Fishing Quotas

Debate between Jim Shannon and Peter Aldous

Tuesday 16th July 2013 Commons Chamber

[Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)]

I am pleased to have secured this debate before the summer recess, as it provides us with a timely opportunity to consider the future of the fishing industry in the United Kingdom. Last month, the Minister provided details of the agreed reforms to the common fisheries policy, which provides the framework within which fishing in the UK will be administered over the course of the next few years. Its provisions are generally welcome, though its success will depend on how domestic fisheries are managed.

Last Wednesday in the High Court, Mr Justice Cranston delivered an approved judgment that will pave the way for the introduction of a new system of management that could be fairer and more environmentally friendly than its predecessor and that could provide an opportunity to reverse the fortunes of many fishing communities around the British isles. That is good news, although I sense that the path to this promised land will not be an easy one to travel along.

My interest and concern are for the inshore fleet that fishes out of Lowestoft in Suffolk, in my constituency. Like so many other fleets, it has had a raw deal in recent years. The Lowestoft fleet, which is a pale shadow of its former self, used to dominate the local economy. A significant contributory factor to its decline has been the way in which fishing quotas have been allocated in recent years. It is not possible to turn back the clock to the town’s glory years, but there is an opportunity to build an industry that can play a role in bringing back prosperity to an area that has struggled in recent years.

It is important to state at the outset that the Minister has achieved an enormous amount in the three years he has been in post. He has negotiated hard in the CFP reforms and delivered a settlement that is good for the UK. He has also listened to the concerns of the inshore fleet and made proposals to address those in the face of opposition from the producer organisations. His Department then defended this decision staunchly and successfully in the High Court. We owe him a debt of gratitude, for we have arrived at a position where we can provide a new beginning for the fishing industry in the UK. As Charles Clover concluded in his article in The Sunday Times, the Minister and

“his heirs have a once in a generation opportunity to throw the dice again on behalf of wild fish and the greater good”.

It is appropriate to say a bit about the inshore fleet and the under-10 metre boats—about the people involved and the situation they find themselves in today. Such boats comprise more than 77% of the UK fleet and employ over 65% of the fleet’s total work force, yet they currently receive only 4% of the total quota available to the UK. What is good for the under-10s is largely good for the ports in which they are based, and vice versa; they have considerable potential to deliver economic, environmental and cultural benefits for their coastal communities, many of which are among the most deprived in the country. They are also good for fish stocks, as theirs is a low-impact, sustainable form of fishing. Moreover, the income they generate is likely to stay in these communities and permeate down the supply chain, which has invariably been built up over many decades but which has been much eroded in recent years.

Today, that is very much the case in Lowestoft. It now has a small industry, but the infrastructure is still there and with the right policy framework it can deliver more for the area. The work of these fishermen still fishing out of Lowestoft should be contrasted with that of the eight affiliated vessels in the Lowestoft Fish Producers Organisation, which are all controlled by fishing interests based in the Netherlands. Those boats have UK fishing licences and hold British quota, but they contribute nothing to the local economy. Dutch-controlled vessels fishing British quota boast an annual turnover of £48 million, yet 1% of the fish they catch is landed in the UK.

In recent years, the under-10s have had a raw deal and in the Minister’s own words they have been “hanging on” by their “fingernails“. The root cause of their plight is the fixed quota allocation system introduced in 1999. As the under-10s did not keep records of their catch in the 1994 to 1996 reference period, the quota they received at that time was a best estimate, subsequently shown to be a major under-assessment, for which they have been paying ever since. Although there have been attempts to address the situation, as Jerry Percy of NUTFA—the New Under Ten Fishermens Association—has pointed out, with the under-10s starting from such a low level of quota in the first place, an additional percentage based simply on past allocations will be of little, if any, use.

Since 1999, the situation has got worse in many respects. The way the system was devised has meant that the producer organisations have been able to hold or acquire fixed quota allocation units, knowing that they could retain them if they did not use them. They could sell or lease them to the under-10s on their own terms, at their own whim and fancy. That conjures up the image of the under-10s taking on the role of Oliver Twist holding out the bowl for more food, only to be denied. Moreover, where reallocations have taken place, they have been profoundly unsatisfactory, as they have been neither permanent nor predictable, and they have invariably taken place towards the end of the fishing season.

The 2007 decommissioning scheme simply exacerbated the problem, creating more “slipper skippers”, with vessel owners entitled to retain the fixed quota allocation units even when their vessels had been decommissioned. A system has, thus, developed whereby the under-10s do not have enough quota to make a living and are in effect dying a slow, lingering death, while quota held by the producer organisations is not being used, and attempts by Government to encourage gifts of unused quota have invariably come to nothing.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for bringing this matter to the House, because it is important to him, to other Members in the Chamber and, especially, to me and Portavogie in my constituency. The problem is not just the quotas that are set, but those that are reduced by Europe. The Minister works energetically on behalf of the fishing industry in the whole of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, but does the hon. Gentleman agree that Europe needs to give quotas that will make the industry that I represent viable? The industry has evidence to support its belief about the numbers of fish in the sea, so it needs Europe to give them back.

Energy Infrastructure (UK Supply Chain)

Debate between Jim Shannon and Peter Aldous

Tuesday 26th March 2013 Commons Chamber

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving me permission before the debate to intervene and for bringing this important subject to the Floor of the House. He referred to the benefit to the whole of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. He will be aware that the Belfast shipyard builds wind turbines for land and sea. Will that shipyard be able to get some of this work?

[Peter Aldous]

Although I am concentrating on the North sea, the supply chain for the offshore work extends right the way around the country, both in the oil and gas sector and the offshore wind sector. I am also extremely conscious of the work that DONG Energy and ScottishPower have done and the investment they have made in Belfast.

In short, we need to strive to maximise the British content of UK energy infrastructure projects. At present, there are concerns that we are not meeting this challenge. Some two years ago, the Thanet wind farm was completed, with less than 20% of the £900 million of investment going to UK firms. Although companies such as ScottishPower and DONG Energy are aware of the need to maximise the UK content of contracts, we are some distance from achieving the Offshore Wind Developers Forum’s target of 50% UK content for UK offshore wind farms.

The problem is more serious in the oil and gas sector. In last year’s Budget, the Chancellor announced significant incentives for opening up marginal North sea fields and decommissioning. These initiatives are to be applauded, and North sea investment this year is now at its highest and most extensive for 30 years, but the problem is that contracts worth more than £10 billion are being placed overseas, while in the past two years only 7% of North sea platforms have been made in the UK. In other words, British taxpayers’ money is being used to create jobs in other countries.

The Nexen Golden Eagle project was awarded to Lamprell of Dubai, the BP Clair Ridge project to Hyundai Heavy Industries of Korea, and Statoil’s Mariner project to Daewoo of Korea and Dragados of Spain. I name just three contracts, but there are more. If some of these contracts had been awarded to British yards, they would have helped secure thousands of jobs and strengthened the UK’s supply chain, which as I have said extends across much of the UK. In the past two years, contracts for a total of 200,000 tonnes of fabrication structures have been awarded outside the UK, representing a loss to the country of 18,600 direct man years of jobs.

Some people may say, “Tough luck. Why should we pursue protectionist policies propping up uncompetitive UK firms?” But that is not the case: these businesses are competitive and innovative and have highly skilled and dedicated work forces. If we do not allow them to compete on a level playing field with companies from other countries, there is a danger that the yards will simply disappear. That will not only hit hard those areas of the country with above average levels of unemployment, but it will have a serious knock-on effect on the offshore wind sector, as those businesses are well placed to help build offshore wind farms.

There is, therefore, a need for the UK to have a local content policy when granting such contracts. The reason given for not having such a policy is that it would contravene EU competition regulations, but if that is the case, why is the UK the only oil and gas province in the world that does not have a local content policy? Why should licences granted on the UK continental shelf not contain a clause requiring free and fair provision for British companies in the procurement process?

The UK Government should apply pressure at national and EU level to ensure that UK companies are not disadvantaged when competing for overseas contracts. Sembmarine SLP, based in Lowestoft in my constituency, advises that in its experience, when it competes for projects in Norwegian, Dutch, German and French waters it has practically no chance of winning owing to blatant protectionism. In the offshore wind sector, Seajacks, based in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Great Yarmouth (Brandon Lewis), points out that the French Government have explicitly stated that they intend to award licences for offshore wind sites to bidders favouring the French supply chain. British companies are not looking for favouritism or trade barriers; they are seeking a level playing field. I urge the Minister, together with his colleagues in the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills and the Treasury, to do all he can to help achieve that.

The Government could take other long-term measures to strengthen the UK supply chain. Indeed, they have put in place a number of initiatives, for which I thank and commend them. In the time left I shall briefly run through what else needs to be done to ensure that UK-based businesses are in the best possible place to secure contracts.

First is electricity market reform. At present, the Energy Bill is the most important game in town, and if we get it right it will provide the stable long-term policy environment that is required to attract supply chain investment. I believe that we are moving in the right direction. A £7.6 billion package has been provided for investment in renewable energy, and although the Bill’s provisions are complicated, it should provide the certainty, confidence and credibility that investors are looking for in UK energy policy. Timeliness is vital. It is important to investors that draft strike prices are published in the second quarter of this year and that the Bill receives Royal Assent by the end of the year.

I commend the Minister on being receptive to amendments to improve the Bill, and I am grateful to him for considering my proposals, which are designed to strengthen the supply chain. The elephant in the room is, of course, the 2030 decarbonisation target. I shall not dwell on that as I know it will be debated in the Chamber in much detail and with much passion in the coming weeks; indeed, it could be the subject of an Adjournment debate. I will say, however, that it is unfortunate that the issue has become a bit of a political football, and when the matter is considered I ask the Government to look behind any political positioning and decide what is best for Britain, and particularly the development of the UK energy supply chain. My views on the matter are determined by what industry and investors tell me, and it is important that we listen to them.

Secondly, the Government have put in place a number of measures to strengthen the supply chain. In Lowestoft and Great Yarmouth there is an enterprise zone, and the two ports have centre of renewable engineering—CORE—status. Those measures are proving helpful in promoting the area, but as the Minister heard from the Norfolk and Suffolk delegation he met last month, more could be done to ensure that we fully realise the potential of the great opportunity in front of us.

The problem that Yarmouth and Lowestoft face as a CORE is that of six COREs in England, only it and Sheerness do not have assisted area status. I believe that if all six COREs enjoyed the benefit of assisted area status, it would be particularly advantageous, both nationally and internationally, in seeking to promote the UK. It would help Lowestoft and Yarmouth to compete against our fiercest competitors from the low countries on the other side of the North sea.

I am also mindful that the UK ports fund, which is designed to help the establishment of offshore wind manufacturing, is only available in assisted areas. I am advised that at present this fund is largely unspent. If Lowestoft and Yarmouth were given assisted area status, the two ports could access the fund to carry out work that would stimulate jobs and investment in renewable offshore engineering.

The advanced manufacturing supply chain initiative is proving beneficial in stimulating investment in manufacturing-related jobs and growth. However, the current minimum threshold of £1 million for investment from the fund appears to be holding businesses back from making applications. It would thus be helpful if the Department of Energy and Climate Change could liaise with the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills to see whether the threshold could be lowered either for individual businesses or for smaller scale projects. This would be helpful to businesses from across the manufacturing sector and to those looking to support energy projects.

I apologise if it appears that I have a shopping list, as I am mindful that the Minister may tell me that the shelves are bare. I would emphasise, however, that a thriving supply chain can be a key driver in reducing costs in the offshore wind sector, which is vital to establishing the industry on a sustainable, long-term footing.

Thirdly, investing in skills and people is of paramount importance. The UK needs to improve its skills base to serve the large demand that will come from the North sea in the next few years with regard to the oil and gas and wind sectors. If we do not do that, businesses will source that expertise from other countries.

I commend the Government for promoting apprenticeships. Indeed, the Minister himself played an important role in that work in a previous life. I also pay special tribute to Lowestoft college which, although not a large further education college, has realised the huge potential in the energy sector and invested a considerable amount of resources in providing facilities and putting on courses with the energy industry’s needs in mind.

There are a number of different ways and proposals as to how best to invest in skills for the offshore industry. I do not propose to go through these or, indeed, to pick a winner. Suffice to say that it is important that the necessary skills centres should be located near offshore engineering ports. This way we can create the world’s leading pool of offshore engineering skills here in the UK.

The Offshore Renewable Energy Catapult centre proposed by the Technology Strategy Board will be located in Glasgow, and the north-east and will have an important role to play. I was concerned that it would not be a truly national centre of excellence, but those worries have been allayed and I know that organisations in Lowestoft such as OrbisEnergy and the Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science look forward to working with the centre in the coming months.

Fourthly, improving our outdated infrastructure is important if we are to make the most of these opportunities. The Government’s broadband initiative is welcome, though it is vital that the procurement process proceed smoothly and quickly.

In Lowestoft, conscious of the opportunities that will arise for funding through the single pot, which will be administered by the New Anglia local enterprise partnership, a prospectus of the transport infrastructure we need, both in the town and serving it, was published last week. Working together with the LEP, the councils and businesses, the town will strive to put in place the infrastructure needed to attract businesses to the area.

In conclusion, renewing the country’s energy infrastructure over the next 20 years provides a great opportunity to create a world-class industry that will provide the growth for which the country is so desperately searching. Much good work has been done, but I am concerned that as matters stand we are in danger of not making the best of the opportunity and we could, in effect, be exporting its benefits to other countries.

There is a need to provide businesses with both long-term certainty and a level playing field. This is a once in a lifetime opportunity and, in the words of Lord Heseltine, we must

“leave no stone unturned in pursuit of growth.”

Lowestoft Train Station

Debate between Jim Shannon and Peter Aldous

Tuesday 15th May 2012 Commons Chamber

[Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)]

I am pleased to have this opportunity to speak about what is an important issue for the Waveney constituency: the opportunity and challenge of redeveloping Lowestoft railway station. Lowestoft Central, the most easterly railway station in Britain, was built in its existing form in 1855. At that time and over much of the proceeding century it was an impressive building, very much at the heart of the town, close to the main shopping area and with sidings running down into the port, the fish market, the timber works and the coach works. Nearby was a thriving holiday resort comprising beaches, two piers, a promenade and assorted hotels and guest houses. Today, the building is unfortunately a very pale shadow of its former self. Its impressive roof was allowed to fall into disrepair and was removed in 1992. The walls remain with the iconic British Rail Lowestoft Central sign on the eastern facade but the surrounds are now untidy, in places strewn with litter, and give a very poor first impression of the town to those arriving by train.

There is now a compelling case for redeveloping Lowestoft Central station, to return it to a good state of repair and to make it a focal point for the regeneration of Lowestoft. Seaside towns such as Lowestoft, which are invariably isolated physically and at the end of the line, are at a particular disadvantage when it comes to attracting new business. This drawback must be addressed if we are truly to rebalance the UK’s economy and realise the full potential of the country’s maritime industries in the energy, tourism and trade sectors. To achieve this we need good infrastructure, the provision of which we have not done particularly well on in Britain in recent years. In many respects that has bypassed East Anglia altogether until recently. Tonight I am concentrating on the railways, but road links and broadband are also important and if I am successful in subsequent ballots, I shall return to them in future debates.

Let me take a few minutes to outline the compelling case for upgrading Lowestoft Central. First, the station occupies a unique location at the heart of Lowestoft. It is strategically placed close to many of the businesses that have such a vital role to play in the town’s future. In the past, there have been plans to move the station inland to the west to open up further retail development opportunities, but that is not a course I wish to pursue. Such a project is not economically viable and in any case the station is in the right location; the challenge we face is to redevelop it on its existing site.

The Mary Portas review highlighted the challenges that town centres have faced in recent years and Lowestoft has had its fair share of those. The main such challenges relate to accessibility and congestion. The seemingly never-ending repairs to the nearby bascule bridge and the sewer repairs in Station square in January and February this year brought traffic to a halt. At present the station is in many respects a blot on the landscape, and it is important that steps are taken to improve its appearance to make a visit to the town centre an experience that is both appealing and enticing. First impressions of a town are important so that people make those vital return visits.

The station stands immediately opposite the former Tuttles department store, originally opened in 1888 and for many decades the town’s main shopping anchor tenant, the magnet that attracted people into Lowestoft. The Tuttles building has also fallen into disrepair in recent years, but a planning application has just been submitted for its redevelopment by Wetherspoons. This is welcome news and I believe it is now appropriate to focus attention on Lowestoft’s other landmark building, the railway station just across the road. As work gets under way, we hope, on the Tuttles building in the coming months, people are entitled to ask what plans there are for the station. It is important that we have the answers and can show that we are on the case.

Some years ago Wetherspoons obtained planning permission for redevelopment of part of the station. I do not know precisely why the scheme did not go ahead, but it is important that such opportunities are not missed again. As well as helping the town centre, a redeveloped railway station can play an important role in supporting two other industries that are important to Lowestoft’s and Waveney’s economic future.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I spoke to him earlier about the matter and congratulate him on bringing it to the Chamber. At the beginning of his contribution, he mentioned the tourism potential. Is it time for the Government, the regional assemblies and the railway companies to have a co-ordinated plan to lift railway stations such as Lowestoft and others elsewhere in the United Kingdom, to ensure that the tourism potential can be achieved? The economic boost that that would bring could benefit Lowestoft and many other places in the United Kingdom.

[Peter Aldous]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that contribution. In an effort to rebalance the economy, the seaside and the seaside towns—the marine economy—is in many respects the hidden jewel of the British economy and we do not make enough of it. Therefore any initiatives that help us to realise the marine economy’s full potential are to be welcomed.

As well as helping the town centre, a redeveloped railway station can play an important part in supporting other industries that are important to Lowestoft’s future— tourism and energy. Lowestoft Central station is within walking distance of the town’s two beaches, which have just had their Blue Flag status reconfirmed. Inland are the Norfolk and Suffolk broads. The two railway lines serving Lowestoft, the East Suffolk line from Ipswich and the Wherry line from Norwich, are themselves tourist attractions passing through attractive countryside, along the Suffolk coast, through the water meadows and alongside the waterways of the broads. It is so important that the journey’s end should be in keeping with the rest of these special journeys.

The station is also close to two of the areas that form part of the Lowestoft and Great Yarmouth enterprise zone, which came into operation on 1 April. The enterprise zone is focused on the energy sector, both oil and gas and offshore renewables. In the case of the latter, Lowestoft occupies an important strategic location as the port that is closest to some of the largest proposed offshore wind farms—SSE’s Galloper and Gabbard development and Scottish Power’s and Vattenfall’s East Anglian Array. Already wind farm developers and supply chain companies are looking either to increase their presence in the area or to move into the town. A smart station as part of a good rail service will play an important role in attracting them and jobs to the area. The station in its current form and appearance provides no help in attracting such inward investment.

Significant improvements to the local rail network are now taking place, and if they are to realise their full potential, it is important that we have stations that are attractive in appearance and provide customers with the facilities they need. Work is currently taking place on the Beccles loop on the East Suffolk line which will lead later this year to a resumption of an hourly service from Lowestoft to Ipswich; indeed, I understand that the construction of the loop was completed this past weekend. That work is welcome and the service should prove popular, but Lowestoft Central in its current state will be a let-down to many passengers, and I fear that at present it does not pass the test in terms of appearance, facilities and services on offer.

Other improvements have taken place as well, including the new passenger lift at Ipswich station, which will make it easier for travellers to connect with ongoing services to and from London Liverpool Street and further afield on Crossrail, which will improve access in and around London and to Heathrow, thereby helping to address the challenge of physical isolation that has held back the Lowestoft economy in recent years. In due course it is important that the through service from Lowestoft to Liverpool Street is resumed, but that is another debate for another day.

A further consideration to have in mind is that bus services in and around Lowestoft are being improved. Suffolk county council, with sustainable transport fund finance, is putting on a new circular bus route, serving the main employment areas and tourist destinations. The bus will stop at the station, as does the 601 service that runs down the coast to Kessingland and Southwold. To ensure that the investment in these services is successful the area around the station needs to be looked at closely to ensure that it is laid out in a way that enables the station to play a full role as a transport interchange and hub, not only for buses but also for taxis, and with the necessary facilities for the disabled, the elderly and the infirm.

The case for redeveloping Lowestoft station is a strong one that satisfies the most rigorous of cost-benefit analysis. I anticipate that the feedback I may get from the Minister, although I do not wish to prejudge his response, is that this is a good idea but there is no money available and I will need to take my place in that good old British institution of the queue. I shall now set out a suggested way forward and the support that I would like the Government to provide.

First, we need to consider future franchising arrangements. Abellio, which is now operating as Greater Anglia, took on a 29-month franchise in February of this year. That runs until July 2014. The new franchise needs to be in a form and of a nature that encourages both good management of the property and investment in it. A longer-term franchise would help secure this investment from the operator, who should also be given full control and responsibility for the management of the whole station and all its surrounds.

As I mentioned earlier, much of the surrounds of Lowestoft station are at present untidy and strewn with litter. Part of the problem is that no one party, neither Network Rail nor Greater Anglia, is ultimately responsible for its upkeep; it is a shared liability. The result is that no one takes full responsibility. There is nowhere for the buck to stop. In essence, a full repairing lease needs to be granted to the rail operator so that it is fully responsible for keeping the station and its surrounds in both good repair and tidy in appearance. This is a role for the train company and not Network Rail, which should concentrate its efforts on its core activity of being responsible for the track and larger category A stations, such as King’s Cross and Birmingham New Street. Smaller stations, such as Lowestoft, should be the responsibility of train operators, which are better attuned to local needs and demands and will have more of an incentive to provide a smart station that will help attract customers.