Leaving the EU: Fishing

Alistair Carmichael Excerpts

Wednesday 13th March 2019 Westminster Hall

[Melanie Onn]

The hon. Lady raises an important point, and £25 million is not an insignificant sum to Wales. We saw this morning the release of proposed tariff rates, which I will come on to later. Perhaps the Minister can offer some reassurance on that. Going ahead with no deal will have a dramatic impact on trading as we know and understand it, because all our systems are set up to work within the current framework. It is absolutely imperative that the Minister hears these issues raised by colleagues.

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

The hon. Lady will doubtless be aware that the tariff guidance published by the Government this morning lists a range of tariffs for imported fish. However, there will of course be zero tariffs between the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland. First, how workable does she think that scheme will be? Secondly, does she think that it will find favour with processors in her constituency?

[Melanie Onn]

Certainly, the information we received this morning presents a range of difficulties, as the right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to highlight. The difficulties of potentially having zero tariffs on imports coming from Ireland, through Northern Ireland and into the UK will have a dramatic impact on the whole sector’s trade routes. I think the figure put on tariffs for import was 11.9%. I will ask for further information about that, because obviously we had that information only this morning.

It is quite concerning that that information has only been released today. It would have been preferable for these kind of details to be in the public domain at an earlier stage. All parliamentarians have been considering and voting on issues relating to leaving the EU and we are only now finding out some of these facts. That is not in the best interests of the industry and is certainly not in the best interests of people working in the industry in our constituencies around the country. Grimsby’s fish processing sector needs assurances that, come what may, it can continue to enjoy its current seamless supply route. However, industry leaders in the area currently express deep concern about the lack of clarity over how they expect the sector to operate in what could be a matter of weeks.

Currently, health certificates for fish imports from inside the EU or EFTA are only required for species that carry, or are at risk from, controlled diseases, but they are needed for all fish imported from outside the EU. Fish from EU and EFTA nations do not need to go through border checks when entering the UK. Imposing requirements on markets such as Norway and Iceland to provide health certificates for all the fish they export to us would lead to increased border checks on fish from those countries and could mean damaging delays to the delivery of fresh fish into the country. Will the Minister confirm that it is not the Government’s intention to require all fish from markets such as Norway and Iceland to have health certificates once we leave the EU?

If we leave the EU without a deal, all fish exported to the EU will require export health certificates, but companies in my constituency have raised concerns that local environmental health officers simply do not have the resources to facilitate that significant increase in their workload. Can the Minister perhaps put companies’ minds at ease by informing us of what steps the Government are taking to ensure that exporters will not be hindered by struggles to produce health certificates in the very unenviable situation that we leave without a deal?

If there are extra certificates, checks and tariffs, those will all be checked and carried out at our ports, and there are concerns among Grimsby companies that even with a deal, ports will experience a bottleneck post Brexit. We have heard about the plans for lorry parks in Dover, but there are also plans around the country for extra capacity to deal with delays in port areas, and the position is the same in north-east Lincolnshire.

Currently, fish arriving at ports in north-east Lincolnshire have been checked and certified in Iceland before being shipped to the UK. Fish arriving here can be seamlessly transferred because of the long-standing relationship between Grimsby and Iceland. There is enormous trust as a result of that relationship, which has existed for decades. It works, and nobody wants that to change. It means that the fish is moved seamlessly. There is no damage to the product. It comes in, and there is no risk of any kind of perishing of the product when it comes through, which of course would devalue it on the open market.

If the UK imposes its own customs checks on fish once we leave the EU, rather than accepting checks as it does now, that would severely impact the quality and quantity of usable fish that ends up in the UK market. Can the Minister therefore confirm that the Government will continue to accept checks from the likes of Iceland as valid and will not impose further checks at UK ports, which could have severe impacts on the viability of the fishing industry in the UK?

We know that additional funds have been directed towards UK ports. The Humber ports of Immingham, Grimsby, Hull and Goole will share £135,000. However, the “Seafood 2040” document highlights the fact that 72,000 tonnes of fish caught under UK licence are currently landed in ports outside the UK. That issue is partly about infrastructure at ports and partly about inadequate facilities. If the Government really recognise the potential for the future of the fishing industry—the potential to grow as we leave the EU—do they consider that that investment of £135,000 between four different ports in the Humber area will be enough to enable them to cope with future demand? Will it make Grimsby fish stocks ready for the 21st century?

--- Later in debate ---

[Melanie Onn]

We are in a fortunate position, in that the Minister’s predecessor set a very positive tone from the start of the negotiations to leave the EU. I expect that tone to continue under this Minister. He is a very reasonable gentleman, and I expect him to recognise, in the same interest of standing up for the UK fishing sector, that an unnecessarily aggressive approach is not one that he should take. I do not think that there is any desire on either side to start so-called tariff wars. There is a mutually beneficial industry. The common fisheries policy may continue to be a bone of contention, but in more recent years the relationship has improved, and the changes that have been made in the CFP have struck a good balance between the environment and the catching sector. I hope that that will continue, so I hope that the scenario that the hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) highlights and perhaps foresees does not come to pass. That would not be in anybody’s best interests.

[Mr Carmichael]

I confess that I am not entirely sure what this means, but the list published by the Government this morning says that

“shrimps of the genus ‘Penaeus’ even smoked or whether in the shell or not—including shrimps in shell cooked by steaming or by boiling in water”

will be subject to a 12% tariff. If that is what we are levying as a tariff on imports, why would the EU not levy something similar on our exports to the EU?

[Melanie Onn]

The right hon. Gentleman makes a valid point about what would happen in the event of no deal. We know—we will be voting on this very subject later—that it is highly unlikely that there will be a majority for a no-deal outcome. For this sector, we should perhaps, in the course of the debate taking place in the main Chamber, go and make our voices heard and say exactly why that would be an incredibly unhelpful outcome.

[Melanie Onn]

The hon. Lady leads me neatly to a point about international trade and the role of the Secretary of State for International Trade in securing deals. As I see it—I am sure hon. Members on the Government Benches will leap to the defence of the Secretary of State—there has been such a strong desire to ratchet up the number of confirmed trade deals that, in some circumstances, they have been made at the expense of the fishing sector. The hon. Lady’s point stands, but I would like to expand on the example of the Faroe Islands deal.

It is good that a deal has been done with the Faroe Islands. In the fishing sector, the Faroe Islands is a relative small exporter to this country, exporting about 35,000 tonnes, which is much less than Norway and Iceland. In previous fisheries debates, we have discussed the fact that the catching sector has been kept very separate from the trading element. At the time, we all agreed that it was probably a good thing not to combine the two, because it would get too complicated. In the case of the Faroe Islands, it seems the deal has been made at the expense of—

[Mr Carmichael]

Mackerel.

[Melanie Onn]

Mackerel, I am reliably informed by the right hon. Gentleman from a sedentary position. If that is the blueprint for future deals with Iceland and Norway, it will not serve our industry well. I wonder what conversations have taken place between the Department for International Trade and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on this specific issue. If there have not been detailed conversations, perhaps there could be such conversations in advance of signing up to any more deals, which otherwise will make it more difficult for companies that catch and trade in fish to continue their business. Companies that rely on importing say that we need to focus on deals with major suppliers, such as Norway, Iceland and Canada, if we are to have a seamless transition post Brexit.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Duguid]

I agree with the hon. Lady. It is a cross-party concern: the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael), the hon. Members for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Angus Brendan MacNeil) and I have repeatedly approached the Immigration Minister on that basis.

I was going to encourage the Minister to engage with the industry, but I found out recently—I think he announced it yesterday—that he is going to visit my constituency to discuss the investment opportunities in the sector. That is most welcome. It is not enough to suddenly have access to more of our own fish in our own waters; we need to expand our capacity to catch, land and process our seafood, and we need to expand that capacity rapidly—perhaps more rapidly than business will be able to do naturally. We must ensure that our fish and seafood produce can be easily exported to markets around the world.

[Mr Carmichael]

When the hon. Gentleman shows the Minister the investment opportunities in his constituency, he should probably also take him to local veterinary practices, which are now being sounded out about their ability to produce export health certificates in the highlands and islands and Aberdeenshire. In a no-deal Brexit, the Scottish Government expect that somewhere in the region of 150,000 certificates will be required in Scotland, but local authorities do not have the capacity to deal with that 3,000% increase. They are looking to vets to fill the gap.

--- Later in debate ---

[Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer, and to welcome the new Minister to his place. I thank his predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice), for his sterling efforts over the past few years. I congratulate the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Melanie Onn) on securing this debate. Her timing is particularly auspicious.

Although the final form that Brexit will take is uncertain at present, I believe that, generally, the Government and Parliament have used the period from 23 June 2016 up to now to good effect—focusing on the UK fishing industry and gradually putting in place a policy framework that will revive the industry.

To revitalise the industry in Lowestoft and along the East Anglian coast, which is now a very pale shadow of its former self, we need to address three challenges. First, local fishermen must be given the opportunity to catch enough fish to earn a fair living and to supply local markets, processors and mongers. Secondly, we must put in place a sustainable fisheries management system. Thirdly, we must ensure that the benefits of properly managed fisheries go to local people, local communities and local businesses.

My view is that, although there is still much work to do, we are gradually moving in the right direction and making progress. The cornerstone for the revival of UK fisheries is taking back control of our waters so that we decide who fishes there and on what terms. The Prime Minister has come under much pressure in negotiations to compromise on that undertaking. She has not done so and, whatever happens in the next few months, it is vital that we do not give ground on that point.

[Mr Carmichael]

I remind the hon. Gentleman that the Prime Minister has compromised on this—she compromised when she said she would put fisheries into the transitional arrangement period.

[Peter Aldous]

From my perspective, the Prime Minister has come under a lot of pressure from the French and the Dutch, and she has not given way in a meaningful sense.

Despite the fact that I tabled a large number of amendments to the Fisheries Bill when it was in Committee, it is generally a good document and Ministers and officials are to be commended for drafting it to such good effect under such time pressure. That said, it does need some changes. I have tabled an amendment to promote the fairer distribution of fishing opportunities, and we need to consider strengthening what is known as the economic link. Furthermore, although the Government have laid down a statutory instrument to outlaw electro-pulse fishing, there is a worry that loopholes are being left open. I wrote to the previous Minister detailing those concerns and, if they cannot be addressed, we may need to consider outlawing that abhorrent and completely unsustainable practice through provisions in the Bill.

To make the most of the opportunity to ensure that Lowestoft and other East Anglian fishing communities reap the Brexit dividend, the industry in East Anglia, under the leadership of June Mummery and Paul Lines, has formed the Renaissance of East Anglian Fishing. With the assistance of Waveney District Council, a grant has been obtained from the Marine Management Organisation to develop a long-term strategy for the East Anglian fishing industry. Additional financial support has been provided by the east Suffolk councils, Suffolk County Council, Norfolk County Council and Seafish. The work, which is being carried out by Vivid Economics, is now under way. It looks at the current state of the industry and will come up with a strategy for its revitalisation all the way from the net to the plate. I anticipate that it will highlight where investment is needed in port infrastructure, skills and supply chain building, and I expect that we will be making submissions to the Chancellor’s autumn Budget.

The project is exciting and could prove to be a blueprint that could be replicated around the coast. I invite the Minister to visit us in Lowestoft to find out more about it.

Modern Farming and the Environment

Alistair Carmichael Excerpts

Tuesday 12th March 2019 Westminster Hall

[Colin Clark]

I would say there is an opportunity there. Smaller farms can come together to share machinery. There are also schemes for them to come together to share environmental and biodiversity priorities. There is an opportunity for smaller farms to interact. Scale is not everything. Clearly, sharing a combine over many thousands of acres will lower the cost of that equipment per acre. Aberdeenshire is not unusual in that respect. It is rural, but not all of it is arable. I would rather not suggest that this is all about farms becoming much bigger, and us ending up with a similar situation to East Anglia, which is a relatively large-scale operation. East Anglia is also a good example. In Cambridge and Suffolk, G. S. Shropshire & Sons Ltd are doing some brilliant things on biodiversity and having a more holistic approach to their farms, instead of simply using the land for the crop that they want, and not being concerned about the next stage.

If we are to preserve the environment, wildlife and habitats, we must consider the potential of the most productive land. In Scotland, under the CAP regulations, we have seen as much as 10% of very productive land being taken out of arable use, rather than other land that would be better suited for environmental schemes. We all remember set-aside, which, in the long term, created weed banks and other problems on farms. We have to consider how to make the most of the best land, and make it as productive as it can be, in a holistic and sustainable way.

I recently read about gene editing technology, which offers us an opportunity as we leave the EU. I hope the EU changes its mind about this technology. It could offer the answer with regard to drought resistance, plants capturing nitrogen, pest resistance and the reduction of pesticides. On animal diseases, too, there are opportunities and technologies that we should be looking at.

Last July, the European Court of Justice declared that gene editing crops had to jump the same bar as genetic modification, but it is significantly different technology. While I am not an expert on it, I would like us to explore it further. I am particularly conscious that we have some of the best research and scientists in the world, yet we are giving up an opportunity to look into a very interesting area that could have answers. According to scientists from the Sainsbury laboratory,

“This ruling closes the door to many beneficial genetic modifications such as breeding of disease-resistant plants”.

They added that it was

“A sad day for European plant science.”

While we do not want to drop our standards, there is genuine science that we should be exploring and looking at. Policy mistakes have been made in other parts of the country that I do not want to see here, so I would like to hear what the Minister has to say about gene editing.

Farming should be able to monetarise environmental benefits such as carbon sequestering. The Scottish NFU says that it is

“supportive of measures such as carbon accounting, which offer farmers the tools and recommendations to make efficiency improvements whilst also taking into account business operations.”

That is poignant, because if there is a zero-carbon target, we have to get much better at accounting for sequestering carbon on farms. We hear about industrial ways to capture carbon, but every day that we are in the countryside, we are standing on the biggest carbon bank that this country has. Particularly in northern Scotland and the central highlands, with regard to reinvigorating—

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

Peat.

[Colin Clark]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that. There is an opportunity there. We should reverse the idea that we are going to grub up every inch and acre, but equally, we have to monetise that value. Again, we do not have a holistic approach to that.

The Department’s 2018 farm practices survey showed that 50% of farmers took action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Of those, 83% did it because they considered it good business practice; 68% did it through concern for the environment; and 53% did it to improve profitability. That is clearly an example of farming realising the monetary benefits.

Again, however, policies have unforeseen consequences. The EU considered banning glyphosate, which would limit minimal tillage and reduce the potential benefits from controlling greenhouse gases. Minimal tillage does not work everywhere, but it works in many parts of the country. Banning glyphosate would certainly mean that we would have to return to deep ploughing to bury slug eggs and weeds, so we would simply use another chemical. I was asked about bees. It was Mr McGregor from Blairgowrie—it is almost a made-up name—who recently said that his honey production was being limited by the flea beetle. We have to think about the consequences of our decisions.

I will move on; I realise that I am using up all the time, but I will soon finish. On policy to increase biodiversity, what we have done to date in Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland is to be applauded. I highlight that shooting estates are an integral part of modern agriculture. The James Hutton Institute, along with Scotland’s Rural College, investigated the economic and social contribution of the moors in fragile landscapes in Scotland. Grouse moors support 2,500 jobs, of which the vast majority are local, and they increase wild bird numbers because vermin are controlled. In contrast, Scottish Labour wants to restrict shooting, but we have to be aware of its economic contribution. It may be a minority sport, but it is a countryside pursuit that is also making environmental headway.

We need a pragmatic approach. Many hon. Members will be aware that in the highlands, there is no longer a top predator of the red deer, so whether by Scottish Natural Heritage or the Red Deer Commission, the numbers have to be controlled for wholly laudable reasons—to protect our environment and to try to allow tree numbers to come back up. We hear in the press about rewilding parts of the country, but this is not Alaska or Siberia. With the greatest respect, if we put a predator such as a wolf back anywhere, it will eat the sheep, then the dogs, then whatever cannot run fast, then finally, perhaps, the red deer. We have to be realistic about that. Why anybody would go hill walking in the highlands if they thought a wolf was running around is beyond me.

I am keen to hear other hon. Members’ contributions; they must be wondering how long I will waffle on for. Farming policy can shape interdependence, so I have a few questions for the Minister that are all shaped towards improving the environment and modern farming playing its part. Should the Agriculture Bill recognise food and its production as a public good? Outwith the EU, how are we going to join up policy? Instead of Europe’s one-size-fits-all approach, can we come up with policies and frameworks for the whole United Kingdom that will protect the environment?

Raising productivity per acre in a sustainable way will raise output and food security, so will the Minister consider amendments to the Bill on that? Will he take into account the risk of displacement where domestic policy encourages imports and there are environmental impacts? Most of all—this is what I would really like—to protect the environment, modern farming needs a sustainable financial model; will he support a multi-annual settlement? We will do our part to convince the Treasury that that is the way forward. Modern farming has a clear interdependency with a healthy environment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I can be many things, but I can never be Rebecca Pow—or Rebecca “Kerpow!”, as we call her.

It is a pleasure to speak in this debate. I congratulate the hon. Member for Gordon (Colin Clark) on setting the scene. I declare an interest as a member of the Ulster Farmers Union and as a landowner as well. For the record, I understand the interdependence of modern farming and the environment. On our farm we have retained the hedgerows, created two ponds and planted 3,500 trees. We have seen the return of the yellowhammer, which was missing for many years on farmland where I and other farmers live. We have seen the return of birds of prey and hares as well. Lots of things have happened because of our commitment to our farm and diversity and the environment.

I hail from a rural constituency. In Strangford, the farming and food industry is a massive employer. Indeed, as the Countryside Alliance has said:

“The food and farming industry is nationally important, generating over £108 billion a year for the UK economy and underpinning our food security. It is particularly important for our most rural areas where farming is often central to the economic and social life of the community, as well as playing a vital role in conservation.”

[Mr Carmichael]

May I take the hon. Gentleman back to the point made by the hon. Member for Gordon (Colin Clark) about getting younger people back into the industry? I speak as the 53-year-old son of an 87-year-old farmer. The hon. Gentleman will be pleased to hear that I have never been tempted to enter the industry. If we can get this right, we can create opportunities right across our agricultural and rural communities, and get children into schools, keep post offices and shops open and keep public transport running in rural areas.

[Jim Shannon]

The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. Bringing all those things together is key for rural communities. We need to encourage young people. I will quickly speak about sons and daughters taking over farms. In my constituency we have been fortunate over the years that that has happened. Some sons and daughters do not want to take farms on, but the ones who have are still there, so we have seen a progression of farmers’ sons or daughters taking over. Farming communities are not employees of the land, but caretakers of the land for future generations. I read in Shooting Times magazine that the wildlife of today is not ours to dispose of as we want. We hold it in trust for those who come after. That is a fact. That is what we do, and the right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right.

Unless we recognise the dual role of farmers as food producers and conservationists, we risk turning farmers into environmental contractors, which we do not want to do. We want them to have an incentive to continue farming. A farmer does not farm to become rich—that is the case in my neck of the woods, anyway. A farmer farms because it is in his blood and it is his calling. I recently highlighted an important point in my local press, and I want to make the point here before the debate ends. The latest figures show that some farmers, especially younger farmers in my constituency, have had very high levels of depression. Strangford has a large rural community and many farmers have handed over the reins of their farms to their sons and daughters, but there are levels of EU bureaucracy—I do not want to bring in the dreaded Brexit word again—and red tape that have almost strangled the farmers, and they are sick to the back teeth of it. They understand that regulations are necessary to bring food up to standard, but they do not need all of the extra paperwork that goes with it.

Fisheries Bill (Tenth_PART2 sitting)

Alistair Carmichael Excerpts

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

[Brendan O'Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray. I rise to speak to new clause 1, which has been tabled in my name and in those of my hon. Friends the Members for Kilmarnock and Loudoun and for Edinburgh North and Leith (Deidre Brock).

It has been a long-held view of the Scottish Government, and, indeed, of many in the sector, that Seafish, because of the way it is currently constituted, is not sufficiently flexible to meet the needs of the entire sector and requires radical reform. Many have made the case that there is an inherent flaw in Seafish attempting to represent all of the UK while operating in an area in which policy is devolved. In trying to represent the whole of the UK fishing industry, Seafish is viewed by many as providing insufficient support to the sector in Scotland, which all too often results in the poor or unsatisfactory marketing and promotion of Scottish seafood.

The main objective of the new clause is to devolve both the control over funding and the Executive powers of Seafish to Scottish Ministers. It would also devolve control of the Scottish aspects of the fishing levy, giving Scotland a key role in deciding how the Scottish share of the fishing levy should be spent. We believe that this new model will provide much greater flexibility for Seafish to exercise its functions separately and differently in the different parts of the UK. The new clause would also require Seafish to report the income it receives from the levies it imposes and how those are applied in each part of the United Kingdom.

As I have often said in Committee, not only is fishing devolved but there is absolutely no standardised version of the fishing industry across the UK. From Truro to Thurso and beyond, it is multi-layered, complex and nuanced, and is often very localised. Given that there is no one single fishing industry pursuing a common set of clear, shared objectives, it is surely ludicrous that we still have a one-size-fits-all fishing authority charged with securing a sustainable, profitable future for all parts of the seafood industry. How can Seafish practically offer regulatory guidance and service to the industry—including catching, aquaculture, processors, importers, exporters and distributors of seafood—as well as looking after restaurants and retailers in such a complicated and differentiated industry?

This is not an attack on Seafish or the people who work there. Rather, it is recognising that, with an aggregated coastline of almost 20,000 miles containing a host of different fishing practices and interests, it is in an almost impossible situation in trying to work in the best interests of everyone.

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

I have made the same point as the hon. Gentleman often enough myself. However, the industry in Scotland surely encompasses the full range of practices that he identifies across the whole of the United Kingdom. How would devolution help to address that?

[Brendan O'Hara]

I absolutely agree with the right hon. Gentleman. I represent a west coast constituency and he represents a northern isles constituency, which are vastly different from that represented by the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan. It is about devolving power to as local a level as one possibly can. If Scottish Ministers are given the power to act on behalf of a much smaller area and a much smaller concentration of the industry, I think it will much better serve the industry as a whole across Scotland.

The Bill gives us the perfect opportunity to reform the current system to ensure that that levy can be better used to promote the range and quality of Scottish seafood, both at home and abroad. If Scotland were allowed to take these investment decisions, it would allow us to properly support the industry by promoting the quality and excellence of Scottish seafood products, both at home and across the world. It would also allow us to maximise the benefits of Scottish provenance, which is so important when marketing ourselves, particularly abroad, while supplying top-quality products to consumers.

--- Later in debate ---

[George Eustice]

We disagree with the new clause and think that it is unnecessary. The issue of Seafish and the seafood levy was looked at in detail as part of the Smith Commission recommendations as recently as 2014. The new clause would go beyond what that commission recommended, which was that the power to impose levies should not be devolved to the Scottish Parliament.

However, we have taken account of some of the issues raised by the Scottish Government and by Richard Lochhead, the Minister at the time. In response, as well as having permanent Scottish representatives on its main board, Seafish established a separate Seafish Scottish advisory committee early this year to advise the board on how the levy should be invested in Scotland. The Scottish industry is also well represented in the sector panels that advise on Seafish’s UK priorities, as I have said.

In 2011, a consultation on the Sea Fish Industry Authority’s regional structures showed little industry support for the kind of devolution of the levy that the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute outlines. Indeed, just 20% of stakeholders supported such a model. A Scotland-focused levy would reduce Seafish’s overall ability to carry out its UK-wide priorities. It would reduce economies of scale and potentially cut across some of our other approaches as a UK-wide entity.

The levy setting already requires the consent of all the devolved Administrations. Periodically, when we want to review the levies, we have a discussion with the Scottish Government about exactly what they should be. There are arguments about which should go up and which should go down, but we have achieved unanimous agreement that we should make the levy change only once, so I do not accept that Scotland does not have sufficient influence at the moment.

Seafish publishes an annual report that sets out in great detail all its activities and funding, how it operates and what its priorities are. I therefore do not believe that we need additional requirements in that regard, since it is already done.

[Mr Carmichael]

I thank the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute for tabling the new clause, because it is an important topic to discuss and there is no doubt that our current system is capable of improvement. I sound a couple of notes of caution, however, in relation to the proposal for devolution.

We risk breaking up the support that is available by geography rather than by sector. The inshore fishermen in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency, who are catching nephrops, langoustines and others, probably have a fairly strong community of interests with those who are catching in the Irish sea and in the south-west.

Likewise there will be a community of interest in the other sectors, such as the pelagic sector at the other end of the country, the white fish sector and so on. Although I would never close the door on that sort of thing, from my experience, I would require a bit more persuasion that the industry wants or is asking for that kind of reform.

[Brendan O'Hara]

The Minister said that this issue was talked about in 2014. I think he would agree—I suspect that no one would disagree—that in politics 2014 seems a long time ago and much has changed.

I appreciate the support from the hon. Member for Glasgow North East, who talked about transparency, and he is absolutely right. In response to the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland, it is really important that this new clause is seen as a genuine attempt to improve Seafish. We are not seeking to undermine Seafish; we are seeking to improve how it works and how it can work best for the multitude of Scottish fishing industries. I agree that there is a community of interest, particularly in Northern Ireland, but that community of interest will be severely undermined by the imposition of the backstop that we talked about earlier this evening.

This change would work because it would allow a Scottish Seafish to promote all Scottish seafish across both coasts and the northern isles, and it could work. At the moment, Seafish does not work well for Scotland.

[Mr Carmichael]

I just want to tease out the issues here a little bit. I ask this question in a spirit of genuine inquiry, because I do not know the answer to it, but I would think that a lot of the inshore boats—the foreign boats in particular—around the hon. Gentleman’s constituency and certainly on the Clyde will fish as far down as the Isle of Man and around there, so what, in this context, actually constitutes “Scottish seafish”?

[Brendan O'Hara]

One would presume that it is where the catch is landed, or where the boat is registered. So when a boat comes back to Tarbert, or Oban, or the right hon. Gentleman’s home island of Islay, that would constitute “Scottish seafood”. I do not need to tell him how important that Scottish provenance is and how important it is to get those langoustines to Madrid or Paris as quickly as we possibly can. If we have an organisation that is at front and centre about Scottish provenance, I think that would certainly be a step in the right direction.

As I say, I do not think that Seafish is working particularly well for Scotland at the moment and that is something we have to address. So, with your permission, Mr Gray, I will push this new clause to a vote.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Sweeney]

Sorry, Mr Gray—it is rather late and I am forgetting my pronouns. I think they ought to stand here and support the new clause.

[Mr Carmichael]

I have essentially reached the same conclusion as the two previous speakers, for slightly different reasons. The EMFF money has been of massive significance to the industry and to communities around the UK coastline. I support some sort of guarantee that that money will continue to go to our fishing industries and communities. The amendment deals, of course, only with guaranteeing that the money will continue to go to Scotland, but it would be unthinkable that the same would not then apply to fishing communities in Wales, Northern Ireland and, indeed, England. I would not start from this position; but ultimately, from the point of view of the industry in the communities, I think the amendment would get us to where we need to be. For that reason I support it.

[George Eustice]

I disagree with putting a provision of this nature in the Bill, for reasons I shall explain. It is very important with legislation to separate the legal powers that we seek, to engage in such activities as giving financial assistance to the fishing industry, from the way those obligations are funded. That is, and always has been, predominantly a matter for the spending review. Such a provision would be unhelpful.

As to the legal powers, we have set out in clause 28, for England, the legal powers we need to make grant payments; so we are not, as was suggested, relying on some shared prosperity fund. There will be bespoke grants for the fishing industry, and we set out the powers to do that for England in clause 28. Clause 28(8) sets out the fact that there will under schedule 4 be similar powers for the Welsh and Northern Ireland Governments.

Ironically, at the time the Bill was drafted and on Second Reading, the Scottish Government told us they did not want the powers; so I put it to the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute that before the Scottish Government start to say that we must guarantee the money, they should work out how they will guarantee how they will get the legal powers to pay any money out in the first place. They are now asking us whether we may be able to make amendments later, to include those powers.

At the moment there is clearly a gap in the Bill, but that is a consequence of the position that the Scottish Government have adopted, so that they do not have the legal powers to make any grant payments.

[Mr Carmichael]

The Minister said earlier that the money should come through the spending review, as has long been the case. The EMFF funds have never been part of the spending review; he should know that. The amendment would guarantee the money as a funding stream for the future. What guarantees are there for that funding stream in clause 28?

[George Eustice]

EMFF comes from the EU budget and is part of the EU’s budget when it is set. It is typically set for a period of five years and is reviewed periodically. As recently as 10 December, the Secretary of State announced that the Government will put in place new domestic long-term arrangements for post-2021, which will enable us to create schemes similar to the EMFF in each of the four Administrations. In addition, he announced an extra £37.2 million of funding to boost the existing EMFF programme, to help the fishing industry prepare for the opportunities coming its way, as my hon. Friend the Member for Banff and Buchan pointed out.

I do not, therefore, believe that the new clause is necessary or appropriate. We have demonstrated, as recently as last week, our commitment to funding fisheries in the future. The Bill makes explicit provision for grants to be made in three of the four Administrations and I would simply say that the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun should first consider obtaining the legal powers.

--- Later in debate ---

[Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)]

New clause 8 relates to the West Lothian question set to fish, which we debated in some detail last Tuesday on amendments 15 to 19. I tabled the new clause as a probing amendment at that stage, and at this stage I do not wish to move it.

New Clause 11

Managing shared stocks

“(1) Where shared stocks of common interest are also exploited by other coastal states, the Secretary of State must engage with those states with a view to ensuring that—

(a) shared stocks are managed in accordance with the UK’s international law obligations and in accordance with the objectives of this Act;

(b) fishing mortality is below levels which will restore or maintain those shared stocks above levels capable of producing the maximum sustainable yield; and

(c) the impacts of fishing on the marine environment are avoided or, where avoidance is not possible, demonstrably minimised.

(2) The Secretary of State must endeavour to establish bilateral or multilateral agreements with other coastal states for the joint management of shared stocks of common interest.

(3) Where no formal agreement is reached, the Secretary of State must make every effort to reach common arrangements with other coastal states for fishing of shared stocks of common interest.

(4) Where neither a formal agreement nor a common arrangement is reached, the Secretary of State must—

(a) take all necessary steps to ensure that fishing of shared stocks of common interest is carried out such that the relevant stocks are maintained above levels capable of producing the maximum sustainable yield; and

(b) provide and make publicly available an annual report to the appropriate legislature outlining the steps taken pursuant to subsection (a) above.

(5) In setting total allowable catches in the UK exclusive economic zone for shared stocks of common interest, the Secretary of State may not increase the total allowable catch for any particular shared stock for UK fishing vessels apart from in the circumstances provided for in subsections (6) and (7).

(6) Where a coastal state with which a shared stock is jointly managed has reduced the total allowable catch available within its territory and—

(a) the Secretary of State is confident that this new total allowable catch will be complied with and enforced; and

(b) the coastal state consents to the UK increasing its total allowable catch,

then the Secretary of State may increase the UK total allowable catch by an amount not exceeding the amount by which the other coastal state has decreased its total allowable catch.

(7) Where the best available scientific advice on a shared stock confirms that fishing mortality of that stock can be increased without reducing the stock below a level capable of producing the maximum sustainable yield, then the Secretary of State may increase the UK total allowable catch in proportion to the change in recommend fishing mortality and the UK’s agreed share of total allowable catch for that stock.”.—(Mr Carmichael.)

The purpose of this amendment is to set clear sustainability criteria in relation to negotiations with other countries to ensure that a clear and robust process can be developed to prevent overfishing.

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Mr Carmichael]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

We come back almost full circle to how we deal with what are known as shared stocks. It is pretty clear that that is going to be a subject of some political and commercial significance when we move to the next stage of negotiations on the future relationship with our current EU neighbours.

We have observed a number of times that the principle of sustainability was front and centre in the White Paper when it was published, but somehow does not seem to have made the transition into the Bill. New clause 11 would put sustainability back into the Bill as it relates to our management of shared stocks. It seeks to give a framework under which we would seek to reach agreement with neighbouring countries, third countries and the EU. I would suggest that the principles are fairly straightforward and sound and that this is exactly the sort of thing that the Government should have in the Bill if it were to be, as the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport suggested earlier, a sustainable Fisheries Bill.

[Luke Pollard]

The Bill makes no firm commitment on how a shared stock should be sustainably managed, which was one reason why we spoke about shared stocks in the objectives right at the start of our consideration of the Bill. That is extremely concerning, as setting clear sustainability criteria in relation to negotiations with other countries would help to avoid, for example, another mackerel wars scenario.

However, I have some questions about subsection 6 of the new clause, in particular about its unintended consequences for the total allowable catch. It suggests that if, for any reason, a country reduced its allowable catch on sustainability grounds, the other countries in that shared stock would ramp up to get to the total allowable catch, which could have implications for sustainability. It would be interesting to know from the right hon. Gentleman how that might work and how he might allay any concerns on that point.

[George Eustice]

I do not agree with the new clause. It is unnecessary and could have unintended consequences.

As a country, we already have clear obligations under international law—under both the UN convention on the law of the sea and the UN fish stocks agreement—to co-operate on the management of shared stocks. That is an international obligation that we have as a signatory to both UNCLOS and the UNFSA. Notably, article 63 of UNCLOS requires the UK and all other signatories to

“seek, either directly or through appropriate subregional or regional organizations, to agree upon the measures necessary to coordinate and ensure the conservation and development of such stocks”.

Both UNCLOS and the UNFSA also contain obligations to achieve maximum sustainable yield.

I do not accept the analysis that there is nothing on sustainability in the Bill. Clause 1, right at the start of the Bill, contains a list of sustainability objectives, including a commitment to MSY and all the objectives that are currently written in the basic EU regulation on the common fisheries policy.

A more likely scenario is that other countries, whether that be Norway or the European Union, would choose to fish unsustainably. In the event that we could not get an agreement, the suggestion here is that we would still set our own catch well below that of other member states. Subsection (6) seems to suggest that other states might set their quota well below maximum sustainable yield, meaning that we could set it higher, provided we had the permission of other member states.

I am not sure what scenario the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland envisages. A more likely scenario is that the UK will insist on sustainable fishing, as we always have, since ours is the country that champions sustainable fishing more than any other, but another country might not agree to do so. If we could not get an agreement, that other country might fish unsustainably outside of an agreement.

Our remedy for that, as things stand, is to be very clear, as we were in our White Paper, that access to UK waters is conditional on other foreign countries fishing sustainably. We will have strong leverage to be able to say to our neighbours: “Unless you fish within an agreement and within levels that are sustainable, we will not grant you the access to our waters on which you depend.” That puts us in a strong position. The new clause seems to suggest that the UK is the country that will want to fish unsustainably while everybody else—our neighbours—are the good guys. I suspect the opposite will be the case, but we have other remedies to ensure that we can deliver sustainable fishing by our neighbouring countries.

For all those reasons, and because we already have legal commitments, including in clause 1, and to a joint fisheries statement, I oppose the new clause.

[Mr Carmichael]

It is a pity that the Minister’s appetite for declaratory clauses appears to have been sated by the introduction of new clause 22. I confess that I struggled to follow some of his reasoning. It comes to the point about subsection (6). Essentially, the Minister seems to be saying that we will behave in such a way that it is unnecessary for us to include the provision in the Bill, because those are our international obligations, although we are not expecting anybody else to follow their international obligations in the same way. I confess that I do not understand the logic of that.

However, having said that, the sustainability point remains. We know from experience of the common fisheries policy that, unless there are principles such as sustainability everywhere, Governments and fisheries managers are always very ingenious at finding ways not to follow them.

Given the lateness of the hour and the fact that we will probably want to return to this issue on Report with a broader audience, I am not minded to press for a Division at this stage, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the new clause.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 12

Duty to ensure adequate monitoring and enforcement

“(1) The fisheries policy authorities must ensure that all fishing vessels fishing within British fishery limits and all UK vessels fishing both within and outside of British fishery limits must have installed on board a fully functioning device which allows that vessel to be automatically located and identified through the vessel monitoring system by transmitting position data at least every 20 minutes and sharing such position data with the relevant fisheries policy authorities.

(2) The fisheries policy authorities must ensure that all fishing vessels over ten metres length overall fishing within British fishery limits and all UK fishing vessels over ten metres length overall fishing within and outside of British fishery limits must have electronic monitoring equipment in order to—

(a) provide detailed and accurate documentation of all fishing activities, monitoring of compliance with fisheries and marine management measures and the ability to record levels of discarding, as well as details of catch of species, whether subject to catch quota or otherwise, and

(b) enable the estimation of the size and quantity of the marine biological resources taken or transported and to enable the identification, to the extent possible, of—

(i) the species of marine biological resources taken or transported;

(ii) the types and features of fishing gear used, and

(iii) any technical bycatch mitigation measures used.

(3) The fishery policy authorities must ensure that a comprehensive enforcement framework is developed in accordance with Council Regulation (EC) No 1005/2008, as amended from time to time.

(4) The fisheries policy authorities must by regulations make provision for any technical requirements necessary to implement this section.”—(Mr Carmichael.)

The purpose of this amendment is to strengthen the existing mechanisms for monitoring and control to help prevent illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing. This includes requiring transmission of position data at least every 20 minutes and requiring electronic monitoring equipment on the majority of vessels capable of carrying such technology.

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Mr Carmichael]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

This is a very much a probing new clause. There is little in the Bill—arguably nothing—that deals with monitoring and enforcement. This proposal, authored by Greener UK, is to have real-time reporting with technological devices and CCTV cameras. Those are live issues within the industry, and between industry scientists and conservationists. It is unfortunate that there is nothing at all in the Bill on the matter, so I have tabled the new clause to give the Minister an opportunity to explain what the Government will do about monitoring and enforcement, close to the implementation of the Bill.

[Luke Pollard]

We heard evidence on this subject from the director of the Marine Management Organisation, Phil Haslam, who said in relation to enforcement activities around fishing:

“The budget reduction since inception has been in the order of 60%”.––[Official Report, Fisheries Public Bill Committee, ; c. 50, Q101.]

That is simply unsustainable if we are to have properly enforced, well-protected and well-managed fisheries after Brexit. A number of concerns were voiced in the evidence sessions and since. We know that the number of hours of surveillance has dropped significantly since 2010, from 16,000 to just 2,000 now.

If we are to avoid a repetition of the scallop wars, but in UK rather than French waters, we need to ensure that we have sufficient levels of enforcement. It is good news that the Government have decided not necessarily to scrap all the Batch 1 River class offshore patrol vessels. That is a positive step forward, but there has still been no commitment on the number of hours those OPVs may be deployed for enforcement activity; there has just been a headline about their continued service, but with no certainty as to what that will mean.

We need to get much better on enforcement. There are serious concerns in the fishing industry about the focus on enforcement activities by UK ships enforcing in UK waters, which are targeting UK boats rather than foreign boats, which seem to have a lower standard when it comes to a number of different areas. The Government need to get better at enforcement, because the Opposition do not currently have confidence in their ability to enforce in our waters properly, especially when quota will be drawn down against our EU friends after Brexit, as we move from relative stability to zonal attachment. There are serious concerns about whether there is sufficient capacity within the enforcement branches of the Royal Navy’s fisheries squadron.

I will also press the Minister on what that means for inshore vessel monitoring systems. Earlier we asked whether EU boats should have the same requirements to obey the high safety standards and marine environmental protections. Can he confirm that all foreign boats will be required to have IVMS if they are in UK waters after Brexit, as that will help us in our enforcement activities?

--- Later in debate ---

[George Eustice]

There will need to be an agreement on that, but obviously we have those data-sharing agreements with other neighbours, such as Norway, Iceland and the Faroes. In the absence of such an agreement, there will be no access whatsoever to European vessels. They will not be able to come into our waters unless they comply with our data requirements.

[Mr Carmichael]

Earlier this evening, when Mr Hanson was in the Chair—

[The Chair]

Happy times.

[Mr Carmichael]

The joy is matched by your own presence in the Chair, Mr Gray, I assure you.

The challenge was put down that we should have Home Office Ministers on our fishing boats. It seems that the best we are going to get is some Border Force officers on a fishing boat, and not necessarily in the circumstances that we might have voted on for the purpose that we were discussing.

I said at the start that the new clause was intended to be probing. I think that the Bill would benefit from the inclusion of provisions on enforcement and monitoring. I hope that the Minister will reflect on that. Otherwise, we might wish to return to the matter on Report. I am pretty certain that my noble friends will have an approach to this. In the meantime, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

[The Chair]

To keep the Committee up to date, there is some confusion about new clause 25, which appears on the selection list in error. There will be no further debate on new clause 25, which has already been voted on in a group earlier today.

New Clause 14

Duty to co-operate

“(1) A fisheries policy authority must co-operate with other fisheries policy authorities in the preparation and application of the JFS and any SSFS, the licensing of fishing boats, enforcement against illegal fishing activity, the determination and distribution of fishing opportunities and the prevention of discards.

(2) A fisheries policy authority may share information with another fisheries policy authority for the purpose of discharging its duty under subsection (1).”—(Luke Pollard.)

This new clause would place a duty to co-operate on all fisheries policy authorities in carrying out their functions under this Bill; and would provide for the sharing of information between fisheries policy authorities.

Brought up, and read the First time.

--- Later in debate ---

[George Eustice]

It was a long intervention, but I have been guilty of that myself at times.

I will just point out that clause 5 goes on to say, in subsection (3):

“The fisheries policy authorities must review a JFS they have prepared and published whenever they consider it appropriate to do so and in any event—

(a) before the end of the period of 6 years beginning with the day on which it was published, and

(b) before the end of the period of 6 years beginning with the end of the most recent review.”

I therefore do not share the hon. Gentleman’s analysis that the duty to co-operate and to work jointly, and the legal obligation to have a fisheries statement, expires after the first one. Clause 5(3) is clear that that becomes an enduring obligation, and I am happy to make that clarification.

Those are the reasons why I oppose the new clause. As I have said many times, the Bill respects the contours of our devolution settlement. We have a long-standing track record of successful concordats and memorandums of understanding that deal with fisheries. When we approach an issue such as the December Council and annual fisheries negotiations, we send a UK delegation. We have a good track record of working together and I believe that the approach we have outlined here is the best one to ensure that we have a UK framework to deliver on those sustainability objectives.

[Mr Carmichael]

I support the new clause, which I think would improve the Bill. I certainly take the view that a dispute resolution mechanism would be preferable. In the absence of that, however, having a duty to co-operate would at least allow for a situation in which any party that was not co-operating could be subject to judicial review, because they would be in breach of a duty given to them under the law. For the Minister to say that there is an imperative to reach an agreement on the face of the Bill presupposes that everybody will work in good faith. In the event that people are not working in good faith, there has to be a mechanism for identifying that. The Bill is currently deficient in that regard. The new clause is second best, but it would be better than nothing.

[Luke Pollard]

I think that the points have been well established, but I suspect that the Minister will not accept the new clause. I suggest that he thinks carefully about the context in which we are raising concerns here, in good faith, to avoid trouble in future. I suggest that he considers bringing back an element of it when the Bill is considered in the other place. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 15

Expert advisory council on fisheries

“(1) The Secretary of State must establish a body called the Expert Advisory Council on Fisheries for the purpose of exercising the functions in subsections (4) to (6).

(2) The Expert Advisory Council on Fisheries shall consist of as many people as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.

(3) Before appointing any person to the Expert Advisory Council, the Secretary of State must consult with—

(a) the other fisheries policy authorities, and

(b) any other such organisations as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.

(4) The Secretary of State must have regard to the advice of the Expert Advisory Council on Fisheries before—

(a) publishing or amending a Secretary of State fisheries statement,

(b) making or withdrawing a determination of fishing opportunities under section 18, and

(c) making any regulations under this Act, unless those regulations are made under—

(i) this section, or

(ii) section 42.

(5) The Secretary of State shall publish the Expert Advisory Council on Fisheries” assessment, for a calendar year, of the state of UK fisheries, including—

(a) current stocks and their sustainability,

(b) species distribution within the Exclusive Economic Zone,

(c) the status of employment and skills in the fishing industry,

(d) present total catches and future projected total catches, by both volume and monetary value, and

(e) the economic and social value and impact of the fishing industry on coastal communities.

(6) The first annual assessment under subsection (5) shall be published within 12 months of this section coming into force, and each subsequent assessment must be published within 12 months of the previous such assessment.

(7) For a calendar year, no determination may be made under section 18 until the annual assessment under subsection (5) has been published for that year.”—(Luke Pollard.)

This new clause would place a duty on the Secretary of State to establish the Expert Advisory Council on Fisheries, and provides for the Council’s membership and functions.

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Luke Pollard]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

It is important that we stop using the fishing industry as a political football. This is what the expert advisory council would seek to do, and it would do so by giving a say to those who know the industry best and have its best intentions at heart. The new clause has the industry’s support. Barrie Deas from the National Federation of Fishermen’s Organisations told the Committee in evidence that his organisation would like to see an

“advisory council of people with experience of the industry, who understand the complexities of a highly diverse and complex industry”

as well as being

“a kind of filter for legislation”

that could also

“make recommendations and provide advice on new legislation coming through.”—[Official Report, Fisheries Public Bill Committee, 4 December 2018; c. 15-16, Q26-27.]

An advisory council would run new ideas past a panel of experts who understand the complexities and nuances of fisheries. The NFFO recommends the Australian model for reference. It suggests that an advisory council would formally guide policy and promote collaboration between central Government, the devolved Administrations, industry, scientists and other key stakeholders, allowing for

“an ongoing dialogue in a naturally variable industry”

and guaranteeing that sustainability issues are fully considered, as well as playing a leading role in the use of secondary legislation to ensure an agile and responsive approach to fisheries management.

On a final point, the NFFO has also pointed out that the Bill is right to forecast an important role for secondary legislation. It suggests that the common fisheries policy would be inflexible and rigid, and that it is therefore more important for there to be expert input. Further talks about delegated powers used appropriately would allow a more dynamic approach and would protect against unbridled use of such delegated powers. The NFFO would like to see an advisory council playing an influential role in advising the Government on the requirements of each piece of secondary legislation.

Phil Haslam backed up this argument in our evidence session, saying that anything that increases the dialogue between scientists “can only help” in that respect. He was referring to the provisions of an expert group that would include scientists, conservationists, industry representatives and those responsible for enforcement. We hope that the Government can support this very sensible amendment, which has industry backing.

[Mr Carmichael]

Fisheries management, and the politics surrounding it, is always at its worst when all the various stakeholders and parties retreat to their own silos and just lob howitzers at each other. We have seen how that works at different points over the years. It is unproductive. The secret to effective fisheries management, in my view, has always been to require there to be credibility from the system in the eyes of the industry, meaning that the industry has to be involved in the dialogue every step of the way. Getting fishermen, scientists, conservationists and the various Government agencies all in the room at the same time makes perfect sense. We have seen some measure of progress in this regard since 2002 and then in 2012, with the creation and then the strengthening of regional advisory councils, which—although they are an imperfect animal—have been a vast improvement on what we had before. This is a mechanism by which the industry, scientists, conservationists and others can all be kept in constant dialogue.

That would be an eminently sensible move, and the Minister would do well to note that this is essentially the policy put forward by the National Federation of Fishermen’s Organisations. Its willingness, as the voice of our industry, should be rewarded and encouraged. For that reason, I support the new clause and hope that the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport will push it to a vote if the Minister does not have something positive to say about it. If he does push it to a vote, I will support it.

[George Eustice]

I do not think that the new clause is necessary, because we already have extensive involvement with stakeholders, including environmental NGOs and the fishing industry. We are working with the industry now to establish what type of advisory infrastructure we might want to put in place after we leave the European Union, but we do not believe that it is necessary to put that on a statutory footing.

I want to explain to hon. Members what we do every year in the December Council. Every year, in September, we rotate around the UK—this year we were in London and the previous year we were in Cardiff. Everyone with an interest comes, from green NGOs to fishing representatives. We talk them through the stock assessments and the approach that we intend to take at the December Council. Through a day-long session with DEFRA, that wide group has input on the negotiating stance that we will take. We follow that up with a series of smaller meetings with individual groups such as green NGOs, groups with fishing interests and producer organisations, to get a clearer and more detailed input on their own particular issues. That, of course, informs our negotiating position.

In addition, we have a number of other models, such as the scallop industry consultation group. We also work closely with other fisheries science partnerships around the country and have an expert advisory group already set up to consider EU exit issues. None of those bodies is on a statutory footing, but all of them are useful to us. Obviously, we are considering how those could play into the future.

[Mr Carmichael]

I commend the Minister for all those moves—they are exactly what he should be doing. However, this issue requires a Minister to be prepared to engage in that way. The Minister has been a Member for a good few years; he has certainly seen a few Fisheries Ministers in his time, and before he came to the House he saw other Fisheries Ministers who had a very different approach. Does he not understand that there is merit in putting the issue on the face of the Bill, to ensure that those who follow him will be required to undertake the same laudable steps that he himself has taken?

[George Eustice]

In fairness to all my predecessors, I should say that the convention that I have abided by was established a long time ago. Indeed, after the devolution settlement, the last Labour Government established the convention of a UK-wide delegation and we have had these stakeholder meetings annually ever since.

As I said, a number of other ad hoc advisory groups have been set up. The problem with putting a statutory body in the Bill in the way proposed is that that might become too rigid. The ability to bring together the relevant group of experts to address a particular challenge, through a particular taskforce—as we have done on scallops and EU exit, for instance—gets weaker.

We would also have to give a lot of thought about who should be on that advisory group. For example, we would need to consider which of the green NGOs had to be on there: it could not just be fishing interests, but would have to include many others besides. Nor is it clear that even a so-called panel of experts from the fishing industry and green NGOs would be able to do the work needed to draft and provide an annual assessment of the stocks; CEFAS does that highly technical piece of work—rightly, our technical and scientific experts provide that work for us. It is, of course, open to those who think they can to challenge such assessments, but the issue is not a matter of opinion but of scientific assessment that must be provided by groups such as CEFAS.

This raises an important point about how we engage with industry and green NGOs. I believe that we do so very effectively. We are not saying that we have a closed mind on having advisory groups in the future; we simply do not believe that the matter needs to be placed on a statutory footing—that would be too rigid and prevent us from being able to bring on board the expertise we need.

As I said, we will be talking with industry in the months ahead. I hope that I can reassure the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport that when we return on Report we may be in a stronger position to outline the type of approach we intend to take, to ensure that we have input from industry and environmental NGOs.

--- Later in debate ---

[Luke Pollard]

I agree that to tackle microplastics, especially the plastic waste generated by the fishing industry, we first have to deal with the macroplastics that are breaking down to form microplastics in many cases.

To take one example, which shows the scale of the problem, a study by the conservation group The Ocean Cleanup looked at the so-called great Pacific garbage patch—an area of floating rubbish estimated to be three times the size of France. It found that most of the 79,000 tonnes of plastic in the patch is abandoned fishing gear, as opposed to the plastic bottles or packaging that we tend to focus our efforts on. That rubbish included fishing nets and a range of other abandoned fishing gear, such as ropes, oyster spacers, eel traps, crates and baskets.

In the EU, it is estimated that approximately 20% of gear is lost at sea. The reasons for that range from accidents, storms and entanglement to intentional abandonment. A particular concern with fishing waste is that, by design, it will cause problems for marine life. Much of the waste has been dubbed “ghost nets”, a term that may be familiar to hon. Members, which refers to purposefully discarded or accidentally lost netting that drifts through the ocean and entangles whales, seals and turtles. Some estimates suggest that 100,000 marine animals are strangled, suffocated or injured by plastics every year.

Today, I met Christian Marr from Andrew Marr International—the fishing company, rather than the BBC journalist—who set out the extra steps to which his Jubilee fishing boats go to retrieve car tyres, plastic pollution and even washing machines from their nets while at sea. He also explained that he wants more ports to provide rubbish facilities so that waste generated by fishers at sea is landed and disposed of responsibly—which, to be honest, does not always happen—rather than discarded overboard. He made the good point that, if fishers leave for a week with their shopping delivery and get back without any shopping waste, there is only one place where that waste could have gone. The issue is partly about encouraging behaviour change in the fishing sector. Not all fishers do it, but some do, which is why tackling plastic waste is important.

It is clear that more can and should be done to tackle fishing’s plastic pollution problem, but progress has so far been slow. Conservation efforts would benefit from better data on the problem. The new clause would enable the Secretary of State to ensure that the amount of plastic waste produced during fishing activities is recorded and widely understood. It would also allow Ministers to regulate to prohibit the disposal of plastic items while at sea and to require plastic items to be disposed of at specified onshore processing facilities.

The new clause contains common-sense enabling steps that would strengthen the Secretary of State’s powers to tackle the problem. The Government like to say that marine waste is a priority for them, so I hope that the Minister will support the new clause.

[Mr Carmichael]

The inclusion of such a clause should be supported. If someone walks along any beach these days, they will see discarded rope, net, broken floats and old floats. Unfortunately, a lot of the plastic waste on our beaches comes from the fishing industry. There is a mixed experience with regard to the industry and its approach to that. There have been several really good initiatives over the years, some of which I have supported, particularly Fishing For Litter. Such things should be encouraged.

It is in the industry’s interest to ensure that the amount of plastic in the oceans, which then breaks down and becomes the microplastics that the hon. Member for Hartlepool referred to, is not there, because it will have an adverse effect on the fish that are caught. What enters the food chain has a consequence. What we have here is a power—a stick that the Minister may hold behind his back—to concentrate minds in the event that the initiatives taken by the industry are not pursued as universally and rigorously as the gravity of the situation demands.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

We now come to new clause 23.

[Mr Carmichael]

The issues that I sought to explore in relation to new clause 23 were well explored earlier in our proceedings, and accordingly I am not seeking to press it.

Title

Amendment made: 10, title, line 11, after “fisheries;” insert—

“to make provision about the legislative competence of the National Assembly for Wales in relation to fishing, fisheries or fish health in the area of the Welsh zone beyond the seaward limit of the territorial sea;”—(George Eustice.)

This amendment to the long title of the Bill is consequential on NC5.

[George Eustice]

On a point of order, Mr Gray. I do not want to detain hon. Members any longer than necessary but I want to record my thanks to the Clerks and all hon. Members for their work on the Committee, and in particular for staying so late this evening when the House has long since adjourned.

[Luke Pollard]

Further to that point of order, Mr Gray. I add my thanks to the Committee staff, the Clerks and all the stakeholders who have contributed so much to the passage of the Bill, and I wish it best speed.

With your permission, Mr Gray, I also wish the Minister the best of luck at the fisheries summit. As he controls the programme motion, perhaps next time he finds himself with a fisheries Bill and a fisheries summit at the same time, it might be wise to adjust one so that he can attend the other. I wish him the best of luck for the remaining sessions of that summit and hope he comes back with a good deal for our fishers.

[Mr Carmichael]

Further to that point of order, Mr Gray. I associate myself with those comments. It is at least eight and possibly nine years since I last sat on a Public Bill Committee. In fact, if I say that the last time I sat on a Bill of this sort it was a Standing Committee, you will understand, Mr Gray, that that takes us back to at least before 2010.

In addition to those we have already thanked, we should record our thanks to those who gave evidence to the Committee. As a neophyte in that regard, I thought that was enormously helpful. That innovation has enormously improved our procedures. Finally, I associate myself with the best wishes with which we send the Minister to Brussels. It has clearly not been an easy year but I hope he will do everything he can to bring home the best possible settlement because the sustainability we have spoken about in theoretical terms during the Committee is very much at stake in practical terms.

[Brendan O'Hara]

Further to that point of order, Mr Gray. I associate the Scottish National party with the previous comments. Our sincere thanks to the Clerks and all hon. Members who have made this such an interesting, good-natured and serious Committee investigation of the Fisheries Bill. As everyone does, I wish the Minister the best of luck in his endeavours when he meets the rest of his EU counterparts. Finally, Mr Gray, thanks to you and Mr Hanson for chairing the proceedings.

Fisheries Bill (Tenth sitting)

Alistair Carmichael Excerpts

Monday 17th December 2018 Public Bill Committees

[Luke Pollard]

I appreciate that the Minister is trying to put up a smokescreen by saying that this is a very important new clause and that this is the right place for it, but this justifies the critique of my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Sue Hayman), who said that the Bill was hurried out too quickly, and that its implications had not been fully understood. An element as important as the Minister suggested new clause 22 is should have been included in the Bill in the first instance, and not added only when the political problems with the withdrawal agreement emerged.

I have a number of questions about the new clause. It includes the new term “Union fishing boats”. Will the Minister set out how that differs from the term “foreign fishing boats”, which is used in the rest of the Bill? We must make sure there are no loopholes that can be exploited in relation to the distinction between Union and foreign fishing boats.

In the event of what some in the fishing industry regard as the inevitable sell-out by people above his pay grade, can the Minister tell me how this Bill would be changed when there is potentially no additional quota or fish allocated to UK fishers? Can that be done for this part of the Bill under the Henry VIII powers that the Government possess, or would it require new primary legislation to alter this part of the Bill, in the event that there is a betrayal of fishers in any future negotiations? I ask that because the experience of fishing is that it was promised that it would be excluded from the transition period, only to find that those promises from the Secretary of State and indeed the fisheries Minister himself were worth nothing, which remains a very raw sore for many of our colleagues in the fisheries sector. There are some important aspects to this.

The principle is one that I can support: we should get a fairer share of fish. Relative stability has poorly served our coastal communities and fishing industry, and the move to zonal attachment is one that is supported by Labour as well as the Government. How that is done is uncertain in this Bill, and what promises will be delivered is also uncertain in this Bill, because so many of those promises will be subject to the further negotiation that will follow if any deal is done and then if any economic and future partnership is put in place.

There is an awful lot of uncertainty in relation to that, and I would be grateful if the Minister could set out how the Bill can be changed should there be a betrayal of the fishing industry, and if he could explain the distinction between “Union” and “foreign” fishing boats.

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

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

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

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

[Alan Brown]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Subsection (3) says:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

As a former Home Office Minister, I never went anywhere near a fish.

[Mr Carmichael]

Briefly, I support the amendment of the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport in letter and spirit. This is not a new problem—it is not something that we would lay at the door of the current Government or any particular Government. The situation has been developing and getting gradually worse for years and years. The problem probably goes into much of what young people are told in schools: they see fishing as a dangerous occupation, requiring long hours at sea and long days’ work in difficult circumstances, and they are generally discouraged from it. It will take a long time to turn that around and get back to the stage where fishing communities produce young men who want to go into the fishing industry.

[David Duguid (Banff and Buchan) (Con)]

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that there is no an overnight solution? We cannot just go to the local jobcentre and get a bunch of unemployed people; as the shadow Minister said, fishing is not an unskilled job. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree with the chief executive of the Scottish White Fish Producers Association that it could take up to 10 years at least to get to a point where we are no longer dependent on foreign labour?

[Mr Carmichael]

That is almost certainly going to be the case, but it is effectively a guess, because none of us really knows. It took us a long time to get to this point, and the only thing that is certain is that it will take a long time to get from here. The length of time it takes will be determined by the effort that both the industry and the Government are prepared to put in to turning the situation around. That is why a strategy such as this, led by the Government but with proper buy-in from the industry, will be crucial.

It may well be that as the industry develops, people will of their own volition see it as a more attractive proposition for the future, but that is certainly not the case now. I am open to argument as to whether it is necessary to have this issue in the Bill, but I want to see some movement on it, because as the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport said at the end of his speech moving the amendment, we are in a quite dreadful situation at the moment, where fishing boats in parts of Scotland remain tied up because they cannot get the crew. We know that there are crew out there willing to work here, but they are unable to come here and we do not have the home-grown crew to put on those boats.

[David Duguid]

As the shadow Minister noted, as we leave the EU we will no longer have freedom of movement, but is it not the case, certainly in Scotland, that the vast majority of the foreign workers that the fishing industry is dependent on comes from outside the European economic area?

[Mr Carmichael]

It is very much the case. I think principally they are Filipinos, but there are some Ghanaians and people from other seafaring countries, and generally their contribution is very well regarded. I am constantly getting emails from skippers who are asking for a visa renewal for this or that individual. We are now in a bizarre situation where the only way we can get non-EEA nationals on to a boat is for them to have a transit visa—that is, they effectively come in as merchant seamen, which then requires the boats to operate outside territorial waters.

[Bill Grant (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (Con)]

I certainly share some of the sentiments expressed by my colleagues. In particular, speaking to skippers on the west coast of Scotland, one of the major issues is getting people to crew the vessels. While it is admirable that there are discussions on developing a strategy, does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the immigration policy has an immense part to play in securing staff for the vessels, and that the industry itself—which can be very financially rewarding, given the right climate and conditions—has an immense part to play in again attracting people to join it?

[Mr Carmichael]

That is absolutely the position. I know it is not the Minister’s responsibility and this is about the skills strategy, but every time we debate this, the Immigration Minister always says, “Well, of course, what we want to be doing is growing our own labour.” She is right about that; so here is an opportunity for the Government to follow through on their good intentions and ensure that we start to grow that labour for ourselves.

[Mr Paul Sweeney (Glasgow North East) (Lab/Co-op)]

The right hon. Gentleman represents an island community; the distinctive needs of island communities must be reflected in this Bill. Does he recognise that the general trend is that fishing tends to be a family trade? Perhaps we could look at ways to ensure that the trade becomes something that people choose to migrate to island and highland communities for. Would that not be beneficial?

[Mr Carmichael]

That would be beneficial. I can think of a number of people I have known over the years who have done exactly as the hon. Gentleman suggests. However, the pool will still be those who grow up in fishing industries, who—to pick up on the earlier point by the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport—get their first interest piqued by recreational angling. Those living in island or coastal communities can become interested when all the opportunities are around them.

The Minister has been to the NAFC fisheries college in Scalloway, Shetland. He has praised its work, as we all do. It is a fantastic institution, but it lives pretty much hand to mouth. With the best will in the world, there are not the resources at the moment to ensure a secure future for an institution such as that. If that formed part of a strategy, which would have to be a wide exercise, there would be an obvious sea of opportunity for institutions such as that. I commend the hon. Gentleman for moving the amendment; I suggest it is significant and an opportunity for the Minister to make good some of the sentiments that we have heard from Ministers in other Departments.

[George Eustice]

Right hon. and hon. Members have raised a very important issue. They will appreciate that it is predominantly an issue on which other Departments lead, such as the Department for Education on apprenticeships. Immigration, particularly of non-EEA crews, which is a contentious issue in parts of the UK—notably in Northern Ireland and Scotland—is a matter for the Home Office. Nevertheless, I have made representations on behalf of the industry to Home Office Ministers. At a recent debate, I said I would go back and have that discussion again. Right hon. and hon. Members will appreciate that I have not quite had the time to do that yet, but it remains on my to-do list. I will engage on the matter of non-EEA crews with the Home Office in the new year.

When it comes to skills, I am aware that some specific fishing issues have meant that the apprenticeships model has not always worked as well as it should. One of the issues that the industry has raised is that there is a practice of giving a share of the catch value to the fishermen on crews, which does not always sit very easily with how apprenticeships are structured, because those involved have to be on a fixed salary to access them. There are some challenging issues, such as that one, which the Department for Education is looking at.

However, I want to limit my comments to what the fishing industry is doing. The seafood industry leadership group, which has been sponsored and supported by the levy body Seafish, has established a special authority to deliver its Seafood 2040 strategy. Part of that includes delivery of a single cross-sector seafood training and skills plan and supporting businesses in the seafood supply chain to recruit workers with suitable skills.

We recently announced an additional £37.2 million of funding for new projects approved under the European maritime and fisheries fund during 2019 and 2020. Some of those projects could include the delivery of skills and training. In addition, we have announced that the Government will put in place new domestic long-term arrangements to support the UK’s fishing industry from 2021, with new schemes to support that.

Across the country we have some centres of excellence for training when it comes to fisheries. In England, we have the Whitby & District Fishing Industry Training School, which has a great track record. As a mentioned earlier, I visited Shetland with the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland a few years ago, which the marine training school is based. In recent years we have trained several hundred new fishermen through the various schemes, so it is not all bad news, but I recognise that there is more to do. In particular, that project of the seafood industry leadership group is best placed to pull together a skills plan in the area in question.

Skills is a devolved issue, and the inference with respect to new clause 24 is that there would be a UK-wide skills strategy, as there is a requirement to consult Scottish and Welsh Ministers and the Northern Ireland Department. I suspect that Scottish Ministers in particular would want rather more than a consultation on a devolved area. We can address the matter as England, and it will be for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland to address it for themselves.

I hope that I have reassured the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport that I agree that this is an important issue and that there have been difficulties in the past with some design features of the apprenticeship scheme. We have raised those previously with ministerial colleagues and they have sought to address them. However, the new clause goes somewhat beyond the scope of the Bill, which deals with fisheries management and opportunities, rather than skills. Skills are a matter for a different Department.

--- Later in debate ---

Division 13

Ayes: 6

---

Labour: 5
Liberal Democrat: 1

Noes: 9

---

Conservative: 9

[Mr Carmichael]

I beg to move amendment 35, in clause 42, page 26, line 35, after “appoint” insert

“, provided such day shall not be later than 31 December 2020.”.

To ensure that the UK leaves the EU Common Fisheries Policy no later than December 2020.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 1, in clause 42, page 26, line 35, at end insert—

“(3A) The Secretary of State must make regulations under subsection (3) so that all provisions of this Act come into force no later than 31 December 2020.”.

[Mr Carmichael]

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

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

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

[Alan Brown]

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

[Mr Carmichael]

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[George Eustice]

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

[Mr Carmichael]

rose—

[George Eustice]

I will give way in a moment, but I want to clarify a point that I made earlier about tariffs, because I know that it raised eyebrows. The position is that if there is not a fisheries agreement, and if the backstop applies, there will indeed be tariffs on fisheries and agriculture products. However, special arrangements would be made to ensure that Northern Ireland vessels that land in Northern Ireland—and only Northern Ireland vessels that land in Northern Ireland—would not have to pay tariffs, although tariffs would apply to fish moved from Great Britain to Northern Ireland. I thought I should take the opportunity to correct the record because my earlier description was less comprehensive than it should have been, although elements of it were correct.

[Mr Carmichael]

“Less comprehensive than it should have been” is a very nice way of describing it. Should I take it from what the Minister says that, of the two options he describes, the backstop rather than an extended transition period would be preferable for the fishing industry?

[George Eustice]

From the very narrow perspective of the fishing industry, that is almost certainly the case. In the backstop, we would have complete control of our waters, whereas if the implementation period were extended, the current rules would continue to apply.

[Mr Carmichael]

How likely does the Minister think it that when the Cabinet comes to consider the position, as it will almost certainly have to at some point, the fishing industry will have its way against the other considerations under discussion?

[George Eustice]

Highly likely. One thing I can tell hon. Members is that the Prime Minister has absolutely championed fisheries throughout the negotiations. Indeed, that is the reason for the amendments that we have made and the reason why the withdrawal agreement made none of the concessions on fisheries that several people had anticipated. It was a clear red line that the Government held to.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Carmichael]

In saying that the Prime Minister has championed the fishing industry throughout the negotiations, the Minister is being a little less comprehensive than he might be. May I remind him that it was the Prime Minister and the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) who agreed to the industry’s being put into the transitional arrangements? If she had been championing it at that point, that would never have happened.

[George Eustice]

I understand the right hon. Gentleman’s point, but I strongly disagree. I was involved in the final run-up to the withdrawal agreement. Of course there was pressure from the EU to give undertakings on access, but we refused to give any such undertakings. I believe that the agreement we have will be absolutely right for the fishing industry.

[Mr Carmichael]

If the Minister is right about that, why were Ministers, especially the Prime Minister, still making the promise until a couple of weeks before it was eventually sold out?

[George Eustice]

Both the Secretary of State and I argued clearly and strongly—and the Prime Minister shared our view—that it would have been preferable for fisheries not to be covered by the implementation period. We do not necessarily think that that was even necessary, but ultimately the transition period is a short one that lasts only until the end of December 2020. In the interests of an orderly Brexit, it was a concession that had to be made to get an implementation period for the short term. When it comes to our long-term partnership, we have been absolutely clear that we will make no such concessions.

Let me return to the amendments. Their impact would clearly be to make it rather more difficult for the Government to choose a course of action that extended the implementation period; indeed, that is probably the intention behind them. The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport, asked how that could be undone. As with the previous amendment, it would require primary legislation. Things can always be undone, but that would need a Bill with parliamentary support, so it would not be easy to remove such a provision.

--- Later in debate ---

[George Eustice]

That is not what I am saying at all. I am saying that the amendment is unnecessary because we are confident that we will get a withdrawal agreement with the European Union. I am confident that will take effect before the end of the implementation period, and therefore I am confident that we will be negotiating as an independent coastal state in December 2020.

In so far as some people may have some doubt about the nature of the withdrawal agreement and what type of arrangement we might finally get with the European Union, my message is this: let us see what happens in January. Those events will transpire before this Bill returns on Report, at which stage we will be in a more informed position to make a judgement on such amendments. Therefore, I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Banff and Buchan and the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland will keep their powder dry and consider this matter at a future date.

I do not know how many people are watching this sitting, but if there are many of them, as the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport has said, I am delighted that there is such interest in this vital industry and in our taking back control of our own waters.

[Mr Carmichael]

If we ever make kicking the can down the road an Olympic sport, Ministers in this Government would win gold, silver and bronze virtually in perpetuity.

First, let me say that I do not doubt for a second the Minister’s commitment to our fishing industry. That is why I am keen that we get him out to Brussels tonight to do the year-end negotiation. However, whatever words were coming out of his mouth, his body language was slightly different, and I think that the confidence that he speaks of is not actually met, and is certainly not matched, in the industry.

I pushed the Minister with a number of interventions in the course of his speech, not just because it was entertaining sport, although it undoubtedly is and can be, but because I wanted members of the Committee to see the position that the Government are in—the whole series of contradictions and broken promises that have brought us to this stage.

The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan said that his is a probing amendment. That matters, because if he were to vote with us—presuming that every Opposition member of the Committee were to support my amendment—the proposed date would go in the Bill. On the question of jam tomorrow, if, as the Minister says, there is a different situation come January, it would be open to the Government to table amendments on Report and change the date back again, or they could propose a different date, whatever that would be.

The amendment would send a greatly reassuring signal to the industry that it was being listened to and that its concerns were being acted on, and that the Government were not going to simply take things on trust. The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan, who added his name to a virtually identical amendment, has the opportunity to deliver that and make the change. It is for him to decide. He is ultimately accountable to his constituents; we are all accountable to our constituents. It is for him to decide whether he takes the assurances from the Minister, given all their various inconsistencies and contradictions. For that reason, I will not withdraw my amendment but press it to a vote.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

[Luke Pollard]

The Minister could have called this the sustainable fisheries Bill. That missed opportunity could have been reflected in the short title. It would have sent a strong message to the industry and to all those people in fisheries that we will create a sustainable fishery after Brexit. That could have been put on the face of the Bill, but as the Opposition are not allowed to table amendments to a short title, we were unable to do that.

[Mr Carmichael]

Given the refusal to include commitments to the principle of maximum sustainable yield or the multiple amendments that Opposition Members have tabled—all of which have been rebuffed by the Minister and the Government—does the hon. Gentleman not think that the Government have got the title right?

[Luke Pollard]

The right hon. Gentleman steals my final line. We would have tabled an amendment, but we needed to make sure that the content was right. As such, we cannot do anything with it, so I will sit down.

Fisheries Bill (Ninth sitting)

Alistair Carmichael Excerpts

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

[The Chair]

I welcome colleagues to a potentially full Monday.

Clause 23

Discard prevention charging schemes

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

I beg to move amendment 103, in clause 23, page 13, line 28, at end insert—

“(c) where monies raised through a charging scheme are spent.”

To bring transparency over use of money raised through a charging scheme, and to allow for it to be argued for a revenue to be ringfenced to be spent on research and investment in the industry.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 104, in clause 23, page 14, line 7, at end insert—

“(8) The Secretary of State must publish a report every year that reviews the charging scheme. This review will include—

(a) the amount of revenue raised through the scheme, and

(b) the use of revenue raised through the scheme.”

To require the Secretary of State to publish an annual review of the charging scheme.

[Mr Carmichael]

It is a pleasure to be back here under your chairmanship, Mr Hanson. If you will indulge me, I will say a brief word about the conduct of the Committee’s business, which has been exemplary so far. We have managed to get through a lot of business. Nobody has taken too long, but we have managed a thorough exploration of the issues. You might be aware, Mr Hanson, that this week is significant for fishing communities, coinciding as it does with the advent of the annual December Fisheries Council in Brussels. Many of us here represent fishing communities and we know the importance of having the best possible representation at the highest possible level from our own Government. It is a fairly common view within our communities that the Minister should be there in attendance if possible. We therefore wish to finish the business of the Committee tonight if possible. Obviously, the matter is of long-term importance, but, for the communities that we represent, what happens in Brussels in the next day or two will be significant.

[The Chair]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his comments, but it is a matter for every member of the Committee to determine when we complete our business. Sittings are planned until Wednesday, but if Members restrain themselves, completing business tonight could be achieved.

[Mr Carmichael]

Indeed, Mr Hanson. I will simply say this: not only from the point of view of those of us who represent fishing communities, but from the point of view of Parliament as a whole, it will do no harm for MPs to be seen at least in this regard as behaving like mature grown-ups.

The Committee will be aware that clause 23 seeks to introduce a discard prevention charging scheme for those who, for whatever reason, have taken over-quota fish. The amendments try to add a little more focus to that. Amendment 103 allows for the money taken from these finds to be ring-fenced and a specific purpose for the money to be identified. The specific purpose that I have in mind relates to fisheries management, conservation, and perhaps maritime or marine environmental schemes—measures of that sort. Given the general nature of the Bill, and with a view to the durability of the legislation, we have not sought to tie the hands of any future Minister with regard to what that specific purpose might ultimately be. It is a fairly novel approach to a scheme of this sort, but it is not without precedent.

The precedent that springs most readily to mind is the aggregates levy, which allowed money to be ring-fenced for spending in communities situated next to aggregate excavation quarries because they were in some way affected by the industry. It would be a very good signal to send, and such a measure would bring about a bit of confidence in the industry itself with regard to how the discard prevention charging scheme is administered.

Amendment 104 would make provision for an annual review to account for the money raised and how it has been spent. That would follow on naturally from amendment 103—if the Committee were minded to incorporate such a measure. It is an important point, but not one that at this stage, subject to what I might hear from the Minster, I intend to push to a vote.

[Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is good to see everyone back here. I think we all agree that discards should be prevented, and we all want more sustainable forms of fishing, but the discard ban that will kick in on 1 January worries fishers from Cornwall and Plymouth to Peterhead and Fraserburgh. They worry that their boats will be tied up because the ban will prevent them from going to sea.

We need a system that prevents discards and means fish caught without a quota are not wasted, chucked overboard or discarded. We heard in our evidence sessions from Aaron Brown of Fishing for Leave, who feels there are major problems with this part of the Bill. Helen McLachlan, and Debbie Crockard of the Marine Conservation Society, referred to the uncertainty about the consequences—intended and, importantly, unintended —of the scheme. Even Dr O’Brien did not entirely convince us that he knew how the scheme would work.

The amendments tabled by the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland seem entirely sensible, but we are not convinced that the Government have suddenly found the right answer. It undermines this enabling Bill to set out the scheme in such detail without any scope for piloting or consultation to see what works and to develop the detail of the scheme in collaboration with fishers and marine conservation organisations.

I therefore would be grateful if the Minister answered a few questions about this part of the Bill. Where did the basis for the scheme come from? Are there any precedents in other countries? What evidence did the Department draw on when designing the scheme? What industry views were sought, what opinions were given, and how were they taken into account? Why does the Department consider that it is not appropriate to conduct a pilot or trial to test the key elements of the scheme before it is enshrined in primary legislation? Under the scheme, what will happen to the fish that are landed? How will the Department avoid requiring fishers to go to and from harbour to land fish, thereby increasing their carbon footprint?

[The Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (George Eustice)]

It is, perhaps, pertinent that the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland raised the December Council, since it will be dominated by the issue of choke species and making the discard ban work in practice. I can briefly reassure him that I joined our delegation by conference call at eight this morning and again at two, and I plan to be on the first train out there tomorrow, when the substantive negotiations will take place. In the meantime, my noble Friend Lord Gardiner is covering proceedings.

We looked at the idea of a discard prevention charging scheme because we all know, as we approach the final year of the landing obligation, that there are challenges with making it work as far as choke species are concerned. The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport, asked whether there is precedent for such a scheme. Iceland and New Zealand both have similar schemes, with a kind of overage charge.

I was attracted to that idea because it is rather similar to what we did when we first introduced dairy quotas. Initially, if a farmer went over his quota for milk production, he had to pour the milk down the drain—he could not sell it at all. The super levy was then developed, which meant he could sell it but there would be no economic value to him for producing it. We seek to do something similar here. We will establish a national reserve of quota to underpin the discard prevention charge. Rather than coming up with lots of complex rules, like we have now, to try to find exemptions or other de minimis ways of managing the discard ban, we want to ensure that there is no financial incentive for fishermen to target those fish. However, we do not want to prevent them from landing those fish should they run into stocks they had sought to avoid.

The shadow Minister also asked about consultation. This idea was set out in some detail in our White Paper. Since the White Paper was published, my officials have travelled the country—they have visited fishing communities from Newlyn right up to the north of Scotland—to talk to the industry about the plans we have outlined. I think it is fair to say that the industry recognises that there are many challenges with making the discard ban and the landing obligation work in practice as well as in theory. That is why it is open to this approach, which has a proven track record in some countries.

Finally, the shadow Minister mentioned that we had put the scheme in the Bill without having a pilot or any detailed consultation. I reassure him that clause 23(1) is clear that this will be done through regulations. Before we lay those regulations, we absolutely will consult thoroughly with the industry to ensure that we get the scheme design right. I also reassure him that it is absolutely my intention that we will pilot the scheme before rolling it out nationally. It is obviously quite an important policy and will be quite an important departure from the scheme we have now, and we want to make sure that we have the design right. I hope that, having given that reassurance, the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland will not feel the need to press the amendments to a vote.

[Mr Carmichael]

I am not entirely sure that the Minister embraced the substance of the amendments—that the money raised by this scheme could be ring-fenced, and that there should be some reporting mechanism or accountability for it. I am not trying to be difficult. Perhaps the Minister would like to intervene on me?

[George Eustice]

I did indeed miss out a part of my notes. I reassure the right hon. Gentleman that we are absolutely committed to transparency, and that existing Treasury rules require us to publish this information. Under the Government Resources and Accounts Act 2000, the Treasury has already directed the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to prepare, for each financial year, consolidated resource accounts detailing the resources acquired, held or disposed of, and the Department’s use of resources during the year. If the intention behind the amendment is that the money should be ring-fenced for conservation purposes, that is set out in clause 27(3)(c).

[The Chair]

This is an intervention, Minister.

[Mr Carmichael]

I am grateful to the Minister for that helpful intervention. I and others strongly suspected that the Treasury would be the least fond of this proposal. The Minister has confirmed those suspicions. However, that is not an unreasonable explanation, and on that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[George Eustice]

I think we covered the key issues of the clause when I set out the purpose and the thinking behind the charging scheme.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 23 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 24

Meaning of “chargeable person” and “unauthorised catch of sea fish”

--- Later in debate ---

[George Eustice]

The purpose of this clause is simply to enable the Secretary of State, when setting up a charging scheme, to determine the functions of a charge collector, together with certain details such as terms of appointment and termination of the charge collector. Subsection (1) states that the Secretary of State can appoint a charge collector to administer the scheme and to specify the terms and termination of their appointment and functions they will carry out. Subsection (2) details the nature of the functions that may be conferred on the charge collector. Subsection (3) provides that the scheme may allow for duties to be placed on a charge collector after their appointment has been terminated. Subsection (4) allows a scheme to contain provision about appeals against decisions of charge collectors. Subsection (5) provides for the possibility that any expenditure incurred by the charge collector when exercising their functions can be recovered.

[Mr Carmichael]

Can the Minister confirm that, although these provisions exist, they are permissive and it would remain possible for Government Departments to carry out those functions?

[George Eustice]

Yes, that is absolutely the case. Indeed, it is likely to be the case that the Marine Management Organisation would perform those functions on behalf of the Government. The clause simply provides the opportunity for others to be involved, should that be required.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 26 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 27

Discard prevention charging schemes: supplementary provision

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Luke Pollard]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention: he is exactly right. Indeed, this weekend I had conversations with Destination Plymouth about the new tourism marketing plan for my own city. We were talking about how the value of recreational angling and sea fishing could be further embedded as part of the tourism product for the far south-west, which would create more jobs, so he is exactly right.

Coastal communities benefit when good fishing attracts anglers. Let us not tie any Minister’s hands but explicitly lay out in the Bill that they have the power to award recreational fishing the grants it needs to grow our economy and grow the love of our marine environment.

New clause 25 also relates to the ability to provide financial assistance for recreational fishing and its importance as part of the wider development of sustainable practices in recreational fishing. According to figures from DEFRA—the Minister’s own Department—recreational fishing and sea angling are worth about £2 billion to the UK economy, generate about 20,000 jobs and support thousands of coastal businesses. Sometimes the economic benefits of the recreational sector can outweigh those of the commercial sector, but as we have heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd, it is not spoken about enough. We need to be louder and prouder about the contribution that recreational angling can make to our coastal towns.

In this Committee’s evidence sessions on the Bill, the Angling Trust rightly said that one of the “great failures” of the common fisheries policy was the failure to recognise recreational angling as a legitimate stakeholder in European fisheries. The Bill could put right that failure of the CFP. We could do that today by stating in the Bill that the UK Government recognise recreational sea angling as a direct user and legitimate stakeholder in the fisheries. That would be a win-win situation, as it would add to the very welcome news that we will have access to EMFF funding—I hope the Minister will confirm that. We need recreational fishing to be loud and proud on the face of the Bill, to send a message to the people engaged in the sector that we want that part of the economy to grow further, and that we value it.

[Mr Carmichael]

I agree with just about everything the hon. Gentleman has said. This is a good example of how a small measure of Government investment could have a transformative effect and bring manifold returns. Some decades ago, the Highlands and Islands Development Board installed mooring buoys throughout the highlands and islands, which allowed many yachtsmen and other sailors to enjoy that part of the countryside. It brought in a tremendous amount of income, and tourism burgeoned over the years. The same is possible for those who are trying to increase recreational angling.

The hon. Gentleman’s amendment is very modest: it requires that consultation be held. It does not bind any Minister or future Minister to do anything. It is pretty clear that if we just leave this and wait for something to happen, it almost certainly never will.

[George Eustice]

I declare an interest: my brother is a keen angler who targets bass off the Cornish coasts, so I regularly hear from him about these issues.

--- Later in debate ---

[George Eustice]

As I said, the Government have considered carefully the delegated powers in the Bill and the procedures that should apply to regulations. I will not rehearse the points I made about delegated powers and the precedents for this, but I will give the hon. Gentleman an indication of the technical issues that regulations under this part of the Bill may deal with. They may cover issues such as the catching, landing or selling of sea fish below a certain size—the minimum conservation reference size, as it is sometimes called—and the design of sea-fishing equipment. They may involve introducing a new selectivity measure for the squid fishery off the coast of his constituency, for instance. They may also involve minor issues to do with monitoring or enforcement of compliance.

We have a large number of technical conservation regulations under the existing common fisheries policy—some 90 bodies of regulations cover all sorts of things, from landing sizes to mesh sizes and from closures to prohibitions on landing small-eyed ray. Those are generally dealt with through delegated Acts that come from the Commission. We must have the power to make in-year amendments so that we can react quickly to changing circumstances by taking a stock off the prohibited list or putting it back on, and it is important that we have the ability to act expeditiously to manage our marine environment. Given that we have some 90 bodies of EU regulations and some 300 or 400 different technical regulations in total, I question whether there is appetite in this place for debating each and every one of those changes. The situation can be very dynamic and dozens of changes are made in a typical year.

On that basis, I hope that the hon. Gentleman does not see the need to press the amendment to a vote, and that I have been able to reassure him why we chose the negative resolution procedure rather than the affirmative procedure in this case.

[Mr Carmichael]

I have lost count of the number of debates I have sat through in which we discussed whether to use the negative or affirmative procedure—“must” or “may”—but on this occasion the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport hits on a substantial point.

As we heard, the scope of regulations made under clauses 31 and 33 is defined by clause 34, which provides inter alia in subsection (2) that regulations made under clauses 31 or 33

“may create a criminal offence, but not one punishable with imprisonment.”

I am not surprised that imprisonment is not included, because I suspect the bulk of the offences created would be committed primarily by bodies corporate rather than private individuals. Notwithstanding that, offences created by regulations of this sort often attract financial penalties that run to several thousand pounds—sometimes tens of thousands of pounds—so they are not insignificant.

I deeply regret not challenging the Minister on this point when we debated clause 34.

[George Eustice]

I draw the right hon. Gentleman’s attention to clause 36(2), which sets out clearly:

“Regulations under section 31 or 33 are subject to the affirmative resolution procedure”

if they cover a number of issues, including anything creating a criminal offence. Subsection (3) relates to the use of negative procedure on regulations left after those that fall under subsection (2) are taken out.

[Mr Carmichael]

That answers my point. I do not think I need detain the Committee any longer.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Sweeney]

I do not think that is how devolution works. Devolution is a collaborative process. That is my reading of it. It is not a zero-sum game.

[Mr Carmichael]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, even where the Government in Edinburgh have agreed something with the Government in London, neither Government should expect to be immune from scrutiny by Parliament?

[Mr Sweeney]

I absolutely agree with that. In any system of democracy, at every tier there should be an element of interface and interaction, and that will be an ongoing process. It is not about a gradualist approach to independence, which is how the Scottish National party would like to view devolution. That is not how we view it. I will conclude, because there is no point in labouring this—pardon the pun—by saying that we accept that there is no agreement. It is unfortunate that we keep losing these votes on the negative emphasis versus the affirmative, but we are where we are in terms of the arithmetic. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, That the schedule be the Sixth schedule to the Bill.

Fisheries Bill (Seventh sitting)

Alistair Carmichael Excerpts

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

[Mr Paul Sweeney (Glasgow North East) (Lab/Co-op)]

rose—

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

rose—

[The Chair]

My brain has gone completely blank. The hon. Gentleman on the Opposition Front Bench—[Interruption.] It is Mr Sweeney.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Sweeney]

They would create a framework within which those opportunities could be generated by devolved Administrations. The Scottish Government could augment that. The amendment and new clause would create a fundamental framework that would drive demand into UK ports. That is the opportunity, which would be an important baseline measure in the Bill, and could be developed. We had an interesting debate yesterday on the centenary of the Iolaire disaster, and one of the conclusions was that highland and island communities suffer significant isolation, and that it is important that their distinctive economic and social needs should be met by Parliament. The amendment and new clause would benefit them a great deal.

[Mr Carmichael]

I have sympathy with the amendment, but I want to add a few words of caution. In my time in Parliament, I have often supported campaigns to land more fish in our own ports. Obviously it is important for the economic viability of coastal ports. My worry about the amendment is that the law of unintended consequences could come into play. Such a requirement would be quite challenging for some of the larger pelagic boats in my constituency. I anticipate that a significant proportion of their catch would probably currently be landed in Norway or Denmark. Essentially, my instinct is that fishing boats should be able to land wherever they get the best price for their fish. If the Government were to put into a Bill something that would limit that ability, it would be a bit of a blunt tool.

[David Duguid (Banff and Buchan) (Con)]

As the right hon. Gentleman and the Minister know, many of the concerns that the right hon. Gentleman raises would be shared by pelagic fishermen in my constituency as well. Clearly, they can, and choose to, land in Norway, Denmark and other places for economic and logistical reasons. Does he agree that if the Government or the Scottish Government or other devolved Administrations want to encourage the development of local industries, so that such economic and logistical benefits can be realised locally, that would be better than setting an arbitrary percentage limit?

[Mr Carmichael]

Yes. In essence I agree with the hon. Gentleman about that. When I practised law in his constituency, Macduff was omitted from the list of designated ports. That was virtually the end of—or it was at the time a real threat to—the processing that was done there. When we want to consider building infrastructure—not just landing infrastructure, but ice houses, processing plants and the rest—there are probably other ways we should go first, before doing something as blunt as what is proposed. In relation to this Bill, the National Federation of Fishermen’s Organisations is strongly advocating that we set up advisory councils for fisheries administration, for example. It seems to me that this is exactly the sort of decision that those advisory councils should be tackling, because the fishing industry itself knows best how to deal with that infrastructure.

--- Later in debate ---

[Peter Aldous]

It is a pleasure to serve again under your chairmanship, Mr Gray. I will speak to amendment 92 and new clause 9 in my name, which relate to electric pulse fishing.

As we heard from the Opposition spokesman, pulse fishing is the process by which commercial trawlers, towing electrodes, emit bursts of electricity into the seabed to force out fish such as flatfish, shrimp, sole and plaice buried in the mud. The electric shock makes the fish convulse and flip upwards into the trawler’s net. The method is not used by British-owned vessels; it is practised largely by the Dutch in the North sea, often in British waters. They argue that pulse fishing is better for the environment than traditional trawling and, as we have heard, they have issued permits for up to 100 pulse trawlers to operate. They point out that pulse trawlers use up to 46% less fuel and catch 50% less unwanted marine life than other trawlers.

However, the practice is strongly opposed by English and French fishermen, who have seen its devastating impact at first hand. Moreover, there is a lack of scientific evidence to justify it generally, although the Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science is carrying out extensive ongoing research. The feedback I receive from East Anglian fishermen is that pulse trawling has a devastating effect on the marine environment. They find dead fish left behind with broken backs. The practice rips up life on the seabed surface and uses large scouring devices to extract buried fish, damaging underlying sediment. The practice is indiscriminate and is destroying a variety of marine life and ecosystems, particularly in the North sea.

As we have heard, pulse fishing is technically illegal in the EU, the US and China. However, an exemption allows EU countries to catch up to 5% of their annual fishing quota in the North sea using what are termed “innovative” methods in the name of research. For some reason, pulse fishing is one of those methods. In January, the European Parliament voted to ban commercial fishing using an electric current in EU waters. The amendment calling for a total ban on pulse fishing was passed by 402 votes to 232, with 40 abstentions, although the ban has not yet come into place.

I summarise my thoughts as follows. First, in pursuing the precautionary approach, given the clear evidence of its devastating impact, pulsing should not take place at all. The Dutch argue that they are conducting a trial. In practice, it is no such thing. They have set up a whole industry based on a completely inappropriate fishing practice. They have exploited a loophole in the common fisheries policy and EU regulations for their own commercial advantage. There must be no such loopholes in our UK fishing policy, for which the Bill will provide the framework.

Secondly, pulse fishing has a devastating impact both at sea and on land. It destroys the marine environment and takes fish that should be caught and landed by UK fishermen and processed in Britain back to the Netherlands, and then, absurdly, often back to the UK for sale.

Thirdly, although the practice still takes place, it has been condemned and voted down by the European Parliament. The UK Parliament should do likewise. In some respects, I accept that primary legislation such as this Bill may well not be the right place for such a ban on a specific practice. However, we need to send a clear message right from the outset that there is no place for electro-pulse fishing in the future management of UK waters when we leave the EU and when the Bill, which I assume will receive Royal Assent, comes into effect. The Minister and I have spoken at length on this matter over the last few months. I am grateful to him for doing that. In answering, can he provide me with an assurance that electro-pulse fishing stops immediately that we leave the EU and the Bill comes into force? If he cannot, I believe the ban needs to be on the face of the Bill.

[Mr Carmichael]

I think it is fairly well known in the House that I am essentially a simple soul. I lead my life according to some basic rules, from which I do not depart. One of them is to never mix water and electricity. No good ever comes of it. This amendment touches on one other example of that basic truth, from which we should not depart. It is quite remarkable that occasionally the industry manages to throw up new, innovative ways of doing things that are self-evidently wrong.

When I was first elected to this House, one of the biggest complaints from the industry at that time was the operation of the Danish industrial fishery in the North sea hoovering up just about anything that was in the water, with mesh sizes in the region of 2 mm or 3 mm. It was as unsustainable a fishing method as one could imagine, and it was rightly stopped—eventually. This is another such example. It is self-evident that this sort of thing should not be allowed. The precautionary principle, about which the hon. Member for Waveney spoke, is absolutely the right approach to take. Whether that needs to done through primary legislation is another matter, but we have primary legislation. This is the first time in my 17 and a half years as a Member of Parliament that we have had a specific fishing Bill. Since we have it, why do we not use it?

[George Eustice]

This is an important issue, which I have discussed many times with my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney. I want to explain the arguments that advocates of pulse trawling put forward, the arguments against it, and my position and the one we have therefore adopted within the EU at the moment, as well as how I tend to address this issue. I think I have a solution that may be even faster than the passage of the Bill.

The advocates of pulse trawling make a reasonable argument that conventional beam trawling literally drags a chain across the seabed, destroying and crushing everything in its path, to get flat fish to jump up into the nets, whereas a pulse beam trawler does not drag a chain across the floor of the seabed, but hovers above the seabed and sends the electric pulse down. There is evidence that this type of fishing uses less fuel, so the carbon footprint of fishing vessels using this method is lower.

However, the opponents—I am one—point to a number of other problems. First—this is why fishermen in my hon. Friend’s constituency are so concerned—although pulse trawling does not disturb the seabed to the same extent as conventional beam trawling, it makes it possible to fish areas that could not otherwise be fished. Paradoxically, the ability to fish parts of the ocean where conventional gear types could not have gone means that areas of the seabed that might have been seen as a sanctuary for some flat fish, because it was technically not possible to fish them, can now be fished. That increases fishing pressure, because there are more vessels able to catch more fish in more areas, more quickly.

Secondly, as my hon. Friend pointed out, there are lots of anecdotal reports of gadoids, in particular cod, having their backs broken by this technique. There is evidence from some of the tank studies that it can affect the navigation of some fish. The electric pulse can disturb their navigation and affect their ability to feed and migrate. The third problem is that we do not really know what impact the electric pulse might be having on smaller organisms—young fry, small lobsters, eggs and other types of early-developing sea life. We do not know the full impact of that, and there are concerns that it could be having a detrimental effect, breaking the food chain and therefore causing other problems.

--- Later in debate ---

[Luke Pollard]

Following the hon. Gentleman’s speech, we are all now aware of the humble sand eel, which is an important component of food webs in the north Atlantic. It is at the bottom of the marine food chain and is part of the diet of cod, mackerel, porpoises and seabirds such as Arctic terns and kittiwakes, especially in breeding season.

We also need to be aware of research led by the British Trust for Ornithology and the Joint Nature Conservation Committee that indicates that populations of kittiwakes, terns, fulmars and shags are impacted by sand eel farming in the North sea. Those conservationists are concerned that the boats that catch thousands of tonnes of sand eels each year to be turned into animal feed and fertiliser deprive seabirds of a vital source of food.

We have heard calls for a ban on sand eel fishing in the central North sea, most recently from the Fishing for Leave representative in our evidence session, but we would like more evidence about the practice. I would be grateful if the Minister dealt with how we can pick up the points raised by the hon. Member for Waveney but also ensure there is sufficient scientific evidence and understanding of the stock baseline for sand eels, which seem at the moment to be missing from the debate.

[Mr Carmichael]

Anyone seeking evidence of the issue the hon. Member for Waveney raised is more than welcome to come and visit us in Orkney or Shetland and look at the cliffs. Cliffs that were once white with seabirds and other things—evidence of seabirds—are often empty at times of the year when they should be full. That causes enormous concern in our community. It is a good example of the way an ecosystem-based approach can bring benefits to the community beyond the fishing industry. Nature tourism is one of the liveliest and most rapidly growing sectors in our local economy, and it is a welcome boost. The sand eel fishery self-evidently has been a foolish enterprise for many years, and I very much endorse the hon. Gentleman’s comments and his efforts to end it.

[George Eustice]

My hon. Friend the Member for Waveney, having got important concessions on the Dutch fleet, turns his attention to taking on the Danes. As he knows, sand eels are a shared stock, but about 90% of the sand eels caught in the UK’s exclusive economic zone are caught by the Danish fleet around Dogger Bank, although Sweden also has some interest in this area.

We are giving consideration to the issue, but, as my hon. Friend acknowledges, access to the sand eel stock is the most important access that Denmark receives from the UK, so we will have to consider it in the context of our annual fisheries exchanges. There is a full data assessment for the stock, and ICES provides annual recommendations for a TAC on sand eels in the Dogger Bank area. In recent years, with the exception only of 2016, the TAC has been set in line with ICES recommendations.

The issue with a unilateral ban on the fishing of all sand eels in all UK waters is that we would be likely simply to displace that fishing activity, so there would be unsustainable catches of sand eels in waters outside the UK EEZ. However, my hon. Friend highlighted a number of measures we could consider to address that. First, as he pointed out, the so-called Wee Bankie sand eel fishery has been closed since 2000. As we leave the EU, I certainly would like to explore whether we could consider a similar closure in a particular area to try to protect the sand eel population closer to shore, where birds are more likely to be, so they have a food source.

The second approach to which my hon. Friend alluded is to do something more akin to what we do in some shellfish sectors. We have a principle in cockle fisheries of reserving a proportion of cockles for wading birds so we do not deprive them of a food source. Local inshore fisheries and conservation authorities take into account the needs of wild birds when setting catch limits for cockles. Given the way ICES advice is generated, based as it is on maximum sustainable yield, it tends not to place great weight on such considerations, but there is no reason why, in the context of future UK-EU bilateral negotiations, we should not seek to argue that there should be more restraint on species such as sand eels where they have an important role as a food source for birds.

This is a complex area, and some scientists would say that it is not just sand eels that are used but other species, too. However, I am certainly happy to say that we will look at it, and I hope my hon. Friend does not feel the need to press the amendment to a vote.

Fisheries Bill (Eighth sitting)

Alistair Carmichael Excerpts

Thursday 13th December 2018 Public Bill Committees

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

I beg to move amendment 25, in clause 18, page 10, line 3, leave out paragraph (b) and insert�

�(1A) Determinations under subsection (1) must by 2020 at the latest must not exceed the FMSY reference point and be in accordance with international law, having regard to the interdependence of stocks, in order to maintain the stock population above a level capable of producing the maximum sustainable yield and to ensure long-term viability of the stock population.�

The purpose of this amendment is to set a target of 2020 for catch limits to be set at sustainable levels. It also removes the power of the Secretary of State to set fishing limits in line with the �days at sea� approach which can lead to overfishing.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 59, in clause�18,�page�10,�line�4,�at end insert�

�(1A) In making a determination under subsection (1), the Secretary of State must ensure that any maximum quantity of sea fish that may be caught by British fishing boats does not exceed the amount that, in the Secretary of State�s view, the best available scientific evidence suggests would ensure that populations of harvested species are restored and maintained above biomass levels and harvested at mortality rates capable of producing maximum sustainable yield.�

This amendment would require the Secretary of State to ensure that the determination of the maximum quantity of sea fish caught does not exceed the level required to produce a maximum sustainable yield, based on scientific evidence.

Amendment 105, in clause�18,�page�10,�line�4,�at end insert�

�(1A) No determination of effort quota under subsection (1)(b) may be made until the completion of a trial for the relevant area of sea, stocks fished, fishing methods used, documentation methods used and any other relevant considerations that demonstrates that there is no possibility of such a determination causing�

(a) a detriment to the achievement to any of the fisheries objectives;

(b) exceeding the maximum sustainable yield of any stock;

(c) reducing the accuracy of the recording of catches;

(d) increasing the risk of danger to the crew of fishing boats.�

This amendment would prevent the Secretary of State making a determination of effort quota until a days at sea trial has been completed and shown not to cause adverse impacts.

Amendment 26, in clause�18,�page�10,�line�19,�leave out paragraph (b).

The purpose of this amendment is to remove the power of the Secretary of State to set fishing limits in line with the �days at sea� approach which can lead to overfishing.

Amendment 27, in clause�18,�page�10,�line�29,�leave out subsection (8).

The purpose of this amendment is to remove the power of the Secretary of State to set fishing limits in line with the �days at sea� approach which can lead to overfishing.

[Mr Carmichael]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hanson. Amendment 25 would reassert the commitment to reaching the maximum sustainable yield threshold, to which we are currently permitted as part of the common fisheries policy, by 2020. The amendment was drafted by Greener UK and it has the support of a number of environmental lobby groups.

This is probably one of the most significant amendments that we will consider; it certainly comes to the heart of the matter. The lack of proper reference to the maximum sustainable yield is one of the most worrying aspects of the Bill. There is a nod toward this early in the Bill, but otherwise it is pretty well absent. I know there are concerns in the industry about maximum sustainable yields, but this is a commitment we have made and I am concerned that, at the very least, the Committee should hear an explanation from the Minister of why, at this stage, we should seek to walk away from it. I suggest that that is a somewhat poor signal to send.

--- Later in debate ---

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

Will the right hon. Gentleman advise us how amendment 25 would work in relation to the devolved Administrations managing stock and quotas?

[Mr Carmichael]

I would very much hope that they, too, would be working with a maximum sustainable yield principle. I am not aware of any suggestion that they would not.

[Luke Pollard]

We appreciate the argument for amendment 25. The Opposition have committed to leaving the European Union without any roll-back of environmental standards and MSY by 2020 seems to be a glaring omission from this Bill. The Minister will know that we are signed up to that under the common fisheries policy and that it is Government policy under the UN sustainable development goals to continue to be signed up to MSY by 2020. However, I suspect he will say that, given that the Bill is set to come into force beyond that point, it is no longer necessary to have that commitment in the Bill. While I see his argument there, it is not good enough; we must strive to ensure that MSY is a guiding principle of how fisheries are looked at. That is why the Opposition have tabled amendment 59, in a similar vein to amendment 25, tabled by the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland.

We note that amendment 25 seeks to remove days at sea and effort-based quota provision. We will discuss days at sea in more detail later, on amendments 26 and 27 and our amendment 23, but in short, we do not want to exclude it from the Bill entirely, as some fisheries are already captured by this form of fishing. Any new effort-based quota allocation should be able to take place only following a robust trial�something that was featured in the White Paper, but which has mysteriously disappeared from the text of the Bill. We think amendment 59 is better placed than amendment 25: fishers need fish to fish, and thriving fish stocks are critical for a profitable and prosperous industry. They are affected by factors outside our immediate control�the temperature and acidity of the sea, for instance�but one thing we can and do control to ensure thriving and healthy fish stocks is how much fish we take from the seas.

Dr Abigail McQuatters-Gollop, a lecturer in marine conservation at the University of Plymouth, in the patch I represent, said:

�Decisions about how much we take from marine environment has to be based on scientific episode and needs to be a duty not an objective.�

The view that MSY is not firmed up enough in the Bill is shared by key environmental stakeholders and across the industry. Griffin Carpenter, from the New Economics Foundation, who gave evidence to this Committee, said,

�Something I think is missing from the Bill�is commitments to maximum sustainable yield�not just the stock commitment but the flow�Many of us were surprised that was not in the Bill.���[Official Report, Fisheries Public Bill Committee, 6 December 2018; c. 107, Q205.]

Helen McLachlan, also speaking to the Committee, said that the 2020 deadline turned things around in the EU from short-term policy making that overshot scientific evidence and increased biomass and decreased mortality and that, if we lose it, we take a backward step.

It is important that the debate around MSY is comprehensive and based on sound evidence. We must not lose that from the debate. We need to ensure that tone and that sentiment, which the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland raised, throughout the Bill and in the messaging we give. That is why MSY by 2020 is such an important consideration.

--- Later in debate ---

[George Eustice]

We received some interesting evidence on this from Dr Carl O�Brien from the Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science, who is the leading expert on this. I know that a number of green NGOs have suggested that they would like to see the language tightened here, but we have to listen to those who have the greatest experience in managing maximum sustainable yield and in calculating the measurements, and direct experience of the negotiations. As he pointed out, there are two dangers. In a mixed fishery it is simply a scientific impossibility to set every species at MSY. When they are in a mixed fishery, it is necessary to place some at the lower end of the MSY range and some at the upper end. There will be challenges, as we have heard with choke species.

Secondly, Norway, for example, uses MSY as one of its guides, but not its only guide�it uses other scientific metrics as well. There will be times when it will make sense for us to reach an accommodation with countries such as Norway about the shared management of a shared stock, in order to ensure we have sustainable fishing. If we do not allow ourselves any flexibility to broach such a discussion with Norway and reach such an agreement, the only outcome is that everybody walks away from the table without an agreement and unilaterally sets their own fishing opportunities, which is the worst of all worlds for our marine environment.

This is a complex area, but it is right to have that statutory commitment in clause 1�a statutory requirement to have a plan that demonstrates how we will reach that commitment, while recognising that we will always needs some flexibility, due to the complexity of the marine environment.

[Mr Carmichael]

To deal with the question of days at sea first, as I said, these are probing amendments. The Minister�s comments are helpful and it is useful to have them on the record, so, as I indicated earlier, I do not intend to push the amendment to a Division.

However, I want to tease out the Minister�s thinking about amendment 25 a bit more. His objection to amendment 25 is twofold. First, he says these things can be put into the fisheries statement, which is absolutely correct. Secondly, he says that this commitment will have to be met by the time the legislation comes into effect. I see no problem with that. For us to say that by the time we implement this we should have got to this point is not a criticism of the amendment at all.

The Minister�s point about the fisheries statement is interesting. He is right: that is the good and sensible place for maximum sustainable yield to be enshrined, but there is no guarantee that it will be. As we know, the fisheries statement will be subject to a negotiation between four Administrations. There might be any number of reasons why maximum sustainable yield might fall from that particular safety net. If, for any reason, it were not to form part of the fisheries statement, there is nothing else in the Bill that would enshrine maximum sustainable yield as the guiding principle. For that reason, I am not persuaded by the Minister�s assurances and will press amendment 25 to a division.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Carmichael]

I beg to move amendment 28, in clause�18,�page�10,�line�7,�at end insert�

�( ) When determining fishing opportunities under this section, if the current biomass of the stock or the maximum sustainable yield are not able to be estimated reliably using the best available scientific advice, the Secretary of State must�

(a) not use the uncertainty in that evidence as a reason for failing to determine fishing opportunities for the stock, and

(b) determine the maximum quantity of sea fish that may be caught by British fishing boats which functions as a suitable scientific proxy to maximum sustainable yield, and is consistent with the scientific evidence and precautionary objectives.�

The purpose of this amendment is to ensure that a suitable proxy is used to determine fishing opportunities for data-deficient stocks.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 29, in clause�18,�page�10,�line�7,�at end insert�

�( ) For those stocks for which fishing opportunities are not determined, fisheries policy authorities must�

(a) ensure that exploitation does not exceed the level associated with maximum sustainable yield, or

(b) if the current biomass of the stock or the maximum sustainable yield are not able to be estimated reliably using the best available scientific advice, ensure that exploitation does not exceed a suitable scientific proxy to maximum sustainable yield, and is consistent with the scientific evidence and precautionary objectives.�

The purpose of this amendment is to set a target of 2020 for fishing mortality to be set at sustainable levels for those stocks that are not subject to catch limits, such as shellfish.

Amendment 62, in clause�18,�page�10,�line�11,�at end insert�

�(3A) The Secretary of State must ensure that a baseline stock assessment has been made for all non-quota species by 2030 and he must report on progress on an annual basis.�

This amendment would require the Secretary of State to gather a baseline stock assessment for those stocks that are not subject to catch limits.

[Mr Carmichael]

Amendments 28 and 29 can, I think, be dealt with in fairly short order. Again, they try to put a bit more environmental rigour into the Bill�the sort of thing that we saw in the White Paper, but which does not seem to have survived the translation from policy into legislation.

In relation to amendment 28, the Minister and the Committee will doubtless be aware that there are a number of species that are, to use the jargon, data deficient: that is to say, we do not have the useful data that we would require in order to set them as quota species. The procedures outlined in the amendment are guidelines that are to be applied to ensure that a lack of sufficient data is not used as an excuse, or a reason, for fishing those species irresponsibly. The amendment really is self-explanatory.

Likewise, amendment 29 sets a target of 2020 for fishing mortality to be set at a sustainable level for stocks that are not subject to catch limits, such as shellfish. It would bring to the overall framework of fisheries management a coherence that is currently lacking.

[Luke Pollard]

The principles contained in amendments 28 and 29 are good ones, as they deal with how to make sure that we are fishing sustainably.

Amendment 62, which we are also considering, talks about the need for baseline stock assessments by 2030. The reason I tabled that amendment is to try to get the Minister to set out his position on making sure that we are addressing data deficiency. A key reason why our fisheries cannot be classed as sustainable�as we have spoken about in previous sittings of this Committee�is that there is a deficiency of the data that guarantees those fish stocks are sustainable. Making a baseline stock assessment, especially of some of the non-quota species that are under severe pressure, is an important step towards achieving fully sustainable fisheries.

The Minister will know, for instance, about the importance of cuttlefish to the south-west�s mixed fisheries and to fishing fleets in the west country. The lack of a decent level of data regarding cuttlefish is one of the concerns about the future sustainability of that industry, especially as stock levels are going up and down. This year in particular, fishers have reported an alarming rise in smaller cuttlefish coming through where, in the past, they expected larger ones. The purpose of amendment 62 and, I believe, of the amendments tabled by the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland�the sentiment of which we can support�is to get better data, to make sure that no fishing levels are being set above the scientific data level.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Carmichael]

Every day is a school day. Who knew that we could age a fish by measuring its eardrums?

I am grateful to the Minister for a very detailed answer. These amendments are a bit more than probing amendments; they are about serious issues, which require full consideration. Again, this is another area where we see the general deficiency of the approach that the Government have taken to the Bill. I would be more impressed with the Minister�s views on getting more data in relation to data-poor species if he had taken a different attitude towards the amendments that we have tabled to document all fish that are caught.

Notwithstanding that, and to allow the Committee to make some progress, I will not press this matter to Division today, with the caveat that we will probably wish to return to it on Report. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

Let us be clear, however: at the moment, given the differences between the Bill, the withdrawal agreement, the promises made in that agreement and the discussions that will take place as part of our future economic and political partnership with the European Union, there is heavy scepticism in the industry. It sees a risk of further betrayal and that we will not be able to draw down from our EU friends the quota that we had hoped for. In such circumstances, it is even more important that we ensure that the quota that we already have is allocated according to transparent social and economic criteria for the benefit of those communities.

[Mr Carmichael]

Does the hon. Gentleman have a mechanism for ensuring that that redistributed quota does not become a tradeable commodity in turn?

[Luke Pollard]

That is at the heart of the current problem. The quota has been traded; indeed, a future Opposition amendment will deal with the problem that the right hon. Gentleman identifies of slipper skippers who trade their quotas as a commodity, using them not to catch fish but as financial instruments to derive income from by renting them out to others. We need to ensure that the economic criteria for redistributing the fishing quota take into account the importance of the quota holder�s using the quota to catch fish rather than as a financial product. Deriving income from a quota without using it damages the viability of the sector by increasing costs without increasing productivity.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Carmichael]

As previously, I am in broad sympathy with the approach taken by the hon. Gentleman, but I am concerned that he suggests a big and fairly open-ended commitment here. As I implied during the evidence session, I fear that we would probably be at risk of producing a dripping roast for lawyers for some time to come.

Although it was probably never intended to be the case, fish quota has become a tradeable commodity over the years. Several fishing businesses have made and taken on fairly substantial financial commitments secured against the fact that they own quota and can derive an income from it. The words that start to come to my mind are �legitimate expectation�, and once that is the case we know that we will be heading towards the courts to determine the extent of that legitimate expectation, who has it and the basis on which it can be traded.

Not everybody who owns fish quota is a robber baron. Shetland Islands Council owns a substantial amount of fishing quota that it leases to local boats. That is for the public good, and I would be careful about interfering with the council�s property rights in that way. I would be very open to the idea of returning quota�quota that we do not currently have access to�being dealt with differently; it could be distributed in different ways. Some of the lessons of the past could be learned so that it did not become a tradeable commodity. The property rights could be defined in a very different way, which, with hindsight, we might wish we had done 30 or 40 years ago but did not.

As I say, the amendment would make a fairly big and open-ended commitment. I do not know whether it would necessarily be the best use of the money required. Before I went down this road, I would want to know a bit more than the broad principles. I would want to know how the practicalities would work. As the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport said, fish quota have essentially been privatised. He is effectively talking about nationalisation, and that comes with a price tag attached.

[Luke Pollard]

It is not about nationalisation; it is about the redistribution of fish quota, and the amendment is about being able to do so without a time limit. As the Minister said, distributing FQA takes time, which is why there is deliberately no time limit in the amendment. However, there is a commitment to consult with those groups, including the fishing fleets, to ensure it is redistributed fairly.

[Mr Carmichael]

That is helpful, but I am not entirely sure about the hon. Gentleman�s distinction between redistribution and nationalisation. At the end of the day, we risk spending public money. I am not averse to that�it may ultimately be necessary, and I can certainly see the end that is to be met by it�but at the moment it is a little ill-defined. I would favour an approach that dealt differently with the returning quota, rather than mucking about with the existing quota. I am not averse to the idea, but we should not be blind to the risks that come with it.

[George Eustice]

The purpose of clause 20 is predominantly to bring across article 17 from the European Union and make it operable. Article 17 will come across as retained EU law. All we are seeking to do is to make changes that make it operable and preserve its intent.

Article 17 states:

�When allocating the fishing opportunities available to them�Member States shall use transparent and objective criteria including those of an environmental, social and economic nature. The criteria to be used may include, inter alia, the impact of fishing on the environment, the history of compliance, the contribution to the local economy and historic catch levels. Within the fishing opportunities allocated to them, Member States shall endeavour to provide incentives to fishing vessels deploying selective fishing gear or using fishing techniques with reduced environmental impact�.

I believe that article 17, as currently worded, captures many of the intentions behind this amendment and the last one moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney.

There is a technical issue with the way amendment 106 is drafted. It does not make specific reference to fixed quota allocations�FQA units�as a basis; it simply talks about trying to redistribute historical fishing opportunities. It is therefore trying to reallocate opportunities that have already been spent�the quota that were attached to the FQA units. I would argue that, from a technical point of view, it would make more sense to have made reference to FQA units.

Greenpeace has had a longstanding campaign on article 17, since at least 2015. In 2016, it brought a judicial review against the Government, arguing that we had not complied with article 17, and it was roundly defeated in that case. Mrs Justice Andrews stated during the case that

�there is a large volume of detailed rules, licence conditions, schemes and policies, including the Concordat and the Quota Management Regulations�which are published and openly available and which have been notified to the Commission. There is ample evidence that they include environmental criteria as required by Article 17, and that far from paying them lip service, they are afforded proper weight in the allocation process.�

The judgment of the European Court of Auditors was that the case brought by Greenpeace was wrong.

Greenpeace has had a longstanding campaign on article 17, but in my view it has been barking up the wrong tree. The truth is that if we want to address the issue of fishing opportunities for the inshore sector, we should not do it by clinging to some article in residual EU law. The correct way to do it is to include, as I have committed to my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney that I will, a reference to fishing opportunities in the Secretary of State�s fishing statement, where it directly links to the socioeconomic impacts on coastal communities�not to attempt to play with the wording of article 17.

UK Fishing Industry

Alistair Carmichael Excerpts

Wednesday 12th December 2018 Westminster Hall

[Mrs Sheryll Murray (South East Cornwall) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the UK fishing industry.

I felt it was important to hold this debate in the run-up to the last Fisheries Council that the Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice), will attend and have a voice in. We have heard lots of debates in this place about what will happen to fisheries policy once we leave the European Union in March 2019. As is normal, we should have a debate about what the Fisheries Council will decide this year.

Before I move on to the Fisheries Council, I would like to set the record straight. We have heard many people in recent times quote the Scottish Fishermen’s Federation, implying that it welcomes the deal that is on the table. I want to quote the federation’s chief executive, Bertie Armstrong:

“We have made it very clear since the referendum in 2016 that anything other than full, unfettered sovereignty over our own waters would be crossing a red line for the fishing industry.

Despite the stated wishes of French president Emmanuel Macron, which we know are shared by the other large fishing nations, Denmark, the Netherlands and Germany, we should give a clear and resounding ‘Non!’ to the idea of guaranteeing continued access.

Access and quotas must be negotiated…not carved up in advance.”

I do not think those words describe some of the things we have heard attributed to Bertie Armstrong in the main Chamber in recent times, and I wanted to set the record straight.

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

I congratulate the hon. Lady on obtaining this debate. Bertie Armstrong also said, when giving evidence to the Fisheries Bill Committee last week, that the fisheries were put into the transitional arrangements because there were four or five countries that would have blocked a transitional deal otherwise. He was probably right about that, but the question for him, and—indeed, for the Minister and Prime Minister—is, if that was the attitude to the transition, what will be different come the final deal?

[Mrs Murray]

I completely agree. I think Bertie’s words have been taken out of context and misquoted. He went on to say:

“The link between access and trade breaches all international norms and practice and is simply unacceptable.”

When the European Union negotiated our terms of entry, it was very keen to get access to the United Kingdom’s then 12-mile limit—it was not until 1976 that we had a 200-mile limit—but that must end. The weak words I have heard about us negotiating with our European partners are completely wrong, because under international law we have control. We should decide how much surplus our fisherman, other member states and other nations—it is not just member states of the European Union—are allowed to take. British fishermen must be treated fairly.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Duguid (Banff and Buchan) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Henry, and I will try to be as quick as I can.

I again congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall (Mrs Murray) on securing this debate, which is about a subject that I know is very close to her own heart as well as being a key industry in her constituency.

Fishing at least has been, if it is not now, the lifeblood of constituencies represented by hon. Members around this Chamber today. Under the European Union’s common fisheries policy, we have seen many smaller fishing constituencies—and, in some cases, not so small fishing communities—reduced to a mere shadow of their former glory. I am sure that hon. Members would agree that, regardless of how else we might feel about Brexit, the CFP is a discredit to our coastal communities that we must take every possible opportunity to redress.

My own constituency of Banff and Buchan has fared relatively well in the last few decades, Peterhead being the largest whitefish port in Europe and Fraserburgh the largest port in Europe for nephrops. Although those ports survive, overall activities are not what they once were. As we look forward to a “sea of opportunity”, it is not only those brave fishermen who go out to sea to catch the fish who stand to benefit. We must also see an expansion in our capacity to process the product. We need to improve infrastructure and transport links, and perhaps invest in chiller facilities at one of the Scottish airports to help facilitate the export of fish to countries further afield than the EU, such as in north America and the far east.

An expansion in our ability to catch more of our fish in our waters will also see a benefit to those services and industries that support the fishing sector: boat building, maintenance and servicing are just a few examples. One local fisherman told me recently that when his boat is in for annual maintenance and he berths it in dry dock, he provides work for around 40 different contractors, mostly from around the local community and certainly from around north-east Scotland. The more fishing opportunities that we have, the more active our fishing boats will be, and the better things will be for the wider coastal communities and the economy.

[Mr Carmichael]

I think that the figure produced by the Scottish Fishermen’s Federation is that something in the region of 40% of the fish in our waters are caught by the UK fleet. I think the hon. Gentleman is a supporter of the Prime Minister’s withdrawal agreement and deal. What share does he expect the UK fleet will have at the end of the day if that agreement is implemented?

[David Duguid]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention. Of course, there is nothing in the withdrawal agreement that specifically states that any shares will be given up. As my hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall said earlier, we should start from the default position of, “We have full access and that is our access to negotiate in the annual negotiations going forward.”

I will move on. The Scottish demersal sector has performed reasonably well during 2018, but the prognosis for 2019 is less buoyant, given the reduction in total allowable catches for some of our key commercial stocks, such as North sea haddock and cod. The TACs for the jointly managed stocks with Norway, which were set as a result of negotiations that have been concluded, have already been listed by my hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall.

The TACs for stocks such as anglerfish, hake and so on are due to be set at the December Fisheries Council. Such reductions, at a time when the landing obligation is due to come fully into force, could be problematic to say the least. The reduction in North sea cod could make it a choke species for the fleet. The landing obligation is explicit in the demand that catches of all regulated species must be landed ashore. Once the quota of North sea cod is exhausted, the fleet will be required to stop fishing for the other major species, such as haddock, whiting, saithe, hake and anglerfish.

There is a significant and real risk that tens of millions of pounds of fish could go uncaught as a result. I ask the Minister to give some clarity today about the action he will take to avoid early closure of our fisheries. What discussions has he had with the devolved Administrations on this matter?

There is real concern about the number of non-UK vessels operating in the Scottish sector, mostly in the waters around Shetland, as the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) will appreciate. A recent analysis carried out by the industry set the numbers of vessels catching whitefish as follows: 19 UK- based but foreign-flagged vessels; 12 Spanish vessels; 33 Norwegian vessels; eight German vessels; 27 French vessels; and 23 Danish vessels—a total of 122 vessels. To provide some scale, the Scottish fleet has only about 85 vessels targeting whitefish. Does the Minister agree that an influx of foreign vessels at this level is unsustainable for stocks and clearly unfair to our fishermen? What does he plan to do to protect our stocks from being plundered by foreign vessels?

Finally, as the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Brendan O'Hara) mentioned, access to non-EEA crew continues to be an issue for a number of our vessels, given that they are prohibited from operating within 12 nautical miles of the shore. Non-EEA workers enter the country to work on a fishing vessel using a transit visa, the current definition of which allows vessels to operate out of the UK without entering a foreign port, so long as they stay outside of 12 miles while fishing. The skipper of a vessel is required to demonstrate to the overseas British embassy that his vessel has operated for the previous three months outside of 12 miles; only then will the fisherman be granted his visa.

The situation has led to a number of vessels being sold due to crew shortages, particularly on the west coast of Scotland. We have made several representations on a cross-party basis to the UK Immigration Minister for the 12-mile restriction to be removed, so that every segment of our fleet can get access to the same pool of labour. There are currently 4,900 full-time fishermen in Scotland, of which over 800 are non-EEA. Given the current plight of our vessels when it comes to finding suitable crew, I ask the Minister to push for that 12-mile restriction to be lifted.

--- Later in debate ---

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

It is a pleasure, as ever, to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Henry. I congratulate the hon. Member for South East Cornwall (Mrs Murray) on securing the debate, but observe in passing that it is somewhat unsatisfactory that we are in Westminster Hall and limited to 90 minutes on a Wednesday morning. This debate was traditionally part of Chamber business, and happened in Government time. I understand the reasons why it was taken out of Government time, which I think were sound. However, it was always the understanding that time would be available, and for us to have to rely on a ballot for the annual fishing debate is unsatisfactory. I hope the Minister will make representations to those in charge of business management within Government to ensure that we are not put in this situation again.

As I listened to the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Brendan O'Hara) talk about Alex Salmond’s Fisheries Jurisdiction Bill, I reflected on the fact that it was when the hon. Member for South East Cornwall was here lobbying on behalf of that enterprise that I first met her. It is worth reflecting on the fact—I say this as the last man standing who was a sponsor of that Bill—that the argument advanced by the Conservatives who supported Alex Salmond’s Bill was that it was perfectly possible to come out of the common fisheries policy while remaining in the European Union.

Times change, and arguments of a different nature seem to be advanced these days, but it is worth putting those historical accuracies on the record. Also on a point of historical accuracy, the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Deidre Brock) said that Alex Salmond wanted to abolish the common fisheries policy. That was a tweak that I introduced; originally, Alex Salmond’s Bill was for withdrawal from the common fisheries policy. Personally, I was never persuaded that that was possible, but it is all largely academic and of historical interest these days.

The Fisheries Council, to which the Minister will travel next week, is the last that we will know in the current set-up. It will be interesting to see what we are able do this time next year if we are out of the European Union but still part of the common fisheries policy, as the transitional arrangements would suggest. It will not be an easy Council. The Minister is aware that the scientific advice, especially in relation to North sea cod, is challenging, and that will produce a difficult outcome. I am sure he will argue with some force and vigour that the interests of our fleet should be maintained. I wish him well in that enterprise. I would be interested to hear how he anticipates advancing that argument this time next year, when we will not be at the table. As the hon. Member for South East Cornwall said, we will not have a voice.

Ahead of that, there is, today and tomorrow, the EU-Faroes bilateral in relation to pelagic stocks. The apportionment allows the Faroese fleet access to 30% of the mackerel in EU waters—something of a misnomer, because they are essentially Shetlands waters. We have been burdened with an exceptionally bad deal. It allows us access to 30% of the stocks in their waters, but frankly 30% of quite a lot can hardly be compared with 30% of very little, which is essentially what we get out of the deal. Will the Minister tell me what he has done to influence the progress of the talks and to ensure that the interests of the pelagic fleet in Shetland in particular are better treated than they have been in the past, and how he anticipates such an arrangement will work in the future?

Other hon. Members spoke about the need for visas for non-EEA nationals. I led an Adjournment debate on that on 11 July. The Immigration Minister told me that she accepted that it was something that needed

“work as a joined-up Government.”—[Official Report, 11 July 2018; Vol. 644, c. 1084.]

I wonder how that work as a joined-up Government has been going; it does not look particularly joined-up from where I see it today. However, it is of enormous importance. As the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute said, it particularly affects the inshore fleet, but it also has a serious effect in relation to the bigger boats in the whitefish and the pelagic sectors.

Essentially, to get round the lack of proper working visas, fishing crews are having to come in on transit visas. The welfare issues surrounding that are well documented. The real difficulty is that it leaves fishing skippers having to fish where visa regulations allow them to, not where they know they will find fish. Eventually that will have an impact on safety—we all know that. That is why the issue cannot be kicked down the road any more. The subject commands attention on behalf of fishing communities represented on both sides of the House. I have been on delegations with the hon. Members for Banff and Buchan (David Duguid), for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Angus Brendan MacNeil) and for Strangford (Jim Shannon). As we come to the end of the year, I say to the Minister that if he is genuinely part of a joined-up Government, we need to see a resolution to this issue.

I have had my six minutes, Sir Henry—I could talk for an awful lot longer. I leave a minute, which I hope might be given to the Minister, if the Front Benchers can maintain good discipline, so that we all have an opportunity to intervene on him when he speaks.

[Sir Henry Bellingham (in the Chair)]

I am grateful to you, Mr Carmichael, for being so concise in your remarks. I call Deidre Brock.

Fisheries Bill (Sixth sitting)

Alistair Carmichael Excerpts

Committee Debate: 6th sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 11th December 2018 Public Bill Committees

[The Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (George Eustice)]

All the amendments seek a statutory requirement for the Government to publish an annual statement, updating the House and others on progress towards the fisheries objectives, but we already have a number of plans that mean we do not need to place a statement on a statutory footing. The White Paper commits us to an annual statement on our assessment of the state of stocks that are of interest to the UK and of our approach to setting fishing rates and other management measures.

Fisheries negotiations take place annually, which is why we have an annual fisheries debate. Next week is December Council, at which fishing opportunities for next year will be discussed. We have just been through the various coastal states, and the EU-Norway negotiations are concluding as I speak. To inform our approach to annual negotiations, we will inevitably feed data into organisations such as the International Council for the Exploration of the Seas—ICES—and publish both the data we have on progress on the state of fish stocks and our approach to doing that, so we do not need to place this on a statutory footing.

If something more formal were to be done, if it were judged that there needed to be more formal oversight of our progress towards the objectives, the right place to do that would be in the forthcoming environment Bill, which will establish an independent environmental body to monitor our progress towards the objectives set out in the 25-year environment plan. In relation to a more strategic approach to the delivery of the objectives and the plan, that is the right place to consider such an oversight role. We have in the Bill a statutory requirement for a joint fisheries statement and for a Secretary of State fisheries statement setting out our approach to delivering the objectives.

Finally, it is important to recognise what we already do. Every year, before we go to December Council we lay before the House a written ministerial statement that sets out our approach to the negotiations and the agenda for them, and we always lay a written ministerial statement after the negotiations have concluded, to update the House on progress.

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

I appreciate that we have other Bills coming and that there are other ways in which the reports may be obtained, but we have this Bill before the House at the moment, and it is this Bill that establishes the objectives and then the policy statements. Surely the mechanism for accountability should be within the Bill also, if it is to be meaningful.

[George Eustice]

The method for accountability is indeed in the Bill. There is a statutory requirement to publish a joint fisheries statement and for all the Administrations to pursue that statement to deliver those environmental outcomes and the fisheries objectives set out in clause 1. The issue here is whether it is necessary to place on a statutory footing the idea of publishing an annual statement. My contention is that there is no need, since we already have annual debates.

The hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport made an important point: there is a strong case for saying that, in the new world we are going into as we leave, rather than having that debate brought by the Backbench Business Committee, there should be a debate in Government time at the point the negotiations take place. I would certainly be willing to have conversations with colleagues in other Departments ahead of consideration on Report to see whether we could give such an undertaking.

We have already made a clear commitment in the White Paper to publish an annual statement of the state of the stocks. I do not believe it is necessary to put that on a statutory footing.

--- Later in debate ---

[George Eustice]

We regularly do triennial reviews. I do not think that the triennial reviews stem from the 2009 Act. I think there was a requirement to review the MMO after four or five years, and my recollection is that that did indeed take place.

My point is that it is not necessary for every report we might publish to be put into statute. I made the point in debating an earlier Bill that DEFRA produces many reports. Every June my box is inundated with annual reports of one sort or another. Some of them are required by statute. The vast majority are not, but we publish them anyway, as it is a means of being transparent with the public. Since we have given an undertaking in the White Paper, I do not believe any of the amendments is necessary. However, as I have said, I undertake to have conversations before Report with Government colleagues, to see whether we can give a more formal undertaking on the idea of the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport about a more formal debate in Government time on the Floor of the House, rather than in Westminster Hall.

[Mr Carmichael]

The Minister will remember, as I do, the days when the annual fisheries debate was held in Government time. When the Backbench Business Committee was introduced, it seemed logical that those general debates would go into Backbench Business time. The Government have now taken that on a step. It is not impossible that one day we may have a Government with sufficient authority and a sufficient majority to see a full and comprehensive programme of legislation through the House, in which case it is eminently foreseeable that the time available for a debate of the kind we are discussing will be squeezed out again. I suggest that that is why there is some force to the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport.

[George Eustice]

In DEFRA we have brought in more Bills—more significant pieces of legislation—in the past 12 months than at any time in recent history. Parliament is currently considering an Agriculture Bill that is the first such major piece of legislation since 1947. Of course, the Fisheries Bill will give us control of our waters for the first time in more than 40 years. So, at DEFRA at least, we are making good progress in getting through some critical legislation.

I hope that I have reassured both my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney and the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport that while it is indeed our clearly stated intention to publish an annual statement of the state of stocks, it is unnecessary to make it a statutory requirement in the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Luke Pollard]

The Opposition will not vote against clause 1. However, I invite the Minister to reflect on some of the changes to the objectives that have been discussed. I also invite him to look at whether amendments can be introduced in the other place, especially in relation to fish being a public asset and marine safety. I think there was widespread agreement on that on both sides of the House, even if there was not necessarily agreement on the wording.

[Mr Carmichael]

Among those who gave evidence to the Committee last week, a common recurring theme was that there was something of a disparity between the vision that was laid out in the White Paper, which the Liberal Democrats broadly welcomed, and the rather narrower vision that was left in the Bill. It is also fair to say that we would have hoped to find in clause 1 a number of aspects of the White Paper’s vision. It is disappointing that we have not made more progress. I have been around this place long enough to know how these things work, so I am not necessarily very surprised, but it is fair to put the Minister on notice that the Liberal Democrats will wish to return to certain issues in relation to clause 1 when the Bill goes back to the Floor of the House. Failing that, I am fairly certain that my noble Friends at the other end of the building will also have thoughts on this matter.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 1 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2

Fisheries statements

[Peter Aldous]

I beg to move amendment 87, in clause 2, page 2, line 37, at end insert

“and their policies for distribution of fishing opportunities.”

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Sweeney]

It is an honour, as always, to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray. The hon. Member for Waveney puts forward a clear and cogent case. It is something that needs to be looked at carefully in the context of the sustainability of our current constitutional arrangements. The key frustration for a lot of us, particularly the generation who have grown up under devolution, is the lopsided and asymmetrical nature of our structures.

It certainly causes frustration in this place for Scottish MPs when we have to deal with structures and policies that are not geared up for or reflective of devolution, and that are not considerate of those issues. It is time to bear in mind and take cognisance of those issues, in order to look at a new architecture for our legislative framework in the UK that reflects the reality of the past 20 years of devolution.

[Mr Carmichael]

I confess that I did not anticipate, when we started scrutiny of the Fisheries Bill, that issues of such high constitutional importance would feature so prominently in the debate. One never knows how Committees will proceed.

The hon. Member for Waveney makes a good point. The current constitutional architecture remains unfinished. The unfinished business is the position of England, and whether it is England as a whole or the constituent parts of England is a debate that, frankly, people in England need to have. I wish them as much joy as we have had with that in Scotland for the past 30 years.

The hon. Gentleman’s amendment comes to the crux of the matter. As matters are currently ordered, the Secretary of State has a clear conflict of interest. On the one hand, he is expected to act as the UK Minister, holding the ring, as it were, between the different constituent parts of the United Kingdom, and at the same time he is supposed to be the English Minister. That is not a sustainable situation. It requires to be remedied and should be remedied, I suggest, through a more comprehensive and holistic approach to constitutional reform for our English cousins. It is also fair to say that this is not a situation that can last indefinitely. If we have to go through another round of salami slicing, taking it subject by subject, instead of region or nation by region or nation, then so be it, but clearly something has to change.

[Luke Pollard]

The amendment goes to the heart of many of the gripes about fisheries regulation in England. Who speaks for English fishing? There is an inherent conflict in the roles of the Fisheries Minister and the Secretary of State holding both English and UK-wide portfolios. Although it is tempting to engage in a debate about the emerging need for a federal settlement in the United Kingdom, that is probably a decision above our pay grades for the purposes of the Fisheries Bill.

However, the hon. Member for Waveney’s suggestion to look at where this will go is not necessarily a bad one. We have the opportunity to reset and reformulate fishing regulation and to start the journey on those bits that will take longer. The Minister has said that re-allocating FQA will take seven years, if that were to start straightaway. We recognise that some of the changes that the Bill is seeking to effect will not come into immediate force on the day that the Bill comes into force. The discussion that we need to have about the more devolved nature of fisheries is part of that.

If I may go further than the hon. Gentleman, there has also been talk about devolution within England. For instance, there is the potential with more empowered inshore fisheries and conservation authorities, and greater powers at a local level, to have a more thorough set of powers regionalised and localised, rather than just held in Westminster with an English Minister. This is therefore a good debate to have. I am not certain that the amendment will carry favour, but the hon. Gentleman is right to raise the concern.

On the question of who speaks for English fishing, I am sure the Minister will say that, currently, he does. That is something that we need to delve into, though it is probably a discussion for another day.

[George Eustice]

As my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney pointed out, this may be a variant of the famous West Lothian question. Perhaps we could dub it the Waveney question, as he has raised it. It is an interesting point, but as a number of hon. Members have pointed out, it goes much wider than what we will be able to resolve in this particular Bill.

In this country we have a devolved settlement; we do not have a federal system of government. The reason that a federal system of government would not work in the UK is that England is so much bigger than the other component parts. Under any kind of qualified majority vote we would still, effectively, have the dominance of England. It is because such a federal system would not work in reality, given the structure of the UK—unless we were to break up England, as the previous Government intended to do through a series of regional assemblies—that we need to make our devolution settlement work.

Devolution means that, ultimately, something is either devolved—in which case it is for the devolved Administrations to lead on—or it is reserved, in which case it is for the UK Government to lead on. Where there is a need for co-ordination and frameworks, it happens through a series of memorandums of understanding, concordats and other such arrangements, which feature prominently in this Bill and have always been prominent in our approach to fisheries.

The amendment would have no legal effect as it stands, because the Minister with responsibility for English fisheries is indeed the Secretary of State, so they are one and the same. For a Minister with responsibility for English fisheries to be able to do anything other than what the Secretary of State wanted, he would need to have an English Government who were separate from the UK Government; and if we had an English Government who were separate from the UK Government, we would need an English Parliament to hold that English Government to account. I do not think that that is an approach that we want to take at the moment, for all the reasons I have outlined.

[Mr Carmichael]

Can the Minister reconcile the objections that he has just outlined with the Government’s attitude to English votes for English laws?

[George Eustice]

I can, because that is an absolutely sensible compromise to ensure that only English MPs should vote on those pieces of legislation that affect only English matters. I believe that that is not about having an English Government, but a procedure in our Parliament to ensure that English MPs vote on laws that affect their constituents.

There is another issue. I might say, what about Cornwall? Cornwall is slightly different, as you will know. The Fisheries Minister at the moment represents a Cornish seat, but there are representations from organisations such as Cornwall Council that seek to have more of a formal role for Cornwall in decision making. That links to the point made by the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport, that there may be a more formal role for the IFCAs, which could draw them into the consultations that we have ahead of the annual fisheries discussions. At the moment, we have meetings with both environmental and fishing stakeholders, and engage closely with them in the lead-up, but it may be that we should have a process for involving the IFCAs in part of that discussion. That may be one way to address the issue.

My hon. Friend the Member for Waveney mentioned that parts of the Bill say “the Secretary of State” and others “the Marine Management Organisation”. This clause, which is about putting together a policy statement, clearly relates to the Secretary of State. The term marine management organisation tends to be used, in most clauses, in the context of its enforcement and licensing roles. Parts of the Bill use the term marine management organisation because of the powers it has under the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009 to manage licences and to carry out enforcement activities.

My hon. Friend raises an important point, but it goes well beyond the scope of the Bill. I would say this: in my time doing this job, I have never actually had any difficulty reconciling the role that I play as UK Minister in international negotiations, arguing the case for the UK, and the role that I play as an English Fisheries Minister, making decisions around the distribution of quota, technical measures to protect buried lobsters and a whole host of other things, which I agree for England only. It does not cause me any conflict. There are potential inconsistencies, as he highlighted, but I believe they are inherent in the devolved settlement that we have; over the last 20 years, we have learned to manage those effectively.

--- Later in debate ---

[Luke Pollard]

The point that the hon. Gentleman makes is a valid one, and it relates to the difficulty of having a UK role and English role simultaneously. The importance of creating a dispute resolution system ahead of any dispute happening is that the rules of engagement are already set out if those conflicts and the issues that may arise from people being double-hatted come about. That assumes that the English Fisheries Minister is indeed an English MP and there is not a Welsh or Scottish MP in that role, because that would create opportunities for other types of conflict within that scenario.

We need to get that settled from the outset and that is effectively what the amendment seeks to do. The amendment says, “In the event of there being a problem, how will it be addressed?” It would be good if the Minister set out his Department’s thinking. If there is a scenario in which conflict happens, we need to be clear about how it will be resolved, because fisheries is a very political issue. We know from the Fisheries Councils that there is an awful lot of national bravado, national posturing and national importance in respect of the deal, and the agreement that emerges is a really important one. I would therefore be grateful if the Minister set out how he would address that in responding to the amendment.

[Mr Carmichael]

We used to say that strong fences make for good neighbours, and the same is true when applied to the principles of constitutional law. The effective working of an emerging asymmetric system of devolution within our government requires strong systems to be put in place. Yes, as the Minister suggested this morning, it is all fine and well while everybody is happy, stocks are plentiful and there is no real disagreement. One of the difficulties with the operation of the devolution settlement between Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom was that such concordats as were put in place were put in place with little consideration of how they might work with Governments of different colours in Edinburgh and London. As a consequence, these areas have become fractious, and occasionally friction has ensued. We risk missing an opportunity, because there will be times when some sort of friction will occur.

To anticipate the question from the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun, such arrangements would have to be put in place after full agreement with the different devolved Administrations. It would be wrong of the UK Government—because they are the UK Government and the English Government at the same time—simply to go ahead. That is the essence of the conflict the Minister faces.

No one should have a veto in these matters, but that should mean that no one has a final say in defiance of everyone else either. A veto can block an arrangement, but a final say can force through an arrangement that does not suit and is not agreed by everyone in the different Administrations concerned. At the end of the day, we may need to come to something that looks much like a system of qualified majority voting. Heaven help us, but some mechanism must be found to resolve these matters.

The point the Minister hears from our discussion of this amendment, and from his hon. Friend the Member for Waveney on the previous amendment, is that once we have brought the powers back from the European Union, the status quo will no longer be fit for purpose.

[Owen Smith (Pontypridd) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray. I rise to support the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport. I do so as a former special adviser in the Wales Office and the Northern Ireland Office and as a former shadow Secretary of State for Wales and for Northern Ireland.

My experience and my observation is that even when Ministers in all corners of the UK have the best intentions of avoiding them, disputes regularly arise. As the Minister indicated, such disputes are normally dealt with on a pretty ad hoc basis, with an evolving series of concordats and memorandums of understanding. The memorable way in which the hon. Member for Waveney put it was that such matters are “the West Lothian question for fish”. Whenever such problems inevitably emerge, we traditionally kick the can, or the fish, down the road, rather than try to resolve them.

The Minister highlighted some of the thorny issues we have wrestled with over generations on both sides of the House in respect of devolution and the evolving devolution settlement. I put it to him that it is better, especially in an enabling framework Bill such as this, to try to shape future discussions and mitigate the emergence of problems and disputes, because one thing we can be certain of is that they will emerge in relation to fishing.

One simply need consider clause 3 in respect of the Secretary of State setting out his fisheries statement—the SSFS—and the joint fisheries statement being agreed between the devolved Administrations and the UK Government, to see that there is an immediate problem. It is not clear to me from reading the Bill which of those statements has precedence. I assume that the hierarchy is that, just as each succeeding SSFS supersedes the preceding one, the SSFS would also have precedence over the JFS, but if the JFS were legally deemed to be the more important document, given that it had arguably reached by a more important means of negotiation between the different parts of the UK, it would be good if the Minister were to clarify that.

What happens if there is a significant difference of opinion between the UK Secretary of State, who is also the English Fisheries Minister, and Fisheries Ministers for the devolved Administrations about their priorities for their respective fishing areas? That seems an obvious problem, although this is not the area of the Bill in which that problem becomes most obvious: it is in clauses 18 and 19, which deal with the setting of quotas, that the potential for discord between the UK Minister and the devolved Administrations Ministers becomes most acute and most commercially problematic. In respect of the fisheries statements and the setting of quotas, it is perfectly possible that in future, for example, the UK Minister may wish to set quotas for shellfish that we do not currently have, which may be seen as unfair to fishers in Scotland or Wales in particular.

I think we all recognise that there are myriad potential problems here, and that it would be better if the Minister were able to come up with some more concrete means of assuring people that the Government have an idea of how they would resolve those problems. That might be through a dispute resolution mechanism as recommended by our Front Benchers, or through some other means, but I do not think kicking the can down the road is the right approach.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Sweeney]

I think it should be an inclusive process; I am not prescribing any particular definition for that, but I do not think the Secretary of State should have untrammelled power over the ultimate decisions. As the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland suggested, it should be something that is equitable and democratic in nature. That would be the way to proceed.

[Mr Carmichael]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that now is the time to be make these arrangements? If we wait until there is a problem, then the creation of the resolution system itself will inevitably become contentious. This is the time for building strong bridges.

[Mr Sweeney]

I agree. It would be intelligent to set up this mechanism now, rather than when there is a heated dispute, which will inevitably emerge at some point in the course of history. It would be seen as enlightened to do that at this stage, and I urge the Minister to consider taking it forward as a matter of precaution, because we all share an interest in this legislation functioning as efficiently as possible and reflecting the realities of 20 years of devolution. As we have mentioned before, some of these provisions can form a blind spot in how the UK Government form their policies, and we have to be cognisant of the realities of how devolution functions.

This mechanism should not be monopolised by the devolved Administrations plus the UK Government; it could perhaps involve regional elements from all the devolved nations, which would be able to make submissions for dispute resolutions as well. It should proceed in an innovative and intelligent way. It would allow us to have properly functioning devolution, rather than simply devolving an issue and forgetting that it exists—throwing it over the wall and saying, “It is now branded with a saltire or a red dragon, and it is no longer our problem.” It should be an iterative process that everybody is involved with, because ultimately, fisheries are an common asset for all parts of the UK.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

You just need to say it is not moved; there is no need to speak to it. Unless anyone disagrees, I do not think there is any need to debate clause stand part.

Clause 10 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 11 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 12

Power to grant licences in respect of foreign fishing boats

[Mr Carmichael]

I beg to move amendment 33, in clause 12, page 7, line 32, at end insert—

“(1A) The Secretary of State must publish each year a report on—

(a) the number of licenses granted, and

(b) the country of origin of the boat to which each license is granted.”

To ensure transparency and accountability over the granting of licenses to foreign fishing boats by each relevant national authority.

Clause 12 centres on the power to grant licences in respect of foreign fishing boats. There is concern in the industry—principally on the part of the National Federation of Fishermen’s Organisations—that there is a need for greater transparency in the way and the extent to which that is done. For that reason, my amendment would require the Secretary of State to publish each year a report on the number of licences granted and the country of origin of the boat to which each licence is granted.

Currently, the Bill allows only the political representatives of each of the relevant national authorities to grant licences to foreign fishing boats. The purpose of the amendment is to bring in an element of transparency and accountability. It should not be particularly onerous—I would have thought the administrative procedure would be fairly straightforward—but it would allow the industry to have confidence in the way the system works and prevent, or at least highlight, any abuse of the system, ensuring fair and appropriate use of the powers.

[George Eustice]

I hope I can reassure right the hon. Gentleman that, in common with a number of similar amendments, the amendment is not necessary but we have nothing to hide in this regard. I anticipate that we would indeed publish the number of licences granted where we were able to, probably as part of the Marine Management Organisation’s annual report, which covers a wide range of issues. I am happy to explore with officials whether a section could be added to the report to include such data.

There is one potential technical flaw with that approach. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, the granting of licences is a devolved matter. We have been working with the devolved Administrations on a sensible and pragmatic approach. In all likelihood, there will be one issue of a licence to foreign vessels granted access to our waters. It will be issued by the Marine Management Organisation, but only with the consent of each devolved Administration. The purpose of that is to remove the pointless duplication of having to issue four separate licences covering each part of the UK for an internationally agreed arrangement to grant a particular cohort of vessels access to our waters.

If that administrative approach holds—the devolved Administrations show no appetite at the moment for issuing lots of separate licences for foreign access—the Marine Management Organisation would indeed have access to that information. If at some point one of the devolved Administrations decided to grant their own licence, the right hon. Gentleman might have to ask his colleagues in other devolved legislatures to table parliamentary questions to seek the answers that he is interested in.

The right hon. Gentleman raises an important point of principle, and I will seek to update the Committee on Report about whether we can include what he asks for as a convention to be included in the annual Marine Management Organisation report. I hope he will not see the need to make it a statutory requirement.

[Mr Carmichael]

We strike a recurring theme here: the Minister is determined to legislate for happy times. We all hope that happy times will last. By definition, to be a Liberal Democrat is to be an optimist, so I hope more than anybody else that happy times might last. However, the purpose of the legislation is to deal with occasions when there are differences, tensions and disagreements. I do not doubt that the Minister will continue to publish the information in the way that he describes, but it is just about conceivable that the day will come when the Minister is not the Minister and there might be another Minister who will do things very differently. That is why we put these things in statute rather than leaving them to the discretion of individual Ministers.

[George Eustice]

The right hon. Gentleman is aware that in such circumstances, there would be many other mechanisms available, not least simply tabling a parliamentary question. If the Marine Management Organisation had access to the information since it had issued the said licences, it would be inconceivable that it could avoid answering such a question were it tabled as a parliamentary question.

[Mr Carmichael]

That is undoubtedly the case, but I said right at the start that the issue is one of transparency and accountability. Such things are best hard-wired into the Bill, rather than being left to the vagaries of the written parliamentary question system. The Minister says he will take the matter away and report back to the Committee at a later stage, so I will not press the amendment to a Division, but, as a caveat to that, I reserve the position with regard to later procedure. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Luke Pollard]

I beg to move amendment 63, in clause 12, page 8, line 10, at end insert—

‘(3A) No licence may be granted under this section unless conditions are attached to that licence so as to require the foreign fishing boat to comply with any standards in relation to environmental protection and marine safety that would apply to the same boat if it were a British fishing boat.”

This amendment would require licences granted to require foreign fishing boats to comply with the same environmental protection and marine safety standards as British fishing boats.

Amendment 63 seeks to put into the Bill a common and very serious concern of many of our fishing communities around the country, which is that the regime that might exist after we leave the EU will see one set of rules for UK fishers and potentially another set of rules for EU fishers, because access to our waters will still be on the basis of fixed quota allocations and many foreign boats will still own quota to access UK waters after we leave the UK, and a drawdown period, if one exists, will take a while to achieve. The amendment seeks to create in the Bill the very clear, in stark plain English, description that says that foreign fishing boats should obey the same rules as British fishing boats. It is a principle to which there is huge agreement across the country from Plymouth and Cornwall right up to the north of Scotland. It would not create extra burdens for our EU friends entering UK waters. It would create the same burdens—the same regulatory requirements—to which any UK fisher must adapt.

In particular, the amendment deals with environmental protections and marine safety. It is vital, when it comes to safety, that we do not inadvertently create incentives for foreign boats to cut corners and take risks with their crews that we would not allow on our own boats. We already know from anecdotal evidence that safety standards on different EU countries’ boats are very different. There are different levels of enforcement and compliance with existing regulations.

If we say—rightly, and as the Minister did in the earlier discussion on marine safety—that we want high levels of marine safety for UK boats, we should require the same high levels of marine safety for foreign boats. If we do not, there will be a regulatory gap, potentially, between UK and foreign fishing boats. There will be an efficiency in having lower marine standards, in relation to the cost of compliance for UK and EU fishers. Potentially, a situation could be created where our EU friends might, while fishing in our waters, get into trouble more often because of the lower levels of protection.

The amendment is simple, and would put into the Bill something that fishers across the country want—a clear prescription that EU fishers will obey the same regulations as UK fishers. It is essential to the Bill, and I am surprised that it has not been included. There would, I think, be support for it on both sides of the Committee. I suspect that the Minister will oppose it, and I should be grateful if he set out his reasons for doing so, and explain how the same thing can be achieved by other means. There is concern in fishing organisations because the detail in the Bill includes no such clarity about the same regulatory standards applying to EU and UK fishers.

Fisheries Bill (Fifth sitting)

Alistair Carmichael Excerpts

Committee Debate: 5th sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 11th December 2018 Public Bill Committees

[Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)]

I will speak to amendment 36 in addition to amendment 78. It is an honour to speak on behalf of the Opposition, not only as Labour’s shadow fishing Minister, but as an MP who represents a constituency that has nearly 1,000 fishing jobs in both the catching and the processing sectors. The Bill is a missed opportunity, and although we do not oppose it we have tabled a significant number of amendments to improve it and reflect the changes that the industry needs from a new regulatory framework. We seek to ensure that there are enough fish to catch in our ocean, and that the industry is truly sustainable, both economically and, importantly, environmentally.

There is perhaps just one sector of our entire United Kingdom economy that could be better on day one of Brexit—fishing—but only if we can ensure that our fish exports to markets are free of burdensome and expensive customs checks, and free from tariffs. Brexiteers and those behind the 2016 referendum made much of promises to the fishing industry, and Labour’s amendments seek to make real many of the promises that were made during the leave campaign, and since by Ministers, but that are missing from the Bill as drafted. Labour wants to work constructively with the Minister to improve the Bill, and I hope that he does, too.

This is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to start afresh and create a truly world-leading fisheries policy, and we must not waste that opportunity. There are good things in the Bill that we want to support, but there are far too many missing pieces. As I said on Second Reading, the Bill smacks of something that was pushed out hurriedly to ensure that a regulatory framework is in place in the event of a no-deal hard Brexit.

The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has committed the UK Government to leaving the natural environment in a better state than we found it, and rightly so. That is good and welcome, but we need more than soundbites—we need action, and many of our amendments would put such measures into legislation. There are significant concerns about the gap between the Government’s stated ambition, as set out in the White Paper, to deliver world-leading fisheries, and the duties currently in the Bill to deliver that goal. It is critical for the health of our oceans that the Bill includes a duty to deliver sustainability objectives as set out in clause 1. Without such a duty, targets are established but there is no clear obligation on authorities, other than the Secretary of State, to deliver them. There should also be a requirement for annual updates on progress made against those objectives.

Amendment 36 is vital. I am glad that the hon. Member for Waveney tabled a very similar amendment. He and I may sit on opposite sides of the House, but we have both spent a lot of time listening to our fishing communities in our respective constituencies, so we seem to be doing a cross-party tag team on many of our amendments. The purpose of the Opposition amendment is to place a legal duty on any public authority with any fisheries-related function to achieve the objectives set out in the Bill. Without such a duty, objectives are established but there is no clear obligation for authorities to deliver them. The Opposition seek an explicit carry-through of duties, rather than an implied or suggested one, as is currently the case.

We heard last week from Debbie Crockard, senior fisheries policy advocate for the Marine Conservation Society. She said:

“The ambition here is for world-leading sustainable fisheries management. At the moment we do not have a duty in this Fisheries Bill to meet the objectives in the Bill. Those objectives cover a lot of very good things—sustainability and a precautionary approach—but without the duty there is no clear obligation to deliver those objectives. Without that clear obligation you are in a situation where they might not be met and there is no obligation to meet.”––[Official Report, Fisheries Public Bill Committee, 6 December 2018; c. 80, Q157.]

Our amendment would make a simple but effective change. We are pleased with many of the words in the objectives, but it is important that we carry those through. I would be grateful if the Minister would say how he will ensure that those objectives are properly implemented and do not just exist on paper in the Bill.

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

I commend the hon. Members for Waveney and for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport for tabling these amendments, which deal with an important point. I have a concern about what is described in the briefing we received today from Greener UK as a “fundamental flaw”. The more I think about it, the more I understand that to be the case. The concern is that public bodies currently have to act in accordance with the joint policy statements. That may be good in so far as those statements marry up with the Bill’s objectives, but it leaves rather a lot depending on the content and substance of the statements.

The advantage of the amendments, which are essentially the same in their import, is that they would place a duty on public bodies to have regard to the objectives. Those objectives are good—there is broad consensus that they are exactly the objectives we ought to set in respect of fishing policy. It seems to me that tying public bodies into the objectives, rather than just the policy statements, is a good idea that would strengthen the Bill significantly. I suspect such a provision might have been put in the Bill anyway, had it spent a little longer in the oven of Government.

I am interested to hear the Minister’s thinking. I do not know whether the hon. Member for Waveney intends his amendment as a probing amendment, but Members inevitably will wish to return to this matter, either in Committee or at a later stage.

[The Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (George Eustice)]

It is a pleasure to start with this very important clause, which sets out our sustainability objectives. I hope I am able to reassure hon. Members that the two amendments are unnecessary because of other provisions in the Bill.

The fisheries administrations are already covered by the joint fisheries statement and, in the case of England, the Secretary of State’s fisheries statement. Clause 2 sets out a clear requirement to publish a joint fisheries statement explaining how we intend to achieve the objectives set out in clause 1. Clause 6(1) contains a requirement that the functions of national authorities must be carried out in accordance with the joint fisheries statement.

One of my issues with amendment 36 is that it uses the words “must have regard to”. I believe that the structure we have put in place—with a joint fisheries statement that explains in great detail how we intend to achieve the objectives, is regularly reviewed, can be updated when circumstances change, and must be followed—is more powerful than saying simply that authorities must have regard to the objectives. We want this to be an obligation that we seek to follow in the best possible way, while recognising the complexity of the marine environment and how things are subject to change.

--- Later in debate ---

[George Eustice]

I concede that I started this by mentioning clause 6, but I did so in the context of obligations that were to give effect to the measures in clause 1—we will return to that issue in further detail later on.

My third point is that the Environment Agency has a role when it comes to fisheries, and particularly freshwater fisheries—for example, the regulation of salmon. It is covered by separate legislation, and the Environment Act 1995 places a duty on the EA to promote the conservation and enhancement of the natural beauty and amenity of inland and coastal waters, and land associated with such waters, as well as the conservation of flora and fauna that are dependent on the aquatic environment.

For the reasons we have set out, we believe that the joint fisheries statement and obligations in clause 6 already give effect to the obligations and objectives in clause 1. Public bodies that are not covered by the joint fisheries statement are covered by other legislation, notably the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009 and the Environment Agency.

[Mr Carmichael]

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way, as I sense he is coming to the end of his remarks. Will he confirm that the contents of the joint policy statement could be subject to judicial review?

[George Eustice]

Lots of things in our constitution are subject to judicial review. If a joint fisheries statement were published and there was some doubt as to whether those objectives were being delivered, there is always a basis in our constitution for that to be legally challenged. However, I believe we will be able to work together with all Administrations to ensure that the joint fisheries statement sets out how we intend to deliver our objectives.

On the right hon. Gentleman’s point about why we chose to do that via a joint fisheries statement, he will know that the marine environment is a very dynamic place where new challenges present themselves. To have a dynamic, detailed plan that is updated periodically and remains relevant, which refocuses us on our objectives and learns lessons from what may or may not have worked, is more powerful than the two amendments would provide.

[Mr Carmichael]

The Minister is being generous with his time. He sets out a process that we hope would be followed in optimum circumstances. In fact, very often that is not the case; other considerations come into play. We have to produce legislation suitable to deal with the worst possible circumstances, not just the base that we hope for. Surely, the advantage of putting this into the objectives, rather than just remaining with the policy statements, would be that those who wanted ensure that the policies meet the objectives would not have resort to that sort of expensive legal procedure.

[George Eustice]

I simply believe that the approach we have set out, of a joint fisheries statement that can be regularly updated and can express in great detail how we intend to deliver those objectives, is more powerful than a simple addition to the clause. In this Bill we give legal effect, via the joint fisheries statement, for a requirement on Administrations to follow those objectives.

There are occasions, as the right hon. Gentleman will know from his constituency, when we have to do annual fisheries negotiations with Norway and the Faroes, and we have to do the coastal states negotiations on issues such as mackerel. Sometimes, countries such as Norway use other scientific measures, although maximum sustainable yield is one of their approaches, too. Sometimes, we have to reach an agreement, and if we are too inflexible in our approach to reaching an agreement with countries in those circumstances, everybody unilaterally sets their own quota and goes their own way, and the marine resource suffers. It is important that our plan has the flexibility to enable us to reach a settlement with our near neighbours such as Norway and the Faroes.

I hope I have been able to persuade hon. Members that the approach we have set out deals with the intention behind the two amendments, and that they will not feel the need to press them.

--- Later in debate ---

[George Eustice]

I do not believe the amendment is necessary, for reasons that I will set out. I will describe in a moment what we intend to do on quota allocation.

As the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport highlighted, case law in this area is very clear. We have an unwritten constitution, elements of which do not need to be put in statute. We do not need to put in statute that Parliament is sovereign. We do not need to put in the Bill that fish live in water. Certain things are facts, not objectives. We do not have an objective to make fish a public asset; it is a statement of fact that they are a public asset, and our common law tradition enshrines that.

The case law is very clear. The UK Association of Fish Producers Organisations brought an important test case in 2013, when my predecessor moved some quota. Mr Justice Cranston, the judge who took the case, noted Magna Carta and what it sets out, and its implications were that fish stocks are a public resources. As he stated:

“Consequently, there can be no property right in fish until they are caught.”

The nature of our unwritten constitution, our common law tradition and our case law make it clear: fish are a public asset. Furthermore, articles 2 and 56 of the United Nations convention on the law of the sea recognise that coastal states have sovereign rights over their resources, including fisheries in their territorial waters and exclusive economic zone, and we are signatories to that convention.

I do not believe it necessary, but I wish briefly to explain why in our White Paper we set out clearly that fish are a public asset. As we diverge from relative stability shares and additional fishing opportunities come in, we have been explicit that those new fishing opportunities will not be allocated along current fixed quota allocation lines, and that initially, as a first step, we will allocate the quota differently. We are considering a number of measures. First, we could put additional fish into the under-10-metre pool—the inshore pool—to give extra fishing opportunities to our smaller inshore fleet. Secondly, other parts of the Bill we set out an ability for us to use some of that additional quota to create a national reserve to help manage the landing obligation and deal with the problem of choke species and discards. Thirdly—again, this is set out elsewhere in the Bill—we have outlined the possibility for a producer or organisation to tender for fishing opportunities for a year or a number of years, based on their track record on issues such as creating opportunities for new entrants, their sustainability, the amount of benefit they deliver for coastal communities and so on.

We have been clear that new fishing opportunities will be allocated differently. In the longer term and once we have established alternative methodologies, if we gave sufficient notice—the judgment I mentioned earlier suggested that the Government would need to give seven years’ notice to people who currently hold FQA units—it would be possible gradually to start to move away from the FQA system altogether. We do not want to do that expeditiously, for the reasons set out in our White Paper. Complex business models have been built under the current FQA regime, and people have borrowed money to buy vessels with FQA units attached. As we leave the EU, a lot of changes will already be happening and we do not want to compound them by destabilising the system entirely. We have been clear that we will stick with existing FQA units for existing fishing opportunities, but we will diverge from that over time. To do that, we must simply give notice in a policy statement or document that we intend to do so; it does not need to be placed in the Bill.

[Mr Carmichael]

Would the insertion of the amendment prevent the Minister from doing that?

[George Eustice]

It would not, but nothing in the amendment is necessary, and when we draft legislation, it is important to include that which is necessary. Arguably, there would be nothing wrong with a piece of legislation that stated “Parliament is sovereign”, except that that which can be given can be taken away. We have an unwritten constitution and a common law tradition in this country because there are certain things that we do not want to call into question by including them in a Bill. We certainly do not want to downgrade this to a mere objective when it is about a long-established right and a national resource that cannot be turned into a property right, and that is a long-standing point in our constitution.

I understand the thinking behind the amendment and the points raised by the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport. I hope I have been able to reassure him that is unnecessary and, more important, that I have enlightened him of the Government’s intentions and approach as we move to a new system and regime for allocating quota.

[Mr Carmichael]

I confess I was not much exercised about this amendment until I heard the Minister’s explanation of why the Committee should not accept it. The Minister says that we do not need to put in the Bill the fact that fish swim in the sea. That is absolutely correct, but that is different from parliamentary sovereignty—the other example he cited. If I dredge the depths of my memory, that is the difference between a praesumptio iuris and a praesumptio iuris et de iure: there are some things that are irrefutable—fish swim in the sea, for example. Parliamentary sovereignty is not necessarily part of nature; it is part of the decisions we take. Jurists have wrestled with that for centuries.

Our own definition of parliamentary sovereignty has changed many times over the years. The whole question of sovereignty is seen differently in different parts of the United Kingdom. It is well established in Scots law that sovereignty is vested in the people and given to Parliament; the Diceyan definition of parliamentary sovereignty is not necessarily accepted. I did not particularly anticipate employing this line of argument, but as the hon. Member for Pontypridd said, the Minister started it.

[The Chair]

We are slightly off the topic.

[Mr Carmichael]

We are, but if the basis of parliamentary draftsmanship is that the Government will do things only that are necessary, that is quite welcome. However, given the direction of travel of legislation over the 17 years I have been in the House, that would be a fairly normal one and something of a departure from the way we have done things recently.

The Minister brought forward various policy objectives that would sit well in the policy statements at that point, but I do not see anything that contradicts the need for this to be put into the policy objectives. Whereas initially I was of the view that this was not something of greatest moment, now I understand the reasons why the Government resist it I am somewhat more impressed with the idea behind it.

[The Chair]

Does the Minister wish to reply?

--- Later in debate ---

[Luke Pollard]

Fish is a public asset and that should be in the Bill. That is the position of my hon. Friends, and I am disappointed that we have not been able to find a form of words to convince the Minister to be clear that fish is a public asset and should be in the Bill. This is one of the fundamental principles that fishers say to me when I go down to the quayside in Plymouth: they want the Government to come to an honest set of words that says, “Fish is a public asset.”

[Mr Carmichael]

The hon. Gentleman and I need to challenge the assertion that the inclusion of an asset is a downgrade from what was already there in common law. There is no such thing. All it says is that this is a fisheries objective; it does not change the status of public assets or the view of fish being a public asset in the way of jurisprudence.

[Luke Pollard]

I agree with the right hon. Gentleman. We need to make that clear, because this is not a Bill that seeks just to refresh and update the regulatory environment around fishing. It is a Bill laced with politics and other meaning, because of the importance of fishing to the Brexit debate. That is why setting a tone for fishing is so important.

The Minister claims that that is not necessary, but it is certainly desirable. We should ensure that the Bill, and all the fishers who will be governed by it, have a sense of the Government’s priorities. Having fishing as a public asset should be high up as one of the key priorities of the Bill and the Government. It is fine to mention it in statements, which we will come to in due course, but being clear that fish is a public asset should be at the front of the Bill, because that is what our fishing communities want it to be. That is why I will not withdraw the amendment but will push it to a vote.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

[Luke Pollard]

My hon. Friend is exactly right. It is important that we set high levels of safety standards for all fishing boats in UK waters, whether they are UK or foreign-registered. The highest safety standards, including wearing lifejackets with personal locator beacons, should be something that we demand. I would like to see every fisher in UK waters wear a lifejacket with a personal locator beacon. I want to stress the feedback from families of fishers who have been lost at sea. Wearing a lifejacket with a PLB might keep someone alive if the boat sinks or they go overboard, but if the worst happens and that life is lost, the PLB means there is a body for the family to bury or cremate. It is important that we recognise that feedback from families. There seems to be universal agreement that PLBs attached to lifejackets are a good thing, but we know that there is a cost to fishermen of buying new lifejackets with PLBs and registering them. That is why we have tabled the amendment, to make it clear in the Bill that marine safety is important.

Our amendment also deals with the subject of modern slavery. As well as enhancing safety standards, the amendment would address the minimum wage and tackle the issue of modern slavery, which unfortunately can persist far out at sea. Only last year in December, nine African and Asian crew members working on a pair of British scallop trawlers were taken to a place of safety by police as suspected victims of modern slavery. The men were alleged to have worked unlimited hours at sea with very little rest. That is why it important, when we deal with marine safety, that we recognise the pernicious behaviour of those people who are engaged in modern slavery. We need to ensure that has no place in the UK fishing industry, by including it in the Bill. The Prime Minister herself has championed the case against modern slavery. I am certain that if the Prime Minister, who does not seem to have much going on today, were serving on the Committee, she would vote in favour of the amendment, to support action against modern slavery and ensure not only that our fishing industry is as safe as such a dangerous pursuit can be, but that there can be no examples of modern slavery in it.

[Mr Carmichael]

Like many Members of this House, I am often wary about using legislation to send signals, because most of the time I do not think it necessarily ends well. However, from my experience personally and as a constituency MP, I think the hon. Gentleman’s amendment would send a very important signal, so I commend him for tabling it.

One of my formative experiences in the area came when I was still in legal practice. I was instructed to appear at a fatal accident inquiry at Lerwick Sheriff Court on behalf of a family from Banff, or perhaps Macduff, whose son had been swept overboard from a trawler, the Alandale, which is no longer at sea. In a force 7 or force 8 gale, the young man had gone over to the ledge around the side of the boat to fix a trawl door. The boat was hit by a big wave—a lump of water—and he was washed away. The skipper said that the crew saw a flash of orange oilskin in the water, but that was the last they saw of him. They looked for him for some time, but the search was ultimately futile.

When I was instructed in that case, the grief of the young man’s parents formed my view, which I hold to this day, that the matter requires our attention and every possible signal needs to be given. The other thing that struck me during the fatal accident inquiry was the evidence of the other deckhand, who was still in his late teenage years. He said that for a few weeks after the incident, he had worn a life vest of some sort; when asked on cross-examination why he had stopped wearing it, he said that he had been subject to ridicule from others in the industry. Nobody of that age, and nobody who had witnessed what that young man had witnessed, should be subject to such pressure. I have noticed that the situation has improved since, but there is still a lot to do. I still hold the view that there is a job of education to be done within the industry, and making it an objective of the Bill would be a significant improvement.

Locator beacons are another matter that I have formed a view on over the years as a consequence of my experience of dealing with families. One constituent, with whom I worked for some years, had a brother working on a single-handed creel boat who was caught in a rope—we think—when shooting his creels and went over the side of the boat, which was on automatic pilot. The boat was eventually found a considerable distance from where the family thought he had been fishing. A locator beacon would not have saved his life, but it would have saved his family immense pain and grief to know sooner where he was. It is a relatively small and inexpensive innovation, but it highlights the importance of putting safety objectives in the Bill.

Finally, let me make a point about modern slavery. The modern slavery that we have identified in the fishing industry has generally been a consequence of the operation of transit visas in relation to crews of non-European economic area nationals. The hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport has heard me speak about that in the House times without number. It is a ridiculous use for transit visas and the Government should get real and identify the need for non-EEA nationals to be employed in the industry, and make a sectoral provision about it.

If the objective were included in the Bill, arguably the Home Office’s current approach to visas for non-EEA nationals would be in breach of it. For that and other reasons, the proposed change to the Bill is eminently sensible and supportable.

[Brendan O'Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)]

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

The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland is right. Any of us who represent fishing communities know the devastation that can be caused when a boat is lost. Indeed, just at the start of this year in my constituency, the Nancy Glen sank off Loch Fyne with the loss of Duncan MacDougall and Przemek Krawczyk. The devastation felt is something I never want to see again. Anything that improves safety on board has to be supported.

I question the amendment in relation to wages and salary protection, but the SNP supports the principle. The Scottish Government—notably Fergus Ewing, the Cabinet Secretary—have written to industry stakeholders along those lines and spoken to the Government and officials about regularising the visa situation to ensure that non-EEA workers are subject to UK employment law. We are keen to get full implementation of ILO 188, the International Labour Organisation work in fishing convention. We have concerns that the wording of the amendment means it would not apply to the many fishermen who are self-employed, or to the significant proportion of the industry who are share fishermen, to whom such things as the national minimum wage do not apply. We need to ensure that anything in the licence works in tandem with existing law and check the exact implications of the amendment.

It is complex, so although we agree with the spirit of the amendment, particularly about safety on board, we must ensure that we get things right. If the amendment is pressed to a vote we shall support it but, if the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport does not press it, we will have an opportunity to work on a proposal covering more of the industry. We could work on that together and perhaps bring it back on Report.

--- Later in debate ---

[Brendan O'Hara]

Although these are all good aspirations, and we recognise the need to continually improve our data and the need to contribute to better science, we have concerns about some of the practical aspects. For example, who will pay for the very costly technological change that is proposed? I also question whether primary legislation is really the place for determining such scientific measures.

I caution that some of the technological measures are still in their infancy or, in some cases, not yet possible. For example, as I understand it the knowledge around identification and sizing of catches has only just been developed in terms of camera technology.

Finally, is it not for the devolved Administrations of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland to determine how to collect data, and indeed what data is to be collected? I fear that the amendments might inadvertently cut across that devolution settlement.

[Mr Carmichael]

To pick up on that last point, my amendment is probing, albeit with a serious purpose at its root. Essentially, the problem is that for years we have had conflict between what fishermen believe is in the sea and what scientists say is in the sea on the basis of the data that they have. The data that would be produced by the full documentation of catches—which is an important principle, whichever jurisdiction we are dealing with—would be the best possible evidence. It would be in the interests of the industry, and it would certainly be in the interests of the scientific community as a whole.

For years, I have complained about the fact that the source of the conflict between the industry and the scientists is that much of the data collected is almost two years old by the time it is used for the purposes of decision making. We know the situation in the marine environment can change massively over that time. As a consequence, we have a mismatch between the scientific evidence and what fishermen believe is in the sea.

What we propose would allow for a much earlier “quick and dirty” analysis of what is in the sea, and would offer the opportunity of different fisheries management systems. At the moment, given the way in which we use science, I would be very cautious about the idea of moving to anything like a real-time closure, for example. The science, of course, is always evolving and improving, but this is not a novel process; this approach is taken in a number of other fishing jurisdictions. If reliable data is coming from the industry itself, the objectives of real-time fisheries management will be much more easily achieved.

Amendment 24, which stands in my name, is probing, but it strikes at the heart of the approach that the Government will be taking, especially in later parts of the Bill, which deal with the practical ways in which fisheries management is to be undertaken. The National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations, for example, is keen to see the creation of advisory councils.

[George Eustice]

I will begin by setting out what is required now, what regulations we will have as a starting point, and some of the things that the Government are already doing in this area. First and foremost, the EU Withdrawal Act 2018 will incorporate all existing EU rules on data collection on to our domestic statute book. A significant amount of data is already collected: for instance, vessels over 10 metres in length are required to provide logbook data, which includes details of fishing activities, the catch, the type of fishing gear used, and the area where the fish were caught. Landing declarations are required, with information on the weight and representation of fish, and sales notes on the first sales of fish are also required. There is a comprehensive system of data collection, right from the point of catching and where those fish were caught, through to sales.

We have taken some steps in the past year to begin to improve data collection on the inshore fleet. Traditionally and currently, the under-10-metre fleet has been required to provide only sales notes. We have said that from next year, we will introduce a requirement for IVMS on inshore vessels, so we will know where those vessels are catching their fish. We will also introduce catch reporting as part of a step towards a new settlement with the under-10s: we intend to give them more quota but, in return, have a better understanding of how they are fishing and what they are catching. I believe that through those steps, by extending some of those provisions to the under-10-metre fleet, we will improve the documentation of where fish are caught and how they are caught.

The amendments are unnecessary, because they attempt to dip a toe into the type of detail that would be covered, in my view comprehensively, through the joint fisheries statement. Under that statement, we would have to demonstrate how we are delivering on that scientific objective. That is inevitably going to include how we are funding fisheries science, what the priority species are to move from a data-limited assessment to a full MSY assessment, what the challenges are, and what other issues we need to address. The matters that the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport seeks to cover in the scientific evidence objective should be picked up in much greater detail in the joint fisheries statement.

On the point made by the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland, who has lots of fishermen in his constituency, as long as I have been in post, I have been told that the scientists are always out of date and do not know where the fish are anyway, so they send survey vessels to the wrong place. I have looked at the issue in depth. We use a range of data, as Dr Carl O'Brien pointed out. We look, in real time, at landings data and the size of the fish being caught. There is the Endeavour—the survey vessel that CEFAS operates out of Lowestoft, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney—which goes to the same grounds every year to sample fish. There is an important reason for that: although the fish might move, there has to be a consistent yardstick to assess the same area; otherwise the control and the ability to monitor trends are lost.

That is not the only data that the scientists use. They use landings data and the survey vessel that goes to the same locations, but they also place observers on fishing vessels with the fishermen who say, “We know where the fish are and CEFAS don’t,” so we are monitoring that as well. We will never perfect the science, but the algorithms and models that the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea uses to predict stock trends factor in that some of the data may be a little dated. A constant refrain of fisherman is that the science is out of data and the scientists are in the wrong place anyway but, although we will never get it perfectly right, we do everything that we can to mitigate the types of effects that the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland described.

[Mr Carmichael]

The Minister actually makes the case for moving towards full documentation of catches very well.

[George Eustice]

As I explained earlier, we already have full documentation of catches on the over-10s, and next year we will introduce full documentation of catches for the inshore fleet. A linked issue is so-called remote electronic monitoring, which is basically cameras on vessels. Other parts of the Bill give us the power to require cameras on vessels, which could improve our abilities on enforcement and data collection.

We have the ability now, which we will retain in future through provisions in later clauses, to make real-time expeditious changes where required. We have had, for instance, issues with spurdog bycatch in parts of the west country. We had a successful spurdog bycatch avoidance programme, which was put together expeditiously in partnership between CEFAS and the industry in the west country, to assist fishermen to avoid those bycatches or to help them deal with them when they have been unable to avoid them.

I hope that I have reassured the right hon. and hon. Gentlemen of our progress in that area and of our commitment to science. The joint fisheries statement will cover those issues in greater detail.

--- Later in debate ---

[Luke Pollard]

I can deal with this quickly. The amendment relates to adding fishing opportunities or entitlement to the provision that is already in clause 1(7), so there can be no get-out-of-jail card. Fishers expressed concerns about ensuring that we have as robust a set of criteria as possible for foreign boats having access to UK waters. In the amendment, we ask the Minister to ensure that the clause and the criteria are as robust as they can be.

[Mr Carmichael]

Amendment 30, which stands in my name, is probing. I confess that its genesis is in briefings from the National Federation of Fishermen’s Organisations. I eventually tabled it because, on balance, it is an important issue that needs to be teased out. The amendment may not be the ideal way of doing it, because the enforceability of the duties of the other Administrations—Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish Ministers and Governments—is questionable, but the thinking behind it is important.

Essentially, given the devolved nature of fisheries and the fact that we will have the objective of equal access, we have to find a way around the conflict between the different systems that will be put in place in the different jurisdictions. If opportunities for fishing are to be taken up in England by boats from Scotland, or vice versa, or in Northern Ireland by boats from the west of Scotland, or vice versa, we need to find a way to ensure that the regulation is as accessible as possible.

Devolution is a good and worthy objective, which my party has supported for many years, but it can occasionally trigger the law of unintended consequences. If we do not manage the different systems in good faith, the people who have to comply with or enforce the regulations may be left in a difficult position. That is the issue that we seek to bring to the Minister’s attention by way of the amendment. I will not press it to a vote, but I am interested to know how exactly he envisages that will work in everyday, or every year, fisheries management considerations.

[George Eustice]

To address the amendments, I probably need to explain how quota flows through the various systems at the moment from the point at which it is created internationally. Both amendments stumble into the thorny area of our devolved settlement, as the right hon. Gentleman pointed out.

As an overarching point, we have sought to achieve through the Bill a system that enables us to manage our fisheries domestically in a way that respects the devolution settlement that has been established. To be honest, we sometimes have particular challenges in fisheries, because on one level they are about international agreements with other countries, which are a reserved UK competence, but on another level many elements of fisheries management have been devolved. In some areas, it has been challenging to put together arrangements that ensure that we have a UK framework, where it is needed, in a way that respects the devolution settlement, but I believe the Bill achieves that.

Let me explain how quota is created. First, we have an international fisheries negotiation between the UK and the EU, or the UK and a third country in the future, where, species by species, a total allowable catch and an allocation to the UK of that TAC are agreed. The UK Government then allocate that quota—our share of the TAC—to the devolved Administrations, currently following FQA units attached to the vessels where they are registered. That means we give Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales an allocation of quota. How they allocate that within their fleet is then a devolved competence.

A few years ago, the Scottish Government did a consultation on moving away from the FQA unit approach and allocating quota in a different way. Although they ultimately stepped back from that, it is a devolved responsibility for them to decide how to allocate that bit of the quota that the UK Government have allocated to them. The difficulty with both amendments is that they cross a line in terms of the devolution settlements, because they start to fetter the ability of the Scottish Government, the Northern Ireland Administration or the Welsh Government to allocate their own quota in the way they see fit.

We intend to pick up these sorts of issues through the joint fisheries statement. Indeed, we already wrestle with these challenges and we have a concordat and memorandums of understanding to manage these issues. Sometimes we have some tension between Scotland and other Administrations over where vessels are registered and where they are fishing, which can lead to disputes that we have to resolve. Due to the nature of our devolved settlement, the one thing we have become used to in fisheries is finding a way through the concordats, the memorandums of understanding or, in future, the joint fisheries statement. The challenge that both amendments alight on is not new; indeed, we have wrestled with it for some time. The solution to the problem lies in the joint fisheries statement that will set out common understandings in the way we approach these particular issues.

While I recognise that both amendments highlight an important issue, the issue goes wider than the Bill because it goes right to the heart of the devolution settlement. One thing we resolved not to do with this Bill is to attempt to rewrite or overturn the devolution settlement. In the absence of that, the joint fisheries statement is our solution to some of the problems the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland has highlighted.