House of Commons Hansard Debates for 11 Dec 1991

Mr. Calum Macdonald (Western Isles) : I was disappointed that the Parliamentary Secretary did not refer to the shellfish ban that hit the Scottish industry over the weekend. Although it was lifted after only a day, the ban sent a nasty shiver down the spine of the industry in Scotland. It could have had devastating implications if it had remained in place. I hope that we shall hear something about it in the reply to the debate.

The ban is over, but it generated much bad publicity. We need to know urgently what lay behind it. Where did the confusion arise? Was it in Brussels or at the Scottish Office? We need answers from the Department. It reinforces the call made repeatedly by my hon. Friend the Member for Cunningham, North (Mr. Wilson) for monitoring to be tightened. The ban should be a lesson to us.

My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Doran) mentioned the impact of the hygiene regulations on processors throughout Scotland. The regulations emanate not just from the Community but from national legislation. The Government's food hygiene regulations have potential consequences, particularly for small processors who will have to spend much money to bring their facilities up to the required standards.

Column 950

The regulations particularly affect small processors on the west coast. Their smallness of scale does not exempt them from any of the regulations, because, generally, their business is export- oriented. I understand that Highlands and Islands Enterprise is undertaking a survey of the processing industry to find out the full financial impact. I hope that, when that survey is completed, the Scottish Office will come forward with the assistance and funding which will be required by smaller processors who are already under-capitalised. They will need help to get them through the transition period into the new conditions set by the much more stringent hygiene regulations.

On the west coast there has been a failure over the years to add to the value of the primary product--the fish caught off the coast. It is crucial to maintain the processing outlets and the facilities that we already have if the communities there are to derive full benefit from the natural resources that lie on their doorstep.

The development of the fishery industry on the west coast is vital for a region that has few other resources and sources of income. The local authority in my constituency has recently suffered the devastating impact of the collapse of BCCI, which will affect the economy of the whole area. It makes it all the more important that we maximise the value of those few industries, such as fishing, which are already there.

A recent report by the Fraser of Allander Institute, commissioned by the Western Isles council and partly financed by the Scottish Office, stressed the future potential of west coast fisheries, especially those further off the west coast of the Hebrides. It is vital that communities on the west coast should be capable of taking advantage of that potential. A number of measures have to be put in place if that is to happen.

The west coast fleet has to be renovated--it is aging, and the fishing community generally lacks the capital resources which would enable it to renovate the fleet by itself. One of the consequences of the Government's failure to tackle the gross over-tonnage in the United Kingdom fishing industry is that the opportunity to renovate the west coast fleet has been missed.

The European Community identified the west coast as a vital area for the provision of such support and was prepared to give preferential support to the west coast fishing industries. That support has dried up because of the Government's failure to establish control over the size of the United Kingdom fleet. Wherever else the overcapacity in the United Kingdom fishing fleet, it is surely not on the west coast. Therefore, it is unjust that the west coast should have been caught up in the problem in that way.

The west coast has a strong interest in the Government's introducing, as a matter of urgency, a decommissioning scheme, which will help to reduce the over-tonnage and thus begin to release funds for the desperately needed renovation of the industry on the west coast. If the decommissioning scheme is not to compound the way in which the west coast has been caught up in the problem, it must be finely targeted to ensure that larger, and not smaller, ships come out of the United Kingdom fleet.

Another plank in the development of the west coast industry has to be a comprehensive programme to develop infrastructure there, especially pier infrastructure. The examples of Kallin and Berneray in my constituency, which have received funding--especially from the

Column 951

Community--in the recent past, show what can be done with proper pier development. The piers have provided a shot in the arm for the fishing industry in those areas. The same could happen throughout the Western Isles, provided the Scottish Office was prepared to put its weight behind that sort of infrastructure programme.

The Western Isles council has already made a submission to the Scottish Office, asking for specific help to develop at least four new piers in the Hebrides. That is exactly the type of programme that the Scottish Office should urgently consider, especially in the context of the troubles which are affecting the Hebrides economy because of the collapse of the Bank of Credit and Commerce International.

Funding is also urgently needed to develop the processing sector on the west coast, especially in the Hebrides. If the islands and fishing communities are to derive maximum benefit from the natural resources on their doorstep, they must be able to add more value to the product.

Neither an infrastructure programme, nor the renovation of the fleet will be effective unless there are fish to be caught. Therefore the third, and perhaps the most important, element of a development strategy must be timely conservation measures.

I welcome the new consultation document on shellfish issued by the Scottish Office. Once the consultations have been concluded, I urge the Minister to act quickly on the recommendations. I particularly favour the concept of a ban on twin rig trawling on the west coast, and increasing minimum landing sizes, both of which would find favour among fishermen on the west coast.

However, I am disappointed that the consultation document did not put sufficient emphasis on the possibility of a weekend ban. I urge the Scottish Office yet again to consider that, because a weekend ban would be effective, would be supported by all fishermen on the west coast and would cost no money to introduce or enforce. A further potential advantage would be to help solve some of the problems caused by submarine activity on the west coast, which is causing the Ministry of Defence such a headache, as well as being a hazard to fishermen working off the west coast. A weekend ban may allow some submarine activity to be targeted into weekends, thereby avoiding conflict and collisions.

With the prospect of a 200 day tie-up and a massive shift of shipping effort from the east to the west coast, the need for conservation measures on the west coast becomes all the greater. I urge the Scottish Office to look again at the case for a weekend ban, to listen to the ideas put forward by the industry, and to introduce a ban as quickly as possible.

9.46 pm

Mr. David Porter (Waveney) : Although things change in fishing, as in any other industry, I feel that we are travelling familiar waters tonight. We are gathered here a little before Christmas to perform our annual fishing industry pre-ministerial Council season's service--that litany of woe from every corner of the kingdom--telling of sad tidings of discomfort and no joy in the industry. In

Column 952

fact, the position is not as bad as in the recent past, but we are still not there yet, because there is no question but that any extra cuts in quotas must mean hardship.

I suspect that we all know our lines--we have heard several of them repeated tonight--and, like a pantomime by a well-loved local drama group, we fishing industry Members of Parliament will perform well in this packed House. I am sorry that that old favourite, the very nauseating tie usually worn by the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell), is not with us, although the hon. Gentleman has just arrived. The band of bleating chorus from Scotland is present, with its regular melody, played on the strings of our hearts, about how bad things are north of the border. It gives Conservative Members the occasional chance to shout a seasonal "humbug" or two.

All may be well in the Chamber because we are on familiar ground, but outside in the real world of fish markets and the North sea, all is not fully well. For the past year or so, all hon. Members except my hon. Friends on the Front Bench have sung from the same hymn book about decommissioning. This year, I am delighted that my hon. Friends have at least found the same page of the hymn book.

In Lowestoft and elsewhere, the industry wants a voluntary decommissioning scheme. Those who choose to risk their lives earning a living at sea do not want to be forced to give up, but they are realists and they do not want to go bankrupt either. They want an effective, properly policed scheme for the whole industry which compensates enough to pay off debts and is still worth while. Equally, nobody to whom I have spoken thinks that decommissioning is a magic wand. We have all mouthed the phrase, "It must be part of a package of conservation measures." Let us remember that everything for which we legislate is for worse cases and blanket rules. There are enormous regional differences in the fishing industry and they must be recognised. So we should extend licensing and do all that is necessary to reduce the fleet enough to start to modernise it before it is too late.

There have been some welcome additions to the Lowestoft fleet. It is a supreme act of faith by Colne Shipping of Lowestoft, but the additional boats are secondhand rather than new-built. The safety implications of an aging English fleet are frightening. A 200 day tie-up, even when fishermen can take the days when they want, totally ignores the issue of how they are supposed to live and make all that investment worth while. Therefore, I wish my hon. Friend well in reducing the 200-day period.

The horse trading, or rather fish trading, that takes place at the Council meetings and other times--the talks with EFTA and the quota swaps--are all very well and sometimes seem to work to our advantage. The EFTA deal, which includes extra tonnage of north-east arctic cod, seems to do so, but there is a fear that, when the common fisheries policy comes up for review and renewal, the wheeling and dealing over fish then will make Maastricht this week look like a teddy bears' picnic. The fear is that we as a country in general, and Lowestoft in particular, will lose on quota swaps, as my hon. Friend the Minister acknowledged.

The package that the Fisheries Ministers will hammer out next week is just one more step on the way to that review. Perhaps next year or the year after we shall consider abandoning minimum sizes, landing everything and taking everything off catch quotas for each boat in

Column 953

order to abolish discards. Each boat would then be licensed by horsepower for a set number of days at sea based on a three-year track record.

Perhaps next year we shall discuss flagship problems and decide that each boat must belong to a producers' or other organisation, which is then allocated a quota from the United Kingdom TAC. That would mean, to quote one of my fishermen who suggested the proposal, "Johnny foreigner cannot get any more of our British quota." Perhaps we shall be saying that Brussels should operate a scrapping scheme, with Her Majesty's Government as local agents.

We cannot know what we shall be discussing next year or the year after at this time. However, we know that tonight's motion, which has produced some disappointingly negative amendments from the Opposition, should be approved to give my hon. Friend the Minister a good send-off to Brussels, with the motion ringing in his ears. Whether we should send him off with a shove in his rear and a pair of boxed ears does not matter. He knows that he has to return with a deal, a scheme, a package that treats the scientific advice seriously but can also be swallowed by the industry. It must be even-handed in the way in which it reduces effort, understandable, believeable and flexible enough to be realistic.

I know that that is a tall order, but my hon. Friend the Minister knows that, whatever he returns with from Brussels, on 1 January the fishing industry--with its quotas, effort curbs, mesh reductions, days at sea, inspections, boardings, paperwork, Health and Safety Executive rules, fuel bills, interest rates and mortgages to meet--will still be the most regulated industry in this country. In addition, it has to cope with a basic shortage of fish. It is even more regulated than the nuclear industry, at a time when all that fishermen want to do, and all that they ask to do, is catch and sell fish. I wish my hon. Friend the Minister good luck next week. 9.53 pm

Mr. John D. Taylor (Strangford) : This is always an important debate, coming as it does a week or so before the Fisheries Council meeting in Brussels. I speak on behalf of the fishermen at Portavogie in my constituency. Northern Ireland has a sizeable fishing industry that employs over 2,500 people--more than 1,000 on the boats and 1,000 in the processing plants. There are nearly 250 boats in the three harbours of Portavogie, Ardglass and Kilkeel. The industry is worth about £25 million to our rural economy. I stress that it is a "rural" economy as there are few alternatives for employment in the regions of the fishing ports.

Earlier the Minister mentioned the deaths that have occurred in the fishing industry during the past year. We in the Ulster Unionist party agree with what he said. While on the subject of fatalities in the fishing industry, I mention the problem of submarines, which has attracted the attention of many of our Scottish colleagues in the House. There have been gestures towards solving the problem in the Clyde. We in Northern Ireland want the problem in the Irish sea to be tackled. It is not sufficient to stop at the Clyde as the problem exists in the Irish sea. There has been contact between our fishing boats and--if one may use the word these days--Soviet, American and our own Royal Navy submarines.

Column 954

Quotas are hurtful. When I participated in this debate a year ago I stressed that quotas in 1991 would be disastrous for the Northern Ireland fishing industry--regrettably, that has proved absolutely true. However, fishermen are responsible. I have had recent meetings with my fishermen in Portavogie and they certainly accept the need for quotas, as long as they are reasonable and based on the real situation in the waters. Sometimes they find that their views are totally at variance with scientific evidence upon which the quotas have been decided.

This year, as a result of the quotas, there has been a decline in the tonnage landed in Northern Ireland and the value of the fish. There was even a fall in the price of nephrops because boats from other areas began to concentrate on catching nephrops and transferred from their previous catch. That created greater competition for our fishing industry whose main catch is nephrops. We accept that the fleet must be reduced, but it must be assisted to reduce. I was pleased to hear the Minister say that he was concerned at the effect of last year's quotas and the introduction of the Hague preference on the Northern Ireland fishing industry. On behalf of Northern Ireland's fishermen, may I say that we respect what he said in that context? The Hague preference worked badly against Northern Ireland fishermen. I heard it explained in the debate that the Hague preference was introduced by Mr. Garret FitzGerald. That means that we dislike it even more in Northern Ireland and now realise why it worked so much to the advantage of southern Irish fishermen during 1991.

It is important to note how that preference worked. The Republic of Ireland was given a cod quota of 5,450 tonnes and used only 1,500 tonnes. Its quota for whiting was 4,700 tonnes and it used only 1,600 tonnes. The same applied to nephrops, which, as I said, are very important for Northern Ireland. The Republic of Ireland got a much bigger quota than it needed and kindly transferred tonnes to Northern Ireland. When we were running out of our quota in October, some of us wrote to the Minister for the Marine, Mr. John Wilson, in Dublin and I subsequently spoke to him on the telephone. As a result of those representations, the Republic of Ireland swapped 400 tones of its nephrops quota to Northern Ireland fishermen. That was equivalent to a month's work in Northern Ireland and we greatly appreciate that gesture by Dublin. That is what we want to see in the island of Ireland--co-operation, not interference.

We in Northern Ireland are already worried about the 1992 quotas, because the quota for cod is 10,000 tonnes, the quantity that we were allocated for 1991. There is no change at present. For whiting, the news is even worse. We are being offered 9,300 tonnes, a drop of 300 tonnes. The quota for plaice is 3,000 tonnes, a drop of 1,500 tonnes. If the quotas for 1991 were disastrous, those proposed for 1992 are criminal for Portavogie, Ardglass and Kilkeel. I have met fishermen in Portavogie who had to sell their boats this year. I have met others who could not pay their mortgages and had their houses repossessed. I had to help them move from their houses into rented accommodation. That is the sort of situation that is developing in our fishing areas.

I know from what the Minister said that he has taken on board the problem in Northern Ireland. I hope that,

Column 955

when he goes to Brussels, he will be successful in getting the suggested quotas increased for 1992 for area VIIa in the Irish sea which affects Northern Ireland fishermen.

I see that the Minister of State, Scottish Office, is beside the Minister on the Treasury Bench. It is a pity that once again there is no Northern Ireland Minister there. Are we to have yet another year during which the United Kingdom delegation to Brussels will have no Northern Ireland Office Minister representing us? How are we to have our view fully represented in Brussels if Northern Ireland Ministers do not take enough interest to be present in debates on fisheries and will not attend this quite important meeting in Brussels to decide the quotas for the coming year?

I have four small points about nephrops, which are our main catch in Northern Ireland. First, we want a ban on twin rig trawlers. We have had a consultation paper about the future of the nephrops fishery. I agree with much that was said by the hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald), but the ban must be introduced as quickly as possible. Secondly, like him, many of the fishermen in Portavogie would give sympathetic and favourable consideration to a weekend closure for the nephrops fisheries.

Thirdly, we want a decommissioning scheme. That is one way forward and the Ulster Unionist party will be joining Her Majesty's official Opposition in the Lobby on that point. We need such a scheme to be introduced throughout the fishing industry in the United Kingdom. I am glad that, in the past six months, the Minister has made it clear that he no longer has a closed mind on the subject.

Finally, I make an appeal to the absent Minister with responsibility for fisheries in Northern Ireland. There is a new European Community scheme for rural areas, called the leader scheme, the purpose of which is to stimulate a Community-driven rural development programme in agricultural areas that are in decline. I should like to see some of the £4 million that has been allocated for the leader initiative used in Northern Ireland, not just where farming is in decline, but, by extending the scheme, to set up a pilot scheme for the fisheries industry. Naturally, I would recommend that the small town of Portavogie, where the fishing industry is in decline, be used as the centre for a trial of whether we can further inspire community development and create jobs in such an area. Several Hon. Members rose--

Mr. Speaker : Order. It may help the House if I say that I understand that the first Front-Bench spokesman wishes to rise at 10.20 pm, so five-minute speeches would enable all hon. Members who wish to speak to do so.

10.1 pm

Mr. Keith Mans (Wyre) : Over the past year, fishing in the Irish sea has not been good. My port at Fleetwood has suffered quota restrictions, tie-ups and swaps. Most significant of all, it has suffered from over- fishing of some of the juvenile stock, within the 12-mile limit along the coast, from vessels that do not come from the local area. That has not been good for fishing in the north-west. We must look closely at what we wish to do to ensure the level of fishing off the west coast that we have enjoyed in the past few years. Although that level was a decline

Column 956

over that of previous years, it has since been relatively static, and I for one would not wish it to decline any further. We must find some way over the medium term to increase the size of the stocks--that is, the size of biomass--and reduce the percentage of the stocks caught in a year. That has to be done by ensuring that we catch fewer juvenile fish and, at the same time, as several hon. Members have said, reduce the numbers of discards, which are an awful waste. We must continue to try to find ways to diminish the problem. If we are to be successful, the first thing that we must do is improve the scientific information available. At the moment, much of the fishing community does not have a great deal of confidence in the scientific information that is provided. Often, quotas are restricted in an area one year, only to be increased the following year when, at sea, fishermen do not see the evidence to make them believe the figures coming from scientists. We have to find new ways to provide more accurate information on which we can do the calculations and, from those calculations, come up with better ways to ensure that we have a clearer run at fishing year by year and to make certain that we do not have such large variations.

On the preservation of stocks, which is the crux of the matter, we need to consider effort control. I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to reject the idea of a 200 day tie-up. As other hon. Members have said, that is an incredibly inefficient form of effort control. Like many hon. Members, I am pleased that the Government have not shut their mind to the idea of decommissioning. However, that must be part of a much wider attempt to reduce the amount of effort in fishing. We must consider net sizes and licensing boats below 10 m. However, I understand that there are significant administrative problems in making that work effectively.

Decommissioning should be part of a much wider conservation effort which we must consider. Decommissioning is a complicated subject. I was not being unduly critical of the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) when I asked how he considered a decommissioning scheme should work. There is a balance to be struck here. We do not want a lot of modern vessels to be taken out, because, in many ways, that would put our industry at a significant disadvantage compared with the more modern fleets around Europe, but at the same time, we must ensure that a decommissioning scheme reduces the effort. That is a difficult problem which needs to be addressed if it is to operate effectively rather than be characterised by the mistakes that were made last time around. Part of the problem is the way in which we police the fishing that takes place. I like the idea of introducing satellite transponders. In the coming years, there may even be an increased role for the Royal Air Force which has a number of aircraft with a considerable ability to detect vessels that are fishing where they ought not to be. However, the fishing industry should not have to bear the full cost of such an operation as has been the case in the past. There may well be an opportunity to ensure that in the future. Most important of all- -and this has been emphasised by several hon. Members, the enforcement has to be EC-wide. There is little point in our having efficient enforcement methods for our own vessels if many other countries have a less efficient method.

The fishing industry must have a viable future. We need to consider ways of increasing the amount of fish that we

Column 957

land. Fish has a market in Britain and in Europe. Therefore, I hope that when my hon. Friend goes to Brussels he will bear those points in mind so that we can look towards 1992 being a better year for fishing, particularly off the north-west coast, than the past 12 months have been.

10.8 pm

Mr. Alex Salmond (Banff and Buchan) : I understand your strictures on time, Mr. Speaker, but I would be a great deal more sympathetic to them if the Front-Bench spokesman had not taken 50 minutes to open the debate.

I shall restrict myself to three points. The International Council for the Exploration of the Seas' advisory committee on fisheries management confirms that the eight-day tie-up has been completely ineffective in reducing fishing effort. That lesson should be well learned by the Government who, only a year ago, were extremely confident that it would provide a solution.

I well remember that in the corresponding debate on 13 December last year, at column 1223, the Secretary of State for Scotland called the eight-day tie-up a "sensible measure". On 5 March this year, at column 238, the Parliamentary Secretary said that he was confident that there would be a significant reduction of effort from the tie-up scheme. The Minister of State, Scottish Office achieve the notoriety of not just lounging and sniggering his way through that debate, but also being the only Scottish Member to vote for the implementation of the tie-up scheme. The scientists now say that the eight-day tie-up was ineffective. Therefore, the analysis of all these right hon. and hon. Members was wrong. They should listen to the views of Members of Parliament with fishing constituencies. The anxiety, fear and danger that the eight-day tie-up produced over the last year was all for nothing. I hope that, given its track record, the fisheries team approach the current proposals with some humility.

I noticed that the Minister with responsibility for fisheries was careful not to put a figure on what he would find acceptable when the 200-day suggestion was made. That underlines part of the underlying difficulty over fisheries management. Of course the 200-day suggestion is absolutely unacceptable. Equally unacceptable is the Minister's unwillingness to recognise that the directed whiting fishery drives a coach and horses through any form of effort limitation or any form of mesh size formulation.

It is all very well for the Minister with responsibility for fisheries to say that he intends unilaterally to introduce a one-net rule and an increase in the minimum landing size of whiting, but he does not go on to say that the whiting derogation on current terms will be available to the rest of the European Community. He is in severe danger of devising a system that may be logical for the United Kingdom but of allowing the rest of the European Community to drive a coach and horses through all conservation measures.

The reduction in the minimum landing size of whiting is a disaster for conservation policies. The lack of a one-net rule makes a joke of conservation when people can fish with a 90 mm net, claim that they are fishing for whiting, and discard other species in order to qualify under the whiting fishery directive. It is the most anti-conservation measure that one can imagine.

Column 958

The Minister has managed to allow the Danish fleet in particular to introduce into fishing for human consumption practices that that fleet has long followed in industrial fishing. Aficionados of these debates will know that each year I have remarked on the increase in industrial fishing when fishing for human consumption has been reduced year after year. In the period from 1987 to 1989, industrial fishing increased to 1,483,000 tonnes while fishing for human consumption was reduced to a residual level. I should like the Minister of State, Scottish Office to say what will be done to bring industrial fishing under control. Do not the Government understand that the whiting derogation undermines the conservation proposals? Reference has already been made to the shock to the shellfish sector for the second time in two years, due to the virtual ban over the weekend. What guarantee can the Minister give that a test on one particular species of shellfish from one area of Scotland that goes wrong does not again result in a ban that affects virtually the whole fishery? Can he give an undertaking that there has not been a succession of letters from the European Commission to the Scottish Office during the past few months asking, in particular, for area testing results? Can he provide a guarantee that what has happened will not be repeated? The shellfish processing sector cannot afford yet another health scare over the next few months and years. The capacity of the fish processing industry has been substantially reduced. In my constituency the result has been that, in Peterhead, on Monday fish were offered for withdrawal because the fish processors did not have the capacity to take up a reasonable landing for that day. As the industry cuts its capacity, the problems faced by the industry are compounded. What support will the processing sector get so that the hygiene regulations can be implemented? What assurances can the Government give that there will be access to European funding, which the Commission says will be available on a large scale, to restructure the industry?

I hope that we shall have an assurance that the president of the Scottish Fishermen's Federation will not again have to write the sort of letter that was published in Scottish Fishing Weekly on 22 November. He wrote to the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food complaining of fishing industry leaders being dismissed like school-children. The letter also noted the childish outbursts of the right hon. Gentleman. The Government should mend their ways towards fishermen and have effective and proper consultation. There should be effective representation for the industry within the counsels of Europe. If the Government put into representing the fishing industry a fraction of the effort that they use to try to prevent the extension of workers' rights across the Community, the industry in Scotland would have a much brighter future.

10.15 pm

Mr. Bill Walker (Tayside, North) : My hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Trotter) drew attention to the concern in his constituency over the phasing out of licences for drift-netting of salmon. He said that it was sad because the industry had been in business for 100 years. Everyone understands that, and appreciates the problems created. The difficulties would not arise if they were using the equipment of 100 years ago, because the industry would not take as much salmon. I draw hon. Members' attention to the fact that the fresh water laboratory at

Column 959

Pitlochry in my constituency can provide useful and interesting statistics. I recommend that anyone with a real interest in salmon should visit that laboratory.

Those who fish on the river--those who take salmon out from the estuarial nets or those who fish it because they have broad fishing beats--all contribute in different ways to the stocking of the river. That is an important part of the total balance. However, my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth was right to say that the estuarial nets have to be dealt with in the same way as drift nets. Attempts have been made to buy them out, and I hope that that will be successful. It has been successful on some rivers.

It is a recognition of changing times and circumstances and a recognition that the salmon belong in the river, although they spend a great deal of time at sea. The salmon could create employment prospects that would go on for ever if it could be guaranteed that they could get back up the river. It may come as a surprise to some people that we count the salmon going up the river. That is done at Pitlochry, where there is a ladder at which it is possible to measure the number of salmon going beyond the dam.

I want to draw the Minister's attention to matters affecting deep sea and other fishing. What consideration has been given to the decommissioning schemes that have been suggested and to the impact that any such schemes would have on jobs? Has that aspect been looked at and does it mean a form of enforced unemployment? If that is the case, it must be stated. There is little point in using grand slogans if one does not spell out exactly what is meant. That is one of the great problems. I am not unsympathetic to the views that have been expressed, but I like to have the facts so that I can make an objective assessment.

The alleged illegal fishing received considerable prominence in one of the Scottish Sunday papers. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister on the selection of fishery protection aircraft. The Cessna aircraft is particularly suitable for the task. With the equipment that will be on board, one hopes that it will provide a deterrent to those fishing illegally and that such people will be caught. The best deterrent is to catch people at it-- [Interruption.] It may surprise hon. Members but I have been airborne in aircraft carrying out such tasks. That is one of the advantages of having served in the Royal Air Force for many years. Aerial surveillance has been perfected in Hong Kong, where I spent some time flying with the Royal Hong Kong auxiliary air force. It used Cessna aircraft, which were effective and successful and were ideal for the job. I look forward to aircraft performing the same policing operation as the Royal Hong Kong auxiliary air force, which is very effective.

10.20 pm

Mr. Austin Mitchell (Great Grimsby) : I shall be very brief. In several years of speaking in fishing debates, I have not known the situation to be as bleak as it is now. The bleakness of the situation means that we should emphasise to the Minister that, if he had introduced a decommissioning scheme last year, the Community would not now be considering daft schemes such as a 200 day lay-up. He said that he opposed that, but did not give his preference. It is essential that he introduces a decommissioning scheme.

Column 960

I shall make three points about North sea stocks. The first is that it is vital for Grimsby's interests--and, I think, for the national interest now--that the Minister keeps the cod total allowable catch above the level at which the Hague preference will be invoked. I should like him to reconsider the Hague preference, because the net losses will outweigh the net gains for the country. It would certainly damage Grimsby's interests if that preference were invoked, so I hope that he will keep it above that level.

Secondly, I emphasise that the North sea and west Scotland saithe TAC, which is down, should be increased. The scientific advice is shaky, and there is certainly a strong case for increasing it. Thirdly, Grimsby has diversified into plaice and sole tremendously in the past five years. This year has been our best for sole fishing. That quota should be kept at its present level, and to stop the increase in the beamer fleet, which is increasing by one or two vessels a month and much of it with Dutch money, it is essential that the Minister should introduce a pressure stock licensing scheme for North sea beamers. That growing beamer fleet is taking fish away from Grimsby vessels.

I should like to make many more points, such as those made by the hon. Member for Bridlington (Mr. Townend) about a ban on industrial fishing, but I conclude by saying that it is essential that the Minister takes urgent action to prevent the disastrous situation that we are drifting into.

10.22 pm

Mr. Brian Wilson (Cunninghame, North) : I was persuaded by a comment made earlier in the debate to fetch a quote with which to begin. It reads :

"Unless someone in the Scottish Tory Party can quickly devise a credible, vote-winning policy for Scottish fisheries during the coming months, their total elimination at the poll in all Scottish fishing constituencies is certain."

One might wonder what political partisan said that. Those words were written by the co-editor of The Salmon Net, Rhoddy Macleod, the brother of the late Iain Macleod, a distinguished Member of the House. He wrote that his late brother

"was attacked by the right wing of the Tory Party as being too clever by half'."

He added :

"The problem facing the Tory Party in Scotland now is exactly the opposite one--they are not nearly clever enough."

Listening to the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) this evening, I could only think how very true that was.

Mr. Macleod was writing about the vendetta that had been conducted against the salmon netting industry in Scotland. In that context, I would say to the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) and to Opposition Members from the north-east who have spoken that we have absolutely no truck with what is being done to the salmon industry or to the salmon netting industry in Scotland--a fine traditional industry for which I have much respect. I give the commitment that the pendulum will swing back in favour of that industry and away from the vested interests that have dominated the debate in recent years.

We noted the absence from the Minister's speech of any reference to a decommissioning scheme, which is the key to so much else. That point has been well covered by my hon. Friends and by others. The 200-day a la carte, table d'hote, or whatever other description is used, is not acceptable.

Column 961

We remember the arrogance with which the eight day tie-up was presented a year ago. We recall the certainties that were expressed that it would be the solution to conservation issues and over-catching. As the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) rightly said, we find that the scientific evidence contradicts all of it.

We do not want the Minister to come back in a few weeks' time proclaiming triumph. We know today that there is no shortage of newspapers to proclaim triumph on behalf of any Tory Minister who comes back from Europe. However, if the Minister comes back and says that 150 days has been agreed and that a wonderful compromise has been achieved, he will get an even bigger raspberry this year than he did last year.

There are serious questions to be asked about the recent shellfish scare in Scotland. If the scare did nothing else, it highlighted the fact that the shellfish fishery, including the prawn fishery, is now the second biggest fishery in Scotland. It is an important and major industry in Scotland and in other parts of the country. Important and fundamental questions arise out of the events of the past week. I pay tribute to the civil servants in the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland who, when alerted of the urgency and the seriousness of the problem, went off to Brussels and got a solution. That was excellent and exceeded the short-term expectations of the industry.

It seems that a specific consignment of scallops from Orkney had been tested at Ostend and had been found to contain toxins which made them unfit for human consumption. That was the root of the problem. I want the Minister to answer three questions on the matter, either tonight or subsequently.

First, how did the delay arise between identification of the defective samples at Ostend and the matter being drawn to the attention, I believe as late as last Wednesday night, of officials of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and of the Department? How did communications break down in that period? Secondly, will the monitoring of shellfish at Torry and elsewhere in Britain be brought into line with continental practice? That means testing the organs as well as the meat of the shellfish. If we are selling in continental markets, there is no point in our having different standards of testing from those on the continent. There must be standardisation if such incidents are not to happen again. Thirdly, going back to the matter that my hon. Friend the Member for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald) rightly said I raised in Committee earlier this year, will the Department now introduce far more localised monitoring of shellfish to avoid a general ban such as the one imposed last week? Those are three questions that are relevant for the Scottish shellfish industry and for the shellfish industry throughout Britain. Such problems could arise elsewhere so we wait anxiously for the answers.

It is regrettable that we could not have had at least a whole day's debate on fishing. It is also regrettable that we always debate the subject entirely from the point of view of the catching industry. We should debate it from the points of view of the consumer and of the food industry. We never recognise sufficiently that fish is not just a source of income to fishermen. It is a source of protein which may be superior to all others and it is a source of good health to our people, if they have access to fish and to fish products.

Column 962

The problem at present is that fish is being priced out of the reach of many people in British society who are precisely those who most need that source of protein. Fishermen's incomes can be protected to some extent by ever-increasing landing prices for smaller volumes, but that does no favour to the consumer who is being priced out of the market.

I understand that the Ministry has recommended that the sea fish advertising budget, which promotes fish as a product, should be discontinued at the end of its present period. I should like that proposal withdrawn. I believe that the pressure for it is coming from the big companies such as Findus and Bird's Eye, which object to paying the levy for seafish. We need fish to be advertised and promoted, and the proposal points up the danger of leaving the promotion of an industry to those who have a financial interest in it. There is also a social interest in the promotion of fish as a food and a source of protein.

The clock is against me, so I shall not go into further detail, although I should like to refer to a matter affecting my own area--the Clyde herring quota, which, as we have heard, has been decimated. Even now the herring caught and landed in the Clyde does not have a market because the processing industry has been clawed away from under it. Herring is one of the healthiest and best species of fish for consumption, yet its market has been removed. Perhaps the herring industry board should be brought back to promote herring and its virtues to the wider community.

I ask all hon. Members on both sides of the House who have been critical of the Government's record and performance and who have expressed their doubts and fears about the current negotiations to consider carefully the reasoned amendment tabled by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition. I do not think that they will find anything to disagree with in the amendment, and I suggest that they consider carefully the reaction in their own constituencies all around the British coast before voting against it.

10.31 pm

The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Mr. Michael Forsyth) : We have had an excellent debate and I am glad that all those who wished to speak had an opportunity to do so. We have heard excellent contributions-- with the possible exception of that from the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond).

I shall try to cover the points that have been made, and my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary has kindly undertaken to write to hon. Members about those that I do not cover. In reply to the right hon. Member for Strangford (Mr. Taylor), I should explain that my hon. Friend the Under- Secretary of State for Northern Ireland regrets the fact that he could not be here ; he wished to attend the debate, but I understand that his duties in Northern Ireland prevented him from doing so.

The hon. Members for Banff and Buchan and for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) suggested that the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea had advised that the eight-day tie-up had been ineffective. That is another example of the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan trying to put a particular gloss on something to suit his own conclusions. The ICES said not that the eight-day tie-up had not been effective, but that it had not been effective enough in securing the recommended

Column 963

objective of achieving a 30 per cent. reduction in fishing effort by comparison with that for 1989. That is a rather different statement from the one that the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan gave the House.

The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) and my hon. Friends the Members for Bridlington (Mr. Townend) and for Tynemouth (Mr. Trotter) suggested that we needed to have a one-net rule to prevent cheating. I entirely agree that a one-net rule is required, and we have convinced the Commission of the need for one. The problem has been that we have not secured the required qualified majority in the Council of Ministers, but I assure my hon. Friends and the hon. Gentleman that we shall continue to press for it.

My hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth spoke about the east coast review. As my hon. Friend knows, it is the drift net fishery that is to be phased out. The use of T nets closer inshore will continue and the intention is to encourage drift net licensees to move to T nets which are closer inshore and which should catch fish from local rivers.

My hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris) asked about the position of mackerel handliners in the south-west. The fact that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary is very much aware of the problem of the south- west handliners is in no small part due to the efforts of my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives and he is always ready to explore the issues with them. We were pleased that it was possible to give them a reallocation of an extra 100 tonnes from a Scottish producer organisation this year and the handliners will also benefit from the increase in the mackerel TAC next year.

The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland expressed his preference for TACs for nephrops by stock rather than for the North sea as a whole. I assume that the Commission had made that proposal on the basis that a global TAC for the North sea would be more readily enforceable. We will consider that, but the key must be the right level of TAC and a satisfactory allocation for the United Kingdom.

Mr. Derek Enright (Hemsworth) : Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Forsyth : No, I do not have much time left.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bridlington (Mr. Townend) asked about the Factortame position and the European Court of Justice ruling in July. That was unwelcome, but the Government will have to comply. We can however insist that vessels are genuinely managed and controlled from this country, and we shall use the licensing system to ensure a genuine economic link. There is no sign of a rush to re-register. The total number eligible as a result of the judgment is only 65, many of which have sunk, been scrapped or reflagged or are now pursuing non-fishing activities. I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Bridlington that we will do what we can to ensure that the Commission proceeds against other member states if they impose restrictions of the sort that we have been forced to drop.

The hon. Members for Cunninghame, North and for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald) referred to paralytic shellfish poisoning and the apparent ban on Scottish exports imposed by the Commission last Thursday.

Next Section

Home Page