Immigration: DNA Tests
Thursday 25th October 2018
(6 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Fisheries Bill 2017-19 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sajid Javid)
With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to make a statement on the use of DNA evidence in immigration applications.
Many thousands of immigration applications are received every year that involve people applying to come to, or remain in, the UK on the basis of a family relationship with somebody who is already here. If an individual does not have sufficient evidence to show that they are related to someone in the UK, they sometimes choose to take a DNA test to prove the relationship. Officials then consider this evidence as part of their claim. Very often, it will be to the advantage of the applicant because it can establish family relationships beyond doubt where the other available evidence is sometimes insufficient.
The provision of DNA evidence must, however, be entirely voluntary. At the end of June, it was brought to our attention that there were some immigration cases where the provision of DNA evidence had been made a requirement for the issuance of a visa or the granting of leave to remain, and not simply a request. Such demands are unacceptable. I want to take this opportunity to apologise to those affected by this practice. In this context, the law states that the provision of DNA evidence should always be voluntary and never mandatory. My predecessor made that absolutely clear when she brought in changes in 2014.
Once we were made aware of the issue, we immediately commissioned an urgent internal review, which I am publishing today. Copies will be available in the Library. My right hon. Friend the Immigration Minister will also be writing today to the Home Affairs Committee to outline the key points of the review and to provide a copy. The review covered the legal aspects of DNA use, policy and guidance, caseworking practice and correspondence with applicants, as well as oversight arrangements relating to the use of DNA. It outlines a number of areas in which guidance was unclear or wrong. It also outlines areas of operational practice where DNA evidence was improperly required and provides some initial information on the possible scale of the issue. The review makes a number of recommendations about how to address the root causes within the border, immigration and citizenship system that led to this operational practice.
This review is not, however, a conclusion to the work. The numbers and information in the report have been collected at pace and still need to be fully assured and are subject to change. Further work is needed to ascertain the full scope of the issue. Regardless of the number of people affected, one case is still one too many, and I am determined to get to the bottom of how and why in some cases people could be compelled to supply DNA evidence in the first place.
The majority of cases identified so far have been part of Operation Fugal, which, according to the report, started in April 2016 to address patterns of fraud in some specific family and human rights immigration applications. Letters sent as part of that operation incorrectly stated that the applicant must provide DNA evidence and that not providing such information without a reasonable excuse would lead to the application being refused on suitability grounds. It has been reported that 83 applications had been refused at the time the report was written, and seven of those seem to have been refused on suitability grounds due solely to a failure to provide DNA evidence. A further six appear to have been refused on suitability grounds for failure to provide DNA evidence, although that was not the sole reason.
In addition to Operation Fugal, we have identified an improper approach to the use of DNA evidence in two further areas. The first relates to adult dependent relatives of Gurkhas. In January 2015, a scheme was expanded to allow adult dependent children of Gurkhas who were discharged before 1997 to settle in the UK. Published guidance stated that DNA evidence may be required and that applications may be refused if that evidence was not provided without a reasonable excuse within four weeks. That published guidance was wrong and has now been updated. The report suggests that 51 cases were identified where DNA evidence was requested from applicants at their own cost. At the time the report was written, we were aware of four cases from the same family unit whose application was refused solely because they did not provide DNA evidence. Those decisions have now been corrected.
The second case relates to Afghan nationals. In 2013, applications to resettle in the UK from Afghan nationals who were formerly employed by the UK Government began to be accepted. The terms of the scheme included mandatory DNA testing for family groups, paid for by the UK Government. Current investigations suggest that no one making an application under that scheme was refused because they did not take a DNA test. None the less, mandatory testing should not have been part of the scheme, and that requirement has now been removed.
Let me be clear: across our immigration system, no one should have faced a demand to supply DNA evidence, and no one should have been penalised for not providing it. In particular, I extend my apologies to those Gurkhas and Afghans who have been affected. The two schemes I have described were put in place to help the families of those who have served to keep our country safe, and I am sorry that demands were made of them that never should have been made.
I reassure the House that I am taking action to correct the situation. First, I have given clear instructions that officials must not seek DNA evidence on a mandatory basis in any immigration case. Secondly, I have set up a new taskforce so that anyone who feels that their case may have been influenced in any way by an inappropriate demand for DNA testing can get advice and support. Thirdly, we will be looking to reimburse any individual who has suffered financial loss because we required DNA evidence when we should not have done so. Fourthly, we will continue closely to examine whether this approach might have been taken in any other parts of the immigration system. So far we know that three cohorts have been affected, but we must investigate whether there are any more. I will be asking for independent assurance on everything we do as we establish the facts. Finally, I know that the immigration system is operated by many highly committed people, but we must ensure that the structures and processes they use are fit for the modern world and fit for the new immigration system that we will be bringing in after we leave the European Union.
I will review more broadly our structures and processes to ensure that they deliver a system in a way that is fair and humane. I will now consider what form that review will take, but my starting point is that it would be helpful to have independent oversight. The review will also need to build on the lessons learned from the Wendy Williams review, and I will want Wendy to play a full part in this wider exercise.
When I became Home Secretary, I made clear that I would be prepared to take action to put right any wrongs as and when I became aware of them. Today, I promise the House that I will get to the bottom of what has gone on in relation to DNA evidence, and I will build an immigration system that provides control but that is also fair, humane and fully compliant with the law.
Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Lab)
I thank the Home Secretary for prior sight of his statement on the improper use of DNA evidence. He will be aware that all our constituents, including those of immigrant descent, want an immigration system that is robust, but they also want it to be fair. The widespread public response to the Windrush scandal tells us how seriously the general public take the question of fairness in our immigration system.
We now know from the Home Secretary’s statement that the mandatory provision of DNA was neither legal nor fair. He stated that under the law, DNA evidence must always be provided on a voluntary basis. Can he therefore clarify that the demand for DNA evidence was, in itself, illegal, and if so, what legal consequences will follow? Members across the House will no doubt be shocked to learn that among the first victims of this abuse were Gurkhas and Afghans—men and women who put their lives at risk to keep this country safe. Ministers must clarify how long this practice has been taking place, and under what internal Home Office regime it was allowed or encouraged and at what level.
The Home Secretary spoke about reviewing the current structure and processes of our immigration system, which I welcome. He will be aware that the Law Society has said that there are serious flaws in the immigration system, and one indicator of those flaws is the state of appeals. In the last year for which we have records, fully 50% of appeals were upheld, which is an indicator of a system that is internally flawed. Waiting times for immigration appeals have risen by 45%. The Home Secretary talks about independent oversight, but what more effective oversight is there than a system of appeals that is speedy and that works?
Finally, I remind the Home Secretary that the visa and immigration service faces what will possibly be the biggest single influx of applications in its history when EU nationals who live in the UK seek to settle their status post Brexit. It is a matter of urgency that we put in place processes and structures that can guarantee a speedy, efficient and fair resolution of cases.
Sajid Javid
I thank the right hon. Lady for her comments. She asks a number of reasonable and sensible questions to which I will reply. She started by saying that the immigration system must be robust—we all agree with that, absolutely—and that it must also be fair. The issue I have brought to the House today is of concern to us all and something that, at least in this regard, is not fair. As I said at the start, this should not have happened, and there should not have been any request in any immigration case, whether family related or not, for mandatory DNA evidence.
The right hon. Lady asked me to make it clear that this is illegal. My understanding is that the Home Office has never had the express power to require anyone to give DNA. It has never had that express power. There have been a number of Acts over time that have referred to this and tried to make it clear. As I mentioned in my statement, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister was, when she was Home Secretary, the first Home Secretary to put it completely beyond doubt by amending an Act—I think a 2007 Act—and then again in 2014 to make it absolutely clear in law. As I say, the Home Office has never had the power to compel anyone to provide DNA evidence.
The right hon. Lady will know that we want to have a further review to look into this much more deeply and wanted independent assurance of that. She may be interested to know that we are finding practices, in the cases to which I have already referred, that might go back further. For example, in 2009 two pilots were established by the then Government: the familial testing pilot, which used DNA evidence to verify a child’s biological connection with a family during asylum screening; and the human provenance pilot, which used DNA testing and a technique called isotope analysis to attempt to establish whether asylum applicants were from the country of origin that they had claimed. It is therefore important that we have a review that is thorough and goes back as long as it needs to, because, as I say, the Home Office has never had the power to compel people to supply DNA evidence.
The right hon. Lady referred to the broader review of structures and processes. I thank her for welcoming that. She referred to work that has already been done by the Law Society on part of the structures and processes in the immigration system. I have a great regard for the Law Society, which does just this type of work. It is just the kind of organisation we should be listening to.
The right hon. Lady also referred to the appeals process. There have, over recent years, been a number of changes to the appeals process which I think make it fairer, but she is right to raise this issue. This is clearly a very important part of the immigration system, making sure it is fair and that people feel they have had the right to make their case properly and the right to have a person take a second independent look at their case. There is work to be done there.
Finally, the right hon. Lady referred to the EU settlement scheme, which again she is right to refer to. It is a big and ambitious scheme which, over a relatively short period of time, is designed for 3.5 million European citizens. We want them to stay in our country. Whether there is a deal or no deal, we have been very clear that we want them to stay and we want to make that as easy as possible. I do not doubt how ambitious that is. The Home Office has dedicated a significant amount of resources to it and there is significant oversight of the scheme. I can tell her that the reports from the beta testing that has taken place so far, on a limited number of cases in their thousands, have been very encouraging. If I remember correctly, I think most people found that they could register in about 20 minutes through the app system that has been developed. Approximately over 90% of people asked how they found the process said that it was very straightforward and easy to use, but she is right to raise this issue. It is one of those things we all need to get right.
Sir Oliver Heald (North East Hertfordshire) (Con)
I welcome the review and the recognition that the provision of samples should be on a voluntary basis. However, does the Home Secretary agree that firm immigration control is important and that providing this sort of evidence is a way for an applicant to have their application dealt with in a speedy way? It is good evidence and a very useful thing. I do not know whether he would like to clarify that, because it seems to me that, yes, it should not be mandatory, but it is a very good thing and often in the interests of the applicant.
Sajid Javid
My right hon. and learned Friend makes a good point. First and foremost, it is worth stating again that it should never be mandatory to supply DNA evidence. He is right to point out that where individuals feel it can help their case and want to submit DNA evidence voluntarily we should always be open to that. He is also right to say that in many, many cases it helps individuals to make their application and get exactly what they want.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
I am grateful to the Home Secretary for advance sight of the statement, although when I saw the title “Immigration” I hoped perhaps he was coming to provide a more detailed answer to my question to the Prime Minister yesterday about the crisis in the visa system. But then the Home Secretary has his fair share of crises to choose from.
The Scottish National party accepts that from time to time DNA can be a fair and useful tool in processing immigration applications, but it is clear now that it has become dangerously and unethically overused by the Home Office, making life unnecessarily difficult for applicants. We have seen: children who already have British passports being asked for DNA when trying to renew them; other kids being asked for a new test, even though it had already been provided; and, the root of today’s statement, people receiving demands for their DNA even though the guidance said that alternative proof was perfectly acceptable. This is another example of the Home Office being out of control and the result of a migration target with which they are still completely obsessed. It is more evidence that the hostile environment lives on.
We welcome the clarity that it is absolutely not and never will be mandatory for DNA testing, and we welcome the apology that has been offered. Will the Home Secretary confirm that it is now policy that acceptance of the relationship by Government for a different purpose, such as child support, will be sufficient for immigration purposes? Is it the case that if the relationship is accepted for one immigration or nationality purpose, it will not subsequently be challenged unless there are exceptional reasons? Is there guidance on how to handle unexpected DNA results? I understand there used to be publicly available guidance about what happened if a DNA test showed that the biological father was not the presumed father. Where is that guidance, and will it be released and updated?
Finally, sometimes DNA can be the only means of proving a relationship in refugee family applications and Dublin III applications. Such tests used to be funded by the Home Office for family reunion, as many refugee families are destitute. Why not return to that position if the Government are genuinely keen to pursue a humane approach? Of course, they could also do that by adopting the private Member’s Bill on family reunion promoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Angus Brendan MacNeil).
Sajid Javid
First of all, the hon. Gentleman refers to DNA testing with regard to the immigration system being overused. I would just caution him. As I said in my statement, more work needs to be done to see how widespread what should not have happened, the mandatory use, was. In many cases, it is voluntary. I hope the hon. Gentleman is not suggesting that it should not even be allowed in voluntary cases. [Interruption.] No, he is not. Clearly, where an individual feels it would help their application, I think it is right and proper that the Home Office takes that into account. But let me be clear: where it has been mandatory that it is not acceptable. That should not have happened.
The hon. Gentleman asked about other parts of Government, in particular the Department for Work and Pensions, and, where there is voluntary testing, whether it can be used between Departments. I am happy to take that to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, and I will make sure that the hon. Gentleman gets a response on that.
The hon. Gentleman talked about the funding of DNA tests and whether there is help with funding. The key point is that if a DNA test is funded by the Government, for whatever circumstances, it should only be in a case where it is voluntary, not mandatory.
Sir Robert Syms (Poole) (Con)
I thank the Home Secretary for rapidly coming to the House and giving us this statement, which sets out a clear plan of action for how to deal with what may arise. The immigration system is highly complex. I look forward to the Government, when they come forward with the immigration Bill, setting out something new, transparent and workable, and which, with sufficient training, will keep our borders safe.
Sajid Javid
I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. He is absolutely right to point out that the immigration system is highly complex. We have seen evidence today of where it can sometimes go wrong. We should not let that take away from the fact that it successfully processes tens of thousands of applications each year, with lots of hardworking people in the Home Office doing a stellar job. When it goes wrong, however, we need to react. He is right to link this with the new immigration system, which we will introduce after we leave the EU. This is a further lesson on how we can simplify it, maintaining control while also making it fairer and more compassionate.
Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)
The contents of the Home Secretary’s statement are shocking and may have had a devastating impact on families’ lives. It would be helpful to know whether everyone affected has been contacted. I welcome the Home Secretary’s approach but, given that this comes after the Windrush crisis, he will recognise that it means that things have gone badly wrong in the Home Office. So that we can pursue the matter, will he ensure that the full Alex Allan review is sent to the Select Committee? Will the Secretary of State ensure that the review that he has rightly set up is wide enough to include the impact of Government targets, such as the net migration target, on decisions that may have been made on a casework basis?
Sajid Javid
I thank the right hon. Lady for her comments and for her work as Chair of the Home Affairs Committee, which rightly provides scrutiny of such issues. I hope that we have the opportunity to discuss the matter further at the Committee. As I have said, alongside the report that has already been done on this, we will be writing to the Select Committee today with further information that will be published for the whole House.
The right hon. Lady brought up the Windrush scandal, in which, as we now know, many people were wrongly treated. There is ongoing work in terms of lessons to learn from that. As I mentioned in my statement, the work that is being done independently, especially by Wendy Williams, is an important part of the wider review of structures and processes. In relation to Windrush, the right hon. Lady mentioned the Alex Allan review. The Cabinet Secretary is considering that issue, and we will shortly proceed with what we can and cannot publish on that.
Mr John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
The Home Secretary spoke with alacrity and clarity about the need to get the system right and, in the words of the shadow Home Secretary, to make sure that it is both fair and robust. To that end, it is important that people who choose to offer DNA should be encouraged to do so, if it speeds up their cases. All of us across this Chamber have dealt with cases in which there have been long delays and people have been left in almost endless limbo. The voluntary provision of DNA might be a helpful tool for dealing with that. I hope that the Home Secretary will look at that in the review that he is about to carry out.
Sajid Javid
My right hon. Friend makes a very important point. It is good to remind the House that my statement was about the wrongful mandatory use of DNA evidence; as he says, DNA evidence can be a very helpful tool when it is completely voluntary. I understand that the Home Office has, in some cases, helped individuals to do that on an absolutely voluntary basis, because the provision of such evidence can help people, especially if they are in particularly distressing or difficult situations or they are otherwise vulnerable. I think it is helpful to point out that when someone chooses to provide DNA evidence, and it is purely their choice, that should be taken into account.
Sir Edward Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)
I thank the Home Secretary for his statement, and particularly for his tone and apology. Is it not the case, however, that the DNA scandal suggests that the Home Office’s hostile environment policy pushed officials to break the law? Will his structure review consider a root-and-branch reform of this nasty culture and consider giving the processing of immigration and asylum applications to a new unit that is independent from the Home Office—a unit that can ignore political pressures and simply work efficiently, fairly and lawfully?
Sajid Javid
I think the right hon. Gentleman meant to refer to a compliant environment. That is an environment in which we make sure, on behalf of British citizens, that we have a robust immigration policy that is fair to people, but that enables us to be strong on those who set out to abuse our immigration system and enter or settle in our country illegally—for example, in fraudulent cases—not least to be fair to those who use legal routes for migration to or settlement in the UK.
It is worth reminding the right hon. Gentleman that for five years he was part of a Government that worked on compliant environment policies, which began many years before that with previous Governments. He now appears to have a problem with some of those policies, but I do not remember him raising them when I sat alongside him in Cabinet. That said, there absolutely are lessons to learn from this. We must conduct the right review, with independent oversight, and learn those lessons.
Daniel Kawczynski (Shrewsbury and Atcham) (Con)
Unlike the vast majority of my colleagues in this Chamber, I am an immigrant to this country. I am proud to be the first Polish-born British Member of Parliament. When I came here in 1978, if the state had asked me for a DNA sample, I would have had no problems whatsoever with providing that. I disagree fundamentally with the Secretary of State, and I do not understand why he is apologising. Does he have the full support of the Cabinet for his statement? What is the matter with the United Kingdom asking for a DNA sample when somebody comes to this country and seeks to become a British citizen?
Sajid Javid
Let me take my hon. Friend’s question in two parts. First, he pointed out that he is an immigrant. I love immigrants who have settled in our country, and that includes him. On his second point, whether or not he thinks we should mandate the provision of DNA—he is entitled to his own view on that—the law does not allow us to mandate it, and that is why I am apologising
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
Can the Home Secretary confirm that, where the Home Office holds DNA evidence that it did not obtain lawfully, and that it should not have obtained, the evidence will be deleted from its records?
Sajid Javid
That is another good question. I wish I could confirm whether the Home Office does or does not hold such evidence and if it does, to what extent, but I do not have answers to all the questions. When I have the answers and they have been independently looked at, I will be very happy to come back to the hon. Lady and give her a proper response.
Victoria Prentis (Banbury) (Con)
Can the Home Secretary confirm that, where there is other proof of parentage—for example, a birth certificate—a DNA test, even if provided on a voluntary basis, will not be requested?
Sajid Javid
I am happy to confirm that for my hon. Friend. It is worth highlighting that applicants who voluntarily provide DNA often do so because they are in conflict zones, because they are from countries where records have been destroyed or have become unreliable, or because they have become refugees and can no longer access their records. In such a case, someone may voluntarily offer DNA, which can provide a quick way of determining the facts and helping that person.
Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
In his statement, the Home Secretary said that the matter was brought to Ministers’ attention at the end of June. I very much welcome the statement, but I wonder whether Ministers asked questions of officials at any point to reassure themselves that DNA samples and evidence were being used appropriately.
Sajid Javid
As I understand it, the matter was originally brought to Ministers’ attention by a question from the hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Afzal Khan), who is on the Opposition Front Bench. I believe he had concerns as a result of a constituency case and he tabled a written question, to which the Minister for Immigration responded, about Government policy. As I have said today, it has never been Government policy to request DNA mandatorily. The question prompted further investigation, and within days of the matter being brought to the Minister’s attention an internal review was launched. We now have the outcome of that first review, but, as I have said, it is not the conclusion of this. We need more answers.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
How many immigration applications are made each year on the basis of a family relationship, and in what proportion is DNA voluntarily supplied? Presumably, the Home Secretary has been given that information. Will he share it with the House?
Sajid Javid
That is a good question. I do not have the information at hand, but I would be very happy to write to my hon. Friend.
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)
My constituent Maria, who has dual nationality, has been resident—indeed, a teacher—in the UK for 41 years and has been married to a UK national for as long as I have been alive, but she is unable to obtain a UK passport in her married name, by which she has been known in this country for four decades. She has been told that, if she changes back to her name of 40 years ago, she may be able to obtain a passport. Will the Home Secretary look at her case, and exercise some of the common sense that has been lacking thus far?
Sajid Javid
I have listened carefully to what the hon. Gentleman has said about his constituent’s situation. If he sends me further information, I shall be happy to take a look.
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)
Former Gurkha soldiers who served in our armed forces deserve the very best treatment. Specifically, what new speedier systems will be established to support those brave families better in the future?
Sajid Javid
It is worth our reminding ourselves that the Gurkhas have been an integral part of our British armed forces for more than 200 years. We owe them—the Gurkhas who are in Britain and the Gurkhas who are not, and their predecessors—immense gratitude for everything that they have done to help our country. That is precisely why a scheme was already in place, before the DNA issue arose, to help Gurkhas to settle in the UK if they chose to do so. We have discovered through the review that was carried out that when the scheme was expanded to allow even more Gurkhas—and the adult dependent children of Gurkhas who were already here—to settle, some were improperly asked to provide DNA, and, indeed, told that they must do so. In the cases of which I am currently aware in which that was done and visas were refused, we have corrected the position and the visas have been issued, but at this point I cannot tell the House that those are the only cases, because there is a further review to be conducted.
Mr Marcus Jones (Nuneaton) (Con)
I welcome my right hon. Friend’s determination to improve the immigration system. The use of DNA evidence is an important tool, but it is clearly not mandatory under the law. Will my right hon. Friend reassure the significant number of Gurkha veterans and their families who reside in my constituency that he will continue to ensure that all outstanding cases, and those not yet identified, are dealt with expeditiously and in a way that is sympathetic to the people involved, and that those who have been affected will be compensated?
Sajid Javid
I am happy to give my hon. Friend some assurances on just that issue. The cases at which we are currently looking, particularly those involving Gurkhas, will be dealt with expeditiously, as he has requested, and there will be no mandatory requirement for DNA evidence. Should people wish to provide it, that is entirely up to them, and of course it will be considered. As I said in my statement, we are looking at ways of reimbursing those who may have had to spend money on DNA tests.
Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)
The doctrine of ministerial responsibility makes it clear that Ministers are responsible for what goes wrong in their Departments even if they knew nothing about it. I appreciate that the Home Secretary has taken that to heart today, and has come to the House to apologise. There is also a long-standing convention that, when something goes badly wrong in a Department—and surely acting illegally is pretty badly wrong—the only honourable course for the Minister is to resign. Does that doctrine still apply in the Home Office today?
Sajid Javid
I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would be interested in helping to sort things out when they go wrong. That would be the way in which to try to help his constituents if they were caught in something like this. However, it is appropriate that, as we do further work and carry out a review, we look into the chronology of all this and how far it goes back. I have asked officials to establish the exact chronology of events, and to find out what advice was given to what Ministers and when.
Dr Sarah Wollaston (Totnes) (Con)
Mandatory DNA testing is not only illegal but unethical, and it can put lives at risk. I therefore welcome the statement, but does my right hon. Friend agree that in building a fair and humane system, we must also recognise the importance of the confidentiality of medical records? Will he look at a letter that I received from NHS Digital on 22 October, in my capacity as Chair of the Health and Social Care Committee, expressing concern about revised guidance that followed assurances given in the House about the importance of confidentiality earlier this year?
Sajid Javid
My hon. Friend speaks with experience of these issues, and I strongly agree with her that mandatory DNA testing is not only unlawful but unethical. She raised the issue of confidentiality and mentioned a letter that she was sent as Chair of the Health and Social Care Committee. I should be happy to look at that and to respond to her fully.
Mr Paul Sweeney (Glasgow North East) (Lab/Co-op)
The Home Secretary has outlined a shocking and illegal breach of trust on the part of Home Office and immigration officials. He will, of course, be aware that the Home Office is the only Department of its kind in Europe that operates an arbitrary and non-limited form of detention. Under that system, 27,000 people were detained last year, 50% of whom were subsequently released. They included one of my constituents, Duc Nguyen, a Vietnamese national who is a victim of human trafficking and human slavery. It is against Home Office protocols to detain such people. Will the Home Secretary undertake to investigate whether coercive DNA-gathering practices have been taking place in detention centres under the Home Office?
Sajid Javid
The hon. Gentleman states that we have an “arbitrary” approach to detention; I strongly rebut that—we do not have such an approach. He should know that when anyone is detained, there must be a reasonable prospect of removal within a reasonable time. In recognising that improvements could nevertheless be made to our detention system, we commissioned the Shaw review, and as the hon. Gentleman may recall, I came to the House not so long ago to respond to the review and accepted many of its recommendations.
Mr Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)
Having repeated his commitment to improving the fairness and humanity of the immigration system, will my right hon. Friend pay particular attention to the system of visit visas, which causes so much misery, so often, to thousands of British people just because their families happen to be outside the European Union?
Sajid Javid
My hon. Friend raises an important point. As we define and set up a new immigration system when we leave the EU, we shall have much broader scope and opportunities to improve that situation.
Vicky Ford (Chelmsford) (Con)
Immigration cases are often complex, and I thank the Home Office and its team for the sensitive and timely manner in which they have dealt with a number of cases that have crossed my desk recently. I also thank my right hon. Friend for the wider review of the immigration system. Surely what is most important is that we get the structures right so that fast and clear decisions can be made when necessary.
Sajid Javid
I thank my hon. Friend for her comments. She is absolutely right about the importance of that wider review of the structures and processes. She refers to cases that she has had to bring to the attention of Ministers. Although it seems from what she said that those have been resolved, Members should not feel that they must keep bringing cases to Ministers’ attention. I should like to see a system in which the vast majority of cases are sorted out properly in the first place, and that is the kind of system that I am trying to build.
Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)
I welcome the comprehensive review of the immigration system that the Home Secretary has announced. In that fair and humane spirit, will he incorporate the provisions of my British Indian Ocean Territory (Citizenship) Bill, which is on the Order Paper for consideration tomorrow, in the provisions of the new nationality legislation? They would give British citizenship to people descended from British subjects who were forcibly removed from the Chagos Islands in the late 1960s.
Sajid Javid
I commend my hon. Friend for spotting this opportunity. He has brought forward a Bill that I know that he has thought long and hard about, and we have discussed it. It might be helpful—if he feels that it would be helpful—for him to have a meeting with the Immigration Minister to discuss the matter further.
Chris Skidmore (Kingswood) (Con)
The Home Secretary has mentioned ensuring that we have fairness in our immigration system. Fairness also means dealing with abuse of the system, particularly through the use of fraudulent documentation. When I was a Minister, I was struck by the increasing complexity of fraudulent cases, particularly those that the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency was investigating in Swansea. Will the Home Secretary give an assessment of the extent of fraudulent documentation in the immigration system and tell us what the Home Office is doing to tackle it?
Sajid Javid
My hon. Friend is right to point that out. Everyone wants a fair and compassionate system, but they also want that system to be robust and for the rules to be enforced. If someone tries to take advantage of the system, clearly that must be pursued. I referred in my statement to Operation Fugal, and I understand that one reason why it was begun was that a pattern of fraud was recognised by Home Office officials. When many of those cases were investigated by the police, the Crown Prosecution Service brought charges against individuals. I will not talk about those particular cases, for obvious reasons, but that helps to demonstrate that when people are engaging in wrongdoing, we will pursue that.
Tom Pursglove (Corby) (Con)
I commend my right hon. Friend’s leadership and the robust steps he is taking, but can he confirm whether there are any known outstanding cases? If so, will the processing of them be expedited?
Sajid Javid
There may be some known cases that are outstanding and we are expediting them. Operation Fugal addresses some complex cases involving DNA that might have been mandatorily required and that need further investigation, but we will try to deal with those within days when we can.
Maggie Throup (Erewash) (Con)
My right hon. Friend alluded in his statement to guidance that was unclear or wrong. Can he assure the House that guidance for the new immigration system that will be put in place as we leave the EU will be correct and clear?
Sajid Javid
Yes, I am happy to give that assurance, and it is a perfectly fair question. When a Home Secretary stands at the Dispatch Box and says that there was wrong guidance in the past, one of the lessons that can be learned without needing a review is that we must be much more careful about guidance in the future.
Alan Mak (Havant) (Con)
On my right hon. Friend’s wider review of structures and processes, will he ensure that Border Force, a key Home Office agency, fully considers the potential of new and advanced technologies in making sure that our future border security system is both fair and efficient?
Sajid Javid
I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. Border Force and some of the technology it uses are already way ahead of the situation in many other countries. However, as we develop a new immigration system, Border Force has been looking at what other countries have done that we could learn from. Lessons were learned, for example, from a recent exercise with Australia, and we can look at some things that are being done there.
Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)
Anyone choosing to drive on Britain’s roads does so with the understanding that from time to time a police officer may stop them and require them to provide a specimen of breath, failing which they could be liable to prosecution. In those circumstances, does my right hon. Friend agree that a system that is optional and scrupulously safeguards the human rights of immigrants is exactly as it should be?
Sajid Javid
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. He has again emphasised that providing DNA should be optional, because it can help those individuals, and if they choose to provide it, we should take that seriously, but it should be just that—optional, not mandatory.
Will Quince (Colchester) (Con)
I thank the Home Secretary for his statement and welcome the steps that he is taking to put this situation right. Does he agree that it is essential in cases of this nature that the Government act not only quickly, but with openness and transparency?
Sajid Javid
I agree, and that is why I decided to publish and put in the Library for the whole House to see the internal review that has already been done and was commissioned within days. That is why I will be writing to the Home Affairs Committee today as well, and no doubt there will be future opportunities to keep the House updated, whether by me, the Minister for Immigration or another Minister.
Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)
I welcome the Home Secretary’s openness and bluntness in his statement. DNA evidence will clearly be useful in cases when people have come from areas of conflict and other forms of records might no longer be available. How will he look to set out to those who are looking to apply for immigration status in this country how DNA evidence will help them, but is not required to be provided by them?
Sajid Javid
My hon. Friend is right to raise that point. Let me refer again to the scheme to help Afghan nationals. Afghanistan is a good example of a clear conflict zone. Many Afghan nationals, such as interpreters, help British forces, and we owe them a duty of respect and have a responsibility to them. I had already made changes a few months ago to welcome more of them to settle in our country, if they wish, and from a safety point of view we must help in such cases. Under that scheme, they should not have been told that this was mandatory. Once the system is explained, people might believe that providing DNA will help them and then choose to do so. In those cases involving Afghan nationals from that conflict zone, given the work they did for this country, we can even look to pay for that, but the key point is that the process should always be optional for them.
Michael Tomlinson (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (Con)
I welcome the news that my right hon. Friend has set up an urgent review, but given that DNA evidence has been sought from applicants under successive Governments, does he agree that this issue should not be politicised, as happens all too often?
Sajid Javid
I agree, but a decision on whether an issue is politicised cannot be taken by just one side of the House. This is an important point, and it is worth reminding ourselves that after the wrongs done to the Windrush generation were first discovered, a review of historical cases over the summer showed that almost half those cases in which people suffered detriment took place under the previous Labour Government. Since then, there has been a much more co-operative approach across the House. I think that that is what the public want to see, and it is what they would want to see in this case as well.
Matt Warman (Boston and Skegness) (Con)
A compassionate immigration system is, above all, an efficient immigration system, so I welcome the review my right hon. Friend is carrying out. Will he, however, commit that in the new immigration system, which will of course apply to far more people once we have left the European Union, he will make the case for using DNA to speed up applications, because that can be very much in the interests of applicants?
Sajid Javid
That is an important point. I think it is already the situation that where someone chooses to provide DNA evidence, it generally speeds up their case, because DNA is pretty straightforward to analyse and to make a determination about compared with cases involving paperwork that sometimes goes back and forth between the applicant and the Home Office. In cases where people choose to do this, the matter should be dealt with as quickly as possible.
Luke Graham (Ochil and South Perthshire) (Con)
I welcome my right hon. Friend’s announcement that he will review the immigration system. Can he assure the House that concerns raised in cases from across the United Kingdom will be taken into account when forming these new structures to ensure that our new policies and system will provide not only clarity, but consistency across the UK?
Sajid Javid
My hon. Friend is right. As we review our immigration system and consider any changes, it is crucial that they will apply clearly and uniformly in exactly the same way throughout the United Kingdom.
Eddie Hughes (Walsall North) (Con)
It is 34 years since Dr Alec Jeffreys pioneered the use of DNA finger- printing at Leicester University, which we in the UK should be incredibly proud of. Can the Minister assure me that that will continue to be an option for settling immigration cases?
Sajid Javid
I can assure my hon. Friend that when someone makes the choice for themselves to provide biometric details or evidence, such as through DNA fingerprinting, we should absolutely take that into account, not least to help them with their case.
Bill Presented
Fisheries Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Mr Secretary Gove, supported by the Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, Secretary Dominic Raab, Dr Secretary Fox, Secretary David Mundell, Secretary Alun Cairns and Secretary Karen Bradley, presented a Bill to make provision about policy objectives in relation to fisheries, fishing and aquaculture; to make provision about access to British fisheries; to make provision about the licensing of fishing boats; to make provision about the determination and distribution of fishing opportunities; to make provision enabling schemes to be established for charging for unauthorised catches of sea fish; to make provision about grants in connection with fishing, aquaculture or marine conservation; to make provision about the recovery of costs in respect of the exercise of public functions relating to fish or fishing; to confer powers to make further provision in connection with fisheries, aquaculture or aquatic animals; to make provision about byelaws and orders relating to the exploitation of sea fisheries; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed (Bill 278) with explanatory notes (Bill 278-EN).
Fisheries Bill
Wednesday 21st November 2018
(6 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Fisheries Bill 2017-19 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Michael Gove)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
It is a pleasure to introduce the Second Reading of the Fisheries Bill under your chairmanship, Madam Deputy Speaker. If I may, I should like to begin my introduction of this legislation on a personal note. My father was a fish merchant, and my family have made their living from the sea for generations. That has given me a deep personal appreciation of the risks and sacrifices undertaken by those who go to sea to ensure that we have healthy and nutritious food. There are Members of this House who know those who have made the ultimate sacrifice to provide us with the food that we enjoy, and I would like to say that those who work so hard and take such risks to bring us the bounty of the sea will be first and foremost in my mind in our deliberations today. We are in all their debt.
I want to underline the fact that I am deeply grateful to the team at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs for the work they have done on the preparation of the White Paper that preceded this Bill, as well as on the Bill, the explanatory memorandum and everything that goes with them. DEFRA has some of the finest civil servants in the Government, but the fisheries team stand out. They are men and women of dedication, deep knowledge and commitment, and I am grateful to them, as I am also to my predecessors in this role as Secretary of State. Every single one of my predecessors has sought to do their best for the fishing industry, and it would be invidious to single any of them out. However, I want to pay a special tribute to three ministerial or ex-ministerial colleagues. My right hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Mr Paterson) has done an enormous amount to champion the interests of the fishing communities across the United Kingdom. My right hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Richard Benyon) has done an enormous amount to improve the operation of the common fisheries policy while we have been in it. And the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, my hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice), has been an outstanding negotiator on Britain’s behalf, and in his time in office—which I hope will continue for many years to come—he has done an enormous amount for coastal communities across the country.
One of the pleasures in bringing forward the Bill is to be able to acknowledge that, whatever position individuals may have taken in the referendum on our membership of the European Union, there is a widespread recognition across the House that the common fisheries policy did damage. It did environmental damage to fish stocks and to our marine environment. It also did economic damage to the fishing industry, which has been such a critical part of this country’s heritage and which can again become a vital part of our economic future. The common fisheries policy did social damage as well, because coastal communities suffered. Their economies were hollowed out and businesses collapsed as a result of its operation. Whatever position we may have taken in that referendum, taking back control of our waters, leaving the common fisheries policy and once again becoming an independent coastal state will give us an opportunity to lead environmentally, to revive the fishing industry economically and to ensure that our coastal communities once more have the opportunity for a renaissance.
Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP)
I agree with the Secretary of State, on behalf of the Scottish National party, about the damage the CFP did. However, the political text on the withdrawal agreement states that there will be:
“Cooperation…internationally to ensure fishing at sustainable levels, promote resource conservation… the development of measures for the conservation, rational management and regulation of fisheries… a new fisheries agreement on, inter alia, access to waters and quota shares”
and so on. That is the current form, in black and white. Although that might mean something new and better, is it not the case that, given the UK’s negotiating failures so far, what we will end up with will look very similar to the terms of the CFP?
Michael Gove
No, not at all. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, for whom I have enormous respect, for acknowledging many of the defects and flaws in the common fisheries policy, but we have been clear—this is reflected in both the draft withdrawal agreement and the accompanying draft political declaration on our future economic partnership—that we will be negotiating at the December 2020 Fisheries Council as an independent coastal state, ready to ensure that we decide on access to our waters, that we decide on total allowable catches and that we decide on quotas, and it is on that basis that we can ensure that the interests of our coastal communities are respected.
Of course, as an independent coastal state, we will be governed by the United Nations convention on the law of the sea. That landmark piece of international law makes it clear that all independent coastal states will negotiate with their neighbours to ensure that the environmental health of fish stocks are preserved and that an equitable share of each nation’s bounty can be agreed, because we as a nation depend for the fish we eat not just on the fish in our waters—of course, we have the healthiest stocks of any country in the existing European Union—but on negotiating with other independent coastal states, including Norway, the Faroes, Iceland and others, to ensure that we get the mix of fish that consumers demand and that society has a right to expect.
Mrs Sheryll Murray (South East Cornwall) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that any party represented in this Chamber that promotes continued membership of the European Union is letting our fishermen down, because it is already promoting continued membership of the common fisheries policy?
Michael Gove
My hon. Friend knows what she is talking about, and she is absolutely right. The Scottish National party wants us to stay in the European Union, and therefore in the common fisheries policy, and the Scottish National party’s MEPs, when given the chance to vote in the European Parliament, voted to stay in the common fisheries policy. However, I do want to acknowledge that there are independent members of the SNP who do not toe the line of their leadership. There are individual voters who have lent the SNP their votes in the past but who do not agree with that view. Also, to be fair, the Scottish Government and the Minister responsible, Fergus Ewing, in helping to ensure that this legislation can work for Scotland, have operated in a constructive manner, as indeed have officials in the devolved Administrations—sadly, we do not have the Executive in Northern Ireland, but the officials there have negotiated in good faith, as have the Labour Administration in Cardiff. I want to underline that the legislation we bring forward will see powers moving to the devolved Administrations. It will be a diffusion of power and a strengthening of devolution.
Richard Benyon (Newbury) (Con)
Many individuals and organisations campaigned very hard to get the firmest rules on sustainability as part of reform of the common fisheries policy. Will my right hon. Friend give them an assurance that any vessel fishing in British waters after we leave the European Union will be required to maintain the highest levels of sustainability for those fish stocks and to work with the Government to do so?
Michael Gove
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. The Bill makes it clear that there are principles, to which the Government will be held, that ensure that fishing will be sustainable and that our marine environment will be restored to full health. The Bill will give the Government powers to ensure that no vessel can fish in our waters unless it adheres to those high environmental standards.
Kate Hoey (Vauxhall) (Lab)
Can the Secretary of State just be absolutely clear about this? At the end of March, we will leave the common fisheries policy, but then we will immediately be back in it, by giving the EU the right to make all decisions for however long the transition goes on. It worries me very much when I hear more and more Ministers talking on the “Today” programme about the transition being extended again and again. Why did he allow the Prime Minister to accept in the withdrawal agreement that fisheries would stay as part of the transition?
Michael Gove
I will give the hon. Lady, for whom I have enormous respect and affection, one piece of perhaps unsolicited advice: I find that in the morning it is better not to listen to the “Today” programme; Radio 3, or even Radio 2, ensures that I have a more equable morning. However, she makes a very important point about the transition period. A number of Members of this House hoped that in the transition period, when it was agreed earlier this year, the common fisheries policy would be outside, but there is one very significant departure from the overall transition period, which applies to the common fisheries policy, which is that the European Union acknowledged that from 2021 we will be an independent coastal state. Therefore, when we negotiate in the December 2020 Fisheries Council, although we will still legally be a member of the European Union, we will be negotiating then as an independent coastal state. That is why I said at the time that we need to keep our eyes on the prize of making sure that after that transition period we can have all the opportunities to do the right thing environmentally, economically and socially, as I mentioned earlier.
Several hon. Members rose—
Michael Gove
I would like to take as many interventions as possible, in fairness to all those Members who necessarily cannot stay for the duration of the debate.
Owen Smith (Pontypridd) (Lab)
A moment ago, the Secretary of State offered the House some warm words about his commitment to sustainability. Could he therefore explain why the Bill contains only one vague mention of maximum sustainable yields? Can he give us a guarantee that, under his new vision for fisheries management, we will adhere to maximum sustainable yields and to scientific advice, as opposed to what we have done for years and years, which is to allow total catches to exceed those sustainable yields by up to 50%?
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
I am grateful to the Secretary of State for giving way on that point, because it is germane to the point about co-operation with our neighbouring states and the implications arising from the transitional arrangements. Can he tell the House how the EU-Norway-Faroes mackerel deal, which is currently up for renegotiation and renewal in 2020, will be handled in practical terms, and what his Government are doing to ensure that the voice of our fishermen is heard in that important negotiation?
Michael Gove
We will be taking part in bilateral and multilateral negotiations in the run-up to December 2020, in anticipation of being, as I have said, a fully independent coastal state from January 2021. We will be negotiating with all our neighbours to ensure that we get the very best deal for our fishermen. On the right hon. Gentleman’s second point, which was very fair, about collaboration with fishing organisations, in preparing the Bill we have worked with the Scottish Fishermen’s Federation, the National Federation of Fishermen’s Organisations and a variety of other producer organisations, and every single one of them has said that it wants to see the Bill on the statute book. Of course there will be debate in Committee, and there may well be amendments that can refine and improve what we want to do, but there is not a single representative organisation that speaks for the fisheries industry or for fish processors anywhere that does not want to see the Bill on the statute book as quickly as possible.
Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)
The one fly in the ointment is, of course, the elephant in the room: the withdrawal deal that the Prime Minister has produced in recent weeks. Can the Secretary of State confirm that article 6(2) of the protocol relating to Northern Ireland could be interpreted to read that every EU fisheries regulation in existence will continue to be applied to Northern Ireland fishermen alone if the backstop is applied?
Michael Gove
I do not believe that is the right interpretation. I do recognise that a number of colleagues across the House have concerns about the backstop arrangement, but let me underline one point. Under the backstop arrangement, were it ever to come into place, the United Kingdom would be an independent coastal state. Some people have read the withdrawal agreement and taken it to mean that somehow the common fisheries policy would be extended if the backstop were to come into operation and that we would not have control over our territorial waters and our exclusive economic zone. That is not the case. Even in the event of the backstop coming into operation, we will be an independent coastal state, and fishermen, whether they are in Northern Ireland or anywhere else in the United Kingdom, will be able to take advantage of the additional fishing opportunities that arise as a result.
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)
Is the Secretary of State aware that article 6(2) of the Northern Ireland protocol enables vessels registered in Northern Ireland, but not vessels registered anywhere else in the United Kingdom, to sell their goods into the European Union tariff free? Does he therefore accept that vessels registered in Scotland, and indeed in the rest of the UK, will be at a competitive disadvantage when that part of the backstop comes into force, which, incidentally, under article 154 will be immediately?
Michael Gove
The hon. and learned Lady draws attention to an important point. On the backstop, as the House will hear at other points, there are some who argue that Northern Ireland is placed at a competitive advantage compared with other parts of the United Kingdom, and there are some who argue that Northern Ireland is disadvantaged relative to other parts of the United Kingdom. One thing that is clear, however, is that Northern Ireland—an integral and valued part of the United Kingdom—when we leave the European Union, will leave alongside the rest of the United Kingdom and be part of one independent coastal state that is capable of taking advantage of all these fisheries opportunities.
John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)
Will the Secretary of State give us some idea of his ambition for after we leave the common fisheries policy? It seems to me that we could have a big expansion of our domestic fishing industry, with a lot more fish landed and a big increase in fish processing in the UK. Is that his ambition, and how big will it be?
Michael Gove
A whopper, I am tempted to say. My right hon. Friend is right. Even the Scottish Government acknowledge that there could be a £1 billion bonanza for the United Kingdom if we manage fish stocks effectively. That makes it all the more surprising, when the analysis of the Scottish Government’s own statisticians has the bonanza at that level, that Scottish National party politicians in Europe and elsewhere are standing in the way of our leaving the common fisheries policy, in stark contrast to Scottish Conservatives.
Michael Gove
I am very happy to give way to a distinguished English Conservative.
Richard Drax
If the backstop is not implemented but the implementation period is extended, can the Secretary of State confirm that that would mean we have to remain in the CFP beyond the 21 months? Is he aware—perhaps he can reassure the House—that the French are circling, as we all expect them to do, with Sabine Weyand saying that the British
“would have to swallow a link between access to products and fisheries in future agreements”?
Michael Gove
I note the reporting of what Ms Sabine Weyand said. One of the interesting things—again, I alluded to this earlier—is that different Members will have different assessments of the advantages and disadvantages that lie within the draft withdrawal agreement, but it is instructive that the negotiator on behalf of the European Commission, Ms Weyand, felt that she had to sweeten the pill, particularly on fisheries, to get EU nations to sign, because there is an acknowledgment on the part of EU nations that UK negotiators have safeguarded access to our waters and secured our status as an independent coastal state. The initial negotiating mandate of the European Union has not been satisfied in these negotiations with respect to fisheries, but the red lines laid down by our Prime Minister have been defended. It is absolutely critical, without prejudice to any other conversations, to acknowledge that.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
On the powers of the devolved nations, the Secretary of State said during the Vote Leave campaign that one of the Brexit dividends is that immigration powers could be devolved to Scotland. Immigration is crucial to the seafood processing industry and to the fishing boats, particularly on the west coast of Scotland. Does he agree that Scotland should get control of immigration so we can manage our fishing industry?
Michael Gove
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. I am grateful to those who work in the fish processing industry, and indeed to those who work offshore, who come from across the world, and not just from European economic area nations, to help ensure that industry is strong. That is why my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has made it clear that our post-Brexit immigration policy will be truly global in scope and focused on making sure this country is an economic success, emphasising that we have taken back control.
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
The Secretary of State mentioned the red lines. The Prime Minister has told the House on numerous occasions that we will leave the customs union, yet the withdrawal agreement clearly envisages that we would remain in the customs union under the backstop and that, having entered, we could not leave unless the EU consented—the so-called “Hotel California” arrangement. The Prime Minister has also assured the House in very strong terms that she would never contemplate a border down the Irish sea, yet in the agreement, including the Northern Ireland protocol, exactly that is envisaged. I regret to say that, given that, I find it difficult to take seriously the commitments that the Prime Minister has now given to the House. If I have trouble believing her, why should I believe the Secretary of State?
Michael Gove
My right hon. Friend, like all hon. Members, must make his own judgment on what he chooses to believe, and on who and what he wishes to support.
Several hon. Members rose—
Michael Gove
I will answer my right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) and the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown) before giving way. We have been told at different times that we will have to bend or buckle when it comes to fisheries. The Prime Minister and the negotiating team have absolutely not bent or buckled, which is why the European Commission’s own negotiator has had to attempt to sweeten the pill.
It will not have escaped my right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford that other countries are expressing their dissatisfaction with the withdrawal agreement for precisely that reason. He spent a distinguished time as a Minister and as the Conservative party’s Europe spokesman, and he must know that if other countries are complaining that they have lost out, it is a sign that this country has secured an advantage.
Dr Sarah Wollaston (Totnes) (Con)
Further to the Secretary of State’s earlier point about expanding fishing opportunities, I am happy to report that Brixham in my constituency has had another record year and in 2017 landed over £40 million-worth of fish, but it is now limited because it is at full stretch. Brixham is anxiously waiting to hear what my right hon. Friend will do to guarantee that it can have access to funds such as the European maritime and fisheries fund to allow it to expand. Brixham is really keen to get on with it.
Michael Gove
My hon. Friend makes a good point. I congratulate her on championing her constituency so successfully, and I thank the fishermen of Brixham for their work. In the EU we have the EMFF, which provides support for individual fishing communities, and this Bill makes provision for a replacement so that grants and loans can be provided for just such investment.
Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)
I want to believe everything the Secretary of State has said, but he will know that the industry has a long memory, and it can remember the last-minute sell-out in the original Common Market negotiations. The industry still fears that is going to happen again. Can he give a categorical answer that under no circumstances will any further concessions be granted?
Michael Gove
I have been very clear about how determined we are to fight on fisheries. We have defended our red lines. My hon. Friend mentions what happened in the 1970s. I was a boy then, but the consequences had a profound impact on my family and on my father’s business. There is no way I can ever forget what happened then, and no way that I will be anything other than a resolute champion for the interests of coastal communities such as the one my hon. Friend serves and represents so admirably.
Maria Caulfield (Lewes) (Con)
According to the withdrawal agreement, we will be in the common fisheries policy until December 2020. Who will represent the UK at the annual Fisheries Council meeting in 2019, after we have left the EU?
Michael Gove
The Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice).
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Order. The Secretary of State has been very generous in giving way, but it is important that he is allowed to answer one question before taking another.
Michael Gove
Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker. You are right to say that I want to make sure I can answer as many questions as possible, from Members in as many parts of the House as possible, but this is a well subscribed debate and I have been able to make only about two or three of the points I wanted to make while I have been answering questions.
Michael Gove
But because this legislation is so important and because of the passions aroused, I am happy to give way to my hon. Friend.
Mr Walker
I thank the Secretary of State for that. It would be nice if we could talk a little more about fish, and I want to talk briefly about bluefin tuna. For the first time in about 50 or 60 years, these wonderful fish are appearing off the shore of Cornwall and up the west coast. When we have left the EU, will we look at having a recreational catch-and-release fishery for bluefin tuna? If we could discuss that, and if I could bring a delegation to see the Secretary of State to discuss it, I would be extremely grateful, because there is huge commercial and conservational opportunity attached to such a fishery.
Michael Gove
I quite agree and we are actively exploring that. One of the points I was due to make is that recreational fishing is a crucial part of the life of the nation; it provides, through tourism and other expenditure, support for many important parts of our rural and coastal economy.
Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
A bluefin tuna was washed up on Tolsta beach in Lewis last weekend. I would be happy to join any delegation with the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker), because we have the same interests and needs. On the wider point, the Secretary of State mentioned “bend or buckle” a while ago. In the debate on 27 February 2018 in Westminster Hall, an astonishing number of Tory MPs supported this claim:
“Ideally, at 11 pm on 29 March 2019, we need to have absolute and 100% control of our fisheries, without it being part of any implementation or transition deal.”—[Official Report, 27 February 2018; Vol. 636, c. 290WH.]
That was echoed by loads of Tory MPs. Was that bend or was it buckle?
Michael Gove
Interestingly, an extraordinary number of Conservative MPs were in that debate because an extraordinary number of Conservative MPs want the very best for our fishing industry. Scottish Conservative MPs have stood up for coastal communities in a way that the Scottish National party has signally failed to do. I will tell the hon. Gentleman who bent and who buckled. It was the SNP MEPs who bent and buckled in Strasbourg and Brussels when they agreed to keep us imprisoned in the CFP.
Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)
There are at least 65 co-operatives in the fishing industry, which are worth more than £48 million at the moment. Would not one of the best ways to help boost the fishing co-operatives sector, which keeps profits in hard-pressed coastal communities, be to ensure a radical reform of the quota system, two thirds of which is held by just three opaque companies?
Michael Gove
The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. As we leave the CFP, there is an opportunity to reallocate quota. We have already seen a reallocation, with a 13% uplift for the under-10 metre fleet under this Government. There is a crucial point to make: some of the quota that is necessarily allocated is allocated for the types of stocks—pelagic stocks—of which the under- 10 metre fleet, simply because of the nature of where those fish are found, would be poorly placed to take advantage. So he is absolutely right to say there is a case for reform, but a significant amount of quota could not, at this stage, be allocated in the way that he might suggest.
Michael Gove
I am keen to allow my hon. Friend, who has shown remarkable patience, the chance to intervene.
Rebecca Pow
I thank the Secretary of State for allowing me to intervene and not avoiding me altogether. We have talked about a “bonanza” of fish and about recreational fishing, but will he give assurances that we will not bend from our standards on sustainability? After all, we are talking about a wild harvest; fishermen have to make money, but they cannot make it unless the stocks are sustainable. Does he also agree that the Bill has included references to the 25-year environment plan and the nature capital approach and that this is the right way to go, demonstrating that our Government have the environment and sustainability at their heart?
Michael Gove
My hon. Friend is absolutely right: we adhere to the principles behind the maximum sustainable yield. The early clauses in this Bill set out clear principles by which any Secretary of State must be bound in order to put the environment and sustainability first. More than that, as we all know, under the CFP we have not had policies that put the environment first. Now, as an independent coastal state, we can work with organisations ranging from Greenpeace to Charles Clover’s Blue Marine Foundation to ensure that we have a policy that is right environmentally and right economically.
Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)
I am pleased that we are now starting to put the environment first, but almost 80% of the UK fishing fleet is small-scale and it lands only 11% of the fish by value. Given that this fleet is not only more profitable to local economies, but employs more local fishermen and uses more sustainable fishing practices, will the Bill allow larger quotas to independent vessels under 10 metres?
Michael Gove
Absolutely, the Bill explicitly allows us to ensure that new quota can be allocated to the under- 10 metre fleet, which exhibits all the virtues that my hon. Friend outlined. As I mentioned in response to the question from the hon. Member for Harrow West (Gareth Thomas), it would be inappropriate to transfer some aspects of quota, but it has been the case, not least under the leadership of my right hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Richard Benyon), that we have already been transferring quota to the under-10 metre fleet, for the reasons that my hon. Friend mentions.
Mr Alister Jack (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con)
I thank the Secretary of State for giving way; he is generous with his time. On the comments made by the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Angus Brendan MacNeil), the Scottish Conservatives can safely say they will take no lessons on the CFP from the SNP, who would sell us straight back into it if they had their way of re-entering Europe.
Michael Gove
My hon. Friend is absolutely right on that. I am tempted to say, because so far we have not had a pun in this debate, that the SNP wants to have its hake and eat it. The truth is that SNP Members pose as defenders of Scotland’s fishing communities, yet all the time we were in the EU scarcely a peep they emitted on behalf of the fishing industry. Now that we are leaving, they still want to tie us to the CFP, because they put the abstract ideology of their separatist sentiment ahead of the real interests of Scotland’s communities, and that is why they were so decisively rejected by Scotland’s coastal communities at the last general election.
Steve Double (St Austell and Newquay) (Con)
This point has been made, but I will make it again. I have the great honour of representing the fishing village of Mevagissey. The Secretary of State may remember that he promised to come to see the fishermen there—they are still very much looking forward to his visit. That thriving fishing community is made up of under-10 metre vessels. So will he confirm that this Bill will provide opportunities for our under-10 metre fleet to take advantage of the new quota that will be available, so that it can grow, thrive and rebuild the great industry that we have lost?
Michael Gove
My hon. Friend makes an important point, one that was highlighted by my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Dr Offord)—
Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)
Will the Secretary of State give way?
Michael Gove
I am about to use a word that I rarely use, but I am going to use it with greater pleasure than I have ever used it before—no! I am tempted to say: no, nae, never, no more. The one thing I did want to underline is that the under-10 metre fleet, for the reasons outlined before, is a crucial part of the health and vibrancy of coastal communities and of our fishing industry overall. The profitable nature of its enterprise and its commitment to high environmental standards should be emulated by others.
Several hon. Members rose—
Michael Gove
I am going to make a wee bit of progress now, if that is okay. One thing that is clear about this Bill is that it has benefited from the support of the devolved Administrations and of non-governmental organisations. As a result, it now allows us to ensure that, as an independent coastal state, we can do what so many have wished, which is fully control access to our own waters and allocate quotas as we wish. Clauses 7 and 8, 11 and 12 will revoke the existing rights of EU nations to access UK waters and ensure that the UK will license individual vessels from other nations on our terms, in a way that is consistent with high environmental principles, to demonstrate that we will have taken back control, not just of our territorial waters, but of our exclusive economic zone extending 200 miles out around the whole United Kingdom. We will make sure, as a number of hon. Members have asked, that we put conservation first.
Our fish are a great natural, renewable resource. We need to make sure that the lessons of the past are learned and that the mistakes that have been made while we have been in the common fisheries policy, and that other states have made through over-fishing, are at last corrected. We need to make sure that the network of marine protected areas and marine conservation zones around our nation are used to regenerate fish stocks. We need to make sure that we have available the effective data so that we can set quotas and total allowable catches sustainably. We need to make sure that we use the world-leading science available in this country from CEFAS and others to ensure that we set a global gold standard for conservation.
One particular way in which the environmental argument has been accepted by some but applied in a way that can be economically harmful and sometimes environmentally counterproductive is the way in which the discard ban has operated. It is quite right that we should seek to restrict fishing that is carried out in a way that might damage the health and resilience of individual species, but because of the nature of much of the fishing that goes on in our waters, particularly but not exclusively in the case of the under-10 fleet, there is a risk of bycatch. No matter how sophisticated the gear, there is a risk that some of the fish caught belong to some of the species that we wish to protect and that these choke species, having been caught by fishermen at a level that threatens sustainability, have to be deployed in a way that means that the fishermen can no longer carry on their business.
Michael Gove
No, not at this point.
We will introduce, as New Zealand, Norway and other nations have, an approach that means that fishermen can catch and can land, but if they exceed the discard ban, they will pay a penalty. That will ensure that we have a sustainable approach to fisheries, that we enable fishermen to carry on going to sea and that we combine their economic resilience with the environmental resilience of the stocks that we wish to preserve. That change is an example of how we can change individual common fisheries policy rules and regulations by giving effect to the Bill and the framework that it will provide. It is clear from all the representative fisheries organisations that they recognise that individual aspects of the CFP need remedial action and reform. That can happen only if we allow the Bill to pass, which is why it is so important that it makes a speedy passage through the House.
Another point made by several hon. Friends and hon. Members is about the importance of protecting not only diversity at sea but diversity in the fishing industry itself. We need to ensure not only that the pelagic fleets that sail from Peterhead and Fraserburgh have new opportunities, but that those that fish closer to coastal waters—often, the under-10 metre fleets that colleagues have praised—have an opportunity to take advantage of new opportunities. As a result of this legislation, we will have additional quota that we can reallocate in a way that is equitable, fair and sustainable.
Angus Brendan MacNeil
Before he moves on, will the Secretary of State give way?
Angus Brendan MacNeil
What do the Secretary of State’s words on bycatch and everything else mean for spurdog bycatchers?
Michael Gove
It will be easier for those who are responsible for that bycatch to ensure that they can continue to fish in a way that is both environmentally sustainable and economically resilient. I will come back to the hon. Gentleman in due course.
Owen Smith
I am grateful to the Secretary of State for giving way; he is being very generous. I am trying to reconcile two things that he has said: first, that we are going to be more mindful of sustainability, and secondly, that we are going to catch more fish. The total allowable sole catch in the Irish sea is currently set at 40,000, when the scientific advice is that it should be zero. Will we be catching more or fewer sole in the Irish sea under the Secretary of State’s future plans?
Michael Gove
When it comes to individual species, we will follow the scientific advice that CEFAS and others give us. Overall, however, as we take back control we will have the opportunity to catch more fish in our own waters. The majority of the fish that are caught in UK waters are not caught by UK vessels. Let me give the hon. Gentleman one example. I do not know whether he knows what percentage of cod caught in the English channel is caught by French boats—I do not know whether anyone in the House does—but it is 83%. What percentage of cod caught in the English channel is caught by UK vessels? Just 7%. That is a fundamental inequity in the allocation of national resources. The Bill will allow us to decide who catches what and where, and in line with which environmental principles.
It is not often that a piece of legislation comes before the House that provides us with an opportunity to say to some of the most fragile communities in our country, our coastal communities, “There is real hope and a chance of an economic renaissance. Your suffering has been recognised and we can make a positive difference.” It is not often that legislation comes before the House that, if passed, would see an industry potentially double in size and in its capacity to generate new jobs and new economic opportunities. It is very, very rare that legislation that comes before the House achieves such social and economic goals and at the same time allows this country to underline its credentials as a leader in environmental practice of a kind that other countries would wish to emulate. Not only does this Fisheries Bill manage to bring hope to coastal communities and to reinforce the economic gains of leaving the European Union, but it underlines our credentials as an environmental leader, which is why I commend the legislation to the House.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Order. I have now to announce the result of today’s deferred Divisions.
In respect of the question relating to taxation relief and international tax enforcement (Jersey), the Ayes were 302 and the Noes were 238, so the Question was agreed to.
In respect of the question relating to taxation relief and international tax enforcement (Isle of Man), the Ayes were 302 and the Noes were 238, so the Question was agreed to.
In respect of the question relating to taxation relief and international tax enforcement (Guernsey), the Ayes were 302 and the Noes were 238, so the Question was agreed to.
In respect of the question relating to the immigration health charge order, the Ayes were 300 and the Noes were 232, so the Question was agreed to.
[The Division lists are published at the end of today’s debates.]
Before I call the shadow Secretary of State to speak, let me say that I hope colleagues realise that there is a lot of pressure on time. A lot of people wish to speak so, apart from Front Benchers, obviously, I will be asking everyone else to try to keep their speeches below 10 minutes. I do not want to impose a time limit at this point, and that would, I hope, allow everybody to get in.
Sue Hayman (Workington) (Lab)
I join the Secretary of State in his words of support for all those who work in the fishing industry. It is important that we recognise them.
Amid all the ongoing chaos that we have seen over the Brexit negotiations, Ministers have consistently identified leaving the common fisheries policy as one of the few policy areas in which the Government’s deal can deliver. When the White Paper was published in July, the Secretary of State said:
“Outside the Common Fisheries Policy we can take back control of our waters and revitalise our coastal communities.”
He is also on record as having said:
“The day after we vote to leave, we hold all the cards and we can choose the path we want.”
I intend to set out why the Bill and the current approach to negotiations being pursued by the Government will not, in our view, “revitalise” our left-behind coastal towns, which have been hit hard by years of Tory austerity. I will also set out why, having heard the Secretary of State outline his position just now, I am even more convinced that only a Labour Government can secure the twin goals of a healthy marine environment and thriving coastal communities.
Mrs Sheryll Murray
Will the hon. Lady explain to me why my late husband suffered financially, quite considerably, for 12 years under a Labour Government, but she is now blaming Conservative austerity? I have witnessed it myself. Will she explain why she has not admitted that and apologised for it?
Sue Hayman
We know that coastal communities have suffered from austerity, and I will be talking about that further. However, I do not think it is appropriate to talk about individual cases.
However, having said what I have just said, we do not oppose the Bill at this stage, as it has turned out to be a mostly enabling Bill for making future decisions. It is clear that the Government have some way to go before we can all be satisfied with what is before us today. I hope that Ministers will reconsider parts of this legislation so that we can reach a consensus on the direction of travel. We intend to bring forward a number of key amendments in Committee to make those improvements.
In addition to looking at quotas, the Secretary of State also talked about the need to revitalise coastal communities, which have been badly let down by successive Tory Governments and the eight years of austerity. I represent a coastal community myself and have seen that damage at first hand. Those communities have been starved of investment. They have reduced services due to local government cuts, lower wages and stalled economies. If we look at the 98 local authorities that are on the coast, 85% of them have pay levels below the UK’s average, and, to date, the Government have done nothing to address that. Labour believes that well-managed fisheries and sustainable fishing practices can help reinvigorate many of these communities. This is a unique opportunity, as we have heard from the Secretary of State, to transform the way that we manage our fisheries to improve lives by driving economic prosperity, tourism and environmental benefits to our beautiful and unique British coastal areas.
However, if we look at the current distribution of quotas, it is clear that the system is not working in a fair or equitable way. According to research by Greenpeace, more than a quarter of the UK’s fishing quota is owned or controlled by just five families on the rich list of The Sunday Times. We are well-accustomed to hearing about taking our fair share of quota at the European level, but many in our coastal towns and smaller fleet want to know when they will get their fair share of the existing national quota.
The Secretary of State has talked about the unfairness in quotas, but the clear lack of proposals in the Bill to redistribute existing and future quota can be seen only as an endorsement of the current unfair system. Labour will bring in amendments to improve that situation. Given what the Secretary of State said earlier, will he support us in those amendments?
Recreational fishing also has an important role to play in the development of our coastal towns. The Angling Trust believes that many towns could prosper by attracting anglers who would travel right across the UK and from overseas to take advantage of top-class angling in healthy, well-managed waters.
Angus Brendan MacNeil
I am very grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way. She talks about quotas and about who holds quotas. I have actually written to the Chair of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee for an inquiry into who holds quotas, where they got the quota from and where a quota might be better distributed, including the idea of community quotas and the geographical share of quotas. Is she supportive of such an idea?
Sue Hayman
We are looking for the Government to address the historic imbalance and inequality in the fishing industry that these quotas show. The companies that we have looked at have benefited from a system that has led to a long-term consolidation of quota into the hands of a very few operators. We are very keen to look at ways in which that can be changed.
Gareth Thomas
May I take my hon. Friend back to the point that she was making about the impact of austerity on coastal communities? Does she not accept that, given the success of co-operatives, there might be an opportunity, through this Bill, to promote the co-operative sector in the fishing industry a little bit more, not least because one of the great things about co-operatives is that the surplus they generate stays within the local community?
Sue Hayman
My hon. Friend makes a very important point. We would certainly support increasing co-operatives. I understand that there is an opportunity to double the number of co-operatives if we go about it in the right way. That was an incredibly important point.
Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP)
I am very grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way. Obviously, she is talking about coastal communities. Does she recognise—unfortunately, I was unable to make this point with the Secretary of State—that processors will not have a bonanza? If they are trapped having to pay 11% to 12% to land filleted and processed fish in Europe, but can land their fish directly to fish processors in Poland, harbours, markets, ice producers and processors will crumble. Certainly, the fishing associations on my coast do not support the Scottish Fishing Federation. The Clyde Fishermen’s Association and the Scottish Creel Fishermen’s Federation are not happy with this notion that all Scottish fishermen support Brexit—they do not.
Sue Hayman
Yes, that is a very important point about processors. I have a processor in my own constituency, so I fully understand the hon. Lady’s concerns. We want to see more British fish landed in British ports.
Mr Charles Walker
The hon. Lady was starting to make a good case for recreational angling before she was dragged away by colleagues who wanted to talk about commercial landings. Recreational angling accounts for about £2 billion into the economy, whereas commercial fishing accounts for about £200 million. If we want to maximise the UK’s fish stocks, as I am sure that we do, we need to focus on recreational angling and the value of recreational angling, and we need to have fish species that are largely kept back for recreational anglers.
Sue Hayman
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that very well-made point. Yes, I support exactly what he is saying. We know that the Secretary of State also recognised in his speech the importance of recreational angling. If we are to achieve the goals that we are talking about, can the Secretary of State confirm that he intends to bring forward future measures to support recreational sea angling? If so, can he provide us with some details on those plans today?
Ministers, when questioned about their support for our smaller-scale fishing communities, often point to the coastal communities fund. Members may be interested to know that, in response to a parliamentary question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Holly Lynch), it was revealed that only about 6% of the fund has been awarded to the fishing sector to date. If the Government really think that fishing is the lifeblood of coastal communities, why do they not back this up with the funding that the industry so desperately needs?
Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)
I am listening to the hon. Lady with great interest, but I am finding it very difficult to reconcile the issue of fishing generally with the demise of coastal communities. Does she not agree that, just as in rural areas, it is not just the issues surrounding agriculture and fishing that contribute to a decline in coastal communities; it is tourism, lack of a manufacturing base and the brain drain? When we look in her own constituency, for example, any increase in the fishing industry will not help the village of Flimby, as it needs a greater package than just additional resources for the fishing industry, which she seems to be advocating.
Sue Hayman
Well, of course, any kind of regeneration needs to cover a number of different areas, but we know that fishing would regenerate many, many coastal communities if we were able to land more fish into British ports and if we were able to change quotas. The Secretary of State has said that we have a huge opportunity here to regenerate our coastal communities through investing in fishing, but, obviously, we must have other funding as well, which is why I mentioned earlier the importance of tourism.
Let me turn now to trade. I understand that around 80% of what we catch, we export, and that 70% of the fish that we eat, we import, yet in the Bill there is no mention of trade, customs or tariffs. Labour’s commitment to membership of a customs union would reassure both processors and catchers that they could invest in their industry safe in the knowledge that they would have tariff-free access to the European markets.
I want to talk briefly about the marine environment. Labour welcomes the language in the Bill about reducing the environmental impacts of fishing, but the Bill provides only a vague future framework and does little to explain exactly what this would look like.
Kate Hoey
My hon. Friend is absolutely right about the marine environment. She knows that the EU banned electric pulse fishing and then gave a 10-year derogation for Dutch boats—I think, 100 of them—to carry on with it. This really is ruining the ecosystem and the Bill does not ban it. Is this something that my hon. Friend might seek to put into the Bill in Committee?
Sue Hayman
Yes, my hon. Friend makes an excellent point. I can confirm that we will absolutely look at this matter in Committee.
We are asking for more detail about discard charges as well as the environmental and sustainability objectives around maximum sustainable yield fisheries management. Labour would go further on environmental protections than the provisions outlined in the Bill and would categorically oppose any move away from a science-led, ecosystems-based approach. As my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Owen Smith) mentioned, there is only a vague reference to MSY in the Bill, and no clear roadmap on when and how this can be achieved. We would like to know whether Ministers are still committed to it as we leave the EU. We believe that stocks should at least meet this standard by 2020 and will seek to bring that into the Bill if the Government do not.
Will the Secretary of State respond to the concerns of environmental groups such as Sustain that are worried that the Bill’s objective to gradually eliminate discards is far weaker and slower than the EU’s commitment to end discarding completely within a set deadline? This is an important point.
Mr John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
I think it would be reassuring to the House to know that the Opposition share our disdain for the common fisheries policy, which has allowed foreign potentates to devise a policy, paradoxically, that is simultaneously bad for fishermen and bad for fish. The Secretary of State set out his view about how we can improve on that. Presumably Labour would want to join us in condemning the CFP.
Sue Hayman
I am trying to make it clear that we are not opposing the Bill; we really do want to work with the Government to improve it and make it better for both the fishing industry and coastal communities.
Importantly, we have been told that environmental standards are not going to be weakened after Brexit. However, we are concerned that the Bill could allow the UK to fall behind where we would be as a member of the EU, so we want to ensure that this is tightened up and clear. On the international level, we would boost support for an ambitious new UN treaty for the high seas. The Government must stand up for our sea life by leading efforts for large-scale international protection—a goal that has been limited to date by the ineffectiveness of the existing regulatory framework. British diplomacy is vital to fill this gap, and I hope that Ministers are taking this very seriously.
As we leave the EU, it is right that we put in place the framework to ensure that any deal on fishing can be implemented, but, as have I said, we have concerns that the Bill falls short in a number of areas. There is no strategy to redistribute our existing quota so that the small-scale, often family-owned, boats can get a fairer slice of the pie. There is no provision for dealing with future trade uncertainty, nor any mention of customs or border arrangements. And despite the Secretary of State’s assurances, the Bill does not set out the full details on how we will manage our seas more responsibly. Without sustainable management of operations, there will be no fish and no fishing industry, so it is disappointing there is no commitment to getting stocks to a maximum sustainable yield by 2020.
What we are discussing today is fundamental to the future of British fishing, and it is crucial that we get the Bill right. I hope that the Secretary of State will take on board the real concerns that I have outlined. Earlier he mentioned the opportunity ahead of us to refine and improve the Bill. I would ask that he works constructively with the Opposition to make those improvements.
Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to speak in this fishing debate, and I very much welcome the Secretary of State’s speech. On this grey November day in this House, where we seem to have little to cheer us up at the moment, fishing is one of the things that we can cheer ourselves up with, because we now have the opportunity to get more fish, for our fishermen and under-10 metre fleet to have more quota, and for anglers to access more fish, which is another great economic opportunity. There will also be more fish for our processors to process.
The whole thing about bringing back control of our fishing is that we can actually put right the wrongs that happened about 40 years ago. There is no doubt—those of us in and around coastal constituencies know this full well—that if anybody suffered when we went into the then Common Market, it was our fishing industry. As we consider the Fisheries Bill, let us make sure that we right those wrongs and get our stocks back, and ensure that those who fish in our waters—if we allow them to do so—fish under our rules and regulations. Let us ensure that we have a sustainable fishing policy.
I very much welcome the fact that the fisheries White Paper says:
“Fisheries will be a separate strand of our future relationship with the EU.”
For far too long our fisheries have been controlled by the EU under the CFP, and for too long our fishermen have been managed as a single EU exclusive economic zone. The Bill gives us the framework to take control of our waters, to come out of the CFP and to become an independent coastal state. The UK alone will be responsible for our exclusive economic zone of some 200 miles or the median line. Now we need to make sure that the Bill works. However, it can be improved, and I welcome the fact that the Labour party is taking a positive view on the Bill, because it always helps when there is not too much of a great political divide across the House.
It is not clear to me what practical arrangements the Government have made for enforcement when foreign fishing boats have access to our waters, because there is no doubt—under a no-deal Brexit, or any other Brexit that we achieve—that we will need to ensure that we have control of our waters. We also have to ensure that the cameras and systems on the boats that monitor fishing are working and not being switched off. Those systems not only cover quantities of fish and who is fishing, but work very well as far as discards are concerned. If ever there was a benefit of coming out of the CFP, is it with regard to discards. Not only is it a huge waste of resource to throw back into the sea good, healthy fish, most of which will die and probably putrefy the sea bed, but it is important that we land all the fish that are caught, as that means that we can have a proper monitor of what is in the sea and what is being caught so that we know that the science is absolutely right. Those of us who have been involved in fishing for many years, as many Members have, will find that while the scientists say one thing, the fishermen will tell us that they could walk to America on the back of cod because there are so many in the sea. There may be a slight exaggeration, but I think that Members get the gist of my argument.
Mr Carmichael
The hon. Gentleman makes a very important point. The root of the disjunction between science and the industry is the fact that the advice that is given is often based on data that are very old—almost two years old by the time they are used for decision making. Does he agree that in this brave new world of fisheries management, one of our first priorities ought to be the quick and dirty use of the data that are being harvested by the scientists?
Neil Parish
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention—he is right. I think that DEFRA is working much more with fishermen, and they will need to work more closely to ensure that the collection of that information happens more quickly. We also need to learn from the monitoring of how fish are caught and what is happening on the fishing boats, because all this is important. There needs to be trust between the fishermen and DEFRA officials, because that is sometimes lacking. There is a great deal that can be positive. I know that the Secretary of State and our Fisheries Minister are really driving towards that, and I think we can do it.
Richard Drax
My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. The point that is often ignored in fishing debates is that fish are born in one place, and then swim and live in another.
Neil Parish
My hon. Friend makes a really good point. Fish will move, perhaps because of water temperature or where the food is. Also, of course, they do not always swim together. Cod swim together and haddock swim together, so we can go out and make sure that we catch only one species of fish, but other types of fish swim separately, and we will often catch many species. That is especially the case in the south-west waters, where we are very much a mixed fishery, and that is why the discards are so important. We do not want the fishermen to target particular species, but we want them to be able to catch fish and land it all. The challenge is going to be making sure that we recompense fishermen for delivering fish that they did not have the quota to catch, but do not stimulate them into catching fish that they perhaps should not be catching.
Mrs Sheryll Murray
Does my hon. Friend welcome the study by one of the northern universities and CEFAS to look at zonal attachment as a way of assessing fish stocks within the United Kingdom 200 miles from the median line limit?
Neil Parish
As always, my hon. Friend speaks great sense on fishing, and so she should, given her knowledge of it. Zonal attachment is an interesting way of looking at this. When we are managing our own waters, we should be able to manage that much more quickly, so that an area that can be fished can be opened up, or if an area needs to be closed down, for reasons of the environment or fish breeding, we can do so much more quickly.
Dr Sarah Wollaston
Further to the point about zonal attachment, does my hon. Friend agree with Brixham fishermen that sprats would be an ideal kind of species to look at, because 90% of them are caught within the 12-mile limit but we have only 52% of the total allowable catch? Does he agree that that would be a much more sensible way to proceed?
Neil Parish
My hon. Friend makes an interesting point. By moving to a different system, we perhaps remove ourselves from some of the existing quota restrictions. Because those are historical, and because we did not necessarily get a good deal—far from it—when we went into the common fisheries policy, we have the opportunity to do this.
Neil Parish
I think I am going to use up most of my time at this rate, but I give way.
Andrew Bowie
I thank my hon. Friend, who is being very generous with his time. He may or may not be aware that in 2015 Conservative MEPs tried to force the European Union to allow individual member states to use European fisheries funding to help fishing communities to implement the discard ban on the quayside. As we are now coming out of the CFP, will he join me in urging DEFRA and the devolved authorities to use the funding that they have to help to implement these new regulations on the quayside, because we are leaving it up to individual fishermen and organisations to do a lot of the work themselves, and some are working to very tight budgets?
Neil Parish
My hon. Friend makes a good point. This is about how we help these fishermen. Can a certain amount of help be given regarding the fuel needed to bring back the fish? What is the value of the fish when it is brought in? Is it going to be sold on the open market, and do we then put a super-levy on it so that bringing it back is not too attractive? These are some of the issues that I am sure that our Fisheries Minister and Secretary of State will deal with in due course, if not necessarily in the Bill.
Mr John Hayes
My hon. Friend is displaying that his grasp of fisheries is at least as great as his grasp of farming. As he develops this thesis, which is essentially about replacing discards and quotas with closed areas and other measures to preserve fish stocks, will he say a word about industrial fishing? While it is true that fishermen should be able to keep what they catch, industrial fishing sweeps the ocean floor, and the CFP has been singularly ineffective at dealing with its environmental consequences.
Neil Parish
My right hon. Friend makes an interesting point. We were talking earlier about pulse fishing, which is used in particular by the Dutch. That causes huge damage to not only the seabed but, potentially, fish stocks. I often think that going out to fish should be much more a question of licking a finger to see which way the wind is blowing, but it does not work like that anymore. We use huge sonar equipment so that we know exactly where the fish are, and we can hoover them up in massive amounts. As we fish, we therefore have to be careful that we keep the stocks sustainable. I always say that the difference between fishing and farming is that with farming, we can at least replace the stock if we want to, but fish are a wild stock and must be bred in the sea, so we cannot take out too many fish if we want to keep the stock sustainable. Those are very good points.
You probably do not want me to go on for too much longer, Madam Deputy Speaker, so I will do my level best to move on quickly. We need more clarity in the Bill about the practical arrangements, which we have talked about a lot, and I look forward to seeing more detail. In particular, I am concerned that fisheries might get bogged down in unnecessary bureaucracy. Many of these companies are made up of five employees or fewer, so we must ensure that the burden of bureaucracy is as small as possible.
There are concerns that once we have left the EU, we will no longer have an automatic right to land fish in any EU ports. That interesting point has already been raised today. While I am very enthusiastic about our getting out of the common fisheries policy and getting back these stocks of fish, we have to ensure not only that we have access to EU markets, but that too much of our fish is not landed in EU ports, because we have to make the best of the processing. All these things are essential. I know that some of them are not covered in the detail of the Bill, but they need to be recommended.
I feel that we can do a much better job with our own Fisheries Bill and by taking back control of our waters. Our fishermen, fish processors and anglers can and must have a better deal. I am sure that the Secretary of State and Ministers are aware that there is a huge expectation that we are going to do much better as an independent coastal state than as part of the common fisheries policy. Let us welcome the Bill, make a few little alterations that might be necessary, and do a much better job than has been done in the past under the CFP.
Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)
I would like to start with a couple of points that arose from listening to the Secretary of State’s speech. First, he claimed that the SNP has not opposed the CFP and, in fact, wanted the UK to remain in the CFP. He clearly does not recall the Fisheries Jurisdiction Bill 2004, promoted by then Member Alex Salmond and signed by the right hon. Members for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) and for Belfast North (Nigel Dodds) and some Tory and Labour MPs.
Stewart Hosie
For the avoidance of doubt, that was a Bill designed to see the UK leave the CFP, in the name of the right hon. Alex Salmond, the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael), the right hon. Member for Belfast North (Nigel Dodds), the late Eddie McGrady, Elfyn Llwyd and Tory and Labour MPs. Does that not rather make a mockery of what the Secretary of State said earlier and show what a tenuous grasp of reality he has?
Deidre Brock
It certainly points to some short memories in this place.
Secondly, in March, the Secretary of State said that the Government had accepted a sub-optimal outcome for fishing in the Brexit negotiations. Will he tell us whether he still thinks that is so, and whether that view is reflected in the Bill? I look forward to that being addressed in the Minister’s closing words.
Douglas Ross (Moray) (Con)
Could the hon. Lady give us a history lesson about what a former Member of this House did? Does she agree with me that my predecessor as the Member of Parliament for Moray, in the most recent general election campaign—[Interruption.] I notice she is getting a whisper from the hon. Member for Dundee East (Stewart Hosie). In the general election campaign last year, when asked umpteen times on the BBC whether the Scottish National party would agree to go back into the CFP if Scotland became independent and wanted to get back into the EU, my predecessor said yes. The party’s sole aim is to go back into the CFP.
Deidre Brock
On our terms, of course. That is the point the hon. Gentleman is leaving out.
If we are looking for a history lesson, let us remind ourselves about the Tories, who have been selling out Scottish fishing for nearly half a century. Under Ted Heath in the 1970s, fisheries were considered expendable. In the 1980s under Margaret Thatcher, the UK Government signed us up to the original doomed common fisheries policy, which consigned our fishermen to decades of mismanagement. John Major’s Tories signed up to a revised common fisheries policy in the 1990s, which scrapped vessels and destroyed livelihoods. In the 21st century, the Tories were attempting to enshrine the common fisheries policy in European treaties, while the SNP was trying to return controls to the fishing nations. Let us not forget that, very recently, Ruth Davidson was reported in The Times as calling fisheries a red line issue, and a Scottish Tory source was quoted as saying:
“We won a lot of votes in the northeast on the back of our stance on fishing and wouldn’t be able to show our faces in Banff and Buchan if we renege on this one.”
Pete Wishart
Does my hon. Friend not agree with me that the Scottish Tory MPs have made 20-gallon galoots of themselves with their resigning/non-resigning nonsense? I do not know if she knows exactly where they are just now, but are they going to be in or oot when all this has concluded?
Deidre Brock
I am as baffled as my hon. Friend on that particular issue; that is for sure.
Returning to my speech, I think the context of this Bill has changed somewhat as a result of the withdrawal agreement. Some of the content of that agreement makes some of the apparent intent of the Bill a little more difficult to deliver and more dependent on negotiation and agreement with the 27 remaining members of the EU.
Having said that, let me pay tribute to the EFRA Secretary for staying the course and being determined to see things through to their conclusion. That seems to be a principle or a staying power that is somewhat lacking in his colleagues—erstwhile colleagues, I should say. They may have fallen by the wayside, weary of the march, but he carries on indefatigably. I understand that his father, as he mentioned, was involved in the onshore side of the industry, so he certainly comes to the Bill with some knowledge, but with a rather poor recall of facts if the newspapers are to be believed.
I acknowledge that the Secretary of State comes to the table with a backstory—if not a backstop—but that does not mean that he necessarily comes with the solutions the industry needs. The withdrawal agreement that was greeted with such delight by Government Members keeps our fishing industry in the common fisheries policy for a further two years after Brexit day, although of course our lack of membership means that the EU will decide the rules, while we have no say in them, no say in how they should be implemented and no voice in the discussions about whether the CFP is meeting its policy objectives.
Stephen Gethins (North East Fife) (SNP)
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. Obviously, the SNP has persistently voted against the common fisheries policy in the European Parliament, as the records show, as well as in this Parliament. My other point is: has the Secretary of State given her any reassurances about the customs union, which is critical for this excellent produce to get to its markets on the European continent?
Deidre Brock
Absolutely not, no. My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. I hope he has jogged the Secretary of State’s memory a little with his first point.
Mr Charles Walker
May I mount a bit of shameless lobbying? To tackle illegal lobster potting, the Scottish Government have put a limit on recreational lobster fishermen, such as myself, of one lobster landing a day on the west coast of Scotland. As the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Angus Brendan MacNeil), who represents Barra, will know, it is often very difficult to get your boat out more than once every four or five days. Will the hon. Lady ask the Scottish Government whether, instead of putting on a limit of one lobster a day, they will look at a limit on the number of pots a recreational fisherman can have—say, five or six—beyond which they would need to get a licence?
Deidre Brock
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I am certain that the Scottish Government will be closely following the debate and that they will make a note of his request.
If the steady stream of Ministers heading for the exit delays negotiations on the future relationship between the UK and the EU, we could find ourselves in an extended period where our fishing industry just complies with the rules, rather than having someone in the room standing up for it. Mr Barnier has already suggested that it will last for at least two years, which could be an underestimate if we consider how long it took to reach the much simpler withdrawal agreement.
We may have to suffer the CFP for quite a few years to come and it may change to the advantage of the remaining members of the EU, and not to ours. We may lose markets to sell fish into, or at the very least, find that our competitive advantage disappears because we will be subject to the same tariffs as other non-member states. I hope they will be the same tariffs, but going by the poor negotiation results that we have seen so far, we may end up with higher tariffs that reduce our fleet’s traditional competitive advantage.
It will not come to that, of course, because the new fishing deal has already been written into the withdrawal agreement by the departing Brexit Secretary. On page 4, the political declaration tells us that he has agreed to a new fisheries agreement with access to UK waters and assigned quota shares being
“in place in time to be used for determining fishing opportunities for the first year after the transition period.”
That means the common fisheries policy will carry on regulating our fishing fleets after we have left the EU. Taking back control has never sounded so hollow.
It is a sad state of affairs for this Secretary of State to have to deliver that news, because in March he said that he feels a
“debt to fishing communities who are looking to government to deliver a better deal for them”
and promised that he would ensure that our
“fishermen’s interests are properly safeguarded”
during the implementation period. That period starts on 29 March and lasts for an indeterminate amount of time, during which access to some important markets might be limited. France, for example, is the UK’s most important export market for fish. It is nearly twice as lucrative in cash terms as the US, and almost three times as strong in export volumes. Spain, by the way, is just behind the US in cash terms and slightly ahead in volume. Ireland, Italy, the Netherlands and Germany are all significant customers for our fishing fleets. Two thirds of our fleet’s fish is exported—perhaps a case of EU citizens jumping the queue to buy fish.
Once the deals are done and we finally leave the CFP, however, we will still be in it. It is a conjuror’s trick, and not a good one. Last year, the Secretary of State spoke to leaders of the Danish industry and guaranteed them continued access to our waters after Brexit. Earlier this year, the UK embassy in Spain reassured Spanish trawlers that their access to UK waters was assured. The withdrawal agreement replaces common decision-making on the CFP as a member of the EU with CFP rules handed down from Brussels and no input from Ministers from these isles on behalf of the industry here. Well done to the Brexiteers—they certainly landed a whopper there.
The Norwegians sometimes describe their relationship with the EU as a “fax democracy”, because the rules just come down the line from Brussels. That seems to be what removing ourselves from the EU will do, except, of course, that the European maritime and fisheries fund money will vanish. We have heard nothing about what might replace that in due course.
We will be left to accept the rules that are handed down; we will lose access to the decision-making body and the funding from the EU; and we will have to deal with the consequences of the Government’s poor negotiation techniques and the uniquely weak position that they have left us in. When the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food gave evidence to the House of Lords EU Energy and Environment Sub-Committee 26 months ago, he said that
“we have to recognise historic rights…In some sectors, for instance on scallops, access to the French part of the channel is quite important to the UK industry. I accept there are trade-offs. All these things will be a matter for negotiation in a new world.”
During the referendum campaign, the Secretary of State for Scotland said:
“I think the fishermen are wrong in the sense there is no way we would just go back to Scotland or Britain controlling British waters. There are a whole host of international rules and agreements even if we were outside the EU which would impact on their activities.”
Then of course there is the same problem agriculture has in relation to workforce planning. We will lose access to EU workers, who make up 58% of Scotland’s fish processing workforce and 70% in Grampian, where the Secretary of State’s family business was based.
Scotland’s seafood and fishing industries could be destroyed without access to EU markets. Scotland’s processing industry could be irreversibly damaged without access to EU workers. We also have to consider Scottish farmed salmon, the UK’s most valuable food export, and how losing the market advantage over Norwegian salmon that EU membership gives us could be utterly devastating. Scotland stands to lose a lot without access and there is little indication of how any of it might be replaced.
Dr Philippa Whitford
Fishermen in the north-east are often quoted as saying that more fish will be consumed in the UK, rather than exported. In my constituency, however, the south-west Scotland market consists of nephrops, crustaceans, langoustine and lobster. Some 85% are exported to the European market. It might well be that we all eat a little bit more white fish after Brexit, but I cannot see anybody being in a financial situation where they are going to be eating more lobster.
Deidre Brock
My hon. Friend makes a very good point and I am delighted that she brings up the interests of the south-west part of the country.
Once more, Scotland’s needs are massively different to the needs of England. Once more, we cannot have the Scottish industry locked into a rigid framework that will satisfy the English industry. Fishing, of course, has been a devolved matter since 1999 and the responsibility for nearly all the policy area rests in Edinburgh. I think the Government acknowledge as much, with the legislative consent motion they have asked for at Holyrood.
The industry cannot be squeezed into the same box as the English industry, but I appreciate the desirability of common frameworks to allow co-operative working on various issues—kind of like the EU managed with the CFP. Where such frameworks are sought and agreed by both sides they will be mutually beneficial, but they cannot be imposed. They must recognise the devolution settlement and respect it. There must be an element of trust that runs between Whitehall and Holyrood. Her Majesty’s Government must allow Scotland’s Government to govern in the devolved areas and this Parliament must allow Scotland’s Parliament to legislate in devolved areas.
Luke Graham (Ochil and South Perthshire) (Con)
This is a characteristically divisive speech from the hon. Lady. On the subject of division, can she explain how, under Scottish National party policy, Scotland will be better served when it has to go into negotiation with England for access to its waters, and how Scotland would somehow get a better result under the SNP policy when it has to negotiate with Europe alone and trade with an even smaller WTO box?
Deidre Brock
I am always amused when Scottish Tories stand up to talk about divisiveness and accuse the SNP of being divisive about anything.
Returning to a more serious subject, in general the provisions in the Bill that relate to this area seem to fit those provisions, and, while I reserve the right to check that I am correct in thinking that, I welcome the drafting of the Bill in this respect.
I cannot offer the same welcome to some other aspects of the Bill, such as the setting of quotas. Quotas for Scotland’s waters should be set in Scotland, just as quotas for English waters should be set in England and Welsh waters in Wales. That is devolution. I am sure the Minister or any Government Members would not want the Scots and the Welsh to set quotas in Cornwall, so they will understand why Scots would not want our effort limits set here. The same applies to foreign vessels in our waters. We know that the Secretary of State has been a little free with his pledges of access to our waters, but it should more appropriately be the devolved Administrations that determine such things.
The principle upon which devolution was determined, the division of responsibilities and powers, was that anything which was not reserved was devolved. Power does not flow from here to there, but is, rather, only held here where it is written in the devolution legislation. Matters determined on an EU platform but not written into schedule 5 of the Scotland Act 1998 are devolved and should go straight to Holyrood. They will go straight to Holyrood unless there is some power grab, some clawing back of responsibility, some deliberate diminution of Scotland’s Parliament. That would be unthinkable and we should do our level best to ensure that we do not legislate across that boundary.
Let us endeavour to ensure that we can modify the Bill appropriately so that we do not overcomplicate what should be a simple process. Let us make sure that the responsibilities and powers over our fishing waters and industries rest in the most appropriate places: the devolved Administrations for the most part, and this place, when there is no choice.
Mr Owen Paterson (North Shropshire) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Deidre Brock)—it is always good news when she finishes. In a competitive field, fishing is a clear winner of the stakes of the area in which the EU has shown maximum incompetence and caused maximum damage. I was made the shadow Fisheries Minister a long time ago, way back in 2004. I travelled all around the coast of the United Kingdom, down to South East Cornwall and up to Whalsay in Orkney and Shetland. I also went right across from east to west, seeing really successful fisheries in Norway, the Faroes, Iceland, Newfoundland, Nova Scotia and down the coast of the United States, and I went to the Falklands. My conclusion, which I do not resile from, is that the common fisheries policy is a biological, environmental, economic and social disaster. It is beyond reform, and I do not resile from a single word of my Green Paper, written back in January 2005.
Brendan O’Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
On the common fisheries policy, just in case the right hon. Gentleman should be tempted to try to rewrite history, I hope that he acknowledges that despite all the bluster that we are hearing from Government Members about the CFP, the Conservative party’s fingerprints are all over it. The Conservative party was compliant in its creation and has been actively implementing the CFP for the past 40 years. Will he acknowledge his party’s role in implementing it for the past four decades?
Mr Paterson
I remind the hon. Gentleman that this Green Paper was the policy on which we fought the 2005 general election, and his party opposed it. I will have no more humbug from the Scottish National party. We are sick to death of hearing from a party that supports the EU and then tries to weasel around on the CFP. The fishermen listening to this debate will be sick to death of this petty party political bickering. We have seen catastrophic damage to our most remote coastal communities, which could really benefit from a wonderful resource. We are world leaders in this area, yet we have allowed foreign fishermen to come in and take that resource. This resource could be a massive benefit to some of our most remote rural communities. We currently only take £900 million. That could go up to £1.5 billion to £2 billion, and if we processed the fish we could be talking about a £6 billion to £8 billion boost. That is a massively disproportionate benefit considering the remoteness of many of these rural communities.
Mr John Hayes
My right hon. Friend has highlighted the role that he played as shadow Fisheries Minister, and he did a great job. I was his predecessor in that job, and throughout the period that he described, the Conservative party was resolutely and entirely convincingly—to most people at least—hostile to the CFP, when parties sitting opposite had not woken up to the problem. The Conservative party has opposed the CFP consistently; other parties have failed to wake up and see the writing on the wall.
Mr Paterson
Let us move on to what we proposed in that Green Paper, on which we fought the 2005 election. There are a whole range of points, and looking at the clock, I see that I do not have time to go through them all now, but one is absolutely key.
First, there is the insane hostility of the European Union to modern technology. In Manomet in Massachusetts, I saw really interesting work on selective gear, but when I went back to Kilkeel, I found that that was being stopped by EU regulations. That is something that we really should look at.
The other issue is the insanity of discards. What is wicked is trying to fix a really local activity at a continental level. Someone mentioned that the data on which the European Union makes its annual decisions is guaranteed to be completely inaccurate because of discards and is probably six months to two years out of date. We do not know the level of discards—it is thought to be possibly 25%. It is absolutely disgraceful.
I remember going out on a trawler from Fleetwood and seeing baby plaice being cast back, because the mesh sizes were wrong. I went with the Secretary of State to North Shields not long ago. We saw baskets of whiting—completely healthy fish—that had to be cast back. I remember during the referendum campaign going to Looe with my hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall (Mrs Murray), who is a witness to the terrible suffering in the fishing industry when people cannot afford enough labour—her husband died because he was alone on a boat. We should not forget that. We saw on the harbour wall a drawing for tourists of lots of different fish, but the one fish that was not there was haddock, and what is the problem off the coast? Her constituents are catching masses of haddock, because the fish have moved, but they have to be cast back. It is absolute insanity to have a bycatch problem and to address the discards without addressing the cause of it, which is the quota system.
I learned a clear lesson in the Faroes. The situation has been modified since, using techniques such a catch composition, but I ask the Minister to promise that we will do some pilots around the coast on catch composition-based effort control, because it means working with the grain of nature. It was mandatory in the Faroes to land everything. The Fisheries Minister there said, “You may not like what you find, but at least you know what’s going on.” Our scientists do not know what is going on because we discard so much. Technology has advanced enormously, as I saw at Succorfish in North Shields, which used modern equipment to track not just the boats, but soak times, catches, and so on. If we did this using modern technology, we could monitor every single fishing boat every hour. Every fishing boat would become a scientific vessel sending back data.
I saw that in Iceland years ago now. Fisheries management there would send out radio signals, and boats around Iceland would be told to move on because there were too many discards. Way back then, the UK was doing it in the Falklands—the same management based on accurate, instant data. I appeal to the Minister. I am not thrilled with clause 23 on discard prevention charging schemes—those will be good, healthy fish that should be sold to consumers. We should work out pilot schemes for mixed fisheries. I admit that Scotland is different—pelagic fisheries probably need a quota system—but I really make that appeal.
Probably the most important issue is whether we really will take back control. That was the promise in the referendum and in our manifesto, in which we made it clear that we would take back control:
“When we leave the European Union and its Common Fisheries Policy, we will be fully responsible for the access and management of the waters where we have historically exercised sovereign control.”
I would like the Minister to address this point. He is being bombarded with a helter-skelter of questions, but I ask that he take careful note of article 56 of the UN convention on the law of the sea, relating to exclusive economic zones—as he knows, those are 200 miles or the median line. Article 56(1) reads:
“In the exclusive economic zone, the coastal State has…sovereign rights for the purpose of exploring and exploiting, conserving and managing the natural resources, whether living or non-living, of the waters superjacent to the seabed and of the seabed and its subsoil”.
Can the Minister absolutely guarantee that every decision affecting our marine environment, as well as that which lives in it and that which is extracted from it, will ultimately be decided by sovereign UK politicians who come to this Dispatch Box and answer to this House? Can he think of any circumstances after we have left the CFP—I would like him to tell us exactly when that will be—in which decisions would be imposed on our fishermen that ideally our politicians would like to resist? That is the nub of the CFP.
The most shocking mismanagement has been imposed on this wonderful industry and these incredibly brave people because we have always been outvoted. When I was Secretary of State—we have discussed this in respect of the common agricultural policy, too—my right hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Richard Benyon), who has just left his place, bravely did his best, but we were outvoted. I want an absolute guarantee that article 56(1) of UNCLOS will prevail and that the Minister will be able to come back and be answerable to every one of us for fishing decisions. There must be no circumstances in which appalling decisions can be imposed on us once we have left. That cannot happen. If it does, we will have let down the 17.4 million, as well as the 16.3 million who voted for us in the general election, and all those Labour voters—do not forget the 85% who voted in the general election to take back control. Can he please guarantee that?
Angela Smith (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for North Shropshire (Mr Paterson).
I speak as a former shadow Fisheries Minister, a member of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, and someone who—as some Members who are present already know—grew up in Grimsby. I remember it as a bustling fishing port when I was a girl; moreover, it was the biggest in the world at that time. I remember the numerous trawlers in the docks, and the sense of pride among workers who were doing something that they knew was incredibly important: providing the nation with one of its favourite foods.
However, I also remember the decline that followed the so-called final cod war with Iceland. The devastation that it wreaked both economically and socially was vivid. I was a teenager at the time, but I remember areas, particularly around the docks—such as Freeman Street and East Marsh—suffering disastrous consequences. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Melanie Onn) will refer to that later. Gone, too, are many of the food processing plants that lined Ladysmith Road. Findus has gone. Birds Eye has gone, no longer anchored by the town’s status as one of the greatest food towns in Europe.
It is my witness of this decline, and the fact that my father was, for a period, a deep-sea fisherman—fishing off the coast of Iceland, at Reykjavik—that gives me an understanding of why our coastal towns and fishing communities matter more than their contribution to our national GDP would suggest. At this point, I want to pay tribute to all those who died serving the fishing industry. In Grimsby, every time a trawler went down or men were washed overboard—that was the commonest cause of death—the children in their primary schools would repeat the “Fisherman’s Prayer” and sing “The Fisherman’s Hymn”. It was all too common, particularly in the 1950s, for those children to have to sing that hymn and say that prayer.
Let me now deal with the Bill. I have a number of concerns about it. First, the Government’s stated aspiration is to develop “world leading fisheries”. Clause 1 sets out how this would be developed, including objectives such as creating a sustainable industry. We would all support that, but, unfortunately, the light-touch duties placed on the authorities potentially undermine the delivery of those aspirations. For example, while the Bill rightly contains an ambitious objective to ensure that all harvested stocks are recovered to, or maintained at, a biomass above that capable of producing maximum sustainable yield, the Bill places no duty on regulatory authorities to ensure that fishing pressure is managed in a way that delivers on that objective.
We have to ask whether the Government are really committed to restoring stocks, or whether they will put political pressures first, at the expense of the science and the data available. There is a history of those pressures leading to that kind of over-exploitation of our stocks, not just in our waters, but throughout the waters of the European Union.
Secondly, there are concerns in relation to our marine environmental regulations. The fisheries White Paper acknowledged concerns about a possible “governance gap” which could threaten accountability for the implementation of the regulations. It also suggested— as have consultations on the proposed environmental principles and governance Bill—that a new independent environmental regulator should have a role in relation to the marine environment. As things stand, this Bill is opaque about how the forthcoming environment Bill will protect our marine environment and how the “governance gap” will be closed. Clarifications of those issues would be welcome as the Bill proceeds, and I hope that the Minister will comment on them when he winds up the debate.
Clause 28 will give new powers to introduce financial schemes to promote sustainable growth and to improve the marine and aquatic environment. They will replace existing powers and allow new funding schemes to replace funding currently received under the European maritime and fisheries fund. However, as the clause is currently drafted, those grant-making powers do not reference clause 1’s sustainability objectives, such as an ecosystem-based approach. That strikes me as rather strange and concerning, and, again, I would welcome clarification. I understand that the fisheries statement will reference clause 1 and the powers will come under the remit of the statement, but clarification would be welcome.
My final point relates to the very important fact that the fishing industry is not just about the catching side; there is still a very important processing and aquaculture industry alongside it, most of which, unsurprisingly, is based in or nearby fish-landing towns such as Grimsby and Immingham. Indeed, 21% of the industry is in Yorkshire and the Humber. It is an important provider of jobs in those areas, and for my home town of Grimsby, it is still an important source of employment, with some 4,200 jobs dependent on the sector. These processing plants also export much of their product into the EU, in a market worth £1.3 billion, where we still enjoy a trade surplus. It is therefore vital in the drive to create world-leading fisheries that processing is not forgotten, as so far it has been in this debate. Full tariff-free access to the single market must be retained for the industry.
Mr John Hayes
The hon. Lady is absolutely right about processing, and it also requires concentration on productivity, investment in technology and making sure our processing industry is as competitive as possible. I hope that can be debated during our deliberations on the Bill and included in the Government’s objectives.
Angela Smith
I do not disagree with the right hon. Gentleman. Grimsby makes some of the very best premium products in the world. One of the local fish-finger producing plants can take the fish from the moment it has landed at Immingham and have it in the lorry going to the supermarket in six hours. One of the reasons why that is possible, and why the time from the moment of departure from Iceland to getting the product in the shops is concertinaed into a minimum, is the single market. That fish is as fresh as possible and those products are as good as they are because the single market has made it possible to ensure guaranteed standards while at the same time maximising productivity.
Angela Smith
I am not going to give way again as many Members wish to speak.
Any failure to secure access to the single market, such as by sacrificing our access to the market in return for keeping access to our waters broadly to ourselves, will represent a betrayal and could decimate processing in areas where the jobs and economic activity it provides are vital. I am convinced that the processing side of the industry, which accounts for 64% of the employment in the sector, will not want its interests to be sacrificed on the grounds that we will give no, or very limited, access to our waters to foreign vessels.
We now have a withdrawal agreement on the table alongside the political statement, giving something of an indication of the direction of travel. This political statement, however, gives only the faintest glimmer of what will happen after the transition period, which is not good enough, particularly so far as fisheries are concerned. It is also true that this Bill, like the Agriculture Bill, is enabling and contains a number of Henry VIII powers. Like others in this Chamber, I worry about the use of this mechanism given the lack of effective parliamentary scrutiny that accompanies the use of statutory instruments. I therefore hope the Government will think more carefully about this Bill and allow it to be amended to ensure it gives greater clarity on the direction of travel of our fishing industry.
Mrs Sheryll Murray (South East Cornwall) (Con)
First, I want to thank the hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith) for her tribute to the bereaved families of fishermen, and I also want to put on record my grateful thanks to the Secretary of State. My family would also like me to say thank you. I would also like to pay tribute to the Royal National Mission to Deep Sea Fishermen and to the rescue services who go out in all weathers to ensure that our fishermen are safe.
The Bill provides the legal framework for the UK to operate under the United Nations convention on the law of the sea after we have left the European Union on 29 March 2019, something that my late husband and I worked towards since the late 1980s and early 1990s. However, it is important to look at the wider matter of the terms of our exit from the European Union and at the political declaration that the Prime Minister is in Brussels talking about now. I know that the terms will be a cause of concern for many of my constituents and for the fishing industry throughout the UK.
It is no secret that many people feel that the UK’s rich fishing resources were sacrificed when we joined the European Economic Community. Agreeing to the principle of equal access to a common resource—the total EU pond—at the time was in my opinion a dereliction of duty by the then Conservative Government, and I would like personally to apologise, even though I was not a Member of this House in 1972. Indeed, I was not even old enough to vote. It was a dereliction of duty, and the disastrous permanent share-out of the catch for each species in UK waters from January 1983 has left the UK fishing industry a shadow of its former self. An example is that of channel cod, of which the UK is permitted to catch 9% a year while France takes about 80%. We now face a situation in which other EU vessels take five times more in monetary value from the UK exclusive economic zone than UK vessels take from all the other EU EEZs. I have to say to the hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge that the massive value of that fish could benefit the economy of the United Kingdom, but at the moment it is just being given away, with other member states coming in, catching and taking away. There is no benefit to us in that arrangement.
On the morning of 14 November, it was reported that Sabine Weyand—Michel Barnier’s deputy who leads the EU’s negotiations at a technical level—said that the UK would be forced to concede on fisheries as part of the withdrawal agreement, meaning that Britain would have to
“swallow a link between access to products and fisheries in future agreements”.
The French are leading a group of other member states in demanding a link between access to waters and a trade deal. Lots of reports have shown this, but we must not accept such a link. That would be a complete repeat of what happened in 1971 when the UK Government caved in at the last minute and allowed equal access to a common resource.
David Duguid (Banff and Buchan) (Con)
I should like to associate myself with my hon. Friend’s comments in paying tribute to the various associations and organisations that support our fishermen. Does she agree that there is no precedent anywhere for access to a third country’s natural resources forming part of a trade agreement?
Mrs Murray
I completely agree with my hon. Friend. In relation to Norway and the EU, access to resources is negotiated on an annual basis and Norway has tariffs attached to its fish. There is no link there, and it is completely wrong for people to say otherwise.
I see that my Cornish colleague, the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, my hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice), is in his place. I was going to ask the Secretary of State this question, but I shall ask my hon. Friend instead. Will he please ask the Secretary of State to categorically reaffirm that British fish will not be used to buy a trade deal with the EU? Will he also ensure that only the fish that United Kingdom vessels—I do mean United Kingdom vessels, because Scottish vessels will benefit from this as well, as will those from Wales and Northern Ireland—cannot catch will be made available to other nations? Can he also assure me that, because the catch levels of the UK fleet have been artificially deflated since 1983, allowance will be made for UK fishermen to realise their total catching capacity?
The NFFO would like the Government to establish a formal advisory council to guide policy, promote collaboration between central Government, the devolved Administrations and the industry, and allow an ongoing dialogue in what is a naturally variable industry. An advisory council could play a leading role in the use of secondary legislation to ensure an agile and responsive approach to fisheries management.
It is understandable that the Bill refers to maximum sustainable yield as an approach to sustainable fisheries management. However, if maximum sustainable yield is set as a rigid, time-bound objective, it will prove unworkable. We have seen that happen time and again, and the CFP is the prime example. Setting quotas for sustainable fisheries management in mixed fisheries must take into account a number of different, and sometimes competing, factors. In an earlier intervention, I mentioned zonal attachment, which is an important new way of looking at fisheries management and the assessment of stocks.
Where agreement between fisheries administrations cannot be reached, some sort of approach is needed that allows appeal. It would be useful if the Minister considered putting in place a dispute resolution system that would not impact on fisheries.
I have a few asks for the Minister. Will he look at clause 42, particularly subsections (3) and (5). We need a date for when the provisions come into force, because the fishing industry needs to be able to plan. It has accepted that the implementation period will not end until 31 December 2020, but it would be reassured if we inserted the words “no later than 31 December 2020” into those two subsections.
To sum up, setting aside the complex and controversial questions surrounding parliamentary approval for the withdrawal agreement, much still hinges on the negotiations ahead. The UK’s legal status has altered and its leverage in fisheries negotiations has changed dramatically, but unless that new status is used to address the distortions in quota shares, fishermen will question what it has all been for. English fishermen in the channel have struggled with a 9% share of the cod quota, compared with France’s 84% share—it has been exactly the same for haddock, which my right hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Mr Paterson) mentioned.
To deliver the fair share of fishing opportunities that they rightly see as theirs, British fishermen, in this second round, will expect our negotiators to be as tough, astute and hard-nosed as they need to be to realise the benefits of our new status as an independent coastal state. I really hope that the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State have got that message from fishermen today.
Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Scotland has 8.4% of the UK population and 60% of the total catch, so fisheries are hugely important to ports such as Fraserburgh on the east coast, Lerwick in the north, Kinlochbervie in the west and, of course, on my own islands on the west coast. Fishing News, a great newspaper to read at the weekend in my constituency, had an article this week stating that the annual turnover of UK fisheries has hit £1 billion for the first time, which is remarkable. Fisheries are about 0.5% of UK GDP.
As Chair of the International Trade Committee, I am often told that sectors bigger than fisheries do not get the same attention, but in coastal communities we know why fisheries get such attention. They are integral to the lives we lead and to the people we know. Indeed, the Secretary of State mentioned the lives lost at sea in his opening remarks, and I personally know people who have lost their lives at sea working as fishermen.
I worked as a fisherman a number of years ago, although not for long, over the summer, which is the right time of year to work in fisheries. I have always had sympathy for the guys who fish all year round. Fisheries are vital, and it is vital that we get this right. We know things have been wrong in the past, and there is a lot of expectation management happening at the moment—and it probably needs to happen.
The largest fishery organisation by membership in Scotland, the Western Isles Fishermen’s Association, has flagged a number of things as important and, as the MP for Na h-Eileanan an Iar, it is right that I repeat them. Those with Facebook friends in the Hebrides will know that at the weekend a large bluefin tuna washed ashore on a beach in Tolsta, on the east coast of Lewis. Bluefin tuna are all around. Indeed, Angus Campbell from Harris was in touch yesterday with a tag of a bluefin tuna that was found around Scarista in the west of Harris, and he regularly comes across shoals of bluefin tuna on his trips to St Kilda.
We expect to see a trebling of the allowable catch of bluefin tuna to 38,000 tonnes, and we are now seeing a lot of tuna in our waters, now seemingly all year round if a bluefin tuna has washed up in Tolsta in November, so our big ask—or our moderate ask—is that we have access to that allowable catch, as the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker) said, both for catch and release for sporting use and for catch and sale. If the allowable catch is increasing threefold, surely one of the benefits we might see from this upheaval is that we have such access, because bluefin tuna are becoming increasingly plentiful in our waters.
The Western Isles Fishermen’s Association, through its excellent secretary Duncan MacInnes, has done a power of work over the past few years, and it raises a number of areas of concern. There is a concern about the over-10 metre fleet. The Highlands and Islands development board, which some will remember from years past, gave grants for an awful lot of vessels to be built, and some of those vessels are still catching and still contributing. There is a need to upgrade, to reinstate and to reconsider how exactly we retool and re-equip coastal communities to make sure they are ready to catch.
Western Isles Council runs a loan scheme in conjunction with the banks, and it has a very low failure rate, but we are looking for the Government to introduce a business loan guarantee scheme to assist the fishing industry, with similar terms to those offered in other industries.
The Western Isles Fishermen’s Association also refers to access to quota opportunities, and it notes that in the last 40 years the fleet has reduced from 273 vessels to 220, and the number of fishermen is down from 499 to 377. In addition, whereas pelagic and whitefish landings used to account for 97.5% by volume and 73% by value in 1973, the position now is that shellfish account for 96% by volume and 90% by value.
An Eriskay fisherman once told me, “I can remember a time when I sold off my rights to fish mackerel and herring to 20 boats and to 50 families on the east coast of Scotland.” I have written to the Chair of the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to ask that the Committee looks into who holds the quota, where they got the quota from and whether the quota might be better distributed and, of course, that it considers the idea of community and geographical quotas. Community quotas have worked very well indeed in other areas.
A prickly area that has not been properly touched on is seal management. I cannot resile from mentioning the volume of seals and the amount of fish they are taking. There is a colony of about 30,000 seals around the Monach islands, west of Uist. The annual consumption is 2.5 tonnes per seal, so an estimated 75,000 tonnes of fish are being eaten. A very conservative estimate of the value of that fish is about £1,000 per tonne, so we are talking about some £75 million of fish. I put this suggestion out there for people to ponder, but we could have a seal management plan that might involve something like contraceptive darts to limit the number of seals, because their numbers are out of balance with the marine environment. Perhaps a lack of killer whales is our concern and an issue in that area.
I mentioned the spurdog to the Secretary of State—he looked like a rabbit caught in the headlights and I had to say the word twice. The spurdog is a dogfish with a particular spur on its dorsal fin. It is often caught in bycatches at the moment; it cannot be landed and cannot be used. Fishermen have sent me photographs of 20 or 100 boxes of spurdog that they have caught. In this winter period—probably from about now until March—spurdog will regularly turn up in the nets. At one point when I was fishing, they were not great to spot with sonar—because of the lack of a swim bladder—although that might be different now, but they are certainly ending up in nets by accident. They are a nuisance to clear and fishermen cannot land them, despite their having value in other countries, so let us make sure something happens on this issue of spurdog.
One thing I want to mention is the expectation management that will probably be required. I can see from Government Members that Brexit will never be great for Brexiteers who have envisaged Brexit in a slightly different form, but in Iceland there has been a change in fisheries. Some 80 or 90 years ago, 24% or 25% of the Icelandic population were involved in fisheries, but now the figure is about 4%, and that is due to technology. Iceland wants to see fewer people involved in fisheries. The fishing concern HB Grandi, which is based in Reykjavik, wants to see itself with even fewer fishing boats than at present, such is the way technology is moving. Its fishing boats are very different from those we see; they are about the size of car ferries, and on board there are hot tubs and so on.
Angus Brendan MacNeil
I see nods of knowledge from one Conservative Member.
Similarly, the Faroe Islands has managed to change a number of things. It recently introduced a concept in law under the Fisheries Minister, Høgni Hoydal, who was mentioned by the right hon. Member for North Shropshire (Mr Paterson), whereby the fish that swim in Faroese waters are the property of the Faroese people. The idea of fish being the property of the people of the relevant jurisdictions might be a useful thing for our jurisdictions in the United Kingdom.
I come on to one of the big things in fisheries. I received a text message before I got up to speak from Donald Joseph Maclean at Barratlantic, who is a first cousin once removed of mine, asking whether there is any movement on the EEA fishermen and getting guys on boats. We have been talking all summer to the Secretary of State and to the Home Office, but where the UK has got control it has done nothing. The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (David Duguid), the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael), the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and I all went to the Home Office to ask for this in May or June, but nothing has happened. We have lost a lot of money this summer because the Home Office, where the UK Government have control, has not taken its hands out of its pockets to help fisheries. Indeed, I was told in the Home Office, “Angus, it is our Conservative manifesto on one hand and the economy on the other.” What is the answer? It is the economy, surely. But no, months later, nothing has been done, and that is absolutely negligent. I hope that if Donald Joseph Maclean is watching, this will at least help his blood pressure on this issue, because it is fair near bursting at times.
Kirstene Hair (Angus) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman talks about UK Government support for the fishing industry. Will he welcome their support in the recent Budget of £12 million that will support our fishing communities across our United Kingdom as we leave the EU?
Angus Brendan MacNeil
If we look at where this is going, we see that it is not going to be the headline figure the hon. Lady states. I hope that she wants the UK Government to replace absolutely any loss of subsidy and grants from the EU, because that is going to be a big concern of fishermen. As a young fisherman in Castlebay told me, “I am lucky: I have got a fishing boat, through help from the European Union. Will that remain afterwards?” I said, “The Tories are in charge. I cannot guarantee that one at all.”
We have to think about our access to markets as well, and we have to be worried about a sell-out. We need to remember that when David Cameron went to Europe to try to find concessions, fisheries were nowhere near where he or the Conservatives were looking—not a cheep was heard. It was all about migrants but, as I have just said, we need migrants. We need people who come to help us on our boats and who work in our communities—they are very important. If one thing comes out from this debate, it should be that the Scottish National party has a big welcome for people who want to come and work in Scotland. We would have more people. My community wants them; my Government want them; my local council wants them; my local processing sector wants them; and my local fishing boats want them. Only one office in London—the Home Office—is stopping people from coming, to the economic detriment of my community.
We should think of the patriotism that crops up in fisheries debates. Let us have some patriotism in landings as well. We must also think about aquaculture and about salmon, which accounts for a huge part of our industry. We have to be sure that nothing is stopped at borders. Once, at Prime Minister’s questions, I asked the Prime Minister about shellfish exports being stopped on lorries—she, too, was like a rabbit in the headlights. She did not quite understand that the catch goes live to France and Spain, because they pay the top prices. If we do not get to those markets, we will not replace them in the United Kingdom, because people here will not pay the price that is paid elsewhere for crab and shellfish, so we will see a loss. The £1 billion that I mentioned earlier would be lost and would not be as large an amount in subsequent years. The Government who are treading this path have a real responsibility. For years they ran along with the common fisheries policy and did not take anything on board, but now they take a different tack. We are watching what they are doing very closely, and we will watch them with a beady eye in the years to come.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. Members have not been too bad at sticking to the time limit suggested earlier, but as the House can see, a great many people still wish to speak. I would like to try to impose a voluntary time limit of six minutes. [Interruption.] I appreciate that this is a bit of a surprise for the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (David Duguid), who has much to say on this subject, so I shall not hold him to six minutes, but everyone else is now warned.
David Duguid (Banff and Buchan) (Con)
Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker; I appreciate that, as I had already tried to pare down my speech to the 10 minutes suggested earlier.
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Na h -Eileanan an Iar (Angus Brendan MacNeil). As he mentioned, he, the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael), the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who unusually is not in the Chamber, and I have the same consistent issue of access not to EU labour—this is not a Brexit issue—but to the non-EEA labour on which the fishing industry has become dependent over the years.
I welcome this opportunity to speak about the Bill, and I welcome the Secretary of State’s opening speech. The fisheries sector is hugely significant in my constituency of Banff and Buchan. Peterhead is the largest white fish port in Europe, and a little further up the coast is the port of Fraserburgh. They are the two largest towns in my constituency. A little further around the coast is the smaller—but no less significant to its local community—port of Macduff. In terms of tonnage, almost half the fish landed by UK-registered boats is landed in my constituency.
Not just fishermen, but the wider communities around the coast of my constituency and of the UK have lost a great deal over the decades we have been in the common fisheries policy. There has been not only a loss of livelihood, the scrapping of boats and the closure of businesses, but fundamentally a loss of what identifies these coastal communities and the people who live there, who remember what once was. Quite rightly, the people in these communities look forward to making the most of the sea of opportunity presented by our leaving the EU and the CFP.
Everyone who speaks in this debate, and those watching in fishing communities around the UK, are keenly aware that Parliament will soon review the proposed EU withdrawal agreement, the impact on fisheries of which is not insignificant. It is therefore difficult to discuss the Bill without referring to the withdrawal agreement, the outline political declaration, or any new future fisheries agreement. I am very much aware of concerns expressed by fishing interests in my constituency and beyond. I have been reviewing the text of the agreement, as well as taking on board input from members of the fishing community, industry representatives and trade bodies, among a host of various stakeholders. My Scottish Conservative colleagues and I have made our position clear to the Government, and we look forward to working with Ministers to find a resolution to the range of concerns raised.
The variety of concerns can be summed up in two words: timings and leverage. On timings, we will leave the EU in March 2019, and when we do so, we leave the common fisheries policy. That is not a political decision, but a matter of legality—we cannot be in the CFP if we are not in the EU. Likewise, we cannot be in the EU, which would be the position of Opposition Members, and not in the CFP.
The agreement states that we enter an implementation period at that point, with that period ending on 31 December 2020. As others have mentioned, it would be welcome if clause 42 included the phrase “no later than December 2020”, because by that time, we must be in a position in which we have completed our first negotiations as an independent coastal state in time for our beginning to realise the opportunities that that presents for the calendar year 2021.
When we first enter negotiations in December 2020, we must have the maximum possible leverage. We have seen in recent media reports from the continent that EU fishing interests are far from pleased that the text of the agreement makes no mention of retaining guaranteed automatic access to UK waters post Brexit. If we are to have the maximum possible leverage in annual coastal state negotiations from December 2020, we must resist the EU’s demands for any continued automatic access to our waters. As the Prime Minister confirmed in her response to my question on this subject last week, we must not accept the EU’s attempts to link future trade agreements with automatic access to UK waters.
Alan Brown
I assume that the hon. Gentleman understands that the trade agreement is equally important. Clearly, it is important that we are able to get products to markets. We talk about everything being in isolation, but we must look at this in the mix, because that helps the whole sector.
David Duguid
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments. I will get to that point a little later.
The Fisheries Bill itself, and the White Paper before it, has been welcomed by organisations across the industry, including the Scottish Fishermen’s Federation. This vital legislation lays the groundwork for the revival of our fishing industry outside the common fisheries policy. It is important to note that, in the event of no deal, the Bill will ensure that all UK vessels can legally continue to fish in our own waters. For example, clause 7 revokes the CFP regulation that allows EU vessels unfettered access to our waters. Clause 8 introduces the common-sense principle that any foreign vessel that wants to fish in our waters must do so on our terms. This is taking back control of our waters, and it is the basis of the British fisheries sector’s revival. Clause 9 covers those UK fishing boats that are required to be licensed, as well as stating those for which licensing will not apply.
Clause 1 defines the fisheries objectives, as many Members have said, and chief among them is the sustainability objective, which ensures that fishing and aquaculture is environmentally sustainable in the long term and managed in a way that is consistent with contributing to the economy and to food supplies. I was going to go through all the other objectives, but as I am pushed for time, I will skip them.
Clauses 9 to 17 set out rules for the licensing of UK and foreign fishing boats—I just want to cover that briefly. Although the devolved Administrations are responsible for licensing boats in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, licences issued by any UK fisheries administration will be valid across UK waters. The UK Government will agree access arrangements internationally and, although each of the devolved Administrations is responsible for issuing licences to foreign vessels in its zone, it is encouraging to know that the UK Government will administer the system, having already been provided with consent by the devolved Administrations.
Clauses 18 to 22 cover the allocation of fishing opportunities, an area on which I would like specific clarification from the Minister. Clause 18 deals with the Secretary of State’s power to determine fishing opportunities. I would appreciate it if Ministers commented on the appropriateness of the Secretary of State setting quotas for lobster or brown crab in Scotland which, I believe, are subject to international agreement. Clause 22 is about the sale of English fishing opportunities. Given that English-registered vessels operate in Scottish producer organisations and vice versa, will the Minister please provide clarification on whether these would be available for all UK vessels?
Finally, let me say something about the future of the fishing industry in my constituency and of fishing communities around the UK. After decades of deterioration within the CFP, we will not see a full recovery overnight. Government support will be required, and this House has previously been assured of that support by the Prime Minister and others
“to secure a sustainable and profitable fishing industry that will regenerate coastal communities and support future generations of UK fishermen.”
I conclude by reassuring the Minister that after we leave the CFP and become an independent coastal state, with all the powers and control that that entails, I will look forward to continuing to work with the Government to deliver that ambition to regenerate not only the fishing industry, but the wider communities and economy for which the “sea of opportunity” will deliver.
Mr Alan Campbell (Tynemouth) (Lab)
This is an important Bill. Leaving the EU and the CFP will require effective management of our fisheries, and it is just as crucial that fishermen and fishing communities get as much certainty as possible, as far as there ever can be certainty in fishing. I think that fishermen will broadly welcome many of the provisions in the Bill, including those on controlling access to UK waters, quota and equal access for UK vessels in UK waters. However, I believe that there is still a strong case for ensuring a link between landings and home port, because it is important to recognise that fishing is more than just about catching fish; there are also issues about the sustainability of ports and port jobs.
I welcome any emphasis on a quota increase for smaller boats. Most of the North Shields fleet are under 10 metres. As been has already been said, these are the very boats most likely to land at local ports, and to fish selectively and environmentally. Despite the assurances of the Secretary of State, I still think that the Bill as drafted is in danger of missing an opportunity. If the largest five quota holders control a third of UK quota and half of UK quota is currently owned by big companies based overseas, there has to be an opportunity for a much fairer approach. Also, if 80% of the fleet are smaller boats, why is it that they get 6% of the quota? The Secretary of State attempted to give assurances for the future, and he will be held to those assurances.
I want to talk a little bit about politics—we have seen a little bit of it this afternoon—because every Fisheries Minister and every fishing representative I have ever met who has attended the annual Fisheries Council speaks about the debilitating effect of politics coming into play. Whoever the Ministers are, we must recognise the potential for politics coming into play in any alternative process. The NFFO itself describes the joint fishery statements, which it welcomes, as having scope for friction; that could be an understatement. For example, while there is support for equal access for UK vessels, there would be concerns for fishermen in my area if different regulations were introduced by different devolved authorities, so this may well prove to be a difficult matter.
I will mention another political risk for Ministers. The drift net salmon fishery in the north-east is a heritage fishery. The few licences that remain have come under pressure from successive Conservative Fisheries Ministers, who want to phase them out. Ministers have blamed the EU, saying that the fishery is part of a wider discussion on stocks. The fishermen say that it is about appeasing landowners who want to rent out fishing rights. They cannot both be right. In taking back control, Ministers need to recognise that they are going to have to own their decisions; they will not have the EU and the CFP to hide behind.
Also politically, the Bill puts a great deal of emphasis on secondary legislation. Now, it may offer greater flexibility and responsiveness, both of which would be welcome, but the emphasis, particularly in clauses 31 and 33, is on negative statutory instruments. I think we need to avoid replacing one inflexible framework with another, so I would generally favour affirmative SIs, as well as the establishment of an advisory council—perhaps on a statutory footing—that would include, for example, the NFFO.
On the issue of flexibility, I understand the reluctance to put a maximum sustainable yield in the Bill on a statutory basis, but if the Bill does have a vision of sustainability, as Ministers claim, and if they want the UK to be a world leader, the Government and other authorities need to be held to account for what this legislation delivers in the future.
Leaving the EU and the common fisheries policy means that we will no longer be able to access the European maritime and fisheries fund—a fund from which the UK has benefited by £190 million between 2014 and 2020. There is no guarantee in the Bill that this funding will be replaced, other than a vague reference to grants. North Shields is a working fishing port, so it needs constant investment. We hope that the protection jetty, which is crucial for the fleet, will be renewed. The problem, however, has not been the EMFF—it is not that bit of the funding that has proved difficult. The problem with funding is turning to local authorities that have had their funding cut, or turning to the port authority, which is concerned about the fall-out from Brexit. I want to hear what the Minister is going to do about making sure that ports like North Shields have access to funding in the future.
The White Paper talks about the coastal communities fund. That fund followed on from Sea Change, which the previous Labour Government introduced to implement regeneration in coastal and seaside towns. In my constituency, the successful regenerations of Tynemouth and Whitley Bay have partly been funded from those funds. But seaside towns sometimes have no link with the fishing industry. What we need to avoid at all costs, with a fund that is of limited resource, is getting competition and having to choose between something that will make the port work and something that is there to regenerate seaside towns so that people visit our coasts.
The EMFF includes money for data collection— €52.2 million between 2014 and 2020. It also pays, in part, for enforcement, with €45.2 million between 2014 and 2020. I ask the Minister: where will the money come from to pay for those essential elements of a future fishing policy? If we control our waters, and infringements are going to be regarded as offences, that needs enforcement, as the right hon. Member for North Shropshire (Mr Paterson) said. Last year, the Joint Maritime Operations Coordination Centre was established, but I understand from fishermen I talk to that its resources are stretched. In addition, we have dependencies in other parts of the world that require our help in policing the environmental protection zones that they have established.
So where is the money going to come from for enforcement? I fear, and many of my fishermen will fear, that it will come from a word often used in the Bill—“charging”. Fishermen operate small businesses, and, like many small businesses, they operate on the edge. A charging regime based on recouping the full cost of a regulatory regime may prove very costly. If clause 29 is anything to go by, we are talking about a substantial charging regime, and one that can be introduced and amended at the will of the Secretary of State through statutory instrument.
Let me turn briefly to something else that will determine the future of the fishing industry. Fishing is about catching fish, but it is also about selling them. The EU is our biggest importer and exporter, and market access is absolutely crucial. North Shields is the biggest prawn port in England; 95% of the prawns that are landed in North Shields are taken to be sold in Europe. They have five days to get there. Any delay, any bureaucracy or any tariff would put at risk not just the livelihood of the fishermen but perhaps the port itself. Fishermen tell me—I would like the Minister’s view on this—that if they do not have clarity by March 2019, or if there is no deal, they intend to tie up their boats, not just for weeks but for months on end.
The Government, as we have heard, have to stand by the promises that they have made. Fishermen felt let down when we went into the Common Market, and they will feel very let down if they do not get a good deal when we come out of the EU and the common fisheries policy. There is a lot in this Bill to commend it, and a lot of good ideas that should be applied whether we are in or out of the EU and the common fisheries policy.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. Hon. Members have been very good in observing a time limit, but to make sure that everyone has a chance of speaking, I am now going to impose a formal time limit of six minutes.
Scott Mann (North Cornwall) (Con)
It is always a pleasure to take part in a fisheries debate and, more importantly, a debate on a fisheries Bill. This Bill is naturally important to my constituency, and I welcome what it sets out to do. Fishing is an integral part of our coastal communities and their economy and culture, and it is part of our proud heritage in Cornwall, so I welcome this ambitious Bill for the fisheries industry as we leave the European Union and the common fisheries policy.
The CFP has damaged the whole UK fishing fleet. I am slightly concerned about the impact that the current withdrawal agreement could have on the UK’s sovereign control over our fisheries, but I commend the Bill and what it sets out to do. In North Cornwall, many of my constituents are quite rightly concerned about the impact that the CFP has had on coastal communities and the economy. I therefore welcome the revocation of the requirement for equal access rights for EU boats, which sits at the core of the Bill, to truly take back control of our waters and its resources within the UK and the Northern Ireland Executive economic zone. It is important to recognise that, as an independent coastal state under the UN convention on the law of the sea, nothing short of the UK Government having full control over access to fishing waters, sustainable quota and environmental measures being set in the UK is acceptable.
As the UK parliamentary bass champion, I fully agreed with Samuel Stone of the Marine Conservation Society when he said:
“This is the time for the UK to demonstrate strong leadership and to show that it can be ambitious and serious about the protection of our seas.”
I welcome the discard objectives in the Bill, which aim to gradually eliminate discards on a case-by-case basis by avoiding and reducing unwanted captures; that is particularly difficult in communities like mine, which are mixed fisheries. However, my understanding is that if the implementation period is extended, we will still effectively be in the CFP, we will still have to bid for quota and we will be subjected to the discard ban and the fines imposed under it.
Owen Smith
Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that it is worse than that? Not only will we still be in the CFP, but we will not be formally taking part in those discussions about quota. We will be invited to attend, and we may be consulted, but we will no longer have any proper influence.
Scott Mann
That is my understanding of the withdrawal Act. The implementation period should come to an end as quickly as possible, because the discard ban and the fines that might come about from it would place our fishermen under immense pressure.
I welcome the commitments made to supporting sustainable fisheries by ensuring that all our harvested stocks are in line with maximum sustainable yield. I was told recently that we must follow the science, and that is equally important with fisheries management. It is great to see the UK committing itself to internationally defined standards adopted by most successful fisheries and fisheries management regimes around the world.
However, more could be done through the Bill to ensure that we meet those targets. A light-tough approach to the duties placed on authorities to deliver on these objectives risks the complete undermining of the Government’s stated ambition. There is an absence of duty on fisheries managers to set fisheries limits on exceeding levels, to restore stocks or maintain maximum sustainable yield, and a lack of deadline for restoring stocks above maximum sustainable levels. I therefore recommend a binding duty to ensure that, as soon as the Bill comes into force, fisheries managers cannot set fishing limits above scientific recommended levels. That would deliver the UK Government’s objective to restore stocks.
I firmly believe that we have a chance to invest in our fishing industry and bring innovation at a time of change and changing technology, to improve both safety and prosperity in the industry. I welcome the Budget announcement of £12 million for the fishing industry, with £10 million of that money coming from UK Research and Innovation, to establish an innovation fund to help transform the fisheries industry, and £2 million being set aside for fisheries safety projects across the UK and on-board safety equipment; I know that my hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall (Mrs Murray) has pushed for that for some time.
The fishing industry and its practices have not developed much over the last 40 years, and it is time we brought innovation into the industry. Taking back control of our fisheries policy gives us a chance to ensure that the UK is a world leader in sustainability and safe and productive fishing methods. Investing in technology and technological change will help the UK to stick to its scientific objectives, which commit us to contributing to the collection of scientific data. An example of where we have gone wrong in the past with a fishing technique that has not evolved is the gill net. Currently, juvenile fish can be caught in an overloaded net, and this is one area where the tech innovation fund could look at new ways of developing gill net mesh.
Technology can also boost productivity for independent fishing businesses, support entrepreneurship and provide the ability to create new real-time data to allow fish to be sold directly to restaurants straight off the boats. An example of this is an independent small business in Cornwall that uses an app to register and download fish information as soon as the fish has gone into the boat, so that it can be sold to restaurants as soon as the boat comes back.
In my last minute, I would like to talk about recreational angling, which is hugely important to coastal communities such as mine. I commend the support in the Bill for promoting recreational angling. One opportunity this Fisheries Bill affords us involves Atlantic bluefin tuna. Stocks have collapsed over decades from commercial overfishing, but with the return of these iconic fish to the British Isles—in particular, to Cornwall—we now have a real opportunity to grasp the nettle and embrace this opportunity. As an independent and sovereign member of the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas, we have the opportunity to request a quota, and I believe we should. A fish that is caught by rod and line and returned to the sea is worth six times more to the economy than a fish that is landed, killed and eaten. I will leave it there, but I commend this Bill.
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I apologise to colleagues for interrupting this important debate, but the House should know that in the past hour some journalists in Brussels have been tweeting that the proposed European summit this weekend will be cancelled. I have no idea whether or not this is true—it could just be journalistic speculation—but given the importance of that potential meeting for the future of this country, have you had any indication from the Government that a Minister may be prepared to come to this House at 7 pm, before we rise, to clarify the situation? [Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. We will not have sedentary interventions at this point.
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his point of order, but he knows very well that it is not a point I can answer from the Chair. I could do so if I had had notice of the intention of any Minister to come to the Chamber, but I have had no such notice. However, I am quite sure the right hon. Gentleman appreciates that, as matters have developed outside this Chamber on the subject to which he refers, Ministers have been very assiduous in coming to the House as soon as possible to keep the House, Parliament and the country updated about what is happening. I have every confidence that as soon as a relevant Minister has something of importance to say, he or she will come to the Chamber to say it.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
I just hope that we get through the next six minutes without any major developments of that sort.
May I first associate myself with the remarks of the Secretary of State and others who have spoken in this debate about the very dangerous nature of fishing as an occupation? I was born and brought up on Islay on the west coast of Scotland, and I attended Islay High School, which, from memory, had in the region of 300 pupils. I calculate that at least five men have died in the course of their work as fishermen since I was at school with them. That is one very graphic illustration of the genuinely perilous nature of the work done by these men.
I very much welcome this Bill and the opportunity to contribute to the debate on it. Although my party does not have an automatic right to a place on the Public Bill Committee, I hope it might be possible on this occasion, as the Bill progresses, for me to serve on the Committee. Fishing is an enormously important industry in the constituency that I represent. In Shetland, it accounts for about one third of the local economy.
We essentially have a piece of enabling legislation before us. I have some concerns about the inclusion of some of the rather broadly drawn powers for negative resolution, but that was always going to be the case, because unless and until we know the full picture of the political settlement on which the future management arrangements will have to be constructed, it will not be possible to have an awful lot more.
It is clear, however, that the fishing industry looks forward to the next few years with a great deal of expectation. Clear promises have been made, particularly on the Government’s refusal to allow access to waters for foreign vessels in return for access to markets. The Minister will be aware that the industry looks to him and his colleagues to ensure that those promises are kept, but it is clear from—[Interruption.] I do hope my speech is not interrupting the conversation on the Back Benches. It is clear from the answer that the Prime Minister gave me last week that that argument is still very much in play, and it is something on which those of us who represent communities where fishing is important will have to work together.
There has been a lot of knockabout. There was talk of the Fisheries Jurisdiction Bill, which was a 10-minute rule Bill brought forward some years ago by Alex Salmond. Among the supporters of that Bill were Alex Salmond, Roy Beggs, Eddie McGrady, Austin Mitchell, Ann Winterton, Elfyn Llwyd, Angus Robertson, Michael Weir and me. As the last man standing from that somewhat eclectic group, it is useful to remind the House why that Bill was brought forward and supported by that coalition.
The context was that the industry was under the cosh as a result of the cod recovery programme that was then being imposed by the European Commission through the December Council arrangements. As representatives of an industry that did not have a lot of political clout or commercial force, we understood that we would be able to make its voice heard only if we worked together. Many of us came to that position from different starting points and through different routes. I say to all the hon. Members who have succeeded the former Members in that list that the same remains true today. We will get what we need only if we work together. I encourage hon. Members from both sides of the House to understand that.
The question that I want the Minister to answer is how the voice of our fishermen will be heard during the period after March next year and before the end of 2020, when the transitional arrangements will come to a conclusion. It was put to me rather graphically, and rather well, by a representative from Shetland Fishermen today, who said, “If you are not at the table, you will be on the menu.” We face that real risk during the transitional period.
How will we influence things such as the annual EU-Norway talks? I asked the Secretary of State and received a fairly broad answer, but perhaps I can get some more detail about how, in practical terms, when it comes to the renegotiation of the mackerel deal between the EU, Norway, the Faroes and Iceland, we will be able to get our point across. Essentially, we were rolled over once by the EU Commission on that. When we are not sitting at the table at the end of next year, how will we ensure that that does not happen again? Those concerns are not fanciful or insubstantial.
Angus Brendan MacNeil
Surely, fishing was important enough to the Conservative Government for them to have thought about that in their transitional agreement with the European Union. It must be on page something-or-other.
Mr Carmichael
The hon. Gentleman will have heard my comments in March when the agreement was concluded. It was apparent then that the Government—certainly the then Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union and probably the Prime Minister—did not understand its importance. I hope that subsequent events have persuaded them of its importance and that we will not see any backsliding in the future, because they would pay a heavy political price for that.
This is not a fanciful or insubstantial concern. The Minister will know that the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea advice in relation to North sea cod will be looking at substantial reductions again this year. I hope we are not back to the situation in which we found ourselves at the turn of the century, but it is not impossible that we will be. The truth of the matter is that it was almost impossible at that point, with our Ministers sitting at the table, to make our voice heard and to get the deal that was needed. Without anybody at the table, I have to say that I think it will be impossible. The price for that failure to deliver during the transitional arrangements stands to be paid by our fishing fleets.
Mr Charles Walker (Broxbourne) (Con)
Madam Deputy Speaker, with your indulgence, may I take you to the sunlit uplands of 2028 as imagined by my great friends in the Angling Trust in this amazing press release?
“In South Cornwall, swathes of new guesthouses, hotels and restaurants have opened up to service the visiting anglers fishing for blue fin tuna in Falmouth bay. The millions of pounds this has brought to the region has resulted in hundreds of full-time equivalent jobs servicing anglers travelling from the UK and from overseas to take advantage of the world-class big game angling opportunities that Cornwall is once again offering.
Meanwhile, nearly a decade of management measures protecting the spawning bass stock in the southern North sea has turned Clacton-on-Sea into the go-to location for weekend Londoners now spending their money bass fishing and enjoying their catches cooked before them in one of Clacton’s many new seafood restaurants capitalising on the turnaround of the North sea into one of the UK’s most productive fishing grounds. More broadly, the Essex coast is once again seeing former charter captains, such as Stewart Ward, returning to the sea.
It is worth remembering that none of these dramatic developments would have been possible without the Government’s brave and radical decision when the UK left the EU to ensure fish stocks were managed sustainably and to maximise the return to the UK of the sustainable use of fisheries resources and protection of the marine environment.
The policy was controversial at the time, but the bold and ambitious move has paid off in ways even the most ardent supporter of such a policy could not have expected at the time. The UK is now a world leader in how to manage fish stocks sustainably, so they deliver the biggest benefits to society as a whole.”
The press release concludes:
“EU policy makers are now planning to follow suit in the next reform of the Common Fisheries Policy which, like the reforms before it, from 2002 to the last one in 2022 failed to live up to their promises.”
That is the prize—and, my word, is it a prize. Imagine people from around the world travelling to Cornwall to catch 500 lb tuna fish—not to knock the tuna on the head and put them in a refrigerated ship to be cut up on a slab, but to be part of a conservation programme so that they can be tagged, measured and released; a big game fishery that means people who love fishing and catching big fish do not have to fly to Kenya to do it? People from around the world will be flying to London and regional airports to get to Falmouth, so they can go big game fishing. This is going to be a fantastic opportunity. Charter skippers will be able to charge somewhere in the region of £1,500 a day to take three fishermen, fisherwomen or fisherpersons out. Wow.
As for bass fishing, what an opportunity: thousands of beds around Essex filled up with anglers at the weekends and during holidays with their fly rods and spinning rods, coming to Essex and other coastal communities and counties to catch bass; bass that are no longer plundered but preserved for game fishermen. Of course, I do not want to see commercial fishermen cut out of bass fishing, but I know there is a way of managing our bass stocks so both interests can have a sustainable future. As well as the big politics of Brexit, that is what we need to be discussing today: the fish, because the fish are really important.
I want to say a couple more things before I sit down—I said I would be brief. The management of our fish stocks, as far as recreational anglers are concerned, has been nothing short of catastrophic up to this point. Until 1 October, if I had gone bass fishing with my son and we had caught a bass each, we both would have been required to return them. Even if they had been above the 42 cm keep limit, it would have been illegal for us to keep a fish. That is not right; fish stocks belong to everyone. I see in front of me my hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall (Mrs Murray), who speaks so passionately about fishing. She understands that they need to be shared out and that recreational fishermen need to be able to keep a fish or two, or maybe three, for their family and friends. That is not being greedy; it is connecting with nature and the sea.
I look around the Chamber and see colleagues who are passionate about fishing, but we need to have a bit more passion about the fish. We need to make sure that we have viable fish stocks for people to enjoy.
Mrs Sheryll Murray
My hon. Friend is a fantastic spokesperson for the leisure and recreational fishing fraternity. Will he tell us how the ban on catching bass has affected the angling fraternity under the common fisheries policy and how they will benefit once we leave?
Mr Walker
The press release that I quoted mentioned Stewart Ward, who is a constituent of my right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois), who was sitting here a few moments ago. Stewart Ward lost his business. He was a charter skipper in Essex, and he wrote to me to explain why it happened. When people pay their £40 or so to go out on a fishing trip, they like to keep a fish or two, which is perfectly reasonable. It is a natural thing for someone to want to bring their catch home—it is part of the harvester in many of us. However, his clients and guests were not allowed to keep the fish, and they could not justify spending the money if they were not able to bring part—not all—of their catch home. It has had a damaging—some would say catastrophic—effect on the recreational angling fleet and those who enjoy recreational angling.
I have spoken for too long. I think I have made the case for fish, and I hope that we in this Chamber can continue to make the case for fish long after we have left the EU in a few months’ time.
Brendan O’Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
As the Member of Parliament for Argyll and Bute, a constituency with an aggregated coastline longer than that of France, I am well aware of the importance of fishing and aquaculture to the economic wellbeing of my constituency and communities around the UK. I am also very aware of the dangers faced by fishermen, with the community of Tarbert, in particular, still mourning the loss of Duncan MacDougall and Przemek Krawczyk when the Nancy Glen sank in January this year.
As well as having an inshore fishing fleet, we in Argyll and Bute also export huge quantities of shellfish—some of the best in the world—and we are proud to be the home of many world-renowned salmon, halibut and trout producers. This means that there are significant differences between the industries on the west coast and those on the east, but that does not mean that they do not share common ground. First, they both rely on guaranteed, fast, unhindered access to markets. Secondly, they need to be able to recruit the right people to crew their boats, and they need sufficient numbers of people to process their catch quickly and efficiently and dispatch it to where it has to go—much of it to continental Europe.
They also share common ground on their justified fear of what is contained in the Government’s withdrawal agreement, because that agreement does not provide the frictionless trade that they want and need, nor does it guarantee access to the workforce that they require. Arguably, most damagingly of all, it puts Scotland’s fishing industry at a competitive disadvantage compared with Northern Ireland. In short, what the Prime Minister is proposing does not guarantee a bright future for the Scottish fishing industry.
The fishing industry, particularly on the west coast of Scotland, is facing a recruitment crisis. I was very pleased to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Angus Brendan MacNeil) raise that issue, because we desperately need the ability to recruit fishermen to work on our boats and in our processing factories.
As I suspected we might, we have heard a great deal this afternoon about the shortcomings of the CFP, and I, for one, will not defend it, but let me be clear: as I said earlier this afternoon, despite all the bluster and obfuscation from the Conservative party, it was complicit in the CFP’s creation and has been actively implementing it for the past 40 years. Since 1970, the Conservative party has been in power for 38 years. From Ted Heath, to Margaret Thatcher, John Major and the rest of them, the Conservative party’s fingerprints are all over the CFP.
Let the record show that since the early 1970s the SNP in this place has been the consistent and vocal opposition to the CFP. I can understand why that makes nervous listening for Conservative Members. Despite their attempts to position themselves as the champions of Scottish fishing, the truth is that Conservative Governments down the years have time and again sold out the fishing industry when convenient. Deep down, they know that that is exactly what this Government are planning to do again. I look at the sprinkling of long faces on the Government Benches, and their demeanour is very different from what it was a year ago, because the Scottish Conservative Members know that they have been hung out to dry by their own Prime Minister and that the promises they made to the fishing communities in the north-east of Scotland before last year’s general election are absolutely worthless.
I am sure that the Scottish Conservative Members will have read, probably through the cracks in their fingers, the article by Mure Dickie in yesterday’s Financial Times, when he highlighted the reality of what is happening in the north-east of Scotland. One Peterhead-based fish wholesaler told him:
“I think we have been sold down the river once again. It is an absolute disgrace.”
He is right—it is an absolute disgrace—but this is what happens when it turns out that the one-trick pony cannot even perform the trick.
It certainly did not take long for the “cast-iron” guarantees of the 2017 general election to become the latest addition to the shameful roll call of Tory betrayal of the Scottish fishing industry. Does anyone believe that had Scotland been in control of its own fishing assets in 1972 we would have allowed this vital industry to be treated as a bargaining chip in the way it has been for the last four decades? Only an independent Scottish Government can adequately look after the interests of our fishing industry; only an independent Scottish Government will recognise the significance of this industry’s contribution to our economy; and only an independent Scottish Government can be relied upon not to use our fishing industry as a bargaining chip.
The stark truth is that the glib and hollow promises made last year by career-hungry candidates wearing blue rosettes are now unravelling, because they were all predicated on a UK Government acting in the best interests of the Scottish fishing industry. History has taught them nothing. I look forward to the day when an independent Scotland, as a member of the European Union, can help to shape a common fisheries policy that works for us and is of benefit to our neighbours as well.
Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)
It is a pleasure to speak in this debate, and also to follow the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Brendan O’Hara), because I have a message for him: it was a previous Conservative leader and Prime Minister who went to Europe, fought for the United Kingdom and brought money back from Europe. The SNP should not forget that.
I welcome the principle behind the Bill and the fundamental principle of taking back control of our fisheries. We have already debated what an enormous mistake it has been—for our fishing communities, our economy and our environment—to leave our fishing policy subject to EU control for the last 40 years. Nowhere is the damage the EU has caused to our country more evident than in the decline of our fishing industry and communities across the country.
All those who work tirelessly risking their lives to bring back the fresh fish we enjoy eating and supporting their families and communities should be remembered and respected for their endurance and sacrifice. Our fishing communities have seen their industry diminished, while billions of pounds of our money and taxes have been spent via the EU investing in other fleets, including the Spanish. We have seen the EU allocate more quotas for some species in our waters to other EU countries than to us. As we have heard—in fact, the Secretary of State gave this figure—84% of the rights to fish for cod in the English channel have gone to the French, leaving 9% for British fishermen. That is not right. In fact, about two thirds of the fish caught in UK waters are caught by EU fleets.
Successive British Governments have had to do more in the past, and that is part of the reason we now have the opportunity to take back control. We have seen controls that were placed on our fishermen, in our waters, to protect the environment completely ignored by the fishing fleets of other countries—famously so. Because of EU rules, Spanish and French fishermen in our waters have been able to ignore the environmental protections that we put in place and value.
Let me say to all those—especially Opposition Members—who think that the EU is some sort of guarantor of environmental standards and that we are incapable of protecting our own environment, that we need look no further than the devastation created by the common fisheries policy to see that it is the EU that cannot be trusted with our environment. That applies specifically to discards—the CFP has caused large quantities of healthy fish to be thrown back dead into the sea—and to the French vessels that used to undertake bass pair trawling in our seas, damaging the seabed and ensnaring in their nets all marine life, including dolphins. Of course there has been reform, but the discard ban is flawed, and the only way in which we can support fishing communities and manage the marine environment in a sustainable way is to pass the Bill and take back control.
