Leaving the EU: Agriculture
Alistair Carmichael Excerpts(8 years, 7 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the policy framework for agriculture after the UK leaves the EU.
As ever, Mr Bone, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship.
Before I start, I should say that I am very grateful to the Backbench Business Committee for having allowed the House the opportunity to debate this subject today. I see a reasonable number of Members in Westminster Hall, so I shall try to keep my remarks fairly short, to ensure that everybody gets a chance to have their say.
First of all, however, it is worth noting the context for this debate. For the 40-plus years that the United Kingdom has been a member of the Common Market, the European Economic Community and ultimately the European Union, the common agricultural policy has been the dominant force in shaping agricultural policy in the United Kingdom. As is often the case when there is such a dominant force, we can get dragged down into the weeds. We can lose sight of the higher purpose—I suspect that, if pressed, any of us could come up with lots of things that we dislike about the CAP.
The moment of our leaving the European Union will be, of course, an opportunity to change much of that and to do things differently, if that is what we choose. However, it is worth reminding ourselves about the context of what has been achieved and the nature of the agricultural industries—I use the plural advisedly—that we have had for the last 40 years as a consequence of our membership of the EU.
Some would say that this is a moment for moving away from financial support for agriculture completely—the New Zealand “cold turkey” approach. That is a respectable view; it is not one that I happen to share, for reasons that I will explain. However, it is a statable case, and if we are sensible it is one that we should address. When the Secretary of State recently made a speech at the Oxford Farming Conference, he spoke about the CAP being a mechanism for subsidising inefficiencies. One man’s inefficiency may be another man’s lifestyle, so I listen to terms such as that being bandied about with some caution, shall we say.
What would be the consequence, though, of ending the support there has been for agriculture? The most obvious consequence, in my view, would be food price inflation. There is a cost attached to maintaining an agricultural business, and if farmers are not to get the money they need through the mix of what they get at the farm gate and financial support from Government, then of course a higher price will have to be paid by the consumer in the supermarket.
In fact, earlier today it was put to me that the most obvious victims of the end of the era of cheap food—the era in which we have lived and continue to live—would be those on the lowest and fixed incomes. That is a good point: people on low incomes spend a higher proportion of their disposable income on food than on anything else. Ending support would also have very profound implications for our countryside. Many of the things that we value most about our countryside come about because people live there—because they can work there and make a living there. The countryside is not just a glorified retirement home.
I have seen a lot of farms’ books in my time as a Member of Parliament, for a whole variety of reasons. When it comes to farmers in my constituency and throughout the highlands and islands—and doubtless those in other parts of the country—there simply would not be a living to be made without the farm subsidy payment coming into their businesses every year. We would lose the farms, then the shops and the post offices. The country schools would close, which would lead to the loss of professional support, such as the lawyers, accountants and the vets. With that loss, we would start to lose the mix that a rural community needs to sustain itself. Thereafter, it is pretty easy to see where we would go.
The alternative to food price inflation, of course, would be to import cheap food from other parts of the world. However, I caution hon. Members about that. One of the reasons why our costs of production are high in this country, relative to other parts of the world, is that we maintain very good standards of animal welfare, traceability and biosecurity. Those all come at a price. We are told that such things are valued by the consumer, and there is a price attached to that. If our farmers are to compete on a level footing, we should expect the same standards in those countries from which we would envisage importing food. At that point, one would wonder whether the price difference between food produced here and imported food would be as marked as it is now.
In that context, the CAP and support for agricultural industries have given us considerable stability in recent decades. There is then the question of what will follow the CAP. If we take away the framework that we have had since the mid-1970s—the CAP—we will inevitably have to replace it with some other sort of framework: a UK-wide one, if that is to be the extent of our regulation. I am pleased to note an emerging consensus between the UK Government and the devolved Administrations: that the creation of a UK-wide framework is a desirable and necessary event, which will have to be taken seriously.
To my mind, there are something in the region of four different objectives that such a new framework would need to have built into it. First, and most importantly, it would need to preserve the functioning and integrity of the UK internal market. That is important for consumers and producers across the length and breadth of the country. Secondly, it would need integrity, to ensure that the UK was in a position to enter into trade agreements with other countries. Thirdly, it would have to ensure that the United Kingdom could continue to meet its existing international obligations, never mind those that we may seek to take on. Fourthly, it should provide for effective management of common resources. As I say, the first of those four objectives—preserving the integrity of a UK internal market—is the most important.
As the National Farmers Union Scotland has put it in one of the many briefings that have been provided for today’s debate,
“animal welfare and traceability, public health, pesticides regulation, and food labelling”
should all be part of a “commonly agreed ‘framework’”. That is in the interests of all parts of the United Kingdom.
Of course, once an overarching framework has been agreed, everything else that remains should be devolved to the constituent parts of the United Kingdom. For the purposes of England, that would obviously be the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs; the Scottish, Northern Irish and Welsh Assembly Governments would have control and responsibility for their own respective jurisdictions. The thinking that needs to be done now about how we design that framework is important. We need something that will allow each Administration to implement it as is appropriate for their area.
As one who was always a keen supporter of the idea before it happened, I think that devolution since 1999 in Scotland has been very good for Scottish farmers. They say that the administration of agricultural policy from a dedicated Department in Edinburgh has been better for them: it is closer to their needs and better able to design a system that is suitable for the farmers in our constituency.
I am sure that that is true across the whole United Kingdom, so the framework must provide a structure without tying the hands of the devolved Governments. They should be able to continue to do as they currently do: look after the less favoured areas such as the highlands and islands, and perhaps then the beef farms and dairy farms; I am thinking not only of Orkney and such places, but the north-east of England—I see the hon. Member for Dumfries and Galloway (Mr Jack) from the south-west of Scotland—or the south-west of England.
There are upland farms in Yorkshire and Cumbria. All the different industries have needs that are best met by devolved Administrations delivering policy in their own jurisdictions. For that reason, when the framework is constructed, it has to deal with those matters in a way that that can be commonly agreed. If the Minister has not already had representations from the NFUS, although I suspect he probably has, he should consider its proposal for the creation of a strengthened joint ministerial Committee. The mechanisms of devolution already make provision for that sort of thing, but as we move to the next phase of our constitutional change, it is pretty clear that something of that sort will be necessary.
The idea posited to get a commonly agreed mechanism is that something such as qualified majority voting, as is often used in the Council of Ministers, could be engaged. The advantage would be to create something that was genuinely a common agreement, rather than a top-down approach where control would still be vested in DEFRA and in London.
Inevitably, one comes on to the question of finances. Currently the United Kingdom remits money to Brussels, which then pays the respective Administrations money that goes in a dedicated way to farm support. Obviously, after our departure from the European Union, that supply line will be significantly shortened and we shall look to the Treasury. I do not see any other mechanism than that the money should come from the Treasury, but perhaps the Minister has other ideas about how that would work. More importantly even than that, we need to know the mechanism by which that funding will be distributed across the different parts of the United Kingdom. For most public spending purposes, we currently have the Barnett formula, but that takes into consideration a whole range of different matters that would not really be relevant, so some sort of thinking at this point will clearly have to be done.
On the brass tacks of this, when the Minister comes to reply to the debate today—I realise we are in the early stages of the thinking and we can look only for broad principles—will he confirm that the pie that we will slice up by whatever mechanism we devise will remain the same size as the one we currently have? The one thing that consistently comes through to me, from talking to farmers and crofters in my constituency and to the farming unions, is that at this stage our objective should be continuity and stability. Farmers really need to know what the future holds for them. If we do not have early confirmation of what the future holds, we cannot expect them to have the confidence to keep investing.
A whole range of imponderables will come from our decision to leave the European Union. Access to export markets, the terms on which imports will be allowed from other countries, and the availability of labour for both the production and processing of food are just a few of them. All those matters are outwith our control, but the creation of a UK-wide framework is one element entirely within our own control; more than anything else, it will give our farmers the opportunity to continue their planning for future investment.
In his speech at the Oxford Farming Conference, the Secretary of State guaranteed support payments to 2024. That was a welcome announcement and I do not want to diminish the importance of it in any way, but in doing that he prayed in aid the need for long-term certainty.
I speak as a farmer’s son. I know two things about farming. First, I knew I was never going to be one; that is partly why I am here today. Secondly, I know that six years for a farmer is nothing like the long term. The long term is what agriculture is built on and what our farmers and crofters need to hear about. I hope the Minister will at least give an indication that we have started the process of giving it to them.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to see you here, Mr Bone.
The debate is very welcome. It has obviously been a long time since agriculture policy was in such a period of transition, and where there was so much up for debate and needing to be decided; as we come out of the common agricultural policy we look towards the negotiation of new trade deals, and there is an agriculture Bill on the horizon, I hope. The Environment Secretary has made some welcome statements at the Oxford Farming Conference and the Oxford Real Farming Conference—I attended the latter—which were restated in the 25-year environment plan, about trying to shift to the use of public money for public goods. That must be the backbone of the approach. I welcome his clarity about the ending of subsidy per acre, and using it to pay for public goods. It is encouraging that the direction of travel on that is so clear. Farmers want to do much more to conserve their land for future generations; the structure should be there to support that.
We need to do a much better job of internalising the external costs of the damage we do to the environment, including soil degradation, deforestation, biodiversity loss and the impact on public health of the routine use of antibiotics. Those have been disregarded for too long. I am sure that we all agree on the desirability of the new regime supporting the public goods that the Environment Secretary identified, such as planting woodland and restoring habitats for endangered species, and restoring and enhancing soil. I would add other things, but the direction of travel is good.
As chair of the all-party group on agroecology for sustainable food and farming, I would also like specifically to promote the benefits of agroecological approaches. They are sometimes seen as backward-looking, because they can involve reviving some old-age systems, but I am not personally anti-innovation. I think that agroecological measures can be adopted without a reduction in productivity. As the former UN special rapporteur on the right to food, Olivier De Schutter, said, the approach has been shown
“to improve food production and farmers’ incomes, while at the same time protecting the soil, water, and climate”.
That is the balance we need.
I want to focus my comments on two areas about which little has been said so far. The first is post-Brexit agricultural policy, which urgently needs to address how we increase our food sustainability and, given global pressures, ensure long-term food security. The second is the growth of diet-related ill-health and widening health inequalities. As to food security, leaving the EU potentially puts UK food security at greater risk. At the moment we produce less than 60% of the food we consume and rely on the EU for almost 30% of our imports. Post-Brexit, shortages of farm labour and a more volatile market could make that situation even worse. I am vice-chair of the all-party group on fruit and vegetable farmers. Witnesses from the sector, and the wider horticulture sector, gave evidence to the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs a while ago; the sector is already starting to suffer from the Brexit effect. Last year, there were reports of produce rotting in the fields in Cornwall from a lack of EU workers to pick it, put off by poor exchange rates and uncertain future employment. I know that the Minister has attended the all-party group and the Select Committee to hear our concerns. I am sure that the Committee Chair, the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish), will mention that later.
Nothing was said about the workforce in the 25-year plan. Although the Environment Secretary has said that he recognises the need for seasonal agricultural labour, we do not have a clear indication of what he intends to do about that. We need to ensure that agricultural policy addresses the prevalence of low pay, insecure employment and the exploitation of workers in the food and farming sector. I do not think that that is too much to ask.
Mr Carmichael
The issue of labour availability is important, but it is not confined to low-paid workers. The hon. Lady should be aware that the veterinary profession relies heavily on vets who come to work in this country from other parts of the European Union, especially for meat inspection.
Kerry McCarthy
I think that I am right in saying that about 85% of the vets from overseas who work in this country have not been in the UK more than five years; so they would not be captured by the arrangements being put in place to enable people to apply for status to stay in the country. That is an important issue.
On the question of horticulture and healthy eating, we need to ensure that our agricultural policy not only maintains but widens access to healthy, nutritious food for everyone. Analysis by the Food Foundation, which was of course set up by a former Conservative MP, who is doing excellent work, shows that a British family of four could be spending up to £158 per year more on fruit and veg after Brexit, as a result of tariffs, inflation and increased labour costs. That is a huge amount of money for those already struggling to put nutritious food on the table. Ninety-two per cent. of teenagers in the UK already struggle to get their five-a-day, and diets low in vegetables are linked to 20,000 premature deaths every year. We had a debate in Westminster Hall the other day about the links between junk food and childhood obesity. Cancer Research provided inspiration for that debate, and the other side of the healthy eating coin is obviously the consequences of unhealthy eating.
Peter Grant
It would be nice if the Government’s approach to Brexit was based on evidence, facts and proper analysis, rather than ideology. The hon. Gentleman also welcomed the opportunity to have what he described as an informed debate about immigration. I think it would have been nice if we had had an informed debate about immigration, rather than the desperately ill-informed debate we had up to, through and since the referendum. We have not heard enough about the enormous benefit that immigration brings to these islands and will continue to bring if we allow it to do so.
The hon. Member for Gordon reminded us at Brexit questions this morning that, as far as agriculture is concerned, one size does not fit all. In fact, the danger is that one size very often does not fit anything, so nobody gets the result they need.
Anyone can work out that the needs of a hill farmer or crofter in the highlands of Scotland or in Wales are very different from the needs of a dairy farmer in the south of England, or indeed of a fruit grower in lowland Scotland or lowland Perthshire. That means that whatever framework is put together has got to be capable of being adapted and applied flexibly to ensure that the decisions taken are those that are most suited to where they are being applied.
I do not have an issue, and neither does the Scottish National party, with recognising that in some areas of public policy there are huge benefits to having one framework and one set of rules to apply everywhere. For example, animal welfare standards are common throughout the United Kingdom—good idea. Let us face it, they are going to be common throughout the United Kingdom and the European Union, because we will still want to be able to sell our stuff across the Irish border, so Northern Ireland will have to fit in with European Union standards in the longer term.
It is essential that a decision that something will be taken on a UK framework basis is a decision by consensus. I am waiting, as are a lot of people back home in Scotland, to hear the Government confirm that no UK framework policy will be decided without the consent of the devolved Administrations, and that once it has been agreed that something needs a UK framework, the content and detail of that framework will be agreed by consensus among the four equal partners in the Union, not simply imposed on us by a Government in Whitehall—nor indeed imposed on the farmers of England by a Government in Edinburgh.
Mr Carmichael
What view do the hon. Gentleman and his party take of the NFUS suggestion that any decision should be taken on the basis of some form of qualified majority voting?
Peter Grant
I am not convinced that defining a specific voting system now would be particularly helpful. I would not have a problem with the system being more devolved in England, if only there were a government structure to allow that to happen, because farmers in Devon do not necessarily need the same response as the farmers of east Anglia—but that is for the people and representatives of England to sort out. If decisions are to be taken that will affect farmers in Scotland, it is essential those decisions are the right ones for Scotland. The best place for decisions affecting Scotland to be taken is in Scotland—if we want to, we can replace Scotland with Northern Ireland, Wales or even Cornwall.
The Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (George Eustice)
I congratulate the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) on securing this debate. Like him, I am a farmer’s son. Unlike my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish), I am not farming now, but I did try farming for 10 years. It is a real honour to be farming Minister at an exciting time: we have an opportunity, for the first time in half a century, to design fresh thinking and coherent policy in agriculture.
As the Minister for Agriculture, I have wrestled with the common agricultural policy, and the rules and bureaucracy, for four years. It is stifling. Although there have been changes to the CAP over the years, in its current incarnation it is a bureaucratic quagmire. It attempts to regulate every single field and every feature in them. Our administrators spend their time fretting about the width of a hedge: whether it is too narrow or too wide, whether the gateway is too big and whether there are too many trees on a parcel of land. It goes on forever.
Every Administration in the UK feels deep frustration at some of the bureaucracy in the CAP. We have an opportunity as we leave the EU to do things differently and to design coherent policy. We set out our intention in the Queen’s Speech last year to bring forward an agriculture Bill later this year. Before that, we will publish further plans about our initial thinking—some time later in the spring or in early summer.
The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland and others talked about the importance of UK frameworks. We absolutely recognise that and I think that all other parts of the UK do, too. As he pointed out, when we consider the UK framework, we will be looking predominantly at two areas: first, what is required to protect the integrity of the UK single market. Clearly, we could not have one Administration subsidising sheep farmers in a way that would be to the huge detriment of farmers in other parts of the UK. There would have to be some boundaries. Secondly, everyone accepts the need for UK frameworks when we talk about what is necessary to secure international agreements, be they on trade or other matters: things like phytosanitary, food safety and traceability issues to protect our export market. We will have to have some kind of framework and common outcomes and objectives to deliver those things.
I reassure the hon. Gentleman and others that we are engaging regularly with Ministers in all the devolved Administrations. We have regular meetings with them and in some of those meetings, different devolved Administrations lead on particular aspects. They have been updating us on some of the work that they have been doing. At official level there has been a very in-depth analysis, both to deliver what is necessary for the current European Union (Withdrawal) Bill and for the detailed work on the principles and features that a future UK framework will need.
Picking up on the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Gordon (Colin Clark) made, our critique of the CAP is that it is a one-size-fits-all policy, and it does not work for that reason. I want to ensure that leaving the EU and the CAP is liberating for everyone in this country—for all the devolved Administrations and for farmers right across the UK. As he put it, it is not our intention at all to have a DEFRA-centric, top-down policy. Far from it: we want to protect maximum flexibility and ability for each individual devolved Administration to design policies that work for them.
I will give an example of the sort of thing that we have to put up with. About 18 months ago, the Welsh Government got into a legal dispute with the European Commission because the Commission did not like the size and shape of the ear tag that they used as the second tag on cattle. I would have no intention of trying to dictate to other devolved Administrations what the size, shape or colour of their ear tags should be. All I would want to know is that they had proper traceability in place.
Mr Carmichael
The Minister’s policy is all very well, but it is meaningful only if we have the money to go with it. Will the Minister address the position of the Treasury in relation to funding of it?
Mr Carmichael
I thank all hon. Members who have taken part in the debate. I feel that we will return to this subject many times. In particular, I thank the Minister, who has been assiduous in addressing the points; he took copious notes throughout, but despite that, he still managed to send me an email at 3.30 inviting me to a reception to mark Cornish Pasty Week. I accept his invitation with some pleasure and look forward to discussing with him there the importance of protected geographical indications, of which Cornish pasties, Orkney beef and Shetland lamb are but a few.
Oral Answers to Questions
Alistair Carmichael Excerpts(8 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Speaker
The Secretary of State thinks that the young man is not doing too badly, and I am sure that the young man concerned will feel fortified by that.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
I commend the Secretary of State for the publication of the environmental strategy, which is an important and significant step, but there are still opportunities to do more. Will he tell the House why he allowed 25 years in the strategy for the elimination of non-essential plastics? If they are non-essential, surely we can do better than that.
Michael Gove
I have enormous respect for the right hon. Gentleman. The nature of the 25-year plan was a recommendation of the Natural Capital Committee and, as he knows, it covers a wide range of issues. The Government are bringing forward more demanding and more ambitious targets to reduce single-use plastics, but he is right to encourage the Government, and all of us, to do more.
UK Fishing Industry
Alistair Carmichael Excerpts(8 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
I am grateful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to take part in this most important debate. I apologise to the House now, as I did to your predecessor in the Chair, for the fact that, unfortunately, I will not be here at the conclusion of the debate. I am very aware that I will shortly be travelling towards Storm Caroline, and it is worth pausing for a second, as we debate in the relative calm of Westminster on a Thursday afternoon, to reflect that many of the fishermen in my constituency will be at sea in those conditions. It is worth remembering that they do a very difficult job in very dangerous circumstances, which is why we should be grateful to them for the work they do and to organisations such as the Coastguard, the Royal National Lifeboat Institution, the Fishermen’s Mission and others that do so much to support them.
