Environment and Climate Change

Alan Brown Excerpts

Wednesday 1st May 2019 Commons Chamber

[Deidre Brock]

As the hon. Gentleman is probably aware, the Scottish Government have taken significant action on that issue, and I would very much like to see it taken across the UK as well. There is no place for fracking anywhere, in my opinion.

Roseanna Cunningham is now at the forefront of delivering on a programme to actually deliver on addressing climate change—an environmental policy that takes into account the needs of people and the need to hand on a working planet to future generations. She will tell us that she wants to do more, to deliver more and to solve all the problems and solve them now, but she knows, as do many who sit in this Chamber, that Government policy does not pivot so easily, and public attitude changes take time and effort to effect. That means that this needs the extra effort and extra attention that great changes usually need. We have to change the way we live—the way we conduct society. We have to be aware now that these changes will make life less comfortable. That is just how it is, though, and we should get on with it.

This is the one issue that might require us to put away the tools of political point-scoring and decide to work together for the survival of the species. We may not agree on the way forward, and we do not have to, but we can do that without losing sight of what we are driving at. The DEFRA Secretary—or Old Swampy, as I like to call him—and I can find ways to work together. I can offer him the benefit of vision that those of us who live in Scotland have of a Government working towards some serious and stretching targets to cut greenhouse gas emissions. We can chat about how the Scottish Government have put money into ensuring that there are enough charging points for electric vehicles to allow a target for phasing out petrol and diesel vehicles by 2032, and about funding electric buses and ultra low emission vehicles in the public fleet.

[Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)]

On working together, I am not sure if my hon. Friend is aware that the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy is apparently looking at allowing onshore wind in Scotland where the Scottish Government have embraced onshore wind, yet the Scottish Secretary has put in writing to BEIS his objection to Scotland getting access to onshore wind, and now the Departments are refusing to release that correspondence. Is that not disgraceful and the very opposite of working together?

[Deidre Brock]

I am indeed aware of that issue, and I do think it is disgraceful. I cannot see how the Secretary of State has a leg to stand on in this regard.

This needs ambition—not personal ambition, but political ambition and the desire to see future generations able to breathe on this planet. We need to challenge an old measure of Government success—the measure that says that the greatest good a Government can do is grow GDP—and start to measure success by how much the Government can do to ensure that there is a future where the sustainability of communities and the environment is a touchstone.

--- Later in debate ---

[Deidre Brock]

Absolutely. I would suggest something along the lines of the Scottish Government’s £12 million transition training fund, which was launched in 2016. The fund enables people who are in the oil and gas industry—about 240,000 jobs across the UK depend on it—to train and perhaps progress into the renewables industry. That is certainly something I would like to see.

[Alan Brown]

Further to that point, does my hon. Friend agree that the oil and gas industry could also be supported by implementing carbon capture and storage, which allows a low-carbon transition? That is where the UK Government are sadly lacking, having pulled the £1 billion funding. That is where we need to go, and it could make use of the decommissioned oilfields.

[Deidre Brock]

Absolutely. That is a crucial element. Unfortunately, as the National Audit Office told us, the two competitions on CCS were cancelled at a cost of some £140 million, and that needs to be looked at properly again. At the moment, there is a £20 million prize fund on CCS, but it is simply not sufficient.

This requires a change of Government—not a change of personnel; there is no point changing the hand on the rudder if the course is still towards the rocks—and a change in attitude, ambition and direction of travel. It requires change across every Department and every ministerial portfolio. It needs Government to engage with the people and civic society, and to drive this agenda forward. In spite of the couthie words often chuntered here about saving the planet, there has not been much evidence of action. This is one small corner of the world, and it cannot change global politics on its own, no matter what strange dreams Brexiters have. We have a duty and a moral obligation to do our bit to keep this world fit to hand on to the next generation, and it is about time we bucked up our ideas.

Wildlife Crime

Alan Brown Excerpts

Wednesday 20th March 2019 Westminster Hall

[Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Rosindell. I commend you for your ability to get eight Back-Bench contributions into a 90-minute debate. I congratulate the hon. Member for City of Chester (Christian Matheson) on bringing forward the debate. This is clearly a popular subject, given the attendance and the number of speeches—that says a lot, given all that is going on in the main Chamber.

The hon. Gentleman began by highlighting the serious crime of killing birds of prey, and the fact that the RSPB wants tougher sentences. I think that most of us present would concur. His main focus was on foxhunting, the weaknesses in the current legislation and what he perceives as lack of political will from the UK Government to tackle those weaknesses. I am sure that he will be pleased to hear that in Scotland the SNP Government have recognised the weaknesses in the law there, which will be tackled. A new measure will flush out weaknesses—such as the fact that dogs can be used to flush out foxes. That is certainly something that the UK Government should co-operate on.

The hon. Gentleman noted that the average fine is only £267. I think it is fair to say, without stereotyping, that many people involved in such hunts would see that expenditure as merely the cost of doing business and a drop in the ocean. He highlighted issues with trail hunting and so-called accidental kills. That reminds us that there are still many hunt groups that somehow see their barbaric hunting as their right and tradition, with respect to both foxes and badgers. That is something we need to stamp out. He recommended improvements in legislation, including an offence of recklessness, and the addition to the law of further exclusions, such as on the use of animal scents. It would be good to hear what the Minister has to say about that.

I pay tribute to the work that the hon. Member for Southend West (Sir David Amess) has done over the years on animal rights and protections. If I picked him up correctly, he was extolling the virtues of the fact that 60 Tories are now, he believes, against foxhunting. Sadly, that shows how out of date his party still is, because it is less than a fifth of it. It shows that there is a long way to go. I know that he is fighting the fight, and I urge him to keep doing that and to educate his colleagues.

The right hon. Member for Delyn (David Hanson) paid tribute to the North Wales police wildlife crime unit and highlighted the serious issue of sheep worrying, which is something I am aware of; it is certainly an issue for farmers in my area. I was interested in his call for statistics to improve the Government’s understanding, and for a review of sentencing. Once again, I will be interested in what the Minister says. Police Scotland is working with the National Farmers Union of Scotland to raise awareness of the issue among dog owners. A recent case highlighted the fact that, in addition to the sad fact of the killing of sheep, the farmer, who lost a lot of livestock, was not adequately compensated. The farmer’s livelihood was therefore put at risk too.

The hon. Member for Henley (John Howell) widened the debate by talking about elephants, noting that the trade in wildlife is the fourth largest trade in the world, which is a real eye-opener. The hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Laura Smith) bravely battled an infection to put forward her points against foxhunting and, like the hon. Member for City of Chester, highlighted a point raised by her constituents about video footage apparently showing foxhunting carrying on unabated, although it is against the law, while that footage is not used for prosecutions or follow-up investigations. That certainly needs to be looked at. The “toy soldier” jibe about the way people dress up for hunts perhaps sums up their absurdity in this day and age.

I was privileged to hear a rare contribution by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who seldom ventures into Westminster Hall. It was good to hear him say that he does what he preaches in relation to outdoor conservation. He has been actively involved in that work and I pay tribute to that. He also highlighted the global nature of wildlife crime and trade.

The hon. Member for Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire (Simon Hart) talked about the need to protect raptors, and about the prosecution of crimes. He was the only Member today to argue that there is a need for upland management and shooting. I suppose many people might not share that view, but it is good to hear someone put it forward as a matter that needs to be looked at.

The hon. Member for Islwyn (Chris Evans) introduced a new subject to the debate: egg theft and the egg trade. He pointed out that unfortunately the people involved are naturally drawn to endangered species as they build their collections, creating a vicious cycle that could wipe them out, and that makes them even more attractive to other people involved in this illicit trade. That is another crime that should be stamped out.

The hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders) also highlighted concerns about foxhunting and his lack of confidence in the law as it stands. His point that all should be equal under the law is pertinent, and the Minister should address the matter of how the law works in the UK.

Scotland’s wildlife is precious and a huge part of our national identity. It is also a valuable resource, because it attracts visitors and tourists who come to see dolphins or birds, for example. Not only is it humane to protect wildlife; it also makes economic sense. For that reason, the Scottish Government have been active in ensuring that Scotland’s iconic and world-renowned great outdoors is protected, and they have undertaken species management where required. Wildlife crime is being tackled in Scotland through robust legislation, the management of species reintroductions, including the return of beavers, and work with a range of partners to minimise the risks and impacts of invasive non-native species. In their programme for government, the Scottish Government committed to establishing an animal welfare commission to provide expert advice on the welfare of domesticated and wild animals in Scotland, and work is now under way to establish that.

We all have a responsibility to protect our natural environment and the wildlife that lives in it. The SNP supports any reasonable measures to ensure that bird habitats are not poisoned by man-made chemicals and that firearms and ammunition are used and stored responsibly and legally. The Scottish Government are determined to crack down on those who commit crime against wildlife. As part of that commitment they have recruited special police constables across three divisions between the highlands, Aberdeenshire and Perthshire. The additional officers will be a valuable resource in tackling rural and wildlife crime.

In a similar vein, I pay tribute to the work of Graeme Gordon, a dedicated rural police officer who is a wildlife crime officer and Rural Watch Scotland administrator in my area of Ayrshire. I can vouch for his dedication to his job. He does a tremendous amount of liaison work with NFUS and the rural community. His work varies from investigating crimes to giving people a heads-up on issues and providing valuable advice. He also provides valuable updates to elected Members, including me. It is to Police Scotland’s credit that the post is maintained while austerity is imposed on Scotland and the UK Government steadfastly refuse to backdate the £175 million in VAT owed to Police Scotland and the Scottish fire and rescue service. That is in stark contrast to the cuts to the police that, as other hon. Members have said, the UK Government have been making. It is no coincidence that crime increases when there are cuts to the police service. Another initiative in Scotland in recent years is the investment of more than £6 million in new forensic capability, including DNA24, robotics and powerful software to obtain DNA profiles successfully, in support of the Scottish justice system.

Clearly, we would all love wildlife crime to be eradicated. I long for the day when there is an end to fly-tipping and littering, not only because it creates eyesores, but because it endangers wildlife. I cannot for the life of me understand those who seem to go to extreme efforts to get rid of rubbish that could be uplifted, or that they could deposit at nearby council facilities. They work harder to fly-tip in the countryside than they would in driving their rubbish down the road. Similarly, I go out on walks with my wife, Cyndi, and our black Labrador, Coby, and we get frustrated when we see people who profess to enjoy the great outdoors but who cannot be bothered to take their juice cans, bottles or crisp packets home with them. I cannot understand that. We have a long way to go to eradicate wildlife crime completely, and I look forward to that day.

Exiting the European Union (Agriculture)

Alan Brown Excerpts

Wednesday 20th February 2019 Commons Chamber

[George Eustice]

Let me conclude my point first and then the hon. Gentleman can decide whether I have answered the point adequately.

Fertilisers tend to come in bulk, predominantly through Harwich on container vessels where we envisage no issues with capacity. They tend not to come in on roll-on, roll-off ferries on the backs of lorries through Calais. It is right that there are some concerns about the potential impacts on the all-important Dover-Calais crossing, but they do not specifically affect fertilisers. We see no particular problems in ensuring that we can import the fertilisers we need for this year.

The hon. Lady asked why we cannot simply have an indefinite extension of the recognition of the EC fertiliser logo. The reason is that we have to treat all countries equally under WTO rules. Once we have left the European Union and become an independent country again, we will not be able to discriminate and give unfair privileges to the European Union in the way that she advocates.

The hon. Lady asked a specific question about what had changed in relation to detonation testing. The principal change on strengthening detonation testing is that it will apply to each consignment that comes into the European Union. Put simply, all that importers will need to demonstrate is that each consignment has been subject to a detonation test of a suitable standard within the previous 60 days. At the moment under EU derogations it is possible for that to run longer because they simply apply it to individual batches rather than consignments, so there will be a small change. In the longer term, once the transition has ended, those seeking to export their goods to the United Kingdom would need to have that detonation test done, probably by the Health and Safety Executive in Buxton. We have world-beating expertise in this area and that testing would be done effectively.

[Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)]

In terms of scaremongering, was the Minister’s boss, the Environment Secretary, scaremongering yesterday when he said that in a no-deal situation he could not guarantee exports and imports would continue at our borders and that livestock exports from the UK would be subject to high tariffs? Was that scaremongering as well?

[George Eustice]

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State was referring to the export of sheep. We all acknowledge—I acknowledge it, too—that border inspection posts would frustrate that trade and that tariffs imposed on sheepmeat exports would affect that trade. He was explicitly not talking about fertiliser imports. My right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (John Redwood) was making a very specific point about whether there would be any threats to the import of fertilisers. As most of that trade comes through Harwich, we do not anticipate any problems at all on those grounds.

In conclusion, we have highlighted a number of important areas in this statutory instrument. We have had a thorough debate, but, as I have been at pains to point out, it does not seek to introduce any new policy. In keeping with the spirit and requirements of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, it is simply about ensuring that retained EU law is operable on the day after exit. I therefore commend this statutory instrument to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Exiting the European Union (Aquaculture)

Alan Brown Excerpts

Wednesday 20th February 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

The hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown) is poised like a panther. Does he wish to speak?

[Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)]

indicated assent.

[Mr Speaker]

Yes, well then I call Mr Alan Brown.

[Alan Brown]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I will be brief. The way these SIs have been presented today sums up the chaos and farce of this UK Government. The one that merited the most debate was the one on motor insurance, but it has been pulled by the Government at the last minute, leading us to the one before us. In principle, I do not like this place legislating for Northern Ireland when something should be undertaken by the devolved Assembly. I suggest that the UK Government should be doing much more to get the devolved Assembly up and running, to allow it to take responsibility where it has the right competences.

Despite that, I accept that we are dealing with mainly technical amendments, bringing EU legislation into domestic legislation. For that reason, I certainly would not oppose this SI. Leaving aside the technical amendments, one reason why this SI has come here for debate is that the Commons sifting Committee expressed concerns about the legislative function of appropriate buffer zones to prevent the introduction of exotic diseases to aquatic species in Northern Ireland. Will the Minister say what the implications are for the competent authority in Northern Ireland? Will he confirm what the outcome of his consultation with the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs officials was? The consultation is referred to in the explanatory notes, so will he confirm its outcome?

Finally, if we are looking at a potential no-deal scenario, I suggest that the UK Government should be absolutely focused in their efforts on ruling out a no-deal outcome. They should get it off the table and listen to the will of this House, because that will have a far bigger potential impact on the aquaculture industry and it really should be the focus for this Government. Their focus should be on taking a no-deal scenario off the table.

Oral Answers to Questions

Alan Brown Excerpts

Thursday 17th January 2019 Commons Chamber

The hon. Member for Houghton and Sunderland South, representing the Speaker's Committee on the Electoral Commission, was asked—

[Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)]

2. What recent discussions the Electoral Commission has had with the Minister for the Cabinet Office on the Electoral Commission’s investigatory powers.

[Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)]

5. What recent discussions the Electoral Commission has had with the Minister for the Cabinet Office on the Electoral Commission’s investigatory powers.

[Bridget Phillipson (Houghton and Sunderland South)]

The Electoral Commission has ongoing dialogue with the Minister for the Constitution, and it has raised the need for a significant increase to its current maximum fine of £20,000. That will ensure that sanctions are proportionate and provide a genuine deterrent.

[Alan Brown]

We have heard about dark money being involved in elections and the Brexit vote, including the controversial £435,000 donation channelled via the Scottish Tory candidate, Richard Cook, and the Constitutional Research Council to the Democratic Unionist party. The source of that donation is still unclear. My hon. Friend the Member for Argyll and Bute (Brendan O'Hara) has written to the Electoral Commission to ask for due diligence on that case to be published. Can the hon. Lady advise when that will happen?

[Bridget Phillipson]

In its recent report on digital campaigning, the Electoral Commission recommended greater transparency around the source of such donations, and proposals have been set out. I am sure that officials from the commission will be happy to discuss the matter further with the hon. Gentleman or his hon. Friend.

European Union (Withdrawal) Act

Alan Brown Excerpts

Thursday 10th January 2019 Commons Chamber

[Michael Gove]

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. In the event of no deal, the tripartite agreement, which is part of EU law, falls. Of course, the bloodstock industry, the horse racing industry and others can take mitigating steps, but the current free movement of equines would be harmed, although it would be protected by this deal.

[Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)]

rose—

[Michael Gove]

I will give way to the hon. Gentleman, and then I will try to make a little bit of progress. I am sure that there will be further interventions in due course.

[Alan Brown]

In the Secretary of State’s post-Brexit nirvana, there will be a different customs and trading arrangement with the EU from the one that exists just now, and that will be managed with no hard border between Ireland and Northern Ireland. The Government have consistently said that that will be done with the use of new technology. What is the timeframe for the invention, trial and deployment of that technology, which will mean that there are no cameras and no infrastructure—no anything—on the border between Ireland and Northern Ireland?

[Michael Gove]

A lot of work has already been done—including by Members of this House, such as my hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr Fysh)—to point out how we can have a frictionless border and avoid checks at the border, so that we can move out of the backstop and into a new trade agreement with the European Union.

Today the focus of this debate is principally, although not exclusively, on the environment and on workers’ protection. It is important to put on record the work that has been done across this House while we have been in the European Union to protect our environment and ensure that workers have a brighter future. However, it is also important to stress that this country has had ambitions higher than those required by our membership of the European Union—ambitions that have been fulfilled in a number of areas.

The right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband), when he was Secretary of State in the Department of Energy and Climate Change, introduced climate change legislation that was significantly more progressive and ambitious than what was required by our membership of the European Union. On plastic and waste, this Government are going further than we are required to do by the European Union, to ensure that we pay our debts to this planet. Look at workers’ rights, holiday rights, maternity leave, maternity pay and the national living wage. In every single one of those areas, our ambitions have been higher than required by the European Union.

It is not the case that membership of the European Union is necessary to safeguard our environment or to guarantee high-quality rights for workers. This agreement makes it clear that we will apply a non-regression principle when it comes to workers’ rights, to health and safety and to employment rights. That principle, which will be very similar to the one that occurs in many other trade deals, will ensure that there is no race to the bottom. The Government will also—this is in the withdrawal agreement—create an office of environmental protection to ensure that our environment is safeguarded and that appropriate principles that were developed during our time in the European Union, such as the precautionary principle, are applied in an appropriate way.

However, there is a critical distinction between what the withdrawal agreement allows us to do and what the EU insists that we do. The withdrawal agreement allows us to take back control. The office of environmental protection will scrutinise this Government’s or a future Government’s application of environmental principles, but the House will decide how those principles are interpreted. For example, if we want to put the emphasis on innovation in certain areas in a different way from the European Union but still strive towards high environmental goals, we can. We can have both higher levels of protection and, critically—this was the message of the referendum—democratic accountability, with power flowing back to this place and all its Members.

--- Later in debate ---

[Michael Gove]

I think the European Union and its institutions will provide more clarity, but let me try to provide an additional element of clarity. The backstop is uncomfortable. It is uncomfortable for me individually as a unionist, and it is uncomfortable for my friends in the House who represent Northern Ireland. However, it is important to recognise that the European Union originally wanted a Northern Ireland-only backstop. The Prime Minister pushed back against that. We now have a UK-wide backstop. Critically, as I mentioned, that creates difficulties for other European nations.

Immediately after the conclusion of the withdrawal agreement, we heard from President Macron. It was clear from his comments that he recognised how unhappy French fishermen and citizens in Brittany and Normandy would be if the backstop came into operation and they lost all—100%—of their access to UK waters as we took back control. We shall be able to say to France, to the Netherlands, to Denmark and to other nations, “I am afraid you are locked out of our waters” and at the same time, “but we have access to your markets without tariffs or quotas.” We shall be able to say, “Your citizens cannot come here except under our rules” and, at the same time, “We are not paying a penny for these privileges”—and, at the same time, “We are outside the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice.”

European nations will say to the European institutions, “We thought that you were not going to allow cherry-picking. Why does Britain have this bowl of glistening cherries? We thought you would say that the Brits could not have their cake and eat it, but they are enjoying an array of privileges, access routes and opportunities, while at the same time not paying for them, not accepting our citizens and not allowing our boats into their waters.”

It will be the case—it is already the case—that entering the backstop will be seen by European nations and European politicians as a consummation devoutly not to be wished. That is why I am so confident that we will be able to secure an agreement, pursuing the principles of the withdrawal agreement, that will ensure that we have the free trade that we want and the control that the British ask of us.

[Alan Brown]

The Secretary of State spoke of cherry-picking, but he cherry-picks his own statistics when he talks about 5,000 possible new fishing jobs. The SNP was always opposed to the common fisheries policy and argued against it for many years. When it comes to cherry-picking, what does the Secretary of State say about the 80,000 post-Brexit job losses predicted by the Fraser of Allander Institute? What is he doing to address that?

[Michael Gove]

It is the case that, if the Scottish National party votes for the deal, we shall be able to secure jobs in Scotland and across the United Kingdom, and also to secure those 5,000 additional jobs. The hon. Gentleman is right: the Scottish National party has said that it is against the common fisheries policy. However, while it has willed the end, it has not willed the means, which is leaving the European Union. The Scottish National party’s position is—how can one put this? To say that you want to leave the CFP but not to do anything about it, and to seek to frustrate the legislation that will allow us to leave the CFP, is inconsistent at best and a simulacrum of hypocrisy at worst.

Fisheries Bill (Ninth sitting)

Alan Brown Excerpts

Committee Debate: 9th sitting: House of Commons
Monday 17th December 2018 Public Bill Committees

[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?

Fisheries Bill (Tenth sitting)

Alan Brown Excerpts

Monday 17th December 2018 Public Bill Committees

[Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)]

The amendment refers to Scottish Ministers. Will the hon. Gentleman explain how it would work in practice? Who would decide whom Scottish Ministers had to consult? If they were somehow deemed not to have consulted the relevant stakeholders, what would be the repercussions? Would the matter be reported back to the Westminster Government? Clearly the Scottish Government are responsible for their own legislation.

[Luke Pollard]

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is not trying to suggest that the Scottish Government would make any regulations without consulting Scottish communities.

[Alan Brown]

Correct.

[Luke Pollard]

Therefore the point should be moot. The important thing is how disputes are regulated and managed in the Bill. We need to ensure that it gives confidence to environmental stakeholders operating in the sector, whether they are businesses, fishers or coastal communities, that they will be adequately consulted before any regulations are made under clause 39. It is an important principle to enshrine in the Bill that there must be sufficient good-quality consultation before any regulations are made.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)]

Essentially, my position is not much different from that of the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport. I fear that the Minister perhaps slightly oversells the importance of new clause 22 as it is drafted. Largely, it is yet another statement of good intent. Ultimately, the extent to which these intentions are delivered will be determined by the political will and authority that is put into them by the Government.

We know that something in the region of 40% of the fish caught in UK waters comes to the UK. When the Minister talks about fairer shares, he has—let us say—some significant leeway. If he or any of his successors were to deliver a deal that produced 41% or 42%, then by definition it would be a fairer share, but it would be far from the promises that were made to the industry at the time of the referendum.

I have no objection to new clause 22; I certainly would not vote against it. It is useful to have a clause of this sort in the Bill, but it is capable of being improved. I think that is something we will consider on Report.

[Alan Brown]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship again, Mr Hanson.

I think I am slightly more cynical than the previous two contributors. We know this was a much-trailed new clause, which was intended to give reassurance to the Brexiteers that the fishing industry will not be sold out. It was actually intended to sway those MPs, or, as the Minister put it earlier, convince those with concerns about the withdrawal agreement. Given the current chaos that the Government are still in, can the Minister say how that has gone, in terms of convincing those MPs that all is good thanks to this new clause?

Also, considering that throughout the sittings of this Committee the Government have voted down amendments that they say do not need to be in the Bill or that are covered elsewhere, particularly statements of good intent, it seems to me that this new clause is one of those superfluous clauses, which normally the Government themselves would speak out against.

I would not quite say that the new clause is in “Yes, Minister” language, but it is certainly drafted with loose language that is not particularly binding. Subsection (2) states:

“The Secretary of State must pursue the following two objectives”.

The “objectives” are things that we can actually agree on, so that is all well and good, but being asked to pursue something and being duty-bound to deliver it are vastly different propositions. We can ask anybody to pursue something, but the likelihood of them getting an outcome is slightly different.

Subsection (3) says:

“The first objective is that the agreement should provide for annual negotiations”.

Again, I agree that that is desirable, but clearly it is non-binding. It says “should” and we cannot bind the EU, the other side. That in itself stands out.

Subsection (4) is the standalone objective, which is that EU

“boats are not granted access to UK waters in any year unless the fishing opportunities…are…greater than those…available under relative stability”.

Again, that is fine as an objective, but no one expects EU boats to be banned outright from UK waters.

Subsection (5) provides a real get-out clause for the Secretary of State, because it provides for him or her to be the one who assesses whether the opportunities are greater than they would otherwise have been under the CFP. Where is the transparency in that assessment? How will it be carried out and who will be able to challenge it?

In many ways, the new clause is pointless, put in as a political means to an end—to sway Brexiteers, although it has not even been able to do that. I would like to hear the Minister’s views on that.

[George Eustice]

I wondered whether during the break too many hon. Members had spoken to Martin Salter—there are a lot of “glass half empty” perspectives.

Since the Bill was published and Second Reading, we have had the conclusion of the withdrawal agreement, which is now before the House. That final withdrawal agreement included the reference to the need to have a plan in place by July 2020. Concerns were expressed that fisheries might be bargained away, as a number of hon. Members have said. I therefore think that it is absolutely right, since it is not at all the intention or plan of the Government to do such a thing, that we put in place on the face of the Bill, in statute, the safeguard to ensure that we get a fairer share of the total allowable catch in exchange for future access.

[Alan Brown]

Again with reference to the language of “should” and “pursue”, how does the new clause—even when in statute—stop future trade agreements or even the final outcome of the EU withdrawal Bill, with the backstop and so on, doing something else? How does the new clause prevent the other scenarios under the EU (Withdrawal Agreement) Bill?

[George Eustice]

Because the second objective is clear: as a consequence of giving access to our waters, we want a fairer share of the total allowable catch. Having seen a few fisheries negotiations now, they have—put simply—three key variables: overall size of the catch for each stock, or the total allowable catch, and we argue each year about the science on each stock; the allocation of those stocks, or who gets what slice of the cake, and at the moment we get a very unfair slice of many stocks, in particular down in the channel and in the west country; and, finally, the issue of access.

In any fisheries negotiation, access is the trump card, because when push comes to shove, we can say to countries fishing in our waters, “If you think that you can catch that quantity of fish to have that share of the total allowable catch, catch them in your own waters.” That flushes out the positions of other states in that negotiation. As a country, we are in a powerful position, because within our exclusive economic zone we have a very large fisheries resource to which many other countries seek to have access. The quid pro quo for future access to that stock will be that we have a fairer share of the total allowable catch—that is a normal dynamic in any fisheries negotiation. That is the approach we will take.

[Alan Brown]

I accept there is an opportunity for a greater share going forward, but the Minister is saying that if this measure is in statute, we move to that position quicker. Will he explain why the new clause will prevent the UK from getting into the backstop situation? How is that compatible with the backstop?

[George Eustice]

In a backstop situation, there is no withdrawal agreement, and there is no need for a fisheries agreement with the EU. That said, we would probably still seek to put one in place. In a backstop situation, however, the default is that we have complete control over access to our waters, there is no agreement on fisheries and there are no undertakings to give any access to the EU at all. It is also the case that in the backstop situation there would be tariffs on fisheries products that go into the European Union. That is the position as far as the backstop is concerned.

[Alan Brown]

Does the Minister accept that in the backstop there would not be tariffs on fish exported from Northern Ireland, but there would be tariffs on fish exported from the Great Britain mainland, thereby putting Scottish and other UK fisherman at a disadvantage compared with Northern Ireland?

[George Eustice]

My understanding is that in the backstop there would be tariffs on all fish from the UK.

[Alan Brown]

indicated dissent.

[George Eustice]

I will clarify that before the end of the debate, but principally, yes. The principle of the backstop—which we all want to avoid—is that there would not be tariff-free trade in fisheries products, but equally we would not be obliged to give any access to our waters.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Carmichael]

The amendment would make clear in the Bill that, if the provisions of the clause have not been brought into force by the end of the transitional period—31 December 2020—they will come into force at that point. The context for the amendment is the decision taken by the Government in March to concede that fisheries should be part of the transitional arrangements.

The Committee heard evidence from several people that that decision ran rather contrary to the expectations of the industry. Promises had been made, including by the Prime Minister herself, that, come 29 March 2019, we would leave the common fisheries policy, and that that would be the end of the matter. Perhaps at some point somebody will tell me why it was thought necessary to include fisheries in the transitional arrangements. Barry Deas of the National Federation of Fishermen’s Organisations said that it was because fisheries is part of the general acquis. Bertie Armstrong, from the Scottish Fishermen’s Federation, had a more political explanation, shall we say, saying that there were four or five countries that were not going to let the transitional arrangements go through unless fisheries were a part of it.

It is fair to say that the decision has caused a lot of angst and, indeed, anger in the fishing industry. There are historical reasons for that, which I will not go into in any great depth, but the Committee will know the references to the 1970s and those within the Heath Government who took the view that the industry was dispensable.

[Alan Brown]

I certainly agree with the right hon. Gentleman. There is clearly a lot of anger in the fishing industry, which I am pretty sure will welcome the amendment. However, how would it work in reality? We have heard the Prime Minister say that she might extend the transitional arrangements instead of using the backstop. If we get the amendment in statute, in theory fisheries would need to be excluded from that extended transitional period. Is it not the reality that an international agreement might override the amendment, and that the Government would come back and amend it, even if it is in statute?

[Mr Carmichael]

I am not entirely sure about an international agreement overriding the amendment. This is primary legislation made by Parliament. In effect, if the Government anticipate breaking their further undertakings—that is to say that the UK would be out of the common fisheries policy at the end of 31 December 2020—the amendment, if accepted, would in turn require to be amended. That would be cumbersome, which is why the Minister will doubtless not like it, but that, of course, is why the industry wants it. I have not spoken to a single member of the industry or a single representative of any fishing organisation who is prepared to take the Government’s word on trust in relation to this matter. Given that we are where we are, and indeed that the Government are where they are, I think Members will understand that position.

If we are in a position to implement the clause earlier, it can be implemented earlier. The political declaration says that an early arrangement for fishing matters would be desirable, and I do not doubt that to be the case. However, like many in the industry, I do not see what could stop the four or five who were awkward, shall we say, over the creation of the transitional arrangements being awkward in relation to the final deal. The purpose of having 31 December 2020 as the implementation date is just one further encouragement to stiffen the resolve of Ministers.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Duguid]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hanson. Amendment 1 is a probing amendment relating to a concern raised by several hon. Members—[Interruption.] Give me a second to finish my first paragraph, and then I will give way to the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun.

The concern has been raised by hon. Members including those who tabled the amendment—my hon. Friends the Members for South East Cornwall (Mrs Murray) and for North Cornwall (Scott Mann)—the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland and the shadow Minister. I do not know whether this will reassure Opposition Members. I am sure the Minister will forgive me for reiterating this concern, which I have raised relentlessly, not just with him but with Ministers and Cabinet members above his pay grade, and I will continue to do so.

[Alan Brown]

I was just chuntering from the sidelines. The hon. Gentleman said that this is a probing amendment. Does that mean that he is not deadly serious about it and is not willing to press it to a vote?

[David Duguid]

I have heard comments from the Minister that reassure me to some extent, but as the hon. Gentleman knows other things are afoot that make it very difficult to pass this amendment right now. I will comment further on Report.

This concern is shared not just by hon. Members but by the industry as a whole through representations from organisations including, but not limited to, the Scottish Fishermen’s Federation and the Scottish White Fish Producers Association. The amendment addresses the timing of when we extricate ourselves from the influence of the common fisheries policy. Of course, we actually leave the common fisheries policy when we leave the EU. That is always what was promised, but because of the implementation period we will find ourselves under the influence of the CFP.

The Minister will be aware that, along with hon. Members from other coastal constituencies, I made representations, initially proposed by the Scottish Fishermen’s Federation, at the start of the year that the impact of any transition period on fisheries should extend only nine months from Brexit date—to the end of 2019. In March this year, the intention to have a 21-month implementation period was announced. Given that this was an additional 12 months over what was proposed as a compromise, it was greeted with disappointment in fishing communities. However, it has been understood and broadly accepted on the basis that the final prize of being out of the CFP and being an independent coastal state was still very much in play, and that the EU itself would not accept fisheries being cherry-picked out of the implementation period. I leave aside for the purpose of this discussion the EU’s subsequent attempts to do that very thing—to cherry-pick fisheries and other aspects of the withdrawal agreement and the political declaration. That is for another discussion.

The industry was encouraged by and supportive of the White Paper, in no small part due to the repeated mentions of December 2020 as the moment we would take our place as an independent coastal state. However, that date is not reflected in the Bill. Amendment 1 seeks to put that date in the Bill, or at least to secure an assurance, which I invite the Minister to provide, that our exit from the influence of the CFP will be time-limited.

[Alan Brown]

The hon. Gentleman said that amendment 1 was a probing amendment and that this was not quite the right time to put the date in statute. When will be the right time? What will have changed by the time we get to Report to make such an amendment the right one?

[David Duguid]

I am looking forward to the Minister’s response to the amendment. As the hon. Gentleman and the rest of the Committee know, a lot is happening—or not happening—at the moment, so we need to see what comes out of the next few weeks. I would be grateful if the Minister provided whatever assurance he can at this stage about how the Government will ensure that the CFP no longer applies to our fishermen beyond December 2020.

[George Eustice]

Both amendments seek to achieve the same purpose, which is effectively to make it harder to extend the implementation period beyond December 2020, as currently provided for in the withdrawal agreement. Underlying the amendments is the clear sentiment in the fishing industry, on which I think there is almost cross-party consensus, that we cannot get out of the EU fast enough. The common fisheries policy has been a disaster—we do not get a fair share of stocks—so it is entirely understandable that the fishing industry and others would like us to become an independent coastal state with our own seat at the table, negotiating our own fisheries resources and getting a fairer share of the total allowable catch, as soon as possible.

We currently envisage the implementation period running until the end of 2020. As we discussed earlier, in the event that we are unable to conclude a future partnership with the EU during that implementation period, and that that is apparent by July 2020, the Government will have a choice of one of two options. If we have made good progress and are close to getting a new agreement in place, there will be an opportunity to extend the implementation period. That might be for just a few months to ensure that things can be put in place. If, however, the Government judged that the prospects of getting a future partnership were low—or the prospects of getting one in the foreseeable future were low—they could opt to embrace the so-called Northern Ireland protocol backstop.

[Alan Brown]

Is what the Minister says not completely contrary to the answers he gave about new clause 22? He said the new clause would stop us being in a backstop position—it would override that—but now he says, “We can’t accept this date because there’s the potential of the backstop and extending the implementation period.”

[George Eustice]

New clause 22 applies explicitly in the case of our creating a new partnership—not extending the implementation period, not falling into the backstop, but actually having a new partnership. It prevents the Government from making concessions on fisheries for other advances elsewhere. That is the point. It is separate—it addresses the third option, where we get what we are aiming for, which is an agreement.

[Alan Brown]

Equally, in his answers to questions about new clause 22, the Minister said it was all about being outside the common fisheries policy, so why not accept a date?

[George Eustice]

Amendments 1 and 35 are not about our future economic partnership, which is a separate concern that we have addressed elsewhere—obviously the withdrawal agreement has its complexities. If in July 2020 we face either a short extension of the implementation period or going into the backstop, the Government will have a choice.

Fisheries Bill (Tenth_PART2 sitting)

Alan Brown Excerpts

Committee Debate: 10th sitting (part 2): House of Commons
Monday 17th December 2018 Public Bill Committees

Brought up, and read the First 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—

--- Later in debate ---

[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?

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

Brought up, and read the First 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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

Fisheries Bill (Seventh sitting)

Alan Brown Excerpts

Committee Debate: 7th sitting: House of Commons
Thursday 13th December 2018 Public Bill Committees

The large outward flows of young people due to lack of opportunity create serious demographic challenges and a vicious cycle of isolation. Coastal communities have higher rates of unemployment and lower wages. Five of the top 10 local authorities in Britain with the highest unemployment rates are coastal communities. Among the 25 local authorities with the highest rates of insolvency, 16 are coastal—indeed, Plymouth is ranked second and first for coastal communities. We also know that 10 of the 20 local authorities in England and Wales with the highest proportion of people in poor health are coastal communities. Fishing will not in itself reverse all that decline, but it could make a big difference.

[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.]

--- Later in debate ---

[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.