House of Commons Hansard Debates for 13 Dec 1990

Column 1175

Above all, they are about ensuring that the rules by which we have to live and upon which our future depends are equally applied, not only between the countries of the EC but between different parts of the United Kingdom.

7.49 pm

Mr. Elliot Morley (Glanford and Scunthorpe) : I congratulate the Minister on giving the House an opportunity to debate before he goes into conference next week these important proposals and their likely effect on the United Kingdom fishing industry.

I offer my sincere condolences, on behalf of my right hon. and hon. Friends, to the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing), whose constituency suffered the tragic loss of the fishing vessel Premier. As she will know, a number of hon. Members represent Humberside constituencies, and I myself have lived in Humberside my whole adult life and appreciate full well the impact that the loss of a fishing boat has on a close-knit community and how it affects the many people who knew those who served on it and their families.

My party accepts that we must develop our fisheries as a sustainable resource, and in doing so we must be guided by the best scientific evidence available. However, I am concerned that some of the scientific advice behind the proposals is imprecise. Certain quotas appear to be based on assumptions, and I understand that the scientists themselves have experienced difficulty in backing up their figures with hard evidence--as one might expect in certain instances. I am concerned also that the recommendation concerning Irish sea cod, for which a massive cut of 61 per cent. in the total allowable catch is suggested, seems to be based on a misunderstanding of the current situation in Irish sea fisheries. I hope that the Minister will make it clear to the Commission that there has been a switch of effort there to hake, particularly in the spring fishery--which is the peak time for cod. It may be that that has not been taken into account in the scientists' figures.

We all know what happened in area VII this year in terms of deliberate misreporting, and I am worried in case those inaccurate figures have been used in the calculations. I am concerned too about the further North sea cuts that are proposed. I acknowledge that some TACs will remain the same, and that there have been some small increases--particularly in respect of whiting. Nevertheless, given this year's drastic cuts in the existing quotas, does not the Minister acknowledge the importance of at least trying both to maintain the status quo and, where scientific evidence permits, to secure the best possible deal for raised quotas where fishery can be sustained?

Right hon. and hon. Members may recall that in our previous fishery debate we discussed the fact that whiting was to be allowed to be taken in greater numbers because it is a target species for industrial fisheries. I find it curious that, while such an increase is to be permitted in the North sea, there is to be a decrease in the Irish sea. If whiting is considered to be such a ferocious predator of other fish stocks, I cannot understand the logic of increasing the catch in the North sea but decreasing it in the Irish sea. I presume that the whiting in both seas share the same prey and do not have different diets simply because they are of a different size in different seas, and that whiting in the

Column 1176

North sea are not somehow more dangerous than those elsewhere. That is the differentiation that makes people suspicious about the calculations.

Does the Minister agree that the Hague preference is a blunt instrument? I noted and appreciate his comments, but we should all prefer reasonable quotas and TACs, rather than see quotas cut back to a level at which the Hague preference must be implemented. I acknowledge also the Minister's comment that in certain cases that provision would benefit the Irish Republic at the expense of United Kingdom fishing fleets.

The proposed cuts in channel flat fish and cod TACs are also worrying. I recently spoke to fishermen in Hastings and Rye about the problems that they have, which very much mirror those of fishermen around the coast-- whether north, south, east or west. I note that there could be quota swaps with the Netherlands in respect of North sea plaice to boost the number of fish available, but can the Minister give an assurance that, if swaps with other countries are arranged, they will be based on a direct cod equivalent --if that species is the subject of a swap--and not on one that will benefit other countries? That has happened in the past, particularly with the Dutch.

Will the Minister try to avoid in this year's negotiations the kind of trade-off given last year, when the Danes received 500 tonnes of cod from our allocation as part of the political wheeling and dealing? I do not underestimate the pressure on the right hon. Gentleman, but given that our own fishing fleet is so strapped for quota, it is hard to see any justification for giving away such large amounts of high-quality fish.

I am convinced from my discussions with fishermen that, in an ideal world, they would much prefer to control the conservation of fish stocks by the use of appropriate, selective gear rather than by imposed quotas. Given the research and development that is under way, it may be that in time we shall be able to move towards conservation by means of selective gear, but I share the Minister's concern that the 120 mm mesh size proposed by the Commission is far too fine, particularly for mixed fisheries, and would certainly not be sustainable for our northern fleet.

I know that some British fleets successfully use a 120 mm mesh, particularly in cod fisheries in Grimsby, as has been mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell). We pay tribute to those who are going for larger, premium fish, and who fish in a way that is both sustainable and conservation friendly. I read the reports of the trials using 120 mm and 90 mm nets, and confirm the Minister's claim that during a two-week fishing trip, only eight marketable haddock were caught using the larger net, and no whiting whatever. However, it must be said that the boat used in that trial, Heather Spring--financed by the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland, the Sea Fish Industry Authority, Grampian regional council, and the Scottish White Fish Producers Associaton --was a twin-rig trawl. While it is true that the 120 mm mesh net was unrealistic in terms of sustaining any sort of commercial fishery, the enormous discard rate of the 90 mm net should be noted.

In that experiment, the 90 mm net caught 693 haddock of legal size and 846 haddock that legally would have to be discarded--far more than the total legal catch. The 90 mm net caught 378 whiting of legal size, and 525 undersized whiting that would have had to be discarded. On that basis, for every 100 tonnes of fish of legal size caught,

Column 1177

another 127 tonnes of undersized catch would have to be dumped over the side. That proportion of discards shows the real need to move towards conservation gear.

I was pleased to hear what the Minister said about industrial fishing. I do not recall hearing him make such a strong statement before. On behalf of the Opposition, I have consistently argued for an end to industrial fishing because of its unacceptable ecological impact and the by-catch that it entails. The discard rate that I have described is equally unacceptable. What is needed is a switch to the square meshed panels and conservation gear that are now being used experimentally.

We should not necessarily lock ourselves into minimum and maximum mesh size requirements. Different mesh sizes may be needed at different times of the year and in different parts of the sea--for example, in nursery areas. There is a cod box off the coast of Denmark where a 120 mm net would not be inappropriate during a period in which the cod were spawning, or considered to be vulnerable. A specific mesh size or gear type may not be the only answer to all our problems ; fishermen should be able to operate with more flexibility.

We know that square-mesh panels result in a significant improvement. We have discussed the research that has been done, and the way in which such panels have been pioneered in this country. It is not clear, however, that the Commission's proposal for upper panels alone is an effective option, especially for cod fishing. It is more than possible that, if square meshes are used, both top and bottom panels should come into play to allow cod to escape from the bottom of the nets. Certainly more research is needed.

I was alarmed to read that fishermen on the east coast, who have been pioneering the trials, felt that there had been unacceptable delays in the financing and setting up of the experiments. Mr. Trumility, gear development officer at the sea fish gear development centre at the Hull technical unit, told Fishing News that the delays were due to lack of time, resources and staff. Surely the Minister agrees that, with the industry facing a crisis and under great pressure, priority should be given to such research and development. Fishermen themselves feel that they are under a constraint : their problems are not given anything like the same priority as those of agriculture. Of course agriculture too has its problems, but I feel that it is not unreasonable for the two sectors to receive equal treatment.

Mr. Campbell-Savours : The problem was illustrated for me last year, when I went to see the Minister with responsibility for fishing about a constituency matter. Fishermen in my area faced bankruptcy during, and following, the inclement weather, but the Minister said that there was no money. Meanwhile, the farmers were tipping over billions. I could not work out why that was.

Mr. Morley : My hon. Friend is always quick to speak on behalf of his local fishermen, and he has made his point very well. When farmers are being paid to set lands aside, it is surely not unreasonable to suggest that fishermen should receive similar assistance.

Mr. Foulkes : May I give my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) some advice? If he wants to know why that is, he should count the farmers and ex-farmers on the Conservative Benches and then

Column 1178

count the fishermen and ex-fishermen. He will find that, while there is a large number of the former, in the latter case there is a big round zero.

Mr. Gummer : As one who is neither an ex-fisherman nor an ex-farmer, may I say that I am sure that the farming industry would be happy to swap much of the support that it has received for circumstances that would have allowed its receipts to increase faster than the cost of living in nine of the past 10 years? Farming incomes have dropped sharply, and both incomes and receipts have suffered a good deal. Surely it is not unreasonable for us to help.

Mr. Morley : I do not dispute the fact that farmers have their problems, but I think that the fisheries sector deserves similar treatment. While it is true that farm incomes have been cut--although there was a slight increase in the last financial year--farmers have had their good years and their boom times ; incidentally, that has happened more under a Labour Government than under the present Administration.

Mr. Austin Mitchell (Great Grimsby) : My hon. Friend should also remind Conservative Members that, in the allocation of resources, share fishermen--who do very badly when the vessels are not at sea, eking out a precarious living--have been doubly maltreated by the Government. Under the new social security regime, they are effectively being denied the benefits due to them : they are paying in more and receiving less while the vessels are laid up for the Christmas season.

Mr. Morley : I understand that, following a review by the Department of Social Security, it has been decided not to change the regulations applying to share fishermen, who are indeed paying a higher stamp while receiving no extra benefits when they are unable to fish--particularly when laid up in ports by bad weather. I intend to take up the matter with the DSS, and I hope that the Government will reconsider. I do not think that such unequal treatment can be justified.

I am encouraged by news that the square mesh experiments have been carried out with nephrops, although it is too early to say what benefits will result. I also note that the EC is proposing TACs in all areas ; I hope that the Minister will ensure that, if they are applied, the historical track record of those involved in the fisheries is taken into account, and that further consideration is given to the restriction of twin-rig trawls. The Minister has been very good about conservation gear and its effects, but when we have raised the problem of twin-rig trawls--particularly in the nephrops areas--he has been strangely reluctant to take steps to restrict such gear, although the fishermen are very much in favour of it. I understand that the EC is considering changes in the horse mackerel TACs. I was glad to hear the Minister say that he would bear in mind the fact that the horse mackerel fishery has been developed for human consumption, which has been a great help to our slowly reviving pelagic fleet. Given its present market, it is a very high value-added product, and it would be a great shame if the fishery were squandered on industrial fishing. I also hope that the Minister will resist any pressure for TACs to be allocated on a national basis.

The Minister will have been waiting for Opposition Members to mention decommissioning, and I do not intend to disappoint him. We have said the same thing

Column 1179

time and again. The Minister was not here when we last debated decommissioning, but at that time not a single hon. Member representing a fishing constituency supported the Government's refusal to provide a decommissioning scheme, and I suspect that the same will happen this time. We know very well that this country has made no progress in meeting capacity cuts in line with the multi-annual guidance programme. We have one of the worst records in the EC. The Minister said that only a few countries have met their target, but at least some have done so. The danger is that countries such as Denmark, which has a high classification and is on line with its target programme, will argue that they should be exempt from some of the technical measures because they have met their targets in line with the multi-annual guidance programme. The danger is that some of the EC proposals will be imposed upon us because we are making no progress in reducing capacity and effort.

The Minister talked about the last decommissioning scheme and I do not doubt that there was waste and abuse and that it did not meet the criteria. The Minister may not have been here when the Parliamentary Secretary, the hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry), told the House that it was not beyond the powers of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to come forward with a

decommissioning scheme that would meet the criteria that we would want to see and ensure that capacity was reduced. In terms of cost, the Minister knows that the scheme is geared towards horse power and the age of fleets. If the older and less powerful boats were taken out, that would be reflected in the overall cost because the scheme is designed to reflect age, power and catching capacity. I do not see any reason why a scheme could not be put together to ensure that boats are taken out and that effort and capacity are reduced in line with the multi-annual guidance programme without it being abused or a waste of money. I cannot accept the Minister's arguments. I do not believe that the necessary expertise is not available.

Mr. Gummer : A fisherman may have two boats, one fishing for 90 days and one for 100 days. If he takes one of those boats out, is not it possible for the other boat to fish consecutively more days so that the effort is not altered at all? The only benefit that arises is that the fisherman pockets the decommissioning money. There is no way in which the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) can suggest that we can use a decommissioning system that does not end up like that. All I am saying is that that is not a sensible way to spend taxpayers' money on reducing effort, although it may be a reasonable way to put money into the fishing industry if that is one's only aim.

Mr. Morley : With respect, that assumes that if someone is fishing for less time with one boat, he is catching fewer fish. A fisherman may catch a higher percentage of fish simply because he strikes lucky or because of the gear that he is using or the way in which he is working. It is not as simple as the Minister suggests.

How will we reduce capacity? We are not getting anywhere with the Minister's proposals. The steps that he has taken, such as licence aggregation and proposed entitlement aggregation, only scratch the surface of over-capacity. I should have been more impressed if the

Column 1180

Minister had shown the House that some progress was being made towards reaching the targets. We know that the schemes are being used successfully in other countries, which have reduced their fleets in line with the EC regulations. Because they have reduced their fleets, they qualify for modernisation grants and can restructure their fleets to make them more efficient and modern, thereby sustaining their industry at the expense of United Kingdom taxpayers who are paying into the fund but receiving nothing from it, notwithstanding the Minister's comments about the Fontainebleau agreement.

Mr. Gummer : The hon. Gentleman is now showing the absurdity of the scheme. He is suggesting that we should spend money taking boats from the fleet so that there would be an opportunity to take more money to modernise the boats left in the fleet so that their effort would increase. It is nonsense. The hon. Gentleman's taxpayers and the taxpayers of every constituency would be paying for that because of the Fontainebleau agreement. The hon. Gentleman is asking for taxpayers' money to reduce the fleet without reducing the effort and then to modernise the fleet in order to increase effort. It does not make sense.

Mr. Morley : I do not accept that. Fishing boats do not stay the same for ever. Already, certain parts of United Kingdom fleets, particularly in inshore areas, are having problems with aging fleets. Fishermen, because of the tight quotas, are unable to invest in replacements. There has to be a properly managed and sustainable industry that will ensure that the fishermen can find the investment that they need. Even with a reduced fleet, there will still have to be modernisation and investment. That can be done only with restructuring and we can restructure only with a decommissioning scheme.

The Minister would have greater credibility if he could demonstrate to the House that something is happening with his policies to reduce effort and capacity. Nothing is happening, so the onus is on him. If he rejects decommissioning, he must produce a workable scheme to meet the objectives, but he has failed to do so.

Mr. Campbell-Savours : May I put a simple question to my hon. Friend? Will he press the Minister to explain why those schemes work in Europe but not here?

Mr. Morley : It is for the Minister to answer that. Other countries have not been slow in utilising the money to their advantage.

Mr. Gummer : First, we must remember that we are in Europe and that we are talking about other parts of Europe. I do not know how we shall deal with the European Community if we continue to talk like that. Secondly, the schemes do not work there either. There is no sign that effort is being reduced in other European countries. The money is being paid out but effort is not being reduced. It is not sensible for us, when we do not receive an enormous amount from Europe because of the Fontainebleau agreement, to do something that is not helpful to us and does not deal with effort.

Mr. Morley : With respect, the Minister has not demonstrated that what he is doing is helpful. The other European countries have made it clear that they are meeting their targets and are dealing with their fisheries with decommissioning as one of the management tools at

Column 1181

their disposal. The Minister is saying that it will not work in this country but is offering no alternative. He does not have a good track record to convince me or other hon. Members of what he has achieved. If the Minister could give us an idea of how he intends to meet the targets under the multi-annual guidance programme, we should be more reassured. We are not meeting the targets and we are not reducing effort. Funds are available in the EC to help with restructuring and reducing effort and the Government should take advantage of them.

Recently, when addressing the Commission, which was pressing him about restructuring, the Fisheries Commissioner said :

"The Community participates in expenditure which is spent by member states. You have a right to that aid. The only problem is that as far as the British Authorities are concerned, they have not put in a request for it. I cannot pay subsidies if I am not asked to do so." That suggests that the funds are available but the Government are not applying for them.

I should like to make some positive suggestions that the Minister may wish to take with him in his negotiations. We need an overall fishing strategy. There have been problems enforcing the fishing regulations, particularly in area VII. We are all aware of the fraud that occurred there and I note--I am ready to be corrected--that there has been no prosecution of anybody involved. Given those problems, would the Minister consider compulsory fitting of transponders on all fishing vessels? That would enable fleets to be tracked and monitored through central management. It would be a great aid to the management of our fisheries. It would show where fleets are operating and would have an added safety benefit, because should a transponder stop transmitting, the position of the vessel would immediately be recorded.

Will the Minister consider involving fishermen more in decision making on conservation? I am concerned that there seems to be little close contact between the scientists, who make recommendations, and fishermen, who well know the movements of fish, their size and their spawning areas. Many times, fishermen have said that certain parts of the fishing grounds could be closed or restricted. I am aware of the programme to close certain sensitive areas, but I do not see why fishermen could not be involved more in decision making, in recommendations and in the management of their fishing grounds. It seems that the EC does not consult fishermen closely. My hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) mentioned the 10-day restriction to reduce effort. He rightly said that 10 days in every month is no use because fishermen need flexibility of approach. They rely on the weather and the tides. It would be devastating, for the purpose of neat bureaucracy, for them to have to spend 10 days in every month in port and not be allowed to fish. That is not a reasonable or sensible approach. I hope that the Minister will consider it.

We all know the desperate state that the industry faces if these measures are not amended and practical steps are not taken to assist our fishermen. It is not fair for the Minister to say that fishermen will be compensated by higher fish prices. There is a limit to what processors and consumers will pay for fish. It is true to say that fish prices have increased because of the shortage, but it is wrong to assume that the price will continue to increase pro rata. It will reach a ceiling, below which fishermen will be pushed into ruin.

Column 1182

There is a limit to the patience of fishermen while they wait for practical measures such as a decommissioning scheme and a strong and sensible policy to manage our fisheries. I take what the Minister said. I believe that he recognises some of the problems. We certainly have a little agreement on certain parts of his approach to the negotiations, but to deal with the problems that our fishermen face we need a much stronger technical restructuring scheme, at the centre of which should be the decommissioning scheme.

I return to the original point : so far, the Minister has been unable to offer anything in place of a decommissioning scheme or any evidence that his approach is effective, is working and is dealing with the problems that fishermen all round our coasts face every day.

8.22 pm

Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith (Kincardine and Deeside) : I associate myself with the comments of the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) and of my right hon. Friend the Minister about the Premier. All hon. Members--the hon. Lady knows this from our discussions with her and exchanges in the past 24 hours--are sensitive to what has happened. Our thoughts and prayers go to the families of those who were so tragically involved.

Sadly, we in the north-east of Scotland are not strangers to tragedy, and that is true of fishing communities around the coasts of Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland. In the north-east of Scotland, we have also had the tragedies connected with the North sea oil industry. That underlines the fact that those who must battle with the elements for their livelihood do take special risks. Hon. Members are sensitive to those risks and join, regardless of party, in sympathy for those who have been involved in such accidents. I must confess that I thought that we were having a question time at the beginning of the debate, which I am afraid will limit the opportunities of some hon. Members. I shall therefore do my best not to detain the House for long.

Although we welcome the explanations that my right hon. Friend the Minister always gives so lucidly on these occasions, none the less, we want the views of our parts of the United Kingdom taken into account at the negotiations. May I say quite unequivocally that I welcomed my right hon. Friend's robust defence of the United Kingdom's interests in the negotiations? Hon. Members will leave the debate heartened by what he said.

I pay tribute to the constructive, thoughtful and helpful speech of the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley). Many of the problems in fishing can be approached--I certainly welcomed this when I had responsibility for these matters--on a bipartisan basis, which, as my right hon. Friend acknowledged, strengthens the British negotiating position. The hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe certainly contributed to that.

I acknowledge what my right hon. Friend the Minister said about the fishing industry : the year turned out better than it appeared it would at the beginning. On straight financial receipts for the industry, it does look better, but I ask my right hon. Friend to remember that the results were patchy. Many of the high earnings were in the early part of the year, when many boats could not go to sea. The limited number of boats that were able to do so had good returns, but when one considers the fleet as a whole,

Column 1183

particularly the smaller classes of vessel, one realises that we cannot be complacent about the financial position of the industry. I therefore ask my right hon. Friend to consider not only the overall position of the industry but the different sectors within it-- where, unfortunately, the story is not always the same.

As many hon. Members wish to speak, I shall deal only with a few specific points, the first of which is the diamond versus the square mesh net. I am delighted that we have a good debate going on this subject, because there is no doubt that we must avoid the indiscriminate slaughter of juvenile fish which occurs with the diamond mesh net. Hon. Members welcome any move towards adoption of a square mesh net, particularly in the cod end, and my right hon. Friend the Minister can rely on our wholehearted support. My only anxiety--this is looking backwards rather than forwards--is how slow we have been to follow this up and to develop it. I am afraid that there appears to have been reluctance in certain research establishments and elsewhere to follow this through vigorously. I make the plea that we do not necessarily wait until all our experiments are completed. Let us look also at experimental and practical experience in countries such as Canada. In the course of the year, I supplied my noble Friend Lord Sanderson, who was responsible for fisheries at the Scottish Office, with much evidence, particularly from Canada. I am glad to see that it has been acted on, but let us ensure that it is acted on quickly.

I am not qualified to say which size of square mesh may be correct. All I can say is that I hope we reach a sensible compromise and that we avoid the indiscriminate slaughter of juvenile stocks, on which the future livelihood of our fishermen must depend.

The 10-day rule for the limitation of fishery effort is ridiculous. It is arbitrary, it does not take account of practical conditions in the industry, and because larger vessels can choose their time at sea much more easily than other vessels, it will, if adopted, discriminate against smaller vessels in the fleet, which none of us wants. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister will ensure that that rule is dropped.

I turn to the negotiations with Norway about mackerel and herring. Can my right hon. Friend the Minister explain why the Commission recommended that the mackerel total allowable catch should be exceeded to accommodate Norway, but that the TACs for white fish recommended by scientists should be strictly complied with? That paradox should be explained. I cannot understand that proposal. Norway is to get 28,000 tonnes more mackerel from the western stocks and is to increase its share by 4 per cent. The United Kingdom will get only 8,000 additional tonnes out of the increase. I do not believe that the result of the negotiations is fair. It discriminates against our fishermen and does not make sense in terms of a consistent policy on TACs. The same applies to North sea herring stock. Although the Norwegian share of the TAC goes down from 29 per cent. to 25 per cent., 12,500 tonnes are to be transferred from the Community to Norway. That does not make sense. The Commission must be much more resolute in negotiations with Norway.

Column 1184

I shall not go into the details of other TACs, because I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Minister has taken all those points on board. The Hague preference was hard won. Much effort was needed to get it, and I can assure my right hon. Friend of that from first-hand experience. I should hate it to be diminished in any way. I was delighted by my right hon. Friend's clear declaration. Hon. Members in all parts of the House will support him in defending it. Structure is the most important issue. I know that my right hon. Friend will not like what I have to say, because he knows my views. My thoughts are perhaps closer to those of the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe than to those of my right hon. Friend. We need a much more rigorous approach to the question of the size of the fleet and of the fishing effort. I for one would have adopted a much more rigorous licensing system than the one that the Government introduced. If we have a licensing system, it must be rigorous. I welcome the changes this year, because they are an improvement in the right direction, but we should have started with a much tighter system. That was always my belief, but, alas, a general election and a change of Government position meant that I could not follow it through.

My right hon. Friend the Minister has certain reservations about a decommissioning scheme, and he expressed them strongly this evening. It can be argued that either a more rigorous licensing scheme or a decommissioning scheme is highly interventionist, and I accept that. After all, as my right hon. Friend admitted, we are dealing with a hunting industry--moreover, one in which the resource being hunted is limited. As surely as night follows day, there must be regulation. We already have intervention. I cannot understand the reluctance to have the slightly greater degree of intervention that will be much more effective in bringing the technical and physical resources used to hunt fish more closely into gear with fish resources.

We must reduce the pressure on stocks. Although some of the measures that we have introduced are helpful, they will not bring that about in a major way. I cannot understand some of the arguments put by my right hon. Friend the Minister. Surely, if the capacity of the fishing fleet is reduced-- either the more efficient or the less efficient part--the existing available catch is shared among fewer vessels and fewer fishermen and those remaining in the industry become much more viable. If, at the same time, we throw all our conservation measures overboard and decide to get rid of quotas, TACs and the rest, of course we will get more effort from the remaining capacity. But surely no one is talking about that. We keep our conservation measures, our mesh sizes for nets, our TACs and our quotas, but, by reducing capacity, we make sure that the income available to the industry is spread among fewer boats and fewer fishermen.

My right hon. Friend the Minister has spoken from the basis of his experience with company fishing vessels at Humberside, which I believe, in the light of the Public Accounts Committee's report, has scarred him. Of course, those who manage company fleets will get rid of their least efficient vessels and fish with the more efficient remaining vessels. I believe that the scheme was badly managed. We can learn from the lessons of dealing with company fleets. But we are not talking so much about that now as about share fishermen. We are talking about a situation in which one family might own, at the most, two vessels.

Column 1185

Those fishermen do not have a choice. A decommissioning scheme among the share section of the fleet would take away the vessel and the ownership, and that is that--those people cannot change from one vessel to another.

Sir Michael Shaw (Scarborough) : I was a member of the Public Accounts Committee which examined this matter. As I said in the previous fisheries debate, the report stated :

"We note that member states were given options as to how the EC scheme for decommissioning grants should be applied but MAFF chose to introduce a regulatory approach with provision for the automatic payment of flat rate grants."

Surely we should be thinking about more flexible systems, pinpointing grant where it is needed.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith : I am grateful to my hon. Friend for intervening, because he makes his point having examined this matter. The schemes could be refined to reduce the capacity of our fishing fleet, which would be a proper and sensible way to proceed. I hope that I have shown that some of the assumptions made by my right hon. Friend the Minister are wrong. They should be challenged, and I certainly challenge them. I beg my right hon. Friend to consider this matter again and not to be prejudiced because of experience of a previous scheme--that can be changed. I ask him to consider the issue in the context of the inshore fleet and of the share fishermen, because they are different.

Last but not least, I believe that the industry is prepared to discuss how to co-operate in devising and operating such a scheme. The industry has offered to do that. It would be wrong if the Minister did not take up those offers and did not move forward on the issue of decommissioning in co- operation with the industry. That is vital. That matter must be dealt with as part of our fisheries policy.

8.38 pm

Mr. Austin Mitchell (Great Grimsby) : It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) because I agree with nearly everything that he said. I demur on his point about the Hague preference which, as far as Grimsby is concerned, is the Hague handicap because we do not get it. The right hon. Gentleman's speech was a passionate and strong invocation of a need which has been put to Ministers by hon. Members on both sides of the House--to get something done about a decommissioning scheme. The debates fall into a comon pattern, and that demand comes across strongly. It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Gentleman's strong statement.

The prospects foretold by the documents are gloomy. We are in a conservation crisis. If the cuts in TACs are implemented in full--for instance, 15 per cent. for North sea cod--it will be disastrous for the industry and for Grimsby. We are a cod port. We are also a fishing centre, a market centre and a processing centre. There are nine jobs on land for every one job at sea and those jobs depend on the catches made at sea. If there is a cut in the catch, it has a knock-on effect on the whole industry --on the processing side and on the market through which a high proportion of the fish comes. It is the best market in the country and there is a distribution system which, in turn, supports the market. Those elements of the industry are now nearing the limit of viability. Any cut in catches, in throughput in the market and in what goes into the distribution system would have a disastrous and

Column 1186

disproportionate effect on the industry. It would endanger the existence of the distribution system and undermine the market that is crucial to the distribution and demand for fish throughout the country. We are in a crucial situation which could have dire effects for Grimsby.

It is important to put to Ministers the concern that we all feel so strongly and passionately. I am amazed that, after the strong and passionate pleas for a decommissioning scheme that were made in each previous fishing debate, Ministers remain impervious to the argument. The Minister's defence of his failure to provide a decommissioning scheme was casuistry which might go down well in Convocation, for which it is better designed, but which cuts no ice with the fishermen because it defies common sense. If the Government were to provide a decommissioning scheme to cut the amount of effort, they would automatically provide for more effective and better conservation. That is essential.

Mr. Robert Hughes : The Minister's case was that if one reduced the size of the fleet, there would be greater fishing effort and damage to conservation. By that token, the way in which he should help to reduce fishing effort is to have grants for new-built boats to increase the size of the fleet. It does not add up.

Mr. Mitchell : My hon. Friend is absolutely correct. If it is reduced to that ludicrous dimension, the illogicality of the Minister's argument becomes clear. It is wrong that, although on each occasion we have transmitted to him the strong demand of the industry, he has remained immune to the argument. It is also bad for our negotiating position and for the way in which the conservation measures apply to the industry. It would be ludicrous if the burden of the measures suggested by the Commission, such as the proposal for 10 consecutive closed days which would be disastrous for the industry, fell disproportionately on this country because we were lagging behind through our failure to provide a decommissioning scheme. The Commission classifies nations participating in the common fisheries policy according to their compliance with the multi- annual guidance programme targets. Countries are classified from A to E. On that classification, we are E. Why is that? The reason is that we fail so disastrously to comply with the targets. For a long period now it has been envisaged that there should be a reduction of 2 per cent. to 3 per cent. per annum, so there should be a gradual reduction in effort. When we had a decommissioning scheme, we complied with that reduction of effort and the scheme got us within the targets. Since then, we have fallen behind. For various reasons, some of which are beyond the Minister's control--the number of quota hoppers has added to the pressures--we are 25 per cent. astray from our target.

We are the worst case in Europe. Even Spain, whose behaviour is monstrous in many respects and of whose approach I am a constant critic, is classified as D, whereas we are classified as E. Denmark, which has a good decommissioning scheme that works well and has substantially reduced the effort in a rational and predictable way, is classified as A. That puts us in a difficult position. It leads to the disproportionate application of conservation measures to this country and it isolates us from the concerted approach that fishing nations could take. Denmark may want to isolate us and

Column 1187

place the main burden of its criticism of demand on this country because Ministers have left us exposed by their failure to introduce a proper decommissioning scheme.

This is not a question merely of the casuistry that the Minister invoked. A vital national interest is being set back by a total failure to listen to the industry and by Ministers' incompetence in administering the previous scheme.

Ministers have also brought an undesirable fate to the industry through their attitude to the type of nets used. That point has been made by the right hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside and has been hammered home in each previous debate. There have been discussions about square mesh nets and their advantage over diamond mesh, which pulls out of shape. However, it is important that the work on square mesh panels should not be held back. There is a suspicion that the approach of the Ministry and of some research institutions that are prejudiced about square mesh panels has held back the argument. The Government have failed to advance research in this area, so we do not know exactly what the consequences are.

I have seen research that suggests that square mesh panels may have real benefits in catching bigger and, therefore, more marketable and better fish. I have also heard fishermen argue that that does not work with cod. They argue that as cod are lazy fish, they go into the net and do not try to get out. I cannot tell the truth of those arguments. I feel instinctively, from what I have read about square mesh panels, that they would give an enormous advantage, which we should be pursuing. It is the Government's responsibility to provide the documentation and the research to tell us. We need a clear argument to put before the Commission so that we do not have something imposed on us. We should put our argument on the advantages to the Commission and we should impose it on our industry so that we are in advance of the conservation game and not lagging plaintively behind, arguing among ourselves about 90 mm, 120 mm, 110 mm, or 100 mm mesh size, which the Government are secretly urging in the negotiations.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. David Curry) : The hon. Gentleman is doing less than justice to the work of British fishermen and of the Ministry. We have led research in the matter, but it has not been accepted in the Community. All the proposals put forward have a combination of diamond mesh and square mesh ; the argument is whether it should be compulsory or voluntary. We believe that to get other countries to accept it, we should start with an optional approach on size. There is a genuine argument there. British fishermen have said that they want to have the option only of 80 mm square panels and a 90 mm mesh and that they want to leave the rest as it is. Entirely legally, a 90 mm square mesh panel could be introduced tomorrow morning. We must try to achieve an arrangement in the Community that will not only bring a positive gain in the conservation of fish, but will conserve the livelihood of fishermen.

The Commission's proposals will not achieve that aim. I agree with the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) that the status quo is far too wasteful, so we must agree on a formula between the two. What the fishermen

Column 1188

have asked us to negotiate is almost impossible. We must find a middle way. We are in the lead on this and we are recognised as being in the lead.

Mr. Mitchell : I agree with the Minister that we should make a clear decision. However, that decision could have been made some time ago as the arguments have been clear for a long time. It is ludicrous that we are arguing and bickering at this stage of the process when we could have anticipated events.

The Minister mentioned the research done by the industry. It is wrong that the onus of research should be placed on organisations such as the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations and on the industry itself. It should have been done at Ministry level over a period so that we could now see the advantages, impose our proposals and have a clear case. A decision is needed. We do not need endless arguments about net size or about top and bottom panels. We need to be able to say something definite, so a decision must be taken. That is where the Government have delayed and let the industry down.

As I know that other hon. Members wish to speak, I shall turn now to my main points. From a Grimsby point of view, it is absolutely vital that the Minister resists the reduction in TACs of cod. If they are cut from 105,000 tonnes to the proposed 90,000 tonnes, it will mean the immediate invocation of the Hague preference. That would be disastrous for Grimsby and we must be safeguarded from it. It would mean that fish was effectively being taken away from us and we would be put at a disadvantage compared with the ports along the arbitrary line that the Minister defined, beginning at Flamborough head, which bears no relation to the communities which depend on Grimsby's fishing and which should be allowed to participate in the debate if the Hague preference is to be invoked. The Minister should not allow the invocation of the Hague preference because it would not only be unfair to Grimsby ; it would be disastrous.

The improvement in catches given to this country under the CAP was compensation for the fishing effort that was lost in Iceland. That fishing effort was conducted by vessels from Humberside. Since then, the increased catch has been taken mainly by Scottish vessels, which have been able to establish an historic track record, which Humberside does not have. However, Scotland has other advantages, such as the 12-mile limit. It would be absolutely wrong if we were now asked to suffer, through the Hague preference, to compensate Scottish vessels. It would be wrong because of Grimsby's good conservation record. We use 120 and 110 mm mesh, which is a good efficient method of conservation. Grimsby is a cod port which catches good, large, prime fish.

Mr. Salmond rose--

Mr. Mitchell : I was involved in this argument with the hon. Gentleman in our previous debate on this and I shall not get bogged down again.

We are a conservation-proud and conservation-conscious port. Moreover, unlike the Scottish industry, we pace our catches and quotas properly and fairly throughout the year. Our fishermen do not go out to grab as much as possible, thus producing the danger of a closure simply because of greed and grabbing too early in the year. Our conservation record should be recognised. There

Column 1189

should not be discrimination against Grimsby, such as the Hague preference would produce. We are a very good conservation port. If conservation measures are introduced, such as the proposed 10 consecutive days in port, they should be applied on an individual track record basis, not on a blanket basis throughout the industry. An allocation allowance must be made for the mesh size that is used so that those vessels using the larger mesh size, such as those from Grimsby, are not faced with the same requirement for 10 closed consecutive days which those without the same conservation record are now to face. If that is applied to the main species, such as cod, haddock and whiting, it should exclude saithe and plaice. We need a better deal for saithe especially in relation to Norway. Ministers have neglected to take the opportunity of the improvement in those stocks in 1991. Although more will be available next year, Ministers have not achieved sufficient benefit for this country.

I remember the contempt with which we viewed horse mackerel when John Silkin came back to the House to announce that we had been given the consolation prize of an increase in the horse mackerel quota in 1978. That fish is now used for human consumption. It is therefore wrong that we should have national quotas out of which, because of their industrial fishing, the Danes will do well. That fish should be developed as a stock for human consumption.

My final point relates to discards, which are a real conservation problem. The Minister should consider seriously how to deal with this. The Scottish industry's discard record is appalling. One hears instances of vessels catching a number of boxes, but then seeing and catching a large amount of better fish and chucking the earlier inadequate fish over the side, thus adding to the discard problem. It is essential that we do something about discards. Given that discards are low in Grimsby, I suggest that all the fish that is caught should be returned and registered to quota. That would impose an effective discipline on the industry and would help us to tackle a problem that cannot be allowed to continue in such a way.

In conclusion, the prospects are poor. We need proper conservation. We need a decommissioning scheme and we need an orderly rundown in the industry in the face of the dire prospects if we are to survive in a coherent and concentrated form to inherit the better opportunties that will lie ahead.

8.55 pm

Mr. David Harris (St. Ives) : I join other right hon. and hon. Members in expressing sympathy, through the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing), to her constituents who have lost relations in the dreadful tragedy. In the years that I have been a Member of the House, it has all too frequently been my sad duty to visit the relatives of fishermen who have been drowned. Indeed, I did so this summer. We all know the anguish that those relations go through, especially when the bodies have not been recovered from the sea. That is always an awful additional agony in such times of sadness.

In that connection, I refer to the work of an organisation that is rarely, if ever, mentioned in the House, the Royal National Mission to Deep Sea Fishermen. I always like to visit fishermen's relations in the company of the mission superintendent. Those of us who represent

Next Section

Home Page