Mr.
Carmichael: I am interested to know what the hon.
Gentleman believes the Minister should do to Norway, when Marine
Harvest and other such companies are owned by Norwegian food
companies.
Mr.
MacNeil: Absolutely. The hon. Gentleman should have paid
closer attention to what I said. I said that the Minister should keep
an eye on Norway, because it is sometimes dormant, but it sometimes
changes. Some companies in Scotland are owned by Norwegian concerns,
and that adds to the reasons for keeping an eye on exactly what is
going on with salmon in Norway. I hope that the hon. Gentleman shares
that
concern.
Mr.
Carmichael: I very much share that concern, and I agree
with his analysis. I said that if Norwegian companies own Scottish
salmon companies, what effectively can the Government here or in
Edinburgh do?
Mr.
MacNeil: The hon. Gentleman is incorrect. Norwegian
companies do not own all the Scottish salmon companies. Lighthouse
Caledonia is owned by a concern outside Norway. There is a lot of
scope, and there have been many differences in the salmon farming
industry in the past nine months. Keeping up with events is important,
and I merely say that we must be aware that in salmon farming terms
Norway is the elephant in the
bed. In
conclusion, I know that I have said divisive things about the common
fisheries policy, but I am sure that we all agree that Scottish farmed
salmon is the premium product. Salmon that is raised in Scotland is
seen throughout the world. On a recent trip to the United States, I
even saw Scottish farmed salmon on sale in Philadelphia. It is the
best. I hope that the Minister will keep that in mind, whenever he has
the opportunity to trumpet the benefits, particularly the health
benefits, of Scottish farmed salmon. It is very important to my
constituency. I invite him to visit fishermen or, indeed, aquaculture
at any time in my
constituency. 6.15
pm
Mr.
Carmichael: The hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar was
absolutely right about the importance of aquaculture—it is
certainly of supreme importance in my constituency. However, I am aware
that the industry is complex, and the messages that come from it are
often influenced heavily by the fact that so much of its ownership has
been bought up progressively over the years by Norwegian operators, in
particular by Norwegian beef
companies. The
crux of my comments relates to the catching sector rather than the
farming sector. The less that the common fisheries policy has to do
with aquaculture, as opposed to the catching sector, the
better—and the happier I shall be. In my first question to the
Minister, I challenged the rather bald—and, some might say,
bold—assertion that the problem facing the common fisheries
policy is the overcapacity of the fleet. That is a fundamental
misunderstanding, and it is indicative of the underlying failure of the
Commission’s position. I give particular credit to Commissioner
Borg for the fact that the Commission has been candid in recognising
the failure of the CFP, although it has been less forthcoming in
recognising its role in that failure. My analysis is that
the fundamental problem with the common fisheries policy has been the
centralised mechanism of control at its heart, through which the
Commission exercises a disproportionate amount of
influence. There
has been a deliberate—almost strategic—exclusion of the
industry from considerations throughout the year, and particularly so
as we come towards the end of the year. That has been compounded by a
reliance on out-of-date science, which is a topic that the Minister and
I have discussed before. We are broadly in agreement that, by the time
the science is actually used by the December Council, the data on which
it relies are 18 months out of date. In fact, we are applying the
out-of-date data in respect of questions that themselves are virtually
unanswerable. Let us consider, for example, cod stocks in recent years.
The question that International Council for the Exploration of the Sea
answers so unsatisfactorily each year is how we can return to safe
biological limits within the next 12 months. The only answer to that is
to say that it cannot be done. That was recognised through the
existence and nature of the cod recovery programme, which was a
multi-annual approach, but year in, year out, we ask that pointless
question. Such
matters conspire to produce a situation in which there are total
allowable catches and set quotas that are not in accordance with the
amount of fish in the sea. That becomes particularly problematic when
dealing with a mixed fishery. My experience of that comes from the
North sea, but my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives spoke
about the position in the south-west of England, where there is also a
mixed fishery. That, in turn, leads to the situation that everyone
deplores, which is one of discards. Discards historically led to black
fish landing, something that happily we have now managed to eliminate.
However, it still means that fish are caught and thrown back, which is
a colossal waste, and we are then in what I think the hon. Member for
Newbury referred to as a vicious
circle. The
opportunity for the European Union in 2012 is to break that vicious
circle and put us into a virtuous circle, and that brings me to the
importance of understanding the fundamentals. Although the green paper
picks up some of the tone of what the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an
Iar said, I am disappointed that it is not sufficiently challenging in
how it tackles the fundamentals. The Minister gave us a wise injunction
at the start of the debate: we should look forwards and not backwards.
However, to do the one we first have to do the other, and I hope that
he—and you, Mr. Russell—will bear with me if I
bring in a little
history. The
fundamental problem is that we are dealing with a structure that is
basically the same as the one that was put in place in 1983. In 1983,
lessons were being taken from the original European Community, which
was started with six member states. By 1983, the number of member
states had grown to 12 or 13—my memory fails me on the exact
number—and most of them had significant fishing interests. We
are now in a European Union of 27 member states, many of which
are land-locked, with even some coastal nations having little
significant fishing industry. However, we still operate in a context in
which all those disparate nations have, in theory if not in
practice—I accept that that is hardly so—an equal say. We
also have horse-trading, and I do not doubt that the hon. Member for
Scarborough and Whitby has better direct experience of that than me.
Fishing, which does
not command the same political importance as other matters, becomes the
victim of other deals. It is easy for some nations to concede a point
on fishing in pursuit of some other goal. That is what is fundamentally
unsatisfactory about the modern common fisheries
policy. Mr.
Goodwill: I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising that
point. The horse-trading is not just among the member states in the
Council, but within political groups, and that often affects how the
Parliament votes. It is not unusual for 400 or 500 amendments to be
tabled to European legislation, so the situation can lead to many
changes, not just to the overall picture, but to the nitty-gritty of
legislation.
Mr.
Carmichael: That point makes itself. That is why taking a
very different approach is important, and why the question of regional
management becomes of supreme importance, which is why I am entitled to
be disappointed with the timid way in which the green paper approaches
regional management. A lot more could be done. As the Government
respond to that rather timid view of regional management, I hope that
they will be a bit bolder and a bit more
innovative. Let
us take the North sea as an example. Other Members have already made
the point that Norway is a massive player there but is not part of the
common fisheries policy. If we are to have meaningful regional
management within the North sea, Norway has to play a part in that
regional management structure. As long as Norway is outside the
European Union, that will be very difficult. Can a common fisheries
policy within the European Union achieve meaningful regional
management? I doubt it, but there is a macro-political prize to be won.
If the Minister and his ministerial colleagues in the Fisheries
Council, or whoever is there come 2012, could square that circle, I
would guess that Norway would be a member of the EU tomorrow. It is the
common fisheries policy that keeps Norway, and particularly Norwegian
people, out of the EU. If that could be removed, there would be a big
prize for the EU to win.
Mr.
MacNeil: I am intrigued by what the hon. Gentleman says.
Does he believe that Norway would enter into any fisheries agreement
that meant that it would lose national control of
fisheries?
Mr.
Carmichael: I do not know what the hon. Gentleman means by
“national control”. There are historical rights for EU
nations, and Scotland in particular, regarding fishing within Norwegian
waters. To what extent does any nation genuinely have national control
over its own waters? Were we to have a mechanism for the common
management of those areas where we share a common interest, I think
that Norway would buy into it with some alacrity. I go to Norway fairly
regularly, and my analysis is that there is enthusiasm for EU
membership among the Norwegian political classes, but not among the
wider public.
Mr.
MacNeil: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that
there were historical rights in and around Iceland, but that situation
has changed. I raise that as an illustrative
point.
Mr.
Carmichael: I have to tell the hon. Gentleman that
historical rights are still being exercised in Icelandic waters. Those
rights did not end with the cod war. British boats from various ports
still fish in Icelandic waters. I will return to the subject of Iceland
towards the end of my speech.
I suggest
that the Minister looks at other regional management models, and in
particular at the North-East Atlantic Fisheries Commission. That body
is not without its problems, and I do not suggest that we read across
that to the new common fisheries policy. However, as a mechanism for
fishing nations that want to promote common fishing interests, it has a
great deal to commend. If that experience and corpus iuris is there,
what is the point of sitting here trying to reinvent the
wheel?
I have four
principal concerns about the green paper. The first is about relative
stability, the second is about the six and 12-mile limits, the third is
about the concept of regional management and stakeholder participation,
and the fourth relates to the creation of small-scale fleets. I will
touch on those points briefly, as I want to allow the Minister plenty
of time to reply to the debate.
The
Chairman: Order. The Minister needs to be called by no
later than quarter to 7.
Mr.
Carmichael: I was thinking more of twenty-five to, but I
am grateful for that flexibility, Mr.
Russell. In
anticipation of the possibility—I put it no more strongly than
that—that the hon. Member for Newbury might be sitting on the
Government Benches this time next year, I am nervous of any talk about
unpicking relative stability. Although relative stability is far from
perfect and, as my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives says, it
benefits those in the north more than those further south, it is of
supreme importance, particularly to the Scottish fishing industry. Once
the principle has been conceded, it will never be put back in place
again, and we would lose something that we could never
recover.
We certainly
do not want to see the permanent transfer of total allowable catches
between member states, but there is scope for continuing and improving
the in-year swap that takes place between member states. That would
lead to a much better use of the resource, while preserving the base
allocation for individual member states for future years.
I hate to
report that there is another elephant in the room: the question of
individual transferable quotas, which we have not touched on. There is
great resistance, especially in the Scottish fishing industry, to an
ITQ system. Obviously, the concern is that that would open the door for
concentrating influence in the hands of countries such as Spain and
even Holland. We wish to preserve six and 12-mile limits as strongly as
possible; they sit well with the arguments about relative stability and
it is difficult to see how we could have one, in any meaningful sense,
without the other.
Essentially,
I have already spoken about regional management, which should be the
core of any new common fisheries policy. I hope that in the discussion
of the general principles, the Minister will take that with him. For
example, the North sea RAC, which was established with very limited
powers, offers a powerful precedent for how regional management, with
stakeholders
—industry, scientists and conservationists—working
together, can produce a much more effective approach to fisheries
management than the highly centralised model that we have seen in
previous
years. In
particular, the involvement of Norway could see an end to the
annual—I hesitate to use the word “farce” because
it is overused in this context—difficult negotiations between
the EU and Norway. My concern has always been that fishing politics in
this country does not engage until after those negotiations. I am keen
to see more forceful political involvement, rather than leaving things
at the official level. The way in which Norway involves its fishermen
in EU-Norway talks should serve as a model for our Government and the
Commission. In an earlier question, I touched on the idea of an EU
enforcement agency, which I hope that the Minister will resist. Such an
agency would be totally at odds with any regional concept of
management. The
prize open to us would offer a new management prospectus in the EU and
an opportunity to see the EU as a body that is confident enough not
just to pull up powers but also to give some down. That
would be a more meaningful and practical definition of the
awful word “subsidiarity”. This is a microcosm—an
illustration—of much that is wrong with the European Union, and
there is an opportunity for it to demonstrate a willingness to put some
of that
right. Iceland
is discussing and undergoing an application process, but, solely
because of the common fisheries policy, I would be astonished if the
Icelandic people showed support for membership, if they were given a
referendum. The CFP is a barrier to bringing in many Nordic countries
that, I think, are the missing link in the
EU. 6.34
pm
Huw
Irranca-Davies: I am pleased to respond to this excellent
debate, as it always is, on fisheries. At the outset, I should like to
thank the hon. Member for St. Ives for encapsulating that warm
feeling of general support before I get into the details of a good
series of
contributions. The
hon. Member for Newbury talked about a range of things, including MSC
accreditation and consumer or people power. He was right to do so. We
recognise the importance of certification, too. Third-party
certification schemes and other voluntary schemes provide a driver for
real sustainable long-term fisheries. Eco-labels—the MSC
standard of accreditation—can help consumers make quick
decisions when they go along the shelves. We are seeing more of it. The
hon. Gentleman mentioned some of the retailers. We need to make sure
that all the retailers are stepping up to the mark. Fishermen are
increasingly doing so and are seeking
accreditation. We
are working with the World Bank, the MSC, Fairtrade, the Co-op and
others to develop new ways of thinking about certifying
fisheries’ sustainability in generating and distributing wealth
and protecting the environment. We also published a discussion paper on
CFP reform, which included engagement with a broad range of
stakeholders across the UK. I will not do product placement, but we had
a representative from one of the aforementioned supermarkets on the
panel at the launch of the CFP reform, which was very good to
see.
The hon.
Gentleman also talked about the inshore sector in some detail. I share
his concern about that—it is why we have set up the SAIF panel.
I have a high regard for NUTFA. It was a good moment when NUTFA set
itself up to represent the voice of the under-10 sector. NUTFA is quite
diverse in the fleet it represents, but it is not all encompassing.
Many in the under-10 sector do not belong to NUTFA and perhaps do not
always share its views. Some belong to the National Federation of
Fishermen’s Organisations and align themselves with its views.
But NUTFA sat on the panel with our UK roadshows, and it attends our
UK-wide conferences. We are far from being disengaged from NUTFA or
anyone else in the under-10 metre fleet. I mentioned the exhaustion
felt by some in that fleet from being over-consulted.
The hon.
Member for Newbury mentioned access to unused quota. We constantly open
up for the under-10 sector the ability to do quota swap. That is an
active part of our day-to-day work with the Marine Fisheries Agency.
Just to hark back to last year’s negotiations and the remark
about horse-trading, I know all the criticisms. However, on the back of
that, using The Hague preference, we walked out with several hundred
tonnes of additional whiting, partly for the over-10s and partly for
the under-10s. It went straight into the under-10 pool. We will always
look for those opportunities for the under-10s and the other fleet for
maximising quota swaps, including with other nations. I note the hon.
Gentleman’s support for the Commission’s use of effort or
perhaps a mutation of that on hours at
sea. When
I go to fisheries meetings around the UK I often hear different views
on what is going right and what is going wrong. I simply want to put on
record my appreciation of the work that officials in the MFA and my
officials do in going out and trying to engage. The difficulty is that
some of the answers that my officials give are not palatable because
some of the challenges that we face are pretty huge. That is why we are
talking about CFP reform here today and why we need to get away from
the current
situation. I
have mentioned certification. Let me move on to regionalisation. There
has been general support for the idea of regionalisation. The hon.
Member for Newbury mentioned Mr. Cole in Lowestoft. I
applaud the innovation that he and others across the UK have shown. The
transition to the CFP must support that type of innovation. However, I
cannot agree—and I may have misunderstood this—that every
fisherman should be fishing under his own plans. I will come to the
details in a moment, but when we talked about regionalisation and
devolving some accountability and responsibility in fisheries, that
cannot be done for every single fisherman because that way lies, to
pick up the point of the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar, the
tragedy of the common seas. I will elaborate on that in a
moment. The
hon. Members for St. Ives and for Orkney and Shetland and others talked
about regionalisation, so let me go into a little more detail. Hon.
Members should bear in mind the fact that we are trying to flesh out
some ideas on that, but let me give more detail on one way forward. As
a basic parameter, the Council and the European Parliament should set
the strategic direction—the overarching objectives of fisheries
policy—on the basis of the Commission’s proposals for a
new CFP. Those overarching objectives—achieving maximum
sustainable
yield, a commitment to environmental standards and a reduction in
discards—should set those parameters at that level. Decisions on
translating those high-level objectives into plans for fisheries could
then be taken at a regional level, with the support of expert advice:
for example, the exact level of maximum sustainable yield, when that
should be achieved, and the detail of that within that area. Then,
local bodies, producer organisations, associations in the constituency
of the hon. Member for St. Ives, and other groupings, can make those
plans operational by setting out the detail of how they will reduce
fishing mortality, how they will restrict fishing where necessary and
so on. That sort of model—and I am not saying that that is the
be-all and end-all prescriptive model—would allow the Commission
more time to focus on the long-term strategy, carry out the audits, and
monitor how it is working overall. That would make the CFP much more
effective and focused on its strategic objectives. Co-operation among
member states and others is required to produce formal proposals and to
meet our commitment to manage jointly, in a responsible manner, what we
have as shared stocks. That is the fundamental principle of the
CFP.
To clarify
one point on regionalisation, the industry is not asking specifically
for more power to be given to the RACs. It is asking for more
accountability and for some levers to implement those overall
objectives. If we get the overall objectives right, and the science
behind them, too, that can then be translated down, in layers, to the
local—not just the
regional—level.
| 
