Huw
Irranca-Davies: That is an issue that we and the
Commission engaged with during the negotiation. It ties into the
longer-term reform as well. It is vital that in the annual
negotiations, and when there is earlier presentation of the
science—particularly when it is presented in May and we reach
conclusions in December—we find a mechanism enabling us to feed
in much more real-time analysis. Stocks can change even in six
months. There
are two aspects to that issue. One is the time lag, and we need to work
on the quick and dirty approach, which must be based on the more
substantial science underpinned by the International Council for the
Exploration of the Sea, as well as what is observed by people working
on the sea. There will always be differences of opinion, but we need
the optimum blend of opinion, and we need to argue for that with the
European
Commission.
Mr.
Carmichael: Essentially, we are asking the Minister to
square a circle, and I wish him good luck with that. Does he agree that
the most effective way of doing it would be to involve fishermen,
scientists, conservationists and other stakeholders in regional
advisory councils, which, in the North sea in particular, have been
very effective? Does he agree that as we move towards the next revision
of the common fisheries policy, in 2012, we should be doing more to
strengthen the powers of the regional advisory councils, and lessen the
influence being exerted by the Commission in
Brussels?
Huw
Irranca-Davies: I could not agree more strongly with the
hon. Gentleman; I am pleased that we are perhaps lining up in a
cross-party approach to the issue. He is right that one of the most
successful models among the regional consortiums is the North sea RAC.
It is doing excellent work. It brings together conservationists, sea
anglers, sea fisheries, people who make their living from processing
seafood, and the whole of the North sea area, so that member states are
represented as well.
That must be
the way forward, so that our decisions will be based on good local and
regional knowledge, rather than being made purely from the top down,
although that approach has a role—I do not advocate, as some do,
walking away from the CFP. We fish in shared waters, and we must
approach that activity, and our regulation of it, jointly. I welcome
the hon. Gentleman’s support for RACs, because when we come,
imminently, to CFP reform we shall have to push them hard with the
Commissioner.
Mr.
Benyon: We have discussed the science a lot, which is
good, because that is the key to resolving the problem of fish stocks,
but can the Minister clarify the funding situation for the Centre for
Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science? In fisheries debates in
2007-08, both the Minister and his predecessor, the hon. Member for
Chatham and Aylesford (Jonathan Shaw), referred to a 10-year funding
agreement; however, when my hon. Friend the Member for Leominster (Bill
Wiggin) asked them for further details, following the disclosure that
there was a funding reduction plan for forthcoming years, the
ministerial response
was: “Subsequent
years are still subject to approval.”—[Official
Report, 6 March 2008; Vol. 472, c.
2715W.] What
has happened to the 10-year funding
arrangement?
Huw
Irranca-Davies: I understand the hon. Gentleman’s
probing of the point. He is right that there was, and is, a 10-year
agreement. However, it behoves me as a Minister to discharge my
cross-portfolio responsibilities adequately, particularly in the
current economic climate. The 10-year agreement exists, but I cannot
predict exactly what it will be three or five years hence. I can assure
him that at the moment, no screams are coming from CEFAS that it cannot
do its job or that it anticipates not being able to do it. CEFAS is in
a strong position. As well as CEFAS, we have a great interaction with
colleagues north of the border in the Scottish Executive and their
agencies, which also have an interplay with science. We see them as
underpinning our scientific strength, and I will not let that
wither.
Mr.
Benyon: The number of the most important stocks to
UK fishermen that are within safe biological limits has fallen from 12
to eight out of 47 since 2006.
What action does the Minister feel must be taken to rectify that, and
does he see it as a key marker of the success of the
policy?
Huw
Irranca-Davies: The hon. Gentleman raises an important
point about how to achieve sustainability of our marine environment, of
fisheries and of the people and communities who rely on fisheries for
their livelihood, not least in the west of Scotland, as I mentioned
earlier. West of Scotland science is probably among the most fragile in
the whole UK, but if we had accepted the straightforward approach
advocated by the Commission only two months ago, the fisheries in the
west of Scotland would have closed completely. That might have been
effective for a long-term straightforward boost of the marine
environment and stocks, but in 12 months or two years, there would have
been no fishermen to come back and fish those seas.
It is
important that I as a Minister, along with my colleagues, take on board
the socio-economics while working towards sustainability, including the
maximum yield sustainability that we have agreed to achieve by 2012. I
acknowledge that that requires a balancing act between considering
different areas of the coast and different stocks, and trying to
provide people with a living wage to bring
home.
Mr.
Kemp: In his opening statement, the Minister mentioned
discard policy. Will he expand on that? Although it strikes me as a way
of keeping the catch down, throwing essentially dead fish back into the
sea does not do anything to conserve stock. Will he give us a bit more
information on discard
policy?
Huw
Irranca-Davies: I thank my hon. Friend for that remark. In
simple terms, what we tried to achieve—and did achieve—at
the November Council in particular was an approach based on landing
more and killing less. It is a complete anathema to the man or woman
shopping in the supermarket to think that for every fish that they put
in their basket, one has been thrown back. Some vessels—this was
said to me openly when we went out on a trawl—throw back 70 or
80 per cent. Something is wrong with that approach.
This issue
ties in to the longer-term CFP reform, but it also ties into the very
good examples that we advocated to the commissioner, which were based
on the approach pioneered—not least north of the
border—through the conservation credit scheme. The scheme
applied more intelligent ways to avoid the fishing of vulnerable young
year-group stocks of cod by using selective gear and mesh and avoiding
spawning grounds. That is the argument that we took to the
commissioner, saying, “Look, it actually works. We’ve got
a clever way to go forward on this to avoid discards and reassure
fishermen, housewives and house-husbands that they can feel good about
what they put into their supermarket trolley, or that they can go out
and buy cod at the chip shop without worrying about it.” It is
vital. We need to move farther down that path in terms of common
fishery
reform.
Mr.
Carmichael: Perhaps we will come to the question of
discards later. I merely observe that few people are more appalled by
the position on discards than fishermen themselves.
May I draw the
Minister’s and the Committee’s attention to the impact
assessment that starts on page 112 of the bundle? I offer an
observation and a question. This document will not win many plaudits
from the Plain English Campaign. References to a “sub-optimal
allocation of resources”, to externalities and
to “key
non-monetised costs by ‘main affected
groups’” are
just a few examples that I can pull out from the first couple of
pages. In
the first box in the impact assessment, on page 112, the
last two sentences
state: “The
2004
plan”— the
cod recovery
plan— “introduced
a number of measures aimed at correcting these market failures. This
has not been effective in restoring cod stocks and the recommended
option aims to learn from this experience and introduce a range of
measures to allow cod stocks to recover and be fished sustainably into
the
future.” That
is a rather bald statement. Can the Minister give me an assurance that
it does not accurately reflect his Department’s
policy?
Huw
Irranca-Davies: I am trying to find the section to which
the hon. Gentleman has
referred.
Mr.
Carmichael: Let me assist the Minister. If he has regard
to page 112, he will see that the assessment is broken into boxes. I
was referring to the last couple of
sentences: “The
2004 plan introduced a number of measures...This has not been
effective in restoring cod
stocks”. The
thinking behind my observation and question is that, in fact, there has
been substantial improvement in cod stocks in the North sea. For that
reason, I think that it is a rather bald
statement.
Huw
Irranca-Davies: I understand and I thank the hon.
Gentleman for clarifying the point. The statement is quite bald and
quite bold. It recognises that although we argued strongly with the
Commission that we were observing, and the science was observing, a
recovery in cod, and although there can be the assurances that I was
talking about, there is also fragility in it. We are not clear at the
moment on whether it refers only to a couple of years’ stocks.
To get back to the situation in which large female cod are being
landed, bigger and bigger, we have to do more, so the statement is
accurate in the sense that at the moment, we cannot honestly say that
the cod stock is recovering. Fishermen will say this to me. Let us keep
an eye on the science as well, and when we have that, we can go back to
the Commission and say, “We did it. We
delivered.”
Mr.
Carmichael: I am grateful to the Minister for that
clarification. This is not merely a semantic point; it is a point of
some political significance, which I hope he will bear in mind, and
there is a history to this. Unlike the hon. Member for Newbury, whom I
welcome to his new job, and the Minister, who is also fairly new, I
have been knocking around this debate for a few years. We were told in
2005, 2004 and even earlier that the efforts that we were making with
the cod recovery programme were doomed to failure, that the only thing
that could be done was total closure and that if we did not go down the
road towards total closure, we would see the
total extinction of cod from the North sea. We ignored that advice and
took a more reasoned approach. The same arguments are now being
deployed in the west of Scotland, and it is for that reason that I
think it important for the Government to acknowledge fully the progress
that has been made with regard to the North
sea.
Huw
Irranca-Davies: I have no difficulty in acknowledging the
progress that has undoubtedly been made. This is the way forward. We
need to avoid the history of the Newfoundland cod. Not only was it
fished out; species below it were fished out, and so on. It has never
recovered, and that happened 20 or 30 years ago. However, what we are
doing, as the hon. Gentleman is right to point out, is using the right
approaches, under which we are seeing some early recovery in the cod
stock. I am hopeful that if we keep going in that direction, we will,
with the help of our fishermen and our scientists, see a full-blown
recovery in years to come, but it is early
days.
The
Chairman: I remind hon. Members that we are in question
time at the moment. There will be an opportunity for a more general
debate
later.
Mr.
Benyon: I will be as brief as I can. Following the
agreement on TAC and quota, what is the Minister’s assessment of
the opportunities available for quota swaps to take place to benefit
the 10 m-and-under
fleet?
Huw
Irranca-Davies: I think that the hon. Gentleman is
referring to quota swaps between the under and over-10 m
fleets.
Mr.
Benyon indicated
assent.
Huw
Irranca-Davies: Unusually, we were able to secure a
counter-invocation during the December negotiations. The Irish Minister
invoked the Hague preference to draw down additional stocks in the
Irish sea, in response to which I counter-invoked on our stocks in the
Irish sea. Had I not, we would have been significantly worse off. I
also invoked on some stocks in the North sea, including 600 tonnes of
additional stocks, of which half went to the under-10 m
fleet. Using the Hague preference, therefore, I was able to
redistribute some to the under-10 m fleet.
The hon.
Gentleman might have been referring to the longer-term matter of
pulling back quotas from the over-10 m fleet to the under-10 m fleet,
which is much more problematic and potentially controversial. The
under-10 m fleet has argued for many years that it was done down by the
original deal. However, the deal was based on the best available
information at that time, and the over-10 m fleet, and probably the
producer organisations, would have something to say about pulling back
on any of its quotas. However, if he wants to explore that
controversial issue further, he may do so.
Mr.
Benyon: I am fully seized of the controversy that could
surround me if I seek to favour one fleet over another. I was trying to
tease out from the Minister whether the masters of individual vessels
would have greater opportunity to seek such a swap. However, I think
that we have cracked that one, so I shall move on
to another question. Does the Minister believe that the credibility of
the European Commission’s aims is enhanced by the proposals to
include recreational catches within the national
quota?
Huw
Irranca-Davies: The hon. Gentleman refers to something
coming down to us from the Commission about control measures. There is
talk of recreational sea angling fitting within the quota. It is early
days, however, and we must consult properly on it and discuss
how we proceed. In some countries—not overly in the
UK—recreational sea angling can be a significant contributor
towards quotas. However, in other countries, that contribution is
minimal—it is purely what we would understand as recreational
sea angling with someone going out on a boat. If we are looking to
sustainability of the seas, we need to discuss that properly and
consult on how to do it. However, we do not want to run down the road
of placing undue burdens on recreational anglers just for the sake of
it. I would welcome his thoughts over the next few months as control
measures are debated in the European
Parliament.
Mr.
Benyon: No doubt I shall have the opportunity to discuss
those matters with the Minister on other occasions. However, I am
concerned about the credibility of the proposals. The impact on
conservation of such a measure will be negligible. I hope he bears that
in mind during his negotiations on this important
matter. Does
the Minister think that quota separation for Scotland will have its
benefits? Will he update us on how those plans are developing? What
discussions has he had with his Opposition number in the Scottish
Government to ensure that all British waters are being conserved in the
right
way?
Huw
Irranca-Davies: The issue of quota separation is a moot
one at the moment. The UK Government have just come out of a very
successful round of negotiations—at the fisheries council in
October, November and December—based on very effective
relationships between officials and Ministers. The quota that we
negotiated was UK-wide, as too were the licences. Under the devolved
arrangements there are powers for Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland
to do certain things.
Since last
May there has in effect been a unilaterally declared quota moratorium
north of the border. As a UK Minister I want to say that we are where
we are on licences and quotas, by which I mean that nothing has
changed. A unilateral declaration is a unilateral declaration. However,
there is an opportunity to look at quota reform, and that opportunity
will come through the CFP reform that is right in front of
us.
As part of
that, and bearing in mind some aspects of the matter on which we shall
focus, including regionalisation and how we input that, quota reform is
relevant. How do we deal with that most effectively? Certainly, I think
that Welsh officials and Ministers, officials in Northern Ireland and
England, and the relevant fleets would want to be part of that
engagement, in preference to a unilateral approach for any individual
area of the
UK.
| 
