| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Fishing Industry
9. Shona McIsaac (Cleethorpes): When he last met representatives of the fishing industry to discuss the current state of the fishing industry. [58049]
15. Mr. Michael Connarty (Falkirk, East): When he last held discussions with representatives of the fishing industry to discuss protection of the Irish box. [58056]
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Elliot Morley): I regularly meet fishing industry representatives and I last met the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations on 20 October. Discussions have covered a wide range of issues, including fishing quotas, but not the protection of the Irish box.
Shona McIsaac: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. In his discussions, which have covered a wide range of issues, has it been brought to his attention that in Grimsby and Cleethorpes there is no permanent memorial to those who lost their lives at sea? Will he support a local campaign, launched by the Grimsby Evening Telegraph, to raise money for such a memorial?
Mr. Morley: The Grimsby Evening Telegraph and its sister newspaper, the Scunthorpe Evening Telegraph, have an excellent record in community campaigning and involvement. I was privileged recently to unveil a memorial to lost British trawler men in Iceland. It was partly funded by North-East Lincolnshire council--formerly Grimsby council--Aberdeen council and Hull city council. It is important to recognise the sacrifices and dangers faced by our deep-sea fleet, both in the past and in the present. I wish the Grimsby Evening Telegraph well in its campaign, which is a fitting tribute for the new millennium to the history of Grimsby.
Mr. Connarty: My hon. Friend the Minister will remember the anger that we all felt when, having told us
that the Irish box would be protected in the negotiations, the previous Government returned from Brussels having sold out fishing in the Irish box for some other deal. My hon. Friend says that there have been no further discussions on protection of the Irish box. Will the Government make it a priority to win back protection of the Irish box, which is vital to Scottish and other northern fishermen who fish in the west?
Mr. Morley: I certainly agree with my hon. Friend. A great deal of the Irish box comes within the jurisdiction of the Republic of Ireland, but we have jurisdiction over England and Scotland through the Scottish Fisheries Protection Agency. May I inform my hon. Friend that we have recently agreed new contracts for aerial supervision of areas such as the Irish box? State-of-the-art technology will ensure that all fishing boats, from whatever country, follow the rules.
Mr. Andrew George (St. Ives): Although I appreciate that attention must be given to controlling the effort of the most efficient forms of fishing, does the Minister agree that much more attention must now be paid to giving sustainable methods of fishery appropriate promotion and encouragement, such as we see around the shores of this country in the inshore industry?
Mr. Morley: I recognise that point. The inshore industry has many advantages--it is low impact and it can be highly sustainable. It has, of course, to come within the quota management and the enforcement rules. Post-2002, in a review of the common fisheries policy, there may be an opportunity to examine the role of sustainable fisheries. Indeed, we are also giving thought to quota management for our inshore fleet to find out whether we can assist the industry better, but the key to enforcement and sustainability is to ensure that the rules are obeyed. The Government have made it clear that they intend to do that.
Mr. Patrick Nicholls (Teignbridge): Has the hon. Gentleman made it clear in those meetings that, if article 14(2) of regulation 3760/92 is read in its entirety, there is not the slightest doubt in law that a unanimous vote in the European Union for still further derogations will be necessary because, otherwise, other nations will be able to demand complete access to the United Kingdom's exclusive fishing zone after 2002? Perhaps the Minister will share with the House what concessions he is already planning to make against this nation's national interest, to try to secure that unanimity.
Mr. Morley: We do not need any lessons from the Conservative party about concessions in the fishing industry. The hon. Gentleman is misreading the implications of that regulation. I am quite confident that, post-2002, relative stability, which is important to the United Kingdom industry, will continue unless there is a majority vote against that. In the same way, coastal limits will, in my view, be renewed post-2002. The key to access is quota access. If relative stability is maintained--I am absolutely confident that it will be--the issue does not arise.
ATTORNEY-GENERAL
The Attorney-General was asked--
Foreign Nationals (Prosecution)
27. Mr. David Winnick (Walsall, North): If he will make a statement on his policy on the prosecution of foreign nationals while in the United Kingdom for the torture and killings of British citizens elsewhere. [58031]
The Attorney-General (Mr. John Morris): Cases involving possible criminal proceedings on the basis of extra-territorial jurisdiction are considered in the same way as any other case--that is, in accordance with the twin tests set out in the code for Crown prosecutors; whether there is sufficient admissible evidence to provide a realistic prospect of a conviction, and whether the prosecution is in the public interest. That applies equally to those cases that require my consent to be prosecuted, such as allegations of offences under section 134 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988.
Mr. Winnick: Arising from what my right hon. and learned Friend has said, is it not important that former murderous dictators--for example, Idi Amin, or Saddam Hussein, when he is, I hope, no longer in power--should not consider the United Kingdom to be some kind of safe haven from justice, international law and extradition agreements with other countries? Should not that be made perfectly clear today?
The Attorney-General: I understand my hon. Friend's concern, but I remind him that the investigation of criminal misconduct is for the police to undertake. If a file of evidence is submitted to the Crown Prosecution Service for consideration of a prosecution, or if I receive an application for consent to prosecute, each case will be considered in the usual way--that is, by applying the twin tests that I have mentioned.
If the issue arose in respect of Mr. Milosevic, there is the international tribunal for the former Yugoslavia and we would therefore expect Milosevic to appear in The Hague for trial. The United Kingdom provided additional funds for an additional court room in The Hague, which I had the privilege of opening in the summer.
Mr. John Burnett (Torridge and West Devon):
What advice would the Attorney-General give to Ministers if a court held that an individual should be extradited, but letters of comfort or undertakings had been given by the Government or the previous Government, and had not been revoked, which made it clear that that individual could come to this country--for example, for medical treatment--without fear of extradition?
The Attorney-General:
If I were asked for advice, that advice would take into consideration all relevant factors in any individual case. As the hon. Gentleman will know, the fact and the contents of a Law Officer's advice to Ministers is confidential.
Sir Sydney Chapman (Chipping Barnet):
If a person comes to this country with diplomatic immunity, is it not incumbent on this country--the host country--to tell that
The Attorney-General:
That is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary. The hon. Gentleman will have read in the newspapers, as I have, that an issue with some implications of that sort is now before the House of Lords. As I understand the ruling, it is currently sub judice.
28. Mr. Michael Jack (Fylde):
When he last met the President of the Law Society to discuss the work of the Crown Prosecution Service. [58032]
The Attorney-General:
I met the then president of the Law Society on 1 June 1998 to discuss the Glidewell report. My hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General and I met his successor for a general discussion on 13 October.
Mr. Jack:
I thank the Attorney-General for his answer, but I am sorry that the question of rights of audience for lawyers employed by the Crown Prosecution Service was not on the agenda for those discussions. The Attorney-General will know that members of the Bar and, indeed, the judiciary have reservations about lawyers being given rights of audience. Conversely, those represented by the Law Society feel that they should have them. The matter has been around for a considerable time. Can the Attorney-General tell us what is the current position, when action will be taken and when the issue will be resolved?
The Attorney-General:
I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman was a Member of Parliament in 1990, when the Courts and Legal Services Act was passed--an Act which he supported. Unfortunately, the legislation created a problem that took years and years--six years, in the case of employed solicitors--to resolve. We are determined to change that.
Employed solicitors now have limited access to the higher courts. The position of the employed Bar is being dealt with by the same machinery, and I hope that will be a much shorter process. As regards the future, the Lord Chancellor has drawn up proposals to open all the courts to all lawyers. Consultation was completed on 14 September and, when the Lord Chancellor has made a decision--soon, I hope--and when time is available, legislation will be introduced. I assure the right hon. Gentleman that we shall not fall into the trap of the 1990 Act.
Mr. Paul Flynn (Newport, West):
Will my right hon. and learned Friend contact the Crown Prosecution Service about the extraordinary events involving Britain's most senior woman judge? She was involved in an accident--which she has admitted to have been entirely her fault--in which a nanny employed by her family received appalling facial injuries. Glass is still embedded behind her eyes and it is possible that she will lose her sight in both eyes.
The judge has been told that she will not be prosecuted, but must undergo a number of hours of extra tuition in driving skills. She will face no charge--she will incur no penalty points and no fine. The young nanny, however, was warned that she might be charged with the offence of not wearing a seat belt. Is that not extraordinary? The impression might well be gained that there is soft justice for judges and the gentry, but tough law for nannies and all the rest of us.
The Attorney-General:
I am, of course, aware of the newspaper reports of the incident, as far as they go. However, it is an operational matter for the police. The decision was made by the police; they did not consult the CPS, and they were not required to do so. The matter is not within my ministerial responsibility.
Sir Nicholas Lyell (North-East Bedfordshire):
First, may I take this opportunity of welcoming Mr. David Calvert-Smith QC as the new Director of Public Prosecutions and wish him well in his demanding role?
In relation to that role, does the Attorney-General recall that more than 18 months ago, within days of coming to office, he announced the appointment by April this year of 42 new chief Crown prosecutors for each police area--some of whom, no doubt, would be solicitors and members of the Law Society?
Is it not the case that, more than 18 months later and almost six months after the Glidewell report, no new chief Crown prosecutors have been appointed? When can we expect those appointments? Is that not another example of the Government pretending to come in with a bang, but, after one and a half years, finding it difficult even to utter a whimper?
The Attorney-General:
I assure the right hon. and learned Gentleman that we did come in with a bang and started to deal with the appalling mess that he and the Conservative Government had left us. They remained silent when everyone in the land knew that something was appallingly wrong with the Crown Prosecution Service. We immediately decided that the service should have 42 areas and we appointed a chief executive shortly after the Glidewell report was published. The review considered in great depth the evidence it was given and its report was welcomed by all. I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will also now welcome it. We have also appointed a new Director of Public Prosecution, Mr. David Calvert-Smith, who is a distinguished member of the Bar with great prosecuting experience. His appointment, too, was welcomed by all. Now that he is in post, he can advertise for and interview applicants for the 42 posts of chief Crown prosecutor.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |