| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
11.23 am
Mr. Christopher Gill (Ludlow): The hon. Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) said that having a viable fishing fleet for the future was very important. As a former naval person, I entirely agree. Indeed, as a former naval person, I am reminded of the political, industrial, social, commercial, environmental and--not least--strategic importance of a strong and vibrant fishing fleet. It might assist right hon. and hon. Members to remember those six points by thinking of the word pisces. All those dimensions are represented in the fishing industry.
I congratulate the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. George) on two counts: first, on obtaining this important debate, and secondly, on highlighting the significance and importance of 2002. In what was otherwise an excellent speech, he fell into the trap into which so many politicians fall of thinking that the common fisheries policy can be reformed--although he
went on to say that it should be scrapped. He enumerated a number of problems associated with the CFP, of which those of us who have followed these debates for several years are all too well aware. The great danger in these debates is that we all engage in platitudes. Of course it is important to conserve fish stocks; of course it is important to have a vibrant fishing industry, and so on. But, one has to consider the fundamental structure of the CFP.
Some hon. Members present will remember that, when we debated these matters on 9 July--just a fortnight ago--the Parliamentary Secretary said that I had been entirely consistent on the subject.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Elliot Morley):
Yes, consistently wrong.
Mr. Gill:
I was just about to make that point. The hon. Gentleman indeed went on to say that I had been consistently wrong. I want to debate that very point with him because he must demonstrate in this debate why I am wrong. It is simply not satisfactory to sit on the Government Front Bench and say that an hon. Gentleman is wrong without producing a single shred of evidence of why he is wrong. I shall be inviting the Parliamentary Secretary later in my speech to address two or three specific questions and to give the House answers to them. If he can answer those specific questions satisfactorily, he will be going some way to demonstrating that I am wrong, but in the meantime, I shall remind him of what I have been consistent about.
I have been consistent in saying that the fundamental tenet of the CFP is equal access to the common resource. I have also been consistent throughout the debates in pointing out that all the derogations that benefit the British fishing industry expire on 31 December 2002. It of course follows that the system of relative stability that we currently enjoy will end on that date. Thereafter, regulation 101/76 applies, just as it did for 26 days in January 1983, when, as the Parliamentary Secretary will no doubt recall, Kent Kirk was arrested for fishing inside British territorial waters. There will be more of that in a moment.
The Parliamentary Secretary says that I have been consistently wrong. I am not consistently wrong unless and until he produces proof or evidence to back up the allegation. The questions that I want him to answer this morning are as follows. Does he categorically deny that the principle of equal access exists? He looks puzzled, as though he has not understood the question. I shall repeat it.
Mr. Gill:
Right. My second question is: if the hon. Gentleman denies that the principle of equal access exists, will he explain why his opinion is superior to the judgment of the European Court in the Kent Kirk case, which as he will appreciate, established a precedent in these matters? Thirdly--if he says that equal access will not apply after 2002--how will the non-discrimination conditions in article 2 of regulation 101/76 be satisfied?
The Minister must answer those three straightforward questions, and he will have to do so satisfactorily before he repeats his allegations that I am wrong. If he cannot answer them, the House will draw its own conclusions.
I have no wish to embarrass the Minister by demanding an apology for his allegations, but I want him to address the real issues and to divine the truth of the matter.
I well understand the dilemma in which the Minister and his predecessors have found themselves. I suspect that he dare not concede that, after 2002, regulation 101/76 will occupy the field. If he concedes that, after 2002, the regulation will occupy the field, the pretence that we can perpetuate the discriminatory relative stability that has existed since 1983 will be seen for what it is--a deception and device by which he and his predecessors have tried to postpone the inevitable day of reckoning, when, on 1 January 2003, the principle of non-discrimination is fully implemented.
What happens after 2002 will be crucial. We have to look beyond such immediate problems and short-term distractions as quota hoppers and relative stability based on 1983 percentage quota share-out. If the Minister is to retain any semblance of credibility, he will have to tell us what written guarantee or legal evidence there is to show that relative stability will be secure beyond 2002.
Unless the Minister can answer that question positively and convincingly, the House and everyone employed in the fishing industry will have to realise, before it is too late, the truth in the statement that
Mr. Alex Salmond (Banff and Buchan):
I congratulate the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. George) on securing today's debate. Two weeks ago, he was unfortunate in not being able to speak in our debate on the fishing fleet. Today, however, he has more than made up for that lost opportunity by making an excellent speech on the industry. I shall not repeat my speech of two weeks ago, although--like the hon. Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill)--I might continue one of the arguments made in that debate. I should like to refer the Minister to some current practical difficulties in the industry, which apply particularly in Scotland, but perhaps also elsewhere.
First, I should like to deal with the pelagic fleet, fishing for herring and mackerel. Since the start of the pelagic season, enforcement regulations have required pelagic boats to have on board only one licence, for either the east or the west coast. The boats must therefore make a 10-hour trip to west coast ports, for example, to obtain a west coast fishing licence. The regulations' inconvenience has been aggravated when boats have arrived, after a 10-hour trip, only to discover that a port's fisheries office is closed.
Such regulations do not apply to our immediate competitors. The Dutch pelagic fleet, for example, may hold various licences on its fishing boats. The Minister
may give the House reasons for maintaining such enforcement regulations, but it does no one any good to require fishermen to make unnecessary fishing trips, at considerable time and expense. Moreover, although the fishing boats are large, any fishing trip--as the Minister knows--has an element of danger.
Surely there is a way in which to enforce the regulations, which is better than requiring boats to steam for 10 hours one way round Scotland and then 10 hours back again to their home ports, simply so that fishermen can pursue their livelihood. It seems to be a curious way in which to enforce fishing regulations, and I hope that the Minister will undertake to examine the matter sympathetically.
The current situation is not terrible. Certainly, the Minister should recollect the guarantees that he and I requested from the previous Government, that the regulations enforced on our industry would be comparable with those enforced on our competitors across Europe. Pelagic boats in Scotland have not benefited from comparable treatment. I ask the Minister to address the issue and perhaps to propose an appropriate solution.
The second matter that I should like to deal with perhaps continues an argument--although not in the same manner--made by the hon. Member for Ludlow. How confident is the Minister that the principle of relative stability can be altered only by the unanimous agreement of member states? Some reassurance has been provided both in the letter from the President of the Commission to the Prime Minister and also in a recent ruling by the European Parliament's legal committee. Does the Minister not, however, anticipate a danger in the Commission's current proposal, which seemingly creates a new legal basis for the Council to take decisions by majority voting, on specifically technical and other measures that are linked to International Fisheries Commission agreements? The proposal seems also to be part of the process of determining quotas and total allowable catches.
Does not the Minister anticipate that, if the proposal is accepted, there is a danger of it being expanded to encompass essential elements of relative stability? I ask him to examine the matter, even if he cannot deal with it in his reply to the debate. I think that the hon. Member for Ludlow would be the first to acknowledge that his enthusiasm for pursuing the policy is not shared--as demonstrated by their voting behaviour and the points that they have raised--by his colleagues in the European Parliament. The Socialist Group in the European Parliament seems to have been influenced inordinately in making some of its decisions by the Spanish component. I and some European parliamentarians anticipate a danger that an apparently innocent Commission proposal could be stretched wide enough to place the concept of relative stability in the sphere of majority voting rather than unanimous consent.
The third matter that I should like to mention is a serious one for the Minister, and follows directly from our debate of two weeks ago. As many hon. Members wanted to speak in that debate and the Minister had very little time to reply to it, he undertook to write to me on the issues raised.
Towards the end of that debate, the Minister was asked specifically whether he would adopt a stance of not proceeding with capacity reductions until such time as he
was satisfied that assurances given on quota hoppers had had some effect in reducing the participation of those boats in the United Kingdom fleet. The Minister argued that he did not think that it was a sensible policy not to pursue the multi-annual guidance programme targets because of the ramifications for grants and other help to the industry.
"there is no legal text stating the perpetuity of the principle of relative stability."
Those are not my words but the words of Monsieur Laurec, the acting director-general of Directorate-General XIV, in a letter of 27 January 1997.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |