Mr.
MacNeil: The Minister mentions co-operation. From which
member states does he obtain the greatest co-operation in
negotiations?
Huw
Irranca-Davies: Curiously—and this is particularly
true of common fisheries reform—the tendency is to say that we
have like-minded colleagues in some of the northern areas: countries
such as Sweden, Denmark and so on. However, we also have commonality on
some of these ideas with some of the southern fishing nations, who see
that the CFP is broken. They accept that it needs to be reformed and
they share our ideas on sustainability. I will return to issues of
relative stability in a moment, because that is an important facet,
too. The
hon. Member for St. Ives talked about discards in mixed fisheries. That
is an important point, because we cannot have a one-size-fits-all
approach to tackling discards. However, the UK supports and works with
other member states, including Denmark and Germany, on proposals to
reduce discards through improved monitoring and moving to catch limits
rather than landings. That could offer a way forward and we await the
Commission’s reaction to that
approach. Andrew
George: The problem with the current system is that it is
very difficult to distinguish between intended and unintended
over-catches, particularly in a mixed fishery. I wonder to what extent
the Minister is referring back to the strategy unit’s document,
“Net Benefits: A sustainable and profitable future for UK
fishing”. I believe that it is only four years old. In all his
comments
on a forward-looking strategy and the papers before the Committee today,
the Minister has not referred to that document once. Is there a reason
for that?
Huw
Irranca-Davies: No, not at all. That is probably because I
am looking forward rather than backwards. But there is a theme to this
approach. I recognise what hon. Members have said about the last time
we tried to conduct common fisheries reform. There was incremental
change, but nothing near to what we needed. So “Net
Benefits” was an important part of the transition in our
thinking on the way forward. I am pleased to say that that broad vision
is not only shared by and large by the Commission, but by many other
member nations. The “Net Benefits” report provided some
of the impetus towards our thinking about radical reform. So, if I have
not mentioned it, it is simply because of lack of time rather than for
any other reason.
The hon.
Gentleman also mentioned compliance and asked who is not complying. Are
we always brilliant in the UK? I must say that in the UK we are very
good at enforcing robustly, and we should do that—I make no
apology for it. What I mean by that is that we monitor fisheries and we
ensure that responsible fisheries are rewarded because we know that if
there are irresponsible fisheries they impact on somebody else’s
livelihood.
The question
was asked: who is not complying and what action is taken against them?
Let me give a couple of examples. Poland is currently paying back cod
in the Baltic and France is currently paying back bluefin tuna. Those
are just two examples, but there are others. So enforcement is taking
place in other countries as well. What we need to do, and it is part of
the control measures that we took through recently, is to ensure that
that enforcement is being done rigorously right across the
EU. I
turn to the comments of the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar; my
apologies if I mispronounce his constituency, because I hate
mispronouncing constituencies. I know that the SNP has long held the
principle that there should be withdrawal from the common fisheries
policy, but I must commend it on engaging constructively on reform of
the CFP, because we are where we are. There are good reasons why we are
within the CFP, for all that the nature of this debate has meant that
everybody has agreed that the CFP is broken and that we must fix it
properly. However, the fact that we fish in shared waters and in common
seas means that we will have to find mechanisms that bind us together.
To expand on that, if we were to pull out of the CFP, there would be
another way of doing things. We have international obligations under
the United Nations convention on the law of the sea, to which we are
all signed up. In the absence of a CFP, we would have to have myriad
bilateral agreements. Heaven help me—the 3 am meetings that I
have with the 27 EU member nations are difficult enough, without my
gallivanting right across all of our seas to all the member nations of
the UN.
Legal and
policy constraints aside, we cannot escape our fundamental duty to
manage our fish stocks responsibly with all those who have an interest
in them. I would argue that it is far better to take a unified approach
and reform the CFP than to have a fragmented approach, which could
rebound negatively on the UK and our interests. I recognise what the
hon. Gentleman said about Scottish farmed salmon and the prestige that
it
has internationally; indeed it does have prestige, and I note the
invitation to eat a lot of that salmon in his constituency. He will
know that I was in his neck of the woods only a few months ago, and I
would love to go back if the opportunity arises, but I doubt whether
that will be in the middle of the current autumn
negotiations. Let
me address the remarks of the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland, who
made a very good contribution. In his opening remarks, he raised the
interesting spectre of overcapacity. I have certainly been on
the big pages of Fishing News for saying that dreaded word,
“overcapacity”. However, I make no bones about doing so.
Let me explain why. If we accept, as we must, the analysis of the
Commission, the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea
and everyone else—the global analysis, which was documented in
the film that the hon. Member for Newbury mentioned, “The End of
the Line”—and if there is an imbalance between fishing
capacity and sustainable levels of fish stocks, there is either
overcapacity in the fleet or undercapacity in the fish stocks. I invite
the hon. Gentleman to say whether he agrees. On that basis, if one can
do as we suggest with CFP reform, which is to set objectives for
maximum sustainable yield—long-term objectives for sustainable
fish levels in the sea—one can balance the fleet’s
capacity with that of fish stocks.
I return to
the point that I made about the report, “The Sunken
Billions”, and the World Bank’s estimate that there is a
$50-billion cost to poor fisheries management. If we manage fisheries
better, the industry will not be in terminal decline. Instead, we might
pull out more and bigger fish, and fish might be more plentiful. People
would then have better livelihoods and we might see more fishermen and
vessels. I do not think that the issue is all negative; it is about
whether we are willing to accept that there is currently an imbalance.
As I said earlier, that imbalance is a fault to do with how we manage
fisheries.
Mr.
Carmichael: The question that Minister poses about whether
there is an imbalance between catch capacity and the numbers of fish
that are there to be caught is engaging, but not particularly
meaningful, because neither of those two elements is ever set in
stone—they both fluctuate. It all depends on the questions being
asked, and that comes back to my earlier point about the questions that
ICES asks. In my initial question, I gave an example about white fish.
We now have a situation in which cod stocks are coming up but catching
capacity is at an all-time
low.
Huw
Irranca-Davies: Indeed, but does the hon. Gentleman agree
with the premise that if we set the right objectives, whether for cod
or any other species, we can determine scientifically, with up-to-date
science, what the maximum sustainable yield will be for the long term,
and how to get to that level? We can then start balancing the fleet,
with regard to that maximum sustainable yield. He has rightly made
observations about the science, but we can get better at that. One area
that has been applauded by many in the fisheries industry is
fisheries-science partnerships, which are starting to show the way
forward. In those partnerships, fishermen work hand in
hand with the best science that we have. We should also explore other
possibilities. I mentioned the Norwegian example and the reference
fleet. Such approaches can augment what knowledge we have, in real
time, as regards what is being landed in nets, and so on. So, too, can
the CCTV cameras initiative. All those approaches can play a part, and
we can get better.
Mr.
Carmichael: May I, for once, not invite the Minister to
come to my constituency? If he wants to come, he will be more than
welcome, but he really ought to go to the Faroe islands, where I was in
August. There, he could see a working example of a meaningful
partnership between science and industry, as well as the effective
political influence given to the ministerial
office.
Huw
Irranca-Davies: Indeed. There are good examples of the
interface between fisheries and science working effectively, and we can
draw on them. That is what we need to build on in CFP reform. Let me
conclude by telling the Committee not what we are heading towards, but
what we are trying to head away from. We are trying to head away from
having an over-centralised approach in which everything is top down and
distant. We are trying to move away from having rigidity in the system
that does not allow people to get on with fishing sustainably. We are
trying to move away from short-termism and the annual spectacle of
Ministers trooping through corridors into the early
hours. We
are trying to get away from uncertainty, so that fishermen and
conservationists can be sure that there are futures for the things that
concern them. We are also trying to get away from isolation of
fisheries policy. Whether we are talking about global warming and the
effect on ocean temperatures, ocean acidification or movement of
species in response to that, we must recognise that all those things
have an impact on fisheries. Fisheries are interwoven with everything
else in the marine environment. If we are to have a sustainable future
for our fishing communities, and for the fish stocks on which they
rely, they have to be part and parcel of marine management; fisheries
management should not be out there on a limb, on its
own. I
welcome the Committee’s warm support for the overall direction
in which we are travelling. I also welcome the detailed comments that
have been made. Hon. Members should feel open to contributing further
to this debate in the coming
months. Question
put and agreed
to. Resolved, That
the Committee takes note of European Union Document No. 8977/09,
Commission Communication on the Green Paper—Reform of the Common
Fisheries Policy, and supports the Government in working with the
European Commission to improve the governance framework of the Common
Fisheries Policy, thereby contributing to the delivery and maintenance
of sustainable fisheries.
6.56
pm Committee
rose.
| 
