fractious, and occasionally friction has ensued. We risk missing an opportunity, because there What happens if there is a significant difference of will be times when some sort of friction will occur. opinion between the UK Secretary of State, who is also To anticipate the question from the hon. Member for the English Fisheries Minister, and Fisheries Ministers Kilmarnock and Loudoun, such arrangements would for the devolved Administrations about their priorities have to be put in place after full agreement with the for their respective fishing areas? That seems an obvious different devolved Administrations. It would be wrong problem, although this is not the area of the Bill in of the UK Government—because they are the UK which that problem becomes most obvious: it is in Government and the English Government at the same clauses 18 and 19, which deal with the setting of quotas, time—simply to go ahead. That is the essence of the that the potential for discord between the UK Minister conflict the Minister faces. and the devolved Administrations Ministers becomes most acute and most commercially problematic. In No one should have a veto in these matters, but that respect of the fisheries statements and the setting of should mean that no one has a final say in defiance of quotas, it is perfectly possible that in future, for example, everyone else either. A veto can block an arrangement, the UK Minister may wish to set quotas for shellfish but a final say can force through an arrangement that that we do not currently have, which may be seen as does not suit and is not agreed by everyone in the unfair to fishers in Scotland or Wales in particular. different Administrations concerned. At the end of the day, we may need to come to something that looks I think we all recognise that there are myriad potential much like a system of qualified majority voting. Heaven problems here, and that it would be better if the Minister help us, but some mechanism must be found to resolve were able to come up with some more concrete means of these matters. assuring people that the Government have an idea of The point the Minister hears from our discussion of how they would resolve those problems. That might be this amendment, and from his hon. Friend the Member through a dispute resolution mechanism as recommended for Waveney on the previous amendment, is that once by our Front Benchers, or through some other means, we have brought the powers back from the European but I do not think kicking the can down the road is the Union, the status quo will no longer be fit for purpose. right approach.

Owen Smith (Pontypridd) (Lab): It is a pleasure to The Chair: I call the Minister—sorry,I call Mr Sweeney. serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray. I rise to I keep thinking you are a Front Bencher, but you are support the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the actually a Back Bencher. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport. I do so as a former special adviser in the Wales Office and the Mr Sweeney: Technically,yes.Perhaps I am moonlighting Northern Ireland Office and as a former shadow Secretary as a Front Bencher. As always, it is a pleasure to serve of State for Wales and for Northern Ireland. under your chairmanship, Mr Gray. 187 Public Bill Committee 11 DECEMBER 2018 Fisheries Bill 188

I rise in support of this amendment. It reflects have identified are not new; they date right back to the that devolution is a process, rather than an event, and if formation of the devolution settlement in the late 1990s. I were to do a risk profile of the Bill, this omission by We have developed ways of managing these tensions. the Government would be a red flag. It is important As I said this morning on a previous group of that this is addressed as a matter of urgency; it amendments, the Bill seeks to resolve quite a difficult is critical, because as we have seen at instances throughout tension that has existed for at least the past 20 years: on the discussions about the EU withdrawal process, one level, fisheries is about international agreements impasses occur quite frequently between the devolved and negotiations, which are reserved, but on another Administrations and the UK Government about how level, issues such as enforcement, licensing and marine to proceed and how best to resolve issues. It is clear that management have been devolved. That is the nature of in fisheries, there is a high risk of those issues emerging, our devolution settlement, and we have to use sensible, so as a matter of prudence it is incumbent on the pragmatic and creative ways to bridge the tensions Government to make provision for issues to be resolved inherent in it. through a system and process defined in the Bill. The December Agriculture and Fisheries Council meeting will be held next week. More than any other Alan Brown: I rise to ask the hon. Gentleman the Department, DEFRA has developed quite a good way same question I put to the shadow Minister: how does of working with all the devolved Administrations, so he see this mechanism being set up? If it is set up with the annual December negotiations are attended not just the Secretary of State, how does he see it as being a by Ministers in the UK Government but by Ministers panacea that will resolve any dispute if it does not have from each part of the United Kingdom. We go as a UK the input of the Administrations? delegation led by the UK Minister, but when we enter trilateral discussions with the presidency and the Mr Sweeney: I think it should be an inclusive process; Commission, for instance, my Scottish counterpart Fergus I am not prescribing any particular definition for that, Ewing will speak on issues pertinent to Scotland, Lesley but I do not think the Secretary of State should have Griffiths will speak for the Welsh Government on issues untrammelled power over the ultimate decisions. As the pertinent to Wales, and the lead official John Speers will right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland suggested, talk about issues pertinent to Northern Ireland. it should be something that is equitable and democratic We already attend as an integrated UK delegation, in nature. That would be the way to proceed. although we represent several Governments. In those difficult moments on Tuesday when we have to pick Mr Carmichael: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that priorities by deciding which issues we will get no movement now is the time to be make these arrangements? If we on from the Commission, or giving certain issues up to wait until there is a problem, then the creation of the prioritise others, we will have to go through discussions resolution system itself will inevitably become contentious. to work out, collectively and by consensus, the correct This is the time for building strong bridges. approach for the UK. We have a very good track record of doing so, even though virtually every political party Mr Sweeney: I agree. It would be intelligent to set up imaginable is in the delegation. this mechanism now, rather than when there is a heated dispute, which will inevitably emerge at some point in Mr Sweeney: The Minister outlines a de facto process the course of history. It would be seen as enlightened to that may function adequately, but would it not be do that at this stage, and I urge the Minister to consider helpful to define it in the Bill and give certainty about taking it forward as a matter of precaution, because we how it will function in the future? all share an interest in this legislation functioning as George Eustice: I was going to come on to how we efficiently as possible and reflecting the realities of define other working relationships. I have set out the 20 years of devolution. As we have mentioned before, approach for annual fisheries negotiations, and I envisage some of these provisions can form a blind spot in how that approach continuing in the future as we become an the UK Government form their policies, and we have to independent coastal state, but there are additional measures be cognisant of the realities of how devolution functions. in place. This mechanism should not be monopolised by the We have a series of concordats, which date back devolved Administrations plus the UK Government; it to 2012 and are regularly updated, setting out how we could perhaps involve regional elements from all the work together on issues such as vessel licensing that devolved nations, which would be able to make submissions have implications for different parts of the UK. There for dispute resolutions as well. It should proceed in an is an overarching memorandum of understanding with innovative and intelligent way. It would allow us to have all the devolved Administrations that includes a process properly functioning devolution, rather than simply for the Joint Ministerial Committee to act as a dispute devolving an issue and forgetting that it exists—throwing resolution mechanism. We are currently developing it over the wall and saying, “It is now branded with a a fisheries memorandum of understanding with our saltire or a red dragon, and it is no longer our problem.” colleagues in the devolved Administrations, which is It should be an iterative process that everybody is likely to include a chapter on dispute resolution as part involved with, because ultimately,fisheries are an common of a wider UK frameworks process led by the Cabinet asset for all parts of the UK. Office. The Cabinet Office is doing detailed, cross- Government work on the future of the JMC, on how 3.15 pm its processes can be improved and on how issues such George Eustice: I hope to be able to reassure hon. as dispute resolution can be addressed. I hope on Members that we are all one big happy family in this Report to be able to explain more fully the thinking that United Kingdom. The challenges that hon. Members is emerging. 189 Public Bill Committee HOUSE OF COMMONS Fisheries Bill 190

Mr Sweeney: The Minister outlines a series of points At some point in the future, the Hansard report of about the functioning of de facto dispute resolutions this Committee will be dug out by an industrious journalist that perform adequately, but anyone who has followed and politicians, and they will inquire why a dispute the events of the past few months with regard to EU mechanism was not put in place when the Bill was withdrawal issues and the functioning of the JMC formed. They will look at the debate and see a Government would agree that because it is not on a statutory footing, that did not want to do so because they either failed to it has failed to perform adequately—I think that that is predict a problem or were so opposed to accepting a fair assessment from the Opposition. Perhaps he amendments to the Bill that they knowingly proceeded ought to take cognisance of our need to get this stuff with a hole in it. That is what we have here. defined in statute so that it can function and work This is an enabling Bill, designed to create a system under pressure. and framework for the proper governance of our fisheries in future. We should be taking the opportunity to look George Eustice: As I said, the Cabinet Office is leading into every aspect, to ensure it will work in all circumstances a wider review of the memorandums of understanding and scenarios. There will be a problem in future in the and the JMC processes to see whether they can be event of one of the devolved Administrations or the improved. It obviously affects many other Departments UK deciding not to agree with the others on what is, as as well. It is probably not right for me to go beyond we all know, the most political part of DEFRA’s that. I can explain what we currently do on fisheries. responsibility around fishing. Be that a manufactured concern or a valid concern on stock assessment or Owen Smith: Does the Minister not acknowledge different elements of science conflicting, there will be a that part of the reason that the Cabinet Office is undertaking point of conflict in future. that review is the widespread dissatisfaction over many years in the devolved Administrations with the working Owen Smith: My hon. Friend is right. Is it not entirely of the Joint Ministerial Committee? For example, I predictable when that moment will come? It will be cannot think of a single substantive issue that has been when the Secretary of State has the first opportunity to properly resolved at the JMC in recent times. If the distribute fishing opportunities across the new UK Minister can think of one, perhaps he could inform the waters and there is a dispute between the Administrations Committee. as to the fairness of that distribution, when those other Administrations are only consulted but do not have to George Eustice: At DEFRA, we have many discussions consent to those changes. Is that not precisely when the with our counterparts in the devolved Administrations. rubber will hit the road? Wehave highly constructive dialogue and reach a consensus. That brings me to another point I want to make. In this Luke Pollard: My hon. Friend is right that is a possible context, let us be clear that we are talking about the scenario. There could be a multitude of other scenarios formation of a joint fisheries statement. By its very where that is a real risk. nature, we are not talking about an argument over the implementation of any kind of agreement. We are Brendan O’Hara: I thank the hon. Gentleman for talking about what it is collectively we are doing by way giving way again; he is being very generous. of policy to deliver the legally binding objective set out The hon. Member for Glasgow North East said he in clause 1. was looking for a situation that was equitable and If we as politicians cannot work through our differences democratic. That is motherhood and apple pie to a and work towards achieving a consensus on a legally place such as this, but he was lacking any details of binding requirement here, who can? Are we seriously what was being proposed and guarantees that it would saying that having a judge come in to arbitrate, or to not impinge on the devolved Administration, and something have some sort of arbitration process or panel, is going that takes into account—as we have talked about before— to cut it if, for instance, the Scottish Government have a the asymmetrical constitutional set up that currently particular concern about Orkney crabs and what is said exists in the United Kingdom. Yes, we would love to see about that in the joint fisheries statement? I put it to something that was democratic, accountable and equitable, hon. Members that that is not the case. but at the moment there is nothing on which to hang We politicians cannot abdicate our responsibility and any of that. role. Part of that role is to work through our differences to achieve consensus where it is required to get an Luke Pollard: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s agreed policy statement that is legally binding on all of intervention, but I disagree. We do not know what the us equally and severally. I believe that because we have cause of that dispute will be or what form that dispute that legal commitment enshrined in clause 5(1) and will take, but we can predict that there will be a dispute because we have a very strong track record in DEFRA of some form in and around the formation of these of successful concordats and memorandums of joint fisheries statements in the future. We also know understanding, and because the Cabinet Office is doing that at a time when climate change is changing the stock a wider piece of work in this area, this amendment is levels in our seas, when there is a real concern about unnecessary. It is ultimately for us, as elected politicians, how fishing quota is distributed—between ourselves at the very least, to agree what we are going to do by within the UK, and with our EU neighbours and way of policy. Norway—disputes will arise. It is inevitable that that will take place. The Chair: I call Mr Sweeney. The summary of the debate we have had so far is that there is a hole in the Bill, which needs to be fixed. Luke Pollard: Mr Pollard, Mr Gray. We look nothing Ministers need to be seriously concerned about the alike; one of us has a beard. fact that there will be a problem here and the relevant 191 Public Bill Committee 11 DECEMBER 2018 Fisheries Bill 192

Hansard will be dug out. Whether the Minister is still in Clause 5 his place or not at that point—I suspect, as my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd says, it may come DEADLINE FOR FIRST FISHERIES STATEMENTS AND sooner rather than later—we need to resolve this. As a OBLIGATION TO REVIEW result, we will push this amendment to a division. Question put, That the amendment be made. Luke Pollard: I beg to move amendment 52, in clause 5, The Committee divided: Ayes 6, Noes 9. page 4, line 10, leave out “before 1 January 2021” and Division No. 4] insert— AYES “at the latest one calendar year from the date of withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union.”. Carmichael, rh Mr Alistair Pollard, Luke This amendment would ensure that the fisheries statements are Debbonaire, Thangam Smith, Owen published no more than one year after the UK leaves the EU. Hill, Mike Sweeney, Mr Paul

NOES The Chair: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 53, in clause 5, page 4, line 12, leave out Aldous, Peter Lefroy, Jeremy “before 1 January 2021” and insert— Eustice, George Morris, James Grant, Bill “at the latest one calendar year from the date of withdrawal of Hollinrake, Kevin Stewart, Iain the United Kingdom from the European Union.”. Jones, Mr Marcus Tracey, Craig This amendment would ensure that the fisheries statements are published no more than one year after the UK leaves the EU. Question accordingly negatived. 3.30 pm Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill. Luke Pollard: Amendments 52 and 53 would ensure that the fisheries statements are published no more than The Chair: With this it will be convenient to discuss: one year after the UK leaves the European Union. Much debate has been had as to when that date will be, Clause 4 stand part. and I am sure that the Minister will not seek to deviate That schedule 1 be the First schedule to the Bill. from the line that he has been given by the Whips on that date. However, given that this is a situation in flux, George Eustice: In the last group of amendments we and the uncertainty in the Government at the moment, covered many aspects of clause 3, which sets out the and without wishing to apply any normative judgment procedures that the four fisheries administrations would on whether that is a good or bad thing, we do not know need to follow when preparing and adopting the joint the date on which we will be leaving. The amendment fisheries statement. It also sets out the procedures for would therefore make the Bill more flexible, should the the Secretary of State to adopt a Secretary of State date of exit change. fisheries statement for England. This clause makes it Wehave established today that UK fisheries management clear that maintaining sustainable fisheries is a joint policy needs to be dynamic and reactive to the fluctuating effort and requires the involvement of all four fisheries marine environment. As the fisheries management policy administrations. It requires all four to jointly prepare manages a national resource, it needs to be accountable and adopt the joint fisheries statement for the statement through Parliament as well. The joint fisheries statement to come into effect. The precise mechanism for preparing is also the first proper acid test for the state of UK and publishing both the JFS and the SSFS are contained fisheries post-Brexit, and will be Parliament’s first in schedule 1, which must be followed for the statements opportunity to hold the Government to account against to come into effect. This sets out the provisions for the promises made in the referendum and in the Bill. consultation with industry and other interested parties. The idea that we would have to wait almost two years This clause is integral to both the joint fisheries statement for the first joint fisheries statement if we leave the EU and the Secretary of State fisheries statement. in March 2019 without a deal is not good enough. Clause 4 makes it clear that any amendment to the Early scrutiny is particularly necessary, given the lack joint fisheries statement can only be made by the fisheries of guarantee in the political declaration that a new administrations acting together. This clause is important fisheries agreement will be completed before the end of in allowing the statements to be amendable, as a changing the transition period, in July 2020. Instead, parties will environment may require. For instance, there may be a use their “best endeavours”. Despite endless gold-plated change of Administration, Government, approach or promises, there is a real fear among fishers that that circumstances, which would mean that it would be vague language means that there is a final betrayal necessary, where possible, to amend and adapt the joint coming for the industry. The hon. Member for Aberdeen fisheries statement and the Secretary of State fisheries South (Ross Thomson) said that statement. “sovereignty of our waters could be sacrificed for a trade deal. That is unacceptable.” Luke Pollard: I am grateful to the Minister. The I am sure that is a view shared by many in this place and Opposition has no issue with clause 4 and we are happy in fishing communities around the country. Because that it should stand part. there is no guarantee that there will be a new fisheries Question put and agreed to. agreement with the EU by the end of the transition Clause 3 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. period, only a hope, there is a fear that once the spotlight Clause 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill. has come off fishing a few months or years down the Schedule 1 agreed to. line, during a quiet moment of transition, the industry 193 Public Bill Committee HOUSE OF COMMONS Fisheries Bill 194

[Luke Pollard] Finally, when making the case for his amendment, the hon. Gentleman suggests that the date on which we will be taken off to a quiet corner and betrayed in withdraw from the European Union could be a movable exchange for a free trade agreement with the EU. That feast. I do not accept that. We are leaving the European is a real concern that fishers have expressed to me, Union come what may in March. The issue is whether sometimes in more colourful language than I have there will be an implementation period and how long it chosen to use. It is a valid concern that we need to will be. Will it go for the full duration until December 2020 address. or will it be possible to conclude it expeditiously? I The Leader of the Opposition stated in the Commons therefore accept that there is an element of doubt about that the concern is that all that we will do is enter into a the length of the implementation period and whether new CFP but under a new name. I do not doubt the there will be one. I suggest we revisit the issue of Minister’s sincerity in wanting to leave on the day that is timescales for the production of the joint fisheries statement Government policy today—rather than the one we might on Report, when I hope things will be clearer. get tomorrow—but we do not want that to happen. It is out of his hands and I appreciate that. A hard date in Luke Pollard: There are no surprises in the Minister’s the Bill may be useful for party political management response, but I enjoyed the phrase “we will work through on the Government Benches, but in creating an enabling our differences across the four Administrations”, given Bill, we need to recognise that the date of exit may the time required to do that. I suspect that was the exact change and, therefore, 12 months from that date of exit opposite of the sentiment that was exhibited in the is the first time that a fisheries statement should be dispute resolution debate. presented to Parliament. That is the purpose of the There is significant concern among fishing industries amendments. that they will be sold out, just as they were during the transition period. Ministers, including this Minister, were advocating that fisheries should be excluded from George Eustice: Setting out a particular date for the transition period up to a week before that policy completion when there are a number of scenarios that changed. Fishers around our coastline have every reason could unfold in respect of the withdrawal agreement to be sceptical about some of the promises that have and the nature of our exit from the EU does create been given. some uncertainties—I would be the first to acknowledge that. As the hon. Gentleman said, things are currently in a state of flux. George Eustice: Does the hon. Gentleman not accept the ultimate sell-out for British fishing would be to stay I want to explain why we have chosen the 1 January 2021 in the European Union and therefore stay in the common as the date. When we drafted the Bill it was on the fisheries policy? understanding and expectation that there would be an implementation period, during which we would be bound by the terms of the common fisheries policy until Luke Pollard: I understand that fishing was sold out December 2020, when we would negotiate as an on the way into the EU and there is a risk of it being independent coastal state. The appropriate time to have sold out on the way out of the EU. A lot of our fishing this plan in place seemed to be January 2021. We chose communities share that concern. We need to recognise the date on the basis of an expectation of an implementation that. I respect the Minister’s desire to leave on the date period running until December 2020. that has currently been stated by the Government. As the Government are changing their mind about a lot to The second reason was that it gave us time to ensure do with Brexit, and as this is an enabling Bill, should we that we can work through our differences across the not be flexible and be able to reflect possible changes four Administrations and have a plan in place. As well during this period? as the neatness of the measure commencing at the point at which the implementation period ends, it ensures that I am happy to take the Minister’s suggestion to keep we give ourselves sufficient time to agree the plan and my powder dry on this one and revisit it on Report. put it in place. However, there is a genuine concern that fishing will be sold out, given any hard dates, and more work needs to I know that a long-standing concern for a number of be done to reassure fishers that they will not be sold out fishermen is that their interests may be traded for other when it comes to the political agreement further down elements of the future partnership. We have made it the line. A flexible date would be one way of doing that. absolutely clear that we will not do that. Weare absolutely I therefore beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. clear that trade negotiations are separate from negotiations about access. The Government have tabled some Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. amendments that we will discuss at a later date that I believe will give some reassurance to fishermen about Luke Pollard: I beg to move amendment 54, in that. clause 5, page 4, line 15, leave out “6” and insert “5” While I understand the point made by the hon. This amendment would ensure that the fisheries statements are subject Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport, by the to review every five years, instead of every six years. time the Bill reaches Report stage, we may all be slightly clearer as to the length of the implementation period or The Chair: With this it will be convenient to discuss whether there is to be an implementation period at all the following: and whether we leave without an agreement next March. Amendment 55, in clause 5, page 4, line 17, leave out I that suggest the hon. Gentleman keeps his powder dry “6” and insert “5” on this issue until we all have greater clarity about what This amendment would ensure that the fisheries statements are subject the future holds. to review every five years, instead of every six years. 195 Public Bill Committee 11 DECEMBER 2018 Fisheries Bill 196

Amendment 56, in clause 5, page 4, line 22, leave out changes in water temperatures and fish stocks, which “6” and insert “5” are moving all the time? We should look at the evidence This amendment would ensure that the fisheries statements are subject for the timing, rather than just look backwards to an to review every five years, instead of every six years. Act from a few years ago? Amendment 57, in clause 5, page 4, line 24, leave out “6” and insert “5” George Eustice: I strongly agree, which is why we This amendment would ensure that the fisheries statements are subject included clause 4, which gives fisheries policy authorities to review every five years, instead of every six years. the ability to amend the plans whenever they choose to do so. If events move and we need to adopt a different Luke Pollard: These amendments make a similar approach to mitigate the effect of climate change because point to the earlier ones, in respect of the timeframe things happened faster than we thought, or there was that we are looking at. They would remove the restriction an environmental challenge that had not been foreseen of six years and replace it with five years. Six years is far in the six-year plan, there is a power to amend the joint too long to leave the Executive unaccountable if it is fisheries statement to reflect that change under any necessary to force them to change bad policy. That is circumstances and at any time. why we wish to change the period from six years to five With the six years, we have chosen to adopt a timescale years. that has a precedent in the context of managing the Five years is the length of a fixed-term Parliament. It marine environment. We also included a clear provision would mean that, in any given Parliament, there can be that means that, at any time, we can adapt and amend accountability for the policies that the Government are the plan in the way that my hon. Friend the Member for seeking to put in place via the Fisheries Bill. Otherwise, Stafford seeks, to ensure that it can respond to events. in a fixed-term Parliament of five years, there may not I hope I have been able to inform the hon. Member be an opportunity due to the period being set at six for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport about the genesis years. I encourage the Minister to look again at the of the choice of a six-year term as a starting point, and arbitrary six years. We want to ensure that, every five also about the fact that clause 4 gives us the power to years, at the start of a new parliamentary term, fisheries amend the plans at any stage, which means that moving is right up there as one of the main policy items under the time period to five years, as he suggests, is perhaps review. Every new Parliament should have the ability to unnecessary. review fisheries policy. As drafted, the Fisheries Bill gives the benefit of the 3.45 pm doubt and too much discretion to people in office. There is not enough of a guarantee that the policies will Luke Pollard: I am grateful to the Minister for setting achieve our fisheries objectives. Wetabled the amendments out why five years is not as good as six; none the less, I to enhance scrutiny and to ensure that the Government’s think there is a point about our effective scrutiny of the aim to have truly sustainable world-leading fisheries is system. When the Marine and Coastal Access Act was delivered. initially enacted, it was at the start of that journey of organising marine plans and policies. We are now in a very different place, both politically and environmentally. George Eustice: It has been a little while since I I am grateful for the comments about climate change mentioned the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009, made by the hon. Member for Stafford. Our world is which was introduced by the previous Labour Government. changing and our fisheries need to be more adaptable to I want to explain where the allegedly arbitrary figure of the concerns around climate change. six years came from. It mirrors the approach set out in the Marine and Coastal Access Act in respect of the production of marine spatial plans. There is a requirement Alan Brown: In support of the principle of reducing in the Act to review the marine spatial plans at six-yearly the review period from six to five years, I tried to get in intervals. Our officials, when considering what would be earlier on. I have concern about linking it to a parliamentary appropriate—we wanted to have a consistent approach term, because as we know, despite the Fixed-term to the marine environment—took the view that, as Parliaments Act, we have already had one Government marine spatial plans are reviewed every six years, that that did not last five years, and the way things are going, would seem to be the appropriate precedent to follow in it is highly probable that this Government will not, respect of these other plans. either, so I would be wary of linking it to a Westminster Six years has a precedent, and indeed one that some parliamentary term. That would also override the Opposition Members might have voted for—not the parliamentary cycle of the devolved Administrations. I hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport, am happy with five years, but we should be wary of how but other hon. Members—when the Marine and Coastal this is linked to the parliamentary cycles. Access Act was passed. There is no precedent for five years. I understand that hon. Members may take the Luke Pollard: In seeking to move from six to five, that view that, under the Fixed-Term Parliaments Act 2011, was merely to move from six years to five years, rather five years is the typical duration of a Government, but than necessarily to align with that parliamentary cycle. clause 4 creates a power to amend the plan at any time. Mike Hill: Would moving the period to five not mean Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con): I very much understand that the Government of the day were accountable for what the Minister is saying, but with climate change, actions they had taken, rather than leaving it to a sixth things often happen much more rapidly than Parliament year, when potentially it would be a different Government might make provision for. Does he not agree that there and it could trigger a new way of assessing things? It should be some flexibility, particularly in regard to could be a false trigger for the future. 197 Public Bill Committee HOUSE OF COMMONS Fisheries Bill 198

Luke Pollard: I agree. Although I take the point made Peter Aldous: Thank you, Mr Gray. by the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun, I will highlight two points on which I hope to gain that Governments may not last for five years—indeed, clarification from the Minister. First, it is important for the reason that I am here and not doing my former job all public bodies involved in fisheries management to of advising on how to build skyscrapers is that the adhere to the principle of the fisheries statements. The House decided to have an election and not use the amendments therefore seek to expand the scope of the Fixed-term Parliaments Act to see out five years—there list of those authorities to which the statements apply. I is a possibility that these plans may not be reviewed have also sought to ensure that the list is not exhaustive. within an entire, normal Parliament, which means that Secondly, the amendments would reduce those an entire batch of Members of Parliament for that authorities’ discretion not to comply with the obligation. parliamentary term will not have the chance to do this. I They would provide a legally binding commitment on recognise the flexibility that the Minister has outlined. the public authorities to achieve the fisheries objective. I am concerned about what appears to be some wriggle Mr Marcus Jones (Nuneaton) (Con): Bearing in mind room for authorities not to comply with the statements. the rationale that the hon. Member is now using, surely I would be grateful if the Minister allayed my concerns. he should have drafted his amendment in the context of this being looked at within each term of Parliament, rather than on an arbitrary five-year basis? Luke Pollard: Although this might be the kiss of death for the hon. Gentleman’samendment, the Opposition Luke Pollard: No, I am quite comfortable that the are minded to support it, because it seeks to improve words “leave out “6”and insert “5””are entirely sufficient the duties in the Bill. to deal with this clause; none the less, I take the point The Bill’s wording gives significant powers for a that the hon. Gentleman is trying to make. There is relevant national authority to amend policies contained concern here about the frequency of scrutiny. If the within the joint fisheries statement with little scrutiny or Minister can reflect on that, there is a strong sense of challenge. The amendment would remove the vague our wanting to be sure. and meaningless “relevant considerations”, a term that appears to be a get-out clause to allow authorities to act George Eustice: Will the hon. Gentleman explain why as they please when it suits them. he chose five years rather than four or three? Earlier, the Minister said that the power would enable reaction to a huge surprise event, but how can we be Luke Pollard: I can indeed; it is because two was sure that it would not be abused? The clause is not suggested. Feedback from stakeholders was that they specific enough, and no safeguards are in place to stop felt that six years was too long. A number of suggestions it being used as a “Get out of jail” card. As my hon. came back for different periods, two and three being Friend the Member for Pontypridd did, I ask the Minister some of those—indeed, Fishing for Leave was strong in what “relevant considerations” mean in this context. its advocacy of two years. I felt that two years is too That is the nub of the concern expressed by the hon. frequent, but six years is too long. Therefore, looking to Member for Waveney. lock it into the period during, in theory, a parliamentary In the evidence session last week, Tom Appleby from five-year term, seems to be the right amount of time. the Blue Marine Foundation criticised the clause as it I am grateful for the flexibility that the Minister has stands: set out. Should the Government change, I would expect “Our fisheries statements are a bit woolly. I notice that there is that flexibility to be used by a Labour Government in a bit in here that says that they do not have to adhere if relevant moving that to five. I think that would be the right thing considerations are taken into account. What is a relevant consideration? to do. However, on the basis of the discussion we have I could not find a definition of that. had, I am content not to push the amendment to a vote. We have not nailed the Secretary of State to the floor in this I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Bill, and that could be done.”––[Official Report, Fisheries Public Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Bill Committee, 4 December 2018; c. 56, Q120.] Clause 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill. I am not, of course, advocating nailing the Secretary of State to any floors—[Interruption.] Indeed. Government Clause 6 Members might like to go there, but not Opposition Members. Debbie Crockard of the Marine Conservation EFFECT OF STATEMENTS Society said something similar at another of our evidence sessions: Peter Aldous: I beg to move amendment 89, in “the problem with the joint fisheries statement is that, under clause 6, page 4, line 29, leave out from “authority” to clause 6(2), if a national authority takes the decision to act other end of line 34. than in accordance with the JFS, it simply has to state the reason why. There is no binding duty to follow that JFS. If it goes against The Chair: With this it will be convenient to discuss the JFS and sets fishing limits that are not legally bound, there is amendment 90, in clause 6, page 4, line 37, leave out nothing to hold it to account in that situation.”––[Official Report, from “authority” to end of line 42. Fisheries Public Bill Committee, 6 December 2018; c. 77, Q152.] Both the concerns expressed by the hon. Member for Peter Aldous: Amendments 81 and 82, which come Waveney, and that concern about the lack of any dispute next, also relate to this clause, and the points that I resolution, go to the heart of the weakness of the joint make now apply to those changes as well. fisheries statement that he rightly highlighted.

The Chair: I think it is better to discuss those separately George Eustice: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the because they are grouped separately. We will stick to Member for Waveney for tabling the amendments and amendments 89 and 90 for now. highlighting an important issue. I understand why some 199 Public Bill Committee 11 DECEMBER 2018 Fisheries Bill 200 might be concerned about the inclusion of the provision, Owen Smith: The Minister is offering some comfort because they judge that it to be a “Get out of jail” card to those of us who have expressed concerns about how which means that people would not have to follow the loosely the clause seems to be drawn. I put it to the statement at all. Minister that if what he is envisaging here are very As with earlier amendments, I will explain the genesis exceptional circumstances—he keeps using the phrase of the language chosen for the clause. Again, I am “force majeure circumstances”—why is the language so afraid, I have to pray in aid the Marine and Coastal loosely drawn? It says: Access Act. Section 58(1) states: “unless relevant considerations indicate otherwise” “Apublic authority must take any authorisation or enforcement and this seems to be a fairly broadly drawn set of decision in accordance with the appropriate marine policy documents, circumstances. Crucially, subsection (4) says: unless relevant considerations indicate otherwise.” “If a relevant national authority within subsection (5)(a) or (b) The claim by some that the language in the Bill is takes any decision”. random, new language that has never been used in That is an extraordinarily broad set of circumstances. If legislation before is therefore not true. It is a form of it is intended to be so limited, why is it so broad? words that was used in the most recent piece of marine management legislation available, which was introduced George Eustice: I explained the genesis of that choice by the Labour Government. of words earlier. The Marine and Coastal Access Act The reason we have the provision is to ensure that in 2009 also uses the term instances where we have a sudden change in circumstances, “unless relevant considerations indicate otherwise”, which might put us outside a joint fisheries statement, so it is not a new form of words in our legislation and it there is, in a sort of force majeure— was used in our most recent piece of legislation dealing with the marine environment. As I said, I accept that we Alan Brown: I just want to understand what the should go away and consider whether we can narrow Minister is talking about. Exceptional circumstances the scope within which such a power could be used, and may arise that need swift action. Therefore, is there not I have undertaken to give that further consideration by a way to improve the language in the Bill, even though the time the Bill is on Report. this serves as a precedent, rather than the amendment, which would delete it completely? Is that something the Owen Smith: I do not think anybody is suggesting Government would consider for the next stage? that the problem is that the language is new. It is the fact that the language is so poorly and so broadly drawn. George Eustice: I was going to return to that point. As I said at the outset, while I think it is wrong to delete George Eustice: Well, I blame the last Labour that flexibility for a force majeure event all together, I Government for the drafting of the legislation. We have am certainly willing to look on Report at whether we reached a convenient conclusion and I have made an could refine or narrow the scope and the circumstances open offer to give this further consideration to see if we in which such a measure could be used. can narrow the scope so that it is closer to its intended Let me give an example. If there were a sudden use, rather than it becoming a simple get out of jail card change in the health of a particular stock, we might in all circumstances. I look forward to updating my have it as part of the plan that a stock could be hon. Friend the Member for Waveney on Report. exploited at a particular level. We might not want to do that anymore and might therefore step outside the 4 pm plan—not to overexploit a stock but to stop exploiting Peter Aldous: It has been a useful short debate. I was it all together. It might also be the case that in order to not happy with the clause as it is drafted; there needs to reach an agreement with, say,Norway,which uses maximum be a balance between flexibility—that is needed—and sustainable yield as well as other environmental not too much flexibility that gives the get-out-of-jail measurements and metrics, we might have to move card. I thank the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and slightly outside the scope of our own plan. Then a Loudoun for his suggestion that we look at this in a bit question has to be asked: as I put to Dr Carl O’Brien, is more detail, and the Minister for taking up that offer. I it better to get an agreement so that everyone is working look forward to looking at this matter more closely in within agreed limits and to an agreed plan with our redrafted clauses on Report. On that basis, I beg to ask neighbours—say, Norway—or is it better for everyone leave to withdraw the amendment. to just kick the table over, walk away and unilaterally set Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. their own total allowable catch? I would say it is always the former. There will be times when we may have to Clause 6 ordered to stand part of the Bill. step slightly outside the joint fisheries statement in the Clause 7 ordered to stand part of the Bill. interests of getting a fisheries agreement at all, which is ultimately for the benefit of the stock. Clause 8 My hon. Friend the Member for Waveney has highlighted an important issue. I hope he understands that, because ACCESS TO BRITISH FISHERIES BY we need that flexibility both for force majeure events FOREIGN FISHING BOATS and for other sudden developments, we need some sort of provision for those circumstances. Therefore, deleting Peter Aldous: I beg to move amendment 21, in the wording all together is wrong. However, in view of clause 8, page 5, line 13, leave out “a” and insert “an the points that he and others have raised, I will give this annual British”. further consideration as we approach Report to see The amendment applies to clause 8 and to schedule 2. whether we can narrow that power so it can be used There is concern that there are no provisions in the Bill only in prescribed circumstances. for foreign vessels to comply with the same standards as 201 Public Bill Committee HOUSE OF COMMONS Fisheries Bill 202

[Peter Aldous] in their waters, separate from the conditions which are attached to the licence. On that basis, I hope that the he UK vessels. Foreign vessels’ access to UK waters must agrees that the amendment is unnecessary. be contingent on compliance with the same environmental My hon. Friend the Member for Stafford made a standards as are applicable to UK vessels. That way, point about the use of the term “British” and whether there will be a level playing field and the same high level we mean “UK” or “British”. In general, we talk in of environmental protection will apply to all fishing in terms of a UK fishing licence, which is a licence issued UK waters. by any of the Administrations in the UK. In the event There is a worry—perhaps I am being alarmist—that of granting a licence to foreign vessels, the MMO, with the Dutch might be allowed to continue with the the consent of the devolved Administrations, would environmental vandalism that is electro-pulse fishing, issue a single licence on behalf of every part of the UK. which takes place off the East Anglian coast, and which A separate, long-established term in fisheries legislation we may or may not debate in more detail later. from 1967 and before is “British vessel”, which tends to I would welcome clarification from the Minister. I mean any vessel that is registered to the UK—including ask that he allay my concerns and assure me that the Northern Ireland—or to the Crown dependencies, or same level playing field will apply to all vessels in UK British-owned vessels. The term “British vessel”, which waters. stems from an era in which “British” tended to be used in a different context to that of today, runs through our previous legislation and is used in parts of the Bill. Luke Pollard: The amendment seeks to limit the time foreign boats have a licence to fish in UK waters to a single year. It is important that British boats take back Peter Aldous: I thank the Minister for his latter control of our waters and the lion’s share of our quota, clarification in response to the question from the hon. consistent with moving from relative stability to zonal Member for Stafford. He has saved me from the attachment, which is where the hon. Gentleman is going. embarrassment of shoddy use of language. I am also With regard to foreign boats, we need to explore this grateful to him for providing such extensive clarification issue in much more detail and depth. There is concern and reassurances, and on that basis, I beg to ask leave to about the simple timeframe, but the general principle withdraw the amendment. the hon. Gentleman is following is a good one to Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. explore further. I will sit down so the Minister can do Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the precisely that. Bill.

Jeremy Lefroy: A brief point: we talk about access to British fisheries, but I imagine we are talking about George Eustice: Clause 8 simply sets the terms under United Kingdom fisheries. I wonder whether British which foreign fishing boats may enter British fishery and United Kingdom are being used interchangeably, limits and replaces section 2 of the Fishery Limits because we talk about United Kingdom later on. Could Act 1976. Under that section, as amended by the Scotland I have some clarification on that? Act 1998 and the Northern Ireland Act 1998, the Secretary of State and Ministers of devolved Administrations may designate, by Order in Council, the foreign countries George Eustice: I can give my hon. Friend the Member whose vessels may enter British fishery limits. for Waveney the reassurance he seeks. The amendment is unnecessary. The reason is that we are absolutely Paragraph 8(1)(a) provides that a foreign vessel can clear and explicit that in future, once the Bill comes into enter British fishery limits only if it has a sea fishing effect, it will be prohibited for any foreign vessel to fish licence. The effect of the clause is that all foreign fishing in UK waters in the UK’s exclusive economic zone vessels will need the express permission of the UK to unless it has a UK fishing licence. I draw his attention to enter into our waters to fish. Subsection (2) requires clause 11(1), which could not be clearer. It states that that foreign fishing boats must leave British fisheries limits as soon as their fishing activities or other purposes “Fishing within British fishery limits by a foreign fishing boat for entering British fishery limits have been completed. is prohibited unless authorised by a licence.” He should read that in conjunction with clause 12(3), The purpose of the measure is to ensure that foreign which states quite clearly that vessels entering UK waters leave once their permitted purpose has concluded. Subsection (3) creates an offence “A licence under this section may be granted so as to impose against the master, and an offence of vicarious liability limits on the authority”. against the owner and the charterer of a foreign fishing That licence would govern the area in which fishing is vessel, for entering UK waters for any purpose other authorised, so it could prevent fishing in certain areas; than fishing in accordance with a sea fishing licence, the periods, times or particular voyages during which and under international law agreements or arrangements. fishing is authorised; the types of fish that are allowed be caught during a visit to UK waters; and finally, in subsection 12(3)(d)—of relevance to pulse trawling, Luke Pollard: As we prepared for the Bill, a number which I know my hon. Friend feels strongly about—the of stakeholders expressed concern about a missing element: method of sea fishing. That would give us all the powers a requirement for foreign fishing boats to abide by the we need to impose on all foreign fishing vessels a same standards as British fishing boats. As that is requirement to use a particular type of fishing method covered by an amendment we seek to table elsewhere in and a particular gear type. Without wanting to dwell the Bill, I will not push it to a conversation or debate on the detail, clause 31 also gives powers for the now. That is the only omission and, as the clause stands, Administrations to set technical conservation measures we will not oppose it. 203 Public Bill Committee 11 DECEMBER 2018 Fisheries Bill 204

Jeremy Lefroy: I will ask the Minister one brief it powers to enforce fisheries legislation; sections 246 to question, if he will forgive my ignorance. Does this 254 give it powers of entry, search and seizure; and provision include access for the purposes of landing fish sections 264 to 287 give it fisheries enforcement powers, as well? Let us say that fish are being caught in other such as inspection powers, so the MMO already has a waters but are to be landed for processing in UK ports. broad suite of powers in current legislation. How would this measure apply to that? 4.15 pm George Eustice: The direct answer is that there are I reassure my hon. Friend that in the evidence session other provisions in international maritime law that enable with the MMO, Phil Haslam, our head of enforcement, the passage of vessels for lawful purposes, including outlined the steps we are taking to increase our enforcement trade or landing fish elsewhere. The terms of the fishing capacity. We have delayed the decommissioning of the licence will be specifically pertinent to the fishing activity three existing fisheries patrol vessels while adding four that is permitted under that particular licence. new ones, we have been working with the Maritime and Question put and agreed to. Coastguard Agency to build aerial surveillance capacity, and we have been working with Border Force and Clause 8 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. retraining its staff so its four cutter vessels can also be deployed on enforcement activity. Clause 9 Mr Sweeney: Is it not a matter of regret for the BRITISH FISHING BOATS REQUIRED TO BE LICENSED Minister that Phil Haslam, the director of operations at Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the the MMO, said its budget has reduced by 60% since its Bill. inception? Surely that has had an impact on its operational effectiveness. The Chair: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: George Eustice: The purpose of the Bill is to look forward. The important thing is having the capacity in New clause 18—Licensing of fishing boats— place should it need to be called on. Currently, two “The Marine Management Organisation must exercise its fisheries patrol vessels are typically deployed in English functions so as to secure (so far as possible) that— waters. We will be moving to a position where we have (a) fishing boats are not used in contravention of section access to up to 10 or 11 vessels, and aerial surveillance 9(1) (prohibition on fishing without authority of on top of that. That is a substantial increase in enforcement licence), and capacity, should it be needed. It may not be needed, but (b) conditions attached to sea fishing licences under paragraph 1 of Schedule 2 are not broken, as a result we do not yet know what scenarios we may face, so as a of the exercise of rights sold in accordance with the precaution we built in the capacity we might need. regulations.” Question put and agreed to. Clause 9 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. George Eustice: The clause sets out the conditions under which British fishing boats would be licensed to Clause 10 fish in UK waters and prohibits fishing without a licence, except for stated specific exemptions. The Secretary POWER TO GRANT LICENCES IN RESPECT OF of State may make regulations to add, remove or vary BRITISH FISHING BOATS the exceptions listed. Scottish and Welsh Ministers and the Northern Ireland Government must be consulted The Chair: I call Peter Aldous to move amendment 17. prior to any such regulations being made. Peter Aldous: I will not move amendment 17, because If British fishing boats take part in fishing activities it relates to—shall we say—the West Lothian question in UK waters that are not exceptions under subsection relating to fishing. (2) without a fishing licence, the owner, charterer and master will be guilty of an offence. Further information The Chair: You just need to say it is not moved; there on the offences and associated penalties is contained in is no need to speak to it. Unless anyone disagrees, I do clauses 14 to 16, which we will come to. not think there is any need to debate clause stand part. Clause 10 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Peter Aldous: I will not detain the Committee long. Clause 11 ordered to stand part of the Bill. New clause 18 is a probing one to seek clarification from the Minister on the extent of the MMO’sresponsibility with regard to the licensing of fishing boats. I particularly Clause 12 seek clarification that the conditions will still apply POWER TO GRANT LICENCES IN RESPECT OF FOREIGN when rights have been transferred. I am concerned that FISHING BOATS there might be loopholes that the ingenious might seek to exploit, and I would be grateful if the Minister could Mr Carmichael: I beg to move amendment 33, in allay my concerns on that point. clause 12, page 7, line 32, at end insert— “(1A) The Secretary of State must publish each year a report George Eustice: The proposed new clause relates to on— the enforcement functions of the MMO. I can tell my (a) the number of licenses granted, and hon. Friend that the MMO already has a wide suite of (b) the country of origin of the boat to which each license enforcement powers. I will get bored with mentioning is granted.” this Act, but part 8 of the Marine and Coastal Access To ensure transparency and accountability over the granting of licenses Act 2009 sets out the MMO’s powers. Section 238 gives to foreign fishing boats by each relevant national authority. 205 Public Bill Committee HOUSE OF COMMONS Fisheries Bill 206

[Mr Carmichael] than anybody else that happy times might last. However, the purpose of the legislation is to deal with occasions Clause 12 centres on the power to grant licences in when there are differences, tensions and disagreements. respect of foreign fishing boats. There is concern in the I do not doubt that the Minister will continue to publish industry—principallyonthepartof theNationalFederation the information in the way that he describes, but it is of Fishermen’s Organisations—that there is a need for just about conceivable that the day will come when the greater transparency in the way and the extent to which Minister is not the Minister and there might be another that is done. For that reason, my amendment would Minister who will do things very differently. That is why require the Secretary of State to publish each year a we put these things in statute rather than leaving them report on the number of licences granted and the country to the discretion of individual Ministers. of origin of the boat to which each licence is granted. Currently,the Bill allows only the political representatives George Eustice: The right hon. Gentleman is aware of each of the relevant national authorities to grant that in such circumstances, there would be many other licences to foreign fishing boats. The purpose of the mechanisms available, not least simply tabling a amendment is to bring in an element of transparency parliamentary question. If the Marine Management and accountability.It should not be particularly onerous—I Organisation had access to the information since it had would have thought the administrative procedure would issued the said licences, it would be inconceivable that it be fairly straightforward—but it would allow the industry could avoid answering such a question were it tabled as to have confidence in the way the system works and a parliamentary question. prevent, or at least highlight, any abuse of the system, ensuring fair and appropriate use of the powers. Mr Carmichael: That is undoubtedly the case, but I said right at the start that the issue is one of transparency George Eustice: I hope I can reassure right the hon. and accountability. Such things are best hard-wired into Gentleman that, in common with a number of similar the Bill, rather than being left to the vagaries of the amendments, the amendment is not necessary but we written parliamentary question system. The Minister have nothing to hide in this regard. I anticipate that we says he will take the matter away and report back to the would indeed publish the number of licences granted Committee at a later stage, so I will not press the where we were able to, probably as part of the Marine amendment to a Division, but, as a caveat to that, I Management Organisation’s annual report, which covers reserve the position with regard to later procedure. I beg a wide range of issues. I am happy to explore with to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. officials whether a section could be added to the report Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. to include such data. There is one potential technical flaw with that approach. Luke Pollard: I beg to move amendment 63, in As the right hon. Gentleman knows, the granting of clause 12, page 8, line 10, at end insert— licences is a devolved matter. We have been working ‘(3A) No licence may be granted under this section unless with the devolved Administrations on a sensible and conditions are attached to that licence so as to require the foreign pragmatic approach. In all likelihood, there will be one fishing boat to comply with any standards in relation to issue of a licence to foreign vessels granted access to our environmental protection and marine safety that would apply to waters. It will be issued by the Marine Management the same boat if it were a British fishing boat.” Organisation, but only with the consent of each devolved This amendment would require licences granted to require foreign fishing boats to comply with the same environmental protection and Administration. The purpose of that is to remove the marine safety standards as British fishing boats. pointless duplication of having to issue four separate licences covering each part of the UK for an internationally Amendment 63 seeks to put into the Bill a common agreed arrangement to grant a particular cohort of and very serious concern of many of our fishing vessels access to our waters. communities around the country, which is that the regime that might exist after we leave the EU will see If that administrative approach holds—the devolved one set of rules for UK fishers and potentially another Administrations show no appetite at the moment for set of rules for EU fishers, because access to our waters issuing lots of separate licences for foreign access—the will still be on the basis of fixed quota allocations and Marine Management Organisation would indeed have many foreign boats will still own quota to access UK access to that information. If at some point one of the waters after we leave the UK, and a drawdown period, if devolved Administrations decided to grant their own one exists, will take a while to achieve. The amendment licence, the right hon. Gentleman might have to ask his seeks to create in the Bill the very clear, in stark plain colleagues in other devolved legislatures to table English, description that says that foreign fishing boats parliamentary questions to seek the answers that he is should obey the same rules as British fishing boats. It is interested in. a principle to which there is huge agreement across the The right hon. Gentleman raises an important point country from Plymouth and Cornwall right up to the of principle, and I will seek to update the Committee on north of Scotland. It would not create extra burdens for Report about whether we can include what he asks for our EU friends entering UK waters. It would create the as a convention to be included in the annual Marine same burdens—the same regulatory requirements—to Management Organisation report. I hope he will not which any UK fisher must adapt. see the need to make it a statutory requirement. In particular, the amendment deals with environmental protections and marine safety. It is vital, when it comes Mr Carmichael: We strike a recurring theme here: the to safety, that we do not inadvertently create incentives Minister is determined to legislate for happy times. We for foreign boats to cut corners and take risks with their all hope that happy times will last. By definition, to be a crews that we would not allow on our own boats. Liberal Democrat is to be an optimist, so I hope more We already know from anecdotal evidence that safety 207 Public Bill Committee 11 DECEMBER 2018 Fisheries Bill 208 standards on different EU countries’ boats are very The Bill therefore includes the power to impose such different. There are different levels of enforcement and conditions, detailed in schedule 2. It is absolutely our compliance with existing regulations. intention, as we make clear in our White Paper, that any If we say—rightly, and as the Minister did in the vessel seeking to access UK waters would have to abide earlier discussion on marine safety—that we want high by the environmental standards that we set out. However, levels of marine safety for UK boats, we should require I caution against saying that they must abide by the the same high levels of marine safety for foreign boats. same standards as us, because there may be circumstances If we do not, there will be a regulatory gap, potentially, where we would not want to grant them access to the between UK and foreign fishing boats. There will be an areas where our fishing vessels can go, or where we efficiency in having lower marine standards, in relation might not allow foreign vessels to use particular to the cost of compliance for UK and EU fishers. types of gear where we might allow our own vessels Potentially, a situation could be created where our EU to do so. friends might, while fishing in our waters, get into trouble more often because of the lower levels of protection. 4.30 pm The amendment is simple, and would put into the Bill The licensing regime should not be looked at in a something that fishers across the country want—a clear glass half-empty perspective, in which we need to ensure prescription that EU fishers will obey the same regulations that they abide by the same standards as us. There as UK fishers. It is essential to the Bill, and I am certainly will be cases where we will not grant them surprised that it has not been included. There would, I access to parts of our waters, because we are reserving think, be support for it on both sides of the Committee. those parts of our waters for our own UK fishermen. I suspect that the Minister will oppose it, and I should The licensing regime enables us to differentiate in such be grateful if he set out his reasons for doing so, and a way. explain how the same thing can be achieved by other means. There is concern in fishing organisations because The second issue is around marine safety. A vessel the detail in the Bill includes no such clarity about the cannot be licensed at all for fishing unless the Maritime same regulatory standards applying to EU and UK fishers. and Coastguard Agency has issued a certificate of seaworthiness. Seaworthiness is already a registration Mr Sweeney: I support the amendment. Coming from requirement and a vessel could not even get as far as a shipbuilding background with, perhaps, issues not applying for a licence to fish, if it had not already entirely dissimilar to those affecting fisheries, I know satisfied those safety requirements of seaworthiness and the frustration in many industries about having a level have a certificate of seaworthiness to accompany its playing field and the opportunity to compete on the application for a fishing licence. same basis. That is the reality facing many fishermen in For foreign vessels, safety at sea is equally important. the UK. That is why we have the Fishing Vessels (Codes of Many boats adhere to onerous constraints, such as Practice) Regulations 2017, which set out the regime the environmental standards and safety requirements that a non-UK fishing vessel must abide by. In short, no that govern their operation. That is right, and respects foreign vessel is allowed to enter UK waters unless, in the way we do business. It is therefore only right that all the case of a vessel that is 24 metres or over, it has been fishing boats operating in British territorial waters should certified by its flag state as complying with the requirements adhere to the same conditions. Not only does that of the Torremolinos protocol, or in the case of a vessel reduce risk to our maritime patrol agencies that would that is under 24 metres, it has been certified by its flag have to intervene in certain scenarios, if people’s safety status as complying with the requirements of that state was at risk; it also improves the environmental situation— that apply to vessels of that length. There are requirements and environmental damage would cause damage to for both British and foreign vessels to be seaworthy many stakeholders in the industry and the country. before they can even reach the stage of applying for a For those reasons it is critical that the Minister should licence. I hope that I have reassured the hon. Gentleman include the measure in the Bill. Not only would that that we have robust procedures in place to protect safety safeguard the UK fishing industry and its interests, at sea. including in the Western Isles, Fraserburgh, Peterhead and the big commercial areas, but it would ensure that other stakeholders, many of them around the UK coastline, Luke Pollard: I have to say to the Minister that I am would be protected from the negative effects of incursions not reassured by that, and neither are fishing communities by boats that did not adhere to the same standards up and down the country. They are looking for wording within UK territorial waters. That would be a very in the Bill that says that EU fishing boats will have the worthwhile thing to do. same standards as UK fishing boats because of the widespread perception and reality that, at present, they George Eustice: I hope that I can persuade the hon. do not have the same standards. Although I appreciate Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport that the the Minister’s efforts to explain why there is an existing amendment is unnecessary, because of provisions that equivalence, that is not the lived experience of fishers already exist. The amendment has two objectives—to across the UK today. get foreign vessels to abide by the same environmental standards as British fishing vessels would need to, and George Eustice: The cause of that is European law, to get them to abide by the same safety standards. and the fact that we have to abide by it and sometimes To begin with the first objective, paragraph 1(2)(d) of accept certain practices in our waters that we would schedule 2 allows conditions to be imposed otherwise choose not to. The premise of the Bill is that “for the purposes of conserving or enhancing the marine and when we take control of these matters and have a aquatic environment”. proper licensing regime, it is for us, and us alone, to 209 Public Bill Committee HOUSE OF COMMONS Fisheries Bill 210

[George Eustice] Question put, That the amendment be made. The Committee divided: Ayes 8, Noes 9. determine the conditions that we place on vessels that want to enter our waters. That is not the case now. That Division No. 5] is why fishermen feel aggrieved. AYES Luke Pollard: Indeed they are. Those are fine words, Brown, Alan O’Hara, Brendan which I wish I had used in my opening remarks, because Carmichael, rh Mr Alistair Pollard, Luke that is exactly the point of this amendment. As we are Debbonaire, Thangam Smith, Owen Hill, Mike Sweeney, Mr Paul now taking back control of our waters, it is up to us to set the standards that we wish the fishers in our community to be governed by. That is why it is important that we NOES include in the Bill a clear set of words that say that EU Aldous, Peter Lefroy, Jeremy fishers must abide by the same regulations as UK Eustice, George Morris, James fishers, because the sense of betrayal, which I spoke Grant, Bill Stewart, Iain about earlier, is not just about giving away access to Hollinrake, Kevin waters, but about having different rules that they play Jones, Mr Marcus Tracey, Craig by. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North East was exactly right about the requirement for a level Question accordingly negatived. playing field. There is a real concern among fishers that Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. a level playing field will not be achieved by this Bill. The —(Iain Stewart.) refusal to put into the Bill clear wording that says that EU fishers must obey the same rules as UK fishers will 4.36 pm worry an awful lot of our fishing communities up and Adjourned till Thursday 13 December at half-past down the country. I will therefore not withdraw the Eleven o’clock. amendment, but will press it to a vote. 211 Public Bill Committee 11 DECEMBER 2018 Fisheries Bill 212

Written evidence to be reported FISH11 South Western Fish Producer Organisation Ltd to the House FISH10 Sustainable Fish Cities campaign, part of the organisation Sustain: The Alliance for Better Food and Farming

PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES HOUSE OF COMMONS OFFICIAL REPORT GENERAL COMMITTEES

Public Bill Committee

FISHERIES BILL

Seventh Sitting

Thursday 13 December 2018

(Morning)

CONTENTS

CLAUSES 12 AND 13 agreed to. SCHEDULE 2 agreed to. CLAUSE 14 agreed to. Adjourned till this day at Two o’clock.

PBC (Bill 278) 2017 - 2019 No proofs can be supplied. Corrections that Members suggest for the final version of the report should be clearly marked in a copy of the report—not telephoned—and must be received in the Editor’s Room, House of Commons,

not later than

Monday 17 December 2018

© Parliamentary Copyright House of Commons 2018 This publication may be reproduced under the terms of the Open Parliament licence, which is published at www.parliament.uk/site-information/copyright/. 213 Public Bill Committee 13 DECEMBER 2018 Fisheries Bill 214

The Committee consisted of the following Members:

Chairs: SIR DAVID CRAUSBY, †JAMES GRAY,DAVID HANSON,MR LAURENCE ROBERTSON

† Aldous, Peter (Waveney) (Con) † O’Hara, Brendan (Argyll and Bute) (SNP) † Brown, Alan (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP) † Pennycook, Matthew (Greenwich and Woolwich) † Carmichael, Mr Alistair (Orkney and Shetland) (Lab) (LD) † Pollard, Luke (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) † Debbonaire, Thangam (Bristol West) (Lab) (Lab/Co-op) † Duguid, David (Banff and Buchan) (Con) † Smith, Owen (Pontypridd) (Lab) † Eustice, George (Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries † Stewart, Iain (Milton Keynes South) (Con) and Food) † Sweeney, Mr Paul (Glasgow North East) (Lab/Co- † Grant, Bill (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (Con) op) † Hill, Mike (Hartlepool) (Lab) † Tracey, Craig (North Warwickshire) (Con) † Hollinrake, Kevin (Thirsk and Malton) (Con) † Jones, Mr Marcus (Nuneaton) (Con) Gail Poulton, Lis Gerhold, Committee Clerks † Lefroy, Jeremy (Stafford) (Con) † Morris, James (Halesowen and Rowley Regis) (Con) † attended the Committee 215 Public Bill Committee HOUSE OF COMMONS Fisheries Bill 216

Returning to amendment 64, fishermen surveyed as Public Bill Committee part of Seafarers UK’s recent “Fishing for a Future” research publication reported that “accidents at sea were commonplace” Thursday 13 December 2018 with many “having experienced capsized and sinking vessels as well as falling overboard, while over a third reported…injuries received as a (Morning) result of accidents.” Others reported an impact on their health as a result of their working conditions. Those research findings are [JAMES GRAY in the Chair] supported by the latest statistics from the Marine Accident Investigation Branch, which revealed that five fishermen Fisheries Bill died in separate incidents between the months of September and November 2017, while the Sea Fish Industry Authority 11.30 am has identified 535 serious injuries to fishermen in the past 10 years. Sadly, there were six deaths in the past The Chair: I welcome everybody back to this line-by-line year, as the Minister noted in yesterday’s debate. Back consideration of the Fisheries Bill. Westart with clause 12, pain and arthritis are common health conditions which I think we discussed reasonably well on Tuesday, experienced by fishermen as a consequence of their and I will therefore put the question without further work environment. Typically, injuries experienced by debate. fishermen surveyed in the “Fishing for a Future” report Clause 12 ordered to stand part of the Bill. included Clause 13 ordered to stand part of the Bill. “fractures, partial loss of fingers and fingertips and a lost thumb. While many hand injuries were caused by filleting knife accidents, others were winch or hauler accidents. Jellyfish stings and various crush injuries from equipment such as a clam dredge, pots, net Schedule 2 bins,” and other gear were also reported. SEA FISHING LICENCES: FURTHER PROVISION The Opposition would like to use this Bill to make the case for fishing to be a better and safer place to Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/ work for all our fishers. Co-op): I beg to move amendment 64, in schedule 2, Marine safety is an issue for many small boats because page 31, line 16, at end insert— of the pressures on those boats, and because—as we “(2A) A sea fishing licensing authority must attach to any sea discussed the other day—the 10-metre limit has led to fishing licence appropriate conditions with respect to the safety different configurations of fish for strength and capacity, of the boat and its crew.” rather than for stability.There seems to be good universal This amendment would require the licensing authority to set agreement that personal locator beacons attached to appropriate conditions regarding safety when granting a sea fishing lifejackets are good things, but buying new lifejackets licence. with PLBs and registering them involves a cost to It is good to see everyone back for more fish fun and fishermen. games. The amendment relates to the conditions attached Seafarers UK, responding to the fisheries White Paper, to a sea fishing licence. As Jerry Percy, who represents made other recommendations, which we also want to the New Under Ten Fishermen’s Association, said in flag in relation to the requirements for sea fishing last week’s evidence session: licences. The first of those recommendations is the “Fishing, unfortunately, still carries the record as the most maintenance of a UK-wide standard for dangerous occupation in the world.”––[Official Report, Fisheries “fishermen’s health, safety and welfare” Public Bill Committee, 4 December 2018; c. 39, Q67.] to ensure a commonality of approach among all the Just last week, a report came out on the tragic sinking UK’s Administrations. The second is the establishment of the Solstice, a trawler from the constituency I represent. of a successor to the European maritime and fisheries It is a tragedy that too many fishermen die each year fund to support small-scale, low-impact, inshore fishermen catching our fish suppers. We touched on safety during and small fishing ports in making enhancements to our discussions of amendments 41 and 42 to clause 1, vessels, infrastructure and ports, particularly in respect “Fisheries objectives”, and schedule 2 provides another of enhancing safety. I am grateful that the Minister opportunity to address the urgent need for improvements spoke about the money allocated to that in the Budget. to safety in the industry by setting suitable conditions in Seafarers UK also recommended that a co-ordinated relation to sea fishing licences. approach should be developed to training new entrants Yesterday, in the annual fisheries debate—because we to the fishing industry to help future generations of have not had enough debates about fishing, so one more fishers to begin their careers in a safe and sustainable was welcome—I paid tribute to all the fishers who lost manner; that the views of small-scale,low-impact fishermen their lives at sea. Normally the debate starts each year should be heard during consultations on legislative changes with such tributes, but yesterday it kicked off with an and fisheries management; and that the proposed changes argument over Brexit and fishing. I welcomed the Minister should be financially supported and/or proportionally sticking to that convention in his remarks and paying costed according to their impact on a fisher’s livelihood tribute to the six people who died at sea in the past year. and their ability to pay. Finally, it recommended that we It showed his class in not forgetting, or allowing Brexit share the ambition of the Fishing Industry Safety Group to overshadow, that important tradition, and I thank and many others to reduce fishing fatalities at sea and him for that. in port to zero. 217 Public Bill Committee 13 DECEMBER 2018 Fisheries Bill 218

The amendment is about how we can ensure that sea place for it. I sense that there is need for greater training fishing licences take proper regard of the safety to embed a health and safety culture in those who go to considerations that affect the day-to-day lived experience sea. We have some way to go in that regard. of our fishers. I will be grateful to hear the Minister’s response. George Eustice: My hon. Friend makes a very important point. As I said, other pieces of primary and secondary legislation make provision for the seaworthiness and The Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (George safety of vessels, so it does not need to be a condition of Eustice): We discussed safety under a previous group of a fishing licence. It is absolutely the case that we need to amendments. Safety is incredibly important, as fishing take safety more seriously. As the right hon. Member is the most dangerous occupation. As the hon. Gentleman for Orkney and Shetland said in a previous debate, said, tragically in the past year six people have lost their sometimes attitudes to safety are not what they ought lives while fishing to put food on our table, so we to be. absolutely recognise the importance of the issue. As he is aware, this is a priority for my hon. Friend the A lot is done by way of training. Seafish runs a Shipping Minister,who held a summit with representatives number of projects in this area, and there are marine of fishing organisations this summer. The hon. Gentleman schools around the country. Indeed, when I visited will also be aware that in the most recent Budget, the Shetland several years ago with the right hon. Gentleman, Treasury announced a fund to support investment to we went to a marine school that trains fishermen in help safety at sea. Also, we recently announced additional safety and vessel handling. Wehave a number of institutions, matched funding for the EMFF fund to support coastal establishments and projects that support training, and communities and measures including safety improvement. over the past few years about 500 fishermen have been through those training courses and gone on to enter the As I explained in a previous sitting, we do not believe industry. it is necessary to add a safety requirement to a fishing licence for the simple reason that provisions on the I hope that I have been able to reassure the hon. safety of any vessel, whether a fishing vessel or another Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport. As I type of vessel, are already covered by the Merchant said in our previous debate, we absolutely take safety Shipping and Fishing Vessels (Health and Safety at seriously. He makes an important point, but it is covered Work) Regulations 1997, which applies to all domestic already under the merchant shipping and fishing vessels vessels. It is not possible for a person to get a fishing regulations and therefore does not need to be added to licence at all unless they have already crossed that the schedule. threshold and their vessel has passed a seaworthiness Luke Pollard: I am grateful to the Minister for setting test. In the absence of that, it is not possible to get a out that position. It would be useful if he and his fishing licence. That provision has already been made. colleagues in the Department for Transport reflected As I also mentioned previously, there are some issues further on certain areas. He spoke about dumpy boats— with some of the under-10-metre vessels. I described the boats with the ends cut off to get under the 10-metre rather bizarre practice that some people engage in of limit—but another concern on those smaller boats is chopping the end off their boat, selling their quota and swapping the type of gear, which can affect stability: then claiming that they are under 10 metres to access gear types might be swapped over without the stability the pool. There are some concerns about the resulting assessment taking place to ensure that the vessel goes to stability, so we are looking at a different way of measuring sea safe. inshore, low-impact fishing vessels—perhaps by looking The Minister should also reflect on where EMFF at vessel size or another measure. Our White Paper funding goes, to ensure that safety is one of the criteria highlights that and makes provision for us to consider a applied to new sea fishing licensing so that we have the better way. highest standards possible. I know that he is working From next year, we will require that an inshore vessel with DFT colleagues to do that, but the opportunity for monitoring system be used. The new IVMS system will us to reset our fishing framework and to have high be a requirement for all smaller vessels. It sends a signal levels of marine safety is one that we need to seize with every two minutes, so if there is a problem, the Maritime both hands, whether it is a Department for Environment, and Coastguard Agency will easily be able to detect Food and Rural Affairs responsibility or a DFT one. where those vessels are. I would also be grateful if the Minister continued conversations with his colleague the Shipping Minister, Mike Hill (Hartlepool) (Lab): On a point of clarification, especially to pick up some of the recommendations that will the IVMS be extended to what would be considered have come out of marine accident investigation branch leisure fishing under-10 craft? reports that have not yet been implemented by the Government—a number are still outstanding. Further consideration of those recommendations would greatly George Eustice: No. It will be a requirement for enhance the marine environment. However, on the basis anybody who is engaged in commercial fishing, but of the Minister’s response, I beg to ask leave to withdraw there are other systems, including the automatic the amendment. identification system, which some leisure craft use as a safety device. The IVMS system is for those who are Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. fishing commercially. Luke Pollard: I beg to move amendment 65 to schedule 2, page 31, line 24, at end insert— Bill Grant (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (Con): There “(6) The conditions attached to any licence must include a is merit in this amendment on the safety of those who national landing requirement prescribed in regulations under go to sea, but one wonders whether the Bill is the wrong section (National landing requirement).” 219 Public Bill Committee HOUSE OF COMMONS Fisheries Bill 220

[Luke Pollard] know, has been hardest felt in coastal communities such as the one that I represent in Plymouth. They are some This amendment would require a ‘national landing requirement’, of the most beautiful and historical places in the UK, defined in NC13 to be attached to licence conditions for any boat but there is a genuine feeling in those communities that specifying the percentage of the boat’s catch which must be landed at a UK port. they have been held back and that the system is not working for them. Whether or not Members agree entirely with all the principles expressed in our amendment The Chair: With this it will be convenient to discuss and new clause, that is a sentiment that anyone representing new clause 13—National landing requirement— a coastal town or city will be familiar with. “(1) The national landing requirement is the percentage of the boat’s catch that was caught within British fishery limits in any given quarter which must be landed at a port in— 11.45 am (a) the UK The large outward flows of young people due to lack (b) the Isle of Man of opportunity create serious demographic challenges (c) Guernsey, or and a vicious cycle of isolation. Coastal communities (d) Jersey. have higher rates of unemployment and lower wages. Five of the top 10 local authorities in Britain with the (2) The Secretary of State must by regulations define the highest unemployment rates are coastal communities. national landing requirement for each species in each UK fishing zone, and any such requirement must be not less than 50%, except Among the 25 local authorities with the highest rates of where the Secretary of State determines it would be inappropriate insolvency, 16 are coastal—indeed, Plymouth is ranked to have a national landing requirement of 50% or more. second and first for coastal communities. We also know (3) Where the Secretary of State determines that the national that 10 of the 20 local authorities in England and Wales landing requirement for any species is to be less than 50%, the with the highest proportion of people in poor health are Secretary of State must publish the reasons for such a coastal communities. Fishing will not in itself reverse all determination. that decline, but it could make a big difference. (4) Regulations under this section are subject to the affirmative procedure.” This new clause would require the Secretary of State to set a ‘national Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP): The landing requirement’ to be attached to licence conditions for any boat hon. Gentleman is making a valuable point. We have specifying the percentage of the boat’s catch which must be landed at a heard evidence about rejuvenating coastal communities, UK port. and he has given examples from his constituency. Would the amendment and new clause deliver what he hopes Luke Pollard: We have heard from Ministers that we they will deliver? They might lead to additional landings will get more fish as we move from relative stability going to existing big ports. Is there not also a risk that within the common fisheries policy to zonal attachment they would impinge on devolved settlements by not outside the CFP. That is welcome and something that allowing devolved Governments to set their own landing the Minister knows the Opposition support as much as criteria? Government Members. Given that we are to get a whole lot more fish, we Luke Pollard: In fact, much of the inspiration behind believe that the Bill misses a trick when a requirement the amendment and new clause came from some of the to land fish in UK ports is omitted. For every one job at work by the Scottish Government, who looked at having sea, there are 10 jobs at home in fish processing. Indeed, a Scottish landing obligation to land fish caught under fish processing is a part of the fishing industry that does Scottish quotas in Scottish ports. There needs to be not get the attention it deserves—it was briefly mentioned agreement with the devolved Administrations that more in the annual fisheries debate yesterday, including by fish caught under UK quota being landed in UK ports my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Melanie is a good thing and that the benefits can be shared Onn)—but we need to talk more about how a new and across our United Kingdom. refreshed fishing framework could provide more jobs on land as well as at sea. Fishing is an important source of income for some of the most deprived communities in Europe. West Wales, We call on the Government to make it a requirement including Milford Haven, is ranked as the poorest area for anyone fishing under a UK quota to land at least in Europe.West Cornwall is second; Lincolnshire, including 50% of that catch in a British port, which would support the Grimsby area, comes in fifth; Devon is 13th and port and fish processing jobs. We also want them to Tyne and Wear is 20th, according to Eurostat statistics. consult on increasing that in line with increased investment Many others are rural areas that have fewer alternative in our ports and coastal communities, as and when employment opportunities, such as Shetland, Stornoway more capacity can come online. Along with reallocation and Brixham, as we heard in the fisheries debate yesterday. of quota, which I will speak about later, that would bring about a renaissance in the UK fishing industry. The amendment could and, I think, would create Such a measure would show firm determination to more jobs in those coastal communities and was backed make real the promises of taking back control, and the by Members from all parts of the House speaking on benefits of a revised fishing framework to help all our Second Reading. My hon. Friend the Member for Penistone coastal communities. and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith) said that A national landing obligation requiring 50% of fish “the fishing industry is not just about the catching side; there is still a very important processing and aquaculture industry alongside caught under a UK quota to be landed in a British port it…It is an important provider of jobs in…Grimsby…with some could make a real difference to coastal communities. 4,200 jobs dependent on the sector. These processing plants also Such communities have been held back by an unfair export much of their product into the EU, in a market worth system, as well as the impact of austerity which, as we £1.3 billion, where we still enjoy a trade surplus. It is therefore 221 Public Bill Committee 13 DECEMBER 2018 Fisheries Bill 222 vital in the drive to create world-leading fisheries that processing communities, and that is something that they are hoping is not forgotten”.—[Official Report, 21 November 2018; Vol. 649, the measure will reflect. Indeed, in one of the evidence c. 926.] sessions, we heard from Aaron Brown of Fishing for My right hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth Leave that he backed this amendment. (Mr Campbell) said that he believes I think that this is an aspect of the Bill that the “that there is still a strong case for ensuring a link between Department overlooked in preparing the text, so I would landings and home port, because it is important to recognise that like to make a sincere offer to the Minister. If he fishing is more than just about catching fish; there are also issues commits to working with the Opposition and the industry about the sustainability of ports and port jobs.”—[Official Report, 21 November 2018; Vol. 649, c. 936.] to craft a national landing requirement as an amendment to the Bill that he can table on Report, I will not feel it Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con): The hon. Gentleman necessary to press this amendment to a vote and have is making a good point. As we will see during the course the Minister vote against this most sensible principle. I of the day, he and I have a lot in common in what we are think we have a real opportunity to create a provision trying to achieve through the Bill. My concern about that includes an economic link in the text of the Bill and the amendment—it was raised just now by the hon. that hon. Members on both sides of the House will be Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun—is whether it able to support when it comes to the Bill’s transition. would just result in more of the opportunities and Owen Smith (Pontypridd) (Lab): It is a pleasure to landings going to those ports with existing infrastructure. serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray. I rise to speak I think of the Lowestoft producers organisation, which briefly in support of the amendment and new clause lands all its fish in the Netherlands or in Peterhead, in tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Devonport. In doing so, I am also reflecting Banff and Buchan. the views of the Welsh Government, who are very supportive of this idea. Complementing the remarks The Chair: Interventions must be brief. made by hon. Members from the Scottish National party, I think it could be reflected in the way in which Peter Aldous: Is there not a concern in that situation subsequent legislation and regulations about both quotas that those fish might just all be landed by the Lowestoft and landing requirements might be applied in Wales PO in Peterhead? and in Scotland. Milford Haven, which my hon. Friend mentioned, is Luke Pollard: I thank the hon. Gentleman. Actually, a classic example of an area of Britain where there was the next line of my speech says, “On the other side of once a thriving fishing industry but there is now significant the House my partner in crime, the hon. Member for poverty and absolutely no fishing industry. I do not Waveney said”. I think we are spending far too much believe that any boats go out of Milford Haven now, time together. and the only boats operating there with any significance In respect of what the hon. Gentleman has said now are foreign-owned. There was once a processing industry and on Second Reading, the economic link policy is in the area, not just in Milford Haven but in Pembroke important. Fishers want it to be included in the Bill. It Dock, Aberaeron, Aberporth and, indeed, lots of the needs to be conducted and implemented in conjunction villages along Cardigan bay—traditionally one of the with other policies around building port capacity and richest fisheries off the UK. Small-scale and artisanal in supporting smaller ports in particular. We know that many respects, it has completely disappeared. the EMFF has been instrumental in driving and refreshing If there is any opportunity to effect a renaissance of port capacity, such as fuel and ice plants. They are not processing through the landing requirement, the changes particularly sexy topics, but they are vital to ensuring to quota and that overall sense of an economic connection that our fishing works. We also know that many of the in the Bill and at the heart of future legislation, it would fish landed at smaller ports might be physically taken be remiss of us not to try to bring that about. I think off the boat in a smaller port, but they are officially that this is a very sensible suggestion from the Labour landed when they get to a larger port, where they can go Front Bench and I hope that the Minister will reflect on into auctions. That is the case in much of the far how important it, or perhaps a similar measure, could south-west, for instance, where fish landed right across be to bringing about a renaissance in the processing the peninsula are taken by truck to Plymouth. The industry and in the towns that might thereby survive. majority of the fish landed in Plymouth are landed by truck rather than by boat. I think the policy that we are Mr Paul Sweeney (Glasgow North East) (Lab/Co-op) discussing needs to be viewed in conjunction with that. rose— None the less, the economic link is a strong one. Indeed, the next line in my notes, under the hon. Gentleman’s Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD) speech, is “I could not agree with him more” on some of rose— those things. The Chair: My brain has gone completely blank. The Importantly, our amendment has the support of the hon. Gentleman on the Opposition Front Bench— industry as well. Fishers want the creation of a strong [Interruption.] It is Mr Sweeney. economic link, because of the injustice of seeing fish caught under UK quota by foreign boats—caught, in Mr Sweeney: I thought that you went to school in some cases, within sight of our shores and then exported Glasgow, Mr Gray. to foreign countries, where the jobs and the benefits of that economic activity are held by other people, rather The Chair: I apologise, Mr Sweeney. It was one of than the people in the UK. That is a source of injustice those moments when I had not realised that you were and annoyance for many people across our fishing going to stand. 223 Public Bill Committee HOUSE OF COMMONS Fisheries Bill 224

Mr Sweeney: Thank you for calling me, Mr Gray. I well. Clearly, they can, and choose to, land in Norway, rise in support of my hon. Friend the Member for Denmark and other places for economic and logistical Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport and this very well reasons. Does he agree that if the Government or the thought through amendment, because it ties in exactly Scottish Government or other devolved Administrations with the coherent position that Labour has had on want to encourage the development of local industries, industrial strategy,which is about maximising the prosperity so that such economic and logistical benefits can be agenda for the United Kingdom. realised locally, that would be better than setting an We look at vertical integration of the industry. We arbitrary percentage limit? have to look at the source of fishing, at sea, but also at how the supply chain operates and maximising the Mr Carmichael: Yes. In essence I agree with the hon. industrial benefit for the United Kingdom. That is not Gentleman about that. When I practised law in his simply about the fish processing side; it aims at rejuvenating constituency, Macduff was omitted from the list of the whole UK port infrastructure, including boat and designated ports. That was virtually the end of—or it ship repair,and shipbuilding, and the associated industries was at the time a real threat to—the processing that was that would benefit from having a tie to particular ports. done there. When we want to consider building Smaller ports such as those on the west coast of Scotland infrastructure—not just landing infrastructure, but ice have suffered decline, and we can see an opportunity, houses, processing plants and the rest—there are probably through the tying of catches to UK ports, to create other ways we should go first, before doing something demand in those ports, generating new activity and as blunt as what is proposed. In relation to this Bill, the industrial growth. That would be a huge benefit for the National Federation of Fishermen’s Organisations is highlands and islands particularly.They have had significant strongly advocating that we set up advisory councils for economic challenges because of their isolation. That fisheries administration, for example. It seems to me needs a focused effort. that this is exactly the sort of decision that those advisory councils should be tackling, because the fishing industry Alan Brown: Can the hon. Gentleman explain how itself knows best how to deal with that infrastructure. the amendment and new clause would rejuvenate ports in the highlands and islands? I do not see the direct link. 12 noon The point was made earlier that additional landings The working reality is that fishermen want to land in coming to the UK might still just go through existing their home ports if they can, because the people who big ports. work in the fish processing sector are generally their friends, neighbours and family, so they want to support Mr Sweeney: They would create a framework within them. If we work collaboratively with the industry, we which those opportunities could be generated by devolved will get a better and more workable arrangement, which Administrations.The Scottish Government could augment will achieve the same aim. I am in sympathy with the that. The amendment and new clause would create a ends we are trying to get to here; I just fear that it is a bit fundamental framework that would drive demand into of a blunt tool that suffers a little bit from the traditional UK ports. That is the opportunity, which would be an way of thinking of fisheries management as something important baseline measure in the Bill, and could be that starts in Whitehall, which everybody else must then developed. We had an interesting debate yesterday on just work around. If we are to have a target of this sort, the centenary of the Iolaire disaster, and one of the we should let the industry work it out for itself. conclusions was that highland and island communities suffer significant isolation, and that it is important that George Eustice: I will explain some of the background their distinctive economic and social needs should be to the existing economic link, because my contention is met by Parliament. The amendment and new clause that the amendment is both unnecessary and potentially would benefit them a great deal. unhelpful in that it could frustrate or limit our ambitions to improve that link. A landing requirement is already Mr Carmichael: I have sympathy with the amendment, included on all UK fishing vessel licences as part of our but I want to add a few words of caution. In my time in existing economic link condition. Paragraph 1 of schedule 2 Parliament, I have often supported campaigns to land to the Bill already includes powers to attach licence more fish in our own ports. Obviously it is important conditions requiring the landing of a catch into the UK. for the economic viability of coastal ports. My worry Hon. Members should understand the background. about the amendment is that the law of unintended The genesis of the current economic link was an important consequences could come into play. Such a requirement test case, called the Factortame case, which gained would be quite challenging for some of the larger pelagic notoriety because, rather shamefully, the European Court boats in my constituency. I anticipate that a significant effectively held that European law was indeed supreme proportion of their catch would probably currently be over laws made by this Parliament. It was a controversial landed in Norway or Denmark. Essentially, my instinct judgment, because it was the first time that people is that fishing boats should be able to land wherever started to realise that membership of the European they get the best price for their fish. If the Government Union was highly detrimental to our sovereignty. It was were to put into a Bill something that would limit that only through another notorious case a decade later, the ability, it would be a bit of a blunt tool. “Metric Martyrs”case, that the judgment of our Supreme Court—I think it was the House of Lords in those David Duguid (Banff and Buchan) (Con): As the days—held that if Parliament explicitly revoked the right hon. Gentleman and the Minister know, many of European Communities Act 1972 or explicitly set aside the concerns that the right hon. Gentleman raises would elements of EU law, Parliament’s supremacy could be be shared by pelagic fishermen in my constituency as restored. Thankfully, we have all voted to trigger the 225 Public Bill Committee 13 DECEMBER 2018 Fisheries Bill 226 article 50 process, and the EU (Withdrawal) Act 2018 need to hit 50%, and if so to publish the reasons why. has now passed Parliament and revokes the European That would address the concerns the Minister raised. Communities Act. That is the background. The example of the Faroes provides the reason the After we lost the Factortame case, the Commission requirement is not 100%, but at least 50%, with the held that the UK should benefit from UK quota, so in ability to vary it, should be required. 1999 we introduced the economic link condition. The That is an important consideration because, at the current condition, which is attached as a condition on moment, the fishing community does not believe the all vessels, says that they must land at least 50% of their economic link works in the way the Minister tried to catch of quota stocks into UK ports, have at least 50% reassure us of. There is a strong sense that, actually, fish of their crew normally resident in the UK, spend at caught under UK quotas are not being landed in UK least 50% of operating expenditure in UK coastal areas ports and we are not receiving the benefits. That is or, finally, demonstrate other real economic links such certainly a sentiment on every quayside, be it in Devon as contributing some of their quota to the inshore pool. and Cornwall in the west country, through the east Thus, we already have a comprehensive set of economic coast and up to Scotland. links. We intend to review the economic link to see whether George Eustice: Does the hon. Gentleman not accept, it can be strengthened. Perhaps on certain species it though, that in 1999 the Labour Government introduced would be appropriate to attach a condition that says the the current economic link, which required 50% of quota proportion should be higher than 50%—perhaps stocks to be landed in a perfectly sensible way for considerably higher. Earlier this summer I visited the 20 years? Given that attaching a condition to a vessel Faroes, and the Faroese Fisheries Minister told me that licence has worked for 20 years, why do we need to he had a proposal that said all Faroese vessels must land change that? 80% of their catch into the Faroes.The Faroese Parliament, in its wisdom, decided to move that to 100% of the Luke Pollard: I simply do not think it is working—it catch. The difficulty, he explained to me, is that the is not carrying the confidence of the industry. Part of Faroes now has a problem: its fishermen are sometimes the amendment is about being clear to the industry effectively held to ransom by a small number of processors what kind of objectives we want in a revised fishing on the Faroes, because they are required by law to land portfolio. The contributions on Second Reading and all their fish in the Faroes, which means Faroese fishermen the feedback on the White Paper from fishers show that do not always get the price they should get. a strengthened economic link is an important part of That links to a very important point that we heard in that. evidence from Bertie Armstrong from the Scottish It is important that we talk about why a strengthened Fishermen’s Federation, also made eloquently by the economic link is so important. As the hon. Member for right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland: we want Glasgow North East mentioned, it provides the additional to be able to retain the ability for fishermen to land their trades and jobs that come from that. The industry’s fish in the place where they will get the highest price. If confidence in that economic link is not there. I invite the there are too many onerous restrictions on landing, on Minister to spend more time on the fish quays speaking some species fishermen may be put in a position where to fishers about the economic link, because that is not they can be held to ransom and end up being price the view that has been expressed to me and my colleagues. takers rather getting a fair price for their catch. I am sure that is not what the hon. Member for Plymouth, I am slightly disappointed that the Minister did not Sutton and Devonport intends. take up the genuine offer I made to work to find a better form of words. There is a real sense that this provision I can reassure the hon. Gentleman that the economic should be better than it is at the moment. I would be link already exists and provides for all the things he very happy to see if, on Report, we can strengthen that seeks to achieve in the amendment, and more besides. economic link in the schedule. At the moment, 50% is We should review and strengthen the economic link as required. The Minister seeks not to allow any changes we leave the European Union. We want to do that in in our quota allocation after we depart the EU unless collaboration with other parts of the UK; we want to they are better than we currently have—we will come to talk to the Scottish in particular, who have strong views, that. The same principle of getting a better deal than we so we can have an agreement for a UK economic link. have at the moment should apply to the economic link. Weneed some dialogue with the devolved Administrations, If the Minister wants to work with us to improve but we must recognise that we should be cautious on schedule 2 to include “at least 50%”, I will be happy to some species, since we do not want to put our fisherman work with him. As he is looking at me blankly, I suspect at a disadvantage and force them to take lower prices he has not been given permission to do so. I will than they could otherwise receive. therefore press the amendment to a vote. I hope, on that basis, the hon. Gentleman will withdraw the amendment. We would be more than happy to share Question put, That the amendment be made. with him some of our thinking about how we could improve and refine the economic link in time for Report. The Committee divided: Ayes 6, Noes 12. Division No. 6] Luke Pollard: I am grateful for hon. Members’ contributions. It might be helpful to direct the Committee’s AYES attention to new clause 13, especially subsections (2) Debbonaire, Thangam Pollard, Luke and (3). It talks about the ability of the Secretary of Hill, Mike Smith, Owen State to say that some species might not necessarily Pennycook, Matthew Sweeney, Mr Paul 227 Public Bill Committee HOUSE OF COMMONS Fisheries Bill 228

NOES “There remain large gaps in understanding on impacts to other Aldous, Peter Jones, Mr Marcus species and processes, especially after long-term exposure. The method is also known to break the vertebrae of large cod and it’s Brown, Alan Lefroy, Jeremy unclear if similar damage could be inflicted on other large animals.” Duguid, David Morris, James Eustice, George O’Hara, Brendan I invite the Committee to think for a moment about Grant, Bill Stewart, Iain what it means to break the vertebrae of large cod in a Hollinrake, Kevin Tracey, Craig marine environment and the physical force needed to break the vertebrae of large cod if it were due to Question accordingly negatived. electrical impacts. It is clearly a form of fishing that causes distress and harm. There are particular concerns about the magnitude of the fishing currently using this Luke Pollard: I beg to move amendment 66, in schedule 2, method. The MCS added: page 31, line 24, at end insert— “We’re not talking about a minor modification to net ‘(6) Conditions attached to any sea fishing licence must configuration—we’re talking about the industrial scale use of include a prohibition on the use of any form of electric pulse electricity on the seabed.” beam trawl fishing.” This amendment would require sea fishing licences to prohibit electric It is not a test-bed fishery.It is now a de facto commercial pulse beam trawl fishing. fishery and we need to be aware of it.

The Chair: With this it will be convenient to discuss 12.15 pm the following: Electric pulse beam fishing is truly a technique that Amendment 92, in clause 14, page 8, line 21, after would shock any lover of the marine world. According “11(5)” insert to The Times, British fishermen have said that “or section (Ban on electric pulse fishing)” “the sea is a graveyard after a visit by the overseas boats” New clause 9—Ban on electric pulse fishing— using this type of fishing method. An area of immediate “A person commits an offence if they use, in order to catch concern is the pulse trawlers currently operating in fish, any form of electric pulse fishing technology on towed or Dogger Bank, the marine protected area in the North otherwise mobile equipment within British fishery limits.” sea. Marine conservation charities tracked a Dutch vessel fishing in that manner at Dogger Bank over three Luke Pollard: The amendment relates to creating a months. Their data indicated that other pulse trawlers licence restriction that prohibits any form of electric had also fished there. The area is legally protected pulse beam trawling in UK waters. We have heard in because of its unique and important habitat. We should previous debates about that form of fishing and we have not allow this untested method to be carried out there an opportunity in this Bill to set a clear direction that of all places. we do not accept it. It needs to appear in the Bill rather There is rightly a growing movement against electric than as a commitment so that we send a clear message pulse beam fishing. In January, the European Parliament to our EU friends and anyone thinking about that type voted to ban it, although the European Commission of fishing that it is not something the UK Parliament says that it needs to continue to study its impact—something will accept. that I disagree with. More than 200 top chefs across The amendment aims to prohibit a form of fishing Europe have pledged to stop sourcing seafood obtained currently taking place in UK waters that is known to by electric pulse fishing, and the US, China and several cause excess harm to our marine life and could have other countries have already banned it. widespread negative effects that have yet to be adequately Across Parliament, there is an understanding of what researched. Members will likely be aware that electric is at stake. The Chair of the Environment, Food and pulse beam fishing uses electrodes attached to nets to Rural Affairs Committee, the hon. Member for Tiverton send electrical signals to the surface of the seabed, and Honiton (Neil Parish), said on Second Reading driving some fish into the nets. Although fishing with that pulse fishing electricity has been banned in the EU since 1998, in “causes huge damage to not only the seabed but, potentially, fish 2007 an exception was made for electric pulse beam stocks.”—[Official Report, 21 November 2018; Vol. 649, c. 916.] fishing, ostensibly to allow some boats to test the impact The hon. Member for Waveney—I promise I will stop on fish stocks and the ocean ecosystem. It is currently quoting him shortly, when he stops saying sensible centred on the Dutch fleet. According to some of the things to quote—added during that debate that there is latest figures, 84 Dutch vessels use that method, but as evidence that pulse fishing we heard on Second Reading from my partner in crime, the hon. Member for Waveney, that is now up to nearly “isdevastatingfishstocks,wreakinghavocuponthemarineenvironment 100 vessels. We need to act now on this form of fishing, and preventing local East Anglian fishermen from earning a living.”—[Official Report, 21 November 2018; Vol. 649, c. 954.] before it becomes more widespread and is seen as irreversible and as a standard for fishing to adopt. The Even the current Foreign Secretary has warned of the Government have a choice with this amendment. I hope dangers. His website states: they will side with the environment and small-scale “The evidence so far indicates that while the impact on the fishermen against that type of fishing and not with seabed is typically smaller than for traditional beam trawling, those who promote that untested and expensive new there are some detrimental effects on fish species such as cod.” technology. I would perhaps go further, but it is good to see that he The Marine Conservation Society’s head of fisheries has taken an interest as well. and aquaculture has made it clear that such a form of The Minister has said that powers exist elsewhere in fishing cannot currently be permitted on a large scale if the Bill to require or preclude certain types of gear or we are serious about protecting marine life. He said: fishing methods, but that reassurance is insufficient. 229 Public Bill Committee 13 DECEMBER 2018 Fisheries Bill 230

Bill Grant: I have two concerns about a blanket ban. I Peter Aldous: It is a pleasure to serve again under your sense that there is a degree of evidence, but we need to chairmanship, Mr Gray. I will speak to amendment 92 be absolutely certain about that evidence and the damage and new clause 9 in my name, which relate to electric that the method is alleged to be doing before we pulse fishing. comprehensively ban it. My other concern is whether As we heard from the Opposition spokesman, pulse there is a risk it might dilute the authority rightly placed fishing is the process by which commercial trawlers, with the devolved Governments. The Scottish Government towing electrodes, emit bursts of electricity into the are trialling electric pulse fishing in the Firth of Clyde. seabed to force out fish such as flatfish, shrimp, sole and There have been some land-based objections, strangely plaice buried in the mud. The electric shock makes the enough, but do we risk taking away the powers that are fish convulse and flip upwards into the trawler’s net. rightly devolved to the various Administrations if we The method is not used by British-owned vessels; it is put a blanket ban on it? practised largely by the Dutch in the North sea, often in British waters. They argue that pulse fishing is better for Luke Pollard: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the environment than traditional trawling and, as we his intervention. I think there is a clear understanding have heard, they have issued permits for up to 100 pulse in fishing communities that we should not be encouraging trawlers to operate. They point out that pulse trawlers electric pulse beam trawling. There is a big distinction use up to 46% less fuel and catch 50% less unwanted between a sensible trial that seeks to get scientific data marine life than other trawlers. and what we have now in UK waters, especially off the However, the practice is strongly opposed by English east coast of England, where we have a de facto commercial and French fishermen, who have seen its devastating fishery, fishing at scale using this method and potentially impact at first hand. Moreover, there is a lack of scientific causing huge environmental damage. I take his point evidence to justify it generally, although the Centre for about science and evidence, but that commercial fishery Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science is carrying has existed for more than a decade. out extensive ongoing research. The feedback I receive from East Anglian fishermen is that pulse trawling has Mike Hill: My hon. Friend mentions the east coast. a devastating effect on the marine environment. They He is right that such fishing has had serious consequences. find dead fish left behind with broken backs. The practice Is it therefore not right to ban it, until the scientific rips up life on the seabed surface and uses large scouring evidence shows otherwise? devices to extract buried fish, damaging underlying sediment. The practice is indiscriminate and is destroying a variety of marine life and ecosystems, particularly in Luke Pollard: My hon. Friend makes a very good the North sea. point. I would personally go further, but he makes a very good case for a precautionary ban, as has been As we have heard, pulse fishing is technically illegal in imposed by a number of other countries. It is worth the EU, the US and China. However, an exemption bearing in mind that the EU has already banned electric allows EU countries to catch up to 5% of their annual pulse beam trawling, but has allowed the trial. In setting fishing quota in the North sea using what are termed a new framework for fishing after we leave the European “innovative” methods in the name of research. For Union, certain types of fishing gear and methodologies some reason, pulse fishing is one of those methods. In should be outlawed. We should make the case that we January,the European Parliament voted to ban commercial will not accept certain things in our waters, electric fishing using an electric current in EU waters. The pulse beam fishing being one of them. amendment calling for a total ban on pulse fishing was passed by 402 votes to 232, with 40 abstentions, although The stated objective of my party in relation to the Bill the ban has not yet come into place. is to ensure that UK fishing has the most sustainable fisheries in the world. That means not only having the I summarise my thoughts as follows. First, in pursuing rules in place, and the enforcement, incentives and the precautionary approach, given the clear evidence of backing of the industry, but making clear statements its devastating impact, pulsing should not take place at that set the tone and approach for sustainable fishing. I all. The Dutch argue that they are conducting a trial. In want the message from the Committee to be that we practice, it is no such thing. They have set up a whole stand united in banning electric pulse beam trawling industry based on a completely inappropriate fishing because of its environmental impacts, and we support practice. They have exploited a loophole in the common the fishing communities that want it to be banned. I ask fisheries policy and EU regulations for their own commercial the Minister to agree with that, to ensure that there is no advantage. There must be no such loopholes in our UK division here between the Government and Opposition fishing policy,for which the Bill will provide the framework. parties. Secondly, pulse fishing has a devastating impact both Electric pulse fishing is extremely lucrative. One study at sea and on land. It destroys the marine environment financed by the Dutch Ministry of Economic Affairs and takes fish that should be caught and landed by UK found that Dutch fishermen using standard beam trawlers fishermen and processed in Britain back to the Netherlands, broke even in 2014, while their electrically powered and then, absurdly, often back to the UK for sale. competitors earned a whopping ¤17 million. That is a Thirdly, although the practice still takes place, it has huge difference, and it is a very powerful interest to go been condemned and voted down by the European up against, but conservation means nothing if we are Parliament. The UK Parliament should do likewise. In unwilling to go against well-financed groups intent on some respects, I accept that primary legislation such as exploiting our natural environment and causing severe this Bill may well not be the right place for such a ban damage to our marine environment. I hope that all on a specific practice. However, we need to send a clear Members will take that concern on board, and support message right from the outset that there is no place for the amendment. electro-pulse fishing in the future management of UK 231 Public Bill Committee HOUSE OF COMMONS Fisheries Bill 232

[Peter Aldous] That increases fishing pressure, because there are more vessels able to catch more fish in more areas, more waters when we leave the EU and when the Bill, which I quickly. assume will receive Royal Assent, comes into effect. The Secondly, as my hon. Friend pointed out, there are Minister and I have spoken at length on this matter over lots of anecdotal reports of gadoids, in particular cod, the last few months. I am grateful to him for doing that. having their backs broken by this technique. There is In answering, can he provide me with an assurance that evidence from some of the tank studies that it can affect electro-pulse fishing stops immediately that we leave the the navigation of some fish. The electric pulse can EU and the Bill comes into force? If he cannot, I believe disturb their navigation and affect their ability to feed the ban needs to be on the face of the Bill. and migrate. The third problem is that we do not really know what impact the electric pulse might be having on Mr Carmichael: I think it is fairly well known in the smaller organisms—young fry, small lobsters, eggs and House that I am essentially a simple soul. I lead my life other types of early-developing sea life. We do not according to some basic rules, from which I do not know the full impact of that, and there are concerns depart. One of them is to never mix water and electricity. that it could be having a detrimental effect, breaking the No good ever comes of it. This amendment touches on food chain and therefore causing other problems. one other example of that basic truth, from which we should not depart. It is quite remarkable that occasionally 12.30 pm the industry manages to throw up new, innovative ways of doing things that are self-evidently wrong. For all those reasons, my view, in common with the When I was first elected to this House, one of the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland, is that biggest complaints from the industry at that time was water and electricity do not mix very well. My view for the operation of the Danish industrial fishery in the at least the past 12 to 18 months has been that we North sea hoovering up just about anything that was in should adopt a precautionary approach. That is the the water, with mesh sizes in the region of 2 mm or position that we adopted at the European Council. The 3 mm. It was as unsustainable a fishing method as one UK has called for a moratorium on the practice until could imagine, and it was rightly stopped—eventually. there is scientific evidence about whether it is problematic. This is another such example. It is self-evident that this It is important to recognise that this is a scientific sort of thing should not be allowed. The precautionary derogation, so it should be used in a very limited way to principle, about which the hon. Member for Waveney gather evidence. It should not be like the scientific spoke, is absolutely the right approach to take. Whether whaling that the Japanese, for instance, advocate. It that needs to done through primary legislation is another should not be a sham argument to allow commercial matter, but we have primary legislation. This is the first fishing under a scientific derogation. time in my 17 and a half years as a Member of Parliament Because of the position that the UK has adopted at that we have had a specific fishing Bill. Since we have it, Council, and because of the position that the European why do we not use it? Parliament has adopted, which the shadow Minister highlighted, the strong direction of travel at the moment George Eustice: This is an important issue, which I in the EU is to take up our suggestion of a moratorium. have discussed many times with my hon. Friend the I think the EU will do that if we continue to be bound Member for Waveney. I want to explain the arguments by it during an implementation period. that advocates of pulse trawling put forward, the arguments My final point is that a lot of these vessels operate for against it, and my position and the one we have therefore some of their time in the UK six to 12-mile zone, which adopted within the EU at the moment, as well as how I I know is another point of contention for fishermen in tend to address this issue. I think I have a solution that the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for may be even faster than the passage of the Bill. Waveney. Last year the Government gave notice that we The advocates of pulse trawling make a reasonable intend to quit the 1964 London fisheries convention, argument that conventional beam trawling literally drags and therefore revoke the access that countries such as a chain across the seabed, destroying and crushing the Netherlands have in our six to 12-mile zone. That, in everything in its path, to get flat fish to jump up into the addition, will help. nets, whereas a pulse beam trawler does not drag a Turning to my solution, the pulse trawling prohibition chain across the floor of the seabed, but hovers above and the derogation are contained in technical conservation the seabed and sends the electric pulse down. There is regulation 850/98. Article 31 of that regulation establishes evidence that this type of fishing uses less fuel, so the the pulse trawling prohibition, and article 31a establishes carbon footprint of fishing vessels using this method is the derogation. Under the European Union (Withdrawal) lower. Act 2018, regulation 850/98 will be coming across into However,the opponents—I am one—point to a number UK law. We anticipate laying a statutory instrument to of other problems. First—this is why fishermen in my give effect to that in January, probably before Report. I hon. Friend’s constituency are so concerned—although have instructed officials to ensure that when the prohibition pulse trawling does not disturb the seabed to the same under article 31 is brought across and established under extent as conventional beam trawling, it makes it possible the European Union (Withdrawal) Act, the derogation to fish areas that could not otherwise be fished. in article 31a will no longer apply to foreign vessels. Paradoxically, the ability to fish parts of the ocean That means that the 84 Dutch vessels—perhaps more where conventional gear types could not have gone now—will automatically cease to have the right to means that areas of the seabed that might have been practise pulse fishing if we leave the European Union seen as a sanctuary for some flat fish, because it was without an agreement at the end of March. In the event technically not possible to fish them, can now be fished. that there is an implementation period, we will of 233 Public Bill Committee 13 DECEMBER 2018 Fisheries Bill 234 course still be bound by whatever EU rules pertain, but address the concerns that both the hon. Member for even in that circumstance, the direction of travel in the Waveney and the Opposition have suggested, I am EU, following the position I adopted at Council, will be happy to withdraw the amendment. However, I give to introduce exactly the type of moratorium that I have notice that it will be coming back if the SI is not been arguing for. sufficiently robust to address those concerns. I beg to I hope I can assure the shadow Minister and my hon. ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Friend that the European Union (Withdrawal) Act, in Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. bringing across regulation 850/98 in the way I have described, while removing the scientific derogation under article 31a for foreign vessels, will give them an early Peter Aldous: I beg to move amendment 22, in schedule 2, solution to this problem. Therefore, placing this new page 31, line 24, at end insert— clause on the face of the Bill is unnecessary. I am happy “1A The Marine Management Organisation must, within one week to share the draft of the statutory instrument that we of a sea fishing licence being issued in respect of a foreign fishing intend to introduce in January with my hon. Friend and boat, publish— the shadow Minister before Report so they can see (a) any conditions attached to that licence, and exactly how we intend to deal with this problem. (b) the estimated monetary value of that licence.” There is concern that there are no provisions in the Peter Aldous: I am grateful to the Minister for looking Bill that foreign vessels must comply with the same into that, and for the work he has done and the solution standards as UK vessels. Access by foreign vessels to he outlines. I must say that, at face value, it appears to UK waters should be contingent on compliance with address my concerns and I believe the shadow Minister’s the same environmental standards that are applicable to concerns also, although he will give his views in a UK vessels, to ensure a level playing field and a high moment. On that basis, I am prepared not to press my level of environmental protection. I raised this concern amendment or new clause to a vote, but I put the on Tuesday when speaking to amendments 21 and 83 Minister on notice that, if his solution has not happened and new clause 8. That said, I would welcome the by the time we get to Report, I will take the matter up Minister’s reassurance that this is not what I would again. I am grateful to him for taking this seriously, describe as the Bill’s Achilles’ heel. because off the East Anglian coast people are absolutely livid about it. It is creating havoc and it must be addressed. Luke Pollard: Again, the hon. Member for Waveney I have met the Dutch Government, who were very has raised a good point about an issue on which we pleasant, but it is clear that they will carry on until they need greater transparency, to continue the theme we are told to stop, and we must tell them to stop as soon touched on with amendment 33. On that basis, the as possible. Opposition concurs with him.

Luke Pollard: I am grateful to the Minister, who, as has just been mentioned, has clearly put a lot of thought George Eustice: I will take this opportunity to explain and effort into looking at how this practice can be how the current licensing system works. I think I can banned. If the statutory instrument is indeed laid in reassure my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney that January before Report, that gives us an opportunity to what he seeks to achieve is already in the public domain consider all the detail. However, if that is insufficient, and published on the MMO website. the amendment will be coming back on Report. The The UK has three different types of licence: categories Minister specifically spoke about foreign boats in relation A, B and C. In most cases, a category A licence is used, to this matter, but according to Marine Management which is issued to both under-10 metre and over-10 metre Organisation figures there are 11 boats in the UK that vessels and allows them to fish for specific quota and were initially equipped with electric pulse beam trawling non-quota species. Licences for certain other species, equipment, and three of them are still equipped with it. such as shellfish or deep-sea stocks, are granted in Can he confirm whether the SI that he mentioned addition to, rather than instead of, that category A would include UK boats as well? licence. Conditions attached to the licence set out the specific requirements to which the vessels must adhere, George Eustice: There are currently six UK-registered such as the economic link requirement and reporting vessels that are licensed to use the derogation. Only obligations.Conditions related to different fisheries indicate three currently do. I think they are Scottish vessels, and the species that can be fished and the area where they the Scottish Government have their own particular view can be fished. on this, but only three UK vessels use it. If we were The licences and conditions are already published, on serious about doing a genuine scientific experiment to the MMO website. When foreign vessel licences and explore this further, doing so with three vessels would associated conditions have been agreed, they will be make sense. If we then wanted a total prohibition with published on the Government’s website and so will be no scientific exemption at all, we have plenty of powers accessible to the public, as they are now through the in the Bill, once it is passed, to do precisely that. I MMO website. The MMO already publishes on its believe the overwhelming pressure here is coming from website the conditions it places on English licence holders. those 84 Dutch vessels, and if we can deal with that, we Our intention is for foreign licences to be time-limited will have solved the problem. and definitely not tradeable—another issue that my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney was concerned Luke Pollard: I am grateful for that answer. On the about—so there is no prospect of a foreign vessel licence basis of the Minister’s commitment to lay the SI in accruing a monetary value. The other matters on which January and to ensure that it is sufficiently robust to he sought assurance are already published by the MMO. 235 Public Bill Committee HOUSE OF COMMONS Fisheries Bill 236

Peter Aldous: I am grateful to the Minister for his “Of the Bill’s 15 delegated powers that have a parliamentary response and for clarifying the matter. On that basis, I procedure, only four are solely governed by the negative procedure, beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. and justifiably so”, Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. so our approach to those powers has that Committee’s support.

Luke Pollard: I beg to move amendment 75, in schedule 2, 12.45 pm page 34, line 19, leave out “negative” and insert I simply point out that paragraph 7 of schedule 2 “affirmative”. replicates a power that has existed since 1967—prior The observant in Committee will have noticed that even to our joining the EU. It simply rolls the status quo this amendment is similar to amendments 23, 70, 71, 76 over; we are not using it to grab any new power. The and 77, but we have not yet reached those. Members procedure followed in that paragraph is the same for all will not have to endure this speech six times; they need provisions we are replacing in the Sea Fish (Conservation) not worry—I have six separate speeches. Act 1967. Section 4(4) of that Act, on the power to charge for licences, is crucial, as is section 4B, which The amendment might seem rather esoteric and, I provides for the manner in which licences may be granted, dare say, boring, techy or legalistic, but it is an important revoked or suspended. We are rolling forward a power part of how much transparency the new fisheries regime that already exists under the 1967 Act. after we leave the EU will have, and how much scrutiny The orders under those existing powers are made via will be given. We have previously tested this important the negative procedure. Section 4B of the 1967 Act issue with the Minister, on the Agriculture Bill. The states: negative procedure is provided for in several places throughout this Bill. The Labour party was concerned “Regulations under this section shall be made by statutory instrument, which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of about that during the passage of the European Union a resolution of either House of Parliament”, (Withdrawal) Act 2018, and we have not stopped worrying about where it sits in this Bill. Curiously, there are far which were the terms used to indicate the negative fewer instances of the negative procedure in this Bill procedure in 1967. I hope I have reassured the hon. than in the Agriculture Bill. That is welcome. Gentleman that the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee did a thorough job of examining The Bill also has a higher proportion of duties than the Bill and reached the conclusion that we are only powers. The opposite was the case in the Agriculture mirroring what has existed since 1967, which pre-dates Bill, so some of our scrutiny of and pressure on the even our membership of the EU. Minister has had some effect. The House of Lords Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee Luke Pollard: I am grateful to the Minister for those reports on both Bills helpfully drew attention to how clarifications. In the time he took to respond, I managed they had been drafted differently, even though they to chop up my speech into seven small component were produced by the same Department and are the parts, so we can revisit those points later. On that basis, responsibility of the same Minister—he is a lucky gentleman I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. to be covering so many important issues. That is curious, to say the least, and perhaps points to the enormous Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. pressure that the Government’s approach to Brexit places on officials and Ministers. The Chair: My instinct is that we have had sufficient debate on schedule 2. I acknowledge that the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee report on the Bill was very kind to Schedule 2 agreed to. Ministers. It stated that of the 15 delegated powers in the Bill, “only four” were governed by the negative Clause 14 procedure and, according to the Committee, “justifiably so”. We seem to have identified two more instances than PENALTIES FOR OFFENCES that Committee did, and we do not necessarily agree that all six are justifiable—hence our six amendments Peter Aldous: I beg to move amendment 93, in clause 14, for a move to the affirmative procedure instead. page 8, line 21, after “11(5)” insert We believe that enhanced scrutiny is an important “or section (Ban on sandeel fishing)”. part of the process, so it should not simply go through on the nod. The amendment is concerned with regulations The Chair: With this it will be convenient to discuss that might impose charges, so it is particularly important to consider the level of scrutiny. I would be grateful if New clause 10—Ban on sandeel fishing— the Minister would address those points. “A person commits an offence if they fish with the intent of catching any species in the genus Ammodytes.”

George Eustice: As the hon. Gentleman has highlighted, Peter Aldous: The amendment and new clause relate the Government believe that in this Bill we have struck to sand eel fishing. The amendment raises similar issues the right balance between the need for parliamentary to those we have debated on electric pulse fishing. I will scrutiny and the need to be able to react quickly. As he not press the amendment or the new clause to a Division, pointed out, although the Lords Delegated Powers and but I raise the matter in order to highlight the importance Regulatory Reform Committee was rather critical of of pursuing an ecosystem-based approach to future the number of negative resolution powers the Government management of fishery stocks. I am particularly grateful sought in the Agriculture Bill, it gave us a glowing to the RSPB, the Angling Trust and Fishing for Leave report with respect to the Fisheries Bill. It said: for their guidance and advice. 237 Public Bill Committee 13 DECEMBER 2018 Fisheries Bill 238

The sand eel, which is a small, energy-rich shoaling marine wildlife. The third and final alternative is to fish, is a key prey species for many seabirds, underpinning extend the existing sand eel closed area south to Yorkshire the breeding success of terns, kittiwakes and puffins. and the Humber, to cover the Dogger Bank area. Sand eels are also eaten in large numbers by harbour I am conscious that I have probably delayed Committee porpoises, other sea mammals and commercially important members’ lunch, but I believe that how we manage sand table fish, such as cod, whiting and mackerel. As such, eel fishing provides an extremely relevant case study as the sand eel plays a pivotal role in the food web between to how future UK fisheries can be managed in a sustainable the primary productivity of plankton and the top predators. and environmentally sensitive way, adopting an eco-based approach. I would welcome the Minister’s view of how Diminishing abundance of sand eels, however, in he sees the system operating in practice according to the combination with other pressures in the marine Bill’s provisions. environment, has driven a major decline in the UK’s seabird population. In Scotland, 12 indicator seabird species were 50% less numerous in 2015 than they were Luke Pollard: Following the hon. Gentleman’s speech, in 1986. To address that impact, in 2000 the EU created we are all now aware of the humble sand eel, which is an a closed area of 20,000 sq km extending offshore from important component of food webs in the north Atlantic. the coast of north-east Scotland to Northumberland. It It is at the bottom of the marine food chain and is part is a box that keeps the Danish sand eel fishing fleet, of the diet of cod, mackerel, porpoises and seabirds which has almost all the EU sand eel quota, away from such as Arctic terns and kittiwakes, especially in breeding sensitive seabed colonies. This industrial seabed fishery season. continues elsewhere in the North sea, mainly on the We also need to be aware of research led by the Dogger Bank, of which the UK part is a key focal area British Trust for Ornithology and the Joint Nature for the fleet. RSPB research indicates that the Dogger Conservation Committee that indicates that populations Bank fishery could have a detrimental impact on kittiwake of kittiwakes, terns, fulmars and shags are impacted by productivity on the adjacent Yorkshire coast. sand eel farming in the North sea. Those conservationists are concerned that the boats that catch thousands of Related to that, the sand eel stock assessment model tonnes of sand eels each year to be turned into animal used by the International Council for the Exploration feed and fertiliser deprive seabirds of a vital source of of the Sea to set EU catch limits does not address the food. needs of seabirds, cetaceans or other marine wildlife We have heard calls for a ban on sand eel fishing in when setting levels of commercial exploitation of sand the central North sea, most recently from the Fishing eels, such that insufficient sand eel is set aside for the for Leave representative in our evidence session, but we wider ecosystem. In failing to cater adequately for the would like more evidence about the practice. I would be needs of seabirds and other marine wildlife,the management grateful if the Minister dealt with how we can pick up of the fishery at present falls short of meeting an the points raised by the hon. Member for Waveney but ecosystem-based approach. also ensure there is sufficient scientific evidence and To improve the situation, the RSPB suggests three understanding of the stock baseline for sand eels, which alternatives, the first of which is stopping sand eel seem at the moment to be missing from the debate. fishing in UK waters. The UK could champion that approach as an exemplar in pursuing an eco-based Mr Carmichael: Anyone seeking evidence of the issue system. That is already done off the US coast. There the hon. Member for Waveney raised is more than would be very limited financial cost to UK commercial welcome to come and visit us in Orkney or Shetland fishing, though there is the risk of reciprocal denial by and look at the cliffs. Cliffs that were once white with Denmark of UK fishing opportunities in Danish waters seabirds and other things—evidence of seabirds—are for white fish. I am also mindful of advice provided by often empty at times of the year when they should be the Angling Trust that there are five species of sand eel full. That causes enormous concern in our community. in UK waters, all with the genus Ammodytes. The only It is a good example of the way an ecosystem-based one that has generated widespread concern is the industrial approach can bring benefits to the community beyond fishery for Ammodytes marinus in the North sea. the fishing industry. Nature tourism is one of the liveliest and most rapidly growing sectors in our local economy, The other four species are subject to very small levels and it is a welcome boost. The sand eel fishery self-evidently of fishing mortality. Ammodytes tobianus is the species has been a foolish enterprise for many years, and I very targeted for bait—both commercial and recreational—and much endorse the hon. Gentleman’s comments and his it is estimated that the combined landings of both efforts to end it. anglers and fishermen who catch their own and commercial catches are no more than 50 tonnes a year across the whole UK. The Angling Trust is concerned that the George Eustice: My hon. Friend the Member for provisions would prevent anglers from fishing for tobianus Waveney, having got important concessions on the Dutch to use as bait, as well as having a hugely negative impact fleet, turns his attention to taking on the Danes. As he on businesses in the angling bait market, such as the knows, sand eels are a shared stock, but about 90% of market leader, Ammodytes, a Cornwall-based company the sand eels caught in the UK’s exclusive economic that catches and processes Ammodytes tobianus for the zone are caught by the Danish fleet around Dogger bait and aquarium markets. Bank, although Sweden also has some interest in this area. The second option is to make the total allowable We are giving consideration to the issue, but, as my catch of sand eel more precautionary by reducing fishing hon. Friend acknowledges, access to the sand eel stock mortality, leaving at least one third of the stock for the is the most important access that Denmark receives provisioning needs of seabirds, cetaceans and other from the UK, so we will have to consider it in the 239 Public Bill Committee HOUSE OF COMMONS Fisheries Bill 240

[George Eustice] the needs of wild birds when setting catch limits for cockles. Given the way ICES advice is generated, based context of our annual fisheries exchanges. There is a as it is on maximum sustainable yield, it tends not to full data assessment for the stock, and ICES provides place great weight on such considerations, but there is annual recommendations for a TAC on sand eels in the no reason why, in the context of future UK-EU bilateral Dogger Bank area. In recent years, with the exception negotiations, we should not seek to argue that there only of 2016, the TAC has been set in line with ICES should be more restraint on species such as sand eels recommendations. where they have an important role as a food source for The issue with a unilateral ban on the fishing of all birds. sand eels in all UK waters is that we would be likely This is a complex area, and some scientists would say simply to displace that fishing activity, so there would that it is not just sand eels that are used but other be unsustainable catches of sand eels in waters outside species, too. However, I am certainly happy to say that the UK EEZ. However, my hon. Friend highlighted a we will look at it, and I hope my hon. Friend does not number of measures we could consider to address that. feel the need to press the amendment to a vote. First, as he pointed out, the so-called Wee Bankie sand eel fishery has been closed since 2000. As we leave the Peter Aldous: I am grateful to the Minister for that EU, I certainly would like to explore whether we could explanation and for the reassurance he provided. On consider a similar closure in a particular area to try to that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. protect the sand eel population closer to shore, where birds are more likely to be, so they have a food source. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Clause 14 ordered to stand part of the Bill. The second approach to which my hon. Friend alluded is to do something more akin to what we do in some Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. shellfish sectors. We have a principle in cockle fisheries —(Iain Stewart.) of reserving a proportion of cockles for wading birds so we do not deprive them of a food source. Local inshore 1 pm fisheries and conservation authorities take into account Adjourned till this day at Two o’clock. PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES HOUSE OF COMMONS OFFICIAL REPORT GENERAL COMMITTEES

Public Bill Committee

FISHERIES BILL

Eighth Sitting

Thursday 13 December 2018

(Afternoon)

CONTENTS

CLAUSES 15 TO 17 agreed to, one with an amendment. SCHEDULE 3 agreed to, with amendments. CLAUSES 18 TO 22 agreed to, some with amendments. Adjourned till Monday 17 December at half-past Four o’clock. Written evidence reported to the House.

PBC (Bill 278) 2017 - 2019 No proofs can be supplied. Corrections that Members suggest for the final version of the report should be clearly marked in a copy of the report—not telephoned—and must be received in the Editor’s Room, House of Commons,

not later than

Monday 17 December 2018

© Parliamentary Copyright House of Commons 2018 This publication may be reproduced under the terms of the Open Parliament licence, which is published at www.parliament.uk/site-information/copyright/. 241 Public Bill Committee 13 DECEMBER 2018 Fisheries Bill 242

The Committee consisted of the following Members:

Chairs: JAMES GRAY,†DAVID HANSON,MR LAURENCE ROBERTSON SIR DAVID CRAUSBY

† Aldous, Peter (Waveney) (Con) † O’Hara, Brendan (Argyll and Bute) (SNP) † Brown, Alan (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP) Pennycook, Matthew (Greenwich and Woolwich) † Carmichael, Mr Alistair (Orkney and Shetland) (Lab) (LD) † Pollard, Luke (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) † Debbonaire, Thangam (Bristol West) (Lab) (Lab/Co-op) † Duguid, David (Banff and Buchan) (Con) † Smith, Owen (Pontypridd) (Lab) † Eustice, George (Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries † Stewart, Iain (Milton Keynes South) (Con) and Food) † Sweeney, Mr Paul (Glasgow North East) (Lab/Co- † Grant, Bill (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (Con) op) † Hill, Mike (Hartlepool) (Lab) † Tracey, Craig (North Warwickshire) (Con) † Hollinrake, Kevin (Thirsk and Malton) (Con) Jones, Mr Marcus (Nuneaton) (Con) Gail Poulton, Lis Gerhold, Committee Clerks † Lefroy, Jeremy (Stafford) (Con) Morris, James (Halesowen and Rowley Regis) (Con) † attended the Committee 243 Public Bill Committee HOUSE OF COMMONS Fisheries Bill 244

() in Part 3, transitional provision relating to the provision Public Bill Committee made by sections 9 to16.” This amendment would ensure that Clause 17 accurately describes the Thursday 13 December 2018 contents of Schedule 3, if the proposed Government amendments to that Schedule are made. (Afternoon) The Chair: With this it will be convenient to discuss [DAVID HANSON in the Chair] the following: Clause stand part. Fisheries Bill Government amendments 7 to 9. That schedule 3 be the Third schedule to the Bill. Clause 15

OFFENCES BY BODIES CORPORATE ETC George Eustice: Government amendment 4 is simply a technical amendment to ensure that clause 17 accurately 2 pm describes the contents of schedule 3, which makes Question proposed, That the clause stand part of consequential amendments to existing legislation. The the Bill. relevant legislation is the Sea Fish Industry Act 1962, the Sea Fisheries Act 1968, the Fishery Limits Act 1976, The Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (George designation orders made under that Act, and the Sea Eustice): I can be relatively brief. The clause sets out the Fish (Conservation) Act 1967 and orders made under circumstances in which the officer of a body corporate, that Act. as well as the body corporate, may be found guilty of Amendment 4 agreed to. committing a relevant offence. These offences mirror those in section 12 of the Sea Fish (Conservation) Clause 17, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Act 1967 and apply to all parts of the UK. Clause 15(1) provides that an officer of a body corporate, Schedule 3 as well as a body corporate, may be guilty of an offence where it is proved that the officer connived or consented ACCESS AND LICENSING: CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS to the offence or that the offence was attributable to the Amendments made: 7, in schedule 3, page 39, line 15, neglect of the officer. Subsection (3) provides for members leave out from “(interpretation),” to end of line and of a body corporate to be treated as if they were insert— directors, who fall under the definition of “officer”. “( ) in subsection (1), at the appropriate place, insert— That means that subsection (1) applies in relation to “British fishing boat” means a fishing boat— their acts and omissions in connection with their (a) which is registered in the United Kingdom management of the body corporate. Subsection (4) is under Part 2 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1995, similar to subsection (1), but applies to a partner or (b) which is British-owned, or person purporting to be a partner in a Scottish partnership. (c) which is registered under the law of Jersey, Question put and agreed to. Guernsey or the Isle of Man;”; Clause 15 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. ( ) in that subsection, in the definition of “sea fish”, omit “4,”; Clause 16 ( ) after subsection (1) insert— “(1A) In any order or regulations made under this Act JURISDICTION OF COURT TO TRY OFFENCES “foreign fishing boat” means (unless the contrary intention Question proposed, That the clause stand part of appears) a fishing boat which is not a British fishing boat.”” This amendment would ensure that the expressions “British fishing the Bill. boat” and “foreign fishing boat” bear the same meaning in the Sea Fish (Conservation) Act 1967, and subordinate legislation made under it, as George Eustice: I can be even briefer on this clause, they do the Bill. which simply provides that offences may be treated as Amendment 8, in schedule 3, page 39, line 19, at end having been committed in any place in the United insert— Kingdom. That ensures that a prosecution could be “Fishery Limits Act 1976 brought in the appropriate UK court. 5A In the Fishery Limits Act 1976, omit section 3 (which substitutes Question put and agreed to. section 4 of the Sea Fish (Conservation) Act 1967). Clause 16 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. Fisheries Act 1981 5B In the Fisheries Act 1981, omit section 20 (which amends Clause 17 section 4 of the Sea Fish (Conservation) Act 1967). Sea Fish (Conservation) Act 1992 CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS 5C In the Sea Fish (Conservation) Act 1992, omit section 1 (which amends section 4 of the Sea Fish (Conservation) Act 1967). George Eustice: I beg to move amendment 4, in Government of Wales Act 2006 clause 17, page 9, line 36, leave out from “contains” to 5D (1) The Government of Wales Act 2006 is amended as end of line 36 and insert— follows. “() in Part 1, consequential amendments relating to the (2) In Schedule 3A (functions of Ministers of Crown etc provision made by sections 7 and 8; exercisable concurrently or jointly with Welsh Ministers)— () in Part 2— (a) in paragraph 1(2), in the table, in the entry for the Sea (i) minor amendments relating to the licensing of Fish (Conservation) Act 1967, in column 2— fishing boats, and (i) omit “(a) section 4 (licensing of fishing boats), (ii) consequential amendments relating to the provision and”; made by sections 9 to16; (ii) for “sections 4 and” substitute “section”; 245 Public Bill Committee 13 DECEMBER 2018 Fisheries Bill 246

(b) in paragraph 2(2)(b), omit sub-paragraph (i); (3) In regulation 2 (communication of licences and notices)— (c) in paragraph 2(3), omit “4 or”. (a) in paragraph (1), in the opening words, for “a Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009 nominee” substitute “an appropriate recipient”; 5E (1) The Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009 is amended as (b) in paragraph (1), for sub-paragraph (d) substitute— follows. (d) subject to paragraph (6), transmitting it to the (2) In section 4 (licensing of fishing boats)— appropriate recipient by means of an electronic communication to an address which the appropriate (a) omit subsections (1) to (6); recipient has specified in accordance with sub- (b) in subsection (7), for “that section” substitute “section paragraph (b) of that paragraph.”; 4 of the Sea Fish (Conservation) Act 1967 (licensing of fishing boats)”. (c) for paragraph (2) substitute— (3) In section 7 (regulations supplementary to sections 4 and “(2) A notice shall be effected by communicating it to an 4A of the Sea Fish (Conservation) Act 1967), omit “4 or”. appropriate recipient— (4) In section 196 (charging for commercial fishing licences), (a) in any of the ways specified in paragraph (1); omit subsection (1). (b) by publishing it on a website, the address of which is (5) Omit section 197 (grant of licences subject to conditions indicated on the licence to which the notice relates; or imposed for environmental purposes). (c) in accordance with paragraph (3).”; (6) In section 284 (power to require production of certain (d) after that paragraph insert— equipment), in subsection (2)(a), for “section 4(6) or” substitute “paragraph 1 of Schedule 2 to the Fisheries Act 2019 or section.” “(2A) In this regulation, “an appropriate recipient” means— This amendment would insert additional amendments in connection (a) in relation to a licence or notice relating to a Welsh with the repeal of section 4 of the Sea Fish (Conservation) Act 1967 fishing boat— and its re-enactment in the Bill. (i) the owner or charterer of the fishing boat, or Amendment 9, in schedule 3, page 39, line 32, at end (ii) a nominee of that owner or charterer; and insert— (b) in relation to a licence or notice relating to any other “Sea Fishing (Licences and Notices) Regulations 1994 fishing boat, the owner or charterer of the fishing 6A (1) The Sea Fishing (Licences and Notices) Regulations 1994 boat.”; (S.I. 1994/2813) are amended as follows. (e) in paragraph (3), in the closing words, omit “granted (2) In regulation 1 (citation, commencement and by the appropriate Minister,”; interpretation)— (f) after paragraph (4) insert— (a) in the heading, after “commencement” insert “, application”; “(5) A notice, other than a notice published in accordance with paragraph (3), must— (b) after paragraph (1) insert— (a) specify the name, port letters and number of the “(1A) These regulations apply in relation to— fishing boat named in the licence to which the notice (a) licences granted under section 10 of the Fisheries relates, or Act 2019 (licensing of British fishing boats) in respect (b) in the case of a notice in respect of two or more of Welsh fishing boats; licences, specify the name, port letters and number of (b) licences granted under section 12 of that Act (licensing the fishing boats named in the licences. of foreign fishing boats) by the Welsh Ministers; and (6) A licence or notice may be communicated to a person by (c) licences granted under section 4A of the Sea Fish means of an electronic communication only if the following (Conservation) Act 1967 (licensing of vessels receiving conditions are met— trans-shipped fish)— (a) the use of the electronic communication results in the (i) in respect of Welsh fishing boats, or information contained in the licence or notice being (ii) by the Welsh Ministers in respect of foreign fishing available to the person in all material respects as it boats.”; would appear in a licence or notice given in printed (c) in paragraph (2), for the definition of “licence” form, and substitute— (b) the person has specified an address for the purpose of ““licence” means a licence to which these regulations receiving such communications.” apply (see regulation 1(1A));”; (4) In regulation 3 (delivery of licences and giving of (d) in paragraph (2), in the definition of “nominee”, in notices)— paragraph (b), for “in a member State and having a (a) in paragraph (3), for “a nominee’s” substitute “an”; place of business” substitute “, and having a place of business,”; (b) after paragraph (3) insert— (e) in paragraph (2), for the definition of “sea fishing “(3A) A notice communicated in accordance with licence” substitute— regulation 2(2)(b) (publication on website) shall be treated as given immediately it is published.” ““sea fishing licence” means a licence to which these regulations apply by virtue of regulation 1(1A)(a) (5) In regulation 4 (time at which licences and notices to have or (b);”; effect)— (f) in paragraph (2), at the end insert— (a) in paragraph (a) omit “, and a notice which is communicated in accordance with regulation 2(2)(b),”; ““Welsh fishing boat” means a fishing boat— (b) in paragraph (b), omit the “and” at the end; (a) which is registered in the United Kingdom under Part 2 of the Merchant Shipping (c) after paragraph (b) insert— Act 1995, and “(ba) a notice which is communicated in accordance with (b) whose entry in the register specifies a port in regulation 2(2)(b) (publication on website) shall have Wales as the port to which the boat is to be effect 24 hours after it is treated as given in treated as belonging.” accordance with regulation 3; and”. 247 Public Bill Committee HOUSE OF COMMONS Fisheries Bill 248

Scotland Act 1998 (Agency Arrangements) (Specification) Sea Fishing (Licences and Notices) (England) Regulations 2012 Order 1999 6E (1) The Sea Fishing (Licences and Notices) (England) 6B (1) The Scotland Act (Agency Arrangements) (Specification) Regulations 2012 (S.I. 2012/827) are amended as follows. Order 1999 (S.I. 1999/1512) is amended as follows. (2) In regulation 1 (citation, commencement and application), (2) In Schedule 1 (functions conferred on Minister of the for paragraph (2) substitute— Crown), omit paragraph 1. “(2) These regulations apply in relation to— (3) In Schedule 2 (functions exercisable by Scottish Ministers), (a) licences granted under section 10 of the Fisheries omit paragraph 1. Act 2019 (licensing of British fishing boats) in respect Scotland Act 1998 (Concurrent Functions) Order 1999 of relevant fishing boats; 6C (1) The Scotland Act 1998 (Concurrent Functions) (b) licences granted under section 12 of that Act (licensing Order 1999 (S.I. 1999/1592) is amended as follows. of foreign fishing boats) by the Marine Management (2) In Schedule 1— Organisation; and (a) in column 1, omit the entry for section 4 of the Sea (c) licences granted under section 4A of the Sea Fish Fish (Conservation) Act 1967, and (Conservation) Act 1967 (licensing of vessels (b) omit the corresponding entry in column 2. receiving trans-shipped fish)— Sea Fishing (Licences and Notices) (Scotland) Regulations 2011 (i) in respect of relevant fishing boats, or 6D (1) The Sea Fishing (Licences and Notices) (Scotland) (ii) by the Marine Management Organisation in respect Regulations 2011 (S.I. 2011/70) are amended as follows. of foreign fishing boats.” (2) In regulation 1 (citation, commencement, extent and (3) In regulation 2 (interpretation)— application)— (a) for the definition of “licence” substitute— (a) in paragraph (2), omit the words from “and the ““licence” means a licence to which these regulations Scottish zone” to the end; apply (see regulation 1(2));”; (b) for paragraph (3) substitute— (b) in the definition of “nominee”— “(3) These regulations apply in relation to— (i) in paragraph (b), for “in a member State and having (a) licences granted under section 10 of the Fisheries a place of business” substitute “, and having a Act 2019 (licensing of British fishing boats) in respect place of business,”; of Scottish fishing boats; (ii) in the closing words, omit “relevant”; (b) licences granted under section 12 of that Act (licensing (c) for the definition of “relevant fishing boat” of foreign fishing boats) by the Scottish Ministers; substitute— and ““relevant fishing boat” means a British fishing boat (c) licences granted under section 4A of the Sea Fish other than a fishing boat— (Conservation) Act 1967 (licensing of vessels receiving trans-shipped fish)— (a) which is registered in the United Kingdom under Part 2 of the Merchant Shipping (i) in respect of Scottish fishing boats, or Act 1995, and (ii) by the Scottish Ministers in respect of foreign (b) whose entry in the register specifies a port in fishing boats.” Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland as the (3) In regulation 2 (interpretation)— port to which the boat is to be treated as (a) for the definition of “licence” substitute— belonging;”; ““licence” means a licence to which these regulations (d) at the end insert— apply (see regulation 1(3));”; ““sea fishing licence” means a licence to which these (b) in the definition of “nominee”— regulations apply by virtue of regulation 1(2)(a) or (b).” (i) in paragraph (b) for “a member State” substitute “the United Kingdom”; (4) In regulation 3 (communication of licences and notices)— (ii) in the closing words, omit “Scottish”; (a) in paragraph (1), for the words from “the owner” to the end substitute “an appropriate recipient (“P”); (c) in the definition of “Scottish fishing boat”, omit “; and in respect of which the Scottish Ministers may grant (b) after that paragraph insert— or have granted a licence”; “(1A) In this regulation, “an appropriate recipient” means— (d) for the definition of “sea fishing licence” substitute— (a) in relation to a licence or notice relating to a relevant ““sea fishing licence” means a licence to which these fishing boat— regulations apply by virtue of regulation 1(3)(a) (i) the owner or charterer of the fishing boat, or or (b).” (ii) a nominee of that owner or charterer; and (4) In regulation 3 (communication of licences and notices)— (b) in relation to a licence or notice relating to any other (a) in paragraph (1), in the opening words, for “Scottish fishing boat, the owner or charterer of the fishing fishing boat” substitute “fishing boat”; boat.”; (b) in paragraph (1), in sub-paragraphs (a) and (b), after (c) omit paragraph (8). “charterer or” insert “, in the case of a Scottish Sea Fishing (Licences and Notices) (Northern Ireland) Regulations 2014 fishing boat,”; 6F (1) The Sea Fishing (Licences and Notices) (Northern (c) in paragraph (2)— Ireland) Regulations 2014 (S.R. (N.I.) 2014 No. 209) are (i) in sub-paragraph (a), at the beginning, insert “in the amended as follows. case of a Scottish fishing boat”; (2) In regulation 1 (citation, commencement and application), (ii) in sub-paragraph (b), omit “Scottish”; for paragraph (2) substitute— (d) in paragraphs (3) and (4), for “Scottish fishing boat” “(2) These Regulations apply in relation to— substitute “fishing boat” (a) licences granted under section 10 of the Fisheries (5) In regulation 4 (delivery of licences and giving of notices), Act 2019 (licensing of British fishing boats) in respect in paragraph (3), for “a nominee’s” substitute “an”. of Northern Ireland fishing boats; 249 Public Bill Committee 13 DECEMBER 2018 Fisheries Bill 250

(b) licences granted under section 12 of that Act (licensing were no fish in the sea, there would be no fishing of foreign fishing boats) by the Department; and industry. It is one of those inalienable truths that the (c) licences granted under section 4A of the Sea Fish Minister spoke of on the first day in Committee that (Conservation) Act 1967 (licensing of vessels receiving Parliament is sovereign, which is a good debate to have, trans-shipped fish)— and that fish are a public good, as I hope to see in the (i) in respect of Northern Ireland fishing boats, or Bill in due course. (ii) by the Department in respect of foreign fishing boats.” This amendment would turn clause 18 into a duty (3) In regulation 2 (interpretation)— and force the Secretary of State to commit to determining (a) in the definition of “the Department”, for “of fishing opportunities annually,to determine the maximum Agriculture and Rural Development” substitute “of quantity of fish that could be caught by British boats. If Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs”; we are serious about preventing overfishing, the amendment (b) for the definition of “licence” substitute— is vital. ““licence” means a licence to which these regulations apply (see regulation 1(2));”; This is another example of the Government’s failure (c) in the definition of “nominee”- to take the issue of sustainability seriously, as it has not (i) in paragraph (b) for “in a member State of the been included in the Bill. If it had been up to Labour, European Union and having a place of business” we would have called the Bill the “Sustainable Fisheries substitute “, and having a place of business,”; Bill”. The short title would have been the “Sustainable (ii) in the closing words, omit “Northern Ireland”; Fisheries Act 2019”. I understand we are not allowed to (d) for the definition of “Northern Ireland fishing boat” change the short title, so we could not table an amendment substitute— to do that. ““Northern Ireland fishing boat” means a fishing In yesterday’s sitting of the Select Committee on boat— Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, Martin Salter, (a) which is registered in the United Kingdom under Part 2 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1995, formerly a Member of the House who now represents and the Angling Trust, raised concerns about the lack of (b) whose entry in the register specifies a port in care given to sustainability, when he said that the Fisheries Northern Ireland as the port to which the Bill falls short of the White Paper and is much weaker boat is to be treated as belonging;”; than the common fisheries policy in binding Ministers (e) for the definition of “sea fishing licence” substitute— to fishing sustainably. In July 2017, the Environment ““sea fishing licence” means a licence to which these Secretary, the self-described “shy green”, said on “The regulations apply by virtue of regulation 1(2)(a) Andrew Marr Show” that the common fisheries policy or (b).” was an “environmental disaster” and that leaving it (4) In regulation 3 (manner in which a licence is granted etc)— would ensure that Britain could (a) in paragraph (1)— “have sustainable fish stocks for the future.” (i) omit “Northern Ireland”; (ii) for the words from “the owner or charterer of the Given that, it is important that there should be a boat” to the end substitute “an appropriate commitment to stop overfishing. recipient (“the recipient”); (b) after that paragraph insert— On global fish stocks, 29% are overfished, 61% are “(1A) In this regulation, “an appropriate recipient” means— fully fished and 10% are underfished. The UK has a leading role to play in stopping that overfishing. A 2006 (a) in relation to a licence or notice relating to a Northern Ireland fishing boat— article by Charles Clover, the then environment editor (i) the owner or charterer of the fishing boat, or of The Daily Telegraph, who now heads the Blue Marine (ii) a nominee of that owner or charterer; and Foundation, said that if the rate of overfishing continued (b) in relation to a licence or notice relating to any other the world’s currently fished seafoods would reach what fishing boat, the owner or charterer of the fishing is defined as collapse by 2048. The World Wide Fund boat.”; for Nature said this year that, worldwide, overfishing is (c) in paragraph (3), for the words from “the owner or one of the biggest threats to the health of seas and their charterer ” to the end substitute “an appropriate inhabitants. recipient (“the recipient”).”—(George Eustice.) Today, each person eats on average 19.2 kg of fish a This amendment would add to Schedule 3 minor and consequential amendments of certain statutory instruments relating to the licensing of year,which is quite an image to put before ourselves—that fishing boats, including (at the request of the devolved administrations) is twice the amount people ate about 50 years ago. In statutory instruments amendable by the devolved administrations. 2013, about 93 million tonnes of fish were caught Schedule 3, as amended, agreed to. worldwide. Illegal and unregulated fishing constitutes an estimated 11 million to 26 million tonnes—about Clause 18 12% to 28% of fishing worldwide. Almost 30% of fish stocks that are commercially fished are overfished. More POWER OF SECRETARY OF STATE TO DETERMINE than 50% of our imports are fully fished from developing FISHING OPPORTUNITIES countries. Over just 40 years, there has been a decrease in recorded marine species of about 39%. That is very Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/ worrying. Co-op): I beg to move amendment 58, in clause 18, page 9, line 40, leave out “may” and insert “must”. Overall, according to the Government’s own data, This amendment would require the Secretary of State to determine there has been a decline in commercial landings in the fishing opportunities. UK from around 300,000 tonnes of demersal species to It is good to see you back in the Chair, Mr Hanson. less than 20,000 tonnes during the past 40 years. When The amazing thing about fish is that they are a replenishable thinking about landings, we should bear it in mind that resource if used correctly. We can all agree that if there in 2015-16 technology in relation to fish location and 251 Public Bill Committee HOUSE OF COMMONS Fisheries Bill 252

[Luke Pollard] This amendment would add foreign fishing boats to the determination made by the Secretary of State of the maximum quantity of sea fish fishing gear was of an altogether different magnitude caught, or of the maximum number of days at sea. compared with the ’70s, making many of the figures all the more alarming. Luke Pollard: Forgive me, I had no idea that I would There is a global crisis and the need for the UK to be speaking so frequently. In Tuesday’s sitting, the lead the way is quite apparent. We cannot hide away Opposition were shocked to see the Government vote from our responsibilities and the amendment would against an amendment that would have secured a level close the loophole that allows for overfishing beyond playing field in environmental standards for UK boats scientific levels. I urge Members to vote with us to and non-UK boats using a UK licence in our waters. protect our oceans from the curse of the “tragedy of the Time and again, the Minister’s tagline when it comes to commons”. fisheries has been “take back control,” but without this amendment we will have little control over what non-UK George Eustice: There are a number of other amendments boats do in our waters, if the maximum of fish they can to clause 18 and I would like to cover some of the catch is not set. broader issues that the hon. Gentleman raised in relation In speaking to these amendments, we want to reacquaint to those later amendments. ourselves with that notion of a level playing field and to have it in the Bill, so that there is no doubt about the The Chair: Those later amendment will be taken later, difference between UK boats and boats from our European Minister. Union and Norwegian friends, in ensuring there is a level playing field at all times. George Eustice: Yes, exactly, but I shall address the point of amendment 58, which is simply to provide that under clause 18(1) the Secretary of State “must” rather George Eustice: Although I understand the intention than “may” make the determination in question for a behind the amendment, I am afraid that it is, in my calendar year. view, misplaced and this point is being raised with The amendment is unnecessary and potentially respect to the wrong clause, for reasons I will explain. counterproductive. Subsection (2) already makes it clear Foreign boats do not fish against UK quota limits, so that the power will be used only in the context of they do not hold any rights to be managed under the international negotiations on quota species. The difficulty terms of the clause. Only British fishing boats can fish with introducing the word “must” is that that would against UK quota. British fishing boats are defined as have the perverse effect of requiring the Secretary of those that are registered in the UK, are British-owned State to set the maximum quantity of sea fish for all sea or are registered in the Crown dependencies. UK-flagged fish, whether or not they were subject to quota. Species boats that are owned or part-owned by foreigners, as we such as pilchards, which we get a lot of in the west discussed earlier, are covered by the economic link, but country,and lemon sole and squid, which will be important foreign-flagged vessels that have access to UK waters to many fishermen in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency, gain their quota from the foreign state that issues its are not currently subject to catch quotas. We do not share of the quota. want to introduce a requirement that they should be. We intend to use the power only for quota stocks. A French vessel fishing in UK waters off the coast of Devon is not accessing British quota, but is fishing I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not see a need to against a quota allocated to it by the French Government. press the amendment, which would require us to set Clause 18 is very much about giving the British Government limits on all sorts of species where limits are not currently the power to set limits for British fishing boats. Separately, deemed necessary. in other parts of the Bill, there are powers to grant access to foreign vessels, but we will not be giving Luke Pollard: The amendment is intended to get a British quota to those foreign vessels; they will be commitment from the Minister to seek not to set levels fishing against the entitlement from their flag state. above those that are scientifically proven, and to prevent overfishing. The requirement to set that level is important and one we will revisit in future amendments. On the Luke Pollard: I thank the Minister for that clarification, basis of the Minister’s comments and the fact that we but looking at the Public Gallery I see a few screwed-up will come to those other amendments, I beg to ask leave faces, as if to say that foreign boats have to fish under to withdraw the amendment. British quota currently. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Luke Pollard: I beg to move amendment 60, in George Eustice: As I explained, there are foreign-owned clause 18, page 10, line 2, after “boats” insert “or British vessels, but that is different from saying that foreign fishing boats holding rights to use British catch foreign vessels fish against British quota. They simply quota”. do not. French vessels in UK waters are not fishing This amendment would add foreign fishing boats to the determination against British quota; they are fishing against quota made by the Secretary of State of the maximum quantity of sea fish allocated to them by the French Government. caught, or of the maximum number of days at sea.

The Chair: With this it will be convenient to discuss Luke Pollard: I suspect that this is an item we will amendment 61, in clause 18, page 10, line 3, after revisit when considering a later amendment, so on that “boats” insert basis I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. “or foreign fishing boats holding rights to use British catch quota”. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 253 Public Bill Committee 13 DECEMBER 2018 Fisheries Bill 254

Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD): the Bill. There is a nod toward this early in the Bill, but I beg to move amendment 25, in clause 18, page 10, otherwise it is pretty well absent. I know there are line 3, leave out paragraph (b) and insert— concerns in the industry about maximum sustainable “(1A) Determinations under subsection (1) must by 2020 at yields, but this is a commitment we have made and I am the latest must not exceed the FMSY reference point and be in concerned that, at the very least, the Committee should accordance with international law, having regard to the hear an explanation from the Minister of why, at this interdependence of stocks, in order to maintain the stock stage, we should seek to walk away from it. I suggest population above a level capable of producing the maximum that that is a somewhat poor signal to send. sustainable yield and to ensure long-term viability of the stock population.” 2.15 pm The purpose of this amendment is to set a target of 2020 for catch limits to be set at sustainable levels. It also removes the power of the Amendments 26 and 27 effectively remove references Secretary of State to set fishing limits in line with the “days at sea” to setting days-at-sea limits.These are probing amendments; approach which can lead to overfishing. I have concerns about the workability of days at sea, the principal concern being that they risk leading to overfishing The Chair: With this it will be convenient to discuss of stocks. I am aware that some parts of the industry in the following: some parts of the country see days at sea as a preferable Amendment 59, in clause 18, page 10, line 4, at end route. I am open to the idea that, if we can do it in a way insert— that does not risk overfishing, there is no reason why we “(1A) In making a determination under subsection (1), the cannot have a multiplicity of different management Secretary of State must ensure that any maximum quantity of regimes, but I have not yet been fully persuaded that sea fish that may be caught by British fishing boats does not that is necessarily the case. exceed the amount that, in the Secretary of State’s view, the best Amendments 26 and 27 are offered essentially as available scientific evidence suggests would ensure that probing amendments, but amendment 25 deals with a populations of harvested species are restored and maintained above biomass levels and harvested at mortality rates capable of more substantial concern. I will not rehearse all the producing maximum sustainable yield.” arguments about maximum sustainable yield, as I rather This amendment would require the Secretary of State to ensure that the thought that we had finished that debate some years determination of the maximum quantity of sea fish caught does not ago. exceed the level required to produce a maximum sustainable yield, based on scientific evidence. Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP): Will Amendment 105, in clause 18, page 10, line 4, at end the right hon. Gentleman advise us how amendment 25 insert— would work in relation to the devolved Administrations “(1A) No determination of effort quota under subsection managing stock and quotas? (1)(b) may be made until the completion of a trial for the relevant area of sea, stocks fished, fishing methods used, documentation Mr Carmichael: I would very much hope that they, methods used and any other relevant considerations that too, would be working with a maximum sustainable demonstrates that there is no possibility of such a determination yield principle. I am not aware of any suggestion that causing— they would not. (a) a detriment to the achievement to any of the fisheries objectives; Luke Pollard: We appreciate the argument for (b) exceeding the maximum sustainable yield of any stock; amendment 25. The Opposition have committed to (c) reducing the accuracy of the recording of catches; leaving the European Union without any roll-back of (d) increasing the risk of danger to the crew of fishing environmental standards and MSY by 2020 seems to be boats.” a glaring omission from this Bill. The Minister will This amendment would prevent the Secretary of State making a determination of effort quota until a days at sea trial has been know that we are signed up to that under the common completed and shown not to cause adverse impacts. fisheries policy and that it is Government policy under Amendment 26, in clause 18, page 10, line 19, leave the UN sustainable development goals to continue to be out paragraph (b). signed up to MSY by 2020. However, I suspect he will The purpose of this amendment is to remove the power of the Secretary say that, given that the Bill is set to come into force of State to set fishing limits in line with the “days at sea” approach beyond that point, it is no longer necessary to have that which can lead to overfishing. commitment in the Bill. While I see his argument there, Amendment 27, in clause 18, page 10, line 29, leave it is not good enough; we must strive to ensure that out subsection (8). MSY is a guiding principle of how fisheries are looked The purpose of this amendment is to remove the power of the Secretary at. That is why the Opposition have tabled amendment 59, of State to set fishing limits in line with the “days at sea” approach in a similar vein to amendment 25, tabled by the right which can lead to overfishing. hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland. We note that amendment 25 seeks to remove days at Mr Carmichael: It is a pleasure to serve under your sea and effort-based quota provision. We will discuss chairmanship, Mr Hanson. Amendment 25 would reassert days at sea in more detail later, on amendments 26 and the commitment to reaching the maximum sustainable 27 and our amendment 23, but in short, we do not want yield threshold, to which we are currently permitted as to exclude it from the Bill entirely, as some fisheries are part of the common fisheries policy, by 2020. The already captured by this form of fishing. Any new amendment was drafted by Greener UK and it has the effort-based quota allocation should be able to take support of a number of environmental lobby groups. place only following a robust trial—something that was This is probably one of the most significant amendments featured in the White Paper, but which has mysteriously that we will consider; it certainly comes to the heart of disappeared from the text of the Bill. We think the matter. The lack of proper reference to the maximum amendment 59 is better placed than amendment 25: sustainable yield is one of the most worrying aspects of fishers need fish to fish, and thriving fish stocks are 255 Public Bill Committee HOUSE OF COMMONS Fisheries Bill 256

[Luke Pollard] who is evidently very expert in this field, has to explain to us, the House, the wider industry and those concerned critical for a profitable and prosperous industry. They with conserving stocks in our seas why he is determined are affected by factors outside our immediate control—the not to put MSY in the Bill, which seems to fly in the temperature and acidity of the sea, for instance—but face of the evidence. one thing we can and do control to ensure thriving and healthy fish stocks is how much fish we take from the George Eustice: Let me make clear from the outset to seas. the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland that Dr Abigail McQuatters-Gollop, a lecturer in marine we are not walking away from the principle of MSY, conservation at the University of Plymouth, in the and to the hon. Member for Pontypridd that MSY is patch I represent, said: indeed in the Bill. It is right there in clause 1(3)(b): “Decisions about how much we take from marine environment “to ensure that exploitation of living marine biological resources has to be based on scientific episode and needs to be a duty not an restores and maintains populations of harvested species above objective.” biomass levels capable of producing maximum sustainable yield.” The view that MSY is not firmed up enough in the Bill The only bit that is not in the Bill but is in the current is shared by key environmental stakeholders and across EU regulation, which was drafted as long ago as 2013, the industry.Griffin Carpenter, from the New Economics is the 2020 target. Foundation, who gave evidence to this Committee, said, As I have described, it makes no sense whatever to … “Something I think is missing from the Bill is commitments include a statutory target that will already have lapsed to maximum sustainable yield—not just the stock commitment but the flow…Many of us were surprised that was not in the and expired in a Bill that will probably not commence Bill.”––[Official Report, Fisheries Public Bill Committee, 6 December until January 2021 or the end of 2020. The right place 2018; c. 107, Q205.] to reflect any kind of timescale or commitments, or Helen McLachlan, also speaking to the Committee, even on species, is in that joint fisheries statement, said that the 2020 deadline turned things around in the which will describe how all the Administrations will EU from short-term policy making that overshot scientific work together to deliver those objectives, including evidence and increased biomass and decreased mortality MSY. I therefore put it to hon. Members that the right and that, if we lose it, we take a backward step. way to replace the EU legislative commitment of 2020 is not to have an already-expired date in the Bill, but to It is important that the debate around MSY is reflect that commitment in the joint fisheries statement. comprehensive and based on sound evidence. We must not lose that from the debate. We need to ensure that The other issue relates to effort and setting the maximum tone and that sentiment, which the right hon. Member number of days that British boats may spend at sea. All for Orkney and Shetland raised, throughout the Bill the amendments, including the one tabled by the hon. and in the messaging we give. That is why MSY by 2020 Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport, would is such an important consideration. delete clause 18(1)(b), which covers the maximum number of days at sea. As he seemed to acknowledge, that would be counter-productive, as we already have something Owen Smith (Pontypridd) (Lab): It is a pleasure to called the western waters regime, which is an effort-based serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hanson. I rise regime that regulates the catches of crab, and in particular briefly to support my hon. Friend the Member for of scallops, of the over-15 metre sector. Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport and the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland and the spirit and Hon. Members may recall that scallops are a part of intention behind all the amendments. the fishery that can lead to conflict at times, not least over the summer. There are fishermen fishing out of It seems to me quite straightforward that the Bill Brixham, not far from the hon. Gentleman’s constituency, takes a retrograde step by not including MSY, which is who have an allocation of kilowatt-hours at sea to catch so clearly hard-wired into the CFP and into UN scallops in the EU exclusive economic zone—in other sustainability goal 14. The Minister has on other occasions words, on the French side of the channel. If we were to argued that including it is unnecessary, on the basis that make it unlawful to allocate days at sea, the hon. it is captured by the Bill’s intention to not harvest Gentleman would have a scallop war of his own, probably biomass at levels above MSY. outside his constituency, because he would find that However, it should worry us all that the real experts those scallop fishermen would no longer be able to in this area—those in the third sector concerned with access French waters because we would no longer be conservation in our seas—clearly see it as a mis-step by participating in the western waters regime. the Government not to put MSY in the Bill in the way that other legislatures have, including in Australia, New Luke Pollard: I invite the Minister to look at amendment Zealand, the States and Canada, especially as the evidence 105, because we do not actually suggest deleting from our own waters and elsewhere is that MSY targets clause 18(1)(b). We suggest that have been very effective. Hake and North sea plaice are two recent examples of stocks recovering brilliantly as a “No determination may be made” result of MSY policy. I therefore cannot understand under it, unless a trial has been completed. I would be why the Minister is so coy about maintaining this grateful if he corrected his remarks. standard. The concern, bluntly, is that not including MSY in George Eustice: My understanding, on the basis of the Bill will give this or any future Government the my notes, is that amendment 59 would also delete wriggle room not to pursue sustainable fishing policies clause 18(1)(b). It may be that the hon. Gentleman did and to set catch levels above MSY, out of line with not intend that to happen, but that amendment, which I scientific evidence. If that is not the case, the Minister, understand is in his name, would also remove it. 257 Public Bill Committee 13 DECEMBER 2018 Fisheries Bill 258

I will make a point about amendment 105. Again, the 2.30 pm western waters regime is already established and happening, George Eustice: We received some interesting evidence so we would not necessarily want to subject it to a trial on this from Dr Carl O’Brien from the Centre for before being able to make any such determination, Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science, who because if we were to leave the EU without an agreement is the leading expert on this. I know that a number at the end of March, we would nevertheless want to of green NGOs have suggested that they would like to have some discussions and reach some agreements on see the language tightened here, but we have to listen to scallops quickly. those who have the greatest experience in managing maximum sustainable yield and in calculating the Luke Pollard: Amendment 59 would actually be added measurements, and direct experience of the negotiations. at the end of line 4, rather than replacing it, so it would As he pointed out, there are two dangers. In a mixed not remove it as the Minister has said. I appreciate that fishery it is simply a scientific impossibility to set his notes on the amendment may be somewhat different, every species at MSY. When they are in a mixed so perhaps he wants to reflect that in his remarks. fishery, it is necessary to place some at the lower end of the MSY range and some at the upper end. There George Eustice: If the notes that I have before me will be challenges, as we have heard with choke have an error— species. Secondly, Norway, for example, uses MSY as one of The Chair: It may help the Minister and the Opposition its guides, but not its only guide—it uses other scientific if I say that, as far as I can read, there are no deletions, metrics as well. There will be times when it will make only additions in amendment 59. sense for us to reach an accommodation with countries such as Norway about the shared management of a shared stock, in order to ensure we have sustainable George Eustice: In which case, I withdraw the comments fishing. If we do not allow ourselves any flexibility to that I made in the context of amendment 59. I am broach such a discussion with Norway and reach such afraid that the speaking notes that I have been given an agreement, the only outcome is that everybody walks have an error in them. away from the table without an agreement and unilaterally On an effort-based regime, the wider point is that we sets their own fishing opportunities, which is the worst made a clear commitment in the White Paper to of all worlds for our marine environment. explore the idea of using an effort-based regime,particularly This is a complex area, but it is right to have that for the inshore fleet. Sometimes, when small amounts statutory commitment in clause 1—a statutory requirement of quota are attached to vessels—for instance, little to have a plan that demonstrates how we will reach that more than 20 kilos of cod a month—it is very difficult commitment, while recognising that we will always needs and administratively burdensome to operate such a some flexibility, due to the complexity of the marine scheme. environment. We were clear that we would pilot an effort-based regime, because we recognise that there are also risks in moving to one. Generally speaking, such regimes work Mr Carmichael: To deal with the question of days at well for low-impact mixed fisheries where it is harder to sea first, as I said, these are probing amendments. The run a quota scheme. Quota schemes work best in the Minister’s comments are helpful and it is useful to have pelagic sector, where a single species can be accurately them on the record, so, as I indicated earlier, I do not targeted. intend to push the amendment to a Division. We have not made reference to an effort-based regime However, I want to tease out the Minister’s thinking in the Bill because we do not need to. The Bill gives us about amendment 25 a bit more. His objection to all the powers we need to run such a pilot before amendment 25 is twofold. First, he says these things considering rolling it out. Our White Paper was also can be put into the fisheries statement, which is clear that, for the time being, we will use existing fixed absolutely correct. Secondly,he says that this commitment quota allocations as the basis for fishing opportunities. will have to be met by the time the legislation comes It is already implicit in our commitment to that effect into effect. I see no problem with that. For us to say that we are not going to make a rash move to an that by the time we implement this we should have effort-based regime, but it could have a role for some of got to this point is not a criticism of the amendment at those inshore under-10 metre vessels. That is why we all. have said that we will consider a pilot. The Minister’s point about the fisheries statement is interesting. He is right: that is the good and sensible Owen Smith: I may have missed my chance, as the place for maximum sustainable yield to be enshrined, Minister sat down rather briskly, but I was merely but there is no guarantee that it will be. As we know, the trying to ascertain something. I fully accept that the fisheries statement will be subject to a negotiation between Government are clearly trying, in the language in the four Administrations. There might be any number of initial clause in respect to objectives, to state that they reasons why maximum sustainable yield might fall from want to set catch limits in line with MSY, but is there that particular safety net. If, for any reason, it were not anything in the Bill that would prevent Ministers in to form part of the fisheries statement, there is nothing future from diverging from that and setting catch limits else in the Bill that would enshrine maximum sustainable above MSY? As far as I can see, there is nothing that yield as the guiding principle. For that reason, I am not would stop Ministers from doing that, if they chose. persuaded by the Minister’s assurances and will press That is the reason for wanting a rather tougher duty on amendment 25 to a division. Ministers to ensure they adhere to those limits. Question put, That the amendment be made. 259 Public Bill Committee HOUSE OF COMMONS Fisheries Bill 260

The Committee divided: Ayes 6, Noes 9. In relation to amendment 28, the Minister and the Division No. 7] Committee will doubtless be aware that there are a number of species that are, to use the jargon, data AYES deficient: that is to say, we do not have the useful data that we would require in order to set them as quota Carmichael, rh Mr Alistair Pollard, Luke Debbonaire, Thangam Smith, Owen species. The procedures outlined in the amendment are Hill, Mike Sweeney, Mr Paul guidelines that are to be applied to ensure that a lack of sufficient data is not used as an excuse, or a reason, for NOES fishing those species irresponsibly.The amendment really is self-explanatory. Aldous, Peter Lefroy, Jeremy Likewise, amendment 29 sets a target of 2020 for Duguid, David Morris, James Eustice, George Stewart, Iain fishing mortality to be set at a sustainable level for Grant, Bill Tracey, Craig stocks that are not subject to catch limits, such as shellfish. It would bring to the overall framework of fisheries management a coherence that is currently Question accordingly negatived. lacking.

Mr Carmichael: I beg to move amendment 28, in Luke Pollard: The principles contained in amendments 28 clause 18, page 10, line 7, at end insert— and 29 are good ones, as they deal with how to make “( ) When determining fishing opportunities under this sure that we are fishing sustainably. section, if the current biomass of the stock or the maximum Amendment 62, which we are also considering, talks sustainable yield are not able to be estimated reliably using the about the need for baseline stock assessments by 2030. best available scientific advice, the Secretary of State must— The reason I tabled that amendment is to try to get the (a) not use the uncertainty in that evidence as a reason for Minister to set out his position on making sure that we failing to determine fishing opportunities for the are addressing data deficiency. A key reason why our stock, and fisheries cannot be classed as sustainable—as we have (b) determine the maximum quantity of sea fish that may spoken about in previous sittings of this Committee—is be caught by British fishing boats which functions as that there is a deficiency of the data that guarantees a suitable scientific proxy to maximum sustainable yield, and is consistent with the scientific evidence those fish stocks are sustainable. Making a baseline and precautionary objectives.” stock assessment, especially of some of the non-quota The purpose of this amendment is to ensure that a suitable proxy is species that are under severe pressure, is an important used to determine fishing opportunities for data-deficient stocks. step towards achieving fully sustainable fisheries. The Minister will know, for instance, about the The Chair: With this it will be convenient to discuss importance of cuttlefish to the south-west’smixed fisheries the following: and to fishing fleets in the west country. The lack of a decent level of data regarding cuttlefish is one of the Amendment 29, in clause 18, page 10, line 7, at end concerns about the future sustainability of that industry, insert— especially as stock levels are going up and down. This “( ) For those stocks for which fishing opportunities are not year in particular, fishers have reported an alarming rise determined, fisheries policy authorities must— in smaller cuttlefish coming through where, in the past, (a) ensure that exploitation does not exceed the level they expected larger ones. The purpose of amendment associated with maximum sustainable yield, or 62 and, I believe, of the amendments tabled by the right (b) if the current biomass of the stock or the maximum hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland—the sentiment sustainable yield are not able to be estimated reliably of which we can support—is to get better data, to make using the best available scientific advice, ensure that sure that no fishing levels are being set above the exploitation does not exceed a suitable scientific scientific data level. proxy to maximum sustainable yield, and is consistent with the scientific evidence and precautionary objectives.” George Eustice: I am grateful for this opportunity to The purpose of this amendment is to set a target of 2020 for fishing explain the approach that we currently take to data-limited mortality to be set at sustainable levels for those stocks that are not stocks, how we have refined that approach in recent subject to catch limits, such as shellfish. years, and what we might do in future. Amendment 62, in clause 18, page 10, line 11, at end The International Council for the Exploration of the insert— Sea has six categories of stock, according to the level of “(3A) The Secretary of State must ensure that a baseline stock data and the analysis that are available. Categories 1 assessment has been made for all non-quota species by 2030 and and 2 cover those stocks for which there is judged to be he must report on progress on an annual basis.” sufficient data for us to do a full forecast or a full stock This amendment would require the Secretary of State to gather a assessment. Those are the stocks for which we use the baseline stock assessment for those stocks that are not subject to catch maximum sustainable yield approach. Categories 3 and limits. 4 cover the majority of our so-called data-limited stocks— those for which we have some reliable stock indicators Mr Carmichael: Amendments 28 and 29 can, I think, but cannot do a full stock assessment. Category 5 be dealt with in fairly short order. Again, they try to put covers those stocks for which we have little or no a bit more environmental rigour into the Bill—the sort scientific data available other than the landings data. of thing that we saw in the White Paper, but which does Category 6 covers those species for which there are not seem to have survived the translation from policy negligible landings—typically those that are a bycatch into legislation. only. 261 Public Bill Committee 13 DECEMBER 2018 Fisheries Bill 262

For category 3 and category 4 stocks, where we have Mr Carmichael: Every day is a school day. Who knew some reliable stock indicators, the UK has been in the that we could age a fish by measuring its eardrums? vanguard in the last few years in developing a methodology I am grateful to the Minister for a very detailed based on stock trends and biomass trends. My argument answer. These amendments are a bit more than probing has always been that we should make the best assessment amendments; they are about serious issues, which require that we can with the knowledge that we have, rather full consideration. Again, this is another area where we than use too many other arbitrary proxies. Stock trends see the general deficiency of the approach that the have therefore become the new methodology that we Government have taken to the Bill. I would be more have tended to adopt for most of our data-limited impressed with the Minister’s views on getting more stocks, where we have reliable stock indicators. data in relation to data-poor species if he had taken a For category 5 and category 6 stocks, for which we different attitude towards the amendments that we have really have only landings data, we do not really have any tabled to document all fish that are caught. other option than to adopt quite arbitrary approaches Notwithstanding that, and to allow the Committee to how we manage them. Typically, they tend to fall into to make some progress, I will not press this matter to two categories. One is called “use it or lose it”—if a Division today, with the caveat that we will probably stock is not caught in sufficient quantities in the previous wish to return to it on Report. I beg to ask leave to year, the quota is simply reduced to the level at which it withdraw the amendment. was caught, and the landings are used as a proxy for the Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. health of the stock. The other is the so-called precautionary principle, which is an automatic 20% cut, year on year, 2.45 pm in the absence of data. That is also used on some of those very data-poor stocks. Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con): I beg to move Obviously, we want to improve the quality of the amendment 23, in clause 18, page 10, line 36, leave out data, and we want to move more species to a full stock “negative” and insert “affirmative”. assessment so that we can do MSY. For instance, in the It is good to see you back in the Chair, Mr Hanson. last two years we have moved megrim in area VII to a I will speak relatively briefly about this amendment. full stock assessment—previously it was data-limited. It is a tweak, but I sense that it is quite an important We want to make further progress on that. Dr Carl tweak. It is on an issue that was brought to my attention O’Brien explained some of the difficulties in his evidence. by Fishing for Leave and I know that the Opposition Some species are quite difficult to age, because the will also support it. methodology where their eardrums are measured to Clause 18 gives the Secretary of State the authority work out their age is hard to use. With some species, to determine fishing opportunities. It proposes that the there are technical challenges to getting to a full stock regulations for determining the number of days that a assessment. Nevertheless, we should continue to work boat can fish are to be established by negative resolution; to improve that, and to get more of those data-limited we talked about that this morning. Given the importance stocks into categories 1 and 2. of this issue—views on it are held passionately, both by Finally, in his evidence, Dr Carl O’Brien said: those who favour a days-at-sea regime and those who “I think you would be surprised how much evidence has been oppose it—there is a strong case that the regulations gathered for non-quota species. Seafish had a project called should be established by affirmative resolution, so that Project Inshore, which I think is now in its second phase, looking any decisions can be taken in a transparent way, and do mainly at shellfish species.”––[Official Report, Fisheries Public not just go through on the nod and under the radar, so Bill Committee, 6 December 2018; c. 112, Q216.] to speak. There is a lot of work going on to assess the health of My concern is that I sense we could be storing up a scallop stocks and crabs, for instance. Quite a lot of problem for later in the day. I would welcome a bit of data has been collected through Project Inshore. Obviously clarification from the Minister as to how he reached this there is more to do, but a lot has been done, and work decision and whether he might review it. continues to be done in that space.

Luke Pollard: I am grateful for those remarks. The Luke Pollard: I rise to speak, briefly, in support of the purpose of amendment 62 was also to try to put a date hon. Gentleman’s amendment. When we are talking on when we will have better evidence. The fact that we about allocating fishing opportunities, it is important have better science than people are aware of is useful, that Parliament is given the opportunity to scrutinise but does the Minister have any idea when we will have them, especially at the start of a new fisheries period for firm dates when data-deficient species will reach those our country, to ensure that the allocations carry the points? confidence of the fishing industry that they are being allocated in a robust way. George Eustice: I do not have that data now, but I would be willing to bring the Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science’s current projections George Eustice: This is a similar discussion to the one to the House on Report. The hon. Gentleman will we had earlier on the use of the negative resolution understand that, although I have been in this job a procedure rather than the affirmative resolution procedure. number of years and understand quite a lot about the As I said earlier, the Delegated Powers and Regulatory science, I am not a fisheries scientist. It is an incredibly Reform Committee considered the Bill and said that of technical, complex area, and I rely on advisers such as its 15 delegated powers that require a parliamentary Carl to assist on it. I will happily give the most detailed procedure, only four are solely governed by the negative update that we can on Report about the progress on procedure, and justifiably so. I will explain to my hon. moving some of the data-limited category 3 and 4 Friend the Member for Waveney why I think the negative stocks to full stock assessments. procedure is justified in this particular instance. 263 Public Bill Committee HOUSE OF COMMONS Fisheries Bill 264

[George Eustice] Clause 19

Clause 18(1) replaces powers that are similar to those DUTIES RELATING TO A DETERMINATION OF FISHING set out in section 4(6) of the Sea Fish (Conservation) OPPORTUNITIES Act 1967, and those are also made under the negative procedure. We followed the approach that has been taken not only while we have been in the European Brendan O’Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP): I beg to Union, but even before we were in the European move amendment 2, in clause 19, page 10, line 38, at Union, to have the negative procedure in relation to this end insert— measure. “(A1) A determination under section 18 may not be made or withdrawn without the consent of the Scottish Ministers.” I point out to my hon. Friend that the actual power to determine the number of days at sea is a straightforward power that the Secretary of State has without even the The Chair: With this it will be convenient to discuss need for regulations, under clause 18(3), and the issue in amendment 3, in clause 19, page 10, line 41, leave out subsection (8) is that, paragraph (a). “The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision for determining, for the purposes of this Act, the number of days in a Brendan O’Hara: It is a pleasure to see you back in calendar year that a fishing boat is to be regarded as spending at the Chair, Mr Hanson. I rise to speak to amendments 2 sea”. and 3, which appear in my name and the names of my The purpose of the regulations is to establish what hon. Friends the Members for Kilmarnock and Loudoun happens if they do six hours. Is that half a day or part and for Edinburgh North and Leith (Deidre Brock). of a day? The regulations basically govern how we The amendments would ensure that a determination measure a day at sea and whether it should be, as in under clause 18 could not be made or withdrawn without some cases, kilowatt-hours at sea or a straightforward the consent of Scottish Ministers. days-at-sea measure. It is because we may use slightly In moving the amendments, we agree with the Scottish different effort measurements in different sectors that Government’sposition that clauses 18 and 19 run contrary we need to be able to define in the regulations what a to the devolution settlement and will seriously undermine day at sea is. The power to determine the days at sea is a the existing long-held powers of Scottish Ministers. We flexible power that the Secretary of State will have, and also share the Scottish Government’sconcern that clause 18 always has had, so that we can manage our fisheries deals with matters that fall squarely within the legislative effectively. competence of the Scottish Parliament in relation to complying with international obligations. Although we accept that the United Kingdom is still responsible in Peter Aldous: I am grateful to the Minister for that international law for compliance with its international explanation. He went into a fair bit of technical detail. obligations, it does not automatically follow that the As I mentioned, this is a big issue for our new regime UK Government alone and in isolation are responsible and there are organisations on both sides of the argument for implementing and complying with those obligations that feel passionately about the issue of days at sea. I in domestic law. will not press the amendment to a vote at this stage, but I will take counsel between now and Report. If I have Of course, I do not need to remind hon. Members any concerns, I will pass them on to the Minister then. about paragraph 7(2) of schedule 5 to the Scotland On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Act 1998, which makes it absolutely clear that the amendment. observance and implementation of international obligations are not reserved matters. According to the 1998 Act, if Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. powers are not reserved, they are devolved. Although I understand the UK Government’s view that the function being executed in clause 18 can be exercised UK-wide, it The Chair: We now come to clause 18 stand part. We remains the case that the purpose of the clause relates have had a reasonable discussion, but it is a central to matters that are wholly devolved. clause with lots of subsections. If Members wish to speak to it, I am happy to take contributions. As currently drafted, clause 19 requires the Secretary of State only to consult with the devolved Administrations Question proposed, That the clause stand part of before making a determination regarding fishing the Bill. opportunities in Scottish waters. For example, does the Minister intend to set quotas for Orkney crab, as clause 18 effectively gives him or the Secretary of State the power George Eustice: Briefly, clause 18 sets out in legislation to do? Does the Minister intend to tell Scottish lobster the power of the Secretary of State to determine the fishermen how many days they can go to sea, as clause 18 UK’s fishing opportunities. He can do that by setting gives him or the Secretary of State the power to do? out the maximum quantity of sea fish that may be Our amendment seeks to defend the devolution caught by British fishing boats and of days that British settlement and require the Secretary of State to obtain a fishing boats may spend at sea in a calendar year. The legislative consent motion from Scottish Ministers before effect of clause 18 is that the Secretary of State can seeking to legislate on any matters relating to the Scottish ensure that the UK complies with its obligations to zone and the regulation of Scottish fishing boats outside determine fishing opportunities, in line with international of the Scottish zone, again, as safeguarded in section agreements. C6 of schedule 5 to the Scotland Act 1998. The legislative Question put and agreed to. consent motion on the European Union (Withdrawal) Clause 18 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. Bill, which was submitted to the Scottish Parliament in 265 Public Bill Committee 13 DECEMBER 2018 Fisheries Bill 266

September 2017, sets out clearly that the Scottish Of course, if our amendment had been upheld with Government’s position is that policy responsibility and regard to the dispute resolution mechanism, that would expertise for matters within devolved competence lies have been a far more sustainable way to have resolved solely with the Scottish Government, which is accountable any disputes, rather than leading to an inevitable impasse to the Scottish Parliament. In these amendments, we and total logjam in the processing of a common fisheries are asking the UK Government to respect that position. area in the UK.

Mr Paul Sweeney (Glasgow North East) (Lab/Co-op): Alan Brown: The hon. Gentleman talks about logjams It is a pleasure, as ever, to serve under your chairmanship, and he mentioned the other Bills on which the Scottish Mr Hanson. Government are withholding a legislative consent motion. Is he saying that the Scottish Government should just Our view in the Labour party is that the Scottish acquiesce to Westminster and not defend the rights of Government, and therefore Scottish Ministers, do not the Scottish Government? currently have the competence to exercise powers to determine fisheries opportunities and, as such, the consent Mr Sweeney: That is a rather unfortunate characterisation of Scottish Ministers is not a requirement. As per the of the situation. We want to have a consensual approach devolution settlement, the opportunity to determine where arbitration is done in a sustainable way, not fisheries opportunities currently rests with the European political opportunism leading to an impasse in the Council. That will be transposed to UK Ministers when economic progress of this country. we leave the European Union. It is therefore the case that any provision requiring the UK Minister to seek Alan Brown: The hon. Gentleman’s own party voted the consent of Scottish Ministers in advance of the with the SNP and other parties against the European determination would in essence act as a potential veto Union (Withdrawal) Bill. The Scottish Government on the Secretary of State and the United Kingdom’s withholding legislative consent in some of these cases is ability to determine fisheries opportunities across the actually in line with cross-party support in Parliament. United Kingdom common fisheries area. We have seen throughout the process of Brexit and 3 pm the subsequent required legislation, such as the Trade Mr Sweeney: Of course, these matters will be considered Bill, the Agriculture Bill and now the Fisheries Bill, that on a case-by-case basis, but let us paint a scenario where the Scottish National party wish to extend the powers there is an impasse in the creation of a common fisheries afforded to Scottish Ministers and what decisions require policy. It would lead to huge economic difficulties as their consent. I disagree wholeheartedly with that approach, long as that situation—that impasse—persisted, and as it is not in line with the devolution settlements, that is not manageable or sustainable from an economic including the 1998 Act, which would have been voted point of view for Scottish fishermen, and it would not on previously. If SNP Members were to address this be acting in their interests. issue through the proper channels by trying to amend That is why we will also not support amendment 3, the devolution settlements prima facie, rather than by which seeks to remove Scottish Ministers from clause 19 trying to do it by the back door, that would be a more entirely. I fear it may have unintended consequences, acceptable approach. and I ask the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute to clarify the consequences. If we are to remove Scottish Alan Brown: As my hon. Friend the Member for Ministers from the equation and the clause, does he Argyll and Bute pointed out, the way the Scotland Act think that will mean that Scottish Ministers will have was originally set up, if matters are not listed as the power over this area, or simply that there would be reserved, they are devolved. Surely it follows that the no requirement to consult them at all? Both outcomes repatriation of powers from Europe to the UK should are incredibly undesirable and the Labour party is therefore follow that devolution settlement and go to the rightful unable to support that amendment. Parliament. Owen Smith: It is again a pleasure to serve under your Mr Sweeney: Of course, the complexity lies in the chairmanship, Mr Hanson. I did not intend to speak to interface with international obligations. The Scotland these amendments, but as a former shadow Secretary of Act 1998 makes it clear that, State for Wales and for Northern Ireland I have a few “If the Secretary of State has reasonable grounds to believe things to say. that any action proposed to be taken by a member of the Scottish I heard with interest the contribution from the hon. Government would be incompatible with anyinternational obligations, Member for Argyll and Bute—the beautiful Argyll and he may by order direct that the proposed action shall not be Bute. I would say straightforwardly that I think he is taken.” wrong to say that the clause is contrary to the devolution That shows a clear inconsistency with the Scotland Act. settlement—I think the reverse is true. The clause reflects That is corroborated by the Law Society of Scotland, the current devolution settlement. It is for the UK as which states: the sovereign body to determine our engagement with “We welcome the duties of the Secretary of State set out under and adherence to international treaties, and to therefore Clause 19 when making a determination under clause 18. The determine what the fishing opportunities for the whole provisions require the Secretary of State to consult with devolved of the UK would be, in accordance with the agreements administrations and the Marine Management Organisation before that are reached internationally on fishing. making or withdrawing a determination. The clause also requires the Secretary of State to publish a notice of a determination after My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North East it being made or withdrawn, lay a copy of the notice in Parliament, is completely right that the reality of the amendments is and send a copy to the devolved administrations. This will assist that they seek to change the devolution settlement by in terms of ensuring clarity and accountability.” the back door. Given the long-standing and perfectly 267 Public Bill Committee HOUSE OF COMMONS Fisheries Bill 268

[Owen Smith] and Loudoun said, the powers that come back from Europe should go to the relevant devolved authority. In admirable—although, in my view,entirely wrong-headed— this case, I believe it should be the Scottish Parliament. view of the SNP that it wishes to have an independent That is why a legislative consent motion should be Scotland, it is entirely understandable that it should try sought, rather than simply consultation. to use this mechanism to get closer to that objective, but it is the wrong mechanism and the wrong Bill in which Mr Sweeney: To clarify, section 58 of the Scotland to seek to fundamentally change the nature of our Act 1998 makes it quite clear that this is an international devolution settlement, and my colleagues on the Front obligation, and therefore the Secretary of State supersedes Bench are completely right to oppose it. any devolved decision that would undermine the UK’s I would also add that I cannot understand the value international obligations. This issue has a clear interface of striking Scottish Ministers out of clause 19. That with the UK’s international obligations. Therefore, it is would be a retrograde step because it would mean no entirely consistent with what the Scottish people consultation with Scottish Ministers, which would be a democratically voted for in the referendum that created fundamental mistake. the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government, and with the increased scope of the devolved powers George Eustice: The purpose of clause 19 is to establish under the Scotland Act 2016. Therefore, in our view it is a requirement for the Secretary of State to consult the entirely consistent with the Scottish people’s decisions. devolved Administrations. As other hon. Members have pointed out, this matter and the powers outlined in Brendan O’Hara: I fundamentally disagree. I do not clause 18 are incontrovertibly a reserved UK matter. want to take up much more of the Committee’s time The amendment would undermine the power of the with dancing on the head of the pin of the Scotland UK to determine UK resources for the purposes of Act, but let us be absolutely clear that the observance international law, and relates directly to a UK function. and implementation of international obligations is not Where the UK is subject to an international obligation reserved. It is not the sole responsibility of this Parliament to achieve a result by reference to a fixed quantity for and the United Kingdom to implement and comply the UK as a whole, the UK Government are responsible with such obligations. I therefore wish to press the for determining how that is achieved. In this case, the amendment to a vote. responsibility will fall on the UK, under the UN convention Question put, That the amendment be made. on the law of the sea, after we leave the EU. The Committee divided: Ayes 2, Noes 14. Compliance with or implementation of international obligations is devolved, but determining UK fishing Division No. 8] opportunities is not a function that is exercisable separately in or as regards Scotland or any other part of the UK. AYES It is not within devolved competence to determine, or to Brown, Alan O’Hara, Brendan block the UK Government from determining, fishing opportunities for the UK as a whole. NOES Clause 18(2) explicitly sets out: Aldous, Peter Lefroy, Jeremy “A determination under subsection (1) may be made only for Debbonaire, Thangam Morris, James the purpose of complying with an international obligation of the Duguid, David Pollard, Luke United Kingdom to determine the fishing opportunities of the Eustice, George Smith, Owen United Kingdom.” Grant, Bill Stewart, Iain It makes crystal clear the scope of clause 18. It cannot Hill, Mike Sweeney, Mr Paul relate to any devolved matter at all; it can relate only to Hollinrake, Kevin Tracey, Craig matters relating to the UK’scompliance with international obligations. It would therefore not be appropriate to Question accordingly negatived. seek consent from any devolved Administration when Clause 19 ordered to stand part of the Bill. determining fishing opportunities. In clause 19, we set out something that we think is reasonable: a requirement to consult. Clause 20

Brendan O’Hara: I thank the Minister for his reply. DISTRIBUTION OF FISHING OPPORTUNITIES As I said on day one, the Scottish Government and Scottish Government officials have worked very closely with him and his officials—for which we are very grateful— Peter Aldous: I beg to move amendment 84, in and this was one of the few major sticking points. I am clause 20, page 11, line 26, at end insert “and, disappointed that we do not appear to be able to take (ii) for ‘environmental, social and economic nature’ this further, but I reiterate that we believe that the substitute ‘environmental and social nature, amendment is entirely in line with the Scotland Act 1998, thereby recognising the fishery as public property and I will therefore press it to a vote. held on trust for the people’.” I am disappointed but not at all surprised by the I will start by giving some background information contribution of the hon. Member for Glasgow North to the amendment, which sets out provisions on the East. Members of the Scottish National party are here distribution of fishing opportunities. At present, the at least to defend the devolution settlement, which distribution is inequitable and the system needs to makes it perfectly clear that if a matter is not reserved, it improve. As we move to a UK fishing policy, we have a is devolved. As my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock golden opportunity to bring about those improvements. 269 Public Bill Committee 13 DECEMBER 2018 Fisheries Bill 270

Article 17 of the common fisheries policy is retained Minister has sought to mirror sections in other legislation, and amended in clause 20 by stating that the relevant which he mentioned earlier, it would do no harm—I national authorities—the Secretary of State and the think it would be of huge benefit—if it were clear in the MMO—shall Bill that fish is a public good. I would have preferred “use transparent and objective criteria including those of an that to be right up front, in the objectives in clause 1, environmental, social and economic nature” but the hon. Gentleman is attempting to get it in at when allocating fishing opportunities. That is a good clause 20. That would be a good amendment and it is start, but the existing wording states that the criteria to one that the Opposition will support. be used may include “historic catch levels”, as well as the impact of fishing on the environment and its 3.15 pm contribution to the local economy. The wording in the George Eustice: I appreciate that my hon. Friend the CFP, coupled with the lack of a requirement to prioritise Member for Waveney is a long-standing campaigner on environmental, social and local economic criteria, has these issues. He will know that the Government have meant that “historic catch levels” has often ended up taken a number of steps to give additional quota to the being the sole basis on which quota is allocated, giving inshore pool. My predecessor took unused FQA units rise to the present inequitable and unsustainable distribution. from producer organisations to give extra fishing The five largest quota holders control more than a opportunities to the inshore pool. For my part, I have third of UK fishing quota. Four of them belong to top-sliced the discard ban uplift to give additional fishing families on The Sunday Times rich list and the fifth is a opportunities to the pool, and we have made it clear subsidiary of a Dutch multinational. Some 49% of that we intend to do more. As I outlined earlier, our English quota is held by companies based overseas. As approach to the allocation of fishing opportunities will is well documented and figures very prominently in all be, for the time being, to retain some stability by allowing debates in this place, the small-scale fleet—the inshore existing opportunities to continue to follow the FQA vessels known as the under-10s—gets a raw deal. Those lines, but we have been clear that any new fishing vessels hold only 6% of quota, notwithstanding the fact opportunities that come as we depart from relative that for every fish caught, the small-scale fleet creates stability will be allocated on a different basis, as a first far more jobs than its larger scale counterparts. It lands step. 11% of fish by value in the UK, but employs 49% of all I have made it clear that we have at least three those in the industry. Similarly, more than 90% of the approaches under consideration. One is indeed to give small-scale fleet uses passive gears, which are far better additional fishing opportunities to the inshore pool so for the environment. that our inshore fleet, which, as my hon. Friend points Solutions to the problems can be delivered through out, often lacks fishing opportunities, will have more the amendments I have tabled to clause 20. Amendment fishing opportunities as we depart from relative stability. 84 would legally enshrine fish as a public resource, as Secondly, we have outlined our plans to create a national recognised in the Government’s White Paper. While the reserve of quota that can be used to help to make the UN convention on the law of the sea already touches on discard ban work as well in practice as in theory. Finally, the issue, we have a great chance to confirm in primary we outline in other places in the Bill the power to tender legislation the principle of the public resource. That in new fishing opportunities to producer organisations turn would establish the right foundation for distributing based on their environmental track record and on what quota based on the delivery of public goods and they give back to communities. environmental, social and local economic factors, as I believe that all those things, taken together, mean opposed to simply on the basis of historic catch levels. I that, in our White Paper and in the powers that we are look forward to learning from the Minister how we will taking in this Bill, we have the socioeconomic interests take up this golden opportunity. of coastal communities at heart. The Secretary of State plan outlined in clause 2 is explicit about ensuring that Luke Pollard: I am sure it will come as no surprise to we take account of and have a plan for those coastal members of the Committee that I agree with the hon. communities that depend on fishing for their livelihoods. Member for Waveney on the amendment. When we I have already given my hon. Friend the Member for considered amendments to clause 1, we spoke about Waveney an undertaking that we will seek to tweak fish being a public good. It is no surprise that fish is still some of the language in that provision, but when it a public good, and that should still be in the Bill. The comes to the question whether fish is a public asset, it is White Paper states: incontrovertibly the case that it is. We had a debate “We aim to manage these fisheries—and the wider marine earlier about our common law tradition, and in a test environment—as a shared resource, a public asset held in stewardship case brought by the producer organisations, Mr Justice for the benefit of all.” Cranston cited Magna Carta, no less, to say that fish That is the right objective, but it needs to be in the Bill. stocks were a public resource. Specifically, he said: The amendment gives the Minister a chance to do the “Consequently there can be no property right in fish until they right thing and include fish as a public asset for the are caught. That submission was a useful reminder but common benefit of all. The opportunity here is to be clear about ground.” the tone. In previous remarks, the Minister said that The fact that fish are a public asset is beyond question, putting fish as a public good or a public asset in the Bill and I do not believe that that needs to be placed in the was unnecessary because it was already a de facto Bill, but I am happy, as I said under an earlier group of position, just as Parliament is sovereign. The argument amendments, to consider the Secretary of State fisheries about whether Parliament is sovereign is an argument statement to see whether we can more specifically address because there are differing opinions on it, as we have the point that my hon. Friend has in mind regarding seen in particular in the past fortnight. Just as the fishing opportunities. 271 Public Bill Committee HOUSE OF COMMONS Fisheries Bill 272

Peter Aldous: I am grateful to the Minister for that is a key amendment for Opposition Members, and one explanation. On Tuesday, when we debated whether the that we believe would, if taken up, have a transformational public good should be one of the objectives of the Bill, I impact on the health of our oceans and on the local did take on board his point: as fish is a public good economies of coastal communities right across the UK. already, what is the point of having it as an objective? The logic of the amendment follows from the principle However, in this instance, we are trying to redistribute of fish being a public good, which, as we have just fishing quota more equitably so that local communities discussed, is not yet on the face of the Bill, but is can benefit, so I do not think that the earlier argument something we all agree on. To acquire the right to fish, relates this time around. and use that for the public good, there should be a set of The Minister has already said that he will look at the criteria that need to be followed to ensure that what we fishing statements in a bit more detail. I just ask that, are taking balances out. The current FQA system is before we get to Report, we ensure that the criteria for broken: half of English quota is held by companies the distribution of fishing opportunities are as good as based overseas, the small-scale fleet only holds 6% of they can be. There was every intention of doing that quota, and the five largest quota holders—four of which when the common fisheries policy was reformed in belong to families on The Sunday Times rich list—control 2012-13, and his predecessor, our right hon. Friend the more than a third of UK fishing quota. Small boats Member for Newbury (Richard Benyon), did an lot of provide the backbone of our fishing fleet, making up good work on it. However, fishing communities like the the majority of that fleet. They generally use low-impact ones I represent are not yet seeing the benefits, and this gear and provide more jobs per tonne, but their share of strikes me as an opportunity to reinforce that point, to quota is limited to around 4% to 6% of the total. make sure it actually happens. I look forward to seeing While there may be more fish for the UK after we what the Minister comes up with before Report, but I leave the common fisheries policy, not amending the beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. distribution of quota will exacerbate existing levels of Hon. Members: No. inequality between parts of the sector, and will fail to Question put, That the amendment be made. incentivise best practice. The fixed quota allocation system, which has been heavily criticised for being unfair The Committee divided: Ayes 8, Noes 8. from the outset, has not been updated since the 1990s. Division No. 9] Again, in the words of the hon. Member for Waveney: “It is commonly recognised that the inshore fleet—the under- AYES 10s—has had a raw deal as far as access to quota and fishing opportunities is concerned.”––[Official Report, Fisheries Public Brown, Alan O’Hara, Brendan Bill Committee, 4 December 2018; c. 39, Q69.] Carmichael, rh Mr Alistair Pollard, Luke Debbonaire, Thangam Smith, Owen As a result of the existing system, ownership of fishing Hill, Mike Sweeney, Mr Paul quota has become increasingly consolidated among larger-scale interests. NOES I will make the same remarks as I made in yesterday’s debate on the UK fishing industry: in the fisheries Duguid, David Lefroy, Jeremy sector, we do not talk about small and medium-sized Eustice, George Morris, James enterprises in the same way as we would in manufacturing, Grant, Bill Stewart, Iain Hollinrake, Kevin Tracey, Craig but if fishing were like manufacturing, the small boats would be the SMEs of our economy. There would be a much greater focus on the support system given to The Chair: In accordance with precedent, given that them, the investment into them and the jobs they create, there is equality of votes, I have to cast my vote with the and on making sure that they have the right and fair Noes to leave the Bill unamended. I will have to explain allocation of quota. that one to my constituents. In our evidence session, Griffin Carpenter from the Question accordingly negatived. New Economics Foundation said: “In essence, fisheries have been accidentally privatised. Every year, quota is allocated to the same holders, and there is a Luke Pollard: I beg to move amendment 106, in legitimate expectation that that continues in future. The Department clause 20, page 11, line 28, at end insert— for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and other organisations “(5A) After that paragraph insert— are too scared to break that hold on the quota and say, ‘This year “1A The relevant national authorities shall distribute fishing we will allocate quota differently.’ It has not been done; it is opportunities made available to them, and may redistribute any basically privatised now the claim is so strong. If there is ever a fishing opportunities that were made available to them prior to point to break that link, it is now.”––[Official Report, Fisheries the United Kingdom exiting the European Union. Any such Public Bill Committee, 6 December 2018; c. 102, Q196.] distribution and redistribution must be carried out according to I agree with him. social, environmental and local economic criteria following The small-scale fleet has generally been excluded national and regional consultation from relevant stakeholder advisory groups, including representative groups from across the from the FQA system and producer organisations, which fishing fleet, scientists, and environmental groups.”” has led to the decline of coastal communities and ports. This amendment would allow the redistribution of existing fishing Since 1938—a year I am sure we all remember well—the opportunities, would also set criteria for the distribution of future and number of fishermen on UK-registered vessels has redistribution of existing fishing opportunities and require consultation. decreased by 76%. Fifty years ago, the UK had 50,000 Amendment 106 relates to the redistribution of fishing fishers; now we have almost 12,000—a huge decline. opportunities. A key aim of the Bill is ultimately to The small boat sector is shrinking every year. Between create a fairer system, and Members will forgive me if I 2007 and last year, the number of fishermen on take a moment to read out why it is so important. This UK-registered vessels decreased by 9% from 12,871 to 273 Public Bill Committee 13 DECEMBER 2018 Fisheries Bill 274 only 11,692. Since 2007, the number of fishermen on 3.30 pm English and Scottish-administered vessels decreased by Across the north Atlantic, the small fleet employs 10%. It has fallen by 22% in Wales, and in 2017, 42% of five times as many people per $1 million of fish landed fishermen on vessels administered in Wales were listed than the large-scale fleet. In the UK, the under-10-metre as part time. Under the combination of an unfair small-scale sector represents more than 70% of English system and Tory austerity, which mainly hits coastal fishing boats and 65% of direct employment in fishing. communities, or has had a disproportionate effect on The small-scale fleet creates 10 times as many jobs per them, small-scale fishing activity in coastal communities tonne caught as the larger fleet. We therefore believe the length and breadth of the UK is a shadow of its that there is an opportunity to allocate more fairly the former self. quota that may be drawn down from our EU friends, as There is now an opportunity to reinvigorate our the Minister set out. fishing industry through better and fairer distribution Let us be clear, however: at the moment, given the of quota. Fishing quota provides an opportunity to differences between the Bill, the withdrawal agreement, commercially fish a resource that belongs to everyone. the promises made in that agreement and the discussions Fishing should be seen as a privilege, not a right, but it that will take place as part of our future economic and has effectively been privatised, as I mentioned earlier. political partnership with the European Union, there is The Bill is our opportunity to change that. We do not heavy scepticism in the industry. It sees a risk of further want to rob big boats of quota and give it to small betrayal and that we will not be able to draw down from boats; we want to use the Bill to create a new criterion our EU friends the quota that we had hoped for. In such for allocating quota based on social, environmental and circumstances, it is even more important that we ensure economic factors. that the quota that we already have is allocated according to transparent social and economic criteria for the Alan Brown: I acknowledge the opportunity that the benefit of those communities. hon. Gentleman is talking about. We heard evidence about possible opportunities for some future reallocation. Mr Carmichael: Does the hon. Gentleman have a How would his amendment work in principle in terms mechanism for ensuring that that redistributed quota of the devolution settlement? Would it allow UK Ministers does not become a tradeable commodity in turn? to redistribute Scottish quotas, or would it be an England- only matter? Luke Pollard: That is at the heart of the current problem. The quota has been traded; indeed, a future Luke Pollard: I am grateful for that intervention, Opposition amendment will deal with the problem that because it goes to the core of the amendment, which the right hon. Gentleman identifies of slipper skippers basically sets a different criterion for allocation. At the who trade their quotas as a commodity, using them not moment, quota is predominantly allocated on the FQA to catch fish but as financial instruments to derive system. Weare suggesting that there should be redistribution income from by renting them out to others. We need to based on social, economic and environmental criteria, ensure that the economic criteria for redistributing the done on a species-by-species, zone-by-zone basis to take fishing quota take into account the importance of the into account the varieties in our different fishing industries quota holder’s using the quota to catch fish rather than around the United Kingdom. as a financial product. Deriving income from a quota It is important that, when we set the tone for how without using it damages the viability of the sector by fishing quotas should be allocated in future, the economic increasing costs without increasing productivity. link that I spoke about earlier and the environmental David Duguid (Banff and Buchan) (Con): I sympathise consequences that the hon. Gentleman spoke about with the requirement to allow new entrants to get into earlier are taken into account. That should be done by the industry by giving them access to the quota, and I all fisheries Administrations, not just England or Scotland. was thankful to hear the hon. Gentleman say that his It should be done by the entirety of the United Kingdom. amendment does not propose to rob Peter to pay Paul—or Quotas should be allocated on transparent social and rob Peterhead to pay Plymouth, for that matter. However, ecological criteria to benefit fishing communities—for when we discussed safety, it was mentioned that fishermen example, by offering a greater share for complying with whose vessels are slightly more than 10 metres have relevant regulations, taking part in data gathering, fully shortened them, arguably creating a safety issue, and monitoring and recording catches, and complying with sold off their quota. How would he address the fact that discard rules. The UK has always had the ability to many of those who are now small fishermen have reallocate quota to reward particular types of fishing benefited financially from selling off their quota in the practice or to support broader social or economic goals, past? but has chosen not to seize the full opportunities that come from that. Luke Pollard: The hon. Gentleman’s point relates to Article 17 of the reformed common fisheries policy the question whether fish is a public good. At the heart urged European member states to consider environmental, of it, as the Minister says, fish is a public good. The economic and social criteria when allocating opportunities. problem with our current fixed quota allocation system It was heralded as potentially revolutionary by senior is that in many cases possessing a quota has become EU officials when it was launched as part of the overall more profitable than using it for fishing. That seems to reformed CFP, but its lack of mandate meant that it be an inherent flaw in the FQA system, so I am grateful failed to be implemented effectively in any EU member that the Minister has set out his long-term intention to state. Greenpeace recently lost a case in which it made look at FQA and see where it gets to. The important that argument in the High Court, but the Bill is a thing is to provide determination and steel to the endeavours chance to fix that, using fairer criteria for the benefit of of the Minister—in his role not only as an English the small fleet in particular. Fisheries Minister,but as a UK-wide Fisheries Minister— 275 Public Bill Committee HOUSE OF COMMONS Fisheries Bill 276

[Luke Pollard] Mr Carmichael: As previously, I am in broad sympathy with the approach taken by the hon. Gentleman, but I and of the devolved Administrations. Setting out the am concerned that he suggests a big and fairly open-ended basis for any redistribution is really important, which is commitment here. As I implied during the evidence why our amendment states: session, I fear that we would probably be at risk of “The relevant national authorities shall distribute fishing producing a dripping roast for lawyers for some time to opportunities made available to them, and may redistribute any come. fishing opportunities that were made available to them prior to Although it was probably never intended to be the the United Kingdom exiting the European Union. Any such case, fish quota has become a tradeable commodity distribution and redistribution must be carried out according to over the years. Several fishing businesses have made and social, environmental and local economic criteria”. taken on fairly substantial financial commitments secured There is a concern among many fishers, with and without against the fact that they own quota and can derive an a quota, that the current system does not work in the income from it. The words that start to come to my best way. mind are “legitimate expectation”, and once that is the case we know that we will be heading towards the Our amendment would not mean big boats losing courts to determine the extent of that legitimate expectation, out—far from it. In all likelihood, only a small proportion who has it and the basis on which it can be traded. of opportunities would be redistributed to the smaller fleet in the first instance, making a big difference to Not everybody who owns fish quota is a robber their livelihoods and the environment. We need to bear baron. Shetland Islands Council owns a substantial in mind that only 4% to 6% of quotas are currently held amount of fishing quota that it leases to local boats. by smaller boats. Representatives of larger scale fleets That is for the public good, and I would be careful told me that they comply with the principle of fairer about interfering with the council’s property rights in distribution based on economic, social and environmental that way. I would be very open to the idea of returning criteria. If they are living up to those aspirations they quota—quota that we do not currently have access should have nothing to fear from this policy, because it to—being dealt with differently; it could be distributed is about incentivising best practice. in different ways. Some of the lessons of the past could be learned so that it did not become a tradeable commodity. This is an opportunity to create a race to the top, The property rights could be defined in a very different rather than a race to the bottom, which is why the way, which, with hindsight, we might wish we had done Opposition are bringing this measure forward. This 30 or 40 years ago but did not. new approach is entirely consistent with the White As I say, the amendment would make a fairly big and Paper’s recognition of fisheries as a public resource. It is open-ended commitment. I do not know whether it also backed by Greenpeace, the entire Greener UK would necessarily be the best use of the money required. coalition, the New Under Ten Fishermen’s Association, Before I went down this road, I would want to know a the Scottish Creel Fishermen’s Federation and Charles bit more than the broad principles. I would want to Clover’s Blue Marine Foundation, while 6,500 people in know how the practicalities would work. As the hon. coastal communities called for this change to the distribution Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport said, of quota in the White Paper consultation. fish quota have essentially been privatised. He is effectively Many of the Government’sown Back Benchers support talking about nationalisation, and that comes with a the principle of reallocating quota. The hon. Member price tag attached. for Hendon (Dr Offord) said on Second Reading: Luke Pollard: It is not about nationalisation; it is “Given that this fleet is not only more profitable to local about the redistribution of fish quota, and the amendment economies, but employs more local fishermen and uses more sustainable fishing practices, will the Bill allow larger quotas to is about being able to do so without a time limit. As the independent vessels under 10 metres?”—[Official Report, 21 November Minister said, distributing FQA takes time, which is 2018; Vol. 649, c. 905.] why there is deliberately no time limit in the amendment. However, there is a commitment to consult with those If we are to make real that hon. Gentleman’s aspiration, groups, including the fishing fleets, to ensure it is we must provide the ability and incentives to redistribute redistributed fairly. that quota, as amendment 106 seeks to do. Denmark’s fish fund—the quota reserved for new entrants or those Mr Carmichael: That is helpful, but I am not entirely with good environmental performance—shows that that sure about the hon. Gentleman’s distinction between is already happening. It is time we caught up. redistribution and nationalisation. At the end of the My hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Sue day, we risk spending public money. I am not averse to Hayman), in her excellent speech on Second Reading, that—it may ultimately be necessary, and I can certainly mentioned the hope placed in the Bill by people living see the end that is to be met by it—but at the moment it in coastal communities across the UK. Without quota is a little ill-defined. I would favour an approach that allocation there is no hope of taking back control. This dealt differently with the returning quota, rather than attempt to redistribute quota is an attempt to make real mucking about with the existing quota. I am not averse the promises given by the leave campaign, and indeed to the idea, but we should not be blind to the risks that by Government Ministers since—that taking back control come with it. will have a beneficial effect on those small coastal communities.If we do not provide the ability to redistribute George Eustice: The purpose of clause 20 is that quota in support of those coastal communities, predominantly to bring across article 17 from the European what are we doing here? That is why the amendment is Union and make it operable. Article 17 will come across so important. I will be grateful if the Minister could as retained EU law. All we are seeking to do is to make back it in his remarks. changes that make it operable and preserve its intent. 277 Public Bill Committee 13 DECEMBER 2018 Fisheries Bill 278

Article 17 states: judgment, Justice Cranston suggested that there is a “When allocating the fishing opportunities available to type of property right attached to the FQA units, and them…Member States shall use transparent and objective criteria that they would therefore probably need to be given in including those of an environmental, social and economic nature. the region of seven years’ notice of the intention to The criteria to be used may include, inter alia, the impact of move away from those FQA units. Indeed, the Faroes, fishing on the environment, the history of compliance,the contribution which have recently embarked on that process, gave to the local economy and historic catch levels. Within the fishing their holders of FQA units, or their equivalent to FQA opportunities allocated to them, Member States shall endeavour to provide incentives to fishing vessels deploying selective fishing units, a 10-year notice period before they reallocated gear or using fishing techniques with reduced environmental them. impact”. It is something that very much can be done in the I believe that article 17, as currently worded, captures future, but that chronology of perfecting a new, fairer many of the intentions behind this amendment and the and better way of allocating fishing opportunities, with last one moved by my hon. Friend the Member for new opportunities coming in as we depart from relative Waveney. stability, combined with a signal being given at the There is a technical issue with the way amendment appropriate time that we intend to look at FQA units 106 is drafted. It does not make specific reference to themselves—along with the commitment that I have fixed quota allocations—FQA units—as a basis; it simply already given to look at referencing fishing opportunities talks about trying to redistribute historical fishing in the Secretary of State’s fisheries statements—is the opportunities. It is therefore trying to reallocate right way to address this challenge. opportunities that have already been spent—the quota that were attached to the FQA units. I would argue that, from a technical point of view, it would make more Luke Pollard: I am grateful to the Minister for setting sense to have made reference to FQA units. out why this is what he wants to do, but that it is too Greenpeace has had a longstanding campaign on difficult to do it in the way that we have set out. That is article 17, since at least 2015. In 2016, it brought a how I have interpreted his response. The important judicial review against the Government, arguing that we thing is that we are talking about setting a fairer framework had not complied with article 17, and it was roundly for smaller boats in particular. I know the Minister defeated in that case. Mrs Justice Andrews stated during seeks to label this as a Greenpeace initiative, and indeed the case that Greenpeace is one of its supporters, but so is the “there is a large volume of detailed rules, licence conditions, organisation that represents small boats. schemes and policies, including the Concordat and the Quota The amendment makes real the promises of the leave … Management Regulations which are published and openly available campaign. If we do not find a way of giving powers to and which have been notified to the Commission. There is ample evidence that they include environmental criteria as required by the national fishing authorities to reallocate the existing Article 17, and that far from paying them lip service, they are quotas, what happens if no quotas come back at the end afforded proper weight in the allocation process.” of the negotiations with the EU? What happens if The judgment of the European Court of Auditors was people, admittedly above the Minister’s pay scale, come that the case brought by Greenpeace was wrong. back with no additional quotas whatsoever? That is a very real risk at the moment. What happens if there are Greenpeace has had a longstanding campaign on no unicorns in the nets of our fishers? That is the article 17, but in my view it has been barking up the problem that we face. wrong tree. The truth is that if we want to address the issue of fishing opportunities for the inshore sector, we The Minister cannot have it both ways. He says that should not do it by clinging to some article in residual he wants to reallocate FQAs. So do we, and there is an EU law. The correct way to do it is to include, as I have opportunity to do that. It is about asking, “How will we committed to my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney make a fairer system if no additional quotas come that I will, a reference to fishing opportunities in the back?” If they do, I agree with the Minister that we need Secretary of State’s fishing statement, where it directly to reallocate them in a fairer way. Economic, social and links to the socioeconomic impacts on coastal environmental criteria are the ones that we agree on—there communities—not to attempt to play with the wording is commonality on both sides of the Committee Room of article 17. in that respect. If no additional quotas come back, because there is a 3.45 pm real risk that our fishers will be betrayed in the upcoming The shadow Minister says that we should break the negotiations, no matter how many reassurances Ministers link with FQAs. I have been clear that we are breaking give them, what then? The amendment gives Ministers the link. As we diverge from relative stability, any new the power to signal, and suggests that Ministers signal, fishing opportunities will not follow FQA units. The that they wish to reallocate quotas based on those correct chronology as we approach that issue is to say, sound economic criteria. “Let’s allocate new opportunities on an entirely new That relates to the point that the right hon. Member basis, not following the residual contours of FQA units, for Orkney and Shetland made regarding the notice but for the purposes of stability in the short to medium period that someone is given. The Minister has answered term, let’snot meddle with those existing FQA allocations.” that question by setting out from the legal judgment However, as I said earlier, it is absolutely open to a that it is a period of seven years. A proper period should Government, at any point that they want to do so, to be determined, via consultation with the industry and signal their intention to reallocate those FQA units. other stakeholders, for when those allocations should The case law on that comes from the important test have their value reset. It should be set in the public’s case brought by the UK producer organisations. In the best interest, as fishing is a public good. 279 Public Bill Committee HOUSE OF COMMONS Fisheries Bill 280

[Luke Pollard] that of identifying and agreeing the criteria through consultation with experts and the public, plus any It is important to set that notice period. That is why administrative approach locally, would be in the hands the amendment is so important: it encourages Ministers of the devolved Administrations and not the Westminster to signal their intention that they will reset FQAs and Government. I would welcome it if the Minister could redistribute them in a fairer way. It might well be that clarify the issues and set out what he believes to be the there are whole areas and whole species that we would right procedure to deal with them. not want to redistribute. It might also be that there are zones and particular fisheries that we would want to Mr Sweeney: I am happy to support this excellent prioritise, as the Minister has said in terms of the small amendment, because it seeks to ensure that in the amount of redistribution that his Department has done. distribution of fishing opportunities, Scottish Ministers, I am not asking the Minister to learn the words of along with Welsh Ministers and the Northern Ireland “The Red Flag”, including the difficult second verse, Department—we hope,soon, a Northern Ireland Executive nor to embrace socialism in a way that would offend his will be restored—would be recognised as “relevant national sensibilities; I am suggesting that he embrace an amendment authorities”, alongside the Secretary of State and the that would make real the promises of the leave campaign Marine Management Organisation. The Labour party to our small fleet and our coastal communities. Give the believes such an approach to be fair. It would ensure powers to the national authorities to redistribute, if parity between Scottish Ministers and the Secretary of they wish to—in effect, that is what this says. There is State. no compulsion on them to do so, but the strong indication In good faith, I urge the Minister to accept the is that that is the right thing to do. amendment. A failure to do so would show that the UK That is why the amendment is so important. Without Government are not at all committed to ensuring that it, there is no focus either on redistributing existing Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are equal partners quota or on correctly redistributing the quota that is in our Union of nations. The amendment is therefore coming over—if we get any. I caution that we should critical. not presume that we will get any, because I fear that Alan Brown: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the decisions made by pay grades far above those of all in Scottish Parliament initially was happy not to be included this room—including yours, Mr Hanson, unbelievably— in the clause, because the Scottish Government have might be for quotas to stay as they are. No matter what worked with the UK Government on that basis? amendments the Government make, I fear that those decisions are out of our hands. That is why the amendment Mr Sweeney: It seems that we are in violent agreement is so important and why we will put it to a vote. on some things—we cannot do wrong for doing right, Question put, That the amendment be made. can we? Interestingly, I think that adding the amendment The Committee divided: Ayes 5, Noes 7. to the Bill would define the process and make it clear. That is why we also supported a clear dispute resolution Division No. 10] mechanism being in the Bill. That, too, would have AYES provided a clear, unequivocal process that would have allowed us to resolve these problems with the different Carmichael, rh Mr Alistair Smith, Owen partners in the UK. I have to say that I was rather Debbonaire, Thangam Pollard, Luke Sweeney, Mr Paul disappointed that the SNP abstained on that amendment, but we are where we are. I think this is a worthwhile measure and it will be helpful for us to proceed on this NOES basis. I urge the Minister, in good faith, to support it to Duguid, David Lefroy, Jeremy bind our Union together even more. Eustice, George Stewart, Iain Grant, Bill George Eustice: The simple reason that we have not Hollinrake, Kevin Tracey, Craig included the Scottish Ministers, Welsh Ministers and Northern Ireland Department in this particular clause Question accordingly negatived. is that they did not want us to do so on their behalf. As I have said many times, the Bill sits within the devolved settlement and it is for each Administration to Peter Aldous: I beg to move amendment 85, in make the changes that are needed to retained EU law to clause 20, page 11, line 32, at end insert— make it operable. The devolved Administrations are “(c) the Scottish Ministers, currently drafting many statutory instruments and other (d) the Welsh Ministers, and legislative vehicles to make retained EU law operable. (e) the Northern Ireland department.” In this Bill, we have chosen to make the changes that are necessary to make article 17 operable. None of the The amendment would require that all “national other devolved Administrations wanted us to include authorities” in fisheries that must abide by the new that in the Bill on their behalf. That may be because approach to fishing opportunity distribution includes they intend to address these issues through legislation devolved Administration Ministers as well as the Secretary of their own. of State and the Marine Management Organisation. I should point out that this would not interfere with Owen Smith: This is not something I can prove, but I devolved powers over fisheries. It would, as the CFP understand from talking to colleagues in the Welsh does already, simply set the legal mandate for future Government that in an early draft of this clause, the distribution criteria according to environmental, social Welsh Administration and others were included in and local economic factors. The actual process beyond subsection (6). I want to know why they were taken out. 281 Public Bill Committee 13 DECEMBER 2018 Fisheries Bill 282

George Eustice: My understanding is that the Labour Luke Pollard: The argument in favour of the amendment Administration in Wales asked for it to be taken out. has been powerfully put by the hon. Member for Waveney, They no longer wished to be included in this clause. but the sentiment is worth echoing. It is really important Clearly, hon. Members can ask a legitimate question: that, as we set up a new fisheries management system does that mean that no other part of the UK intends to after Brexit, fishers have confidence in that new system. abide by article 17 and are content to leave it inoperable; As we have heard, there is a great deal of suspicion do they intend to address it in a different way; or have about how the current quotas are allocated, and the they not yet considered it, but might like us to add them ability to have that available for public scrutiny is important. to the list in subsection (6) at a later stage of the Bill’s We support the amendment. passage? I will undertake further conversations with the devolved Administrations between now and Report to George Eustice: The methodology for distributing understand their intentions. existing quota between the four Administrations is set out in the publicly available UK quota management I hope hon. Members will understand that we respect rules. In addition, each Administration have their own the devolution settlement. Without the permission of rules for allocating their existing quota, which, again, the devolved Administrations, it is not proper for us to are already publicly available. The rules are also subject accept this amendment, since it is a devolved matter, but to consultation. it is certainly an issue where we could have further conversations with the devolved Administrations ahead In our White Paper, we set out very clearly that we of Report. would have a revised methodology for the allocations, and it is of course our intention that they will be published. I understand the point made by my hon. Peter Aldous: On the basis that the Minister will seek Friend the Member for Waveney, but I encourage him clarification from the devolved Administrations on how to read what we already publish before taking the they wish to handle this issue, I beg to ask leave to decision to press the amendment to a Division. We withdraw the amendment. already have publicly available rules, which are published, Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. and we have committed to publish new ones. We publish a great deal of information. Peter Aldous: I beg to move amendment 86, in As I highlighted earlier, in the judgment in the clause 20, page 11, line 32, at end insert— Greenpeace court case, Mrs Justice Andrews said that “3 The documents and evidence forming the basis for “there is a large volume of detailed rules, licence conditions, allocation decisions must be made available to the public within schemes and policies...which are published and openly available 20 days of the decision being made.” and which have been notified to the Commission.” The amendment would ensure that documents and A vast amount of information is already published. I evidence forming the basis of any allocation decisions would like to share some of those documents with my must be made available to the public, so as to enhance hon. Friend for his weekend reading, and then he could accountability and transparency in the quota-setting consider whether he still has a hunger for more statutory process. Lack of such transparency has been a key issue requirements of this nature. with the current FQA situation under the CFP. Indeed, Peter Aldous: I am grateful to the Minister for that many urban myths have developed. Myths that certain reply, and I take on board the nature in which he makes football clubs and car manufacturers own fish quota that offer. Over the years, so much suspicion has grown have been doing the rounds for many years. The European up over this issue. I feel that there is a need for transparency Court of Auditors judged the FQA system as not being so that the industry and the public can have confidence fit for purpose. It has led to the trading and renting out in the system. I do think it appropriate to have what is a of quota at punitive and prohibitive prices, solely for fairly minor amendment in the Bill, and therefore I will profit and often at great cost to the inshore fleet. press it to a vote. Once environmental, social and economic criteria are Question put, That the amendment be made. established in law as the priority for determining future quota distribution, the environmental and social criteria The Committee divided: Ayes 8, Noes 7. should be identified, but transparently, by engaging Division No. 11] public consultation at both national and regional levels. AYES At a minimum, they should align with the definition of environmental in the Environmental Information Aldous, Peter O’Hara, Brendan Brown, Alan Pollard, Luke Regulations 2004. Social criteria could include aiding Carmichael, rh Mr Alistair Smith, Owen new entrants to the industry; local landing based Debbonaire, Thangam Sweeney, Mr Paul opportunities, both in ports and in processing factories; increased landings in ports; and enhancing local cultural NOES identity and tourism. Duguid, David Lefroy, Jeremy Eustice, George 4 pm Stewart, Iain Grant, Bill One of the complaints about the current system of Hollinrake, Kevin Tracey, Craig quota distribution has been about its opaque nature and the lack of transparency.This fairly simple amendment provides the opportunity to address that issue and Question accordingly agreed to. overcome one of the handicaps of the system that we Amendment 86 agreed to. have had to deal with to date. In that context, I am of a mind to press the amendment to a vote, although I Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand welcome the Minister’s comments. part of the Bill. 283 Public Bill Committee HOUSE OF COMMONS Fisheries Bill 284

The Chair: With this it will be convenient to discuss The new clause provides the following. First, it provides new clause 19—Criteria for the allocation of fishing a UK function in subsection (1) and an English function opportunities— in subsections (2) and (3). Secondly, unlike other public “(1) When allocating the fishing opportunities available to the assets, the nature of the public ownership of UK fisheries United Kingdom between the relevant national authorities, the is not settled in legislation—we heard the reasons for Secretary of State shall use transparent and objective criteria that on Tuesday—although the courts confirmed in including those of an environmental, social and economic the 2013 case that has been mentioned at length that nature, recognising the United Kingdom fishery as public fish are a public asset. It is important that the nature of property held on trust for the people of the United Kingdom. that public ownership is settled, as that would enable The criteria used shall include, inter alia, the impact of fishing on the environment and the social and economic contribution to the UK administrators to manage and dispose of the asset local economy, and shall comply with the fisheries objectives set properly, with appropriate powers and duties being out in section 1 and any JFS or SSFS. granted. It is proposed that ownership should take the (2) When allocating the fishing opportunities available to form of a public trust vested in the Secretary of State in them, English fisheries administrations shall use transparent and a similar way to other Crown assets managed by such objective criteria including those of an environmental, social and organisations as the Crown Estate Commissioners. economic nature, recognising the English fishery as public Thirdly, the distribution of fishing opportunities would property held on trust for the people of England. The criteria include social criteria as a means of tying in the joint used shall include, inter alia, the impact of fishing on the fisheries statements and the Secretary of State’s fisheries environment and the social and economic contribution to the local economy, and shall comply with the fisheries objectives set statement. It would also include a means of rewarding out in section 1 and any JFS or SSFS. better fishing practices. Finally, since the documentation recording the reasons for disposing of fishing opportunities (3) When allocating the fishing opportunities available to them pursuant to sub-section (2), English fisheries administrations to the commercial sector would involve the distribution shall provide incentives to fishing vessels deploying selective of a public asset, there would need to be unequivocal fishing gear and/or using fishing techniques with reduced transparency. environmental impact, such as reduced energy consumption or We examined in last week’s evidence sessions whether habitat damage. quota reallocation would leave the Government and the (4) The documents and evidence forming the basis for fisheries administrations exposed to legal threats. It is allocation decisions under sub-sections (2) and (3) must be made important to consider that question with regard to the available to the public within 20 days of the decision being made, new clause. In so doing, I highlight two issues. First, and such documents and evidence shall not be treated as exempt information under sections 21 to 44 of the Freedom of Greenpeace sought independent legal advice, which Information Act 2000. concluded that these changes would be compatible with domestic and international law and that (5) In this section ‘relevant national authorities’ means— “a challenge to a new system of quota allocation enshrined in an (a) the Secretary of State, Act of Parliament would be unlikely to succeed.” (b) the Scottish Ministers, That conclusion is based on two key points. First, the (c) the Welsh Ministers, and mandate for reallocation would be placed in a new Act (d) the Northern Ireland department. of Parliament that overrides any common law and, (6) In this Act— after Brexit, will be supreme. Secondly, in the 2013 case, Mr Justice Cranston stated that in his view FQA units ‘English fisheries administrations’ means— could be deemed as possessions falling within article 1 (a) The Secretary of State; of the first protocol of the European convention on (b) The Marine Management Organisation; and human rights—the right to property. He also said that (c) any of the Inshore Fisheries and Conservation FQA units had no value if no quota had been allocated Authorities. or they were unused, and in any case the interference ‘English fishery’ means such sovereign fishing rights as with the possession of FQA units was in accordance exist in the English inshore region and the English with law and was justified. offshore region.” Taken together, these two points mean that in the scenario of mandating quota reallocation in UK law, as we are now considering in our discussion of this Bill, Peter Aldous: The new clause sets out criteria for the this is compatible— allocation of fishing opportunities. I would like to place on the record my thanks to Dr Tom Appleby, who appeared before us in last week’s evidence session, for Alan Brown: Will the hon. Gentleman explain how his work on drafting these proposed provisions. his new clause would work in terms of the devolved Administrations and how they manage their quotas? As I have mentioned, clause 20 is a reworking of article 17 of the common fisheries policy, which seeks to incentivise better environmental practice. As currently Peter Aldous: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that drafted, the clause permits the Secretary of State to point. The intention is not to interfere with that distribute fishing opportunities to the devolved Assemblies management through the current devolution settlement, and English fishermen. There is a concern that it is too so I do not think that he has a particular worry on this complex. The new clause splits those obligations into issue. two parts, as the roles are subtly different—one is a UK determination and the other is a determination with Alan Brown: I accept that the hon. Gentleman says respect to England only. There is also a concern that the that he is not seeking to change the devolved settlement; way the clause was incorporated by references makes it it is just that the new clause lists the Scottish Ministers. difficult to read. The new clause seeks to improve on That is why I am trying to understand how it would that. work practically in the future. 285 Public Bill Committee 13 DECEMBER 2018 Fisheries Bill 286

Peter Aldous: As I have said, the devolved Since we are talking predominantly about the allocation Administrations would have a full role in this process; of opportunities to fish quota species, it is not appropriate that should not present a problem. to bring the inshore fisheries and conservation authorities This new approach would result in European companies within the scope of this part of the Bill. I hope, therefore, that currently control UK quotas having to respond that my hon. Friend will see fit to not press his new and show why they should keep this quota on the UK clause. terms, and they would have to address the principles of sustainability and local employment. That approach is 4.15 pm compatible with article 17 of the common fisheries Luke Pollard: We support the principles behind the policy and it would not be challenged by any other amendment; it is extremely similar to amendment 106 members of the EU. I look forward to hearing the and I refer back to the same arguments that I made on Minister’s response. that.

George Eustice: Clause 20 simply revokes CFP rules The Chair: We will return to new clause 19 at a later on the distribution of fishing opportunities to EU date. member states, according to relative stability. Therefore, Question put and agreed to. these rules will not be part of retained EU law. Clause 20, as amended, accordingly ordered to stand Subsection (1) revokes article 16 of the common part of the Bill. fisheries regulation. That article provides for the Council to distribute fishing opportunities to member states, Clause 21 which obviously will no longer apply when we leave the European Union. Subsection (2), which we have debated DUTIES TO ENSURE FISHING OPPORTUNITIES NOT in some detail, simply makes article 17 of the CFP EXCEEDED operable in the UK. I turn now to new clause 19, tabled by my hon. Luke Pollard: I beg to move amendment 107, in Friend the Member for Waveney. We have rehearsed clause 21, page 12, line 5, at end insert— many of the points in our consideration of earlier “(4) The relevant national authorities must publish, on at least measures and amendments, so I will not dwell on them an annual basis, a comparison of the number of each species of in detail. I have already pointed out that I do not believe sea fish caught and— that we need a statement that fisheries resources are a (a) the catch quota for that species for that year, and national asset or public property, because that is self- (b) the FMSY reference point for that species for that evidently the case and our common law has always held year. as much. Indeed, recent case law has held that very (5) The publication under subsection (4) must, where the clearly and we have a common law tradition on some of number of sea fish caught in a calendar year has exceeded the these matters. figures in paragraphs (4)(a) or (4)(b), note the impact on fish stocks that exceeding that figure is thought to have had.” I have already given my hon. Friend an undertaking This amendment would require the publication of the quantity by that we will look at the wording of the Secretary of species of fish caught to enable the impact on the sustainability fish State’s fisheries statements, so that we can consider the stocks to be assessed. catch opportunities and fishing opportunities in the This amendment continues the theme of transparency context of protecting coastal communities and those and freedom of information. Under clause 21, the who depend on fishing for their living. fishery authorities have a duty to ensure that fishing A number of the other elements of new clause 19 are opportunities are not exceeded in any year, whether by already accommodated by article 17 of the CFP, which catch quota or by effort quota. To be able to hold the we have now made operable. The commitment to have authorities to account for the exercise of that duty, we transparent objectives already exists and is made operable will need to have access to full, accurate and robust by clause 20, so I do not believe that this proposed information. The amendment will also ensure that we change is necessary. have the necessary data to improve our scientific I will also point out that the new clause would have understanding of the seas, what is in them and how to the effect of bringing into scope the devolved ensure that we protect and conserve them for future Administrations when the way in which they allocate generations. quota to their own fleet is a devolved matter. It is for the The amendment, which is supported by various UK to allocate limits for the whole of the UK and to organisations, seeks to ensure publication at least annually make determinations of allocations to each Administration, of the number of species caught compared with the but it is for those devolved Administrations to decide quota for that species and the reference points for how they then go on to allocate things to their own fishing mortality at maximum sustainable yield. We fleet. want the publication to include an examination of the Finally, new clause 19(6) seeks to bring the inshore impact on stock for that species. I am sure the Minister fisheries and conservation authorities within the scope already has plans for the publication of some of that of this provision. I say to my hon. Friend that that is data, but will he set out what information will be inappropriate, since we are talking here about the allocation published and what the timescale will be? of fishing opportunities and quotas. The IFCAs have a role in inshore fisheries conservation doing things such George Eustice: It is important to note that, as drafted, as setting closures and sometimes putting limits on the this amendment cuts across the devolved settlement, type of gear that might be used to catch lobsters, for because it would oblige not only the UK Government instance. What the IFCAs certainly do not do is play but the devolved Administrations to publish the data any role in the allocation of quota. mentioned. Before accepting an amendment of this 287 Public Bill Committee HOUSE OF COMMONS Fisheries Bill 288

[George Eustice] (4) Any licence of fishing opportunities granted pursuant to subsection (3) shall not create or transfer any proprietary right, sort, we would need to seek the views and the consent of title or interest in such fishing opportunities or in any fish before the devolved Administrations. It would also require the such fish are harvested by the holder. collection of data for each species of fish caught. With (5) It shall be the general duty of the Secretary of State in any the landing obligation, that would include many species disposal of English fishery opportunities (whether by the Secretary of State or by the Marine Management Organisation for which we did not have catch quotas or FMSY or an Inshore Fisheries and Conservation Authority duly reference points, so comparisons could not always be authorised by the Secretary of State) pursuant to this section to made. achieve appropriate consideration for any such disposal having I invite the hon. Gentleman to take some weekend regard to the criteria for disposal set out in section 20 and any reading away with him. When it comes to statistics, we JFS and SFSS. have incredibly detailed documents, including one from (6) The Secretary of State shall by regulations make provision the MMO, which I have in my hands, and another from for the disposal of English fishing opportunities, which may Marine Scotland. I urge the shadow Minister to read include— them on his train back to Plymouth this weekend and to (a) for rights to be sold by competitive tender or auction, then consider on Report whether he has an appetite for (b) for a competitive tender process or auction to be run even more statistics than those that are already available by such person as the regulations may designate, in published form. (c) such fishing opportunities to be rented and an appropriate royalty charged, Luke Pollard: I wondered what the Minister’s little (d) conferring functions (including functions involving the table was for, and now I understand it is to keep his exercise of a discretion) on a person running a competitive tender process or auction, or on any reports on. I am grateful for the additional reading other person, material. Transparency in this new fisheries management (e) for terminating a competitive tender process or auction system is important. I am happy to take the Minister’s where there has been, or appears to the person word that he already publishes a fair amount of data. running the competitive tender process or auction to We will look at this matter again and, if that turns out have been, a failure to comply with the regulations, not to be sufficient, he should expect us to make a (f) about how and when— return trip to this amendment on Report. On that basis, (i) payments for rights are to be made, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. (ii) payments received are to be dealt with, Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. (g) about appeals relating to eligibility for, or the outcome Clause 21 ordered to stand part of the Bill. of, a tender process or auction, (h) requiring a person running a tender process or auction Clause 22 to issue guidance. SALE OF ENGLISH FISHING OPPORTUNITIES FOR A CALENDAR (7) Fishing opportunities disposed of in accordance with this YEAR section are exercisable in relation to such fishing boats, by such persons, in such manner, and subject to such conditions, as may be specified in the terms of that disposal. In particular, the George Eustice: I beg to move amendment 5, in Secretary of State, or the Marine Management Organisation or clause 22, page 12, line 28, leave out paragraph (h) and an Inshore Fisheries and Conservation Authority duly insert— authorised by the Secretary of State, shall have the power to, “() requiring or permitting rights to be sold, or not to be inter alia— sold, to a person who meets such conditions (whether (a) specify persons, or descriptions of persons, who are relating to the price offered for the rights or eligible or ineligible to buy opportunities; otherwise) as may be specified in or in accordance (b) require any person to pay a deposit, or do any other with the regulations;”. thing, in order to be eligible to buy opportunities; This amendment would enable regulations to require or permit issues other than price to be taken into account when deciding who to sell (c) set limits on the opportunities that may be bought by a fishing opportunities to. person or a description of persons; (d) set a minimum price for fishing opportunities; The Chair: With this it will be convenient to discuss (e) prohibit or permit the transfer of fishing opportunities the following: by the purchaser or the exercise of such fishing opportunities by someone other than the purchaser Government amendment 6. of those opportunities; Clause stand part. (f) extinguish or limit opportunities sold where any New clause 20—English Fishing Opportunities— amount due in respect of them is not paid, or any “(1) The English fishery shall vest in the Secretary of State and condition attached to the exercise of the rights is not be held subject to the duties set out in this section. met; (2) The powers exercisable by the Secretary of State in the (g) provide for the forfeit of fishing opportunities that are management of the English fishery shall not include the power to held by a person following a disposal under this borrow money against the English fishery. section but not used, and for payment of (3) The Secretary of State, or the Marine Management compensation to that person. Organisation or an Inshore Fisheries and Conservation (8) Regulations under this section are subject to the affirmative Authority duly authorised by the Secretary of State, shall have resolution procedure. the power to dispose of English fishing opportunities— (9) In this Act— (a) for consideration; ‘English catch quota’ means so much of a catch quota as (b) on the terms of a licence for a period of no more than would (if not disposed of in accordance with this 1 calendar year; section) be available for distribution by the Secretary (c) in compliance with the criteria set out in section 20. of State, or the Marine Management Organisation or 289 Public Bill Committee 13 DECEMBER 2018 Fisheries Bill 290

any Inshore Fisheries and Conservation Authority we can have the type of competitive tender process that on behalf of the Secretary of State, for use by I have talked about at many stages during the passage of English fishing boats; the Bill. ‘English effort quota’ means so much of an effort quota as would (if not disposed of in accordance with this Peter Aldous: I shall speak to new clause 20. The section) be available for distribution by the Secretary of State, or the Marine Management Organisation or distribution of fishing quota to the commercial sector is any Inshore Fisheries and Conservation Authority one of the Government’s most important functions. As on behalf of the Secretary of State, for use by we have heard, it will, to a very large extent, determine English fishing boats; the success or failure of the fishing industry post-Brexit. ‘English fishing opportunities’ means the right to use It is generally acknowledged that the current system is English catch quota and English effort quota. dysfunctional as it encourages the over-concentration ‘Fixed Quota Allocation Units’ shall have the meaning of ownership and has permitted the foreign dominance ascribed to them in the UK Quota Management of the UK fishing business—something that other EU Rules 2015 in so far as they apply to England.” member states have managed to avoid. There is a concern that the current regulations do not George Eustice: In the fisheries White Paper, we made go far enough, as there is the matter of creating a it clear that, on leaving the EU, any additional quota we disposal mechanism of English fishing rights as well as may receive during the negotiations will be distributed a regulatory mechanism. The new clause seeks to address using different methods from the current FQA allocation that concern. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s system. That will be done using a range of different response. mechanisms. We are amending the Bill to make it clear that quota will not necessarily be put up for sale to the George Eustice: My hon. Friend has tabled a very highest bidder. We may allocate it on a range of other long new clause. In essence, I think it seeks to do two criteria, such as sustainability, the needs of coastal things. First, it talks again about a national asset. It is communities and the reliance of certain sectors on an aspect of quota allocation that we have discussed specific stocks. many times before, so I will not repeat what I have said Amendment 6 simply includes a duty to consult about our common law tradition and the fact that it stakeholders prior to making any regulations governing goes without saying that it is a national asset. the distribution of additional quota. That demonstrates Secondly, underlying the new clause is a concern that transparency and supports our commitment to work the new method of allocation that we might adopt with stakeholders to shape a new future for the UK might create new proprietorial rights for those who are industry. successful in the tender. I can confirm that that is exactly what we are seeking to avoid through the Bill. Luke Pollard: I am grateful that the Minister has That is why we explicitly talk about the use of catch clarified that additional quota will not be auctioned to quota rights for a calendar year. It would be possible to the highest bidder. Does he feel that that is sufficient to have a tender that had an entitlement to a particular ensure that small fishers and new entrants to the sector right that would go to several years, but it would only will not be discriminated against? There is a real fear in ever be for the duration of that tender and would the fishing sector that the auction function in the Bill terminate at the end of that process. There will be no will mean that if either this Government or a future accumulated property rights in the tender or auction Government want to earn some quick cash from the process that we set out in clause 22. I therefore hope sector, they will seek to auction any additional fishing that my hon. Friend will accept that, although a great opportunities to the highest bidder, further cementing deal of work has gone into drafting his very detailed the huge monopoly that the large fishing organisations and comprehensive new clause, it is in fact unnecessary. already have in the sector. Amendment 5 agreed to. Amendment made: 6, in clause 22, page 13, line 7, at George Eustice: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman end insert— for his brevity in making an important point. I have “( ) Before making regulations under this section the Secretary been very clear that one of the ways of allocating of State must consult such persons as the Secretary of State new fishing opportunities that we are considering is a thinks appropriate.”.—(George Eustice.) competitive tender process, but the tender is not just This amendment would require the Secretary of State to consult before about the price to be paid. We want to judge producer making regulations about the sale of fishing opportunities. organisations on their compliance track record and Clause 22, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. what they are doing to improve selectivity and reduce Ordered, That further consideration be now their environmental impact; to encourage new entrants adjourned.—(Iain Stewart.) into the industry; and to put economic benefits back into coastal communities. I believe that is the right 4.26 pm approach. I can confirm that, as amended, the clause Adjourned till Monday 17 December at half-past Four will make that explicit and broaden it out to ensure that o’clock. 291 Public Bill Committee HOUSE OF COMMONS Fisheries Bill 292

Written evidence to be reported to the House FISH12 Cornwall Council PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES HOUSE OF COMMONS OFFICIAL REPORT GENERAL COMMITTEES

Public Bill Committee

FISHERIES BILL

Ninth Sitting

Monday 17 December 2018

(Afternoon)

CONTENTS

CLAUSES 23 TO 28 agreed to. SCHEDULE 4 agreed to. CLAUSE 29 agreed to. SCHEDULE 5 agreed to. CLAUSES 30 to 37 agreed to. SCHEDULE 6 agreed to. Adjourned till this day at Seven o’clock.

PBC (Bill 278) 2017 - 2019 No proofs can be supplied. Corrections that Members suggest for the final version of the report should be clearly marked in a copy of the report—not telephoned—and must be received in the Editor’s Room, House of Commons,

not later than

Friday 21 December 2018

© Parliamentary Copyright House of Commons 2018 This publication may be reproduced under the terms of the Open Parliament licence, which is published at www.parliament.uk/site-information/copyright/. 293 Public Bill Committee 17 DECEMBER 2018 Fisheries Bill 294

The Committee consisted of the following Members:

Chairs: SIR DAVID CRAUSBY,JAMES GRAY, †DAVID HANSON,MR LAURENCE ROBERTSON

† Aldous, Peter (Waveney) (Con) † O’Hara, Brendan (Argyll and Bute) (SNP) † Brown, Alan (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP) Pennycook, Matthew (Greenwich and Woolwich) † Carmichael, Mr Alistair (Orkney and Shetland) (Lab) (LD) † Pollard, Luke (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) † Debbonaire, Thangam (Bristol West) (Lab) (Lab/Co-op) † Duguid, David (Banff and Buchan) (Con) † Smith, Owen (Pontypridd) (Lab) † Eustice, George (Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries † Stewart, Iain (Milton Keynes South) (Con) and Food) † Sweeney, Mr Paul (Glasgow North East) (Lab/Co- † Grant, Bill (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (Con) op) † Hill, Mike (Hartlepool) (Lab) Tracey, Craig (North Warwickshire) (Con) † Hollinrake, Kevin (Thirsk and Malton) (Con) † Jones, Mr Marcus (Nuneaton) (Con) Gail Poulton, Lis Gerhold, Committee Clerks † Lefroy, Jeremy (Stafford) (Con) † Morris, James (Halesowen and Rowley Regis) (Con) † attended the Committee 295 Public Bill Committee HOUSE OF COMMONS Fisheries Bill 296

business. Sittings are planned until Wednesday, but if Public Bill Committee Members restrain themselves, completing business tonight could be achieved. Monday 17 December 2018 Mr Carmichael: Indeed, Mr Hanson. I will simply say this: not only from the point of view of those of us who (Afternoon) represent fishing communities, but from the point of view of Parliament as a whole, it will do no harm for [DAVID HANSON in the Chair] MPs to be seen at least in this regard as behaving like mature grown-ups. Fisheries Bill The Committee will be aware that clause 23 seeks to introduce a discard prevention charging scheme for 4.30 pm those who, for whatever reason, have taken over-quota fish. The amendments try to add a little more focus to The Chair: I welcome colleagues to a potentially full that. Amendment 103 allows for the money taken from Monday. these finds to be ring-fenced and a specific purpose for the money to be identified. The specific purpose that I have in mind relates to fisheries management, conservation, Clause 23 and perhaps maritime or marine environmental schemes— measures of that sort. Given the general nature of the DISCARD PREVENTION CHARGING SCHEMES Bill, and with a view to the durability of the legislation, we have not sought to tie the hands of any future Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD): Minister with regard to what that specific purpose I beg to move amendment 103, in clause 23, page 13, might ultimately be. It is a fairly novel approach to a line 28, at end insert— scheme of this sort, but it is not without precedent. “(c) where monies raised through a charging scheme are The precedent that springs most readily to mind is spent.” the aggregates levy,which allowed money to be ring-fenced To bring transparency over use of money raised through a charging for spending in communities situated next to aggregate scheme, and to allow for it to be argued for a revenue to be ringfenced to excavation quarries because they were in some way be spent on research and investment in the industry. affected by the industry. It would be a very good signal to send, and such a measure would bring about a bit of The Chair: With this it will be convenient to discuss confidence in the industry itself with regard to how the amendment 104, in clause 23, page 14, line 7, at end discard prevention charging scheme is administered. insert— Amendment 104 would make provision for an annual “(8) The Secretary of State must publish a report every year review to account for the money raised and how it has that reviews the charging scheme. This review will include— been spent. That would follow on naturally from (a) the amount of revenue raised through the scheme, and amendment 103—if the Committee were minded to (b) the use of revenue raised through the scheme.” incorporate such a measure. It is an important point, To require the Secretary of State to publish an annual review of the but not one that at this stage, subject to what I might charging scheme. hear from the Minster, I intend to push to a vote.

Mr Carmichael: It is a pleasure to be back here under Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/ your chairmanship, Mr Hanson. If you will indulge me, Co-op): It is good to see everyone back here. I think we I will say a brief word about the conduct of the Committee’s all agree that discards should be prevented, and we all business, which has been exemplary so far. We have want more sustainable forms of fishing, but the discard managed to get through a lot of business. Nobody has ban that will kick in on 1 January worries fishers from taken too long, but we have managed a thorough Cornwall and Plymouth to Peterhead and Fraserburgh. exploration of the issues. You might be aware, Mr Hanson, They worry that their boats will be tied up because the that this week is significant for fishing communities, ban will prevent them from going to sea. coinciding as it does with the advent of the annual December Fisheries Council in Brussels. Many of us We need a system that prevents discards and means here represent fishing communities and we know the fish caught without a quota are not wasted, chucked importance of having the best possible representation overboard or discarded. Weheard in our evidence sessions at the highest possible level from our own Government. from Aaron Brown of Fishing for Leave, who feels there It is a fairly common view within our communities that are major problems with this part of the Bill. Helen the Minister should be there in attendance if possible. McLachlan, and Debbie Crockard of the Marine We therefore wish to finish the business of the Committee Conservation Society, referred to the uncertainty about tonight if possible. Obviously, the matter is of long-term the consequences—intended and, importantly,unintended importance, but, for the communities that we represent, —of the scheme. Even Dr O’Brien did not entirely what happens in Brussels in the next day or two will be convince us that he knew how the scheme would work. significant. The amendments tabled by the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland seem entirely sensible, but we The Chair: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman are not convinced that the Government have suddenly for his comments, but it is a matter for every member of found the right answer. It undermines this enabling Bill the Committee to determine when we complete our to set out the scheme in such detail without any scope 297 Public Bill Committee 17 DECEMBER 2018 Fisheries Bill 298 for piloting or consultation to see what works and to Finally, the shadow Minister mentioned that we had develop the detail of the scheme in collaboration with put the scheme in the Bill without having a pilot or any fishers and marine conservation organisations. detailed consultation. I reassure him that clause 23(1) is clear that this will be done through regulations. Before I therefore would be grateful if the Minister answered we lay those regulations, we absolutely will consult a few questions about this part of the Bill. Where did thoroughly with the industry to ensure that we get the the basis for the scheme come from? Are there any scheme design right. I also reassure him that it is absolutely precedents in other countries? What evidence did the my intention that we will pilot the scheme before rolling Department draw on when designing the scheme? What it out nationally. It is obviously quite an important industry views were sought, what opinions were given, policy and will be quite an important departure from and how were they taken into account? Why does the the scheme we have now, and we want to make sure that Department consider that it is not appropriate to conduct we have the design right. I hope that, having given that a pilot or trial to test the key elements of the scheme reassurance, the right hon. Member for Orkney and before it is enshrined in primary legislation? Under the Shetland will not feel the need to press the amendments scheme, what will happen to the fish that are landed? to a vote. How will the Department avoid requiring fishers to go to and from harbour to land fish, thereby increasing their carbon footprint? Mr Carmichael: I am not entirely sure that the Minister embraced the substance of the amendments—that the money raised by this scheme could be ring-fenced, and The Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (George that there should be some reporting mechanism or Eustice): It is, perhaps, pertinent that the right hon. accountability for it. I am not trying to be difficult. Member for Orkney and Shetland raised the December Perhaps the Minister would like to intervene on me? Council, since it will be dominated by the issue of choke species and making the discard ban work in practice. I George Eustice: I did indeed miss out a part of my can briefly reassure him that I joined our delegation by notes. I reassure the right hon. Gentleman that we are conference call at eight this morning and again at two, absolutely committed to transparency, and that existing and I plan to be on the first train out there tomorrow, Treasury rules require us to publish this information. when the substantive negotiations will take place. In the Under the Government Resources and Accounts Act 2000, meantime, my noble Friend Lord Gardiner is covering the Treasury has already directed the Department for proceedings. Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to prepare, for We looked at the idea of a discard prevention charging each financial year,consolidated resource accounts detailing scheme because we all know, as we approach the final the resources acquired, held or disposed of, and the year of the landing obligation, that there are challenges Department’s use of resources during the year. If the with making it work as far as choke species are concerned. intention behind the amendment is that the money The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Plymouth, should be ring-fenced for conservation purposes, that is Sutton and Devonport, asked whether there is precedent set out in clause 27(3)(c). for such a scheme. Iceland and New Zealand both have similar schemes, with a kind of overage charge. The Chair: This is an intervention, Minister. I was attracted to that idea because it is rather similar to what we did when we first introduced dairy quotas. Mr Carmichael: I am grateful to the Minister for that Initially, if a farmer went over his quota for milk helpful intervention. I and others strongly suspected production, he had to pour the milk down the drain—he that the Treasury would be the least fond of this proposal. could not sell it at all. The super levy was then developed, The Minister has confirmed those suspicions. However, which meant he could sell it but there would be no that is not an unreasonable explanation, and on that economic value to him for producing it. We seek to do basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. something similar here. We will establish a national Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. reserve of quota to underpin the discard prevention Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the charge. Rather than coming up with lots of complex Bill. rules, like we have now, to try to find exemptions or other de minimis ways of managing the discard ban, we want to ensure that there is no financial incentive for George Eustice: I think we covered the key issues of fishermen to target those fish. However, we do not want the clause when I set out the purpose and the thinking to prevent them from landing those fish should they run behind the charging scheme. into stocks they had sought to avoid. Question put and agreed to. Clause 23 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. The shadow Minister also asked about consultation. This idea was set out in some detail in our White Paper. Since the White Paper was published, my officials have Clause 24 travelled the country—they have visited fishing communities from Newlyn right up to the north of Scotland—to talk MEANING OF “CHARGEABLE PERSON” AND to the industry about the plans we have outlined. I think “UNAUTHORISED CATCH OF SEA FISH” it is fair to say that the industry recognises that there are many challenges with making the discard ban and the landing obligation work in practice as well as in theory. PeterAldous(Waveney)(Con):Ibegtomoveamendment94, That is why it is open to this approach, which has a in clause 24, page 14, line 17, after “Organisation” insert proven track record in some countries. “or an Inshore Fisheries and Conservation Authority”. 299 Public Bill Committee HOUSE OF COMMONS Fisheries Bill 300

The Chair: With this it will be convenient to discuss commercial revenues—through survey work, for example. the following: Their funding model is very different. They have no role Amendment 95, in clause 24, page 14, line 23, after in quota management and it is not appropriate to bring “Organisation” insert them within the scope of these clauses. “or an Inshore Fisheries and Conservation Authority”. Amendment 96, in clause 24, page 14, line 26, after 4.45 pm “Organisation” insert IFCAs are already able to charge for permits under “or an Inshore Fisheries and Conservation Authority”. their bylaw-making powers in the Marine and Coastal Amendment 99, in clause 29, page 17, line 37, after Access Act 2009. That means that where, for instance, “MMO” insert they issue a permit to allow people to catch cockles, they are able to charge to cover the cost of issuing that “or on the Inshore Fisheries and Conservation Authorities”. permit. There are other provisions in other pieces of Amendment 100, in clause 29, page 17, line 38, after legislation that give them some charging powers that are “MMO” insert appropriate, but it would not be appropriate to give “or on the Inshore Fisheries and Conservation Authorities.”. them a role in an area that is entirely managed by the Amendment 101, in clause 29, page 17, line 39, after MMO. “power of” insert “either”. Amendment 102, in clause 29, page 17, line 39, after Peter Aldous: I am grateful for the Minister’sclarification “MMO” insert of that issue, particularly that IFCAs do not have a role “or the Inshore Fisheries and Conservation Authorities”. in quota management and that they have alternative funding arrangements. On that basis, I beg to ask leave Peter Aldous: It is a pleasure to serve under your to withdraw the amendment. chairmanship, Mr Hanson. The amendments are more Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. of the probing variety and are not quite as intimidating and long as they might appear. They relate to clauses 24 Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the and 29, which concern the charging arrangements for Bill. the administration of the disposal of English fishing opportunities. George Eustice: The purpose of the clause is simply I seek to address three issues through this group of to provide the meaning of “chargeable person” and amendments. First, I would add to the marine functions “unauthorised catch at sea fish” in respect of the discard for which charges can be made. Secondly, I would prevention charging scheme. Subsection (1) provides expand the provisions to allow inshore fisheries and that the chargeable persons under a scheme must be conservation authorities, not only marine management holders of English sea fishing licences or producer organisations, to recoup costs. Thirdly, while the level of organisations that have at least one member that is an charges is not likely to be great, I think it would be English sea fishing licence holder. Producer organisations appropriate, wherever possible, to direct these funds to are included as chargeable persons as they frequently preserving English fisheries for future generations. manage quota on behalf of their members and distribute quota between the members. Subsection (2) gives the This particular group of amendments would allow meaning of unauthorised catch of sea fish; unauthorised IFCAs, not only the MMO, to recoup costs. I would catch means catch in excess of the amount authorised welcome clarification from the Minister on whether it is by the MMO for that vessel or producer. Subsection (3) appropriate to add IFCAs to the clause. If he does not provides flexibility so that a scheme may determine think that it is, I seek his assurance as to why. what catch is to be deemed as authorised by the MMO. Luke Pollard: I will be brief. The hon. Member for Question put and agreed to. Waveney raises some good points. I asked for further Clause 24 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. clarity on the role of IFCAs previously, because it seems to be an area that is missing from large parts of Clause 25 the Bill. I would be grateful if the Minister responds to that. CATCHES SUBJECT TO A CHARGE IGNORED FOR CERTAIN George Eustice: Toreassure my hon. Friend the Member REGULATORY PURPOSES for Waveney, we have not included IFCAs in the clause Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the in the way that his amendments suggest, in common Bill. with similar amendments that he has tabled, because IFCAs do not have any role in quota management. It is George Eustice: Briefly, the sole purpose of this clause not appropriate for them to be covered by this clause, is to ensure that fishermen are not further penalised for which is explicitly in relation to the discard prevention processing unauthorised catch if they have complied charge. with the discard prevention charging scheme. The clause IFCAs do not carry out the functions for which we provides that where a charge is payable under the scheme, want the MMO to charge. In essence, the funding the scheme may provide that the fishing activity that led mechanisms for IFCAs are also different from the MMO. to the charge may be ignored in determining whether IFCAs are funded by a levy charged to their sponsoring there has been a breach of a licence requirement. That local authorities. They receive around £8.7 million for means that, under the scheme, if a charge is paid as that. Local authorities have a legal duty to pay the required for an unauthorised catch, no further action levy. Recovered courts costs awarded from successful will be taken. prosecutions also appear as revenues.IFCAs are encouraged Question put and agreed to. to explore ways of supplementing their income by creating Clause 25 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. 301 Public Bill Committee 17 DECEMBER 2018 Fisheries Bill 302

Clause 26 discard scheme to ensure that there are no loopholes because of the transition between two national fisheries CHARGE COLLECTORS areas? Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill. George Eustice: The shadow Minister makes an George Eustice: The purpose of this clause is simply important point. As I have said all along, this Bill tries to enable the Secretary of State, when setting up a to sit within our somewhat complex devolution settlement. charging scheme, to determine the functions of a charge I will make two points. First, Scotland is facing exactly collector, together with certain details such as terms of the same challenges that we in England are facing, with appointment and termination of the charge collector. regard to making the discard ban work in practice as Subsection (1) states that the Secretary of State can well as in theory. From discussions with officials, I am appoint a charge collector to administer the scheme and aware that the Scottish Government are interested in to specify the terms and termination of their appointment looking at a similar scheme for fishermen in Scotland. and functions they will carry out. Subsection (2) details It may be that this is something we can work on the nature of the functions that may be conferred on the together across the UK. charge collector. Subsection (3) provides that the scheme Secondly, to answer the hon. Gentleman’s specific may allow for duties to be placed on a charge collector after point about how we would deal with catches, some of their appointment has been terminated. Subsection (4) which might have been caught in Scotland and some of allows a scheme to contain provision about appeals which might have been caught in England, we have against decisions of charge collectors. Subsection (5) quite a detailed system of catch reporting. They have to provides for the possibility that any expenditure incurred log catches. We have vessel monitoring systems so that by the charge collector when exercising their functions we know where vessels are catching fish. We have trained can be recovered. operators in our control room in Newcastle who monitor fishing patterns and can identify suspicious behaviour, Mr Carmichael: Can the Minister confirm that, although such as a fishing vessel fishing in one area and then these provisions exist, they are permissive and it would driving around to pretend it has fished in another, and remain possible for Government Departments to carry we have ways of reconciling fishermen’s landing records out those functions? with their catch records to ensure that we can manage this as an England-only scheme, should that be necessary. George Eustice: Yes, that is absolutely the case. Indeed, Question put and agreed to. it is likely to be the case that the Marine Management Clause 27 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. Organisation would perform those functions on behalf of the Government. The clause simply provides the opportunity for others to be involved, should that be required. Clause 28 Question put and agreed to. Clause 26 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE: POWERS OF SECRETARY OF STATE Clause 27 Luke Pollard: I beg to move amendment 108, in DISCARD PREVENTION CHARGING SCHEMES: clause 28, page 16, line 25, at end insert— SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISION “(f) the gathering of scientific data relating to fishing, Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the including but not limited to carrying out stock Bill. assessments, vessel monitoring and recording fishing catches.” George Eustice: Clause 27 is about supplementary This amendment would enable financial assistance to be provided for provisions. It includes provisions for a discard prevention scientific data collection. charging scheme to include provisions for unpaid charges to be recovered as a debt, for masters of fishing boats to be jointly liable with licence holders for charge payments, The Chair: With this it will be convenient to discuss and for how charge collectors must manage the receipt the following: of charges. It also allows the Secretary of State to Amendment 98, in clause 29, page 17, line 21, at end exercise discretion in the functioning of the scheme and insert— to delegate any of their functions under the scheme. “(e) commissioning scientific research to support— The clause provides necessary detail on the scheme to (i) fish stock management, food security and biodiversity, ensure its proper functioning. and (ii) the development of low impact fishing techniques. Luke Pollard: I am grateful to the Minister for setting (f) any other administrative function relating to fisheries that out. I have a question for him on this scheme, in management.” relation to equal access and shared access to waters. He Amendment 109, in clause 31, page 18, line 24, at end is setting out a scheme for English fisheries, but could insert— he set out what happens in the event of a fishing boat “(d) the gathering of scientific data to inform management leaving English waters and travelling through to Scottish of fish stocks.” waters, for instance, and there being discards en route at This amendment would add scientific data collection to the some location between? Is there a way of meshing this conservation purpose for which Clause 31 enables the Secretary of together perfectly with what happens with a Scottish State to make regulations. 303 Public Bill Committee HOUSE OF COMMONS Fisheries Bill 304

[The Chair] In a recent report, Sustain found that UK fisheries are not verifiably sustainable and are losing out on New clause 21—Proceeds of charges and fees— millions of pounds’-worth of business, because companies “(none) Any proceeds or charges received by the Secretary of look abroad for fish that meet their sustainable buying State, the Marine Management Organisation or any Inshore policies. Data deficiency particularly disadvantages small- Fisheries and Conservation Authority pursuant to sections 22, 23 scale fleets—80% of the stocks targeted by the large or 29(3) shall be used to preserve the English fishery for future industrial fleet have stock assessments, whereas only generations, which shall include— 12% of those targeted by small-scale English fleets have (a) the commissioning of scientific research to support adequate data to achieve sustainability certification. It effective stock management and biodiversity; is unfair on smaller boats if, even when they fish sustainably, (b) the commissioning of scientific or technical research they are unable to prove it. That is why amendment 108 into, and the development of, low impact fishing would include the gathering of scientific data on fishing techniques; in the key provisions of the Bill. Amendment 109 would (c) the administrative functions relating to fisheries amend clause 31 to make management of the Secretary of State, the Marine “the gathering of scientific data to inform management of fish Management Organisation and the Inshore Fisheries stocks” and Conservation Authorities; and an additional conservation purpose under the Bill. So (d) such other objectives as may be set out in a JFS or data collection and data deficiency would be dealt with SSFS.” in those two separate areas.

Peter Aldous: I want to speak to amendment 98 and Luke Pollard: Amendment 108 would make it possible new clause 21. The amendment would make two additions to provide funding for data collection, scientific research to the list of what are called “relevant marine functions”, and better vessel monitoring. Just about everyone in for which charges can be made. The first addition, this debate supports better data. Fishers would like the following on from the remarks of the hon. Member opportunity to prove that they are behaving sustainably for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport, would be the and that there are more fish in the water than the commissioning of scientists say. It would be money well spent, given the “scientific research to support…fish stock management, food extra potential revenue if fisheries were recovered to security and biodiversity”. their optimum economic output. Improving our science is very important. Secondly, the amendment would add a general UK seas have historically been an abundant source of food, income and employment, but they are failing to “administrative function relating to fisheries management”. meet their full potential. Government figures show that New clause 21 sets out three uses for which the two thirds of our main commercial fish stocks are proceeds could be used: the commissioning of scientific depleted, overfished or at risk of being depleted, or research to support effective stock management and their status is unknown. With better scientific understanding biodiversity; the commissioning of scientific research of our fish stocks and the impact of fishing, fisheries into the development of low-impact fishing techniques; management would be more effective, helping stocks to and recover and our marine ecosystem to flourish. “the administrative functions relating to fisheries management of the Secretary of State, the Marine Management Organisation and Funding data collection makes good economic sense the Inshore Fisheries and Conservation Authorities”. because the cost of stock assessments is very reasonable. It is important to incentivise the collection of scientific Sustain calculates an initial cost of £190 million and data and research so as to support fish stock management then £19 million annually to assess all deficient stocks. and biodiversity. Fisheries science and accurate data are Conservative estimates suggest that would catch essential, as things move forward, to put fisheries £150 million more fish in the UK if all stocks were management on to an effective footing that will be managed at their economic optimum. Better data could sustainable in the long term. I look forward to hearing allow management to be more precise and responsive. It the Minister’s plans for that. could give fishers the evidence that they argue for, for increased catches where sustainability is proven. George Eustice: I understand that the amendments Data deficiency is a significant issue for the UK tabled by the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and fishing fleet. Poor data is affecting the management of Devonport, on financial assistance, and those tabled by commercial opportunities for the most important species my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney, relating to in the UK. As we heard in our evidence sessions, data the power to impose charges, have at their heart a deficiency is one of the main reasons why much of the concern that we need better quality scientific data. We fish caught in UK waters cannot be marketed as sustainable. have discussed that on a number of occasions. I broadly For fishing to be sustainable there must be sufficient agree. We have made some good progress; stocks that understanding of the population of the targeted species, were of data-limited status have moved on to have full and of the impact of fishing and/or the status of the sea stock assessments. There is undoubtedly further to go. floor ecosystems.Without that data, boats can be considered DEFRA already pays the Centre for Environment, ineligible for Marine Stewardship Council certification, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science to gather the data as or receive a lower rating on the Marine Conservation part of its service level agreement. The issue is whether Society’s “Good Fish Guide”. With better data, more there is a need for clause 28 to include an additional UK fisheries would be eligible for sustainability certification, purpose in relation to science. Our view is that there or would receive a better rating from the MCS. That is not, for a number of reasons. First, the European would allow them access to the best markets for fish, Maritime and Fisheries Fund, which is an EU fund, including UK public sector catering. does indeed have a category for enforcement and science. 305 Public Bill Committee 17 DECEMBER 2018 Fisheries Bill 306

That is made available to national Governments for he is considering bringing elements back on Report, doing the relevant work. Clearly, in an era where we are because clearly there is a problem here that he and his funding national Government activities directly from team have highlighted. I think this area is very important, the Treasury we do not need a separate provision in the so I will not withdraw the amendment. way that we do in the EMFF. Question proposed, That the amendment be made. Our view is therefore that future grants to replace the The Committee divided: Ayes 6, Noes 9. EMFF should be directed at the fishing industry and aquaculture, to support those areas, and that the funding Division No. 12] for the activities of CEFAS and science should come from the Government, and the powers to do that obviously AYES already exist through the normal channels—the spending Carmichael, rh Mr Alistair Pollard, Luke review processes and the funding that we make available Debbonaire, Thangam Smith, Owen to CEFAS through our service-level agreement with it. Hill, Mike Sweeney, Mr Paul

5 pm NOES As for making available additional financial resources, Aldous, Peter Jones, Mr Marcus it is our view and our intention, which we point to in Duguid, David Lefroy, Jeremy our White Paper, that some of the money raised from Eustice, George Morris, James tendering—new quota and new fishing opportunities as Grant, Bill we depart from relative stability—could be available for Hollinrake, Kevin Stewart, Iain this purpose, to support additional investment in science. It is entirely reasonable to say that, as we gain additional Question accordingly negatived. fishing opportunities, some of the money raised from that should support science. It is also my view that some of the money from the discard prevention scheme could Luke Pollard: I beg to move amendment 111, in also go to supporting science, particularly to support clause 28, page 16, line 25, at end insert— more selectivity.Finally,clause 31, which we will obviously “(1A) The Secretary of State must conduct a consultation on come on to, includes lots of provisions and purposes exercising the power to give financial assistance under subsection (1) to promote the development of sustainable public that will enable us to collect data and information access to recreational fishing opportunities for the fish catching relating to catches, which would inform our scientific sector and leisure and tourism industries, taking into account knowledge. socio-economic factors.” Therefore, I understand the important point that the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport The Chair: With this it will be convenient to discuss and my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney are new clause 25—Recreational fishing— making—we do need to fund science—but I do not think that it is appropriate to put that in these particular “(1) When any provision of this Act, including provisions inserted into other Acts by this Act, requires or permits the clauses. However, it is something that we are absolutely Secretary of State to consult with any person considered committed to doing. Indeed, I hope that when we appropriate, the Secretary of State must consult with persons consider the Bill on Report I will be able to give more representing the practice of recreational fishing. information on how we intend to focus the discard (2) The Secretary of State shall publish an annual report prevention levy or charge and any moneys raised from providing an assessment of the extent to which the provisions of the tender of future fishing opportunities to support this Act have— this scientific objective. (a) promoted recreational fishing, and (b) had economic benefits attributable to the promotion of Luke Pollard: I must say that I am troubled by a recreational fishing by the provisions of this Act. number of things that the Minister has said in his (3) The first report under subsection (2) shall be published no response. Given that the Government have not yet more than 12 months after this section comes into force.” committed to replacing every single penny within the This new clause would require the Secretary of State to consult on EMFF funding for our coastal communities, I do not providing financial assistance for the promotion of recreational fishing, think that we should base opposition to this amendment and to include representatives of recreational fishing when conducting a consultation under any other provisions of the Bill. on trust that Treasury Ministers will side with us when it comes to delivering out the pennies because, quite simply, I do not trust the Treasury to fund our fishery Luke Pollard: On Second Reading, I said that recreational science sufficiently on this issue. That is why an amendment fishing is entirely absent from the Bill at a meaningful that would provide for the Secretary of State to give level and that is not good enough. Recreational fishing factual assistance on the basis of supporting science is is a vibrant, growing and important part of our coastal an absolutely key part of this process, because it would communities and needs due recognition by Ministers in send a message about the tone and clarity that the the Fisheries Bill. Labour’s proposals are designed to Government are seeking to create that the funding of give recreational fishing the prominence that a sector of fishery science, the funding of stock levels and the this economic size deserves. funding of the ability to address data deficiency is a key In the evidence session held by the Select Committee priority. on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on Wednesday, We have already heard that there are a number of Martin Salter from the Angling Trust talked about the aspects to the Bill that are troubling in relation to the vital economic link between recreational angling and lack of clarity on data funding, and I have to say that I coastal communities. The Bill is an opportunity to found the Minister’s reply unconvincing. I am glad that drive and create greater economic activity in our coastal 307 Public Bill Committee HOUSE OF COMMONS Fisheries Bill 308

[Luke Pollard] Coastal communities benefit when good fishing attracts anglers. Let us not tie any Minister’s hands but explicitly communities.MrSaltermentionedtheboomingrecreational lay out in the Bill that they have the power to award fishing sectors of Cape Cod and Florida, which are recreational fishing the grants it needs to grow our worth billions of dollars, as examples of what could be economy and grow the love of our marine environment. achieved in coastal communities in the UK. Wealth New clause 25 also relates to the ability to provide generated by recreational fishing boosts other industries financial assistance for recreational fishing and its such as tourism, including the bed-and-breakfast trade importance as part of the wider development of sustainable and all other aspects of hospitality and tourism. practices in recreational fishing. According to figures Coastal communities depend on economic activity from DEFRA—the Minister’s own Department— generated by the recreational fishing industry, but for recreational fishing and sea angling are worth about recreational fishing to thrive and have a positive £2 billion to the UK economy, generate about 20,000 jobs impact on our coastal communities, the industry needs and support thousands of coastal businesses. Sometimes investment, sustainable waters and healthy fish stocks. the economic benefits of the recreational sector can Amendment 111 would bring recreational angling within outweigh those of the commercial sector, but as we have the new Government grants that will replace the European heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd, maritime and fisheries fund. The UK was allocated it is not spoken about enough. We need to be louder £190 million of EMFF funding for 2014 to 2020. It is and prouder about the contribution that recreational vital that every penny from the EMFF be matched after angling can make to our coastal towns. we leave the European Union, but, sadly, Ministers have In this Committee’s evidence sessions on the Bill, the made no such commitment to date. Angling Trust rightly said that one of the “great failures” As well as the economic importance of recreational of the common fisheries policy was the failure to recognise fishing to coastal communities, this activity plays a big recreational angling as a legitimate stakeholder in European part in the culture of those communities. Sea angling fisheries. The Bill could put right that failure of the brings with it many social and health and wellbeing CFP. We could do that today by stating in the Bill that benefits. For children and young people, it is often their the UK Government recognise recreational sea angling first experience of interacting with the natural world. as a direct user and legitimate stakeholder in the fisheries. The Bill must give us the ability to support recreational That would be a win-win situation, as it would add to fishing. It could provide opportunities for young people the very welcome news that we will have access to to get involved in recreational fishing and encourage EMFF funding—I hope the Minister will confirm that. them to pursue a career or lifelong hobby in this sector. We need recreational fishing to be loud and proud on Nurturing this industry is crucial, because we know that the face of the Bill, to send a message to the people that could lead to a renaissance of our coastal communities. engaged in the sector that we want that part of the “Sea Angling 2012”, the study of recreational sea economy to grow further, and that we value it. angling carried out by the Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science for the Department Mr Carmichael: I agree with just about everything the for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, shows that hon. Gentleman has said. This is a good example of total resident sea angler spending in 2012 was estimated how a small measure of Government investment could to be £1.23 billion, equivalent to £831 million of direct have a transformative effect and bring manifold returns. spending, excluding imports and taxes. That directly Some decades ago, the Highlands and Islands Development supported 10,400 full-time jobs and almost £360 million Board installed mooring buoys throughout the highlands of gross value added. The total economic impact was and islands, which allowed many yachtsmen and other £2.1 billion of spending, supporting 23,600 full-time sailors to enjoy that part of the countryside. It brought equivalent jobs and almost £980 million of GVA once in a tremendous amount of income,and tourism burgeoned indirect and induced effects were accounted for. That is over the years. The same is possible for those who are a huge contribution to our coastal towns and cities. trying to increase recreational angling. The hon. Gentleman’s amendment is very modest: it Owen Smith (Pontypridd) (Lab): My hon. Friend is requires that consultation be held. It does not bind any making a compelling case for including recreational Minister or future Minister to do anything. It is pretty fishing in the Bill. Does he agree that we are only clear that if we just leave this and wait for something to starting to scratch the surface of the economic contribution happen, it almost certainly never will. that recreational fishing could make to our economy, and does he further agree that the Government could George Eustice: I declare an interest: my brother is a do so much to encourage, in particular, greater tourism keen angler who targets bass off the Cornish coasts, so I into this country to take advantage of its great recreational regularly hear from him about these issues. fishing opportunities, if they were to highlight the importance of that in the Bill itself? Owen Smith: I am also a recreational sea angler for Luke Pollard: I thank my hon. Friend for that bass. Does the Minister agree that we could do much intervention: he is exactly right. Indeed, this weekend I more for our economy in many parts of the country—not had conversations with Destination Plymouth about just the south-west, but off Wales and Scotland—if we the new tourism marketing plan for my own city. We did more to promote the prospect of bass angling? were talking about how the value of recreational angling and sea fishing could be further embedded as part of George Eustice: It would be something if we could the tourism product for the far south-west, which would conserve bass. Indeed, that will be another important create more jobs, so he is exactly right. agenda item at this year’s December Council. 309 Public Bill Committee 17 DECEMBER 2018 Fisheries Bill 310

Owen Smith: Does the Minister agree that one of the for the inshore fleet, it might also serve the hon. Gentleman’s ways in which we might conserve bass is by reserving purpose if we make a tweak that refers specifically to those stocks solely for recreational angling? recreational angling. He will understand that I need to have conversations across Government to get agreement George Eustice: I would not reserve them solely for for that, but having spoken to Martin Salter of the recreational angling, but I have been in the vanguard of Angling Trust, I think that such a change would go arguing for them to have a more generous bag limit than some way towards mollifying his fears—he might even the Commission has hitherto granted. end up taking a “glass half full” view of the Bill. I know that the Angling Trust has been promoting the amendment, and I am a big fan of Martin Salter. I Owen Smith: I have seen Mr Salter with a glass full or bumped into him after the evidence session when he half full on many occasions. raised these points, and I said that I felt that he had a George Eustice: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman rather “glass half empty” view. As the shadow Minister has; I think I have, too. knows, clause 28(1)(e) is absolutely explicit that we are Having given an undertaking to look specifically into creating powers to give financial assistance for the possibility of making reference to recreational angling “the promotion or development of recreational fishing.” in the SSFS, where it best sits, I hope that the hon. That is a first. The EMFF and the European schemes Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport will not have never had any provision whatever for targeted see the need to press his amendment. grant support for recreational angling. Luke Pollard: I thank the Minister for taking recreational Mike Hill (Hartlepool) (Lab): Hartlepool has a much- sea angling and fishing so comprehensively on board in depleted offshore fleet these days, so recreational fishing his response. It is good to hear that he intends to issue a is very much in the ascendency, particularly because we consultation before any powers under clause 28(1)(e) have got wrecks that generate good fish stocks. Does the are used. That commitment delivers on the intent of Minister agree that that is important for tourism? our amendment 111, and I am pleased that he is taking on board the concern expressed by recreational fishers George Eustice: Yes, I very much agree. I hail from a that they should be given greater prominence in the Bill. Cornish constituency that is surrounded by water, so With respect to new clause 25, I will look carefully at recreational angling is an important tourist activity. what the Minister brings back on Report. There is an These issues are indeed very important. I have seen opportunity to do much more on recreational fishing; if estimates that put the commercial value of recreational he brings back the new clause, the Bill will be the better fishing at about £2 billion. We always have to be slightly for it. On the basis of the commitments he has given, I suspicious of some of these figures, but there is no beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. doubt that it is a commercially important sector. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Amendment 111 and new clause 25 seek to achieve Clause 28 ordered to stand part of the Bill. slightly different things. With respect to amendment 111, I do not think that it is necessary to require a consultation, Schedule 4 since in clause 28(1)(e) we have taken—for the first time FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE and with very good reason—a power to give grants for Question proposed, That the schedule be the Fourth recreational fishing. As I have said many times, DEFRA schedule to the Bill. needs no encouragement to issue consultations. We have regular consultations on all sorts of issues—I George Eustice: The Committee has already discussed think last year we had something like 50—and sometimes the substance of the issues to which schedule 4 relates. only a handful of people reply. I can guarantee the The schedule will allow Wales and Northern Ireland to Committee that before introducing any grant scheme establish grant schemes after the UK’s withdrawal from under clause 28(1), we would consult on its design and the EU. Its provisions essentially mirror those set out in purpose, so I do not think that it needs to be placed in clause 28, which provide powers to introduce schemes statute that we must run a consultation. of financial assistance for industries related to fish or fish farming, as well as for the purpose of improving the 5.15 pm marine and aquatic environment or—as we have just New clause 25, which seeks to address the issue from discussed—promoting recreational fishing. The powers a slightly different angle, would require consultation on replace and broaden existing domestic funding powers, relevant provisions and the publication of an annual which are in the Fisheries Act 1981. report to demonstrate how we are supporting recreational Question put and agreed to. fishing. It is based on a potentially stronger argument Schedule 4 accordingly agreed to. than amendment 111, so I undertake to the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Clause 29 Devonport, that I will consider whether we can tweak clause 2 on Report to include among the socioeconomic POWER OF MARINE MANAGEMENT ORGANISATION TO purposes for coastal communities, to be set out in the IMPOSE CHARGES Secretary of State fisheries statement, a specific reference The Chair: I call Peter Aldous to move amendment 97. to recreational fishing and the potential economics of it. Peter Aldous: I will speak briefly,because this amendment I think that that is the right way to address the issue, covers the issues that I addressed in my previous two because the SSFS sets out our overall approach to the amendments, and which the hon. Member for Plymouth, socioeconomics of fishing. Just as clause 2 is the right Sutton and Devonport also referred to. As far as the place to determine issues such as fishing opportunities future funding of science is concerned, I was reasonably 311 Public Bill Committee HOUSE OF COMMONS Fisheries Bill 312

[Peter Aldous] George Eustice: I draw the hon. Gentleman’s attention to clause 29(7), which makes provision for consultation. content with the response that the Minister provided. I I confirm that we would consult the industry before look forward to seeing the further details, to which he introducing such charges. referred, on Report. I acknowledge and take on board his explanation that it is not appropriate for IFCAs to Luke Pollard: I appreciate that clarification. It is be funded in this particular way. On that basis, I will not important that the Minister takes on board the concerns be moving the amendment. of fishers about the role and remit of the MMO in The Chair: In that case we will move on to an amendment relation to the new powers that the Bill gives him. On that will be moved. I call Luke Pollard potentially to the basis of the reassurance that he has given, I beg to move amendment 70. ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/ Clause 29 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Co-op): I beg to move amendment 70, in clause 29, page 17, line 42, leave out “negative” and insert “affirmative”. Schedule 5 I am definitely moving the amendment, which seeks to remove the negative procedure in relation to clause 29 and replace it with the affirmative procedure. The POWER OF NORTHERN IRELAND DEPARTMENT TO amendment reflects concerns expressed by fishers IMPOSE CHARGES about the increasing powers of the MMO, which is developing the ability to impose charges without sufficient Luke Pollard: I beg to move amendment 76, in schedule 5, accountability and scrutiny of that work. page 44, line 9, leave out “negative”and insert “affirmative”. The amendment is designed to catch the Minister’s Briefly, the amendment seeks to amend schedule 5 to eye so that he can reassure us that the MMO will use provide the affirmative resolution in relation to powers any powers it is given wisely, to ensure that charges are given to the relevant Northern Ireland Department. I proportionate and, importantly, that before any charges would like to invite the Minister to comment. are imposed, there is sufficient consultation with fishers to ensure that those charges are correct and proportionate. Importantly, in the absence of devolution to the Northern Ireland Executive and the Northern Ireland Given the considerable amount of concern expressed Assembly at the moment, as the Assembly is not sitting, by fishers, it is important that there is sufficient how can we ensure that there is sufficient scrutiny of parliamentary procedure, which is why we suggest the those powers to the devolved Administration? In others affirmative procedure. However, if the Minister can give circumstances, whether in Wales or Scotland, the powers a good answer as to why that should not be required, I would be given appropriate scrutiny in those devolved would be prepared to withdraw the amendment. bodies. George Eustice: We have had a number of discussions about the use of the negative procedure. As I have George Eustice: The solution to the problem that pointed out before, the Delegated Powers and Regulatory the hon. Gentleman highlights is to get a political Reform Committee considered the procedures for all Administration back in Northern Ireland. We have that delegated powers in the Bill and commented: challenge on many fronts; this is one of the lesser “Of the Bill’s 15 delegated powers that have a parliamentary challenges we face in the absence of a political procedure, only four are solely governed by the negative procedure, Administration in Northern Ireland. and justifiably so.” It is usual for fees and charges imposed by arm’s Our intention is that the Bill is built to last and that it length bodies to be set out in regulations made under will give us a basis and a framework with which to the negative procedure. A recent example is the power manage fisheries for at least the next few decades—I of the Secretary of State to charge fees through regulations hope so, but obviously things change. The Bill is therefore under the Ivory Bill, which will also use the negative built in the expectation that a political Administration procedure. We have considered the issue, but we think will be back in place in Northern Ireland, as it should we have struck the right balance between the need for be. Indeed, I am sure we all hope that that might even parliamentary scrutiny and the need to update MMO happen before the provisions of the Bill commence. charges through secondary legislation. The hon. Gentleman makes an important point about If we were to accept this amendment and do use the the lack of an Administration in Northern Ireland. We affirmative procedure, every change made to the charges all know that the solution is not to amend the Bill but to would have to go through an affirmative parliamentary get an Administration back in Northern Ireland. Again, process. We think that is excessive. We already have I point out paragraph 7 of the schedule, which gives a strict and tight Treasury guidance on when one can and clear undertaking that there must be a consultation cannot charge, and how one can charge for such charges before any regulations can be introduced under the that are passed on, and that is very much on a cost-recovery negative procedure, even for Northern Ireland. basis.That provision is set out in detail in other Government rules and guidance. Luke Pollard: On the basis of the Minister’s response, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. LukePollard: I invited the Minister to provide reassurance that the MMO would use the charging powers Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. proportionately and subject to consultation. Could he Question proposed, That the schedule be the Fifth say something about his approach to that? schedule to the Bill. 313 Public Bill Committee 17 DECEMBER 2018 Fisheries Bill 314

George Eustice: Briefly,the schedule allows the Northern need delegated powers to be able to respond quickly to Ireland Department to make regulations to enable it to scientific advice. The CFP is due to be reviewed in the charge for its exercising of relevant marine functions. next few years. We need to ensure that the UK can After the regulations are laid, the Northern Ireland introduce measures where appropriate for UK fisheries Department will be able to charge to ensure that the management. The clause confers regulatory updating taxpayer does not have to foot the bill for expenses powers on the Secretary of State. Equivalent powers are related to fisheries. Through the change, it is intended conferred on Welsh Ministers and the Department of that the Government should neither profit at the expense Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs in Northern of the consumer nor make a loss. It is a cost-recovery Ireland; we understand that Scotland will make its own provision, which mirrors what is in the clauses that we legislative arrangements in respect of the powers set out discussed earlier for England. in the clause. Question put and agreed to. The powers in the clause are necessarily quite broad Schedule 5 accordingly agreed to. in scope. In recognition of that, we have introduced several constraints to limit the powers as far as possible. Clause 30 They must be exercised for a purpose listed in subsection (1); they can only be exercised for the matters listed in SEA FISH INDUSTRY AUTHORITY: FEES FOR SERVICES subsection (4); and they cannot create criminal offences PROVIDED FOR INDUSTRY IN EU punishable by imprisonment. I hope I have been able to Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the explain the purpose behind the clause, to ensure that we Bill. can have a dynamic and clear ability expeditiously to make minor technical changes to the technical conservation George Eustice: The Sea Fish Industry Authority— regulations that are important in fisheries. Seafish—is a levy-funded, UK-wide body set up to promote the consumption of seafood, protect the reputation Luke Pollard: Notwithstanding my earlier remarks, it of the industry and provide information, evidence and is good to see the word “aquaculture” making it into the advice for decision making in the supply chain. It may Government’s Bill at this point. I make fond mention of provide services for persons in the sea fish industry the occasion on which the Minister decided not to take within and outside the UK. It is required to charge in amendments because of the mention of the aquatic full for such services provided to those from non-EU environment. I am sure that aquaculture and the aquatic states, but section 3(5) of the Fisheries Act 1981 prevents environment will make appearances later that will highlight it from charging those from EU states more than those the error of the Minister’s ways in his earlier remarks. from the UK. The clause will remove that provision. Question put and agreed to. We are including the clause in the Bill because the power in section 8(1) of the European Union (Withdrawal) Clause 31 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. Act 2018 may not be used to make regulations that impose or amend fees. In practice, Seafish sets out all of Clause 32 its charges across recovery levels, so the clause will not result in any practical change. However, it is important that no distinction is made between services provided SECTION 31: INTERPRETATION to EU and to non-EU companies once the UK leaves Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the the EU. Bill. Question put and agreed to. Clause 30 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. George Eustice: Briefly, the clause simply provides interpretation for certain terms related to fisheries used Clause 31 in clause 31. This is important to ensure that restrictions placed on the power in clause 31 are effective in limiting POWER TO MAKE PROVISION ABOUT FISHERIES, its scope to fisheries. It is a simple clause that deals with AQUACULTURE ETC interpretation. Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Question put and agreed to. Bill. Clause 32 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. 5.30 pm George Eustice: The clause will provide the Secretary Clause 33 of State with the powers necessary to manage our fisheries when we leave the EU and operate as an POWER TO MAKE PROVISION ABOUT AQUATIC ANIMAL independent coastal state, enabling us to comply with DISEASES the UK’s international obligations, manage our fisheries and keep pace with changes to EU law. When we leave Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the the EU, it will be vital that the UK has measures in Bill. place to implement its international obligations and to move away from the common fisheries policy measures George Eustice: The shadow Minister will note that incorporated in retained EU law under the EU withdrawal the word “aquatic” has arrived again. However, this Act. clause is slightly different, since it relates to replacing Fisheries, and the management of the impact of provisions dealing with fish health in particular once we fisheries on the marine environment, are dynamic, changing leave the EU and lose some of the powers in the throughout the year. To manage fisheries effectively, we European Communities Act 1972. 315 Public Bill Committee HOUSE OF COMMONS Fisheries Bill 316

[George Eustice] power to amend any enactment. That will be essential for modifying retained EU law after our exit from the The clause confers delegated powers on the Secretary European Union. of State to make changes to aquatic animal health In summary, the clause places limitations on the legislation, as opposed to the management of the aquatic exercise of powers in clauses 31 and 33, predominantly environment. Corresponding powers are conferred on to ensure that there is no encroachment on the devolution Scottish and Welsh Ministers and DAERA in Northern settlement that we have. I beg to move that the clause Ireland by schedule 6. Primarily, the clause will ensure stand part of the Bill. that the domestic aquatic animal health regime can be Question put and agreed to. amended and updated after we leave the EU in order to preserve the UK’s high aquatic health status both in Clause 34 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. relation to aquaculture and the health of wild aquatic animals. The clause will allow the Secretary of State to Clause 35 regulate matters relating to the importation, exportation, movement, storage or handling of fish or other aquatic animals; products derived from fish; and any other SCOPE OF REGULATIONS UNDER SECTION 31 OR 33 thing that the Secretary of State considers may carry, or WHERE CONSENT OBTAINED otherwise affects the prevalence of, a disease of fish or Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the other aquatic animals. Bill. The powers conferred by the clause will enable the UK to respond to new and emerging aquatic disease George Eustice: This clause is about ensuring there is threats and disease outbreaks and to fulfil its international an ability—notwithstanding the fact that clause 34 is obligations as part of any future trade agreements. The clear that it does not cut across the devolution clause is therefore essential to maintaining the high settlement—to put in place a framework with the consent health status. I should point out that in 2009 the Diseases of each part of the UK so that a single authority can of Fish Act 1983 was repealed. We then relied on the act with the consent of the others in an area that would European Communities Act 1972 to make changes to otherwise be devolved. Subsections (1) to (3) require our regime for controlling fish and other aquatic diseases. consent from the Scottish or Welsh Ministers or the The clause ensures that we have the powers we need to Northern Ireland Department for regulations under be able to continue to do that, as we lost the Diseases of clauses 31 and 33 to make provisions in areas of devolved Fish Act in the repeal of 2009 and we are now on the competence. Subsection (4) requires consent from the threshold of losing the powers that we have under the Scottish and Welsh Ministers and the Northern Ireland European Communities Act. Department for regulations on matters relating to powers Question put and agreed to. to license fishing boats. I beg to move that the clause stand part of the Bill. Clause 33 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. Question put and agreed to. Clause 35 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 34 Clause 36 SCOPE OF REGULATIONS UNDER SECTION 31 OR 33 Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS FOR REGULATIONS UNDER Bill. SECTION 31 OR 33

George Eustice: Clause 34 defines and limits the Luke Pollard: I beg to move amendment 71, in clause 36, scope of regulation-making powers in clauses 31 and 33, page 22, line 24, leave out “negative” and insert ensuring that the devolved status of fisheries is respected. “affirmative”. Subsection (1) allows for regulations made under clauses 31 Briefly, we tabled the amendment so that we could and 33 to confer a function, including the imposition of ask the Minister to explain why he believes that the fees. Subsection (2) allows for the creation of criminal negative procedure is the best option for this clause. offences, but not offences punishable by imprisonment. Subsection (3) states that regulations made under clauses 31 George Eustice: As I said, the Government have or 33 cannot include provisions that are within the considered carefully the delegated powers in the Bill competence of the Scottish Parliament, the National and the procedures that should apply to regulations. I Assembly for Wales or the Northern Ireland Assembly will not rehearse the points I made about delegated unless the provision is merely incidental or consequential. powers and the precedents for this, but I will give the Subsection (4) further restricts the use of powers hon. Gentleman an indication of the technical issues under clauses 31 and 33 as the regulations may not be that regulations under this part of the Bill may deal used to modify functions held by Welsh Ministers in with. They may cover issues such as the catching, landing relation to the enforcement of sea-fishing licences and or selling of sea fish below a certain size—the minimum regulating the conduct of fishing operations.Subsection (5) conservation reference size, as it is sometimes called—and restricts the use of powers under clauses 31 and 33 so the design of sea-fishing equipment. They may involve that they may not modify fisheries administrations’ introducing a new selectivity measure for the squid functions relating to the licensing of fishing boats under fishery off the coast of his constituency, for instance. any of the provisions in clauses 9 to 13 and schedule 2. They may also involve minor issues to do with monitoring Finally, subsection (7) sets out the broad scope of the or enforcement of compliance. 317 Public Bill Committee 17 DECEMBER 2018 Fisheries Bill 318

We have a large number of technical conservation I am grateful for the Minister’s response. As he said, regulations under the existing common fisheries policy— there will be a large number of changes. He might want some 90 bodies of regulations cover all sorts of things, to reflect on how any changes made under negative from landing sizes to mesh sizes and from closures to procedure can be reported in the Secretary of State’s prohibitions on landing small-eyed ray.Those are generally fisheries statements, even though it is not necessarily dealt with through delegated Acts that come from the required to do so. Commission. We must have the power to make in-year There is an opportunity. Because we are expecting the amendments so that we can react quickly to changing Minister to deliver so much change in the first couple of circumstances by taking a stock off the prohibited list years after we leave the common fisheries policy, having or putting it back on, and it is important that we have it summarised and repeated annually would enable greater the ability to act expeditiously to manage our marine scrutiny and understanding of those changes. That environment. Given that we have some 90 bodies of EU would be beneficial not only for the fishing industry but regulations and some 300 or 400 different technical for those who seek to scrutinise the work of Government. regulations in total, I question whether there is appetite On the basis of the Minister’s response, I beg to ask in this place for debating each and every one of those leave to withdraw the amendment. changes. The situation can be very dynamic and dozens Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. of changes are made in a typical year. Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the On that basis, I hope that the hon. Gentleman does Bill. not see the need to press the amendment to a vote, and that I have been able to reassure him why we chose the negative resolution procedure rather than the affirmative George Eustice: I think we covered the key parts of procedure in this case. the clause earlier. I again simply highlight that it sets out a number of cases where it is appropriate to use the affirmative resolution procedure under subsection (2). Mr Carmichael: I have lost count of the number of That includes any regulations that impose fees or create debates I have sat through in which we discussed whether a criminal offence. The remainder of the largely technical to use the negative or affirmative procedure—“must” or conservation measures that are of a lower order and “may”—but on this occasion the hon. Member for need to be changed regularly are provided for under the Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport hits on a substantial negative resolution procedure under subsection (3). point. Question put and agreed to. As we heard, the scope of regulations made under clauses 31 and 33 is defined by clause 34, which provides Clause 36 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. inter alia in subsection (2) that regulations made under clauses 31 or 33 Clause 37 “may create a criminal offence, but not one punishable with imprisonment.” POWERS OF SCOTTISH MINISTERS,WELSH MINISTERS I am not surprised that imprisonment is not included, AND NI DEPARTMENT because I suspect the bulk of the offences created would Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the be committed primarily by bodies corporate rather than Bill. private individuals. Notwithstanding that, offences created by regulations of this sort often attract financial penalties that run to several thousand pounds—sometimes tens George Eustice: The clause simply serves to enable of thousands of pounds—so they are not insignificant. schedule 6, which will provide Scottish Ministers, Welsh I deeply regret not challenging the Minister on this Ministers and the Northern Ireland Department with point when we debated clause 34. the powers necessary to manage fishery and agriculture industries in line with devolved competences. In doing so, the clause is part of a framework that allows Scotland, George Eustice: I draw the right hon. Gentleman’s Wales and Northern Ireland to meet their obligations attention to clause 36(2), which sets out clearly: under the UN convention on the law of the sea and the “Regulations under section 31 or 33 are subject to the affirmative UN fish stocks agreement. resolution procedure” if they cover a number of issues, including anything Mr Paul Sweeney (Glasgow North East) (Lab/Co-op): creating a criminal offence. Subsection (3) relates to the The Labour party fully supports the clause pertaining use of negative procedure on regulations left after those to schedule 6, which we will elaborate on later. that fall under subsection (2) are taken out. Question put and agreed to. Clause 37 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. Mr Carmichael: That answers my point. I do not think I need detain the Committee any longer. Schedule 6 5.45 pm POWERS TO MAKE FURTHER PROVISION: DEVOLVED The Chair: I call the Minister—sorry, Mr Pollard. AUTHORITIES

Luke Pollard: You are getting ahead of yourself, Mr Sweeney: I beg to move amendment 77, in schedule 6, Mr Hanson. I am not a Minister yet, but the coming page 45, line 43, leave out “negative” and insert general election will be upon us soon. “affirmative”. 319 Public Bill Committee HOUSE OF COMMONS Fisheries Bill 320

[Mr Sweeney] Mr Sweeney: I do not think that is how devolution works. Devolution is a collaborative process. That is my We tabled the amendment because the schedule allows reading of it. It is not a zero-sum game. for the transfer of powers to Scottish Ministers and the power to make provisions on issues such as aquatic and Mr Carmichael: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, animal diseases. The schedule will allow Scottish Ministers even where the Government in Edinburgh have agreed to make provisions for something with the Government in London, neither “the purpose of monitoring, controlling, preventing or eradicating Government should expect to be immune from scrutiny diseases of fish or other aquatic animals…in particular…provision by Parliament? regulating the importation, exportation, movement, storage or handling of…fish or other aquatic animals…products derived from fish or other aquatic animals…any other thing that the Mr Sweeney: I absolutely agree with that. In any Scottish Ministers consider may carry, or otherwise affect the system of democracy, at every tier there should be an prevalence of, a disease of fish or other aquatic animals.” element of interface and interaction, and that will be an We want to change that to an affirmative procedure ongoing process. It is not about a gradualist approach because it will be a much better way of doing things. to independence, which is how the Scottish National party would like to view devolution. That is not how we view it. I will conclude, because there is no point in Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP): The labouring this—pardon the pun—by saying that we amendment is a step too far. There is sufficient protection accept that there is no agreement. It is unfortunate that for affirmative resolutions under clause 36 and we keep losing these votes on the negative emphasis paragraph 3(2) of the schedule, as the Minister pointed versus the affirmative, but we are where we are in terms out. The Scottish Government need some leeway to be of the arithmetic. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the able to use the negative resolution procedure, and I do amendment. not think there is any need for this amendment. I would Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. like to know whether the Labour party sought any assurances from the Scottish Government on whether Question proposed, That the schedule be the Sixth they thought this amendment was necessary. I suggest schedule to the Bill. that if the Scottish Government had wanted such an amendment, they would have tabled it themselves. George Eustice: We have already covered part 1 of schedule 6, which specifically relates to the powers George Eustice: This is in many ways a mirror taken for Scotland to manage aquatic and animal diseases. amendment to one we discussed earlier. It is unusual for I will briefly comment on parts 2 and 3, which make me to agree with the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and provisions for both Welsh Ministers and the Northern Loudoun, but he makes an important point: if we have Ireland Administration. Hon. Members will have noted just agreed one set of provisions giving the right to use that the provisions for Wales and Northern Ireland are the affirmative or negative resolution for England, it different from those for Scotland in that parts 2 and 3 would suggest that we do not trust Scotland if we said also have provisions that mirror clause 31. In other that all their resolutions should be subject to the affirmative words, schedule 6 gives Welsh Ministers and the Northern procedure. What is good for one part of the UK should Ireland Administration the ability to make those technical be good for Scotland as well. I do not think this conservation measures that we discussed earlier in the amendment is appropriate. context of clause 31 for England. I should point out that at this stage that, when the I can confirm to the hon. Gentleman that this has Bill was drafted, Scottish Ministers said that they did been put in at the request of the Scottish Government. not want those provisions included in the Bill on their We worked closely with all the devolved Administrations behalf. We understood that at that point they might to understand what they would like included in the Bill have been considering doing this themselves through on their behalf, and this particular section dealing with their own legislation. However, we have recently been the ability to fight aquatic diseases is understandably told by Scottish Ministers that that position has changed very important to Scotland, given that it has such a and they would like us to perhaps consider at a later large salmon farming industry. It is at the request of stage of the Bill adding powers for Scotland akin to the Scottish Government that this has been included in those afforded in parts 2 and 3 for Wales and Northern the way that it has. I think it is right that we treat the Ireland. Scottish provisions in the same way that we treat the English provisions. I hope the shadow Front Bench will This is obviously an issue that we will discuss further not see the need to press this particular amendment. with Scottish Ministers. It is complicated by the fact that they have not yet confirmed that they will grant a legislative consent motion for the Bill. Nevertheless, I Mr Sweeney: Wehave been pretty consistent throughout thought I should highlight to members of the Committee the process in saying that we think affirmative measures why there is a difference between part 1 for Scotland, are better because they provide extra scrutiny and extra and parts 2 and 3 for Wales and Northern Ireland. control, and we think that is beneficial. Question put and agreed to. Schedule 6 accordingly agreed to. Alan Brown: On that point, given that the hon. Gentleman’s colleagues consistently say that the Scottish Ordered, Labour is the party of devolution, does he agree that if That further consideration be now adjourned.—(Iain Stewart.) Labour is the party of devolution, it should respect devolution rather than trying to make legislation here 5.55 pm that the Scottish Government have not asked for? Adjourned till this day at Seven o’clock. PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES HOUSE OF COMMONS OFFICIAL REPORT GENERAL COMMITTEES

Public Bill Committee

FISHERIES BILL

Tenth Sitting

Monday 17 December 2018

(Evening)

[Part I]

CONTENTS

CLAUSE 38 agreed to. SCHEDULE 7 agreed to. CLAUSES 39 TO 43 agreed to, one with an amendment. Adjourned till this day at Nine o’clock.

PBC (Bill 278) 2017 - 2019 No proofs can be supplied. Corrections that Members suggest for the final version of the report should be clearly marked in a copy of the report—not telephoned—and must be received in the Editor’s Room, House of Commons,

not later than

Friday 21 December 2018

© Parliamentary Copyright House of Commons 2018 This publication may be reproduced under the terms of the Open Parliament licence, which is published at www.parliament.uk/site-information/copyright/. 321 Public Bill Committee 17 DECEMBER 2018 Fisheries Bill 322

The Committee consisted of the following Members:

Chairs: SIR DAVID CRAUSBY,JAMES GRAY, †DAVID HANSON,MR LAURENCE ROBERTSON

† Aldous, Peter (Waveney) (Con) † O’Hara, Brendan (Argyll and Bute) (SNP) † Brown, Alan (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP) Pennycook, Matthew (Greenwich and Woolwich) † Carmichael, Mr Alistair (Orkney and Shetland) (Lab) (LD) † Pollard, Luke (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) † Debbonaire, Thangam (Bristol West) (Lab) (Lab/Co-op) † Duguid, David (Banff and Buchan) (Con) † Smith, Owen (Pontypridd) (Lab) † Eustice, George (Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries † Stewart, Iain (Milton Keynes South) (Con) and Food) † Sweeney, Mr Paul (Glasgow North East) (Lab/Co- † Grant, Bill (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (Con) op) † Hill, Mike (Hartlepool) (Lab) Tracey, Craig (North Warwickshire) (Con) † Hollinrake, Kevin (Thirsk and Malton) (Con) † Jones, Mr Marcus (Nuneaton) (Con) Gail Poulton, Lis Gerhold, Committee Clerks † Lefroy, Jeremy (Stafford) (Con) † Morris, James (Halesowen and Rowley Regis) (Con) † attended the Committee 323 Public Bill Committee HOUSE OF COMMONS Fisheries Bill 324

That is why the Opposition believe that it is necessary to Public Bill Committee have specific provisions for archaeological and historic features within fisheries legislation. I am grateful for Monday 17 December 2018 the support of the Honor Frost Foundation Steering Committee on Underwater Cultural Heritage, which dug out those records from the 1970s. The amendment (Evening) is necessary to ensure that underwater and aquatic environments are protected, especially the historic wreck [Part I] sites. Will the Minister address those concerns?

The Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (George [DAVID HANSON in the Chair] Eustice): I thank the shadow Minister for his contribution. The real purpose of schedule 7 is to make consequential Fisheries Bill amendments to the Marine and Coastal Access Act to ensure that the suite of powers contained in the Act, to 7 pm make byelaws both within and outwith marine conservation Clause 38 ordered to stand part of the Bill. zones, can be extended to the English offshore region: the zone that would currently be affected predominantly by EU law and the common fisheries policy. Schedule 7 Amendment 68 proposes deleting the word “and” and inserting the word “or”. The schedule states that POWERS RELATING TO THE EXPLOITATION OF SEA “there...may be reasons for the Secretary of State to consider FISHERIES RESOURCES whether to designate the area as an MCZ”. The amendment would add the word “or” before the Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/ phrase, Co-op): I beg to move amendment 68, in schedule 7, “that there is an urgent need to protect the feature.” page 57, line 15, leave out “and” and insert “or”. New section 9 specifically relates to section 132 of the This amendment would amend the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009 to enable the Marine Management Organisation to make Marine and Coastal Access Act and the designation of byelaws to protect marine features in circumstances where the need for marine conservation zones. It gives the powers to designate protection is not necessarily urgent. in those zones where there is an MCZ and where there is It is good to see that Government Members managed an urgent need to protect a feature: in other words, to refresh themselves appropriately during our short where it is under consideration to designate a zone as a break. I will not carry on speaking until Opposition marine conservation zone, but there is an urgent threat Members return. You will be pleased to hear, Mr Hanson, to that emerging policy and therefore a need to act that we have a long oratory ahead of us about the expeditiously. protection of the marine environment and shipwrecks, In the narrow context in which paragraph 9 operates, so you can look forward to that. In all honesty, this which is simply around the designation of marine should be relatively brief. It picks up on the discussion conservation zones, the use of “and” is the appropriate that we had on the aquatic environment the other day. link between paragraphs (2)(1A)(a) and (2)(1A)(b) because The amendment seeks to expand the remit to protect they are interdependent. This particular power would marine features when it is not specifically urgent to be used in circumstances only in which someone intended ensure we care for our marine environment proactively. to have a marine conservation zone. Other parts of I will not go on about shipwrecks too much; we have schedule 7, not least paragraph (6), set out broader already been through a number of reasons why protecting byelaw-making powers that can be used, whether or not them is important. However, last week when I referred the feature that somebody attempts to protect is in a to archaeological and historic features, the Minister designated marine conservation zone. contended that archaeology is addressed by marine I hope that I have been able to explain to the hon. licensing under the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009 Gentleman why “and”is used in the paragraph—because and the Protection of Wrecks Act 1973. It is important the sub-paragraphs are interdependent—rather than to note that fishing is not subject to marine licensing “or”, which suggests that they should stand alone. As I under the MCAA because licensing offers no protection said, this is within the narrow context of a soon to be in respect of wrecks. In addition, the Protection of designated marine conservation zone. Wrecks Act does not restrict fishing activity,and assurances were given during its introduction to that effect back in Luke Pollard: I thank the Minister for his remarks. I the ’70s: suspect that his officials will revisit provisions on the “The situation of designated historic wreck sites is different. protection of wrecks when the Bill goes to the House of There will be no bar on any kind of fishing from the surface, Lords. The Minister will be relieved that he will not either commercially or for sport.”—[Official Report, 4 May 1973; Vol. 855, c. 1706.] have to repeat his speech about the aquatic environment for a bit. So said a politician in the ’70s, long before I was born. A member of the Lords said: Importantly, the purpose of the amendment on protecting our marine heritage is to make sure that “My Lords, the Bill does not prohibit navigation, anchoring, fishing or bathing within these restricted areas, except when those conflict between fishing and the protection of our natural activities amount to obstruction of an authorised salvage and marine heritage sites on the seabed is understood operation.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 17 May 1973; and managed in advance of its arising. However, on the Vol. 342, c. 931.] basis of the Minister’s remarks, and in anticipation of 325 Public Bill Committee 17 DECEMBER 2018 Fisheries Bill 326 our friends down the corridor making similar forceful Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP): The arguments on the basis of what the Minister said, I am amendment refers to Scottish Ministers. Will the hon. happy to withdraw the amendment at this time. I beg to Gentleman explain how it would work in practice? Who ask leave to withdraw the amendment. would decide whom Scottish Ministers had to consult? Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. If they were somehow deemed not to have consulted the relevant stakeholders, what would be the repercussions? Question proposed, That the schedule be the Seventh Would the matter be reported back to the Westminster schedule to the Bill. Government? Clearly the Scottish Government are responsible for their own legislation. George Eustice: Schedule 7 simply defines the byelaw- making powers, provided for under clause 38, conferred Luke Pollard: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is on the Marine Management Organisation and Ministers not trying to suggest that the Scottish Government of the devolved Administrations for the enforcement of would make any regulations without consulting Scottish marine conservation standards. Schedule 7 defines the communities. scope and procedure for creating byelaws in the UK’s exclusive economic zone by the MMO in England and Alan Brown: Correct. Northern Ireland, or Ministers in Scotland and Wales, for the purpose of protecting the UK’smarine environment. Luke Pollard: Therefore the point should be moot. Paragraph 1 introduces an amendment to the Marine The important thing is how disputes are regulated and and Coastal Access Act 2009, and paragraphs 2 to 5 managed in the Bill. We need to ensure that it gives address the nomenclature in that Act. Paragraphs 6 to confidence to environmental stakeholders operating in 10 insert new clauses into the Act, providing the Marine the sector, whether they are businesses, fishers or coastal Management Organisation with byelaw-making powers communities, that they will be adequately consulted within the English offshore region for the purpose of before any regulations are made under clause 39. It is an preserving marine flora or fauna, marine habitats or important principle to enshrine in the Bill that there types of marine habitat. must be sufficient good-quality consultation before any Question put and agreed to. regulations are made. Schedule 7 accordingly agreed to. George Eustice: As the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport points out, we have included an Clause 39 explicit requirement in some clauses to consult where appropriate, generally in cases that raise specific issues REGULATIONS that have a bearing on cost recovery, on the proposed sale of fishing opportunities—as in our new clause 22 Luke Pollard: I beg to move amendment 67, in —or on devolved Administrations. However, I do not clause 39, page 23, line 30, at end insert— think it appropriate to have a statutory requirement to “(4A) Before making any regulations under this Act, the consult on every single measure that might be introduced Secretary of State, Scottish Ministers, Welsh Ministers or the under the Bill. Such a requirement would be very unusual; Northern Ireland department (as the case may be) must consult the Department’s existing statutory obligations to consult with affected stakeholders”. relate predominantly to issues of food safety and food This amendment would require the Secretary of State Scottish standards. As I have said before, we generally do not Ministers, Welsh Ministers or the Northern Ireland department to need encouragement to consult. Many consultations consult with affected stakeholders before making regulations. come across my desk; I often ask officials whether a The Minister is keen to say that the Department for consultation is really required, but our very strict internal Environment, Food and Rural Affairs consults constantly Government guidelines and Cabinet Office guidance and does not need legislation to help make sure that it mean that we consult regularly on most issues. does so. However, there are already some requirements I envisage that most of the issues covered by the Bill in the Bill to consult, and Government amendment 6 would be subject to a consultation. We have chosen to added another duty to consult in clause 22, in response introduce a statutory requirement to consult on very to a recommendation from the House of Lords Delegated significant matters—those that have cost implications Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. Our for industry or potentially serious implications for the amendment 67 simply seeks to put in place consistent relationship with devolved Administrations—but that duties to consult on all regulations provided for in the does not mean that we will not consult on many, many Bill. other provisions in the Bill. Indeed, I anticipate our As we have discussed, this duty is particularly important doing so, but I do not believe that it would be appropriate for regulations that receive less parliamentary scrutiny, to put that in the Bill. or none at all, to make sure that affected individuals, businesses and communities have an adequate opportunity Luke Pollard: I thank the Minister for his response, to make their views known before the law is put in but it is a bit disappointing. The principle of consultation place—especially when laws are introduced afresh after is a fine one. I note what he says about DEFRA we leave the European Union. I am sure that the Minister undertaking a range of consultations during his time will have spotted other duties to consult in clauses 19, as a Minister, but winning the confidence and trust of 29, 36, and schedule 1, which requires an element of the fishing industry after Brexit will depend on any consultation on the joint fisheries statement, as well as changes to the rules having its full consent and support, schedules 5, 6 and 7. Our amendment seeks to make whether those changes relate to quota allocation, safety, sure that, before any regulations are made, there is licensing or any other aspect of fishing. The best way of sufficient consultation with the relevant stakeholders. achieving that is by following the principle of consulting. 327 Public Bill Committee HOUSE OF COMMONS Fisheries Bill 328

[Luke Pollard] industry, and move towards something that is closer to zonal attachment for the majority of stocks—that is to However, as the Minister has effectively committed to say, it is about where the stocks reside. The effect of new consulting on the key things, I beg to ask leave to clause 22 is to place a statutory obligation on the withdraw the amendment. Government not to agree continued access at the current Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. level for the European Union unless we receive an increase in fishing opportunities and secure that all- Clause 39 ordered to stand part of the Bill. important departure from relative stability. That means Clause 40 ordered to stand part of the Bill. that, in the event of our putting together a new partnership with the European Union, it will not be possible for the Clause 41 Government to conclude the partnership unless our fishing industry sees an increased share of the total allowable catch in return for that continued access. EXTENT The approach that we seek to take is similar to what Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill. already happens with the EU-Norway agreement, where a framework agreement runs for a number of years but certain presumptions underlie it. The presumption that 7.15 pm will underlie our future economic partnership with the George Eustice: Clause 41 simply confirms that the European Union, in so far as it relates to fisheries, is extent of the Bill is the whole of the United Kingdom, that, in return for granting continued access to the except in relation to schedule 6. It is a standard clause European Union, the quid pro quo for the British fleet that appears in all Bills. Schedule 6 sets out the powers will be a fairer share of the total allowable catch, which of the Welsh Ministers, the Scottish Ministers and the goes above and beyond that which is set out in the Northern Ireland Department. The Bill extends certain current relative stability shares. provisions to the Crown dependencies as a result of the UK representing them at an international level. Luke Pollard: I appreciate that the Minister is trying Question put and agreed to. to put up a smokescreen by saying that this is a very Clause 41 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. important new clause and that this is the right place for it, but this justifies the critique of my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Sue Hayman), who said that Clause 42 the Bill was hurried out too quickly,and that its implications had not been fully understood. An element as important COMMENCEMENT as the Minister suggested new clause 22 is should have been included in the Bill in the first instance, and not George Eustice: I beg to move amendment 112, in added only when the political problems with the withdrawal clause 42, page 26, line 29, after “Sections” insert agreement emerged. “(Fisheries agreement between the UK and the EU), (Amendments I have a number of questions about the new clause. It that could have been made under existing powers) and”. includes the new term “Union fishing boats”. Will the This amendment would ensure that NC22 and NC4 are commenced on Minister set out how that differs from the term “foreign the day of Royal Assent. fishing boats”, which is used in the rest of the Bill? We must make sure there are no loopholes that can be The Chair: With this it will be convenient to discuss exploited in relation to the distinction between Union the following: and foreign fishing boats. Government new clause 22—Fisheries agreement between In the event of what some in the fishing industry the UK and the EU. regard as the inevitable sell-out by people above his pay grade, can the Minister tell me how this Bill would be Government new clause 4—Amendments that could changed when there is potentially no additional quota have been made under existing powers. or fish allocated to UK fishers? Can that be done for this part of the Bill under the Henry VIII powers that George Eustice: New clause 22 is a significant new the Government possess, or would it require new primary clause that the Government have tabled to address some legislation to alter this part of the Bill, in the event that concerns that have been raised in the context of the there is a betrayal of fishers in any future negotiations? draft withdrawal agreement, which has returned. As I ask that because the experience of fishing is that it was hon. Members will be aware,the draft withdrawal agreement promised that it would be excluded from the transition that the House will consider in the new year contains a period, only to find that those promises from the Secretary provision that says that, in the event of there being a of State and indeed the fisheries Minister himself were future partnership and an agreement with the European worth nothing, which remains a very raw sore for many Union, it will be necessary by July 2020 to have in place of our colleagues in the fisheries sector. There are some a new framework agreement for fisheries management important aspects to this. between the EU and the UK. The principle is one that I can support: we should get New clause 22 simply sets out in statute a point of a fairer share of fish. Relative stability has poorly Government policy that was set out very clearly in our served our coastal communities and fishing industry, White Paper. As we leave the European Union and and the move to zonal attachment is one that is supported become an independent coastal state, it is our clear by Labour as well as the Government. How that is done intention to move away from the current relative stability is uncertain in this Bill, and what promises will be shares of quota, which are unfair on the British fishing delivered is also uncertain in this Bill, because so many 329 Public Bill Committee 17 DECEMBER 2018 Fisheries Bill 330 of those promises will be subject to the further negotiation Again, I agree that that is desirable, but clearly it is that will follow if any deal is done and then if any non-binding. It says “should” and we cannot bind the economic and future partnership is put in place. EU, the other side. That in itself stands out. There is an awful lot of uncertainty in relation to Subsection (4) is the standalone objective, which is that, and I would be grateful if the Minister could set that EU out how the Bill can be changed should there be a “boats are not granted access to UK waters in any year unless the betrayal of the fishing industry, and if he could explain fishing opportunities…are…greater than those…available under the distinction between “Union” and “foreign” fishing relative stability”. boats. Again, that is fine as an objective, but no one expects EU boats to be banned outright from UK waters. Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD): Subsection (5) provides a real get-out clause for the Essentially, my position is not much different from that Secretary of State, because it provides for him or her to of the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport. be the one who assesses whether the opportunities are I fear that the Minister perhaps slightly oversells the greater than they would otherwise have been under the importance of new clause 22 as it is drafted. Largely, it CFP. Where is the transparency in that assessment? is yet another statement of good intent. Ultimately, the How will it be carried out and who will be able to extent to which these intentions are delivered will be challenge it? determined by the political will and authority that is In many ways, the new clause is pointless, put in as a put into them by the Government. political means to an end—to sway Brexiteers, although We know that something in the region of 40% of the it has not even been able to do that. I would like to hear fish caught in UK waters comes to the UK. When the the Minister’s views on that. Minister talks about fairer shares, he has—let us say—some significant leeway. If he or any of his successors were to George Eustice: I wondered whether during the break deliver a deal that produced 41% or 42%, then by too many hon. Members had spoken to Martin Salter— definition it would be a fairer share, but it would be far there are a lot of “glass half empty” perspectives. from the promises that were made to the industry at the Since the Bill was published and Second Reading, we time of the referendum. have had the conclusion of the withdrawal agreement, I have no objection to new clause 22; I certainly which is now before the House. That final withdrawal would not vote against it. It is useful to have a clause of agreement included the reference to the need to have a this sort in the Bill, but it is capable of being improved. plan in place by July 2020. Concerns were expressed I think that is something we will consider on Report. that fisheries might be bargained away, as a number of hon. Members have said. I therefore think that it is Alan Brown: It is a pleasure to serve under your absolutely right, since it is not at all the intention or chairmanship again, Mr Hanson. plan of the Government to do such a thing, that we put in place on the face of the Bill, in statute, the safeguard I think I am slightly more cynical than the previous to ensure that we get a fairer share of the total allowable two contributors. We know this was a much-trailed new catch in exchange for future access. clause, which was intended to give reassurance to the Brexiteers that the fishing industry will not be sold out. It was actually intended to sway those MPs, or, as the Alan Brown: Again with reference to the language of Minister put it earlier, convince those with concerns “should” and “pursue”, how does the new clause—even about the withdrawal agreement. Given the current when in statute—stop future trade agreements or even chaos that the Government are still in, can the Minister the final outcome of the EU withdrawal Bill, with the say how that has gone, in terms of convincing those backstop and so on, doing something else? How does MPs that all is good thanks to this new clause? the new clause prevent the other scenarios under the EU (Withdrawal Agreement) Bill? Also, considering that throughout the sittings of this Committee the Government have voted down amendments that they say do not need to be in the Bill or that are George Eustice: Because the second objective is clear: covered elsewhere, particularly statements of good intent, as a consequence of giving access to our waters, we it seems to me that this new clause is one of those want a fairer share of the total allowable catch. Having superfluous clauses, which normally the Government seen a few fisheries negotiations now, they have—put themselves would speak out against. simply—three key variables: overall size of the catch for each stock, or the total allowable catch, and we argue I would not quite say that the new clause is in “Yes, each year about the science on each stock; the allocation Minister” language, but it is certainly drafted with loose of those stocks, or who gets what slice of the cake, and language that is not particularly binding. Subsection (2) at the moment we get a very unfair slice of many stocks, states: in particular down in the channel and in the west “The Secretary of State must pursue the following two objectives”. country; and, finally, the issue of access. The “objectives” are things that we can actually agree In any fisheries negotiation, access is the trump card, on, so that is all well and good, but being asked to because when push comes to shove, we can say to pursue something and being duty-bound to deliver it countries fishing in our waters, “If you think that you are vastly different propositions. We can ask anybody to can catch that quantity of fish to have that share of the pursue something, but the likelihood of them getting an total allowable catch, catch them in your own waters.” outcome is slightly different. That flushes out the positions of other states in that Subsection (3) says: negotiation. As a country, we are in a powerful position, “The first objective is that the agreement should provide for because within our exclusive economic zone we have a annual negotiations”. very large fisheries resource to which many other countries 331 Public Bill Committee HOUSE OF COMMONS Fisheries Bill 332

[George Eustice] based on what was agreed in the late ’70s and early ’80s. This is not a dynamic process; relative stability is set in seek to have access. The quid pro quo for future access concrete. That is part of the problem for us. to that stock will be that we have a fairer share of the The shadow Minister asks why we refer to “Union” total allowable catch—that is a normal dynamic in any vessels rather than “foreign” vessels. The point is that fisheries negotiation. That is the approach we will take. there are foreign vessels seeking access to our waters from countries that are not members of the European Alan Brown: I accept there is an opportunity for a Union, principally Norwegian, Faroese and Icelandic greater share going forward, but the Minister is saying vessels. Therefore, “Union” vessels specifically refers to that if this measure is in statute, we move to that the EU fleet, rather than those from other third countries, position quicker. Will he explain why the new clause will which are not covered, although we would apply the prevent the UK from getting into the backstop situation? same principles. He also asked whether the provision How is that compatible with the backstop? could be changed. It could be changed with primary legislation, but this particular provision could not be George Eustice: In a backstop situation, there is no changed with a statutory instrument of the sort that he withdrawal agreement, and there is no need for a fisheries outlined. I believe that new clause 22 is an important agreement with the EU. That said, we would probably new clause that clearly sets down the Government’s still seek to put one in place. In a backstop situation, approach to getting a fairer share of the total allowable however, the default is that we have complete control catch on these stocks in exchange for any future access. over access to our waters, there is no agreement on I beg to move the Government’s new clause 22 and fisheries and there are no undertakings to give any amendment 112. access to the EU at all. It is also the case that in the backstop situation there would be tariffs on fisheries The Chair: We will come to the new clauses later in products that go into the European Union. That is the proceedings. The proposals before us at the moment is position as far as the backstop is concerned. amendment 112 to clause 42. Amendment 112 agreed to. Alan Brown: Does the Minister accept that in the backstop there would not be tariffs on fish exported from Northern Ireland, but there would be tariffs on Luke Pollard: I beg to move amendment 110, in fish exported from the Great Britain mainland, thereby clause 42, page 26, line 29, after “43” insert “and section putting Scottish and other UK fisherman at a disadvantage (Fishing industry skills strategy)”. compared with Northern Ireland? This amendment would require the Secretary of State to publish within 12 months of the Act coming into force a skills strategy for the fishing industry after consultation. 7.30 pm George Eustice: My understanding is that in the The Chair: With this it will be convenient to discuss backstop there would be tariffs on all fish from the UK. new clause 24—Fishing industry skills strategy— ‘(1) Within 1 year of this section coming into force, the Alan Brown indicated dissent. Secretary of State must publish a strategy for skills, employment and economic regeneration for the fishing industry. George Eustice: I will clarify that before the end of (2) Before publishing a strategy under subsection (1), the the debate, but principally, yes. The principle of the Secretary of State must consult with— backstop—which we all want to avoid—is that there (a) the Scottish Ministers, would not be tariff-free trade in fisheries products, but (b) the Welsh Ministers, equally we would not be obliged to give any access to (c) the Northern Ireland department, our waters. (d) representatives of the fishing industry, (e) any other person the Secretary of State considers Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con): Subsection (5) of the appropriate.’ new clause talks about the opportunities that would have been available for that year under the common Luke Pollard: Amendment 110 and new clause 24 fisheries policy. Will there be some kind of sunset clause both aim to tackle one of the key issues currently facing to the new clause? As time goes on and the common the fishing industry, namely the shortage of skills and fisheries policy becomes more of a distant memory, it the potential for growing employment. Talking to those will be very difficult to calculate what the UK would in the industry, I regularly hear concerns about the have been able to get under the CFP in five or ten years’ difficulty of attracting the next generation into fishing time. I can see how that would work for the next two or and the fears of people already engaged in the industry three years, but in five, 10, 15 or 20 years’ time, the about the loss of European workers after Brexit. That is calculation will be very difficult, if not impossible, to especially the case for those fishers in the north of make. England and Scotland. We know that many crews contain no one under the George Eustice: My hon. Friend makes a fair point, age of 40. If boats are to capitalise on any increased but we will know what the relative stability shares on quota in future, we will need a new approach to training each stock are at the point that we leave. Indeed, the and skills. By requiring the Secretary of State to publish relative stability share is what it says on the tin—relative a strategy for dealing with these issues, we hope that this stability means that nothing changes. The shares that problem will finally be taken seriously and steps put we have for each stock have not actually changed since in place to address the skills and people shortages in the early ’80s, and we can still reference today’s shares fishing. 333 Public Bill Committee 17 DECEMBER 2018 Fisheries Bill 334

We appreciate the important role played by Seafish, glad that fishermen are mentioned in the maps, but the non-departmental public body sponsored by DEFRA. under the agriculture operative/technician cluster. Looking We are concerned, however, that Ministers have at times more closely at how T-levels will function, it is T-level passed off their responsibility for training and skills by panels that will develop the outline content for qualifications. suggesting that that is mainly a matter for Seafish, not Those panels are currently made up of employers that them. On this issue, we need leadership and strategy from define the skills and requirements for the qualifications. the top, which is what the amendment seeks to create. When we analysed the Government’s picks for the Looking at the Government’s approach, it may be agriculture, land management and production panel, helpful to remind hon. Members of what the Minister which includes fishing, we were disappointed that not a previously set out. In a debate last year, he said: single member was listed from the fishing industry. The “To secure the skilled workforce that the food, farming and Minister may be able to provide some explanation for fisheries sector needs for the future, Government and industry that, but it certainly appears that T-levels, on their must work in partnership to prioritise training and skills.” current design, will not provide any real focus on sorting He went on to highlight their industrial strategy and out the skills shortages in fishing as a priority. Can the said that it would include Minister also confirm that any T-levels that could cover “skills as one of its core pillars”, fishing are not expected to be delivered until at least 2022? It is clear that the lack of detail about T-levels as well as reforms to apprenticeships and the post-16 and fishing further proves the need for a dedicated skills plan that features T-levels, which he said would create strategy for the fishing industry. “clear routes into the sector.”—[Official Report, 25 April 2017; Because of the effect that Brexit might have on the Vol. 624, c. 478WH.] number of EU nationals able and willing to work at sea, There is not time to pore over the Government’s entire an already dire recruitment situation is in danger of skills strategy in detail, but it is worth looking at where becoming catastrophic, particularly in several geographic we are on the areas that the Minister previously highlighted locations around the UK. We face the real risk of and why that demonstrates the need for a dedicated fishers walking away from the industry as they cannot fishing industry skills strategy. staff their boats. I hope that the Minister can offer some Although the industrial strategy is more than 250 pages reassurance on that issue, which is made pressing by long and contains plenty of general skills policy, it does Brexit, and that hon. Members will consider backing not mention fish or fishing once, which seems to show a this important amendment. disappointing lack of cross-departmental working between In particular, I ask the Minister to have words with the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs his colleagues in the Home Office, who still do not and the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial regard fishing as a skilled profession. I challenge any Strategy. It is all well and good for the Minister to state Home Office Minister to go on a trawler and catch fish his commitment to improving fishing skills, but if he to see whether that is true or not. cannot convince his Government colleagues to mention fishing in the strategy papers, the problem will not The Chair: As a former Home Office Minister, I never receive the attention that all hon. Members present went anywhere near a fish. think it deserves. The obvious solution is for DEFRA to launch its own skills strategy with reference to what Mr Carmichael: Briefly, I support the amendment of BEIS, the Department for Education and those in the the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport devolved Administrations are doing, which the amendment in letter and spirit. This is not a new problem—it is not would deliver. something that we would lay at the door of the current On apprenticeships, we agree that they are a vital Government or any particular Government. The situation means of training up the next generation. The Whitby has been developing and getting gradually worse for Fishing School, which has offered apprenticeships aimed years and years. The problem probably goes into much at those newly entering the industry, is a good example. of what young people are told in schools: they see Andrew Hodgson, its business development manager, fishing as a dangerous occupation, requiring long hours told The Daily Telegraph last year: at sea and long days’ work in difficult circumstances, “We need some young blood coming in otherwise the industry and they are generally discouraged from it. It will take a is going to die a death.” long time to turn that around and get back to the stage He is right. where fishing communities produce young men who want to go into the fishing industry. When my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Holly Lynch) visited the school, however, she found that it David Duguid (Banff and Buchan) (Con): Does the was experiencing difficulties in securing funding for right hon. Gentleman agree that there is no an overnight courses. She discovered that the school finds it incredibly solution? We cannot just go to the local jobcentre and difficult to deliver courses that truly equip young people get a bunch of unemployed people; as the shadow to work at sea and that tick the relevant boxes to secure Minister said, fishing is not an unskilled job. Does the funding for that training. The school had asked the right hon. Gentleman agree with the chief executive of Government to reflect on whether the framework in the Scottish White Fish Producers Association that it place for developing apprenticeships and training could take up to 10 years at least to get to a point where programmes was fit for purpose in attracting and retaining we are no longer dependent on foreign labour? the fishers of tomorrow. We hope that a new skills strategy could provide the answers to those exact questions. Mr Carmichael: That is almost certainly going to be On T-levels, the Government have said that the subject the case, but it is effectively a guess, because none of us range of T-level programmes will be defined by the really knows. It took us a long time to get to this point, Institute for Apprenticeships’ occupational maps. We are and the only thing that is certain is that it will take a 335 Public Bill Committee HOUSE OF COMMONS Fisheries Bill 336

[Mr Carmichael] we could look at ways to ensure that the trade becomes something that people choose to migrate to island and long time to get from here. The length of time it takes highland communities for. Would that not be beneficial? will be determined by the effort that both the industry and the Government are prepared to put in to turning 7.45 pm the situation around. That is why a strategy such as this, Mr Carmichael: That would be beneficial. I can think led by the Government but with proper buy-in from the of a number of people I have known over the years who industry, will be crucial. have done exactly as the hon. Gentleman suggests. It may well be that as the industry develops, people However, the pool will still be those who grow up will of their own volition see it as a more attractive in fishing industries, who—to pick up on the earlier proposition for the future, but that is certainly not the point by the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and case now. I am open to argument as to whether it is Devonport—get their first interest piqued by recreational necessary to have this issue in the Bill, but I want to see angling. Those living in island or coastal communities some movement on it, because as the hon. Member for can become interested when all the opportunities are Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport said at the end of his around them. speech moving the amendment, we are in a quite dreadful The Minister has been to the NAFC fisheries college situation at the moment, where fishing boats in parts of in Scalloway, Shetland. He has praised its work, as we Scotland remain tied up because they cannot get the all do. It is a fantastic institution, but it lives pretty crew. We know that there are crew out there willing to much hand to mouth. With the best will in the world, work here, but they are unable to come here and we do there are not the resources at the moment to ensure a not have the home-grown crew to put on those boats. secure future for an institution such as that. If that David Duguid: As the shadow Minister noted, as we formed part of a strategy, which would have to be a leave the EU we will no longer have freedom of movement, wide exercise, there would be an obvious sea of opportunity but is it not the case, certainly in Scotland, that the vast for institutions such as that. I commend the hon. Gentleman majority of the foreign workers that the fishing industry for moving the amendment; I suggest it is significant is dependent on comes from outside the European and an opportunity for the Minister to make good some economic area? of the sentiments that we have heard from Ministers in other Departments. Mr Carmichael: It is very much the case. I think principally they are Filipinos,but there are some Ghanaians George Eustice: Right hon. and hon. Members have and people from other seafaring countries, and generally raised a very important issue. They will appreciate that their contribution is very well regarded. I am constantly it is predominantly an issue on which other Departments getting emails from skippers who are asking for a visa lead, such as the Department for Education on renewal for this or that individual. We are now in a apprenticeships. Immigration, particularly of non-EEA bizarre situation where the only way we can get non-EEA crews, which is a contentious issue in parts of the nationals on to a boat is for them to have a transit UK—notably in Northern Ireland and Scotland—is a visa—that is, they effectively come in as merchant seamen, matter for the Home Office. Nevertheless, I have made which then requires the boats to operate outside territorial representations on behalf of the industry to Home waters. Office Ministers. At a recent debate, I said I would go back and have that discussion again. Right hon. and Bill Grant (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (Con): I hon. Members will appreciate that I have not quite had certainly share some of the sentiments expressed by my the time to do that yet, but it remains on my to-do list. I colleagues. In particular, speaking to skippers on the will engage on the matter of non-EEA crews with the west coast of Scotland, one of the major issues is Home Office in the new year. getting people to crew the vessels. While it is admirable When it comes to skills, I am aware that some specific that there are discussions on developing a strategy, does fishing issues have meant that the apprenticeships model the right hon. Gentleman agree that the immigration has not always worked as well as it should. One of the policy has an immense part to play in securing staff for issues that the industry has raised is that there is a the vessels, and that the industry itself—which can be practice of giving a share of the catch value to the very financially rewarding, given the right climate and fishermen on crews, which does not always sit very easily conditions—has an immense part to play in again attracting with how apprenticeships are structured, because those people to join it? involved have to be on a fixed salary to access them. There are some challenging issues, such as that one, Mr Carmichael: That is absolutely the position. I which the Department for Education is looking at. know it is not the Minister’s responsibility and this is about the skills strategy, but every time we debate this, However, I want to limit my comments to what the the Immigration Minister always says, “Well, of course, fishing industry is doing. The seafood industry leadership what we want to be doing is growing our own labour.” group, which has been sponsored and supported by the She is right about that; so here is an opportunity for the levy body Seafish, has established a special authority to Government to follow through on their good intentions deliver its Seafood 2040 strategy. Part of that includes and ensure that we start to grow that labour for ourselves. delivery of a single cross-sector seafood training and skills plan and supporting businesses in the seafood Mr Paul Sweeney (Glasgow North East) (Lab/Co-op): supply chain to recruit workers with suitable skills. The right hon. Gentleman represents an island community; We recently announced an additional £37.2 million the distinctive needs of island communities must be of funding for new projects approved under the European reflected in this Bill. Does he recognise that the general maritime and fisheries fund during 2019 and 2020. trend is that fishing tends to be a family trade? Perhaps Some of those projects could include the delivery of 337 Public Bill Committee 17 DECEMBER 2018 Fisheries Bill 338 skills and training. In addition, we have announced that Question put, That the amendment be made. the Government will put in place new domestic long-term The Committee divided: Ayes 6, Noes 9. arrangements to support the UK’s fishing industry from 2021, with new schemes to support that. Division No. 13] Across the country we have some centres of excellence AYES for training when it comes to fisheries. In England, we Carmichael, rh Mr Alistair Pollard, Luke have the Whitby & District Fishing Industry Training Debbonaire, Thangam Smith, Owen School, which has a great track record. As a mentioned Hill, Mike Sweeney, Mr Paul earlier, I visited Shetland with the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland a few years ago, which the NOES marine training school is based. In recent years we have trained several hundred new fishermen through the Aldous, Peter Jones, Mr Marcus various schemes, so it is not all bad news, but I recognise Duguid, David Lefroy, Jeremy Eustice, George that there is more to do. In particular, that project of the Grant, Bill Morris, James seafood industry leadership group is best placed to pull Hollinrake, Kevin Stewart, Iain together a skills plan in the area in question. Skills is a devolved issue, and the inference with Question accordingly negatived. respect to new clause 24 is that there would be a UK-wide skills strategy, as there is a requirement to consult Scottish and Welsh Ministers and the Northern Mr Carmichael: I beg to move amendment 35, in Ireland Department. I suspect that Scottish Ministers clause 42, page 26, line 35, after “appoint” insert in particular would want rather more than a consultation “, provided such day shall not be later than 31 December 2020.”. on a devolved area. We can address the matter as To ensure that the UK leaves the EU Common Fisheries Policy no later England, and it will be for Scotland, Wales and Northern than December 2020. Ireland to address it for themselves. I hope that I have reassured the hon. Member for The Chair: With this it will be convenient to discuss Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport that I agree that this amendment 1, in clause 42, page 26, line 35, at end is an important issue and that there have been difficulties insert— in the past with some design features of the apprenticeship “(3A) The Secretary of State must make regulations under scheme. We have raised those previously with ministerial subsection (3) so that all provisions of this Act come into force colleagues and they have sought to address them. However, no later than 31 December 2020.”. the new clause goes somewhat beyond the scope of the Bill, which deals with fisheries management and Mr Carmichael: The amendment would make clear in opportunities, rather than skills. Skills are a matter for a the Bill that, if the provisions of the clause have not different Department. been brought into force by the end of the transitional period—31 December 2020—they will come into force Luke Pollard: I assure the Minister that we tried to at that point. The context for the amendment is the get a lot of items selected that were outside the scope of decision taken by the Government in March to concede the Bill. If we managed to sneak something in, that is that fisheries should be part of the transitional because it is within the scope of the Bill, not outside as arrangements. he suggests. The Committee heard evidence from several people I am disappointed that the Minister did not pick up that that decision ran rather contrary to the expectations the gauntlet that the Opposition have set down, on the of the industry. Promises had been made, including by matter of skills, and take it more seriously. There is a the Prime Minister herself, that, come 29 March 2019, skills crisis in the fishing industry and if we are to we would leave the common fisheries policy, and that realise the opportunities that will come from Brexit, that would be the end of the matter. Perhaps at some which the Minister has been so keen to extol, we will point somebody will tell me why it was thought necessary need more people in the fishing industry, in the catching to include fisheries in the transitional arrangements. and other sectors. That is why we need a cross-Government Barry Deas of the National Federation of Fishermen’s skills strategy—to support the development of skills across Organisations said that it was because fisheries is part the UK. of the general acquis. Bertie Armstrong, from the Scottish Fishermen’s Federation, had a more political explanation, The Minister mentioned that there are a number of shall we say, saying that there were four or five countries areas of best practice, and indeed there are. Several that were not going to let the transitional arrangements places are doing a good job with skills, but the problem go through unless fisheries were a part of it. is that they are all struggling for funding and to make what they offer fit with other bits of Government policy It is fair to say that the decision has caused a lot of that the Minister has set out. A skills strategy would angst and, indeed, anger in the fishing industry. There present the opportunity to identify some of the problems are historical reasons for that, which I will not go into in and support areas of additional growth. The seafood any great depth, but the Committee will know the industry leadership group seems to be on to the right references to the 1970s and those within the Heath thing, but I have said that it is not enough to allow Government who took the view that the industry was Seafish and its other bodies to do all the work. We need dispensable. senior leadership from Ministers, and, sadly, that did not seem to be forthcoming in the Minister’s response. Alan Brown: I certainly agree with the right hon. On that basis, we shall not withdraw the amendment, Gentleman. There is clearly a lot of anger in the fishing but press it to a vote. industry, which I am pretty sure will welcome the 339 Public Bill Committee HOUSE OF COMMONS Fisheries Bill 340

[Alan Brown] and sceptical about the Government’s promises. The Government have seen fit to amend the Bill to require amendment. However, how would it work in reality? an improvement to our position in relation to relative We have heard the Prime Minister say that she might stability in any future negotiations. Surely the same extend the transitional arrangements instead of using principle should apply to this area, and the Minister should the backstop. If we get the amendment in statute, in want to attach a date to our exit from the CFP. theory fisheries would need to be excluded from that I want to ask a similar question to the one I asked extended transitional period. Is it not the reality that an about the Minister’s earlier amendment. Will this be international agreement might override the amendment, subject to primary legislation, or are there any Secret and that the Government would come back and amend Squirrel or Henry VIII powers up the Minister’s sleeve it, even if it is in statute? that will enable this to be adjusted in the event—or the inevitability—that article 50 is extended and the future Mr Carmichael: I am not entirely sure about an of fishing within the CFP is betrayed? international agreement overriding the amendment. This is primary legislation made by Parliament. In effect, if David Duguid: It is a pleasure to serve under your the Government anticipate breaking their further chairmanship, Mr Hanson. Amendment 1 is a probing undertakings—that is to say that the UK would be out amendment relating to a concern raised by several hon. of the common fisheries policy at the end of 31 December Members—[Interruption.] Give me a second to finish 2020—the amendment, if accepted, would in turn require my first paragraph, and then I will give way to the hon. to be amended. That would be cumbersome, which is Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun. why the Minister will doubtless not like it, but that, of The concern has been raised by hon. Members including course, is why the industry wants it. I have not spoken those who tabled the amendment—my hon. Friends the to a single member of the industry or a single representative Members for South East Cornwall (Mrs Murray) and of any fishing organisation who is prepared to take the for North Cornwall (Scott Mann)—the right hon. Member Government’s word on trust in relation to this matter. for Orkney and Shetland and the shadow Minister. I do Given that we are where we are, and indeed that the not know whether this will reassure Opposition Members. Government are where they are, I think Members will I am sure the Minister will forgive me for reiterating this understand that position. concern, which I have raised relentlessly, not just with If we are in a position to implement the clause earlier, him but with Ministers and Cabinet members above his it can be implemented earlier. The political declaration pay grade, and I will continue to do so. says that an early arrangement for fishing matters would be desirable, and I do not doubt that to be the case. Alan Brown: I was just chuntering from the sidelines. However, like many in the industry, I do not see what The hon. Gentleman said that this is a probing amendment. could stop the four or five who were awkward, shall we Does that mean that he is not deadly serious about it say, over the creation of the transitional arrangements and is not willing to press it to a vote? being awkward in relation to the final deal. The purpose of having 31 December 2020 as the implementation date is just one further encouragement to stiffen the David Duguid: I have heard comments from the Minister resolve of Ministers. that reassure me to some extent, but as the hon. Gentleman knows other things are afoot that make it very difficult to pass this amendment right now.I will comment further 8 pm on Report. Luke Pollard: Earlier in the Committee’s deliberations, This concern is shared not just by hon. Members but we considered whether the Bill needed more flexibility by the industry as a whole through representations from when it came to the commencement debate. It is noticeable organisations including, but not limited to, the Scottish that with amendment 1, which accompanies the amendment Fishermen’s Federation and the Scottish White Fish in the name of the right hon. Gentleman, my neighbours Producers Association. The amendment addresses the from south-east and north Cornwall, whose constituencies timing of when we extricate ourselves from the influence are close to the Minister’s, have tabled a similar amendment of the common fisheries policy. Of course, we actually about the commencement date. leave the common fisheries policy when we leave the I share fishers’ concern about the upcoming betrayal. EU. That is always what was promised, but because of It is no secret that I fear that people above the fisheries the implementation period we will find ourselves under Minister’s pay grade—the Environment Secretary, the the influence of the CFP. Prime Minister and others—will be looking to betray The Minister will be aware that, along with hon. fishing in the future negotiations. The idea of having a Members from other coastal constituencies, I made solid date for leaving the EU common fisheries policy is representations, initially proposed by the Scottish appealing to fishing and to people who do not disbelieve Fishermen’s Federation, at the start of the year that the Ministers’ words but have concerns about whether it impact of any transition period on fisheries should can be delivered, given the strong and firm negotiating extend only nine months from Brexit date—to the end position of some of our EU friends in relation to this. of 2019. In March this year, the intention to have a The key thing that the Opposition want to highlight 21-month implementation period was announced. Given is that the industry has every right to be concerned that this was an additional 12 months over what was about our departure from the common fisheries policy. proposed as a compromise, it was greeted with It was made promises about departing the CFP in disappointment in fishing communities. However, it has relation to the transition, and they were repeated week been understood and broadly accepted on the basis that in, week out up until a week before the Government’s the final prize of being out of the CFP and being an U-turn on that position. It has every right to be cautious independent coastal state was still very much in play, 341 Public Bill Committee 17 DECEMBER 2018 Fisheries Bill 342 and that the EU itself would not accept fisheries being George Eustice: New clause 22 applies explicitly in cherry-picked out of the implementation period. I leave the case of our creating a new partnership—not extending aside for the purpose of this discussion the EU’ssubsequent the implementation period, not falling into the backstop, attempts to do that very thing—to cherry-pick fisheries but actually having a new partnership. It prevents the and other aspects of the withdrawal agreement and the Government from making concessions on fisheries for political declaration. That is for another discussion. other advances elsewhere.That is the point. It is separate—it The industry was encouraged by and supportive of addresses the third option, where we get what we are the White Paper, in no small part due to the repeated aiming for, which is an agreement. mentions of December 2020 as the moment we would take our place as an independent coastal state. However, Alan Brown: Equally, in his answers to questions that date is not reflected in the Bill. Amendment 1 seeks about new clause 22, the Minister said it was all about to put that date in the Bill, or at least to secure an being outside the common fisheries policy, so why not assurance, which I invite the Minister to provide, that accept a date? our exit from the influence of the CFP will be time-limited. George Eustice: Amendments 1 and 35 are not about Alan Brown: The hon. Gentleman said that amendment our future economic partnership, which is a separate 1 was a probing amendment and that this was not quite concern that we have addressed elsewhere—obviously the right time to put the date in statute. When will be the the withdrawal agreement has its complexities. If in July right time? What will have changed by the time we get to 2020 we face either a short extension of the implementation Report to make such an amendment the right one? period or going into the backstop, the Government will have a choice. David Duguid: I am looking forward to the Minister’s response to the amendment. As the hon. Gentleman Mr Carmichael rose— and the rest of the Committee know,a lot is happening—or not happening—at the moment, so we need to see what George Eustice: I will give way in a moment, but I comes out of the next few weeks. I would be grateful want to clarify a point that I made earlier about tariffs, if the Minister provided whatever assurance he can at because I know that it raised eyebrows. The position is this stage about how the Government will ensure that that if there is not a fisheries agreement, and if the the CFP no longer applies to our fishermen beyond backstop applies, there will indeed be tariffs on fisheries December 2020. and agriculture products. However, special arrangements would be made to ensure that Northern Ireland vessels George Eustice: Both amendments seek to achieve that land in Northern Ireland—and only Northern the same purpose, which is effectively to make it harder Ireland vessels that land in Northern Ireland—would to extend the implementation period beyond December not have to pay tariffs, although tariffs would apply to 2020, as currently provided for in the withdrawal agreement. fish moved from Great Britain to Northern Ireland. Underlying the amendments is the clear sentiment in I thought I should take the opportunity to correct the fishing industry, on which I think there is almost the record because my earlier description was less cross-party consensus, that we cannot get out of the EU comprehensive than it should have been, although elements fast enough. The common fisheries policy has been a of it were correct. disaster—we do not get a fair share of stocks—so it is entirely understandable that the fishing industry and Mr Carmichael: “Less comprehensive than it should others would like us to become an independent coastal have been” is a very nice way of describing it. Should I state with our own seat at the table, negotiating our own take it from what the Minister says that, of the two fisheries resources and getting a fairer share of the total options he describes, the backstop rather than an extended allowable catch, as soon as possible. transition period would be preferable for the fishing Wecurrently envisage the implementation period running industry? until the end of 2020. As we discussed earlier, in the event that we are unable to conclude a future partnership George Eustice: From the very narrow perspective of with the EU during that implementation period, and the fishing industry, that is almost certainly the case. In that that is apparent by July 2020, the Government will the backstop, we would have complete control of our have a choice of one of two options. If we have made waters,whereas if the implementation period were extended, good progress and are close to getting a new agreement the current rules would continue to apply. in place, there will be an opportunity to extend the implementation period. That might be for just a few Mr Carmichael: How likely does the Minister think it months to ensure that things can be put in place. If, that when the Cabinet comes to consider the position, however, the Government judged that the prospects of as it will almost certainly have to at some point, the getting a future partnership were low—or the prospects fishing industry will have its way against the other of getting one in the foreseeable future were low—they considerations under discussion? could opt to embrace the so-called Northern Ireland protocol backstop. George Eustice: Highly likely. One thing I can tell hon. Members is that the Prime Minister has absolutely Alan Brown: Is what the Minister says not completely championed fisheries throughout the negotiations. Indeed, contrary to the answers he gave about new clause 22? that is the reason for the amendments that we have He said the new clause would stop us being in a backstop made and the reason why the withdrawal agreement position—it would override that—but now he says, “We made none of the concessions on fisheries that several can’t accept this date because there’s the potential of the people had anticipated. It was a clear red line that the backstop and extending the implementation period.” Government held to. 343 Public Bill Committee HOUSE OF COMMONS Fisheries Bill 344

Mr Carmichael: In saying that the Prime Minister of words. May I invite him to express himself in plain has championed the fishing industry throughout the English, so that the entire industry can see that he is negotiations,the Minister is being a little less comprehensive basically hedging his bets? Is that his message—that the than he might be. May I remind him that it was the industry should not take solace in the idea that the Prime Minister and the right hon. Member for Haltemprice provisions will be delivered on that date? and Howden (Mr Davis) who agreed to the industry’s being put into the transitional arrangements? If she had George Eustice: That is not what I am saying at all. I been championing it at that point, that would never am saying that the amendment is unnecessary because have happened. we are confident that we will get a withdrawal agreement George Eustice: I understand the right hon. Gentleman’s with the European Union. I am confident that will take point, but I strongly disagree. I was involved in the final effect before the end of the implementation period, and run-up to the withdrawal agreement. Of course there therefore I am confident that we will be negotiating as was pressure from the EU to give undertakings on an independent coastal state in December 2020. access, but we refused to give any such undertakings. I In so far as some people may have some doubt about believe that the agreement we have will be absolutely the nature of the withdrawal agreement and what type right for the fishing industry. of arrangement we might finally get with the European Union, my message is this: let us see what happens in Mr Carmichael: If the Minister is right about that, January. Those events will transpire before this Bill why were Ministers, especially the Prime Minister, still returns on Report, at which stage we will be in a more making the promise until a couple of weeks before it informed position to make a judgement on such was eventually sold out? amendments. Therefore, I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Banff and Buchan and the right hon. George Eustice: Both the Secretary of State and I Member for Orkney and Shetland will keep their powder argued clearly and strongly—and the Prime Minister dry and consider this matter at a future date. shared our view—that it would have been preferable for I do not know how many people are watching this fisheries not to be covered by the implementation period. sitting, but if there are many of them, as the hon. We do not necessarily think that that was even necessary, Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport has said, but ultimately the transition period is a short one that I am delighted that there is such interest in this vital lasts only until the end of December 2020. In the industry and in our taking back control of our own interests of an orderly Brexit, it was a concession that waters. had to be made to get an implementation period for the short term. When it comes to our long-term partnership, we have been absolutely clear that we will make no such Mr Carmichael: If we ever make kicking the can concessions. down the road an Olympic sport, Ministers in this Let me return to the amendments. Their impact Government would win gold, silver and bronze virtually would clearly be to make it rather more difficult for the in perpetuity. Government to choose a course of action that extended First, let me say that I do not doubt for a second the the implementation period; indeed, that is probably the Minister’s commitment to our fishing industry. That is intention behind them. The shadow Minister, the hon. why I am keen that we get him out to Brussels tonight to Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport, asked do the year-end negotiation. However, whatever words how that could be undone. As with the previous were coming out of his mouth, his body language was amendment, it would require primary legislation. Things slightly different, and I think that the confidence that can always be undone, but that would need a Bill with he speaks of is not actually met, and is certainly not parliamentary support, so it would not be easy to remove matched, in the industry. such a provision. I pushed the Minister with a number of interventions in the course of his speech, not just because it was 8.15 pm entertaining sport, although it undoubtedly is and can My hon. Friend the Member for Banff and Buchan be, but because I wanted members of the Committee to made a telling point: we are obviously in a rather fluid see the position that the Government are in—the whole situation at the moment, with a withdrawal agreement series of contradictions and broken promises that have that is still under discussion and that will be debated by brought us to this stage. Parliament shortly. I therefore ask both him and the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland to keep The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan said that his their powder dry on the particular issue of the date, is a probing amendment. That matters, because if he because by the time this Bill appears on the Floor of the were to vote with us—presuming that every Opposition House for Report stage, I am sure we will have greater member of the Committee were to support my clarity about the nature of the terms on which we are amendment—the proposed date would go in the Bill. leaving the European Union. If we were to leave the On the question of jam tomorrow, if, as the Minister European Union without an agreement, amendments says, there is a different situation come January, it of this sort would no longer be necessary. The right would be open to the Government to table amendments time to consider amendments to the commencement on Report and change the date back again, or they date will be when the terms of the withdrawal agreement could propose a different date, whatever that would be. are clearer. The amendment would send a greatly reassuring signal to the industry that it was being listened to and Luke Pollard: The fishing industry is known for its that its concerns were being acted on, and that the plain talking and I think that many people watching Government were not going to simply take things on this sitting will be confused as to the Minister’s choice trust. The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan, who 345 Public Bill Committee 17 DECEMBER 2018 Fisheries Bill 346 added his name to a virtually identical amendment, has George Eustice: My hon. Friend the Member for the opportunity to deliver that and make the change. It Banff and Buchan makes an important point. The is for him to decide. He is ultimately accountable to his provisions in clause 42 are set out as they for a good constituents; we are all accountable to our constituents. reason, which is that we need flexibility in subsection (3) It is for him to decide whether he takes the assurances to ensure we can commence different parts of the Bill at from the Minister, given all their various inconsistencies different times. and contradictions. For that reason, I will not withdraw Question put and agreed to. my amendment but press it to a vote. Clause 42, as amended, accordingly ordered to stand Question put, That the amendment be made. part of the Bill. The Committee divided: Ayes 8, Noes 9. Division No. 14] Clause 43 AYES SHORT TITLE Brown, Alan O’Hara, Brendan Carmichael, rh Mr Alistair Pollard, Luke Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Debbonaire, Thangam Smith, Owen Bill. Hill, Mike Sweeney, Mr Paul Luke Pollard: The Minister could have called this the NOES sustainable fisheries Bill. That missed opportunity could Aldous, Peter Jones, Mr Marcus have been reflected in the short title. It would have sent a strong message to the industry and to all those people Duguid, David Lefroy, Jeremy Eustice, George in fisheries that we will create a sustainable fishery after Grant, Bill Morris, James Brexit. That could have been put on the face of the Bill, Hollinrake, Kevin Stewart, Iain but as the Opposition are not allowed to table amendments to a short title, we were unable to do that. Question accordingly negatived. Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Mr Carmichael: Given the refusal to include Bill. commitments to the principle of maximum sustainable yield or the multiple amendments that Opposition Members have tabled—all of which have been rebuffed by the George Eustice: Clauses 39 to 43 will come into force Minister and the Government—does the hon. Gentleman on the day on which the Act is passed. Those are the not think that the Government have got the title right? later parts of the Bill. As we have discussed today, most of the Bill’s provisions will come into force on such a day as the Secretary of State may make them by regulations. Luke Pollard: The right hon. Gentleman steals my Different days may be appointed for different purposes. final line. We would have tabled an amendment, but we Hon. Members will understand that the Bill contains a needed to make sure that the content was right. As broad range of purposes. That is why we believe it is such, we cannot do anything with it, so I will sit down. important to have that flexibility to commence different parts of the Bill at different times. The Chair: We would all have done many things in different times, I am sure. David Duguid: Before the Minister finishes, I want to Question put and agreed to. take the opportunity to thank the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland for tempting me with the Clause 43 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. opportunity to do what might have seemed a slick and Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. easy solution to the issue that we discussed at some —(Iain Stewart.) length. As the Minister has already said, there is a lot going on just now. I will not let this go— 8.26 pm

The Chair: Order. We cannot revisit amendments that Adjourned till this day at Nine o’clock. we have completed and voted on.

PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES HOUSE OF COMMONS OFFICIAL REPORT GENERAL COMMITTEES

Public Bill Committee

FISHERIES BILL

Tenth Sitting

Monday 17 December 2018

(Evening)

[Part II]

CONTENTS New clauses considered. Title amended. Bill, as amended, to be reported. Written evidence reported to the House.

PBC (Bill 278) 2017 - 2019 No proofs can be supplied. Corrections that Members suggest for the final version of the report should be clearly marked in a copy of the report—not telephoned—and must be received in the Editor’s Room, House of Commons,

not later than

Friday 21 December 2018

© Parliamentary Copyright House of Commons 2018 This publication may be reproduced under the terms of the Open Parliament licence, which is published at www.parliament.uk/site-information/copyright/. 347 Public Bill Committee 17 DECEMBER 2018 Fisheries Bill 348

The Committee consisted of the following Members:

Chairs: †JAMES GRAY,DAVID HANSON,MR LAURENCE ROBERTSON,SIR DAVID CRAUSBY

† Aldous, Peter (Waveney) (Con) † Morris, James (Halesowen and Rowley Regis) (Con) † Brown, Alan (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP) † O’Hara, Brendan (Argyll and Bute) (SNP) † Carmichael, Mr Alistair (Orkney and Shetland) Pennycook, Matthew (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab) (LD) † Pollard, Luke (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) † Debbonaire, Thangam (Bristol West) (Lab) (Lab/Co-op) † Duguid, David (Banff and Buchan) (Con) † Smith, Owen (Pontypridd) (Lab) † Eustice, George (Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries † Stewart, Iain (Milton Keynes South) (Con) † Sweeney, Mr Paul (Glasgow North East) (Lab/Co- and Food) op) † Grant, Bill (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (Con) Tracey, Craig (North Warwickshire) (Con) † Hill, Mike (Hartlepool) (Lab) † Hollinrake, Kevin (Thirsk and Malton) (Con) Gail Poulton, Lis Gerhold, Committee Clerks † Jones, Mr Marcus (Nuneaton) (Con) † Lefroy, Jeremy (Stafford) (Con) † attended the Committee 349 Public Bill Committee HOUSE OF COMMONS Fisheries Bill 350

A function of a tribunal is “relevant” if it relates to fishing, Public Bill Committee fisheries or fish health.’ (b) in paragraph 195, after sub-paragraph (3) insert— Monday 17 December 2018 ‘(3A) References in this paragraph to Wales include, in relation to a relevant function of an authority, the area of the Welsh zone (Evening) beyond the seaward limit of the territorial sea. A function of an authority is “relevant” if it relates to fishing, [Part II] fisheries or fish health.’ (6) In Schedule 11, in paragraph 33 (Parliamentary and [JAMES GRAY in the Chair] Assembly procedure applying to exercise of legislative function transferred to Assembly under GOWA 1998), after sub- Fisheries Bill paragraph (6) insert— ‘(6A) References in sub-paragraph (6) to Wales include, in New Clause 4 relation to a relevant function or activity of a cross-border body, the area of the Welsh zone beyond the seaward limit of the AMENDMENTS THAT COULD HAVE BEEN MADE UNDER territorial sea. EXISTING POWERS A function or activity of a cross-border body is “relevant” if it “(1) Where— relates to fishing, fisheries or fish health.’”—(George Eustice.) (a) any provision of this Act amends or revokes This new clause would extend the legislative competence of the subordinate legislation, and National Assembly for Wales to include provision about fishing, (b) the amendment or revocation could have been made fisheries or fish health in the offshore part of the Welsh Zone. under a power conferred by an enactment, Brought up, and read the First time. the amendment or revocation is treated, for the purpose of making further provision under that enactment, as having been made under it. 9 pm (2) In this section— The Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (George ‘enactment’ has the same meaning as in the European Eustice): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018; Second time. ‘subordinate legislation’ has the same meaning as in the Interpretation Act 1978.”—(George Eustice.) New clause 5 essentially addresses an inconsistency This new clause would ensure that the amendments of statutory between the devolution settlements for Wales and for instruments made by the Bill do not limit what can be done under the Scotland and Northern Ireland. Unlike the devolution powers under which the instruments were made. settlements for Scotland and Northern Ireland, the Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added National Assembly for Wales does not currently have to the Bill. legislative competence in relation to fisheries in the offshore area, although it already has executive competence New Clause 5 for those areas. The Bill, combined with our withdrawal from the European Union, will mean that the devolved LEGISLATIVE COMPETENCE OF THE NATIONAL Administrations will have more powers than ever before, ASSEMBLY FOR WALES and we believe it is right for this modification to be “(1) The Government of Wales Act 2006 is amended as made so that the Welsh Government can exercise their follows. legislative competence as set out in the Bill. (2) In section 108A (legislative competence), after subsection (4) insert— The new clause, therefore, will enable the Assembly to ‘(4A) References in subsections (2)(b) and (3) to Wales include, make primary legislation on fishing, fisheries and fish in relation to a relevant provision of an Act of the Assembly, the health for the whole Welsh zone. The Welsh offshore area of the Welsh zone beyond the seaward limit of the territorial region is the area of sea outside the territorial sea—that sea. is, beyond 12 nautical miles from the coast, but within A provision of an Act of the Assembly is “relevant” if it the exclusive economic zone. It is a relatively small area, relates to fishing, fisheries or fish health.’ stretching at its greatest extent to 30 nautical miles from (3) In section 157A (devolved Welsh authority), after the coast of Wales. Without this new clause, the National subsection (8) insert— Assembly for Wales could not make its own primary ‘(9) References in this section to Wales include, in relation to a legislation relating to fisheries in the Welsh offshore relevant function of a public authority, the area of the Welsh region and the management of fisheries in Welsh waters zone beyond the seaward limit of the territorial sea. would be more piecemeal and less effective. A function of a public authority is “relevant” if it relates to fishing, fisheries or fish health.’ (4) In Schedule 3, in paragraph 9 (Parliamentary and Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/ Assembly procedure applying to exercise of legislative function Co-op): There are a couple of points I want to make on transferred to Assembly under GOWA 2006), after sub- this new clause. I understand that the Welsh Labour paragraph (6) insert— Government have raised concerns with the Government ‘(6A) References in sub-paragraph (6) to Wales include, in regarding the National Assembly’s legislative competence relation to a relevant function or activity of a cross-border body, for fisheries matters beyond Welsh inshore waters. The the area of the Welsh zone beyond the seaward limit of the territorial sea. Welsh Government are seeking to bring the National A function or activity of a cross-border body is “relevant” if it Assembly’s competence in line with Welsh Ministers’ relates to fishing, fisheries or fish health.’ Executive competence, which would make the introduction (5) In Schedule 7A (reserved matters)— of a pan-UK framework less complex. The Minister’s (a) in paragraph 9, after sub-paragraph (4) insert— letter to the Committee about new clause 5 explained ‘(4A) References in this paragraph to Wales include, in relation that this is designed to address the need for an extension to a relevant function of a tribunal, the area of the Welsh zone to the Welsh Government’s legislative competence to beyond the seaward limit of the territorial sea. bring Wales in line with Scotland and Northern Ireland. 351 Public Bill Committee 17 DECEMBER 2018 Fisheries Bill 352

Can the Minister formally confirm for the record that “fishing opportunities” means— new clause 5 adequately addresses the issues raised by (a) the maximum quantities of shared stocks of the Welsh Government regarding the Bill, and that they particular descriptions that may be caught have been consulted on and have agreed to the terms of annually in particular areas within UK and new clause 5? Can he also explain why this issue was not Union waters, and addressed at an earlier stage, so that the Bill could be (b) the maximum number of days that fishing introduced in a more complete form? Furthermore, I boats may spend at sea annually, in particular understand that the Welsh Government have also raised areas within UK and Union waters, fishing for particular descriptions of shared stocks; concerns in relation to clause 18 and the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009. Can the Minister tell the ‘shared stocks’ means stocks of sea fish which are Committee when discussions on those issues will be found— concluded, and whether he plans to table further (a) in waters within the exclusive economic zone of amendments to deal with them during the Bill’s progress? the United Kingdom, and (b) in waters within the exclusive economic zone of a member State; George Eustice: I can indeed confirm that we have developed the new clause in conversation with the Welsh ‘UK waters’ means waters within British fishery limits; Government. It was a specific request that they made ‘Union fishing boat’ means a fishing vessel flying the after the Bill had been published and as it approached flag of a member State and registered in the EU; Second Reading, and we needed to go through the ‘Union waters’ has the meaning given by Article 4 of Government write-round process to get agreement to the Common Fisheries Policy Regulation; make the change. Obviously, there was earlier legislation ‘withdrawal agreement’ means an agreement setting as recently as two years ago in which Executive competence out the arrangements for the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the EU in the terms (or was given to the Welsh Government. At that point, they essentially in the terms) endorsed by the meeting did not ask for legislative competence; I think everybody of the European Council held on 25 November can agree that that was probably an oversight at the 2018.”—(George Eustice.) time and it is now important that they have that legislative This new clause would require the Government, when negotiating an competence. I can reassure the hon. Gentleman that agreement with the EU about fisheries, to pursue the objectives that this amendment, as drafted, enables the Welsh Government fishing opportunities should be subject to annual negotiation, and that to have the legislative competence that they seek, that it the UK should receive more fishing opportunities than it does under the has been developed in discussion with them and that it common fisheries policy. therefore addresses their concerns in that regard. Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added Question put and agreed to. to the Bill. New clause 5 accordingly read a Second time, and added to the Bill. New Clause 1

New Clause 22 SEA FISH INDUSTRY AUTHORITY: POWERS IN RELATION TO PARTS OF UK ETC. FISHERIES AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE UK AND THE “(1) The Fisheries Act 1981 is amended as follows. EU (2) In section 2(1) (duties of the Authority)— “(1) This section applies if— (a) after the third “of” insert, “(amongst other things)”, (a) the United Kingdom and the EU enter into a (b) delete the words “as a whole”. withdrawal agreement, and (3) After section 3 (powers of the Authority), insert— (b) pursuant to that agreement, the Secretary of State “3A Exercise of functions in relation to different parts of the enters into negotiations with the EU, on behalf of UK etc. the United Kingdom, for an agreement about the management of shared stocks (a ‘fisheries The Authority may exercise its functions separately and agreement’). differently in relation to— (2) The Secretary of State must pursue the following two (a) the sea fish industry in different parts of the United objectives when negotiating a fisheries agreement. Kingdom, (3) The first objective is that the agreement should provide for (b) sea fish and sea fish products landed in different parts annual negotiations to determine fishing opportunities. of the United Kingdom, (4) The second objective is that the agreement should have the (c) sea fish and sea fish products trans-shipped in different effect that Union fishing boats are not granted access to UK parts of the sea within British fishery limits adjacent waters in any year unless the fishing opportunities for that year to different parts of the United Kingdom. that are available for distribution by the United Kingdom are 3B Delegation of functions (looked at in the round) greater than those that would have been (1) The Authority may authorise any other person to exercise so available under relative stability. on its behalf such of its functions and to such extent as it may (5) The reference in subsection (4) to the fishing opportunities determine. for any year that would have been available for distribution by (2) The Authority may give to any person authorised under the United Kingdom “under relative stability” is to the fishing this section to exercise any of its functions— opportunities that would, in the opinion of the Secretary of State, have been so available for that year under the common (a) financial assistance (by way of loan, grant or fisheries policy, were the United Kingdom still a member of the guarantee), EU. (b) other assistance including assistance by way of the (6) In this section— provision of property, staff or services, for the ‘exclusive economic zone’ has the meaning given by purposes of those functions. Part 5 of the United Nations Convention on the (3) The giving of authority under this section to exercise a Law of the Sea 1982 (Cmnd 8941); function does not— 353 Public Bill Committee HOUSE OF COMMONS Fisheries Bill 354

(a) affect the Authority’s responsibility for the exercise of also require Seafish to report the income it receives the function, or from the levies it imposes and how those are applied in (b) prevent the Authority from exercising the function each part of the United Kingdom. itself.”. As I have often said in Committee, not only is fishing (4) In section 11 (accounts and reports), after subsection (7) devolved but there is absolutely no standardised version insert— of the fishing industry across the UK. From Truro to “(7A) The report must include details of how income Thurso and beyond, it is multi-layered, complex and received from levies imposed under section 4 has been applied in the financial year in respect of each part of nuanced, and is often very localised. Given that there is the United Kingdom by the Authority in exercising its no one single fishing industry pursuing a common set of functions including in particular details, in respect of clear, shared objectives, it is surely ludicrous that we still each part of the United Kingdom, of how the income have a one-size-fits-all fishing authority charged with has been applied by the Authority in— securing a sustainable, profitable future for all parts of (a) promoting the efficiency of the sea fish industry in the seafood industry. How can Seafish practically offer that part, regulatory guidance and service to the industry—including (b) promoting the marketing and consumption of, and catching, aquaculture, processors, importers, exporters the export of, sea fish and sea fish products and distributors of seafood—as well as looking after relating to that part.”. restaurants and retailers in such a complicated and (5) In schedule 1 (the Sea Fish Industry Authority), in differentiated industry? paragraph 16— This is not an attack on Seafish or the people who (a) before sub-paragraph (1) insert— work there.Rather,it is recognising that, with an aggregated “(A1) The Authority must appoint a committee for the coastline of almost 20,000 miles containing a host of purpose of assisting the Authority in the exercise different fishing practices and interests, it is in an almost of its functions in relation to the sea fish industry in Scotland. impossible situation in trying to work in the best interests of everyone. (A2) The committee is to consist of or include persons who are not members of the Authority. Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD): (A3) The Authority must consult the committee on the I have made the same point as the hon. Gentleman exercise of its functions in relation to the sea fish often enough myself. However, the industry in Scotland industry in Scotland.”, surely encompasses the full range of practices that he (b) in sub-paragraph (1), before “committees”insert “other”, identifies across the whole of the United Kingdom. (c) in sub-paragraph (2), for “such committees” substitute How would devolution help to address that? “committees appointed under this paragraph”.”— (Brendan O’Hara.) Brendan O’Hara: I absolutely agree with the right This new clause would give the Sea Fish Industry Authority greater hon. Gentleman. I represent a west coast constituency flexibility to exercise its functions separately and differently in different and he represents a northern isles constituency, which parts of the UK. It would also require Seafish to report how income received from the levies it imposes has been applied in respect of each are vastly different from that represented by the hon. part of the United Kingdom. Member for Banff and Buchan. It is about devolving Brought up, and read the First time. power to as local a level as one possibly can. If Scottish Ministers are given the power to act on behalf of a Brendan O’Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP): I beg to much smaller area and a much smaller concentration of move, That the clause be read a Second time. the industry, I think it will much better serve the industry It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, as a whole across Scotland. Mr Gray. I rise to speak to new clause 1, which has been The Bill gives us the perfect opportunity to reform tabled in my name and in those of my hon. Friends the the current system to ensure that that levy can be better Members for Kilmarnock and Loudoun and for Edinburgh used to promote the range and quality of Scottish North and Leith (Deidre Brock). seafood, both at home and abroad. If Scotland were allowed to take these investment decisions, it would It has been a long-held view of the Scottish Government, allow us to properly support the industry by promoting and, indeed, of many in the sector, that Seafish, because the quality and excellence of Scottish seafood products, of the way it is currently constituted, is not sufficiently both at home and across the world. It would also allow flexible to meet the needs of the entire sector and us to maximise the benefits of Scottish provenance, requires radical reform. Many have made the case that whichissoimportantwhenmarketingourselves,particularly there is an inherent flaw in Seafish attempting to represent abroad, while supplying top-quality products to consumers. all of the UK while operating in an area in which policy is devolved. In trying to represent the whole of the UK Mr Paul Sweeney (Glasgow North East) (Lab/Co-op): fishing industry, Seafish is viewed by many as providing The Labour party fully supports the new clause, which insufficient support to the sector in Scotland, which all seems like a sensible measure that would allow for a too often results in the poor or unsatisfactory marketing degree of variation in the way that the Sea Fish Industry and promotion of Scottish seafood. Authority operates in different parts of the UK to The main objective of the new clause is to devolve reflect the fact that every part of the UK has a distinctive both the control over funding and the Executive powers fishing industry that reflects its local circumstances, as of Seafish to Scottish Ministers. It would also devolve the hon. Gentleman said. The new clause also requires control of the Scottish aspects of the fishing levy, giving Seafish to report on how the income received from the Scotland a key role in deciding how the Scottish share levies it imposes has been applied in each part of the of the fishing levy should be spent. We believe that this United Kingdom. Again, that seems like a sensible new model will provide much greater flexibility for suggestion to ensure that there is transparency in the Seafish to exercise its functions separately and differently way in which the levy is applied in each part of the UK. in the different parts of the UK. The new clause would Therefore, we will support the new clause. 355 Public Bill Committee 17 DECEMBER 2018 Fisheries Bill 356

George Eustice: We disagree with the new clause and I appreciate the support from the hon. Member for think that it is unnecessary. The issue of Seafish and the Glasgow North East, who talked about transparency, seafood levy was looked at in detail as part of the Smith and he is absolutely right. In response to the right hon. Commission recommendations as recently as 2014. The Member for Orkney and Shetland, it is really important new clause would go beyond what that commission that this new clause is seen as a genuine attempt to recommended, which was that the power to impose levies improve Seafish. We are not seeking to undermine should not be devolved to the Scottish Parliament. Seafish; we are seeking to improve how it works and However, we have taken account of some of the how it can work best for the multitude of Scottish issues raised by the Scottish Government and by Richard fishing industries. I agree that there is a community of Lochhead, the Minister at the time. In response, as well interest, particularly in Northern Ireland, but that as having permanent Scottish representatives on its main community of interest will be severely undermined by board, Seafish established a separate Seafish Scottish the imposition of the backstop that we talked about advisory committee early this year to advise the board earlier this evening. on how the levy should be invested in Scotland. The Scottish This change would work because it would allow a industry is also well represented in the sector panels Scottish Seafish to promote all Scottish seafish across that advise on Seafish’s UK priorities, as I have said. both coasts and the northern isles, and it could work. In 2011, a consultation on the Sea Fish Industry At the moment, Seafish does not work well for Scotland. Authority’s regional structures showed little industry Mr Carmichael: I just want to tease out the issues support for the kind of devolution of the levy that the here a little bit. I ask this question in a spirit of genuine hon. Member for Argyll and Bute outlines. Indeed, just inquiry, because I do not know the answer to it, but I 20% of stakeholders supported such a model. A Scotland- would think that a lot of the inshore boats—the foreign focused levy would reduce Seafish’s overall ability to boats in particular—around the hon. Gentleman’s carry out its UK-wide priorities.It would reduce economies constituency and certainly on the Clyde will fish as far of scale and potentially cut across some of our other down as the Isle of Man and around there, so what, in approaches as a UK-wide entity. this context, actually constitutes “Scottish seafish”? The levy setting already requires the consent of all the devolved Administrations. Periodically, when we Brendan O’Hara: One would presume that it is where want to review the levies, we have a discussion with the the catch is landed, or where the boat is registered. So Scottish Government about exactly what they should when a boat comes back to Tarbert, or Oban, or the be. There are arguments about which should go up and right hon. Gentleman’s home island of Islay, that would which should go down, but we have achieved unanimous constitute “Scottish seafood”. I do not need to tell him agreement that we should make the levy change only how important that Scottish provenance is and how once, so I do not accept that Scotland does not have important it is to get those langoustines to Madrid or sufficient influence at the moment. Paris as quickly as we possibly can. If we have an organisation that is at front and centre about Scottish Seafish publishes an annual report that sets out in provenance, I think that would certainly be a step in the great detail all its activities and funding, how it operates right direction. and what its priorities are. I therefore do not believe that As I say, I do not think that Seafish is working we need additional requirements in that regard, since it particularly well for Scotland at the moment and that is is already done. something we have to address. So, with your permission, Mr Gray, I will push this new clause to a vote. Mr Carmichael: I thank the hon. Member for Argyll Question put, That the clause be read a Second time. and Bute for tabling the new clause, because it is an The Committee divided: Ayes 7, Noes 9. important topic to discuss and there is no doubt that Division No. 15] our current system is capable of improvement. I sound a couple of notes of caution, however, in relation to the AYES proposal for devolution. Brown, Alan Pollard, Luke Debbonaire, Thangam We risk breaking up the support that is available by Smith, Owen geography rather than by sector. The inshore fishermen Hill, Mike O’Hara, Brendan Sweeney, Mr Paul in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency, who are catching nephrops, langoustines and others, probably have a fairly strong community of interests with those who are NOES catching in the Irish sea and in the south-west. Aldous, Peter Jones, Mr Marcus Likewise there will be a community of interest in the Duguid, David Lefroy, Jeremy other sectors, such as the pelagic sector at the other end Eustice, George Grant, Bill Morris, James of the country, the white fish sector and so on. Although Hollinrake, Kevin Stewart, Iain I would never close the door on that sort of thing, from my experience, I would require a bit more persuasion that the industry wants or is asking for that kind of reform. Question accordingly negatived.

9.15 pm New Clause 2

Brendan O’Hara: The Minister said that this issue FISHERIES PAYMENTS TO THE SCOTTISH MINISTERS was talked about in 2014. I think he would agree—I ‘After exit day, the Secretary of State must make available to suspect that no one would disagree—that in politics the Scottish Ministers each year sums which are at least 2014 seems a long time ago and much has changed. equivalent to the sums made available to the Scottish Ministers in 357 Public Bill Committee HOUSE OF COMMONS Fisheries Bill 358 the year prior to exit day for the purpose of expenditure under particularly to Scottish Conservatives present, who surely the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (established under want to uphold the interests of Scottish fisheries. Here Article 4 of Regulation (EU) No 508/2014 of the European is a real test of whether they are part of Team Ruth or Parliament and of the Council of 15 May 2014 on the European Team May: will they uphold the interests of the Scottish Maritime and Fisheries Fund).’—(Alan Brown.) fisheries? Brought up, and read the First time. The removal of the EMFF presents a significant Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP): I beg challenge across industry in Scotland. My own experience— to move, That the clause be read a Second time. David Duguid (Banff and Buchan) (Con): The hon. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Gentleman will be aware of the announcement made Mr Gray. I bet you are delighted to be here in the final recently—last weekend, I think—about funding in sitting tonight; the rest of the House has probably the implementation period. As the hon. Member for adjourned. Kilmarnock and Loudoun will probably also appreciate, The new clause would ensure that the vital contribution it was not Barnettised; I think the overall figure was that is made by the current European Maritime and £32.7 million, with £16.4 million going to Scotland. Fisheries Fund to support sustainable growth in Scottish Does the hon. Member for Glasgow North East welcome fisheries and aquaculture, inland waters, the seafood that? supply chain, conservation of the marine environment, and growth in jobs in coastal communities will be Mr Sweeney: All I am looking for is a simple guarantee maintained in the future. that there will be no financial detriment to Scottish However, I must also add that the UK Government fisheries.If you can encourage your colleague the Minister— should be doing more to assess future opportunities such as rejuvenating coastal communities, and identify The Chair: I cannot, but he might. where infrastructure and subsequent funding might be required to maximise those opportunities. That would Mr Sweeney: Sorry, Mr Gray. If the hon. Gentleman result in a bottom-up and needs-based approach that can encourage his colleague the Minister to stand up would lead to the establishment of a proper fund and and give that assurance, we will all be very happy and so the associated long-term planning. If we are to achieve will Scottish fisheries. That is all we are looking for—not the nirvana of catching more fish, landing them in smoke and mirrors or absolute figures cited in isolation, Scottish and UK ports and processing them, further but an absolute guarantee that there will be no financial investment will clearly be required. The replacement detriment as a result of this change. EMFF would be an ideal vehicle for investment leverage. As I was saying, there is a challenge facing the whole Devolution is key here. We cannot possibly allow a of Scottish industry because we are not sure what the repeat of DEFRA stealing the £160 million convergence so-called shared prosperity fund will look like. It will uplift that is due to Scottish farmers—a redistribution replace several models of European funding—including that could have significant effects on future funding to regional selective assistance, which I know from my farmers once historical payments are taken into account former role at Scottish Enterprise was a crucial tool for under any new UK scheme. Scotland currently receives promoting industrial development in Scotland—so we 44% of EMFF moneys; that is obviously way higher have to be very certain that there will be no financial than the pro rata figure per head of population, but it detriment to industry as a result. An assurance to that makes sense given the demographics of the fishing effect would be welcomed by Scottish industry, including industry. I must put it on the record that there is no way the fishing industry. we would ever countenance any future funding being It is incumbent on the Minister to support the new allocated on a Barnett basis. clause because it would provide that degree of certainty. The situation appears even more stark when we look I thought that that was what the Conservative party was at the 2017 industry figures: 55% of employment in the all about: providing certainty to business and allowing sector overall, 58% of fishing industry employment and enterprise to flourish. Is that not music to your ears? I 75% of aquaculture industry employment are in Scotland. think you ought to stand here— Scotland also accounts for 50% of fish processing, 67% of landings in the over-10-metre sector and 32% of The Chair: They. landings in the under-10-metre sector. In a devolved context, it therefore makes sense that post Brexit, as an Mr Sweeney: Sorry, Mr Gray—it is rather late and I absolute minimum, the same allocation be made to the am forgetting my pronouns. I think they ought to stand Scottish Government in the interest of effective distribution. here and support the new clause. Indeed, from the statistics I have cited, there is a clear case that Scotland should have further funding. I certainly Mr Carmichael: I have essentially reached the same would not want to see that happen to the detriment of conclusion as the two previous speakers, for slightly other communities in the UK, but at the very minimum different reasons. The EMFF money has been of massive we should receive the equivalent of what we get now. significance to the industry and to communities around the UK coastline. I support some sort of guarantee that Mr Sweeney: I support new clause 2, which is a that money will continue to go to our fishing industries frankly common-sense measure. It is imperative that, as and communities. The amendment deals, of course, a result of the UK leaving the European Union, the only with guaranteeing that the money will continue to industry must have both the certainty and the financial go to Scotland, but it would be unthinkable that the underpinning that it requires. The new clause would same would not then apply to fishing communities in ensure that, so surely it must appeal to Government Wales, Northern Ireland and, indeed, England. I would Members who want to provide such certainty. I appeal not start from this position; but ultimately, from the 359 Public Bill Committee 17 DECEMBER 2018 Fisheries Bill 360 point of view of the industry in the communities, I that meant. Is not it appropriate that there is also a think the amendment would get us to where we need to baseline set on funding shares, which is effectively what be. For that reason I support it. the amendment says—so that no pennies are lost for Scotland or, indeed, any other part of the UK? Is not George Eustice: I disagree with putting a provision of that a key attribute, which should be embedded, to this nature in the Bill, for reasons I shall explain. It is follow the logic of what the Minister said to one of his very important with legislation to separate the legal hon. Friends? powers that we seek, to engage in such activities as giving financial assistance to the fishing industry, from 9.30 pm the way those obligations are funded. That is, and George Eustice: I do not think it is the same logic at always has been, predominantly a matter for the spending all. That was a different clause, addressing a different review. Such a provision would be unhelpful. issue—a negotiation with the European Union or a As to the legal powers, we have set out in clause 28, bilateral negotiation with a different country. It was not for England, the legal powers we need to make grant at all about a collective position that a Government payments; so we are not, as was suggested, relying on might take with the Treasury. That is different. The some shared prosperity fund. There will be bespoke Treasury might sometimes adopt positions that not grants for the fishing industry, and we set out the everyone would agree with, but it is certainly not a foreign powers to do that for England in clause 28. Clause 28(8) country; it is part of the Government. For all those sets out the fact that there will under schedule 4 be reasons I oppose new clause 2 and I hope the hon. similar powers for the Welsh and Northern Ireland Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun will withdraw it Governments. and perhaps consider what might be done on Report to Ironically, at the time the Bill was drafted and on ensure that Scotland has the legal powers it needs to Second Reading, the Scottish Government told us they do this. did not want the powers; so I put it to the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute that before the Scottish Government Mr Sweeney: Even though the new clause may not start to say that we must guarantee the money, they succeed, it would be worthwhile as a matter of record if should work out how they will guarantee how they will the Minister could provide assurances to the industry get the legal powers to pay any money out in the first that it is the Government’s intent that there should be place. They are now asking us whether we may be able no financial detriment as a result of the changes to the to make amendments later, to include those powers. EMFF and the transition to the new financial frameworks At the moment there is clearly a gap in the Bill, but that may supersede it. that is a consequence of the position that the Scottish Government have adopted, so that they do not have the George Eustice: I think we have demonstrated our legal powers to make any grant payments. intent in the announcements we have made just in the last week that there will be new schemes to replace the Mr Carmichael: The Minister said earlier that the EMFF, and the fact that the current scheme will be money should come through the spending review, as boosted by £37 million. I oppose new clause 2. has long been the case. The EMFF funds have never been part of the spending review; he should know that. The Chair: Mr Lefroy, you look as though you are The amendment would guarantee the money as a funding trying to get my attention, or the Minister’s attention. If stream for the future. What guarantees are there for that you wish to speak, you can just stand up. funding stream in clause 28? George Eustice: EMFF comes from the EU budget Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con): Thank you, Mr Gray; and is part of the EU’s budget when it is set. It is I was not sure whether I could come in once the typically set for a period of five years and is reviewed Minister had finished. The new clause comes to an periodically. As recently as 10 December, the Secretary important point regarding both fisheries and agriculture. of State announced that the Government will put in Until now we have had one line on the budget, something place new domestic long-term arrangements for post-2021, like £8 billion to £10 billion a year net, that we have which will enable us to create schemes similar to the been paying to the European Union. That includes EMFF in each of the four Administrations. In addition, subsidies in fisheries, agriculture and many other areas, he announced an extra £37.2 million of funding to such as regional funds. All those budget lines will now boost the existing EMFF programme, to help the fishing be on the national budget, and they will not be guaranteed industry prepare for the opportunities coming its way, in the same way that they were before, through the as my hon. Friend the Member for Banff and Buchan mechanisms of the common agricultural policy or the pointed out. common fisheries policy. I do not, therefore, believe that the new clause is I think there is a justifiable concern across the fisheries necessary or appropriate. We have demonstrated, as sector and across the agricultural sector that, because recently as last week, our commitment to funding fisheries these budget lines will now be subject to Treasury in the future. The Bill makes explicit provision for action—hopefully positive Treasury action, but not grants to be made in three of the four Administrations necessarily—there will therefore potentially not be the and I would simply say that the hon. Member for same kind of long-term commitment to fisheries and Kilmarnock and Loudoun should first consider obtaining agricultural funding that we see under the CFP and the legal powers. CAP. Would the Minister very kindly give us some fairly strong reassurances on the record about the Luke Pollard: In response to an earlier intervention Government’s intentions on fisheries funding for the from the hon. Member for Stafford the Minister set a medium to long term, and not just in the short term? baseline, effectively, on relative stability—about what Obviously the CAP is ultra vires here. 361 Public Bill Committee HOUSE OF COMMONS Fisheries Bill 362

George Eustice: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for Alan Brown: No, there is not. That will be part of the making that point. I understand his anxiety; this is the settlement with the EU. However, the point is that the first time in half a century that we are taking control of Treasury will control the funding. It will come back to these policies. I will simply say that the point he raises the UK Government, and we are asking for a guarantee could be applied to any other area of Government of funding at least equivalent to EMFF. It will be in the spending. We could argue that there is no guarantee gift of the UK Government to do that. That is the that we will increase spending on the national health whole point of the new clause, and that is why I was service or on schools, and yet we do, because of political drawing attention to the fact that no guarantees are pressure brought to bear by hon. Members on both given in the Bill; it is left to the Treasury and is therefore sides of the House, not least on this side. Of course, it is a risk. always open to hon. Members, if there is a Budget put The Minister made an argument about the legal forward on the Floor of the House with which they powers. The Scottish Government obviously believe disagree and which does not contain the elements they they have the legal powers to give the grants, but that is seek, to vote it down. When we leave the European an argument for another day. That would not stop that Union, new checks and balances will come in, and those money being guaranteed for Scotland. I take the point checks and balances will be the opinion of hon. Members of the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland that such as him, not the European Union. other areas will want the same guarantees. That is fine. I touched on how, going forward, I would like to see Jeremy Lefroy: My hon. Friend is right, but he knows Scotland get more funding, but not to the detriment of perfectly well that we are not the Bundestag, where they other fishing communities around the UK. With that, I go through budgets line by line; in this House it is in will press the new clause to a vote. effect an all or nothing thing. Nobody is going to put a Question put, That the clause be read a Second time. Budget in jeopardy over an area such as fisheries, which— absolutely vital though it is—is a relatively small part of The Committee divided: Ayes 8, Noes 9. the Budget. That points to a real problem that relatively Division No. 16] small areas of public expenditure, which are nevertheless extremely important, have in the way we deal with AYES budgets. Brown, Alan O’Hara, Brendan Carmichael, rh Mr Alistair Pollard, Luke George Eustice: I understand that point, but conversely, Debbonaire, Thangam Smith, Owen one could say that the DEFRA budget is small compared Hill, Mike Sweeney, Mr Paul with other Departments such as the Department for Work and Pensions or the Department of Health and NOES Social Care. Big changes to our budget actually make a small difference to the overall maths, so far as the Aldous, Peter Jones, Mr Marcus Treasury is concerned, so that argument can be made Duguid, David Lefroy, Jeremy either way. Eustice, George Grant, Bill Morris, James As I said earlier, we also have the levies, charges and Hollinrake, Kevin Stewart, Iain tender incomes referred to in earlier clauses. I gave an undertaking that, on Report, we will seek to give more clarity to hon. Members about how those funds might Question accordingly negatived. be deployed to support our fishing objectives. New Clause 3 Alan Brown: The Minister is optimistic about the future prospects and in thinking that I will withdraw the SEA FISH INDUSTRY LEVIES new clause. I thank the right hon. Member for Orkney “(1) The Fisheries Act 1981 is amended as follows. and Shetland and the hon. Member for Glasgow North East for their contributions. (2) In section 4 (levies)— I think the hon. Member for Stafford actually made (a) in subsection (2), for “Ministers” substitute “appropriate Ministerial authority”, the point for me when he expressed his concerns, and looked for reassurances from the Minister, that the (b) in subsection (7), for “Ministers” substitute money will go to the Treasury. Frankly, I do not trust “appropriate Ministerial authority”, the Treasury. I say to the hon. Member for Banff and (c) after subsection (8) insert— Buchan that at one point there was a £1 billion fund for “(8A) In this section, “appropriate Ministerial carbon capture and storage that looked like it was going authority” means— to go to Peterhead, but the Treasury overrode the (a) in relation to sea fish or sea fish products Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy landed in Scotland or trans-shipped within and withdrew the funding. That is the problem with the Scottish zone, the Scottish Ministers, funding reviews by the Treasury: it can put a red pen (b) in any other case, the Ministers.”, through the funding at any time it likes. The Treasury (d) in subsection (9), after “order” in both places where it holds the purse strings. occurs insert “of the Ministers”, (e) after subsection (9) insert— David Duguid: The general point that I think the hon. “(9A) Any order of the Scottish Ministers— Gentleman is trying to make is that, while we are in the (a) under subsection (2) is subject to the negative EU, we get the EMFF. However, does he accept that procedure, there is no guarantee of that same level of EMFF (b) under subsection (7) is subject to the funding for member states in the future? affirmative procedure.”. 363 Public Bill Committee 17 DECEMBER 2018 Fisheries Bill 364

(3) In section 11 (accounts and reports), after subsection (2) George Eustice: As with the earlier amendments, I insert— disagree with new clause 3. It goes beyond what was “(2A) The statement of accounts must specify the total recommended by the Smith Commission, which looked amount of income received in the financial year from at this issue as recently as 2014. There is no industry levies imposed under section 4 in relation to sea fish support for devolving the Seafish levies. Scottish Ministers or sea fish products landed in Scotland or trans- shipped within the Scottish zone.”. already have responsibilities towards Seafish, including with regard to appointments to the board, which are (4) In section 14 (interpretation of Part 1)— agreed across all four Administrations of the UK. As I (a) in the definition of “the Ministers”, in paragraph (c), after “with” insert “(except in the case of an order said earlier, there is already a Scottish advisory committee under section 4(2) or (7))”, to Seafish. It is not appropriate to start to have different (b) after that definition insert— levies when parts of the fleet will land fish in different ““Scotland” and “the Scottish zone” have the same ports around the UK. That would create an unacceptable meaningsasintheScotlandAct1998(seesection126(1) level of bureaucracy for a relatively small organisation and (2) of that Act);”. such as Seafish. (5) In schedule 2 (Sea Fish Industry Levies)— Alan Brown: Did the Smith Commission really look (a) for “Ministers” in each place where it occurs substitute at this and the likes of the red meat levy in detail? What “appropriate Ministerial authority”, recommendations did it make about the red meat levy? (b) after paragraph 3 insert— “4 In this schedule, “appropriate Ministerial authority” George Eustice: It did look at the issue in detail. The has the same meaning as in section 4 of this Act”.”.— then Scottish Minister, Richard Lochhead, made strong (Alan Brown.) representations about it. In particular, I remember that This new clause seeks to devolve control of the Scottish aspects of he wanted to introduce a levy on salmon producers in levies imposed by Seafish to the Scottish Ministers to ensure inter alia Scotland. That was one of the thoughts behind the that levies imposed in relation to fish or fish products landed in Scotland, or trans-shipped in Scottish waters, require confirmation by change that he advocated. Those suggestions were Scottish Ministers, and that Scottish Ministers may by order increase considered by the Smith Commission, but rejected. I the rate of such levies. believe that we should accept that decision, as it looked Brought up, and read the First time. at the suggestions in detail, and I oppose new clause 3 for that reason. Alan Brown: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Alan Brown: I was hoping for a more conciliatory Second time. tone from the Minister when I raised the example of the I will try to brief. The new clause would effectively red meat levy, where the UK Government changes were devolve control of the Scottish aspect of levies imposed very welcome. by Seafish to Scottish Ministers, ensuring that levies imposed on fish or fish products landed in Scotland, or George Eustice: The position with the red meat levy is trans-shipped in Scottish waters, require confirmation different. Scotland and Wales feel that they do not get a by Scottish Ministers. It would also mean that Scottish fair share of the levy because the animals come from Ministers may, by order, increase the rate of such levies. there and travel across the border to be slaughtered, and the levy is collected at the point of slaughter. That is not As my hon. Friend the Member for Argyll and Bute the case with the way that the seafood levy is collected. touched on, it is a long-held view of the Scottish This is a different issue, about whether it is appropriate Government that the existing Seafish levy is not fit for to devolve those particular levy charging functions. We purpose, providing inadequate support to the sector in do not believe it is. Scotland, resulting in insufficient marketing and promotion of Scottish seafood. Levies should not be uniform Alan Brown: I take the Minister’s point about the across the UK and should be placed in the hands of geographical nature of the red meat levy, and there were devolved Ministers to determine best procedure and concerns that my new clause was about only Scotland, practice in their own nations and regions. This issue is so I accept that. Nevertheless, I will press the new clause similar to the red meat levy,which was also a long-running to a vote. sore. The UK Government accepted changes to the Question put, That the clause be read a Second time. Agriculture Bill to resolve that to the satisfaction of the The Committee divided: Ayes 7, Noes 9. Scottish Government. I hope the Minister will see fit to do likewise with these proposals. Division No. 17] AYES Mr Sweeney: I support new clause 3, which seeks to Brown, Alan Pollard, Luke devolve control of the Scottish aspects of levies imposed Debbonaire, Thangam Smith, Owen by Seafish to Scottish Ministers. Inter alia, it would Hill, Mike require confirmation from Scottish Ministers for levies O’Hara, Brendan Sweeney, Mr Paul imposed in relation to fish or fish products landed in Scotland, or transhipped in Scottish waters, and allow NOES Scottish Ministers to increase the rate of such levies by Aldous, Peter Jones, Mr Marcus order. Duguid, David Lefroy, Jeremy It seems that the new clause makes sense and would Eustice, George allow Scottish Ministers to determine the rate of levy Grant, Bill Morris, James that best suits the industry in Scotland. The purpose of Hollinrake, Kevin Stewart, Iain devolution is to allow for degrees of variance to best suit that country’s interests, and the new clause achieves Question accordingly negatived. that. We will support it. 365 Public Bill Committee HOUSE OF COMMONS Fisheries Bill 366

9.45 pm We come back almost full circle to how we deal with The Chair: We now come to new clause 8. what are known as shared stocks. It is pretty clear that that is going to be a subject of some political and Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con): New clause 8 relates commercial significance when we move to the next stage to the West Lothian question set to fish, which we of negotiations on the future relationship with our debated in some detail last Tuesday on amendments 15 current EU neighbours. to 19. I tabled the new clause as a probing amendment We have observed a number of times that the principle at that stage, and at this stage I do not wish to move it. of sustainability was front and centre in the White Paper when it was published, but somehow does not New Clause 11 seem to have made the transition into the Bill. New clause 11 would put sustainability back into the Bill as MANAGING SHARED STOCKS it relates to our management of shared stocks. It seeks “(1) Where shared stocks of common interest are also exploited by other coastal states, the Secretary of State must to give a framework under which we would seek to engage with those states with a view to ensuring that— reach agreement with neighbouring countries, third (a) shared stocks are managed in accordance with the countries and the EU. I would suggest that the principles UK’s international law obligations and in accordance are fairly straightforward and sound and that this is with the objectives of this Act; exactly the sort of thing that the Government should (b) fishing mortality is below levels which will restore or have in the Bill if it were to be, as the hon. Member for maintain those shared stocks above levels capable of Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport suggested earlier, a producing the maximum sustainable yield; and sustainable Fisheries Bill. (c) the impacts of fishing on the marine environment are avoided or, where avoidance is not possible, demonstrably minimised. Luke Pollard: The Bill makes no firm commitment on (2) The Secretary of State must endeavour to establish bilateral how a shared stock should be sustainably managed, or multilateral agreements with other coastal states for the joint which was one reason why we spoke about shared management of shared stocks of common interest. stocks in the objectives right at the start of our consideration (3) Where no formal agreement is reached, the Secretary of of the Bill. That is extremely concerning, as setting clear State must make every effort to reach common arrangements sustainability criteria in relation to negotiations with with other coastal states for fishing of shared stocks of common other countries would help to avoid, for example, another interest. mackerel wars scenario. (4) Where neither a formal agreement nor a common arrangement is reached, the Secretary of State must— However, I have some questions about subsection 6 of the new clause, in particular about its unintended (a) take all necessary steps to ensure that fishing of shared stocks of common interest is carried out such that consequences for the total allowable catch. It suggests the relevant stocks are maintained above levels that if, for any reason, a country reduced its allowable capable of producing the maximum sustainable yield; catch on sustainability grounds, the other countries in and that shared stock would ramp up to get to the total (b) provide and make publicly available an annual report allowable catch, which could have implications for to the appropriate legislature outlining the steps sustainability. It would be interesting to know from the taken pursuant to subsection (a) above. right hon. Gentleman how that might work and how he (5) In setting total allowable catches in the UK exclusive might allay any concerns on that point. economic zone for shared stocks of common interest, the Secretary of State may not increase the total allowable catch for any particular shared stock for UK fishing vessels apart from in George Eustice: I do not agree with the new clause. It the circumstances provided for in subsections (6) and (7). is unnecessary and could have unintended consequences. (6) Where a coastal state with which a shared stock is jointly As a country, we already have clear obligations under managed has reduced the total allowable catch available within its territory and— international law—under both the UN convention on the law of the sea and the UN fish stocks agreement—to (a) the Secretary of State is confident that this new total allowable catch will be complied with and enforced; co-operate on the management of shared stocks. That is and an international obligation that we have as a signatory (b) the coastal state consents to the UK increasing its total to both UNCLOS and the UNFSA. Notably, article 63 allowable catch, of UNCLOS requires the UK and all other signatories then the Secretary of State may increase the UK total to allowable catch by an amount not exceeding the amount by “seek, either directly or through appropriate subregional or regional which the other coastal state has decreased its total allowable organizations, to agree upon the measures necessary to coordinate catch. and ensure the conservation and development of such stocks”. (7) Where the best available scientific advice on a shared stock Both UNCLOS and the UNFSA also contain obligations confirms that fishing mortality of that stock can be increased to achieve maximum sustainable yield. without reducing the stock below a level capable of producing the maximum sustainable yield, then the Secretary of State may I do not accept the analysis that there is nothing on increase the UK total allowable catch in proportion to the change sustainability in the Bill. Clause 1, right at the start of in recommend fishing mortality and the UK’s agreed share of the Bill, contains a list of sustainability objectives, total allowable catch for that stock.”.—(Mr Carmichael.) including a commitment to MSY and all the objectives The purpose of this amendment is to set clear sustainability criteria in that are currently written in the basic EU regulation on relation to negotiations with other countries to ensure that a clear and the common fisheries policy. robust process can be developed to prevent overfishing. Brought up, and read the First time. A more likely scenario is that other countries, whether that be Norway or the European Union, would choose Mr Carmichael: I beg to move, That the clause be to fish unsustainably. In the event that we could not get read a Second time. an agreement, the suggestion here is that we would still 367 Public Bill Committee 17 DECEMBER 2018 Fisheries Bill 368 set our own catch well below that of other member (2) The fisheries policy authorities must ensure that all fishing states. Subsection (6) seems to suggest that other states vessels over ten metres length overall fishing within British might set their quota well below maximum sustainable fishery limits and all UK fishing vessels over ten metres length yield, meaning that we could set it higher, provided we overall fishing within and outside of British fishery limits must have electronic monitoring equipment in order to— had the permission of other member states. (a) provide detailed and accurate documentation of all I am not sure what scenario the right hon. Member fishing activities, monitoring of compliance with for Orkney and Shetland envisages. A more likely scenario fisheries and marine management measures and the is that the UK will insist on sustainable fishing, as we ability to record levels of discarding, as well as details always have, since ours is the country that champions of catch of species, whether subject to catch quota or sustainable fishing more than any other, but another otherwise, and country might not agree to do so. If we could not get an (b) enable the estimation of the size and quantity of the agreement, that other country might fish unsustainably marine biological resources taken or transported and outside of an agreement. to enable the identification, to the extent possible, of— Our remedy for that, as things stand, is to be very clear, as we were in our White Paper, that access to UK (i) the species of marine biological resources taken or transported; waters is conditional on other foreign countries fishing sustainably. We will have strong leverage to be able to (ii) the types and features of fishing gear used, and say to our neighbours: “Unless you fish within an (iii) any technical bycatch mitigation measures used. agreement and within levels that are sustainable, we will (3) The fishery policy authorities must ensure that a comprehensive not grant you the access to our waters on which you enforcement framework is developed in accordance with Council depend.” That puts us in a strong position. The new Regulation (EC) No 1005/2008, as amended from time to time. clause seems to suggest that the UK is the country that (4) The fisheries policy authorities must by regulations make will want to fish unsustainably while everybody else—our provision for any technical requirements necessary to implement neighbours—are the good guys. I suspect the opposite this section.”—(Mr Carmichael.) will be the case, but we have other remedies to ensure The purpose of this amendment is to strengthen the existing mechanisms for monitoring and control to help prevent illegal, that we can deliver sustainable fishing by our neighbouring unreported and unregulated fishing. This includes requiring countries. transmission of position data at least every 20 minutes and requiring For all those reasons, and because we already have electronic monitoring equipment on the majority of vessels capable of legal commitments, including in clause 1, and to a joint carrying such technology. fisheries statement, I oppose the new clause. Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr Carmichael: It is a pity that the Minister’s appetite for declaratory clauses appears to have been sated by Mr Carmichael: I beg to move, That the clause be the introduction of new clause 22. I confess that I read a Second time. struggled to follow some of his reasoning. It comes to This is a very much a probing new clause. There is the point about subsection (6). Essentially, the Minister little in the Bill—arguably nothing—that deals with seems to be saying that we will behave in such a way that monitoring and enforcement. This proposal, authored it is unnecessary for us to include the provision in the by Greener UK, is to have real-time reporting with Bill, because those are our international obligations, technological devices and CCTV cameras. Those are although we are not expecting anybody else to follow live issues within the industry, and between industry their international obligations in the same way. I confess scientists and conservationists. It is unfortunate that that I do not understand the logic of that. there is nothing at all in the Bill on the matter, so I have However, having said that, the sustainability point tabled the new clause to give the Minister an opportunity remains. We know from experience of the common to explain what the Government will do about monitoring fisheries policy that, unless there are principles such as and enforcement, close to the implementation of the sustainability everywhere, Governments and fisheries Bill. managers are always very ingenious at finding ways not to follow them. Luke Pollard: We heard evidence on this subject from Given the lateness of the hour and the fact that we the director of the Marine Management Organisation, will probably want to return to this issue on Report Phil Haslam, who said in relation to enforcement activities with a broader audience, I am not minded to press for a around fishing: Division at this stage, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw “The budget reduction since inception has been in the order of the new clause. 60%”.––[Official Report, Fisheries Public Bill Committee, ; c. 50, Clause, by leave, withdrawn. Q101.] That is simply unsustainable if we are to have properly New Clause 12 enforced, well-protected and well-managed fisheries after Brexit. A number of concerns were voiced in the evidence DUTY TO ENSURE ADEQUATE MONITORING AND sessions and since. We know that the number of hours ENFORCEMENT of surveillance has dropped significantly since 2010, “(1) The fisheries policy authorities must ensure that all from 16,000 to just 2,000 now. fishing vessels fishing within British fishery limits and all UK If we are to avoid a repetition of the scallop wars, but vessels fishing both within and outside of British fishery limits in UK rather than French waters, we need to ensure must have installed on board a fully functioning device which allows that vessel to be automatically located and identified that we have sufficient levels of enforcement. It is good through the vessel monitoring system by transmitting position news that the Government have decided not necessarily data at least every 20 minutes and sharing such position data to scrap all the Batch 1 River class offshore patrol with the relevant fisheries policy authorities. vessels. That is a positive step forward, but there has still 369 Public Bill Committee HOUSE OF COMMONS Fisheries Bill 370

[Luke Pollard] At this stage, the important thing is to ensure that all of the capacity is there. If we need to access it, we can do been no commitment on the number of hours those so very quickly. OPVs may be deployed for enforcement activity; there has just been a headline about their continued service, Luke Pollard: Briefly, EU boats are currently required but with no certainty as to what that will mean. to have IVMS, but there is a data-sharing agreement We need to get much better on enforcement. There between all EU member states. Will the Minister confirm are serious concerns in the fishing industry about the that data sharing agreements are in place for IVMS on focus on enforcement activities by UK ships enforcing EU boats and the UK authorities after we leave the in UK waters, which are targeting UK boats rather than EU? foreign boats, which seem to have a lower standard when it comes to a number of different areas. The 10 pm Government need to get better at enforcement, because George Eustice: There will need to be an agreement the Opposition do not currently have confidence in on that, but obviously we have those data-sharing their ability to enforce in our waters properly, especially agreements with other neighbours, such as Norway, when quota will be drawn down against our EU friends Iceland and the Faroes. In the absence of such an after Brexit, as we move from relative stability to zonal agreement, there will be no access whatsoever to European attachment. There are serious concerns about whether vessels. They will not be able to come into our waters there is sufficient capacity within the enforcement branches unless they comply with our data requirements. of the Royal Navy’s fisheries squadron. I will also press the Minister on what that means for Mr Carmichael: Earlier this evening, when Mr Hanson inshore vessel monitoring systems. Earlier we asked was in the Chair— whether EU boats should have the same requirements to obey the high safety standards and marine environmental protections. Can he confirm that all foreign boats will The Chair: Happy times. be required to have IVMS if they are in UK waters after Brexit, as that will help us in our enforcement activities? Mr Carmichael: The joy is matched by your own presence in the Chair, Mr Gray, I assure you. George Eustice: I shall try to strike a more conciliatory The challenge was put down that we should have tone in my response to this new clause, following the Home Office Ministers on our fishing boats. It seems comments from the right hon. Member for Orkney and that the best we are going to get is some Border Force Shetland. I believe that the new clause is unnecessary, officers on a fishing boat, and not necessarily in the although it does highlight an important issue: enforcement. circumstances that we might have voted on for the The new clause duplicates existing legislation, including purpose that we were discussing. the so-called control regulation—Council Regulation I said at the start that the new clause was intended to (EC) No 1224/2009—which will be rolled forward into be probing. I think that the Bill would benefit from the retained EU law. Therefore, the requirements for vessel inclusion of provisions on enforcement and monitoring. monitoring systems and data transmission and the provision I hope that the Minister will reflect on that. Otherwise, of information such as logbooks will continue to apply we might wish to return to the matter on Report. I am to any vessel fishing in our waters. pretty certain that my noble friends will have an approach In addition, as I made clear earlier, DEFRA has to this. In the meantime, I beg to ask leave to withdraw recently consulted on extending VMS requirements to the motion. UK vessels under 12 metres in length. Work on this is at Clause, by leave, withdrawn. an advanced stage and we anticipate bringing forward the regulations next year. The UK also has obligations under the United Nations convention on the law of the The Chair: To keep the Committee up to date, there is sea and the regulations on illegal, unreported and some confusion about new clause 25, which appears on unregulated fisheries, and that requires effective monitoring the selection list in error. There will be no further debate and enforcement in any event. Also, clause 31 enables on new clause 25, which has already been voted on in a the Secretary the State to make regulations to introduce group earlier today. further provisions pertaining to enforcement and control. The shadow Minister questioned the capacity for New Clause 14 enforcement. As we discussed earlier, the three existing fisheries patrol vessels will remain in service—the decision DUTY TO CO-OPERATE to decommission them has been delayed. In addition, “(1) A fisheries policy authority must co-operate with other four new offshore patrol vessels will come into service fisheries policy authorities in the preparation and application of next year. Finally, we have been doing some work with the JFS and any SSFS, the licensing of fishing boats, the Border Force cutters, and four vessels operated by enforcement against illegal fishing activity, the determination the Border Force are capable of doing fisheries work. and distribution of fishing opportunities and the prevention of We have been training Border Force personnel to do discards. fisheries protection work. Finally, on top of all of that, (2) A fisheries policy authority may share information with we are in discussions with the Maritime and Coastguard another fisheries policy authority for the purpose of discharging its duty under subsection (1).”—(Luke Pollard.) Agency on aerial surveillance, so there will be a substantial This new clause would place a duty to co-operate on all fisheries policy uplift in enforcement capacity. authorities in carrying out their functions under this Bill; and would The hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport provide for the sharing of information between fisheries policy mentioned funding. That will depend on how much of authorities. that capacity we need according to the type of scenario. Brought up, and read the First time. 371 Public Bill Committee 17 DECEMBER 2018 Fisheries Bill 372

Luke Pollard: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Government are not co-operating on a certain aspect, Second time. whereas the UK Government might say, “Well, we are The debate on new clause 25 was a good one, and we co-operating.” Different people would have different can always revisit it. This new clause is about the duty perceptions. How would this function in reality? to co-operate. The Minister has already decided that there is no need for a dispute resolution mechanism in Luke Pollard: The duty to co-operate is a well-established relation to the different national fishing authorities in legal text within primary legislation, so there is already preparing the joint fisheries statement, or the Secretary an established understanding of what that means. On of State’sfisheriesstatement—apositionthattheOpposition that basis, I will sit down and let the Minister respond. disagreed with. In the event of not having a system for resolving disputes, it would be important to have a duty to co-operate in the Bill. George Eustice: I know that we have discussed this issue The amendment has been drafted with the support of earlier, but it is already provided for elsewhere in the the Blue Marine Foundation. The CFP provides the Bill. I invite the hon. Gentleman to look at clause 5(1), glue that currently holds UK fisheries governance together. in particular, which states: Without it there is a danger that the various devolved “The fisheries policy authorities must prepare and publish a Administrations, the MMO and the IFCAs will draft JFS before 1 January 2021.” different regulations, since they will essentially have There is therefore already a legal obligation on all the control over their own areas with no statutory obligation fisheries policy authorities. Also, clause 3(1) states: to speak to anyone else or have due regard to what “A JFS may only be prepared by the fisheries policy authorities happens in neighbouring waters. The effect of this acting jointly”. fracturing of regulation was highlighted by the Pitt review The fact that every fisheries policy authority is under a after the catastrophic 2007 floods, where administrators legal obligation to agree a JFS, and the fact that statement had differing operational practices and poor communication can be established only by those authorities acting within them. The new clause seeks to resolve that in jointly, already gives effect to a legal requirement to act relation to fisheries. jointly and in good faith to agree such a statement. The fracturing of regulation was deemed to exacerbate the harm caused by flooding. Marine regulation faces Luke Pollard: The title of clause 5 refers to “the first the same problem. Two different landing sizes for the fisheries statements”. Can the Minister suggest what same species in different adjacent areas, for instance, will happen in the event of a dispute on the second or would have the effect of making some regulations inoperable third statements? and confusing. Without a duty to co-operate, fisheries administrations would be acting together in an ad hoc manner and co-operation would be seen as an add-on George Eustice: In the event that the statement is to their core purpose. This duty would put co-operation amended, the same rules apply. It can only be applied at the centre of the administrations, where it needs by the authorities acting jointly and we will have to to be. agree these things. The first statement must be done by The new clause is similar to section 13 of the Flood 2021, but any statements after that will obviously also and Water Management Act 2010, which followed the be required, because there is a requirement to have a recommendations of the Pitt review. It does not replace JFS. There will be more than one and the Bill also sets the arrangements of the CFP but would go part of the out that the statement must be reviewed at least every way towards putting EU law into workable UK law. six years.

Alan Brown: Given that we already have co-operation Luke Pollard: I thank the Minister for those remarks. on the joint fisheries statement, can the hon. Gentleman They do not go much of the way towards reassuring us explain how his new clause would create an additional that the second or third fisheries statements will have level of co-operation? any element of co-operation. Therefore, in the absence of a dispute resolution mechanism, which would address Luke Pollard: Effectively, because the Government disputes in preparation for fisheries statements, and in have decided to vote down the very sensible proposal of the absence of him taking on board the duty to co-operate, having a dispute mechanism to resolve any disputes in I think we are storing up trouble that we can quite preparation of the joint fisheries statement and the clearly anticipate in future. I suspect that, as I mentioned Secretary of State’s fisheries statement, the new clause previously, some industrious journalist will dig out this seeks to ensure that all national fisheries bodies have a Hansard report when there is a dispute between the duty to co-operate and that there is no dispute in the different national fisheries authorities, and it will then preparation of the joint fisheries statement policies. be flagged to the wider public that this was anticipated That is why it is so important that an obligation to and not resolved. co-operate is placed on all authorities, to avoid some of the disputes that we otherwise anticipate, especially in The Chair: I think that was an intervention on the the complex waters between England and Scotland, and Minister, who will now conclude his remarks. ensure that the Scottish and English fisheries authorities can set appropriate levels. George Eustice: It was a long intervention, but I have Alan Brown: How would we define and assess that been guilty of that myself at times. co-operation, and who would make the call on how I will just point out that clause 5 goes on to say, in effective it is? I might argue, for example, that the UK subsection (3): 373 Public Bill Committee HOUSE OF COMMONS Fisheries Bill 374

[George Eustice] (b) making or withdrawing a determination of fishing opportunities under section 18, and “The fisheries policy authorities must review a JFS they have (c) making any regulations under this Act, unless those prepared and published whenever they consider it appropriate to regulations are made under— do so and in any event— (i) this section, or (a) before the end of the period of 6 years beginning with the (ii) section 42. day on which it was published, and (b) before the end of the period of 6 years beginning with the (5) The Secretary of State shall publish the Expert Advisory end of the most recent review.” Council on Fisheries” assessment, for a calendar year, of the state of UK fisheries, including— I therefore do not share the hon. Gentleman’s analysis that the duty to co-operate and to work jointly, and the (a) current stocks and their sustainability, legal obligation to have a fisheries statement, expires (b) species distribution within the Exclusive Economic after the first one. Clause 5(3) is clear that that becomes Zone, an enduring obligation, and I am happy to make that (c) the status of employment and skills in the fishing clarification. industry, Those are the reasons why I oppose the new clause. (d) present total catches and future projected total catches, As I have said many times, the Bill respects the contours by both volume and monetary value, and of our devolution settlement. We have a long-standing (e) the economic and social value and impact of the track record of successful concordats and memorandums fishing industry on coastal communities. of understanding that deal with fisheries. When we (6) The first annual assessment under subsection (5) shall be approach an issue such as the December Council and published within 12 months of this section coming into force, and each subsequent assessment must be published within annual fisheries negotiations, we send a UK delegation. 12 months of the previous such assessment. We have a good track record of working together and I (7) For a calendar year, no determination may be made under section believe that the approach we have outlined here is the 18 until the annual assessment under subsection (5) has been best one to ensure that we have a UK framework to published for that year.”—(Luke Pollard.) deliver on those sustainability objectives. This new clause would place a duty on the Secretary of State to establish the Expert Advisory Council on Fisheries, and provides for the Mr Carmichael: I support the new clause, which I Council’s membership and functions. think would improve the Bill. I certainly take the view Brought up, and read the First time. that a dispute resolution mechanism would be preferable. In the absence of that, however, having a duty to co-operate would at least allow for a situation in which Luke Pollard: I beg to move, That the clause be read a any party that was not co-operating could be subject to Second time. judicial review, because they would be in breach of a It is important that we stop using the fishing industry duty given to them under the law. For the Minister to as a political football. This is what the expert advisory say that there is an imperative to reach an agreement on council would seek to do, and it would do so by giving a the face of the Bill presupposes that everybody will say to those who know the industry best and have its work in good faith. In the event that people are not best intentions at heart. The new clause has the industry’s working in good faith, there has to be a mechanism for support. Barrie Deas from the National Federation of identifying that. The Bill is currently deficient in that Fishermen’sOrganisations told the Committee in evidence regard. The new clause is second best, but it would be that his organisation would like to see an better than nothing. “advisory council of people with experience of the industry, who Luke Pollard: I think that the points have been well understand the complexities of a highly diverse and complex established, but I suspect that the Minister will not industry” accept the new clause. I suggest that he thinks carefully as well as being about the context in which we are raising concerns here, “a kind of filter for legislation” in good faith, to avoid trouble in future. I suggest that that could also he considers bringing back an element of it when the Bill is considered in the other place. On that basis, I beg “make recommendations and provide advice on new legislation to ask leave to withdraw the motion. coming through.”—[Official Report, Fisheries Public Bill Committee, 4 December 2018; c. 15-16, Q26-27.] Clause, by leave, withdrawn. An advisory council would run new ideas past a New Clause 15 panel of experts who understand the complexities and nuances of fisheries.The NFFO recommends the Australian EXPERT ADVISORY COUNCIL ON FISHERIES model for reference. It suggests that an advisory council “(1) The Secretary of State must establish a body called the would formally guide policy and promote collaboration Expert Advisory Council on Fisheries for the purpose of exercising the functions in subsections (4) to (6). between central Government, the devolved Administrations, (2) The Expert Advisory Council on Fisheries shall consist of industry, scientists and other key stakeholders, allowing as many people as the Secretary of State considers appropriate. for (3) Before appointing any person to the Expert Advisory “an ongoing dialogue in a naturally variable industry” Council, the Secretary of State must consult with— and guaranteeing that sustainability issues are fully (a) the other fisheries policy authorities, and considered, as well as playing a leading role in the use of (b) any other such organisations as the Secretary of State secondary legislation to ensure an agile and responsive considers appropriate. approach to fisheries management. (4) The Secretary of State must have regard to the advice of the Expert Advisory Council on Fisheries before— On a final point, the NFFO has also pointed out that (a) publishing or amending a Secretary of State fisheries the Bill is right to forecast an important role for secondary statement, legislation. It suggests that the common fisheries policy 375 Public Bill Committee 17 DECEMBER 2018 Fisheries Bill 376 would be inflexible and rigid, and that it is therefore meetings with individual groups such as green NGOs, more important for there to be expert input. Further groups with fishing interests and producer organisations, talks about delegated powers used appropriately would to get a clearer and more detailed input on their own allow a more dynamic approach and would protect particular issues. That, of course, informs our negotiating against unbridled use of such delegated powers. The position. NFFO would like to see an advisory council playing an In addition, we have a number of other models, such influential role in advising the Government on the as the scallop industry consultation group. We also requirements of each piece of secondary legislation. work closely with other fisheries science partnerships Phil Haslam backed up this argument in our evidence around the country and have an expert advisory group session, saying that anything that increases the dialogue already set up to consider EU exit issues. None of those between scientists “can only help” in that respect. He bodies is on a statutory footing, but all of them are was referring to the provisions of an expert group that useful to us. Obviously, we are considering how those would include scientists, conservationists, industry could play into the future. representatives and those responsible for enforcement. We hope that the Government can support this very Mr Carmichael: I commend the Minister for all those sensible amendment, which has industry backing. moves—they are exactly what he should be doing. However, this issue requires a Minister to be prepared to engage Mr Carmichael: Fisheries management, and the politics in that way. The Minister has been a Member for a good surrounding it, is always at its worst when all the few years; he has certainly seen a few Fisheries Ministers various stakeholders and parties retreat to their own in his time, and before he came to the House he saw silos and just lob howitzers at each other. We have seen other Fisheries Ministers who had a very different how that works at different points over the years. It is approach. Does he not understand that there is merit in unproductive. The secret to effective fisheries management, putting the issue on the face of the Bill, to ensure that in my view, has always been to require there to be those who follow him will be required to undertake the credibility from the system in the eyes of the industry, same laudable steps that he himself has taken? meaning that the industry has to be involved in the dialogue every step of the way. Getting fishermen, scientists, conservationists and the various Government George Eustice: In fairness to all my predecessors, I agencies all in the room at the same time makes perfect should say that the convention that I have abided by sense. We have seen some measure of progress in this was established a long time ago.Indeed, after the devolution regard since 2002 and then in 2012, with the creation settlement, the last Labour Government established the and then the strengthening of regional advisory councils, convention of a UK-wide delegation and we have had which—although they are an imperfect animal—have these stakeholder meetings annually ever since. been a vast improvement on what we had before. This is As I said, a number of other ad hoc advisory groups a mechanism by which the industry, scientists, have been set up. The problem with putting a statutory conservationists and others can all be kept in constant body in the Bill in the way proposed is that that might dialogue. become too rigid. The ability to bring together the That would be an eminently sensible move, and the relevant group of experts to address a particular challenge, Minister would do well to note that this is essentially through a particular taskforce—as we have done on the policy put forward by the National Federation of scallops and EU exit, for instance—gets weaker. Fishermen’s Organisations. Its willingness, as the voice We would also have to give a lot of thought about of our industry, should be rewarded and encouraged. who should be on that advisory group. For example, we For that reason, I support the new clause and hope that would need to consider which of the green NGOs had the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport to be on there: it could not just be fishing interests, but will push it to a vote if the Minister does not have would have to include many others besides. Nor is it something positive to say about it. If he does push it to clear that even a so-called panel of experts from the a vote, I will support it. fishing industry and green NGOs would be able to do the work needed to draft and provide an annual assessment 10.15 pm of the stocks; CEFAS does that highly technical piece George Eustice: I do not think that the new clause is of work—rightly, our technical and scientific experts necessary, because we already have extensive involvement provide that work for us. It is, of course, open to those with stakeholders, including environmental NGOs and who think they can to challenge such assessments, but the fishing industry. We are working with the industry the issue is not a matter of opinion but of scientific now to establish what type of advisory infrastructure assessment that must be provided by groups such as we might want to put in place after we leave the European CEFAS. Union, but we do not believe that it is necessary to put This raises an important point about how we engage that on a statutory footing. with industry and green NGOs. I believe that we do so I want to explain to hon. Members what we do every very effectively. We are not saying that we have a closed year in the December Council. Every year, in September, mind on having advisory groups in the future; we simply we rotate around the UK—this year we were in London do not believe that the matter needs to be placed on a and the previous year we were in Cardiff. Everyone statutory footing—that would be too rigid and prevent with an interest comes, from green NGOs to fishing us from being able to bring on board the expertise we representatives.Wetalk them through the stock assessments need. and the approach that we intend to take at the December As I said, we will be talking with industry in the Council. Through a day-long session with DEFRA, months ahead. I hope that I can reassure the hon. that wide group has input on the negotiating stance that Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport that we will take. We follow that up with a series of smaller when we return on Report we may be in a stronger 377 Public Bill Committee HOUSE OF COMMONS Fisheries Bill 378

[George Eustice] NOES Aldous, Peter Jones, Mr Marcus position to outline the type of approach we intend to Duguid, David Lefroy, Jeremy take, to ensure that we have input from industry and Eustice, George environmental NGOs. Grant, Bill Morris, James Hollinrake, Kevin Stewart, Iain Luke Pollard: I realise that I have committed a schoolboy error in not following the advice of the Environment Question accordingly negatived. Secretary. The amendment starts: “Expert advisory council on fisheries”. New Clause 16 If only we had called it the pre-eminent voices’, the greybeards’, the boffins’, the experienced practitioners’, PLASTIC WASTE PRODUCED BY FISHING ACTIVITIES the aficionados’, the hotshots’ or even the maestros’ ‘(1) The Secretary of State may make regulations to control advisory council, we might have got it through. the creation and disposal of plastic waste during fishing The new clause is the only real change that the NFFO activities. wanted to the Bill. Although I would have liked the (2) Regulations under this section may make provision— NFFO to push further on a number of areas, it decided (a) to prohibit the disposal of plastic items while at sea; to push only on one—this area. To deny the key concern (b) to require plastic items to be disposed of at specified of the key stakeholder for the fishing industry across onshore processing facilities; the UK and describe it as too rigid will not sit well with (c) to require the amount of plastic waste produced during the fishing federations across the country. fishing activities to be recorded; and (d) to prohibit the use of certain categories of plastic item Brendan O’Hara: The hon. Gentleman is making a during fishing activities. compelling case. Can he guarantee that his new clause (3) Regulations under this section are subject to the affirmative will not impinge on the devolution settlement, but will procedure.’—(Luke Pollard.) fully respect the devolved competencies in Edinburgh, This new clause would enable the Secretary of State to make Belfast and Cardiff? regulations to control the creation and disposal of plastic waste during fishing activities. Luke Pollard: It absolutely should do that. That gives Brought up, and read the First time. the Secretary of State the ability to have some flexibility. Effectively, we have a Government who consult, but do Luke Pollard: I beg to move, That the clause be read a not like a requirement to consult, and who are engaging Second time. with expert voices, but do not want an expert group. I We are nearly there now. We can all agree that more have to say to the Minister that his reassurance, “Don’t needs to be done to tackle the global crisis that is worry, this will be okay on Report,” would have been a marine pollution, but better regulation is needed to lot more reassuring if that engagement and work had ensure that the fishing industry plays its full role in been done prior to the Bill’s coming out. tackling marine plastics. The statistics on marine plastics waste are really George Eustice: Does the hon. Gentleman not accept shocking. Greenpeace estimates that 12.7 million tonnes that it is already there? I have just explained in great of plastic end up in our oceans each year—the equivalent detail how, every year as we approach a December of a truckload of rubbish every minute. The waste Council, we engage a wide range of organisations. includes everything that you might expect from our throw-away society, from plastic bottles and bags, to Luke Pollard: Indeed, and Barrie Deas of the NFFO fruit stickers and disposable razors. It also includes described the advisory set-up that exists already under plenty of waste produced by the fishing industry itself. the CFP. He has noted that its abolition via our exit It has been heartening to see the war on plastics go creates a gap that needs to be filled by expert advisory from being something of a fringe issue to entering the groups, which is what the new clause suggests. mainstream, particularly since the broadcaster David I understand that the Minister may not want to Attenborough’s “Blue Planet II”. People across the accept an amendment from the Opposition, so I encourage country are switching to reusable bags, bottles and him to take the wording of it and tweak it ever so coffee cups, but the fishing industry has not yet fully slightly, so that he can “make it his own”—to borrow a faced up to the damage that some of its practices and its bit of Louis Walsh from “The X Factor”—and then use of plastics are doing to the marine environment. bring it back later in the Bill’s progress, because this is The Environment Secretary found “Blue Planet II” so something that the fishing industry wants. On that upsetting that he told The Guardian he had been “haunted” basis, I will be pushing the new clause to a Division. by images of the damage done to our oceans. I therefore Question put, That the clause be read a Second time. wholeheartedly expect the Minister to support the new clause, which would help exorcise the Secretary of State’s The Committee divided: Ayes 8, Noes 9. demons. Division No. 18] Mike Hill (Hartlepool) (Lab): My hon. Friend mentions AYES plastics. In the light of the proven effects of microplastics Brown, Alan O’Hara, Brendan on the marine environment and wildlife, does he agree Carmichael, rh Mr Alistair Pollard, Luke with me and environmental movements such as Plastic Debbonaire, Thangam Smith, Owen Free Hartlepool that the Bill presents a perfect opportunity Hill, Mike Sweeney, Mr Paul to introduce long-overdue protective measures? 379 Public Bill Committee 17 DECEMBER 2018 Fisheries Bill 380

Luke Pollard: I agree that to tackle microplastics, initiatives over the years, some of which I have supported, especially the plastic waste generated by the fishing industry, particularly Fishing For Litter. Such things should be we first have to deal with the macroplastics that are encouraged. breaking down to form microplastics in many cases. It is in the industry’s interest to ensure that the To take one example, which shows the scale of the amount of plastic in the oceans, which then breaks problem, a study by the conservation group The Ocean down and becomes the microplastics that the hon. Cleanup looked at the so-called great Pacific garbage Member for Hartlepool referred to, is not there, because patch—an area of floating rubbish estimated to be it will have an adverse effect on the fish that are caught. three times the size of France. It found that most of the What enters the food chain has a consequence. What we 79,000 tonnes of plastic in the patch is abandoned have here is a power—a stick that the Minister may hold fishing gear,as opposed to the plastic bottles or packaging behind his back—to concentrate minds in the event that that we tend to focus our efforts on. That rubbish the initiatives taken by the industry are not pursued as included fishing nets and a range of other abandoned universally and rigorously as the gravity of the situation fishing gear, such as ropes, oyster spacers, eel traps, demands. crates and baskets. In the EU, it is estimated that approximately 20% of 10.30 pm gear is lost at sea. The reasons for that range from George Eustice: This is an important issue. We all accidents, storms and entanglement to intentional know that the challenge of plastics in our ocean has abandonment. A particular concern with fishing waste risen up the agenda significantly since “Blue Planet II”. is that, by design, it will cause problems for marine life. As the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland Much of the waste has been dubbed “ghost nets”, a pointed out, there are a number of important initiatives term that may be familiar to hon. Members, which out there. We have supported, for instance, the Fishing refers to purposefully discarded or accidentally lost For Litter initiative that he cited. In addition, the netting that drifts through the ocean and entangles Government recently made available £200,000 to support whales, seals and turtles. Some estimates suggest that a research project looking specifically at microplastics 100,000 marine animals are strangled, suffocated or derived from tyres and clothing. However, we all know injured by plastics every year. that in the context of fisheries the biggest challenge is Today, I met Christian Marr from Andrew Marr perhaps that of ghost nets or lost nets, particularly International—the fishing company, rather than the when they have the monofilaments that can cause so BBC journalist—who set out the extra steps to which much damage to our marine environment. I will address his Jubilee fishing boats go to retrieve car tyres, plastic those areas specifically. pollution and even washing machines from their nets First, I draw hon. Members’attention to clause 31(4)(i), while at sea. He also explained that he wants more ports which specifically cites to provide rubbish facilities so that waste generated by “the retrieval of lost or discarded sea fishing equipment” fishers at sea is landed and disposed of responsibly—which, as one of the areas where the Government can legislate to be honest, does not always happen—rather than through technical measures to address a particular challenge. discarded overboard. He made the good point that, if I believe that the Bill already, through that subsection, fishers leave for a week with their shopping delivery and addresses the issue of lost fishing equipment, including get back without any shopping waste, there is only one nets. place where that waste could have gone. The issue is In addition to that provision in the Bill, there are partly about encouraging behaviour change in the fishing existing provisions that we intend to retain. Notably, the sector. Not all fishers do it, but some do, which is why Council control regulation 1224/2009 is being brought tackling plastic waste is important. across through the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. It is clear that more can and should be done to tackle That control regulation already requires that lost fishing fishing’s plastic pollution problem, but progress has so gear retrieval must be attempted as soon as possible. It far been slow. Conservation efforts would benefit from also requires that if retrieval is not possible, fishermen better data on the problem. The new clause would must inform the UK authorities within 24 hours enable the Secretary of State to ensure that the amount —by notifying the UK Fisheries Monitoring Centre or of plastic waste produced during fishing activities is through an electronic logbook. There is already a reporting recorded and widely understood. It would also allow requirement for lost gear that cannot be retrieved. The Ministers to regulate to prohibit the disposal of plastic Marine Management Organisation also has guidance in items while at sea and to require plastic items to be place to assist fishermen to comply with those regulations. disposed of at specified onshore processing facilities. I think that the combination of the powers set out in The new clause contains common-sense enabling steps clause 31 and the retained EU law that already exists on that would strengthen the Secretary of State’s powers to the problem of lost fishing gear addresses the issue tackle the problem. The Government like to say that sufficiently,and there is therefore no need for the additional marine waste is a priority for them, so I hope that the powers outlined by the hon. Member for Plymouth, Minister will support the new clause. Sutton and Devonport in new clause 16.

Mr Carmichael: The inclusion of such a clause should Luke Pollard: I thank the Minister for that response. be supported. If someone walks along any beach these Again, it is disappointing. Given that we have an urgent days, they will see discarded rope, net, broken floats and crisis around marine plastics, the strong voice of this old floats. Unfortunately, a lot of the plastic waste on House, united on a cross-party basis, should go out to our beaches comes from the fishing industry. There is a say that extra steps will be taken to tackle marine waste. mixed experience with regard to the industry and its Putting that in the Bill, not hidden away in a subsection approach to that. There have been several really good about the retrieval of lost gear—not something that I 381 Public Bill Committee HOUSE OF COMMONS Fisheries Bill 382

[Luke Pollard] commitment to double the size of the co-operative sector. The UK fishing industry contains a range of am convinced takes place in the way that the Minister co-operatives operating in the catching, landing and suggests—would have sent a better tone to the industry, processing sectors. The UK fishing industry, specifically and to all voters concerned about marine plastics. the concentration of ownership and quotas, is in need I am disappointed that the Minister has not picked of reform. this up. Again, I suggest that he looks seriously at the As we have already discussed, as we seek to gain wording and considers tabling an amendment of his greater and more sustainable use of the vast resources own on this matter later on. I would like to press the in the seas that surround our islands, we need to do so new clause to a vote. in a way that spreads wealth and ownership in the UK Question put, That the clause be read a Second time. fishing industry. Greater diversity in ownership will The Committee divided: Ayes 8, Noes 9. benefit the industry and the communities that rely on it by challenging the dominant players and giving access Division No. 19] to new entrants. AYES The fishing community has a long history of co-operation Brown, Alan O’Hara, Brendan and co-operatives. The benefits of co-operatives are Carmichael, rh Mr Alistair Pollard, Luke clear: increased productivity, increased resilience and Debbonaire, Thangam Smith, Owen the spread of economic democracy. Hill, Mike Sweeney, Mr Paul Mr Sweeney: Does my hon. Friend recognise that an NOES exemplar of co-operation in the fisheries sector is the Aldous, Peter Jones, Mr Marcus Scottish Seas co-operative, which covers numerous ports Duguid, David Lefroy, Jeremy from Fraserburgh and Peterhead to all round the Eustice, George west coast? It encompasses 60 vessels and more than Grant, Bill Morris, James 250 fishermen, which is a huge opportunity for smaller Hollinrake, Kevin Stewart, Iain fishermen to make a significant economic impact and to exert leverage on a market that is increasingly dominated Question accordingly negatived. by larger retailers and processors.

New Clause 17 Luke Pollard: My hon. Friend makes a good point. The success of the co-operative sector in the fishing FISHING CO-OPERATIVES industry has been a hidden secret. People who advocate “(1) The Secretary of State must promote co-operatives within co-operatives, as I do as a Labour and Co-operative the fishing industry, and such promotion may include— MP, need to speak louder about that success story. (a) offering financial assistance for the creation or development of fishing co-operatives within the Further encouraging co-operative ownership and ways following aspects— of working is common sense in many ways. New co-operatives in the differing aspects of the industry (i) landing; can be the building blocks of new community wealth (ii) catching; and for communities around the coast. We believe in the (iii) processing co-operative model, which is an important tool for (b) establishing bodies to provide practical support and rebuilding a fairer, and therefore better, fishing industry. guidance for the development of new co-operatives. The Government have important role to playin encouraging (c) issue guidance on the practical steps which can be that development. taken pursuant to the establishing a new The Bill provides the opportunity to place new duties co-operative. on the Secretary of State to support the expansion and (2) Financial assistance under sub section (1) may be given by development of co-operative businesses in all aspects of way of grant, loan or guarantee, or in any other form. the fishing industry. Alongside our proposed quota (3) An organisation shall be recognised as a fishing reallocation to extend opportunities, support should be co-operative if it meets the following conditions— given to existing fishing co-operatives to grow, and to (a) it is— new co-operatives to start up. That should be targeted (i) registered with the Financial Conduct Authority as at coastal towns and communities where the fishing a co-operative; or industry has been in the steepest decline. By supporting (ii) constituted under the Co-operative and the new duties, the Government will show that they are Community Benefit Societies Act 2014; and interested not only in the status quo but in embracing (b) it operates in a sector of the fishing industry described their role in reshaping the industry and spreading economic in 1(a)(i), (ii) or (iii).”—(Luke Pollard.) democracy. This new clause would require the Secretary of State to provide financial assistance, establish support and issue guidance in order to promote co-operatives in the fishing industry. George Eustice: I agree that co-operatives have an Brought up, and read the First time. important role to play in the fishing industry. In many ways, the industry is already dominated by producer organisations, which are a form of co-operative. Those Luke Pollard: I beg to move, That the clause be read a organisations are formed by effectively pooling the quota Second time. that was attached to individual vessels. The vessels that Members will be pleased to hear that this is the last join the producer organisation then pool their fishing new clause that I will move this evening, but it is an opportunities and fish against them as a co-operative important one. The Labour party has a manifesto movement. They already dominate. 383 Public Bill Committee 17 DECEMBER 2018 Fisheries Bill 384

DEFRA has supported discussions and plans on the “to make provision about the legislative competence of the National development of producer organisations in the inshore Assembly for Wales in relation to fishing, fisheries or fish health sector. When Jerry Percy gave evidence, we heard that in the area of the Welsh zone beyond the seaward limit of the he was keen to progress that. Some of the inshore territorial sea;”—(George Eustice.) under-10-metre fleet seek to support one another, come This amendment to the long title of the Bill is consequential on NC5. together as a co-operative and manage their own quota. We in DEFRA have said that we are open to doing that George Eustice: On a point of order, Mr Gray. I do and to facilitating that for the inshore fishermen who not want to detain hon. Members any longer than would like to join such a co-operative. necessary but I want to record my thanks to the Clerks I also point out that clause 28(1)(c) creates a power and all hon. Members for their work on the Committee, for Secretary of State to give financial assistance for the and in particular for staying so late this evening when “reorganisation of businesses involved in commercial aquaculture the House has long since adjourned. activities or commercial fish activities”. There is provision in that clause for the Secretary of Luke Pollard: Further to that point of order, Mr Gray. State to give financial assistance to co-operatives or to I add my thanks to the Committee staff, the Clerks and support producer organisations, so the power is there, all the stakeholders who have contributed so much to should it be needed. the passage of the Bill, and I wish it best speed. In conclusion, I agree that the co-operative model has With your permission, Mr Gray, I also wish the an important role to play, but I argue that the sector has Minister the best of luck at the fisheries summit. As he long co-operated through the existing producer organisation controls the programme motion, perhaps next time he structure, and that the powers exist in the Bill to support finds himself with a fisheries Bill and a fisheries summit that model further. at the same time, it might be wise to adjust one so that he can attend the other. I wish him the best of luck for Luke Pollard: I think what the Minister said at the the remaining sessions of that summit and hope he end was, “We support co-operatives and want to further comes back with a good deal for our fishers. their development,” but he just chose a way to shoot down the new clause nicely Mr Carmichael: Further to that point of order,Mr Gray. George Eustice: What I was actually saying was that I associate myself with those comments. It is at least we do not need the new clause because there are powers eight and possibly nine years since I last sat on a Public elsewhere in the Bill to support co-operatives. Bill Committee. In fact, if I say that the last time I sat on a Bill of this sort it was a Standing Committee, you Luke Pollard: I am very pleased that the Minister will understand, Mr Gray, that that takes us back to at managed to end the discussion by pointing out a clause least before 2010. that includes the word “aquaculture”, because that is one of our favourite points. Supporting the development In addition to those we have already thanked, we of co-operatives is important and something that we should record our thanks to those who gave evidence to should be encouraging, so I encourage the Minister to the Committee. As a neophyte in that regard, I thought take it seriously. As a result, for the final time, I will that was enormously helpful. That innovation has press the new clause to a vote. enormously improved our procedures. Finally, I associate Question put, That the clause be read a Second time. myself with the best wishes with which we send the Minister to Brussels. It has clearly not been an easy year The Committee divided: Ayes 5, Noes 9. but I hope he will do everything he can to bring home Division No. 20] the best possible settlement because the sustainability AYES we have spoken about in theoretical terms during the Committee is very much at stake in practical terms. Debbonaire, Thangam Smith, Owen Hill, Mike Pollard, Luke Sweeney, Mr Paul Brendan O’Hara: Further to that point of order, Mr Gray. I associate the Scottish National party with NOES the previous comments. Our sincere thanks to the Clerks and all hon. Members who have made this such an Aldous, Peter Jones, Mr Marcus interesting, good-natured and serious Committee Duguid, David Lefroy, Jeremy Eustice, George investigation of the Fisheries Bill. As everyone does, I Grant, Bill Morris, James wish the Minister the best of luck in his endeavours Hollinrake, Kevin Stewart, Iain when he meets the rest of his EU counterparts. Finally, Mr Gray, thanks to you and Mr Hanson for chairing the proceedings. Question accordingly negatived. The Chair: We now come to new clause 23. The Chair: I am most grateful, Mr O’Hara. For a minute, I thought we had been forgotten. I will pass Mr Carmichael: The issues that I sought to explore in those thanks to Mr Hanson. Those were, of course, relation to new clause 23 were well explored earlier in entirely bogus points of order, but they were none the our proceedings, and accordingly I am not seeking to less very welcome. press it. Bill, as amended, to be reported. Title 10.44 pm Amendment made: 10, title, line 11, after “fisheries;” insert— Committee rose. 385 Public Bill Committee HOUSE OF COMMONS Fisheries Bill 386

Written evidence to be reported to the House FISH14 Honor Frost Foundation (HFF) Steering FISH13 RSPB Committee on Underwater Cultural Heritage