House of Lords
Monday 2 March 2020
Prayers—read by the Lord Bishop of Salisbury.
Oaths and Affirmations
Baroness Morgan of Drefelin took the oath, and signed an undertaking to abide by the Code of Conduct.
Artistic Content: Copyright Protection
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to ensure that United Kingdom creators of artistic content have the same level of copyright protection as those working in the European Union.
My Lords, UK copyright works, such as books, films and music, will continue to be protected in both the EU and the UK because of the UK’s participation in the international treaties on copyright.
My Lords, in contrast to the Government’s present intention not to implement the copyright directive, the Culture Minister, Nigel Adams, said in January:
“It is imperative that we do everything possible to protect our brilliant creators”.—[Official Report, Commons, 21/1/20; col. 56WH.]
Does the Minister recognise that creative workers are crucial to the success of the UK’s creative industries; that many rely on payments related to copyright to sustain their careers; and that the new rights in the copyright directive, for which they fought hard to be included, are absolutely essential? These include transparency, contract adjustment and, of course, fair remuneration. Should these not now be introduced in UK law?
As the noble Lord will be aware, the UK has now left the EU and the transition period will end on 31 December. This means that the UK is not required to implement the copyright directive, but the UK has one of the strongest copyright protection frameworks in the world. Many of these are subject to international treaties, which we will continue to be members of. We will continue to value the creative sector; of course its work should be recognised.
My Lords, the creative industries will face major problems when we finally leave Europe. Is the Minister working with the industry to do something about visas, which are a particular problem for travelling artists?
The visa system will be the subject of negotiation. The UK is about to implement a new immigration system, but we will, of course, want to continue to co-operate closely with our friends in the EU on these matters. Artists will continue to want to transfer backwards and forwards for their work.
My Lords, with respect to the Question, will culture, media and arts services be included in future trade deals with the US, with which we already have a close cultural relationship in the performing arts?
As the noble Earl will be aware, most trade deals contain a number of paragraphs on cultural exchanges and creative industries. I am sure that that will be the case with the EU agreement and with the US agreement.
My Lords, with the onward march of the digital revolution and our pre-eminence in artistic areas such as music and arts, copyright is becoming ever more important. Can the Minister give us an assurance that intellectual property has a high priority in policy-making for this Government? However we attack that in any particular trade deal, the overall point is to protect our artistic success and endeavour everywhere.
Of course, my noble friend makes a very important point. As I said earlier, we have one of the strongest copyright protection frameworks in the world. Many of these are subject to international agreements, such as the TRIPS agreement. We will continue to engage in international fora and make sure that artists and creators have protection for their works.
My Lords, a number of different ministries have commented on this, as my noble friend pointed out, including BEIS and DCMS. Am I to conclude from the fact that the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, is speaking to this that BEIS will be accountable for this and will be the ministry that makes sure that people—including, I should say, people in my family—who work in this industry get paid? If they do not, they need to know who is accountable.
Yes, BEIS is responsible for intellectual property and copyright, but of course there is considerable input from DCMS concerning the creative industries. DCMS is taking forward a creative industries forum and various round tables with content providers and social media platforms, et cetera. So it lies across the two departments.
Does the Minister agree that unless Article 17 or an equivalent measure is introduced, creative personnel in this country are going to be disadvantaged relative to how they would have been had we stayed in the EU, and certainly in comparison with their counterparts in the EU, which was the basis of the Question? Is this not a case of cutting off your nose to spite your face? Why would we not want to make sure that those who are earning benefits from the cultural industries for this country and for themselves are able to earn, and that their copyrights are not being ripped off by the tech giants, as is currently happening?
We will continue to advocate for the rights of the creative industries. We shall see how the copyright directive is implemented and how the various enforcement regimes within it will work, but of course it is not possible for us to remain part of it, because we will not accept the jurisdiction of the CJEU in these matters. We will see how it works and will continue to keep the matter under review. It is of course a matter for this Parliament to determine how our copyright protection framework goes forward.
My Lords, at a time when royalties are being cut at almost every level—I include the BBC in this—it is more essential than ever that the creators of intellectual property are able to reap some sort of reward. What alarmed me slightly about the Minister’s replies was that he kept using words such as “hope” and “expect”. That is not so good for those of us who have to know that we can pay our bills.
We should be proud in this country: we have one of the strongest copyright protection frameworks in the world, as I said earlier. Many of these matters, as the noble Lord will be aware, are the subject of international agreements and we will continue to engage in those fora to make sure that creators get the value of their works.
Organ Trafficking: Sanctions
To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the response by Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon on 23 January (HL Deb, col 1148), whether the proposed United Kingdom autonomous global human rights Magnitsky-style sanctions regime will apply to persons engaged in (1) illegal organ trafficking, or (2) obtaining organs for transplant without consent.
My Lords, we will soon lay secondary legislation for the UK’s first autonomous sanctions regime under the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018. The work is complex, and it is important to take the time to get this right. This sanctions regime will allow us to impose sanctions in response to serious human rights violations or abuses around the world. As it is not yet in force, it would be inappropriate to comment on the specific aspects of the scope.
My Lords, I welcome what the Minister has said and the action that is being taken to introduce the sanctions regime he has referred to, but he will know that I have recently been sent a report from the World Organization to Investigate the Persecution of Falun Gong which shows that over 7,000 doctors in China are involved in the systematic killing of prisoners through the horrific enforced body harvesting trade in that country. Could he assure me that, notwithstanding what he has just said, the Government will none the less look sympathetically at taking action under these new provisions in order that these doctors are brought to book?
My Lords, I note and pay tribute to the noble Lord’s work on this. I assure all noble Lords that the whole purpose of the scope of the sanctions regime is to ensure that we hold individuals who abuse human rights to account for their actions, whatever the basis of those human rights—indeed, I remember many a debate in your Lordships’ House on this legislation—and whatever the abuse.
My Lords, the China Tribunal has concluded that China’s forced organ harvesting constitutes a crime against humanity. I know the noble Lord takes his responsibilities as Minister for Human Rights seriously. Has he read the China Tribunal’s report? A draft was out about six months ago, and it has now been finalised. If he has, does he agree with it? I note that he did not raise this issue at the Human Rights Council the other day.
My Lords, on that final point, as the noble Baroness will know from her own experience as a Minister, when you are at international fora you are very much time-limited on all the issues, and the exclusion of a particular issue does not mean that there is not a focus or priority attached to it. She will know that the final report was issued yesterday; it is 562 pages long. I have not yet read it, but we are considering it and I will respond to her in detail once we have done so more fully.
My Lords, in his reply to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, the Minister said that he would not make a preliminary decision, yet in a letter to me on 25 February the Government said that, having consulted the World Health Organization and Beijing, their view is that China is implementing
“an ethical, voluntary organ transplant system”.
How does that square with the China Tribunal’s findings that organised butchery of living people compares to
“the worst atrocities committed in conflicts of the 20th century”,
including the gassing of Jews by the Nazis and the Khmer Rouge massacres in Cambodia? Will he revisit the full report referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, published this weekend, a copy of which I sent to him, and look at the inquiries and investigations carried out by one of the Sunday newspapers published yesterday, which I have also sent him and which detail these horrendous crimes committed against both Falun Gong practitioners and Uighur Muslims?
My Lords, my Sunday afternoons would not be the same without emails from the noble Lord. I assure him that I have underlined my commitment and the commitment of Her Majesty’s Government to the important issues raised in relation to the Falun Gong. As I said to the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, we will respond once we have fully considered the details of the report. The noble Lord rightly raises those details and the details of other reports, one of which was issued today on human rights issues and the plight, particularly, of Uighurs in China. We raise this in multilateral fora and the Uighurs issue was mentioned in my contribution at the Human Rights Council last Tuesday.
My Lords, the Government have had powers to make Magnitsky-style regulations—visa bans and asset freezes—since the passage of the Criminal Finances Act 2017 and Sanctions and the Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018. Why the delay? It cannot be EU membership, as other EU members such as Lithuania and Latvia have Magnitsky-style regulations.
My Lords, there is no sense of a lack of priority. I assure the noble Lord that we are very committed to this sanctions regime. Indeed, my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary has made it a personal priority. The noble Lord points to issues and the use of other restrictions. We have had those levers at our disposal. Only last week, when answering a Question on another country—the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia—I reassured noble Lords that we have used levers at our disposal, including visa restrictions.
My Lords, last July I had the opportunity to ask the Minister a question precisely on the WHO and its definition of whether what is going on in China is ethical. He replied that the Chinese are saying that. Last July, he undertook to raise with the WHO our concern about the farming of organs and this continuing atrocity. What has happened since July? Have we continued to put pressure on the WHO?
The short answer to the noble Lord is yes; we have taken up direct conversations and consultations with the World Health Organization. I put on record again that the allegations that have been raised in various reports, including the final report conducted by Sir Geoffrey Nice, raise questions that need to be answered in the context of that report. I know the noble Lord is aware that the view of the World Health Organization remains that China is implementing an ethical, voluntary organ transplant system, in accordance with international standards, although it has now raised concerns about transparency. I assure the noble Lord that we will continue to prioritise this issue and that of human rights within the context of China.
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his commitment to consider the report, as his department develops the regime. While he does, will he have in mind the standards that we implement through the Human Tissue Act 2004? It puts consent as the fundamental principle underpinning lawful storage and use of body parts—organ and tissue? This is the level of consent we expect of international standards for an organ transplant system.
It is always a challenge when a former Health Minister asks you a pointed and specific question, but the answer to my noble friend is yes. Across the piece, the United Kingdom prides itself on the standards it sets. Those standards also determine how we prioritise particular issues and human rights concerns on the world stage.
My Lords, there have been some confused reports on human rights in the media over the weekend. They seem to have confused the European Court of Justice with the European Court of Human Rights. Will the Minister confirm that it is still the intention of the Government to play a full, constructive and positive role in the European Court of Human Rights, to continue to adhere to the European Convention on Human Rights and to participate fully in the work of the Council of Europe?
In all those respects, the Government’s position is clear. We continue to uphold the issue of human rights, not just in a European context, but globally. On the final question, we remain very much committed to the Council of Europe, and I was pleased recently to see the Prime Minister approving the new nominations to it.
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have for the Port of Holyhead.
On behalf of my noble friend Lord Roberts of Llandudno and with his permission, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in his name on the Order Paper.
My Lords, the UK and Welsh Governments have committed £240 million of joint funding to the north Wales growth deal. The UK Government are working to bring greater investment growth and job opportunities to communities across Wales. The north Wales growth deal represents real progress in achieving those aims.
I thank the Minister for that reply. The Northern Ireland protocol signed by the Prime Minister in October establishes a border in the Irish Sea. According to the boss of Stena Line,
“there’s a border, and the border requires checks”.
The assumption is that these checks would be carried out in British ports, including Holyhead. If the Government do not intend to renege on the agreement, what plans do they have to provide new infrastructure at ports and how will this be financed?
My Lords, the Government are engaging with the Welsh Government and local partners to understand not only their plans, constraints and opportunities, but how best to support the planning for operational readiness. The ports that are best prepared on 31 December will have a competitive advantage.
My Lords, post Brexit, we are told that the Government will create 10 superports. The Humber ports are not merely an alternative to Dover but a driver for the northern powerhouse. They can provide a quicker, cheaper and greener solution to trading logistics. When will a decision be made on those ports?
I thank my noble friend for asking me about the free ports because they could be a great way of boosting trade, attracting inward investment and driving productivity. The Government have published a consultation document. We will be looking for up to 10 national hubs to work as trade, innovation and commerce centres. A consultation process is under way and we look forward to being able to announce the results soon.
My Lords, is the Minister aware of the recent decision by Stena Line to re-register its new boat, the “Stena Estrid”, which was originally registered in Cardiff, in Limassol, with significant implications for those working in the Port of Holyhead? If she does not have the answer to this at hand, will she write to me with any details she can find?
I thank the noble Lord for his question. I was very prepared to respond to questions about ports but not on ships today, so I will have to write to him.
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Humphreys, referred to the creation of a border in the Irish Sea, and there has been a great deal of speculation about this. Will the Government permit such a border or not?
My Lords, that is a long and complex question with a long and complex answer. As noble Lords will know, arrangements for borders in the Irish Sea or elsewhere are currently under discussion.
My Lords, the infrastructure in Holyhead, like the infrastructure in many ports around the UK, does not include the ability for ships, particularly ferries in the case of Holyhead, to plug in and go on to shore power. Consequently, when they are berthed alongside, they have to run their diesel generators all the time, which has a huge impact on the environment. Is there is any intention to make sure that the ports around our nation have shoreside electrical supplies so that we can cut this huge spike in diesel emissions?
I agree with the noble Lord that that has to be a concern. As I mentioned in my opening Answer, the Government and the Welsh Government have committed £240 million to the north Wales growth deal. One of the projects within that deal will involve enormous changes for the better at Holyhead. I will endeavour to find out whether facilities to plug into shore supplies will be available.
My Lords, the Minister suggested that it is up to ports to be prepared but, while it is of course for the Government to give a signal on borders and potential borders in the Irish Sea, the uncertainty of the situation in respect of Holyhead is having very serious implications. At what point in the negotiations with the EU over the coming months do the Government expect to discuss and finalise the border arrangements between Northern Ireland and Great Britain?
As the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, will know, I cannot possibly answer that question at this time because those sorts of things are still being finalised. However, we have been talking about this for a very long time now. An enormous amount of planning has already gone on, particularly around the previous exit date of 31 October. The Border Delivery Group has been up and running for a long time and we are working with local partners to understand what needs to be done. We have already looked at any potential disruption and what could be done to mitigate it—work is well under way.
My Lords, is the noble Baroness confident that the new infrastructure at Holyhead will be completed by the end of this year?
In terms of border checks, I hope so because as I said in a previous answer, the best-prepared ports will have a competitive advantage. I very much hope that Holyhead will be at the forefront.
My Lords, Holyhead relies on seamless trade both across the Irish border and through UK ports. Does the Minister share my concern that border checks could lead to Wales being bypassed completely in favour of alternative routes that facilitate seamless trade across the EU, with devastating consequences for trade and the economy?
My Lords, we want trade to be as frictionless as possible, and are therefore in discussions with ports to understand exactly what they will be doing to make the checks that will be needed. There will be new checks, but for traders that are ready there will be little or no delay in getting through the port.
My Lords, the question from the noble Lord, Lord West, prompts me to ask my noble friend about the paucity of charging points for the much-vaunted electric cars.
I so thank my noble friend for that question. I believe there will be a debate fairly soon about charging points for electric vehicles. It is obviously a huge priority for the Government. We are making great investments through the plug-in car grant for people who want to buy electric vehicles, and are matching that investment for charging points.
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of (1) the debt levels, (2) the mental health, and (3) the ability to work, of people in receipt of Universal Credit.
The noble Baroness’s Question recognises issues experienced by many people in our society. The department has made no official assessment of universal credit’s effect in these three specific areas. We often find that people experience debt and mental health issues that existed prior to claiming universal credit. We think that attempting to make an accurate assessment could be difficult—but not impossible.
I thank the Minister for her Answer. She is very straightforward, and I know she will want to get this right. I know too that the majority of people in this House agree that individuals are better in work—better for themselves, their families and the broader society—and benefits need to be simplified. However, we are spending billions of pounds of public money here. Theory is one thing, but practice is another. I ask the Minister to attempt again to persuade the Government to conduct an assessment, so that we can see whether there are any unintended consequences for mental health well-being, work mobility and indebtedness, and that we can properly debate this issue and recommend any changes and improvements where needed.
I am so glad that we agree on the principle that people should be, and in the majority of cases are, better off in work. I like the noble Baroness’s idea, and I am touched that she thinks my powers of persuasion are so good. In order that I can deploy them to the maximum, let us meet prior to me going back to work the magic. I would like to go with the best case possible to see if we can do this, to get the information that helps us help people more.
Are the Government aware that a number of the people sleeping rough on our streets at the moment have fallen through the universal credit net? Would the Minister like to comment on that?
Like all noble Lords in the House, I am only too well aware of the size of the problem of homelessness and people sleeping on the streets. I normally agree with the noble Lord, and I do agree that universal credit may have added to some people’s anxiety and their issues. Many of them have had issues for a long time that we have not done what we should have done to deal with—but I do not think they are 100% attributable to universal credit.
My Lords, is the Minister aware that a large body of evidence supports the case that benefits sanctions have a devastating effect on claimants’ mental health and could even result in suicides? In the light of last week’s report in the Lancet, when will the Government conduct a comprehensive assessment of the impact of benefits sanctions on claimants, as the DWP pledged to do in 2013?
I have read the report in the Lancet, and the Government’s response is that we have no concerns surrounding the general thrust of the methodology. However, it is difficult, in that it says it would not have caused the issue but would have contributed to it—a point I tried to make in answering the prior question. I am not aware of the commitment the Government made then, but that will be down to me, not them. However, if the noble Baroness agrees, I will go back to the department, get an answer to that question and write to her.
My Lords, could the Minister update the House on what the Government are doing to support those with mental health issues in accessing universal credit seamlessly, so that those issues are not exacerbated, and to help them get into work, which, as we all know, can sometimes help with mental health and well-being?
I thank my noble friend for that question. Mental health is a major issue for people on universal credit, and in other walks of life. At present, we are introducing health model offices in 11 jobcentres. These focus on claimants with health conditions. Blackburn jobcentre has agreed a new initiative, “advance to ausome”, for people with autism. Another jobcentre, in north London, is running quiet sessions for people who cannot cope with coming in.
This is what I would like noble Lords to go away with today. A young man came to the jobcentre who was working full-time, had mental health issues and did not know how he was going to keep his job. He was in a bad way. Our work coaches worked with him and, through the Access to Work mental health support programme, he is now back at work and working towards a promotion. None of that would have been possible without that support. We are doing everything we can—and there is more to be done—to help people with these issues.
My Lords, may I ask the Minister something quite specific? What plans does DWP have to deal with the outbreak of coronavirus? For example, can people on zero-hours contracts who cannot go to work get universal credit to support them if they have to isolate themselves at home and are unable to work? In a similar vein, can she guarantee that those on universal credit will not be sanctioned if they cannot go to a job interview, to the jobcentre or fulfil their commitments because they are isolating themselves at home? Will the Government suspend sanctions and advertise universal credit for those affected by isolation patterns?
I was not prepared for that one, that is for sure. I know that the Permanent Secretary has a plan to make sure that people get paid and get the help they need. However, I will be really upset if people are sanctioned because of this. I will go back to the department and write to the noble Baroness, to make sure that the issue is understood.
Does the Minister understand the correlation between new attendants at food banks and universal credit sanctions? What are the Government going to do about that? Almost all new sign-ups to food banks are caused by delays. Not only is that bad for your health, it is bad for your mental health.
The issue of food bank usage and the reasons for it came up during a Question I took recently. I have no doubt that, as I have agreed before, universal credit has contributed to the increased use of food banks, but that is not everything. However, claimants will only ever be sanctioned where, without good reason, they fail to meet the reasonable requirements agreed in their claimant commitment.
European Arrest Warrant, Europol and Eurojust
Private Notice Question
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is their assessment of the impact of the UK withdrawing from participation in the European Arrest Warrant, membership of Europol and membership of Eurojust.
My Lords, the UK stands ready to discuss an agreement on law enforcement and judicial co-operation in criminal matters. An agreement in this area should support data exchange for law enforcement, operational co-operation between law enforcement authorities and judicial co-operation in criminal matters. This agreement should equip operational partners on both sides with capabilities that help protect citizens and bring criminals to justice, promoting the security of all our citizens.
My Lords, the Minister has not even attempted to answer the Question. Not being a member of Europol or Eurojust relegates the UK to observer status, rather than driving and directing pan-European law enforcement operations and intelligence sharing. The Government say that they want a similar agreement to that reached by Norway and Iceland to replace the European arrest warrant, but that agreement took 13 years to negotiate and implement and does not allow extradition of an EU member state’s own nationals. Is it not inevitable that the UK will be less safe and less secure if we withdraw from these arrangements?
The first thing to say is that the Norway-Iceland agreement might have taken 13 years but the initial agreement took very little time at all; it was the commencement that seemed to take so long. It did not take very long to get agreement on this. The agreement we are negotiating should provide for co-operation between the UK and Europol and Eurojust to facilitate multilateral law enforcement and criminal justice co-operation. The agreement with Europol should go beyond existing precedent, given the scale and nature of co-operation between the UK and Europol. For example, the UK was the highest contributor of data to Europol for strategic, thematic and operational analysis in 2018.
My Lords, will the Minister set out for the House who she believes are the beneficiaries of this decision other than criminals seeking to evade justice? How will she ensure that fugitives in Europe will not just laugh at us for failing to bring them to justice?
My Lords, the beneficiaries of this should be the people of the UK. It seeks to replicate many of the operational capabilities in the European arrest warrant, while containing safeguards.
My Lords, is it not the case that not all European arrest warrants are the same? A European arrest warrant from France or Germany, with whom we share the same respect for the rule of law, is one thing, but a European arrest warrant from one or two other countries—here I particularly mention Romania—is not the same because often political interference has taken place in the judicial system.
My noble friend makes a very good point about political interference. In fact, that is one of the safeguards within what we are seeking. He is right to make the point that not all EU states are the same.
My Lords, will the situation after withdrawal be as effective as it is at present?
I would hope it will be enhanced.
My Lords, this seems the most bizarre decision. Perhaps the Minister can tell me whether it is that the Prime Minister’s hard-right colleagues in the Cabinet do not like anything with the word “Euro” in it.
Not that I have heard. The agreement we are negotiating should provide for co-operation. But we will have left the EU.
My noble friend talks about political interference. This, to many of us, smacks of political interference: fixing something that is not broken. Time and again in the last two or three years, Ministers on the Front Bench have indicated the value of these arrangements. Why are we walking away from them?
My Lords, there are areas in which we will attempt to have very similar arrangements to those we have now with the EU. As I said, this will be very similar operationally to the EAW, but with enhanced safeguards.
My Lords, further to the question from the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, how is it that we have come to this pass when, time and again, before our departure from the EU, we were promised from those on the Front Bench that we would work towards replicating the arrangements for the European arrest warrant, Europol and Eurojust? We now appear to be negotiating something inferior and different.
My Lords, I would not say it is inferior, but I agree that it is different. The Norway-Iceland arrangements seem to work perfectly well with those enhanced safeguards.
My Lords, back when we were discussing the European withdrawal agreement six months ago, it was frequently said that nothing is agreed until everything is agreed. Can the noble Baroness confirm that the same rules apply as we go forward towards the new agreement that we are now negotiating? If we do not manage to agree everything, what position will we be left in with respect to these aspects of criminal justice?
We obviously want an agreement across all areas of law enforcement co-operation—I cannot hypothecate what the noble Baroness says—because we want to keep our citizens safe.
My Lords, how will the Government extradite criminals from Germany given that, constitutionally, they are not allowed to do so unless it is within the European Union?
My Lords, arrangements will have to be in place that allow the system or the arrangements to take part in that country.
My Lords, I wonder whether the Minister remembers what the head of the Police Service of Northern Ireland said about the loss of the European arrest warrant. It was one of his highest concerns about Brexit. How much was he consulted in this decision and how much has the relationship between the north of Ireland and Ireland been considered in this decision?
As the noble Baroness will know, and as I have said on several occasions, we have engaged with the devolved authorities on all things, particularly in the area of law enforcement.
My Lords, is it not the case that the European arrest warrant has one enormous advantage among many in that countries that do not normally extradite their people, do so under the EAW? What assurance have we that, in future, this will hold good? Many signals have come from European countries saying that they will not do so in the future. Does that not make us as a country weaker and more vulnerable to criminality?
I think it would mean that those states will try in their own countries—I have talked about the enhanced safeguards—but I do not think that will make this country less safe.
My Lords, is this one of the areas in which the Permanent Secretary advised the Secretary of State of the dangers of going ahead, and which the Secretary of State paid no attention to and shouted?
My Lords, one thing I cannot comment on is private conversations between Secretaries of State and their officials—
I cannot. The noble Lord will know that.
Given the continued controversy with regard to the treaty on extradition between the United Kingdom and the United States, and that the bars in each country are different—“reasonable suspicion” in Britain and “probable cause” in the United States—which of these standards will Her Majesty’s Government insist upon when they enter any new extradition treaties?
The noble Lord asks a question which I do not think I can answer in terms of the level, but I can get back to him. I would be making it up if I were to give an answer.
My Lords, one of the problems of the European arrest warrant was that, if there was a crime in the country that was trying to extradite but not in the country that the person was being demanded from, we used to have difficulty. I seem to remember there being an issue over xenophobia in one of the European countries and there was also a problem with plane spotters who took photographs of airplanes. Presumably, these issues will disappear under the new negotiations.
This will come under what we call “dual criminality”. If the issue at hand was not a crime in this country, it would not be applicable. We would add some of those more difficult cases where the crime was not a crime in our country.
Fisheries Bill [HL]
Committee (1st Day)
Relevant document: 6th Report from the Delegated Powers Committee
1: Before Clause 1, insert the following new Clause—
(1) Marine stocks within the UK Exclusive Economic Zone are a resource that belongs to the nation as a whole.(2) Any quotas or other rights to harvest marine stocks whether allocated to vessels, public bodies, or persons natural or corporate remain the property of the nation.(3) No vessel, public body, or person natural or corporate shall have a permanent claim over quota or other rights granted to them by a public authority or authorities.”Member’s explanatory statement
The amendment makes clear that UK fish stocks belong to the nation and not to private organisations.
My Lords, it seems that whenever we start a fisheries discussion there is rather a lack of sustainability among our Members. One of the useful things between Second Reading and Committee is that we can reflect on the arguments and the Bill until we get into the discussion of amendments. One thing that struck me very strongly after Second Reading, on looking through the Bill again, is that it has hardly any ambition whatever. The withdrawal Act effectively makes us an independent coastal state, which we will be after the transition period, but, apart from that, all the Bill does is provide an administrative framework to keep the status quo.
I do not think that the status quo is good enough for the fishing industry. For instance, there is no provision for new entrants into the industry, which is important. There is no improvement in sustainability methods for fisheries. In fact, the Bill fudges sustainability even more than when we were in the common fisheries policy. There is no particular help for the small under-10 fleet. Because of that, there is no specific help for coastal communities either.
That is why I tabled this amendment, which goes to the fundamental matter of who fish stocks belong to, because the Bill does nothing to change that. At the moment, we have a situation where half of English stocks are owned by companies that are effectively owned by Iceland, Holland or Spain. In Scotland, a vast majority of the industry is owned by a very small number of people. It is a very efficient operation and I certainly have nothing against that, but we have an industry that has become quite fossilised and significantly foreign owned, with no apparent appetite to change that.
We will come on to a number of those issues as we go through the Bill and the amendments, but we are trying to state the completely obvious: if fish stocks belong to anyone while they are in the UK EEZ, they should belong to the nation. That is simply what the amendment says: they are not the everlasting property of a vessel, an individual, a company or even a public body such as the one we have in Cornwall that buys up quota for the local fishing industry. They do not belong to them for eternity; they belong to the nation.
I do not understand how anybody could argue against this concept, but it is really important, since it is fully in line with the ideals of Brexit, becoming an independent coastal state, and Parliament and the nation having control, that we notice and mark that these fish stocks belong to the nation. That does not mean that there should not be, through the Secretary of State or the devolved authorities, a way that those fish stocks—
I wholeheartedly agree with the noble Lord about the fish stocks in the zone belonging to the nation. Presumably that could never have occurred had we remained a member of the European Union. Will he confirm that?
Absolutely. I agree with that. That is what I am saying. Given the new opportunity that we have, we should take advantage of being an independent coastal state. The Bill does nothing to change the status quo in any way. This is one thing we can do—lay down a marker on the ownership of those stocks. As to how those stocks are distributed, the amendment does not prevent them being leased for a period, rented or allocated without charge. We are trying to make the point that, at the end of the day, these stocks belong to the nation and not to any individual.
Coming back to the point made by the noble Lord, 17 million people voted for Brexit and for taking control of our own resources. They did not vote for—in relation to fishing—a profitable industry keeping all the advantages that it has at the moment. They were thinking more of the smaller fleets and the fact that those fishing stocks should belong to us rather than to individuals and perhaps, if you would like to call them that, to the elite of the fishing industry at the moment. I beg to move.
My Lords, I support the amendment. At the beginning of last year, in Committee in the Commons on the earlier incarnation of the Bill, the Minister—who is now Secretary of State—George Eustice MP, said:
“I do not believe we need a statement that fisheries resources are a national asset or public property, because that is self-evidently the case and our common law has always held as much.”—[Official Report, Commons, Fisheries Bill Committee, 13/12/18; col. 285.]
At the time I took that as gospel. I admire his legal confidence—I say that in a “Yes Minister” context—because I am not certain that the legal confidence is supported by all involved in the industry. There is a famous case where Justice Cranston suggested that there was a type of property right attributed to a fixed quota allocation and that owners would probably need to be given in the region of seven years’ notice of the intention to move away from those FQA units as a type of property right. Such a legal hitch—this is important—might hamper the Government’s intention to move away from relative stability to zonal allocation.
The point I am making is that if the Government believe that quota and marine stocks belong to the nation as a whole, it cannot possibly do any harm to make that clear in the Bill right at the start, so there is absolutely no doubt throughout the industry; and, more importantly, that in any future court case, trying to prove the opposite will founder on the rock of this legislation, set out in 2020, at the start of a new fishing era by the express will of Parliament.
My Lords, I declare an interest at this stage as a director of a company that is in a partnership with another agency among whose clients is UK Fisheries. I put that on record. I will not repeat it every time I intervene in Committee, but I hope noble Lords will be aware of that interest.
This amendment is not grouped with anything else, because if we were to include it in the Bill it would not change any other part of it; it would simply be a statement at the outset. As the noble Lord suggested, it is a statement of the obvious and of fact. In my view it is not the purpose of legislation to state pre-existing facts. It is not necessary in legislation always to state the obvious for the facts to be true. Were this amendment to be included in the Bill, people would say that it had to be included in the Bill, otherwise it would not be true. I am trying to work out in what sense it could not be true that would give rise to it being included in the Bill, which would then give a court a reason to try to interpret it.
I then got into trouble because I am looking at it saying, “the nation”. If the amendment were to be included in the Bill in the form in which it exists, it would drive a coach and horses through the devolution settlement. The Bill very carefully establishes the rights of, for example, the Scottish Fisheries Administration to determine the allocation of quota in relation to Scotland. The noble Lord, Lord Cameron, spoke about moving away from relative stability. Indeed, we could, if we wished to, under this legislation change the fixed quota allocations, although it is not the Government’s present intention to do so, as I understand it. To that extent, it is evident that the Government could change the allocation of and access to fish stocks. They can do so because they effectively own the fish stocks. The Bill has, as we will discover, a sophisticated mechanism for planning how this will be done, how it will be consulted on and how it will be managed between the devolved Administrations. This amendment, in my view, would frustrate all of that at the outset, and for that reason I do not support it.
My Lords, I rise to support what my noble friend Lord Lansley has said. I recall the words well that the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, said at Second Reading: the more you know about fisheries, the less you actually know. It is much more complicated than one originally thinks. This amendment is an example of something that is practically simple, but would be very difficult if it ever got on to the face of the Bill, because—my noble friend is absolutely right—it does infringe on the Scottish Government’s right to allocate quotas, and it is one of many amendments before us that cannot be accepted because it infringes on the Scottish Government’s devolution ability. It would be quite wrong for us in this Chamber—or indeed the other Chamber—to legislate on it.
My Lords, I added my name to this amendment, and fully support the contribution made by my noble friend Lord Teverson. There are a number of amendments to the Bill which refer to the fact that fish are not static. They move with the seas, towards their spawning grounds, and according to the temperature of the water and other conditions. The fish are not owned by any individual person, organisation or fishing fleet. They know nothing of quotas or public authorities. It is therefore right that marine stocks should belong to the nation as a whole.
As has been referred to, no doubt the Scottish Fishermen’s Federation and the Scottish Government might have a different view, being very keen on fish being a devolved matter. I do not subscribe to that view. As the amendment makes very clear, we believe that marine stocks within the UK exclusive economic zone are a national resource, whether they are swimming around Scotland, Ireland, Wales, the coast of Northumberland or Cornwall. This should be declared on the face of the Bill. My colleague has laid out the arguments cogently, and I look forward to the Minister’s response.
My Lords, I rise to speak in general support of the principles behind this amendment. We must consider in this debate how we establish—without any shadow of a doubt—that in the handing over of quota for fisheries activities, we are transferring something that should be held as public property, in trust for the people of the nation. That should be established in law, without doubt. I worry that, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, this is far too similar to the current system that we experience under the European Union, where there is an explicit conference of rights to fishermen based on the principle of relative stability. This had led to a race to claw back the rights that have already been given out. We will see, as the debate on the Bill progresses, that a lot of what this centres on is how we take control of those rights, so that they are granted with the appropriate level of scrutiny, transparency and consideration of the multiple benefits that accrue to us as a nation from the maritime resources within our waters.
I am not sure that this is the right approach, but I completely support the principles behind it. As we go forward, we must consider, as we are now doing with our agricultural policy, that, freed of the common policies of Europe, we must have the courage and the ambition to do something that is truly transformative. We will certainly come back to this principle that the rights to fish are, essentially, a public property held in trust for the nation.
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, for allowing us to debate these important principles about the ownership of our marine stocks. He is right to say that the Bill currently lacks ambition and relies far too much on sustaining the status quo, with all the inequalities and inadequacies that we have identified, which have belied our fishing negotiations over the years.
During the course of the Bill, we will have some difficult discussions about the allocation of existing and future fishing rights, and I suspect that they will not be so easily resolved by this simple declaration. I accept the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, about the issues of devolution. We have to be careful about our language, but it is important to say at the outset that no claim on rights should be permanent and all should be subject to our overriding commitments on sustainability.
This is also a welcome opportunity to register the important role that the fishing industry plays in many coastal communities across the UK. This Bill must be a vehicle for supporting and strengthening those communities while at the same time protecting our marine stocks, rather than being the means through which we exploit a natural resource for purely business and economic benefit. At the same time, a flourishing fishing industry is good for the nation as it provides healthy, locally accessed food, as well as trading opportunities with our neighbours.
In this regard, would the Minister like to comment on the words of the Treasury advisor, Tim Leunig, who has been quoted as saying that the
“Food sector isn’t critically important”
to the economy, and that
“ag[riculture] and fish production certainly isn’t”?
I know the Minister will say that this is not government policy, but what message do comments like this send to a sector already nervous about its future? From our side, we want a vibrant UK agriculture and fisheries industry and to encourage UK consumers to buy British and have faith in locally accessed food. I hope that the Minister will disassociate himself from these comments and send a message back to the Treasury that it should not be employing or listening to advisers who are so out of kilter with the views of most politicians and the vast majority of the British public.
On the subject of trade deals, although the Bill is intended to be negotiation neutral, does the Minister agree that there is a responsibility on the Government to secure a deal with the EU and EEA which allows us, first, to catch more of what we eat and, secondly, to easily sell the catch that we will not eat into those markets? We understand the intentions behind tabling this amendment today. It is of course important to restate that the resource belongs to the nation, but I suspect that we will be debating these issues for many days to come, no doubt giving us the opportunity to explore and spell out in more detail what that really means during consideration of the Bill. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, for bringing forward this amendment and, indeed, to all noble Lords who have spoken. While I fully understand the aim of this amendment, to make it clear that UK fish stocks belong to the nation, I take this opportunity to explain why I cannot support it and, indeed, why the Government cannot do so. I am mindful of what my noble friends Lord Lansley and Lord Caithness have said, particularly when it comes to devolution.
We were clear in our fisheries White Paper that we consider that
“The fish in our seas, like our wider marine assets, are a public resource and therefore the rights to catch them are a public asset.”
I should also say at this juncture, in declaring my farming interests, that the sustainable harvest that we get from our seas, our lakes and, indeed, from our farming sector are absolutely crucial to this nation. I emphasis particularly—as, I am sure, would the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch—that, as far as I am concerned, it is in the national interest that we have a vibrant farming and fisheries sector. We want that not only because it is a public good but because, in order to feed the nation as well as in terms of our exports, with climate change and all the pressures from that, we are going to have to find innovative ways of feeding ourselves and the wider communities of the world. So I say absolutely that in my department, and indeed across the nation, we look to our farmers and our fishers.
I put on record that there are dangers in both sectors and there are too many fatalities; I think safety is of primary importance. I take this opportunity to say to the noble Baroness and all your Lordships that this—after all, Defra covers environment, food and rural affairs—is a very important part of our food supply and a very healthy one.
On a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington, during the passage of the previous Fisheries Bill the then Fisheries Minister—now the Secretary of State—made it very clear in the other place that
“it is a statement of fact that”
“are a public asset, and our common law tradition enshrines that.”—[Official Report, Commons, Fisheries Bill Committee, 11/12/18; col. 141.]
The need to view fisheries as a public good is reflected in the measures that we take to promote sustainable fishing. It is, for example, reflected in our approach in Clause 27, “Sale of English fishing opportunities”. Any scheme set up under this power, having been through consultation, would recognise the value of fisheries and raise revenue for the public good. That revenue could be used to support fisheries science, particularly the stock surveys that underpin annual negotiations on the total allowable catch and in-year fisheries management.
I assure the noble Lord that this principle is further covered by the objectives in the Fisheries Bill. The key objectives in this instance are the national benefit and sustainability objectives, which state that
“fishing activities of UK fishing boats bring social or economic benefits to the United Kingdom or any part of the United Kingdom”
and that fishing activities are
“environmentally sustainable in the long term”.
That is a point that the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, referred to: we want our fishing and coastal communities to have a vibrant future.
We believe that the effect of this amendment would have a profound implication for the existing quota system. I know there are critics of the current regime, but it is also not without its supporters. Indeed, there has been considerable investment in the regime, and it has allowed our quotas to be well-utilised. For example, the flexibility to sell or lease quota has proven helpful to fishers as it enables them to continue to fish for certain stocks when there has been more of an abundance, or if a fishing stock for which they have a quota is not proving to be profitable. It can also be a solution to fishers not being able to fish all their quota for one species because their quota for another species in a mixed fishery has been exhausted.
This is another point that I would like to make to the noble Lord. While under 10-metre vessels may receive only a small percentage of the total UK quota, they receive a greater share of the stocks that are important to them. For example, in 2018 around 77% of the weight and 78% of the value of UK under 10-metre landings were from non-quota species such as crabs and lobsters. The UK Government recognise the need for balance between continuity in the existing system and opportunities for change in future. That is why the fisheries White Paper noted that existing quotas would continue to be allocated using the existing methodology but that additional quotas negotiated will be allocated using a different methodology. This approach has been broadly welcomed across the industry, which agrees that this is a sensible way to proceed—learning, piloting and ensuring that the industry is not destabilised. That really is an important feature of this matter. We do not wish the industry to be destabilised; in fact, quite the reverse.
I say to the noble Lord that I think the amendment rocks the delicate balance between the certainty of the existing system and the new opportunities that new quota would bring. I also have to say at the beginning of this Committee stage that what resonates with me is that not only has the Bill been through an earlier phase in the other place but it has been worked out really strongly and collaboratively with the devolved Administrations. I say to your Lordships, as we embark upon this particular voyage, that it is important to recognise that this is a piece of work that we are also legislating for the devolved Administrations, and the points that my noble friends have made are extremely pertinent. On that basis, I hope the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. The noble Lord, Lord Lansley, made an interesting and important point. He assumed that this was already the case, but the British courts do not see it that way. The Minister, now Secretary of State, tried to reallocate quotas towards the under 10-metre fleet, but that was disputed within the legal system. There is an underlying assumption here that this is a privatised resource, not a resource of the nation. That is why, to deliver what the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, wants, it is important to have an amendment like this in the Bill.
As the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, pointed out, this makes no difference to the quota allocation in Scotland: the devolved management authorities can make what decisions they want in allocating harvesting rights in those territorial areas. We are saying here that, ultimately, fundamental ownership of those rights is not for keeps, whereas at the moment they can be interpreted that way. I am not suggesting that, as part of this amendment, we should not allow a degree of certainty and ability to invest, but, as the noble Baroness, Lady Worthington, put it very well, these rights are in trust to the nation.
As to how one interprets “the nation”, I see our fishing stocks as a national resource, not as devolved. Clearly, however, how they are shared out and used is an issue for the devolved authorities. I look forward to the later amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Worthington, which come back to this subject, but I believe that this is fundamental to the way in which we should view this national resource and how that affects policy decisions as we go through this Bill and make fisheries policy. But, for the moment, I am content to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment 1 withdrawn.
Clause 1: Fisheries objectives
2: Clause 1, page 1, line 4, at end insert—
“( ) the socio-economic objective,”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment ensures that socio-economic issues are included in the fisheries objectives.
My Lords, as the Minister said, we have here a list of objectives of great importance. I would not disagree with most, but one or two I have an issue with. There is always a danger in having too many objectives: which is the important one that guides regulatory authorities and which guides legislators in drafting subsequent secondary legislation? That is difficult, because it is almost impossible to meet all objectives at the same time. This amendment, and the others in my name—Amendments 6, 10 and 27—are based on my belief that sustainability is the most important objective. I take “sustainability” as here meaning the aquatic biosphere and the health of our fish stocks.
I do not accuse the Government of putting it this way, but the Bill reads to me as having a muddled sustainability objective, because it is prejudiced by the addition of what is almost a socioeconomic objective. A socioeconomic objective is very valid. In fact, one of my amendments in this group states that there should be a socioeconomic objective. The sustainability objective should, however, relate to the marine ecology, fish stocks and the wider marine inhabitants. I therefore suggest that we leave out subsection (2)(b), which states
“the fishing capacity of fleets is such that fleets are economically viable but do not overexploit marine stocks.”
That is a socioeconomic objective and should go under that heading. The sustainability objective has to be the lead objective. There are various ways of sorting out the socioeconomic objectives, including financially, and that is how we should do it.
We need clarity; we need the sustainability objective to be the prime objective, and we need it to be well policed. That is why my Amendment 27 would bring in the office for environmental protection. I would be interested to hear what the Minister says. He may tell me that this is unnecessary, and I could well be persuaded that it is, but it is vital that that office, once founded and operational, has full oversight of the fisheries industry and the protection of our marine environment. I beg to move.
My Lords, Amendment 7 is in my name. I support many of the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Teverson. My amendment would change Clause 1(2)(b) simply to state
“the fishing effort does not overexploit marine stocks.”
The Bill states
“the fishing capacity of fleets is such that fleets are economically viable but do not overexploit marine stocks.”
The purpose behind trying to simplify the provision is to make it clear that we cannot have a sustainable long-term fishing effort if we overexploit stocks. That should not need to be said, but we have seen routine overexploitation of stocks as a consequence of how the common fisheries policy is interpreted, with member states then allocating quota to private fishing enterprises.
To state first that fleets should be economically viable and then to qualify it by saying that they should not overexploit marine stocks gives entirely the wrong impression. It implies that we are to continue with the belief, commonly held in Europe, that fishing rights and the economic viability of the fishing industry are the first and foremost concerns. That speaks to short-term political considerations because these are entities that employ people and pay taxes. My amendment tries to correct for that short-termism endemic to political thinking by stating that it is the sustainability of the stock that we should regulate for, not the commercial viability of the entities that exploit it. The latter is entirely what has been wrong with the common fisheries policy since we have been in it. There is an assumption that the exploiters’ rights should come first, with the environment an afterthought. We must turn that around. It is short-termism not just politically but in the context of the changing climate. Nothing from now on is business as usual; everything is shifting. We must put the resilience of our marine resources at the heart of everything we legislate on and at the heart of everything we do today in considering the Bill.
My amendment would simply take away the qualifier; there is no need to qualify this. It is simply logical that we legislate so that we do not overexploit fishing stocks. That is the only purpose of this legislation. Therefore, it must be stated unequivocally in the Bill.
My Lords, I support the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Worthington. I regret that we have to say it, but it is important to point out that there will be no socioeconomic benefits if there are no fish left. The cod fishermen of Newfoundland would understand this clearly. Apart from that, the noble Baroness said exactly what I needed to say.
My Lords, I have just one thing to say about this group. Amendment 6 addresses an issue we discussed at Second Reading: managing so many objectives. The noble Lord, Lord Krebs, drew the attention of the House, forcefully and compellingly, to the way in which the sustainability objective in the Bill, as drafted, includes socioeconomic objectives. They ought to be identified and listed separately. To that extent, I support Amendment 6. Noble Lords will be aware that it includes the sentence:
“The sustainability objective shall be the prime objective”.
Not everybody is in favour of that, but I think we need to say it. My noble friend Lord Randall was talking about Amendment 7, but the same thought applies here. He is quite right that if we do not sustain our fish stocks all the other objectives will be vitiated. It has to be clear that there is a first objective, even though it would be beyond this Committee to list, sequence or rank the others. However, the joint fisheries statement will probably have to do something of that kind, at least, to show how they are being interpreted and balanced. I do not envy it that difficult task. The Committee should look carefully at Amendment 6 and see whether it is possible to incorporate its principles into the Bill before it leaves this place.
My Lords, I added my name to Amendment 2 and would have done so to Amendment 6, had I been allowed, but there were too many subscribers. I support Amendment 2 because, as many noble Lords know, the existence of intergenerational poverty and deprivation in rural areas has long been of concern to me. While the numerous villages and market towns throughout rural England all have their problems in this respect, there is no doubt that coastal communities suffer more than most. The main reason for this is that an ordinary market town can survive, and sometimes thrive, on services maintained by its surrounding farmers, businesses and maybe even wealthy retirees. However, a coastal community, by its very geography—I realise that I am straying into the realms of the bleeding obvious here—only ever has 50% of the catchment of an inland market town. Coastal communities therefore struggle. The sea provides very little except fish and tourism, with, perhaps in the future, some form of energy added to that mix. It is therefore important that a firm part of our fisheries objectives should include the socioeconomic objective.
I totally agree with Amendment 6 that the sustainability objective should always be the prime one. I support that, maybe even to exclusion of Amendment 2, as the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, said. As the noble Baroness, Lady Worthington, said, we need these coastal communities, and their harvest, to survive in the long term. In the past, I always said that one of the problems with the common fisheries policy is that the children and grandchildren of today’s fishing communities never get a vote. We now have the chance. When we repatriate our fisheries policy, we must always think of the socioeconomic prosperity of these grandchildren.
I also support Amendment 27, which puts the monitoring of the sustainability objectives firmly in the hands of the OEP in future. That makes very good sense.
Returning to Amendment 2, a key part of the socioeconomic objective should include recreational sea angling. There is not much about recreational angling in the Bill, which is fine because there is not much to say. I see that the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, has tabled an amendment on this point; I came across that quite late in the day. The socioeconomic benefit of recreational angling to coastal communities is huge. Even in 2012, the latest year for which I could get hold of statistics, the sea angler spend was £2.1 billion locally, supporting more than 20,000 local jobs. They say that a fish caught with rod and line is worth at least six times more than one caught in a net. Recreational fishermen use local boats and local crews, and they use local pubs, hotels, shops, garages, car hire et cetera. All of this is vital to the socioeconomic objectives in this amendment and needs nurturing.
The other socioeconomic point to introduce concerns some sort of replacement for the European maritime and fisheries fund. I know the Government are making arrangements to put a replacement fund in place. The EMFF has been particularly beneficial for some of the smaller fishing communities in western Scotland, Wales and Cornwall, and some consideration definitely needs to be given to the socioeconomic well-being of these small fishing communities that depend on the seas for their economic wherewithal. I strongly support Amendment 2, but primarily Amendment 6.
My Lords, it is with considerable diffidence, and I do mean that, that I make any contribution to this discussion, and I do not intend to make any more, partly because it is impossible to live quite as far as I do from the coast. Perhaps we inlanders should remain largely silent in these discussions, but I found it almost exhilarating, I think that is the word, to hear specialists—I am not one, which is why I will not contribute any further—making points all related to the principle that the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, has just enunciated, which is that we are talking about the consequences of the repatriation of our fishing policies.
For me, as a Brexiteer, it is exhilarating, and I am not exaggerating, that these discussions can take place in the context of knowing that our coastal waters will be like those of Iceland—although I know that fishing is a lot more important to the overall economy of Iceland than it is to that of the United Kingdom. In all the discussions of the details of the various amendments, that is surely the basis on which this debate is taking place. Let us not miss the wood for the trees: the wood is precisely that in a democracy a Chamber of Parliament is discussing how best our nation should use its resources in a way that is accountable; which of course it never was when it was entirely a European responsibility. The Council of Ministers is nothing like a responsible body in the way that this is.
I will not go any further down this route, the Committee will be relieved to know, but I just wanted to point out how happy I feel about this debate.
My Lords, the Committee will note that I am in agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Grocott. It does not happen all the time and will not happen in future, I know, but today we are very much in agreement. What he says hinges very much on the agreement we get with the EU, because however sustainable we are, if the fish decide to move and the EU has different sustainability goals, the fish we have so carefully sustained will be harvested by the ever-hungry Spanish fleet and others that will be poised outside our waters—some of them will even be allowed in—and will be taking what they can.
I hope my noble friend the Minister will confirm that all the objectives that are so well set out in the Bill have the aim of sustainable development, because sustainability really matters. If all our objectives adhere in that way, there is hope for the grandchildren that the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, mentioned. He also made the very important point about coastal communities. It is not just the fishing fleets but the whole coastal communities and the people who feed off them who are important in the socioeconomic goal. We need to take a wider look at this between now and the next stage.
What has not been mentioned so far with regard to sustainability is human health. Can my noble friend say how many of the fish caught are used for fishmeal? The latest statistic I can find, which I looked up on the internet, dates from 2008 and claims that a third of the world’s fish is used for fishmeal. What is the point of fishing—some may even ask what is the point of agriculture—if not to provide a healthy, sustainable diet for human beings? That ought to take priority over producing fish for fishmeal. I hope that that will be taken into account in the sustainability goals my noble friend is aiming for, because health and diet have deteriorated badly in the western world and fishing is one area which can help us on that.
I hope my noble friend will also bear in mind trade—another area which could undermine our sustainable goals. If we have a strong, sustainable policy but by trade allow fish to be caught in an unsustainable way, that would undercut our market and be to the detriment of the Government’s whole policy.
I come now to the tricky question of the batting order of our goals. There is a good argument for putting the environmental sustainability objective first, but I wonder whether that is right and whether it would not be better to leave it as it is, agreed with the devolved Administrations. It is currently top of the list and, to me, probably the most important, but I am not yet convinced about singling it out.
My Lords, this has been a very interesting discussion—a counterpart to the discussion on the first group, where we failed to agree. This had a lot more agreement, though there are drafting issues that need to be addressed in the Bill if we are fully to realise the sorts of changes that are in everybody’s minds as we approach this opportunity, as my noble friend Lord Grocott described it, to improve what we do in relation to our fishing and fishing resources, as we have been trying to do for some time. I point out to him that, although it is nice that he is happy and feels joyful about this debate, the real test will be whether we end up with something different from a simple rehash of the existing common fisheries policy. That test is now ahead of us as we begin to drill down into the particularities of the Bill.
I will speak to Amendment 8 in the name of my noble friend Lord Grantchester, who we did not think would be here in time to speak but luckily has appeared—almost in time; he will take over from me as we go through the Bill—and Amendment 9, tabled by my noble friend Lady Jones of Whitchurch. Amendment 8 is a probing amendment to ask the Government to specify more clearly what “economically viable” means in practice under the Bill and how it might be applied, and to gain a clearer understanding of the relative importance of viability compared with sustainability, which has been the theme of most of the contributions so far.
Amendment 9 targets the same sustainability objective and seeks to bring the term “maximum sustainable yield” into the Bill. At present the Government favour a phrase which we do not think has quite caught the essence of what we are trying to do about overexploitation of marine stocks and which seems to offer less clarity than the forward-looking point made by just about all noble Lords: there will be no fishing unless we have a sustainable stock on which to operate.
All noble Lords agree there has to be a vibrant fishing industry. It is part of our heritage as an island nation and, as we will discuss during the Bill’s passage, our catch both helps feed people here and is sold abroad to others who want to buy these products. As the Minister said in his opening statement, we are talking about a highly organised industry. Hard-working fishers being fairly rewarded for their work at sea is important. It is a very physically demanding and often dangerous job, and they have to endure long periods of separation from their loved ones. They should be remunerated accordingly. The economics of the industry must be geared to ensure that there is something there for everybody, not just the fishers; the ports and processing plants need to make their fair share. This is important if we are to encourage them to contribute to the climate change objective—something that will be the focus of subsequent debates but has already been raised.
While we want a viable fishing fleet for many years to come, we have been in meetings with outside groups that feel that the current wording of the Bill may allow the economic to trump the environmental, particularly, as I have already said, as it refers to overexploitation rather than maximum sustainable yield. If that were to be the case, ironically, we would find ourselves in no better position than we are under the common fisheries policy. It would make this Bill a missed opportunity to put sustainability front and centre of the new approach. There is enough support around the Committee to suggest that the Minister might want to look at this carefully when he responds.
I am aware that the Minister has met many Members of your Lordships’ House and has made time to discuss amendments. I understand that these discussions have been valuable, and I hope that he will be able to offer the same reassurance to others who wish to join the debate now and in the future. I hope that when the Minister responds, he will confirm what he envisages happening if the second part of the sustainability objective cannot, despite the best endeavours of the fisheries authorities, be met. Would boats be allowed to overexploit stocks to ensure their viability? If not, what options would the Government or the devolved Administrations have available if they wanted to step in? This is a tricky balancing act. It is certainly not easy, and I know the Minister appreciates that and takes it seriously. I look forward to him providing further detail on the Government’s approach.
My Lords, at Second Reading I made it clear that sustainability is at the heart of the Bill, so I am pleased that one of the first discussions we are having in Committee relates to this area of utmost importance. As the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson of Balmacara, said, this work involves balance. Balance is necessary in these matters and is why our work with the devolved Administrations has been so valuable but intricate.
The Government’s view and that from our discussions with the devolved Administrations is that sustainability is often considered a three-legged stool, consisting of environmental, social and economic factors. To achieve the true sustainability of a healthy environment, thriving communities and a vibrant industry, it is important that a balance exists between them. That is a point that, in the wrestling of this, was referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson. They are also not mutually exclusive. For instance, if fish stocks are managed at sustainable levels, the stocks are protected into the future, while allowing the fishing industry to remain profitable and able to provide benefits to coastal communities and beyond. That point was referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington, and my noble friend Lord Caithness.
The fisheries objectives in the Bill work together to set out the core principles to achieve a successful and sustainable fisheries management regime, with the joint fisheries statement setting out the policies that will contribute to achieving our objectives. While I therefore fully support the aim—and I emphasise aim—of Amendment 2, which seeks to ensure that socio- economics are included within the fisheries objectives, I believe it is unnecessary and will explain why.
The sustainability objective currently sets out a requirement in the Bill that fish and aquaculture activities are
“managed so as to achieve economic, social and employment benefits”.
The Bill includes a number of objectives relating to environmental sustainability, while also recognising the need to take into account socioeconomic issues. Given that, in response to Amendment 6, I should like to set out in more detail what we aim to achieve by seeking a balanced approach to the objectives set out in Clause 1. I also understand that Amendment 10 in this group further seeks to change the Bill in the context of Amendment 6.
The framework provided by the objectives will operate on a UK-wide basis and will bind all the UK’s Administrations. As I have said, it has been developed in close co-operation with officials in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland and is carefully balanced to reflect the interests of all the Administrations. The Government wholly support the need for environmental sustainability, and our 25-year environment plan makes it clear that it is only by putting the environment first that we can deliver social and economic benefits for future generations. In delivering this vision, we also have a responsibility to maintain the livelihoods of fishers and their coastal communities. Fishers have already made significant strides in improving their sustainability and there has been a sea change in attitudes, with the fishing industry understanding the need for better stock management.
Of course, more action is needed to transition to more sustainable practices, but I hope that noble Lords will agree that we must also avoid economic hardship in the short term. We believe that developing a hierarchy within the objectives would not be appropriate since it would undermine this approach. Through our international negotiations, we seek to achieve sustainable catch limits set in accordance with the maximum sustainable yield, while balancing this with economic opportunities for the UK fishing fleet. Maintaining flexibility in our negotiating position will ensure that we are able to undertake this transition in co-operation with our coastal state partners and avoid the abrupt closure of fisheries, so as to maintain our coastal communities. Indeed, at Second Reading, a number of noble Lords talked about the need to revive our coastal communities. Achieving that revival will require a balance of objectives to maintain our focus on economic and social matters, while pushing for environmental sustainability.
I should say at this point to the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington, that we are going to discuss recreational sea fishing in considering later amendments because it is a very important part of the fishing world. Indeed, I am led to believe that 2% of our population engages in sea fishing, which is quite a large number of people.
Returning to the point about maximum sustainable yield, recent analysis shows that in 2019, 37 stocks were fished at MSY levels, representing 59% of the stocks for which we have the necessary data. I raise this issue because in 1990 the figure was just 12%, which demonstrates that we are transitioning. However, we recognise that more needs to be done to protect our marine environment and fish stocks.
The Bill provides the legal framework for pushing more stocks towards MSY as quickly as practically possible, and in line with our international obligations. Policies to achieve MSY will be set out in the legally binding joint fisheries statement and fisheries management plans. A key objective of the joint fisheries statement will be to ensure that fisheries policy is based on the best scientific advice. The setting of MSY can often occur without full scientific certainty, so it makes sense to include it under the precautionary objective, although it clearly supports sustainability.
While I fully support the ambition to ensure that environmental sustainability is not compromised, I do not believe that Amendment 6 is appropriate in the context of a Bill that seeks to establish a framework to manage all aspects of our fisheries. The weight given to each of the fisheries objectives may vary from case to case, and Clause 2(1)(c) provides that the joint fisheries statement must include a statement explaining how the objectives have been “interpreted and proportionately applied.” The approach of balancing environmental, economic and social sustainability lies at the core of best international practice as established by the United Nations Sustainability Framework. That chimes with the point raised by my noble friend Lord Caithness: it is international best practice to combine sustainability issues in the way I have described. The achievement of socioeconomic benefits through our fisheries and aquaculture management is therefore currently covered by the existing fisheries objectives, and the proposed amendment would not change their effect.
I turn to Amendment 7, which seeks to ensure that fish stocks are managed sustainably and not over-exploited—an aim that we all share, of course. The precautionary objective already includes a clear objective to restore all marine stocks to sustainable levels. As I have made clear, the provisions in the Bill for fisheries management plans set out a framework for ensuring the sustainable management of our fish stocks. We believe this amendment would inadvertently weaken the objectives—first, because an express reference to managing fishing “effort” would not be the full picture. Managing how many days fishermen fish is one of the tools for fisheries management, but we also manage through restrictions on quota. Secondly, by removing the reference to fleet capacity, this amendment would weaken the objectives by not requiring the fisheries authorities to set out policies relating to the overall size and structure of the fleet.
Turning to Amendment 8, I highlight once more that the Bill’s sustainability objective seeks to ensure that we have healthy fish stocks and seas, while promoting economic, social and employment benefits. These two aspirations are not necessarily mutually exclusive. In the past we have brought forward initiatives that address fleet capacity with the twin aims of avoiding overfishing and protecting the economic viability of active fishers. For example, we have restricted fishing licences that have not been used so as to prevent them being sold on and others entering fisheries, which could both put added pressure on the stocks and reduce the profitability of those already fishing.
I was grateful to learn that the noble Baroness’s amendment—put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson —is a probing amendment. I welcome the opportunity to explain the rationale for the current drafting of the Bill. The UK Government remain fully committed to sustainable fishing and the principle of MSY. We reiterated this in our manifesto, with the commitment to produce plans to restore all stocks to MSY. However, due to the international nature of fishing and fish stocks, which span national boundaries, MSY cannot be delivered unilaterally through management of the size of the UK fleet. Furthermore, for some stocks we do not yet have the data to conduct an MSY assessment and so instead use other measures, such as effort limits, to ensure that stocks are fished sustainably. In practice, we control the level of catch by the English fleet through the quota allocation system and effort controls. We have also been clear that we have no plans to increase capacity beyond current vessel numbers.
The existing language in the Bill recognises the different tools that we have in place to ensure that stocks are fished sustainably. It is important to read this objective alongside the precautionary objective, which sets out our commitment to restore stocks to levels above those capable of producing MSY.
I turn to Amendment 27. As your Lordships know, the office for environmental protection will be established through the Environment Bill currently being discussed in the other place, so it does not yet exist—nor have its role and functions been set in law. I strongly support the need for independent scrutiny and advice on our policy and its delivery, and the OEP may have a role in this in due course. The Environment Bill is clear that the new body’s principal objective will be the protection and/or improvement of the natural environment. It will have a duty to scrutinise environmental improvement plans and targets, and can advise on the implementation of environmental law. As I have detailed, the sustainability objective in this Bill covers environmental, social and economic elements, including fleet capacity, so we cannot assume that all elements of this objective will fall within the OEP’s remit.
We are establishing the OEP as an independent body. It should therefore be for the OEP to decide where and how to exercise its functions and what priority should be given to matters it proposes to review. We believe that creating a duty for the OEP to “promote” these objectives could undermine the OEP’s independence. The Environment Bill already provides the OEP with functions to scrutinise the Government’s progress on their environmental commitments. These will include relevant fisheries and other marine functions. The Environment Bill is also clear that the new body should not overlap with the functions of the Committee on Climate Change. There is no doubt that the review of many aspects of fisheries management would fall within the remit of the office for environmental protection. However, the UK Government do not feel it is appropriate for the Fisheries Bill to place a duty on the new body to promote objectives that lie outside its remit, nor fetter its ability to determine independently its own work programme.
On the point that my noble friend Lord Caithness raised about fishmeal, I think the best thing is for me to write to my noble friend, because the latest data is from 2008. According to Seafish, however, in 2014 around 16.5% of total catches went to fishmeal and fish oil.
I realise the complete bona fides of all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate about the importance of sustainability. I have tried to explain that the word “sustainability” is not just environmental in our view; it is a sustainable package. Indeed, the objectives are a package. Working through the fisheries statement and the fisheries management plan, this range of objectives is the best way of tackling a matter which should not be straitjacketed. There needs to be a flexibility to deal with each and every stock.
While understanding what noble Lords across the House have said, I am not in a position to support amendments which seek to unpick a very intricate seeking of the right balance. For now, I hope the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Before the Minister sits down, may I enquire in good faith whether we are saying that we have taken back control from Brussels, only to cede it to Scotland? It would be a waste of time if every answer is “We cannot do anything, because we have had a really delicate discussion with our devolved Administrations”.
We are still the UK Parliament; this is an important issue that has been repatriated to us first, and then we will repatriate it through devolution. Should we need to change the devolution arrangements, we will. Perhaps I am speaking out of turn, but surely we are not taking back control from Brussels only to give it to Holyrood.
We have had very successful and collaborative discussions and arrangements with all the devolved Administrations. They have taken this matter very seriously, and we are legislating on behalf of the devolved Administrations as well. I do not think many noble Lords are seeking to change the devolution arrangements through the Fisheries Bill. That would be unwise and not sensible.
We are seeking to have sustainability at the heart of the Bill, but sustainability—as the UN describes it—is not just environmental; it is a balance. Clearly, we want fisheries stocks which enable communities to prosper. That is the whole thrust of this, and why it is a package. I say to the noble Baroness: I do not see it in those terms. We are collaboratively working with our friends and partners across the United Kingdom, on something which requires balance. Sustainability is at the heart of the Bill, and that is why I have made the remarks I have.
To follow up on what the noble Baroness has said, we understand the delicacy of the situation and that considerable discussion has preceded the Bill we are debating today. I wonder whether she has a point: if it is already all sewn up and too difficult to change, what is the point? Will the Minister reassure us that this amendment is not just being turned down because it would be too difficult? The mood of the House seems to be that this is worthy of further consideration, if not necessarily being voted through.
No, my Lords. Obviously, I recognise that the noble Lords who have spoken feel particularly strongly about environmental sustainability. I have argued, what the Government feel is a compelling case, that sustainability is a balance. Therefore, the package we are bringing forward has been worked on not with one devolved Administration, but with all of them.
It has always been the point that noble Lords need to make a compelling case in all matters. The Government and the devolved Administrations have worked on this, mindful of observations made during the period of, let us say, the Fisheries Bills. That is how I would describe it; it is important we have these considerations. I have been clear—as when I referred to the UN—that sustainability has a range of points to it, and that is what I have been seeking to describe.
My Lords, I apologise that I did not speak earlier in the debate, but I will read Hansard very carefully tomorrow. From what I gather, my noble friend has indicated that, for some stocks, we do not have data available, and some of the data we do have is 12 years old. I agree with the view of the noble Lord, Lord Grocott: I am excited by the Bill because it gives us an opportunity to move forward in a sustainable way. However, we need information on which we can base our assumptions. Will the Minister indicate where there are gaps in that information and what is being done about it? Referring to my noble friend Lord Caithness’s comments on the whole question of trade and standards, it is essential that we have information on which we can base the decisions we have taken. I have listened carefully to my noble friend and know that an enormous amount of work has gone on with the devolved Administrations—I am perhaps happier about that than some other Members of the House are—but we need as much information as we can get at this stage.
For me, sustainability has to be key: at the end of the day, you cannot fish if there are no fish. If we do not have the data and information that we need, how can we make the assumptions that we will be dealing with in the Bill? There is an amendment to come shortly on the question of discards, and we will return to this issue in that debate. I have one or two queries, but if the Minister cannot answer them at the moment, perhaps he will look into it—or somebody will—so that we have a better overall picture of the sustainability side before we come back on Report. That would be immensely helpful.
I made it clear that the precautionary objective already includes the clear objective to restore all marine stocks to sustainable levels. We are very clear that we need to work through all stocks—that is what the fisheries management plans are intended to do—so that for those stocks for which we do not have sufficient information, there is this precise precautionary objective. As my noble friend Lord Lansley referred to, there is a difficulty in trying to put these objectives in some order of priority. As I say, we are seeking to improve all stocks because the truth is that, at the moment, we do not have an assessment of all stocks. That is precisely why, picking up the point raised earlier by the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, it is an enormous opportunity for us to look now across the whole of the marine environment at all our stocks.
This will not be sorted out overnight; I do not think any noble Lord expects there to be a magic switch and, suddenly, we are now responsible and it can be turned around immediately. But the whole purpose of the structure that we have put in place is precisely to address the sustainability of all stocks.
My noble friend gave a comprehensive answer, but can I make one suggestion that might help in driving forward our sustainability objectives? He has made it very clear to the farming community that there will be public money for public goods. Surely exactly the same argument is true for the fishing and coastal communities: if they follow the sustainability line, there will be public money for public goods. Perhaps that would help to sell the argument.
During this Committee, I think we will probably go on to talk about some of the further arrangements for financial assistance. Clearly, the Government see this as a vital interest, a source of food and an opportunity for the whole of the coastal community. I agree with the thrust of what I think my noble friend Lord Caithness is saying: this is an area contained in the Bill. As has been mentioned, there will be a need for a replacement of the European funding, which we will discuss again. I am sure there will be ways in which financial assistance to support coastal communities will be considered and will come forward.
My Lords, I believe the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, was going beyond grant funding and referring to the allocation of fishing rights. That confers a financial benefit to the recipient of those rights, so it is much broader than just grants.
I would like one more chance to narrow down the point on which we were exchanging before the other two very good contributions came in.
The noble Lord has a reputation in this House for being very easy to talk to and very willing to engage in debate. I am slightly trading on that because, in my experience, on any Bill there is a worry that the Minister will get it drummed into him by those sitting in the Box that he must never concede anything. Sometimes, however, we can be in quite a difficult mode, when good points are made but the willingness to concede is not there from the Minister concerned. I know that the noble Lord is not like that. It may not happen on the point that we have been discussing, although it is a very good one from the noble Baroness, Lady Worthington, but issues will come up in future amendments to do with the workforce health and safety, on which the Committee may feel that a change in wording is possible. Will he just confirm, for the sake of allowing us to go forward, that he is not against the possibility of that happening and that, if it were the case, he would undertake the necessary consultations that might be required to bring the devolved Assemblies, and others who signed up to the previous version of the Bill, up to the new standard that will be set by this House?
I will conclude on this, otherwise the “Ah, buts” will lose the force of the sustainability point of this debate. It is clear, I believe—as I always have—that the House and your Lordships need to make a compelling case, which a government Minister will always want to listen to. If a compelling case is made, as I have said previously, my answer will be, “Gosh, I wish we’d thought of that.” I emphasise that the Bill has been considered over a very long time. We have one go at this Bill and there have been a lot of representations. It has gone through a mincer in a way that most other Bills do not. Given our very close connections and our responsibilities, and given that fishing is devolved, we have worked collaboratively and positively with the devolved Administrations. I emphasise to the noble Baroness, Lady Worthington, that I do not use that as an excuse. It is a statement of fact that we are legislating on behalf of all parts of the kingdom. That is really what I wish to say at this point.
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for probably one of the most important debates during this Committee and for all the points made. They were made pretty much in the same direction, even if they did not totally agree on the detail.
I was very grateful for the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Grocott—I thought it was fantastic. The sad thing to someone like me is that, apart from relative stability and technical regulations, which are not dealt with in the Bill, we could have done everything else over the last 40 years, but we did not because we just went along and did what was easiest. We did not need to let our quotas go to foreign owners, we could have changed the balance between the large and small fleets completely, and we could have put far more European money into our coastal communities when they did not have enough quotas. We could have done all those things, but we did not. However, the noble Lord was absolutely right: we have here an opportunity to really open our minds. The Minister says, “We’ve gone through all of this before, it’s been looked at before and we’ve talked to all the other sides”, but we have had a break, we are now out of the European Union, we have opened our minds and we have had some really good suggestions on the Bill. We should not be railroaded by past negotiations. Clearly, devolution is key—we do not want to change that settlement in any way—but that cannot prevent our making some changes.
One fundamental thing, on which I disagree completely with the Minister, is that referring to “balance” between socioeconomic issues and sustainability was exactly the argument that Ministers used on the common fisheries policy from the 1980s to about five years ago, when the whole regime changed. Because of that so-called balance, stocks disappeared from the North Sea and the Baltic Sea and were depleted from western waters. If we do not decide to make sustainability a prime objective, that is what we will end up with. The history shows that the politics takes over from the science.
I was very pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Randall, mentioned Newfoundland. I went out to Newfoundland in 1996 at the height of the conflict with the Portuguese and the Spanish. I went out on an aeroplane with the Canadian fisheries department to look at the line of big Atlantic fishing vessels fishing right along the EEZ line. I saw the communities of St John’s in Newfoundland that were unable to fish their own waters because there was nothing left. That was due to the short-term socioeconomic objective taking the place of the sustainability objective. That is exactly what you get and exactly what we must not have in this country, whether in Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland or England. We cannot afford that.
If I was chief executive of a company and somebody gave me eight different objectives and did not rank them, the first thing I would do is ask the chairman to fire the non-executive directors, because it is absolutely impossible to have eight equal objectives in any subject. That is for running a company; if you are running the marine environment of a nation, surely it is far more important.
To come back to the point from the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, we absolutely need a socioeconomic objective. The noble Earl, Lord Caithness, is absolutely right as well—we will come to the financing part of the Bill. There are amendments to that part to say that we will need to intervene when there is a socioeconomic problem and that we should not be afraid to do so. We should protect those communities in that way. We should not pretend that we are protecting them by letting people go out for fish stocks that are not there and are not sustainable.
I am very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Worthington. She made her argument very strongly. The same goes for the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, on the points he made. Although my amendments may not be perfect, I have tried to stick within the Government’s framework by changing around some of the words but using the Government’s own settlement with the devolved authorities. I am absolutely sure that we will come back to this on Report, but at this point I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment 2 withdrawn.
3: Clause 1, page 1, line 7, at end insert—
“( ) the discards objective,”
My Lords, I am grateful for the meeting that I had prior to today with my noble friend the Minister. I assure him that this is indeed a probing amendment. It enables me to press him on why the original objective in the initial Bill, which clearly stated that discards were an objective under Clause 1, has been dropped and replaced with a bycatch objective. The House had the chance to debate the difficulties involved in the landing objective on reports adopted by the EU Energy and Environment Sub-Committee before I was a member of it, but I will press my noble friend very specifically on the narrow point of discards to ask him what the Government’s policy is in connection with the Fisheries Bill, and why they have removed the discards objective in Clause 1 and replaced it with one for bycatch. There is clearly a difference between those policies of reducing discard as a result of the use of bycatch.
I was grateful for the conversation I had with my noble friend but, separately and elsewhere, I would like to raise the possibility of using some of the bycatch of inshore fishermen in ways currently not allowed. Can he take the opportunity to explain how the Government intend to reduce discard and bycatch and what measure of enforcement is envisaged? As far as I can see, the Bill in its present form is silent on what the enforcement and implementation measures for discards will be. I give notice that I have tabled two more amendments on discards.
The Government need to make onboard monitoring of discards a condition of licensing. Can my noble friend explain why there is no mention—that I can see—in the Bill and its schedules of onboard enforcement cameras? When we come to consider the issuing of licences, is it not the Government’s intention to make it a condition that there should be onboard enforcement and cameras? Clauses 28 and 32 allow the Government and the Secretary of State to bring forward regulations, but will my noble friend please take this opportunity to reassure us today that the discards policy will be enforceable and enforced, and not a voluntary scheme?
Has my noble friend taken the opportunity to consider discards policy, in particular, and discards charging by other countries? Obviously, New Zealand springs to mind. It had teething problems but has now introduced a more successful and reliable discards charging policy.
We need to maintain a discards objective in Clause 1. I would like to see a discards policy elaborated later in the Bill but, if my noble friend does not come up with a policy for implementing this, would he consider that a successful reduction in discards will need monitoring and the use of cameras as part of the necessary enforcement associated with either bycatch policy or discard reduction policy? Can he put my mind at rest? At the moment, the Bill seems not to require onboard monitoring of discards and other activities, but are the Government thinking about it in connection with the licensing regime, and will it be an obligatory—not a voluntary—scheme? Otherwise, we have time to come back at a later stage and help the Government to come up with such a scheme in the Bill.
I have tabled this probing amendment because it is extremely important to maintain the discards objective—in addition to a bycatch objective—in the Fisheries Bill, which will be elaborated later, and to ensure that there will be a meaningful implementation scheme to enforce it.
My Lords, I take the amendment very seriously. I will point the Minister in the direction of Clause 1(6)(c) refers to,
“bycatch that is fish is landed”,
and then goes on to say,
“but only where this is appropriate”.
I would be glad of some clarification of that. It continues that it,
“does not create an incentive to catch fish that are below minimum conservation reference size”,
and perhaps that is exactly what is meant by it. Certainly, we have had discussions over the weeks about discards, about which I think many of us are concerned. My question is on the phrase that they have used here. Is the Government worried that moving from the discard to the new bycatch will help to disincentivise people from catching fish that are below a minimum standard? Why was the decision made to change it from discarding to the particular wording of the Bill? When we come at a later stage to discuss how we can look at the way we record and know what is being discarded and what is being landed at ports, it will be immensely important. I am just a little bit unhappy with the wording that we have in subsection (6)(c), and would be glad of some clarification.
My Lords, I rise to speak to my Amendment 16, specifically on subsection (6) on page 2 of the Bill; it is grouped with this Amendment 3 on page 1, on the issue of discards, or “bycatch” as referred to in the Bill. It complements the tabling of Amendment 3 by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, which alludes to the inclusion of a dedicated objective on fish discards among the list of objectives. I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, for her probing on this.
For a variety of reasons, and as I am sure we will hear from the Minister, it is virtually impossible to avoid catching some of the wrong species—or, indeed, the wrong sized members of the right species—when fishing. There have been some great advances in techniques and technologies, but some degree of bycatch remains an inevitability.
The Bill's bycatch objective, which is lifted from the common fisheries policy, rightly seeks to reduce the catching of fish that are below minimum conservation size and to ensure a proper audit trail for those caught. The latter also raises issues around monitoring and recording; this will in turn contribute to better data that can be used to inform future quota decisions.
Paragraph (c) of subsection (6), which my probing amendment proposes leaving out, refers to allowing bycatches to be landed
“only where this is appropriate”
and an incentive to catch undersize fish is not created as a result of the landing. As we sought to make clear in our explanatory statement, we wish to understand the circumstances in which Ministers believe the landing of bycatch will be “appropriate”. Presumably this is meant in the context of the landing obligation, in order to prevent fish simply being discarded back into the sea—a practice which we have fought for many years to bring to an end.
If this is the case, would it not be better for the Bill to be explicit in this regard, and for the references to the prevention of incentivising the landing of bycatch to make clear that such fish cannot be sold for human consumption, thereby producing an economic benefit? Or, if the phraseology does not relate purely to the landing obligation, perhaps the Minister could outline which other circumstances are deemed as being appropriate for landing bycatch at ports?
We are very much probing at this stage of proceedings, but I think I speak on behalf of many across your Lordships' House when I say that we need confidence that, whether we use the terms “discards” or “bycatch”, the Government and devolved Administrations will be properly equipped to build on recent progress and answer the wider probing made by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering.
My Lords, the Government remain fully committed to ending the wasteful discarding of fish, acknowledging the impact this can have on fisheries management and the marine environment. I fully support that the issue of illegal discarding should be addressed within the fisheries objectives. In doing so, we will ensure that policies in the joint fisheries statement will focus on this important area.
The prevention of illegal discarding is addressed in the fisheries objectives through the “bycatch objective”, which sets out a series of “sub-objectives” to address the issue of illegal discarding. These include avoiding or reducing bycatch, ensuring that catches are recorded and accounted for, and ensuring that fish stocks are landed. It is overfishing and the catching of unwanted bycatch that result in illegal discarding, and the objective has been named the “bycatch objective” to address the root cause of the issue. For example, unreported catches, whether landed or discarded, contribute significant uncertainty to the scientific assessment process. Such uncertainty enhances the risk that stocks are fished at levels beyond MSY.
One limb of the bycatch objective is that catches are recorded and accounted for. We will improve the accuracy of the data available on fishing mortality and enable sustainable quota setting that avoids overfishing. I therefore believe that my noble friend’s aims are already met through the existing bycatch objective. An additional discards objective—which the amendment does not seek to define—risks adding complexity and confusion when read in conjunction with the existing objective, which already serves the purpose of setting a clear framework for tackling discards.
In future, we will have the opportunity to be creative and adopt new measures and flexibilities outside the current common fisheries policy toolkit, to implement a workable discards ban. The Fisheries Bill—we will no doubt come on to this—sets out provisions to introduce one such flexibility: a discard prevention charging scheme to provide a mechanism that allows fishers to pay for additional quota to cover any excess catch that would otherwise push them into illegal fishing. Alongside the MMO and industry, Defra is exploring the use of remote electronic monitoring—REM—as a cost-effective and efficient way of monitoring fishing activities, including the effectiveness of selected gear types, and ensuring compliance.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, for saying that his amendment is a probing amendment. I am aware that he seeks to understand the circumstances in which the Government believe that landing bycatch will be “appropriate”. I believe that this is something to which my noble friend Lady Byford also referred. Under the common fisheries policy—CFP—the landing obligation, which was fully implemented last year, requires all species subject to catch limits to be landed and counted against quota rather than discarded at sea, subject to certain exceptions. Now that we have left the EU, the UK will develop a discards policy that is tailored to our industry. It will have an emphasis on reducing the level of unintentional and unwanted bycatch through sustainable and selective fishing. However, even when our fishing practices are highly selective—this is a point that the noble Lord absolutely recognised—there will be instances when this unwanted bycatch cannot be avoided entirely, given the high number of mixed fisheries in UK waters. The sub-objective that the noble Lord seeks to remove with his amendment specifies that bycatch is landed only if appropriate. This is because, for example, if catch is scientifically proven to have high survivability, it could be beneficial to the long-term sustainability of the stock for it to be returned alive to the sea, rather than landed dead. I use that as an example that we need to think through.
However, the crux of the amendment is that the Government would not have to describe how and when bycatch would be landed in the joint fisheries statement. I have already set out the critical importance of understanding what is taken from the sea; removing this sub-objective could undermine our future discards policy and our ability to advance our scientific understanding of the state of our fisheries.
I should add an embellishment for my noble friend Lady Byford. Where we refer to a good chance of survivability—which I have already raised—there could, for instance, be high-survivability exemptions. Where it is accepted that unwanted catches of certain species in certain fisheries are unavoidable and costly to handle, a small percentage of the catch is permitted to be discarded through the de minimis exemptions.
I say in particular to my noble friend Lady McIntosh, with whom I was pleased to discuss this matter, that in further consideration of the Bill the word “bycatch” is not intended to denigrate the absolutely clear requirement that discard is addressed; rather, “bycatch” is a better description of dealing with the issue and its root causes. My noble friend knows that there are, as I said, references to “discards” in the draft legislation. The point about bycatch as an objective is precisely that we think this wording covers and addresses the matter in a wider sense. However, I think we all want the same objective, and I hope that my noble friend will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
My Lords, I am grateful to those who have contributed. The amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, is entirely consistent with my amendment, in the sense of probing. I am a little disappointed that I have no greater understanding of why the discards objective was dropped between the initial Bill that was published and this version. While I am sure that it is of interest that remote electronic monitoring equipment is being proposed, my noble friend did not explain whether or not that would be on a voluntary basis. Other amendments that I have tabled at later stages will provide him with the opportunity to do so. Also, will foreign fishing boats be policed? Will they also be required to have such monitoring systems in place?
In summing up, my noble friend did not actually respond to whether or not the monitoring equipment would include cameras but, as a subsequent amendment that I have tabled relates specifically to cameras, I would be grateful if he could reply on that specific point at that stage.
I emphasise that even if we use “discards” or “bycatch” interchangeably in the way that we seem to now, for the policy to work effectively, and for more fish to be landed so that we have a better idea of the state of the current stock, it must be effectively policed or it will fall flat on its face. I will return to this issue in later amendments, but at this stage I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment 3 withdrawn.
4: Clause 1, page 1, line 11, at end insert—
“( ) the marine planning objective.”
My Lords, in moving Amendment 4 in my name I shall speak also to Amendment 25, which is grouped with it. I also seek permission to speak to Amendments 47 and 56, which will come up later in Committee but are related to this point, so I hope I can speak to all four in this speech.
The purpose of Amendment 4 is to add a new fisheries objective to the Bill stating that there is a “marine planning objective” in relation to fisheries management. The reason is that there is a real need to integrate fisheries into our wider marine planning processes. The phrase “fisheries exceptionalism” has been used. In essence, what is being got at there is that the way we plan for our use of the marine environment for fisheries is very separate from our wider spatial planning that we use for other activities that occur in the marine environment. Sometimes we forget that, although fishing is a hugely important part of our marine environment, it is certainly not the only economically productive activity that occurs within our seas. It is important that we integrate fisheries into marine planning and that marine planning integrates fisheries into its processes.
Therefore, there is a very clear objective missing from the Bill, which is to accomplish that wider integration in public policy. Many users of the marine environment interact with fisheries, not least the growing and highly profitable energy sector. We are shifting towards greater use of our marine environment for the production of sustainable energy. That has an interesting intersection with fisheries: the offshore wind farms that we are putting into the marine environment can act as no-take zones for vessels over a certain size, and as hatcheries and protected areas that allow fish stocks to return to an area that would otherwise be decimated through overexploitation by large vessels with large gear. There is a real benefit to be gained from integrating fisheries with our spatial planning.
It is not just about reducing fishing effort, although another key part of planning—now in UK law—is the protection of areas of high biodiversity interest or sites of scientific interest in the marine environment. We have a marine planning process that designates marine planning areas, some of which are working well while others need to be better thought-through and planned. It would be much more effective if, when setting these new fishing policies, we think of them as an integral part of our marine planning for conservation.
There are other uses of the marine environment that require planning, including dredging the shipping channels. It is an environment that requires careful management and balance—I agree with that—but not to mention the existing marine plans that are required to be made, and not to integrate them with the fishing objectives, feels like a missed opportunity. I tabled this amendment in the hope that we can have a wider debate about spatial planning and how it relates to fisheries management. It is not a negative proposal: it could bring greater benefits as we think about how we manage our seas. I look forward to the Minister’s response, and I hope that we have a good debate. I beg to move.
My Lords, I very much welcome marine planning. I should perhaps declare a past interest as a board member of the Marine Management Organisation, which is responsible for marine planning in England. Last week I talked to Gillian Martin, the convenor of the environment committee of the Scottish Parliament, about marine planning. It is happening in Scotland, too.
I am certainly not advocating this as yet another objective—we have too many already—but it is important that the Bill takes account of marine planning and all the work going on in that field. Today our seas are, to put it mildly, used in multiple ways—for trade, renewable energy, undersea carbon capture and storage, and lots of other areas. I am not sure that the Bill even mentions things such as marine conservation zones, which are part of marine plans and, inevitably, part of the management of the fishing regimes. I would like to think that there was a way to refer to marine plans in the Bill, although not quite in this way.
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Worthington, for tabling these amendments. As she said, they relate to the importance of marine planning and the conservation obligations of the fishing sector.
The Marine and Coastal Access Act is an important piece of legislation, passed in the final years of the Labour Government, of which we are very proud. It already requires the UK and devolved Administrations to prepare marine plans. The point made by the noble Baroness was important: new legislation should incorporate the marine plans where they overlap and apply. With this Bill it is sensible to incorporate them into the joint fisheries statements and the fisheries management plans. We should not risk one piece of legislation overriding the obligations of another: the case for integration is well made.
As marine plans have been with us for some time, there is an argument that they should provide the bedrock on which other policies are built and developed. There is little sense in having marine conservation measures in place if certain protections are at risk of being disrupted by fishing activities authorised under the Bill, so the case for integration is strong.
We have raised previously with the Minister the wider challenge of how all Defra Bills integrate; for example, how this Bill will integrate with the Environment Bill. They all need to interlink and create a bigger whole. I am sure that we will be told that a number of the issues that we raise here will be dealt with in the Environment Bill. We need to make sure that everything is in its place and is interlinked. Everything should be developed as a package. The points made by the noble Baroness about the links between this Bill and marine conservation are well made. As with all these things, it is about finding the right wording and the right place in the legislation, but the principle is one that we should adopt.
My Lords, I should have made another declaration: I am co-chair of the Cornwall and Isles of Scilly Local Nature Partnership. Obviously, being surrounded by sea apart from the Tamar—which is an even more important boundary with our brothers in Devon—Cornwall has a marine interest.
My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Worthington, for her amendments. Together, they would require policies made to achieve the fisheries objectives to be consistent with the objectives and policies in relevant marine plans.
I want to take this opportunity to make it clear that the UK Government recognise the importance of marine plans, which enable the increasing and, at times, competing demands for use of the marine area to be balanced and managed in an integrated way—a way that protects the marine environment while supporting sustainable development. Using our marine resources effectively and sustainably has the potential to provide significant benefits for the UK economy and for coastal communities. The economic contribution of marine-related industries to the UK’s GDP in 2015 was estimated at £27 billion, with scope for further growth.
In England, the East Inshore and East Offshore Marine Plans were published in April 2014 and the South Inshore and South Offshore Marine Plan was published in July 2018. The remaining marine plans for England are out for consultation by the Marine Management Organisation and will be in place by 31 March 2021, delivering the Government’s commitment in the 25-year environment plan.
Marine plans support economic growth in a way that benefits society while respecting the needs of local communities and protecting the marine environment. That is why I understand the importance of the points that the noble Baroness has raised. We believe that what her amendment requires is already provided for. As was referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, Section 58 of the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009 requires public authorities to have regard to
“the appropriate marine policy documents”—
which could be a marine policy statement or a marine plan—when taking decisions affecting the marine environment. The amendments would therefore duplicate this requirement. I am advised that the requirement is already sufficient to meet what I know are the noble Baroness’s positive intentions.
With that explanation and the assurance that I have been advised that Section 58 covers this point and that the amendment would merely duplicate what is already a legal requirement, I hope that she will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
I thank the Minister for his response and explanation. Perhaps there will be an opportunity to discuss this further after Committee, as I am minded to withdraw the amendment. Even if that piece of legislation predates the Bill and states that the planners must take into account certain factors, the amendment creates an objective relating to marine planning, ensuring that the fisheries plans drawn up under the Bill take into account the marine planning aspects. As the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, said, it is to make sure that the Bill is fully up to date with our marine planning requirements, not the other way around. However, on the basis that we can discuss this further, I beg leave to withdraw.
Amendment 4 withdrawn.
Ministerial Code: Breaches
My Lords, with the leave of the House, I will repeat, in the form of a Statement, the Answer given to an Urgent Question in the other place by my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Minister for the Cabinet Office. The Statement is as follows:
“Mr Speaker, on Saturday 29 February the Cabinet Secretary and Head of the Civil Service received and accepted the resignation of Sir Philip Rutnam as Permanent Secretary at the Home Office. On the same day, the Cabinet Secretary announced that Shona Dunn, then the Second Permanent Secretary at the Home Office responsible for borders, immigration and citizenship, would become Acting Permanent Secretary with immediate effect. Allegations have been made that the Home Secretary has breached the Ministerial Code. The Home Secretary absolutely rejects these allegations. The Prime Minister has expressed his full confidence in her. Having worked closely with the Home Secretary over a number of years, I also have the highest regard for her. She is a superb Minister doing a great job.
This Government always take any complaints relating to the Ministerial Code seriously. In line with the process set out in the Ministerial Code, the Prime Minister has asked the Cabinet Office to establish the facts. As is usual, the independent adviser on ministerial interests, Sir Alex Allan, is available to provide advice to the Prime Minister. It is long-standing government policy not to comment on individual personnel matters, in order to protect the rights of all involved. What I can, and will, say is that I know that the dedicated ministerial team at the Home Office, and its superb civil servants, will continue their critical work on the public’s behalf—keeping our country protected from the terror threat; bearing down on the criminals who seek to do our communities and our country harm; and delivering a fair, firm immigration system that works in the interests of the British people. The Home Office works tirelessly to keep our citizens safe and our country secure. We all stand behind the team leading that vital work.”
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for repeating the Statement, and for his measured delivery which has given me time to catch my breath after racing to the Chamber.
The events leading to this Statement are extraordinary and unprecedented. Sir Philip Rutnam’s resignation statement, that he had been the victim of a
“vicious and orchestrated briefing campaign”
by allies of the Home Secretary, followed by reports that he was offered, but refused, a substantial pay-off—presumably to leave quietly—illustrates alarming levels of dysfunction at the very heart of government. On Thursday, the noble Lord, Lord True, told the House:
“The current Prime Minister expects the highest standards of performance and behaviour from all his colleagues.”—[Official Report, 27/2/20; col. 278.]
That is quite right. I am sure that I am not alone in thinking it quite strange that, having initiated a Cabinet Office investigation into the facts regarding the Home Secretary’s behaviour, before it even gets going the Prime Minister states his full confidence in her, even describing her as “fantastic” and
“a superb Minister doing a great job.”
Can the Minister answer just two questions? First, can he confirm that the Cabinet Office investigation is into whether the Home Secretary has breached the Ministerial Code in this department or in any other? I appreciate that he cannot give details of investigations, but straightforward confirmation that it is into breaches of the Ministerial Code would be helpful. Secondly, if that code is proven to have been broken, what sanctions are available?
My Lords, in answer to the second question, any Minister holds office at the wish of the Prime Minister and if he considers, in the case of any Minister on any subject, that that Minister is not performing, that Minister will be subject to the appropriate sanctions. As for the noble Baroness’s first question, my right honourable friend answered this in the other House. Allegations have been made that the Home Secretary breached the Ministerial Code and the Cabinet Office has been asked to look at the facts, as reported.
My Lords, I fear that this affair may have some further way to go. There are, for example, various reports in the newspapers that there was a hitlist of other Permanent Secretaries that the Government would like to get rid of. None of us, I think, wants to go down the road of Washington, where relations between members of the American Cabinet and its staff are clearly toxic in a number of ways. Do we not now need some sort of investigation that will be published to re-establish the necessary confidence between Ministers and civil servants, without which effective government is very difficult to carry on?
No, my Lords, the allegation of a hitlist is false and has been denied. All in this House would agree that good government depends on all the elements of a ministry and a Government working well together. I had the privilege of working in the Civil Service as a special adviser in the past and I know that to be the case. This Government wholly respect the role of the Civil Service; they need the Civil Service to be free to give robust advice and there needs to be proper respect between all arms of government decision-making.
My Lords, will the noble Lord clear up one point that was a little ambiguous in his answer to the Leader of the Opposition? I welcome the fact that, in line with the Ministerial Code, the Prime Minister has asked the Cabinet Office to establish the facts—that is clearly very important—but in answering the Leader of the Opposition, the noble Lord said that the Cabinet Office has been asked to inquire whether the Home Secretary has breached the code. However, there are also allegations that the code was breached when Ms Patel was in the Department for Employment and in DfID. Can he assure us that the inquiry will be wide-ranging and will cover that full range of complaints?
My Lords, I used the term “Home Secretary” because the person engaged is Home Secretary, but where allegations of breach of the Ministerial Code has been made against a Minister, those allegations, from wherever, will be investigated.
My Lords, the undignified whinge in front of television cameras by the former Permanent Secretary at the Home Office certainly shows that he is no Sir Humphrey Appleby. What matters is that the Home Office is arguably the most constipated department in Whitehall, but one of the most important. There is much still to be done to follow up what the noble Lord, Lord Reid, said in May 2006 about the department being “not fit for purpose”. What really matters is that we get on with the reforms and we must welcome the fact that my right honourable friend Priti Patel is a vigorous Home Secretary who is determined, among other things, to root out the deep corruption, demonstrated in Parliamentary Questions I have asked and had answered, in the immigration department of the Home Office.
My Lords, I will not follow my noble friend on all his comments. All I will say is that the Home Office has been charged with a vital job, from creating a points-based immigration system to strengthening the police and so on. I have no reason to believe that the Home Office, led by an outstanding ministerial team, will not perform to the highest levels expected of Her Majesty’s Civil Service.
My Lords, I read the statement and heard of the resignation of Sir Philip with extreme sadness and shock. Will the inquiry talk to Sir Philip about his allegations and include the First Division Association chief executive Dave Penman to establish the reality of what happened? I welcome the inquiry, and the Statement says that it is not the Government’s practice to comment on personal matters. All I can say is that an awful lot of other people seem to have commented on Sir Philip. Will the Minister distance himself from the shameful comments that have been made in the newspapers over the weekend?
My Lords, I make no comment about any individual. My job is to see that the conduct of government is carried on appropriately. The noble Lord will know from his distinguished service in the Civil Service that how the matter is conducted is not a matter for me but for the Cabinet Secretary, taking advice appropriately, as I am sure he will do. Sir Philip said in his statement that he intends to begin legal action; I am sure the House will understand that I cannot make any further comment on that matter.
My Lords, is a timetable attached to the inquiry by the Cabinet Office? My understanding is that it is the Prime Minister who decides in the end whether the ministerial code has been broken or not. Is that the case, or will he also rely on advice and input from independent sources?
My Lords, I will not speculate on how long the work, which has only just begun, will last. It is in everybody’s interest that it be performed as swiftly but also as thoroughly and fairly as possible. The findings will be presented to the Prime Minister and then it will be a matter for his judgment what might or might not follow.
My Lords, will the Minister reflect that it would be deeply unfortunate if, as with the BBC or the courts, the people’s Government versus the Civil Service overrode the duty of people to be encouraged to work sensibly on behalf of the people we seek to represent? As a former special adviser, will he reflect that, after seven months, it would have been perfectly reasonable for the Home Secretary to have approached the Prime Minister and Cabinet Secretary to arrange a sensible departure for the Permanent Secretary if she could not get on with him? Is it not a worry that she might not be able to get on with anybody?
My Lords, again I will not be tempted to follow a personal line, except to say that the noble Lord, when he was an outstanding Home Secretary, was never backward in coming forward with his views. It is in everyone’s interest that the heat is taken down a bit and the facts are established; once the facts are established your Lordships and the rest of the world can address their consequences.
My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat in the form of a Statement the Answer to an Urgent Question asked in another place on airport expansion. The Statement is as follows:
“Madam Deputy Speaker, the Secretary of State is very sorry that he is unable to be here today. He is visiting the north as a long-standing commitment for discussions with northern leaders following the Government’s takeover of the Northern franchise. It is a pleasure to respond on his behalf as Minister for Aviation.
Airport expansion is a core part of boosting our global connectivity and levelling up the UK. It is crucial that vital infrastructure projects, including airport expansion, drive the whole UK economy. This Government support airport expansion, but we will permit it only within our environmental obligations. This Government have been clear that the Heathrow expansion is a private sector project which must meet strict criteria on air quality, noise and climate change, as well as being privately financed, affordable and delivered in the best interests of consumers.
Last week, the Court of Appeal ruled that the designation of the Airports National Policy Statement did not take account of the Paris Agreement, of non-carbon-dioxide emissions or of emissions post 2050, and therefore, has no legal effect unless and until this Government carry out a review. This Government have taken the decision not to appeal the court’s judgment. We take seriously our commitment on the environment and reducing carbon emissions.
It is a complex and important judgment, which the Government need time to consider carefully. At this stage, the Government will not be able to make any further comment beyond what was set out in the Written Statement of 27 February from the Secretary of State for Transport. Following the judgment, scheme promoters have applied for permission to the Supreme Court to appeal this decision. The Government will not comment on an ongoing legal case.
Aviation will play a key role in leading our economic growth and driving forward the UK’s status as an outward-facing trading nation, attracting investment and growing our trade links with new overseas markets. Today, our airports support connections to more than 370 destinations in more than 100 countries. Aviation drives trade, investment and tourism, contributing £14 billion to our economy and 500,000 jobs. The next decade will mark an unprecedented moment of opportunity for the UK. That is why we are investing in transport and infrastructure across the country—investing in our strategic roads network, proceeding with HS2 and committing £5 billion of funding to improve bus and cycle services outside London.
Airport expansion is a core part of our commitment to global connectivity, but we are also a Government who are committed to a greener future, as the first major economy in the world to legislate for net zero emissions by 2050. This Government are therefore committed to working with the aviation sector to make sure we deliver on the opportunities available to us, while meeting our environmental commitments, whether that is on modernisation of our airspace, innovation in sustainable fuels or research and technology. This will ensure a prosperous and sustainable future for the whole country, and the House will be updated on next steps as soon as possible.”
My Lords, I am becoming sympathetic to the Minister. She seems destined to repeat Statements from the House of Commons that have little or no substance. It is no surprise that the Heathrow expansion plan failed to reflect the UK’s commitment to tackling the climate crisis, given that the former Transport Secretary said that the Paris agreement was “not relevant” to expansion. Who provided legal advice to the Government saying that they did not have to take the Paris agreement into account when approving Heathrow expansion? Will the Government rule out amending the Airports National Policy Statement to allow expansion to go ahead, and do the Government now accept that the Paris agreement must be taken into account in all their domestic decisions?
My Lords, I will not go into the detail of who received what legal advice and when, but the court ruled in the way it did. It is worth looking at one thing: the court did not conclude that airport expansion was incompatible with climate change targets. It remains the Government’s position that we have our climate change targets, it is possible to expand airports within them and where possible we will do so.
My Lords, the Liberal Democrats have always opposed Heathrow’s expansion, believing that it could not be done without serious environmental damage. I have always argued here that there has been far too much concentration on air services in the south-east, when there are airports in the north with spare capacity. Any expansion at Heathrow would be bound to skew investment towards the south-east, at the expense of the Midlands and north. So the Government now need to develop alternative policies. I understand there is an appeal process, but does the Minister agree that the Government need to use existing airports more efficiently and ensure, with speed, that all airports adopt zero emissions as an approach to their ground services, which can be provided at this time? Does the Minister also accept that all airports, and the Government, have to work on improving public transport links? Can the Minister guarantee that the Government will up their game environmentally?
I feel that the last comment in particular from the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, was a little harsh. We are the first major economy to have legislated for net zero by 2050. We have already reduced the amount of emissions by a quarter since the Conservatives came into office. I am sure that the noble Baroness will have heard on the grapevine that a transport decarbonisation plan will be published soon. That will cover how we are going to decarbonise our transport system. But the noble Baroness is right that transport between the different regions is incredibly important. That is why this Government are committed to investing in infrastructure, with the biggest rail modernisation since Victorian times, green-lighting HS2, £500 million for Beeching reversals and £29 billion on upgrading or maintaining our strategic roads network. A making best use policy is already in place for airports, which says that all airports can invest in their infrastructure, provided they meet environmental constraints.
My Lords, not even Heathrow Airport Ltd believes that a third runway at Heathrow could be available before 2029. Would it not be a safe insurance policy for the Government to upgrade the railway to Stansted Airport, which has legal spare capacity?
I thank my noble friend for raising one of the other London airports. It is true that we are incredibly lucky in this country, in that we have a number of options when we fly from the south-east or from London. The Government are focused on connections to airports, because we want to make sure that there are as many different options as possible to get to airports, so that people do not necessarily have to use their car. Train is often the best bet.
My Lords, I do not know how the Minister’s department manages the mental gymnastics to think it possible to have airport expansion and fulfil our climate change targets. Could the Minister explain that? When Heathrow Airport said it would go net zero, it did not include any of its flights—so it will be rather difficult to square that circle.
This Government are anti-aviation emissions, not anti-flying. That is the entire point. The Government are working incredibly hard to make sure that we get emissions down by 2050. I have already mentioned the transport decarbonisation plan, but we are also spending £2 billion on aviation research and technology. I ask the noble Baroness whether, if all planes were netzero, she would still be against flying.
My Lords, the decision of the courts is very interesting and the Paris agreement is extremely important. We have to go much further than the Paris agreement if we are to make a proper impact on global emissions, through assistance to countries that are increasing their emissions very fast. Surely the decision of this country on how our infrastructure, planning and development should accord with our climate aims and zero emissions is a matter for Government policy and not for the courts. If the courts are to decide this, we will have very little chance of having any success at all.
My noble friend raises an important point. I go back to what I said earlier: the courts did not conclude that airport expansion was incompatible with climate change, simply that the ANPS did not take into account the items that I mentioned earlier. The noble Lord is right that it is government policy to decarbonise our transport system, which is what we are doing.
My Lords, the effect of the Court of Appeal’s ruling is that the Airports National Policy Statement is defective and has no legal effect, unless and until the Government carry out a review. Are the Government planning to carry out a review? If they are not, do we have an Airports National Policy Statement? If we do not, how can the Minister say that expansion of other airports will go ahead without an overall policy?
This is an important point, but it is a complex and important judgment running to several hundreds of pages. The Government are taking their time to consider the judgment, and we will set out the next steps for the Airports National Policy Statement and other matters in due course.
My Lords, I congratulate the Government on not appealing this judgment. That is a very wise decision. Is my noble friend confident that other plans the Government have, such as HS2, will also be in line with the Paris commitment?
This is of course incredibly important, because there are potential read-acrosses to various other infrastructure builds. However, we are confident that they fall within our climate obligations.
My Lords, is it not a fact that this decision has had the effect of letting the Prime Minister off the hook? He does not have to lie down in front of the bulldozers—so there is a clear advantage in judicial review. Why are the Government seeking to restrict it?
I do not think that I am willing to go down that track.
My Lords, this is a bizarre judgment, given that the previous court ruled that the Paris judgment was not legally binding, but is not the real root of the problem the fact that we have made these targets legally binding? When the climate Bill went through Parliament, I voted against it and pointed out that the sole effect of enshrining targets in statute would be that the Government’s policies would be open to judicial review. It is bizarre that judges should decide on policies costing billions of pounds without being accountable to the electorate for the costs that will be incurred. That fills with me foreboding, and that foreboding has proved to be justified by this strange ruling. Should we not cease to have legally binding commitments and make these decisions politically by the Government and Parliament of the day?
I thank my noble friend. The Government stand by their decision to legislate that this country will be net zero by 2050, and what we have been able to achieve in terms of the decarbonisation of our energy system has been very significant. It is now time to turn to transport, and I believe that we can do it.
Coronavirus: British Citizens Imprisoned Abroad
My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat in the form of a Statement the response given by my honourable friend the Minister for Asia and the Pacific to an Urgent Question in the other place. The Statement is as follows:
“Protecting British citizens at home and abroad is a top priority for this Government and amid the outbreak of Covid-19, known as coronavirus, the UK is leading the response. First, we are providing support to British citizens abroad. This includes, of course, travellers and their families in countries around the world. The FCO is closely monitoring coronavirus throughout the world through its diplomatic network. We are providing travel advice to British nationals so that they can be sure of the facts before deciding whether to travel and sure of what they should do if they are affected by an outbreak of Covid-19 when travelling.
The UK has also put in place measures to ensure that travellers returning from abroad do not spread the virus further. We have enhanced monitoring measures at UK airports. Health information is available at all international airports, ports and international train stations. We have established a supported isolation facility at Heathrow Airport to cater for international passengers who are tested, and to maximise infection control and free up NHS resources.
For British nationals caught up in the initial outbreaks of the virus, HMG have co-ordinated repatriation for those impacted in Wuhan and the passengers on board the “Diamond Princess” cruise ship, and we are working with the Spanish authorities and tour operators to support the return of British nationals affected by the situation in Tenerife.
We also continue to insist that British nationals who are being detained in countries such as Iran, which has seen reports of a high number of cases of coronavirus, are temporarily released. France, Germany and the United Kingdom have expressed their full solidarity with those who are impacted by Covid-19 in Iran, so we are offering Iran a comprehensive package of both material and financial support to stem the rapid spread of the disease. Today, a plane departed the UK with vital materials such as equipment for laboratory tests as well as other equipment, including protective body suits and gloves. The E3 has also committed to providing urgent additional financial support of close to €5 million to fight the Covid-19 epidemic affecting Iran through the WHO or other UN agencies.
We will continue to support global efforts to combat the outbreak of Covid-19. Our support is directed at helping the most vulnerable across the globe and strengthening the global health system to protect our own nationals. We have provided £40 million of investment into vaccine and virus research and £5 million for the World Health Organization. We will continue to do all we can to keep British nationals safe and healthy around the world.”
My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the response to that Urgent Question. In the other place this afternoon, my right honourable friend Emily Thornberry recalled British aid efforts to help the people of Iran during a humanitarian crisis. She asked the Minister to join her in making a plea to the Iranian Government to see Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe as one of those innocent people in a humanitarian crisis whom they have it in their gift to save. She also hoped that the Minister would make a solemn commitment that if Iran acts with compassion, we would not forget our obligations to act with fairness and justice in resolving the other issues of dispute between our countries.
Unfortunately, it is not only Nazanin who is suffering in Iranian prisons today. There is Aras Amiri, who in 2018 was sentenced to 10 years, or Anoosheh Ashoori, sentenced to 12 years in 2019—and there are many others. Can the Minister offer an update on any of these cases? In particular, can she confirm whether concerns about Covid-19 have been raised by the families of other dual nationals imprisoned in Iran?
My Lords, we have been in close touch with the Iranian authorities to urge them to secure a temporary release on medical grounds for Mrs Zaghari-Ratcliffe, while her release remains a top priority for the Government. Of course, the welfare of all British nationals imprisoned in Iran is a top priority and we will continue to lobby for the temporary release of all detainees in Evin Prison.
My Lords, I too thank the noble Baroness for that answer. I am glad that we are working with France and Germany in recognising the dire situation that Iran is in—it is clearly in the middle of a major epidemic—and that we are doing our best to help Iran and its people in any way we can. However, this crisis clearly shows why action needed to be taken a long time ago to get Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe and the other dual nationals released. Do the Government not have a special responsibility as far as she is concerned? Her health has clearly been compromised, while we hear that new prisoners are not being admitted to her prison because of the virus. There are apparently no medicines or disinfectants. Surely the Government have to do their very best to secure her release, get her into quarantine and bring her home to the United Kingdom.
My Lords, we are calling on the Iranian Government to immediately give detained British-Iranian dual nationals access to appropriate medical treatment and our colleagues in Tehran will continue to lobby for the temporary release of all our detainees in Evin Prison. Of course, it is important that we support Iran as best we can. We have seen an alarming increase in the number of cases there, with 523 confirmed in the previous 24 hours. That is why it is so important that the E3 supports Iran in the way that it is.
My Lords, I am sure everyone in the House has huge sympathy with the appalling predicament of Mrs Zaghari-Ratcliffe and her, frankly, unreasonable imprisonment. On the broader issue of coronavirus—I look forward to listening to the Chief Medical Officer when he comes to us on Wednesday—while this is of course a very serious outbreak, it seems that there is a danger of overreacting. I am in the danger zone, as are most of your Lordships because all old men aged over 60 are in it. But, on average, some 17,000 people die of flu every winter, yet so far we have had no deaths at all from coronavirus in this country and the numbers around the world are slim. Can the Minister reassure me that we are not overreacting?
My Lords, I agree that it is absolutely right that we should get the balance of our reaction correct. Of course, public safety is our top priority and I thank all those already working around the clock so that we are ready at home and can ensure the safety of UK nationals abroad. Our approach in this country is being guided by the Chief Medical Officer, Professor Chris Whitty, and independent experts. We will continue to work closely with the World Health Organization and the international community to ensure that we get our response to this outbreak right.
My Lords, is it true that the prisoners who are ill abroad are not being tested? Surely all of them should be tested and treated.
If the noble Baroness is referring directly to the prisoners in Iran, as I say, we are working closely with the Iranian authorities to ensure that we have access to them and that they get the testing and the medical attention they need.
UK-US Trade Deal Negotiating Objectives
My Lords, with permission, I will now repeat a Statement made in the other place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for International Trade. The Statement is as follows:
“Today my department is publishing a suite of documents that mark a crucial step in the process of beginning formal negotiations for a free trade agreement with our largest bilateral trading partner, the United States. These documents comprise the Government’s negotiating objectives, our response to the public consultation, and a scoping assessment to provide the House and the British people with analysis of the potential long-run economic impact of an FTA. These are available online and will be placed in the Libraries.
The UK stands at an historic moment, building its independent trade policy for the first time in almost half a century. This Government will seize this opportunity to be an independent, global champion with a simple message: free trade is good for all nations and will deliver benefits for businesses, households and consumers across the UK. We aim to have 80% of UK trade with countries covered by free trade agreements within three years, starting with the US, Japan, Australia and New Zealand. Seeking these agreements is part of our efforts to level up, deliver opportunity and unleash the potential of every part of our United Kingdom.
The USA is the world’s largest economy, our closest security and defence partner, and one of our oldest friends. We are the biggest investors in each other’s economies. An FTA represents a fantastic opportunity to strengthen and deepen our strong trade, investment and economic relationships, bringing us closer to the world’s economic powerhouse. In 2017, according to US statistics, 1.7 million people worked for US majority-owned companies operating in the UK, and 1.3 million for UK majority-owned companies based in the US. UK-US total trade was valued at £220.9 billion in the last year, representing 19.8% of all our exports. An ambitious FTA with the US could deliver a significant long-term boost for the economy. Compared with 2018, it could mean a £15.3 billion increase in bilateral trade and a £3.4 billion lift to the economy.
The negotiating objectives we are publishing today are underpinned by one of the biggest consultations ever undertaken with the UK public, businesses and wider society. It received the views of 158,720 respondents, all of which have fed into the Government’s broad approach to FTAs and specific negotiating objectives. We have scaled up our trade negotiator expertise and have a similar size of team to the US trade representative, including a wealth of experience from the private sector, trade law, Commonwealth nations and WTO experts, ready to deliver for the UK.
My department’s analysis shows that the US deal we are seeking benefits every region and nation of the UK, delivering improved access for businesses, more investment, better jobs and higher wages. For the Midlands, a UK-US FTA could reduce tariffs on cars and ceramics. For Scotland, it could lock in salmon and whisky trade and support new market access for beef. The north of England could see more exports of manufactured goods and new data agreements for its tech firms. The south-west can gain from eased customs procedures for beverages, luxury sports and marine equipment. The south-east could see benefits for its globally competitive professional business firms. London could see benefits through agreements on digital trade that will boost our world-leading tech firms. The east of England will see a boost to its food and life science industries. Wales stands to gain market access for its fantastic lamb, and reduced tariffs and red tape for its steel and ceramic sectors. Northern Ireland can benefit through liberalisation of tariffs in furniture and pharmaceuticals.
North, east, south and west, from agriculture to the creative industries, my department’s analysis finds that a US trade deal has the potential to deliver benefits throughout the UK economy, with more choice for consumers at lower prices and new opportunities for businesses, and to grow high-skills jobs. It has the potential to slash trade barriers and tariffs totalling some £493 million per year and could boost British workers’ wages by £1.8 billion.
Small and medium-sized businesses provide around three-fifths of jobs in the UK. They are increasingly international traders in their own right. In 2018, 97% of businesses exporting goods were SMEs, representing 28% of our total exports. Some 30,000 SMEs across the UK trade with the US already. So we will make it a priority in these negotiations to support UK SMEs to seize the opportunities of UK-US trade. We will do this by aiming to agree a dedicated SME chapter to facilitate co-operation on SME issues; to ensure that SMEs have easy access to information to take advantage of the new opportunities; to build on the successful UK-US SME dialogue to strengthen co-operation; and to ensure that throughout the agreement there are SME-friendly provisions covering both services and goods.
We are also looking to rewrite the rules of the game on digital trade to create a world-leading ecosystem that supports businesses of all sizes across the UK. This could include provisions that facilitate the free flow of data and prevent unjustified data localisation requirements, while ensuring that the UK’s high standards of personal data protection are maintained and that government continues to maintain its ability to protect users against online harm. We can ensure that customs duties are not imposed on electronic transmissions and create fantastic opportunities in areas such as blockchain, driverless cars and quantum technology.
In these trade talks, as in all our future trade talks, this Government will drive a hard bargain for the British people. The NHS, the price it pays for drugs and its services are not for sale. There will be no compromise on high environmental protection, animal welfare and food standards. Throughout these negotiations, the Government will continue to engage collaboratively with Parliament, the devolved Administrations and the public.
I can also assure the House that now the UK is free to negotiate outside the EU, we will be aiming to begin negotiations with the US as quickly as possible. The appetite is clear on both sides. We welcomed the US Government’s negotiating objectives, particularly on developing state-of-the-art provisions in financial services and digital trade. We welcome the enthusiasm in both the US Congress and the US Administration, as was made clear during my discussions last week with US Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer. We see in this not just an opportunity to deepen our bilateral trade and investment relationship, important though that is; it is about setting an example to the world of how two leading, open and mature economies can trade with one another.
As an independent trading nation, the UK will champion free trade and lower trade barriers at every opportunity. Striking free trade agreements will give our businesses the opportunities, certainty and security they need to prosper. The greatest opportunity to do this is with our closest ally and largest single trading partner, the United States. We have the mandate. We have the team. With the documents we are publishing today, we have the tools. With hard work, I believe we can get it done—so I commend this Statement to the House.”
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
My Lords, I first apologise for not being present at the very start of proceedings on this Statement. Unfortunately, my printer got stuck and I had to wait until I was able to clear it with technical help. I therefore missed the opening sentence, but I had been given a copy of the Statement and had read it before.
We support an ambitious trade agreement that unlocks economic growth, creates new jobs and elevates rights and standards. I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement following the publication of today’s negotiating mandate for the Government’s flagship trade agreement with the USA. Of course, some 20% of our current trade is already with the USA. It is our second-biggest market and we have enjoyed decades of two-way trade with no underlying trade agreement. So, while I welcome the publication today, I wonder whether it was quite necessary to do it in the way it has been done and to carry the tone it does.
The Statement says that an “ambitious” free trade agreement with the US could result in
“a £15.3 billion increase in bilateral trade and a £3.4 billion lift to the economy.”
These are substantial figures. However, can the Minister confirm that this is over a 15-year period? These results will be slow to come and indeed, given the length of time, are not very substantial on their own. Can he also confirm that, at the end of that time, the British economy would be only 0.16% larger by 2035? This hardly compares well with the loss in trade of some 5% of GDP—some argue it could be worse—if we fail to complete an ambitious free trade agreement with the EU.
Secondly, the Secretary of State has said positive things about the NHS and the price of medicines, and that there will be no compromise on environmental protection, animal welfare and food standards. However, the Government have so far failed to enshrine this in primary legislation. There is an amendment to the Trade Bill that left your Lordships’ House in a previous Session that would do it. Why do they continue to prevaricate on this point?
There is a lot in the Statement about tariffs and quotas, which are important, but there are already very low tariffs between the UK and the US. The main problem is regulation. To take food as an example, the US position is generally that its food is just as good as European food and our standards are just protectionism. The problem is that American food is not the same, by any standards. Farming in the US is mostly on a large, industrial scale, and the animals are kept in conditions so poor that they get ill or do not thrive unless they are also fed a lot of antibiotics and steroids, not to mention hormones that maximise growth. We, on the other hand, through the EU have a farm-to-fork policy that regulates conditions throughout the life cycle. So what you dunk a chicken in before it is presented for sale is really shorthand for a wider question of how that animal has lived. How are the Government going to square that circle?
In the same field, will the Government reaffirm their commitment to international labour standards and rights and require the US to sign up to the ILO conventions, which it has so far failed to do.
Thirdly, what is most striking about the document is that it seems to ignore the US negotiating position, although there was a mention of that in the Statement. The language of the US document is highly aggressive, demanding concessions but offering little in return. For example, it says:
“The United States seeks to support higher-paying jobs in the United States and to grow the U.S. economy by improving U.S. opportunities for trade and investment with the UK.”
That does not sound like a very open-ended commitment to work with the UK. The framework for negotiating the UK-US trade deal is centred around reducing tariffs and non-tariff barriers but only in ways that benefit the US. For example, we read that one of the negotiating objectives of the US is to
“Secure comprehensive duty-free market access for U.S. industrial goods and strengthen disciplines to address non-tariff barriers that constrain U.S. exports.”
I am a bit perplexed why the document published today does not confirm that the UK has properly analysed the US position and will have the necessary tools to negotiate round these difficult operations that are in print.
Finally, we accept that there has been wide public consultation, but this Statement does not constitute adequate parliamentary engagement on this process. We await the return of the Trade Bill, which left this House with a proposed structure for engagement with Parliament and its committees. Can the Minister tell us how the Government intend to enable effective scrutiny of this and future trade agreements?
My Lords, I too thank the Minister for repeating the Statement given in the other place. As the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, said, we are building on substantial trade with the United States, which receives some 20% of our exports and is our largest international market after the European Union. To be clear, business achieved those substantial numbers while the United Kingdom was still in the European Union. Leaving the European Union is not a prerequisite for doing business with other countries and regimes.
That said, the process of negotiation is now under way, so what light does the Statement throw up? First, could the Minister acknowledge that, with respect to services, our largest sector, it is often the states rather than the federal Government which hold sway? So there are severe limitations on any FTA going forward, because it is difficult to cover the services sector, which is very important for the United Kingdom.
Data appears a number of times in the Statement and plays a big role in the supporting documents. The Government say they are going to
“rewrite the rules of the game on digital trade”.
First, can the Minister confirm that this will mean the UK moving away from GDPR, as clearly that is important? In the Statement, the Minister also talks about including provisions to
“facilitate the free flow of data and prevent unjustified data localisation requirements”.
It would be interesting to know, either today or in a Written Statement, what “unjustified data localisation requirements” this refers to? This is a real issue. For example, is the Minister happy that UK users of Google are having their data moved from the EU domain into the United States’ domain, where there is no accountability from the EU, which until very recently provided democratic accountability for UK users. Does the Minister think that, in moving the data, Google is expecting to make more money from people’s lives or less?
On democratic accountability, as the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, pointed out, there is considerable uncertainty. Congress, on the other hand, will get the job of approving this deal in the United States, as will the European Parliament in the event of an EU deal being struck. The Statement says that
“the Government will continue to engage collaboratively”,
but following the decision to shelve, or otherwise, the Trade Bill, Parliament has no formal role. Can the Minister explain what collaborative engagement actually means? There is a strong danger that every MP will be held accountable as time goes forward for the effects of trade deals, without having had any say over what the deal was. Perhaps MPs on all Benches will be considering that.
Furthermore, during negotiations—and I have heard this said in this House by those who have participated in negotiations—it is very handy for the US negotiators to have the get-out clause, “Well, I would agree with you on this, but Congress will not let me do it. My hands are tied.” UK negotiators will have no such constraints.
The absence of regulatory alignment, which is clearly something that the EU negotiations will continue go forward with, will ensure that no meaningful deal can be struck with the European Union. In reports, the Secretary of State and others have made it clear that Her Majesty’s Government are prepared to walk away from negotiations with the European Union in 2021. Does the Minister agree that, in this context, given the conflicting nature of regulatory alignment, an FTA deal with the EU is mutually exclusive with one with the United States? We could have a deal with the United States but at the expense of a meaningful FTA with the EU, or perhaps vice versa. I am interested to know the Government’s view on Boris Johnson’s “Cake and eat it” strategy. Can the Minister explain how that works in terms of regulatory alignment?
And what is this for? As the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, said, in about 15 years we will have advanced our GDP by less than 0.2%—a quantum that pales into insignificance with the benefits that we were receiving due to our relationship with the European Union. This Statement fails: it fails to prioritise the livelihoods of people and their businesses over an ideological approach to trade and trade policy.
I thank both noble Lords for their points. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, for his broad support for this Statement; perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Fox, did not quite fall into that category.
The first point the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, raised was about the point I made concerning the total value of trade between the UK and the US, which will soar—as I had said—by £15.3 billion, adding £1.8 billion to wages across the country. It is true that is over a 15-year period, as he asked me.
The noble Lord spoke about environmental protection. I know this is an issue which is important for many of your Lordships in this House and has come up in previous debates. In all our trade agreements, we will not compromise on our high standards of food safety and animal welfare. The Government will stand firm in trade negotiations to ensure that any future trade deals live up to the values of farmers and consumers across the UK. The UK is proud of its world-leading food, health and animal welfare standards. I say again: we will not lower our standards as we negotiate new trade deals.
The noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, mentioned the ILO and the link to labour standards, and alluded to the conventions as part of the negotiations. He will know that we have very high labour standards in this country, and we want to uphold those. That will be a red line in our approach to these discussions, as it is with the EU.
The noble Lord also alluded to the US position and said that some of the information coming out was—to use his word—on the “aggressive” side. It is entirely to be expected that the US would lay out its stall. We have known its position, which is a very good thing, and will be taking what it has to say very seriously.
On scrutiny, primarily parliamentary scrutiny, this falls in line with what the Government wish to do to keep the nation in touch. The noble Lords, Lord Fox and Lord Stevenson, will know of the strategic trade advisory group, or STAG, and the expert trade advisory groups, or ETAGs. We are consulting these groups on a regular basis. The STAG’s principal purpose is for the Government to engage with stakeholders on trade policy matters. On parliamentary engagement, we have pledged to keep Parliament—both the Commons and this place—up to date as we see fit on the timing and how we are approaching the negotiations.
I should also mention, very importantly, the devolved Administrations. In the Moses Room the other day, I mentioned the forums. We have had our first forum engaging with the devolved Administrations. That is another important facet.
The noble Lord, Lord Fox, raised the issue of services, which is indeed a very important sector for the UK; it is our largest sector. The point was made that negotiations were, on occasion, perhaps more applicable with the states rather than at a federal level. Negotiations are primarily with the US Fed—if I may put it that way. As negotiations continue, there will be more of a focus on the states. I reassure the noble Lord that these negotiations are at a high level, with the federal Government.
I cannot comment on data and moving away from the GDPR. I stick by what I said earlier: data protection is incredibly important in this country. The noble Lord, Lord Fox, mentioned unjustified data requirements. It should be part of the negotiations between the UK and the US to make absolutely sure that our standards and protections are not lowered; that includes Google, which the noble Lord mentioned.
On our approach to negotiations, we have said, and continue to say, that we are prepared to walk away from negotiations if we feel that that is right. However, we approach them in a good spirit. That has been the case in the working groups, which have been operating for quite some time—at least two years.
The noble Lord raised regulatory alignment. That will come up as part of our negotiations with the EU and our negotiations with the US. I hope that that covers most of the questions.
My Lords, I welcome the Government’s Statement and hope that these negotiations are successful, but is it not important to put the importance of trade agreements into perspective? What actually drives trade is the production of goods and services that other people want to buy. Trade agreements are of secondary importance, as illustrated by the relative growth in our trade with countries with whom we trade solely on WTO terms and have no free trade agreement with. The WTO and the single market were set up at the same time, when I was Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. Our exports of goods to WTO-only countries has grown by 87%, faster than those economies themselves have grown and six times faster than our exports to the EU, which have grown by barely 0.5% a year, which is slower than the growth of the economies of the EU.
My noble friend makes an excellent point. The opportunities for the UK are substantial. I say again that this is a landmark deal that will set the standard for world-leading trade agreements. Starting off with the US is a very good start. For example, it is very exciting that tariffs will likely be reduced for Bentleys from Crewe, Aston Martins from Warwickshire and Wales, UK cheese, which currently has a 17% tariff, and ceramics from Warwickshire, which have a 28% tariff. We hope that these tariffs will be reduced, as they should be, in the negotiations. Noble Lords might ask me, as the Minister, what we are going to get in return from America. That includes raisins and wine from California, and, as the Prime Minister said, Stetsons replacing salmon. There is a lot to be hopeful about in the negotiations.
My Lords, I have not had an opportunity to read this long document, but I congratulate the Minister in one respect: at least in this document, the Government have tried to produce a proper economic assessment of the potential of a free trade agreement with the United States. Is it not odd that, on the much more important free trade agreement with the EU—despite what the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, said, it still accounts for two and a half times more of our trade than the United States—no economic assessment was produced at all? How can he explain that?
Secondly, will the Minister acknowledge that, while any growth as a result of a UK-US deal would be welcome and important, it is trivial by comparison with the numbers at stake in our EU relationship?
Finally, will he acknowledge that, in the special case of President Trump, trade deals are extremely difficult to negotiate? He does not believe, like Britain and the European Union, in the concept of a rules-based multilateral order governing trade. He has been trying to weaken the WTO by not appointing judges to its highest arbitration panels. He believes that might is more important than right, and he judges trade by how much powerful America can grab—it is what academics would call “managed trade”, not free trade. We are putting far too much importance—we need realism—about getting anything substantial out of these negotiations.
I am much more optimistic than the noble Lord. I can perhaps reassure him that we are aware that some reforms are required for the WTO. We very much want to play our part in ensuring that those reforms are carried through.
The second thing to say is that the US deal is the first of several. The noble Lord will know that we have Japan, New Zealand and Australia to come, and of course the EU. There was a chance in the past few days, and yesterday, to question my noble friend Lord True on the EU deal. I do not want to be drawn in on that except to say that, in the US deal, we start from a very good platform because we are one nation negotiating with one other nation; with the EU, it is of course a bit more complicated, in that we are dealing with 27 countries —and the House will understand when I say that there are a few more complications than that. However, we are very confident that we will be able to negotiate both a US deal and an EU deal in parallel. I hope that helps to answer the noble Lord’s questions, but I doubt it.
My Lords, the Department for International Trade has obviously done an enormous amount of work on this issue, a large amount of it under my right honourable friend Dr Liam Fox, the former Secretary of State who was doing a very good job on all fronts. It is absolutely right, as your Lordships have observed, that the USA is far the largest single country market force at 20%; about half is services and is growing, and the other half is goods, which is shrinking. But most consumer market growth in the next 10 years will not be in America, or indeed in Europe—it will be in Asia, by far. That is the huge new area where we have to succeed. Asia will shortly make up half of the world’s GDP, if not more. That happens to be where we are weakest, so I urge my noble friend to remind his colleagues in the Department for International Trade that we should think carefully about our priorities and not spend too much time trying to perfect our excellent trade with America—that may now get more difficult, not easier—when we should really be concentrating all our resources on finding our way into the giant Asian markets, which will really determine our future and prosperity.
I agree with my noble friend that the Asian market is very important. I mentioned Japan earlier, which he will know is very much on the agenda. There is, of course, more to do in Asia, but I go back to the statistic that I gave earlier: we intend, over the next three years, to cover 80% of our trade deals. That, I would argue, is a very good start. It is right that we are starting not just with the EU but also with the US. It is on the basis that the US, clearly, is on our side: it wants to secure a deal as well.
My Lords, I must comment on the comparative tone of the two Statements we have had on the negotiations with the European Union and the United States. The announcement on the relations with the EU insisted several times that we expected the European Union to treat us as a sovereign equal. Can the Minister assure us that we will similarly expect the United States to treat us as a sovereign equal? The phrasing was, instead, that the United States is our closest ally, which I think is code for saying, “We expect them to be nice to us because they like us.” Is it not more likely that, in trade issues, the United States will be as transactional as the European Union is likely to be? I remember during a conference on transatlantic trade some years ago a Democratic Congressman saying to me, “People of my district are entirely in favour of free trade provided they do not have to accept any more imports”. That is the problem right there.
One of the biggest consultations on future trade relations for Britain was the balance of competences exercise during the coalition on the relations between the UK and the EU. The overwhelming sense from the returns, including those from the Scotch Whisky Association, whose director at that point was David Frost, was that the balance of competences between the EU and the UK suited our industry and our services very well. The Conservative part of the coalition, by and large, wished to ignore that consultation and carry on.
I also note that on digital regulation, we now
“have the opportunity to help shape global rules through ambitious digital trade provisions.”
That means we clearly expect to share in shaping US regulations in the way that we do not think we can in the EU. Can the noble Lord explain that contradiction?
There were several questions from the noble Lord, so I will not be able to answer all of them, but I say at the outset: the respect is there between the two countries—it always has been. We have very strong and close relations with the US for a whole range of reasons and there is no reason why that will not continue in terms of our negotiations. In fact, as I said earlier, talks in the working groups have been extremely constructive, and we very much hope they will continue in the same vein. Having said that, I have no doubt that the US will talk tough. We are prepared to talk tough and have said that we are prepared, if necessary, to walk away from negotiations if we feel that any of the issues that we are negotiating on do not fall in with the national interest.
My Lords, I think we risk being a little churlish. What we have here is what I recognise as a White Paper. We have a serious document with some serious economic analysis resulting in some serious consultation with a serious attempt to quantify the effects of the policy the Government chose to follow, broken down sectorially, geographically and in different categories of citizen, and there has been consultation with the devolved Administrations. In all these respects, this is admirable and in striking contrast with what we got last week about the negotiation with the European Union, which started today.
I think that one should give the Government credit for being honest about how small the likely scale of increase in trade would be if one managed the scenario that is sketched out here. If, optimistically, one achieved what is here, one would be gaining, after 15 years, a fraction of 1% of GDP, whereas, with the European Union, the Government’s own economic analysis shows that they would be some 5%, 7 % or 8% down in GDP. So this is small stuff.
I also agree with the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, that what matters is what the traders do. More than two-thirds of transatlantic trade in goods is intra-company trade, so it is issues such as taxation that matter as much as any of this here. I also find the optimism of this quite striking. I was always struck, when in America, that the land of the free is not the land of free trade: it is the land where might is right. Remember that the Jones Act is still on the statute book in the United States, that we are the small party—the demandeur—and that the United States is out to, “Make America Great Again”. It is out to bring home jobs; it is not out to support jobs in this country, even though we are a close ally.
It is an admirable document; I see no harm at all in the attempt the Government are making, but let us be realistic. The noble Lord, Lord Howell, is right: it is in Asia, not America, that there are the real prospects for expanding trade. In America, we will come up against fierce protectionism: America is the most protectionist economy of all our trading partners.
It is praise indeed that the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, has said that the document is admirable and I am pleased to have been able to listen to that very carefully. I take note of what the noble Lord says about the US and our prospects, but I do not agree. If we take, for instance, SMEs as one particular issue, there are 5.9 million small businesses, but relatively few export to the US. This new deal will provide a tremendous opportunity for SMEs to do business in the US. From the analysis we have done—the noble Lord will have probably read the document—we believe we have more to gain in the UK in terms of business with the US than the US has in return. I think it is exciting and I am not at all dismissing the point made by my noble friend Lord Howell and the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, about the importance of the Far East. The point is that, as we have left the EU, and as we go through this transition period, the opportunities are absolutely tremendous in terms of what we can do in global deals generally, but it makes sense for us to start with the US.
My Lords, will my noble friend remind me: was is not the United States that imposed a tariff of 25% on exports of Scotch whisky to the United States from Great Britain? Will my noble friend ensure that the Government make it a commitment of these negotiations that that tariff will be removed? Can I pin him down on the wording used in both Houses? He said that the Government will not lower our standards of environmental and animal welfare. Will he commit to prohibiting imports of any product of animal origin from the United States that does not meet the same standards of production in this country?
I will first take up my noble friend’s question about Scotch whisky. Yes, it is true that there is this 25% tariff on Scotch whisky, but my understanding is that that is linked to an unfortunate state aid issue linked to Airbus. This is unfortunate and disappointing. My noble friend will know that we are looking to work through those issues. We very much hope, wish and expect that the tariffs on Scotch whisky will come down. My noble friend makes a very good point—I know that she has raised the issue of environmental standards on several occasions. Once again, we will not lower our standards as we negotiate new trade deals.
My Lords, should the EU be minded at some stage in the negotiations with us to allow new trade barriers, tariffs and quotas to be erected that affect trade between the EU and the UK, will it not be all the more important that we get on with some urgency to negotiate for the reduction of tariffs, quotas and trade barriers between ourselves and the US? If we do so, will that not encourage our exporters and consumers to believe that the damage caused by the unsatisfactory progress of negotiations with the EU will be offset? Will it not also encourage exporters and consumers in the EU to put pressure on their negotiators to think better of it and not allow new trade barriers to be erected between the EU and the UK?
I am sure the whole House will agree when I say that trade barriers and tariffs are a disincentive to business and that we do not want them. We realise that some are now trading under WTO terms, but the whole point of negotiating with the US, and in particular with the EU, is to get to a point where we lower those barriers. That will obviously be good for businesses and jobs. On the point that I think the noble Lord was making, as I said earlier, we have for some time been prepared to negotiate with the EU at the same time as negotiating with the US. We have the people, the working groups and preparations in place. I see the two working very well in tandem. The linkages that will be made between my department—the Department for International Trade—No. 10 and other departments will be made for both negotiations.
My Lords, more generally, could the Minister indicate what timetable the Government are working towards with these trade negotiating rounds, which, together with the EU round, will require face-to-face deliberations? Given Covid-19, are the Government in any way anticipating delay to the transition period to achieve the results they wish?
I am not entirely sure whether the noble Viscount was referring to the EU; obviously this subject is the US. However, I reassure him that, on the US negotiations, I am laying out the last process in informing the House, as my right honourable friend in the other place Liz Truss has informed the Commons, which is to set out this document, which the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, alluded to as being pretty good—“admirable”, I think. I answer the noble Viscount’s question by saying that we therefore fully expect to go pretty quickly into actual negotiations. I was told earlier today that we fully expect to do that by the end of March.
Fisheries Bill [HL]
Committee (1st Day) (Continued)
5: Clause 1, page 1, line 11, at end insert—
“( ) the collaborative objective.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment ensures that collaboration with external authorities is included in the fisheries objectives.
My Lords, I have the great pleasure of speaking to the amendments standing in my name and that of my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern. Unfortunately, he is delayed. He had hoped to arrive in time, but I have the pleasure of moving the amendment anyway. Together, the two amendments call for collaborative working on the Bill. While in our earlier discussions we asked whether 10 objectives were plenty, here we are calling for one extra. To a certain extent we will understand if, standing alone, it is not accepted. However, the point behind collaborative working is very important.
Amendment 5 speaks for itself, so I turn to Amendment 26, which itemises the intentions behind this whole idea. The “collaborative objective” is to ensure that
“the fisheries policy authorities receive guidance on fisheries management from the fishing industry, scientists and other relevant stakeholders.”
That engagement has not been as close as it could have been over the years. The amendment would provide the opportunity to establish a proper common base on which these decisions can be made. Proposed new subsection (9B) says that guidance under proposed new subsection (9A)
“must be formally established and shared by a consultative group”—
in other words, there will be a direct link to make sure that it is established and that working together happens. Proposed new subsection (9C) states:
“Within six months of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must issue a consultation on the establishment of a consultative group under subsection (9B) or an alternative vehicle for producing guidance under subsection (9A).”
I am very grateful to the National Federation of Fishermen’s Organisations for its help in putting this amendment together. If my noble friend the Minister cannot accept it, I hope he will look carefully at what is being suggested, which is the need to make sure that we bring together all those who work in the fishing industry to come up with positive suggestions for future sustainability. The consultative group would guide and advise on policy; promote collaboration between central government and the devolved Administrations; allow ongoing dialogue on the viability of the industry; and channel the fishing industry’s knowledge and experience, about which I spoke earlier, into the design and implementation of management measures. This would be hugely helpful.
The consultative group would play a leading role in the use of secondary legislation—as we all know, the Bill will set up systems, but a lot of the detail will come in the secondary legislation—to ensure that we have an agile and responsive approach to future fisheries management. The inclusion of the consultative group of fishery experts would guarantee that sustainability issues are fully considered. It would also play a valuable role in the development and operation of the management plans proposed later in the Bill.
As I said, we might be adding an 11th objective—I still think number one, sustainability, is the most important overall—but it is important that those who work on the sea, those who plan for what is happening, the scientists and the data collected should work together. I have great pleasure in moving the amendment.
My Lords, I agree that there needs to be far more collaboration. It is the big missing thing in the Bill in many ways. We have a Bill that covers the whole of the United Kingdom. We have devolution in Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales but I am concerned that we have no devolution in England despite the fact that the English fishery is diverse—as are those of the other nations—and I have amendments later in the Bill that seek to tackle that in a sensible and not too radical way.
I welcome the spirit of the amendments. They are the basement of what we need but I hope the Minister will take strongly the message that there needs to be consultation and working with not only the industry but, as the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, said, the larger stakeholders to make this sector work. I will be interested to hear the Minister’s response to this proposal.
I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, and the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, for tabling these amendments, and I listened carefully to what the noble Baroness said.
The noble Baroness raised an important point about consultation, although, as we discussed in the earlier amendments, I am not sure—I think she acknowledged this—that adding it to the list of objectives is the right way to go about it. But the sense of what she is trying to achieve certainly has merit.
A number of the delegated powers in the Bill contain consultation requirements with devolved Ministers and/or representatives of the fishing industry. However, in that respect, the need for consultation is reserved for specific purposes and is envisaged as a one-off, whereas this amendment proposes a more regular and longer-term consultation. The noble Lord, Lord Teverson, said he thought it was at the basement of the types of consultation we should have but, nevertheless, we agree that there should be more comprehensive regular engagement with relevant stakeholders.
Moving further than the noble Baroness’s amendment, we need to make sure that the different sections of the UK’s fleet—the trawlers and the 10s and so on—are all effectively represented in the process. We need to make sure that the spread of stakeholders is right.
We are not doing very well with this Bill because we keep having to revisit and go back and forth to parts that we have already discussed. We have amendments later in the Bill which deal with the issue of consultation, and the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, has said that he has more detailed proposals with regard to the establishment of advisory boards and so on.
In the mix of all that there is the fundamental issue of consultation, and all these proposals have merit. We will listen carefully to what the Minister has to say on this issue and, when we have dealt with all the amendments we have tabled, we will try to pull together a considered view about the best wording and the best way forward. We would like to get this element of the Bill right and we may well have to come back to it on Report. As I say, we will listen to what the Minister has to say but we may need to pool our ideas to take this issue forward, and we should do so.
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend and my noble and learned friend—I am sorry he is not able to be present—and wholeheartedly agree with the principle that fisheries management should be informed by the best available evidence and that there should be close working between the UK Government, the devolved Administrations, industry, scientists and interested parties. All noble Lords who have spoken in this shortish debate have referred to that.
It is a long-established approach for the Government to engage widely on the implementation of policy. We have an expert advisory group considering issues relating to fisheries policy and, because the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, raised one or two points, I would like to indicate which organisations are part of that to show the spread: the National Federation of Fishermen’s Organisations, the Scottish Fishermen’s Federation, the United Kingdom Association of Fish Producer Organisations, the Scottish Association of Fish Producer Organisations, the New Under Ten Fishermen’s Association, Greener UK, the British Retail Consortium, the Association of IFCAs and the UK Seafood Industry Alliance/Provision Trade Federation.
Additionally, we have a Marine Science Co-ordination Committee, bringing together bodies across government, together with senior scientific advisers. I mention in particular Professor Mike Elliott, director of the Institute of Estuarine and Coastal Studies and professor of estuarine and coastal sciences at the University of Hull, and Professor Michael J Kaiser, professor of marine conservation ecology at the School of Ocean Sciences, Bangor University. I mention this because it is important that your Lordships understand the range of the expert advice we are receiving.
The UK Government are also supporting initiatives from the industry—
I promise the Minister that I will not go through a list of even more organisations that should be consulted but Natural England is a key government and Defra body for looking at everything, including take-free zones and so on. Is it involved at all or is that done by the Secretary of State?
All the organisations that I have referred to are organisations rather than statutory bodies. Clearly, bodies such as Natural England have statutory functions and interests, and obviously are part of the work. The Environment Agency, Natural England and other such bodies would all have an interest in marine areas and so on. As to the part they will play in the expert advisory group—I will try not to mislead your Lordships—clearly all such statutory organisations and bodies would have a locus in this.
As to the initiatives from the industry itself that the UK Government are supporting to manage fisheries, these include, for example, the work of the Scallop Industry Consultation Group and the newly created shellfish industry group. We have also held a call for evidence on how we allocate additional English quota.
In addition—the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, referred to this and we shall have discussions about it—the Bill includes statutory provisions requiring consultation and parliamentary scrutiny of proposals in the joint fisheries statement, any Secretary of State fisheries statement and fisheries management plans. The provision for consultation in these three areas—particularly when we get down to the fisheries management plans, which are about each and every stock—shows the level of ability and the importance of consultation. Its purpose is to get these matters right and to have sustainable fishing.
Given the complexities of fisheries management, the different interests and the different levels at which advice and engagement need to take place—be it at national, administration or local level—a one-size-fits-all body is unlikely to work. Consultation and collaboration will need to flex and adapt as we improve our fisheries management.
In addition, I am advised that, as drafted, the amendment would present some challenges given the devolution settlements. Officials in the UK Government have worked very closely with their counterparts in the devolved Administrations to develop and draft this new set of fisheries objectives. We appreciate the level of engagement that the devolved Administrations have shown in this work. The objectives are truly shared ambitions for our future fisheries management. I am pleased to report that the devolved Administrations already collaborate and consult widely in developing their own future fisheries management policies.
As I say, we will come to discussions on consultation at a later stage but I hope it has been helpful to my noble friend that I have set out in slightly more detail than I might have intended the organisations that are part of the expert advisory group. As we all know, we need to base what we do on scientific advice—and we are seeking the best scientific advice we can.
With those extra words, I hope my noble friend will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his response, and the two other noble Lords for supporting—in principle, I think—the ideas behind this amendment. Obviously, we look forward to looking at theirs in greater detail as well.
The one thing that slightly concerns me, as the Minister rightly said, is that there is no one size that fits all. I understand that but, on the other hand, if we have lots of little bits doing different things, surely you need something overall, like an umbrella, which brings it together. This is the thought behind the amendment. It is an ongoing consultation: it is not that you go out to consult on one issue, but that it would be something that goes on into the future. As my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay could not be here tonight, I say at this stage that I will obviously read Hansard very carefully, as I know he will. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment 5 withdrawn.
Amendments 6 to 10 not moved.
11: Clause 1, page 2, line 7, leave out “, where possible,”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment strengthens the “ecosystem objective” in relation to the reversal of the negative impacts of fish and aquaculture activities on marine ecosystems.
My Lords, in moving Amendment 11, I shall speak also to Amendment 13; both are in my name. These amendments tighten up the definition of the ecosystem objective, by removing the get-out phrase of “where possible”. They raise the issue of how we are going to measure what is possible and achievable.
We welcome that the Bill seeks to emphasise the need for an ecosystem-based approach to fishing and aquaculture activities, and to minimise and eliminate incidental catches of sensitive species. This is really important: we have a long way to go in firmly embedding the ecosystem objectives so that we can start to restore the damage that human overexploitation has caused over many years.
For too long fisheries management has been carried out in isolation from other marine management activities, with little consideration of its wider ecological impact. We debated this issue earlier with the amendments of the noble Baroness, Lady Worthington, which raised marine planning and the need to integrate these policies.
The recent marine strategy review found that the UK is failing to achieve good environmental status in 11 out of 15 indicators. The review went on to state that good environmental status
“may not be achieved for many years, unless there are further improvements to fisheries management measures.”
We need to drive that change as a matter of urgency. This leads us to the question: what are the legal implications of specifying that these measures should occur only “where possible”? I realise that this might be a legal nicety, and it might be necessary to put some of these checks and balances into a Bill, but I am also concerned that this is a loophole through which all sorts of bad practice will slip. We are probing the extent to which the Government are committed to securing the reversal of negative impacts and the elimination of incidental catches, rather than simply minimising them. Of course, we accept that these amendments are not perfectly worded, but we believe that the Government can go further than the current position in the Bill. I hope the Minister will acknowledge our concerns about the extent to which the existing wording waters down what would otherwise be a strong objective.
Amendment 14 takes a slightly different route to defining the ecosystem objective, by specifying the protection of endangered aquatic species and undersized fish. Again, we welcome this amendment as a helpful way of improving the current wording.
Amendment 12, on the catching of incidental species, seeks to impose a deadline on the Government’s delivery. We agree with the spirit behind this, and would be interested in exploring ways of achieving it; for example, having a reporting requirement rather than a hard deadline.
Amendments 126 and 127 deal with the specific definition of sensitive species with regard to cetaceans, or aquatic mammals. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, for raising this concern. I am sure she will speak on this in a moment. It is clear that our conservation policies need to be at least as good as those provided by EU law.
I am glad to have the opportunity to raise this issue. Again, it goes back how firm the Government are in following through on some of the objectives they have set out, and not having too many loopholes that will enable Ministers or future fisheries management groups to disregard what was intended to be a firm policy. I am grateful for the opportunity to explore that further; I therefore beg to move.
My Lords, I rise to support Amendment 11 and the amendments in my name. I note that the Minister did not ask me to meet him before today, and so I am hazarding a guess that he is happy with all my amendments, which is a thrill for me. I almost think I do not need to argue for them here.
However, the Conservative Party manifesto, from which this Government obtained their democratic mandate less than three months ago, made a very specific promise about fisheries. In the section entitled “A Post-Brexit Deal for Fisheries”, big bold letters promised:
“There will be a legal commitment to fish sustainably.”
At the moment, that is a broken promise. There is nothing in the Bill about a legal commitment to fish sustainably. There are ambitions, powers, objectives, statements and a whole load of other bits and pieces, but no legal commitment. I would like the Minister to explain when that legal commitment will be put into the Bill. If it is because I have tabled my amendment, that is absolutely fantastic. The Government promised this to the people in exchange for their votes, so I do not think there is any way that the Government can say that it is not the will of the people and not put it into the Bill.
My Amendment 12 will eliminate the catching of sensitive species within five years of the Bill becoming law. That is important because the current drafting is very weak. Sensitive species should be protected whether incidentally caught or not, and this should not just be minimised but eliminated altogether. Five years gives industry plenty of time to adapt its methods and equipment to achieve this aim. So this is not a probing amendment; it is obviously going to be picked up.
Amendment 14, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, and others in this group have similar intentions. Any legal commitment to fish sustainably would contain these provisions, so the Government really need to listen to the Committee on these issues.
My Amendments 126 and 127 refer to the definitions set out in Clause 48. The definition of sensitive species is very curiously drafted, as it refers to
“any species of animal or plant listed in Annex II or IV of Directive 92/43/EEC of the Council of the European Communities on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild flora and fauna (as amended from time to time)”.
I read that out in full because it raises another very important point. Unless I am mistaken, and I am sure the Minister will correct me if I am wrong, this is not referring to retained EU law but to ongoing, actual EU law. Can the Minister please clarify that for me? It seems that a decision has been made to impose this little snippet of EU law onto our fisheries policy, which seems slightly strange. I would like to know more about that.
Amendments 126 and 127 seek to improve this definition of sensitive species so that it is not so heavily dependent on EU law, which is amended from time to time. This is particularly important for cetacean species: our dolphins, whales, porpoises and other similar highly advanced marine creatures, which, as we all admit, suffer extremely under the treatment they currently get. It is important to have cetaceans named in the Bill in case the Government later decide to remove reference to the EU directive, perhaps because they do not like it any more. I am in no way suggesting that this is the only way to deal with this issue, but the current decision to base the definition on EU law needs explaining and I think it needs to be improved.
Coming back to the will of the people, I want the Minister to reassure me that the Conservative Party’s manifesto will be delivered on this issue. I hope he can commit to working with noble Lords from across the Chamber, who care deeply about this and bring a great deal of knowledge and expertise. On his earlier point on the meanings of sustainability, the fact is that if you do not have environmental sustainability, neither do you have social and economic sustainability. If you deplete fish stocks, fishers will go out of business.
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 14 in my name and that of—if I may say so—my noble friend Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb. I was grateful for the opportunity to discuss this with my noble friend the Minister when we met. Currently, Clause 1(4) relates to the ecosystem objective. I agree with much of what was said by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, and lend my support to her comments. But there is currently no mention at all of endangered species in Clause 1(4). Even a cursory glance at the list of endangered species shows how deeply worrying this is, and that list is growing by the minute. I would also like to see some mention of sensitive habitats, which I think could loosely be encompassed within the ecosystem objective; perhaps the Minister, when he replies, will tell me that it is.
Certainly I would look for some form of recognition that we need measures to protect endangered species where they are being caught. In particular, I am conscious that dolphins and porpoises are being caught inadvertently in nets. I noticed that the Minister referred to mesh sizes and gear. When we met, I spoke about the work that I had seen when I visited Denmark and Sweden with Defra’s Select Committee. In the narrow stretches of water that they share, they are doing a lot of work to pool and collaborate on mesh sizes and gear. I would like to think that, particularly where endangered species are concerned, we could work towards this with our international partners.
The reason behind Amendment 14, as I raised with the Minister, is that there are species such as sharks and rays which seem to have been overlooked, and which I believe need statutory protection for the simple reason that they reproduce more slowly. I understand—and have heard evidence to the effect—that most commercial fish species reproduce more quickly. I believe it can be two years before sharks reproduce. Is this something that the Minister is aware of, and that the Government may see fit to add to the Bill, or is it encompassed in their thinking elsewhere?
My Lords, I rise to support Amendments 126 and 127, as tabled by the noble Baroness opposite, in so far as I want to hear the wise words of my noble friend the Minister. I am concerned that cetaceans should be included; I am sure he will tell me that they are, in some form or another, but I want to be assured of that. On that note, I would expect sea turtles to be included somehow, as that is another species very vulnerable to bycatch.
I should probably declare that I am a longstanding member of the Whale and Dolphin Conservation charity as well as the Marine Conservation Society. One of the problems when you talk about endangered species is that, while some are endangered and remain endangered, some are endangered but, after sustained work, might come off that list while others will go on. I would say that it is a moving feast, but that would rather imply that we are going to eat them all. As we deal with the Bill, we need rigorous measures in place to ensure that those species most at risk are protected. That is far as I will go. The noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, is perhaps a little down on this Bill. There are issues of sustainability, but it is our job in this Chamber to ensure that these are addressed. I am pretty certain that the Government’s motives are genuine in this regard; I wait to hear the words of my noble friend the Minister so that he can assure me of this.
My Lords, I should like to say a brief word as I have a question for my noble friend on the Front Bench: if the amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, are carried and the words “where possible” are deleted, what would happen in a situation where negative impacts cannot be reversed? Will the Government be liable for something over which they have no control? I agree with my noble friend Lord Randall, who said that he believes the Government are heading in the right direction. I just hope that perfection will not be the enemy of the good and of what we can really achieve.
My Lords, I recognise that the proposed Amendment 11 is designed to enhance protection of the marine environment. It would, though, have hugely significant impacts if we took it as it is drafted. Indeed, the impact could be as radical as stopping all management of the terrestrial environment, including farming.
I will explain why we have a concern about what is obviously a very laudable range of amendments. Requiring the reversal of all negative impacts on the marine environment is, we believe, not practicable if we are also to support the UK’s fisheries and aquaculture sectors. As a maritime nation, the UK’s vision of
“clean, healthy, safe, productive and biologically diverse oceans and seas”
acknowledges that we must balance the protection of our marine environment with our objective of supporting thriving fishing and aquaculture sectors. As I responded in an earlier group of amendments, that is because this is some of our best and most healthy food. We must remember that men and women go to sea to produce food for us. This approach is already supported in the UK Marine Strategy Regulations. Requiring our fisheries and aquaculture sectors to reverse all the negative impacts of their activities on marine ecosystems, as proposed in this amendment, would in our view render many fishing activities uneconomic. We must also recognise that fishing is not the only maritime activity that can affect the marine environment. Indeed, natural events do the same.
I will turn to Amendments 12 and 13, and take the opportunity to highlight that the UK Government agree with the purpose of protecting sensitive species from incidental catches in fishing nets. I hope that I can reassure your Lordships that the existing objective already provides the utmost protection possible for these species. The Government are resolutely committed to minimising bycatch of sensitive species as much as is practically possible. To achieve this, we are developing UK plans of action for cetacean and seabird bycatch, working closely with the fishing industry and environmental groups. Our various bycatch monitoring programmes are essential to inform this work.
We will also be launching a broader programme of work on protected, endangered and threatened species bycatch, which will support a holistic, ecosystem-based approach to fisheries management and will encourage the development of sustainable fisheries with minimal impact on sensitive species. The proposed Amendment 12, however, would legally require fishers to eliminate all bycatch within five years; Amendment 13 would require this as soon as the Act is passed. Sadly, I have to say that this is not practical or realistic. I mention this because—I think the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, may have referred to this in a different set of amendments—with the mixed fisheries that we have, actually eliminating bycatch is not practical. It is desirable to do all that we can, and that is why our goal is to reduce bycatch to as close as zero as possible, but in many situations the complete elimination of bycatch is sadly not possible. Some sensitive species will inevitably be caught in nets and gear despite the implementation of effective mitigation measures.
“to minimise and, where possible, eliminate bycatch”
is accepted by environmental organisations and fishers, and is in various international agreements such as the Agreement on the Conservation of Small Cetaceans of the Baltic, North East Atlantic, Irish and North Seas, ASCOBANS, as well as existing legislation such as technical conservation measures and regulations. So we do have a concern because of what we think would be a disproportionate impact that would significantly and adversely impact the industry.
The amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, also seek to extend the objective beyond incidental bycatch to include deliberate catch. Again, I am advised that this extension is not required as Article 12 of the habitats directive already prohibits the deliberate killing of sensitive species.
At Second Reading my noble friend Lady McIntosh referred in particular to the more vulnerable nature of sharks and rays, and I understand, as she has mentioned, that this is the background to her Amendment 14. I wholeheartedly agree with the purpose of protecting endangered species and minimising the catching of undersized fish. I hope I can reassure noble Lords of the UK’s commitment to their protection through both the existing fisheries objectives and the current legal protections that are in place. The Bill has a definition of “sensitive species” that encompasses endangered species and goes beyond by including all species that are due protection under Annexes II and IV of the European habitats directive, which will become part of retained EU law. In relation to sharks and rays specifically, these species are protected from incidental catches in the bycatch objective in Clause 1(6) of the Bill.
Our fisheries objectives are also enforced by current domestic legislation—for example, the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 and the Tope (Prohibition of Fishing) Order 2008. These establish a legal framework for the protection of both threatened and endangered species. The bycatch objective in the Bill will require policies, which will be set out in the joint fisheries statement, to address the recording and accounting of bycatch.
I should say to the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, that the legal commitment is met through the fisheries management plans and statement. That is where the legally binding aspect of the points that she and other noble Lords have raised comes in; obviously we are wrestling with the objectives at the moment, but their legally binding nature is through the fisheries statement and the management plans, which of course encompass all stocks.
I return to the point about the recording and accounting of bycatch. This will help us to understand the issue of shark and ray bycatch better, which in turn will support the development of effective adaptive management strategies for shark and ray fisheries. EU technical conservation measures that prohibit the fishing of certain sharks and rays as protected species will be incorporated into UK law as retained EU law. Catches of undersized fish are also included as part of the bycatch objective, which states that
“the catching of fish that are below minimum conservation reference size, and other bycatch, is avoided or reduced”.
The purpose of the amendments is therefore already achieved through the existing fisheries objective and reinforced with existing legislation.
On Amendments 126 and 127, I agree with the purpose of protecting all species of cetacean from incidental catches in fishing nets. Again, I hope that I can reassure noble Lords that the existing objective provides the utmost protection possible to species. I also say to my noble friend Lord Randall that the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species and the CITES regulations include turtles. That is an international agreement to which the UK is a signatory.
The definition of “sensitive marine species” used in the Bill already includes all species of cetaceans by virtue of its reference to Annexe IV of Council Directive 92/43/EEC, which will become part of UK law as retained EU law. I say to the noble Baroness that I am advised that the proposed amendment is already covered by what we have. I will be very happy to discuss this matter in detail with officials. I am afraid that I would have loved to have had meetings with every noble Lord who submitted amendments, but there was such a wave of them for about 48 hours last week that it was not possible to meet everyone. However, if possible, I like to have such meetings, which give us the ability perhaps to iron out some of the misconceptions before we embark on the Bill in the Chamber.
I hope that the noble Lords who have tabled these amendments will find my explanations sufficient. I reiterate my practical point to the noble Baroness that there are really serious issues when one starts requiring elimination; with the best will in the world we want to have minimal bycatch as close to zero as possible, but actually achieving zero can be incredibly difficult. However, with innovation and all that we need to do at a practical level, we want to find ways, possibly involving new fishing nets and gear, to reduce it.
I hope that I have been able to emphasise the Government’s clear commitment to sensitive marine species and to the marine environment, both through the Bill and through other strategies because this is part of a continuum of other pieces of legislation that make up our statute book. On that basis, I ask the noble Baroness whether she feels able to withdraw her amendment.
I thank the Minister for that answer. I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, for mentioning the wording in the Conservative manifesto about the legal commitment to fishing sustainably. This goes back to the discussion we had at the beginning of today’s debate: there seems to be a chasm between our understanding of what fishing sustainably is, and indeed what was implied by the Conservative manifesto, and what the Minister has told us it is. We use the word “sustainable” to mean environmentally sustainable but earlier the Minister was adding all sorts of other interpretations of the word. We need to thrash this out because I feel uncomfortable with “sustainable” having a much broader definition that encompasses economic and social sustainability. That is not what I mean; nor do I think it is what was intended by what is in the manifesto. The Minister said that the legal binding would be through the fisheries statements and so on, but when it comes to the legal requirement it is different if you use his interpretation of “sustainable” or ours. I do not think we have sorted that question. We need to come back to it and we will, as I am sure the Minister will be aware.
On our amendments on the ecosystem-based approach, I realise that taking out “where possible” was perhaps a stretch too far, but equally it brings up the question of how you measure what is possible. Anyone can say that something is not possible. I am not sure of the legal definition of what is and is not possible, but as long as you say that you will do something “if it is possible”, in my book that means it might not happen. Of course, I am not saying that our wording is right, but an ecosystem-based approach should be an all-encompassing approach that determines what is possible and what is not, what is measurable and which deadlines should be used to achieve all that. We should not need to have all the extra caveats that are in the Bill. As I say, I realise that I was pushing the limits of all this, but I feel as if we have left that door a little too far open and we might have to come back to it again.
I heard what the Minister said about sensitive species and I will certainly want to look very carefully at it in Hansard. I do not know whether the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, was reassured about the retained EU law. It seemed to make sense to me but she may take a different view on that. We will certainly need to check it again. We may come back to some of these issues but in the meantime I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment 11 withdrawn.
Amendments 12 to 14 not moved.
15: Clause 1, page 2, line 16, at end insert—
“( ) the fisheries policy authorities cooperate with international parties as appropriate.”
My Lords, this is another probing amendment, following on from the discussion I had with my noble friend the Minister in preparing for Committee. Its aim is to tease out from the Government which international fisheries policy authorities they intend to co-operate with.
The back narrative of this is that in paragraph 71 of the political declaration published in October, it is stated, in respect of fishing opportunities, that:
“The parties should cooperate bilaterally and internationally to ensure fishing at sustainable levels, promote resource conservation, and foster a clean, healthy and productive marine environment, noting that the United Kingdom will be an independent coastal state.”
This will be extremely important when, as we see later in the Bill, a fisheries policy authority, when publishing a fisheries management plan, has to have regard to changes in circumstances, one of which could be changes in the UK’s international obligations.
My noble friend has expressed very clearly our desire to maintain our role in UNCLOS—the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. Presumably we were an independent member of UNCLOS before we joined the European Union. I would like confirmation that our status in that regard has not changed. I know that there is a verbal commitment to our continuing engagement with ICES—the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea—but will we maintain the same level of spending as in the past? I am not clear, either, about which budget this will come from—the Defra budget or another departmental budget. It would be helpful to know that. We took evidence from ICES in connection with our work on the energy and environment sub-committee, and I have visited the ICES headquarters in Copenhagen twice. It is important for us to continue to rely on the excellent research work that it does.
I am not aware whether there will be any change in our status in relation to the Food and Agriculture Organization—particularly the fisheries and agricultural aspects of its work—or what our dependence on it will be, but that is also extremely important. One non-governmental organisation that I presume we have left, now that we are an independent sovereign state, is the European Environment Agency. It is of particular historic interest—I want to place this on record—that my right honourable friend the Prime Minister’s father, Stanley Johnson, is a great expert in this field and was a leading environmentalist in the European Commission for a number of years before he was elected to the European Parliament. He is still a highly regarded and internationally respected environmentalist in his own right. Will the Government commit to continuing to work very closely with, and rely on the work of, the European Environment Agency with regard to fisheries but also on other environmental work—particularly agriculture, when the Agriculture Bill comes up? I hope that we can keep the door open to the work of the European Environment Agency.
I would be interested to learn about the nature of our new relationships with international parties such as Norway, Iceland and the Faroes that the Bill sets out, particularly—dare I say—if a fisheries dispute arises. The Government have clearly stated that we will not be subject to any jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice, but I argue that there is a degree of urgency about fisheries policy—and other policies—since we are now an independent coastal state. Who will arbitrate in the event of any fisheries dispute in our new relationships with Norway, Iceland and the Faroes? More importantly, what will the dispute resolution mechanisms be with regard to any dispute with the other 27 European Union countries? If, for example, France was to follow through with its threat to blockade the continental ports, despite a fisheries agreement being in place, thereby preventing our fisheries products accessing the market—a very real prospect—what would the dispute mechanism be? We need to know. I am not aware what it would be and I seek reassurance on that.
International relations are particularly important because—I place this on record—the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea requires the UK to participate in management based on an agreement on straddling stocks, which means that we would need to negotiate almost everything. With those few introductory remarks, I look forward to clarification on the issues that I have raised this afternoon. I beg to move.
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, for introducing at last the other people who deal with our fish stocks—other national authorities. The fundamental flaw of this Bill is that it seems to ignore the rest of the world, while our fish stocks—most of them, including their spawning grounds—are outside our exclusive economic zone. Later in the Bill we come to amendments where, I hope, we can strengthen it so that it notes and acts on the real world, where this resource is not exclusive to us.
I welcome the Bill in relation to the scientific side, which, to give the Government their due, is well advanced in terms of using ICES and stock assessments, for example, and I hope that the Minister will tell us about a lot of other things that they are doing with regard to keeping within those international areas. However, we are a member of all sorts of regional fisheries organisations, such as the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization, the North East Atlantic Fisheries Commission and various tuna organisations, as well as UNCLOS, as the noble Baroness mentioned. These are basic, fundamental aspirations that we need to exceed to make sure that we have the sustainability that we need.
My Lords, I rise briefly to support the thrust behind Amendment 15, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, which seeks to add a reference to appropriate international co-operation to the scientific evidence objective—an extension to the debate on a previous grouping. I am sure that we will return to the point about science and international co-operation throughout Committee—and, depending on the Government’s clarifications, perhaps on Report as well.
As your Lordships’ House has observed and debated on numerous occasions in recent years, fisheries management is complicated not only by the fact that fish have no knowledge of, or respect for, the boundaries of national waters, but that each species’ habitat shifts as ocean temperatures and conditions fluctuate—a phenomenon that is likely only to increase with climate change. This was the thrust of the point just made by the noble Lord, Lord Teverson.
The Government are committed under international law to co-operation with neighbouring states. They have indicated that they want annual negotiations with the EU on access to UK waters and quota, although on the premise that a fishing deal has been concluded by 1 July. While commitments to work with neighbouring states exist, such co-operation is important particularly for the gathering and analysis of scientific data. We are lucky to have world-class scientists and conservationists in the UK, but that does not mean that we cannot engage with and learn from others from wherever they come, and with organisations that the UK may also wish to co-operate with long into the future.
I hope therefore that the Minister will be able to offer assurances that his department will engage with international partners as appropriate, not just to agree high-level terms on access but to share science, practical knowledge and best practice, and that this will be included in the Bill.
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering for her amendment in relation to international co-operation and for her indicating that it is a probing amendment. I agree with the sensible recognition that international co-operation will be important in the collection of scientific data.
The UK currently works closely with international bodies, particularly through our membership of ICES—the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea—which advises on the status of fish stocks. I am delighted to confirm that the UK is in the process of establishing a further agreement with it. This will ensure that the advice that we require is in place so that the UK can continue to meet its international and domestic commitments and obligations on sustainability. The UK’s share of funding for ICES will be a matter for the Budget and the spending review.
The UK will continue to make a strong contribution to international co-operation on data collection and related fisheries science. The scientific evidence objective stipulates that the management of fish and aquaculture activities is to be undertaken on the basis of the “best available scientific advice”. The best advice can be obtained only by co-operation. The UK also has obligations through the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea to co-operate with other coastal states in relation to shared stocks. Such co-operation includes the sharing of scientific research and data.
The UK is also a contracting party to a number of multilateral environmental agreements that have a remit within the marine environment and for marine species. These include the International Whaling Commission and the convention on migratory species and its sub-agreements. Working with a variety of parties, both domestic and international, is therefore covered within the existing objective.
To ensure that we are able to fulfil these obligations and to co-operate with international parties, including in the scientific space, the Bill gives us a power under which regulations can be made relating to specific technical matters as long as they are for a conservation purpose or a fish industry purpose.
One leg of the conservation purpose means that regulations can be made for the
“purpose of conserving, improving or developing marine stocks”.
This will allow the UK Government and the devolved Administrations, for whom equivalent powers are provided at their request, to make regulations to meet these international obligations for scientific and research purposes.
My noble friend also asked about the forums for dispute settlements. These are covered by Article 287 of UNCLOS. They are: the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, the International Court of Justice, an Annex VII arbitral tribunal and an Annex VIII special arbitral tribunal. I hope that answer her question. As for other international organisations, we have prioritised joining five regional fishing management organisations now that we have left the EU on the basis of where the UK has a direct fishing and/or conservation interest. They are: the North East Atlantic Fisheries Commission, the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization, the Indian Ocean Tuna Commission and the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas. In addition, we shall want to join the North Atlantic Salmon Conservation Organization—NASCO—where our interests are focused primarily on conservation. With this explanation, I ask my noble friend to consider withdrawing her amendment.
I am grateful for the opportunity to have this short debate. Alarm bells are ringing given the leaked email over the weekend about the lack of importance apparently attached by the Government to farming and potentially to fisheries, so my noble friend the Minister will understand why there is considerable concern among the fisheries community. Your Lordships will have heard what she said about the financing for ICES now being a matter for the Budget and in particular for the spending review. I hope that there will opportunities for us to contribute to that. It was helpful to learn what the dispute resolution mechanism will be, but my heart sinks a little, because if one thought that a case before the European Court of Justice took a while, I shudder to think how long an average case involving fisheries before the International Court of Justice would take to conclude.
I am sure that we will return to these issues at a later stage, so I shall not press the amendment now. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment 15 withdrawn.
Amendment 16 not moved.
House resumed. Committee to begin again not before 8.36 pm.
Mental Health: Unregulated Treatment
Question for Short Debate
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the impact of treatment by unregulated and unregistered persons offering psychotherapy or counselling services upon the mental health and wellbeing of their clients.
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Marks for bringing this issue to my attention and for introducing me to someone whose family had been turned upside down as a result of the “treatment” of a member of it—I have used inverted commas, as it is was not treatment recognised as such by any professional body. I am also grateful to noble Lords who will speak in this debate, bringing both professional and personal experience. I hope that the Minister or one of his colleagues will be able to meet me and the family member to understand to some extent the harms that came from unregulated counselling.
I want to touch on what it takes to be a professional counsellor; the importance of registration, regulation and protected terms; online and face-to-face counselling, and the research about harms done to individuals by unregulated counsellors. Of course, I will expect the Minister to clarify the role of the NHS in the world of counselling.
The terms “counsellor” and “therapist” are not protected. All of us could call ourselves such. While the number of unregistered therapists is low, the expectation is that clients or patients working with unregistered counsellors and psychotherapists are more vulnerable to the possibility of harm. This is because they have no assurance of the level of training or competence of the practitioner nor a redress system to access should something go wrong. A register of qualified counsellors is held by the Health and Care Professions Council, and I would not wish there to be any confusion between these perfectly legitimate individuals and others who are not. The register protects the public from the harm that could be caused by people practising in a profession when they are not qualified.
Let me be clear: it takes many years to train to be a psychiatrist. One has to qualify as a doctor, undergo the extra qualification in psychiatry and then work under supervision until ready to practise. Training as a psychotherapist takes 400 hours over several years and, in most cases, this is paid for by the individual, as are their own therapy sessions which are a prerequisite for qualification. Counsellors have a shorter timescale but, typically, they would have a relevant degree and then several years in training before they qualify. They can work in both the NHS and the private sector.
If they are not on the register, they are not qualified. If they are using one of the terms on the register to describe what they do, without qualification, they are breaking the law. Article 39(1) of the Health Professions Order 2001 makes it a criminal offence for a person, with intent to deceive—whether clearly or by implication—to say that they are on the register of the Health and Care Professions Council, or use a designated title to which they are not entitled, or say falsely that they have qualifications in a profession regulated by the HCPC. In times past, they would just have been called quacks.
To demonstrate how easy this is, a BBC journalist, Jordan Dunbar, recently obtained a counsellor qualification certificate online for the price of £12.99—the cost of a session in a 24-hour gym or a wind-proof umbrella. At present, it is up to patients to make sure that counsellors are qualified and registered with an accredited body. The onus is on the patient, not the provider. A well mocked-up certificate, accompanied by a brass plaque, offers confidence to an anxious and vulnerable member of the public looking for someone to share their confidence with. However, practitioners interact with people at some of the most distressing times in their lives, leaving them vulnerable or worse. Research has shown that fewer than two-thirds of patients are aware of whether their therapist is a member of a professional body.
Many people who use private services do so because the NHS service is hard to access and there is a waiting time. A quick look at the NHS website does not mention waits and these may be quite short if access is via your GP. The NHS website also has an online assessment tool called “Mood self-assessment” which takes a very top-line look at depression and anxiety and makes sensible recommendations based on the results. I used it this morning; it was time not terribly well spent. The NHS Long Term Plan promises to
“deliver the fastest expansion in mental health services in the NHS’s history, with thousands more adults being able to access talking therapies for common disorders and better support being off ered to children and young people.”
When he sums up, will the Minister tell the House where the progress is with this ambitious claim since the publication of the NHS Long Term Plan?
This issue is only becoming more urgent. Waiting lists for non-primary care NHS mental health services are long, and patients are turning to private healthcare solutions which are less likely to be affiliated to voluntary regulators. Also becoming more common are online treatments, where there is little accountability for any harms caused, making it easier than ever for patients to be exploited. Online counselling is a different matter altogether, as there are no boundaries. Mobile phone apps abound to increase well-being, gain confidence and sort personal problems. But there is not a lot of research on this. We know there is no regulation, no way of knowing where the site is based, or the qualifications of the counsellor, or a guarantee that you will be connected to the same person each time. The risk is real. Without protecting these terms, we leave the profession open to abuse by those who practise pseudoscientific therapies with the outcome of doing harm to their clients.
It is vital that the Government assess the impact of these harms. I have been contacted by individuals whose stories, although anecdotal, paint a picture of a real risk to their mental health and safety. The stories are extremely distressing. They tell the tale of vulnerable people putting their trust in therapists only to be exploited and isolated from their loved ones. It is no exaggeration to say that lives have been ruined. It is essential that these harms are documented so that we can find solutions. One possible solution, which I favour, is statutory regulation. This has been debated before in this House, largely driven by my noble friend Lord Alderdice. Unfortunately, the issue has been pushed off the agenda in recent years, but now is the time to revisit it. The Government have previously stated that statutory regulation may be introduced if harms to the public can be demonstrated and this risk cannot be addressed through other means. Will the Minister give some indication of what the department might do to help with the issue of assessment of harms?
Patients say that reporting harms through voluntary regulatory bodies can be an arduous process. This has been demonstrated in cases such as that of Patrick Strud. His therapist subjected him to so-called conversion therapy. Mr Strud had to wait two years for the BACP to withdraw her membership. The Government have indicated that they will outlaw conversion therapy. We all need to be comfortable with the way we are, and not feel that we are different. I hope that the Minister agrees that even one such case is too many and that our current system needs updating. When will the Government take action on those therapists who offer these services?
The most concerning issue is that, even if these regulatory bodies strike off a practitioner for misconduct, there is no legal requirement for that individual to stop practising. This includes those who are struck off for very serious allegations, including serious sexual misconduct. When I agreed to table this Question for Short Debate, I was surprised at the number of people who wrote to me with tales of family members who had been harmed through counselling, not helped or healed in the process. Although voluntary registers, such as the BACP and the UK Council for Psychotherapy, provide some safeguards, they are not enough, and they say that they would welcome regulation.
Given the experience and interest of all noble Lords, I am sure we are in for an excellent debate.
My Lords, as this is a time-limited debate with a dozen speakers, I remind the House of the three-minute speech limit.
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Jolly, on introducing this debate so ably. We live in a world of dazzling change, in which the digital revolution and AI are among the major driving forces transforming our lives. This is new territory for all of us, but children and young adults are especially on the front line. The online world is almost wholly unregulated. Many traditional pathologies, such as addiction, appear in new forms. According to NHS estimates, 75% of people in England experiencing mental health problems get no treatment at all. It is not surprising, therefore, that the internet is awash with, in the words of the Question, “unregulated and unregistered persons” offering treatment for mental disorders, including in the shape of a swarm of apps offering counselling and therapy. Almost all of this is without any backup from registered healthcare professionals. Will the Minister update the House on the progress of the NHS’s Moodzone, which contains a directory of approved mental health apps? However, there is surely a need for a much more comprehensive strategy to deal with this new Wild West frontier.
The issues here for mental health are far-reaching indeed, since it is hard for any national Government to stamp their authority on the use of data that are in a large part global. Young people today spend a high proportion of their life online. Digital addiction is a huge issue in itself, with largely unknown consequences, since no previous generation has grown up in such a context. Have the Government set up any research projects on how to cope with its likely longer-term impact and its pathologies?
It is good to see that the Government are seeking at least to grapple with these issues, both in the context of the NHS and more widely. They have announced plans to upgrade the ways in which health apps and other digital technologies are reviewed and monitored by the NHS. To do so, it is said, Ministers are working with the digital corporations to try to establish proper standards of scrutiny and transparency—daunting though that is, given the speed with which the digital world Is evolving. A new digital health technology standard is being developed.
It is clear from ongoing research in this country, in the US and elsewhere that the selective use of Al could make a major contribution to diagnostics, which would mesh with the reforms that I believe are needed. As my final minute elapses, will the Minister say whether the Alan Turing Institute is at the forefront of such research?
My Lords, I have seen at first hand the devastating effect on a family whose lives have been turned upside down as they see a loved one being exploited and isolated from them by a bogus therapist, so I am delighted to support the noble Baroness, Lady Jolly. She has said everything that I would wish to have said and asked the questions that I would have asked.
I will make one further point: Section 76 of the Serious Crime Act covers domestic abuse. The Government accept that individuals can be coercively controlled, and they have rightly made it illegal for a spouse, partner or parent to coercively control somebody with whom they have a relationship—that is an imprisonable offence. However, in the case of coercive control, the law does not apply equally to everyone. A person coercively controlling their daughter would be breaking the law, but the same person coercively controlling someone else’s daughter is not covered by the law. There does appear to be a gap in the law, so will the Government look into this?
The noble Baroness, Lady Jolly, made the point that the terms “counsellor” and “therapist” are not protected—all of us could call ourselves such. I have been sent a list setting out some of the differences between healthy therapy with a trained professional and unhealthy therapy with an untrained person. A trained professional therapist is accountable and does not hide behind fronts, whereas an untrained person is not. Their qualifications are recognised by an outside body, whereas an untrained person is often self-appointed and usually hides behind fronts. Healthy therapy rehabilitates and is for the benefit of the client; unhealthy therapy debilitates and is often for the benefit of the therapist. A healthy therapist’s objectives are agreed with the client, as opposed to being the therapist’s own goals; they promote healthy relationships with others, as opposed to fostering alienation from others. A healthy therapist will aim for the independence of the client, as opposed to their dependence, and will psychologically enable the client and not disable him or her. In healthy therapy, questioning is encouraged, whereas a bogus therapist will discourage it.
The noble Baroness has raised a really important issue. 1 look forward to hearing the Minister’s ideas on how vulnerable people can be protected from unregistered and often very dangerous quack therapists.
My Lords, I should first declare an interest; I am married to a chartered psychologist who works for the National Health Service. I too congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Jolly, on securing this debate and on her very powerful speech.
The Government have rightly chosen to prioritise mental health in recent years, but, if we are going to take mental health seriously, we really must take seriously the question of who becomes a mental health practitioner. We do not allow unqualified people to carry out surgery, but we allow anybody to call themselves a therapist, a counsellor or even a psychologist. I recently did some research of my own. I came across a college offering a level 2 “Introduction to Counselling” course. The course has no specific entry requirements. It is online and to pass it requires just 80 hours of study. The advertising material states:
“The course is approved by the ACCPH”—
the Accredited Counsellors, Coaches, Psychotherapists and Hypnotherapists, and—
“at the end of this course students will be able to join and become a member of the ACCPH. The ACCPH is an independent self-regulated professional body for counsellors, psychotherapists and hypnotherapists.”
I went to that body’s website, which states that,
“joining as a professional member will prove to potential clients that you are fully qualified.”
Now, for all I know this course, which costs £379—rather more than the £12.99 course previously referred to—may be very good value for money, but I question whether 80 hours of tuition, without any practical face-to-face experience, is sufficient to become an accredited counsellor. Needless to say, the Professional Standards Authority does not recognise the ACCPH as an accredited register, but it is expecting a great deal of often vulnerable and anxious people to know that the PSA exists in the first place, to visit its website and to understand what it means when it lists a register as “in” or “out”.
The Five Year Forward View for Mental Health recommended, four years ago:
“The Department of Health should consider how to introduce the regulation of psychological therapy services.”
I was optimistic that things would change, but the department dragged its feet. The recent statement by the noble Baroness, Lady Blackwood of North Oxford, that
“The Government has no plans to extend professional regulation to psychotherapists or counsellors”
is, for me, at least, deeply disappointing. Her statement that
“We urge anyone seeking the services of a psychotherapist or counsellor to take the time to find a reputable, insured and appropriately qualified practitioner”,
sounds a little complacent. I hope the Minister, for whom I have the highest regard, will tell me that I have misunderstood that statement.
My Lords, like other noble Lords I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Jolly for securing this debate. As a psychiatrist in psychotherapy for the whole of my professional life, I found that the question of unregulated psychotherapy came to me as a problem quite early on. It is now 20 years since I introduced a Private Member’s Bill. I did not do that simply off my own bat; I spent many months consulting all the major psychotherapy and counselling bodies in this country—and almost all, even at that time, were entirely in agreement about the need for regulation of psychotherapy.
However, it is not an easy business. Indeed, the practice of psychotherapy is difficult to regulate, so we focused on a Bill that would require the registration of psychotherapists—in other words, the protection of title, so that people would at least know the person with who they were engaging and whether that person was professionally accountable and trained. The Government, however, did not accept it. They said that they still had to be persuaded about matters of effectiveness—though, frankly, that has nothing to do with regulation and registration. They have now had a further 20 years to address that question.
During that 20 years, professions such as medicine—my own core profession—social work, clinical psychology, nursing and, indeed, the functions of the NHS itself have all had to undergo increasing amounts of regulation and supervision, and absolutely properly so. Are the Government still convinced that, while doctors, nurses, clinical psychologists and social workers all need to be regulated, psychotherapists, almost alone among all these professions, can be left to simply regulate themselves?
Let us consider that the vast majority of such therapists are operating on their own, outside the NHS, and not as part of a core profession. Those who are part of a core profession are, in that sense, already regulated. Working within the NHS, they are almost all working not on their own but as part of multi- disciplinary teams, and they are operating within a health service structure which is itself highly regulated. So it is not just a question of psychotherapists; the context in which they are working is so much more open and flexible and therefore has the potential for abuse. My three minutes are virtually up, but, 20 years after my Private Member’s Bill, I think that the Government’s time ought to be up in terms of doing something serious about the registration and regulation of psychotherapy and counselling.
My Lords, I join the thanks to the noble Baroness, Lady Jolly, for securing this debate. I absolutely support the aim of properly regulating psychotherapy and counselling. I will make two quick points. First, there should be routes into counselling for people from all walks of life. Secondly, supervision for counsellors should include casework supervision.
I had the privilege to work for over 20 years as a director of the charity Employee Counselling Service. During that time, I must have worked with 60 or 70 counsellors, all accredited and registered. I came to appreciate the importance of different routes into counselling. The clients we worked with included refuse workers, school caterers, hospital orderlies, care home workers, train drivers and office workers. Half the clients were men; they were people who probably never dreamed in a million years that they would be talking to a counsellor. It was important that the counsellors they worked with understood something of their lives and the day-to-day pressures that made it hard to step back and take time to reflect. They often needed to prioritise changes to help secure their jobs, homes and health before they could give space to other issues.
The world of counselling can sometimes seem designed for middle-class therapists working with middle-class clients. Counsellor supervision is generally focused on supporting the counsellor, which is of course essential. A common factor in the reports of BACP disciplinary hearings is that counsellors work alone and without accountability until a client makes a complaint. It should not be left to the client to have to identify problems.
In the voluntary sector, it was usual for counsellors to receive casework supervision. This, more than anything else, safeguards the client from counsellors who may lose focus or get out of their depth in their work. Casework supervision, which involves a supervisor regularly discussing the direction and progress of each case, safeguards both the client and the counsellor. I hope the Minister will take up these two issues to ensure the well-being of clients and counsellors.
My Lords, I join other noble Lords in thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Jolly, for introducing this debate. At its heart, this debate is about preventing the exploitation of the vulnerable—not of the mentally ill, the elderly or children, who are protected quite widely by the law already, but of those whose vulnerability, be it emotional or psychological, permits them to be preyed on by charlatan counsellors. These charlatans suborn them through their cynical promises of peace of mind and future happiness; through lies about their families and bogus therapy they suborn them into breaking off contact with them. Frequently, since they target people with money, they charge exorbitant fees for doing so. They are purveyors of deceit, misery and distress. They need to be stopped.
I first came across this form of quackery in the late 1970s, when I was acting for the Daily Mail against a cult called the “Moonies”, who broke up families wholesale and brainwashed children. Most of them were adult children in a vulnerable and emotional state, lonely and far away from home. I was reminded of them in about 2013 or 2014 when I came across the case of a young woman who had been suborned into leaving her family, cutting herself off and paying this extraordinary woman vast sums of money for her quackery. Supported by David Cameron, the then Prime Minister, Sir Oliver Letwin, then the Government’s policy chief, and Mr Tom Sackville, a former Home Office Minister, I attempted to amend the law to prevent these quacks operating and exploiting their victims. Although we tried, we could not find an opportunity to amend the law and achieve our aim.
However, it can and has been done. It has been done in France, Luxembourg and Belgium. They have passed laws to amend the criminal law which have withstood challenges in the Strasbourg court under the European Convention on Human Rights. With care, provision can be made to protect freedom of religion, assembly and association so that, for example, adult children can if they want to, even if their parents object, join closed religious orders, give their money away or just cut themselves off from their families. But quacks should not be permitted any longer to exploit emotionally vulnerable adults.
This cruel practice must stop. We should ensure that it does. I suspect that we give more protection to cats and dogs against quack vets than to emotionally and psychologically vulnerable adults against quack counsellors. It is time we did better.
My Lords, I have been a psychiatrist for 40 years, and it will not surprise your Lordships that I agree with every word that has been said in this welcome short debate of the noble Baroness, Lady Jolly.
I have long been astonished that we have such regulation for practically every healthcare profession under the sun except psychotherapy. Art therapists, for example, are registered and regulated; so are osteopaths and chiropractors, who both have their own regulatory councils. Yet we left the Professional Standards Authority struggling to think through how it would approach this problem. It could not regulate this massive amount of mental health care without doing something about it, and so it developed its accreditation scheme— and all credit to it for doing so—but the time really has come.
Efficacy is clearly not the issue at stake because, after all, there are many qualified physicians and psychiatrists who are not very efficacious. Nevertheless, we try to ensure that they do not cause positive harm by making sure they have appropriate training. The issue is whether a person is setting themselves up to provide care and support to somebody else. That is healthcare, and somebody doing that needs to be regulated.
I have heard it said that some of these therapists do not want to be regulated. I am sure they do not, but if you were here in 1856 and listened to the antipathy in the debates towards the notion that you might regulate doctors, you would hear the same arguments. The time has come.
There are now over a million new people coming into the health service to ask for psychotherapy every year, and we provide that to them, admittedly through accredited organisations. Nevertheless, there are a huge number of people getting it, and it is clear that the time has come to offer proper regulation and reassure the people coming to ask for help that individuals have got at least some accreditation and that we can protect the public from harms.
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Jolly for the opportunity to talk a bit about conversion therapy, or the use of non-accredited counsellors offering psychotherapy or counselling to those seeking help for their unwanted same-sex attraction, which is prevalent in some churches. It is defended by some religious groups as a legitimate part of their faith, but the majority of churches, alongside the professional bodies, see it as a very harmful practice.
In December 2018, there was a small study of people who had been subjected to conversion therapy. Of those, two-thirds said that they wanted to see the practice made criminal. The remaining third did not want to see it criminalised, but they did want to see it stopped, because it had profound and harmful effects upon the people who were subjected to it.
That is the point I want to make, following that from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier. We go to religious organisations in the extremes of happiness and of despair. They are rarely neutral places in which to transact matters such as counselling. Therefore, it is only right for us to ask the Government, when they bring in some form of regulation—and they will inevitably have to—not to allow, as they do in other cases, any form of exemption for religious organisations. There should be ethical standards to which all practitioners, no matter the context in which they practise, conform.
The Government’s LGBT Action Plan recognised this as a very important issue for our community. There are some particularly vulnerable young people who are perhaps locked into religious communities, from which it is difficult to find a way out or alternative point of view. It is of the utmost importance that we make sure that, when those young people live their faith, they do so in safety. Therefore, I ask the Minister to update us on what is admittedly a technically difficult area of law but one that is of the highest importance to a number of people and one that, I would suggest, is urgent.
My Lords, I am also grateful to my noble friend Lady Jolly for securing this debate and her clarity in opening it. We have had an excellent and, so far, unanimous debate.
In a humane society, unqualified practitioners may not set themselves up as doctors and dentists to practise medicine or dentistry without training, supervision or regulation, as the noble Baroness, Lady Murphy, and others have eloquently argued. We now promise, and are promised, parity of esteem between mental and physical health, which the Mental Health Foundation defines as
“valuing mental health equally with physical health”,
with commitments for
“equal access to the most effective and safest care and treatment … equal efforts to improve the quality of care … equal status within healthcare education and practice”.
If those commitments are to be more than glib platitudes, we must end the scandal of untrained and unregulated self-styled therapists, counsellors, healers or life coaches peddling untested and dubious treatment to the psychologically and emotionally vulnerable and suffering.
We have heard harrowing accounts of victims, often young, brainwashed by unscrupulous and controlling individuals. These charlatans play on their clients’ suffering, deluding them into a false belief in their treatment, often conjuring up in them fake memories about their early years and inducing unhealthy long-term dependence on the therapist and rejection of families and friends. For this, they often take significant fees and frequently inflict devastating and long-term damage. This debate has pointed the way to what is needed.
First, we must insist on licensing and regulation for therapists, for which my noble friend Lord Alderdice and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, have long argued. We need an approved body that maintains a register of practitioner members, who must secure qualifications, comply with a clear statement of ethical standards and submit to supervision.
Secondly, I support the call by the noble Lord, Lord Astor, the charity Family Survival Trust chaired by Tom Sackville—a former Home Office Minister, who is here tonight—and leading academics in seeking amendment to the Serious Crime Act 2015, which outlaws controlling or coercive behaviour, but in a domestic context only, where perpetrator and victim are in an intimate personal relationship or live together as family members. The Act needs to go wider to cover so-called therapists causing psychological damage and distress to their clients and their clients’ families and friends. Such legislation would be simple and effective. Will the Government bring forward such an amendment to the Act now?
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Jolly, for securing this debate and I assure the noble Lord, Lord Marks, that we will be unanimous in this discussion. What the noble Baroness, Lady Jolly, has done is to illustrate the problems and dangers of a sector that is not properly regulated, and it goes from one extreme to another.
One extreme was outlined in the letter that we all received about unregulated abuse, coercive control and cultic abuse. It makes the point outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Marks, about recognition of coercive control covering domestic matters only and failing to recognise the harm that can be done by the sorts of organisations that were graphically described to us by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier. Therefore, the law is inadequate in this regard and needs to be addressed. The Minister must realise that the whole House is unanimous in thinking that that needs to happen. He needs to know that, when the first Bill comes along in which we can bring forward that amendment, we probably will. The Government would be wise to do it themselves, because they will lose otherwise, because the House is united in this.
The other extreme is the regulatory framework, with which all noble Lords are familiar. It is significant that the Professional Standards Authority felt it needed to draw attention to the inadequacies in this direction, in the letter that we received from Christine Braithwaite, the director of standards. She says:
“for a number of years we have requested changes to the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 and the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006 to include Accredited Registers to better strengthen the protection they are able to provide. To date, no amendments have been made.”
If the body that registers the different counselling and psychoanalytic organisations is saying that this is inadequate, as well as saying that the regulatory framework is inadequate, the Government really need to sit up and listen to what is being said right across the piece.
It is a matter for the Government to regulate this profession. Statutory regulation will offer great protection to the public. The Government also need to look at the titles of counsellors and psychotherapists to make sure that they are recognised as such and are being protected under statutory regulation. I look forward to what the Minister has to say.
My Lords, I join others in thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Jolly, for raising this important issue. Before I make my formal comments, I should like to recognise the clear and strong feelings expressed on this issue in the House today, which one cannot help but feel moved by. On a personal note, perhaps I may share that I have myself lost a friend to manipulative individuals. It was a friendship that I valued very much, so I can feel some of the hurt that Members have expressed about that sensation of losing loved ones in such difficult circumstances.
I shall move on to the more formal comments about the Government’s approach to mental health services. I want to reassure the House that this Government absolutely put the modernisation of mental health services at the heart of our commitment to the health of the British people. The message on mental health has come up again and again in the Chamber and I have stood at this Dispatch Box many times to hear it. I want to reassure noble Lords that that message is 100% understood.
I need hardly remind some of those here that spending on NHS mental health services has already risen under this Government from £10.9 billion in 2015-16 to £12.5 billion in 2018, and that under the mental health investment standard, for the first time clinical commissioning groups are increasing the amount spent on mental health services by at least the amount of their overall budgets. The noble Baroness, Lady Jolly, asked for clarification of the role of the NHS. Let me reassure her that the NHS Long Term Plan also explains that there will be a comprehensive expansion of mental health services, giving 380,000 more adults access to psychological therapies, which represents a huge expansion in the Government’s investment in mental health.
However, I recognise that as well as expanding the size of mental health services provision, the Government need to understand the importance of ensuring the quality of the services that are delivered. We agree absolutely that service users should be able to expect high-quality psychological therapies that bring about positive impacts on mental health and recovery. The noble Baroness, Lady Jolly, asked specifically what progress has been made on mental health goals in the NHS Long Term Plan. I reassure her that 12 pilot sites have already received £70 million of funding for new specialist services and that that is the first step in a £975 million investment as part of the long-term plan to transform community mental health services.
The Government are committed to improving access to psychological therapies through the Improving Access to Psychological Therapies programme. Each year, more than 1 million people access IAPT services and the Government are committed to expanding them massively so that by 2023, 1.9 million people will be able to access those services. I can reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Jolly, that waiting times, which she asked about, for access to IAPT services have also improved to the point that 98% of patients seeking a first referral get that referral within 16 weeks, against a target of 95%.
The IAPT service provides a gold standard, highly professional service, routinely monitored on outcomes achieved, and the professionals providing these services undergo regular outcomes-focused supervision. These principles ensure that therapies are delivered by fully trained and accredited practitioners with appropriate skills in providing individualised support to people with mental health problems. The intensity and duration of each IAPT therapy is designed to optimise patient outcomes and, as the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, alluded to, all IAPT clinicians should have completed an IAPT-accredited training programme with nationally agreed curricula aligned to NICE guidelines. High-intensity therapists in IAPT services should be accredited by the relevant professional bodies and all IAPT clinicians should be supervised weekly by appropriately trained supervisors in the manner rightly described by the noble Baroness, Lady Bryan.
None the less, we are aware of concerns regarding the treatments that some people receive from some services outside the provision of government services. My noble friend Lord Astor spoke very movingly about healthy and unhealthy therapies, and in this matter he is entirely right. The anecdotes recounted by noble Lords, including the story from the noble Lord, Lord Macpherson, about the ACCPH, are clearly disturbing. We acknowledge that some private individuals are delivering therapies that may be putting patients’ safety at risk. I have read the Unsafe Spaces blog and the contributors’ concerns. I watched the BBC documentary that noble Lords referred to. Who can read these stories without feeling a sense of sadness? I think of my own lost friend.
Let us be clear. The Government are committed to a proportionate system of safeguards for the professionals who work in the health and care system. I join the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton,