| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Points of Order
3.30 pm
Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow): On a point of order, Madam Speaker. During last night's debate on the preposterous proposal to privatise the Stationery Office, the Parliamentary Secretary, Office of Public Service, the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts), was a little naughty--I put it charitably--in his statements about the Clerks Department, as can be seen in column 1317 of Hansard. Was that brought to your attention, Madam Speaker, and can you clarify the position of the Clerks Department, which by tradition is neutral and does not become involved in matters of political controversy?
Madam Speaker: There may still be misunderstanding in some quarters about the position of Officers of the House in the process leading to privatisation of Her Majesty's Stationery Office. As the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) made clear yesterday, the House of Commons Commission has authorised Officers of the House to participate in the process of preparing the contract that would be necessary to protect the interests of the House after privatisation, and in that context to attend meetings of the privatisation steering group in an observer capacity.
The choice of the firm whose bid will be accepted is purely one for the Government. That said, Officers of the House will be available to give information to representatives of the Government about the special nature and the special implications of the work that the House requires, and will continue to require to be done by whoever is responsible for its printing services. That information may help the Government to make their choice, but neither the House nor any organ of it will make that choice.
As soon as any name of a firm that is to take over the functions of HMSO is announced, it will be for Officers of the House--acting on behalf of the House of Commons Commission--to negotiate the terms of an appropriate contract. Preparatory work for that eventuality is already under way. It will be for the Commission itself, at the end of the process, to approve the terms of any contract that is drawn up. I hope that I have made that abundantly clear.
Mr. Dafydd Wigley, supported by Mr. Cynog Dafis, Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones, Mr. Elfyn Llwyd, Mr. Andrew Welsh, Mr. Alex Salmond, Mrs. Margaret Ewing and Ms Roseanna Cunningham, presented a Bill to provide safeguards for homeworkers and for associated workers: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 26 January and to be printed. [Bill 36.]
Madam Speaker:
I have selected the amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition.
The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Michael Forsyth):
I beg to move,
On Thursday the Fisheries Ministers of the European Union will meet to decide the 1996 quotas for fish stocks. Today's debate allows the House to consider these matters and to scrutinise the relevant documents, which are set out in the Order Paper. Already this year the House has had a number of debates on fisheries. Earlier in the year and again in October, it considered proposals for limiting fishing effort in waters west of the United Kingdom. More recently my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) succeeded in raising his concerns about the common fisheries policy in an Adjournment debate.
The main focus for today's debate are the proposals which the Council of Fisheries Ministers will consider later this week in Brussels to determine the fishing opportunities for the various fleets of the Community next year. I am delighted to have this opportunity to open the debate. As I made plain when I attended the meeting of the Council of Fisheries Ministers in October when the final critical decisions were taken on the arrangements for western waters, I attach great importance to the prospects for the industry which is so important to remote communities, not just in Scotland but around the whole coastline of the United Kingdom.
I was brought up in Arbroath on the north-east coast of Scotland and I well recall the vibrancy of the harbour and the fish market, and the community spirit that was encapsulated in the local fishing fleet. It is a great sadness to me personally to see how the industry has changed over the past 20 years. Looking back only 10 or 15 years, one
sees that the volume of the main white fish landings in the United Kingdom was little short of twice the volume that we can expect next year.
If there is to be a single measure of the success of the European common fisheries policy it should be the health of our fish stocks. On that, plainly, the jury is still out. Some 60 per cent. of those stocks are considered by the scientists to be at risk biologically. That means that the stocks are below or at about the lowest level which has been seen over the 30 years during which they have been subject to close scientific monitoring. That statistic tells its own story about the performance of the common fisheries policy.
Some hon. Members may argue that the state of the stocks is not as bad as the scientists advise. There may be some truth in that because fishery science is not an exact science. At the Council we shall certainly take into account the views of the fishermen in pressing for changes to the Commission's proposals, but I do not think that anyone can dispute the overall conclusion that our stocks are not in the same healthy state as they were 10 or 15 years ago.
Mr. Christopher Gill (Ludlow):
Does my right hon. Friend accept that the fundamental problem with the common fisheries policy is the principle of equal access to the common resource? Does he agree that that works very much to the detriment of the British fishing industry? Will he assure the House that the Government will go to the intergovernmental conference next year determined to see this written out of the regulations? Will they serve notice now on our European partners that that is our bottom line?
Mr. Forsyth:
I have considerable sympathy with what my hon. Friend says. I think his point is that the idea of equal access to a common resource is more of an aspiration than a reality. In practice the principle of relative stability, for example, has been contrary to that. I assure my hon. Friend that the Minister of State will fight hard for British interests at the Council meeting, as he has always done in the past.
Mr. Gill:
I thank my right hon. Friend for giving way again. I listened with interest to his answer but I should like to press him on the point. Will he serve notice now on our European partners that we will accept nothing less than a writing out of the fisheries regulations all the references to equal access to a common resource?
Mr. Forsyth:
We have never had equal access and we have no intention of accepting that principle. I hope that that helps my hon. Friend to some degree.
Mr. John Wilkinson (Ruislip-Northwood):
I am most grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way--he has been most courteous as usual. Is not the fundamental problem that fisheries policy is subject to qualified majority voting? For the British, who have maritime interests just like the Icelanders and Norwegians, of paramount national importance is the fact that land-locked countries such as Luxembourg and Austria, and Mediterranean countries too, can have a vote on our Atlantic fisheries, which is clearly preposterous.
Mr. Forsyth:
I read with interest my hon. Friend's comments in the Adjournment debate that he secured some weeks ago. I can say to him only that there are,
[Relevant documents: European Community Documents Nos. 10409/95, on the annual report by the Commission on the multi-annual guidance programme, 10862/95 relating to guide prices for fishery products in 1996, the unnumbered Explanatory Memoranda submitted by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on 27th November 1995 relating to the EC/Morocco Fisheries Agreement, on 12th December 1995 relating to the Community observer scheme in North West Atlantic Fisheries Organisation (NAFO) waters, on 12th December 1995 relating to joint international inspection in NAFO waters, on 12th December 1995 relating to control measures in NAFO waters, on 12th December 1995 on a pilot satellite tracking project in NAFO waters, on 12th December 1995 relating to Community catch possibilities in NAFO waters for 1996, on 12th December 1995 relating to reciprocal access and 1996 quotas with Norway, and on 12th December 1995 on amendments to the criteria for the decommissioning of fishing vessels.]
That this House takes note of the unnumbered Explanatory Memorandum, submitted by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on 8th December 1995, relating to the fixing of total allowable catches for 1996 and certain conditions under which they may be fished; and supports the Government's intention to negotiate the best possible fishing opportunities for British fishermen consistent with scientific advice and the need to sustain the stocks for the benefit of future generations of fishermen.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |