Ms
Clark: The Minister will be aware that the Administration
at Holyrood have had a great deal to say about their belief that they
should have representation
in the debates. Is it therefore a surprise that the hon. Member who
should have been here today as a representative of that Administration
does not seem to be present to put their point of
view?
Huw
Irranca-Davies: Mrs. Anderson, I am normally
tempted to leap in with both feet on a point of that kind, but I shall
hesitate. My hon. Friend makes a valid point, and she is right to make
the point that one of the hallmarks of the negotiations has been the
fact that we could have a UK-led delegation, which had good working
relationships with its Scottish, Welsh and Northern Ireland
counterparts. That stood us in good stead, and it is certainly the way
in which we should take the matter forward next year when we must
return to show what we have or have not achieved. The fact that we
spoke with a strong, joined-up and co-ordinated voice when we came to
the table to meet the presidency and the Commission was well received
by the UK fleet—by which I mean the Scottish, Northern Ireland,
Welsh and English fleet. My hon. Friend is right; we negotiate as a
coherent UK voice.
The
Chairman: For Members’ information, the hon.
Gentleman conveyed his apologies and explained that he could not be
here.
Mr.
Carmichael: That is all right then.
May I finally
ask the Minister one question about that part of the report from the
European Scrutiny Committee which, on page 3, sums things up rather
well, under the heading, “Rules applicable where only poor data
are available”, and
specifies “a
reduction of 25 per cent...in the TAC if the scientific advice is that
catches should be reduced to the lowest possible level, and a reduction
of 15 per cent. in all other
cases.” Does
the Minister think that both those figures are rather arbitrary? If the
data are poor in the first place, how much reliance can we put on an
assessment of a poor stock
level?
Huw
Irranca-Davies: I know that the hon. Gentleman will
understand when I say that with the outcome of negotiations we must
work from the point we have reached. Some of the science is
conflicting, but some of the negotiating positions are widely
disparate. When we considered where the cod TAC should be set, prior to
the EU-Norway debate, there was variation from zero up to an 80 or 90
per cent. increase. We get to the figures through a tortuous process of
negotiation, and tortuous wrestling over the underpinning science. Then
we get on and work with them. The most important point now is that the
Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and colleagues in
all parts of the UK should start work early to help the UK fleet face
the challenge of the year ahead.
Mr.
Carmichael: After 25 years of the CFP, does the Minister
share my disappointment that data in some areas are still so poor that
they cannot be relied
on?
Huw
Irranca-Davies: We need to fill those gaps, not only with
respect to the time line that the hon. Gentleman has mentioned, but
also with respect to science being much weaker in some areas. The hon.
Gentleman is
right. We need to keep working on this, not least as the Marine and
Coastal Access Bill goes forward, because much of the detail of that
Bill is predicated on having good data, not only for fisheries, but for
dredging, energy and everything else.
The
Chairman: If no more hon. Members wish to ask questions,
we will proceed to the debate on the
motion. Motion
made, and Question
proposed, That
this Committee takes note of European Union Documents No. 15578/08 and
Addenda 1 to 3, draft Council Regulation fixing for 2009 the fishing
opportunities and associated conditions for certain fish stocks and
groups of fish vessels, applicable in Community waters, and for
Community vessels, in waters where catch limitations are required, and
No. 7676/08 and Addenda 1 and 2, draft Council Regulation amending
Regulation (EC) No. 423/2004 as regards the recovery of cod
stocks and amending Regulation (EEC) No. 2847/93; supports the
Government’s approach, which is in line with the principles
enshrined in the Common Fisheries Policy, to seek adoption of measures
to provide for sustainable exploitation of fishery resources based on
sound scientific advice and on the precautionary approach; and accepts
the Government’s overarching approach in seeking a balanced and
fair settlement across all the negotiations which promote the long-term
sustainable exploitation of fish stocks in European waters, the
economic viability of the UK fishing industry and the protection of
vulnerable species.—(Huw
Irranca-Davies.) 5.10
pm
Mr.
Benyon: It seems churlish to start with a negative point,
but it is difficult to get to grips with the depth of information
before us when we only get the documents late on Thursday night. I
wonder whether the Minister will use his good offices to see whether we
can get them earlier. It is easy for the hon. Member for Orkney and
Shetland, because he has been dealing with these issues for 25 years,
but some of us had to do a lot of reading in a short length of
time.
The council
has already set the quota for this year, and we have a welcome
opportunity to discuss some important related issues. The motion refers
to “sound scientific advice” and “the
precautionary approach”, but I am not convinced that all
decisions are being made in that vein. With increasing importance being
placed on science in the understanding of fish stocks, we need to be
sure that the quality of scientific information available is high and
that it is up to date. It is therefore less than encouraging that the
Commission and the council put forward proposals that increase quota
and TAC at a higher rate than that recommended by ICES, the very body
that they commission to carry out stock assessments. If the Commission
and the council do not feel they can rely on their own assessments, we
are far from a basis of sound science.
It is also
somewhat discouraging that the Department for Environment, Food and
Rural Affairs is cutting the CEFAS budget and has not yet disclosed the
funding details of the 10-year funding plan that we discussed with the
Minister a moment ago. I would appreciate it if he took the opportunity
to give us more information on that, if not today then as soon as
possible. My point is that we surely must improve the science relating
to fish stocks, if we are to get anywhere in recovering their dwindling
numbers. Between
2006 and 2007, the following, in relation to the 47 finfish stocks of
most interest to the UK, is true: the number of stocks outside safe
biological limits
increased from 13 to 14; the number of stocks within safe biological
limits fell by a third from 12 to nine; the number of stocks where no
assessment was made increased from 16 to 18; and the number of stocks
where safe biological limits have not been defined remains at six. So,
as it stands, more stocks are falling below safe biological limits
while fewer assessments are being made. That seems entirely
counter-intuitive when so much emphasis is being placed on scientific
research. Much
has been said this afternoon about discards. A key issue that we must
tackle is the horrendous number of fish that are being thrown over the
side. I relate it to my experience as a dairy farmer: for some bizarre
reason, dairy farmers throughout the country were required to destroy
male calves, more or less at birth, for a number of years. I remember,
as a farmer at the time, saying to people I worked with that that was
not why I had gone into farming. I did not go into farming to do such
an act to such an animal. I am convinced that fishermen feel exactly
the same, and that they are as horrified about the level of discards
that they are required to carry out as customers are, as the Minister
has said.
How can quota
and TAC be effectively set while 40 to 60 per cent. of fish caught are
being discarded? Large-scale discarding routinely distorts the
scientific understanding of fish stocks and exacerbates the
disagreement between scientists and fishermen on the state of fish
stocks. That issue has to be tackled in order for finfish stocks to
genuinely recover. The Conservative policy would effectively tackle
discards and in turn greatly increase our understanding of current
levels of fish stocks by requiring all fishermen to land all their
catch. At present, not enough is being done to tackle the issue. The EU
had planned to end discarding by 2006 but has not done so; the planned
discard atlas has been delayed; and other countries, such as France and
Spain, have a track record of not providing the Commission with discard
information.
Mr.
Carmichael: I am interested to hear the hon.
Gentleman’s thoughts on a land-everything policy. I am not
unsympathetic to the policy, but there is one obvious challenge: what
does the hon. Gentleman propose that we do with the over-quota fish
that are
landed?
Mr.
Benyon: The over-quota of fish would be bought by the
Government. Undersize and small fish would probably be made into fish
meal. A proportion of it would be given back to fishermen as an
encouragement to take part in the whole process of landing all their
catch. That could be incentivised further for fishermen who use
particularly conservation-type equipment, such as nets. The issue is
much more complicated than that, but that is the brief outline, and I
am happy to discuss it further either now or in the future.
Quotas and
tax are being decided on distorted information, making the real picture
of our fish stocks all the more elusive. Real progress is needed on the
EU’s current proposals to end discarding, as well as the
Government’s commitment to the cause. It would be pertinent,
during our discussions today, to ask ourselves exactly why the cod
recovery plan has failed to deliver thus far.
The UK fishing
industry has made huge sacrifices through decommissioning to support
the previous cod recovery plan, and it would welcome the
Minister’s reassurance that these measures would not lead to
further hardships, particularly for those who fish in the Celtic sea.
Climate change and global warming have been cited as one of the reasons
for the change in levels of fish stocks in certain areas, and I am
interested to know what new measures are being applied to combat this
and what scientific research is being undertaken to find out more
information. Finally,
I want to discuss the role of the Marine and Coastal Access Bill in
tackling dwindling fish stocks. As it is soon due to begin the Commons
stage of its parliamentary life, it is worth considering the
effectiveness of measures such as conservation zones to protect fish
stocks. Conservation measures have proven to be effective in protecting
fish stocks in Scotland, and the Marine and Coastal Access Bill
presents a sound opportunity to act on that success. However, as it
stands, our control over the adherence to conservation zones would stop
at six miles—I discussed that with the Minister
earlier—meaning that EU vessels could ignore the zones beyond
that point, significantly reducing the effectiveness of the measure. It
is therefore key that we pursue any opportunity to change that
situation, so that EU and UK vessels alike would have to adhere to any
conservation zones that may be put into
place. 5.18
pm
Mr.
Carmichael: May I formally welcome the hon. Member for
Newbury to his place? He will find that there is a band of people in
this place who regularly attend fishing debates, and I plead guilty to
being one of them. By and large, it is generally a fairly civilised and
well-reasoned debate—at least in the Chamber, although, as the
Minister knows, it has its moments of tension.
The hon. Member for Newbury
is absolutely right when he says that it is difficult for those of us
who have somewhat limited resources to finish up with a wedge of
documents like this on a Thursday evening—particularly when
Burns night falls between the release of the documents and the holding
of the Committee. I hope that the Minister and his Department will have
some consideration for that in future
years. I
pay tribute to the Minister, who has come up to speed remarkably
quickly in a technically difficult and politically challenging brief.
It is also appropriate to state my appreciation of the efforts of the
current Fisheries Commissioner, Joe Borg. I had some experience dealing
with his predecessor, or trying to deal with him, and while he had a
rather wider portfolio than Mr. Borg, the openness and
willingness of the current Fisheries Commissioner to engage with
politicians and stakeholders from different member countries has been
quite refreshing and has contributed significantly to a construction of
a greater feeling of trust between the Commission and the industry in
this country in
particular. The
hon. Member for Newbury made the point about reliance on ICES figures.
My observation on that matter is that the answers ICES gives us must be
taken in their proper context, by which I mean that we must have regard
to the questions asked. When ICES tells us that the only option is a
total closure, it is answering a question about what can be done to
achieve a total
recovery within 12 months. We all know that that is a nonsense question,
because a total recovery cannot be achieved within 12 months.
Therefore, before we are too hard on ICES, we should be careful about
the questions that we ask. If we ask stupid questions, then inevitably
we will get stupid answers. I commend the
hon. Gentleman on his thoughts about the possibility of a
land-everything policy with regard to eliminating discounts. Such a
policy would not be without its difficulties. The obvious one is that
we are trying to encourage people to fish within the TAC and the quota
that is given to them. In many ways, my concern about a land-all policy
is that it would treat the symptom rather than the disease. The disease
is that insufficient regard is taken of the views of those at the
sharpest end of fishing—the fishermen themselves. As a
consequence, there is a disjunction between the fish that are in the
sea to be caught, the quota that is given to the fishermen and the
variation of the different species within a mixed fishery in which the
quotas are particularly problematic. Therefore, if we have accurate
real-time science, and a proper regard for the views of all those who
take an interest—stakeholders, fishermen, conservationists,
scientists and whoever else—we should be able to come up with a
TAC that reflects what is in the
sea. Unfortunately,
we do not live in that ideal world, and it is very difficult to count
fish. If there were an easy way to deal with the matter, somebody would
have dealt with it long ago. I do not entirely share the
Minister’s enthusiasm for the role of the EU Commission, because
it has not always been a benign presence in the debate. The harsh truth
of the matter is—this is as true of the Government when it was
run by the Conservative party as it is of the Government now—we
do not give a lot of political priority to fishing, which comes fairly
low down the food chain, if I can use that expression. Often, we have
been a victim of deals that have been done in other areas. Other EU
countries give much more political importance to the fishing industry.
As a consequence, we have not always fought our corner as vigorously as
we should have
done. That,
in turn, brings me to a few thoughts on the reform of the common
fisheries policy taking us forward to 2012. I am glad that we have
consensus on the general direction of reform, particularly with regard
to the more regional form of management. Designing a common fisheries
policy to apply to all 27 member states is very difficult. It was
challenging enough when there were only 12 in the EU, but now that we
have expanded to include more countries, many of which are landlocked,
it becomes pretty meaningless. We also have a much wider range of
nations involved. Originally, we were considering a common fisheries
policy that would have dealt with the North sea, the English channel,
the Irish sea and the sea off the west of Scotland. We now go far
beyond that. Clearly, the only sensible way to go is to introduce a
regional-based management system. For the North sea, the real challenge
is that Norway is not part of the EU, which is why I question the
appropriateness of using the EU as a fisheries market tool. Therefore,
one of the single biggest players in the North sea is not going to be
part of any regional management system that we set up within the EU.
The fisheries management nirvana to which we might aspire would involve
Norway and EU countries managing the
North sea as a whole. As long as Norway remains outside the EU, that
will be difficult to the point of impossibility. It reinforces the need
for greater decentralisation, and I hope that the Minister will pursue
that. The
hon. Member for Newbury raised a point about recreational anglers being
brought within the ambit of quotas. He is absolutely right that in the
context of the United Kingdom, that would be burdensome and wholly
disproportionate to any benefit achieved. The Minister is also right
that the recreational angling element is much more significant in some
countries, which serves to illustrate the truth that centralised
policies will always be ineffective. The further away from Brussels
fisheries management is controlled, the better it will be. I welcome
some aspects of the measures, particularly the move to using mortality
rather than spawning stock biomass for quota allocation. If that term
is consigned to the history of fishing debates, I, for one, will be
more than delighted.
Finally,
I return to the question of the language that we use, particularly with
regard to the success or otherwise of the cod recovery programme. The
programme has a chequered history. Many of the elements introduced,
particularly those concerning closed areas in 2003-04, have been
frankly bureaucratic and unworkable to the point of being nonsensical.
They are the sort of proposals that have brought the whole notion of
sustainable managed fisheries into disrepute, which is saying
something. However, there are lessons to be learned. An approach that
seeks to achieve a balance between the socio-economic needs of fishing
communities and the conservation needs of stock levels is the right
one. At the end of the day, no fishing community will be assisted by a
collapse in the stock of any fish species, which is not in
anybody’s interests. If we lose our fishing communities, what is
the point of recovering the
stocks? 5.28
pm
| 
