| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Cynog Dafis (Ceredigion and Pembroke, North): I apologise to the Minister for my absence during his speech. The issue of consequential loss is important. There is no doubt at all that the losses of fishermen in Ceredigion--who are unable to sell their fish even though it may not be contaminated--are a consequence of the Sea Empress tragedy. I trust that there will be no cavilling about this and that the insurers and the compensation fund will recognise this as a consequence of the tragedy and that these people will be properly eligible for compensation. I trust that the Government will press this issue very strongly.
Mr. Ainger: I do not know whether that intervention was meant for me or for the Minister, but I support the point made by the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North, particularly as I referred to the example of fish caught off his constituency between Aberystwyth and New Quay. Undoubtedly, the fishermen and the processor have suffered consequential loss. I took this point up with the insurers and the international pollution compensation fund administrators and I was assured that so long as documentation was provided, the consequential claims would be met.
We are concerned, however, that there appears to be a climate of restriction--certainly this was the experience in the first few days of dealing with the claims--in which relatively small percentages are being paid of what are reasonable claims. Obviously, there is still a large amount of hardship that has not so far been tackled and which needs to be tackled as quickly as possible.
Mr. Denzil Davies (Llanelli):
I shall be brief as my hon. Friends the Members for Gower (Mr. Wardell) and for Pembroke (Mr. Ainger) have dealt with the problems fully. I shall raise one or two points. As my hon. Friend the Member for Gower said, this is a draconian order and I do not know whether it is necessary. Having listened to my hon. Friends, I am not so sure, but I can understand that a Government of any political persuasion would feel it best to err on the side of caution and safety in these matters.
In looking at the order--I am not making a pedantic lawyer's point--I find that the language does not fall very easily. Indeed, looking at the parent Act, it is not clear
whether it is always a suitable vehicle. As I understand it, however, the order is the same as the one used following the Braer incident. I will quote the preamble, if that is the right term. We are told that the order is
There is then a curious long sentence which states that the Secretary of State may be of the opinion
I understand that, but the next part is very odd--
I thought that that referred to fish, but having read it again it obviously does not. I do not think that fish is food derived from fish--fishcakes or fish fingers, perhaps, but not fish. I do not know why there is this difficulty. Very often when drafting is not clear, it betrays a difficulty in dealing with the problem. The order goes on to say that no one should fish at all, even those who fish merely for leisure. The way the preamble is drafted is rather strange.
In relation to fishing for recreation, the order will have a considerable effect. There is perhaps not so much fishing in my constituency as there is in Pembrokeshire, the Gower peninsula or the constituency of Carmarthen. As the Minister will know, people fish commercially for bass and for their own pleasure. This will be a draconian order, not only for those who fish commercially but for those who fish for pleasure in the Burry Inlet and beyond.
What worried me most was the Minister's use of the word "hardship" when he discussed the insurance fund. My hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke has dealt with this issue, and perhaps the Minister did not just mean hardship. Hardship is not loss of profit, as I understand it: it is a subjective matter. Why can the Minister not say "claims by commercial fishermen for loss of profit"?We all understand that a claim has to be proved, but it should not be too difficult to prove that there has been a loss.
I hope that the Minister will be able to reassure fishermen and those who process shellfish in my constituency that if they can show a loss of profit--it should not be too difficult to show a dip over a six-month period from the disaster, as supplies may be obtained from other places--they will be compensated.
Mr. Gareth Wardell:
I agree with my right hon. Friend. That information is available. The sea fisheries committee licenses cockle gathers, so their numbers are known. MAFF has information about whelks, for example. On the basis of the information that the Departments already have, therefore, there is no reason whatever not to speed up the process of compensation.
Mr. Davies:
My hon. Friend is right. I have no doubt that the South Wales sea fisheries committee is aware of every cockle that is lifted from the Burry inlet. The information is available, so people should be allowed to prove their claims.
I hope that the Minister was not saying that only claims for hardship would be allowed. Where did he find the word "hardship"? Is it from some part of the agreement
that I have not read? I hope that the Minister will be able to tell us that claims for loss of profit will also be allowed and that it is not just a matter of hardship.
Mr. Alan W. Williams (Carmarthen):
I am glad to have the opportunity to take part in the debate. It is very much an all-Dyfed affair. I note that the Minister was brought up in Llanelli and that my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Mr. Wardell) was born in my constituency and lives there now. Everyone who has spoken tonight represents Dyfed constituencies.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Gower on his speech from the Front Bench. He has worked diligently, as he did in the Select Committee, and is a complete master of his brief and knowledgeable about fisheries and the problems that we face in Dyfed. I should also put in a word for the excellent work of my hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke (Mr. Ainger), who has a unique background in the oil industry.
Although Dyfed is only a small part of Britain, North sea oil destined for the British market caused last month's catastrophe, which severely threatened its economy.I echo the calls throughout Dyfed and among Opposition parties for a full and independent public inquiry into the initial incident and, in particular, into what happened during the following four days which turned the incident into a disaster. Only a full public inquiry can ensure that it does not happen again.
Broadly speaking, I welcome the order in that it safeguards the future of the fisheries market--it is important to our economy and food safety in Britain. As my hon. Friend the Member for Gower said, the order draws a rather arbitrary border. The initial incident occurred just off Milford Haven, but the wind direction carried its effects down the south-west coast. Very little thought seems to have been given to the boundaries.
The order will affect the cockle industry in Laugharne in my constituency. In the past three or four years, there has been a remarkable revival of the cockle industry there as the cockle beds have shifted in Carmarthen bay. I do not understand such matters, but the industry is now worth well over £1 million a year. The prohibition order will mean the loss of several million pounds in shellfish sales this year.
I had an exchange earlier with the Minister about salmon fishing and angling in the Towy. I am glad that he has corrected his earlier comment. I understand that the order applies to the entire length of the Towy and that no fishing will be allowed--even for leisure--in the next few months, until the order is lifted. I am sure that the Minister will keep the situation under constant review.
Mr. Gareth Wardell:
My hon. Friend mentioned the cockle industry in Laugharne. The sampling of hydrocarbon contamination of cockles at Llansteffan shows that, when the order was introduced, hydrocarbon
"in exercise of the powers conferred . . . of the Food and Environment Protection Act 1985".
"that there exists or may exist circumstances which are likely to create a hazard to human health through human consumption of food"--
"and that in consequence food which is derived or may be in the future derived from fish . . . may become unsuitable for human consumption".
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |