Commons Sense

House of Commons · Ministers' Questions

Fishing Industry: Tariffs

Thursday 26 November 2020 · 4 questions

Summarised by AI from the official record, so it can contain mistakes.

At a glance

Answered 0 Partly answered 1 Not answered 0

Key points

  • The Government have offered zero tariffs on all goods, including fish.
  • The EU faces higher prices if tariffs apply; zero tariffs were offered to the EU.
  • Tariffs are typically lower for fish, particularly exports.

Topics (select to filter)

Questions & Answers

Context

The Joanna C incident highlights the dangers faced by fishermen. Non-tariff barriers and delays at borders are concerns for seafood delivery times.

Question

What discussions has the Minister had with representatives from (a) fishing communities and (b) the fish processing sector on the potential effect of post-transition period tariffs? I associate my group with the Minister's comments, but non-tariff barriers also worry fishermen. This week's test run for border procedures showed chaos could disrupt seafood deliveries.

Answer from George Eustice

The Government have offered zero tariffs on all goods, including fish. We hold regular discussions with both sectors. About 1,000 officers are available for export health certificates, but Scotland may need additional environmental health officers to avoid capacity gaps.

Partly answered

Not addressed: Did not provide specific assurances against delays ruining produce or businesses

How: Work With The Fishing Industry And Local Authorities

Was this summary accurate? Tell us

How accurate was this summary? (1 = poor, 5 = spot on)

Context

Sheep sector faces possible 48% tariffs, causing concerns among Scottish farmers about their business models. The National Sheep Association Scotland seeks a compensation scheme.

Question

Tariffs of up to 48% are a huge concern for the sheep sector and would ruin many businesses. What assurances can be given regarding a compensation scheme?

Answer from George Eustice

I never suggested that specialist sheep farmers should switch to beef production; I mentioned mixed enterprises might adjust based on market signals. There is no mention of a specific compensation scheme.

Not addressed: Did not address the question about compensation details, instead clarified previous statements

How: Clarified Previous Comments

Was this summary accurate? Tell us

How accurate was this summary? (1 = poor, 5 = spot on)

Context

Sheep sector faces up to 48% tariffs, potentially ruining business models. Farmers seek assurances of a compensation scheme.

Question

Tariffs on lamb could ruin businesses and damage the reputation of Scotch lamb. The National Sheep Association Scotland has called for a compensation scheme. What details can be provided today?

Answer from George Eustice

I always advise people to look at what I actually said rather than Twitter attacks on my words. I did not suggest switching from sheep to beef, but mixed enterprises might adjust based on market signals.

Not addressed: Did not address the compensation scheme or provide details

How: Criticised Misinterpretation Of His Comments

Was this summary accurate? Tell us

How accurate was this summary? (1 = poor, 5 = spot on)

Context

The Scottish Seafood Association has joined other food leaders in a letter to the Prime Minister, warning of £3 billion losses from COVID-19. They seek financial support due to potential tariffs.

Question

Tariffs mean enormous damage to our industry, on top of estimated £3 billion covid losses. When will the Minister reveal details of the financial support that is desperately needed?

Answer from George Eustice

Tariffs are typically lower for fish, particularly exports. The EU faces higher prices if tariffs apply; zero tariffs were offered to the EU. Fishermen can generally afford tariffs if needed.

Not addressed: Did not provide any details about financial support or reveal when it will be announced

How: Discussed Tariff Levels But Avoided Specifics On Support

Was this summary accurate? Tell us

How accurate was this summary? (1 = poor, 5 = spot on)