House of Commons Hansard Debates for 5 Mar 1991

Mr. Riddick : On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker : I have not heard anything that is out of order.

Mr. Riddick : Perhaps you could clear something up for me, Sir. As the Minister was due to start his speech at 9.40, the hon. Lady had all the time in the world to give way to me. This is supposed to be a debate.

Mr. Speaker : Order. The hon. Lady decided not to give way, and I have now called the Minister.

9.38 pm

The Minister for Roads and Traffic (Mr. Christopher Chope) : We have had a good debate, although at times it has been somewhat low key. It is symptomatic of the Opposition's performance that they have convictions about the issue of transport but do not have the courage of their convictions. That will be reflected in what happens later. I am very grateful for the constructive and supportive contributions of my hon. Friends the Members for Wellingborough (Mr. Fry), Wycombe (Mr. Whitney), Swindon (Mr. Coombs), Erith and Crayford (Mr. Evennett), Colne Valley (Mr. Riddick), Dorset, South (Mr. Bruce) and Gravesham (Mr. Arnold). They have added to the debate a quality that will be much appreciated.

I shall deal first with the part of the Bill that concerns street works. I welcome the general support on both sides of the House for parts III and IV of the measure. We believe that the provisions in these parts will be widely welcomed in the country, and will lead to better planned and better executed street works. The outdated procedures prescribed by the Public Utilities and Street Works Act 1950 no longer serve their purpose. Let me give one example. The requirement to serve notices in writing on all the authorities involved before starting work results in unnecessary bureaucracy, with some 4 million holes each year being subject to the requirements of the 1950 Act.

The present framework is seriously inadequate when it comes to the state of repair of roads. The 1950 Act allows highway authorities to elect to do the permanent reinstatement of the upper levels of the roads themselves at a utility's expense. No time limit is laid down for the highway authority to carry out the reinstatement in those cases. As a result, temporary reinstatements done by

Column 226

utilities are often left for far too long in a totally unsatisfactory condition, a point made vividly by my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley and others. Labour-controlled authorities have a lot to answer for. In Kirklees, not only is there money available from the utilities for the repair of the holes in roads, but there is also a substantial amount of money available through the standard spending assessment to be invested in highway maintenance. It is clear from what my hon. Friend said that that investment is not being made.

As we have heard, the Bill will remove the confusion and unnecessary bureaucracy involved in the present arrangements for street works. It will allow the introduction of clear national standards on matters such as the signing and guarding of works, the training of those involved in works and the quality of reinstatement of roads by utilities. For the first time it will allow the effective co-ordination of street works activity.

Various points of detail have been raised in the debate. I cannot answer them all, but I shall try to deal with some. One issue concerned the definition contained in clause 54, which was referred to by several hon. Members. Parts III and IV of the Bill regulate all works in streets in England and Wales and roads in Scotland, and both terms include the footway, or what the man in the street would call the pavement. Particular attention will be paid to the needs of pedestrians and other vulnerable road users when detailed requirements are prescribed under the Bill. I hope that that is of interest to hon. Members.

There were comments about emergency works. To put the provisions in context, it is worth reminding the House that the Horne committee found that 35 per cent. of all works notified were notified as emergency works. That was based on the evidence of local authorities given in 1983. That showed the extent of the abuse. In many cases a majority of the works carried out in individual council areas were deemed to be emergency works. Therefore, a new definition is called for. In order to be workable, it has to be a tight definition. Because of the exemptions given for emergency works, which clause 48 limits to the avoidance of danger to persons or to property, there will be cases falling short of emergencies where an undertaker has to take action before the normal period of advance notice has expired. Some examples have been given in the debate. In some cases, such as the restoration of a supply or service, or works necessary to avoid substantial loss to an undertaker, considerably shorter advance notice requirements may be appropriate. After further consultations with highway authorities and utilities, suitable provision will be made in regulations containing the notice requirements.

Points were raised about charging for the occupation of road space. I assure the House that it is not the Government's intention to bring the power into effect straight away. We have said that we would prefer to wait to see how the other controls operate. It is a reserve power, but nevertheless a useful power, because it is a reminder to utilities that associated with the works which they carry out is a cost to the public and to the road user in time wasted and inconvenience. In the same way as lane rental has been successful in road contracts, the power to charge for occupation or road space will concentrate minds well.

Mr. Simon Coombs : I am grateful to my hon. Friend for what he has said. Do the Government intend to introduce a system of charging for all undertakers, if one undertaker

Column 227

has failed significantly to deliver, in the early period after the introduction of the legislation? In other words, will all undertakers be punished by the system of fee paying if only one is found to be seriously at fault?

Mr. Chope : The Government would look at that issue from the point of view of the consumer and the road user. If it is clear that there are abuses, we shall wish to implement the powers contained in the Bill.

My hon. Friend the Member for Swindon also referred to the opening of streets. That can include lifting a manhole cover, which could be quite disruptive in the middle of a busy carriageway. However, it will be possible to make suitable exemptions from the requirements of the Bill for such street works, where necessary.

The right hon. Member for Halton (Mr. Oakes) referred to bringing proceedings for offences. The 1950 Act confined the ability to bring proceedings for an offence subject to a criminal penalty to an authority, body or person having an interest in the performance of the obligation in question. We think that it is right that the Bill should not limit enforcement of the street works provision in the same way because some of the duties in the Bill, such as the duty of undertakers to co-operate or the duty to avoid unnecessary obstruction, are not owed to particular authorities or persons but are of a general nature. In those circumstances, it would not be appropriate to limit the ability to bring proceedings for breach of a statutory obligation to particular interested persons.

My hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley made an interesting point when he questioned the provisions of clause 90. I am sure that we shall return to that issue in Committee because, as presently drafted, there is effectively an exemption to the local authority goods and services legislation. I am sure that my hon. Friend and others will need a lot of convincing that this Bill should contain such a provision.

Parts I and II deal with new roads and private finance. I am not really surprised that the Opposition have been reluctant to give support or enthusiasm to those provisions because they are, after all, radical proposals. They break the long tradition in this country of roads being paid for by the taxpayer or the charge payer rather than by the user. In recent months and years, we have found that the Opposition never take kindly to fresh, imaginative and radical thinking.

The Government are not alone in seeing the private sector as a likely source of finance for the roads of the future. The signs are that in many European countries, and in many parts of the United States of America, the same policies are being developed--not only in countries such as France, Italy and Spain, which have a long history of tolled motorways, but in more surprising places such as Germany and the new democracies in eastern Europe. By daring to challenge the conventional wisdom, once again this Government are pointing the way forward to the rest of the world.

We have no intention of abandoning the traditional public sector roads programme. As my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Freeman) has said, trunk road expenditure is now at record levels, but even the greatly expanded programme that we introduced in "Roads for Prosperity" will leave many demands unmet. The public purse is not bottomless, and all the money in it comes from taxpayers and charge payers.

Column 228

Mr. Gerald Howarth (Cannock and Burntwood) : As my hon. Friend knows, the Birmingham northern relief road will be the first private motorway in Britain and a large part of it will pass through my constituency. I warmly welcome both that private sector road and the measures in the Bill that will assist that process. Will my hon. Friend confirm that the new arrangements that are proposed in the Bill will speed up the process of bringing private roads into being, and can he assure me that the Birmingham northern relief road is very much on target for opening in the mid-1990s?

Mr. Chope : Certainly, the Birmingham northern relief road is very much on target for opening in themid-1990s--

Mr. Snape : In a private moment, perhaps the Minister will point out to his hon. Friend the Member for Cannock and Burntwood (Mr. Howarth) that that matter was discussed earlier in a fair amount of detail. Furthermore, the Birmingham northern relief road first appeared in the Government's road programme in 1980, but it is still no nearer commencement. If the hon. Member for Cannock and Burntwood had been present for just one moment of this debate instead of strolling into the Chamber 11 minutes before it will end, he would know those basic and simple facts.

Mr. Chope : I understand that my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock and Burntwood (Mr. Howarth) has been serving on a Committee elsewhere in the House and that that is why he has been unable to participate in this debate.

I can assure my hon. Friend that the Government have no interest in going slow on the Birmingham northern relief road and we hope to be able to announce the successful tenderer in May. There has been a slight delay because of today's announcement that the western orbital route will be subject to private tender and it is right that the tenderers for the Birmingham northern relief road should have a chance to consider whether they wish to adjust their tenders as a result.

Mr. Ian Bruce : Opposition Members were keen to say that neither in "Looking to the future" nor in "An earthly chance" does the Labour party have a policy which suggests that it is anti-road. It is not suggesting that more money will come from the taxpayer or the Government for more roads ; it is saying that it wants to see money switched from roads to public transport. It is difficult to get firm policies, but in its transport policy the Labour party says : "The Roads White Paper will be reviewed. Road and public transport developments will be assessed on a common basis".

That suggests that it will switch from roads to public transport.

Mr. Chope : My hon. Friend is right. The kindest thing that one can say about the Opposition's policy is that it is muddled. My evidence for saying that is that about last autumn the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott), whose presence is sorely missed today, announced that the Opposition's policy was to transfer resources which were to be spent on the roads programme to rail and other forms of infrastructure investment. The hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms. Ruddock) is nodding in agreement.

Column 229

On 18 May 1989, the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East, responding to the roads White Paper, said :

"We welcome the Government's acceptance of the fact that the economic and social cost to the nation of chronic congestion is such that urgent action in the form of a doubling of present road expenditure is needed."--[ Official Report, 18 May 1989 ; Vol. 153, c. 484.]

There is much evidence to suggest that the Opposition want it both ways. They want to suggest to their friends in their constituencies who want new investment in roads that such investment would continue under a Labour Government while at the same time suggesting to their friends in British Rail that even the record amount being invested by this Government in British Rail will be exceeded at no additional cost to the taxpayer under a Labour Administration.

There has been much discussion about whether the new road schemes and procedures would be any quicker than the existing procedures. The Government hope that they will be quicker and we believe that we have reasonable grounds for expecting that. Unlike the private sector, the Government are unable to dedicate resources to any one particular scheme, so that it can take time to reach inquiry. The promoter of a scheme will have a strong incentive in the form of profit to undertake the necessary preparatory work as quickly as possible. The private sector may choose to buy land on a voluntary basis at above market value if it were in the longer term interest of the project. That is something that the public sector cannot do. Therefore, the overall procedure could well be quicker. All those who want a quicker implementation of the roads programme are in tune with public demand.

The Government have already made substantial progress, but it is apparent that we need even greater investment in roads and there is no way in which all the necessary money will be forthcoming from the taxpayer. One vivid example of my proposition that it is better to have a toll road than no road is the Skye bridge, referred to by the hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson). The Scottish Office is currently evaluating tenders from the three consortia, and it is hoped that the winner of the competition will be announced in April.

Subject to the enactment of the Bill and the satisfactory completion of statutory procedures, the bridge could be completed during 1994. By comparison, a bridge could not be provided from public funds for perhaps 20 years or more without displacing other worthwhile projects which are already in the public progamme. Therefore, the local community will be able to enjoy all the benefits of a fixed link much earlier than would otherwise be the case.

Ms. Ruddock : Time is running out and I am anxious to ensure that the Minister does not fail to answer the question that I put to him. It is important that we hear from him tonight what increase in Britain's road space he envisages from the provision of private toll roads. How does that compare with the increases in road traffic, as predicted by his Department?

Mr. Chope : I am sure that there will be plenty of time in Committee to deal with the hon. Lady's question and similar questions.

There are those who claim that the private sector does not have the competence to carry out the task which we shall ask it to undertake under the legislation, that it is in

Column 230

it only to make a quick buck, or that it will have no regard to safety or the environment. One might say that those are the same old tawdry arguments that the Opposition have used against every private sector initiative that the Government have introduced. However, compared with the Government's major privatisation and deregulation measures, the measures that we have debated tonight are relatively modest.

We are not selling off motorways or privatising the highway authorities, although some of my hon. Friends believe that we should do just that. The private consortia will derive their powers from the highway authority. The highway authority will be answerable for authorisation of the route, for its environmental impact and for its compatibility with other land use objectives. The concessionaires' role will be to raise the finance, design and build the road and operate and maintain it once it is open. That is very much the role of the toll-operating concessionaires in continental Europe, except that we propose fully private sources of finance and to take free market principles a step or two further.

It has been suggested that the measures can be implemented only at the expense of the environment. That is absolute nonsense. The new roads to be promoted by private entrepreneurs will be subject to just the same planning and inquiry regime as the existing roads programme. I was asked whether these new roads would attract development. Almost every new road attracts development, but it is up to the local authorities, the planning authorities and ultimately the planning inspectorate to decide whether a planning application should be successful.

Indeed, when putting forward their proposals for the new east coast road recently, several local authorities relied to a great extent on private sector developers to help finance the cost of the road. The hon. Member for Deptford nods in agreement. Clearly, she believes that that is a reasonable way to proceed.

Ms. Ruddock rose --

Hon. Members : No.

Ms. Ruddock : I am sorry, but that cannot pass. I said to the Minister tonight that clearly a conflict can arise if a company seeks to maximise profit. A conflict can arise in the land use proposals. We are all too familiar with the fact that local authorities' objections are frequently overturned by the Department.

Mr. Chope : They are not frequently overturned, but when they are overturned, it is done on good planning grounds. That is because the Department has to operate in a quasi-judicial capacity. If it did not act properly, it would find itself on the wrong end of a High Court challenge.

In conclusion, I remind the House of the massive investment which the Government will continue to make in the road infrastructure in Britain. Capital spending on roads has more than doubled since the last year of the Labour Government. Progress on new construction, trunk roads and motorways is extremely good. By the end of the current financial year we shall have completed some 40 schemes, adding some 140 miles of new or improved roads to the national network in 12 months. We shall also have started 54 schemes with a length of over 150 miles. We plan to maintain that record level of progress next year when we shall start work on a further 53 new schemes, including

Column 231

three motorway widenings and 19 bypasses, covering some 172 miles. When the Bill is approved, even more investment in our road infrastructure will be facilitated.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee, pursuant to Standing Order No. 61 (Committal of Bills).

New Roads and Street Works Bill [ Lords ] [ Money ]

Queen's Recommendation having been signified--

Motion made, and Question proposed,

That for the purposes of any Act from the New Roads and Street Works Bill [ Lords ], it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of--

(a) any expenses incurred by a Minister of the Crown in consequence of the Act, and

(b) any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable out of money so provided under any other enactment.-- [Mr. Wood.]

9.59 pm

Mr. Conal Gregory (York) : May I ask the Minister to say a word about historic cities such as York which have suffered unduly from the disruption caused by street works. Those who work--

It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,

That, at this day's sitting, the Ways and Means Motion may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.-- [Mr. Wood.]

Column 232

New Roads and Street Works Bill [Lords ] [Money ]

Question again proposed.

Mr. Gregory : In historic cities such as York a number of agencies have disrupted commerce and tourism for considerable periods. Will my hon. Friend assure the House that adequate funds will be provided for historic cities so that the continuous disruption of recent years caused by street works can be avoided ? York's city council has sought to reduce that disruption as much as possible. It will be helped by this measure. However, we should be grateful for such an assurance from my hon. Friend at this important juncture in the passing of the Bill.

The Minister for Roads and Traffic (Mr. Christopher Chope) : I can assure my hon. Friend that there will be appropriate funding for local authorities under the provisions of the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

WAYS AND MEANS

New Roads and Street Works Bill

[Lords ]

Resolved,

That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the New Roads and Street Works Bill [Lords ] , it is expedient to authorise-- ((a) the charging of tolls for the use of a new special road in respect of which an order is made under the Act,

(b) the charging of fees for occupation of the highway (in Scotland, the road), and

Column 233

Sea Fisheries

Mr. Speaker : I remind the House that this debate must end at 11.30 and that a great many hon. Members wish to participate in it. I intend to give precedence to those hon. Members who were not called to speak in a similar debate on 14 February. However, I hope that all those on both the Front and the Back Benches who are called to speak will be brief so that as many hon. Members as possible can participate in the debate.

10.1 pm

Mr. Elliot Morley (Glanford and Scunthorpe) : I beg to move, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Sea Fishing (Days in Port) (Amendment) Regulations 1991 (S.I., 1991, No. 335), dated 26th February 1991, a copy of which was laid before this House on 27th February, be annulled.

This statutory instrument--

Mr. Bob Cryer (Bradford, South) : On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I draw your attention to the Order Paper which makes it clear that the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments has not yet completed its consideration of the amending regulations that we are dealing with tonight which amend the principal regulations--the Sea Fishing (Days in Port) Regulations which we have reported. The amending regulations arise out of our recommendations. I hope, therefore, that the Government will find time to debate, in addition to these regulations, the principal regulations. We have reported the principal regulations. Our report is in the Vote Office. I mention that in case hon. Members are confused. The Committee asked the Government for information about the exemptions that are not clarified in the instrument that we are to debate tonight. We cannot report it because, as you know, Mr. Speaker, we have to wait for a memorandum from the Government under the terms of our Standing Order. I hope that you will not mind me drawing that matter to the attention of the House. I know that we shall debate the merits rather than the technicalities, but the two are closely linked.

Mr. Speaker : The hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer), who is the Chairman of the Committee, has done the House a service by saying that.

Mr. Morley : I appreciate my hon. Friend's point. He carries out essential work by going through European Community documents. This measure is of vital interest to the fishing industry. It is being implemented retrospectively, so it is important to deal with the effect that it is having on the industry. It clarifies the legal enforcement of the Sea Fishing (Days in Port) Regulations, though I doubt whether it will clarify the way in which they will be enforced by those who have a duty to do so. It also takes into account the exemptions for those boats that use 110 mm mesh nets, as belatedly agreed with the Commission by the Minister. On behalf of the Opposition, I would not quibble with exemptions, but the whole basis and effect on the industry of the regulations should be brought to the attention of the House and debated in depth.

The regulations were introduced to reduce effort on our fish stocks, and we have no quibble with the Government in trying to meet such objectives. We are concerned with the way that it is being done. I have consistently argued on

Column 234

behalf of the Opposition that effort must be reduced and I have supported conservation measures that may be necessary, and hard on fishermen who must implement them. But while I accept that conservation measures are essential, they must be supported by the fishermen and be seen to be to their advantage. I am not convinced that the eight-day tie-up regulation meets those objectives. During the debate on the take-note motion on 13 December 1990, I expressed concern lest the then proposed 10-day lay-up rule would be inflexible and dangerous. Tonight I heard from Scottish fishermen, some of whom are listening to the debate, about the inflexible way in which those regulations are being imposed, contrary to assurances that were given by the Minister of State, Scottish Office. We heard how many of them had been forced to stay at sea fishing in bad weather, how many of their families and the community life of their crews had been disrupted, how many boats could not steam to home ports for resupply and repair without being caught by the rules and how many boats had had to run for port to comply with the regulations in bad weather in situations which made it difficult for them to get into port, so endangering their ships and crews.

The implications have a knock-on effect for local economies. Hon. Members representing fishing constituencies will give further details of the effects of the regulations on their communities. We are speaking not of insignificant effects. It is clear from the excellent brief supplied by Grampian regional council that in that area 10,000 jobs are linked directly to the fishing industry. Fish for the north-east ports is vital for the local processing industries, and the same is true of areas such as Humberside. There is concern that the proposed eight-day rule will make it hard for producer organisations to regulate landings and will cause severe price and supply distruptions.

In financial terms, the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations has calculated that the tie-up rule could reduce fishing days by 72 days. That would represent a reduction in effort of about 38 per cent. It is calculated that, on that basis, average wages of fishermen could be down by about £6,000 a year, and gross profits would be slashed by 99 per cent. Differing working patterns may reduce those figures, but the net result would inevitably mean cuts in income.

The NFFO also argues that the approach adopted by the Government, and agreed by the Council of Ministers, could be in breach of articles 28 and 39 of the Treaty of Rome. The regulations contain defined objectives, including the rational development of production, the optimum utilisation of the factors of production, in particular labour, a fair standard of living, the stabilising of markets and the availability of supplies at reasonable prices. I claim that the regulations do not meet those objectives.

There is a crucial difference between Britain and other countries whose boats are subject to the restrictions. Other countries are covered by the EC decommissioning scheme and are taking advantage of it. That puts the situation facing them in a different light. They are already in a scheme that is reducing fleet size and effort and is providing compensation for the industry. The only compensation that our fishermen are offered is bankruptcy and the dole queue. We must contrast the situation in fishing with the comparable position in farming. Over-capacity exists in

Column 235

farming. One scheme on offer is set-aside, giving farmers financial compensation for reducing effort. Like decomissioning, the bulk of farmers' costs are met through the EC, in that case 60 per cent. Last year the scheme cost Britain £21.6 million, close to the estimate of £25 million that a decommissioning scheme would cost.

That scheme is subject to the same Fontainebleau agreement which we are told makes a decommissioning scheme unviable. Why should farmers enjoy such a scheme while fishermen are denied it? The only difference that I can see is that a decommissioning scheme is a one-off scheme and hence cheaper than an on-going commitment to a set-aside scheme. Its EC contribution is 10 per cent. higher, which is hardly an argument for ruling it out.

Although the measure gives the option of 110 mm nets in terms of exemption from the eight-day tie-up, the Scottish mixed fishery fleets are most affected. This is a national issue and there is broad agreement between the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations and the Scottish Fishermen's Federation.

As I have said, fishing effort must be reduced and it is significant that the former head of the EC fisheries conservation department, Mr. Michael Holden, made it clear in conversations with me that efforts must be reduced by restructuring through decommissioning to match capacity to availability.

The industry is prepared to play its part, given the chance to develop fishing as a prosperous and sustainable industry. I have said that I am concerned about the number of discards from 90 mm diamond mesh and about rule-breaking by some fishermen, whether by falsifying the area in which they say fish have been caught, by using techniques to close mesh, or by taking high by-catches from prawn trawls. I am greatly encouraged by the positive and responsible approach of fishermen to these problems. The Minister would do the industry far more good if he argued in the Council of Ministers for measures such as the option of fishing with square mesh panels. The Scottish Fishermen's Federation has stongly advocated an 80 mm square mesh panel with a 90 mm diamond mesh, and research on reduced discards is encouraging. Why not have a comparison between that system and a 90-90 mm square mesh and diamond mesh option, or even a 90-100 mm option to see the effects on catches and discards? We could press for dispensation from the eight-day rule on the basis of the most suitable configuration.

The issue of EC minimum mesh sizes still needs to be resolved and the Minister has the option and the opportunity in the forthcoming year to table proposals and to amend the present scheme. I advocate the fishermen's proposals for the adoption of a one-net rule, the introducton of square mesh panels on prawn trawls, an increase in the minimum landing size of whiting to 30 cm, and a licensing regime for all fishing boats. Those are some of many measures that should be incorporated in a proper national fishing industry.

I accept that progress on discards and conservation gear should have been made long ago, but if we are to have a sustainable fishing industry, the Government must be supported by the fishermen. The need for a decommissioning scheme is accepted by every sector of the industry and has attracted universal cross-party support from hon. Members with fishing interests. The Government's arguments against such a policy do not stand critical examination and I do not think that Ministers, who should

Column 236

know better, have their heart in their standard and discredited defence of their policy. They know that a decommissioning scheme can be implemented and made to work properly.

I suspect that the eight-day tie-up rule has been advocated by the Government because they do not have anything else to offer to reduce fishing efforts. In the end the scheme may not even work adequately in that sense. At best the regulations are crude, disruptive and of doubtful conservation value. At worst, they endanger lives and boats. Unless there is an adequate fisheries management policy that includes a decommissioning scheme, the industry will continue to stagger from crisis to crisis. I am concerned that this eight-day rule will also create tragedy and grief.

So important is this measure and so great is the cross-party support for it that I offer the Government the support of the official Opposition in a non -partisan effort to construct such a scheme and speed its passage through Parliament. That is a genuine offer for a genuine problem, and I urge the Government to reconsider with extreme urgency their attitude to this matter.

10.14 pm

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. David Curry) : We last debated fisheries on 14 February. I recall that the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) said that she would like to debate these regulations, and as it was St. Valentine's day, it would have been extremely ungallant of me not to accept such a proposition, so we are debating that statutory instrument tonight. However, one would not have thought so from the speech of the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley), which, as he meandered round the entire course of fisheries policies, was indistinguishable from all his previous meanderings.

Several Hon. Members rose--

Mr. Curry : No. The hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe was not interrupted. Mr. Speaker has asked us to be brief and I intend to keep to his injunction.

I want to know why Opposition Members have decided to pray against the gear option. Do they know what they are doing? It is quite curious. The Labour party is running scared in front of the Scottish Nationalists, who prayed against the original order and got a day or two ahead of the Labour party. The Labour party is now trying to catch up.

I am surprised to find the name of the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) on this motion because, of all the ports in the United Kingdom, it was Humberside which wanted the gear option most.

Next Section

Home Page