My Lords, it is my great pleasure to speak to Amendment 35B, which would replace Clause 27 of the Bill. I have listened to some great debates this afternoon, many of which I support.
It is likely that the Bill represents a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity. It is the first time since 1967 that Parliament has been given the opportunity to write a completely fresh approach to the difficult task of managing the nation’s fisheries resource in the public interest. It is a task that other nations have undertaken with admirable clarity and simplicity, but, sadly, the Bill still falls rather short of that ideal.
However, through this process, things are, thankfully, becoming clearer. On Monday, in response to the first amendment, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, the Minister confirmed that fish in UK waters are a resource
“held by the Crown for the benefit of the public.”—[Official Report, 22/6/20; col. 31.]
I welcome that statement. He also clarified that, although the right to receive a quota through the current FQA system has been deemed by the High Court to be a property right, this is not a permanent right—it does not exist indefinitely. It is also allowable for the Government to decide to allocate a zero quota, should it be deemed necessary. That is welcome, but what can the Minister say about how the process of the right to fish will be managed to maximise public benefit and meet the goals set out in Clause 1?
The Bill refers to fishing opportunities, which in reality are a combination of holding a right to receive a quota and other means of access to a public fishery. It has a lot to say about the level of quota but is almost silent on the first part of the equation—who should have the right to receive quota and for how long. In moving this amendment, I am seeking to provide answers and clarity on what is a very unclear legal situation.
5.15 pm
The nub of the problem is: what legal right do the UK Government have to grant proprietary fishing rights on behalf of the Crown to private sector actors, many of whom now reside outside the UK? Can the Minister inform the House whether she believes that the fixed quota allocation system that the Government propose to continue is properly authorised by the Bill? How can something be handed out, bought, sold and traded if there is no express right from the Crown to the Secretary of State or the Marine Management Organisation to handle its fishing rights on its behalf?
Specifically, can the Minister point to where it is stated in law that a Minister is entitled to make decisions about the granting of time-limited property rights on behalf of the Crown? I mention this because, usually, where a public body has the right to dispose of a public asset on behalf of the Crown, there is a whole series of obligations on that public body. The Crown Estate, which is established by statute, regularly distributes public assets and institutionally contains the right sorts of accounting mechanisms to ensure that public assets are not squatted on, which seems to be the best description of the failings of the current system. It makes sure that those who should pay for exploiting a commonly held asset do so. It takes a long-term view and returns proceeds to the public purse. This seems a very clear way to demonstrate public benefit.
Finally, it cannot be correct that past possession is the sole criterion for receiving a fishing right, since this would remove the ability to deliver the noble goals set
out in the Bill. We need to have clear criteria about who can receive a right to fish. We cannot lock in the status quo. Those currently in receipt of quota free of charge for an indeterminate length of time are quite happy with the current arrangement, but what about those who are not? We know that a lot of disenfranchised voices who voted for Brexit are expecting a change. As drafted, the Bill still does not enfranchise them. They should not be expected to have to rely on charity, waiting for voluntary reallocation of fishing rights or quota from those who currently believe that they have an inalienable right to them.
If no clear answers are available to these questions, I urge the Minister to seriously consider the approach set out in my amendment to remove any doubt about the legal powers and management approaches that the Government need to be in place. I will listen very carefully to her answer.
Amendment 35B also seeks to rationalise the process by making it the responsibility of the Crown Estate. I am aware that this is a novel idea, but, having considered it carefully, I believe that the Crown Estate has the necessary legal standing, professional skills and experience of managing maritime resources to undertake this task efficiently, fairly and flexibly. Defra or the MMO could have this ability, but they must realise that the role of a regulator is very different from that of a public body distributing private sector access to a Crown asset. That involves a different range of powers and strict duties; for example, to avoid the selling of public assets under value.
To finish, I simply remind noble Lords why the amendment is necessary. The status quo is not working in the public interest. Fish stocks are overfished and power and influence in the sector are concentrated in the hands of too few people. We know from the Coastal Producer Organisation that smaller fishing businesses, representing 78% of the fleet, have only 2% of the national allocation quota. We also know that £160 million-worth of English quota is in the hands of vessels owned by companies outside the UK.
When public assets are distributed to the private sector, we expect a whole series of checks and balances to be put in place. The Bill does not contain those reassurances. I strongly encourage the Government to think again about their approach to Clause 27 and to provide clear answers to the questions that I have raised. I acknowledge that the amendment will provide a solution only in England, which is regrettable, but a partial solution is better than no solution. I beg to move.