§ The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. John MacGregor)I beg to move,
That this House takes note of European Community Documents Nos. 11209/83, 11209/83 Amdt. 1, 5390/84, 7248/84 and 7286/84 on total allowable catches and quotas for 1984, European Community Document No. 4969/84 on interim arrangements for Norwegian fishing for herring in the North Sea, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food's unnumbered explanatory memorandum of 24th January 1984 on interim arrangements for Member States' fishing for herring in the North Sea and European Community Document No. 7250/84 on technical conservation measures; welcomes the timely adoption of the total allowable catches and quotas for 1984 with the improvements secured for the benefits of the United Kingdom fishing industry, and the subsequent amendments to total allowable catches and quotas, including the quotas for North Sea herring; and urges the Government to ensure that any further decisions on total allowable catches and quotas for 1984 and on technical conservation measures also meet the needs of the United Kingdom industry.This evening's debate covers a variety of European fisheries documents, spanning the period between now and our last such debate in December and dealing with two important aspects of the common fisheries policy—first, the total allowable catches and quotas for 1984, including the question of North sea herring, and, secondly, proposals for changes in technical conservation measures. I have a lot to cover and report to the House.A number of the documents have already been adopted by the council as matters of some urgency, but they have all been recommended for the further consideration of the House by the Select Committee on European Legislation. We are as always grateful to the Select Committee for the careful and vigilant scrutiny of these matters which it carries out on behalf of the House.
I should just remind the House that it had been the Government's intention to hold this debate on 23 May, immediately before the Fisheries Council the following day. The hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) and I would have liked to have that debate in good time, but that was rendered impossible by the actions of certain Labour Members. As a result, certain matters have advanced further without the House having had an opportunity to consider them. I regret that.
I propose, if I may, to speak only briefly on the documents on TACs and quotas adopted prior to the 24 May council so that I can devote more time to the position reached on North sea herring and to the outstanding issues on technical conservation, both of which I know will be of considerable concern to the House.
I deal first with the unnumbered memorandum of 24 January concerning interim arrangements for herring fishing by member states in the North sea. The arrangements were that such fishing should be prohibited in the northern and central sectors of the North sea but that the winter fishery already under way in the southern sector should continue, subject to an overall catch limit. The prohibition was later ended when, on 31 January, the Council agreed interim quotas for the period 1 January to 31 July, as part of the 1984 provisional TACs and quotas regulation. The southern winter fishery was allowed to run its course, followed by new interim quotas.
244 Next, I deal with documents 11209/83 and 11209/83, amendment 1. These concern the Commission's proposals for provisional 1984 TACs and quotas; the first one reflects the Commission's thinking before, and the second one after, its discussions with Norway in December. At the Fisheries Council on 31 January we pressed for various improvements and were successful. The result was overall a very acceptable set of provisional quotas, agreement on which so early in the year was an important achievement since it gave fishermen a more secure basis on which to plan. I believe that the House generally welcomed the timely settlement of the 1984 TACs and quotas although concern was expressed on a number of points, particularly concerning herring, cod and haddock. I shall come back to these stocks later in my remarks. But the fact that it was possible to make that settlement so early in the year after the earlier difficulties demonstrates that the common fisheries policy can be made to work.
Document 5390/84 concerns certain amendments made to the TACs and quotas regulation following the agreement in March between the Community and Spain on Spanish fishing opportunities in member states' waters. As a consequence of this agreement, quotas for monk fish and megrim in particular were reviewed and increased; that for monk fish being particularly important for the United Kingdom.
Document 4969/84, which was agreed in principle by the Council on 31 January, concerns interim arrangements for fishing by Norway of 15,000 tonnes of North sea herring before 31 July. This arrangement, which was agreed in parallel with the interim quotas for the Community totalling 54,300 tonnes, was without prejudice to the definitive allocation to Norway for 1984 or subsequent years.
The final adopted document is document 7248/84 concerning the extension of the earlier interim quotas for the member states for North sea herring. This proposal was agreed at the May Council. I will if I may say a little about the background to this decision and about subsequent developments.
Following the original interim agreement to which I referred a moment ago, talks with Norway on the definitive level of the North sea herring TAC for 1984 could not be held until the scientists' advice became known early in May. Two rounds of consultations ensued between Norway and the Community, but no agreement was reached on the definitive arrangements for 1984.
The difficulty in reaching agreement stemmed largely from a difference of opinion between the Community and Norway on the percentage share of North sea herring to which Norway should be entitled this year. A scientific working group held this spring confirmed that Norway should be entitled to only a very small proportion of the total allowable catch for the northern and central North sea, the southern North sea being entirely in the Community zone. However, in the recent consultations Norway rejected these findings on technical grounds and asked for a further scientific review of the data. Instead, she sought to concentrate the discussions on scientists' estimates of Community catches of juvenile herring in 1983 in order to establish a compensatory right to a significant share of herring in 1984. The Commission on the other hand maintained that Norway had no claim to compensation for these alleged catches bearing in mind in particular her very small share of the stock.
245 In the absence of any prospect of early agreement with Norway, there was strong pressure from herring fishermen throughout the Community, but particularly in the Netherlands, for a unilateral increase in the existing interim allocations to allow the main summer fisheries to be opened without fear of a premature closure. The Dutch in particular attach great importance, as some hon. Members may be aware, to their traditional fishery for maatjes herring which needs to begin at the end of May. The Commission accordingly put to the Council on 24 May this proposal to extend the earlier interim quotas for the member states up to a total of 155,000 tonnes to be taken in the Community's own zone. This left ample room, given the scientific advice on the recovery of the stocks, for subsequent negotiation of a reasonable quota for Norway.
The technical details of the proposal were broadly satisfactory. The allocation between member states reflected the key agreed last December and consequently gave the United Kingdom a quota of 35,720 tonnes, 85 per cent. of which could be taken in areas IVa and IVb, where the main interest of our pelagic fleet lies. The proposal also incorporated revised arrangements for the seasonal closure of the spawning grounds in the central North sea. These closures, which were narrowed down considerably from the blanket closure of last year, were considered appropriate and acceptable, as were the other details of the proposals, by the representatives of our industry with whom I was in close contact throughout the Council meeting.
The question faced at the Council was the broad one whether or not it was sensible to take the proposed decision at this stage. On the one hand, there was the possibility that unilateral action by the Community would cause difficulties in relations with Norway, which if extreme could damage the interests of our middle water and distant water whitefish fleets. On the other hand, there was the desire to provide a secure basis for the summer herring fishery, to which our own fishermen also attached importance. On balance I judged it right to let the proposal go through as part of a package.
I stress "as part of a package" because I am happy to say that I was able to secure Council agreement on other decisions of particular interest to the United Kingdom. In particular, I secured a further increase in our monkfish quota in western waters, which was welcome given the increase in our catching figures. This increase has been adopted as part of the same regulation as the increased herring quotas. I also secured a promise of proposals from the Commission to increase the TACs, and with them our quotas, for two other stocks: the so-called Manx stock of herring in the Irish sea; and plaice in area VII f and g—the Bristol channel and Celtic sea. The Commission has now proposed a Manx herring TAC of 3,400 tonnes, meaning an increase in the United Kingdom quota from 1,800 to 2,550 tonnes; and an increase in the TAC for plaice in VII f and g to 1,400 tonnes. This is higher than any of the catches in the last 10 years and would increase the estimated amount of the United Kingdom quota left for the rest of the year by about 45 per cent. Documents on these latest proposals will be deposited in the Library as soon as they are available.
The House will, I know, be concerned to know what the consequences of the main decision on herring have been in terms of relations with Norway and where we go from here. As I reported in a written reply to my hon. 246 Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter) on 29 June, the Norwegian Government have expressed regret at the Council's unilateral decision and have asked it to be reconsidered. The Commission in reply has pointed cut that the Council's decision was a prudent one, in view of the scientific advice on the recovery of the stocks, and was designed not to prejudice in any way the eventual agreement on the share-out between Norway and the Community. The Commission has confirmed its desire to pursue consultations without delay. Meanwhile, we understand that Norway has followed the Council's example by authorising her own fishermen to fish far herring in the Norwegian sector of the North sea.
Unconfirmed reports indicate that they are landing higher catches than might have been foreseen given the scientists' previous advice on the distribution of the stocks, but we shall need to know more—for example, about the age composition of these catches—before any judgment can be made of the implications for Norway's eventual ownership share of the stocks. I should emphasise that Norway has continued to abide fully by the agreement reached earlier on access for Community fishermen lo Norwegian waters to fish the agreed quantities of species other than herring. We are, of course, anxious to see a resumption on consultations with Norway on herring as soon as possible so as to get back on to a basis of full agreement on the management of the North sea stocks, but the ball is at present in Norway's court.
There the matter stands for the moment. Obviously, the Community will ultimately need to allow Norway an appropriate share of the 1984 herring TAC consistent with her economic interest in the human consumption fishery'. Equally, Norway for her part must be prepared to make up a balanced package with further transfers to the Community, as appropriate, of species of interest to us.
§ Mr. Austin Mitchell (Great Grimsby)Will the Minister give way?
§ Mr. MacGregorI am anxious to proceed, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will catch the eye of the Chair. It is important that I get through my speech quickly.
I have every hope that such a package can still be agreed with Norway which will include further quantities of important whitefish stocks for the Community. In particular, we will be seeking a further transfer of North sea cod from Norway and more haddock either from an increase in the TAC or a further transfer or a combination of the two. This is, of course, a further reason why we would like to see an early resumption of consultations between Norway and the Commission, and I understand Grimsby's interest in this matter.
Before leaving the question of TACs and quotas, I must mention one final document, document 7286/84, which deals with North sea sprat. The Commission has proposed reducing the TAC for North sea sprat from 175,000 to 130,000 tonnes and introducing for the first time an allocation of quotas between member states based on the normal method of calculation within the total available to the Community of 100,000 tonnes. That proposal takes account of the latest scientific recommendation to reduce the TAC in view of the sharp decline in the sprat stock and the risk of excessive by-catches of juvenile herring.
I supported that proposal at the Council on 24 May, but Denmark expressed concern at the difficulty that it would cause in her industrial fishing sector, and made a link with 247 another Commission proposal on the by-catch rules for the Norway pout fishery, which I shall come to shortly. It was agreed that both those matters should be studied further with a view to a decision by 15 September, taking account of the difficulties encountered by Danish fishermen. I should add that I took the opportunity at the Council to make clear our very strong criticism of excessive catches of juvenile herring by Danish vessels.
This brings me to document 7250/84, containing the Commission's proposals for amending the technical conservation rules. The proposals are complex and detailed, covering a number of aspects of the existing conservation regulation. The one aspect on which a decision was considered necessary at the Council in view of the need for adequate notice to the fishing industry was the question of the increase in the minimum mesh size for whitefish in the North sea from 80 to 90 mm.
The House will recall that in October of last year the Council decided to postpone the increase until 1 January 1985 and to consider before 31 May 1984 the possibility of exemptions for sole, plaice and whiting. The latest scientific findings are that, while the increase to 90 mm would have long-term benefits in terms of increased yields of haddock and, to a lesser extent, cod, there would be sharp losses in the short term especially in catches of whiting and sole.
Faced with that dilemma, the Commission proposed what may seem to be at first sight a logical way out, namely to draw a line across the North sea separating the northerly areas where haddock is mainly caught from the more southerly areas were it is not caught, but where sole is more plentiful. From a practical fisherman's point of view, as our industry made clear to us, such an approach would have been nonsense. Fishermen at North Shields would have been subject to one rule and those at Scarborough to another, while a fisherman going out from Whitby would have had to decide which sized net to use, depending on whether he turned to port or starboard on leaving harbour.
The increase to 90 mm involves a balance of advantages and disadvantages, which cannot be ducked, namely, the idea of derogations for individual species, such as whiting, or for particular areas, raises practical difficulties that we can at present see no obvious way of overcoming. On balance, our industry is content with the 80 mm mesh size and the quantity and quality of catches associated with it. It therefore seemed sensible to me, as to others around the Council table, to recognise reality and to put off the increase once again, this time to 1 January 1987, which will give time for a further thorough review of the scientific position and the whole question of derogations on which decisons are to be taken by the end of 1985.
Some hon. Members may feel that that was a retrograde decision from the conservation point of view, but I believe that it was a realistic and sensible one taking all considerations into account. The Council agreed that other aspects of the technical conservation rules should be discussed further at official level. Those discussions are continuing.
I should like to mention the Commission's proposals for changes in the rules on by-catches in the Norway pout fishery in the northern and central divisions of the North sea where small-meshed nets are used. The proposal is that for two periods in each year, from January to May and 248 from October to December, the by-catch of human-consumption whitefish, presently limited to 10 per cent. may be increased to 20 per cent., provided that, with the exception of whiting, the human consumption fish do not exceed 8 per cent.
We are very alive to the dangers that excessive by-catches of juvenile whitefish in these small-mesh fisheries pose for valuable human consumption stocks. We are also very much aware of the feelings of our own fishermen, who are obliged to conform to successive increases in mesh sizes for the conservation of whitefish stocks but who find themselves fishing alongside vessels pursuing industrial species, but taking valuable by-catches of whitefish in nets of a very much smaller mesh than they are able to use. We strongly share their concern.
At the Council on 24 May, Denmark pressed very strongly for the adoption of the proposal on by-catches, arguing that it was a balanced one involving a reduction in by-catches of other species in return for an increase in by-catches of whiting. The Danish Minister emphasised the political difficulty he would face in trying to tighten up controls on the activities of his industrial fishermen in relation to sprat and juvenile herring, if he could not take home what he regarded as a reasonable adjustment of the rules on Norway pout. He did not take it home on 24 May. No other Minister raised any objection, and it was left to the United Kingdom single-handed to put the case against the proposal, which I did as forcefully as I was able. As a result, no decision was taken and the matter was left for further examination and for decision, along with the proposal to reduce the sprat TAC by 15 September. I am well aware of the strength of feeling in the United Kingdom fishing industry on this proposal, and we will continue to muster every scientific argument against it, but I have to tell the House that so far at least our position has not received any support within the Council meeting from other member states. However, I believe that our objections are powerful, and we are doing all that we can to persuade other member states of their validity.
I come now to the third main issue raised in the Commission's proposals, namely beam trawling. Many hon. Members will be aware of the difficulties that have been experienced over the criteria used for defining the size of vessels which could beam-trawl for sole and plaice within 12 miles of coastlines. The Commission's Scientific and Technical Committee has given a great deal of consideration to this problem but because of the varying practices for registering vessels in the different member states it has not been able to come forward with any conclusive and generally acceptable guidelines.
The proposals now put forward simplify the criteria by deleting any reference to registered tonnage, in view of the widely varying systems of tonnage measurement within the Community, and limiting size only by the engine capacity which is now quoted in kilowatts, the normal international unit of measurement of power, but remains equivalent to 300 bhp — the existing size limit. The proposal provides for the detailed criteria for determining engine power to be drawn up by the Commission under management committee procedure: this should allow a detailed interpretation of the engine power restriction to be worked out which would prove easier to enforce and would, in particular, overcome the problems caused by the practice of derating. It is also proposed to extend the ban on beam trawling by large vessels within 12 miles to all 249 species and not simply sole and plaice, which would strengthen some aspects of the enforcement procedures which have caused difficulty in the past.
Although, therefore, the Commission's proposals on beam trawling within 12 miles offer the possibility of some improvement in the enforceability of the restrictions, they would not in our view resolve all the difficulties. In the light of experience, we now see considerable advantage in a return to a restriction based on the length of beam, which provides a clearer measure of the fishing power of a beam trawler. This would, I think, be welcomed by our industry as a whole. A number of other member states share this view, although the Netherlands in particular does not. In the light of the views expressed at the Council, it was agreed that further consideration should be given to the possibility of additional restrictions such as beam length or vessel length, and we shall continue to press the advantages of the beam length approach.
Finally, I should like to say something about the proposals for amending the rules relating to the south-west mackerel box. The House will be aware that in November 1983, on the basis of scientific advice, an extended box was introduced in the south-west in which mackerel fishing was restricted in order to protect the juvenile stock which congregate in those waters. The scientists' advice had been that, because the juvenile stock congregated in this area, fishing should be restricted to gill netting and hand-lining. However, in order to accommodate those fishermen who took by-catches of mackerel in demersal and nephrops fisheries in the area, a derogation was agreed from the rules of the box for bottom trawling provided nets with meshes of at least 60 mm were used.
In the event, that derogation permitted a sizeable directed mackerel fishery to be prosecuted last winter. The Commission's Scientific and Technical Committee recommended that the derogation should be removed. The Commission is now accordingly proposing a modification to the derogation by restricting the percentage of mackerel which may be retained on board to 25 per cent. when bottom trawling with large nets.
The Government attach considerable importance to the conservation of the western mackerel stock which is the basis of one of the United Kingdom's most important fisheries. We clearly must take very seriously the scientific recommendation that the important nursery areas in the south-west require protection. I cannot at this stage be categorical as to the outcome of the Council's further deliberations. But I can assure the House that we shall explore the implications of the Commission's proposal and of any alternative approaches that emerge with a view to reaching as well-balanced a solution as we can, taking fully into account the need to conserve the stock.
I apologise for taking up so much time, but I have tried to cover the many issues involved as quickly as possible.
Progress in the last few months, not least in reaching an early agreement on the 1984 TACs and quotas, shows that the common fisheries policy is being made to work in the long-term interests of the industry. Obviously, it will take time to get it right. The evidence shows that we are listening to the industry and showing flexibility and a willingness to work closely with it within the regulations.
We also have in place the restructuring schemes which, with generous European and national funding, will help the industry to modernise and adapt the fleet to take full advantage of the quotas available to it. As I announced on 22 May, the Government are to provide £7.9 million over 250 three years to help the Sea Fish Industry Authority with its plans for improving the marketing of fish. That is another key part of our strategy for the industry. All of those mean that the industry has at last a secure base on which to plan its future.
§ Mr. Robert Hughes (Aberdeen, North)I shall be extremely brief, because many hon. Members wish to speak, some of whom sat through the earlier debate without being called to speak.
I am pleased that, apart from cod, our quota for this year for each of the seven main species is more than cur 1983 catch. It would be pointless not to welcome that. Cod is a valuable species, however, and our reduced quota for cod is not welcome. We must have a scheme for the common fisheries policy, which is settled to the extent that fishermen know what they can catch, where they can catch it and when they can catch it. From time to time there are restrictions or changes, either in the vessel quota or in the quota per crew member, which bring instability to the industry.
Many issues need to be resolved. The main issue is over-fishing. The Minister gave me the figures for the seven major species in an answer on 25 June. In the case of Denmark the facts speak for themselves. The Danish catch, as a percentage of their quota for 1983, for haddock was 163 per cent., for saithe 159 per cent., and for mackerel 162 per cent. That cannot continue. In some respects the Netherlands are bad, but they are not nearly as bad as Denmark. If I had time, I could quote the figures country by country, but suffice it to say that the United Kingdom catches come exceedingly close to the mark. Our fishermen are playing the game.
A great deal is said about policing, but it does not take place. According to the latest information, the logbooks, which were supposed to be available in April, are still unavailable. No one knows when they will become available. When inquiries are made about when they will be available, the answer is either, "We do not know," or" "As soon as possible."
The Minister must recognise, as Opposition Members have always argued, that that sort of monitoring is inadequate. Let us agree to put up with it for the moment, but if logbooks are not available, there can be no monitoring or reporting to the commission, and over-fishing will continue and nothing can be done about it.
There are three further matters of particular concern. First, I hope that the impasse in the negotiations between the Community and Norway will be ended. It cannot continue. Everyone is anxious about it. I hope that the Minister will not allow the Norwegians a higher share o f herring than they are logically entitled to because they complained about the catching of juvenile herring. I have heard of as much as 150,000 tonnes being caught. I do not know the precise figure, but over-fishing is going on and should be stopped. Norway should not be allowed a bigger catch because of Denmark.
Secondly, the Minister expressed great anxiety about the proposition coming before the Council on 15 September to double from 10 per cent. to 20 per cent. the demersal bycatches for human consumption in the pout box. However, he must do more than express concern. He must say that he will not allow that to happen. If that 251 proposal goes through we shall see the marauding of stocks and many years of conservation efforts will be set back. I hope that he will resist that proposal.
The Minister may argue that my third point is special pleading and in a sense it is, and if the scientific evidence goes against us—although it is not always popular to say so—I understand that we must accept it. However, I have received strong pleas that a limited number of vessels be allowed into the south-west mackerel box, even if they are strictly controlled. That is of great importance to fishermen in north-east Scotland at particular times of the year.
I welcome the Government's announcement of £7.9 million for the Sea Fish Authority for marketing. I do not believe that it goes far enough, and one could discuss the matter in greater detail, but I am glad that at least the Government have moved on that. If we intend to ensure a high consumption of fish we must do something about marketing.
I should like to say a great deal about the plea for aid made by the North-East Scotland Fish Merchants Federation. Its representatives received short shrift when they went to see Lord Gray of Contin. They have said publicly and privately that they felt insulted by the abruptness of his manner. I hope that, now he has gone to another place, he has not forgotten that he had constituents and that we have constituents whose needs must be remembered.
I believe that that organisation has a good claim for aid, but one of the problems is that we cannot find out what is happening in the Community. The Minister will be aware that we had an exchange of letters. When I was in Brussels I raised the subject of aid for fish processors. The officials said, "We cannot give you the information; try and get it from your Minister." I raised the point with the Minister and he replied that he had received the figures confidentially, but that even if he could make them available to me they would not do me any good because the figures for 1979 were the last that he had. That is no way to run a common fisheries policy or an industry.
I believe that the North-East Scotland Fish Merchants Federation has a strong case, but I do not believe that its case is helped when it complains bitterly when Grampian regional council rescues Clipper Seafoods and saves 270 jobs. As hon. Members representing the north-east of Scotland will be aware, I have had my quarrels with Grampian regional council, but I pay credit to it for caring for the industry and rescuing the company. It was not done on a party basis. I hope that the North-East Scotland Fish Merchants Federation will think again and withdraw its criticism of the council for helping.
I hope that the Government will not come to the conclusion that because Grampian regional council have helped in this case, they do not have a responsibility to step in and help with continuing aid. I hope that when the Minister replies he will say something about this point.
I should have liked to raise an issue with which so far the Council of Ministers has shown no inclination to deal. It is safety at sea. Without going into the figures —I have them with me — fishing is the most dangerous industry in the country, more dangerous than mining or construction work. The figures are becoming worse despite the fact that fewer vessels are now going to sea. 252 The casualties, per thousand at risk, or number of vessels, are increasing, whereas in mining and construction work the risk is decreasing.
I should have liked to spend a great deal of time discussing that subject because we do not want to go through a period similar to the one which led to the Holland Martin committee being set up, when in three weeks three trawlers from Hull were lost. We certainly do not want that.
There are many things that we need to discuss. Although I will not say that I have given a generous welcome to what the Minister has done, I give it a general welcome, but I hope that he does not assume from that that we are satisfied that he is doing all he might do, and that the industry is in a healthy state. We are not satisfied. Many problems remain to be resolved. At another date, I hope that we will have an opportunity for a longer and more detailed discussion.
§ Sir Walter Clegg (Wyre)I trust that the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) will forgive me if I do not go down the road that he has, because I want to make a constituency speech, and I am not ashamed of that fact, because that is what we are in the House to do.
One of the great virtues of fish as a food is that it is easily digestible. I wish that the same could be said about the fisheries documents produced by the EEC and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. I am grateful to the Select Committee on European Legislation for taking out these orders for discussion by the House, and for its explanatory notes. The Minister referred to that, and we are indebted to the Select Committee.
I am afraid that I must tell my hon. Friend that I approach fisheries debates in the House these days in a melancholy mood, and how could it be otherwise, when I have seen the port of Fleetwood virtually lose its deep sea fleet, and the inshore fleet reducing in size and beset with problems on all sides?
The documents are complex and based on scientific advice given to the Commission and to the Ministry. Over the years, there seems to have been clashes between what the scientists believe to be happening and what the fishermen know to be happening on the fishing grounds. To take one example on the documents that are under discussion, it is stated in document No. 11209/83 that the proposed TACs and quotas for the number of sole and plaice stocks in the Irish sea appear to be unduly restrictive in regard to United Kingdom fishermen. This does not square up with the picture that I am getting from my own fishermen.
Recently, the Fleetwood inshore fishermen's association, of which I am president—but in which, I may add, I have no financial interest — commissioned a report by Mr. Roy Wallis of the Preston polytechnic, a copy of which has been sent to the Ministry. The document portrays vividly the position in Fleetwood and in the Irish sea. In the report, Mr. Wallis refers to the Boyd and Brandon report published in the Fishing News in March. The report provides evidence of the declining resources in the Irish sea of the main fish species of cod, plaice, sole and whiting. Preliminary figures of landings for 1983 compared with 1982 show the decline in landings of sole and plaice as 15 per cent. Boyd and Brandon conclude that the level of fishing in the Irish sea is too high on most stocks, and the quotas agreed for 1984 will not help to 253 bring the level down. There seems to be a conflict of view, therefore, about the Irish sea stocks. From what I have been told by local fishermen, the position this season has shown no improvement and fish have been difficult to find, and not always of good quality.
The House is also considering the re-definition of the size of vessel allowed to use beam trawls for sole and plaice within 12 miles of the United Kingdom coast. I was interested to hear what my hon. Friend had to say about that. At present, the 300 brake horsepower is being replaced with 200 kW, and anything that makes it simpler to deal with the problem is to the good. I was interested to hear what the Minister said about restricting the length of beams. Over the years, Fleetwood fishermen have said that heavy beam trawling has disturbed the breeding grounds of the sole and plaice. The scientists have said time and again that this did no harm. The proof of the pudding is in the eating. Following heavy beam trawling in the Irish sea, the fish are not there.
The documents that we are discussing are the results of the settlement of the common fisheries policy. They are —perhaps of necessity—infinitely complex. However, the common fisheries policy has not solved the problems of all the fishing ports in the United Kingdom. The report to which I have referred, commissioned by the inshore fishermen of Fleetwood, shows that the port is under serious threat.
In the United Kingdom as a whole, certain fishing ports — especially in Scotland and Northern Ireland — are viable and are doing well. It is the main English ports that are suffering. England does not have a body similar to the Highlands and Island Development board, the Scottish Development Agency or the Northern Ireland development board. We are therefore at a disadvantage. We do not get the help that other fishermen get.
Unless some financial provision is made for ports such as Fleetwood, and other ports in England—especially on the west coast—we shall be in grievous difficulties. The report on Fleetwood by Mr. Wallis states clearly that financial help is necessary if the collapse of the inshore fleet is to be avoided.
The problem will not be easy to solve. We are comparing one part of the country with another. In the past, financial help for the fishing industry has been given for the whole country right across the board. Once one makes exceptions for this port or that, one runs into problems. However, unless some special help is given, several English ports, including Fleetwood, will be in grave difficulty.
Over the years, a sense of bitterness has crept in. The share fishermen, for example, who have been made redundant, have seen men in other industries receive considerable sums. This is, of course, a matter not for the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food but for the Department of Employment, but when they compare themselves with redundant miners, steel workers and other industrial workers, the fishermen feel bitter. They feel that they have been cast on one side. I hope that the Department of Employment will reconsider the situation.
The amount of financial aid provided by the EEC is not sufficient for a port such as Fleetwood. Unless some help is given, our inshore fleet will diminish, and with it the number of associated jobs on shore.
I am having to make pleas. So do the fishermen. They want to be able to stand on their own two feet again as soon as possible. However, the Irish sea is in a very poor state 254 of conservation. The fishing grounds take longer to recover than those on the east coast, because of the climatic conditions and the shelving of the sea bed.
I know that all the problems cannot be solved at once, but I feel deeply about this matter. I therefore ask my hon. Friend to look carefully at the report, which I find very disturbing. I hope that he will be able to convince the Government that they must do something to help the ports that are in special difficulties.
§ Mr. James Wallace (Orkney and Shetland)Like the hon. Member for Wyre (Sir W. Clegg) I shall endeavour to be brief. I shall make some points on the copious documents that we are considering. As did the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes), I give a general, although not overgenerous, welcome to the documents. Most Opposition Members recognise that there have been increased quotas, except of cod. There is general agreement that this debate should occur in July rather than in the middle of December, as it did last year. The fact that the total allowable catches have been agreed this early in the year is an advantage. It must be recognised that steps have been taken to give the producers' organisations a degree of local management with respect to cod and, ind the case of the Shetland Producers Associations, to both cod and haddock. That is a welcome development. I am sure that those who have been given this power will act responsibly and that the scheme will be a forerunner of even greater local management schemes.
I hope that the Minister of State has sufficient time to respond to some points about conservation measures. The hon. Gentleman said that there TACs would be set on sprats. As I understood the regulations, sprat fishing will still be banned in the Moray Firth and Firth of Forth areas between October and March. I believe that the hon. Gentleman was aware that that matter was specifically raised when the House last debated this issue on 7 December. The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food said that he would consider the point again in relation to this year. He said also that he would consider especially whether boats under 40 ft in length could continue to catch sprats as a by-catch. Those who greatly depended for their living on the Firth of Forth and Moray Firth areas suggested that, by fishing with boats less than 40 ft in length, they were not doing any serious damage to young herring.
Ther is a very technical regulation on the measurement of crustaceans. I am disappointed that no steps have yet been taken to implement any system of licensing for lobster fishing. I believe that within the past four or five months the Minister has met representatives of the lobster fishing industry and that he is well aware of the depth of worry at the licensing system which the Government have been quick to implement with respect to other species. Such a system is necessary to safeguard an industry which for many people provides a considerable part of their livelihood, especially in areas in which there are not many other forms of economic activity.
I should like to refer to a constituency point on the Orkney and Shetland box, or, as it is sometimes called, the north of Scotland box. It was recognised in the preamble to the regulation of January 1983, which implemented the common fisheries policy as we know it, that measures were required to safeguard localities wher the local population was heavily dependent on the fishing industry, 255 not only directly in the catching site but indirectly in processing. People, especially those in Orkney and Shetland, argued that an excessive number of vessels over 26 m in length were licensed and allowed in to the box. What monitoring has occurred of vessels operating in that box? Is it the case that, because of the way in which the regulations are drafted, the total number of vessels — 128—means 128 at any one time? That might mean that more vessels could enter the box as one left.
I hope that the Minister will recognise that much of the fishing for demersal species in that area is done by boats of less than 26 m. I hope that if the purpose of the regulation was to protect those fishing grounds for those who lived closest to them, the hon. Gentleman will acknowledge that the measures are not as effective as was hoped.
The matter that most concerns the House is the future of herring and the relationship between the Community and Norway. It is regrettable that there has been a total breakdown. There have been reports of the Norwegians having already fished more than 30,000 tonnes of herring in their own sector. That is probably more than our fishermen have fished so far this year.
We are well aware of the damage which the Norwegians' industrial fishing inflicted on the herring stocks in the North sea in the late 1960s and early 1970s. It would be a tragedy if that damage were allowed to be repeated for that which has been achieved over recent years could so quickly be lost.
When the Minister said that the ball was very much at the Norwegians' feet I wondered whether that was entirely correct. He rightly said in another context that he has made representations at the Council of Ministers about the excessive catching of juvenile herring by Danish fishermen. If that is why the Norwegian Government are pressing more than other member states for a larger allocation of herring stocks, I ask the Minister whether representations cannot be made to the Danish Government for a quid pro quo arrangement with them if some compensation has to be paid to Norway.
Those issues concern the past, but the inadequacy of the policing operations of the common fisheries policy allows Denmark excessively to fish juvenile herring stocks. The most recent edition of Fishing Newsdraws attention to the drastic consequences visited upon a Grimsby vessel for the mistakenly wrong reporting of a landing. A contrast was made between the efficiency of the Norwegian policing of its own sector compared with that in many other areas. We have heard within the past week or 10 days of an increase in the Community budget and we must wonder to what extent the Minister will be pressing for more inspectors to be appointed. The number was set originally at well into the 30s, if not approaching 40, but only 13 inspectors have been appointed. There are many hon. Members on both sides of the House who realise that there is an inadequacy in the inspection arrangements and who would press for more effective policing of the common fisheries policy.
We welcome many of the positive achievements within the fishing industry this year, but we do not wish the Government to become complacent. There are still many problems, not least that of herring and the restructuring of the fleet. The introduction of licences has caused a considerable number of problems in many areas. As many warned, the decommissioning grant has become the 256 bottom line for the sale of vessels to effect the transfer of a licence. The purchase of older vessels is being taken into account when consideration is being given to the cost of purchasing a new vessel. That brings problems for areas that have traditionally been dependent on fishing, especially if many of the licences go away to other parts of the United Kingdom and are bought up by corporate bodies. There will be damaging consequences for share fishermen, who in many respects, especially in the peripheral areas of Britain, form the backbone of the local economy.
§ 11.8 pm
§ Mr. Albert McQuarrie (Banff and Buchan)Like other hon. Members, I shall not seek to detain the House too long in this short debate. Therefore, I shall not go over the documents before us in great detail.
First, I refer to document 4969/84, which is dated 15 February 1984. It seeks to allocate to Norway an interim allocation of herring in the North sea. It would allocate 15,000 tonnes, which must be caught by 31 July 1984. I am glad that the interim arrangement would not prejudice the definitive allocation for 1984 and subsequent years.
The fishing industry will want a guarantee that because the Norwegian share of the interim fishing allocation would be relatively greater that that which the United Kingdom Minister considered appropriate, the agreement on that allocation was reached only because the declaration by the Council of Ministers on 3–4 October 1983 stated that in all future negotiations the Commission must advise Norway that shares between the Community and that country would be according to the relative ownership shares of North sea herring hitherto considered appropriate by the Community. The Government must ensure also that the interim arrangements for the early months of 1984 will not prejudice the definitive allocation for 1984 in respect of our fishermen or for subsequent years.
In this connection, the Grampian regional council's fisheries committee, which met yesterday, passed a resolution requesting Her Majesty's Government to use their influence — as the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) said—to get the EC and Norway round the table to discuss over-fishing, which is source of great concern in the north-east of Scotland, and particularly to the fishermen in my constituency who have been so adversely affected by Norway's over-fishing, as was again confirmed by the Minister this evening.
In document 11209/83 I observe that the total allowable catches for the North sea cod, haddock and whiting will be lower in 1984 than in 1982 and 1983. What steps do the Ministers propose to take to ensure that any increases in the TACs for saithe, plaice and mackerel will compensate the fishermen for the reduced TACs of the other species? Any major reduction in the overall TAC for the North sea stocks would be greatly detrimental to the fishermen in my constituency.
In connection with document 7248/84, I notice that Denmark has 28,780 tonnes of North sea herring in the northern and central North sea areas 4A and 4B, as against the quota to the United Kingdom of only 29,020 tonnes for the same areas. Can the Minister tell the House why Denmark enjoys such a large proportion of the quota? The same applies in the southern North sea and the eastern English channel, where the United Kingdom has only 6,700 tonnes of herring, as against France, which has 19,000 tonnes, and the Netherlands, with 18,000 tonnes. 257 Why is there such a disparity in the United Kingdom's quota as against that of the other member states, bearing in mind that the greatest amount of fish is caught around the shores of Britain?
I am pleased to see that document 7286/84 says that attempts will be made to control the undesirably high by-catch of young herring being taken when fishing for sprats, to which the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North referred. This was another matter with which the Grampian regional council's fisheries committee was concerned. Can the Minister say—the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North also asked him this question — how effective is the policing and catch reporting in the areas concerned? Much damage was done to the young herring over the past years during the conservation periods when the Norwegians were fishing for sprats and picking up hundreds of thousands of tonnes of small herring. Is this matter now under control in Brussels? Are member states ensuring that there is less by-catching of those young fish?
In document 7250/84, I am pleased to note that the proposed revision of the conservation rules of the southwestern mackerel box would prevent directed fishing for mackerel within the box using bottom trawls, while allowing a by-catch of pelagic species, including mackerel in bottom trawls.
The question of access was also raised by the Grampian regional council's fisheries committee, which requested that access should be granted to a limited number of vessels from the north-east coast of Scotland, on condition that, should small fish be causght, fishing would cease immediately. Last year we had a number of problems in the south-western mackerel box between the fishermen in the south-west and the Scots. Fortunately, reason prevailed in the discussions between the Scots and the south-west fishermen and the problem was resolved. I hope, therefore, that this piece of draft legislation will ensure the smooth working of the south-western mackerel box this year.
Document 5390/84 of 1 March 1984 proposes TACs and quotas on certain stocks affected by the recent agreement reached between the Community and Spain on Spanish fishing opportunities in Community waters for 1984. While I accept that the agreement will provide an increased United Kingdom quota for monkfish, which will be welcomed, I have grave reservations about the United Kingdom agreeing to any TACs or quotas for Spanish fishermen in Community waters where they do not have a history of traditional fishing. It must be borne in mind that the accession of Spain to the Community will be dependent upon the total restrictions being lifted which are at present enforced by the Spanish authorities on our dependent territory of Gibraltar.
Nor should it be forgotten that if Spain secures membership of the Community, it will have the largest fishing fleet among the member states. The British Government must be careful to safeguard the interests of the United Kingdom fishermen, who cannot afford to lose any part of their TACs or quotas, having suffered from the need for conservation over the years.
It is unfortunate that, as usual, we are discussing this important topic of fishing so late at night. Having examined the instruments carefully, I give them a guarded welcome. I trust that the British Government will continue to play a large part in the decision-making in Brussels, 258 bearing in mind that so much of the fish caught in Community waters comes from around the shores of Great Britain.
§ Mr. Austin Mitchell (Great Grimsby)Only two comments need be made about these documents. The first is that one heaves a sigh of relief that the quotas for 1984 have actually been agreed, and so early in 1984, instead of being left until December and an indecent scramble to stitch the whole thing together, which is what usually happens with the common fisheries policy.
The second is to emphasise that the real problem with these quotas is cod. That is the central issue. The cod catch is down, yet we in Grimsby depend on cod almost totally. The fact that the cod quota is down means an 18 per cent. reduction in the earnings of the port because the reductions have not been compensated for by any increase in earnings or increased prices in the market. Also, the Government have kicked away the prop that a port such as Grimsby needs, the operating subsidy, which helped to keep the industry going. Now it must suffer this blow of an 18 per cent. reduction in earnings.
It is not good enough for Britain to end up with a scattered, small boat fishing industry. We need an industry which is concentrated in ports such as Fleetwood and Grimsby, ports which can offer facilities for a professional industry. This industry needs investment and replacement, and the lack of that has caused the decline in the safety record to which my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) referred.. It needs confidence, but it will not have it as the industry shrinks and does not receive the backing it deserves from the Government.
Grimsby is suffering partly because of the row which has been precipitated with Norway, a row which has precluded an agreement on extra cod from Norway. This is fish which we are not catching, fish which our Ministers pledged to get for us, fish which the commissioners pledged to negotiate for us but fish which we do not have and which would supplement the reduction in catches.
We do not have that catch because of the Danes. The Minister was mealy-mouthed about allocating responsibility for the breakdown in talks, but responsibility must lie with the Danes. They have caught 170,000 tonnes of immature herring off the west coast of Denmark in Danish vessels. No action has been taken to stop it and, so far as I know, there have been no prosecutions, no cuts in quotas, no threats made and no punishment levied for what they have done. Indeed, there is even talk of rewarding the Danes for this heavy catching of juvenile herring by giving them an increase in the by-catchers allowance for industrial fishing from 10 to 20 per cent.
I warn the Minister that if he accepts that increase in by-catchers, the industry will be up in arms. We want more than an effort of opposition from him. We want his pledge to go on opposing such an increase, because we know how the EEC can soften attitudes in such matters.
That catching of juvenile herring is of great concern to Norway because the fish swim into Norwegian waters—if it is allowed to mature— but the way in which the juvenile herring are being caught gives them no confidence in EEC enforcement mechanisms, about which they feel much as I do. They have become obstructive on extra cod and have begun to catch herring in their own waters much in the way that the Danes have been doing.
259 In this matter, we are on the side of Norway. We have the same concern about conservation. At times, it seems that they and us are the only countries which pay any attention to conservation. More important, we need Norway's co-operation, and the port of Grimsby needs the catch that we make in Norwegian waters. It is essential, therefore, that we press for action against the Danes as a sanction to try to get an agreement with Norway.
That brings me to the central point of quotas, and that is the problem of policing, which has always been the weak link of the common fisheries policy, partly because of collusion between the fishing authorities and the fishing industry in continental countries, but also because the EEC inspection force began weak and finished up weaker, turning from a force into a farce. Only 13 men police that enormous area. Britain suffers both ways. We restrict our effort because our fishing is better inspected and policed than it is anywhere else except Norway. Yet we suffer the sanction of cuts, in cod quotas for example, because of overfishing by others who are not adequately controlled or policed.
The extent of overfishing was revealed when my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North asked a question only a week ago. The Netherlands' cod catch in 1983 was 112 per cent. of its quota. The Danes caught 163 per cent. of their haddock quota and the Netherlands caught 121 per cent. of its quota of haddock. The Danes caught 159 per cent. of their quota of saithe and 162 per cent. of their mackerel quota. The Netherlands caught 109 per cent. of its mackerel quota. Deliberate and flagrant breaches of quotas has taken place and nothing has been done.
Britain's cod quota has been improved for Grimsby by making it more flexible, but only Britain operates under a restrictive system of licensing and quotas. Why are not other countries so effectively policed? Policing cannot be done without logbooks showing where the fish is caught or without effective co-operation by authorities on shore in the different countries. Until we get that, there can be no satisfaction with the quotas or with the CFP arrangements.
Grimsby's FEOGA money for the Fish Producers Organisation has been withheld because of dissatisfaction with fish grading. We need that money to underpin the prices on the market when the market becomes more difficult — as it will at the end of the year and the beginning of the next fishing season—to guard against a collapse of prices and to keep the FPO solvent.
Our grading, although no better, is certainly no worse than that in most other ports. The difference is that ours is more continuously and closely inspected by officials. The inspection at other ports is not as rigorous. I challenge the Minister to examine grading at other ports. If he cannot go to other ports, I urge him to come to the Mecca of the fishing industry —Grimsby — and to inspect the boxes from Peterhead. He will find that grading there is exactly the same as ours. It is unreasonable to make Grimsby an example while not dealing with the problem elsewhere.
The cut in the cod quota is causing severe problems in Grimsby. The industry faces a crisis of survival in the coming winter months when the viability of the landing companies and of some of the vessels which are old and not making money will be threatened without the special 260 help of an operating subsidy. The Minister must help to keep going viable industries in concentrated, efficient ports such as Grimsby.
§ Mr. Michael Howard (Folkestone and Hythe)Unlike my hon. Friends the Members for Wyre (Sir W. Clegg) and for Banff and Buchan (Mr. McQuarrie), and unlike the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell), who have made distinguished contributions to debates on this topic in the House, this is the first time that I have had the opportunity to participate in such a debate. I shall take a moment or two—I shall try to be brief—to describe the nature of my interest.
In my contituency, commercial fishing takes place from Folkestone, Hythe and Dungeness. It is a significant activity in an area where unemployment is above the national average. It is important that it should prosper. Its prosperity is far from assured and I regret to say that the agreements contained in the documents before the House this evening are far from assuring that prosperity, even if they are not in themselves objectionable.
The first reason for that less than satisfactory situation is that which has been touched upon by several hon. Members who have already spoken, and that is the inadequacy of the arrangments for inspection and enforcement. The evolution of ministerial attitudes to that matter is not altogether encouraging. In January 1973, when my right hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Walker), who then had responsibility for these matters, participated in the debate on the agreement on the common fisheries policy he assured the House that a proper system of enforcement would apply to all countries in the Community, not only to the United Kingdom. He said that we would ensure that the enforcement was carried out well and effectively.
By the time we reached last December, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food was less sure about the effectiveness of the arrangements. He said that he had maintained regular pressure on the Commission and that he had been assured that the full complement of 13 inspectors would be in place by the end of the year and that he preferred to reserve judgment on the need for an increase in the complement.
The fishermen whom I represent are in no doubt about the inadequacy of that number. They are in no doubt about the inadequacy of the present arrangements. They say that it is no use having a common fisheries policy unless it is enforced effectively and uniformly throughout the Community. I urge my hon. Friend the Minister of State to look again at that aspec of the matter. It goes to the very heart of the policy. Without effective enforcement, all the weary hours that he has spent on th negotiations will have been wasted. I have far too high a regard for the abilities of my hon. Friend, and I hope some understanding of the other calls on his time, to wish those hours to be wasted in that way.
§ Mr. Gerald Malone (Aberdeen, South)Is my hon. Friend aware that the Member of the European Parliament for the north-east of Scotland, James Provan, recently secured an initiative to control over-fishing from the Netherlands? He managed to secure an action which required the books of fish processors in the Netherlands to be examined. They were impounded and examined. Is that not one aspect of the way in which we can obtain control? 261 Unless fish processors in some of the countries where catches are being landed are controlled, we shall never reach a satisfactory solution.
§ Mr. HowardEvery small step forward is welcome, but I fear that we need a leap or two. I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to do what he can to secure such leaps.
Even enforcement will not in itself be sufficient. My hon. Friend will know that the fishermen whom I represent suffer greatly from the inshore activities of the large beam trawlers. They regard it as profoundly unsatisfactory that the restriction on the activities of those beam trawlers should be expressed in terms of engine power. I fear that they will not be greatly mollified by the substitution of kilowattage for horsepower, which is what the agreements in the documents before the House secure. They want a limit expressed in terms of vessel or beam length. I was greatly encouraged by my hon. Friend's remarks. I urge him to press with urgency and determination for limits expressed in those terms.
The final point that I wish to make relates to the subsidy on fuel which is presently enjoyed by French fishermen. I had occasion recently to visit Boulogne and Calais in order to make common cause with representatives of those communities on a matter which arose as a result of the French Government's proposal to withdraw the no passport excursion facility. That proposal will damage the economic interests of those communities at least as much, if not more than, it will harm the interests of my constituency.
I discovered during that visit that they had many interests in common with the constituency which I represent, but I fear that fishing is not an area on which our interests are common, especially so long as they enjoy a subsidy on their fuel which enables a fishing vessel from Boulogne to be viable when an exactly similar fishing vessel from Folkestone is not. That is unfair. It is unacceptable. I urge my hon. Friend to do all in his power to ensure that discriminatory measures of that kind, which I fear are all too common in other areas of Community policy pursued by other members of the Community, are stopped.
I am far from certain that all the measures to which I have referred will suffice to assure the prosperity which I should like to see accrue to the fishermen in my constituency, though I believe that they would go a considerable way towards achieving that goal. In the longer term it may be necessary to consider more fundamental measures such as the introduction of a scheme of regional management, but the measures that I have identified would be a good start, and it is in that spirit that I commend them to my hon. Friend.
§ Dr. Norman A. Godman (Greenock and Port Glasgow)I shall be brief, because I know that the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris) wishes to contribute to what, for me, is too short a debate on a very important issue.
I want first to add a comment to the observations of the hon. Member for Wyre (Sir W. Clegg). He talked of the absence of compensation for redundant share fishermen. If he were here, I am sure that he would agree that that is a matter for deep regret but that the same applies to fishermen employed by trawler companies.
262 My brother Leslie had 19 years service with a trawler company. He received the princely sum of £385 in redundancy.
§ Mr. Austin MitchellHe was lucky.
§ Dr. GodmanMy hon. Friend says that my brother was lucky, but that was £15 less than the European grant per gross registered tonne for decommissioning the vessel on which he sailed. It is surely time that we had a pension scheme for all fishermen.
I said that it was a matter for regret that this was such a short debate. I say that especially in the light of what the Select Committee said in its 26th report concerning, for example, the proposed increase in the by-catch when fishing for Norway pout. If that comes about it will be a scandal. Sooner or later the Danes will have to face the need to seek alternative foodstuffs for their pig industry.
There is also this very important issue of beam trawling. I have argued in the past for a complete ban within a few miles of our coastline.
There are other issues raised in the documents, for example, the removal of the Community prohibitions on the use during a specified period each year of trawls, purse seines and so on in certain Scottish lochs and other related issues which are worthy of a more comprehensive debate.
Finally, I add a brief comment to the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) on the safety of fishermen. In fairness to the officials of the EEC concerned with this industry, it must be said that they are deeply aware of the importance of this issue and recently organised a conference on fishing vessel safety at L'Orient, in Brittany, to examine the problems. The conference spent a great deal of time examining the design of vessels and deck machinery on the basis that the deck of a fishing vessel is a work place that needs the most stringent safety regulations. I look forward to the day when we debate the safety and training needs of our fishermen.
§ Mr. David Harris (St. Ives)Having tried and failed to get into the debate on the milk industry —I I quite understand why I failed — I am grateful for, and delighted to have, the opportunity to say a few words about another important industry in the south-west, the fishing industry, and it will not surprise anyone if I confine my comments to the south-west mackerel box.
The hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) seemed to be saying that we should have some overfishing in the mackerel box but not too much. My hon. Friend the Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. McQuarrie) was also not quite right in suggesting that everything was wonderful and that everyone agreed entirely about the future of the box. I shall not, however, reopen old wounds and issues that we have discussed with vigour on previous occasions.
I hope that in winding up the debate my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland will give an assurance that the matter will be cleared up at the next Fisheries Council meeting, which I gather is not due to take place until September. The problem of the mackerel box and the need to end an extremely damaging exemption have dragged on for far too long and September is not far off the beginning of the mackerel season. it would be intolerable if the issue remained unresolved at the start of the new season. Indeed, I say without fear of 263 contradiction that if the matter is not settled by then there will be great trouble off the south-west coast of England, which the whole House should be determined to avoid.
I should mention in passing that there is a drafting defect in the regulation. I believe that my hon. Friend the Minister of State is aware of that, and I hope that he will take full account of it.
My hon. Friend the Minister of State referred in opening to the restructuring of the fleet. As he and most hon. Members involved with fishing communities know, there have been diabolical delays on the part of the Commission in Brussels in paying out FEOGA grants to our fishermen. I hope that that problem, too, will be brought to an end.
§ The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. John MacKay)We have had a short but most interesting debate on the European Community documents before us. As usual, hon. Members have used great ingenuity to bring in matters perhaps not entirely within the scope of the documents and you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, have allowed some latitude in that respect. I shall try to answer as many of the questions as possible, but anyone who has listened carefully to the debate will appreciate that 10 minutes is not nearly long enough to answer them all.
In the past few months, since the TACs and quotas for 1984 were decided by the Council on 31 January, the common fisheries policy has perhaps moved into a new phase. Our task now is to keep the policy in good repair, in particular by updating the various conservation rules and regulations as and when new scientific evidence becomes available, while at the same time keeping a close watch on the various markets for fish and fish products so that the industry can make the most of its fishing contribution.
My hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris) asked for an assurance that the problem of the south-west box would be resolved by September. All too many years of fisheries negotiations make it foolish for any Minister to give such an assurance, but I assure my hon. Friend that the Government are well aware of the problems and the conflicting interests involved and of the importance for a number of competing groups of getting a solution that is sensible in terms of both conservation and the livelihood of the fishermen.
Much of the debate has dealt with the issue of herring. Those who were concerned about the Council's decision unilaterally to fix this year's quota and TAC without completing negotiations with Norway should know that my hon. Friend the Minister of State expressed reservations about that decision in the Council and made it very clear that we were extremely concerned lest the Norwegians take action against us or drag their heels in future negotiations. We made our view very clear at the Council, but that view did not prevail. As hon. Members know, the Norwegians, as we expected and forecast have shown their disapproval of our decision, but I believe that we still can, and will, get round the table with Norway. I can assure my hon. Friend the Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. McQuarrie) that we are doing our very best to make sure that the Community and Norway can soon negotiate on the herring stocks in the North sea.
264 We have no evidence at the moment—I repeat this for the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) and my hon. Friend the Member for Banff and Buchan—that the Norwegians are breaking the rules in fishing in their zones. Indeed, I understand that they have closed certain areas of their sector because of the high percentage of small herring in their catch. I hope that we can reach a sensible agreement with the Norwegians. We have a joint interest, in the Community and especially in Britain, with the Norwegians, in making sure that the work that has gone into conserving and bringing back the herring stocks to the North sea is not thrown away just because we cannot come to an agreement.
I move on from herring to the question of cod and haddock. They are not unrelated, as the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) pointed out in his speech. The hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes), my hon. Friend the Member for Banff and Buchan and the hon. Member for Great Grimsby were pressing for higher quotas for those species. Unfortunately, in reality we must take into account the scientific advice that the biomass in those species is going down. We must not allow cod and herring stocks to decline in the same way as herring in the North sea.
The hon. Member for Great Grimsby is quite right to say that it is important for us, and for cod, to have sensible negotiations with the Norwegians in order to get reciprocal agreements, and to fish for more cod in their sector. I assure the House that my hon. Friend is doing his best to resurrect the negotiations. He warned the Council of Ministers that those were in danger at the Council in May.
Still on the subject of the Council meeting in May, I shall deal with the question of Norway pout fishing. My hon. Friend said, and I can underline it, having sat beside him at the Council that we are very much alone in pushing the case that we believe in the well-founded scientific case against an increase in the by-catch. We believe that all of those factors are related. We are talking of the biomass of cod and haddock. Perhaps whiting is not endangered yet, but the point is that if we take too many of the small, juvenile fish then we shall have, so to speak, burnt our boats for the future.
I can assure the House that we are taking a very firm view of the matter, as did my hon. Friend at the previous Council meeting. We are basing our case firmly on the scientific evidence. As I said, and as he said, we were not getting many supporters in the Council of Ministers.
I shall deal with one or two points briefly. The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland asked a question about the north of Scotland box. I cannot confirm his understanding of the number of vessels that may fish in the box. The number of large vessels that may come in at any time is 128, but that total has never been approached. There are rules for reporting in and out of the box that enable us to monitor what is happening there. The box rules also apply to other vessels and we watch them from aircraft as well as from the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland's fishery protection vessels.
It is true that there is no limit to the number of smaller vessels that may fish in the box. So far, there is no evidence that that is preventing the Shetlanders from taking their catches and increasing their incomes, as they did last year.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wyre (Sir W. Clegg) told us about the problems of Fleetwood, which we appreciate very much. My hon. Friend's Department has 265 received a copy of the report commissioned by the Fleetwood Inshore Fishermen's Association and it will be replying shortly to the letter that my hon. Friend the Minister received from my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre.
The report is an interesting and thorough study of the problem facing Fleetwood. I know that my hon. Friend the Minister is well seized of those problems. At the same time, as my hon. Friend recognised, there are very real difficulties in providing special subsidies for particular ports and, indeed, any operating subsidy would be open to challenge under the Community's state aid rules. Thus, we shall study the report, and I hope that we shall be in a position to respond to it before too long.
The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland asked about sprats, and sprat fishing in the Moray Firth and Firth of Forth. Scientific advice still support closure, but research voyages have been authorised to the places and at the times suggested by fishermen in order to test our scientific advice. But, as with other species, although it would often be nice to ignore the scientific advice and to allow the catches that the industry would like, such a policy would be very shortsighted. We must be responsible. However, we shall attempt to check on the scientific advice that we have received.
The hon. Members for Aberdeen, North and for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) mentioned the safety of fishermen. As I have said in Committee with the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow, fishing is, indeed, a hazardous occupation. The report from, I believe, Dundee univerity is with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport. I have already drawn attention to that matter, as it came up in Committee on the Inshore Fishing (Scotland) Bill. I very much hope that the industry will make greater use of the open line that is available to improve and help safety at sea.
I turn to the all important question of policing the common fisheries policy that every hon. Member has 266 dwelt on. After a very long clay, night and bit of a morning at the last Fisheries Council, my hon. Friend the Minister raised once again the subject of log books and policing. He underlined the importance that the United Kingdom places on that. The Commission recently announced that log book printing had gone to tender. Obviously, we hope that that will proceed. On policing in general, we agree that there is room for substantial improvement in reporting and enforcing catches, and we are continuing to press the Commission on that.
There are signs that the inspectors are tackling the task sensibly, and I think that we can look forward to improvements. However, I can assure the House that 'we shall continue to urge effective policing. I have noted the point about the need for more inspectors, but we should allow the system to have a chance to work before——
§ It being one and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted Business).
§ Question agreed to.
§
Resolved,
That this House takes note of European Community Documents Nos. 11209/83, 11209/83 Amdt. 1, 5390/84, 7248/84 and 7286/84 on total allowable catches and quotas for 1984, European Community Document No. 4969/84 on interim arrangements for Norwegian fishing for herring in the North Sea, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food's unnumbered explanatory memorandum of 24th January 1984 on interim arrangements for Member States' fishing for herring in the North Sea and European Community Document No. 7250/84 on technical conservation measures; welcomes the timely adoption of the total allowable catches and quotas for 1984 with the improvements secured for the benefits of the United Kingdom fishing industry, and the subsequent amendments to total allowable catches and quotas, including the quotas for North Sea herring; and urges the Government to ensure that any further decisions on total allowable catches and quotas for 1984 and on technical conservation measures also meet the needs of the United Kingdom industry.