Fisheries Bill: Legislative Consent Motion

Executive Committee Business – in the Northern Ireland Assembly at 3:30 pm on 29 September 2020.

Alert me about debates like this

Debate resumed on motion:

That this Assembly endorses the principle of the extension to Northern Ireland of the Fisheries Bill, as introduced in the House of Lords on 29 January 2020, and consents to the Fisheries Bill being taken forward by the Westminster Parliament. — [Mr Poots (The Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs).]

Photo of Steve Aiken Steve Aiken UUP

I support the legislative consent motion.

For somebody who has spent an awful lot of his time at sea one of the most dispiriting things over the years has been the diminution of the small and getting smaller Northern Ireland fishing fleet and the number of times that we have seen fishing boats having to be hauled up on a beach and burned because of decommissioning policies led by the common fisheries policy. I readily accept that I would have been a Remainer, but one of the areas that always gave me concern was the common fisheries policy. Indeed, the fact that, under that policy, the majority of productive waters that are left around Europe are in the United Kingdom's exclusive economic zone out to 200 miles from its coast underlines the degree to which other areas in the Mediterranean or off the French and Spanish coasts have been heavily overfished.

The move by those fishing vessels into UK waters over the years has led to a point where close to 60% of the English quota alone is owned by foreign vessels. That demonstrates how badly skewed the common fisheries policy has left things.

Less than three decades ago, it was a proud industry that people were quite happy to become involved in and go to sea with. It was an industry that supported fishing vessel building yards in Portavogie, Ardglass and other places, but they have all gone. The reason that they have gone is the common fisheries policy.

As we look at what is happening with environmental issues and the flow of fish stocks around the United Kingdom, we can see that areas that have not been under the control of Britain have been, particularly where the EU has been involved, overfished. That happened to such a degree that we reached the point where the North Sea, previously one of the largest areas for cod, had been virtually fished out. However, it was not fished out by British fishing vessels; it was fished out by the likes of the Danes despite over 40% of their catch being in British waters. What does that mean for Northern Ireland? It means that an industry that should have been built, developed and grown has shrunk. Many of the families who were involved in fishing left the industry and did so because they saw no future.

One of the things that we can see as we approach the end of the transition period is that, with the end of the common fisheries policy, we can start to think about an appropriate future for the fishing industry. An industry for all the people in Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and England, where people can go back to their traditional skills and manage them effectively. There are some specific issues. We hear an awful lot that, when we leave the common fisheries policy and decide to do away with the London Convention, even though we will have access to the fish, we will not have access to the market. I have got news for the people in Europe, because everywhere else has been fished out. If the people in Europe want the fish, they will have to get it from the source, which is UK waters. So, there is a future for a United Kingdom fishing industry.

There are other significant issues, and we have heard about the importance of conservation. Only by managing what is, in effect, one of the largest areas of stewardship will we get to the point where fish stocks are being maintained and can be fished sustainably for a considerable period of time so that we can build an industry. We also hear that within the legislative consent motion we do not have issues that address the crews of fishing vessels and the importance of more of our own mariners wanting to go to sea. Quite frankly, that is not the case. As is the case with the Merchant Marine and across all aspects of seafaring, we should be concerned about the welfare of those who want to make their livelihoods by fishing at sea. The fishing associations in Northern Ireland are rightly concerned about that, and the Minister will be taking a very close interest in what we are trying to achieve as the LCM goes through.

We have the opportunity to help rebuild the Northern Ireland fishing industry from a very low level. I never again want to see our fishing vessels being pulled up on the beaches and burned for some form of common fisheries process. I never again want to hear the words, "decommissioning for the fishing industry". I want to see us building a fishing industry that is sustainable in Northern Ireland, but it has to be done in partnership with the Scots, the Welsh, the English and those fishing boats from the Republic of Ireland that are willing to abide by the rules. The deep seas off the 200-metre line, in which the Irish Government invested a lot for the sake of the fishing vessels from Killybegs, have been fished out. There is nowhere for them to go, except for the United Kingdom's exclusive economic zone. Therefore, there will have to be a relationship; there will have to be a partnership. However, it has to be a partnership in which people realise that the inequities of the common fisheries policy have been put behind us. More importantly, we need to look to the future. I trust that the Minister, and the Members of this Assembly, will do that.

Photo of Maurice Bradley Maurice Bradley DUP

Mr Speaker, I apologise for not being in my place earlier.

It has been mentioned several times today that members of the Agriculture Committee have expressed disquiet about the lack of scrutiny time available for the LCM and that there are many concerns about it. However, whilst negotiations are ongoing between the EU and the UK, all focus should be on getting the best deal for Northern Ireland.

No legislation will give everything to everybody; that does not exist. This LCM is no different. However, it has been broadly welcomed by the fishing industry, and I fully support its passage through the Assembly today. A failure to agree the LCM would create a great deal of uncertainty for our fishermen. It would mean that we would not be signed up to fisheries objectives — objectives that are vital in maintaining sustainable stocks and vital in seeing those stocks not just maintained but growing in number.

As an island, the sea is at the heart of our culture, well-being and prosperity. Our seas support our daily lives, providing multiple resources and services, including food fish, shellfish, energy, coastal protection, tourism, leisure and recreation opportunities, physical and mental health benefits, and cultural, heritage and learning experiences. Failure to support the LCM would leave us without the power to make fishing policy and no power to make grant support to the industry or to regulate it. The Bill provides powers for DAERA to introduce schemes of financial assistance for our fishing and agriculture industries in order to improve the marine and aquatic environment that we all consider so precious and to develop them to be even more sustainable. That will replace the European maritime fisheries fund.

It is my understanding that local fishing fleets offer full-time employment to 686 people and part-time employment to a further 168. On 31 December 2020, Northern Ireland leaves the common fisheries policy, and the Bill provides us with a legislative framework to develop new policies. I support the LCM.

Photo of Sinéad Bradley Sinéad Bradley Social Democratic and Labour Party

As a Member for South Down, I recognise the significance of the LCM for the livelihoods of the many families that rely heavily on the success of the fishing industry and for the economy in Kilkeel and Ardglass.

Those who supported Brexit promised great things. The removal of the common fisheries policy was heralded as a great win that would remove the shackles of European standards and regulations from the industry in Northern Ireland. The Northern Ireland fishing industry — I refer in particular to the fishing families from Kilkeel and Ardglass — was promised a new dawn. Mr Harvey repeated that promise here today and presented the LCM as the launch of that new dawn. Well, if it is, I have to say: what a damp squib — or squid, in this instance.

There was no opportunity to consider the LCM at Committee, and there was zero opportunity to consider any amendments. Indeed, this first step involves the Department setting off on the back foot, with promises already of supplementary legislative consent motions. The first step into this new dawn appears more like a Department that has been tripped and pushed into an action. A Tory Government that have repeatedly put their needs first, regardless of the consequences for this place and its people, appear to be forcing the Department's unprepared hand — hence the need at the outset to speak of supplementary work.

On 31 December 2020, the UK will no longer be part of the common fisheries policy, if there is no trade deal. The LCM proposes a legislative framework that will fill that void; I recognise that. It is a framework that rejects the House of Lords' notion that sustainability should be a key driver in building any UK policy. It often jars with me that the fishing industry is presented as a community that cares nothing for environmental protection and the preservation of their industry: nothing is further from the truth. Fishing families in Kilkeel and Ardglass go back for generations, and there is nobody more invested in ensuring that the industry is sustainable for the generations to come. That is why they deserve and need so much more than an LCM or a framework that gives no acknowledgement to their needs. It is a further framework of promises.

Our local fishing industry requires a reputable set of standards, a guarantee that they will not be set aside to facilitate other regions of the UK and an assurance that their catch and produce has access to a market that will command a fair price. The lack of process in the delivery of the LCM and the obvious lack of any such assurances in its contents do not fill me with any confidence. I am not sure that I can yet see the new dawn that has been promised. For the sake of constituents in South Down who are heavily reliant on the success of the outworkings at Westminster and this LCM, I genuinely put myself forward to say, "I hope you prove me wrong".

Photo of Mike Nesbitt Mike Nesbitt UUP 3:45, 29 September 2020

I welcome the opportunity to say a few words in the debate not least as a Member for Strangford, home to Portavogie, one of our three fishing villages. Portavogie is home to the Northern Ireland Fish Producers' Organisation (NIFPO). I was keen to hear what NIFPO thought of this legislation. It is interesting to note that their basic response was, "It was fine until the politicians got their hands on it". However, I think that they are broadly content, although they have submitted some technical reservations to the Committee.

I am happy to support the LCM, despite the uncertainties that have been well articulated by the likes of Patsy McGlone and Matthew O'Toole. Probably "uncertainty" is the word that sums up the reaction of the fishing fleet in the four years since the Brexit vote. We recognise that the fishing fleet felt that they could be the poster boys, as they put it, of Brexit. The UK Government, faced with a country that had divided pretty much down the middle in the referendum, needed evidence that Brexit was a good thing and needed a quick win. The obvious quick win was a fishing fleet that, freed, as they saw it, from the shackles of the European Union's despised common fisheries policy, would thrive and flourish in an obvious way and in a short timescale. Of course, that has not happened.

There have been further obstacles such as the Migration Advisory Committee (MAC), which adversely impacted on the ability to attract foreign nationals to the workforce by refusing to acknowledge trawlermen as skilled workers. That was despite the fact that, a couple of years ago, MAC acknowledged in a survey that 53% of the workforce in the fishing fleet in Northern Ireland was made up of non-UK nationals. How delightful to be able to acknowledge that, today, MAC has changed its mind. The Migration Advisory Committee has said today that it now recognises that trawlermen are skilled workers and acknowledged that the fishing fleet workforce should go on the shortage occupation list. I spoke to Harry Wick, the chief executive of NIFPO, and, to use a colloquial expression, today you could not annoy him. He feels that that unlocks huge potential for the fishing fleet.

I welcome the Bill. I welcome the fact that it has the eight objectives outlined by the Minister in his opening remarks. There should be no hierarchy within those objectives. The people who man our fleet are responsible fishermen who understand the importance of sustainability and will work with that while trying to grow their industry. I also welcome the commitment to statements that should tell us how the fleet should interpret those eight objectives and how it is expected to implement them.

We have objectives and a commitment to a statement, but we must acknowledge that there should be an overall purpose to the Bill, which should be to make fishing and the fishing fleet more attractive to the people of Northern Ireland, who used to populate it but have found that it has become less attractive in recent years. We have to deal with the uncertainty, implement the objectives and come out with the statements, and I hope that the Department will work with the industry on the co-design and co-production of how we implement the Bill if it goes through on today's LCM. Surely, nobody knows how to grow the industry better than the people who run it in a responsible manner that looks to a bright future.

Photo of Clare Bailey Clare Bailey Green

The Green Party welcomes the Bill as framework legislation that presents us with a tangible opportunity to do things differently in fishery management at the very time when our seas are under more pressure than at any other time in human history. I thank the Minister for his notification of the UK Government's proposed amendments to the Bill, and I look forward to DAERA being able to work towards making the Bill better for Northern Ireland, should those amendments pass. I also welcome the real environmental ambition in the Bill and truly hope that we use the opportunity to put sustainability first as a means to drive ocean recovery and resilient and thriving coastal communities. I also thank the Chair of the AERA Committee for the comprehensive report that he gave on behalf of our Committee.

I speak on behalf of the Green Party, specifically about the need for sustainability to be enshrined as a primary objective in the Bill and for accurate and robust monitoring and enforcement. For all the potential that the Bill holds to create truly meaningful change to the way in which we manage our fisheries, one thing is clear to me, and it is vital that we get it right: our seas and oceans are sick. They have absorbed the bulk of the warming that has resulted from climate change. We have seen them becoming more acidic and less oxygen-rich. We are witnessing in real time the first death of an ecosystem caused by climate change, with mass coral-reef bleaching occurring around the world and reports indicating that there could be more microplastics than zooplankton in our oceans.

Locally, we are doing no better. According to the UK marine strategy, the UK is failing on 11 out of 15 indicators of marine health. Only 58% to 68% of our fish stocks are fished at sustainable levels, with our quotas consistently being set above scientifically recommended sustainable levels year after year. Less than 1% of fishing trips are currently monitored at sea, making it impossible for us to get an accurate picture of exactly how much fish we currently take out of the seas. We know that our fishing stocks are not secure. UK waters are among the most heavily exploited in the world. The UN intergovernmental panel report on biodiversity indicates that commercial fishing has been the biggest cause of marine biodiversity loss globally in the last 50 years. Overfishing also prevents us from tackling climate change because it damages crucial marine habitats that store carbon and distribute food chains throughout the ecosystem.

I welcome the inclusion of the fisheries objectives in the Bill. It is encouraging to see the inclusion of ones such as the sustainability objective, the precautionary objective and the ecosystem objective. I particularly welcome the inclusion of the climate change objective, obviously, given the current climate emergency and the role that ocean recovery has to play in tackling that problem. It is, however, regrettable and somewhat alarming that the UK Government have stripped out the House of Lords amendment that would have made sustainability the prime objective in the Bill. That amendment had been supported by a coalition of environmental NGOs and major retailers, and it had cross-party support in the House of Lords. If the Bill is truly to create a sustainable fishing industry and marine environment, sustainability must be enshrined in law. I note, however, that there is no legal obligation to achieve any of the Bill's objectives. Without legal duty, I worry that the Bill will fail to deliver on its ambition. Boris Johnson's Conservative Government promised in their 2019 manifesto that they would deliver a "legal commitment to fish sustainably" — there is another Boris quote for you — yet the same Government have now taken active steps to remove sustainability as the prime objective in the Bill. If that is an indication of the direction of travel post Brexit, it does not inspire confidence, if there ever was confidence to be had in this UK Government. The Bill is ambitious: that much is clear and very welcome. To achieve that ambition, however, the sustainability objective must be in place as the prime objective; otherwise, the wide range of opt-out provisions in the Bill is set to allow trade-off objectives, with the potential for short-term economic or political decisions that lead to overfishing and to a long-term decline in fish stocks.

The accurate recording of catches is vital to managing our fishing activities and to ensuring the favourable conservation status of fish stocks. I was therefore disappointed to see the Public Bill Committee yet again tabling amendments to remove cross-party House of Lords amendments and taking away the amendment that would have ensured that remote electronic monitoring was rolled out for all vessels fishing in UK waters, despite the benefits that that would entail. REM is a robust and cost-effective tool for supporting sustainable fisheries management. As it stands, less than 1% of activity at sea is monitored. The benefits would be numerous: helping to end overfishing through better monitoring; improved stock assessments; the setting of quotas in line with scientific advice; and the provision of valuable data on the capture of marine wildlife such as seabirds and dolphins, essential to achieving the ecosystem objective.

The House of Lords EU Energy and Environment Sub-Committee has recommended that urgent steps be taken to put in place robust mechanisms to monitor and enforce compliance. It has stated that REM is the only way in which to monitor compliance with the landing obligation. It is only natural for crew on vessels to be concerned about how that would affect their privacy, so it should be pointed out that REM with CCTV would be triggered by motion sensors on gear when catch is landed, as opposed to being 24/7, and that there would be no monitoring in any living quarters. I should also point out that CCTV is mandatory in abattoirs across the UK. REM would ensure that our fisheries sector too is monitored to ensure robust enforcement and fully documented catches. I take the opportunity to call on the Minister to consult on the roll-out of REM with CCTV across the NI fleet.

We have heard much about the failures of the quotas designated under the common fisheries policy and of that inflexible system. Whereas the majority of UK fishing boats are small-scale, the small-scale fleets hold only 2% of the UK quota. I hope that the Bill provides the opportunity to rectify that and to produce more equitable systems. We know that coastal communities have lost out on employment and investment as a result of the lack of access to fishing opportunities. We urgently need to reform and rebalance fishing rights so that smaller, more sustainable vessels get their fair share of the quota and so that fishing can be a viable way for families and communities to make a living.

We know that fisheries management plans will set out how we are to achieve sustainable fish stocks.

Among the issues with the common fisheries policy are its inflexible approach and its inability to take local context and environments into account. Those concerns are keenly felt by many fishing communities. That is why I am pleased to see that DEFRA has confirmed that it plans to amend the Fisheries Bill to allow Northern Ireland to have jurisdiction over management measures in our offshore waters so that the specific needs of our local marine environment can be addressed.

Marine protected areas are intended to safeguard vital marine ecosystems and create a healthy marine environment. A well-managed network of MPAs will align with objectives to ensure that our fisheries are managed sustainably. I am calling upon the Minister to introduce robust management plans for all designated marine protected areas to ensure the long-term survival of habitats and species.

In conclusion, although proper time to scrutinise the Bill has been missing, as has been pointed out —.

Photo of Matthew O'Toole Matthew O'Toole Social Democratic and Labour Party

The Member mentioned marine protection, which will include protection in inland waterways, aquaculture and sea loughs. Clearly, there is a huge issue there in relation to our two big sea loughs — Lough Foyle and Carlingford lough, a cross-border lough. Is the Member concerned that the lack of reference to the Ireland protocol in the Bill creates uncertainty around how EU regulations are applied and the quality of regulation and conservation in those places?

Photo of Clare Bailey Clare Bailey Green

I am very concerned about the moves from the UK Government. For a way forward on an all-island basis, we need to be pushing, with the North/South Ministerial Council, the common frameworks across the island to build better relationships. That is something that can be done quickly, and should be done immediately. The Member raises many issues. Thank you.

If we are to have a fishing industry in the future, the Bill should have environmental protections at its heart. It is vital that the sustainability principle is made the prime objective of the Bill and that REM is introduced as an affordable, reliable way to monitor catches if we are truly to put sustainability at the heart of our fishing policy going forward. I hope to see those amendments returned to the Bill as it completes its journey through the Commons and the Lords.

As we head towards the end of the transition period, we await a much-needed deal with Europe. The EU is the main market for what our fishers catch, and the prospect of having no access is worrying. It threatens jobs, incomes and communities that are already under stress. Our fishermen need a deal, and they need it now as a matter of urgency. The Green Party is happy to support the LCM, and we look forward to a robust Bill that tackles the needs of Northern Ireland.

Photo of Alex Maskey Alex Maskey Sinn Féin

I call on the Minister Edwin Poots to conclude and give a winding-up speech on the motion.

Photo of Edwin Poots Edwin Poots DUP

I am glad to respond to the debate, and I thank Members for participating in it. The Chairman spoke at length. He started off with issues around the Bill being rushed and the lack of time in which to consider it. Unfortunately, that was unavoidable. We have done our best, in a very short time, to get this done before the end of transition to provide the Committee with as much time as possible in the circumstances. Thankfully, the industry has expressed support for the Bill, as Mr Nesbitt pointed out. It is interesting to note that the industry supports it, but a number of Members opposite — Members who, apparently, represent fishing areas, and some who come from fishing areas — do not support it. Interestingly, they do not support the industry on this issue.

It was suggested by Mr McAleer that the Bill lacked detail. It is a framework Bill; it gives us enabling powers. Enabling powers allow us to develop issues. Ms Bailey has just pointed out issues that she would like to see developed. She is right. That is how you do it. You take the framework Bill, and you build upon it. Ms Bailey and others can make their argument for how things could be developed going forward.

The interesting thing is that we, the House — the Members behind me and the Members in front of me — will have the opportunity to make those decisions. Previously, we had no role to play, because it was all done over in Brussels. We had one MEP, Sinn Féin had one MEP, the Ulster Unionists had one MEP and the SDLP did not have any. A great influence you would have there, amongst 800 MEPs. You can actually make the decisions on behalf of your own people, and you are saying, "Oh, no, no. We don't want it. This is a terrible Bill".

Photo of Mervyn Storey Mervyn Storey DUP

On that, I was interested to hear what Clare Bailey said and the point that she made very well in relation to the overfishing of the stocks. That happened during our time in the European Union. Who was it that was coming in and pillaging our fish stocks? The very same people who we are glad to say goodbye to in the European Parliament, who wanted to have our fish and to have it on their terms. The Minister is absolutely right that, from now on, it should be on our terms.

Photo of Edwin Poots Edwin Poots DUP

The Bill allows us to deal with the marine environment. It allows us to actually deal with the fish quotas and the new rules and the future funding. Without the Bill, we do not have any of that.

I heard some Members complaining that it gives the Secretary of State too much power over quotas. How was it done before? I remember, when the deputy First Minister was the Agriculture Minister, she used to head off to Brussels in December, just before Christmas. It was not a shopping exercise — more of a fishing exercise. She went over to Brussels to try to get a bit of quota for our fishermen. In December every year, there was a haggling session over fishing. It was supposed to be about science. Let me say that science might have been applied at the start of the process, but I think that, by the end of it, there was not much science applied. There was a haggling session every year, and our Ministers from the UK Government were over fighting the case for us. I think that we stand a better chance of dealing with Brandon Lewis than dealing with that.

Members have said that there will not be much more fishing opportunity in the Irish Sea, and they have tried to quote officials. I think that, if they were quoting officials right, they would be saying that there will not be as much opportunity to expand in the Irish Sea as there will be in the North Sea and other parts of British waters. Nonetheless, they gave France the opportunity to take 20% of the nephrops in our waters — France?! It has a huge boundary of water around it for fishing purposes, but here they are allowed up into the Irish Sea. Why? Because France are powerful negotiators in the European Union. Then they will not let us catch cod. Every year, they tell us, "Oh, the cod stocks haven't recovered. Oh, you can't catch any cod in the Irish Sea, because the cod stocks are terrible." Cod is a fish that is commonly eaten here and commonly used here and which used to be caught by our fishermen for our people. What do they do? The cod actually migrate down the Irish Sea from north to south, and we cannot catch them, but the French and Spanish super-trawlers are waiting at the bottom of the Celtic Sea, and they are catching all the cod.

Nobody need tell me that our leaving the European Union is a terrible thing for fisheries. If anyone had driven round the fishing harbours during the time of the Brexit referendum, they could not have failed to notice the numbers of fishing boats that actually had flags up supporting the leaving of the European Union. If you want to see an industry that has been destroyed as a consequence of European Union regulation, fishing is the best example of it. Go to Ardglass, Portavogie and, to a lesser extent, Kilkeel and see the wooden boats with the flaking paint or the rusting steel boats. It is not a pleasant sight. It is not because those people are not prepared to work hard; they are. It is not because those people were not prepared to go out to sea and catch the fish and bring it in and land it and do all that needs to be done. They were prepared to do it, but they were not allowed to do it. Our fishing industry has been emasculated by the common fisheries policy. People who suggest otherwise should be ashamed of themselves.

Mr McGlone, for example, said that we did not have a very good record when it came to the science. How dare he? I wish that he were here. How dare he say that we do not have a good record? We have abided by what has been imposed upon us. That is why our fishing industry has been on its knees whilst France, Spain, the Netherlands and Denmark, with their super-trawlers the size of football pitches, have been pillaging the seas. Our small 10-metre boats have been bringing in very modest amounts of fish, and observing the science that is there.

Photo of Clare Bailey Clare Bailey Green

I thank the Minister for giving way. Are we getting a guarantee from him that he will set the legislation to ensure that overfishing does not happen in our waters in the future and that quotas will be set by scientific evidence?

Photo of Edwin Poots Edwin Poots DUP

The good news for Ms Bailey is that there is an adequacy of fish in the Irish Sea for all the communities who fish in it. For people in the west of Scotland and England, Northern Ireland, the Republic of Ireland, the Isle of Man and Wales, there is an adequacy of fish to go after without overfishing. Therefore, we do not need to give 20% of our nephrops stocks to France. There is a significant uplift to be had without overfishing, which will benefit our fishermen in a very substantial and significant way. We need to take account of that.

I will add that the sustainability objective has to be paramount. We need to protect the environment. Several objectives relate to that; the sustainability, ecosystem and precautionary objectives, which I mentioned. Those are three of the eight priorities that we have set, which all relate to the environment. We want to ensure that we have the right balance and there is not the complete hierarchy of one objective, but sustainability is critical to our role.

Mr Blair also mentioned remote electronic monitoring, as did Ms Bailey. I agree that it has a place in fisheries management. It is just one tool. It could be a tad draconian to impose it on all vessels, particularly those that are under 10 metres. Therefore, it is important that we have that devolved flexibility to chose from the range of management tools and measures, and pick those that are best suited to our fleet. Let us not just say that remote monitoring is out — it is not; it is something for us to consider — but it is for us to consider with a series of other tools and work with the fishing community, who are responsible custodians of the seas and have been over the years.

Philip McGuigan referred to the film 'Salem's Lot'. If he wants to refer to films, he could have referred to "the EU chainsaw massacre" on our fishing ports, because it has absolutely destroyed our fishing industry. I have to say that I was stunned that Ms Ennis, in particular, was so robust against the Bill because the consequence of not approving the LCM will be that there is no funding to support fishing communities in 2021. We will not be able to provide that support, grant aid or licensing. Therefore, what do we do? What is Ms Ennis's policy? If we do not approve the LCM, how will she support the fishing industry? I am happy to give way to her if she wants to tell us how she will support the people in Ardglass and Kilkeel in her constituency. I am supporting them here by supporting the Bill. She is not supporting them by going against it.

Photo of Sinéad Ennis Sinéad Ennis Sinn Féin

Show us the money.

Photo of Edwin Poots Edwin Poots DUP

As I said, I will give way. I will hear the Member if she has a better idea or proposal. However, just to oppose it is actually to damage the communities that she purports to represent.

As I said, we have powers now through the Bill to designate MPAs in our offshore zone. That policy would be to the good of the environment. The Secretary of State has agreed to work with us to amend the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009. It is not within the scope of the Bill to do that.

However, the Bill will open up the opportunities. We have established our own Bill team to review our own Fisheries Act (Northern Ireland) 1966 and we will be working with DEFRA to gain those powers. It is important to demonstrate that this is not all about the economy. There is a big environmental impact, for the good, as a consequence of supporting this Bill.

In terms of the suggestion that the Secretary of State has too much power, I reiterate that he does not have any more power than the EU, yet those who were objecting were happy for the EU to have those powers. We are benefiting today from having issues devolved to us, not all issues, but a considerable amount of issues devolved to us.

There was a complaint, "Oh no, the Secretary of State has too much power". He does not have the power that the European Union had. Therefore, that objection does not have any standing. We want to preserve our devolved responsibilities. For years, we have successfully been working in partnership with the Secretary of State, Scotland, Wales and fisheries. There is no reason why that successful partnership cannot continue.

Mr O'Toole, and I am glad that he has returned, complained about the lack of detail in the Bill. As I explained, it is a framework Bill that gives us the power to develop the detail. For example, the detailed policies about fishery statements and future funding regimes will be subject to full consultation with the Committee. That will be a decision for us and the detail will be a decision for us, the elected representatives of the people of Northern Ireland: it will not be a decision for some civil servant in the European Union. That is something to be welcomed.

Mr O'Toole referred to migrant labour; he knows full well that that is a reserved matter. It is not a policy for this Bill. It is an entirely different matter. I thank Mr Nesbitt for bringing the information on the MAC to the House. That is positive news and will be appreciated by all in the fishing fleet.

I terms of the voisinage agreement, I appreciate the valuable instrument that it has been for fleets here and in the Republic of Ireland. However, shortly after becoming Minister, I mentioned the issue of us fishing in Irish waters and Irish boats fishing in our waters, to the Foreign Minister Mr Coveney. His reply was, "I cannot do business with you on this. It has to be done through the European Union". It has to be done through the European Union, a sovereign state. Sorry, I do not have the power to talk to this devolved Administration Minister about doing a reciprocal arrangement that has existed for years and ensuring —

Photo of Edwin Poots Edwin Poots DUP

— yes, I will in a moment — that the Irish fishing fleet can continue to fish in our waters and that our people can still go down to Dundalk Bay. Mr Coveney cannot do anything on that because he does not have the power to do that. He has given that power to the European Union and we are getting that power back.

Photo of Steve Aiken Steve Aiken UUP

Thank you very much indeed. Bearing in mind what the Speaker said earlier on the importance of accuracy, maybe the next time that you are talking to Mr Coveney you may want to point to the fact that, under international law, the fishing zone of between three to six miles is the exclusive preserve of the sovereign state. Mr Coveney was either being inaccurate or did not understand the fishing rules, which is probably more appropriate.

Photo of Edwin Poots Edwin Poots DUP

That would probably be a long conversation. I will maybe leave that for you to have with him, Mr Aiken.

Mr O'Toole claims that the Bill is silent on aquaculture. Unfortunately, he has demonstrated that he has not looked at the Bill very closely. If he had, he would not have suggested anything like that because the Bill mentions aquaculture no less than 90 times. The objectives and other provisions of the Bill also relate to aquaculture where specified. The Bill does provide powers for the Administrations to introduce schemes of financial assistance for fish and aquaculture industries, and it includes provisions related to fish, health and diseases that specifically relate to aquaculture. Aquaculture is well covered within the Bill.

I welcome Mr Aiken's comments. They were thoughtful and helpful, and I appreciate that. A series of Members made supportive comments. Mr Harvey, Mr Bradley, Mr Nesbitt, Ms Barton, Ms Bailey and Mr Blair responded in a very positive way.

Without this Bill, we will not have the suite of legislation and the appropriate powers to support the industry via grants post 1 January 2021. That will put our industry at a competitive disadvantages to that in the rest of the UK and the EU. I ask Members to think very carefully and to reflect upon that. I have spoken very clearly and directly to Ms Ennis, for example. Is that where she wants to be in the representation of the people in her constituency? I certainly would not want to be in the position where I would not have the ability or facility to provide that necessary support because I had voted for a political reason.

Photo of Declan McAleer Declan McAleer Sinn Féin

On the question of support, the Minister will accept that, between 2014 and 2020, the fishing industry here in the North benefited from the EMFF to the tune of £18 million. He will also accept that the Bill includes no reference to funding at all. In fact, in the White Paper and in leading up to the Bill the British Government made reference to the industry taking shared responsibility and making a greater contribution to the costs. That suggests to me that we are coming out of the CFP, which provided funding under the EMFF, and the British Government really have no intention of putting funding towards fishing at all, yet we sell 86% of our fishing stock away from the North of Ireland, with over 40% going to the EU. There is a focus on support, but I am not convinced that that support is going to be there.

Photo of Edwin Poots Edwin Poots DUP

The Member knows full well that funding would not be part of the Bill. We have requested at least the same money as we received previously under the EMFF.

I will make this very clear in the House, and I hope that it goes back to Europe. The notion that some people have put forward from the European Union negotiating side, that there should be a tariff put on fish caught in the Irish Sea and landed in this part of Ireland, is entirely wrong, and they need to back off. They need to back off and not be making silly suggestions that fish caught a few miles off our coast and landed here would be subject to tariffs. We are part of the single market as a consequence of the protocol, so what is the issue? As part of the single market, we should have the same ability to sell fish landed here in that single market as anywhere else.

I do not agree with aspects of the protocol; that is very well known, but on that aspect, if they are to be honourable and do the right thing by Northern Ireland, which they claim to have done for years and want to do going forward, this just will not be an issue. Northern Ireland fish will have full access to the markets in the European Union.

In any event, as Mr Aiken quite rightly pointed out, a lot of the fish stocks are exhausted. The Mediterranean, for example, is heavily populated by tuna. Many of the fish caught in the Irish Sea are not available in other part of the European Union. Therefore, they are desirable. Our nephrops are desirable, not just in the European Union but right around the world, because of the high quality of the material that our fishermen are catching.

I'll tell you what: I will take the chance that I will catch it and sell it, as opposed to standing back and allowing someone else to come in and catch it and sell it when they did not have any right to it in the first place. It is a bit like opening the door of your house, and saying, "Come in and take what you want from the fridge". At some point, you have to say enough is enough.

I am thankful that we are coming out of the common fisheries policy. It was not good for our fishing fleet and it was not good for our fishing industry. This legislative consent motion allows us to move forward. It will allow for a new dawn and a move away from a very dark night that we have spent under the common fisheries policy.

I hope that in a number of years when people take a drive around the coast and go into Ardglass, Portavogie and Kilkeel, they will see harbours that have boats that are modern, well-equipped and safe, and an industry that is thriving as opposed to one that has been allowed to deteriorate under the common fisheries policy.

I commend the Bill. It is the best opportunity for us to move forward. We have no other options. I asked Members that if they had options, to state them, and they were strangely silent. It is easy to criticise something, but in the absence of an alternative, I do not see much merit in that criticism.

I appeal to Members from all sides of the House to support the Bill.

Question put and agreed to. Resolved:

That this Assembly endorses the principle of the extension to Northern Ireland of the Fisheries Bill, as introduced in the House of Lords on 29 January 2020, and consents to the Fisheries Bill being taken forward by the Westminster Parliament.

(Mr Deputy Speaker [Mr McGlone] in the Chair)