Fishing Industry

Debate between Andrew George and Alistair Carmichael

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.