| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
6.30 pm
Mr. Elliot Morley (Glanford and Scunthorpe): This has been an important debate and there have been many useful contributions. I agree with the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross) that it is an annual debate for which we should have more time. He will appreciate that the business timetable is in the Government's hands. But when we are in government he can be assured that we will listen sympathetically to his representations.
The Secretary of State for Scotland mentioned the 1992 manifesto: in 1992 the Labour party made suggestions for amending the common fisheries policy, working with the
fishing community on conservation measures and campaigning throughout the fishing constituencies. The moves were covered in the fishing press. The Government are only now--three years later--considering many of those ideas in the review committee. We do not need lessons from the Government about what we have been doing.
In some ways today's debate is a re-run of previous debates. In the past, when the Government felt that they were under pressure, they suddenly came up with more money for the decommissioning scheme, which was welcome at the time. Now, when they are under pressure, we suddenly find that the harbour grant scheme has been reinstated--it is a more modest contribution than the decommissioning scheme, but it is welcome for all that. We shall not be churlish about it.
Much attention has been focused on the debate for many reasons. There is no doubt that the debate provides an opportunity to discuss European Union policy as it affects our country. It is completely legitimate to question the mechanics of the European Union, particularly how it applies in terms of the common fisheries policy--many hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell), have done so. But we must not forget the importance of the debate to the British fishing industry, and I shall touch on some of the serious concerns.
I shall first discuss the quotas set for individual species which the Minister will have to discuss at the Fisheries Council. Concern has been voiced in tonight's debate about the way in which the quotas seem to fluctuate wildly from year to year. That not only makes it difficult for the fishing industry in terms of applying effort and using opportunities, it does not help the credibility of science. I accept that there are difficulties in calculating fish stocks at sea. It seems strange that some stocks have increased dramatically over recent years, while others have been dramatically cut. It does not help when the Government make cuts in sectors of vital fisheries research, such as they have done recently on research into the impact of the industrial fishing of sand eels in Shetland. The Government also made research and development cuts across the board in the Budget, including cuts in fisheries research.
The Minister will be discussing species quotas. We certainly welcome the fact that there will be an 8 per cent. increase in the cod quota, but it is thought within the industry that the increase could be greater given the evidence of large numbers of cod presently in the North sea. It is strange that there is to be no increase for channel cod although it is accepted that the stocks of channel cod and North sea cod are linked to some extent.
A big issue for our fleets involves North sea sole and plaice. There is great concern about the 29 per cent. cut in that quota, which will hit our eastern, Northern Ireland, south-western and Irish sea fleets. The problem of swaps with Holland has been mentioned. If no swaps are to take place, I hope that the Minister will look at the total allowable catch for the western waters for those fish that we would normally obtain from a swap with the Dutch. My hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke (Mr. Ainger) made a clear case for western hake for his local fishing fleet. It would be helpful if the Minister would say whether such a swap would take place at the current projected total of 78,000 tonnes for North sea plaice or whether the total would have to be increased for the swap to go ahead.
There is a severe cut of 22 per cent. in the whiting quota. It seems strange that in recent years it has been argued that the quota should be increased because whiting are predatory fish and affect the white fish stocks. But the present cut is so large that it could invoke the Hague preference. I hope that in his negotiations the Minister will ensure that the quota limits are set at a level that does not do so because of the problems involved in the Hague preference. That preference provides benefits for this country north of Bridlington, but also applies to the Republic of Ireland and therefore has implications for our Northern Ireland fleet and the fleet that fishes in area VII. The Irish Republic is trying to invoke the Hague preference on Irish sea cod and haddock, which has implications for our area VII fleet.
Throughout the debate we have discussed the common fisheries policy; we cannot talk about quotas and fisheries management without discussing how the common fisheries policy operates. The subject cannot be avoided as it is the framework for the fisheries management scheme. Our amendment recognises that there are severe problems with the CFP and that we need a radical approach to reform.
Much attention has focused on whether there will be a rebellion tonight and the reason for it in terms of the political agenda, particularly for those with Eurosceptic views. There is no doubt that the policy of voting against the Government on various European issues has been successful for the Eurosceptics. The debate has provoked the Foreign Secretary into taking to the airways to appeal to the dissidents. The Prime Minister has written articles in The Daily Telegraph that have been slanted towards the dissidents. Tonight, a former Prime Minister and the current Secretary of State for Scotland have spoken in the debate. There is no doubt that the Eurosceptics' tactics have been successful and are moving the Government towards their agenda, whether for good or ill.
The debate, however, is about the dire state of our fishing industry. To be fair, those who have spoken have had a genuine interest in the subject--they include hon. Members from Northern Ireland, from the nationalist and Liberal Democrat parties, and hon. Members from both sides of the House who represent fishing constituencies. Even those with Eurosceptic views have taken an interest in the problems of our fishing fleet. The hon. Member for Holland with Boston (Sir R. Body) feels passionately about the subject and knows the effect of the policy on his local fishermen.
Problems with the common fisheries policy include those involving the Western waters and Spanish accession; the fact that Spanish and Portuguese vessels are to be allowed in from 1 January, six years ahead of schedule. There are also problems involving control measures on our south-western and Northern Ireland fleet; problems of bureaucracy; the flagships issue; the need to qualify properly the principle of a common fisheries resource--a key issue; problems of meeting the multi-annual guidance programme and effort control; problems of having an ageing fleet compared with those of other countries; enforcement problems, particularly with other countries; problems of implementing a conservation scheme that is tailored to our waters; and the problem of discards. There is a need for associated socio-economic measures and a need to consider the operation of the decommissioning scheme. Increasing pressure is being placed on many of the white fish in the
North sea which fall within the two to three-year-old age group, which means that the potential of the larger species is never realised.
The Labour party calls for reform of the CAP and recognises that we must seek co-operation to achieve that; no one country can achieve it alone. We firmly believe that, even within the framework of the CAP, we can achieve greater national autonomy. We also believe that there is scope for greater involvement of fishermen in the management of stocks through their associations and producer organisations. There are structural conservation packages, many of which were put forward by organisations such as the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations and the Scottish Fishermen's Federation to deal with the practical problems of conservation. We need to gather allies and support for those packages and we must talk to the Commission. The Labour party has already begun that process.
Conservative Members must ask why other fishing countries such as Norway and Spain are so successful at negotiating good deals for their fishery sectors. The answer must be the pressure that is applied to their Governments in their respective Parliaments. A vote tonight for Labour's amendment would send a clear signal to the European Commission that neither the British Parliament nor the British fishing industry are satisfied with the present common fisheries policy or the current state of the industry. That is a perfectly respectable position for any Member of Parliament to take on the issue.
In that respect, a vote for our amendment is vital as a demonstration of the House's support for our fishing communities. Members of Parliament who represent fishing communities know that their fishermen want and expect them to support the amendment. For far too long, the British fishing industry has been isolated in terms of the support that it believes it should receive from Government. Tonight we have an opportunity to rectify the matter.
Mr. Gallie:
Earlier this afternoon I asked the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Dr. Strang) whether he had considered inserting some reference to total allowable catches in his amendment. I cannot understand why that has not been included in the amendment. In attempting to persuade Conservative Members, perhaps the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe could refer to that very important issue.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |