Oral Answers to Questions

Alistair Carmichael Excerpts

Thursday 20th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the Chair of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee.

[Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)]

The Secretary of State, in her speech to the Oxford farming conference, spoke about the plan for change, which was going to include a commitment to public sector procurement, but that was in January, and we are now in March. With the closure of the basic payment scheme and the ending of the sustainable farming incentive, farm incomes are under real cash pressure in the here and now, so when will we hear more detail about the very welcome commitments that the Secretary of State made at the Oxford farming conference in January?

[Daniel Zeichner]

As I said in response to my hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay (Noah Law), the first thing we needed to do was establish how much we are actually buying, and that is now in progress. I absolutely get the point about the urgency. The question is why doing this took the previous Government so long when they shared our ambition. We are determined to make this happen.

Farming

Alistair Carmichael Excerpts

Thursday 13th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD) [R]]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the future of farming.

First, I remind the House of my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and place on record my appreciation for the Backbench Business Committee in allowing us this time in the Chamber. It might be helpful first just to explain to the House why I thought this was an important time to have a debate of this sort, and that was before I knew anything about what happened earlier in the week. The Select Committee that I chair has an inquiry titled “The future of farming”, and I had thought that this would be an opportunity for Members and others to shape the course of that debate and to contribute to the work of the inquiry. I still very much hope that is the case. I had also privately hoped that this might be an occasion when we could look beyond some of the changes that have occupied so much of the bandwidth in our political debate since the Budget, including the removal of the basic payment scheme and the changes to inheritance tax, double cab pick-ups and the ringfencing of agricultural budgets for devolved nations.

This debate is an opportunity for us to remind people just what we have got going with British farming, because there are some tremendous positives. We have the farmers here again today in Westminster, demonstrating how much they care about their industry and their community. For those who see this debate, whether in the Gallery or outside, I hope the message will go to them loud and clear that there are those of us in this House who want to see them stick at their efforts, because we are on their side, and it is worth it. Agriculture has one of the most resilient and resourceful workforces to be found anywhere. There is apparently an active debate within Government on how we make work pay and what the value of work is. If anybody wants to see the work ethic in action, they should go and spend a few days on a farm, because that is where they will see it clearer than anything.

We have heard a lot of concern in recent years about the balance to be struck between imported food and food produced domestically. Some of the trade deals were apparently underpinned by a thinking or an agenda that we did not need to produce as much or indeed any of our food domestically, and that we could rely on imports. Then, of course, Vladimir Putin invaded Ukraine and we had a rather rude wake-up call. Since then, we have seen Donald Trump back in the White House talking about trade and tariff changes. Surely those things alone should make us understand the importance of a healthy, home-grown agricultural sector. We should not be offshoring to other parts of the world our standards of animal welfare or environmental protection.

Climate change is so often held up as some sort of stick with which to beat our farmers, but there is a real opportunity. Those areas of the world from which we are importing food are also undergoing the changes that come from climate change, and they will not be as able to produce the food that they would wish to export to us in years to come. In this country, we still have a good temperate climate, which is absolutely suited to that.

[Charlotte Cane (Ely and East Cambridgeshire) (LD)]

Farmers in Ely and East Cambridgeshire face the threats of flood and drought, which are made infinitely worse by the climate change that my right hon. Friend is talking about, in addition to all the other challenges that farmers are facing. Does he agree that the Government should invest in rural flood management and water storage, and work with farmers to help them manage water on their farms?

[Mr Carmichael]

I absolutely do, and my hon. Friend puts it perfectly when she talks about working with farmers. It seems that—this is as true for Governments north of the border as it is for those south of it—so much of what passes for agricultural policy is something that is done to farmers, rather than in partnership with them.

To get to the bright future that I believe farming can have, we have to get past the present. The decision to close the sustainable farming incentive scheme on Tuesday without any notice has provoked predictable and justifiable fury, but doing it with a press release that sought to present it as some sort of triumph added insult to injury. It was almost like a return to the glory days of the Soviet Union, when the Politburo would boast about their advances in meeting their targets in the five-year plan for tractor production. The Government have pulled the rug out from under farmers across England, and that comes on the back of the accelerated removal of the basic payment scheme in the Budget.

I am afraid that the Minister’s defence in the House yesterday around an uncapped budget is not adequate and does not tell the whole story. On 14 January this year, the director general for food, biosecurity and trade told the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee that they had had almost 11,000 applications to the SFI, with 7,000 contracts offered. She said:

“If that continues at that scale there may come a point where the budget comes under pressure and we have to consider taking action.”

What has been happening in DEFRA since that time? The permanent secretary was open with the Select Committee. She said that future funding hinged on the spending review. How did we get from that point, where officials seemed to be warning us, to the point we got to on Tuesday, when we saw the scheme closed without notice?

The press notice announcing the closure of the SFI specified the budget as £1.05 billion capped. That is the first time I have been able to discover that that figure has been put into the public domain. Without that transparency, how on earth can farmers and their representatives possibly hope to regulate their behaviour, or know when the money will be running down and when they should be getting their applications in?

The frustration is that for some, this situation did not come out of a clear blue sky. It had been rumoured for some time, and it is well known that land agents, consultants and others had been quietly advising clients to get applications in to beat the deadline and the exhaustion of the pot. That is fine if a farm is big enough to employ a land agent or a consultant, but this is a busy time of year for small family farms, upland farmers and others. Those are the people who deserve and need the assistance more than ever, and they are the ones who have again been left behind.

Tom Bradshaw described DEFRA as “a failing Department”. That is strong language from a man not given to hyperbole, but the Minister would do well to take heed. In that evidence session on 14 January, we heard evidence from the permanent secretary, the director general for food, biosecurity and trade and the deputy director of policy, engagement and strategy. The Committee has not formally expressed an opinion, but it is fair to say from the informal discussions that followed that that session left few of us, if any, with the impression that it was an impressive leadership team entirely in command of their brief.

It was clear that the team understood the target and where they wanted to get to, but it was unclear how they would achieve their targets. We saw that with the various false starts and missteps on the road to the environmental land management schemes, although I acknowledge that much of the responsibility for that lies with Ministers from the previous Government. The permanent secretary called it an iterative process, which to my mind just seems to be another way for people to say that it is okay to get things wrong and to make it up as they go along. I am afraid that in the minds and eyes of farmers across the country, Tuesday’s announcement on the SFI simply reinforces that impression.

The future of farming could be bright, but we have to give farmers the confidence to invest and banks the confidence to lend. The Government have to acknowledge the damage that was done to that confidence by the Budget changes, especially in relation to agricultural property relief and business property relief. Anecdotal evidence has been growing for months. We have seen the closure of agricultural merchants and machinery dealers, and we have seen the number of first registrations of tractors fall. This week, we have the publication of the National Farmers Union’s confidence survey.

[David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his excellent contribution to this debate. Do the points that he is making not underline the issue that is faced in my constituency? Given the value of land, it is being bought up by private equity firms and pension funds for use in industrial tree production or solar farms. Land is lost to food production as a result of such developments.

[Mr Carmichael]

What the right hon. Gentleman refers to is the consequence of an agricultural policy that, despite aiming to do many worthy and worthwhile things, no longer has the concept of food production at its heart. Across this House and the different parties, we need to rebuild a consensus around getting food production back into agriculture. Climate change mitigation, nature restoration and the rest of it are all important parts of the context, but without food production at the heart of it, we will have the unintended consequences that he outlines.

[Sir Roger Gale (Herne Bay and Sandwich) (Con)]

I would like to take the right hon. Gentleman back to the point that he was making before he was interrupted. Earlier today, at Business and Trade questions, the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) asked what the Government are doing to assist the rural economy, but answer came there none. Is it not the case that the rural economy is interlinked and that if we damage one part of that economy—farming—we damage all of it? On the right hon. Gentleman’s point about the supply of goods and equipment to farmers, there will be so many other industries affected if this persecution is allowed to continue.

[Mr Carmichael]

The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. It has to be properly understood that farming underpins everything in rural communities. To take the example of agricultural merchants and machinery dealers, these are successful businesspeople. They will be people who are part of the local Rotary club. They will have children in schools. They will be people who take on all sorts of leadership responsibilities within the community. If they cannot make their living in the countryside, we should not expect them just to sit around and wait for something to come along. Of course they will leave and the population will decrease, and we will be in a vicious downward cycle, which is the very opposite of what we need. It is also the very opposite of what a good, well-resourced and valued farming industry can provide for the country as a whole. If we are serious about the mission for growth, as the Government tell us, it has to be growth for everyone. It has to be growth across every sector and every part of the country, including rural areas and farming.

That allows me to come back to the point that I was about to make about the NFU’s confidence survey, which was published just this week. I am afraid it makes grim reading for anybody who cares about the countryside and agriculture. It tells us that 85% of landowners believe that the reforms to APR and BPR will increase their inheritance tax liability. Of those, 32% say they plan to reduce investment to mitigate the increase. The figure increases to 42% for mixed arable and livestock businesses, and to 49% for arable farms. Some 75% of employers expect to be impacted by the increase in employer national insurance contributions, 65% say they expect a reduction in profits because of the increase, and 43% expect to reduce investment to offset the additional costs. Again, that is on top of this week’s changes to the SFI and the basic payment scheme.

I would like to say quite a lot more about other aspects of the Budget, particularly the removal of the ringfence for devolved budgets, but I am reluctant to do so, given the pressure on our time this afternoon and the number of people who want to contribute to the debate. However, I have spoken about those issues before, so those who are interested in my views can refer to my previous contributions.

A small silver lining is to be found in the debate on APR and BPR, because it has forced us to think about the extent to which farming produces such a spectacularly poor return on capital. This is something we have all known for years, but now we have been forced to ask ourselves why it is the case. The hard fact of the matter is that 80 years of Government interference in the food market through agricultural subsidies has had the unintended consequence of keeping farmers poor and making supermarkets rich. I have a ten-minute rule motion next week to encourage the Government to introduce meaningful regulation in the food supply chain, and the Minister and his colleagues have recently spoken about their intention to see farm incomes increase. That is to be welcomed, but it will need a much more comprehensive and coherent strategy than we have seen thus far.

Not all confidence is about finances. We have seen a lot of doubt thrown into every sector of agricultural production in recent months because of the biosecurity threats that face this country. The poultry sector has been hit hard as a consequence of avian influenza. We have seen foot and mouth outbreaks on the continent. We see African swine fever moving across the continent, and it seems likely that we will see bluetongue disease back in this country soon. The vets on the frontline—those in the Animal and Plant Health Agency—do a remarkable job, and we owe them all a debt of gratitude, but so much more needs to be done.

The Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee has heard evidence on this issue from port health authorities, local authorities and the APHA itself. We have asked the Department about the point at which Government software systems were updated to stop animal products coming from Germany, following the identification of a foot and mouth outbreak there. Despite getting answers to our letters, we have still not been told by the Department whether IPAFFS—the import of products, animals, food and feed system—was updated on 10 or 16 January. That is something that the Government should be able to tell us.

I have sympathy for the Government, because they are dealing with a brand new system. Essentially, we should be able to see this as a pressure test on it. If the system did not work perfectly everywhere, let us identify those parts where the pressure escaped. But in order to do that, we need more transparency and more candour from Government Departments. If the Minister can answer that question when he responds to the debate, I will be enormously grateful. If he cannot, it would assist the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee greatly if we were able to get that answer in correspondence.

Time really is against us this afternoon. I would have loved to have the rest of the afternoon, but we do not. I will conclude my remarks, but let me say on behalf of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee that I very much hope that Members from across the House will continue to engage with our inquiry, because if food security is national security, as the Prime Minister keeps telling us, then our Committee is one of the most important Committees in this House.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

--- Later in debate ---

[Jamie Stone]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his contribution, and what a pity it is that our SNP colleagues are not with us at this point, because we both might have something to say about that. There has been a lack of knowledge north of the border—or a lack of understanding, I believe—of things that are fundamental to the way of life in the constituencies we represent at the different ends of Scotland.

Time is short, but I want to conclude by mentioning three things that are causing my constituents some anxiety. In particular, I spoke with farmers this week and there has been recent publicity about what is known as lab-grown meat, produced from cells in a laboratory environment. It is thought that this could be upon us within two years. Yes, it is a way of producing food, but what does that mean for our livestock farmers? That needs to be looked at very carefully indeed.

The second thing I am duty-bound to mention is the low price of malting barley. This is the highest-quality barley and is used to make whisky. It is low priced because not so much is being bought by the whisky distillers, a reflection of the fact that they are not selling so many bottles of whisky.

[Mr Carmichael]

I am doing my best.

[Jamie Stone]

My right hon. Friend is indeed doing his bit and never ceases to do so, but this again goes back to an earlier point: that farming is intermingled throughout the entire economy. If we can have measures from the Government to increase whisky sales and to encourage exports, such as getting good-quality Scotch whisky into the Indian market, that will in the long term benefit the growers of malting barley, which will make farms more viable again. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire North and Moray East (Seamus Logan) is not with us, because, in all fairness, he did make that point.

The hon. Gentleman also made a point about seed potatoes. I welcomed the Windsor framework at the time and was thanked by the then Prime Minister for doing so. It meant we could get our seed potatoes into Northern Ireland, but I know from talking to seed potato farmers that there are markets in Europe crying out to get hold of high-quality Scottish seed potatoes. They are the best, because they are some of the safest from virus, eelworm or whatever. I will be extremely grateful to the Government if they use every measure at their disposal to try to improve sales.

Finally, I want to make rather a strange point. A number of farmers have told me that people who have worked on the farm, sometimes for decades, are now moving on to other jobs. People who drove tractors or used implements to cultivate fields are sometimes taking the option of going off to drive a digger for a builder, and a labour shortage is beginning to occur on some of our farms. That should be a worry not just for way farms are run presently but for finding new entrants into farming.

I again commend my right hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland for his speech and for bringing this debate before us. Farming is absolutely fundamental to the country and the way we feed ourselves, and in a world that, as we have seen, is quite dangerous to say the least, the more we feed ourselves and the less we rely on imports, the better.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Carmichael]

Since I opened this debate, Douglas Paterson, a seventh-generation farmer in my constituency, has sent me a copy of a letter addressed to his great-grandfather from 10 Downing Street, dated 5 March 1917. It states:

“Dear Sir,

We have now reached a crisis in the war when to ensure victory, the heroism of our armies at the Front must be backed by the self-sacrifice and tireless labour of everyone at home. To this end the production of each quarter of wheat and oats, and of each bushel of potatoes is of vital importance.”

The letter finishes by saying that

“the Government is confident that Farmers will at once step forward and do all in their power to utilise their services to the best advantage.

The farmers of this country can defeat the German submarine and when they do so they destroy the last hope of the Prussian.”

It is signed “D. Lloyd George”.

The fact that we can stand in this Chamber today and debate this matter is a testament to the fact that Charles Paterson and his generation did step forward, and it is why we have a solemn and historic duty to ensure that his great-grandson can continue to do the same. I can think of no better definition of what is meant by “national interest”.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the future of farming.

Sustainable Farming Incentive

Alistair Carmichael Excerpts

Wednesday 12th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Daniel Zeichner]

My hon. Friend touches on the critical point. The schemes that we inherited had no way of prioritising properly; it was a first-come, first-served scheme. Therefore, the kind of farmers she describes were disadvantaged. We have had to work with a scheme that we inherited. I was very clear when I took over that we would not immediately overturn the existing system; we wanted to give people confidence about the future. However, when we come to redesign the scheme, we can design it better to address the issues that she has raised.

[Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)]

I note the Minister’s complaint that he inherited an uncapped budget. Can he tell the House whether that was something that he just noticed on Monday, which meant that he had to close the scheme without warning on Tuesday? On 14 January, the director general from his Department in charge of food biosecurity and trade told my Select Committee:

“I do not think we can expect that every single farm will be viable but if we are talking about 92%, 93% having the opportunity of productivity improvement, that is what we are aiming for.”

In other words, the Government’s aim is to lose 7% to 8% of our farms. What will that figure be after today’s announcements?

[Daniel Zeichner]

I am always grateful to receive questions from the right hon. Gentleman, who chairs the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee. Those figures on future farm viability go all the way back to the Agriculture Act 2020, when a serious attempt was made to assess future farm viability. That is why the Secretary of State and I are so determined to address those problems around farm viability. Farmers will not be supported forever by the public purse—we know that—so it is very important that we address the whole range of issues, but I am very happy to have a further conversation with him.

