HC Deb 08 February 1984 vol 53 cc958-76 8.53 pm
The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. John MacGregor)

I beg to move, That the Fishing Vessels (Financial Assistance) Scheme 1983 (S.I., 1983, No. 1883), dated 19th December 1983, a copy of which was laid before this House on 20th December, be approved.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Paul Dean)

I understand that it will be for the convenience of the House if we discuss with this motion the following motions: That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Herring and White Fish (Specified Manx Waters) Licensing (Variation) Order 1983 (S.I., 1983, No. 1879), dated 19th December 1983, a copy of which was laid before this House on 20th December, be annulled. That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Sea Fish Licensing (Variation) Order 1983 (S.I., 1983, No. 1881), dated 19th December 1983, a copy of which was laid before this House on 20th December, be annulled. That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Sea Fishing (Specified Western Waters) (Restrictions on Landings) (Variation) Order 1984 (S.I., 1984, No. 92), dated 1st February 1984, a copy of which was laid before this House on 1st February, be annulled.

Mr. MacGregor

As you have said, Mr. Deputy Speaker, it will be for the convenience of the House to take all the motions together.

I am delighted that the House has the opportunity to explore the details of our policy on these matters which were announced to the House in written answers to my hon. Friend the Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Sir P. Mills) on 20 December and to my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre (Sir W. Clegg) on 3 February. To some extent, the matters we are debating are very technical. In another sense, what they are doing is fitting into place another important part of the jigsaw which in its totality adds up to an important new longer-term deal for the fishing industry.

It has been an arduous process putting it all together. Indeed, some pessimists thought that it would never happen, but it is now nearly all in place. Therefore, I should like first to set this part of the Government's policy for the fishing industry in its wider context by considering the general background. I hope I may be permitted to do so, so that the House can appreciate how it all fits in. The policy has, of course, to be worked out in the context of the Community's common fisheries policy, which was agreed last year and which has established the broad framework within which our industry can now plan for a generation ahead. It is difficult to overestimate the importance of an effective common fisheries policy for our industry.

Many said that it would never work, as we struggled to reach agreement on a Community-wide basis, but it is working. We always said that if only we could get final agreement on the herring issue, the totality of the common fisheries policy would be in place and would make it much easier to reach agreement in future years. The Council on 31 January was able, much to the surprise of some people, to set total allowable catches and quotas for 1984. Fixing these key figures so early in the year was a major achievement. It was just what the industry wanted and, as the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) acknowledged in reply to my right hon. Friend's statement reporting the meeting to the House, it represents a movement towards stability of which the fishing fleet in general approves". — [Official Report, 1 February 1984; Vol. 53, c. 277.] What we can all agree upon is the importance of providing our fishermen with as secure as possible a base on which to plan. Without that, the measures we are debating tonight could not work and would not be anything like so relevant.

There are three main strands to the policy. The first is the agreement to which I have just referred on how stocks should be shared within the Community. That we have done. The second is that taking full advantage of the fishing opportunities now available to our fleet also means improved marketing. We are working closely with the Sea Fish Industry Authority as it develops its marketing programme. The third strand is that we need to encourage the industry to restructure and modernise the fleet so that it can operate effectively and efficiently in the years ahead; we must help to develop the framework within which it can do so. It is that part of the final strand that we are debating tonight.

The detailed arrangements for measures to encourage a restructuring of the fleet, agreed in the Council of Ministers on 4 October, have provided one of the means by which to encourage the industry in this direction. The key word here is "encourage".

I should like to stress straight away the Government's view that such adaptation as is appropriate must come about through the individual decisions of vessel owners. It cannot be the Government's role to try to decide and to dictate the precise shape of the fleet—to say that we need X freezer trawlers, Y pursers, Z anchor seiners of which so many should fish for cod from this port, so many for mackerel and herring from that port and so on. No Government should seek to take on the task of planning at that sort of level, and, if they did, they would be doomed to failure.

Although the industry must accept many controls—the need for those is, I believe, widely understood—the essential decisions about whether to leave the industry or to stay, about whether to invest in a new boat or to improve an existing one, must remain with the individual firm or fisherman. That said, there is general recognition that there are vessels in the fleet which cannot operate economically under current conditions. There is also general recognition that there is surplus capacity in some sectors.

It is widely accepted that the industry will need to adapt if it is to operate effectively within the parameters of the common fisheries policy and the necessary management measures following from it, and that Government do have a role in assisting the industry in its process of adaptation.

That is why we took rapid action to prepare and publish the Fishing Vessels (Financial Assistance) Scheme which is before the House today. We were determined that our industry should have the option of being able to take full and speedy advantage of the new financial measures which the Council of Ministers' had agreed. Many hon. Members have pressed me on this point, and I believe that we responded rapidly. I know that our speed in this matter was widely appreciated. Indeed, we were the first country in the Community to act and to take advantage of the Council of Ministers' decision.

These measures form part of a total policy for the industry which seeks to do three things—to encourage the modernisation of the fleet; to reduce capacity, either permanently or temporarily where this is necessary; and to help the industry to investigate new fishing opportunities.

Let me deal with grants to encourage investment in building and improving fishing vessels. I must make it clear that these grants are not provided for in the scheme which is the immediate subject of the debate, but they form a key element in the total package and it would be right, therefore, to spend just a minute on them.

There are two grant schemes. Both are already open. First, there is our national scheme of grants and loans which is administered by the Sea Fish Industry Authority. We have made £45 million available for this scheme over the next three financial years. All this will come from the United Kingdom Exchequer.

Secondly, there is the Community grant scheme which is administered by the Commission and fully funded by the Community. On precedents, the scheme agreed last October for new buildings, improvements and modernisation could bring about £13 million into our fishing industry. We greatly hope that our industry will take full advantage of this scheme to invest in developing a modern, efficient fleet well adapted to making best use of the fishing opportunities available to it.

I am pleased to remind the House that priority under the Community scheme will go to the replacement of vessels over 12 years old. This is very much our priority for the national fleet. But there is a need to promote the improvement of the structure of the fleet in other ways, and this is the purpose of the Fishing Vessels (Financial Assistance) Scheme. The scheme provides for four grants for decommissioning, laying up vessels, exploratory voyages and joint ventures.

The aim of the decommissioning grants is to assist the process of necessary structural change by encouraging the owners of vessels which for one reason or another are not viable in current circumstances to remove these vessels permanently from the fishing fleet. The payment will be £400 per gross registered tonne of the vessel.

The expected reduction in the number of vessels in the fleet will be of real value to the rest of the fleet, particularly where the vessels which are decommissioned would otherwise have been active in those fisheries where capacity has exceeded our fishing opportunities. The relevance and importance of this scheme is readily illustrated by the fact that we have already received over 70 applications for aid totalling £10 million.

Laying-up grants will be available for owners who fish their vessels for fewer days than in the past. The payment will be based on the cost or insured value of the vessel and will depend on how much the vessel owner is prepared to reduce his time spent at sea.

This scheme has also attracted considerable interest and is potentially an important source of help for vessels which cannot currently be fully utilised but which could become viable if, as we hope, conservation measures allow total allowable catches to be increased.

The hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) has regularly pressed me about operating aid. Aid of the sort that the hon. Gentleman envisages would be immediately declared illegal within the Community, but in relation to laying-up grants the scheme will greatly help the cash flow of some fishermen. It is more than just a capital grant scheme, as it will help cash flow.

Mr. Austin Mitchell (Great Grimsby)

Will the Minister tell us about the geographical distribution of applications? It is crucial that viable fishing centres should be kept in being. If there is a gadarene rush to apply for laying-up grants in a town such as Grimsby, which will take us below the optimum usage of the port and its facilities, that might have a disastrous effect on fishing there.

Mr. MacGregor

The hon. Member for Great Grimsby seeks operating aid, and help with cash flow, but when it is offered he immediately throws it back in my face.

I do not have precise details of the geographical distribution, but, if I can get them before the end of the debate, I shall try to find an opportunity to give them to him. I remind the hon. Gentleman of what I said earlier about the importance of not sitting in Westminster or Whitehall trying to plan how fishermen or port authorities go about their business.

Mr. Austin Mitchell

He is talking about 108 redundant trawlermen, so we shall be wasting our time.

Mr. MacGregor

I agree entirely with the hon. Gentleman that we shall be wasting our time. We are bound to get it wrong. We can, however, give incentives and help to the commercial sector to help it take the decisions that are in its best interests.

Mr. Martin J. O'Neil (Clackmannan)

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. Before he leaves the question of operating aid and the legal impediment to offering such a scheme to our fishermen, can the Minister say what has happened to the French fuel support system. What stage has the case reached in the European Court of Justice? Axe we doing anything effective to prevent such a subsidy of the French fleet?

Mr. MacGregor

We are straying from the point somewhat, which was perhaps my fault. As the hon. Gentleman knows, that subsidy has been declared illegal. We are pursuing with the Commission what steps it should take to end it. The Commission has to act in cases of illegal national aids.

The third part of the financial assistance scheme deals with grants for exploratory voyages. Those will be available for vessels of 24 metres and longer, and are designed to make up the expected financial deficit of an approved voyage. They will be available for approved projects within and outside the Community's 200-mile fishing limit.

Grants will also be available for joint ventures involving the transfer of vessels to fish in waters off west Africa and in the Mediterranean basin. The grant will vary with the vessel's tonnage and the time that it is away from Community waters.

Sir Patrick Wall (Beverley)

Does that include the Falkland Islands?

Mr. MacGregor

The grants for joint ventures do not include the Falkland Islands. The waters where they are available were agreed after long discussions between the member states, before I joined the Council of Minsters. I understand that, as is so often the case in these matters, the areas finally agreed upon were in a compromise package. However, grants for exploratory voyages could be made available for voyages to the Falklands. The third category of the scheme is most relevant to my hon. Friend's question.

Dr. Norman A. Godman (Greenock and Port Glasgow)

Will the Minister give way?

Mr. MacGregor

I am anxious to enable as many right hon. and hon. Members to speak in the debate as possible, which is becoming truncated. I shall endeavour to deal with all the points at the end of the debate.

I have dealt briefly with the last two sections: the grants for exploratory voyages and for joint ventures. Some details of the laying-up and decommissioning grants are spelled out in the statutory instrument. More details of the grants for exploratory voyages and for joint ventures are in the Community regulations relating to them. Explanatory leaflets giving details of all of the schemes have been issued for the fishing industry's use.

The terms of all four grants covered by the statutory instrument generally reflect the terms of Community legislation, which enables the Government to reclaim from Community funds 50 per cent. of payments made. There are, however, two exceptions, both of which were made at the request of the fishing industry.

Both the decommissioning and laying-up grants will be available for vessels down to 10 metres in length, rather than the 12 metres for decommissioning grants and 18 metres for laying-up grants which are the lower limits in the Community legislation. For laying-up grants, the Community age limit does not apply. Payments for smaller and older vessels will be financed completely from national funds. I received a number of deputations from the fishing industry, which pressed us to make national changes to suit our national fleets. I am happy to say that we have been able to do so.

The grants provided for by the statutory instrument will be open for applications until 1986. Financial provision of £27.1 million is being sought for them, including £4 million for which provision has already been obtained and agreed by the House to cover payments of decommissioning grants in the current financial year. As the House will recall, we rushed that measure through early on at the time of Supplementary Estimates to ensure that we had the provision for payment in the first three months of this financial year.

If the full provision is taken up as provided in our estimates, about £12 million should be payable from the Community. In total, that means that the aid being given to the fishing industry for vessels over the next three years will amount to about £85.6 million of which about £25 million will come from the Community. That is a substantial sum to enable the fishing industry to restructure itself.

As I have explained, the purpose of the grants is to obtain improvements in the structure of the fleet. To protect the benefits achieved by the funds, particularly as regards the total size of the fleet, we must exercise certain controls.

I refer now to the licensing orders that are the subject of the prayers that we are also debating tonight.

The main purpose of the orders is to extend our well-established licensing system to include vessels of 10 metres or more registered length. Until now vessels of below 40ft were exempt from the controls that are needed for quota management. The change brings our licensing arrangements into line with the new requirements to complete log books and landing returns under the the Community's control regulation, which will apply to all vessels of 10 metres or more.

I need not remind the House that we were constantly urged, and were happy to be urged, to implement the Community's inspectorate and control system. I am sure that that aspect of the orders will be well understood by the House.

I should say something about the principle of controls. It is very much against my general political and economic philosophy to seek to introduce new controls. I seek to remove controls wherever possible and not to impose new ones. Therefore, I need strong justification for even the modest extension of controls that we propose.

Mr. Robert Hughes (Aberdeen, North)

Why?

Mr. MacGregor

I am saying that because I strongly believe it. Therefore, I personally need strong justification for even the modest extension of controls that we are proposing. I think that that justification is there.

We are dealing not with a free market, where the opportunities are limited only by meeting the needs of the consumer. In fish, there is a genuine international conservation problem. Hence, we have the total allowable catches and quotas, and we need the controls through the licensing system.

The most significant development in licensing policy, however, is our decision to introduce some new restrictions in the issue of licences. I should like to describe to the House the main features of the new arrangements and why we think that they are necessary.

I refer first to the controls. The main features of the new arrangements that came into effect on 3 February are as follows. Our starting point was to make a distinction between what we have called "pressure stocks" and "non-pressure" stocks. "Pressure stocks" are those where national catch quotas may be expected to be fully taken up by the national fleet. They include the main pelagic species and various important white fish stocks. A detailed list of those stocks was published on 3 February.

In general, our intention is to use the licensing scheme to restrict the numbers of British registered fishing vessels of a registered length of 10 metres or more which are authorised to fish for these pressure stocks. We are seeking to achieve this by limiting the right to fish these stocks to vessels which already hold licences to take one or more of them or can show a record of fishing for one or more of them before 3 February.

Mr. Albert McQuarrie (Banff and Buchan)

Is the Minister aware that the Scottish Fishermen's Federation is not happy about the pressure stocks licensing system that he is proposing, as it believes that it is unrealistic and will be unworkable? The federation would prefer the licensing system that it has suggested. May we have an assurance that the federation's representations in relation to pressure stocks will be considered?

Mr. MacGregor

I shall say more about that later. I assure my hon. Friend that we consulted widely with the industry, including the Scottish Fishermen's Federation, before coming to conclusions on the licensing system. There are, as he will know, differences of view—in some cases substantial—in the fishing industry, and I hope to show that we have tried to seek a system which we think meets our requirements and which is the best balance between the various representations that we have received. I shall comment later on the question of future representations.

As I said, we are seeking to achieve the objective that I outlined by limiting the right to fish these stocks to vessels which already hold licences to take one or more of them or can show a record of fishing for one or more of them before 3 February. Licences may be transferred either with the licensed vessel or from one vessel to another by the person holding them. Licences will not, however, be transferable—and this is important—from a vessel which is decommissioned with grant. Nor may licences for a vessel of a registered length less than 40ft be transferred to a vessel of a registered length greater than 40ft. Further details were set out in the written answer given on 3 February in reply to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre.

Inevitably, these new arrangements sound complex. But I assure the House that we have tried to keep the new system as simple, as straightforward and as flexible as possible. That was one of our main reasons for building these new arrangements on to the licensing arrangements that we must have, anyway, to manage quotas. It is no part of my philosophy to impose controls for control's sake. These new controls are intended to meet a real need.

Our aim in introducing them is straightforward, and I believe the fishing industry understands it. As I have tried to emphasise throughout my speech, the overall aim must be to achieve a better balance between fishing capacity and our fishing opportunities. This is right for the industry because it supports our efforts to improve conservation and because of the economic benefits that it should bring. We are seeking to encourage the removal of surplus or uneconomic vessels from the fleet by providing grants.

But this, by itself, is not enough. It is important to ensure that the benefits which should follow from reducing the number of vessels in the fleet are protected. In other words, if in certain parts of the industry there have been too many boats trying to make a living from the stocks available for them all to be viable, and if some are now induced to leave, it would be foolish to allow them simply to be replaced. That would achieve nothing.

Equally, for the reasons that I have given, there are difficulties at this crucial transitional stage in allowing a totally uncontrolled development of new capacity. While, therefore, we must respect the needs of those already in the industry, we need new controls if our basic objective is to be achieved. We have chosen to exercise this control where it is most relevant by concentrating on access to the so-called "pressure stocks". I emphasise that we envisage no new controls over access to non-pressure stocks where it must be in the national interest and that of the industry not to place any unnecessary barriers in the way of those wishing to exploit them.

I realise that there are some—and their voices have been represented tonight—who would have liked us to go further and faster towards a fully comprehensive system of restrictive licensing. Others urge us to manage the industry with the lightest possible hand. I believe that we have struck an appropriate balance, at what is a period of transition, for our industry. And, because this is a period of transition, we will need to keep a very close eye on how matters develop. That is why we have already said that we will want to review the licensing system with the industry at the end of 1986.

The industry will be given every opportunity to comment on how the exercise is working out, and it is free to make representations to my right hon. Friend and me in due course. I say "in due course" because I hope that it will not come immediately from day one. We must have a reasonable time to see how it is working. However, the industry is free to make representations in due course if it feels that especially pressing points about the working of the arrangements in practice need to be brought to our attention.

As I said at the beginning of my speech, this is an important part of a new deal for the fishing industry for its longer-term future. I believe that we have the balance in regard to licensing right and I commend the measures to the House.

9.20 pm
Mr. Martin J. O'Neill (Clackmannan)

The Opposition welcome the opportunity to debate these statutory instruments. I believe that I speak for most right hon. and hon. Members when I say that it is something of a surprise to have such an opportunity so early in the year. To that extent we are thankful for small mercies.

It is only two months since we last debated fishing. I do not think that anyone who attended that debate believed that we would reach this stage so quickly. It is gratifying to know that the Government are taking advantage of the opportunities and that we are the first country to make real steps to encourage the modernisation of our fleet, to encourage it to have a more realistic capacity and, as the Minister said, to investigate the new opportunities.

It will be seen from the Order Paper that the Opposition wish to pray against three of the orders, although it is not our intention to divide the House tonight. We wish to consider them as a package, as they have been presented by the Government. We are not completely happy with everything. It would be a strange and probably a sad day for the House if an Opposition were satisfied with everything that the Government presented. I should like to point to what the Opposition regard as gaps or omissions in an equally important part of the common fisheries policy. The Minister has fairly outlined the CFP's objective. One of our gravest anxieties concerns the fact that the restructuring of the fleet has implications for the men who go to sea, as well as for the vessels in which they go to sea. Apart from the consumer, they are the major consideration for the Opposition.

Extension of the licensing provisions to cover boats of more than 10 m but less than 40 m in length has removed a loophole. There used to be instances of powerful boats of just less than 40 ft in length. That anomaly has now been removed. We hope that the ingenuity of boat builders will not be directed towards designing and constructing boats of 9.99 m in length which are so powerful as to match their predecessors. Nevertheless, we welcome the extension of the licensing provisions. It is a useful tidying up of the regulations.

The Opposition have some misgivings about Statutory Instrument No. 1883. We accept that the regulations to which it relates lie at the heart of the Common Market's fisheries policy. However, there is a contradiction in that, while we are curbing fishing effort, we are also offering money for construction. Part of the give and take approach is that, while it is necessary to reduce capacity in some areas, we must meet deficiencies in others. We recognise that the £45 million to construct and modernise the fishing fleet is welcome.

As regards the laying-up grants, it has been pointed out to us, on the figure of 45 days in three previous years, that, although this was designed for our little pelagic fishermen, it is possible that, with the resumption of North sea herring fishing, which will expand the opportunities for herring fishing, the situation has changed somewhat because it may well be that those who catch white fish will benefit more, since the quotas are more attractive to them. We are conscious of the fact that the attractions of the scheme may in some areas be limited. It has been pointed out to us, by the Scottish Fishermen's Federation, for example, that a boat which is valued at £200,000 for insurance purposes would be entitled to about £4,320 for laying-up for 45 days — that is to say, less than £100 a per day. The fishermen's organisation has made the point that perhaps a shorter laying-up period linked to higher payments might have been more attractive to those who have boats in this category.

I realise that this would involve more money, but it may well be that this aspect of the package will not be as attractive as it appears at the outset. Although I appreciate that the Minister does not wish to keep coming back to the House for minor adjustments and amendments, I hope that his strictures on change are not too severe and that experience will provide us with opportunities for some fine tuning of the scheme. At any rate, we are giving notice that at least one part of the British fleet — the Scottish element—is giving warning.

As regards the decommissioning grants, it has been said that the £400 per tonne will not necessarily discourage a viable boat from fishing. The £20,000 that would be paid for a 50-tonne boat, regardless of age, would not be a particularly attractive proposition to some of the Scottish vessels which are around 50 tonnes, if a boat is still viable and if the owner wants to give it up.

These fears are being expressed. They may be groundless. It is appropriate that we raise the question at this time. It has been suggested that part of the speed with which these measures have been brought before us takes account of the fact that some of the English distant water fleet have had such a poor year in 1983 that if the qualifying year were taken as 1983 rather than 1982 they might not be eligible for some of the available funds. This may be a churlish suggestion, but I make the point. We are not objecting to it, but there are often reasons which are not explicit.

Whoever gets the money, we on the Opposition Benches are equally concerned about what is done with it. We are anxious that the money given to those in the fishing industry who have been encouraged to give up be spent in the areas in which the businesses were formerly carried on, that as far as possible—we know that it is very difficult to frame regulations in this way—if new businesses are to be started, they can be in the areas suffering the social damage that the rundown in the fishing industry is causing at the present time.

Paragraph 4 of the discussion document on the structure and management of the United Kingdom fishing fleet published on 30 March last year stated: Organisations will wish to consider the weight to be given to, perhaps conflicting, factors such as seeking to maximise efficiency of operation and"— this is one of the most important lines of that document, to which the Government have given inadequate weight— the need to seek continuity of supply and maintaining the social structures of local communities. The close-knit nature of fishing communities and their dependence on fishing makes it more important for the Government seriously to consider ensuring that the funds provided to encourage people to give up fishing should be used to help those communities, which are now under tremendous strain.

The Opposition are equally aware that, although that must be the Government's approach, a considerable amount of money is being made available. The Fishing News of 13 January says that £400 per gross tonne will be received by British United Trawlers, making a total of about £2.8 million. That figure is only a conservative estimate when one takes into account the scrap value of the freezers. It represents not only the scrap value, but the jobs of 108 men, most of whom have given long service to British United Trawlers. They have probably worked for no other employer, and have sailed in only a few other vessels, yet their redundancy payments will be as nothing compared with the amount paid to the owners.

I realise that this matter is a political hot potato which no Department is prepared to hold for any period. In a letter of 30 January to the Minister of State at the Department of Employment, Mr. John Connolly, the national secretary of the docks, waterways and fishing group of the Transport and General Workers Union, appealed on behalf of his men and sought further consideration by your Department for making special provision for fishermen who will find themselves unemployed as a result of the restructuring of the United Kingdom fleet.

The letter was addressed to the Department of Employment, which one would have assumed to be the lead Department in matters of redundancy. The Minister of State replied that the decommissioning grants paid from EC funds should go to redundant fishermen, and he said: As the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has responsibility for questions arising from the restructuring of the fishing industry, I am passing your letter to the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. That letter was written on 31 January; given the Ministry's preoccupation with these orders and the speed with which it has moved, it may be a little premature to ask whether the letter has been actively considered.

Mr. McQuarrie

The hon. Gentleman has made considerable comment about trawlers. I am sure that he will be aware that for many years the trawler fleet, because of the loss of the distant waters, has not been able to fish effectively. It is the one part of the fishing fleet which has not had an opportunity to progress. Surely he will accept that the greatest beneficiaries of the restructuring of the fleet are the inshore and middle-water fleets.

Mr. Austin Mitchell

My hon. Friend the Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill) was talking about unemployed trawlermen.

Mr. McQuarrie

With great respect to the hon. Gentleman, who is talking from a sedentary position on behalf of the Grimsby trawler fleet, he must listen more carefully. He obviously lacks knowledge, despite his television interviews. With the greatest regret, the trawler fleet is really non-existent now. The greatest beneficiaries of the restructuring are the middle and inshore fleets, and we must gear ourselves to thinking about those sectors of the industry.

Dr. Godman

What about the 108 men to whom my hon. Friend the Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill) was referring?

Mr. O'Neill

I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman has been listening to me. Since the previous debate on this topic, the announcements and the period of preparation to give legislative effect to what we discussed and agreed — as far as I can remember, the hon. Gentleman was not present when the previous debate on this issue took place, when we discussed principle—there has been a significant redundancy, which is a useful example of the social dimensions of the restructuring of the fleet. That has happened within seven weeks.

It would matter little to me whether the redundancy had occurred in the inshore or middle distance fleets or the trawler fleet. The problem is exactly the same no matter which group of fishermen is affected. I know that the hon. Gentleman has great concern for the fishermen in his constituency, but it does him little good to adopt the attitude that if it is not for his own constituents it does not matter and it should not concern the House.

Perhaps I am being unkind to the hon. Gentleman by drawing that conclusion, but the men who are being made redundant are entitled to a fair crack of the whip. They are entitled to money that is available from Europe if the Government get up from their backside and do something about it. We know who is responsible within Government; we know where the buck effectively stops. We now want the Department that is responsible to take the necessary action to provide the men with justice and fairness in their employment arrangements.

This is not an example of Grimsby and Hull against the north-east or south-west. We are discussing a problem which confronts the entire British fishing fleet. That is why we are reluctant to give full backing to the package, for we recognise that there are gaps in it. If the Government are prepared to do something about that, so much the better, but we want them to do it sooner rather than later. I hope that the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. McQuarrie) understands that I am not making a special plea for any one group. The redundancy arrangements, severance payments or pension arrangements that we are discussing should be applied across the entire fishing fleet, and I cannot make that point too forcibly. We have a reasonably attractive package for vessel owners — it could always be better and I am sure that that will be argued—but there is a glaring omission for the men, for whom no provision has been made.

Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop (Tiverton)

The compensation to be paid can be obviated by the Minister's view that a vessel is unfit. I may have read the order with insufficient care, but I cannot find a procedure which, when the Minister—which means a surveyor—regards a vessel as unfit, will enable the owner to appeal against the decision. When the hon. Gentleman says that there is one glaring omission, I am bound to wonder whether he has noticed another one.

Mr. O'Neill

I accept the hon. Gentleman's close scrutiny of the scheme. I was endeavouring to point out that there was a major omission in respect of the social dimension in which the Government have a clear responsibility. The discussion document of 30 March 1983 refers to that omission. With respect, my point is more substantive than the hon. Gentleman's, although his was not insignificant. We want action to ensure that there are appropriate severance and redundancy payments. If one of my hon. Friends is fortunate to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, he will go into more detail.

The redundancy payments for those 108 men amount to about £500 for 20 years' service, which is not, by any stretch of the imagination, an especially generous offer. It is not generous when set against the payments made through the EEC for steel workers, coal miners and the like. The EEC does not have a bottomless pot of money, but considerable provision can be made, when appropriate, for some groups in the Community. If provision can be made for the coal mining and steelworking areas, which are devastated by unemployment, there should be provision for those 108 men.

