| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Twenty-seventh, Measures to Combat Housing Benefit Fraud(HC 366);
Thirty-second, Cataract Surgery in Scotland (HC 546);
Thirty-fourth, Foreign and Commonwealth Office: Irregular Payments at the British Embassy in Amman, Jordan (HC 553);
Forty-fourth, Northern Ireland Social Security Agency: The Administration of the Disability Allowance (HC 527);
Forty-sixth, The Contract to Develop and Update the Replacement National Insurance Recording System (HC 472);
Sixty-first, Getting Value for Money in Privatisations (HC 992);
Sixty-seventh, HM Treasury: Resource Accounting and Resource-Based Supply (HC 731).
NORTHERN IRELAND GRAND COMMITTEE
Ordered,
Ordered,
That--
(1) the Order of the House of 2nd December relating to sittings of the Northern Ireland Grand Committee shall have effect with the substitution of the words '2.30 p.m.' for the words '10.30 a.m.';
(2) the matter of the Discussion Paper entitled "Putting it Right--the case for change in Northern Ireland's hospital service", being a matter relating exclusively to Northern Ireland, be referred to the Northern Ireland Grand Committee for its consideration; and
(3) at the sitting on Thursday 28th January--
(i) the Committee shall consider the matter referred to it under paragraph (2) above;
(ii) the Chairman shall interrupt proceedings at 5 p.m.; and
(iii) at the conclusion of those proceedings, a motion for the adjournment of the Committee may be made by a Minister of the Crown pursuant to Standing OrderNo. 116 (5) (Northern Ireland Grand Committee (sittings)).--[Mr. Dowd.]
That Mr. Neil Gerrard be added to the Environmental Audit Committee.--[Mr. Dowd.]
14 Jan 1999 : Column 529
Fisheries
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.--[Mr. Dowd.]
6.21 pm
Mr. Shaun Woodward (Witney): I am grateful for this opportunity to address the House on a serious issue which I hope will interest the House--the sustainability of fisheries.
Few hon. Members will be aware of a significant conference that was held in London last Monday. It was essentially a workshop to consider the crisis facing the world's oceans, in preparation for the April United Nations meeting, in America, on sustainable development. The conference was sufficiently important for the Deputy Prime Minister to agree to give the keynote address, in which he identified some of the concerns which he felt were becoming increasingly prominent not only among the scientific community but among the world's responsible fishing communities. However, the need to act swiftly was urged not on the British Government but on others. I believe that the British Government could be doing much more to take a lead in protecting both our own and other countries' fishing stocks.
If we are to discuss and make proposals on managing the world's oceans, it is critical that we should understand the over-fishing crisis. My belief--which has been formed by consulting with scientists and responsible bodies working on the issue; there are no party political points to be made on the issue--is that the policy currently being pursued by the British and other Governments, by continuing to set quotas that are incompatible with sustainable fisheries, is presenting huge risks. The fact is that more than half the stocks exploited by United Kingdom fishermen are below safe limits or are in danger of falling below those limits.
Sustainability is far from being treated as a crucial, central issue in debates on the future of the common fisheries policy. I acknowledge that sustainability plays its role in debates, and that lip service is paid to it, but, when it comes to the crunch, it is not at the heart of the way in which common fisheries policy is formulated. Current fishing practices have been based on inaccurate data, sometimes on a wilful disregard of scientific evidence and on a failure to consider the long-term consequences of current policies.
In some ways, the arguments about sustainable fisheries, and the way in which those arguments are reported, resemble the debate, a decade ago, on fears about global warming. A decade ago, that evidence was ignored, and the scientists dealing with it were dismissed as eccentric or as scaremongers. Today, we are facing the consequences of ignoring their advice, of failing to understand that they were not eccentric and of undermining what they were telling us. Global warming is now a crisis, and the world must face a more serious problem than it would have had to face had we been more responsible and appreciated the demands of a sustainable environment and of sustainable environmental policy.
At least some of the Deputy Prime Minister's arguments about oceans reflected a growing body of opinion in this country. Those opinions come from organisations such as the World Wide Fund for Nature and the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, which
is interested in oceans because of its concern about the conservation of sea birds, as well as newer bodies such as the Marine Stewardship Council, in which I declare an interest as an unpaid director.
The Deputy Prime Minister spoke about the crisis facing fisheries. It is well known that 60 per cent. of the world's fish resources are in danger of being over-exploited. He spoke of the need for effective regional agreements to encourage responsible fisheries and sustainable harvests. He assured the conference that the Government take the issue seriously, but that demands much more than they are currently delivering--not rhetoric, but action now.
In summing up, the Deputy Prime Minister said that the thrust of his remarks was to improve public understanding of what is happening to the seas. He spoke of the need for a barometer that people understand. The real need now is not for greater public understanding--the public are beginning to understand ever more about the problem--but for more Government action and help to create a climate in which we can move significantly towards a more responsible and sustainable fisheries policy.
Tonight's debate goes to the heart of the subject of the oceans workshop and concerns about the future of our seas. It is significant that it is to be answered not by a Minister from the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, but by one from the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. That is not a surprise, because that is how we have always done business, but as we have learnt ever more about sustainable fisheries, we have come to understand the need for close integration of environmental policy with fisheries policy. That division is one of the Government's problems in addressing the issue. The Minister replying to this debate speaks from one Department, but the Deputy Prime Minister speaks from another. Would the speech that the Minister will make tonight be the same if he had the environmental brief as well?
Mr. John Gummer (Suffolk, Coastal):
Does my hon. Friend accept that the difficulty with fisheries, particularly in the European Union--although this is also true elsewhere--is that fisheries Ministers could more correctly be referred to as fishermen's Ministers? They are fighting for their fishermen's share of the fish rather than ensuring that fish will be there for the fishermen of the future.
Mr. Woodward:
My right hon. Friend makes a crucial and telling point, which I would like to develop. The fact that the debate is dealt with by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, not the Deputy Prime Minister is a symptom of the problem, not just for fish stocks, but for those employed in the fishing industry. Up to 200 million people across the world are employed in fishing and related industries. There has been an increase in the number of fishermen in the UK in the past year. A future fisheries policy must be more environmentally sensitive if fishing stocks are to be preserved and are to continue to provide jobs for people. The Government need to say more and to act more clearly to demonstrate that they understand that sustainable exploitation of natural
There is no better example of the failure to grasp the need for sustainability than the devastation caused to fishing stocks and fishermen's livelihoods after the collapse of the Canadian grand banks in 1992. Until then the area was considered one of the world's richest sources of cod. Of course there had been the scaremongers--the scientists who had warned about over-fishing--but their warnings were regarded as simply eccentric. In 1992 one of the world's richest sources of cod collapsed overnight as a result of chronic over-fishing. The consequence was not only the devastation of the fish stocks and the appalling collapse of the cod stocks, but the loss of 40,000 jobs--nearly twice the number employed as fishermen in the United Kingdom today.
The fishery remains closed and there has been no significant recovery of the fish stocks. The ecosystem has undergone irreversible change. It is no longer a matter for the Canadian equivalent of MAFF because there are now no fishing interests to protect in the area. It is no longer a concern to the environmental interests in Canada because the fishing stock has been wiped out. We need to take note of the failure of the two Departments there to work hand in hand.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |