§ The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. John Selwyn Gummer)With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement about the Fisheries Council which I attended with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Scottish Office, on 16 and 17 December.
I have already given the House my right hon. Friend's apologies for his absence. He is attending a Council meeting in Brussels.
I am delighted to be able to report that, for the second year in succession, the Council was able to reach political agreement before the start of the year on a package of total allowable catches and quotas for the Ten in 1986. This was subject only to a waiting reserve by Ireland. As last year, we agreed to the package on a temporary basis pending a debate in this House, which I hope can be arranged shortly after the Christmas recess.
The agreement covers all the stocks for which TACs and quotas are currently set and we were able to achieve a package which is highly satisfactory for the United Kingdom. The TACs had to be based for the joint stocks on the agreement which the European Commission had reached with Norway and I was critical of some aspects of that agreement, notably on herring. But in general, the package of TACs, quotas and third country arrangements which we negotiated offers a particularly attractive range of fishing opportunities for United Kingdom fishermen. On North sea whitefish stocks, the package contains significant increases in our haddock and saithe quotas and improvements in the quotas originally proposed for cod, plaice and sole. We successfully resisted Danish pressure for continuation of the special allocation of cod to Denmark outside the TAC. On North sea pelagic species, we obtained from the agreed proposals and some further bilateral exchanges an increase of nearly one third in our herring quotas in the important northern and central North sea areas and a very useful increased mackerel quota in the North sea.
In the case of the western pelagic stocks, the original quotas for mackerel and herring were increased, but in the outcome were still, as they should be in view of the scientific advice, below last year's levels. Sole and plaice stocks are of particular importance in the south-west. I am glad to say that, as a result of the package negotiated and the associated quota exchanges, we were able to secure increases of about one third in the availability of sole in area VII and about 10 per cent. for plaice. We also obtained an immediate increase in our current quota for plaice in the Bristol channel which will allow the fishery to be reopened for the rest of the year.
This adds up to a very satisfactory settlement indeed, but it was all overshadowed by the danger of the Commission proposal for an increase in the Norway pout by-catch derogation which could have done immense damage to our industry and to conservation. We have fought against this for the past six months and I am relieved and delighted to report that this proposal was excluded from the package and the Commission has now withdrawn it.
Lastly, the Council also agreed a series of improvements to the regulation on the control of fishing 585 activities which should provide for better enforcement of logbooks and landing declarations as well as better control of transhipments to receiving vessels. This is further evidence of the importance which all Fisheries Ministers are now attaching to more effective control of the fisheries.
I hope that the House will have an opportunity to debate this settlement very shortly after the Christmas recess. I have no hesitation in commending this package to the House.
§ Mr. Stuart Randall (Kingston upon Hull, West)May I first thank the Minister for coming to the House and giving his statement on the Fisheries Council. We on the Opposition Benches are pleased that an agreement on TACs and on quotas has been reached at the beginning of the year. We also accept the notion to which the Minister referred in his statement, that determination of the size of quotas and TACs should be based on scientific advice. We accept, therefore, that from time to time restrictions for genuine conservation purposes are necessary.
Is the Minister not aware that many British people, especially those who work in the fishing industry, regard the way in which other EEC countries have over-fished certain stocks as grotesque and totally unacceptable to British fishermen? Will the Minister give some assurances that these unfair practices will be discontinued? We believe it is vital to discuss new quotas, especially limitations, in combination with measures on protection, inspection and enforcement.
I believe that the Minister's statement was inadequate as far as protection and enforcement is concerned. I invite the Minister to attempt to convince the House that we shall not continue the same old routine of the other EEC countries ripping off our fishing industry while the Government are unable to deliver any satisfactory solution. Is he aware that many people in the industry believe that the Community and the British Government have failed to keep their policy on enforcement intact? The Opposition are disappointed that the Minister has been unable to say anything substantial on the matter at this important time of announcing the 1986 quotas.
Will the Minister tell the House specifically whether the illegal over-fishing by the Dutch has been stamped out? Will he give the House and the British fishing industry a categoric assurance that this illegal over-fishing has been stopped? If it has not been stopped, will the Minister tell the House exactly what he intends to do about it?
Will the Minister also tell us how we can be sure that British fishermen will not lose out to other EEC fishermen in 1986 when it can be argued that member states do not have the political will to carry out in full their responsibilities for applying and enforcing Community law? Is it not time that the Government did more to protect the British fishing industry?
The Minister will be aware, I am sure, that certain parts of the industry that operate in the North sea fishery catch appreciably less haddock and are much more reliant on the cod quota. Does he not realise that these new cod quotas will produce considerable hardship for fishermen in these areas? What does the Minister have to say to the people in these areas because it is a matter of great concern?
Will the Minister accept that much tougher protection, enforcement and inspection procedures are vital if the 586 Community conservation policy is to remain intact? Does he not agree that the accession of Spain and Portugal will increase pressures on our existing enforcement resources? Will he further accept that this is not the time to reduce the function of our fisheries protection service by phasing out the Nimrods? Would it not have been preferable to establish better enforcement before taking this step? What steps is the Minister taking to compensate British industry for the cuts in some quotas by taking advantage on a Community basis of the agreements that Spain and Portugal already have with other countries outside the EEC? What scope is there for providing new fishing opportunities for British fishermen in this way?
Finally, is the Minister aware that the British fishing industry is very angry at the way in which the EEC Commission has agreed to give Norway, which is not a member of the EEC, 40 per cent. of the North sea herring stocks? Does he not agree that this is very unfair, especially at a time when British fishermen are having to cope with cuts in certain quotas? Can this not be thought of as a sell-out to Norway?
§ Mr. GummerIt was a little less than generous of the hon. Gentleman to pose so many questions without starting off by admitting that this is a remarkably good result in the negotiations for the United Kingdom. I was also surprised that he did not say that we actually won the battle over Norway pout, something the Opposition always believed we could not do and would not stand by. He went on to complain about protection when, indeed, I said in the statement that at yet another meeting the Council has moved forward on the protection and control arrangements of the common fisheries policy.
The British Government have got the Inspectorate of Inspectors, have extended that inspectorate so that it will have 21 soon and have pressed upon other nations the need for control. We can look with satisfaction at the way in which, for example, the Dutch Government have so tightened up their policies that the Dutch fishermen are busy chasing their Government to complain about the strictness of the new regulations. The story of Britain's campaign for a better system of control in the European Community fisheries policies is a remarkably good story for the Government and one on which the hon. Gentleman should congratulate us.
It is not fair to suggest that we have not been concerned about enforcement. I can give the House the news, which will interest the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Penhaligon), that from 1 January, in the south-western approaches, there will be two fishery protection vessels and some extra Nimrod runs, increasing direct control of our protection. We have computerised the new monthly list of the Spanish boats that come to the area and we shall be able to check automatically and rapidly on any boat that comes in.
We now have a common arrangement with the Irish and French Governments to see that the protection arrangement is enforced together, so that we can give each other information about the movements of Spanish boats within the area. I am sure that that will help the House if it has any concern about the control of this part of the common fisheries policy.
As to the accession of Spain and Portugal, there will be further discussions of the arrangement for the fishing policy for the Twelve. One of the issues that will be discussed will be the results of the special arrangements that come about because of previous agreements between 587 Spain and such countries as Mauritania and Morocco. Those are very much in the hands of the Commission, which is looking at how best such arrangements can be applied.
No one can be more concerned about enforcement than we. I mentioned the measures that the British Government have taken and the strong measures taken by the Danish Government. A number of other Governments have taken measures to ensure that their fishermen abide by the common fisheries policy. If they do not, we shall continue the policy of pressing hard to make the policy work, a course of action that has been successful up to now.
§ Mr. Barry Henderson (Fife, North-East)Is my right hon. Friend aware that of the many things that are helpful to fishermen in the statement, the one that Scottish fishermen will most particularly welcome is that concerning the pout box, which is helpful to many Scottish fishermen in the North sea? What can my right hon. Friend do to stiffen the back of the European Community in its negotiations with Norway, which are of great importance to fishermen on the east coast of Scotland? There is a growing feeling that, although we are getting satisfactory arrangements within the EC on fishing matters, there is some weakness in the Community in facing up to getting satisfactory arrangements with the Norwegians, although there is a wide basis on which there could be a more satisfactory agreement with Norway.
§ Mr. GummerI am sure that my hon. Friend puts the case properly when he suggests that the agreement with Norway is not as good as it could or should have been. It is easy to criticise negotiations that are not carried out by ourselves, but the agreement should have been better. We have managed, within the Community agreement and the swaps that we have arranged, to ensure that our fishermen have a proper amount of herring to go after. However, there is no doubt that they feel hard done by because the Norwegians appear to have had a better deal than was necessary, and we believe that the deal should not have been carried out in the way that it was. We have made this position clear and have been joined in that by other countries. I assure my hon. Friend that I shall do everything that I can to make sure that in future negotiations those points are borne strongly in mind.
§ Mr. David Penhaligon (Truro)In the past 10 or 11 years I have listened to various Ministers of various Governments use various descriptions, all of which included something along the lines of, "the importance that all fishery Ministers are now attaching to more effective control of fisheries". However, throughout that time, with the single exception of herring, the position on most types of fish has become worse.
Although on first examination this statement seems a little more acceptable, does the Minister agree that, if factory boats from Russia, Bulgaria and Egypt are still allowed to go to the east coast of Scotland, as they were allowed to go the coast of Cornwall, the mackerel of Scotland will be as rare as it is in my part of the world, and the stock will inevitable be annihilated? Is not the answer in the long term European negotiations to the effect that the people who rely on the fishing from their own ports are made primarily responsible for the conservation measures of their area? Does he agree that the pressure 588 from those who wish to maintain a long-term income for their community and family is the pressure most likely to solve this problem?
§ Mr. GummerThere have been major improvements in the control service in the past couple of years, and the hon. Gentleman will agree that there have been encouraging actions from a number of Governments, so much so that a number of Governments are under considerable pressure from fishing fleets because of the toughness of the action that they have taken. We are pleased about that because it shows that they are acting as we intend them to act and as they are now bound to act because of the inspectorate and the way in which the system works.
In Holland, Denmark and other countries there has been a major improvement. During this negotiation, we have added to what we did last time and the time before and insisted on further ways to ensure that the Community imposes its will, particularly in conservation. We have been tough in supporting conservation measures and as a result have ensured the removal, for example, of the Commission's proposal of the Norway pout bycatch, entirely because of the conservation reason that we put forward. It meant that, although we started off isolated as the only country that did not want an extension of the derogation, we ended up by having the support of a large number of other countries which saw our conservation case. This is one sector of the European Community in which there have been significant advances in the way in which the Community can operate successfully.
§ Mr. Austin Mitchell (Great Grimsby)The right hon. Gentleman is full of praise for his Department's cleverness, but he omitted to mention the disastrous fact that the allocation of North sea cod is 17 per cent. down on our catch this year and 30 per cent. down on our quota this year. This has serious, if not disastrous, consequences for Grimsby, which is a cod port whose vessels are overwhelmingly suited for catching cod. If the reduction is inevitable, what proposals does the Minister have for the Grimsby fishermen who are struggling, are not making a return adequate to provide new investment and will face horrendous financial difficulties if the catches go down? The Department allocated £16.9 million compensation for hill farmers for the sopping summer that we had earlier this year, but what compensation will be given to fishermen for the reduction in the cod quota?
What attempt did the Minister make to get Britain a bigger allowance within the total allowable catch if that is to be reduced? We provide most of the fishing area. What proposals has the Minister, if there is to be this reduction, for conservation measures that will rebuild the cod stocks in the North sea? Does he have proposals for closure for spawning, or for the increased mesh sizes, or for increased landing sizes to safeguard the stock and allow it to be built up to a safe level again?
§ Mr. GummerThe hon. Gentleman would do his constituents more good if he started by saying that the future of the cod fishing industry depends on the protection of the stock and that the reduction of Britain's quota is to give the fishermen of Grimsby a future for themselves and their children. If he were to support what the Government have done, and the fact that they have gained from the arrangement a fairly creditable amount of the available stock, that would be better. We have all had to take a cut 589 because it is necessary to protect the hon. Gentleman's constituents. It would do the hon. Gentleman and his constituents more good to fight for an understanding by fishermen of the need for conservation and thus for smaller quotas this year. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) spent much time asking the question and I shall answer. If he is not satisfied, he will ask me about the matter again. If we are to help his constituents, we must protect the cod for the future, and that means a low quota this year.
I know that this causes great difficulty in Grimsby and the other cod fishing ports. We have managed to find alternative fish in the share-out, especially haddock. I know that this is not what the fishermen of Grimsby would wish. In the circumstances, however, it is the best deal that we can get and still protect the cod for the future. I am sure that, in those terms, the hon. Gentleman's constituents, if not the hon. Gentleman, will support what we are trying to do.
§ Dr. Norman A. Godman (Greenock and Port Glasgow)May I point out to the Minister that the presence of Russian and other east European factory fishing vessels in Scottish waters, as mentioned by the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Penhaligon), is welcomed by the Scottish fishing industry? Those vessels do not fish but rather buy the fish caught by Scottish fishing vessels. I am glad that the hon. Member for Truro now agrees with that. Several Opposition Members have actively supported the need to reduce the bycatch in industrial fishing. I have argued and will continue to argue that industrial fishing must be severely reduced in the North sea and elsewhere.
The deregulation news is good news. I am not sure that the expansion of the inspectorate to 21 members is good enough, considering the expansion of the fishing effort by EEC vessels with the accession of Spain.
§ Mr. GummerThe hon. Gentleman is right in his assessment of what is happening in Scottish waters. I agree that he has a distinguished record in pushing for the reduction in the bycatch and for giving credit where it is due.
We are talking about the Inspectorate of Inspectors. One does not need a vast army of inspectors. One needs enough to ensure that the national inspectorates work, and, in Britain as in other countries, ensure that foreign nations fish properly within our traditional waters. I do not think that sheer numbers are the problem. We have had a major increase, and we shall have to see how that works.
As to the accession of Spain and Portugal, of their 300 ships, only 150 will be allowed to fish at any one time in the waters with which we are most concerned. The hon. Gentleman will see that that is not a substantial expansion of Spanish efforts—it is an expansion of the methods of control of that effort. The Spanish will have to work within the regime of the Community. Spain will have to give a monthly list of ships to the United Kingdom beforehand, as well as to France and Ireland. We will have notification of every ship as it reaches the point where it will start fishing. We will be able to keep close control and the vessels will have to adhere to all the logbook arrangements, which are increasingly tough in the Community. The hon. Gentleman should be able to tell his fishing constituents that we can control the Spanish to an extent which has never been possible before.