Fisheries Bill [Lords]

Deidre Brock Excerpts

Ways and Means resolution & 2nd reading & 2nd reading: House of Commons & Money resolution & Money resolution: House of Commons & Programme motion & Programme motion: House of Commons & Ways and Means resolution: House of Commons
Tuesday 1st September 2020 Commons Chamber

[Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)]

I beg to move,

That this House declines to give a Second Reading to the Fisheries Bill [Lords] before it is clear what kind of deal will be made with the EU after the end of the implementation period and because the present approach of the Bill fails to secure a long-term sustainable future for the industry balancing the interests of the environment, the consumer and the producers of this industry which is so vital to the prosperity of fishing ports in Scotland, Wales and the rest of the United Kingdom.

It is always interesting to debate a Bill that comes from the unelected part of this Parliament, which is an unusual concept in a state that likes to imagine it is a democracy, but this Brexit Bill—one of many—will not, in actuality, offer the much heralded control of our waters that the Brexiters claimed it would.

As Lord Hain said during a debate on amendments to the Bill, failure to reach an agreement with the EU by the end of this year will mean that control of the waters around these islands is governed by

“the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea—UNCLOS —which requires co-operation and efforts to agree rules on access to waters, as well as setting catch limits and standards on conservation and management of marine resources.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 22 June 2020; Vol. 804, c. 26.]

That of course means that historical access to fishing grounds enjoyed by fleets from other nations will become part of the new framework, just as it became part of the common fisheries policy.

The sensible solution, of course, is to ensure that there is a deal in place before the end of this year, but the EU will seek to protect the fishing interests of its member states, so that will mean that those foreign fleets have access to our waters. Round and round it goes.

If there is no deal, the very important seafood fisheries will be denied access to their most important market: the EU. Given that those fisheries represent a substantial part of the employment in some smaller coastal communities, that is a very worrying prospect. It is not only bad news for them, though. Boats sailing from ports here will be denied access to waters that they currently access as part of the EU, including, as the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard) mentioned, waters outwith the EU that we currently have agreements to fish in as a result of EU membership. It is a bourach, so it is, and it threatens jobs, income and the very survival of some communities.

Of course foreign boats will still have access to our waters, as the current Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster made clear when he was at DEFRA. Three years ago, Danish newspapers were reporting him telling representatives of the Danish fleet that they would have access, and, at about the same time, diplomats were telling the Iberian fleets that they would have access. I acknowledge that clause 17 appears to give the Scottish Government the right to control fishing in Scottish waters and the same rights to the Welsh and Northern Ireland Governments, but that is completely undermined by clause 12, which says that a

“foreign fishing boat must not enter British fishery limits”

unless it has a licence, except if there is

“a purpose recognised by international law or by any international agreement or arrangement to which the United Kingdom is a party.”

That means that the devolved Administrations can work however they want to protect and enhance the marine environment and fish stocks. They can plan to protect coastal communities. They can look at ways of protecting jobs in the fishing industry and associated industries. They can put conditions on licences. They can limit fishing opportunities and they can limit catch and species. It means nothing—absolutely nothing—if the UK Government then sign a deal with another trading bloc or other states, which allow them access to our waters. It means nothing if those other fleets insist on their historical rights either, if UNCLOS is invoked and the UK is forced into the accommodation of other fleets, as referred to by Lord Hain. It does not matter how much the devolved Administrations want to do, they will not be able to prevent foreign fleets fishing in our waters, as they always have, licence or no licence.

[Mr Carmichael]

Fergus Ewing told the Scottish Parliament Committee on 19 August—I shall quote his words exactly—

“I’m confident this Bill gives Scottish Ministers and the Scottish Parliament the necessary powers and tools to do that”—

the preparation for the end of the transition period—

“in a way that respects devolution.”

Is the hon. Lady telling the House that she thinks Fergus Ewing was wrong in his assessment of the Bill?

[Deidre Brock]

As the right hon. Gentleman knows of course, with legislative consent motions, which is what the Cabinet Secretary was speaking about, a consent is needed, sought and approved only for the devolved areas. I will be speaking about other areas that are still reserved to this Parliament—for the moment anyway.

Let me return now to my speech. This also has a particular resonance here, because, as the reasoned amendment alludes to, we still have no idea what the agreement with the EU will look like and we still have no idea what the seascape will be in which the fishing businesses have to operate. There is still no clarity. That deal will not be good for fishing communities. They remember that a previous Tory Government sold them out in negotiations over Europe and now they fear that the new generation of Tories will do exactly the same. No deal would not be good for them either. It would remove their market at a stroke and open up our fishing grounds to foreign fleets without our actually having any agreed limitations in place.

There is no word on how the UK Government intend to police fishing. There is some talk of borrowing some vessels from the Navy, or of having the Navy undertake patrols, forgetting, of course, that the Navy’s surface fleet is completely overstretched and out of resources and that, frankly, nuclear submarines are not exactly the right approach to fishing infringements.

[Mr Carmichael]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way. She is being very, very generous. Whether that is wise is another matter. Regardless of the terms of the deal, or even if there is no deal, we will have to have a UK-wide framework Bill, which is what this is. She has heard the words of Fergus Ewing. Why, in view of what he says about the nature of this Bill and the co-operation of Scottish and UK Ministers, does she therefore now invite the House to decline to give it a Second Reading? Where is the sense of that for the fishermen in my constituency?

[Deidre Brock]

I have made it very clear that there are elements in this Bill that relate to issues that are still reserved, unfortunately, to this Parliament. I will address that later in my speech.

[Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)]

On the exact same point made by the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael), Fergus Ewing, on that same day, in that same meeting, said:

“You will have noted that I have recommended that we consent to the bill as introduced in full.”

So if what the hon. Lady is saying is correct, why does she disagree with the rural affairs Minister in the Scottish Parliament, who is a Minister in her own Government and is in her own party?

[Deidre Brock]

It is very interesting to hear the Scottish Tories being so protective of fishing communities. I only wish their current leader would go to make his apologies to Scotland’s farmers for the insults he offered them yesterday and the giant stooshie he created, which he will be some time recovering from. It does not matter how much the devolved Administrations want to do, they will not be able to prevent foreign fleets from fishing in our waters, as they always have, licence or no licence.

[Liz Saville Roberts]

As we are talking about devolved powers, I wonder whether the hon. Lady shares my concern that we do not know the mechanism by which the quotas will be divvied up among the four nations, nor what the arbitration arrangements will be, but we also have the anomalous situation whereby the Government here will act as poacher and gamekeeper for the UK-wide consideration of fisheries and also for the English interests.

[Deidre Brock]

I absolutely agree. I think there are major concerns on this and the Bill does not provide any sort of genuine framework. It is full of unknowns. It is built on the shifting sands of a Trade Bill where we have no idea what the outcome will be. Should we just shrug our shoulders and crack on? The fact that this Government have had more than four years to come up with this Bill and this is what they have arrived at is a disgrace. [Interruption.] I am sorry, but the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) is interrupting from a sedentary position.

We may be no longer contributing to the discussion on the common fisheries policy at the EU, but we will still, in effect, be subject to it or, even worse, getting the even less savoury end of the stick. Scotland’s fishing community is being sold out by the Tories once again: they were sold out as they went in and they are being sold out again as we leave the EU. Control of who can fish in Scotland’s waters will not be exercised by the Scottish Government, control over fishing in Wales will not belong to the Welsh and control over Northern Ireland’s fishing will not be decided in Stormont. Despite the bluff and bluster, that back door is wedged open.

There is a similar situation on the landing requirement, which was a creation of the amendment in the Lords—that only goes to show that it is not just the Government who do not get devolution. The landing requirement would be decided in Whitehall, after a brief consultation with the devolved Administrations—not an agreement with them, but a consultation. There is no scrutiny role for the legislators of the devolved Administrations, which are, after all, supposed to have a devolved competence in this area. The Scottish Parliament is being sidelined, as are the Senedd and Stormont.

Jack McConnell is the UK Government’s latest great champion in their futile campaign against Scottish independence, so it might be advisable for them to listen to him when he says, as he did in discussing this amendment, that he had

“some concerns about the constitutional principles relating to this amendment...I am concerned that the amendment simply talks about “consulting” the devolved Governments—particularly the Scottish Government, who have clear legislative authority—rather than “agreeing” with them a national landing requirement. I am interested in knowing the thinking on having a UK-wide national landing requirement imposed from the centre rather than agreed by consensus across the four nations”.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 24 June 2020; Vol. 804, c. 270-71.]

I think that is code, from a former First Minister of Scotland, for, “It will never work.” So fishing devolved is fishing retained, and it does not end there. The right of foreign fleets to fish in Scottish waters will be determined more by the actions of the UK Government in entering into international agreements than it will be by the Scottish Government and the Scottish Parliament, as will be quotas and days at sea—or “fishing opportunities”, to use the jargon of the Bill. There is, in black and white, the preparation for the UK Government rendering our fishing communities subject to the CFP even after we have left the EU. Clause 24 allows the Secretary of State to determine the maximum quantity of seafish that may be caught by British fishing boats and the maximum number of days that they may spend at sea. That is qualified in subsection (2) as being exercisable in relation to satisfying

“an international obligation of the United Kingdom to determine the fishing opportunities of the United Kingdom.”

That is the CFP in a bilateral agreement. Again, the Secretary of State must consult, but does not have to reach agreement with the devolved Administrations. But those Administrations will be responsible for ensuring that the rules laid down by Whitehall are enforced—hardly a partnership of equals, is it?

In clause 38 more powers are reserved to Whitehall that would be more useful in the hands of the devolved Administrations, including provision about fisheries, aquaculture and other things, again sheltering under the umbrella of international obligations. There are powers to impose quotas, limit time at sea, mandate processing procedures, determine what gear can be used and how, decide how fisheries products can be marketed, impose regulations over landings, setting targets on marine stock and to monitor and enforce compliance with all those powers. That takes enforcement away from the devolved Administrations. Again, the requirement is only to consult, not to agree with the devolved Administrations.

[Mr Goodwill]

I am confused. If the hon. Lady had her way, she would give control back to Brussels, including Ministers from many countries that do not even have a fishing industry and have other fish to fry.

--- Later in debate ---

[Deidre Brock]

The right hon. Gentleman will of course be aware that the Scottish National party Government are keen on rejoining the EU at some stage but of course reforming the CFP. The fact that we have decried the CFP for many years now is surely well known to the right hon. Gentleman, given his background. I am surprised that he is not aware of it.

Schedule 8 gives the Scottish Government the power to do the same thing in Scottish waters, but that does not allow the Scottish Government to dictate to England, Wales or Northern Ireland in the way that the English Government can dictate to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Likewise, clause 41 would in theory prevent the Secretary of State from making those regulations for the waters governed by the devolved Administrations—I am pleased to see the Secretary of State checking his Bill to confirm my point—if they relate to an area of devolved responsibility. We already know, though, that the argument will be that this is an international obligation, which is therefore reserved, and we know that this Government, frankly, have scant regard for the dividing line between their powers and the powers of the devolved Administrations.

So we will leave the EU; we will no longer have access to the markets that are so important to our seafood and fishing industries. Our fisheries producers organisations will no longer be recognised in the EU. We will not have control of our waters. Whitehall will be taking over some of the responsibilities and powers of the devolved Administrations. Landing requirements will be imposed from Whitehall, and the whole mess will be impossible to understand.

I have never been able to understand why anyone thought Brexit would bring benefits for fishing communities, but I now cannot comprehend how anyone thinks that there is anything other than disaster in this. I cannot support the Bill. It does not provide a framework for fisheries after Brexit. It does not protect our fishing communities. It does nothing to make things easier for those communities. It is an empty shell of a thing, and we should not be supporting it.