Bill
Wiggin: Naturally, my party supports efforts to establish
environmental and economic sustainability in our fisheries. We cannot
have an economically sustainable industry unless the environmental
conditions are right and unsustainable levels of fishing are stopped.
In that respect, we must meet our 2015 Johannesburg commitments, and I
pressed the Minister on that issue during
questions. Having
said that, when the Government talk about the need to provide a
sustainable future for the UK fishing industry, what exactly do they
mean? Since they came to power 10 years ago, some 6,000 British
fishermen have lost their jobs. I recently visited Fleetwood and
Grimsby and saw for myself the situation in which our fishermen and
their families and communities find themselves. I am sure that hon.
Members are aware that in the weeks before the December Council and the
very important EU-Norway negotiations, which begin this week, those
people have been most anxious. We should never forget that the outcome
of those discussions could literally change people’s
lives. The
Minister will be aware of the events of the December 2004 Council, when
the 6,500 sq mile cod recovery zone was imposed between Padstow and
Pembroke. That was larger and more economically damaging than the one
originally proposed. Indeed, the Minister apologised and said,
“You sometimes get details like this that slip through
unnoticed.” I hope that the extra consultation time created by
the proposed arrangements will prevent any other nasty surprises from
slipping through unnoticed, because altering a few numbers can mean the
difference not only between flourishing fish stocks and depleted ones,
but between employment and unemployment. That is why we have to get it
right and stand up for our
fishermen. For far
too many years, our fishermen have missed out, receiving unfavourable
quotas and being subject to decommissioning, while other fishing fleets
built more and took more. It is claimed, for instance, that Belgian
trawlers take more cod through by-catch than Fleetwood fishermen take
legitimately. I am aware that the majority in the industry and in the
environmental lobby broadly welcome the front-loading initiative
detailed in this communication and even see it as something that should
have been introduced far earlier, but there are still some concerns
that need to be
raised. First, it is
reasonable to assume that scientists can only estimate what remains in
the sea based on what is caught—its size, the season and all
that being relative—but there is a gap between
fishermen’s own experience and the predictions made by
scientists. The Minister referred to that as a Berlin wall and I agree
with him. A great deal of effort is being made to close the gap, which
will of course be a worthy achievement. Ending discards would reinforce
that effort. After all, only the fishermen know exactly what is
discarded. By ensuring that all catch is landed, we can build our
knowledge, which can only help. Until we have solved the problems of
discarding, we must simply do our best to try to get TACs
right. First, we have
to approach with a little caution the separation of the setting of TACs
and quotas from effort. Although it is very important that discussions
on TACs and quotas begin as soon as possible, it would
not be the most sensible step to separate them completely from effort
controls. Effort and catch control measures still require a significant
amount of integrated thinking, if not integrated decision
making. My next point
is about the scientific evidence on which the decisions on TACs and
quotas will be made. Under the front-loading initiative, the Commission
will produce a policy statement in April to provide guidance for the
following year’s fishing opportunities. As that is early in the
year, before the science is confirmed about fisheries stocks and
especially those on which the British fishing industry depends, we need
to be certain that the science behind the negotiating positions is as
accurate as
possible. With that
in mind, I am keen to know the Minister’s views on the response
given by the Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for
Fisheries. Having seen its 22nd report, I am concerned that the
front-loading initiative may end up leading to considerable
underestimates of the amount of stock available. The report
says: “STECF
has stated previously, that the uncertainty associated with forward
catch predictions are likely to be
underestimates.” Although
the stock assessment scientists are generally aware of that fact, the
methodological tools routinely used at present do not contain
appropriate statistical routines to determine the accuracy and
precision of predicted results. When we consider the implications for
the UK fishing industry of underestimating stocks and subsequently
formulating low TACs, we see that we cannot risk relying purely on
underlying scientific
trends. Following on
from that point, when the policy statement is drafted, it is supposed
to be designed to present the Commission’s strategy and working
assumptions for management based on the underlying trends of the most
recent scientific advice; that is, that which was presented in the
previous year. I am concerned that the Commission may plan for one or a
set of scenarios, only to find that those have not occurred. Indeed,
changes made to the final draft of the communication may cause alarm
bells to start ringing among fishermen. Currently, there is a general
rule that TACs will only be changed within a 15 per cent. margin and
that was stated in an earlier draft of this communication. However, in
the final draft that we have here, that section has been edited out and
the fisheries industry may be worried that TAC reductions could now
fall drastically lower than the 15 per cent.
One of the core principles at
the centre of fisheries decision making is striking the right balance
between scientific demands and economic confidence. With that in mind,
every year the ICES’s scientific report spells doom and gloom
for fisheries. It seems that each year the same recommendations are
made: close fisheries and allow low fish stocks to increase their
biomass and recruitment. By allowing more time for construction, a wide
knowledge base can be built, upon which decisions can be made. We still
need to ensure that this advice will actually be considered and, with
that in mind, I am concerned about the following insertion into the
introduction to the final draft of the
communication: “Enhanced
consultation with the stake-holders will not affect the
Commission’s right of initiative”.
We should be
concerned that, with that caveat, the perception could be created that
the Commission can ignore stakeholders and that the enhanced
consultation may be nothing more than a bureaucratic exercise. I would
like to see a consultation that is open and transparent so that the
views of stakeholders can be scrutinised and member states can use them
as a knowledge base for Council negotiations and not just rely on the
recommendations of the Commission. Following on from this point and
referring again to the earlier draft of this communication, it was
originally planned that the European Parliament would be consulted in
April on the Commission’s policy statement and have a debate in
early September. It stated that the Commission would welcome input from
the Parliament on these issues particularly if this could be delivered
before the Council debate in October. That section is not present in
the final draft and while I appreciate that it is the Council alone
that decides on fish catch and fishing effort, the only democratically
elected European institution should still be closely
involved. The
proposals outlined in this communication will alone not be enough to
create sustainable and well-managed fisheries and work still needs to
be done, for example, to resolve the problem of discarding and
by-catch. Nevertheless, effective fisheries management needs the
support of policy makers, science, and transparent and accountable
decision making. If all concerned make a concerted effort to do that,
the proposal in this communication may make a positive difference to
the environment and to the fishing industry.
5.28
pm
Mr.
Carmichael: I will not detain the Committee for long
because we have already had the benefit of a useful exchange of
questions and answers and I thank the Minister for being as forthright
as ever in dealing with the Committee on that basis. Earlier, I should
also have indicated my congratulations to the hon. Member for
Leominster. I think that this is the first occasion on which he has had
the opportunity of taking part in a fisheries debate—the
poisoned chalice was passed to him by his party leader. I have followed
with interest his recent comments on his movements within fishing and
for those who have previously expressed much enthusiasm for the
Conservative cause, I wish him well in his travails—not too
well, of course.
Hon. Members in this room
probably still have the scars of December Fisheries Councils of years
gone by and from the many weaknesses inherent in the common fisheries
policy and the management of fishing that stems from that. I have
always thought that for a system that is supposed to theoretically
start on the 1 January, this hell for leather rush at the end of the
year in December is simply madness. I cannot think of another industry
of any sort that allows itself to be regulated in a way where it does
not know until the 22 December what its potential productivity
will be for the year starting on the 1 January.
Like everybody else, I welcome
these proposals and think that they are sensible in their broad
outline, but they have taken a situation that is catastrophic on
occasions and improved it to one that is merely
disastrous. There is an awful lot more that could be done in terms of
improving fisheries management. I hope that the Minister will take from
my questions the understanding that the earliest and fullest possible
discourse with Norway is of primary importance for the management of
the North sea, particularly the management of both pelagic and white
fish stocks, especially cod and haddock, which are of supreme
importance to my constituents and to many Scottish ports in the
north-east. There
has been a failure to include our fishing industry in the acquisition
of scientific data. Not all scientists are men in white coats; quite a
lot of them wear oilskins as well. We should take their knowledge and
expertise from the home ports and into the conference chamber,
particularly into the EU-Norway talks, from which the fishing industry
is always telling me that it is excluded, whereas the Norwegian
fishermen somehow manage to get in with their representatives. The
Minister frowns—we have had this debate so many times, but I
never know not quite how we reached this impasse. Whether or not the
Norwegian fishermen are in the room, it is clear that they are much
more effectively plugged into the negotiating process than our
fishermen or fishermen in any EU member state have ever been.
The hon. Member for Leominster
spoke about the quality of the advice that is available earlier in the
year. The provision of interim advice must always be regarded with a
degree of suspicion. If the hon. Gentleman or the Minister want advice
on any fish stock that they chose to name, they can get it in the
lounge bar in Lerwick on a Friday night. It is not always couched in
particularly diplomatic terms but, by and large, it is usually pretty
accurate and is offered in a spirit of absolute candour. Such advice is
not always to the benefit of the fleet, but in my experience it is
remarkably accurate or is ultimately shown to be so.
There is a tremendous wealth
of information and experience within our industry, but it grieves me
that we have never been able to tap it and include it with the
information that we receive from ICES and other bodies. My frustration
with ICES is that every year we get desperately gloomy predictions.
Basically, one asks an impossible question and then receives an answer
that sounds awful. We asked how to effect the recovery of cod stocks
within 12 month. The answer to that will always be a zero TAC for cod,
which means closing the whole of the North sea. That will inevitably be
the case, because achieving a recovery of cod stocks within 12
months is nonsensical—it is never going to happen. Cod is a
slow-growing, long-maturing fish, as are so many white fish species. We
are looking at a period of perhaps 10 to 12 years before the full
recruitment of mature adult cod to the
fishery. The other
concern that I have put to the Minister comes from his earlier
indication that a report is to be published tomorrow on the possible
effect of temperature changes on North sea cod stocks. That comes as no
surprise to me, as the issue has been spoken of for many years. If we
factor that into the equation, the picture on cod stocks makes sense in
a way that it currently does not. Other scientists have been telling me
for years that the seabird colonies in my constituency have been
declining desperately because of the change in temperatures, which has
brought with
it changes in plankton and where they are to be found. Thereafter they
move up the food chain. I have never understood how we could say that
it was affecting the bird colonies, but not the fish stocks. If that report is published
tomorrow, as we believe that it will be, it will place on the Minister
a particularly heavy burden come the December Council to ensure that
the view within the Commission is challenged fully and that the
consensus does not continue, or that we do not pretend that it does,
when it is challenged significantly by the Minister’s own
Department’s research. Otherwise, we will find ourselves heading
for a further 12 months operating a system that logic would seem to
dictate is doomed to fail, if the report published tomorrow is
correct. It
is another 12 months. I have no doubt that the fishing fleets in my
constituency will survive those 12 months—they have been
remarkably resilient so far—but we should not be in the business
of making more difficult a job that is already one of the most
dangerous and challenging there is. Many men put their lives at risk
every year and a goodly number have lost them. That comes back to the
point made by the hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby because those
decisions made every December have a very real impact on the everyday
lives of men and women in my constituency and constituencies the length
and breadth of this country, certainly on the coast, at
least. It has been
just a few months since the sad loss of a boat from Fife. I understand
that the fairly strong local view is that fisherman in Fife are pushing
the limits because the margins under which they operate are that much
more difficult and smaller. That is often the case in my constituency
as well. Every fishing opportunity that comes their way has to be taken
and eventually, sadly, that costs
lives. The proposals
today are fine for tinkering with a system that frankly is beyond
repair, in my view. However, we need a completely different approach
with a regional basis. For the North sea, it has to involve not just
the EU countries, but Norway. I do not think that that can be achieved
within the current set up, but I hope that in the long term we might
get there. However, for today, half a loaf is better than no
bread.
Bill
Wiggin: On a point of order, Mr. Weir, the
Minister asked me where in the explanatory memorandum my question was
from. It is from page 7, part 4. That might be helpful to
him.
The
Chairman: That is not a point of order, but I think that
the Minister heard and will adhere to it.
5.38
pm Mr.
Angus MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP): I notice that
the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland started by mentioning that the
current fisheries policy is going from catastrophe to disaster. That
might be why I said to go nowhere near Europe or indeed the common
fisheries policy. I am, of course, impressed by Norway, which is just
slightly smaller than Scotland, and will be standing toe to toe next
week with the whole might of the European Union. That lesson is not
lost on me and my party and nor, I hope, the rest of
Scotland. I noticed
the mention of the advice freely dispensed in Lerwick on a Friday
night, which is much the same as that in Castlebay and Stornoway on a
Saturday night. I was reminded last Saturday night that every kilo of
fish landed in Norway is accounted for. It is not yet the same in the
UK. Fishermen feel that it would be of benefit if it were because the
tightening up on black fish has been to their benefit over the last
couple of years. Last January, in particular, during the shorter
fishing period of two weeks, they caught their quota and felt that they
came away with more money than they had in previous years when the
period was six weeks. So maybe there have been some steps in the right
direction. I hope to
leave the Minister with a couple of points ringing in his ears. He
conceded, I would say, that the cod situation is not wholly the fault
of fishing or fishermen. I agree, particularly when I think of haddock
in the same waters, I can agree with him. I urge also that the nephrop
quota, which we welcomed last year, remain untouched and is not a
casualty or, indeed, a bi-casualty of any negotiations this year and is
ring-fenced. 5.40
pm
| 
