Fisheries Bill [HL]

Commons Amendments

Motion on Amendment 1

That this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 1.

1: Clause 1, page 1, line 12, leave out subsections (2) and (3) and insert— “(2) The “sustainability objective” is that— (a) fish and aquaculture activities are— (i) environmentally sustainable in the long term, and (ii) managed so as to achieve economic, social and employment benefits and contribute to the availability of food supplies, and (b) the fishing capacity of fleets is such that fleets are economically viable but do not overexploit marine stocks.”

My Lords, the Government recognise the intent of this House in focusing its attention on environmental sustainability. The Bill recognises the complexity and challenges of fisheries management and sets a framework that ensures that sustained environmental progress goes hand in hand with social and economic considerations. I should highlight some actions that Defra is undertaking that focus on environmental sustainability.

The Marine Management Organisation has issued a call for evidence on fisheries management measures for five marine protected areas to be implemented next year. Industry recognises the importance of sustainability and wants to work in partnership, as shown when it raised concerns about a scallop fishery on the Dogger Bank. Following constructive discussions with all four Administrations, the area was closed to conduct scientific surveys and provide increased protection to the stock in the area. The National Federation of Fishermen’s Organisations stated that

“without a functioning ecosystem and policies which limit fishing to safe levels, there will be no fishing industry.”

The Cornish Fish Producers’ Organisation said that,

“it is simply bad business sense to ‘bankrupt’ fish stocks—a healthy marine environment is the cornerstone of the UK’s fishing future.”

We have previously discussed the Bill’s fisheries management plans. They are an important demonstration of the Government’s commitment to improving the marine environment. There are clear obligations for consultation, reporting and review of the plans, providing opportunities to hold the Government to account. We are already working with the shellfish industry advisory group to support its initiative to develop management plans for crabs, lobster and whelks. These valuable stocks currently have little management, so it is right that we prioritise these plans.

In subsection (2)(a)(i) leave out “in the long term”.

My Lords, I beg to move Motion 1A standing in my name. I draw attention to my environmental interests, as declared in the register. I am also a member of the Marine Conservation Society.

We are very nearly here with this important legislation. First, I offer my sincere thanks to my noble friend, who is the epitome of patience and understanding. I am sorry for all the extra work I have caused him and his hard-working officials. I also thank the Secretary of State and Fisheries Minister in the other place for the various discussions we have had. I have not had so much interaction with Ministers since I was the Deputy Chief Whip there, and that was normally telling them that they had to stay for votes.

My amendment is very simple, which noble Lords might expect from someone who is best described as a “bear of very little brain”. I simply want to remove the rather vague “in the long term” from sustainability. My fears are perhaps unfounded, and my noble friend has done his best to reassure me that the Bill will offer jam tomorrow, if it does not today, but I believe that we should be putting sustainability at the immediate heart of our fishing policy.

But why is “in the long term” included? What does it actually mean? I remember, when I was in retail, always being confused by the term “lifetime guarantee”. Does it mean the lifetime of the purchaser or of the product so guaranteed? Either way, it is a pretty meaningless phrase. So when does “short term” finish and “mid term” kick in? More importantly, when does “long term” mean? When should we expect—next year, the next five years or, more worryingly, next century? I feel this is a pretty meaningless term, so why not just ditch it?

One of the reasons we have heard is that not having “in the long term” in could threaten port developments. I understand that might be a consideration but, not being a great fisheries expert, I would not have thought that ports would affect fisheries, as they are not close. They might affect shellfish or nearshore fisheries, but not the deep-sea fisheries that we are talking about.

Fish are not visible; perhaps, if they were above the seas, we would appreciate their vulnerability much more. Think about bison on the great plains of North America; there were so many in the 19th century, but they had almost gone within a few decades. Passenger pigeons present an even more poignant example of extinction by overhunting. In today’s world, we are all aware of the dwindling numbers of insects, which is very worrying. But let us not fool ourselves: it has already happened with fish. Speak to the Newfoundlanders, who lost their cod and their livelihoods. We cannot continue to overfish the oceans and, if we still want to maintain our harvest of this valuable food source, we must act and must act straightaway.

I was disappointed to learn that my simple thought unleashes legal arguments far beyond my understanding. Call me psychic, but I get the feeling that my amendment will not be accepted. I am at heart a pragmatist, not a dogmatist, so I therefore ask my noble friend for an assurance, at least, that the current situation, which often prioritises short-term economic impacts when deciding quota limits, will be addressed and that fishing authorities will give due regard to long-term environmental impacts when making decisions.

Perhaps, for those cases where quota allocations are set above scientifically recommended sustainable levels—which happens year after year for certain stocks at the annual negotiations—this could be achieved by giving the public detail setting out the decision-making process and how long-term environmental sustainability of the stock was taken into consideration when making the decision. One of the issues around the annual quota-setting process is the lack of transparency about how decisions are reached. We urgently need accountability around the decision-making process and why the Secretary of State has agreed to overfish a particular stock, if he or she has.

This has been a steep learning curve for me, which I perhaps should have started on some time ago, but I am always keen to learn. I wait to hear my noble friend’s reply to my points. I am also acutely aware that this Chamber is appointed and not elected, and I do not want to embark on something that will unreasonably delay the Bill. I beg to move.

My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Randall of Uxbridge, who explained the purpose of his amendment so clearly. I can be brief on Motion 1B, because I believe—and I will come back to this—that the Minister agreed to the point of the amendment in his opening speech. The rationale of my amendment, like that of the noble Lord, Lord Randall of Uxbridge, is to ensure that the Bill places primacy on the environmental sustainability of fish stocks and the marine environment.

My amendment explicitly put environmental sustainability as the primary fisheries objective when I tabled it on Report. It was rejected by the Government because, it was argued, sustainability is a three-legged stool. It is about the environment, but it is also about the economy—the livelihood of fishers—and communities. I accept that sustainability is a three-legged stool. Amendment 1B asks how the three legs will be balanced against one another. Like the noble Lord, Lord Randall of Uxbridge, I wish to see transparency in how these calculations are done. As he said, we must avoid making the same mistakes that we have made in the past. We do not need to repeat the arguments that we have heard many times during the passage of this Bill, that many fish stocks, not only in European and UK waters but in other waters around the world, are heavily overfished because short-term gain has always been put ahead of sustainability—the livelihoods of fishers today put ahead of the lives of the fish tomorrow. I am asking the Government to show us their workings. If they are going to balance these three elements of the stool, they must show us how. How have the joint fisheries statements balanced the three legs of sustainability, along with the other fisheries objectives?

In his opening remarks, the Minister answered this. I listened very carefully and wrote down what he said, which was that the joint fisheries statement will include an explanation of how the fisheries policy authorities have sought to balance the individual components of the fisheries objectives, including, importantly, the three elements of the sustainability objective, which is exactly what my amendment was asking for. Furthermore, he said that the fisheries authorities would also give the reasons why their balancing of these different elements of the objectives, including the sustainability objective, is the most appropriate way of meeting the sustainability objective. If the joint fisheries statements follow the indication that the Minister has given, we will end up with transparency, we will all understand the workings and we will understand that if sacrifices are being made in the short term to the marine environment on behalf of the livelihoods of fishers and their communities, we will at least know that this has happened, and why it has happened, which will be a significant step forward.

My Lords, I remind the House of my interest, as chair of the Cornwall and Isles of Scilly Local Nature Partnership. I will speak to Amendments 14A and 14B in my name, but I shall first refer to some of the other amendments. It is excellent to follow the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, to whom I give all credit for his persistence in ensuring that this matter around objectives is not allowed to rest. I hope the Minister will give the noble Lord the assurances that he needs.

I will not go on about it after this, but I must say that the Government have made it quite clear that this Bill is the first time for 40 years or more that we have been able to have our own fisheries legislation—fundamental primary legislation—in this House and in the other place. There are good things in it, and I am delighted that the Government brought it forward, but they should have had more courage to make it, in the Prime Minister’s words, a world-beating and ambitious Bill, rather than one that takes us half way to the destinations we need to reach. I give it credit for where it has got us, but it could have gone further, which is why I am disappointed that the four amendments that this House sent to the other place were effectively rejected.

Regarding the ordering of the objectives of fisheries plans and management, by giving all those objectives equal status, there are a number of escape clauses to avoid the difficult decisions with the fisheries industry around setting tax and quotas. I suspect that we will not have a fundamental fisheries Bill for many years now, so these escape routes will cover future Governments as well as this one. Whatever reassurances we have now, we cannot be certain that they will be carried forward by future Secretaries of State or Governments. That is why I am so sad that we are repeating the mistakes of the common fisheries policy. However, I will move on, and if the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, is happy with the Minister’s response, I give it full credit.