House of Commons portcullis
House of Commons
Session 2002 - 03
Publications on the internet
Standing Committee Debates
Scottish Grand Committee Debates

Constitutional Arrangements

Column Number: 003

Scottish Grand Committee

Wednesday 12 November 2003

(Westminster)

[Mrs. Irene Adams in the Chair]

Fisheries

8.55 am

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr. Ben Bradshaw): With permission, Mrs. Adams, I will make a statement. I welcome this chance to speak to Members from Scotland on fisheries. Scotland has, of course, a long tradition of highly successful commercial fishing, and is responsible for 65 per cent. of United Kingdom commercial landings by volume, so hon. Members need not explain their interest in the subject.

I had better start by saying where my responsibilities begin and end, as fisheries policy is, of course, a devolved matter. Ross Finnie carries out his considerable functions and duties as the Scottish Minister with responsibility for fisheries in Scotland for the Scottish Executive.

Sir Archy Kirkwood (Roxburgh and Berwickshire): He does it with aplomb.

Mr. Bradshaw: Absolutely.

I come into the Scottish picture when Her Majesty's Government negotiates on common fisheries policy matters in Brussels. In that context, I lead for the UK, supported by the Ministers responsible for fisheries in Scotland and Northern Ireland, following a line that has been agreed with them.

We are at that time in the annual fisheries cycle when international fisheries scientists have given this year's advice on the state of fish stocks and have made recommendations for their management next year. In recent years, that advice has made bleak reading, and, unfortunately, this year is no exception. I am sure that this December's Council and its possible outcome are uppermost in all our minds, so I shall briefly review what was decided at last year's December Council, what has happened since then and how we are preparing for this year's meeting.

The negotiation at the December 2002 Council was difficult. The Commission and most member states appreciated the devastating effect that fishery closures would have on the fishing industry, but wanted to find ways of maximising fishing opportunities while promoting the stock recovery that is vital for the long-term health of the industry. Nowhere was there a more delicate balance to strike than in the UK, as our fleets are the most dependent on some of the key stocks concerned. That means that our fisherman stand both to gain most in the long term from stock recovery, and to suffer most in the short term from the pain that will be involved in bringing that about. That means that it is absolutely key for the UK that the solution adopted affects member states' fleets equitably.

Column Number: 004

Hon. Members are probably broadly aware of the how the negotiation went. A qualified majority of member states was not prepared to adopt the Commission's cod recovery plan. The Commission therefore started by proposing a reduction of 80 per cent. in effort on cod and related stocks. It backed that up with two parallel proposals. The first was to reduce total allowable catches to levels calculated to deliver the 80 per cent. effort reduction. The second was for interim direct effort limitation measures, which awarded all fishing vessels deemed to have an impact on cod a set number of days' permitted fishing per month, according to the type of gear used. As we now know, the measures eventually negotiated in the Council aim to reduce fishing effort on cod by 65 per cent. rather than 80 per cent., with TAC reduction associated with that aim amounting to 40 per cent.

For the UK, a key issue was the fairness in the number of days at sea each month that our fishermen would receive. The Commission's original proposal for the figures in what is now known as annex 17 would have given our key white fish trawl fleet a mere seven days a month. The outcome eventually negotiated by Mr. Finnie and my predecessor, my hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment, was 15 days. Another UK priority was to preserve the scope for catching nephrops, and 25 days a month were secured for vessels targeting nephrops with mesh between 80 and 99.5 mm.

We now have this year's advice from the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea, and we are in the run-up to the December Council that will determine the catch levels and recovery measures to be applied in 2004. The advice does not make happy reading. It identifies some slightly encouraging trends in key cod fisheries in the North sea, but does not consider those a robust basis for relaxing the push for recovery. As with last year, zero catches are recommended for a number of stocks. On the other hand, the state of some species such as haddock is assessed as permitting healthy fishing opportunities—subject to the considerable proviso that by-catch and discards of cod must be eliminated. We await the Commission's proposals for total allowable catches and quotas, which will go alongside the proposals for a more permanent cod recovery plan already on its agenda.

I understand, given the seriousness of the impact that outcomes might have on fishing activities, why people are inclined to question the scientific advice and the integrity of the common fisheries policy under which it is given. However, although the science acknowledges the degree of uncertainty in parts of its analysis, it still fully justifies its recommendations for firm action. Ross Finnie and the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley, South (Mr. Pearson), and I are examining and interpreting the scientific advice, and consulting affected UK interests so that we can agree the UK line for the December Council. The detail of that line is an open question at present, but there must be no doubt about what our broad aims must be. The resulting measures will have to respect the scientific advice and aim for the recovery of stocks where

Column Number: 005

necessary. They must balance conservation and stability considerations with socio-economic considerations. We must find ways of exploiting the more healthy stocks—where that can be done—without jeopardising recovery. The measures introduced must be enforceable, and the overall solution must be equitable in its impact on the different fleets, the fishing communities and the member states with an interest in the stocks concerned.

By focusing on the immediate issues, I would not like to imply that we are not working on a long-term strategy for the UK fishing industry. On the contrary, the Prime Minister met industry representatives after last December's Council and afterwards asked his strategy unit to set up a fisheries project to identify options for ensuring a long-term sustainable future for our fishing industry. That unit has been doing a thorough job of examining the issues and discussing ideas with interested parties. Its report will be the most important strategic review of UK fisheries policy for 30 years, and we look forward to receiving it towards the end of January.

John Thurso (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross): May I say how grateful I am to the Minister for his usual courtesy of sending me a copy of the statement, which I received in the middle of the night? It made good bedtime reading.

It is timely that the Committee should receive a statement on fishing. There are clearly great problems with the Scottish fishing industry, which remains in crisis—a crisis not of its own making, and one that we need to deal with.

The current common fisheries policy has clearly failed: it has failed our fishing communities and our fishermen—above all, it has failed fish. The time has come to recognise that failure and to abandon the CFP and devise a new one, based on regional management that aligns conservation needs with fishermen's needs.

On the process, the Minister stated that he leads for the UK, and I think he said that he followed a line agreed with the devolved Administrations. Will he confirm that the concordat on relations between Holyrood and Westminster governs how he will act, and that under its terms his Department cannot simply impose a wish on the Scottish Minister? Will he confirm that he must take account of what the Scottish Minister says?

The Minister stated that our fishermen stand to gain most, and to suffer the most pain. Does he accept that fishermen can understand pain, but only if they see a future gain? What will he do to ensure that UK fishermen benefit from those painful measures, bearing in mind that while the British fleet—the Scottish fleet in particular—is decommissioning, the Irish fleet is building, and with European Union money? Will he look at the Scottish Fishermen's Federation's alternative recovery plan, particularly the concept of spatial management? Is not that a viable alternative, based on science that is just as valid as the science that ICES has considered? What can be done to ensure that the healthy stocks we can fish can be fished appropriately? How is it intended that cod by-catch be eliminated? Is it not time to accept that the quota

Column Number: 006

system is a complete failure and the enemy of conservation? Can we not consider realistic alternatives?

The Minister mentioned the Prime Minister's strategy unit. Given the importance of the issues before us—and their importance to communities such as Lochinver or Kinlochbervie, which face decimation as a result of what is going on—is it possible for the strategy unit to report a little earlier to help shed some light on where we might be going?

Mr. Bradshaw: I agree with a great deal of what the hon. Gentleman says. Nobody in this Room thinks that the common fisheries policy has been successful in doing what we all want it to do. I agree with him and his fellow Liberal Democrats that the best way to resolve that problem is to reform the common fisheries policy, rather than take one's bat away from the field altogether and go down the illusory road of the so-called repatriation of fishing rights. He is right—the future must lie in regional management.

Ross Finnie and my predecessor helped to secure the development of regional advisory councils, which was one of the reforms at last December's Council. We want those councils to have teeth, and we are pleased with the progress that is being made in setting them up. The hon. Gentleman is right in his analysis: regional management with teeth is the future for the sustainable management of our fishing stocks. I reassure him that the concordat is alive and well. His political colleague Mr. Finnie and I meet regularly, and talk even more regularly. We shall be attached like Siamese twins throughout the negotiations in Brussels, in terms of what we say. We shall speak with one voice, not just for the interests of the UK fishing industry, but for the Scottish industry, which is more important because its volume is larger than the industry in the rest of the UK.

The hon. Gentleman is also correct in saying that in order to achieve long-term sustainability and profitability for our industry it may need to go through short-term pain. Those in the industry who are realistic and sensible about it being profitable in the long term realise that, too. We will, of course, work closely with them. As the hon. Gentleman rightly said, the Government have allocated £50 million to Scotland this year for some of those painful measures. That will ensure that the industry is of the right size and capacity to benefit from any stock recovery in future.

What the hon. Gentleman said about the Irish fleet is true at the moment, but it will not be so for much longer. One of the important reforms that we achieved last December was ending the subsidy for building new vessels. We in this country did that some time ago. Everyone in the EU recognises that there is over-capacity—it is not just a UK problem. Other countries have to make painful decisions in the same way that we are.

I have seen the Scottish Fishermen's Federation document, which contains a great deal of good sense. My officials and I will take it into account as we go forward with the negotiations now and at the Council in December. The Federation's idea of spatial

Column Number: 007

management is useful, and we shall study it closely. Of course, we want to do whatever we can to enable certain fisheries to continue, including nephrops, haddock and pelagic, for which there is no problem at the moment with stock levels. At the same time, however, we must try to minimise the level of cod by-catch. I am as keen as anyone to examine any technical or zonal measures that can be used to enable us to fish for healthy stocks without being penalised for catching cod, on which I think that all will accept there must be some restrictions.

The quota system is not ideal—the hon. Gentleman is right on that. There is a gradual movement throughout the EU towards effort control. However, in my few brief months in this job I have not come across a single measurement for fisheries management that is perfect; all the measurements are imperfect. We need a combination of all of them to achieve the long-term sustainable fisheries that we all want.

On the date for the timing of the strategy unit's report, as I said, the strategy unit has worked extremely fast on the first major review of our fisheries policy for 30 years. The Government set it up, which shows the seriousness with which not only they, but the Prime Minister take the fishing industry. We want it to be a once-in-a-generation opportunity for us to set our fisheries policy on a sustainable path for the long term. I do not want the strategy unit to hurry its recommendations. It is still finalising its report and is in discussions with stakeholders throughout the industry.

Furthermore, I do not want the strategy unit to publish its radical recommendations—if, as I hope, its recommendations are radical, and for the long term—in the run-up to the December Council in the danger that they become submerged in all the short-term wrangling and negotiations at the Council. I want it to be able to report in an atmosphere in which its recommendations are taken note of and, I hope, supported broadly across the political spectrum and by the industry.

 
Continue

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries ordering index


©Parliamentary copyright 2003
Prepared 12 November 2003