Dairy Industry

Alan Reid Excerpts

Wednesday 4th February 2015 Westminster Hall

[Mr Alan Reid (Argyll and Bute) (LD)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr Evans) on initiating this important debate. The fall in the milk price is causing serious problems for British dairy farmers. In my constituency, dairy farmers are mainly concentrated in Kintyre and the Isle of Bute. There are many dairy farms in Kintyre and the industry is a vital part of the local economy, which would struggle without it. As well as direct employment in the farms themselves, the dairy industry supports many other local businesses, including the Campbeltown creamery, which makes the famous Mull of Kintyre cheddar. I urge First Milk to invest in the creamery to secure its future and that of the local dairy industry. Grants from the Scottish Government have been offered, provided that First Milk makes its own investment.

Although there is widespread agreement that dairy demand will outstrip supply in the long term, which will create real opportunities for the UK dairy supply chain in the future, farmers have to survive the current crisis. EU intervention should be considered until the situation with the Russian import ban and other market forces has been resolved. Price intervention is set too low to have any effect before the situation becomes even more serious.

Like most hon. Members who have spoken, I welcome the Government’s decision to grant the Groceries Code Adjudicator the power to fine supermarkets that have breached the groceries code, and I hope that that will act as a deterrent to supermarkets. However, many dairy farmers do not fall within the scope of the groceries code because they do not sell directly to supermarkets, so the code must be extended to include complaints from indirect suppliers such as dairy farmers. The code is not due to be reviewed until next year, I believe, but I urge the Government to bring the review date forward.

The adjudicator should be able to be proactive, and should be seen as a genuine threat to those who breach good practice. In times of price falls, it is the primary producer—the dairy farmer—whose business is impacted by the low prices. Those further up the supply chain pass price cuts down the chain, but the long-suffering dairy farmer has nobody else to pass a price cut to, and they have to take the hit.

HMRC must also be more helpful by allowing dairy farmers to spread profits over several years. I urge the Government to take the steps that I have outlined to help the dairy industry survive the current crisis and secure a good long-term future.

Oral Answers to Questions

Alan Reid Excerpts

Thursday 29th January 2015 Commons Chamber

[Dan Rogerson]

It is being implemented, and the provision to do so has been taken forward in collaboration with my colleagues in the Department for Communities and Local Government. We think it will make a real difference. If the hon. Lady has particular issues that she would like to raise with me about the situation in her area, I would be happy to hear from her.

[Mr Alan Reid (Argyll and Bute) (LD)]

14. When she plans to review the allocation of common agricultural policy funds between Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (George Eustice)]

The review of allocations of common agricultural policy funds between UK Administrations will take place during 2016 and 2017. DEFRA will first work with the devolved Administrations to decide on the data needed to facilitate a comparison of payments across the UK. I have made it clear that one area that will be examined in the review is a comparison of land types and payment areas. That task will be easier once all UK Administrations have made the transition to area-based payments.

[Mr Reid]

I thank the Minister for that answer. If the review shows that farmers in any one part of the UK are being unfairly treated by the current allocation formula, it is obviously important that the outcome of the review is implemented straight away. I hope that the Minister will commit to supporting a speedy implementation.

[George Eustice]

We will consider implementation as part of the review. We have always made it clear that changing allocations before 2020—within the current programme—would have some legal difficulties, as well as practical difficulties for other Administrations. At the very latest, the changes will take effect from 2020.

Oral Answers to Questions

Alan Reid Excerpts

Thursday 17th July 2014 Commons Chamber

[Elizabeth Truss]

I agree with the hon. Lady about the vital importance of broadband for rural businesses in this country and for exports, which I am passionate about promoting. We know that the extent of broadband coverage has increased significantly from 45% of premises in 2010 to 75% now. I agree that we need to do more, which is why I am working on that along with my right hon. Friend the Culture Secretary.

[Mr Alan Reid (Argyll and Bute) (LD)]

I congratulate the Secretary of State on her promotion to the Cabinet. I was pleased when the Government gave £150 million to the mobile infrastructure project, but have been disappointed at the lack of progress in my own constituency so far. Will she please make it one of her early tasks to look at that project and do whatever she can to speed up progress on it, which is vital?

[Elizabeth Truss]

I thank the hon. Gentleman. Promoting rural growth certainly will be one of my main priorities, and I believe mobile coverage and broadband coverage are both vital to that objective.

CAP Budget

Alan Reid Excerpts

Tuesday 26th November 2013 Westminster Hall

[Dr Whiteford]

I agree entirely with the hon. Gentleman. There has been an unprecedented degree of co-operation in the Scottish Parliament on the matter. DEFRA has succeeded where many have failed in creating unity among the warring tribes in the Scottish Parliament.

There was a sense of disbelief in the Scottish farming community on 8 November when the UK Government announced that they had decided to split the convergence uplift four ways, rather than using it for its intended purpose. That disbelief has quickly turned to anger and a sense of betrayal. Last week’s Scottish Farmer called it an “act of grand larceny”. Last week, when I met with Scottish farming leaders—some of whom, I believe, are here today—we discussed what representations they might make to Ministers to look again at the issue and, at the very least, bring forward the promised review from 2017 to deliver progress towards convergence over the next six years. Yesterday, along with other Scottish MPs, I received a letter from the Secretary of State for Scotland, which appears to kick that possibility into the long grass by reiterating that no changes will be introduced until after 2020. I appeal to the Minister to look again at the need for convergence in the UK. Will he consider his review timetable and get round the table with stakeholders to work out how the convergence uplift can be used for its intended purpose?

[Mr Alan Reid (Argyll and Bute) (LD)]

I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing this debate. I agree that the review is very important, and I am sure she agrees that the UK Government must map out how they will achieve the EU target—which I believe will be implemented in 2020—of convergence towards the EU average of €196 per hectare.

[Dr Whiteford]

I know that the hon. Gentleman shares my concerns from a constituency perspective, because his constituency, like mine, is set to suffer some of the worst impacts of the Government’s approach. He makes an important point, and I hope the Government are listening.

The UK seems to be saying that it will simply ignore convergence until the next round of CAP negotiations. We are asking the Government to listen to the voices of the farming community and to work with stakeholders to ensure that convergence happens as the EU intended and that the convergence uplift comes to Scotland. The coalition parties have enjoyed an enviable degree of loyalty over the years from parts of the farming community, but that loyalty is not blind. Trust is a precious commodity in politics, and the Minister would be wise to listen to the farming community, even if he will not listen to the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mr Reid) and me.

The issue has prompted a great degree of cross-party co-operation and collaboration at Holyrood. Will the Minister commit to meeting the cross-party representatives of the Scottish Parliament—the SNP, Labour, Tory and Liberal Democrat rural affairs spokespeople—who wrote to the UK Government recently requesting a meeting? As they pointed out:

“These receipts only exist because of Scotland’s current position. All other parts of the UK are above the threshold set by the EU for external convergence, and it is only because of Scotland’s extremely low average level of Pillar one payments per hectare that the UK as a whole fell below the threshold and qualified for an external convergence uplift.”

They made the important point that

“Passing on this uplift to Scotland will also not entail any deductions at all for farming colleagues in England, Wales or Northern Ireland.”

They went on to say:

“The European methodology focused entirely on per-hectare levels of payment, and the within-UK decision must be on the same basis.”

It is important that Members of this House understand how support for farmers in Scotland compares with support for farmers in other parts of Europe, so they can see that Scottish farmers are asking not for special treatment, but for parity of treatment with their neighbours and competitors. In Denmark, for example, the area eligible for pillar one funding is less than two thirds the size of Scotland’s eligible area, but Denmark receives more than one and a half times as much pillar one funding—€964 million, compared with Scotland’s €596.6 million. That means that Denmark’s per-hectare pillar one rate is almost three times the Scottish average pillar one rate. Denmark’s pillar two rate of €31 per hectare is more than two and a half times as high as Scotland’s rate of €11 per hectare. The Czech Republic also has a smaller eligible area than Scotland does, but the Czech Republic gets one and a half times as much money to fund pillar one. Its average pillar one rate per hectare is almost twice that of Scotland, and its pillar two rate is more than 10 times higher, at an average of €116 per hectare.

Even closer to home, our neighbours in the Republic of Ireland, who have a similar amount of eligible land under pillar one, get twice as much funding as we do, which means that the average Irish per-hectare pillar one rate is more than double the Scottish average, while its average per-hectare pillar two rates are more than 10 times the Scottish average. I could go on and list every single European Union member state, because each and every one of them, without exception, will receive a higher per-hectare rate than Scotland in both pillar one and pillar two by 2019. Let us be clear: if the average rate of payment in Scotland had been increased to €196 hectare, in line with the EU average and the objective of all member states by 2019, Scottish agriculture would have benefited to the tune of €1 billion over the next six years. Instead, as a peripheral region of a member state that places a low priority on the rural economy, Scotland’s per-hectare rate will drop to €128 by 2019 and could fall as low as €108 if all the eligible land comes into the system.

The same is true for pillar two. Although our rural development budget will rise by 7.8% in cash terms, in real terms that amounts to a 5.5% cut over six years. By contrast, 16 member states argued successfully for uplifts in their rural development funding. Ireland has secured nearly €2 billion, compared with Scotland’s £478 million. Finland has secured even more. With that kind of rural development funding, we could make transformational step changes to Scotland’s rural economy. We could create more jobs, help farms to diversify, improve amenities in our rural communities and strengthen environmental sustainability. Instead, Scotland will continue to have the lowest rural development allocation per hectare in the whole European Union.

Quite frankly, it is an insult to the intelligence of our farmers to pretend that the deal is anything other than profoundly lousy. For the Government to claim largesse, by suggesting that 2% additional flexibility on coupling in some way compensates for the failure to deliver adequate core funding, has been described to me as “quite pathetic”. As one farmer put it to me, “We’re supposed to be grateful to get the crumbs from a cake that should be ours by right.” Just to clarify, the 2% flexibility on coupling brings with it no extra money. It would merely allow us to divvy up the pot differently, to target more resources at the livestock sector, where they are most critical. The serious point is that an extra 2% coupling makes a negligible difference to beef farmers in Buchan, some of whom are set to take sizeable hits under the new regime. What they want and need is the option to go up to 13% coupling, like those member states that face similar challenges and that have successfully negotiated the ability to do so.

--- Later in debate ---

[George Eustice]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention, but I am one minute and 50 seconds into my speech and I have another 12 or so minutes in which I might get to those issues.

Across the EU, most member states will see reductions in their CAP budget and receipts, and it is only appropriate that the UK shoulders its share of the cut. It is worth noting that we have done better than many other member states. With a shrinking pot of money, how we allocate the funds between Wales, England, Scotland and Northern Ireland was always going to be a difficult decision for the Government. In reaching that decision however, the Government consulted extensively with the devolved Administrations. We have had to be fair to all parts of the UK; I shall explain why I think we have been. Through a collaborative process, the Government decided on the most appropriate way to allocate the funds. There was an equal and proportionate reduction in funding to each Administration. That is fair.

[Mr Reid]

The Minister says that the Government’s approach was an equal percentage reduction throughout the UK. The point was made in the debate that the uplift came to the UK due to Scotland, so surely the money should have gone to Scotland?

[George Eustice]

I was going to move on to the uplift, which is the main topic of the debate. I have heard the views of hon. Members who say that the additional funds should have been made available to Scotland, but quite simply the UK’s direct payments will fall over the next seven years and there are no additional funds to allocate. Compared with 2013, the UK will receive around €500 million less in direct payments over 2014 to 2020. It is important to note that the convergence uplift does not mean that there is an additional pot of money to allocate. It simply slows the rate at which we have to make reductions for everyone across the UK. To give more funding to Scotland—or any one region, for that matter—would have required deeper cuts to the other parts of the UK.

--- Later in debate ---

[George Eustice]

I do not think it is irrelevant. As I said, the reason why Scotland has historically had a lower allocation is that there is much more moorland, which is not farmed as intensively. One can make the argument that there are differences within that and that some small farmers get less than £10,000, but that is also the case in Northern Ireland, England and Wales. The principles are set, but Scotland’s average farm payment is among the highest in the EU. In fact, only in the Czech Republic, where there are still huge collective farms, is the average payment received per farm higher than in Scotland.

Finally, it is important to note that there have always been wide variances in the per-hectare rate paid, both between member states and within member states. Countries such as Latvia and Estonia receive less per hectare than Scotland. I should also point out that the Government’s approach in allocating the cut equally across the UK’s Administrations is consistent with the approach that we adopted earlier this year when allocating the UK’s structural funds. Of those, Scotland received €795 million, which represented an increase of €228 million compared with the amount it would have received if the EU’s formula had been used, so Scotland received an uplift of sorts when it came to the allocation of structural funds, because the UK was willing to depart from the EU formula and adopt the approach that we have taken historically. We must accept that if we are to be consistent and take the historical approach, Scotland might lose in some areas, but it might also win in others. It has undoubtedly won from our adoption of the historical approach to structural funds.

In announcing the allocation of CAP across the UK, the Government have also committed to undertake a review of the allocation of CAP funding in 2016, at the same time that the European Commission will be undertaking a review of the 2014 to 2020 EU budget. The president of the National Farmers Union Scotland, Nigel Miller, has made a strong case for us to do the review early, and I am keen to meet him to discuss some of his concerns.

Let me say to hon. Members who have raised points that I speak regularly—almost weekly—with the devolved Assembly. One thing about the farming and fishing ministerial brief is that we deal extensively with all our colleagues in the devolved Administrations. The next time I visit Scotland or other devolved Administrations, I am more than happy to discuss the issue with politicians there. I am a great believer that we in the UK are stronger working together. DEFRA has a good track record of engaging closely with our partners in the devolved Administrations.

[Mr Reid]

I am pleased that the review will take place in 2016, but my understanding is that the Government have given no commitment to implement its outcome quickly. Will the Minister leave open the option to implement the review’s outcome in 2017, rather than waiting until 2020?

[George Eustice]

A number of other things must happen at about the same time as the review, not least, particularly in Scotland’s case, moving from the current approach, which is based on historical payments in reference to 2001, to an area-based approach. Scotland will have to think about that carefully in order to get it right. One would not necessarily want a single, flat rate for all land areas; there will be a difference between lowland rates and moorland or upland rates.

It will be a big exercise for Scotland to get the rates right for different types of landscape. Only after we have seen how the transition from historical payments to land area-based payments will work can we make decisions about it. There may also be legal issues about whether things can be changed before the next financial perspective, post 2020.

I know that Nigel Miller, the president of the NFUS, has made a strong case and wants us to consider the issue. The Secretary of State has already discussed it with him, and I am keen to discuss it with the NFUS when I go to Scotland, to ensure that we engage fully with the Scottish farming industry on this important issue. The review, concluding in 2017, will be an opportunity for us to consider domestic CAP allocations and reflect on wider developments across the EU and UK as a result of CAP implementation. We might also be able to see how the different approaches taken by various devolved Assemblies are working in practice.

Throughout the CAP negotiations, which have only just concluded, the UK fought hard to ensure that Scotland and the other home nations could deliver the CAP in a manner that suited their needs and those of their farming industries. The UK has used its size and influence to deliver a series of wins for Scotland and Scottish farmers, including securing greater regionalisation of the CAP, ensuring that the national reserve is flexible enough to provide continuing support to new farmers, clarifying that farmed heather is a form of permanent grassland and extending to 2016 the designation of areas of natural constraint, which are particularly numerous in Scotland. Finally, although the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan was sceptical about the value of this, we have also secured for Scotland the ability to increase the use of coupled payments—I know that there is a strong view in the Scottish industry that that is particularly important for beef production.

Now that we have negotiated all those outcomes for Scotland, it is up to the Scottish Government to decide how they want to proceed in implementing the CAP. The UK Government have ensured that Scotland and other devolved Administrations have the ability to implement the CAP as they see fit. I know that consultations are under way in all the constituent parts of the UK. The agreement that we secured includes significant flexibility for Scotland to direct funding to those parts of the rural economy and environment that it deems appropriate. With the budget settlement recently announced by the Government on the CAP across the UK, all the devolved Administrations now have the certainty they need to start making those important decisions.

Oral Answers to Questions

Alan Reid Excerpts

Thursday 25th October 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Paterson]

I have every intention that the culls will go ahead.

[Mr Alan Reid (Argyll and Bute) (LD)]

Will my right hon. Friend explain why circumstances next year will be different from those this year, enabling the culls to go ahead and reduce the incidence of bovine TB and not spread it?

[Mr Paterson]

I explained at some length in my statement the other day, in which I spoke for, I think, 90 minutes, that certain circumstances led to the NFU’s decision to request that we postpone. There will be time to prepare. There will be no hitches next year: we will deliver this policy.

Common Agricultural Policy

Alan Reid Excerpts

Thursday 8th March 2012 Westminster Hall

[Dr Whiteford]

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point about his constituency. The picture in Scotland is more mixed. There are some areas with a tourist dimension, but there are other areas where farming and food production is much more the core business. Again, even in the UK, we cannot say that one size fits all. Even within regions in parts of the UK, there is diversity.

[Mr Alan Reid (Argyll and Bute) (LD)]

The hon. Lady rightly said that that direct payment should be linked to active farming. Does she agree that the system needs to be improved, so that new entrants will be attracted into farming? The present system with a fixed point in the past discourages new entrants.

[Dr Whiteford]

Absolutely. That has been an historic problem, and this is an opportunity to address it. The Commission’s proposals to support young farmers are probably a step in the right direction. It has been very difficult in recent decades, as the hon. Gentleman is aware, for new entrants to get a start in farming unless they inherit a family business. I am concerned that the proposed scheme will apply only to those who are already entitled to basic payments. That will not help new entrants aged over 40, or those who enter farming after 2014.

I should like the scheme to be open to all genuine new entrants to farming. I should also like member states to have the option to implement that policy, so that it can be tailored as necessary to address the real issues that we face. Likewise, a simplified scheme for small farmers could be a useful step in Scotland, where 13% of pillar one support is for less than €1,000. Crofters would be prime beneficiaries of such a move, and I hope that we will find a suitable way forward on that proposal.

Oral Answers to Questions

Alan Reid Excerpts

Thursday 19th January 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Paice]

Suspended, called off—I do not mind which word the hon. Lady uses: no sales will take place until the final report is in hand and the Government have digested it and decided on a way forward.

[Mr Alan Reid (Argyll and Bute) (LD)]

11. What discussions she has had with the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills on the effect on farmers of the legislative proposals in the draft Groceries Code Adjudicator Bill.

[The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr James Paice)]

The Secretary of State has regular discussions with her opposite number in the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills on a range of issues, including on the establishment of a groceries code adjudicator.

[Mr Reid]

I am pleased that the Government are introducing the Bill. The groceries code adjudicator will be able to investigate abuses of the market by the big supermarkets. Preventing such abuse is very important to give farmers, particularly dairy farmers, a fair price for their produce. Will the Minister speak to the Government’s business managers and urge them to introduce the Bill as soon as possible?

[Mr Paice]

I am certain that my hon. Friend the Deputy Leader of the House has heard my hon. Friend’s words. I assure him that I entirely agree with him.

Fisheries

Alan Reid Excerpts

Thursday 12th May 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Alan Reid (Argyll and Bute) (LD)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith) on tabling the motion, and congratulate the Backbench Business Committee on allowing it to be debated on the Floor of the House. Fishing is an important subject, and it is important for us to debate it on the Floor of the House rather than, as happened last December, in Westminster Hall.

It is clear that discarding must stop. We must end the practice of returning to the sea fish that will not survive. Discarding fish is not only a moral and environmental issue; it is a needless waste of valuable economic and food resources. It also results in considerable amounts of data being lost to scientists, who are trying to calculate fish stocks accurately in order to inform fisheries management.

As has been emphasised throughout our debate, discarding is not caused by bad behaviour by fishermen. It has been forced upon them by a series of unworkable EU regulations. When calculating annual quotas, the European Commission assumes that a very large percentage of the catch will be discarded back into the sea, but it has no idea of the actual proportion. Various estimates have been made, but they have always had a wide margin of error. Because the discards are not measured, we have no idea how much dead fish is thrown back into the sea. European fisheries are currently regulated by total allowable catches or TACs, but they do not in any way put a cap on catches. They measure and place a cap on landings of fish at port; what is measured is not the amount of fish that are killed, but the amount of fish landed at the port. The system therefore serves to obscure the scandal of discards.

The vast majority of discarding occurs in mixed fisheries. That is because the current regulations are unable to cope with mixed fisheries. The main control of activity is single-species TACs, but that is overlaid with other, complicated regulations, such as catch compositions, days at sea and effort control. These complicated regulations do not mirror the contents of the ecosystem. Fish do not swim around in shoals neatly made up of exactly the same proportions of the different species as laid down by the Commission. The fish are not co-operative; they are caught in very different abundances and combinations from day to day. As a result, the requirement to discard to meet the rules is created.

In pursuit of solutions, there has been a great deal of innovation and experiment. The Scottish fishing industry has led the way, such as through the development of selective nets to let unwanted fish go and “real time closures” to avoid catching such fish in the first place. Although a lot of good work has been done at the local level in many parts of Europe, what has been lacking are Commission initiatives to address the regulatory faults underlying the mixed fishery problem.

There is widespread agreement that regional control is the way forward. Central control from Brussels has failed. The regional advisory councils or RACs are a significant step in the right direction, but they are only a first step. They must develop into decision-making bodies, and common fisheries policy reforms must include allowing the current list of initiatives to be developed and translated into local regulations that best fit local circumstances. All the stakeholders in European fisheries must strive for that.

We must have science-based, long-term management plans that provide a secure and sustainable future for fishing communities throughout Europe and for the environment. The current regulations that force fishermen working in a mixed fishery to discard must be changed, such as by allowing fishermen to match quotas with catches through an improved, transparent system of quota transfers.

If we have better regulation that is determined at a more local level and science-based, long-term management plans, we can make our fishing industry sustainable for both fish and fishermen. If I may conclude by amending a quote by a former eminent Member of this House, we must be tough on discards, and tough on the causes of discards.

Fisheries

Alan Reid Excerpts

Thursday 2nd December 2010 Westminster Hall

[Mr Alan Reid (Argyll and Bute) (LD)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Dr Whiteford) on opening this debate. I echo her comments that it should be in the main Chamber and not in Westminster Hall. This is the 10th annual fisheries debate that I have attended, and it is only the second that has not been held in the main Chamber. I hope that in future years, the Backbench Business Committee will put this debate in the main Chamber, where it rightfully belongs.

As the hon. Lady said, fishing is a dangerous occupation, and it would certainly be uncomfortable to be on a fishing boat on a bitterly cold day like today. This is my 10th annual debate. Unfortunately, the issues do not change much. Agreement at these debates is always widespread that the common fisheries policy has failed and needs radical reform.

We must move away from centralised decision making by the Commission and towards a decentralised system of regional management committees involving fishermen, scientists and fisheries managers from member states. Only by decentralising decision making will we ever get a system that sustains both fish and fishermen.

I stress that we need a common fisheries policy. The actions of Iceland and the Faroe Islands on mackerel show what would happen if there were a free-for-all and each member state could do its own thing. We need a common fisheries policy, but it must be based on regional management, not centralised decision making from Brussels.

Discards are an obvious example of why the present common fisheries policy is failing both fish and fishermen. The European Commission is well aware of the problem; its cod recovery plan is based on the assumption that 30% to 40% of cod taken from the sea will be discarded. There is something wrong with a system that makes such an assumption. Decentralising decision making to those most affected by the decisions must be the way forward. Fishermen are well aware of the need to sustain stocks over the long term.

[Mr MacNeil]

I am listening with interest to what the hon. Gentleman is saying about decentralising fisheries, but I have been hearing it since I came to Parliament five years ago. Nothing really happens; fishing is still controlled by the common fisheries policy at a European level. Other than national control, will we really see any change in the next five years, or will we hear further rhetoric from politicians saying that we must change?

[Mr Reid]

As I explained in my speech, national control would not work either. Because Iceland and the Faroe Islands are outside the EU, they are behaving utterly irresponsibly. National control would lead to exactly the same thing. We need a common fisheries policy, but it must be based on decentralisation and determined by sea basins rather than member states’ boundaries; that is the way forward.

I share the hon. Gentleman’s frustration. This is his sixth annual debate, but it is my 10th. We must resolve the issue. I would hope that the Governments of all EU countries will recognise that and move towards a decentralised system in the next round of common fisheries policy reform. The regional advisory councils are a start, but they must be given much more power to take local decisions.

By far the most important species for fishermen living off the west coast of Scotland is nephrops. Fishermen in the area are extremely concerned by the Commission’s proposed 15% cut in total allowable catch. If implemented, it will have a terrible effect on employment in the west coast fishing industry for both fishermen and fish processing workers. Although fishing on the west coast has declined in recent years, it is still an important part of the local economy.

[Mr MacNeil]

The hon. Gentleman raises an important point about the 15% TAC cut in nephrops on the west coast of Scotland. Does he agree that it is also important for the under-10 metre sector that the cut is not implemented?

[Mr Reid]

I agree that it is important for the entire west coast fishing fleet that the cut in TAC does not go ahead. We must remember that the proposed 15% cut would follow several cuts that have been made in recent years—a 15% cut was proposed last year and went through—so it is a reduction of more than 15% on the catch of a few years ago.

To add to the problems of the Clyde fishermen, the proposed cut in the Irish sea quota is even higher. The Clyde fishermen are concerned that sea vessels that normally fish in the Irish sea will come to the Clyde instead to fish for prawns, as has already been witnessed. The Clyde Fishermen’s Association is concerned about that and estimates that those additional vessels will increase the fishing effort in the Clyde by about 30%. That additional effort will come out of a TAC that could well be cut by 15%, so it does not take much arithmetic to work out that there will not be much quota left for Clyde-based fishermen in their home waters.

What makes those cuts even more frustrating is that nephrop stocks off the west coast are healthy. That is recognised by all. The problem that the Commission envisages is cod by-catch, but it does not appear to take into account the fact that cod by-catch resulting from fishing for nephrops is tiny. It also does not appear to take into account the other measures that have been taken to reduce by-catch. The weekend fishing ban on the Clyde, for example, further limits the days at sea, and there have recently been increases in mesh size and the introduction of the new OMEGA measuring gauge. A TAC cut of 15%, combined with the effects of stocks being taken by visiting vessels, will result in a severe blow for the Clyde fishing industry. I urge the Minister to make it his prime objective when he goes to Brussels to get that cut reversed. The TAC must remain where it is if fishing in the Clyde is to survive.