Fishing Industry

Andrew George Excerpts

Thursday 28th November 2024 Westminster Hall

[Mr Carmichael]

As interventions go, I think that meets its total allowable catch. I will come on to that issue—the hon. Gentleman knows that, because we have debated it often enough. If he cannot be here for the entirety of the debate, his fishing constituents will know well enough that he is a regular and diligent contributor to these debates. He will be missed at the end of the debate, if he is not here.

Mr Efford, you and I are long enough in the tooth to remember the December fishing debate ahead of the December Fisheries Council, which was a staple of the parliamentary calendar when we were in the European Union. Of course, things have changed since then—the debate is no longer in Government time, but we always have the co-operation of the Backbench Business Committee in holding it, and the focus now tends to be on the UK-EU-Norway debates.

Essentially, we are still looking at year by year by year negotiations. I am afraid that, even outwith the EU, this remains an absolutely crazy way to run an industry. I cannot believe that any Minister in Government would ever go to Tesco or Sainsbury’s and say, “We’re going to tell you how much business you can do next year, but only for next year. By the way, we won’t tell you until the end of December—sometimes well into January or February—how much business you are going to be able to do.” Surely at some point we have to move away from this crazy annual round and get into a proper, stable set of multi-annual negotiations. But we are where we are for the moment, and that is what we have to deal with.

When the Minister responds, will he outline what he sees as the priorities for the negotiations this year? I also invite him to reflect on the role of the science that underpins the negotiations. The blue-chip science comes from the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea—ICES. It is always complex, often quite nuanced, and often vulnerable to misrepresentation. It is a mix of empirical data, extrapolation through mathematical modelling, conjecture and the application of precautionary principles when the evidence is just not adequate. That is then balanced with socioeconomic factors and a bit of politics thrown in for good measure. The TCA negotiations will coincide with the arrangements on energy co-operation, for example. I am afraid we are back in the situation we were in during the EU days, when there was often conflation between different negotiations; and where there was linkage, it was inevitably the fishing industry that lost out.

[Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)]

My right hon. Friend is making an excellent case. On his point about multi-annual quotas, does he not agree that ICES very carefully presents its advice in a manner that actually provides for Governments, Ministers and indeed the European Commission to adopt a policy of multi-annual quotas for stock recovery? It does not necessarily solely push the industry or the legislators into a position where they have to set the annual cliff edges that he describes.

[Mr Carmichael]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Many of the scientists who have contributed to the ICES data over the years will say exactly the same thing. They want to see the stability of the multi-annual approach that would allow the economic efforts and the conservation efforts to be managed together. That makes perfect sense.

At present, there is a real problem—albeit not a new one—in relation to data-deficient stocks. It has very real consequences that feed through to the whole process, due to the policy of proposing automatic precautionary quota cuts of at least 25% for stocks for which full scientific advice is unavailable. In the current round, for example, ling and lemon sole are not massively significant species, but they are an important and valuable part of the catch for the fishermen in the whitefish fleet in my constituency, and they face recurring quota cuts based on the fact that they are data deficient. If we do that year after year, we will have a quota that does not match the reality of the fish in the sea.

As a consequence, smaller species in a mixed fishery become a choke species, so it is a two-strand problem. First, there is not a proper quota for fish that could be caught and could be an economic benefit to the industry. Secondly, they can sometimes act as a choke species. Because there is a low quota for them, once they are caught other fish in a mixed fishery will not be able to be caught and landed either.

The opportunities that come with getting this right have been highlighted by the northern shelf monkish—a stock that was, following an ICES review, recently granted full analytical assessment and is no longer classed as data deficient. It will be a valuable species for the catching sector, no longer to be subject to precautionary quota cuts. However, the most significant point of all is that, based on scientific advice and full analytical assessment, for the first time, the recommendation now is for a quota increase of some 211%. That is where the operation of the various principles of ICES can be counterproductive, and it leads us to a situation in which we do not have the best outcome because there is a mismatch between what is in the quota and what is in the sea.

The fault, I am afraid, often lies in our own hands because it all comes back to how we fund and operate fisheries science within this country. In Scotland over recent years, our fisheries science laboratories have been salami-sliced away to the point of virtual extinction. There has been a chronic lack of investment in fisheries science. Something that was previously blue chip and widely respected across Europe has, I am afraid, been diminished to such a point that, in recent evidence to the Scottish Parliament, Dr Robin Cook, a fisheries scientist from the University of Strathclyde, said:

“It is of real concern that we no longer have a marine institute in Scotland with the capacity to deliver for the future. The directorate is dependent only on what it learned 10 years ago.”

If we do not put data in and do not gather the data for ourselves, I am afraid that we cannot really complain that what we get out at the other end is not fit for purpose.

I now turn to the trade and co-operation agreement review. At the point of leaving the European Union, expectations among the fisheries industries were very high, especially in the catching sector. It was the most obvious industry to expect a win from our departure from the European Union, and it was certainly promised one. It really takes something to do worse than the common fisheries policy, but somehow or other we found ourselves with a deal that the Scottish Fishermen’s Federation described at the time as

“the worst of both worlds”.

Provisions for review are built into the trade and co-operation agreement. We are in the transitional arrangements at the moment; the review will take effect over the course of next year and into 2026. From the discussions that I have had, I know that the EU sees that as a priority, and I would like to hear from the Minister that the Government see it in those terms as well.

The core issues at play are obvious: we are looking at quota numbers, specific stock allocations and, of course, access. It will take political will from this Government to win back the ground lost by Boris Johnson, but fishing communities expect positive change to be delivered. The fishing industry has a great story to tell; it is rooted in the island and coastal communities that define our country. The new Government have the chance to be part of that story and to close the sorry chapter of missed opportunities.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. It is also a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes (Melanie Onn), who gave what I suppose is best described as a commercial break in our proceedings, as she did a fantastic job of marketing the health and other benefits of consuming fish. This is déjà vu for me, in that I remember my first fisheries debate in 1997, for heaven’s sake. That was the annual fisheries debate we used to undertake in the main Chamber. One of the annual features of that debate was a contribution from the then hon. Member for Great Grimsby, the late Austin Mitchell, who I recollect was temporarily renamed by deed poll Mr Haddock, so enthusiastic was he to promote the fishing industry. I do not know whether the hon. Member for Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes is proposing to have a name change herself; she is certainly moving in that direction, given the nature of what she told us.

[Melanie Onn]

It is funny that the hon. Gentleman should mention that. I made it very clear in my maiden speech in 2015 that I would not be changing my name to Haddock or any other fish species. Interestingly, although Austin changed his name by deed poll to Austin Haddock, famously carrying a Harry Haddock inflatable to Parliament, we do not believe he ever actually changed it back.

[Andrew George]

Well, he died a fish, and we are very saddened by his demise. I should reflect, as we certainly did in those days, on the risk that people take to put fish on our table, of which my right hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) rightly reminded us. I remember that in 1997, we lost seven men in the industry in my constituency alone. It was just after the loss of the Margaretha Maria 200 miles off the coast of west Cornwall, in which we lost four men from Newlyn. We have sadly lost others in the industry since then. It is worth reminding ourselves just what a hazardous trade it is.

It is also a pleasure to see the Minister in his place. I thank him for coming down to my constituency in the summer to visit Newlyn and for the genuine interest he takes in the industry, both in the catching sector and in the processing and marketing sector, which certainly impressed everyone there who met him. I am very grateful to him for making that visit.

I come back to a debate on this subject after a decade’s sabbatical in the real world, which I must say is a very pleasurable place, and reflecting on a number of changes within the fishing industry in that time. Obviously, there is the B word; we do not want to return to the skirmishes of Brexit this afternoon, but it has certainly been a momentous change. During the period I was away, the fishing industry and fishermen were used as the poster boys for the Brexit campaign. I have to say that they were sold a very cruel hoax in terms of the outcome of the vote; they were made a lot of promises that have not been fulfilled at all.

I had been prepared to concede that there was a major opportunity for the fishing industry, and that it was the one sector within the UK economy that could potentially have benefited as a result of Brexit, but such a benefit has not been delivered. Those people who made promises at that time just walked away from the industry after they had come down to places such as Newlyn to have their photographs taken for the purposes of their referendum campaign. That caused a lot of bitterness within the industry. Nevertheless, we move on.

As my right hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland said, the common fisheries policy was often described as the worst possible policy apart from all the others, because fishing is a very difficult industry to manage, as the Minister knows and, indeed, as we all know. I remember engaging in fishing debates 10 years ago and there was a genuine belief then that we could move the industry away from the annual cliff-edge of the quota negotiations to a multi-annual system that would enable the industry, especially the catching sector, to plan five years ahead. Yes, there would be adjustments during that five-year, multi-annual rolling programme, but nevertheless it would provide a greater degree of certainty.

As I said in my intervention on my right hon. Friend, the science supports a multi-annual programme. If we want a recovery programme for most of the stock, there is no reason why we cannot project forward five years—not with great certainty, admittedly, regarding the situation five years hence, but with an indicative quota going forward over that period. That would help the industry to plan for the future.

Another outcome for the industry in my area has been the detriment to the very significant export trade that existed. A number of companies operating back then —particularly those at the smaller end, admittedly—have gone out of business as a result of the impediments that predictably, indeed inevitably, were placed in their way, particularly for those involved in the export of live fish to the continent. That was predictable but avoidable, and it has clearly had a detrimental impact on the local economy. Nevertheless, our local community adjusts itself to the challenges it faces.

The hon. Members for South East Cornwall (Anna Gelderd) and for Truro and Falmouth (Jayne Kirkham) have made some excellent cases on behalf of Cornwall’s fishing industry and the important role it plays in the local economy. Indeed, the Cornish Fish Producers Organisation produced a report, which I know was handed to the Minister, called “The True Value of Seafood to Cornwall”. It shows that the industry contributes £174 million to Cornwall’s gross value added per annum, with 500 full-time equivalent jobs in the catching sector alone. That equates to about 8,000 jobs in the seafood supply chain, so it is a significant player in the Cornish economy. It is often ignored, but nevertheless very important, particularly in my part of Cornwall with Newlyn being the largest port with a significant market.

The hon. Member for Truro and Falmouth also mentioned the need for a fishing and marine strategy, and I hope the Minister will take that on board. There are both opportunities and challenges associated with rolling out, as the Government must, with our support, the offshore wind programme in the Celtic sea, which we in Cornwall are keen to ensure achieves maximum benefit to the local economy and the community. There is no reason why it cannot be rolled out in a manner that enhances fishing opportunities rather than creating a detriment to the industry, but that requires the Minister, Energy Ministers and others to engage in dialogue with the industry to ensure that the location of those sites is planned with great care.

I want to draw the Minister’s attention to one of the—probably—unintended consequences of the decisions taken, through a little story of an individual fisherman from my constituency. An inshore fishermen from Cadgwith, who fishes from Newlyn, has been affected by the cut in pollack quotas. As the hon. Member for Truro and Falmouth said, compensation was offered to the industry, and many who received the funds used them, naturally, because they are fishermen, to go into other sectors where in fact there was pressure. For example, the industry is trying to protect the crawfish sector and implement a recovery programme. By then, there was no reason why the fishermen could not invest in the gear necessary to catch crawfish, and that had a detrimental impact on the recovery programme efforts.

[Barry Gardiner (Brent West) (Lab)]

I want to clarify something in relation to pollack. My understanding is that the scientific advice given out in June was that the total allowable catch should be set at zero, but it was not set at zero. The quota was set at 925 tonnes; even now, the stocks are much lower this year because the decision was not in line with the scientific assessment.

[Andrew George]

I will come to that in a second. The nature of what happens off the Cornish coast, and certainly in the south-west and other areas, is that pollack is caught in a multispecies environment. It is impossible not to catch pollack even when targeting other species—the hon. Member helps me to make the point—so my constituent went and targeted hake. The first thing to bear in mind is this. While he was targeting pollack, he was between 8 and 20 miles off the coast. To target hake, he had to go 40 miles or beyond, and that placed his small boat in significantly greater danger. In other words, it put him at greater risk to pursue an alternative fishery. That is point No. 1 to bear in mind.

The second point is that there is a pollack by-catch if someone is targeting hake. During one month—March of last year—my constituent caught more than 100 kg of by-caught pollack, which he was entitled to land in the market. Indeed, he was required to land it in the market; he could not throw it overboard. He was obliged to land this fish, as a result of which his licence was frozen by the Marine Management Organisation. Following some dispute, he was fined £1,000, and he then had to move out of that fishery. Of course, he was not targeting pollack at the time; he was trying to avoid it as best he could. The MMO did not offer him any kind of solution to the problem that he found himself with.

As a result of all that, my constituent has come out of that fishery and has since been targeting crawfish, of which the industry itself had undertaken voluntary measures to increase the minimum size and to help to recover the stock. Indeed, the minimum size proposed by the industry and implemented in Cornwall has since been picked up, adopted, in national legislation. The crawfish season is now over, so we now have a fisherman who has tied his boat up and is no longer able to fish.

The point is that I hope that the Minister, when looking at this issue, bears in mind that when we propose regulation affecting the industry, that is in effect a two-dimensional policy affecting three-dimensional reality. That is the problem. I hope that the Minister will reflect on the lessons learned just from that little anecdote when considering how policy is implemented, and on the unintended detrimental consequence. The measure does not actually help even the species that it is supposed to protect.

I hope that we are not coming back here in 10 years’ time, gnashing our teeth about the same issues and continuing this annual bunfight in which we do not even know what the quotas will be in just a few weeks’ time; I hope we have multi-annual quotas. One of the best ways of helping the industry is to provide it with all the capacity to manage itself better and for us politicians to try to stand back and keep out of it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Barry Gardiner]

I am delighted that I sat down to receive my hon. Friend’s intervention because she is entirely right. What she said goes to the remarks made by our hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall (Anna Gelderd) who, because of illness, is no longer in her place. She made a point about ensuring that consultations happen in accordance with the tides so that fisherfolk will actually be at the consultations and not out at sea. Her point was very interesting because that is not always appreciated.

[Andrew George]

The hon. Gentleman seems to be implying that the fishing industry is resistant to any conservation measures and would resist the proposed management measures that inevitably have to be brought into the industry. From my experience, the industry itself often proposes changes in order to protect its stock for the future. For example, the Trevose ground closure off the north coast of Cornwall during spring of each year was proposed by the industry itself.

--- Later in debate ---

[Daniel Zeichner]

I recognise that there have been some opportunities—not many, but some—and we will do our very best to make more of them. But I do not get a general sense that people in the fishing sector look back and think that was our finest hour. We can do better.

Our ambitions for fisheries are no longer tied to the EU common fisheries policy.

[Andrew George]

I should have intervened earlier. The Minister is making a strong point. On the back of that, all we have to do is talk to the pollack fisherman in Cornwall to find out how they feel about what has happened in the last year.