Fisheries Policy
Debate between Eilidh Whiteford and David Crausby(8 years, 5 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Dr Whiteford
Thank you very much, Mr Crausby. I want to pick up on the important points raised by the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland on the EU-Faroes deal. Between us, we represent the bulk of the UK’s pelagic fleet, and I fully appreciate his frustration about Faroese access to EU waters, given the experiences of recent years and the sacrifices that our pelagic fleet has made to secure a compromise to end the stand-off on mackerel. However, it is important to remember that during those years of deadlock there were also significant adverse impacts on those parts of our white-fish fleet that historically have fished in Faroese waters. Reciprocal access to Faroese waters is extremely valuable to our demersal fleet, not least because it gives them effort refuge. Although I would strongly resist any further Faroese incursions into our waters, we need a balanced outcome that recognises the needs of every part of the fleet, including our white-fish fleet, and that is fair and workable for all parties.
Another key issue currently affecting the pelagic sector is the proposed zero TAC for west of Scotland herring, which was alluded to by my hon. Friend the Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk and the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon).
Mrs Sheryll Murray
On a point of order, Mr Crausby. I was talking about renegotiating the repatriation of UK waters, not the CFP. Is it in order for that to be corrected on the record?
Mr David Crausby (in the Chair)
That is not a point of order; it is a point of debate.
Dr Whiteford
I am keen to address the important point raised by the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland, with which I am in substantial agreement. Everyone here today is committed to the long-term sustainability of the marine environment, our fishing industry and our coastal communities, and to the sustainable harvesting of this precious food resource. It follows from that that we are committed to basing TACs on the best available scientific evidence. However, there is wide acknowledgment that the evidence on herring in area VIa is partial and inconsistent and does not accurately reflect what is likely to be happening in the whole area, which is ultimately a somewhat arbitrary set of lines drawn on a map. I accept the need for a precautionary approach and the need to consider clearer evidence, but that needs to be proportionate. We need an allocation that allows fishing to take place in support of the Pelagic Advisory Council plan that is already in place.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford) mentioned the MOD consultation on the BUTEC range, which could potentially affect a large number of fishing vessels in the area. The inner sound of Raasay is home to some of Scotland’s most valuable inshore fishing grounds, and the nephrops creel fishery alone supports 54 vessels and is worth nearly £3.5 million to the fairly fragile local rural economy. I hope the Minister has listened to him and will undertake to make representations to his ministerial colleagues in the MOD.
On the subject of Government Departments that intersect with fisheries, my hon. Friend the Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk, the hon. Member for Strangford and other Members from Northern Ireland and parts of the west coast of Scotland have raised concerns about the way in which UK Border Force appears to have changed its approach to international seafarers who crew fishing vessels in our fleet. That issue affects my constituency, too, although the issues on the east coast and the west coast are somewhat different because of their geography. The boats are mostly fishing outside the 12-mile zone, and these seafarers are immensely valued by the skippers and are impossible to replace in the current context, so it is important to understand that they are not immigrants; they are contract workers who do not settle here. They are mariners whose main base is still in their home country. The industry is keen to clarify and regularise their status, so that they can continue to run their businesses effectively. I hope the Minister will help us to explain to his colleagues in the Home Office the value that those seafarers bring to the industry and to our wider economy.
The fishing industry is extremely important to Scotland’s economy. It contributes more than £500 million a year in revenues and sustains many coastal communities. Sea fish are not only important to our economy and exports; they are a key sustainable healthy food source, and we must continue to work with the industry to protect our marine environment. Harvesting this renewable resource in a long-term sustainable way is in the interests of everyone, including the fishing industry, and no one recognises that better than those who work on our seas. We recognise that we have some way to go on making the discard ban fully workable, and flexibility will be essential, but we are seeing the tangible results of conservation measures. It is crucial that our fishing industry derives concrete benefits from its efforts.
The passion and commitment we have heard from Members on both sides of the Chamber today, and the wide range of issues that have been raised, illustrates the importance of the industry to our coastal communities. The viability of the industry depends on the political decisions made in the next few days, so I urge the Minister to pick up the points made by Members on both sides of the Chamber this afternoon. I wish him well for the negotiations.
Scotland Bill
Debate between Eilidh Whiteford and David Crausby(8 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dr Eilidh Whiteford
I beg to move amendment 118, page 26, line 20, leave out from “unless” to end of line 25 and insert
“they have consulted the Secretary of State”
This amendment would remove the requirement for the Scottish Government to obtain consent from a UK Secretary of State in relation to Universal Credit and the costs of claimants who rent accommodation.
The Temporary Chair (Mr David Crausby)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 5, page 26, line 23, leave out paragraph (b) and insert—
“(b) they have consulted the Secretary of State as to when any change made by the regulations is to start to have effect.’
Clause 24 stand part.
Amendment 119, in clause 25, page 26, line 45, leave out from “unless” to end of line 5 on page 27 and insert
“they have consulted the Secretary of State”
This amendment would remove the requirement for the Scottish Government to obtain consent from a UK Secretary of State in relation to persons to whom, and time when, Universal Credit is paid.
Amendment 7, page 27, line 1, after second “of”, insert “the delivery mechanism for”
Amendment 6, page 27, line 3, leave out paragraph (b) and insert—
“(b) they have consulted the Secretary of State as to when any change made by the regulations is to start to have effect.’
Clause 25 stand part.
New clause 28—Housing benefit—
In Section F1 of Part 2 of Schedule 5 to the Scotland Act 1998, in the Exceptions, after exception 8 (see section 23 above) insert—
“Exception 9
Housing benefit.””
This New Clause provides for the full devolution of Housing Benefit, allowing Scottish Ministers to abolish the Spare Room Subsidy in Scotland, and to provide £1.8 billion of investment in housing in Scotland.
New clause 39—National Insurance—
‘(1) Section F1 of Schedule 5 to the Scotland Act 1998 is amended as follows.
(2) In the illustrations, omit “National Insurance;”
(3) In the exceptions, at the beginning insert—
“National Insurance.”
This new clause would devolve National Insurance to the Scottish Parliament
New clause 40—National Insurance: employers’ contributions—
‘(1) Section F1 of Schedule 5 to the Scotland Act 1998 is amended as follows.
(2) In the illustrations, omit “National Insurance;”
(3) In the Exceptions, after exception 11 (see section (Benefits relating to children)) insert—
“Exception 12
National Insurance so far as relating to contributions payable by employers.””
This new clause would devolve employers’ National Insurance contributions to the Scottish Parliament.
New clause 44—Working age benefits—
In Section F1 of Part 2 of Schedule 5 to the Scotland Act 1998, in the Exceptions, after exception 9 (see section 23A above) insert—
“Exception 10
Benefits entitlement to which, or the purposes of which, are the same as or similar to those of any of the following benefits—
(a) universal credit under Part 1 of the Welfare Reform Act 2012,
(b) jobseeker’s allowance (whether contributions-based or income-based) under the Jobseekers Act 1995,
(c) employment and support allowance (whether contributory or income-related) under Part 1 of the Welfare Reform Act 2007,
(d) income support under section 124 of the Social Security and Benefits Act 1992,
(e) housing benefit under section 130 of that Act,
(f) child tax credit and working tax credit under the Tax Credits Act 2002.
The benefits referred to in paragraphs (a) to (f) above are—
(a) in the case of income-based jobseeker’s allowance and income-related employment support allowance, those benefits as they existed on 28 April 2013 (the day before their abolition),
(b) in the case of the other benefits, those benefits as they existed on 28 May 2015 (the date of introduction into Parliament of the Bill for the Scotland Act 2015).”
This new clause would devolve working age benefits to the Scottish Parliament.
New clause 45—Universal credit: powers to vary other elements—
‘(1) A function of making regulations to which this section applies, so far as it is exercisable by the Secretary of State in or as regards Scotland, is exercisable by the Scottish Ministers concurrently with the Secretary of State.
(2) This section applies to—
(a) regulations under section 8(3)(a) of the Welfare Reform Act 2012 (amount in respect of earned income) so far relating to the work allowance (that is, the amount of a claimant’s earned income that is to be disregarded in calculating the amounts to be deducted from the maximum amount in accordance with section 8(3) of that Act),
(b) regulations under section 10 of that Act (amount in respect of responsibility for children and young persons),
(c) regulations under section 12 of that Act (amounts in respect of other particular needs or circumstances) so far as relating to—
(i) the needs or circumstances referred to in subsection (2)(c) of that section (caring responsibilities for a severely disabled person), or
(ii) needs or circumstances of a claimant in paid work relating to childcare costs,
(d) regulations under any of sections 14 to 22, 24 and 25 of that Act (work-related requirements), and
(e) regulations under any of sections 26 to 28 of that Act (sanctions).
(3) The Scottish Ministers may not exercise the function of making regulations to which this section applies unless they have consulted the Secretary of State.
(4) The Secretary of State may not exercise the function of making regulations to which this section applies in or as regards Scotland unless he or she has consulted the Scottish Ministers.
(5) Where regulations are made by the Scottish Ministers by virtue of subsection (1)—
(a) section 43 of the Welfare Reform Act 2012 (regulations: procedure) does not apply, and
(b) the regulations are subject to the negative procedure (see Part 2 of the Interpretation and Legislative Reform (Scotland) Act 2010).”
