Fishing Industry

Austin Mitchell Excerpts

Thursday 11th December 2014 Commons Chamber

[Austin Mitchell (Great Grimsby) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the fishing industry.

May I first express my delight in moving this motion and opening this debate, which is a great honour? I have participated in more fishing debates in 38 years than Britain has had quota cuts in its fishing catches, and I am afraid that it has always been a long-term rearguard action to prevent the decline of fishing. Such rearguard action has gone on ever since Prime Minister Ted Heath abandoned British fishing to the common fisheries policy. The fishing industry became, in the words of a Scottish Office Minister, “disposable”. Equal access to our common resource signalled a smaller and far less powerful British industry, and it inevitably precipitated endless haggling, with British Ministers fighting for our fishing.

We have had these annual debates, in which we always voice the problems of our fishing industry in different areas and try to incite Ministers to go away and fight for fishing. Ministers have said, for example, that they were going to fight for Britain in the December European Council meeting at Brussels and come back proclaiming victory—yet fishing continues to decline. They have not proclaimed a victory as complete as Ted Heath’s under the Maastricht treaty, which claimed game, set and match to Britain. That is a facetious point about Europe as an introduction to what I really want to say.

We have fought a rearguard action, which is now reaching its nadir. The forthcoming Council in December threatens a disaster for the industry because the conservation campaigners are proposing 40 quota cuts, with only 27 remaining stable or being increased. The National Federation of Fishermen’s Organisations has called this a “breathtaking galaxy of cuts”, which will decimate the industry, so we are at a turning-point because the cuts to quotas threaten the viability of the fishing industry, especially the English fishing industry. The Scottish industry is inevitably stronger because it is nearer the fishing grounds and is better protected by its Ministers and its Government than the English industry has been.

There is a particular threat to the south-west, which will suffer the brunt of the cuts. If the cuts go ahead, there will not be enough quota to maintain a viable, profitable fishing industry throughout the year, and the industry will be forced to reconstruct itself by means of bankruptcy rather than decommissioning, or any other sensible policy. What has happened to the Bristol channel is a standing warning of the fate that will overtake the industry if the cuts proceed. Endless cuts have led to minute quotas, forcing the big vessels out and tying up the smaller ones. Many fishermen have gone bankrupt, and the only processing factory in the area has closed down. The cuts pose a threat that what has happened to the Bristol channel will happen all over the country.

[Sheryll Murray (South East Cornwall) (Con)]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that if the quota cuts continue year on year, the fishing industry in the south-west could be completely wiped out, like the long-distance fishermen for whom he has a history of fighting?

[Austin Mitchell]

I strongly agree with the hon. Lady. That is the danger that I want to avoid. I am inciting the Minister to fight to protect the industry in order to prevent that eventuality, because what happened to the Bristol channel must not be allowed to happen to the rest of the country.

The prospects for the wider industry following the European Council meeting are gloomy indeed. The problems are compounded not just by cuts in the total allowable catches, but by the discard ban, which is to be introduced in two stages. That will be very messy and difficult. I believe that a discard ban is impossible unless every fishing vessel is equipped with closed-circuit television so that catches can be monitored. Alternatively, perhaps we could send unemployed Methodist Ministers to serve as observers on all the vessels—and Church of Scotland Ministers to serve on the Scottish vessels—to give us an honest account of what is going on.

[Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)]

I have long been an admirer of my hon. Friend, who is passionate about this subject. He has always said that it is possible for this country to have a healthy, vibrant fishing industry which also protects marine conservation and the environment. Will he reassert that view?

[Austin Mitchell]

That is exactly right. That is what I want to achieve, as will emerge from my speech, whether it proves to be passionate, discursive or very boring.

As I have said, the problems caused by the cuts will be compounded by the discard ban, which will be unenforceable. Moreover, if fish are to be expensively dumped in landfill rather than being discarded at sea, we shall need more ports at which to land them, and we do not have those ports, because they are being closed. In Lowestoft, for instance, everything has closed down. That, in turn, will be compounded by the landing requirements, which have not yet been specified because of the process of co-decision making. All that is compounded further by the rush to marine conservation areas. Conservationists want 127 of them, which is just daft. It is excessive. Those conservation areas will create a patchwork quilt of different regulations and requirements in different parts of the North sea, with which the fishing industry will find it impossible to comply.

Why are we faced with all this? We are faced with it because the common fisheries policy was not revised in the way in which it should have been in the recent 20-year revision. That revision provided an opportunity for power to be transferred to the regions and the regional advisory councils, and for the industry to control its own fishing, policing itself and maintaining its own stability. However, Brussels would not give up control. The result is that the policy is still controlled by diktat from the top and is enforced in the different areas. It is still decided on quotas and, if we have quotas, we are going to get discards, because those in mixed fisheries will catch fish that are not on their quota, and what is going to happen to them? The more they cut quotas, the greater the discards. We will face that problem as a result of this Council.

The common fisheries policy has always been enforced through political imperative. In the past it was the political imperative of doling out paper fish to all the states in the EU. Each got a catch, and inevitably the result was overfishing, with fish created to please the politicians and to be given to national entities. The political imperative has now changed; it is now to propitiate the conservation lobby, which is playing far too big a part in policy decisions, as opposed to the interests and concerns of commercial fishing and having a viable fishing industry. The conservation lobby is playing a part because it is strong in the European Parliament, which is the home of playaway politics and funny politics of all kinds.

Clearly, the conservation lobby has been very persuasive in the European Parliament. That is a sad change. I remember that 10 years ago the World Wide Fund for Nature and the British fishing industry co-operated in developing a plan for fishing that would lead to investment and, therefore, build towards a sustainable fleet and a sustainable catch, which is what we needed. We did not get the investment money from Government, however, so the conservation groups have moved on and are now demanding the close-down of the commercial industry, or restrictions on it that are so great that it will be impossible for it to carry on.

The conservationists are painting a picture of our seas being fished out by rapacious overfishing. It takes no account of overfishing by other countries, however, because we cannot effectively control our own waters if they are subject to incursions by other fishing fleets, which ours are. That was the argument that we had about bass in Westminster Hall a couple of weeks ago. It was an argument about whether the leisure industry, the returns on which are compounded by including hotel bills and travel and all sorts of expenses, produces a bigger economic return than the commercial fishing of bass, and it left out the French rapacious overfishing of bass and took no account of the French decimation of the stock. Similarly, discussion of the shellfish—lobster and crab—fisheries off Yorkshire took no account of the smashing of the pots of Yorkshire fishermen by French trawlers, which has been taking place.

We cannot have the kind of conservation policy that the conservationists want unless we have national enforcement in national waters, because the nation state has that interest in conservation. If we have a collective policy in which other people cheat and are given excessive quotas, which they maintain and defend, it is difficult to do what the conservationists want, which is to let the stocks build up.

The aim has been to cut down on commercial fishing in order to build the stocks and support the small boat industry. I have in my hand one of the pamphlets, with a touching picture on the cover. It is entitled, “Championing coastal waters and communities”. Small boat fishing and commercial fishing are not necessarily at each other’s throats, however. Both are essential. Small boat fisheries do not go much more than 12 nautical miles out. They are not catching the kind of fish caught by commercial fisheries—high-volume, low-return fish such as herring. They are not supplying the markets in the same way as the commercial fishermen are, so while it is necessary to support the small boat industry and fishing communities, it is also necessary to support and maintain commercial fishing.

The conservationists are trying to create panic and a fear that we are going to decimate our waters and cut down on commercial fishing. They are being financed by American money: $50 million has been provided for campaigning by the Pew organisation, plus another grant from the Oak Foundation. That is why the campaign is so well-oiled, so vociferous and so effective. The British fishing industry does not have the resources to combat that kind of propaganda. The campaigners want to tie the industry down.

The conservationists have an admirable ideal, which I share. We have to achieve sustainable fishing with a fleet that is matched to the fishing opportunities, but we will not achieve that through the brutal enforcement of targets using excessive haste. A term much used by Grimsby fishermen is “festina lente”—take it slowly. I say to the conservationists, let us do this in rational, reasonable, slow steps. Or, as the Prime Minister would say, “Calm down, dears!” Fishing has changed. It is no longer done by the kind of rapacious privateers that we used to see. Stocks are building up, and fishing mortality has halved in the north Atlantic since 2000. The amount of discards has also been halved through technical conservation measures, which is the most effective way of doing that. We are also seeing the biomass building up, very slowly in some cases but very fast in others. Look at North sea plaice: it is now abundant, and the biomass is at its highest level ever. Five years ago, North sea plaice was a threatened species. So there can be a rapid turnaround, and that turnaround is now going on, so let us take it as it comes. Let us balance the cuts with the development of the stocks.

We need to have sustainable catches, but we also need a sustainable industry. That does not mean just the small boat industry; it involves the commercial fishing industry as well. Grimsby has moved from being the world’s premier fishing port. I used to boast about that when I was first elected, but it is not a consequence of my election that it has gone from that to having perhaps only 20 boats. However, some of those boats are doing a good commercial job. Some are catching flatfish, for example. Large, tied vessels are catching North sea plaice and maintaining continuity of supply to the market. We need to sustain both: the small boats and the large, commercial vessels.

If these cuts go ahead as prophesied, the effect will be to decimate the small boat industry. It will be more serious than the conservationists envisage. We need profitable companies and profitable small boats. So why rush into the measures proposed for this coming year? Let us postpone the multiple sustainable yield target. Ministers have the latitude to postpone it to 2020, rather than introducing it in 2015. I urge them to postpone it, to maintain catches without cuts and to bring in the discard ban slowly and more partially—species by species—rather than promptly and all at once. We should let the build-up of stocks continue, and match the effort to that rather than to some target ordained in advance that is perhaps unreachable by 2015.

I urge the Minister, as we always do on these occasions, to resist the scale of cuts that has been proposed. I urge him to proclaim the need for both a sustainable industry and for us to develop a system—unlike this dictatorial one of setting quotas from the top and then enforcing them on the British industry—that listens to fishing and to the regional advisory councils. They are the biggest advance, and a necessary one, in giving us regional control, regional targets and a regional management system. We need to involve the fishermen more in their research. We need to open up to the industry the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea, which is far too secretive and far too scientific. The industry knows where the fish are and ICES does not necessarily have the same scale of knowledge. We need to stop trying to bully the fishing industry to fit into someone else’s plans, be it those for political union or for a conservation heaven achieved overnight.

We need to help the fishing industry; let us not restructure it by bankruptcy. Fishing has an interest in having a sustainable catch and a sustainable industry, because that is the interest of future generations. If we destroy our interest—if we cut down fishing drastically now and stop the training, the family connections, the growth of communities dependent on fishing and the investment by companies that has gone on—we are not going to be able to restore the industry later. So let the industry get involved in the management of the stocks. Let us recognise that it has a future and work to preserve it. Let the industry develop in its own way, rather than imposing these excessive cuts on it.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

Grimsby Seafood Manufacturers

Austin Mitchell Excerpts

Wednesday 15th October 2014 Westminster Hall

[Austin Mitchell (Great Grimsby) (Lab)]

I am glad to have the opportunity to discuss an anomaly that arises from the common fisheries policy. The anomaly is a measure designed to check state aid for fishing, but it is now depriving Young’s Seafood—a firm that we are very proud of in Grimsby and Cleethorpes, and my colleague, the hon. Member for Cleethorpes (Martin Vickers), is here—of the ability to get state aid for investment and expansion.

Young’s is a seafood manufacturer on a considerable scale; I think it is the biggest seafood manufacturer in the country. However, this anomaly also applies to other seafood manufacturers, and seafood manufacturing is a major section of the food manufacturing industry. None of these companies can get regional selective assistance, or other public support, for the investment they need to expand and grow.

I emphasise that although my reputation is for being a Eurosceptic—a man whose opinion of the European Union can be summed up in four words, three of which are “the European Union”, and who is a continuous critic of it—I do not raise this issue just as a critic of the EU. I raise it because this situation is daft, impinges on a major manufacturing firm in Grimsby, and needs to be ended.

What is at issue here is the EU guidance on state aid regarding the entire fisheries sector. That sector is defined as being concerned with

“the exploitation of aquatic resources and aquaculture together, with the means of production, processing and marketing of the resultant products”.

That definition is being interpreted as applying to Young’s, which employs 3,000 people in Grimsby and Scotland. It is the largest single private employer in Grimsby, employing 1,700 people in processing jobs there, and—I have to say—creating a superb product range. It seems to me, and to Young’s, that to extend these European guidelines to the company is a distortion of their purpose, because Young’s itself catches no fish. It farms no fish; it does not have a fishing fleet; and it does no primary processing of fish, which is the filleting and gutting of fish—the only processing, I think, that the guidelines are meant to cover.

Young’s imports its fish from all over the world. In fact, it uses 30 species of fish from five continents. Very little of that fish is caught under the CFP, of which these guidelines are part. Young’s makes from those fish more than 300 dishes. It makes dishes; it turns fish into meals by processing it, adding ingredients and selling it as a meal. So, in every sense Young’s is not a fishing company but a food processing company—a fish and seafood processing company—and therefore it deserves to be excluded from these guidelines.

Young’s is a food manufacturer and it is an important part of Britain’s manufacturing industry. Young’s and other food manufacturers hit by this anomaly are anxious to expand, grow, invest and create jobs, but they cannot because they cannot get public support in the way that other industries that they are competing with for investment can. I hope that I can persuade the Minister to see that, and to do something about it, because if he does not, he will put Young’s and other seafood manufacturers at a competitive disadvantage not only to other food manufacturers but to the rest of the industry. He will also put us—the people of Grimsby, which is Europe’s food town—at a competitive disadvantage when it comes to attracting jobs and investment, which will harm the development of Grimsby, because we all know the importance of cluster growth, as emphasised by Michael Porter, whereby clustering industries can trade experience, skills, staff and research. We have such a cluster in Grimsby, but it will be damaged if it cannot get Government support in this way.

I have been working hard to drive that lesson home. On 6 June, I wrote to both the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, and the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills. In those letters, I asked for an early reply, but I did not get one. BIS passed the letter to DEFRA, and DEFRA did not answer. An Under-Secretary of State at DEFRA wrote to Young’s on 17 September—although I had written in June—explaining what the Commission thought, but we already knew what the Commission thought. What the Commission thinks is wrong. We want independent thought relating to the point that these are food manufacturers, not fisheries firms. The reply seemed over-complacent about the situation.

I took the issue up with our local enterprise partnership, which is very good and active. Lord Haskins, the chair, wrote supportively and pointed out in passing that some restrictions also apply to flower-growing in our area, although I do not see why, and to making potato chips. Let us face it: the fish and chip industry, which is vital to this country and provides a good deal of the sustenance for our people—and certainly for me—is being hit both ways; it is being hit because we cannot invest in the seafood producers, and because of restrictions on what can be allocated to producing chips. However, I am not taking up the chips side of the argument today; I am taking up only the seafood manufacturing side. Lord Haskins added helpfully that he and the LEP supported Young’s, which he said were

“wealth creators and providers of large local employment”,

which is true.

Our Euro MP, Linda McAvan, was also helpful. She understood the problem and the consequences and mentioned that guidelines for the fisheries sector are being revised at this very moment. If those guidelines are being revised, it is up to us to get our voice in, to get that revision changed so that this restriction no longer applies to seafood manufacturers. I want the Department to get in there and get this regulation changed.

That is my plea. I plead to the Government and Ministers to stop wringing their hands and stop telling us what they cannot do. Government is good at telling people what they cannot do. I want the Minister to find out what is happening to seafood manufacturers in other European countries, because I am sure, from a little bit of evidence that I have—it is incumbent on the Department to check this—that they are being aided by the state in a way that our state will not aid our seafood manufacturers. I will bet that those states are doing that, because the degree of cheating on European regulations is quite astonishing; others are less timid and hidebound than we are.

I plead with the Minister not to brass-plate European lunacies. Let us get round them, put Britain first, and put Young’s at the forefront of putting Britain first. Let us get food manufacturing excluded from this fisheries regulation, so that structural aid and regional support aid for investment and jobs can come to this sector, which is anxious. The purchase and consumption of seafood dishes is increasing steadily; they are good for us, and we want to encourage that and to encourage the manufacturers. The firms want to expand, and it is only this barrier that is preventing them from expanding.

I am fed up with excuses, and so is the industry. We need action on this anomaly. It ill behoves a Government who are constantly telling us that they will get a better deal from Europe to do so little to get a better deal in this instance. I have every hope that the Minister will accept that.

[Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)]

I share my hon. Friend’s views, and congratulate him on getting this debate. The other word that he uses in connection with the European Union is surely “out”; I would agree with that, as would most of our constituents in north-east Lincolnshire. Does he agree that this is yet another example of a case where the seafood and fishing industries have been at a disadvantage as a result of European intervention, and that they have missed out on many of the grants and benefits that other industries have had? To take up the point he was just making, does he agree that this issue should be a vital part of any renegotiation?

[Austin Mitchell]

I agree with my hon. Friend and colleague. I will also agree on the use of “out”, but there is a long trail a-winding there. The immediate issue is to get help now for a firm that needs and wants investment. My last words to the Minister—other hon. Members will have something to add—are these: stand up and support Young’s and Grimbsy, and get rid of this anomaly.

--- Later in debate ---

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

I congratulate the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Austin Mitchell) on securing the debate and bringing this subject to the attention of the House. As other Members have said, he has long been a champion of fisheries issues and the many fisheries businesses located in his constituency. Indeed, I remember when he changed his name a little over a decade ago to Austin Haddock, to highlight the plight of our fisheries industry. Earlier this year, I had the pleasure of visiting the Grimsby fish market and, along with my hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes (Martin Vickers), Grimsby Seafood Village. I also visited the new Morrison’s fish processing facility, and at a dinner I had the opportunity to meet representatives of Young’s to discuss some of their plans and aspirations. I understand how important the sector is to the local economy around Grimsby, so I am pleased to have the opportunity to respond to this debate.

As the hon. Gentleman said, we have corresponded on this matter, and I have also received representations directly from Young’s Seafood. He expressed some regret that we took some time to reply to that letter, but I assure him that there was a good reason for that. When I was shown the initial draft, it said that we could not do anything, and I wanted to explore the issue further. I put a hold on the letter and said I wanted a meeting to explore the issue with officials, to discuss it more fully with our lawyers and to challenge the legal opinion that we had. During that discussion, however, I was persuaded that their interpretation was correct. I will come on to explain the reasons for that, but first, I underline my support for the fish processing industry. When I visited Grimsby earlier this year, I saw at first hand what a forward-looking and dynamic sector it is. As well as employing thousands of people, it plays a vital role in providing the whole country with affordable, healthy food.

The hon. Gentleman and I have something in common: we are both on the Eurosceptic side of the political spectrum, despite being on opposite ends of the political spectrum on many other things. He has been consistent; I remember him saying before that his view of the European Union can be summed up in four words, and three of them are “the European Union”, and I can see that that has not changed at all. When I was the director of the “No” campaign against the euro, he played a leading part from the Labour Benches. I am afraid that the regulations I will describe will probably not do anything to diminish his scepticism on the European Union.

There are two issues under consideration: first, what constitutes a seafood business, and, secondly, whether such a business should be eligible for financial support from public funds. On the first question, which relates to the state aid rules, there are two relevant regulations. The first is the fisheries block exemption regulation, EC regulation 736/2008, which concerns aid to small and medium-sized enterprises active in the production, processing and marketing of fisheries products. The second is the fisheries de minimis regulation, EC regulation 717/2014. Both are clear, in alignment with the financial measures under the common fisheries policy, that they apply to the entire fisheries sector. The rules cover not only fishing or fish farming, or even the primary stages of processing, as the hon. Gentleman suggested, but all stages of production, including the processing and marketing of the finished product. The regulations effectively mean that support can only be offered in accordance with the conditions set out in the European fisheries fund, which is soon to become the European maritime and fisheries fund. There is a de minimis exemption for small projects, up to a total of just €30,000 over three years. I appreciate that such a small amount is of little comfort to Young’s, which has such an ambitious project.

I have some sympathy with the argument that a company, as the hon. Gentleman said, may primarily be a food manufacturer that produces meals of all kinds, rather than just a fisheries business, but I cannot agree that we are gold-plating the EU state aid requirements. They have a little room for interpretation, but it is just that: a very small amount of room. In this instance, it cannot reasonably be argued that a business whose entire product range appears to be fish-based is anything other than a fisheries business, as defined under the regulations.

We have applied the rules consistently, and have rejected similar large proposals from large applicants on exactly the same grounds. To be consistent, we have to apply the same approach now. If we were to take a high-risk approach on Young’s and allow it to receive this aid, the risk would lie with Young’s. The European Commission could decide that the aid was unlawful and require it to be repaid. If Young’s had already invested the funds in infrastructure and jobs, it would then be in the unenviable position of having to repay the aid in full, plus interest. That could pose a greater risk to the business than simply being clear in the first place that it is not eligible. In addition, should the Commission find the UK to be systematically making unlawful payments, that would put the entire programme at risk.

The hon. Gentleman asked an important question: what do other countries do? As a Eurosceptic, I always ask whether we are gold-plating regulations and what other countries do. The risk I described is not theoretical. There was a similar case in 2012 concerning a manufacturer of frozen fish products in Spain. The European Commission opened a formal investigation to determine whether the type of aid proposed was compatible with the internal market. It concluded that it was not, which resulted in the entire project being cancelled and the funds disallowed. If we look at what happened with that case and the approach we have taken with other large processors, we have to be consistent and recognise the risks of doing what the hon. Gentleman urges us to do.

It is not all bad news for Grimsby, however. There are a lot of good projects that have been supported through the European fisheries fund. Some 31 projects carried out by seafood businesses in the Grimsby area have already received some £3.2 million of European fisheries funding under the current programme. Individual grants have ranged from £4,000 to £1.2 million. Those projects have already delivered a wide range of local benefits, including port improvements, new processing units and ice plant facilities in the fish market, which have allowed local businesses to grow and prosper. When I visited the Grimsby Seafood Village, I saw a lot of those businesses benefiting from new premises and new investment to allow them to take their businesses forward.

While very large companies would be excluded from such support under most scheme rules due to their size, there are also significant general EU restrictions on large companies receiving state aid. That is simply because the European Commission has concerns that large subsidies in the fish processing sector would seriously distort the market. That is why the de minimis ceiling for state aid has been set at €30,000 over a three-year period. Additionally, the European Commission is explicit in stating that aid can be used only to support activity that a company would not otherwise undertake. That is what they call the incentive effect, and it is contained in article 7 of the fisheries block exemption regulation, which stipulates:

“Aid shall be considered to have an incentive effect if it enables the beneficiary to carry out activities or projects which it would not have carried out as such in the absence of the aid.”

I am not sure that we can make that case with Young’s.

[Austin Mitchell]

I thank the Minister for giving way. First, he is telling us why it cannot be done, but fish is only a part of the fish meals prepared by Young’s. There are other ingredients, whether carrots or chips or whatever. This is food manufacturing, so why can it not get support for the other sides of the process, which would help it to expand? The problem is that the alternative available sources of fishing finance mentioned by the Minister are only small-scale stuff compared with the big investment need of Young’s. Secondly, what are the British Government doing in Europe to change the situation?

[George Eustice]

I will come on to that second point, but on the hon. Gentleman’s first point about Young’s selling products that are not predominantly fish, when I had that meeting with officials I said, “Go and look at Young’s website and look at their entire product range. Let’s see what they are actually selling.” We could not find a product that was not fish or predominantly fish or one that would not fall within the definition of fish product under the regulations.

I want to finish the point that I was making about investment. Taking a broader perspective across the Humber, most businesses have benefited from some large-scale investment. Some £260 million in public and private funding is being invested under the local enterprise partnership growth programme. There is also the electrification of the east coast main line right out to the coast, so we are doing many things to help Grimsby.

In answer to the hon. Gentleman’s second point about what the Government are doing, the Government recognise not only that large companies are often part of the driving force behind growth in the regions, but also that they can in many cases have the greatest impact on the environment. As such, we are in discussion with the European Commission about ensuring that when it comes to investment in environmental protection or upgrading a plant’s facilities to help the environment, we may indeed be able to change the block exemption rules. We will work with the Commission on that for the benefit of those sectors of UK industry that stand to benefit, including the companies discussed today. We have already raised the matter with the Commission and if we get the proposal through, it could be of benefit to companies operating in the aquaculture and fish processing sectors and would at least help to support their investments in some of their environmental improvement, which we would encourage.

In conclusion, I again thank the hon. Member for Great Grimsby for his efforts in securing the debate. I reassure him that I did not just sign a letter and send it back. When I saw the draft, I was clear with officials that I wanted a meeting to get to grips with the issue. Having discussed the matter with our lawyers in some depth, I am afraid that my conclusion was that their interpretation and the Marine Management Organisation’s approach had been right, but I thank the hon. Gentleman for the opportunity to set out what we have done and the attempts that I made on his behalf to explore this important issue.

Question put and agreed to.

Fisheries

Austin Mitchell Excerpts

Thursday 6th December 2012 Westminster Hall

[Austin Mitchell (Great Grimsby) (Lab)]

We should be grateful to the Backbench Business Committee for giving us this debate, although the fishing debates before previous December Fisheries Council meetings were always three-hour debates on the Floor of the House. I commend to the Minister the idea of going back to that. Rather than exhausting Back-Bench resources on providing our own debate, this debate should be on the Floor of the House.

I had hoped to be the first fisherman of England to speak, because the weight of the industry has drifted north to Scotland, but I have been preceded by the hon. Members for South East Cornwall (Sheryll Murray) and for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Eric Ollerenshaw).

The hon. Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood spoke of the quota hoppers in Fleetwood. Some years back I chaired the Fisheries Sub-Committee of the Select Committee on Agriculture. We went to Vigo in Spain, and I was asked whether I would like to meet the chairman of the Fleetwood Fishing Vessel Owners Association, who was introduced to me and did not speak a word of English. As I spoke no Spanish, there was no meeting of minds on that occasion, but it indicates the extent to which quota hoppers have become important to the English industry.

This debate is part of a long war we have had to change the common fisheries policy, and in my case to scrap it. The Conservative party no longer adopts my position for some inexplicable reason, so we are talking about improving the common fisheries policy to make it more bearable because, frankly, it has not worked and is not working.

Making the common fisheries policy work will be very difficult, because the nation state is the conserver of its own fishing interests, and it has an interest in conservation to hand on its fishing industry. We are gradually reforming the CFP, but it is still a top-down operation—a Gosplan of the seas—rather than a locally controlled operation. That is why we need to move closer to regional control by strengthening the regional advisory councils, which are doing a good job. Some of the powers handled from Brussels, such as those on catch quotas, fishing methods and the closing and opening of grounds, should be exercised locally in the area concerned by the regional advisory council. We will have further complications now that there is co-decision making by the European Parliament, which means all sorts of political factors will intrude.

[Sheryll Murray]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the obstacle to real regionalisation is the dreaded “equal access to a common resource” clause? Does he agree that the Minister needs to remove that clause from the regulation?

[Austin Mitchell]

Absolutely. I assume the Minister to be superhuman, and that should be a central point of our negotiations. The intrusion of the European Parliament into co-decision making will make it much more difficult, because there will be all sorts of extraneous interests. It will be interesting to hear the views of Luxembourg on North sea cod quotas, but that is slightly irrelevant to our problem. A lot more conservation interests will intrude into what should basically be fishing decisions.

To make the common fisheries policy work effectively we have to hand more power down to the regional advisory councils, because they are more sensitive to the problems of their area. Those problems include the cod conservation plan, which will be difficult to manage. Frankly, the plan is not successful, but if we adhere to it, it will enforce cuts of some 20% in the total allowable catches, which is nearly impossible for the industry to bear. I hope the Minister will oppose that, because other states certainly will. We cannot preserve a plan that is not working effectively by accepting 20% cuts in the TACs. It is better to rely on scientific advice, which states that the stocks are, in the main, improving. Some of the scientific advice the Commission is getting is fallacious—it seems to me that we have fixed quotas on the basis of saying that there is no scientific advice on stocks such as cod west of Scotland and haddock, whiting and plaice in area VII. Those are all unnecessary because the scientific advice is available, and the stocks will bear increased catches. Let us not follow the EU cod plan, as the co-decision making may force us to do. That should go to the regional advisory council.

[Mr Graham Brady in the Chair]

The Government have been criticised for missing the 2012 deadline for designating 127 marine conservation areas, and I do not blame them for that. They are right to miss that deadline, and I am happy about it, because it is impossible to fix those areas without first agreeing a firm code of conduct, as the National Federation of Fishermen’s Organisations has argued. I would not want the marine conservation areas to become yet another restriction on fishing quotas and catches, making the whole area a patchwork quilt of different requirements. We need a good, tough code of conduct before we define the areas.

Discards have been turned into a major issue by Mr Fearnley-Whittingstall’s brilliant, entertaining film. He argues that the ban operates in Norway, but of course Norway does not have the same mixed fishing that we have, so it is easier to enforce discards. From talking to Norwegians, I know that the discard ban is not perfect; discards are still going on in Norwegian waters. The only way to approach this is as the industry has approached it. We have reduced discards by some 50% over 10 years, which can be done only through further measures on selective gear. We cannot have a total ban on discards without fitting every vessel with closed circuit television to see what they are catching and what is happening to it. Policing on that basis would be impossible. There may be a case for requiring everything to be landed and sold—not for landfill, which is silly, but at no great return to the skipper concerned. A total ban, as defined by the Commission, is going to be impossible for several years.

Finally, I do not want to approach the emotional relationship between Scotland and England on the mackerel situation—we have just been passing notes about that here. I can understand the anger of Scottish fishermen about Iceland and the Faroes—but I am more sympathetic to the Icelandic point of view than might be good for my health if I ever go to Scotland. First, for a long time Iceland and the Faroes were in a weak position in the negotiations on fixing the quotas, and their catches needed to be increased. Secondly, the stock is going north with global warming, so there are more mackerel in Icelandic waters for Iceland to catch. Thirdly, the situation is eventually going to be solved by negotiation, so let us get the negotiations, which broke off in October, going again. We should not impose sanctions, because Icelandic fish are our lifeblood in Grimsby. They are all that supplies the market. If the Minister goes along with a ban or some kind of discrimination against Iceland, I assure him that he will earn the long-term hatred of every fish and chip shop in the north of England, which is a great burden for anyone to face, so he should not support a ban.

I shall conclude—my time is nearly out anyway—by saying that the Minister has a difficult job, because he has to conciliate support from other areas that do not have the same interest in British fish stocks that we have. That is a process for the current negotiations and for the December Council. He also has to take a firm position on renegotiation to strengthen the British role, British catches and the British industry in the long-term definition of the common fisheries policy.

Common Fisheries Policy

Austin Mitchell Excerpts

Thursday 15th March 2012 Commons Chamber

[Austin Mitchell (Great Grimsby) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for South East Cornwall (Sheryll Murray), with whom I agree almost totally. We should express our gratitude to the Backbench Business Committee for allowing this debate, and to the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee for its excellent report. It is the best report on fishing since the report of the old Agriculture Committee, which I chaired. That was 20 years ago, and that long space goes to show how much importance such Committees attach to fishing.

I was sorry that the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Miss McIntosh), the Chair of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, eschewed the use of the slogan “Yorkshire Fish for Yorkshire Chip Oils”, because it would be a winning slogan in any campaign in Yorkshire. I shall certainly use it—not in Grimsby, but in Yorkshire—come the election.

The report is good, but the one quarrel I have with it is a substantial one. It says that the principle of relative stability should be looked at, which is a dangerous precedent. Just because fish that normally swim off the coast of Spain migrate north because of global warming does not mean that we should allow Spanish fishermen to disturb the principle of relative stability, which excludes them from our waters.

The debate is important because crunch time for the common fisheries policy is approaching. It is a very centralised policy—it is Gosplan, Soviet Union-style planning for fishing. It applies one-size-fits-all regulations for varied waters and fleets, and dictates to fishermen instead of working with them. It is also very political. There are increases in quota for political reasons, and when that leads to over-fishing, cuts are made by stopping fishermen fishing, either by limiting the number of days at sea or by reducing the catch. That is an insane way to carry on.

The common fisheries policy remains a folly that will not work, cannot be made to work and should be ended. The one thing I cheered when the Conservatives won the election—there was only one thing—was that they promised to repatriate powers from Europe. That, presumably, has been diluted by the coalition with the Liberal Democrats, who will probably smuggle those powers back across the channel in the boots of their cars. That promise was a good sign, because this is the time to repatriate powers, and power over fisheries is the power we should repatriate.

[Andrew George]

rose—

[Austin Mitchell]

I do not want to get into Liberal by-paths on this issue. Just because I get up and speak the European truth does not allow the Liberal party to interfere with my speech in the way that it interferes with the Government’s policy.

Having asserted the position and said what I would like to see, I will put my “moderate but non-new Labour” suit on. To deal with the situation as it is, we must take the approach of accepting the Committee’s recommendations. The preliminary proposals from the Commission, which are expanded in the so-called non-papers—a good European term—telling us what the Commission’s decision means, are unacceptable. They are particularly unacceptable on handing powers down to the regions, because we want regionalised decision making in fishing. That is essential, but the Commission proposes the bare minimum it could get away with—

[Jim Shannon]

I am not a Liberal, so the hon. Gentleman is allowing me to say a few words. Does he agree that the potential for a genuine regional approach is immense, as it would involve the community and the fishing industry? Regionalisation would make the fishing industry sustainable for the future, and it is the way forward.

[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.

[Ian Paisley]

On the hon. Gentleman’s point about discards and conservationists—as a parliamentarian, he will be interested in the nuances of this—the hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) yesterday introduced a very useful ten-minute rule Bill on food waste. She said that surplus should be donated and redistributed in preference to disposal. We can apply the same food waste policy to fish. We should not be throwing it back in the sea: we should be landing it and redistributing it.

[Austin Mitchell]

The hon. Gentleman will have the opportunity to make his own speech—or discard it, as the case may be—and I shall come to that point in a moment.

The second failure in the Commission’s proposals is the failure to deal with over-capacity. They say that decommissioning has failed to reduce capacity, which is just not true. It has certainly reduced the impact of fishing on North sea stocks, especially cod, plaice, sole and round fish. Instead of proposing a European decommissioning system, financed by Europe and not by the national Governments, the proposals would throw the problem back to the nations through the transferable fishing concessions. They are an improvement on football clubs owning quotas, which was very odd, and, as the Committee suggested, they could give preference to coastal fishing communities, which certainly should be done. However, we have to phase them in much more slowly than the Commission envisages. The Danish transferable fishing concessions were successful only because they followed several rounds of decommissioning of Danish vessels. It is wrong, therefore, to impose this as mandatory on all states.

On discards, the Commission has jumped on the populist bandwagon and passed the odium back to the member states. Its proposal is that discarding should be stopped between 2014 and 2016. That ignores the fact that most discards are due to CFP measures. If we set quotas and total allowable catches in mixed fisheries, we inevitably get discards because fishermen cannot land anything outside their quota. The proposal also takes no account of the fact that the Commission’s cod plan led to more discards—the cod catch did not increase as the cod stocks grew, so cod was being caught and chucked back. That was a failure to adjust the policy quickly enough.

These proposals also ignore the fact that the industry has already reduced discards by 50% over 10 years. That is the way we have to go. The industry has to do it by technical measures. Square-mesh panels, for example, were a great innovation and helped to reduce discards. Let us work from that path and to a longer timetable, as the report suggests, and not to the too-intense, too-tight timetable in the Commission’s proposals.

The same goes for the maximum sustainable yields. It is a good idea to identify the mortality level that will maintain high yields, but it is crazy to propose that the most vulnerable stock should determine the limits of exploitation for all other species in that area. That is folly. It will place limits on all catches in areas where one stock is threatened. Once again, that decision needs leaving to the regions to develop an approach that is suitable to their areas.

I will briefly mention common fisheries efforts to buy quotas and fishing rights in foreign jurisdictions at our expense—we pay for it. They are usually taken by the Spanish. They have about 400 vessels doing that, whereas we have about nine—so there is nothing in it for us. If the industry wants to buy quotas overseas—it has taken a fairly aggressive approach towards the small fishing fleets of poor nations—it must buy them itself and not use money from our contributions.

I shall wind my speech to a conclusion. These proposals in the so-called non-papers are not what we envisaged. The Minister has to fight against them along the lines recommended by the Committee. I shall conclude with one interesting fact in the representations from the National Federation of Fishermen’s Organisations. The approach to resource management is on YouTube, so I refer all Members to YouTube for the rest of my speech. It has a presentation by Elinor Ostrom pointing out that when we manage resources, we need the involvement of stakeholders, polycentric governance, which is what we are suggesting on the regional advisory council, and solutions tailored to the specific needs of the area, and the centre should provide oversight only. I recommend that everybody now exit the Chamber and turn to YouTube.

Fisheries

Austin Mitchell Excerpts

Tuesday 15th November 2011 Commons Chamber

[Austin Mitchell (Great Grimsby) (Lab)]

I have always thought that the best possible way to reform the common fisheries policy was to come out altogether. Before the previous election that was Conservative party policy and I was sorry to see it changed, although it is still a policy to which the Government are attached. They wish to repatriate powers from Europe, and if ever there was a case for doing so it is in respect of fishing, because the blanket command-and-control policy operated from Brussels, with centrally decided political decisions, is not working, cannot be made to work and has to be ended. That means that we have to transfer power down to the regional advisory councils, which have been very successful, having been established only in 2002. They have been a major success but they need powers to allocate quotas, to impose conservation and technical measures, and to enforce those quotas. That means that they must have not only some fast-track powers of implementation, so that the whole thing does not get held up in the Brussels bottleneck, but the finance and staffing to do the job properly.

Therefore, we must, first, fulfil the rather vague aspiration in the Commission’s own document of transferring powers down to the RACs to give them the control of management. They need to work with the producer organisations; they need to involve the industry in deciding and managing its own fate. That is best done through the producer organisations, by giving them power. They have been very good at managing their quotas in their own areas and that power needs to be extended. If we are to have transferable quotas, as the Commission specifies, there have to be transfers within the producer organisations, rather than sales to foreign owners, as happened so much in respect of Spanish vessels. There needs to be a transfer of quotas within the individual POs so that we keep quotas locally. The producer organisations have to play a part, with the industry taking the lead.

We have to point out to the Minister—I am sure that he is aware of this—that the last vestiges of this command-and-control economy are the Commission’s proposals to cut the quotas, which were mentioned by the hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley). They are the last vestige of the ancien régime that the Commission is trying for, and they have to be imposed at the December Council. That is because the cuts in the quota that the Commission is proposing do not follow the advice of the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea. ICES says that there should be no increase in quota, but the Commission has translated that into a 25% reduction, which is ludicrous. So, too, is the other proposal, for which ICES does not provide an analytical assessment of what has to be done, that there should be a 15% cut. If that is passed by the December Council and comes into the process of co-determination with the European Parliament, we could be stuck with that decision until 2014, which would be ludicrous. It would be damaging to the industry and it would leave us with a huge cut in domestic fleets.

The Scottish Fishermen’s Federation—the hon. Member for North Antrim has just concurred with this point—calculates that if the proposed cuts are enforced on the white fish and the prawn fleets in Scotland, they will be able to fish for only four days a fortnight. They will not be able to make a profit and they will be forced to lay up. This will decimate our fleet for a goal that is mistaken and has no scientific basis, so it is vital that the Minister overturns those cuts and opposes further cuts as part of the cod recovery plans. Cuts in quota will mean more discards.

I have two other points to make. One is that we have to accept that all fish should be landed, not discarded. The fishermen can be paid a management fee—the cost of landing and marketing, and no more—but that will allow us to record all the catches actually made. Secondly, we need to end the system of buying quota from poor African countries, which is a kind of fishing imperialism, where huge Spanish vessels are going in, damaging the local industry, crushing the local boats, in many cases, and stopping the recovery. There can be management arrangements to assist people in managing their stocks and to help them, but there should be no buying of quota, at our expense, to crush the local industry. The times are better than how they have been portrayed and the stocks are recovering, but now is the time to take a firm stand and get the powers transferred back down to the regional advisory councils to save our industry.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

Common Fisheries Policy

Austin Mitchell Excerpts

Thursday 14th July 2011 Commons Chamber

[Richard Benyon]

I am happy to give my hon. Friend the assurance that I am absolutely determined that vessels from overseas respect whatever rules we bring in. Looking at the wording of this document, the means we are applying here is the marine strategy framework directive. The policies we are implementing through our conservation schemes—our marine-protected areas, our marine conservation zones under the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009—are entirely in accordance with that directive, so it is impossible for other countries to try to say we are acting in a discriminatory way. I got the verbal support of the Commissioner on this in my negotiations with her, and I want to make sure we underpin this issue in the negotiations going forward.

[Austin Mitchell (Great Grimsby) (Lab)]

I hope that the Minister will accept that the Commission’s proposals are rather like the curate’s fish: good in parts, but very smelly in others. There is a particular problem, which I hope he will pursue, with the national input, which is now beginning. First, in the process of decentralisation, more power should be passed down to the regional advisory councils, which involve the industry and have done a good job. Secondly, in pushing the question of discards back to the national Governments, the commissioner is trying to perform a populist trick, because discards pose a particular problem for mixed fisheries—which we have—and quotas. There are bound to be discards, and the fish are dead, whether they are landed or dumped at sea. We have to deal with the problem, but it is better dealt with in the way that the industry is dealing with it now—by selective measures, which have cut discards by 50% over 10 years—than through the blanket ban that the Commission proposes. I hope that the Minister will bear that in mind in the negotiations.

[Richard Benyon]

I entirely endorse the hon. Gentleman’s concerns about decentralisation. If I have a disappointment, it is about the tone of the document. I do not think that there is quite as much as we had hoped for on regionalisation and decentralisation. What do we mean by that? It means that we want fisheries to be managed on an ecosystem basis. It means that when it comes to the Irish sea, for example, we are talking with the Irish Government and devolved Governments to try to match what we know is a complex mixed fishery; and, when it comes to his constituency, we are proceeding in a similar way on the North sea. We will push hard for that, because we absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman that top-down micro-management, under which net sizes and other technical measures are decided in Brussels, has failed and would be a disaster if allowed to continue.

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that if most of the 700,000 people who signed the Fish Fight petition saw a headline with the words “discards” and “ban” in it, they might think, “Great! Job done,” but he and I know that it is not as simple as that. In order for the measure to be effective, particularly in mixed fisheries, we need to be nuanced and careful. That is why we have to ensure that we work closely, as he said, through the system of management that we develop and that we do not just allow a problem that at the moment happens at sea to be converted to a landfill problem, which could happen unless we are imaginative.

Fisheries

Austin Mitchell Excerpts

Thursday 12th May 2011 Commons Chamber

[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.

[Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the Norwegians’ use of temporary real-time closures of areas when by-catch becomes excessive has served as an incentive for fishermen to use more selective gear? Does he also agree that selling fish caught illegally, without quota, through fishermen’s sales organisations—where the fishermen are entitled to only 20% of the revenue to cover the costs, thereby avoiding wastage and maintaining incentives to use selective gear by channelling profits back into fisheries—has been a key measure in achieving what he describes?

[Austin Mitchell]

I agree, absolutely. We have a lot to learn from the Norwegians, but the point is that the Norwegians control their own waters in the 200-mile limit around Norway, just as we should control the 200-mile limit—or the median line—around the British coast, but we do not. Therefore, we cannot enforce such measures. That is the problem with all these arguments.

The television programmes that Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall did were fantastic. The great innovation—the great gimmick—of landing discards at Hastings and throwing them to the crowd on the beach, because landing them would have been illegal, was marvellous, because people took those fish home and cooked them. I wrote to Fearnley-Whittingstall and suggested that he should hire a cruiser and follow the fishing fleet around, picking up the discards and serving them as expensive meals to a wealthy clientele on the North sea coast. That kind of experiment would have been useful. However, his solution is simplistic; therefore, it will not work.

Following Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall’s pressure on fisheries policy—on which I again congratulate him—the EU has put forward another simplistic solution. What it is doing—I suspect rather cynically—is setting out the problem, throwing it back to the nation states and telling them to solve it with a ban on discards, which will not work and cannot work. The Minister cannot solve the problem, so we are in deadlock. The EU proposes measures that will not work and forces them on the nation states, which cannot enforce them because of the common fisheries policy, and nothing happens, which is likely to remain the outcome.

The British reduction of discards by more than 50% over 10 years was achieved through square-mesh panels, video observation of the fishermen, closing grounds in-season and cod recovery plans, which were submitted by the fishermen and approved by Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. They were all painstaking, laborious techniques, but they have worked. That is the only way to do it, not through a simplistic ban, because fishermen will continue to discard.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

There have been lots of European ideas to enable the cod recovery plans. However, on many occasions scientists put forward regulations and suggestions when fishermen were saying that there were schools upon schools of cod in the sea. Therefore, there is perhaps a difference between the scientist and the fisherman when it comes to who knows best.

[Austin Mitchell]

That is certainly true, and again, it illustrates the difficulties that we face. One attempt that Europe has made—the cod ban—has proved disastrous for enforcement and protecting stocks, not to mention avoiding discards. That is control from the centre. What we need in the EU now is a policy to address that, yet power is being taken away from the Council—at least we have an opportunity to put up a fight against any proposals in the Council, and to bargain and improve our position in negotiations—and transferred to the Commission. However, the commissioners have never knowingly handed power down to the nation states—or, in the case of fishing, to the regional advisory councils. The North sea RAC is doing a splendid job. If the power to manage stocks was conceded to it, it could eliminate discards. However, it is not doing that because in the final analysis, the EU will never hand over the necessary powers to allow the RACs or nation states to deal with the problem adequately. In those situations, discarding will continue because, under a discard ban, what is a fisherman who catches fish that are not on his quota supposed to do with them? It is inevitable that he will chuck them overboard, if he can do so unobserved. We cannot monitor every ship by satellite or closed-circuit television; that is just impossible. So this is an impossible plan and it will not work.

That is why I was loth to give my support to the early-day motion. There is a continuous conflict between the conservationists, whose aims I admire, and the needs of commercial fishing. We see this in the marine conservation areas. There is now an argument to make them areas in which there is either no fishing or very restricted fishing, but we must not turn the waters around the British coast into a patchwork quilt, with some areas where fisherman can catch and some where they cannot, or with different quotas for different areas involving limits on species. It is appalling that there is a proposal to ban fishing in the experimental areas that are being set up. We cannot do that.

[Barry Gardiner]

Does my hon. Friend acknowledge that the 2006 reorganisation of the Manguson Stevens Act in the US required the end of over-fishing by 2010? In fact, the National Marine Fisheries Service has now heralded the fact that that has taken place in US waters. That policy’s success was due to the requirement for new annual catch limits in every fishery, and the establishment of strict scientific guidelines on the limits of sustainability, within which annual catch limits could be set.

[Austin Mitchell]

That is so. We have set up our marine conservation areas, and I support them, but I do not support them as a means of restricting the opportunities for fishing.

I suppose that I had better bring my remarks to a conclusion, enthusiastic as I am to go on for hours, preventing all the other Members who want to raise matters from doing so. I shall simply say that the fishing industry has the greatest and the closest interest in proper conservation, because it has an interest in the sustainability of stocks. It wants the stocks to be there to hand on to the next generation of fishermen. That is why it was always important for us to have 200-mile limits to protect our fishing, in the way that Norway, Iceland, New Zealand, Australia, America, Canada and many other nations have been able to do. We cannot do that now, however, because Ted Heath foolishly handed these powers over, just like that, without argument, to Europe. The fishing industry wants sustainable catching as well as conservation measures, and it is the only body that can enforce them and ensure that they work, because it is in the interests of the fishermen to do so.

[Claire Perry (Devizes) (Con)]

Although the industry might have the desire to be involved in conservation measures, would the hon. Gentleman agree that, as a result of the quotas and the ridiculous policy on discards, there is no incentive for fishermen to take that long-term view? Anything we can do to align the stewardship incentives with the incentives for the industry would be extremely welcome.

[Austin Mitchell]

I agree. That is a very important point, and well put—said he, unctuously. This comes back to my point that the only way of enforcing these measures is if the industry enforces them itself, because it is the only one who has such an interest in them. At the moment, the regulations work in a contrary direction, but if they could work with the grain of the industry, and if the industry could be involved in formulating the measures, we could get a proper, effective conservation measure that would work. That is the aim, and we should not look for measures from Europe. We should aim for a handing down of power to the industry, so as to involve it in creating sustainability and pursuing its own interests.