Fishing Quota Negotiations: Impact on UK Fleet

Andrew George Excerpts

Wednesday 26th March 2025 Westminster Hall

[Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the impact of quota negotiations on the UK fishing fleet in 2025.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers. I come at this debate as someone who is not entirely new to fisheries debates, after having been involved in them in the early days of my parliamentary career in 1997 and on a number of occasions since. On how the fishing industry is perceived by the political process, I have always found that there seems to be an inverse relationship between politicians’ desire not to interfere with the fishing industry and the inevitability that politics has to interfere in order to help establish and sustain an industry that is so important to this country. Indeed, there is a further inverse relationship in the sense that the industries that work in and are exposed to the raw power of nature seem to have a higher degree of regulation and administrative burden that is disproportionate to their sense of freedom from office-based activity.

It is interesting that the political parties that always seem keen to use the fishing industry as the poster boys for their campaigns and send flotillas up the Thames do not seem terribly interested in discussing the detail when it comes to the hard miles.

[Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing the debate. Although he did not name the individuals concerned, did he consider the fact that they might have other fish to fry?

[Andrew George]

We could spend all morning exchanging fishing industry puns, but I think it would be better to get back down to the nitty-gritty of trying to advance policy for the benefit of the fishing industry.

The Minister will appreciate what goes on in my constituency, which he visited last summer when he came to Newlyn, Sennen and other areas around Cornwall to look at the activities within the industry. That was very much appreciated and he clearly has a very sincere interest in the industry. Although he is not personally responsible for what he has inherited, he has a significant task on his hands in helping the industry find a way forward. That is what I hope we can encourage him to do today, because the issue for us—I am speaking on behalf of the industry, which I have spoken to on numerous occasions—is how last year’s quota negotiations are impacting on the prospects for the industry this year.

[Seamus Logan (Aberdeenshire North and Moray East) (SNP)]

I thank the hon. Member for introducing the debate in a light-hearted way—initially, at least—which is a contrast to some of the previous discussions. Is he concerned about reports that our French allies are seeking to link fishing quotas to other matters, such as access to the €150 billion defence budget? Does he agree that the Government should clarify their position on this, and will he perhaps ask the Minister to do so this morning?

[Andrew George]

I am sure that the Minister heard that intervention. It does trouble me. If we go back to 1974, when Edward Heath was involved in the negotiation of our entry into the EU, and to subsequent negotiations, the fishing industry has often been used as a pawn—a bargaining chip. It would be a great pity if that happened again. I know that fishing Ministers do not usually sit around the Cabinet table, but I hope the Minister will use his influence to make sure the message is heard loud and clear within the Cabinet and by the Prime Minister that the fishing industry is not a bargaining chip that can be handled in that manner.

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

My hon. Friend has spoken about political intervention. Fishery quota negotiations are difficult and nuanced at the best of times and understanding the granular detail of advice from the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea, for example, is never straightforward. It always goes badly wrong when we bring in other considerations. Does he agree that both our national security and our fishing industry deserve better treatment than the sort the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire North and Moray East (Seamus Logan) just outlined, if indeed what is reported is true?

[Andrew George]

If we are to establish a sustainable fishing industry that is fair to UK fishermen, it is important that the industry is reviewed on its merits and on the basis of science, not on political horse-trading with other countries. I strongly accept that point.

[Aphra Brandreth (Chester South and Eddisbury) (Con)]

Given the debate we are having and the risk that our fishing communities could be used as a bargaining chip, does the hon. Member agree that, as the Government have said, food security is national security, and we cannot have our fishing communities and fishing stocks traded against defence in any way?

[Andrew George]

These negotiations are difficult at the best of times. We need to make sure these decisions are made on the basis of merit. Of course, we wish to re-establish UK fishing entitlement out to the 12 mile limit and to ensure that foreign vessels are not able to use their historic entitlements to fish within the 6 to 12 mile zone. Relative stability within the common fisheries policy left the UK, particularly in the western approaches, with a significantly poorer deal in comparison with many European countries, and that is the basis of a great deal of disquiet within the industry.

[John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)]

The hon. Member is being generous with his time. I am fortunate to represent the fishing fleet off the Berwickshire coast, which is relatively small but very active, together with the fish processing industry. The Scottish Fishermen’s Federation produced a very helpful briefing note ahead of today’s debate. One of the points it makes is that, since the UK left the EU in 2020, the UK and Scotland’s opportunities have increased greatly, and those opportunities would not have been there had we remained in the EU. Does the hon. Member agree with the Scottish Fishermen’s Federation?

[Andrew George]

No, I disagree. I think that overall, the impact on the fishing industry has been a net negative, certainly for people in my own region, who depend substantially on the export of fish to other European countries. In the past, the majority of the fish landed in Newlyn, which is a very substantial port in my constituency—at least 80%—went to France, Spain and other European countries. The impact that that and other things, including veterinary inspections, vivier export requirements and licences, have had on the industry has been significantly detrimental, so I do not accept that. That is a conversation that I would be very happy to have with the Scottish Fishermen’s Federation, but by no means can one say that Brexit has been a great success, because that is certainly not the case.

The fishermen in my area do not feel that they have been well treated as a result of those negotiations. As a passionate remainer, I was prepared to accept that on the face of it, there was a potential benefit. There should have been—fishing was the only industry in which it was possible to make an argument that there could be a potential benefit as a result of Brexit—but that has not happened, so I reject the basis of that intervention and the point made.

I hope that in time, the Minister will look at the opportunities, rather than taking the sort of stop-start approach that I am going to refer to today—I will get to that point after all the interventions. I hope he will look instead at a medium and longer-term setting of quotas, with rolling multi-annual quotas, perhaps of up to five years. That should be the Government’s objective, and they should work with scientists so that the industry can see a way forward, rather than having to adjust its business plans at very short notice, which is the case at present.

I will be adding a few small points about the small-scale, low-impact fishing industry; indeed, I come to this debate as someone with a limited amount of experience within the industry itself. When I was younger, our family had a boat at Mullion, in the south of the constituency, which used to supplement our income from the smallholding that we had. It was very low-impact, outboard motor and oar-based fishing activity that involved the setting of lobster and crab pots—very little of it was mechanised; it was all pulled by hand—and mackerel hand lining. It was low-impact fishing that we could only undertake during the summer months because of the storms that came into the coast in Mullion over the winter period. I have that experience, and many members of my family are engaged in the industry.

The Cornish fishing fleet has a value to the Cornish economy of £174 million, and 8,000 people are employed in the industry, so I particularly wanted to address the impact of the 2025 quota settlement on choke species. It is going to have a detrimental impact on the significant amount of fishing that takes place around the western approaches. The headline impact is that on pollack, which is very much bycatch fishing only. Boats under 10 metres are allowed just 75 kg per month. We have to remember that this is an ultra-mixed fishery, so even though those fishermen target other species, such as hake, it is hard for them not to catch pollack. Because pollack is healthier than the science seems to indicate, fishermen end up catching a lot more of it and, under the regulations, are obliged to land it.

When the long-term ban was announced last year, the previous Government provided financial support for only one year, and the Minister and the new Government have not announced any other compensation for those affected by the pollack ban. I would be interested to know whether the Minister has anything to say about that. The industry asked for management measures for the recreational industry. At present, there is no management in place for the recreation fleet. The Cornish Fish Producers Organisation estimates that up to 50% of the total pollack catch around our waters is taken by the recreational angling industry.

The International Council for the Exploration of the Sea advice for pollack is currently being benchmarked, as the Minister knows, and that formal review of the available science will lead to new advice in June. The House and I would be interested to know what power and influence the Minister has in that regard before June and over any decisions taken after June when the benchmarking process has been completed. Will he commit to introducing new management of the pollack stock on or before the completion of the benchmarking process? The industry cannot wait until next January.

There are similar problems with Dover sole. Our fleet is targeting megrims and monkfish, but Dover sole are known to be abundant in many areas. In areas VIIe, VIIf and VIIg, Dover sole are relatively abundant, and therefore the total allowable catch for those areas is relatively good, but data is lacking for areas VIIh, VIIj and VIIk, which has led to a much lower total allowable catch as a precaution. For example, each boat can catch 400 kg of Dover sole per month in area VIIe, but in VIIh it is limited to just 30 kg per month. Because of the catches that have been experienced, that is a significant diminution in the activity that the industry can pursue.

In 2023-24, the Cornish Fish Producers Organisation fleet worked with the Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science to collect genetic samples of sole in VIIe and VIIh areas to provide evidence of the genetic links between the two stocks. Unsurprisingly, they saw that Dover sole swim between those areas. If that is proven and accepted, there will be greater confidence in setting fishing opportunities for the fleet to target monkfish and megrim in those other areas. I hope the Minister will prioritise the review of the scientific evidence at the UK-EU Specialised Committee on Fisheries, with a view to making a joint request to ICES to amend the total allowable catch for Dover sole in that area.

Similarly, the industry is working with scientists, CEFAS and environmentalist non-governmental organisations to aid the recovery of the stock of spurdog—a slender shark found in our waters—by providing bycatch and discard data. The spurdog fishery reopened in 2023 with a 1 metre maximum landing size as a precautionary management measure. Spurdog is a non-target species in a mixed fishery, so its increasing abundance is leading to increased unavoidable bycatch, forcing vessels to discard fish over 1 metre in length. In December the written record agreed that that rule should be reviewed in 2024 and 2025, but so far no meaningful adjustment has been made. Will the Minister promise to follow through on the commitment to review the 1 metre rule and work with the industry to develop more sustainable management measures?

There has been a dramatic recovery of bluefin tuna in our waters over recent decades. In the past, the Atlantic bluefin tuna saw drastic cuts in catch limits, and a crackdown on illegal and unreported catches across its whole range. The International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas has taken that action over the last 20 years to reach a tipping point. Over the last decade the recovery has benefited that fishery, and has reached the shores of Cornwall, where sightings of bluefin tuna have increased by a factor of 60 since just a decade ago. The total allowable catch set by the International Commission is over 40,000 tonnes, more than half of which is allocated to the EU. In 2021 the UK received 50 tonnes of quota, initially for bycatch. In 2025, the UK quota is 66 tonnes, with 45 tonnes for commercial hook-and-line vessels.

Sixteen tonnes, almost a quarter of the entire quota, is set aside for accidental mortality from recreational catch-and-release permits. Tuna are vulnerable to unintended mortality due to the long fights they often endure with anglers, so mandatory training and strict handling procedures have been applied to some vessels, and 1,700 tuna have been released with minimal mortality. But in 2024 recreational catch-and-release permits were introduced, with a voluntary code of conduct and training. Will the Minister join a roundtable meeting of MPs, fishers and scientists to look at how the UK tuna industry can be managed more sustainably?

I will not detain the House for much longer, but there are other issues that I know the Minister is aware of, and which I have spoken to him about—particularly the impact of regulations on the small-scale fishing industry: day boats, under 7 metres, that fish around our coast and take less than 1% of the annual catch. Last summer I met Jof Hicks on the island of St Agnes in the Isles of Scilly. Over the last five years, he has gone out of his way to develop a fishery that has the lowest possible impact because there is no plastic or fuel involved: he uses sail and oar, and he makes his own crab pots entirely from natural materials—growing his own withies and tamarisk to make the pots. He is sustaining a living from that. Admittedly, some of the restaurants on the Isles of Scilly are able to provide him with relatively healthy prices for his produce, but he is nevertheless demonstrating that it can work. However, he complained to me that all the same regulations that apply to supertrawlers apply to him with his home-made boat and locally made lobster and crab pots. I urge the Minister to have a close look at that, perhaps with me. I am not arguing that this is the future for the fishing industry, or that we can feed the nation by this method, but it can make a measurable difference and provide an alternative way of catching fish in areas such as mine, and no doubt in other places. We could forge a different approach. If we could take unnecessary burdens from the shoulders of people such as Jof Hicks, that would be enormously appreciated.

I will bring my remarks to a close, because many others wish to speak. I hope that the Minister will respond to the questions raised. I believe that politicians and the fishing industry are all pushing in the same direction—towards a sustainable industry based on the best available science—but we need to ensure that the regulations that are informed by that science do not create unintended consequences that have a detrimental impact on fish stocks and the fishing industry.

Things have changed. The culture has changed, and the industry is much more engaged with a science-based approach than perhaps it was when I first engaged in these debates nearly 30 years ago. I hope that we will continue with openness and dialogue, and that we will push for efficiency in the way we update the regulations this year. The pressures on the fisheries I mentioned earlier, which are being affected by choke stocks such as pollack and Dover sole, need to be addressed before the end of the year.

[Martin Vickers (in the Chair)]

I remind Members to bob if they wish to speak. I intend to call the Front-Bench spokespeople at 10.28 am; if Members bear that in mind, we can probably manage without a formal time limit.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister for Food Security and Rural Affairs (Daniel Zeichner)]

It is a pleasure to speak with you in the Chair, Mr Vickers. I thank the hon. Member for St Ives (Andrew George) for securing this debate. I welcome the opportunity to talk about the UK’s fishing and seafood industry and particularly the impact of quota negotiations on the UK fishing fleet in 2025. I thank all Members for their constructive and thoughtful remarks.

I agree with much of what the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Dr Hudson) said, particularly about cetacean hunts. I assure him that we have pressed that case at every opportunity, and that is exactly why we will be proceeding with electronic monitoring. We have common cause on some issues.

We have heard from Members from all around the United Kingdom—Northern Ireland, England, Scotland and, of course, the south-west—and the views of hugely diverse interests. As my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes (Melanie Onn) pointed out, this is a complicated sector. I will try to cover as many of the points that Members made as possible. I say that to give them a sense of where I am going and so they do not feel that I am leaving them out. I will start with some general points, and then touch on the reset with the European Union and say a bit about the spatial squeeze. I will then address the very detailed points that the hon. Member for St Ives made.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his very thoughtful and sensible introduction, which covered a range of issues. I reiterate how much I enjoyed that visit in the glorious late summer last year—it seems quite a long time ago now. I very much enjoyed seeing the diversity of the fishing fleet in Newlyn and the fish market, and listening to the views of fishing and seafood businesses. It is only by having direct discussions with people working on the frontline that I can be properly informed. It is all very well sitting around having policy discussions, but it is best to hear from those people.

I want to restate at the outset just how important the fishing sector is as a source of sustainable food for our country—a number of Members made that point. There are also wider social, economic and cultural issues surrounding that historic sector. As the Secretary of State has said repeatedly, the Government are keen to co-create policy through listening to fishermen and their representatives. That will enable us to create better policy.

Fishing is, of course, a very challenging job, and as the hon. Member for Epping Forest rightly said, sadly it is too often dangerous. It is therefore always right to pay tribute to those who have been injured or have tragically lost their lives at sea over the last year. The Marine Accident Investigation Branch published its 2023 annual report in October, in which it detailed the tragic loss of four lives and the loss of three fishing vessels in 2023. It is always important that we remember that. It is also important that the good work to improve safety continues—I will touch on the regulatory issues later—and that safety is paramount. I am afraid that there is still under-reporting, as the marine accident investigation branch flags up.

This debate is about the fisheries negotiations for 2025 and the impact on the industry. It is timely because we published reports on the sustainability and economic outcomes of the negotiations just last week, so I thank the hon. Member for St Ives for securing it now. The independent sustainability outcomes report states that the number of fish stocks, set in line with scientific advice, stayed the same for 2025 compared with last year, while the economic outcomes report details the UK fishing opportunities for all UK quota stocks in 2025. As mentioned by the Select Committee Chair, the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael), those reports are quite complicated.

I recognise the point made by the hon. Member for Gordon and Buchan (Harriet Cross) about the figures, although I take slight issue with her: yes, 769,000 tonnes of quota is down a little, but I am told that its value is slightly up, at £1.04 billion—it is about the same. The issue is that our share has remained constant while the overall amount has fallen on scientific advice. We need to be mindful of this issue. One thing on which everybody agrees is that it is essential that we follow scientific advice. We obviously have to interpret that advice in line with legislation and policy, but we still have the global challenge of maintaining our fish stocks.

As an independent coastal state, our approach to all negotiations has been driven by our domestic priorities, and sustainability is at the heart. We aim to set catch limits that take account of the best available scientific advice, but we will always back our British fishing industry and, through negotiations, push for the best possible opportunities for British vessels. That is a complicated set of trade-offs and negotiations. Many different parts of the sector come to me, quite rightly, to make their case, and they do it well, but we have to get the best deal for everybody.

In that spirit, in our bilateral negotiations with Norway for 2025 we trialled a new approach by working closely in partnership with UK industry representatives to develop a package of quota exchanges. This approach stems from our commitment to putting more emphasis on delivering our policies and programmes in partnership with stakeholders—we are working with the industry, so it is not just us doing it.

Industry feedback about addressing the balance of those who contribute and those who benefit from the negotiations has been broadly positive. In the light of that feedback, my officials will this year be hosting a series of workshops with stakeholders to help us consider how we take forward our negotiations for the next year. I am determined that we do things differently under this Government, and I am keen that we co-deliver wherever possible.

The hon. Member for St Ives asked about multi-annual quotas, which we discussed a few months ago. When setting TACs for stocks, we are guided by the best possible scientific advice. For most stocks, that is provided annually by the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea, but for some stocks, such as black scabbardfish and northern shelf ling, ICES provides biannual advice, so we agree catch limits for more than one year. In some forums, we are seeking long-term management strategies that can provide greater stability for industry between years. I hear the hon. Gentleman’s point, and we are looking at this issue, but it is important that we respond to annual advice.

[Andrew George]

I am not a fisheries scientist, but a lot is known about the maximum sustainable yield and the recruitment of each of those species that are relevant for commercial fisheries, as well as about the length of life and when species reach sexual maturity. It is therefore surprising that scientists cannot provide some projections for future years. Even if the data is only indicative, it would be helpful for the industry to know it.

[Daniel Zeichner]

I hear the hon. Gentleman’s point, and I will go away and discuss it further. Virtually every Member who spoke talked about our relationship with our near neighbours in the European Union. Clearly there is a negotiation going on by proxy, if not directly, at the moment, so I will not comment on the individual points that have been made other than to reflect that we are determined to get the best possible outcome for our nation. I am determined to get the best possible outcome for our fishing sector, because there is a widespread sense that people were sold short last time around.

The temporary adjustment period for fisheries access ends in 2026, as was agreed in the UK-EU trade and co-operation agreement. The Government are absolutely committed to a reset with the European Union, but I assure the House of my determination that we get a good outcome for the fisheries sector. We have proven our ability to build a strong relationship with the EU on fisheries matters, including through the quota negotiations. We have had five years of annual negotiations, and we have built strong foundations on which to take forward future agreements that benefit our shared fish stocks and our respective industries. Other countries are clearly pushing very hard, and we will push equally hard for our sector.

In 2026, the fisheries heading of the trade and co-operation agreement will see access for EU vessels into the UK zone become a matter for annual negotiation, to sit alongside our annual consultations on catch limits with a range of coastal states and international fora on fishing opportunities. That is a very important point.

Our ambitions for fisheries are no longer tied to the EU common fisheries policy. We have our own objectives, and we are making progress on things like fisheries-management plans, which are very important. That is central to our priorities for UK fisheries and the thriving, sustainable industry we want.

Clearly, one of the biggest issues facing the sector is the spatial squeeze, and I want to send a message to the industry that I am absolutely determined to stand up for our fishing sector. We need to achieve a whole range of things in our waters, and food is one of them. That will only get more difficult in the coming period, but we have established a very good process for resolving these issues through our marine spatial prioritisation programme. We will take a strategic approach to managing those dilemmas, but I do not underestimate how strongly people in the fishing sector feel about this—it has been raised with me repeatedly. I insisted that we put out the very strong written statement a few weeks ago on protecting the fishing sector.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew George]

We have had a very engaging and thoughtful debate, as the Minister said. In the small amount of time remaining, rather than going through each of the contributions made by the hon. Members for Dumfries and Galloway (John Cooper), for Strangford (Jim Shannon), for Gordon and Buchan (Harriet Cross), for Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes (Melanie Onn) and for Epping Forest (Dr Hudson), as well as my hon. Friend the Member for South Devon (Caroline Voaden) and the Minister, I will bring the conversation back to the positive outlook for the future of the fishing industry that the Minister has encouraged us to accept. That is certainly the message we would like to come from this debate.

On the specifics of the future total allowable catch of pollack, the Minister quoted the ICES advice that it does not see any signs of recovery, which is contradicted by what the industry is seeing in its nets as we speak. I hope that we get updated advice before the end of the benchmarking period in June. I would appreciate it if the industry and I could meet the Minister at that point to ensure that we have the most up-to-date evidence, which will be critical to the opportunities for the rest of this calendar year.

I welcome the Minister’s comment on looking again at the regulation of the recreational sector. Those points are worth pursuing, as is what the Minister said about low-impact, small-scale fishing. Perhaps we could have further discussions on that, as I know many Members are interested to know how it can be advanced.

Clearly, the apparent tie that has been made between the fishing industry and defence is the worrying backdrop of the debate. Likewise, the trade and co-operation agreement has cast a shadow over this very productive debate.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the impact of quota negotiations on the UK fishing fleet in 2025.

Sustainable Farming Incentive

Andrew George Excerpts

Wednesday 12th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Daniel Zeichner]

As I have said to many hon. Members, I am always happy to try and meet farmers whenever I can, and I will add my hon. Friend to my list. I absolutely understand her point, but there was a fundamental problem with the schemes as designed, which we inherited. We need to do better in future. That is what we will do as we redesign them.

[Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)]

What assurance can the Minister give farmers in my constituency? A site of special scientific interest has recently been designated in the Penwith area, which is supported by a recent designation of landscape recovery. We now seem to be in a position where there will be no support for that at all. How will my farmers adjust to the new regime, and what assurance can the Minister give them that the funding will be in place to support their actions in the SSSI?

[Daniel Zeichner]

There is some complexity in that question that I might need to address directly with the hon. Gentleman. Landscape recovery is absolutely not affected, so it depends on the exact nature of the application.

Draft Flood Reinsurance (Amendment) Regulations 2025

Andrew George Excerpts

Wednesday 26th February 2025 General Committees

[Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Vaz. I thoroughly endorse the remarks of the hon. Member for Epping Forest and the questions he raised. I will make three quick remarks, the first of which is to embellish his point about whether the figure in the regulations takes sufficient account of anticipated development. The Government have committed themselves to significant housing growth in the coming years. With the Environment Agency’s projections extending the area of flood risk to new locations—it is inevitable that they will extend further over time, as all Members of Parliament will be aware—to what extent does the figure in the regulations take fully into account projected development growth in flood risk areas?

Secondly, what action can be taken when a planning application is made in a flood risk area where the Environment Agency has warned against development and the local authority grants planning permission in spite of that advice? In those circumstances, will properties be protected under the Flood Re scheme, or will they be penalised because the advice of the Environment Agency was ignored, including by the local authority that provided planning permission, placing a burden on the public purse?

Finally, on my first point about the development that the Government are planning and the areas to which the Environment Agency is extending flood risk zones in its 30-year projections, to what extent is that burden taken into account in the calculations? It is not just the developments that are happening, but the extent of the flood risk areas, which will inevitably grow over time.

Oral Answers to Questions

Andrew George Excerpts

Thursday 6th February 2025 Commons Chamber

The Secretary of State was asked—

[Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)]

1. What steps he is taking to promote biodiversity recovery.

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

This Government are determined to halt and reverse the trend of nature loss in our country and end the cycle of destroy, regret and restore. We are investing £400 million in tree planting and peatland restoration. We have announced a new nature restoration fund and set out plans to end the use of neonicotinoid pesticides that harm our precious pollinators.

[Andrew George]

I am grateful to the Minister for her reply. The UK is one of the most nature-depleted nations on this planet. The “State of Nature Report 2023” indicated that up to one in six UK species faces the risk of extinction. The Minister’s reply is very encouraging, but just last week the Chancellor, promoting the Government’s growth agenda, urged us to

“stop worrying about bats and newts.”

If it really does come to that, who speaks for the Government, and whose side is the Minister on—the Chancellor or threatened wildlife?

[Mary Creagh]

We have to end the false dichotomy between creating places for people and creating places for nature. The previous Government introduced biodiversity net gain, which means that when a developer builds somewhere, they must deliver a 10% BNG for nature. That is in its early stages, after just a year, but we are looking to see how it might be extended. With the nature restoration fund, we have established a more efficient and effective way to allow obligations related to our most important sites and species to be discharged at scale, which has the greatest environmental benefit and is a win-win for nature and people.

Climate and Nature Bill

Andrew George Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 24th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to support my hon. Friend the Member for South Cotswolds (Dr Savage) and the excellent work she has been doing in advancing the Bill. Indeed, for many years I have supported it in its previous iterations in the local authority in Cornwall. I had a speech prepared to encourage the Government to support the Bill, and I have listened to what my hon. Friend said about the importance of advancing the essence of the Bill. Since then, we have heard from the Green party, and I worry that we are now at risk of playing politics with an important matter. I believe that what is most important now is that we bring parties together with a shared agenda, and find a way forward, rather than generate divisiveness at this stage.

[Adam Thompson]

We have heard extensively about the importance of cross-party consensus, and I believe we have been having a fantastic discussion to that end. Does the hon. Member agree that in the name of cross-party consensus we should be working together and not just party political grandstanding in favour of the Green party?

[Andrew George]

Yes, of course I agree. I am a strong supporter of the Bill and want it—certainly its intent—to proceed as rapidly as possible, and for us to make progress in all the areas that have been advanced. We must challenge and ensure that we not only meet the commitments that successive Governments have made in relation to our climate targets, but that that that is achieved and reviewed on a regular basis. To be fair, as the hon. Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare) made clear, successive Conservative Governments have made important advances on nature conservation—from the Wildlife and Countryside 1981 onwards. It is not right or proper to besmirch any particular party for having failed in this area; we may well have arguments, but what we want is to bring together a political consensus to ensure that we can take these matters forward.

On nature, we face a significant crisis. I do not claim to be an expert, although I have been a lifelong member of the Cornwall Wildlife Trust and I support all its work. I have also supported a number of projects in my constituency—for example, during the summer months, I volunteer on a butterfly transect in my locality to track the decline of butterflies. Some might ask, “Well, what is the relevance of that?” but butterflies are the model organism through which to study habitat fragmentation, habitat loss and climate change in this country, and the weather vane for how we as a nation are doing.

I have to say that the results of the transect are extremely worrying, and although I am more of a bag carrier and scribe for my wife, it is certainly an educative and helpful process—I would encourage all hon. Members to undertake similar volunteer work in their constituencies to track and monitor what is going on with our wildlife. The locality where the transect takes place is a particular hotspot for the silver-studded blue, and we are tracking its decline there. However, nationwide, in the last 14 years, the common blue has seen a 51% decline, and there has been a 65% decline in the green-veined white. The small tortoiseshell has seen a 59% decline, and the painted lady an 81% decline. There have been significant declines across all species within that period, and that needs to be looked at.

At the same locality, we have also observed migratory birds coming to the coast and the shorelines of west Cornwall. One that I track and that I have a particular interest in is the Arctic tern. Remarkably, Arctic terns migrate—one would advise them not to—25,000 miles from the south pole to the north pole, or from the Antarctic to the Arctic. They stop over on our shores, and it is such an enormous privilege to have such remarkable creatures stopping by.

As they arrive, a bit like my hon. Friend the Member for South Cotswolds after she has rowed across the ocean, they are met with dog walkers who—this is not through ignorance or malevolence; well, it is not through malevolence—disturb them and make them unable to feed and rest, at the very time when they most need to. We need to address that through legislation, as well as education, which is vital. I do not think that there is any malevolent intent on the part of walkers who take their dogs to the coast and disturb the wildlife in that manner, but we need to engage with the public. Legislation like this gives us the opportunity to engage and regulate in a manner that I hope will bring the public with us to protect wildlife.



Hon. Members will be pleased to hear that I will conclude in order to give others an opportunity to speak. I do hope that before Green party Members decide to press the matter to a vote, they will talk to my hon. Friend the Member for South Cotswolds a little more and ensure that we bring the House together today so that the purpose of this legislation can be advanced. That is the most important thing of all.

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.

Sewage Discharges: South West

Andrew George Excerpts

Wednesday 27th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Ben Maguire]

I will lay out some of my suggestions for water company reform shortly, so I will not give away any spoilers just yet.

It is well known that one of the biggest reasons for sewage dumping is that there is not enough capacity in our storm overflow tanks to hold rainwater. To make sufficient capacity, those tanks are routinely emptied and raw sewage is pumped into our waterways. Soon after my election, I was faced with reports of brown water coming out of residents’ taps in St Eval and, in some cases, no water at all. It turned out that the reservoir tank at the nearby Bears Down reservoir had serious cracks in it, and water tankers were deployed to serve the area. The capacity of the tankers was nowhere near sufficient, and a measly compensation of £50 per household was issued after weeks of severe disruption.

Similarly, in Week St Mary, residents complained to me about problems with their water pressure, which have persisted for years. In some cases, the sudden drop in pressure caused scolding from the resulting hot water. It is quite clear that those issues have arisen after decades of under-investment in our water and wastewater infrastructure. We may reasonably ask, “Where has Ofwat, the water regulator, been while all of this has been going on?” Ofwat has seemingly been missing in action, which brings me to the urgent need for a regulation revolution in our water industry.

I welcome the Government’s plan—part of the Water (Special Measures) Bill—to prohibit performance-related pay for senior officials in a year when a water company fails to meet its environmental, consumer or financial standards. I eagerly await how those standards will be more tightly defined. I am more suspicious, however, about the proposal to require each water company to publish an annual plan detailing how it will reduce pollution incidents. Many water companies already do that, and my constituents want to know how those companies with their glossy brochures and ambitious targets will be held to account.

There was a palpable sense of relief among senior executives at South West Water when I met them soon after the details of the Bill were published. On enforcement measures, if the water companies fail to meet improvement targets, Ofwat will be given the power to issue fines. It is questionable whether fines will incentivise firms that are making hundreds of millions of pounds and, again, I look forward to seeing at what level the penalties will be set following the consultation.

[Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)]

My hon. Friend is making an excellent case. Certainly in my own constituency, further west than his own, in west Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly, there have been 18 discharges around the coast just in the past 10 days. On the proposed changes in the Government consultation, as attractive as the concept of bringing water back into public ownership is—and I strongly support it—the consequences and costs make it rather challenging. The Conservatives set up the companies as risk-free, money-making emporiums. Does he agree that we need to bring in regulation that ensures they are governed in the public interest?

[Ben Maguire]

My hon. Friend makes a good point, and I will outline some of the measures I will put to the Minister.

I urge the Government to go much further by scrapping Ofwat, which has proven itself to be toothless and missing in action. The Liberal Democrats would replace Ofwat with a much more powerful clean water authority, which could ban bonuses for water company bosses who fail to stop sewage dumping, revoke licences of poorly performing water companies immediately, force water firms to publish the full volume and scale of their sewage dumping, mandate local environmental experts to sit on water company boards, and set legally binding targets on sewage discharges.

Independent Water Commission

Andrew George Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)]

When the Conservatives privatised water, they created risk-free, money-printing emporiums that could pollute our coasts, including my west Cornwall coast, at their convenience. Although the Secretary of State says that nationalisation is not in scope —one can understand why—to what extent will company governance be in scope? Will it be possible to move companies closer to becoming community benefit societies, or at least to installing a community environmental champion, not in the pay of the company, on every board, to keep watch on the company?

[Steve Reed]

The hon. Gentleman makes important points. The areas he refers to will be in scope for the commission. I hope he will make his own representations to ensure those points are heard and fully considered before we get the findings in the summer of next year.