| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Colman: Does the Minister accept that the current system of regulation through a private company based in California is not an acceptable way forward?
Mr. Rammell: That just underlines how difficult it is to resolve this issue. If the UN is to work, and to be seen to be credible, it needs realistic and tangible mandates. If we seek to resolve every issue in the world through the UN, however detached those issues are from the fundamental issues, I am not sure how much that would advance its cause.
My hon. Friend rightly underlined the importance of the International Atomic Energy Agency. An example that demonstrates that importance is the work that has recently been done to bring together the European Union and the international community through the UN in Iran. I also strongly agree with my hon. Friend about the role of Parliaments in relation to the UN system. Like him, I welcome the observer status that has been given to the Inter-Parliamentary Union; we need to do more to engage parliamentarians in this way. I wholly agree, too, with what he said about the United Nations Association, which is a good organisation and a force for good in all our communities.
The hon. Member for Reigate—[Hon. Members: "And gallant".] The hon. and gallant Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) clearly articulated his support for the United Nations and for the fact that it is crucial to the resolution of many of the international challenges that we face. He also rightly argued that the UN is seriously undermined by its administrative and bureaucratic failures; we should not resile from articulating that point. He pressed us on the veto, which was mentioned by many hon. Members. We are not arguing that we should give up our possession of the veto. We continue to earn the use of it through our responsible use of our position on the Security Council. Our economic weight, our financial contribution and our contribution to peacekeeping and other UN
missions continue to justify our permanent membership and possession of the veto. Nevertheless, the UK Government and other permanent members of the Security Council should use the veto with restraint, and in accordance with the principles of the charter. Whenever this issue is debated, people are shocked to discover that we have not used our veto since 1989. I think that that underlines the responsibility and restraint with which we have used that power.My hon. Friend the Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Tony Worthington) made a telling contribution based on his own significant experience of these issues. I was not a Member of the House in 1994, but the fact that there were only two Adjournment debates on the subject of Rwanda at that time, given the shocking and appalling horrors that were taking place there, underlines yet again the fact that the House and all of us in the international community ducked that issue. I strongly believe that we need to focus on the criteria for humanitarian intervention, because we cannot allow the international community to walk by and ignore a situation like that again.
I am pleased to see that the hon. Member for Moray is still with us, despite the pressing needs of the whisky industry.
Angus Robertson: This is serious.
Mr. Rammell: Of course it is, and I welcome the contribution that the hon. Gentleman made to the debate, the strong support that he gave to multilateral action at the UN, and the detailed knowledge of the UN that he displayed, given his previous working experience. I was pleased to be able to pin him down on one issue, which was that he was advocating the giving up of the veto by the current permanent members of the Security Council. I reiterate a point that I made in response to an earlier intervention that he made, which was that if we look back to the founding of the United Nations, we remember that we learned from the League of Nations the lesson that if key significant international players did not possess the veto, there would be a real danger of their walking away from those international structures. That issue needs to be taken on board.
We have had an exceedingly important debate, and it has struck me throughout our discussions that there is a significant degree of consensus on these issues. All of us, in our various ways, are committed to the United Nations. We believe that it is a force for good in the world, but we also believe that it needs to change and reform in response to changing international circumstances. Crucially, it must face up to the key international challenges that the international community faces. If it does so—I believe that it will—we shall see it continue to develop and prosper, and to help us to build the kind of secure future throughout the world that we all want to see.
Mr. Nick Ainger (West Carmarthen and South Pembrokeshire): I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Fisheries
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Ainger.]
5.44 pm
Ann Winterton (Congleton): I am grateful for the opportunity to draw to the House's attention the deep concern felt by members of the United Kingdom fishing industry. It should be said right at the outset of the debate that the so-called demise of cod stocks in the British sector is a clever way to disguise the implementation of European treaty obligations ratified by this Parliament and has little or nothing to do with conservation, which the Government always give as the excuse.
Eleven years ago in a speech given in Shetland, a senior representative of the European Commission, Ruth Albuquerque, warned the fishing industry that the way forward envisaged by the Commission for restructuring the industry would involve thousands of fishermen losing their jobs. That is indeed what happened, but we have to examine why, as at that time fish stocks were very healthy indeed. How could she predict with such confidence that so many jobs would be lost in the industry? The answer has everything to do with the Iberian expansion of the European Economic Community in January 1986.
A year ago, Struan Stevenson, Chairman of the European Parliament's Committee on Fisheries, stated categorically that the draconian proposals that are now a reality had nothing to do with conservation. He also said that they were part of a European federalist agenda to hand over the bulk of European fishing to Spain. The European Commission will exploit scientific recommendations to close down the British white fish sector as a golden opportunity to help it to meet its target capacity cuts in one fell swoop. Spain, which has the largest fleet, would therefore dominate the EU's fishing industry.
Last month, the EU Fisheries Commissioner, Franz Fischler, stated that as Spain and Portugal have been fully integrated in the common fisheries policy, all rules that could have been considered discriminatory have been abolished, and from now on EU measures will apply equitably to all member states.
On 20 October, the Foreign Secretary made a statement to the House on the European Council and I was delighted to hear him, in response to a question from the hon. Member for Perth (Annabelle Ewing) at column 389, clearly confirm that EU fisheries law was the basis on which the UK acceded to the EEC in 1973. That means the principle of equal access to a common resource without discrimination.
Furthermore, so that the Minister is aware of this if he is not already, the purpose of the EU fisheries management plan is to balance the EU resource, which includes the decreasing third-country agreements, to the EU fishing capacity without increasing fishing effort. That is as a result and as part of the Spanish treaty of accession. As other nations join and continue to join the EU, which have fishing capacity rather than fishing resource, how does the Minister expect the fundamental equation to be balanced?
The answer, I suggest, is very simple. Something has to be lost, and that something is the northern EU fleet, which is comprised mainly of the British fishing fleet. I
hope the Minister has been following the extracts printed by the Daily Mail of the excellent new book by Christopher Booker and Richard North, "The Great Deception", which is to be published later this month. The Minister will note that the original EEC members suddenly agreed the principle of equal access to Community waters only hours before the UK formally lodged its application for membership and only after successfully stitching up the common agricultural policy against British interests.
Angus Robertson (Moray): Is the hon. Lady aware that civil service documents released under the 30-year rule not only support her case, but state in detail that the UK Government maintained that the Scottish fishing industry and those in it were expendable?
Ann Winterton: I shall be using precisely that word shortly. I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman has intervened. I understand that the debate can go on for longer than we expected, and that we have the evening before us to deal with some of the issues that are so important in his part of the world.
What I have described was the start of a process that would lead to the eventual and deliberate destruction of our fishing industry as foreign boats invaded our traditional fishing grounds. Thanks to the rules of the father of the European Union, Jean Monnet, there was no way in which we could opt out, as the principle of equal access had been agreed before the United Kingdom joined what was then the European Economic Community. The civil service memorandum that I mentioned revealed that the then Conservative Prime Minister's team were aware of the dangers, but believed that they could not afford to waste their limited negotiating capital on resisting. Their chosen policy was to avoid the subject of Britain's fisheries as much as possible, and to accept secretly that in the wider interest fishermen must be regarded as expendable.
From that moment, what the extracts in the Daily Mail describe as deliberate deception began. Monnet had succeeded in infecting Britain with his brand of devious and dishonest politics. It may be said that there is nothing new in that, as we know only too well today. Before the Government blame the Conservative Government of the day for the present situation, let us not forget that it was a Labour Administration who, on 1 January 1977, handed the European Union our 12-to-200-mile median line fishing zone. The Fishery Limits Act 1976 created the zone, and immediately handed competence for fisheries to the EEC. Since then each successive Parliament has been to blame, and responsibility rests with this Parliament today.
Let me remind the Minister of a letter sent by his Department, on behalf of the Prime Minister, to a Shetland skipper, Mr. Magnus Stewart, who—like so many others—has had to leave fishing prematurely as a direct result of the throttling regulations introduced to achieve full integration of fishing policy. It stated:
- "In domestic Law, the United Kingdom Parliament is indeed still Sovereign, and could repeal all or parts of the 1972 European Communities Act, through which legislation is given effect in the United Kingdom".
I was heartened recently to receive a written answer from the Minister for Europe stating that the United Kingdom would honour its international treaty obligations until such time as Parliament decided to repeal the Acts that give effect to them. It is not just Parliament's power to repeal Acts that is important in this regard, because Parliament can also amend Acts. It has done so on numerous occasions, an example being the European Communities Act 1972 itself.
The crux of this environmental and social disaster rests entirely with the Government and indeed the Minister, who continually bases his case on "sound science". What science? The quota system introduced in 1983 was supposed to have been introduced for conservation reasons, but we now know that it was intended to be used as the tool of integration. It was and still is a destructive measure creating huge discards of mature fish. We are told by the scientists that there are few cod stocks in our seas at present, yet fishermen are still catching cod. What are they supposed to do with them—dump them over the side dead, or land them illegally? As the so-called sound science says that there is little or no cod, perhaps fishermen should deposit all the cod they catch over quota at the Minister's door, so that we can see how much there is; it is usually dumped unseen back into the sea to pollute it.
It is not surprising that scientists think that there are no cod when they use outdated modelling methods, testing in the same marine locations each year with antiquated and obsolete fishing gear, but that is all part of the game. As everyone knows, climate change has altered the characteristics of all marine species, with fish stocks continually moving. How convenient it is to use the so-called demise of cod to bring about, in the Monnet fashion, the extermination of another fine British industry. The No. 10 strategy unit never started with a completely clean sheet but was given orders to work within the common fisheries policy. I pose the question again: who gave those instructions in Downing street?
The Minister had a letter printed in Fishing News on 31 October defending the scientists. How successful have International Council for the Exploration of the Sea scientists been since they set themselves up 100 years ago to be the experts in managing the areas outside the territorial waters in the north Atlantic? They have failed miserably.
