| Previous Section | Home Page |
Column 936
watch-keeping on merchant ships. Earlier this week, I saw hon. Members, mainly from Scotland, who are concerned about another aspect--the loss of fishing boats in accidents involving submarines. That is extremely worrying, and I hope that, while we concentrate on the financial and conservation aspects, we never lose sight of the dangers that our fishermen face at sea.The debate is primarily a review of the fishing industry in preparation for the Fisheries Council meeting next week. Once again, that is being dominated by the ever-downward pressure on quotas for many species. Looking at this problem from the south-west of England perspective, the aspect that I find most worrying is the pressure on quotas in area VII for plaice and sole.
I pay tribute to the work that the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations does for the industry and in briefing Members of Parliament for debates such as this. Its chief executive estimates, for example, that the proposed cut in quota for flat fish in area VII could reduce the income of the entire European Community fleet by as much as £15 million. If those figures are accurate, a large proportion of that loss of income will be borne by United Kingdom fishermen and in particular fishermen from Cornwall and Devon. The ports of Newlyn and Brixham stand to be hit considerably by such cuts in TACs.
If one measures not TACs but the proposed reductions in quotas, the most startling example is that for plaice in area VIIf and VIIIg. I know that you are familiar, Madam Deputy Speaker, with such technicalities, but just in case you are not, that is the Bristol channel and Celtic sea. That reduction is a startling 27 per cent. Those waters are very important for south-west fishermen and the consequences of such a reduction, if that is what it turns out to be and it is not mitigated by other measures to offset it, would be serious.
That is why I urge my hon. Friend the Minister not just to look closely at those figures but to negotiate strongly on them. Again, I share the view of the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe that many of these proposals are not based on sound scientific advice. To put it mildly, there is room for argument on the views put forward by the scientists. I also press my hon. Friend to try to offset the damage caused by such drastic reductions by arranging swaps with other countries. I see that he is nodding with agreement on that. Another feature of next week's meeting of Fisheries Ministers will be the review of the mackerel box--a matter of great importance to the south-west fishermen. I have always been in favour of the mackerel box, and I played some part, both as a Member of the European Parliament and as a Westminster Member of Parliament, in getting it in place. Dreadful harm was being done to juvenile stocks by the gross overfishing of those waters several years ago. I have always recognised that the box is a blunt instrument. It has certain advantages, but it has disadvantages, and some people have suffered as a result.
The most worrying aspect of the box has been the way in which, unlike some of the boats specialising in pelagic fishery--I am thinking particularly of one example in my constituency--the south-west fishery has been unable to build up a track record, and has therefore found great difficulty in obtaining quotas. The difficulty of obtaining a reasonable quota also applies to the hand liners. My hon. Friend the Minister and his officials have spent many hours on that problem and I thank them for it, but the situation is still worrying.
Column 937
The hand liners pose no threat to fish stocks. Most have small boats going out from the Cornish coast and I hope that some way can be found to ensure that they can continue on a reasonably sound basis. I ask my hon. Friend to look at the matter again.Reference has already been made to the Hague preference. I regarded it as a scandal that the south-west was not granted such preference when the agreement was struck. It was a political deal before the common fisheries policy. I believe that it was the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) who signed that agreement when he was a Foreign Office Minister in the Labour Government. I am not sure whether he foresaw then what the consequences would be for the south-west fishery, but he represents a south -west constituency.
Mr. Salmond : Before the hon. Gentleman gives the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) the credit for the Hague preference, I should tell him that the initiative was taken by Garret FitzGerald, the then Irish Foreign Minister.
Mr. Harris : I was not giving the right hon. Member for Devonport the credit or the blame ; I was simply pointing out that I think--I am open to correction--that he signed the agreement as a Foreign Office Minister. In those days, negotiations with Europe were carried out by the Foreign Office. Thank goodness that that situation has changed. I speak as a former Parliamentary Private Secretary to a Foreign Secretary.
The Hague agreement has done terrible damage to the south-west fishery and its shadow is cast forward in so many ways. If some regions or other countries in the current round of negotiations are given additional quota as a result of the Hague preference, those who stand to lose will be those who do not enjoy that status, and that includes the south-west, even though parts of it are dependent on fishing. Again, the ports of Newlyn and Brixham will be particularly affected, but so will a number of other ports in Cornwall and Devon. I was heartened by what my hon. Friend the Minister said on that, but the Hague preference is a dangerous area.
As the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) said, my hon. Friend the Minister received a delegation--it was meant to be an all-party delegation, but for reasons which we understand, the Liberal Democrats were unable to come along-- [Interruption.] I hear someone say "cheap", but that is no reflection on the hon. Members concerned, one of whom was giving evidence to a Select Committee. I am in no way blaming the Liberal Democrats.
Those of us who did see the Minister were somewhat heartened by what he said. All of us who keep a close eye on the fishing industry have noticed the Government's considerable move away from their previous position ; we all welcome that. The Government are seriously considering decommissioning. However, we all understand that a price will have to be paid if a decommissioning scheme is brought in. Technical measures will not be such a controversial element, but, again, as the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe said, the question of effort control will undoubtedly be a controversial aspect if that forms part of a wider conservation package. Fishermen will rightly need to look with great care at what is being proposed.
Column 938
Sometimes we use euphemisms in the Chamber and perhaps instead of talking about "effort control" we should be talking about "tying up". That, as we know from experience in the north and in Scotland, has been a hot issue. I welcome my hon. Friend the Minister's opposition to a 200 day tying-up proposal. My guess is that we shall probably see moves towards greater tying-up, but I hope there will be greater flexibility. At the moment, the boats in the south-west are not affected and I hope that they will not be, but I hope that when my hon. Friend replies he will confirm that the Commission's proposals apply to the areas which are at present covered.Mr. Curry indicated assent.
Mr. Harris : In conclusion, we all wish my hon. Friend well in the horrendously difficult task that he faces week in week out, month in month out. I hope that there will not be a Division tonight, but I suspect that that is wishful thinking. We need to back him strongly on a united basis as he defends United Kingdom interests in the negotiations next week.
Several Hon. Members rose--
Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd) : Order. If those hon. Members seeking to speak were each to take about 10 to 12 minutes each, it would be possible to call them all in this timed debate.
8.46 pm
Mr. Frank Doran (Aberdeen, South) : I shall endeavour to comply, Madam Deputy Speaker.
I congratulate the Minister, not so much on what he said because there was not much of surprise and much was unwelcome--we have become used to the standard opposition to decommissioning schemes--as on the way in which it was said. I have been involved in about a dozen fishing debates since I entered the House in 1987, and they have all been characterised by bad temper. I appreciated the much more humble tone adopted by the Minister today. He showed much less aggression than he adopted in the corresponding debate last year, when in one fell swoop he alienated the north-east fishing establishment. It is worth emphasising the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) and in the Opposition's amendment, that the Government have no apparent strategy for the fishing industry. That was shown again by the Minister's statement tonight. There was no sign of anything other than crisis management and no sign that the Government had any particular direction in which they wanted to travel.
My particular concern is the fish processing industry, because any decisions made as a result of the negotiations in Europe will affect that industry, of which I heard no mention by the Minister tonight. That reflects the lack of strategy and an apparent lack of concern for the industry, which is certainly felt by the industry. There are 4,500 jobs in fish processing in the Grampian region in 148 businesses, which makes it a significant and important employer, particularly in the rural areas and the smaller communities. They have faced massive problems as a result of the rundown in stocks and the lower TACs. That has given rise to considerable problems, not the least of which was the announcement of the closure of a fish
Column 939
transport business, Charles Alexander and Company, in my constituency, which will result in the loss of about 300 jobs. The problems facing the processing industry are different from those facing the catching industry. At least the fish catching industry has been somewhat compensated, in that, with the shortage of fish, the prices have been higher. It is a simple law of the market. However, someone has had to pay the higher prices, and they have been paid by the fish processing industry.The industry has tried to pass on the price increases to the consumer, but it has not worked. It has been impossible for the industry to recover all the increases that it has had to face. Last week, the Sea Fish Industry Authority produced its first assessment of consumers' response to higher prices. The SFIA carries out a regular survey. It says that the fishing industry is now meeting real consumer resistance to the high price that the consumer is having to pay for the product in supermarkets and fish shops. It is a serious problem, not only because fish, particularly in my part of the country, has been a staple part of the diet for as many years as anybody can remember, but also because it is being forced into the luxury price bracket. Haddock is now more expensive in many areas than prime steak. That is appalling.
The Government ritually suggest that the industry should solve the problem by importing fish. I visited a factory recently, together with my hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson), where we saw the effects of that advice. It is a modern, highly automated factory. It has the best machinery, and it follows good hygiene practices. However, it has been forced to import about 75 per cent. of its fish, most of which comes from Canada and Newfoundland. I do not know what the implications are for the balance of trade, but it is a serious problem for all of us.
Not every fish processing company has the appropriate technology. They do not have the freezing capacity, or the capacity to process and then re- freeze fish. The bulk of the businesses in my area are small, so many of them do not have access to it. For them, such a possibility is unrealistic.
The trends are worrying. The capacity to process fish is being reduced. That happened 10 years ago when herring stocks were so badly devastated that the industry had a nil total allowable catch. The processing capacity was therefore completely lost to the industry. At one time, Aberdeen had a huge herring processing industry, but now it has none. Yesterday I checked the position with the local fish merchants and found that some 12,000 boxes were available in the three main Grampian markets. That was a glut on the market, compared with the usual 5,000 or 6,000 boxes during the summer.
Most of the fish were very small, at the lower end of the market. The majority were unsold because nobody had the capacity to process them. That fish was wasted. It ended up in the fish meal factory rather than on the consumer's plate, where it should have been. We are losing our capacity as a result of the problems faced by the industry. If things go on as they are, we shall be unable to cope with any upturn in the industry, and that will affect many other businesses.
There is great uncertainty about the hygiene regulations. When he winds up I should appreciate it if the
Column 940
Minister would say something to dispel some of the uncertainty. We were told initially that the regulations would come into force in 1992. We have seen drafts ; we know what we shall be required to do. However, it is not clear whether the regulations will be applied with immediate effect or whether they are to be phased in. I hear that there is the possibility of 1995 being the final date for implementation. The industry is very concerned. It faces considerable investment if it is to get itself up to standard to meet the hygiene regulations.Last week, it was announced that just over £2 million in European Community grants is to be made available to fish processors in the Grampian region. That represents about 30 per cent. of the investment that will be necessary by the group of processors who have been lucky enough to win these grants. They will have to provide 65 per cent. of the investment. The Government are providing only 5 per cent. That gives some idea of the scale of the investment that is necessary--some £10 million for a very small group of processors.
It is a tremendous achievement that Grampian regional council, Aberdeen district council, Grampian Enterprise and its predecessor, the Scottish Development Agency, as well as local industry have been able to secure these grants. The industry has planned ahead, mainly through the Aberdeen sea food project, and is in the forefront of technology. At the same time, however, it is faced with this difficult squeeze : the question of supplies, the problem of the price of the product, consumer resistance and the very high levels of investment that are necessary. However, it is struggling through. The industry faces a number of difficulties. One of the major problems is the very strong feeling that it is not allowed to operate on a level playing field. For example, Aberdeen district council is keen to enforce the hygiene regulations. It rigorously enforces the current regulations and wants to do the same with the new regulations. However, the regulations are less rigorously imposed in other parts of the country. I have heard tales of some local authorities that allow fish processing to take place in the open air. That has all sorts of hygiene implications. It means that the processor who does not invest, who takes a backward view of the industry, who does not have the overheads that those who adopt a much more enlightened attitude incur can easily undercut those in my constituency, and others, who have taken on this massive investment burden.
I return to my original point--the lack of a Government strategy for the industry. All that is obvious about the Government's strategy is its absence. Fish is an important and healthy food. It is important to our local and national economies. There is no sign, however, that the Government recognise that fact.
The aims must be very clear to the Government. They are clear to the Opposition. We need to slim down our catching capacity for traditional species. We also need to modernise the processing industry and to market fish once more as an attractive and affordable food. However, the Government seem to have opted out of decision making. They refuse to give a lead over the decommissioning scheme. They seek to push that responsibility on to the fishing industry instead of putting forward a positive scheme of their own. The fragile sensibilities of the Secretary of State for Scotland and his embarrassment over the previous scheme are much more important to him than the future of the
Column 941
fishing industry. His actions have affected the election results. Before the 1983 election the Conservative party held five out of six seats in Grampian. The most recent by-election has resulted in the Conservative party holding no seats in the Grampian region. The tragedy is thatMr. Wilson : --it has no more to lose.
Mr. Doran : Certainly. It has more seats to lose in other parts of the country, but I take my hon. Friend's point.
The tragedy is that the industry is paying the price for this Government's incompetence.
8.58 pm
Mr. Neville Trotter (Tynemouth) : It is interesting to reflect, particularly today, that we are considering an industry that is more controlled by Europe than perhaps any other. It is hardly an example of a well-managed industry. I appreciate the problems. It is sometimes difficult to achieve international co-operation--even at times between Scotland and England. Something as complex as the fishing industry is bound to present difficulties. There is some good news, with the best haddock stocks for 12 years. That shows what has been achieved with a restriction of effort in the past.
A 200 day tie-up would be disastrous. I was encouraged to hear my hon. Friend the Minister suggest that that was simply an opening gambit in Brussels. It would be quite unacceptable to go for such a tie-up. I do not regard tie-up as a solution. It is a ridiculous misuse of assets to have capital tied up in a boat that is not being used. The answer must be to bring the capacity of the fleet into line with the stocks available.
Like the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) I welcomed the way in which my hon. Friend the Minister met myself and colleagues from both sides of the House and showed that he does not have a closed mind on decommissioning. I accept that decommissioning is not in itself a solution, but it is an essential part of a package to deal with the serious problem facing the industry. I was encouraged by my hon. Friend's remarks on that occasion and I believe that we shall see such a scheme introduced in due course. I should like to deal with some technical points. The twin trawl rig is highly detrimental to the stocks of prawns on the north-east coast of England and I hope that we shall see a ban on that. It is self-evident that there is a need for a one-net rule, as the opportunities for cheating and the difficulties of enforcement are obvious. I am told that there is now a device for heat sealing around the knots of larger mesh nets which reduces their aperture. Apparently, that is legal, but I suggest that it needs attention. Some people in the fishing industry are concerned solely with the short term and, with the financial pressures upon them, they have no regard to the future and will take whatever they can. That could result in black landings, to which Opposition Members have referred. Most fishermen are sensible people. They think of the future and have sons to follow them. They wish to see stocks preserved. It is important that the restrictions put before them are acceptable. That is the key to the success of whatever proposals we make.
The point about sons following their fathers leads me on to the future of the north coast commercial salmon fishery. It is a traditional industry that goes back at least 100 years. The first record of licensing that I can find
Column 942
occurred in 1867. That industry is now threatened with being phased out, with no new licences being granted and fathers no longer being able to hand on their licences to their sons.I have read the report on the review of salmon fishing. It is a thick document of well over 100 pages. However, having read it from cover to cover, I have found no scientific evidence to support the proposals being made by Ministers. Those proposals are of great consequence to local fishing on the north-east coast of England. It will have consequences far beyond the catch of salmon. The pattern of fishing on the north-east coast is one of intermingling of fishing from season to season. The refusal to allow salmon fishing would have a detrimental effect on the livelihood of many people who are traditionally dependent on that industry.
It is hard to explain why there is no proposal for a similar phasing out of the Scottish commercial fishery. I know that that has been reduced and that the fishery has been bought out to some extent. Why is there commercial buying out of fisheries in Scotland, but no similar proposal in England?
Mr. Bill Walker : Drift netting in Scotland has been banned for years.
Mr. Trotter : I know that, but there are other methods of commercial fishing. On the Tay, which is the local river of my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker), over 75 per cent. of salmon are caught by commercial fishermen and only 25 per cent. are caught by anglers. If anything is to be done to deal with commercial fishing, my hon. Friend should start by looking on his doorstep at his local river and not down the coast at us.
Mr. Walker : While my hon. Friend is being so complimentary, he might say who stocks the river with salmon.
Mr. Trotter : I am not sure whether some of the 250,000 salmon that are put into the Tyne eventually find their way into the Tay. I am not sufficiently au fait with the migratory habits of that fish. The salmon is not a factory product ; it depends on nature. The research that I have seen shows that the climate, the problems of temperature and the movement of natural foodstocks in the sea are important factors in deciding the quantity of salmon available. I have referred to stocking on the Tyne. I am not sure to what extent that method is followed in other rivers. It seems an excellent idea that all rivers where there is angling should be required to produce their own stocks in the way that we do. It is fallacious to suggest that reducing commercial fishing would necessarily increase the number of young salmon breeding on the rivers. If the river is already sufficiently stocked, that will not increase its stock because there is only a certain amount of breeding material available in the natural environment. Therefore, however many more mature fish come into the river, that will not lead to a significant increase in the number of young fish. The subject is complex, but I do not believe that there is evidence in the report from which the conclusion can be drawn that commercial fishing should be phased out.
Other major issues affecting salmon have not been referred to, such as the effect of seals. It is said that each seal eats two tonnes of fish a year. I do not suppose that seals eat only salmon, but in the north-east of England
Column 943
many of their meals are salmon. Why is it not being suggested that something should be done to prevent this misuse of salmon? I suppose that if a fish is caught by an angler or a commercial fisherman, at least it is a good human use, but that cannot be said of the fish that are wasted in the stomachs of seals.The report does not mention poaching. It is suggested by other sources that poaching on some rivers in Scotland is higher than their total declared catch. What is being done about that?
Mr. Wilson : That is an interesting point, but there is more than one kind of poacher. Does the hon. Gentleman share my view that it is absurd that there is no legal obligation on the owners of rivers to declare their catches, far less to declare them accurately, to the Scottish Office?
Mr. Trotter : I was intrigued to find that more than 3,000 tickets were issued to anglers on one river, but not one catch was recorded. They must have been pretty inefficient fishermen. I take the hon. Gentleman's point, which he made well.
One of the effects of a licensed industry off our coast is an effective system of policing. The National Rivers Authority's boats regularly patrol the coast, but there is no better policeman than the fisherman, who will report any infringement. We have far less poaching in our area than is to be found in other areas.
The industry is closely controlled, well managed and limited. There are restrictions on weekends, on hours and days and on night-time fishing and the number of licences has been significantly reduced. It is interesting that netting does not start until May, unlike angling, which starts in February. Angling goes on while the spawning season is at its height, whereas netting does not start until the spawning season is over. That point should be considered by the inquiry. The effects of north coast fishing on the Scottish catch is estimated to be only 7 per cent. In other words, if there were no netting off the north-east coast of England, there would be an increase of 7 per cent. in salmon in Scotland, which is not a significant increase. The argument about who has the best right to the salmon is interesting. Why should an angler have a better right to catch it than a commercial fisherman ? The salmon is dead whoever catches it. I cannot agree that it is better that the salmon should be caught in one way rather than the other, and the effects on Scottish rivers are in any case insignificant.
Much could be done to improve stocks. River quality could be improved, obstacles could be removed from rivers, more fish could be inserted from local breeding, effective limits could be placed on poaching and commercial fishing at the mouths of Scottish rivers could be reduced, in the same way as is mistakenly proposed for my area. The National Rivers Authority has been asked to phase out the industry over a period of years. The authority should carry out its own research and reach its own conclusions on the basis of its own judgment. I hope that it will take that advice.
I ask my hon. Friend whether he can clarify the position for next year. It is physically and practically impossible to start phasing out by them. I do not want a phasing out and I hope that we shall resist it successfully. Will my hon. Friend assure me that a net limitation order will be
Column 944
introduced for next year so that there can be some understanding as soon as possible about what the position will be ? I suggest that there should be a delay of perhaps five years while the NRA produces its own evidence and arrives at its own conclusion.9.9 pm
Mr. James Wallace (Orkney and Shetland) : As the Parliamentary Secretary suggested, the nature of these debates is that we rightly consider the impact of European Community proposals on various fishing communities around our coast. The hon. Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Trotter), although talking about measures that did not arise out of the EC documents, raised an important issue for the north of England. The hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris) rightly drew attention to the difficulties that fishermen in his area have had in trying to encourage the Government to give more help to the hand-line fishermen. My hon. Friend the Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor) has bent my ear about that issue and he has pointed out that it is a conservation-friendly method which probably deserves greater support from the Government.
Various total allowable catches are subjects for discussion this evening. We welcomed the fact that, in several respects, the Parliamentary Secretary said that he and his colleagues would go to Brussels to try to negotiate improvements. I draw his attention especially to the TACs for cod, haddock, whiting and saithe in the west of Scotland where there appears to be increasing pressure to reduce the TACs. Some emphasis must be given to an increase in those TACs
The nephrops TAC in the North sea, if it is to be introduced at all, would be better applied on a geographically sectoral basis rather than as a TAC for the whole of the North sea. For the channel stocks of cod and whiting, there is a proposed reduction in an essentially precautionary TAC. The industry would very much welcome efforts made at this stage to increase that to the 1991 levels so that it does not face again the problem of recent years when Ministers have had to go back for a half-yearly review.
Many hon. Members have expressed considerable alarm and concern about the proposal that there should be what is effectively a 200 day tie-up. The hon. Member for St. Ives euphemistically referred to it as effort limitation. I welcomed the fact that the Minister said that the Government would not accept the proposal and that they would negotiate it downwards at the Council of Ministers meeting next week.
As the hon. Member for Tynemouth said, it is perfectly clear that the proposal would tie up working capital for a substantial part of the year. It would be almost impossible for anyone to suggest such a proposal for any other industry. It is a staggering proposal, especially as many of the fishermen concerned have laid out or borrowed substantial sums to invest in their boats and in their gear. They need adequate opportunities to fish if they are to be able to meet their financial commitments. There will have to be rigorous negotiations. We look to Ministers to show as much enthusiasm in negotiating against the proposal as the Prime Minister showed in negotiating against the social chapter yesterday at Maastricht. Ministers can put forward several arguments. The scientific evidence suggests that this year's tie-up of eight days for each of 11 months--88 days in total-- was not
Column 945
especially effective in conservation. An increase in the TAC for North sea haddock is proposed for 1992 and that may suggest that there is less need for a tie-up in 1992 than there has been in 1991. We also have a compulsory 90 mm square mesh--it has been unilaterally imposed by the United Kingdom since July. From the middle of next year, the minimum mesh size will be 100 mm. Those limits are imposed in an effort to reduce landings of small cod and haddock.One hopes that that will lead to an improvement in stocks. It reinforces the argument that there will be less need for effort limitation in the forthcoming year. There are arguments that Ministers can marshall on the subject--we wish them every success in trying to negotiate against the proposal.
If we are realistic it may dawn on us that some measure of effort limitation in the final package is inevitable, and that we must face the idea of a gear option. I realise that that idea is not universally popular in the industry, but the precedent for a gear option was set in 1991.
If we wish to divert activity away from the traditional north seas fisheries of cod and haddock to new species--for example, monkfish, ling and redfish--a gear option would allow such diversification, while putting less strain on the North sea species whose stocks are pressurised.
In developing alternative fisheries, much will have to be done to develop a market for new species--to encourage consumer demand for them. Ultimately, that would lead to greater consumer choice, but marketing will be necessary to introduce the new species ; furthermore, there will be an incentive for fishermen to use larger mesh sizes if they are allowed a derogation from any tie-up rules. Perhaps the strongest opposition to a gear option has come from the Scottish White Fish Producers Organisation. If that organisation said that it was against the option because it did not want a loophole in the law, I would agree. It would be wrong, and would defeat the purpose of allowing a gear option, if it was intended simply to provide a loophole, but I know that in some cases south of the border this year, as a result of the gear option there have been landings of larger sizes in certain categories and classes of fish. That seems to suggest that in 1991 the gear option has had at least some effect. If the Commission and the Government propose a concession, it is not unreasonable to attach strings to it to ensure that it is not a loophole but a genuine means of conservation. It could be tied to higher minimum landing sizes, or we could insist that vessels undertaking the option may be allowed to land only certain class sizes of haddock and cod.
I welcome the Minister's reassurance about his intention to negotiate against the 200 day tie-up. Perhaps the Minister of State, Scottish Office could say more about the Government's position on gear options when he replies.
This is an opportunity to examine the technical conservation measures suggested and implemented at the Council of Ministers meeting in October. The 100 mm mesh size has attracted considerable criticism. There is disapointment that in the negotiations it was not possible to incorporate into the EC requirements any reference to square mesh panels. Many people who at the outset were sceptical about their use have found that the trials have proved them to be an effective means of eliminating the smaller fish.
Column 946
Hon. Members on both sides of the House agree that one sure way of assisting conservation is to reduce the number of discards. The wastefulness of discards strikes all of us. We do not claim that the square mesh panel is the ultimate solution, but those who have used and tested it agree that it can make a worthwhile contribution. It would perhaps have been useful to have had the option of the 100 mm diamond and the 90 mm square mesh panel. I hope that the Government have not lost sight of that and will be prepared to argue for it in future.Linked to the proposals put forward in October, there has been considerable dismay about the derogation for the whiting fishery. Many people feel that it is unenforceable to have a separate 90 mm mesh size for whiting as long as one does not have a one-net rule. The arrangements are open to abuse, as is widely recognised. I accept, however, that some communities depend heavily on a whiting fishery. If there is to be a derogation on net size, it should perhaps be linked to size of vessel--for example, one might specify vessels of under 400. That would give greater control than the proposal on the table.
It has been said in every fisheries debate in the past three or four years that everything comes back to why the Government have not introduced a decommissioning system. It can be argued with considerable force that the debates that we had last year on the eight day tie-up and the debates this year on the proposed 200 day tie-up would not have taken place--and certainly would not have engendered the same passion and anger in the industry--if, two or three years ago, the Government had grasped the nettle and introduced a well-targeted and well-funded decommissioning scheme.
The hon. Member for Tynemouth blamed the European Community for much of the crisis in the European fishing industry. It is fair to say that, in this case, the EC has made available the funds to finance a decommissioning scheme : it is the British Government who have not been prepared to take advantage of that scheme and implement it for our United Kingdom fishermen. Instead of a permanent reduction in the size and capacity of the fleet, we have had what might be termed a temporary reduction through various ad hoc tie-up schemes. That cannot be good for the long-term stability of the fleet and, in many cases, leads to working capital being tied up in a most unacceptable way.
We have heard the argument again tonight that decommissioning would not enhance conservation, but one argument in favour of decommissioning is that those who are left in the industry have a better opportunity to make a worthwhile living. That fact should not be overlooked. With decommissioning, one is not--as is the case with the eight day tie-up rule- -forcing people to go out and fish in circumstances that are often hazardous and constitute a danger to their well-being.
As has already been hinted in the debate, many of us feel that the blind spot really lies with the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, who had his fingers burnt when the last decommissioning scheme was introduced and was rapped on the knuckles by the Public Accounts Committee. It should not be forgotten, however, that, in its report, the PAC did not dismiss decommissioning schemes altogether--it merely dismissed that introduced by the right hon. Gentleman. I hope that he will be able to overcome that inhibition.
One can only speculate, but it would appear that the right hon. Gentleman alone is the block on the road to a
Column 947
decommissioning scheme, which is widely recognised throughout the industry and on both sides of the House as necessary. On more than one occasion, the fishing industry has indicated its willingness to sit down with the Government to discuss how such a scheme might be targeted. I hope that, in the new year, the Government will take up the industry's offer. If the lead Ministry had been the Scottish Office rather than the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, that might have happened.We are all very conscious that the 1992 review is upon us. It may well be concluded during the British presidency of the Community in the second half of next year. This is the first fisheries debate since the sad death of Alick Buchanan-Smith, who always made a valuable contribution to such debates. In the Scottish Grand Committee on 13 July 1989, he said that he began
"to wonder, where the preponderance of the industry is north of the border, whether, in the same way as forestry, the Secretary of State for Scotland ought not to consider taking the lead."--[ Official Report, Scottish Grand Committee, 13 July 1989 ; c. 62-63.] That was a considered view from someone who had held office in MAFF and was part of the negotiations in respect of the common fisheries policy in 1983. The Government should take that view to heart. Having said that, I want to compliment the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) on the conciliatory way in which he opened the debate. Obviously a lesson has been learnt from previous occasions. I place on record my thanks to him for the vigour with which he pursued the minimum import price for farmed salmon after representations from me and my constituents in September. That may not be the complete answer, but the move was welcome. I am aware of the vigour with which the Minister pursued that policy.
Continuing this congratulatory vein, in respect of the pelagic side and the negotiations with Norway on mackerel, it appears that the year-by-year encroachment of the Norwegians into the share of North sea mackerel has been halted. Perhaps that can form the basis for a longer-term arrangement on mackerel.
As Norway has agreed to flexibility west of 4 deg west, I hope, as in previous years, that the Minister will be able to negotiate that flexibility with the Council, perhaps up to the 62,000 tonnes allowed. The decision taken earlier this year to allow 45,000 tonnes of mackerel to be klondyked in Lerwick has benefited my constituents. I have pressed for that, together with the local industry, for some time and I give credit where credit is due.
While I am prepared to offer congratulations this evening, real congratulations would be in order when a Minister announces at the Dispatch Box that at long last the Government have seen sense and are prepared to embark on a decommissioning scheme for the fishing industry.
9.26 pm
Mr. John Townend (Bridlington) : The suggestion of the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) that the Scottish Office should have more influence on fishing policy will not be welcomed by English fishermen. The feeling is that the Scots have had too big a slice of the cake so far.
Column 948
The fishermen of Bridlington are dependent on one species--North sea cod. The fisherman's lot is not a happy one. The common fisheries policy has been a complete failure. It has been a disaster for the country, for the fishing industry and for conservation. Those Opposition Members who talk about increasing EC competence should consider carefully the record of the fishing industry.For 15 years the industry has had its fishing restricted by quotas which were supposedly based on scientific evidence. If the policy had worked, we should have been able progressively to increase those quotas and stocks should have increased. The reverse has happened. Stocks have grown smaller and quotas have been reduced progressively year after year.
If quotas worked and were an effective way of conserving stocks, why must we consider tying up boats? For a long time the industry has claimed that quotas are inefficient because of the effect of discards and because many foreign Governments do not ensure that their fishermen abide by the quotas. I have to say that some fishermen in the United Kingdom do not always abide by those quotas.
As a method of management, we do not need quotas ; we need effective conservation. The Bridlington fishermen have for many years been calling for smaller mesh sizes. At long last we have a 100 mm mesh size, but that is too little, too late. Even now, it is left to Britain unilaterally to require square mesh panels to be fitted to certain nets. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Trotter) that a one-net rule is long overdue.
Industrial fishing should be banned completely. I cannot understand why the Community has never agreed to banning fishing in breeding grounds while the fish are spawning. I was pleased to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth refer to seals in connection with Scotch salmon. It is a fact that seals eat an enormous amount of fish. The Norwegians are worried about the effect of seals on their fish stocks in the Baring sea. We should seriously consider reducing the number of seals in the North sea.
Regrettably, the EEC is still concentrating on restricting fishing rather than on conserving fish. I agree with hon. Members of all parties who have said that the current proposal to force boats to tie up for 200 days a year is ridiculous. How can any business survive if it does not use its capital assets for more than half the year? If a factory owner was required to do that, the receivers would be in before one would have a chance to say Jack Robinson
Mr. Harris : Or Robert Maxwell.
Although we have had some reassurance from the Minister, this proposal is made worse because there is no specific provision for the gear option. I am pleased that the Government have said that they will oppose those proposals, but I fear that we face the same prospect as last year of having our ships tied up.
The Government must also fight to keep the total allowable catch for cod above the Hague preference in the interests of English fishermen. I agree with the suggestion that the Government should stop our annual gift of 400 tonnes of cod a year to the Danes. I know that we get a swap--I believe that we receive haddock in return-- [Interruption.] Well, I am told by my fishermen that we
Column 949
do, but the benefit of the haddock goes to the Scots. If we had not given away those 400 tonnes this year, the fishermen of Bridlington would probably have been able to fish until the end of the year. My next question to the Minister again reveals the nonsense of the EEC's fisheries policy. I refer to the case of the Spanish trawlers which we lost in the European Court. Their actions have been confirmed as legal, but the court's decision undermined the Merchant Shipping Act 1988, which was passed by this House specifically to protect British fishermen. I presume that what the Spanish are doing, the French, Italians and Portuguese could do also. I should be grateful if the Minister would tell the House what he intends to do about that serious and appalling threat to the British fishing industry.I should like to add my thanks to those of my colleagues for the efforts of the Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry). Throughout his period of office, he has taken more cognisance of the interests of English fishermen than any other Minister for some years. Since the decline of the Humber ports, the English fishing industry has been the poor relation of the fishing industry. The interests of the Scots fishermen tend to be given preference. Therefore, we welcome my hon. Friend's support, and long may it continue.
I am also pleased that the Government are now seriously considering decommissioning grants. I believe them when they say that. That is important. My fishermen also feel that boats of less than 10 m should be licensed. I am pleased to learn that the Government are paying serious attention to that matter also.
I began by saying that a fisherman's lot is not a happy one. We must pay serious consideration to the future of our fishing industry. It is not unfair for our fishermen to comment on the amount of help that farming receives. Farming and fisheries are looked after by the same Ministry. The industry is suffering and fishermen deserve more consideration than they are getting relative to farmers.
9.34 pm
| Next Section
| Home Page |