| Previous Section | Home Page |
Mr. Curry : Again, we have had a wide-ranging debate, and I shall seek to answer the main points that have been made.
I understand concern about quota hoppers. I am sure that the House will equally understand that I cannot stand at the Dispatch Box and declare that there is some war plan specifically designed to sink quota hoppers, because I would be supplying ammunition to their lawyers in their next case against the United Kingdom. I put it bluntly to the House that that is the situation.
The House will know that measures were taken to tackle the problem of people seeking to register and fish
Column 1052
against the British quota. Hon. Members know that that led to a series of court proceedings. The Attorney-General, who was on the Treasury Bench a short while ago, will know how hard the United Kingdom fought those cases. The House will know also that matters following those cases have not finished and that there are still outstanding matters. Therefore, I entirely understand why hon. Members are concerned, and I wholly support their concern, but we are very attentive in our policies to try to make sure that boats fishing against the United Kingdom quotas have the links with the United Kingdom which we have been able to write into the regulations, such as visiting conditions.I am sure that the House will equally understand that I cannot declare that I can take a course of action that I know would be illegal and which I am strongly advised would be illegal. I have to take advice from my lawyers, and I seek advice from very authoritative sources. I cannot say that the lawyers have got it wrong and that I am going ahead. I cannot knowingly invite the House to legislate something which I am told would be illegal. It might be easy for me to do that as a political cop-out, but I cannot responsibly invite the House to do it.
I have to make that clear. It is a frustrating position for all hon. Members, but I must have the principles of the maintenance of the rule of law foremost in my concern, whether it be fishery legislation or anything else. I understand the problems, and hon. Members also understand the problems.
Mr. Harris : We are not asking my hon. Friend to take discriminatory action against quota hoppers, because we realise the difficulties in doing that, although I should like to take discriminatory action against them. However if there is to be a tie-up which affects our boats, it should apply equally to quota hoppers. That is not discrimination ; it is equality of treatment.
Mr. Curry : I shall refer to the measures outlined in the amendments, but I wish to deal with one or two matters, that, strictly speaking, are not covered by the amendments, but hon. Members are concerned about them so I shall try to respond. My hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Mr. Allason) said that we were guilty of arrogance and incompetence. That would be a double whammy for anybody, I suppose. I think that, in three years in the job, I have not displayed arrogance ; as to whether I have been guilty of incompetence, I have to submit to the judgment of my peers and contemporaries.
9 pm
Mr. Rupert Allason : Let me take this opportunity to withdraw those remarks, on condition that my hon. Friend explain the point that I was making when I made them. It appeared that the Bill had been introduced before the end of the consultation period. That move was certainly open to misinterpretation, and I should be delighted to hear the Minister's explanation.
Mr. Curry : During the Second Reading debate and in Committee, I explained that the Bill is enabling legislation which makes provision for the broad principles of a certain course of action. There will be very detailed consultation about how it should apply specifically. I have made it absolutely clear that we hope that the industry will come to us with its views on how we should apply particular
Column 1053
measures. We are still open to that course of action. Several hon. Members have asked me whether I will consult on this, that and the other. The answer is that, if the industry is in a consulting mood, I shall consult, but I cannot compel it to consult. It is known that my door is always open to people who want to see me, and that will remain the case. I have never taken up any contrary position. My hon. Friend the Member for Torbay and the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Ainger) mentioned shellfish. Let me make the situation clear. We agree with the industry that the new minimum landing sizes for lobsters which have emerged from the interpretation of Community regulations are silly. The sizes are too small, and we have gone to Brussels to try to have the matter put right. I put that on record as a matter on which there is nothing between us.On the question of action generally in relation to shellfish, the Sea Fish Industry Authority has produced a report indicating that there may be a case for limitation, some sort of discipline in respect of shellfish activity. We shall be discussing the implications of that report and what measures ought to be taken as a consequence of it. We accept that there is a problem in a particular fishery, and we shall seek to deal with it.
Let me now deal specifically with the amendments. With regard to amendment No. 1, the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) said that owners or charterers of fishing vessels should be required to advise fisheries departments in advance of which port they intended to tie up in. As the hon. Gentleman acknowledged, the amendment does not specify whether the notification should take place before each tie-up or whether it should be a blanket arrangement. He kindly left the choice to me.
Blanket notification would reduce flexibility enormously, whereas one of the purposes of the Bill is to provide maximum flexibility. If it is a question of notification in respect of individual voyages, the amendment is flawed. However, it is not necessary to amend the Bill to require advance notification of tie-up, as this can be achieved by licence conditions. While I cannot accept the amendment, I can say that I shall examine the practical and administrative implications of introducing advance notification of the port of tie-up for individual voyages, and I shall consult the industry about whether it favours a notification system of this sort.
The hon. Gentleman then introduced a series of provisions dealing specifically with the quota-hopper problem. I am sorry to have to tell him that, while we sympathise with the intention behind the amendment and while we would welcome the opportunity to secure improved enforcement, I have been advised that it would discriminate against British-registered fishing boats operating out of foreign ports, because the European Court has established that, although the quota system entitles us to have a condition, such as a visiting condition--and I assume that the amendment is based on the visiting condition--that establishes a real economic link between quota and the population dependent on fishing, such a condition must not amount to an obligation to operate habitually from a United Kingdom port or hinder normal fishing operations. The amendment would be contrary to those principles and would give rise to legal proceedings, possibly involving a claim for damages.
Column 1054
Mr. Kirkwood : Does that mean that the Government concede that there is no effective way of enforcing these provisions?
Mr. Curry : The Government are saying that measures incorporated in the Bill that could be interpreted as being targeted specifically against a certain category of vessel--the flag of convenience or flagship vessels-- would be illegal and could be challenged. That is the problem. My lawyers advise me that, although the European Court has established that the quota system entitles us to have a condition, such as a visiting condition, that establishes a real economic link between the quota and the population dependent on fishing, such a condition must not amount to an obligation to operate habitually from a United Kingdom port or not to hinder normal fishing operation. Tying up in a United Kingdom port amounts to an obligation to operate habitually from a United Kingdom port.
Mr. Salmond : Will the Minister turn his mind to what positive steps he plans to take? The economic link appears on the face of it to offer scope for a positive measure to restrict the activity of quota hoppers. I cannot believe that since the judgment the Minister has been merely sitting wringing his hands and doing nothing. He must have considered measures that he could take, drawing on the economic link criteria. The House would like to know what they are.
Mr. Curry : The hon. Gentleman knows that we introduced the visiting conditions, which were designed to address the problem. It was clear that we had to be careful how we framed the conditions so that we did not have the same legal problems again. I am sorry to sound boringly repetitive, but I am conscious of the possibility of further actions. I do not want to concede any more ground. I do not want to be driven to take actions that open the way to challenge. I am deliberately careful in phrasing my replies, for that purpose. The hon. Gentleman knows that I am investigating the use of electronic tracking equipment to improve enforcement of limits on the activities of vessels which tie up overseas. We are working hard on developing that technology for enforcement purposes. I have made it clear throughout the debate that I recognise the problem of quota hopping. I do not pretend that the problem does not exist. I am describing candidly to the House the constraints on me and how I address them.
Mr. Moate : My hon. Friend referred to electronic tracking devices and the like. Will he endorse his determination to ensure that the days-at- sea regulations will be applied in practice and in an enforceable way equally to quota hoppers as to British vessels?
Mr. Curry : Yes, I will. The hon. Gentleman knows the difficulties we face. I ask him to accept my assurance of our determination. Amendment No. 19, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay, would place a limit on days at sea because that is how the legislation is framed. I appreciate that that was not his intention. I am aware that, in tabling his other amendment, No. 20, he had in mind the particular problems of the shellfish sector. The reassurances that I have given about the vessels of 10 m and under, which must be the predominant type of vessel in that fishery, will go some way to reassure my hon. Friend. If I
Column 1055
add that we are looking hard at concerns about the future of the shellfish sector as a whole, and considering measures such as he mentioned, I hope that he will feel that we have the fate of that sector in our focus.The purpose of amendment No. 21, tabled by the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) is to allow vessels to sail from the port where their catch is landed to their home port. I recognise the problem that the amendment seeks to address, because it has been brought to my attention in the context of the eight-day and 135-day rules. We cannot adopt the solution envisaged by the amendment, because it would not provide a clear guarantee that fishing was not undertaken during the voyage. A better solution is to ensure that the days-at-sea entitlement includes an allowance for such voyages. That is what we propose to do. The appeals system could be used by those who feel that the system is unfair to them.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bridlington (Mr. Townend) asked me some specific questions. The multi-annual guidance programme targets are not yet agreed. The Commission has discussed the 30 per cent. cut, but it has not been agreed. I accept that fishermen do not like the Bill, but I hope that they will address what may happen, rather than some myth of what may happen. There has been some misinformation and exaggeration about the practical effects.
The one problem that we have never faced in our fisheries is not catching our quota. Indeed, as I have said many times, periodically we have to close fisheries down to eke the stocks out to the end of the year. I am sure that the problem to which my hon. Friend the Member for Bridlington referred will not arise. If the problem occurred in exceptional circumstances--they would have to be extraordinary circumstances--I repeat that I would immediately seek ways of ensuring that the quota was taken. We are not in the business of stopping people from catching their legitimate quota.
We mentioned that there was a difficulty with the 1991 data.
Mr. John D. Taylor : I asked the Minister earlier whether there had been any consultation with the Dublin Government, because of the implications of southern Irish and British boats operating under different guidelines in the Irish sea. The Minister did not answer. He is ending his comments on amendment No. 21. What would be the implication if fishing boats in Kilkeel registered in the Republic of Ireland, 15 miles to the south, but used Kilkeel as their port for landings? If their home port were in the Republic of Ireland, would they be excluded from the implications of the Bill? That is the way that some people are beginning to talk.
Mr. Curry : If I have received the message right, I think that the right hon. Gentleman is suggesting a new form of quota hopping. I have often been asked whether we could encourage our people to quota-hop. I shall not comment on that as a recommended course of action, but I have consulted the Irish Minister about enforcement and management in the Irish sea, which is much more important as stocks are in such a parlous state there. When we increased the minimum landing size for whiting, a simultaneous announcement was made for the first time from Dublin and from London that we had taken an act
Column 1056
of conservation together to preserve joint stocks. I am willing to pursue that matter with the right hon. Gentleman outside this debate.We shall make administration as flexible as we possibly can. If fishermen in Bridlington have had a problem because of the weather, they should use the consultation process to tell us.
I shall discuss the further amendments on the gear option when we come to that point, if my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay allows. If tides cause a problem, it should be reflected in track records and thus fishermen would automatically receive time to allow for that under the system that we shall pursue.
I have tried to answer the debate fully, and I advise the House to vote against the amendments.
Amendment negatived.
Mr. Morley : I beg to move amendment No. 3, in page 1, line 11 at end insert
provided that if the master, owner or charterer of a fishing boat gives an undertaking to use only such fishing gear as may be specified, whether by reference to mesh size, mesh shape, or otherwise, paragraph (c) above shall not apply.'.
The amendment provides a choice of being tied up in port, or using conservation gear with a wider mesh size. That is an important option and fishermen are keen that it should be provided in the Bill. When the Government introduced the eight-day consecutive tie up, they conceded the option for fishermen to continue to fish by using a mesh size specified by the Minister. That facility is required in this Bill.
The gear option can work. There is no argument between us about the need for conservation. The gear option is more conservation orientated than simply tying boats up in port, which does not necessarily meet the conservation objective.
Also, if fishermen believe in, and can see the logic of, a measure they will do a great deal to support it, which has been borne out by the fact that fishermen pioneered square mesh panels and various forms of conservation gear. The 100 mm mesh size came into effect only on 1 June this year. The Minister has said that such options have not been effective, but many conservation options are very new and have hardly been given time to operate. We should give them more time so that we can evaluate their effectiveness, rather than deciding on the days-in-port option.
Fishermen advocated an 80 mm maximum mesh size in the Irish sea when the Government introduced a 75 mm size. Fishermen have also suggested a licence scheme for shell fishing and proposals for banning the French dredge, for conservation boxes and for a ban on industrial fishing in certain areas of our coast. The gear option should be included in the Bill.
Conservative Members who are concerned about the fishermen in their constituencies have been given a concession by the Minister, but it does not amount to much. I accept that limited accountability will be introduced which will allow us to consider the proposals that the Minister will bring forward. The Minister also said that the changes would not be brought in until 1994, but that was no concession, as that commitment was always part of the Bill. All the Minister has done is to put off until 1994 the time when the axe will fall. That still means that British fishing boats will be tied up in port while those of other member states will be allowed to fish.
Column 1057
The amendment is important because, although it will allow the Minister to argue, if necessary, for a days-at- sea restriction, it will also give fishermen the option of using conservation gear. Such an option would be more effective and meaningful than a days-in-port restriction.9.15 pm
Mr. Paul Tyler (North Cornwall) : I support the amendment. During the United Kingdom's presidency of the Community, one of our main objectives will be to try to achieve a level playing field--in this context a flat pond. We strongly believe that the inclusion of this option in the Bill will enable such a flat pond to be enforced more effectively.
We have a clear choice between the compulsory tie-up and the gear option. The tie-up is subject to the sort of objections that have been voiced from every part of the House and every part of the country. It presents major difficulties for all sorts of fishermen who undertake all types of fishing. That restriction is transitional and short-term and lacks the authority of a permanent, credible option. It also presents all sorts of difficulties in terms of its stated objective of conservation ; it is a backward step, because it pressurises the industry into depleting the juvenile stock. Gear restrictions have major advantages. We already have good precedents to demonstrate its effectiveness. Such a restriction represents conservation in practice and it demonstrably achieves what it sets out to do. That is recognised even by those in other industries who might otherwise question the objectives for the fishing industry. Its precise objectives are an advantage in an imprecise area of the law. It has great advantages in terms of stock generally and major ones in terms of the survival of juvenile, immature fish in particular.
The hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) has already said that there is a precedent for the use of such restrictions, so we are not creating a pig in a poke, or whatever the fishing metaphor is. It offers great advantages for handliners, who are important in the south-west and for the shell fishermen. The biggest advantage of that option is that it offers the very thing that the Minister wants to include in the Bill-- maximum flexibility. That flexibility dictates that the gear option must be included in the Bill.
The NFFO is strongly in favour of the gear option and is prepared to do all that it can, within the industry, in support of it. It has set out in three concise phrases why it considers that the option should be included. First, it claims that it has considerable conservation advantages in terms of selectivity. Secondly, it provides an element of financial protection and could avoid the need to pay compensation to those who adopt that option. Thirdly, it is easier to administer than a days-at-sea restriction and it will minimise the enforcement and administrative costs. That final point must be of considerable importance to the Minister who will otherwise face a difficult time not just with the United Kingdom industry, but with that of the whole Community during our presidency.
The gear option offers the guarantee of effective Community conservation action. We strongly support it.
Mr. Curry : The hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) was right to say that during our presidency, enforcement must come at the top of the agenda, so I could not accept a measure that would be unenforceable.
Column 1058
Whereas a gear option was possible with 350 or 450 boats coming under the previous types in the Community, a gear option involving 3, 800 vessels over 10 m would be impossible to police. They fish for a wide variety of stocks using a wide variety of gear.I do not minimise the need for technical conservation and I pay tribute to the way in which the industry has co-operated in developing such means, which is an essential part of any fisheries package. But in the context of the Bill, I must be able to demonstrate that what we do is enforceable and not open to evasion. With some regret, I must reject the amendment because it could not be made to stick, and the whole Community would see that. I advise the House to vote against it.
Question put, That the amendment be made :--
The House divided : Ayes 266, Noes 313.
Division No. 68] [9.20 pm
AYES
Abbott, Ms Diane
Adams, Mrs Irene
Ainger, Nick
Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Allen, Graham
Alton, David
Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)
Armstrong, Hilary
Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Ashton, Joe
Austin-Walker, John
Barnes, Harry
Barron, Kevin
Battle, John
Bayley, Hugh
Beckett, Margaret
Beggs, Roy
Beith, Rt Hon A. J.
Bell, Stuart
Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Bennett, Andrew F.
Benton, Joe
Bermingham, Gerald
Berry, Dr. Roger
Betts, Clive
Blair, Tony
Boateng, Paul
Boyce, Jimmy
Boyes, Roland
Bradley, Keith
Bray, Dr Jeremy
Brown, N. (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)
Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Burden, Richard
Byers, Stephen
Caborn, Richard
Callaghan, Jim
Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Campbell, Ronald (Blyth V)
Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Canavan, Dennis
Cann, Jamie
Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)
Chisholm, Malcolm
Clapham, Michael
Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Clelland, David
Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Coffey, Ann
Cohen, Harry
Connarty, Michael
Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Corbett, Robin
Corbyn, Jeremy
Cousins, Jim
Cox, Tom
Cryer, Bob
Cummings, John
Cunliffe, Lawrence
Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)
Cunningham, Dr John (C'p'l'nd)
Dafis, Cynog
Dalyell, Tam
Davidson, Ian
Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)
Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'l)
Denham, John
Dewar, Donald
Dixon, Don
Dobson, Frank
Donohoe, Brian H.
Dowd, Jim
Dunnachie, Jimmy
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Eagle, Ms Angela
Eastham, Ken
Enright, Derek
Etherington, Bill
Ewing, Mrs Margaret
Fatchett, Derek
Faulds, Andrew
Flynn, Paul
Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)
Foster, Derek (B'p Auckland)
Foster, Donald (Bath)
Fraser, John
Fyfe, Maria
Galloway, George
Garrett, John
Gerrard, Neil
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Godman, Dr Norman A.
Godsiff, Roger
Gordon, Mildred
Graham, Thomas
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Grocott, Bruce
Gunnell, John
Hain, Peter
Hall, Mike
Hanson, David
Hardy, Peter
Harman, Ms Harriet
Harvey, Nick
Henderson, Doug
Heppell, John
Hill, Keith (Streatham)
Hinchliffe, David
Hoey, Kate
| Next Section
| Home Page |