| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Allason: When my hon. Friend goes to the Fisheries Council on Thursday, will he raise the issue of quota hoppers and the abuse of the flags that is so obvious in the British registry?
Mr. Baldry: I certainly will not forget that. My hon. Friend quite rightly reminds the House of the problem of quota hoppers. We all share that concern. The Factortame judgment has nothing to do with the common fisheries policy--it is based on that principle of European law which allows the free association of individuals in different member states--but it is a matter of real and legitimate concern.
My hon. Friend the Member for Torbay, who takes a close interest in promoting the interests of the fishing industry in the south-west, rightly continues to draw the issue to the attention of Ministers. He asked me to consult lawyers as to whether anything could be done about that judgment. I shall gladly draw together the lawyers in the fishing industry.
As I went round the ports of the United Kingdom, I issued a simple challenge. If any fishing industry representative has any sensible suggestions on how we
can get around the Factortame judgment, I shall gladly take them on board and willingly support my hon. Friend's suggestion that we take yet a further look at the issue.
Mr. Anthony Steen (South Hams):
I thank my hon. Friend most warmly for his visits to my constituency and the port of Brixham, where he has always been very welcome. Is it the Government's policy to try to reform the common fisheries policy?
Mr. Baldry:
Yes. All hon. Members recognise that the common fisheries policy has a number of defects. However, we shall not support the totally meaningless garbage put forward in the Labour amendment. When the Opposition Front Bench spokesman was asked to explain what it meant, he was clearly incapable of giving any such explanation. No one in the House is satisfied with the existing common fisheries policy; it clearly needs to be reformed.
Mr. John Redwood (Wokingham):
Does the Minister recognise that many good Conservatives here tonight do not wish to give any comfort to the Labour party, but are deeply worried about the state of the fishing industry? Can the Minister say anything more about the robust stance that he will take at the Fisheries Council and British action that might be taken after the Council so that we stand up for British fishermen, not Spanish ones?
Mr. Baldry:
My right hon. Friend can rest assured that my primary duty to the House is to represent and stand up for the interests of the British fishing industry. If at any time any Member can point to an occasion when I failed to stand up for the British fishing industry, I shall gladly vacate this place.
Mr. Tyler:
Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Baldry:
I should make some progress. I am determined that there should be an on-going dialogue between the fishing industry and scientists on the specific issue of quotas and I recognise there are real concerns that the industry is not being heard.
It is important that the fishing industry becomes more involved in what we are doing. Many in the fishing industry see the year-on-year debate on quotas as a somewhat blunt instrument for ensuring control of the fishing effort and believe that more can be done by way of technical conservation measures. For that reason, I am setting up a fisheries conservation group that will bring together Government scientists and other academics with representatives of the industry to examine issues on which there are concerns, such as industrial fishing and the level of discards and to find out what more can be achieved by improving fishing gear.
Not only do I intend that we should do that here in the United Kingdom, but one of my other objectives at the Fisheries Council meeting later this week is to ensure a clear commitment to technical conservation measures in respect of fishing gear. Progress also has to be made towards addressing widespread concerns about industrial fishing, discards and by-catching.
I assure hon. Members representing Northern Ireland constituencies that I shall be pressing the Fisheries Council for increases in the quotas proposed for the Irish sea. I fully appreciate the concerns of the Northern Irish industry about the Hague preference and of course we
shall continue to seek to reduce the disadvantages to Northern Ireland resulting from the Hague preference, for example by carrying out international quota swaps.
The hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross) asked whether the quota is still Government policy. It is and will continue to be Government policy. Members have been concerned that there should be equal and strict enforcement of EC fishery measures throughout the Community and we determined to ensure that.
Two concerns have run through this evening's debate. One is the common fisheries policy, where the Government need reforms. It would be disingenuous, however, to suggest that we could leave the common fisheries policy. We should concentrate instead on reforming it in ways that would benefit the industry.
I find the Opposition amendment disingenuous in the extreme. Opposition Members play on the worst aspects of xenophobia. They criticise the Spanish, but forget that not a single Labour voice was raised against the accession of Spain or Portugal to the European Union. They criticised the Government for the deal that was achieved and clearly failed to read the Spanish treaty of accession, which stated that 300 vessels may be authorised to fish in western waters from the date of accession until 31 December this year. The result of the agreement that we achieved in December 1994 is that the number of Spanish vessels with access to the Irish box from 1 January will be not 300 but 40. That is a considerable deal on behalf of the United Kingdom fishing industry.
We do not need the Labour party to give us lessons on representing British interests. Anyone who is concerned about British interests should have regard to what the Labour party and other socialist parties signed up to this week in Madrid--a significant extension of qualified majority voting and restrictions on how long people can work. If those policies were implemented, we would be unable to represent best fishing interests.
Question put, That the amendment be made:--
The House divided: Ayes 297, Noes 305.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |