| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Dr. Norman A. Godman (Greenock and Port Glasgow): As I am the son of a fisherman and a fishergirl, I hope that the Minister will not accuse me of being a Johnny come lately to the fishing industry. Successive Administrations, with the common fisheries policy, are largely to blame for the parlous condition of the British fishing fleet. May I offer the Minister a practical suggestion? Will he give the House an assurance that at the IGC he will argue for the freedom of establishment to be circumscribed and the concept of relative stability to be emphasised? I hope that he can get across to his colleagues at the IGC and in the Council of Fisheries Ministers the fact that relative stability would help our fishing industry enormously. That is what the fishing industry argued for in 1987.
Mr. Hogg: I am not accusing the hon. Gentleman as an individual of being a Johnny come lately. I accept that he has a long-standing interest in the matter. However,I accuse his party of being Johnnies come lately, and for good reasons.
The hon. Gentleman is right that relative stability needs to be emphasised, and we take every opportunity, such as that offered by the interim review of 1992, to do just that. As for what we seek to achieve within the IGC, obviously we must formulate our negotiating position against the background of what we are likely to get allies for.In broad terms, as I said, we seek to achieve a close relationship between ownership of the vessel and the country upon whose fishing quotas it draws. That is what we seek, although it represents another way of expressing the same thing, when we talk in terms of economic benefit. Clearly, there must be a close relationship between the vessels drawing on national quotas and the countries to which those quotas belong.
Mr. John Townend (Bridlington):
Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the Government will have no alternative but to pay compensation, funded by the British taxpayer, if the British courts find in the Spanish fishermen's favour? Does he agree that the decision is not untypical of decisions by the European Court, which consistently overrules the sovereignty of the House?I welcome his proposal to try to secure changes at the IGC, but will the Government be completely ruthless and threaten to veto everything else unless they get their way? But if they are not successful at the IGC, what will they do? Will we have to sit and watch our fishing industry die?
Mr. Hogg:
On compensation, as I said earlier, it is for the applicants to prove first that there is a breach, secondly that they have suffered loss, and thirdly the quantum of that loss. Until those three elements are proved, there is no liability to pay compensation. As for parliamentary sovereignty, I return to the central point: the court seeks to interpret treaty obligations. For that reason, if we are to be effective in achieving what we would like to achieve, we must seek to bring about change in the treaty itself.
Mr. Peter Shore (Bethnal Green and Stepney):
The Minister must recognise that the European Court of Justice decision adds insult to injury in this country, especially affecting our fishermen. Furthermore, it illustrates the total humiliation of Parliament that we suffered when the Merchant Shipping Act 1988 was struck down by the European Court. We must be frank with ourselves and the country. It is no good the Minister saying that he can go to the IGC and plead with it to make amendments to the common fisheries policy. Whether it is decided by unanimity or by a qualified majority, there are overwhelmingly good reasons why other European countries should relish the common resource of British fishing. We shall therefore get nothing from that.
Will the Minister face that fact, get on to the real issue and be prepared to take any action, including the denunciation of the part of the treaty that affects our fishing, so that we can restore our self-respect and the control of our own resources?
Mr. Hogg:
I have a great regard for the right hon. Gentleman, whom I have known in this place for 19 years
I cannot commend to the right hon. Gentleman the policy of denouncing the common fisheries policy. [Hon. Members: "Why?"] I am just going to say why. First, I do not think that it is achievable in real politics. [An hon. Member: "Of course it is."] Secondly, it is probably undesirable. For both those reasons, I am against it. Although all of us dislike the judgment in so far as it relates to the common fisheries policy--the Factortame situation--it has the advantage of promoting the single market, as I described to the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North.
Mr. John Wilkinson (Ruislip-Northwood):
How many more humiliations will our country have to face at the hands of the European Union before Her Majesty's Government face the reality of the common fisheries policy--that they have no hope at the forthcoming IGC of amending the treaty, because the other countries will not agree it? So long as European law has primacy over British law, there will not be remedy, even in our own courts. Will the Government therefore do the honest and proper thing and give notice at the IGC of our intention to withdraw from the common fisheries policy?
Mr. Hogg:
The negotiations will be tough--nobody tries to pretend otherwise--and it is possible that we shall not succeed. I am not trying to conceal that from the House. I shall certainly not start the negotiations on the assumption that we are bound to lose. That is not my opinion.
Mr. Patrick Nicholls (Teignbridge):
Why not?
Mr. Hogg:
"Why not?" I hear from behind me. I shall say why not. We have an extremely good case to make. There is no doubt that quota hopping derogates from the principle of national quotas. That is an extremely good argument to make, and we shall make it vigorously.
Denouncing the common fisheries policy is an illusion. First, it would be almost impossible to achieve; secondly, we would have to make such concessions as to make it unlikely to be in our interests; and thirdly, we would be in a demandeur position in many bilateral negotiations, where we would want to try to trade access to other people's waters. In my view, people should not peddle such an illusion.
Mr. Alex Salmond (Banff and Buchan):
Has the Minister looked at the report of the Committee debate on the Merchant Shipping Bill on 18 February 1988, when both the hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Lloyd) and I argued that the Government should not rely on a nationality requirement on ownership to stop the quota hoppers, but should impose a residential requirement on the crews of such vessels?
Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman have the humility to accept that not taking that advice might have been an expensive blunder? It has been expensive, not in
terms of what the Spanish will get from the English courts, but in terms of the lost fishing opportunities for Scottish and English fishermen in the past five years.The Government are to call for treaty changes at the IGC.Why did they not do so five years ago, when the quota hoppers got back on the register and started pillaging the stocks once again? Why was the matter not a priority at that time?
Mr. Hogg:
That question is of the normal quality that I have come to expect from the hon. Gentleman.His principal claim is that we should have applied a crewing criterion, but that would have been manifestly illegal.
Mr. Christopher Gill (Ludlow):
All hon. Members who have taken an interest in the fortunes of the British fishing industry will welcome my right hon. and learned Friend's commitment to seek treaty changes at the forthcoming IGC, and his decision will be applauded by the general public and by the fishing industry. When he meets our European partners at the IGC, will he stress that what is at stake is not just a vital British interest,but the supremacy of national Parliaments and the survival of the fishing stocks?
Mr. Hogg:
During the negotiations, my right hon. and hon. Friends will assert the importance of giving real effect to the concept of national quotas, which in my view is being abrogated by the practice of quota hoping.My hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill) asks me to recognise that there will be general applause for what I have said. Although I welcome general support,I particularly welcome his support.
Mr. Calum Macdonald (Western Isles):
The Minister referred to the Committee debates on the Merchant Shipping Bill in 1988, but he quoted selectively from them. Will he confirm that my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford (Mr. Lloyd) warned the Government on behalf of the Opposition that the provision would fall foul of European law? The Government were warned, but ignored that. Is not that why we have the present debacle?
Mr. Hogg:
I have not been quoting selectively. I have before me a copy of the Second Reading speech made by the hon. Gentleman who led for the Opposition--the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North--in which he made it plain that the Opposition gave us their wholehearted support and expressed the hope that the regulations would be introduced as soon as possible.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |