---

Mrs. Margaret Ewing : I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. I think that it would be appropriate if, on behalf of my constituents, I thanked all right hon. and hon. Members who have so rightly expressed their sympathy to them. Sometimes it may seem that words are easy to say, but I know the sincerity with which they were expressed. I shall relay those comments to my constituents over the weekend when I visit the families.

As the marine investigation group is in contact with Duthies of Lossiemouth, which is releasing as much information as it can about the Premier, will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that details about any plans to raise the vessel are immediately given to that office or to me, because the relatives are deeply concerned? I know that the Secretary of State, a similar incident having occurred in his constituency, appreciates the sensitivities of this matter.

Mr. Lang : I certainly acknowledge that lack of information adds to the pain of the situation. I am sure that the hon. Lady's comments will be noted by those who read the debate. On the same broad subject, I assure the hon. Members for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) and for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald) that my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Ministry of Defence will take note of their points about the experiment in the Clyde involving submarines and fishing vessels.

This wide-ranging debate has embraced fishing interests throughout the United Kingdom. Many right hon. and hon. Members have contributed. Unfortunately, some have not been able to remain for the end of the debate, and I understand the reasons for that. One or two hon. Members have failed to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy

Speaker--particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Mr. Porter), who has shown sustained support for fishing interests in East Anglia for a long time.

The national interest in fishing is reflected in the fact that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food opened the debate ; I, with my Scottish responsibilities, have the opportunity to wind it up ; the Minister with responsibilities for agriculture and fisheries in Northern Ireland--my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley)--has been present throughout the debate and has listened carefully to it ; and my hon. Friend who takes a special interest in fisheries matters at the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and

---

Column 1220

Food, the hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry), has been present throughout the debate and contributed to it.

It has been a United Kingdom debate, reflecting the crucial importance of the fishing industry to many parts of the United Kingdom. The concern that exists on most sides of the House, although it is not so apparent on all, is that we should achieve long-term prosperity in that industry. Those who last year forecast desolation in the industry in 1990 have been proved wrong, as prices have increased to offset the reduction in fish landings. It is essential not to view these matters in the short term ; we have to look to the future sustenance of the industry, to its long-term viability, and avoid the easy, short-term palliatives which are sometimes offered. A number of themes came through in the debate. There was particular interest in technical conservation matters. The hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) suggested that there was no support for fishermen. If one reflects on the size of the fishing industry and sets against that the colossal Government effort in enforcement, research and administration, one cannot but admit that the Government rightly give enormous attention to the problems of the fishing industry. I welcome the hon. Gentleman's support for the improvements in technical conservation and the reduction in discards which is sought by the various measures under consideration. I cannot agree with the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell), who is not present now, that our scientists are negative about the square mesh. Because our scientists had already done work on cod ends and extension pieces, made entirely of square mesh, the industry was aware of the problems of nets made entirely of square mesh. Thoughts turned to panels, which have been experimented with throughout the year.

I cannot agree with the hon. Member for Great Grimsby that there has been a delay. Within six weeks of receiving the Commission's proposals for using 120 mm square mesh net, scientists in the Department had already started the important trials which showed how unrealistic the Commission's proposals were. The House will have heard my hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon describe the proposal for 120 mm as "dead in the water".

The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) suggested that 90 mm with 80 mm square mesh panels would be the answer. It is true that that net combination would assist the discard of whiting and haddock, but it would do nothing for cod, and we have to deal with a mixed fishery. We need a measure that gives a balance between the species caught.

Mr. Salmond : Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Lang : No, because I sense that the House is anxious to move to a conclusion.

Mr. Salmond : On that point--

Mr. Lang : No, I want to cover other points on the issue in responding to other hon. Members.

The important point to emphasise is that technical conservation measures have an important contribution to make in helping to solve the problems. For over a year, we have been pressing for European Community measures to make fishing gear more selective. Square mesh panels and netting can give useful conservation benefits. The debate at

---

Column 1221

the Fisheries Council next week will be about how far we should go in improving selectivity to protect small fish. It is vital that the Community reaches a compromise solution because if the talks fail, everybody loses.

My hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris) raised the question of the cuts in plaice and sole in area VII. My right hon. and hon. Friends and I are very much aware of the importance of plaice and sole stocks in that area. We will work to increase the TACs proposed where it is within the possibilities of science. We will also try to secure as many advantageous quota swaps as possible.

My hon. Friends the Members for St. Ives and for Cornwall, South-East (Mr. Hicks) raised the question of quota hoppers, which one can understand because they represent constituencies in the south-west. I know that the matter worries them and that they are in touch with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. I believe that my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives recently had a meeting with my right hon. Friend, and I know that he will be aware of the great concern and close attention that is being given to the issue in the Ministry.

The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) raised the question of North sea saithe from Norway. It is true that the saithe TAC has increased by4 per cent. and that Norway has retained more than its industry requires. However, the EC would need to find an additional 11,550 tonnes of cod equivalent and probably 14,500 tonnes of herring to buy it.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Buchanan- Smith) and the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland asked about the EC- Norway agreement on fish stocks forming a central role in the determination of North sea TACs and quotas. The key element in the agreement is the treatment of the western mackerel stock. The migratory pattern of the stock has changed in recent years and has resulted in a greater proportion of the fish being found in Norwegian waters. That is the underlying reason why the TACs are being negotiated in that way.

The central issue in effort limitation was the 10-day rule. The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) suggested that, under the Commission's proposals on limitation, boats would be required to fish for 10 consecutive days. He said that boats might, therefore, fish in unacceptable weather. The hon. Member did not get it quite right. The Commission's proposal is that boats fishing predominantly for cod and haddock should desist from fishing for 10 consecutive days of the month. The hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) and others got that right.

That seems another sensible measure which is worth considering in the context of the need to conserve stocks. We accept the need to limit fishing effort to protect fish stocks. The proposal provides a starting point for discussion and refinement at the Fisheries Council. It is right that it should be further considered.

Mr. Salmond : Will the Secretary of State give way?

Mr. Lang : No. I am about to go on to decommissioning.

It is well known that many hon. Members oppose the Government's view on decommissioning. However, they have not answered the point put by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. He said

---

Column 1222

that we have to achieve a method that will work and give value for money. It would be possible for a large sum to be spent on the decommissioning scheme without reducing the catch by a single tonne. Some 30 per cent. of tonnage could come out without reducing the catch. Would a decommissioning scheme give good value for money? Our experience of a decommissioning scheme was extremely unsatisfactory.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith : Did not my right hon. Friend listen to what I said on the decommissioning scheme? I endeavoured to deal precisely with my right hon. Friend's argument. Did he also not listen to my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough (Sir M. Shaw), who is a member of the Public Accounts Committee? The Committee did not attack the concept of decommissioning ; it attacked the way in which the decommissioning scheme worked for the Humberside fleet. It suggested that there were other ways in which a decommissioning scheme could be carried out cost-effectively.

Mr. Lang : I quite understand my right hon. Friend's point, which he has made for some time. The point is that the decommissioning scheme as proposed does not take the catching capacity out of the fleet, and it has not been found to be satisfactory on that ground. My hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) raised the matter of the sea fisheries committees for Scotland. This issue has been looked at in the past when the view was taken that the current management system best reflects the circumstances in Scotland. There has been no pressure from the Scottish industry for such changes. That is one area in which I cannot follow English colleagues.

The fishing industry is immensely important in Scotland, where some two thirds of the landings by value and some three quarters of the landings by volume take place. Eight of the top 10 ports in the United Kingdom by value of landings are in Scotland. All that would be put at risk if we followed the policies of the Scottish National party as set out in the amendment. It calls on the Government to "display some commitment", but the SNP is the party which, if it achieves its attempt to gain independence for Scotland, would destroy the common fisheries policy, which brings those great advantages to Scotland. The SNP talks about a "vital resource industry", but it is the party that would destroy the resources by pandering to the needs of today and neglecting the needs of tomorrow.

Scottish National party Members cannot have it all ways. They cannot have a policy in their own party of membership of the Community, but reject the procedures by which decisions are taken in the Community. They cannot claim that the fishing industry faces problems, which it undoubtedly does, but reject the means for dealing with those problems. They cannot care about the future of the fishing industry and propose irresponsible policies that would destroy it. The policies of the Scottish National party pose an enormous threat to the Scottish fishing industry. An independent Scotland would have just three votes in the Fisheries Council instead of the 10 votes that it has at present. I urge the House to reject the SNP amendment.

This has been an extremely useful debate ahead of the Fisheries Council. I assure all hon. Members that the constructive points that have been made-- for the most

---

Column 1223

part--will be considered carefully ahead of the negotiations. The TACs and quotas for 1991 are but the first step in the management of the fisheries next year. We shall continue to pursue our policy of sensible management measures in consultation with the industry, and always with the aim of securing long-term prosperity.

Mr. Salmond rose --

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean) : Order. The hon. Gentleman has spoken once.

Question put, That the amendment be made :--

The House proceeded to a Division :

Mr. Salmond (seated and covered) : On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker : I shall take it after the Division. The House having divided : Ayes 22, Noes 76.

Division No. 29] [11.16 pm

AYES

Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

Beith, A. J.

Bellotti, David

Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

Doran, Frank

Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

Foulkes, George

Godman, Dr Norman A.

Haynes, Frank

Howells, Geraint

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

Kennedy, Charles

Macdonald, Calum A.

McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

Morley, Elliot

Pike, Peter L.

Salmond, Alex

Skinner, Dennis

Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

Wallace, James

Wilson, Brian

Tellers for the Ayes :

Mr. Andrew Welsh and

Mr. Archy Kirkwood.

NOES

Amess, David

Amos, Alan

Arbuthnot, James

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Atkinson, David

Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

Bevan, David Gilroy

Bottomley, Peter

Bowis, John

Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

Browne, John (Winchester)

Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick

Carrington, Matthew

Chapman, Sydney

Chope, Christopher

Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

Cope, Rt Hon John

Curry, David

Davis, David (Boothferry)

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Dover, Den

Fenner, Dame Peggy

Fishburn, John Dudley

Forth, Eric

Goodlad, Alastair

Gregory, Conal

Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

Hague, William

Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

Hanley, Jeremy

Harris, David

Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

Hunter, Andrew

Irvine, Michael

Jack, Michael

Janman, Tim

Kilfedder, James

King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

Kirkhope, Timothy

Knight, Greg (Derby North)

Lang, Ian

Lightbown, David

Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

Maude, Hon Francis

Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

Mitchell, Sir David

Moynihan, Hon Colin

Neubert, Michael

Norris, Steve

Patnick, Irvine

Porter, David (Waveney)

Portillo, Michael

Raffan, Keith

Redwood, John

Sackville, Hon Tom

Shaw, David (Dover)

Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

Stern, Michael

---