Support for the Scotch Whisky Industry

Alistair Carmichael Excerpts

Wednesday 12th February 2025 Westminster Hall

[Graham Leadbitter]

I do not know whether I need to comment on how many different types of drink I consume. Returning to the matters at hand, exports are valued at more than £5 billion, with 43 bottles of Scotch whisky exported every second.

[Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)]

Would the hon. Gentleman allow a non-promotional intervention?

[Graham Leadbitter]

Yes.

[Mr Carmichael]

The hon. Gentleman is speaking about exports. We know the damage done to the Scotch whisky industry when we last suffered tariffs as a consequence of US trade policy—nothing to do with President Trump, it has to be said, but due to an old trade dispute. Surely this is the point at which the Government should be thinking ahead and putting a strategy in place to help the industry should, heaven forfend, we find ourselves back to that place as a consequence of the new regime in the White House?

[Graham Leadbitter]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for making that point, which I will come on to a little bit later in my speech.

In 2022, Scotch whisky distilleries attracted 2 million visitors, making them the most popular tourist attraction in Scotland. Between 2018 and 2022, the industry invested £2.1 billion in capital projects, with many more such projects in the pipeline as we speak.

Oral Answers to Questions

Alistair Carmichael Excerpts

Thursday 6th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee.

[Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)]

May I take the Secretary of State back to the subject of illegal meat imports? On Tuesday the Select Committee was told that at Dover this work, which covers only 20% of arrivals, is being done in live lanes, despite the fact that there is a border control post at Dover that is sitting unused, and the funding for Dover Port Health Authority is due to expire at the end of March. Can we at the very least sort out the financing of this for the next financial year?

[Daniel Zeichner]

I thank the Chair of the Select Committee for his question. The issues at Dover are significant and long-running. The funding was not resolved ahead of the general election, and there is an ongoing discussion. We are very aware of the challenges, but we are on it, and we will make sure that we are talking to those at Dover Port Health Authority.

Avian Influenza

Alistair Carmichael Excerpts

Thursday 30th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee.

[Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)]

I do not think anybody would disagree with the comments by the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham (Jerome Mayhew) about the redevelopment of the facility at Weybridge, but I suspect that once avian influenza is in the wild bird population, as it is here, even the best facility in the world will struggle to contain it. On disease containment, I remember the absolutely heartbreaking experience of walking along beaches in Orkney and seeing dead body after dead body. Is the Minister engaging with the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds and other major organisations so that he can at least be aware of the impact on the wild bird population?

[Daniel Zeichner]

I thank the Chair of the Select Committee, who is absolutely right. We have heard harrowing accounts in this Chamber of the experiences in Members’ local communities—the situation with wild birds is awful. Of course, officials and I are constantly in dialogue with those organisations, but the truth is that in the wild bird population there is not much we can do about it.

Foot and Mouth Disease

Alistair Carmichael Excerpts

Wednesday 15th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Select Committee.

[Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)]

As well as noting my own entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, I should tell the House that my wife is a practising veterinary surgeon who is occasionally contracted to provide local veterinary official services to the APHA.

I, too, remember the events of 2001 and I remember, having just been elected, the debates we had in this House. We said that we must always learn the lessons and never forget, but in truth, frankly, we have. The extent to which we are exposed today is something for which responsibility is shared across the parties. The state of the APHA headquarters in Weybridge is a disgrace and it is now an urgent disgrace. Hopefully, this is a bullet that we will dodge, but if we do, we know there is also the risk of African swine fever, bluetongue and avian influenza all coming. Is this the point where, across the House, we can all agree on the importance of biosecurity and the importance of funding it?

[Daniel Zeichner]

I thank the Chair of the Select Committee for his point. I think we all know how important biosecurity is, and that is why the Government committed a further £200 million for that very important facility in Weybridge.

Oral Answers to Questions

Alistair Carmichael Excerpts

Thursday 19th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee.

[Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)]

It would be helpful if the Secretary of State encouraged Sir Jon to engage with parliamentarians across the House. The necessary changes that he has outlined will take time, however. The truth of the matter is that if those who currently have responsibility were to change their culture and focus on outcomes for customers, rather than their own internal processes, we might see earlier improvements.

[Steve Reed]

There will be an opportunity for Members to engage with Sir Jon Cunliffe’s commission in January, and I am sure that the right hon. Member’s Committee will want to do precisely that. The Water (Special Measures) Bill, which is going through Parliament right now, is intended to make quick changes to the system. Sir Jon’s review will give us the chance to reform regulation and governance for the long term.

Financial Inclusion: Rural Areas

Alistair Carmichael Excerpts

Wednesday 11th December 2024 Westminster Hall

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

I congratulate the hon. Member for Frome and East Somerset (Anna Sabine) on securing her first Westminster Hall debate on such an important topic. Debates like this are very conversational; it is always nice when lots of people agree on the same thing. It is heartening when lots of people intervene and everybody agrees, so I thank the hon. Member for drawing attention to these important issues that really matter to the lives of all our constituents.

Ensuring that individuals have access to the appropriate financial services and products that they need, when they need them, is a key priority for the Government. It is an essential part of improving household financial wellbeing and ensuring that everyone is able to participate in the economy and benefit from the Government’s inclusive growth agenda. I recognise that tackling financial inclusion issues is particularly important for residents living in rural areas who face specific geographical challenges in accessing financial services. In today’s debate, we have had good examples of the particular challenges that people face.

[Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)]

We tend to think of the issue as being principally about people having access to cash, but in communities like mine, where a lot of cruise ships come in the summer, tour guides get tipped in dollars, euros and other currency. For that, they need access to a bureau de change, which in our case is effectively the post office. Having a full range of post office services is particularly important so that they can pay their money in. When the Minister talks to her colleagues in the Department for Business and Trade about the future of Crown post offices, will she remember the range of potential impacts on local communities?

[Emma Hardy]

The right hon. Gentleman has made a good pitch for a cruise ship to visit his constituency. It was a good advertisement, and he made an important point about the role and importance of the post office. I am sure that it will be noted by the Department.

I know that many rural constituencies are concerned about the availability of cash, especially when they rely on it to pay for essential goods and services. We recognise how important that is for many vulnerable people. Arguments have been made by some—not by the Government—that people are using digital more and more, so there is less need for cash. However, we recognise that for some people it is the only way of paying bills and accessing funds. It is important that we continue to have it, because many rely on it for essential goods and services.

Although it is positive that data from the Financial Conduct Authority shows that over 98% of people in rural areas are within three miles of free-to-use withdrawal facilities, I understand the importance of ensuring that cash remains available for those who need it. The Financial Conduct Authority introduced its regulatory rules to protect access to cash on 18 September. In fact, under a previous Government I was on a Bill Committee debating that very issue, so I am pleased that we mandated access to cash.

The rules require the UK’s largest banks and building societies to assess the impact of the closure of a relevant cash access facility and put into place a new service if necessary. That ensures appropriate access to cash for those who need or choose to use it.

Lots of people asked about banking hubs. I should probably declare that I am getting a banking hub in my own constituency soon, which is very exciting. How do people get a banking hub in their constituency? I completely agree about face-to-face banking services. It is not just about accessing cash; it has a wider role to play. If someone is accessing banking facilities, it can be a way to spot financial crime and financial coercion as well, so it is important to have that.

The locations are independently determined by Link, the largest provider of the ATM network. When a cash service such as a bank branch closes, or Link receives a request directly from a community, Link assesses a community’s access to cash needs. A couple of people mentioned how they were not successful in their appeal for a banking hub. If people have already made a community request to Link and it has decided that no banking hub is needed, they can ask Link to review the decision within 28 days of the original assessment, stressing their concerns and evidence. I urge people to take advantage of that appeal process.

Fishing Industry

Alistair Carmichael Excerpts

Thursday 28th November 2024 Westminster Hall

[Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the fishing industry.

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Efford. I am grateful to members of the Backbench Business Committee for allowing time for this debate, and I am delighted to see such good geographic and political representation in this Chamber.

Before we come to the meat of the politics, as we enter Advent it is worth reflecting for a second or two that, in coastal and island communities right around our country, there will always be families with a sense of sadness because somebody will not be with them for Christmas. Last year, four people in the fishing industry lost their lives. That number goes up and down—in 2021, it was as high as 10. It is worth our remembering as we talk here in the safety, security and warmth of Westminster Hall that the way in which our fishers actually live and work is very different. They often take an enormous personal risk to put food on our table, and we should not forget that.

I will touch on four different areas. First, there are the year-end negotiations coming up between the UK, the EU and Norway. Looking ahead, we have the review of the trade and co-operation agreement and the transitional arrangements in 2026. There is also the ability of our fishing industry to access traditional fishing grounds and the extent to which it is being squeezed out of them. Finally, there is the availability of crew for many boats, especially those operating inside UK territorial waters, to whom the opportunity of visas through the transit visa regime is not available.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the right hon. Gentleman on bringing forward this debate. I have spoken to him, and I apologise that I cannot be here for the rest of it—I think it will be the first fishing debate that I will ever miss in totality.

In the debate we had on 5 November, the Minister discussed the issue of positive outcomes that could be attained if these issues could be resolved. The ability to go to sea to catch fish is reliant on having the crews to man vessels. Despite automation projects being brought forward, the problem is in the ability to access crews and thereby survive long enough to bring the benefits of these opportunities into local communities. This is not just a Northern Irish problem. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that some relatively minor tweaks to Home Office policy would enable the growth potential identified for Northern Ireland and all this great United Kingdom to be replicated in one form or another?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Carmichael]

As interventions go, I think that meets its total allowable catch. I will come on to that issue—the hon. Gentleman knows that, because we have debated it often enough. If he cannot be here for the entirety of the debate, his fishing constituents will know well enough that he is a regular and diligent contributor to these debates. He will be missed at the end of the debate, if he is not here.

Mr Efford, you and I are long enough in the tooth to remember the December fishing debate ahead of the December Fisheries Council, which was a staple of the parliamentary calendar when we were in the European Union. Of course, things have changed since then—the debate is no longer in Government time, but we always have the co-operation of the Backbench Business Committee in holding it, and the focus now tends to be on the UK-EU-Norway debates.

Essentially, we are still looking at year by year by year negotiations. I am afraid that, even outwith the EU, this remains an absolutely crazy way to run an industry. I cannot believe that any Minister in Government would ever go to Tesco or Sainsbury’s and say, “We’re going to tell you how much business you can do next year, but only for next year. By the way, we won’t tell you until the end of December—sometimes well into January or February—how much business you are going to be able to do.” Surely at some point we have to move away from this crazy annual round and get into a proper, stable set of multi-annual negotiations. But we are where we are for the moment, and that is what we have to deal with.

When the Minister responds, will he outline what he sees as the priorities for the negotiations this year? I also invite him to reflect on the role of the science that underpins the negotiations. The blue-chip science comes from the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea—ICES. It is always complex, often quite nuanced, and often vulnerable to misrepresentation. It is a mix of empirical data, extrapolation through mathematical modelling, conjecture and the application of precautionary principles when the evidence is just not adequate. That is then balanced with socioeconomic factors and a bit of politics thrown in for good measure. The TCA negotiations will coincide with the arrangements on energy co-operation, for example. I am afraid we are back in the situation we were in during the EU days, when there was often conflation between different negotiations; and where there was linkage, it was inevitably the fishing industry that lost out.

[Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)]

My right hon. Friend is making an excellent case. On his point about multi-annual quotas, does he not agree that ICES very carefully presents its advice in a manner that actually provides for Governments, Ministers and indeed the European Commission to adopt a policy of multi-annual quotas for stock recovery? It does not necessarily solely push the industry or the legislators into a position where they have to set the annual cliff edges that he describes.

[Mr Carmichael]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Many of the scientists who have contributed to the ICES data over the years will say exactly the same thing. They want to see the stability of the multi-annual approach that would allow the economic efforts and the conservation efforts to be managed together. That makes perfect sense.

At present, there is a real problem—albeit not a new one—in relation to data-deficient stocks. It has very real consequences that feed through to the whole process, due to the policy of proposing automatic precautionary quota cuts of at least 25% for stocks for which full scientific advice is unavailable. In the current round, for example, ling and lemon sole are not massively significant species, but they are an important and valuable part of the catch for the fishermen in the whitefish fleet in my constituency, and they face recurring quota cuts based on the fact that they are data deficient. If we do that year after year, we will have a quota that does not match the reality of the fish in the sea.

As a consequence, smaller species in a mixed fishery become a choke species, so it is a two-strand problem. First, there is not a proper quota for fish that could be caught and could be an economic benefit to the industry. Secondly, they can sometimes act as a choke species. Because there is a low quota for them, once they are caught other fish in a mixed fishery will not be able to be caught and landed either.

The opportunities that come with getting this right have been highlighted by the northern shelf monkish—a stock that was, following an ICES review, recently granted full analytical assessment and is no longer classed as data deficient. It will be a valuable species for the catching sector, no longer to be subject to precautionary quota cuts. However, the most significant point of all is that, based on scientific advice and full analytical assessment, for the first time, the recommendation now is for a quota increase of some 211%. That is where the operation of the various principles of ICES can be counterproductive, and it leads us to a situation in which we do not have the best outcome because there is a mismatch between what is in the quota and what is in the sea.

The fault, I am afraid, often lies in our own hands because it all comes back to how we fund and operate fisheries science within this country. In Scotland over recent years, our fisheries science laboratories have been salami-sliced away to the point of virtual extinction. There has been a chronic lack of investment in fisheries science. Something that was previously blue chip and widely respected across Europe has, I am afraid, been diminished to such a point that, in recent evidence to the Scottish Parliament, Dr Robin Cook, a fisheries scientist from the University of Strathclyde, said:

“It is of real concern that we no longer have a marine institute in Scotland with the capacity to deliver for the future. The directorate is dependent only on what it learned 10 years ago.”

If we do not put data in and do not gather the data for ourselves, I am afraid that we cannot really complain that what we get out at the other end is not fit for purpose.

I now turn to the trade and co-operation agreement review. At the point of leaving the European Union, expectations among the fisheries industries were very high, especially in the catching sector. It was the most obvious industry to expect a win from our departure from the European Union, and it was certainly promised one. It really takes something to do worse than the common fisheries policy, but somehow or other we found ourselves with a deal that the Scottish Fishermen’s Federation described at the time as

“the worst of both worlds”.

Provisions for review are built into the trade and co-operation agreement. We are in the transitional arrangements at the moment; the review will take effect over the course of next year and into 2026. From the discussions that I have had, I know that the EU sees that as a priority, and I would like to hear from the Minister that the Government see it in those terms as well.

The core issues at play are obvious: we are looking at quota numbers, specific stock allocations and, of course, access. It will take political will from this Government to win back the ground lost by Boris Johnson, but fishing communities expect positive change to be delivered. The fishing industry has a great story to tell; it is rooted in the island and coastal communities that define our country. The new Government have the chance to be part of that story and to close the sorry chapter of missed opportunities.

[Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)]

My right hon. Friend talks about stories; I think that is one of our challenges in attracting new people into the industry, which is one of the reasons why we are facing the visa issues. The Scottish Fisheries Museum in Anstruther in my constituency is doing a lot of promotion work, but it needs support, including educational support. Does my right hon. Friend agree?

[Mr Carmichael]

I absolutely do, and this is one of the reasons why it is so difficult for fishing boats in coastal communities to recruit a crew. For decades, teachers, careers advisers and probably even parents have been telling people, “Don’t bother going into fishing. It’s a dying industry; it’s got no future for you.” When you look at the history of the last couple of decades, you can kind of understand why people say that. I believe that they are wrong, but it is going to take a long time to turn that around.

In the meantime, in order for there to be an industry there for the next generation to be recruited into, I am afraid that we need to take measures now to maintain it. In the short to medium term, that requires a more sensible approach to be taken by UK Visas and Immigration in the Home Office. It also requires the industry itself to step up to the plate and to say, “We understand that the answer to this, in the medium to longer term, lies within our own hands. Here is what we propose to do to make it a more attractive industry for the future.”

[Seamus Logan (Aberdeenshire North and Moray East) (SNP)]

I apologise for being unable to stay for the whole debate, including the ministerial response at the end of it; unfortunately, travel plans intervene.

On the point that the right hon. Gentleman just made, during the summer representatives of the Scottish Fishermen’s Federation, the Scottish White Fish Producers Association, the Scottish Seafood Association, Seafood Scotland and the North East Scotland Fisheries Development Partnership all endorsed the need for a better set of visa arrangements, so that we can deal with these post-Brexit labour shortages. Might it be helpful if the Minister agreed to visit the north-east to meet representatives of those bodies to discuss how we can address the labour shortages in a more productive way?

[Mr Carmichael]

I will take this opportunity to address the visa question; I was going to address it last, but we might as well address it now. The hon. Gentleman is right: especially for inshore fisheries, which are those working within the 12-mile limit of the UK territorial waters, the labour shortages are an absolute chokehold. The bigger boats that fish outside the 12-mile limit can take advantage of transit visas. Frankly, that is an abuse of the transit visa system, but it is the only mechanism available to boats to get the crew they need.

In news reports and on television programmes recently, there have been some quite disgraceful examples of the way in which the transit visa system has been abused. There are those in the industry who need to take a good, long, hard look at themselves. They have brought shame on the industry by the way they have mistreated those they have brought in on transit visas—although, to my mind, that also reinforces the need for a proper system of visas to be introduced for what the Migration Advisory Committee accepts is an occupation with a shortage of available labour.

The crux of the problem is that although the MAC designates fishing as a shortage occupation, the Home Office insists on a standard of English language competence that sits somewhere between O-level and A-level—in fact, it is just short of A-level—in the English system. Obviously, some language skills are necessary, but that standard of language skills goes beyond what is necessary. We have had for years now crews from the Philippines and from some African countries in particular who work in our inshore fleets and other fleets with no real safety concerns about their work, so I see no reason why the Home Office should continue to insist on that language standard, which acts as a barrier to the industry getting the crew it needs. If we accept that bespoke arrangements are required for the fishing industry, to insist on a language requirement that goes across all the workforce arrangements makes absolutely no sense to me.

[Melanie Onn (Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes) (Lab)]

If the solution is to do away with English language standards, does the right hon. Gentleman think that would detract from the point the hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain) made about trying to attract a domestic workforce and investing in skills for that workforce?

[Mr Carmichael]

No, I do not think it does because, apart from anything else, I am not talking about removing a language requirement completely. It is the level of the requirement that is the issue—this requirement of something just short of A-level for English language. I also think it betrays a particular attitude to what a skilled worker is, which is informed, it seems to me, by people who think we should measure somebody’s skill only by their academic achievements, when in fact the people coming here to work on fishing boats have a much wider range of other skills for which there are no metrics in the current visa arrangements. Having accepted that there is a need for more visas to bring crew in, to get us to the point where we can do more to develop our own crew, it is unfortunate that, for this reason, we are basically undoing all the good work we have done.

To go back to the trade and co-operation agreement, having taken a fairly substantial detour, the question of access to UK waters post-2026 will be critical. For both quota and non-quota stocks, shares are heavily weighted in the EU’s favour, and the EU is more dependent on UK waters to catch its quotas than vice versa. EU vessels’ catch in the UK zone is worth between £450 million and £500 million a year, compared with around £80 billion-worth caught by UK vessels every year in the EU zone.

To put it another way, the UK shares of fishing quotas written into the TCA fall well short of the zonal attachment that was supposed to underpin the negotiations at the time of departure. They do not reflect the reality of where the fish actually are, and amount to an annual transfer of at least £400 million-worth of natural resources from the UK to the EU. The final cost to the fishing industry is far greater as multiplier effects from the fish catches are thought to be significant; they are typically assessed at between 2.5 and 3.5. Will the Minister tell us who will lead the review? What are the UK priorities for it? What engagement will he have with the fishing industry to ensure that he is able to deliver for them what Boris Johnson and the noble Lord Frost at the time of the departure so manifestly failed to?

I am mindful of the fact that I have taken quite a lot of time, but I am taking a lot of interventions. On the question of spatial squeeze, there are currently 48 offshore wind projects planned in Scottish waters alone. Seven of them are fully commissioned; two are under construction. In getting even to this point, the view of the fishing industry is that its voice has simply not been heard or, if it has been, it has been ignored. Many of those offshore wind developments are constructed in highly productive fishing grounds, and there are more on the way. Great British Energy and the Crown Estate announced another fishing licensing round just last year. That cannot be seen in isolation.

The fishing industry understands the need for change. Fishers are not blind to the realities of climate change; they see its effects day and daily in their own nets. The loss of cod in some parts of the North sea seems to be down to the changing temperature of the sea, which is having a real effect. The industry is also, ironically, part of the answer. The fish caught by our fishing industry are a good source of protein caught in a sustainable way in a low-carbon-emitting industry. In the rush to tackle climate change, there seems to be a determination to squeeze out some of the people who are most able to help us to move to that future.

[Melanie Onn]

I discovered an interesting fact following a conversation with my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Alison Hume). She has been talking with her local fishers, who say that the population of brown crab in Scarborough and Whitby has gone up as they are making their homes in and around the wind farms there. So there is some subtlety and nuance in all of this.

[Mr Carmichael]

Absolutely, yes. The picture is complex and it depends what is being put where. However, for some of the spawning grounds for whitefish that have been affected, the evidence suggests that the construction is causing a problem. If we damage our spawning grounds, we are storing up a problem for ourselves a few years down the line.

Floating offshore wind is a particular issue for the bigger boats that are further offshore. When floating offshore wind farms are being constructed, virtually the whole area of their construction is closed down. It is impossible for those boats to trawl safely due to the cables that are there because of the floating offshore wind turbines.

I have one other matter that I want to place on record, and on which I seek the Minister’s continued assistance. His predecessors in office did take this seriously. It is not something that lies within the remit of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, but it matters very much to our fishing community: it is the safety of fishermen at sea, which is a Department for Transport responsibility.

I have had two truly shocking incidents in my constituency in recent years. The Pesorsa Dos, a Spanish gill-netter, tried to foul the propeller of a local trawler, the Alison Kay, some time ago, and the Antonio Maria, a French longliner, did the same thing to another local boat, the Defiant. Both incidents happened inside the 200-mile limit—the exclusive economic zone—but outside the 12-mile limit of territorial waters. The United Nations convention on the law of the sea tells us that safety action has to be taken by the flag state. The flag state of the Pesorsa Dos is Germany, and I am afraid Germany does not see much interest to be had from prosecuting a German-registered but Spanish-owned trawler fishing to the west of Shetland.

The position remains dire. Sooner or later, if such behaviour is allowed to continue, somebody will end up with a boat at the bottom of the sea. This has to be taken seriously. Representations need to be made to the relevant authorities in Germany and France. Some effort has been made by Ministers at the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office and the Department for Transport, but more needs to be done. We simply cannot leave our fishing industry unprotected in this way.

The position with the Pesorsa Dos is interesting because it was fishing not just in UK waters but around Ireland’s. The Irish authorities took an approach rather different from the hands-off attitude of Marine Scotland and the Marine and Coastguard Agency, and took the Pesorsa Dos into port, where she was held for some considerable time. Of course, if she is in port, she is not out earning money for her owners. They threw the book at the Pesorsa Dos and its skipper.

The Irish enforcement agents, when they were climbing on board, found that the ladder provided for them broke. That meant an immediate €10,000 fine for failing to provide safe access. The matter recently finished in the Irish courts with a series of fines and the forfeiture of gear worth £470,000. I suspect that will concentrate the minds of the owners and skippers of that boat better than the hand-wringing and legalism we have in this country. A bit more of that sort of enforcement would be enormously welcome.

We all know that Al Capone was eventually done for tax evasion. Let us hope that the modern gangsters of the sea might be brought to book in a similar way, if not necessarily for the misdeeds themselves.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

--- Later in debate ---

[Barry Gardiner (Brent West) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to speak under you in the Chair, Mr Efford. My thanks and congratulations go to the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) on securing this debate. I hope that in the coming years, the Government will find time to return the annual fisheries debate to the main Chamber. That was a good convention that the last Government cast aside, almost as quickly as they did their promises to fisherfolk following Brexit. I am sure that many of us would welcome its return.

This debate takes place in the season of the annual fisheries negotiations between the UK and the EU, as well as the trilateral negotiations with Norway. Last year, those negotiations resulted in more than half of catch limits being set above the scientifically advised levels, yet both international and UK law require that all stocks should be at sustainable levels. That is despite commitments under international treaties and agreements to end overfishing.

We currently have six commercially fished stocks—two cod stocks, two whiting stocks, one herring and a pollack—that are so depleted that the scientific advice from the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea is for zero catches. We need to understand just how poorly managed those stocks have been. ICES provides zero catch advice for a stock when it is so depleted that, even without any catch, it will not recover above the biomass limit reference point for spawning stock biomass, below which a stock’s reproductive capacity is compromised and it is considered to have impaired recruitment capacity. In other words, the stock has collapsed.

It is important to note that the decline of those stocks was not unpredictable, and nor was it unavoidable. Consistently fishing at too high a level guarantees that stocks will decline; if fishing is high enough, the stock will collapse.

[Dr Rupa Huq in the Chair]

[Mr Carmichael]

The hon. Gentleman is touching on an interesting issue. The ICES zero quota recommendations are what are called “headline advice”, which basically answers the question, “If you want this stock to recover in 12 months, what would you have to do?” Now, if we ask that question we will, of course, get the answer that the hon. Gentleman brings to the Chamber. In point of fact, in the early years of this century we had the cod recovery plan, which was the dominant feature of fisheries management in the North sea and went over, I think, 10 years—certainly five. He portrays the ICES advice as accurate, but there is a lot more nuance underneath that headline advice, and he would do well to look at that.

[Barry Gardiner]

I am, of course, well aware that it is headline advice and that other things come into play, but as the right hon. Gentleman himself mentioned in his opening remarks, the things that come into play—I think he called them the nuances—are often political—

[Mr Carmichael]

indicated dissent.

[Barry Gardiner]

I think Hansard will record that the right hon. Gentleman mentioned that himself in his opening remarks.

Overfishing means that the stock is driven down even further. There is no cure to a collapsed stock that involves continuing to overfish. The Celtic sea cod stock has declined by 95% since 2012, but last year the total allowable catch was set at basically the level of the entire adult population—it was actually set just 2 tonnes lower—and now the entire spawning population is lower than that. If we roll over that TAC, the catch limit would exceed the entire spawning population.

The Irish sea whiting stock is currently about 9% of the level it is legally supposed to be. International commitments and the Fisheries Act 2020 commit the UK and the EU, which shares many of those populations, to maintain commercially harvested stocks at a level that can support maximum sustainable yield. The stock is at a mere 9% of that—not 9% of its natural size, but 9% of the already much lower level that is the legal minimum. That is another stock that has declined by more than 90% since the 1980s.

Climate change represents a significant threat to marine life and the fisheries that depend on a healthy ecosystem, but it was not climate change that collapsed those stocks; it was heavy and constant overfishing. We sometimes hear big fishing interests blame climate change for the collapse, and it certainly makes the recovery of those populations harder, but the truth is that we consistently set catch limits above scientifically advised levels. That has crashed those stocks and will continue to do so as long as Ministers are prepared to go into the negotiations and ignore the science.

In introducing the debate, the right hon. Gentleman spoke about climate change and cod stocks. In recent years, every time quotas for North sea cod have been set at sustainable levels in accordance with the science, the stocks of cod have increased. Every time quotas have been set out of line with the science, the stocks have declined. Our understanding of the additional pressures of climate change should be driving us to be even more precautionary in our approach to the protection of fish stocks—not to be pretending that it is the cause of their collapse. While I am thinking about cod and the remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes (Melanie Onn) about the processing industry, I should say that the cod that comes to Grimsby is predominantly from Greenland, Norway and Iceland, which have a much more precautionary approach to setting the quota.

Many people here will remember the introduction of the discard ban or the landing obligation referred to by the hon. Member for St Ives (Andrew George). It is a ban on throwing away perfectly good fish that had been caught. What many people will not know is that this ban applies only to quota stocks of dab, flounder and gurnard. All other non-quota stocks can be thrown away at sea perfectly legally, and many are. About 35,000 tonnes of dab are discarded in the North sea every year—that is roughly 90% of the catch and equates to about 5 million fish. Remember that when we talk about the importance of food security. The irony is that dab actually used to have a quota, but the quota was removed when the landing obligation was brought in.

The purpose of the landing obligation was to create a real incentive for fishermen to use gear types and fishing methods that reduced unwanted bycatch and led to more selective fishing. It was designed to reduce the choke problem by incentivising more selective gear that would avoid choke species. Unfortunately, that works only if it is enforced and all the evidence shows that the landing obligation is now being widely ignored. More worryingly, not only is it being ignored, but potential discards are not even being accounted for in the TAC-setting process.

The only solution to discarding and improving scientific assessments is for the introduction of remote electronic monitoring—cameras, specifically. Without them it is impossible to know what is being caught and being discarded. Monitoring is essential for compliance. We currently have a system that literally incentivises bad behaviour. I was very taken by what the hon. Member for St Ives said about his fisherman and pollack. A fisherman who, like the one the hon. Gentleman mentioned, spends money on more selective gear, abides by the landing obligation and avoids certain areas because of higher bycatch of unwanted species, is massively disadvantaged compared with a fisherman who ignores those regulations. We are, as it stands, incentivising non-selective fishing, rewarding illegal behaviour and punishing those who stick to the rules, such as the hon. Gentleman’s constituent.

The fishing industry rightly talks about the challenges it faces, yet its biggest challenge comes from an unhealthy marine environment that is incapable of supporting thriving fisheries. The notion that we can have a thriving fishing industry without a thriving marine environment is an illusion. We cannot have a growing sustainable fishing industry on the back of a depleted marine environment. No measure of Government support or access to markets can make up for no fish. Somehow this self-evident truth goes out the window when it comes to making decisions. We should be clear: if we do not recover fish stocks and start setting catch limits at levels that allow stocks to grow and adopting a precautionary approach that favours long-term sustainability, then we will be back there every year wondering why quotas have to be cut.

There are instances where the advice is for large increases in quota, and they were mentioned by the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland; I think he said that when the data became available, it showed a 211% increase in relation to monkfish. When that is the case, I do not think we should chase down every last fish because that will simply result in smaller catches in future years, as well as significant increases in bycatch of other stocks, which will often result in overfishing. However, the argument the right hon. Gentleman made is absolutely right: we need to get good data and it needs to be comprehensive. Once we have that and we can base the scientific assessments on really strong data, we can make sure we fish in line with the science and that stocks can recover.

[Mr Carmichael]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. It comes back to the point I made about data and about the science that you base the data on. He will have heard in many of these debates over the years the concern that by the time the data is gathered and processed and goes through the ICES process, it is several years old, so it is reflective not of the fish stocks at the point at which the decisions are made, but of some years earlier. The one thing everyone can surely agree is that the better the data gathering, the better the science, and the better it is for fishers, conservationists and anybody with an interest in the seas.

[Barry Gardiner]

I am delighted to agree with the right hon. Gentleman, who chairs the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee. It also adds grist to the mill of the five-year approach, but we perhaps need to be careful. It is perfectly reasonable to move to a five-year approach, but it would not necessarily immediately lead to us increasing quota. It might, in the first year certainly, actually lead to a more precautionary approach because one was looking at things over the five-year period. That might not be something that his constituents would appreciate so much.

We have heard today about spatial squeeze and how the fishing industry no longer has unfettered access to the entire ocean. That is true, but as has been pointed out it is unavoidable; indeed, for reasons of wider sustainability and our energy supply, it is important, but it is also an argument for acting in a way that grows our fish stocks.

--- Later in debate ---

[Barry Gardiner]

I am sorry if I have given the hon. Gentleman the impression that I think fishing communities would be against this; I do not think that. That is precisely why I welcome the remarks of my hon. Friends the Members for Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes and for South East Cornwall about the importance of consultation. Look at a case such as Lyme Bay: it was the local community, in consultation with the scientists, who produced the efflorescence that has taken place there. This must be done through the industry co-operating with the scientists.

We should note that MPAs were designed specifically to protect the nature within them from human activity that damaged it, and that includes fishing. It should therefore not be considered a negative that those areas are being protected. The partial ban on destructive dredging and bottom trawling in MPAs has been a success, and I hope it will be extended to a complete ban once the due process and consultation have taken place.

I wish the Minister and his team well in the upcoming negotiations. If he binds himself to the mast of science and turns an Odysseus-like ear to the siren voices urging him to allow greater quota, I cannot promise him popularity, but he would become a unique and respected first voice for common sense and a sustainable future for our industry.

First-hand sales of UK-landed seafood were over £1 billion in 2022, as my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes said. That is a good reminder that wild-capture seafood is a national resource. It is remarkable that the UK Treasury does not benefit directly and that those that benefit the most are large businesses that have managed to aggrandise themselves via the poorly regulated sale of individual quotas over many years. Small-scale fisherfolk and non-sector vessels are left to fish from the pool that accounts for just 4% of opportunities.

In addition, those big businesses that benefit the most by their control of quota also benefit from the free management of the resource via central and local government funding of the MMO, the Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science, Natural England and the inshore fisheries and conservation authorities. It is also clear that big businesses are best placed to make representations and influence policy in a way that a single-handed inshore fisherman simply cannot. A quick scan of successful Government grant applications demonstrates that it is also big business that benefits from grant schemes, with support being provided to companies with turnover in the millions.

The impact of market forces on this national asset has left a handful of families and businesses benefiting the most via consolidation of beneficial ownership of quota, while small-scale fisherfolk and our coastal communities wither and are lost. Depleted stocks and limited funding for robust data collection of all commercial species, leading to precautionary management decisions, are by-products of the current system. I ask the Minister whether it is time for the UK to consider what alternative systems to manage this valuable natural resource could look like.

I welcome the beginnings of transparency that have come about from the publication of quota holdings, but that is only part of the story of who benefits from the amazing national public asset that is our fisheries. We all know that in-year swaps and leases occur. Would the Minister look at completing the transparency exercise and requiring those swaps and leases to be published too? We need a system that is not based on the happenstance history of 40 years ago, when the current quota system was put in place, but that provides opportunity and certainty more equitably. We need a system that links opportunities to compliance with fisheries and conservation regulations and that helps to fund better data gathering and evidence to inform our fisheries resource management —one where a sustainable bounty from the seas ensures that the interests of our small fishing communities, the taxpayer and the planet are aligned.

It has already been said that fishing is one of the most dangerous peacetime occupations. The marine accident investigation branch accident reports make sombre reading, but they also provide an excellent opportunity for learning and change. Multiple capsizes of small vessels over several years led the Maritime and Coastguard Agency to update its codes for small vessel inspections, but reports from around the coast demonstrate that those new regulations appear to be applied inconsistently, and in some cases they run contrary to the marine architect designs and tested vessel stability.

The financial burden of being tied up by an MCA inspection and being required to make modifications to a vessel’s hull can be exceptionally heavy. Owner-operators are forced to sell their vessels and in some cases leave the industry, as they simply cannot afford to comply with an individual inspector’s request. I urge the Minister to speak with his colleagues at the Department for Transport to help convene a group of small-scale fishing vessel safety experts? They can help the DFT and the MCA to better understand the impact of their inspection regimes and to find a coherent approach to that vital work—one that provides a consistent set of outcomes, without the lottery of where a fisherman is based and which inspector they get producing different outcomes on similar vessels. The lack of MCA inspectors means that vessels can often wait weeks for an inspection slot. While a vessel is awaiting reinspection, the fisherman cannot earn. What should be a straightforward process can provide huge financial risk and strain, from which some of those microbusinesses simply cannot recover.

Finally on safety, I draw the Minister’s attention to a simple fact that the last Government seemed to do little to address. The MAIB reports set out the circumstances surrounding each accident and the component elements that led to it. All too often, these accidents are highly predictable and could be prevented by simply conducting good maintenance, onboard training and safe operations. Here, I would interject that the question of English language skills, which we debated earlier, comes into play: English language skills and the ability to communicate with every member of the crew is vital for crew safety.

[Mr Carmichael]

For the avoidance of doubt, as I might have said in a previous professional existence, nobody is suggesting that a crew should not have English language skills. The question, rather, is about the level those language skills are required to be.

[Barry Gardiner]

I agree with the right hon. Gentleman, and I thought that his points on visas were well-made, but it is important that we put safety at the forefront. Paradoxically, the common denominator that runs through every report is that the crew involved had all attended courses and attained the required safety and training certificate. I gently suggest that it is time for the DFT and the MCA to consider their syllabuses to see whether what is being delivered leaves graduates with the practical understanding they need to transfer to their work environment. I think a review is overdue.

The roll-out of CatchApp and inshore vessel monitoring to the small-scale fleet has been widely seen as a disaster by inshore fishermen. I am told that CatchApp is regularly down, and inshore vessel monitoring systems and approved suppliers are not required to provide robust support in a timely fashion, leading to lost days at sea. The stress and anxiety that those two systems are causing around the coast is palpable. The MMO warned, during the roll-out of both those systems, of the risks of pressing ahead with them before they were fully tested and, in the case of the I-VMS, that not stipulating service levels would leave fisherman at the mercy of the providers. We debated the issue in the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee at the time, but the Government simply rode over it. I appreciate that the roll-out programme came under the last Government, but can Ministers urgently investigate what is going wrong with those systems from the user’s standpoint, and what steps the MMO can take to make things work better?

Small-scale fishermen are the beating heart of so many of our coastal communities. Fishing is not a job; it is a way of life, but one where it is increasingly difficult for new entrants to be found or gain appropriate training. Many of today’s fishermen came into the industry via the youth training scheme. It provided college, a small salary and on-the-job training. Some of our country’s finest inshore skippers came via that route, but they are now close to retirement. Only large companies can afford to recruit and invest in new entrants, and over the past decade we have seen a growing reliance on foreign crews. We have heard, and will no doubt hear more, about visa problems. Local apprenticeship courses have met with varying success, but they will not provide the numbers or the pace to replace foreign crews, let alone the fishermen who have reached retirement.

When the Minister considers the successor funding scheme to the fisheries and seafood scheme, I will be grateful if he looks at what more we can do to grow our own talent and build the workforce, particularly for the small-scale fishing fleet. It cannot fund apprentices directly itself, but its members have a lifetime at sea and the knowledge to help to grow that talent.

[Torcuil Crichton (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Huq. I thank the Backbench Business Committee and the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) for this important debate. I particularly thank the right hon. Gentleman for the tribute he paid to our fishermen who face dangers at sea each day—“For those in peril on the sea”. The hon. Member for Dumfries and Galloway (John Cooper) referred to the loss of the Solway Harvester; I well remember covering that tragedy as a journalist, and the shadow it cast on the Isle of Whithorn and Kirkcudbrightshire.

My fishing community and the other communities I represent are quite different from those constituencies. The Western Isles account for 22% of the inshore waters in what is mostly an inshore fishery, although that might well have been 0% of Scotland’s inshore fishing grounds if the SNP-Green coalition had got away with its ludicrous plans for highly protected marine areas, which the hon. Member for Gordon and Buchan (Harriet Cross) highlighted. Although those plans were defeated, pushed away by a rebellion across Scotland’s coast and the songwriting power of Skipinnish, and have been put away for now, they have created a high level of uncertainty, which means that some fishermen are deciding whether to stay or leave the industry.

In the Western Isles, the picture is mixed and somewhat rosy. We have had some £12 million-worth of tonnage landed in the past couple of years—something like 3,000 tonnes, of which almost 90% is shellfish and only 11% is white fish. Marine Scotland shows that there are 215 registered fishing vessels—small fishing vessels, like those for which my hon. Friend the Member for Brent West (Barry Gardiner) has just made the case—and something like 290 fishers, or about 7% of Scotland’s national total.

The industry faces many different challenges in different constituencies, but we have a lot in common. I will give some attention to one of the biggest challenges facing the industry and the associated processing sector in the Western Isles. It was a pleasure to go to the annual general meeting of the Western Isles Fishermen’s Association a couple of weeks ago and see so many young faces among the attendees. There are young entrants to the industry, helped by locally administered schemes that encourage entrants. One such scheme is community quotas, which the Western Isles council, Comhairle nan Eilean Siar, has bought and which it licenses from quota to new entrants. That all helps people into the fishing industry and has a significant impact.

That glimmer of hope should not mask something that is a problem for the islands’ industry, the Scottish industry and the UK industry: the lack of skilled crews. The demographics in the Western Isles are not good. Although I have talked about young entrants, the working-age population has dropped by 12% over the past 10 years, and there has been a 26% rise in the elderly population. All employers are competing for a reduced number of school leavers, and virtually all sectors are dependent on sourcing migrant labour to grow their business.

The most important ask from the Western Isles fishing industry is that the Minister recognise that there has to be some flexibility in immigration policy to allow the needs and demands of rural and island areas to be accepted. The current sponsored employment scheme seems to have been based on city and urban salaries; it ignores the variation in wages in rural and island communities, which of course are lower and are coupled with increased food, energy and transport costs. I suspect that the £70,000 salary for a processor that my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes (Melanie Onn) mentioned has as much to do with the lack of skilled people as it does with the skills involved in doing the job.

Only this week, I had some correspondence from the Isle of Barra. Barratlantic is one of the large seafood processors on our island chain. Christina MacNeil, the general manager, tells me that in 35 years of working in the seafood industry, things have never been more difficult. There is huge demand for langoustine and scallop, but supplying customers is becoming increasingly difficult because of the lack of staff. We can imagine how difficult it is on a small island. She has four Filipino workers, who have been employed there since April 2023; they came through the sponsorship scheme, but given the nature of the work and the lack of available staff, the company needs some flexibility in order to retain them. It can just about manage the salaries now, but if they increased to £38,000 a year the operation would be impossible. The company has been in operation for 50 years, but its future is in the balance because of restrictive immigration schemes.

It is the same for fishermen. It is impossible to employ UK crews, as we know, so they must look overseas. Once again, cost is a criterion, but so too is the visa system. Crews need an English qualification at a very high level, which means that they are almost barred from entry. That creates huge difficulties for fishing boat owners and processors in my constituency.

My plea to the Minister—it is echoed by others such as the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire North and Moray East (Seamus Logan), who is no longer in his place, as well as the Migration Advisory Council and almost every coastal community—is that there be flexibility in the visa system. We do not need a separate visa system, as some Scottish colleagues might argue. There is no need to replicate the system: we just need enough flex to take into account the needs of island and rural areas.

[Mr Carmichael]

In relation to separate systems, I suspect that the hon. Gentleman agrees that the problems for the fishermen in both our constituencies are shared by fishermen in Kilkeel, around the south-west coast and elsewhere in the country. Does that not rather illustrate the truth that the problem is for the sector rather than for any particular constituent part of the United Kingdom?

[Torcuil Crichton]

That is true. Our problems are not uniquely island problems, nor are they uniquely Scottish problems: they are demographic, economic and social problems for coastal communities around the whole UK. I know that that is not entirely the responsibility of the Minister.

Having risked the ire of the Home Office, rather than the Minister, I will carry on and risk the anger of my hon. Friends the Members for Truro and Falmouth (Jayne Kirkham) and for South East Cornwall (Anna Gelderd), and possibly of the hon. Member for St Ives (Andrew George). I am after their tuna, or rather our tuna. One quota for which the Minister does have responsibility is the bluefin tuna stocks, which have increased significantly. Thanks to climate change, bluefin tuna are roaming far north and wild in the Atlantic. There has been a great decade-long catch-and-release scheme around the British coast. The catch is by rod and line, so the catches are selective, of good quality and of the same stock as those caught in other regions of the UK. They have the potential to be a great home market and export market.

The UK was allocated something like 39 tonnes of bluefin tuna in 2023, but so far none of those commercial licences has been granted to a Scottish boat. All 13 were granted to the south-west of England; none of them has come to Scotland, far less to the Hebrides, where operators have set themselves up not just as rod-and-line operators, but potentially as smokers and exporters to the domestic and international markets.

For all the quota to be allocated to one area seems very odd. It is not what we would expect. We might expect weight to be placed on geography and on socioeconomic impacts: a bluefin tuna fishery in the Western Isles would be economically significant. For rod-and-line operators and others who have prepared themselves to turn commercial, it is deeply frustrating to be turned off in that way.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Hudson]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention.

What steps are the Government taking in international negotiations to stop that cruel practice? When negotiating fishing arrangements, trade deals or anything else, UK diplomats and Ministers must make the ethical case to countries that those unacceptable practices must end. Can the Minister reassure the House that the new Labour Government will continue to play their part on the world stage to end whaling once and for all?

It is important to work collaboratively with our international partners to ensure that global waters can thrive. Sustainability in fishing is pivotal to preserve these diverse ecosystems. Indeed, using a scientific, evidence-based approach that ensures high ecological and environmental standards in fishing from all fishing countries is paramount for sustaining our precious seas and oceans and ensuring responsible global trade.

I welcome the introduction of highly protected marine areas that protect all species, habitats and associated ecosystem processes within the site boundary, including the seabed and the water column. HPMAs allow the protection and full recovery of marine ecosystems. By setting aside some areas of the sea with high levels of protection, HPMAs allow nature to fully recover to a more natural state, and allow the ecosystem to thrive. Can the Minister update Members on the Government’s plans regarding the development of HPMAs?

[Mr Carmichael]

I am interested in what the hon. Gentleman says about HPMAs. Does he agree that the Government in Whitehall should learn the lessons from the experience of the Government in Edinburgh? That is, if we are to move to that level of protection, it is of primary importance that the communities that are going to be most closely affected are brought along as part of the process, rather than it just being visited on communities in a top-down closure that would result in the economic ruin we would have seen in Scotland.

[Dr Hudson]

I thank the right hon. Member for that intervention. I agree that it is important to have joined-up thinking across the United Kingdom, and that communities should be consulted. If we are designating different areas of our seas and oceans, we should make sure that harvesting the sea goes in parallel with conserving it.

It is important to touch on how dangerous fishing is, an issue that has been spoken about powerfully by many Members across the Chamber today. It is undeniably a dangerous and demanding industry, so I welcome measures to improve safety in fishing. There is more that we need to do, and today’s debate has shone a light on that. I urge the Government to move ahead on a cross-party basis to see what we can do to make this industry much safer.

The hon. Member for Brent West touched on the stress and anxiety within the profession, and I want to touch briefly on mental health. The mental health of our fishing communities is very fragile, because it is such a tough and unsafe industry, there are financial pressures, and those communities do not know what is going to happen as the negotiations move forward.

The statistics show that people who are struggling with their mental health are more likely to have accidents, certainly in the farming sector, and the same is probably true in the fishing industry. It is important to acknowledge that and to support the mental health of our fishing communities. I commend the work of several charities that help in this area, such as the Bearded Fishermen Charity, Fishermen’s Mission, FishWell and the Angling Trust. All those charities do an amazing job in working with fishermen and women to support their mental health. Will the Minister join me in commending their work, and outline what specific support he believes can be put in place—as a Government and on a cross-party basis—to support our fishing communities with their mental health? If we want sustainability of fishing, we need to have sustainability among the people who work in that profession. We need to nurture it and support it moving forward.

To conclude, fishermen and women, fish processors and coastal communities all do incredibly tough and dedicated work to help the UK’s food security, as has been powerfully said by my hon. Friend the Member for Gordon and Buchan and by Members on both sides of the Chamber. The work that they do is important for feeding the nation with healthy, locally sourced and locally processed food that is key to a balanced diet. Mike Cohen, chief executive of the National Federation of Fishermen’s Organisations, has said:

“The costs of doing business as a fisher and the rewards to be obtained from it also need consideration in government policy.”

I hope that the Minister agrees, and that the views of all the key fishing stakeholders and communities will always be considered at the heart of future policymaking.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Carmichael]

I thank you, Dr Huq, and Mr Efford for your efforts in chairing us. We have had a genuinely excellent debate. Somewhere in the region of 19 Members of Parliament have taken part. I observe in passing that we have outlasted not one but two main debates in the main Chamber, plus petitions and an Adjournment debate. If that does not make the case for us retaking our rightful place in the main Chamber next year, I do not know what does.

I thank the Minister for a very comprehensive response to the debate. It will gladden his heart to know that I am confident that the Select Committee will be wanting to run the rule over quite a lot of the material that we have had here today. I genuinely thank all Members who have taken part, because it is important that we understand that this is not a contest between urban communities and fishing communities. There is an interest for all of us to be served here.

Finally, in response to the hon. Member for Brent West (Barry Gardiner), I place on the record a little bit of context: for the last three years we have set quotas for North sea haddock and whiting well below the ICES advice, and that was supported by the fishing industry. We all have opportunities to learn from one another.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the fishing industry.