Pig Farming

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd March 2011 Westminster Hall

[Dr Poulter]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right and makes the point very powerfully. The fact is that there is not a level playing field, particularly in the European Union. Stricter EU animal welfare laws for pigs have been agreed, but they will come fully into force only in 2013. As he forcefully argues, we need those standards to be applied in Europe. However, it is not just a question of standards being applied universally; our supermarkets must also show corporate responsibility. If overseas food producers do not produce food to the same high standards of animal welfare and traceability as British farmers, our supermarkets should not buy food from them. We need to see that corporate responsibility from the industry.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I represent an area in Northern Ireland where almost everyone used to keep pigs, sometimes in large numbers. We are now down to only one producer, albeit a big one, which indicates that we are hearing the death knell of the pig industry. In some parts of Europe, regulation is non-existent, so does the hon. Gentleman feel that the Minister needs to convey to European Ministers and to Brussels the fact that whereas regulation is enforced with almost evangelical zeal in parts of the United Kingdom, the same is not true in other parts of Europe?

[Dr Poulter]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that forceful intervention, and I absolutely agree with him. British pig farmers have struggled a great deal over the past few years, and it is a great pity that the number of people farming pigs has consistently declined throughout the UK. We would like that to be put right and we would like to see greater support for pig farmers. He is right to mention the EU, because over the past decade or so Whitehall has been fond of gold-plating and platinum-plating European legislation, whereas countries that do not like the legislation tend to ignore it. He is absolutely right to say that we need to seek consistency across the EU, and that needs to be taken up at a European level. We want a level playing field so that our farmers can have a thriving and prosperous future.

I do not want to detain colleagues much longer, because we want to hear from the Minister. We have talked much about honest food labelling, which applies across the farming sector, but particularly to British pork. At the moment, bacon only has to be sliced in the UK to be labelled British, which is unacceptable. UK law requires that labelling should not be misleading, which is a good thing, but it does not define how much British involvement is required before produce can be counted as British. Traditionally, slaughtering animals in this country would count, so calling something British lamb or British pork could mean that although the meat was imported, slaughter and packaging took place in the UK, but now meat need only be sliced here to be labelled British. That can be misleading in supermarkets. We want stronger action on labelling, and I am sure that the Bill to be introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk will go a good way towards countering that great problem, which would also help to support British pig farmers.

We have talked a lot about getting greater corporate responsibility from our retailers. I mentioned the fact that while pig farmers have been losing £20 per pig over the past three years, our retailers have been making profits of £100 to £120 per pig. Surely there must be an onus on those retailers not only to support honest food labelling and promote the fact that British farmers produce pork to higher animal welfare standards and with greater traceability, but to want to support local and British produce. That has to be a good thing. As we know from the example of Morrisons, cited by my hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk, consumers want to buy British and support local food producers. Consumers in East Anglia, Suffolk and Norfolk want to support our local food producers. That would be a good thing for supermarkets to do.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Bain]

I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s intervention. I remind him, as I did the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) during a debate on the Sustainable Livestock Bill some months ago, that there are three arable farms at the very top of my constituency. I am hoping to visit them during the Easter recess. Indeed, I have had a good discussion with the National Farmers Union Scotland on a range of issues in the past few weeks.

The hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Mr Stuart) raises an interesting point. We can bat around what did or did not happen during the past 13 years, but what will certainly be most effective is cross-EU standards in this area. He knows that the food labelling directive is before the European Parliament, and that it may have a Second Reading by early summer. We should focus our efforts and show unity across the House on getting decent standards that will protect the pig industry and other parts of our arable and livestock farming industries.

I want to address the anomaly that the hon. Member for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich pointed out—that is, food that is processed in the UK can be labelled as produced in this country. We need reform and clarity across the EU through regulations to deal with that issue.

The third area in which we seek Government action is in respect of a plan for the food industry. The previous Government commissioned the report “Food Matters”, under the auspices of the Cabinet Office, and the study “Food 2030”, under the auspices of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, but circumstances have moved on. The Foresight report sets out new challenges for better use of water and soil. It also sets the global challenge of feeding 9 billion people by 2050, but with potentially fewer resources—increasing food production by 50%, but in a sustainable way.

To meet the challenges of sustainable food production, which the pig industry will be involved with, and to show that we can meet our climate change reduction commitments, the Opposition and the NFU call on the Government to adopt a proper plan for food, which should include the pig industry. If there is to be a plan for growth arising from today’s Budget, the UK’s largest manufacturing industry—namely, agriculture—cannot be left out. The plan should contain strong proposals for a groceries code adjudicator with the statutory power to tackle unfairness and inequity wherever they are found throughout food supply chains. As hon. Members have pointed out, such an ironing out and levelling of the market would be enormously beneficial to our pigmeat producers.

[Jim Shannon]

One of the subjects that the hon. Gentleman has not mentioned—perhaps he is about to do so—is the supermarket ombudsman, for whom I think there is a role. There is a margin between the £16 million per week profit made by shops and the £8 million per week that the pig producer gets. Is there a method whereby the supermarket ombudsman could bring those figures closer together, thereby keeping pig farmers in production?

[Mr Bain]

It is precisely that ability to take steps to iron out market inequalities that we are calling for. The previous Government called the institution a supermarket ombudsman; the new Government call it the groceries code adjudicator. What matters is the powers that it will have, and we look forward to the draft Bill that the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills promised to publish by Easter to see how rigorous it will be in helping the sector and the dairy sector as well.

Hon. Members have alluded to the fact that the British pig industry needs not a handout, but a hand up. With the combination of an increase in research and development, a strong groceries code adjudicator, better and stronger EU food labelling rules, fairer supply chains and reform of the WTO animal welfare rules, we can collectively ensure a brighter future for our pig farmers, which is what they want and deserve.

Forestry Commission

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 1st March 2011 Westminster Hall

[Joan Ruddock]

I am simply citing the Government’s own ambitions, and there are substantial sums to be realised from sales. I cannot, off the top of my head, remember what the Government have raised from the 1,748 hectares sold off already, but it is certainly many millions. I would be delighted if the Minister answered my question in his response, and told us what was expected to be raised from the sales of the forestry lands—the 15%. Will he also indicate how the Government will make up that money if they do not go ahead with the sale of the 15%? They cannot have it both ways; either they plan to sell or they do not. If they plan to sell, I know—I have been a Minister myself—that the Minister will have a real estimate of the financial result of those sales.

I have another question for the Minister. In principle, does he rule in or rule out the sale of woodland in national parks, areas of outstanding natural beauty, community forests and sites of special scientific interest? Will he confirm that DEFRA still requires the Forestry Commission to cut its budget by 25% this year, with a potential loss of 400 jobs? Surely job losses of such magnitude undermine any recommendations that his new panel might make for the future of the Forestry Commission.

In the drafting of the terms and conditions of the independent panel, is any account being taken of the findings of Labour’s review of the public forest estate? The Minister frowns, but it was an independent review carried out by experts over 12 months and was available to his Government the moment they took office, and it appears that he did not even bother to read it before coming up with these madcap proposals. Referring to the review would be significant.

Critically, will the panel be allowed to consider continuing public ownership? The Minister frowns again, but the consultation that has just been cancelled prohibited continuing public ownership. The new panel’s terms of reference will be significant. The public believe that they have won a great battle now that the consultation and plans have been cancelled pending the findings of the independent review, but the panel’s terms of reference are critical to determining the future.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Is the right hon. Lady aware that in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, and in the area that I represent, public forests are retained for public use and are not to be sold? Does she feel that the decisions of other regions in the United Kingdom to retain public forests should be part of the panel’s review and its final decision making?

[Joan Ruddock]

Perhaps forests in the other part of the United Kingdom are safer left out of the Government’s review. I am not sure that I would trust this Government with any bit of the forest, whether in Scotland, Northern Ireland or Wales. History to date suggests that we in England have been poorly served by this Government and their proposals; perhaps other regions are on safer ground. However, it will be for the Minister to answer the hon. Gentleman’s question.

I have a list of questions for the Minister. I shall not speak at huge length, as I want to hear his answers and do not want him to run out of time. Will he guarantee that there will be a place on the panel for representatives of the Forestry Commission work force? How will the voices of those who campaigned to defeat his proposals be represented? Will the panel’s deliberations be held in public?

The public have shown overwhelming support for our public forests; I pay tribute to the campaign 38 Degrees. The Government would be well advised to harness that support. The public forest estate in England must be maintained as the national asset that it is, under a single management structure. Rather than being sold off, it should be extended.

I pay tribute to my constituents and those of other MPs who took the time not only to express their outrage at the Government’s proposals but to tell us what the forests mean to them. Annette Lewis from Brockley wrote to me:

“As I have always lived in cities, I know how important it is for city dwellers to access the countryside. I believe in the preservation of woodland in public ownership for future generations. I want my children and their children to be able to find the joy and relaxation I have found from a walk in the woods.”

Hazel Montgomery from Lewisham Central wrote that

“there are many places around south-east London and Kent which are woodland. They are fantastic because London is so overcrowded and children love to roam freely in safety with parents; this is so for all our national woodlands.”

Simon Brammer of Telegraph Hill, who works on climate change, wrote:

“How can we ask other countries much poorer than our own not to chop down forests, critical in regulating our climate and storing carbon, when we are prepared to sell our own for a song”?

--- Later in debate ---

[Roger Williams (Brecon and Radnorshire) (LD)]

Thank you, Mr Gray, for allowing me to speak in this debate. I will keep it short. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Joan Ruddock) on securing the debate. I well remember her contribution as a Minister in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs in previous Parliaments.

I would like to declare an interest. I am a member of a partnership that is in receipt of a farm woodland grant from the Forestry Commission to promote both the management of woodlands under our responsibility and the public good through, for example, access and biodiversity. I will return to that—not that I am an example of a good forester, although I am an enthusiastic one—because it is not just the public estate that is important for access and biodiversity, but private woodland and private forestry too.

I have another small interest to declare. Some members of my family, although not immediate members, are involved in the sawmill industry, which is a commercial aspect of forestry that has not been mentioned today. Many jobs in my constituency are dependent on sawmills and on a consistent throughput of material, both in quality and quantity, to go into those sawmills. Sadly, only 10% of all timber used in this country for construction or for furniture manufacture originates in this country, but that is still an important part of the rural community.

Sadly, the House has not shown much interest in forestry until the past couple of months. In fact, in almost 10 years as an MP, we have had no debates in Government time on forestry. We have had one debate in Opposition time on forestry, and that was the recent debate. We have had two Adjournment debates on the New Forest. We have had two Westminster Hall debates, one sponsored by the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) and, in 2005, one that I sponsored. Unfortunately, DEFRA did not manage to put up a Minister to reply to the debate, such was its interest in forestry, and the reply was made by a member of Her Majesty’s Treasury team—the former Whip, Nick Ainger, who is no longer a Member of the House. We had a good debate in this Chamber for 30 minutes.

That is the sum total of interest that the House has shown in forestry in the past 10 years, so I am pleased that we are now able to debate this issue more calmly than we did a fortnight ago—I am sure that the Minister is not very pleased that it has caused the interest that it has—because the future of forestry in this country is important. Some 20% of the forest cover in England is in the public estate, and 80% is privately held. Of that 80%, 40% is either undermanaged or not managed at all, and that is a real challenge for the Forestry Commission in the future. How can we better manage that woodland, not only in commercial terms but also in terms of access and biodiversity?

[Jim Shannon]

Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the sporting potential of forests, and therefore their economic benefits as well? Does he agree that perhaps that has been overlooked when it comes to any potential sales or otherwise of forests?

[Roger Williams]

The sporting potential of forests should be taken into account. One of the points that I would make if I had more time is about the great demand on our forests for different kinds of access. In my area, there are not only walkers, cyclists and horse riders, but people who go scrambling and rally driving as well. Rally driving and horse riding do not go together very well, so we have to manage the diverse demands on our forests.

Yes, the Forestry Commission was set up in response to the lack of timber for pit props, but its reputation has not always been as holy as it is now. Indeed, the contraceptive conifers that march up and down our woodlands were all planted by the Forestry Commission. The planting of the Flow country in Scotland, where we had the last of our native conifer woodland, was not to its glory, but, yes, it has improved; it has altered its terms of reference and its priorities.

When the panel meets—I hope that it will be called the wood panel, because everyone would then be able to recognise it—I hope it will take into consideration not only the public estate, which is managed by the Forestry Commission, but private woodland as well, which can make a huge contribution in this country. As someone said, we probably have less woodland cover than almost any other European country, so it is important that we take private woodland into account. The Forestry Commission is already making planting grants to the private estate, so that would be within the panel’s terms—at least, I hope that it is—because, in making those grants, we can ask for public good to be demonstrated. We can ask for access and improvements in biodiversity.

We should remember that conifer woods are not completely aseptic, or without any life at all. In fact, the red squirrel and the dormouse have been shown to use such habitats, so they are important. The Forestry Commission also has a big part to play in ensuring that there is a supply of timber to go through our sawmills, so I would ask the Minister whether there is any way in which all of that can be taken into consideration. In the enthusiasm to protect our public estate, we have forgotten about the contribution that private woodland makes as well.

Incinerators (Hertfordshire)

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 16th February 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr James Clappison (Hertsmere) (Con)]

We come to a subject in which the media do have an interest, particularly in the county of Hertfordshire, because it is a subject of wide concern to the residents of Hertfordshire and, in particular, to my constituents. I am talking about the possible location of an incinerator on a site in Harper lane. That is actually within the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for St Albans (Mrs Main), who is in her place and is planning to intervene in this debate, but the plan considerably affects my constituents, particularly those in the community of Radlett.

Waste management is a matter for Hertfordshire county council, as it is for other county councils, and it has decisions to take on the issue. But how those decisions are taken, the process that is followed and the timing of decisions raise wider concerns, and these concerns have been reflected in cases involving other local authorities up and down the country. For that reason alone, Ministers need to examine the way in which local authorities take decisions on waste management. To a layman, the process being followed in Hertfordshire, which has led to the selection of Harper lane as a possible site, seems somewhat odd, if not bizarre.

Last July, Hertfordshire county council announced that Harper lane was under consideration as one of two possible locations in Hertfordshire for a major waste incinerator to be operated by E.ON. Notwithstanding that, the council launched a consultation last November on a new waste plan. Thus, the consultation began some three or four months after the announcement of this possible location. The following was said on behalf of the county council at the time:

“We already have a Waste Plan for the county, but this is now out of date and needs to be reviewed. The new plan, which will cover the period 2011-2026, will set out the county council’s policies and proposals for the future annual treatment of three million tonnes of waste. This includes identifying areas that may have the potential to accommodate waste facilities as well as safeguarding existing facilities.”

That raises the question: what was the point of the consultation undertaken by the council, given that it had already announced that the Harper lane site was one of two possible locations for the incinerator? The council had already narrowed its choice of site down to just two in Hertfordshire.

The question of where this all fits into the Government’s strategy also arises, because last June my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs announced a major waste policy review, which was to examine

“what policies are needed to reduce the amount of waste generated and to maximise reuse and recycling, while also considering how waste policies affect local communities, individual households and businesses.”

The review is considering the role of energy from waste, and I understand that its preliminary results will be published by the Department in 2011. Yet by that time, Hertfordshire county council will be a very long way down the road on implementing its plans and may even have appointed a preferred bidder to deal with its waste incineration.

So my question to the Minister is: should a county council undertake such a course when a Government consultation is under way and may produce results that are at odds with the course taken by the county council? In respect of both the council’s own consultation, which was announced hard on the heels of a decision on possible locations for the site, and the Government’s consultation, which was still taking place when that announcement was made, there would seem to me, as a layman, to be obvious prematurity in the council’s decision to narrow the choice of sites down to two, including the Harper lane site.

That is not the only strange aspect of the process being followed by the county council, because in October 2008 the council submitted an outline business case to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs that enabled it to obtain £115 million of private finance initiative credits. The Harper lane site was not the reference site for that bid, nor, as I understand it, was it in the plans of the four shortlisted bidders with an energy-from-waste proposal. Notwithstanding that, Harper lane emerged, out of the blue, as one of two shortlisted sites last July. In June of this year, if not before, the county council is set to announce its preferred bidder and site.

Up to that point, there will have been no opportunity for public consultation about the emergence of Harper lane as a site. Indeed, in the process that has been followed, the public could be said to have been kept in the dark because there is essentially no public information on why Harper lane was chosen as a second potential incinerator site. It does not fit with the stated criteria of Hertfordshire county council for a number of reasons, including the fact that the site is in the green belt and has poor main road access, being located close to a notorious traffic congestion blackspot.

There are also very serious environmental issues relating to the Harper lane site, which will become apparent in due course. Local people have had no opportunity to have their say on any of this. As a strong supporter of the Localism Bill and the localism principle, I am tempted to ask the Minister how this all fits in with the concept of localism. Of course, before a final decision on the location of the incinerator site can be taken, a separate planning process will have to be conducted by Hertfordshire county council and presumably local people will then have a say. That will come only after the county council has appointed a preferred bidder for the preferred site and presumably entered into some sort of legal relationship with the preferred bidder.

Doubtless, Hertfordshire county council will be scrupulous in observing the requirements of the planning process, but, to say the least, how can this appear fair to the lay observer and to interested local residents? Would not they be entitled to conclude that the process is flawed? Many residents all over Hertfordshire might want to ask whether there should be an incinerator at all and whether incineration is the most environmentally friendly process in all the circumstances. Certainly, the assumptions being made about incineration in this case seem to be unambitious when it comes to recycling and waste minimisation in both of which Hertfordshire has a good record. Let it be said that Hertfordshire is a green council with a very good record on recycling and is very good at stimulating environmental awareness. The recycling and composting rate for Hertfordshire is in excess of the national rate and it is on course to achieve the recycling of 50% of all household waste by 2013 if not before.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Is it possible that if a number of people were unhappy with the application and objected to it through the planning application process, the planning authority could say no to it and that concerns could be addressed at that stage?

[Mr Clappison]

That is possible, but by that time Hertfordshire county council would already have a preferred bidder and might have entered into a legal relationship with it, so it would, in a way, be judging its own cause in the eyes of local people. There would then be a question of whether it could take that decision and be seen to be a disinterested party, which is very important to the planning process. That is a very strange process to follow.

Up to this point, even before we reach any of those considerations, there has been no opportunity for local people to have their say, no opportunity for full ventilation of the environmental issues at stake and no opportunity for the case against incineration to be put—the case in favour of more recycling and other environmentally friendly ways of dealing with waste. Neither, it seems, has there been any opportunity thus far for a consultation on a full environmental impact assessment. Local people are aware of a number of serious environmental concerns about the Harper lane site, including the fact that it will be on an inner groundwater source protection zone and the fact that it is a close neighbour of the Wildlife Trust’s nature reserve of Broad Colney lakes and of Hounds Wood. In the eyes of many local people, the development would be highly damaging to the local environment and could hardly be more unsuitable on environmental traffic and local infrastructure grounds.

Local people have come together under the auspices of the Watling incinerator group, known as WING, to put the very compelling case against such a development, but should they not have already had the opportunity to put their case formally at an earlier stage to help shape decisions and to participate in genuine consultation, so that the process appears to be one in which people have had a chance to have their say? The process appears to be open to the many questions being asked about it.

Public Forest Estate (England)

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd February 2011 Commons Chamber

[Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)]

I have been prompted to speak in today’s debate by the tremendous anxiety expressed by so many of my constituents about the Government’s proposals. I know that this is not a concern peculiar to residents in my city, but perhaps Nottingham folk feel it even more keenly because they regard themselves as the descendants of our great hero Robin Hood, who made his home in nearby Sherwood forest. I was going to say that Robin’s hiding place, the 1,000-year-old Major oak in Sherwood forest country park, is safe from the proposals, because it is in a national nature reserve managed by Nottinghamshire county council and because even the council’s aptly named leader, Kay Cutts, would not dare to take her axe to our famous forest. However, I read earlier today that the Government are shortly to begin a consultation on divesting themselves of the country’s national nature reserves too, so, perhaps like many of our Forestry Commission local woodlands, the Major oak’s future is not secure either.

Nottinghamshire has nine Forestry Commission woodlands, including the east midlands’ largest tract of forest open to the public, Sherwood Pines forest park, which is just a few miles north of Nottingham. Sherwood Pines is a large mixed conifer and broad-leaf woodland with open spaces, heathland and pond, providing space for timber production, wildlife and recreation. I have been a regular visitor to Sherwood Pines since my children were small, and in that time I have witnessed the tremendous work that the Forestry Commission has done to encourage local people to get out and enjoy our beautiful countryside. There is a new café and visitor’s centre, children’s play areas, walking and cycling trails, a mountain biking area, an adventure course with ropes and zip wires, and, away from the centre, miles of peaceful woodland habitat and wildlife to enjoy. The forest is also used by many local schools, and the education service at Sherwood Pines was one of the first to be awarded a Learning Outside the Classroom quality badge.

Sherwood Pines is well developed as a visitor attraction, so perhaps public access would be secure, but what of the local woods that so many people enjoy, such as Blidworth woods, Haywood oaks, Silverhill wood, Boundary wood, Thieves wood, Oxclose wood and the Birklands? The Government tell us not to worry. The Secretary of State says that public rights of way and access will be unaffected, but can we trust this Government? My constituent Dr Chris Edwards certainly does not, saying that he has

“no faith in the promises being made to preserve access…this is the government that’s broken every election promise it made”.

This is the Government who promised to keep the education maintenance allowance and told us that there would be no more top-down reorganisations of the NHS—a Government who include Ministers who signed pledges saying that they would scrap tuition fees, but then voted to treble them. I would say that their promises are not worth the paper they are written on.

The Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 guarantees public access on foot, but as I have explained, the Forestry Commission has done much more than that, providing car parking, signage, visitor centres and leisure opportunities. The Government proposals contain no safeguards to guarantee that they will continue in the future.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Is there not something obscene about the sale of English woods and forests when the other regions of the United Kingdom—Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland—have all decided to retain their forests, keeping rights of access and the right to roam for ever?

[Lilian Greenwood]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right: those are things that we should protect. We should seek to learn from countries that appreciate the value of those public assets. Indeed, recent experience tells us that we are right to be wary. Rigg wood near Coniston water was sold off last autumn.

Biotechnology and Food Security

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 12th January 2011 Westminster Hall

[Mr Spencer]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. He is correct, in that we need to harness new technologies if we are to solve the problem. I will talk about that a little more later.

We have clearly been effective since the second world war in harnessing such technologies and in scientific advancement. The common agricultural policy, which came out of the post-war period, is often ridiculed as an enormous monster of a policy, but it was probably the most single most effective policy ever devised by politicians. It was designed to feed Europe and was enormously successful—so successful that by the 1980s, we had grain mountains and milk lakes. We all remember those stories in the media.

We have an enormous and growing world population, and we will have to try to feed all those people. It is important to recognise that the amount of land on the earth is not expanding, and we are using land for other things, not only food production. “They have stopped making land,” as they say.

At the same time, the issue is absolutely linked to the global economy. There have always been hungry people on this earth, but all of a sudden, we have countries with people who are not only hungry, but wealthy. On the other side of the globe, the economies of countries such as India and China are expanding, and diets are becoming western. The impact on the European Union will be enormous. In 1985, the average Chinese consumer ate 20 kg of meat a year, but it is now said that they eat 50 kg a year. Across the globe, economies are expanding—in India, the far east, south America and many African countries. Countries are moving in a similar direction to China, which will have a really large effect on our ability to keep ourselves fed.

The third relevant issue is world energy prices and our ability to ensure that we have enough energy. As economies expand, so, too, does their desire to consume energy—a country’s GDP is almost directly linked to the amount of energy it consumes. How will we produce enough energy and how will we do that sustainably? Sustainability is the key. It is all very well saying that we have enough gas and coal to keep ourselves going, but the impact of that carbon will be quite dramatic.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Obviously, the hon. Gentleman’s discussions with constituents will, like mine, have indicated that there is particular concern about the price of fuel—the fuel prices that the farmer pays to run his tractors in the fields. Those prices have also affected the price of fertiliser, which has risen from £100 to £300 a tonne. Does the hon. Gentleman feel, as many of us do, that concern about food prices will rise and that the days of cheap food are perhaps disappearing? We once sourced cheap food from south America, but demand from China, India and elsewhere may mean that our markets for cheap food will disappear. Does the hon. Gentleman share those concerns?

[Mr Spencer]

I thank you for that intervention. Those are exactly the concerns that I am expressing. You sum up very neatly what will happen to global markets. We have been importing from south America, Africa and many other places. When the almighty dollar takes hold, and China tells countries, “Don’t export your meat products to the United Kingdom. Export them to China and we’ll pay you a dollar a kilo more,” producers will naturally say, “Thank you very much, United Kingdom, but we’ll sell to China. We’ll export to you if you pay £1.50 a kilo extra.” That is exactly where the problem materialises.

Energy is very much linked to this issue. As you indicated, the cost of agricultural fertiliser—

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Spencer]

The hon. Gentleman is correct that we need to invest. We are actually reducing the amount that we are putting into research and development in the industry. We have not been very good at that. This Government are assisting a little bit, but it is a small step back in the right direction. We have not put enough into research and development. The amount that we spend is dwarfed by the amount being spent by other countries around the globe. We are going to lose our reputation and position at the forefront, the cutting edge of those developments and technologies. This country has always succeeded by leading the way. We were the leaders during the industrial revolution, which gave this small nation a global position, making it the Great Britain that it is.

Globally, farmers have earned an extra €34 billion since the introduction of biotechnologies, 44% of which resulted from yield gains and 56% from the reduction of production costs. I mentioned the benefits of nitrogen-fixing wheat. Improving the root structure of wheat would enable it to be grown in other countries, such as central and northern Africa—places where at the moment it is too dry. The benefits would include not only the ability of this country to feed itself, but the chance for African countries to feed their populations and improve their lifestyle. It could also have massive implications for the environment. The amount of nitrates we use could be dramatically reduced, which would assist in the management and protection of the environment. The amount of pesticides that we use could be reduced. I have never met a farmer who likes using pesticides—they are very expensive. Finding a technology that would enable us to spray fewer pesticides on to crops—which themselves could be more disease-resistant—would benefit farmers and consumers.

In the UK, yields of oilseed rape since 1995 have risen approximately 0.5% year on year. In Canada, they are rising 3% year on year, simply because it is making use of those new technologies. Its farmers' ability to produce more from the same amount will make them more competitive than ours.

It is exciting to see technologies open up. Imagine producing an apple that reduced cholesterol or a tomato that prevented bowel or breast cancer. All of a sudden the media perception of “Frankenstein foods” as something to be feared and avoided would be turned on its head. Consumers would be clamouring to make the most of the new technologies and these “wonder foods” that were cures and were helpful. There is a lot of work to be done and there is a lot of speculation; I acknowledge that, but the technologies are there to be explored and could be of great benefit.

There are clearly concerns. The consumer is concerned about these products. We referred to the fact that people worry about change. We need to recognise that and ensure that we take people along with us in an open debate. It is also worth recognising that technologies used in the past have occasionally broken down. There have been mistakes. Those involved in agricultural industries will remember a wheat variety called “Moulin”, which was marketed, but when it came to the point where it should pollinate it did not work. That was disastrous: farmers had zero yields, having grown the crop for a year. We need to ensure that we do this properly, that the scientific evidence is correct and that we explore the technologies in the right manner. The only way to do that is to do the research and the trials. I ask the Minister to assist in facilitating those trials in the UK, so that we can test the water and try out some of the technologies under controlled circumstances, to see if they have anything to offer to solve the problems that we shall face globally.

The organic sector often expresses concern that there will be cross-contamination—that bees will fly from GM crops to organic crops. In the US there is a thriving organic movement and both systems sit side by side. Consumers have the choice of new technology, traditional or organic food, and it seems to work well.

Who is leading the way? I have mentioned the US and Canada, but China is doubling the amount it is spending on agricultural biotech research and development in the next five years. It is currently spending $400 million on research and development—20% of world investment. The European Union will be left behind if we do not step up to the mark, get stuck in and try to keep pace. Genetic modification technology is currently being used by more than 14 million farmers around the world. That is a landmass equivalent to the whole of France, Germany, the United Kingdom and Ireland. It is no small trial. It is happening on the other side of the globe as we speak. More than 2 trillion meals containing GM ingredients have been consumed over the past 13 years without a single substantiated case of ill health.

Given the fuss that we make about peanuts because every now and again someone has an allergic reaction to them, it seems unbelievable that we are not out there in white suits and little masks tearing up peanut fields because of the impact that peanuts have on people’s diets. However, whenever somebody mentions new technology people with placards want to wreck the trials and research.

I appeal to those who feel the need to wreck those trials not to do so, because we need to find evidence that they work and to establish the technology. If those people are correct in thinking that the technology will not work, we need to do the trials to establish the fact so that the technology can be stopped. My appeal to all involved is to engage in the debate; supermarkets, growers, retailers and producers should come to the table to talk it through, to do the research and development and to settle the argument once and for all. If the technology is available to assist us, we need to enhance it.

What is the implication for UK producers and consumers? Clearly, GM is in production and in circulation. Soya, maize and tomatoes are intrinsic to our diet. I put it to Members that at some point we will all have consumed a GM product without realising it—probably as a soya-based product, perhaps in a pizza or in processed food. The country has a choice. Should we go down the same route as the Austrians and be completely GM-free, not having GM and labelling all our food to ensure that we protect ourselves from the perceived problem; or do we embrace GM and label our food so that people can make a clear choice?

If we go down the GM-free route, our farmers and producers may be able to attract a small premium. However, I believe that commodity prices will continue to rise, and that the global economy and the increase in the global population will have an impact.

[Jim Shannon]

Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the work that has been done by universities across the United Kingdom on GM foods, particularly by Queen’s university? They have been in contact with companies and businesses to perfect GM foods and move forward. The advantage that Queen’s university has for those businesses is that everyone gains. Is he aware of that, and if so will he comment on it?

[Mr Spencer]

I am aware that a number of universities are participating in research, and I appeal to those institutions to give the universities the support that they require to continue with it. It emphasises the fact that the United Kingdom has the scientific brains to do this. We have the willingness and the intellectual power. What we need now is a fair crack of the whip—a bit of financial support and some understanding among the population of the technology. We need to debate the matter so that people can understand it and embrace it—or, if it is not the correct route, to say that it has been considered but that it is not the direction to go. The only way to achieve that is through good scientific research, and I am grateful that Queen’s university is involved in that great work.

I return to my scenario. We have a choice. We either go down the GM-free route or we embrace the technology. If we choose to go down the non-GM route, however, it will be difficult to ensure that our borders are GM-free. For example, meat products will be important but we will have no means of testing whether those animals have been fed on a diet of genetically modified feed. UK producers will be producing free-range chickens for the supermarkets, but those birds could be sat on the shelf next to Brazilian chickens that had been fed on cheaper GM wheat and were being sold for £2 less. Will the British consumer know why the Brazilian chicken is £2 cheaper, or be aware that the other chicken is more expensive because it is GM-free? It will be almost impossible to police. As commodity prices start to increase, the consumer’s unwillingness to tolerate or accept new technologies that give them good, healthy, quality food at the right price will diminish over time. That is why we need to push forward and ensure that we are competitive.

Enormous global changes are afoot that are out of our control. The United Kingdom has no control over global population. We have no control over world energy prices. We have no control over the climate; we should acknowledge that the human race cannot control what happens to the weather. However, we are in control of our ability to use the available technologies. We should embrace those technologies, consider them, discuss them and ensure that we are at the cutting edge as we move forward. If we are going to be sustainable, and if we are going to keep ourselves fed, we need to use all the tools that are available to us. I believe that we should explore the prospect of biotechnology being one of the tools that we should be using.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Thursday 9th December 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Paice]

The reassurance I can give is simply this. When we were in opposition, seeing how the previous Government made noises about reducing regulation but never did it convinced me that we had to find a new way. It is not just a question of abolishing regulations—although if they can be abolished, they should be—but how we implement and enforce them. We have become obsessed with requiring farmers to fill in countless forms, tick loads of boxes and read legions of guidance notes when what really matters is whether the benefit expected from the regulation is achieved. That is what we have to focus on now.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Minister for his responses. One big concern of many farmers and landowners over the years has been about red tape, particularly filling in grant forms such as for, among other things, single farm payments. Sometimes they inadvertently fail to tick a box. Can we have some flexibility in the system to ensure that those who qualify for the grants get them and do not lose out because of one small mistake?

[Mr Paice]

The hon. Member puts his finger on an extremely important point. I have studied many cases in which farmers have been penalised because, as he said, they omitted to put a figure in a particular box or something like that. Although I have pushed back hard on this front, we are unfortunately constrained very much by the European Commission’s Court of Auditors, which is very robust. The disallowances are completely out of proportion. We are working with the Commission, and I have chased up these matters with it to try to get a more proportionate sense of penalty. Hopefully, we will then be able to move forward.

Fisheries

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Thursday 2nd December 2010 Westminster Hall

[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.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Does the hon. Lady agree that the acquisition of 185,000 tonnes of mackerel is akin to piracy on the high seas and should be objected to in every forum by the Minister?

[Dr Whiteford]

I agree 100%. In my view, appeasement of the unreasonable demands of Iceland and the Faroe Islands will lead only to further demands. The EU must not reward behaviour that has been utterly reckless in conservation terms.

We must remember that our fishermen have absolutely nothing to gain in the negotiations; they can only lose out from any deal struck. Nevertheless, they see that their own long-term interests depend on the long-term health of stocks, so they want us as politicians to hold our nerve and stand firm for a fair and equitable resolution of the issue.

On the subject of mackerel, one of the most frustrating aspects of European fisheries policy is that while our fishermen have made strenuous efforts to fish sustainably, they have seen other member states flouting the conservation targets. Spain overfished its mackerel quota by 296% last year, yet the Commission has taken no action against it. I am unable to explain to the fishermen in my constituency why fishermen in some parts of the EU can flout the rules and regulations with impunity while they face serious sanctions if they do so. I hope that the Minister will take up the issue of Spanish overfishing with the Commission and work with other member states towards more sustainable fisheries in all EU waters.

Sea fishing has the inherent potential to be both a sustainable and a profitable industry. Those goals are sometimes in tension, but I think that most people in fishing communities and the industry recognise that over the long term, they go hand in hand. Our fishing communities deserve better representation from UK Governments than they have had. Too often, fishing has been a bargaining chip in bigger negotiations. It has not had anything like the priority that it deserves. I hope that that will change. I wish the Minister well in the forthcoming round of talks, and in opening the debate this afternoon, I urge him to put the economic, environmental and social sustainability of our fishing industry and coastal communities at the heart of his Government’s approach.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Dr Whiteford) on bringing this issue to Westminster Hall and giving us all an opportunity to contribute. In passing, I want to comment on the fact that we do not have a Northern Ireland Member on the Backbench Business Committee. If we did, this issue certainly would have been brought to its attention and perhaps we would have had an earlier opportunity to discuss it.

This is my first debate on fisheries at Westminster, although as a Member of the Northern Ireland Assembly and in my former role as a councillor on Ards borough council I have had the opportunity to debate the issue in the past. I think the reason why we are here is that every one of us in the Chamber has a personal interest in fishing and in the communities we represent. The knowledge of fishing of many people outside of the Chamber will probably come from the TV programme, “Deadliest Catch”, or the film, “The Perfect Storm”. One is clearly factual and the other is fictional, but the fictional underlines the danger that fishermen face on the high seas.

Every Member in the Chamber will be aware of the December Fisheries Council and its ramifications for the UK fishing industry. In my local community, and particularly in Portavogie village, we will focus on its impact on the fishermen I represent. In the past, fishing representatives and I have taken the opportunity to speak to the Minister about the matter, as well as to Diane Dodds, Member of the European Parliament, in order to push things along.

I have been contacted by many local fishing organisations. Their representatives have reiterated that one of our problems is quayside prices, yet overheads continue to increase every year irrespective of the price. Fuel costs are another problem; the green tax has recently added another 2p per litre to our fuel prices. The plethora of fishing regulations challenge fishing vessel operators, and have led fishermen to wonder whether to stay in the industry. The latest problem in my constituency—and, I suspect, in others—is that even the smaller boats have to have monitoring equipment. The fishermen tell me that it costs them between £80 and £100 a month to run that operation. Again, costs continue to rise.

In my area, particularly in Portavogie, most of the men have worked on the boats and most of the ladies have worked in the village’s two fishing factories. However, one of those factories recently closed, and people have had to go outside the village for work. In the past—again, it is the changing face of industry—they would have gone to Donaghadee Carpets down the road, but that factory is no longer going; the industry has fallen away. The other choice for a good many was to work in the civil service, but it too is facing cuts.

Times are changing, and such opportunities do not always exist. If the fishing industry has to bear any more pressure, there is every chance of more fishermen leaving their boats. That will put a question mark over the other fishing factory in the village, which would leave even more people out of work. The December review of quotas is therefore most important. It is critical for the area that I represent, and everyone there is conscious of the fact. It is imperative that the fishing industry in Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom is treated fairly.

Does the European Commission treat British fishermen unfairly? A great many of us feel that it does. Indeed, UK officials have said in the past that they share that concern. We are not saying that we should be above the law, but we want to be treated like the rest of Europe—and Europe should be treated the same as us. I have concerns about how the industry is run, and I underline the need for a sustainable industry. As the hon. Member for Tynemouth (Mr Campbell) said, the fishermen want a sustainable industry as much as anybody else. That is what we are all about here, and there is consensus of opinion on that.

In Northern Ireland in 2010, we want to stay at the forefront of innovation, including the delivery of new state-of-the-art pelagic trawlers, which represent the pinnacle of Europe’s fishing industry. Significant investment in the onshore processing sector and in several modern prawn trawlers represents a vote of confidence in the future of this home-grown, privately owned industry. It is spending the money, so we need to ensure that it has Government support.

Other Members have commented on the common fisheries policy. It has to be changed, and no one here today would say differently. It behoves us all to shape that policy, and in 2012 we may have the opportunity to do so. Perhaps we will get it right, ensuring that the fishing industry is looked after. I am told by local industry organisations that UK Fisheries Ministers are telling the industry that fisheries management decisions must be based on the best available science. In 2010, we continue to have certain issues with the science, especially on the abundance of cod in the Irish sea. We find ourselves in a position where it is not so much the science that causes problems but the European Commission’s interpretation of it. That goes back to earlier comments.

It is not that there is a dispute between fishermen and the scientists; it is how the science is interpreted. I have a very simplistic way of looking at things, and I see what the fishermen tell me, but the figures in the scientists’ evidence show that the fishermen have the facts on their side. I urge the scientists to take that into consideration. We had the opportunity to present some facts and figures to the Minister three or four weeks ago, and I believe that the evidence that the fishermen presented to him was very much in our favour.

Things are further complicated by the application of the MSY—the maximum sustainable yield. That has less to do with science, but is a result of the political commitments signed at the Johannesburg sustainable conference in 2002. The political commitment is that fisheries must be managed through the MSY by 2015. As a result, many of the Commission’s total allowable catch proposals are less to do with negative science and more to do with the delivery of political aspirations. That worries me, as it could result in proposals—indeed, it is looking likely—for a quota reduction of 15% in 2011. Many have suggested such a figure.

I never fail to be astounded by some of the things that have happened to the fishing industry. The European Commission has proposed splitting the total allowable catch area that presently covers the whole of area VII—for us that is prawn fishing, which is a large part of our local industry—into seven TAC areas or quotas. That includes two areas in the Irish sea, and it will therefore have an impact on the industry that I represent. That approach is not viable, and not only because it will remove the flexibility that the fleet has to fish in various areas around Ireland; it is believed that it will undermine the sustainability of the stock.

These figures are ours. Science states that stock has increased by 8% in the past two years. However, we have figures showing that last winter and perhaps the winter before the seas were colder and many fish were returning. That is what the fishermen are telling me, and if they had such knowledge many others would agree. Whenever we approach the Minister to express our views on fishing, I am conscious that we could present 20 views, but rather than asking him to go to the December meeting with a wish list, it would probably be better to focus on three, so I shall comment on prawns, cod and herring.

Fishery scientists have been calling for the functional unit management of prawns for years, and the Commission has published what I called a non-paper. However, scientists agree with the industry to the extent that area VII prawns are already managed on a functional unit basis. Individual stocks in area VII are assessed, and an overall TAC figure is arrived at. The Commission wants to depart from that tried, tested and successful arrangement, and create new TAC quotas in seven functional units. The change will be dramatic, and it will put the industry under a lot of pressure.

Are we really overfishing? For the record, so that it can be read in Hansard, the organisation Seafish states that 25% of stocks are underexploited and 25% are overexploited. That said, if we add all the figures together from a fishing industry point of view—and, I suspect, from our point of view as Members—we would find that 75% of global fishing stocks were giving the maximum yield or could produce more. I suggest that those are the figures that we should focus on.

As was said earlier, the Commission’s change would remove the flexibility that has suited the industry and the stocks so well for many generations. For example, fishermen know that there are natural fluctuations in the stock from year to year, so if they start to fish for prawns in one part of area VII, but find the fishing slack, the current management allows the fishermen to migrate to another sea where the fishing is good. That might be to the Clyde. Fishermen from Northern Ireland have fished there for a great many years, and I hope that they will continue to do so—and I mean no disrespect to the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mr Reid). Pressure will be taken off the grounds where the fishing is poor, the grounds will recover, and the cycle will continue, but with the Commission’s approach, some fishermen will find themselves restricted to particular areas, and if fishing in that area is poor they will not be able to migrate. Pressure would be maintained in those areas, but with what effect on the stock?

The Commission, with the support of member states, has effectively created a single species fishery in the Irish sea that is dependent on prawns, but that fishery has been successfully managed through a system of self-regulation for decades. The compromise would seem to be documenting the success of the current self-regulatory system, and agreeing a long-term management plan for the area VII prawns, which would provide built-in safeguards for the stock and the fisheries that increasingly depend on that stock. A statement from the Fisheries Council advocating that approach would be our preferred way forward.

On cod recovery, I have to make a case for white fish and the cod men. Not too long ago, we had a fishing industry with 40 boats fishing for cod. We are now down to five. That is a cause for concern. The Commission proposes a 50% cut in the Irish sea TAC and another 25% cut in the number of days at sea. I do not know whether hon. Members are aware of any other industry where people are allowed to work only a certain number of days in the year. It is almost incredible.

When the long-term cod recovery regulation was agreed in November 2008, it contained a commitment to review the plan after three years. That review should occur in 2011. The industry was encouraged to hear recently from Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs officials that the review should be fundamental in nature and not, as the Commission previously suggested, an examination of the 2008 regulations.

In 2000, the Irish sea became the first European sea area to be subjected to EU cod recovery proposals. Overall, a sense of pessimism remains about the stock, despite observations from the fleet. A project instigated by Northern Ireland fishermen, with the support of Department of Agriculture and Rural Development fisheries scientists and funding, has proved that fishing gear deployed in the Irish sea by the local fishing fleet has exceeded ambitious targets on what the European Commission considers the most vulnerable fish stock—cod. During 2006 and 2007, fishermen discussed with local fisheries scientists various plans and ideas to address the problem. The result was launched in 2008, when fishermen from Kilkeel, Ardglass and Portavogie were trained to self-sample their catches. In addition, independent observers were employed to go to sea with trawlers to monitor catches to see what was retained on board and what was discarded.

At a recent meeting in Belfast, industry representatives were presented with the results of that pioneering work, which has become the biggest scientific fisheries sampling programme in any sea area around the United Kingdom. Before the latest evidence was obtained, the European Commission used models designed for fisheries in the North sea and elsewhere to estimate the amount of cod discarded in the Irish sea. Its guesstimate for 2008 was that 738 tonnes, or 80%, of all cod caught by Northern Ireland fishermen, had been discarded, but the scientific evidence, which the Department agreed, showed that the total discard by the entire Northern Ireland fishing fleet in 2008 was 2.8 tonnes, or 1.5% of the catch.

The facts are clear. While fishermen in other areas continue to explore ways to reduce cod discards and monitor their positive results, such as CCTV and catch quota trials in the North sea, Northern Ireland fishermen, working with fishing scientists, have delivered. However, their work will not stop there. A new project, which seeks further to reduce discards of whiting and haddock, is already being planned.

The actions of the Faroe Islands and Iceland have shown that the EU is not in control of fisheries. Those countries must take a sensible approach. It grieves and annoys me that after we bailed out their banks, they show their gratitude by taking our fish. It is understandable that we should be a wee bit annoyed. The EU must take into account the views of those who are on the seas every day, whose livelihoods depend on stock replenishment and who know the seas better than any scientist flown in. I wish the Minister well in his endeavours at the December meeting. I hope that this does not put the scud on him, as we say back home, but we are impressed by his knowledge of and interest in fisheries, and we look forward to what he will bring back.

I apologise on behalf of my fellow Northern Ireland MP, the hon. Member for South Down (Ms Ritchie), who could not attend this debate because she could not get here. Now I am in a predicament: can I get home? I hope that I can. I ask the Minister to take account of and act on what he has heard this afternoon. The days of passively accepting EU directives to the detriment of our fishing industry must be over. Fairness and equality must now be the catch of the day, and the House must do the background work to serve a palatable meal for our fishermen.