Fishing Industry

Angus Brendan MacNeil Excerpts

Thursday 12th December 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Frank Doran (Aberdeen North) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the fishing industry.

I welcome the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice), the new fisheries Minister, to his first annual fisheries debate. There was a time when these debates were fairly rowdy affairs, but I think he will find that it is a bit more sedate now. I suppose that is a reflection of the decline of the industry.

However, fishing is still extremely important. The industry is responsible for about 1% of GDP. There are about 6,500 vessels in the fishing fleet throughout the UK. It still employs 12,500 fishermen, nearly 7,000 in England and Wales, 5,000 in Scotland, and 700 in Northern Ireland. It is clearly an industry that benefits the country in a range of ways, not just economically—for example, the health properties of fish are well known. It is important that we keep a vibrant and viable fishing industry.

Of the top 10 ports for landings in the UK, three are in England and seven are in Scotland. That shows the strength of the Scottish fleet. Peterhead, which on last year’s figures landed over 110,000 tonnes of fish, is way ahead of every other port. Given the volume of fish landed in Peterhead, it is no surprise that the Grampian region, where my constituency is, dominates the processing industry, along with Humberside. My own city of Aberdeen was once the No. 1 port, but that was many years ago, and most of the harbour where the fishing boats used to deliver fish is now given over to the oil and gas industry. That is a very significant change.

I am grateful to the Backbench Business Committee for allowing time for this debate. It was once provided in Government time, but for a number of years now the Backbench Business Committee has been the route for us to secure it. It has been traditional to commemorate those who were killed in the industry in the performance of their work. The latest figures I have are for 2012 and they show an improvement. Six deaths and 44 reportable injuries are slightly below the norm for the industry, but that is still a serious number of accidents. I know that efforts are being made, supported by Government, to improve the safety record in the North sea, but it is still a major problem.

I want to focus on two issues that are of major concern to the industry. The first is the serious consequences of the impasse between us, the European Union and Iceland with regard to the way in which Iceland and, to a lesser extent, the Faroes have been exploiting the mackerel and pelagic fish in their area. The Minister will by now be well aware of the processes that take place during the fishing year: surveys are conducted and data collected and analysed, and the results are passed on to scientists, who give us advice on the health of stocks and what tonnages may be fished. The European Commission then presents us with a policy statement of intention and approach, and we go through a few more stages before conducting negotiations with Norway about the common species we share. The Administrations of Iceland and the Faroes are also involved in that.

Those negotiations with Norway have not taken place this year, so it would be helpful if the Minister could give an indication of when they are likely to be held. The industry’s view is that there will be no opportunity for the Commission to discuss the quotas and decide on the total allowable catches until the bilateral discussions with Norway and other countries have taken place.

The likeliest estimate, according to the reports I have read, is that that will happen towards the end of January. That means that our fishing fleet is expected to cope and survive through the difficulties they face for a whole month of the fishing year without knowing what their TACs are for the year. It is important to know exactly when discussions will be held with Norway in particular, and when the TACs will be fixed, so that there can be some certainty. Many boats require refurbishment and maintenance and some fleets even need to acquire new boats, so those figures are crucial for them to be able to get the necessary loans and help from the banks.

This is a major problem for those based onshore. Aberdeen cannot be said to have a fleet anymore—it is virtually non-existent—but it is still a big centre for processing and our processors depend on the stocks that are brought ashore. Given that the fish are among the most popular in sales terms—including cod, haddock, North sea herring, North sea mackerel, whiting, plaice and saithe—a chain of problems and responsibilities needs to be taken into consideration.

The other major issue I want to focus on is reform of the common fisheries policy. Over the past few years, as this process wound its way slowly through all the stages it needed to go through, there was real optimism that progress would be made towards a new type of fishing and a new management and regulation regime in the North sea in particular and right across the waters around the UK and beyond. The industry is, however, becoming more and more aware of the very difficult relationship that now exists between the European Commission and the European Parliament. It is absolutely right to have an element of democracy and to ensure that the Parliament is aware of the issues and is involved. I am not privy to the detail of that relationship, but its consequences have been reported to me by fishing organisations and fishermen, and there are concerns about some of the most important parts of the policy reforms.

The first concern is about regionalisation, on which there seems to be a major impasse. I have had a report from the National Federation of Fishermen’s Organisations on its serious concerns. It states:

“How cooperation between member states at regional-seas level and close cooperation of regional advisory councils in the formulation of fisheries policy will work in practice are open questions...And the clock is ticking on the deadlines set by the European institutions.”

Will the Minister update us on that?

Another concern relates to landing obligations. Everyone is in favour of a policy to reduce or extinguish discards, but the practicalities of getting it into operation show that real problems need to be addressed.

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

The hon. Gentleman mentioned discards. I know of a boat on the west coast of Scotland that in September and October sadly dumped about 400 boxes of spurdog, because there was no quota to land that species. I asked the previous Minister, the hon. Member for Newbury (Richard Benyon), what exactly this part of the discards policy means for that particular species, and the answer was to return them to the sea, even though they were dead. Should there not be some sort of quota allocation for by-catch spurdog, because dumping it back into the sea puts pressure on other shark fisheries worldwide? The system is perverse. Some fish are dead already, but that causes other fish to be fished in other places.

[Mr Doran]

The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point. All of us are ashamed of the level of discards, but at the end of the day, that has been part—

--- Later in debate ---

[Miss McIntosh]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and I agree with him. The opinion of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee on this deal was published in February 2012 and the Government response in July 2012. It has taken three years of difficult negotiations, and I commend the fisheries Minister and his predecessor on the lead we took in securing a significant reform of what was deemed a fundamentally flawed common fisheries policy.

Let me say why the reform is so important. My hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish) and the hon. Member for Aberdeen North mentioned discards, and it is key that we do not replace discards at sea with discards on land. The Committee’s report concluded robustly that we must be imaginative about bringing fish on to land—having been born in Scotland, disappeared, and then returned there, I can say that different fish are eaten in Scotland from those eaten in England. If we can extend the palate and consumer taste to different types of fish and create new markets for existing fish, that would be a great way forward. As the report noted, celebrity chefs and others have a part to play in that by creating a novelty feature for dishes such as pollock, which I am sure would not be so widely eaten had it not been for chefs and others paving the way.

[Mr MacNeil]

The hon. Lady calls for us to be imaginative in dealing with some of the problems that fisheries throw up. Twenty years ago I fished for spurdog as a targeted fish, but things have moved on and, as I said earlier, it is now a non-targeted fish often caught in nets. Spurdog comes in on boats, but under the landing obligation it looks as though it can be neither landed nor discarded. We will certainly need some imagination in dealing with spurdog that we cannot land or discard.

[Miss McIntosh]

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will join me in tasting some of that to see whether it is edible, and we could look at creating a new market.

As the hon. Member for Aberdeen North said, the key points of the next stage of reform include a ban on the wasteful practice of discarding at sea perfectly edible fish for which there is no current market, a legally binding commitment to fishing at sustainable levels, and decentralised decision making that allows member states to agree measures appropriate to their fisheries.

One of the most exciting parts of this reform is that for once we are going to focus more on the science—I think we have gone wrong with previous reforms of the commons fisheries policy because we have not done that. I am an avid watcher of “Borgen”, the Danish television programme, and I will include in my remarks one or two references to Denmark. I am half Danish—I am very proud of that—and I studied in Denmark. As part of our report the Committee had the opportunity to visit Denmark and see practices that I hope will transform the regional control aspects. Science is particularly important there because Copenhagen is home to the headquarters of the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea—ICES—and if we followed more of the scientific base that it spends a long time producing, I believe we would all benefit.

The health of fish stocks is assessed every six months by ICES, and the EU published an overall assessment of its advice in October 2013. It stated—this is from a Library note so it must be true—

“that 39% of EU fish stocks are still over fished,”

but that is down from 86% in 2009. In spite of that reduction in overfished stocks, the assessment goes on to say that trends giving rise to concern include, for instance, the fact that

“the number of stocks under an advice to reduce captures to the lowest possible level… had increased.”

I am sure the Minister will wish to focus on that. Being optimistic, as the hon. Member for Aberdeen North concluded, Seafish, the industry body for the UK, has said:

“there is reason for cautious optimism in the industry as we continue to see iconic stocks such as cod in the North Sea move towards recovery.”

We must not rest on our laurels, and it is essential we follow the science. Where I would like the science to lead, and where I believe there is an example we can follow, is regional control, and I have a question for the Minister about that.

I also worked for a number of years in Brussels in legal practice, and we must understand how we can get round the problem of fisheries still being an exclusive competence of the EU. If that situation remains, how shall we achieve regional control in practice? I believe that is a legal problem and not insurmountable. Again, I will turn to Denmark, because Denmark and Sweden have established regional control around Danish and Swedish waters that works extremely well. That is down to the size of the nets and meshing they use, and how they fish particular fisheries—I will not go into too much detail because it is well established. I hope the Minister will confirm that that model will be used. I understand that the new common fisheries policy brings decision making closer to the fishing grounds, clarifies the roles and obligations of each of the players, and ends micro-management from Brussels, and that the Commission will agree with fishing nations in the region about the general framework, principles and standards, overall targets, performance indicators and time frames. Crucially, however, member states within that region will co-operate at a regional level to develop the actual implementing measures. If it can be established, and all member states in the region agree to the recommendations being transposed into rules that will apply to all fishermen in the region, it will be a real game changer.

[Miss McIntosh]

I am grateful for that intervention, and it gives me the opportunity to record my thanks to my hon. Friend for the hours he spent on the groundwork to achieve an historic agreement. Sustainability is key, and sustainability will be proved by following the science. We went too far away from the science in the past; we need to hold to it in future.

[Mr MacNeil]

Does the hon. Lady agree that the idea of regionalisation, as described by the EU, is perhaps one of the tremendous ways that the EU misleads us? The first meeting on the regionalisation of the north-west waters took place in Dublin on 12 November. The group includes the UK, Ireland, France, Belgium, Spain and the Netherlands—a pretty big region. We had thought that regions would be smaller than states, but at EU level they are multi-state organisations. It is better than what we had, but it is by no means local control—it is still a horse-trading arena.

[Miss McIntosh]

The hon. Gentleman does the House a great service by pointing that out. I had understood that regions would relate to borders contiguous to the sea within which there would be fishing. We cannot get away from the fact that Spain had historical rights to fish in our waters before 1973. That is something the Minister will have heard about, and I am interested to know how Spain manages to muscle in. I pay tribute to my Spanish friends, in case they are reading this or watching it on television—we have an agreement not to discuss fishing, Gibraltar or Las Malvinas.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Campbell]

I am sure that is the case from the former Minister’s perspective, but we are talking about 13 licences and a decision that, as far as I can understand, was largely one that we made. We presented this opportunity, his predecessors having withstood the pressure for a considerable period. Of course, as the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith) said, we want anglers to have access to good stocks, but the former Minister knows as well as I do that there has always been concerted pressure, not from the anglers themselves who take their rods to the rivers, but from those who see this as an opportunity. Let me tell him this: it might be an opportunity for landowners to make some money, but it is also an opportunity for fishermen in some cases to survive on the back of these licences. This fishery is not an extra, but an important part of what they do.

While we are on the relative buoyancy of stocks, I understand that the Environment Agency takes the same view as fishermen in saying, like the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, that there is enough for both. I still do not understand fully why the decision was made to phase out the licences and the fishery—and made without a debate in Parliament using order-making powers. My point is simple: the drift net salmon fishery in the north-east is a traditional fishery—what some call a heritage fishery. It is, by all accounts, sustainable. It is local and organised so that catches are limited, yet somehow vested interests appear to have won out. If the Minister has some spare time when he returns from Brussels, will he revisit this issue? The fishermen who will lose their licences believe it could be revisited before we pass the point of no return.

[Mr MacNeil]

The hon. Gentleman mentions heritage fisheries. About 22 years ago, I worked in Gretna, on the border, on the M74. Working with me were gentlemen from Kirkpatrick Fleming who frequently went “haaf” netting on summer evenings, as they say in the ancient fisheries—“haaf” is apparently the Old Norse word for “ocean”. At a moment when we are looking for plurality and diversity, it would be sad if we took a step that would, as he says, ruin and end a centuries-old practice that people have carried on sustainably in many communities.

[Mr Campbell]

Not surprisingly, I agree with the hon. Gentleman, but I have always been careful, in the few fisheries debates I have spoken in, not to take too romantic a view of the past or the industry now. This is a business, and all I ask is that the Government apply to this case the same principles they talk about in wider fisheries policy. If we apply those principles, I cannot see how we arrive at the position the Government arrived at earlier this year. If we are not careful, the danger is that the livelihood of local fishermen will be lost, and without any great gain.

I want to move to my second, broader point about what has happened in the past couple of months off my constituency. As I said, local fishermen rely heavily on the prawn season. Using relatively small boats, they make a living and keep the fish market going and the port working, but this year they have faced increased competition, perhaps as never before. They tell me it comes from larger twin-netted boats. I am told anecdotally that many of the crew are overseas fishermen—that should not be a big point, but it is a point they make. The boats clearly come from elsewhere. At the risk of falling out with my new hon. Friend—the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil)—I am told that many of them come from Scotland, but this is not an anti-Scottish thing, I assure him. The fishermen of North Shields are trying to make a living and stay in business, but the pressure on them has been intense this year. The word they keep using is “displacement”. When fishing restrictions are put in place elsewhere, the pressure goes on those parts of the fishery where stocks are relatively healthy.

[Mr MacNeil]

I understand exactly the hon. Gentleman’s point about displacement. We have a problem off the west coast of Scotland with boats whose nets are far too big or that have too much horsepower using up the kilowatt days allowed in the fishery, and the resulting payback time and lost days at sea cause great difficulty and angst on the west coast. I fully understand his point, therefore, but would make one point about crews from other countries: they are most welcome. When we see Filipino fishermen, we recognise that we have great seafarers in our midst. I only wish the immigration department would recognise that too and allow men from the Philippines to come here and work and be welcome in our communities.

[Mr Campbell]

We have not fallen out, as I thought we might earlier, but I certainly take the hon. Gentleman’s point on board, although my fishermen might be less willing to share his view on the role of the immigration department—but that is a slightly different matter.

In the light of what my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen North said earlier, I worry about what delays in setting the quotas might mean. If there is uncertainty in the system, will it add to displacement and result in even greater pressure while we await the quotas? That is very important. I am told that no rules have been broken. The organisations he referred to, which are normally very officious in applying the rules, have been ominously slow and silent on this matter. As a result, fishermen in my constituency feel under pressure. They feel under pressure when they read about marine conservation zones. They are not anti-environment—they are some of the greatest environmentalists hon. Members would ever want to meet—but they read what has been written and they feel under pressure. When they hear that we are going to have more offshore, rather than onshore, wind farms, they wonder what the effect will be on their industry. They feel the cost of living—as we all do—on their families. As a result, they feel under threat.

My question to the Minister is relatively straightforward. I hope he will be able to say what the reforms to the common fisheries policy that he is doubtless going to outline to us will mean for fishermen. What will regional management, reliance on scientific evidence, giving greater access to the under-10 metre fleet and so forth mean for the fishermen in my constituency? In the light of the problems raised about the implementation—and possible delay—of the new policy, what assurances can the Minister provide for my constituents? They want to know whether next year will be easier or more difficult for them. If the Minister cannot confirm that fishermen can look forward to a better future, I hope he can say that they can look forward to at least a future.

[Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Tynemouth (Mr Campbell), and I congratulate him on emphasising the importance of safety at sea and on repeating what the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Mr Doran) said in opening the debate about the bravery of those who work so hard in such difficult conditions and who face significant danger to put the fish on the plates of people all around the United Kingdom. We are about to commemorate the 40th year of the tragedy of the Gaul, and in constituencies such as mine, literally scores of fishermen have lost their lives in pursuit of this vital industry.

In opening, I want to pay a significant tribute to the former fisheries Minister, the hon. Member for Newbury (Richard Benyon), who achieved a tremendous amount during his period of office—with the exception, I have to add, of his decision on the salmon drift-net fishery in the north-east. That does not impact directly on my constituency, but the hon. Member for Tynemouth (Mr Campbell) and, indeed, my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith) certainly raised important issues about that.

Having ranged as widely as I intend to, I shall now become extremely parochial for the rest of my speech, as I shall look into the impact of negotiations on common fisheries policy reform on the vitality of the fishing industry in west Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly. My constituency has a significant port in Newlyn, as my hon. Friend the Minister, who represents Camborne and Redruth, well knows. The amount of fish landed in Newlyn every year is of considerable value, and the fishery, in which the over-10 metre fleet is unique, is an ultra-mixed one. The by-catch of spurdog and porbeagle in the ultra-mixed fishery of Cornwall is particularly significant, and I have raised issues about this on behalf of the industry for the past decade. The problem is nothing new to the fishermen in my area.

I know that the UK Government are engaged with the Centre for Environment Fisheries and Aquaculture Science, as is the Cornish fleet with scientific projects and research such as the Neptune project. All this engagement and work will be perceived as pointless if no change to the policy results and no attempt is made to provide a pragmatic solution to this important issue.

[Mr MacNeil]

Does the hon. Gentleman feel that one problem for politicians is the pressure that comes from non-governmental organisations to restrict this type of fishery? It can lead to the perverse outcomes I mentioned earlier. The supply is reduced but demand remains the same so that shark fishing starts to happen in another part of the world. Meanwhile, the by-catch here is returned to the water dead—a double hit that emanated from probably good intentions, albeit ignorant ones.

[Andrew George]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. That is exactly the point I raised on previous occasions. Although I have every sympathy and agree with the sentiments expressed by the NGOs—we do not want to take action that will have a detrimental impact on, or undermine the viability of, important species such as spurdog—the fact is that we need to engage in trying to find a practical solution to the problem, and simply saying that we are going to ban the landing of these fish does not necessarily mean that a single spurdog will be saved. We need to find more effective methods of achieving the desired outcome. I hope that the NGOs will engage with the Government and, in our case, with the Cornish fishing fleet, the Neptune project and so forth to find a practical solution rather than simply campaigning and saying that what is being done is never good enough.

Another theme running through the debate—one feels that one is repeating oneself from the same hymn sheet—is the arbitrary use of the 20% precautionary element of the quota-setting process, particularly where the science is insufficient for the setting of an effective quota. I hope that the Minister will talk to the industry and come to understand not just the anecdotal evidence, because a lot of work is being undertaken nowadays with scientists going on board many of the vessels and subsequently sharing their data and information.

The reasoning behind some of the annual quota cuts is unjustifiable and, in many cases, counter-productive because no fish are saved. I urge the Minister, rather than to run through the impacts on each fish species of the proposed quota settlements for next year, to look closely at the representation he received last week from Paul Trebilcock on behalf of the Cornish Fish Producers Organisation. I think that a cogently argued case has been made, which I hope the Minister will use as a brief. I know that Paul will be available and at hand if the Minister needs any technical assistance in the negotiations.

Another key issue that crops up time and again in the fisheries debate is the perceived conflict between commercial fishermen and sea anglers—something that is played out in our debates and in a lot of the discourse that goes on in Cornwall, for example, in connection with the Cornwall inshore fisheries and conservation authority, and in the Isles of Scilly, where there is a separate IFCA.

One significant pinch point relates to the setting of the bass minimum landing size. I corresponded about that both with the previous Minister, the hon. Member for Newbury, who I see is leaving his place, and the present Minister. At the end of the day, angling contributes £2 billion to the economy and a total of 23,600 jobs. The angling fraternity is keen to ensure that the Government recognise its important role for the UK economy, especially when about 75% of the fish caught by anglers, including those caught at sea, are returned alive to the water.

A number of issues have arisen in Cornwall. For instance, bass do not spawn until they reach a minimum of 42 cm, but the minimum landing size in Cornwall—which is higher than those in the rest of the country—is 37.5 cm, and elsewhere it is 36 cm. We need a healthy bass minimum landing size. Local sea anglers are arguing for the minimum to be raised to 48 cm in order to allow the fish to breed at least twice before there is a chance of their being caught, and I think that that is a justifiable argument.

According to this year’s report from the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea, bass stocks have fallen by 35% in the last five years. In our area in particular, there has been a significant amount of pair trawling on a seasonal basis. Scottish pair trawlers sometimes come down to the channel to take their slice, but no pair trawlers from our own coasts are involved, and although we see a great many bass longliners, they are very selective in their fishing methods and their impact is therefore relatively small. Fixed-gear gill netting takes place inshore, and I think it important to set an inshore net size that will prevent the catching of juvenile fish. The minimum landing size for mullet, for example, is 20 cm, but they do not spawn until they are 48 cm.

Our local branch of the inshore fisheries and conservation authority has engaged with the industry in trying to find a solution, but the IFCA tells me that the Government must become involved if that is to happen. I recently received a letter from its chief officer and head of service, Edwin Derriman, in which he wrote:

“I am aware that Defra is considering the ICES report”

—that is, the report from the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea to which I referred earlier—

“so I have to assume the UK Government will comment in due course. The Government and the EU are the proper authorities for considering that report, as it is for that audience that the ICES reports are written and any concentrated action to protect the species has to come from”

the Government and the European Union. Mr Derriman went on to say

“the Government do not necessarily agree with Cornwall IFCA’s view that a general increase in MLS”

—minimum landing size—

“would or could be beneficial for all stakeholders.”

I hope that the Minister will inform us of the Government’s latest thinking on that issue.

In another letter, Eddie Derriman wrote:

“an unexpected challenge has come about through the forthcoming EU ‘discard ban'.”

It is true that many people did not anticipate that challenge. There has been a campaign for a discard ban, and I have certainly joined the chorus, although I have consistently pointed out that if a logical solution is to be found, it will be important to find a way of distinguishing between what is intended and what is unintended in relation to catch quotas.

[Mr MacNeil]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Andrew George]

Let me first say something about the impact of the discard ban on minimum landing sizes generally, and on those relating to bass in particular.

Eddie Derriman wrote:

“There is a lot of discussion on the principle that if discards are banned, then MLS sizes may be defunct. We cannot second guess the likely outcome to all the discussions, but I would hope that common sense prevails and that ‘robust' fish species could be put back in the water it there is a good or reasonable chance of them surviving.”

While we agree in principle that it is unacceptable for perfectly good and edible dead fish to be thrown back into the water and wasted—a rather offensive image which has, I think, driven the argument for a discard ban—I think that we should think about the potential unintended consequences, one of which is the increased difficulty of implementing a minimum landing size. I should be interested to hear the Minister’s thoughts on that as well.

[Mr MacNeil]

The hon. Gentleman said that we needed to establish whether the fishing of endangered stock was targeted or non-targeted. I know that during the autumn at least one boat contained 400 boxes, and I am sure that all the other boats have done the same. That should serve as a guide to civil servants and scientists who are formulating some sort of policy.

The one thing that fishermen do not want to do is go on a fishing trip and load their boats with fish that have zero value. They do not want to steam out, fill their boxes with fish that they did not intend to catch, do not want and cannot sell, and then have to steam back and land them on a pier. That is the worst of all worlds for a fisherman.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. We need short interventions. There is a danger of Members’ trying to make speeches by means of interventions, which worries me. Six more Back Benchers and two Front Benchers have yet to speak. I do not want to have to impose a time limit, but it is looking likely.

--- Later in debate ---

[Barry Gardiner]

I would have to rely on the Mandy Rice-Davies defence—“They would say that, wouldn’t they?” The point is that anecdote is not the basis of sound policy. We have to establish the facts. I am as keen to establish them as the hon. Gentleman and, I am sure, the fishermen in his community. Once we have established the facts, we can proceed with certainty.

[Mr MacNeil]

When politicians talk about science, in reality, as we have just seen with mackerel, the science has followed what is happening. The ICES advice for the increase in TAC in 2014 is a 65% to 79% increase, which in effect is only a 3% increase in what was caught in 2013 owing to fishermen in other states having a certain view of what was happening in the sea. Another issue—this relates to what the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) said—is that there are other areas where there is a cod recovery plan in operation but where there were no cod anyway. However, because of the catch compositions the cod recovery plan is leading to the dumping of haddock, and as haddock are being dumped and not landed, consumers will have to choose anther fish, and they will choose cod, so the plan will have the opposite effect to the one intended.

[Barry Gardiner]

It is important to remember that for every hour spent fishing nowadays—in boats bristling with the latest satellite technology to identify the movement of the stocks, with all the modern gear on board—fishers now land just 6% of what they did 120 years ago.

Of course, fishermen always want to maximise their catch, and rightly so—they are business men—but we have to recognise that the loss of our fishing communities up and down the coastline of Britain has happened because of overfishing. There is no getting away from that fact. We have to put in place a regime that can restore biomass and maximum sustainable yield but also ensure that we get to the point where those communities have secure jobs and secure economic benefits because we have enough fish for everyone.

--- Later in debate ---

[George Eustice]

I want to press on; otherwise we are going to get a bit tight on time and I want to deal with as many of the points that have been raised as possible.

The UK has been leading the way in Europe in trialling schemes that tackle discards through managing fisheries by what is caught, not what is landed. Catch quota schemes have been very effective in reducing discards, and following the success of those schemes I want to continue to help vessels with the transition to the landings obligation under the reformed CFP.

With the aims of the reformed CFP in mind, we will enter the negotiations at the December Council next week, where fishing opportunities will be decided. As my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Miss McIntosh) highlighted, it tends to end up being a late night. In fact, when anybody who has experience of the December Council describes it to me, they do so with a bit of a grin. I am not quite sure what to expect, but I will get some sleep over the weekend.

We aim to negotiate a fair and balanced package of fishing opportunities consistent with our high-level objectives, which are, first, following the best available scientific evidence; secondly, achieving maximum sustainable yield; and thirdly, minimising discards. A range of issues will be UK priorities in the negotiations.

[Mr MacNeil]

Will the Minister give way?

[George Eustice]

I am going to press on. The hon. Gentleman has intervened quite a lot and, given the steer given by Madam Deputy Speaker, I am conscious of the time.

Our priorities will affect fishermen throughout the UK. They include—a number of Members have mentioned this—seeking a continuation of the freeze in the number of days at sea available for fishermen in the North sea, the Irish sea and west of Scotland, which was agreed last year. We also want to see a moderate increase in the North sea cod TAC, recognising the very welcome recovery of this important stock. We will also argue for an expansion of our catch quota schemes and for outcomes on monkfish, Celtic sea haddock and nephrops in the Irish sea.

I met the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) last week and he has made a very strong case for nephrops, as has the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Dr Whiteford). I recognise that, because of the cold, late spring, it has been a very bad year for nephrops. The science is challenging and recommends a 24% reduction in the TAC. As a number of Members have pointed out, there has been a tradition in past years for the quota not to be fully fished, which I think gives us some scope to argue that we should not have that proposed reduction. We will do our absolute best for the fishermen in Northern Ireland and Scotland.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes has said, a challenging recommendation has been made to cut the TAC for Celtic sea haddock by 75%. We will argue that, because the TAC reduction for other species in that mixed fishery, such as whiting, are not being reduced by anything like as much, we will need to moderate that proposed reduction; otherwise, discards will be increased, because they are in a mixed fishery. We believe there is some linkage and that needs to be recognised in the negotiations.

[Mr MacNeil]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. No real answer has been given on the issue of spurdog discards; fishermen need guidance on what is expected. Another point is that we should recognise the importance of our foreign crew, particularly in my constituency where men come from the Philippines. They are welcomed and wanted. Will the Minister use his office to do what he can with the immigration department to make sure we can get such men in? They are a proud people.

[George Eustice]

On spurdogs and porbeagles, we recognise that there is a particular challenge whereby there is a zero TAC or a very low TAC. One thing we will argue is that that needs to be loosened. On landings obligations, we cannot have a situation whereby, as the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan said, short of eating the catch on the boat, it would not be possible to do much with it. We believe that that needs to be looked at and we will do so.

A number of Members mentioned the mackerel dispute. I am concerned about the continued lack of an agreement on the management of the north-east Atlantic mackerel stock. It is the UK’s most important single fishery. I continue to hope that we might be able to get an agreement to end this long-running dispute, but we have been clear—I set this out at the October Council—that it will not be a deal at any cost. We do not want new fishing access rights in our waters and we believe that Norway should do its share. Negotiations are ongoing and we hope there will be an outcome. With a 70% increase in the TAC, it is important that this is the best opportunity we will have to get a solution.

My hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous) mentioned the issue of the under-10 metre fleet. I can confirm that this is an important domestic priority for the Government. I have met members of the under-10 metre fleet, as well as the producer organisations, and we are keen to see a permanent realignment of the quota to help the fleet. I also recognise the uncertainty they face with month-to-month access to quota. There have been some novel schemes whereby they have been able to pull together their resources in, for instance, Ramsgate and have quota allocated over a longer time frame. We are keen to make progress on that.

The hon. Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner) mentioned monitoring under the marine strategy framework directive whereby we can get good environmental status. I can confirm that we will announce a consultation on that in the new year.

Finally, I will trot through some of the other points that have been raised. The hon. Member for Aberdeen North mentioned the importance of an EU-Norway deal. We absolutely recognise that, particularly the importance of access rights to Norwegian waters for much of the Scottish fleet. This sort of delay is not unusual—it happened last year and it has also happened in previous years—but we will press for the negotiations to begin early in the new year. Of course, there will be a provisional quota allocation to take account of the fact that there is no agreed TAC.

On the survivability element of the landing obligation, I have talked quite a bit about how the landing obligation will work. There will be exemptions for species that have good survivability rates. As my hon. Friend the Member for St Ives said, it is important that we are able to return those fish that have a good survival rate.

My hon. Friends the Members for Thirsk and Malton and for Waveney spoke about the importance of trying to identify new markets for less fashionable fish. I agree that more can be done on that. In my constituency, a firm called Falfish markets pouting to the French, so there are sometimes export markets for some fish species.

My hon. Friend the Member for St Ives mentioned points made by the Cornish Fish Producers Organisation. I confirm that I met Paul Trebilcock just this week, as well as representatives of the NFFO. My hon. Friend makes a good point about the Neptune project, and the way in which we can get better co-operation between science and fishermen.

My hon. Friend mentioned the minimum landing size for bass. We remain committed to trying to develop that point at European level. One problem at the moment is that most of the bass is taken by the French fleet, so our having a minimum landing size unilaterally would not necessarily help very much. However, that is one measure for which we shall push at European level. We have also called for the closure of some spawning grounds to allow the stock to recover because, as he said, ICES has highlighted a particular problem on that front.

The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan mentioned the EFF. I look forward to discussions with Scotland and devolved Assemblies elsewhere about the allocation of such funds. Scotland is still getting slightly more than England at the moment, so the situation is not all bad, but we will look at that. To answer the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes, we shall indeed roll over the EFF for another year during 2014.

My hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall highlighted an issue that she has raised many times about the nought to 12-mile zone. It has always been a key priority for the UK to retain such a derogation during reform of the CFP, and that has been achieved. It is, however, important to recognise that the UK also benefits from historical access rights in the six to 12-nautical mile zone in Ireland, Germany, France and the Netherlands. We have to be careful about changing the approach too much, because we sometimes benefit from fishing in the waters of other countries.

My hon. Friend’s more ambitious point about the 200-mile zone, which was also raised by the hon. Member for Luton North, is beyond the scope of what we are now talking about. She may want to submit it to the balance of competences review.

Water Industry

Angus Brendan MacNeil Excerpts

Tuesday 5th November 2013 Commons Chamber

[Frank Dobson]

In 1995, 826 million gallons of water per day were leaking out of the water companies’ pipes. According to my calculations, that is 3,755 million litres per day. The companies now proudly proclaim that they are dealing with the leaks. They have got the figure down to the apparently minuscule 2,910 million litres per day. Once they had to admit they were getting it wrong, we could see that it was a farcical record. Frankly, they simply deserve—I do not know; perhaps total abuse is the word—for their failure, and so does the system that regulates them, and the Ministers and civil servants who are also involved.

During the recent period water companies have increased charges; under the Labour Government charges went down at first then gradually crept up again. One thing that has not gone down, of course, is the huge dividends that the water companies have been paying. Since privatisation, they have paid out £37 billion in dividends. As the hon. Member for Dover (Charlie Elphicke) pointed out, that is 21% of gross value added compared with comparable parts of the private non-financial sector, which come in at about 11% of gross value added.

Look at the figures for individual water companies: Severn Trent Water has paid £6.2 billion in dividends; Thames Water has paid out £6.3 billion; United Utilities in the north-west paid out £7.3 billion; and Anglian Water has paid out £6 billion. Then there is tax avoidance and, as the hon. Member for Dover pointed out, a large amount of that is the product of manipulation of the companies’ borrowing, to the infinite benefit of their foreign owners in particular, more so than to their British owners.

Then there is the bosses’ pay. Some of them are being paid more than £1 million a year for collecting rainwater and sending it down a pipe. I understand the Health Secretary suggested that some managers in the national health service might be overpaid. It may be the case that some are, but let us consider Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, for example—two teaching hospitals, 12,000 staff and 1,200 doctors to manage. I do not think anybody in the world would think that the person responsible for managing that, who gets about £250,000 a year, does not have a rather more complex task than someone who collects rainwater and sends it down a pipe. We must get some sense of proportion.

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

Has the right hon. Gentleman made any assessment of the effect on bills if there were not the excesses of bonuses, payments and dividends that he detailed earlier?

[Frank Dobson]

I cannot really do that as I have only just come back to looking at the water industry from the time when I tried to make life difficult for it, with some success. “Hammer the customers for the profiteers” is the motto of the water industry. We have higher charges, and now water companies want to install compulsory water meters everywhere. That is basically their policy, and a lot of people who I think ought to know better have been going along with that.

It costs about £250 to supply and install a water meter, and they have about 15 years of life before the grit and impurities in the water make them not do their job accurately. If it is a smart meter I understand that the situation is even worse. It costs about £50 to install a new meter if one has previously been installed. I think there are more than 10 million unmetered households, so at £250 a throw—according to my calculations—that is £2.5 billion. Does anybody think that investing in water meters is the best way of spending £2.5 billion? Even if they do, I certainly do not.

Another thing is that, as soon as anything goes wrong, the companies come rushing to the taxpayer to bail them out. South West Water could not cope with the problems it faced, particularly its sewerage problems and ended up getting a leg-up from the taxpayer.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Benyon]

I shall talk about debt and gearing shortly, and I think my hon. Friend will find me in agreement with him on those issues.

Let me explain why I believe the Water Bill is only a work in progress when it comes to delivering the ambitions of the water White Paper. In the next Parliament, I really hope we will see a Bill to address the needs of abstraction reform. It would be impossible to bring that forward as part of the Water Bill because there are tens of thousands of abstraction licences, on which many of our constituents and the businesses that employ them depend for their water supply. Trying to create a new abstraction regime from the one created back in the 1960s is a Herculean task that will require thoughtful legislation to make sure that the taps still flow and that we do not suck dry aquifers like the Kennet, which provides a very important water supply to the constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon (Mr Buckland). That, however, has been the cheapest place from which to suck water, and it is only through the construction of good infrastructure and investment that we can do this in a sustainable way that keeps bills down, keeps water flowing and supports our economy. Further legislation, then, is needed.

Let me make a further point about investment before I reach my final point. If we want to see continued investment from pension funds—whether they be British or from overseas—sovereign wealth funds and other investors, we need to recognise that this is a relatively fragile and competitive market. I shall give the House an anecdote about the frequent visits I made to speak to the investor community to make sure that it saw that our ambitions in the water White Paper and the Water Bill were consistent with continued high levels of investment.

Some time ago, there was a hiatus concerning a rather technical issue that might well have gone over the heads of most people in this country. It related to the licence modifications that Ofwat wanted to create. This brought me in touch with a new breed in my life—City analysts, many of whom, in the words of my children, were “wusses”. They took an instant view that the regulated sector was not the place in which to invest, so the water sector saw quite a high risk of much needed investment being reduced. It took a Herculean effort—by me on the bottom echelons of the Government, right up to the higher levels—to make sure, first, that what Ofwat was trying to achieve was understood. In my opinion, it might have had a virtuous reason for what it did, but perhaps went about it in the wrong way. It reminded me that if we want to see continued levels of investment, we have to make sure that we explain what we are doing. Ultimately, the need to deal with infrastructure problems needs to feed through to bills, and we need to explain that we want to see a vibrant regulated sector in this country.

[Mr MacNeil]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Richard Benyon]

Very briefly.

[Mr MacNeil]

I have been listening carefully to the arguments on both sides of the debate. Why does the hon. Gentleman think average water bills are lower in Scotland, where water is publicly owned, than in England, where it is privately owned?

[Richard Benyon]

We want to see in England the virtue of the competition from which the hon. Gentleman’s constituents benefit in Scotland, in the business sector and, indeed, the public sector. Schools and the health service in Scotland have the opportunity to switch their suppliers, and the Water Bill will enable businesses in England to do the same. I accept that this is still work in progress, but we want to see the benefits of competition flowing—

[Mr MacNeil]

rose—

[Richard Benyon]

I will not give way again because many other Members wish to speak and I want to say something about debt before I finish.

I took on the water brief with a background in small business, but I had never encountered, or been closely associated with, businesses that had the level of debt and gearing that I saw in the water industry. I observed that the credit rating agencies—for which I have great respect: some very good people work for organisations such as Moody’s and Standard & Poor’s—were giving the water companies very high ratings, awarding them As, A-minuses and high Bs. In fact, Ofwat operates the strict criterion that their ratings must remain at those levels. However, I could not come to terms with that in my own mind at times.

The companies may indeed be complying with Ofwat’s criterion by gaining high credit ratings as a result of their wealth, but I think many Members will feel, as I do, that gearing of that order confers a brittleness—an inflexibility—when it comes to those companies delivering what we want them to deliver to their customers. I hope there will be more understanding of the need for them to reflect the concern that is felt about gearing levels, not just in the House but among their customers.

It is important for us to view water bills in the context of total household expenditure. The Leader of the Opposition has decided that energy bills are an issue on which he wants to bang the drum, but we know that his plan will not work. He knows it will not work, and he knows that we know that he knows it will not work. What is ridiculous about his argument is that it treats one part of household expenditure, albeit an important part, as the sole issue of the moment. Rather than doing that, the Government must view water bills and energy costs in the context of overall household expenditure. They must keep bearing down on council tax, and preferably freeze it. They must continue to protect the most vulnerable by providing winter fuel payments, and to ensure that more of our constituents on low incomes do not pay any tax. It is in that context that the Government should develop policy on household bills.

Water bills are, of course, important. It is vital for us not only to understand but to reflect the concerns of our constituents, and to take advantage of every opportunity to protect those on low incomes. We can, for instance, provide social tariffs. We can also work on the problem of bad debt, which, as we know, adds an average of £15 to every household’s bills—although when that is broken down by company, it is clear that some companies are outperforming others dramatically, and that their bad debt is a fraction of the average. Some are doing magnificently, and others appallingly badly. We must learn from best practice. We must ensure that companies deal with bad debt, but we must also ensure that we address their relationships with their customers in general. We must bear in mind the win-wins that can help those who are having trouble paying their bills to deal with the problem.

I hope that we will not be defensive about the model, because it is a good model. It has created a huge benefit for this country in terms of investment. What it has delivered is relatively affordable for most people, but we need to work hard to make sure prices come down. The five-yearly price review, along with clear policy from the Government, who understand the situation, presents an opportunity. We can make sure the companies are bearing down on bills and there is none of that awful cyclical investment, with investment falling off a cliff two years before the price review period. We want to see continued investment because we know that is the way to have a sustainable water supply and a sustainable sewerage system—not just economically sustainable, but environmentally sustainable as well.

Common Fisheries Policy

Angus Brendan MacNeil Excerpts

Monday 17th June 2013 Commons Chamber

[Richard Benyon]

My hon. Friend should be congratulated on his tenacity in supporting what is left of his fishing industry. When we know the history of that great port, it is sad to reflect on what it is now. I want to see not only those fishermen keeping their jobs, but even more fishermen in places such as Lowestoft, bringing prosperity to the town. We are transferring modest amounts of quota from the over-10 metre fleet to the inshore under-10 metre fleet. It is not proving to be without difficulty—there is an ongoing court case taking place—but I am absolutely determined to look at this and a variety of other measures, building on the good work of the sustainable access to inshore fisheries project, which was started by the last Government, so that we can see further prosperity. The best way to help my hon. Friend’s fishermen is to have an increased biomass so that they are able to catch more fish, their children will want to become fishermen and the fishing industry will start to grow in a way that I know it can and contribute to the economy.

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

I worked as a fisherman 18 years ago, and fishermen often tell me nowadays that they have to dump non-targeted dogfish or spurdog, particularly each winter, as they go into their nets and have no quota to land them. What will change for these dead fish and for those fishing boats on the back of this statement?

[Richard Benyon]

A lot of scientific work is happening to understand more about survivability. Many shark species and cetaceans have very good survivability rates. That will be built into the discard plan, and fish that will survive will be allowed to be returned to the water. That is an important point. We are clear that we need a minimal by-catch provision for a lot of these species because they are extremely rare and their stocks are deteriorating.

Horsemeat

Angus Brendan MacNeil Excerpts

Tuesday 12th February 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mary Creagh]

We are none the wiser about whether the Secretary of State knows the names of these companies, which prompts the question of whether the FSA has told him or whether he has asked it. Perhaps he will clarify that.

On Friday the FSA said that the police were involved, and I thought that things were under control. However, on Friday night the Met police said that they had had talks with the FSA but there was no live criminal investigation. Will the Secretary of State tell us what action the FSA has taken against these companies? Has it been into their premises and seized evidence, and why have the police not been called in? If there are no problems with these companies, will he say so clearly now, on the record?

Last Thursday, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs announced its statutory testing regime, with 28 local councils purchasing and testing eight samples each. However, the Secretary of State cannot seriously expect people to wait 10 weeks for the results. Does he think that surveying just 224 products across the country rises to the challenge of this scandal when he has asked the supermarkets to test thousands of their products by Friday? How many of the 10 million withdrawn burgers have been tested? Are there any plans to test them now? If they had been tested when they were withdrawn, Ministers would able to reassure us or tell us the extent of this scandal, but because they were paralysed by fear or incompetence, or both, we are still in the dark. Will the Secretary of State confirm that only a fraction of the supermarket tests will be completed and reported by this Friday?

Will the Secretary of State tell the House how many products the large public sector catering suppliers will test and how many product lines members of the British Meat Processors Association will test? Yesterday I asked him which members of the British Hospitality Association and the British Retail Consortium have withdrawn their products as a precaution and whether any of them have withdrawn products that may have gone to schools and hospitals. Is he prepared to answer those questions today?

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

As a crofter and a producer, I should refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I am pleased to say that the butchers in Stornoway have seen an upturn in trade as a result of this problem. It surely beggars belief that it has happened given all the tagging that has been going on in the industry. When I send a couple of beasts—lambs—to my cousin to be slaughtered, the vet has to see them. Surely we should now be pressurising the supermarkets and major retailers to stock from as close to source locally as possible—the best of Scottish lamb, beef, or whatever—to make sure that we do not have a repetition of this situation.

[Mary Creagh]

I share the hon. Gentleman’s concerns for the British meat industry. As he says, we have one of the strongest food traceability systems in the world. The British Retail Consortium’s food traceability system and authorisation of processing plant is recognised to global standards. What I worry about is the very large worldwide web that has led to some Findus products coming in from Romania via Cyprus, the Netherlands and a company in south-west France. It is inexplicable to me why that meat is being transported to all those different areas and what is happening there. Every time it is transported, there are moments of risk when it can be interfered with. That is where the problems arise in the meat trade rather than at the stage that the hon. Gentleman mentioned.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mary Creagh]

The hon. Gentleman was not in the Department at that time.

The FSA website has chapter and verse on what happened. It says that in July 2010

“the food authenticity programme was transferred from the…(FSA) to Defra along with food labelling and composition policy not related to food safety or nutrition. The food authenticity programme supports the enforcement of food labelling and standards legislation through the development of methods that can determine whether foods are correctly labelled. Food authenticity…simply refers to whether the food purchased by the consumer matches its description.”

I would say that consumers who are purchasing beef burgers that later turn out to be horse would fall within that remit. The Government removed the budget and brought the 25 officials responsible for labelling the content of food back into DEFRA. In response to my parliamentary questions, we find that there are now just 12 officials working on food authenticity in DEFRA. The Secretary of State is responsible for the labelling that tells us what is in our food, the Department of Health is responsible for nutritional labelling, and the FSA for allergen labelling. That is why the official food sampling survey is a joint DEFRA-FSA survey, is it not? Will the Secretary of State confirm that this will be the very first survey of product content that his Department has carried out since his Government removed compositional labelling responsibilities from the Food Standards Agency in June 2010?

This ideological Government, who want to deregulate everything, actually created a bureaucratic nightmare for the food industry when they fragmented the FSA’s responsibility for labelling, because now manufacturers have to go to the Department of Health to look at calories, fat, salt and sugar, to the FSA to look at allergens, and to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs for what it should say on the tin.

Has the loss of more than 700 trading standards officers in three years made this type of consumer fraud more widespread and less likely to be detected? Is the Secretary of State confident that the FSA’s Meat Hygiene Service, which has just been merged into the FSA, can be cut by £12 million over the four years from 2010 to 2014 without affecting its ability to detect breaches of the law or to tackle a disease outbreak?

On abattoirs, at DEFRA questions nearly three weeks ago, I asked the Minister with responsibility for food, the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr Heath), whom I am glad to see in his place, about problems with the horse passport system. I was concerned that horses contaminated with bute were being slaughtered in UK abattoirs and entering the human food chain. Of the nine UK horses that tested positive for bute in 2012, one was stopped, five went to France, two to the Netherlands and one to the UK. Has the Minister considered the possibility that horses are going from UK abattoirs into the food chain?

The FSA sampled 156 horses for bute out of the 9,405 horses that were slaughtered in UK abattoirs in 2012. Nine of those horses tested positive, which is a 6% positive rate. If we scale that up to the 9,000 figure, we will see that it suggests that more than 500 horses contaminated with bute may have entered the UK human food chain last year. I raised that point two and a half weeks ago, but received a garbled response from the Minister. I am glad to see that he has stopped burbling now.

[Mr MacNeil]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way again; she is being very kind. What is her view on placing dye on meats that are not meant to go into the human food chain? That would give a clear visual signal and would probably prevent an awful lot of meats from finding their way into the human food chain, whether they come from the knacker’s yard or any other source.

[Mary Creagh]

I do not know how condemned meat is currently dealt with, but I have heard tales of people bleaching meat. Whatever happens to this meat, when it is condemned it needs to be permanently removed from the food chain. Clearly, something much more significant needs to happen to it, but the treatment of condemned meat is something that I am not fully aware of at the moment. I am sure I will learn a lot more about it in the next 24 hours.

As the hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) said, there is evidence of an illegal trade in horses from Ireland to the UK and a programme on the subject will be aired tonight. The Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals has also contacted me to say that it has seen horses that have been double microchipped and double passported in order to “clean” the horse. It has also given me examples of horses being microchipped at auction—many horses do not contain a microchip—and given a clean passport. Microchips can be bought for as little as 12p on the internet and it is clearly not an offence to buy one. If a microchip is put into a horse and a passport obtained from one of the 75 societies that can issue horse passports in the UK, the new passport can be linked to the microchip so that the horse looks like it has a clean history.

The increase in the number of horses and the decrease in horse prices mean that putting horses into the food chain is attractive. At the abattoir, Government inspectors check only the microchip with the passport, and if they correspond, the horse is slaughtered and allowed into the food chain. I am glad that, as of yesterday, all horses being slaughtered in UK abattoirs are now being tested for bute, but the Minister should have acted on that two weeks ago, when I first raised the issue in the House. The passport system is clearly not working as it should. The lack of a central database and DEFRA’s decision to stop funding it in 2012 only adds to the lack of visibility of where the horses are and their bute status. Does the Secretary of State regret scrapping the national equine database to save £200,000? [Interruption.] The Minister says no—I think he might regret that. [Interruption.] I look forward to hearing what the Government’s traceability system actually is.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Paterson]

The hon. Gentleman will be pleased to note that I jotted down his constituency and was going to mention his point later in my speech, but I will do so now. He raises a pertinent point. It is vital that we get to the bottom of this matter as fast as possible, because we have very strict traceability in this country, very rigorous production systems and very high quality, and we do not want any slur to be cast on that or any attempt to export our excellent products to be slowed down by incidents that so far appear to be the result of criminal acts carried out abroad.

[Mr MacNeil]

Many farmers, crofters and primary producers have an onerous burden of responsibility and bureaucracy. I seek assurances that this matter will not be used as an excuse for a cloak-and-dagger increase in that already onerous burden. The traceability should retain the vote of confidence and we should not add to the burdens.

[Mr Paterson]

The hon. Gentleman is right that we must make absolutely sure that we do not create further regulatory burdens. What we need to do is to make the checks more relevant to the products. I will come to that point in a moment.

Animal Welfare (Exports)

Angus Brendan MacNeil Excerpts

Thursday 13th December 2012 Commons Chamber

[Roger Williams]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. People who are found to have repeatedly committed criminal offences in respect of animal welfare should be banned from carrying out such activities at all. That would not only be a very good encouragement for people to adopt better animal welfare conditions, but would mean that the worst offenders were no longer involved in the trade.

On doing research for this debate, I found various numbers for how many sheep and cattle are being exported live from this country. Out of the 15 million sheep produced in this country for sale, almost 99.5% are slaughtered in this country, and of those, 30% are exported in carcass form or as meat products not only to the continent but more widely, including to the middle east and far east. That is an important trade for the agricultural industry.

The NFU gave me some figures. They were not as helpful as they could have been, because the period covered was not given, but it seems that about 43,000 live sheep are exported from this country to the three main destinations to which sheep are exported. Those 43,000 sheep can be set against roughly 5 million that are slaughtered in this country and exported as carcasses. The vast majority of live exports in the UK go to the Republic of Ireland, most of which will simply be crossing a land border. People might like to distinguish between sheep travelling across land and sheep travelling across sea, and the point has been made about the suitability of the vessel employed in such circumstances. When we address animal welfare issues, we must address the quality not only of lorry transport but of ship transport.

I have already made the point that in setting time limits for journeys, we must take into account traditional agricultural practices. For instance, on the Scottish islands, on islands in the rest of Europe and in some remote areas, animals need to travel for winter grazing, improved grazing or better arable crops in order to be prepared for slaughter.

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

I am listening carefully to what the hon. Gentleman is saying about animal movements. Even in the case of transporting animals over the Irish sea, it is not whether they go by ferry but the length of time and conditions that are paramount. It makes sense for the producer and the consumer to have a better sheep or a better beast arriving in better order.

[Roger Williams]

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point and his experience of representing his constituency is important in these matters.

The hon. Member for South Thanet asked what type of business plan encourages this type of live export. I cannot believe that anybody who loads 100 live sheep on to a lorry and at the end of the journey unloads 95 live sheep and five dead ones can make money out of that in the long term.

--- Later in debate ---

[Roger Williams]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that. It may be that that lorry was stopped for a suspected traffic offence, but as I understand it the animals would have to have been inspected at the time of loading. There is some lack of clarity about events at Ramsgate. It was suggested by the hon. Member for West Ham (Lyn Brown), who is no longer in her place, that 40 sheep died there. In fact, 40 sheep were put down there, which is slightly different. I am clear that enforcement and inspection should be of a high order, and the Minister announced yesterday that that would be the case. Every lorry that is being prepared to board a vessel will have to be inspected.

[Mr MacNeil]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way a second time; he is very kind. Perhaps I should have declared in my previous intervention that as a lamb producer myself, I have an interest in the matter. As a lamb producer I understand that we want to get our beasts to market—mine make a sea crossing—as clean as possible. Among crofters in the west highlands, even a couple of pounds on the price—if we do a pound or two better than our neighbours—means that we have bragging rights for the rest of the year. There are inbuilt reasons for having very good animal welfare, so that the animals are clean and have the best possible appearance and no distress when they get to the auction mart on the mainland.

[Roger Williams]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. Those of us who have been involved in animal production and would like to think that we have a high regard for animal welfare cannot believe that people in the business could be involved in damaging the animals or reducing their appearance. As he knows, the price of an animal depends not only on its health and fitness, but on its appearance. Cramming animals into very small spaces does nothing to improve their marketability.

In conclusion, I shall set out the Liberal Democrat point of view on this matter. I am sure many hon. Members would agree with this broad approach. Although we accept that live export is a legal trade and it would be difficult in the short term or even the medium term to ban it, Liberal Democrats are deeply concerned about animal welfare and the export of live animals. We would prefer animals to be slaughtered as close as possible to where they are reared. The transportation of meat and other animal by-products is always preferable to the movement of live animals. Unfortunately, the movement of live animals for trade is a perfectly lawful process. While it remains a legal trade under European laws we must allow it to continue. However, we should make sure that our animal welfare laws are followed to the letter so that no animal is made to suffer during transport.

We welcome the Minister’s announcement that every consignment of live animals scheduled to pass through the port will be inspected. We support a zero tolerance approach. If there is any evidence of slipping welfare standards, the coalition Government should not hesitate to take action. The EU has strengthened the law on live animal exports by placing strict responsibilities not just on drivers, but on others involved in the entire transport process. The authorisation and training of drivers, and the vehicles used for the transportation of live animals, should all be subject to rigorous requirements.

This debate has been very beneficial and I am sure the whole House would support improvements in animal welfare wherever the Government can find the necessary regulation to achieve them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Thomas Docherty]

Obviously I speak regularly with the National Farmers Union of Scotland, and I know that colleagues speak regularly with the National Farmers Union in Wales, Northern Ireland and England. If she can point to which of those four organisations, which are the voice of farmers, shares her rather extreme views, I would be delighted to meet it.

[Mr MacNeil]

As I said, I strongly disagree with the implicit assumption that cruelty is involved. I produce lambs between March and April and sell them in August, so I know that they have to be cared for for those four months and that the last thing a farmer wants to see is them going away in any kind of cruel circumstances, not least because that affects their value, but also because they have raised them from birth. To send them away in any sort of cruel circumstances would, I think, turn the stomachs of many crofters and farmers.

[Thomas Docherty]

It is fair to say that the hon. Gentleman and I do not agree on every issue, so the fact that we are on the same side of the argument today, as are Liberal Democrat and Conservative colleagues and, indeed, Members on my own Front Bench—always a pleasant treat—shows clearly that the House supports a vibrant but, as the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire said, ethical and humane export policy. That is the nub of the debate. It is not about the principle of exports; it is about how we treat the animals. That is why we need more rigorous enforcement. I would be grateful if the Minister set out how he thinks DEFRA, with its existing powers, could better ensure that that happens.

The House will be aware that yesterday the European Parliament debated a motion, similar to those we often have in this place, to approve a report by its agriculture committee. It contained much to be welcomed on the issue of animal transportation. It recognised, as we have done today—those of us who have been here throughout the debate—that we should seek to have higher standards and that it is a question of how we ensure compliance across all member states.

However, there is one issue that I and the National Farmers Union of Scotland disagree with, and it was mentioned by the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire: an obsession with the eight-hour rule. There is no credible scientific advice demonstrating that exceeding the arbitrary limit of eight hours leads to a drop in animal welfare. As the hon. Members for Na h-Eileanan an Iar and for Brecon and Radnorshire, my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore and other Members from elsewhere in the great parts of the Celtic kingdoms would point out, getting to abattoirs even within the United Kingdom can take more than eight hours. I am thinking, in particular, of the pig industry and the difficult circumstances Vion is currently going through. For example, if Vion is sold and its Scottish abattoir is closed, the nearest abattoir for pig farmers from north-east Scotland will probably be in Yorkshire. If we were allowed to head down the path of the eight-hour rule, it is difficult to see how farmers in Morayshire and across north-east Scotland, never mind those in the highlands, could survive. I would like the Minister to confirm that the Government have no plans to introduce, and do not support, an eight-hour rule.

I hope that the Minister, who is no doubt busy taking notes in his head, will also tell us what discussions he has had with the devolved Administrations. It is vital that DEFRA work with Mr Lochhead in the Scottish Parliament, our Labour colleague in Wales and our Democratic Unionist party colleague in the Northern Ireland Assembly so that we are all working together on this issue, on which, overwhelmingly, all the grown-up, sensible parties are united in wanting a vibrant farming industry.

--- Later in debate ---

[Caroline Lucas]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, which I genuinely think is extremely helpful and very much welcome.

I come to the issue from the perspective of having spent 10 years in the European Parliament. I was vice-president of the animal welfare intergroup. The hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish) was its president and he did a great job.

[Mr MacNeil]

The hon. Lady has mentioned guarantees in live export. As a crofter, I cannot give guarantees on live beasts on the croft. Something could happen to them—they could fall into a ditch or they could get snared in a fence. There are hazards all the time and there is no absolute guarantee I can give. All I can do is minimise the hazards to the best of my ability and with the knowledge built up over a number of years.

[Caroline Lucas]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I suppose that he makes my point. There is a parallel between this debate and some of our debates on the use of wild animals in circuses. On the one hand, we can try to reduce the harm done to those animals; on the other hand, we can say that, no matter how hard we try, ultimately it is not a good place for animals to be. I would argue that being on long-distance transportation is not a good place for animals to be, either, and others may come to a similar conclusion.

I believe that long journeys can be stressful for sheep and calves. The stress factors include deprivation of food and water, lack of rest, extremes of temperature and humidity, handling by humans, exposure to novel environments, overcrowding, insufficient headroom, noise and vibration. Animal welfare is not served by long journeys or by the poor treatment that is often experienced by animals at the journey’s end.

Yesterday’s announcement by DEFRA that it is strengthening the controls that apply to live exports is a step in the right direction, but there is no guarantee that British animals will be protected from the suffering that they currently endure when being transported abroad.

--- Later in debate ---

[Caroline Lucas]

What I am saying is that we could be more creative in looking for solutions. In other countries where big distances are involved, one economic response has been to have mobile abattoirs. In remote areas where it is uneconomic to have an abattoir because it would not be served by many animals, a mobile abattoir might be more practical. I would like to make some progress, if I may.

[Mr MacNeil]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Caroline Lucas]

No, because I want to make some progress, if I may.

Calf exports have been declining amid concerns in some important countries about bovine tuberculosis. However, as Members know, countries such as Spain are still major destinations for British calves. Journeys to Spain can take more than 90 hours and young calves are poorly equipped to withstand the rigours of such a journey. Dr Claire Weeks, the senior research fellow in animal welfare at Bristol university has concluded:

“Scientific evidence indicates that young calves are not well adapted to cope with transport… Therefore transport should be avoided where possible, particularly as morbidity and mortality following transport can be high.”

On arrival in Europe, calves are typically kept on concrete or slatted floors without any straw or other bedding. Such barren systems have been outlawed in the UK. There is a real question about the ethical acceptability of calves being sent for rearing abroad in conditions that have been prohibited on welfare grounds here at home.

With calf exports declining, the industry has been considering alternatives, for example through the work of the Beyond Calf Exports Stakeholders Forum. That initiative involves beef and dairy industry bodies, Compassion in World Farming, the RSPCA, Government, retailers and academics. The forum is starting to overturn the assumption that male dairy calves produce low-quality beef and hence should be exported for veal production or shot in the head soon after birth. As a result of its work, male dairy calves are increasingly being reared in Britain to high welfare standards, with a resultant fall in the number of calves shot at birth or exported for veal production. I am confident that more dairy farmers would abandon the trade if the Government engaged with the industry more proactively and gave them more help to do so. The carcass-only trade is already widespread and I want to see an end to the remaining exports of live calves.

The export of sheep is in many ways no better. It, too, entails significant suffering and long, stressful journeys. In addition, British animals may experience poor welfare in European abattoirs. In 2007-08, a French animal welfare organisation carried out an investigation into 25 French slaughterhouses and found many breaches of EU legislation that is meant to protect the welfare of animals at slaughter. Earlier this year, a report by the EU’s food and veterinary office identified a number of serious animal welfare problems in Dutch slaughterhouses. The Netherlands is the destination for many sheep that are exported from Britain. Once animals leave our shores, we are powerless to ensure that they are treated properly. All the evidence suggests that they are not necessarily being treated with standards comparable to our own welfare expectations.

For sheep, as for calves, I believe that the trade should be meat and carcass only. Slaughtering a higher proportion of animals in the UK for domestic consumption or meat exports could create jobs and increase profits here. Indeed, the economic case for the live export of sheep seems negligible. In 2011, just 0.5% of the sheep reared in the UK were slaughtered abroad. That is 72,458 sheep, compared with the 14.5 million that were slaughtered in the UK. It is difficult to believe that transporting such a relatively small number of animals abroad for slaughter makes a significant contribution to the sheep sector’s earnings, or that that contribution justifies the suffering that the sheep undergo during the long journey from the UK. The UK economy would probably benefit much more from the added value derived from processing animals at home, rather than exporting the raw material for the benefit of processors abroad.

Much of this debate has focused on the disaster at the port of Ramsgate. Animal welfare conditions are questionable during the process of live transport, as well as on arrival. Other Members have spoken strongly about the Russian tanker, the Joline, which had to turn back en route to Calais because of adverse weather conditions. The ship’s design means that it is particularly sensitive to poor conditions. On this occasion, the sea was breaking over the vessel. Its design also means that there is little leeway between the time that it takes to cross the channel and the maximum journey time for calves of nine hours after a one hour rest at port. On another occasion, the vessel was held at Ramsgate for two hours because of adverse weather warnings and the lorries on board were in danger of exceeding the journey limit.

In a six-month period when the RSPCA was inspecting every vehicle involved in the trade through Ramsgate for infractions, it issued six warning notices. In September 2012, one lorry was stopped because of faults with the vehicle. The animals were unloaded and two sheep, one with a broken leg, were put down. Another 41 lame sheep were euthanised. Six sheep fell into the water after they were loaded into an area where a drain became exposed. Four of them were rescued by RSPCA officers, but two drowned. It appears that a proportion of the lame sheep were injured during the journey owing to a defect in the vehicle, but others were apparently lame before the start of the journey. By law, an official veterinarian must, before an export journey begins, certify that the animals are fit to travel.

That case raises serious questions. If some sheep were lame before the journey, why did the vet who inspected them certify them as being fit to travel? Are the checks and balances that are meant to be in place fit for purpose? Given those failures, can DEFRA’s ordering more inspections give us confidence? It is not even clear whether it intends to increase the number of inspections that are taking place or simply to meet its current legal obligations.

I agree with those who have said that the facilities are Ramsgate are not suitable for ensuring the welfare of animals if they need to be offloaded in an emergency. Despite the Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr Heath), saying that he intends to pursue a zero-tolerance approach to animal welfare and live exports, I think that the contingency plans that DEFRA has announced are inadequate. A temporary ban on live animal exports out of Ramsgate was lifted last month, but legal action is still under way. It is vital that far more is done to safeguard the welfare of animals that are shipped through the port, especially as access for the RSPCA to inspect conditions has been denied.

In the 1990s, the European Court of Justice twice ruled that the UK cannot ban live exports. Such action has to be taken at EU level. That does not let the Government off the hook. There is much more that they could be doing to bring this trade to an end. They could go to Brussels and press for a change in EU law to allow individual member states to ban live exports.

Since the two European Court cases, article 13 of the treaty on the functioning of the European Union has recognised animals as “sentient beings”. It requires the EU and member states, in formulating and implementing EU policies on agriculture, transport and the single market, to

“pay full regard to the welfare requirements of animals”.

That article creates a new legislative landscape in which, with the right political will, the UK would be justified in pressing for the right to lawfully end this trade.

Earlier this week, MEPs voted for improvements to the conditions in which live animals are exported, but they failed to reduce the maximum journey time. How different might the result of that vote have been if the UK had actively lobbied for an eight-hour limit? The Government must take the lead in pressing the EU to place a maximum limit of eight hours on journeys to slaughter or for further fattening.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Amess]

The late Member of Parliament for Newham, North-West, Tony Banks, was a great champion of animal welfare measures, and I would stand shoulder to shoulder with him on the subject of the debate. It saddens me that, nearly 30 years on, we have to revisit the issue.

I was flattered last year when Dods gave me an award as charity champion for animal welfare and environment, which I accepted on behalf of the animal welfare kingdom. Indeed, I promoted the Protection Against Cruel Tethering Act 1988, and I also supported Bills on the welfare of dogs—the list is endless.

However, I want briefly to consider live export of animals. I am pleased that it is not a growing industry, and that it is shrinking. I note that, for example, the transport of live calves fell from 93,000 in 2007 to just 7,000 in 2009. That is real progress. I hope that, in time, such a debate will be unnecessary.

I associate myself with the views of the RSPCA, which is a wonderful charity, and which I hope will continue to promote sensible animal welfare issues. It wants an end to long-distance transport of live animals, with the aim of carcass-only trade. It wants a maximum eight-hour journey time for all animals travelling to slaughter. It wants a change to current law to allow ports to refuse to partake in the transport of live animals trade. It also wants the organisations involved in the trade, not the taxpayer, to bear the costs of veterinary and animal health inspections, alongside other costs.

[Mr MacNeil]

I disagree about animal exports, but would the hon. Gentleman concede that sometimes animals can be exported for breeding purposes, not just for slaughter, so stopping it altogether might have other consequences, which are not the focus of the debate?

[Mr Amess]

I recognise that hon. Members rightly represent all sorts of interests. I have said that I support responsible animal welfare measures. I would not want to use the debate that my hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet has introduced to bash farmers and the farming community. I therefore understand the points that the hon. Gentleman and others have made.

[Mr Amess]

I cannot believe for a moment that that would be the result if the motion was supported. I want to stick to my script. I was not present when other issues have been discussed in the Chamber, so I would like to stick to the specific issue that you, Madam Deputy Speaker, said that we should talk about.

I want to see an end to the long-distance transport of live animals. There is a clear case for the ending of the transport of live animals altogether. It is a cruel practice that regularly leads to the distress—or worse, the death—of animals. Indeed, recently we saw terrible pictures of little puppies who were dead, and rare, exotic fish dead in their containers. For example, inspectors, when they were able to investigate, found one animal with a ripped horn that had to be euthanised. In another incident, a vehicle had to offload all its sheep and 46—yes, 46—had to be euthanised for various reasons. Any practice that regularly inflicts such pain on living creatures, and, worse, regularly leads to their deaths, should be ended as soon as possible.

This is not an impossible dream. More often than not, animals are now slaughtered in their country of origin and then transported to whichever country they are going to. That is a much more humane way to approach the transportation of animals. Another reason why it is right to pursue the end of this practice is that even if we manage to transport live animals effectively and safely, we cannot ensure that the countries the animals arrive in live up to our high standards.

Compassion in World Farming has issued a report that shows that many member states do not provide penalties that are “effective, proportionate and dissuasive”. While some countries have shown recent signs of improvement, namely the Czech Republic, Italy and Romania, the European Union Food and Veterinary Office indicates that they, and other countries, still need substantial improvements in enforcement levels. Those two reasons—the cruel nature of transportation and the worrying lack of enforcement in other EU member states—are reason enough for wanting the practice of live transportation to be stopped altogether. That said, until that aim is fulfilled, there are other curbs that could be applied to the industry to protect transported animals. For example, there should be a maximum eight-hour journey time. Journeys for calves can be up to 19 hours, and for horses and pigs up to 24 hours. For horses and pigs, 29 hours can be an incredibly long time before a 24-hour rest. That is cruel—to make any creature travel for 29 hours before having a rest is very cruel indeed. At the very least, a middle ground should be found that enforces shorter breaks after eight hours, and then a longer 24-hour rest at the current limit.

On ports, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs states on its website that when dealing with animals it is important that vehicle loading and unloading facilities are designed and constructed to avoid injury and suffering. While that may be the case for road vehicles, I have concerns about the UK ports that animals leave from and about the ships that transport them. According to the RSPCA, the Joline, an old Russian tanker, currently transports animals from Ramsgate. It is too slow, and is overly exposed to poor weather conditions. I urge the House not to accept such poor conditions for animals who deserve to be treated with dignity and respect.

It appears that the ports of Ramsgate, Ipswich and Newhaven do not all currently live up to the standards set out in section 23 of the Animal Welfare Act 2006. Ports have no choice but to opt out of the transportation of live animals due to the Harbours, Docks and Piers Clauses Act 1847. I believe strongly in choice. Ports that currently do not have the right facilities to transport animals to a high standard must be able to choose whether they wish to partake in this practice.

On veterinary costs, the economy is going through tough times at the moment. There are a lot of elderly people in Southend West, the area I represent, and animals are their lives. Animals are everything to them and we should not trivialise how important they are to them. Veterinary bills can be very high. The taxpayer foots the bill for veterinary checks on animals in live transportation. If that cost was shifted to those involved in the industry—I know that hon. Members with farming interests will say that that would be yet another burden passed on to them—not only would the taxpayer save money during these hard times, but the industry would be incentivised to look after its animals well, as the cost of veterinary bills could otherwise be very high.

The last topic I wish to touch on is labelling. It has come to my attention that a sheep or cow can be born, raised and fed here in England, transported to France and, once slaughtered, labelled, “produce of France”. If, as I hope, the EU agrees to stop this practice, surely the incidence of live transportation will fall as the pressure to have and eat home-grown food in each European member state will grow. I therefore urge hon. Members to support any such law on labelling.

In my brief speech I hope that I have highlighted a number of issues I feel strongly about that have not already been covered concerning the suffering of animals. Maximum journey times must come down if at all possible. Ports must be able to opt out if they do not feel that they have the resources to adequately look after animals. Veterinary costs should not be met at the expense of the public purse. Labelling issues need to be addressed.

We must look after animals to the best of our ability. The fact that we need this debate at all sadly reminds me of the quote attributed to Frederick the Great:

“The more I see of men, the more I like my dog.”

I then think of the quote from Ghandi:

“The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated.”

I said that I entered this place 30 years ago. We are hardly pressed for time in this place. We used to sit until 3 o’clock or 4 o’clock in the morning. We used to sit for five days a week—we certainly put the hours in. Hon. Members no doubt love to pat dogs and like to see cats in their constituencies. They are concerned about their constituents, who feel that their animals are important. They should demonstrate their support for animals by supporting the motion introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet. I would hope that most hon. Members feel that transporting live animals in horrendous conditions is totally unacceptable. We live in an era where we no longer write letters to each other. MPs respond to e-mails, blogging, Facebook and so on. There is not the amount of personal contact that there used to be.

I was privileged recently to attend two carol services for animals. I feel very strongly that the quality of our nation should increasingly be judged by how we treat the animal kingdom.

[Mr MacNeil]

I am intrigued about the carol service for animals. Was it per chance, “The cattle are lowing, the baby awakes”, or something of that sort?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

I think the hon. Member for Southend West (Mr Amess) has finished, so, if that was your speech, Mr MacNeil, it was quite a short contribution. Do you wish to say a little more?

[Mr MacNeil]

indicated dissent.

--- Later in debate ---

[Huw Irranca-Davies]

I shall return later to the specific things that the inquiry should consider—it will not be an exhaustive list, but I will give some good pointers. On my own personal experience, I have not been a sheep farmer, but my friendly and well loved father-in-law was a sheep farmer for many years on the uplands of the Brecon Beacons.

[Mr MacNeil]

Crawler!

[Huw Irranca-Davies]

Indeed. I am just worried about any inheritance potential, so I had better continue.

For many years my father-in-law was a sheep farmer, and I would go out and help him. I was born on the Gower and, curiously, my first ever job as a young lad of 10 or 11—I know not everybody will like this, including on my Benches—was to go to Gowerton market. At that time, we had a live market right in the centre of the village—it is long gone; now it is housing. We had just turned metric, and my job in the market, for 50p a day, was to go with the farmers on the back of their wagons, load what seemed to me to be these massive beasts—they were massive, because even a sheep to me at that age appeared to be very big—and take them off to what were then local slaughterhouses and abattoirs. One of the problems with those abattoirs is that not all of them had the high standards that we now expect. We have seen a diminution in the number of abattoirs across the country, which brings us back to the points that many Members have made. We would love to see more local abattoirs—I will raise this again with the Minister in a moment—but we also need to have high quality abattoirs, with the very highest standards for both consumers and farmers.

--- Later in debate ---

[Huw Irranca-Davies]

The Minister shakes his head, so the advice is still the same. In that case, our focus must be on the paramount issue of animal welfare considerations for a trade that will continue, to and from the UK and across other parts of the Europe, for the foreseeable future.

[Mr MacNeil]

Is not the key point the fact that when it comes to the crossing of borders, animal welfare is the bottom line?

[Huw Irranca-Davies]

Yes, the hon. Gentleman makes a point that is absolutely valid. We strongly believe in that focus, the Minister strongly believes in it and many contributors to the debate believe that the focus must be animal welfare. I did not touch on an issue that was raised consistently in this debate: that even if we take away the crossing of seas to Ireland, Northern Ireland, the highlands and islands and mainland Europe, we still have a massive internal trade of live animal shipments, and it is part of the integrity of our current livestock business. The hon. Gentleman is therefore right to say that we should focus on animal welfare.

I say that in the knowledge that, only yesterday or the day before, the European Parliament’s Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development voted strongly in plenary session to support a report on the protection of animals during transport, which had many recommendations. As I know from my meetings with European parliamentarians and Commission officials in Brussels over the last few weeks, this issue is of topical concern right across Europe, not just in the UK. It is a good and comprehensive report that makes some sensible recommendations on the effective and improved implementation of existing measures to safeguard animal welfare.

May I draw the Minister’s attention to the one part of the report that is causing great debate at the moment and that has been referred to in today’s debate—the growing momentum behind support for an eight-hour maximum for animals travelling for slaughter or for fattening across the EU? As has been mentioned, over 1 million EU citizens have now signed a petition that was organised by Compassion in World Farming and others.

Fisheries

Angus Brendan MacNeil Excerpts

Thursday 6th December 2012 Westminster Hall

[Mr Doran]

I could not agree more with my hon. Friend, who makes a point that I want to make myself. Some co-ordination in Government on safety, and on other matters, would be appropriate.

Some vessel owners do very well out of the fishing industry, but others struggle. For most it is feast or famine, and in recent years, famine has become much more prevalent. UK-based labour is more expensive, but it is also in short supply in many areas. In the north-east of Scotland, many men who would have gone in to the fishing industry have steadier, better-paid and safer jobs in the oil and gas industry. I urge the Minister to consider the issues that we are discussing and to work together with other relevant Departments and the devolved Administrations to look into these problems, and ensure that whatever has gone wrong is dealt with.

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

The hon. Gentleman mentions the introduction or the use of men from, in particular, the Philippines in the fishing industry. Surely one approach is for the Government to recognise their skills properly and allow them into the country with work visas. As the hon. Gentleman has pointed out, the indigenous labour in the fishing industry often moves on to jobs in other sectors, such as cable-laying in the North sea.

[Mr Doran]

I am not sure that that is the problem, because I know from previous involvement that part of the solution was to ensure that people who required transit visas—most of them are operating outside the 12-mile limit—obtained them, and a time limit was then put in place to ensure that the situation was not exploited. It is a serious, complex problem that requires proper consideration.

It is also worth pointing out that the industry will face new problems as we prepare for the possibility of a new common fisheries policy, with—we hope—much more local control and involvement. There could not be a better time to take a close look at the industry and help to shape it for the new challenges that it will face under a new CFP. At the same time, it would allow us to address the problems that have beset the industry for far too long—poor safety, illegal fishing and exploitation of foreign labour—and perhaps create an environment in which our young people can see opportunities for a good and stable career.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr MacNeil]

Does he eat fish?

[Mr Wright]

He does. The hon. Gentleman is quite right.

I want to concentrate on the concerns that fishermen in Hartlepool have about the future viability of their industry. My constituency has had a fishing industry for the best part of 800 years. Generations of Hartlepool families have farmed the seas, building up a knowledge of conditions, changes in stock levels and fish movements in the North sea that is second to none. As I think was said by the Chair of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Miss McIntosh), that combination of local knowledge—as opposed to top-down bureaucracy—should be used, alongside technology and empirical evidence, to inform fisheries policy.

Hartlepool’s fishing fleet largely comprises vessels of under 10 metres. Fishermen in my constituency are rightly concerned that developments over the past few years are making it even more difficult for them to make a living from the seas. Their concerns are predominantly based on two factors: the specific make-up of their industry, particularly in relation to ownership, and the common fisheries policy, which is hindering the long-term sustainability of a vibrant fishing fleet.

On the make-up of the industry, boats of under 10 metres—as I have said, they comprise virtually the whole fishing fleet in Hartlepool—make up about 75% of the total fleet in the UK, but they are allowed to catch only about 4% of the annual quota. The rest of the quota is given to a small handful of large organisations. As in other industries, such as banking and energy, the actions of larger producers and powerful vested interests are distorting the dynamics of the industry and undermining the ability of Hartlepool fishermen to remain viable. Overfishing of the seas was not caused by the under 10-metre fleet, but the small proportion of the quota allocated to them is having a hugely disproportionate impact.

Hartlepool fishermen play by the rules; they farm the seas sustainably and think of the long term, because their fathers, grandfathers and great grandfathers fished in the North sea before them and they want their sons and daughters, their grandsons and great grandsons to follow them and do the same. They do not want to undermine the industry or the chances of the next generation. None the less, the nature of the industry and the punitive share of the quota allocated to them mean that they are, at the moment, barely scraping a living.

The Minister—who, to his credit, understands the industry—has looked at the matter of increasing the allocation of quotas to the smaller vessels. I appreciate the immense challenges and difficulties of that. For example, how do we take quotas from organisations that may have a legal right to them? That is of huge significance to the fishing fleet in my constituency. On the back of what the Chairman of the Select Committee said in her contribution, I ask the Minister to outline his current thinking on how we will push forward this agenda.

The second element that concerns my fishermen is the commons fisheries policy, which naturally dominates any debate of this nature. From listening to the contributions so far in this debate, I think that there is consensus that there will be no long-term future for our fishing industry if the CFP system continues to be a top-down, bureaucratic, clumsy, blunt and inefficient tool. For a policy that is supposed to stem from a long-term, sustainable view based on scientific evidence, it is remarkably short term in its scope, having the annual rigmarole of quota setting, which does nothing to embed long-term thinking into the industry.

On the back of what has been said about regionalism, on which there again seems to be a consensus, I am interested in the Minister’s view on multi-year agreements in which quotas can be set within a broad framework for a three-year period. Does the Minister agree that that would provide more certainty for the industry rather than this current annual negotiating round, which does not provide a long-term and sustainable view for the industry? Would it not be best for the EU to provide that longer-term objective for the sustainability of our fish stocks while allowing the manner of implementation to be devised and then adapted wherever possible at a regional and local level? Should not that be done at a much more localised level? That would allow people who have strong local knowledge, such as the fishermen in Hartlepool, to take a more flexible and adaptable approach, which in turn would sustain the economics of the industry while being sensitive to the environment and future fish stocks.

--- Later in debate ---

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

I will try to keep my remarks brief. I see my five minutes not as a target to aim for but as the amount of time I have to get a number of issues out.

I want to pick up on a few issues relating to the west coast of Scotland, and particularly the Hebrides. My constituency is the longest in the UK, and it has a very large coastline. Prawn fisheries are very important, and we welcome next year’s 18% increase in the nephrop quota. We also welcome the management of effort, and we feel that the kilowatt-days should not be reduced. However, we are in favour of more effective stock conservation controls. The best method at the moment is controlling fishing days per month; at about 16 days, that has worked quite effectively since August, and it could perhaps rise to 18 days next summer. The 12-day plan for January seemed to be acceptable all round to my fishermen, and the approach has had a steadying effect for them as well as securing onshore jobs that depend on the fishing industry.

[Mrs McGuire]

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the shellfish stock that is fished off the Outer Hebrides—lobster, crab, langoustine and prawns—are among the best in Europe? However, there is no sustainable infrastructure to take them down to the mainland British market, and much of the catch from his islands goes to the Spanish market, which is causing uncertainty at the moment.

[Mr MacNeil]

The right hon. Lady is very well versed in the fisheries in my constituency, and I should tell Members that her son, Paul, fishes from my island and fishes very well, and has done so for a number of years. She makes an absolutely great point about the abundance and wealth of great food that comes from the west of the Hebrides. That is not properly appreciated in the UK, and that food often goes to markets in France and Spain.

At this point, I should point out that there is a big infrastructure behind that industry, and there are lorries transporting the shellfish. Tragically, about a month ago, a young man from my island, Michael MacNeil, who had taken shellfish to France, was killed coming back along the road from Bordeaux to Angoulême with his empty lorry. It was a very sad day for the island and for the wider fishing community, which he knew very well.

I would like to draw the Minister’s attention to the issue of non-targeted dogfish, or spurdog. I should probably declare an interest, because I fished it as a targeted species in 1995, so I am perhaps partly responsible for its ensuing difficulties. They regularly appear in the Minches every winter, and they are worth about £60 a box. Sometimes on a tour, a boat can dump up to 10 to 15 boxes of these good, healthy fish because there is no quota to land them. If the boat did not have to dump them, they could be worth about £600 to £900, which could give the boat a good extra margin. The fish could be sold as rock salmon, as they used to be in a number of places, rather than, unfortunately, ending up on the rocks. I hope I am not making that plea in vain, because in the past, I have raised the issue of haddock in a debate such as this.

[Andrew George]

The hon. Gentleman is aware, no doubt, that those fish are extremely slow-growing. They do not reach sexual maturity until their teens and there are two years of pregnancy. With a falling quota there is clearly a need to manage things with intelligence and skill. We need to be concentrating on much more selective gear, to avoid catching them as by-catch.

[Mr MacNeil]

The hon. Gentleman is correct, and fishermen do their best to avoid them, because they are a nuisance for them. However, it is heartbreaking to throw healthy fish back into the sea dead. We had a similar situation with haddock in the Minches during the cod recovery plan, a couple of years ago, which ironically meant haddock being dumped, reducing the amount going to market. Then demand was inevitably placed on cod, which was nonsensical. The good news was that after that period, and the resulting outcry, the haddock quota was increased by 200%. I look forward to similar action on dogfish. Landing it should be allowed, with the safeguard that it is non-targeted by-catch; the fish are being caught anyway. A distinction should be made between catch and landing, which often do not marry up, because of dumping and discounts. If we took a fuller approach we would be better off economically, and fish would go to people’s plates, rather than being dead at the bottom of the sea.

Another issue that has been raised in my community concerns some fishermen who want new boats. There are difficulties in making improvements in comfort and safety, but unless a vessel has a track record of fishing in a particular area they cannot get a boat. That is surely not sustainable in the long term. If that had been the policy in the 1920s we would still have people going out in sail boats. We are looking for basic common sense, so that things can change, and so that we can let communities be flexible and fishing fleets be renewed naturally over time.

The penultimate issue that my Hebridean fishing community of Na h-Eileanan an Iar would like me to raise is the introduction of a community quota for mackerel and herring, which swim in abundance in our waters. Originally herring were a staple of the Hebrides. There is a nice story of a Lewisman arriving a couple of centuries ago at university in Aberdeen. The lecturer brought him to the front of the lecture theatre and asked him to show his teeth to the then broken-toothed Aberdonians, and claimed that Donald had the teeth he did because he had been raised on herring and potatoes. Given that heritage, we would look for a quota of about 200 tonnes of each species to be locally managed for the local market and local consumption. The west coast herring quota is about 13,500 tonnes and the UK mackerel quota is 191,000 tonnes, and I do not think what I am asking for is unreasonable at all.

Communities should have a bigger stake. At the moment the UK pelagic sector is controlled by about 20 boats in Scotland, three in Northern Ireland and a small number in England. A healthy acquaintance with the culture of food is in danger of being lost. The issue is also about a sense of history, not to mention health, because the fish are rich in omega 3 oils. Two hundred tonnes is not an unreasonable amount to ask for, when we think of the amount of quota that there is. Also, we would need that much at £500 to £700 a tonne, because it would cost about £10,000 for a boat to be rigged out to be involved in a community pelagic quota. Such a step would demonstrate regional management at a local level, and would provide a crucial local say—as mentioned by the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith)—in the fisheries and the fish that swim abundantly around the Hebrides.

Finally, I ask that we treat with some disdain the ever-spawning bureaucratic output from the European Union, especially in connection with the sea. When ideas do not allow for consideration of economic impact, that surely explains much about why the EU is in its present situation. That is why we should, as the hon. Member for Luton North (Kelvin Hopkins) said, be well clear of the common fisheries policy.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Tom Harris (Glasgow South) (Lab)]

I welcome you to the Chair, Mr Brady. I did a double take when I saw you there. You look very different from at the start of the debate. I congratulate my hon. Friends the Members for Aberdeen North (Mr Doran) and for South Down (Ms Ritchie) on securing this debate. I add my voice to those who complained that this debate is not taking place on the Floor of the House, although the quality of debate today has been no less than in years gone by. I thank all hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber who have spoken eloquently and are well informed about the fishing communities they represent.

I take this opportunity to echo the words of hon. Members who paid tribute to the bravery of our fishermen and those who lost their lives in an incredibly difficult and dangerous line of work. The men and women who work out at sea and in our ports take huge risks, and too many of them and their families pay the ultimate price.

There is clear cross-party consensus that radical reform of the common fisheries policy is needed, and I take this opportunity to commend the Minister on his attempts this year and before that to take forward proposals that will be of great advantage to the industry and our marine environment. On this issue, he is—although I am reluctant to admit it—doing a difficult job well, and he has the support of the Opposition in his continued efforts to secure real reform. The Labour Government fought for fisheries reform in Europe, and we were committed to a radical reform programme in our last manifesto. For the absence of doubt, that is the one that was so enthusiastically endorsed by the electorate.

A collaborative approach to fisheries management will be particularly important in ongoing efforts to eliminate discards. Discarding is a symptom of the poor management and practice of the current common fisheries policy. It is wasteful, undermines the sustainability of fish stocks, distorts scientific evidence, and deeply affects and frustrates our fishermen. Throwing good fish back into the sea is simply squandering a valuable natural resource, and is nothing short of immoral. In some fisheries, up to 60% of catches are discarded. Clearly, that cannot be allowed to continue.

Catch quota trials were introduced in 2011 to reduce discards of North sea cod. Cod in the North sea is recovering, but not as fast as prescribed in the EU cod management plan, so a 20% cut in total allowable catch is likely to be implemented under provisions in the management plan. The Opposition believe that such a cut would be counter-productive. Any reduction in total allowable catch for one species such as cod in a mixed fishery such as the North sea is likely to increase discards. However, any support for the status quo must be matched by increased commitments to selective fishing practices so that cod mortality continues to decrease to meet the plan’s target.

Much has been said about common fisheries policy reform. I know that time is short, so I will move on quickly to discuss a couple of issues related indirectly to the CFP. The continued overfishing of north-eastern Atlantic mackerel is another issue that must be resolved. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Dr Whiteford) for her comments on the issue. The Opposition call on the UK and Scottish Governments to continue to defend the fishing rights of UK fleets.

Labour supports the EU’s plans to ban imports of mackerel and other fish from Iceland and the Faroe Islands. The western mackerel fishery has traditionally been one of the most sustainable and well-managed fisheries in Europe, and the refusal of those island nations to take part in any sensible negotiations cannot be tolerated. Unfortunately, sanctions cannot be ruled out. I do not want to disappoint my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Austin Mitchell), who is no longer in his seat, but he will always be assured a warm welcome in Scotland, despite his earlier comments. Although sanctions cannot be ruled out, we must rely on them only as a last resort that might not be avoidable.

We also want a rebalancing of the UK’s fishing quota system, to which a number of Members referred, particularly the hon. Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous). We believe that a radical overhaul of how fishing quotas are allocated within the UK is needed.

[Mr MacNeil]

Given the talk of sanctions against Iceland and the Faroe Islands, has any assessment been made of the price of fish to the householder if fish from those countries is excluded from the UK market?

[Mr Harris]

That is a perfectly valid concern. I am sure that the Government and the fisheries producer organisations have made those calculations, although I do not have access to that information. It must be considered if we are to go down that road, and I am sure that we all hope that that solution—if it is a solution—can be avoided.

Smaller inland fishing vessels make up three quarters of the UK’s fishing fleet and employ nearly two thirds of all full-time workers, but they are restricted from catching more than 4% of the UK fishing quota.

--- Later in debate ---

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

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Glasgow South (Mr Harris) for his words of support for our general direction, and I accept the challenge put to me by him and others to justify our approach to the many issues covered by hon. Members during this debate. I will try to address as many of them as I can, but I start by commending the hon. Members for Aberdeen North (Mr Doran) and for South Down (Ms Ritchie)—I look forward to hearing from the latter in a moment—on securing the debate. The attendance makes a good case for holding it in the main Chamber. We have had a lively debate, full of interesting and useful points.

I start, as numerous hon. Members have, by remembering the seven fishermen who have lost their lives this year while working at sea and in harbour. We must all remember the courage and sacrifice of fishermen, who put their lives in danger to provide us with the food we need. I know that the House will join me in remembering the bravery of our fishermen and the incredibly difficult and dangerous work that they do. I commend the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Dr Whiteford) on making the point about the fishermen in her constituency who acted so courageously.

Before I address some of the points that have been raised, in the short time that I have, I want to set the context of where we are with the common fisheries policy and the December round. I am encouraged that we secured agreement on key areas through the general approach agreed at the Council of Fisheries Ministers in June this year. This time last year in the fisheries debate, I did not share the optimism that that could be achieved, but I am very glad that we did achieve it.

Those key areas include ambitious deadlines to eliminate discards, with provisions that will secure a workable result and a sustainable solution for the fishing industry. The commitment to implement a landing obligation, with a provisional timetable, is a major step in the right direction. The UK has been leading the way in Europe, trialling schemes that tackle discards through managing fisheries based on what is caught, not what is landed. Pilots of fully documented fisheries have been very effective in reducing discards. Following the success of the pilots to date, the UK is seeking to continue the North sea cod scheme and the schemes in the western waters, and we wish to develop new schemes for plaice, haddock and saithe in the North sea. That will help us prepare for obligations to land all catches under a reformed common fisheries policy.

The general approach is also an important first step on the way to decentralising decision making and the current complex regulations. I look forward to giving more details of that as I address some of the points that have been raised, but the UK has taken a lead role in advocating regionalisation. We have been working with other member states, the European Parliament and the European Commission to build support for workable solutions. It is clear that proposals must enable nations fishing in the same sea area, often for the same fish, to come together and agree how best to manage their fisheries without the type of micro-management from Brussels that has been so roundly condemned today. We will continue to make the case for fundamental reform as discussions take place in the European Parliament next year.

It is with those longer-term goals in mind that I will go into discussions at the December Council, where fishing opportunities for 2013 will be decided. I will negotiate for a fair and balanced package of fishing opportunities. Fundamentally, I want quotas set on scientific evidence to ensure that we can achieve sustainable levels of fishing by 2015 where possible, while ensuring that discards are reduced.

At this point, I want to comment on cod. A recent report in a Sunday newspaper, which should have known better, said that there were only 100 adult cod left in the North sea. At some point later, they had the grace to print a correction, but the correct figure, as scientists in the Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science and officials in my Department had been trying to explain to the journalist over the previous week, is 21 million adult cod in the North sea. It was a misrepresentation, and a failure in accuracy of reporting by a factor of 20,999,900, which must go down somewhere in the record books. One million tonnes of cod will be caught this year in the Barents sea and off north Norway. Cod is not a rare animal, but we have an important job to do to get it back to the levels that I know we can through proper management, and I will come on to the failures of the cod recovery plan later.

The UK, as a priority, will be seeking a way to ensure that days at sea remain at 2012 levels into 2013. We see that as vital to the recovery of cod stocks and to maintaining the viability of the UK fishing fleet. Those are two similar priorities for us. Everyone agrees that further cuts in days at sea cannot be justified, and they are being contemplated only as a result of the flawed cod recovery plan. Parallel to that is the Commission’s proposal for a 20% cut in North sea cod total allowable catch, even though the stock is growing and that cut would only lead to increased discards. The UK will be arguing strongly against both those cuts.

As we speak, the annual negotiations between the EU and Norway are ongoing in Bergen. They are always of vital importance to the UK, with jointly managed stocks such as North sea cod, whiting and haddock making up around 50% of the UK’s catch by value. It is therefore very important that we secure a good outcome from this year’s negotiation.

I share hon. Members’ concerns about the continued lack of agreement on the management of the north-east Atlantic mackerel stock, which is the UK’s most important single fishery by value, worth around £200 million a year to the UK economy. The continued behaviour of the Faroe Islands and Iceland in fishing far in excess of their historical catch levels seriously risks the future sustainability of the fishery. It is essential that we reach a sharing arrangement quickly but that we do not agree to a deal at any costs. I am pleased that the EU sanctions regulation has now been published, as it provides the EU with much-needed powers to take action against countries threatening the health of our fish stocks.

I turn to some points that hon. Members have raised in this excellent debate. The hon. Member for Aberdeen North made the point that fish stocks are generally rising, and we need to show our appreciation for the efforts of fishermen who are taking initiatives with the support of Governments in the UK to ensure that the systems they use to catch fish are sustainable.

The hon. Gentleman raised a serious concern that we, too, have about institutional arguments in Brussels, and the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan also made that point. I agree with the Scottish Fishermen’s Federation and the National Federation of Fishermen’s Organisations that we do not want cod, the cod recovery plan, or fishing stocks in UK waters to be used as a totemic issue in a struggle between EU institutions. They are too important for that. We are talking about the sustainability of a stock that we want to recover, and about the livelihoods of fishermen and those onshore who support them. I can assure the hon. Member for Aberdeen North that I am standing side by side with Norway, and I met the Norwegian Minister yesterday on the issue of mackerel. I also recognise the point that the hon. Gentleman made—as other hon. Members did, including my hon. Friends the Members for Thirsk and Malton (Miss McIntosh) and for South Thanet (Laura Sandys) and the hon. Members for Hartlepool (Mr Wright) and for Glasgow South—about who owns quota. Who has fishing opportunity is a much better way of putting it, because I entirely agree with the points that were made that our fishing opportunity is a national resource. I assure hon. Members that we will be working extremely hard through next year and will deliver—I hope by this time next year—the details that people want to know about who has access to that national resource.

I appreciate the points raised by the hon. Member for Aberdeen North about safety, which is a major concern. In addition to the tragic deaths that we have recognised, there are still too many injuries on fishing vessels. I also understand the points that he made about migrant labour. I do not have time to go into that now, but I am keen to take it up with him.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton—and Filey—for what she said. Yes, we can get bedevilled by process, but we must keep our eye on what we are trying to achieve. I, too, welcome the fact that shellfish stocks around the UK have recently been given a thumbs-up by science and are in a healthy condition. I hope that more fishermen in her constituency and elsewhere are able to exploit that valuable stock and help our balance of payments, as well as our national diet.

The question of regionalisation was raised not only by my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton but by my hon. Friends the Members for Brecon and Radnorshire (Roger Williams), for South East Cornwall (Sheryll Murray), for Waveney (Peter Aldous) and for St Ives (Andrew George) and the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Austin Mitchell), among others. Whether or not we are in the CFP—there has been some discussion about that—I strongly believe that we will always have to work with other countries on the management of our seas. We have to manage our oceans on an ecosystem basis, which means discussing them with all the countries that fish that sea basin. If we do not, we risk seeing stocks crash, because countries will exploit—within their 200-mile limit, their 12-mile limit, or wherever it is—a fish that may be there for a certain time in the life cycle but spawns elsewhere. That is why regionalisation is so important.

[Mr MacNeil]

Will the Minister give way?

[Richard Benyon]

I apologise to the hon. Gentleman, but I have a lot to get through. If I have time towards the end, I will give way.

Regionalisation should not mean a shift in power to the Commission, which was where we were before June. If all members in the sea basin area had not agreed, the Commission would have had greater powers to impose technical measures and I would still be sitting at 4 o’clock in the morning talking to an EU official about where an eliminator panel should sit in a net going out of Peterhead. That would be lunacy. We managed to change that to ensure that there will be co-decision if disagreement exists. I hope that when there is agreement, we can move forward and fishermen and local fisheries management will be at the heart of decision making.

I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for raising the issue of nephrops. I can confirm that at least a roll-over for nephrops in the Irish sea will be an important priority for us, and we will argue on the basis of sustainability.

My hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall talks so much sense about fishing. I say to her and to my hon. Friend the Member for St Ives, who also talks sense, that the MMO has taken no decision on mackerel handline. That matter will be resolved after the December Council, but I can assure hon. Members that I understand the importance of that to the south-west fishery.

A lot of discussion has taken place about MPAs. Without the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009, we would meet our 2016 target of having 25% of our inshore waters in properly managed marine protected areas, but as we roll out marine conservation zones under the Act, which will be thoughtful and ecologically coherent, Ministers will be able to consider the socio-economic factors of the impact that they will have. I know that that is of concern to the hon. Member for Great Grimsby, my hon. Friends the Members for Hendon (Dr Offord) and for Totnes (Dr Wollaston) and others.

The hon. Member for Hartlepool made a good speech. I pass on my congratulations to his father on his birthday. The hon. Gentleman spoke about under-10 metre vessels, which are very important. Domestically, addressing the challenges facing the English under-10 metre fleet remains a key priority. Delivering effective change will not be easy, and there are some really difficult decisions. Hon. Members have alluded to disputes that may or may not exist and may or may not be resolved outside the courts. However, I assure the hon. Member for Hartlepool and others that my concern for the under-10 metre sector remains. I know that in some cases that fleet is hanging on by its fingernails. I have secured some extra quota for it, and we have the pilot in Ramsgate—I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet for her efforts to secure that. There are seven vessels in it. That is not as many as I would have hoped, and there are a variety of reasons why we did not get more. However, I want to learn from that pilot and ensure that we provide support.

Through the CFP reform, we need to address a number of different things. The hon. Member for Hartlepool raised the issue of multi-annual plans, which I believe are very important. My hon. Friend the Member for Hendon said that he wanted to take politicians out of fisheries management. We will never quite do that, but I am entirely behind him, and multi-annual plans are one way of doing that. The absurd charade that I have to go through every December is an act of politics. Some Ministers use it as a form of patronage. Multi-annual plans based on pure science are in the interests of fishermen and the marine environment. They are a much better way to make progress. They take power away from the malign activities of some politicians. I can assure hon. Members that we argue our case on the basis of science and sustainability. That long-term view is right for the fishing industry.

My hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Eric Ollerenshaw), the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan and my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney made very powerful speeches. I assure them that I want to see under-10 metre vessels empowered by an organisation. We are supporting them as best we can to ensure that a producer organisation, which is the right way forward, does go ahead.

I want to address quickly my hon. Friend the Member for Meon Valley (George Hollingbery) and say how much I regret that I cannot attend his conference on Monday. I want to get across, with all the vehemence at my disposal, the point that the draft Water Bill has a purpose, but what was in the water White Paper sets out clearly where we can get to. Legislation is not always the best way of delivering things, although we will need legislation to deal with over-abstraction, as there are 22,000 abstraction licences. I am quite optimistic about chalk streams. I think that we can get to where we need to be. I hope that the meeting on Monday is not channelled into a view that one piece of legislation is all that is needed to solve all our problems. We are dealing with over-abstraction now. We are implementing the water White Paper and we can, over the next few years, resolve many of the issues that he raises.

I have run out of time. Many other valid points were made by hon. Members who mind passionately about this issue, whether they come, like me, from a place that is about as far from the sea as it is possible to get in this country or whether they represent coastal communities. I can assure them that the value of this debate was in enabling these issues to be raised and in enabling me to say that my door is always open for these issues to be raised on behalf of them and their constituents. We will get the best deal that we can in December, based on a desire to see sustainable fisheries in the future.

[Ms Margaret Ritchie (South Down) (SDLP)]

I am pleased to speak under your chairmanship, Mr Brady. I am also delighted that the Minister is present, along with my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South (Mr Harris), the shadow Minister for fisheries.

I am delighted to have helped to secure the debate, along with my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen North (Mr Doran). We can see just how important it was, following the very powerful and compelling arguments that have been made today. It was an excellent debate. A wide range of issues was raised, including regionalisation and nephrops. I welcome the fact that the Minister will exert his good influence at the negotiations to ensure that it is possible to get a roll-over for nephrops in the Irish sea. We raised the issues of the cod recovery plan, the exploitation of migrants, the quota holders, and health and safety—that is one of the most important things. It is important that we pay tribute to the bravery and courage of our fishermen, because there is a great element of risk in that profession and often the ordinary men and women on the street do not necessarily recognise that when they order fish in a restaurant or cook it in their kitchen. They do not think of the work and effort that have been invested and the risk that has been involved in providing the product that they buy in the supermarkets.

We have talked about the economics of the industry and the argument in relation to science and sustainability. We all believe that there need to be sustainable fisheries. There is the issue of discards. We talked about the very blunt instrument that the common fisheries policy is—how it is a top-down approach and we are looking for regionalisation and a bottom-up approach. As a Member of Parliament representing two fishing ports, Ardglass and Kilkeel, whose fishermen fish in the Irish sea, I believe that it is important that local people are part of the advisory council, along with those from the Republic of Ireland and the west of Scotland, who also fish in the Irish sea, because that local knowledge can bring considerable influence to bear on the future shape and management of that fishery. I would like to think that greater influence would be brought to bear at the level of the European Council of Ministers to ensure that there was understanding of the value and benefit of that.

[Mr MacNeil]

The hon. Lady mentions the EU’s top-down approach to fisheries management. It takes no account—or never seems to take account—of the different types of fish, whether they be migratory fish, non-migratory fish or straddling stocks. It takes the same approach to each type of fish, which is probably part of the nub of the problem with the common fisheries policy. The fact that we have these types of fish is why we can have real-time closures for some areas and for particular species, but not for all species.

Common Fisheries Policy

Angus Brendan MacNeil Excerpts

Thursday 15th March 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Doran]

There are many ways in which we could resolve the problem, but the starting point is to shed a little light on the system and to see what is happening. That is extremely important.

One area that the report does not cover, but which I should like to say a word or two about, is black fishing. I have had brief conservations with the Minister about it, and I have mentioned to him twice now, once on the Floor of the House and once in private, that I want to have a meeting with him and will write to him, and I am in the process of gathering material for our discussion.

We are working on the assumption that the whole issue of black fish is not a problem any more, but I am not sure that that is correct. Everyone in the Chamber will be aware that there have been some serious criminal cases—they were not trials, because everyone pleaded guilty—in the Scottish courts in which a number of fishermen and fish processors have been found guilty of serious offences.

We are talking about tens of millions of pounds, and everyone I know in the fishing industry, no matter at what level they are, knows that the figures that have been quoted, and which were prominent in the individual trials, are just the tip of the iceberg. It was a much more serious issue. I shall not say much more than that, because, although a number of cases been dealt with, one more has still to be dealt with and will be in court later this month.

From the information that we have so far on the way in which the system operated, it is apparent that a very sophisticated process was under way. Skippers falsified their log books as they landed their catches, lying about how much fish was on board. Weighing scales at the factory were rigged. I am told that at a factory at the centre of one case there were two computer systems—one computer, recording a false weight, was visible to the regulators, and the other one was in the loft recording the true weight. There was separate pumping equipment on the quay, with the legitimate fish to be declared sent through one system and the black fish sent through another. I am talking about pelagic fish; I should have emphasised that. Exactly the same thing has been happening in the white fish industry.

The situation has not yet been dealt with, and it might not be, because the trials may have been just for effect, to try to focus on the problem and make sure that it was properly killed. A police officer who made a statement at one of the trials said that there is an assumption that nobody is a victim in these cases except our fish stocks. In fact, there have been a large number of victims, most of whom are in the fish processing industry.

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

I do not know much about what the hon. Gentleman is talking about as regards white fish, but could there be a difference in the case of the pelagic stocks, given that any black fish in a white fish area could be non-discarded fish that people are planning to land rather than dump?

[Mr Doran]

No. The operation was much more systematic and organised, and on a much bigger scale, than that. This did not happen by accident; it was not by-catch.

--- Later in debate ---

[Austin Mitchell]

It is certainly the way forward, as I shall argue. We need the 10-year approach and the regional basis that the hon. Gentleman suggests. We probably have to accept that the Commission will set the standards and objectives up there in the stratosphere in Brussels, but we must hand management—including the technical measures, the timetables and implementation of the decisions taken in Brussels, and what kind of quotas are used—to the regional advisory councils, which are far better at handling it and can do so in consultation with fishermen—the stakeholders in the industry. The regional advisory councils can also work with the scientists, bringing them together with the fishermen. That is the basis of management, and that is what the Minister has to fight for. Bringing all the stakeholders in is effectively what the Committee recommends.

Decision making on these matters should be brought down from Brussels. Unfortunately, the Commission is proposing not only to maintain the old control system, but that it should have co-decision-making powers with the Parliament, which is potentially disastrous.

[Mr MacNeil]

Is not one of the problems that the template of the common fisheries policy will continue? Rather than the fishermen feeling contempt towards Europe, they will feel contempt towards the regional bodies. What we need to do is look at other jurisdictions, such as the Faroe Islands, that have days at sea and area closures, accompanied by a zero discard policy because fishing has been moved out of an area. The template needs to change.

[Austin Mitchell]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman—that is what we have to do and what we could operate regionally if we got the powers to do so. That is the way that we have to go, but if co-decision making is handed to the European Parliament, politics will be involved again. I can imagine the Spanish MEPs will fight vigorously for their industry in a way that the English MEPs are not conditioned to do.

I imagine, too, that the conservationists will have a much louder voice than the fishermen, because there are no fishermen in the European Parliament but there are lots of conservationists. Although some of my best friends are conservationists, their interests are not necessarily those of the commercial fishing industry. Conservationists are also over-alarmist about stocks, and on the basis of panic about stocks, they propose measures that will never work. It is vital that we separate policy and implementation. Implementation should go down to the RACs and policy stay in Brussels.

--- Later in debate ---

[Amber Rudd]

I agree entirely. Local organisations and local communities are coming up with their own solutions, which is absolutely to be recommended. It also points the way even more to what we have been hearing this afternoon, which is that we should have regional solutions, so that although we will allow a common fisheries policy to exercise overall control, we want regional solutions, selected within Governments.

[Mr MacNeil]

I am sure that the hon. Lady is aware that there is a zero-discard fishery quite close to UK waters, off the Faroe Islands. The boats go and fish, the area is closed, and they move on. The common fisheries policy is a manifestation of the obtuseness of European policy. Europe cannot move quickly to a working solution that is already being used off the north-west of the UK. A discard is only a bureaucratic label for a fish that cannot be landed, owing to other problems created by that very mechanism. The way out is already in existence. However, I have been in this place for seven years and I have attended many of these debates, and we face the same problem all the time. We cannot move the obtuse juggernaut that is the common fisheries policy—end of story. We are stuck.

[Amber Rudd]

I am not really familiar with the context of fishing off the Faroe Islands, but I am sure that the Minister is and that he will throw some light on the issue.

I return, however, to the main issue I have with discards, which is that that they are, I believe, down to the quota system being allocated for particular fish stocks, rather than for what we actually have, which is mixed fisheries. In part, that is an indication that we have a major problem with the fishing industry. I am entirely sympathetic—I know that many other Members here are too, as are those on our Committee—when it comes to the difficult pass that the Minister has been given. He has to find a difficult balance between the different interests in the fishing industry.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Whiteford]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me the opportunity to take up the comments made by the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Mr Doran). I know that the hon. Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner) was not present to hear that speech, but it dealt extensively with such problems.

Obviously I cannot discuss the situation while criminal proceedings are taking place, but the fact that the police launched such a successful investigation into the criminality that was taking place has taught us the lesson that we cannot take our eye off the ball in terms of our own compliance. However, we must ensure that criminality is not also symptomatic of people’s loss of confidence in the system. We should bear in mind that otherwise law-abiding people resort to it because they do not believe that the system is working.

I was glad that the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton referred to aquaculture. Because of the crisis in the sea fisheries sector, it is often not given the attention that it deserves. I am concerned about by the Commission’s proposal for multiannual national strategic plans, and, buried in there somewhere, the rather bizarre suggestion that there should be a regional advisory council for aquaculture.

I believe that Scotland is the largest producer of Atlantic salmon in the EU, and the third largest producer in the world. In 2010 we produced 154,000 tonnes of salmon, worth more than half a billion pounds at farm gate prices, which represents more than a third of Scotland’s food exports. We also export substantial amounts of shellfish including mussels, oysters and scallops, and other species such as trout and halibut. The rapid growth of the sector at a time when the rest of the economy has been stagnant has been very encouraging. It is a success story for job creation and for economic growth, including growth in remote rural communities that do not have much else going for them. I see no benefit whatsoever in imposing a new layer of European regulation and bureaucracy on that sector, and I expect a great many risks to be posed to it if we go down that road.

I have a particular constituency interest. Although Banff and Buchan is often thought of as being at the heart of the fishing industry, it is also a major centre for fish processing. The factories in the north-east process large amounts of farmed fish, and at a time when the sea fisheries are so unstable and uncertain and can fluctuate so much, the farmed fish sector has a hugely stabilising effect on the viability of the processing sector. An increase in political interference in the aquaculture sector from Brussels—or from anywhere else—would not be in anyone’s interests. We must not try to mend successful businesses that are not broken.

There is no consensus across the UK about transferable quotas—or individual transferable concessions as they are now being called. I welcome the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee’s remarks about the problems the ITCs cause for the under-10 metre fleet. Those problems are not confined to that fleet, however. Other communities will also be affected, including some in my constituency.

The real issue is that most of the fishing industry in Scotland still involves family-owned vessels that maintain a strong link to a local port. They are at the heart of communities, and I do not want those communities to be bought out by large multinational fishing conglomerates.

[Mr MacNeil]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the ITCs are a gift for speculators and that we would be bemoaning them in five or 10 years’ time?

[Dr Whiteford]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right.

My real fear is that any safeguards we put in place to protect the economic link between the quota and the community or the member state will not be robust enough to withstand the law. I suspect that they will be open to legal challenge, and that we will quickly find that our fishing communities become tradeable commodities. That would be a death blow to communities that are heavily dependent on fishing, and where there have historically been strong family and community ties at the heart of the industry.

I make this plea to the Minister, therefore: any system of quotas must not be mandatory. I would like an assurance from him on that. We must introduce a workable system that does not make such quotas mandatory.

I want to conclude by talking about the objective of social and economic sustainability. Stating that in the legislation would mark a huge step forward; it would make it clear that we want the sustainable development of our coastal communities. That recommendation in the Committee report is important, and I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton for putting it there. That move would change the whole terms of how we discuss fisheries in Europe. It would make it clear that the subject is about not only the fish in the sea, but the people who live in harmony with the ecosystem in our coastal communities, and who have done so for centuries. I urge the Minister to push for that at the European level, and, as always, I wish him well in the ongoing negotiations.

--- Later in debate ---

[Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)]

First, I apologise to the House because I was introducing a debate in Westminster Hall at the beginning of the debate and was therefore unable to listen to the remarks of the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Miss McIntosh), who chairs the Select Committee. I pay tribute to her for the report. I also pay tribute to the Minister, who has worked assiduously on these matters. I know that he is trying to get a very reasonable voice heard in Europe, where Commissioner Damanaki is doing a wonderful job, but is meeting rather large obstacles along the way.

Decades of intensive fishing in European waters have led to dramatic declines in once-abundant fish populations. It is estimated that 88% of all the assessed fish stocks are over-exploited and that almost a third of all assessed stocks are being fished beyond safe biological limits, threatening their very future. Of the stocks for which a scientific assessment is available, 60% of north Atlantic stocks and 40% of Mediterranean stocks are currently outside safe biological limits. Continuous over-fishing has resulted in less productive fisheries and a gradual loss of jobs and livelihoods. Words such as overfishing, discarding, habitat destruction, unemployment and subsidy dependence characterise EU fisheries. However, we have a unique opportunity, with the reform of the common fisheries policy, to rectify some of those failures.

At the heart of the motion is the demand that CFP reforms should adopt greater regional ecosystem-based management, but if such management is to succeed, it must recognise and respect the commercial interests of fishing communities. Ecological sustainability must go hand in hand with economic sustainability. The New Economics Foundation recently published a report that concluded that more than €3 billion is lost every year due to over-fishing. That money could support an extra 100,000 jobs in the industry. When fish stocks are mismanaged, fishers, their communities and the whole economy suffer.

Some people misinterpret ecosystem-management as putting the benefit of fish before that of fishers, but without sustainable fish stocks there is no fishing industry. The history of our coastal areas sadly bears witness to that, as fishing communities from Stonehaven to Newcastle and from Grimsby to Cornwall have declined over the past century and a half. It is always comfortable for Members of Parliament to support small fishing communities, particularly those in their constituency, but we should also have the courage to point out that the demise of fishing communities is the result of their parents and grandparents’ over-fishing.

The ecosystem-based approach is fundamental to sustainable environmental management. It establishes a strategy for the management and sustainable use of natural resources by considering them in the context of their role in the entire ecosystem. The current CFP and the EU marine strategy framework directive already commit the EU in principle to that approach. Indeed, the CFP was significantly reformed in 2002 with a view to implementing the principles of ecosystem-based management. The tragedy is that that has not been reflected in practice. True ecosystem-based fisheries management would require systemic reform through the introduction of a regionalised management framework. A regionalised management system within Europe would divide EU fisheries into management regions according to ecosystems rather than nations. Unfortunately, fish do not carry passports and do not know when they are travelling from one nation’s waters into another’s, so we must look at ecosystems and not simply national boundaries.

[Mr MacNeil]

When the hon. Gentleman talks about ecosystems, is he talking about migratory stocks, non-migratory stocks or straddling stocks? What sorts of stocks does he mean?

[Barry Gardiner]

Let me give the hon. Gentleman a good example: the Baltic ecosystem and the surrounding countries engaged in its regional management structure. He will know that in recent years east Baltic cod had gone into sharp decline. As a result of the regionally based management structure in the Baltic, those countries agreed, on the advice of the regional fisheries management organisation, to halt the catching of east Baltic cod. After putting that moratorium in place, they then allowed an increase each year of only 15%, which was actually below the fishing maximum sustainable yield; if they had had FMSY the biomass of the stock would actually have recovered less quickly. They put that moratorium in place on a regional basis and in accordance with the ecosystem, and those stocks have now recovered to a level that has far surpassed what they were and what they would have been had those countries opted for FMSY: the stocks have actually achieved biomass MSY.

[Mr MacNeil]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way again and allowing the debate to continue. Does he not see that one stock’s ecosystem is not the same as another’s? When he moved to ecosystem management he would start to have a geographical impact and to impose geographical limits on that, and very quickly he would go down the slippery slope with the common fisheries policy, which at the moment is an utter mess.

[Barry Gardiner]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Ms Margaret Ritchie (South Down) (SDLP)]

I commend the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Miss McIntosh) and the Backbench Business Committee for facilitating this debate. I recently became a member of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee and I commend it for its report and for the motion.

I pay tribute to the Minister, who visited my constituency some weeks ago. In particular, he visited the fishing port of Kilkeel and saw at first hand the good work that is being undertaken by the fishermen, the fish producers’ organisations and those involved in fish processing. He will also have witnessed and heard about the problems faced by the fishermen and the fish producers’ organisations, such as the cabling in the Irish sea and the potential for wind farms, to which the hon. Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Eric Ollerenshaw) referred. The fish producers’ organisations are actually working with the Crown Estate to ensure that there is no interference in the fishing effort and that there is a future livelihood for the fishermen of the County Down ports.

Other issues confront the County Down fishermen, such as reduced fishing effort, the closure of the Irish sea at certain times and quota restrictions. Those issues all impact on their livelihood and on the onshore fish processing industries. However, I assure hon. Members that those fishermen and the local fish producers’ organisations possess an indomitable spirit, despite all the problems that they face.

There is a consensus among environmental campaigners, politicians and those who work in our fishing industries that the common fisheries policy is in need of serious and drastic reform. We have an opportunity to make that reform and it is vital that we create a viable, economically productive and sustainable fishing industry in our waters. Nobody disagrees with that, although people’s emphasis may differ. It is clear that the existing Brussels-based regime has severely damaged the industry and has not delivered a sustainable and environmentally sound fisheries market.

At the root of the problems with the common fisheries policy are the single species fishing quotas, which are often rigidly enforced, but are supported by the flimsiest scientific data. It is more than likely that we will find ourselves having the same argument, and probably the same problems, with the concept of the maximum sustainable yield. Fish species do not exist in a vacuum. They inhabit an ecosystem, and surely they should be managed on that basis. We must take into account the fact that most fisheries are mixed, and an approach must be taken of close co-operation with those who work on our waterways and throughout the industry on a daily basis.

It is sometimes suggested or implied that fishermen do not have much regard for sustainability, but of course they do. Nobody has more knowledge of, or as much at stake in, the sustainable management of our waters. Indeed, the Minister was fortunate enough to see that during his recent visit to Kilkeel.

As we have heard, the rigid and inflexible single species quotas that are set on dry land are unresponsive to the requirements of the marine environment and those who earn their living from it. That is most strikingly problematic in the case of Irish sea cod, and I urge the Minister to focus his attention on it. We must seek solutions to the problems that the fishing industry faces with that stock. The current measures rely heavily on the single easily obtainable metric of fish mortality, which has not proved a realistic indicator of overall species levels and mortality. It is essential that the Minister work with the fishing industry, his colleagues in the Northern Ireland Executive and the Irish Government to ensure that we navigate our way out of that problem in the Irish sea.

Many of the problems are said to be related to an over-reliance on particular stock such as cod, but we must realise that the fishing industry partly responds to demand rather than simply creating it. Thankfully, there have been encouraging trends suggesting that consumers and retailers are beginning to respond to sustainability measures, with certified retailers stocking 41% more certified products last year and a corresponding sales increase, according to the Marine Stewardship Council. However, there clearly remains much work to be done to create a broader base of fish species that underpin and drive the market.

I turn to the vexatious issue of discards. Nobody disagrees that we need to reduce and, I suppose, eliminate them, but the question is how we do that. When we do it is also important. A high proportion of discards are what I would call legislative discards—those that are brought about by an inefficient policy regime and inflexible quotas. When the Minister visited Kilkeel, he saw at first hand the progress that the local fish producers’ organisation had made in its attempt to deal with the issue of discards. My constituents have been particularly innovative in trying to address the problem.

[Mr MacNeil]

I imagine that before there was a common fisheries policy, there were in effect no discards at all. That underlines the hon. Lady’s argument that the problem of discards is a creation of the CFP.

[Ms Ritchie]

I thank the hon. Gentleman, and I agree that the problems of sustainable yield, discards and the need for regionalisation all derive from the problems presented by the common fisheries policy. All the Members who have spoken have mentioned those problems. Any effective measure must respond to those who fish in our waters, because for a fisherman nothing goes against the grain more than wasting perfectly good fish. We must acknowledge the good work that has already been done.

--- Later in debate ---

[Oliver Colvile (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Miss McIntosh) on securing the debate, and add my tribute to her. I have known her for 30 years since she worked for the European Democratic group in the European Parliament. She has retained her interest, vision and energy in a very big way.

As many hon. Members will be aware, I represent a constituency that has one of the principal fishing ports in the south-west—it is second only to Brixham, which is in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston). The port has been significantly affected by the former and late Prime Minister Edward Heath’s disastrous decision to hand over fishing waters to the Common Market as part of those 1972 negotiations. The arguments at that time were that European fishing waters should not be owned by one country, but be considered as a common European resource. That approach has been far too isolationist and protectionist, and has failed to take fully into account the impact that other parts of the world, and specifically the Antarctic, have on the Atlantic ocean’s fishing grounds.

In just a few days’ time, on 29 March—coincidentally the birthday of the former Conservative Prime Minister, the right hon. John Major—we will commemorate at St Paul’s cathedral the centenary of the deaths of Captain Robert Falcon Scott and his companions on the ice during the ill-fated Terra Nova expedition. Just days earlier, Her Royal Highness the Princess Royal will come to Plymouth, around the corner from where Scott himself lived, to rededicate a memorial that represents courage supported by devotion and crowned by immortality, with fear, death and despair trampled underfoot. That is a very good approach. At the base of the memorial is an inscription from Tennyson’s “Ulysses”:

“To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.”

Those are very fine words.

I was delighted that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister was able to pay a private visit to the Scott memorial when he recently came to Plymouth to meet 3 Commando Brigade. I am very grateful that he has taken such a keen interest in this son of Plymouth.

While until recently Scott was considered by some as a failed British hero who lost a race to the south pole to Amundsen, the Norwegian explorer, he is now recognised by many as the father of maritime and scientific research, and 29 March will be a very proud day for all of us who revere this great British hero. The legacy of his research and that of the British Antarctic Survey, based in Cambridge, shows us very clearly the impact that climate change is having on the world’s seas and fishing stocks.

During a recent visit to the British Antarctic Survey, I learned how it is extracting 800,000 years of ice. Its analysis of the captured air bubbles allows it to estimate the atmospheric composition and the temperature of the planet over those 800,000 years. While for much of this time there has not been much change in the global climate, there has been significant change since industrialisation began some 300 years ago. The BAS explained how plankton—a staple diet for many of our fish and which can be found in the Antarctic—are in much shorter supply and, combined with over-fishing, could have a significant impact on our fishing stocks.

Just last month, my hon. Friend the Minister and I visited Plymouth marine laboratories on the Hoe. Staff there confirmed that climate change is responsible for changes in our fisheries. They noted that European anchovy and sardine—southern, warm-water species—can now be seen in the North and Baltic seas after about 40 years of absence. They believe that the dynamics of the Atlantic’s fishing stocks are strongly affected by the atmospheric conditions of all the seas throughout the world. They confirmed that half of European fishing stocks are in trouble and that there has to be better international co-operation, especially where UK waters overlap with France, Holland and Ireland.

As my hon. Friend the Minister knows, I personally continue to be a strong advocate for bringing the 200-mile UK fishing waters back under UK control, and I would be grateful if he could indicate where this suggestion has got to in his discussions with other European Fisheries Ministers.

[Mr MacNeil]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Oliver Colvile]

With great trepidation, yes.

[Mr MacNeil]

The hon. Gentleman need feel no trepidation. It has been acknowledged in common fisheries policy documents that the successful area for a fishery under national control is up to 12 miles. In the event of a possible failure by the Minister to bring back a 200-mile limit as the hon. Gentleman wants, perhaps we should look to extend the 12 miles to 199 miles, thereby leaving the area of the common fisheries policy between 199 miles and 200 miles.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Mary Glindon (North Tyneside) (Lab)]

It is an honour to follow the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Oliver Colvile) and to hear about the historical links to modern fishing. I also thank the Backbench Business Committee and the Chair of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Miss McIntosh), for securing this debate. It is a pleasure to serve under a Chair with so much knowledge of EFRA issues and the huge enthusiasm to match it. It rubs off on all Committee members.

It was extremely useful and informative to take part in the Committee’s visits to Hastings and Denmark, particularly to speak with the fishermen at the heart of the industry. I was truly amazed by their patience, perseverance and resilience in working with the common fisheries policy as it is now. It was a humbling experience to meet those people. My one regret was visiting the fish-gutting factory. As one of the queasiest people on this planet and despite having a heavily perfumed handkerchief, I can smell it in my nostrils to this day.

[Mr MacNeil]

I hear the hon. Lady’s criticism of the work she had to undertake, but perhaps I could make a suggestion and possibly a criticism. In researching the report, it might have been worth visiting areas and jurisdictions outside the EU perhaps running more successful fisheries policy. Perhaps the Committee could do that if another report is required. It could do some useful work visiting Iceland, the Faroe Islands and Norway, for instance, and produce another report for us next year perhaps.

[Mrs Glindon]

Discussion of that might fall within the jurisdiction of the Committee at a later date.

I spoke when the House debated the CFP last November. The fish quay at the port of North Shields had a thriving industry when I was a child. Like the hon. Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Eric Ollerenshaw), I, too, have seen the industry diminish slowly over the years, and it is now a shadow of what it once was. In that debate, I raised issues from the point of view of the Northumberland Inshore Fisheries and Conservation Authority. I will now relate those observations to some of the conclusions and recommendations in the Committee’s report.

NIFCA knows, from local experience, that achieving the vision and reform of the CFP has practical limitations, and it is clear that local factors need to be taken into account. The area covered by NIFCA stretches from the Scottish borders down to the Tyne, and is a mixed-fishery area, so achieving maximum sustainable yield by 2015 would be unrealistic. Having a more flexible date would therefore be a great help to our fishing industry. The recommendation in the Committee’s report to adopt the less rigid time scale of 2020 is therefore welcome and supports NIFCA’s view.

NIFCA also feels that achieving maximum sustainable yield would be crucial to determining multi-annual plans, but that the ambitious target date of 2015 could create the danger of unnecessary fishery closures. The emphasis should be on local measures to ensure sustainable and viable fisheries. Some such measures are deployed in our area now.

Like many colleagues in the Chamber today, NIFCA has stressed the need for regionalisation, down to the district level—indeed, as far as IFCAs—to strike the right balance and fully involve stakeholders. The Committee’s identification of a means to interpret the EU’s exclusive competence over certain aspects of fisheries policy—so as to allow member states to act independently to amend the common fisheries policy, albeit without requiring treaty change—gives hope for achieving NIFCA’s vision of regionalisation. DEFRA and the Government should seize on that recommendation and work with other member states to bring it to fruition.

NIFCA is continuing the commitment shown by the former sea fisheries committee to reforming the EU’s policy on discards, but believes that the Government should stress to the Commission both that there must be investment in appropriate infrastructure to enable local fleets to dispose of unwanted catch and that technical advances must also be taken into account. The authority thinks that the Government should play a bigger role in consumer education, to ensure that the extra catch landed can be marketed more effectively, as part of the overall discard reduction strategy. Ultimately, our local fishermen believe that the prospect of a complete end to discards has not been set out in sufficient detail to be viable, and that there needs to be a further debate with the industry on the issue. The recommendation to delay the discard ban until 2020 is therefore justified by those observations.

It is in the Government’s hands to negotiate a fair deal in reforming the common fisheries policy and ensure a sustainable marine environment and a viable future for our fishing communities. To that end, the Government should heed today’s motion and the Committee’s report on the proposals to reform the common fisheries policy.

Fisheries

Angus Brendan MacNeil Excerpts

Tuesday 15th November 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Doran]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We have a habit in fisheries debates in sending the Minister off to Brussels with all our support and help. This is not a party political issue; there might be many issues we disagree on, but this is certainly not one of them. The hopefully full support of the House expressed in this motion today is important.

The consultation also proposes a complete ban on discards. Commissioner Damanaki suggests a gradual approach, starting with a limited number of fish species in the ban. The starting point will be in the pelagic fisheries, moving on later to the demersal fisheries. Of course we all want to see a ban on discards, but any proposal to ban them must take account of the reality of fishing. The proposal suggests that the Commission will not budge from its current policy of a species-by-species approach, which ignores the reality of mixed fisheries. Our current science is inadequate and is unable to deal under the current rules with mixed fisheries. A large amount of discards come from those fisheries; what is needed is an ecosystem approach that recognises that many different species of fish—

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

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that much of the problem of discards comes from the EU rules themselves, particularly the catch composition rules, which mean that the seven target species are not caught to a certain degree, but so many other kinds have to be dumped as a result that it amounts to absolute madness from the EU?

[Mr Doran]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. There are many reasons for the high level of discards, and what he suggests is certainly a major one.

What we need is much greater emphasis on the science and particularly on making the science fit the management purpose. We have had more than two centuries of fisheries science, but in the present condition I understand that there is no analytical assessment of around 60% of the stocks in our waters. The science needs to improve, it needs to consider the specific problems associated with mixed fisheries and it needs to inform a sustainable policy. Of course, the Fisheries Commissioner’s proposals will work with some fish stocks, but it will fail—and fail miserably—if the same rules are applied to mixed fisheries.

--- Later in debate ---

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

I shall try to keep my remarks brief. I want to make two points about the west coast of Scotland: about mesh sizes in the Minch for prawns and about catch composition, particularly for haddock. There seems to be an abundance of haddock on the west coast of the Hebrides inside the area known as the French line, which is about 100 fathoms or 200 metres deep, and it seems that the haddock are migrating into the Minch and around the prawn fishery. It should be good news that there is an abundance of haddock, but that abundance is becoming very bad news indeed, because EU catch composition rules mean that no more than 30% of catches can consist of haddock, cod or whiting. If a trip catches quite a lot of haddock, what should have been good news is not good news if there are not enough prawns to get that haddock landed, because it is not allowed to make up more than 30% of the catch. In that case, only a fraction of the haddock caught can be landed.

Haddock is abundant and tasty, and many people in Scotland prefer it to cod, but if they cannot get haddock they will eat cod, and that makes the situation worse. The basis of the problem is the cod recovery plan. Surely we should take haddock out of the catch composition rules, particularly for the west coast of Scotland, where many fishermen’s leaders and merchants tell me there is an abundance of haddock. That underlines the silliness, folly and lunacy of the common fisheries policy. The cod recovery plan prevents haddock from being landed, which will probably mean that more cod is eaten. That is almost a comedy, but, as we all know, it quickly ends up in the usual common fisheries policy tragedy.

Fishermen’s leaders on the west coast have expressed concern to me about a potential increase in mesh size in the Minch from 80 mm to 95 mm for prawns, especially as the size increased from 70 mm to 80 mm two years ago. The change would, of course, have catch implications for the smaller community boats, on which many local islanders work. The change should not be made now, just when Scottish Government scientists are undertaking technical trials, and in particular it should not apply to boats with an engine of under 300 hp, due to the disproportionate cost of gear change for them.

The prawn area in the west coast fishery seems to be in balance at the moment; people seem reasonably happy, although they are worried about some of the measures on the horizon, such as the mesh size proposals. However, they feel that there is a major problem with haddock. Ironically, the problem is caused not by a lack of haddock but by an abundance of it. I would be particularly grateful to the Minister if he looked at ways of removing haddock from the catch composition rules on the west coast.

I have participated in many debates on the common fisheries policy and fishing, and I feel that not a blind bit of notice is ever taken of them in Europe. Earlier this year I was in the Faroe Islands for the “Seas the Future” conference with people from Iceland, Norway, the Faroe Islands, Denmark and Scotland. At the end, officials from the EU talked about the CFP. They asked why I was complaining about the CFP in Tórshavn in the Faroe Islands; would I not come to talk to them in Brussels? It occurred to me that surely there are places besides this Parliament—democratically elected places—where the common fisheries policy is discussed, but are we talking into a vacuum? Surely we should have people in this Chamber listening, at least, to the complaints that Members of all parties express about the common fisheries policy. What actually happens is that one person leaves this Chamber, meets people from other chambers, and ends up having to horse-trade on the common fisheries policy. Ultimately, as we have seen over the years, fishing has been the loser.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Eilidh Whiteford (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)]

I do not think that we could make this debate more timely if we tried. Negotiations to reform the CFP are under way, and it is vital that the voices of the fishing communities that we represent are heard in this debate.

The challenges that we face need to be seen in the context of a common fisheries policy that has systematically damaged our marine ecosystem for 30 years. It has eroded the livelihoods of fishing communities and fishermen, and it has been applied inconsistently in different EU states. There is a growing consensus, even in the House, that a decentralised approach offers a better way forward than the one-size-fits-nobody approach that we have at the moment, as it would allow coastal states to develop workable solutions and, crucially, it would allow the expertise of fishing industry leaders and other local stakeholders to come to the fore.

In my view the reform process will stand or fall on the strength of the regionalisation proposals, but it is not clear how regionalisation will work in practice, given the treaty constraints raised by the hon. Member for South Down (Ms Ritchie). I hope that the Minister will spell out the mechanisms and processes that are under consideration and how they might be made fit for purpose, because there is a great deal at stake for our fishing communities.

There is a great deal to be learned from the experience of regional advisory councils on the value of long-term planning and the need to bring fishing industry representatives into the decision-making process. There is a great deal, too, that we can learn from the efforts of our fishermen in recent years to put the industry on an environmentally sustainable footing. The Scottish fleet has been at the forefront of efforts to push alternatives to discarding, but when we discuss discards it is crucial to remember that they are a direct consequence of the impositions put on fishermen by the failed CFP. No one gains from discards.

In that respect, the catch quota pilot schemes in Scotland and England have shown real potential. They were trialled to see how good they were at cutting discards and improving the economic viability of vessels, and they have been extremely effective. So far, however, only a relatively small number of vessels have been able to benefit from them. More boats could benefit, and I urge the Minister to prioritise the issue with our international partners, particularly the Norwegians and the European Commission, and drive it forward so that we can expand the catch quota system and build on the success of the model across the EU.

The Scottish fleet has been more successful than any other European fleet in ending discards. Catch quotas are only one factor in that success: the conservation credit scheme, using selective gear and real-time closures, is the thing that has really made a difference by improving the sustainability of our fisheries, as has longer-term planning and sound science. Too often, science has been used to justify policy making of dubious quality, and it has sometimes been used as a blunt instrument. It has been made to say what policy makers want it to say. There is now widespread recognition that good science and sound scientific data are beneficial to everyone, but if we want to build trust in scientific data we have to use them consistently. When the scientific data show that stocks are healthy and fish are plentiful, we need commensurate increases in total allowable catches. The forthcoming Council meeting could not be more timely, as we should not have more quota cuts if the science says that that is not necessary.

Consistency is required. I have concerns about transferable fishing concessions, as the Commission is now calling them.

[Mr MacNeil]

rose—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. I urge the hon. Gentleman to think before intervening. He has already made a speech, and we are running out of time. More Members have indicated that they wish to speak. It is up to the Member in charge but, to be honest. I would be disappointed if the hon. Gentleman intervened.

Fisheries

Angus Brendan MacNeil Excerpts

Thursday 12th May 2011 Commons Chamber

[Zac Goldsmith]

I recognise the hon. Gentleman’s point, and in fact the motion suggests a

“derogation only for species proven to have a high survival rate on discarding”,

so that would include the type of catch that he mentions.

In addition to the pilots in our own waters, a discard ban has been operating since 1987 in Norway, where over-quota or unwanted species are landed for a guaranteed minimum value and sold to the fishmeal industry, with the proceeds used to reinvest in and support the fishing industry. To make a discard ban easier, we will have to do everything we can to help fishermen access and use more selective gear so that they can avoid the unwanted fish in the first place.

Consumers also have a clear role. A significant percentage of fish are discarded because there is no market for them, and the Government can boost that market through their vast procurement programme. We spend £2 billion each year on food for the wider public sector, and that is an obvious tool that the Government can use. However, there are obviously limits to what a Government can do to shape a fashion, and it is worth mentioning non-Government initiatives such as “Hugh’s Mackerel Mission”, which is intended to help stimulate new markets for less popular species. It is a valuable campaign, and I urge Members to support it.

Discards are the most visible flaw in the CFP regime, but they are only part of the problem. In addition, the motion calls for radical decentralisation, and I wish briefly to focus on that. One of the key demands from our fishing communities, and in particular from the under-10 metre fleet, is that we assert our control over what are wrongly described as our sovereign waters—the 12 nautical miles surrounding our coastline. I say “wrongly” because whereas the British Government can legally impose whatever rules and regulations they want within those waters, from six to 12 miles out those rules will apply only to British vessels. It is clear that higher standards are a good thing, but only if they are fair and we have an even playing field. That is categorically not the case in our waters.

For example, in 2004 the UK banned pair-trawling for bass within 12 miles of the south-west coast of England, to protect dolphins and porpoises. Although our own fishermen adhered to the law, the ban did absolutely nothing to prevent French and Spanish trawlers from continuing to catch bass in those waters, which was both wrong and unfair. If those rights for foreign vessels are to be retained, it seems to me that they should come with an absolute and non-negotiable obligation to adhere to our own rules. That is why the motion demands, among other things, that any reforms of the CFP must

“enable the UK to introduce higher standards of management and conservation in respect of all vessels fishing within its territorial waters”.

That is an absolutely fundamental issue. If we reassert our control over those waters we will not only provide welcome relief for our smaller boats against the onslaught of the factory fishing vessels, but we will be able to establish an intelligent, ecosystem-based management system and ensure the health of our fisheries indefinitely.

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

Does the hon. Gentleman feel that it was a mistake almost 40 years ago when the fishing grounds were used as a bargaining chip for entering the European Economic Community, as it then was? What will he do to ensure that his Government reverse that and give us 200-mile control rather than 12-mile control?

[Zac Goldsmith]

The hon. Gentleman has anticipated my concluding remarks, so I will ask him to hold on for a few moments.

If we were able to reassert control over our waters, we would also be able to set the rules on science. With the active involvement of those who depend more than anyone else on the viability and health of our marine environment—the fishermen themselves—we would be able to get the policy right. That would also allow us to do something even more important—to recognise in law and in our regulatory regime, finally, the difference between smaller, traditional fishing vessels and their giant industrial competitors. It is an absolute mystery to me why successive Governments have always chosen to view the latter, the so-called fishing lobby, as the true voice of fishermen.

More than three quarters of the UK fleet is made up of vessels of 10 metres and under, which represent about 65% of full-time employment. Under the previous Administration, the 5,000 or so 10-metre and under vessels were given just 4% of the national quota, compared with the staggering 96% that was given to bigger boats, which number fewer than 1,500. It is staggeringly unfair, and if we were able to organise ourselves in the way that we chose within those 12 miles, we would be able to recognise the madness of that system in law.

It is an obvious observation that the smaller vessels are restricted in where they can go and what damage they can do, simply because of their size. The tools that they use do not compare with those available to the industrial factory fishing vessels, some of which have lines that would stretch from Parliament to Brighton, and purse seine nets that are big enough to swallow two millennium domes—which is a nice thought in some respects.

Whereas the interests of the smaller fishing communities are necessarily aligned with conservationists and consumers, the tools of destruction used by the mega-trawlers are fundamentally incompatible with any kind of sustainable future. That has finally been recognised at EU level, in word if not in deed. The new EU Fisheries Commissioner, Maria Damanaki, has said:

“We…believe, based on scientific information, that small-scale fisheries are more sustainable and have a lower environmental footprint…Small-scale fisheries are also…more friendly to employment, and this is a key issue. We also recognise that small-scale fisheries are very important for the survival of coastal communities, for their identity, culture, history and way of life.”

Hear, hear to that, but let us see that finally translated into law. It is time for a clear and forceful policy distinction between the interests of the small-scale, more traditional fisherman, and large-scale operations.

--- Later in debate ---

[Austin Mitchell (Great Grimsby) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith) both on his record on conservation issues and on securing this important debate. It is marvellous that the grumbles and grievances of Members about the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority have subsided so much that we have time for a full-length debate on this matter. I hope that all the hon. Members for inland fishing ports who are round about me in the Chamber are gathering to give us their ports’ views on the CFP. Fishing rarely gets such an opportunity for a serious debate. We are usually squeezed in at the end of another serious discussion, but today we have time, and I hope all fishing Members use it.

Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall certainly did a useful and important job, but we should draw attention to the iniquities of the CFP, which causes the problem of discards in the first place. The CFP puts marine wildlife, seaweed and all forms of sea life into the European constitution. It is the first constitution to include seaweed, marine life, algae and all the other things. That is a great achievement in constitution making: “We hold these truths to be self-evident. Marine life has a right to be part of the European constitution, to be dealt with only by European vessels!” That is Stalinism at sea—the last vestige of the Stalinist state—and it is being imposed on the waters around Britain, where it has been most damaging.

It is my contention that it is impossible to deal adequately with the problem of discards as long as the CFP remains, because it is the major cause of discards.

[Mr MacNeil]

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is aware of a European consultation paper on the CFP. The paper admitted the failure of the CFP and that the areas where it worked were those under national control. Surely if people want the CFP to continue, they should allow national control to 199 miles, and apply the CFP between 199 and 200 miles—a minimal ribbon. The CFP has failed and will continue to do so, but there are no milestones by which we can correct the CFP in future. We will bumble on for years with the CFP unless European Governments get their acts together and get rid of it.

[Austin Mitchell]

I hope that that becomes part of Scottish National party policy and that it is implemented by the new SNP Government in Edinburgh—it certainly needs to be. I hereby renew my application to become the SNP fisheries spokesman. My previous applications over the years have been consummately rejected.

The important point is that the CFP allocates catches by quota to fishing vessels in mixed fishing grounds, which waters around the British coast are. As long as we control catches by quotas, there will always be discards, because fisherman who put to sea for haddock or cod will catch species that are not in their quotas.

[Mr MacNeil]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that one other main problem with the CFP is the single-species stipulation, which often applies to the species that are most under threat? That causes distortions in the catching of other species and leads to discards. There are better models than the EU model, such as those in Norway, Iceland and the Faroes. The CFP model is the worst of the lot. That is why those countries will have nothing to do with Europe.

[Austin Mitchell]

I agree, absolutely—this speech is becoming a duet between me and the Scottish National party, which is an interesting state of affairs. The problem that the hon. Gentleman points to is that simplistic solutions will not work. The problem with Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall’s proposals is that they are simplistic. The EU has responded to them with another simplistic solution, which will not work either. It took the Norwegians 20 years to develop their techniques, and they did it in very different fisheries, with an emphasis on conserving the young, immature fish. Norway’s job has therefore been much easier, but it has taken it 20 years to eliminate discards. We have had 10 years of working to reduce discards, in which they have been reduced by 50%. That has happened partly, it has to be said, as a result of decommissioning, but also because of other measures, such as square-mesh panels, which were developed by the industry as a means of conservation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Whiteford]

It is very important that the UK Government avoid having the Commission make a knee-jerk response to the problem that could cause damage to certain stocks and jeopardise the livelihoods of fishermen who have already made huge sacrifices to put the industry on a sustainable footing. We only have to go to the ports of the north-east to see that the white fish fleet has basically halved in the past 10 years, and that is a huge sacrifice that the industry has made in order to be sustainable. We need to avoid the same top-down solutions that we have had from the EU hitherto, and we need solutions that come from the industry itself and from the communities that are most directly associated with it.

[Mr MacNeil]

I understand that in 2009 the value of discards was about £33 million—about a third that of the white fish that was landed. However, since 2008 the efforts that the Scottish National party Government have taken have seen discards decline at a greater rate than in any other country in the EU.

[Dr Whiteford]

I thank my hon. Friend for making that point, and I hope to address it in my speech.

Today’s debate gives us impetus for a different approach to fisheries management. We want to avoid, rather than replicate, the one-size-fits-nobody approach that has characterised the CFP for several decades and had a devastating impact on the communities that I represent and our marine environment.

We need a greater role for regional management, and that is happening in fishing communities not only in Scotland, but in other parts of the UK and Europe. We also need longer-term management plans and meaningful stakeholder involvement. That is the way forward, and I hope the Government press that agenda in the ongoing and forthcoming European negotiations.

It is important to recognise that discarding is a particularly big problem in mixed fisheries, where the rules and regulations simply do not reflect the reality of the eco-system.

--- Later in debate ---

[Oliver Colvile (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Con)]

I congratulate the Backbench Business Committee on selecting the motion and my hon. Friends the Members for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith) and for South East Cornwall (Sheryll Murray) on convincing the Committee to discuss it. This has been a useful and helpful debate. I also welcome the decision to hold the debate in the main Chamber. Many of us were concerned that the main fishing debate was not held here last December, and I hope that that can be put right later this year. I also hope that the Government will support the motion, so that we can send a clear, unanimous message on discards back to the European Commission. That would strengthen the hand of the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Richard Benyon) when he negotiates with what I perceive to be our European competitors.

I have campaigned on the issue of bringing our fishing waters back under UK national control, and on the issue of discards, in my constituency for the past 10 years as part of my campaign to sit on these green Benches. During the past decade, I have spoken to the academics at Plymouth university, the local fishing industry and the many experts who work in those agencies that make Plymouth one of the major marine scientific research global players. They say that, by bringing UK waters back under national control, we can conserve fishing stocks and potentially discourage the large Russian and other foreign factory ships and industrial trawlers that come into our waters and do so much damage to our fish stocks and our fishing industry.

I want at this stage to pay a real tribute to those people who, as the nursery rhyme goes, “put the little fishies on our little dishies”. Fishing is one of the most dangerous industries in our country. Our fishermen go to sea each day, in all kinds of weather, day and night, in winter and summer, to put Britain’s No. 1 traditional signature dish on our plates. It is ironic that, only recently, the House has been served a very real reminder of just how dangerous fishing is. I want to express my own personal tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall, whose husband died in such tragic circumstances a few weeks ago. I also want to thank my hon. Friend the Minister for coming to a packed funeral, where the local fishing communities on both sides of the Tamar river came together to pay tribute to one of our top fishermen. The Minister’s attendance made a real impact, and may I take this opportunity to thank him for buying me a drink afterwards as well?

However, I do not need to be reminded that sacrifices such as Neil Murray’s are a regular occurrence among the peninsula’s fishing communities. Anyone who walks down the Barbican in my constituency will see a large wall covered in memorials to Plymouth fishermen who were killed trying to feed us on a regular basis. The last time I went out on a boat, it was shortly after a force 7 gale and I have to admit that I was a little bit ill on several occasions. I learned that anyone who is able to get their boots off in time once they have fallen overboard will probably survive for about three minutes before almost certainly dying either by drowning or of the cold. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will speak to our hon. Friends in the Department for Transport to ensure that no more lives will be lost because of policy changes relating to our coastguards.

I am not going to pretend that I am as well informed on this issue as others, including my very good and hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall, who has demonstrated her excellent understanding of the issues that face the industry. I am aware, however, that fishing is a totemic issue in the south-west, and that it focuses attitudes towards our membership of the EU. One of the biggest mistakes that Britain made in joining the European common market in the first place was to sign up to the common fisheries policy. It was designed to make European fishing grounds a common resource by giving access to all member states.

[Mr MacNeil]

I hear what the hon. Gentleman is saying about the initial mistake, but surely that mistake has been compounded, decade after decade, by successive Conservative, Labour and coalition Governments who have done absolutely nothing to correct the error that was made almost 40 years ago.

[Oliver Colvile]

I do not disagree, but I hope that we now have an opportunity to turn the tide as far as that matter is concerned.

The stated aim of the common fisheries policy is to help to conserve fish stocks, but I believe that in the current form it is a wasteful policy which damages the environment and our fishing industry. It determines the amount of fish that each national fleet can catch. Employment in the industry has declined dramatically, especially here in the United Kingdom, and, despite reforms, fish stocks have continued to fall. I have always understood that the requirement for Britain to sign up to the CFP was a last-minute act; the six countries of France, Germany, Belgium, Holland, Luxembourg and Italy put it in at the last moment. This country was so keen to join the European Common Market, as it was then, that Geoffrey Rippon, who was leading the whole debate and our negotiations with our European competitors, agreed that we would sign up, much to their surprise. At the time, few envisaged that Austria, which I remind hon. Members has no coast, would also have the opportunity to vote on the CFP when it joined the European Union in 1994.

[Mr MacNeil]

The hon. Gentleman makes a classic, tremendous point: Austria has a say but Scotland does not. Does he understand why I might be a Scottish nationalist?

[Oliver Colvile]

I do not, as it happens. What I will say to the hon. Gentleman is that this situation becomes a bargaining tool for other bits of policy which can be played around with.

Over the last few days, I have been inundated with e-mails and letters from people calling on me to support this motion and Channel 4’s Fish Fight campaign, and I suspect that a large number of other hon. Members have too. I give my support very enthusiastically. The idea that fishermen, who do such a dangerous job and are not particularly well paid, are fined for landing fish which do not fit a specific regulation and are thrown back into the water, is a total scandal. I welcome the Government’s commitment to fight for changes to the size of nets, but I hope that the Minister will press our European competitors to reform the CFP further, to allow us to decide which fish are taken out of our seas and who takes them out, and to stop this discarding policy.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr MacNeil]

Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the latest device from Europe to get their hands on the fish from our seas—I am speaking particularly of Scotland? The internationally tradeable individual transferable quotas will mean the slow buying off of fishing rights for future generations by big industry fishing, which would mean that future generations on the Scottish coast might see fishing happening around the coast but would have no right to go near it. This is one of the most dangerous aspects of the approach, which is new today from the European Union, and it must be resisted by all quarters of this House at all costs.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

I agree absolutely with the hon. Gentleman. I have the BBC news sheet in my hand, which is headlined, “EU fisheries reform would ‘privatise oceans’.” Things will be handed over, no doubt, to Spanish and French fishermen who will have long-term quotas and who can do what they like outside our control.

This is not about nationalism. It is about every nation being responsible for managing its fisheries. The only way to guarantee that they will be managed properly will be for each nation to know that it has to look after and husband its own stocks and fishing industry. If people know that they can cheat by stealing fish from other countries, possibly not even doing discards, doing secret landings and cheating the system, I have no doubt that they will do it.

Just recently, the British public have shown themselves to be strongly incensed by any kind of cheating. Members of the House, some of whom have suffered the penalties of the law, have known the anger of the British people. I think that the British people can be just as angry about cheating on fishing, and the only way to overcome that is to re-establish national fishing waters for all nations in the European Union and for each nation to manage its own fishing stocks, its own fishing industries and the fishing boats that fish within those waters.

Billions of pounds of fish have been lost to Britain. Being in the common fisheries policy has not only had an economic cost to Britain but has been an environmentally damaging experience. One does not necessarily want to push for a nationalistic view, but the reality is that we have been ripped off by the common fisheries policy and we have a massive balance of trade deficit with the rest of the European Union. I would like to think that the motion could go someway towards helping to redress that balance.

I am doing this not because I am a little Englander, or even a big Englander or a big Britisher. I care about fish stocks, and I care about the fishing industry and about making sure that the marine environment is protected for the long term. The only way to do that is by having countries manage their own fisheries.

--- Later in debate ---

[Barry Gardiner]

No, I am already pressed enough for time.

Certain decision-making powers would be devolved to regional management bodies, in consultation with local stakeholders, in order to tailor the application of central policy objectives for EU fisheries to the specifics of each ecosystem. A fully regionalised management system would include the following features: quotas allocated on the basis of ecosystem regions in order to manage fishing pressure according to the necessities of the different ecosystems; regular scientific assessment of all marine species, not just fish stocks, within a given eco-region to establish the impact of fishing on the ecosystem as a whole; quota allocation on the basis of eco-regions with different licences used in different ecosystem regions and no transfers between the regions.

The discards in the North sea are between 40% and 60% of total catch, while in other European fisheries, such as that for west of Scotland cod, they can total as much as 90%. The vast majority of fish discarded overboard of course die. In an effort to limit fishing to sustainable levels, EU regulations under the common fisheries policy prohibit the landing of commercial species above a given annual quota. However, in practice this often results in the discarding of thousands of tonnes of saleable fish—the over-quota discards—as fishers are forced to cast overboard their excess or non-target catch before landing, so as not to contravene EU law.

The result is a policy that fails to prevent fish mortality above levels deemed biologically sustainable. That is a particular problem in mixed fisheries—the majority of EU fisheries—where fishers will catch more than their landing quota for one species as they continue fishing for others that swim with it, in order to maintain fishing throughout the year. The Government estimate that over-quota species account for about 22% of English and Welsh discards.

The introduction of catch quotas in place of the current landing quotas would make fishers accountable for their total catch, rather than for what they land, thereby eliminating the legal catch and discard of over-quota fish. The current CFP also prohibits the landing of quota species below a certain minimum landing size—MLS—to ensure that they are not caught before reaching maturity, thus preserving the reproductive capacity of the stock. In practice, however, many under-sized fish are still caught and simply discarded at sea. An estimated 24% of discards are quota species below legal MLS, so too small to land. The introduction of minimum catch sizes in place of minimum landing sizes has been successful in Norway in incentivising the use of selective gear in fisheries and minimising the catch and mortality of under-sized fish.

An estimated 54% of English and Welsh discards are of non-commercial species caught as by-catch. Stimulating the creation of new or stronger markets for under-utilised sustainable species such as dab and coley in UK fisheries could result in the elimination of unnecessary waste, greater profits for fishers and a reduction in fishing pressure on other more popular and over-exploited species. We need to be careful, however, that that policy does not encourage the creation of markets for species whose population could not support a sudden increase in harvesting.

There is currently no obligation to conduct regular stock assessments for most non-commercial species in EU waters, as they are not subject to quota restrictions, so there is little understanding of the impact that increased fishing of them would have on their stocks and on the wider ecosystem. The first priority of any policy that aims to eliminate discards and improve demand for under-utilised species, therefore, should be to mandate regular stock assessments for all species, with a view to introducing management plans, including catch quotas, for all species caught in EU fisheries.

At the Johannesburg world summit on sustainable development in 2002, the EU committed to achieving a maximum sustainable yield for all fish stocks by 2015 at the latest, but in 2010 it estimated that 72% of its fisheries remained overfished, with 20% fished beyond safe biological limits, risking the wholesale collapse of those fisheries.

The EU marine strategy framework directive requires that all EU fisheries achieve good environmental status by 2020, which includes the attainment of sustainable fishing levels for all stocks. The European Commission requests scientific advice for the establishment of fisheries management plans on the basis of sustainability, but the European Council is under no obligation to adhere to that advice when agreeing total annual quotas for stocks. The result is that the European Council sets total allowable catch limits that are on average 34% higher than the scientifically recommended sustainable limits.

Ensuring that all fish and shellfish are harvested at sustainable levels is an absolute prerequisite of the future profitability and survival of EU fisheries. By requiring the delivery of that target by 2015, we will ensure that the EU fulfils its international and domestic commitments to achieve sustainable fisheries and end overfishing.

A legal requirement to end overfishing of all fish and shellfish by 2015 will necessitate the following key measures: first, rendering scientific advice binding, thus preventing quotas from exceeding biologically sustainable limits; and secondly, introducing stock assessments and management plans for all fish and shellfish, including non-commercial species that are currently unmanaged, in order to establish sustainable limits for harvesting.

Co-management is an approach whereby Government authorities involve local communities and other stakeholders in management decision making, monitoring and surveillance. The approach aims to encourage co-operation and a shared sense of responsibility, and it has been shown to improve compliance with regulations as well as to improve the effectiveness of management measures, because it draws upon community knowledge to address local socio-economic and ecological issues.

The establishment of regional advisory councils is cited as a key success of the 2002 CFP reform, because they have served as forums for stakeholders to inform policy implementation at the regional level, but they have no decision-making powers.

Small-scale and artisanal fishing represents a vital link between the industry and historical coastal fishing communities, and often utilises lower-impact methods—more environmentally sustainable methods of fishing that draw on local traditional knowledge. A future common fisheries policy must reverse the balance of incentives by allocating access rights to fisheries on the basis of environmental sustainability, so giving priority to vessels that utilise selective gear and low-impact methods of fishing. By enabling the UK to introduce higher standards of management and conservation for UK and foreign fishing vessels within its inshore fisheries, without recourse to the European Commission, we would regain powers to determine and manage our coastal marine ecosystems and the livelihoods that depend on them.

The hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil) spoke of the importance of ITQs—individual transferable quotas—and the problems that will arise from them. Under this proposal, which is probably the most dramatic in impact of any EU proposal, skippers would be guaranteed shares of national quotas for periods of at least 15 years, which they could trade among themselves—even, if the relevant national Government agree, with fleets from other countries. This is already practised on a smaller scale in several EU member states, including the UK, but it has been taken much further in other countries.

A global survey published three years ago showed that fisheries managed using ITQs were half as likely to collapse as others, which is one of the reasons why the Commission is so enthusiastic about them. However, the blanket nature of its proposals gives rise to serious concerns, and I echo those that the hon. Gentleman expressed. Ecologically, ITQs diminish overfishing and seek to protect the sustainability of fishing in the area concerned, but experience shows that they can give rise to the privatisation of fisheries. That is a very serious point, which the Minister has to take on board.

[Mr MacNeil]

rose—

[Barry Gardiner]

I have no more time left, so I cannot give way to the hon. Gentleman.

--- Later in debate ---

[George Eustice (Camborne and Redruth) (Con)]

I add my congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith) on securing this debate on the important issue of fish discards. I rarely sign early-day motions, but I felt compelled to support his recent motion on fish discards, because the way in which we kill unnecessarily and throw back fish on an industrial scale is an absolute scandal that, as many Members have said, has continued for far too long.

We should recognise that this is not a new problem. The environmental consequences of the common fisheries policy have been recognised and argued over for more than 20 years, as my hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall (Sheryll Murray) said. I remember speaking about the scandal of fish discards as long ago as 1999 when I was a candidate for another party.

We should note, though, that some modest progress has been made over the past decade. The volume of fish discarded was actually reduced from 2002 to 2008. However, with some estimates suggesting that we are still throwing away more than half of all the fish caught, it is clear that we are still only scratching the surface and that significant changes are required.

Three key factors are driving the practice of discards: the lack of a market, the quota system and the problem of undersized fish. On the first of those, DEFRA estimates that more than half of all the fish that are discarded are those for which there is currently no market. That is not the fault of the CFP, but it is the largest single area in which we could make a difference.

One of the most important outcomes of Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall’s “Hugh’s Fish Fight” series was the call for, and the beginning of, the creation of demand for other fish species. When I recently visited Falfish, a fish processor in my constituency, it reported a significant increase, for instance, in demand for pouting. Although far smaller than cod, it has a similar texture and can be used as a substitute. We all have a role to play in creating a market for currently unfashionable fish—consumers by being more adventurous, the industry and processors by doing more to market less popular fish and the Government through projects such as their Fishing for the Markets scheme.

The other causes of fish discards relate to the CFP. DEFRA figures estimate that 22% of all discards are fish for which there is no quota, and that 24% are undersized. I have to say that I think that last figure understates the problem, because it is calculated on weight rather than the number of fish. Addressing those two problems is where we need meaningful change.

As I have said, the problem with the CFP is that we have talked about it for a long time but nothing has changed. If one thing has really been clear over the past 20 years, it is that the most successful policy innovation has taken place when national Governments have been free to experiment with new ideas and approaches. We have a bit of a problem with the structure and culture of the EU, because it does not lend itself to an evidence-based policy approach. All too often, policy development becomes a mere negotiation and the outcome is a policy based on the lowest common denominator rather than one informed by the power of ideas. The EU is currently considering another round of CFP reform, and we will soon find out whether it is now fit for purpose or whether important issues such as fisheries policy require a quality of thinking and reasoning that is simply beyond institutions such as the EU.

Another problem is that a one-size-fits-all policy cannot cover such a wide area. The hon. Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner) said that fish do not carry national passports or recognise national borders, but they do not carry EU passports or recognise EU waters either.

[Mr MacNeil]

It is also misleading to talk as though fish all behave in the same way. Iceland talks about migratory fish, straddling stocks and non-migratory fish, so the idea that all fish are the same is highly misleading. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has given me the opportunity to make that point, because I did not have a chance when the hon. Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner) was speaking.

[George Eustice]

I thank the hon. Gentleman, and I could not agree more. It is true that fish do not recognise national waters, but it is important that we have a tailored local solution to protect our ecosystems. We should not get bogged down in whether waters are national or European. That is why, like the hon. Member for Brent North, I am attracted to the idea of breaking up the current structure of the CFP and putting in place a regionalised management system. It could retain the common objectives of protecting the ecosystem, having sustainable fishing and minimising discards, but the delivery of those common objectives would vary in response to local realities.

I wish to say a little about some of the conclusions that we can draw from successful experiments that other countries have come up with. First, Norway has found a way of dealing with the discards caused by fish caught over quota by allowing fishermen to land those fish but paying them only a fraction of the market price. Let us consider that. Secondly, Norway and Scotland have both had success with real-time closures, with areas being closed to fishing when there is a problem with excessive by-catch. That creates an incentive for the industry to use netting gear that reduces by-catch, so let us consider that, too.

Thirdly, our fishermen in the south-west are involved in a really successful project, Project 50%, which has brought together fishermen and scientists to develop new fishing practices that have dramatically cut fish discards. Let us consider that, too. Finally, Cornish fisherman led the way by having the first no-take zone within European waters, so that there is a sanctuary for spawning fish. We should also consider that.

If we are serious about developing a sustainable approach to fishing, we need to change the basis on which quota is allocated. Rather than simply basing it on some historical formula or rights, we should reward good fishing practices by giving the most sustainable fishermen the most quota. That could act as a powerful incentive. Those who adopt good fishing practices that substantially reduce by-catch will be allocated more quota, as will producer organisations that are the most successful at creating markets for unfashionable fish species, whereas producers who turn a blind eye to the need to reduce discards and continue as if nothing has changed will face losing some of their quota.

If we adopt such solutions, we can improve the CFP and dramatically reduce our fish discards.

--- Later in debate ---

[Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am delighted to speak in this debate; I could not get out of the Finance (No. 3) Bill Committee until 4 o’clock. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith) on securing the debate and I also pay tribute to a great friend, my hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall (Sheryll Murray), who has huge experience of the fishing industry. She has been able to return to the House in hugely difficult circumstances; our hearts very much go out to her.

My hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice) said that he had talked about this issue back in 1999. I was then fighting for the Conservative party, while he was fighting for another party. I recall saying to him afterwards, “Do see the light; come over to the Conservative party.” I do not know whether it was all due to me, but he obviously did see the light and came over to the true cause.

I was elected to the European Parliament and sat on its Fisheries Committee for some 10 years. In all that time, I opposed the common fisheries policy. Let me explain why. The CFP is a little bit like communism: it is a wonderful idea in principle, but in practice it just does not work, as I shall explain. If we have a common resource in Europe, every country thinks that some animals are more equal than others and are entitled to a greater proportion of the fish.

I will name some of those countries. Spain is one of them; it goes all around the world looking for fish, fishing off Africa and goodness knows where, causing an awful lot of problems. We must face up to the reality. We need our fishermen to be able to sign up to a policy to get rid of discards and to manage fisheries. If they believe that managing their fisheries sustainably will provide the fish for them to catch, they will sign up to it. I am sure that that is very much what the Minister will be aiming for. However, if a common fisheries policy means that we sustain our fish stocks but some other nation then comes in and steals them, will we be inclined to adopt such conservation measures?

Fishermen have to go out to sea and deal with the vagaries of the weather, and then they have to deal with the vagaries of the common fisheries policy. There is, for instance, the nonsense of “quota species”, which means that those who catch too many of a particular species must throw healthy fish overboard. When big boats throw discards into the sea, they often putrefy on the sea bed, which can have huge consequences.

We must take a sensible attitude, and I am delighted that the Government are doing so. Now is the time to say to fishermen, “Let us have a look at the way in which you fish. Let us ensure that when you bring your fish back, you are able to sell it.” Many Members have made the point that we need to eat more species of fish in this country, but there is another point to be made, and I have made it in the House before. During the period of the common fisheries policy, much money has been wasted when boats have been decommissioned and new boats have been built with larger engines that may enable more fish to be caught. When fish are landed that are not fit for human consumption, they can be made into fishmeal and fed to farmed fish. That may not save a vast amount of money, but it will give fishermen some incentive to land those fish.

Another point that has been made today is that until we stop discarding fish, the scientists will not know what is actually being caught, so we will not know what the stocks are. That is a central part of the argument for the banning of discards.

I also think that the argument between large and small boats must be settled. We cannot allow big companies to buy up huge amounts of quota and then force out many small fishermen. Those fishermen must have a livelihood. We must face up to the reality: it is a case of the haves and have nots, when what we want are sustainable fisheries.

[Mr MacNeil]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Neil Parish]

No, I will not, because I have not much time left.

I have had 10 years’ experience in Europe, where many warm words have been spoken by commissioners in the past about discards. There have been improvements such as the provision of better fishing tackle and Project 50% in Devon, but the Commission and Europe must be driven hard to make absolutely certain that we secure change—that we stop discarding fish, and all the fish that are landed are either eaten by humans or made into fishmeal to feed farmed fish.

There is a limited resource of fish in the world—there are no two ways about it—and we are consuming more fish than are being bred in the seas. If we do not act, we will destroy our own resource and our own ecosystem. I wish the Minister great success in Brussels. He must take not only his briefcase but a handbag and a concrete block, because he will need them when he is negotiating. It is necessary to negotiate very hard in Europe in order to get anywhere. I look forward to the Minister’s coming back with everything that we want.

[Mr William Bain (Glasgow North East) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith) on his great efforts and the fine words with which he opened the debate, and I congratulate the Backbench Business Committee on its wisdom in granting such an important debate. It has reflected the huge interest shown by the more than 674,000 people who have already signed the Fish Fight petition, and the others in our country who want to see a radical change to the EU common fisheries policy.

Labour Members recognise the strong consensus, both in today’s debate and in the wider Fish Fight campaign, that now is the time for EU fisheries Ministers to turn fine declarations of intent into a clear programme for change. The common fisheries policy must be made fit to meet the challenges of protecting the biodiversity of our seas and oceans, placing the sustainability of the fishing industry on a long-term footing, and securing greater regional management of EU fisheries waters, and we must introduce an ecosystem-based approach to fisheries, to tackle the root causes of the immoral waste of fish currently discarded at sea.

[Mr MacNeil]

As I am sure the hon. Gentleman recognises, one of the problems with the CFP is that nobody is in charge, so there is horse trading between competing interests. Unless that changes and somebody is put in charge—as is the case in Norway, Iceland and the Faroes—the problem will not go away. Unless the introduction of regional management leads to such problems being addressed, we will be in exactly the same mess as we have been under the CFP.

[Mr Bain]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. The UK and other states that are in favour of reform must build alliances—such as with the southern European countries, who have in the past been resistant to change—so that there is genuine momentum and a sense that reform is being, and will continue to be, pursued by all 27 member states. In 2009, Scottish fishing vessels discarded almost 28,000 tonnes of fish, representing a quarter of the entire whitefish catch in Scotland. That demonstrates the seriousness of the need for reform.

I commend the contributions to the debate of my hon. Friends the Members for Great Grimsby (Austin Mitchell) and for Luton North (Kelvin Hopkins), who have over the years been consistent in their trenchant critiques of the CFP. My hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby has also been a huge champion of the fishing industry in his years as a Member of this House. I also commend the contributions of my hon. Friend the Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Tom Greatrex), who referred to the need for the introduction of long-term quotas, my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Dr Whitehead), who talked about the need for fish stock sustainability, and my hon. Friend the Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner), who talked passionately about the need for an ecosystem approach to fisheries.

It was particularly good to see the hon. Member for South East Cornwall (Sheryll Murray) in the Chamber, and to hear her speaking with such passion and authority about this subject, to which her community and family have contributed so much. I also commend the remarks of the hon. Member for Sherwood (Mr Spencer), who talked about the need for catch quotas, the hon. Member for St Ives (Andrew George), who referred to the need for a package of reforms and a framework of change, and the hon. Members for Banff and Buchan (Dr Whiteford), for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Oliver Colvile), for Strangford (Jim Shannon), for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey), for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Eric Ollerenshaw), for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice), for Totnes (Dr Wollaston), for Truro and Falmouth (Sarah Newton), for Morecambe and Lunesdale (David Morris), for Waveney (Peter Aldous), for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish) and for Argyll and Bute (Mr Reid). They referred to the social and economic importance of the fisheries in their communities, and the moral imperative for action that this time will result in reform. They put their arguments with great vigour and force.

Global fish and seafood consumption is increasing. The US consumes almost five times more fish than a century ago, and China is consuming almost five times more seafood than in the 1960s. It has been estimated that capture fisheries contribute up to $240 billion per year to global output in direct and indirect economic benefits. The United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation found in its report, “The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture 2010”, that the fishing industry supports the livelihoods of about 540 million people, or 8% of the world population. Yet concerns about biodiversity and the condition of our marine environment have grown. OCEAN2012 has estimated that half of the fish consumed in the EU comes from waters outside the EU, through distant-water fleets and a growing reliance on imports.

In 2004 the Food and Agriculture Organisation estimated that discards amounted to 7.3 million tonnes or 8% of total global fish catches, although on another definition of by-catch, it might involve in excess of 20 million tonnes per year. At last June’s EU Fisheries Council, Commissioner Damanaki set out the case for the most sweeping changes to the CFP since its inception. Those changes were based on an assessment that the current system, as last reformed in 2002, was top-down, short-termist in its effects on the fishing industry and weak in its protection of at-risk species. In particular, the system of total allowable catches, which was introduced in 1983 for each commercial species of fish and which was subdivided into quotas for individual member states, has proven grossly inadequate. It led in 2008 to the permitted TACs being on average 48% higher than scientifically assessed sustainable levels.

The CFP is also unresponsive to changes in fisheries practice, because it is linked to the relative proportions of species fished as long ago as the 1970s. In mixed fisheries it is hugely wasteful and leads to the discarding of unacceptable levels of whitefish in order to comply with the quota rules after one species quota has already been exhausted. Across the EU, nearly half the whitefish and up to 70% of flatfish are discarded. Recently, and particularly in her statement this March, Commissioner Damanaki has pursued a new settlement that will build upon catch-quota trials that have proven successful in substantially reducing discard levels in Scotland and Denmark among pelagic fisheries. There is also the prospect of an extension to other fisheries, including demersal mixed fisheries, in the second year of any new CFP.

The Opposition welcome the lead that successive Governments and devolved Administrations have provided in extending the use of longer-term catch quotas and supporting the stronger involvement of fishing communities in the management of quotas and fisheries waters. However, we believe that a stronger impetus is required to deal with the root cause of the scandal of discarded fish and by-catch: the delay in the introduction of an EU-wide ecosystem approach to fisheries management. The Commission has established that 88% of EU fisheries stocks are being fished beyond sustainable levels, and that 30% are near to collapse. The introduction of ecosystem management in this cycle of CFP reform is obligatory under the EU’s integrated maritime policy and is strongly linked to the marine strategy framework directive’s overarching commitment to the achievement of good environmental status. It is strongly supported by the Commission’s green paper on CFP reform, and has proven successful elsewhere in restoring fishing stocks in large-scale fisheries in California, the north-east of the United States and parts of Australia.

The introduction of ecosystem management would balance environmental, social and economic concerns and involve a range of policy changes, including the introduction of financial incentives to reduce the pressure on stocks of species nearing over-exploitation; further action on ocean acidification, which particularly threatens shellfish stocks; the regional management of fisheries waters; fishing area closures; the incentivisation of new technology to monitor what is being taken from the sea and landed on fishing boats; and the use of more selective nets and fishing gear to reduce levels of by-catch of younger fish and other species. The multiple small trawl nets now used to catch prawns in the North Sea, for instance, have led to a 50% reduction in discarded fish.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Brent North pointed out, in Norway the use of minimum catch sizes has proven successful in reducing levels of discards and fishing of undersized or juvenile fish. However, OCEAN2012 has recommended an alternative approach: the introduction of a minimum marketing size that would still constitute a strong disincentive for the sale of juvenile fish. It also raises the significance of applying new bans on discards and by-catch to EU fishing fleets operating in third countries or distant-water fisheries.

Key to the success of such a system of fisheries management would be the greater involvement of the fishing industry in devising such schemes at a regional level and reporting on their effectiveness and compliance, together with improved monitoring of ports. As well as a prohibition on discards at EU level, however, over-fishing must be addressed. Simply permitting all caught fish to be landed and sold without proper enforcement may lead to the catching of undersized fish, with the further depletion of fish species that could thereby emerge. In the past, however, with cod, fisheries closures have led to displacement of fishing to adjacent areas, so any successful package of fisheries closures this time would require the active involvement of the fishing industry. There is support across many member states for the principle of introducing rights-based management of fisheries as a means of tackling overcapacity, although there is understandable hesitation about introducing a scheme of individually transferable quota rights that could see large-scale companies exert excessive dominance over the market.

--- Later in debate ---

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

I thank the hon. Member for Glasgow North East (Mr Bain), who speaks for the Opposition, for continuing the bipartisan approach on these matters. The relationship is challenging but it is vital that we continue what happened under the last Government and recognise that we are dealing with an industry in crisis and a marine environment that desperately needs the smack of firm decision making. It is great to have his support.

I welcome the debate and I believe that it firmly places the Backbench Business Committee in touch with issues that are of concern to our constituents. I welcome the contributions and hope to respond to many of the points later. I particularly pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith) for the way in which he introduced the debate and I hope that we can all support the motion tonight.

The debate comes at a crucial time. The conscience of the nation has been moved by the sight of perfectly edible, quality fish being thrown into the sea, dead. That is an abomination in a hungry world, I am sure everyone agrees. That is the power of television. Most of us knew that it was happening, but few of us had seen it—it was happening over the horizon—but it has now been brought into people’s homes and they are outraged. What if half the lambs we slaughter in this country had been dumped on the side of the road? There would have been riots on the street. Now people know what is happening and that is a tribute to those who brought the matter of discards to the public consciousness.

The debate also comes at a crucial time because there is a window of opportunity to reform the common fisheries policy. I have been a Minister for only a year, but my assessment of the art of government is that one needs to know the difference between what one wants to change but cannot and what one wants to change and can, and to focus one’s energies on the latter. If I focused my energies on the former I might satisfy some of the hon. Gentlemen who have contributed today, but I would not deal with the problem that faces our marine environment, our fishermen and the coastal communities they support.

I might not be a rabid Eurosceptic, but I am no friend of the common fisheries policy. However, it is not the fact that it is common that is the problem—it is the policy that is wrong. As we have heard—the hon. Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner) made this point very well—fish do not respect lines on maps. Many of the stocks that our fishermen exploit spend part of their lives in other countries’ waters. Our fishermen have always fished in other countries’ waters in the same way as other countries’ fishermen had historic rights to fish in our waters before our accession to the European Economic Community in 1972. I could spend a lot of time discussing that, but I was 11 when it happened and I prefer to deal with the here and now—with what I can do and what we can achieve.

A point that has been made by several hon. Members on both sides of the House is that we have to look at this issue in terms of an ecosystem approach. Whether we were in the EU or not and whether we were in the CFP or not, we would need a shared legal framework to manage our fish stocks. Our focus should be on getting the common framework right, which means getting rid of unnecessary and over-detailed regulation and managing stocks on a regional or sea-basin basis. It means giving fishermen clear entitlements to fish stocks and giving them a stake in the long-term health of those stocks.

[Mr MacNeil]

Will the Minister give way?

[Richard Benyon]

I am quite pressed for time and the hon. Gentleman has had quite a lot of air time, but if there is time later I am sure that the House would be delighted to hear him make his point again.

Getting the common framework right means integrating fisheries management with other marine environmental policies and applying the same principles of the sustainable use of marine resources both within and outside EU waters. Of course, it also means making sure that we have a reformed CFP that does all it can to eradicate discards. I welcome the fact that the EU Fisheries Commissioner sees this issue as a top priority, as I think she does. I make that point to my hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (David Morris). At the meeting I attended on 1 March, the commissioner said that her predecessor had had a similar meeting five years previously at which everyone around the table had said how outraged they were with the process and nothing happened. I am not prepared to allow my successor to be here saying that something needs to be done in five years’ time. Something does need to be done and I am committed to working with the Commission and other member states to achieve discard-free fisheries.

Let me make a few things clear. The outrage that people feel about discards is shared by the Government and Members on both sides of the House. Our actions are not prompted by the Fish Fight campaign, but they are enhanced by it and we welcome it wholeheartedly. We are tackling this issue through the reform of the CFP, but we are not waiting for that reform. As has been said, important progress has been made with catch quotas, and the trials that were instigated by the previous Government have been extended by us. The hostility of fishermen to having cameras on their boats has been largely negated and they are now queuing up to get into these schemes. Hostility from other member states for that method of fishing management has largely disappeared and we have signed a declaration with the Governments of France, Germany and Denmark to see that that is introduced. Project 50% has also brought huge benefits in reducing discards.

I want to see a high-level objective of working towards discard-free fisheries in the new CFP with member states accountable and responsible for working to achieve that, managing what is caught rather than what is landed. There is a lot of focus on imposing a ban on fishermen discarding at sea. I can support a ban and I will be pushing for one—it is semantics whether we talk about an end to discards or a ban—but only if it is backed by genuinely effective, enforceable and affordable measures that encourage fishermen to be more selective about what they catch. That is crucial, and that point has been made by many hon. Members today. The last thing we want is to transfer a waste problem at sea so that it becomes a waste issue on land. How horrendous it would be to bury fish because there was no market for them, or simply to ban the symptom of the problem, rather than the cause, criminalising fishermen in the process. We must remember that a ban would be wrong for some species that can be returned to the sea alive. I pay tribute to the Members who tabled the motion for being willing to change it, and I make the point that sharks, skate and rays, many of which are critically endangered in EU waters, can often survive after being caught, as can many species of shellfish.

As well as providing fishermen with mechanisms to reduce discards we are tackling the problem in the UK through our Fishing for the Markets project, and several Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice), spoke about the 54% of discards for which there is no market. The project seeks to find markets, which is extremely important.

In the few minutes remaining, I shall turn to some of the points that have been made this afternoon. My hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park made a very good speech in introducing the debate, and he mentioned the importance of a regionalised approach, which is absolutely key. In discussing ecosystems, we are talking about a sea basin approach—in some cases it is more local—in which we can manage fish. People talk about an abundance of fish at certain times of the year, but they may not be abundant if there is not co-ordinated action, which is why an ecosystem-based approach is important.

The hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Austin Mitchell) made a familiar speech, and the points that he made were eloquently countered by the hon. Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner) and by my hon. Friends. I pay particular tribute, as I did this morning, to my hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall (Sheryll Murray), who made a courageous and powerful speech. I give her this absolute, determined pledge. I want the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009 to be a beacon of how to do marine conservation. I want people around the world to come and see how we do things in this country. I am grateful for the commitment that fishers, all users of the marine environment and everyone who cares about it have shown in operating through that bottom-up approach.

I am not saying that everyone is going to be happy, but I will work night and day to make sure that what we achieve recognises the importance of socio-economic activities—there could be unintended consequences if we do not do so—and the fact that if fishing is displaced to other areas it could be damaging. I am therefore determined to make this work. I want to make absolutely certain that we do not lose our derogation, and my understanding from the Commission is that that will not happen.

I place huge weight on our under-10 metre consultation. I am passionate about the fact that the inshore fleet does a great deal for coastal communities and social life in coastal Britain, and I want it to have a sustainable future. Sustainability is as important for fish stocks as it is for jobs onshore, and I will work hard to make sure that our proposals are workable.

I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Tom Greatrex), who made a thoughtful contribution. I shall grasp his thread of optimism, as I like what he said about multi-annual plans. I want to be the last Minister who has to go through that ridiculous charade every December in which we sit through the night negotiating. I am delighted that we achieved a relatively good result last December and that the Government, working with the devolved Governments, argued on the basis of sustainability on every occasion. However, it is an absurd system. Multi-annual plans take power away from politicians, which is why some countries do not want to lose the present system—they like the patronage it gives them. I want to work on multi-annual plans and end the horse trading that we have to go through.

I am conscious of time, so I shall pay tribute to the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Mr Spencer), whom I refer to the WWF/Industry Alliance, which builds on the Fish Fight campaign by taking the fight to my fellow Ministers in Europe, knocking on their door and saying that it wants change.

The hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr Whitehead) also made a good speech. I refer him to the work of the Princes international sustainability fund, which currently values the north Atlantic tuna fishery at $70 million. If it was fished sustainably, it would be valued at $310 million, a massive increase. It is only by understanding that kind of difference in valuing our fish, rather than valuing them dead as we do at the moment, and valuing the potential social and economic impact that we will bring about that huge benefit. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for St Ives (Andrew George) for mentioning the Trevose box. He is right to point out that fishermen do so much to address sustainability themselves.

I want to give my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park a few minutes to respond to the debate and so will conclude my remarks. The Government share the priorities expressed by the motion. I can reassure the House that those will remain at the heart of our thinking as we press strongly for a reformed CFP and continue to address discarding in the UK fleet. I am fully behind the intentions of the motion, although I am not sure that it reflects the full scope of the Government’s ambitions for CFP reform. We have an intensive diplomatic effort ahead to negotiate the reform we need, and we must get the detailed measures right, including those on discards. We can do that only by working with our fishing industry to develop effective measures. I welcome the tabling of the motion and the spotlight that the Fish Fight campaign has shone on the current CFP’s failings at a time when we have a once-in-a-decade opportunity to overcome them.

Fisheries

Angus Brendan MacNeil Excerpts

Thursday 2nd December 2010 Westminster Hall

[Dr Eilidh Whiteford (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)]

It is my great privilege to open this afternoon’s debate on fisheries, and I am grateful to see so many hon. Members, who I suspect have postponed rather arduous journeys home to far-flung parts of the UK to be here. I am very grateful to them all.

With the EU Fisheries Council talks less than two weeks away and with officials, I believe, already in Bergen ahead of the talks, this is a timely and very necessary debate. It is likely that we are facing reductions in total allowable catches for some of our key stocks in the year ahead. That means that, in spite of having made substantial progress in conservation, certain parts of our fishing industry are facing a very bleak outlook next year.

As I am sure most Members would agree, fishing is part of the DNA of our coastal communities. It is a multi-million pound industry, and it employs thousands of people—5,500 people in Scotland alone. In addition, fishing directly supports many more thousands of jobs onshore, in processing, retail, supply, maintenance, boat building and so on.

However, we must remember that fishing remains an inherently dangerous and demanding occupation that takes place in a hostile marine environment. Last year, 13 men on UK-registered fishing vessels lost their lives. It is important today that we remember them; that we express our condolences to their families and communities, and that we pay tribute to the Fishermen’s Mission, the Royal National Lifeboat Institution, our coastguards and all those who offer support to our fishermen in their hour of need.

I am very grateful to have the opportunity to lead this debate today, so I am disappointed that it is not taking place on the Floor of the House. In my view, it is very important that the Government should have the chance to inform our discussions this afternoon by setting out their priorities for the EU negotiations. Nevertheless, I hope that we will have a full and productive debate.

As I am sure Members are well aware, this year’s EU talks are taking place against the backdrop of ongoing consultation on reform of the common fisheries policy. At the outset, I think that we have to acknowledge that the CFP is an abject failure. It has failed the fishing industry, it has failed as a conservation strategy and it has failed our coastal communities.

The significant challenges that we now face have to be seen in the context of a CFP that, for more than 30 years, has been systematically damaging our marine environment, systematically undermining the livelihoods of those who seek to earn a living from the sea and has been inconsistently applied across the member states of the EU. It is simply not fit for purpose. It is my belief that we will not realise an economically and environmentally sustainable fishing industry until the CFP is consigned to history and replaced with a workable model of fisheries management.

There is growing consensus in the fishing industry among fishing leaders, fishermen, scientists and environmental non-governmental organisations, that a regionalised approach offers a better way forward than the “one-size-fits-nobody” approach that we have at the moment.

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

I congratulate my hon. Friend, of course, on securing this debate. With Scottish National party eyes, I perhaps see a new “Madame Ecosse” in the making—I am not sure, but we could well have another one within the party.

On the point of regionalisation, surely the way in which the CFP and fisheries are managed at the moment places restrictions on fishing west coast prawns and causes problems, because of the multiplicity of species in the sector. There is a lot of whiting in the sea that eat young prawns, but the fishermen are unable to get them, and rescue and sort out the prawn fishery. As a result, there are distortions right across Scotland, but particularly on the west coast. I wonder if my hon. Friend would address that.

[Dr Whiteford]

I thank my hon. Friend for making that very important point about the need for a whole-ecosystem approach to fisheries management. In addition, our fishermen need the ability to plan their business on a long-term basis and certainly on a much longer-term basis than they do at the moment.

I cannot think of any other industry that is subjected to the intense degree of micro-management and annual uncertainty that the fishing industry is subjected to every year at this time. Fishing is a politically managed and politically regulated industry, and we just simply have to do better.

Fishing is very much the lifeblood of the coastal communities I represent, which include Peterhead, Europe’s premier white fish port, and Fraserburgh, Europe’s biggest shellfish port. Between them, Peterhead and Fraserburgh are also home to a large part of the UK’s pelagic fleet and home to a large processing sector. We have a very diverse industry and it does not just involve major ports such as Peterhead and Fraserburgh. In my constituency, many coastal towns and villages define themselves by their maritime traditions: Whitehills, Gardenstown, Rosehearty, Cairnbulg, Inverallochy, St Combs, and my home town of Macduff. These communities have paid a very high price for the failure of the CFP, which has essentially been a failure of political leadership.

I know that the diverse fishing industry I see in Banff and Buchan is reflected around other parts of the UK coastline. One of the advantages of having a general debate this afternoon is that it will enable Members from around these islands, I hope, to express the concerns and interests of different parts of the fishing industry that pertain to their own locale. Nevertheless, I hope that Members will understand that I myself want to focus this afternoon on a couple of issues that are of particular interest to my own local area.

Perhaps nothing symbolises the mismanagement of fisheries policy more than the present predicament of our white fish fleet in relation to the whole problem of discarding good-quality fish. Under the current regulations, nutritious and marketable food that could be landed and sold is instead thrown back dead into the sea, polluting the marine environment and needlessly depriving boats of landings that could keep them afloat financially.

[Mr MacNeil]

On that point about discards, some fishermen from the west coast of Scotland have said to me that they feel that the increased quota restrictions, which it must be said are often called for by environmentalists, actually lead to higher discards and that it is a counter-productive way of managing fishing, with micro-management from outside the fishing industry leading to these increases in discards.

[Dr Whiteford]

I agree with my hon. Friend that the current quota system is counter-productive with regard to discards. We have to recognise that discards happen for a number of reasons, but one of the key problems is that quotas are currently set for the amount of fish that is landed in port and not for the amount of fish that is actually caught.

I know that the Scottish fleet has worked extraordinarily hard in recent years to reduce discards. Since 2008, discards have declined by a third, which is a greater reduction than has been seen anywhere else, and it has been due in no small part to the introduction of real-time closures and the use of selective gears. However, while those have been very valuable mitigation measures, I do not think that anyone would argue that they have gone far enough. One in three cod caught in the North sea are still being discarded and discard rates are still unacceptably high. More than 14,000 tonnes of cod are still being dumped. That means that more cod is actually being dumped into the North sea than can be landed in the whole of the UK.

That is an environmental outrage, but it is also economically disastrous. In the North sea in 2009, 60,000 tonnes of white fish were landed in Scotland, worth £68 million, but the total catches amounted to 88,000 tonnes. That means that almost 28,000 tonnes—potentially up to a third of the value of the Scottish cod, haddock, whiting, saith, plaice and hake catch—were thrown back into the sea. In financial terms, we could speculate that up to £33 million-worth of good fish was dumped last year. That is a criminal waste in economic and environmental terms, and I can assure Members that nothing creates greater anger and frustration in fishing communities.

With quotas set to be reduced further, discards are actually expected to rise next year. That is why we need to take seriously the success of the catch quota pilot schemes in Scotland and Denmark, which have been running in recent years, and build on those schemes in the years ahead. Those taking part in the pilots have been freed from certain effort restrictions and awarded higher quotas in return for fully monitoring and recording their catches, and avoiding discards. Those fishermen are removing fewer fish from the sea, but they are able to land more fish. It is a win-win situation for them; it keeps the cod recovery plan on track, while rewarding fishermen who do not discard. It is also providing valuable scientific data on what is actually going on in our seas, which is no small point of controversy.

[Mr MacNeil]

I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way again. She mentioned pilot programmes and programmes that we have had. Of course, on the west coast of Scotland we feel the great loss of the by-catch for dogfish, which I think should be looked at again. Particularly on the west coast, there is an awful lot of squid at the moment, but there are no ways for the fishermen to catch the squid. I hope that the Minister will look at enabling fishermen on the west coast of Scotland to get near that squid fishery at some point.

[Dr Whiteford]

My hon. Friend advocates well on behalf of his constituents.

I think that it is recognised that catch quotas are no panacea for the white fish fleet. They will help to mitigate the most damaging social and economic impacts of this year’s expected quota cuts and reduce discard levels further, allowing our fishermen to catch less and land more, but in order to take things to the next level, we need the opportunity to trial a mixed-species catch quota option. The North sea is really a mixed fishery, and we need to consider the ecosystem as a whole. I hope that the UK Government will pursue a full catch quota system for cod in the year ahead. I also urge the Government to secure options to trial catch quotas for other species such as haddock, whiting or plaice. If fishermen are to reap the full benefits of their conservation efforts, the Government must secure changes in the management regime.

Over the past decade, the Scottish white fish fleet has more than halved as the industry has attempted to place itself on a more commercially and ecologically viable footing. We must start rewarding our fishermen for successful conservation efforts and recognise their central role in managing and conserving our fishing resources. In my experience, it is fishermen themselves who want a whole-ecosystem approach to fisheries management. They see the dangers of displacement and know only too well that cack-handed management measures have unintended consequences for them and for the marine environment.

It is also important to remember that the quota reductions likely to affect the white fish fleet next year will have a knock-on effect on processers, some of which are already under pressure from the impact of the recession on global markets and the reduced availability of quotas. In such circumstances, the argument for extending the catch quota scheme next year is compelling, and I hope that the Government will pursue it vigorously.

The other big issue that I want to address is the so-called mackerel war between Iceland and the Faroe Islands and the rest of Europe. I have welcomed previous assurances that the Minister is not minded to acquiesce to the unreasonable demands of Iceland and the Faroe Islands for huge chunks of the global mackerel quota and is keeping pressure on the European Commission not to cave in on the issue. As he knows, about 60% of the UK pelagic fleet is based in my constituency. I have been in regular contact with pelagic fishermen and their representatives during recent months, as I know he has, and they keep saying to me that they want a negotiated settlement, but not at any price.

Mackerel is the UK’s most valuable fish stock. It is also one of the most sustainably managed. Iceland and the Faroe Islands have awarded themselves quotas amounting to 37% of the total allowable catch. Their grossly irresponsible actions are jeopardising the sustainability of the stock and threatening the Marine Stewardship Council accreditation that the pelagic fleet worked so hard to achieve. Our fishermen accept that there are mackerel in Icelandic waters and that Iceland is entitled to some quota, but they argue rightly that that quota must be proportionate and in line with the long-term management plans that exist to protect the stock. There can be no doubt that the increase in mackerel in Icelandic waters is attributable to the successful implementation of conservation measures elsewhere in the North sea. I do not want that work to be undone in order to give Iceland an expedient political payoff.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Doran]

I welcome the Minister’s remarks and was not targeting him specifically—

[Mr MacNeil]

He was a by-catch.

[Mr Doran]

That is a very good point. A number of Members have indicated that they want to speak, so I will say no more on that point. The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan covered many of the points that I wanted to cover, so I do not intend to say much. I hope that we will have an opportunity to hear the Minister give his review of the year and set out the Government’s plans and the position they will take at the Fisheries Council meeting on 13 December on all the important issues that will be raised today.

The general point I want to make is that it has been a difficult year for the fishing industry. The hon. Lady mentioned that 13 fishermen have been lost at sea this year, and every year that figure is shockingly high. It is the most unsafe of all the industries in the UK. I know that the industry makes serious attempts to improve its safety record, but the problem tends to lie with individual vessels, and it is difficult to enforce safety measures. I do not know how we can get the message across, but we need to do much more to improve safety.

The pelagic fisheries have been mentioned, and there is a serious problem in that regard. The idea that one country can put a gun to the head of the whole of Europe, in the way that the Icelanders seem to be doing to get whatever they want—I am not quite sure what they want—is a serious problem. We had the opportunity in the all-party group on fisheries to meet representatives of the Scottish pelagic fisheries, who made it clear how difficult that is for the industry and how much they want to see the problem resolved, but not through concessions to Iceland.

[Mr MacNeil]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Doran]

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will have the opportunity to make his own contribution.

Another serious problem this year, particularly for the Scottish fleet, has been the Isle of Man’s decision to limit scallop fishing. Financial pressures are beginning to tell. I am told that up to 41 vessels from the white fish fleet—almost a third of a fleet of 120—are likely to be decommissioned over the next year, which is a sign of the difficulty imposed on the fleet by the limited fishing opportunities allowed by the current CFP arrangements. The Seafood Scotland website, which I looked at while preparing for the debate, reported in news releases for June and July this year that, for a number of vessels, nearly all the days at sea had been used up, so the end of year fishing will be limited. That puts pressure on other links in the chain of the fishing industry.

My main interest in the fishing industry is in the processing side. The Aberdeen fleet is turning to fish elsewhere. The processing industry has serious problems with the fluctuations in the provision of raw material. There is continuing uncertainty over the progress of reform in the common fisheries policy, manpower changes in the Commission, the lack of news about the proposals that are to be laid and the politics of it all. Whenever we discuss such matters with the industry, there is no sense that there will be any sensible breakthrough that will reform the way in which we operate at the moment. There are so many problems with the common fisheries policy that it is difficult to know where to start. We know where we would like to be, but given the size of the opposing bloc in the European Union, there will be major difficulties in reaching any sensible decision to reform the policy.

On the positive side, there is, unquestionably, progress in the industry. The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan mentioned the Marine Stewardship Council. I remember being at its launch in 1997 at 4 Millbank, its UK branch, when people were saying, “Well, it’s not going to apply to us. Our fishermen are the last hunter-gatherers.” There was no sense that the council was going to be anything really positive for the industry. Since then, however, there has been a sea change in the way in which the industry views itself and functions, particularly in Scotland, which has led the way in the UK and in Europe. The industry has adjusted to the new environment—its massive gear changes, technical improvements and, most importantly, cultural change. The industry now talks about itself as harvesters rather than hunters. It knows that the stock that remains has to be sustainable, which is why there is so much anger about the way in which Iceland has operated. There is also much anger about other issues such as the by-catches and the waste of resource that is allowed under the current arrangements. Haddock and pelagic stocks are now MSC-approved, which does huge things for the marketing opportunities for my fish processers as well as for others.

The other positive thing—I know that it sounds confusing to call it positive—is that trials are under way in Scotland of fishermen who have broken the rules and regulations in relation to black fish. Some 15 fishermen or vessel owners have been convicted and are awaiting sentence. How can I possibly present that as good news? Well, for most of the time that I have been speaking in these debates, black fish has been a key issue, which meant that our industry was not properly regulated. A combination of effort from various Government bodies, Grampian police and others has seen black fish put into its coffin, which is a good thing. It should have happened many years ago.

Earlier, I mentioned that the biggest problem facing the fish processing side of the industry is the availability of raw material. I know that an industry such as the one in Aberdeen that relied on white fish—haddock principally but cod as well—now deals with a whole range of products. The uncertainty makes life very difficult. My fish processers also make it clear to me that their relationship with fish catchers is not always easy. The catchers think that the processers steal the food out of their babies’ mouths, and something similar is said in the other direction. None the less, at the end of the day, they know that they are linked, and the processers now recognise, as much as the catchers, the need for a sustainable industry, but they want one with more certainty.

The skills of the people in the industry is an issue, not least because the flow of new people is drying up, particularly in Aberdeen. Fish processing work is mainly done by workers from east Europe and China, who have the skills, work hard and sustain the industry. Very few young people from the UK or Scotland are coming into the industry and learning the skills that their parents and grandparents learned and passed on.

The hygiene regulations, which mostly come from Europe, are expensive and costly for the industry. Over a number of years, there has been regulation after regulation and that causes difficulty. The processers are keen to point out that unlike the fish catchers, they do not get any decommissioning costs in return.

Let me say a few words about the way in which the debate in the industry has changed. As secretary of the all-party group on fisheries, I can say that we have become much more engaged with external bodies, such as the World Wildlife Fund and GLOBE International, of which many Members of this House are members. The organisation Baltic Sea 2020, which is based in Stockholm, is now interested both in functioning in the North sea and in the common fisheries policy.

I return to my point about the change in culture in the industry. Representatives of WWF and of GLOBE International spoke at our all-party group a week or so ago. It was fascinating to hear them because they were speaking almost the same language as our fishing industry representatives, and that is a sign of how much things have moved on. Certainly, reading the presentations of both organisations, they are presenting arguments to Brussels that we would want to see presented by our own Government.

I have one final word to say to the Minister. Despite my outburst at the start of my contribution, I know that he is doing a good job and that he will do a good job in Brussels. I wish him well in all his travails and hope that at the end of it all he will get some sleep.