| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
12.48 pm
The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Tony Baldry): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon (Mr. Amess) on using this debate to draw attention to the concerns of fishermen from Essex, from the Thames estuary and from adjoining areas. As he said, the issues he has raised are a matter of concern to many hon. Members, including not only my right hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon) but our many colleagues who represent constituencies around the Thames estuary.
If it is agreeable to my right hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West, I should be delighted to visit Leigh-on-Sea. Since becoming the Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in July, I have visited many ports and harbours around the country, and I should be very happy to go to Leigh and to meet the non-sector fishermen there. If I do not cover all the points raised by my hon. Friend in the time available to me, I will write to him to provide greater detail.
When we speak about the fishing industry, there is a tendency to think in terms of the south-west--Cornwall and Devon--Humberside, Hull, Grimsby and the north-east; but there is, and always has been, an active industry in the south-east around the Thames, exploiting the resources available from the Thames estuary. Many
people have been involved in such fishing for several generations, and typify the independent and resolute nature of the British character.
As my hon. Friend has said, much of the fishing activity is recorded as far back as the Domesday Book. Fishing has continued to be important in this century. My hon. Friend also quite rightly referred to the contribution that the fishing industry of the Thames estuary made at Dunkirk and elsewhere during the second world war. Those fishermen and their industry are very much an integral part of our highly complex and diverse fishing industry. To me they are as important as any other part of that industry.
In the latter part of his speech, my hon. Friend spoke about the treaty of Rome's reference to common access to an equal resource. There never has been common access to an equal resource under the common fisheries policy, and I do not envisage that there ever will be.
As the House will be aware, the common fisheries policy imposes a six-mile limit from our shore within which only United Kingdom vessels can fish. That includes most of the inshore fishing industry, and much of the Thames estuary fishing industry. A further limit of between six and 12 miles prohibits access to all boats except United Kingdom ones and those that have historical rights of access. We have historical rights of access into the 12-mile limits of certain other member states.
To be honest, I do not envisage any circumstances in which we would be prepared to surrender our six or 12-mile limits. That is probably the view of other member states, because I cannot envisage any circumstances in which they would wish to give up their respective limits. Those limits are important to the inshore fishing industry.
Reference has understandably been made to the UK's quota management arrangements and to the particular problems which local fishermen have encountered through belonging to what is known as the non-sector--that group of fishermen who do not belong to producer organisations. It may be helpful to explain what our quota management arrangements are and how they affect the non-sector.
As the House knows, the amount of fish which can be taken from the North sea is fixed annually by the Fisheries Council, when 15 Ministers from the member states meet in December. That council takes account of scientific advice and the results of bilateral negotiations with Norway.
Once the total allowable catches have been decided for the principal stocks--cod, whiting, haddock, saithe, plaice, sole, hake, nephrops, mackerel and herring--they are allocated among member states according to fixed percentage shares reflecting the level of fishing activity that took place in the 1970s, prior to the finalisation of the common fisheries policy. It thus follows that different stocks are allocated a different percentage.
In the North sea, for example, we do rather well on plaice, because we have been allocated 56 per cent. of the North sea quota. We do lamentably poorly on sole, however, having been allocated 4 per cent. of the quota. That is one of the reasons why that stock is under such pressure.
From time to time, representatives of the industry consider whether we would be wise to revisit the issue of stability and the way in which the percentages are
allocated. It is fair to say that the United Kingdom fishing industry has expressed to me the opinion that it did pretty well out of the relative stability regime and the consequent divisions of quotas. Our quotas were good for Scotland and much of the north coast. Concern has been expressed that, if we were to revisit those quotas, we would not do so well. I recognise that that means, of course, that, in certain areas, we have been allocated lamentably small quotas.
Once the quotas have been fixed, it becomes the responsibility of each member state to manage its own quota allocation and to ensure that they are not overfished.
Within the UK we have sought to devise arrangements that are fair and equitable, and to encourage fishermen, through producer organisations where appropriate, to take on day-to-day responsibility for the management of quota allocations. Each year, we divide the UK's quotas among three groups of fishermen--the producer organisations, the non-sector, representing vessels whose owners are not members of producer organisations--within that group comes many of the fishermen to whom my hon. Friend referred--and the under-10 m fleet. Those quotas are allocated in proportion to the aggregated catch that each group makes over the three previous years.
Where allocations are made to a producer organisation, it is then responsible for sharing quota between its members and to ensure that they do not overfish the producer organisation's collective entitlement. The quotas for the non-sector are managed by the Fisheries Departments in close consultation with the industry. That involves setting monthly catch limits that take account of seasonal variations in fishing activity. Those limits are set at levels that ensure that fisheries remain open throughout the year, so that fishermen have the opportunity to fish them. Monthly catch limits are not set for the under-10 m fleet, and once the quota allocation for any stock is taken, further landings are prohibited.
Those management arrangements are reviewed annually with representatives of all sides of the industry. It is fair to say that, in the past eight years, many fishermen, notably the more active, have opted to join or form producer organisations. Today, those organisations account for more than 90 per cent. of the uptake of UK quota.
At the same time, the quotas available to fishermen remaining in the non-sector have inevitably contracted. That, along with declining stocks and increasing fishing effort, has led to a general tightening of monthly catch limits. I am conscious of that, and I have made it clear to hon. Friends that one of my great concerns is to work out means within the existing parameters of the common fisheries policy to give more help to the non-producer organisation sector.
My hon. Friend spoke about what happens to the track records of boats when they are decommissioned. That is one of the issues that I am considering. I would, however, point out that a number of important steps have already been taken to safeguard the position of fishermen who do not belong to producer organisations.
The quota allocations for fishermen with vessels under 10 m have been underpinned since 1994. That means that those fishermen now receive a guaranteed minimum share of the UK's quota irrespective of whether they have been able to catch their full entitlement because, for example, of bad weather or fish stocks failing to turn up on inshore
grounds. That underpinning has been extended to the non-sector allocations for North sea cod and sole, two of the stocks of major interest to fishermen in the Thames estuary. We have also insisted that all producer organisations wishing to manage quota allocations must do so for all stocks.
I am conscious of the importance of the sole fishery and the concerns that monthly catch limits are not sufficient to maintain the viability of fishermen within the Thames estuary. I appreciate those concerns, but they must be put into perspective.
As I have said, the UK share of the TAC sole quota is, and has always been, low. It is doubtful that we shall ever secure sufficient quota to satisfy the aspirations of our fishermen. Secondly, despite the claims that are made, our records show that, in the past, few fisherman caught significantly more sole than they do now. Thirdly, sole account for less than one quarter of the value of the total fish catch landed into Essex ports. For example, in 1994, cod, bass, plaice, sprat, skate and rays also made important contributions to the earnings of Essex fishermen.
I am aware that exceptionally good catches of sole have been reported this year. According to the advice I have received from scientists, that is not indicative of exceptionally large stocks of North sea sole: it is due to the unusually low temperatures throughout February, which drove the sole into warmer deep water pockets, where their concentrated numbers and near-moribund state made them easy to catch.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |