The
Chairman: We have until 5.30 pm for questions to the
Minister. However, that time is not a target to aim for. I remind
Members that questions should be brief. Subject to my discretion,
Members may ask a series of questions. However, there are quite a few
Members present. I call Mr. Benyon to open the batting, and
we will move on after a few questions from
him. Mr.
Richard Benyon (Newbury) (Con): Thank you, Mr.
Russell. As the Minister said, it is a pleasure to serve under your
chairmanship. I am grateful to the Minister for his opening remarks,
and I have a number of questions. I am sure that we are all concerned
for his health. The annual December Fisheries Council cannot be any
good for his health, nor for that of the industry or fish stocks,
because decisions are taken at 3 o’clock in the morning. Such
decisions are often overruled a few months later, when new data come in
that allow for changes. How would he like that process to be changed as
part of CFP reform? There cannot be a better example of how not to do
things than the annual horse-trading that we have; there must be a
better
way.
Huw
Irranca-Davies: The hon. Gentleman is right. One of my
Conservative predecessors used to take a portable camp-bed to the
negotiations. As far as I am aware, they are the only EU deliberations
that still go through the night. It is bizarre and ridiculous. As a
politician, I quite like the thrust and the macho style of politics.
However, it is not the best way to make decisions, particularly because
they are often revisited. The way forward should be to consider the
long-term management of stocks; there should be multi-annual plans, so
that there is not annual haggling. We should also settle on maximum
sustainable yields, or some form of abundance-of-stock measure. We
should go for the long view, and that should go hand in hand with
regionalisation of the fisheries. The technical stuff would therefore
be done at the regional level, in the seas, and the EU Ministers would
set out the parameters. We should not sit until 3 o’clock in the
morning arguing over mesh sizes.
Several
hon. Members
rose—
The
Chairman: Order. I have noted that four hon. Members wish
to speak, so they can cease bobbing up and
down.
Mr.
Benyon: I see that the Minister and I are of one mind on
that issue. I was tempted to ask the Minister about his overall vision
for the management of fisheries in the UK. However, that was covered in
his introduction to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural
Affairs discussion paper, published on 16 September, albeit in a
slightly techie way. I see where he is coming from. To look at the
issue in another way, is there anything that the Minister believes is
right about the CFP
currently?
Huw
Irranca-Davies: Indeed there is. An encouraging aspect of
the common fisheries policy, even before we get reform, is the
increasing propensity to take good science more seriously and to make
decisions based on it. Sometimes that is challenging. There is also an
increasing propensity to deliver up-to-date science that recognises
what is genuinely coming off fishing boats. We have more to do on that.
There are many aspects, such as the drive towards science, that we
should not discard. However, there are so many broken aspects that we
must stop, pause, take away the parts that I have mentioned and set off
in a different
direction. The
hon. Member for Newbury tempted me to speak about my vision. It has to
do with individual fishermen being able to plan with certainty for the
three, four or five years ahead. It is also about UK, Scottish or Irish
Ministers being able to know that nephrops from the Irish sea or the
mixed fisheries in the south-west are safe for the next three, four or
five years. That is the vision.
Mr.
Benyon: At the heart of the EU green paper and the
European Scrutiny Committee’s understanding of it is the
protection of small-scale coastal fisheries. DEFRA’s discussion
paper makes no specific mention of the needs of small-scale coastal
fisheries, so what is the Government’s vision for those very
important
groups?
Huw
Irranca-Davies: We have quite a clear vision, but it does
not involve us getting into the techie detail, and there is good reason
for that. We believe that we have a valuable and vibrant future for
small coastal fishing communities, such as the type of community
represented by the hon. Member for St. Ives, or those off the coast of
Scotland. However, the detail on how we get to such a future has to
come from the fisheries industry itself. That is why we have set up the
sustainable access to inshore fisheries project, and why the
quadrilateral ministerial meeting will look at how we take forward
issues such as quota reform. It is vital that we get the detail from
the people on the ground who are doing the
fishing.
Mr.
