§ `Concurrent with the publication of an order under section 1, the Secretary of State shall publish, in such form as he considers appropriate, any scientific and technical material considered by him prior to making the said order: [Mr. Wallace.]
§ Brought up, and read the First time.
§ Mr. James Wallace (Orkney and Shetland)I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
One of the intentions of the Bill is that the Secretary of State should lay before the House orders designating areas in which certain fishing activities will be restricted. It is no secret that one kind of restricted area will be nursery grounds for breeding fish. It is accepted that in the interests of conservation certain grounds should be set apart for this purpose.
The fishing industry is concerned that the reasons for setting apart certain grounds are well founded on the basis of scientific and other technical evidence. For example, the industry wishes to be sure that it is necessary to close the grounds for the entire year rather than for part of the year. I am also aware of the representations made to my hon. Friend the Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce). If one looks at the electoral map one sees that there is only a small stretch of coastline in his constituency. However, it is Aberdeen bay, which in some of the discussion documents is one of the designated areas. A point of controversy in that area is that skippers think that by using a larger mesh size it might be possible to continue fishing. That could be discussed properly if the scientific evidence was made available.
The new clause would provide that scientific evidence should be made available at the same time as publication of the order so that the House could judge whether the Secretary of State had made the order with a good weight of scientific evidence behind him. That would be a statutory duty lying on the Secretary of State. It would be preferable if the evidence were made available to the fishing industry beforehand.
We welcome very much the concession made by the Government, as the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mr. MacKay) showed when we discussed the matter in the Scottish Grand Committee. An amendment was brought forward in Committee to formalise the consultation procedures. Obviously the consultation procedures will have much more meaning if those whom the Secretary of State is consulting are properly briefed and know exactly the areas of discussion.
Proper consultation can take place only if the scientific material is made available. Only this week, the Scottish Fishermen's Federation again asked for some of the scientific data on which the draft proposals for nursery areas were based but had little success in getting the information out of the Scottish Office. The federation believes that, if it is to have meaningful consultations with the Secretary of State, information of that kind must be made available to it. That is the purpose of the new clause.
§ Mr. Charles Kennedy (Ross, Cromarty and Skye)I wish briefly to add my support and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) to the proposal of my hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace). I think that it is fair to say that all hon. Members who have been lobbied by the fishing industry through deputations, delegations, correspondence and so on across the whole spectrum of this measure have been left in no doubt about the genuine frustration that has built up in the industry as a result of what it perceives—correctly, I believe—as the difficulty of obtaining information from the Government. That problem will be compounded when the Bill becomes law if orders brought forward by the Secretary of State are deficient through the lack of any built-in guarantee that the relevant information will be made available to the industry. On that basis, we wholeheartedly support the new clause.
The scientific and technical material to which my hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland referred would be of practical use to the industry and to Members of Parliament who could then be briefed by experts in the industry before considering the Government's proposals. It would also be an important gesture of confidence by the Government in the industry if the Ministry were willing to publish the evidence on which orders were based and to make it freely available to the industry for its reaction.
For those sound and pragmatic reasons, we support the new clause and hope that the Minister will react positively and favourably to it.
§ Mr. Hugh Brown (Glasgow, Provan)I am provoked into taking part in the discussion by the somewhat cynical opportunism of the two hon. Members who have just spoken. [Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye (Mr. Kennedy) will listen for a moment, he may benefit from a wee bit of advice. That is part of his problem. He knows all of the answers before he has been in the House a year.
I am surprised that the Scottish Fishermen's Federation has not made representations to anyone else. I should be interested to know who made those representations, and whether it was done officially on behalf of the whole organisation, or of a local body.
§ Mr. McQuarrieIt was the Shetland fishermen.
§ Mr. BrownThe hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. McQuarrie) can make his own speech later.
My only justification for speaking at this point in the debate is my five years of responsibility at the Scottish Office. I listened to fishermen but never knew them to support scientific evidence unless it was in their favour. The only evidence that would be acceptable would allow them to catch more than the scientists recommend. I beg younger hon. Members—I know that I am getting old and may sound a bit patronising—not to jump to every fly that flies across the scene as if it would gain them popularity. It will not. A lot of hard bargaining is involved when it comes to scientific evidence. I shall give an example of that later.
I am a minority in my own party in my attitude to the EEC. The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) will agree with me, at least on that point. The 252 scientific evidence that is put forward by Danish scientists differs sometimes from that of British ones. To whom should we listen? Let us have courage and confidence in the integrity of our scientific advisers. What possible motive can a professional scientist have for recommending lower catches?
§ Dr. GodmanIs it not true that orders in relation to catches must earn the approval of the European Commission before being implemented? If that were so, would not the Government have in their possession the sort of technical and scientific documentation that was outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) when he moved the new clause.
§ Mr. BrownI was being ambiguous. The hon. Gentleman thinks that I am on his side, although I am not. I was merely pointing out that scientific evidence is a difficult area, and cannot be evaluated by laymen. That dilemma faces people in many walks of life. It is not that scientists are always right. They most certainly are not. Nevertheless, the best analysis that a fisherman can make is "I think that there are plenty of herring in the North sea because I saw some or heard some or caught fish that I should not have been catching."
We all know that sometimes there is substance in that approach and some justification for it. I merely suggest that it is wrong to write into the Bill a provision to the effect that all scientific evidence should be made available. I am not aware that there is an embargo on access to that information, or that the fishermen's organisations are prevented from employing scientific advisers. I am not aware that there has been a conflict of scientific advice on a pragmatic basis.
I can say, based on my experience, that sometimes Governments hide behind scientific advice because they want to get a better deal for their national fishermen.
§ Mr. McQuarrieThe hon. Gentleman is quite right.
§ Mr. BrownI may be quite right, but it is a different proposition from arguing about an inshore Bill, which would make scientific advice available as if there was a plot between the Government and scientists to deny a living to Scottish fishermen. As I have said, this is a piece of cynical opportunism on the part of Alliance Members. I am not aware of representations being made by the Scottish Fishermen's Federation.
§ Mr. Home RobertsonI was not going to take part in the debate, but I must rise to that bait. It is very easy to make the sort of speech that my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Brown) has just made. If he represented a constituency such as East Lothian —[Interruption.] My hon. Friend had to deal with fishermen for a number of years in his capacity as Scottish Office Minister responsible for fisheries. My hon. Friend must know that many fishermen are deeply sceptical about some of the so-called hard and fast scientific evidence on which decisions are made. I take his point that the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace), who moved the new clause, is a bit of a chancer. We know that. He is a member of a party of chancers. We must expect this sort of thing from them.
However, there is a little substance in the point that has been raised. If decisions that affect the livelihood of fishermen are taken on the grounds of scientific evidence, it would be useful for all concerned to see the scientific 253 evidence and for it to be debated sensibly between the parties concerned. That is not always possible. The most recent example affecting fishermen in my area was the ban on sprat fishery in the Firth of Forth. That was imposed, admittedly not by the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland, but by Europe. On the strength of that, scientific evidence should be at least debatable.
The Minister, my hon. Friend and the fishermen know that there is a problem. It is fair to raise it, but there is not much to be gained from passing the new clause.
§ Mr. Donald StewartI do not know why the hon. Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Brown) made such a meal of this. It would be an innovation if everything that we did in the House were the result of someone lobbying us. I believe that the new clause is a reasonable request. I agree that there can be a conflict with regard to scientific evidence. In negotiations, fishermen might say that they do not accept a measure, but they know that it must be made.
When the Secretary of State makes such an order, it is reasonable for him to give the facts that led him to that conclusion. Such an explanation is due to the fishermen. There does not have to be an argument. The order will have been passed by that stage, and the Secretary of State will simply tell the fishermen the grounds for his conclusion. New clause 4 is a reasonable request.
§ Mr. MaclennanThe new clause is moved in a spirit of total seriousness, despite what the hon. Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Brown) said. His remarks were disappointing. He is a man for whom I have great personal respect, who does not usually indulge in attributing bad motives to hon. Members making a serious case. It is a serious case.
The hon. Gentleman is right to suggest that the fishing industry is not always united in its approach to the division of the seas and has not shown a wholly united approach to the Bill. However, the context of the new clause is that we in Parliament are giving the Secretary of State vast powers that he has not had hitherto in this form. In exercising those powers, he will be able, after consulting whatever bodies he considers appropriate, to make regulatory arrangements that could exclude certain vessels from certain areas or include others. Those are difficult judgments, but Parliament has a part to play, and the hon. Gentleman should not overlook that. It will fall to the House to decide whether the Secretary of State's proposal should be given effect and whether the order should be passed. In making those decisions, the House of Commons has the right to be informed about the Secretary of State's basis of thinking. It should be better informed than it often is when it has to consider those matters.
We tabled the new clause not as a jeu d'esprit, nor to test the Minister's attitude, but because we believe in open government. We believe that when the Secretary of State puts forward proposals for Parliament to ratify, it is right that the considerations that he has had in mind and the advice that he has been given should be fully and frankly displayed. The most important advice that will influence his judgment will be the scientific and technical advice that we suggest he should publish. That is something that the whole House should regard as appropriate, not as a matter for partisan division or debate.
254 I do not know what representations the hon. Member for Provan has received on this or any other matters in the Bill, but I have received dozens of letters from organisations and individuals who are worried about the purpose of the Bill.
§ Mr. McQuarrieDid the hon. Gentleman receive representations on this matter from the Scottish Fishermen's Federation or the Scottish fishermen's organisation?
§ Mr. MaclennanI received letters from the Scottish Fishermen's Federation and, furthermore, I discussed this matter with several of its members, as I have no doubt the hon. Gentleman has. The federation is sceptical about some of the scientific advice given to the Scottish Office. It does not believe that it is wholly satisfactory to proceed on the basis of the fiat of the Secretary of State, unsupported by evidence.
The hon. Member for Provan argued fairly that fishermen seek to turn evidence to their advantage; that is human nature. We are here not to safeguard the partisan interests of one section of the fishing industry but to look after the welfare of the entire industry, and we can do that best if we are well informed. That is why I ask the House to support the new clause.
§ Mr. John MacKayPerhaps I could dip a gentle toe into the dispute on the Opposition Benches and tell the hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) that, in my experience of the fishing industry, although the hon. Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Brown) may have no fishing in his constituency, since he was at the Scottish Office he has been highly regarded by Scottish fishermen. I was about to add, in a spirit of reasonable compromise, that if I leave my minor role in the fishing industry similarly highly regarded by the fishermen, I shall be well satisfied.
The hon. Member for Provan was right to tell members of the Alliance, whose new clause this is, that it would be naive to believe that the publication of scientific evidence would be accepted by the fishermen as the end of the argument. I suspect that it will be accepted as the beginning of the argument, not the end.
Of course, the Government want a full and informed debate about the orders to be made under the Bill. The movers of the new clause have not thought out the timetable of the consultation process, the discussion with the industry and then an order coming before the House. We want a well-informed debate during consultation with fishermen, because we recognise the importance of measures made under the Bill to the daily lives and earnings of fishermen. That is why we have already introduced the statutory requirement for consultation before the orders are made. In that consultation exercise, the first thing the fishermen will wish to know is why the Secretary of State wants to make the order. Therefore, the Secretary of State must explain his reasons, and those reasons will include the scientific and technical factors.
§ Mr. WallaceIs the Minister aware of the representations that have been made to the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland during the past week by the Scottish Fishermen's Federation to have that scientific information on nursery areas? If he is not aware of that, will he do his utmost to ensure that the information is made available to the federation as soon as possible?
§ Mr. MacKayThe hon. Gentleman can take it that, in the discussions which will take place about that and other matters, the scientists and officials of the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries will explore with the fishermen the scientific evidence on which they based their conclusions on nursery areas. But that will not be the only factor to be taken into account; we must also consider the economic condition of the fishermen, the social structure of the areas, the marketing position for different species and sizes of fish, and the structure of the fleet, if we are talking about vessels and gear restrictions. I am not sure that all these can be comprehended under the heading of technical, but they would certainly feature in the Secretary of State's explanation to the industry.
We considered the phrase
publish, in such form as he considers appropriate.The main source of advice will be the Department's servants, whether they be administrators, scientists or fishery officers and inspectors. The synthesis of that advice will be available during the consultation process to the fishing industry and, therefore, to the representatives of the fishing industry. Why seek to go to the length of a formal requirement to publish when the essential thinking behind an order will already be well known to the industry? If the order is prayed against, there will be a debate in the House in which the Minister will have to come to the Dispatch Box to defend and argue the case for the order and for whatever restriction he seeks under that order.If I may deal with the Community, there is a precedent for the way in which I am suggesting that we should go about this. I am never very sure whether the Alliance is totally committed to the Community or whether occasionally it wants to snipe at it when it thinks that an odd vote is to be gained in Community elections.
§ Mr. O'NeillThe Minister should not believe that of the Alliance.
§ Mr. MacKayThe hon. Gentleman says that I should not believe such a thing of the Alliance, and I will take his advice and try to put the best possible light on the way that I sometimes read critical reports from Alliance candidates about certain items emanating from the European Community. On the other hand, we are told that that is the only party fully in favour of the Common Market.
In the Community field, the main scientific advice for fisheries management is provided by the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea, ICES. Its reports are not published, but it is no secret that the Government, and other Governments in the Community, make the industry aware of the contents of the reports so that the fishermen's views can be taken into account before decisions are finally taken. That is only right. I cannot imagine that a similar procedure will not apply in the case of an order made under the Bill.
I assure hon. Members, as I have done in Committee and on Second Reading, that the reasons for making an order will be fully explained and, because of the breadth of inputs and the confidentiality of some of the advice, and the practicability and expense of publication, I repeat that I regret that I have to ask the House to oppose the new clause. I hope that on reflection, especially on the time-table of how the orders will come about, the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) will withdraw it.
§ Mr. WallaceThe Minister said that the Alliance is supposed to be in support of the Community yet it 256 sometimes takes objections to what emanates from it. His apparent misuse of logic would suggest that, because we live in a parliamentary democracy, we should welcome with open arms everything that the Government propose. The logic applied in that shows the lack of logic applied to the rest of the argument put forward from the Alliance Benches. It was not done with any sense of opportunism. Indeed, one is surprised at the amount of trouble that the new clause, which is designed to be helpful, has stirred up.
The Minister referred to the timetable. If he had listened to what I said, rather than replying with reference to his brief, he would have learnt that I made it equally clear that, while this information could be made available only at the time when the order was published and, therefore, would be of use during the parliamentary debate on it, if the order were prayed against, I considered that that was a statutory duty that should lie on the Secretary of State, and it would be more than helpful if that information were made available on a voluntary basis during the consultation period. It was never thought that any such information, if it were made available, would be the be-all and end-all of any argument. Indeed, as the Minister said, it might well be the start of the argument. Fishermen's associations may come up with their own independent surveys and scientific information.
We believe that any consultation can be on an informed basis only. We agree with the Minister that this will not be the only factor that will lie behind an order that the Secretary of State makes, but it will be an important one. We believe that such a debate can take place properly only if that information is available.
Therefore, I do not wish to withdraw the new clause, and I will be happy to put it to a Division.
§ Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
§ The House divided: Ayes, 13, Noes, 131.
257| Division No. 347] | [10.40 pm |
| AYES | |
| Ashdown, Paddy | Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight) |
| Bruce, Malcolm | Steel, Rt Hon David |
| Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y) | Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles) |
| Freud, Clement | Wallace, James |
| Hughes, Simon (Southwark) | |
| Kirkwood, Archibald | Tellers for the Ayes: |
| Maclennan, Robert | Mr. A. J. Beith and |
| Meadowcroft, Michael | Mr. Charles Kennedy. |
| Robinson, P. (Belfast E) |
| NOES | |
| Aitken, Jonathan | Freeman, Roger |
| Amess, David | Goodlad, Alastair |
| Arnold, Tom | Gow, Ian |
| Batiste, Spencer | Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N) |
| Beaumont-Dark, Anthony | Ground, Patrick |
| Boscawen, Hon Robert | Hamilton, Neil (Tatton) |
| Braine, Sir Bernard | Hampson, Dr Keith |
| Bright, Graham | Hanley, Jeremy |
| Budgen, Nick | Harris, David |
| Butcher, John | Harvey, Robert |
| Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln) | Hawkins, C. (High Peak) |
| Conway, Derek | Hawkins, Sir Paul (SW N'folk) |
| Cope, John | Hawksley, Warren |
| Dover, Den | Hayes, J. |
| Durant, Tony | Hayhoe, Barney |
| Eggar, Tim | Hayward, Robert |
| Eyre, Sir Reginald | Henderson, Barry |
| Fallon, Michael | Hickmet, Richard |
| Forth, Eric | Hind, Kenneth |
| Fox, Marcus | Hirst, Michael |
| Franks, Cecil | Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm) |
| Fraser, Peter (Angus East) | Hooson, Tom |
| Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A) | Rathbone, Tim |
| Hunt, David (Wirral) | Roberts, Wyn (Conwy) |
| Hunter, Andrew | Roe, Mrs Marion |
| Jessel, Toby | Rowe, Andrew |
| Key, Robert | Ryder, Richard |
| King, Roger (B'ham N'field) | Sackville, Hon Thomas |
| King, Rt Hon Tom | Sayeed, Jonathan |
| Knight, Gregory (Derby N) | Shaw, Giles (Pudsey) |
| Knowles, Michael | Shepherd, Colin (Hereford) |
| Knox, David | Skeet, T. H. H. |
| Lawler, Geoffrey | Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick) |
| Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark | Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield) |
| Lester, Jim | Soames, Hon Nicholas |
| Lightbown, David | Spencer, Derek |
| Lilley, Peter | Stanbrook, Ivor |
| Lyell, Nicholas | Stern, Michael |
| MacGregor, John | Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton) |
| MacKay, John (Argyll & Bute) | Stevens, Martin (Fulham) |
| Maclean, David John | Stewart, Allan (Eastwood) |
| McQuarrie, Albert | Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood) |
| Major, John | Taylor, Teddy (S'end E) |
| Malone, Gerald | Terlezki, Stefan |
| Mather, Carol | Thompson, Donald (Calder V) |
| Maude, Hon Francis | Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N) |
| Mawhinney, Dr Brian | Thornton, Malcolm |
| Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin | Thurnham, Peter |
| Mayhew, Sir Patrick | van Straubenzee, Sir W. |
| Mills, Iain (Meriden) | Waddington, David |
| Montgomery, Fergus | Wakeham, Rt Hon John |
| Moore, John | Walden, George |
| Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes) | Walker, Bill (T'side N) |
| Moynihan, Hon C. | Waller, Gary |
| Murphy, Christopher | Wardle, C. (Bexhill) |
| Needham, Richard | Warren, Kenneth |
| Neubert, Michael | Watts, John |
| Nicholls, Patrick | Whitfield, John |
| Norris, Steven | Whitney, Raymond |
| Onslow, Cranley | Wolfson, Mark |
| Osborn, Sir John | Wood, Timothy |
| Page, John (Harrow W) | Woodcock, Michael |
| Patten, Christopher (Bath) | Young, Sir George (Acton) |
| Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth | |
| Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian | Tellers for the Noes: |
| Powell, William (Corby) | Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones and |
| Powley, John | Mr. Ian Lang. |
| Proctor, K. Harvey |
§ Question accordingly negatived.