UK-French Trading Dispute

Alistair Carmichael Excerpts

Thursday 28th October 2021 Commons Chamber

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

As the shadow Secretary of State said, the next few weeks will be absolutely critical for fish exporters in this country. If the French do what they are threatening—which is only, as I understand it, what is allowed by the trade and co-operation agreement—then they risk damaging the confidence and the reliability of supply from this country. The Secretary of State has given the number of licences that he has issued. He should also be aware that a number of those are for super-trawlers over 100 metres and fly-shooters, that he has given away access to non-quota species without limit, and that this is on top of a TCA that allowed access to the six to 12-mile limits, which is not what was promised. When he has given away so much already, why is he risking this over such a small number of small boats that we must always have known would struggle to get the data to justify the creation of track records?

[George Eustice]

I think what the right hon. Gentleman is saying, in a nutshell, is, “Shouldn’t we just roll over and accept these vessels even though they don’t qualify?” The position of the Government is that there were very clearly agreed terms in the trade and co-operation agreement. Any vessel that qualified has been granted access, and that includes many vessels—close to 1,700—in our exclusive economic zone. I do not agree that we should take an approach that says, “We should just let in these people for an easy life.” The reality is that these vessels did not have a track record in our waters. This is not just about data. We have been open to considering data. We have looked at the VALPENA chart data that has come from the European Commission. Because the French were struggling at one point to provide the data, the UK Government went into the commercial market and bought AIS—automatic identification system—data for some of the French vessels so that we could understand their applications better. The data is available, in many cases. We have sought to be as helpful as we can to assist the EU in providing that data, but if it is unable to do so, there comes a point when we must assume that it probably did not have access during the reference period.

Oral Answers to Questions

Alistair Carmichael Excerpts

Thursday 22nd July 2021 Commons Chamber

The hon. Member for City of Chester, representing the Speaker’s Committee on the Electoral Commission, was asked—

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

What assessment the commission has made of the adequacy of the data on electoral fraud used in support of Government proposals to introduce voter ID.

[Christian Matheson (City of Chester)]

The commission collects and annually publishes data from all UK police forces on allegations of electoral fraud. The data show that the UK has low levels of proven fraud. In 2019, police forces across the UK recorded 34 cases of alleged personation in polling stations, which resulted in one conviction and one police caution. Cases of electoral fraud that are not reported to the police will not be captured in that data. The commission has no reliable method to estimate how much electoral fraud goes unreported.

[Mr Carmichael]

If the data show low levels, it is curious that the commission should have concluded that some measure of voter identification was necessary. May I ask the hon. Member to convey to the commission the view that, in fact, a rather more robust and substantial data gathering exercise is required before the case can truly be said to be made for changes in voter identification?

[Christian Matheson]

I will indeed convey that. The commission has highlighted that polling station voting in Great Britain remains vulnerable to fraud since there are no checks in place to prevent somebody from claiming to be an elector and voting in their name. That distinguishes voting at polling stations from other parts of the electoral process where identity checks already exist, such as voter registration and postal voting. The commission’s public opinion research shows that this issue concerns voters, but I will pass on the right hon. Member’s view to the commission.

Fisheries Management

Alistair Carmichael Excerpts

Tuesday 13th July 2021 Westminster Hall

[Sir Charles Walker (in the Chair)]

Okay, everybody, you know what the rules are. Mr Carmichael will lead off. The three Front Benchers have 10 minutes each, and there will be two minutes at the end for Mr Carmichael as well.

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

I beg to move,

That this House has considered fisheries management after the UK’s departure from the EU.

It is, as ever, a pleasure to serve under you in the Chair, Sir Charles. First, I place on the record my gratitude to the Backbench Business Committee for allowing time for this debate.

Before turning to the business of today’s debate, I want to say a few words about the recent and very sad passing of David Linkie, former editor of Fishing News. David’s work on Fishing News was more than just journalism; it was a mission to give a voice to the fishing industry and to the communities that depend on it. I will not claim to have agreed with every word he ever wrote, but we do not have to agree with someone to acknowledge their passion, sincerity and commitment, and in David, all that and more shone through. His contribution will be missed, and I am sure that hon. Members from all parts of the House will want to send condolences to his family.

I hope that David would approve of what today’s debate is about, which is giving a voice in Parliament to our fishing industries—industries that were promised so much by politicians, from the Prime Minister downwards, and that now look to him and them to deliver on what they promised. When the holding of today’s debate was first announced, I put out a call for evidence to hear the views of people in the industry and its associated sectors. I anticipated a healthy response, but even so I was astonished at the volume and content of what I received. The emails came in from all around the coast, from catchers, processors, engineers and traders, and all with the same message: the deal struck by the Prime Minister on Christmas eve is not what they were promised and, six months into its first year, it is causing massive difficulties.

One Shetland skipper spoke for many when he wrote:

“I run a small wooden 22-metre trawler around Shetland. We have a ridiculously small cod quota and we find it impossible to avoid cod, there is more cod around Shetland right now than at anytime in living memory but our quota is minuscule. It has been said by skippers recently that you can catch your year’s quota in one day! There are also plans to cut the cod quota further in 2022, so it begs the question why are we still using the broken quota system the EU put in place now that we are an independent coastal state?”

Magnus, a 19-year-old fisherman from Whalsay, who has plans to buy into a whitefish boat with a few close friends and so is the future of this industry, asked:

“Why is the fishing industry having to fight their own Government for survival? Why do their advisory boards have no qualified fishermen or ex fishermen or fish processors advising them? Why are they allowing uncontrolled fishing by foreign vessels in our waters?”

From Cornwall, at the other end of the country, a skipper wrote to me as

“someone who has fished for 40 years from my home village of St Mawes in Cornwall.”

He said:

“There were 18 boats worked here when I started, all with 2 or 3 crew and now we are down to the last 2 trawlers, both working single-handedly due to the constant negativity surrounding the industry. With Brexit we had a golden opportunity, the one and only chance to keep these vessels out to at least 12 miles, the meridian line would be the next goal but no, an unbelievably weak Government has put us in a worse position than before.”

In coastal and island communities around the country, the anger and frustration felt by fishermen is almost palpable. They feel let down and used, and they want answers. At the start of the year, we saw catastrophic gridlock as exporters seeking to take advantage of what would traditionally be the busiest week of the first quarter were unable to get their fish to market in continental Europe. Promises were made then that British businesses would be compensated for their losses, and I spoke to one local exporter in Shetland who was looking at a loss in the region of £50,000; he was not alone. The Minister and the Secretary of State made big promises about compensation schemes, but how did that work out? I spoke to the same person again yesterday. He had sought to mitigate his loss by selling his fish at a much lower price on the domestic market and, in doing so, he managed to limit his loss to £20,000 rather than the £50,000 loss that he had originally faced. When he applied for help to meet that restricted loss, he was told that because he had sold his fish—he had done the responsible thing—there would be no assistance for him. If, when the Minister promised in January to help exporters, she had meant that to qualify for that help, they would have to leave their fish to rot, she should have said so. Will she revisit how that compensation scheme has worked?

Processors have been badly hit as a result of their inability to source the labour that they need to run their businesses. One major processor in Peterhead told me a few weeks ago that he was constantly at least 10% down on his required staffing levels. That means that either he is paying overtime to his staff, or he has to restrict the range of work that he takes on; either way, it has a massive impact on his profitability. What is the Minister doing to bring home to our colleagues in the Home Office the need to ensure that the processing centres have access to the skilled labour that they need?

The Prime Minister’s deal was deficient in many respects. For the catching sector, one of the most dramatic of those was the loss of easy access to in-year quota swaps. The Secretary of State assured us that those could easily be agreed on a Government-to-Government basis. However, as we enter the third quarter of the year, having only recently and finally established the quota entitlement for this year, we still do not know how these in-year quota swaps are going to work. Can the Minister tell us when the industry might expect to be told how it will get access to the extra quota that it needs? With every week that passes, this becomes more urgent.

Another theme that came through loud and clear from fishermen in every part of the country was their unhappiness at the inequality of treatment when it comes to sea boardings by fisheries enforcement officers. In Scotland, that is the responsibility of Marine Scotland. Marine Scotland figures released under the Freedom of Information Act show a massive disparity between the approach to UK boats and to the French and Spanish fleets, which are allowed to go about their business virtually unmolested. Why is that? Is it, as was suggested to me, because fisheries protection officers do not have the same access to real-time catch data from foreign vessels as they do for UK boats? Again, the complaint is the same around the coasts; it seems that what is true of Marine Scotland is true also of enforcement agencies south of the border.

The Minister has heard me speak before about the practice of gillnetting off the west of Shetland. This practice is environmental lunacy. It is just about the most unsustainable form of fishing imaginable: it contributes massively to the problem of plastic pollution in our oceans and means that for several square miles of water at a time, local boats are excluded from fishing areas that they have traditionally seen as their base grounds. For years, we were told that this was something that we had to live with as part of the common fisheries policy. That no longer applies, so why do we still allow it?

The Minister also knows, because I have told her, of the friction between local boats and gillnetters. When the Fisheries Act 2020 passed into law, I urged her to give the Maritime and Coastguard Agency powers to police the waters in our exclusive economic zone, between 12 miles and the 200-mile limit. She knows how close the Alison Kay came to disaster in her encounter with the Spanish gillnetter Pesorsa Dos. I have to tell the Minister, though, that the situation continues to be bad, and that in fact it is getting worse.

On Monday 28 June, Ross David Robertson and his crew, in his trawler Mizpah, were operating in traditional grounds north of Shetland when they were confronted by the Genesis FD 19, a 30-metre, 298-tonne longliner. It crossed the bow of the Mizpah and came within three metres of hitting it. Ross David Robertson told The Fishing Daily,

“‘We are trying to fish on grounds to suit our quota allocation but can’t get fishing because of these vicious wolf packs chasing us off. The seamen ship off these guys are totally horrendous. Put the fishing to the side on this matter, it’s the danger they put both vessels in that’s totally against the law,’ says Ross. Asked if he has experienced this before, Ross says that he has, and it is a growing concern for him and skippers across the fleet, but they are afraid that the authorities are not doing enough to protect the fleet and one day it will lead to a tragedy. ‘Yes, it’s happening too often,’ he said. ‘Last year another vessel did the same to us and I reported him to the Coastguard and MAIB but I didn’t hear any outcome, so I just presumed it was a waste of time.’”

I have met the Minister and officials from her Department and others about this, and they all come out with lots of good and detailed reasons why it is awfully complicated and difficult to fix. These reasons no longer hold water, however. Will it require a boat to go to the bottom of the sea before somebody takes responsibility and acts to end this irresponsibility?

I am aware that I have already taken quite a lot of the time given to today’s debate. I have a lot more to say, but I am afraid that that must be left to others. In January, I asked the Secretary of State if he would meet me and industry representatives to discuss the problems facing the industry. He ignored the request then and has done so since, so I make it again today. Will the Minister sit down with Members of this House and industry representatives? Will she listen to us and engage? If not, I fear the anger and frustration in the industry will only grow. Our fishing industry still has enormous potential, but to realise that potential requires political will. Do the Minister and her colleagues have that political will, and will they use it for the benefit of our fishing industries and the communities that rely on them?

[Sir Charles Walker (in the Chair)]

The right hon. Gentleman said that he would speak for 12 minutes, but has actually spoken for 11 and a half, so he is top of the pops. I call Mr Neil Parish. There is a four-minute time limit on contributions.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Carmichael]

Thank you for chairing what has been an excellent debate, Sir Charles; we have covered just about every sector and geographic area possible. It is unfortunate that nobody from Cornwall made it on to the call list. That was one notable omission.

Essentially, we can pull two strands from this debate. The first is how very different things could have been if we had had the implementation period, for six months or so, to bed these arrangements in. We said we needed that, but we did not get it.

Secondly, as we have heard from the different examples around the country, the worst fisheries management has always been the most centralised. If the Minister takes nothing else from this debate, she must take back the need to engage with the industry, devolved Administrations and local communities as widely and effectively as possible.

When the Backbench Business Committee offered us 90 minutes on a Tuesday morning, they asked whether that would be good enough. I replied, “Consider your hands duly bitten off!” I hope that they will feel that we have made good use of the time this morning. I want to see this subject back in the Chamber with a longer debate because this is really just the tip of the iceberg.

[Sir Charles Walker (in the Chair)]

Thank you, Mr Carmichael. You and other colleagues have used the time extremely well; perhaps you could have done with a little more.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered fisheries management after the UK’s departure from the EU.

Oral Answers to Questions

Alistair Carmichael Excerpts

Thursday 17th June 2021 Commons Chamber

The hon. Member for City of Chester, representing the Speaker's Committee on the Electoral Commission was asked—

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

What recent estimate the commission has made of the potential number of fraudulent votes that will be prevented with plans to mandate voter ID at future elections.

[Christian Matheson (City of Chester)]

The commission has made no detailed assessment of the number of fraudulent votes that could be prevented as a result of the Government’s proposed policy to introduce voter ID requirements. While levels of reported electoral fraud in the UK are consistently low, they do vary and there is no reliable methodology for forecasting instances of electoral fraud. The commission has highlighted the lack of an ID requirement as a vulnerability in polling stations in Great Britain. Public research shows that this issue concerns voters.

[Mr Carmichael]

We know, as the hon. Gentleman says, that previous work by the commission has shown that voter impersonation is a very rare occurrence in this country. We also know from the other side of the Atlantic that schemes there involving the production of identification at polling stations have suppressed turnout, especially among poorer communities and minority ethnic communities. Will that experience be taken into account by the commission in formulating further advice to the Government in respect of their proposed legislation?

[Christian Matheson]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for that question, and he raises an interesting point. Hon. Members will have seen that, at both state and federal level, there are discussions at the moment about electoral law. We may have lessons to learn from fellow democratic countries, and I will pass that recommendation on to the commission for its consideration.

British Meat and Dairy Products

Alistair Carmichael Excerpts

Wednesday 28th April 2021 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Ghani. I congratulate the hon. Member for North Devon (Selaine Saxby) on securing this important and timely debate.

I do not think it is, strictly speaking, a declarable interest, but the House may be aware that I come from farming family. My family still farm on the south-east corner of Islay. My wife is a partner in a veterinary practice in Orkney, serving a diverse range of farming interests: beef and lamb production, and, sadly, a decreasing number of dairy farmers. I declare that interest with some pride; it contributes directly and indirectly to the Carmichael family mortgage payment every month.

Food production has always been at the heart of the local economies in Orkney and Shetland. The designation of Orkney beef and Shetland lamb as protected geographic indicators is an indication of that and, indeed, of the quality of the produce for which we have been responsible over the years. In recent decades, we have seen a growth in producers who have been able to add value in a blossoming food and drink sector, which, in turn, has fed into a growing visitor economy, so it remains as important to the northern isles today as it always has been.

In Orkney, we have a long history of producing finished cattle for Orkney beef. In Shetland, traditionally we produced cattle for the store market, but in recent years, by a bit of creativity and a lot of effort, local farmers in Shetland have also been able to produce finished cattle, which have been slaughtered for local consumption in our good, well operated local abattoir. It is an exemplar of how agriculture can feed into a rural or island economy such as ours. Crucial to that operation, however, is the existence and operation of a thriving network of local shops. My concern today is that many of those local shops are currently under threat.

We have had supermarkets in Shetland for decades, like everybody else—we have a big Tesco and a fairly big Co-op in Lerwick and a smaller but still sizeable Co-op in Brae—but recently the Co-op Group lodged applications for planning permission for two further Co-ops, which would be bigger operations, in communities in Scalloway and Sandwick, which are currently served by a variety of small, thriving local independent shops. Those shops are quite clear that if the applications are granted, the future for them looks to be pretty bleak. That network of rural shops, however, is absolutely critical to food production in the Northern Isles, and the farmers I spoke about, who now produce finished cattle for slaughter and sale in the local retail sector, will struggle if that network of local shops is not there.

One of the local shops that will be most directly affected told me last week that it reckons that it takes goods from no fewer than 80 different local suppliers, which are all small and medium-sized enterprises that will never sell in the same quantity to a big outlet such as the Co-op Group. We know, and the Co-op will tell us, that it takes from local producers to put local lines into its shops. That is true. However, the beef and lamb farmers and those food producers who add some value to our local products will tell us that the Co-op, like all supermarkets, will take their products, but only on its terms. Therefore, even if a product does end up on the shelf, the supermarket will determine the price, the quantity, the regularity of supply, the delivery and often even the labelling. The hard commercial reality is that these local suppliers cannot survive on the margins that the supermarkets give them, so the existence of that network of local shops is critical to the future viability of agriculture in Orkney and Shetland.

The Co-op does have a long tradition of being at the heart of highland and island communities, and I am sure I am not the only one who spent many happy—or not so happy—childhood evenings licking stamps to be put in the Co-op book for the dividend, but the Co-op Group today is a very different beast. It operates effectively in the same predatory manner as we would expect of any other supermarket, bearing down on suppliers in communities such as mine. It is a trail that many communities the length and breadth of the country have seen over the years, but for a company such as the Co-op Group that has always prided itself—and, dare I say it, marketed itself quite effectively—on being the supermarket that was somehow different, to have this change in its culture is unfortunate to say the very least. I hope that it understands the damage it risks doing to the delicate and complex economic ecosystem that communities such as ours rely on. Once an economic ecosystem such as that is lost, it can never be easily recreated.

I do not wish to hold the House, but I want to mention one other matter of supreme importance to the production of food in the Northern Isles: the ability to export it to other parts of Scotland and the United Kingdom. It comes to the point made by the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish). The Scottish Government are currently undertaking a consultation on the transportation of animals within Scotland. For us, with a 12-hour journey from Shetland to Aberdeen, that could have very serious implications. Even the shorter journey from Orkney to Aberdeen would be severely affected. If, in the last year, we had operated under the wind speed and temperature restrictions that are currently under consultation by the Scottish Government, there would only have been two sailings allowed from Orkney to Aberdeen. It is the law of good intentions and unintended consequences in operation. The people who designed the system, which is currently regarded as being blue-chip, with industry-leading standards, were the farmers at the turn of the century, and they are the people who should be involved in the recreation of that system now.

Oral Answers to Questions

Alistair Carmichael Excerpts

Thursday 22nd April 2021 Commons Chamber

The hon. Member for City of Chester, representing the Speaker’s Committee on the Electoral Commission was asked—

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

What recent assessment the Electoral Commission has made of the potential effect of Government plans to mandate voter ID in future elections on levels of democratic participation in the UK.

[Christian Matheson (City of Chester)]

The commission’s independent evaluation of the Government’s pilots held in 2018 and 2019 found that a large majority of people already had access to the forms of ID used in the pilots. There was no evidence that turnout in the pilot scheme areas was significantly affected by the requirement for polling station voters to show identification. The commission emphasised that the UK Government and Parliament should carefully consider the available evidence about the impact and proportionality of different approaches on the accessibility and security of polling station voting. If legislation is brought forward, the commission will provide expert advice to parliamentarians on the specific proposals.

[Mr Carmichael [V]]

I thank the hon. Member for that answer. Notwithstanding the commission’s findings, though, it is estimated that it would cost something in the region of £20 million to introduce a measure such as this and there is always the risk of depressing voter turnout. Would he impress on the commission that, if that money is there to be spent, it would be better spent encouraging voter turnout, rather than on measures such as this, which I contend would inevitably depress it?

[Christian Matheson]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his comments. The commission has a responsibility to maximise voter participation as well as to maintain free and fair elections. I will certainly impress on the commission the necessity of getting the balance right between those two responsibilities.

Environment Bill

Alistair Carmichael Excerpts

Report stage & Report stage: House of Commons
Tuesday 26th January 2021 Commons Chamber

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

This Bill has had an exceptionally long gestation, and it is a matter of great regret to me and to my party that, unfortunately, we have learned today that it is to be delayed even further. This should be an area where there is an easy consensus to be built. Surely, in the year when we are due to host COP26, this should be a matter that brings all parties together to achieve meaningful advance. It is a matter of infinite regret that we are not able to do so.

My first plea to the Minister and the Government is this. If we are to have further delay, can we please use the time a bit better than we have so far? Can we ensure that when we host COP26 later this year, we can point to a significant achievement as an instance where we are leading the world, rather than being pulled along in this area of vital importance to all future generations?

I worked regularly with the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for Taunton Deane (Rebecca Pow), on the subject of plastic pollution when she was on the Back Benches. It pains me to say that in that respect, the Bill is a major disappointment. We realise that as a consequence of many of the short-term changes that were necessary to tackle the pandemic, the progress that we had been making on the use of single-use plastic has been put on the back burner. That is regrettable, and possibly necessary, but a concerted effort by the Government is required. The pandemic and the restrictions under which we are living will not last forever, but it feels as though the plastic pollution that we are generating now will do so. It will certainly be with us for decades. That is why we must look to the lessons of how we constructed the Climate Change Act 2008, for example, and get on with the business of setting meaningful targets and having meaningful ways of holding the Government to account for meeting them.

The Minister has new clause 11, from her colleague the hon. Member for West Dorset (Chris Loder). Surely that could be given greater impetus now that more time is to be put into the management of this Bill. When she was on the Back Benches, the Minister worked well on the subject with people from across the House. Will she carry on doing that work as a Minister on the Front Bench?

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP) [V]]

I welcome the opportunity to speak to the Government amendments that were made in Committee to clarify the enforcement powers in England of the Office for Environmental Protection, and particularly the fact that further amendments will be made to ensure that they remain aligned with the OEP functions in Northern Ireland. Perhaps the Minister will confirm that that will be the case. I am aware that there has been co-operation with Northern Ireland Ministers, who have requested that these amendments also be made in relation to Northern Ireland, but I welcome their inclusion and this alignment. If only we could see something similar in all aspects of our governance, such as trade, we would be in a much healthier position, with full shelves—but perhaps that is another debate for another day.

I endorse the comments of the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) about plastic pollution, and I request, as he did, that Ministers and Government make a concerted effort to maintain the reduction of plastic pollution. Although we have seen a lot of reduction, we still need more. Enforceability is always a concern of mine. It is right and proper that we introduce greater, more effective legislation, but it is no use unless there is no doubt about the interpretation of the OEP enforcement provisions and the courts’ ability to grant remedies. Many of us would like to ensure that there is no doubt that the courts can and will enforce the Bill’s provisions.

I am a country sports enthusiast, as I am sure the Minister knows, and part of my being a country sports enthusiast is a dedication and commitment to conservation. That is why the Bill is important; it is an essential component of our moving forward, and that is what I always seek to ensure. It is right and proper that there is a legislative obligation to think about environmental principles and I welcome this addition.

However, some constituents have made it clear that they believe the Bill does not go far enough. I seek further clarification from the Minister. Would she be so kind, during her summing up, to outline the rationale behind excluding defence and procurement from these obligations? Every Government Department should play its part. Whilst it should not be the priority of Defence to think of the economy first—the safety of the nation is first—my constituents believe there could still be an obligation to give consideration to the impact within the process of reaching decisions.

I speak as chair of the all-party parliamentary group for healthy homes and buildings. When it comes to the environment, we believe that more could be done to ensure that Government works with developers to help ensure that new projects are much more sustainable. For example, instead of a developer being responsible for the full price of sewer works, and putting in the least that can be expected to enable them to turn a profit, surely Government or local council assistance to put in long-term environmentally sustainable, more costly infrastructure will benefit us all. I also want to put in a word for the importance of air quality, insulation, heating and play areas—the improvement of all buildings in the future.

I am conscious that the Minister has a lot on her plate—a lot of questions to answer—but I thank her for the time and hope she can take these points on board.

Oral Answers to Questions

Alistair Carmichael Excerpts

Thursday 21st January 2021 Commons Chamber

The hon. Member for City of Chester, representing the Speaker's Committee on the Electoral Commission, was asked—

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

What steps the Committee is taking to ensure the safe conduct of elections planned for May 2021 during the covid-19 outbreak.

[Wes Streeting (Ilford North) (Lab)]

What steps the Committee is taking to ensure that elections are able to take place in May 2021.

[Christian Matheson (City of Chester)]

The commission believes that it is an important democratic principle that elections should proceed as scheduled whenever possible. To ensure that can happen in May, the commission is working closely with electoral administrators, political parties and other campaigners to provide the necessary support and guidance, informed by the latest public health advice. The commission’s objective is for voters to be able to participate in the polls, campaigners and parties to be able to put their case to the electorate, and electoral administration staff to be able to run the polling stations and count centres safely and competently.

[Mr Carmichael [V]]

Looking at the electoral procedures to be followed, though, we can all see areas, such as the collection of nomination signatures, where there is potential for unnecessary face-to-face contact. Surely this is a moment when we can look at doing these things differently, but if we are to make any changes in time for May, that work would need to be done now. Can the hon. Gentleman tell me whether that work is being done by the commission?

[Christian Matheson]

The commission is undertaking work to ensure that the elections can proceed in May in as safe a way as possible, and is working with electoral administrators to achieve that. They will be following public health advice, but at this stage, as the elections are going ahead in May, there is little time to make changes to some of the procedures before those elections.

EU Trade and Co-operation Agreement: Fishing Industry

Alistair Carmichael Excerpts

Thursday 14th January 2021 Commons Chamber

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

To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if he will make a statement on the consequences of the EU trade and co-operation agreement as it applies to the fishing industry.

[The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (George Eustice)]

As hon. Members will know, before Christmas the UK and the EU concluded a new trade and co-operation agreement, which established tariff-free trade in all goods and, among other things, sets a new relationship with the EU on fisheries. Before turning to the specifics of that agreement, I should briefly set the wider context.

The withdrawal agreement that was agreed by this House in January last year established the United Kingdom as an independent coastal state. Over the course of the last year we have taken our independent seat at the regional fisheries management organisations, including the North East Atlantic Fisheries Commission and the North Atlantic Fisheries Organisation. In September, we reached a partnership agreement with Norway—our most important partner on fishing interests, and with whom we have responsibility for shared stocks in the North sea.

We have also developed new bilateral arrangements with our other north-east Atlantic neighbours, including the Faroes, Greenland and Iceland. We have recently commenced annual bilateral fisheries negotiations with the Faroes in relation to access to one another’s waters, and a UK-Norway-EU trilateral is about to begin to agree fishing opportunities on shared stocks in the North sea. There will also be a UK-EU bilateral negotiation on fishing opportunities for the current year in remaining areas. For the first time in almost 50 years, the UK has a seat at the table and represents its own interests in those important negotiations.

The trade and co-operation agreement establishes an initial multi-annual agreement on quota, sharing and access, covering five and a half years. It ends relative stability as the basis for sharing stocks. Under the agreement, we have given an undertaking to give the EU access to our waters on similar terms as now and, in return, it has agreed to relinquish approximately 25% of the quota that it previously caught in our waters under the EU’s relative stability arrangement. That means that we move from being able to catch somewhat over half the fish in our waters to two thirds of the fish in our waters at the end of the multi-annual agreement. The transfer of quota is front-loaded, with the EU giving up 15% in year 1. On North sea cod, we have an increase from 47% to 57%. On Celtic sea haddock, our share has moved from 10% to 20%. On North sea hake, we secured an uplift from 18% to 54%, and on West of Scotland anglerfish, we have an increase from 31% to 45%. After the five-and-a-half-year agreement, we are able to change access and sharing arrangements further. The EU, for its part, will also be able to apply tariffs on fish exports in proportion to any withdrawal of access.

Although we recognise that some sectors of the fishing industry had hoped for a larger uplift, and, indeed, the Government argued throughout for a settlement that would have been closer to zonal attachment, the agreement does, nevertheless, mark a significant step in the right direction. To support the UK industry through this initial five and a half years, the Prime Minister announced, just before Christmas, that we will invest £100 million in the UK fishing industry, and I will be bringing forward proposals for this investment in due course.

Finally, although it is not a consequence of the trade and co-operation agreement, the end of the transition period and the fact that we have left both the customs union and the single market does mean that there is some additional administration accompanying exports to the EU. I am aware that there have been some teething issues as businesses get used to these new processes. Authorities in the EU countries are also adjusting to new procedures. We are working closely with both industry and authorities in the EU to iron out these issues and to ensure that goods flow smoothly to market.

[Mr Carmichael [V]]

For years, this Government have promised our fishing industry a sea of opportunity, but, today, our boats are tied up in harbour, their propellers fouled with red tape manufactured in Whitehall. Boats that are able to go to sea are landing their catches in Denmark—an expensive round trip of at least 72 hours, which takes work away from processors and other shoreside businesses in this country. Our Fisheries Minister describes promises made by Ministers as “dreams” and apparently did not think it was worth reading the agreement as soon as it was made, even though every second counted. How on earth was it allowed to come to this? The EU trade agreement allows a grace period on customs checks for EU businesses. Why was there no grace period allowed for our exporters, and will the Government engage with the EU as a matter of urgency to make good that most fundamental of errors?

Yesterday, the Prime Minister told the Liaison Committee that compensation is being considered for our fishing industry. Who will be compensated, for what, and by how much? When will our scheme be published and what steps will be taken to help processors, catchers and traders in the meantime? On the loss of quota swaps and other mechanisms, as the Fisheries Minister said yesterday, this could be done Government to Government in-year. Can the Secretary of State explain today how the literally hundreds of producer organisation to producer organisation swaps done every year will be done on a Government-to-Government basis?

Finally, what will happen at the end of a five-and-a-half year transition period? A transition normally takes us from point A to point B. This transition takes us from point A to point A with a new negotiation. Is zonal attachment still the Government’s policy on quota shares?

This is a shambles of the Government’s own making; there is no one else to blame now. When will the Minister start listening to the industry? I make him this offer: I can convene a virtual roundtable of all the affected sectors today or tomorrow. Will he meet with me and them to sort this out? The time for complacency has passed.

[George Eustice]

May I begin where the right hon. Gentleman ended and say that we are looking and working very closely with industry on this matter? We are having twice-a-week meetings with all the key stakeholders and all the key sectors to help them understand these issues. Yesterday, we had a meeting with the Dutch officials; earlier this week, we had a meeting with the French; and, on Friday, we had a meeting with the Irish to try to iron out some of these teething problems. They are only teething problems. When people get used to using the paperwork, goods will flow normally. Of course, it would have been open to the EU to offer us a grace period, just as we have had a grace period for its goods coming to us. For reasons known only to the EU and the way that it approaches its particular regulations, that was not something that it was willing to do, so we have had to work with these arrangements from a standing start and, clearly, that causes certain issues.

The right hon. Gentleman asked what happens after five and a half years. As I said in my opening statement, after that period, we are free to change access arrangements and change sharing arrangements, and we will do so. He asked specifically about swaps. It is important to note that the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has all of the information on all of the swaps that have taken place in recent years, since each of those producer organisation to producer organisation swaps requires the Government to agree them. It is, therefore, quite possible for us to build those swaps into the annual exchanges. Annual exchanges of fishing opportunities are a normal feature of annual negotiations, and we have also retained the ability to do in-year swaps on behalf of those POs.

The right hon. Gentleman has raised the issue of what the fisheries Minister said yesterday. I think the record will show that she did not say she did not have time to read the agreement; what she actually said was that her jaw did not drop when she was told what was in the agreement. There may be a reason for that, which is that she knew what was likely to be in the agreement for at least a week, since I had been discussing it with her and we were both in regular contact with our negotiators.

Finally, I am aware that the Prime Minister mentioned yesterday that the Government remain open to considering compensation for sectors that might have been affected through no fault of their own. We will look closely at this issue, but in the meantime, we are going to work very closely with the industry to ensure that we can iron out these difficulties.

Draft Common Fisheries Policy (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) (No. 2) Regulations 2020

Alistair Carmichael Excerpts

Wednesday 9th December 2020 General Committees

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Victoria Prentis)]

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Common Fisheries Policy (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) (No. 2) Regulations 2020.

It is a pleasure to serve for the first time under your chairmanship, Ms Elliott. The draft regulations, laid under the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, cover all four nations of the UK. We have worked closely with the devolved Administrations, who have given their consent. The idea is to ensure an approach consistent with both the devolution settlements and the existing systems of fisheries management.

The draft regulations will make technical changes to UK law to reflect the EU common fisheries policy legislation that is directly applicable in Northern Ireland by virtue of the Northern Ireland protocol. That is required to enable the enforcement of EU law, where that is directly applicable, to enable the UK to play its part in ensuring sustainable and traceable fishing practices and to meet obligations under the withdrawal agreement and several other international agreements to which we are—or will become—independent contacting parties. The draft regulations do not make amendments that will change our fisheries management policy.

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

Is the Minister confirming that the Factortame case will continue to enforced in respect of fisheries in Northern Ireland?

[Victoria Prentis]

As the right hon. Gentleman knows, the Factortame case was the bane of my life as a young lawyer. We are not quite clear yet of the precise implications of yesterday’s announcement from the Joint Committee. I will go to a briefing immediately after the Committee, and the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster will make a statement to the House at, I believe, 12.30 today. Following that, I am sure we will have much greater clarity. I know I am to meet the right hon. Gentleman next week to discuss another fisheries matter and I would be delighted if he wanted to go into the details of what we will hear this afternoon at any point between now and our meeting next week or at that meeting.

[Mr Carmichael]

For the avoidance of doubt, if I never have to talk about Factortame again in my life, that will still be too soon for me.

[Victoria Prentis]

Me too.

[Mr Carmichael]

But the Minister will know as well as I do that there is that wonderful bit in the Factortame judgment where it speaks about the indirect effect of non-directly affected directors. It seems to me that, in respect of fisheries in Northern Ireland, that is exactly what the Minister has just described.

[Victoria Prentis]

I absolutely refuse to confirm or deny that because I know no more than the right hon. Gentleman at this point. It is important that we listen to what the CDL has to say at, I think, 12.30—the Whip will confirm—and then, I hope, we will have much greater clarity. I am really pleased that the Joint Committee came to the agreement that it did and I am really looking forward to learning the details.

I turn to the changes on enforcement. First, the draft regulations will amend the 2019 fisheries regulations, updating the wording in relation to the amendment to section 30 of the Fisheries Act 1981 to ensure that, after the end of the transition period, criminal prosecutions can continue to be brought in Great Britain and Northern Ireland for breaches of EU fisheries rules that are directly applicable in Northern Ireland by virtue of the protocol. That does not represent a change in practice since prosecutions can currently be brought relying on section 30 of the 1981 Act for breaches of directly applicable EU fisheries rules.

Secondly, the draft regulations will amend regulations concerning sustainable and traceable fishing, correcting deficiencies and reflecting the direct application of EU law in Northern Ireland under the protocol. That will allow the UK to fulfil its obligations under ICAT, the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas, and CCAMLR—that may be less familiar to hon. Members, and is the Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources—to which the UK is an independent contracting party. The UK, rather than the European Commission, will be responsible for the submission of information to the relevant secretariat as required by the obligations of each regional fisheries management organisation. To clarify, the UK will continue to submit the same level of information to ICCAT and CCAMLR, which is required by these international agreements, to which we will be an independent contracting party.

Thirdly, the draft regulations apply certain aspects of retained EU law relating to illegal, unreported or unregulated fishing to Northern Ireland. This is necessary to ensure that the UK is able to comply with its obligations under the port states measures agreement—the PSMA—once it accedes to that agreement at the end of the transition period. The PSMA requires the UK to apply controls to all non-UK vessels, including requiring them to land into designated ports. The draft regulations serve to implement that requirement in relation to EU vessels landing in Northern Ireland by applying the retained version of the illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing regulation to Northern Ireland, supplementing the direct application of the EU’s IUU regulation under the protocol.

The port state measures agreement does not require the UK to apply controls to vessels that are registered in the UK. Once the draft regulations are in force, all non-UK fishing vessels will be subject to PSMA-related controls when landing anywhere in the United Kingdom, thus meeting the UK’s obligations under the agreement.

The draft regulations do not impose significant changes to what the public sector or businesses will have to do. They will ensure UK vessels are subject to largely the same rules as they are subject to at the moment. Accordingly, a full impact assessment has not been prepared. I commend the draft regulations to the Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Carmichael]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Elliott. The draft regulations are probably a fairly sensible and necessary step. It is in nobody’s interests that somehow or another we should move into unregulated waters on 1 January. However, it is worth reflecting that the draft regulations are the consequence of a political management strategy that has been somewhat less than what was promised to the fishing industry right at the start.

It is worth remembering that when article 50 was triggered in March 2017, that anticipated that the UK would leave the European Union on 29 March 2019. The industry was told that that was the point at which we would come out of the common fisheries policy—that was to be the big bang day. Of course, the arrangement, the agreement, made by the former Prime Minister put fisheries management into the political declaration. Had it been part of the withdrawal agreement, we would not be here today; this would all have happened by now. It has carried on in that way ever since. The withdrawal agreement that was apparently part of the oven-ready deal was one that, as far as fisheries were concerned, went along exactly the same course. The fact that we are in this position and the big bang that was promised has still to come—and will not now come even on 1 January—is a consequence of the decision, and the lack of political will, to put fisheries into the withdrawal agreement, leaving it in the political declaration. That is where we are now with the negotiations that are going on as we speak.

I have no interest in seeing fisheries left unregulated— that is in nobody’s interests and certainly not in the interests of the fishing industry—but I think it is important that we place it on the record that we understand that this falls very far short of what the industry was promised.

[The Chair]

Does no other Member wish to speak? I call Minister Prentis to respond. [Interruption.] Oh, did you indicate, Mr Doogan? I do apologise. I call Dave Doogan.

--- Later in debate ---

[Victoria Prentis]

I thank everyone who has contributed to this morning’s debate. I am glad that there is broad agreement on the new fisheries regulations, and I am genuinely grateful to the DAs for their co-operation in getting this secondary legislation through.

I will set the mind of the hon. Member for Barnsley East at rest on the issues that she raised. We will of course continue to abide by international regulations, which is the purpose, really, of what we are doing today. ClientEarth raised some concerns that DEFRA answered in full in a letter to the Committee in the other place. In brief, the UK will continue to submit the same level of data to CCAMLR. The EU Commission currently does that, but we will now do it directly. The obligation in question, which simply requires member states to communicate the data to the Commission, has been omitted because we will no longer need to use it as a middleman and will go directly to the CCAMLR secretariat, which I understand is in Tasmania. The delegated powers that concern the hon. Lady, which were previously held by the EU, have not been transferred because they were never used by the EU. We plan to use other powers that we already have to implement the international obligations regarding Antarctic and Patagonian toothfish. I think that deals with the hon. Lady’s points.

Turning to the hon. Member for Angus, this statutory instrument will not affect Northern Ireland vessels landing into Northern Ireland. However, referring to what I said earlier, we will have to see what happens when the CDL speaks to the House this afternoon, and I am very much looking forward to listening to him. Under the agreement on port state measures, to which this instrument refers, the UK is required to impose controls and landing requirements on foreign vessels only, including vessels from EU member states. Imposing controls on UK vessels landing into UK ports is not required. We have been clear that there should be no unacceptable new requirements for vessels registered in Northern Ireland.

I say to both the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland and the hon. Member for Angus that I very much hope that there will be a deal. That will be in the interests of all British fishermen, and there is not a great deal of purpose in going into further detail at the moment, because we are about to hear much more detail.

[Mr Carmichael]

I am grateful to the Minister, because she has been generous in giving way. However, the point made by the hon. Member for Angus is a good one. If, for example, the Minister were the skipper of inshore boat on Islay, where I was born and brought up— just 12 miles to the north-east of Northern Ireland—she could register that boat in Northern Ireland while continuing to fish the same waters around Islay. However, she could land in Northern Ireland, rather than in mainland Scotland, because doing so in Northern Ireland would avoid any tariffs. Would the Minister not do that? If she did, what would be the consequences for processors on mainland Scotland?

[Victoria Prentis]

I know that I have a very good note, which I temporarily cannot lay my hands on, about the concerns that were rightly raised about the registration of vessels. We have good, robust rules on where vessels should be registered, and reasons must be given for that registration. We do not anticipate that there will be either multiple breaches of the rules or attempts to try to get around them following the end of the transition period. However, we need to look at what the rules are, and we will know much more at lunchtime. I encourage the right hon. Gentleman to welcome the good news that came from the Joint Committee yesterday and then wait to find out what it means in some detail. Can we park the rest of this discussion till after we know where we are?

The amendments in this SI, which is what we should be discussing, are essential to ensure that retained fisheries law is effective and enforceable. I think the Committee is broadly in agreement that that is a good thing. The SI enables compliance with our obligations under international agreements. It is a key part of our preparation for the end of the transition period, and it will help us to meet our commitment to deliver a prosperous and sustainable fishing industry for future generations. I commend the draft regulations to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.