This is not simply a matter of giving money for individuals, but there ought to be schemes similar to those provided by, for example, British Steel to support the creation of new enterprises. Provision should be made regardless of the regional funding the Government eventually provide. A review of regional policy is being conducted, but it should be conducted separately. We will not accept any feeble excuse from the Minister that the Government cannot introduce this scheme because it would be at variance with the hitherto undisclosed objectives of the Government's regional policy.

This is not an especially happy time for the fishing industry. Some would say that it is one stage removed from its death throes, but I am not so pessimistic. There is uncertainty in the industry, and I was conscious, during the last debate on this subject, that that uncertainty was manifested in the anxieties about mackerel fishing in the south-west. Statements were made that certain groups should not be allowed to fish in that region. It is perhaps a sign of hope that, since then, the South Western Fish Producer Organisation has made it clear that it has never wanted a complete ban on trawling for mackerel, as the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris) suggested in the previous debate. The organisation says that it is opening a dialogue with the Scottish Pelagic Fishermens Association, so there are no longer the difficulties of communication and the uncertainties that were prevalent just six or seven weeks ago.

Mr. Williams, of the South Western Fish Producer Organisation, has made a statement on this subject. He said that the hon. Member, who is a Member of this House and of the European Assembly, is advocating a complete ban on trawling for mackerel and that the South Western Fish Producer Organisation cannot agree with that and expect the Department to allow fishing to continue under the present box terms. That may be a change of heart, but I find it encouraging.

Mr. David Harris (St. Ives)

The Cornish fishermen for whom I speak have never said that they want a ban against one section on a territorial basis. They are interested in safeguarding the stocks, be they fished by Cornishmen, Devonians or Scots. I have not seen the letter that the hon. Gentleman has quoted. I should have hoped that Mr. Williams, whom I know well, would have had the courtesy to send me a copy, as he has mentioned me. The views expressed in that letter are not the views of the Cornish Fish Producers Organisation.

Mr. O'Neill

I am happy to accept the hon. Gentleman's opt-out on behalf of Cornwall. One of the biggest bones of contention in the last debate was the ban. The disagreement was not between both sides of the House because the Opposition stepped back from the issue, but I know that there was considerable anxiety in the northeast of Scotland. The South Western Fish Producer Organisation, which may well be rather larger and more representative than the one with which the hon. Gentleman deals, is clearly of a different mind and has taken the trouble to express its view.

Perhaps the practical side of the common fisheries policy is beginning to provide stability in the industry and the self-confidence that will arise out of that stability. The Opposition are not completely starry-eyed about the scheme. We are, perhaps, a little further away from it than the Minister and can therefore look at it more dispassionately, although we recognise that advances are being made.

The Opposition do not think that bans and proscription are the best way to deal with fishing within the United Kingdom by United Kingdom fishermen. We hope that the progress, to which the Minister has referred, on licensing and control of United Kingdom vessels will proceed. We hope also that the licensing arrangements will quickly apply to other member states within the Community, and that they will apply the same rigour and vigour to their enforcement. We often find that it is the British that abide by the rules first and most effectively, to the disadvantage of our activities.

While we will not divide the House, we give only qualified support to the Minister's efforts and proposals. We should like him to make it clear to his European colleagues that we will not stand idly by if we are being disadvantaged, and we will not be frightened to intervene. The Minister seemed to be eschewing intervention in a way that suggested that he was perhaps protesting too much.

Effective and relevant intervention has just as much a place in fishing as in any other part of the economy. We recognise that when people go hunting for fish—that is still the basic activity of fishermen; they are fundamentally hunters no matter how much we try to control stocks—within the United Kingdom, they are entitled to be protected and not disadvantaged. More important, they need to be assured that their livelihood outwith the fishing industry will be at least as good as it was within the fishing industry, and that the provision that redundant steel and coal workers get from the Common Market can be extended to fishermen so that they are entitled to severance and redundancy pay, pension arrangements and facilities for retraining.

The new projects and schemes that the Minister talks about are as nothing without adequate backup and training facilities for the fishing industry. The Minister only hinted at that in his remarks, and he will need to come back to the House before too long with additional help to the industry, to fulfil the Government's social and economic obligations. The Government will not receive our total support for the common fisheries policy until the Minister can fulfil the social dimensions of the common fisheries policy.

Several Hon. Members

rose—

Mr. Speaker

Order. Before I call the next speaker, I understand that it was hoped that this debate would start earlier than it did. It may help if I say that 10 right hon. and hon. Gentlemen have intimated their wish to take part, and I understand that the Front Bench spokesman will seek to wind up the debate at 11.10 pm, and of course it ends at 11.30 pm. Perhaps that will be borne in mind.

9.51 pm
Sir Walter Clegg (Wyre)

I shall take notice Mr. Speaker, of what you said about the number of speakers in this debate.

I listened with great interest to the speech of the hon. Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill). What he said about the social aspect of redundant fishermen appeals to me very much. It is a theme that I have pursued in the House on previous occasions. As the hon. Member for Greater Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) is here — Great Grimsby, I am sorry; that is going too far—may I tell him that my firm of solicitors is helping fishermen to present their claims to the Minister. If I may so point out to the hon. Member for Great Grimsby, we do not only do conveyancing.

My sympathy is with the hon. Member for Clackmannan, because these orders are a matter for owners of vessels. There is no provision in them—nor could there be—for men who have lost their livelihoods through changes in the system of fishing, something that was not their responsibility. As the hon. Gentleman said, the coal and steel communities in Europe pay large sums for redundancy to reduce capacity, and it is a matter to which the Government should give a great deal of thought.

This is one of the most amicable fisheries debates that I can remember. If I may say so, we are at a sea change in this debate. For years, we have debated in this House the possibility of a common fisheries policy. Now we have one. We may not like every part of it, but the uncertainty has gone. Now we know what fishing opportunities there are. I believe that this new stability will help the fishing industry enormously.

May I point out to my hon. Friend the Minister—and I hope that he will pass on my remarks to his right hon. Friend—that the speed with which the 1984 quotas were gained has had a tremendous impact on the industry. I think that most of us here and in the industry expected the process to go on for many months. So that has brought a further sense of stability.

I welcome the orders because they provide a way forward for restructuring the industry. The laying-up and decommissioning orders are of great value to fishermen. This costs the Government and the EEC a great deal of money.

I deal now with another fact that affects Fleetwood, which I represent. In the English ports, we are at a disadvantage compared with the Scottish and Northern Irish ports which have a greater assisted area status. They have the Highlands and Islands Development Board, the Scottish Development Board and the Northen Irish Development Board. In England we have less money with which to restructure our fleets. The outlying parts of the United Kingdom have more resources at their disposal than we have. The fishermen in my constituency point to the modernisation that is taking place in the Northern Ireland fleet, which I understand is effective, and there are new vessels.

Dr. Norman A. Godman

New vessels are essential.

Sir W. Clegg

I agree that new vessels are essential, but it is easier for Irishmen and Scotsmen to get new vessels than it is for Englishmen.

I spent the weekend with the chairman of the inshore fishermen in my area discussing these measures, as I knew they were to be debated. He took the view, and I think it is the view of the association, that the measures were welcome. They will provide stability, and the chairman of the inshore fishermen considered the licensing orders to be just about right.

The subsidies that were paid to the fleet for the last two or three years, as the Minister has stated, are illegal, and that I accept. However, I am not so certain that the fleet in Fleetwood can be viable unless a similar subsidy is given. I am grateful to my hon. Friend and to his civil servants for their assistance. It is hoped to provide from the inshore fishermen's organisation in Fleetwood a full financial picture of what is happening to the fleet, and of its viability. When we put in that application, I hope that the Minister will listen to what we have to say.

Much of the money that comes in will, of course, go to the banks to pay off the overdrafts and to ensure continued fishing. The viability of fishing is dependent on so many factors—for example, the price the fishermen get when they land their fish, and the regularity with which they can catch the fish. Regularity is difficult for an inshore industry as opposed to the old fleet that could fish in any weather and bring the fish into the port.

When I first took part in fishing debates some 18 years ago, the House had one debate a year. The House now has more than one debate every year. The position has, therefore, changed. From representing a port that had a large number of deep sea and middle water trawlers going to sea to fish, I now represent a port which has an inshore fleet only. That is the size of the change. It is not easy to quantify the hardships that the fleet has undergone to reach the present position.

From what my hon. Friend has said, I believe that there is hope in our restructured inshore fleets. I trust that what the hon. Gentleman has said tonight will set a new pattern for the future and that, when the House next debates fisheries, there will be a much better picture to look at, and a much more prosperous fleet to debate.

10 pm

Mr. J. Enoch Powell (Down, South)

I do not hold it against the Minister that he did not devote a major part of his speech to the Herring and White Fish (Specified Manx Waters) Licensing (Variation) Order, but I want to refer to it at no great length. It involves a matter and an anxiety which touches closely not only the Northern Ireland fishing industry but the fishermen all round the United Kingdom coasts of the Irish sea and, indeed, further afield, since boats from the east coast are now seeking opportunities in Irish sea waters.

I should say, in fairness to the Minister, that I received a letter from the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, apologising for his inability to be present at the debate this evening. Perhaps his discourtesy was partly mine in not giving notice to him that I intended to intervene. Nevertheless, the subject is one with which the Minister is not unfamiliar, since I recall that he was an interested and attentive auditor in two Adjournment debates which took place at the end of November and the beginning of December last year.

The matter arises in the following way. The Fisheries Act 1981, by an amendment of the Sea Fish (Conservation) Act 1967, enabled United Kingdom fisheries Ministers to make arrangements for any of their licensing powers to be exercised by other persons on their behalf.

It would be natural not to consider that the words "other persons" could include any other persons whatsoever upon the face of the globe. It would be strange, for example, if they could include the Emperor of Japan or even the President of France. In fact, those powers of devolution have been used by fisheries Ministers since they were created by the 1981 Act to make the Government of the Isle of Man the agent for the exercise of the licensing powers in the defined Manx waters; that is to say, the waters between three miles from the coast of the Isle of Man up to 12 miles or, in one very small area, up to the median line between the Isle of Man and the United Kingdom.

That action has caused considerable anxiety to United Kingdom fishermen who are interested in fishing in those waters and, indeed, whose customary main livelihood has been found in those waters. First, they would much sooner that their own Ministers were directly imposing and managing the controls which apply to their operations. At times the controls have been quite constrictive. Secondly, they have reason to think that the authorities in the Isle of Man have recently taken on inordinate ambitions for the expansion of the fishing industry and the processing industry in the Isle of Man at the unfair expense of the United Kingdom fisheries and processing industries.

If one asks why United Kingdom fisheries Ministers have used this power to make the Isle of Man their agent, one receives the answer given to me by the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, who in a written answer said that it helps to provide for more rapid adjustment of catching to market needs by varying the level at which weekly or fortnightly vessel allocations are set within the United Kingdom quota." —[Official Report, 26 January 1984; Vol. 52, c. 643.] We cannot easily be told both that and that the Manx authorites are acting purely as the agents of United Kingdom Ministers and in accordance with policies agreed between the three Ministers and the Manx authorities. Either there is a discretion of variation of this kind from week to week and fortnight to fortnight, or there is not.

If that discretion is left, as this implies, in the hands of the Manx authorities, then ipso facto it is a discretion which is not being exercised in accordance with the current agreement arrived at by all four authorities in the light particularly of the interests and requirements of the United Kingdom fishermen. The Minister will be aware that even in present circumstances, where there is an agency arrangement, considerable suspicion and friction have arisen between the United Kingdom fishermen and the Manx authorities, so much so that when recently—so Lord Mansfield explained to me—because of shortness of time, the licences were issued directly by the Manx authorities to my fishermen in Northern Ireland, the fishermen were so alarmed and incensed by this that they sent them back and insisted on receiving them from the only authority they recognised, namely, the United Kingdom fishery authority, in this case the Northern Ireland fishery Minister.

The question arises: what can be the justification, even in present circumstances, for a delegation which puts United Kingdom citizens at arm's length from their own representatives and their own Ministers in matters which concern their daily operations and their livelihood? Behind all this there lies the spectre of the possibility of the Government, and particularly the Home Office as the operative department of the Government, making an agreement with the Manx authorities to transfer to them the direct control, the initiating control, as it were, over the Manx fishery waters, the 3–12 miles limit.

I have had the opportunity not only of earlier debates in the House but also of discussion with the Home Secretary, and I naturally inquired what argument there could be for such a transfer. I was told that two considerations had apparently been urged by the Manx authorities in support of their request. They have nominally withdrawn their original request, which was frankly discriminatory, but the fact that the original request was discriminatory only too clearly reveals what must be the intention behind conversion of an agency status into a status of direct responsibility. The reply that I got was that there were two considerations: first, conservation, and second, enforcement.

I shall take those considerations separately. The conservation measures are in the bulk the total allowable catches fixed by the European Economic Community and applied and administered by the member states. In any case, the reallocation in the form of quotas and application by licence is worked out by the United Kingdom fishery Ministers and United Kingdom fishery Ministers are responsible to the House and to hon. Members for it. If this amounts to a claim by the Manx authorities that the United Kingdom fishery authorities are not observing the requisite quotas and total allowable catches — which I cannot believe for a moment—or that they are operating or seeking to operate the licensing system unreasonably, that is a most improbable proposition and one that calls into question the motives of the Manx authorities in putting forward the proposition.

Their second argument is enforcement. Enforcement is in the hands of the United Kingdom fishery Ministers. It is carried out by United Kingdom fishery protection vessels. Therefore, we appear to be faced with a statement that that control is inadequate and that the fishery control authorities of the United Kingdom are not doing their job. Again, that seems to me to be highly unlikely, and it is something that I would expect United Kingdom fishery Ministers to repudiate.

The fishermen who depend so much upon the Manx fishery waters are left with the position that, first, the control of those waters has during the last three years been put at one remove from the Ministers responsible and answerable to them. But now this appears to be a paving operation which would lead to that control being taken out of the hands of the United Kingdom and vested in an authority which has its own private, local, sectional interests to consider and which, if it were the administering authority with full responsibility, would hardly fail to take account of that sectional interest.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop

I am trying to follow with great care the constitutional import of what the right hon. Gentleman is saying. Is he putting the case that in this order a Minister is or is not acting on behalf of Her Majesty, not as Queen of the United Kingdom but as Lord of Man which her ancestors purchased? This is a substantial point because, for instance, the Isle of Man declared war on Germany in 1914 but was not a signatory to Versailles. Therefore, there is an element of constitutional doubt. I am waiting to hear whether my right hon. Friend, if I may call him that, is putting forward the case that the Minister is acting for the United Kingdom Government or for the Lord of Man.

Mr. Powell

I shall try to satisfy the hon. Gentleman's curiosity if I possibly can more briefly than the posing of the question.

Under the present arrangements, United Kingdom Ministers as such are purporting to act upon the power in the 1981 Act to make arrangments for their licensing powers to be exercised by other persons on their behalf. I very much doubt whether the interpretation which a court would put upon that provision would include transferring the exercise of those powers to an authority outside the United Kingdom.

That is the present position, but at any rate as the Isle of Man authorities are agents, Ministers of the Crown ultimately remain responsible in this House. But—

Mr. Mark Hughes (City of Durham)

But they will not answer questions.

Mr. Powell

I would not mind having a try at asking questions. But the proposal of the Isle of Man authorities is—no doubt it would require legislation in this House — that we should transfer to them from the United Kingdom control over the waters up to 12 miles from the Isle of Man which at the moment is vested in the United Kingdom.

I am drawing attention to the anxieties which the fishermen naturally feel at the prospects of the jurisdiction over those waters — not the agency administration—being transferred outside the United Kingdom altogether to the authorities of the Isle of Man, which is not part of the United Kingdom.

I hope that the Minister will find a space in his speech in winding up in which he can move further towards reassuring those for whom I speak than the Government have so far succeeded in doing. So far they have simply said that in any arrangements with the Isle of Man they will have in mind the interests of the United Kingdom fishermen. That only increases the suspicion that something is going on which could damage the interests of the United Kingdom fishermen. What I should like to hear from the Minister is that there is no question of this responsibility of United Kingdom Ministers being transferred as such to any external authority.

Forward to