| Previous Section | Home Page |
Column 1163
in my constituency to come to grips with their grief in privacy? All of us share the deep sense of grief and loss felt by the affected communities.Mr. Gummer : I do not always agree with the hon. Lady, but her latter request is of particular value. It is of great sadness to many of us that grief is commercialised in such circumstances. I hope that the press will treat the bereaved and the affected communities with the respect that they deserve in such sad circumstances. I hope that they will be left to grieve as they would wish rather than in full view of the rest of the country.
It is for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, who will reply to this debate, to decide whether the Premier can be raised. I want it to be known, however, that the entire United Kingdom is extremely concerned when one of its ships is lost in such a way.
Dr. Norman A. Godman (Greenock and Port Glasgow) : Will the right hon. Gentleman take note of the fact that the House has not had a sustained debate on the safety of fishing vessels since Sir Albert McQuarrie put through his private Member's Bill on safety at sea? Will the right hon. Gentleman convey to the Secretary of State for Transport the belief shared by many hon. Members that we should have an early, critical scrutiny of safety matters as they affect our fishermen in their hazardous work?
Mr. Gummer : I should be happy to consider that matter with my right hon. and learned Friend. His previous responsibilities will enable him to look at the matter from both sides. I am sure the hon. Gentleman agrees that there has rarely been division in the House about the safety of such vessels. I remember the all-party support that was commanded by Sir Albert McQuarrie's Bill. That Bill was worth while and has done a great deal of good, if only by highlighting the serious dangers that are present in the fishing industry.
Mr. George Foulkes (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) : I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his generosity in giving way so often at this early stage in our proceedings.
I reinforce the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman). Today, the hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) and I received a reply to a written answer in which we asked that the new communication system to be adopted in the Clyde, which is a great step forward, be extended to other parts of the United Kingdom so that there is some liaison between submarine commanders and fishing boats. We were told that we must wait to see how the system works before it is extended. We should like to debate that issue further.
I also received a reply about transponders being fitted to fishing nets to enable submarines to detect them more easily--an idea that we have advanced for some time. The Ministry of Defence, however, said that no decision has been made about who will pay for them. Following the sinking of the Antares, the issues raised in those questions are extremely urgent and a specific debate would give us the opportunity to discuss them further. I realise that the Department of Transport and the Ministry of Defence have prime responsibility for such
Column 1164
matters, but the Minister has a general concern about the fishing industry and its safety. [ Hon. Members :-- "Briefly"] I hope that he will take up this matter on our behalf.Mr. Gummer : I am glad, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you enabled the hon. Gentleman to continue his question. He is perfectly right that, although such matters are the responsibility of the Secretaries of State for Defence and for Transport, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the territorial Departments also believe that they have a particular responsibility and concern. Although we do not have control of the legislation, it is the fishermen for whom we are responsible who are most affected by it.
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his complimentary support of the changes introduced by the Ministry of Defence, but I do not believe there is anything wrong in assessing how that system works before it is extended. I accept, however, that the hon. Gentleman might like to discuss it at greater length and I shall certainly raise the matter with my right hon. Friends.
The Government are sponsoring the research on transponders and I am pleased about that. The work is encouraging and we must consider how to implement the research if it proves to continue to be so encouraging. If a suitable occasion arose, my right hon. Friends and I would be happy to debate this matter. There is no bar on such a discussion and it is a matter for the Leader of the House and others.
I do not want to understate the importance of what I have already said as it provides the background against which we can discuss other matters. Tonight, however, we are specifically discussing the fishing opportunities for next year. I apologise to the House that no proposals were possible before mid-November when the latest scientific advice became available following the essential autumn surveys. We also had to conclude the third- country talks to arrive at proposals on key stocks in the North sea.
I know that the House would prefer to have such information early enough to digest it more effectively. As the Minister mainly concerned, I, too, would like to have the information earlier to prepare for the long debates that take place in the European Community. But that is not possible and I comment on my own frustration about it.
The consultations with Norway have gone through three rounds. They were completed late on 7 December, after the Commission's main total allowable catch and quota proposals were released that afternoon. Hon. Members will see the tight timetable, and I thank the Leader of the House for arranging the time for this debate, so soon after the point at which we were able to tell him that the information would be available.
We did our best to give firm figures and estimates, where necessary, in the main explanatory memorandum of 11 December. We supplied the supplementary document 24 hours later, and that completed the proposals. The House now has before it the full proposals coming before the Fisheries Council. I am grateful to the authorities of the House--the Select Committee on European Legislation and the spokesmen for the other parties--for their understanding and rapid consideration of the proposals. It is important that we have the views of the House before the Council of Fisheries Ministers meets on 19 December.
Column 1165
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours (Workington) : The fishermen in my constituency tell me that the failure of the Government to introduce a proper decommissioning scheme has led to the reductions. Is that true?Mr. Gummer : I do not know whether they say that to the hon. Gentleman. If they do, even those who want a decommissioning scheme would not support that argument. It cannot be true ; there is no way in which the two things could hang together in that way. There is an argument for a decommissioning scheme, although I do not accept it. But it is not based on those premises.
We shall reach a point at which we can talk about decommissioning schemes-- I shall not avoid that--and I hope the hon. Gentleman will accept that we conduct our debates in the House against a background in which the real decisions are bound to be made in the European Community, because fishing is done by the whole Community and the shares of the fishing quotas are worked out among us. In those circumstances, particular TACs and quotas-- fishing opportunities--are based on an assessment of the scientific advice. The question of decommissioning or non-decommissioning is totally different. When we discuss it the hon. Member for Workington may wish to intervene again, and I shall be happy to give way to him.
Mr. Campbell-Savours rose --
Mr. Gummer : The hon. Gentleman will agree that this is a debate of great concern to many people. We should take matters in order and, when I come to the point about which he wishes to intervene, I shall give way to him.
I wish, first, to deal with catches and catch returns. There was considerable gloom at the start of the year. The severe cuts in North sea cod and haddock quotas, which are of the greatest economic importance to our industry, were a severe blow. We also had to introduce measures to reduce effort on haddock. It is interesting to note that the majority of vessels took up not the option to use more selective gear but the option of being restricted to 92 fishing days. That is an important point in terms of trying to decide how best to deal with conservation measures.
It is worth remembering that, of the quotas of most interest to our industry, while 17 decreased in 1990, 13 were increased and 18 remained the same.
Mr. A. J. Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed) : The right hon. Gentleman said that many had taken up the option of 92 fishing days. Does he agree that that was a scheme for chosen days, not for consecutive days of the sort that is now under discussion? The idea of expecting people to fish for 10 fixed consecutive days represents a danger, with fishermen having to make up the number in the days following. That could lead to fishermen feeling obliged to go out to sea on the nominated days, even though the weather may be bad and the conditions dangerous.
Mr. Gummer : I agree with the hon. Gentleman, but that is a different scheme. I hope that he will agree that one problem with the choice of days is the question of effective policing. He will agree that in his part of the world there is considerable feeling among fishermen that other fishermen have perhaps not kept to the rules with quite the assiduity that he would expect.
During this year, our distant water fleet has taken the reduced quotas north of Norway, but poor catch rates in Greenland, unlike the good catches of last year, are
Column 1166
making it impossible to take up those quotas fully--reminding us again that the artificiality of quotas is often clearly shown up by the nature of the flow of the water and the presence of the fish. Nearer home, there has been a heavier take-up of quotas, requiring considerable management to spread the quota through the year. There have also been considerable management difficulties arising from unusual catching patterns declared by fishermen, particularly of cod and haddock.Dr. Godman : The right hon. Gentleman referred to fishing in northern, particularly Greenland, waters. One reason for the poor take-up has been the exceptionally severe weather with the presence of ice. The two together have made matters extremely difficult for our fishermen. I appeal to the Minister--I have made this appeal before--to accept that fishermen should be in Greenland waters only if they have experience of fishing in the area. In other words, the right hon. Gentleman should try to persuade others without the necessary experience not to go into those waters.
Mr. Gummer : I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's point. People must have track records to fish in those areas. It is difficult to be too prescriptive about such matters, but when it comes to fishing in difficult areas--I agree with the hon. Gentleman that we are discussing a difficult area, in which the reasons for not catching have included severe weather and ice--some experience of those areas is important. But how one gets experience if one is closed from an area until one has such experience is a difficulty that all must face.
We must accept that, even in unhappy situations where patterns do not appear to fit what the expectations were in the returns, fish is in considerable demand and prices have risen greatly. Up to the end of September, the value of all landings increased by 10 per cent., despite a 4 per cent. drop in volume. That is a remarkable fact. Within that total, I highlight white fish, such as cod, haddock and sole, for which there has been an increase in total value of 13 per cent., despite a fall in landings of 13 per cent. That has meant that fishermen have had a significant increase in return, over the increase in inflation. Of course, the customer has had to pay more because there has been less to buy.
Mr. Alex Salmond (Banff and Buchan) : The Minister makes a point that we have heard often from the Government--that the revenue in terms of landings has been above that of last year. Does he accept that the costs of the industry have increased dramatically, particularly the costs of interest and boats, because of the high base rate in the last year, and, in recent months, the dramatic doubling in fuel costs because of the increase in the price of oil? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it would be more sensible to have income figures for the industry, as opposed to just the revenue figures which the Minister is quoting?
Mr. Gummer : The industry has had consistently, in 10 of the past 11 years, an increase in its returns over and above the rate of inflation. The hon. Gentleman cannot count the rate of inflation twice. The rate of inflation is created by a number of elements and there are many
Column 1167
industries in which the contribution, for example, of fuel costs as a proportion of its total costs is considerably greater than that of the fishing industry.Mr. Gummer : A simple example is the cement industry, where fuel represents 50 per cent. of its costs. It is significantly less in the fishing industry. It does not help the hon. Gentleman's case to suggest other than that. Although the fishing industry has suffered from the reduction in the amount that it can take, it has had the advantage of an increase in the price of what it has sold. Many other industries, not least farming, would envy that. We should always start with facts rather than with embroidering them.
I am surprised by the amendment tabled by the Scottish National party, because it does not seem to square with the arguments advanced by that party in the previous debate on a similar subject in this House. In that debate, the official Opposition were careful to agree that if we took the necessary tough measures for conservation they would have to have a real impact on fishermen. But the hon. Member for Moray and her hon. Friends suggested that conservation measures could be taken without their causing difficulties for the people on whom they were imposed.
The same is happening today. There is always the idea that there is a soft option, and it is always the Scottish National party which produces it. The House is tired of the attempt to buy votes today from the livelihoods of fishermen tomorrow--yet that is what the amendment suggests. It suggests conservation measures that do not restrict efforts to catch fish today while hiding from people the fact that their sons and daughters will not have fish tomorrow and that their communities will be destroyed. Both sides of the House should oppose this easy option advanced by the Scottish Nationalists. The rest of us, who are responsible for these matters, have to tell the fishing industry that, to protect jobs in the future, it will have to take some fairly tough measures now.
Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop (Tiverton) : Does my right hon. Friend take the view that I do, that sea fishery committees paid for by local community charge payers, such as the Devon and Cornwall sea fishery committee, are of great assistance to him, bearing in mind that it is difficult to have committees of fishermen, who are at sea so much of the time, communicating to my right hon. Friend's Department local realities and problems? Will he also say a word about the cost of enforcement? In many people's view, the action of enforcement should be by the nation state, but the cost of it should fall on the Community budget.
Mr. Gummer : I agree that the sea fishery committees are of great importance. We are discussing whether we could extend their remit so that they can carry out an even more useful job in the future. The Scots do not have the same system north of the border. Perhaps my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland would like to look at what we do south of the border. Both parts of the United Kingdom can learn from the other. I am sure that we could learn some things from Scotland, but our system works very well.
Column 1168
The United Kingdom has been responsible for setting up a European Community police force for fishing and for extending it. The balance is probably about right, but I am happy to re-examine it. Some countries that used to be less than careful about obeying the law are beginning to be much more careful because of the international force for which the United Kingdom is responsible.Mr. Robert Hughes (Aberdeen, North) : Far be it from me to defend the SNP, with whose members I have little in common, but the Minister makes a great mistake if he seeks to turn this serious debate into a party political broadcast--or if he tries to divide us on grounds of party.
Tough measures to reduce the fishing effort must be taken, as we all agree. But if the Minister reads the amendment he will see that it suggests that it is time we stopped the idea--the hallmark of this Government--that the only way to make progress or bring about change is to inflict pain on people. It appears that one can effect change only by suffering pain--a sort of masochism.
Mr. Hughes : Be that as it may, the fact remains that there is unanimity among Opposition parties--many Conservative Members agree--about the necessity for a proper decommissioning scheme, and that is how I read the amendment. If that is indeed what it says, I shall support it in the Lobby.
Mr. Gummer : Nowhere does the amendment mention decommissioning--
Mrs. Margaret Ewing : What about structural support?
Mr. Gummer : The hon. Lady can talk in vague terms of structural support, but I am talking about the amendment, in which there are seven lines--all of them meant to divide--before we reach the words "structural support".
I am making the same point as did the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes). There is no need for the House to be divided on the main issues that we have to fight in the European Community.
Mr. James Wallace (Orkney and Shetland) : Square mesh panels?
Mr. Gummer : I will come to them in a moment.
Once again the Scottish National party is trying to give fishermen the impression that it has a policy different from those of the Opposition or of the Government, obtainable in Europe and therefore viable in circumstances that might attract a vote or two for the SNP. That is what I object to. The House should try to produce a policy which we can fight in the Community and which will benefit all fishermen in the United Kingdom. To do that we must ensure that we table words of agreement.
Let us examine the amendment in that light. It
"demands that the Government pursue a more vigorous policy in the fisheries negotiations".
My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary and I could hardly be more vigorous than we are. Anyone in the Community would confirm that for five years the United Kingdom has exhibited more vigour than any other country, which explains why we have had a better deal than any other country.
The amendment continues
"by insisting on implementation of the technical conservation measures on square mesh panels agreed by fishermen".
Column 1169
We cannot insist on those things. We have to negotiate them and get them agreed by our neighbours in the Community, which is precisely what we are doing. We are fighting for them in Europe. It is about time that the party that claims to be the European party in Scotland learnt that we do not insist--Mr. Robert Hughes : SNP Members have changed their minds about that- -the Minister is out of date.
Mr. Gummer : I am glad to have the hon. Gentleman back on my side. I am an enthusiast for the European Community, but I do not go round insisting on things. We must negotiate.
The amendment continues,
"rejecting the discriminatory and unworkable proposals on limitation of effort proposed by the EC Commission".
We have already done that, so I do not see the need for the amendment. The case for doing that has been forcefully presented by the United Kingdom Government, with the support of one or two other countries, and we are likely to enjoy some success on the issue. It would be easier if the European Community found that both sides of this House were united, as are the other countries with which we are negotiating--
Mr. Wallace : I refer to the point about technical limitations. Is the Minister saying that the United Kingdom Government will resist the Commission's proposal for a ban on fishing on 10 consecutive days in a month?
Mr. Gummer : That is not a technical, conservation measure--[ Hon. Members :-- "Oh!"] It is not : it is a quota management device. I see that the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow, a former Opposition fisheries spokesman, agrees with me. If Members of Opposition parties cannot even get the technicalities right in a debate of this sort, it suggests that the Scottish Nationalists are much more interested in politics than they are in fishermen--
Mr. Salmond : Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Gummer : I have made a serious claim and I shall continue to make it once I have given way to the hon. Gentleman, the successor to Sir Albert McQuarrie.
Mr. Salmond : I thank the Minister for finally giving way. He is digging rather a deep hole for himself. Thus far he has managed to unite the Opposition against him. He says that the amendment will not force conservation measures, but it supports technical conservation measures, a clampdown on industrial fishing and participation in the Community's structure policy. Every hon. Member except the Minister seems to know that that policy means decommissioning and lay-up schemes. How can the Minister defend his position in the face of the words in the amendment? In view of what the amendment says, why does not the Minister accept it?
Mr. Gummer : No doubt the amendment suggests that we are not supporting such things. The hon. Gentleman says in his document that we should move to the elimination of industrial fishing. That is the policy of the Government and has already been put forward. If the amendment contained only that one suggestion I would be happy to say that it was in line with our policy. I have always been opposed to industrial fishing and I have constantly battled against it. The only change in the
Column 1170
situation is that many of the species that used to be fished industrially, such as horse mackerel, are now fished for human consumption. There has been a significant change in that respect. It is plain that the Opposition do not understand that. It is a technical matter for the fishing industry. It does not help our battle in the European Community when amendments seek to divide us rather than to support a United Kingdom policy.Several Hon. Members rose --
Mr. Gummer : I have given way enough. If I give way any more there will be complaints that I have taken up too much time.
Mr. Foulkes : Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Gummer : No, because I have already given way to the hon. Gentleman.
Quota levels, however, are not the only preoccupation. Much of this year has been devoted by the Government and the industry to pressing for improved technical conservation measures. I very much regret that a difference of opinion between most member states and the Commission about the degree of change needed prevented the November Fisheries Council from agreeing on new measures designed particularly to help cod and haddock.
I am a great believer in conservation, but conservation does not mean producing a net that is incapable of catching fish--a proposition put forward by the Commission. We put a net behind a boat and pulled it and caught, I think, eight fish. We cannot agree to conservation measures that are not based upon conserving the jobs of fishermen as well as stocks of fish. There must be a balance and some of the Commission's propositions appear to be devised by people who do not know one end of a net or one kind of fish from another. It will be most important in the near future to secure improved selectivity of nets so that the wasteful catch of juvenile fish can be reduced to a minimum. If we are to do that, we cannot merely accept the proposals put forward by some fishermen because they will not secure that objective. We must consider square mesh nets with meshes that are larger than 80 mm so that the correct balance can be achieved. We are asking for change but it must be realistic. We must strike a balance between conservation of stocks and conservation of the industry. If stocks are improperly looked after, some species will be preyed upon by others.
Mr. Foulkes : I do not propose to raise the temperature now that it has, thankfully, been lowered. The Minister talks about conservation measures. He knows that precautionary total allowable catches apply to plaice, monkfish and megrim. There is no scientific evidence for those restrictions and no conservation is involved. The Minister gave a clear pledge that the Government would fight hard to increase the allowable catches of new species of fish being brought to the Market. Will he assure us that he will press for substantial increases in the catch of those three species?
Mr. Gummer : I give the hon. Gentleman the absolute assurance that where there is no scientific reason or no real concern we will press for the largest possible allowable catch. The issues must be discussed one by one. He will agree that sometimes a precautionary TAC is sensible when, in view of the evidence, that seems the best thing to do and it appears that it would be dangerous to move too
Column 1171
far. Perhaps he also agrees that in the absence of full scientific advice it is better to take precautions than to run the risk of exhausting future stocks. As I said, the balance is important and where it is safe to do so we shall fight hard to increase catches.Dr. Godman : The Minister said that he saw me nodding in agreement when he spoke about some fishermen not fishing for 10 consecutive days. He spoke about a system of quota management. We are all concerned about safety and this is a serious matter. Presumably fishermen would not fish for six days because the 10-day period would contain two weekends. Some fishermen may stay out in bad weather and because of the difficulties that they face they may be prepared to shoot their gear in unfavourable conditions. That is why I disagree emphatically and entirely with that 10-day proposal.
Mr. Gummer : I thought that I had made myself clear, but if I did not I apologise to the hon. Gentleman. He nodded in agreement that this was a matter of quota management rather than technical conservation. That is important because those are the terms under which we negotiate and seek to get an answer. I am aware of the hon. Gentleman's fears. We are looking for the maximum flexibility consistent with proper management and we shall take into account the hon. Gentleman's points.
In the case of the three species mentioned bythe hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes), we think that the precautionary total allowable catches are too low and we shall fight for a considerable increase.
The document refers to structural support and that euphemism, chosen by the hon. Member for Moray and her hon. Friends, means decommissioning. I shall now turn to fleet rationalisation. Since 1988 we have not permitted licence transfers which would increase the tonnage or horse power of our fleet. Earlier this year we extended licensing to virtually all stocks and introduced capacity aggregation. Capacity aggregation brought a little more flexibility into our licence transfer rules, but on condition that any amalgamation of licences was accompanied by a 10 per cent. reduction in fishing capacity.
Capacity aggregation also gives members of producer organisations new opportunities to rationalise the exploitation of their producer organisations' sectoral allocations. We also circulated to the industry proposals for entitlement aggregation to provide added opportunities for fleet rationalisation. We are reviewing the situation in the light of the industry's comments.
However, I emphasise that decomissioning is not the way to reduce the pressure on fish stocks and I shall try to explain why I think that that is not the case.
A case can be advanced to show that it would be nice for a considerable amount of extra money to go to the fishing industry in this way. It is perfectly reasonable to argue that case, but it is not reasonable to say that it is a sensible way to reduce pressure on stocks. It will put more money into the industry, but it will not do the job.
Even a limited decommissioning scheme would cost many millions of pounds. We could spend a great deal of money reducing the size of the fleet and make very little difference to the pressure on the stocks. If we remove
Column 1172
tonnage from the fishing fleet, the remaining tonnage can simply fish harder so that the total effort against the stocks is not reduced. No doubt one could try to reduce that risk by targeting a decommissioning scheme at the most effective vessels, but there would still be the likelihood of decommissioning funds being recycled so that the fishing effort did not really decrease. It would be strange to use taxpayers' money in an effort to remove from our fleet the most effective vessels.I cannot help but feel that those who continue to argue for a decommissioning scheme simply want taxpayers' money for the industry regardless of whether that expenditure will achieve worthwhile objectives. I hope that the industry will accept that a decommissioning scheme simply will not provide value for money. It must start thinking constructively about the sort of ideas that we have put before it, and I hope that at least some producer organisations will encourage their members to take advantage of the opportunities already provided by capacity aggregation.
Mrs. Margaret Ewing : Does not the Minister understand that capacity aggregation would open up the market for predators who would take over the small family businesses which are so important to many of our communities? Secondly, why is it that, apart from Ireland, the United Kingdom is the only country in the EC that has not introduced a decommissioning scheme? Everybody else is further down that route because they recognise that it is an important part of fisheries policy.
Mr. Gummer : The hon. Lady cannot argue that aggregation would somehow have that effect, but decommissioning would not. Does she not think that small businesses would go in for the decommissioning scheme, and that it would not have the same effect? The hon. Lady cannot invent a system which does not mean that those who want to leave will take the money and cease to use their boats. If the hon. Lady really meant that, she would be against not only aggregation but decommissioning. As for her interesting comment that, because the rest of the Community chooses to do this, they must be right and we must be wrong, that avoids the argument. Only three countries are hitting their multi-annual guidance programme targets. The hon. Lady cannot deny that, if there were a decommissioning scheme, people would put their least effective boats in to get the money and keep their most effective boats for fishing. That will happen and, as sure as eggs is eggs, immediately afterwards the House of Commons would say that the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food had once again wasted taxpayers' money by buying out boats that were not fishing and leaving the other boats to do the fishing.
Mr. David Porter (Waveney) : Does not my right hon. Friend understand that the British taxpayer is contributing to the other schemes through our contributions to the EC, and that the British taxpayer would like some of that money back here?
Mr. Gummer : My hon. Friend must recognise that the Fontainebleau agreement means that if we extended the scheme to the United Kingdom, 70 per cent. would be paid by the EC, but we would then pay 70 per cent. of that 70 per cent. He is saying that to obtain a tiny amount of money we should do something which is wasteful and I am not prepared to do that. I am not prepared to pay 30 per
Column 1173
cent. of taxpayers' money to start with, and 70 per cent. of that which remains, to pretend that we are doing something useful. I am prepared to stand up and say clearly that I want to spend taxpayers' money usefully, in a way which will stand up under any investigation, and I do not believe that this will.Mr. Archy Kirkwood (Roxburgh and Berwickshire) : Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Gummer : No, I must get on. [Interruption.] Hon. Members cannot say that I have not given way again and again.
In examining the scientific advice on catchable quantities for next year, we must remember that we are dealing with a naturally renewable resource. It is important to remember that fishing is a hunting industry. To ensure that stocks are renewable, catches need to be managed. Managers cannot do anything about runs of poor year classes, such as we have seen for cod and haddock in the North sea, but we must try to control catches in relation to stocks.
The Government have a clear record on conservation. Fishing is no different from any other of man's industries using natural resources. We must pay attention to conservation. The Commission has taken a strict view of the scientific advice and is looking for considerable changes this year to shorten the time in which the stocks recover to better levels. We must face the fact that most stocks in Community waters have been heavily fished. This is reflected in the proposal. Among those of interest to the United Kingdom this year, we have proposals suggesting reductions in 23 quotas, proposed increases for nine and no change for 16. We must stay in line with scientific advice, but where it is possible we must temper conservation of the fish with conservation of the fishermen. That is why I answered the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley as I did. Many of the present low catches are blamed on the TAC system itself. It is said to have failed. That is not right. A constant theme in the scientific advice is that levels of fishing have been higher than recommended TACs, whether illegal and undeclared, or higher discards than estimated. It is a fact that Ministers have been setting TACs within the levels that scientists have advised are biologically sound, but some fishermen conspire to undermine the system by misreporting, excessive discarding, or perhaps not fully declaring their catches.
Therefore, we need compliance with fishing recommendations and good catch data. We must remember that TACs provide a framework within which to manage fisheries, both in overall terms and between fishing fleets. Technical conservation measures are important to control the quality and type of fish caught, but they alone cannot achieve successful management of the stock.
That is an issue which divides hon. Members in some parts of the House from others, but it is important because of the problems that have occurred, particularly in Scotland this year, with the way in which various catches have been reported. It is no good pretending that a system is acceptable to fishermen if some parts of the country believe that other parts have said that they caught fish where they did not. We cannot hide from that. Nor will it be possible to explain to fishermen that we should take
Column 1174
unusual reporting years into account when it comes to making arrangements elsewhere. It cannot be done because that position cannot be defended elsewhere.I recognise that the outlook for 1991 is difficult, but it will be more difficult if we cannot get on top of such activity. Our key objective must be to obtain the highest level of quotas compatible with scientific advice and to maximise opportunities for United Kingdom fishermen. We must also aim to ensure parity of treatment throughout the Community where measures are taken to deal with particular stocks.
Secondly, we will of course invoke the Hague preference where necessary. That is likely to be necessary in the North sea for haddock and cod, and on the west coast for whiting and saithe. In the Irish sea, the Hague preference works in favour of the Irish Republic for cod, plaice and whiting.
Obviously, a balance must be struck, but we must defend our communities that depend heavily on fishing. I regret that the Commission's proposals this year contain no adjustment for the preference. I must warn the House that some member states disagree with the interpretation that the Hague preference applies. They consider that it has already been taken into account in the national allocations. We shall have to fight that extremely hard.
Thirdly, we need to secure again the flexibility to take western mackerel stock east of 4 deg. west. The substantially changed migration pattern of that stock, which now spends longer in the Norwegian exclusive zone, caused considerable difficulties between the EC and Norway in establishing a mutually acceptable arrangement for the proportion of that stock which might be taken. We are pleased that the EC-Norway agreement, as initiallised, provides for the Community to implement the flexibility if it chooses to do so. I intend to press that it does so choose.
Fourthly, we shall seek a sensible allocation of the horse mackerel TACs, particularly in the western zone, to reflect the increasing fishery for human consumption purposes to which I referred earlier. In our view, that should be given priority over the former industrial fishery. I repeat what I have always said in the House, that I do not believe in industrial fishery ever taking priority or being acceptable where there is any danger to the stock.
Fifthly, on the measures to control effort on cod and haddock in the North sea and the west of Scotland, we must accept that something needs to be done. This year's proposal is positive in that it applies to all member states concerned. We recognise that the measures as proposed by the Commission would be painful for some vessels, but at the same time recovery will not be possible without serious action. TACs are essential as a ceiling, but to keep within that ceiling we need to reduce discards to prevent misreporting and so keep catches to TAC levels. The Council will also be considering again proposals to improve technical conservation.
Once again, we shall have a tough time to protect the interests of the industry in our discussions. Those interests are not just about fishing this year, but about ensuring that we can fish next year and the years to come. They are not just about providing opportunities in fishing for some parts of the United Kingdom ; they are also about providing opportunities for all parts of the United Kingdom. They are about trying to ensure not just that the British fishing industry has reasonable access to fishing grounds, but that we have fair access to fishing grounds.
| Next Section
| Home Page |