This new clause would give the Scottish Parliament greater flexibility to make changes in Universal Credit.
New clause 46—Benefits relating to children—
In Section F1 of Part 2 of Schedule 5 to the Scotland Act 1998, in the Exceptions, after exception 10 (see section (Working age benefits) above) insert—
“Exception 11
Benefits entitlement to which, or the purposes of which, are the same as or similar to those of any of the following benefits—
(a) guardian’s allowance under section 77 of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992,
(b) child benefit under Part 9 of that Act.
The benefits referred to in paragraphs (a) and (b) are those benefits as they existed on 28 May 2015 (the date of introduction into Parliament of the Bill for the Scotland Act 2015).”
This new clause would devolve benefits relating to children to the Scottish Parliament.
New clause 53—Childcare element of universal credit—
In Section F1 of Part 2 of Schedule 5 to the Scotland Act 1998, in Exceptions, after exception 6 (see section 22 above) insert—
“Exception 7
The subject-matter of regulations 31 to 34 of the Universal Credit Regulations 2013.””
This will allow the Scottish Government to help parents and families in Scotland by devolving to the Scottish Parliament control over, and the power to vary, the childcare element of Universal Credit.
New clause 55—Social security—
In Part 2 of Schedule 5 to the Scotland Act 1998, leave out Head F (Social security).”
This new Clause would remove from the list of reserved matters in the 1998 Act (and so transfer to the Scottish Parliament) all social security schemes, including National Insurance and housing benefit, as well as child support, occupational and personal pensions and war pensions.
Dr Whiteford
I am pleased to move amendment 118 and to speak to our amendment 119 and new clauses 40, 44, 45 and 46, all of which relate to universal credit and further powers over social security.
Throughout the debates on the Scotland Bill, its failure to enact properly the recommendations of the Smith commission has been the key point of contention, and I am conscious that these shortcomings are nowhere more acutely evident than in this part of the Bill. The Smith agreement was crystal clear in paragraphs 43 to 48 that, although universal credit was to remain a reserved benefit, the Scottish Parliament should have specific powers and responsibilities, most notably the
“power to change the frequency of UC payments, vary the existing plans for single household payments, and pay landlords direct for housing costs in Scotland.”
It also states:
“The Scottish Parliament will have the power to vary the housing cost elements of UC, including varying the under-occupancy charge and local housing allowance rates, eligible rent, and deductions for non-dependants.”
The dispute over whether the Bill delivers on the Smith agreement was well aired on Second Reading. Amendment 118, which I intend to push to a vote, and amendment 119 would put the issue to bed. They would remove from the Bill the requirement for the Scottish Government to obtain consent from a UK Secretary of State in relation to universal credit before exercising the new powers. New clause 44 would devolve all working-age benefits to the Scottish Parliament. New clause 45 would broaden the Scottish Parliament’s administrative flexibilities over universal credit. New clause 46 would devolve child benefit and responsibility for the conditionality and sanctions regime.
It is important that the House understands how the dispute is perceived in Scotland by elected parliamentarians and wider civil society. The Scottish Parliament’s cross-party Devolution (Further Powers) Committee, which considered the Bill, did not mince its words. In paragraph 318 of its interim report, it expressed concerns about a number of the welfare provisions. It states that
“the relevant clauses do not yet meet the spirit and substance of the Smith Commission‘s recommendations and potentially pose challenges in any attempt to implement them.”
I hope Conservative Members realise that this was the view shared by their Conservative colleagues in the Scottish Parliament, who were properly represented on that committee.
The committee suggested that this issue and the form of words should be resolved between the two Governments before the Bill’s introduction, but that has not happened. The Scottish Government made proposals to the UK Government for alternative approaches to ensure effective intergovernmental working, but there has been no progress, and consequently this aspect of the Bill has not changed. It is therefore very important that we address the matter today, and that is what our amendments seek to do.
A number of key stakeholder organisations in Scotland have been outspoken in setting out their concerns about the current wording of the Bill and have helped to highlight exactly why we need those powers in Scotland and what we could do with them. The Wise Group, for example, has argued:
“The power to split Universal Credit payments within households, to increase the frequency of payments and to make housing element payments direct to landlords will allow the flexibility in benefit payments to fit with the needs of some of the most vulnerable groups in society.”
The Poverty Alliance has expressed disappointment over what it says is
“ultimately a veto given to the Secretary of State over any future changes to the devolved elements of Universal Credit by the Scottish Government.”
Inclusion Scotland has pointed out that the Bill, as it stands, could result in delays to the implementation of mitigation policies agreed by the Scottish Parliament. It also says that that
“may not be consistent with the spirit of the Smith Commission which implies that the devolved welfare powers can be exercised without the need to obtain prior permission from the DWP.”