| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Corbyn: What discussions on the MAI have the Government had either with multinational corporations or through the OECD? What amendments are they tabling to it? When will they be brought before the House?
Mrs. Roche: Discussions are taking place. I shall today place in the House of Commons Library the report that was presented to Ministers on the progress of those discussions. I hope that that will provide some reassurance and some information.
Mr. Corbyn: I thank my hon. Friend for that and for giving way a second time on this point. I welcome the fact that that document will be placed in the Library, but will she ensure that, at an appropriate date, there will be a debate in Government time on the MAI and the amendments proposed to it? We should have such a debate before we move to the next stage and to an international agreement.
Mrs. Roche: I am unable to provide that assurance, but I can tell my hon. Friend that this matter will have to go through all the procedures of the House. It has already been considered by the Scrutiny Committees, and because of the European Community dimension of the negotiations it will inevitably go through all the scrutiny procedures of the House.
There have also been complaints, particularly from non-governmental organisations interested in the environment and international development, that the negotiations have been conducted in secrecy. The Government strongly support wider consultation with NGOs to hear their concerns and to learn from their experience. It was agreed in June to arrange a further meeting of MAI negotiators and NGO representatives in Paris in October. I can confirm that my own negotiators will attend that important meeting.
In the United Kingdom, officials from the Department of Trade and Industry and other interested Departments have met British NGOs on more than one occasion and will be holding another meeting in September in advance of the Paris meeting. Officials in my Department are looking forward to that meeting. Naturally, I cannot promise that we will support every suggestion that the NGOs may make, but I can make a commitment that we will listen to their ideas very carefully.
I have spoken about the parliamentary scrutiny process. I am glad that the House has had the opportunity today to debate the agreement. We welcome that. In accordance with standard procedure, the agreement will be available to Members of both Houses prior to ratification by the United Kingdom.
The MAI has its roots in the OECD. A great deal of effort has also been put into outreach events, looking towards countries that are not part of the process. We are playing a prominent role in that.
United Kingdom negotiators will be present at an event in Paris in September for a large number of OECD non-members and at a first event in Africa in the autumn to be hosted by the Egyptian Government. We hope that, as a result of all that activity, by the time the negotiations are completed, at least a handful of non-OECD countries may--
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst):
Order. We now move to the debate on British fishing policy.
Mr. Andrew George (St. Ives):
I decided to raise the subject of British fishing policy after 2002 because I strongly believe that it is time that debate on the fishing industry is refocused on the longer term. We need to raise our sights and give the Government every encouragement to set the agenda for the reform of the common fisheries policy.
I have a fishing background. I come from a fishing community. Members of my family and some of my friends work in the industry. It is both an industry and a way of life, in which my ancestors have been involved for many centuries. I hope that the product of the debate will be to ensure that it not only survives over the next difficult five years, but can look forward to a genuinely sustainable future beyond the review of the CFP and onwards for many centuries to come.
Before I explain what I believe to be the weaknesses and failures of the CFP and how the problems can be addressed, I want to describe the present state of the industry in my constituency. There is no more obvious a place to start than the port of Newlyn. Despite facing many setbacks and experiencing a reduction in local effort, each year Newlyn lands fish to the value of £23 million. It is bigger than any other port in Cornwall, England or Wales. It is fourth in the United Kingdom by overall catch value and 11th by volume. That illustrates the high-value, low-volume landing of the Newlyn fleet. Some 400 fishermen work from Newlyn, with a further 1,100 directly related onshore jobs.
Fishing is a vital component of the local economy. There are 110 beam trawlers, otter trawlers, netters, potters and liners, so 80 per cent. of the landings are exported as whole fish or live shellfish. However, people often concentrate on the offshore fleet and fail to recognise the importance of inshore boats. As against the 110 offshore boats at Newlyn, there are almost 400 small inshore craft in the many coves and ports around the coast of Cornwall and on the Isles of Scilly. As against the 400 fishermen of Newlyn, at least 700 people earn their living from inshore fishing. About 3,000 more are engaged in ancillary trades. Most of that trade is environmentally friendly and is unquestionably sustainable.
One month ago, David Chapple--a quiet, modest man, deeply respected by all who knew him--died at the young age of 68. He had to leave the local grammar school in Penzance at the age of 14, despite a promising academic future, because of the untimely death of his father--a mackerel handliner--and work the coast from Penberth. He was acknowledged as the leader of and spokesman for the mackerel handline fleet. He was also a member of the Cornish sea fisheries committee for more than 30 years. It is in honour of his memory that I ask the Government not to overlook the importance of retaining a viable inshore fishery.
Many of the inshore fishing methods are referred to as the lowest tier of fishing practice. In fact, gauged by the degree of sustainability of those methods, they are really the highest tier. In Cornwall, there are mackerel handliners, the Fal oyster fishery, crabbers, pilchard drifters and many others. The least we should do is protect the future of traditional fishing, which is of no threat to stocks.
I recognise that the new Government have been handed a poisoned chalice in most areas. However, it is no good looking back. It remains the intention of the Liberal Democrats to maintain a constructive dialogue with Ministers, within the development of our theme of constructive opposition.
One purpose of couching the debate in the way that I did is to override a worrying trend to hijack this important issue. During recent years, some have appeared happy to take advantage of the genuine fears of our fishing communities. I, like many others--no doubt including the Minister--was deeply saddened to see a few people use our fishermen and fishing communities as their front-line troops for their disturbing and xenophobic agenda--an agenda that had nothing to do with the genuine interests of our fishermen. Quite frankly, those people could not care less about fishing. The future of our industry is very important. I urge the Government to use the opportunity of the UK's forthcoming presidency of the European Union to set the agenda for the reform of the CFP.
Mr. Alex Salmond (Banff and Buchan):
I agree with the hon. Gentleman about a certain tendency among some hon. Members. However, looking around the Benches today it is evident that that tendency is on the wane. It boils down to just the hon. Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill).
Mr. George:
It would be beneath me to comment on that.
I hope that we can establish a consensual debate to promote a sensible, realistic and, above all, sustainable policy for the fishing industry. The consensus must begin with the unanimous agreement that the CFP has been a failure and desperately needs early reform. That process will be greatly assisted if we all speak with one voice.
The CFP does little to prevent quota hoppers. It joins together two principles that clash fundamentally--first, the right of establishment enshrined in the single market, and secondly, relative stability that enables us to calculate each member's share of fish stocks. There is a desperate need to reconcile national quotas with the interests of the beneficial owners of the fishing fleet.
The structural policy of reducing the fishing fleet has had only limited success and can be said to have directly encouraged quota hopping. That is in part due to the lack of an adequate decommissioning scheme. Foreign boat owners have been able to meet their reduction targets by transferring their boats to other member states.
Mr. Paul Tyler (North Cornwall):
Does my hon. Friend agree that one reason why both the decommissioning scheme and the structural support for the modernisation of the fleet have been such a disaster in Britain, and far less effective than in our competitor countries within the EU, is the very late process of decision making by the previous Government? The Conservative regime simply did not take the issues--or, indeed, the industry--seriously.
Mr. George:
My hon. Friend rightly reminds us that we are left with historical difficulties. However, I want the debate to look to the future. Although it is appropriate to dwell a little on the reasons why we are in such a parlous position, we must do our utmost to look forward.
The common fisheries policy has not been able to prevent the severe depletion of a number of fish stocks. There are fears that, in the foreseeable future, we could face problems similar to those experienced by the Canadians in the once-prosperous grand banks. The CFP has been highly wasteful. It is estimated that, in some cases, as much as 40 per cent. of a catch is discarded, which can only encourage fishermen to become law breakers. Enforcement is not even and penalties can vary widely. Also, the scientific data used to determine total allowable catches and quotas do not have the confidence of the industry.
11 am
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |