Fishing risks landing PM in deal of trouble

Britain becoming an independent coastal state was one of the central pillars of the 2016 referendum campaign. The promise to “take back control” of our waters was effective because the romantic idea of us Brits becoming a buccaneering seafaring nation once more chimed and was easy to explain, at least on the face of it.

Exiting the EU would see struggling coastal communities and hard-pressed fishermen given extra investment and earning more as fishing quotas were renegotiated, or so it was said.

Four years on from that vote, the man who led the Brexit campaign, Boris Johnson, is in Number 10 and on the verge of opening fisheries negotiations with Brussels.

But make no mistake, this undertaking will have more minefields than the prime minister’s bridge spanning that munitions dump in the Irish Sea.

The first point to make is that the objectives of the EU and UK are diametrically opposed over fishing. Brussels has made clear it wants the same access to British waters and the same quota shares, and has warned that a wider deal on a trade deal not be possible without agreement on this.

Meanwhile, London has been clear that it wants a Norway-like relationship that would have annual negotiations on fisheries access. With both sides so far apart, it is hard to see where a comprise will be found.

If it eventually does come down to a choice between fisheries, which make up 0.1% of the economy, or a wider deal, which will Mr Johnson choose? Tory MPs who have said it would be “unthinkable” for the prime minister not to make good on past promises, should perhaps ask the DUP how that worked out.

The second point to make, is that there is no one British fishing industry. There are many competing interests, whether that be English vs Scottish, white fish vs pelagic, deep-sea fishing vs inshore fishing and fishers vs processors.

It is difficult, for example, to find a common interest between the corporate owners of a pelagic vessel chasing mackerel in the Atlantic and the inshore fishermen who set out alone – or with a very small crew – from Scotland’s west coast.

The fundamental point in this debate that has often been missed by those in Westminster is about quota shares. A significant reason behind the decline in fishing communities since the 1970s has been the sale and concentration of quotas into fewer and fewer domestic and foreign hands – something successive governments have permitted. In Scotland for example, lucrative white fish quotas are dominated by three or four multimillion-pound companies.

And these larger firms will be hoping for a Brexit trade deal that gives them the opportunity to press for more quota through annual negotiations with the EU.

The picture for the smaller, inshore fishermen, who have regularly been held up as the chief beneficiaries of Brexit could not be more different. Jeremy Percy, director of the New Under Ten Fishermen’s Association which represents the UK’s small fishing vessels, aired his frustration on this issue before a House of Lords committee just last week.

“Eighty-percent of British fishermen didn’t have any quota in the first place and, in fact, the 80% of the under 10 only have access to less than 2% of the national quota, so it was others who were entirely responsible for flogging off the family silver,” he said.

A secondary issue for the inshore fleet is that they rely much more on EU workers and export the majority of their goods to the continent; in both instances this may become more difficult, depending on the deal Mr Johnson negotiates.

If, as is planned, the UK Government enacts a points-based migration system after Brexit and sets the minimum wage threshold at £25,000 it will have huge ramifications for inshore fishermen. One skipper told me last year that going for a points-based system and ending freedom of movement would be a disaster for the industry on the west coast.

Industry figures have also predicted hardship for a “significant number” of small boat owners if issues around health and landing certificates and capacity at continental ports are not ironed-out as part of Mr Johnson’s trade deal.

“The so-called sea of opportunity that many fishermen expect from Brexit and Britain being free from the Common Fisheries Policy may produce a sea of despair for many inshore fishermen who rely on frictionless borders for their products entering Europe,” the body representing the Scottish creel fishing industry said only last week.

There is, if Brexit is to be a success for the UK’s fishing industry, an imperative to find a deal that delivers not just for the larger firms but also ensures the smaller boat owners can prosper.

Mr Johnson should also be mindful of the fact that this is a decade in which the future of the union is once again up for debate and if Scottish fishermen see no uplift, they may well start to drip away from the Tories.

The objectives of the EU and UK are diametrically opposed over fishing

Dan O’Donoghue is The Press and Journal’s political correspondent at Westminster