Domestic Ivory Market

Owen Paterson Excerpts

Monday 6th February 2017 Westminster Hall

[Mr Owen Paterson (North Shropshire) (Con)]

It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow (Dr Cameron). I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Thornbury and Yate (Luke Hall) on landing the debate, and all those who signed the very significant petition, which has well over 100,000 signatures.

In five seconds’ time, we will have lost our fifth elephant while we have been speaking today. That is the horror of what is going on, and the House must get a grip of the enormity of what has happened. One hundred years ago, there were 10 million elephants. In 1979, the number was down to 1.3 million and, according to the International Union for Conservation of Nature, today we are down to 415,000. We lose 20,000 a year—that is one every 15 minutes. That was brought home to me dramatically when, as Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, I went to Lewa, a conservancy in north Kenya, in the autumn of 2013.

Picking up on the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Derbyshire (Pauline Latham), there was the most brilliant example in Lewa of co-operation between the local landowners—the Craigs, who have been established in Kenya for a long time—and cattle farmers. Together, by establishing a conservancy where cattle raising and the protection of wildlife is encouraged, they have set up a virtuous circle. It is horrendous to go in a helicopter and smell a carcass from 200 feet and then get closer, turn off the engines and hear this weird, bubbling, buzzing sound of the boiling entrails, the stench and horror of the death of a young animal, which is completely pointless because the rangers have got there and taken the ivory. That brought home to me, however, that there was, potentially, a virtuous circle: local people can be got to value wildlife and prosper as cattle farmers. The most immediate impact of having proper rangers and a proper conservancy was that rangers were around and there was law and order. The centuries-long habit of cattle rustling and stealing therefore stopped. There was active talk of building an abattoir in the locality to encourage a long-term beef business. It can be done.

Two years ago, I went to the Kruger, which my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Derbyshire mentioned, mainly to look at rhinoceroses. It was completely horrendous. I saw four carcasses in one weekend. There are the most enormous elephants there—that should be encouraging for my hon. Friend. Since it is so easy for poachers to come through the fence—the old security fence has lots of holes in it—it is much easier to take a rhinoceros horn, stick it in a backpack and get back over the border to Mozambique than it is to approach the elephants. We are losing a rhino every nine hours. We will run out of rhinos in what is their biggest population in the world. The poachers will then turn on the wonderful elephants, and we will run out of elephants.

I admire the fortitude of my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington (Victoria Borwick) for coming here today, given the terrible operation she has just had, but I am afraid that I wholeheartedly disagree with her. She said that the value of an elephant is immeasurable. Of course it is. This is an absolutely iconic species. Lots of Members have talked about their children and grandchildren. We cannot compare a bit of ancient jewellery, which is not going to be destroyed, with a living animal that is. One every 15 minutes is killed. We will run out. Can everyone just get that into their heads?

I came back from that trip and met the then Foreign Secretary, now Lord Hague of Richmond, who immediately took on board the significance. I also enlisted the support of the then Secretary of State for International Development, my right hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Justine Greening), and we all sat down together, led by officials in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. I pay tribute to Mr Jeremy Eppel, who has sadly left the Department. He led the negotiations with other Departments. He also led the huge task of putting together the biggest global wildlife conference that has ever been organised. Sadly I missed the conference because I was having an eye operation, but 42 countries turned up.

Before that, I had been in Moscow talking to the Russian Minister. Great things were being done there with the Chinese about the snow leopards on the border. The Minister gave me invaluable advice on how to work with the Chinese. I also talked to the Chinese Minister, who was keen to come to the conference to explain what China was doing on its elephant population and on conservation in its jungles. The conference was an extraordinary and hugely successful event and we had three generations of our royal family playing a critical role.

The conference came up with three absolutely key targets. One is the reduction of demand. The conference summary was absolutely clear. It said:

“The economic, social, and environmental impacts of the illegal wildlife trade can only be effectively tackled if we eradicate both the demand and supply sides for illegal products wherever in the world this occurs.

To this end, we commit ourselves and call upon the international community to take the following action…Support, and where appropriate undertake, effectively targeted actions to eradicate demand and supply for illegal wildlife products”.

That does not just mean the Chinese and the Vietnamese tackling ivory and rhino horn; that means us. We made a commitment to that in our manifesto, which was touched on by the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann). Our manifesto stated:

“As hosts of the London Conference on the Illegal Wildlife Trade, we helped secure the adoption of the London Declaration on Illegal Wildlife Trade and will continue to lead the world in stopping the poaching that kills thousands of rhinos, elephants and tigers each year. We will…press for a total ban on ivory sales, and support the Indian Government”.

We are clearly committed to the issue.

We were world leaders. We had the world here. All our extraordinary historical links, including our links to the Commonwealth, our good relations with China through Hong Kong and our good relations with the United States, were enormously valuable. What has happened since then? We should think carefully about that. We had that commitment in our manifesto. We were elected, and we got a majority. What has happened? Sadly, I fear that we are losing our leadership. We did not send anyone to the International Union for Conservation of Nature conference in Honolulu. We certainly did not send a Minister. We then had the CITES conference. On the day, the Secretary of State made a welcome announcement that she intended to bring in a ban on post-1947 ivory. I did not understand why the consultation did not start immediately. It was promised early this year. It is now the evening of 6 February, and the consultation has not yet started.

