Fisheries Bill [Lords]

Steven Bonnar 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

[Steven Bonnar (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (SNP)]

I am thankful for the opportunity to speak in this debate on an issue that is vital to many of my constituents. This is a Bill born of Brexit, and I, like many, am deeply concerned about Brexit. Even the best deal, which is largely unachievable by this Government, is still a bad deal. To be clear, there is no good deal on the horizon, and I have to tell anyone who thinks they can see one that it is a mirage. There shall be no Brexit bonus and there is little unity within this now isolated Union. Soon enough, there will be no Union at all, only its death rattle ringing in our ears. If I listen carefully, I can already hear it.

While we are still here, the Scottish National party’s MPs will continue to offer as much protection for our industries from shameful Tory ideology as we possibly can. That is why we tabled the reasoned amendment this evening. The fact is that we cannot ignore the threat of Brexit to trade, to labour and to the funding for our fisheries. We in the SNP will always put Scotland’s interests first. We will continue to ensure that we stand up for our fisheries and maintain having the finest produce not only to export but to consume. While we are in this place we will continue to stand up for Scotland’s fishing industry. For 50 years now the people of Scotland have seen Westminster Governments undercut, undervalue and talk down our fisheries: decades and decades of sell-outs. The ramifications of Brexit and the impact of such a ludicrous act of self-sabotage will be felt for a long time throughout these islands, no more so than in the fishing waters of Scotland and by none so severely as our fishermen. I can see that my friends from the north of Ireland may take issue with that statement, but I am just as confident that they will be in total agreement that Brexit will see this Union choke.

I am of course concerned about how the Bill may be felt in my constituency. Great towns such as Coatbridge and Bellshill may not be the first to come to mind when we are discussing fishing matters in Scotland or indeed the United Kingdom, but my constituency is home to many manufacturing, processing, packaging and distribution employers within the sector, and I am determined that they will not be left rudderless by the ineffectiveness of this Government. For example, the Scottish Shellfish Marketing Group in Bellshill has previously benefited from over £580,000 of assistance from the European maritime and fisheries fund, which allowed for monumental upgrades to factories and the development and purchase of revolutionary equipment. It cannot be denied that EU funding for my constituency has been a lifeline for the fishing sector in terms of sustaining local employment as well as increasing efficiency and productivity. This is not an industry that the UK Government can simply forget and hope it will be all right on the night. Fishermen across Scotland need certainty and reassurance, and they need to know that their renowned produce will continue to be premium in world markets. They need certainty and reassurance that their futures will be in safe administration, and it is apparent that that administration should lie, and will lie, with the Government in Scotland in an independent Scotland.

We saw recently with the Agriculture Bill that this Government and their Ministers are pretty ready, and it seems sometimes eager, to misinterpret their own Bills as they ram-raid them through this House. The monumentally catastrophic impacts that that will have on the people I represent and the people of Scotland as a whole are very clear. Poor-quality products will be allowed into our supply chain, putting our people’s health at risk. Ultimately, this Government passed up the chance to vote against that. I was worried then for our farmers and I am worried today for our fishermen. This Tory Government have failed, unsurprisingly so, to give any detail as to what will happen to our fishing industries when this doomed Brexit day does arrive. There is no deal, let alone any good deal. I, for one, will not stand idle when the economic consequences of this shameful Government—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Order.

Fisheries Bill [ Lords ] (Third sitting)

Steven Bonnar Excerpts

Committee stage & Committee Debate: 3rd sitting: House of Commons
Thursday 10th September 2020 Public Bill Committees

[Luke Pollard]

On the basis that the Minister is not setting out a level playing field between UK fishers and foreign fishers, I am concerned that this sends the wrong message to fishers. However, I understand that we will be revisiting the issue of safety a number of times during this process, so I will not be pushing any of these amendments to a vote. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 17 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 18

National Landing Requirement

[Steven Bonnar (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (SNP)]

I beg to move amendment 87, in clause 18, page 13, line 34, leave out “Secretary of State” and insert “fisheries policy authorities”.

This amendment would ensure that regulations establishing a national landing requirement for the devolved nations are made by the devolved administrations rather than by the Secretary of State.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 88, in clause 18, page 13, line 38, leave out “Secretary of State” and insert “fisheries policy authorities”.

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 87.

Amendment 89, in clause 18, page 13, leave out lines 41 to 43, insert “, and” at the end of line 40.

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 87.

Amendment 105, in clause 18, page 13, leave out lines 41 to 43.

This amendment removes the requirement for the Secretary of State to consult the devolved administrations before determining the national landing requirement.

Amendment 90, in clause 18, page 14, line 1, leave out “Secretary of State” and insert “fisheries policy authorities”.

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 87.

Amendment 91, in clause 18, page 14, line 2, leave out “the UK fishing industry” and insert “their respective fishing industries”.

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 87.

Amendment 106, in clause 18, page 14, line 16, after “limits”, insert

“and outside of Scotland, the Scottish zone, Wales, the Welsh zone, Northern Ireland and the Northern Ireland zone”.

This amendment changes the definition of ‘landing requirement’ into an England-only one.

Amendment 107, in clause 18, page 14, line 17, leave out

“the United Kingdom, Isle of Man, Guernsey or Jersey”

and insert “England”.

This amendment changes the definition of ‘landing requirement’ into an England-only one.

[Steven Bonnar]

We in the SNP are concerned about Government amendment 5, which would possibly remove clause 18 from the Bill in its entirety. We oppose that in the strongest terms, and I encourage right hon. and hon. Members to do likewise. If they respect the sentiments of devolution, they will support the amendments we have tabled, which we do intend to put to a vote.

A landings target is currently the policy of the governing party in Scotland, and it is a policy that Scottish Ministers are keen to progress. The UK Government, on the face of it, have simply refused to engage in any way—far less in a meaningful way—with the reasonable and rational intent of the amendments from the other place. The Conservatives, in my opinion, are again showing their true colours: they have no respect for devolved national parliamentary matters, and it is highly disappointing that ensuring the economic value and benefits of sea fishing for coastal communities, and for labour markets and livelihoods in constituencies such as mine, is not high enough on their agenda.

The amendments made in the other place that the Government are seeking to remove are relevant and considered. They would have aided the delivery of the aims in clause 1, and would also have followed through on the Government’s pledge of levelling up. However, we now know—if some of us did not beforehand—that a pledge by this Government or their Ministers means virtually nothing when they can break laws left, right and centre, willy-nilly. The amendments would have safeguarded employment in the processing and distribution sections of the sector, which are so important to my constituents in Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill, and to Scotland as a whole.

One job at sea is widely regarded as being equivalent to 10 on dry land, and coastal communities are crying out for investment and support. They currently have higher rates of unemployment and lower wages than other parts of their countries; they face the additional challenges of social isolation; they have fewer training and apprenticeship prospects; and ultimately, they are in poorer health. A minimum landings requirement for fish caught in our own waters could have provided a long-overdue stimulant and a renaissance for these communities. It could have breathed new life into many of the smaller or less used ports and harbours across Scotland and the other countries of the UK. The opportunity to do so is being passed up.

The other major concern we have—I cannot emphasise this enough—is the tampering with, and erosion of, devolution. I will not often agree with folk draped in ermine cloaks, nor will many of the folk I represent, but those in the other place identified the flaws in the original drafting of this Bill when it came to respecting the devolved Administrations. It was both striking and disappointing in equal measure that this was not reflected in the original amendment and is something we seek to remedy.

I am not sure why the Government have refused point blank to engage with the amendment with any good faith, and I seek answers from the Minister about that. She may claim that the Government already have powers to do this, but where are those and in what legislation? Why will they not use this legislative opportunity to update those measures?

The Scottish Government are already creating a voluntary monitoring approach to vessels under 12 metres participating in inshore Scottish waters, and have plans in place to extend that pilot to larger vessels in different fisheries too. Again, the devolved nature of the responsibility was not reflected in the original drafting, which is why the other place sought the amendment. It is a matter that needs to be remedied so that the power to make regulations on the matter is devolved to the fisheries public authorities.

I urge colleagues to safeguard our fisheries, to support the position of the devolved Governments and to allow opportunities to revitalise our coastal and sea-linked communities by supporting our amendments, which are designed to do that. I commend them to the Committee.

[Brendan O’Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)]

I thank my hon. Friend for laying out clearly why we think these amendments are important. I will add a few thoughts, particularly those that relate to remote rural communities such as my own, in Argyll and Bute.

It is surely common sense to want to encourage as many vessels as possible to land as much catch as they can in UK ports. I know, because we have talked about it often enough in this place, that it is often our remote, rural, poor communities that get left behind when there is talk of regeneration and investment. Across the UK, formerly thriving fishing communities are losing population and are struggling to see a long-term future for themselves. Those communities are exactly the ones we can seek to help, in some measure, by supporting this amendment.

Landing more catch in UK ports will attract investment, help create jobs and encourage people not just to stay but to actively come and live in those communities. Areas such as Argyll and Bute, with its dependence on shellfish, have been particularly badly hit by the impact of coronavirus. There was a 68% decrease in the value of the shellfish catch in March 2020 compared with March 2019, and I understand the figures for April were even worse. Communities need our help.

There is a direct link to what we discussed in the Committee on Tuesday, about fishing being a national asset. Surely, if it is—

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

I remind hon. Members again that we are dealing with amendment 87. Once we have worked through the various amendments, there will be time for a clause stand part debate.

[Steven Bonnar]

I wish to press the amendment to a vote.