Andrew
George: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Members for
Luton, North (Kelvin Hopkins) and for Newbury. Following the
characteristic contribution from the hon. Member for Luton, North, I
know that the Minister will be dealing with some of the points that
were raised.
It is always
worth while reflecting on the CFPs effectiveness, even though
its future is not the matter under debate today. I am as critical as
anyone of its ineffectiveness and failure, and it still needs major and
radical reform. There are a number of problems with the suggestion of
the hon. Member for Luton, North. First, there are the legal
difficulties associated with being able to do what he proposes. Another
problem is that a lot of the stocks we are talking abouteven
some of those mentioned todayare highly migratory and do not
necessarily respect national borders, particularly on the median
line.
Kelvin
Hopkins: Will the hon. Gentleman give
way?
Andrew
George: Yes, I will happily give way. I wish I had not
gone into this
now.
Kelvin
Hopkins: The point has been made that fish can swim across
borders; they are no respecters of 200-mile zones. On the other hand,
there are still large fish stocks around countries. It is a fact that
our fish stocks can be fished out to a much greater extent than, say,
Norways. If they know they are less likely to be caught in
Norwegian waters, they might swim in that
direction.
Andrew
George: I have said before that fish may not be that
bright, but at least they are intelligent enough not to have hang-ups
about their
nationality. I
will mention two other issues and then ask a couple of questions.
First, in the past I have strongly opposed the general direction of
travel of the Community Fisheries Control Agency. The Minister may know
that I have argued with his predecessors in this regard. We should have
been pursuing a more bilateral approach in Europe, rather than a
Eurocentric one, which is effectively what we have now, with a central
monitoring and enforcement agency operating under the EU. Rather than
elaborating at great length on that point, I urge the Minister to
reflect on it.
I also urge
the Minister to reflect on the great strength it would provide and the
reassurance it would give to fishermen in this country if the
co-operation that he talked abouton monitoring and enforcement
at sea between the UK and other fishing nationscould be
extended and even formalised. Ultimately, perhaps we could agree to
foreign inspectors coming over to any UK port and, equally, to our
going to any French or Spanish port, for example, to carry out spot
checks on the effectiveness of our undertakings. Being able to welcome
them here, in the same way as they would welcome us there, would
establish a far greater degree of confidence in each other.
Since early
this year, the licensing of under 10-metre vessels has been enforced,
and I will certainly welcome the Ministers reflections on that.
The measure is not a direct consequence of the provisions in the papers
before us today, but he will know that this has been a highly
contentious issue. For example, it is argued that there has always been
a significant latent capacity in the under-10 metre sectora
point is not possible to argue against. The Minister needed to reflect
on the fact that it may remain latent for many years to come before
implementing the measure. Given the large number of protests and
appeals made by many vessel owners following the regulations
implementation, how does he think it has gone so far? Is he satisfied
that it is having the intended
impact? Is
the Minister also satisfied that genuine full-time fishermen who have
under 10-metre vessels have secured the under 10-metre licence? Have
there been circumstances in which part-time and hobby fishermen who
happened to be lucky in obtaining the over 300-kg catch record within
the reference period were able to register, whereasfor reasons
I will not bore the Committee with todayfull-time fishermen,
who earn their livelihood from fishing, were unable to secure a licence
and, therefore, a livelihood for the future?
The Minister
said in his opening remarks that, as a result of the proposals we are
debating today, the EU and member states collectively will be able to
put pressure
on defaulting states. I do not know whether, in the
spirit of naming and shaming, he is prepared to name the states he
believes are defaulting. Also, how does he think pressure will be
intensified on defaulting states as a result of the
proposals?
My last
question concerns the Committees conclusions. The first issue
is the cost of the measures and how they are to be met. The second,
which I am sure the Minister is aware of if he has read the papers, is
the Committees concern that bringing in a wide range of new
measures by 1 January next year is a tall order. It is a most
challenging undertaking. I would be interested to know how the Minister
thinks the measures can be implemented to that
timetable. 6
pm
Huw
Irranca-Davies: I thank Committee members for the very
detailed and stimulating debate; I have been encouraged by the incisive
and pertinent questions. I shall try to cover any outstanding points
and those just raised in contributions, including those of the hon.
Member for Newbury, because they relate to the closing remarks from the
hon. Member for St. Ives on the roll-out of the measures.
As I
mentioned, within the proposals there are already provisions allowing
for the phased introduction of some measures. In fact, some cannot be
introduced until further detailed rules have been agreed on the back of
the proposals. One example is that vessel monitoring systems, which we
use extensively in our fleet already, will not be extended to 12 to
15-metre vessels until 2012, so we have some transition time to work
with the fleet and make things happen. There are other examples as
well. That issue has been worked into the proposals.
I return to
the important issue of recreational fisheries. As the Committee will
know, we were extremely sympathetic to the views expressed by the
recreational fisheries fraternity and sorority in the UK, which raised
a lot of valid concerns over the definition of recreational sea-anglers
and so on. We made clear from the outset that we had difficulties not
only with the definition but with the workability of the proposals. It
may help if I clarify where we have got to: the revised text defines
recreational fishing as non-commercial fishing activity for recreation,
tourism or sport. It is further clarified in the text of article 47 as
fishing practice from vessels flying the flag of a member state. That
is a technical detail, but there we are. There are no controls or
restrictions on recreational fishing or information on catch levels
collected
currently. Let
us get down to the nitty-gritty. What does the proposal mean for
recreational anglers? In the majority of cases there will be no change
whatever in practice, but the regulation will mean, quite rightly, that
authorities will need to undertake sampling to look at the effects of
recreational fishing on stocks. We think that that is a responsible way
forward. Do not put the cart before the horse; let us go out and do the
sampling and see what the impact is, if there is any at
all.
Angela
Watkinson (Upminster) (Con): Do I understand from what the
Minister has said that recreational sea-angling is defined as only
angling from boats, so excludes beach casting or fishing from piers or
jetties?
Huw
Irranca-Davies: Yes, it is. I shall add another word of
assurance on whether recreational anglers will need to apply for a
fishing permit. If hon. Members
recall, another concern was that a new top-down licensing regime would
be imposed. The answer is a straightforward no. Because of the
negotiations and the stance of this UK Minister and those of other
member nations, which also had concerns, the fishing permit scheme has
been dropped from the proposals. It is worth flagging up the sampling.
Where significant levels of catches are seen for stocks that are
subject to multi-annual recovery plans and so on, national measures
will need to be put in place at some point. The terms of such measures
may not exclude a permitting scheme. However, the first thing that we
have to do is to assess accurately what impact, if any, recreational
angling will
have. Turning
to article 52, we have discussed auctions, sales notes and exemptions a
little. As I mentioned earlier, although it was raised by the hon.
Member for Newbury in his remarks, article 52 has been amended, so the
Committee can be assured that current UK practice will be able to
continue. Combining article 52, article 54 on electronic sales notes
and article 56 on exemptions means that the new provisions mirror
current requirements for member states to operate the scheme of
registration for buyers and sellers of first-sale fish. Currently,
sales notes are submitted within 48 hours of completion of sale, as a
paper or e-mailed document, and then those documents are manually
inputted to the UK fisheries administration system.
Article 52,
however, provides an exemption for direct purchases from fishing
vessels of up to 30 kilograms if the fish is intended for private
consumption and not for resale. It is an additional clarification.
Currently the UK operates a system that mirrors that provision, but
limits such sales to 25 kilograms. That limit was discussed and agreed
with the industry when the UK scheme of buyers and sellers of
first-sale fish was first implemented in 2005. The new limit therefore
should not cause any problems in the operation of the UK
scheme. Turning
to the issue of margins of tolerance, which has exercised sea-fisheries
representatives and individual skippers, it is worth pointing out that
the current proposal of marginal tolerance is, in our view, unhelpful.
We are seeking something more workable. However, we cannot ignore the
reality: 20 per cent. is simply too high. The real problem is with
small quantities, so we are seeking to address that. At the moment, we
have a Commission response to concerns about the margins that proposes
a reduced general margin of tolerance of 10 per cent., but retaining
the lower margin of 8 per cent. for recovery stocks. The Commission has
also proposed a lower threshold of 15 kilograms for recording
quantities of recovery stocks in the
logbook. Following
the National Federation of Fishermens Organisation request in
2007, DEFRA established a research project to establish what sort of
margin of tolerance might be achievable and workable. The
studyand I know that there are criticisms as to whether it is
conclusive or notshowed that with the exception of small
quantities of particular species, skippers can generally estimate the
quantities of fish on board with a much greater degree of accuracy than
that permitted with the existing 20 per cent. tolerance. It comes back
to the issue of sustainability of fisheries as well. The results of
that study suggested that catch estimations of the 8 per cent.
tolerance level became more accurate and reliable around the 150
kilogram level. Instead we have argued that there is no logic behind
the dual approach suggested
by the Commission. There should be a single margin
of tolerance. We have advocated 10 per cent. for all stocks, but that
the limit for recording species in the logbook should be increased, to
100 kilograms, to take account of the difficulty of estimating those
small quantities. However, we are alert to concerns and are continuing
to work hard on the issue of margins, but we have to recognise the
reality as well20 per cent. is certainly no way to
proceed. Turning
to the salient points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Luton,
North, I do not disregard his comments because he has made them before,
but there is a window of opportunity here. The only fundamental
difference that I would have with him is about the way forward. We do
not need to look for derogation; I think that there are other ways. I
would be happy to discuss with him further on the back of the
Committeeother hon. Members will come to the debate in future,
I am surewhat we are proposing in the CFP reform, because it is
radical. It means tearing down what we have now and putting forward a
whole new approachnot incrementally, but in a step change, if
we get it right. We have support to do
that. The
reason why we do not need to argue for derogation and so on is that the
proposals we have are based on the following premises. First, we fish
within safe biological limits. Can we define that? Yes; we can do it
through maximum sustainable yields and so
on. Secondly,
and importantlyI believe this comes to the nub of my hon.
Friends pointwe are arguing strongly that there should
be an element of CFP reform that involves regionalisation or even
localisation. There are legal issues as to how we proceed, but I think
that that is a way forward. We are working with the Commission actively
on that, and its lawyers are looking at how to do
it. There
are two possibilities for how such change might happen; there might be
others, but we are already aware of two. First, we build on the success
of the models that were achieved under the 2002 reforms, limited as
they were. One of the great things that came out of them were regional
advisory councils, and I always hold up the North sea RAC as one of the
leading ones. It involves member nations of that whole strip of
seanot just the UK, but the UK alongside other EU members,
Norway, scientists and other stakeholders, who are expert and have more
to contribute. We could be looking at ways in which they become more
the managers of that
sea. I
do not think that we should go to individual member nations. I say that
because even in our own waters, the challenges that west coast of
Scotland fishermen face mean that when they are under pressure, they
move around the coast. They go to the north-east or off to Ireland.
Northern Ireland fishermen share the same waters as west coast of
Scotland fishermen. We need some mechanism whereby fishermen take
responsibility and share the ownership of the challenges of managing
fisheries within their seas, and we are arguing strongly for
that. There
might be another way, which is to give enhanced powers to member
nations to get on with things, within the current legality of where we
are in the EU, and put a duty on them to collaborate within a
particular sea area.
Kelvin
Hopkins: I am most interested in what the Minister has to
say on this matter, but is it not a fact that British waters are
massive net losers because other nations fish more in British waters
than we fish in theirs? The tonnage involved is
substantial.
Huw
Irranca-Davies: I regret that I will have to take issue
with my hon. Friend on this point because I know about the reliance
that many of our fishermenScottish, English and
othershave on fishing in other waters, and that there is a
large market in trading quotas with other nations. The ability to fish
in other waters is used by us as well as them. We also have jointly
owned Spanish and UK vessels sailing out of our ports, as exist in
Spain and elsewhere. There is much more of an interplay between
nations. We
have highly pressurised waters, but we do not want to go back to the
old fisheries wars that we saw in the past, which involved patrolling
waters and keeping other vessels out. We need to manage the seas more
effectively. There is a way forward that would achieve what my hon.
Friend is looking for and would be to the advantage of the UK fleet,
both in our domestic waters and internationally, but it would also work
to the advantage of any sustainable, responsible fishery
operator. It
is interesting to look at the landings that come into Grimsby. Yes, UK
vessels sail into that port, but the 2,500 jobs in Grimsby are
extensively reliant on not only UK fishing boats but boats coming in
from Norway, Iceland and so on. There is real international
interplay. The
other thing I wish to touch on briefly is long-term management, and
getting away from annual haggling. We need to get into multi-annual
species recovery and management plans that are based on good evidence
and good science. Sound science is the other aspect. We are getting
better. We have fisheries science partnerships that involve fishermen
working alongside scientists to get real-time better science, but we
need to do more. That is a good basis for reform, and it is fundamental
reform that would give real ownership to people, if we get
there. I
agree with the point made by the hon. Member for Newbury. I keep saying
that, ultimately, the stewardship of our seas, how we introduce control
measures and what we do for long-term sustainability are in the hands
of our own fishermen, but we need to give them that responsibility and
say to them that the buck then stops there. We need to ensure that it
does and that we get on with things. There is a way
forward.
The hon.
Member for St. Ives asked about the CFCA. It is not an enforcement
body; that is the Commissions role. However, the measures that
we are discussing, tallied to the CFCAs role to get a more
harmonised approach and facilitate member states working together,
which was a key theme in the hon. Gentlemans points, will
assist with the control measures. We support that approach
wholeheartedly. With
regard to the under-10s, the scheme was not just one of
decommissioning. I have to say clearly that, as a Minister, I do not
believe in decommissioning as we did it previously, when we tended to
decommission ships and boats that would be scrapped but would then
reappear in another formas another vessela few months
down the line. The taxpayers money went out and did not do
anything to address supply and demand within fisheries. We are talking
about a decommissioning package that was also tallied to the capping
scheme,
which I accept was highly controversial but which
also made it a success. We know that it has been a success because of
the level of applications and the quota that it has released back into
the under 10-metre pool. So the quota from those people who went out
has been put back into that pool. We also know that it was a success
because we anticipated that there would be appeals and there were
appeals.
Some three
quarters of those appeals, or a little bit more, were successful. We
set the scheme up to do that, so that people who did not have a
three-year track record, but had a genuine, valid reason because they
had been ill or their boat had been in dry dock, could appeal and stand
a good chance of successand they did, and most of them were
successful. I acknowledge that some were not successful and were
disappointed. However, we gave them the opportunity to
appeal. Through
the capping and decommissioning scheme, we have released more than 500
tonnes of quota back into the under-10 poolhistorically, a
relatively small pooland that is significant. I do not have the
details to hand on St. Ives, but I could find out and write to the hon.
Gentleman who represents the constituency. The key issue is that this
should not be seen as a one-off issue. This is part of the wider reform
of the under-10s and it links into what we are doing with the
sustainable access to inshore fisheries project, which is looking not
at fisheries on their own, in respect of the under-10s, but at how they
tie into local regeneration and regional development, how they market,
brand and produce their products and how they own more of their whole
chain of supply and get the value that comes from that, so that they
are not just dealing with the raw produce. That is how we need to look
at the under-10s. It has been a huge disadvantage to them that we have
parked them and always regarded them as a vulnerable fleet that is in
decline. Actually, we should be talking about a viable future for them.
But that will be done by bringing them right into the mainstream of
regional
development.
|