That, as my hon. Friend the Minister will know, is why the Bill is so important. It is an enabling Bill, but it leaves so much open to future decisions. It empowers Ministers to take control of our own waters, but some of that will happen only in due course. We may be vulnerable to not being able to take back the full control that we expect and that our fishing communities across the United Kingdom expect too. There are fears that come the negotiations on the future relationship, our fisheries will once again be traded away.
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall (Mrs Murray) for her speech earlier, but, more to the point, for the robust work that she has done consistently on this issue and for being such an enormous champion of our fishing communities— if only we had more politicians who were so prepared to challenge and question. In response to a question from my hon. Friend last week, the Prime Minister said that
“the UK should be an independent coastal state able to negotiate the issue of access to its waters”.
—[Official Report, 15 November 2018; Vol. 649, c. 461.]
However, as my hon. Friend has rightly said,
“Surely we should control access if we are properly leaving the European Union. Are we just leaving the Common Fisheries Policy in name only?”
This is about clarity. It would be a travesty if, after December 2020, the EU remained in control of our fisheries. In no circumstances should our rights to control our fisheries be negotiated away, and it is concerning that there is a risk that that could happen. There is ambivalence—a convenient ambivalence—in the language used in negotiations. Page 4 of the outline of the political declaration on the future relationship states:
“Within the context of the overall economic partnership, establishment of a new fisheries agreement on, inter alia, access to waters and quota shares, to be in place in time to be used for determining fishing opportunities for the first year after the transition period.”
Given the history of fisheries and the critical impact on fishing communities and the environment, I urge the Government not to lock our fisheries into a trade deal that would leave us in a place that is similar to our current position in the CFP. We must show leadership, and show that we will take back control over quota and over what can be fished in our seas. In future negotiations that we have as a coastal state, we should start from the basis that the fish in our seas are ours. The starting point should not be based on current EU agreements and the CFP.
There are many other concerns, a number of which have already been raised, but the fundamental principle must be that we are taking back control. Our Government will fight for our fishing industry and our communities around the country. We have a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to do this and get it right.
Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)
It is an honour to follow my friend the right hon. Member for Witham (Priti Patel) in this important debate. As Members have said, this is the first time in over 40 years that the House has considered primary legislation on what is one of our most important industries. While some Members might be churlish and blame the Conservatives for taking us into the CFP, the fact of the matter is that I hope they take us out properly, and get us out totally, completely and absolutely—free, unfettered and unbowed, with a new policy for our fishing industry once and for all. Little wonder there have been waves across the Chamber because of the excitement of our getting out of the European Union. The only reason why we are having this debate is that the people of this United Kingdom took a decision—“It’s time to leave.” I hope that the Bill honours that decision by over 17 million people and that we will leave the EU and do so properly. I look forward to that.
Those member states that wish to stay with the common fisheries policy and to be supplicant to the EU should consider their priorities. My nearest neighbour, the Republic of Ireland, takes 40% of its total allowable catch from our British waters and is further dependent for processing on British trawlers that have landed their catches from the seas of Northern Ireland.
Brendan O'Hara
Will the hon. Gentleman accept that I, as the Member for Argyll and Bute—a constituency that overwhelmingly voted to remain in the EU—am indeed listening to my constituents when I stand up and fight for their right to remain in at least the single market and the customs union?
Ian Paisley
I have no doubt that the hon. Gentleman represents his constituents in the way he wishes, and does so valiantly. He is of course entitled to do that and to have a different opinion on this matter, but we do have to leave the EU.
I want to address the issue of how the Irish Republic currently treats its neighbour, Northern Ireland. We have the voisinage agreement, which has not been raised today. It disgusts me that the Republic of Ireland keeps talking about not wanting a hard border in Northern Ireland and says that that would be a disgrace, yet has created what is effectively a hard border for County Down fishermen by breaking the voisinage agreement time and again. How is the Irish Republic going to treat Spanish fishermen when they are not allowed to fish in British seas after we leave the EU? How is it going to treat people from other member states? If it treats them in the way it has treated the people of Northern Ireland, those fishermen will feel a hard border within Europe also.
Kate Hoey
The Prime Minister talks about taking back control of our fishing, yet for the last two years, the Republic of Ireland has reneged on that agreement. We could have taken back at least that bit of control by saying, “Sorry, we’re not going to let your fishermen come into our area,” but the Government have not done so.
Ian Paisley
I thank the hon. Lady for making that point. We all know why the Republic of Ireland has decided to have this debate about the hard border: it has taken away from its having to address the important, hard questions that it should have been considering, such as what sort of trade relationship it should have with its biggest trading partner, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. It did not want to address that matter; it wanted to hide behind the issue of the hard border to confuse things and camouflage the real, important issue.
I raise that matter because according to the European Union’s most recent report on fishing and agriculture, if the Republic of Ireland does not get a trade agreement with the United Kingdom, it will lose a staggering €5.5 billion from its agri-food and fishing industry. It has been reported that the study
“prepared for the European Parliament’s Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development lays bare the full potential impact of a hard Brexit and singles out the Ireland as one of the most badly hit member states.”
Yet what has that member state done? Has it tried to help in this? Has it tried to make the voisinage agreement work? No, it has done everything to penalise Ulster fishermen and Ulster farmers, and it should be ashamed of how it has behaved.
I hope that that sends the message to the Spanish and the French that that is how the Republic of Ireland is going to treat them, and about what sort of hard border it will have when it suits it. Little wonder that we have had so many problems with the Republic of Ireland over the past two years during this negotiating period.
The Fisheries Bill should lead to a revival of our coastal towns, as we have heard from across the Chamber today, and I hope that it really does. There is one way in which we could achieve that, and I appeal to the Secretary of State and the Minister to do this. During the transition period, will they use every effort possible, and every investment opportunity available, to invest in our coastal towns and put them in a state of preparedness by increasing their production ability and improving their harbours? I hope that we can do the same for Scotland as well. It is critical that we have harbours across our nation that are able to land the catches that will be available to us and that we have processing industries in place from Argyll and Bute in Scotland to Portavogie and Kilkeel. All those things should be put in place, and we can do that only during the transition period. If we are not ready then, we will not be ready when we leave the transition period. I hope that we actually do this.
There is a fear that the withdrawal agreement, the Fisheries Bill and the transition period, when they are taken together, all mean different things to different folk at different times. As the right hon. Member for Witham said, we need clarity in this debate. We have heard something of that today from the Secretary of State, but we need to hear more. We also need to ensure that all these things dovetail properly so that our fishermen receive the clarity of language and meaning that they are entitled to. We have already heard some discussion about whether article 6(2) actually means what it says. Will it, for example, penalise our fishermen if a backstop is brought into place? I believe that it will, although the Minister assures me that it will not. We need more certainty on that point. If the Secretary of State were a lawyer, he would not be recommending article 6(2) to a client, and if it will penalise our fishermen, we should not be accepting it for one of our key industries in Northern Ireland.
The Bill fails to account for crew shortages. The immigration White Paper is not yet ready, and we will be able to make sense of this matter only when we get that White Paper. I hope that we will hear words today that will address that issue and that we will know sooner rather than later what the immigration White Paper will say about addressing the key matter of crew shortages. In addition, Northern Ireland demands fairness in how it is treated in the sharing out of quotas between Scotland, Northern Ireland, England and Wales. It is essential that we get that fairness; otherwise, it could be catastrophic for how we behave internally as a nation.
I also regret that the Bill does not refer to an advisory council to help with management. Such bodies have proved most beneficial in Norway and Australia. There is also the key issue of our Crown dependencies. The European Union is able to take fish freely from the seas around our Crown dependencies, and we need to ensure that we have some sort of an agreement with Crown dependencies such as the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands. Finally, I pay tribute to the Minister as he prepares for his penultimate or final December Fisheries Council meeting. I wish him all the very best as he wishes bon voyage to Europe.
Richard Drax (South Dorset) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow my friend and colleague the hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley). I, too, would like to pay tribute to our fishermen. We have had our share of tragedy in South Dorset, and I have seen at first hand the effect of losing a trawler and its crew on the parents and friends involved. It is devastating, and I pay tribute to all those who bravely go out to provide food for our table.
Sadly, my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker) is not here at the moment. I agree with his enthusiastic sunny-upland vision of how his constituency would look in, I think, 2028. He had a vision of a time when fishing will be back in our hands, when all the bed and breakfasts will be full, when local fish will be served, and when Weymouth and Portland—the most beautiful part of this United Kingdom—will be full of fishing shops and of people visiting and enjoying the stunning countryside and coastline. That is the vision—it is sadly sometimes lost in the House—that we need to hold on to as we respect the vote that was taken in 2016.
Fish is a particularly totemic issue, and I believe that this is a matter of trust. In this place, however, trust has dipped to a terrible ebb. At Question Time today, we heard the Prime Minister say that there was a threat of no Brexit at all. Afterwards, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Ms McVey), who was sitting to my right, asked the Prime Minister to confirm that there would be a Brexit, come what may. She did, but those two statements are incompatible.
I would like personally to thank my hon. Friend the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, both of whom I have immense respect for. I know that they will work hard. The Minster, in particular—he has been in post longer than the Secretary of State—has worked extremely hard for our fishing and farming communities, so I thank him for all that he has done for my constituency.
The Bill revokes the EU legislation that currently sets the UK’s fishing opportunities, giving the Secretary of State powers to determine those opportunities. However, the National Federation of Fishermen’s Organisations has said:
“If the Government backs down on its promises to the UK fishing industry, many of the objectives that the Fisheries Bill is aiming to achieve will be impossible.”
The Government must not back down on their promises to this totemic industry. If we do, it will be to our shame. Clause 7, on “Revocation of requirement for equal access for EU fishing vessels”, clause 8, on “Access to British fisheries by foreign fishing boats”, clause 11, on “Foreign fishing boats required to be licensed if within British fishery limits”, clause 12, on “Power to grant licences in respect of foreign fishing boats”, clause 18, on “fishing opportunities”, clause 23, on “Discard prevention charging schemes”, and clause 28, which relates to grants to the fishing industry in England after the UK’s withdrawal from the EU, will all become pointless if we remain in the customs union beyond the transition period.
Let us not forget that behind the scenes our European allies and friends—I regret to say this—are plotting and scheming, as they have been doing. We know that Sabine Weyand, Mr Barnier’s No. 2, told EU ambassadors in a leaked note that Britain
“would have to swallow a link between access to products and fisheries in future agreements”
after the transition period as part of any trade deal. She said:
“This requires the customs union as the basis of the future relationship. They must align their rules but the EU will retain all the controls.”
That sends a shiver down my spine, and I suspect that the fishing industry will feel the same.
We know that we will not have control of our waters until after Brexit day, which in my view is 21 months after March 2019. That is when this country, I hope, will be truly free. As I understand it, until that time we will remain in the CFP. Earlier I asked the Secretary of State whether extending the implementation period, rather than applying the backstop, would still keep us in the CFP. I would be most grateful if the Minister told us whether the answer to that question is yes or no.
I also seek an assurance that the fishing industry, Members of the House and all those in our fishing communities will not be sold out for the sake of some other deal that can be made with the EU. EU countries are making it clear that they will not accept being locked out of UK waters post Brexit. In return for Britain’s continued membership of the customs union after the transition, the EU will demand continued status quo access to UK waters for its trawlers, even though the UK will have departed from the CFP. The French, Danish, Spanish and Portuguese Governments are under particular pressure to deliver for their fleets.
I have an awful lot more to say but only 30 seconds remaining, so I will end on this note. I stand here on behalf of the many fishermen in my constituency—there are a lot in South Dorset—to ask those on the Government Front Bench not to let us down on this issue, and to get us out of the EU totally and utterly. Only then, I believe, can we move to the sunny uplands envisaged by my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne.
Melanie Onn (Great Grimsby) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for South Dorset (Richard Drax). I wish to begin my remarks by thanking Associated British Ports in Grimsby for its annual remembrance service, which remembers the Grimsby fishermen on 375 wrecked trawlers that were used as minesweepers in world war one. This week, divers discovered 307 of those that were lost, which have been sitting at the bottom of the sea for the past 100 years. There is a short video about it on the BBC news website. I also thank the Fishermen’s Mission for its continued support for fishermen and their families in Grimsby and for organising the annual lost fishermen’s memorial, which is much appreciated by the community in Grimsby.
I am pleased that the Secretary of State has returned to his seat, because he concluded his comments with his usual flourishing rhetoric. Although that might suit his populist aims, I ask him for a little caution. The promises of the leave campaign followed similar lines, promising communities like mine not so much a land of milk and honey as a sea of cod and haddock.
The Library briefing shows that landings in Grimsby have now reduced to around 4,000 tonnes of shellfish. Tackling my town’s health inequalities, education attainment levels, underinvestment in the public realm, low wages and high unemployment—things that would demonstrate that positive change is coming to my town—surely cannot come from just the two additional trawlers that fishermen have told me they expect to be able to afford to add post Brexit. Surely those two trawlers are not going to change the fortunes of my town, solving years of complex issues of underinvestment and a sense of limited opportunity locally. If the Secretary of State wants to tell me otherwise. I would be grateful to hear him. There needs to be a sense of realism in this debate, rather than leading people down a false road.
I also hope the Secretary of State has had the opportunity to read the responses to the White Paper from Andrew Marr International Ltd, Peter & J. Johnstone Ltd and UK Fisheries Ltd, all organisations that play an essential role in the local Grimsby community. They provide employment in the community and in the fishing industry, investing in vessels and contributing to the country’s economy, as well as its dinner plates.
I echo the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith), who has returned just at the right time, about the importance of the processing sector to my town. It employs some 5,000 people doing everything, from those working in the fish market to those working on the auctions, to the independent traders who take the product around the country and to the filleters, packers, accountants, logisticians, managers and so much more. We really should hear more of their voices in this debate.
The Bill says that fishery and aquaculture products will not be included in a customs arrangement unless there is agreement between the EU and the UK on access to waters and fishing opportunities. Trawler operators in Grimsby have expressed concern to me that it is precisely because of the value of the catch and the benefit to those EU nations’ economies that there is such a desire to keep the two so closely tied. For vessels that are based in the UK and land in the UK, there is little that can persuade them that there is any need to keep the lines of communication and good-natured trading relationships open, but as Grimsby has the benefit of both pelagic and distance fleet interests, particularly in landing, storage and processing, there is a bit of a conflict. The Government must consider carefully the whole UK fleet in all its sizes and purposes.
Where there is commonality, it largely comes through the hard work of the National Federation of Fishermen’s Organisations, which has taken a realistic and pragmatic view, with the benefit of knowing all levels of the industry well. The NFFO says it accepts that the sustainability of fish and fishing is important—of course if there are no fish, there is no fishing—and it is open to improving further the relationships with science and the broader industry, supporting a review of the quota system and advocating for an adaptive, responsive fisheries policy.
My time has run short very quickly. Concerns have been raised about the Bill, and the current framing provides for east coast vessels to fish in Scottish waters, but it still empowers Marine Scotland to provide the rules under which they fish. The Bill does not give any detail of what that will mean in practice, and there is concern that conditions may be placed on activity that cause unnecessary disadvantage due to issues such as the subtle differences in activity or in the place of landing. It is envisaged that there will be a memorandum of understanding among the devolved nations to agree a template for fishing management activities, but MOUs are not legally binding and can be withdrawn from at any time.
Angela Smith
Does my hon. Friend agree that there is too little detail in this Bill that gives us any idea of certainty in the future?
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. We will be going down to five minutes after this speech.
Melanie Onn
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. My hon. Friend makes precisely the point that has been raised with me: leaving future rules under which boats may fish to the whims of what is, in effect, a gentleman’s agreement does not provide any assurance or security to the east coast industry. There is a sense of history repeating itself, as the same industry feels that the fisheries concordat has also not served it well and that those who make the decisions have not fully heard the concerns raised by this section of the fishing industry. As an MOU may be withdrawn from, there is also the issue of the proposed joint fisheries statements to address. The Bill would allow for a devolved Administration to walk away simply by stating their reasons. There really must be a dispute resolution mechanism; allowing for a collective statement to fall simply due to a lack of administrative preparations seems short-sighted at best, but it would also render such a statement useless.
Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)
I welcome this Bill, which will hopefully provide the framework for regenerating the Lowestoft and East Anglian fishing industry, which in the past has been an important component part of the local economy. It has sadly declined in recent years, with thousands of jobs being lost, but with the right support, the right management system and the right policies, the industry can be rebuilt, we can attract inward investments and the industry can play a key role in the regeneration of coastal communities, not just in East Anglia but around the UK.
Fishing has taken place off the East Anglian coast for more than 1,000 years. Lowestoft was previously the fishing capital of the southern North Sea and was the hub of an industry that included many other ports in the region. Today, East Anglia sits next to one of the richest fishing fields in Europe, but little local benefit is derived from it. To revive local fishing, the industry earlier this year formed REAF—the Renaissance of East Anglian Fishing. With support from Waveney District Council, an application was submitted to the Marine Management Organisation for a European maritime and fisheries fund grant for a study that will develop a long-term strategy for the future of the East Anglian industry.
The application was approved earlier this month, and work is just beginning on a project that will help shape a positive and profitable future for the industry as a whole, from the net to the plate. Its objective is to establish how the economic and social benefits of the fishing industry in East Anglia can be best captured and optimised. This exciting project can revive fishing along the East Anglian coast, but to do so it needs the right national policy framework in place, and that is what this Bill needs to provide. From REAF’s perspective, the Bill must provide the following: first, the East Anglian fleet must be able to catch and land sufficient fish so that those working on the boats can earn a reasonable living and can supply local markets, processing and retailing businesses—the existing quota system has treated them shabbily, and it must be reformed.
Secondly, the Bill must ensure that local coastal communities benefit from any increase in catches and landings. The economic link policy, which is in the CFP and which is being transferred to the emerging UK fisheries policy, must have teeth and must actually achieve its objective, rather than remaining a high-minded statement. There is a Lowestoft producer organisation, but its vessels do not land their fish in Lowestoft—they do so in the Netherlands and in Peterhead. We must have more boats landing their catches in East Anglian ports.
Thirdly, the duty to fish sustainably must be ingrained in the Bill’s DNA. Management decisions must be made locally, with local fishermen working closely with local regulators and local scientists using up-to-date local knowledge and science. I acknowledge that many fish stocks have improved in recent years, but we really can do better than we do at present, whereby the current system allows the abhorrent practice of electro-pulse fishing to continue, notwithstanding the evidence that it is devastating fish stocks, wreaking havoc upon the marine environment and preventing local East Anglian fishermen from earning a living.
Credit must go to the team at DEFRA, the Ministers and the officials for drafting the Bill in such a short time. We do not need a Bill that just does the job and ticks the necessary boxes; we need a Bill that lasts the test of time and becomes an exemplar for the promotion of sustainable fishing and the reinvigoration of coastal communities. Like most others here, I have received many representations from organisations and specialists with proposals on how the Bill can be improved. Although it is an enabling Bill and much of the detail will be set out in secondary legislation, I urge the Government to look closely at the proposals that have been put forward and to see how the Bill can be improved.
I re-emphasise that the allocation of quota must be fairer and accessible to all and should take place transparently, rather than in the existing opaque way. That will enable all fishermen from all communities to really benefit from Brexit.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
I declare an interest: I am proud to speak on behalf of my daughter and her partner, who operate a fishing vessel out of Porthdinllaen. I am proud to represent the many coastal communities of Llŷn, Eifionydd and Meirionnydd, and all their fishing families.
Let me begin by outlining the special nature of the Welsh fishing industry, which is structurally different from that of the rest of United Kingdom, and especially different from Scotland’s, despite the devolved environment in which both nations operate. There are approximately 400 vessels in the Welsh fishing fleet, the vast majority of which are under 10 metres. These small boats operate in some of the most challenging and dangerous inshore environments. I have spoken to experienced fishermen, such as Brett Garner of Llŷn, as well as to long-serving spokesmen such as Owie Roberts of Edern and Jim Evans of the Welsh Fishermen’s Association, and I wish to convey some of their fears and aspirations as we look towards the future of Welsh fishing.
Trading in live produce with a short shelf life is a tricky business at the best of times, but the imposition of customs checks and any slowdown in the trade process will mean deterioration and mortality, making trade desperately difficult under many predictable post-Brexit eventualities. I note, too, that the valuable trade in whelks, which are the mainstay of many Welsh fishermen, the value of whose UK landings in June this year was £2.6 million, has South Korea among its primary destinations. That trade is enabled by an EU extended trade agreement. To state the bleeding obvious, the UK currently has no trade agreements with Korea directly. What discussions has the Minister had with the Secretary of State for International Trade to facilitate the future of this important local industry?
Tariff barriers would have an immense impact on viability, but non-tariff barriers could also be truly devastating. Welsh fishermen’s spokespeople have urged me to ask the Minister, given the vulnerability of fishermen’s livelihoods to any hold-ups in the transporting of their produce to European and worldwide markets alike, what plans he has to set aside financial support for inshore, small-vessel operators, in preparation for the possibility of a no-deal Brexit.
Before quota responsibilities were devolved to the Welsh Government, which is currently the case, the Westminster Government authorised the sale of 88% of Welsh fishing quotas to Spanish businesses. They were content for the market to operate unimpeded and condoned the loss of resources for the Welsh fishing industry. Indeed, only 10% of Wales’s quota is currently held in Welsh waters, and only 27% of the quota is even caught in UK waters. That raises the question: why did Westminster permit quotas to be at the mercy of global businesses? How can the Minister assure hard-working fishing families that this will never happen again?
Wales being let down by Westminster is not an unfamiliar tale, but the responsibility for quotas was transferred to Cardiff. The Welsh Government could have made a stand for Welsh fishing and moved to install a moratorium on the sale of any more fishing quotas for businesses outside Wales, as the Scottish Government did in 2014. Instead, after we have left the EU and the withdrawal Act kicks in—with the consent of the Labour Government in Cardiff, I hasten to add—Wales will have gifted back to Westminster the legal capacity to do that.
I seek clarity on the following points. How will the Minister consult the devolved Administrations and what will be the nature of the joint decision-making mechanisms that he surely intends to establish? How does he intend to ensure that consent means consent and not really just the right to be told? If, as appears to be the case, the Welsh Government will now have some responsibility for all Welsh waters—namely from the coast to 6 miles, from there to 12 miles and now, at last, to the Welsh median line—this is indeed to be welcomed. I ask whether the financial resources will also reflect these additional waters. How will maritime and fisheries funding allocations be allocated after 2020 and can he confirm that that will be needs-based?
The reality of the Government’s position is that fishing opportunities and the withdrawal agreement’s political declaration remain utterly uncertain. How much of the fishing fleet’s livelihood are the Government happy to barter? Fishing communities seek clarity and certainty. The Minister’s Government presently offer scant comfort.
Steve Double (St Austell and Newquay) (Con)
It is a great honour to be able to speak in this very important debate. As has previously been said, this is the first time for many decades that this Chamber has been able to debate primary legislation relating to our fisheries.
The fishing communities that I have the honour of representing have a long-standing and proud tradition of fishing that goes back many, many generations. In fact, many of today’s fishermen are the sons and grandsons of fishermen. I have two primary fishing communities in my constituency: in Newquay and in Mevagissey. The fishing port of Mevagissey is the second largest in Cornwall and, in many ways, is doing well and is growing. The age of its fishermen is younger than average, and those fishermen are active and looking to the future. I remind the Secretary of State again that he did offer to meet the fishermen of Mevagissey. Virtually every time I speak to them, they remind me that this offer was made, so it would be incredibly good if he came sooner rather than later.
It is a sad but well-established fact that our fishing communities have not fared well under the common fisheries policy. The industry was sacrificed in the 1970s as a bargaining chip when we joined the Common Market, and that sense of betrayal still runs very deep within our fishing communities. We should not under- estimate how strongly those feelings are still felt today. Therefore, it is understandable that many fishermen in Cornwall are still suspicious of the Government. Although some good commitments have been made to our fishing communities in recent months, it is absolutely vital that we see those words turned into actions and firm decisions and that we do not let down our fishing communities once again.
The CFP has failed effectively to manage our fish stocks and has all but destroyed the economic competitiveness of our UK fishing industry. Around two thirds of all fish caught in UK waters are now caught by non-UK vessels, and, of some fish stocks, around 85% of the quota is awarded to non-UK boats. By taking back control of our fishing waters and by taking back control of our quotas, we have a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to put right the wrongs that have been imposed on our fishing industry.
I welcome the clear commitments made by the Government and by the Prime Minister personally when she came, infamously, to Mevagissey last May, at the very start of the election campaign, before our manifesto was launched. She met the fishermen and made some very clear commitments to them, and that was welcome, but it is absolutely vital that we do not again sell out our fishermen.
We are an island nation, and being an island nation presents a number of big challenges. One of the huge opportunities that we have as an island nation should be access to our fishing waters and to reap the rewards that that provides for our nation. That is what leaving the EU and leaving the common fisheries policy will enable us to do. I therefore very much welcome this Bill. It is essential that it is enacted so that we have the mechanism in place to manage our own fishing waters once we leave the EU. This will mean that we will have everything in place to do that if we do end up with a clean global Brexit come the end of March.
We need to look carefully at the matter of discards, which is the most common concern raised by my local fishermen. Discards are an utter and shameful waste of our fishing stocks. As other hon. Members have said, those rules mean that we are not able to know exactly what the stocks are, so it is important that we get it right and put the mechanisms in place to deal with the issue.
I have great admiration for both the Secretary of State and the Fisheries Minister, and I know that they are very much on the fishermen’s side, so I would say to them that we have to ensure that we see through the commitments we have made to our fishing industry that we do not sell it out again for access to markets and that we give it the fair and right opportunity that it should have to reap the rewards of our UK fishing waters.
Owen Smith (Pontypridd) (Lab)
Before I get into my speech, I will confess my three interests in this Bill. First, like the Secretary of State, I had family—my grandfather, not my father—who worked in the fishing industry. My grandfather worked behind the wet fish counter in Tonypandy and in Barry. Secondly, I am a very keen angler myself; and thirdly, I am implacably opposed to Brexit, and this Bill and the fisheries debate more broadly is the greatest example I can think of to demonstrate the hollowness of the claims that were made by the Brexiteers, such as the Secretary of State, as well as the hollowness of the promises that he is holding out again today to fishing industries and fishermen right across the country.
On both sides of the Brexit debate, the issue of fisheries illustrates what a dreadful discussion we had, because the remain side ought to admit that the CFP is one of the great failures of the EU. It does not work environmentally and it has not worked for the fishing industry in our country or elsewhere, and we should acknowledge that. We should not seek to stay in or replicate the CFP; we should be trying to reform it. But the biggest deception, of course, was on behalf of the Brexiteers: the promise that leaving the CFP would allow us to take back control of our seas. It is a wonderful phrase, which we have heard from the Secretary of State today, but the seas that we are talking about—the Irish sea, the North sea and the English channel—are shared with the countries on the other side of them. The fish we get out of those seas are sometimes landed and processed on the shores on the other side of those seas, and the markets we rely on are very often on the other side of those seas. That exposes the hollowness of both the Brexiteers’ claims and many promises made in the Secretary of State’s rhetoric today.
The hollowness is also exposed by a paucity of detail because, frankly, this Bill is long on rhetoric and short on detail. The reason that it is short on detail is that very little is agreed in respect of the future of our fisheries. There are lots of promises, as there were lots of promises in the White Paper in July this year, but the truth is that almost nothing is determined in respect of the future nature of our fisheries and of our agreement. In fact, throughout the withdrawal agreement, it is very clear that nothing is agreed. On page 311 of the deal, it is stated very clearly that
“(‘fishery and aquaculture products’), shall not be covered…unless an agreement”
is established. I think that the Minister wants to get that agreement by June 2020, but there is no guarantee that that will happen. As many fellow Brexit supporters of the Secretary of State have pointed out to him and to Front Benchers today, in the intervening period—during the transition period—we will actually lose influence and leverage in respect of our fisheries.
Article 130 on page 206 of the withdrawal agreement states:
“As regards the fixing of fishing opportunities within…the transition period, the United Kingdom shall be consulted in respect of the fishing opportunities…the Union shall offer the opportunity to the United Kingdom to provide comments on the Annual Communication”.
It also says that the UK shall be invited to the “relevant…fora”. We will be consulted with, we will have the opportunity to comment and we will be invited, but we will not actually be official participants in the decision making—the key decisions on the size and scale of the quotas which, according to the Secretary of State, we ought to see taken back under our control. All that is a clear indication of the hollowness of the claim that we would exercise greater sovereignty as a result of our leaving the European Union.
The Secretary of State, I am not sure whether deliberately, spoke out of both sides of his mouth today. He said that we are going to be taking back control in order to exercise greater observance of the sustainable yields that we have ignored for many, many years when in the common fisheries policy, and at the same time he said that we were going to be increasing our fish catch. Those two things, I say respectfully to him, cannot both be true. We cannot, in future, be more observant of the scientific advice about what are the sustainable yields we can take from our stocks while at the same time taking more fish from our seas. That is the biggest and most egregious example of the fib that is being told to fishermen across this country. I hope that during the passage of the Bill the Secretary of State will clear up some of these misconceptions and is very honest with people about what Brexit could mean.
Derek Thomas (St Ives) (Con)
I am glad to follow the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Owen Smith), because he referred to the restrictions of other oceans and other controlled waters, but I can tell him that actually, when a fisherman from Newlyn launches out to sea, they have 200 miles to go before they get into any sort of international waters. At the moment, as we have heard, they are allowed to access only 7% of the cod in those waters, and so it simply makes mathematical sense that if they get more share, they will get more fish.
I welcome the opportunity to speak in this debate. As my hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay (Steve Double) said, it is a long time since Members—a Member for St Ives, for example—have had the privilege of talking about primary legislation around a UK fisheries Bill. I am grateful to the Secretary of State and the Minister for—certainly in the case of the Minister—their repeated visits to Newlyn. They were both visitors to the largest Cornish fishing community by a considerable measure. I would suggest, although I do not want to upset my hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay, that the tragedy of discard is that we probably discard more fish from Newlyn fishermen than are caught in Mevagissey. However, that is something we can discuss on another day.
Derek Thomas
There is great quality fish from Newlyn as well. Actually, that is an important point. The quality of fish caught around the Cornish coast is significant, and it is in demand from Europe. I therefore have no doubt that we will get to the point where Europe will continue to want and buy Cornish fish.
My local fishermen welcome this Bill, broadly because its primary objective is to promote sustainable fisheries management. They know more than anyone that sustainable fisheries management arrangements are the right thing, demonstrating a respect for the oceans and its contents and delivering a future for an essential food source and for skilled employment. They know that the UK, particularly Cornwall, is already a world leader in sustainable fisheries management. Fishermen in Cornwall, through the Cornish Fish Producers Organisation, already work on many fronts to promote conservation initiatives and safe working practice and to demonstrate their commitment to realising a sustainable future.
It is important to remind the House of the benefits of Brexit to our fishermen. We will be an independent coastal state. We will have control of access to UK waters and ensure that British fishermen get a fair deal and are able to catch more because of a commitment to sustain stocks. We will revive coastal communities. Perhaps the Secretary of State could talk to the Prime Minister, because we are concerned about permanent workers from overseas potentially being excluded through a new immigration policy, which would have a detrimental impact on our fishing sector. It would be great to get clarity on whether people from overseas who work full-time in fishing can keep their jobs. We will also be able to maintain and develop the UK industry’s role as world leaders in sustainable fisheries policy.
The Government must not extend the common fisheries policy beyond 2020 or adopt an interim arrangement allowing the EU to set rules binding UK fisheries in any sort of extended implementation period or backstop. Furthermore, the Secretary of State must confirm today that the Government will not sacrifice the potential of Brexit for the British fishing industry in any way and that they will reject any future proposals from the EU that seek to wrestle away control of access to UK waters. Should the Government back down on their promises, the Bill cannot be delivered, and we will have failed and betrayed our fishing sector.
My fishermen are watching this closely, and they understand the risks of not getting this right. They are paying their mortgages, feeding their families and paying their taxes because of the fishing they do day in, day out, and we should take that seriously when considering their futures.
The Cornish Fish Producers Organisation has set out three simple asks of the Government. First, it asks the Government to establish a formal advisory council to guide policy, promote collaboration between central Government, devolved Administrations and the industry and allow for ongoing dialogue in a naturally variable industry. It is important that fishermen and fishing experts are sat around the table in that advisory council.
Secondly, the CFPO asks the Secretary of State to ensure a practical approach to sustainable fisheries management. Maximum sustainable yields—a key part of the regime—could fail in the same way that the CFP has failed, so it is important that we look at many other options to secure a good, sustainable fishing industry. Finally, the CFPO asks the Secretary of State to set out a dispute resolution mechanism, so that when things go wrong, they can be properly resolved.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is always a pleasure to speak in any fishing debate, as I have done every year that I have been in the House. I would like to begin by thanking the pre-legislative scrutiny Committee for the incredible work it has put into the Bill. It was a pleasure to work on submissions to the inquiry, as a member of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, and to have the Committee over to Northern Ireland to see at first hand the success and the needs of the industry in Portavogie in my constituency. I was also pleased to have input from Ardglass and Kilkeel, and I am pleased to see a representative from the Anglo North Irish Fish Producers Organisation in the Gallery, to oversee what we are saying.
I have been contacted by a number of fishermen and fishing bodies, and all have welcomed certain aspects of the Bill, such as the powers for the UK to set quotas and control access over who may fish in UK waters and under what conditions, the expectation of bilateral agreements with the EU, Norway and others with which it shares stocks and the Secretary of State in a position to endorse the content of those agreements. It is important to get that right.
It is also important to ensure that the principle of equal access is upheld when issuing any additional quota gained from leaving the EU. It is essential for Northern Ireland that quota is allocated according to individual vessels active in the fishery or by existing fixed quota allocations. While there is support for the principle of equal access for UK vessels to operate in any of the waters within the UK exclusive economic zone, there is some concern that these freedoms could be compromised if devolved Administrations introduce their own separate measures. Other Members have said that, and I want to reinforce it.
Jim Shannon
No, I will not.
I would like to briefly talk about clause 10. I would add that all licences granted under the authority of the Bill—in other words, those issued from the date of the Act coming into force onwards—are non-transferable. I am an advocate of reviewing the licence system, and I believe that it would be a mistake for us to fail to close the loophole that caused massive issues to begin with.
The Bill sets ambitions and measures to minimise discards. The National Federation of Fishermen’s Organisations is one body that contacted me to highlight the belief that reducing discards is an important element of sustainable fisheries management, and it is pleased to see the Government taking a positive and workable approach. Much good work has been done. The Government should establish a formal advisory council to guide policy, promote collaboration between central Government, devolved Administrations and the industry and allow for ongoing dialogue in a naturally variable industry.
It is understandable that the Bill refers to maximum sustainable yields as an approach to sustainable fisheries management. However, if MSY is set as a rigid timebound objective, it will, as with the CFP, prove unworkable. Instead, the UK must develop an approach to sustainable fisheries management that learns from the failings of the CFP. The NFFO is calling for a more balanced and workable approach, with oversight from the advisory council, and I concur with that.
There is still nothing in the Bill to address the access to labour issues. The natural counter-argument is that labour is outside the scope of the Bill, but it is in fact a critical pillar of the sustainability objective. I believe we can and must address that matter through the Bill, and an amendment can and should be tabled to incorporate access to labour.
I see the Minister in his place, and just for the record, he and I have had discussions on various occasions about the voisinage agreement, which my hon. Friend the Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) mentioned earlier. We have brought it up on every occasion we have met in this House, and in our meetings the voisinage agreement has been at the forefront of my mind and of his. He has told us in the past that it is his intention to pursue this legal matter through the courts and to ensure the waters covered by the voisinage agreement that belong to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland are returned. Will the Minister respond to that in a very positive way?
In my last minute, I want to quote the words of a constituent:
“Setting aside the complex and controversial questions surrounding parliamentary approval for the withdrawal agreement, much still hinges on the negotiations ahead. The UK’s legal status has altered and its leverage in fisheries negotiations has dramatically changed but unless that new status is used to address the gross distortions in quota shares, fishermen will question what it has all been for.”
My constituent says there are
“many examples of where the UK has been systematically disadvantaged by the CFP over 40 years. To deliver the fair share of fishing opportunities”,
all the fishermen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
“in this second round, will expect our negotiators”—
we look to those who will be responsible for this—
“to be as tough, astute, and hard-nosed as they need to be to realise the benefits of our new status as an independent coastal state.”
Good times are ahead. The good times will come, and they will come with some abundance after 29 March. We look forward to it.
Gillian Keegan (Chichester) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). Indeed, I am doing so for the first time.
We are all aware that since joining what was then the EEC, the UK fishing industry has steadily declined from landings of l million tonnes to about 400,000 tonnes today. Despite this, the industry still contributes £1.3 billion to the UK economy and provides over 34,000 jobs nationwide.
In the south-east, the industry is small, representing just over 1% of the jobs in the sector, but there are communities where fishing is the lifeblood of the town. Selsey in my constituency services much of the surrounding coast, including Chichester harbour, bringing in an annual landings turnover of £l million and boasting the best crab in the country. Selsey’s small but active fishing industry has about 15 boats, mostly of under- 10 metre vessels but with four of over-10 metres. Similarly, across the UK our fishing fleet predominantly comprises smaller vessels. Only about a fifth of our vessels are over-10 metres long. However, today we can see large vessels from France and Belgium fishing just 6 miles off the coast of Selsey. The vast majority of our local fishing is done within a 10-mile radius, so this is rather unwelcome.
We hope that change is on the horizon, as this Bill will set out the framework to make the UK an independent coastal state once again. With that, comes the ability to control our exclusive economic zone, reinstating our sovereign right to explore, exploit, conserve and manage our seas. This change will mean that foreign vessels will have to seek permission to fish here. In cases such as Selsey, I hope that will also mean we can provide some breathing space so our local fleet can access near-shore fishing grounds without competition.
One of the biggest changes brought about by this Bill will be our ability to implement a fair quota system, as currently it is anything but. As has been mentioned, in the English channel, the French take 83% of the cod; by contrast, UK fishers can take only 9%. It was therefore no surprise to hear the French President and his Europe Minister calling over the past few days for guaranteed access to our waters.
The UK has led the way to sustainable fisheries. We have been instrumental in setting rates at levels that will deliver a maximum sustainable yield by 2020, ensuring that species numbers remain stable for future generations. Self-regulation provides the opportunity to be more flexible and responsive to species population changes, allowing fishermen to take advantage of increases in fish populations. It has already been suggested that quotas for rays and skates could be increased by as much as 20%.
A big cause for concern within the industry is how to get more people into fishing. A New Economics Foundation report has highlighted that one of the biggest barriers for new entries is cost. New fishers willing to join the industry are required to purchase vessels with existing track records if they are to access quotas. That is a significant obstacle for those wishing to enter the profession, and it has the tendency to mean that older vessels are overvalued. I hope that in the near future the Government can work with organisations such as the NFFO to establish taster days and promote apprenticeships in this vital industry, which we can and should regenerate.
This debate is not about the disadvantage of the past but the opportunity of the future. The change ahead of us will reinvigorate our fishing industry and create prosperity for coastal communities, while continuing to ensure our fisheries are sustainable for future generations. I believe we can do all this and more, if we develop strategies to get more people into the industry who will help to bring in a new era of growth for our fishing industry.
British fisherman have faced decades of disadvantage, but by ensuring that our seas are once again sovereign we will turn the tides. I will end with a quotation from the president of the NFFO, Tony Delahunty, as he is a constituent of mine. He said:
“The National Federation of Fishermen’s Organisation’s view is that the withdrawal and future agreement…is an extremely important first step towards a new future for the UK as an independent coastal state and are keen to ensure that there are no links between fishing rights and trade in future negotiations.”
Maria Caulfield (Lewes) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow my neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Gillian Keegan). I, too, welcome the Bill as it is a clear indication that, after 40 years, we will leave the EU in March, and the UK will once again become an independent coastal state, responsible for managing its own waters. In Newhaven in my constituency, the fishing industry has been in decline for decades. A once thriving fishing port now sees its local fishermen away for long periods, often working for larger fishing fleets and unable to make a living independently. That is the legacy of the CFP.
The Bill provides a ray of hope for the industry, but let us be under no illusion: the changes in the Bill cannot be negotiated away as part of the withdrawal agreement or future trading relationship arrangements. Failure to secure the contents of the Bill will consign the UK fishing industry to the annals of history. I welcome many of the measures in the Bill, but particular highlights for me are the provision revoking the automatic access rights of EU vessels and the new powers for the UK to set catch limits, revoking EU powers to set EU quotas for our waters.
I have some concerns, however, that I wish to raise with the Minister. While the Bill will restore control of our waters, many people are concerned that the withdrawal agreement and, in particular, the future trading relationship paper could override the Bill and that countries such as France and Spain could demand access in future negotiations. In the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, we heard evidence during our fishing inquiry that the UK will remain in the CFP until 31 December 2020, but we will leave the EU before that. I made the point to the Secretary of State that we have concerns that although the Minister may attend the annual fisheries negotiation in December 2019, he will not have a say to ensure that our fishing rights are not overruled in the transition period. It is really important to have clarity on that point. I would welcome being wrong about it, but we are nervous.
As my hon. Friends the Members for South East Cornwall (Mrs Murray) and for Banff and Buchan (David Duguid) have said, we would also like the reassurance of the Bill including the date when we will actually leave. We want to see the date of 31 December 2020 written into the Bill. We would also like to see the insertion of an economic link into the Bill so that we are clear what we mean by “British”. Fishing for Leave has suggested that any British vessel should be 60% UK crewed and 60% UK-owned, retaining 60% of the catch landed. It is vital to ensure compliance with the term “British” if we are to deliver economic benefits to the communities we have heard so much about today. It is essential that we avoid multinationals buying up our entitlement.
Clauses 9 and 10 will grant powers to the devolved Administrations, but Northern Ireland does not have a devolved Administration, and it could be a while before one is restored. We would like reassurance that while Northern Ireland does not have an Assembly, civil servants will be given powers to prepare for the implementation of the Bill while an Executive is restored.
Following on from the points made by the hon. Members for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) about the voisinage agreement, the historical reciprocal arrangements are not in place and fishermen in Northern Ireland are suffering as a result. The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland said to the Select Committee this morning that that was a matter for DEFRA, so I am putting it back to DEFRA Ministers now. Either we need to challenge the Republic of Ireland Government to open up those fishing waters to fishermen in Northern Ireland, or in this Bill we can take back control and say that the Republic of Ireland cannot access UK waters until that dispute is resolved. I would very much appreciate it if the Secretary of State or the Minister were to comment on that. I will be grateful if these issues can be addressed either in Committee or on Report so that we do not have to table our own amendments.
Douglas Ross (Moray) (Con)
It is a pleasure and privilege to speak in this debate. Similarly to when we considered the Agriculture Bill earlier in the Session, this is the first opportunity for this Chamber of the United Kingdom Parliament to debate a future policy—this time for our fishermen and fishing industry. Communities such as Buckie, Cullen, Lossiemouth and Burghead do not have the same number of fishing boats as they once did, but they still have an extremely strong link to the fishing industry and they look at our debates in this Chamber very closely.
I very much support this enabling Bill, which has widespread support throughout the industry. The Ministers and their team have done a good job in bringing it to this stage. We all want to ensure that we have control over our waters and regenerate the coastal communities that have suffered in the past. There is a great deal to welcome in the Bill.
I want to spend a bit of time looking at the utter tosh—that is the only way I can describe it—that we have heard from the Scottish National party during this debate. We heard from the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Brendan O'Hara), who is not in the Chamber. He took us back to 1972, 11 years before I was even born. The hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Deidre Brock) took us back a number of years ago when Alex Salmond was putting forward legislation. The SNP has not mentioned him recently, so it is interesting to hear his name used again. In an intervention, I took the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith back to last year’s general election—the most recent election—to find the most recent credible position of the SNP. The SNP’s position then, on which all their candidates stood for election, was to go back into the common fisheries policy, and she confirmed that in response to my intervention.
Douglas Ross
I am sorry, but because of the time—[Interruption.] I will come to the hon. Lady, who confirmed that the SNP’s position—
Angus Brendan MacNeil
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for Moray (Douglas Ross) mentioned my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Deidre Brock), but is now refusing to take an intervention from her. Is that in order, Mr Deputy Speaker, or a convention of the House? [Interruption.] Courtesy and decency.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)
The answer is yes, it is in order. Members do not have to give way. What is normal is that if you do mention a Member’s name and that Member then comes back, it is up to the Member speaking to decide whether to give way. Normally, they do give way, but I cannot force any individual Member; it is up to Mr Ross whether he wishes to.
Douglas Ross
The hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Angus Brendan MacNeil) has a deaf ear, because I said I would let the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith intervene. I will come to her in a minute, if she has patience.
The hon. Lady confirmed that the SNP’s position is to go back into the CFP on re-joining the European Union but, she said, in their terms. I would like to give way to her so that she can tell us what those terms are. What is the SNP going to tell the EU that it would like to negotiate on the CFP, and what is it going to give away? A negotiation needs give and take, so what would it give to the European Union on that?
Deidre Brock
I would just like to quote directly from page 29 of the SNP’s 2017 general election manifesto:
“We will continue, in all circumstances, to demand the scrapping or fundamental reform of the Common Fisheries Policy and support Scottish control of Scottish fisheries, as we have done for many years.”
Douglas Ross
That is page 29, but there is absolutely no information on how the SNP would do that or what it would do. It is absolutely farcical—you have no plan for how you will go forward on the CFP; you will simply go back into it and do as you are told.
Other things we have not heard are—[Interruption.] Oh, come on, please. The hon. Lady mentioned nothing about the Scottish Government’s report that says that the fishing industry will benefit from £540 million and see an extra 5,000 jobs in Scotland as we come out of the CFP. The SNP will not mention that, because it wants to go back into the CFP.
I agree with a lot of things said by a number of Members—including the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar, my hon. Friend the Member for Banff and Buchan (David Duguid), the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael)—about the problems that the Government’s immigration policies are causing for fishermen. I held a Westminster Hall debate on the matter at which a number of Members spoke. [Interruption.] If SNP Members would stop barracking me, I may be able to answer their questions. This is something for which I believe there is cross-party support. I believe that the Government could make small changes to ensure that we get the right people into our—
Michael Gove
Is it not an unerring truth in this House that anyone who speaks the truth gets barracked by Scottish National party Members? They are not interested in debate, the facts, or answering the questions that my hon. Friend is putting; they are interested only in a separatist circus that threatens the jobs and livelihoods of the people they fail to represent.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. The hon. Gentleman cannot intervene on an intervention.
Douglas Ross
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am grateful to the Secretary of State for that intervention because—
Angus Brendan MacNeil
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for a Government Minister who has been asked three times for help in lobbying the Home Office about this problem for Scottish fisheries, but who has done nothing about it, to get up and not mention that, yet to make a political point on that very issue?
Mr Deputy Speaker
That is not a point of order, as the hon. Gentleman well knows.
Douglas Ross
I just love how we rile SNP Members so much that they have to make fake points of order to try to disrupt the flow of my speech. However, they will not disrupt the flow of my speech when I am criticising the SNP.
I will mention the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar again. He referred to a Westminster Hall debate in which a lot of Conservative MPs spoke. The reason why we heard from a lot of Conservative MPs—and Scottish Conservative MPs—was that the SNP lost so many seats in Scotland in so many coastal communities. The SNP lost 21 seats in Scotland because it would not stand up for the fishermen in our country, and we see exactly what it is doing. Those people know that Scottish Conservatives will be standing up for them—[Interruption.] I will take no lectures from the hon. Gentleman as he continues to speak from a sedentary position.
It is extremely important in this debate that we have a robust exchange of views. While there is much in the Bill to support, I have to use this speech as an opportunity to raise my concerns about the withdrawal agreement and the political declaration. Many Members have set out their concerns about the withdrawal agreement and the political declaration, and particularly the first bullet point on page 4 of the outline political declaration. I have to say that I share those concerns. I worry that we may be out of the common fisheries policy but still be in some way tied to a common fisheries policy. I could not support that. I said at a public meeting in Buckie back in March—it was widely reported in both The Banffshire Advertiser and The Northern Scot, so I am sure those at the highest level of government are aware of my concerns—that if a deal did not deliver for fishermen in Moray, in Scotland and across the United Kingdom, I could not support it. My position today remains the same.
Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)
Thank you very much for letting me speak so early in the debate, Mr Deputy Speaker. I do not quite know how I am going to follow that last speech—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)
I assure the hon. Gentleman that he is lucky I have called him at all, given the time.
Andrew Bowie
I am fully aware of that, Mr Deputy Speaker—I know I am chancing my luck. I start by paying tribute to two individuals who, when I was advising on fisheries issues in the European Parliament, did much to educate me in the world of fisheries, which to many is a foreign language. One of them is sitting in the Gallery this afternoon—Simon Collins, the CEO of the Shetland Fishermen’s Federation—and the other is a constituent of mine from the beautiful fishing village of Stonehaven, Mr Mike Park, who today received an OBE at the palace for his services to marine conservation. It is therefore more of an honour than usual, for professional, personal and geographical reasons, to speak in this debate, as we set a new and historic course, for the first time since 1973 setting our own regulations for management of the seas and determining who may fish in our waters and on what terms.
I strongly associate myself with the comments of the Secretary of State for Scotland, who, outwith this place, has said he is not interested in playing the resignation soap opera. [Laughter.] No, he is not. He has not resigned because, unlike SNP Members, he cares about fishermen and is working hard on this issue. He thinks it far too important to play politics with, which is something I wish the SNP would remember. As my hon. Friend the Member for Moray (Douglas Ross) said, it might be why there are far fewer of them in the House than there were before the general election. If there was ever a time to focus on outcomes for Britain’s and Scotland’s fishing industry, that time is now. We face a sea of opportunity. The House today has a chance to develop a tangible legal framework in which the UK can operate as an independent coastal state, free from the restrictions of the hated CFP.
I am conscious that today’s debate is on the Fisheries Bill, not wider EU relations—not that anyone would know it—but for the Bill to be worth the paper it is printed on, colleagues need to take seriously the reaction across the channel to the withdrawal agreement. As was reported in yesterday’s Times, the French, Spanish, Belgian, Danish and Portuguese Governments want the Commission to reopen negotiations on fishing and impose tougher level playing field rules, and according to reports, and as confirmed by conversations I had today with British fisheries advisers in Brussels, France is leading a charge to guarantee a fisheries agreement giving French and other European fishing fleets access to British waters. I think that everybody in the House would agree that this is completely unacceptable. The Prime Minister has robustly opposed this from day one, and she needs the support of everyone in the House to continue to do so.
This is a good Bill. We are taking back control of our waters, but as it makes clear, we are not pulling up the drawbridge or building some imaginary sea wall down the North sea. We will continue to work with our European neighbours, but we will be negotiating with them as an independent coastal state in the same way as Norway and Iceland. Clauses 7 and 8 make that very clear, by revoking the existing shared equal access policy, setting conditions on non-British boats entering the UK exclusive economic zone and giving us real teeth as an independent coastal state.
As for those shrill siren voices in the environmental lobby suggesting that British control of our own waters will lead to a diminution of standards or a reduced commitment to the marine environment, I would remind them that it was the British Government who were most vocal on the need to implement a discard ban across the EU and who have driven up standards and pushed other countries to be as committed to sustainable fisheries as us and our fishing industry. The UK has always advocated a science-based approach to fisheries management and argued that total allowable catches should be in line with the CFP’s objective and be proposed and set at levels that are at least moving towards maximum sustainable yield-based exploitation rates. That said, DEFRA and the devolved Assemblies could do more to help fishermen and fishing organisations at the quayside to implement some of these environmental policies, as our MEPs demanded in 2015.
Angus Brendan MacNeil
Does the hon. Gentleman still stand by the words he uttered on 27 February 2018, at about 3.22 pm—as Hansard helpfully tells us? He said:
“That is why we cannot let fishermen down now, and why before my election I signed a pledge committing me to do what I can to ensure that the UK is taken out of the common fisheries policy at the earliest available opportunity. That means 11 pm on 29 March 2019.”—[Official Report, 27 February 2018; Vol. 636, c. 304WH.]
Does he stand by those words?
Andrew Bowie
Of course, I still stand by those words. We will leave the CFP on 29 March 2019 and will be negotiating as an independent coastal state from December 2020, none of which would be the case if the SNP had its way. If it did, we would be back in the EU, as full members of the CFP, because—I hate to educate the SNP—a country cannot be a member of the EU and not a member of the CFP, with all that that entails. [Interruption.] Mr Speaker, I urge all colleagues to back this fantastic Bill, as I am being coughed at by the Whip to my left.
Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)
It is an honour to sum up what has been a fantastic debate with good contributions on both sides of the House, and I echo the words expressed across the House about those fishermen who risk their lives to catch the fish we put on our tables. In particular, I add my thanks to the rescue services, the coastguard and the RNLI, who are true heroes indeed.
We do not oppose the Bill. We know that the UK needs a fishing system outside the common fisheries policy after we leave the EU—we do not dispute that—but it is clear that the Government still have some way to go before the Bill satisfies both sides of the House. The Labour party intends to work with the Government to ensure we have a good Bill that is fit for purpose. Fisheries Bills do not often trouble the House of Commons so we need to make it a good one.
There are some good things in the Bill, but there are far too many missing pieces. It smacks of a measure hurriedly prepared and pushed out too quickly by a Government who were aware of the approaching deadline of Brexit. It needed more work before its publication, and it would have benefited from a round of pre-legislative scrutiny, but as Ministers chose not to do that, I think they should not be surprised that there have been so many proposals for amendments today and that there will be more in Committee.
The Bill gives the Government a chance to make real the promises made by the Leave campaign. So far, big promises have not been matched by delivery. Fishing communities, in Plymouth and across the country, do not want grand promises; they need honesty, and clarity from the Government, and they want those to be delivered.
Luke Pollard
I am sorry, but there have been enough interventions.
My hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Sue Hayman) made a superb opening speech, but I want to reiterate the concerns that have been expressed by Members on both sides of the House.
Luke Pollard
I will keep going. I apologise, but the hon. Lady has had enough chances.
The Bill constitutes a missed opportunity—a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to start afresh and create a truly world-class, sustainable fisheries policy. We need to get this right, but as it stands, the Bill fails in a number of critical ways. It fails to provide a fair deal for our small fleet, or attempt to break up large monopolies in the fishing industry. It fails to regenerate coastal communities and provide the renaissance that our coastal towns need. It fails to create a vision for the UK to have the most sustainable fisheries in the world. It fails to ensure frictionless access to the single market; indeed, given the Prime Minister’s bad deal, it poses the risk of tariffs on our fish, and we do not want tax on our fish. It also fails to ensure that there is supply-chain fairness across the board.
As was pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Melanie Onn), while in theory the Bill gives us greater access to our waters, it says nothing meaningful about redistributing quota more fairly across the British fleet. The fixed quota allocation system has been heavily criticised on both sides of the House during the debate, and it is unfair, but it has not been updated since the 1990s. If I had not been updated since the 1990s, I would still have bleached blond hair, wear cargo trousers and believe that wet-look gel is a good idea. Times change, and so must our fishing regulation. As a result of the existing system, ownership of quota has become increasingly consolidated in the hands of a few, and we need to change that. We need to distribute quota so that it goes back into the hands of the many.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Workington said earlier, more than a quarter of the UK’s fishing quota is owned or controlled by just five families on the Sunday Times rich list. Quotas should be allocated according to transparent and ecological criteria, to the benefit of fishing communities. For example, a greater share should be offered in return for compliance with relevant regulations, participation in data gathering and good science, full monitoring and recording of catches, compliance with discard rules, and the application of high standards of workers’ rights, welfare and, especially, marine safety. Given the loss of two trawlers from Plymouth since my election, and a death in both losses, I am disappointed that the Bill does not contain more about enhanced marine safety as a qualification for additional quota. We need to reward best practice, not ignore that problem.
The UK has always had the ability to allocate quota to reward particular types of fishing practice or to support broader social and economic gains, but has chosen not to do so in a broad, meaningful way. Ministers have reallocated too little quota, although they have reallocated some. Labour wants smaller boats to be given a greater share of quota after Brexit. Small boats are the backbone of our fishing industry, the small and medium-sized enterprises of the sector, and they need our backing. The small-scale fishing fleet generally uses low-impact gear, and creates significantly more jobs per tonne of fish landed than the large-scale sector. In the UK, the under 10-metre small-scale fleet represents more than 70% of English fishing boats and 65% of direct employment in fishing, and it should be supported.
We have heard that recreational fishing would have huge potential with better management, and I agree. There is not enough in the Bill that values that sector—not yet, at least. More recreational fishing and more sustainable fisheries depend on better science to plug the gap in data. That means more baseline stock levels for non-quota species such as cuttlefish. If ours are to be the most sustainable fisheries in the world, we need to have the best science in the world. Indeed, the data deficiency that we currently see in our fisheries is one of the reasons why many of our fisheries cannot market their fish as sustainable. As we heard from my right hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Mr Campbell), we need to ensure that maximum sustainable yield is achieved by 2020, and that that date is put in the Bill.
There have been many good contributions from across the House. My hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith) mentioned the governance gap and the too frequent reliance on Henry VIII powers in this Bill, and that needs to be addressed. My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow West (Gareth Thomas) talked about doubling the size of the co-operative economy, and in fishing we have a proud record of co-operatives; that should be supported. We need to ensure not only that EMFF funds are replaced—with every single penny replaced, not cut—but also that the other funding arrangements, as mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth, are put in place. Local government need to ensure that they have the funds to invest in our fishing as well. As the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker) said, we must make sure we have a passion about fish, not just a passion about fishing. My hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Melanie Onn) said we need to talk more about processing, which has the lion’s share of employment in the fishing sector.
My party does support this Bill, but we believe it needs more work in a considerable number of areas. Serious concerns have been raised on both sides of this House about fairness, funding, sustainability and trade. The fishing industry has been given grand promises by the Environment Secretary, and many others besides, only to have some of them broken time after time. While I believe that the Fisheries Minister is honest in his efforts, I fear that those higher up in his Government are selling him out and that our fishing industries have been sold out, too. That must not be the case with this Bill: no more betrayals; no more grand promises. To the Minister I say be up front and frank with fishers about the difficulties and opportunities, because I have not met a fisherman who is not equally frank, up front and honest in their response.
I genuinely believe that there is scope for this Bill to be improved with cross-party working, and I put the Government on notice that if we cannot achieve those improvements, they should not necessarily count on our support in future parliamentary stages.
The Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (George Eustice)
We have had a good debate with many lively exchanges, particularly during the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Moray (Douglas Ross). I join the Secretary of State in paying tribute to the DEFRA officials who have worked incredibly hard to get the Bill to this point, to our officials in the Marine Management Organisation, who have done considerable planning on enforcement, and to CEFAS, our science agency, which is truly the best in the world in fisheries science.
The Secretary of State was generous in giving way in his opening speech, and indeed the debate drifted some distance from the contents of the Bill. I will not be giving way, however, as I want to use the short time available to address as many points as possible.
I welcome the fact that the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Workington (Sue Hayman) supports the Bill. She made some specific points about reallocating quota. We have been clear in our White Paper that we want to move to a different method of allocating quota to the UK fleet. We have also set out proposals in the White Paper to allocate new quota on a different methodology so that it does not simply follow FQA—fixed quota allocation—unit allocations. In the longer term, we could obviously change the allocation keys on the existing FQAs, but the legal advice based on case law is that that would have to be done gradually over a period of time.
It is also important to note that some of the figures bandied about in terms of who owns what quota can be misleading, as there is a huge difference between the small inshore vessels, which are limited largely to the 0 to 12 mile zone, and the pelagic fleet, which has huge vessels with huge capital investment, and for which mackerel is by far the largest stock.
The hon. Lady made some points about sustainability and the discard ban set out in clause 1. She suggested that that is weaker than we have now, but I can tell her that the wording we use in clause 1 is largely borrowed directly from the EU regulation. We envisage that the joint fisheries statement that flows from that—it is a legal requirement and details of it are set out in schedule 1 to the Bill—will define how we will deliver those sustainability objectives. So the basis of clause 1 is borrowed from the existing EU requirements on sustainability.
My hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish) raised the issue of enforcement capacity. We are doing work at the moment with Border Force, some of whose staff have been retrained to do fisheries duties. We also have additional vessels from the Royal Navy that are being tested at the moment, and we are in discussion with the Maritime and Coastguard Agency about aerial surveillance. So we are planning on having a significant increase in our enforcement capacity. My hon. Friend also mentioned the danger of the science being out of date. It is always a challenge with the science, but we do put observers on fisheries vessels, and our scientific models attempt to predict the future by looking at particular trends.
The hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Deidre Brock) mentioned the clause in the Bill that covers the selling of quota rights and said that the tendering and auction processes should be devolved. They are devolved, and the clause is absolutely explicit that it applies only to England. The licensing of foreign vessels is devolved, but we have said that, with the consent of the Scottish Government and others, the Marine Management Organisation might issue a single licence for the whole UK. Clearly, agreements that are made internationally would be a matter for the UK Government. The hon. Lady also suggested that Norway, being outside the European Union, was a victim of fax democracy and had no control over its fisheries. Nothing could be further from the truth. Norway is a serious player and an independent coastal state that controls access to its waters. It conducts its own negotiations on coastal states matters, unlike us; we are currently represented by the European Union.
My right hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Mr Paterson) gave a passionate speech and raised the importance of allowing selective gear types. This is why we have a power in the Bill to enable us to change technical specifications expeditiously. He has long been an advocate of an effort-based approach. As I have said many times, there are some advantages to an effort-based regime, particularly with mixed fisheries and with the inshore fleet, but there are downsides, too. Generally speaking, a quota system makes the most sense for the pelagic fleet, while an effort-based regime could make more sense for a small inshore fleet. We have set out a proposal in our White Paper for further pilot schemes in this area, particularly for the inshore fleet, but it is not an area that we should rush. My right hon. Friend also asked for reassurance on the United Nations convention on the law of the sea, and I can confirm that UNCLOS will be the new legal baseline once we leave the European Union.
The hon. Members for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith) and for Great Grimsby (Melanie Onn) and others raised the issue of tariff-free access for our trade, and of course we are going to be seeking that free trade agreement as part of our future economic partnership, but I would point out that we have a trade surplus in fisheries. We export about £1.3 billion but import £1.1 billion. Largely, the fish species that we export, particularly shellfish, tend to have lower tariffs, while the processed products, which we export far less of, are the ones that tend to have the higher tariffs. I have to say that the message from the processors we have spoken to is, “Don’t sell out the catching sector on our account.” I would really welcome such spirit and courage from other sectors of the economy.
My hon. Friends the Members for South East Cornwall (Mrs Murray) and for St Ives (Derek Thomas) mentioned the unfairness of existing relative stability shares as the allocation key, and we agree. We set out clearly in the White Paper our view that we should move to zonal attachment—that is, where the fish reside—as a fairer and more scientific basis for allocation. We are clear that that is the approach we will take.
My hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall (Scott Mann) and the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Angus Brendan MacNeil) raised the issue of bluefin tuna. This is a complex issue and it is not specifically covered by the common fisheries policy—it is covered by the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas, which is a regional fisheries management organisation—but this is certainly something that we can consider.
My hon. Friend the Member for Banff and Buchan (David Duguid) has more fishing in his constituency than any other Member in this House. He correctly identified the importance of maintaining access for leverage in negotiations. He also mentioned the issue of lobster and brown crab, which would be covered by the western waters regime but would largely be a matter for the Scottish Government.
In conclusion, the Bill is essential, whether we have a deal or no deal. It gives us the legal powers to control access, set quota and manage fisheries sustainability, and I commend it to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a Second time.
Fisheries Bill (PROGRAMME)
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),
That the following provisions shall apply to the Fisheries Bill:
Committal
(1) The Bill shall be committed to a Public Bill Committee.
Proceedings in Public Bill Committee
(2) Proceedings in the Public Bill Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion on Wednesday 19 December.
(3) The Public Bill Committee shall have leave to sit twice on the first day on which it meets.
Proceedings on Consideration and up to and including Third Reading
(4) Proceedings on Consideration and any proceedings in legislative grand committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour before the moment of interruption on the day on which proceedings on Consideration are commenced.
(5) Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption on that day.
(6) Standing Order No. 83B (Programming committees) shall not apply to proceedings on Consideration and up to and including Third Reading.
Other proceedings
(7) Any other proceedings on the Bill may be programmed.—(Amanda Milling.)
Question agreed to.
Fisheries Bill (Money)
Queen’s recommendation signified.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 52(1)(a)),
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Fisheries Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of—
(1) any expenditure incurred by the Marine Management Organisation in connection with the licensing of foreign fishing boats;
(2) any expenditure incurred by the Secretary of State in giving, or in connection with giving, financial assistance to any person for purposes relating to—
(a) the improvement of the marine and aquatic environment;
(b) commercial aquaculture or commercial fish activities; or
(c) the promotion or development of recreational fishing;
(3) any other expenditure incurred under or by virtue of the Act by the Secretary of State or the Marine Management Organisation.—(Amanda Milling.)
Question agreed to.
Fisheries Bill (Ways and Means)
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 52(1)(a)),
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Fisheries Bill, it is expedient to authorise the charging of fees, or other charges, under or by virtue of:
(a) the Act,
(b) the Fisheries Act 1981, or
(c) the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009.—(Amanda Milling.)
Question agreed to.
Fisheries Bill (First sitting)
Tuesday 4th December 2018
(5 years, 11 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Fisheries Bill 2017-19 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 4 December 2018 - (4 Dec 2018)
The Chair
As you all know, we are here to consider the informative bit of the Fisheries Bill. We will first consider the programme motion, which is on the amendment paper. After that we will consider a motion to enable the reporting of written evidence for publication and then a motion allowing us to deliberate in private. I call the Minister to move the programme motion. Date Time Witness Tuesday 4 December Until no later than 10.25 am Scottish Fishermen’s Federation; National Fishermen’s Federation Organisation Tuesday 4 December Until no later than 10.55 am UK Seafood Industry Alliance Tuesday 4 December Until no later than 11.25 am UK Association of Fisheries Producer Organisations; Angling Trust Tuesday 4 December Until no later than 2.30 pm New Under Ten Fishermen’s Association Tuesday 4 December Until no later than 3.00 pm Marine Management Organisation Tuesday 4 December Until no later than 3.30 pm Blue Marine Foundation Tuesday 4 December Until no later than 4.00 pm Fishing for Leave Thursday 6 December Until no later than 12.15 pm Greenpeace; Pew; Greener UK; Marine Conservation Society Thursday 6 December Until no later than 1.00 pm Macduff Shellfish; Interfish/ Northbay Pelagic; Whitby Seafoods Ltd; Scottish White Fish Producers Association Ltd Thursday 6 December Until no later than 2.30 pm New Economics Foundation Thursday 6 December Until no later than 3.00 pm Carl O’Brien (Chief Fisheries Science Advisor, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs) Thursday 6 December Until no later than 3.30 pm Coastal Communities Alliance; Communities Inshore Fisheries Alliance
Ordered,
That—
(1) the Committee shall (in addition to its first meeting at 9.25 am on Tuesday 4 December) meet—
(a) at 2.00 pm on Tuesday 4 December;
(b) at 11.30 am and 2.00 pm on Thursday 6 December;
(c) at 9.25 am, 2.00 pm and 5.00 pm on Tuesday 11 December;
(d) at 11.30 am and 2.00 pm on Thursday 13 December;
(e) at 4.30 pm, 7.00 pm and 9.00 pm on Monday 17 December;
(f) at 9.25 am and 2.00 pm on Wednesday 19 December;
(2) the Committee shall hear oral evidence on Tuesday 4 December in accordance with the following Table:
(3) proceedings on consideration of the Bill in Committee shall be taken in the following order: Clauses 1 to 4; Schedule 1; Clauses 5 to 13; Schedule 2; Clauses 14 to 17; Schedule 3; Clauses 18 to 28; Schedule 4; Clause 29; Schedule 5; Clauses 30 to 37; Schedule 6; Clause 38; Schedule 7; Clauses 39 to 43; new Clauses; new Schedules; remaining proceedings on the Bill;
(4) the proceedings shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at 5.00 pm on Wednesday 19 December.—(George Eustice.)
The Chair
Under the programme order, the deadline for amendments to be considered at the first line-by-line sitting of the Committee will be the rise of the House on Thursday, so if Members wish to table amendments to be considered next week in Committee, they must table them by the rise of the House on Thursday.
Resolved,
That, subject to the discretion of the Chair, any written evidence received by the Committee shall be reported to the House for publication.—(George Eustice.)
The Chair
Copies of written evidence that the Committee receives will be made available in the Committee Room.
Resolved,
That, at this and any subsequent meeting at which oral evidence is to be heard, the Committee shall sit in private until the witnesses are admitted.—(George Eustice.)
The Chair
Why on earth we have agreed to potentially meet in private now, I have no clue. However, the learned Clerks know better than I. We will now move on to the interesting part of the session.
Examination of Witnesses
Bertie Armstrong and Barrie Deas gave evidence.
The Chair
I am delighted to welcome the Scottish Fishermen’s Federation and the National Fisherman’s Federation Organisation to give evidence. For the sake of Hansard, will you kindly introduce yourselves before we start questions?
Bertie Armstrong: Certainly, in alphabetical order, I am Bertie Armstrong, chief executive of the Scottish Fishermen’s Federation, which is the trade association that looks after the catching sector in Scotland. It has nine constituent associations and a geographical spread. It covers some 450 fishing boat businesses from smallest to largest.
Barrie Deas: I am Barrie Deas, chief executive of the National Federation of Fishermen’s Organisations, which is the representative body for fishermen in England, Wales and Northern Ireland.
The Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (George Eustice)
Q
Bertie Armstrong: The central ill of the common fisheries policy is the matter of the distribution of catching opportunity—the so-called relative stability—which places us, from our waters, in the position of 60% of the seafood assets removed from our waters being in the hands of non-UK EU fishing nations. The relative figures for other coastal states, one of which we will become on Brexit day, are Norway 85% or thereabouts and Iceland 90%. So the primary ill is common access to our waters and statutorily giving away that amount of our natural capital.
The second ill of the CFP is that it is distant and remote, and the process is effectively moribund. It is dysfunctionally distant. It is centralised by treaty and cannot be uncentralised or regionalised to any proper extent. The Bill must seek not to replace one unworkable system with another.
Thirdly, and finally, some political elements of the CFP in terms of practical fisheries management are counterproductive and unworkable. For instance, no one wishes to discard our perfectly edible fish, but the way it is linked to the CFP will simply not work.
Barrie Deas: I very much share Bertie’s views. The essential problems with the common fisheries policy for the United Kingdom lie in its inception, which was based on the principle of equal access, and ten years later, the principle of relative stability that allocated shares that do not reflect the resources that are in our waters. The comparison is with what we would have been had we been an independent coastal state for the last 45 years, like Norway. It is a huge disparity.
We are tied into an asymmetric and exploitative arrangement. The departure of the UK from the EU and therefore from the common fisheries policy provides us with the first opportunity to break free of that. The content of the Fisheries Bill is extremely important in terms of taking the powers to control who fishes in our waters—the access arrangements—and to renegotiate the quota shares.
I very much share Bertie’s view that the common fisheries policy has been cumbersome to deal with and very remote from where the impact of the decisions are felt, which has led to a huge gulf between fairly grandiose legislation and failure at implementation level. The gulf between primary legislation and its implementation has been recognised by the Commission and in the common fisheries policy. In recent years there has been an attempt to address it by introducing an element of regionalisation. Unfortunately, the treaty of Lisbon and the introduction of co-decision making into fisheries involving the European Parliament has moved active decision making even further away from where it counts and where its effects are felt. In that sense, we have moved in the opposite direction.
George Eustice
Q
Barrie Deas: Yes. I think there always has been the right of UK fishing vessels from any part of the country to fish anywhere in the waters. We think that is an important principle that should be retained. The NFFO has some problems with the impact of the devolution settlement on fisheries, which makes it much more complex, but the fundamental principle of equal access for UK vessels is one that we support.
Bertie Armstrong: Likewise, the Scots fleet would like to continue to be able to catch its prawns off South Shields as well as in the Fladen Ground, but we are too small. I think the central and relevant point is that there has been no arm-wrestling and no desire for regionalisation of the catching area. The heft of the UK exclusive economic zone is great because of the area and its seafood contents; it is not great in terms of home nation fleets. I do not think there is any sense in splitting it up, or any requirement to do so.
George Eustice
Q
Bertie Armstrong: From my point of view, in the strongest possible terms, there has to be some sort of principle for division. Given the fact that there will be access as we have access, for instance, to Norway, there will be access by European boats to UK waters. We need to be very careful not to put anything on the face of the Bill that is obstructive.
Barrie Deas: The most extreme example of the distortion in quota shares is English channel cod: the UK share is 9% and the French share is 84%. Other examples include Celtic sea haddock: our share is about 10% and the French share is 66%. Those kinds of distortion have been part and parcel of relative stability and equal access, and they need to be addressed as a matter of urgency.
The principle of zonal attachment is used in the division of quota shares between the EU and Norway, so it is already accepted by the EU in that context. Obviously, it does not work to their advantage in relation to the UK, which is why it is not unexpected that they are very unhappy about the change. The broad picture is that the principle of zonal attachment, reflecting the resources that are in the UK water, should be the basis for allocating quotas in the future, in our view.
Bertie Armstrong: May I add a practical example of the ills of not doing that? To make a discard reduction or ban, or a landing obligation, work, the fishing opportunity in the area has to resemble what is in the ocean. The great distortions of the CFP mean that you simply cannot make that work, because you get choked immediately on having caught all of one species and still having quota for another. There needs to be an underlying principle, and zonal attachment is the one that, by common sense and instinct—apart from the fact that Norway has accepted it—makes the most sense. If we approach the whole of our new role as a coastal state with the idea that common sense and sustainability are central, we will do well.
Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)
Q
Bertie Armstrong: The Bill in its present form enables the UK to work as a coastal state in the way that other coastal states do, so the answer to that is yes. We would be greatly comforted by the insertion into the Bill of a date of assumption of sovereignty. The self-suggesting date is the end of the transition period—the implementation period, in our parlance. In other words, the end of December 2020.
The Chair
I am very sorry, but I am finding it hard to hear you, perhaps because I am a bit deaf. Would you mind speaking up a bit?
Bertie Armstrong: I will, forgive me. The date of the end of December 2020 should therefore be inserted into the Bill so there is a commitment to becoming, in practical terms, a coastal state.
Luke Pollard
Q
Bertie Armstrong: There is a whole fisheries agreement laid down in the withdrawal agreement, which is yet to happen. That is the point. Your question does not indicate from whom I would seek that answer. There is a whole fisheries agreement to be negotiated. Well, we say negotiated, but you need to ask, “Who owns this place?” After Brexit, we own this place. This is the UK’s natural capital. That places a pretty strong trump in your hand of cards for the negotiation.
At one end of the spectrum of the fisheries agreement is, “None of you get in at all and fish anything,” which is absurd. At the other end of the spectrum is, “We’re going to give up and shut the fleet down. You can have at it and have the lot.” The negotiating ground is in between. We would like to see, in the fullness of time, the UK’s fishing opportunity representing zonal attachment or something close to it. That is what should be the result.
Barrie Deas: The UK will be an independent coastal state under international law. The United Nations convention on the law of the sea carries certain rights and responsibilities, including the responsibility to co-operate on the shared management of shared stocks. That is a starting point. There is a very important link between access rights and the renegotiation of quota shares. You can use the EU-Norway example as the most relevant model for future management. The UK is engaged in bilateral negotiations with the EU. That will be about setting quotas and total allowable catches at safe levels. It will also be about access arrangements for the coming year, and it will be about quota shares. That link between access and quota shares is the key to delivering a change and rebalancing of quotas to the UK, where needed. There will be a certain degree of access for European fleets—how much is to be negotiated—and there is the rebalancing of the quota shares. Those two things should be inextricably linked, and that is where our leverage lies in addressing the quota distortions that are there at the moment.
Luke Pollard
Q
Witnesses indicated assent.
Luke Pollard
Q
Bertie Armstrong: It is a complicated question. We should look to other coastal states. There is great assistance in looking at other models. Iceland and Norway—to cite the pair of them again—place much stronger economic links on ownership of vessels and ownership of the stewardship of the fishing opportunity, which is less strong in the UK because of EU regulation. Everyone will know that in the late 1970s the UK attempted to apply a 75% ownership limit to foreign investment in fishing vessels and lost in the European courts because that was illegal under European law. It had to be 75% European ownership. There is an opportunity downstream to have another look at ownership.
Luke Pollard
Q
Bertie Armstrong: The first thing that happens if you make rules about landing is that you have a boat full of mackerel and you cannot land it until Friday, which is very prejudicial. If we are to make rules about landings which make instinctive perfect sense, to capture the economic activity into the land, we must have a sensible vision of how much volume we will need to cope with and how that will be done seasonally. Making simple rules is likely to produce more problems than it will solve. It would be more helpful to have a vision for the UK fishing industry. In the withdrawal from the EU lies the opportunity effectively to double the economic activity associated with UK fishing, including the whole of the supply chain. As long as we are ready for that, the landings will take place into the UK. We look forward to the day when all UK fishermen will want to land their fish into the UK, because we are a world seafood leader and that is where they will get their best price.
Barrie Deas: The principle is that UK quotas should bring proportionate benefits to the UK. That is the starting point. The question is how you do that. The obligation to land a certain proportion of the fish is there in the current arrangements—the current economic link—but there are other options to meet that question of equivalence. Requiring all fish to be landed in the UK would mean an intervention in the market, because if there are economic benefits to landing particular species abroad where there is higher value, there is obviously an economic purpose to doing it that way, so we have to be careful about that. It is right that the economic link requirements are reviewed in the new circumstances, but I quite like the idea of having the flexibility, as long as there is an equivalence, and it is all linked back to the fundamental principle that UK quotas should bring proportionate benefit to the UK.
Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)
Q
Barrie Deas: On increased fishing opportunities and how they could be allocated, for a number of reasons, including case law in the English courts, but also the stewardship that comes along with rights of tenure, which have been an important factor in stabilising our fisheries over the last 20 years, our federation takes the view that for existing quota it should remain the same, but for additional quota we think there is a conversation to be had on the most appropriate use of that. There is a range of options.
Perhaps we are being a bit narrow here. You alluded to the division line at under-10, which has, I think, caused distortions in the fleet and unintended consequences —you have a cohort of high-catching under-10s, sometimes called rule beaters or super-under-10s, that have kind of distorted fishing patterns. There is recognition that we need to move beyond that now. In that context, there is an issue about how you define genuine small boats—genuine low-impact vessels—and I accept that. My organisation would be very interested in taking them out of the quota system altogether. That does not mean not taking into account their contribution to mortality. In a sense, it is a reversion to what we had in the early days of under-10 metre management, where sufficient quota was allocated and we did not have to have monthly quotas for that class of vessels. There is a very interesting conversation to be had about the future and new entrants and how the genuine low-impact fleets fit into that.
Equal access has been an important principle and there are dissatisfactions wherever you have a nomadic fleet arriving on the doorstep of a local fishery. That would be true of our boats fishing in bits of Scotland, I suppose, and certainly you hear these kinds of things about Scottish boats fishing off the Northumbrian coast or down in the south-west. Fishermen are competitive. They are competing with each other as well as with foreign fisherman. That is the context in which you have to situate that particular issue.
Bertie Armstrong: Mr Aldous, your question was about new entrants in under-10s. The enabler for a better deal for new entrants in under-10s will be the uplift in opportunity for fishing that comes with Brexit; otherwise, we presumably have fixed the problems already with the fishing opportunity available. The situation is different as you go around the coast. The small-vessel fleet in Scotland has a different character and tends to use creels, or pots, to catch shellfish—that is a great generalisation; there are others—so there is a different set of problems. It is generally inshore and small scale and is therefore best sorted out locally, but I think there will be a better deal for all with the uplift in opportunity.
There is another abiding principle here. If you are going to make alterations to arrangements for fishing, the fish need to be there to be caught. It is one thing to give someone tons of fish; it is quite another if the fish are not there in prime condition with a business plan for getting them landed and into a logistics chain. Much is made of the big mackerel catchers in the pelagic fleet, and much is made of rather lurid statistics about what percentage is held by what number. You cannot catch 250,000 tonnes of mackerel in winter, 100 miles to the west of the British Isles, with hand line under-10s—you simply cannot. But a few hundred tonnes to the hand line under-10s, provided the local arrangements pay attention to making sure there is a whole logistics chain and they are going to get that fish to a place where somebody wants it, is where the opportunity lies.
My final input, on behalf of slightly larger-scale fishing, is: be careful what you mean by low impact. The carbon footprint per kilogram of fish of a pelagic trawler catching mackerel is very much smaller than any other form of fishing, because you catch volume efficiently and quickly. There are many aspects to this.
In answer to the question, yes, there is extra opportunity, but there has to be extra opportunity to distribute. The problems are largely regional and should be sorted out regionally. We need to be careful not to place excessive detail on the face of the Bill. I suggest that a lot of this is best done by secondary legislation.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
Q
Bertie Armstrong: I would wish to dispense with the flexibility to extend for fishing the implementation period by placing a date on the face of the Bill. There will undoubtedly be some resistance, but that would not be up to me. That is why we would like to see that in there. We are on record as being less than completely happy that the implementation period applies to fishing at all, because legal sovereignty over the waters and the resource therein comes on Brexit day. However, we are where we are, and we recognise that the withdrawal agreement has compromises all over the place. We therefore, with reluctance, accepted the implementation period compromise, but we would not wish to see it extended at all.
The backstop has been much described, particularly over the last few days. Clarity is helpful on what happens. There are two preconditions: if the backstop clicks in and is applied and there is no fisheries agreement in place by that stage, and there is no prescription of what is in the fisheries agreement, tariffs will apply. Fishing will be cherry-picked out of the trade arrangements. Tariffs will apply to fish—which, by the way, the Scottish Government study indicates would not necessarily be a terminal problem—and access to our waters for other UK fleets would cease. So it would be a mess of large proportions and we are rather hoping that it would not apply.
I see some puzzlement about the lack of access for anybody else. If there is no fisheries agreement—and there is precedent on this, with EU-Norway arrangements, for instance—there is no access to each other’s waters.
The Chair
May I lay down a red line, particularly for our detailed consideration of the Bill, starting next week? The backstop and all that is not in the Bill. Those are, of course, important matters and they do have some relevance to and bearing on it, but our purpose today—and, indeed, during the process of consideration in detail, as of next week—is to consider in detail the words that are on the face of the Bill. Therefore, next week I will take a tough line on the broader political considerations and say that they are, I am afraid, simply out of order. They are important, but let us focus on the Bill.
Alan Brown
Q
Bertie Armstrong: To be honest, that is not where our focus lies at this point in time; it is on making sure that the Bill as an enabler of—I will use the phrase “the sea of opportunity”—makes it on to the statute book, rather than on the details of what does and does not happen to Northern Ireland in the event of a backstop.
David Duguid (Banff and Buchan) (Con)
Going back to Mr Pollard’s question about UK vessels landing elsewhere, for example Norway, can you say a little about what motivates fishermen to land elsewhere? What changes are required in our ports or onshore infrastructure to make landing in the UK more attractive, and is that covered by the Bill?
Barrie Deas: Money. That’s it, really. [Laughter] I had better say a bit more. Over the last 20 years, markets for fish have developed and diversified. Peterhead has become the pre-eminent white fish port in Europe. Flat fish tends to go to Urk in the Netherlands. South-west ports are sending prime, high-value fish to the continent, and then there is the shellfish market. From time to time there will be price differentials. Also, it can reflect where the vessel is fishing: for example, it might make sense to go to Denmark and land for one trip and then land back into Peterhead for the next, or to land into France. Fishermen are commercial animals. They are very much driven by catching fish but also by marketing fish, and price is key.
Bertie Armstrong: I would reinforce that. At the slight risk of crossing the red line again, and as I keep saying, the elevation of the UK to the world stage would mean that, in the simple arithmetic of volume and value, we would overtake Iceland. It would allow us the sort of conditions that our own processing industry would want to entice not only all our own landings but perhaps some from others as well. However, it is a matter of commerce and business, generally.
David Duguid
Q
Barrie Deas: Over time, and with rebalanced quotas, there would be opportunities, because of the greater throughput, to look again at all these issues. I am not sure what you could put in the Bill particularly that would be helpful, given that this is a dynamic commercial issue that you are addressing. I certainly think that it is an important issue, but I would have to be persuaded that the Bill is the right place to address it.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
Q
Bertie Armstrong: The provisions, as we understand it, are that we will act as a coastal state-designate during that period, participating fully in the coastal state arrangements that will set the catching opportunity for 2021.
Mr Carmichael
Q
Bertie Armstrong: It would mean that, between now and then, there would need to be the construction of coastal state arrangements that include the United Kingdom as a stand-alone coastal state, and for the United Kingdom to participate in that. This is probably in 2020, but not before.
Mr Carmichael
Q
Bertie Armstrong: It is also as laid down in the withdrawal agreement. Happen as may, it turned up in a paragraph of the legal advice yesterday, which was not actually advice on what we ought to do on fisheries but was a repeat of what was in the withdrawal agreement.
Barrie Deas: The December Council later this month will be the last time that the UK participates as a member state. The whole apparatus of European decision making will then not apply to us; we will not have MEPs and we will not be involved in any of the decision-making forums. The transitional period is a little bit anomalous and strange, because the UK will be part of the EU delegation to EU-Norway next year but will not be in the room for co-ordination. There is some uncertainty about how that will work in practice, and we need clarity on that. I agree with Bertie that an implication of the withdrawal agreement is that in autumn or December 2020, there will be bilateral or trilateral negotiations with Norway that will set the quotas, quota shares and access arrangements for 2021. That is my understanding.
Mr Carmichael
Q
Barrie Deas: No—in 2019 we are in the implementation period. It is slightly anomalous that there is a lack of clarity about how that will work in practice. It is governed by a good faith clause for both parties, but it is still uncertain how that would work in practice.
Mr Carmichael
Q
Bertie Armstrong: I know for a fact that you understand this, Mr Carmichael, but there is a point of principle that is worth mentioning. The December Council is something of a distortion of importance, because effectively it takes the pie piece—the amount of opportunity that was agreed in coastal states arrangements for the EU—and, in terms of relative stability, it fiddles about with the details and ratifies them. That will be of no real interest to us in times to come. This year it will be of extreme importance, but in times to come we will be involved in the rather more important division of the north-east Atlantic fishing opportunity. As an owner of a very significant piece of the north-east Atlantic, we will genuinely be at the top table, to use a hackneyed phrase. The December Council is not any form of top table; it is arm wrestling inside the EU for an already settled fishing opportunity.
Mr Carmichael
Q
Barrie Deas: Those concerns have to be there for the negotiations in 2019 for 2020. Science is going to be the basis of the decisions on total allowable catches. There is the good faith clause, but we do not understand the mechanics of how the UK will be consulted as we have been promised. However, 2020 for 2021 is an entirely different scenario: all other things being equal, the UK will be negotiating as an independent coastal state and will carry a great deal more political weight as a result.
Mr Carmichael
Q
Barrie Deas: I think the answer is that a transition or implementation period was agreed to give business a chance to adjust to leaving the EU—
Mr Carmichael
Q
Barrie Deas: The whole acquis—the whole body of EU law, including fisheries law—applies. As much as we would have liked to sidestep that, the Government made a calculation that that was not available or realistic.
Bertie Armstrong: Clearly the industry was not in the room when that happened. As I understand it, there would have been no agreement and it would have been stuck with four or five nations. Of the 27, half do not have a coastline. These pressures apply to a maximum of 11, but more like four or five, nations—
The Chair
Mr Carmichael, that is your last question. We are all drifting beyond the Bill. We have four questioners and 10 minutes to get them in.
Bertie Armstrong: There is certainly a matter of relevance, although it remains subjective rather than objective. If we become dish of the day, there will be a time when we are a sovereign state with a complete grip on what happens in our waters. It would therefore be unwise for short-term gain to be exacted at that stage, providing that the Government of the day retained their backbone.
Brendan O'Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Q
Bertie Armstrong: We represent the 450 businesses that are responsible for most of the quota species. For the non-quota species, a large number of vessels are one handed or two handed. They belong to no associations—that is not being dismissive, but if you are a one-handed fisherman, you do not have much time for politicking. We have the whole of the Shetland Shellfish Management Organisation and the whole of the Orkney Fisheries Association, but not the Western Isles Fisherman’s Association or some of the smaller associations down in the Clyde.
Brendan O'Hara
Q
Bertie Armstrong: I am not seeing much in the Bill that awards that. Be aware of the stats here—I am about to make a statement of fact, not opinion. About 60% to 65% of the UK’s fish landings by volume and value come from the Scottish fleet. That is just an observation of the facts. With access to waters, the position of the ports, where the fish live, and a couple of decades of contracting and rationalising the industry, we have ended up with quite a lot of concentration in the core areas of Scotland.
I am aware—I am very concerned—that there should be a level-playing field and no prejudice against any area, but I am comforted by the fact that business will take care of that, as long as there is nothing obstructive. The whole point of the future is the increased economic activity, which business will take care of.
Brendan O'Hara
Q
Bertie Armstrong: It would be helpful if you framed the question as to which part you think is prejudicial.
Brendan O'Hara
Q
Bertie Armstrong: We are back to the backstop, and that will kick in only if the backstop kicks in. Anybody’s guess around this room is as good as anybody else’s guess.
The Chair
We are drifting a little. I am keen to extract maximum benefit from our witnesses. We have three more questioners, so I will move on, if you do not mind, Brendan.
Bill Grant (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (Con)
Q
Barrie Deas: Yes, I think the broad thrust of the Bill goes in the right direction. We have some concerns about particular aspects of it, but the Bill is necessary in order to give Ministers the power to set quotas, albeit in the context of international negotiations, to negotiate as an independent coastal state, to control access to our waters, and, on that basis, to renegotiate our quota shares. That is the main thrust of the Bill, and that is really important.
We also completely understand, having been within the common fisheries policy for so long and having had direct experience, that top-down, over-centralised management is not effective, sustainable management. We need the flexibility to adapt. Fisheries seem to be particularly prone to unintended consequences; you think you are doing one thing, and it generates perverse outcomes. We need to be able to address those in an agile, very prompt fashion, and the Bill contains those delegated powers. I know that there are political concerns about Henry VIII powers, and so on. I think those are valid concerns. As parliamentarians, you have a role in scrutinising secondary legislation.
We would also like to see an advisory council. They have something similar in Australia. They actually have something similar within the common fisheries policy, not that we would necessarily want to follow that particular model. An advisory council of people with experience of the industry, who understand the complexities of a highly diverse, complex industry, would be a kind of filter for legislation. We would like that counterweight, as well as parliamentary scrutiny, but we absolutely understand the need for delegated powers.
Bertie Armstrong: We met, discussed and agreed that as the common position for the two main federations in the UK. We would be a little more concerned about excessive additions to the Bill, rather than dissatisfied with the Bill as it stands.
Mr Paul Sweeney (Glasgow North East) (Lab/Co-op)
Q
Barrie Deas: That relates to the idea of an advisory council to run new ideas through a panel of experts—people who understand the complexities and nuances. It would be advisory. We understand that the job of Ministers and fisheries managers is to manage, but we think that an advisory council could add something, as it does in other countries—I would certainly recommend looking at the Australian model. It could make recommendations and provide advice on new legislation coming through. That is one of the areas where the Bill could be tweaked in the right direction.
Bertie Armstrong: In that clause, there is the little anomaly of adding the Marine Management Organisation. It is an organisation good and true, no doubt, but if you are talking about, as Barrie has described, a council of administrations, it is rather an ill fit for the MMO. Perhaps it would be a technical adviser.
Barrie Deas: To build on that point, when you see that consent is required from the Secretary of State, Ministers for Scotland, for Northern Ireland and for Wales, and then the MMO, which is the delivery arm of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, it does seem, as Bertie says, an anomalous situation.
The Chair
I apologise to the remaining questioners, whom we have not been able to squeeze in. We have run out of time, bar a few seconds, so I shall simply say thank you very much to both witnesses for extremely useful evidence that will greatly add to our consideration of the Bill next week. Thank you very much for taking the time and trouble to come and give evidence to us this morning.
Examination of Witness
Andrew Kuyk gave evidence.
The Chair
Q
Andrew Kuyk: Thank you, Mr Gray. My name is Andrew Kuyk. I am director general of the Provision Trade Federation, which is a food trade association, but as part of that role, I also represent the UK Seafood Industry Alliance, which represents UK fish processors and traders.
George Eustice
Q
Andrew Kuyk: How long have you got?
The Chair
We have until 10.55, so let us try to keep it brief.
Andrew Kuyk: This is going back into history. At the time, I was first secretary, fisheries, in the UK permanent representation in Brussels, so I was the desk officer for these negotiations. I will not go into it in too much detail, but Committee members may recall that we had already joined the EU by that stage. The common fisheries policy had to wait another four or five years; it was a lengthy and difficult negotiation. The background was that, at the time we joined, we did not have an exclusive 200-mile zone, although the concept existed. We joined the EU and became subject to what was known as the common pond. There was equal access within that, save for some coastal rights under the London convention. Also, prior to the CFP, fisheries were managed by things such as the North East Atlantic Fisheries Commission—NEAFC. There was a concept of high seas and so on. Total allowable catches and quotas, as a management instrument, were familiar, but they were not done within the EU, so we had to invent that system.
The reason why there is an apparent imbalance in some of the quota shares is that the negotiation was done with reference to what was called track record, which was the catches historically taken by the various component parts of the EU fleet. Prior to our joining, most of the fish that were relevant to our domestic market were fished off countries such as Iceland and Norway. We had what then was our distant water fleet—large vessels based in Hull and Grimsby that went quite far afield to get the main species on which our market depended. Therefore, our track record was on those vessels, in waters that were not immediately covered by the EU common pond.
Also at the time—this is going back some 30 years—there was not—
The Chair
Mr Kuyk, I am keeping a close eye on the clock and would be most grateful if you would restrict your remarks as much as you can.
Andrew Kuyk: I will get there quickly now. The smaller vessels were not subject to logbooks and recording of catches. Our track record was good in relation to the bigger vessels, and the track record used for the decisions was going back 10 or 20 years prior to 1980. The track record for the smaller vessels was not so good. Therefore, one of the reasons why the quota shares do not necessarily reflect current realities is that they were backward-looking and based on partial data. That is the short answer to your question, Minister.
George Eustice
Q
Andrew Kuyk: Briefly, for the benefit of the Committee, we have what I term the supply paradox. Roughly two thirds of what we eat in this country, we import, and a lot of that is not from the EU. Some 80% of what is caught by UK vessels is exported, mainly to the EU. The reasons for that are largely to do with consumer choice. The main species consumed in the UK are cod, salmon, haddock, tuna, shrimps and prawns. Obviously, the tuna and most of the shrimps and prawns are not available in UK or EU waters. The salmon is largely aquaculture. On species such as cod and haddock, we are very far from self-sufficient. Our total consumption of cod in the UK is about three times the total EU TAC for cod, so we are about 10% self-sufficient in cod.
We import that raw material because that is the market demand. A lot of that does not come from the EU, but a lot of it comes via the EU, which complicates the trade statistics. The Minister has referred to the autonomous tariff quota system—ATQs. This system is a regulation that normally runs for three years. It recognises that the EU, not just the UK, is a deficit market in fish. That relativity—about two thirds imports—applies to the EU market as a whole, so the EU recognises that the fish to meet consumer need are not available under its jurisdiction. Although there is an external tariff, it has these autonomous tariff quotas. Specified quantities are admitted, either tariff-free or at a reduced tariff, and they are negotiated on a three-yearly basis. We are just about to conclude the next agreement, which will run for only two years, rather than three.
Most of those imports come in through some kind of preferential arrangement. We pay some tariffs on some of them. There is the complication of trans-shipment through the EU; some of those are landed in, say, Rotterdam, Bremerhaven or wherever and then come to us as part of free circulation within the single market.
In summary, imports come through a variety of arrangements; some come as a result of the EU-Norway agreement. Various agreements are in place that give us the benefit of significant tariff reductions. Those are necessary, because otherwise we would not be able to supply market demand in the UK.
George Eustice
Q
Andrew Kuyk: I am not sure I would use the term “highly processed”. Quite a lot of it is things such as bread-crumbs; I do not know whether you regard that as a high degree of processing. It is to do with the presentation. These are consumer-ready, convenience products—fillets with some kind of coating. There is a growing line in ready meals—a meal opportunity: a fish product with vegetables and a sauce, and so on. Most of those imports are for domestic consumption, because we are a deficit market. There is some re-export. I do not have an exact figure, but I would imagine it is something like 10% or 15%—not more than that. The vast majority is to supply our domestic market.
Luke Pollard
Q
Andrew Kuyk: It is difficult to say. Again, without going too much into the history, we used to have what I would call an end-to-end processing industry in the UK, where a whole wet fish would go in one end of the factory and a product would come out of the other. Over the years, that has become rationalised and specialised, and a lot of that first-stage processing now happens elsewhere. Some of it happens on board vessels, on factory ships. Some fish—I know this sounds anomalous, but it is sheer market economics—are sent to places such as China, where they are filleted, and come back as frozen blocks. The raw material for quite a lot of our processing industry at the moment is a pre-prepared product—it is not the fish straight from the boat.
That could be a problem on two or three different levels. It is a problem and an opportunity. Clearly, if there was more domestic supply available, the UK processing industry would do its best to cope with that, but that would require investment. I was listening to the earlier session. The front end of the processing factory does exist on a smaller scale in some parts of the country, but for the people who supply the vast volumes—a sort of 80:20 thing—that front end, the lines of people physically filleting the fish and so on, does not exist any more. To reinvent that, you would need the labour, which I know is a tangential issue not to do with the Fisheries Bill, but it is a broader issue for the food industry in relation to Brexit—the supply of labour—and you need the skill. You need both the people and the skill, and you would need some physical investment in capacity, more storage, more chilling and so on.
It is not as if there is under-utilised capacity. It is a function of modern business that capacity matches throughput and the market, so there is not excess processing capacity waiting for new supplies of fish. It would have to be put in place. It would require money, people and skills. To invest the money, you would need a sound business case that could give you a projection of what your price and what your market share would be. The price, critically, would depend on what your broader trading relationship was—tariffs and currency—and what the competition was. It is quite a complex jigsaw, but the short answer is that there is not significant under-utilised capacity that, at the flick of a switch, could suddenly cope with an influx of domestically caught fish.
The Chair
Before we go on, Mr Grant looks as if he has a question on this particular point.
Bill Grant
Q
Andrew Kuyk: I think not, in the sense that those are not areas that are covered in the Bill. It does not cover trading relationships or the kinds of issues that you are raising. From our point of view, is that a significant omission? Not necessarily, because my understanding of the Bill is that it is a piece of framework legislation, which gives the Government the necessary tools to manage fisheries in the UK and the marine environment, in a changed legal situation where we become a sovereign coastal state. It is the tool box for the management of fisheries. It does not address those issues. Do we have concerns about those issues? Yes, we do, but I am not sure that the Bill is the appropriate place for those concerns to be addressed.
Luke Pollard
Q
Andrew Kuyk: It is because they are not the same species.
Luke Pollard
Q
Andrew Kuyk: I am not a parliamentary draughtsman, and I am not sure it is relevant to the subject of the Bill. I suppose it would be possible for the Government to include a trade section in the Bill. One of the things that unites the people I represent and your previous witnesses is that we do not think there should be a link between trade, access to waters and quotas. We think those are separate issues. I know, Mr Gray, that you do not want to go too near Brexit and the backstop, but there is a relevance, given that in the backstop you have a carve-out in article 6 of the Northern Ireland protocol, which exempts fish and fishery products from the single customs territory that would otherwise apply in the backstop, so there is the potential for tariffs to be imposed on UK exports.
To recap, the main things we catch are things like herring, mackerel and shellfish, for which there is not great demand on our domestic market—people prefer cod, tuna and salmon—but there is a good market in the EU. In that succession of hypotheses if there is not an agreement and we come into the backstop, UK exports would potentially face significant tariff barriers. There may be opportunities elsewhere, but that would have a significant impact on the trade. I genuinely do not know how you would guard against that in the Fisheries Bill.
In terms of our access to the raw materials we need, we have the ATQ system and the benefit of some EU trade agreements with third countries. Again, I do not know how you make a reserve carve-out and preserve that position in the Fisheries Bill. That would be our aspiration. As processors, we want free and frictionless trade, like any other part of the food industry. That is our headline message: free and frictionless trade. The deal on the table—the political declaration—holds out the prospect of free trade. That would be very good.
The friction will depend on the degree of regulatory alignment. Fish fall into the category of products of animal origin, to which certain special rules apply in the EU. As a third country, things would have to go through a border inspection post, and so on. Clearly, for a highly perishable fresh product, any increase in the degree of inspection control is potentially detrimental if it leads to delay. Even if the product is not spoiled, its commercial quality and its value will have reduced.
Peter Aldous
Q
Andrew Kuyk: We export 80% of what we catch. The majority of that goes to the EU.
Peter Aldous
Q
Andrew Kuyk: That is not really within my area of responsibility, because we are processors and traders. Quite a lot of that is exported as fish; it is not processed. You could argue from first principles that, as a UK industry, we should be getting more added value from that. Some of that fish is landed directly in EU ports. Although there is a market for that, you could argue that there would be greater economic benefit if we could get some of that value added and export.
There clearly are markets elsewhere in the world. We are a deficit market. Just a bit of propaganda for the fish industry: fish is a healthy, nutritious product, and is a renewable resource if managed properly and sustainability. There are a lot of people in the world for whom fish is their sole source of protein. There is a big demand for fish in the global trade, so there will be opportunities there, but as in any kind of market, it depends on how competitive you are. For the sorts of export that we have at the moment, which are predominantly fresh exports, not processed products, you have obvious barriers of distance. You would have to do something to make it a product that you could sell further afield. There is potential there, but going back to my earlier point it would require investment and to make the investment there has to be a sound business case.
Mr Sweeney
Q
Andrew Kuyk: I think that harks back to an earlier question. There is no surplus processing capacity to do that at the moment. You could legislate for what people have to do, in terms of where they land things, but I do not think you can legislate for how the processing industry or investors would respond to that opportunity. They might or they might not.
Mr Sweeney
Q
Andrew Kuyk: Clearly, that would help solve the investment problem. Again, it would not be for me to pronounce on the use of public funds in that way for a particular sector of a particular industry, but if the Government chose to make grants available to do that, clearly that would help the business case for those kinds of investment.
David Duguid
Q
Andrew Kuyk: Again, that is straying outside my territory as representing processors and traders. Your previous witnesses would be involved in that. Without going into the history too much, the Committee will be generally aware of the ability of people to buy quota and so on; it was freely sold and it was freely acquired. That is the way that the market has operated up until now. Clearly, were more quota available it would be possible for the UK fleet to seek to exploit these value added opportunities and, as you say, to cut out the middleman.
It would not necessarily be my members who would be involved in that at the outset, because that it is not business that we are currently involved in. The people who export those pelagics are not my members; it is the large pelagic companies on the catching side of the industry. It is done with minimal processing and minimal value added. I think that is a missed opportunity for UK plc, but I am not sure how much you can legislate for that. If you provide a framework that is conducive to that, then clearly business will step in with the right incentives and will do its best to take advantage of those possibilities.
David Duguid
Q
Andrew Kuyk: I do not have an exact figure, but I imagine that a clear majority of that would have no or minimal processing.
Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)
Q
Andrew Kuyk: Virtually none, in the sense that quite a lot of this stuff is transshipped through other countries, as I have already explained. If it comes in to us through the tunnel there is no friction at all, as it has already entered the single market, so any formalities—border inspection and any controls—have taken place elsewhere. The same is true of some fish that comes from Norway; some of that comes overland into Sweden on lorries. It is not quite just-in-time in the same sense as in the automotive industry, but there is a narrow window—something like 48 hours maximum—for getting those lorries through and into the UK market. At the moment, that is frictionless.
Jeremy Lefroy
Q
Andrew Kuyk: Yes, and we have some stuff that is landed directly in the UK. There are well tried and trusted systems, and any necessary adaptations have already taken place. We have the facilities to cope with fish that are landed directly in the UK—from Norway, Iceland or anywhere else—because that is established trade. It is well run-in, it functions smoothly and it is not a problem. My general answer is that at the moment we do not have friction either through the EU route or directly. There are controls and rules that have to be complied with, but there are tried and trusted systems. The relevant capacities for handling at ports and for storage are all there for existing trade.
Luke Pollard
Q
Andrew Kuyk: We certainly recognise that that is an issue in global supply chains. I think that both our members and our retail customers do their utmost through due diligence and audits to try to ensure that our own supply chains do not suffer from that. This is an issue in the textile industry and others; it is not restricted to the food industry. Part of our industry’s overall corporate responsibility is not just sustainability of the resource, but ethics and employment practices. That is part of the sustainability agenda of all major processors and retailers, and we do everything that we can to ensure that poor practice is eliminated.
Luke Pollard
Q
Andrew Kuyk: No. As you said, there is already modern slavery legislation. Companies over a certain size must have policies in place. We would have no difficulty with that. Obviously there are some practical issues in supply chains in terms of tracing things back and assigning responsibility. On the aquaculture side—without going off at too much of a tangent—the fish feed might come from less well-regulated fisheries, but those are known problems in the industry and people are doing all in their power to tackle them, including using the commercial power not to source from areas where there is dubious practice. There is also the EU regulation on illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing, which I know we will wish to continue. There is no social chapter in IUU, but that is part of the approach to ensure that things are sustainably and ethically sourced.
The Chair
Mr Kuyk, I thank you very much for your most learned, well informed and well expressed evidence, which will be extremely useful to the Committee.
Examination of Witnesses
Paul Trebilcock and Martin Salter gave evidence.
The Chair
It is a great pleasure to welcome back Mr Martin Salter, who was the Member of Parliament for Reading West for a number of years and is a dear old friend of mine, and Paul Trebilcock from the UK Association of Fish Producer Organisations. Mr Salter is from the Angling Trust. Perhaps you could kindly introduce yourselves briefly for the record.
Martin Salter: Thank you, Mr Gray—I miss our late-night train journeys back to Swindon. My name is Martin Salter, formerly of this parish and now head of campaigns for the Angling Trust, the national representative body for all forms of recreational fishing. That includes sea angling, which according to figures from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is an industry in its own right worth £2 billion to the UK economy, generating 20,000 jobs and supporting thousands of coastal businesses.
One of the reasons we were very keen to give evidence before you is that, despite the warm words from Ministers and in the White Paper, recreational sea angling is not mentioned in the Bill, and we are hoping that you will put that right.
Paul Trebilcock: I am Paul Trebilcock, chairman of the UK Association of Fish Producer Organisations. All producer organisations in England, Wales and Northern Ireland are in our membership. Our members account for more than 40% by value of fish and shellfish landings in the UK.
George Eustice
Q
Paul Trebilcock: I should probably say at the outset that the fishing industry clearly has an interest and a priority to ensure the long-term sustainability of all our fisheries. Sustainability is at the very core of what we want from the Bill and the UK acting as an independent coastal state. However, in the words of Karl O’Brien at the Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science, the MSY concept is scientifically illiterate. To have all stocks at MSY at a particular point in time is just not possible. In particular, in ultra-mixed fisheries, as we have in the south-west, there will always be ups and downs and natural variants. We are trying to manage a dynamic natural resource.
The concept of MSY is a good principle. Working towards MSY proxies on the key driver stocks is probably more practical than what we have at the moment, with an arbitrary legally binding commitment in the common fisheries policy that gives us some perverse pieces of advice. Zero TACs on stocks does not mean they will not be caught in mixed fisheries; it just means they are not taken account of in practical fisheries management. A far better way would be to have the MSY framework as an aspiration and to move towards it, and wherever possible have as many stocks as possible in that MSY range.
George Eustice
Q
Paul Trebilcock: As I say, I think there are lessons to be learned from independent coastal member states such as Norway. Its approach to fisheries management takes the whole ecosystem into account and does not try just to manage stock on arbitrary numbers. There are lessons to be learned, such as using proxies or other indicators to ensure that the whole mix of stocks is going in the right direction and perhaps using the MSY as the driver for some of the key economic stocks. It is about trying to take into account that we are trying to manage a dynamic natural resource rather than something that neatly obeys some scientific modelling.
George Eustice
Q
“the promotion or development of recreational fishing.”
That is in the Bill and it is the first time ever that we have created power to give financial assistance to angling. Is that something you welcome?
Martin Salter: What do you think, Minister? With due respect, it is obviously right and proper that the European maritime and fisheries fund makes some of it available to the commercial sector. That is fine, but you had six direct references in the White Paper to recreational fishing. One of the great failures of the common fisheries policy is the failure to recognise recreational angling as a legitimate stakeholder in the European fishery. That is a failure of the CFP that the Bill could put right. You could do that, as we state in our evidence, by putting on the face of the Bill, “The UK Government recognise recreational sea angling as a direct user and a legitimate stakeholder in the fishery.” That would be a win-win situation and it would add to the very welcome news that we are going to have access to EMFF funding.
George Eustice
Q
Martin Salter: We, like you, are looking forward to saying goodbye to the annual horse trading that takes place at the Fisheries Council. It is worth putting on the record that, despite the reform of the CFP, some 44% of total allowable catch limits were set above scientifically recommended limits. That process is far from perfect, and it is to be welcomed that the Bill and particularly the White Paper talk in terms of world-leading fisheries management.
However, the point for politicians is that it is easy to claim that we are going to be an independent coastal state, but that does not deliver sustainable fisheries. Senegal is an independent coastal state, and its fisheries have been wiped out by super-trawlers, which are mainly European and have used their economic power to destroy the livelihoods of artisanal fishermen in independent coastal states. You will deliver sustainable fisheries management by having world-leading sustainable fisheries policy. You will deliver that by looking at the very best in the world. You should look at Norway and in particular at the United States. The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act 1976 puts a statutory duty on the eight regional fishery councils to take action to rebuild fish stocks.
You asked what we are seeking. We would like to see on the face of the Bill a binding duty for Ministers to set total allowable catch limits in line with scientifically recommended evidence, rather than this dreadful horse trading that takes place every year at the European Fisheries Council, which is no model of sustainable fisheries management at all.
George Eustice
Q
“above biomass levels capable of producing maximum sustainable yield.”
There is a legal commitment there.
Martin Salter: There is, but there is a section in the Bill about binding duties. Frankly, Minister, if I were in your shoes, I would want a binding duty. I would want to make it crystal clear that we are going to end the discredited system that has operated under the common fisheries policy and replace it with a legally backed duty to fish at sustainable levels, just as we have legally backed targets for climate change and emissions.
I am afraid I do not agree with Paul and my colleagues in the commercial catching sector about having MSY as an aspiration. Minister, you have piloted bass conservation measures more than anybody else, but usually in the face of opposition from the commercial catching sector. We have seen those conservation measures start to lead to the rebuilding of bass stocks in the UK, which is really to be commended. We need to be bold, we need to be outliers, we need to learn from the best in the world, and we need it clearly and simply on the face of the Bill.
Luke Pollard
Q
Paul Trebilcock: I think we are well down the track on that one. Increasing numbers of UK fisheries have either achieved accreditation and are now Marine Stewardship Council-accredited, or are going through the process. Growing numbers by volume and across Scotland, England and Northern Ireland are achieving that. We are definitely moving in that direction, and the UK fishing industry is currently on a trajectory toward having all its fisheries on a sustainable footing. Contrary to Martin’s view, I think the people who will deliver a sustainable fishery and fishing industry are the fishermen themselves, those who are actively at sea. Currently, there are elements of the common fisheries policy, whether it be relative stability shares, access arrangements or some of the technical measures, that hamper the travel toward that sustainability.
The UK operating as a genuine independent coastal state, with a practical and balanced fisheries policy that takes into account all three pillars of sustainability—not just the environmental but the social and economic pillars—will in a very short space of time take the UK further down that track and ultimately toward our shared aspiration of all UK fisheries operating in a sustainable way that will allow the UK Government and anybody else to buy with a clear conscience.
Luke Pollard
Q
Martin Salter: Yes, thank you for that. We are promoting an amendment that states:
“Promoting the sustainable development of public access to recreational fishing opportunities as both part of the catching sector and the leisure and tourism industries, taking into account socio-economic factors.”
What is interesting, if we look across the pond at America, is that they have fishery management policies on some stocks. It is worth bearing in mind that those fish stocks that are of interest to the recreational sector do not clash desperately with the fish stocks that my colleagues from the catching sector wish to exploit. We are not interested in monkfish. We are not interested in hake. We are not interested in crabs. We are not interested in lobsters. We are actually only interested in something like 20% of fish landed into UK ports, so there is plenty of opportunity to look at sensible resource-sharing.
In America, the striped bass fishery, which was driven to extinction by commercial overfishing, has recovered as a result of tough conservation measures. They now have in place a resource-sharing operation where X percentage of the stock each year is reserved for the recreational sector, which generates huge value for the US economy. I can read the figures into the record if you like. We have the potential to do that over here. We can look at certain fish stocks and say, “Do you know what? We could deliver better for UK plc by managing that stock recreationally, or at least sharing a proportion of that stock.”
Luke Pollard
Q
Martin Salter: To be honest, Mr Pollard, I do not think that is a matter for the Bill. We are looking forward to meeting the Minister on bluefin tuna, although we accept that he is pretty busy at the moment with two Bills going through Parliament. It is interesting that the bluefin tuna is still on the endangered list, but the International Union for Conservation of Nature list goes back to 2011, which predates the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas stock recovery programme. That stock recovery programme has seen the global quota increased to something like 38,000 tonnes. The EU gets 20,000 tonnes of that. Under ICCAT rules, the EU has to allocate a small proportion to a non-commercial interest—in other words, a recreational catch-and-release interest. The recreational sector only ever needs a very small part of that quota because of the mortality rate for bluefin tuna. They are big, tough animals, and the Canadian model shows that their mortality rate is around 3.6%.
You can therefore have a very small quota in the UK and develop a thriving recreational tuna fishery. Given that the stock is slowly recovering, I should imagine that ICCAT would consider it far too early to start thinking about cranking up commercial exploitation in an area of the globe where it has not traditionally happened. A first run at tuna, if you like, really needs to be a tightly licensed, properly controlled recreational fishery that sits alongside the tagging programmes that the World Wildlife Fund is currently doing in Sweden and has also done in the Mediterranean.
We need to know a lot more about these wonderful creatures before we open the door to commercial exploitation, and the first stage would be to set up a recreational bluefin tuna fishery. That would generate an awful lot of money for the south-west and for Ireland, and it would also mean—this is really important—that there would be anglers out there looking after this resource. Frankly, if stakeholders are not engaged in the fishery, bad people will do bad things to fish, as can be seen in the amount of illegal and black fish landings that take place every year in this country.
Peter Aldous
Q
Mr Trebilcock, the Bill suggests an enhanced role for producer organisations. Are you fit for purpose—not your specific PO but generally—to fulfil such a role? At the beginning of last month the European Commission issued a reasoned opinion to the UK Government, which admittedly was about the management of POs but in which there was a strong suggestion that you are not doing what you should be.
Paul Trebilcock: You are absolutely right. The Commission is certainly having a look and gave a reasoned opinion about POs functioning in the UK, although that focused primarily on the compliance checks and the audit process by the Marine Management Organisation rather than the functioning of particular POs.
The short answer to your question is that, yes, I think POs are fit for purpose. They are primarily fishermen’s organisations, entirely funded by fishermen and run by and for fishermen to manage quota, market and represent. They have an extremely valuable role. Is there room to improve as we enter a new regime? Absolutely. Clarification of a standard that all POs across the country must deliver to, clarity of function and a greater understanding from people outside POs of what they actually do would all be really useful.
Peter Aldous
Q
Paul Trebilcock: No, but in response I argue that the Cornish PO, for example, is made up of around 150 different fishermen, from small handliners catching mackerel and bass through to beam trawlers. That is an example of how a producer organisation might work.
In the Lowestoft example, the local boats sold to Dutch interests, and there was an evolutionary process. The Lowestoft PO functions as a producer organisation, securing maximum price for its members and that sort of thing. The local community in Lowestoft chose not to be part of that. It is important that, as we enter the UK operating as an independent coastal state, all parts of the commercial industry are encouraged into producer organisations to ensure that they collectively understand and drive the function and operation of producer organisations wherever they might be.
You really have to be seeing the benefit. Perhaps that is a role where UK Association of Fish Producer Organisations and producer organisations in general have not particularly done well in explaining to and educating people outside the PO movement what they actually do for fishing communities. The reach and effect of producer organisations goes beyond their membership in a lot of areas. I know that the south-west and east of England POs will help those in the local community who are not even in membership. I strongly feel that producer organisations do a tremendous job around the country at the moment, and have the scope to build on that and do better things as we go into the post-Brexit era.
Martin Salter: The highlight of any debate is the contribution from the hon. Member for Broxbournero, as we know.
Do we need recreational fishing on the face of the Bill? It is great when the White Paper says:
“We will consider how we can further integrate recreational angling within the new fisheries framework recognising the societal benefits of this activity and impacts on some stocks.”
However—your constituents who fish recreationally will tell you this—for many years they have been a bit sick and tired of seeing their recreational sea angling experience fall off a cliff edge as stocks are overfished, and in some cases get driven into parlous conditions. They feel that the recreational sector, despite its economic significance—its significance for jobs and for coastal communities—is basically being left to feed on the crumbs that are left over after commercial exploitation has had its whack.
If you look at quality fishery management—at America and Magnuson-Stevens, and the New Zealand fishery conservation legislation—shares are allocated. There is proper resource sharing. There is consideration in a sensible, grown-up, policy development way—recognising the social and economic impacts of the exploitation of different stocks for different purposes. It might not just be for recreational fishing. It might be for diving or other forms of tourism. It might be for conservation. Yes, putting it on the face of the Bill would send a strong signal, and would also mean a sea change from the very discredited policies of the common fisheries policy. What I think the Bill is really about is recognising that this is a new chapter for fisheries management. That is why I would urge you to support our amendment.
Mr Carmichael
Q
Paul Trebilcock: One of POs’ functions is quota management. Part of that involves getting quota to those who need it—fishermen. That can be done through the swaps and transfer mechanism, which has evolved and developed over many years. Those can be swaps involving different quota stocks swapped for those needed. It can be leasing, it can be gifting, it can be borrowing and it can be a form of banking—it is quite a sophisticated and complex, or flexible, way of doing things, which enables it to be moved around to where it is needed, wherever possible.
Mr Carmichael
Q
Paul Trebilcock: At the moment we have the ability to trade across all parts of the devolved Administration quota tonnages on an annual basis, but it is not possible to move the fixed quota allocation units across Administration borders, which hinders business and stops FQAs getting to where they need to be—fixed quota allocation units for stocks off the south-west probably are not needed in Shetland and vice versa. The ability to rebalance that and free that movement would be welcome, but at the moment there is free movement of quota tonnages across the devolved Administrations, which is absolutely essential in getting quotas.
Mr Carmichael
Q
Paul Trebilcock: The Bill as it stands, as I read it, does allow for that. The risk, of course, is that there is the signal towards devolution that means the different devolved Administrations can, I think, as I read it, choose to have their own quota management rules. That is certainly a risk, but it does not appear on my reading to be a high risk. I would hope that all devolved Administrations were trying to work collectively for the benefit of their respective fishing industries and the UK as a whole, so retaining flexibility and restoring the flexibility to move FQAs would be a welcome addition.
Jeremy Lefroy
Mr Salter, you rightly placed great emphasis on sustainability. Given that in the UK we export most of our fish and export most of what we catch, most of what is consumed comes from places in which as an independent coastal state we rightly have no control over whether things are fished sustainably. Do you see a role for consumer-type markings on sustainability? Should that be left up to the industry or should there be some kind of legal basis so that we walk the walk on sustainability as well as talking the talk?
Martin Salter: I think consumers welcome guidance. It is a matter for you whether you think legislation is required, but when you walk into a supermarket you see a very complicated tapestry in front of you.
We have a very real problem with farmed salmon. Our colleagues from Scotland recognise it as an important industry, but if it were a land industry it would be shut down tomorrow given the appalling levels of pollution. The amount of sewage that is discharged as a result of the Scottish salmon farming industry into pristine marine lochs is quite horrendous. The wrasse that are prevalent around Mr Pollard’s constituency in the south-west are slow-growing fish of very little commercial value—often the first fish that youngsters catch when they go sea angling. They are being shipped live to the Scottish salmon farming industry as a cleaner fish to eat the lice because that is cheaper. That is a double bad whammy. The industry really needs to improve its act—I notice that Norway is moving a lot of its agriculture on to land so that it can deal with the effluent.
I still see an awful lot of people eating Scottish farmed salmon. I am sure Scottish MPs welcome the fact that they do so, but in sustainability terms and environmental terms it is a dreadful product—doubly dreadful because of its impact on sea fish down in the south-west. Perhaps statutory guidance would be welcome, or at least a level playing field in which agriculture was forced to clean its act up as farming practices on land have been forced to do over the years.
Alan Brown
Q
Martin Salter: We are not calling for that to be in the Bill; it would tie the Minister’s hands. If we are to adopt world-leading sustainable fishery management practice, it is important that Ministers and decision makers are able to take the best scientific advice without having to come back to Parliament to change quotas and reallocate bass stocks from 30% recreational to 37% recreational, for example. That clearly would not work. They have to have that power, but that is why it is important that we put a duty in the Bill for Ministers to set sustainability targets.
The point about resource sharing is more about achieving an optimal economic and societal return for the stock. I find it very sad that protected species such as the grey mullet that we see swimming around harbours in the UK have very little commercial value, yet at times of spawning aggregations we see entire year classes of those stocks totally netted, flooding the market and getting less than £2 a kilo. This is a slow-growing species: a grey mullet takes anything from 10 to 12 years to achieve a size that makes it a useful recreational angling target. It is a very poor use of that resource. As a good business calculation, which is the better use of that stock? Would reserving more of it for recreation give us more jobs for the UK economy—more bites for our buck, if you like? That is something that good fishery management practice would seek to achieve. It will not be achieved by legislation as such, but it could be assisted by a power and duty for fishery Ministers.
Alan Brown
That is a complication, because trying to get a legislative framework that gives that certainty—
The Chair
Order. We are strictly limited by time and it is now 11.25 am, so I fear I have to call this evidence session to an end. The Committee will meet again at 2 pm. The Committee Room will be locked in the meantime, so hon. Members may leave their papers here if they wish. I thank the witnesses very much indeed for their useful evidence.
Fisheries Bill (Fifth sitting)
Tuesday 11th December 2018
(5 years, 11 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Fisheries Bill 2017-19 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 11 December 2018 - (11 Dec 2018)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 8 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Chair
May I welcome the Committee to line-by-line consideration of the Bill and lay down a couple of parish notices? Most Members have probably sat on such a Committee before. For those who have not, the rules of dress, address and behaviour are identical to those in the main Chamber. Those who have sat under my chairmanship before will know that I tend to the traditional end of that line of thinking—I tend to be quite strict in requiring no coffees, no mobile phone noises, proper means of address, proper behaviour and all that kind of thing.
We addressed this last week, but I remind Members that amendments must usually be tabled by Thursday to be considered the following Tuesday, and by Monday to be considered the following Thursday. However, next week we will sit on Monday, so it will be necessary for Members to table any amendments they wish to be considered then before the rise of the House on Wednesday. That is slightly complicated, but we need to stick closely to it.
The selection list is in front of you and shows how the amendments have been grouped. You will know that the order of consideration of amendments is not necessarily the order in which they will be voted on. They will be voted on as they turn up in the Bill itself. We may allow a stand part debate at the end of the consideration of each clause, or, at my discretion, we may not if we had a reasonably good Second Reading-type debate during consideration of the amendments. We will try to avoid having too many stand part debates, apart from where there is a matter of great principle to be considered. I rely in particular on the Opposition to make it clear when they wish to have a stand part debate. I will be delighted to allow one if that is what you would like.
Clause 1
Fisheries objectives
Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)
I beg to move amendment 78, in clause 1, page 1, line 2, at end insert—
“(A1) Any public authority with any function relating to fishing activities or fisheries management must exercise those functions to achieve or contribute to the achievement of the fisheries objectives.”
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 36, in clause 1, page 1, line 9, at end insert—
“(1A) Any public authority with functions relating to fisheries activities or fisheries management must have regard to the fisheries objectives in the exercise of those functions.”
This amendment would place a duty on public authorities to have regard to the fisheries objectives in exercising their fisheries functions.
Peter Aldous
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray. I will seek to abide by the house rules you set down.
I have tabled quite a few amendments, so, if I may, I will say a few words of introduction about what is behind them. I represent Lowestoft—it is the largest town in my constituency—which I think we would say was formerly the fishing capital of the southern North sea. It was possible to walk on water from trawler to trawler, from one side of Hamilton dock to the other. That is not the case today; the trawl basin is largely empty. In Lowestoft, we have the worst-case scenario—we have seen how fisheries management can go horribly wrong.
We have rich fisheries off the East Anglian coast that bring very little benefit to East Anglian coastal communities. We do have a producer organisation—it is run from Lowestoft and has accountants in an office overlooking the trawl dock—but no fish are landed in Lowestoft. The trawlers in the Lowestoft PO land fish predominantly in the Netherlands. We are left with a small inshore fleet that lives a hand-to-mouth existence, unsure what quota of fish it will be able to catch from month to month. We might say it lives off the scraps from a rich man’s table.
With that in mind, the Bill needs to address three challenges. It needs to address the lack of fishing opportunities for fishermen such as those whom I represent; ensure we have a sustainable fishing management system; and ensure that we can bring significant benefits to coastal communities such as Lowestoft, many of which feel they have been left behind over the past 40 years.
The Bill provides us with an opportunity to put things right. Taking into account the short time that the Government and officials from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs have had to put the Bill together, we can say that they have done a good job with a lot to be commended. I acknowledge that it is an enabling Bill, and we probably do not want to get involved with or bogged down by a lot of detail. However, over the next two weeks we have the opportunity to scrutinise provisions that will provide the framework within which we can revive coastal communities—not just Lowestoft, but all around the coast of this country.
Let me turn to amendment 78—I am inclined initially to think of Julie Andrews, so I am starting at the very beginning, which is a very good place to start. Clause 1 sets out the fisheries objectives. There is concern that as currently drafted it does not provide a binding legal duty on all public authorities to achieve those objectives, so the amendment seeks to address that concern. It will ensure that the environmental and socio-economic protections that the authorities provide are implemented effectively, and it will help to secure the Government objective of delivering a truly sustainable, world-leading fisheries management system. It is complemented by amendment 80, to which I will speak later in our proceedings. Amendment 78 would impose an obligation on all public authorities. I acknowledge that in drafting terms that may not sit all that well with the Bill, but it raises genuine concerns, and I would welcome the Minister’s feedback on that issue and on how he will best take that concern on board.
Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)
I will speak to amendment 36 in addition to amendment 78. It is an honour to speak on behalf of the Opposition, not only as Labour’s shadow fishing Minister, but as an MP who represents a constituency that has nearly 1,000 fishing jobs in both the catching and the processing sectors. The Bill is a missed opportunity, and although we do not oppose it we have tabled a significant number of amendments to improve it and reflect the changes that the industry needs from a new regulatory framework. We seek to ensure that there are enough fish to catch in our ocean, and that the industry is truly sustainable, both economically and, importantly, environmentally.
There is perhaps just one sector of our entire United Kingdom economy that could be better on day one of Brexit—fishing—but only if we can ensure that our fish exports to markets are free of burdensome and expensive customs checks, and free from tariffs. Brexiteers and those behind the 2016 referendum made much of promises to the fishing industry, and Labour’s amendments seek to make real many of the promises that were made during the leave campaign, and since by Ministers, but that are missing from the Bill as drafted. Labour wants to work constructively with the Minister to improve the Bill, and I hope that he does, too.
This is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to start afresh and create a truly world-leading fisheries policy, and we must not waste that opportunity. There are good things in the Bill that we want to support, but there are far too many missing pieces. As I said on Second Reading, the Bill smacks of something that was pushed out hurriedly to ensure that a regulatory framework is in place in the event of a no-deal hard Brexit.
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has committed the UK Government to leaving the natural environment in a better state than we found it, and rightly so. That is good and welcome, but we need more than soundbites—we need action, and many of our amendments would put such measures into legislation. There are significant concerns about the gap between the Government’s stated ambition, as set out in the White Paper, to deliver world-leading fisheries, and the duties currently in the Bill to deliver that goal. It is critical for the health of our oceans that the Bill includes a duty to deliver sustainability objectives as set out in clause 1. Without such a duty, targets are established but there is no clear obligation on authorities, other than the Secretary of State, to deliver them. There should also be a requirement for annual updates on progress made against those objectives.
Amendment 36 is vital. I am glad that the hon. Member for Waveney tabled a very similar amendment. He and I may sit on opposite sides of the House, but we have both spent a lot of time listening to our fishing communities in our respective constituencies, so we seem to be doing a cross-party tag team on many of our amendments. The purpose of the Opposition amendment is to place a legal duty on any public authority with any fisheries-related function to achieve the objectives set out in the Bill. Without such a duty, objectives are established but there is no clear obligation for authorities to deliver them. The Opposition seek an explicit carry-through of duties, rather than an implied or suggested one, as is currently the case.
We heard last week from Debbie Crockard, senior fisheries policy advocate for the Marine Conservation Society. She said:
“The ambition here is for world-leading sustainable fisheries management. At the moment we do not have a duty in this Fisheries Bill to meet the objectives in the Bill. Those objectives cover a lot of very good things—sustainability and a precautionary approach—but without the duty there is no clear obligation to deliver those objectives. Without that clear obligation you are in a situation where they might not be met and there is no obligation to meet.”––[Official Report, Fisheries Public Bill Committee, 6 December 2018; c. 80, Q157.]
Our amendment would make a simple but effective change. We are pleased with many of the words in the objectives, but it is important that we carry those through. I would be grateful if the Minister would say how he will ensure that those objectives are properly implemented and do not just exist on paper in the Bill.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
I commend the hon. Members for Waveney and for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport for tabling these amendments, which deal with an important point. I have a concern about what is described in the briefing we received today from Greener UK as a “fundamental flaw”. The more I think about it, the more I understand that to be the case. The concern is that public bodies currently have to act in accordance with the joint policy statements. That may be good in so far as those statements marry up with the Bill’s objectives, but it leaves rather a lot depending on the content and substance of the statements.
The advantage of the amendments, which are essentially the same in their import, is that they would place a duty on public bodies to have regard to the objectives. Those objectives are good—there is broad consensus that they are exactly the objectives we ought to set in respect of fishing policy. It seems to me that tying public bodies into the objectives, rather than just the policy statements, is a good idea that would strengthen the Bill significantly. I suspect such a provision might have been put in the Bill anyway, had it spent a little longer in the oven of Government.
I am interested to hear the Minister’s thinking. I do not know whether the hon. Member for Waveney intends his amendment as a probing amendment, but Members inevitably will wish to return to this matter, either in Committee or at a later stage.
The Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (George Eustice)
It is a pleasure to start with this very important clause, which sets out our sustainability objectives. I hope I am able to reassure hon. Members that the two amendments are unnecessary because of other provisions in the Bill.
The fisheries administrations are already covered by the joint fisheries statement and, in the case of England, the Secretary of State’s fisheries statement. Clause 2 sets out a clear requirement to publish a joint fisheries statement explaining how we intend to achieve the objectives set out in clause 1. Clause 6(1) contains a requirement that the functions of national authorities must be carried out in accordance with the joint fisheries statement.
One of my issues with amendment 36 is that it uses the words “must have regard to”. I believe that the structure we have put in place—with a joint fisheries statement that explains in great detail how we intend to achieve the objectives, is regularly reviewed, can be updated when circumstances change, and must be followed—is more powerful than saying simply that authorities must have regard to the objectives. We want this to be an obligation that we seek to follow in the best possible way, while recognising the complexity of the marine environment and how things are subject to change.
Owen Smith (Pontypridd) (Lab)
Is part of the problem, as we heard during the evidence sessions, that other Administrations do not necessarily have to follow what is set down in the joint fisheries or ministerial fisheries statement—they merely need to explain why they departed from it?
George Eustice
That provision is only for a force majeure event such as a major crisis or something that would require an Administration to move outside the plan, and they would have to explain why that had happened. The requirement to follow the joint fisheries statement applies equally to all Administrations in the UK and it is legally binding.
Other public bodies—for example, the inshore fisheries and conservation authorities—are already covered by legislation, and those obligations are set out in the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009, which was introduced by the previous Labour Government. Section 153 of that Act sets out clear duties for IFCAs to
“seek to ensure that the exploitation of sea fisheries resources is carried out in a sustainable way…seek to balance the social and economic benefits of exploiting the sea fisheries resources…with the need to protect the marine environment from…the effects of such exploitation”,
and finally to take any other steps that are necessary for sustainable development. Obligations for the IFCAs are therefore already covered by the 2009 Act.
Owen Smith
I am grateful for the Minister’s explanation, but I do not really understand what he means by force majeure events. This seems to me to be quite simple. Clause 6(1) states:
“A relevant national authority must exercise its functions…unless relevant considerations indicate otherwise.”
I would be grateful to know what “relevant considerations” might mean, because that seems to be fairly broad criteria. Clause 6(4) states simply:
“If a relevant national authority within subsection (5)(a) or (b) takes any decision in the exercise of its functions…otherwise than in accordance with the policies contained in an SSFS that are applicable to the authority, the authority must state its reasons”.
The Chair
Order. We might discuss that matter when we consider clause 6, rather than now.
The Chair
Order. The fact that the Minister mentioned clause 6 is not a good reason to question the Chair’s decision on the matter.
George Eustice
I concede that I started this by mentioning clause 6, but I did so in the context of obligations that were to give effect to the measures in clause 1—we will return to that issue in further detail later on.
My third point is that the Environment Agency has a role when it comes to fisheries, and particularly freshwater fisheries—for example, the regulation of salmon. It is covered by separate legislation, and the Environment Act 1995 places a duty on the EA to promote the conservation and enhancement of the natural beauty and amenity of inland and coastal waters, and land associated with such waters, as well as the conservation of flora and fauna that are dependent on the aquatic environment.
For the reasons we have set out, we believe that the joint fisheries statement and obligations in clause 6 already give effect to the obligations and objectives in clause 1. Public bodies that are not covered by the joint fisheries statement are covered by other legislation, notably the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009 and the Environment Agency.
Mr Carmichael
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way, as I sense he is coming to the end of his remarks. Will he confirm that the contents of the joint policy statement could be subject to judicial review?
George Eustice
Lots of things in our constitution are subject to judicial review. If a joint fisheries statement were published and there was some doubt as to whether those objectives were being delivered, there is always a basis in our constitution for that to be legally challenged. However, I believe we will be able to work together with all Administrations to ensure that the joint fisheries statement sets out how we intend to deliver our objectives.
On the right hon. Gentleman’s point about why we chose to do that via a joint fisheries statement, he will know that the marine environment is a very dynamic place where new challenges present themselves. To have a dynamic, detailed plan that is updated periodically and remains relevant, which refocuses us on our objectives and learns lessons from what may or may not have worked, is more powerful than the two amendments would provide.
Mr Carmichael
The Minister is being generous with his time. He sets out a process that we hope would be followed in optimum circumstances. In fact, very often that is not the case; other considerations come into play. We have to produce legislation suitable to deal with the worst possible circumstances, not just the base that we hope for. Surely, the advantage of putting this into the objectives, rather than just remaining with the policy statements, would be that those who wanted ensure that the policies meet the objectives would not have resort to that sort of expensive legal procedure.
George Eustice
I simply believe that the approach we have set out, of a joint fisheries statement that can be regularly updated and can express in great detail how we intend to deliver those objectives, is more powerful than a simple addition to the clause. In this Bill we give legal effect, via the joint fisheries statement, for a requirement on Administrations to follow those objectives.
There are occasions, as the right hon. Gentleman will know from his constituency, when we have to do annual fisheries negotiations with Norway and the Faroes, and we have to do the coastal states negotiations on issues such as mackerel. Sometimes, countries such as Norway use other scientific measures, although maximum sustainable yield is one of their approaches, too. Sometimes, we have to reach an agreement, and if we are too inflexible in our approach to reaching an agreement with countries in those circumstances, everybody unilaterally sets their own quota and goes their own way, and the marine resource suffers. It is important that our plan has the flexibility to enable us to reach a settlement with our near neighbours such as Norway and the Faroes.
I hope I have been able to persuade hon. Members that the approach we have set out deals with the intention behind the two amendments, and that they will not feel the need to press them.
Peter Aldous
I have listened carefully to the Minister’s points. Although it was important to highlight the issue we need to take into account, I am generally content that the existing provisions, particularly the joint fisheries statement, cover the matter On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment proposed: 36, in clause 1, page 1, line 9, at end insert—
“(1A) Any public authority with functions relating to fisheries activities or fisheries management must have regard to the fisheries objectives in the exercise of those functions.”—(Luke Pollard.)
This amendment would place a duty on public authorities to have regard to the fisheries objectives in exercising their fisheries functions.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Luke Pollard
I beg to move amendment 37, in clause 1, page 1, line 9, at end insert—
“(g) the public asset objective.”
This amendment would add to the fisheries objectives the “public asset” objective, defined in Amendment 38.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 38, in clause 1, page 2, line 24, at end insert—
“(7A) The ‘public asset objective’ is to manage fisheries, and the rights to exploit those fisheries, as a shared resource and public asset held in stewardship for the public good.”
This amendment defines the “public asset” objectives.
Luke Pollard
Members will see from the amendment paper that the Opposition propose a number of additional objectives, including a new public asset objective, a new marine planning objective, a new safety and workforce objective, and a new climate change and international agreements objective. The first—the public asset objective—would deliver on the pledge in the Government’s White Paper, which states:
“We aim to manage these fisheries—and the wider marine environment—as a shared resource, a public asset held in stewardship for the benefit of all.”
That sounds brilliant, but it should have been included in the Bill.
Listing fish as a public good in the Bill would allow us to say definitively that fish should be allocated for the benefit of the country. I am amazed that Ministers did not set that out clearly in Bill. I encourage the Minister to accept the amendment so there can be no doubt, no obfuscation and no sleight of hand in policy from this Government or any that might follow—particularly in the coming days—that fish is a public good and their benefits should be shared by the nation.
We heard evidence last week from Griffin Carpenter, an economist at the New Economics Foundation. He agreed with that point, stating:
“When I have spoken to stakeholders, even the quota holders, everyone starts from the same premise that fish is a public good, but from my perspective that has not been followed through in the way we treat the opportunity to fish that public good.”––[Official Report, Fisheries Public Bill Committee, 6 December 2018; c. 104, Q200.]
The hon. Member for Waveney expressed similar concerns. I am sure hon. Members on both sides of the House know Aaron Brown from Fishing for Leave, who is a key supporter of the amendment. He said in evidence last week:
“Fish always has been a public resource. Various judicial hearings have defined that as well. Indeed, it probably stretches all the way back into Magna Carta right back through our constitution.”
That is slightly before my time, I am afraid. He continued:
“At the end of the day, we as fishermen, as the members of the public who catch, are only custodians of what is the nation’s; we look after it and husband it well for current generations and future ones. We would very much like to see a clause put in”.––[Official Report, Fisheries Public Bill Committee, 4 December 2018; c. 62, Q134.]
Importantly, clause 1 sets the tone for how the Bill will be regarded. There is much discussion about fish in our political debate. It is vital that we make it clear right from the start that fish is a public asset and should be distributed accordingly—a key argument that I believe Members on both sides of the House have advocated. Its omission from the Bill is regrettable, which is why the Opposition seek to insert it as one of the Bill’s early objectives.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray. We will be happy to support the amendment if it is pressed to a vote. Clearly, clause 1 is all about setting objectives. The Minister may argue that the amendment is superfluous, but we are setting objectives and, as the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport touched on, we heard clearly in evidence that there is a desire for the Bill to state that fishing is a public good. That would set a marker for the future, when we look at reallocating quotas for the benefit of that public good. We are certainly happy to support the amendment.
George Eustice
I do not believe the amendment is necessary, for reasons that I will set out. I will describe in a moment what we intend to do on quota allocation.
As the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport highlighted, case law in this area is very clear. We have an unwritten constitution, elements of which do not need to be put in statute. We do not need to put in statute that Parliament is sovereign. We do not need to put in the Bill that fish live in water. Certain things are facts, not objectives. We do not have an objective to make fish a public asset; it is a statement of fact that they are a public asset, and our common law tradition enshrines that.
The case law is very clear. The UK Association of Fish Producers Organisations brought an important test case in 2013, when my predecessor moved some quota. Mr Justice Cranston, the judge who took the case, noted Magna Carta and what it sets out, and its implications were that fish stocks are a public resources. As he stated:
“Consequently, there can be no property right in fish until they are caught.”
The nature of our unwritten constitution, our common law tradition and our case law make it clear: fish are a public asset. Furthermore, articles 2 and 56 of the United Nations convention on the law of the sea recognise that coastal states have sovereign rights over their resources, including fisheries in their territorial waters and exclusive economic zone, and we are signatories to that convention.
I do not believe it necessary, but I wish briefly to explain why in our White Paper we set out clearly that fish are a public asset. As we diverge from relative stability shares and additional fishing opportunities come in, we have been explicit that those new fishing opportunities will not be allocated along current fixed quota allocation lines, and that initially, as a first step, we will allocate the quota differently. We are considering a number of measures. First, we could put additional fish into the under-10-metre pool—the inshore pool—to give extra fishing opportunities to our smaller inshore fleet. Secondly, other parts of the Bill we set out an ability for us to use some of that additional quota to create a national reserve to help manage the landing obligation and deal with the problem of choke species and discards. Thirdly—again, this is set out elsewhere in the Bill—we have outlined the possibility for a producer or organisation to tender for fishing opportunities for a year or a number of years, based on their track record on issues such as creating opportunities for new entrants, their sustainability, the amount of benefit they deliver for coastal communities and so on.
We have been clear that new fishing opportunities will be allocated differently. In the longer term and once we have established alternative methodologies, if we gave sufficient notice—the judgment I mentioned earlier suggested that the Government would need to give seven years’ notice to people who currently hold FQA units—it would be possible gradually to start to move away from the FQA system altogether. We do not want to do that expeditiously, for the reasons set out in our White Paper. Complex business models have been built under the current FQA regime, and people have borrowed money to buy vessels with FQA units attached. As we leave the EU, a lot of changes will already be happening and we do not want to compound them by destabilising the system entirely. We have been clear that we will stick with existing FQA units for existing fishing opportunities, but we will diverge from that over time. To do that, we must simply give notice in a policy statement or document that we intend to do so; it does not need to be placed in the Bill.
Mr Carmichael
Would the insertion of the amendment prevent the Minister from doing that?
George Eustice
It would not, but nothing in the amendment is necessary, and when we draft legislation, it is important to include that which is necessary. Arguably, there would be nothing wrong with a piece of legislation that stated “Parliament is sovereign”, except that that which can be given can be taken away. We have an unwritten constitution and a common law tradition in this country because there are certain things that we do not want to call into question by including them in a Bill. We certainly do not want to downgrade this to a mere objective when it is about a long-established right and a national resource that cannot be turned into a property right, and that is a long-standing point in our constitution.
I understand the thinking behind the amendment and the points raised by the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport. I hope I have been able to reassure him that is unnecessary and, more important, that I have enlightened him of the Government’s intentions and approach as we move to a new system and regime for allocating quota.
Mr Carmichael
I confess I was not much exercised about this amendment until I heard the Minister’s explanation of why the Committee should not accept it. The Minister says that we do not need to put in the Bill the fact that fish swim in the sea. That is absolutely correct, but that is different from parliamentary sovereignty—the other example he cited. If I dredge the depths of my memory, that is the difference between a praesumptio iuris and a praesumptio iuris et de iure: there are some things that are irrefutable—fish swim in the sea, for example. Parliamentary sovereignty is not necessarily part of nature; it is part of the decisions we take. Jurists have wrestled with that for centuries.
Our own definition of parliamentary sovereignty has changed many times over the years. The whole question of sovereignty is seen differently in different parts of the United Kingdom. It is well established in Scots law that sovereignty is vested in the people and given to Parliament; the Diceyan definition of parliamentary sovereignty is not necessarily accepted. I did not particularly anticipate employing this line of argument, but as the hon. Member for Pontypridd said, the Minister started it.
Mr Carmichael
We are, but if the basis of parliamentary draftsmanship is that the Government will do things only that are necessary, that is quite welcome. However, given the direction of travel of legislation over the 17 years I have been in the House, that would be a fairly normal one and something of a departure from the way we have done things recently.
The Minister brought forward various policy objectives that would sit well in the policy statements at that point, but I do not see anything that contradicts the need for this to be put into the policy objectives. Whereas initially I was of the view that this was not something of greatest moment, now I understand the reasons why the Government resist it I am somewhat more impressed with the idea behind it.
Luke Pollard
I welcome the Minister’s words about allocation of quota. We will come to that in due course. In consideration of the first two amendments, an awful lot of fishers will watch this Committee and will ask why Ministers are resisting fish being a public asset in this Bill. They will ask, “What are they trying to hide or trying not to say?”
George Eustice
The hon. Gentleman seeks to downgrade something that is a fact—fish are a national asset—to become a mere objective.
Luke Pollard
For someone who is still quite fresh in Parliament, it is very curious that a downgrade to an objective is better than not having something in the Bill at all. Not mentioning it seems to be the higher state for something—that is not what most fishers will take from this debate.
Mr Paul Sweeney (Glasgow North East) (Lab/Co-op)
My hon. Friend will know that many fishermen will watch the Committee and note the rather peculiar point made by the Government. Surely, this is a belt-and-braces approach, not a mutually exclusive option to define fish as a public asset. Many small fishermen, particularly those who seem to be crowded out as a result of large-scale private fishing interests dominating the sector, will view the Government’s proposals with cynicism.
Luke Pollard
Fish is a public asset and that should be in the Bill. That is the position of my hon. Friends, and I am disappointed that we have not been able to find a form of words to convince the Minister to be clear that fish is a public asset and should be in the Bill. This is one of the fundamental principles that fishers say to me when I go down to the quayside in Plymouth: they want the Government to come to an honest set of words that says, “Fish is a public asset.”
Mr Carmichael
The hon. Gentleman and I need to challenge the assertion that the inclusion of an asset is a downgrade from what was already there in common law. There is no such thing. All it says is that this is a fisheries objective; it does not change the status of public assets or the view of fish being a public asset in the way of jurisprudence.
Luke Pollard
I agree with the right hon. Gentleman. We need to make that clear, because this is not a Bill that seeks just to refresh and update the regulatory environment around fishing. It is a Bill laced with politics and other meaning, because of the importance of fishing to the Brexit debate. That is why setting a tone for fishing is so important.
The Minister claims that that is not necessary, but it is certainly desirable. We should ensure that the Bill, and all the fishers who will be governed by it, have a sense of the Government’s priorities. Having fishing as a public asset should be high up as one of the key priorities of the Bill and the Government. It is fine to mention it in statements, which we will come to in due course, but being clear that fish is a public asset should be at the front of the Bill, because that is what our fishing communities want it to be. That is why I will not withdraw the amendment but will push it to a vote.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Luke Pollard
I beg to move amendment 39, in clause 1, page 1, line 9, at end insert—
“(g) the marine planning objective.”
This amendment would add to the fisheries objectives the “marine planning” objective, defined in Amendment 40.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 40, in clause 1, page 2, line 24, at end insert—
‘(7A) The “marine planning objective” is to ensure that any policies are compatible with any marine plans prepared pursuant to Part 3 of the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009.”
This amendment defines the “marine planning” objective.
Luke Pollard
The amendments relate to the importance of marine planning in the conservation and exercise of the fishing sector. We have tabled new marine planning objectives and I am grateful for the work of many stakeholders in reinforcing the importance of marine planning, in particular the Blue Marine Foundation.
The UK and devolved Administrations are preparing marine plans under the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009, the Marine (Scotland) Act 2010 and the Marine Act (Northern Ireland) 2013. It is important that marine plans are incorporated in the joint fisheries statement and the Secretary of State’s fisheries statement, and vice versa. It is vital that the Fisheries Bill works in concert and tandem with the existing legislative framework.
The Marine and Coastal Access Act is an important piece of legislation passed in the final years of the Labour Government, as was mentioned by the Minister. It is curious that there is not an automatic read-across from that Act to the provisions in the Bill. The amendment seeks to reflect the importance of marine planning in the Marine and Coastal Access Act in the Fisheries Bill.
We heard in evidence last week from Dr Amy Pryor, who is the programme manager at the Thames Estuary Partnership, chair of the Coastal Partnerships Network and a member of the Coastal Communities Alliance. She said that she would like to see more formal recognition of that in the Bill and perhaps an extra marine planning objective that could set out these matters. The amendment seeks to ask the Minister why marine plans are not mentioned in the Bill and I would be grateful for his response.
George Eustice
The hon. Gentleman asks why marine plans are not included in the Bill. The answer is really quite simple: the previous Labour Government did all that was required in this space. As he highlighted, the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009 already sets out our approach to marine management. Specifically, in chapter 4, section 58 (1) requires public bodies to consider marine policy documents in any decision making. Such documents include marine plans and UK marine policy statements.
A number of regional marine spatial plans are under development, and under the Marine and Coastal Access Act, we have a network of marine conservation zones and are building a blue belt around our shores. Many byelaws introduced by IFCAs give effect to the protections required under the marine conservation zones. As with some of the other amendments that the hon. Gentleman tabled, we believe that this is unnecessary, since our approach to marine spatial planning is set down in the Marine and Coastal Access Act. I would also point out that it is not really an objective to have marine planning. It has been a legal requirement since 2009, and those plans have been rolled out. It is already a legal requirement that decision makers and public bodies must follow those plans.
Mr Marcus Jones (Nuneaton) (Con)
Is the Minister saying that, if we accepted this amendment, we would be duplicating the existing law and therefore creating a significant amount of confusion?
George Eustice
I would make two points. First, it is unnecessary, since we already have legislative requirements that require public bodies to do this. Secondly, in common with the previous amendment, it does not sit easily as an objective. It is not an objective to have a marine plan; it has been a legal requirement for almost a decade. I hope that, given the fact that I have given credit to the Labour party for introducing the Marine and Coastal Access Act, which has delivered these things, the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport will not see the need to duplicate that which has already been done.
Luke Pollard
I thank the Minister for his response and for saying more nice words about the previous Government—more of his colleagues should receive that memo. I hope that was not the last mention of it.
The purpose of the amendment was to set out the importance of marine planning in general, and I am grateful to the Minister for doing that. Some good steps are being taken. I welcome the extension of the blue-belt policy. The Minister will know that my colleagues from Plymouth and I have been arguing for the creation of the country’s first national marine park in Plymouth Sound. We also need look internationally, and I hope Ministers hurry up with the designation of the South Sandwich Islands as a marine park. I do not feel that the amendment would duplicate the legislation, as the hon. Member for Nuneaton said, but I am grateful for the Minister’s words, which make it clear to all stakeholders how important marine planning is to our fragile marine environment. As a result, I will not press the amendment to a vote. I beg to ask leave that the amendment be withdrawn.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Luke Pollard
I beg to move amendment 41, in clause 1, page 1, line 9, at end insert—
“(g) the safety and workforce objective.”
This amendment would add to the fisheries objectives the ‘safety and workforce’ objective, defined in Amendment 42.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 42, in clause 1, page 2, line 24, at end insert—
‘(7A) The “safety and workforce objective” is—
(a) to protect and enhance the safety of workers in fishing activities,
(b) to set and protect minimum standards for wages, terms and conditions of employment in fishing activities,
(c) to prevent modern slavery in fishing activities, and
(d) to ensure the application and enforcement of the national minimum wage by HMRC on fishing vessels within the United Kingdom’s Exclusive Economic Zone.”
This amendment defines the “safety and workforce” objective.
Luke Pollard
Amendments 41 and 42 attempt to use the Bill to make fishing a better and safer place to work for all our fishers. As Jerry Percy said, when we heard evidence last week from the New Under Ten Fishermen’s Association,
“Fishing, unfortunately, still carries the record as the most dangerous occupation in the world.”––[Official Report, Fisheries Public Bill Committee, 4 December 2018; c. 39, Q67.]
Every day around the world, people who go to sea to catch fish die. We should remember that important fact. Fishing is a dangerous career.
Since I was elected in June last year, two trawlers from Plymouth have sunk and a life has been lost on each of them. To address marine safety, we need a number of things to happen. We need the rules and regulations to be better and more appropriate to the methods of fishing today. We need better enforcement by authorities, and we need better adoption of those standards and best practice by the industry.
Only last week, a report came out on the tragic sinking of the Solstice trawler—one of the boats I mentioned earlier—which sunk in the patch I represent. It is a tragedy that too many fishermen die every year catching our fish suppers. That is a reminder of just how important fishing safety needs to be. I am aware that fisheries safety is a responsibility of the Department for Transport rather than DEFRA, but in setting the tone, requirements and objectives for how fisheries should be governed in future, it would be remiss of us not to discuss the importance of marine safety.
Marine safety is increasingly an issue—in particular for small boats, because of the pressures of the regulatory environment that have led to many of those boats perhaps being slightly less stable than they were originally designed to be. In one of our evidence sessions, I spoke about the development of dumpy boats, which has been a direct consequence of the regulatory environment, which has given rise to an under-10 metre fleet. Instead of having a larger boat that trips over that line, boats have become dumpier. In addition, given the need for small boats, especially, to be able change their gear, there have been concerns about stability.
Alan Brown
Nobody is going to argue about the importance of improving health and safety. As the hon. Gentleman rightly says, there are many risks in the fishing industry. I am just seeking clarification. Having the objective is fine, but how will the objective in itself lead to improvements in health and safety? Regulation and enforcement are required—we need that linkage.
Luke Pollard
I am grateful for that intervention; it is a good question. The important thing about including this objective is that there would be a requirement for Ministers in their annual statements to report on progress on marine safety. As we have seen, sadly there has not been sufficient progress. Given that responsibility for marine safety is shared between a great number of stakeholders in government, it is important to have an opportunity to bring all those efforts together and share best practice. Having a clear objective that the regulatory environment we want to create around fisheries after Brexit is one where marine safety is prioritised is a key message that we should be sending to the fishing community.
The Minister will know of a brilliant scheme from Plymouth that provides lifejackets personal locator beacons to fishermen with. That is an example of how we can make real our proposed objective, if implemented. Personal locator beacons activate when they come into contact with water, enabling the search to be taken out of search and rescue. I have seen for myself the registry and met the team at Falmouth coastguard who manage this system: it is a good one that we need to roll out more comprehensively.
Mike Hill (Hartlepool) (Lab)
As I recall, the Government considered it important that such health and safety provisions apply to vessels coming into our waters post-Brexit. Does my hon. Friend agree that that makes it doubly important that we include these issues in the Bill?
Luke Pollard
My hon. Friend is exactly right. It is important that we set high levels of safety standards for all fishing boats in UK waters, whether they are UK or foreign-registered. The highest safety standards, including wearing lifejackets with personal locator beacons, should be something that we demand. I would like to see every fisher in UK waters wear a lifejacket with a personal locator beacon. I want to stress the feedback from families of fishers who have been lost at sea. Wearing a lifejacket with a PLB might keep someone alive if the boat sinks or they go overboard, but if the worst happens and that life is lost, the PLB means there is a body for the family to bury or cremate. It is important that we recognise that feedback from families. There seems to be universal agreement that PLBs attached to lifejackets are a good thing, but we know that there is a cost to fishermen of buying new lifejackets with PLBs and registering them. That is why we have tabled the amendment, to make it clear in the Bill that marine safety is important.
Our amendment also deals with the subject of modern slavery. As well as enhancing safety standards, the amendment would address the minimum wage and tackle the issue of modern slavery, which unfortunately can persist far out at sea. Only last year in December, nine African and Asian crew members working on a pair of British scallop trawlers were taken to a place of safety by police as suspected victims of modern slavery. The men were alleged to have worked unlimited hours at sea with very little rest. That is why it important, when we deal with marine safety, that we recognise the pernicious behaviour of those people who are engaged in modern slavery. We need to ensure that has no place in the UK fishing industry, by including it in the Bill. The Prime Minister herself has championed the case against modern slavery. I am certain that if the Prime Minister, who does not seem to have much going on today, were serving on the Committee, she would vote in favour of the amendment, to support action against modern slavery and ensure not only that our fishing industry is as safe as such a dangerous pursuit can be, but that there can be no examples of modern slavery in it.
Mr Carmichael
Like many Members of this House, I am often wary about using legislation to send signals, because most of the time I do not think it necessarily ends well. However, from my experience personally and as a constituency MP, I think the hon. Gentleman’s amendment would send a very important signal, so I commend him for tabling it.
One of my formative experiences in the area came when I was still in legal practice. I was instructed to appear at a fatal accident inquiry at Lerwick Sheriff Court on behalf of a family from Banff, or perhaps Macduff, whose son had been swept overboard from a trawler, the Alandale, which is no longer at sea. In a force 7 or force 8 gale, the young man had gone over to the ledge around the side of the boat to fix a trawl door. The boat was hit by a big wave—a lump of water—and he was washed away. The skipper said that the crew saw a flash of orange oilskin in the water, but that was the last they saw of him. They looked for him for some time, but the search was ultimately futile.
When I was instructed in that case, the grief of the young man’s parents formed my view, which I hold to this day, that the matter requires our attention and every possible signal needs to be given. The other thing that struck me during the fatal accident inquiry was the evidence of the other deckhand, who was still in his late teenage years. He said that for a few weeks after the incident, he had worn a life vest of some sort; when asked on cross-examination why he had stopped wearing it, he said that he had been subject to ridicule from others in the industry. Nobody of that age, and nobody who had witnessed what that young man had witnessed, should be subject to such pressure. I have noticed that the situation has improved since, but there is still a lot to do. I still hold the view that there is a job of education to be done within the industry, and making it an objective of the Bill would be a significant improvement.
Locator beacons are another matter that I have formed a view on over the years as a consequence of my experience of dealing with families. One constituent, with whom I worked for some years, had a brother working on a single-handed creel boat who was caught in a rope—we think—when shooting his creels and went over the side of the boat, which was on automatic pilot. The boat was eventually found a considerable distance from where the family thought he had been fishing. A locator beacon would not have saved his life, but it would have saved his family immense pain and grief to know sooner where he was. It is a relatively small and inexpensive innovation, but it highlights the importance of putting safety objectives in the Bill.
Finally, let me make a point about modern slavery. The modern slavery that we have identified in the fishing industry has generally been a consequence of the operation of transit visas in relation to crews of non-European economic area nationals. The hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport has heard me speak about that in the House times without number. It is a ridiculous use for transit visas and the Government should get real and identify the need for non-EEA nationals to be employed in the industry, and make a sectoral provision about it.
If the objective were included in the Bill, arguably the Home Office’s current approach to visas for non-EEA nationals would be in breach of it. For that and other reasons, the proposed change to the Bill is eminently sensible and supportable.
Brendan O'Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray.
The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland is right. Any of us who represent fishing communities know the devastation that can be caused when a boat is lost. Indeed, just at the start of this year in my constituency, the Nancy Glen sank off Loch Fyne with the loss of Duncan MacDougall and Przemek Krawczyk. The devastation felt is something I never want to see again. Anything that improves safety on board has to be supported.
I question the amendment in relation to wages and salary protection, but the SNP supports the principle. The Scottish Government—notably Fergus Ewing, the Cabinet Secretary—have written to industry stakeholders along those lines and spoken to the Government and officials about regularising the visa situation to ensure that non-EEA workers are subject to UK employment law. We are keen to get full implementation of ILO 188, the International Labour Organisation work in fishing convention. We have concerns that the wording of the amendment means it would not apply to the many fishermen who are self-employed, or to the significant proportion of the industry who are share fishermen, to whom such things as the national minimum wage do not apply. We need to ensure that anything in the licence works in tandem with existing law and check the exact implications of the amendment.
It is complex, so although we agree with the spirit of the amendment, particularly about safety on board, we must ensure that we get things right. If the amendment is pressed to a vote we shall support it but, if the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport does not press it, we will have an opportunity to work on a proposal covering more of the industry. We could work on that together and perhaps bring it back on Report.
George Eustice
This issue is obviously incredibly important. Fisheries and fishing are one of the most dangerous occupations. Every year we have a fisheries debate—we have one tomorrow. Tragically, we always have to reflect on those who have lost their lives to put food on our tables. I know that there has been a tragedy linked to the constituency of the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport, with the loss of the Solstice and a crew member. The report was published recently and the hon. Gentleman has had a lot of dealings with the family.
The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland raised an important point and told a rather depressing story about a young man who was wearing a personal flotation device for his safety and was ridiculed. That underlines an important issue. We need to try to get a culture change—a change in attitude in some sectors of the fleet—so that safety is given more prominence.
I want to return later to a couple of issues raised by the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport, which are covered elsewhere in the Bill, about how we define under-10s. There are also other issues about monitoring of smaller vessels. However, first it is important to recognise that safety, as the hon. Gentleman acknowledges, is first and foremost a matter for the Department for Transport. I think I am right in saying that he, along with me and many in the industry, attended a meeting organised by the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Wealden (Ms Ghani), who has responsibility for shipping. As the hon. Gentleman is aware, she takes this very seriously. We got fisheries stakeholders together specifically to discuss what more can be done to promote safety. He highlighted important schemes, including the use of personal location devices. Quite a lot of progress has been made, too, on personal flotation devices, which are discreet and do not get in the way of fishermen’s manual work but inflate when they come in contact with water.
Luke Pollard
I am grateful to the Minister for those words. It is especially important that we look at marine safety in relation to fishing, because although marine safety is spread across different aspects of Government, in many cases the unintended consequences of fishing regulation have an impact on fishing operations and fishermen’s lives, so it is right that we consider it.
When we consider what can be done to improve safety standards in fishing, it is also right that we consider the differing distribution methods to which the Minister referred in his opening remarks—he talked about the distribution of any additional quota drawn down from our EU friends. That level of detail is not highlighted in the Bill, but the Minister and the Under-Secretary of State for Transport who has responsibility for shipping have great concerns about it, as do I.
I am grateful to the Minister for his comments on the under-10 definition, which is unhelpful across the board. I recognise that a lot of homework still needs to be done to find a better definition. Measuring engine size and hold size are two potential options. However, in the fishing area of DEFRA-land in the bigger sense, unintended consequences can have the most profound effects. We need to be cognisant of safety implications in respect of regulations in the Bill and in the Minister’s secondary powers, even if safety responsibilities sit with the Department for Transport.
The Minister is right to talk about IVMS, which will be a positive development as long as the technology concerns can be addressed. It is certainly an improvement on the behaviour that we see around the automatic identification system, which fishers sometimes turn off when they find fish. I would be grateful if the Minister could maintain his focus on marine safety and continue the discussions with the Under-Secretary of State for Transport. I am seeing her tomorrow to continue those conversations on the Solstice incident.
On the basis that we will revisit marine safety in our consideration of later amendments, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Luke Pollard
I beg to move amendment 43, in clause 1, page 1, line 9, at end insert—
“(g) The climate change and international agreements objective.”
This amendment would add to the fisheries objectives the ‘climate change and international agreements’ objective, defined in Amendment 44.
The Chair
With this, it will be convenient to discuss amendment 44, in clause 1, page 2, line 24, at end insert—
“(7A) The climate change and international agreements objective is to ensure that fisheries policy aims to ensure compliance with the United Kingdom‘s obligations under—
(a) the United Nations Paris Agreement under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change,
(b) the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora,
(c) the Convention on Biological Diversity, including the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety to the Convention on Biological Diversity,
(d) the Convention on the Law of the Sea,
(e) the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR),
(f) the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals.”
This amendment defines the “climate change and international agreements” objective.
Luke Pollard
The amendments, which aim to update the objectives at the front of the Bill, refer to climate change. It is important that we talk about climate change in the context of fisheries. Climate change is a challenge facing every single sector of the UK economy, but the impacts of climate change are being felt in fishing communities in respect of the availability and location of the fish stocks that our fishers are trying to catch.
At a time of global uncertainty, we could not let the omission of the phrase “climate change” from the Bill slip by. We know from the evidence we heard last week that climate change is affecting fishing, be that through the availability of food stocks for fish, through the changes in spawning and breeding grounds, or through different migration patterns, which affect where fishers go to catch fish. Climate change is real and it affects fishing, as it does every other economic sector, so it warrants a mention both in the Bill and in DEFRA’s serious considerations and actions.
If Labour had been in government and we were introducing this Bill, I imagine that we would be doing it ever so slightly differently from how the Minister is doing it. The amendment is key in addressing climate change and reinforcing sustainability.
I am grateful for the words of the Secretary of State on not rolling back environmental protections. It is important that those words are met with actions, including in the Bill. In addition to talking about climate change, we talk about the international agreements objective, which lists the other international agreements that have a bearing on fishing, and in particular on the conservation and environmental aspects of fishing—if we overfish, there will not be enough fish in our seas to sustain a fishing industry. We need fisheries that are sustainable both economically and environmentally. The amendment seeks to make a reference in the Bill to the other international agreements.
Alan Brown
Perish the thought that I am starting to think like a Conservative. However, although those are laudable conventions by which we need to abide, is not the key issue that, as a signatory to the treaties, the UK has to fulfil those obligations anyway? Therefore, it is superfluous having them in the Bill, regardless of the signals that would be sent by the amendment.
Luke Pollard
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that, because it brings us on to maximum sustainable yield, which is one of our rationales for talking about this. The UK is committed to achieving maximum sustainable yield by 2020—that commitment is in a variety of international treaties and agreements. That target is hard to achieve, according to the feedback we have had from stakeholders and to some of the evidence we heard last week. That is why, in creating a new regulatory environment for fishing, we need to have due regard to the commitments the UK has signed up to elsewhere across our international conventions—MSY by 2020 is one such commitment. It is mentioned elsewhere but not in the Bill, which is why the Opposition seek to raise awareness of not only the importance of climate change to our fisheries but our international obligations and commitments as a nation. I would be grateful therefore if the Minister could expand on the Government commitments given elsewhere to sustainability, and on how they will be reflected not only in the Bill but in its implementation.
George Eustice
As discussed under the previous amendment, climate change is obviously incredibly important. As the hon. Gentleman points out, we have some fantastic marine science laboratories, including in his constituency, that study the long-term effects of climate change, and its impact on, for instance, the availability of plankton and, in turn, our fisheries food chain. DEFRA is therefore responsible for mitigating the effects of climate change. However, the amendment, in common with a number of the hon. Gentleman’s amendments, is not necessary, for reasons I will explain.
I feel that, as a Conservative Minister, I am paying too much tribute to legislation introduced by the last Labour Government, but—I am sure this will not have escaped the hon. Gentleman’s attention—they introduced the Climate Change Act 2008, which set out clear targets in a range of sectors, including marine and shipping. The 2008 Act is the cornerstone of the approach of this Government and this country to tackling the effects of climate change. Although managing a reduction in carbon emissions is the responsibility of the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy—energy sits within its remit—DEFRA is responsible under the Act for climate change mitigation. We produce regular reports to update both the House and the country at large on our approach.
I will make a couple of points on the other international agreements. The UK is a signatory to those various conventions and agreements and is therefore bound by them under international law. We do not need to state that in the Bill.
I also point out that the hon. Gentleman’s list is a partial one, omitting a number of important international conventions to which we are a signatory. The problem with placing on statute a partial list is that it casts doubt over our commitment to the other agreements. If we are to do a list, we must at least include them all but, in any event, we believe that a list is unnecessary. However, I will just point out some of the other important international agreements and conventions to which we are a signatory and which are not currently covered. There is the UN fish stocks agreement, which sits alongside the UN convention on the law of the sea, and the Oslo-Paris agreement, which is the cornerstone of our international agreements dealing with challenges such as marine litter and marine pollution more widely.
Luke Pollard
Given all the Minister’s praise for the good done by the last Labour Government, I am amazed at his temerity for even wanting to stand against them at the 2010 election.
George Eustice
It would go well beyond the scope of the Bill, but I could give many reasons why I did not stand for Labour.
Luke Pollard
I am grateful to the Minister for stating that he remains a Conservative.
When considering this type of legislation, it is important that we raise the volume on climate change. Labour’s genuine concern is that, since the abolition of the Department for Energy and Climate Change, the political priority and the volume of the debate on climate change has been much reduced. It is not spoken about as frequently and it needs to be.
I am grateful to the Minister for setting out our international obligations and for spending so much time talking about how it is in our country’s interest to pool our sovereignty and to work with our international partners where there are common interests. I am also grateful to him for expanding on the list of international obligations that the UK has signed up to and that we need to continue to be involved in to ensure that our waters are properly managed.
I beg leave to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Luke Pollard
I beg to move amendment 45, in clause 1, page 2, line 11, after “marine” insert “and aquatic”
This amendment would add the avoidance of the degradation of the aquatic environment to the definition of the “ecosystem objective”.
The amendment is about the ecosystem and aquatic environment around our fisheries. The aim is to tidy up a part of the Bill that is inconsistent across the board by enhancing the ecosystems objective and ensuring that it includes the avoidance of degradation of the aquatic environment.
Hon. Members who have had the fortune of sitting in Westminster Hall with me will know of my passion for protecting our marine archaeology, and shipwrecks in particular. I talk a lot about shipwrecks and the importance of creating a wrecks at risk register to ensure that we understand what those pieces of marine heritage are and better protect what lies under the sea. I am pleased that clause 40 refers to
“features of archaeological or historic interest”
in the definition of marine and aquatic environment, as it means that every time there is reference to the marine environment, heritage should be included automatically. That is a useful inclusion, consistent with the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009 in respect of the responsibilities of inshore fisheries and conservation authorities. However, the definition and scope of the marine and aquatic environment is not taken up consistently in the rest of the Bill, which is a missed opportunity.
The matter should be dealt with consistently. It seems odd, given the power of the Secretary of State and devolved Ministers to make provisions for a conservation purpose which includes the marine and aquatic environment, that this is not mentioned as an element of the fisheries objectives or within the scope of the fisheries statement. Will the Minister confirm where we are in relation to the aquatic environment, as well as the marine environment?
George Eustice
First, I will explain the effect of expanding the provision to include the aquatic environment. The hon. Gentleman has defined it as covering heritage assets on the sea bed, notably shipwrecks, and I will return to that, but first let me say that referring to the aquatic environment as well as the marine environment would also cover all our inland waters, so all of our freshwater bodies.
We already have a regulatory framework for the management of freshwater fisheries, and the Environment Agency is the government agency that leads on the aquatic freshwater environment. Relevant pieces of legislation include the water framework directive—obviously an EU directive, but all the domestic provisions put in place under the water framework directive will come across as part of retained EU law under the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018—and the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Act 1975, which governs in particular waters in so far as they affect salmon conservation. There is also the Water Resources Act 1991 and, as I mentioned earlier, the Environment Act 1995. We therefore have a comprehensive suite of existing legislation pertaining to the freshwater environment.
Returning to the separate issue of heritage assets such as shipwrecks, as the hon. Gentleman acknowledges, the famous Marine and Coastal Access Act established a licensing regime for people exploring shipwrecks, for example. He may know of the frequent controversies, with divers complaining that some of that licensing regime is too onerous and that it affects their ability to remove ghost nets or litter from shipwrecks, for example, without a licence. There is therefore a comprehensive—some say onerous—licensing regime in place to protect shipwrecks. In addition to the licensing regime for the marine management organisation established under the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009, we also have the Protection of Wrecks Act 1973, which allows the Secretary of State to protect wrecks in territorial waters and sites of such wrecks.
We have comprehensive legislation that covers the issue of the aquatic freshwater environment and the protection of heritage assets such as shipwrecks. Therefore, an expansion of the ecosystem objective to cover heritage assets in the way outlined by him is unnecessary in the light of the other legislation that we have in place.
Luke Pollard
I am grateful for the Minister’s response. It is important that when we are looking at our marine environment, we look at not only the fish in it but at aspects of human history. When we get to talking more broadly in this place about the wrecks at risk register, I hope we have a new ally. Given what the Minister has said, I do not wish to press the amendment. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Peter Aldous
I beg to move amendment 79, in clause 1, page 2, line 11, at end insert—
“(c) to ensure that fishing activities are managed in a manner that contributes to the achievement of good environmental status as set out in Article 1 of Directive 2008/56/EC and is consistent with all other international and domestic environmental legislation.”
The amendment would add to the ecosystem objective. Taking account of the fact that fishing can have significant implications for the health of the wider marine environment, it would impose a duty to deliver fisheries management in a way that is coherent with other relevant environmental legislation. It would also set ecosystem management in an international context, ensuring that we adhere to international environmental legislation. In many respects, the amendment can be viewed as providing belt and braces—perhaps even duplication—but ecosystems around the world are interconnected and it is important that we recognise that. I tabled the amendment to seek assurance and confirmation from the Minister that the Government are thinking globally and are aware of their international obligations and duties.
George Eustice
My hon. Friend highlights the marine strategy framework directive, which sets out the commitment to good environmental status. It is important to recognise that we are already legally bound to deliver that commitment to good environmental status, because the directive has already been put into our domestic law through the Marine Strategy Regulations 2010. We already have those on our statute book.
My hon. Friend will be aware that we are bringing across all retained EU law, including objectives of this sort, under the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. We have been clear that we do not intend to have regression in our approach to environmental protection, although once we are free of the European Union there will be things that we can do better and more effectively. We can tailor legislation that works to deliver some of these objectives better than we can as a member of the EU, where legal requirements do not always achieve the desired outcome as effectively as they could.
On my hon. Friend’s wider point about working internationally, we have been absolutely clear that we are leaving the European Union because we want to make our own laws again, but in doing so we intend to reassert ourselves on many international conventions, where we have, frankly, lost our voice. We find ourselves in an extraordinary situation in many of the regional fisheries management organisations and in important conventions, such as the convention on international trade in endangered species and the convention on biological diversity, where, even though we are a signatory, we are not allowed to speak as an independent country.
The supposed duty of loyal co-operation means that we must always vote the way the EU tells us to vote. This leads to situations, for instance on the International Whaling Commission, where the UK would often wish to go further than the European Union is willing to and we are forced to follow an EU line. In the final days of the last Labour Administration, the then Secretary of State ordered officials to vote for a more restrictive measure to protect bluefin tuna under CITES regulations. The EU started infraction proceedings against the UK as a result of us exercising that decision to try to protect bluefin tuna. Infraction was only avoided by the then Labour Government giving an apology and saying that they would not do such a thing again.
Since the Lisbon treaty in particular, the UK’s voice on the international stage has been undermined. As we leave the EU we will take our own independent seat on regional fisheries management organisations and other important conventions, and I believe that we will have more influence. I hope that I have been able to reassure my hon. Friend that we are not by any means retreating from the world. Indeed, as we leave the European Union and become an independent country again, we will be able to have our own independent voice on these critical international organisations, where we are well placed to lead.
Peter Aldous
I am grateful to the Minister for that reassurance and confirmation that the UK is very much aware of its environmental responsibilities and is thinking globally. He is right to be adopting that approach. I will highlight two issues. The UK overseas territories might be small in land mass, but many sit in enormous oceans. We also have, in my own constituency, the Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science, which is an arm of DEFRA. Over the last few years, CEFAS has been very successful in winning work all around the globe. It is very important. We have a great opportunity. It is something that the British people feel very strongly about as well.
George Eustice
My hon. Friend raises an incredibly important point. CEFAS is the world’s pre-eminent fisheries science agency and its views are sought after around the world. Dr Carl O’Brien, the lead scientist at CEFAS, spoke in the evidence session. It does a lot of work in the middle east, in countries such as Kuwait, as my hon. Friend will be aware.
Peter Aldous
I am pleased that the Minister has given me the assurance that I was seeking about the Government’s aspirations and ambitions. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Luke Pollard
I beg to move amendment 46, in clause 1, page 2, line 13, at end insert—
“(aa) to facilitate generation of accurate real-time scientific data from both research and all fishing vessels.”
This amendment would add the generation of accurate real-time scientific data to the definition of the “scientific evidence objective”.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 24, in clause 1, page 2, line 15, at end insert—
“(c) to ensure full documentation of catches.”
The purpose of this amendment is to ensure the UK achieves full documentation of catches to give a true picture of what is being removed from the sea and in order to provide accurate scientific data to ensure effective management of the shared stocks in UK waters.
Luke Pollard
We want to strengthen the objectives to enhance the requirement for data collection. The UK’s seas have historically been an abundant source of food, income and employment, but at the moment they are failing to meet their full potential. Two thirds of UK stocks have been fished beyond their sustainable limits, but according to the New Economics Foundation, if catches followed scientific advice, the yield could deliver 45% higher landings and additional gross value added of approximately £150 million across the UK coast, and would support an additional 2,500 full-time equivalent jobs.
The UK’s fisheries are not being managed at their optimum economic output. Government figures show that two thirds of our main commercial fish stocks are depleted, overfished or at risk of being depleted, or their status is unknown. Only one third are currently operating at maximum sustainable yield. There was a vague reference to improving data in the White Paper, but that is also no longer in the Bill.
Labour would like to create a road map to take us to fully recorded UK fisheries over time. That makes economic sense. Sustain recently found that UK fisheries are losing out on millions of pounds of business from the catering sector in the UK alone, as buyers look abroad for sustainable fish instead of buying from the UK from fisheries that are not currently classed as sustainable. The market for sustainable seafood is growing 10 times faster than that for conventional seafood. The best markets within and outside the EU require fish products to be demonstrably sustainable, including a number of markets within the UK public sector. That includes our schools, prisons, central Government, Whitehall catering and the NHS. At present, a large amount of fish caught in the UK is not verifiably sustainable, and that is affecting access to those markets within the UK.
We heard a lot about data deficiency during the evidence sessions, and is one of the main reasons that much of the fish caught in UK waters cannot be marketed as sustainable. For fishing to be sustainable, there must be sufficient understanding of the population of the targeted species, the impact of fishing, and the status of our sea-floor ecosystems. Without that data, boats can be considered ineligible for Marine Stewardship Council certification or receive a lower rating from the Marine Conservation Society’s “Good Fish Guide”.
In January this year, the Environment Secretary said that
“we can still do more to improve the procurement of British food across the public sector.”
He was right, but there is no mention of that here. If data deficiency is one of the things holding back the sector, we believe that it should be addressed in the Bill. According to Government data, the status of three of the UK’s 15 main fish stocks is unknown. That would not be acceptable on a farm or in agriculture, and we should stop accepting it simply because it is underwater.
I am grateful that this topic is taken up in a similar amendment tabled by the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland. I would be grateful if the Minister told us how the current data deficiency can be remedied.
Brendan O'Hara
Although these are all good aspirations, and we recognise the need to continually improve our data and the need to contribute to better science, we have concerns about some of the practical aspects. For example, who will pay for the very costly technological change that is proposed? I also question whether primary legislation is really the place for determining such scientific measures.
I caution that some of the technological measures are still in their infancy or, in some cases, not yet possible. For example, as I understand it the knowledge around identification and sizing of catches has only just been developed in terms of camera technology.
Finally, is it not for the devolved Administrations of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland to determine how to collect data, and indeed what data is to be collected? I fear that the amendments might inadvertently cut across that devolution settlement.
Mr Carmichael
To pick up on that last point, my amendment is probing, albeit with a serious purpose at its root. Essentially, the problem is that for years we have had conflict between what fishermen believe is in the sea and what scientists say is in the sea on the basis of the data that they have. The data that would be produced by the full documentation of catches—which is an important principle, whichever jurisdiction we are dealing with—would be the best possible evidence. It would be in the interests of the industry, and it would certainly be in the interests of the scientific community as a whole.
For years, I have complained about the fact that the source of the conflict between the industry and the scientists is that much of the data collected is almost two years old by the time it is used for the purposes of decision making. We know the situation in the marine environment can change massively over that time. As a consequence, we have a mismatch between the scientific evidence and what fishermen believe is in the sea.
What we propose would allow for a much earlier “quick and dirty” analysis of what is in the sea, and would offer the opportunity of different fisheries management systems. At the moment, given the way in which we use science, I would be very cautious about the idea of moving to anything like a real-time closure, for example. The science, of course, is always evolving and improving, but this is not a novel process; this approach is taken in a number of other fishing jurisdictions. If reliable data is coming from the industry itself, the objectives of real-time fisheries management will be much more easily achieved.
Amendment 24, which stands in my name, is probing, but it strikes at the heart of the approach that the Government will be taking, especially in later parts of the Bill, which deal with the practical ways in which fisheries management is to be undertaken. The National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations, for example, is keen to see the creation of advisory councils.
George Eustice
I will begin by setting out what is required now, what regulations we will have as a starting point, and some of the things that the Government are already doing in this area. First and foremost, the EU Withdrawal Act 2018 will incorporate all existing EU rules on data collection on to our domestic statute book. A significant amount of data is already collected: for instance, vessels over 10 metres in length are required to provide logbook data, which includes details of fishing activities, the catch, the type of fishing gear used, and the area where the fish were caught. Landing declarations are required, with information on the weight and representation of fish, and sales notes on the first sales of fish are also required. There is a comprehensive system of data collection, right from the point of catching and where those fish were caught, through to sales.
We have taken some steps in the past year to begin to improve data collection on the inshore fleet. Traditionally and currently, the under-10-metre fleet has been required to provide only sales notes. We have said that from next year, we will introduce a requirement for IVMS on inshore vessels, so we will know where those vessels are catching their fish. We will also introduce catch reporting as part of a step towards a new settlement with the under-10s: we intend to give them more quota but, in return, have a better understanding of how they are fishing and what they are catching. I believe that through those steps, by extending some of those provisions to the under-10-metre fleet, we will improve the documentation of where fish are caught and how they are caught.
The amendments are unnecessary, because they attempt to dip a toe into the type of detail that would be covered, in my view comprehensively, through the joint fisheries statement. Under that statement, we would have to demonstrate how we are delivering on that scientific objective. That is inevitably going to include how we are funding fisheries science, what the priority species are to move from a data-limited assessment to a full MSY assessment, what the challenges are, and what other issues we need to address. The matters that the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport seeks to cover in the scientific evidence objective should be picked up in much greater detail in the joint fisheries statement.
On the point made by the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland, who has lots of fishermen in his constituency, as long as I have been in post, I have been told that the scientists are always out of date and do not know where the fish are anyway, so they send survey vessels to the wrong place. I have looked at the issue in depth. We use a range of data, as Dr Carl O'Brien pointed out. We look, in real time, at landings data and the size of the fish being caught. There is the Endeavour—the survey vessel that CEFAS operates out of Lowestoft, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney—which goes to the same grounds every year to sample fish. There is an important reason for that: although the fish might move, there has to be a consistent yardstick to assess the same area; otherwise the control and the ability to monitor trends are lost.
That is not the only data that the scientists use. They use landings data and the survey vessel that goes to the same locations, but they also place observers on fishing vessels with the fishermen who say, “We know where the fish are and CEFAS don’t,” so we are monitoring that as well. We will never perfect the science, but the algorithms and models that the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea uses to predict stock trends factor in that some of the data may be a little dated. A constant refrain of fisherman is that the science is out of data and the scientists are in the wrong place anyway but, although we will never get it perfectly right, we do everything that we can to mitigate the types of effects that the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland described.
Mr Carmichael
The Minister actually makes the case for moving towards full documentation of catches very well.
George Eustice
As I explained earlier, we already have full documentation of catches on the over-10s, and next year we will introduce full documentation of catches for the inshore fleet. A linked issue is so-called remote electronic monitoring, which is basically cameras on vessels. Other parts of the Bill give us the power to require cameras on vessels, which could improve our abilities on enforcement and data collection.
We have the ability now, which we will retain in future through provisions in later clauses, to make real-time expeditious changes where required. We have had, for instance, issues with spurdog bycatch in parts of the west country. We had a successful spurdog bycatch avoidance programme, which was put together expeditiously in partnership between CEFAS and the industry in the west country, to assist fishermen to avoid those bycatches or to help them deal with them when they have been unable to avoid them.
I hope that I have reassured the right hon. and hon. Gentlemen of our progress in that area and of our commitment to science. The joint fisheries statement will cover those issues in greater detail.
Luke Pollard
I am grateful to the Minister for setting out measures to address the data deficiency. To realise the aspiration of my party and, I hope, of the Government to have the most sustainable fisheries in the world, it is important that we match that with a commitment to having the best data in the world. Although we already have the world’s best fisheries science, fishers and stakeholders are concerned that there is insufficient coverage of that best science across every single fish stock, so I am grateful to the Minister for setting out how that can be enhanced.
We must send a loud and clear message that we need better data and baseline stock assessments. That needs to be done in conjunction, collaboration and co-operation with the fishing industry, rather than science being done to fishers, which is often their view. The more we can do in a collaborative way, the better. In the light of the Minister’s remarks and as the Committee will discuss data later on, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Luke Pollard
I beg to move amendment 47, in clause 1, page 2, line 21, after “area” insert
“, fishing opportunity, or entitlement for any resources”
These amendments would extend the definition of the “equal access objective” to cover equal access to fishing opportunities.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment
Amendment 30, in clause 1, page 2, line 24, at end insert—
“(c) individual measures introduced by—
(i) the Marine Management Organisation
(ii) the Scottish Ministers,
(iii) the Welsh Ministers, or
(iv) the Northern Ireland department.”
To ensure that any measures introduced by a ‘relevant national authority’ do not impact on the equal access objective.
Luke Pollard
I can deal with this quickly. The amendment relates to adding fishing opportunities or entitlement to the provision that is already in clause 1(7), so there can be no get-out-of-jail card. Fishers expressed concerns about ensuring that we have as robust a set of criteria as possible for foreign boats having access to UK waters. In the amendment, we ask the Minister to ensure that the clause and the criteria are as robust as they can be.
Mr Carmichael
Amendment 30, which stands in my name, is probing. I confess that its genesis is in briefings from the National Federation of Fishermen’s Organisations. I eventually tabled it because, on balance, it is an important issue that needs to be teased out. The amendment may not be the ideal way of doing it, because the enforceability of the duties of the other Administrations—Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish Ministers and Governments—is questionable, but the thinking behind it is important.
Essentially, given the devolved nature of fisheries and the fact that we will have the objective of equal access, we have to find a way around the conflict between the different systems that will be put in place in the different jurisdictions. If opportunities for fishing are to be taken up in England by boats from Scotland, or vice versa, or in Northern Ireland by boats from the west of Scotland, or vice versa, we need to find a way to ensure that the regulation is as accessible as possible.
Devolution is a good and worthy objective, which my party has supported for many years, but it can occasionally trigger the law of unintended consequences. If we do not manage the different systems in good faith, the people who have to comply with or enforce the regulations may be left in a difficult position. That is the issue that we seek to bring to the Minister’s attention by way of the amendment. I will not press it to a vote, but I am interested to know how exactly he envisages that will work in everyday, or every year, fisheries management considerations.
George Eustice
To address the amendments, I probably need to explain how quota flows through the various systems at the moment from the point at which it is created internationally. Both amendments stumble into the thorny area of our devolved settlement, as the right hon. Gentleman pointed out.
As an overarching point, we have sought to achieve through the Bill a system that enables us to manage our fisheries domestically in a way that respects the devolution settlement that has been established. To be honest, we sometimes have particular challenges in fisheries, because on one level they are about international agreements with other countries, which are a reserved UK competence, but on another level many elements of fisheries management have been devolved. In some areas, it has been challenging to put together arrangements that ensure that we have a UK framework, where it is needed, in a way that respects the devolution settlement, but I believe the Bill achieves that.
Let me explain how quota is created. First, we have an international fisheries negotiation between the UK and the EU, or the UK and a third country in the future, where, species by species, a total allowable catch and an allocation to the UK of that TAC are agreed. The UK Government then allocate that quota—our share of the TAC—to the devolved Administrations, currently following FQA units attached to the vessels where they are registered. That means we give Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales an allocation of quota. How they allocate that within their fleet is then a devolved competence.
A few years ago, the Scottish Government did a consultation on moving away from the FQA unit approach and allocating quota in a different way. Although they ultimately stepped back from that, it is a devolved responsibility for them to decide how to allocate that bit of the quota that the UK Government have allocated to them. The difficulty with both amendments is that they cross a line in terms of the devolution settlements, because they start to fetter the ability of the Scottish Government, the Northern Ireland Administration or the Welsh Government to allocate their own quota in the way they see fit.
We intend to pick up these sorts of issues through the joint fisheries statement. Indeed, we already wrestle with these challenges and we have a concordat and memorandums of understanding to manage these issues. Sometimes we have some tension between Scotland and other Administrations over where vessels are registered and where they are fishing, which can lead to disputes that we have to resolve. Due to the nature of our devolved settlement, the one thing we have become used to in fisheries is finding a way through the concordats, the memorandums of understanding or, in future, the joint fisheries statement. The challenge that both amendments alight on is not new; indeed, we have wrestled with it for some time. The solution to the problem lies in the joint fisheries statement that will set out common understandings in the way we approach these particular issues.
While I recognise that both amendments highlight an important issue, the issue goes wider than the Bill because it goes right to the heart of the devolution settlement. One thing we resolved not to do with this Bill is to attempt to rewrite or overturn the devolution settlement. In the absence of that, the joint fisheries statement is our solution to some of the problems the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland has highlighted.
Luke Pollard
I am more than happy to, Mr Gray. As a Janner, speaking slowly is not something I am accustomed to doing, but I will try my best.
When considering these amendments, it is important to look at how devolution and access to water can be well managed through the Bill. We know that we have problems relating to equal access, both in internal jurisdictions within the United Kingdom and with our friends from the EU and Norway. Any access must be properly managed and properly understood. This concern is often raised by fishers in Plymouth, who sense that the rule of equal access is not currently being obeyed or applied with the same level of effort and energy as it should. That refers in particular to when there are restrictions or a closure in a UK six to 12 miles area that affects UK fishers but not necessarily others. The Minister talks about the importance of having a level playing field between all those different bits.
George Eustice
Obviously, there will be licence conditions on all foreign vessels fishing in British waters in future. Technical measures of that sort would be a requirement on those seeking access to our waters.
Luke Pollard
I think both amendments in the group are probing, designed to get confirmation. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Chair
May I say what a great pleasure it has been chairing the Committee this morning? I look forward to chairing this afternoon, when we meet again at 2 pm. What a very well mannered and intelligent debate we have been lucky to have heard so far. It is funny how long a minute takes when you are watching the clock. Order.
Fisheries Bill (Sixth sitting)
Tuesday 11th December 2018
(5 years, 11 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Fisheries Bill 2017-19 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 11 December 2018 - (11 Dec 2018)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 8 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)
I beg to move amendment 80, in clause 1, page 2, line 32, at end insert—
“(10) The fisheries policy authorities mush publish, on at least an annual basis, an update on progress made against the fisheries objectives.”
The Chair
With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: 48, in clause 2, page 3, line 19, at end insert—
“(3A) For the purposes of this Act, a ‘UK fisheries statement’ is a statement made jointly by the fisheries policy authorities on progress towards achieving the fisheries objectives.
(3B) The first UK fisheries statement must be published within 12 months of this section coming into force, and each subsequent UK fisheries statement must be published within 12 months of the previous statement being published.”
This amendment would add a requirement on the fisheries policy authorities to publish a joint “UK fisheries statement” within 12 months of the section being brought into force
Amendment 49, in clause 2, page 3, line 19, at end insert—
“(3A) The Secretary of State must annually lay a statement before Parliament on progress towards achieving the fisheries objectives.
(3B) The first such statement under subsection (3A) must be laid before Parliament within 12 months of this section coming into force.”
This amendment would add a requirement on the Secretary of State to lay before Parliament an annual statement on progress towards achieving the fisheries objectives.
Peter Aldous
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger.
Amendment 80 would add the proposed words to clause 1 and it should be read in conjunction with amendment 78. It provides for the fisheries policy authorities to publish, at least annually, an update on the progress that they have made towards securing the fisheries objectives. It would give the objectives true meaning and day-to-day relevance, rather than their being somewhat abstract from reality.
From the viewpoint of accountability and transparency, which in so many respects are missing from the current opaque fisheries management regime, it is important that this amendment should be considered. It would help to deliver a truly sustainable and world-leading system of fisheries management.
I tabled the amendment because I want to hear from the Minister what he plans to do to address these particular concerns.
Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure, Sir Roger, to serve under your chairmanship. The hon. Gentleman’s amendment sits in conjunction with amendments 48 and 49, which I tabled, in making sure that we would have an annual report from Ministers on progress. Given this morning’s debates, it is really important that there should be an annual opportunity for the scrutiny of Ministers in relation to this issue.
Currently there is a very unsatisfactory situation, as hon. Members need to scramble away and persuade colleagues on the Backbench Business Committee to have an annual fisheries debate in Westminster Hall. Indeed, we have one tomorrow, but I suspect that it will not attract the attention it should, because it is not in the main Chamber. The ability to have that annual presentation of reports by the Secretary of State and a good debate, with all Members of the House able to contribute, is a really important part of this amendment—in effect, that is what we seek. It also relates to when such a debate must take place.
Mike Hill (Hartlepool) (Lab)
As I recall, the expert witness from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs was talking positively but incrementally about the movement towards opening out quotas, although that will take some time. Does my hon. Friend agree that such debates would help to monitor the situation?
Luke Pollard
I agree with my hon. Friend. When we are looking at such potentially seismic changes as doing away with the fixed quota allocation system and reallocating quota on a larger basis, it is important to have an annual opportunity in the parliamentary calendar for the Government to present the evidence, statistics and science behind where fisheries stocks are, along with progress towards any reallocation.
The other part of amendment 48 relates to the statement being published annually. There is confusion about when precisely the UK will exit the European Union and under what arrangements, but the amendment states in proposed new subsection (3B) that there would be a fisheries statement within 12 months of the provision coming into force. Effectively, whenever we left the European Union, be that in the fashion planned by the current Prime Minister or in a way not planned by her, within 12 months there would be a statement and we would have an opportunity to update and see progress against the fisheries objectives we debated this morning.
[James Gray in the Chair]
The Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (George Eustice)
All the amendments seek a statutory requirement for the Government to publish an annual statement, updating the House and others on progress towards the fisheries objectives, but we already have a number of plans that mean we do not need to place a statement on a statutory footing. The White Paper commits us to an annual statement on our assessment of the state of stocks that are of interest to the UK and of our approach to setting fishing rates and other management measures.
Fisheries negotiations take place annually, which is why we have an annual fisheries debate. Next week is December Council, at which fishing opportunities for next year will be discussed. We have just been through the various coastal states, and the EU-Norway negotiations are concluding as I speak. To inform our approach to annual negotiations, we will inevitably feed data into organisations such as the International Council for the Exploration of the Seas—ICES—and publish both the data we have on progress on the state of fish stocks and our approach to doing that, so we do not need to place this on a statutory footing.
If something more formal were to be done, if it were judged that there needed to be more formal oversight of our progress towards the objectives, the right place to do that would be in the forthcoming environment Bill, which will establish an independent environmental body to monitor our progress towards the objectives set out in the 25-year environment plan. In relation to a more strategic approach to the delivery of the objectives and the plan, that is the right place to consider such an oversight role. We have in the Bill a statutory requirement for a joint fisheries statement and for a Secretary of State fisheries statement setting out our approach to delivering the objectives.
Finally, it is important to recognise what we already do. Every year, before we go to December Council we lay before the House a written ministerial statement that sets out our approach to the negotiations and the agenda for them, and we always lay a written ministerial statement after the negotiations have concluded, to update the House on progress.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
I appreciate that we have other Bills coming and that there are other ways in which the reports may be obtained, but we have this Bill before the House at the moment, and it is this Bill that establishes the objectives and then the policy statements. Surely the mechanism for accountability should be within the Bill also, if it is to be meaningful.
George Eustice
The method for accountability is indeed in the Bill. There is a statutory requirement to publish a joint fisheries statement and for all the Administrations to pursue that statement to deliver those environmental outcomes and the fisheries objectives set out in clause 1. The issue here is whether it is necessary to place on a statutory footing the idea of publishing an annual statement. My contention is that there is no need, since we already have annual debates.
The hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport made an important point: there is a strong case for saying that, in the new world we are going into as we leave, rather than having that debate brought by the Backbench Business Committee, there should be a debate in Government time at the point the negotiations take place. I would certainly be willing to have conversations with colleagues in other Departments ahead of consideration on Report to see whether we could give such an undertaking.
We have already made a clear commitment in the White Paper to publish an annual statement of the state of the stocks. I do not believe it is necessary to put that on a statutory footing.
Mr Paul Sweeney (Glasgow North East) (Lab/Co-op)
Does the Minister find it troubling that despite the fact that the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009 has required DEFRA to carry out triennial reviews of the Marine Management Organisation since 2009, only one has taken place so far? Is he concerned that similar failings might accrue with respect to the Bill?
George Eustice
We regularly do triennial reviews. I do not think that the triennial reviews stem from the 2009 Act. I think there was a requirement to review the MMO after four or five years, and my recollection is that that did indeed take place.
My point is that it is not necessary for every report we might publish to be put into statute. I made the point in debating an earlier Bill that DEFRA produces many reports. Every June my box is inundated with annual reports of one sort or another. Some of them are required by statute. The vast majority are not, but we publish them anyway, as it is a means of being transparent with the public. Since we have given an undertaking in the White Paper, I do not believe any of the amendments is necessary. However, as I have said, I undertake to have conversations before Report with Government colleagues, to see whether we can give a more formal undertaking on the idea of the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport about a more formal debate in Government time on the Floor of the House, rather than in Westminster Hall.
Mr Carmichael
The Minister will remember, as I do, the days when the annual fisheries debate was held in Government time. When the Backbench Business Committee was introduced, it seemed logical that those general debates would go into Backbench Business time. The Government have now taken that on a step. It is not impossible that one day we may have a Government with sufficient authority and a sufficient majority to see a full and comprehensive programme of legislation through the House, in which case it is eminently foreseeable that the time available for a debate of the kind we are discussing will be squeezed out again. I suggest that that is why there is some force to the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport.
George Eustice
In DEFRA we have brought in more Bills—more significant pieces of legislation—in the past 12 months than at any time in recent history. Parliament is currently considering an Agriculture Bill that is the first such major piece of legislation since 1947. Of course, the Fisheries Bill will give us control of our waters for the first time in more than 40 years. So, at DEFRA at least, we are making good progress in getting through some critical legislation.
I hope that I have reassured both my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney and the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport that while it is indeed our clearly stated intention to publish an annual statement of the state of stocks, it is unnecessary to make it a statutory requirement in the Bill.
Peter Aldous
I have listened with interest to the Minister’s reply. I do not necessarily want to overburden the Bill—it is, as he says, an enabling framework Bill—with unnecessary rules and regulations. However, one of this Parliament’s best pieces of legislation was the Climate Change Act 2008, and that contains an obligation to report annually to the House. I hear what he says about the emerging environment Bill. I confess that I have not considered every step of that emerging Bill, and I am aware that certain organisations feel that we need to join up better the management of the marine environment and the land-based environment. On balance, being kind to the Minister, I will not press my amendment to a vote at this stage, but I will bear in mind his undertaking to look at this matter more fully on Report. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
George Eustice
We have had a comprehensive discussion about clause 1 through the consideration of a series of amendments. The key purpose of the clause is to set out our fisheries objectives, which are largely taken from the existing objectives in the common fisheries policy. The clause also commits us to all those objectives and includes descriptions of them. I do not intend to dwell on the clause any further, since, as I said, we have spent the past few hours discussing each of those objectives in great depth.
Luke Pollard
The Opposition will not vote against clause 1. However, I invite the Minister to reflect on some of the changes to the objectives that have been discussed. I also invite him to look at whether amendments can be introduced in the other place, especially in relation to fish being a public asset and marine safety. I think there was widespread agreement on that on both sides of the House, even if there was not necessarily agreement on the wording.
Mr Carmichael
Among those who gave evidence to the Committee last week, a common recurring theme was that there was something of a disparity between the vision that was laid out in the White Paper, which the Liberal Democrats broadly welcomed, and the rather narrower vision that was left in the Bill. It is also fair to say that we would have hoped to find in clause 1 a number of aspects of the White Paper’s vision. It is disappointing that we have not made more progress. I have been around this place long enough to know how these things work, so I am not necessarily very surprised, but it is fair to put the Minister on notice that the Liberal Democrats will wish to return to certain issues in relation to clause 1 when the Bill goes back to the Floor of the House. Failing that, I am fairly certain that my noble Friends at the other end of the building will also have thoughts on this matter.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 1 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 2
Fisheries statements
Peter Aldous
I beg to move amendment 87, in clause 2, page 2, line 37, at end insert
“and their policies for distribution of fishing opportunities.”
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 88, in clause 2, page 3, line 17, at end insert—
“(j) distributing fishing opportunities.”
Peter Aldous
These two amendments seek to obtain clarification on what one might describe as the elephant in the room in current fisheries management—that is, the fair distribution of fishing opportunities. The current situation is one of haves and have-nots, and we have heard that what is now known as the under-10-metre sector falls into the have-nots. The Bill provides no clear forum for the four nations of the UK to discuss and consider appropriate methods of distributing fishing opportunities to their fishing vessels, and that needs to be better co-ordinated and more coherent. These amendments would require the pursuit of a detailed, decided and considered approach to the distribution of fishing opportunities, and I would welcome clarification on the approach that the Minister is pursuing in order to address this issue.
Luke Pollard
The hon. Gentleman’s amendments are worthy of decent consideration, because the distribution and redistribution of fishing opportunities plays a key part in what we are discussing today. It is therefore worth spending a few moments reflecting on what has been said. The amendments are brief, in terms of the number of words, but substantial in their potential impact.
More transparency about how quota is allocated to our fishing fleet would be welcome, because the allocation causes much distress among fishers. Some want more, and some do not have any at all. We would support transparency, but we would like to go further. We have tabled amendments, which we will come to later in our consideration, that would ensure that future and existing allocations of quota were distributed under social, environmental and economic criteria. There was much talk on Second Reading and in the evidence sessions about the unfair imbalances of quota between large and small fleets, and the amendments would improve transparency and accountability in how those quotas are given out.
Even under the common fisheries policy, the Minister has the power to reallocate quota, so it is important that we understand the approach taken to allocating quota annually, whichever party is in power. An often-cited critique of the European Union is that the size of the pie, in terms of quota, has been restricted. The debate needs also to focus on where that pie is shared out—how it is distributed between large and small boats and different fisheries—and its economic contribution to the UK.
The fixed quota allocation system, which was heavily criticised for being unfair at the outset, has not really been updated since the 1990s. Indeed, in the evidence session last week, the hon. Member for Waveney made a strong case as to why there is an opportunity for understanding how quota is allocated. As a result of the existing system of ownership, fishing quota has become increasingly consolidated among large-scale interests. Griffin Carpenter from the New Economics Foundation said:
“In essence, fisheries have been accidentally privatised. Every year, quota is allocated to the same holders”.––[Official Report, Fisheries Public Bill Committee, 6 December 2018; c. 102, Q196.]
Luke Pollard
I thank my hon. Friend for his point. The opportunity to redistribute quota could have a beneficial effect on coastal communities across the country, from the west country to other parts of the UK. That is effectively what Griffin was saying in his remarks about understanding how quota has been allocated, and it is why the amendment is so important. It would help us better to understand the basis on which quota is allocated, particularly as a quarter of the UK’s fishing quota is owned or controlled by just five families on The Sunday Times rich list.
The small-scale fleet has generally been excluded from the FQA system and producer organisations. Quotas should be allocated on transparent social, economic and environmental criteria to the benefit of fishing communities and coastal communities. We heard that in our evidence sessions, and the idea enjoys support from both sides of the Committee, although we are yet to find a form of words on which we can agree. A greater share could be offered for complying with relevant regulations, such as taking part in data gathering, fully monitoring and recording catches, complying with discard rules and applying high standards of workers’ rights, welfare and marine safety. Through that, we have an opportunity to allocate quota in a fairer way that supports greater public goals and assets. Those are objectives that we all share.
There may be more fish after the UK leaves the common fisheries policy if we get a drawdown of the quota held by our EU friends, but not amending the distribution of quota would exacerbate existing levels of inequality between parts of the sector and would fail to incentivise best practice. Small boats provide the backbone of our fishing fleet and make up the majority of the fleet, in terms of employment. They generally use low-impact gear and provide more jobs per tonne, but their share of quota has been limited to 4% to 6% of the total available quota, even though they employ 49% of the fleet. A greater understanding of how that can go, how quota is currently allocated and how it will be allocated in future will help transparency and, importantly, confidence among fishers in the system.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
The hon. Gentleman is right about the evidence and discussions about how future quota should be allocated. The benefits need to be considered. Does he accept that the amendment could impact on the devolution settlements, because quota allocation is devolved to the respective Administrations?
Luke Pollard
It is really important that we are part of the devolution debate, to ensure that where powers have been devolved to a devolved Administration, they can take decisions on how to distribute their quota accordingly. Quota drawn down from our EU friends is additional quota, which can, in theory, be shared across all UK fishers across the four home nations. An under- standing of how that is allocated is an important function of transparency and part of how we make the system work.
George Eustice
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney for introducing these amendments. He has been a long-standing campaigner for a fairer deal for our inshore under-10 metre sector in his constituency. I want to set out what we have done to try to give more fishing opportunities to the under-10 sector, what we intend to do and set out in our White Paper, and finally address the specifics of his two amendments.
First, my predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Richard Benyon), introduced something called fixed quota allocation permanent realignment, where he took unused quotas from the producer organisations and effectively drew it back into the pool. That led to the legal challenge that I referred to earlier, which the Government won. We therefore secured that fixed quota realignment of unutilised quota from producer organisations.
Secondly, when the discard ban was introduced and the landing obligation came in under the new common fisheries policy, I took a policy decision in 2014 that the first 100 tonnes of any additional quota through the discard uplift would be top-sliced and given to the under-10 pool to boost the number of fishing opportunities they had. Even if they have more haddock than they could possibly catch, we could nevertheless give the pool the quota and the currency it needed to swap in fish that it could select. These two measures together have given a significant uplift in the baseline quota that the under-10 metre sector have.
We have set out clearly our approach to the future in our White Paper. As we diverge from relative stability and have additional inward quota transfers, we will not allocate that quota just by divvying it out along existing FQA lines. While existing fishing opportunities for the time being will remain on an FQA system to provide stability, we intend to allocate any new quota with a different method. As I made clear this morning, one option we are looking at closely is whether an early priority should be to give additional fishing opportunities to the under-10 meter pool in advance, and over and above that which we have already done, as we gain additional quota and diverge from relative stability. I think I have demonstrated in the last few years my commitment to give more fishing opportunities to the under-10 metre pool, as did my predecessor.
Amendment 87 seeks to add a requirement to set out objectives for the distribution of fishing opportunities in the joint fisheries statement. In this clause, I think stumbles in a devolved issue, as the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun said. As I said earlier, although the UK Government have the power to allocate a quota to the devolved Administrations, it is for each devolved Administration to decide how it allocates quota to its own fleet and to the fleet registered in its Administration.
The proposal made by my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney in amendment 88 raises an interesting point. I have looked at clause 2(2), which sets out the existing scope of the Secretary of State fisheries statement. Subsection (2)(e) talks about
“contributing to a fair standard of living for those who depend on fishing activities, bearing in mind coastal fisheries and socio-economic factors”.
Subsection (2)(h) talks about
“promoting coastal fishing activities, taking into account socio-economic factors”.
Should at least one of those options that links the socio-economics of fishing communities make explicit reference to the distribution of fishing opportunities? I hope he will take a steer from me that it is my intention to have conversations with other Government colleagues and Departments and, on Report, seek to suggest an amendment to one or other of the existing factors outlined in subsection (2) that could make a more explicit reference—I think it is currently implicit—to fishing opportunities.
On that basis, and with such a concession, I hope my hon. Friend will withdraw his amendment.
Peter Aldous
I am grateful to the Minister for his reply. I hear what he says about amendment 87 and the fact that, as the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun said, it stumbles into devolution issues. However, I am grateful for the Minister’s undertaking to look at clause 88 in more detail with a view to coming back with more information addressing my concerns on Report. On that basis, I do not wish to push the amendment to a vote.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn
Luke Pollard
I beg to move amendment 50, in clause 2, page 3, line 17, at end insert—
“(j) promoting the development of fishing and aquaculture activities that conserve, enhance or restore the marine and aquatic environment.”
This amendment would add promoting activities to conserve, enhance or restore the marine and aquatic environment to the policies to be included in the fisheries statements.
Amendment 50 seeks to continue the discussion we had this morning on aquatic environments and the preservation of marine heritage on the seabed. Recognising the conversation we had earlier, I suspect the Minister may not be minded to support the amendment. However, it is worth spending a moment on the “marine aquatic environment” wording to ensure that it is consistent throughout the Bill. The concern is that the wording is inconsistent with, for instance, clause 31(2)(b). The amendment would ensure consistent application on the same basis in promoting the development of fishing and aquiculture activities that conserve, enhance or restore the marine and aquatic environment.
The Minister spoke earlier about the importance of protecting the marine environment and I am grateful for his words. We recognise that the fishing industry has played an important part over many years in discovering much of the marine heritage that has been snagged in its nets or gear and brought to the attention of archaeologists. Some of the UK’s most significant marine heritage assets have been discovered by fishermen. The important part of this measure is recognising that, although fishermen undoubtedly seek to avoid snagging their gear on underwater heritage assets because of the hazards and costs involved, impacts that cause damage to underwater heritage sometimes still occur. The stakeholders that we spoke to in advance of the Bill are keen that the relationship between those marine heritage assets and the fishing industry is understood in the Bill.
There are two elements. The Minister touched on the heritage aspect earlier when we discussed a similar amendment. The application of the consistent wording of marine and aquatic environment is also worth looking at.
George Eustice
We covered a lot of the substance of this in an earlier group of amendments. However, in clause 2(2)(c), we already have measures to adjust the fishing capacity of fleets to levels of fishing opportunity consistent with the precautionary objective. The need to fish sustainably and to control fishing so that it is sustainable is therefore covered. Delivering the precautionary objective is effectively to conserve and enhance the fish in our waters. Subsection (2)(d) promotes the development of sustainable aquaculture activities. The use of the words “sustainable aquaculture” picks up all that is needed in managing our approach to aquaculture.
The final bit, which is new, is a repeat of a discussion we had this morning regarding whether the wording should be “marine and aquatic environment”. As I said this morning, this is a Fisheries Bill about the marine environment and marine fisheries. We have a suite of separate legislation that deals with our fresh waterways. For instance, the Water Environment (Water Framework Directive) (England and Wales) Regulations 2017 cover in detail the approach the Environment Agency should take to deliver good environmental conditions in the freshwater environment. We have the Protection of Wrecks Act 1973 and a licencing regime established through the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009 that provides protection for heritage and shipwrecks and the like. The addition of “aquatic” is not appropriate for the reasons outlined this morning, but I hope the hon. Gentleman will recognise that fishing sustainably and having a sustainable approach to aquaculture are already dealt with in paragraphs (2)(c) and (d).
Luke Pollard
There is an element of ensuring consistency. The phrase “aquatic environment” is used in the later parts of the Bill under clause 31, so there is a consistency problem. I take note of what the Minister has said and, as a result, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment proposed: 48, in clause 2, page 3, line 19, at end insert—
“(3A) For the purposes of this Act, a “UK fisheries statement” is a statement made jointly by the fisheries policy authorities on progress towards achieving the fisheries objectives.
(3B) The first UK fisheries statement must be published within 12 months of this section coming into force, and each subsequent UK fisheries statement must be published within 12 months of the previous statement being published.”—(Luke Pollard.)
This amendment would add a requirement on the fisheries policy authorities to publish a joint “UK fisheries statement” within 12 months of the section being brought into force.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Peter Aldous
I beg to move amendment 15, in clause 2, page 3, line 24, at end insert—
“(e) the Minister with responsibility for English fisheries.”
To set the Minister with responsibility for English fisheries at an equal level to Scottish Ministers, Welsh Ministers and the Northern Ireland department.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment
Amendment 16, in clause 9, page 6, line 9, at end insert—
“(e) the Minister with responsibility for English fisheries.”
To require the Secretary of State to secure the consent of the Minister with responsibility for English fisheries regarding any amendments concerning licensing of boats in England.
Peter Aldous
The intent behind these amendments applies also to amendments 17, 18 and 19, and new clause 8. I would be inclined to describe this as the West Lothian question set to fishing. In principle, there is a lot to commend evolution in a fishing context. We are getting towards that regional, more local system of management, which a lot of people felt was one of the problems with the common fisheries policy. There is a concern that the English are being left behind and that we are not on equal footing with the other three nations of the United Kingdom. The amendments are tabled in the spirit of seeking to extract from the Minister a more appropriate and consistent political accountability for English fisheries. There may not be a problem immediately but I sense we might be storing one up further down the line.
There is a concern that the arrangements in the Bill concerning what is known as each “relevant national authority” are asymmetrical to the exclusion of the representative voice for English fisheries. There is a worry that the political representation for English fisheries is inconsistent and, at times, lacking political accountability. When the Bill refers to the national authorities, the arrangements for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are consistent. Those authorities are the Scottish Ministers, Welsh Ministers and the Northern Ireland Office. However, in the case of England, the arrangements are inconsistent. In some cases, the Marine Management Organisation is identified as the national authority; in other cases, the Secretary of State is identified as the fisheries policy authority.
Mr Sweeney
It is an honour, as always, to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray. The hon. Member for Waveney puts forward a clear and cogent case. It is something that needs to be looked at carefully in the context of the sustainability of our current constitutional arrangements. The key frustration for a lot of us, particularly the generation who have grown up under devolution, is the lopsided and asymmetrical nature of our structures.
It certainly causes frustration in this place for Scottish MPs when we have to deal with structures and policies that are not geared up for or reflective of devolution, and that are not considerate of those issues. It is time to bear in mind and take cognisance of those issues, in order to look at a new architecture for our legislative framework in the UK that reflects the reality of the past 20 years of devolution.
Mr Carmichael
I confess that I did not anticipate, when we started scrutiny of the Fisheries Bill, that issues of such high constitutional importance would feature so prominently in the debate. One never knows how Committees will proceed.
The hon. Member for Waveney makes a good point. The current constitutional architecture remains unfinished. The unfinished business is the position of England, and whether it is England as a whole or the constituent parts of England is a debate that, frankly, people in England need to have. I wish them as much joy as we have had with that in Scotland for the past 30 years.
The hon. Gentleman’s amendment comes to the crux of the matter. As matters are currently ordered, the Secretary of State has a clear conflict of interest. On the one hand, he is expected to act as the UK Minister, holding the ring, as it were, between the different constituent parts of the United Kingdom, and at the same time he is supposed to be the English Minister. That is not a sustainable situation. It requires to be remedied and should be remedied, I suggest, through a more comprehensive and holistic approach to constitutional reform for our English cousins. It is also fair to say that this is not a situation that can last indefinitely. If we have to go through another round of salami slicing, taking it subject by subject, instead of region or nation by region or nation, then so be it, but clearly something has to change.
Luke Pollard
The amendment goes to the heart of many of the gripes about fisheries regulation in England. Who speaks for English fishing? There is an inherent conflict in the roles of the Fisheries Minister and the Secretary of State holding both English and UK-wide portfolios. Although it is tempting to engage in a debate about the emerging need for a federal settlement in the United Kingdom, that is probably a decision above our pay grades for the purposes of the Fisheries Bill.
However, the hon. Member for Waveney’s suggestion to look at where this will go is not necessarily a bad one. We have the opportunity to reset and reformulate fishing regulation and to start the journey on those bits that will take longer. The Minister has said that re-allocating FQA will take seven years, if that were to start straightaway. We recognise that some of the changes that the Bill is seeking to effect will not come into immediate force on the day that the Bill comes into force. The discussion that we need to have about the more devolved nature of fisheries is part of that.
If I may go further than the hon. Gentleman, there has also been talk about devolution within England. For instance, there is the potential with more empowered inshore fisheries and conservation authorities, and greater powers at a local level, to have a more thorough set of powers regionalised and localised, rather than just held in Westminster with an English Minister. This is therefore a good debate to have. I am not certain that the amendment will carry favour, but the hon. Gentleman is right to raise the concern.
On the question of who speaks for English fishing, I am sure the Minister will say that, currently, he does. That is something that we need to delve into, though it is probably a discussion for another day.
George Eustice
As my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney pointed out, this may be a variant of the famous West Lothian question. Perhaps we could dub it the Waveney question, as he has raised it. It is an interesting point, but as a number of hon. Members have pointed out, it goes much wider than what we will be able to resolve in this particular Bill.
In this country we have a devolved settlement; we do not have a federal system of government. The reason that a federal system of government would not work in the UK is that England is so much bigger than the other component parts. Under any kind of qualified majority vote we would still, effectively, have the dominance of England. It is because such a federal system would not work in reality, given the structure of the UK—unless we were to break up England, as the previous Government intended to do through a series of regional assemblies—that we need to make our devolution settlement work.
Devolution means that, ultimately, something is either devolved—in which case it is for the devolved Administrations to lead on—or it is reserved, in which case it is for the UK Government to lead on. Where there is a need for co-ordination and frameworks, it happens through a series of memorandums of understanding, concordats and other such arrangements, which feature prominently in this Bill and have always been prominent in our approach to fisheries.
The amendment would have no legal effect as it stands, because the Minister with responsibility for English fisheries is indeed the Secretary of State, so they are one and the same. For a Minister with responsibility for English fisheries to be able to do anything other than what the Secretary of State wanted, he would need to have an English Government who were separate from the UK Government; and if we had an English Government who were separate from the UK Government, we would need an English Parliament to hold that English Government to account. I do not think that that is an approach that we want to take at the moment, for all the reasons I have outlined.
Mr Carmichael
Can the Minister reconcile the objections that he has just outlined with the Government’s attitude to English votes for English laws?
George Eustice
I can, because that is an absolutely sensible compromise to ensure that only English MPs should vote on those pieces of legislation that affect only English matters. I believe that that is not about having an English Government, but a procedure in our Parliament to ensure that English MPs vote on laws that affect their constituents.
There is another issue. I might say, what about Cornwall? Cornwall is slightly different, as you will know. The Fisheries Minister at the moment represents a Cornish seat, but there are representations from organisations such as Cornwall Council that seek to have more of a formal role for Cornwall in decision making. That links to the point made by the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport, that there may be a more formal role for the IFCAs, which could draw them into the consultations that we have ahead of the annual fisheries discussions. At the moment, we have meetings with both environmental and fishing stakeholders, and engage closely with them in the lead-up, but it may be that we should have a process for involving the IFCAs in part of that discussion. That may be one way to address the issue.
My hon. Friend the Member for Waveney mentioned that parts of the Bill say “the Secretary of State” and others “the Marine Management Organisation”. This clause, which is about putting together a policy statement, clearly relates to the Secretary of State. The term marine management organisation tends to be used, in most clauses, in the context of its enforcement and licensing roles. Parts of the Bill use the term marine management organisation because of the powers it has under the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009 to manage licences and to carry out enforcement activities.
My hon. Friend raises an important point, but it goes well beyond the scope of the Bill. I would say this: in my time doing this job, I have never actually had any difficulty reconciling the role that I play as UK Minister in international negotiations, arguing the case for the UK, and the role that I play as an English Fisheries Minister, making decisions around the distribution of quota, technical measures to protect buried lobsters and a whole host of other things, which I agree for England only. It does not cause me any conflict. There are potential inconsistencies, as he highlighted, but I believe they are inherent in the devolved settlement that we have; over the last 20 years, we have learned to manage those effectively.
Peter Aldous
I accept that the Bill is not the right place to take account of these concerns, but it is important to air them, and that is what I have done. I sense that there might be a problem further down the line. I hope that I have fired a warning shot that that might be a problem and that we need to be awake to that, and to address it.
In the Fisheries Bill, we are setting out the new UK fishing policy—the UKFP—which will replace the CFP, in which we had the EU. I am not saying the EU is necessarily an umpire or an adjudicator, but it is another party, and it will be removed from future discussions. I suggest that the Secretary of State’s role could well come under closer scrutiny, and I sense that this issue could materialise as a problem sooner rather than later. On that note, although it is important that we have aired the issue, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 3
Preparation and coming into effect of fisheries statements
Luke Pollard
I beg to move amendment 51, in clause 3, page 3, line 38, at end insert—
“(5) The Secretary of State must by regulations establish a system to resolve disputes between fisheries policy authorities that result in no joint fisheries statement being published.
(6) In establishing the system under subsection (5), the Secretary of State must in particular ensure that the dispute resolution system makes provision to require the fisheries policy authorities to make use of the system if it appears that no JFS will be published by 1 January 2021 due to disputes between the fisheries policy authorities.”.
This amendment would provide for the Secretary of State to establish a system for resolving a dispute between the fisheries policy authorities which could otherwise result in no joint fisheries statement being published.
Amendment 51 seeks to establish a dispute resolution mechanism, should there not be agreement between the partners on a joint fisheries statement. This week is a perfect example of how dispute resolution mechanisms are actually quite useful and should be put in place before the dispute that needs to be resolved has arisen, and that is what the amendment seeks to do.
Of course, we hope that all fisheries policy authorities representing each part of the UK will be able to agree their joint fisheries statement without problems or roadblocks emerging in the discussions—the parties involved may even go into those discussions fully intending to reach agreement as swiftly as possible—but we know that in real life these things can sometimes turn out rather differently to what everyone intended.
The amendment, which has been suggested by the National Federation of Fishermen’s Organisations and the Blue Marine Foundation, therefore seeks to discover what the Government think should happen in the event that reaching an agreement on the joint fisheries statement proves to be a more difficult and protracted process than expected, or in the event that one or more of the authorities wishes to have fishing opportunities distributed on a very different basis to the others, where there is a conflict between that distribution method and the methods of their neighbours.
We need to bear it in mind that in many cases the stock of fish will be passing between shared waters and around our islands. In that respect, what happens in one jurisdiction has an impact on what happens in another jurisdiction. Therefore, the amendment seeks to place duties—
Alan Brown
Will the hon. Gentleman outline how he sees this system being set up and how it will actually operate, because right now the amendment is structured so that the Secretary of State sets the system up, which clearly indicates that there will be no input from the devolved Administrations into how the system will operate? He highlighted the example of a situation where one Administration might want to allocate in a way that is vastly different from the other Administrations, but the Secretary of State might have too much control through the way they have set it up. Is that not a risk with regard to the devolution settlement?
Luke Pollard
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his suggestion. In this amendment, we have not attempted to prescribe exactly how the dispute resolution should operate nor how it should be established; we have merely said that there should be one. Given that the powers flow from this Bill into the hands of the Secretary of State, it seemed logical that the Secretary of State—whoever that may be—should have the initial responsibility of establishing that mechanism, obviously in conjunction with the other parties involved.
We feel that a firm deadline should be set in the Bill so that these matters are not allowed simply to drift. Therefore, the amendment proposes that the fisheries authority should be required to use the system set out by the Secretary of State in regulations, as soon as it becomes apparent that it will not be possible to have an agreed fisheries statement published by—in this case—1 January 2021. Equally, the date could be set 12 months after the commencement of the Act.
The Minister may try to persuade us that we are perhaps being too gloomy and that the scenarios that we are trying to prepare for are remote possibilities. If he is not inclined to accept this amendment, as I suspect he may not be, it would be beneficial if the Minister explained to the Committee what plans he expects to be put in place if there is a situation where the fisheries authorities are unable to reach an agreement, and that in itself causes a—
Brendan O'Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Further to that point, the Minister said previously that he would be, in effect, the English Fisheries Minister and the Secretary of State. Does the hon. Gentleman have concerns that the English Fisheries Minister is also the arbiter in such a scheme? How would that work out? Would there not be a complete conflict of interests if we were to put the Minister in that situation?
Luke Pollard
The point that the hon. Gentleman makes is a valid one, and it relates to the difficulty of having a UK role and English role simultaneously. The importance of creating a dispute resolution system ahead of any dispute happening is that the rules of engagement are already set out if those conflicts and the issues that may arise from people being double-hatted come about. That assumes that the English Fisheries Minister is indeed an English MP and there is not a Welsh or Scottish MP in that role, because that would create opportunities for other types of conflict within that scenario.
We need to get that settled from the outset and that is effectively what the amendment seeks to do. The amendment says, “In the event of there being a problem, how will it be addressed?” It would be good if the Minister set out his Department’s thinking. If there is a scenario in which conflict happens, we need to be clear about how it will be resolved, because fisheries is a very political issue. We know from the Fisheries Councils that there is an awful lot of national bravado, national posturing and national importance in respect of the deal, and the agreement that emerges is a really important one. I would therefore be grateful if the Minister set out how he would address that in responding to the amendment.
Mr Carmichael
We used to say that strong fences make for good neighbours, and the same is true when applied to the principles of constitutional law. The effective working of an emerging asymmetric system of devolution within our government requires strong systems to be put in place. Yes, as the Minister suggested this morning, it is all fine and well while everybody is happy, stocks are plentiful and there is no real disagreement. One of the difficulties with the operation of the devolution settlement between Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom was that such concordats as were put in place were put in place with little consideration of how they might work with Governments of different colours in Edinburgh and London. As a consequence, these areas have become fractious, and occasionally friction has ensued. We risk missing an opportunity, because there will be times when some sort of friction will occur.
To anticipate the question from the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun, such arrangements would have to be put in place after full agreement with the different devolved Administrations. It would be wrong of the UK Government—because they are the UK Government and the English Government at the same time—simply to go ahead. That is the essence of the conflict the Minister faces.
No one should have a veto in these matters, but that should mean that no one has a final say in defiance of everyone else either. A veto can block an arrangement, but a final say can force through an arrangement that does not suit and is not agreed by everyone in the different Administrations concerned. At the end of the day, we may need to come to something that looks much like a system of qualified majority voting. Heaven help us, but some mechanism must be found to resolve these matters.
The point the Minister hears from our discussion of this amendment, and from his hon. Friend the Member for Waveney on the previous amendment, is that once we have brought the powers back from the European Union, the status quo will no longer be fit for purpose.
Owen Smith (Pontypridd) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray. I rise to support the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport. I do so as a former special adviser in the Wales Office and the Northern Ireland Office and as a former shadow Secretary of State for Wales and for Northern Ireland.
My experience and my observation is that even when Ministers in all corners of the UK have the best intentions of avoiding them, disputes regularly arise. As the Minister indicated, such disputes are normally dealt with on a pretty ad hoc basis, with an evolving series of concordats and memorandums of understanding. The memorable way in which the hon. Member for Waveney put it was that such matters are “the West Lothian question for fish”. Whenever such problems inevitably emerge, we traditionally kick the can, or the fish, down the road, rather than try to resolve them.
The Minister highlighted some of the thorny issues we have wrestled with over generations on both sides of the House in respect of devolution and the evolving devolution settlement. I put it to him that it is better, especially in an enabling framework Bill such as this, to try to shape future discussions and mitigate the emergence of problems and disputes, because one thing we can be certain of is that they will emerge in relation to fishing.
One simply need consider clause 3 in respect of the Secretary of State setting out his fisheries statement—the SSFS—and the joint fisheries statement being agreed between the devolved Administrations and the UK Government, to see that there is an immediate problem. It is not clear to me from reading the Bill which of those statements has precedence. I assume that the hierarchy is that, just as each succeeding SSFS supersedes the preceding one, the SSFS would also have precedence over the JFS, but if the JFS were legally deemed to be the more important document, given that it had arguably reached by a more important means of negotiation between the different parts of the UK, it would be good if the Minister were to clarify that.
What happens if there is a significant difference of opinion between the UK Secretary of State, who is also the English Fisheries Minister, and Fisheries Ministers for the devolved Administrations about their priorities for their respective fishing areas? That seems an obvious problem, although this is not the area of the Bill in which that problem becomes most obvious: it is in clauses 18 and 19, which deal with the setting of quotas, that the potential for discord between the UK Minister and the devolved Administrations Ministers becomes most acute and most commercially problematic. In respect of the fisheries statements and the setting of quotas, it is perfectly possible that in future, for example, the UK Minister may wish to set quotas for shellfish that we do not currently have, which may be seen as unfair to fishers in Scotland or Wales in particular.
I think we all recognise that there are myriad potential problems here, and that it would be better if the Minister were able to come up with some more concrete means of assuring people that the Government have an idea of how they would resolve those problems. That might be through a dispute resolution mechanism as recommended by our Front Benchers, or through some other means, but I do not think kicking the can down the road is the right approach.
The Chair
I call the Minister—sorry, I call Mr Sweeney. I keep thinking you are a Front Bencher, but you are actually a Back Bencher.
Mr Sweeney
Technically, yes. Perhaps I am moonlighting as a Front Bencher. As always, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray.
I rise in support of this amendment. It reflects that devolution is a process, rather than an event, and if I were to do a risk profile of the Bill, this omission by the Government would be a red flag. It is important that this is addressed as a matter of urgency; it is critical, because as we have seen at instances throughout the discussions about the EU withdrawal process, impasses occur quite frequently between the devolved Administrations and the UK Government about how to proceed and how best to resolve issues. It is clear that in fisheries, there is a high risk of those issues emerging, so as a matter of prudence it is incumbent on the Government to make provision for issues to be resolved through a system and process defined in the Bill.
Alan Brown
I rise to ask the hon. Gentleman the same question I put to the shadow Minister: how does he see this mechanism being set up? If it is set up with the Secretary of State, how does he see it as being a panacea that will resolve any dispute if it does not have the input of the Administrations?
Mr Sweeney
I think it should be an inclusive process; I am not prescribing any particular definition for that, but I do not think the Secretary of State should have untrammelled power over the ultimate decisions. As the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland suggested, it should be something that is equitable and democratic in nature. That would be the way to proceed.
Mr Carmichael
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that now is the time to be make these arrangements? If we wait until there is a problem, then the creation of the resolution system itself will inevitably become contentious. This is the time for building strong bridges.
Mr Sweeney
I agree. It would be intelligent to set up this mechanism now, rather than when there is a heated dispute, which will inevitably emerge at some point in the course of history. It would be seen as enlightened to do that at this stage, and I urge the Minister to consider taking it forward as a matter of precaution, because we all share an interest in this legislation functioning as efficiently as possible and reflecting the realities of 20 years of devolution. As we have mentioned before, some of these provisions can form a blind spot in how the UK Government form their policies, and we have to be cognisant of the realities of how devolution functions.
This mechanism should not be monopolised by the devolved Administrations plus the UK Government; it could perhaps involve regional elements from all the devolved nations, which would be able to make submissions for dispute resolutions as well. It should proceed in an innovative and intelligent way. It would allow us to have properly functioning devolution, rather than simply devolving an issue and forgetting that it exists—throwing it over the wall and saying, “It is now branded with a saltire or a red dragon, and it is no longer our problem.” It should be an iterative process that everybody is involved with, because ultimately, fisheries are an common asset for all parts of the UK.
George Eustice
I hope to be able to reassure hon. Members that we are all one big happy family in this United Kingdom. The challenges that hon. Members have identified are not new; they date right back to the formation of the devolution settlement in the late 1990s. We have developed ways of managing these tensions.
As I said this morning on a previous group of amendments, the Bill seeks to resolve quite a difficult tension that has existed for at least the past 20 years: on one level, fisheries is about international agreements and negotiations, which are reserved, but on another level, issues such as enforcement, licensing and marine management have been devolved. That is the nature of our devolution settlement, and we have to use sensible, pragmatic and creative ways to bridge the tensions inherent in it.
The December Agriculture and Fisheries Council meeting will be held next week. More than any other Department, DEFRA has developed quite a good way of working with all the devolved Administrations, so the annual December negotiations are attended not just by Ministers in the UK Government but by Ministers from each part of the United Kingdom. We go as a UK delegation led by the UK Minister, but when we enter trilateral discussions with the presidency and the Commission, for instance, my Scottish counterpart Fergus Ewing will speak on issues pertinent to Scotland, Lesley Griffiths will speak for the Welsh Government on issues pertinent to Wales, and the lead official John Speers will talk about issues pertinent to Northern Ireland.
We already attend as an integrated UK delegation, although we represent several Governments. In those difficult moments on Tuesday when we have to pick priorities by deciding which issues we will get no movement on from the Commission, or giving certain issues up to prioritise others, we will have to go through discussions to work out, collectively and by consensus, the correct approach for the UK. We have a very good track record of doing so, even though virtually every political party imaginable is in the delegation.
Mr Sweeney
The Minister outlines a de facto process that may function adequately, but would it not be helpful to define it in the Bill and give certainty about how it will function in the future?
George Eustice
I was going to come on to how we define other working relationships. I have set out the approach for annual fisheries negotiations, and I envisage that approach continuing in the future as we become an independent coastal state, but there are additional measures in place.
We have a series of concordats, which date back to 2012 and are regularly updated, setting out how we work together on issues such as vessel licensing that have implications for different parts of the UK. There is an overarching memorandum of understanding with all the devolved Administrations that includes a process for the Joint Ministerial Committee to act as a dispute resolution mechanism. We are currently developing a fisheries memorandum of understanding with our colleagues in the devolved Administrations, which is likely to include a chapter on dispute resolution as part of a wider UK frameworks process led by the Cabinet Office. The Cabinet Office is doing detailed, cross-Government work on the future of the JMC, on how its processes can be improved and on how issues such as dispute resolution can be addressed. I hope on Report to be able to explain more fully the thinking that is emerging.
Mr Sweeney
The Minister outlines a series of points about the functioning of de facto dispute resolutions that perform adequately, but anyone who has followed the events of the past few months with regard to EU withdrawal issues and the functioning of the JMC would agree that because it is not on a statutory footing, it has failed to perform adequately—I think that that is a fair assessment from the Opposition. Perhaps he ought to take cognisance of our need to get this stuff defined in statute so that it can function and work under pressure.
George Eustice
As I said, the Cabinet Office is leading a wider review of the memorandums of understanding and the JMC processes to see whether they can be improved. It obviously affects many other Departments as well. It is probably not right for me to go beyond that. I can explain what we currently do on fisheries.
Owen Smith
Does the Minister not acknowledge that part of the reason that the Cabinet Office is undertaking that review is the widespread dissatisfaction over many years in the devolved Administrations with the working of the Joint Ministerial Committee? For example, I cannot think of a single substantive issue that has been properly resolved at the JMC in recent times. If the Minister can think of one, perhaps he could inform the Committee.
George Eustice
At DEFRA, we have many discussions with our counterparts in the devolved Administrations. We have highly constructive dialogue and reach a consensus. That brings me to another point I want to make. In this context, let us be clear that we are talking about the formation of a joint fisheries statement. By its very nature, we are not talking about an argument over the implementation of any kind of agreement. We are talking about what it is collectively we are doing by way of policy to deliver the legally binding objective set out in clause 1.
If we as politicians cannot work through our differences and work towards achieving a consensus on a legally binding requirement here, who can? Are we seriously saying that having a judge come in to arbitrate, or to have some sort of arbitration process or panel, is going to cut it if, for instance, the Scottish Government have a particular concern about Orkney crabs and what is said about that in the joint fisheries statement? I put it to hon. Members that that is not the case.
We politicians cannot abdicate our responsibility and role. Part of that role is to work through our differences to achieve consensus where it is required to get an agreed policy statement that is legally binding on all of us equally and severally. I believe that because we have that legal commitment enshrined in clause 5(1) and because we have a very strong track record in DEFRA of successful concordats and memorandums of understanding, and because the Cabinet Office is doing a wider piece of work in this area, this amendment is unnecessary. It is ultimately for us, as elected politicians, at the very least, to agree what we are going to do by way of policy.
Luke Pollard
Mr Pollard, Mr Gray. We look nothing alike; one of us has a beard.
At some point in the future, the Hansard report of this Committee will be dug out by an industrious journalist and politicians, and they will inquire why a dispute mechanism was not put in place when the Bill was formed. They will look at the debate and see a Government that did not want to do so because they either failed to predict a problem or were so opposed to accepting amendments to the Bill that they knowingly proceeded with a hole in it. That is what we have here.
This is an enabling Bill, designed to create a system and framework for the proper governance of our fisheries in future. We should be taking the opportunity to look into every aspect, to ensure it will work in all circumstances and scenarios. There will be a problem in future in the event of one of the devolved Administrations or the UK deciding not to agree with the others on what is, as we all know, the most political part of DEFRA’s responsibility around fishing. Be that a manufactured concern or a valid concern on stock assessment or different elements of science conflicting, there will be a point of conflict in future.
Owen Smith
My hon. Friend is right. Is it not entirely predictable when that moment will come? It will be when the Secretary of State has the first opportunity to distribute fishing opportunities across the new UK waters and there is a dispute between the Administrations as to the fairness of that distribution, when those other Administrations are only consulted but do not have to consent to those changes. Is that not precisely when the rubber will hit the road?
Luke Pollard
My hon. Friend is right that is a possible scenario. There could be a multitude of other scenarios where that is a real risk.
Brendan O'Hara
I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way again; he is being very generous.
The hon. Member for Glasgow North East said he was looking for a situation that was equitable and democratic. That is motherhood and apple pie to a place such as this, but he was lacking any details of what was being proposed and guarantees that it would not impinge on the devolved Administration, and something that takes into account—as we have talked about before—the asymmetrical constitutional set up that currently exists in the United Kingdom. Yes, we would love to see something that was democratic, accountable and equitable, but at the moment there is nothing on which to hang any of that.
Luke Pollard
I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s intervention, but I disagree. We do not know what the cause of that dispute will be or what form that dispute will take, but we can predict that there will be a dispute of some form in and around the formation of these joint fisheries statements in the future. We also know that at a time when climate change is changing the stock levels in our seas, when there is a real concern about how fishing quota is distributed—between ourselves within the UK, and with our EU neighbours and Norway—disputes will arise. It is inevitable that that will take place.
The summary of the debate we have had so far is that there is a hole in the Bill, which needs to be fixed. Ministers need to be seriously concerned about the fact that there will be a problem here and the relevant Hansard will be dug out. Whether the Minister is still in his place or not at that point—I suspect, as my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd says, it may come sooner rather than later—we need to resolve this. As a result, we will push this amendment to a division.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss:
Clause 4 stand part.
That schedule 1 be the First schedule to the Bill.
George Eustice
In the last group of amendments we covered many aspects of clause 3, which sets out the procedures that the four fisheries administrations would need to follow when preparing and adopting the joint fisheries statement. It also sets out the procedures for the Secretary of State to adopt a Secretary of State fisheries statement for England. This clause makes it clear that maintaining sustainable fisheries is a joint effort and requires the involvement of all four fisheries administrations. It requires all four to jointly prepare and adopt the joint fisheries statement for the statement to come into effect. The precise mechanism for preparing and publishing both the JFS and the SSFS are contained in schedule 1, which must be followed for the statements to come into effect. This sets out the provisions for consultation with industry and other interested parties. This clause is integral to both the joint fisheries statement and the Secretary of State fisheries statement.
Clause 4 makes it clear that any amendment to the joint fisheries statement can only be made by the fisheries administrations acting together. This clause is important in allowing the statements to be amendable, as a changing environment may require. For instance, there may be a change of Administration, Government, approach or circumstances, which would mean that it would be necessary, where possible, to amend and adapt the joint fisheries statement and the Secretary of State fisheries statement.
Luke Pollard
I am grateful to the Minister. The Opposition has no issue with clause 4 and we are happy that it should stand part.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 3 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 1 agreed to.
Clause 5
Deadline for first fisheries statements and obligation to review
Luke Pollard
I beg to move amendment 52, in clause 5, page 4, line 10, leave out “before 1 January 2021” and insert—
“at the latest one calendar year from the date of withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union.”.
This amendment would ensure that the fisheries statements are published no more than one year after the UK leaves the EU.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 53, in clause 5, page 4, line 12, leave out “before 1 January 2021” and insert—
“at the latest one calendar year from the date of withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union.”.
This amendment would ensure that the fisheries statements are published no more than one year after the UK leaves the EU.
Luke Pollard
Amendments 52 and 53 would ensure that the fisheries statements are published no more than one year after the UK leaves the European Union. Much debate has been had as to when that date will be, and I am sure that the Minister will not seek to deviate from the line that he has been given by the Whips on that date. However, given that this is a situation in flux, and the uncertainty in the Government at the moment, and without wishing to apply any normative judgment on whether that is a good or bad thing, we do not know the date on which we will be leaving. The amendment would therefore make the Bill more flexible, should the date of exit change.
We have established today that UK fisheries management policy needs to be dynamic and reactive to the fluctuating marine environment. As the fisheries management policy manages a national resource, it needs to be accountable through Parliament as well. The joint fisheries statement is also the first proper acid test for the state of UK fisheries post-Brexit, and will be Parliament’s first opportunity to hold the Government to account against the promises made in the referendum and in the Bill. The idea that we would have to wait almost two years for the first joint fisheries statement if we leave the EU in March 2019 without a deal is not good enough.
Early scrutiny is particularly necessary, given the lack of guarantee in the political declaration that a new fisheries agreement will be completed before the end of the transition period, in July 2020. Instead, parties will use their “best endeavours”. Despite endless gold-plated promises, there is a real fear among fishers that that vague language means that there is a final betrayal coming for the industry. The hon. Member for Aberdeen South (Ross Thomson) said that
“sovereignty of our waters could be sacrificed for a trade deal. That is unacceptable.”
I am sure that is a view shared by many in this place and in fishing communities around the country. Because there is no guarantee that there will be a new fisheries agreement with the EU by the end of the transition period, only a hope, there is a fear that once the spotlight has come off fishing a few months or years down the line, during a quiet moment of transition, the industry will be taken off to a quiet corner and betrayed in exchange for a free trade agreement with the EU. That is a real concern that fishers have expressed to me, sometimes in more colourful language than I have chosen to use. It is a valid concern that we need to address.
The Leader of the Opposition stated in the Commons that the concern is that all that we will do is enter into a new CFP but under a new name. I do not doubt the Minister’s sincerity in wanting to leave on the day that is Government policy today—rather than the one we might get tomorrow—but we do not want that to happen. It is out of his hands and I appreciate that. A hard date in the Bill may be useful for party political management on the Government Benches, but in creating an enabling Bill, we need to recognise that the date of exit may change and, therefore, 12 months from that date of exit is the first time that a fisheries statement should be presented to Parliament. That is the purpose of the amendments.
George Eustice
Setting out a particular date for completion when there are a number of scenarios that could unfold in respect of the withdrawal agreement and the nature of our exit from the EU does create some uncertainties—I would be the first to acknowledge that. As the hon. Gentleman said, things are currently in a state of flux.
I want to explain why we have chosen the 1 January 2021 as the date. When we drafted the Bill it was on the understanding and expectation that there would be an implementation period, during which we would be bound by the terms of the common fisheries policy until December 2020, when we would negotiate as an independent coastal state. The appropriate time to have this plan in place seemed to be January 2021. We chose the date on the basis of an expectation of an implementation period running until December 2020.
The second reason was that it gave us time to ensure that we can work through our differences across the four Administrations and have a plan in place. As well as the neatness of the measure commencing at the point at which the implementation period ends, it ensures that we give ourselves sufficient time to agree the plan and put it in place.
I know that a long-standing concern for a number of fishermen is that their interests may be traded for other elements of the future partnership. We have made it absolutely clear that we will not do that. We are absolutely clear that trade negotiations are separate from negotiations about access. The Government have tabled some amendments that we will discuss at a later date that I believe will give some reassurance to fishermen about that.
While I understand the point made by the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport, by the time the Bill reaches Report stage, we may all be slightly clearer as to the length of the implementation period or whether there is to be an implementation period at all and whether we leave without an agreement next March. I that suggest the hon. Gentleman keeps his powder dry on this issue until we all have greater clarity about what the future holds.
Finally, when making the case for his amendment, the hon. Gentleman suggests that the date on which we withdraw from the European Union could be a movable feast. I do not accept that. We are leaving the European Union come what may in March. The issue is whether there will be an implementation period and how long it will be. Will it go for the full duration until December 2020 or will it be possible to conclude it expeditiously? I therefore accept that there is an element of doubt about the length of the implementation period and whether there will be one. I suggest we revisit the issue of timescales for the production of the joint fisheries statement on Report, when I hope things will be clearer.
Luke Pollard
There are no surprises in the Minister’s response, but I enjoyed the phrase “we will work through our differences across the four Administrations”, given the time required to do that. I suspect that was the exact opposite of the sentiment that was exhibited in the dispute resolution debate.
There is significant concern among fishing industries that they will be sold out, just as they were during the transition period. Ministers, including this Minister, were advocating that fisheries should be excluded from the transition period up to a week before that policy changed. Fishers around our coastline have every reason to be sceptical about some of the promises that have been given.
George Eustice
Does the hon. Gentleman not accept the ultimate sell-out for British fishing would be to stay in the European Union and therefore stay in the common fisheries policy?
Luke Pollard
I understand that fishing was sold out on the way into the EU and there is a risk of it being sold out on the way out of the EU. A lot of our fishing communities share that concern. We need to recognise that. I respect the Minister’s desire to leave on the date that has currently been stated by the Government. As the Government are changing their mind about a lot to do with Brexit, and as this is an enabling Bill, should we not be flexible and be able to reflect possible changes during this period?
I am happy to take the Minister’s suggestion to keep my powder dry on this one and revisit it on Report. However, there is a genuine concern that fishing will be sold out, given any hard dates, and more work needs to be done to reassure fishers that they will not be sold out when it comes to the political agreement further down the line. A flexible date would be one way of doing that. I therefore beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Luke Pollard
I beg to move amendment 54, in clause 5, page 4, line 15, leave out “6” and insert “5”
This amendment would ensure that the fisheries statements are subject to review every five years, instead of every six years.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 55, in clause 5, page 4, line 17, leave out “6” and insert “5”
This amendment would ensure that the fisheries statements are subject to review every five years, instead of every six years.
Amendment 56, in clause 5, page 4, line 22, leave out “6” and insert “5”
This amendment would ensure that the fisheries statements are subject to review every five years, instead of every six years.
Amendment 57, in clause 5, page 4, line 24, leave out “6” and insert “5”
This amendment would ensure that the fisheries statements are subject to review every five years, instead of every six years.
Luke Pollard
These amendments make a similar point to the earlier ones, in respect of the timeframe that we are looking at. They would remove the restriction of six years and replace it with five years. Six years is far too long to leave the Executive unaccountable if it is necessary to force them to change bad policy. That is why we wish to change the period from six years to five years.
Five years is the length of a fixed-term Parliament. It would mean that, in any given Parliament, there can be accountability for the policies that the Government are seeking to put in place via the Fisheries Bill. Otherwise, in a fixed-term Parliament of five years, there may not be an opportunity due to the period being set at six years. I encourage the Minister to look again at the arbitrary six years. We want to ensure that, every five years, at the start of a new parliamentary term, fisheries is right up there as one of the main policy items under review. Every new Parliament should have the ability to review fisheries policy.
As drafted, the Fisheries Bill gives the benefit of the doubt and too much discretion to people in office. There is not enough of a guarantee that the policies will achieve our fisheries objectives. We tabled the amendments to enhance scrutiny and to ensure that the Government’s aim to have truly sustainable world-leading fisheries is delivered.
George Eustice
It has been a little while since I mentioned the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009, which was introduced by the previous Labour Government. I want to explain where the allegedly arbitrary figure of six years came from. It mirrors the approach set out in the Marine and Coastal Access Act in respect of the production of marine spatial plans. There is a requirement in the Act to review the marine spatial plans at six-yearly intervals. Our officials, when considering what would be appropriate—we wanted to have a consistent approach to the marine environment—took the view that, as marine spatial plans are reviewed every six years, that would seem to be the appropriate precedent to follow in respect of these other plans.
Six years has a precedent, and indeed one that some Opposition Members might have voted for—not the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport, but other hon. Members—when the Marine and Coastal Access Act was passed. There is no precedent for five years. I understand that hon. Members may take the view that, under the Fixed-Term Parliaments Act 2011, five years is the typical duration of a Government, but clause 4 creates a power to amend the plan at any time.
Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)
I very much understand what the Minister is saying, but with climate change, things often happen much more rapidly than Parliament might make provision for. Does he not agree that there should be some flexibility, particularly in regard to changes in water temperatures and fish stocks, which are moving all the time? We should look at the evidence for the timing, rather than just look backwards to an Act from a few years ago?
George Eustice
I strongly agree, which is why we included clause 4, which gives fisheries policy authorities the ability to amend the plans whenever they choose to do so. If events move and we need to adopt a different approach to mitigate the effect of climate change because things happened faster than we thought, or there was an environmental challenge that had not been foreseen in the six-year plan, there is a power to amend the joint fisheries statement to reflect that change under any circumstances and at any time.
With the six years, we have chosen to adopt a timescale that has a precedent in the context of managing the marine environment. We also included a clear provision that means that, at any time, we can adapt and amend the plan in the way that my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford seeks, to ensure that it can respond to events.
I hope I have been able to inform the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport about the genesis of the choice of a six-year term as a starting point, and also about the fact that clause 4 gives us the power to amend the plans at any stage, which means that moving the time period to five years, as he suggests, is perhaps unnecessary.
Luke Pollard
I am grateful to the Minister for setting out why five years is not as good as six; none the less, I think there is a point about our effective scrutiny of the system. When the Marine and Coastal Access Act was initially enacted, it was at the start of that journey of organising marine plans and policies. We are now in a very different place, both politically and environmentally. I am grateful for the comments about climate change made by the hon. Member for Stafford. Our world is changing and our fisheries need to be more adaptable to the concerns around climate change.
Alan Brown
In support of the principle of reducing the review period from six to five years, I tried to get in earlier on. I have concern about linking it to a parliamentary term, because as we know, despite the Fixed-term Parliaments Act, we have already had one Government that did not last five years, and the way things are going, it is highly probable that this Government will not, either, so I would be wary of linking it to a Westminster parliamentary term. That would also override the parliamentary cycle of the devolved Administrations. I am happy with five years, but we should be wary of how this is linked to the parliamentary cycles.
Luke Pollard
In seeking to move from six to five, that was merely to move from six years to five years, rather than necessarily to align with that parliamentary cycle.
Mike Hill
Would moving the period to five not mean that the Government of the day were accountable for actions they had taken, rather than leaving it to a sixth year, when potentially it would be a different Government and it could trigger a new way of assessing things? It could be a false trigger for the future.
Luke Pollard
I agree. Although I take the point made by the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun, that Governments may not last for five years—indeed, the reason that I am here and not doing my former job of advising on how to build skyscrapers is that the House decided to have an election and not use the Fixed-term Parliaments Act to see out five years—there is a possibility that these plans may not be reviewed within an entire, normal Parliament, which means that an entire batch of Members of Parliament for that parliamentary term will not have the chance to do this. I recognise the flexibility that the Minister has outlined.
Mr Marcus Jones (Nuneaton) (Con)
Bearing in mind the rationale that the hon. Member is now using, surely he should have drafted his amendment in the context of this being looked at within each term of Parliament, rather than on an arbitrary five-year basis?
Luke Pollard
No, I am quite comfortable that the words “leave out “6” and insert “5”” are entirely sufficient to deal with this clause; none the less, I take the point that the hon. Gentleman is trying to make. There is concern here about the frequency of scrutiny. If the Minister can reflect on that, there is a strong sense of our wanting to be sure.
George Eustice
Will the hon. Gentleman explain why he chose five years rather than four or three?
Luke Pollard
I can indeed; it is because two was suggested. Feedback from stakeholders was that they felt that six years was too long. A number of suggestions came back for different periods, two and three being some of those—indeed, Fishing for Leave was strong in its advocacy of two years. I felt that two years is too frequent, but six years is too long. Therefore, looking to lock it into the period during, in theory, a parliamentary five-year term, seems to be the right amount of time.
I am grateful for the flexibility that the Minister has set out. Should the Government change, I would expect that flexibility to be used by a Labour Government in moving that to five. I think that would be the right thing to do. However, on the basis of the discussion we have had, I am content not to push the amendment to a vote. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 6
Effect of statements
Peter Aldous
I beg to move amendment 89, in clause 6, page 4, line 29, leave out from “authority” to end of line 34.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 90, in clause 6, page 4, line 37, leave out from “authority” to end of line 42.
Peter Aldous
Amendments 81 and 82, which come next, also relate to this clause, and the points that I make now apply to those changes as well.
The Chair
I think it is better to discuss those separately because they are grouped separately. We will stick to amendments 89 and 90 for now.
Peter Aldous
Thank you, Mr Gray.
I will highlight two points on which I hope to gain clarification from the Minister. First, it is important for all public bodies involved in fisheries management to adhere to the principle of the fisheries statements. The amendments therefore seek to expand the scope of the list of those authorities to which the statements apply. I have also sought to ensure that the list is not exhaustive.
Secondly, the amendments would reduce those authorities’ discretion not to comply with the obligation. They would provide a legally binding commitment on the public authorities to achieve the fisheries objective. I am concerned about what appears to be some wriggle room for authorities not to comply with the statements. I would be grateful if the Minister allayed my concerns.
Luke Pollard
Although this might be the kiss of death for the hon. Gentleman’s amendment, the Opposition are minded to support it, because it seeks to improve the duties in the Bill.
The Bill’s wording gives significant powers for a relevant national authority to amend policies contained within the joint fisheries statement with little scrutiny or challenge. The amendment would remove the vague and meaningless “relevant considerations”, a term that appears to be a get-out clause to allow authorities to act as they please when it suits them.
Earlier, the Minister said that the power would enable reaction to a huge surprise event, but how can we be sure that it would not be abused? The clause is not specific enough, and no safeguards are in place to stop it being used as a “Get out of jail” card. As my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd did, I ask the Minister what “relevant considerations” mean in this context. That is the nub of the concern expressed by the hon. Member for Waveney.
In the evidence session last week, Tom Appleby from the Blue Marine Foundation criticised the clause as it stands:
“Our fisheries statements are a bit woolly. I notice that there is a bit in here that says that they do not have to adhere if relevant considerations are taken into account. What is a relevant consideration? I could not find a definition of that.
We have not nailed the Secretary of State to the floor in this Bill, and that could be done.”––[Official Report, Fisheries Public Bill Committee, 4 December 2018; c. 56, Q120.]
I am not, of course, advocating nailing the Secretary of State to any floors—[Interruption.] Indeed. Government Members might like to go there, but not Opposition Members. Debbie Crockard of the Marine Conservation Society said something similar at another of our evidence sessions:
“the problem with the joint fisheries statement is that, under clause 6(2), if a national authority takes the decision to act other than in accordance with the JFS, it simply has to state the reason why. There is no binding duty to follow that JFS. If it goes against the JFS and sets fishing limits that are not legally bound, there is nothing to hold it to account in that situation.”––[Official Report, Fisheries Public Bill Committee, 6 December 2018; c. 77, Q152.]
Both the concerns expressed by the hon. Member for Waveney, and that concern about the lack of any dispute resolution, go to the heart of the weakness of the joint fisheries statement that he rightly highlighted.
George Eustice
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney for tabling the amendments and highlighting an important issue. I understand why some might be concerned about the inclusion of the provision, because they judge that it to be a “Get out of jail” card which means that people would not have to follow the statement at all.
As with earlier amendments, I will explain the genesis of the language chosen for the clause. Again, I am afraid, I have to pray in aid the Marine and Coastal Access Act. Section 58(1) states:
“A public authority must take any authorisation or enforcement decision in accordance with the appropriate marine policy documents, unless relevant considerations indicate otherwise.”
The claim by some that the language in the Bill is random, new language that has never been used in legislation before is therefore not true. It is a form of words that was used in the most recent piece of marine management legislation available, which was introduced by the Labour Government.
The reason we have the provision is to ensure that in instances where we have a sudden change in circumstances, which might put us outside a joint fisheries statement, there is, in a sort of force majeure—
Alan Brown
I just want to understand what the Minister is talking about. Exceptional circumstances may arise that need swift action. Therefore, is there not a way to improve the language in the Bill, even though this serves as a precedent, rather than the amendment, which would delete it completely? Is that something the Government would consider for the next stage?
George Eustice
I was going to return to that point. As I said at the outset, while I think it is wrong to delete that flexibility for a force majeure event all together, I am certainly willing to look on Report at whether we could refine or narrow the scope and the circumstances in which such a measure could be used.
Let me give an example. If there were a sudden change in the health of a particular stock, we might have it as part of the plan that a stock could be exploited at a particular level. We might not want to do that anymore and might therefore step outside the plan—not to overexploit a stock but to stop exploiting it all together. It might also be the case that in order to reach an agreement with, say, Norway, which uses maximum sustainable yield as well as other environmental measurements and metrics, we might have to move slightly outside the scope of our own plan. Then a question has to be asked: as I put to Dr Carl O’Brien, is it better to get an agreement so that everyone is working within agreed limits and to an agreed plan with our neighbours—say, Norway—or is it better for everyone to just kick the table over, walk away and unilaterally set their own total allowable catch? I would say it is always the former. There will be times when we may have to step slightly outside the joint fisheries statement in the interests of getting a fisheries agreement at all, which is ultimately for the benefit of the stock.
My hon. Friend the Member for Waveney has highlighted an important issue. I hope he understands that, because we need that flexibility both for force majeure events and for other sudden developments, we need some sort of provision for those circumstances. Therefore, deleting the wording all together is wrong. However, in view of the points that he and others have raised, I will give this further consideration as we approach Report to see whether we can narrow that power so it can be used only in prescribed circumstances.
Owen Smith
The Minister is offering some comfort to those of us who have expressed concerns about how loosely the clause seems to be drawn. I put it to the Minister that if what he is envisaging here are very exceptional circumstances—he keeps using the phrase “force majeure circumstances”—why is the language so loosely drawn? It says:
“unless relevant considerations indicate otherwise”
and this seems to be a fairly broadly drawn set of circumstances. Crucially, subsection (4) says:
“If a relevant national authority within subsection (5)(a) or (b) takes any decision”.
That is an extraordinarily broad set of circumstances. If it is intended to be so limited, why is it so broad?
George Eustice
I explained the genesis of that choice of words earlier. The Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009 also uses the term
“unless relevant considerations indicate otherwise”,
so it is not a new form of words in our legislation and it was used in our most recent piece of legislation dealing with the marine environment. As I said, I accept that we should go away and consider whether we can narrow the scope within which such a power could be used, and I have undertaken to give that further consideration by the time the Bill is on Report.
Owen Smith
I do not think anybody is suggesting that the problem is that the language is new. It is the fact that the language is so poorly and so broadly drawn.
George Eustice
Well, I blame the last Labour Government for the drafting of the legislation. We have reached a convenient conclusion and I have made an open offer to give this further consideration to see if we can narrow the scope so that it is closer to its intended use, rather than it becoming a simple get out of jail card in all circumstances. I look forward to updating my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney on Report.
Peter Aldous
It has been a useful short debate. I was not happy with the clause as it is drafted; there needs to be a balance between flexibility—that is needed—and not too much flexibility that gives the get-out-of-jail card. I thank the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun for his suggestion that we look at this in a bit more detail, and the Minister for taking up that offer. I look forward to looking at this matter more closely in redrafted clauses on Report. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 6 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 7 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 8
Access to British fisheries by foreign fishing boats
Peter Aldous
I beg to move amendment 21, in clause 8, page 5, line 13, leave out “a” and insert “an annual British”.
The amendment applies to clause 8 and to schedule 2. There is concern that there are no provisions in the Bill for foreign vessels to comply with the same standards as UK vessels. Foreign vessels’ access to UK waters must be contingent on compliance with the same environmental standards as are applicable to UK vessels. That way, there will be a level playing field and the same high level of environmental protection will apply to all fishing in UK waters.
There is a worry—perhaps I am being alarmist—that the Dutch might be allowed to continue with the environmental vandalism that is electro-pulse fishing, which takes place off the East Anglian coast, and which we may or may not debate in more detail later.
I would welcome clarification from the Minister. I ask that he allay my concerns and assure me that the same level playing field will apply to all vessels in UK waters.
Luke Pollard
The amendment seeks to limit the time foreign boats have a licence to fish in UK waters to a single year. It is important that British boats take back control of our waters and the lion’s share of our quota, consistent with moving from relative stability to zonal attachment, which is where the hon. Gentleman is going. With regard to foreign boats, we need to explore this issue in much more detail and depth. There is concern about the simple timeframe, but the general principle the hon. Gentleman is following is a good one to explore further. I will sit down so the Minister can do precisely that.
Jeremy Lefroy
A brief point: we talk about access to British fisheries, but I imagine we are talking about United Kingdom fisheries. I wonder whether British and United Kingdom are being used interchangeably, because we talk about United Kingdom later on. Could I have some clarification on that?
George Eustice
I can give my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney the reassurance he seeks. The amendment is unnecessary. The reason is that we are absolutely clear and explicit that in future, once the Bill comes into effect, it will be prohibited for any foreign vessel to fish in UK waters in the UK’s exclusive economic zone unless it has a UK fishing licence. I draw his attention to clause 11(1), which could not be clearer. It states that
“Fishing within British fishery limits by a foreign fishing boat is prohibited unless authorised by a licence.”
He should read that in conjunction with clause 12(3), which states quite clearly that
“A licence under this section may be granted so as to impose limits on the authority”.
That licence would govern the area in which fishing is authorised, so it could prevent fishing in certain areas; the periods, times or particular voyages during which fishing is authorised; the types of fish that are allowed be caught during a visit to UK waters; and finally, in subsection 12(3)(d)—of relevance to pulse trawling, which I know my hon. Friend feels strongly about—the method of sea fishing. That would give us all the powers we need to impose on all foreign fishing vessels a requirement to use a particular type of fishing method and a particular gear type. Without wanting to dwell on the detail, clause 31 also gives powers for the Administrations to set technical conservation measures in their waters, separate from the conditions which are attached to the licence. On that basis, I hope that the he agrees that the amendment is unnecessary.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stafford made a point about the use of the term “British” and whether we mean “UK” or “British”. In general, we talk in terms of a UK fishing licence, which is a licence issued by any of the Administrations in the UK. In the event of granting a licence to foreign vessels, the MMO, with the consent of the devolved Administrations, would issue a single licence on behalf of every part of the UK. A separate, long-established term in fisheries legislation from 1967 and before is “British vessel”, which tends to mean any vessel that is registered to the UK—including Northern Ireland—or to the Crown dependencies, or British-owned vessels. The term “British vessel”, which stems from an era in which “British” tended to be used in a different context to that of today, runs through our previous legislation and is used in parts of the Bill.
Peter Aldous
I thank the Minister for his latter clarification in response to the question from the hon. Member for Stafford. He has saved me from the embarrassment of shoddy use of language. I am also grateful to him for providing such extensive clarification and reassurances, and on that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
George Eustice
Clause 8 simply sets the terms under which foreign fishing boats may enter British fishery limits and replaces section 2 of the Fishery Limits Act 1976. Under that section, as amended by the Scotland Act 1998 and the Northern Ireland Act 1998, the Secretary of State and Ministers of devolved Administrations may designate, by Order in Council, the foreign countries whose vessels may enter British fishery limits.
Paragraph 8(1)(a) provides that a foreign vessel can enter British fishery limits only if it has a sea fishing licence. The effect of the clause is that all foreign fishing vessels will need the express permission of the UK to enter into our waters to fish. Subsection (2) requires that foreign fishing boats must leave British fisheries limits as soon as their fishing activities or other purposes for entering British fishery limits have been completed.
The purpose of the measure is to ensure that foreign vessels entering UK waters leave once their permitted purpose has concluded. Subsection (3) creates an offence against the master, and an offence of vicarious liability against the owner and the charterer of a foreign fishing vessel, for entering UK waters for any purpose other than fishing in accordance with a sea fishing licence, and under international law agreements or arrangements.
Luke Pollard
As we prepared for the Bill, a number of stakeholders expressed concern about a missing element: a requirement for foreign fishing boats to abide by the same standards as British fishing boats. As that is covered by an amendment we seek to table elsewhere in the Bill, I will not push it to a conversation or debate now. That is the only omission and, as the clause stands, we will not oppose it.
Jeremy Lefroy
I will ask the Minister one brief question, if he will forgive my ignorance. Does this provision include access for the purposes of landing fish as well? Let us say that fish are being caught in other waters but are to be landed for processing in UK ports. How would this measure apply to that?
George Eustice
The direct answer is that there are other provisions in international maritime law that enable the passage of vessels for lawful purposes, including trade or landing fish elsewhere. The terms of the fishing licence will be specifically pertinent to the fishing activity that is permitted under that particular licence.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 8 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 9
British fishing boats required to be licensed
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 18—Licensing of fishing boats—
“The Marine Management Organisation must exercise its functions so as to secure (so far as possible) that—
(a) fishing boats are not used in contravention of section 9(1) (prohibition on fishing without authority of licence), and
(b) conditions attached to sea fishing licences under paragraph 1 of Schedule 2 are not broken, as a result of the exercise of rights sold in accordance with the regulations.”
George Eustice
The clause sets out the conditions under which British fishing boats would be licensed to fish in UK waters and prohibits fishing without a licence, except for stated specific exemptions. The Secretary of State may make regulations to add, remove or vary the exceptions listed. Scottish and Welsh Ministers and the Northern Ireland Government must be consulted prior to any such regulations being made.
If British fishing boats take part in fishing activities in UK waters that are not exceptions under subsection (2) without a fishing licence, the owner, charterer and master will be guilty of an offence. Further information on the offences and associated penalties is contained in clauses 14 to 16, which we will come to.
Peter Aldous
I will not detain the Committee long. New clause 18 is a probing one to seek clarification from the Minister on the extent of the MMO’s responsibility with regard to the licensing of fishing boats. I particularly seek clarification that the conditions will still apply when rights have been transferred. I am concerned that there might be loopholes that the ingenious might seek to exploit, and I would be grateful if the Minister could allay my concerns on that point.
George Eustice
The proposed new clause relates to the enforcement functions of the MMO. I can tell my hon. Friend that the MMO already has a wide suite of enforcement powers. I will get bored with mentioning this Act, but part 8 of the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009 sets out the MMO’s powers. Section 238 gives it powers to enforce fisheries legislation; sections 246 to 254 give it powers of entry, search and seizure; and sections 264 to 287 give it fisheries enforcement powers, such as inspection powers, so the MMO already has a broad suite of powers in current legislation.
Mr Sweeney
Is it not a matter of regret for the Minister that Phil Haslam, the director of operations at the MMO, said its budget has reduced by 60% since its inception? Surely that has had an impact on its operational effectiveness.
George Eustice
The purpose of the Bill is to look forward. The important thing is having the capacity in place should it need to be called on. Currently, two fisheries patrol vessels are typically deployed in English waters. We will be moving to a position where we have access to up to 10 or 11 vessels, and aerial surveillance on top of that. That is a substantial increase in enforcement capacity, should it be needed. It may not be needed, but we do not yet know what scenarios we may face, so as a precaution we built in the capacity we might need.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 9 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 10
Power to grant licences in respect of British fishing boats
Peter Aldous
I will not move amendment 17, because it relates to—shall we say—the West Lothian question relating to fishing.
The Chair
You just need to say it is not moved; there is no need to speak to it. Unless anyone disagrees, I do not think there is any need to debate clause stand part.
Clause 10 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 11 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 12
Power to grant licences in respect of foreign fishing boats
Mr Carmichael
I beg to move amendment 33, in clause 12, page 7, line 32, at end insert—
“(1A) The Secretary of State must publish each year a report on—
(a) the number of licenses granted, and
(b) the country of origin of the boat to which each license is granted.”
To ensure transparency and accountability over the granting of licenses to foreign fishing boats by each relevant national authority.
Clause 12 centres on the power to grant licences in respect of foreign fishing boats. There is concern in the industry—principally on the part of the National Federation of Fishermen’s Organisations—that there is a need for greater transparency in the way and the extent to which that is done. For that reason, my amendment would require the Secretary of State to publish each year a report on the number of licences granted and the country of origin of the boat to which each licence is granted.
Currently, the Bill allows only the political representatives of each of the relevant national authorities to grant licences to foreign fishing boats. The purpose of the amendment is to bring in an element of transparency and accountability. It should not be particularly onerous—I would have thought the administrative procedure would be fairly straightforward—but it would allow the industry to have confidence in the way the system works and prevent, or at least highlight, any abuse of the system, ensuring fair and appropriate use of the powers.
George Eustice
I hope I can reassure right the hon. Gentleman that, in common with a number of similar amendments, the amendment is not necessary but we have nothing to hide in this regard. I anticipate that we would indeed publish the number of licences granted where we were able to, probably as part of the Marine Management Organisation’s annual report, which covers a wide range of issues. I am happy to explore with officials whether a section could be added to the report to include such data.
There is one potential technical flaw with that approach. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, the granting of licences is a devolved matter. We have been working with the devolved Administrations on a sensible and pragmatic approach. In all likelihood, there will be one issue of a licence to foreign vessels granted access to our waters. It will be issued by the Marine Management Organisation, but only with the consent of each devolved Administration. The purpose of that is to remove the pointless duplication of having to issue four separate licences covering each part of the UK for an internationally agreed arrangement to grant a particular cohort of vessels access to our waters.
If that administrative approach holds—the devolved Administrations show no appetite at the moment for issuing lots of separate licences for foreign access—the Marine Management Organisation would indeed have access to that information. If at some point one of the devolved Administrations decided to grant their own licence, the right hon. Gentleman might have to ask his colleagues in other devolved legislatures to table parliamentary questions to seek the answers that he is interested in.
The right hon. Gentleman raises an important point of principle, and I will seek to update the Committee on Report about whether we can include what he asks for as a convention to be included in the annual Marine Management Organisation report. I hope he will not see the need to make it a statutory requirement.
Mr Carmichael
We strike a recurring theme here: the Minister is determined to legislate for happy times. We all hope that happy times will last. By definition, to be a Liberal Democrat is to be an optimist, so I hope more than anybody else that happy times might last. However, the purpose of the legislation is to deal with occasions when there are differences, tensions and disagreements. I do not doubt that the Minister will continue to publish the information in the way that he describes, but it is just about conceivable that the day will come when the Minister is not the Minister and there might be another Minister who will do things very differently. That is why we put these things in statute rather than leaving them to the discretion of individual Ministers.
George Eustice
The right hon. Gentleman is aware that in such circumstances, there would be many other mechanisms available, not least simply tabling a parliamentary question. If the Marine Management Organisation had access to the information since it had issued the said licences, it would be inconceivable that it could avoid answering such a question were it tabled as a parliamentary question.
Mr Carmichael
That is undoubtedly the case, but I said right at the start that the issue is one of transparency and accountability. Such things are best hard-wired into the Bill, rather than being left to the vagaries of the written parliamentary question system. The Minister says he will take the matter away and report back to the Committee at a later stage, so I will not press the amendment to a Division, but, as a caveat to that, I reserve the position with regard to later procedure. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Luke Pollard
I beg to move amendment 63, in clause 12, page 8, line 10, at end insert—
‘(3A) No licence may be granted under this section unless conditions are attached to that licence so as to require the foreign fishing boat to comply with any standards in relation to environmental protection and marine safety that would apply to the same boat if it were a British fishing boat.”
This amendment would require licences granted to require foreign fishing boats to comply with the same environmental protection and marine safety standards as British fishing boats.
Amendment 63 seeks to put into the Bill a common and very serious concern of many of our fishing communities around the country, which is that the regime that might exist after we leave the EU will see one set of rules for UK fishers and potentially another set of rules for EU fishers, because access to our waters will still be on the basis of fixed quota allocations and many foreign boats will still own quota to access UK waters after we leave the UK, and a drawdown period, if one exists, will take a while to achieve. The amendment seeks to create in the Bill the very clear, in stark plain English, description that says that foreign fishing boats should obey the same rules as British fishing boats. It is a principle to which there is huge agreement across the country from Plymouth and Cornwall right up to the north of Scotland. It would not create extra burdens for our EU friends entering UK waters. It would create the same burdens—the same regulatory requirements—to which any UK fisher must adapt.
In particular, the amendment deals with environmental protections and marine safety. It is vital, when it comes to safety, that we do not inadvertently create incentives for foreign boats to cut corners and take risks with their crews that we would not allow on our own boats. We already know from anecdotal evidence that safety standards on different EU countries’ boats are very different. There are different levels of enforcement and compliance with existing regulations.
If we say—rightly, and as the Minister did in the earlier discussion on marine safety—that we want high levels of marine safety for UK boats, we should require the same high levels of marine safety for foreign boats. If we do not, there will be a regulatory gap, potentially, between UK and foreign fishing boats. There will be an efficiency in having lower marine standards, in relation to the cost of compliance for UK and EU fishers. Potentially, a situation could be created where our EU friends might, while fishing in our waters, get into trouble more often because of the lower levels of protection.
The amendment is simple, and would put into the Bill something that fishers across the country want—a clear prescription that EU fishers will obey the same regulations as UK fishers. It is essential to the Bill, and I am surprised that it has not been included. There would, I think, be support for it on both sides of the Committee. I suspect that the Minister will oppose it, and I should be grateful if he set out his reasons for doing so, and explain how the same thing can be achieved by other means. There is concern in fishing organisations because the detail in the Bill includes no such clarity about the same regulatory standards applying to EU and UK fishers.
Mr Sweeney
I support the amendment. Coming from a shipbuilding background with, perhaps, issues not entirely dissimilar to those affecting fisheries, I know the frustration in many industries about having a level playing field and the opportunity to compete on the same basis. That is the reality facing many fishermen in the UK.
Many boats adhere to onerous constraints, such as the environmental standards and safety requirements that govern their operation. That is right, and respects the way we do business. It is therefore only right that all fishing boats operating in British territorial waters should adhere to the same conditions. Not only does that reduce risk to our maritime patrol agencies that would have to intervene in certain scenarios, if people’s safety was at risk; it also improves the environmental situation—and environmental damage would cause damage to many stakeholders in the industry and the country.
For those reasons it is critical that the Minister should include the measure in the Bill. Not only would that safeguard the UK fishing industry and its interests, including in the Western Isles, Fraserburgh, Peterhead and the big commercial areas, but it would ensure that other stakeholders, many of them around the UK coastline, would be protected from the negative effects of incursions by boats that did not adhere to the same standards within UK territorial waters. That would be a very worthwhile thing to do.
George Eustice
I hope that I can persuade the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport that the amendment is unnecessary, because of provisions that already exist. The amendment has two objectives—to get foreign vessels to abide by the same environmental standards as British fishing vessels would need to, and to get them to abide by the same safety standards.
To begin with the first objective, paragraph 1(2)(d) of schedule 2 allows conditions to be imposed
“for the purposes of conserving or enhancing the marine and aquatic environment”.
The Bill therefore includes the power to impose such conditions, detailed in schedule 2. It is absolutely our intention, as we make clear in our White Paper, that any vessel seeking to access UK waters would have to abide by the environmental standards that we set out. However, I caution against saying that they must abide by the same standards as us, because there may be circumstances where we would not want to grant them access to the areas where our fishing vessels can go, or where we might not allow foreign vessels to use particular types of gear where we might allow our own vessels to do so.
Luke Pollard
I have to say to the Minister that I am not reassured by that, and neither are fishing communities up and down the country. They are looking for wording in the Bill that says that EU fishing boats will have the same standards as UK fishing boats because of the widespread perception and reality that, at present, they do not have the same standards. Although I appreciate the Minister’s efforts to explain why there is an existing equivalence, that is not the lived experience of fishers across the UK today.
George Eustice
The cause of that is European law, and the fact that we have to abide by it and sometimes accept certain practices in our waters that we would otherwise choose not to. The premise of the Bill is that when we take control of these matters and have a proper licensing regime, it is for us, and us alone, to determine the conditions that we place on vessels that want to enter our waters. That is not the case now. That is why fishermen feel aggrieved.
Luke Pollard
Indeed they are. Those are fine words, which I wish I had used in my opening remarks, because that is exactly the point of this amendment. As we are now taking back control of our waters, it is up to us to set the standards that we wish the fishers in our community to be governed by. That is why it is important that we include in the Bill a clear set of words that say that EU fishers must abide by the same regulations as UK fishers, because the sense of betrayal, which I spoke about earlier, is not just about giving away access to waters, but about having different rules that they play by. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North East was exactly right about the requirement for a level playing field. There is a real concern among fishers that a level playing field will not be achieved by this Bill. The refusal to put into the Bill clear wording that says that EU fishers must obey the same rules as UK fishers will worry an awful lot of our fishing communities up and down the country. I will therefore not withdraw the amendment, but will press it to a vote.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Fisheries Bill (Seventh sitting)
Thursday 13th December 2018
(5 years, 11 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Fisheries Bill 2017-19 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 13 December 2018 - (13 Dec 2018)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 12 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Chair
I welcome everybody back to this line-by-line consideration of the Fisheries Bill. We start with clause 12, which I think we discussed reasonably well on Tuesday, and I will therefore put the question without further debate.
Clause 12 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 13 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 2
Sea fishing licences: further provision
Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)
I beg to move amendment 64, in schedule 2, page 31, line 16, at end insert—
“(2A) A sea fishing licensing authority must attach to any sea fishing licence appropriate conditions with respect to the safety of the boat and its crew.”
This amendment would require the licensing authority to set appropriate conditions regarding safety when granting a sea fishing licence.
It is good to see everyone back for more fish fun and games. The amendment relates to the conditions attached to a sea fishing licence. As Jerry Percy, who represents the New Under Ten Fishermen’s Association, said in last week’s evidence session:
“Fishing, unfortunately, still carries the record as the most dangerous occupation in the world.”––[Official Report, Fisheries Public Bill Committee, 4 December 2018; c. 39, Q67.]
Just last week, a report came out on the tragic sinking of the Solstice, a trawler from the constituency I represent. It is a tragedy that too many fishermen die each year catching our fish suppers. We touched on safety during our discussions of amendments 41 and 42 to clause 1, “Fisheries objectives”, and schedule 2 provides another opportunity to address the urgent need for improvements to safety in the industry by setting suitable conditions in relation to sea fishing licences.
Yesterday, in the annual fisheries debate—because we have not had enough debates about fishing, so one more was welcome—I paid tribute to all the fishers who lost their lives at sea. Normally the debate starts each year with such tributes, but yesterday it kicked off with an argument over Brexit and fishing. I welcomed the Minister sticking to that convention in his remarks and paying tribute to the six people who died at sea in the past year. It showed his class in not forgetting, or allowing Brexit to overshadow, that important tradition, and I thank him for that.
Returning to amendment 64, fishermen surveyed as part of Seafarers UK’s recent “Fishing for a Future” research publication reported that
“accidents at sea were commonplace”
with many
“having experienced capsized and sinking vessels as well as falling overboard, while over a third reported…injuries received as a result of accidents.”
Others reported an impact on their health as a result of their working conditions. Those research findings are supported by the latest statistics from the Marine Accident Investigation Branch, which revealed that five fishermen died in separate incidents between the months of September and November 2017, while the Sea Fish Industry Authority has identified 535 serious injuries to fishermen in the past 10 years. Sadly, there were six deaths in the past year, as the Minister noted in yesterday’s debate. Back pain and arthritis are common health conditions experienced by fishermen as a consequence of their work environment. Typically, injuries experienced by fishermen surveyed in the “Fishing for a Future” report included
“fractures, partial loss of fingers and fingertips and a lost thumb. While many hand injuries were caused by filleting knife accidents, others were winch or hauler accidents. Jellyfish stings and various crush injuries from equipment such as a clam dredge, pots, net bins,”
and other gear were also reported.
The Opposition would like to use this Bill to make the case for fishing to be a better and safer place to work for all our fishers.
Marine safety is an issue for many small boats because of the pressures on those boats, and because—as we discussed the other day—the 10-metre limit has led to different configurations of fish for strength and capacity, rather than for stability. There seems to be good universal agreement that personal locator beacons attached to lifejackets are good things, but buying new lifejackets with PLBs and registering them involves a cost to fishermen.
Seafarers UK, responding to the fisheries White Paper, made other recommendations, which we also want to flag in relation to the requirements for sea fishing licences. The first of those recommendations is the maintenance of a UK-wide standard for
“fishermen’s health, safety and welfare”
to ensure a commonality of approach among all the UK’s Administrations. The second is the establishment of a successor to the European maritime and fisheries fund to support small-scale, low-impact, inshore fishermen and small fishing ports in making enhancements to vessels, infrastructure and ports, particularly in respect of enhancing safety. I am grateful that the Minister spoke about the money allocated to that in the Budget.
Seafarers UK also recommended that a co-ordinated approach should be developed to training new entrants to the fishing industry to help future generations of fishers to begin their careers in a safe and sustainable manner; that the views of small-scale, low-impact fishermen should be heard during consultations on legislative changes and fisheries management; and that the proposed changes should be financially supported and/or proportionally costed according to their impact on a fisher’s livelihood and their ability to pay. Finally, it recommended that we share the ambition of the Fishing Industry Safety Group and many others to reduce fishing fatalities at sea and in port to zero.
The amendment is about how we can ensure that sea fishing licences take proper regard of the safety considerations that affect the day-to-day lived experience of our fishers. I will be grateful to hear the Minister’s response.
The Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (George Eustice)
We discussed safety under a previous group of amendments. Safety is incredibly important, as fishing is the most dangerous occupation. As the hon. Gentleman said, tragically in the past year six people have lost their lives while fishing to put food on our table, so we absolutely recognise the importance of the issue. As he is aware, this is a priority for my hon. Friend the Shipping Minister, who held a summit with representatives of fishing organisations this summer. The hon. Gentleman will also be aware that in the most recent Budget, the Treasury announced a fund to support investment to help safety at sea. Also, we recently announced additional matched funding for the EMFF fund to support coastal communities and measures including safety improvement.
As I explained in a previous sitting, we do not believe it is necessary to add a safety requirement to a fishing licence for the simple reason that provisions on the safety of any vessel, whether a fishing vessel or another type of vessel, are already covered by the Merchant Shipping and Fishing Vessels (Health and Safety at Work) Regulations 1997, which applies to all domestic vessels. It is not possible for a person to get a fishing licence at all unless they have already crossed that threshold and their vessel has passed a seaworthiness test. In the absence of that, it is not possible to get a fishing licence. That provision has already been made.
As I also mentioned previously, there are some issues with some of the under-10-metre vessels. I described the rather bizarre practice that some people engage in of chopping the end off their boat, selling their quota and then claiming that they are under 10 metres to access the pool. There are some concerns about the resulting stability, so we are looking at a different way of measuring inshore, low-impact fishing vessels—perhaps by looking at vessel size or another measure. Our White Paper highlights that and makes provision for us to consider a better way.
From next year, we will require that an inshore vessel monitoring system be used. The new IVMS system will be a requirement for all smaller vessels. It sends a signal every two minutes, so if there is a problem, the Maritime and Coastguard Agency will easily be able to detect where those vessels are.
Mike Hill (Hartlepool) (Lab)
On a point of clarification, will the IVMS be extended to what would be considered leisure fishing under-10 craft?
George Eustice
No. It will be a requirement for anybody who is engaged in commercial fishing, but there are other systems, including the automatic identification system, which some leisure craft use as a safety device. The IVMS system is for those who are fishing commercially.
Bill Grant (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (Con)
There is merit in this amendment on the safety of those who go to sea, but one wonders whether the Bill is the wrong place for it. I sense that there is need for greater training to embed a health and safety culture in those who go to sea. We have some way to go in that regard.
George Eustice
My hon. Friend makes a very important point. As I said, other pieces of primary and secondary legislation make provision for the seaworthiness and safety of vessels, so it does not need to be a condition of a fishing licence. It is absolutely the case that we need to take safety more seriously. As the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland said in a previous debate, sometimes attitudes to safety are not what they ought to be.
A lot is done by way of training. Seafish runs a number of projects in this area, and there are marine schools around the country. Indeed, when I visited Shetland several years ago with the right hon. Gentleman, we went to a marine school that trains fishermen in safety and vessel handling. We have a number of institutions, establishments and projects that support training, and over the past few years about 500 fishermen have been through those training courses and gone on to enter the industry.
I hope that I have been able to reassure the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport. As I said in our previous debate, we absolutely take safety seriously. He makes an important point, but it is covered already under the merchant shipping and fishing vessels regulations and therefore does not need to be added to the schedule.
Luke Pollard
I am grateful to the Minister for setting out that position. It would be useful if he and his colleagues in the Department for Transport reflected further on certain areas. He spoke about dumpy boats—boats with the ends cut off to get under the 10-metre limit—but another concern on those smaller boats is swapping the type of gear, which can affect stability: gear types might be swapped over without the stability assessment taking place to ensure that the vessel goes to sea safe.
The Minister should also reflect on where EMFF funding goes, to ensure that safety is one of the criteria applied to new sea fishing licensing so that we have the highest standards possible. I know that he is working with DFT colleagues to do that, but the opportunity for us to reset our fishing framework and to have high levels of marine safety is one that we need to seize with both hands, whether it is a Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs responsibility or a DFT one.
I would also be grateful if the Minister continued conversations with his colleague the Shipping Minister, especially to pick up some of the recommendations that have come out of marine accident investigation branch reports that have not yet been implemented by the Government—a number are still outstanding. Further consideration of those recommendations would greatly enhance the marine environment. However, on the basis of the Minister’s response, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Luke Pollard
I beg to move amendment 65 to schedule 2, page 31, line 24, at end insert—
“(6) The conditions attached to any licence must include a national landing requirement prescribed in regulations under section (National landing requirement).”
This amendment would require a ‘national landing requirement’, defined in NC13 to be attached to licence conditions for any boat specifying the percentage of the boat’s catch which must be landed at a UK port.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 13—National landing requirement—
“(1) The national landing requirement is the percentage of the boat’s catch that was caught within British fishery limits in any given quarter which must be landed at a port in—
(a) the UK
(b) the Isle of Man
(c) Guernsey, or
(d) Jersey.
(2) The Secretary of State must by regulations define the national landing requirement for each species in each UK fishing zone, and any such requirement must be not less than 50%, except where the Secretary of State determines it would be inappropriate to have a national landing requirement of 50% or more.
(3) Where the Secretary of State determines that the national landing requirement for any species is to be less than 50%, the Secretary of State must publish the reasons for such a determination.
(4) Regulations under this section are subject to the affirmative procedure.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to set a ‘national landing requirement’ to be attached to licence conditions for any boat specifying the percentage of the boat’s catch which must be landed at a UK port.
Luke Pollard
We have heard from Ministers that we will get more fish as we move from relative stability within the common fisheries policy to zonal attachment outside the CFP. That is welcome and something that the Minister knows the Opposition support as much as Government Members.
Given that we are to get a whole lot more fish, we believe that the Bill misses a trick when a requirement to land fish in UK ports is omitted. For every one job at sea, there are 10 jobs at home in fish processing. Indeed, fish processing is a part of the fishing industry that does not get the attention it deserves—it was briefly mentioned in the annual fisheries debate yesterday, including by my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Melanie Onn)—but we need to talk more about how a new and refreshed fishing framework could provide more jobs on land as well as at sea.
We call on the Government to make it a requirement for anyone fishing under a UK quota to land at least 50% of that catch in a British port, which would support port and fish processing jobs. We also want them to consult on increasing that in line with increased investment in our ports and coastal communities, as and when more capacity can come online. Along with reallocation of quota, which I will speak about later, that would bring about a renaissance in the UK fishing industry. Such a measure would show firm determination to make real the promises of taking back control, and the benefits of a revised fishing framework to help all our coastal communities.
A national landing obligation requiring 50% of fish caught under a UK quota to be landed in a British port could make a real difference to coastal communities. Such communities have been held back by an unfair system, as well as the impact of austerity which, as we know, has been hardest felt in coastal communities such as the one that I represent in Plymouth. They are some of the most beautiful and historical places in the UK, but there is a genuine feeling in those communities that they have been held back and that the system is not working for them. Whether or not Members agree entirely with all the principles expressed in our amendment and new clause, that is a sentiment that anyone representing a coastal town or city will be familiar with.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
The hon. Gentleman is making a valuable point. We have heard evidence about rejuvenating coastal communities, and he has given examples from his constituency. Would the amendment and new clause deliver what he hopes they will deliver? They might lead to additional landings going to existing big ports. Is there not also a risk that they would impinge on devolved settlements by not allowing devolved Governments to set their own landing criteria?
Luke Pollard
In fact, much of the inspiration behind the amendment and new clause came from some of the work by the Scottish Government, who looked at having a Scottish landing obligation to land fish caught under Scottish quotas in Scottish ports. There needs to be agreement with the devolved Administrations that more fish caught under UK quota being landed in UK ports is a good thing and that the benefits can be shared across our United Kingdom.
Fishing is an important source of income for some of the most deprived communities in Europe. West Wales, including Milford Haven, is ranked as the poorest area in Europe. West Cornwall is second; Lincolnshire, including the Grimsby area, comes in fifth; Devon is 13th and Tyne and Wear is 20th, according to Eurostat statistics. Many others are rural areas that have fewer alternative employment opportunities, such as Shetland, Stornoway and Brixham, as we heard in the fisheries debate yesterday.
The amendment could and, I think, would create more jobs in those coastal communities and was backed by Members from all parts of the House speaking on Second Reading. My hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith) said that
“the fishing industry is not just about the catching side; there is still a very important processing and aquaculture industry alongside it…It is an important provider of jobs in…Grimsby…with some 4,200 jobs dependent on the sector. These processing plants also export much of their product into the EU, in a market worth £1.3 billion, where we still enjoy a trade surplus. It is therefore vital in the drive to create world-leading fisheries that processing is not forgotten”.—[Official Report, 21 November 2018; Vol. 649, c. 926.]
My right hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Mr Campbell) said that he believes
“that there is still a strong case for ensuring a link between landings and home port, because it is important to recognise that fishing is more than just about catching fish; there are also issues about the sustainability of ports and port jobs.”—[Official Report, 21 November 2018; Vol. 649, c. 936.]
Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman is making a good point. As we will see during the course of the day, he and I have a lot in common in what we are trying to achieve through the Bill. My concern about the amendment—it was raised just now by the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun—is whether it would just result in more of the opportunities and landings going to those ports with existing infrastructure. I think of the Lowestoft producers organisation, which lands all its fish in the Netherlands or in Peterhead, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Banff and Buchan.
Peter Aldous
Is there not a concern in that situation that those fish might just all be landed by the Lowestoft PO in Peterhead?
Luke Pollard
I thank the hon. Gentleman. Actually, the next line of my speech says, “On the other side of the House my partner in crime, the hon. Member for Waveney said”. I think we are spending far too much time together.
In respect of what the hon. Gentleman has said now and on Second Reading, the economic link policy is important. Fishers want it to be included in the Bill. It needs to be conducted and implemented in conjunction with other policies around building port capacity and supporting smaller ports in particular. We know that the EMFF has been instrumental in driving and refreshing port capacity, such as fuel and ice plants. They are not particularly sexy topics, but they are vital to ensuring that our fishing works. We also know that many of the fish landed at smaller ports might be physically taken off the boat in a smaller port, but they are officially landed when they get to a larger port, where they can go into auctions. That is the case in much of the far south-west, for instance, where fish landed right across the peninsula are taken by truck to Plymouth. The majority of the fish landed in Plymouth are landed by truck rather than by boat. I think the policy that we are discussing needs to be viewed in conjunction with that. None the less, the economic link is a strong one. Indeed, the next line in my notes, under the hon. Gentleman’s speech, is “I could not agree with him more” on some of those things.
Importantly, our amendment has the support of the industry as well. Fishers want the creation of a strong economic link, because of the injustice of seeing fish caught under UK quota by foreign boats—caught, in some cases, within sight of our shores and then exported to foreign countries, where the jobs and the benefits of that economic activity are held by other people, rather than the people in the UK. That is a source of injustice and annoyance for many people across our fishing communities, and that is something that they are hoping the measure will reflect. Indeed, in one of the evidence sessions, we heard from Aaron Brown of Fishing for Leave that he backed this amendment.
I think that this is an aspect of the Bill that the Department overlooked in preparing the text, so I would like to make a sincere offer to the Minister. If he commits to working with the Opposition and the industry to craft a national landing requirement as an amendment to the Bill that he can table on Report, I will not feel it necessary to press this amendment to a vote and have the Minister vote against this most sensible principle. I think we have a real opportunity to create a provision that includes an economic link in the text of the Bill and that hon. Members on both sides of the House will be able to support when it comes to the Bill’s transition.
Owen Smith (Pontypridd) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray. I rise to speak briefly in support of the amendment and new clause tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport. In doing so, I am also reflecting the views of the Welsh Government, who are very supportive of this idea. Complementing the remarks made by hon. Members from the Scottish National party, I think it could be reflected in the way in which subsequent legislation and regulations about both quotas and landing requirements might be applied in Wales and in Scotland.
Milford Haven, which my hon. Friend mentioned, is a classic example of an area of Britain where there was once a thriving fishing industry but there is now significant poverty and absolutely no fishing industry. I do not believe that any boats go out of Milford Haven now, and the only boats operating there with any significance are foreign-owned. There was once a processing industry in the area, not just in Milford Haven but in Pembroke Dock, Aberaeron, Aberporth and, indeed, lots of the villages along Cardigan bay—traditionally one of the richest fisheries off the UK. Small-scale and artisanal in many respects, it has completely disappeared.
If there is any opportunity to effect a renaissance of processing through the landing requirement, the changes to quota and that overall sense of an economic connection in the Bill and at the heart of future legislation, it would be remiss of us not to try to bring that about. I think that this is a very sensible suggestion from the Labour Front Bench and I hope that the Minister will reflect on how important it, or perhaps a similar measure, could be to bringing about a renaissance in the processing industry and in the towns that might thereby survive.
The Chair
My brain has gone completely blank. The hon. Gentleman on the Opposition Front Bench—[Interruption.] It is Mr Sweeney.
The Chair
I apologise, Mr Sweeney. It was one of those moments when I had not realised that you were going to stand.
Mr Sweeney
Thank you for calling me, Mr Gray. I rise in support of my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport and this very well thought through amendment, because it ties in exactly with the coherent position that Labour has had on industrial strategy, which is about maximising the prosperity agenda for the United Kingdom.
We look at vertical integration of the industry. We have to look at the source of fishing, at sea, but also at how the supply chain operates and maximising the industrial benefit for the United Kingdom. That is not simply about the fish processing side; it aims at rejuvenating the whole UK port infrastructure, including boat and ship repair, and shipbuilding, and the associated industries that would benefit from having a tie to particular ports. Smaller ports such as those on the west coast of Scotland have suffered decline, and we can see an opportunity, through the tying of catches to UK ports, to create demand in those ports, generating new activity and industrial growth. That would be a huge benefit for the highlands and islands particularly. They have had significant economic challenges because of their isolation. That needs a focused effort.
Alan Brown
Can the hon. Gentleman explain how the amendment and new clause would rejuvenate ports in the highlands and islands? I do not see the direct link. The point was made earlier that additional landings coming to the UK might still just go through existing big ports.
Mr Sweeney
They would create a framework within which those opportunities could be generated by devolved Administrations. The Scottish Government could augment that. The amendment and new clause would create a fundamental framework that would drive demand into UK ports. That is the opportunity, which would be an important baseline measure in the Bill, and could be developed. We had an interesting debate yesterday on the centenary of the Iolaire disaster, and one of the conclusions was that highland and island communities suffer significant isolation, and that it is important that their distinctive economic and social needs should be met by Parliament. The amendment and new clause would benefit them a great deal.
Mr Carmichael
I have sympathy with the amendment, but I want to add a few words of caution. In my time in Parliament, I have often supported campaigns to land more fish in our own ports. Obviously it is important for the economic viability of coastal ports. My worry about the amendment is that the law of unintended consequences could come into play. Such a requirement would be quite challenging for some of the larger pelagic boats in my constituency. I anticipate that a significant proportion of their catch would probably currently be landed in Norway or Denmark. Essentially, my instinct is that fishing boats should be able to land wherever they get the best price for their fish. If the Government were to put into a Bill something that would limit that ability, it would be a bit of a blunt tool.
David Duguid (Banff and Buchan) (Con)
As the right hon. Gentleman and the Minister know, many of the concerns that the right hon. Gentleman raises would be shared by pelagic fishermen in my constituency as well. Clearly, they can, and choose to, land in Norway, Denmark and other places for economic and logistical reasons. Does he agree that if the Government or the Scottish Government or other devolved Administrations want to encourage the development of local industries, so that such economic and logistical benefits can be realised locally, that would be better than setting an arbitrary percentage limit?
Mr Carmichael
Yes. In essence I agree with the hon. Gentleman about that. When I practised law in his constituency, Macduff was omitted from the list of designated ports. That was virtually the end of—or it was at the time a real threat to—the processing that was done there. When we want to consider building infrastructure—not just landing infrastructure, but ice houses, processing plants and the rest—there are probably other ways we should go first, before doing something as blunt as what is proposed. In relation to this Bill, the National Federation of Fishermen’s Organisations is strongly advocating that we set up advisory councils for fisheries administration, for example. It seems to me that this is exactly the sort of decision that those advisory councils should be tackling, because the fishing industry itself knows best how to deal with that infrastructure.
George Eustice
I will explain some of the background to the existing economic link, because my contention is that the amendment is both unnecessary and potentially unhelpful in that it could frustrate or limit our ambitions to improve that link. A landing requirement is already included on all UK fishing vessel licences as part of our existing economic link condition. Paragraph 1 of schedule 2 to the Bill already includes powers to attach licence conditions requiring the landing of a catch into the UK.
Hon. Members should understand the background. The genesis of the current economic link was an important test case, called the Factortame case, which gained notoriety because, rather shamefully, the European Court effectively held that European law was indeed supreme over laws made by this Parliament. It was a controversial judgment, because it was the first time that people started to realise that membership of the European Union was highly detrimental to our sovereignty. It was only through another notorious case a decade later, the “Metric Martyrs” case, that the judgment of our Supreme Court—I think it was the House of Lords in those days—held that if Parliament explicitly revoked the European Communities Act 1972 or explicitly set aside elements of EU law, Parliament’s supremacy could be restored. Thankfully, we have all voted to trigger the article 50 process, and the EU (Withdrawal) Act 2018 has now passed Parliament and revokes the European Communities Act. That is the background.
After we lost the Factortame case, the Commission held that the UK should benefit from UK quota, so in 1999 we introduced the economic link condition. The current condition, which is attached as a condition on all vessels, says that they must land at least 50% of their catch of quota stocks into UK ports, have at least 50% of their crew normally resident in the UK, spend at least 50% of operating expenditure in UK coastal areas or, finally, demonstrate other real economic links such as contributing some of their quota to the inshore pool. Thus, we already have a comprehensive set of economic links.
We intend to review the economic link to see whether it can be strengthened. Perhaps on certain species it would be appropriate to attach a condition that says the proportion should be higher than 50%—perhaps considerably higher. Earlier this summer I visited the Faroes, and the Faroese Fisheries Minister told me that he had a proposal that said all Faroese vessels must land 80% of their catch into the Faroes. The Faroese Parliament, in its wisdom, decided to move that to 100% of the catch. The difficulty, he explained to me, is that the Faroes now has a problem: its fishermen are sometimes effectively held to ransom by a small number of processors on the Faroes, because they are required by law to land all their fish in the Faroes, which means Faroese fishermen do not always get the price they should get.
That links to a very important point that we heard in evidence from Bertie Armstrong from the Scottish Fishermen’s Federation, also made eloquently by the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland: we want to be able to retain the ability for fishermen to land their fish in the place where they will get the highest price. If there are too many onerous restrictions on landing, on some species fishermen may be put in a position where they can be held to ransom and end up being price takers rather getting a fair price for their catch. I am sure that is not what the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport intends.
I can reassure the hon. Gentleman that the economic link already exists and provides for all the things he seeks to achieve in the amendment, and more besides. We should review and strengthen the economic link as we leave the European Union. We want to do that in collaboration with other parts of the UK; we want to talk to the Scottish in particular, who have strong views, so we can have an agreement for a UK economic link. We need some dialogue with the devolved Administrations, but we must recognise that we should be cautious on some species, since we do not want to put our fisherman at a disadvantage and force them to take lower prices than they could otherwise receive.
I hope, on that basis, the hon. Gentleman will withdraw the amendment. We would be more than happy to share with him some of our thinking about how we could improve and refine the economic link in time for Report.
Luke Pollard
I am grateful for hon. Members’ contributions. It might be helpful to direct the Committee’s attention to new clause 13, especially subsections (2) and (3). It talks about the ability of the Secretary of State to say that some species might not necessarily need to hit 50%, and if so to publish the reasons why. That would address the concerns the Minister raised. The example of the Faroes provides the reason the requirement is not 100%, but at least 50%, with the ability to vary it, should be required.
That is an important consideration because, at the moment, the fishing community does not believe the economic link works in the way the Minister tried to reassure us of. There is a strong sense that, actually, fish caught under UK quotas are not being landed in UK ports and we are not receiving the benefits. That is certainly a sentiment on every quayside, be it in Devon and Cornwall in the west country, through the east coast and up to Scotland.
George Eustice
Does the hon. Gentleman not accept, though, that in 1999 the Labour Government introduced the current economic link, which required 50% of quota stocks to be landed in a perfectly sensible way for 20 years? Given that attaching a condition to a vessel licence has worked for 20 years, why do we need to change that?
Luke Pollard
I simply do not think it is working—it is not carrying the confidence of the industry. Part of the amendment is about being clear to the industry what kind of objectives we want in a revised fishing portfolio. The contributions on Second Reading and the feedback on the White Paper from fishers show that a strengthened economic link is an important part of that.
It is important that we talk about why a strengthened economic link is so important. As the hon. Member for Glasgow North East mentioned, it provides the additional trades and jobs that come from that. The industry’s confidence in that economic link is not there. I invite the Minister to spend more time on the fish quays speaking to fishers about the economic link, because that is not the view that has been expressed to me and my colleagues.
I am slightly disappointed that the Minister did not take up the genuine offer I made to work to find a better form of words. There is a real sense that this provision should be better than it is at the moment. I would be very happy to see if, on Report, we can strengthen that economic link in the schedule. At the moment, 50% is required. The Minister seeks not to allow any changes in our quota allocation after we depart the EU unless they are better than we currently have—we will come to that. The same principle of getting a better deal than we have at the moment should apply to the economic link. If the Minister wants to work with us to improve schedule 2 to include “at least 50%”, I will be happy to work with him. As he is looking at me blankly, I suspect he has not been given permission to do so. I will therefore press the amendment to a vote.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Luke Pollard
I beg to move amendment 66, in schedule 2, page 31, line 24, at end insert—
‘(6) Conditions attached to any sea fishing licence must include a prohibition on the use of any form of electric pulse beam trawl fishing.”
This amendment would require sea fishing licences to prohibit electric pulse beam trawl fishing.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 92, in clause 14, page 8, line 21, after “11(5)” insert
“or section (Ban on electric pulse fishing)”
New clause 9—Ban on electric pulse fishing—
“A person commits an offence if they use, in order to catch fish, any form of electric pulse fishing technology on towed or otherwise mobile equipment within British fishery limits.”
Luke Pollard
The amendment relates to creating a licence restriction that prohibits any form of electric pulse beam trawling in UK waters. We have heard in previous debates about that form of fishing and we have an opportunity in this Bill to set a clear direction that we do not accept it. It needs to appear in the Bill rather than as a commitment so that we send a clear message to our EU friends and anyone thinking about that type of fishing that it is not something the UK Parliament will accept.
The amendment aims to prohibit a form of fishing currently taking place in UK waters that is known to cause excess harm to our marine life and could have widespread negative effects that have yet to be adequately researched. Members will likely be aware that electric pulse beam fishing uses electrodes attached to nets to send electrical signals to the surface of the seabed, driving some fish into the nets. Although fishing with electricity has been banned in the EU since 1998, in 2007 an exception was made for electric pulse beam fishing, ostensibly to allow some boats to test the impact on fish stocks and the ocean ecosystem. It is currently centred on the Dutch fleet. According to some of the latest figures, 84 Dutch vessels use that method, but as we heard on Second Reading from my partner in crime, the hon. Member for Waveney, that is now up to nearly 100 vessels. We need to act now on this form of fishing, before it becomes more widespread and is seen as irreversible and as a standard for fishing to adopt. The Government have a choice with this amendment. I hope they will side with the environment and small-scale fishermen against that type of fishing and not with those who promote that untested and expensive new technology.
The Marine Conservation Society’s head of fisheries and aquaculture has made it clear that such a form of fishing cannot currently be permitted on a large scale if we are serious about protecting marine life. He said:
“There remain large gaps in understanding on impacts to other species and processes, especially after long-term exposure. The method is also known to break the vertebrae of large cod and it’s unclear if similar damage could be inflicted on other large animals.”
I invite the Committee to think for a moment about what it means to break the vertebrae of large cod in a marine environment and the physical force needed to break the vertebrae of large cod if it were due to electrical impacts. It is clearly a form of fishing that causes distress and harm. There are particular concerns about the magnitude of the fishing currently using this method. The MCS added:
“We’re not talking about a minor modification to net configuration—we’re talking about the industrial scale use of electricity on the seabed.”
It is not a test-bed fishery. It is now a de facto commercial fishery and we need to be aware of it.
Bill Grant
I have two concerns about a blanket ban. I sense that there is a degree of evidence, but we need to be absolutely certain about that evidence and the damage that the method is alleged to be doing before we comprehensively ban it. My other concern is whether there is a risk it might dilute the authority rightly placed with the devolved Governments. The Scottish Government are trialling electric pulse fishing in the Firth of Clyde. There have been some land-based objections, strangely enough, but do we risk taking away the powers that are rightly devolved to the various Administrations if we put a blanket ban on it?
Luke Pollard
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I think there is a clear understanding in fishing communities that we should not be encouraging electric pulse beam trawling. There is a big distinction between a sensible trial that seeks to get scientific data and what we have now in UK waters, especially off the east coast of England, where we have a de facto commercial fishery, fishing at scale using this method and potentially causing huge environmental damage. I take his point about science and evidence, but that commercial fishery has existed for more than a decade.
Luke Pollard
My hon. Friend makes a very good point. I would personally go further, but he makes a very good case for a precautionary ban, as has been imposed by a number of other countries. It is worth bearing in mind that the EU has already banned electric pulse beam trawling, but has allowed the trial. In setting a new framework for fishing after we leave the European Union, certain types of fishing gear and methodologies should be outlawed. We should make the case that we will not accept certain things in our waters, electric pulse beam fishing being one of them.
The stated objective of my party in relation to the Bill is to ensure that UK fishing has the most sustainable fisheries in the world. That means not only having the rules in place, and the enforcement, incentives and backing of the industry, but making clear statements that set the tone and approach for sustainable fishing. I want the message from the Committee to be that we stand united in banning electric pulse beam trawling because of its environmental impacts, and we support the fishing communities that want it to be banned. I ask the Minister to agree with that, to ensure that there is no division here between the Government and Opposition parties.
Electric pulse fishing is extremely lucrative. One study financed by the Dutch Ministry of Economic Affairs found that Dutch fishermen using standard beam trawlers broke even in 2014, while their electrically powered competitors earned a whopping €17 million. That is a huge difference, and it is a very powerful interest to go up against, but conservation means nothing if we are unwilling to go against well-financed groups intent on exploiting our natural environment and causing severe damage to our marine environment. I hope that all Members will take that concern on board, and support the amendment.
Peter Aldous
It is a pleasure to serve again under your chairmanship, Mr Gray. I will speak to amendment 92 and new clause 9 in my name, which relate to electric pulse fishing.
As we heard from the Opposition spokesman, pulse fishing is the process by which commercial trawlers, towing electrodes, emit bursts of electricity into the seabed to force out fish such as flatfish, shrimp, sole and plaice buried in the mud. The electric shock makes the fish convulse and flip upwards into the trawler’s net. The method is not used by British-owned vessels; it is practised largely by the Dutch in the North sea, often in British waters. They argue that pulse fishing is better for the environment than traditional trawling and, as we have heard, they have issued permits for up to 100 pulse trawlers to operate. They point out that pulse trawlers use up to 46% less fuel and catch 50% less unwanted marine life than other trawlers.
However, the practice is strongly opposed by English and French fishermen, who have seen its devastating impact at first hand. Moreover, there is a lack of scientific evidence to justify it generally, although the Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science is carrying out extensive ongoing research. The feedback I receive from East Anglian fishermen is that pulse trawling has a devastating effect on the marine environment. They find dead fish left behind with broken backs. The practice rips up life on the seabed surface and uses large scouring devices to extract buried fish, damaging underlying sediment. The practice is indiscriminate and is destroying a variety of marine life and ecosystems, particularly in the North sea.
As we have heard, pulse fishing is technically illegal in the EU, the US and China. However, an exemption allows EU countries to catch up to 5% of their annual fishing quota in the North sea using what are termed “innovative” methods in the name of research. For some reason, pulse fishing is one of those methods. In January, the European Parliament voted to ban commercial fishing using an electric current in EU waters. The amendment calling for a total ban on pulse fishing was passed by 402 votes to 232, with 40 abstentions, although the ban has not yet come into place.
I summarise my thoughts as follows. First, in pursuing the precautionary approach, given the clear evidence of its devastating impact, pulsing should not take place at all. The Dutch argue that they are conducting a trial. In practice, it is no such thing. They have set up a whole industry based on a completely inappropriate fishing practice. They have exploited a loophole in the common fisheries policy and EU regulations for their own commercial advantage. There must be no such loopholes in our UK fishing policy, for which the Bill will provide the framework.
Secondly, pulse fishing has a devastating impact both at sea and on land. It destroys the marine environment and takes fish that should be caught and landed by UK fishermen and processed in Britain back to the Netherlands, and then, absurdly, often back to the UK for sale.
Thirdly, although the practice still takes place, it has been condemned and voted down by the European Parliament. The UK Parliament should do likewise. In some respects, I accept that primary legislation such as this Bill may well not be the right place for such a ban on a specific practice. However, we need to send a clear message right from the outset that there is no place for electro-pulse fishing in the future management of UK waters when we leave the EU and when the Bill, which I assume will receive Royal Assent, comes into effect. The Minister and I have spoken at length on this matter over the last few months. I am grateful to him for doing that. In answering, can he provide me with an assurance that electro-pulse fishing stops immediately that we leave the EU and the Bill comes into force? If he cannot, I believe the ban needs to be on the face of the Bill.
Mr Carmichael
I think it is fairly well known in the House that I am essentially a simple soul. I lead my life according to some basic rules, from which I do not depart. One of them is to never mix water and electricity. No good ever comes of it. This amendment touches on one other example of that basic truth, from which we should not depart. It is quite remarkable that occasionally the industry manages to throw up new, innovative ways of doing things that are self-evidently wrong.
When I was first elected to this House, one of the biggest complaints from the industry at that time was the operation of the Danish industrial fishery in the North sea hoovering up just about anything that was in the water, with mesh sizes in the region of 2 mm or 3 mm. It was as unsustainable a fishing method as one could imagine, and it was rightly stopped—eventually. This is another such example. It is self-evident that this sort of thing should not be allowed. The precautionary principle, about which the hon. Member for Waveney spoke, is absolutely the right approach to take. Whether that needs to done through primary legislation is another matter, but we have primary legislation. This is the first time in my 17 and a half years as a Member of Parliament that we have had a specific fishing Bill. Since we have it, why do we not use it?
George Eustice
This is an important issue, which I have discussed many times with my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney. I want to explain the arguments that advocates of pulse trawling put forward, the arguments against it, and my position and the one we have therefore adopted within the EU at the moment, as well as how I tend to address this issue. I think I have a solution that may be even faster than the passage of the Bill.
The advocates of pulse trawling make a reasonable argument that conventional beam trawling literally drags a chain across the seabed, destroying and crushing everything in its path, to get flat fish to jump up into the nets, whereas a pulse beam trawler does not drag a chain across the floor of the seabed, but hovers above the seabed and sends the electric pulse down. There is evidence that this type of fishing uses less fuel, so the carbon footprint of fishing vessels using this method is lower.
However, the opponents—I am one—point to a number of other problems. First—this is why fishermen in my hon. Friend’s constituency are so concerned—although pulse trawling does not disturb the seabed to the same extent as conventional beam trawling, it makes it possible to fish areas that could not otherwise be fished. Paradoxically, the ability to fish parts of the ocean where conventional gear types could not have gone means that areas of the seabed that might have been seen as a sanctuary for some flat fish, because it was technically not possible to fish them, can now be fished. That increases fishing pressure, because there are more vessels able to catch more fish in more areas, more quickly.
Secondly, as my hon. Friend pointed out, there are lots of anecdotal reports of gadoids, in particular cod, having their backs broken by this technique. There is evidence from some of the tank studies that it can affect the navigation of some fish. The electric pulse can disturb their navigation and affect their ability to feed and migrate. The third problem is that we do not really know what impact the electric pulse might be having on smaller organisms—young fry, small lobsters, eggs and other types of early-developing sea life. We do not know the full impact of that, and there are concerns that it could be having a detrimental effect, breaking the food chain and therefore causing other problems.
Peter Aldous
I am grateful to the Minister for looking into that, and for the work he has done and the solution he outlines. I must say that, at face value, it appears to address my concerns and I believe the shadow Minister’s concerns also, although he will give his views in a moment. On that basis, I am prepared not to press my amendment or new clause to a vote, but I put the Minister on notice that, if his solution has not happened by the time we get to Report, I will take the matter up again. I am grateful to him for taking this seriously, because off the East Anglian coast people are absolutely livid about it. It is creating havoc and it must be addressed. I have met the Dutch Government, who were very pleasant, but it is clear that they will carry on until they are told to stop, and we must tell them to stop as soon as possible.
Luke Pollard
I am grateful to the Minister, who, as has just been mentioned, has clearly put a lot of thought and effort into looking at how this practice can be banned. If the statutory instrument is indeed laid in January before Report, that gives us an opportunity to consider all the detail. However, if that is insufficient, the amendment will be coming back on Report. The Minister specifically spoke about foreign boats in relation to this matter, but according to Marine Management Organisation figures there are 11 boats in the UK that were initially equipped with electric pulse beam trawling equipment, and three of them are still equipped with it. Can he confirm whether the SI that he mentioned would include UK boats as well?
George Eustice
There are currently six UK-registered vessels that are licensed to use the derogation. Only three currently do. I think they are Scottish vessels, and the Scottish Government have their own particular view on this, but only three UK vessels use it. If we were serious about doing a genuine scientific experiment to explore this further, doing so with three vessels would make sense. If we then wanted a total prohibition with no scientific exemption at all, we have plenty of powers in the Bill, once it is passed, to do precisely that. I believe the overwhelming pressure here is coming from those 84 Dutch vessels, and if we can deal with that, we will have solved the problem.
Luke Pollard
I am grateful for that answer. On the basis of the Minister’s commitment to lay the SI in January and to ensure that it is sufficiently robust to address the concerns that both the hon. Member for Waveney and the Opposition have suggested, I am happy to withdraw the amendment. However, I give notice that it will be coming back if the SI is not sufficiently robust to address those concerns. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Peter Aldous
I beg to move amendment 22, in schedule 2, page 31, line 24, at end insert—
“1A The Marine Management Organisation must, within one week of a sea fishing licence being issued in respect of a foreign fishing boat, publish—
(a) any conditions attached to that licence, and
(b) the estimated monetary value of that licence.”
There is concern that there are no provisions in the Bill that foreign vessels must comply with the same standards as UK vessels. Access by foreign vessels to UK waters should be contingent on compliance with the same environmental standards that are applicable to UK vessels, to ensure a level playing field and a high level of environmental protection. I raised this concern on Tuesday when speaking to amendments 21 and 83 and new clause 8. That said, I would welcome the Minister’s reassurance that this is not what I would describe as the Bill’s Achilles’ heel.
Luke Pollard
Again, the hon. Member for Waveney has raised a good point about an issue on which we need greater transparency, to continue the theme we touched on with amendment 33. On that basis, the Opposition concurs with him.
George Eustice
I will take this opportunity to explain how the current licensing system works. I think I can reassure my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney that what he seeks to achieve is already in the public domain and published on the MMO website.
The UK has three different types of licence: categories A, B and C. In most cases, a category A licence is used, which is issued to both under-10 metre and over-10 metre vessels and allows them to fish for specific quota and non-quota species. Licences for certain other species, such as shellfish or deep-sea stocks, are granted in addition to, rather than instead of, that category A licence. Conditions attached to the licence set out the specific requirements to which the vessels must adhere, such as the economic link requirement and reporting obligations. Conditions related to different fisheries indicate the species that can be fished and the area where they can be fished.
The licences and conditions are already published, on the MMO website. When foreign vessel licences and associated conditions have been agreed, they will be published on the Government’s website and so will be accessible to the public, as they are now through the MMO website. The MMO already publishes on its website the conditions it places on English licence holders.
Our intention is for foreign licences to be time-limited and definitely not tradeable—another issue that my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney was concerned about—so there is no prospect of a foreign vessel licence accruing a monetary value. The other matters on which he sought assurance are already published by the MMO.
Peter Aldous
I am grateful to the Minister for his response and for clarifying the matter. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Luke Pollard
I beg to move amendment 75, in schedule 2, page 34, line 19, leave out “negative” and insert “affirmative”.
The observant in Committee will have noticed that this amendment is similar to amendments 23, 70, 71, 76 and 77, but we have not yet reached those. Members will not have to endure this speech six times; they need not worry—I have six separate speeches.
The amendment might seem rather esoteric and, I dare say, boring, techy or legalistic, but it is an important part of how much transparency the new fisheries regime after we leave the EU will have, and how much scrutiny will be given. We have previously tested this important issue with the Minister, on the Agriculture Bill. The negative procedure is provided for in several places throughout this Bill. The Labour party was concerned about that during the passage of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, and we have not stopped worrying about where it sits in this Bill. Curiously, there are far fewer instances of the negative procedure in this Bill than in the Agriculture Bill. That is welcome.
The Bill also has a higher proportion of duties than powers. The opposite was the case in the Agriculture Bill, so some of our scrutiny of and pressure on the Minister has had some effect. The House of Lords Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee reports on both Bills helpfully drew attention to how they had been drafted differently, even though they were produced by the same Department and are the responsibility of the same Minister—he is a lucky gentleman to be covering so many important issues. That is curious, to say the least, and perhaps points to the enormous pressure that the Government’s approach to Brexit places on officials and Ministers.
I acknowledge that the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee report on the Bill was very kind to Ministers. It stated that of the 15 delegated powers in the Bill, “only four” were governed by the negative procedure and, according to the Committee, “justifiably so”. We seem to have identified two more instances than that Committee did, and we do not necessarily agree that all six are justifiable—hence our six amendments for a move to the affirmative procedure instead.
We believe that enhanced scrutiny is an important part of the process, so it should not simply go through on the nod. The amendment is concerned with regulations that might impose charges, so it is particularly important to consider the level of scrutiny. I would be grateful if the Minister would address those points.
George Eustice
As the hon. Gentleman has highlighted, the Government believe that in this Bill we have struck the right balance between the need for parliamentary scrutiny and the need to be able to react quickly. As he pointed out, although the Lords Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee was rather critical of the number of negative resolution powers the Government sought in the Agriculture Bill, it gave us a glowing report with respect to the Fisheries Bill. It said:
“Of the Bill’s 15 delegated powers that have a parliamentary procedure, only four are solely governed by the negative procedure, and justifiably so”,
so our approach to those powers has that Committee’s support.
Luke Pollard
I am grateful to the Minister for those clarifications. In the time he took to respond, I managed to chop up my speech into seven small component parts, so we can revisit those points later. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Chair
My instinct is that we have had sufficient debate on schedule 2.
Schedule 2 agreed to.
Clause 14
Penalties for offences
Peter Aldous
I beg to move amendment 93, in clause 14, page 8, line 21, after “11(5)” insert
“or section (Ban on sandeel fishing)”.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss
New clause 10—Ban on sandeel fishing—
“A person commits an offence if they fish with the intent of catching any species in the genus Ammodytes.”
Peter Aldous
The amendment and new clause relate to sand eel fishing. The amendment raises similar issues to those we have debated on electric pulse fishing. I will not press the amendment or the new clause to a Division, but I raise the matter in order to highlight the importance of pursuing an ecosystem-based approach to future management of fishery stocks. I am particularly grateful to the RSPB, the Angling Trust and Fishing for Leave for their guidance and advice.
The sand eel, which is a small, energy-rich shoaling fish, is a key prey species for many seabirds, underpinning the breeding success of terns, kittiwakes and puffins. Sand eels are also eaten in large numbers by harbour porpoises, other sea mammals and commercially important table fish, such as cod, whiting and mackerel. As such, the sand eel plays a pivotal role in the food web between the primary productivity of plankton and the top predators.
Diminishing abundance of sand eels, however, in combination with other pressures in the marine environment, has driven a major decline in the UK’s seabird population. In Scotland, 12 indicator seabird species were 50% less numerous in 2015 than they were in 1986. To address that impact, in 2000 the EU created a closed area of 20,000 sq km extending offshore from the coast of north-east Scotland to Northumberland. It is a box that keeps the Danish sand eel fishing fleet, which has almost all the EU sand eel quota, away from sensitive seabed colonies. This industrial seabed fishery continues elsewhere in the North sea, mainly on the Dogger Bank, of which the UK part is a key focal area for the fleet. RSPB research indicates that the Dogger Bank fishery could have a detrimental impact on kittiwake productivity on the adjacent Yorkshire coast.
Related to that, the sand eel stock assessment model used by the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea to set EU catch limits does not address the needs of seabirds, cetaceans or other marine wildlife when setting levels of commercial exploitation of sand eels, such that insufficient sand eel is set aside for the wider ecosystem. In failing to cater adequately for the needs of seabirds and other marine wildlife, the management of the fishery at present falls short of meeting an ecosystem-based approach.
To improve the situation, the RSPB suggests three alternatives, the first of which is stopping sand eel fishing in UK waters. The UK could champion that approach as an exemplar in pursuing an eco-based system. That is already done off the US coast. There would be very limited financial cost to UK commercial fishing, though there is the risk of reciprocal denial by Denmark of UK fishing opportunities in Danish waters for white fish. I am also mindful of advice provided by the Angling Trust that there are five species of sand eel in UK waters, all with the genus Ammodytes. The only one that has generated widespread concern is the industrial fishery for Ammodytes marinus in the North sea.
The other four species are subject to very small levels of fishing mortality. Ammodytes tobianus is the species targeted for bait—both commercial and recreational—and it is estimated that the combined landings of both anglers and fishermen who catch their own and commercial catches are no more than 50 tonnes a year across the whole UK. The Angling Trust is concerned that the provisions would prevent anglers from fishing for tobianus to use as bait, as well as having a hugely negative impact on businesses in the angling bait market, such as the market leader, Ammodytes, a Cornwall-based company that catches and processes Ammodytes tobianus for the bait and aquarium markets.
The second option is to make the total allowable catch of sand eel more precautionary by reducing fishing mortality, leaving at least one third of the stock for the provisioning needs of seabirds, cetaceans and other marine wildlife. The third and final alternative is to extend the existing sand eel closed area south to Yorkshire and the Humber, to cover the Dogger Bank area.
I am conscious that I have probably delayed Committee members’ lunch, but I believe that how we manage sand eel fishing provides an extremely relevant case study as to how future UK fisheries can be managed in a sustainable and environmentally sensitive way, adopting an eco-based approach. I would welcome the Minister’s view of how he sees the system operating in practice according to the Bill’s provisions.
Luke Pollard
Following the hon. Gentleman’s speech, we are all now aware of the humble sand eel, which is an important component of food webs in the north Atlantic. It is at the bottom of the marine food chain and is part of the diet of cod, mackerel, porpoises and seabirds such as Arctic terns and kittiwakes, especially in breeding season.
We also need to be aware of research led by the British Trust for Ornithology and the Joint Nature Conservation Committee that indicates that populations of kittiwakes, terns, fulmars and shags are impacted by sand eel farming in the North sea. Those conservationists are concerned that the boats that catch thousands of tonnes of sand eels each year to be turned into animal feed and fertiliser deprive seabirds of a vital source of food.
We have heard calls for a ban on sand eel fishing in the central North sea, most recently from the Fishing for Leave representative in our evidence session, but we would like more evidence about the practice. I would be grateful if the Minister dealt with how we can pick up the points raised by the hon. Member for Waveney but also ensure there is sufficient scientific evidence and understanding of the stock baseline for sand eels, which seem at the moment to be missing from the debate.
Mr Carmichael
Anyone seeking evidence of the issue the hon. Member for Waveney raised is more than welcome to come and visit us in Orkney or Shetland and look at the cliffs. Cliffs that were once white with seabirds and other things—evidence of seabirds—are often empty at times of the year when they should be full. That causes enormous concern in our community. It is a good example of the way an ecosystem-based approach can bring benefits to the community beyond the fishing industry. Nature tourism is one of the liveliest and most rapidly growing sectors in our local economy, and it is a welcome boost. The sand eel fishery self-evidently has been a foolish enterprise for many years, and I very much endorse the hon. Gentleman’s comments and his efforts to end it.
George Eustice
My hon. Friend the Member for Waveney, having got important concessions on the Dutch fleet, turns his attention to taking on the Danes. As he knows, sand eels are a shared stock, but about 90% of the sand eels caught in the UK’s exclusive economic zone are caught by the Danish fleet around Dogger Bank, although Sweden also has some interest in this area.
We are giving consideration to the issue, but, as my hon. Friend acknowledges, access to the sand eel stock is the most important access that Denmark receives from the UK, so we will have to consider it in the context of our annual fisheries exchanges. There is a full data assessment for the stock, and ICES provides annual recommendations for a TAC on sand eels in the Dogger Bank area. In recent years, with the exception only of 2016, the TAC has been set in line with ICES recommendations.
The issue with a unilateral ban on the fishing of all sand eels in all UK waters is that we would be likely simply to displace that fishing activity, so there would be unsustainable catches of sand eels in waters outside the UK EEZ. However, my hon. Friend highlighted a number of measures we could consider to address that. First, as he pointed out, the so-called Wee Bankie sand eel fishery has been closed since 2000. As we leave the EU, I certainly would like to explore whether we could consider a similar closure in a particular area to try to protect the sand eel population closer to shore, where birds are more likely to be, so they have a food source.
The second approach to which my hon. Friend alluded is to do something more akin to what we do in some shellfish sectors. We have a principle in cockle fisheries of reserving a proportion of cockles for wading birds so we do not deprive them of a food source. Local inshore fisheries and conservation authorities take into account the needs of wild birds when setting catch limits for cockles. Given the way ICES advice is generated, based as it is on maximum sustainable yield, it tends not to place great weight on such considerations, but there is no reason why, in the context of future UK-EU bilateral negotiations, we should not seek to argue that there should be more restraint on species such as sand eels where they have an important role as a food source for birds.
This is a complex area, and some scientists would say that it is not just sand eels that are used but other species, too. However, I am certainly happy to say that we will look at it, and I hope my hon. Friend does not feel the need to press the amendment to a vote.
Peter Aldous
I am grateful to the Minister for that explanation and for the reassurance he provided. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 14 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Iain Stewart.)
Fisheries Bill (Ninth sitting)
Monday 17th December 2018
(5 years, 11 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Fisheries Bill 2017-19 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 17 December 2018 - (17 Dec 2018)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Chair
I welcome colleagues to a potentially full Monday.
Clause 23
Discard prevention charging schemes
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
I beg to move amendment 103, in clause 23, page 13, line 28, at end insert—
“(c) where monies raised through a charging scheme are spent.”
To bring transparency over use of money raised through a charging scheme, and to allow for it to be argued for a revenue to be ringfenced to be spent on research and investment in the industry.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 104, in clause 23, page 14, line 7, at end insert—
“(8) The Secretary of State must publish a report every year that reviews the charging scheme. This review will include—
(a) the amount of revenue raised through the scheme, and
(b) the use of revenue raised through the scheme.”
To require the Secretary of State to publish an annual review of the charging scheme.
Mr Carmichael
It is a pleasure to be back here under your chairmanship, Mr Hanson. If you will indulge me, I will say a brief word about the conduct of the Committee’s business, which has been exemplary so far. We have managed to get through a lot of business. Nobody has taken too long, but we have managed a thorough exploration of the issues. You might be aware, Mr Hanson, that this week is significant for fishing communities, coinciding as it does with the advent of the annual December Fisheries Council in Brussels. Many of us here represent fishing communities and we know the importance of having the best possible representation at the highest possible level from our own Government. It is a fairly common view within our communities that the Minister should be there in attendance if possible. We therefore wish to finish the business of the Committee tonight if possible. Obviously, the matter is of long-term importance, but, for the communities that we represent, what happens in Brussels in the next day or two will be significant.
The Chair
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his comments, but it is a matter for every member of the Committee to determine when we complete our business. Sittings are planned until Wednesday, but if Members restrain themselves, completing business tonight could be achieved.
Mr Carmichael
Indeed, Mr Hanson. I will simply say this: not only from the point of view of those of us who represent fishing communities, but from the point of view of Parliament as a whole, it will do no harm for MPs to be seen at least in this regard as behaving like mature grown-ups.
The Committee will be aware that clause 23 seeks to introduce a discard prevention charging scheme for those who, for whatever reason, have taken over-quota fish. The amendments try to add a little more focus to that. Amendment 103 allows for the money taken from these finds to be ring-fenced and a specific purpose for the money to be identified. The specific purpose that I have in mind relates to fisheries management, conservation, and perhaps maritime or marine environmental schemes—measures of that sort. Given the general nature of the Bill, and with a view to the durability of the legislation, we have not sought to tie the hands of any future Minister with regard to what that specific purpose might ultimately be. It is a fairly novel approach to a scheme of this sort, but it is not without precedent.
The precedent that springs most readily to mind is the aggregates levy, which allowed money to be ring-fenced for spending in communities situated next to aggregate excavation quarries because they were in some way affected by the industry. It would be a very good signal to send, and such a measure would bring about a bit of confidence in the industry itself with regard to how the discard prevention charging scheme is administered.
Amendment 104 would make provision for an annual review to account for the money raised and how it has been spent. That would follow on naturally from amendment 103—if the Committee were minded to incorporate such a measure. It is an important point, but not one that at this stage, subject to what I might hear from the Minster, I intend to push to a vote.
Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)
It is good to see everyone back here. I think we all agree that discards should be prevented, and we all want more sustainable forms of fishing, but the discard ban that will kick in on 1 January worries fishers from Cornwall and Plymouth to Peterhead and Fraserburgh. They worry that their boats will be tied up because the ban will prevent them from going to sea.
We need a system that prevents discards and means fish caught without a quota are not wasted, chucked overboard or discarded. We heard in our evidence sessions from Aaron Brown of Fishing for Leave, who feels there are major problems with this part of the Bill. Helen McLachlan, and Debbie Crockard of the Marine Conservation Society, referred to the uncertainty about the consequences—intended and, importantly, unintended —of the scheme. Even Dr O’Brien did not entirely convince us that he knew how the scheme would work.
The amendments tabled by the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland seem entirely sensible, but we are not convinced that the Government have suddenly found the right answer. It undermines this enabling Bill to set out the scheme in such detail without any scope for piloting or consultation to see what works and to develop the detail of the scheme in collaboration with fishers and marine conservation organisations.
I therefore would be grateful if the Minister answered a few questions about this part of the Bill. Where did the basis for the scheme come from? Are there any precedents in other countries? What evidence did the Department draw on when designing the scheme? What industry views were sought, what opinions were given, and how were they taken into account? Why does the Department consider that it is not appropriate to conduct a pilot or trial to test the key elements of the scheme before it is enshrined in primary legislation? Under the scheme, what will happen to the fish that are landed? How will the Department avoid requiring fishers to go to and from harbour to land fish, thereby increasing their carbon footprint?
The Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (George Eustice)
It is, perhaps, pertinent that the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland raised the December Council, since it will be dominated by the issue of choke species and making the discard ban work in practice. I can briefly reassure him that I joined our delegation by conference call at eight this morning and again at two, and I plan to be on the first train out there tomorrow, when the substantive negotiations will take place. In the meantime, my noble Friend Lord Gardiner is covering proceedings.
We looked at the idea of a discard prevention charging scheme because we all know, as we approach the final year of the landing obligation, that there are challenges with making it work as far as choke species are concerned. The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport, asked whether there is precedent for such a scheme. Iceland and New Zealand both have similar schemes, with a kind of overage charge.
I was attracted to that idea because it is rather similar to what we did when we first introduced dairy quotas. Initially, if a farmer went over his quota for milk production, he had to pour the milk down the drain—he could not sell it at all. The super levy was then developed, which meant he could sell it but there would be no economic value to him for producing it. We seek to do something similar here. We will establish a national reserve of quota to underpin the discard prevention charge. Rather than coming up with lots of complex rules, like we have now, to try to find exemptions or other de minimis ways of managing the discard ban, we want to ensure that there is no financial incentive for fishermen to target those fish. However, we do not want to prevent them from landing those fish should they run into stocks they had sought to avoid.
The shadow Minister also asked about consultation. This idea was set out in some detail in our White Paper. Since the White Paper was published, my officials have travelled the country—they have visited fishing communities from Newlyn right up to the north of Scotland—to talk to the industry about the plans we have outlined. I think it is fair to say that the industry recognises that there are many challenges with making the discard ban and the landing obligation work in practice as well as in theory. That is why it is open to this approach, which has a proven track record in some countries.
Finally, the shadow Minister mentioned that we had put the scheme in the Bill without having a pilot or any detailed consultation. I reassure him that clause 23(1) is clear that this will be done through regulations. Before we lay those regulations, we absolutely will consult thoroughly with the industry to ensure that we get the scheme design right. I also reassure him that it is absolutely my intention that we will pilot the scheme before rolling it out nationally. It is obviously quite an important policy and will be quite an important departure from the scheme we have now, and we want to make sure that we have the design right. I hope that, having given that reassurance, the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland will not feel the need to press the amendments to a vote.
Mr Carmichael
I am not entirely sure that the Minister embraced the substance of the amendments—that the money raised by this scheme could be ring-fenced, and that there should be some reporting mechanism or accountability for it. I am not trying to be difficult. Perhaps the Minister would like to intervene on me?
George Eustice
I did indeed miss out a part of my notes. I reassure the right hon. Gentleman that we are absolutely committed to transparency, and that existing Treasury rules require us to publish this information. Under the Government Resources and Accounts Act 2000, the Treasury has already directed the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to prepare, for each financial year, consolidated resource accounts detailing the resources acquired, held or disposed of, and the Department’s use of resources during the year. If the intention behind the amendment is that the money should be ring-fenced for conservation purposes, that is set out in clause 27(3)(c).
Mr Carmichael
I am grateful to the Minister for that helpful intervention. I and others strongly suspected that the Treasury would be the least fond of this proposal. The Minister has confirmed those suspicions. However, that is not an unreasonable explanation, and on that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
George Eustice
I think we covered the key issues of the clause when I set out the purpose and the thinking behind the charging scheme.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 23 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 24
Meaning of “chargeable person” and “unauthorised catch of sea fish”
Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)
I beg to move amendment 94, in clause 24, page 14, line 17, after “Organisation” insert
“or an Inshore Fisheries and Conservation Authority”.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 95, in clause 24, page 14, line 23, after “Organisation” insert
“or an Inshore Fisheries and Conservation Authority”.
Amendment 96, in clause 24, page 14, line 26, after “Organisation” insert
“or an Inshore Fisheries and Conservation Authority”.
Amendment 99, in clause 29, page 17, line 37, after “MMO” insert
“or on the Inshore Fisheries and Conservation Authorities”.
Amendment 100, in clause 29, page 17, line 38, after “MMO” insert
“or on the Inshore Fisheries and Conservation Authorities.”.
Amendment 101, in clause 29, page 17, line 39, after “power of” insert “either”.
Amendment 102, in clause 29, page 17, line 39, after “MMO” insert
“or the Inshore Fisheries and Conservation Authorities”.
Peter Aldous
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hanson. The amendments are more of the probing variety and are not quite as intimidating and long as they might appear. They relate to clauses 24 and 29, which concern the charging arrangements for the administration of the disposal of English fishing opportunities.
I seek to address three issues through this group of amendments. First, I would add to the marine functions for which charges can be made. Secondly, I would expand the provisions to allow inshore fisheries and conservation authorities, not only marine management organisations, to recoup costs. Thirdly, while the level of charges is not likely to be great, I think it would be appropriate, wherever possible, to direct these funds to preserving English fisheries for future generations.
This particular group of amendments would allow IFCAs, not only the MMO, to recoup costs. I would welcome clarification from the Minister on whether it is appropriate to add IFCAs to the clause. If he does not think that it is, I seek his assurance as to why.
Luke Pollard
I will be brief. The hon. Member for Waveney raises some good points. I asked for further clarity on the role of IFCAs previously, because it seems to be an area that is missing from large parts of the Bill. I would be grateful if the Minister responds to that.
George Eustice
To reassure my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney, we have not included IFCAs in the clause in the way that his amendments suggest, in common with similar amendments that he has tabled, because IFCAs do not have any role in quota management. It is not appropriate for them to be covered by this clause, which is explicitly in relation to the discard prevention charge.
IFCAs do not carry out the functions for which we want the MMO to charge. In essence, the funding mechanisms for IFCAs are also different from the MMO. IFCAs are funded by a levy charged to their sponsoring local authorities. They receive around £8.7 million for that. Local authorities have a legal duty to pay the levy. Recovered courts costs awarded from successful prosecutions also appear as revenues. IFCAs are encouraged to explore ways of supplementing their income by creating commercial revenues—through survey work, for example. Their funding model is very different. They have no role in quota management and it is not appropriate to bring them within the scope of these clauses.
Peter Aldous
I am grateful for the Minister’s clarification of that issue, particularly that IFCAs do not have a role in quota management and that they have alternative funding arrangements. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
George Eustice
The purpose of the clause is simply to provide the meaning of “chargeable person” and “unauthorised catch at sea fish” in respect of the discard prevention charging scheme. Subsection (1) provides that the chargeable persons under a scheme must be holders of English sea fishing licences or producer organisations that have at least one member that is an English sea fishing licence holder. Producer organisations are included as chargeable persons as they frequently manage quota on behalf of their members and distribute quota between the members. Subsection (2) gives the meaning of unauthorised catch of sea fish; unauthorised catch means catch in excess of the amount authorised by the MMO for that vessel or producer. Subsection (3) provides flexibility so that a scheme may determine what catch is to be deemed as authorised by the MMO.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 24 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 25
Catches subject to a charge ignored for certain regulatory purposes
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
George Eustice
Briefly, the sole purpose of this clause is to ensure that fishermen are not further penalised for processing unauthorised catch if they have complied with the discard prevention charging scheme. The clause provides that where a charge is payable under the scheme, the scheme may provide that the fishing activity that led to the charge may be ignored in determining whether there has been a breach of a licence requirement. That means that, under the scheme, if a charge is paid as required for an unauthorised catch, no further action will be taken.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 25 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 26
Charge collectors
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
George Eustice
The purpose of this clause is simply to enable the Secretary of State, when setting up a charging scheme, to determine the functions of a charge collector, together with certain details such as terms of appointment and termination of the charge collector. Subsection (1) states that the Secretary of State can appoint a charge collector to administer the scheme and to specify the terms and termination of their appointment and functions they will carry out. Subsection (2) details the nature of the functions that may be conferred on the charge collector. Subsection (3) provides that the scheme may allow for duties to be placed on a charge collector after their appointment has been terminated. Subsection (4) allows a scheme to contain provision about appeals against decisions of charge collectors. Subsection (5) provides for the possibility that any expenditure incurred by the charge collector when exercising their functions can be recovered.
Mr Carmichael
Can the Minister confirm that, although these provisions exist, they are permissive and it would remain possible for Government Departments to carry out those functions?
George Eustice
Yes, that is absolutely the case. Indeed, it is likely to be the case that the Marine Management Organisation would perform those functions on behalf of the Government. The clause simply provides the opportunity for others to be involved, should that be required.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 26 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 27
Discard prevention charging schemes: supplementary provision
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
George Eustice
Clause 27 is about supplementary provisions. It includes provisions for a discard prevention charging scheme to include provisions for unpaid charges to be recovered as a debt, for masters of fishing boats to be jointly liable with licence holders for charge payments, and for how charge collectors must manage the receipt of charges. It also allows the Secretary of State to exercise discretion in the functioning of the scheme and to delegate any of their functions under the scheme. The clause provides necessary detail on the scheme to ensure its proper functioning.
Luke Pollard
I am grateful to the Minister for setting that out. I have a question for him on this scheme, in relation to equal access and shared access to waters. He is setting out a scheme for English fisheries, but could he set out what happens in the event of a fishing boat leaving English waters and travelling through to Scottish waters, for instance, and there being discards en route at some location between? Is there a way of meshing this together perfectly with what happens with a Scottish discard scheme to ensure that there are no loopholes because of the transition between two national fisheries areas?
George Eustice
The shadow Minister makes an important point. As I have said all along, this Bill tries to sit within our somewhat complex devolution settlement. I will make two points. First, Scotland is facing exactly the same challenges that we in England are facing, with regard to making the discard ban work in practice as well as in theory. From discussions with officials, I am aware that the Scottish Government are interested in looking at a similar scheme for fishermen in Scotland. It may be that this is something we can work on together across the UK.
Secondly, to answer the hon. Gentleman’s specific point about how we would deal with catches, some of which might have been caught in Scotland and some of which might have been caught in England, we have quite a detailed system of catch reporting. They have to log catches. We have vessel monitoring systems so that we know where vessels are catching fish. We have trained operators in our control room in Newcastle who monitor fishing patterns and can identify suspicious behaviour, such as a fishing vessel fishing in one area and then driving around to pretend it has fished in another, and we have ways of reconciling fishermen’s landing records with their catch records to ensure that we can manage this as an England-only scheme, should that be necessary.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 27 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 28
Financial assistance: powers of Secretary of State
Luke Pollard
I beg to move amendment 108, in clause 28, page 16, line 25, at end insert—
“(f) the gathering of scientific data relating to fishing, including but not limited to carrying out stock assessments, vessel monitoring and recording fishing catches.”
This amendment would enable financial assistance to be provided for scientific data collection.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 98, in clause 29, page 17, line 21, at end insert—
“(e) commissioning scientific research to support—
(i) fish stock management, food security and biodiversity, and
(ii) the development of low impact fishing techniques.
(f) any other administrative function relating to fisheries management.”
Amendment 109, in clause 31, page 18, line 24, at end insert—
“(d) the gathering of scientific data to inform management of fish stocks.”
This amendment would add scientific data collection to the conservation purpose for which Clause 31 enables the Secretary of State to make regulations.
New clause 21—Proceeds of charges and fees—
“(none) Any proceeds or charges received by the Secretary of State, the Marine Management Organisation or any Inshore Fisheries and Conservation Authority pursuant to sections 22, 23 or 29(3) shall be used to preserve the English fishery for future generations, which shall include—
(a) the commissioning of scientific research to support effective stock management and biodiversity;
(b) the commissioning of scientific or technical research into, and the development of, low impact fishing techniques;
(c) the administrative functions relating to fisheries management of the Secretary of State, the Marine Management Organisation and the Inshore Fisheries and Conservation Authorities; and
(d) such other objectives as may be set out in a JFS or SSFS.”
Luke Pollard
Amendment 108 would make it possible to provide funding for data collection, scientific research and better vessel monitoring. Just about everyone in this debate supports better data. Fishers would like the opportunity to prove that they are behaving sustainably and that there are more fish in the water than the scientists say. It would be money well spent, given the extra potential revenue if fisheries were recovered to their optimum economic output.
UK seas have historically been an abundant source of food, income and employment, but they are failing to meet their full potential. Government figures show that two thirds of our main commercial fish stocks are depleted, overfished or at risk of being depleted, or their status is unknown. With better scientific understanding of our fish stocks and the impact of fishing, fisheries management would be more effective, helping stocks to recover and our marine ecosystem to flourish.
Funding data collection makes good economic sense because the cost of stock assessments is very reasonable. Sustain calculates an initial cost of £190 million and then £19 million annually to assess all deficient stocks. Conservative estimates suggest that would catch £150 million more fish in the UK if all stocks were managed at their economic optimum. Better data could allow management to be more precise and responsive. It could give fishers the evidence that they argue for, for increased catches where sustainability is proven.
Data deficiency is a significant issue for the UK fishing fleet. Poor data is affecting the management of commercial opportunities for the most important species in the UK. As we heard in our evidence sessions, data deficiency is one of the main reasons why much of the fish caught in UK waters cannot be marketed as sustainable. For fishing to be sustainable there must be sufficient understanding of the population of the targeted species, and of the impact of fishing and/or the status of the sea floor ecosystems. Without that data, boats can be considered ineligible for Marine Stewardship Council certification, or receive a lower rating on the Marine Conservation Society’s “Good Fish Guide”. With better data, more UK fisheries would be eligible for sustainability certification, or would receive a better rating from the MCS. That would allow them access to the best markets for fish, including UK public sector catering.
In a recent report, Sustain found that UK fisheries are not verifiably sustainable and are losing out on millions of pounds’-worth of business, because companies look abroad for fish that meet their sustainable buying policies. Data deficiency particularly disadvantages small-scale fleets—80% of the stocks targeted by the large industrial fleet have stock assessments, whereas only 12% of those targeted by small-scale English fleets have adequate data to achieve sustainability certification. It is unfair on smaller boats if, even when they fish sustainably, they are unable to prove it. That is why amendment 108 would include the gathering of scientific data on fishing in the key provisions of the Bill. Amendment 109 would amend clause 31 to make
“the gathering of scientific data to inform management of fish stocks”
an additional conservation purpose under the Bill. So data collection and data deficiency would be dealt with in those two separate areas.
Peter Aldous
I want to speak to amendment 98 and new clause 21. The amendment would make two additions to the list of what are called “relevant marine functions”, for which charges can be made. The first addition, following on from the remarks of the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport, would be the commissioning of
“scientific research to support…fish stock management, food security and biodiversity”.
Improving our science is very important. Secondly, the amendment would add a general
“administrative function relating to fisheries management”.
New clause 21 sets out three uses for which the proceeds could be used: the commissioning of scientific research to support effective stock management and biodiversity; the commissioning of scientific research into the development of low-impact fishing techniques; and
“the administrative functions relating to fisheries management of the Secretary of State, the Marine Management Organisation and the Inshore Fisheries and Conservation Authorities”.
It is important to incentivise the collection of scientific data and research so as to support fish stock management and biodiversity. Fisheries science and accurate data are essential, as things move forward, to put fisheries management on to an effective footing that will be sustainable in the long term. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s plans for that.
George Eustice
I understand that the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport, on financial assistance, and those tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney, relating to the power to impose charges, have at their heart a concern that we need better quality scientific data. We have discussed that on a number of occasions. I broadly agree. We have made some good progress; stocks that were of data-limited status have moved on to have full stock assessments. There is undoubtedly further to go.
DEFRA already pays the Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science to gather the data as part of its service level agreement. The issue is whether there is a need for clause 28 to include an additional purpose in relation to science. Our view is that there is not, for a number of reasons. First, the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund, which is an EU fund, does indeed have a category for enforcement and science. That is made available to national Governments for doing the relevant work. Clearly, in an era where we are funding national Government activities directly from the Treasury we do not need a separate provision in the way that we do in the EMFF.
Our view is therefore that future grants to replace the EMFF should be directed at the fishing industry and aquaculture, to support those areas, and that the funding for the activities of CEFAS and science should come from the Government, and the powers to do that obviously already exist through the normal channels—the spending review processes and the funding that we make available to CEFAS through our service-level agreement with it.
Luke Pollard
I must say that I am troubled by a number of things that the Minister has said in his response. Given that the Government have not yet committed to replacing every single penny within the EMFF funding for our coastal communities, I do not think that we should base opposition to this amendment on trust that Treasury Ministers will side with us when it comes to delivering out the pennies because, quite simply, I do not trust the Treasury to fund our fishery science sufficiently on this issue. That is why an amendment that would provide for the Secretary of State to give factual assistance on the basis of supporting science is an absolutely key part of this process, because it would send a message about the tone and clarity that the Government are seeking to create that the funding of fishery science, the funding of stock levels and the funding of the ability to address data deficiency is a key priority.
We have already heard that there are a number of aspects to the Bill that are troubling in relation to the lack of clarity on data funding, and I have to say that I found the Minister’s reply unconvincing. I am glad that he is considering bringing elements back on Report, because clearly there is a problem here that he and his team have highlighted. I think this area is very important, so I will not withdraw the amendment.
Question proposed, That the amendment be made.
Luke Pollard
I beg to move amendment 111, in clause 28, page 16, line 25, at end insert—
“(1A) The Secretary of State must conduct a consultation on exercising the power to give financial assistance under subsection (1) to promote the development of sustainable public access to recreational fishing opportunities for the fish catching sector and leisure and tourism industries, taking into account socio-economic factors.”
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 25—Recreational fishing—
“(1) When any provision of this Act, including provisions inserted into other Acts by this Act, requires or permits the Secretary of State to consult with any person considered appropriate, the Secretary of State must consult with persons representing the practice of recreational fishing.
(2) The Secretary of State shall publish an annual report providing an assessment of the extent to which the provisions of this Act have—
(a) promoted recreational fishing, and
(b) had economic benefits attributable to the promotion of recreational fishing by the provisions of this Act.
(3) The first report under subsection (2) shall be published no more than 12 months after this section comes into force.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to consult on providing financial assistance for the promotion of recreational fishing, and to include representatives of recreational fishing when conducting a consultation under any other provisions of the Bill.
Luke Pollard
On Second Reading, I said that recreational fishing is entirely absent from the Bill at a meaningful level and that is not good enough. Recreational fishing is a vibrant, growing and important part of our coastal communities and needs due recognition by Ministers in the Fisheries Bill. Labour’s proposals are designed to give recreational fishing the prominence that a sector of this economic size deserves.
In the evidence session held by the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on Wednesday, Martin Salter from the Angling Trust talked about the vital economic link between recreational angling and coastal communities. The Bill is an opportunity to drive and create greater economic activity in our coastal communities. Mr Salter mentioned the booming recreational fishing sectors of Cape Cod and Florida, which are worth billions of dollars, as examples of what could be achieved in coastal communities in the UK. Wealth generated by recreational fishing boosts other industries such as tourism, including the bed-and-breakfast trade and all other aspects of hospitality and tourism.
Coastal communities depend on economic activity generated by the recreational fishing industry, but for recreational fishing to thrive and have a positive impact on our coastal communities, the industry needs investment, sustainable waters and healthy fish stocks. Amendment 111 would bring recreational angling within the new Government grants that will replace the European maritime and fisheries fund. The UK was allocated £190 million of EMFF funding for 2014 to 2020. It is vital that every penny from the EMFF be matched after we leave the European Union, but, sadly, Ministers have made no such commitment to date.
As well as the economic importance of recreational fishing to coastal communities, this activity plays a big part in the culture of those communities. Sea angling brings with it many social and health and wellbeing benefits. For children and young people, it is often their first experience of interacting with the natural world. The Bill must give us the ability to support recreational fishing. It could provide opportunities for young people to get involved in recreational fishing and encourage them to pursue a career or lifelong hobby in this sector. Nurturing this industry is crucial, because we know that that could lead to a renaissance of our coastal communities.
“Sea Angling 2012”, the study of recreational sea angling carried out by the Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science for the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, shows that total resident sea angler spending in 2012 was estimated to be £1.23 billion, equivalent to £831 million of direct spending, excluding imports and taxes. That directly supported 10,400 full-time jobs and almost £360 million of gross value added. The total economic impact was £2.1 billion of spending, supporting 23,600 full-time equivalent jobs and almost £980 million of GVA once indirect and induced effects were accounted for. That is a huge contribution to our coastal towns and cities.
Owen Smith (Pontypridd) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making a compelling case for including recreational fishing in the Bill. Does he agree that we are only starting to scratch the surface of the economic contribution that recreational fishing could make to our economy, and does he further agree that the Government could do so much to encourage, in particular, greater tourism into this country to take advantage of its great recreational fishing opportunities, if they were to highlight the importance of that in the Bill itself?
Luke Pollard
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention: he is exactly right. Indeed, this weekend I had conversations with Destination Plymouth about the new tourism marketing plan for my own city. We were talking about how the value of recreational angling and sea fishing could be further embedded as part of the tourism product for the far south-west, which would create more jobs, so he is exactly right.
Coastal communities benefit when good fishing attracts anglers. Let us not tie any Minister’s hands but explicitly lay out in the Bill that they have the power to award recreational fishing the grants it needs to grow our economy and grow the love of our marine environment.
New clause 25 also relates to the ability to provide financial assistance for recreational fishing and its importance as part of the wider development of sustainable practices in recreational fishing. According to figures from DEFRA—the Minister’s own Department—recreational fishing and sea angling are worth about £2 billion to the UK economy, generate about 20,000 jobs and support thousands of coastal businesses. Sometimes the economic benefits of the recreational sector can outweigh those of the commercial sector, but as we have heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd, it is not spoken about enough. We need to be louder and prouder about the contribution that recreational angling can make to our coastal towns.
In this Committee’s evidence sessions on the Bill, the Angling Trust rightly said that one of the “great failures” of the common fisheries policy was the failure to recognise recreational angling as a legitimate stakeholder in European fisheries. The Bill could put right that failure of the CFP. We could do that today by stating in the Bill that the UK Government recognise recreational sea angling as a direct user and legitimate stakeholder in the fisheries. That would be a win-win situation, as it would add to the very welcome news that we will have access to EMFF funding—I hope the Minister will confirm that. We need recreational fishing to be loud and proud on the face of the Bill, to send a message to the people engaged in the sector that we want that part of the economy to grow further, and that we value it.
Mr Carmichael
I agree with just about everything the hon. Gentleman has said. This is a good example of how a small measure of Government investment could have a transformative effect and bring manifold returns. Some decades ago, the Highlands and Islands Development Board installed mooring buoys throughout the highlands and islands, which allowed many yachtsmen and other sailors to enjoy that part of the countryside. It brought in a tremendous amount of income, and tourism burgeoned over the years. The same is possible for those who are trying to increase recreational angling.
The hon. Gentleman’s amendment is very modest: it requires that consultation be held. It does not bind any Minister or future Minister to do anything. It is pretty clear that if we just leave this and wait for something to happen, it almost certainly never will.
George Eustice
I declare an interest: my brother is a keen angler who targets bass off the Cornish coasts, so I regularly hear from him about these issues.
Owen Smith
I am also a recreational sea angler for bass. Does the Minister agree that we could do much more for our economy in many parts of the country—not just the south-west, but off Wales and Scotland—if we did more to promote the prospect of bass angling?
George Eustice
It would be something if we could conserve bass. Indeed, that will be another important agenda item at this year’s December Council.
Owen Smith
Does the Minister agree that one of the ways in which we might conserve bass is by reserving those stocks solely for recreational angling?
George Eustice
I would not reserve them solely for recreational angling, but I have been in the vanguard of arguing for them to have a more generous bag limit than the Commission has hitherto granted.
I know that the Angling Trust has been promoting the amendment, and I am a big fan of Martin Salter. I bumped into him after the evidence session when he raised these points, and I said that I felt that he had a rather “glass half empty” view. As the shadow Minister knows, clause 28(1)(e) is absolutely explicit that we are creating powers to give financial assistance for
“the promotion or development of recreational fishing.”
That is a first. The EMFF and the European schemes have never had any provision whatever for targeted grant support for recreational angling.
Mike Hill (Hartlepool) (Lab)
Hartlepool has a much-depleted offshore fleet these days, so recreational fishing is very much in the ascendency, particularly because we have got wrecks that generate good fish stocks. Does the Minister agree that that is important for tourism?
George Eustice
Yes, I very much agree. I hail from a Cornish constituency that is surrounded by water, so recreational angling is an important tourist activity. These issues are indeed very important. I have seen estimates that put the commercial value of recreational fishing at about £2 billion. We always have to be slightly suspicious of some of these figures, but there is no doubt that it is a commercially important sector.
Amendment 111 and new clause 25 seek to achieve slightly different things. With respect to amendment 111, I do not think that it is necessary to require a consultation, since in clause 28(1)(e) we have taken—for the first time and with very good reason—a power to give grants for recreational fishing. As I have said many times, DEFRA needs no encouragement to issue consultations. We have regular consultations on all sorts of issues—I think last year we had something like 50—and sometimes only a handful of people reply. I can guarantee the Committee that before introducing any grant scheme under clause 28(1), we would consult on its design and purpose, so I do not think that it needs to be placed in statute that we must run a consultation.
Owen Smith
I have seen Mr Salter with a glass full or half full on many occasions.
George Eustice
I am sure that the hon. Gentleman has; I think I have, too.
Having given an undertaking to look specifically into the possibility of making reference to recreational angling in the SSFS, where it best sits, I hope that the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport will not see the need to press his amendment.
Luke Pollard
I thank the Minister for taking recreational sea angling and fishing so comprehensively on board in his response. It is good to hear that he intends to issue a consultation before any powers under clause 28(1)(e) are used. That commitment delivers on the intent of our amendment 111, and I am pleased that he is taking on board the concern expressed by recreational fishers that they should be given greater prominence in the Bill.
With respect to new clause 25, I will look carefully at what the Minister brings back on Report. There is an opportunity to do much more on recreational fishing; if he brings back the new clause, the Bill will be the better for it. On the basis of the commitments he has given, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 28 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 4
Financial assistance
Question proposed, That the schedule be the Fourth schedule to the Bill.
George Eustice
The Committee has already discussed the substance of the issues to which schedule 4 relates. The schedule will allow Wales and Northern Ireland to establish grant schemes after the UK’s withdrawal from the EU. Its provisions essentially mirror those set out in clause 28, which provide powers to introduce schemes of financial assistance for industries related to fish or fish farming, as well as for the purpose of improving the marine and aquatic environment or—as we have just discussed—promoting recreational fishing. The powers replace and broaden existing domestic funding powers, which are in the Fisheries Act 1981.
Question put and agreed to.
Schedule 4 accordingly agreed to.
Clause 29
Power of Marine Management Organisation to impose charges
Peter Aldous
I will speak briefly, because this amendment covers the issues that I addressed in my previous two amendments, and which the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport also referred to. As far as the future funding of science is concerned, I was reasonably content with the response that the Minister provided. I look forward to seeing the further details, to which he referred, on Report. I acknowledge and take on board his explanation that it is not appropriate for IFCAs to be funded in this particular way. On that basis, I will not be moving the amendment.
The Chair
In that case we will move on to an amendment that will be moved. I call Luke Pollard potentially to move amendment 70.
Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)
I beg to move amendment 70, in clause 29, page 17, line 42, leave out “negative” and insert “affirmative”.
I am definitely moving the amendment, which seeks to remove the negative procedure in relation to clause 29 and replace it with the affirmative procedure. The amendment reflects concerns expressed by fishers about the increasing powers of the MMO, which is developing the ability to impose charges without sufficient accountability and scrutiny of that work.
The amendment is designed to catch the Minister’s eye so that he can reassure us that the MMO will use any powers it is given wisely, to ensure that charges are proportionate and, importantly, that before any charges are imposed, there is sufficient consultation with fishers to ensure that those charges are correct and proportionate.
Given the considerable amount of concern expressed by fishers, it is important that there is sufficient parliamentary procedure, which is why we suggest the affirmative procedure. However, if the Minister can give a good answer as to why that should not be required, I would be prepared to withdraw the amendment.
George Eustice
We have had a number of discussions about the use of the negative procedure. As I have pointed out before, the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee considered the procedures for all delegated powers in the Bill and commented:
“Of the Bill’s 15 delegated powers that have a parliamentary procedure, only four are solely governed by the negative procedure, and justifiably so.”
It is usual for fees and charges imposed by arm’s length bodies to be set out in regulations made under the negative procedure. A recent example is the power of the Secretary of State to charge fees through regulations under the Ivory Bill, which will also use the negative procedure. We have considered the issue, but we think we have struck the right balance between the need for parliamentary scrutiny and the need to update MMO charges through secondary legislation.
If we were to accept this amendment and do use the affirmative procedure, every change made to the charges would have to go through an affirmative parliamentary process. We think that is excessive. We already have strict and tight Treasury guidance on when one can and cannot charge, and how one can charge for such charges that are passed on, and that is very much on a cost-recovery basis. That provision is set out in detail in other Government rules and guidance.
Luke Pollard
I invited the Minister to provide reassurance that the MMO would use the charging powers proportionately and subject to consultation. Could he say something about his approach to that?
George Eustice
I draw the hon. Gentleman’s attention to clause 29(7), which makes provision for consultation. I confirm that we would consult the industry before introducing such charges.
Luke Pollard
I appreciate that clarification. It is important that the Minister takes on board the concerns of fishers about the role and remit of the MMO in relation to the new powers that the Bill gives him. On the basis of the reassurance that he has given, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 29 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 5
Power of Northern Ireland department to impose charges
Luke Pollard
I beg to move amendment 76, in schedule 5, page 44, line 9, leave out “negative” and insert “affirmative”.
Briefly, the amendment seeks to amend schedule 5 to provide the affirmative resolution in relation to powers given to the relevant Northern Ireland Department. I would like to invite the Minister to comment.
Importantly, in the absence of devolution to the Northern Ireland Executive and the Northern Ireland Assembly at the moment, as the Assembly is not sitting, how can we ensure that there is sufficient scrutiny of those powers to the devolved Administration? In others circumstances, whether in Wales or Scotland, the powers would be given appropriate scrutiny in those devolved bodies.
George Eustice
The solution to the problem that the hon. Gentleman highlights is to get a political Administration back in Northern Ireland. We have that challenge on many fronts; this is one of the lesser challenges we face in the absence of a political Administration in Northern Ireland.
Our intention is that the Bill is built to last and that it will give us a basis and a framework with which to manage fisheries for at least the next few decades—I hope so, but obviously things change. The Bill is therefore built in the expectation that a political Administration will be back in place in Northern Ireland, as it should be. Indeed, I am sure we all hope that that might even happen before the provisions of the Bill commence.
The hon. Gentleman makes an important point about the lack of an Administration in Northern Ireland. We all know that the solution is not to amend the Bill but to get an Administration back in Northern Ireland. Again, I point out paragraph 7 of the schedule, which gives a clear undertaking that there must be a consultation before any regulations can be introduced under the negative procedure, even for Northern Ireland.
Luke Pollard
On the basis of the Minister’s response, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed, That the schedule be the Fifth schedule to the Bill.
George Eustice
Briefly, the schedule allows the Northern Ireland Department to make regulations to enable it to charge for its exercising of relevant marine functions. After the regulations are laid, the Northern Ireland Department will be able to charge to ensure that the taxpayer does not have to foot the bill for expenses related to fisheries. Through the change, it is intended that the Government should neither profit at the expense of the consumer nor make a loss. It is a cost-recovery provision, which mirrors what is in the clauses that we discussed earlier for England.
Question put and agreed to.
Schedule 5 accordingly agreed to.
Clause 30
Sea Fish Industry Authority: fees for services provided for industry in EU
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
George Eustice
The Sea Fish Industry Authority—Seafish—is a levy-funded, UK-wide body set up to promote the consumption of seafood, protect the reputation of the industry and provide information, evidence and advice for decision making in the supply chain. It may provide services for persons in the sea fish industry within and outside the UK. It is required to charge in full for such services provided to those from non-EU states, but section 3(5) of the Fisheries Act 1981 prevents it from charging those from EU states more than those from the UK. The clause will remove that provision.
We are including the clause in the Bill because the power in section 8(1) of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 may not be used to make regulations that impose or amend fees. In practice, Seafish sets out all of its charges across recovery levels, so the clause will not result in any practical change. However, it is important that no distinction is made between services provided to EU and to non-EU companies once the UK leaves the EU.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 30 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 31
Power to make provision about fisheries, aquaculture etc
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
George Eustice
The clause will provide the Secretary of State with the powers necessary to manage our fisheries when we leave the EU and operate as an independent coastal state, enabling us to comply with the UK’s international obligations, manage our fisheries and keep pace with changes to EU law. When we leave the EU, it will be vital that the UK has measures in place to implement its international obligations and to move away from the common fisheries policy measures incorporated in retained EU law under the EU withdrawal Act.
Fisheries, and the management of the impact of fisheries on the marine environment, are dynamic, changing throughout the year. To manage fisheries effectively, we need delegated powers to be able to respond quickly to scientific advice. The CFP is due to be reviewed in the next few years. We need to ensure that the UK can introduce measures where appropriate for UK fisheries management. The clause confers regulatory updating powers on the Secretary of State. Equivalent powers are conferred on Welsh Ministers and the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs in Northern Ireland; we understand that Scotland will make its own legislative arrangements in respect of the powers set out in the clause.
The powers in the clause are necessarily quite broad in scope. In recognition of that, we have introduced several constraints to limit the powers as far as possible. They must be exercised for a purpose listed in subsection (1); they can only be exercised for the matters listed in subsection (4); and they cannot create criminal offences punishable by imprisonment. I hope I have been able to explain the purpose behind the clause, to ensure that we can have a dynamic and clear ability expeditiously to make minor technical changes to the technical conservation regulations that are important in fisheries.
Luke Pollard
Notwithstanding my earlier remarks, it is good to see the word “aquaculture” making it into the Government’s Bill at this point. I make fond mention of the occasion on which the Minister decided not to take amendments because of the mention of the aquatic environment. I am sure that aquaculture and the aquatic environment will make appearances later that will highlight the error of the Minister’s ways in his earlier remarks.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 31 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 32
Section 31: interpretation
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
George Eustice
Briefly, the clause simply provides interpretation for certain terms related to fisheries used in clause 31. This is important to ensure that restrictions placed on the power in clause 31 are effective in limiting its scope to fisheries. It is a simple clause that deals with interpretation.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 32 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 33
Power to make provision about aquatic animal diseases
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
George Eustice
The shadow Minister will note that the word “aquatic” has arrived again. However, this clause is slightly different, since it relates to replacing provisions dealing with fish health in particular once we leave the EU and lose some of the powers in the European Communities Act 1972.
The clause confers delegated powers on the Secretary of State to make changes to aquatic animal health legislation, as opposed to the management of the aquatic environment. Corresponding powers are conferred on Scottish and Welsh Ministers and DAERA in Northern Ireland by schedule 6. Primarily, the clause will ensure that the domestic aquatic animal health regime can be amended and updated after we leave the EU in order to preserve the UK’s high aquatic health status both in relation to aquaculture and the health of wild aquatic animals. The clause will allow the Secretary of State to regulate matters relating to the importation, exportation, movement, storage or handling of fish or other aquatic animals; products derived from fish; and any other thing that the Secretary of State considers may carry, or otherwise affects the prevalence of, a disease of fish or other aquatic animals.
The powers conferred by the clause will enable the UK to respond to new and emerging aquatic disease threats and disease outbreaks and to fulfil its international obligations as part of any future trade agreements. The clause is therefore essential to maintaining the high health status. I should point out that in 2009 the Diseases of Fish Act 1983 was repealed. We then relied on the European Communities Act 1972 to make changes to our regime for controlling fish and other aquatic diseases. The clause ensures that we have the powers we need to be able to continue to do that, as we lost the Diseases of Fish Act in the repeal of 2009 and we are now on the threshold of losing the powers that we have under the European Communities Act.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 33 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 34
Scope of regulations under section 31 or 33
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
George Eustice
Clause 34 defines and limits the scope of regulation-making powers in clauses 31 and 33, ensuring that the devolved status of fisheries is respected. Subsection (1) allows for regulations made under clauses 31 and 33 to confer a function, including the imposition of fees. Subsection (2) allows for the creation of criminal offences, but not offences punishable by imprisonment. Subsection (3) states that regulations made under clauses 31 or 33 cannot include provisions that are within the competence of the Scottish Parliament, the National Assembly for Wales or the Northern Ireland Assembly unless the provision is merely incidental or consequential.
Subsection (4) further restricts the use of powers under clauses 31 and 33 as the regulations may not be used to modify functions held by Welsh Ministers in relation to the enforcement of sea-fishing licences and regulating the conduct of fishing operations. Subsection (5) restricts the use of powers under clauses 31 and 33 so that they may not modify fisheries administrations’ functions relating to the licensing of fishing boats under any of the provisions in clauses 9 to 13 and schedule 2. Finally, subsection (7) sets out the broad scope of the power to amend any enactment. That will be essential for modifying retained EU law after our exit from the European Union.
In summary, the clause places limitations on the exercise of powers in clauses 31 and 33, predominantly to ensure that there is no encroachment on the devolution settlement that we have. I beg to move that the clause stand part of the Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 34 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 35
Scope of regulations under section 31 or 33 where consent obtained
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
George Eustice
This clause is about ensuring there is an ability—notwithstanding the fact that clause 34 is clear that it does not cut across the devolution settlement—to put in place a framework with the consent of each part of the UK so that a single authority can act with the consent of the others in an area that would otherwise be devolved. Subsections (1) to (3) require consent from the Scottish or Welsh Ministers or the Northern Ireland Department for regulations under clauses 31 and 33 to make provisions in areas of devolved competence. Subsection (4) requires consent from the Scottish and Welsh Ministers and the Northern Ireland Department for regulations on matters relating to powers to license fishing boats. I beg to move that the clause stand part of the Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 35 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 36
Procedural requirements for regulations under section 31 or 33
Luke Pollard
I beg to move amendment 71, in clause 36, page 22, line 24, leave out “negative” and insert “affirmative”.
Briefly, we tabled the amendment so that we could ask the Minister to explain why he believes that the negative procedure is the best option for this clause.
George Eustice
As I said, the Government have considered carefully the delegated powers in the Bill and the procedures that should apply to regulations. I will not rehearse the points I made about delegated powers and the precedents for this, but I will give the hon. Gentleman an indication of the technical issues that regulations under this part of the Bill may deal with. They may cover issues such as the catching, landing or selling of sea fish below a certain size—the minimum conservation reference size, as it is sometimes called—and the design of sea-fishing equipment. They may involve introducing a new selectivity measure for the squid fishery off the coast of his constituency, for instance. They may also involve minor issues to do with monitoring or enforcement of compliance.
We have a large number of technical conservation regulations under the existing common fisheries policy—some 90 bodies of regulations cover all sorts of things, from landing sizes to mesh sizes and from closures to prohibitions on landing small-eyed ray. Those are generally dealt with through delegated Acts that come from the Commission. We must have the power to make in-year amendments so that we can react quickly to changing circumstances by taking a stock off the prohibited list or putting it back on, and it is important that we have the ability to act expeditiously to manage our marine environment. Given that we have some 90 bodies of EU regulations and some 300 or 400 different technical regulations in total, I question whether there is appetite in this place for debating each and every one of those changes. The situation can be very dynamic and dozens of changes are made in a typical year.
On that basis, I hope that the hon. Gentleman does not see the need to press the amendment to a vote, and that I have been able to reassure him why we chose the negative resolution procedure rather than the affirmative procedure in this case.
Mr Carmichael
I have lost count of the number of debates I have sat through in which we discussed whether to use the negative or affirmative procedure—“must” or “may”—but on this occasion the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport hits on a substantial point.
As we heard, the scope of regulations made under clauses 31 and 33 is defined by clause 34, which provides inter alia in subsection (2) that regulations made under clauses 31 or 33
“may create a criminal offence, but not one punishable with imprisonment.”
I am not surprised that imprisonment is not included, because I suspect the bulk of the offences created would be committed primarily by bodies corporate rather than private individuals. Notwithstanding that, offences created by regulations of this sort often attract financial penalties that run to several thousand pounds—sometimes tens of thousands of pounds—so they are not insignificant.
I deeply regret not challenging the Minister on this point when we debated clause 34.
George Eustice
I draw the right hon. Gentleman’s attention to clause 36(2), which sets out clearly:
“Regulations under section 31 or 33 are subject to the affirmative resolution procedure”
if they cover a number of issues, including anything creating a criminal offence. Subsection (3) relates to the use of negative procedure on regulations left after those that fall under subsection (2) are taken out.
Mr Carmichael
That answers my point. I do not think I need detain the Committee any longer.
Luke Pollard
You are getting ahead of yourself, Mr Hanson. I am not a Minister yet, but the coming general election will be upon us soon.
I am grateful for the Minister’s response. As he said, there will be a large number of changes. He might want to reflect on how any changes made under negative procedure can be reported in the Secretary of State’s fisheries statements, even though it is not necessarily required to do so.
There is an opportunity. Because we are expecting the Minister to deliver so much change in the first couple of years after we leave the common fisheries policy, having it summarised and repeated annually would enable greater scrutiny and understanding of those changes. That would be beneficial not only for the fishing industry but for those who seek to scrutinise the work of Government. On the basis of the Minister’s response, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
George Eustice
I think we covered the key parts of the clause earlier. I again simply highlight that it sets out a number of cases where it is appropriate to use the affirmative resolution procedure under subsection (2). That includes any regulations that impose fees or create a criminal offence. The remainder of the largely technical conservation measures that are of a lower order and need to be changed regularly are provided for under the negative resolution procedure under subsection (3).
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 36 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 37
Powers of Scottish Ministers, Welsh Ministers and NI department
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
George Eustice
The clause simply serves to enable schedule 6, which will provide Scottish Ministers, Welsh Ministers and the Northern Ireland Department with the powers necessary to manage fishery and agriculture industries in line with devolved competences. In doing so, the clause is part of a framework that allows Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland to meet their obligations under the UN convention on the law of the sea and the UN fish stocks agreement.
Mr Paul Sweeney (Glasgow North East) (Lab/Co-op)
The Labour party fully supports the clause pertaining to schedule 6, which we will elaborate on later.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 37 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 6
Powers to make further provision: devolved authorities
Mr Sweeney
I beg to move amendment 77, in schedule 6, page 45, line 43, leave out “negative” and insert “affirmative”.
We tabled the amendment because the schedule allows for the transfer of powers to Scottish Ministers and the power to make provisions on issues such as aquatic and animal diseases. The schedule will allow Scottish Ministers to make provisions for
“the purpose of monitoring, controlling, preventing or eradicating diseases of fish or other aquatic animals…in particular…provision regulating the importation, exportation, movement, storage or handling of…fish or other aquatic animals…products derived from fish or other aquatic animals…any other thing that the Scottish Ministers consider may carry, or otherwise affect the prevalence of, a disease of fish or other aquatic animals.”
We want to change that to an affirmative procedure because it will be a much better way of doing things.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
The amendment is a step too far. There is sufficient protection for affirmative resolutions under clause 36 and paragraph 3(2) of the schedule, as the Minister pointed out. The Scottish Government need some leeway to be able to use the negative resolution procedure, and I do not think there is any need for this amendment. I would like to know whether the Labour party sought any assurances from the Scottish Government on whether they thought this amendment was necessary. I suggest that if the Scottish Government had wanted such an amendment, they would have tabled it themselves.
George Eustice
This is in many ways a mirror amendment to one we discussed earlier. It is unusual for me to agree with the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun, but he makes an important point: if we have just agreed one set of provisions giving the right to use the affirmative or negative resolution for England, it would suggest that we do not trust Scotland if we said that all their resolutions should be subject to the affirmative procedure. What is good for one part of the UK should be good for Scotland as well. I do not think this amendment is appropriate.
I can confirm to the hon. Gentleman that this has been put in at the request of the Scottish Government. We worked closely with all the devolved Administrations to understand what they would like included in the Bill on their behalf, and this particular section dealing with the ability to fight aquatic diseases is understandably very important to Scotland, given that it has such a large salmon farming industry. It is at the request of the Scottish Government that this has been included in the way that it has. I think it is right that we treat the Scottish provisions in the same way that we treat the English provisions. I hope the shadow Front Bench will not see the need to press this particular amendment.
Mr Sweeney
We have been pretty consistent throughout the process in saying that we think affirmative measures are better because they provide extra scrutiny and extra control, and we think that is beneficial.
Alan Brown
On that point, given that the hon. Gentleman’s colleagues consistently say that the Scottish Labour is the party of devolution, does he agree that if Labour is the party of devolution, it should respect devolution rather than trying to make legislation here that the Scottish Government have not asked for?
Mr Sweeney
I do not think that is how devolution works. Devolution is a collaborative process. That is my reading of it. It is not a zero-sum game.
Mr Carmichael
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, even where the Government in Edinburgh have agreed something with the Government in London, neither Government should expect to be immune from scrutiny by Parliament?
Mr Sweeney
I absolutely agree with that. In any system of democracy, at every tier there should be an element of interface and interaction, and that will be an ongoing process. It is not about a gradualist approach to independence, which is how the Scottish National party would like to view devolution. That is not how we view it. I will conclude, because there is no point in labouring this—pardon the pun—by saying that we accept that there is no agreement. It is unfortunate that we keep losing these votes on the negative emphasis versus the affirmative, but we are where we are in terms of the arithmetic. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed, That the schedule be the Sixth schedule to the Bill.
George Eustice
We have already covered part 1 of schedule 6, which specifically relates to the powers taken for Scotland to manage aquatic and animal diseases. I will briefly comment on parts 2 and 3, which make provisions for both Welsh Ministers and the Northern Ireland Administration. Hon. Members will have noted that the provisions for Wales and Northern Ireland are different from those for Scotland in that parts 2 and 3 also have provisions that mirror clause 31. In other words, schedule 6 gives Welsh Ministers and the Northern Ireland Administration the ability to make those technical conservation measures that we discussed earlier in the context of clause 31 for England.
I should point out that at this stage that, when the Bill was drafted, Scottish Ministers said that they did not want those provisions included in the Bill on their behalf. We understood that at that point they might have been considering doing this themselves through their own legislation. However, we have recently been told by Scottish Ministers that that position has changed and they would like us to perhaps consider at a later stage of the Bill adding powers for Scotland akin to those afforded in parts 2 and 3 for Wales and Northern Ireland.
This is obviously an issue that we will discuss further with Scottish Ministers. It is complicated by the fact that they have not yet confirmed that they will grant a legislative consent motion for the Bill. Nevertheless, I thought I should highlight to members of the Committee why there is a difference between part 1 for Scotland, and parts 2 and 3 for Wales and Northern Ireland.
Question put and agreed to.
Schedule 6 accordingly agreed to.
Ordered,
That further consideration be now adjourned.—(Iain Stewart.)
Fisheries Bill (Tenth_PART2 sitting)
Monday 17th December 2018
(5 years, 11 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Fisheries Bill 2017-19 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 17 December 2018 - (17 Dec 2018)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 7 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 8 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 7 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 8 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 8 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (George Eustice)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
New clause 5 essentially addresses an inconsistency between the devolution settlements for Wales and for Scotland and Northern Ireland. Unlike the devolution settlements for Scotland and Northern Ireland, the National Assembly for Wales does not currently have legislative competence in relation to fisheries in the offshore area, although it already has executive competence for those areas. The Bill, combined with our withdrawal from the European Union, will mean that the devolved Administrations will have more powers than ever before, and we believe it is right for this modification to be made so that the Welsh Government can exercise their legislative competence as set out in the Bill.
The new clause, therefore, will enable the Assembly to make primary legislation on fishing, fisheries and fish health for the whole Welsh zone. The Welsh offshore region is the area of sea outside the territorial sea—that is, beyond 12 nautical miles from the coast, but within the exclusive economic zone. It is a relatively small area, stretching at its greatest extent to 30 nautical miles from the coast of Wales. Without this new clause, the National Assembly for Wales could not make its own primary legislation relating to fisheries in the Welsh offshore region and the management of fisheries in Welsh waters would be more piecemeal and less effective.
Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)
There are a couple of points I want to make on this new clause. I understand that the Welsh Labour Government have raised concerns with the Government regarding the National Assembly’s legislative competence for fisheries matters beyond Welsh inshore waters. The Welsh Government are seeking to bring the National Assembly’s competence in line with Welsh Ministers’ Executive competence, which would make the introduction of a pan-UK framework less complex. The Minister’s letter to the Committee about new clause 5 explained that this is designed to address the need for an extension to the Welsh Government’s legislative competence to bring Wales in line with Scotland and Northern Ireland.
Can the Minister formally confirm for the record that new clause 5 adequately addresses the issues raised by the Welsh Government regarding the Bill, and that they have been consulted on and have agreed to the terms of new clause 5? Can he also explain why this issue was not addressed at an earlier stage, so that the Bill could be introduced in a more complete form? Furthermore, I understand that the Welsh Government have also raised concerns in relation to clause 18 and the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009. Can the Minister tell the Committee when discussions on those issues will be concluded, and whether he plans to table further amendments to deal with them during the Bill’s progress?
George Eustice
I can indeed confirm that we have developed the new clause in conversation with the Welsh Government. It was a specific request that they made after the Bill had been published and as it approached Second Reading, and we needed to go through the Government write-round process to get agreement to make the change. Obviously, there was earlier legislation as recently as two years ago in which Executive competence was given to the Welsh Government. At that point, they did not ask for legislative competence; I think everybody can agree that that was probably an oversight at the time and it is now important that they have that legislative competence. I can reassure the hon. Gentleman that this amendment, as drafted, enables the Welsh Government to have the legislative competence that they seek, that it has been developed in discussion with them and that it therefore addresses their concerns in that regard.
Question put and agreed to.
New clause 5 accordingly read a Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 22
Fisheries agreement between the UK and the EU
“(1) This section applies if—
(a) the United Kingdom and the EU enter into a withdrawal agreement, and
(b) pursuant to that agreement, the Secretary of State enters into negotiations with the EU, on behalf of the United Kingdom, for an agreement about the management of shared stocks (a ‘fisheries agreement’).
(2) The Secretary of State must pursue the following two objectives when negotiating a fisheries agreement.
(3) The first objective is that the agreement should provide for annual negotiations to determine fishing opportunities.
(4) The second objective is that the agreement should have the effect that Union fishing boats are not granted access to UK waters in any year unless the fishing opportunities for that year that are available for distribution by the United Kingdom are (looked at in the round) greater than those that would have been so available under relative stability.
(5) The reference in subsection (4) to the fishing opportunities for any year that would have been available for distribution by the United Kingdom “under relative stability” is to the fishing opportunities that would, in the opinion of the Secretary of State, have been so available for that year under the common fisheries policy, were the United Kingdom still a member of the EU.
(6) In this section—
‘exclusive economic zone’ has the meaning given by Part 5 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea 1982 (Cmnd 8941);
“fishing opportunities” means—
(a) the maximum quantities of shared stocks of particular descriptions that may be caught annually in particular areas within UK and Union waters, and
(b) the maximum number of days that fishing boats may spend at sea annually, in particular areas within UK and Union waters, fishing for particular descriptions of shared stocks;
‘shared stocks’ means stocks of sea fish which are found—
(a) in waters within the exclusive economic zone of the United Kingdom, and
(b) in waters within the exclusive economic zone of a member State;
‘UK waters’ means waters within British fishery limits;
‘Union fishing boat’ means a fishing vessel flying the flag of a member State and registered in the EU;
‘Union waters’ has the meaning given by Article 4 of the Common Fisheries Policy Regulation;
‘withdrawal agreement’ means an agreement setting out the arrangements for the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the EU in the terms (or essentially in the terms) endorsed by the meeting of the European Council held on 25 November 2018.”—(George Eustice.)
This new clause would require the Government, when negotiating an agreement with the EU about fisheries, to pursue the objectives that fishing opportunities should be subject to annual negotiation, and that the UK should receive more fishing opportunities than it does under the common fisheries policy.
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 1
Sea Fish Industry Authority: powers in relation to parts of UK etc.
“(1) The Fisheries Act 1981 is amended as follows.
(2) In section 2(1) (duties of the Authority)—
(a) after the third “of” insert, “(amongst other things)”,
(b) delete the words “as a whole”.
(3) After section 3 (powers of the Authority), insert—
“3A Exercise of functions in relation to different parts of the UK etc.
The Authority may exercise its functions separately and differently in relation to—
(a) the sea fish industry in different parts of the United Kingdom,
(b) sea fish and sea fish products landed in different parts of the United Kingdom,
(c) sea fish and sea fish products trans-shipped in different parts of the sea within British fishery limits adjacent to different parts of the United Kingdom.
3B Delegation of functions
(1) The Authority may authorise any other person to exercise on its behalf such of its functions and to such extent as it may determine.
(2) The Authority may give to any person authorised under this section to exercise any of its functions—
(a) financial assistance (by way of loan, grant or guarantee),
(b) other assistance including assistance by way of the provision of property, staff or services, for the purposes of those functions.
(3) The giving of authority under this section to exercise a function does not—
(a) affect the Authority’s responsibility for the exercise of the function, or
(b) prevent the Authority from exercising the function itself.”.
(4) In section 11 (accounts and reports), after subsection (7) insert—
“(7A) The report must include details of how income received from levies imposed under section 4 has been applied in the financial year in respect of each part of the United Kingdom by the Authority in exercising its functions including in particular details, in respect of each part of the United Kingdom, of how the income has been applied by the Authority in—
(a) promoting the efficiency of the sea fish industry in that part,
(b) promoting the marketing and consumption of, and the export of, sea fish and sea fish products relating to that part.”.
(5) In schedule 1 (the Sea Fish Industry Authority), in paragraph 16—
(a) before sub-paragraph (1) insert—
“(A1) The Authority must appoint a committee for the purpose of assisting the Authority in the exercise of its functions in relation to the sea fish industry in Scotland.
(A2) The committee is to consist of or include persons who are not members of the Authority.
(A3) The Authority must consult the committee on the exercise of its functions in relation to the sea fish industry in Scotland.”,
(b) in sub-paragraph (1), before “committees” insert “other”,
(c) in sub-paragraph (2), for “such committees” substitute “committees appointed under this paragraph”.”—(Brendan O'Hara.)
This new clause would give the Sea Fish Industry Authority greater flexibility to exercise its functions separately and differently in different parts of the UK. It would also require Seafish to report how income received from the levies it imposes has been applied in respect of each part of the United Kingdom.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Brendan O'Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray. I rise to speak to new clause 1, which has been tabled in my name and in those of my hon. Friends the Members for Kilmarnock and Loudoun and for Edinburgh North and Leith (Deidre Brock).
It has been a long-held view of the Scottish Government, and, indeed, of many in the sector, that Seafish, because of the way it is currently constituted, is not sufficiently flexible to meet the needs of the entire sector and requires radical reform. Many have made the case that there is an inherent flaw in Seafish attempting to represent all of the UK while operating in an area in which policy is devolved. In trying to represent the whole of the UK fishing industry, Seafish is viewed by many as providing insufficient support to the sector in Scotland, which all too often results in the poor or unsatisfactory marketing and promotion of Scottish seafood.
The main objective of the new clause is to devolve both the control over funding and the Executive powers of Seafish to Scottish Ministers. It would also devolve control of the Scottish aspects of the fishing levy, giving Scotland a key role in deciding how the Scottish share of the fishing levy should be spent. We believe that this new model will provide much greater flexibility for Seafish to exercise its functions separately and differently in the different parts of the UK. The new clause would also require Seafish to report the income it receives from the levies it imposes and how those are applied in each part of the United Kingdom.
As I have often said in Committee, not only is fishing devolved but there is absolutely no standardised version of the fishing industry across the UK. From Truro to Thurso and beyond, it is multi-layered, complex and nuanced, and is often very localised. Given that there is no one single fishing industry pursuing a common set of clear, shared objectives, it is surely ludicrous that we still have a one-size-fits-all fishing authority charged with securing a sustainable, profitable future for all parts of the seafood industry. How can Seafish practically offer regulatory guidance and service to the industry—including catching, aquaculture, processors, importers, exporters and distributors of seafood—as well as looking after restaurants and retailers in such a complicated and differentiated industry?
This is not an attack on Seafish or the people who work there. Rather, it is recognising that, with an aggregated coastline of almost 20,000 miles containing a host of different fishing practices and interests, it is in an almost impossible situation in trying to work in the best interests of everyone.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
I have made the same point as the hon. Gentleman often enough myself. However, the industry in Scotland surely encompasses the full range of practices that he identifies across the whole of the United Kingdom. How would devolution help to address that?
Brendan O'Hara
I absolutely agree with the right hon. Gentleman. I represent a west coast constituency and he represents a northern isles constituency, which are vastly different from that represented by the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan. It is about devolving power to as local a level as one possibly can. If Scottish Ministers are given the power to act on behalf of a much smaller area and a much smaller concentration of the industry, I think it will much better serve the industry as a whole across Scotland.
The Bill gives us the perfect opportunity to reform the current system to ensure that that levy can be better used to promote the range and quality of Scottish seafood, both at home and abroad. If Scotland were allowed to take these investment decisions, it would allow us to properly support the industry by promoting the quality and excellence of Scottish seafood products, both at home and across the world. It would also allow us to maximise the benefits of Scottish provenance, which is so important when marketing ourselves, particularly abroad, while supplying top-quality products to consumers.
Mr Paul Sweeney (Glasgow North East) (Lab/Co-op)
The Labour party fully supports the new clause, which seems like a sensible measure that would allow for a degree of variation in the way that the Sea Fish Industry Authority operates in different parts of the UK to reflect the fact that every part of the UK has a distinctive fishing industry that reflects its local circumstances, as the hon. Gentleman said. The new clause also requires Seafish to report on how the income received from the levies it imposes has been applied in each part of the United Kingdom. Again, that seems like a sensible suggestion to ensure that there is transparency in the way in which the levy is applied in each part of the UK. Therefore, we will support the new clause.
George Eustice
We disagree with the new clause and think that it is unnecessary. The issue of Seafish and the seafood levy was looked at in detail as part of the Smith Commission recommendations as recently as 2014. The new clause would go beyond what that commission recommended, which was that the power to impose levies should not be devolved to the Scottish Parliament.
However, we have taken account of some of the issues raised by the Scottish Government and by Richard Lochhead, the Minister at the time. In response, as well as having permanent Scottish representatives on its main board, Seafish established a separate Seafish Scottish advisory committee early this year to advise the board on how the levy should be invested in Scotland. The Scottish industry is also well represented in the sector panels that advise on Seafish’s UK priorities, as I have said.
In 2011, a consultation on the Sea Fish Industry Authority’s regional structures showed little industry support for the kind of devolution of the levy that the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute outlines. Indeed, just 20% of stakeholders supported such a model. A Scotland-focused levy would reduce Seafish’s overall ability to carry out its UK-wide priorities. It would reduce economies of scale and potentially cut across some of our other approaches as a UK-wide entity.
The levy setting already requires the consent of all the devolved Administrations. Periodically, when we want to review the levies, we have a discussion with the Scottish Government about exactly what they should be. There are arguments about which should go up and which should go down, but we have achieved unanimous agreement that we should make the levy change only once, so I do not accept that Scotland does not have sufficient influence at the moment.
Seafish publishes an annual report that sets out in great detail all its activities and funding, how it operates and what its priorities are. I therefore do not believe that we need additional requirements in that regard, since it is already done.
Mr Carmichael
I thank the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute for tabling the new clause, because it is an important topic to discuss and there is no doubt that our current system is capable of improvement. I sound a couple of notes of caution, however, in relation to the proposal for devolution.
We risk breaking up the support that is available by geography rather than by sector. The inshore fishermen in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency, who are catching nephrops, langoustines and others, probably have a fairly strong community of interests with those who are catching in the Irish sea and in the south-west.
Likewise there will be a community of interest in the other sectors, such as the pelagic sector at the other end of the country, the white fish sector and so on. Although I would never close the door on that sort of thing, from my experience, I would require a bit more persuasion that the industry wants or is asking for that kind of reform.
Brendan O'Hara
The Minister said that this issue was talked about in 2014. I think he would agree—I suspect that no one would disagree—that in politics 2014 seems a long time ago and much has changed.
I appreciate the support from the hon. Member for Glasgow North East, who talked about transparency, and he is absolutely right. In response to the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland, it is really important that this new clause is seen as a genuine attempt to improve Seafish. We are not seeking to undermine Seafish; we are seeking to improve how it works and how it can work best for the multitude of Scottish fishing industries. I agree that there is a community of interest, particularly in Northern Ireland, but that community of interest will be severely undermined by the imposition of the backstop that we talked about earlier this evening.
This change would work because it would allow a Scottish Seafish to promote all Scottish seafish across both coasts and the northern isles, and it could work. At the moment, Seafish does not work well for Scotland.
Mr Carmichael
I just want to tease out the issues here a little bit. I ask this question in a spirit of genuine inquiry, because I do not know the answer to it, but I would think that a lot of the inshore boats—the foreign boats in particular—around the hon. Gentleman’s constituency and certainly on the Clyde will fish as far down as the Isle of Man and around there, so what, in this context, actually constitutes “Scottish seafish”?
Brendan O'Hara
One would presume that it is where the catch is landed, or where the boat is registered. So when a boat comes back to Tarbert, or Oban, or the right hon. Gentleman’s home island of Islay, that would constitute “Scottish seafood”. I do not need to tell him how important that Scottish provenance is and how important it is to get those langoustines to Madrid or Paris as quickly as we possibly can. If we have an organisation that is at front and centre about Scottish provenance, I think that would certainly be a step in the right direction.
As I say, I do not think that Seafish is working particularly well for Scotland at the moment and that is something we have to address. So, with your permission, Mr Gray, I will push this new clause to a vote.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray. I bet you are delighted to be here in the final sitting tonight; the rest of the House has probably adjourned.
The new clause would ensure that the vital contribution that is made by the current European Maritime and Fisheries Fund to support sustainable growth in Scottish fisheries and aquaculture, inland waters, the seafood supply chain, conservation of the marine environment, and growth in jobs in coastal communities will be maintained in the future.
However, I must also add that the UK Government should be doing more to assess future opportunities such as rejuvenating coastal communities, and identify where infrastructure and subsequent funding might be required to maximise those opportunities. That would result in a bottom-up and needs-based approach that would lead to the establishment of a proper fund and the associated long-term planning. If we are to achieve the nirvana of catching more fish, landing them in Scottish and UK ports and processing them, further investment will clearly be required. The replacement EMFF would be an ideal vehicle for investment leverage.
Devolution is key here. We cannot possibly allow a repeat of DEFRA stealing the £160 million convergence uplift that is due to Scottish farmers—a redistribution that could have significant effects on future funding to farmers once historical payments are taken into account under any new UK scheme. Scotland currently receives 44% of EMFF moneys; that is obviously way higher than the pro rata figure per head of population, but it makes sense given the demographics of the fishing industry. I must put it on the record that there is no way we would ever countenance any future funding being allocated on a Barnett basis.
The situation appears even more stark when we look at the 2017 industry figures: 55% of employment in the sector overall, 58% of fishing industry employment and 75% of aquaculture industry employment are in Scotland. Scotland also accounts for 50% of fish processing, 67% of landings in the over-10-metre sector and 32% of landings in the under-10-metre sector. In a devolved context, it therefore makes sense that post Brexit, as an absolute minimum, the same allocation be made to the Scottish Government in the interest of effective distribution. Indeed, from the statistics I have cited, there is a clear case that Scotland should have further funding. I certainly would not want to see that happen to the detriment of other communities in the UK, but at the very minimum we should receive the equivalent of what we get now.
Mr Sweeney
I support new clause 2, which is a frankly common-sense measure. It is imperative that, as a result of the UK leaving the European Union, the industry must have both the certainty and the financial underpinning that it requires. The new clause would ensure that, so surely it must appeal to Government Members who want to provide such certainty. I appeal particularly to Scottish Conservatives present, who surely want to uphold the interests of Scottish fisheries. Here is a real test of whether they are part of Team Ruth or Team May: will they uphold the interests of the Scottish fisheries?
The removal of the EMFF presents a significant challenge across industry in Scotland. My own experience—
David Duguid (Banff and Buchan) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman will be aware of the announcement made recently—last weekend, I think—about funding in the implementation period. As the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun will probably also appreciate, it was not Barnettised; I think the overall figure was £32.7 million, with £16.4 million going to Scotland. Does the hon. Member for Glasgow North East welcome that?
Mr Sweeney
All I am looking for is a simple guarantee that there will be no financial detriment to Scottish fisheries. If you can encourage your colleague the Minister—
Mr Sweeney
Sorry, Mr Gray. If the hon. Gentleman can encourage his colleague the Minister to stand up and give that assurance, we will all be very happy and so will Scottish fisheries. That is all we are looking for—not smoke and mirrors or absolute figures cited in isolation, but an absolute guarantee that there will be no financial detriment as a result of this change.
As I was saying, there is a challenge facing the whole of Scottish industry because we are not sure what the so-called shared prosperity fund will look like. It will replace several models of European funding—including regional selective assistance, which I know from my former role at Scottish Enterprise was a crucial tool for promoting industrial development in Scotland—so we have to be very certain that there will be no financial detriment to industry as a result. An assurance to that effect would be welcomed by Scottish industry, including the fishing industry.
It is incumbent on the Minister to support the new clause because it would provide that degree of certainty. I thought that that was what the Conservative party was all about: providing certainty to business and allowing enterprise to flourish. Is that not music to your ears? I think you ought to stand here—
Mr Sweeney
Sorry, Mr Gray—it is rather late and I am forgetting my pronouns. I think they ought to stand here and support the new clause.
Mr Carmichael
I have essentially reached the same conclusion as the two previous speakers, for slightly different reasons. The EMFF money has been of massive significance to the industry and to communities around the UK coastline. I support some sort of guarantee that that money will continue to go to our fishing industries and communities. The amendment deals, of course, only with guaranteeing that the money will continue to go to Scotland, but it would be unthinkable that the same would not then apply to fishing communities in Wales, Northern Ireland and, indeed, England. I would not start from this position; but ultimately, from the point of view of the industry in the communities, I think the amendment would get us to where we need to be. For that reason I support it.
George Eustice
I disagree with putting a provision of this nature in the Bill, for reasons I shall explain. It is very important with legislation to separate the legal powers that we seek, to engage in such activities as giving financial assistance to the fishing industry, from the way those obligations are funded. That is, and always has been, predominantly a matter for the spending review. Such a provision would be unhelpful.
As to the legal powers, we have set out in clause 28, for England, the legal powers we need to make grant payments; so we are not, as was suggested, relying on some shared prosperity fund. There will be bespoke grants for the fishing industry, and we set out the powers to do that for England in clause 28. Clause 28(8) sets out the fact that there will under schedule 4 be similar powers for the Welsh and Northern Ireland Governments.
Ironically, at the time the Bill was drafted and on Second Reading, the Scottish Government told us they did not want the powers; so I put it to the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute that before the Scottish Government start to say that we must guarantee the money, they should work out how they will guarantee how they will get the legal powers to pay any money out in the first place. They are now asking us whether we may be able to make amendments later, to include those powers.
At the moment there is clearly a gap in the Bill, but that is a consequence of the position that the Scottish Government have adopted, so that they do not have the legal powers to make any grant payments.
Mr Carmichael
The Minister said earlier that the money should come through the spending review, as has long been the case. The EMFF funds have never been part of the spending review; he should know that. The amendment would guarantee the money as a funding stream for the future. What guarantees are there for that funding stream in clause 28?
George Eustice
EMFF comes from the EU budget and is part of the EU’s budget when it is set. It is typically set for a period of five years and is reviewed periodically. As recently as 10 December, the Secretary of State announced that the Government will put in place new domestic long-term arrangements for post-2021, which will enable us to create schemes similar to the EMFF in each of the four Administrations. In addition, he announced an extra £37.2 million of funding to boost the existing EMFF programme, to help the fishing industry prepare for the opportunities coming its way, as my hon. Friend the Member for Banff and Buchan pointed out.
I do not, therefore, believe that the new clause is necessary or appropriate. We have demonstrated, as recently as last week, our commitment to funding fisheries in the future. The Bill makes explicit provision for grants to be made in three of the four Administrations and I would simply say that the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun should first consider obtaining the legal powers.
Luke Pollard
In response to an earlier intervention from the hon. Member for Stafford the Minister set a baseline, effectively, on relative stability—about what that meant. Is not it appropriate that there is also a baseline set on funding shares, which is effectively what the amendment says—so that no pennies are lost for Scotland or, indeed, any other part of the UK? Is not that a key attribute, which should be embedded, to follow the logic of what the Minister said to one of his hon. Friends?
George Eustice
I do not think it is the same logic at all. That was a different clause, addressing a different issue—a negotiation with the European Union or a bilateral negotiation with a different country. It was not at all about a collective position that a Government might take with the Treasury. That is different. The Treasury might sometimes adopt positions that not everyone would agree with, but it is certainly not a foreign country; it is part of the Government. For all those reasons I oppose new clause 2 and I hope the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun will withdraw it and perhaps consider what might be done on Report to ensure that Scotland has the legal powers it needs to do this.
Mr Sweeney
Even though the new clause may not succeed, it would be worthwhile as a matter of record if the Minister could provide assurances to the industry that it is the Government’s intent that there should be no financial detriment as a result of the changes to the EMFF and the transition to the new financial frameworks that may supersede it.
George Eustice
I think we have demonstrated our intent in the announcements we have made just in the last week that there will be new schemes to replace the EMFF, and the fact that the current scheme will be boosted by £37 million. I oppose new clause 2.
The Chair
Mr Lefroy, you look as though you are trying to get my attention, or the Minister’s attention. If you wish to speak, you can just stand up.
Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)
Thank you, Mr Gray; I was not sure whether I could come in once the Minister had finished. The new clause comes to an important point regarding both fisheries and agriculture. Until now we have had one line on the budget, something like £8 billion to £10 billion a year net, that we have been paying to the European Union. That includes subsidies in fisheries, agriculture and many other areas, such as regional funds. All those budget lines will now be on the national budget, and they will not be guaranteed in the same way that they were before, through the mechanisms of the common agricultural policy or the common fisheries policy.
I think there is a justifiable concern across the fisheries sector and across the agricultural sector that, because these budget lines will now be subject to Treasury action—hopefully positive Treasury action, but not necessarily—there will therefore potentially not be the same kind of long-term commitment to fisheries and agricultural funding that we see under the CFP and CAP. Would the Minister very kindly give us some fairly strong reassurances on the record about the Government’s intentions on fisheries funding for the medium to long term, and not just in the short term? Obviously the CAP is ultra vires here.
George Eustice
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point. I understand his anxiety; this is the first time in half a century that we are taking control of these policies. I will simply say that the point he raises could be applied to any other area of Government spending. We could argue that there is no guarantee that we will increase spending on the national health service or on schools, and yet we do, because of political pressure brought to bear by hon. Members on both sides of the House, not least on this side. Of course, it is always open to hon. Members, if there is a Budget put forward on the Floor of the House with which they disagree and which does not contain the elements they seek, to vote it down. When we leave the European Union, new checks and balances will come in, and those checks and balances will be the opinion of hon. Members such as him, not the European Union.
Jeremy Lefroy
My hon. Friend is right, but he knows perfectly well that we are not the Bundestag, where they go through budgets line by line; in this House it is in effect an all or nothing thing. Nobody is going to put a Budget in jeopardy over an area such as fisheries, which—absolutely vital though it is—is a relatively small part of the Budget. That points to a real problem that relatively small areas of public expenditure, which are nevertheless extremely important, have in the way we deal with budgets.
George Eustice
I understand that point, but conversely, one could say that the DEFRA budget is small compared with other Departments such as the Department for Work and Pensions or the Department of Health and Social Care. Big changes to our budget actually make a small difference to the overall maths, so far as the Treasury is concerned, so that argument can be made either way.
As I said earlier, we also have the levies, charges and tender incomes referred to in earlier clauses. I gave an undertaking that, on Report, we will seek to give more clarity to hon. Members about how those funds might be deployed to support our fishing objectives.
Alan Brown
The Minister is optimistic about the future prospects and in thinking that I will withdraw the new clause. I thank the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland and the hon. Member for Glasgow North East for their contributions.
I think the hon. Member for Stafford actually made the point for me when he expressed his concerns, and looked for reassurances from the Minister, that the money will go to the Treasury. Frankly, I do not trust the Treasury. I say to the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan that at one point there was a £1 billion fund for carbon capture and storage that looked like it was going to go to Peterhead, but the Treasury overrode the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy and withdrew the funding. That is the problem with funding reviews by the Treasury: it can put a red pen through the funding at any time it likes. The Treasury holds the purse strings.
David Duguid
The general point that I think the hon. Gentleman is trying to make is that, while we are in the EU, we get the EMFF. However, does he accept that there is no guarantee of that same level of EMFF funding for member states in the future?
Alan Brown
No, there is not. That will be part of the settlement with the EU. However, the point is that the Treasury will control the funding. It will come back to the UK Government, and we are asking for a guarantee of funding at least equivalent to EMFF. It will be in the gift of the UK Government to do that. That is the whole point of the new clause, and that is why I was drawing attention to the fact that no guarantees are given in the Bill; it is left to the Treasury and is therefore a risk.
The Minister made an argument about the legal powers. The Scottish Government obviously believe they have the legal powers to give the grants, but that is an argument for another day. That would not stop that money being guaranteed for Scotland. I take the point of the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland that other areas will want the same guarantees. That is fine. I touched on how, going forward, I would like to see Scotland get more funding, but not to the detriment of other fishing communities around the UK. With that, I will press the new clause to a vote.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Alan Brown
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
I will try to brief. The new clause would effectively devolve control of the Scottish aspect of levies imposed by Seafish to Scottish Ministers, ensuring that levies imposed on fish or fish products landed in Scotland, or trans-shipped in Scottish waters, require confirmation by Scottish Ministers. It would also mean that Scottish Ministers may, by order, increase the rate of such levies.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Argyll and Bute touched on, it is a long-held view of the Scottish Government that the existing Seafish levy is not fit for purpose, providing inadequate support to the sector in Scotland, resulting in insufficient marketing and promotion of Scottish seafood. Levies should not be uniform across the UK and should be placed in the hands of devolved Ministers to determine best procedure and practice in their own nations and regions. This issue is similar to the red meat levy, which was also a long-running sore. The UK Government accepted changes to the Agriculture Bill to resolve that to the satisfaction of the Scottish Government. I hope the Minister will see fit to do likewise with these proposals.
Mr Sweeney
I support new clause 3, which seeks to devolve control of the Scottish aspects of levies imposed by Seafish to Scottish Ministers. Inter alia, it would require confirmation from Scottish Ministers for levies imposed in relation to fish or fish products landed in Scotland, or transhipped in Scottish waters, and allow Scottish Ministers to increase the rate of such levies by order.
It seems that the new clause makes sense and would allow Scottish Ministers to determine the rate of levy that best suits the industry in Scotland. The purpose of devolution is to allow for degrees of variance to best suit that country’s interests, and the new clause achieves that. We will support it.
George Eustice
As with the earlier amendments, I disagree with new clause 3. It goes beyond what was recommended by the Smith Commission, which looked at this issue as recently as 2014. There is no industry support for devolving the Seafish levies. Scottish Ministers already have responsibilities towards Seafish, including with regard to appointments to the board, which are agreed across all four Administrations of the UK. As I said earlier, there is already a Scottish advisory committee to Seafish. It is not appropriate to start to have different levies when parts of the fleet will land fish in different ports around the UK. That would create an unacceptable level of bureaucracy for a relatively small organisation such as Seafish.
Alan Brown
Did the Smith Commission really look at this and the likes of the red meat levy in detail? What recommendations did it make about the red meat levy?
George Eustice
It did look at the issue in detail. The then Scottish Minister, Richard Lochhead, made strong representations about it. In particular, I remember that he wanted to introduce a levy on salmon producers in Scotland. That was one of the thoughts behind the change that he advocated. Those suggestions were considered by the Smith Commission, but rejected. I believe that we should accept that decision, as it looked at the suggestions in detail, and I oppose new clause 3 for that reason.
Alan Brown
I was hoping for a more conciliatory tone from the Minister when I raised the example of the red meat levy, where the UK Government changes were very welcome.
George Eustice
The position with the red meat levy is different. Scotland and Wales feel that they do not get a fair share of the levy because the animals come from there and travel across the border to be slaughtered, and the levy is collected at the point of slaughter. That is not the case with the way that the seafood levy is collected. This is a different issue, about whether it is appropriate to devolve those particular levy charging functions. We do not believe it is.
Alan Brown
I take the Minister’s point about the geographical nature of the red meat levy, and there were concerns that my new clause was about only Scotland, so I accept that. Nevertheless, I will press the new clause to a vote.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)
New clause 8 relates to the West Lothian question set to fish, which we debated in some detail last Tuesday on amendments 15 to 19. I tabled the new clause as a probing amendment at that stage, and at this stage I do not wish to move it.
New Clause 11
Managing shared stocks
“(1) Where shared stocks of common interest are also exploited by other coastal states, the Secretary of State must engage with those states with a view to ensuring that—
(a) shared stocks are managed in accordance with the UK’s international law obligations and in accordance with the objectives of this Act;
(b) fishing mortality is below levels which will restore or maintain those shared stocks above levels capable of producing the maximum sustainable yield; and
(c) the impacts of fishing on the marine environment are avoided or, where avoidance is not possible, demonstrably minimised.
(2) The Secretary of State must endeavour to establish bilateral or multilateral agreements with other coastal states for the joint management of shared stocks of common interest.
(3) Where no formal agreement is reached, the Secretary of State must make every effort to reach common arrangements with other coastal states for fishing of shared stocks of common interest.
(4) Where neither a formal agreement nor a common arrangement is reached, the Secretary of State must—
(a) take all necessary steps to ensure that fishing of shared stocks of common interest is carried out such that the relevant stocks are maintained above levels capable of producing the maximum sustainable yield; and
(b) provide and make publicly available an annual report to the appropriate legislature outlining the steps taken pursuant to subsection (a) above.
(5) In setting total allowable catches in the UK exclusive economic zone for shared stocks of common interest, the Secretary of State may not increase the total allowable catch for any particular shared stock for UK fishing vessels apart from in the circumstances provided for in subsections (6) and (7).
(6) Where a coastal state with which a shared stock is jointly managed has reduced the total allowable catch available within its territory and—
(a) the Secretary of State is confident that this new total allowable catch will be complied with and enforced; and
(b) the coastal state consents to the UK increasing its total allowable catch,
then the Secretary of State may increase the UK total allowable catch by an amount not exceeding the amount by which the other coastal state has decreased its total allowable catch.
(7) Where the best available scientific advice on a shared stock confirms that fishing mortality of that stock can be increased without reducing the stock below a level capable of producing the maximum sustainable yield, then the Secretary of State may increase the UK total allowable catch in proportion to the change in recommend fishing mortality and the UK’s agreed share of total allowable catch for that stock.”.—(Mr Carmichael.)
The purpose of this amendment is to set clear sustainability criteria in relation to negotiations with other countries to ensure that a clear and robust process can be developed to prevent overfishing.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Mr Carmichael
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
We come back almost full circle to how we deal with what are known as shared stocks. It is pretty clear that that is going to be a subject of some political and commercial significance when we move to the next stage of negotiations on the future relationship with our current EU neighbours.
We have observed a number of times that the principle of sustainability was front and centre in the White Paper when it was published, but somehow does not seem to have made the transition into the Bill. New clause 11 would put sustainability back into the Bill as it relates to our management of shared stocks. It seeks to give a framework under which we would seek to reach agreement with neighbouring countries, third countries and the EU. I would suggest that the principles are fairly straightforward and sound and that this is exactly the sort of thing that the Government should have in the Bill if it were to be, as the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport suggested earlier, a sustainable Fisheries Bill.
Luke Pollard
The Bill makes no firm commitment on how a shared stock should be sustainably managed, which was one reason why we spoke about shared stocks in the objectives right at the start of our consideration of the Bill. That is extremely concerning, as setting clear sustainability criteria in relation to negotiations with other countries would help to avoid, for example, another mackerel wars scenario.
However, I have some questions about subsection 6 of the new clause, in particular about its unintended consequences for the total allowable catch. It suggests that if, for any reason, a country reduced its allowable catch on sustainability grounds, the other countries in that shared stock would ramp up to get to the total allowable catch, which could have implications for sustainability. It would be interesting to know from the right hon. Gentleman how that might work and how he might allay any concerns on that point.
George Eustice
I do not agree with the new clause. It is unnecessary and could have unintended consequences.
As a country, we already have clear obligations under international law—under both the UN convention on the law of the sea and the UN fish stocks agreement—to co-operate on the management of shared stocks. That is an international obligation that we have as a signatory to both UNCLOS and the UNFSA. Notably, article 63 of UNCLOS requires the UK and all other signatories to
“seek, either directly or through appropriate subregional or regional organizations, to agree upon the measures necessary to coordinate and ensure the conservation and development of such stocks”.
Both UNCLOS and the UNFSA also contain obligations to achieve maximum sustainable yield.
I do not accept the analysis that there is nothing on sustainability in the Bill. Clause 1, right at the start of the Bill, contains a list of sustainability objectives, including a commitment to MSY and all the objectives that are currently written in the basic EU regulation on the common fisheries policy.
A more likely scenario is that other countries, whether that be Norway or the European Union, would choose to fish unsustainably. In the event that we could not get an agreement, the suggestion here is that we would still set our own catch well below that of other member states. Subsection (6) seems to suggest that other states might set their quota well below maximum sustainable yield, meaning that we could set it higher, provided we had the permission of other member states.
I am not sure what scenario the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland envisages. A more likely scenario is that the UK will insist on sustainable fishing, as we always have, since ours is the country that champions sustainable fishing more than any other, but another country might not agree to do so. If we could not get an agreement, that other country might fish unsustainably outside of an agreement.
Our remedy for that, as things stand, is to be very clear, as we were in our White Paper, that access to UK waters is conditional on other foreign countries fishing sustainably. We will have strong leverage to be able to say to our neighbours: “Unless you fish within an agreement and within levels that are sustainable, we will not grant you the access to our waters on which you depend.” That puts us in a strong position. The new clause seems to suggest that the UK is the country that will want to fish unsustainably while everybody else—our neighbours—are the good guys. I suspect the opposite will be the case, but we have other remedies to ensure that we can deliver sustainable fishing by our neighbouring countries.
For all those reasons, and because we already have legal commitments, including in clause 1, and to a joint fisheries statement, I oppose the new clause.
Mr Carmichael
It is a pity that the Minister’s appetite for declaratory clauses appears to have been sated by the introduction of new clause 22. I confess that I struggled to follow some of his reasoning. It comes to the point about subsection (6). Essentially, the Minister seems to be saying that we will behave in such a way that it is unnecessary for us to include the provision in the Bill, because those are our international obligations, although we are not expecting anybody else to follow their international obligations in the same way. I confess that I do not understand the logic of that.
However, having said that, the sustainability point remains. We know from experience of the common fisheries policy that, unless there are principles such as sustainability everywhere, Governments and fisheries managers are always very ingenious at finding ways not to follow them.
Given the lateness of the hour and the fact that we will probably want to return to this issue on Report with a broader audience, I am not minded to press for a Division at this stage, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the new clause.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 12
Duty to ensure adequate monitoring and enforcement
“(1) The fisheries policy authorities must ensure that all fishing vessels fishing within British fishery limits and all UK vessels fishing both within and outside of British fishery limits must have installed on board a fully functioning device which allows that vessel to be automatically located and identified through the vessel monitoring system by transmitting position data at least every 20 minutes and sharing such position data with the relevant fisheries policy authorities.
(2) The fisheries policy authorities must ensure that all fishing vessels over ten metres length overall fishing within British fishery limits and all UK fishing vessels over ten metres length overall fishing within and outside of British fishery limits must have electronic monitoring equipment in order to—
(a) provide detailed and accurate documentation of all fishing activities, monitoring of compliance with fisheries and marine management measures and the ability to record levels of discarding, as well as details of catch of species, whether subject to catch quota or otherwise, and
(b) enable the estimation of the size and quantity of the marine biological resources taken or transported and to enable the identification, to the extent possible, of—
(i) the species of marine biological resources taken or transported;
(ii) the types and features of fishing gear used, and
(iii) any technical bycatch mitigation measures used.
(3) The fishery policy authorities must ensure that a comprehensive enforcement framework is developed in accordance with Council Regulation (EC) No 1005/2008, as amended from time to time.
(4) The fisheries policy authorities must by regulations make provision for any technical requirements necessary to implement this section.”—(Mr Carmichael.)
The purpose of this amendment is to strengthen the existing mechanisms for monitoring and control to help prevent illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing. This includes requiring transmission of position data at least every 20 minutes and requiring electronic monitoring equipment on the majority of vessels capable of carrying such technology.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Mr Carmichael
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
This is a very much a probing new clause. There is little in the Bill—arguably nothing—that deals with monitoring and enforcement. This proposal, authored by Greener UK, is to have real-time reporting with technological devices and CCTV cameras. Those are live issues within the industry, and between industry scientists and conservationists. It is unfortunate that there is nothing at all in the Bill on the matter, so I have tabled the new clause to give the Minister an opportunity to explain what the Government will do about monitoring and enforcement, close to the implementation of the Bill.
Luke Pollard
We heard evidence on this subject from the director of the Marine Management Organisation, Phil Haslam, who said in relation to enforcement activities around fishing:
“The budget reduction since inception has been in the order of 60%”.––[Official Report, Fisheries Public Bill Committee, ; c. 50, Q101.]
That is simply unsustainable if we are to have properly enforced, well-protected and well-managed fisheries after Brexit. A number of concerns were voiced in the evidence sessions and since. We know that the number of hours of surveillance has dropped significantly since 2010, from 16,000 to just 2,000 now.
If we are to avoid a repetition of the scallop wars, but in UK rather than French waters, we need to ensure that we have sufficient levels of enforcement. It is good news that the Government have decided not necessarily to scrap all the Batch 1 River class offshore patrol vessels. That is a positive step forward, but there has still been no commitment on the number of hours those OPVs may be deployed for enforcement activity; there has just been a headline about their continued service, but with no certainty as to what that will mean.
We need to get much better on enforcement. There are serious concerns in the fishing industry about the focus on enforcement activities by UK ships enforcing in UK waters, which are targeting UK boats rather than foreign boats, which seem to have a lower standard when it comes to a number of different areas. The Government need to get better at enforcement, because the Opposition do not currently have confidence in their ability to enforce in our waters properly, especially when quota will be drawn down against our EU friends after Brexit, as we move from relative stability to zonal attachment. There are serious concerns about whether there is sufficient capacity within the enforcement branches of the Royal Navy’s fisheries squadron.
I will also press the Minister on what that means for inshore vessel monitoring systems. Earlier we asked whether EU boats should have the same requirements to obey the high safety standards and marine environmental protections. Can he confirm that all foreign boats will be required to have IVMS if they are in UK waters after Brexit, as that will help us in our enforcement activities?
George Eustice
I shall try to strike a more conciliatory tone in my response to this new clause, following the comments from the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland. I believe that the new clause is unnecessary, although it does highlight an important issue: enforcement. The new clause duplicates existing legislation, including the so-called control regulation—Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009—which will be rolled forward into retained EU law. Therefore, the requirements for vessel monitoring systems and data transmission and the provision of information such as logbooks will continue to apply to any vessel fishing in our waters.
In addition, as I made clear earlier, DEFRA has recently consulted on extending VMS requirements to UK vessels under 12 metres in length. Work on this is at an advanced stage and we anticipate bringing forward the regulations next year. The UK also has obligations under the United Nations convention on the law of the sea and the regulations on illegal, unreported and unregulated fisheries, and that requires effective monitoring and enforcement in any event. Also, clause 31 enables the Secretary the State to make regulations to introduce further provisions pertaining to enforcement and control.
The shadow Minister questioned the capacity for enforcement. As we discussed earlier, the three existing fisheries patrol vessels will remain in service—the decision to decommission them has been delayed. In addition, four new offshore patrol vessels will come into service next year. Finally, we have been doing some work with the Border Force cutters, and four vessels operated by the Border Force are capable of doing fisheries work. We have been training Border Force personnel to do fisheries protection work. Finally, on top of all of that, we are in discussions with the Maritime and Coastguard Agency on aerial surveillance, so there will be a substantial uplift in enforcement capacity.
The hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport mentioned funding. That will depend on how much of that capacity we need according to the type of scenario. At this stage, the important thing is to ensure that all of the capacity is there. If we need to access it, we can do so very quickly.
Luke Pollard
Briefly, EU boats are currently required to have IVMS, but there is a data-sharing agreement between all EU member states. Will the Minister confirm that data sharing agreements are in place for IVMS on EU boats and the UK authorities after we leave the EU?
George Eustice
There will need to be an agreement on that, but obviously we have those data-sharing agreements with other neighbours, such as Norway, Iceland and the Faroes. In the absence of such an agreement, there will be no access whatsoever to European vessels. They will not be able to come into our waters unless they comply with our data requirements.
Mr Carmichael
The joy is matched by your own presence in the Chair, Mr Gray, I assure you.
The challenge was put down that we should have Home Office Ministers on our fishing boats. It seems that the best we are going to get is some Border Force officers on a fishing boat, and not necessarily in the circumstances that we might have voted on for the purpose that we were discussing.
I said at the start that the new clause was intended to be probing. I think that the Bill would benefit from the inclusion of provisions on enforcement and monitoring. I hope that the Minister will reflect on that. Otherwise, we might wish to return to the matter on Report. I am pretty certain that my noble friends will have an approach to this. In the meantime, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
The Chair
To keep the Committee up to date, there is some confusion about new clause 25, which appears on the selection list in error. There will be no further debate on new clause 25, which has already been voted on in a group earlier today.
New Clause 14
Duty to co-operate
“(1) A fisheries policy authority must co-operate with other fisheries policy authorities in the preparation and application of the JFS and any SSFS, the licensing of fishing boats, enforcement against illegal fishing activity, the determination and distribution of fishing opportunities and the prevention of discards.
(2) A fisheries policy authority may share information with another fisheries policy authority for the purpose of discharging its duty under subsection (1).”—(Luke Pollard.)
This new clause would place a duty to co-operate on all fisheries policy authorities in carrying out their functions under this Bill; and would provide for the sharing of information between fisheries policy authorities.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Luke Pollard
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The debate on new clause 25 was a good one, and we can always revisit it. This new clause is about the duty to co-operate. The Minister has already decided that there is no need for a dispute resolution mechanism in relation to the different national fishing authorities in preparing the joint fisheries statement, or the Secretary of State’s fisheries statement—a position that the Opposition disagreed with. In the event of not having a system for resolving disputes, it would be important to have a duty to co-operate in the Bill.
The amendment has been drafted with the support of the Blue Marine Foundation. The CFP provides the glue that currently holds UK fisheries governance together. Without it there is a danger that the various devolved Administrations, the MMO and the IFCAs will draft different regulations, since they will essentially have control over their own areas with no statutory obligation to speak to anyone else or have due regard to what happens in neighbouring waters. The effect of this fracturing of regulation was highlighted by the Pitt review after the catastrophic 2007 floods, where administrators had differing operational practices and poor communication within them. The new clause seeks to resolve that in relation to fisheries.
The fracturing of regulation was deemed to exacerbate the harm caused by flooding. Marine regulation faces the same problem. Two different landing sizes for the same species in different adjacent areas, for instance, would have the effect of making some regulations inoperable and confusing. Without a duty to co-operate, fisheries administrations would be acting together in an ad hoc manner and co-operation would be seen as an add-on to their core purpose. This duty would put co-operation at the centre of the administrations, where it needs to be.
The new clause is similar to section 13 of the Flood and Water Management Act 2010, which followed the recommendations of the Pitt review. It does not replace the arrangements of the CFP but would go part of the way towards putting EU law into workable UK law.
Alan Brown
Given that we already have co-operation on the joint fisheries statement, can the hon. Gentleman explain how his new clause would create an additional level of co-operation?
Luke Pollard
Effectively, because the Government have decided to vote down the very sensible proposal of having a dispute mechanism to resolve any disputes in preparation of the joint fisheries statement and the Secretary of State’s fisheries statement, the new clause seeks to ensure that all national fisheries bodies have a duty to co-operate and that there is no dispute in the preparation of the joint fisheries statement policies. That is why it is so important that an obligation to co-operate is placed on all authorities, to avoid some of the disputes that we otherwise anticipate, especially in the complex waters between England and Scotland, and ensure that the Scottish and English fisheries authorities can set appropriate levels.
Alan Brown
How would we define and assess that co-operation, and who would make the call on how effective it is? I might argue, for example, that the UK Government are not co-operating on a certain aspect, whereas the UK Government might say, “Well, we are co-operating.” Different people would have different perceptions. How would this function in reality?
Luke Pollard
The duty to co-operate is a well-established legal text within primary legislation, so there is already an established understanding of what that means. On that basis, I will sit down and let the Minister respond.
George Eustice
I know that we have discussed this issue earlier, but it is already provided for elsewhere in the Bill. I invite the hon. Gentleman to look at clause 5(1), in particular, which states:
“The fisheries policy authorities must prepare and publish a JFS before 1 January 2021.”
There is therefore already a legal obligation on all the fisheries policy authorities. Also, clause 3(1) states:
“A JFS may only be prepared by the fisheries policy authorities acting jointly”.
The fact that every fisheries policy authority is under a legal obligation to agree a JFS, and the fact that statement can be established only by those authorities acting jointly, already gives effect to a legal requirement to act jointly and in good faith to agree such a statement.
Luke Pollard
The title of clause 5 refers to “the first fisheries statements”. Can the Minister suggest what will happen in the event of a dispute on the second or third statements?
George Eustice
In the event that the statement is amended, the same rules apply. It can only be applied by the authorities acting jointly and we will have to agree these things. The first statement must be done by 2021, but any statements after that will obviously also be required, because there is a requirement to have a JFS. There will be more than one and the Bill also sets out that the statement must be reviewed at least every six years.
Luke Pollard
I thank the Minister for those remarks. They do not go much of the way towards reassuring us that the second or third fisheries statements will have any element of co-operation. Therefore, in the absence of a dispute resolution mechanism, which would address disputes in preparation for fisheries statements, and in the absence of him taking on board the duty to co-operate, I think we are storing up trouble that we can quite clearly anticipate in future. I suspect that, as I mentioned previously, some industrious journalist will dig out this Hansard report when there is a dispute between the different national fisheries authorities, and it will then be flagged to the wider public that this was anticipated and not resolved.
The Chair
I think that was an intervention on the Minister, who will now conclude his remarks.
George Eustice
It was a long intervention, but I have been guilty of that myself at times.
I will just point out that clause 5 goes on to say, in subsection (3):
“The fisheries policy authorities must review a JFS they have prepared and published whenever they consider it appropriate to do so and in any event—
(a) before the end of the period of 6 years beginning with the day on which it was published, and
(b) before the end of the period of 6 years beginning with the end of the most recent review.”
I therefore do not share the hon. Gentleman’s analysis that the duty to co-operate and to work jointly, and the legal obligation to have a fisheries statement, expires after the first one. Clause 5(3) is clear that that becomes an enduring obligation, and I am happy to make that clarification.
Those are the reasons why I oppose the new clause. As I have said many times, the Bill respects the contours of our devolution settlement. We have a long-standing track record of successful concordats and memorandums of understanding that deal with fisheries. When we approach an issue such as the December Council and annual fisheries negotiations, we send a UK delegation. We have a good track record of working together and I believe that the approach we have outlined here is the best one to ensure that we have a UK framework to deliver on those sustainability objectives.
Mr Carmichael
I support the new clause, which I think would improve the Bill. I certainly take the view that a dispute resolution mechanism would be preferable. In the absence of that, however, having a duty to co-operate would at least allow for a situation in which any party that was not co-operating could be subject to judicial review, because they would be in breach of a duty given to them under the law. For the Minister to say that there is an imperative to reach an agreement on the face of the Bill presupposes that everybody will work in good faith. In the event that people are not working in good faith, there has to be a mechanism for identifying that. The Bill is currently deficient in that regard. The new clause is second best, but it would be better than nothing.
Luke Pollard
I think that the points have been well established, but I suspect that the Minister will not accept the new clause. I suggest that he thinks carefully about the context in which we are raising concerns here, in good faith, to avoid trouble in future. I suggest that he considers bringing back an element of it when the Bill is considered in the other place. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 15
Expert advisory council on fisheries
“(1) The Secretary of State must establish a body called the Expert Advisory Council on Fisheries for the purpose of exercising the functions in subsections (4) to (6).
(2) The Expert Advisory Council on Fisheries shall consist of as many people as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.
(3) Before appointing any person to the Expert Advisory Council, the Secretary of State must consult with—
(a) the other fisheries policy authorities, and
(b) any other such organisations as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.
(4) The Secretary of State must have regard to the advice of the Expert Advisory Council on Fisheries before—
(a) publishing or amending a Secretary of State fisheries statement,
(b) making or withdrawing a determination of fishing opportunities under section 18, and
(c) making any regulations under this Act, unless those regulations are made under—
(i) this section, or
(ii) section 42.
(5) The Secretary of State shall publish the Expert Advisory Council on Fisheries” assessment, for a calendar year, of the state of UK fisheries, including—
(a) current stocks and their sustainability,
(b) species distribution within the Exclusive Economic Zone,
(c) the status of employment and skills in the fishing industry,
(d) present total catches and future projected total catches, by both volume and monetary value, and
(e) the economic and social value and impact of the fishing industry on coastal communities.
(6) The first annual assessment under subsection (5) shall be published within 12 months of this section coming into force, and each subsequent assessment must be published within 12 months of the previous such assessment.
(7) For a calendar year, no determination may be made under section 18 until the annual assessment under subsection (5) has been published for that year.”—(Luke Pollard.)
This new clause would place a duty on the Secretary of State to establish the Expert Advisory Council on Fisheries, and provides for the Council’s membership and functions.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Luke Pollard
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
It is important that we stop using the fishing industry as a political football. This is what the expert advisory council would seek to do, and it would do so by giving a say to those who know the industry best and have its best intentions at heart. The new clause has the industry’s support. Barrie Deas from the National Federation of Fishermen’s Organisations told the Committee in evidence that his organisation would like to see an
“advisory council of people with experience of the industry, who understand the complexities of a highly diverse and complex industry”
as well as being
“a kind of filter for legislation”
that could also
“make recommendations and provide advice on new legislation coming through.”—[Official Report, Fisheries Public Bill Committee, 4 December 2018; c. 15-16, Q26-27.]
An advisory council would run new ideas past a panel of experts who understand the complexities and nuances of fisheries. The NFFO recommends the Australian model for reference. It suggests that an advisory council would formally guide policy and promote collaboration between central Government, the devolved Administrations, industry, scientists and other key stakeholders, allowing for
“an ongoing dialogue in a naturally variable industry”
and guaranteeing that sustainability issues are fully considered, as well as playing a leading role in the use of secondary legislation to ensure an agile and responsive approach to fisheries management.
On a final point, the NFFO has also pointed out that the Bill is right to forecast an important role for secondary legislation. It suggests that the common fisheries policy would be inflexible and rigid, and that it is therefore more important for there to be expert input. Further talks about delegated powers used appropriately would allow a more dynamic approach and would protect against unbridled use of such delegated powers. The NFFO would like to see an advisory council playing an influential role in advising the Government on the requirements of each piece of secondary legislation.
Phil Haslam backed up this argument in our evidence session, saying that anything that increases the dialogue between scientists “can only help” in that respect. He was referring to the provisions of an expert group that would include scientists, conservationists, industry representatives and those responsible for enforcement. We hope that the Government can support this very sensible amendment, which has industry backing.
Mr Carmichael
Fisheries management, and the politics surrounding it, is always at its worst when all the various stakeholders and parties retreat to their own silos and just lob howitzers at each other. We have seen how that works at different points over the years. It is unproductive. The secret to effective fisheries management, in my view, has always been to require there to be credibility from the system in the eyes of the industry, meaning that the industry has to be involved in the dialogue every step of the way. Getting fishermen, scientists, conservationists and the various Government agencies all in the room at the same time makes perfect sense. We have seen some measure of progress in this regard since 2002 and then in 2012, with the creation and then the strengthening of regional advisory councils, which—although they are an imperfect animal—have been a vast improvement on what we had before. This is a mechanism by which the industry, scientists, conservationists and others can all be kept in constant dialogue.
That would be an eminently sensible move, and the Minister would do well to note that this is essentially the policy put forward by the National Federation of Fishermen’s Organisations. Its willingness, as the voice of our industry, should be rewarded and encouraged. For that reason, I support the new clause and hope that the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport will push it to a vote if the Minister does not have something positive to say about it. If he does push it to a vote, I will support it.
George Eustice
I do not think that the new clause is necessary, because we already have extensive involvement with stakeholders, including environmental NGOs and the fishing industry. We are working with the industry now to establish what type of advisory infrastructure we might want to put in place after we leave the European Union, but we do not believe that it is necessary to put that on a statutory footing.
I want to explain to hon. Members what we do every year in the December Council. Every year, in September, we rotate around the UK—this year we were in London and the previous year we were in Cardiff. Everyone with an interest comes, from green NGOs to fishing representatives. We talk them through the stock assessments and the approach that we intend to take at the December Council. Through a day-long session with DEFRA, that wide group has input on the negotiating stance that we will take. We follow that up with a series of smaller meetings with individual groups such as green NGOs, groups with fishing interests and producer organisations, to get a clearer and more detailed input on their own particular issues. That, of course, informs our negotiating position.
In addition, we have a number of other models, such as the scallop industry consultation group. We also work closely with other fisheries science partnerships around the country and have an expert advisory group already set up to consider EU exit issues. None of those bodies is on a statutory footing, but all of them are useful to us. Obviously, we are considering how those could play into the future.
Mr Carmichael
I commend the Minister for all those moves—they are exactly what he should be doing. However, this issue requires a Minister to be prepared to engage in that way. The Minister has been a Member for a good few years; he has certainly seen a few Fisheries Ministers in his time, and before he came to the House he saw other Fisheries Ministers who had a very different approach. Does he not understand that there is merit in putting the issue on the face of the Bill, to ensure that those who follow him will be required to undertake the same laudable steps that he himself has taken?
George Eustice
In fairness to all my predecessors, I should say that the convention that I have abided by was established a long time ago. Indeed, after the devolution settlement, the last Labour Government established the convention of a UK-wide delegation and we have had these stakeholder meetings annually ever since.
As I said, a number of other ad hoc advisory groups have been set up. The problem with putting a statutory body in the Bill in the way proposed is that that might become too rigid. The ability to bring together the relevant group of experts to address a particular challenge, through a particular taskforce—as we have done on scallops and EU exit, for instance—gets weaker.
We would also have to give a lot of thought about who should be on that advisory group. For example, we would need to consider which of the green NGOs had to be on there: it could not just be fishing interests, but would have to include many others besides. Nor is it clear that even a so-called panel of experts from the fishing industry and green NGOs would be able to do the work needed to draft and provide an annual assessment of the stocks; CEFAS does that highly technical piece of work—rightly, our technical and scientific experts provide that work for us. It is, of course, open to those who think they can to challenge such assessments, but the issue is not a matter of opinion but of scientific assessment that must be provided by groups such as CEFAS.
This raises an important point about how we engage with industry and green NGOs. I believe that we do so very effectively. We are not saying that we have a closed mind on having advisory groups in the future; we simply do not believe that the matter needs to be placed on a statutory footing—that would be too rigid and prevent us from being able to bring on board the expertise we need.
As I said, we will be talking with industry in the months ahead. I hope that I can reassure the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport that when we return on Report we may be in a stronger position to outline the type of approach we intend to take, to ensure that we have input from industry and environmental NGOs.
Luke Pollard
I realise that I have committed a schoolboy error in not following the advice of the Environment Secretary. The amendment starts:
“Expert advisory council on fisheries”.
If only we had called it the pre-eminent voices’, the greybeards’, the boffins’, the experienced practitioners’, the aficionados’, the hotshots’ or even the maestros’ advisory council, we might have got it through.
The new clause is the only real change that the NFFO wanted to the Bill. Although I would have liked the NFFO to push further on a number of areas, it decided to push only on one—this area. To deny the key concern of the key stakeholder for the fishing industry across the UK and describe it as too rigid will not sit well with the fishing federations across the country.
Brendan O'Hara
The hon. Gentleman is making a compelling case. Can he guarantee that his new clause will not impinge on the devolution settlement, but will fully respect the devolved competencies in Edinburgh, Belfast and Cardiff?
Luke Pollard
It absolutely should do that. That gives the Secretary of State the ability to have some flexibility. Effectively, we have a Government who consult, but do not like a requirement to consult, and who are engaging with expert voices, but do not want an expert group. I have to say to the Minister that his reassurance, “Don’t worry, this will be okay on Report,” would have been a lot more reassuring if that engagement and work had been done prior to the Bill’s coming out.
George Eustice
Does the hon. Gentleman not accept that it is already there? I have just explained in great detail how, every year as we approach a December Council, we engage a wide range of organisations.
Luke Pollard
Indeed, and Barrie Deas of the NFFO described the advisory set-up that exists already under the CFP. He has noted that its abolition via our exit creates a gap that needs to be filled by expert advisory groups, which is what the new clause suggests.
I understand that the Minister may not want to accept an amendment from the Opposition, so I encourage him to take the wording of it and tweak it ever so slightly, so that he can “make it his own”—to borrow a bit of Louis Walsh from “The X Factor”—and then bring it back later in the Bill’s progress, because this is something that the fishing industry wants. On that basis, I will be pushing the new clause to a Division.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Luke Pollard
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
We are nearly there now. We can all agree that more needs to be done to tackle the global crisis that is marine pollution, but better regulation is needed to ensure that the fishing industry plays its full role in tackling marine plastics.
The statistics on marine plastics waste are really shocking. Greenpeace estimates that 12.7 million tonnes of plastic end up in our oceans each year—the equivalent of a truckload of rubbish every minute. The waste includes everything that you might expect from our throw-away society, from plastic bottles and bags, to fruit stickers and disposable razors. It also includes plenty of waste produced by the fishing industry itself.
It has been heartening to see the war on plastics go from being something of a fringe issue to entering the mainstream, particularly since the broadcaster David Attenborough’s “Blue Planet II”. People across the country are switching to reusable bags, bottles and coffee cups, but the fishing industry has not yet fully faced up to the damage that some of its practices and its use of plastics are doing to the marine environment. The Environment Secretary found “Blue Planet II” so upsetting that he told The Guardian he had been “haunted” by images of the damage done to our oceans. I therefore wholeheartedly expect the Minister to support the new clause, which would help exorcise the Secretary of State’s demons.
Mike Hill (Hartlepool) (Lab)
My hon. Friend mentions plastics. In the light of the proven effects of microplastics on the marine environment and wildlife, does he agree with me and environmental movements such as Plastic Free Hartlepool that the Bill presents a perfect opportunity to introduce long-overdue protective measures?
Luke Pollard
I agree that to tackle microplastics, especially the plastic waste generated by the fishing industry, we first have to deal with the macroplastics that are breaking down to form microplastics in many cases.
To take one example, which shows the scale of the problem, a study by the conservation group The Ocean Cleanup looked at the so-called great Pacific garbage patch—an area of floating rubbish estimated to be three times the size of France. It found that most of the 79,000 tonnes of plastic in the patch is abandoned fishing gear, as opposed to the plastic bottles or packaging that we tend to focus our efforts on. That rubbish included fishing nets and a range of other abandoned fishing gear, such as ropes, oyster spacers, eel traps, crates and baskets.
In the EU, it is estimated that approximately 20% of gear is lost at sea. The reasons for that range from accidents, storms and entanglement to intentional abandonment. A particular concern with fishing waste is that, by design, it will cause problems for marine life. Much of the waste has been dubbed “ghost nets”, a term that may be familiar to hon. Members, which refers to purposefully discarded or accidentally lost netting that drifts through the ocean and entangles whales, seals and turtles. Some estimates suggest that 100,000 marine animals are strangled, suffocated or injured by plastics every year.
Today, I met Christian Marr from Andrew Marr International—the fishing company, rather than the BBC journalist—who set out the extra steps to which his Jubilee fishing boats go to retrieve car tyres, plastic pollution and even washing machines from their nets while at sea. He also explained that he wants more ports to provide rubbish facilities so that waste generated by fishers at sea is landed and disposed of responsibly—which, to be honest, does not always happen—rather than discarded overboard. He made the good point that, if fishers leave for a week with their shopping delivery and get back without any shopping waste, there is only one place where that waste could have gone. The issue is partly about encouraging behaviour change in the fishing sector. Not all fishers do it, but some do, which is why tackling plastic waste is important.
It is clear that more can and should be done to tackle fishing’s plastic pollution problem, but progress has so far been slow. Conservation efforts would benefit from better data on the problem. The new clause would enable the Secretary of State to ensure that the amount of plastic waste produced during fishing activities is recorded and widely understood. It would also allow Ministers to regulate to prohibit the disposal of plastic items while at sea and to require plastic items to be disposed of at specified onshore processing facilities.
The new clause contains common-sense enabling steps that would strengthen the Secretary of State’s powers to tackle the problem. The Government like to say that marine waste is a priority for them, so I hope that the Minister will support the new clause.
Mr Carmichael
The inclusion of such a clause should be supported. If someone walks along any beach these days, they will see discarded rope, net, broken floats and old floats. Unfortunately, a lot of the plastic waste on our beaches comes from the fishing industry. There is a mixed experience with regard to the industry and its approach to that. There have been several really good initiatives over the years, some of which I have supported, particularly Fishing For Litter. Such things should be encouraged.
It is in the industry’s interest to ensure that the amount of plastic in the oceans, which then breaks down and becomes the microplastics that the hon. Member for Hartlepool referred to, is not there, because it will have an adverse effect on the fish that are caught. What enters the food chain has a consequence. What we have here is a power—a stick that the Minister may hold behind his back—to concentrate minds in the event that the initiatives taken by the industry are not pursued as universally and rigorously as the gravity of the situation demands.
George Eustice
This is an important issue. We all know that the challenge of plastics in our ocean has risen up the agenda significantly since “Blue Planet II”. As the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland pointed out, there are a number of important initiatives out there. We have supported, for instance, the Fishing For Litter initiative that he cited. In addition, the Government recently made available £200,000 to support a research project looking specifically at microplastics derived from tyres and clothing. However, we all know that in the context of fisheries the biggest challenge is perhaps that of ghost nets or lost nets, particularly when they have the monofilaments that can cause so much damage to our marine environment. I will address those areas specifically.
First, I draw hon. Members’ attention to clause 31(4)(i), which specifically cites
“the retrieval of lost or discarded sea fishing equipment”
as one of the areas where the Government can legislate through technical measures to address a particular challenge. I believe that the Bill already, through that subsection, addresses the issue of lost fishing equipment, including nets.
In addition to that provision in the Bill, there are existing provisions that we intend to retain. Notably, the Council control regulation 1224/2009 is being brought across through the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. That control regulation already requires that lost fishing gear retrieval must be attempted as soon as possible. It also requires that if retrieval is not possible, fishermen must inform the UK authorities within 24 hours —by notifying the UK Fisheries Monitoring Centre or through an electronic logbook. There is already a reporting requirement for lost gear that cannot be retrieved. The Marine Management Organisation also has guidance in place to assist fishermen to comply with those regulations.
I think that the combination of the powers set out in clause 31 and the retained EU law that already exists on the problem of lost fishing gear addresses the issue sufficiently, and there is therefore no need for the additional powers outlined by the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport in new clause 16.
Luke Pollard
I thank the Minister for that response. Again, it is disappointing. Given that we have an urgent crisis around marine plastics, the strong voice of this House, united on a cross-party basis, should go out to say that extra steps will be taken to tackle marine waste. Putting that in the Bill, not hidden away in a subsection about the retrieval of lost gear—not something that I am convinced takes place in the way that the Minister suggests—would have sent a better tone to the industry, and to all voters concerned about marine plastics.
I am disappointed that the Minister has not picked this up. Again, I suggest that he looks seriously at the wording and considers tabling an amendment of his own on this matter later on. I would like to press the new clause to a vote.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Luke Pollard
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Members will be pleased to hear that this is the last new clause that I will move this evening, but it is an important one. The Labour party has a manifesto commitment to double the size of the co-operative sector. The UK fishing industry contains a range of co-operatives operating in the catching, landing and processing sectors. The UK fishing industry, specifically the concentration of ownership and quotas, is in need of reform.
As we have already discussed, as we seek to gain greater and more sustainable use of the vast resources in the seas that surround our islands, we need to do so in a way that spreads wealth and ownership in the UK fishing industry. Greater diversity in ownership will benefit the industry and the communities that rely on it by challenging the dominant players and giving access to new entrants.
The fishing community has a long history of co-operation and co-operatives. The benefits of co-operatives are clear: increased productivity, increased resilience and the spread of economic democracy.
Mr Sweeney
Does my hon. Friend recognise that an exemplar of co-operation in the fisheries sector is the Scottish Seas co-operative, which covers numerous ports from Fraserburgh and Peterhead to all round the west coast? It encompasses 60 vessels and more than 250 fishermen, which is a huge opportunity for smaller fishermen to make a significant economic impact and to exert leverage on a market that is increasingly dominated by larger retailers and processors.
Luke Pollard
My hon. Friend makes a good point. The success of the co-operative sector in the fishing industry has been a hidden secret. People who advocate co-operatives, as I do as a Labour and Co-operative MP, need to speak louder about that success story.
Further encouraging co-operative ownership and ways of working is common sense in many ways. New co-operatives in the differing aspects of the industry can be the building blocks of new community wealth for communities around the coast. We believe in the co-operative model, which is an important tool for rebuilding a fairer, and therefore better, fishing industry. The Government have important role to play in encouraging that development.
The Bill provides the opportunity to place new duties on the Secretary of State to support the expansion and development of co-operative businesses in all aspects of the fishing industry. Alongside our proposed quota reallocation to extend opportunities, support should be given to existing fishing co-operatives to grow, and to new co-operatives to start up. That should be targeted at coastal towns and communities where the fishing industry has been in the steepest decline. By supporting the new duties, the Government will show that they are interested not only in the status quo but in embracing their role in reshaping the industry and spreading economic democracy.
George Eustice
I agree that co-operatives have an important role to play in the fishing industry. In many ways, the industry is already dominated by producer organisations, which are a form of co-operative. Those organisations are formed by effectively pooling the quota that was attached to individual vessels. The vessels that join the producer organisation then pool their fishing opportunities and fish against them as a co-operative movement. They already dominate.
DEFRA has supported discussions and plans on the development of producer organisations in the inshore sector. When Jerry Percy gave evidence, we heard that he was keen to progress that. Some of the inshore under-10-metre fleet seek to support one another, come together as a co-operative and manage their own quota. We in DEFRA have said that we are open to doing that and to facilitating that for the inshore fishermen who would like to join such a co-operative.
I also point out that clause 28(1)(c) creates a power for Secretary of State to give financial assistance for the
“reorganisation of businesses involved in commercial aquaculture activities or commercial fish activities”.
There is provision in that clause for the Secretary of State to give financial assistance to co-operatives or to support producer organisations, so the power is there, should it be needed.
In conclusion, I agree that the co-operative model has an important role to play, but I argue that the sector has long co-operated through the existing producer organisation structure, and that the powers exist in the Bill to support that model further.
Luke Pollard
I think what the Minister said at the end was, “We support co-operatives and want to further their development,” but he just chose a way to shoot down the new clause nicely
George Eustice
What I was actually saying was that we do not need the new clause because there are powers elsewhere in the Bill to support co-operatives.
Luke Pollard
I am very pleased that the Minister managed to end the discussion by pointing out a clause that includes the word “aquaculture”, because that is one of our favourite points. Supporting the development of co-operatives is important and something that we should be encouraging, so I encourage the Minister to take it seriously. As a result, for the final time, I will press the new clause to a vote.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Mr Carmichael
The issues that I sought to explore in relation to new clause 23 were well explored earlier in our proceedings, and accordingly I am not seeking to press it.
Title
Amendment made: 10, title, line 11, after “fisheries;” insert—
“to make provision about the legislative competence of the National Assembly for Wales in relation to fishing, fisheries or fish health in the area of the Welsh zone beyond the seaward limit of the territorial sea;”—(George Eustice.)
This amendment to the long title of the Bill is consequential on NC5.
George Eustice
On a point of order, Mr Gray. I do not want to detain hon. Members any longer than necessary but I want to record my thanks to the Clerks and all hon. Members for their work on the Committee, and in particular for staying so late this evening when the House has long since adjourned.
Luke Pollard
Further to that point of order, Mr Gray. I add my thanks to the Committee staff, the Clerks and all the stakeholders who have contributed so much to the passage of the Bill, and I wish it best speed.
With your permission, Mr Gray, I also wish the Minister the best of luck at the fisheries summit. As he controls the programme motion, perhaps next time he finds himself with a fisheries Bill and a fisheries summit at the same time, it might be wise to adjust one so that he can attend the other. I wish him the best of luck for the remaining sessions of that summit and hope he comes back with a good deal for our fishers.
Mr Carmichael
Further to that point of order, Mr Gray. I associate myself with those comments. It is at least eight and possibly nine years since I last sat on a Public Bill Committee. In fact, if I say that the last time I sat on a Bill of this sort it was a Standing Committee, you will understand, Mr Gray, that that takes us back to at least before 2010.
In addition to those we have already thanked, we should record our thanks to those who gave evidence to the Committee. As a neophyte in that regard, I thought that was enormously helpful. That innovation has enormously improved our procedures. Finally, I associate myself with the best wishes with which we send the Minister to Brussels. It has clearly not been an easy year but I hope he will do everything he can to bring home the best possible settlement because the sustainability we have spoken about in theoretical terms during the Committee is very much at stake in practical terms.
Brendan O'Hara
Further to that point of order, Mr Gray. I associate the Scottish National party with the previous comments. Our sincere thanks to the Clerks and all hon. Members who have made this such an interesting, good-natured and serious Committee investigation of the Fisheries Bill. As everyone does, I wish the Minister the best of luck in his endeavours when he meets the rest of his EU counterparts. Finally, Mr Gray, thanks to you and Mr Hanson for chairing the proceedings.
The Chair
I am most grateful, Mr O’Hara. For a minute, I thought we had been forgotten. I will pass those thanks to Mr Hanson. Those were, of course, entirely bogus points of order, but they were none the less very welcome.
Bill, as amended, to be reported.