Fisheries Bill [Lords]

Andrew Bowie Excerpts

Ways and Means resolution & 2nd reading & 2nd reading: House of Commons & Money resolution & Money resolution: House of Commons & Programme motion & Programme motion: House of Commons & Ways and Means resolution: House of Commons
Tuesday 1st September 2020 Commons Chamber

[Deidre Brock]

I have made it very clear that there are elements in this Bill that relate to issues that are still reserved, unfortunately, to this Parliament. I will address that later in my speech.

[Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)]

On the exact same point made by the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael), Fergus Ewing, on that same day, in that same meeting, said:

“You will have noted that I have recommended that we consent to the bill as introduced in full.”

So if what the hon. Lady is saying is correct, why does she disagree with the rural affairs Minister in the Scottish Parliament, who is a Minister in her own Government and is in her own party?

[Deidre Brock]

It is very interesting to hear the Scottish Tories being so protective of fishing communities. I only wish their current leader would go to make his apologies to Scotland’s farmers for the insults he offered them yesterday and the giant stooshie he created, which he will be some time recovering from. It does not matter how much the devolved Administrations want to do, they will not be able to prevent foreign fleets from fishing in our waters, as they always have, licence or no licence.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)]

Before I begin, I wish to commend my hon. Friend the Member for Moray (Douglas Ross) on an excellent speech, taking apart the SNP’s arguments for supporting its amendment. I also congratulate him on his recent election as the leader of the Scottish Conservative party. We saw tonight the determination and fight he will bring in taking our arguments to the Scottish people next May, when we intend to put him in Bute House as the First Minister of Scotland, replacing the current one, who has been long in that job.

What feels like a very long time ago, I was a junior staffer in the European Parliament. Part of my job was to attend the European Parliament Fisheries Council, where I saw time and again the views of our own MEPs, both SNP and Conservatives, representing our own fishermen overridden, outvoted and ignored by the combined votes of the Spanish and French. I worked on the deep seas fishing Bill through trialogue, a masterclass in European Union transparency and democracy: a closed meeting between representatives of the European Commission, the Council and the Parliament—no cameras, no public—where the finer points of EU law are thrashed out. Of course, the democratically elected arm of the EU is represented, but even then it can be represented by any MP, from any party, from any country and with any interest, and can be outvoted by the Commission and the Council. Even when the European Parliament did have a final say over fishing law, those fighting for the interests of the fishing industry routinely had the rug pulled out from under their feet, such as on the day in December 2015 when MEPs threw the industry into turmoil by voting to introduce immediately the demersal landing obligation, or discards, thanks in part to votes from the green group, in which of course SNP parliamentarians sat.

At the annual Fisheries Council in Brussels, agreements on the total allowable catches and quotas are agreed. Our Fisheries Ministers fought hard for British interests, but under the EU’s mantra of equal access to common resource—a concept only invented in 1970—on Britain joining the EEC, and bound by the common fisheries policy, their hands were tied.

This, for the past 40 years, is how fishing has been managed by the European Union. This is the system that the Scottish National party would have us sign back up to. European management of British fisheries has been undemocratic, untransparent and an unmitigated disaster for Scottish fishermen and our marine environment. In the north-east of Scotland, we cannot overstate the damage that the common fisheries policy and European management have done. The size of the Scottish fishing fleet has declined considerably since the 1970s, steadily falling year on year, particularly after British waters, which account for 14% of overall EU fisheries, became exploitable for Spanish and Portuguese vessels. Between 1992 and 2004, the Scottish demersal fishing fleet halved, from 800 to 400 boats.

Today, EU vessels fish six times as much in UK waters as UK vessels fish in EU waters, yet this is the system that the Scottish National party would have us sign back up to. Our fishing communities deserve better than to be traded away in European negotiations to secure concessions elsewhere, but this is the system that the Scottish National party would have us sign back up to. Tonight, this House has the chance to right these historic wrongs and deliver the Fisheries Bill that our communities and our fishing industry deserve.

The fishing industry, the Scottish Fishermen’s Federation, the National Federation of Fishermen’s Organisations and even the Scottish Government welcome this Bill. It is a step forward, not only because it provides the framework for managing our fisheries as an independent coastal state, enabling the UK to control who comes into our waters through a new foreign vessel licensing regime, but because it establishes our UK-wide fisheries objectives, with a joint fisheries statement setting out policies to achieve these objectives. That will provide more transparency for our fisheries management policies than was ever seen under the common fisheries policy, with clarity and assurance for our industry.

But what do we see today from the Scottish National party, a party that is usually consistent in calling for clarity and assurance over Brexit? We see a shameful amendment that if passed would leave our fishing industry rudderless, without guidance or assurance about what post-Brexit fisheries management will look like. I think we owe it to our fishermen, who have suffered so much under the CFP, to give them that certainty and guidance on what a post-CFP world would look like.

The people of the north-east of Scotland are used to being let down by the Scottish National party, which is focused solely on central belt votes, but this Conservative Government will not let down the people of the north-east. We will not let down our fishing industry. We promised that we would give Great Britain and Northern Ireland its seat back at the table as an independent coastal state and we will. This Bill will deliver that, and I will be very proud to vote for it this evening.

Fisheries Bill [ Lords ] (First sitting)

Andrew Bowie Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 8th September 2020 Public Bill Committees

[Luke Pollard]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for setting that out. Let me be clear: a Labour Government would not set total allowable catches above the maximum sustainable yield. Telling our European friends that we want a sustainable fishing industry is not giving the game away or betraying our fishers. It is setting out, clearly for all to see the fact that we manage our fish stocks sustainably and that we want a sustainable fishing industry, economically and environmentally. That is the level that we would approach this at. That is really important.

The right hon. Gentleman mentions the move to zonal attachment, rather than relative stability, which he knows Labour supports in relation to this. It is therefore important that we set the tone and the objective that our own fisheries waters need to be sustainable at that level. That is what the amendment to the Bill sets out—fisheries sustainability is the primary driver of fisheries management.

[Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the amendment is entirely unnecessary, given that the people most invested and most keen on maintaining sustainable fisheries are the fishermen engaged right now? By virtue of the fact that they need that industry to survive, and therefore need fish to reproduce sustainably, they are most keen on maintaining sustainability in our oceans. The amendment was therefore entirely unnecessary in the first place.

[Luke Pollard]

I agree that Government amendment 1 is entirely unnecessary, and I wish that the Minister would withdraw it. I fear that the hon. Gentleman was suggesting that the Lords amendment was unnecessary, but to save his blushes I will correct him on that. However, I agree that Government amendment 1 is unnecessary. [Interruption.] I will make a wee bit of progress before I take any more interventions.

Opposition Members are pleased that the Government have included a new climate change objective in the Bill, which was discussed when the last Fisheries Bill was in Committee. At that time, the arguments against that were that it would be unnecessary and would make decisions more difficult in future. I am glad that, on reflection, those arguments were shown to be unnecessary themselves. I believe the same should be said about this Government amendment, because we are sending a poor message to fishers, our coastal communities and all concerned about there being more plastic than fish in our oceans if we say that fishing sustainability is not the prime objective of fisheries management, because that needs to be front and centre.

That is why the Opposition support the Lords amendment to the Bill. Indeed, we note that it was passed with near cross-party support, with many Conservative Lords speaking in support of it. This is not only a view held by those on the left—it is a cross-party view held by those with a concern about the future of our fishing sector. I am concerned about the Government’s attempts to water down commitments to sustainability, kicking the climate crisis into the long grass with vague long-term objectives and no reference to any dates. Worryingly, while the Lords amendment guarantees that the environmental standards are not compromised in the long or short term, Ministers are seeking to remove that part of the Bill and replace it with reference only to the long term.

We need to send a clear message. Ministers have been clear in sending a message on their headline political objectives for fishing, but they have not extended that clarity to their headline sustainability objectives. Sustainability should be our prime watchword in the short, medium and long term. It should not be kicked into the long grass with the vague wording, “in the long term”. Our oceans are being irreparably damaged as we speak. We know that there are fish stocks under real pressure in UK waters. We have a wonderful mixed fishery in the south-west, as the Minister acknowledged. It is a real inheritance for our children that we have such diversity in our waters. Preserving that is important.

The Minister mentioned several items that I want to pick up in relation to Government amendment 1, before I turn to the subsequent amendments. I want our European friends to know that our objective is sustainable fishing. I want our European friends’ objective to be sustainable fishing. Setting that target along with the move to zonal attachment could be a profound statement of our future fisheries management intention.

The Minister mentioned the Richard Benyon review of highly protected marine areas. I appreciate that the first part of that report was pushed out before. I am concerned that we will not see the second part. I would be grateful if the Minister would set out what comes next. In making the case for highly protected marine areas, Richard Benyon—formerly of this parish—has made a strong case for delivery of the UN 2030 target, the oceans treaty, which the Government have signed up to. Labour argued that the Government should sign up to that. We were pleased when the former Secretary of State made that announcement.

It is important, but neglected, that that treaty says that by 2030, 30% of our waters should be fully protected. The phrase “fully protected”, rather than just “protected”, is important. It relates to the importance of sustainability as the prime directive, because “fully protected” means no-take zones. It means that we are not removing biomass from those waters. I do not believe Ministers have properly explained that to the fishing community. There needs to be greater clarity. Setting that target—to great aplomb and applause form all, including ourselves—dictates clarity as to how we achieve that.

We are just over nine years away from 2030. The plan to achieve that target is important. That is why sustainability must be at the forefront, as must the recommendations from the Benyon review, suggesting that the livelihoods of fishers must also be taken into account in setting any targets. I am not here to suggest policy to the Minister, particularly on that matter, but I would like to suggest to the Minister that her Department needs to set out what that road map is, if it is not to be a report that sits on a shelf as 2030 draws ever closer.

On amendment 73, the Minister mentioned our desire to achieve net zero for fishing. I raised this point on Second Reading at the Dispatch Box, as did several Labour colleagues. Having set a net zero target of 2050—although I disagree with the 2050 date and would rather it were closer to 2030—it is important that we have a road map as to how we decarbonise every part of our economy.

Amendment 73 requires that

“fish and aquaculture activities achieve net zero carbon emissions by 2030, including in particular through efforts”

in relation to a certain number of items. I am a 2030 believer, as someone who is red on the outside and green on the inside. The important thing is that I want the Minister to set out clearly the plan to decarbonise the fleet.

In Fishing News and other fishing publications there are wonderful examples of modern and fuel-efficient forms of propulsion in our fishing fleet, but there is no plan to decarbonise our entire fishing fleet. Indeed, some of our smaller vessels, which tend to be our oldest vessels, can use thousands of litres of diesel for a single fishing trip.  We need to make a case for having a plan to enable those fishers to afford to replace their propulsion with a cleaner method by 2030, rather than by the Government’s target of 2050. The lifetime expectations of propulsion, and particularly fishing boats, is currently within the planning horizon of many of our fishers.

If the Minister disagrees with that part of amendment 73, I challenge her to tell us what the plan is. Where is the plan? If no plan exists, when can we expect one and how will fishers be involved? There is enormous concern about how we replace propulsion within fishing, which is a really difficult challenge. There is no easy option or easy answer, but we know it must take place. The challenge is how that will be delivered.

The plan to phase out fossil fuels, which is mentioned in proposed new clause 1(10)(a)(iii) in amendment 73, is an important part of that. There is not the same focus on fuels across the full range of maritime uses as there is in the debate on the aviation sector, where there is greater focus on transition fuels, hybrid and other parts. We need to look at where that can be. The Minister will probably say that that is a matter for the Department for Transport rather than her Department, but the financial health of the fishing sector will be a matter for her Department. How fishers invest in that technology, and what technology they are encouraged to invest in, is an important part of that.

I disagreed with the Minister when she said that amendment 73 would only restrict efforts to focus on decarbonisation and the environmental performance of our fishing ports, but let us focus for a moment on the importance of improving the environmental performance of our fishing ports. In some cases our ports could do with investment in the efficiency of ice plants and the market infrastructure, given the importance of decarbonising those efforts. The amendment does not specify that they would be the only parts that Ministers could focus on; indeed, it says “including” those parts. I suggest that they give just a flavour.