It strikes me that this may be a small piece of history, as this is perhaps the last of these fisheries debates we will have in their current form. This time next year, we will be looking towards the final Fisheries Council in which we will part of the EU, which brings me to my first ask. The Scottish Fishermen’s Federation and the Shetland Fisherman’s Association have both made it clear that they see it as obvious that for the first three months of 2019 we will remain part of the common fisheries policy but thereafter they seek bridging arrangements that will take them to end of the year, so that they might honour the arrangements that are made at the December Fisheries Council next year. That would then be the point at which we would properly exit the CFP. There is an elegant simplicity to that arrangement, and I hope that the Minister will confirm that that is the approach the Government will seek to pursue.
Fisheries management cannot continue as part of the CFP during any transitional period that follows after the end of March 2019 for one simple reason: we will not have a seat at the table when the decisions are made at the December Fisheries Council. I put that point to the Prime Minister at Prime Minister’s questions earlier this year, but she was less than clear in her answer—I realise that she perhaps does not have the background in fisheries of the Minister at the Dispatch Box today. I hope that he can confirm that that is the position and the Government will not leave us in a situation where our fishing industry is left having to abide by rules and decisions of which we have had no part in the making.
As the Shetland Fishermen’s Association put it to me in its briefing for today,
“water and markets don’t mix”.
By that, it makes the point that the fishing industry and the fishing rights should not be traded off against other sectors. When it comes to the negotiations around our departure, will the Minister confirm that he will do as I have urged him on other occasions and ring-fence the fishing industry? There are plenty of good historical reasons why that should be done. No other coastal state is forced to trade access to waters for access to markets, and I say to the Minister that the fishermen in my constituency would see any arrangement of that sort as nothing short of a betrayal of the undertakings given to them at the time when they voted in the EU referendum.
Of course we will remain subject to a variety of different concerns as the Brexit process continues. We need to address the question of markets, because we can catch as many fish as we like but we have to be able to sell them to somewhere, so we will take a close interest in that part of the negotiations. We also need to address the issue of employment for crew members, some of whom come from within the EU, with many then working in the processing sector. That is where certainty needs to be given to the industry as early as possible. It simply is not going to work if we are left in the same position with crew members coming from outside the UK as we are currently left with visas for fishing crew coming from outwith the EU.
Oral Answers to Questions
Alistair Carmichael Excerpts(8 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Michael Gove)
Since taking up my role, I have met representatives from the NFU, NFU Scotland, NFU Cymru, the Farmers’ Union of Wales and the Ulster Farmers Union, all of whom help me to shape my work.
Mr Carmichael
In that case, the Secretary of State should be aware that the UK does not have a single agricultural industry; we have several. The needs of farmers and crofters in my constituency will be very different from those of dairy farmers in the south-west of England, but all will have to be accommodated in the framework. Will the right hon. Gentleman therefore continue to engage with both NFU Scotland and the Scottish Crofting Federation, because in this they are the experts?
Michael Gove
I quite agree. I had the opportunity to hear from representatives of the crofting sector when I visited Scotland. I make a commitment to visit every part of the United Kingdom and to work constructively with the devolved Administrations to create a UK-wide framework that ensures that we can preserve the internal market within the UK and get the best trade deals with other countries, but at the same time be sensitive to the specific needs of, for example, Orkney’s very fine beef farmers.
Oral Answers to Questions
Alistair Carmichael Excerpts(9 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Michael Gove
I add my voice to those of everyone in the House in congratulating my hon. Friend on securing re-election as Chairman of the Select Committee. Once again, he absolutely hits the nail on the head. As we move outside the European Union, our system of agricultural support must protect farmers through the vicissitudes they face; and, critically, the environmental benefits that farmers secure for us every day must be at the heart of any new system of support.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
T1. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Michael Gove)
May I wish every Member of the House an enjoyable recess and hope that they will take the opportunity to sample some of the range of great British food and drink that is available, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr Evans) pointed out, as they holiday in these islands? Over the next few days I will be visiting Northern Ireland and Wales, and I very much enjoyed my earlier visits to Scotland. Agriculture and fisheries are stronger as part of our United Kingdom, whichever part of it we are privileged to represent.
Mr Carmichael
Of course, the finest food to be found anywhere includes Shetland lamb and Orkney beef, which are always best eaten in the community of their production. Anybody who wishes to join me over the summer recess in Orkney or Shetland will be very welcome. Those fine products get a lot of protection from the protected geographical status and protected designation of origin schemes, which we currently enjoy as part of the European Union. What is DEFRA doing to ensure that our food producers have protection that is at least as good after we leave?
Michael Gove
The right hon. Gentleman makes a very good point. As someone who recently had the opportunity to sample Orkney’s fine smoked cheese at the royal highland show, may I add my praise for the produce of the beautiful islands he represents? Geographical indicators are of course a very useful tool. We want to ensure that, outside the European Union, British food, from whichever part of these islands it originates, can have its status and provenance protected at the heart of effective marketing.
Oral Answers to Questions
Alistair Carmichael Excerpts(9 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Andrea Leadsom)
First, may I welcome the hon. Member for Workington (Sue Hayman) to her place? It is very good to see her on the Opposition Front Bench and I look forward to working with her.
Mr Speaker, may I convey the sincere apologies of my farming Minister, whose plane has been delayed? He sends his very sincere apologies and we will write to you shortly.
Since the referendum, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Ministers and officials have regularly met representatives from across the fishing industry. Fisheries will be a key area in negotiations. As a coastal state outside the EU, the UK will be responsible under international law for controlling UK waters and for the sustainable management of the fisheries within them.
Mr Carmichael
I have an instinctive sympathy for anybody who is delayed by planes. It is a big part of my life.
The Secretary of State will be aware that before we had the common fisheries policy we had the London convention of 1964, which governed the access of foreign vessels to the six to 12-mile-limit waters. Is it the Government’s intention to remain a party to that convention after we leave the European Union?
Andrea Leadsom
What I can say to the right hon. Gentleman is that I am very aware of the issues around the London convention. We are looking at it very closely and will be able to comment on it in the near future.
Oral Answers to Questions
Alistair Carmichael Excerpts(9 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (George Eustice)
As I said earlier, I have experience in the soft fruit industry. I know many of the growers in Evesham, and indeed I have had correspondence recently with Angus Davison, from one of the largest growers in the west midlands, on this issue. We understand the concerns and we are in discussions with departmental colleagues on it. We want to get the right approach so that we can control immigration but ensure that we have the labour where it is required.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
George Eustice
The Prime Minister gave the assurance that we seek a good deal, and that no deal is better than a bad deal; I do not think that anybody can disagree with that. I will simply say that in food and drink alone, we have a trade deficit with the EU of some £10 billion, so the EU has a great interest in having tariff-free access to the UK market.
UK Fishing Industry
Alistair Carmichael Excerpts(9 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Paterson
I have answered the hon. Gentleman’s point, and I am going to carry on.
Eleven years ago, I spent a fascinating two years going all round the British Isles. I went to wonderful places such as Whalsay in the far north, Northern Ireland and right round the coast of Britain. I saw tragically damaged communities and marine environments. I also went to Norway, the Faroes, Iceland, Newfoundland, the east coast of the United States and the Falklands. I saw improving marine environments and prosperous fishing communities in those areas. I saw wealth being grown there. I drew conclusions from this, and I wrote a consultation paper, which I published.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
The right hon. Gentleman is right. The common feature of all the jurisdictions he mentions is that their fisheries management systems have the fishermen at their heart. This is not a question of where control is exercised; it is a question of what we do with it. Whitehall is just as capable as Brussels of excluding fishermen from fisheries management.
Mr Paterson
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his helpful intervention. I draw his attention to the paper that I launched in Scotland in 2005, on which we fought the 2005 election. It advocated the establishment of national and local control, which is exactly what he is talking about. He is absolutely right. In that paper, I concluded:
“The Common Fisheries Policy is a biological, environmental, economic and social disaster; it is beyond reform. It is a system that forces fishermen to throw back more fish dead into the sea than they land; it has caused substantial degradation of the marine environment; it has destroyed much of the fishing industry, with compulsory scrapping of modern vessels and has devastated fishing communities.”
I am absolutely clear that leaving the CFP would give us the chance to change all that.
The first thing we would change is the craziness of the quotas. At the moment, we throw back more fish dead into the sea than we land. A Scottish fisherman told me this morning that he estimates that a 50% discard equates to 1 million tonnes of healthy fish being thrown back each year, worth £1.6 billion annually and the equivalent of 2 billion fish suppers. That is criminal insanity. We are across the gulf stream, and we have deep waters with a strong supply of food. The industry could have a tremendous revival if we revive our marine environment.
We must replace the current quotas and turn them into the equivalent of days at sea. I saw this happening with great clarity in the Faroes, where it is mandatory to land everything. The Minister in the Faroes told me, “We might not like what we find, but we know exactly what is going on.” Let us compare that with the problem that the Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice), will have when he goes to the Council next week. The EU fisheries policy is based on information that is guaranteed to be at a minimum 50% inaccurate and probably six months out of date.
Let us compare that with the Falklands, where—I saw this when I was there—the figures are transmitted to senior scientists in London overnight, and if a vessel collecting hake is taking too much bycatch, it is told to steam on.
Let us compare that with Iceland, where—I have been there, too—at an hour’s notice, vessels are told to steam on if they are catching too much of a certain species. That is proper control and, to go back to the point made by the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael), it is the sort of power we could give back to our local fisherman and those with an interest in the local marine environment.
I am absolutely clear that we have to switch from the current quota system. If we have any quotas, it is inevitable that we will have discards. During the referendum campaign, I gave a speech in Looe and, on the harbour-master’s wall, there was a helpful tin sign with pictures of all the fish. I say all the fish, but, hang on, there was no picture of a haddock. What is the biggest thing fishermen are catching off Looe at the moment? It is haddock. They have not even got a quota, so they are chucking them all back. It is absolutely crazy. We should land everything, and everything with commercial value should then be sold. That is the only solution.
My hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Richard Benyon) bravely got the discard ban through, but, unfortunately, it cannot work while we have quotas. As long as we have quotas, we will have a discard problem. We should move to controls based on days at sea, we should land everything, we should have accurate data—and no cheating—and it would be immensely cheaper and easier to administer. That would provide very accurate data for our local scientists, local fishermen, local recreational interests and local environmentalists to use in deciding how to handle the fishing.
I am looking at the clock, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I will mention a few other points that were in my paper. Before I do so, will the Minister—if he will take a note—get a derogation and do a trial on the basis of days at sea? The Dutch have done a trial on electric pulse beaming, starting off with six boats in the first year and going up to 100 boats after six years. I would like the Minister to choose a mixed fishery area—possibly the south-west, where he comes from—for an immediate trial converting existing quotas into days at sea to see whether we can replicate the huge success of the Faroes in improving the marine environment, growing stocks and bringing back prosperity.
As part of our administration of fisheries, it is very important that we plan temporary closures. For boats taking too much bycatch, absolutely hourly management can, with radio, be given to local scientists and fishermen if we create the right framework. In my paper, I proposed having fisheries management authorities, which would be a combination of all the parties I have mentioned. I would have inshore authorities for out to 12 miles—in the channel, it would go a little further—and a smaller number of them for out to 200 miles. They would work on the basis of local knowledge, with local scientists, and adapt techniques to their area.
There is one issue that I find extraordinary. When I went to New England, I saw selective gear being developed at Manomet, but when I came back to the UK I found out it was banned. The hostility of the EU to modern technology is bizarre. I would like to have a regime in which we actively promoted selective gear so that we could take out certain species surgically when fishing. On that, the ability to control the system has been enormously helped since I wrote the paper, because there has been a great improvement in GPS tracking, satellite observation and communications. We can put cameras on nets and on boats, so it is now very hard to cheat.
One of the Labour Members mentioned improved supervision, and we will have to put more money back into this to ensure that people do not cheat. However, we will be in an enormously better position if we take back control, give power to local interests—not just the fishing industry, but scientists, councils and recreational fishermen—to decide what is good for their area, to adapt selective gear to that area and to agree permanent closed zones for spawning if necessary or temporary closed zones if there is too much fishing. If we do that, we will see an immediate improvement in the marine environment, and the jobs and prosperity will then come back. Leave means leave, which means going out to 200 miles and establishing local and national control.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for North Shropshire (Mr Paterson), who brings his customary clarity and simplicity to today’s arguments. However, I disagree with a great deal of his analysis of the problems. It must be stressed rather more than it has been that taking back control is only part of the answer. There is then the question of what we do with it.
If we are to construct our own domestic fisheries management system, there is an opportunity to put fishermen, conservationists and scientists at the heart of fisheries management—proper regional and local management—and to use scientific advice. The right hon. Gentleman said that 50% of such advice was wrong. I doubt that, but I do know that it is at least two years out of date by the time it informs the decision-making process. We need a better way of using that information to inform the process so that whether we use quotas, days at sea, closed areas or whatever, the information on which we rely properly and accurately reflects the stocks in the water.
We must not forget that even if we leave the European Union and even if we have control over the waters as others have suggested, that would not be the end of our interaction with the common fisheries policy. We share waters in the North sea, the English channel and the western approaches in the Irish sea, and other countries have historic rights of access to our waters. If they continue to mismanage stocks in a way that was unfortunately a feature of the past, that will have continuing impact on our fishermen, too.
I wish the Minister well as he goes to the December Council meeting. In the light of everything else, it will perhaps be a trickier negotiation than in recent years, but the environment will be slightly less febrile than when the right hon. Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw) was fisheries Minister. I go back 12, 13 or 14 years in such debates, and back then we thought it possible that the spawning stock biomass of North sea cod had reached a point from which there would be no recovery. In fact, we have a seen a quite remarkable recovery in North sea white fish stocks, but that has not happened by accident—a thought that occurred to me as the right hon. Gentleman was explaining the changes. I think around 47% of stocks are still overfished—too high, but a significant improvement on where we were. That improvement is a consequence of the changes made in fisheries management, in particular the creation of regional advisory councils, and of the significant pain that was borne by the fishing industry and communities during the decommissioning programmes of 10 years ago.
The attractions of this opportunity to the catching sector are pretty obvious, but there are concerns for the future beyond that sector. The processing sector heavily relies and has relied for many years on the availability of workers from other EU countries. Those people want to know what their future will be. If we are to have a set of World Trade Organisation rules and if there are tariffs on trade, that will have a seriously disadvantageous impact on processors, which will also hit the catchers. That is why it is crucial to get clarity as early as possible.
Like the right hon. Member for Tynemouth (Mr Campbell), I want to bring a few items from my shopping list to this debate. The Minister has already heard my worries about the Faroese deal on mackerel. There was enormous scepticism among the Scottish pelagic fleet, the Shetland pelagic catchers in particular, when the deal was brokered a few years ago. However, they did accept that they would give it a go. They gave it a go, and it is clear that that scepticism was, if anything, understated. This deal really is not working, as was highlighted recently by the report from Seafish, which pointed out that in 2015 Faroese boats caught almost 33,000 tonnes of mackerel in EU waters, mostly in Scotland’s, while Scottish boats got absolutely none from the Faroese waters. Worse, if the Faroese boats choose to land their fish in Scotland, they are then penalised by their Government. The Minister will know that the talks on the next iteration of this deal are to be held in Brussels on 6 and 7 December, so may I instil in him the strongest possible resolve in tackling this, because the imbalance of this deal becomes more egregious with every year that passes?
Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)
I wonder whether the right hon. Gentleman is concerned about the fact that this document excludes the question of those parts of the fishing industry that I suspect would be of concern to him in relation to the joint management with Norway. The European Scrutiny Committee drew attention to that and I wonder whether it is a matter of concern to his constituents.
Mr Carmichael
Without actually knowing what “this document” is, I am not sure; I am afraid that my eyesight is no longer good enough to be able to read the title from here. Wittingly or otherwise, the hon. Gentleman has hit on a very important point, which is that although we always get excited about the December Fisheries Council meeting, the real deal is the one done with the EU-Norway talks. That is where the shape of the fishing entitlement of the fishermen in my constituency is determined, and we look forward to hearing from the Minister exactly how we will interact with those talks in the future. A trilateral discussion surely seems sensible, but we will wait to hear what he intends in that regard.
Mr Carmichael
I am sorry, but I want to keep within the time limit if I can.
The landing obligation also continues to be a source of concern, as a result of the so-called “choke species”. This year, stock levels of cod, haddock and whiting in the North sea are particularly healthy—they are there in abundance—but there is a real danger that they could be excluded as a result of having these choke species. Again, that is an example of why it is so important that when the science is used to inform the decision-making process and quota it is accurate and up-to-date. It would be utterly perverse if Shetland’s white-fish fishermen were to be punished for fishing in waters where the stocks were healthiest.
Other Members have also spoken about the position on non-EU crew members, which has been particularly acute in my constituency. The basic problem is not just the indifference of the Home Office; the way these rules operate, if they are allowed to operate, means that they are pushing fishermen into fishing where the immigration rules allow them, rather than where is safe or where the fish are to be found. Surely the Minister should be speaking to the Home Office about that.
Oral Answers to Questions
Alistair Carmichael Excerpts(9 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Andrea Leadsom
Marine conservation zones are not just fine; they are absolutely superb. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman shares that assessment. I can give him, as a good example, the work that we did just last month to ban microbeads in personal cosmetics and so on. I pay tribute to hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber who have been fighting for that. We are putting that into action, and that is an example of the UK’s commitment to much more protection for our marine environment.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
Further to the Secretary of State’s answer to the hon. Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous), may I encourage the Secretary of State, and indeed the Minister of State, who has responsibility for fisheries, to engage with all sectors of the fishing industry when designing protections for marine habitats? If those habitats are to be effective, that is absolutely essential. The Minister of State knows that because he has a good record in this regard. Would the Secretary of State, or perhaps the Minister, be prepared to meet a delegation that I will bring from the Northern Isles, who are full of good ideas about what can be done?
Andrea Leadsom
The right hon. Gentleman is right to raise the importance of this sector in Scotland. We would be delighted to meet him. In fact, there are already a number of levels of engagement with analysing the opportunities that will arise from our leaving the EU. We will be very happy, keen and enthusiastic to meet his delegation.
Oral Answers to Questions
Alistair Carmichael Excerpts(10 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
George Eustice
My hon. Friend is right. Countries outside the European Union do have quota systems. We have considered alternatives, but a quota system of some sort, with the flexibilities that we are trying to introduce, is the best way to conserve fish stocks, we believe. Just as Norway, the Faroes and Iceland have quotas, we would retain those too. When it comes to the market, whichever side of the EU debate people are on—whether they believe we should stay in or leave—we all agree that free trade is to the benefit of everyone.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
I commend the Minister, who is obviously walking a very careful line today. He knows, however, that we had foreign trawlers operating in British waters before we were in the UK—[Interruption.]—sorry, before we joined the European Union, and that would remain the case if we were to leave. How many bilateral arrangements would be necessary if we were to leave the European Union? Can the Minister tell the fishermen in my constituency how the crucially important EU-Norway negotiations, which have a tremendous direct impact on us every year, would be conducted?
George Eustice
The right hon. Gentleman makes an important point. There is a misconception that the December Fisheries Council of the EU decides fishing opportunities in the North sea. As he and others know, fishing opportunities in the North sea are decided at the North-East Atlantic Fisheries Commission through the coastal states meetings and then EU-Norway. The UK currently does not have a seat at those meetings; we are represented by the EU. Obviously, if we were to leave, the UK would regain its seat on NEAFC.