I hear that there might be complications about a fast track. I am very glad that it is not a slow track, because we have not started. I would like the Minister to respond on this, because it is a fundamental point. According to the document I have pulled off, a fast-track consultation can happen where the measure is low cost, which means that the gross cost to business in-year is less than £1 million. The planned consultation on a post-1947 ban may count as fast track. If it is not fast track, or if the ban is extended to earlier years, how much longer will it take, because 23 September was 19 weeks ago last Friday? In that time, we have lost 12,768 elephants. I would like a specific answer to that. If we do not have a fast track, and go for an all-encompassing, near-comprehensive ban, how long will that take? That is fundamental. In public with Lord Hague, I welcomed as a first step the Secretary of State’s announcement of the post-1947 ban. We have written letters, and we have a hundred different conservationists and other people behind us, and what worries me is that we are losing ground.

Several Members have mentioned China. China recently introduced a ban. It is going to stop the use of ivory. I heard late this afternoon from China, verbally, that large companies will be closed in China in the earlier phase before 31 March 2017. That will include state-owned factories and possibly some others. The briefing states:

“According to SFA Notice No.9 2015, there are 34 designated factories and 130 retail outlets in China that are permitted to legally operate in the manufacture and trade of ivory; representing 89 discreet enterprises in total.”

It looks as if the Chinese plan is that they will be closed, because the notice states, in its first point:

“All the processing and sale of ivory and ivory products will be stopped by December 31, 2017.”

What is fascinating is that the African countries are now looking to China as an example, not us, who held the greatest wildlife conference in 2014. Only two days ago, the Shanghai Daily said:

“The European Union (EU) member states should take a cue from China and ban domestic and overseas trade in ivory products, members of the African Elephant Coalition (AEC) said.

We welcome China’s decisive action to close its ivory market. It is a major breakthrough in the battle to save elephants,’ AEC chairman Patrick Omondi said.

But we need other countries with legal domestic markets to follow suit and are calling on the EU to take advantage of the momentum created by China and shut down their trade in ivory once and for all’”.

What is happening in other parts of the world? Hong Kong has recently announced plans to implement a ban within five years. America has a very tight ban. In some states, such as California, the ban is even tighter, yet we have still not begun our consultation.

The hon. Member for South Antrim (Danny Kinahan) and my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington made comments about the antiques trade. I was fascinated, as the hon. Member for South Antrim said, to find that the antiques trade was worth £13 billion. I got a note from the British Art Market Federation that total sales in the whole arts and antiques market reached £9 billion in 2014. The ivory trade is a round of drinks. Do not tell me that we are going to bring the antiques trade to its knees if we limit the trade in items containing ivory in a measured and sensible manner. Why do we not go to America and talk to the Americans and the Californians and see how they have done it? They have de minimis specifications. They have a limit of 200 grams, so an ancient piano can be sold and does not have to be destroyed. In many ways, that is what is awful; these wonderful creatures died a tragic death, but at least they live on in piano keys. I would like to see such items allowed to be traded, but under very strict conditions.

Happily for the hon. Member for Wolverhampton South West (Rob Marris), I have got the figures for what carbon dating costs. In September 2016, there was a case in Carlisle Crown court, and the judge sensibly directed that the objects, which were described as “cow bone carvings”, should be carbon dated. I cannot tell the hon. Gentleman how many objects there were, but the total cost was £1,134. I have also picked up that the University of Oxford does a cheap deal on a single item for £500. He rightly keeps mentioning that issue, and I think there is merit in it.

I am looking at a near-comprehensive ban. With respect to my near office neighbour, the hon. Member for Bassetlaw, a total ban would not work. A near- comprehensive ban, learning lessons from the States and other countries—it is amazing, but we might be learning lessons from China—is the way forward. It is simply not possible to stop the ivory trade, and it is not possible to maintain the high moral ground and tell other countries what they should be doing if we have not set an example. It is absolutely incredible that we have fallen behind.

[Rob Marris]

First, I thank the right hon. Gentleman for actually producing some evidence with that £500 figure. He will not be surprised to hear me say this, but it looks like having a certification system at £500 a pop for pre-1947 ivory is the way forward to balance things. He has spoken passionately, and I hope he gets on to this matter. I asked the hon. Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow (Dr Cameron) for some evidence that a total ban on the domestic ivory market, which is what the debate is about, will stop or lessen considerably—hopefully to zero—the poaching of elephants. I am not getting a causal connection there, because I am not hearing the evidence.

[Mr Paterson]

I am grateful to my not-so-distant neighbour for his kind compliments. First, it is easy to cheat, and people in the trade will cheat. Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall may not be an expert. He is a BBC journalist, and he did a pretty simple test. He bought nine items. Six that were masquerading as pre-1947 were dated as post-1947. We must not underestimate the fact that there is massive cheating.

My hon. Friend the Member for Kensington quoted TRAFFIC. It did a survey in September 2016 of the whole of London’s antique sector. It found ivory items widespread across the city’s antiques markets. The report found that

“the UK plays a role in illegal ivory trade, at both import and re-export, but in particular as a transit country, with ivory seizures reported by the UK having increased in recent years.”

It also pointed out how cheating can go on. It mentioned a fascinating case. As a country, we reported exports of only 17 raw tusks, but importers’ records showed 109 tusks originating from the UK. There is no doubt whatever that an illegal trade is going on and that people are cheating. They give cover to other activities in other markets. We simply cannot take the high ground and ask other countries to ban activities, as the Chinese have done, if we have not set an example. Our proposed ban on post-1947 ivory is sadly now inadequate and is being overtaken by countries such as China and India, which have introduced bans.

[Rob Marris]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for producing evidence, but he has left me more confused. When I looked at it, I found that the August 2016 report by TRAFFIC, “A Rapid Survey of UK Ivory Markets”, stated that links between the antiques trade and

“the current elephant poaching crisis appear tenuous at best.”

Of more than 3,000 objects sampled, no new or unworked ivory was found. Only one item from the 1960s came after the 1947 cut-off date for antique ivory. Are we reading different reports?

[Mrs Anne Main in the Chair.]

[Mr Paterson]

The hon. Gentleman has cited evidence of cheating. The point is that the UK is by far the largest exporter of ivory items among EU members. According to CITES, the EU had a huge export volume of about 1,874 ivory transactions from 2006 to 2015, but we were easily the largest with 25,351. That is 54% of the EU total, and we know cheating goes on. Bluntly, we have to learn lessons. In China, it has always been an iconic key feature of great family occasions—a wedding, a banquet or a state occasion—to eat shark fin soup. It has come down from on high in recent years and the party establishment in China has said, “We have got to stop this because of the damage to shark populations,” and they have. Habits have changed.

The immediate reaction to ivory is, “Great. There’s world demand. It is marvellous that there is now prosperity in China and people are not dying of starvation as they were when I grew up. Let us let them prosper. Let them buy ivory and let us grow more of the item.” The problem is that we simply cannot farm elephants and rhinoceroses and meet the demand. If there is any legal activity, it gives cover to the illegal activity. That is a tragedy. I would love to be a Hayekian on this. I would love to say, “Let us open up savannahs and grow masses of elephants.”

We cannot cope with 600 million new middle-class people with middle-class aspirations in China, where ivory has great value and is seen to be an investment. That is the worst thing. Some are buying ivory knowing that the supply will dwindle and ultimately disappear when elephants are exterminated, and their product will go up. The answer is to follow what they did on shark fins. Let us simply make this a non-U item. It should simply not be acceptable.

We have stopped drink-driving. It is no longer acceptable in this country. It is very simple. I am afraid I totally disagree with the hon. Member for South Antrim and my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington. It is completely ludicrous to put things on the same level.

[Danny Kinahan]

Does the right hon. Gentleman not see that we are all on the same page? I want the near ban to protect the animals as much as he and anyone else does. This is a question of semantics. We have got to find an urgent way of protecting the elephants. We do not have to damage the antiques trade. We can do things together, but let us do it quickly. Let us learn from the Chinese and the Americans. We are all on the same page.

[Mr Paterson]

In that spirit of co-operation, perhaps we could agree among ourselves that we need to close down the majority of the trade in products from live animals, otherwise we will lose the elephant. Perhaps we could have a near-comprehensive ban, which is not quite what the hon. Member for Bassetlaw wanted.

I ask the Minister whether we could extend the consultation, which still has not started yet. I had a good meeting with the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood) and Lord Hague last week, along with DEFRA and Foreign Office officials. As I understand it, there is a possibility that, because the post-1947 consultation has not yet started, we could extend it deeper. We could look at a complete ban or a rolling 100-year ban, as the United States has done, but sadly, I am convinced that a post-1947 ban is worthless. If it falls down on the so-called fast-track rule—we have already been faffing around for 19 weeks—let us go for a full-blooded consultation on a really meaningful ban that is near-comprehensive and look at what the States has done on 200 grams and de minimis. We will not be destroying ancient bagpipes and pianos and absolutely not destroying wonderful ancient painted panels. We would be stopping the trade, which can be disguised and which allows illegal activity to carry on elsewhere. If we do not do that, we will lag behind and the Chinese will be well ahead of us.

We will be hosting the conference, which I am delighted to say is coming back to London, having been to Botswana and Hanoi, where the Secretary of State made a splendid and resounding statement that she wanted to introduce a ban, but we will still be limping along behind. We have lost the leadership.

[Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)]

I thank my right hon. Friend for giving way and commend him on everything he has done to get the Government to take the matter more seriously. Does he agree that, apart from discussing how we get round the antiquities problem, we need to do a great deal more on the ground using DFID to put funding in to help fight this wicked trade? A lot more could be done immediately to support the fight against the illegal trade in ivory if we used our power as a nation and if we used DFID money to achieve some of that.

[Mr Paterson]

I agree with my hon. Friend. If we had more time, I would talk about the lessons from the wildlife conference, where there was clearly a DFID angle. The three big aims are to reduce demand, improve enforcement—in fairness, lessons from the wildlife conference had a direct impact on operations in northern Kenya the year after—and long-term sustainable economic development. He is absolutely right about that.

To go back to my visit to Kruger, it is near a pretty miserable and poor part of northern Mozambique. It is very easy to spot the rhino horn poaching leaders because they live in smart houses and have smart cars. There is not much economic activity there. When one of these guys gets back over the border with a rhino horn, there is a big celebration. It is absolutely fundamental that we work with Mozambique to bring in sanctions in that country, along with better law enforcement and better judicial arrangements so that there are penalties, which has been done in other countries. We also need to teach them about the value of the animals so that their children and grandchildren will benefit in the long term. The game tourism industry in South Africa and Kenya is advanced and brings in significant income. There is none of that in northern Mozambique, but that is the sort of thing we should be doing.

[Rebecca Pow]

My right hon. Friend is making an incredibly powerful and impassioned speech. I want to speak up for a project in Samburu in Kenya where they are doing exactly as he describes. We could target more funds that work for the communities to save the habitats and the elephants. We could also focus on carbon dating. If we know products are coming out of those areas, we can isolate them and target the poaching areas that we know are a problem.

[Mr Paterson]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention—I totally agree—which brings me on to the London conference. At the London conference in 2018, we should definitely look at involving DFID and we should look at long-term conservation measures and the development of long-term economic prosperity. We should look at attaching value to the animals and at co-operating with the farming activity. The Minister might have ideas on this. We discussed technology last week with her colleague at the Foreign Office. If the poachers get hold of drones and new technology, it would be catastrophic. We need the very latest technology brought to bear.

Sadly, the lesson from the Kruger was that we had a South African major-general—the head of South African Special Forces was his No. 2. He had been involved in what the South Africans politely call 28 incidents. They had three aeroplanes, two helicopters and 700 well-armed rangers, and they still lost four rhinos the weekend I was there. There is no doubt that better surveillance and better intervention is necessary and should be discussed at the London conference.

Another problem is corruption and money laundering. We have great expertise in this country and a proud record under our previous Chancellor of bearing down on corruption in our own country. There are lessons we can export to other countries when we go to the conference.

Another area of real value is sentencing guidelines. We had better start at home. I would be interested if the Minister talked about that, because Justice Ministers are not keen to lean on our officials who apply sentencing guidelines. In 2015, there was a case involving a tiger parts trader, who was found guilty and got only 12 months’ community service. She was not fined or given the appropriate penalty. I hope the Minister will comment on that. We can take action now and set examples of better law enforcement for other countries. We should use the maximum penalties. That should also be discussed in the London conference. Will the Minister talk about that, given that the consultation has not started?

Sadly, the post-1947 ban has been overtaken by action in other countries, so we have to go for a near-comprehensive ban. It sounds like there could be an agreement that would satisfy the hon. Member for South Antrim and my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington, possibly using carbon dating, which will thrill my near neighbour, the hon. Member for Wolverhampton South West, and a de minimis rule. Let us be practical. We do not want to destroy ancient pianos, so let us go for 200 grams and look at how the Americans and others have done it sanely. Do not forget that other countries will be watching us. This is the key thing: we cannot go to the 2018 conference unless we have the high ground.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Thérèse Coffey]

I understand the argument that people have made about any market at all, and many of the examples cited today still allow a market in ivory. It will be important, in the call for evidence, for people to come forward and demonstrate that point, for the reasons I hope to set out.

Last September, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced plans for a ban on the sale of worked ivory that is less than 70 years old—from 1947 onwards. That demarcation is used across Europe and was chosen because it was 50 years before the EU wildlife trade regulations came into force to regulate trade and protect endangered wildlife. By using that date for their proposed ban on the sale of ivory, the Government are on solid legal ground to bring a near-total ban into effect quickly. For control and enforcement, there are advantages in working with a date already used by the trade and the rest of the EU to draw a dividing line.

I recognise that many people want the UK to take an even stronger stance on the ivory trade and, as the petitioners demand, that there be no trade at all in ivory. Let me reassure the House that the Government are open to views on the matter. That is why the consultation will include an open question on this, with a call for views and evidence. I am regularly informed, and have been in this debate, that other nations have banned trade, so why have we not yet done so? I think that it would be helpful to set out to the House what is happening around the world.

The US has introduced what has been described as a near-total ban. The US Government can act only at federal level, and their ban covers trade internationally and between states, although it does not affect trade within states. The ban prohibits trade in ivory items that are under 100 years old and continues to allow the trade in pieces older than 100 years, as that is the US’s legal definition of an antique. The federal ban also provides for a range of exemptions, including musical instruments and items that contain a small amount of ivory. Four states have so far chosen to apply similar controls within their state. Those restrictions do not seem to apply to establishments for educational or scientific research purposes, which includes museums. My right hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Mr Paterson) referred to action by California, but he will recognise that trade continues.

[Mr Owen Paterson]

Will the Minister give way?

[Dr Coffey]

I am really sorry, but my right hon. Friend spoke for nearly half an hour and I have limited time to reply.

Last year, France made the bold announcement that it would permit trade in pre-1975 ivory only on a case-by-case basis, but since then it has consulted on the scope of its ban and is now considering exemptions for pre-1947 items and musical instruments. We look forward to hearing the final outcome of its consultation.

We welcome the announcement by the Chinese Government of their intention to close China’s domestic ivory market by the end of 2017. Again, we look forward to hearing more details of their intentions for the ban, including what the exemption allowing the auction of ivory “relics” will cover. However, the welcome closure of the carving factories this year will be a huge step in stopping the creation of new worked ivory artefacts.

Hong Kong was mentioned. The Hong Kong Government announced plans to phase out the domestic ivory trade, but it is my understanding that, again, there will be an exemption for antiques, which has still to be defined. Domestic sale will be allowed with a licence.

I have met groups on all sides of the debate, from conservation experts to antiques sector representatives, and will continue to do so. It matters that when considering the final outcome of the consultation, including the calls to go further, we know that there is a strong likelihood of legal challenge and so we would require further understanding of the impact on individuals, businesses and cultural institutions that own these items and the interaction with the conservation of elephants today. As has been pointed out, ivory is found in works from the art deco period and in musical instruments, often forming a small proportion of the item. The kind of assessment that we would have to consider would include how prohibiting the sale of a 17th-century ivory carving of the flagellation of Christ prevented the poaching of elephants today.

I note what the hon. Member for Bassetlaw said on a total ban, as indeed have other hon. Members, and what he said on museums. I am not sure whether he would go further and seek the destruction of ivory pieces, including the throne given to Queen Victoria—I am not sure whether he wants to go that far. However, I stand by the comments that I made previously about display, and I was referring particularly to the display of raw tusks, which still happens.

UK Fishing Industry

Owen Paterson Excerpts

Thursday 1st December 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Owen Paterson (North Shropshire) (Con)]

It is a great pleasure to be called to speak in the debate, and to follow the right hon. Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw). I wholeheartedly endorse his opening comments, in which he paid tribute to the bravery of the crews and of their families who wait behind in terrible weather, wondering whether they are going to see those brave fishermen come back.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Melanie Onn) on securing the debate. I pay tribute to her predecessor, who was a great stalwart of the industry but who drew a completely different conclusion from hers on these matters. Frankly, I think he was right.

Brexit offers the most wonderful opportunity for our marine environment and for those who work in it. We should not underestimate that. We said that we would leave, which will mean leaving the common fisheries policy and re-establishing our control right back to 200 miles and the full exclusive economic zone. I was the shadow spokesman on these matters 11 and 12 years ago, opposite the right hon. Member for Exeter.

[Mr MacNeil]

As a supporter of the UK remaining in the single market, I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will spell out the importance of tariff-free access for shellfish and other goods from Scotland, the UK and elsewhere going into the European market, and into France and Spain in particular.

[Mr Paterson]

I am not recommending staying in the single market because, as the Secretary of State for Exiting the EU said, a couple of weeks ago 20 countries were accelerating their sales into the single market from outside faster than we were doing from within. However, I am fully in favour of zero tariffs.

[Mr MacNeil]

rose—

[Mr Paterson]

I have answered the hon. Gentleman’s point, and I am going to carry on.

Eleven years ago, I spent a fascinating two years going all round the British Isles. I went to wonderful places such as Whalsay in the far north, Northern Ireland and right round the coast of Britain. I saw tragically damaged communities and marine environments. I also went to Norway, the Faroes, Iceland, Newfoundland, the east coast of the United States and the Falklands. I saw improving marine environments and prosperous fishing communities in those areas. I saw wealth being grown there. I drew conclusions from this, and I wrote a consultation paper, which I published.

[Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)]

The right hon. Gentleman is right. The common feature of all the jurisdictions he mentions is that their fisheries management systems have the fishermen at their heart. This is not a question of where control is exercised; it is a question of what we do with it. Whitehall is just as capable as Brussels of excluding fishermen from fisheries management.

[Mr Paterson]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his helpful intervention. I draw his attention to the paper that I launched in Scotland in 2005, on which we fought the 2005 election. It advocated the establishment of national and local control, which is exactly what he is talking about. He is absolutely right. In that paper, I concluded:

“The Common Fisheries Policy is a biological, environmental, economic and social disaster; it is beyond reform. It is a system that forces fishermen to throw back more fish dead into the sea than they land; it has caused substantial degradation of the marine environment; it has destroyed much of the fishing industry, with compulsory scrapping of modern vessels and has devastated fishing communities.”

I am absolutely clear that leaving the CFP would give us the chance to change all that.

The first thing we would change is the craziness of the quotas. At the moment, we throw back more fish dead into the sea than we land. A Scottish fisherman told me this morning that he estimates that a 50% discard equates to 1 million tonnes of healthy fish being thrown back each year, worth £1.6 billion annually and the equivalent of 2 billion fish suppers. That is criminal insanity. We are across the gulf stream, and we have deep waters with a strong supply of food. The industry could have a tremendous revival if we revive our marine environment.

We must replace the current quotas and turn them into the equivalent of days at sea. I saw this happening with great clarity in the Faroes, where it is mandatory to land everything. The Minister in the Faroes told me, “We might not like what we find, but we know exactly what is going on.” Let us compare that with the problem that the Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice), will have when he goes to the Council next week. The EU fisheries policy is based on information that is guaranteed to be at a minimum 50% inaccurate and probably six months out of date.

Let us compare that with the Falklands, where—I saw this when I was there—the figures are transmitted to senior scientists in London overnight, and if a vessel collecting hake is taking too much bycatch, it is told to steam on.

Let us compare that with Iceland, where—I have been there, too—at an hour’s notice, vessels are told to steam on if they are catching too much of a certain species. That is proper control and, to go back to the point made by the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael), it is the sort of power we could give back to our local fisherman and those with an interest in the local marine environment.

I am absolutely clear that we have to switch from the current quota system. If we have any quotas, it is inevitable that we will have discards. During the referendum campaign, I gave a speech in Looe and, on the harbour-master’s wall, there was a helpful tin sign with pictures of all the fish. I say all the fish, but, hang on, there was no picture of a haddock. What is the biggest thing fishermen are catching off Looe at the moment? It is haddock. They have not even got a quota, so they are chucking them all back. It is absolutely crazy. We should land everything, and everything with commercial value should then be sold. That is the only solution.

My hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Richard Benyon) bravely got the discard ban through, but, unfortunately, it cannot work while we have quotas. As long as we have quotas, we will have a discard problem. We should move to controls based on days at sea, we should land everything, we should have accurate data—and no cheating—and it would be immensely cheaper and easier to administer. That would provide very accurate data for our local scientists, local fishermen, local recreational interests and local environmentalists to use in deciding how to handle the fishing.

I am looking at the clock, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I will mention a few other points that were in my paper. Before I do so, will the Minister—if he will take a note—get a derogation and do a trial on the basis of days at sea? The Dutch have done a trial on electric pulse beaming, starting off with six boats in the first year and going up to 100 boats after six years. I would like the Minister to choose a mixed fishery area—possibly the south-west, where he comes from—for an immediate trial converting existing quotas into days at sea to see whether we can replicate the huge success of the Faroes in improving the marine environment, growing stocks and bringing back prosperity.

As part of our administration of fisheries, it is very important that we plan temporary closures. For boats taking too much bycatch, absolutely hourly management can, with radio, be given to local scientists and fishermen if we create the right framework. In my paper, I proposed having fisheries management authorities, which would be a combination of all the parties I have mentioned. I would have inshore authorities for out to 12 miles—in the channel, it would go a little further—and a smaller number of them for out to 200 miles. They would work on the basis of local knowledge, with local scientists, and adapt techniques to their area.

There is one issue that I find extraordinary. When I went to New England, I saw selective gear being developed at Manomet, but when I came back to the UK I found out it was banned. The hostility of the EU to modern technology is bizarre. I would like to have a regime in which we actively promoted selective gear so that we could take out certain species surgically when fishing. On that, the ability to control the system has been enormously helped since I wrote the paper, because there has been a great improvement in GPS tracking, satellite observation and communications. We can put cameras on nets and on boats, so it is now very hard to cheat.

One of the Labour Members mentioned improved supervision, and we will have to put more money back into this to ensure that people do not cheat. However, we will be in an enormously better position if we take back control, give power to local interests—not just the fishing industry, but scientists, councils and recreational fishermen—to decide what is good for their area, to adapt selective gear to that area and to agree permanent closed zones for spawning if necessary or temporary closed zones if there is too much fishing. If we do that, we will see an immediate improvement in the marine environment, and the jobs and prosperity will then come back. Leave means leave, which means going out to 200 miles and establishing local and national control.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Carmichael]

Without actually knowing what “this document” is, I am not sure; I am afraid that my eyesight is no longer good enough to be able to read the title from here. Wittingly or otherwise, the hon. Gentleman has hit on a very important point, which is that although we always get excited about the December Fisheries Council meeting, the real deal is the one done with the EU-Norway talks. That is where the shape of the fishing entitlement of the fishermen in my constituency is determined, and we look forward to hearing from the Minister exactly how we will interact with those talks in the future. A trilateral discussion surely seems sensible, but we will wait to hear what he intends in that regard.

[Mr Paterson]

rose—

[Mr Carmichael]

I am sorry, but I want to keep within the time limit if I can.

The landing obligation also continues to be a source of concern, as a result of the so-called “choke species”. This year, stock levels of cod, haddock and whiting in the North sea are particularly healthy—they are there in abundance—but there is a real danger that they could be excluded as a result of having these choke species. Again, that is an example of why it is so important that when the science is used to inform the decision-making process and quota it is accurate and up-to-date. It would be utterly perverse if Shetland’s white-fish fishermen were to be punished for fishing in waters where the stocks were healthiest.

Other Members have also spoken about the position on non-EU crew members, which has been particularly acute in my constituency. The basic problem is not just the indifference of the Home Office; the way these rules operate, if they are allowed to operate, means that they are pushing fishermen into fishing where the immigration rules allow them, rather than where is safe or where the fish are to be found. Surely the Minister should be speaking to the Home Office about that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Whiteford]

Of course I agree with my hon. Friend. That point has been raised by Members from many parts of the UK.

A significant proportion of the fish caught by Scottish boats is already landed in ports overseas, notably in Norway. If we were to lose any processing capacity in Scotland because of labour shortages, we would lose part of the high-value end of our supply chain. We would lose exports and revenue and, critically, we would jeopardise hundreds of local jobs that the free movement of labour has anchored in our geographically peripheral coastal communities.

I am desperately disappointed that the UK Government have chosen to use the status of EU nationals living and working in the UK as a bargaining chip in their Brexit negotiations. That has not just set a poor tone for what lies ahead, but created uncertainty for businesses and for ordinary, hard-working folk who have made their homes in our communities and do not deserve to become pawns in this unedifying game.

In or out of the EU, it is overwhelmingly in the interests of our fish processors and exporters to stay in the single market. Whatever our eventual constitutional destination, even the most ardent Brexiteers recognise that we will still have to negotiate with neighbouring coastal states over shared stocks and reciprocal access to our waters. It would be absolutely daft to get ourselves into a position where we can finally ditch the problems with the CFP and recover access to the fish in our own waters, but be unable to get that fish to market. In that regard, I was surprised to hear the right hon. Member for North Shropshire (Mr Paterson) say that he was in favour of leaving the single market, because I was looking the other day at a video clip of him on the “Murnaghan” programme saying

“only a madman would actually leave the market.”

I do not know what has prompted this turn of insanity, but I think the right hon. Gentleman should clarify.

[Mr Paterson]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving me a chance to clarify. Perhaps she should have watched the Andrew Neil programme a little later, on which that ridiculous video was completely shredded. A number of us—about four or five—who campaigned to leave were absolutely and totally misrepresented—[Interruption.] I went on to say, if the hon. Lady will just restrain herself for a moment, that there are about two countries in the world—I think it is Somalia and North Korea—that do not sell into the single market. We want to sell into it.

[Dr Whiteford]

I am very confident that I have quoted the right hon. Gentleman correctly from the clip I saw. I think it is exactly that kind of two-faced language that discredits politicians and makes people doubt our integrity on issues that we are concerned about.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Paterson]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Is it parliamentary to talk about “two-faced language” when I have just explained that I was wholly misrepresented by that ridiculous video?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Natascha Engel)]

I would have jumped up anyway if the right hon. Gentleman had not. I think that the hon. Lady should withdraw “two-faced”.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)]

This has been a good and lively debate. Perhaps the one complaint is that my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Gavin Newlands) said that there were too many interventions from the Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar—that is a scurrilous allegation!

First, I wish to put on the record my own pleas, just as many other Members have done. I represent a coastal community; indeed, it is one of the few constituencies—perhaps the only one—that reaches the 200-mile exclusive economic zone. Our current pleas are about tuna, dogfish and herring. We would like to have some tuna quota, as tuna are passing regularly through the Hebrides—about 200 miles west of the Hebrides, within the Hebrides to St Kilda area—as Angus Campbell of Kilda Cruises sees frequently when he goes out there. That call is backed by the Western Isles Fishermen’s Association secretary Duncan MacInnes, with that organisation of course being the biggest fishermen’s association in Scotland.

The second area where we need support and help is on dogfish. We need a bycatch allocation, because friends I went to school with have been in the unfortunate situation of having to dump perfectly good dogfish. I worked as a fisherman on two separate occasions, and on one of those, more than 20 years ago, we were specifically targeting dogfish. That was of course ended because of the unsustainability of that fishery, but again dogfish are coming back and it is a shame to catch these fish, which are later marketed as rock salmon, only to dump them over the side and not use them. Of course we also need to do something about herring, my third point, because herring are appearing on the west coast in great numbers and are being caught as bycatch, but there is no quota allocation and so again they are being dumped. I hope that the Minister was listening to those three points.

[Mr Paterson]

The hon. Gentleman has given three very good examples of why quotas do not work, and why we should move to a days-at-sea scheme. Does the Scottish National party support that?

[Mr MacNeil]

A days-at-sea scheme has its own problems. It puts pressure on fishermen. Sometimes they might get only hours at sea. There is merit in looking at a lot of changes in the fisheries policy, and I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman has his own thoughts on that. [Interruption.] He has a record of changing his mind over the period of a month—I might refer to that again as I go on in my speech.

On a happier note—

[Mr Paterson]

rose—

[Mr MacNeil]

When I mention the right hon. Gentleman again, perhaps I will take his intervention then. Time is of the essence now.

[Mr Paterson]

The hon. Gentleman accused me of changing my mind. I have proved the point to him quite clearly. If he looks at the full length of the video, he will see that I did not change my mind. He has a second chance now: yes or no to days at sea?

[Mr MacNeil]

Let me look at the right hon. Gentleman’s words again. He said that

“only a madman would leave the market.”

Has he changed his mind on that?

[Mr Paterson]

Will the hon. Gentleman please quote the rest of the clip? If he had watched the Andrew Neil show he would realise that those clips were very, very carefully chosen, and were then disproved by the rest of the sentences that followed. I will give him another chance: yes or no on days at sea?

[Mr MacNeil]

I would rather pursue this point. What did the right hon. Gentleman mean when he said that only a madman would leave the market? Let us put that in context with what others in his camp have said. Here is Daniel Hannan:

“Absolutely nobody is talking about threatening our place in the single market.”

Nigel Farage said, “Like Norway.” What did the right hon. Gentleman mean when he said that only a madman would leave the single market?

[Mr Paterson]

I am delighted to carry on with this exchange. If the hon. Gentleman looks at the rest of the sentences, he will realise that I, Dan Hannan and others—[Interruption.] The video was put up by a Liberal press spokesman, who was then completely shredded and harpooned by Andrew Neil live. It was proved that those were very selective short sentences from a longer clip. The hon. Gentleman is still ducking the question on days at sea. Does he agree that having days at sea would mean that we would not have discards? That would then get around the problem of not being able to land fish, which is very grievous for his constituents, and which he mentioned in his opening comments.

[Mr MacNeil]

I have already said that I am happy for anything to enter into the mix of discussions and negotiations post-Brexit. The right hon. Gentleman has not answered my question, so I will leave it be. People watching can make up their own minds about what he meant when he said that only a madman would leave the market. I am quite clear what he meant.

The debate today was hosted tremendously well by the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Melanie Onn), who follows an illustrious predecessor, the much liked Austin Mitchell. She was absolutely right in saying that this debate should be not in Westminster Hall, but on the Floor of the House of Commons. She mentioned the Brexit promises. Certainly, whatever the promises were, they are changing over time. She made a good point about the number of people involved in fisheries. Indeed, Iceland has seen that number fall quite a lot.

A number of Members intervened on the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish), the Chair of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, particularly on the issues that affect me and Members from Northern Ireland, especially the lack of fishermen and the effects on fishing boats. Ultimately, of course, there is the effect on the Exchequer. If the boats are not going to sea, they are not earning money and not paying taxes, and that has a bad effect on the UK’s balance of payments, which, as we know, is not great at the best of times.

The right hon. Member for Tynemouth (Mr Campbell) made a thoughtful speech. He pointed out the dangers of the occupation, and thanked the RNLI in particular for the work that is done to keep people safe. I know that myself, after the loss of the Louisa in April this year. I was one of the last people to see the boat as she went down the west side of Barra at one in the morning. The following people were lost: Martin Johnston, aged 29, from Halkirk in Caithness; Chris Morrison from Harris; and the skipper, Paul Alliston. Happily there was a survivor, Lachlan Armstrong. That is the cost of fishing. The skipper of one of the boats that I worked on years ago lost his crewman and a friend of mine, Gerry Gillies, just over a year ago. That is the price of fishing.

The hon. Member for North West Norfolk (Sir Henry Bellingham) mentioned the fisheries in King’s Lynn and the Wash. It is interesting to hear his frustration with the marine protected areas. He will know that it is not just in Norfolk and the Wash that these conservation zones are bringing frustration to fishermen. They are doing so across the country.

The right hon. Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw) made an excellent and very thoughtful speech about what being in and out of the EU might mean, whether fisheries would lose on the way out as they lost on the way in, and what exactly tariffs would mean for those selling into the European single market. At present that gives us an advantage in some places. However, many in the fishing community who voted for Brexit might have voted in frustration with the common fisheries policy, not to lose access to the single market.

The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) made the point that CFP interaction would continue. He spoke about the cod recovery plan and the pain that that involved, combined with decommissioning. He mentioned that 47% of stocks were still overfished, such are the pressures on fisheries.

The right hon. Gentleman and another Member spoke about the success of the Faroese in managing to gather 33,000 tonnes of mackerel in Scottish waters. As time goes on, we might see what successful and experienced international trade negotiators can achieve. The Faroe Islands have a population of 50,000 and, when they go toe to toe with the European Union of 500 million, we see that their more experienced trade negotiators are more wily trade negotiators, especially when they know the importance of something close to them, as fisheries are. Perhaps when the UK draws up its own international trade deals, we will be doing so with inexperienced trade negotiators. We should study the success of the Faroe Islands and watch that we do not get mugged in the course of those negotiations.

My hon. Friend the Member for North East Fife (Stephen Gethins) made a speech heavy on facts about what fisheries were contributing to Scotland—£500 million-worth of farmed salmon that goes out, compared with £438 million-worth of fish caught by fishing boats, showing that farmed fish has a bigger export value, which I found surprising.

The debate should be remembered for the many points that were made, the information given to the Minister, and the expectations of the Minister in time to come. I noted from the comments of the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) that de Gaulle was probably the original Brexiteer, in that he refused to allow the UK access to the European Economic Community.

I see your eyes, Madam Deputy Speaker, looking at the clock; you are hinting gently to me to get on with it. I hope the Minister will remember my three points, and the heartfelt plea from the west of Scotland and from Northern Ireland. For goodness’ sake, let our boats go to sea and, as the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) said, stop the overzealous activities of the border agencies that are working against the economic interests of the west coast of Scotland and Northern Ireland.