The proof is to be found in the Faroe Islands, which, since 1948, has been a self-governing overseas administrative division of Denmark. The advice of ICES brought the Faroese people close to bankruptcy, but seven years ago they saw the light. The people of the Faroe Islands ignored the advice of ICES and introduced the exact opposite policy on fishing. They fished down their stock to match the then available food source. They then set about rebuilding the food source, and the stock was increased to match the increased food supply. As a result, they no longer face bankruptcy. They have built a thriving fishing and fish processing industry, with all the associated infrastructure and employment, and are experiencing a shortage of skilled labour because of the success of their fishing policy.
The recommendations of ICES are the exact opposite of that successful policy: fish down the food source and stop fishing for white fish to increase the mature stock, which in turn require additional food source that has been destroyed. It is rather like hon. Members saying that the strangers cafeteria has insufficient food to satisfy present demand, but that we shall keep it open to the general public. The result would be that we either all starved together or went elsewhere. People can move elsewhere and, as fish recognise no boundaries, that is exactly what they do: they go where the food source is strong.
I was delighted that, at Prime Minister's questions, the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael) asked about industrial fishing that destroys the food source. Back came to reply:
- "we must convince the others"—
- "so that we get a majority behind our position at the Agriculture and Fisheries Council."—[Official Report, 22 October 2003; Vol. 411, c. 636.]
This year's sand eel fishery was a disaster, mainly made up of sand eel fry, which are the size of matchsticks, and not the full-grown sand eels that are normally devoured by cod. They no longer exist, yet sand eel quotas have never fully been caught. Even cookery programmes on the television suggest that we should buy not wild cod, but farmed cod. That makes the situation far worse, as the wild cod's food is taken to feed the farmed cod, which need eight times more food in weight than wild cod. What utter madness.
The supposedly sound scientific advice is fatally flawed, but flawed for a good reason. It is used as a disguise to complete the integration process and comply with the treaties that the Government believe must be upheld for the wider benefits of our membership of the European Union; "wider benefits" being the excuse used by both a former Conservative Prime Minister and our present Prime Minister, with our fishermen and the marine resource considered expendable then and now.
Ten years ago, the then chairman of the Scottish White Fish Producers Association, Mr. Tom Hay—today, the chairman of the Fishermen's Association Ltd.—warned fishermen of the dangers of the contents of ICES's advisory committee on fisheries management report published in November 1993. He also warned the industry to be under no illusion as to the seriousness of the intended attack on its livelihood and the viability of UK vessels. ICES was saying the same then as it is
today, and this has been going on or a long time. Frankly, it is a miracle that marine stocks have held up so well in the face of what I can only describe as a political slaughter. Sadly, as the House will know, the industry is disappearing at an ever-increasing rate before our very eyes.The Fishermen's Association Ltd. last week asked scientists in Aberdeen how it is that fishing pressure must have been as great, if not greater, on haddock stock as it has been on cod; yet we are told by ICES that we have the largest haddock stock for 30 years, while the spawning stock biomass of cod is at an all-time low. There is constant fishing effort on haddock rather than cod, so why have haddock stocks not been destroyed? ICES believes that the white fishing vessels present a threat to the cod stocks within the British sector of Community waters, but there are hardly any UK vessels left in that fishery—so where are these vessels based?
Neither should the Minister go on about the so-called over-fishing of the Newfoundland grand banks. The true reason for cod's disappearance from the banks is climate change, as the cod move eastwards towards Greenland and Iceland and into the Barents sea due to colder water. The thawing ice pack is making ocean waters colder, which are drawn down the eastern seaboard of north America. To keep using this as an example of what could happen if ICES's advice is not followed is disingenuous to say the least.The same principle applies on this side of the Atlantic ocean; that is, using cod to hide political aspirations. It is time the truth came out so that people can judge for themselves.
There is only one answer: for national control over waters formerly established by old Labour, but apparently not wanted now by new Labour, to be returned to Parliament in Westminster. The central control of European Union fisheries is an environmental and social disaster, and it is no good saying either that regional advice councils will be the solution. Commissioner Fischler has already made it clear, in respect of the Baltic cod stocks, that fisheries management is exclusively within Community competence and that treaty revisions strengthening the principle of subsidiarity do not apply.
I accept—everyone would, for obvious reasons—that national control cannot solve climatic change, but it can at least run fisheries free of political interference, and, indeed, of integration within the EU, and can respond quickly to benefit whichever species is suitable for the changing British waters, thereby allowing stocks to prosper alongside a thriving fishing industry.
In an article entitled "No compromise on cod", last week's Fishing News quoted the Minister as saying that not all in the fishing industry want national control, and that some say privately that they do not support that policy at all. I should like the Minister to answer that point when he responds, because in my view those people should either put up, or shut up. He has a good opportunity to tell us today who those people are and to which organisations they belong. In doing what they are allegedly doing, they are undermining the prospect of any recovery in the fishing industry in the British sector.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |