RESTRICTIONS ON FISHING ETC., BY BRITISH FISHING BOATS (Hansard, 7 March 1983)

§ Mr. Buchan
I would not have taken part in this discussion were it not for the fact that the amendments were found not to be in order. Clause 1 is the guts of the Bill. It lays down a number of means of dealing with the conditions affecting the use of fishing vessels. For that reason I wish to draw attention—we were not able to do so on Second Reading—to the amendments. The Bill will be going to another place. Between now and then, cannot the Minister think of means by which this clause can be expanded, as it deals with conditions, to introduce these concepts of safety and other matters, in the same way as he has introduced a clause about the profitability of ships? Perhaps he would consider tackling it in that way, as that would give some evidence of his intention towards the well-being of fishermen.

§ Mr. Austin Mitchell
I wish to ask the Minister a question about clause 1(4) to which I tabled an amendent, which was not selected. The amendment would have inserted at the end of line 13 as follows: of the Community as defined at the time of the passing of this Act. I tabled the amendment for two reasons. The first reason is that in clause 1(4) any other member State. is not defined. There should be a proper definition. Secondly, given the continued threat from Spanish vessels, it is important, because of the size of the Spanish fleet, that we should define the Community as it is at the time of the passage of the measure.
If we are not able to achieve satisfactory provisions when and if Spain enters the Community, this would give us a negotiating coin, either to change the legislation then or to make alternative provision. Without that effective pressure, we shall go naked into the negotiations because we have no sanction to hold against Spain. The whole of the Act will lapse as soon as Spain enters the Community unless we have a specific restraint, as we could have had, by inserting the definition in clause 1(4): of the Community as defined at the time of the passing of this Act. Why was the opportunity not taken to include a definition and to restrict Spain permanently?

§ Mr. Prescott
Under clause 1(3) and (4) regulations will be brought to the House to deal with the nationalities of crew members. The Minister said that 75 per cent. would be EC nationals. I understand, of course, that we could not seek to discriminate between EC nationals. Presumably the 25 per cent., the remainder, can be of any nationality. Will crew members who come within the 25 per cent. require work permits? This is important in terms of North sea oil rigs. It is possible that the ship will never land or come to the United Kingdom. If that is so, can the right hon. Gentleman discriminate in favour of British labour in respect of the remaining 25 per cent. of the crew by requiring that those crew members have British work permits? If that can be done, how does the Minister envisage implementing such a proposal?

§ Mr. Buchanan-Smith
The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) has raised a genuine issue which is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment. I should like to ascertain exactly what the position is, and so I should prefer not to give an off-the-cuff answer.
The hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) referred to an amendment that was not selected. The mere fact that it was not selected shows that it does not fall within the Bill's compass. The issue that he raised was more a matter of legal drafting than anything else. I am advised that the hon. Gentleman's amendment, even if it had been selected, would not have been necessary. I am prepared to consider the matter, and should my advice be varied there will be an opportunity in another place to table an amendment. I knew the selection that might be made and I was clear that his amendment was unnecessary.

§ Mr. Austin Mitchell
It is interesting that the Minister was able to foresee my amendment prior to its being tabled. Why is "member state" not defined? The only members mentioned previously are members of the crew. Why is it not necessary to define "member state"?

§ Mr. Buchanan-Smith
It is a member state of the European Community. That is understood in legislation. I shall consider the matter and I assure the hon. Gentleman that if I have it wrong I shall take the opportunity to put it right.
The hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan) accepts that the long title cannot be enlarged to make provision for other items such as health and safety. The hon. Gentleman was, in effect, asking me to recognise the need for compliance with health and safety measures. He fairly acknowledged that this would not necessarily be effective but that it might pave the way for further measures of a wider nature. As I said on Second Reading, the purpose of the Bill is to deal with what we believe to be an abuse of the rules. As I said to the hon. Member for Grimsby, it is not my intention to add further provisions that I do not think are necessary—for example, requirements that have a bearing on the nationality of the shareholders of the company that might be involved. That which the hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West proposes may be desirable, but I do not consider it to be essential. I have confined myself to provisions that are essential and practical. I do not consider it right to include the proposed additions in the clause.