GRIMSBY MP MELANIE ONN SPEAKS UP IN PARLIAMENTARY DEBATE
Melanie Onn |
A total of 18 Back
Benchers took part in this week’s (December 7) important Commons debate on the UK fishing industry. Discussions also touched on the
state of the marine environment, including the threat posed by plastics, recreational
angling, aquaculture, seafood processing, transparency in labelling, the welfare of mariners and (inevitably) the
price of fish and chips! Below, courtesy of Hansard, are the MPs’
contributions.
Madam
Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
Before I call the hon. Member for
South East Cornwall (Mrs Murray) to move the motion, let me say that it will be
obvious to the House that a great many Members wish to speak, and there is
limited time, so there will be an immediate limit on Back-Bench speeches of
five minutes after the hon. Lady’s speech.
Mrs
Sheryll Murray (Con) South East
Cornwall
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the UK
fishing industry.
It is a tradition that MPs debate
the UK fishing
industry at the beginning of December. Such debates give us the opportunity not
only to raise matters relating to the UK
industry as a whole, but to reflect on proposals for the following year’s total
allowable catch, which are discussed at the December Council of Ministers.
Fishing is a dangerous practice, and
my thoughts are with the fishermen and their families who have suffered loss
and injury during the past year. I thank those in the rescue services,
including the Royal National Lifeboat Institution, the coastguards and National
Coastwatch Institution volunteers, for their selfless service to sea rescue. I also
thank the Fishermen’s Mission and
the Apostleship of the Sea for their work to support fishermen and their
families at times of hardship.
The result of the EU referendum was
well received by our fisher folk. Whoever I speak to says that they view the future
with optimism. Indeed, Tom’s boatyard in my constituency informs me that it has
many orders for vessels on its books. We have heard the Minister and the
Secretary of State confirm on numerous occasions that, at the end of March
2019, the UK
will leave the common fisheries policy. As a result, the Minister will be able
to make decisions about the marine environment and catches of species without
attending the meeting in Brussels
and haggling with 27 other member states.
Kate
Hoey (Lab) Vauxhall
Will the hon. Lady reaffirm that, on
the day we leave the EU, there will be no more negotiations and no more trading
off, and that we will be out of the common fisheries policy so that we can
decide for ourselves how we co-operate with other countries over our fishing?
Will we take back control of our fishing on the day we leave?
Mrs Murray
As far as I am aware, when we leave
the EU, we leave the common fisheries policy.
The UK
has given notice that it will withdraw from the 1964 London
convention, which gave some nations restricted access to the 12-mile limit. The
UK 200-mile or median line limit is prescribed in the Fisheries Limits Act 1976
but, once we leave, the rules for the management and conservation of fish
stocks, and indeed the amount of fish that can be taken, will be governed by
the UN convention on the law of the sea, particularly articles 61 to 63. There
is a clear distinction between UNCLOS
(United Nations Convention on Law of the Sea) and the CFP in as much as the UK
will be free from the principle of equal access to a common resource on which
the CFP is based.
Mr Charles Walker (Con) Broxbourne
Does my hon. Friend accept that that
will allow us to manage better our sea bass stocks for both commercial and
recreational fishermen?
Mrs
Murray
I thank my hon. Friend, who will be
interested to know that I will come on to that point.
It might be worth considering UNCLOS in more detail. Article 61 says we must be
responsible for setting conservation measures, taking account of the scientific
information available. Such information often comes from the well-respected
International Council for the Exploration of the Sea, with which the UK
scientific body the Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science
works.
In short, article 62 states that the
coastal state—in our case, the UK—shall
set the amount of fish that can be taken in our exclusive economic zone and
determine whether our fleet can catch it all. If it cannot, we can offer the
surplus to other nations, which must comply with any conservation measures that
we have set. Interestingly, paragraph 4(h) of article 62 says that the coastal
state can set laws concerning
“the landing of all or any part of
the catch by such vessels in the ports of the coastal State”.
It is worth noting that, in some
instances, that could have a real economic benefit to the UK.
Article 63 says that when a stock occurs in an adjacent EEZ, each coastal state
shall work together to set conservation measures.
Zonal attachment is used by many
nations to manage their fish stocks while ensuring economic benefit to the
coastal state. A good example of zonal attachment is that of a farmer
harvesting crops in his fields who does not invite his neighbours to come in
and take those crops free of charge. According to a report by the University of
the Highlands and Islands in 2016, EU boats overall landed 10 times more fish
and shellfish—six times more by value—from the UK EEZ (Exclusive Economic Zone)
than UK boats did from the EU EEZ. For most individual member states, the
imbalance was even greater. Iceland
retains about 90% of the benefit from its fisheries in its attached zones,
while the figure for Norway
is 84%. In contrast, the UK
secures a mere 40%, which can be attributed to the common fisheries policy. We
give away—free to other nations—60% of the fish in our zone.
Has the Minister ensured that the
historical catch data from all EU vessels that have fished in the UK EEZ has
been collected? That could provide the basis for increased benefit in the UK
zone once we leave the European Union. While any surplus quota that we are
unable to utilise could be offered to other member states, meaning that some economic gain for the UK
might be obtained, we must make sure that UK
fishermen come first.
A significant central feature of
moving towards fishing our zonally attached fish will be increased catching
opportunity. Once achieved, that opens up the happy possibility of managing
fisheries innovatively, looking to optimise benefit for our nation and its
communities across the seafood supply chain. The range of options is huge, and
can be properly discussed once the enabling opportunity is secured. In the
words of Bertie Armstrong, chief executive of the Scottish Fishermen’s
Federation: “Don’t stress over choosing the wallpaper before we’ve bought the
flat.”
Let me turn to effort control in
place of quota. Under the CFP we have a management system that comprises quotas
and effort control in the form of kilowatt days. Will the Minister confirm that
once we withdraw from the CFP, he will move away from that confusing system of
fisheries management and put in place a something simpler? Many fishermen I
have spoken to are not in favour of a days-at-sea scheme, but that warrants
further investigation. Has the Minister spoken to his counterpart in the Faroe
Islands, which operate a days-at-sea system, to find out how their
management system works? Has he asked for the views of CEFAS on the days-at-sea
scheme versus the use of quota?
Many inshore fishermen have
expressed concern about access to the UK’s
six and 12-mile limit by other member states fishing for certain species. There
appears to have been disproportionate access to those limits for more than 40
years, and that must stop. A lot of inshore vessels are unable to migrate and
have found themselves competing with many larger vessels from other nations in
the same waters. Will the Minister give due thought to exclusive access for
small UK
fishermen to our 12-mile limit when considering any post-CFP management regime?
Turning to this year’s Council of
Ministers meeting, it appears that an uplift of total allowable catch is
proposed for a number of species. As a consequence, the available quota for the
UK fleet will
increase. It is also heartening to know that the serious uplift of opportunities
that arose from the EU-Norway talks has resulted in better quotas. However, in
areas VIId and VIIe off the south-west coast, I am surprised that the quota for
Dover sole has not followed ICES
recommendations. The uplift of quota proposed by the Commission is less than
scientists have suggested. The South West Fish Producers Organisation has also
expressed concern about sprat stocks in that area.
ICES advice still points to the bass
stock being outside safe biological limits—that issue was raised by my hon.
Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker)—and I have two concerns about bass
stock. My constituent, Mr Chris Newman, contacted me last August after hauling
in his trawl to find around 1,000 kg of bass. The bass was in abundance at the
time because it swims with mackerel, and I had already heard that there was an
abundance of mackerel locally. Because of how bass management currently works,
Mr Newman would have had to catch 33 tonnes of species to legally land his
bass, so he ended up having to discard much of it. That is disgraceful, not
only because he was denied around £10,000 of income, but because much of that
bass would not have survived once it was discarded.
It has been reported on social media
this week that another fisherman in Plymouth
was denied a similar income because he had to discard bass that he was
prevented from landing. When will the EU realise that fish cannot be told not
to swim into a trawl? The Secretary of State has described EU bass management
as a “blunt management system”. Will my hon. Friend the Minister confirm that
our post-CFP (Common Fisheries Policy) management of fisheries will be flexible enough to prevent such
situations by invoking emergency measures?
Secondly with regard to bass, I want
to make a point on behalf of recreational sea anglers. They have been allowed
to keep a single bass from each year’s angling. It appears that, if
implemented, the European Commission’s proposal for 2018 will prohibit a
recreational hook-and-line bass angler from taking a single bass for the entire
year for personal or family consumption. That is unacceptable and I ask the
Minister to make representations at the Council of Ministers in support of
those recreational fishers. A lot of young people go angling, and many of them
would not recognise if they had a bass on the end of their line. How will we
police that?
Mr
Charles Walker
It is simply madness to suggest that
someone in a west end restaurant can sit down to eat wild bass caught by a
commercial fisherman, but that one of my hon. Friend’s constituents, or one of
my constituents on a day out at the beach, cannot keep a single fish that they
catch off the beach or on a boat. That is simply not tenable.
Mrs
Murray
I take a different view. I think
that there is a place for commercial fishermen and recreational sea anglers to
work together with us. A lot of people who go into a restaurant and think they
are buying British bass are actually ordering farmed bass that has been
imported from abroad. We need to make sure that we have a flexible management
system that accommodates everybody.
I would describe any possible
transition period after March 2019 as a bridge. Nine months is all that is
needed at the very most. Looking forward to December 2018, assuming that we get
a satisfactory trade deal, will the Minister make it clear at the Fisheries
Council negotiations that the UK
will be introducing its own management system from 1 January 2020 at the very latest? After all, the
necessary processes and coastal state arrangements already exist. We can
ensure, from that date, that zonal attachment of fisheries will apply to the UK,
as it does to many other nations around the world.
Many people have raised concerns
about whether we could enforce any UK-set rules on fisheries, including on
access. Will the Minister confirm that the UK
already polices our 200-mile limit under the CFP using different tools?
Fisheries protection vessels from the Royal Navy for England,
Wales and Northern
Ireland, the inshore fisheries and
conservation authorities, and the Scottish Fisheries Protection Agency are all
at sea making sure that the rules are enforced. Other enforcement tools include
the electronic vessel monitoring equipment on board many vessels and
observation aircraft. The UK
will continue to enforce any rules it sets after we leave the CFP, as we have
done for years.
I would like to raise briefly the
Merchant Shipping Act 1988 and the Factortame case. Will the Minister confirm
that we will be able to redo our economic links, unfettered
by that EU ruling? Nobody else permits foreign rights to national resources and
assets to the degree the UK
was forced into.
Finally, fishermen have always felt
that their industry was sacrificed when we joined the European
Economic Community. It is therefore necessary that we have a
separation of catching opportunity/access, and access to the EU market. Those
are separate subjects. Norway
never let them be mixed. Indeed, there is no international precedent or
supporting economic reasoning for doing that. For example, if France
wants to sell us its wine and cheese, it must buy our fish. That is common
sense. Will the Minister confirm that he will not sacrifice access to fishing
resources for access to markets in any negotiation?
I wish my hon. Friend the Minister
well in his negotiation next week. I know that he, like me, knows how important
fisheries are to our coastal communities and that, like me, he is optimistic
for the opportunities our fishermen will have after we leave the common
fisheries policy.
Ben
Bradshaw (Lab) Exeter
May I associate myself with the
remarks of the hon. Member for South East Cornwall (Mrs Murray) about marine
safety organisations and fishermen’s welfare organisations? I am thinking
particularly of the Fishermen’s Mission,
in a year which, thankfully, has been one of the better ones in terms of
fatalities at sea.
I do not know whether you have had
an opportunity to watch the wonderful BBC series “Blue Planet II”, Madam Deputy
Speaker. If you have, you will have been inspired and moved by the wondrousness
of our marine environment, but also by its vulnerability and fragility. While
environmental degradation on land is visible to us—we see forests and species
disappear, and we see desertification—what has been happening in our oceans for
far too long has remained invisible to all except a dedicated band of marine
scientists and divers, but now, thanks to that fantastic programme, it is there
for all of us to see.
Melanie
Onn (Lab) Great Grimsby
When my right hon. Friend watched
that programme, was he as concerned as I was by the amount of plastic being
ingested by some of the marine life that later goes into our food chain?
Mr
Bradshaw
Indeed I was. Thankfully, plastics
are one of the more visible aspects of marine pollution, because we see them
washed up on our beaches and the Government are taking action, but a great deal
else that goes on is still invisible.
There is another big difference
between land-based and sea-based environmental degradation. The sea is a place
where the ancient human activity of hunting and gathering continues, and
continues apace. As has just been pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Great
Grimsby (Melanie Onn), other human activity, such as the use of
plastics, has its impacts, but much of it is invisible. Man-made climate change
is leading to the warming and acidification
of our oceans, with yet unknown consequences. It does not affect just marine
life—including fish, as an edible resource—but the roles that the oceans
themselves play in regulating our climate, our oxygen levels, and basically
everything that makes human life on earth possible.
For most of human history, oceans
and fish were simply plundered. That did not matter when there were relatively
few human beings and fishing technology was relatively antiquated, but in the
last 100 years or so, population growth and technological progress have
completely changed that equation, with, in some instances, devastating
consequences. We all know the story of the near-eradication of bluefin tuna,
turtles, cod off the north-east coast of the United
States, and, in our own case, cod in the North
Sea. However, things have changed. Because of what was going on in
the early noughties, politicians began to take notice and take action. There
was collective endeavour, and it has worked. North sea
cod has made a fantastic recovery, thanks to the difficult measures and
decisions that I took as a fisheries Minister, which were massively criticised
by the fishing industry at the time. There has even been progress on the high
seas, which is much more difficult because of the lack of an international
legal framework.
As anyone—I hope—can appreciate,
managing our seas and fish stocks sustainably demands that countries work
together. As has been said so often during our debates over the years, fish do
not respect national borders; they swim about. Unlike the hon. Member for South
East Cornwall, I have real concerns about the potential of Brexit to reverse
the welcome progress that we have seen in the last 15 or 20 years. Let us be
honest: the status quo is not a disaster. The hon. Lady herself spoke of
recommendations for increased catches at this year’s meeting of the Council of
Ministers. I wonder why that is the case. My local ports, Brixham and Plymouth,
have just reported their best years in terms of the value of their catches.
Species such as cuttlefish are doing incredibly well, and are being exported
straight to markets in Italy,
France and Spain.
Our crab and lobster are also valuable exports.
Mrs
Murray
Is the right hon. Gentleman
seriously saying that British fishermen want to stay in the common fisheries
policy?
Mr
Bradshaw
Some do, but they tend to be quiet,
because they are shouted down by Members of Parliament like the hon. Lady. If
she has honest conversations with sensible fishermen who care about the
long-term sustainability of their stocks, she will find that not all of them
share her views, and it would be inaccurate to suggest that they do.
As I was saying, some of our most
valuable catches—and we in the south-west have enjoyed a record year in that
regard—are exported straight to the markets of the European Union, tariff-free,
while we are in the common fisheries policy. As a nation, we also depend on
imports for 80% of what we consume, because of our taste for cod and haddock.
So what will happen in the event of a bad deal or no deal, in terms of tariffs
on these vital exports and the vital imports on which our producing and
processing sector depend, and about which my hon. Friend the Member for Great
Grimsby will speak later?
The Brexiteers have sold the idea
that if we leave the EU and unilaterally declare these marvellous limits, our
fishers will suddenly get all these extra fish and massively increased quotas,
and our boats, which currently fish in other people’s waters, will be able to
carry on regardless, and our vital exports will be completely unaffected. Like
so many of the promises made by these modern-day wreckers, this is a cruel
deception on our fishers and their communities. We need only look at the
problems we have had this week with the Irish land border; imagine what will
happen if, as the Brexiteers are proposing, the UK suddenly and unilaterally
moves the international marine borders, and, in effect, declares fish wars on
all our neighbours, excluding them from fishing grounds they have fished for
hundreds of years and stealing the quota they consider legally theirs. It is a
recipe for mayhem.
It is also a recipe for
environmental disaster. We know from fisheries management all around the world
that if international and supranational co-operation and collaboration break
down, it is the fish and the marine environment that pay the price. The second
cruel deception being played out is that the Government are likely to make
fisheries a priority. We need only look at its value to our economy, compared
with financial services, pharma and others. Are our Government honestly going
to pick a political fight for fisheries, when all these other sectors are worth
more to our economy? It is a cruel deception.
I have two further points. First, I
ask the Minister to make bass a recreational stock, as Ireland
has done, with huge success. I also ask the Minister to keep a place at that
negotiating table, and when he goes to Brussels
later this month, I ask him to stick with the science: stick with the evidence,
and think about the fish and their future, and a healthy future for our fishing
industry.
Neil
Parish (Con) Tiverton and Honiton
It is a great pleasure to speak in
this debate. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall (Mrs
Murray) for initiating it. I know of her great experience in the fishing
industry. As she, above all others, will know from her personal loss from
fishing, safety at sea is paramount. I pay tribute to her.
We look forward to our very able fisheries
Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice),
going to the December Council and coming back full of fish, and making sure
that we have sufficient quota for our fishermen, because there is the science
now to be able to say that for most quotaed species there are enough there for
our fishermen to catch.
I am amazed that the right hon.
Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw) is
so pessimistic about the common fisheries policy. Whether we were a Brexiteer
or a remainer, I think we can all accept that the one section of society that
got well and truly stitched up when we first went into the common market was
the fishing industry, because it put forward quotas that were reasonably
accurate, while others put forward quotas that were not, and we landed up with
a very small supply of what were potentially our own fish.
Mr
Bradshaw
I completely agree: I think we were
stuffed —if that is parliamentary language—when we joined. But I am not
pessimistic about the common fisheries policy; I
am realistic, and the hon. Gentleman must acknowledge that in the last 15 to 20
years, since we undertook these reforms, the picture has been improving.
Neil
Parish
I accept that there have been
improvements to the common fisheries policy, but there were many improvements
to be made. We are getting on now to having discards banned from the common
fisheries policy, which we as a nation can work on much better. We can also use
a fishing management system similar to the Norwegians, where we can shut down an
overfished area very quickly; they can do it within a day, whereas it is
impossible to move that fast when there are 27 countries trying to come to an
agreement. There are great opportunities to be had. There is no doubt—there are
figures to prove it—that the European fishing vessels take from our waters some
£530 million-worth of fish and we take about £110 million-worth of fish from
their waters, so whichever way we look at it, there will be benefits for our
fishermen.
Mr
Charles Walker
As Chairman of the Select Committee,
will my hon. Friend look at the suggestion made by the right hon. Member for Exeter
(Mr Bradshaw) about making bass a recreational species only? Will he and his
Committee look into that?
Neil
Parish
As Chairman of the Committee, I
would be delighted to look at that. We look at all the evidence and look at
exactly what can be done. There is a real place for recreational fishing, just
as there is also very much a place for professional fishing. I would be very
happy to look into that matter.
Mrs
Madeleine Moon (Lab) Bridgend
As part of the study that the hon.
Gentleman has agreed to undertake, will he look at the value to coastal towns
of recreational fishing? In 2012, the Department for Environment, Food and
Rural Affairs estimated that it was £2 billion a year. My angling shops, my
coastal bed and breakfasts and my hotels all benefit from bass fishing, but the
moratorium on anglers taking sea bass is a disaster for coastal towns.
Neil
Parish
I actually believe that, as we come
out of the common fisheries policy, there will be enough fish for everybody. If
we manage the fish stocks much better, we will have every opportunity. We need
to make much more of the fish that we catch, not only in the area of
recreational fishing but in areas such as fish processing. I believe that we
will have greater access to fish and be able to land much more of our fish on
to our own shores, but when we do that, we must ensure that we process it and
add value to it. We must also—dare I say it—say to all our population that we
eat many types of fish when we go to the continent and to other parts of the
world that we will not eat here. That is key, because we still have a huge
market. Some 70% to 80% of the fish we land in the west of England
is exported to France,
Spain and
across the rest of Europe. Those markets are very
important, so we need to ensure that we get the fish, manage the fish stocks
and market the fish.
On the question of Brexit and the
common fisheries policy, we have a moment now, as we negotiate, when we have
very positive cards in our hand. We can say to our neighbours, “There are
historical arrangements that we will look at,
but at the end of the day, you will fish the amount that we agree under our
rules, and that is the way it will be.” If we are absolutely firm with them —I
expect the Minister to be exactly that—we can get a reasonable deal with our
neighbours. I think our neighbours will deal with us in a fair way on this
issue because, to be absolutely blunt, they have two choices. They can have the
fish under our rules or they will not have the fish at all.
I want to reinforce the point that
we must not negotiate away our fisheries again. Our fishermen did not forgive
us when we did that the first time round. If we do it a second time, they will
never forgive us. This is not just about our fishermen and what percentage of
the overall economic benefit comes from fish; it is also about what is morally
right and wrong. This is something that we can now put right. I am convinced
that this can work, with the right policies in place. I suspect that the
Minister is minded to keep a lot of our existing systems of catching through
quota in place. Let us have evolution, not a revolution.
On discards, let us ensure that we
land everything that we catch, so that we know exactly what the stocks are. Let
us also look at which types of fish will recover if we put them back into the
sea. Let us have a smart system of managing our stocks. I believe that we will
do well in the future. We can manage our fishing better, and we must ensure
that we police our waters as we leave the common fisheries policy.
Mr
Alan Campbell (Lab) Tynemouth
It is a pleasure to see you in your
place, Madam Deputy Speaker. I welcome my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax
(Holly Lynch) to her role on the Front Bench. She will be a strong voice for
fishing and fishing communities.
In view of the frankly ludicrously
short time available for this debate, I intend to keep my remarks short and
make them very local. My first point is about the continued availability of
funding for infrastructure repair. North Shields port is the premier fishing
port on the east coast and the biggest prawn port in England,
landing around £7 million-worth of catch every year and sustaining around 300
jobs, but a recent report on the condition of the quay found that between £6
million and £8 million is needed for infrastructure repair. On 1 December, the
projection jetty—an important part of the port where many boats are moored—was
closed, and there is a real dilemma for those who make repairs. Does the North
Shields Fish Quay make a bid? As a private company, it would be able to access
only 50% of the funding from the European Maritime and Fisheries Funds. Does
the Port of Tyne
do it? It can potentially access more funding but, like most trust ports around
the country, it is not a small or medium-sized enterprise and does not fit into
that category. We are therefore left scratching our heads as to where the money
will come from, and fishermen are being prevented from going about their daily
business. I wrote to the Minister earlier this week, and I hope that he will
read of our concerns and ask his Department or, perhaps, the Marine Management
Organisation to look into them, because getting an outcome and finding funding
is urgent. In life after the common fisheries policy, will resources for
infrastructure funding remain in place as they are now, because it is important
to ports such as North Shields?
As for what post-CFP will look like,
different areas will have different priorities. As I have said, North Shields
is the biggest prawn port and therefore has an inshore fleet and a 12-mile
limit is crucial, but it would suffice. Frankly, a 200-mile exclusive economic
zone really is not relevant when, I am told, perhaps only one or two foreign
vessels a year may fish those areas. Local fishermen are not particular
exercised about that. North Shields has the biggest prawn port exports, with
95% of the prawns being exported. They are not processed or frozen; there are
five days between them being caught and being put on tables, which are usually
in European Union member states. Lorries cannot afford to wait at a hard
border, and we cannot afford to have tariffs. The MMO currently issues around
300 catch certificates a year for exports to non-EU countries. If a certificate
is required for every single lorry that goes to France,
Spain or Italy,
an estimated 21,000 certificates would be necessary, which would be a disaster
for North Shields. What is the point of catching all that fish if there are no
accessible markets? What is the Minister’s plan? What arrangements will be in
place after we exit the CFP?
As for the salmon drift net fishery,
there are only about a dozen licences on the north-east coast. They are being
phased out, and that decision is based on evidence that is at least
questionable because some of our rivers in Northumberland have had salmon runs
for the first time in many years. We were previously told that licences needed
to be phased out because the EU wanted to make them part of the whole
sustainability issue, but the pressure does not come from the EU; it comes from
landowners who want to protect their fishing rights to ensure that they get
their share of the catches, because it is a big business. Post-CFP, will the
Minister stand up to the landowners’ lobby? The fishermen in the heritages
fisheries have an enormous respect for the environment and have a fantastic
record of restocking our rivers, and it is in the interests of the fisheries
that the fishermen’s interests are looked after.
In the seconds I have remaining, I
invite all Members to come to see our new memorial to fishermen lost at sea,
Fiddler’s Green, which was unveiled in September by Julie Myhill, the partner
of James Noble—the most recent fisherman to lose his life. It reminds us that
fishing is a dangerous job, and every policymaker must have that at the forefront
of their mind.
Scott
Mann (Con) North Cornwall
First and foremost, as we leave the
European Union, there are massive opportunities out there for our fishing
industry to establish itself once again as functioning, economic and viable.
Repatriation of our historical territorial fishing areas will give coastal
communities such as mine a completely new lease of life. The UK
must ensure full and absolute control of the UK’s
200-mile territory, up to the median lines, with fishing opportunities, access
and regulatory regimes controlled once again by the UK Government.
Many people may ask what that will
look like. I have been slightly sceptical about the “days at sea” proposal
since examining the trial initiated by my right hon. Friend
the Member for Newbury (Richard Benyon) back in 2011. I had concerns about
overfishing, about the targeting of species close to the shore and about a lack
of scientific data against which to measure catches. However, I recently had a
meeting with Fishing for Leave and saw its proposals for excluding travel time
to fishing destinations, including net soak time to measure catch effort, and
for recording scientific data on which to measure this resource. These
proposals would end the senseless discards that we have seen under the failed
quota system implemented by the European Union.
In my remaining time, I will address
a specific proposal from ICES on fishing for the dicentrarchus labrax—the
European sea bass—that has caused consternation among my recreational sea
anglers and among sea anglers across the UK.
Although I recognise its latest statistics on the continued decline in the
biomass of the stock and further recognise that something needs to be done, it
should not be done on the back of the rod-and-line angler. As a member of the
all-party angling group and as a champion of the sea bass in Parliament, I
recently had the pleasure of leading a delegation to Cornwall
to fish for bass. We were hosted by a chap called Nick, who runs a successful
family business called Bass Go Deeper. We had a successful trip, and all the
fish were returned to the sea—catch and release. Nick, like many other bass
guides in Cornwall and other
hook-and-line beach and cliff anglers, will no longer be able to fish if the
ridiculous and draconian proposals from ICES are implemented.
The suggestion is that anglers will
be able to catch fish for catch and release for only six months of the year.
They will not be able to target bass at all for the other six months of the
year. If the proposals are truly meant for conservation, the angler is once
again being penalised by comparison with the hook-and-line commercial fisheries
that can effectively land 4 tonnes of catch each.
Sport fishing in the UK
is a lucrative and growing business. Businesses like Nick’s will go to the wall
if these proposals are implemented. The recreational sea angling sector, which
has had the least impact on fish mortality, will bear a disproportionate burden
of last year’s negotiations, with a zero catch from January to June and a
one-fish bag limit from July to September. The impact of recreational sea
angling on bass stocks is negligible, which demonstrates that the problem does
not rest with the sea angler. That is why I support the campaign of the Angling
Trust, the Save Our Sea Bass campaign and the European Anglers Alliance to stop
these completely unfair and unenforceable proposals. Banning the public from
fishing for a species recreationally while letting commercial hook-and-line
fisheries continue is unjust and cannot be allowed.
As the right hon. Member for Exeter
(Mr Bradshaw) has already said, Ireland
and America
have both embraced a recreational bass fishery and are seen as premium sport
fishery areas.
Catching a fish and keeping it for
the pot is not a crime. Catching a fish and cooking it for dinner is one of the
last great remaining hunter-gatherer pursuits in this country. The Minister
should fight for anglers and oppose these ridiculous measures, which would sink
a fine pursuit and a fledgling industry. There are thousands of anglers out
there who are looking for his support this year.
Mr
Alistair Carmichael (LD) Orkney and Shetland
I am grateful to you, Madam Deputy
Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to take part in this most important
debate. I apologise to the House now, as I did to your predecessor in the
Chair, for the fact that, unfortunately, I will not be here at the conclusion
of the debate. I am very aware that I will shortly be travelling towards Storm
Caroline, and it is worth pausing for a second, as we debate in the relative
calm of Westminster on a Thursday
afternoon, to reflect that many of the fishermen in my constituency will be at
sea in those conditions. It is worth remembering that they do a very difficult
job in very dangerous circumstances, which is why we should be grateful to them
for the work they do and to organisations such as the Coastguard, the Royal
National Lifeboat Institution, the Fishermen’s Mission
and others that do so much to support them.
It strikes me that this may be a
small piece of history, as this is perhaps the last of these fisheries debates
we will have in their current form. This time next year, we will be looking
towards the final Fisheries Council in which we will part of the EU, which
brings me to my first ask. The Scottish Fishermen’s Federation and the Shetland
Fisherman’s Association have both made it clear that they see it as obvious
that for the first three months of 2019 we will remain part of the common
fisheries policy but thereafter they seeks bridging arrangements that will take
them to end of the year, so that they might honour the arrangements that are
made at the December Fisheries Council next year. That would then be the point
at which we would properly exit the CFP. There is an elegant simplicity to that
arrangement, and I hope that the Minister will confirm that that is the
approach the Government will seek to pursue.
Fisheries management cannot continue
as part of the CFP during any transitional period that follows after the end of
March 2019 for one simple reason: we will not have a seat at the table when the
decisions are made at the December Fisheries Council. I put that point to the
Prime Minister at Prime Minister’s questions earlier this year, but she was
less than clear in her answer—I realise that she perhaps does not have the
background in fisheries that the Minister at the Dispatch Box today has. I hope
that he can confirm that that is the position and the Government will not leave
us in a position where our fishing industry is left having to abide by rules
and decisions of which we have had no part in the making.
As the Shetland Fishermen’s
Association put it to me in its briefing for today, “water and markets don’t
mix”.
By that, it makes the point that the
fishing industry and the fishing rights should not be traded off against other
sectors. When it comes to the negotiations around our departure, will the
Minister confirm that he will do as I have urged him on other occasions and
ring-fence the fishing industry? There are plenty of good historical reasons
why that should be done. No other coastal state is forced to trade access to
waters for access to markets, and I say to the Minister that the fishermen in
my constituency would see any arrangement of that sort as nothing short of a
betrayal of the undertakings given to them at the time when they voted in the
EU referendum.
Of course we will remain subject to
a variety of different concerns as the Brexit process continues. We need to
address the question of markets, because we can catch as many fish as we like
but we have to able to sell them to somewhere, so we will take a close interest
in that part of the negotiations. We also need to address the issue of
employment for crew members, some of whom come from within the EU, with many
then working in the processing sector. That is where certainty needs to be
given to the industry as early as possible. It simply is not going to work if
we are left in the same position on crew members coming from outside the UK
as we are currently left on visas for fishing crew coming from outwith the EU.
David
Duguid (Con) Banff and Buchan
I want to express my gratitude to my
right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland
for his guarantee during Scottish questions yesterday that when we leave the EU
we will leave the common fisheries policy. In turn, I want to be as helpful as
possible to Ministers, but I am sure that the Minister will understand that I
cannot and will not vote for any fisheries Bill or Brexit deal that does not
advance the interests of the fishermen in my constituency.
I will talk more about Brexit later,
because first I want to discuss a matter that needs urgent attention and about
which we have already spoken to the Immigration Minister—namely, non-European
economic area crew on the Scottish fleet. We are not talking about unskilled
labour, which is often the perception; we are talking about fishermen who are
experienced and qualified professionals. Like farming, with which I grew up, I
think that fishing is a trade for which people need passion to make a real go
of it. Also like farming, I think that it is something that people need to be
born into. It is certainly something that many fishermen are born into, whether
they happen to have been born in the coastal communities of Peterhead,
Fraserburgh or Macduff in my constituency or, indeed, in the Philippines
or further afield.
The industry recognises the need for
a transition, so that it can be sustainable with regard to local labour, but
that will take time, mainly because we need to undo the decades of damage done
by top-down EU policies such as the CFP. It would be helpful and welcome if the
Government would start by at least recognising the Scottish fleet’s need for
non-EEA crew.
Of course, the Scottish fishing
industry will be affected by Brexit. It is important that we agree how
fisheries will manged when we leave the CFP, and we will have those discussions
when the fisheries Bill reaches the House. In the meantime, the key focus must
be that we do take back control.
The Brexit negotiations are not the
final negotiation for fishing. When we leave the EU, the United
Kingdom will become an independent coastal
state, so we must start thinking like one in
our approach to future Brexit negotiations and in our annual negotiations with
the other coastal states. As has been said, the December 2018 deal will apply
to the UK only
up until the end of March 2019. Like others, I am in favour of going into the
2018 discussions willing to accept a nine-month bridge to the end of 2019, but
only if our own requirements are met. In the Brexit negotiations, we must not
bargain away any concession of access to our waters. We are not talking about
building a wall in the sea to keep out all foreign boats, but if we cannot
restrict access to our waters and our demands are not met, we will end up with
the weakest bargaining power of any independent state.
My hon. Friend the Member for South
East Cornwall has mentioned the importance of zonal attachment. Aligning our
fishing opportunities with zonal attachment involves two things—an increase of
net inward quota exchanges, which we can negotiate annually, and making
adjustments to the fixed quota shares, which is a longer-term process—but we
cannot insist on either of them without being able to offer in return quota
that the EU wants and periodic access to our waters. I reiterate that that
access must be in our control and must not be traded away during Brexit
negotiations.
Finally, in the short time I have
left, I want to address devolution. I agree that those closest to the resource
must have the most say and influence. We need grassroots policy making, not a
top-down system like the CFP. I seek an assurance from the Minister that a UK
framework, which is universally recognised as being required, will be developed
between Westminster and the
devolved Administrations and, more importantly, with the involvement of the
relevant fish producer organisations.
Brendan
O’Hara (SNP) Argyll and Bute
We have heard many times this
afternoon about the importance of the fishing industry and the role it plays in
the economic life of our coastal communities, including my Argyll and Bute
constituency, where the industry—including the hugely significant shellfish
industry—is one of the mainstays of our local economy. So I have a keen
interest in the health and wellbeing and sustainability of the fishing industry
and the seas that provide some of the finest seafood in the world.
It is easy to talk about the
Scottish fishing industry as though it is one entity, but of course there are
vast differences between the west and east coasts of Scotland.
I want to highlight some of the challenges facing boat owners and skippers on
the west coast.
What I am about to say will come as
no great surprise, I suspect, as it is an issue that I have raised several
times in my two and a half years in this place. I seek a relaxation of the Home
Office rules to allow non-EEA crew members to work on vessels operating inside
the 12-mile limit on the west coast. Unlike the east coast, where 12 miles is
12 miles, for the west coast’s islands and coastline, the 12 miles extends a
vast distance out into the Atlantic—a distance that few inshore vessels can or
will travel before reaching international waters. All vessels inside that limit
have to be crewed by UK
or EU citizens. In the current climate, recruiting EU nationals to crew the
boats is becoming increasingly problematic. More than ever, we need to employ
non-EEA crew to fill the gap.
In 2015 and again in 2016, I joined
a delegation of Northern Irish and west of Scotland
boat owners, skippers, fish processors and Members to the Home Office to ask it
to relax the ban on international seafarers being permitted to work in west
coast Scottish waters. On both occasions, our appeals were rejected. We were
told, “Use EU or UK
crew.”
I am now hearing from skippers in
Oban, including Jonathan McAllister, that because of Brexit and the reluctance
of EU nationals to commit to working on the boats, an already dire recruitment
situation is in danger of becoming catastrophic. He and many of his colleagues
are now seriously contemplating walking away from the industry.
I understand that a more
constructive meeting was recently held with the Home Office. I sincerely hope
that the Minister for Immigration gave a flicker of encouragement that a
solution could be found; otherwise the west of Scotland
fishing community will be facing the perfect storm, being unable to attract our
valued EU citizens because of Brexit, while being barred from recruiting
international seafarers from non-EEA countries.
I cannot overstate just how serious
the recruitment problems are on the west coast. Just as we need EU nationals to
work in our schools, our hospitals, our high-tech industries and our fields, so
we need them to work on our seas. We also need those highly trained,
professional non-EEA international seafarers to fill the gaps in our fishing
fleet. I hope that the Minister does what his predecessors singularly failed to
do and comes up with a long-lasting solution to the problems on the west coast.
We have heard much about the
deficiencies of the common fisheries policy. I will not defend the CFP, but the
SNP has for the past 40 years been resolute in its criticism of it. I think it
right to say that the SNP has been the only party that has been consistently
and vocally opposed to the CFP. When back in 1983 the poster girl for the
Brexiteers, Margaret Thatcher, was helping to create the CFP, it was left to
Donald Stewart, the leader of the SNP to speak against it. I can understand why
that history makes Conservative Members uncomfortable.
I look forward to the day when an
independent Scotland,
as a member of the European Union, is able to help to shape a common fisheries
policy that works for Scotland
and all our neighbours.
Peter
Aldous (Con) Waveney
Although this is annual event each
December, this particular debate stands apart from those that have been held in
the past 40 years. These debates normally focus on putting steel in the
Minister’s backbone ahead of the EU Agriculture and Fisheries Council meeting.
This year, as well as having that immediate task to perform, the Minister and
the Secretary of State have before them a great opportunity, with the White
Paper and the fishing Bill, to reset the framework within which this great
industry operates. This provides a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to rejuvenate
the East Anglian fishing industry, with Lowestoft in my
constituency at its hub.
Lowestoft
used to be the fishing capital of the southern North sea,
but it has lost this title over the past 40 years, and East
Anglia currently derives very little
economic benefit from the fish stocks on its own doorstep, which are among the
richest in Europe. The fisheries Bill must provide the
policy framework within which the East Anglian industry can be revitalised.
That means East Anglian boats having fair and equitable access to fisheries in
all UK waters,
but particularly the southern North sea. It requires
supporting local infrastructure to be developed so that local communities and
local people fully benefit from the fish that are landed in their ports. It
needs a fisheries management system to be put in place in which local
fishermen, scientists and the authorities collaborate in overseeing fisheries—a
system that not only provides those working in the industry with a reasonable
living, but ensures that the fisheries are passed on to the next generation in
a better state.
At present, the East Anglian fleet
is largely made up of under-10 metre boats that have access to a limited amount
of fish to catch. This inequity and imbalance must be addressed. With the EU
fleet today taking around four times more fish from UK
waters than UK
vessels take from EU waters, our departure from the EU means that it is likely
that more fish will be available for UK
fishermen to catch. But that will be of no benefit if we retain the existing
system of allocation. The inshore fleet—the under-10s—need a fairer and larger
slice of the cake. If the quota system is to be retained, there must be a
significant reallocation.
It has been suggested that producer
organisations will have a key role to play. If this is to be the case, the
system needs to be reconstituted, as the Lowestoft PO has only six vessels,
none of which lands fish in Lowestoft. There is some
debate as to whether we should move to a new system of effort control, based on
days at sea. If this is to be looked at again, Lowestoft
could be a suitable pilot with the Centre for Environment, Fisheries and
Aquaculture Science, which is based in the town, monitoring its impact.
To ensure that local people and
businesses benefit from more fish being landed in Lowestoft
than in other East Anglian ports, it is necessary to upgrade the local
supporting infrastructure. This means safe berths and better landing points,
and modern markets and upgraded freezer facilities. It involves strengthening
the supply chain and providing new job opportunities for boat builders,
repairers, chandlers, engineers, smokeries, merchants and mongers. June Mummery
and Paul Lines, representing the local industry, have already met the Minister
to outline their plans for securing this investment. I anticipate that it will
be worked up locally in the coming months, and I will keep the Minister
informed of progress, and seeking his guidance and assistance where necessary.
The current fisheries management
system must be overhauled. We must move away from the current policing system
to a collaborative approach involving fishermen, authorities and scientists.
With CEFAS in Lowestoft, there is the potential to put in place on the East
Anglian coast a new science-based, sustainable fishing system that can be an
exemplar—a system that can be operated around the world and play an important
role in sustaining the blue planet for the next generation.
Melanie
Onn (Lab) Great Grimsby
I congratulate the hon. Member for
South East Cornwall (Mrs Murray) on securing the debate and on her excellent
work with the all-party fisheries group, of which she is chairman. I also echo
her sentiments about the Fishermen’s Mission
and its continued good work supporting fishermen and their families and local
communities, particularly those in my constituency.
Mrs
Murray
I do not want to leave out my hon.
Friend—the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Melanie
Onn)—who is the joint chairman of the all-party parliamentary group.
Melanie
Onn
A rare moment of cross-party
agreement around fisheries. I thank the hon. Lady for those comments.
Today, I want to focus my remarks
primarily on the processing side of the fisheries industry. However, before I
get on to that, I want to mention the case of a former fisherman from my
constituency. In the debate last year, I raised the case of James Greene, and
the issue of fishermen missing out on their pensions unjustly, with subsequent
Governments failing to properly compensate them for that. Sadly, James Greene
passed away last year, but his widow is still waiting for his full entitlement
from the fishermen’s compensation scheme. The ship he worked on for 20 years
was wrongly omitted from the scheme’s list of eligible vessels. That list has
been corrected, but the payments owed to James have still not been made in
full.
I have been dealing with this matter
through the parliamentary ombudsman, but the most recent correspondence I have
had sight of says:
“The matters you have raised are not
new as they were not in the scope of the investigation. We did not look at the
department’s decision to pay for work on the Thessalonian at the reduced second
scheme rate even though it had mistakenly been excluded under the first
scheme…As the Ombudsman has already given this matter her personal attention
earlier this year and with no new information provided, we would not look at
this matter again.”
That is extremely disappointing. For
the sake of his widow, for just £3,000—that is all we are talking about—and for
the peace of mind of those at the Great Grimsby Association of Fishermen and
Trawlermen, who have been fighting for decades for justice, will the Minister
please meet me to see whether there is anything more that can be done to bring
this matter to a satisfactory close?
The demise of the fishing industry
since its peak in the middle of the 20th century has hit my town particularly
hard. What we have seen in Grimsby
is the transformation of the sector. While catching has severely diminished, in
the way the hon. Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous) discussed, we are now a hub
for the processing, manufacturing, and packaging side of things. We have 75
food sites within a radius of a couple of miles, employing 5,000 people in
landing the fish, selling it, smoking it or turning it into fish cakes.
This is necessarily an international
industry. The fish caught off our coasts are often not the kind that people in Britain
want to eat. Depending on where a catch is landed, the fish that ends up in Grimsby
may have crossed the borders of three or four countries on its way to us. Some
270 tonnes of imported fish passes through our
market every week, and these are perishable goods. Anything that makes trading
harder could compromise the viability of the main source of employment in my
constituency.
Mr
Bradshaw
Do those potential obstacles to the
frictionless trade my hon. Friend talks about include the loss of regulatory
alignment, which is the topic of the week?
Melanie
Onn
Yes. I will come on to regulatory
alignment and the variance thereof.
I want to talk briefly about Norway,
because it has been mentioned in the debate, and it is often cited as an
example of how Britain’s
fisheries sector could thrive outside the common fisheries policy. However,
what is not mentioned is the effect Norway’s
position has had on its seafood processing sector. By opting out of the CFP, Norway
has had to accept losing market access in fisheries. According to the CBI, this
trade-off has seen the majority of its seafood processing sector relocate to
the EU, with Britain
being a substantial winner from that situation. Under that agreement, Norway
can sell fresh fish to EU countries with a minimal 2% tariff, but with 13% on
processed fish.
Similarly, while we can currently
buy fish from Norway
and Iceland
tariff-free, that may not be the case in just over a year’s time. The Minister
must fight to ensure that this is not the outcome waiting for Britain
after we leave the EU. It would be absolutely catastrophic for jobs and
industry in Grimsby.
Mr
Bradshaw
And more expensive fish and chips.
Melanie
Onn
And more expensive fish and chips,
as my right hon. Friend says from a sedentary position.
I met the Minister with a delegation
from Grimsby’s seafood processing
sector last month to discuss ways to ensure that our ports and industry could
continue to grow post-Brexit, so I recognise that this issue is on his agenda.
However, perhaps he could just update the House on what work he is doing to
prepare the sector for the changes coming down the line.
Dr
Philippa Whitford (SNP) Central Ayrshire
The fishing industry in my area, the
south-west of Scotland,
is very much lobster and langoustine-based. Eighty-six per cent. of that goes
to Europe, so my industry would be decimated if we had
barriers.
Melanie
Onn
I thank the hon. Lady for sharing
that point. It just goes to show how important it is, in all areas of the country
and in all our coastal communities, that every effort be made to make sure that
our local communities do not suffer as the outcome of Brexit becomes ever
clearer.
About one in five of the industry’s
skilled workforce comes from overseas. Training needs to be much more widely
available if freedom of movement is no longer going to apply to this country
after we leave the European Union. With that in mind, I invite the Minister to
visit the fantastic Modal Training facility in my constituency, which provides
training for maritime, port and marine workers. I hope that he will take me up
on that offer to see the modern training methods that are being used to
maintain these essential maritime skills.
Derek
Thomas (Con) St Ives
Fishing is perhaps the oldest industry
in all the south-west and it is deeply ingrained in the culture and heritage of
my west Cornwall and Isles of
Scilly constituency. Fishing and its supporting industries provide
high-quality, skilled jobs that offer year-round employment—a vital factor in a
part of the country where seasonal work often dominates.
EU fisheries policies have often
seemed to ride rough-shod over the interests of the UK
fishing fleet. That is perhaps why fishermen were one of the most vocally
pro-Brexit groups in the country. I am sure that colleagues will agree,
therefore, that leaving the EU presents a real opportunity for the Government
to right some historic wrongs and build a sustainable and prosperous future for
the UK fishing industry. I think that we can also agree that, as has been said,
this will not be without its challenges. However, until we leave the EU, we are
still bound by EU regulations, and I am glad to be able to speak in this debate
today ahead of the annual EU Fisheries Council meeting in Brussels.
I have spoken to the Cornish Fish
Producers Organisation, which is based in my constituency, has a membership of
over 250 boats and is one of the largest fishermen’s organisations in the UK,
and to other local fishermen about their key concerns for the future of
fishing. Their message is clear. Fishermen want the UK
fishing industry to regain control of access to UK
waters out to the 200-mile limit. They want to be able to make use of funding
opportunities and to a have a regulatory regime determined by the UK
Government, not the EU, that permits UK vessels to secure a greater share of
total allowable catch.
With regard to the Commission’s
proposals on Celtic sea cod, haddock and whiting, I have heard serious concerns
expressed about their on all parts of the fleet in the south-west. The
proposals show a lack of understanding of the dynamics of the ultra-mixed
fisheries in this area—something that I know the Minister appreciates. I ask
that he makes a case for mixed-fisheries-model analysis of these stocks to ensure
that the Commission’s approach is science-led.
I would also like to highlight, as
have others, concerns about the European Commission’s proposals on bass fishing
for 2018, as clearly set out by my hon. Friend the Member for North
Cornwall (Scott Mann). The Commission’s proposals are based on an
inadequate understanding of the bass fisheries, which now comprise, almost
exclusively, unavoidable by-catch. Under the proposals, every bass caught in a
gillnet, a beam trawl or a trawl will be discarded dead. The key to good
fisheries management is to control total fishing mortality, but this
fundamental principle seems to have escaped the Commission.
Edward
Argar (Con) Charnwood
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for
giving way, not least because I represent, I think, the most land-locked
constituency of any Member in the Chamber at this time. However, my
constituents enjoy eating fish and care about the marine environment and fish stocks. Does he agree with me,
consumers, and myriad campaigning organisations such as the World Wildlife
Fund, On The Hook and Greenpeace about the importance of transparency in
labelling so that when consumers buy what they believe is sustainably fished
fish, they can be confident that it is?
Derek
Thomas
My hon. Friend is absolutely right,
and that has been quite successful, particularly in Newlyn. Newlyn bass is
worth a premium in London simply
because of clear and correct labelling.
The word bycatch implies that it is
unavoidable. The Commission is damaging fishermen’s integrity by implying that
they are deliberately fishing their by-catch. At the same time, high domestic
and continental demand make sea bass a valuable species, so chucking the
already dead bycatch back seems senseless. I ask that more time be given to
looking at the results of the measures introduced over recent years, which have
led to a 70% reduction in landings from the commercial fleet. Steady rebuilding
is the right way forward, but avoiding unnecessary discards must be a key part
of the policy.
I mentioned earlier that I was
grateful to have the Minister and Secretary of State on a visit to Newlyn
harbour. The Minister was kind enough to have a Q and A session at the CFPO’s
annual general meeting, and I make no apology for the thorough quizzing that
CFPO members gave him on the future of their livelihood. I note that Councillor
Adam Paynter, the leader of Cornwall Council, also accepted my invitation and
visited Newlyn last month. I mention those visits, because the team at Newlyn
Harbour have developed plans for
much-needed investment, under which the harbour would offer a greater range of
services and deliver the infrastructure needed to service a vibrant fishing
fleet. Their aim is to support innovation, unlock potential within the local
fishers and bring in necessary improvements to current infrastructure. That
work is aimed at reinforcing Newlyn’s leading role in UK
fisheries.
Newlyn is ideally located to serve
export markets as well as premium UK
markets such as London and
elsewhere. It will be vital to secure public funding support for international
hubs such as Newlyn as we navigate our way out of the EU. Such support will
provide Newlyn with extra capacity for boats and enable it to offer better
services, such as engineering and boat maintenance. Newlyn has the potential to
expand its international enterprise.
The current funding systems do not
adequately recognise the needs of the Cornish and wider fishing industries.
Small fishing businesses in my constituency that do not have reliable cash
flows struggle to capitalise on reimbursement-based grants. Businesses looking
to undertake larger projects may look despairingly at their Scottish
counterparts, who have long been able to use European regional development
funding for ports and harbours, because Scotland
negotiated a block exemption on state aid rules. Please, as we leave the EU and
look to secure a sustainable fishing industry across the UK’s
coastal towns, can we provide equal access to funds?
Ronnie
Cowan (SNP) Inverclyde
I commend you on your good judgment,
Madam Deputy Speaker, and I inform you that I will not be taking any
interventions.
In Scotland,
there is a great divide that has torn apart families and friends. It is not
politics, religion or even football, but the age-old question: salt and
vinegar, or salt and sauce? Unbelievably, some people prefer sauce with their
fish and chips. That is all that most people need to consider. But how often do
we stop and wonder: who caught that fish? What were the weather conditions? Who
owns the boat? How much debt are they in? Will the bank lend to them? What sort
of living do they make, and are they safe at sea? For generations, fishing
families have braved the seas and oceans to put food on our plates, but they
can continue to do so only if they and their fishing waters are protected.
Post-Brexit, who decides? In the Faroe
Islands, the fishing industry accounts for about 90% of total
exports. The Danish Government have respected that and allowed the Faroes to
negotiate their own treaties. As a result, the Faroes are thriving. That sort
of thing is possible when one Parliament respects and trusts another. As we
move closer to Brexit, will the UK
respect and trust Scotland?
Like those of the Faroe Islands, Scotland’s
seas are vital. They are the fourth-largest in the EU, and they are potentially
the richest. On average, around four tonnes of fish are taken from each square
nautical mile of Scottish waters, compared with around one tonne on average for
EU waters. Neighbouring countries are highly dependent on Scotland’s
waters for their landings. Germany
and the rest of the UK
land around 30% of their fishing catches, by weight, from Scottish waters.
If Scotland
was a normal independent nation, we would negotiate directly with other
countries to get the best possible deal for this key sector of our economy.
Scottish fisherman will be looking to the future with trepidation over their
funding and investment situation. We would be wise to look to Norway,
where all parties involved in fisheries, regardless of size, have a seat around
the table, where all are equally respected, and where fishermen, policy makers,
politicians and managers all listen to each other in an atmosphere of equality.
No sector dominates to the detriment of another.
I want to be clear that the SNP
agrees that the common fisheries policy has been burdensome on the Scottish
fishing industry. Ever since 1983, when it was debated in the House, we have
consistently opposed the policy, as was mentioned earlier. We understand that,
although every voting area in Scotland
voted to remain in the EU, many Scottish fishermen undoubtedly voted to leave
and to “take back control”. What does “taking back control” look like for the
Scottish fishing industry?
HSBC estimates that the overall loss
of access to the single market will initially cost the industry £42 million a
year. Over a quarter of crew in the Scottish fishing fleet are non-UK
nationals, yet European workers still do not have clarity regarding their
working rights. As my hon. Friend the Member for Argyll and Bute
(Brendan O'Hara) mentioned, a recruitment crisis is looming. We also require
access to EU markets: 86% of all the west coast of Scotland’s
shellfish currently goes to the EU. This has to continue somehow. New markets
in the far east can be pursued long term, but core markets must be preserved.
Finally, it is not just livelihoods
at risk, but lives. While we are restructuring our fishing industries, we must
give our fishermen the security of a coastguard capable of reacting to
emergencies. The loss of fishing vessels such as the “Louisa” and the mistakes
being made cannot be ignored. We should see this period as an opportunity to do
things better. Will the Minister seek to develop a fair allocation of quota,
provide improved training for domestic fishermen, create fair and flexible
fisheries access and management for inshore fleets, and regenerate our coastal
fleets and the associated facilities around the coast? We have this opportunity
now and must act now.
Dr
Sarah Wollaston (Con) Totnes
I wish to start by paying tribute to
Sean Hunter, a Brixham fisherman who sadly lost his life in the past week. He
was deeply loved by his family and the whole community, and I know that the
House will want to join me in sending our deepest condolences to his family.
I also pay tribute to the
Fishermen’s Mission, which does
much to support fishermen, their families and our wider communities, and join
other Members in paying tribute to the coastguard, the Royal National Lifeboat
Institution, the National Coastwatch Institution and all the emergency services
for their professionalism and courage. Most of all, however, I want to thank
the fishers themselves, who do so much, in such challenging conditions, to put
food on our plates and bring so much to our national and local economies. The
value of the catch to the UK
economy in 2016 was £936 million.
I am also delighted to say that
Brixham has again been voted the No. 1 fishing port in the UK
and lands the most valuable catch in England.
In excess of £30 million has been sold through Brixham fish market in the last
year, and that is providing jobs not just at sea but in the processing sector
on land. We recognise the value of all those jobs.
I also pay tribute to the
responsible actions of our fishers, who have done much in responding to
scientific advice to improve the sustainability of many of our species.
However, just as we expect our fishers to respond to that scientific advice and
reduce the total allowable catch, in many cases, so I would ask the Minister to
respond and recognise that we expect fairness when the scientific data shows we
are fishing sustainably. In his negotiations, in which I wish him well, will he
therefore look at the sole quotas in VIId and VIIe? There is a very strong case
for their being increased further.
We need to look again at the value
of the scientific evidence on which the quotas are based. In responding to the
debate, will the Minister listen to the concerns of fishermen who are asking
for greater access to fisheries science partnerships in co-operation with
CEFAS? I am concerned to hear that too often these requests are turned down.
For some years, the UK
has agreed to adhere to the data collection framework, so it is of great
concern to hear that the sprat stock, for example, is still described as “Data
Deficient”. In his response, will the Minister say what is going to happen
about that in future?
Several colleagues have raised the
issues of bass fisheries. As time is short, I will not dwell on them, except
perhaps to thank the Devon and Severn
inshore fisheries and conservation authority for meeting me to discuss the wrasse fisheries, and to hold that up as an
example of where responsible but proportionate precautionary principles are
being applied.
In my closing moments, I say to the
Minister that as we now move to thinking about where we are with Brexit and
beyond, fishing communities want to see fairness. We recognise that we need to
avoid falling into an acrimonious Brexit, but to maintain good relations in
order to trade with our neighbours in the future. I just hope that he will make
sure that our fishing communities are not let down, as they were in 1973.
Luke
Pollard (Lab/Co-op) Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport
At the beginning of every fisheries
debate, it is right that we praise the amazing charities that provide rescue
and support for the fishing industry, such as the RNLI, the coastguard and the
Fishermen’s Mission. Today I want
to pay special tribute to Tony Jones—a respected fisherman of many years who is
missed not only by the fishing community in Plymouth, but around the
country—who died when the Solstice trawler was lost at sea off Plymouth
recently. Our thoughts remain with his family, and with Nick and Chris, who
survived that quick capsize.
I want to pass on special thanks to
the RNLI crews from Plymouth, Looe
and Salcombe who reacted so quickly in searching for the vessel. It might be
useful for hon. Members who do not follow their local RNLI on Twitter to search
out the #outonashout Twitter feed, which tweets every time an RNLI lifeboat
launches, because they will be amazed at just how many times those brave
volunteers go to sea to save lives.
We must do more to protect and
secure safety at sea, which means matching our words with actions. I am very
grateful to the Minister for Transport Legislation and Maritime for the action
he secured following the possible delay to lifeboat tasking after the sinking
of the Solstice. He said that there would be “no stone left unturned”, and so
far he has been true to his word. I am also grateful to the hon. Member for Na
h-Eileanan an Iar (Angus Brendan MacNeil), an SNP Member, for his support after
the sinking of the Solstice, including through sharing his experience of the
sinking of the Louisa from his constituency.
The proper investigations are under
way and it is not right to prejudge them, but I know that areas in which there
can be improved tasking of lifeboats have already been identified by the
coastguard. I hope that they will be put in place so that lives can be saved
more quickly at sea. This is not a partisan request, because I believe there is
cross-party support for ensuring that safety at sea is put ahead of any political
considerations. In the meantime, I have asked the coastguard to do all it can
to rebuild the Plymouth fishing
industry’s confidence in knowing that the coastguard will take action in the
event of a disaster or a trawler going missing.
Fishing is a really important
industry for Plymouth. We have a
vibrant fishing community that we want to strengthen in the years ahead. It is
vital not only that we campaign for the right Brexit deal to protect our
fisheries, as has been mentioned, but that fishing infrastructure around the
country is protected. In particular, that means
not building luxury flats on the fishing quay in Plymouth,
therefore ensuring that there is protection for the fishing industry for many
years to come. Plymouth also needs
a new state-of-the-art fish market, and I hope the Government will look at how
investments can be secured to ensure that, in whatever port around the country,
Britain’s
fishing industry can access the very best of technologies and facilities to
ensure its success for many years.
I am proud that Plymouth
is leading the way towards blue belting, following the example set in “Blue
Planet II”, in securing the first national marine park, which I hope will be
designated in Plymouth sound. The
scheme has cross-party support, as well as the support of world-class
institutions based in Plymouth
including, among many others, the Plymouth Marine Laboratory and the National
Marine Aquarium.
Finally, I want to heap praise on
the fantastic work of Plymouth City Council in its Plymouth
lifejackets campaign. Some 120 personal flotation devices, equipped with
locator beacons, have now been given out to those in the fishing industry in Plymouth.
This has been supported by a £77,000 grant from the European maritime and
fisheries fund and the MMO. As one RNLI coxswain put it, this is designed to
take the search out of search and rescue.
At this time, the House has an awful
lot to be proud of in the fishing industry. Knowing how dangerous fishing is,
we should heap praise on those involved for all the work that they do.
Andrew
Bowie (Con) West
Aberdeenshire and
Kincardine
Although my constituency contains 31
miles of magnificent North sea coastline, it does not
have much of a fishing industry—certainly not as much as the constituency of my
hon. Friend the Member for Banff
and Buchan (David Duguid). However, I thought it was important that I speak in
today’s debate on the eve of the Fisheries Council that will set quotas for all
European fishing fleets. In a previous life, I had the great privilege to work
for just over a year in the European Parliament for Ian Duncan, now Lord
Duncan, who was the Conservative spokesperson on fisheries. One could not find
a bigger advocate for the industry.
I quickly learned that someone
enters the world of fishing unprepared at their peril. More importantly, I
learned about the skill, dedication and ingenuity of British and Scottish
fishermen and the wider industry, and of the producer organisations of the
Scottish White Fish Producers Association with Mike Park, the Scottish Pelagic
Fishermen’s Association with Ian Gatt, the Shetland Fishermen’s Association
with Simon Collins, and the Scottish Fishermen’s Federation with Bertie
Armstrong. Faced with overwhelming regulation, bans, recovery plans, and a
bureaucratic sea of red tape that would test any industry, they have adapted
and overcome. It is through their work and actions, not the words of
politicians and civil servants at the Berlaymont or Rue Wiertz, that we are
seeing record landings at Peterhead. Amazingly, this year North sea
cod has been recertified as sustainable.
We are having the debate because of
next week’s Council in Brussels. In
reality, as the Minister is well aware, the big decisions have already been
taken at the EU-Faroes and EU-Norway negotiations. On the whole, it has been
quite a positive year for the Scottish fishing fleet.
I pay tribute to those unsung allies
and supporters of the industry in Brussels
who have fought the good fight over the years in trialogues, at the European
Parliament Committee on Fisheries and at various Councils. Right now this is an
uncertain time for them as we prepare to leave the European Union. As we speak,
they are working hard to defend British interests as regulations that will
affect the British fishing industry, such as the extension of the North
sea plan, continue to be made.
We wish every success at Council
next week to my hon. Friend the Minister, those at UKRep, all British staff at
the Commission, and Caroline Healy at the secretariat of the European
Conservatives and Reformists group. She works with the industry day in, day
out, to defend it and give it a voice at the heart of the EU. For all the work
that has been done for the fishing industry during our membership of the CFP,
and for all the work still being done, I say thank you. Through the work of
those individuals and their predecessors, the industry is in a strong position
as we set sail into the sea of opportunity that is a post-CFP world.
Alan
Brown (SNP) Kilmarnock and Loudon
As a member of the Environment, Food
and Rural Affairs Committee, and in recognition of its ongoing inquiry on
fisheries, I thought it pertinent that I say a few words.
The opposition to the CFP is
obvious, but we cannot forget that it was the Ted Heath Tory Government who
deemed that Scottish fishermen were expendable in the wider UK
interest. Back then there were 23 Scottish Tory MPs, yet we are now meant to
believe that the new baker’s dozen will somehow hold this Government to
account.
There is no doubt that everybody
appreciates how critical fishing is to coastal communities, but in the bigger
picture it accounts for only 0.1% of GDP. With successive Governments in thrall
to the London’s financial sector
and house prices, what will be the overall Government priorities? How can we
believe guarantees from the fisheries Minister that there will be separation
and ring-fencing of fishing access.
UNCLOS will be the post-Brexit
fallback, but it also allows historical rights to be taken into account. There
therefore must be discussions on the subject, but given that the UK Government
have already allowed 18 months to pass without even closing preliminary
discussions with the EU, they will have to up their game over the next 15
months.
The prize is control over the waters
and management of the stock in a sustainable way. In the same vein, Scotland
must have control over its waters. Ours are the fourth largest in Europe—they
account for 60% of the UK’s
waters, and 38% of current EU allowable catch. Scotland
is therefore critical to the overall process. It is fine to argue for an
overall UK
framework, but that must be agreed with the devolved nations, not imposed on
them.
These concerns are echoed by the
Scottish Fishermen’s Federation, which wants all EU powers devolved straight to
Edinburgh, because it trusts the
Scottish Government. Scotland
also needs to be allocated budgets that are currently accessed via the EU, such
as that from the European maritime and
fisheries fund. Even that funding is proof of the low priority and weakness of
the UK Government in negotiations with the EU.
The forthcoming fisheries paper
needs to flesh out a lot of things, so I hope that we will hear from the Minister
about it. What will the quota management system be based on? We cannot continue
a system that sees some of Scotland’s quotas traded, such as for blue whiting,
or the top-slicing of The Hague preference quota, which has seen Scotland lose
out on over 1,000 tonnes of whiting over the past five years. The UK
Government really need to publish and implement the new fisheries concordat
that was agreed by Ministers in August 2016. The Environment Secretary needs to
ensure that licencing starts to eliminate the “slipper skippers”. If people
cannot afford or access quota licences, the perceived opportunities for job
creation will be lost. Quota hopping also needs to be addressed.
Problems might arise with trade
tariffs if access to the single market is not maintained. As we have heard, the
cost to the sector of leaving the single market is estimated at £42 million. A
customs agreement is clearly vital for such special products with a limited
lifespan.
How will the EEZ be policed? What
will transition periods look like? Bertie Armstrong of the Scottish Fishermen’s
Federation advises that a nine-month transitional or bridging period is
required. Meanwhile, the Secretary of State talks about leaving CFP early, or
on day one, but that is at odds with what fishermen say is required. There will
be opportunities, but the UK Government must up their game and need to start
giving out better information.
Stephen
Kerr (Con) Stirling
I would like to take the opportunity
of this debate on the fishing industry, using the broad definition of that
industry as the commercial activity of harvesting, processing and marketing
aquatic produce for human consumption, to make a positive request of the
Minister. Since 1995, the amount of caught fish in the world has been
flatlining, but the amount of fish used for food has continued to grow and
outpace global population growth. The gap is being filled by the miracle of
aquaculture.
Forty years ago, 93% of seafood came
from capture fisheries—trawlers and traditional fishing—and only 7% came from
global aquaculture. Today, however, more than 50% of the world’s seafood comes
from aquaculture and that figure is only going to rise. The number of
aquaculture-produced fish is staggering. Today, more than 50% of globally
consumed fish is being produced on fish farms. As of 2014, that is equivalent
to 73.8 million tonnes of fish, which equivalent in weight to 377 jumbo jets.
That, Madam Deputy Speaker, is a lot of fish. It makes a huge contribution to
feeding the world’s population. Aquaculture provides a highly efficient source
of animal protein for human consumption and is critical to future food security
for the rapidly increasing global population.
It will come as no surprise to you,
Madam Deputy Speaker, to hear a Scottish Member talk about Scottish food as
being the best in the world. Our salmon, born and bred in Scottish waters, is
second to none. The growth of aquaculture has allowed this industry to thrive.
In 2016, we found 13.7 million salmon in Scotland.
According to a DEFRA-commissioned report that was published
in July 2017, 85% of the volume of farmed fish and shellfish grown in the UK
is produced in Scotland,
and 92% of the value of UK
aquaculture is produced in Scotland.
According to a report commissioned and published this year by the Highlands
and Islands Enterprise, the aquaculture supply chain in Scotland
employs over 12,000 people. According to the Food and Drink Federation, so far
in 2017, salmon alone is the UK’s
No. 1 food export.
David
Linden (SNP) Glasgow East
Does the hon. Gentleman understand
that one reason why the SNP is calling for Scotland
to remain in the single market and the customs union is precisely so that we do
not have prime salmon backed-up at customs checkpoints?
Stephen
Kerr
I agree with the hon. Gentleman. We certainly
do not want that, because the value of salmon to the UK
economy is close to the value of the entire landings of all species of fish by UK
vessels in capture fisheries. We want that to increase.
If a barrel of oil is worth $50, the
equivalent value of a barrel of salmon is more than $1,200. That is why the
Norwegian Government’s national policy is that aquaculture is the sustainable
industry for when oil runs out. The industry is already estimated to be worth
£1.8 billion to the Scottish economy, but we must go for growth. The Scottish
national marine plan has a target of increasing production from the current
level of 170,000 tonnes to 210,000 tonnes in the coming year. That can be
achieved if we focus on productivity, and we can best do that by focusing on
the cutting-edge science involved in food production.
That brings me back to my
constituency of Stirling. The Institute
of Aquaculture and Global Aquatic
Food Security is based at Stirling University,
as is the Scottish Aquaculture Innovation Centre. They work together to develop
vaccines, cultivation methods and productivity techniques that have had an
impact in countries all over the world, including Scotland and the United
Kingdom as a whole. With the help of the centre, we can increase productivity
in our domestic industry and do our bit to develop a global industry that will
ultimately feed the world, which must be a very worthy objective.
Now I come to my request to the
Minister. A very important part of the Stirling city
region deal is investment in the infrastructure of the Institute
of Aquaculture and Global Aquatic
Food Security and the Scottish Aquaculture Innovation Centre. May I press the
Minister to help me to secure a £20 million investment as part of the deal?
That will serve as an ignition point for millions of pounds of private
investment in the industry, with a potential prize of an additional £254
million in increased gross value, more than 3,000 new jobs, and more than £690
million in additional sales. The ambition is very clear. The institute says:
“We are determined that Scotland
and the UK
remain at the forefront of global aquaculture and that we do not lose the
potential for high value employment and sustainable economic growth through
innovation and enterprise in aquatic food production.
We have created a bold vision for
the development of our aquaculture infrastructure, ensuring that we can match
current and future industry needs. This development is underpinned by a
scientific strategy that will ensure that Stirling
remains synonymous with excellence in aquaculture.”
I ask the Minister to help me to
secure the money, so that we can make that a reality.
Ben Lake (Plaid Cwmru) Ceredigion
I hoped to make a wide-ranging
speech about the practical and policy dangers that face the Welsh fishing
industry, but instead I shall concentrate on just three issues. First, I shall
set out the unique nature and structure of the Welsh commercial fishing
industry. Secondly, I shall highlight some of the concerns that have been
raised with me about the UK Government’s trade policies. Finally, I shall
implore the Government to give coastal communities, and fishermen and women
throughout Wales,
the tangible assurances that they deserve.
The Welsh fishing fleet, which
consists of approximately 400 vessels, operates in some of the most challenging
environments. Not only does it face hostile sea conditions, but it must operate
within a low quota of 100 tonnes a year for fish covered by the total allowable
catch regulations. The adaptable and hardy Welsh fishing industry has adapted
to those conditions, focusing much of its attention on non-TAC species
including sea bass, about which we have heard a great deal this afternoon, and
significant amounts of shellfish, but it walks a fine line. One fisherman told
me that his family lived hand to mouth, not knowing from one month to the next
whether they would be able to meet their financial obligations.
The Welsh Fishermen’s Association
has drawn my attention to some striking analysis which underlines the precariousness
of the Welsh fishing fleet’s position. If there were a mere four weeks of
delays in our current trading relationships, the Welsh fishing fleet would be
in danger of collapse, and a delay of six weeks would cause catastrophic
business failures throughout the sector. That takes me to my next point: the
trade issues that are at the forefront of Welsh fishermen’s minds.
Our small-scale fleet trades widely
in a dynamic market of live and therefore perishable products. Tariff barriers
will of course have a huge impact on their viability, but, as we heard from the
right hon. Member for Tynemouth (Mr Campbell), non-tariff barriers could be
just as devastating, if not more so. Trade in live or fresh food produce is a
tricky business at the best of times, but customs checks and additional delays
in the process of trade will cause the value of the produce to deteriorate,
which will render trade unviable and, in certain circumstances, impossible. By
gambling away our existing trade relationship with the EU, we risk the creation
of customs checks and a raft of non-tariff barriers. Empty rhetoric about
“frictionless trade” is meaningless to the coastal communities who are peering
over the edge of the hard-Brexit cliff that the Government have created.
I will not apologise for repeating,
once again, a simple solution to the problem: retaining membership of the
customs union and the single market. If the Welsh fishing industry is
decimated, as it might well be if the Government carry on as they are,
investment will be drained from coastal communities such as those in
Ceredigion. They are already hard hit, and this money is unlikely to return to
them.
I urge the UK Government to
reconsider their position on the customs union and single market, as that would
safeguard the viability of the Welsh fishing industry. I also echo the remarks
of the hon. Member for Inverclyde (Ronnie Cowan): the UK Government’s pursuit
of future markets and trade deals must not come at the expense of today’s
fishing fleet. A fishermen I spoke to asked a disarmingly
simple but extremely pertinent question: “There may be opportunities somewhere
in the intangible distance, but if there is no fleet left by the time we get
there, what is the point?”
Jim
Shannon (DUP) Strangford
Yesterday my colleague the hon.
Member for Upper Bann (David Simpson) and the former
Minister for Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs in Northern
Ireland met the Minister to discuss the
forthcoming meetings. It is always good to see the Minister in his place; he is
a friend of the fishermen and there is no better person to speak on our behalf
in this Chamber.
The National Federation of
Fishermen’s Organisations has a five-step plan. I do not have time to go into
that in detail, but the federation mentions in its brief that:
“A house divided amongst itself will
fall.”
This House today is united: all
parties and Members are working together behind our Minister.
While the devolution of fishing is
necessary for the fine-tuning of everyday issues, there is also a wish among
the industry for pragmatism and, where appropriate, maintaining a United
Kingdom-wide policy framework, particularly on licensing and the trade of
quota. It does not serve the Northern Ireland,
Scottish, English or Welsh fishing industries well when barriers in the form of
temporary moratoriums are erected around the transfer of quota units within the
United Kingdom
or restrictions are placed on the port of registration of licensing
administration.
A confusing picture is emanating
from Ireland,
typified by evidence provided by Irish fishing industry representatives to the
Irish Parliament’s Brexit Committee during a hearing on 24 January 2017. During that session,
contributors stated that up to 70% of mackerel and nephrops annually caught by Ireland’s
fishing fleet was taken from UK
waters. It seems it was all right for them and other EU fishermen to draw a
blank fisheries cheque from UK
waters, but not for others to draw such cheques from Irish waters. I put that
marker down, to go on the record in Hansard.
Northern
Ireland fishermen are looking east to the
rest of the UK
for their future, not to the south, and certainly not to the EU. They expect
that the wrongs imposed on them by the common fisheries policy, typified by the
application of the Hague preference quota regime, will be righted. For our
fishermen, removal of the Hague preference is a red line.
It may be convenient for the Irish
Government to blame the UK’s withdrawal from this convention as a reason for
not progressing their Sea-Fisheries (Amendment) Bill, but the fact is that
their minds were made up beforehand to erect a hard border against fishermen
from Northern Ireland, as a tactic to secure future access arrangements for the
Irish fleet to British waters, on which, as mentioned, they heavily depend. It
is with regret that we conclude the time has come to withdraw from the
Voisinage agreement, and we urge the Minister to act on this matter soon.
The Minister is well-versed on the
issues surrounding the need for non-UK crew. The Department for Communities in Northern
Ireland ran a recruitment drive for 150 crew
for local fishing vessels. There were 30
expressions of interest in the positions from across the EU. Some 19 candidates
were invited to interview, and only six attended for interview, with five of
them being offered positions after sea survival training. So 145 places are
left in Northern Ireland.
I commend the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Brendan
O’Hara) and the hon. Member for Banff
and Buchan (David Duguid), who have spoken on this matter. The process we have
is not working, and we need to do more on this.
I ask the Minister also to remember
the long-term cod management plan and ensure that the sea cod TAC is kept for
us and increased across Northern Ireland.
I also stress the importance of nephrops to my constituency of Strangford and
the villages and fishermen of Portavogie, Ardglass and Kilkeel.
These are key stocks for Northern
Ireland, as well as the Minister’s
constituents in the south-west of England,
yet it seems that, against a background of much better news from the Irish
sea, the European Commission continues to find something to create
discontent and upset. This kind of arm-twisting is unacceptable. There will be
a better future for our fishermen, and the December 2017 Agriculture and
Fisheries Council should offer a first step in that direction.
Kirsty
Blackman (SNP) Aberdeen North
This is the first time that I have
taken part in the annual fishing debate, and I am delighted to have this
opportunity to sum up for the Scottish National party. Although I was born in Aberdeen
and have lived most of my life there, before I was five I lived in Gamrie,
which is also known as Gardenstown, near Banff
in the north-east of Scotland.
That little community has historically been dominated by fishing and continues
to be so to this day. My great-great-grandfather, John Murray, was killed while
fishing, at the age of 34, during the first world war. My grandfather—my
“granda”—John West, was the skipper of the Banff-registered May Lily, a 70-foot
trawler that went out from Gamrie. He skippered that vessel from 1968 to 1975,
having been on it for a number of years before that. The fishing history is
strong in my family, particularly on my dad’s side.
It was a very different landscape
back then; people had very different attitudes. The boats were much smaller,
and people stayed on one fishing boat for much longer than they perhaps do
nowadays. Things have moved quite significantly, particularly since the 1970s,
but even in recent years there has been a significant change. One of the big
changes in recent years has been the increase in sustainability. The hon.
Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Andrew
Bowie) mentioned cod stocks, and the reason for the increase in sustainability
is the better management of the fishing stocks. We are able to look at this
scientifically and sustainably to ensure that the stocks continue to grow so
that we can ensure the future of the fishing industry for the long term in the
north-east of Scotland
and across the rest of the United Kingdom.
In the UK, 65%
of the tonnage of fish landed by UK
vessels is landed by Scottish vessels. Over 50% of all the fishing jobs in the UK
are in Scotland,
as are 56% of the jobs involved in going out fishing, rather than in the
processing side.
The SNP has regularly raised a
number of concerns about the way in which the UK
deals with fishing. The deficiencies of the common fisheries policy have been raised by my colleagues and by other Members across
the House today, but we have particular concerns about the way in which the UK
decides to divvy up the quotas. The North sea whiting top-slice
continues to be a major concern to us. Allowing English coastal communities to
have more for their 10-metre-and-under inshore vessels is disadvantaging
Scottish fishermen. The Scottish Government have been absolutely consistent in
their criticism of that policy, and we will continue to be so.
Another thing that my colleagues
have mentioned is the UK’s
swap package, particularly in relation to blue whiting. That continues to be a
concern for us as well. We cannot be swapping with Norway
and not getting back what our fishermen fish. We have been consistent in our
criticism of the way in which the UK
Government have prioritised the fishing industry. It is incredibly important in
the north-east of Scotland.
It is not that we want to see less priority being given to fishermen in English
coastal communities; we want to see more priority being given to those who are
trawling for white fish in particular in the north-east of Scotland
and across the whole of Scotland.
That is another major concern.
A number of Members have talked
about Brexit. I want to mention the new port and the refurbishments that have
been done at the port in Peterhead. More than £5 million of the money that went
into the new port came from the European Union, and a further £6 million came
from the Scottish Government to improve the port at Peterhead. I understand
that the new fish market is under way, and is looking very positive. However,
that could not have been done in the same format without the European money
that we have received, and we would like some clarity from the Minister as to
what will replace it. What will he do to ensure that our fishing industry is
fit for the future, particularly in relation to the critical infrastructure
that is needed? Peterhead is an amazing port that lands a significant
proportion of the fish that is landed across the United
Kingdom, and we need to ensure that we can
continue to have the curve on them.
In more Brexit-related issues, the
hon. Member for South East Cornwall (Mrs Murray), who introduced the debate,
talked specifically about trading with France,
but few people seem to realise how much we export to France,
which is the destination for 27.5% of our fish exports. It is therefore
incredibly important for our fish processors and fishermen and for everybody
involved in the fishing industry that we have a trade deal with France, and
therefore the whole European Union, that allows us to export that amount with
few hold-ups at customs and that does not have the 7% to 11% tariffs that we
would see under WTO rules, which would be a major problem. As has been
mentioned already, leaving the single market will cost the industry about £42
million, which is an incredible amount of money.
My last point is about the
Government’s prioritisation of looking at the industries that will be hit by
Brexit. I am unsure of their level of prioritisation, but the little
prioritisation that they are doing seems to be concentrated on industries that
offer a particularly high tax take for the Treasury, such as the finance and
car industries. I want them to look a little more at the communities that will
be decimated by the loss of a certain industry, such as fishing, and to
prioritise on that basis as well.
Holly
Lynch (Lab) Halifax
We have had an excellent debate this
afternoon ahead of the annual December Agriculture and Fisheries Council
meeting. I start by thanking all those who have taken part in this thoughtful
and considered discussion, which saw representations that reflect the diverse
fishing activity that is happening all over our country. I pay particular
tribute to the hon. Member for South East Cornwall (Mrs Murray), who secured
this debate, for her characteristically insightful speech—I know that this
policy area is close to her heart. I echo the sentiments of my hon. Friend the
Member for Plymouth, Sutton and
Devonport (Luke Pollard), because there have been tragedies at sea since last
year’s debate. I send our thoughts to those who have lost loved ones and to
those who have been injured at sea, particularly the friends and family of the
crew of the fishing vessel Solstice. I ask the hon. Member for Totnes (Dr
Wollaston) to send our condolences back to her constituency following the
tragedy that she shared with us. I join all those who paid tribute to the RNLI
for its incredible work and to organisations, including the Fishermen’s
Mission, who do so much to support the wellbeing of not only those who spend
their lives fishing at sea, but their families.
In anticipation of this debate, I
looked back in Hansard at last year’s discussion. This is the second
fisheries debate since the referendum, and yet many of the questions that hon.
Members from across the House were asking in December 2016 are still being
asked a year on. In the past 12 months, we do not seem to have moved any closer
to clarity on what a post-Brexit fisheries policy will mean for our fishing
communities up and down the country. While there is diversity and robust
adaptability within the UK fishing fleet, which has allowed it to weather both
rough seas and changing political landscapes, people’s fears about and
aspirations for a post-Brexit policy depend on where they are in the country
and what is being fished. Last week, the Labour party launched a consultation
on fishing ahead of the upcoming fisheries Bill, which was announced in the
Queen’s speech, to ensure that those with an interest can have a say in that
process, and I am looking forward to going through those submissions.
The rhetoric of the Secretary of
State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has driven expectations for a
significant uplift in economic activity in the fishing sector, which we are all
keen to see, so the challenge now is how and when he proposes to deliver it. I
hope the Minister can update the House today on what progress has been made to
prepare the UK
to become an independent coastal state and on where fishing currently features
in the Brexit negotiations. When this country leaves the EU in March 2019, what
will be the framework for agreeing the total allowable catches as a means of
managing fish stocks that we share with neighbouring countries? Despite his
tough taking-back-control narrative, the Secretary of State apparently told the
Danish market back in August of this year, that
“boats from EU countries will still be
able to operate in UK
waters after Brexit, as the UK
does not have enough capacity to catch and process all its fish alone.”
Like most of the fishing industry, I
am keen to see the evidence upon which he based that policy decision. Will the
Minister explain to us how that system would be
managed, who would have access to our waters, and what the mechanism will be
for agreeing allocations of quota to vessels from the rest of the EU?
In addition to the question of our
waters and access, the other area of uncertainty for the fishing industry is
trade, which has come up many times today. Although the level of dependence on
the European market varies by sector, up to 85% of our crab, lobster and prawns
are sold into Europe. We will need the freest possible
trade with our neighbours if we are to satisfy the demand from European
consumers for our top-quality shellfish. The point has already been
made—including in the excellent speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Great
Grimsby (Melanie Onn), who represents a constituency with a thriving fish
processing sector—that, when dealing with fresh produce, financial barriers are
not the only challenge, and that ensuring there are no delays that could
compromise the smooth and timely movement of fish across borders will be
essential if we are to maintain our existing routes to markets outside the UK.
That was made clear to me when I met
fishermen in North Shields with my right hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth
(Mr Campbell), who represented his local fishing community admirably this
afternoon. I thank him for his kind remarks, which were certainly kinder than
the remarks I heard when I worked under him in the Opposition Whips Office.
It is reassuring that there is firm
common ground between the fishing industry, conservationists, recreational
fishers and consumers alike that a sustainable approach to a new fishing policy
is the only game in town. For a sustainable approach to work, we need two
things: we have to get the science right if we are to have confidence in
managing fish stocks responsibly, and we have to have a means of robustly
enforcing that approach. With that in mind, I am concerned to see that the
number of fishing vessels inspected by the fishery protection squadron has
fallen from 1,400 in 2011-12 to just 278 in 2016-17. Does the Minister agree
that, for all the technological developments, which I certainly welcome, the
ability to board a vessel and inspect the operations on board will be essential
if we are to manage fish stocks sustainably? I hope the Minister will indicate
how he envisages the future of fisheries enforcement to work post-Brexit and
confirm that the fishery protection squadron will be resourced to carry out its
objectives effectively.
Another issue that came up time and
again as I visited coastal towns is the failure to attract the next generation
into fishing. If we are to capitalise on an increased quota that drives
economic activity and job creation in our coastal towns, we will need a new
approach to training. The Whitby
fishing school explained to me some of the difficulties of securing funding for
courses. The school finds it incredibly difficult to deliver courses that both
truly equip young people to work at sea and tick the relevant boxes to secure
funding for that training, so it has asked the Government to reflect on whether
the framework in place for delivering apprenticeships and training programmes
is fit for purpose in attracting and retaining the fishermen and women of
tomorrow.
On funding and infrastructure, the
European maritime and fisheries fund has facilitated crucial strategic
investment that has helped to support jobs and promote sustainability. For the benefit of those planning bids for
investment in their area over the coming years, such as the fish quay in North
Shields, will the Minister provide further information on the plans in place
for replacing the fund? I am keen to hear his response to the hon. Member for Stirling
(Stephen Kerr) on infrastructure to support aquaculture.
On conservation, there is renewed
public awareness of the need for action to preserve our marine environment as a
result of David Attenborough’s “Blue Planet II”, as my right hon. Friend the
Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw)
said in his powerful speech—my right hon. Friend has always used his experience
to be a real champion of responsible fish management. More than 10 million
people are tuning in to watch every week and, as anyone who has seen the show
will appreciate, there could be no better showcase for our marine life,
demonstrating just how visually stunning yet incredibly vulnerable it is.
We are proud of our record in
government, and of introducing the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009. We
included bold commitments in our manifesto ahead of this year’s general
election. The Minister will be aware of the blue belt pledges, which include
the goals of establishing a marine protected area around the South
Sandwich Islands in 2018 and of delivering on the commitment to
establish a fully protected area in at least 50% of Ascension Island’s
waters in 2019. I hope he will reaffirm his commitment to conservation and
express Government support for such an initiative.
Marine protection and fisheries
management are two sides of the same coin. If we get it right and set the
standard both domestically and in our waters around the world, we can secure a
flourishing marine environment and a strong and profitable fisheries sector. It
is fair to say that the need for certainty from the Government is a theme that
has run throughout the contributions today. On many of the biggest questions faced
by the fisheries sector, although hopes are certainly high, we are still in the
dark on much of the detail. There are plenty of opportunities for our fishermen
and women and those in related sectors as we leave the EU, but what we
desperately need to see from this Government is the road map outlining just how
we deliver on them.
That having been said, may I take
this opportunity to wish the Minister all the very best for the upcoming
Council meeting? We all have an vested interest in it going well and we all
have our fingers crossed that he is a better negotiator with our European
neighbours than perhaps some of his colleagues.
The
Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food ( George Eustice)
I thank the hon. Member for Halifax
(Holly Lynch) for her good wishes for us at the upcoming negotiations. I also
congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall (Mrs Murray) and
the all-party group on fisheries on securing this annual debate. It takes place
at a crucial time, because at this time of year, every year in November and
December we have a series of important fisheries negotiations, and this will be
the fifth year I attend the December Fisheries Council. It is also crucial
because of the context: the fact that we are leaving the EU and working on
future domestic fisheries policy, as a number of hon. Members have pointed out.
Fishing, aquaculture and fish
processing is an incredibly important industry for this country, contributing
£1.5 billion to our economy and employing 33,000 people. My hon. Friend the
Member for Stirling (Stephen Kerr) pointed out the great
potential for aquaculture, and we have seen some fantastic results in the
Scottish salmon industry —this is one of our great exports. I am more than
happy to meet him to discuss his thoughts and proposals to take that forward in
his constituency. The catching sector is also vital to many of our coastal
communities, as the sheer number of contributions we have heard today attests.
We have heard contributions from Members from Northern
Ireland, Cornwall,
Wales, Scotland
and the east coast, and from those on the channel. We have heard from Members
from right around our country—[Interruption.] Sorry, have I missed
one?
Luke
Pollard
Devon.
George
Eustice
And Devon—we
always miss out Devon and Cornwall,
as the hon. Gentleman knows. This industry has vital significance to our
coastal communities, but we also know that this is a dangerous occupation. My
hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall suffered a very personal tragedy
in this regard, and I pay tribute to the work she has done since on issues such
as marine safety. In 2017, five fishermen lost their lives, and our thoughts
are with all those families affected.
In today’s debate, we have heard
some personal accounts of people who have experienced tragedy in their own
constituencies, including from the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and
Devonport (Luke Pollard), my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston),
the right hon. Member for Tynemouth (Mr Campbell), who talked about a memorial
in his constituency, and the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman),
who gave a personal account of one of her ancestors who suffered a tragedy in
this area.
I turn now to this year’s
negotiations. The first thing to note, as my hon. Friend the Member for West
Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Andrew Bowie) pointed out, is that a series of
negotiations take place at this time of year. For Scotland,
and for constituencies such as Orkney and Shetland, and Banff
and Buchan, the negotiations that really matter, perhaps more than any other,
are the annual EU-Norway bilateral negotiations. This year, we have seen some
positive outcomes from those negotiations, which concluded in Bergen last week,
with the discard ban uplifts being included, as these stocks are now at the
maximum sustainable yield—MSY. For example, we are seeing increases in cod of
10% and in haddock of 24%, as well as an increase in whiting and, for the first
time in some time, a significant increase in herring.
Also taking place at the moment are
the annual coastal states negotiations, which include other neighbouring
countries not in the EU, such as the Faroes, Iceland
and even Russia.
There was a third round of those negotiations yesterday. There was a sticking
point with Russia
over Atlanto-Scandian herring, so those negotiations are ongoing, but the
emerging point of significance for the Scottish industry in particular is that
we have limited the cut on mackerel to about 20%, in order to do a staged
reduction to ensure that we keep the stock at MSY. That follows several years
when there has been a very positive outlook for these stocks.
I turn to the December Council next
week. For 2017, 29 of the 45 quota stocks in which the UK
has an interest are now at MSY, and it remains an absolute priority for the
Government to try to progress more stocks to MSY next year, in 2018. This year,
for the first time in many years, we have seen a more positive outlook with
regard to the Irish sea. In particular, the scientific
advice on nephrops is more positive, and we believe it may therefore be
possible to get area VIIa nephrops to MSY sooner than anticipated. The science
also supports significant uplifts for cod and haddock, albeit from a low base.
There is positive news on the east
coast and the eastern channel for skates and rays, which is particularly
important for some of our south-coast fishermen, with the science supporting an
increase there and with no new evidence that we are likely to see a roll-over
in the Celtic sea.
Mr
Bradshaw
Will the Minister give way?
George
Eustice
I am going to carry on because I
want to cover as many issues as possible.
My hon. Friend the Member for St
Ives (Derek Thomas) pointed out that the Celtic sea remains challenging. We are
doing some mixed fishery analysis there, but the gadoid fishery, with whiting,
cod and haddock, continues to create challenges and we are working with our
scientists to address them.
There have been other changes this
year. For the first time, the Commission is keen to progress a prohibition on
the landing of eel. The UK
has signalled that we support that, but we do not believe that marine catch
should be the only area we look at; we have to look at the impacts on eels
inshore as well.
As several hon. Members pointed out,
we anticipate that bass will again be a controversial issue this year. Three
years ago, as Fisheries Minister I pushed for emergency measures for bass
because the stock is in a precarious state. We secured that and I have tried
since to ensure that the Commission gets the balance right between the actions
it takes on recreational anglers and those they take on commercial fishing. We
argued last year that there should be a lower catch limit for the hook-and-line
commercial fishermen to create the headroom to give more leeway for
recreational anglers. I will make a similar argument this year, but the
scientific evidence has not been benchmarked to take account of the measures
that have already been introduced, so the right thing to do might be to review
the bass situation properly in March and we will point that out.
A number of hon. Members have talked
about future policy. Everyone will be aware that it is our intention and plan
to introduce a fisheries Bill in this Session. Early next year, we will publish
more detailed proposals for that Bill, which we anticipate will be introduced
during the course of the year, probably before the summer. The Bill will set
out very clearly our approach, which is that when we leave the European Union
we will become an independent coastal state under international law. We will
take control of our exclusive economic zone, which is out to 200 miles or the
median line. From that point, we will work with our neighbours to agree issues
such as access and quota shares. The hon. Member for Halifax
asked what the basis of those quota allocations would
be. We are looking at the issue of zonal attachment, which most people
recognise is the fairest way to do such things.
My hon. Friend the Member for South
East Cornwall asked whether we have historical catch data. We do. As she
pointed out, the UK
catches about 100,000 tonnes of fish a year in EU waters, and EU vessels catch
some 750,000 tonnes in our waters, so there is an imbalance. My right hon.
Friend the Secretary of State has visited the Faroe Islands
to discuss its approach. Our view is that the six to 12-mile zone should be
predominantly reserved for UK
vessels, to keep that fishing pressure down. As the hon. Member for Strangford
(Jim Shannon) pointed out, however, there are issues such as Ireland
and voisinage agreement, to which we are committed and which we support.
The right hon. Member for Exeter
(Mr Bradshaw) argued that we would lose influence by leaving the EU. I
understand his argument, but I do not agree with it. The truth is that at the moment
our influence in the EU is limited to the technocratic size of our qualified
majority vote, and we are frequently unable to get the changes we support for
the pro-science conservation measures we want. When we leave the EU, our
influence will be defined by the scale of our fisheries resource and the need
of all those other European countries to have access to it. In future there
will be a bilateral UK-EU annual fisheries negotiation, and the UK
will be in a stronger position.
I apologise to those Members whose
points I have not been able to address. Many other points were raised, but I
hope they appreciate that time is short and I want to give my hon. Friend the
Member for South East Cornwall an opportunity to reply.
Mrs
Murray
We have heard 18 speeches by Back
Benchers from all around the coast. I thank colleagues very much. I am sure
that the Minister has got the message. I have one more for him: please do not
sacrifice access to resources because you think you might get access to the
market.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the UK
fishing industry.
No comments:
Post a Comment