| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Slovak Republic
11. Mr. Harry Barnes (North-East Derbyshire) (Lab): When he last held discussions with representatives of the Government of the Slovak Republic about the arrangements for its entry into the European Union. [157422]
The Minister for Europe (Mr. Denis MacShane): The Secretary of State and I regularly see our Slovakian opposite numbers at European Council meetings in Brussels and during visits here in London. British embassy officials in Bratislava also have regular discussions with Slovak Government representatives on EU matters.
Mr. Barnes : The Roma people in Slovakia suffered from a long history of racial prejudice under the Nazis and under the communists, and, unfortunately, still experience that hatred today. Is it not the case that that should not continue as part of their fate within the European Union, which is expected to be socially inclusive? Will the Foreign Office work with the Slovak Government to assist and protect Roma people, most of whom are housed, especially in the light of the social problems created by recent cuts in unemployment benefit, which have hit them disproportionately?
Mr. MacShane: Yes. Jointly with the Slovak Government, we have spent a couple of hundred thousand pounds on projects on housing rights, on training for Roma para-legals, on constructing a community centre and on tackling barriers in communication between Slovak police and the Roma community. It is small, brick-by-brick stuff, but I am very proud of the commitment of our embassy staff in Bratislava to that work, which is a real British contribution to easing what was, is and will remain a difficult and sensitive problem.
Angus Robertson (Moray) (SNP): Does the Minister agree that it is entirely normal for European nations of 5 million to secure full membership of the European Union?
Mr. MacShane: Membership of the European Union stretches from Malta, with 400,000 people, to Germany,
with more than 80 million people; but some nations in Europe are unbelievably lucky to belong to the United Kingdom, and thus to have a much better voice and presence in Brussels than if they had 60 or 70 embassies with the hon. Gentleman's picture up on the wall.Ethiopia/Eritrea
12. Mr. Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) (Con): What discussions he has had with the Ethiopian and Eritrean Governments about their border dispute over Badme; and if he will make a statement. [157424]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Chris Mullin): Most recently, I raised the border dispute with Eritrean President Isaias in Asmara on 15 January and with Ethiopian Prime Minister Meles in Addis Ababa on 16 January. I reiterated to both parties that the boundary commission's decision is final and binding, and urged them to engage in a political dialogue on all the issues that separate them.
Mr. Robertson: The Under-Secretary knows that Ethiopian Members of Parliament recently visited this country. Indeed, I was fortunate enough to host a day with them in my constituency. I had the opportunity to discuss the border dispute over Badme with the Ethiopian ambassador. Although I acknowledge the sense of what the Under-Secretary says, does not he feel that the town of Badme is inhabited by Ethiopians rather than Eritreans? Will he recognise Ethiopia's determination to settle the dispute peacefully and express some concern to the boundary commission about its extraordinary decision?
Mr. Mullin: Both sides signed up to the Algiers agreement, which was to accept the outcome, however difficult, with their eyes open. We accept that it is difficult. However, the difficulties are not only one way; Eritrea also loses out in some respects. The boundary commission has made it clear that it is possible to iron out anomalies that arise from its decision, but that must be done by talks between the two sides, which are currently not speaking to each other. However, I made the point to both leaders—I believe that they were well aware of it—that the only war that matters in their country is that against poverty.
Points of Order
12.30 pm
Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow) (Lab): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Statements in the House before the facts of a situation are fully known are deeply unsatisfactory. However, in the circumstances of what has happened in Karbala—an iman showed me around there in 1994, and I appreciate that the situation is complicated—could a statement be made tomorrow? The coalition is deeply affected by the tragic events. I do not blame the Foreign Office for not saying more today, but surely tomorrow the position merits serious consideration.
Mr. Speaker: That is for the appropriate Minister to determine. No doubt the Father of the House's remarks have been heard and noted.
Mr. Oliver Heald (North-East Hertfordshire) (Con): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will know that last Thursday I asked the Leader of the House for an urgent debate on Zimbabwe in the light of the deteriorating situation there and the Government's new emphasis on Africa, and in that context you will have heard the question that my hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk (Mr. Spring) asked a moment ago. Given the urgency of the position, the importance of the subject and the new focus on Africa about which the Government have spoken, has the Leader of the House suggested to you that he wants to make a short statement to say that a debate will take place on Zimbabwe?
Mr. Speaker: I imagine that the shadow Leader of the House sees more of the Leader of the House than I do.
Fisheries Jurisdiction
12.32 pm
Mr. Alex Salmond (Banff and Buchan) (SNP): I beg to move,
- That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision for withdrawal from the Common Fisheries Policy of the European Union; to amend the Fisheries Limits Act 1976; to make provision about the exercise of functions under that Act by Scottish Ministers, the National Assembly for Wales, Northern Ireland Ministers and the Secretary of State; to provide that that Act shall have effect regardless of the provisions of the European Communities Act 1972; to define Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish waters; and for connected purposes.
The Bill is a plea for fair treatment from one of the great natural resource industries of our land. Whatever the measure's fate today, the demand will return to this place until it is successful.
If there were no fish in the sea, we might reluctantly have to accept that little could be done to sustain our fishing industry, although that would still be a good reason for changing the policy that had brought about the disaster, but that is not the position. Even according to the hotly disputed scientific figures from the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea, many of our stocks are in a robust condition. Haddock, prawns, mackerel—the sea is teeming with fish, but it may soon be empty of our fishermen.
Last December, despite the highest haddock stock in the North sea for more than 30 years, the common fisheries policy, in which UK Ministers acquiesced, managed to produce a position whereby our fishermen are denied the opportunity to catch and market it properly. I say that in particular to the 10 current and previous Secretaries of State for the Environment who signed an ill-judged letter to The Sunday Times last weekend, apparently oblivious to that reality. It is little wonder that so many of our fishermen regard the current policy as a charade and a device to rob them of their birthright.
If we look back 30 years, to the time when this country accepted the adoption of the common fisheries policy in negotiations to enter the then Common Market, with its central provision of equal access to a common resource, we find evidence to support the view that I have put forward. For example, one of my predecessors, the late Patrick Wolrige-Gordon, wrote asking for a ministerial meeting. The internal Scottish Office paper, now released under the 30-year rule, noted:
- "In the wider UK context, they"—
It is not just that the common fisheries policy does not work; it cannot work. Common ownership of a resource means no ownership of that resource. For marine resources, that leads to disaster. It means that stock management decisions are made as part of a political
bargain. European Commission civil servants attempt to micromanage individual fisheries, with disastrous results. In the short term, the countries with the biggest fisheries muscle—countries that prioritise fishing—get the best deal. In the long term, there is decline for everybody. The UK fishing industry gets the worst of both the long and short term, because fishermen are a low priority, expendable in the wider European context.Some people say that although the common fisheries policy is a disaster, we cannot just withdraw from it. However, we say that that must be done, and that it is a question of political will. The Leader of the Opposition says that we should negotiate, but I think that we should pass this measure, or one like it, and then negotiate. The Prime Minister says that we cannot opt out of the common fisheries policy and remain in the European Union, but the same Prime Minister continues to opt out of the single currency. The single currency is central to the European ideal, whereas the common fisheries policy is an albatross round the neck of the European cause. The Chancellor of the Exchequer says that taxation must be a red-line issue in the proposed European constitution, and he would have a dicky fit if the Commission got one pound or dollar of the oil revenues. Yet under the European common fisheries policy, an entire resource industry has been given over.
Why cannot fishing be a red-line issue? Why can it not be a priority? Why can we not delete the exclusive competence over fisheries claimed in the constitution when it moves back on to the agenda later this year? This is a question of political will and political priority. It is a question of whether this Chamber thinks that the fishing industry is expendable or not.
If we were to withdraw from the common fisheries policy, we would assume the rights established for sovereign countries under the United Nations convention on the law of the sea: the 12-mile territorial limit, the 200-mile exclusive economic zone and the jurisdiction of our own vessels on the high seas beyond that. We would assume responsibility for managing our fishery, which the Bill divests to the home nations. Could the home nations manage that? If the Faroese can make a fair stab at managing a successful fishery, I suspect that the home nations probably could.
Would that fishery be perfect? Probably not, but at least we could start with a few governing principles, such as those that the United Fishing Industry Alliance laid down yesterday. First, there should be no industrial fishing. The real obscenity of the sea, to which the 10 past Secretaries of State for the Environment were oblivious, is the fishing of 600,000 tonnes of small fish and sand eels every year from the North sea under the common fisheries policy. Secondly, there should be no discarding of dead fish into the sea, which is the key immorality at the heart of the common fisheries policy. Thirdly—and crucially—there should be a management regime that puts the fishing industry and other stakeholders at the heart of policy formation, rather
than locking them out behind the door of the key meetings. Those principles would be a good start for a sensible management regime.In my Banffshire constituency, there is a small village called Whitehills. It has a beautiful harbour, but only one white fish boat left in the port. That small boat, the Budding Rose, catches fish for one dedicated processor, who is also based in the village. High-quality fish are sold straight to the market. One could search the world and find it difficult to find a more environmentally sustainable fishery than that. Yet that boat's livelihood—the last boat in that village—is now threatened by the ridiculous regulations imposed by the common fisheries policy and implemented by the Scottish fisheries department. Unless we end this madness, we shall have many more broken boats, broken businesses and broken communities.
I said at the outset that this Bill is supported by Members of Parliament of all eight political parties represented in this Chamber. Obviously, there is also opposition. That opposition is not as vocal as it used to be, but we hear it in speeches and we see it in the reality of Government policy. If that is the opinion of hon. Members, let them force this issue to a vote now. Fishing communities would like to see who is on their side in this matter. We are told by no less a body than the Prime Minister's strategy unit that fishing is small in economic terms. That reflects a vast misunderstanding of the importance of the fishing industry both in the supply industries, which depend on a viable sector, and the processing sector that markets the product. The fishing industry is not small in Scotland. It is not small around the coastline of many areas of England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Above all, the industry is not small in the hearts of the people, who want there to be a fishing industry, and who want this House to live up to its responsibilities to make sure that we continue to have one.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Alex Salmond, Mr. Roy Beggs, Mr. Alistair Carmichael, Mr. Nigel Dodds, Mr. Kelvin Hopkins, Mr. Elfyn Llwyd, Mr. Eddie McGrady, Mr. Austin Mitchell, Angus Robertson, Mr. Anthony Steen, Mr. Michael Weir and Ann Winterton.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |