Common Fisheries Policy

Austin Mitchell Excerpts

Thursday 15th March 2012 Commons Chamber

[Austin Mitchell (Great Grimsby) (Lab)]

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

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

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

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

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

[Andrew George]

rose—

[Austin Mitchell]

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

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

[Jim Shannon]

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

[Austin Mitchell]

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

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

[Mr MacNeil]

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

[Austin Mitchell]

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

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

[Ian Paisley]

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

[Austin Mitchell]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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