UK’s Withdrawal from the European Union

Owen Smith Excerpts

Wednesday 13th March 2019 Commons Chamber

[Owen Smith (Pontypridd) (Lab)]

It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for East Surrey (Mr Gyimah) who spoke just as eloquently as his fellow Surrey MP on the Front Bench but rather more truthfully about the perils that Brexit—a no-deal Brexit or any other sort of Brexit—poses to our country

In the 10 years since I have been an MP, we have lived through some extraordinary political moments—things that have seemed entirely impossible have come to pass. But even in this surreal age, it does seem to me that today’s debate, low key though it has been in many measures, is a particularly extraordinary surreal moment. We are debating here in the British Parliament the prospect of voting, or not voting, for a policy that the British Government have declared will cut 10% out of our GDP—out of our economy—over the next 15 years. It will reduce the size of our economy by £200 billion over the next 15 years. It is utterly inconceivable that, in this era or in any other era, anybody sensible could possibly vote for a policy that will cut more than twice what we spend on the NHS each year out of our economy.

In an era where we have schools closing on Friday afternoons because they cannot afford to stay open, where it feels like teenagers are being stabbed almost weekly on our streets because of a dearth of police officers, and where the head of the NHS is telling the Government they need to de-privatise the NHS and invest in it, it is entirely inconceivable that this Parliament or any Parliament could vote to do such damage to our public services and our people. I do not think there is any prospect of this House, save for a few on the Government Benches, voting for that outcome. I do not think there was ever any prospect of no deal really being pursued by the Government. It has been a blackmail negotiating tactic by Government Front Benchers to hold all our feet to the flames to try to ram through a Brexit deal.

We all know that any version of Brexit will diminish our economy. Any version of Brexit is a jobs-eating Brexit. Even the version advocated by the Government Front Benchers will by their own admission cut not £200 billion, but between £40 billion and £60 billion from our GDP. That is why we must obviously vote against no deal tonight and obviously vote in favour of an extension to article 50 tomorrow, but we must be honest with the people of this country. I say this to those on my Front Bench as much I do to those on the Government Front Bench: we must be honest that Brexit in any regard will damage the livelihoods and opportunities of our constituents. We in the Labour party should be opposing it for that reason, if for no other.

My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips) spoke courageously and eloquently this evening. She is absolutely right: we should not be frightened of speaking truth not only to power, but to our constituents. If that means my party wishes to deselect me or my constituents wish not to vote for me in the next election, then so be it, but I will know that my conscience is clear—I did not vote for triggering article 50, I will not vote for a Tory Brexit and I will not vote for a Labour jobs-first Brexit. I will vote tonight to do the country a service and stop a no-deal Brexit at all costs.

Fisheries Bill (Ninth sitting)

Owen Smith Excerpts

Committee Debate: 9th sitting: House of Commons
Monday 17th December 2018 Public Bill Committees

[Luke Pollard]

On Second Reading, I said that recreational fishing is entirely absent from the Bill at a meaningful level and that is not good enough. Recreational fishing is a vibrant, growing and important part of our coastal communities and needs due recognition by Ministers in the Fisheries Bill. Labour’s proposals are designed to give recreational fishing the prominence that a sector of this economic size deserves.

In the evidence session held by the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on Wednesday, Martin Salter from the Angling Trust talked about the vital economic link between recreational angling and coastal communities. The Bill is an opportunity to drive and create greater economic activity in our coastal communities. Mr Salter mentioned the booming recreational fishing sectors of Cape Cod and Florida, which are worth billions of dollars, as examples of what could be achieved in coastal communities in the UK. Wealth generated by recreational fishing boosts other industries such as tourism, including the bed-and-breakfast trade and all other aspects of hospitality and tourism.

Coastal communities depend on economic activity generated by the recreational fishing industry, but for recreational fishing to thrive and have a positive impact on our coastal communities, the industry needs investment, sustainable waters and healthy fish stocks. Amendment 111 would bring recreational angling within the new Government grants that will replace the European maritime and fisheries fund. The UK was allocated £190 million of EMFF funding for 2014 to 2020. It is vital that every penny from the EMFF be matched after we leave the European Union, but, sadly, Ministers have made no such commitment to date.

As well as the economic importance of recreational fishing to coastal communities, this activity plays a big part in the culture of those communities. Sea angling brings with it many social and health and wellbeing benefits. For children and young people, it is often their first experience of interacting with the natural world. The Bill must give us the ability to support recreational fishing. It could provide opportunities for young people to get involved in recreational fishing and encourage them to pursue a career or lifelong hobby in this sector. Nurturing this industry is crucial, because we know that that could lead to a renaissance of our coastal communities.

“Sea Angling 2012”, the study of recreational sea angling carried out by the Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science for the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, shows that total resident sea angler spending in 2012 was estimated to be £1.23 billion, equivalent to £831 million of direct spending, excluding imports and taxes. That directly supported 10,400 full-time jobs and almost £360 million of gross value added. The total economic impact was £2.1 billion of spending, supporting 23,600 full-time equivalent jobs and almost £980 million of GVA once indirect and induced effects were accounted for. That is a huge contribution to our coastal towns and cities.

[Owen Smith (Pontypridd) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making a compelling case for including recreational fishing in the Bill. Does he agree that we are only starting to scratch the surface of the economic contribution that recreational fishing could make to our economy, and does he further agree that the Government could do so much to encourage, in particular, greater tourism into this country to take advantage of its great recreational fishing opportunities, if they were to highlight the importance of that in the Bill itself?

[Luke Pollard]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention: he is exactly right. Indeed, this weekend I had conversations with Destination Plymouth about the new tourism marketing plan for my own city. We were talking about how the value of recreational angling and sea fishing could be further embedded as part of the tourism product for the far south-west, which would create more jobs, so he is exactly right.

Coastal communities benefit when good fishing attracts anglers. Let us not tie any Minister’s hands but explicitly lay out in the Bill that they have the power to award recreational fishing the grants it needs to grow our economy and grow the love of our marine environment.

New clause 25 also relates to the ability to provide financial assistance for recreational fishing and its importance as part of the wider development of sustainable practices in recreational fishing. According to figures from DEFRA—the Minister’s own Department—recreational fishing and sea angling are worth about £2 billion to the UK economy, generate about 20,000 jobs and support thousands of coastal businesses. Sometimes the economic benefits of the recreational sector can outweigh those of the commercial sector, but as we have heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd, it is not spoken about enough. We need to be louder and prouder about the contribution that recreational angling can make to our coastal towns.

In this Committee’s evidence sessions on the Bill, the Angling Trust rightly said that one of the “great failures” of the common fisheries policy was the failure to recognise recreational angling as a legitimate stakeholder in European fisheries. The Bill could put right that failure of the CFP. We could do that today by stating in the Bill that the UK Government recognise recreational sea angling as a direct user and legitimate stakeholder in the fisheries. That would be a win-win situation, as it would add to the very welcome news that we will have access to EMFF funding—I hope the Minister will confirm that. We need recreational fishing to be loud and proud on the face of the Bill, to send a message to the people engaged in the sector that we want that part of the economy to grow further, and that we value it.

[George Eustice]

I declare an interest: my brother is a keen angler who targets bass off the Cornish coasts, so I regularly hear from him about these issues.

[Owen Smith]

I am also a recreational sea angler for bass. Does the Minister agree that we could do much more for our economy in many parts of the country—not just the south-west, but off Wales and Scotland—if we did more to promote the prospect of bass angling?

[George Eustice]

It would be something if we could conserve bass. Indeed, that will be another important agenda item at this year’s December Council.

--- Later in debate ---

[Owen Smith]

Does the Minister agree that one of the ways in which we might conserve bass is by reserving those stocks solely for recreational angling?

[George Eustice]

I would not reserve them solely for recreational angling, but I have been in the vanguard of arguing for them to have a more generous bag limit than the Commission has hitherto granted.

I know that the Angling Trust has been promoting the amendment, and I am a big fan of Martin Salter. I bumped into him after the evidence session when he raised these points, and I said that I felt that he had a rather “glass half empty” view. As the shadow Minister knows, clause 28(1)(e) is absolutely explicit that we are creating powers to give financial assistance for

“the promotion or development of recreational fishing.”

That is a first. The EMFF and the European schemes have never had any provision whatever for targeted grant support for recreational angling.

--- Later in debate ---

I think that that is the right way to address the issue, because the SSFS sets out our overall approach to the socioeconomics of fishing. Just as clause 2 is the right place to determine issues such as fishing opportunities for the inshore fleet, it might also serve the hon. Gentleman’s purpose if we make a tweak that refers specifically to recreational angling. He will understand that I need to have conversations across Government to get agreement for that, but having spoken to Martin Salter of the Angling Trust, I think that such a change would go some way towards mollifying his fears—he might even end up taking a “glass half full” view of the Bill.

[Owen Smith]

I have seen Mr Salter with a glass full or half full on many occasions.

[George Eustice]

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman has; I think I have, too.

Having given an undertaking to look specifically into the possibility of making reference to recreational angling in the SSFS, where it best sits, I hope that the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport will not see the need to press his amendment.

Fisheries Bill (Seventh sitting)

Owen Smith Excerpts

Committee Debate: 7th sitting: House of Commons
Thursday 13th December 2018 Public Bill Committees

[Luke Pollard]

I thank the hon. Gentleman. Actually, the next line of my speech says, “On the other side of the House my partner in crime, the hon. Member for Waveney said”. I think we are spending far too much time together.

In respect of what the hon. Gentleman has said now and on Second Reading, the economic link policy is important. Fishers want it to be included in the Bill. It needs to be conducted and implemented in conjunction with other policies around building port capacity and supporting smaller ports in particular. We know that the EMFF has been instrumental in driving and refreshing port capacity, such as fuel and ice plants. They are not particularly sexy topics, but they are vital to ensuring that our fishing works. We also know that many of the fish landed at smaller ports might be physically taken off the boat in a smaller port, but they are officially landed when they get to a larger port, where they can go into auctions. That is the case in much of the far south-west, for instance, where fish landed right across the peninsula are taken by truck to Plymouth. The majority of the fish landed in Plymouth are landed by truck rather than by boat. I think the policy that we are discussing needs to be viewed in conjunction with that. None the less, the economic link is a strong one. Indeed, the next line in my notes, under the hon. Gentleman’s speech, is “I could not agree with him more” on some of those things.

Importantly, our amendment has the support of the industry as well. Fishers want the creation of a strong economic link, because of the injustice of seeing fish caught under UK quota by foreign boats—caught, in some cases, within sight of our shores and then exported to foreign countries, where the jobs and the benefits of that economic activity are held by other people, rather than the people in the UK. That is a source of injustice and annoyance for many people across our fishing communities, and that is something that they are hoping the measure will reflect. Indeed, in one of the evidence sessions, we heard from Aaron Brown of Fishing for Leave that he backed this amendment.

I think that this is an aspect of the Bill that the Department overlooked in preparing the text, so I would like to make a sincere offer to the Minister. If he commits to working with the Opposition and the industry to craft a national landing requirement as an amendment to the Bill that he can table on Report, I will not feel it necessary to press this amendment to a vote and have the Minister vote against this most sensible principle. I think we have a real opportunity to create a provision that includes an economic link in the text of the Bill and that hon. Members on both sides of the House will be able to support when it comes to the Bill’s transition.

[Owen Smith (Pontypridd) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray. I rise to speak briefly in support of the amendment and new clause tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport. In doing so, I am also reflecting the views of the Welsh Government, who are very supportive of this idea. Complementing the remarks made by hon. Members from the Scottish National party, I think it could be reflected in the way in which subsequent legislation and regulations about both quotas and landing requirements might be applied in Wales and in Scotland.

Milford Haven, which my hon. Friend mentioned, is a classic example of an area of Britain where there was once a thriving fishing industry but there is now significant poverty and absolutely no fishing industry. I do not believe that any boats go out of Milford Haven now, and the only boats operating there with any significance are foreign-owned. There was once a processing industry in the area, not just in Milford Haven but in Pembroke Dock, Aberaeron, Aberporth and, indeed, lots of the villages along Cardigan bay—traditionally one of the richest fisheries off the UK. Small-scale and artisanal in many respects, it has completely disappeared.

If there is any opportunity to effect a renaissance of processing through the landing requirement, the changes to quota and that overall sense of an economic connection in the Bill and at the heart of future legislation, it would be remiss of us not to try to bring that about. I think that this is a very sensible suggestion from the Labour Front Bench and I hope that the Minister will reflect on how important it, or perhaps a similar measure, could be to bringing about a renaissance in the processing industry and in the towns that might thereby survive.

[Mr Paul Sweeney (Glasgow North East) (Lab/Co-op)]

rose—

Fisheries Bill (Eighth sitting)

Owen Smith Excerpts

Thursday 13th December 2018 Public Bill Committees

[Luke Pollard]

We appreciate the argument for amendment 25. The Opposition have committed to leaving the European Union without any roll-back of environmental standards and MSY by 2020 seems to be a glaring omission from this Bill. The Minister will know that we are signed up to that under the common fisheries policy and that it is Government policy under the UN sustainable development goals to continue to be signed up to MSY by 2020. However, I suspect he will say that, given that the Bill is set to come into force beyond that point, it is no longer necessary to have that commitment in the Bill. While I see his argument there, it is not good enough; we must strive to ensure that MSY is a guiding principle of how fisheries are looked at. That is why the Opposition have tabled amendment 59, in a similar vein to amendment 25, tabled by the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland.

We note that amendment 25 seeks to remove days at sea and effort-based quota provision. We will discuss days at sea in more detail later, on amendments 26 and 27 and our amendment 23, but in short, we do not want to exclude it from the Bill entirely, as some fisheries are already captured by this form of fishing. Any new effort-based quota allocation should be able to take place only following a robust trial�something that was featured in the White Paper, but which has mysteriously disappeared from the text of the Bill. We think amendment 59 is better placed than amendment 25: fishers need fish to fish, and thriving fish stocks are critical for a profitable and prosperous industry. They are affected by factors outside our immediate control�the temperature and acidity of the sea, for instance�but one thing we can and do control to ensure thriving and healthy fish stocks is how much fish we take from the seas.

Dr Abigail McQuatters-Gollop, a lecturer in marine conservation at the University of Plymouth, in the patch I represent, said:

�Decisions about how much we take from marine environment has to be based on scientific episode and needs to be a duty not an objective.�

The view that MSY is not firmed up enough in the Bill is shared by key environmental stakeholders and across the industry. Griffin Carpenter, from the New Economics Foundation, who gave evidence to this Committee, said,

�Something I think is missing from the Bill�is commitments to maximum sustainable yield�not just the stock commitment but the flow�Many of us were surprised that was not in the Bill.���[Official Report, Fisheries Public Bill Committee, 6 December 2018; c. 107, Q205.]

Helen McLachlan, also speaking to the Committee, said that the 2020 deadline turned things around in the EU from short-term policy making that overshot scientific evidence and increased biomass and decreased mortality and that, if we lose it, we take a backward step.

It is important that the debate around MSY is comprehensive and based on sound evidence. We must not lose that from the debate. We need to ensure that tone and that sentiment, which the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland raised, throughout the Bill and in the messaging we give. That is why MSY by 2020 is such an important consideration.

[Owen Smith (Pontypridd) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hanson. I rise briefly to support my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport and the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland and the spirit and intention behind all the amendments.

It seems to me quite straightforward that the Bill takes a retrograde step by not including MSY, which is so clearly hard-wired into the CFP and into UN sustainability goal 14. The Minister has on other occasions argued that including it is unnecessary, on the basis that it is captured by the Bill�s intention to not harvest biomass at levels above MSY.

However, it should worry us all that the real experts in this area�those in the third sector concerned with conservation in our seas�clearly see it as a mis-step by the Government not to put MSY in the Bill in the way that other legislatures have, including in Australia, New Zealand, the States and Canada, especially as the evidence from our own waters and elsewhere is that MSY targets have been very effective. Hake and North sea plaice are two recent examples of stocks recovering brilliantly as a result of MSY policy. I therefore cannot understand why the Minister is so coy about maintaining this standard.

The concern, bluntly, is that not including MSY in the Bill will give this or any future Government the wriggle room not to pursue sustainable fishing policies and to set catch levels above MSY, out of line with scientific evidence. If that is not the case, the Minister, who is evidently very expert in this field, has to explain to us, the House, the wider industry and those concerned with conserving stocks in our seas why he is determined not to put MSY in the Bill, which seems to fly in the face of the evidence.

[George Eustice]

Let me make clear from the outset to the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland that we are not walking away from the principle of MSY, and to the hon. Member for Pontypridd that MSY is indeed in the Bill. It is right there in clause 1(3)(b):

�to ensure that exploitation of living marine biological resources restores and maintains populations of harvested species above biomass levels capable of producing maximum sustainable yield.�

The only bit that is not in the Bill but is in the current EU regulation, which was drafted as long ago as 2013, is the 2020 target.

As I have described, it makes no sense whatever to include a statutory target that will already have lapsed and expired in a Bill that will probably not commence until January 2021 or the end of 2020. The right place to reflect any kind of timescale or commitments, or even on species, is in that joint fisheries statement, which will describe how all the Administrations will work together to deliver those objectives, including MSY. I therefore put it to hon. Members that the right way to replace the EU legislative commitment of 2020 is not to have an already-expired date in the Bill, but to reflect that commitment in the joint fisheries statement.

The other issue relates to effort and setting the maximum number of days that British boats may spend at sea. All the amendments, including the one tabled by the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport, would delete clause 18(1)(b), which covers the maximum number of days at sea. As he seemed to acknowledge, that would be counter-productive, as we already have something called the western waters regime, which is an effort-based regime that regulates the catches of crab, and in particular of scallops, of the over-15 metre sector.

Hon. Members may recall that scallops are a part of the fishery that can lead to conflict at times, not least over the summer. There are fishermen fishing out of Brixham, not far from the hon. Gentleman�s constituency, who have an allocation of kilowatt-hours at sea to catch scallops in the EU exclusive economic zone�in other words, on the French side of the channel. If we were to make it unlawful to allocate days at sea, the hon. Gentleman would have a scallop war of his own, probably outside his constituency, because he would find that those scallop fishermen would no longer be able to access French waters because we would no longer be participating in the western waters regime.

--- Later in debate ---

[George Eustice]

In which case, I withdraw the comments that I made in the context of amendment 59. I am afraid that the speaking notes that I have been given have an error in them.

On an effort-based regime, the wider point is that we made a clear commitment in the White Paper to explore the idea of using an effort-based regime, particularly for the inshore fleet. Sometimes, when small amounts of quota are attached to vessels�for instance, little more than 20 kilos of cod a month�it is very difficult and administratively burdensome to operate such a scheme.

We were clear that we would pilot an effort-based regime, because we recognise that there are also risks in moving to one. Generally speaking, such regimes work well for low-impact mixed fisheries where it is harder to run a quota scheme. Quota schemes work best in the pelagic sector, where a single species can be accurately targeted.

We have not made reference to an effort-based regime in the Bill because we do not need to. The Bill gives us all the powers we need to run such a pilot before considering rolling it out. Our White Paper was also clear that, for the time being, we will use existing fixed quota allocations as the basis for fishing opportunities. It is already implicit in our commitment to that effect that we are not going to make a rash move to an effort-based regime, but it could have a role for some of those inshore under-10 metre vessels. That is why we have said that we will consider a pilot.

[Owen Smith]

I may have missed my chance, as the Minister sat down rather briskly, but I was merely trying to ascertain something. I fully accept that the Government are clearly trying, in the language in the initial clause in respect to objectives, to state that they want to set catch limits in line with MSY, but is there anything in the Bill that would prevent Ministers in future from diverging from that and setting catch limits above MSY? As far as I can see, there is nothing that would stop Ministers from doing that, if they chose. That is the reason for wanting a rather tougher duty on Ministers to ensure they adhere to those limits.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Sweeney]

Of course, these matters will be considered on a case-by-case basis, but let us paint a scenario where there is an impasse in the creation of a common fisheries policy. It would lead to huge economic difficulties as long as that situation�that impasse�persisted, and that is not manageable or sustainable from an economic point of view for Scottish fishermen, and it would not be acting in their interests.

That is why we will also not support amendment 3, which seeks to remove Scottish Ministers from clause 19 entirely. I fear it may have unintended consequences, and I ask the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute to clarify the consequences. If we are to remove Scottish Ministers from the equation and the clause, does he think that will mean that Scottish Ministers will have the power over this area, or simply that there would be no requirement to consult them at all? Both outcomes are incredibly undesirable and the Labour party is therefore unable to support that amendment.

[Owen Smith]

It is again a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hanson. I did not intend to speak to these amendments, but as a former shadow Secretary of State for Wales and for Northern Ireland I have a few things to say.

I heard with interest the contribution from the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute�the beautiful Argyll and Bute. I would say straightforwardly that I think he is wrong to say that the clause is contrary to the devolution settlement�I think the reverse is true. The clause reflects the current devolution settlement. It is for the UK as the sovereign body to determine our engagement with and adherence to international treaties, and to therefore determine what the fishing opportunities for the whole of the UK would be, in accordance with the agreements that are reached internationally on fishing.

My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North East is completely right that the reality of the amendments is that they seek to change the devolution settlement by the back door. Given the long-standing and perfectly admirable�although, in my view, entirely wrong-headed�view of the SNP that it wishes to have an independent Scotland, it is entirely understandable that it should try to use this mechanism to get closer to that objective, but it is the wrong mechanism and the wrong Bill in which to seek to fundamentally change the nature of our devolution settlement, and my colleagues on the Front Bench are completely right to oppose it.

I would also add that I cannot understand the value of striking Scottish Ministers out of clause 19. That would be a retrograde step because it would mean no consultation with Scottish Ministers, which would be a fundamental mistake.

[George Eustice]

The purpose of clause 19 is to establish a requirement for the Secretary of State to consult the devolved Administrations. As other hon. Members have pointed out, this matter and the powers outlined in clause 18 are incontrovertibly a reserved UK matter. The amendment would undermine the power of the UK to determine UK resources for the purposes of international law, and relates directly to a UK function.

Where the UK is subject to an international obligation to achieve a result by reference to a fixed quantity for the UK as a whole, the UK Government are responsible for determining how that is achieved. In this case, the responsibility will fall on the UK, under the UN convention on the law of the sea, after we leave the EU.

Compliance with or implementation of international obligations is devolved, but determining UK fishing opportunities is not a function that is exercisable separately in or as regards Scotland or any other part of the UK. It is not within devolved competence to determine, or to block the UK Government from determining, fishing opportunities for the UK as a whole.

Clause 18(2) explicitly sets out:

�A determination under subsection (1) may be made only for the purpose of complying with an international obligation of the United Kingdom to determine the fishing opportunities of the United Kingdom.�

It makes crystal clear the scope of clause 18. It cannot relate to any devolved matter at all; it can relate only to matters relating to the UK�s compliance with international obligations. It would therefore not be appropriate to seek consent from any devolved Administration when determining fishing opportunities. In clause 19, we set out something that we think is reasonable: a requirement to consult.

--- Later in debate ---

[George Eustice]

The simple reason that we have not included the Scottish Ministers, Welsh Ministers and Northern Ireland Department in this particular clause is that they did not want us to do so on their behalf.

As I have said many times, the Bill sits within the devolved settlement and it is for each Administration to make the changes that are needed to retained EU law to make it operable. The devolved Administrations are currently drafting many statutory instruments and other legislative vehicles to make retained EU law operable. In this Bill, we have chosen to make the changes that are necessary to make article 17 operable. None of the other devolved Administrations wanted us to include that in the Bill on their behalf. That may be because they intend to address these issues through legislation of their own.

[Owen Smith]

This is not something I can prove, but I understand from talking to colleagues in the Welsh Government that in an early draft of this clause, the Welsh Administration and others were included in subsection (6). I want to know why they were taken out.

Fisheries Bill (Fifth sitting)

Owen Smith Excerpts

Committee Debate: 5th sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 11th December 2018 Public Bill Committees

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

It is a pleasure to start with this very important clause, which sets out our sustainability objectives. I hope I am able to reassure hon. Members that the two amendments are unnecessary because of other provisions in the Bill.

The fisheries administrations are already covered by the joint fisheries statement and, in the case of England, the Secretary of State’s fisheries statement. Clause 2 sets out a clear requirement to publish a joint fisheries statement explaining how we intend to achieve the objectives set out in clause 1. Clause 6(1) contains a requirement that the functions of national authorities must be carried out in accordance with the joint fisheries statement.

One of my issues with amendment 36 is that it uses the words “must have regard to”. I believe that the structure we have put in place—with a joint fisheries statement that explains in great detail how we intend to achieve the objectives, is regularly reviewed, can be updated when circumstances change, and must be followed—is more powerful than saying simply that authorities must have regard to the objectives. We want this to be an obligation that we seek to follow in the best possible way, while recognising the complexity of the marine environment and how things are subject to change.

[Owen Smith (Pontypridd) (Lab)]

Is part of the problem, as we heard during the evidence sessions, that other Administrations do not necessarily have to follow what is set down in the joint fisheries or ministerial fisheries statement—they merely need to explain why they departed from it?

[George Eustice]

That provision is only for a force majeure event such as a major crisis or something that would require an Administration to move outside the plan, and they would have to explain why that had happened. The requirement to follow the joint fisheries statement applies equally to all Administrations in the UK and it is legally binding.

Other public bodies—for example, the inshore fisheries and conservation authorities—are already covered by legislation, and those obligations are set out in the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009, which was introduced by the previous Labour Government. Section 153 of that Act sets out clear duties for IFCAs to

“seek to ensure that the exploitation of sea fisheries resources is carried out in a sustainable way…seek to balance the social and economic benefits of exploiting the sea fisheries resources…with the need to protect the marine environment from…the effects of such exploitation”,

and finally to take any other steps that are necessary for sustainable development. Obligations for the IFCAs are therefore already covered by the 2009 Act.

[Owen Smith]

I am grateful for the Minister’s explanation, but I do not really understand what he means by force majeure events. This seems to me to be quite simple. Clause 6(1) states:

“A relevant national authority must exercise its functions…unless relevant considerations indicate otherwise.”

I would be grateful to know what “relevant considerations” might mean, because that seems to be fairly broad criteria. Clause 6(4) states simply:

“If a relevant national authority within subsection (5)(a) or (b) takes any decision in the exercise of its functions…otherwise than in accordance with the policies contained in an SSFS that are applicable to the authority, the authority must state its reasons”.

[The Chair]

Order. We might discuss that matter when we consider clause 6, rather than now.

[Owen Smith]

The Minister mentioned clause 6

[The Chair]

Order. The fact that the Minister mentioned clause 6 is not a good reason to question the Chair’s decision on the matter.

Fisheries Bill (Sixth sitting)

Owen Smith Excerpts

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

[Mr Carmichael]

We used to say that strong fences make for good neighbours, and the same is true when applied to the principles of constitutional law. The effective working of an emerging asymmetric system of devolution within our government requires strong systems to be put in place. Yes, as the Minister suggested this morning, it is all fine and well while everybody is happy, stocks are plentiful and there is no real disagreement. One of the difficulties with the operation of the devolution settlement between Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom was that such concordats as were put in place were put in place with little consideration of how they might work with Governments of different colours in Edinburgh and London. As a consequence, these areas have become fractious, and occasionally friction has ensued. We risk missing an opportunity, because there will be times when some sort of friction will occur.

To anticipate the question from the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun, such arrangements would have to be put in place after full agreement with the different devolved Administrations. It would be wrong of the UK Government—because they are the UK Government and the English Government at the same time—simply to go ahead. That is the essence of the conflict the Minister faces.

No one should have a veto in these matters, but that should mean that no one has a final say in defiance of everyone else either. A veto can block an arrangement, but a final say can force through an arrangement that does not suit and is not agreed by everyone in the different Administrations concerned. At the end of the day, we may need to come to something that looks much like a system of qualified majority voting. Heaven help us, but some mechanism must be found to resolve these matters.

The point the Minister hears from our discussion of this amendment, and from his hon. Friend the Member for Waveney on the previous amendment, is that once we have brought the powers back from the European Union, the status quo will no longer be fit for purpose.

[Owen Smith (Pontypridd) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray. I rise to support the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport. I do so as a former special adviser in the Wales Office and the Northern Ireland Office and as a former shadow Secretary of State for Wales and for Northern Ireland.

My experience and my observation is that even when Ministers in all corners of the UK have the best intentions of avoiding them, disputes regularly arise. As the Minister indicated, such disputes are normally dealt with on a pretty ad hoc basis, with an evolving series of concordats and memorandums of understanding. The memorable way in which the hon. Member for Waveney put it was that such matters are “the West Lothian question for fish”. Whenever such problems inevitably emerge, we traditionally kick the can, or the fish, down the road, rather than try to resolve them.

The Minister highlighted some of the thorny issues we have wrestled with over generations on both sides of the House in respect of devolution and the evolving devolution settlement. I put it to him that it is better, especially in an enabling framework Bill such as this, to try to shape future discussions and mitigate the emergence of problems and disputes, because one thing we can be certain of is that they will emerge in relation to fishing.

One simply need consider clause 3 in respect of the Secretary of State setting out his fisheries statement—the SSFS—and the joint fisheries statement being agreed between the devolved Administrations and the UK Government, to see that there is an immediate problem. It is not clear to me from reading the Bill which of those statements has precedence. I assume that the hierarchy is that, just as each succeeding SSFS supersedes the preceding one, the SSFS would also have precedence over the JFS, but if the JFS were legally deemed to be the more important document, given that it had arguably reached by a more important means of negotiation between the different parts of the UK, it would be good if the Minister were to clarify that.

What happens if there is a significant difference of opinion between the UK Secretary of State, who is also the English Fisheries Minister, and Fisheries Ministers for the devolved Administrations about their priorities for their respective fishing areas? That seems an obvious problem, although this is not the area of the Bill in which that problem becomes most obvious: it is in clauses 18 and 19, which deal with the setting of quotas, that the potential for discord between the UK Minister and the devolved Administrations Ministers becomes most acute and most commercially problematic. In respect of the fisheries statements and the setting of quotas, it is perfectly possible that in future, for example, the UK Minister may wish to set quotas for shellfish that we do not currently have, which may be seen as unfair to fishers in Scotland or Wales in particular.

I think we all recognise that there are myriad potential problems here, and that it would be better if the Minister were able to come up with some more concrete means of assuring people that the Government have an idea of how they would resolve those problems. That might be through a dispute resolution mechanism as recommended by our Front Benchers, or through some other means, but I do not think kicking the can down the road is the right approach.

[The Chair]

I call the Minister—sorry, I call Mr Sweeney. I keep thinking you are a Front Bencher, but you are actually a Back Bencher.

--- Later in debate ---

[George Eustice]

As I said, the Cabinet Office is leading a wider review of the memorandums of understanding and the JMC processes to see whether they can be improved. It obviously affects many other Departments as well. It is probably not right for me to go beyond that. I can explain what we currently do on fisheries.

[Owen Smith]

Does the Minister not acknowledge that part of the reason that the Cabinet Office is undertaking that review is the widespread dissatisfaction over many years in the devolved Administrations with the working of the Joint Ministerial Committee? For example, I cannot think of a single substantive issue that has been properly resolved at the JMC in recent times. If the Minister can think of one, perhaps he could inform the Committee.

[George Eustice]

At DEFRA, we have many discussions with our counterparts in the devolved Administrations. We have highly constructive dialogue and reach a consensus. That brings me to another point I want to make. In this context, let us be clear that we are talking about the formation of a joint fisheries statement. By its very nature, we are not talking about an argument over the implementation of any kind of agreement. We are talking about what it is collectively we are doing by way of policy to deliver the legally binding objective set out in clause 1.

If we as politicians cannot work through our differences and work towards achieving a consensus on a legally binding requirement here, who can? Are we seriously saying that having a judge come in to arbitrate, or to have some sort of arbitration process or panel, is going to cut it if, for instance, the Scottish Government have a particular concern about Orkney crabs and what is said about that in the joint fisheries statement? I put it to hon. Members that that is not the case.

We politicians cannot abdicate our responsibility and role. Part of that role is to work through our differences to achieve consensus where it is required to get an agreed policy statement that is legally binding on all of us equally and severally. I believe that because we have that legal commitment enshrined in clause 5(1) and because we have a very strong track record in DEFRA of successful concordats and memorandums of understanding, and because the Cabinet Office is doing a wider piece of work in this area, this amendment is unnecessary. It is ultimately for us, as elected politicians, at the very least, to agree what we are going to do by way of policy.

[Luke Pollard]

Mr Pollard, Mr Gray. We look nothing alike; one of us has a beard.

At some point in the future, the Hansard report of this Committee will be dug out by an industrious journalist and politicians, and they will inquire why a dispute mechanism was not put in place when the Bill was formed. They will look at the debate and see a Government that did not want to do so because they either failed to predict a problem or were so opposed to accepting amendments to the Bill that they knowingly proceeded with a hole in it. That is what we have here.

This is an enabling Bill, designed to create a system and framework for the proper governance of our fisheries in future. We should be taking the opportunity to look into every aspect, to ensure it will work in all circumstances and scenarios. There will be a problem in future in the event of one of the devolved Administrations or the UK deciding not to agree with the others on what is, as we all know, the most political part of DEFRA’s responsibility around fishing. Be that a manufactured concern or a valid concern on stock assessment or different elements of science conflicting, there will be a point of conflict in future.

[Owen Smith]

My hon. Friend is right. Is it not entirely predictable when that moment will come? It will be when the Secretary of State has the first opportunity to distribute fishing opportunities across the new UK waters and there is a dispute between the Administrations as to the fairness of that distribution, when those other Administrations are only consulted but do not have to consent to those changes. Is that not precisely when the rubber will hit the road?

[Luke Pollard]

My hon. Friend is right that is a possible scenario. There could be a multitude of other scenarios where that is a real risk.

--- Later in debate ---

[Owen Smith]

The Minister is offering some comfort to those of us who have expressed concerns about how loosely the clause seems to be drawn. I put it to the Minister that if what he is envisaging here are very exceptional circumstances—he keeps using the phrase “force majeure circumstances”—why is the language so loosely drawn? It says:

“unless relevant considerations indicate otherwise”

and this seems to be a fairly broadly drawn set of circumstances. Crucially, subsection (4) says:

“If a relevant national authority within subsection (5)(a) or (b) takes any decision”.

That is an extraordinarily broad set of circumstances. If it is intended to be so limited, why is it so broad?

[George Eustice]

I explained the genesis of that choice of words earlier. The Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009 also uses the term

“unless relevant considerations indicate otherwise”,

so it is not a new form of words in our legislation and it was used in our most recent piece of legislation dealing with the marine environment. As I said, I accept that we should go away and consider whether we can narrow the scope within which such a power could be used, and I have undertaken to give that further consideration by the time the Bill is on Report.

[Owen Smith]

I do not think anybody is suggesting that the problem is that the language is new. It is the fact that the language is so poorly and so broadly drawn.

[George Eustice]

Well, I blame the last Labour Government for the drafting of the legislation. We have reached a convenient conclusion and I have made an open offer to give this further consideration to see if we can narrow the scope so that it is closer to its intended use, rather than it becoming a simple get out of jail card in all circumstances. I look forward to updating my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney on Report.

Fisheries Bill (Third sitting)

Owen Smith Excerpts

Thursday 6th December 2018 Public Bill Committees

[Owen Smith (Pontypridd) (Lab)]

Q Good morning, everybody. Mr Clayton, could you give us more examples of species where there has been fishing well above the MSY in recent years?

Andrew Clayton: It might be useful to talk about a choke species, because that generates a lot of debate when we talk about setting objectives for sustainability and the difficulties of dealing with stocks that have very low levels of biomass and therefore very low levels in their scientific advice. There is a good example that will be discussed in the December Council: cod to the west of Scotland is a stock that has been overfished for decades. Fishing pressure is way too high and because biomass is so low, scientists advise a zero TAC or a zero level of directed fishing.

That is proving very difficult because of where we are in implementation of the CFP. In 2019, both a landing obligation and this MSY requirement—the deadline to end overfishing—will be approaching. What we need to do with those species is to find a way to reduce their catch. We need to reduce bycatch and we need initiatives to ensure that they are not being fished at the high levels that they have been under pressure from for years and years.

To meet the deadline, what is happening in the EU system at the moment is that they are considering bycatch initiatives—small bycatch TACs that would be used to bring fishing pressure down. Member states have plans to reduce the bycatch to try to restore that stock, because where we have stock that has been overfished to that level over such a long time, we have a huge disparity between the catches in that mixed fishery. That stock will hold back all the other perfectly sustainable catches that could be made in that fishery. What we have done for way too long is overfish and then hide discarding over the horizon. Now is the time when we need to get to grips with the fishing mortality in that fishery and allow that stock to recover so that we can get the highest yield out of the fishery overall.

In this particular case it is not an example of MSY being used to set that limit; no fisheries scientist on the planet would advise catching that stock, because it is in such a dire state. The MSY level of catch for that would be about 500 tonnes, but zero catch is advised because it is in such a poor state. That is one example of overfishing. I mentioned mackerel earlier, which is the UK’s most valuable stock. It supports so many jobs in the UK and is a really important iconic species for us. It is also a stock that has been overfished in recent years. That is partly to do with the lack of agreement between the various coastal states that are fishing the stock. Not all coastal states are within the CFP; we have to negotiate with Iceland, Norway and the Faroes.

The advice for this year was for a huge cut of that stock, because our luck ran out. We have been overfishing it, and taking too much of a gamble with that stock. Finally, a huge cut was proposed to try to get things back on track. That is, of course, unpalatable. The main thing that we need to do is to move away from that boom-and-bust cycle, so that we do not keep fishing at the absolute maximum pressure, or even overfishing, and then find it surprising when scientists advise drastic cuts. We need to move away from drastic cuts and get some stability in our fisheries.

[Owen Smith]

Q You have obviously been very clear that you think that this is a less ambitious set of targets, and less binding on Ministers, than the CFP. How would you repair the Bill to make it more ambitious and more binding? Would you simply transpose into the Bill that second part of article 2.2 of the CFP, or would you do something else?

Andrew Clayton: I understand the head scratching about the 2015 deadline and the 2020 deadline. I understand that that might not be appropriate for the Bill at this stage, but Greener UK has submitted amendments that would correct this and ensure that a fishing limit is set in line with scientific advice.

[Owen Smith]

Q Finally, do you think that recreational fishing could play a part in improving sustainability? That is to say, certain stocks could be preserved for recreational fishing, as has happened in New Zealand and elsewhere.

Andrew Clayton: Yes, I think it is time that recreational fishers were at the table and involved in management decisions, because they bring a large amount of money into the economy and are involved in fishing mortality as well. They should be a player in the system.

[The Chair]

We have less than 15 minutes remaining, so brief questions and brief answers might be helpful.

--- Later in debate ---

[Bill Grant]

Q Going forward, do you see wider markets beyond the European Union? Do you see opportunities for the products caught off UK shores elsewhere in the world, other than the EU?

Andrew Pillar: In our experience, very much so. We have experience already with exports throughout Asia and elsewhere around the world. There is a very strong demand, particularly for the pelagic products coming from UK waters, based on the quality that we have available.

Andrew Brown: From our perspective, we have growing markets in Asia and north America, but they are not of the scale that would be able to replace what we currently export to Europe.

Daniel Whittle: We have seen evidence of something similar of late, with brown crabs. There has been a significant increase in the price of brown crabs as a consequence of exports of live brown crab to China, which is driving up the price.

[Owen Smith]

Q Generally, you have obviously set a lot of store by the prospect of us being at the top table, as it were, when we are a so-called independent coastal state. Are you worried that during transition we are going to be even further away from the top table than we are presently?

Mike Park: There is some concern that Europe could introduce some rules or plans that impact on us more than on other member states. There is that concern. How real those concerns are, I am not entirely sure. Pelagic is the area that should probably be most concerned, when they renew some of the plans. It is difficult to see how they could impact on us, other than to ignore us. For instance, the December Council is coming up. We are still a member state at that Council. Could they ignore us during that? We normally go with a shopping list. As the Minister will know, England has normally got its requirements and Scotland has its requirements. Whether we are in the IP or whatever—if the IP comes—and whether we are ignored during those events could impact on us. As yet that is an unknown, but yes, there is the possibility.

[Owen Smith]

Q On tariffs, the Minister was implying that an 8% increase in tariffs on shellfish might not necessarily be a problem. You talked about £43 million of increased costs for the industry. Would we see more or fewer jobs in the industry if we had an extra 8% tariffs on our shellfish?

Andrew Brown: It is difficult to predict. Obviously, it will affect our competitiveness and it is a competitive market, so it cannot be a good thing for the industry, but different products have different premiums and can absorb different levels of tariffs. It really depends what stock you are talking about and what market you are talking about. There is an average of an 8% to 9% tariff value across all our stocks, so clearly that is not going to help us in terms of profitability.

[Owen Smith]

Q Are you anticipating growth in your industry post Brexit?

Andrew Brown: Yes. I think we are, but it is reliant on a number of factors and the sustainability and management of the stocks. We are very dependent on, let us say, growth in China. Currently the situation is good, but that market can be subject to sudden and unexpected regulatory change, which can close off markets just as quickly as they open up. There are risks associated with that, and we have to build that into our business planning.

[Peter Aldous]

Q There is a scenario at present in the southern North sea where a significant amount of fish is caught, in particular by Dutch vessels, using particularly unsustainable practices such as electric pulse fishing, and it is processed in the Netherlands and then imported back into the UK. That presents three challenges: allowing UK fishermen to catch more of the fish in our waters; promoting sustainable fishing so electric pulse fishing just cannot take place in the way it has; and promoting our own processing sector. Does the Bill help us achieve those three goals?

Andrew Pillar: We have expertise in the demersal sector but also in demersal processing. This is a stepping stone in that direction. There is clearly other work that will need to be done, but it is part of the enabling framework. It is clear from the work that was done in terms of the consultation and the White Paper behind the Bill, and from my engagement with the team who went out on the road and did the fact finding, that a tremendous amount of work went into producing the Bill. We recognise that, and we recognise that it is not all going to be there on day one. This is part of the framework. If we successfully implement the Bill and its spirit, we will set out a framework for sustainable production—for harvesting fish, for having access to markets and for domestic processing—and for enabling those people who are employed indirectly and have no direct association with fishing opportunities or quotas to find employment.

Mike Park: I guess the good thing is that the Bill does not do anything horribly wrong. That is the main thing for me.

Fisheries Bill (Fourth sitting)

Owen Smith Excerpts

Thursday 6th December 2018 Public Bill Committees

[Peter Aldous]

Q The right hon. Member for Newbury (Richard Benyon), when he was Fisheries Minister, fought very hard in the 2015 review of the CFP, and the general consensus was that it was a good deal. One of the main things won was article 17, so you worry me by basically saying that no one takes any notice of it. In transposing article 17 to the Bill, what can we do to give it teeth, so that people take notice of it and it is implemented?

Griffin Carpenter: Exactly. This refers back to the first discussion we had. We as an organisation were one of the groups advocating for article 17 in the CFP. The CFP—people might disagree with this—actually gives quite a lot of power to member states, for better or worse. The EU did not want to say exactly how each member state should allocate its fishing opportunities. It just says, “Tell us how you are doing it. Be transparent and objective about how you are doing it. Is it based on historical catch records? Are you giving more to the small-scale fleet?” and so on. Every member state continued allocating quota as they were. The UK has done some things with unused quota, but never actually referred back to article 17. It was just that the small scale wanted more, so they gave some more.

The problem with transposing that is that it seems like we are missing an opportunity to be specific. Article 17 was vague so that each member state could use their own criteria. Now we are transposing that, but we are the member state—we are one entity—so we can say exactly, especially in the case of England, how we are going to do it, and we can say that right now. It seems strange to transpose something that was intentionally vague so each member state could be specific.

[Owen Smith (Pontypridd) (Lab)]

Q As a Welshman, I am obviously worried about the prospect of robbing Dai to pay Pedro. On the issue of flagged vessels that you mentioned, is there anything in the Bill that would stop the Welsh from addressing that issue?

Griffin Carpenter: Nothing that stops the Welsh from addressing the issue, but nothing that addresses the issue per se. Again, devolution is extremely awkward in fisheries, where we have a Bill that empowers the fisheries Administrations and stops there. It would be up to the Welsh Government to do something, presumably in their licensing.

[The Chair]

We have just over three minutes, if there are any further questions.

--- Later in debate ---

[Peter Aldous]

Q So the new UK fishing policy can be better than the CFP when it comes to sustainable fisheries management.

Dr Carl O'Brien: I think so. I have forgotten who asked me the question earlier, but if you are going to allow vessels to come into our exclusive economic zone, we can put conditions on their access rights. If we decide we do not like pulse trawling and we have our own evidence base to say that, I assume we can just say, although it would not necessarily ban it, that any vessel with pulse cannot come in.

[Owen Smith]

Q Dr O’Brien, given your long experience of going to Council, how do you envisage our country being treated during the transition period, when we will effectively have observer status?

Dr Carl O'Brien: I do not know, because I am under the impression that this is my last December Council, as it is for the Minister, unless I have been misinformed.

[Owen Smith]

Q Given your experience in the past, do you think it will be a problem that we are effectively attending and being consulted with, but are not having direct influence as we have had previously?

Dr Carl O'Brien: My worry and fear is for the other member states. I have been to a number of Council negotiations, to coastal states negotiations on mackerel, blue whiting, Atlanto-Scandian herring and to EU-Norway negotiations. The other member states look to the UK to provide a lot of the science and the technical arguments. Countries will wave their arms and say, “We do not like the Commission’s proposals”, but when it comes to facts, hard data and evidence, the UK leads the world. We provide the arguments and we sit with the Minister, the presidency and the Commission and we argue our case based on facts and science. Other countries do not do that.

[Owen Smith]

Q No wonder they are petitioning for us to stay in. Can I ask you about recreational fishing? We have heard people petitioning that the recreational fishing industry ought to have a more official stakeholder role in future. Is that a view that you have sympathy with? What is your view of the potential value of designating certain fisheries and species for recreational fishing only?

Dr Carl O'Brien: One of the problems with recreational fishing, which is a disaster waiting to happen, is that when we carry out our bass assessments, we include commercial catches from trawlers and larger vessels and recreational catches, but the only other assessment that I am aware of that ICES carries out with recreational catches is the western Baltic cod. In the case of the western Baltic cod, the recreational catch is far in excess of the commercial fleet.

In future, we need to have a better understanding of recreational fishing. We cannot ignore it, but we have to come up with a policy where you balance commercial and recreational anglers. I would not want to see them being recognised independently of the commercial fisheries, because in a sense, regardless of whether they are selling their catch, they are competing with a commercial fishery. As I say, for the western Baltic cod, the catches of the recreational anglers are far in excess of the commercial fleet. The CFP has tried to constrain the commercial fleet—

[David Duguid]

Q On the science, one of the major frustrations—I was going to use the word “criticisms”, but that is too strong—I hear from fishermen is that the science tends to be at least two years old by the time it is actually applied, and they are seeing more fish in their nets or in the water than they are told to expect. Is there any way we can make the science more current, or is there anything we can do in the future to help with that situation?

Dr Carl O'Brien: Our Minister will know, because one of the first questions that every new Minister gets is, “Why are your scientists using data that is out of date?”. The reality is that, this year—2018—when we carried out our assessments, we had landings data only up to 2017. That is just a fact of life; we will not know the landings for this year until the end of the year. We have survey information, so when we predict next year’s quotas, we are doing that based on 2017 landings data and survey information that we have from this year, so that is where our two-year window comes from.

In terms of doing something that is more reactive, there are issues around juveniles. Certainly in Norwegian waters, they have real-time closures that are almost instantaneous—certainly within 24 hours. In the past, if fishermen found aggregations of very small fish, they would have fished them and dumped them, but now if they fish them they will have to land them, which will come off their quota. The sad thing is that by killing those fish, they are then not there to reproduce into the future to rebuild spawning stocks.

On the assessments, it is a fact of life that, essentially, they will be two years out of date in terms of the landings data, but we will have current information from research vessels and from fishermen. In terms of management, it would be a more adaptive and proactive management where you could keep an eye on what is going on in the sea and within our waters, in terms of whether you are seeing aggregations of juvenile fish or lots of older fish that are aggregating in certain areas and being targeted by vessels. You would want to have a more adaptive management framework—certainly more adaptive than we have with the common fisheries policy.

--- Later in debate ---

[Bill Grant]

Q We should make the conditions and the financial rewards better and we could grow the industry in due course.

Elaine Whyte: Absolutely.

Dr Amy Pryor: I absolutely agree. The only thing I would add is that I think this is an opportunity to think about a more integrated approach to the way we do our training. I am talking about cross-sectoral training schemes and apprenticeships not only to spread the skills and highlight the fact that you can have multiple transferable skills, but to build relationships across sectors. We can build those better relationships between the different coastal sectors. To back that up, Sir John Armitt recommended this, as part of the Thames growth commission, as a way forward, because we are lacking skills in all our coastal and estuarine areas.

[Owen Smith]

Q We heard earlier from one of the big shellfish companies and we asked it about the impact of tariffs—potentially, 8% tariffs on shellfish. How would that impact on smaller producers?

Elaine Whyte: We are extremely worried about that and always have been. And apart from the tariffs, we are extremely concerned about disruption and action, possibly, by French and continental fishermen, who might not be too happy about us getting access. That could be just as big a problem as the tariffs, to be honest, so yes, we are very concerned.

[Owen Smith]

Q This is an enabling Bill, but what degree of certainty do you feel about what fishing is going to look like in Great Britain in the years to come as a result of the Bill? Are you confident?

Elaine Whyte: I heard a comment yesterday, I think, or the day before about how the market will take care of fishing. I do not think that is fair. I think that we have to try to support our industry, to get the best of national benefit for our fishermen. I am confident that we could have a better future, but it depends on a lot of things. We are not quite clear when we are coming out. We are not quite clear what this financial framework means, across all the sectors, for the UK. And what does that mean? Does it mean that every year that we are negotiating a deal with the EU we could barter fishing rights away for another sector? Those things are still a concern for us.

[George Eustice]

Q I want to come back to something that Elaine Whyte said earlier about the concern that there might be different rules for different parts of the fleet, with Northern Ireland having access to west of Scotland waters, for instance. Could you explain a bit more what your concern is? Obviously, the Bill is trying to resolve quite a difficult tension, which is that fisheries is a devolved matter, yet it is also highly affected by international negotiations, which are reserved. The way it does that is by giving each Administration the ability, through clause 10, to have licence conditions, but then separate to that, in clause 31 and schedule 6, it gives the Administrations the ability to set their own technical conservation measures, so if they wanted to have a closure, for instance, that would apply to everyone, whether or not it was on the vessel licence. There are two means of doing it, and I think the Bill squares that rather difficult circle through that means.

Elaine Whyte: It potentially does, but it does not square the tariff issue, so that is something that we would still have a concern about. Some of our members have mentioned the issue of nomadic rights, and of course we understand that, but we always think that there should be some link to the coastal communities around about. They should not be disadvantaged by lack of access to their own stocks, in a sense, as well. That is important to us domestically as well as between different countries and the UK.

Fisheries Bill (Second sitting)

Owen Smith Excerpts

Tuesday 4th December 2018 Public Bill Committees

[Mr Carmichael]

Q So you get away from that adversarial approach to enforcement?

Phil Haslam: Yes.

[Owen Smith (Pontypridd) (Lab)]

Q Good afternoon, Mr Haslam. You said earlier that the MMO budget has been cut. How much has it been cut by since 2010 in cash or percentage terms? Secondly, related to that, you put in a big bid for an increase in resources in order to deal with a no-deal scenario. How much extra have you asked for and has the Minister indicated that he is going to provide it?

Phil Haslam: The budget reduction since inception has been in the order of 60%, but that is counterweighted by the fact that the MMO can accrue income through services delivered. That has provided a relatively stable, if declining, budget. In terms of the bid for additional capability going forward, a bid has been made and we are just in the process of finessing that.

[Owen Smith]

Q Can you tell us how much more you have asked for?

Phil Haslam: How much more in terms of actual—

[Owen Smith]

Percentage versus current budgets, or in cash terms.

Phil Haslam: It is basically a doubling of the budget at the moment.

[Owen Smith]

Q Has the Minister indicated that might be forthcoming?

Phil Haslam: Support in delivering it, yes. I have not seen any resistance in terms of, “We need this capability.” The scale and volume is the bit, because it is based on judgments of risk, but nobody has said they have any doubt about the operational need.

[Owen Smith]

Q But hitherto, this Government have cut 60% of your funding.

Phil Haslam: Under austerity, in line with all Government spending, there has been a decline.

[The Chair]

We have five minutes left for any further questions from the Government side. If not, Luke Pollard.

--- Later in debate ---

[Peter Aldous]

Q Tom, you were expressing concern at how a public asset might have inadvertently become a property right, and how that might constrain more radical reforms of the quota system. Could we go back to the court case of 2012-13 when Lord Justice Coulson put down his determination? I have heard some suggestions that the Secretary of State won that case against the POs, because what he was proposing was very reasonable and small-scale, and the POs were acting unreasonably. Is that a view that you would share, or would you say that Coulson allows one to go a step further?

Dr Appleby: An FQA is a possession under the European convention on human rights. There is a distinction. “Quota” is once it is distributed, and FQA units are about your expectation of how much of a share of the UK’s TAC you are going get every year. That was based on the historical landings data, traditionally. He said that unused FQA units could be reallocated without compensation. FQA units are a possession, so the corollary of that is that used FQA units—and most of them are used—would require some sort of compensation payment. I have not been privy to the subsequent legal advice, and I took a sharp intake of breath when he said that at the time. In fact, I went to court to watch some of the court proceedings—it was quite interesting; it was right up my field. It is inherent in the UK that we do not take assets off people without compensation. It is part of our culture—way before the European convention.

There is another point about that redistribution and the immediate way it would have ramifications on how the whole commercial sector is constructed, which you need to be mindful of. Once you put that whole lot into a bag and shake it up, you could design a scheme to reallocate quota, but it would need to be done in a sensible, crafted way.

[Owen Smith]

Q Dr Appleby, you say that MSY is not necessary, and that hardwiring a greater onus on Ministers to adhere to MSY in terms of the allocation of future quotas is not necessarily the way to go. If we had more time—I take what you say about there being limited time—is there a way in which we could hardwire sustainability in respect of future fisheries management into this Bill?

Dr Appleby: That is a good question. There are things that you can do. The Australian legislation, for instance, makes it a legal duty to fish sustainably and according to the plans that they come up with. We could put that in. Our fisheries statements are a bit woolly. I notice that there is a bit in here that says that they do not have to adhere if relevant considerations are taken into account. What is a relevant consideration? I could not find a definition of that.

We have not nailed the Secretary of State to the floor in this Bill, and that could be done. Again, it would have to be done in the context of devolution, so we would have to nail everybody’s feet to the floor around the UK, because we cannot have a situation in which one part of the UK can fish non-sustainably and the other parts cannot. There are things that you can do. There are tweaks and modifications that can be made to harden up that duty.

[Owen Smith]

Q For clarification, you were saying that it is in Australian legislation that there are fisheries policies?

Dr Appleby: Yes, I think that their fisheries plans are statutory.

[Owen Smith]

Q And they are legally binding on Ministers to ensure those things are observed?

Dr Appleby: They have a management board. We are looking at the scientific advisory panel that has been put forward. Those scientific recommendations are binding in some way.

[Owen Smith]

Q I have one separate question. Do you take an environmental view of what the potential benefits might be of preserving certain fisheries or stocks for recreational fishing, as has happened elsewhere?

Dr Appleby: You are looking at a public resource, so how do we make the best of that public resource? Some of that is going to be to the commercial sector and some of it is undoubtedly going to be to the recreational sector. The whole thing is so political because we are trying to carve up this public resource through regulation. Undoubtedly, the recreational sector is an important part of this conversation, too. Historically, although it has recently been included in the common fisheries policy, it has come to the table late.

[George Eustice]

Q I want to come back to this point about some of the environmental criteria and potentially having a hard nib point for MSY, for instance, as a statutory target.

One unique thing about fisheries is that, in or out of the EU, they are subject to annual international fisheries negotiations. Norway, for instance, follows MSY but also follows lots of other scientific metrics that it thinks are superior to those that we use. In such a situation, do you think it is important to keep that flexibility, so that you can actually land an agreement with Norway, the Faroes, Iceland and the EU, or is it preferable to make it unlawful for the UK to reach such an agreement and just have everyone go off on their own and unilaterally set a tax?

Dr Appleby: That is an interesting question; theoretically, we cannot fish beyond MSY, because that is all we have. Under the United Nations convention on the law of the sea, our rights extend to MSY and that is it. You cannot have an agreement on what you do not have.

However, the question is: what is MSY? It comes down to the definition. The Norwegians would probably argue that, by taking a basket of different theories, we achieve MSY, because one stock can be plotted on a graph and another cannot. I am not a fisheries scientist—you would have to ask them—but it seems that you are essentially looking at something like a repairing obligation on a lease. How far can you go with this and do it in a sensible way?

The difficulty with going into, say, MSY or BMSY or all those things, which I have never completely got my head around, is that you define a particular scientific methodology in your Bill. I think that could come back to haunt the draftsman if stock does not behave in a certain way or if you want some sort of flexibility. Again, it is interesting that, coming from a conservation point of view with my Blue hat on, I am not uncomfortable with just leaving it at MSY.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

Okay. I call Owen Smith.

[Owen Smith]

Q Are you disappointed that, two and a half years after Brexit, so little seems to be resolved in concrete terms for the future of the fisheries?

Aaron Brown: You have no idea the level of my disappointment.

[Owen Smith]

Q Perhaps you could tell us in a minute. Are you worried that several Cabinet members have warned that transition could go on for as long as four years?

Aaron Brown: Yes, absolutely. That makes it worse. It pours petrol on the bonfire that I have described to you. In the transition, the EU has every incentive to run a bulldozer over the top of us. They can abolish the 12-mile limit; they could fully enforce the discard ban in choke species and, obviously, we would not be able to implement policy to mitigate that, such as suggested in the Bill. They would be able to barter UK resources in international swaps, because we will not be party to international agreements but the EU will be making them on our behalf.

The other thing that is really devastating right round the country is that currently the UK relies on a lot of swaps in the EU, to get in fish that would otherwise probably be ours under a zonal attachment. We will not be able to do that because we will not actually be sitting at the table any more. So we will be trapped in this kind of halfway house, where the EU has every incentive to take a great big stick and beat us with it like a piñata. It is not a position that I think is equitable for the survival of the industry. To be brutally honest, by the time we get round to a new British policy, if we are not shovelled into the backstop, of which there is a high likelihood, there will not be a fleet left to take advantage of anyway.

[Mr Sweeney]

Q Whether it is the smaller under-10 shellfish boats working out of the west coast ports, such as Stornoway or Oban, or the pelagic and white fish fleets running out of the big commercial ports, such as Fraserburgh and Peterhead, what benefit to Scottish ports would there be of introducing an economic link of landing at least 50% of all fish in Scottish ports?

Aaron Brown: I am fully supportive of that. We have gone further and said 60%, and not just for landings. There is a huge benefit from that. Currently just now, the flagship problem that Britain has, after the Factortame case, is that under freedom of establishment and freedom of movement, any EU national could come in and buy up British entitlement. Obviously, with the British fleet struggling with so much loss of its own resources, and regulatory ineptitude, many family fishermen felt compelled to sell. That is huge problem just now as we see on the west coast, in Lochinver. I think it was £30 million of fish went through Lochinver and there was not a single indigenous fishing boat. That needs to be tightened up on. There is a huge benefit, not just to the fisherman and their communities, but also to processors and market share.

Norway’s crowning glory is not actually its fishing fleet. Norway’s crowning glory is its dominance in processing and marketing globally. That is something that Britain could equally compete in with the resource we have got. We would like to see 60% landings into the UK, sold and processed, because otherwise people will just put them on the back of a lorry and run them down the road. We want to see 60% beneficial ownership of any British vessel—that is no different from the other Nordic countries—to avoid foreign nationals or conglomerates buying out the UK fleet.

We would also like to see 60% British crew, but with a five-year or thereabouts dispensation for foreign crew, until we rebuild the future generation back into the industry to replace the one we have lost. The economic link absolutely needs to be there and we implore you to accept that that is an amendment that needs to go in. The Conservatives tried to do it in 1988 with the Merchant Shipping Act. I argue that if it is good enough for Mrs Thatcher, then it should be good enough for this Government as well.

Fisheries Bill

Owen Smith Excerpts

2nd reading: House of Commons & Money resolution: House of Commons & Ways and Means resolution: House of Commons
Wednesday 21st November 2018 Commons Chamber

[Michael Gove]

I would like to take as many interventions as possible, in fairness to all those Members who necessarily cannot stay for the duration of the debate.

[Owen Smith (Pontypridd) (Lab)]

A moment ago, the Secretary of State offered the House some warm words about his commitment to sustainability. Could he therefore explain why the Bill contains only one vague mention of maximum sustainable yields? Can he give us a guarantee that, under his new vision for fisheries management, we will adhere to maximum sustainable yields and to scientific advice, as opposed to what we have done for years and years, which is to allow total catches to exceed those sustainable yields by up to 50%?

[Michael Gove]

The short answer is yes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Michael Gove]

It will be easier for those who are responsible for that bycatch to ensure that they can continue to fish in a way that is both environmentally sustainable and economically resilient. I will come back to the hon. Gentleman in due course.

[Owen Smith]

I am grateful to the Secretary of State for giving way; he is being very generous. I am trying to reconcile two things that he has said: first, that we are going to be more mindful of sustainability, and secondly, that we are going to catch more fish. The total allowable sole catch in the Irish sea is currently set at 40,000, when the scientific advice is that it should be zero. Will we be catching more or fewer sole in the Irish sea under the Secretary of State’s future plans?

[Michael Gove]

When it comes to individual species, we will follow the scientific advice that CEFAS and others give us. Overall, however, as we take back control we will have the opportunity to catch more fish in our own waters. The majority of the fish that are caught in UK waters are not caught by UK vessels. Let me give the hon. Gentleman one example. I do not know whether he knows what percentage of cod caught in the English channel is caught by French boats—I do not know whether anyone in the House does—but it is 83%. What percentage of cod caught in the English channel is caught by UK vessels? Just 7%. That is a fundamental inequity in the allocation of national resources. The Bill will allow us to decide who catches what and where, and in line with which environmental principles.

It is not often that a piece of legislation comes before the House that provides us with an opportunity to say to some of the most fragile communities in our country, our coastal communities, “There is real hope and a chance of an economic renaissance. Your suffering has been recognised and we can make a positive difference.” It is not often that legislation comes before the House that, if passed, would see an industry potentially double in size and in its capacity to generate new jobs and new economic opportunities. It is very, very rare that legislation that comes before the House achieves such social and economic goals and at the same time allows this country to underline its credentials as a leader in environmental practice of a kind that other countries would wish to emulate. Not only does this Fisheries Bill manage to bring hope to coastal communities and to reinforce the economic gains of leaving the European Union, but it underlines our credentials as an environmental leader, which is why I commend the legislation to the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Scott Mann (North Cornwall) (Con)]

It is always a pleasure to take part in a fisheries debate and, more importantly, a debate on a fisheries Bill. This Bill is naturally important to my constituency, and I welcome what it sets out to do. Fishing is an integral part of our coastal communities and their economy and culture, and it is part of our proud heritage in Cornwall, so I welcome this ambitious Bill for the fisheries industry as we leave the European Union and the common fisheries policy.

The CFP has damaged the whole UK fishing fleet. I am slightly concerned about the impact that the current withdrawal agreement could have on the UK’s sovereign control over our fisheries, but I commend the Bill and what it sets out to do. In North Cornwall, many of my constituents are quite rightly concerned about the impact that the CFP has had on coastal communities and the economy. I therefore welcome the revocation of the requirement for equal access rights for EU boats, which sits at the core of the Bill, to truly take back control of our waters and its resources within the UK and the Northern Ireland Executive economic zone. It is important to recognise that, as an independent coastal state under the UN convention on the law of the sea, nothing short of the UK Government having full control over access to fishing waters, sustainable quota and environmental measures being set in the UK is acceptable.

As the UK parliamentary bass champion, I fully agreed with Samuel Stone of the Marine Conservation Society when he said:

“This is the time for the UK to demonstrate strong leadership and to show that it can be ambitious and serious about the protection of our seas.”

I welcome the discard objectives in the Bill, which aim to gradually eliminate discards on a case-by-case basis by avoiding and reducing unwanted captures; that is particularly difficult in communities like mine, which are mixed fisheries. However, my understanding is that if the implementation period is extended, we will still effectively be in the CFP, we will still have to bid for quota and we will be subjected to the discard ban and the fines imposed under it.

[Owen Smith]

Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that it is worse than that? Not only will we still be in the CFP, but we will not be formally taking part in those discussions about quota. We will be invited to attend, and we may be consulted, but we will no longer have any proper influence.

[Scott Mann]

That is my understanding of the withdrawal Act. The implementation period should come to an end as quickly as possible, because the discard ban and the fines that might come about from it would place our fishermen under immense pressure.

I welcome the commitments made to supporting sustainable fisheries by ensuring that all our harvested stocks are in line with maximum sustainable yield. I was told recently that we must follow the science, and that is equally important with fisheries management. It is great to see the UK committing itself to internationally defined standards adopted by most successful fisheries and fisheries management regimes around the world.

However, more could be done through the Bill to ensure that we meet those targets. A light-tough approach to the duties placed on authorities to deliver on these objectives risks the complete undermining of the Government’s stated ambition. There is an absence of duty on fisheries managers to set fisheries limits on exceeding levels, to restore stocks or maintain maximum sustainable yield, and a lack of deadline for restoring stocks above maximum sustainable levels. I therefore recommend a binding duty to ensure that, as soon as the Bill comes into force, fisheries managers cannot set fishing limits above scientific recommended levels. That would deliver the UK Government’s objective to restore stocks.

I firmly believe that we have a chance to invest in our fishing industry and bring innovation at a time of change and changing technology, to improve both safety and prosperity in the industry. I welcome the Budget announcement of £12 million for the fishing industry, with £10 million of that money coming from UK Research and Innovation, to establish an innovation fund to help transform the fisheries industry, and £2 million being set aside for fisheries safety projects across the UK and on-board safety equipment; I know that my hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall (Mrs Murray) has pushed for that for some time.

The fishing industry and its practices have not developed much over the last 40 years, and it is time we brought innovation into the industry. Taking back control of our fisheries policy gives us a chance to ensure that the UK is a world leader in sustainability and safe and productive fishing methods. Investing in technology and technological change will help the UK to stick to its scientific objectives, which commit us to contributing to the collection of scientific data. An example of where we have gone wrong in the past with a fishing technique that has not evolved is the gill net. Currently, juvenile fish can be caught in an overloaded net, and this is one area where the tech innovation fund could look at new ways of developing gill net mesh.

Technology can also boost productivity for independent fishing businesses, support entrepreneurship and provide the ability to create new real-time data to allow fish to be sold directly to restaurants straight off the boats. An example of this is an independent small business in Cornwall that uses an app to register and download fish information as soon as the fish has gone into the boat, so that it can be sold to restaurants as soon as the boat comes back.

In my last minute, I would like to talk about recreational angling, which is hugely important to coastal communities such as mine. I commend the support in the Bill for promoting recreational angling. One opportunity this Fisheries Bill affords us involves Atlantic bluefin tuna. Stocks have collapsed over decades from commercial overfishing, but with the return of these iconic fish to the British Isles—in particular, to Cornwall—we now have a real opportunity to grasp the nettle and embrace this opportunity. As an independent and sovereign member of the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas, we have the opportunity to request a quota, and I believe we should. A fish that is caught by rod and line and returned to the sea is worth six times more to the economy than a fish that is landed, killed and eaten. I will leave it there, but I commend this Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Owen Smith (Pontypridd) (Lab)]

Before I get into my speech, I will confess my three interests in this Bill. First, like the Secretary of State, I had family—my grandfather, not my father—who worked in the fishing industry. My grandfather worked behind the wet fish counter in Tonypandy and in Barry. Secondly, I am a very keen angler myself; and thirdly, I am implacably opposed to Brexit, and this Bill and the fisheries debate more broadly is the greatest example I can think of to demonstrate the hollowness of the claims that were made by the Brexiteers, such as the Secretary of State, as well as the hollowness of the promises that he is holding out again today to fishing industries and fishermen right across the country.

On both sides of the Brexit debate, the issue of fisheries illustrates what a dreadful discussion we had, because the remain side ought to admit that the CFP is one of the great failures of the EU. It does not work environmentally and it has not worked for the fishing industry in our country or elsewhere, and we should acknowledge that. We should not seek to stay in or replicate the CFP; we should be trying to reform it. But the biggest deception, of course, was on behalf of the Brexiteers: the promise that leaving the CFP would allow us to take back control of our seas. It is a wonderful phrase, which we have heard from the Secretary of State today, but the seas that we are talking about—the Irish sea, the North sea and the English channel—are shared with the countries on the other side of them. The fish we get out of those seas are sometimes landed and processed on the shores on the other side of those seas, and the markets we rely on are very often on the other side of those seas. That exposes the hollowness of both the Brexiteers’ claims and many promises made in the Secretary of State’s rhetoric today.

The hollowness is also exposed by a paucity of detail because, frankly, this Bill is long on rhetoric and short on detail. The reason that it is short on detail is that very little is agreed in respect of the future of our fisheries. There are lots of promises, as there were lots of promises in the White Paper in July this year, but the truth is that almost nothing is determined in respect of the future nature of our fisheries and of our agreement. In fact, throughout the withdrawal agreement, it is very clear that nothing is agreed. On page 311 of the deal, it is stated very clearly that

“(‘fishery and aquaculture products’), shall not be covered…unless an agreement”

is established. I think that the Minister wants to get that agreement by June 2020, but there is no guarantee that that will happen. As many fellow Brexit supporters of the Secretary of State have pointed out to him and to Front Benchers today, in the intervening period—during the transition period—we will actually lose influence and leverage in respect of our fisheries.

Article 130 on page 206 of the withdrawal agreement states:

“As regards the fixing of fishing opportunities within…the transition period, the United Kingdom shall be consulted in respect of the fishing opportunities…the Union shall offer the opportunity to the United Kingdom to provide comments on the Annual Communication”.

It also says that the UK shall be invited to the “relevant…fora”. We will be consulted with, we will have the opportunity to comment and we will be invited, but we will not actually be official participants in the decision making—the key decisions on the size and scale of the quotas which, according to the Secretary of State, we ought to see taken back under our control. All that is a clear indication of the hollowness of the claim that we would exercise greater sovereignty as a result of our leaving the European Union.

The Secretary of State, I am not sure whether deliberately, spoke out of both sides of his mouth today. He said that we are going to be taking back control in order to exercise greater observance of the sustainable yields that we have ignored for many, many years when in the common fisheries policy, and at the same time he said that we were going to be increasing our fish catch. Those two things, I say respectfully to him, cannot both be true. We cannot, in future, be more observant of the scientific advice about what are the sustainable yields we can take from our stocks while at the same time taking more fish from our seas. That is the biggest and most egregious example of the fib that is being told to fishermen across this country. I hope that during the passage of the Bill the Secretary of State will clear up some of these misconceptions and is very honest with people about what Brexit could mean.