Fishing Industry

I beg to move,

That this House has considered Government support for the fishing industry.

I place on record my appreciation of the Backbench Business Committee for making time available for this debate and for bringing it back to its rightful place here in the main Chamber of the House.

The Prime Minister and his colleagues often tell us, rightly, that food security is national security. The focus of our discussions about food security is often what we farm on land, but we should never lose sight of the fact that we are an island nation and we are surrounded by seas which, if managed properly, can provide us with a source of good quality protein that can be harvested in a carbon-efficient way.

The people who work in our fishing industries often do so in difficult and dangerous circumstances. Still too many of them lose their lives in pursuit of our food and we should record our appreciation for what they do to keep us fed. I say “fishing industries” for a reason. Too often, we talk about fishing as if it were a single homogeneous industry, when the truth is very different. Even in my constituency, the issues facing inshore crab boats are very different from those facing the larger white- fish boats, which are in turn different from the issues facing the pelagic boats. Layer on top of that the interests of aquaculture, and we begin to get a sense of the complexity of seafood harvesting and production.

As many Members may know, warmer sea temperatures brought unexpected numbers of octopus to the waters around South Devon last year, and my crab and lobster fishermen have seen their catch decimated. They have lost up to 80%, hauling empty pots for weeks on end. That means fleet members are now cancelling maintenance work and having to lay off crew. Our fishing communities desperately need support, whether to enable them to stay in the industry or to help them decommission and leave. Does my right hon. Friend agree that that support is desperately needed from the Government?

It is critically important. I heard that for myself from my hon. Friend’s constituents when I visited Brixham not once but twice in the run-up to Christmas. It remains to be seen whether the invasion of octopus will be permanent because of changing water temperature, or whether it is just another of those blips that I think last happened in the 1950s. Whatever the truth of the matter, something has to be done for the industry that is there at the moment when the truth is finally established.

We speak about aquaculture as being all about finfish, but in my constituency and elsewhere the role of shellfish aquaculture is enormously important and deserves more attention, especially as we anticipate the conclusion of a sanitary and phytosanitary agreement with the European Union.

Fishing is still a predominantly community-based and family-run industry. It may not shift the dial massively in terms of UK-wide GDP, but in those areas where it matters it is nearly always essential. In Shetland, caught and farmed fish account for approximately one third of our local economic product. We have benefited over the years from the presence of oil and gas, and now from a growing visitor economy, but they do not define our community in the way that fishing does. I labour that point because it matters. People would be forgiven for thinking that this is an industry determined to plunder the seas and extract every last living organism from it. Nothing could be further from the truth. Fishing is predominantly a family business, and the people working in it want to hand on their business to the next generation. They have more of an interest in ensuring that there is a business to be handed on.

Fishing is an area of Government policy where good co-operation between our Governments makes a difference. That is what the industry needs and expects of us. Sadly, it does not always get it. The recent controversy around the fishing and coastal growth fund illustrates how it is fishers who lose out when that goes wrong. Let us remember that the roots of that fund lie in the decision of the Prime Minister to sign up for a 12-year extension of the catastrophically bad deal that Boris Johnson got us in the trade and co-operation agreement in 2020. Given that the EU was looking only for a five-year extension, it is quite an achievement to have managed to negotiate it up to 12 years. Let us also not forget that the loss of fishing effort traded away by the Prime Minister is worth about £6 billion over the 12-year period at today’s prices. If we were able to get half or even a quarter of that, the fund would never have been necessary.

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is a matter of considerable regret that the Scottish Government asked for the fishing and coastal growth fund to be devolved without first agreeing the mechanism outside the Barnett formula that would reflect the fact that Scotland has a larger share of the fishing industry?

That would have been perfect sense. It was certainly also regrettable that it was said that the Scottish Fishermen’s Federation had asked for this, when they obviously had not. A good, mature working relationship between the two Governments is required, and unfortunately we are just not there at the moment. That may change after May—who knows?

The irony of the fuss created by SNP Ministers about the allocation of the fishing and coastal growth fund was not lost on fishermen in Shetland. As The Shetland Times pointed out, Shetland received only 5% of the Scottish Government’s marine fund, despite the fact that we account for 20% of Scotland’s fishing product. We were assured by local SNP politicians that this was entirely different, as their scheme was “merit based”, which presumably means that we got our quota share only because we were not good enough to get the rest.

The relationship between the UK Government and the devolved Administrations is one thing; more important still is the relationship between all Governments and the industry as a whole. When any Government think they know better than the industry, we know that bad outcomes are just around the corner. Never has that been seen more clearly than when the SNP in Edinburgh, along with their coalition partners the Greens, sought to close down vast areas of fishing grounds by designating them as highly protected marine areas, which was stopped only by the most colossal campaign by industry and community organisations around the coast. It should never have been so difficult to make our own Government back down on measures that were so obviously an existential threat to coastal and island communities.

My colleague is making some very good points about where Governments are misjudging these matters. Charter fishermen in Torbay are extremely worried that the three-bag limit on pollack could devastate their industry. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Government need to monitor this extremely closely to see whether it does have this massive impact on the industry?

My hon. Friend makes a relevant point, which goes to the heart of how decisions are made. It is critical that Government are able to take on the infinite nuance and complexity in fisheries management, and that is done by being in the ports and on the quayside, talking to fishermen, processors, auction houses, transporters and all the rest of it.

The signs remain, however, that the same attitude persists in the Scottish Government. Members will have heard me speak before about the difficult situation facing our pelagic fleet as a result of the quota cuts, which are yet to be finalised, from the year-end negotiations. These cuts will put our pelagic fleet under serious pressure. At times like this, it is more important than ever that boats are able to land fish where they will get the best possible price, so the increase in the requirement for pelagic boats to land in Scotland limits unnecessarily their scope to maximise their restricted opportunities. Again, it has not gone unnoticed that nationalist voices in The Shetland Times condemn the change, while in the pages of Fishing News, Gillian Martin MSP stridently supports her ministerial colleagues.

It does not have to be like this. Our fishing fleets around the coast and in our island communities ask only to be listened to and heard by Government. They do a difficult and often dangerous job, and they should not have to contend with it being made even more difficult —and yes, occasionally more dangerous—by the people we elect to serve here and in other UK legislatures.

The right hon. Gentleman speaks about the fishing industry being heard. I hear reports of the SNP saying that Shetland would be listened to if it had a seat at the SNP table. I have a message for Shetland: we in the Western Isles have an SNP MSP, and we have not been listened to for 18 years.

I am sure that message that will indeed be heard with some interest in the Northern Isles. We island communities need to learn from the experience of each other.

There are lessons to be learned from the management of fisheries in different parts of the country. Before Christmas, I visited Brixham with the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee as part of our ongoing inquiry into fishing and the marine environment, and much of what I heard there was similar to what I hear back in Shetland. In fact, speaking to fishermen around the country, the same issue rears its head time and again: spatial squeeze. The salami slicing of access to traditional fishing grounds as a result of other marine and maritime activities now poses a clear and present danger to the viability of our fishing industries as a whole.

The right hon. Gentleman talks about the obstructive nature of some authorities. Does he share my concern about some of the inshore fisheries and conservation authorities? The Eastern IFCA, for instance, has caused grave concern to my fishing constituents in Boston, who are furious about the increasing interference and regulations. It is almost as though they want to stop the whole fishing industry as opposed to enhancing it.

I do not know the specifics around the Eastern IFCA, but if the hon. Gentleman writes to me about it, I will see if I can help him out in any way, shape or form. It comes back to my earlier point: authorities have to listen to and be informed by the fishing industry, whatever their locus. By the same token, the fishing industry has to accept that it is not always going to get everything it wants either.

On spatial squeeze, no single demand is unreasonable: the development of offshore renewable energy, aquaculture, marine protected areas, the laying of cables and pipelines, the use of the sea for leisure and doubtless other purposes —the list goes on. At every turn of the wheel, it is fishing effort that is reduced to accommodate something else. The root cause of the problem is that no one holds the ring to look at the whole picture of how our seas are being used. The policy of compensatory MPAs for damage caused to the seas by development done elsewhere feels particularly unjust and illogical.

Does my co-chair on the all-party parliamentary group on fisheries not think that the marine spatial prioritisation programme, which was introduced last summer, will do exactly the job he is hoping to see delivered?

Well, I hope it will. It remains to be seen. As the hon. Lady knows from working with me as co-chair of the APPG on fisheries, along with our independent co-chair the hon. Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner), to come up with a fisheries strategy for the whole country—it is that lack of strategy that needs to be addressed—the Government have a bit of a backlog on strategies, and the one she mentions has not even joined the queue yet. That is why we are doing this job: I think any initiative without a strategy is always going to struggle. I thank the hon. Lady for allowing me to junk a couple of pages of my speech there.

The House should be in no doubt that if the spatial squeeze on our fishing industry is allowed to continue, we shall soon risk losing its critical mass as a productive industry—that is true in all four parts of the United Kingdom. Once that critical mass is lost, we may never recover it. For the families and communities affected, that would be catastrophic. Fishing families are hard-working and economically productive people. Take away their ability to earn a living at sea, and they will not just sit idle; they will doubtless move with heavy hearts to do something else, somewhere else. That will forever change the nature and character of our coastal and island communities, and not in a good way. I hope that the Government will hear the warning and act before it is too late.

Finally, I wish to raise a concern that is very specific to my constituency: Norwegian access to our local waters. There are, as I speak, big, powerful vessels appearing around Shetland that were not there in the past. We often speak about the North sea fishing area, but in reality, so much of the international fishing effort has become concentrated around Shetland. Shetland fishermen have called on the UK Government to reduce the reciprocal catch limits in the UK-Norway annual bilateral fisheries agreement, but that appeal has not been heard. This is effectively the one major fishing effort in our waters over which we can still have some annual control.

Meur ras, Madam Deputy Speaker. I thank the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) for securing the debate.

I start by thanking all those who support our fleets when things go wrong. Having previously worked for the Royal National Lifeboat Institution, I have seen how devoted and brave its volunteers are. Many of them are fishermen themselves, and would rush to help others. I pay particular tribute to the men and women of the Looe station, whom I had the pleasure of visiting recently. They really are the best of us. I also pay tribute to the coastguard stations and search and rescue crews.

I thank the many charities who do so much to support our communities and fishing families, including Seafarers UK, Fishermen’s Mission and Fishmongers Hall, to name just a few. I also thank Seafood Cornwall Training, which does so much to help new entrants across our region—something I am very passionate about—and runs safety courses for our fishermen. We cannot overstate how important that work is, and how vital continued Government support is if we are to prevent money from being a barrier to safety.

We are very lucky to have Clive Palfrey in our patch—a born-and-raised Looe lad, former fisherman, lifeboat launch manager and senior coxswain. He has dedicated his life to fishermen’s safety, and has led many initiatives, including the first roll-out of life jackets with personal locator beacons. Can I ask the Minister to meet Clive and others, so that there is a better understanding that we still face so many tragic losses in this industry—it is the most dangerous peacetime occupation—and to discuss what can be done to prevent further deaths?

The fishing communities of Looe and Polperro are iconic. They are woven into the fabric of the town’s heritage and history, but Members should be under no illusion about how diminished they are from their former glory. That is not just because of the greatly reduced number of vessels, but because of how hard it is for them to make a living, and to support their families and communities like mine. Last year’s Great British inshore fishing survey made for grim reading.

My hon. Friend is speaking with real expertise and personal experience. As the Chair of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee mentioned, we had the chance to visit Brixham, where we heard at first hand that Government funding for fleets has often been focused on keeping old vessels in service, some of which are 60 years old. They may have upgraded equipment that can boost catch values, but then the crew are stuck with outdated and substandard living quarters. Those we met are calling for the growth fund to pay towards new vessels that could massively improve both profitability and quality of life for crews. Cannock Chase is about as far from the sea as a constituency can be, but even I can see the logic of that. Does my hon. Friend agree that it would be far more efficient and impactful for us to use the funding in that way?