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.