House of Commons Hansard Debates for 7 Jul 1993

Column 411

Fishing Industry (Decommissioning)

9.32 pm

The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Michael Jack) : I beg to move

That the Fishing Vessels (Decommissioning) Scheme 1993 (S.I., 1993, No. 1345), dated 25th May 1993, a copy of which was laid before this House on 26th May, be approved.

I shall begin by sharing with the House some words in a recent report by the European Court of Auditors on former decommisioning schemes. For me, the words sum up clearly the problems that we are facing in fisheries management. It said :

"It must be said that since the CFP was instituted the technological changes in the fishing sector have been so big that catch and detection facilities have now reached such a level of perfection that the traditional balance between fishing and resources has been destroyed. Any resource can now be located and exploited with an efficiency that has never been known in all the time that man has been exploiting fish resources."

That is backed up by some cold hard facts on the state of the United Kingdom's fishing stocks. Comparing 1992 with 1989, the spawning stock of North sea cod was down by 30 per cent., that of North sea haddock was down by 12 per cent., that of west of Scotland cod was down by 14 per cent., that of Irish sea cod was down 32 per cent., and that of Celtic sea cod down by 65 per cent. Overall, our scientists advise that all stocks in United Kingdom waters are vulnerable.

It is important to see the debate in the context not just of the pressure of fishing stocks in the United Kingdom but of news from Canada, carried today in the Financial Times , which brings home to us, all too bleakly, what happens when capacity is not limited. The east coast fishery in Canada has been devastated in recent years with the entire removal of its northern cod stocks. As a result, that fishery had to be closed for two years and 20,000 fishermen and plant employees were put out of work. In summing up, the Canadian authorities said :

"the necessary drastic reductions in fishing mortalities can only be achieved by substantially decreased fishing effort and these reductions need to be permanent."

That gives a clear indication of why we should be discussing this decommissioning order today.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing (Moray) : Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Andrew Bowden (Brighton, Kemptown) : Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Jack : I will give way to the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) and then to my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Mr. Bowden).

Mrs. Ewing : The common fisheries policy is a key aspect of the European Community. Does the Minister agree that that policy was based on the idea that the Spaniards should not have access to the North sea until the next century, but that has been brought forward as a result of the actions of this Government and at the expense of Scottish fishermen? Does he also accept that the Sea Fish Conservation Act 1992, as it currently stands, is a distinct disadvantage to our men, their families and communities?

Mr. Jack : It grieves me to hear the hon. Lady asking me a question when she clearly has not read the recent Hansard report of my statement following the Fisheries

Column 412

Council in Luxembourg. If she had read my statement and had seen reports of what happened at that Council in Luxembourg, she would realise that the United Kingdom Government were in the lead in fighting for the parts in the accession treaty in respect of Portugal and Spain to be honoured, but only in the context that there would be no increase in fishing effort.

If the hon. Lady had read those reports, she would be aware of our efforts to ensure that our fishermen would not be disadvantaged in that respect. The United Kingdom Government could not have been in the lead in respect of Spain and Portugal because those countries were arguing their own cases. I will deal with the other aspects of the hon. Lady's question after I have given way to my hon. Friend the Member for Kemptown.

Mr. Bowden : Is my hon. Friend aware that a substantial number of responsible fishermen accept that conservation is necessary? They understand and are aware that we are in danger of eliminating fish stocks around our coasts. However, instead of following the path that is being proposed, would it not be far better to reduce the mesh size of the nets-- [ Hon. Members-- : "No, increase them."] Well, at least that makes it easier for the fish to get away. I got there in the end. My hon. Friend the Minister knows exactly what I mean. Would it not be better to increase the mesh size, as that would allow fish to get away? That would have an effect on catches for one year. However, in the longer term, that would be of enormous benefit to the fishing industry in this country and to the continent as a whole.

Mr. Jack : If we were simply debating conservation, my hon. Friend would have a point. In fairness to the fishing industry, it has taken certain measures and our one-net rule lends itself to the point that my hon. Friend was making. One chooses an appropriate net size according to the species one wishes to catch.

I must inform my hon. Friend the Member for Kemptown that, in concert with the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations, we are carrying out a conservation exercise which will take into account the points that my hon. Friend has made. He is right, but his point does not sadly address the essential issue of the scheme, which deals with decommissioning and its contribution to meeting the targets of our multi-annual guidance programmes which are expressed in terms of tonnage.

Mr. Austin Mitchell (Great Grimsby) : The information that I heard from the previous Fisheries Council is exactly contrary to what the Minister is saying. That information is that the British Government, under pressure, presumably from the Foreign Office which always looks to give way on these matters, devoted their time to consumer matters and to opposing any restriction on imports from outside the EEC, and the Commission blithely assumed that the Spanish and Portuguese demands, which are basically for access to the North sea and the Irish sea in particular from 1996, will be granted. That is not so, to the extent that the Irish Minister had to come over and harangue our civil servants for not backing Ireland in opposition to that.

Mr. Jack : If the hon. Gentleman spent less time sowing seeds of discontent and misinformation and more time reading Hansard , he woul

Column 413

sitting in a Fisheries Council in Luxembourg last week, as I was, supporting the Irish Minister. We needed no persuasion about the need to stick to the strict terms of the treaty and the accession arrangements for Spain and Portugal. We need no lessons from the hon. Gentleman about defending the interests of Britain's fishermen.

Mr. Patrick Nicholls (Teignbridge) : Does my hon. Friend agree--this point goes to the very heart of the matter--that no matter what debates there might be about the various theories of conservation, fishermen and the public need to be reassured about whether measures taken as a whole put our fishermen at a greater disadvantage than their EC counterparts? Will my hon. Friend say something about that?

Mr. Jack : I am certainly very determined that Britain's fishermen should not be put at a disadvantage. I will certainly insist that other member states are as effective as possible in taking steps to achieve their multi-annual guidance programme target. My hon. Friend puts his finger on a very important point.

Many people in the British fishing industry are deeply concerned that our continental competitors are not doing what they should on enforcement. We fought long and hard in the recent Fisheries Council to ensure that the new control regulation, which, for the first time, includes independent and random inspection by Community inspectors of other people's inspection systems, was brought into force. We want that greater transparency, greater openness and greater knowledge in enforcement of the common fisheries policy. Our fishermen deserve that protection, and we are fighting for it.

Mr. Alex Salmond (Banff and Buchan) : The Minister knows that this decommissioning package was initially contingent on the days-at-sea legislation. I understand that the Minister is about to change tack on the days-at-sea legislation. Will he tell us what that change of course is? Is it a genuine change of mind, or is it merely a delay in implementation? I do not want to write the hon. Gentleman's speech, but could he refer to that information, which is of enormous concern to all hon. Members with fishing constituencies?

Mr. Jack : Let me disabuse the hon. Gentleman. He is the last person whom I would ask to be my speechwriter. I sail dinghies. Any changes in tack depend on which way the wind is blowing. So far, it is not blowing from a very propitious quarter.

Mr. Barry Field (Isle of Wight) : Does my hon. Friend agree that an important factor in the debate is getting down to some more of the facts, rather than the fiction that appears to be regularly peddled by Fishing News? It misinterprets everything that is done and greatly alarms fishermen. Has my hon. Friend joined that newspaper's rogues' gallery of the ones that got away, by suggesting that trawlers in his constituency are affected by the regulations? It would be a change if that journal stuck to the truth rather than spread mayhem, lies and distortions.

Mr. Jack : Fishing News is a lively journal. It has picked out my hon. Friend's constituency with its three trawlers and my constituency with one trawler. If that is the way that those who pay for such advertisements wish to proceed, so be it.

Several hon. Members rose --

Column 414

Mr. Jack : If hon. Members will forgive me for a moment, I shall not give way. I wish to make a little progress. I want to debate the order or you, Madam Deputy Speaker, might rule that I am straying too far from decommissioning.

I was discussing Canadian fish stocks. I hope that right hon. and hon. Members will be convinced by my arguments. Those are very good reasons indeed why we must control the overall fishing effort. But to achieve that, we already have in place measures such as total allowable catches and quotas, but, by themselves, they are not able to do the job that we require.

The only sure way to conserve fish stocks and thus ensure the long-term future of the industry is to have less fishing. The industry accepts the need for conservation, but the perspective of the individual fisherman is somewhat different. For him, there is no incentive voluntarily to limit his fishing effort or to see that such an approach is fair and effective. He needs a guarantee that such actions are being applied collectively.

Mrs. Jacqui Lait (Hastings and Rye) rose --

Mr. Jack : I should like to make a little progress.

That is why Governments throughout the world have taken responsibility for the conservation of fish stocks for the good of their fishing industries and the European Community has agreed multi-annual guidance programmes with targets for capacity reduction and limiting effort, which all member states must achieve by the end of 1996.

That is why, in February 1992, the Government announced a package of conservation measures aimed at reducing fishing effort--in other words, the number of fish caught--including changes to the licensing regime, the £25 million decommissioning scheme and, indeed, the days-at-sea restrictions.

I shall say more on that last point, but I want to focus on decommissioning, which is a key element of the package.

Mrs. Lait : My hon. Friend referred to the need for fishermen to be reassured about their future. He will know that the wives of the fishermen in Hastings are marching through the town tomorrow and presenting a petition showing their worry about the future. Can he give me the reassurance that they seek--that the fishermen will not be facing unemployment and hardship, which is as they currently see it?

Mr. Jack : The message that my hon. Friend can give to the wives of her fishermen is that they have a Member of Parliament who is assiduous in the way that she has supported their interests. She campaigns for the interests of the fishermen in that part of the world-- [Interruption.] The noise is coming from the other side of the House. It is coming from Labour Members, who had no words about fishing or decommissioning in their manifesto, and SNP Members, whose sole contribution in their manifesto was to say that fishing was 10 times more important in Scotland than in England. They are the ones who are making the noise. It is the voice of my hon. Friend that is important.

One way of achieving less fishing effort is to have fewer vessels and that is the objective of the decommissioning scheme.

Mr. Elliot Morley (Glanford and Scunthorpe) rose

Column 415

Mr. Jack : I shall make a little progress and then give way to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Roy Beggs (Antrim, East) : On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am sure that you will agree that, with regard to the fairness with which debates should be conducted, the Minister should acknowledge that the scheme applies to Northern Ireland as well as to England and Scotland. He should give way at least once to my right hon. Friend the Member for Strangford (Mr. Taylor).

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes) : That is not a point of order for the Chair.

Mr. Jack : There will be plenty of time for hon. Members to intervene, because I have a lot more material to go through. I wish to get on the record the subject of the scheme. I am sure that other hon. Members will have their chance to speak. I want to finish this passage and then I will give way.

The scheme has the potential to reduce the United Kingdom fleet by about 10,000 to 12,000 tonnes and make a contribution to our MAGP target of at least 5 per cent. but that approach cannot be the whole story, because decommissioning alone could simply result in the remaining vessels fishing harder and, therefore, maintaining pressure on the scarce fish stocks. In proposing this decommissioning scheme, we had to think long and hard.

Mr. John D. Taylor (Strangford) : It will not go down well in Northern Ireland that the Minister has gone out of his way to ignore Northern Ireland Members this evening. We were not howling at what the hon. Member for Hastings and Rye (Mrs. Lait) was saying. We were howling because she voted against the interests of her fishermen throughout the earlier stages of the Bill. I simply want to ask the Minister whether this is-- [Interruption.] The Minister is not listening. [ Hon. Members :-- "Get on with it."] I shall get on with it in my own time with the permission of the Deputy Speaker and not because of Conservative Members' comments from a sedentary position. The scheme that we are asked to approve applies to British fishing vessels--those of Scotland, Wales, England and Northern Ireland--but not to those from elsewhere in the European Community. It discriminates against the interests of the British fishing industry. [ Hon Members :-- "Silly."] It is not a matter of being silly. As the fish in the Irish sea do not recognise the border between the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland, how can I, as a constituency Member for Northern Ireland, tell my fishermen that their vessels should be tied up in port while the southern Irish fishermen are free to catch the fish which my fishermen should be allowed to catch on equal terms, if the common fisheries policy is to be equal?

Mr. Jack : I had hoped that we might have a more sensible intervention after all that shouting. The right hon. Gentleman may not be aware that every country in the Community has signed up to the system of the multi-annual guidance programme-- [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) waves his hands, but those are the rules of the game by which we are playing. Other member states have also decided to have their own decommissioning schemes to achieve that target. The scheme is not discriminatory. The targets exist for everybody to achieve and it is up to individual member

Column 416

states to determine how to achieve them and have their scheme agreed with the Commission. I have outlined our policy.

Mr. Anthony Steen (South Hams) : Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Jack : No, I must make some progress. My hon. Friend must be patient for a moment because I have not yet given way to the hon. Member for Glandford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley).

The Public Accounts Committee and the National Audit Office were highly critical of the previous decommissioning scheme. It gave poor value for money and some vessels rejoined the fleet simply to claim grant. The scheme was inflexible and had no specific objectives. More recently, the European Court of Auditors has made similar criticisms of the schemes operated by other member states.

In spite of large sums of money having been spent on

decommissioning schemes, the impact on effort was negligible. Many of the vessels decommissioned were small and not fishing much, and there were no limits to prevent the rest of the fleet from fishing more intensively or new vessels from joining the fleet. Belgium, the Netherlands and Greece had decommissioning schemes, but, like the United Kingdom, they did not achieve their multi-annual guidance programmes.

Mr. Steen : The whole House should be grateful for the effort and energy that my hon. Friend the Minister is putting into wrestling with a difficult problem faced by this country.

Is it possible for us not to implement the scheme until the other European countries have similar arrangements? If we could delay implementation until all the other European countries had similar legislation in place, it would be a level playing field, or a calm sea. The most important contribution that the Government could make to the debate is not to enforce the scheme until the other European countries are doing exactly the same and there is cross-border enforcement.

Mr. Jack : I understand my hon. Friend's point, but I cannot undo what the House has agreed in terms of the Sea Fish Conservation Act 1967. However, I reiterate to my hon. Friend that the most important aspect of the new control regulation is that it will try to ensure that everybody plays by common rules. Our fishing industry seeks that important reassurance, and we shall continue to do all that we can to ensure commonality of enforcement of that policy.

The task of Opposition Members who criticise the Bill is to tell the House what they would do how they would meet our multi-annual guidance programme, if not by decommissioning. If they say that this scheme is too little, too late, they must tell us how much they would spend, where they would get the money from and what impact it would have on the fishing industry. It is easy to criticise, but more difficult to be constructive.

As I have indicated to my hon. Friends, the manifesto of the official Opposition did not contain a word about fishing. That is how much they have cared.

Mr. Morley : I think that the Minister's brief is a bit inadequate. The reason why there was not a word in our manifesto was that we dedicated a detailed policy document to the fishing industry, which I launched at

Column 417

Tynemouth during the general election. Rather than calling on the Opposition to say what we would do to deal with the problem, the Minister should get to the point and tell us whether he is going to improve this rather feeble decommissioning scheme.

Mr. Jack : In the interests of greater accuracy, I have obtained a copy of the document, the so-called document "Marine Harvest"--a product of the home-produced word processor industry beloved of the Labour party. It is a thin diet and hardly worth a read ; it contains no facts and no quantifiable proposals.

Our facts on the decommissioning scheme were contained in our manifesto. That shows just how much in-depth research that the Opposition do.

Mr. George Foulkes (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) : Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Jack : No, I want to make some progress. I want to put on record how we will spend £25 million on our decommissioning scheme. I praise my predecessors for the efforts that they have made in fighting the Treasury to ensure that we have this money in the light of the record of the previous decommissioning scheme. The track record of that scheme was not good, and did not take tonnage out of the fishing industry in the way that it should have.

We have won this money. Before the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) derides me once more from behind his bright and shiny tie--which is typical of the glitz and glitter that he likes to create--let me tell the House that the £25 million is being backed up by £18 million on research and £20 million on fisheries protection. Those are substantial sums in relation to the size of the fishing industry.

The purpose of the statutory instrument is to set out the rules for the payment of decommissioning grant. Eligibility for the grant--I am now coming to the good bits--is restricted to registered fishing vessels that are over 10 m long and over 10 years of age, are seaworthy, have a valid fishing licence that has not been downgraded since 27 February 1992 and were acquired before that date. Those vessels should have spent at least 100 days on fishing trips in each of the years 1991 and 1992.

Mr. James Wallace (Orkney and Shetland) : Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Jack : No, the hon. Gentleman must hear the good news. This is how they will get the money.

Payment for vessels decommissioned will be determined by a tendering process, with bids ranked according to pounds per vessel capacity unit. That approach will enable us to take out the largest catching capacity for the available funds. Owners of eligible vessels must be prepared to scrap and deregister their vessels and surrender all their licences by 1 March 1994. That is a much tighter scheme than its predecessor.

Those are the eligibility rules which will apply for 1993-94. Next year, they may be changed in the light of the experience of this year's scheme. In that way, we can provide for the best targeting of funds. I know that the Opposition will like that.

Moreover, £8.4 million is available under the 1993-94 scheme, and £25 million in total. A press announcement inviting applications under the scheme was made on 26 May 1993. The closing date for applications is 9 July.

Column 418

However, we have had representations from fishermen that that deadline is too tight, particularly in view of uncertainties. I am pleased to announce an extension to the end of the month, to allow fishermen to reflect further and apply if they wish.

I believe that this scheme, as part of the package of conservation measures that I have described, represents an excellent opportunity for fishermen who wish to leave the industry. It will help to reduce fishing effort, and help us to meet our European Community obligations.

But what about the other main element of the package, the days-at-sea restrictions? The fishing industry has expressed many doubts about these restrictions, and I am fully aware that some sectors of the industry have ideas about alternative solutions or specific concerns about the detail of the days-at-sea rules that they want addressed. When the Minister and I were appointed we said that we would listen to the industry on those matters. We have both met the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations. I had a long meeting at Brixham with representatives of the fishing industry. I have been to the EC Fisheries Council, I propose to go to Humberside next week and I have several other engagements lined up in fishing areas.

My Scottish Office colleagues and I will shortly meet the Scottish Fishermen's Federation. We will continue to listen, but I should like to hear from hon. Members about the issues that are arising in their constituencies. With their help, we want to look at ideas for dealing with the problems and to see whether we can be more flexible and responsive to the industry's needs.

To allow more time for this dialogue, I now announce a postponement of the days-at-sea restrictions. They will not be introduced until January 1994. That will give us the opportunity to consult fully with the industry about its concerns and to hear its ideas for tackling conservation.

Mr. Foulkes : I welcome the Minister's announcement. He is a great improvement on his predecessor, and the Secretary of State is an even bigger improvement. [Interruption.] I agree with the Minister about my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell). I wish he would shut up occasionally.

The Minister said that he wanted to hear from hon. Members. My constituents in Girvan, Ballantrae and Dunure, and those who fish out of Ayr, are worried about the effect of the tie-up regulations on fishermen who fish stocks that are not precious and for which conservation is not a problem. I hope that, when the Minister speaks to the fishermen and looks again at the matter, he will pay attention to that problem.

Mr. Jack : That is the most constructive Opposition contribution during the debate. I am glad that at least one Opposition Member is alive to some of the industry's real problems. The hon. Gentleman puts his finger on an interesting point. In fairness to my hon. Friend the Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen), who has left the Chamber, fishermen in Brixham also raised that matter with me. They also asked about crustacean fishermen. It is important that such ideas are fleshed out and considered, and I look forward to such dialogue.

Mr. Wallace : The Minister said that he and his colleagues from the Scottish Office would shortly meet the Scottish Fishermen's Federation. The federation was given to believe at a much earlier stage that that meeting might

Column 419

have taken place by now and would have been with his right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. When will the meeting be held--or is the federation just being given a hope and a prayer?

Mr. Jack : The fishermen may have prayed to see me and their prayer has been answered. We hope to have the meeting as soon as possible. When I met them at a preliminary meeting in Luxembourg last week, I indicated that we would be meeting as soon as I could fit such a meeting into my diary.

Mrs. Ewing : Is it a blind date?

Mr. Jack : I cannot tell the hon. Lady that. Orders and other bits of parliamentary business keep appearing in my diary just when I want to see people such as the Scottish fishermen. As soon as that business is out of the way, I shall go to see them. I will try to have the meeting before the end of July, but, in any case, it will be held as soon as possible.

Mr. David Trimble (Upper Bann) rose --

Mr. Jack : I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman, but this is the last time that I shall give way.

Mr. Trimble : I was impressed by the Minister's itinerary. He has been to Brixham, and intends to visit Humberside and Scotland. When does he intend to go to Northern Ireland to speak to fishermen there?

Mr. Jack : As always, I took many of the engagements because people had the courtesy to invite me. Obviously, my right hon. Friend and I want to listen to representatives of fishermen from all parts of the country and I hope that I have given the hon. Gentleman sufficient indication that, if the appropriate invitation comes, we shall do our best to listen to those views.

Mrs. Ewing : Obviously we are concerned about the blind date which seems to be emerging between the Minister and representatives of the Scottish Fishermen's Federation. I hope that we can have some clarification of the immediate need for that particular meeting to take place. Given what he has already said about the Department's change of attitude, what attitude does he strike towards the pelagic fleet which has already met its MAGP requirements, and to the prawn fishermen who represent a very important part of the fishing industry? Many areas, including Buckie in my constituency, are dependent on the crustacean fishermen.

Mr. Jack : It is just like blind date ; one never knows what will happen until the screen rolls back. We are on either side of the screen at the moment ; I hope that it will roll back and we will have a proper dialogue. The hon. Lady's question draws attention to another area of complexity in a difficult subject--differences between regional fishing area in the way in which policy impacts. I already have a flavour of that from some of the representations that I have received and I will certainly want to hear more and have it developed.

I say to everybody who wants to contribute to the discussion that it must be with the objective of enabling us to meet our multi-annual guidance programme. It is no use running away from the fundamental task of reducing the

Column 420

fishing effort in Britain and Europe. I gave a clear indication at the start of the debate about what happened in Canadian waters when dramatic overfishing occurred.

Hon. Members on both sides of the House have a genuine feeling for the industry which is full of dedicated individuals who each day gamble with their economics, their lives, the weather and their well-being. I try to understand that, but, if there is to be an industry and fish stocks for them to enjoy in future, we have to find ways of balancing the effort and the catching capacity of the fleet to the available fishing stocks.

The proposals that I have put before the House this evening are a way forward.

Mr. Morley : Will the Minister give way?

Next Section

Home Page