| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
6.6 pm
Mr. Alan Reid (Argyll and Bute): I am grateful for the fact that we have some extra time, because it has given me the chance to speak in a debate that I had not
intended to speak in. I apologise to the hon. Member for Congleton (Ann Winterton) and to the Minister for not giving them prior notice of my wish to speak; it was only once the extra time became available that I realised that I could do so.I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing a debate on this very important subject, but she will probably not be surprised to learn that I disagree with her proposed solution. Coming out of the common fisheries policy and achieving national control is not the solution. Although it is technically possible for Parliament to pass an amendment to European Community legislation so that we can come out of the CFP, it would not be possible to do so without leaving the EU entirely.
Ann Winterton: I am sorry to disagree with the hon. Gentleman—I do so in what I hope is a pleasant way—but I have taken advice on this issue, and he is completely wrong: we do not have to come out of the European Union if we decide not to continue within the CFP.
Mr. Reid: My understanding is different, but if the hon. Lady sends me copies of the legal advice that she has received, I should certainly be interested in exploring the matter further.
The way forward is to establish regional management committees that have real power. The regional advisory committees that were agreed at last year's December Council are certainly a step in the right direction, but only a very short step—they have nothing like the correct powers that regional management committees should have. Fishing is best managed by those who work in, and have a stake in, the industry; moreover, scientists should also be involved. Power should be given to regional management committees, rather than such decisions being taken yearly through political machinations in Brussels. The hon. Lady is right: we should take the politicians out of the discussions and set up regional management committees that involve fishermen, the fish processing industry, and various other stakeholders and scientists. It is the people who have a stake in the survival of fish stocks in their own areas who should be taking the decisions.
Ann Winterton: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that these new councils will have no teeth whatever but will be mere talking shops, and that the CFP will continue as it has done for the past few years, because we have no power over the situation? Does he further accept that his own party is split on the issue of national control? His colleague, the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael), fully supports it, as does the Scottish National party.
Mr. Reid: I agree that the regional advisory councils set up in December have no teeth and are woefully inadequate in respect of the powers that they need. It was, as I said, a step, but only a very short step, in the right direction. What is needed is for management power to be devolved to regional management committees, which should not just be advisory councils. My party's policy is clear: we believe in fundamental reform of the common fisheries policy, but not through national control, which I believe is unachievable. Fundamental reform is required, but it will certainly take a long time to negotiate.
I want to turn to what will take place at this year's December Council. Cod stocks are clearly in a poor state, but other stocks in the North sea are, on the whole, doing very well. For example, the haddock stock is now at a 30-year high, the whiting stock continues to increase, saithe is clearly within safe biological limits and prawns are abundant. It is now definitely established that the cod by-catch from fishing for prawns is negligible, and there is no justification whatever for cutting back on fishing for prawns, because earlier arguments no longer apply: scientists have shown that the cod by-catch is negligible.
It is possible to separate the key cod grounds from the key fishing grounds for other species. I was sent a map by the Scottish Fishermen's Federation, which shows the key cod grounds in the North sea. They represent only a small proportion of the North sea as a whole, and fishing for other species can continue in other parts without causing any risk to cod. Recovery measures should be focused in the key cod areas; in the remaining areas, where other species are abundant and there is barely any cod at all, fishing should be permitted for the other stocks. That is a plan that I hope the Minister will consider and pursue at the December Council.
The advice from the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea is very crude in simply saying, "Stop the fishing." Whether that would cause cod to recover, we certainly do not know, but we do know that it would mean the end of the Scottish fishing industry. Like most industries, fishing is not one that can simply be switched on and off. If fishing were to cease, fishermen would go bankrupt. The only way to avoid bankruptcy would be for the Government to pay more money for decommissioning. As well as fishermen going bankrupt, the fish processing industry would go out of business. Even if cod returned in years to come, the fishing industry could not simply be switched on again.
Ann Winterton: The hon. Gentleman makes a strong case about what will happen if we continue as we are. However, he tells us that his party wants fundamental reform of the common fisheries policy, so will he tell the House how that will be achieved? Without unanimity, it will never be achieved, so it is whistling in the wind. Secondly, did he note what I said about the Faroe Islands, which did the opposite to what ICES advised and developed a vibrant fishing industry over the past few years? Would it not be better for this country to follow such a policy?
Mr. Reid: As I said, my party's policy is to have fundamental reform. We have to convince people and win the case in Europe. It does not require unanimity, because these matters are decided by qualified majority voting. It will be for the Minister when he goes to Brussels for the December Council to negotiate and seek to persuade our European partners that fundamental reform of the CFP is in the interest of the whole of Europe, and that powers to take decisions should be devolved to regional management committees.
Ann Winterton: How does the hon. Gentleman believe that such an outcome can be arrived at? What benefits Scottish fishermen will be an equal disbenefit to the
Spanish. Are the Spanish likely to agree to such a proposal? I am sure that Spain has more clout in the Fisheries Council than we have.
Mr. Reid: I am sure that the hon. Lady will agree that wiping out stocks of cod or any other fish will not benefit any country. I would hope that we could persuade other countries through the strength of our arguments.
Our scientific knowledge of what goes on under the sea is very limited. We do not know why cod stocks have declined in the North sea but appear to be prospering further north. Global warming may be responsible, but we simply do not know. To stop all fishing and cause the demise of the fishing industry is not the solution.
I commend to the Minister the proposal from the SFF, which was that the key cod grounds in the North sea should be identified and conservation measures adopted in those areas, but that fishing for other abundant stocks elsewhere in the North sea should be allowed to continue.
6.16 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr. Ben Bradshaw): I congratulate the hon. Member for Congleton (Ann Winterton) on securing this debate. Her constituency is landlocked, but she is a doughty fighter for UK fishermen. I also congratulate the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mr. Reid), who took advantage of the extra time for the debate to make a speech that I know was based on his great local knowledge of his own constituency. His speech contained a lot of common sense.
The hon. Member for Congleton regaled us with her usual litany of criticisms of the common fisheries policy. She sees it as the source of all the difficulties that beset the UK fishing industry, but I have difficulties with that view. As I am sure she knows, fish stocks do not respect national boundaries; they are migratory by nature. Realistically, any regulatory system must be agreed among the countries whose fishermen exploit the fish stocks as they move around. Therefore, if there were no CFP, we would have to negotiate one—and a management system—with all the countries involved. We would have to negotiate and agree management measures for the stocks, and the extent to which the different fleets had access to the fishing grounds and the stocks. That would be no more or less than a common fisheries policy.
Of course, that is not to say that the CFP has no faults. On the contrary, it has been rightly criticised for failing, up until now, to deliver many of its key aims. For example, in many cases it has not ensured healthy fish stocks or a profitable fishing industry, and it has not always brought fishing capacity into line with fishing opportunities. However, it would be wrong to conclude from that that we would be better off without the CFP, or outside it.
What would be the point of pulling out of the CFP, even assuming—and I shall give the hon. Member for Congleton the benefit of the doubt on this—that the necessary treaty amendment could be negotiated? If that happened, it would be necessary immediately to set up negotiations—with the EU, and between the EU and Norway and the EU and Greenland and so on—on
arrangements that cover precisely the same ground. The whole proposition is risible. On many occasions I have said that it is a cruel deception of UK fishermen to argue that proceeding in that way would bring about the sustainable future for our fishing industry that is, of course, our primary aim.The hon. Lady asked a specific question, in which she quoted from a letter that I wrote to Fishing News last week. It is not for me to speak on behalf of individuals or organisations, as they can speak for themselves. However—and she may correct if I am wrong—I have not heard of any of the leading UK fishing organisations currently pressing for national control.
The truth is only too clear. The solution to the problem of an inadequate CFP is to negotiate one that is adequate. That is what we set out to do at the review of the CFP that was completed at the December 2002 Council of Ministers. We not only set out to do that, we achieved all our objectives in respect of the guiding principles and goals in what might be called the first phase of CFP reform—that is to say, the adoption of a new basic CFP regulation.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |