(HANSARD) in the first session of the fifty-third parliament of the united kingdom of great Britain and northern ireland commencing on the thirteenth day of june in the fiftieth year of the reign of
HER MAJESTY QUEEN ELIZABETH II
FIFTH SERIES
VOLUME DCXXX FIFTH VOLUME OF SESSION 2001—02 House of Lords
Monday, 17th December 2001.
The House met at half-past two of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Gloucester): The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Spanish Fishing Fleet: EU Policy
Baroness Wilcox asked Her Majesty's Government:
- Whether, as reported in the Sunday Telegraph of 18th November, the European Union will pay £122 million to compensate Spanish fishermen who can no longer fish off the coast of Morocco.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Whitty): My Lords, the payment of £122 million or 197 million euros is for restructuring the Community fleet that had previously fished within the framework of the old EU/Morocco agreement. It fulfils a decision by the Nice European Council meeting of December 2000 that a package of restructuring aid should be put in place for Spanish and Portuguese vessel owners and fishermen if it proved impossible to renew the EU/Morocco fisheries agreement.
Baroness Wilcox: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his Answer. Will he now confirm that next year the huge Spanish fleet, which is bigger than the rest of the Community fleet put together, will move into our northern waters for the first time? Will the Minister comfort British fishermen, their dependent families, myself and this House by saying what precautions the Government will put in place to ensure that the behaviour that occurred in Moroccan waters does not take place in our northern waters?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I do not confirm in the terms expressed by the noble Baroness that the
Spanish fleet will be redirected to our waters as a result of the agreement. The money to which I referred is intended primarily for the decommissioning of Spanish and Portuguese vessels. Access to northern waters, which will have to be discussed over the coming months, is confined to quotas contained or limited by the quotas which prevail in those waters. Therefore, Spanish access will be very limited and the existing precautions will continue. As the noble Baroness knows, the whole fisheries policy will be under review next year.
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, do the Government differentiate between the waters off Morocco and those off Western Sahara?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the agreement with Morocco covered the area of sea which related to the internationally recognised territorial waters of Morocco. Other agreements cover an area further south, but the one relating to Morocco meant that in practice Spanish and Portuguese vessels were fishing not only in Moroccan but also in Western Saharan waters. The agreement with Morocco has not been renewed. The cost of renewing it would have been substantially greater than the cost of the restructuring for decommissioning in Spain and Portugal.
Lord Brookman: My Lords, I am somewhat puzzled by the question of selling fishing licences to Spanish companies. I do not understand it. Does my noble friend know of any pressure that has been brought to bear on this matter other than that of the money gained from selling the licences? Is there any other aspect to this issue of which he can make the House aware? As I said, I am concerned by the whole concept of selling licences. Are they sold only for money or for another reason?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, basically there is no reason other than that the previous government left this country wide open to the ability to sell licences without conditions. During that period, some fishermen within
the United Kingdom were prevailed upon to part with their licences. It was only in 1999 that we inserted a provision which required those acquiring UK licences to have an economic link with the United Kingdom. That move has limited the number of licences now being acquired by foreign owners. In addition, foreign owners are required to ensure that at least 50 per cent of the catch or 50 per cent of the crew are connected with the United Kingdom.
Lord Monro of Langholm: My Lords, does the Minister agree that every November and December Ministers and scientists hold protracted discussions on the total allowable catch? The result of this year's talks seems to be the most serious ever in relation to the cuts required around United Kingdom waters. Does the Minister believe that the decommissioning money available for the United Kingdom fleet is adequate, bearing in mind the long-term impact on small fishing ports which have no alternative employment?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the noble Lord is correct to say that at roughly this time of year we become engaged in long, protracted and detailed negotiations. Indeed, my colleague, Elliot Morley, is attending a meeting of the Fisheries Council today to discuss these very issues. The Commission proposes a substantial cut in the total annual catch and in the quotas. While we agree with the overall approach of the Commission, we believe that in certain respects its proposals are not appropriate and that the cuts are too great. However, we do not accept the view of some in the industry that such an approach should not have been adopted. Certainly, the needs of conservation and of restoring cod stocks requires a fairly substantial cut. We believe that the decommissioning money will help a number of our fishing communities throughout the United Kingdom.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, in his answer to the supplementary question asked by my noble friend Lady Wilcox, the Minister said that the £122 million was intended primarily for decommissioning the Spanish fleet. That presupposes that there are other reasons. What are they?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the bulk of the money is for decommissioning. The rest relates to various social provisions in the Spanish and Portuguese locations of fishing.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, perhaps I may return to the original Question. I understand that some 300 fishing vessels from the Spanish fleet will be, or are supposed to be, decommissioned now that they can no longer fish in Moroccan waters. How quickly will that happen, and will they all be decommissioned? Secondly, what cross-border agreements have been reached between British and Spanish inspectors in relation to inspection? I know that that subject has been talked about for many years. Has it been moved any further forward?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, with regard to the second point, although substantial discussions have taken place and there is improved understanding between the British and Spanish authorities, so far as I am aware there is no cross-presence of personnel in the sense to which I believe the noble Baroness referred.
With regard to the noble Baroness's first point, a time-scale will be applied to the decommissioning over the next year or so. The final details are not complete because the agreement between the EU and Morocco was given until the end of the year to run. It is only now that it is recognised that the agreement will finish, and therefore the final conditions have yet to be stipulated. However, a limit will be placed on the time taken by Spain and Portugal to decommission their boats.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, bearing in mind that before we joined the common fisheries policy the United Kingdom owned some 80 per cent of the fish that swim in European waters, can the Minister tell the House whether repatriation of the common fisheries policy is on the Government's agenda post-Laeken as we move towards 2004? If not, why not?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I believe that for once the noble Lord and I agree: the common fisheries policy is not the greatest success of our European policy. There have been problems in that respect and we look to a major change in the common fisheries policy. However, our assessment of the position indicates that, although the present common fisheries policy has not served our interests well, due to conservation needs, the decline in stock and the need for co-operation between the EU countries, we still need a common policy. Therefore, repatriation in the total sense to which the noble Lord refers is not appropriate.
Tax Revenues
2.39 p.m.
Lord Northbrook asked Her Majesty's Government:
- By how much tax revenues have declined as a result of the economic slowdown; and how this shortfall will be met.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, tables B8 and 2.4 of the Pre-Budget Report set out the changes to the projections for receipts since Budget 2001, including those that result from changes in GDP. The Government remain on track to meet both fiscal rules over the economic cycle, including in the cautious case.
Lord Northbrook: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. Does he agree that the Government would raise more revenue overall by lowering the rate of corporation tax—thus encouraging inward investment—than by increasing the rate of national insurance contributions that make this country less competitive, and if not, why not?
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page