Migration Advisory Committee

Debate between George Eustice and Jeremy Lefroy

Tuesday 30th April 2019 Westminster Hall

[George Eustice]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. For instance, some of the Migration Advisory Committee’s advice has been that it does not matter if we shut down certain industries, but some of those industries are prevalent in certain regions and matter to those of us who represent them. I believe that the committee should also have a range of business leaders from a range of sectors of the economy, to represent different briefs and explain why particular sectors employ people in a particular way. Why not have a place for a trade union representative as well?

The Minister or her officials might regard all the people I have just mentioned as dreadful vested interests with an axe to grind, who could not possibly sit on an expert committee. I disagree. Does not the Minister value those people’s opinions? She might find that real entrepreneurs and people in business and trade unions could ground-truth some of the current committee’s economic theories.

[Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)]

Even to economists, for whom I have a high regard, some things should be self-evident. For instance, in Stafford we grow an awful lot of salad, which replaces salad that would otherwise be imported. It is really important for the United Kingdom’s balance of payments; without the workforce to pick it, grow it and process it, we would be more reliant on imports and our balance of payments would be negative.

[George Eustice]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right: it is important that as a country we make, produce and grow things. Sadly, I am afraid that some economists overlook the importance of that, and some do not think that the balance of payments matters at all. They think that we can just carry on losing money, borrowing it from elsewhere and spending like no tomorrow, but we all know that that is not how the world works.

Even if the Minister felt that some of the people I have mentioned had a vested interest or an axe to grind, it would be quite possible to make allowances to take that into account. It is wrong to ignore those voices and shut them out. Even if the committee were to remain largely academic, where is the space for people who studied international relations? Do not their degrees matter? There will be many people at the Home Office who have chosen to work in immigration, and whose skillsets and qualifications are in international relations, but they are all excluded from this expert committee. What about people who studied human geography, a normal route to looking at issues such as immigration? Where is the space for them on the committee?

The Minister may say that she meets businesses and unions all the time and hears their voices. However, we cannot get away from the fact that this narrow advisory committee almost sees itself as writing policy. Ministers and officials who draft answers to parliamentary questions routinely hide behind the MAC, saying that it is not appropriate for Ministers to say anything about migration matters until the committee has reached a conclusion. They appear to have abdicated responsibility for policy making to the committee.

The level of reverence shown by the Home Office to the Migration Advisory Committee is rather akin to that shown to the Monetary Policy Committee. However, the MPC was established by statute and has statutory powers to set interest rates, whereas the MAC is simply an ad hoc advisory group and should be treated as such.

Fisheries Bill (Tenth sitting)

Debate between George Eustice and Jeremy Lefroy

Monday 17th December 2018 Public Bill Committees

[George Eustice]

I will clarify that before the end of the debate, but principally, yes. The principle of the backstop—which we all want to avoid—is that there would not be tariff-free trade in fisheries products, but equally we would not be obliged to give any access to our waters.

[Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)]

Subsection (5) of the new clause talks about the opportunities that would have been available for that year under the common fisheries policy. Will there be some kind of sunset clause to the new clause? As time goes on and the common fisheries policy becomes more of a distant memory, it will be very difficult to calculate what the UK would have been able to get under the CFP in five or ten years’ time. I can see how that would work for the next two or three years, but in five, 10, 15 or 20 years’ time, the calculation will be very difficult, if not impossible, to make.

[George Eustice]

My hon. Friend makes a fair point, but we will know what the relative stability shares on each stock are at the point that we leave. Indeed, the relative stability share is what it says on the tin—relative stability means that nothing changes. The shares that we have for each stock have not actually changed since the early ’80s, and we can still reference today’s shares based on what was agreed in the late ’70s and early ’80s. This is not a dynamic process; relative stability is set in concrete. That is part of the problem for us.

The shadow Minister asks why we refer to “Union” vessels rather than “foreign” vessels. The point is that there are foreign vessels seeking access to our waters from countries that are not members of the European Union, principally Norwegian, Faroese and Icelandic vessels. Therefore, “Union” vessels specifically refers to the EU fleet, rather than those from other third countries, which are not covered, although we would apply the same principles. He also asked whether the provision could be changed. It could be changed with primary legislation, but this particular provision could not be changed with a statutory instrument of the sort that he outlined. I believe that new clause 22 is an important new clause that clearly sets down the Government’s approach to getting a fairer share of the total allowable catch on these stocks in exchange for any future access. I beg to move the Government’s new clause 22 and amendment 112.

Fisheries Bill (Tenth_PART2 sitting)

Debate between George Eustice and Jeremy Lefroy

Committee Debate: 10th sitting (part 2): House of Commons
Monday 17th December 2018 Public Bill Committees

[George Eustice]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point. I understand his anxiety; this is the first time in half a century that we are taking control of these policies. I will simply say that the point he raises could be applied to any other area of Government spending. We could argue that there is no guarantee that we will increase spending on the national health service or on schools, and yet we do, because of political pressure brought to bear by hon. Members on both sides of the House, not least on this side. Of course, it is always open to hon. Members, if there is a Budget put forward on the Floor of the House with which they disagree and which does not contain the elements they seek, to vote it down. When we leave the European Union, new checks and balances will come in, and those checks and balances will be the opinion of hon. Members such as him, not the European Union.

[Jeremy Lefroy]

My hon. Friend is right, but he knows perfectly well that we are not the Bundestag, where they go through budgets line by line; in this House it is in effect an all or nothing thing. Nobody is going to put a Budget in jeopardy over an area such as fisheries, which—absolutely vital though it is—is a relatively small part of the Budget. That points to a real problem that relatively small areas of public expenditure, which are nevertheless extremely important, have in the way we deal with budgets.

[George Eustice]

I understand that point, but conversely, one could say that the DEFRA budget is small compared with other Departments such as the Department for Work and Pensions or the Department of Health and Social Care. Big changes to our budget actually make a small difference to the overall maths, so far as the Treasury is concerned, so that argument can be made either way.

As I said earlier, we also have the levies, charges and tender incomes referred to in earlier clauses. I gave an undertaking that, on Report, we will seek to give more clarity to hon. Members about how those funds might be deployed to support our fishing objectives.

Fisheries Bill (Sixth sitting)

Debate between George Eustice and Jeremy Lefroy

Committee Debate: 6th sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 11th December 2018 Public Bill Committees

[George Eustice]

It has been a little while since I mentioned the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009, which was introduced by the previous Labour Government. I want to explain where the allegedly arbitrary figure of six years came from. It mirrors the approach set out in the Marine and Coastal Access Act in respect of the production of marine spatial plans. There is a requirement in the Act to review the marine spatial plans at six-yearly intervals. Our officials, when considering what would be appropriate—we wanted to have a consistent approach to the marine environment—took the view that, as marine spatial plans are reviewed every six years, that would seem to be the appropriate precedent to follow in respect of these other plans.

Six years has a precedent, and indeed one that some Opposition Members might have voted for—not the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport, but other hon. Members—when the Marine and Coastal Access Act was passed. There is no precedent for five years. I understand that hon. Members may take the view that, under the Fixed-Term Parliaments Act 2011, five years is the typical duration of a Government, but clause 4 creates a power to amend the plan at any time.

[Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)]

I very much understand what the Minister is saying, but with climate change, things often happen much more rapidly than Parliament might make provision for. Does he not agree that there should be some flexibility, particularly in regard to changes in water temperatures and fish stocks, which are moving all the time? We should look at the evidence for the timing, rather than just look backwards to an Act from a few years ago?

[George Eustice]

I strongly agree, which is why we included clause 4, which gives fisheries policy authorities the ability to amend the plans whenever they choose to do so. If events move and we need to adopt a different approach to mitigate the effect of climate change because things happened faster than we thought, or there was an environmental challenge that had not been foreseen in the six-year plan, there is a power to amend the joint fisheries statement to reflect that change under any circumstances and at any time.

With the six years, we have chosen to adopt a timescale that has a precedent in the context of managing the marine environment. We also included a clear provision that means that, at any time, we can adapt and amend the plan in the way that my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford seeks, to ensure that it can respond to events.

I hope I have been able to inform the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport about the genesis of the choice of a six-year term as a starting point, and also about the fact that clause 4 gives us the power to amend the plans at any stage, which means that moving the time period to five years, as he suggests, is perhaps unnecessary.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jeremy Lefroy]

A brief point: we talk about access to British fisheries, but I imagine we are talking about United Kingdom fisheries. I wonder whether British and United Kingdom are being used interchangeably, because we talk about United Kingdom later on. Could I have some clarification on that?

[George Eustice]

I can give my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney the reassurance he seeks. The amendment is unnecessary. The reason is that we are absolutely clear and explicit that in future, once the Bill comes into effect, it will be prohibited for any foreign vessel to fish in UK waters in the UK’s exclusive economic zone unless it has a UK fishing licence. I draw his attention to clause 11(1), which could not be clearer. It states that

“Fishing within British fishery limits by a foreign fishing boat is prohibited unless authorised by a licence.”

He should read that in conjunction with clause 12(3), which states quite clearly that

“A licence under this section may be granted so as to impose limits on the authority”.

That licence would govern the area in which fishing is authorised, so it could prevent fishing in certain areas; the periods, times or particular voyages during which fishing is authorised; the types of fish that are allowed be caught during a visit to UK waters; and finally, in subsection 12(3)(d)—of relevance to pulse trawling, which I know my hon. Friend feels strongly about—the method of sea fishing. That would give us all the powers we need to impose on all foreign fishing vessels a requirement to use a particular type of fishing method and a particular gear type. Without wanting to dwell on the detail, clause 31 also gives powers for the Administrations to set technical conservation measures in their waters, separate from the conditions which are attached to the licence. On that basis, I hope that the he agrees that the amendment is unnecessary.

My hon. Friend the Member for Stafford made a point about the use of the term “British” and whether we mean “UK” or “British”. In general, we talk in terms of a UK fishing licence, which is a licence issued by any of the Administrations in the UK. In the event of granting a licence to foreign vessels, the MMO, with the consent of the devolved Administrations, would issue a single licence on behalf of every part of the UK. A separate, long-established term in fisheries legislation from 1967 and before is “British vessel”, which tends to mean any vessel that is registered to the UK—including Northern Ireland—or to the Crown dependencies, or British-owned vessels. The term “British vessel”, which stems from an era in which “British” tended to be used in a different context to that of today, runs through our previous legislation and is used in parts of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jeremy Lefroy]

I will ask the Minister one brief question, if he will forgive my ignorance. Does this provision include access for the purposes of landing fish as well? Let us say that fish are being caught in other waters but are to be landed for processing in UK ports. How would this measure apply to that?

[George Eustice]

The direct answer is that there are other provisions in international maritime law that enable the passage of vessels for lawful purposes, including trade or landing fish elsewhere. The terms of the fishing licence will be specifically pertinent to the fishing activity that is permitted under that particular licence.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 8 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 9

British fishing boats required to be licensed

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between George Eustice and Jeremy Lefroy

Thursday 29th November 2018 Commons Chamber

[Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)]

T3. What is my hon. Friend’s assessment of the implications of the Migration Advisory Committee’s report on immigration for the agricultural and food processing industries in the United Kingdom?

[The Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (George Eustice)]

The Government obviously did not agree with every element of the Migration Advisory Committee report. The food industry is the most important manufacturing industry in this country and horticulture is one of our most productive agricultural sectors. It is important that we ensure that these crucial industries have the labour requirements that they need in future.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between George Eustice and Jeremy Lefroy

Thursday 18th October 2018 Commons Chamber

[Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)]

9. What progress the Government have made on reintroducing a seasonal agricultural workers scheme.

[The Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (George Eustice)]

The Government have announced that we will introduce a new pilot scheme for 2019-20 to enable up to 2,500 non-European economic area migrant workers to come into the UK to undertake seasonal employment in horticulture. On 18 September, DEFRA published further details on the pilot and opened the selection process for operators through a request for information. The industry had until 17 October to respond, and we will now be working with colleagues in the Home Office to develop the pilot.

[Jeremy Lefroy]

I thank the Minister very much for his reply. Recently I visited PDM Produce, which is in my constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard). It produces millions of lettuces a month for the UK market and imports from Europe in the off-season. It is really concerned because while it welcomes the new pilot, that is not nearly enough to ensure that it can continue to produce for the UK market, which could have an impact on our balance of payments and the prices of lettuces and salad in the shops.

[George Eustice]

My hon. Friend raises an important point, but he should acknowledge that this is a pilot involving the small number of 2,500 people. Typically, when the previous SAW scheme ran from 1945 until 2013, in the region of 20,000 to 30,000 people came in under the scheme each year.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between George Eustice and Jeremy Lefroy

Thursday 12th July 2018 Commons Chamber

[Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)]

What assessment has the Minister made of the impact of the current weather on farmers across the country, on future food prices, and particularly on the viability of small farms?

[George Eustice]

As I said earlier, there have been challenges with the dry weather, particularly for cereal crops that in some cases are having to be harvested early. There may be a knock-on impact on the availability of winter forage and straw, so we continue to monitor the situation closely. Farmers are used to weather events, which are a common feature of agriculture. Just a few months ago we had too much wet weather, and we now face problems with dry weather.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between George Eustice and Jeremy Lefroy

Thursday 7th June 2018 Commons Chamber

[George Eustice]

All such sites are covered by a permitting regime that is run by the Environment Agency. We have put £60 million of extra money into the Environment Agency in recent years, including £30 million in the past year to deal with these sorts of problems.

[Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)]

T1. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between George Eustice and Jeremy Lefroy

Thursday 20th April 2017 Commons Chamber

[George Eustice]

We see a role for bioethanol fuels, but we are also keen to ensure that we do not lose too much good agricultural land to biofuels. My hon. Friend will be aware that this is predominantly an issue for the Department for Transport, and I would invite him to raise it with that Department in the next Parliament.

[Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)]

As my hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes (Martin Vickers) has just pointed out, markets are not only country-based but product-based. The UK has a tremendous market for lactose-free milk, most of which is imported. What can we do to encourage UK producers to develop that product and manufacture it in the UK?

[George Eustice]

We have a strong dairy industry in this country, and there are lots of opportunities of that nature. We have established the food innovation networks, and we have the agritech fund and a number of other funds to support innovative product development of that kind.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between George Eustice and Jeremy Lefroy

Thursday 10th September 2015 Commons Chamber

[George Eustice]

Yes, we have looked at this, because there was a misunderstanding on the part of some local authorities that a licence to breed dogs was not required provided that people were breeding fewer than five litters a year. We clarified that last year with local authorities because anyone in the business of breeding puppies requires a licence, but we continue to keep this under review.

[Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)]

T4. When on 9 August two cattle visited a supermarket in my constituency, they will have been disappointed to note that the only lactose-free milk was imported from Denmark. There is no such product made in the UK. Does the Secretary of State agree that this is an opportunity for import substitution, to use British milk, and an export opportunity?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between George Eustice and Jeremy Lefroy

Thursday 13th February 2014 Commons Chamber

[George Eustice]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman, who has been a long-standing campaigner here and, I understand, even planted a tree at the Eden Project in Cornwall. I am pleased to be able to tell him that protection, improvement and expansion are the three key priorities in our forestry and woodlands policy statement. Ancient woodland remains strongly protected through the planning system, and refreshed advice on ancient woodland to aid planning authorities is being developed by Natural England and the Forestry Commission. We believe that in many landscapes, more trees will deliver increased social, environmental and economic benefits. Next year we will invest £30 million in woodlands, of which £6 million will fund 2,000 hectares of new woodland with about 4 million trees.

[Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)]

9. What assessment he has made of the value to the UK economy of food exports.

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

The 10 years to 2012 saw agri-food exports grow by 40% to £18.2 billion. Exports in the first 11 months of 2013 stood at £17.2 billion, compared with £16.6 billion at the same point in 2012. The Government and industry are working together to increase exports in the agri-food sector. We launched a refreshed action plan last October. It commits us to deliver £500 million of value to the UK economy by supporting 1,000 companies by October 2015.

[Jeremy Lefroy]

I welcome the Minister’s answer. Ireland and France are currently our two largest export markets for food and non-alcoholic beverages. Which markets does he think will have the best growth prospects for producers in the United Kingdom, and indeed in my county of Staffordshire, in future?

[George Eustice]

Obviously the EU market will remain a very important one for UK producers. We work closely with the industry to identify key markets and prioritise negotiations, based on industry interest, projected value and achievability. Under the export action plan, our aim is to maintain access to existing markets and negotiate to open new priority markets for food and drink products in countries such as China, Russia, Brazil, the USA, Indonesia and India.