Oral Answers to Questions

Kelvin Hopkins Excerpts

Thursday 4th July 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I am keen to get through another half a dozen questions, if possible, so we need to speed up.

[Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)]

Does the Secretary of State agree that the best possible reform of the CAP would be to return agricultural policy to member states? Will the issue of agriculture be on the table when the Prime Minister renegotiates our relationship with Europe?

[Mr Paterson]

The hon. Gentleman knows that I am a strong supporter of being able to make more decisions on these matters in this House. It might reassure him to know that this reform means that a lot more decisions will be made locally, so there will be, in effect, an English CAP and each of the regions, which were very keen to be able to make decisions, will have power to decide on all four regulations.

Common Agricultural Policy

Kelvin Hopkins Excerpts

Tuesday 18th June 2013 Commons Chamber

[Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)]

I wrote my first paper on the CAP some 33 years ago. I suggested at that time that either it should be abolished or Britain should withdraw from it. I have not changed my view, even though the CAP is very different from how it was then, although it is still essentially ill designed and inefficient, and a bit of a bureaucratic monster. I was supported at that time by the Consumers Association. Having a purely urban constituency, I represent consumers rather than farmers, although I absolutely support farmers, too.

Agriculture is very different in all the member states, and in some cases the difference is quite extreme. It would be better if member states managed their own agriculture and did not rely on a supranational regime imposed by the EU. It would be better for those countries and everyone else if that happened. If we must have transfers between member states, we should run the scheme as a fiscal transfer, so that the rich pay in and the poor draw out, but not try to manipulate agriculture in the way that happens at the moment.

The report from the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs suggests:

“A one-size-fits-all approach is not appropriate,”

and that

“The CAP is complex and burdensome.”

I agree. Some of these points do not necessarily apply to the whole of the CAP, but they seem to fit in with the case for returning agriculture to member states. Much of what we have heard in today’s debate seems implicitly, if not explicitly, to support that case as well. Each member state ought to decide what it produces, how much of each product it should produce, whether subsidies are appropriate, what should be subsidised and, indeed, what that member state should import. Those things should be left to those countries.

In Britain, we very wisely intensified our agriculture as a result of being an island and being threatened in the second world war. We developed an efficient agriculture sector that is still with us today, even though it seems that we are currently importing wheat. We want to continue to have a strong agriculture sector in terms of production for strategic reasons. We do not want to become beholden to other countries to feed ourselves.

Last week I had the pleasure of visiting Lithuania with other members of the European Scrutiny Committee. I found to my surprise that 30% of Lithuania’s agricultural land is not being used for production. That was not the case before Lithuania joined the EU and the CAP. Strangely, for a small country that used to be mainly an agricultural nation, Lithuania has now become a net importer of food, which is all due to the distorting effects, apparently, of the CAP. Even in the poorer countries, things are not going well under the CAP regime. Surely Lithuania would be able to produce agricultural products very cheaply and sell to countries that want to import them, but it is not doing that and is now a net importer of food, which is nonsense.

If we want to redistribute wealth and income between European nations—there is a case for doing that—it should be above board and done by means of fiscal transfers. A key factor of any renegotiation of our relationship with the EU should be getting out of the common fisheries policy, getting out of the CAP and avoiding all contact with single currencies.

Oral Answers to Questions

Kelvin Hopkins Excerpts

Thursday 7th March 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

We are all now better informed.

[Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)]

The common fisheries policy was described recently by a continental EU politician as a “disaster”, so those of us in the UK who take that view are not alone. Is it not the case that monitoring fishing in EU waters, including discards, cannot be effective until those waters are returned to the historic boundaries of member states?

[Richard Benyon]

I share the view that the common fisheries policy has been a disaster: it has been a disaster for fish stocks, fishermen, coastal communities and the health of our seas. Working within the world in which we have to operate and playing the hand that we have been dealt, I hope that we are getting good, meaningful reform. We will be delivering much of the regionalisation that the hon. Gentleman wants through the reform of the policy.

EU Fisheries Negotiations

Kelvin Hopkins Excerpts

Tuesday 8th January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)]

The Minister will recall that I have called on a number of occasions for the abolition of the common fisheries policy and for the Government to press that on European colleagues. I still believe that we should do that. Would it not be sensible to return to the national limits that we used to have, so that we can manage our fish stocks and monitor our fishing? That is how the Norwegians do it, and their fisheries are much better than ours.

The question that I really want to ask relates to Spain, which has in the past refused to give information about its fishing. Indeed, there have been suggestions that it is landing black fish illegally. Is Spain being properly regulated now?

[Richard Benyon]

Sadly, Spain is not alone in having had problems in the past with black fish landings. We have to make sure that all houses are in order when we criticise countries for failing to obey the rules. I want to make it absolutely clear that if people land black fish—illegal, unreported and unregulated landings of fish—they are stealing those fish from our fishermen. People such as the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Mr Doran) have made that important point consistently.

The hon. Member for Luton North (Kelvin Hopkins) is consistent in his view of the common fisheries policy. I certainly would not have started from this point, and I think that most Members would agree with that. As we develop the policy further, we need to recognise that the “common” part of the common fisheries policy is not necessarily wrong. We need to manage this on an ecosystem basis. Fish may spawn in one country’s waters and then swim to those of another country. They do not have passports and we need to manage the situation on a sea basin basis, and that is where our regionalisation agenda is going.

Oral Answers to Questions

Kelvin Hopkins Excerpts

Thursday 6th December 2012 Commons Chamber

[Richard Benyon]

I assure my hon. Friend that we learn lessons from every flooding incident. Although we have implemented Pitt and the other aspects that came from recent floods, we are looking closely at issues such as dredging. I know that that is a concern in his constituency, as it is in Somerset and other places where the belief is that water is held on the ground for too long.

[Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)]

Will the Government support the United States and Russia in seeking an effective ban on the trade in polar bear hides at the forthcoming CITES—convention on international trade in endangered species—conference?

[Richard Benyon]

I met the US Government’s director with responsibility for fish and wildlife yesterday and heard the points that he was making. We are also listening to other countries that take a contrary view. We take our CITES responsibility seriously and we are looking into this issue, so I will consult the hon. Gentleman.

Fisheries

Kelvin Hopkins Excerpts

Thursday 6th December 2012 Westminster Hall

[Mr Doran]

I think that that is what everyone wants, and we hope that it is the direction in which the council is travelling, but an awful lot of discussions and debates need to be had in Europe before that is finally agreed.

Another major area of concern, not related directly to the Fisheries Council, is mackerel fishing by Iceland and the Faroes. Four years of negotiations by the EU and Norway have made very little headway. According to the Scottish Fishermen’s Federation, despite Iceland’s claim to be operating a sustainable fishery, the country’s yearly mackerel catch has increased from 363 tonnes in 2005 to 145,000 tonnes recently. That is an enormous leap. Apparently, Iceland’s claim is a 15% share of the overall north-east mackerel catch, but for the past three years, it has taken an allocation of about 24%. There is also some concern about positions taken by Iceland in particular in its relations with some UK fish processors. Colleagues with more direct involvement in that issue may discuss it, but can the Minister bring us up to date on negotiations with Iceland and the Faroes?

[Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)]

I recently had the pleasure of speaking to some Icelanders at a conference. It is clear that their fear that their seas may be plundered like ours through the common fisheries policy is a major reason why they resist joining the European Union.

[Mr Doran]

I hear what my hon. Friend is saying, but in the meantime, enormous damage is being done to fish stocks, which is our major concern.

Beyond the European issues, I have one or two questions to ask the Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Wright]

He does. The hon. Gentleman is quite right.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Kelvin Hopkins]

Do not the views of the hon. Members for Thirsk and Malton (Miss McIntosh) and for South East Cornwall (Sheryll Murray) about the rogue behaviour of Spain in particular underline the problem of the common fisheries policy and the apparent weakness and failure of the European Union to have any control over what it does?

[Mr Wright]

I have tried to speak in the annual fisheries debate to put forward the concerns of my constituents. I remember—it seems many years ago now—raising the concern that Spanish and French fishermen were, essentially, illegally operating in British waters, and that the level of enforcement was virtually non-existent. We need to have a more robust review of such practices.

Another blunt, clumsy and top-down initiative relates to the days at sea allocated to Hartlepool fishermen. The EU plans yet again to cut days at sea under the cod recovery plan, even though it has been estimated that cod stocks in the North sea have almost tripled in the past six or seven years. Does the Minister agree that we should avoid that somewhat simplistic tool of days at sea because it grossly distorts the economics of the industry and again embeds that short-term view? Should not we instead be thinking of a policy response that emphasises technological modifications to fishing gear, as well as making better use of technology and scientific evidence to see real-time closures of specific fishing areas in the North sea where stocks seem under threat?

In conclusion, Hartlepool has had a fishing industry for 800 years, providing a decent living for many generations of my constituents. The hard and dangerous nature of fishing the North sea has embedded itself into the culture and character of the Hartlepool people, making us who we are. The fishing industry in Hartlepool and across the North sea, and indeed around the UK waters, must be sustained for generations to come, and we must protect the stock for the long term and for the economic future of the fishermen who farm those stocks.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Brady. I will not speak for long, because much of what I wished to say has been said by other hon. Members who are much more knowledgeable and expert in these matters than me.

There are endless problems with fish stocks, overfishing, discards, rogue behaviour by other states, and so on, and at the root of those is the common fisheries policy. I applaud the Minister for doing his best in difficult circumstances and I believe that he sympathises with our case—he goes to Brussels to negotiate on our behalf—but we must give him more stiffening than that. As I suggested in the main Chamber previously, we must say that if we cannot get the CFP abolished, we will give notice that at a point, perhaps three years hence, we will withdraw from it and re-establish our 200-mile, or median-line, limit and manage our fish stocks. As the hon. Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous) rightly says, fish stocks should be regarded as a national asset, not something to be plundered by all and sundry in an unregulated way.

I have called for the abolition of the common fisheries policy. We ought to keep on saying this, because although we have won the argument, we have not won the victory as yet.

There is a logic, which Norway exhibits, that if a country has its own fish stocks and fishing area, it can monitor and control it. Every fishing vessel and catch in Norwegian waters is monitored. Although my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Austin Mitchell) tells me that there are some discards, by and large the Norwegians are against discards. When we are short of fish, and stocks are being depleted, what a nonsense policy it is that we are throwing away dead fish, all to reinforce some idea of a market.

We ought to follow Norway’s lead and re-establish our own national fishing waters and other countries should do that as well. It is nonsense that land-locked countries that have no interest in North sea and Irish sea fishing can vote freely on what happens to the common fisheries policy. I understand that the European Commission will not even allow bilateral agreements between neighbouring countries to control their fishing, because that looks like undermining the freedom for everybody to pillage those fishing stocks as and when they are able to do so.

I want to reinforce the arguments in favour of abolishing the common fisheries policy and moving towards a world in which each country controls its own fishing area, up to the 200-mile, or median-line, limit. If the Spanish wish to overfish their seas, they can, but they will learn in time that it is foolish to do so. Newfoundland fished out all the stocks around its coasts, which was a disaster, and Spain should learn from its mistakes. We would not make the same mistake; I think we would behave much more responsibly, and so would many other countries. However, only when countries are responsible for their own fishing stocks will they behave responsibly.

As I say, I support those who call for the abolition of the common fisheries policy, and I want to reinforce the Minister’s negotiating strength in Brussels. I also suggest that we give notice that, in time, we will withdraw from the common fisheries policy if it is not abolished.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

Fish Discards

Kelvin Hopkins Excerpts

Thursday 14th June 2012 Commons Chamber

[Richard Benyon]

I am very keen to involve all Members of the House. My hon. Friend, like me, represents a constituency that is almost as far from the sea as it is possible to be, but we get letters from constituents who are massively concerned about the marine environment. I want to ensure that we keep up the political momentum on this and so want to work with Members on both sides of the House to ensure that we keep up the pressure and are effective through all the institutions that are involved so that ultimately we get the result we need.

[Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)]

The Minister will recall that I have called a number of times for the abolition of the common fisheries policy and the restoration of historic fishing waters to member states. I still believe that that is the only final solution that will work, but in the short term we have inched forward. Will he explain how the system will be policed, whether there will be penalties, precisely what will happen to the excess catches and whether Britain will be monitoring, and indeed policing, rogue vessels from overseas that are fishing in British waters?

[Richard Benyon]

Britain has been policing illegal fishing, whether by UK or foreign vessels, and will continue to do so. I am pleased that we recently instigated a very heavy fine on an overseas vessel fishing in our waters. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I want to ensure that fisheries are managed as close to member states as possible. There are some good words in the text that allow member states to take action when it is right for them to do so. Subsidiarity is supposed to underpin a lot of European legislation, and I ask him to look at the provisions we secured on regionalisation. Whether or not we had a CFP, we would still have to work with other countries because we are talking about an ecosystem, fish that swim in our waters and those of other countries, and the historical fishing rights that go way back beyond the European Union, so I think we have a good message and that it is something he can be pleased with.

Common Agricultural Policy

Kelvin Hopkins Excerpts

Thursday 8th March 2012 Westminster Hall

[Miss McIntosh]

We will return to greening measures in our further report. The greening measures are the most controversial part of the reform. We believe that the CAP should enhance food production capacity—not necessarily increasing production now—by keeping land in agricultural use and in good environmental condition so that the land is usable when we need it. We need a competitive and viable agricultural sector. We need to redress the imbalances, because farmers cannot get a fair return from the market.

[Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)]

The hon. Lady makes a point about the importance of food security for the long-term future and for maximising our self-sufficiency, with which I totally agree. Does she agree that the logic of such an argument is that agricultural policy and agricultural subsidy should be managed nationally, not internationally?

[Miss McIntosh]

The evidence we received was very clear in that regard: as long as there is a level of farm support across the European Union—and in other parts of the international community—farmers subscribe to decisions being taken within the European Union, so that there is a proverbial level playing field. That is something I have sought most of my professional life. I do not know if we have reached it yet.

I want to say a few words about direct payments. In the Committee’s view, direct payments should be retained—the evidence was very powerful in this regard—up to 2020. They should not be abolished until business conditions in agriculture improve, because UK farms are highly dependent on direct payments—currently the single farm payment as introduced in 2005. Without them, more than 50% of farmers would be unprofitable. I dare say that many of those would probably be in my uplands in Thirsk, Malton and Filey. The evidence we received indicated that UK livestock production would fall significantly as a result of such an approach although, interestingly, it would have only a negligible effect on crop production. The Committee is concerned about the implications for food security and for landscapes, and the rural livelihoods that depend on farming.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)]

I apologise, Mr Sheridan, for not being here for some of the debate. I have been trying to speak in the debate in the main Chamber. Being in two places at once is rather difficult. I wanted to have a say on the common agricultural policy, on which I have commented many times in the Chamber, and to take a rather more radical position than the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs or the Government.

I was somewhat disappointed by the Select Committee report. It was written by well-intentioned and good people, but I am disappointed that it does not take a radical position. In some respects, I support the Government’s position more strongly than the Committee’s. The report says that the CAP no longer takes the lion’s share of the budget, but it is still 40%. What is a lion’s share? I think that 40% is pretty much a lion’s share.

The CAP is still a net cost to the UK, although not as high as it was, and food prices have been consistently higher for UK consumers ever since we joined the European Union, or the Common Market, as it was. Higher food prices are regressive, in that they bear more heavily on those who spend a higher proportion of their income on food, namely ordinary working people and the poor. In that respect, it has always been negative, certainly in terms of the people in Luton North whom I represent.

Access to cheaper food from elsewhere in the world has been restricted. Before the CAP, UK prices and national subsidies were related to lower world food prices, not to the higher prices demanded inside the CAP area. UK membership of the European Union has resulted in an excessive cumulative cost in both budget and taxpayer terms and in food prices, but it has also had a knock-on effect on economic growth. If one spends more of one’s wealth on subsidising agriculture, clearly less of one’s wealth can be used in other parts of the economy, and we have had lower growth overall as a result.

On numerous occasions, I have called for the abolition of the CAP. I keep pressing that point, because I believe that within the European Union, or whatever it might be called, national subsidies would be more appropriate. They would be better judged, because nation states know better what it is appropriate to subsidise within their own economies; their agricultural sectors are different and they would be much more likely to husband their resources carefully if it bore directly on their own taxpayers rather than coming from some great gift in the sky, namely a CAP budget contributed to disproportionately by countries such as Britain.

That would be more targeted and efficient. It would also cause countries to decide to what extent they want to keep their agriculture at the same level or increase its size for security reasons. The report makes the point well about food security for the future. If we as nation states were concerned about it, our food production would be better than it is under the CAP arrangement, which makes us casual about it all.

Britain in particular would do well to maximise its food production—not absolutely, but in order to ensure secure supplies for the future. I am possibly the only person here born during the second world war. I survived only because we managed to import food, mainly across the Atlantic. Many people died bringing that food. We learned that producing a higher proportion of our food domestically is important for reasons of long-term security. With the world’s population growing and food shortages likely, we cannot guarantee that that will not be necessary in future. Food security is important.

Britain is an efficient agricultural producer. Other countries are very inefficient. Increasing their efficiency would make their agriculture more profitable, and they would be able to sell it. In some cases, their wage costs are much lower. They could sell more to countries such as Britain as and when we decide to purchase. A national approach to agricultural subsidies is the way forward. The CAP is outdated and was never a good idea in the first place.

From time to time we have called for reform of the CAP, and some reforms have been made. I called for its abolition, but our leaders during the previous Parliament decided that they would seek serious reform. I remember that at the end of Britain’s last presidency of the European Union, Tony Blair went to the very last meeting in December, in theory to call for CAP reform. He was then beaten all around the room by President Chirac, coming back with no reform and a cut in our rebate. At the time, The Economist, hardly a magazine of the left, said that the deal was so bad that no deal would have been better. So much for reform. We must put pressure on the European Union. That is the only thing it reacts to.

[Neil Parish]

I think the mistake made by Prime Minister Tony Blair at the time was that he gave away the rebate without getting the reform. What he should have done, if he was going to give away the rebate, is get the CAP reform first. That was his mistake.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kelvin Hopkins]

Indeed. Had I been at his side, I would perhaps have advised him rather differently, but I was never at Tony Blair’s side, and he never consulted me on my views.

[Daniel Kawczynski (Shrewsbury and Atcham) (Con)]

That was his undoing.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

Indeed. I do not flatter myself, but a bit of advice here and there might have been helpful.

The Government’s response makes important points, including a call for greater emphasis on subsidiarity. If subsidiarity means that more decisions will be made at national level within the European Union, it is a good thing. We had a debate about it in the Chamber the other day. I think that the rest of the European Union regards it as a decoration, but we take it seriously, and we want more things decided at national level. The Government urge more regional flexibility. The ultimate regional flexibility is for agricultural subsidy and policy to be decided at national level. That is a sensible way forward too.

The report mentions room for savings. The Government say that CAP expenditure should be cut substantially, and I tend to take the Government’s side. I hope that we will not take a “softly, softly” approach to the CAP, that the Government will continue to take a strong line and that ultimately, the CAP will be abolished and replaced by more sensible arrangements based at national level.

Earlier in the debate, a point was raised about genuine farmers. Quite a high proportion of farmers in continental Europe, particularly in wealthy countries such as Germany, use farming as a secondary source of income. They are solicitors, doctors, factory workers or whatever, but they have a small market garden and receive subsidies to buy tractors and so on, and that has been going on for decades. Such people are not genuine farmers, but they get a bit of extra cash from growing a few vegetables and receiving a subsidy from the European Union. That is not farming and we ought to take such matters seriously.

There is, of course, still a degree of corruption although it is perhaps not as bad as it was. I remember hearing about a beef producer who lived in a tower block in Turin, although I do not know how many cows would have fitted on the grass outside. That was some years ago, but there is scope for corruption and if national Governments have to subsidise the system, they will take such matters more seriously. They will ensure that people are genuine farmers and they will try to eliminate corruption so that every penny, cent, or euro is spent more sensibly and is better targeted. In that way, the agricultural industry across Europe will be better for everyone at both nation state level, and collectively.

Oral Answers to Questions

Kelvin Hopkins Excerpts

Thursday 24th November 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Spelman]

That is a helpful question, as it enables me to share with the House the fact that we are on a journey with these proposals. We welcome the fact that the Commission wants to “green” the CAP. Taxpayers have every right to expect other public goods for the subsidy they provide. We feel that the “greening” proposals also lack ambition, and we want proper recognition of the fact that UK farmers go a lot further than those in a lot of other member states in providing stewardship schemes that make a real difference and provide environmental benefits that address problems such as the demise of species.

[Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)]

There is much talk of returning powers from Brussels to this Parliament and the British Government. Would the CAP not be a good policy to bring back to Britain? Could we not subsidise British farmers, even at the current levels, and save billions of pounds from our budget every year?

[Mrs Spelman]

The nature of the supplementary questions is ranging much wider than the remit of my Department. As I have said, my job at each one of these Council meetings is to get the best possible deal for consumers, taxpayers and farmers in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency. That is my duty.

Fisheries

Kelvin Hopkins Excerpts

Tuesday 15th November 2011 Commons Chamber

[Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)]

I shall be brief. Hon. Members will have seen the Library’s Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology note 357, citing a European Commission report that stated that 88% of European fish stocks were being fished beyond sustainable levels and 30% of stocks were close to collapse. I have been quoted before as saying that this is an unmitigated disaster and these figures prove it. The only effective solution is to seek the abolition of the common fisheries policy and return fisheries to member states. All talk of reform at this stage is mere tinkering at the margins.

I welcome the motion, but it does not go far enough. The UK already has opt-outs in a number of EU areas, such as the euro and Schengen, so surely we could negotiate a simple opt-out for the CFP. If we cannot, we should tell our European partners that we will withdraw unilaterally from it in, say, three years’ time. We have much more to gain than they have to lose, because our fisheries are among the largest in the EU and the restoration of a 200-mile limit, or a 50% limit where there are adjacent countries, would solve the problems for us, certainly for our fishermen and for our fish stocks.

I had wanted to say much more but realise that time is short. I urge the Minister to mention in his negotiations that Members of this House are calling for the abolition of the common fisheries policy and will do so until we get it.