UK Fisheries Policy

Angus Brendan MacNeil Excerpts

Tuesday 27th February 2018 Westminster Hall

[Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)]

It is a great pleasure to serve under your charismatic chairmanship, Mr Paisley, and I congratulate the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Scott Mann) on securing this debate and on his assiduous attention to fisheries. He is looking to 31 March 2019 and for no transition period at all, and said interesting things about effort control, the time-at-sea versus a quota-based approach, and a hybrid of the two. I am quite friendly with a Faroese fisherman, Høgni Hoydal—he has had his own efforts and struggles with his fisheries community. I will investigate further what the hon. Gentleman suggests. If I have understood correctly, he wants nothing to do with the common fisheries policy if we have a transition deal.

Net soak time is an interesting issue of which the Minister and hon. Members, should be aware. The hon. Gentleman talked about Britain’s fish—the UK’s fish—but when it comes to Brexit, we know that 111 powers will be going to Scotland, including on fisheries. I therefore take his use of “Britain” to mean “England”, but I will not overly chastise him because that happens from time to time. I note, however, the interesting idea—I am quite sympathetic to it—regarding all quotas, or fish, landed in the UK. When the Scottish fisheries Minister tried to implement such a measure, he came up against a bit of push-back, but it is worthy of consideration. If people are playing a patriotic game with fish catching, they can also play it with fish landing, and that would be well worth while.

The hon. Gentleman did not mention shellfish. I represent the Outer Hebrides, which has a consistent, long, 200-mile coastline and coastal waters, and 150 miles of land. It is probably the constituency with the largest sea area, and one of the largest in the Westminster Parliament, although sadly it is the smallest by number of constituents. We sell a lot of shellfish to the French and Spanish, and some even goes to China. Unfortunately, the good people of England cannot afford it, but if they are prepared to pay more, we are prepared to sell them shellfish from the Hebrides. It is the tastiest stuff to be found. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry) said that the Norwegians were in the single market to avoid non-tariff barriers. Fisheries in the Hebrides are very worried about not being in the single market—non-tariff barriers are particularly important to them.

The hon. Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous) made an excellent speech—according to our charismatic Chair he was top of the class. I had him down as “thoughtful”, but I also noted “top of the class”, which indeed he was. His speech contained so many bits and pieces of information that I will have to go back and look at Hansard—perhaps with you, Mr Paisley—so that we pick up the nuggets in that veritable goldmine. His points about entitlements to a local fishery were important, as was the possible reorganisation of fisheries. We must remember that established fishing interests might not be that keen on such things, but the hon. Gentleman was very exercised about supporting communities that feel they have lost out over a number of years.

The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) was surprised to be called so early in the debate—I cannot imagine how or why that happened, other than due to his natural skill and assiduousness in debates. Last night, it was remarked that he was probably the only Member who is expected to turn up to Adjournment debates other than the Minister, their private secretary, and the person who secured the debate, and he deserves to be called for that alone. He said that boats have been lost to European bureaucracy, but we must remember that the UK Government signed up in the 1990s to scrap boats. We must also recognise the issue of technology—that point was touched on by the right hon. Member for Newbury (Richard Benyon). Iceland has lost a lot of boats, and fishing communities there moan a lot about what they have lost because of the march of technology. At one time, 25% of Iceland’s population worked in fisheries; now it is 4%. Icelanders hope to have even less of their population working in fisheries, such is the march of technology. Their boats have saunas on them nowadays—that stuff is unimaginable to fishermen in the Outer Hebrides.

The hon. Member for Strangford also mentioned crew from the Philippines, who play a vital role. The hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Andrew Bowie) said that fishermen were the best of British, or the best of everything going—I used to be a fisherman myself, although I was not as good as half the lads I stood alongside—but 27.4% of our crews are from outside the UK, and a good number of them, as the hon. Member for Strangford knows, are from places such as the Philippines and Ghana. We need more of them.

[Mr Carmichael]

Has the hon. Gentleman found, as I have recently, that notwithstanding the insistence that those crews work in the UK only on the basis of a transit visa, Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs now insist that they pay income tax here?

[Angus Brendan MacNeil]

HMRC and the Government have taken a number of steps to lose tax over a number of years, so it is interesting that they might be trying to have the best of both worlds, or have their cake and eat it, while leaving some of our boats unfortunately without fishermen.

I am mindful of time—I agreed to give up some of my time so that more Members could speak, because I think a plurality of voice is important. The hon. Member for St Ives (Derek Thomas) mentioned 29 March 2019, as did a number of other Members. The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) expressed the frustration that we all feel with the centralised, bureaucratic and unresponsive CFP. The point about data collection every two years was important.

The hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman) mentioned the Danes. I was reminded of how the Secretary of State had one message for our fishermen when he was in Peterhead, but when he was in Copenhagen a few weeks later, quite a different message for our fishermen turned up on Twitter, together with a nice message for the fishermen of Jutland. Perhaps we can get that sorted out one way or the other.

Coal and fish were mentioned by the hon. Member for South Thanet (Craig Mackinlay), as was Aneurin Bevan. I am tempted to ask who sold out the fisheries and closed down the pits, but I wouldn’t do that. The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (David Duguid) made important points about the improvement in fish stocks. Nineteen key stocks are now about 70% fished to sustainability, up from 60% in 2015. There has been some improvement.

I have debated with the hon. Member for South East Cornwall (Mrs Murray) in this Chamber many a time. In fact, many years ago, she tragically lost her late husband and is forever held in respect in fisheries debates—we all listen closely to whatever she has to say.

The right hon. Member for Newbury was right in what he said about the tragedy of the commons. That can affect fisheries, and we must remember that under the previous fisheries policy, herring stocks collapsed from overfishing. We must look to ourselves, because we are as guilty as anybody if given the opportunity to go over the quota on fishing.

I would like to touch on a number of points, but will not because I promised to allow others to speak. However, I wish to stress the importance of migrant workers. We talk about getting migrant workers in for agriculture, but we need them for fisheries as well. People come from the Philippines and Ghana—I know some of them personally—and they live on the island I am from. They are fantastic men and we need more of them. They are great and they add to the community. We want them and there is no reason for not having them. It is usually the Minister responsible for immigration in London who stops them coming—everybody else wants them. I asked the Secretary of State what will happen to EU boats when he takes the quota from them, whether there will be a difference between a historic quota and a boat quota, and how and when that will happen. He dodged the question and said that the catch was going on

“to the plates of people from the Western Isles to the south-west of England,”—[Official Report, 25 January 2018; Vol. 635, c. 396.]

I said, “Good dodge”, and he said, “Thank you” in the Chamber, but today I am looking for more of a straight answer from the Minister.

Finally, the antipathy that I and many others feel towards the CFP is not really mirrored in Ireland, and I wonder whether they had better negotiators back in the ’70s and the ’90s than we had in Scotland going through London. Certainly, Ireland would not move discussions from Dublin to London, which is why we should start in Edinburgh this time round.

Leaving the EU: Live Farm Animal Exports

Angus Brendan MacNeil Excerpts

Monday 26th February 2018 Westminster Hall

[Sir Roger Gale (North Thanet) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay (Steve Double) on introducing the debate. I want to touch on a number of issues very briefly, and to deal with a couple of the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for North Herefordshire (Bill Wiggin). I normally agree with him, but on this occasion there is clearly a little difference between us.

Let us tackle the fundamental difference between live animals for slaughter, live animals for fattening and live animals for breeding stock. We all understand what “live animals for slaughter” means—that is what the petition is about. My understanding is that “live animals for fattening” is a euphemism for exporting livestock from the United Kingdom to France, Spain, Italy or Greece, where they spend a couple of days in a field and are then slaughtered and branded as local meat, be that French, Spanish, Greek or Italian. Effectively, those animals are live animals for slaughter. My view is that any control exercise should embrace those animals, as well as those that are openly and honestly—if that is the right word—exported for slaughter.

Breeding stock is different. Rather like the racehorses that were referred to earlier, they are high-value animals, they are well looked after and they are transported with great care. That is not the case with animals that are exported for other purposes. The standards in the United Kingdom may occasionally be not too bad, but the standards in mainland Europe are unenforced and unenforceable. In theory they are supposed to be high, but in practice, as we all know, they are not. I am not satisfied that even a chauffeur-driven Rolls-Royce travelling with one animal, particularly a veal calf, from a Scottish island to the Scottish mainland for eight hours—if that is how long it takes—would be satisfactory.

The issue of veal calves, which has been referred to on a number of occasions, sadly arises from a pyrrhic victory that some of us thought we had won: the banning of veal crates in the United Kingdom. That simply proves that we do not solve a problem by moving it from A to B. That is as true of the testing of cosmetics on live animals as it is of this issue of veal calves. The British market has singularly failed to promote and sell rose veal, as it is known. Veal calves that were raised in the United Kingdom are being shipped under appalling conditions, for very many hours, from Scotland or wherever to mainland Europe, where they are reared in the dark and fed on milk under infinitely worse conditions than they ever had in the United Kingdom. [Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for North Herefordshire says that we have made it worse, and he is absolutely right—I said it was a pyrrhic victory. That has to be addressed, but not by shipping those animals to Europe to have them raised in sheds in Belgium, Holland, France or wherever, to produce white veal for Wiener schnitzel or whatever. We must consider that matter.

The crux of this issue—as it happens, this was highlighted on the BBC’s “Countryfile” yesterday—is the shortage of abattoir facilities, which arose way back when we shut half our abattoirs and slaughterhouses because we tried to gold-plate European regulations. We have heard that some facilities are no longer available, and that is absolutely right: we have taken away a lot of facilities, particularly in the Scottish islands. The answer, which I would like the Minister to address, is first to preserve local facilities where they still exist.

[Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)]

I am a crofter who sells lambs every autumn because I run out of grazing. We have a slaughterhouse on the island, but slaughtering lambs at their different weights and then selling them on is beyond me—it is beyond all crofters—because some are too small to be slaughtered. About half need to go away for further fattening. Even if we had more slaughterhouses, it still would not work. Lambs would still have to be exported off the island, or else there would be a bigger welfare problem: lack of food.

[Sir Roger Gale]

The hon. Gentleman has greater expertise in this narrow field than me, particularly since he farms. I accept that point, but I do not accept that it is necessary to send those animals to the south of England, which is an eight, 10 or 12-hour journey once they hit the mainland—and he first ships them from the island to the mainland United Kingdom. Even the journey to the south of Britain is very long, but if they are shipped across the channel and then halfway across Europe to Spain, which is what happens, the journey is infinitely longer. I do not accept that that is a necessity. I might accept that there is a case for moving them to the Scottish lowlands for fattening if that is what the economics of the trade demand.

I accept again that there is no one-size-fits-all solution and that the local abattoir might not work for everyone all the time. However, we have beset our slaughterhouses not with animal welfare regulations, which I support, but with all manner of other red tape, which is putting them out of business. The Minister needs to address that. Frankly, they are on the borderline of not being able to make a living. Far from closing those local facilities, we need to reinstate them and provide more local facilities so that, as my hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay said, animals can be slaughtered as close to the point of production as possible. That is the key. That is why I do not accept the argument put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for North Herefordshire that this is just a matter of raising transport standards and ensuring that everything is gold-plated in the United Kingdom. As he said himself—I made this point during his speech—the moment an animal leaves these shores, it is out of our control. I see no justification in this day and age for transporting animals alive rather than on the hook.

The Minister will know that people have said, “Ah yes, but the French have a different way of butchering meat.” That is absolutely true, but it is not beyond the wit of man—before we leave the European Union, at least—to hire a French butcher or someone else who can butcher for the French. In fact, it is already done. The idea that something can be shipped across the channel, spend a couple of days in a French field and be whacked off down to the Rungis meat market and sold as French beef, lamb or whatever is a nonsense.

I see no justification whatsoever for the transport of live animals for slaughter. I see every reason why we should take the opportunity, upon leaving the European Union, to ban the transport of live animals—that includes horses, by the way—for purposes other than breeding. I applaud the measures that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has trailed, and I hope very much that we will introduce them as soon as possible.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure, as always, to see you in the Chair, Mr Hollobone. I commend the hon. Member for St Austell and Newquay (Steve Double) for opening the debate on behalf of the Petitions Committee. Before I move to the substance of my speech and the Scottish National party’s position, I will sum up the comments made by the right hon. and hon. Members who took part in the debate.

The hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy), who is a passionate campaigner in this area, mentioned the Foreign Secretary’s visit to Ramsgate and the promise he made during the EU referendum campaign. I dare say that if it was not put on the side of a bus, it probably did not mean much.

During my time in this place the hon. Member for Southend West (Sir David Amess) has spent an awful lot of time talking about Southend West. Last week I had the fortune—I was going to say misfortune—of having my flight to London diverted to Southend, and as we flew across I saw one or two of its farms. I am conscious that, as the Member for Glasgow East, I am probably the most urban MP taking part in the debate—I have a total of one farm in my constituency—but I was grateful for his contribution to the debate.

The hon. Member for North Herefordshire (Bill Wiggin) is of course an experienced cattle farmer. There was little in the course of his speech that I could disagree with. As I listened to the hon. Member for Gordon (Colin Clark), I was further concerned: as a Scottish nationalist Member, it is unusual to find myself in agreement with Conservatives, but he made an excellent speech, nothing of which I could disagree with. I absolutely agree on the importance of teaching our children where food comes from. Like him, I have a son who is two and a half years old, and at the weekend I explained to him the benefits of us having both pig and cow in our pie. As children grow up, it is important that they understand where the food on our plate comes from. Alongside the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael), he made a passionate defence of island communities. I was slightly disappointed that, over the course of the debate, island communities were not recognised elsewhere.

The hon. Member for South Thanet (Craig Mackinlay), who is a passionate campaigner in this area, spoke of the experience in Ramsgate in 2012. I am afraid that we will probably disagree today. The right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Theresa Villiers) has introduced a ten-minute rule Bill. She discussed some of the challenges that could flow from World Trade Organisation rules and spoke about reasonable grounds. That does not give me the certainty I would need to give that support.

We also heard speeches from the hon. Member for North Thanet (Sir Roger Gale) and the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland, who made a powerful point about farmers and crofters. I am well aware that my hon. Friend the Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Angus Brendan MacNeil), who is in his place, is a crofter. During the foot and mouth crisis in 2001, it was the farmers and crofters who had the biggest investment here.

I thank the 36 constituents in Glasgow East who signed the petition. In future, it would be helpful if MPs who take part in petitions debates had the opportunity to interact with those constituents. It is deeply disappointing that although Parliament will send us a heat map showing who signed the petition, we do not have the opportunity to follow up with those people who have lobbied us as parliamentarians to come and take part in a debate. That is a point for the Petitions Committee.

It is indeed a pleasure to speak from the Front Bench on behalf of the Scottish National party. I want to outline our position on live animal exports. We are committed to the welfare of all animals during transport within and outwith the UK. I am afraid we cannot support any moves that create further challenges or disadvantages for our livestock sector, or indeed for Scottish agriculture. We feel that current EU legislation is sufficient. Many good measures that protect animals are already in place, including journey logs and, if appropriate, resting at control posts.

In addition, the current regulations make provision for feeding and watering frequencies for livestock in transit. It is important to note, particularly from the Scottish perspective, that very few animals, if any, are exported from Scotland directly for slaughter. Export is largely done for other reasons, namely breeding and production. Long-distance transport of livestock is an important and traditional part of commercial Scottish agriculture. Indeed, the value of exporting is estimated by Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs at £50 million in 2015 alone.

I want to make sure that the voice of stakeholders is heard during the debate. Quality Meat Scotland states that the Scottish industry

“benefits from being able to import live animals with quality genetics to improve blood lines”.

The National Farmers Union of Scotland has been quoted several times tonight, between the speeches of the hon. Member for Gordon and the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland. I too am grateful for the briefing. NFU Scotland is fairly clear about there being no scientific evidence to suggest that animals being transported in current conditions are caused any unnecessary suffering. I acknowledge the previous horror stories, which were outlined by the hon. Member for South Thanet. Those controversies highlight the need for better and more consistent enforcement, rather than a major change in the law. The Government need to appreciate that live exports provide much needed competition within the marketplace, especially at times of peak production or when cheaper imports are placing pressure on domestic prices and demand.

As I have said, livestock production is key to Scotland’s island communities. Without processing facilities on an island, the only option is to transport animals across to the mainland by ferry. In some cases there is a need for animals to leave the island for better forage or winter accommodation, or for finishing purposes. Any attempt to restrict those crossings would be catastrophic to island communities and farmers, and where there is a major supply chain. NFU Scotland’s views on moves to ban live exports for slaughter are quite right and justifiable.

[Angus Brendan MacNeil]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point, and I also want to echo the point made by the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland: there is a welfare issue. Animals cannot be kept all year round on some of the islands and so have to move; it is for the good of the animals. Crofters and farmers are often worried about that, and spend a lot of time almost varnishing their nails—that is the level of work people put in when they have livestock. That must be considered. Any ban would endanger animals’ health.

[David Linden]

It may benefit the House to know that my wife is from Na h-Eileanan an Iar—perhaps the second best constituency in Scotland. I visit the Western Isles fairly regularly and am aware that, in the context of the deer cull, forage is an issue. My hon. Friend makes the point well.

A proposed UK framework cannot be another power grab from devolved Governments during the Brexit process. That is the point I was trying to make to the right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet. The Scottish Government reserve the right to follow Scotland’s interests. That should not mean surrendering control of a devolved competence to Her Majesty’s Government.

I have already touched on the subject of the WTO. Ministers have not ruled out a ban on live animal exports, and I shall be interested to see what kind of language the Minister uses when he closes the debate. Before deciding what path to take, they should be clear about the economic consequences of implementing the policy. That means not the devolved consequences, but the economic consequences for the farming industry. Conservative Members talk an awful lot about the opportunities to come from Brexit, for animal welfare and farming. I hope that policy development will extend to all strands of agriculture, including the staff who work in abattoirs.

[Angus Brendan MacNeil]

One of the potential consequences of a ban, if Her Majesty’s Scottish Government do not invoke such a ban, has just occurred to me. Scottish farmers might be in an advantageous position. I am sure that it is not the perverse aim of English Members to disadvantage farmers in England. I should be happy with higher ram prices, I have to say.

[David Linden]

Without straying into the territory of ram prices, which is not something we routinely discuss in Glasgow East, I think my hon. Friend makes a good point. I do not know whether the Minister has considered that issue—perhaps it is why he is reaching for pen and paper.

I was saying that I want policy development to extend to abattoir staff. The Scottish National party, like most parties, takes the view that most animals should be slaughtered as close to the farm as possible. That is why it is important that abattoirs can continue to function properly post Brexit. A staggering 95% of the official veterinarians who work in our abattoirs are EU nationals, so the greatest practical matter that we should consider is ensuring that those EU nationals, many of whom are from Spain, can continue living and working here, staffing the abattoirs.

On today of all days, and given that this is essentially another Brexit debate, it would be remiss of me not to make reference to the importance of staying in the single market and in “the” customs union—not “a” customs union. Failure to do so will result in queues of lorries, backed up with prime Scotch lamb and beef. The Scottish red meat sector already faces enough challenges down the tracks as we are dragged off the hard Brexit cliff edge. It is for that reason that the SNP cannot and will not support any move that creates further challenges or difficulty for our livestock sector, or for Scottish agriculture.

Oral Answers to Questions

Angus Brendan MacNeil Excerpts

Thursday 25th January 2018 Commons Chamber

[Dr Coffey]

I was in Hampshire recently, visiting six different constituencies, and I would be delighted to return to the wonderful New Forest in due course to look at the matter.

[Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)]

We remember the crew of the Nancy Glen, and the Secretary of State’s words are appreciated.

Farming expects the Secretary of State to continue his support and to maintain standards, of course, but the question for fishing, given all the tonnes he will take from the European Union, is this: where is it going, and when?

[Michael Gove]

On to the plates of people from the Western Isles to the south-west of England, who can enjoy the fantastic produce that our fishermen catch every day.

[Angus Brendan MacNeil]

Good dodge.

[Michael Gove]

Thank you.

--- Later in debate ---

The right hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington, representing the House of Commons Commission, was asked—

[Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)]

3. To ask the right hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington, representing the House of Commons Commission, what estimate the Commission has made of the potential cost of introducing electronic voting in the Chamber.

[Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington)]

The Commission has given no formal consideration to a move to electronic voting in the House. Its responsibility in that matter is limited to the financial or staffing implications of any change to the present system, were a change to be agreed by the House.

[Angus Brendan MacNeil]

The voting system here is a bit crazy, Mr Speaker: last week, we spent two hours on eight votes. Most other Parliaments in the world would laugh at that—indeed, they do. Given that MPs do value meeting each other in the Lobbies, can we consider a hybrid system so that we move to something electronic when there is more than one vote? That would save those two hours.

[Tom Brake]

I have some sympathy with the point that the hon. Gentleman is making, but as I am sure he—now an expert in these matters—knows, this is a matter for the House. If he chose to, he could approach the Procedure Committee and ask it to look at this issue.

Oral Answers to Questions

Angus Brendan MacNeil Excerpts

Thursday 26th October 2017 Commons Chamber

[George Eustice]

I assure the hon. Gentleman that the Government are planning for all scenarios. We have been very clear that we want a comprehensive free trade agreement with our European partners, and we want a close partnership to be put in place. However, if we want to be serious around a negotiating table, we obviously have to prepare for everything, and that is why we are also preparing for a no-deal scenario.

[Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)]

New Zealand has had an effective seasonal migrant workers scheme for farms for many years. Will the Government, at the very least, look at that? Will they also note that New Zealand has expanded its scheme to include the tourism sector, and especially the fishing sector? Such a scheme would prevent boats on the west coast of Scotland from being tied up due to lack of crews, especially at a time when we often see fine crews prevented from coming from the Philippines or Ghana. Due to barmy Home Office rules, the boats are tied up, at a cost to the economy.

[George Eustice]

We are indeed looking at the system in New Zealand, which is similar in many ways to the seasonal agricultural workers scheme that operated from 1945 to 2013 in this country. The Home Office had some other sector-based schemes, but the MAC concluded in 2013 that they were not being utilised and were therefore unnecessary, but as I said, there is a review led by the Home Office with the MAC looking at this question now. That is the right place to put that information.

Oral Answers to Questions

Angus Brendan MacNeil Excerpts

Thursday 20th July 2017 Commons Chamber

[George Eustice]

The hon. Gentleman makes an incredibly important point. Agriculture is very important to the Northern Ireland economy—its dairy and poultry sectors are particularly strong. I have previously meet the Ulster Farmers’ Union leaders. Indeed, I met one of the dairy companies from his constituency only yesterday. This Saturday the Secretary of State is planning to meet the president of the Ulster Farmers’ Union.

[Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)]

Tapadh leibh, Mr Speaker. Farming and crofting leaders in Scotland hope that agriculture will be fully controlled in Scotland post Brexit, and according to fishing leaders the Secretary of State has intimated that the Scottish Government will control fishing to 200 miles—incidentally, Na h-Eileanan an Iar is probably the only constituency to reach 200 miles of the exclusive economic zone. Therefore, can I have it on the record that the Government will indeed be back in this position and that farming and fishing for Scotland will be controlled in Scotland post Brexit?

[George Eustice]

Some of these matters are obviously already devolved. I think that everybody recognises that there also needs to be some kind of UK framework to protect the integrity of the UK single market. On leaving the EU, we will take control of our agriculture policy, and there is an opportunity to give all the devolved Administrations more control than they currently enjoy to be able to do that while protecting the integrity of the single market.

Seasonal Agricultural Workers Scheme

Angus Brendan MacNeil Excerpts

Thursday 6th July 2017 Westminster Hall

[Neil Parish]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point. It is partly because of the success of our economy that we have so much going on and that we need this labour. My constituency has the same situation as his, with very low unemployment. I do not have as much vegetable growing, but I have meat and poultry processing, which are almost entirely done by central and eastern European labour, and that is an issue. We want to ensure that we can find as much home-grown labour as we can, but we have also got to have accessibility to labour from Europe and, in the future, probably from beyond Europe.

[Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this important debate. He allows me to segue neatly on to an issue that does not just affect agriculture. We have labour from beyond Europe in fishing. There are fishing boats on the west coast of Scotland and in Northern Ireland that are tied up at the moment due to a lack of people. One boat alone has lost £100,000 in uncaught fish. People are willing to come back from the Philippines to the boats they used to work on. The Scottish community is one thing—everyone says yes in the Philippines and Scotland—but if one man in London says no, we cannot get the people in. The Immigration Minister has a big role to play here.

[Neil Parish]

The hon. Gentleman raises an interesting point on fishing. As we leave the European Union, there should be greater opportunities for fishing and catches, but we need the labour to do that. Going out to fish is not always seen as the nicest job in the world. We have probably got to look not only at labour availability in the long term, but the types of fishing boats we are using and everything. There is a lot to be done, but we need labour.

This April, the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee published a report on labour constraints in agriculture. We came to a clear conclusion: the sheer weight of evidence from a range of farming and horticulture businesses was that they have big problems in retaining labour. We did not necessarily share the Government’s confidence that the agriculture sector does not have a problem. Some of the figures that the Home Office Minister provided were perhaps six or nine months out of date, and the situation is getting tighter all the time. Simply put, the challenge will become a crisis if the Government do not swiftly take measures. The challenge will only become more acute after Brexit, when the free movement of workers ends.

A strategy is urgently needed to ensure that British agriculture has the workers it needs in the short to medium term. Many people ask why British people cannot do the jobs. We all agree we want to see more British workers in the industry in the long term. It is not sustainable to rely on almost exclusively foreign labour for seasonal jobs. We need to think about a long-term shift now. Unemployment is now at 4.6% nationally. As my hon. Friend the Member for North West Leicestershire (Andrew Bridgen) said, in many constituencies it is much lower. In fact, it is at its lowest since 1995.

In many constituencies we are reaching almost full employment; it could be said we are a victim of our great success. The truth is there are not necessarily enough workers who are able and want to do the jobs. In my own constituency in Devon where agriculture is a key part of the local economy, there simply is not the demand for such seasonal labour among local people, so foreign labour must play a part.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Owen Paterson (North Shropshire) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gapes. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish) for securing this debate. As he said, it is very timely. I congratulate him also on his work on the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee.

I begin by pointing out to the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) a couple of macro facts. There was a vote of 17.4 million last year to leave. I know his party do not like it, but we are going to leave. One of the issues was taking back control of our borders. The figures are pretty startling. Last week, our population hit a record number of 65.5 million. The Department for Communities and Local Government reckons that we need to provide housing for 243,000 new households every year for the next 22 years, which means building a new home every five minutes, night and day, to cope with the increase in population. That is one macro fact that Members have to recognise.

[Angus Brendan MacNeil]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Paterson]

I will just finish making the point, because I think it is relevant.

The other fact is that, far from banging on about Brexit, it is great pleasure to state that the economies in eastern Europe are really flying. Hungary is growing at about 4% and there has been a huge increase in wages. They have risen by 15% this year, and by 25% for skilled workers, and there has been a 20% rise in the Hungarian forint. Quite soon, there will not be wage differentials between Hungarian workers and western European workers.

There are similar major strategic changes in Poland. The economy there is flying, at 4% a year. Significantly, a 250,000 annual drop in the working-age population is putting pressure on Poland, which is already opening up visa schemes for 1.3 million temporary workers from Ukraine. We have to recognise that. It is great news that in Romania, which is very relevant to our discussions, economic growth is running at 5%. Civil servants have had a 25% pay rise. Their wages are increasing and their jobless rate is not far below Scandinavian levels. Those macro elements are completely out of the discussion on Brexit.

Where I would agree with the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire is that the situation is a real problem. I saw it coming when I worked in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, and it has only got worse. The hon. Gentleman cited a survey from British Summer Fruits. It sees prices rising 35% to 50% because of labour shortages. The BBC did a survey that said that 78% of growers believed that recruitment has been harder. We are all hearing this, and it is not just in the fruit and veg industry; we are hearing it from those who work in abattoirs and those who work in tourism. Many rural industries are being affected.

[Angus Brendan MacNeil]

The right hon. Gentleman talks about “taking back control”. He must have sympathy with the point I raised earlier: in Scotland we do not have control, because we have a system that is very centralised in London, deciding what we need and do not need, particularly if we want to take people from the Philippines. Switzerland, for example, can run a scheme where the 26 cantons control half the visas and the other half are controlled centrally. Is it not time that the UK changed its approach so that places such as Scotland can control their own destiny?

[Mr Paterson]

The hon. Gentleman’s party lost the argument when it lost the referendum. Scotland is a firm part of the UK. I think the control of borders is a policy area that should be in the hands of the nation state.

To get back to my not being surprised, the most angry people I met when I was the Secretary of State at DEFRA were the fruit farmers in Herefordshire, Somerset or Kent. I remember clearly going on a trip with my right hon. Friend the Member for Witham (Priti Patel) to her constituency in Essex, where there is a wonderful, world-famous fruit packing, picking and jam-making company called Tiptree, which we probably all see on virtually every plane we fly on. That company was having real problems at that time with getting really skilled people to pick fruit. As the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire said, the picking has to be done at the right moment. There is a critical moment when fruit and veg has to be picked, or it is lost.

At that time, SAWS had already been stopped. From memory, before they had open access, the scheme brought in 21,250 Romanians and Bulgarians, who came to targeted destinations, with proper accommodation, good catering facilities, proper medical facilities and so on. They also had the requirement to go home at the end of the season. I remember that Tiptree was really struggling. I talked to various representatives of the industries at that time and we looked at all sorts of alternatives, some of which have been completely misrepresented in the press. There was talk of reviving the old tradition of urban citizens taking working holidays in the countryside, and seeing whether pensioners could do it. We looked at students. I worked closely with the Department for Work and Pensions. None of those options was really practical. We looked at them, but they were not really going anywhere.

The only real long-term solution, if we are to use domestic labour—the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire made the right point when he said we all represent rural constituencies with very low rates of unemployment—is automation. Happily, near me, we have the University of Harper Adams, which is doing fantastic work on automated machinery. It will produce a crop in a field this year where a human being will not have entered that field from the moment that it was first touched. However, that is down the line. For the moment, I think we all agree that we have a real problem with our fruit and veg industry, and increasingly with our tourism industry, in finding labour.

We have the opportunity, and I look forward to it, once we get control back of our borders, to look well outside Europe for labour—we will have to. We are going to find—I have just cited the figures—that the Romanians and the Poles are probably going to stay at home. We had better wake up to that. It is absolutely vital that the Minister is working hard at DEFRA on a replacement seasonal agricultural workers scheme.

I would ask him not to do a straight replacement. I will cite one example, New Zealand, which has been running a recognised seasonal employers scheme since 2007. The World Bank has described it as a model for best practice. It has really worked; it has eased labour shortages in the horticulture sector, and the viticulture sector, which is growing very fast of course in New Zealand, while minimising the risks of overstaying and undercutting or displacement of local labour by immigrant labour.

There is a really strong focus in New Zealand on “New Zealand first” in the labour market. Our old seasonal agricultural workers scheme did not incorporate a resident labour market test, unlike the RSE, nor did it include measures of the type included in the RSE to prevent illegal overstaying. That is a really important difference. The number has increased from 8,000 to 10,800 Pacific islanders this year. They are provided places to work during the agricultural season, and mainly come from islands such as Samoa, the Solomon Islands, Kiribati, Tuvalu and Vanuatu, for seven to 11 months.

The conditions are pretty strict. An employer must first register as a recognised seasonal employer. That is stronger than what we had: under our old legislation, SAWS, registration with the Gangmasters Licensing Authority was optional for sole operators and compulsory only for multiple operators, depending on their recruitment arrangements.

New Zealand employers are required to take a number of reasonable steps to recruit New Zealanders to available positions. The language is pretty fierce. The main document given to employers says that they are required to take

“all reasonable steps to recruit and train New Zealanders for available positions before seeking to recruit non-New Zealand citizen or resident workers”,

and that they must

“not use a recruitment agent who seeks a commission from workers in exchange for securing an employment agreement, to recruit non-New Zealand citizen or resident workers”.

That is much more strict and puts more pressure on the employer than what we had.

The other really important thing is that employers are required to pay the market rate for work so there is no competition with domestic labour. “New Zealand first” really does help. Under the SAWS arrangements, SAWS operators were subject to inspection by the GLA and what was then the UK Border Agency. That included their pay systems. In New Zealand, farms are inspected, mainly by the operator, to ensure appropriate standards of health and safety, which is the main focus. Very importantly, employers must pay half the worker’s return air fare between New Zealand and their country of origin. Under SAWS, there was no requirement to pay any portion of the worker’s return air fare.

In New Zealand, employers must bear the cost of repatriating workers if they become illegal. Again, that was not the case under SAWS, although fines were eventually introduced. Importantly, workers under RSE are allowed to be re-employed in subsequent years, and there is a very strong record of their coming back, which I think is a real advantage for the disadvantaged economies from which they come. Although seasonal agricultural schemes around the world seem to use either a resident labour market test as a form of flow control, or a quota, New Zealand uses both. The policy has contributed very much to its development objectives with its Pacific neighbours.

I recommend that the Minister read the report by Professor Alan Winters, professor of economics at the University of Sussex, on New Zealand’s recognised seasonal employers scheme. Let me pick a key quote from a 2010 survey by the New Zealand Department of Labour, which is pretty festive about this. It said:

“Overall, the RSE Policy has achieved what it set out to do. The policy has provided employers in the horticulture and viticulture industries with access to a reliable and stable seasonal workforce. The labour supply crises of previous years have been avoided and employers can now plan and manage their businesses with confidence. As the policy enters its third year”—

this was back in 2010—

“there are indications many employers are now also benefiting from skilled labour as workers return for subsequent seasons. Significant productivity gains were reported in the second season, together with improvements in harvest quality.”

As I just said,

“Alongside the employer ‘wins’, Pacific workers and three Pacific states have benefited financially from participating in the RSE Policy.”

A World Bank report said:

“We find per capita incomes of households participating in the RSE to have increased by over 30% relative to the comparison groups in both countries.”

Another report found that 50% of workers returned in the next season, and that most—86.9%—returned to the same employer.

Australia’s seasonal worker programme, which I strongly recommend the Minister check out, is a similar scheme. It brings in 12,000 workers from Pacific islands. Workers come to Australia for between 14 weeks and six months. Employers must be approved by the Government; provide the Government with evidence of labour market testing; organise flights, transport and accommodation for workers; ensure a minimum of 30 hours of labour a week; and ensure that workers depart on the expiration of their visa.

It is vital that we look at introducing a replacement for SAWS. It should be tapered and temporary, and should ensure that British workers are not displaced or undercut by migrant workers while we wait for technology to catch up—that is the real future for domestic workers. Any replacement of SAWS must include a resident labour market test and be accompanied by robust safeguards against illegal overstaying. We need to start planning that now because, given that prosperity is improving in eastern Europe, as Members have said, workers are not going to come from there. We will happily have the whole world to choose from. Hopefully, people will come here and pick our wonderful soft fruit and vegetables.

--- Later in debate ---

[Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)]

I am pleased to wind up the debate on behalf of the Scottish National party. It has been a good debate, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish) on securing it.

We know a seasonal agricultural workers scheme is important and necessary, and the feeling from all sides of the House is that it is a no-brainer. There is complete agreement across all regions and nations of the United Kingdom that it has to come into being. In many ways, this will probably be the first of many Brexit damage-reduction measures that we will debate in the next few years. As the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton said, there is not yet a crisis, but it is quite clear that acute pains are being felt, and that a seasonal agricultural workers scheme is essential.

My hon. Friend the Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) effortlessly ranged in his speech from soft fruit to soft power, and he was absolutely certain that his constituency produces the best berries in the United Kingdom. I am pretty sure it produces the best berries in Scotland, which probably makes them the best berries in all of Europe; let us not constrain ourselves to the white cliffs of Dover, let us look internationally. He made a very good point about the changing nature of the berry-farming industry, with the planting, maintaining and harvesting of the fruits all having changed, and with polytunnels enabling him to enjoy those fine raspberries and strawberries before Easter and well beyond Halloween. He is lucky to represent such a fine area.

The hon. Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Helen Whately) echoed my hon. Friend’s point about prices rising by up to 50%. That will affect an awful lot of people. There are concerns among many of the large retailers, such as Sainsbury’s, that the average shopping basket will rise in price by about 7%, even excluding changes in currency. Soft fruits are healthy foods that people should be eating. People are asked to eat them for their health in Finland, as they seem to have the effect of reducing heart attacks and other such problems. For them to become more expensive is surely not to the benefit of our society as a whole, and is certainly not to the benefit of the farmers.

Keeping with the “north” theme, I obviously disagreed with the right hon. Member for North Shropshire (Mr Paterson) on his points about Scotland, because Scotland has voted twice to stay in the European Union, but I agreed with him on much else. He pointed out that we have certainly seen an improving economy in eastern Europe, which will be significant. Mechanisation will have to come along at some point; it is certainly happening in fishing industries. Anybody who has been to Iceland will have seen that what was once done on fishing boats by man is now done by machines. The population of Iceland working in fisheries was once 25% but is now 4.3%. Mechanisation is always the way ahead.

The right hon. Gentleman also touched on conditions for workers, which was also mentioned by the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid Kent. These are experienced and skilled workers who we must value. I expect that, under any scheme, those workers would have access to whichever of the four national health services they might need to access across the United Kingdom. He also very informatively touched on the recognised seasonal employer scheme in New Zealand. I googled it as he spoke, and found a good article on it. The news hot from New Zealand is that the scheme will be expanded to cover tourism and fisheries, which is very welcome news. I certainly hope that it will be considered for our fisheries industry, because we definitely need people in that industry. We cannot have the obstinacy we have had from the Home Office, which is terrified of stupid headlines in the Daily Mail about migrants, which has led to fishing boats being tied and not catching fish—affecting processing jobs on land in my constituency.

The New Zealanders are very much aware that the scheme is a win-win situation. They take workers mainly from Pacific countries and they fully realise that much of the money that those workers earn will go back to their home countries, which will help people to develop and advance there. New Zealand also wants those workers to come back, because they have become experienced workers over time, as the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid Kent also mentioned.

The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) also mentioned that Northern Ireland shared Scotland’s and England’s view on this. It is vital that that is recognised. Keeping with the “north” theme as ever, the hon. Member for North Herefordshire (Bill Wiggin) gave a good speech on the amount of workers that come into his constituency, which again shows just how important and big an issue this is. The hon. Member for Faversham and Mid Kent touched on an important point about the welcome that people get when they come here. They are experienced workers. We should abhor the very idea of hate crime against them, and fight against it happening or being encouraged—even derogatory talk about migrants should be stopped. In Scotland, happily, we have seen a fall in hate crime since the Brexit referendum of June last year.

The UK Government, by pursuing a narrow-minded approach, are making decisions on migration that are detrimental to Scotland. I hope that in this first Brexit damage-reduction measure we will see something useful and helpful. I do not see why the UK, in contrast to countries such as Switzerland, has to have a centralised policy—in Scotland, we have very different demographics from the rest of the UK.

About 14,000 non-UK seasonal workers come back and forth to Scotland, most of them employed in the soft fruit and vegetable sectors in the summer and autumn. That underpins our £14 billion food and drink industry, which is one of the fastest growing and most successful sectors in Scotland. We know what we need to do for Scotland; it is terrible—frustrating—for us to have to inform and often educate a UK Minister that something beneficial to Scotland might also be beneficial to the Exchequer, with the taxes and revenues of increased economic activity.

One of the benefits that I had not seen or thought of much before was touched on by my hon. Friend the Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart), which is the cultural benefits naturally and normally brought about by such exchanges of people. When we talk about things like this, we sometimes think in economic tramlines, instead of about the human beings involved and the welcome cultural exchanges.

To round up, the need for a scheme is absolutely pressing. The Minister must act and the Home Office must be welcoming of such a scheme—we can have no obstruction from them. We have to widen it out to other sectors such as tourism and, certainly, fisheries. It is something that makes total sense and has been a no-brainer as far as this debate is concerned. All participants have been supportive of it, and I look forward to seeing such a scheme in the near future.

Leaving the EU: the Rural Economy

Angus Brendan MacNeil Excerpts

Tuesday 17th January 2017 Commons Chamber

[Andrea Leadsom]

I will give way once they have listened to me for a moment.

Leaving the EU will allow us to shape our own trade and investment opportunities, encourage even greater openness with partners, in Europe and beyond, and put Britain firmly at the forefront of global trade and investment. The recent launch of our international action plan for exports, with nine campaigns across a number of global markets, demonstrates our ambition in this area—an ambition that builds on our strength as a great, outward-looking trading nation.

Scotland has always been at the heart of this success, accounting for 30% of the UK’s total exports of food, feed and drink in 2015. One of the highlights of my trip to Vietnam last year was a lunch to promote fabulous Scottish smoked salmon and Aberdeen Angus beef to Vietnamese food importers.

[Mr Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)]

The Secretary of State mentions planning and careful thinking going forward to 2020, but what planning and careful thinking have been done for the crofters of Na h-Eileanan an Iar and the west highlands, and what will post-2020 mean for them and their futures?

[Andrea Leadsom]

My hon. Friend the Minister of State met the National Farmers Union of Scotland yesterday, as I did recently, so we have taken informal advice. At the same time, I have made it very clear—unfortunately, the hon. Gentleman was not listening—that the consultation on our Green Paper on the long-term future of food, farming and fisheries is the perfect opportunity for him to represent his crofters’ interests and for them to feed into the consultation, and we would welcome such an opportunity. [Interruption.]

UK Fishing Industry

Angus Brendan MacNeil Excerpts

Thursday 1st December 2016 Commons Chamber

[Melanie Onn (Great Grimsby) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the future of the UK fishing industry.

I thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting the debate. The hon. Members for Cleethorpes (Martin Vickers), for Banff and Buchan (Dr Whiteford) and for South Down (Ms Ritchie) spoke alongside me before the Committee last month, and the hon. Members for Waveney (Peter Aldous), for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and for North Cornwall (Scott Mann) also put their names to the motion.

The debate has been an annual occurrence for some time, giving the Government an opportunity to hear MPs’ concerns and update them in advance of the December Council of Ministers. I thank the Committee for returning it to the main Chamber, as opposed to holding it in Westminster Hall, which unusually hosted it last year.

Giving the fishing industry such prominence in the European referendum reflects its importance. I can conclude only that our debate last year catapulted it to the front of people’s minds and made it central to the necessity to leave the EU. The only shame is that it was not given such high priority previously.

Many Members will know of my town’s history and of how big a role fishing played in it because I have spoken about it often. Although fishing has largely left Great Grimsby, the seafood industry continues to thrive. I take every opportunity to speak on the subject because fishing remains a big part of Great Grimsby’s identity.

The legacy of the post-cod wars industry demise still has victims, and the search for a solution to the Government’s failure properly to compensate fishermen who lost out on pensions because of maladministration remains on my radar for the widow of one such fisherman. The Great Grimsby Association of Fishermen and Trawlermen has been fighting for 40 years for justice for the fishermen of Great Grimsby. They are still fighting for James Greene, who sadly passed away this year having not received what I believe to be his full entitlement. The association continues to pursue the case on behalf of his widow. Will the Minister meet me and offer his assistance in the case? I appreciate that this is not the place for details, but for the ombudsman to insist that the compensation scheme will pay the maximum of £20,000 only to those who were at sea continuously for 52 weeks a year for 20 years is plainly nonsense. Given the experience of those fishermen of the original compensation scheme, and of the subsequent scheme to rectify the errors and oversights of the previous one, he will understand the association’s caution in accepting official agencies’ assessments.

The debate on the future of the UK fisheries industry is more pressing than usual owing to the decision that the country made in June to leave the European Union, which will surely have far-reaching consequences for the industry. As the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan said in our session in the Backbench Business Committee, fisheries may have more at stake than any other industry over the next few years of negotiations with Europe.

Those in the fishing industry have been given reason to be hopeful about the future. During the referendum campaign, the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) came to my constituency for a Vote Leave flotilla along the Humber, when he said:

“If we leave the EU, we can help our industry recover, perhaps taking our cue from Iceland.”

The hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice) said that Brexit would allow Britain to

“re-establish national control for 200 nautical miles”.

Those promises were not made by campaigners who had no prospect of being in a position to follow them through. The right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden is now the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union; the hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth remains as the Minister with responsibility for fisheries; and the right hon. Member for South Northamptonshire (Andrea Leadsom), another leading light in the Vote Leave campaign, is his boss as Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. They could not be better placed to implement what they pledged just a few short months ago.

It is therefore disappointing that we have heard nothing in five months from the Government on their plans for the industry. Neither the Brexit Secretary nor the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Secretary made any mention of fisheries in their party conference speeches. For the Government to achieve what the leave campaign promised British fishermen, they need to put the industry at the top of their agenda. I wrote to both Secretaries of State before the summer recess asking them how they planned to deliver on their promises. The Minister who replied had no answers to the questions I asked, and gave me no assurance that the Government have thought about how they can secure what communities such as mine expect.

The fact is that, although it is very easy for leave campaigners to blame the EU for the decline of the fishing industry, their version of history is partial at best. The sharpest fall in the employment of fishermen came between 1948 and 1960, which was before Britain joined the European Economic Community. Iceland has lost more fishing jobs than Britain since the end of the cod wars; the number of those employed in the Icelandic fishing industry has halved since the 1980s.

[Mr Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)]

The hon. Lady makes an excellent point about the nature of fisheries. One hundred years ago, about 24% of the Icelandic population were involved in fisheries, but it is now down to about 4.3%. I was in Reykjavik in June at a fishing firm that hoped to have even fewer people working in fisheries, such is the technological drive for improvement in the industry.

[Melanie Onn]

Fewer people are involved, and the hon. Gentleman shows that being outside the European Union is not necessarily a panacea for the fishing industry. The Government have a lot to live up to. The fact is that the common fisheries policy came about when fish stocks were falling, new environmental concerns were discovered, and new technologies reduced the number of workers per vessel, as he says. That is not to say that the common fisheries policy is perfect—I do not think anybody would suggest that—or that the UK will not benefit from no longer having to abide by it. My point is that selling false hope, by suggesting that we will return to the industry we had in the 1950s simply because the CFP will no longer apply to us, just is not fair.

We simply cannot assume that being free from CFP regulations and quotas will allow our fishermen to do whatever they want. There will still need to be restrictions on quotas and fishing zones to prevent overfishing and trawler wars. Look at what happened in Canada. It is in charge of its own waters and cod fishing has been a major industry there for 500 years. In 1992, overfishing had caused stocks to collapse to such a low level that the Government had to order a ban on catching cod. More than 20 years on, the moratorium remains in place. British fishermen understand this. For example, the National Federation of Fishermen’s Organisations’ model for the industry post-Brexit retains the landings obligation, albeit a reformed one.

--- Later in debate ---

[Neil Parish]

Several I expect. I think that the right hon. Gentleman partook in such meetings when he was fisheries Minister.

The current Minister will have the unenviable task of sitting down with Ministers from across the whole of Europe to thrash out in great detail how much and where we can fish cod, sole, hake and so on. Our fishermen throughout the whole country, and especially those in the west country, will expect a very good deal from him because he is such a magnificent Minister. We expect him to come back with more fish in his pockets and in his suitcase, and to ensure that we have those opportunities. We have to remember that we will still be fishing under the common fisheries policy for another two to three years. For our fishermen, with their quotas and all the things that they need to do, we need to sustain the fishing industry in the years ahead.

Many crews on our fishing boats are central and eastern Europeans. Their labour is needed, so we need to ensure that everything is in place.

[Mr MacNeil]

The hon. Gentleman mentions eastern Europeans, and this is a sore point for Hebrides fishermen at the moment because we cannot get the numbers of them in and boats are left tied up. There is a boat for sale in Scalpay because it has lacked a crew since August. We are dying to get people in from the Philippines, but blockages put in place by the London Government are choking the Scottish fishing industry.

[Neil Parish]

It is perhaps not quite the British Government who are “choking” the industry, as the hon. Gentleman says. I do accept, however, that there is a perception among those coming to work from central and eastern Europe about whether they are welcome here, and therefore whether they want to come. The value of the pound has also made working here not quite as lucrative, so there has been a knock-on effect.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Owen Paterson (North Shropshire) (Con)]

It is a great pleasure to be called to speak in the debate, and to follow the right hon. Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw). I wholeheartedly endorse his opening comments, in which he paid tribute to the bravery of the crews and of their families who wait behind in terrible weather, wondering whether they are going to see those brave fishermen come back.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Melanie Onn) on securing the debate. I pay tribute to her predecessor, who was a great stalwart of the industry but who drew a completely different conclusion from hers on these matters. Frankly, I think he was right.

Brexit offers the most wonderful opportunity for our marine environment and for those who work in it. We should not underestimate that. We said that we would leave, which will mean leaving the common fisheries policy and re-establishing our control right back to 200 miles and the full exclusive economic zone. I was the shadow spokesman on these matters 11 and 12 years ago, opposite the right hon. Member for Exeter.

[Mr MacNeil]

As a supporter of the UK remaining in the single market, I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will spell out the importance of tariff-free access for shellfish and other goods from Scotland, the UK and elsewhere going into the European market, and into France and Spain in particular.

[Mr Paterson]

I am not recommending staying in the single market because, as the Secretary of State for Exiting the EU said, a couple of weeks ago 20 countries were accelerating their sales into the single market from outside faster than we were doing from within. However, I am fully in favour of zero tariffs.

[Mr MacNeil]

rose—

[Mr Paterson]

I have answered the hon. Gentleman’s point, and I am going to carry on.

Eleven years ago, I spent a fascinating two years going all round the British Isles. I went to wonderful places such as Whalsay in the far north, Northern Ireland and right round the coast of Britain. I saw tragically damaged communities and marine environments. I also went to Norway, the Faroes, Iceland, Newfoundland, the east coast of the United States and the Falklands. I saw improving marine environments and prosperous fishing communities in those areas. I saw wealth being grown there. I drew conclusions from this, and I wrote a consultation paper, which I published.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Gethins (North East Fife) (SNP)]

These debates are difficult for many of us who are pro-European by nature. I am a pro-European but I concede that the common fisheries policy has ill served the fishing industry since its introduction. This is one area where the Scottish National party has tried over many years to get powers back—unsuccessfully, as it transpired. My right hon. Friend the Member for Gordon (Alex Salmond), who at the time represented the constituency of Banff and Buchan, introduced his Fisheries Jurisdiction Bill, which was backed by the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) and others from parties around the House.

It has always struck me that the regulation of fishing was not one of the powers that the EU should have. However, during this time of negotiation, we should bear in mind the importance of the single market to our seafood sector. In 2015 Scotland exported £438 million-worth of seafood to the European Union. It is our second largest food and drink export after whisky, both of which are produced very well in North East Fife. We have the European maritime and fisheries fund, which is worth €107 million to Scotland, and the coastal communities fund. Maintaining our coastal communities goes beyond the fishing industry to include other industries as well.

Although we are pro-European to our fingertips, we have to be honest with ourselves about the European Union. I do not think that the fishing industry has always been best represented by the United Kingdom as a member state. It was, after all, the United Kingdom Government back in the 1970s who described our fishing industry as being “expendable” when we joined the European Union. [Interruption.] Indeed; my hon. Friend the Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil) is right that it was a Conservative Government who described the industry as expendable. As the powers come back, what is there to say that that attitude has changed since the 1970s? That is a concern for fishermen and fishing communities the length and breadth of the United Kingdom.

It was not just the Conservative party. I sometimes fear that this place never quite got to grips with devolution in 2010. I sincerely hope, for the benefit of our fishing industry, that this Government get to grips with devolution and will respect the powers that have already been devolved to the Scottish Parliament and to those in Cardiff and Northern Ireland as well. I remember that in 2010 the Labour Government decided to send the Minister with responsibility for bees to a crucial fishing industry meeting, rather than sending the Minister who had the greatest responsibility for our fishing industry, Richard Lochhead. More recently, a Liberal Democrat Minister was sent to the salle d’écoute—that is, the listening room, for the benefit of Conservative Members—in 2006 during crucial negotiations.

Devolution has changed the context in which we have these debates. I sincerely hope that our fishing industry will be respected during the process of the UK leaving the EU.

[Mr MacNeil]

My hon. Friend is making a fine speech and a fine point. When we look at the UK’s exclusive economic zone and the 200-mile limit—just about only my constituency reaches that far—there are 773,000 sq km under UK control, but of that 462,000 sq km are Scottish and 311,000 sq km belong to the rest of the UK. That means that when we get the powers back from Brussels, as the Brexiteers have promised us, we must ensure that there is no grab in London and that the mismanagement of Scottish waters is not simply transferred from Brussels to London.

[Stephen Gethins]

As usual, my hon. Friend makes a good point.

Finally, as Conservative colleagues are thinking about this issue, I would like to refer to Conservative MEP Ian Duncan, who said Scotland should play a leading role in international fisheries negotiations post-Brexit. He said:

“All future negotiations between the UK and external partners such as Norway, Iceland, the Faroes or the EU must include Scotland not just as a full partner, but as primus inter pares”—

he went to St Andrews, so he could not help using a bit of Latin, and it means first among equals. He went on:

“It is clear that in the future, Scotland will need to play a key role on all external fisheries management bodies.”

When the Minister responds, I hope he will bear those words in mind, as well as the fact that devolved Administrations have certain responsibilities. There is fine produce in Anstruther and Pittenweem, as well as across Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom, and it deserves to do much better than it does under the common fisheries policy.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ms Margaret Ritchie (South Down) (SDLP)]

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Melanie Onn) for securing the debate along with other hon. Members. I also pay tribute to those in the fishing industry, including fishermen, fish producer organisations, the Fishermen’s Mission and those in the processing sector. It is clear to me that the processing and catching sectors are vital if we are to create a fishing industries economic hub.

Two of the County Down fishing ports in Northern Ireland—Ardglass and Kilkeel—are in my constituency. They are vital to those two economies. We wish the Minister well and fair speed in advance of the negotiations in Brussels, but the most important thing apart from quotas and the total allowable catch allocations is the crewing of trawlers, which I mentioned in an intervention. The Minister and his Government colleagues will be aware of the serious problem that fishing crews have had in recruiting local people to work in our fishing fleet. That has resulted in qualified and experienced non-European economic area crew being drafted in to work on fishing vessels, particularly in Ireland and Scotland.

As the Minister may know, that is not the first time I have raised that issue with the Government—I have raised it with him and with his colleagues in the Home Department. I and colleagues representing constituencies on the west coast of Scotland, along with my hon. Friend the Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), had a meeting back in January with the then Immigration Minister, the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (James Brokenshire). So far, there is no resolution. Recently, two Scottish National party colleagues representing west of Scotland constituencies and I met the new Immigration Minister. Again, there has been no resolution. To that end, we make a plea to the fisheries Minister today for that urgent meeting for the fishing industry with his ministerial colleague from the Home Department to resolve this issue, with representatives of the Scottish Fishermen’s Federation along with the Anglo-North Irish Fish Producers Organisation.

[Mr MacNeil]

Does this not typify the problem with the United Kingdom? Switzerland has 26 cantons. Half the visas are controlled by the cantons and the other half are controlled centrally. In the UK, where those in Westminster do not understand the issue, we are struggling. We are on bended knee trying to get people into our fishing boats. It is very frustrating.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)]

This has been a good and lively debate. Perhaps the one complaint is that my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Gavin Newlands) said that there were too many interventions from the Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar—that is a scurrilous allegation!

First, I wish to put on the record my own pleas, just as many other Members have done. I represent a coastal community; indeed, it is one of the few constituencies—perhaps the only one—that reaches the 200-mile exclusive economic zone. Our current pleas are about tuna, dogfish and herring. We would like to have some tuna quota, as tuna are passing regularly through the Hebrides—about 200 miles west of the Hebrides, within the Hebrides to St Kilda area—as Angus Campbell of Kilda Cruises sees frequently when he goes out there. That call is backed by the Western Isles Fishermen’s Association secretary Duncan MacInnes, with that organisation of course being the biggest fishermen’s association in Scotland.

The second area where we need support and help is on dogfish. We need a bycatch allocation, because friends I went to school with have been in the unfortunate situation of having to dump perfectly good dogfish. I worked as a fisherman on two separate occasions, and on one of those, more than 20 years ago, we were specifically targeting dogfish. That was of course ended because of the unsustainability of that fishery, but again dogfish are coming back and it is a shame to catch these fish, which are later marketed as rock salmon, only to dump them over the side and not use them. Of course we also need to do something about herring, my third point, because herring are appearing on the west coast in great numbers and are being caught as bycatch, but there is no quota allocation and so again they are being dumped. I hope that the Minister was listening to those three points.

[Mr Paterson]

The hon. Gentleman has given three very good examples of why quotas do not work, and why we should move to a days-at-sea scheme. Does the Scottish National party support that?

[Mr MacNeil]

A days-at-sea scheme has its own problems. It puts pressure on fishermen. Sometimes they might get only hours at sea. There is merit in looking at a lot of changes in the fisheries policy, and I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman has his own thoughts on that. [Interruption.] He has a record of changing his mind over the period of a month—I might refer to that again as I go on in my speech.

On a happier note—

[Mr Paterson]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr MacNeil]

When I mention the right hon. Gentleman again, perhaps I will take his intervention then. Time is of the essence now.

[Mr Paterson]

The hon. Gentleman accused me of changing my mind. I have proved the point to him quite clearly. If he looks at the full length of the video, he will see that I did not change my mind. He has a second chance now: yes or no to days at sea?

[Mr MacNeil]

Let me look at the right hon. Gentleman’s words again. He said that

“only a madman would leave the market.”

Has he changed his mind on that?

[Mr Paterson]

Will the hon. Gentleman please quote the rest of the clip? If he had watched the Andrew Neil show he would realise that those clips were very, very carefully chosen, and were then disproved by the rest of the sentences that followed. I will give him another chance: yes or no on days at sea?

[Mr MacNeil]

I would rather pursue this point. What did the right hon. Gentleman mean when he said that only a madman would leave the market? Let us put that in context with what others in his camp have said. Here is Daniel Hannan:

“Absolutely nobody is talking about threatening our place in the single market.”

Nigel Farage said, “Like Norway.” What did the right hon. Gentleman mean when he said that only a madman would leave the single market?

[Mr Paterson]

I am delighted to carry on with this exchange. If the hon. Gentleman looks at the rest of the sentences, he will realise that I, Dan Hannan and others—[Interruption.] The video was put up by a Liberal press spokesman, who was then completely shredded and harpooned by Andrew Neil live. It was proved that those were very selective short sentences from a longer clip. The hon. Gentleman is still ducking the question on days at sea. Does he agree that having days at sea would mean that we would not have discards? That would then get around the problem of not being able to land fish, which is very grievous for his constituents, and which he mentioned in his opening comments.

[Mr MacNeil]

I have already said that I am happy for anything to enter into the mix of discussions and negotiations post-Brexit. The right hon. Gentleman has not answered my question, so I will leave it be. People watching can make up their own minds about what he meant when he said that only a madman would leave the market. I am quite clear what he meant.

The debate today was hosted tremendously well by the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Melanie Onn), who follows an illustrious predecessor, the much liked Austin Mitchell. She was absolutely right in saying that this debate should be not in Westminster Hall, but on the Floor of the House of Commons. She mentioned the Brexit promises. Certainly, whatever the promises were, they are changing over time. She made a good point about the number of people involved in fisheries. Indeed, Iceland has seen that number fall quite a lot.

A number of Members intervened on the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish), the Chair of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, particularly on the issues that affect me and Members from Northern Ireland, especially the lack of fishermen and the effects on fishing boats. Ultimately, of course, there is the effect on the Exchequer. If the boats are not going to sea, they are not earning money and not paying taxes, and that has a bad effect on the UK’s balance of payments, which, as we know, is not great at the best of times.

The right hon. Member for Tynemouth (Mr Campbell) made a thoughtful speech. He pointed out the dangers of the occupation, and thanked the RNLI in particular for the work that is done to keep people safe. I know that myself, after the loss of the Louisa in April this year. I was one of the last people to see the boat as she went down the west side of Barra at one in the morning. The following people were lost: Martin Johnston, aged 29, from Halkirk in Caithness; Chris Morrison from Harris; and the skipper, Paul Alliston. Happily there was a survivor, Lachlan Armstrong. That is the cost of fishing. The skipper of one of the boats that I worked on years ago lost his crewman and a friend of mine, Gerry Gillies, just over a year ago. That is the price of fishing.

The hon. Member for North West Norfolk (Sir Henry Bellingham) mentioned the fisheries in King’s Lynn and the Wash. It is interesting to hear his frustration with the marine protected areas. He will know that it is not just in Norfolk and the Wash that these conservation zones are bringing frustration to fishermen. They are doing so across the country.

The right hon. Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw) made an excellent and very thoughtful speech about what being in and out of the EU might mean, whether fisheries would lose on the way out as they lost on the way in, and what exactly tariffs would mean for those selling into the European single market. At present that gives us an advantage in some places. However, many in the fishing community who voted for Brexit might have voted in frustration with the common fisheries policy, not to lose access to the single market.

The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) made the point that CFP interaction would continue. He spoke about the cod recovery plan and the pain that that involved, combined with decommissioning. He mentioned that 47% of stocks were still overfished, such are the pressures on fisheries.

The right hon. Gentleman and another Member spoke about the success of the Faroese in managing to gather 33,000 tonnes of mackerel in Scottish waters. As time goes on, we might see what successful and experienced international trade negotiators can achieve. The Faroe Islands have a population of 50,000 and, when they go toe to toe with the European Union of 500 million, we see that their more experienced trade negotiators are more wily trade negotiators, especially when they know the importance of something close to them, as fisheries are. Perhaps when the UK draws up its own international trade deals, we will be doing so with inexperienced trade negotiators. We should study the success of the Faroe Islands and watch that we do not get mugged in the course of those negotiations.

My hon. Friend the Member for North East Fife (Stephen Gethins) made a speech heavy on facts about what fisheries were contributing to Scotland—£500 million-worth of farmed salmon that goes out, compared with £438 million-worth of fish caught by fishing boats, showing that farmed fish has a bigger export value, which I found surprising.

The debate should be remembered for the many points that were made, the information given to the Minister, and the expectations of the Minister in time to come. I noted from the comments of the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) that de Gaulle was probably the original Brexiteer, in that he refused to allow the UK access to the European Economic Community.

I see your eyes, Madam Deputy Speaker, looking at the clock; you are hinting gently to me to get on with it. I hope the Minister will remember my three points, and the heartfelt plea from the west of Scotland and from Northern Ireland. For goodness’ sake, let our boats go to sea and, as the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) said, stop the overzealous activities of the border agencies that are working against the economic interests of the west coast of Scotland and Northern Ireland.

Recreational Sea Bass Fishing

Angus Brendan MacNeil Excerpts

Thursday 11th February 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Walker]

I think that, during his speech, my hon. and learned Friend unwittingly invited my hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall and me to join him for a bit of fishing. We shall be able to introduce him to the delights of recreational angling, and that fishing shop will be the first place that we visit after breakfast, at 9.30 in the morning.

But I want to be serious about this. There is a huge opportunity here. As I have said, the value of recreational fishing—bass fishing—to the Republic of Ireland’s economy is £71 million. The value of the entire commercial catch of bass in this country is £7 million. I put to my hon. Friends representing fishing communities that the real prize, the real money and the real future for their inshore commercial bass fishermen is being at the forefront of creating recreational fisheries. There is a laboratory—a live case study. We can forget Ireland and the USA because they are established and thriving. The Isle of Man has decided to pursue that route to create jobs for charter captains and fishing guides, and jobs in hotels and restaurants. That is the opportunity that presents itself.

[Mr Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)]

On the words expressed earlier about the Europe and the CFP, does the hon. Gentleman find it remiss of the Prime Minister that he did not prioritise fisheries in any part of his negotiations with Europe?

[Mr Walker]

I wish the Prime Minister would be more bullish when he comes to defend fishing interests. I remember fishing with the hon. Gentleman in Shetland. He was sitting on the side of a beautiful loch as it neared midnight on about 8 July. He said, “Charles, why are you using a fly and not a worm?” I leave him to justify his position in that matter with his own constituents.

Let us not make this a row between recreational fishermen and inshore fishermen, who have also had a pretty rough deal. Without threatening jobs, could we start to think collectively about creating a new opportunity for what remains of our inshore fleet to thrive and prosper, and about having a sustainable fishery and not one that is here today, gone tomorrow? As my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Torridge and West Devon made clear, many fisheries around his coast have been here today and gone tomorrow, and they are now in the last chance saloon.

I have spoken for longer than I thought I would, and I took a couple of interventions, which I greatly enjoyed, but be in no doubt that the Government will continue to be harried and harassed on this matter, because there is no other word to describe their dealings in the European Union but failure.

Fisheries Policy

Angus Brendan MacNeil Excerpts

Thursday 3rd December 2015 Westminster Hall

[Mr Carmichael]

Indeed it would. For that reason, I intend to keep making the case, and I do not doubt that the hon. Lady will, too. This case is best made in this House, as is generally the case—I speak as a Member who represents a fishing community—to ensure it is made in the broadest possible way. By and large, there is not a great deal of difference between the parties on fisheries policy. We all face the same challenges in our communities. For that reason, it will be easy to build a cross-party consensus.

I want to dwell on two areas today. I understand—perhaps the Minister will deal with this in his remarks—that the EU-Norway negotiations are proceeding fairly well. It looks as though they will produce quota uplifts for most species, with a significant—and worrying for my constituency—exception for mackerel and blue whiting. That exception will be even more significant in the discussions that are about to start in Copenhagen between the European Union and the Faroe Islands. I hope the Minister will take that point away and pursue it vigorously with the EU negotiators in those discussions. There is grave concern in the pelagic industry about the way in which the 2014 deal between the EU and the Faroe Islands is being allowed to operate.

As hon. Members are doubtless aware, the deal was designed to allow EU vessels some access to Faroese waters. In return, Faroese vessels can catch a proportion of their mackerel and blue whiting in EU waters. The deal was met with substantial scepticism in my constituency and by the pelagic fleet in Shetland, in particular. They have gone along with it and have done their best to make it work, but with every week and month that passes it becomes more apparent that the deal requires urgent review.

The recent Seafish study shows that this year the Faroese have overcaught their entitlement of mackerel by 1,400 tonnes, but there have been no boats catching mackerel or blue whiting in the Faroese waters. Surely, it is possible to do this without threatening the access of EU vessels to Faroese waters. Essentially, the Faroese were given an inch in 2014, since which time they have taken a mile. The deal looks more and more unbalanced with every day that passes. It requires urgent attention from Britain and the EU.

The other matter that I wish to bring to the attention of the Minister and of those in the devolved Administrations, because it is of significance to them, is the implementation of the demersal discard ban, which is due to come into force at the beginning of the year. We always knew that the demersal ban would be tricky.

[Mr Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)]

The right hon. Gentleman probably has the same concerns as I do about the lack of port infrastructure for the discard ban, which will affect some boats. Has he encountered that issue in Orkney and Shetland?

[Mr Carmichael]

It is very much an issue that we have encountered, especially in Shetland. The real difficulty is that until we have the discard ban, we will not know exactly what we are dealing with, in terms of stocks and the infrastructure that will be needed. However, all the indications are that it will be substantial. The Government have a role, because the way in which the discard ban is implemented is down to the Scottish Government, the UK Government and the other devolved Administrations. I say to the Minister, as I say to others, that there is a real need for much greater flexibility, especially in the early years, until we see exactly what we are dealing with and how it will work.

[Mr MacNeil]

I have two boats—the Aquarius and the Cheerfull—in Barra. They are not very cheerful at the moment, because the discard ban is coming into force on 1 January—in four weeks’ time—and the main port they are landing in does not have the infrastructure.

[Mr Carmichael]

I would be astonished if they are landing on 1 January.

[Mr MacNeil]

So would they.

[Mr Carmichael]

But no doubt issues will come down the track shortly thereafter. Flexibility in the implementation is needed. The indication is that the approach of the fisheries departments in Edinburgh and elsewhere is too prescriptive and does not allow the flexibility that is needed.

I bring to the House’s attention the recent report from Seafish entitled “Landing Obligation Economic Impact Assessment, Interim Report Two”—a snappy title—from August. I will read it into the record, because it should concern every representative of a fishing community. It states:

“Even considering the benefit of the most generously defined policy levers”—

that is, flexibilities and exemptions—

“the analysis shows that a significant volume and value of quota could remain uncaught as a result of the landing obligation.”

The worst-case scenario is that,

“In 2019...the fleet segments in Scotland would catch and land 51% (£99.9 million) of the value”

of the total allowable catch. Essentially, that would leave 49% of the catch unaccounted for, uncaught and unlanded. No fishing fleet can cope with a cut of that significance. That is the worst-case scenario and worst-case scenarios need not happen, but it is a warning. That is what the Scottish fishing fleets face at the moment. Unless we have the necessary flexibility, something that was brought in with good intentions could have serious and profound unintended consequences.

I hope that Ministers here and elsewhere will heed these warnings and act on them. It comes down to a basic principle that we have spoken about over the years: when it comes to fisheries management, the people who need to be listened to first are the fishermen. We will be watching to see whether the Minister and his counterpart in Edinburgh, Richard Lochhead, are prepared to do that. It will be obvious to all if they are not.