Benyon: The quadrilateral group is very high level. For
all its welcome elements, the SAIF project affects a relatively small
number of fishermen. Last week in the House, in reply to a question,
the Minister countered accusations that his Department did not consult
with the smaller inshore fleet, but what does he
have to say to the accusation from the New Under Ten Fishermen’s
Association that it feels totally shut out of discussions by his
Department? It is a real concern. The Minister tells me that that is
just a perception of a reality, but it is a perception that is very
widespread.
Huw
Irranca-Davies: In my brief sojourn as Fisheries Minister,
I have learned that one definitely cannot please most of the people
most of the time. [Interruption.] I chose my words carefully; I
deliberately said “most of the people most of the time”.
The SAIF project is not a discreet, small project. Its panel includes
many fishermen from the under 10 metre sector—not everyone can
get on to the panel. It also branches out into all the regions, and
much more work is going on with SAIF on the ground in different
regions. I assume that the hon. Member for Newbury is referring to
Hastings NUTFA, which I would be pleased to talk with on the range of
issues affecting it and other people in the UK. There is an issue at
the moment on which I cannot comment, because it is subject to an
appeal, but I look forward to sitting down with NUTFA and others in
Hastings and elsewhere, because they have a part to play in the future
of the under 10 metre
industry.
Mr.
Benyon: I have a supplementary question. This issue
concerns not just the Minister, but his Department. I met with not just
the Hastings group, but fishermen from the under 10 metre sector from
around the country. There seems to be a universal concern that if one
disagrees with the Minister’s Department, one gets cut
out.
Huw
Irranca-Davies: Again, I refute that entirely. Let me give
the hon. Gentleman a clear illustration. We recently carried forward
one of the most controversial schemes that the Department has had for
some time. It was an under 10s decommissioning scheme, linked with the
capping of licences. Many people—I travelled to meetings around
the country—said that it was the worst thing ever. Just as many
people said that it was the best thing that has ever been done, because
it seriously dealt with the issue of overcapacity and the availability
of quota in the pool.
We are often
accused of over-consultation. Fishermen from the under 10s say to us,
“We cannot get to every consultation that you hold,” so
there is a balance to be struck. Seriously, my door is genuinely always
open for under 10s and other parts of the fleet, but it is important to
recognise that what is good for one part of the under 10 metre fleet
would not be welcomed by
others. Andrew
George (St. Ives) (LD): Currently, we are in the
motherhood and apple pie—perhaps I should say “fish
pie”—arena of consensus and agreement. The Minister has
talked about safe biological limits, multi-annual quotas and the need
to devolve decision making and engage the industry more—hon.
Members of all parties agree with that. However, can he tell us the
extent to which the pre-negotiations prior to the December Council have
given any indication of the likelihood of the other member states
sharing that same vision to build up, for example, the regional
advisory councils to become more substantial decision-making bodies,
which we would all like to see?
Huw
Irranca-Davies: That would not necessarily be in the
current Council discussions, which are predominantly to do with the
annual haggling about the priorities for the autumn negotiations next
year. I can tell the hon. Gentleman, who is concerned about this, that
there is support for regionalisation and long-term science, but we
have—I hate to use this phrase because I sound like a marketing
ad man—a small golden opportunity of a few months. People are
waiting for 2011 to see what happens with CFP reform. Actually, we have
the next few months for member nations, such as ourselves, to advance
the most worked-up, concrete ideas of what we mean when we talk about
sustainability and regionalisation. I am intent on leading the agenda
on that, as are my officials, so that by February or March our firm
proposals are on the table, fashioned by people in the fishing industry
and by scientists as
well.
Andrew
George: On that last point, will the Minister explain a
little bit more about where his Department is? If he has the backing of
those who are interested in the future of the fishing industry and
would like there to be further devolution to regional advisory
councils—I am not committing other parties to that—to
what extent is the industry signing up to that? No doubt, it would be
helpful to him in those negotiations if he senses that he is speaking
on behalf of the whole industry and a broad cross-section of the
political parties in the
UK.
Huw
Irranca-Davies: Indeed, that is a good point. I welcome
the broad consensus, including the industry, that is being fashioned on
the broad parameters. As with everything, the devil is in the detail.
However, it is true that there is a broad consensus in the industry in
all parts of the UK on moving ahead with the agenda that I have
described and on our leading from the front. We need to take the focus
away from those high-level ideas and put forward some concrete models.
However, I do not want to pre-empt that, because we have just come to
the back of a consultation period, which is still ongoing—I want
to make it clear that the views of hon. Members today will be taken
into account in that consultation, even though the end date has been
reached. Introducing concrete models will, I suspect, be the trickier
bit.
Andrew
George: Finally in this round, on the concrete issues and
the Minister’s saying that he believes it is possible to reduce
and even eliminate discards on the Scottish model, for example, will he
expand a little bit more on that, bearing in mind that that objective
would not be quite so easy to achieve in all the fishing waters around
the coast of the UK, particularly around the western approaches, which
is a mixed fishery? To what extent does he believe that it is possible
to make advances even in that type of
fishery?
Huw
Irranca-Davies: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. In
our priority for a regionalisation agenda, regionalisation is
predicated on different fisheries around the UK. The cod recovery plan,
which is tough for the fishermen and signals the right intent on
conservation and sustainable fisheries, is not the model that
would be dropped off Newlyn. But different models could be
dropped there, working with fishermen, that would also drive down
discards in a mixed fishery.
I am convinced
that the people who are most upset by discards are not the housewives
or househusbands filling up their trolley. We say this regularly, and
it is right to say it: fishermen are appalled by having to throw dead
fish back into the sea because of where we are with the
CFP. Mr.
Angus MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP): I listened to
the Minister and am encouraged by mention of a radical review, setting
a different kind of agenda, being serious about radical reform and
excluding nothing from the table. It sounds as though he has converted
to Scottish National party policy on the CFP. Indeed, I welcome
that.
Huw
Irranca-Davies: I was there before
you.
Mr.
MacNeil: Well done—even more encouraging words.
Where is the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) at
this momentous
time? On
page 16 of the Commission’s green paper, there is mention of
national control. It states that one of the few areas of success has
been within the 12-mile limits under national control, rather than the
area of the wider CFP. Is there not therefore an argument for extending
the area of national control to 199 miles, and allowing the CFP to
exist in name
only?
Huw
Irranca-Davies: When I said I was there already, I was
there under the principles of CFP reform, not Scottish nationalism. The
hon. Gentleman raises an interesting point which drives up the agenda
his strong feeling, which I understand, that national boundaries would
be the most appropriate. I know that he has the right motives, but I
would caution him that when I speak to fishermen off the west coast of
Scotland or off the coast of Ireland, they do not see themselves as
just Scottish or Irish fishermen. They trade quota with England,
Denmark and others. When their own grounds are fished out, they move
around the coast into the cod areas or down into Cardigan bay. I simply
caution against the idea that there is only one model, and that it is
purely national. When I talk about regional seas, I mean coherent
regional seas, and that may mean sharing the priorities of those from
Ireland, the west coast of Scotland and other places, as might make
sense.
Mr.
MacNeil: I hear what the Minister says about trading
quota, which, of course is done as well with Norway, which is outside
the CFP. Therefore, quota trading is not predicated on being in the
CFP. I
draw the Minister’s attention to “A vision for European
fisheries by 2020”, which sets out, as a mea culpa of major
confessional standards, the failure of the CFP over the past several
decades. Within the vision there are many great and grand suggestions;
however, to prevent the CFP from continuing to make errors and blunders
as it has in the past, we need goalposts. If the CFP is not scrapped by
2020, there should be a commitment from Government, particularly this
Government, that as the CFP trial has been tested to
destruction—probably of many in the fishing industry—it
should be dropped and we should return to national
control.
Huw
Irranca-Davies: The idea that we should pull away from the
CFP because it is broken is the one matter on which I
fundamentally—in principle, ideology and
practice—disagree with the hon. Gentleman. Let me briefly
explain why. The vision that I have set out of sustainable stocks,
regionalisation and working with the science means that we have to work
with coastal neighbours, including Norway, which the hon. Gentleman
mentioned. That means that we have to have a coherent mechanism to bind
nations together. Walking away from the CFP would, I suspect, return us
to a free-for-all, which we would not
want. However,
I agree with the hon. Gentleman on milestones, and I shall list some. I
do not think that we have to wait for CFP reform to start dealing with
discards, for example. We need to do as much as we can, either in cod
recovery or what we are doing with CCTV camera pilots and so on. There
are things that we can do on the
journey.
|
