Fishing Industry

Debate between David Duguid and Jim Shannon

Thursday 29th June 2023 Commons Chamber

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a pleasure to speak in a debate on fishing. I do not believe there has been a fishing debate in this Chamber or in Westminster Hall that I have not participated in—some might say that I participate in most debates, but that is by the way. I am particularly interested in the fishing sector, as I represent the fishing village of Portavogie, where fishing is really important. I also represent in this House the fishing villages of Ardglass and Kilkeel, because the Member who represents that constituency does not attend this place and thereby abdicates his responsibility to his constituents on fishing issues in this House, where decisions are made, cases are put forward and representations can make a difference.

I commend the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (David Duguid) on his introduction, detail and contribution, which set the scene so well for us all to follow and, perhaps, add to in a small way. I am interested in fishing because when I arrived at Ards council for the first time in 1985—I also represented Strangford in the Assembly—fishing was key to our economic life in Strangford. I also knew many people who were crews on the fishing boats in Portavogie, my brother being one of them. I could never really understand the courage of those who wanted to be fishing crews, because on my visits to the boats in Portavogie it became clear right away how dangerous and claustrophobic the atmosphere was. Fishing is important. It delivers to the economy and it gives opportunities and jobs in my constituency.

With the recent negative economic news, and having seen the UK economy buffeted by forces that, for a large part, are outside of our control, it would be easy to feel pessimistic and downbeat about the future. But I come here not with grievances about what cannot be controlled or tales of pessimism, but with genuine optimism and some recommendations on how, if we make the most of the factors inside our control, we can deliver not a bleak but a bright future for our fishing industry. The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan tried to look at the optimistic side. He referred to challenges—which there are—but it is about how we overcome the challenges. That is the way to look at it in this debate, as the hon. Gentleman referred to, and I back him up.

I know that the hon. Member for Totnes (Anthony Mangnall) will make similar comments about the fishing crews, and others probably will, too. Like us, the Minister will be well briefed on the problems with crewing, so we are better served to focus on the solution, as I often try to do in this House. Whatever the issue, I always try to be solution-focused, and I want other Members to do the same in this debate.

The Fishermen’s Welfare Alliance proposed that the reading and writing elements of the skilled visa language requirement be adjusted from B1 to A2. That is not a big request—it is tactical more than anything else—but it enables the fishing sector not just in my constituency but in that of the hon. Members for Banff and Buchan and for Totnes, and across the whole United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, to make fishing viable and add to economic life. I underline that. It will help those in Portavogie, Ardglass and Kilkeel and us all. That level better matches the standard of the highly skilled international fisherman who already form an integral and valued part of our fishing industry. That adjustment of the standard would be time-limited for the individual, to protect the integrity of the skilled visa system. The immigration Minister has said that he is prepared to consider that option.

[David Duguid]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind words and for some excellent points. He refers to the Westminster Hall debate that we had with the immigration Minister, which was positive and encouraging, and looked to the future. Does he agree that the migrant workers coming to his constituency are generally not looking to settle here in the UK? The immigration Minister himself said that the English language test had to be B1 because it is seen as a route to settlement, but if we could distinguish a non-route to settlement version of that visa, A2 would be more than enough.

[Jim Shannon]

The hon. Gentleman has clarified the matter. I hope that the Minister, although she does not have sole responsibility for this, can illustrate and take forward our thoughts. I usually meet the fishermen from eastern Europe and Africa who work in Portavogie on every second Saturday in the month, when I give advice sessions down at the harbour. They have made it very clear that they do not want to stay here; they want to go home.

What we are asking for will not have an undue impact on the visa system. It is a really simple arrangement which I think will assist what the immigration department is trying to do. The English language requirement can be adjusted from B1 to A2. The solution lies entirely within the Government’s gift. It will hasten the adoption of skilled visas within the industry, and will give fishing vessel owners the business stability that they need to plan and invest in their own future. May I ask the Minister —whom we all respect greatly, and who always responds positively to our requests—to take this positive action, and throw DEFRA’s full weight behind this proposal? It helps when there is consensus in the House, and I am convinced that there will be consensus today. Others, I am sure, will make that clear as well.

The second issue that I want to raise is every bit as important as the first. In recent years, we have seen fishermen across the UK lose access to prime fishing grounds to make way for the offshore energy industry and environmentally protected areas. That affects my fishermen back home because there are plans for wind farms just off the Antrim coast, where some of their fishing grounds are. We should always remember that fishermen were the original environmentalists, and few of them will deny that our natural habitats need stewardship, or that the decarbonisation of energy production is as important an aspiration for our society as it is for them. Indeed, we have seen Government policy for the management of the marine space reflect just how important it is. I would argue, however, that our food security is every bit as important. If recent global events have taught us anything, it is that the cheap food we have enjoyed up until now is not something that can be taken for granted. During Business and Trade questions this morning, Members referred to food price increases of some 20%, which have made family purchases very difficult.

We know that areas where fishing and energy production co-exist successfully are the exception rather than the rule. In most instances, such co-existence is impossible. Overlapping fishing with environmentally protected areas can be problematic, and that is a shame. Research commissioned by the Northern Ireland Fishermen’s Federation shows that our Northern Irish wild-caught prawns have a carbon footprint one third the size of that of the farmed, south-east Asian prawns favoured by UK supermarkets, so we should buy the home-produced ones and reduce the net carbon impact. I am not saying that we should not buy from the rest of the world, but if we want to do the right thing for our fishermen while also reducing carbon emissions, we should buy local—buy from Portavogie, buy from Ardglass, buy from Kilkeel, and yes, buy from the whole of this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland collectively. According to one scientist from the Agri-Food and Biosciences Institute, the harmful emissions from harvesting Northern Ireland prawns are an order of magnitude below those from other UK animal proteins.

Fishing is clearly not without its own environmental or carbon reduction merits, but, notwithstanding the food security that it supports, it is all too often treated as the poor relation in marine spatial management. Will the Minister support the fishing industry in its drive to produce healthy, affordable and environmentally responsible food by ensuring that food production areas are given their rightful significance and importance in the designation and allocation of marine space? That, too, is entirely within the Government’s power.

The third issue lies somewhat closer to home. The renegotiation of UK-EU fishing opportunity and access draws closer. The ability to access our traditional fisheries in Irish EU waters was a formally submitted priority for Northern Ireland during the 2020 negotiations, but I have subsequently been told that the UK side—I say this respectfully—did not even put the matter on the table. How disappointing. We can imagine how it looks to Northern Ireland fishermen when they see that the UK allowed inshore access to some French boats, but did nothing to help our own. I ask the Minister to ensure that the Government do not allow Northern Ireland fishermen to be let down twice. Once is a mistake, but twice would be deliberate. Can the Minister assure us that in the upcoming negotiations, and notwithstanding the Voisinage agreement, any access to UK inshore waters for EU vessels should be part of a reciprocal arrangement allowing Northern Ireland fishermen access to their traditional fisheries in EU waters? This means so much to those fishermen in Portavogie, Ardglass and Kilkeel whom I speak for in the House, and for whom others will speak just as strongly and passionately.

Let me end by returning to my first point about optimism. It is so important to be optimistic, to be “glass half-full” and focused on solutions. There is a bright future for our industry, and one that can be delivered by fishing businesses throughout this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, but if that is to happen, we need the Government to grip those matters that lie in their control. That can be done in three ways: by helping the industry to make the most of the skilled visa system through the small technical changes that can make such a difference to the future, by recognising the importance of food security and protecting food production areas, and by using the upcoming renegotiation of fishing opportunity as a chance to set right the problems caused by the old system. Therein lies our very bright future.

Inshore Industry Fishing Crews: Visas

Debate between David Duguid and Jim Shannon

Thursday 25th May 2023 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon]

I thank my friend and colleague for that comment. I agree. I see it in Portavogie, in Ardglass and in Kilkeel. I will give an example: the Anglo-North Irish Fish Producers Organisation and the Irish Fish Producers Organisation put an advert out—when we were in the EU, by the way—to try to galvanise workers. Some 45 people inquired, five people responded to say that they would be interested in the job, and only one turned up. Whenever they did an advertisement across the whole EU, that was all the interest that there was, so there is an evidential base to prove the case that the right hon. Gentleman refers to.

I see in my constituency that people are not interested. Fishing is a hard job. It is one of the most dangerous jobs: more people are killed in the fishing sector than in many other sectors across the United Kingdom. People are going into other jobs, as it is a hard job. I remember going down into the bowels of one of those fishing boats in Portavogie one day. I said, “And where do you sleep?” The fisherman said, “In that wee place there.” We are born in a foetal position, and that is the way they sleep. It is impossible to know how anybody could ever sleep on a boat that is tossing about in the sea. The point is: it is a hard job.

[David Duguid (Banff and Buchan) (Con)]

The hon. Gentleman talks about the cramped living conditions on a fishing boat. When I was at school, I had a job painting fishing boats, so I was aware of the conditions. I have never been out in a fishing boat; if anybody watching this wants to offer me the opportunity, I will gladly take it up. He will have seen the conditions not just for the deck crew, the deck hands and the people we are talking about giving visas to; the skippers and the home-based crew of these vessels are in the same conditions.

[Jim Shannon]

I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. He understands, as we all do, the practicalities, physical problems, obstructions and difficulties when it comes to fishing. We welcome foreign workers, and we need them. I gave the case of the two positions advertised right across Europe, when we were in the EU, and how many people inquired, how many said that they would take the job, and how many turned up. Foreign workers are now a vital and vibrant part of our fishing culture. They help us to supply the affordable food that every UK shopper wants to see. They do so much for us, but we still cannot offer them the opportunity to come to the UK on a visa that is a good fit for the important work that they do.

We have a problem, but as I said before, I am solution focused, and I believe that we have a solution. I will put it to the Minister and hope that he can give us some flexibility in the process, which we can then take back to our people. The problem is that Northern Ireland’s fishing fleet is penalised simply because of geography. Our position near the Isle of Man and the west coast of Scotland means that Northern Ireland vessels do not have the same easy access to waters outside the 12 miles enjoyed by fishing interests on the east coast of England, for example, or in Scotland. Consequently, our reliance on access to inshore waters means that employing crew on transit visas is no longer an option for fishing vessels in Northern Ireland, which is one of the problems.

We had the opportunity to meet the Minister in January this year, which was a chance to put forward a solution. I can probably add to the solution that we had at the time, because the two fish producers organisations in Northern Ireland, in connection and partnership with other fishing organisations in Scotland and indeed in England, put forward the suggestion that foreign workers could learn the English language before they come here, in a college in Sri Lanka that they are setting up. I will add another angle to that, but that is one of the solutions that the fishing organisations themselves are putting forward. It is practical, and it is costing them. They are not asking the Government for any money in that process; they feel that they can put it forward.

Our vessels are set to see their labour costs rise by up to 40% as they change from employing workers on transit visas to skilled visas—a cost that those in other parts of the country, by virtue of accident or geography, do not have to meet. That creates an unfairness where due to Home Office rules a fisherman fishing in one part of the United Kingdom is forced to pay up to 40% more for his crew than another fishing elsewhere in the UK. Northern Ireland’s fishing industry welcomes the pay protections the skilled visa system brings. Nobody decries that; nobody says, “Don’t do it”—we all accept and understand it. Indeed, the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (David Duguid) and I were talking about that in the voting lobby the night before last, because we understand that it is not an issue. The fishing sector is moving towards accepting it.

Northern Ireland’s fishing industry does not begrudge paying our international fishermen what they are worth, but it is clearly unfair that those who pay skilled-visa salaries can be undercut by those who do not, simply through accidents of geography. The Home Office will, of course, argue that the skilled visa system meets Northern Ireland’s fishermen’s needs. In some ways, particularly in how it improves the freedoms enjoyed by foreign fishermen when ashore, it is a very positive step forward. The situation is not, however, quite that simple.

The International Labour Organisation’s work in fishing convention, ILO 188, is an important piece of legislation, of which the UK is a signatory. It protects the welfare of fishermen. It rules, for example, that a fisherman must have his repatriation flight paid for at his employer’s expense, and that his employer should provide his food at sea. Northern Ireland’s vessel owners willingly do both those things already—they are happy to.

The legislation, however, is effectively legally mandating benefits in kind that push the cost of employment up in ways that were not considered when skilled visas and their corresponding salary levels were devised. There needs to be a better understanding of that. Other employers who utilise skilled visas do not have to bear those costs, but fishing vessels do. Northern Ireland’s fishermen have asked for the policy to be applied in a fair, considered and even-handed way. We do not ask for anything that is not achievable or possible. That is why I look to the Minister for a better understanding and a positive response.

I ask the Minister and every MP in the Chamber to put themselves in the position of a Northern Ireland skipper for a moment. Imagine being in the southern Irish sea, wanting to access fishing grounds inside 12 miles of the shore but being unable to because there are transit visa crew onboard. Mr Vickers, imagine that you have tried to recruit skilled visa crew members, but those capable of passing the English-language requirement do not yet exist in sufficient numbers to make that option viable. Looking out of the wheelhouse window of the boat as it is tossed about on the sea, you see a French vessel fishing happily in the area that you are not allowed to work in. It niggles a bit when we are part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and our fishermen do not have the same freedoms as those from the rest of Europe.

The French vessel is allowed to work in UK waters because of the Brexit deal. I understand that—I understand how it works and where it will eventually lead to. The French vessel can also carry an international crew on the same transit visas, yet UK law affords it the exemptions that Northern Ireland fishermen are refused. That is a true story; I have not made it up—this is not an example without an evidential base. I suspect, in all honesty, that the Minister accepts that.

Northern Ireland’s fishermen have had to watch EU vessels employ foreign workers in UK territorial waters. They are there without any visa scrutiny whatever, while Northern Ireland fishermen are forced to remain outside those waters. Can the Home Office please put itself in their position, and explain where the morality and the fairness is? For the life of me, I cannot understand it at all. Can the Home Office appreciate the ridiculousness of a situation where it is easier for a British fishing business to employ foreign workers in UK waters if it buys into a French or Irish-registered vessel, rather than one registered in the UK? That anomaly is grossly unfair, and it grieves us all; there is not one Member who represents the fishing sector who does not think that.

It is unfortunate that the Home Secretary denied the request of the Fishermen’s Welfare Alliance; the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan and myself were also talking about the Fishermen’s Welfare Alliance the other night. What it has put forward is a feasible and workable option, and one that should be looked at. The Fishermen’s Welfare Alliance has asked for the full implementation of section 43 of the National Minimum Wage Act 1998, and for more time.

As transit visa crews are replaced with skilled visa crews in job lots, some fishing boats will now be expected to go to sea with whole crews joining vessels they have never set foot on before, to work as part of teams that have never met each other before. That poses the question of how practical that is. Professional mariners baulk at the very idea of this. They have issues with the safety, practicality and physical working of it. Fishing is already the UK’s most dangerous profession. I said that at the beginning because it is a fact; I am not making it up. It is not the fault of the migrant fisherman that he has not been granted the time to safely integrate with his vessel and crew mates, yet he is the one carrying the risk.

In response to the Fishermen’s Welfare Alliance, the Home Secretary raised concerns about the welfare of fishermen. If welfare is one of her considerations, I ask her not to make an already dangerous job more so. I ask her to reconsider on the grounds of safety, with a short delay to the full implementation of section 43 so that crews on transit visas may be replaced with crew on skilled visas as part of the staggered, safe transition.

I said at the beginning that I want to be constructive and give the facts of the case for us in Northern Ireland, but I also want to lay out where I think we can move forward. I am pretty sure that the opinions of everyone else here today are similar. Our Northern Ireland fishing vessel operator can see his colleagues in the North sea targeting the same species, yet, because of a line on a chart, his business has 40% higher labour costs. He sees an EU boat fishing inside the UK’s territorial waters with a transit visa crew, yet his British boat, with the same category of crew, is not allowed there. Even if all his crew had skilled worker visas and he was allowed access to those waters, the French boat would still undercut his labour costs.

This is not about cheap labour, but I want to illustrate that point. Northern Ireland’s fishermen welcome the wage protections that the skilled visas bring. Indeed, that will drive up wages for all our fishermen, local and foreign alike, which is good for the sector because at least it makes it more attractive from a financial wage point of view. For many of Northern Ireland’s boats there is no great disparity in earnings based on whether someone comes come from Kilkeel or Colombo, or Accra or Ardglass, but the same rules should apply to all. The skilled visa system links skills and education in a way that is not always reflected in real life. When we see what is put forward, it is very hard to understand why—I say this with respect to the Minister—he is not reaching out and saying, “Let’s get that in place as soon as we can.”

Most of the international fishermen employed by the UK industry have little by way of formal schooling, but they are expert in their profession. Sometimes people do not have an education, but they have the skills and the ability to work on a boat. That is the frustration that we have here: people who can do the job, but do not have the full grasp of the English language that they need to have. To prevent them from helping our own industry simply because they cannot pass the reading and writing elements of an academic English exam, which reportedly sits somewhere between GCSE and A-level in difficulty, is perhaps contrary to the bigger picture of ensuring our food security.

The Home Secretary has kindly offered a package of help designed to aid the transition to skilled visas. That is welcome, but if I could push that offer of help just a little further, this is the crux of what I would ask for: to recognise that the highly skilled people from around the world who are already part of our fishing communities do not have to have the academic background that enables them to pass B1 level reading and writing. After all, fishing is something we learn in a boat, not in a classroom. Providing that formal academic training to our existing foreign fishermen, who are already working full time, will take months and cost individual fishing businesses tens of thousands in lost revenue because they remain unable to access inshore waters in the interim.

Assumptions are dangerous, and it is simply incorrect to assume that there is, anywhere in the world, a pool of eligible B1-standard fishermen who want to work in the UK. There is not, and that is the nub of the problem. The Home Office is asking the fishing industry to focus its recruitment efforts on a group of people who do not exist. The good news, and there is good news—I always try to bring good news, because that is my nature—is that the Home Office can do something practical to help.

Employers are allowed to pay skilled workers whose jobs are on the shortage occupation list a lower salary than would be the case if the jobs were not in shortage. Perhaps, for shortage occupations, the reading and writing elements of the English test could be reduced by one level from B1. That is my request. It is a practical solution to where we are, and it is a solution that the fishing sector and every MP here will put forward. The fishing sector will work alongside; if a partnership is needed to make this work, the Minister and the Government will have a partnership. The reading and writing could be reduced by one level from B1 for the first year of a person’s stay only; after that, they would be required to pass a B1 exam to remain—which is where we are now —thereby protecting the integrity of the skilled visa system. The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan will speak on that shortly and reiterate my point.

That little change could help the fishing industry retain many of the crew it already has by enabling them to successfully make the transition to skilled visas in a matter of weeks—almost right away—thereby minimising the economic cost of losing access to prime inshore grounds and minimising the accidents stemming from the employment of inexperienced and unfamiliar crew. I tell the Minister, with genuine respect, that here we have a solution that can work. Others will repeat that, and they will repeat it because it is right.

Fishing is an irregular occupation. It is unsurprising that it does not fit neatly into any of the current visa options—I understand that. Instead of trying to force square pegs into round holes, perhaps it would be better to begin a dialogue between the fishing industry and the Home Office as to how provision can be made within the framework of the skilled visa system to recognise those irregularities and help to make a better fit. We have put forward a solution, and I am confident that those who speak today will be united, because all of us represent fishermen who want the same thing.

We have great potential. After Brexit, we as a fishing sector were confident that we could move forward. I know that the Minister and the Government are committed to that, but we need some practical help with the technicalities of the system to make it happen. I have made the case, and I look forward to others’ contributions.

Scotland Act 1998: Role of the Lord Advocate

Debate between David Duguid and Jim Shannon

Tuesday 20th July 2021 Commons Chamber

[David Duguid]

I will be coming to that point in a bit more detail later in my response. Although that is possible in theory, I will explain later why in practice the UK Government would choose not to go directly down that route. If the hon. and learned Lady will forgive me, I will come back to that in a minute or two.

The context of the role of the Lord Advocate is the Scotland Act 1998, which I will refer to, for brevity, as the 1988 Act. Section 48 of that Act makes provision regarding the appointment of the Lord Advocate and their removal from office. The 1988 Act itself came about after 74% of voters in the 1997 devolution referendum were in favour of a Scottish Parliament. The subsequent ’98 Act devolved significant powers to Scotland and legislated for the establishment of a Scottish Executive, later known as the Scottish Government, and a Parliament. The Scottish Parliament took responsibility in areas such as education, law enforcement, health and social care, and local government, among others, but there are many others that remain the prerogative of the UK Parliament through schedule 5 to the Act. There are too many to list, but a few examples would be foreign affairs, international trade, defence, national security, energy and, of course, the constitution.

Since 1998, there have been two major adjustments to the devolution settlement, the Scotland Acts of 2012 and 2016. The 2012 Act represented the first transfer of fiscal powers from Westminster to the Scottish Parliament following devolution. After the independence referendum of 2014, where the clear majority voted to stay in the Union, and after the Smith Commission, the 2016 Act was passed to transfer a range of tax and welfare powers to the Scottish Parliament. These Acts have created one of the most powerful devolved Parliaments in the world and give the Scottish Government power over numerous aspects of Scotland’s governance.

As hon. Members will be aware, the Lord Advocate is the Scottish Government’s most senior Law Officer and principal legal adviser—that is the topic of this debate. Section 48 of the 1998 Act, in addition to providing for the appointment of the Lord Advocate and their removal from office, also makes provision for the independence of the Lord Advocate in their capacity as head of the systems of criminal prosecution and investigation of deaths in Scotland. This was to ensure the traditional independence of the Lord Advocate when taking decisions related to those matters continued after they became a member of the Scottish Government.

The Lord Advocate’s role as head of the systems of criminal prosecution and investigation of deaths is, in section 29 of the 1998 Act, protected from modification by an Act of the Scottish Parliament. The hon. Member for East Lothian has mentioned the limitation on legislative competence in section 29, and any formal separation of responsibilities would require legislation. Although the UK Government have the power to bring forward legislation to make this change, in practice we would want to ensure the Scottish Government have first put their proposals to the Scottish Parliament for scrutiny.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

This is a complex matter, but does the Minister not agree that there is distrust and conflicting opinions on the division of the role of the Lord Advocate within the Scottish Parliament and Holyrood, and that these proposals would need to be scrutinised before the Scotland Act 1998 is changed? Does he further agree that these matters must be addressed in Holyrood before Westminster is expected to change law?

[David Duguid]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his timely intervention, because that is kind of the point I was making. Although the UK Government, as I said to the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry), have the power to bring forward such legislation, in practice we would want to ensure that the Scottish Government have put the proposals to be scrutinised by the Scottish Parliament. It is therefore a matter for the Scottish Government, in the first instance.

It is only right that the Scottish Parliament has an opportunity to scrutinise and debate these proposals. Only once these proposals are agreed in principle in the Scottish Parliament would we expect the Scottish Government to make a formal representation to the Secretary of State for Scotland, as custodian of the devolution settlement, and then the UK Government would consider the next steps.

As I think the hon. and learned Lady said, the SNP made a manifesto commitment ahead of the recent Scottish parliamentary elections to consult on whether the dual function should be separated in the future. It is right that our colleagues at Holyrood, rather than UK Ministers, take the lead on deciding what must now happen, or at least they should take that first step. We have not received, as far as I know at this time, any requests from the Scottish Government to amend the 1998 Act, and it would therefore be premature for the UK Government to comment further on that point.