HC Deb 29 November 1983 vol 49 cc858-64

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Garel-Jones.]

10.25 pm
Mr. Stuart Randall (Kingston upon Hull, West)

The Isle of Man fishing limits are of great concern to many hon. Members, particularly my hon. Friends the Members for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) and Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott). The matter came into focus last May when the Isle of Man Government produced the report of the commission of inquiry into the fishing industry. The report was produced by the Isle of Man authorities because the Isle of Man had been going through a very difficult period. The economy is largely based on tourism, which has difficulties in surviving now that there are package holidays to sunnier parts of Europe. There is also the finance industry, because the Isle of Man could be described as a tax haven. There is a fear that the economy has all its eggs in one basket and is therefore vulnerable. Consequently there is a desire to do something about the fishing industry.

People in the industry have told me that the report is ambitious and that many of its recommendations are questionable, but it would not be appropriate for me to go into detail on technical issues tonight.

I wish to draw attention to a letter on page 10 of the report, which was originally marked "Strictly Confidential". It is to the secretary of the Isle of Man Government from the secretary to the Commission, and states that the commission will recommend that the future of a successful fishing industry in the Island will depend upon the Island Government having sole control of the fisheries within the territorial sea around the Island. That statement is very strong and very clear. It is stated that the Island Government must have sole control if the fishing industry is to be successful. That is a precondition of the plans in this document for extending and encouraging the fishing industry. I know that the Under-Secretary has had discussions with the Isle of Man Government, because I asked a written question on this matter on 11 July. I asked the Under-Secretary of State whether discussions had been taking place and what had emerged from them. The Under-Secretary replied: Discussions are being held with the Isle of Man Government on various proposals on fishing, including a suggestion that the island's jurisdiction over fisheries might be extended from the existing three-mile limit to 12 miles."—[Official Report, 11 July 1983; Vol. 45, c. 215.] I should like to ask the Under-Secretary what has happened since then. I presume that the discussions have been rolling forward. How far have they gone on the subject of the possible extension of the Isle of Man's jurisdiction? That is the key question for the people of Hull.

The other matter contained in the report which is of great interest to the people of Hull, and probably to Scotland also, is the emphasis that the report places on Manx vessels. Page 12 summarises the various recommendations. Number eight states: Manx vessels should receive priority in licence allocations but, should the local fleet be unable to catch the available quota, then licences could be issued to non-Manx vessels. I feel that that is a strong statement. It says clearly that Manx vessels should have everything worthwhile but that if there are any crumbs left on the table the other vessels in the United Kingdom fleet should have some. If the Isle of Man Government proceed with the plans as recommended in the report there will be nothing left for the rest of the United Kingdom fleet.

What is the Under-Secretary's reaction to that, because it would have serious ramifications for the Hull fleet? I am interested in who will answer these fishery questions. The Isle of Man Government are talking about extending their jurisdiction. The report talks about licensing. Any amendment to existing legislation would have to embrace licences and there is certainly a blurred edge to the two issues. I shall be interested to hear what the Minister says on that point.

In one of the trade magazines—Fishing News—dated 1 July 1983 Percy Radcliffe expressed a great deal of confidence in extending the limits. The subheadline says 'No doubts' on Manx limits". The remainder of the article says: Talks to extend Manx fishing limits from three to 12 miles will be successful, the Isle of Man's prime minister"— I did not know that it had a Prime Minister— said last week. Making an announcement on the current stage of the talks with the U.K. government, Percy Radcliffe said he was confident of success". It is interesting that the issues had then become political in the sense that a senior Isle of Man politician was discussing them. I do not know with whom he was discussing them. Perhaps it was with officials. It was clearly felt to be a matter of political priority. I have never met Mr. Percy Radcliffe but he must have had something to go on to have made such a strong statement.

Will the Under-Secretary tell the House how far the talks have gone and what else has been said to Mr. Percy Radcliffe on this issue, which the Opposition feel is crucial?

As to the Hull interest in this, we are talking about two products, scallops and queenies. These are caught by vessels that are both Hull and Scottish registered, and they sail out of Scottish ports, go down to the Isle of Man and bring the fish back to Scottish ports. The fish are then sent by road down to Hull, where they are processed. They are removed from the shells, washed, packaged, weighed and distributed. This is a significant operation because about 90 per cent. of the product is exported, which means that it has a powerful effect on the balance of payments.

The product is also important to Hull, in that this is a labour-intensive industry, employing about 150 people there. I cannot speak for the Scottish industry, but we are talking about at least 500 jobs in direct employment. We can add the indirect labour of the people who pick up the shells that are no use and have to be transported to the local dumps, those who produce the packaging, and so on. There are many indirect jobs at stake, and about £400,000 was poured into Hull in the last financial year in wages alone. That is significant, and if it were to be lost, that would be devastating for the city of Hull.

Sir Hector Monro (Dumfries)

I am interested in what the hon. Gentleman is saying. I represent the fishermen of south-west Scotland, from Kirkcudbright and Annan. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has raised this matter, and I am looking forward to my hon. Friend's reply as much as he is.

Mr. Randall

I am sure that my hon. Friends who have fishing interests in Scotland view this matter with great concern.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell (Down, South)

Not only in Scotland.

Mr. Randall

We should include Northern Ireland.

We must recognise that we are talking about a substantial industry in the United Kingdom. It has orders of a magnitude far greater than those of the Isle of Man. I do not claim to have seen all the processing factories in the Isle of Man, but I have seen a few of them. I do not wish to be disrespectful, but they are trivial compared to the operations in Hull, Scotland and Northern Ireland.

In addition to its scale, the industry has vessels that are suited to the task in hand. I shall not refer too much to the report, but some of the vessels proposed in it are not suitable to the job, as I was told by some of the fishermen. The industry is well equipped with all-season vessels, that can do the winter as well as the summer work. The stern equipment is of high technology. We are talking about well-set up, well-equipped, vessels and companies, with well-trained crews that are getting the results in that fish is landed, which is important.

I am told by people in the industry that those who are doing the work are energetic. The skippers go to sea most of the time. They do not wait for calm, sunny weather. That is important.

If the Isle of Man proposals were implemented and the Isle of Man had the jurisdiction that it claims is essential—it wants sole responsibility—the viability of the companies that employ the staff would come into serious question. The people involved feel bitter about that, because their industries—certainly in Hull—have been built up over the past 10 to 12 years. They feel that it would be devastating to lose all the effort and investment that have been put in.

There has been devastation in Hull as a result of lost opportunities in deep sea fishing because of Iceland and the EC. I know that the other two Members who represent Hull feel strongly on this matter. As well as deep sea fishing, we have recently lost part of the nautical training operation. Even now the Torrey fish research station is under threat. My hon. Friends the Members for Kingston upon Hull, East and Kingston upon Hull, North feel that to lose that would be a kick in the teeth and something that we cannot accept.

We view the report with great concern. The industry is happy to have sensible and reasonable conservation measures, but it cannot tolerate the restrictive quotas and unacceptable discrimination in the report.

I end by asking the Under-Secretary a few questions. Will the Government agree to extend the Isle of Man's jurisdiction to 12 miles? If so, will there be discrimination between Isle of Man and United Kingdom vessels, and if so, to what extent? How does the Under-Secretary intend to do justice to the customary rights of United Kingdom fishermen to fish in these waters? Furthermore, what effect would extended jurisdiction have on the United Kingdom's responsibility for those waters under EC policies and rules, bearing in mind that the Isle of Man is not part of the EC? Finally, will the Under-Secretary confirm that the Government will ensure that, whatever arrangements are made with the Manx Government, the Hull shellfish industry will not be prevented from continuing to thrive?

10.43 pm
The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Mellor)

The House is indebted to the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Randall) for raising this important matter. It is a sure sign of the importance of the issue that he and I are not having a private conversation, and that we are joined by a number of other hon. Members. I am glad to see present the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott), the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman), who represents Scottish interests, the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell), who will raise similar issues on the Adjournment on Thursday, and my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro). As a sign of the importance that the Government attach to the matter, I am here because of the Home Office's constitutional interests in relations with the Isle of Man, but the Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South (Mr. MacGregor), who is intimately concerned with fishery matters, is here to show the importance that he attaches to a debate that touches greatly on the vital interests of fishermen, not just in Hull—although Hull is important enough—but in Scotland and Northern Ireland.

I hope to be able to put the mind of the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull at rest on the central issue that he raised.

The first point I want to stress is that we are in no doubt about the importance of this matter to United Kingdom interests. We recognise the concern that this request from the Isle of Man has caused in the minds of United Kingdom fishermen.

Let us be clear about what the Manx have asked for. At present they issue licences for fishing in the three-mile belt round the island through their own Board of Agriculture, and Fisheries and their Sea Fisheries Committee in consultation with my hon. Friend and others at the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. What they seek, as the hon. Gentleman has made clear, is a licensing power for a 12-mile limit round the island. Their immediate concern is to strengthen the measures of fish stock conservation which currently apply there. The issue has given rise to very high feelings. It was, as the hon. Gentleman has made clear from the report that he has read to us, a recommendation of a fisheries commission established by the Isle of Man Government that a licensing system should be introduced in these waters with—and this is the point that touched on the rawest of nerves, I appreciate—an element of discrimination to favour Manx fishing vessels.

As the House will know, my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary visited the Isle of Man last week. Prior to his visit it was made perfectly clear to the Isle of Man Government that this proposal for discrimination against United Kingdom fishermen was quite unacceptable to Her Majesty's Government.

During the discussions that were held last week I am glad to tell the hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members that the Isle of Man Government firmly declared that they accepted that discrimination against United Kingdom fishermen was not a tenable proposition and they gave an assurance that, if any new measure were agreed, they would not attempt to discriminate in this way.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell

What is the advantage for the Isle of Man in extending their jurisdiction?

Mr. Mellor

That question is not a matter for me but more a matter for them. The important point I can make clear to the House is that the Government of the Isle of Man no longer propose to pursue any question of discrimination against United Kingdom fishing interests.

The question at issue remains that of any legitimate interest there may be on the part of all fishermen and not just the Isle of Man to look at the conservation position and see whether any measures are appropriate.

I believe—and I hope I take those hon. Members with constituency interests in the matter with me in this—that the fact that the Isle of Man Government have backed off any proposal to discriminate is a major step forward and I hope will be welcomed as just that. Other matters need to be discussed, as the hon. Gentleman has indicated. I wish to make our position clear on those other matters.

We need to recognise that what the Isle of Man Government said last week was a radical departure from their previous position and one which I hope will allay many of the anxieties the hon. Gentleman has raised.

The Manx proposals stem immediately from the report of a commission of inquiry to which reference has already been made. That was established by the island Government to examine the Manx fishing industry and to suggest how its viability might be improved. The commission reported that fish stocks round the island are under pressure and there has been overfishing of all stocks in the past few years which has led to a decline in catch rates and progressively reduced annual allowable catches. This in turn has had an adverse impact on the viability of the fishing industry in the Isle of Man as elsewhere.

Many of the recommendations of the commission, as the hon. Gentleman will have seen from his study of it, are of a domestic nature and relate to internal matters of marketing, administration and the provision of infrastructure and support services for the island fishing industry. They need not concern us, but those which envisage a discriminatory licensing system are now recognised as untenable not just by the Government—we have maintained that position all along—but by the Government of the Isle of Man, and hence need no longer concern us. However, the problem of overfishing, it it be as described by the commission, is a matter of concern not just to the Isle of Man and its fishermen, but to the United Kingdom and its fishermen, who have traditionally fished there and who will continue to do so.

The next step upon which we can all agree is to establish the state of the fish stocks around the Isle of Man. We shall be doing that, and we must consider, in the light of that investigation, whether additional conservation measures are necessary. I hope that that is believed to be sensible and desirable, in the interests of all of those who fish in the seas around the Isle of Man, and to be no different from the measures that we would take in other parts of the ocean in which British fishing interests predominate. If further conservation measures are agreed to be necessary—any agreement pre-supposes wider prior consultation—it would have to be on a nondiscriminatory basis. No one can reasonably object to this now that the Isle of Man has dropped the idea of discrimination. I hope that we can concentrate on the central issue, which is the needs of all fishermen who have traditionally fished in those waters. That must involve a consideration of the depletion of the fish stocks, and any practical action needed to deal with it.

I hope that my speech has been reassuring to the hon. Gentleman, and that my central message will remain with him: that any question of allowing discrimination against United Kingdom fishermen in the waters traditionally fished by them around the Isle of Man does not arise.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at eight minutes to Eleven o'clock.