| Previous Section | Home Page |
Column 250
11.4 pmMrs. Margaret Ewing (Moray) : Of necessity, I shall be extremely brief. I have found it difficult during this debate to contemplate the expressions of Front-Bench Members and members of the Treasury Bench in particular. They showed an attitude somewhere between smug complacency and total disregard for the fishing industry. The Minister opened the debate by referring to comments which I made on 14 February. As a woman Member of Parliament who represents, and is proud to represent, a fishing constituency, I can tell the Minister that his comments will be read with disgust by not only the fishermen but their wives, sons and daughters.
Just before Christmas I and my hon. Friend the Member for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie) experienced the tragedy of fishing disasters. We know the exact implications of fishing disasters for our communities. The Minister takes lightly the probability that dangers will be increased by the implementation of the eight-day rule. I also emphasise to the Minister the implications of the tie-up for the whole society of many of our fishing communities around the coast of Scotland. Not only the catching industry but the processing industry and all the ancillary industries will be affected. The rule will affect the butcher, the baker and the candlestick- maker in all our communities. If the fishing industries disappear in areas like mine, where 25 per cent. of jobs are totally dependent on fishing, many other facilities in the community will disappear.
Another point that I should like to emphasise to the Minister was raised by a member of Highland regional council. The eight-day tie-up will force many people to break what they see as the Sabbatarian rule. I shall not go into people's religious beliefs, but I respect their beliefs. For many people, Sunday is also a family day. It is a day when they try hard to be with their family and to be involved in the community. Many fishermen are involved in various voluntary organisations such as the venture scouts or the boys' brigade. I see the Minister yet again sitting smirking on the Front Bench and paying not a blind bit of attention to what we are saying about our communities in the north-east of Scotland. If he would pay attention to what we are saying about our communities, I would be grateful. I, for one, am fed up with Ministers saying, "Yes, we care about the rural, far-flung and peripheral communities," yet at the end of the day doing nothing to argue our case.
Mrs. Maria Fyfe (Glasgow, Maryhill) : Does the hon. Lady agree with me that the eight-day tie-up is an amazing policy to come from a party which purports to be the party of the family? Does she conclude, as I do, that fishermen's families apparently do not count?
Mrs. Ewing : The hon. Lady makes a valid point. The Ministry has a great deal to answer for in terms of the distress caused to the wives and children of my constituents who are skippers and crewmen. It is clear that again the Government are ignoring our arguments. There is a great deal of chat and smiling on the Front Bench. Ministers argue that somehow they will achieve flexibility on the eight-day tie-up, but as yet we have received no details. The fishermen who have come down from the north-east of Scotland, the Northern Isles, the Western Isles and all over Scotland to listen to the debate are still awaiting details of how the Government
Column 251
intend to implement the so-called flexibility. I suspect that there is no flexibility. There is no flexibility in their attitude to the eight-day tie-up. There is no flexibility in their attitude to our communities and the problems which the Government are creating for them. The House of Commons is being brought into disrepute by the Government's failure to address the needs of our fishing communities.11.9 pm
Dr. Norman A. Godman (Greenock and Port Glasgow) : I hope that the Minister will answer two questions when he replies. I had not intended to speak in the debate until I came across David Gardner's article in yesterday's Financial Times concerning Mr. Marin's threat to withdraw the legal basis of the Community's fisheries policy. I hope that the Minister will respond to that threat. The Fisheries Commissioner said that the Commission might apply the principle of subsidiarity
"which holds that the Community should not interfere in policy best developed at national level."
David Gardner went on to say :
"The Commission would also be making national fisheries ministers and governments responsible for whatever future the industry has." That is a serious question and I hope that the Minister will deal with it. I believe that Mr. Marin has issued a real threat. I hope to meet him on Tuesday next week.
When I meet the Fisheries Commissioner next week, I intend to tell him that, in my view, article 13 of Council regulation EEC No. 3926/90 may be legally invalid. Furthermore, there may be some loose drafting in the regulations.
The policy objective is to reduce the fishing of certain commercially valuable species. The Community is allowed a degree of commercial discrimination. It is able to introduce regulations which may hit some elements of the Community more than others. The question of dubious validity arises. The regulations may affect common law principles that are recognised by the European Court of Justice. I hope that the Minister will deal with the question of proportionality and the administration of equal justice to all concerned. The measure may lead to unfair discrimination.
This turbulent Fisheries Commissioner claims that the European Community's fleet suffers from 40 per cent. overcapacity. He may be close to the truth, but a rigorous examination and overhaul of the total allowable catch and quota system is needed, as well as a new set of multi-annual guidance programmes. What is the Minister's view concerning the introduction of a new set of MAGPs for the different fishing fleets ?
If some communities will be hit hard by the measures, should not we argue that the European Community should conduct a study to identify those regions that are likely to be worst hit by a reduction in fishing effort so that appropriate measures can be introduced in the forthcoming review of the European Community's structural funds ? The stay in port represents major hazards for fishermen. It places them under a terrible burden to fish in bad weather. Risky fishing is normally associated with fleets owned by trawler companies. Skippers are forced to fish in bad weather. If they did not do so, they could be replaced by many others who were members of a pool of skippers. We do not want that kind of dangerous fishing
Column 252
being introduced into this sector of the industry. This measure is a disgrace. I believe it to be invalid and it should be opposed. 11.15 pmMr. Brian Wilson (Cunninghame, North) : There has been considerable unity in the Chamber tonight, not least among hon. Members who have spoken about the appalling nature of the Parliamentary Secretary's opening remarks. If there was any doubt about whether Opposition Members should have prayed against the instrument and forcing a debate on the Floor of the House, our action was clearly justified by the response of the occupants of the Government Front Bench, not only in the substance of what they have said but in the manner in which they have conducted themselves.
Considering that, of the 450 vessels affected by the statutory instrument, 384 are registered in Scottish ports, we are disappointed, to say the least, that in the remaining minutes of the debate we shall not hear even from the Scottish Office Minister who has nominal responsibility for the fishing industry.
Other matters aside, Scottish fishermen and everyone concerned with the Scottish fishing industry are fed up with that nominal Minister for the industry not being answerable to the House but being yet another stooge hired from an agency apparently run by Debrett's-- [Interruption.] Those people are put up to answer for the Scottish fishing industry but are not answerable to the House ; they are known to nobody in the Scottish fishing industry and are accountable to no democratic electorate.
When dealing with matters such as this, it is unacceptable not to have a Scottish Office Minister at the Dispatch Box. Perhaps in the previous debate the Minister of State gave away so many hostages to fortune that we should understand why he is not addressing us tonight.
Tonight we got from the Parliamentary Secretary an arrogant performance. He thought it was a gross inconvenience, beyond anything that was reasonable, that he should be called back to the Dispatch Box to speak on the measure. He was utterly dismissive-- [Interruption.] Does the Government Assistant Whip, the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Hamilton), wish to intervene? He is not the only Conservative who is a little overtired and emotional at this time of night. That has been evident during the debate.
In his remarks, the Minister made the extraordinary statement that the whole matter was governed by quota. As the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) asked, what is the point of the eight-day tie-up rule if the quota is designed to impose precisely the control the Government are seeking?
As the right hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) and several of my hon. Friends asked, from where did the magical 110 mm figure come? In the previous debate the Minister appeared triumphantly to give the impression that the figure had been put forward by Her Majesty's Government in Europe. Is that a fact? Where did the 110 mm figure originate and why is it so inflexible in dealing with the different and comprehensible needs of the Scottish fishing industry and the mixed fishery that it pursues?
Much has been said about the need for flexibility. It is unfortunate that the Minister of State, the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth), is not replying to the debate
Column 253
because, somewhat uncharacteristically, he introduced the word "flexibility" into it. We can call him the flexible hon. Member for Stirling. In the debate on 14 February--St. Valentine's day, as the Under-Secretary touchingly, though patronisingly, pointed out-- the hon. Member for Stirling said :"Under the scheme there is a requirement to give 12 hours' notice of the port where the tie-up will take place. That does not have to be the port of normal location. If it were not sensible, because of weather conditions, to make for port, we should expect the fisheries inspector to take a flexible view. No one is suggesting anything to the contrary.--[ Official Report, 14 February 1991 ; Vol. 185, col. 1091.]
Can the Under-Secretary of State tell us whether anyone is now suggesting anything to the contrary? Will he assure us that the flexibility mentioned in the previous debate will obtain for a vessel caught in a storm while in transit? Will it be prudent for such a vessel to make a run for port, as happens already? It is common in the Scottish fishing industry, although I would not expect the Minister to know it, for vessels to be based on the west coast while their crews have their homes on the east coast. Will the time taken to sail from west to east be included in the eight-day tie-up, or will that time be counted as additional? Will the time taken for fishermen to sail from one port to another to have their vessels maintained or repaired be included in the eight-day period? Those are practical questions which the Minister, with some assistance, should be able to answer. There is no need for arrogance or for a dismissive attitude. There is an audience inside and outside the House, and it wants answers to those questions. A decommissioning scheme is relevant to the debate. Because of the folk memory of the failure of the Humber decommissioning scheme in the early 1980s, which appears to hang like a limpet to the Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, there is a repeated incantation that the Government will not have a decommissioning scheme.
The Minister of State, Scottish Office spelt out the rationale for that. He said :
"A decommissioning scheme would not help to conserve stocks. It would be most attractive to the least efficient vessels which exert a little pressure on the stocks."--[ Official Report, 14 February 1991 ; Vol. 185, c. 1092.]
That is not correct. The Minister of State, Scottish Office cannot speak but he can sneer, and spends all his time doing it. If he has anything to say that does not come from the corner of his mouth he should come to the Dispatch Box and say it. If the Government are telling us that they are incapable of conceiving or administering a scheme that does not overcome the difficulties mentioned in the excerpt that I read from the Minister's speech, it is an admission of defeat, like that of every other European Government except the Government of the Irish Republic.
We should consider not only the 384 vessels that will be directly affected by the tie-up, but the knock-on effect on the east coast fishing industry and that of the Orkney and Shetlands. In parts of Scotland that are not subject to the tie-up regulations, notably the prawn fisheries which are not subject to quota, the pressure from the measure is already being felt and the bottom has been knocked out of the livelihoods of fishermen.
Conservative Members laugh and sneer and obviously think that such a debate has no political cost. Last week Scottish Tories visited the north-east of Scotland and
Column 254
spoke about winning seats there at the next election. People from the north-east will have watched their performance in this debate. Conservative Members might as well have visited China because the debate has shown their contempt for and lack of interest in the issues that have been presented.Mr. Curry rose--
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker) : Does the hon. Gentleman have the leave of the House to speak again?
Mr. Curry : It is as well at this point to appreciate where we are. We have a major conservation problem on fisheries and it will not go away. There is a major problem about haddock and cod--the two stocks that are of predominant interest to British fishermen. Haddock in particular is the backbone of the Scottish fishing industry. Therefore, to deal responsibly with fisheries, we must take measures to conserve the stocks of haddock. That is the point from which we start and the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) starts from the same point, because I know that he appreciates the dilemmas that we face in trying to formulate policy in the industry.
Mr. Salmond rose--
Mr. Curry : No, I shall not give way. I shall try to answer the questions that have been asked as I have only a few minutes. Many hon. Members mentioned technical conservation and the square mesh. We all hope that we can reach the point at which we can tackle conservation through selectivity of gear. That is where we want to be. It is true that positive work has been done. The hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) is not correct that that work has been suppressed, or that we have not taken it seriously. Trials are taking place at the moment, and we have carried out extensive trials. We have managed to persuade Brussels to accept the principle of square mesh. However, as I have said frankly in the past to fishermen, if they are merely offering a 90 mm diamond mesh with an 80 mm square mesh panel, we will be unable to get that accepted in Brussels. We tried. I argued throughout a Fisheries Council for that, but it is not sufficient to be accepted in Brussels, and that is the fact of the matter. It does help. It is a conservation measure which takes us forward, but it does not take us far enough. That is the political reality. However, we shall continue to press ahead with that cause.
There will be a new Fisheries Council meeting in mid-April at which we shall yet again seek Community-wide measures, based on technical conservation, because that is the key to fisheries. No doubt at that Council I shall be able to explore the matters about which the vice- president was talking. The hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) mentioned Mr. Marin's speculations. In one breath, Mr. Marin appears to be saying that we should not have national quotas, but a single Community sea, with a sort of free-for-all, which is entirely unacceptable to us. I am delighted to be able to say that it is unacceptable to a sufficient number of other countries for us to be able to defend ourselves from that proposal.
Column 255
I have also heard Mr. Marin say that we should accept a not very well defined principle of subsidiarity. Does that mean that we pass fisheries policy back to member states? We have to know what he is talking about.Clearly, our aim, if we are to have a Communitywide policy, is to try to preserve the status quo, in so far as it gives the United Kingdom a major proportion of its fisheries and allows us to manage our fisheries policy, because we believe that we will do it better than anyone else.
Mrs. Margaret Ewing : What about tie-ups?
Mr. Curry : I am answering questions asked during the debate. Hon. Members queried whether there would be flexibility when boats moved from one port to another. May I be quite specific--boats have done so in the past. They have moved from one port to another to have an engine repaired or for some other purpose. The regulations state that they must remain in port, not merely refrain from fishing. The purpose is to reduce effort. In other words, it is different from ordinary practice. Therefore, we shall enforce the rule.
In the first part of his remarks the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) asked whether we would consider genuine safety problems and bad weather. The answer is yes, and we can prove it, because in the past few days the fisheries inspectorate has accepted bad weather as a reason for fishermen arriving late at a port where they have nominated to tie up. That is perfectly clear, and we are on record as saying that. We have implemented that and it is perfectly clear to fishermen.
Mrs. Ewing : Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Curry : No, because I have only three minutes left. The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) asked why, if quotas limit the amount that fishermen can catch, we need a tie-up. The reason is that if there is a quota alone, more fish are caught than are landed, and there is a high rate of discard. Therefore, we need to bring effort more into line with the quota to reduce discards.
The hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) will agree that discards are a major problem. We have to tackle that problem because the trials, to which several hon. Members referred, demonstrate that in some cases the rate of discard is higher than the number of marketable fish caught. That is why square mesh is so important, because it eliminates discards of roundfish. Square mesh suits certain species, but not necessarily others, and the sort of rigging used is also important.
The hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) talked about 120 mm square mesh, which was a Commission proposal. Our experiments showed that it would catch practically nothing, which is why we rejected the proposal, and even the Commission is no longer pressing for it. I have a strong suspicion that when we go back to the Council the Commission will be pressing for 110 mm.
The origin of the 110 mm option lies in the fact that that mesh size was calculated to deliver a reduction in effort equivalent to the 30 per cent. effort reduction. Also, we had to get the Commission to accept the proposals. We cannot escape our obligation to respond to propositions put to us by the Commission. There is no alternative ; we must deal with the circumstances presented to us.
Column 256
That means, however, that we must take conservation seriously. There is a serious problem which we must tackle. I resent any suggestion that we have no dialogue with the industry. There is no hon. Member in the House--It being half-past Eleven o'clock, Mr Deputy Speaker-- put the Question, pursuant to Standing Order No 15 (Prayers against statutory instruments, &c. (negative procedure)) :-
The House divided : Ayes 51, Noes 75.
Division No. 87] [11.30 pm
AYES
Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley, N.)
Alton, David
Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Ashton, Joe
Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Beggs, Roy
Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Cryer, Bob
Cunliffe, Lawrence
Dewar, Donald
Dixon, Don
Doran, Frank
Douglas, Dick
Dunnachie, Jimmy
Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)
Fearn, Ronald
Foster, Derek
Fyfe, Maria
Godman, Dr Norman A.
Haynes, Frank
Hood, Jimmy
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Ingram, Adam
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)
Kennedy, Charles
Kirkwood, Archy
Leadbitter, Ted
Livsey, Richard
McAllion, John
McAvoy, Thomas
McLeish, Henry
Maclennan, Robert
McMaster, Gordon
Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)
Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)
Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)
Molyneaux, Rt Hon James
Morley, Elliot
Nellist, Dave
Prescott, John
Ross, William (Londonderry E)
Salmond, Alex
Skinner, Dennis
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)
Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)
Wallace, James
Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)
Wilson, Brian
Tellers for the Ayes :
Mr. John Home Robertson and
Mr. Calum Macdonald.
NOES
Alexander, Richard
Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Bellingham, Henry
Boswell, Tim
Bright, Graham
Brown, Michael (Brigg & Cl't's)
Carrington, Matthew
Chapman, Sydney
Chope, Christopher
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Curry, David
Davies, Q. (Stamf'd & Spald'g)
Davis, David (Boothferry)
Day, Stephen
Dover, Den
Dunn, Bob
Fishburn, John Dudley
Forman, Nigel
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Freeman, Roger
Goodlad, Alastair
Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Gregory, Conal
Hague, William
Hanley, Jeremy
Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')
Harris, David
Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Irvine, Michael
Jack, Michael
Janman, Tim
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Kirkhope, Timothy
Knight, Greg (Derby North)
Knowles, Michael
Lawrence, Ivan
Lord, Michael
Maclean, David
McLoughlin, Patrick
Mans, Keith
Miller, Sir Hal
Neubert, Sir Michael
Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Norris, Steve
Paice, James
Porter, David (Waveney)
Rowe, Andrew
Sackville, Hon Tom
Sayeed, Jonathan
Shaw, David (Dover)
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Skeet, Sir Trevor
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Steen, Anthony
Stevens, Lewis
Summerson, Hugo
Taylor, Ian (Esher)
Taylor, John M (Solihull)
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)
Thorne, Neil
Thurnham, Peter
Trotter, Neville
Twinn, Dr Ian
Waller, Gary
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)
Watts, John
Wheeler, Sir John
Widdecombe, Ann
| Next Section
| Home Page |