European Community (Fisheries)

HC Deb 16 January 1986 vol 89 cc1240-67 5.17 pm

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Michael Jopling

): I beg to move, That this House takes note of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food's unnumbered explanatory memoranda dated 10th December 1985 on 1986 total allowable catches and quotas, on modifications to the proposed 1986 total allowable catches and quotas and on the fisheries agreement for 1986 between the European Community and Norway, of European Community Documents Nos. 9284/85 on amendments to Regulation 2057/82 establishing certain control measures for fishing activities by vessels of Member States, 8662/85 on the allocation of flat rate quantities of hake, horse mackerel and blue whiting to Spain, and 10047/85 on 1986 fish guide prices; and welcomes and approves the provisional agreement reached on these arrangements for 1986 with the improvements obtained for the United Kingdom fishing industry. The motion makes it clear that this afternoon's debate covers a number of documents on European Community fisheries legislation, most of which are concerned with fishing arrangements for 1986. These documents have been recommended for further consideration of the House by the Select Committee on European Legislation, for whose vigilant scrutiny we are all most grateful.

Though I will necessarily be going into a good deal of detail on some of the matters involved, the broad principles of the common fisheries policy are of course now well established following the first-class deal that the Government negotiated in 1983.

Since the House last debated the common fisheries policy on 10 January last, this deal has been consolidated by the successful conclusion of the accession arrangements with Spain and Portugal. Now, as my right hon. Friend the Minister of State has already reported to the House, we have once again been able to negotiate a satisfactory package of quotas and associated measures for 1986 in time for the beginning of the year, only this time it covers a Community of 12 nations, not just of 10. There can be no doubt that the common fisheries policy is, indeed, proving to be every bit as successful as we hoped.

The first group of unnumbered explanatory memoranda referred to in the motion concerns the Commission's proposals for the total allowable catches and quotas for 1986 and the associated fishing arrangements for 1986 under the European Community-Norway agreement. I should explain that these proposals were produced only 10 days before the Fisheries Council on 16–17 December. Following lengthy negotiations at that Council, and an additional meeting of the Council on 20 December, a compromise package emerged to which all the other member states were able to agree.

I considered the package very satisfactory for the United Kingdom but, in view of the recommendation of the Select Committee, I thought it right to enter a formal reservation on the adoption of the regulations on TACs and quotas and on Norway, pending a debate in the House. So that fishing should not be interrupted, I agreed, following the same procedure as last year, that the regulations should be adopted on an interim basis until 25 January only, pending clarification of the United Kingdom's position following completion of our parliamentary scrutiny procedures.

I shall now outline the main elements of interest to he United Kingdom, starting with the North sea joint stocks. As the House is aware, the TACs for these stocks are agreed with Norway in the light of the latest scientific evidence. For 1986, there are increases in the availability of haddock and saithe but decreases for cod, plaice and whiting. The higher United Kingdom quotas of haddock and saithe, representing increases of 12.8 and 25.2 per cent. respectively, will be welcomed by our fishermen, given the reduction in our North sea cod quota to 75,790 tonnes, brought about by the current situation of the cod stock on which I know that the House will share my concern.

The total allowable catch of 170,000 tonnes for North sea cod agreed with Norway reflects this and, although the reduction is naturally a considerable disappointment to those sectors of the industry involved, I believe that they recognise it as necessary and realistic to protect that fishery.

On North sea herring, I shall refer later to the Commission's negotiations with Norway on the share-out of the stock in 1986 between Norway and the Community. At this point, I should like only to draw attention to the fact that the combined TAC for the North sea has been increased yet again, this time to 570,000 tonnes with the possibility of further growth in future. The United Kingdom quota for the northern and central North sea,—IVA and IVB— which are the areas of main interest to our fishermen, is increased by more than 13,000 tonnes to 71,615 tonnes, on top of which we have secured a further 5,700 tonnes through quota swaps agreed in the margins of the Council.

Thus, we have obtained a substantial increase in our herring opportunities in the North sea.

As for stocks outside the north sea, the TACs for haddock and herring to the west of Scotland will be lower than in 1985, reflecting the clear scientific advice on the state of the stocks. Nonetheless, I am pleased to report that I was able to ensure that the reduction on herring, in particular, will not be as great as that originally proposed by the Commission, which is a matter of considerable importance for the west coast herring fishery.

For western mackerel, the Commission originally proposed a very substantial reduction in the TAC. This proposal was increased at the Council meeting, resulting in a TAC of 362,000 tonnes—a reduction of 11.6 per cent.—giving the United Kingdom a quota of 195,950 tonnes. This stock is of great importance to the United Kingdom fishing industry, and I am sure that the industry will appreciate the need for this reduction to maintain the longer-term viability of that stock.

For the whitefish stocks in area VII, which, I remind the House, includes the English channel, the Irish sea, the Bristol channel and the western approaches, there are several increases, which have been warmly welcomed by the industry. During 1985, these stocks continued to attract a considerable amount of attention, and, although we were able to negotiate a number of quota swaps with other member states, it was necessary to restrict fishing and, in some cases, to close fisheries before the end of the year. For 1986, our opportunities for most of these stocks will be greater than last year. Our Council package gives us an overall increase of 250 tonnes in our sole quotas. In addition, we were able to obtain a further 380 tonnes, mainly in the Irish sea, through a swap with the Netherlands, giving us a total increase of about one third in our availability in area VII.

For plaice, I was able at last to obtain a considerable increase in the TAC for Bristol channel plaice, which will increase our quota by 90 tonnes. I know that this will be most welcome, especially to the local Welsh fishermen. We have also achieved an increase in our quota for English channel plaice.

The stocks included in the Commission's second TACs and quotas proposal are those which needed to be added or amended as a result of the accession of Spain and Portugal. For western hake, our quota is increased by 760 tonnes. For monkfish and megrim in areas VI and VII, the quotas for 1985 did not reflect the existing pattern of fishing by us or other member states. The United Kingdom's quotas for 1986 have been increased and redistributed between the areas to reflect more accurately the present pattern of fishing there.

In accordance with the accession treaty, TACs and quotas were set for Norway lobster, also known as nephrops, and pollock in areas VI and VII. The Commission's proposals for these stocks were, for member states other than Spain and Portugal, based largely on the available catch figures for previous years. However, the quotas allocated to the United Kingdom, especially for area VII, were below the level of some of the recent catches, but I was able to obtain highly satisfactory increases in some cases.

Nephrops is particularly important to fishermen in Scotland and Northern Ireland, and I know that there was some anxiety that our proposed quotas would not be sufficient. However, the quotas finally agreed are well above our recent catches and will, I hope, reassure those fishermen and processors concerned that their interests have been amply safeguarded. The quotas for pollock and Norway lobster were on an ad hoc basis for 1986 without prejudice to the allocation of the stocks in future years.

In addition to the package of TACs and quotas for Community fishermen in the waters of the member states, the Council had also to consider the reciprocal fishing arrangements for 1986 with third countries. The most important are the arrangements with Norway, which the Select Committee has recommended for the consideration of the House.

I have already dealt with the joint stocks in the North sea where the arrangements agreed reflect substantial transfers from Norway, but I must draw attention to the increased quotas for north-east Arctic cod and haddock, which should provide some alternative opportunities, especially for our larger vessels.

In addition, there are useful reductions in the allocations to Norway in Community waters of west of Scotland herring, down 900 tonnes, and of western mackerel, down 5,000 tonnes. These help to maintain the opportunities for our own fishermen, despite reductions in the TACs.

The main point of interest in the reciprocal arrangements negotiated with Norway is clearly the share-out of the North sea herring stock for 1986. I know that this has caused concern to our industry, and it is indeed difficult to resist the conclusion that the Commission, in its understandable eagerness to reach an early agreement with Norway, allowed itself to be pushed too far by Norway, despite the advice of the member states' representatives who were on the spot. I made it very clear at the Council on 16 and 17 December that we were not happy with how the Commission had conducted these negotiations, and we will continue to press for a more satisfactory negotiating procedure.

The House will wish to consider the agreement in its full context. Last year, no agreement was reached with Norway on North sea herring. As a result, each party managed its fishery in its own zone. The Community restricted its catches to 80 per cent. of a notional TAC of 410,000 tonnes for the North sea as a whole to protect the upturn in the herring stocks and to avoid prejudicing further negotiations. Norway, however, caught in its own zone in excess of 150,000 tonnes—well beyond what the Community could have agreed was appropriate.

There was clearly a danger that continued failure to agree on joint management of the stock would have led to competitive over-fishing by each party, to the detriment of the stock. That was one of the reasons why the Commission felt able to agree to an allocation of 200,000 tonnes to Norway for 1986 out of a TAC of 570,000 tonnes for the North sea as a whole, to be fished in the northern and central sectors of the North sea only, with 50,000 tonnes available to be taken in the Community's zone. That agreement is on a strictly ad hoc basis for 1986, and discussions are to continue on the basis for a longer term agreement on ownership shares.

The second main reason that the Commission was able to advance in support of its agreement with Norway was that the allocation to Norway of North sea herring explicitly represents a transfer from the Community to Norway to help redress the overall balance of the other arrangements for 1986, to which I have already referred. In order not to prejudice each party's position on the respective ownership shares of North sea herring, it was not possible to put a precise figure on the level of this transfer. However, our own calculation of the balance of the remainder of the agreement for 1986, taking into account elements of compensation carried forward from 1985, indicates that it favours the Community by the equivalent of about 35,000 tonnes of herring. That factor has to be kept in mind when considering the scale of the herring allocation to Norway. Likewise, although our pelagic fleet is concerned about the 50,000 tonnes of herring available for Norway to fish in the Community's zone, we must remember that in the case of all the other joint stocks, joint management implies an element of mutual access to each other's waters.

To sum up, we have to bear in mind that reopening the negotiations with Norway on herring would have led to delay in the fixing of TACs and quotas generally. Any reduction in the herring allocation to Norway would have had to be balanced by equivalent reductions in the transfers from Norway to the Community on whitefish stocks, for many of which the United Kingdom share is much higher than that for North sea herring. Our overall judgment was, and is, that the package of TACs, quotas and reciprocal fishing arrangements for 1986 is very satisfactory indeed from the United Kingdom point of view, and I have no hesitation in commending it to the House.

I should now like to remind the House of a further element in the package—or, rather, not in the package. The House will recall that last year we agreed to a temporary derogation for one season from the 10 per cent. by-catch limit on human consumption whitefish taken in the Danish industrial fishery for Norway pout in the North sea. Despite the limited and temporary nature of that derogation, considerable concern was expressed about it both by the British fishing industry and by hon. Members on a number of occasions. When the derogation expired on 31 May 1985, the Commission reviewed the data available on the quantities of whitefish taken under the derogation, which were admittedly small, and proposed an extension of the derogation for a further season.

We took the view that a temporary derogation was a temporary derogation and that no case had been made out for continuing to depart from the 10 per cent. by-catch limit laid down for the industrial fisheries as part of the basic 1983 common fisheries policy settlement. I am glad to say that, as a result of our firmness on this matter and the support we received from other member states, notably France, the Commission agreed as part of the package on 17 December to withdraw its proposal on Norway pout. It is common enough for a Commission proposal to be amended, but, as I think those who are experts in these matters will be aware, it is rare indeed for one to be withdrawn altogether. As a result of our successful campaign on this issue, with the support of the industry and the House, I am confident that the Norway pout can now return to the deserved obscurity from which it emerged last year.

I will now deal briefly with the other documents mentioned in the motion. In each case the Select Committee recommended that adoption of these proposals need not be delayed pending a debate, and I accordingly entered no reservation on these when they came to the Council for adoption, in two cases in a revised form.

Document No. 8662/85 covers the allocation of the flat rate quantities of hake, horse mackerel and blue whiting to Spain provided for in the treaty of accession. As the House will recall, the magnitude of Spain's hake quota in the waters of the then existing member states was a critical element in the long and difficult accession negotiations. In the end, Spain was granted for a three-year period up to 4,500 tonnes of hake in addition to the quota, to the extent necessary to give Spain a total allocation of 18,000 tonnes. The document divides that 4,500 tonnes into 3,000 tonnes for areas VI and VII, and 1,500 tonnes for the Bay of Biscay, broadly in proportion to the division of the TACs.

For horse mackerel and blue whiting, Spain receives flat rate quantities, outside the unallocated TACs of 31,000 tonnes of horse mackerel and 30,000 tonnes of blue whiting. In each case, the proposal allocates 10,000 tonnes to the waters of interest to the United Kingdom—areas VI and VII. That is somewhat less than we might have expected given the pattern of existing fisheries. I hope that the House will agree that the proposal which was adopted as it stands represents a sensible and practical application of the provisions of the accession treaty.

Document 9284/85 deals with a number of detailed amendments to the Community's control arrangements, designed particularly to tighten up control on TACs and quotas. The House will know the importance we attach to control. We were instrumental in establishing the Community's Inspectorate of Inspectorates and I am glad to report that, as a result of the Commission's inspectors' work over the last year or so, a great deal of progress has been made in ensuring that all member states take positive steps to respect their national quotas.

However, the Commission has identified several areas where further powers are needed, and a number of these were provided for in the revised regulation agreed by the Council on 17 December. In particular, the Commission will be able to require additional catch information from member states.

Member states are also required to provide the Commission with a written report of any formal administrative inquiry instigated at the latter's request, so that the Commission can be satisfied that everything possible has been done to eliminate flaws in the control system.

In the member states themselves, it will now be possible to apply sanctions for all control offences to the owners or charterers of vessels as well as to skippers. There will be a formal obligation on the member states to ensure that the accuracy of logbooks is checked.

New controls have also been introduced for exercising tighter control over klondikers. These are already subject to tight control when receiving from United Kingdom fishing vessels in our waters. It will now be possible to ensure that the catches from other member states' vessels are also closely monitored.

I should draw the attention of the House to the fact that two of the proposals in document 9284/85 were withdrawn before the draft regulation was put to the Council. The first would have permitted the Commission to close a fishery when the Community's total allowable catch or quota had been exhausted, even though some member states might not have exhausted their individual quotas. The second would have empowered Commission inspectors to carry out investigations unaccompanied by national inspectors.

Both the proposals affect the relative competences of the Commission and of the member states and caused difficulty for nearly all member states. It was therefore not possible to reach agreement. The Commission has, however, at our request, promised the Council a report early this year on the state of control arrangements throughout the Community, and that report, when it appears, may provide a basis for reconsideration of these and any other desirable changes.

I turn to the Commission's proposals for guide prices in 1986, contained in document 10047/85. Guide prices are used to calculate the Community withdrawal prices for fish withdrawn from the human consumption market. It is of considerable importance to reach agreement on the guide prices sufficiently early in December to allow all the other prices derived from them to be applied from the start of the new fishing year, on 1 January.

As in previous years, the Commission's proposals are in three parts. The first of these is of great concern to the United Kingdom, as it covers the main species which are of interest to our fishermen. The proposed range of increases between nil and 6 per cent. seemed to us on the whole, to have been drawn up on a very sound basis. In the course of negotiation the balance was changed marginally, the increase for cod being set at 6 per cent. instead of the 5 per cent. originally proposed. That increase was, however, offset by a reduction of one percentage point to 5 per cent. and 4 per cent., respectively, in the Commission's proposals for haddock and whiting. Of slightly greater significance, however, was the three percentage point price reduction for herring, the price of which was to have been left unchanged. This reduction, for which we pressed, should help Community herring to sell in competition with supplies from third countries where prices are generally lower. Overall, therefore, I consider that the revised guide prices for 1986 provide the United Kingdom industry with a sound and realistic level of support.

I should like once again to sum up the overall message that emerges from these documents. In 1983 the Government negotiated a first-class deal for the United Kingdom on the common fisheries policy. Last year, we negotiated its extension to Spain and Portugal on a basis which fully preserves its advantages for the United Kingdom. Other countries have sought, on this point or that, to unpick or adjust the balance of the deal, but it is in fact secure for the rest of this century and beyond. There is clear evidence that the common fisheries policy is now working increasingly effectively. That is shown by the fact that TACs and quotas have again been agreed before the beginning of the year and that control arrangements are being tightened up.

During the relevant negotiations, the Government have shown how hard they are prepared to fight to defend the real interests of the United Kingdom fishing industry. This is demonstrated both by our success in securing the withdrawal of the Commission's proposal on Norway pout and by the list of valuable improvements that we secured in the final package of TACs and quotas and other arrangements for 1986. I have no hesitation in asking the House to approve these arrangements.

5.42 pm

Mr. Stuart Randall (Kingston upon Hull, West)

I shall keep my speech as short as possible because a number of hon. Members want to speak about these EEC documents.

There was general satisfaction in the industry that the Government were able for the second time to complete the negotiations on TACs and quotas before the beginning of the fishing year. Clearly the negotiations were made much more difficult this year because of the accession of Spain and Portugal to the EEC. Advice from the marine scientists that there would need to be a substantial reduction in certain key species, such as North sea cod and west coast mackeral, accentuated the difficulties.

The industry, especially in Scotland, seemed satisfied with the way in which the Government handled the Norway pout whitefish by-catch. That by-catch had been increased for a transitional period from 10 per cent. to 18 per cent. As a result, the authorities appeared to turn a blind eye to the other young fish caught as a by-catch when pout was being fished in this area. I understand that the Danes were the main culprits. This was unsatisfactory and totally contrary to the Community's policy on conservation. I hope that the Minister will confirm that he is satisfied that this unacceptable behaviour will cease with the introduction of these new quotas. If control over this by-catch is regained, fish that is suitable for human consumption will not be used for industrial purposes and the depleted whitefish stocks in the North sea will be able to recover more quickly.

The reduction in the North sea cod quota is bad news for certain parts of the industry. Cod is the most valuable fish, especially for east coast fishermen who do not have access to haddock to compensate for the fall in the cod quota. Severe hardship for those fishermen is likely to ensue.

It is vital to base quotas on scientific advice, but the industry feels that a quota reduction of this magnitude will cause serious dislocation in the industry and believes that a more gentle reduction could have been achieved, say, over two or three years. Was that option considered? Would it have been viable from a conservation point of view?

The industry has to accept the sharply reduced North sea cod quota—it has no option. Nevertheless, it is important in debates such as this to reflect the industry's attitudes. The view widely held by the industry is that the reduction in the North sea cod quota arises mainly from the failure of the Government and the EEC Commission to enforce their policy rather than from the industry's performance and behaviour. It is not good enough for the Government to say that the quota cuts are necessary just because of the scientific advice and informaton given to them. The failure of Government policy has resulted in these severe cuts in cod quotas.

The industry would like the House to know that it was not the industry that created the so-called "paper fish" and allowed poor enforcement which resulted in certain stocks being over-exploited. The industry feels that it is having to carry the can for the maloperation of the common fisheries policy.

The North sea cod quota has been reduced in 1986 from about 107,000 tonnes to about 75,000 tonnes—a reduction of about 30,000 tonnes. It can be argued that in reality the reduction is appreciably less because our fishermen did not exploit the whole quota. The reasons are that the cod stocks have been depleted, and cod are therefore more difficult to catch, and the very bad weather. The Minister knows all about that bad weather. The industry has been compensated to an extent in that cod prices have generally remained firm.

Just before Christmas, the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food announced a £16 million package for hill farmers to compensate them for bad weather. Does the right hon. Gentleman intend compensating the fishing industry in similar fashion for bad weather?

The part of the 1986 quotas that has received the most intense opposition from British fishermen is the huge increase in the herring quota for Norway. The Minister commented on that. The feeling is that, during the negotiations, the EEC seemed to run riot. It appeared to ignore British officials and opinion. This has brought into question whether the Commissioner responsible for fishing should have the power to make what seemed to have been a unilateral and irrational decision on this matter. The EEC system of crisis management must surely now come into question.

The Minister showed his concern about the way in which the decision was arrived at. It would be wrong of me not to accept his comments. Norway, which is a non-EEC country, has been allocated 40 per cent. of the total EEC herring catch. The industry feels that there is no reasonable basis for allowing that to happen. Perhaps the Minister will say why it was necessary for the Norwegian demands to be fully met. Was it not possible to arrive at a more reasonable compromise?

The consequence of that decision is that Norway will be entitled to catch 200,000 tonnes out of a total of 500,000 tonnes for 1986. Does the Minister agree that that will be the starting point for Norway when it comes to negotiating the herring quota for 1987 and that it is likely to produce great difficulties in next year's negotiations and for British fishermen in the meantime? Surely the Minister will agree that this precipitous action over the quotas is bound to create problems later.

In last year's debate the right hon. Gentleman reported to the House on the state of negotiations with Norway on herring stocks. He said: It has not yet proved possible to reach agreement with Norway on the problem of the allocation of North sea herring stock. But, without sacrificing our existing firm position on that issue, it has been agreed that negotiations will continue in the course of 1985."—[Official Report, 10 January 1985; Vol. 70, c. 969.] How does the Minister square that so-called firm position with the fact that he has allowed 40 per cent. of the total stock to be given to the Norwegians? Clearly the Minister has sacrificed the interests of the British fishing industry in these crucial negotiations and has allowed himself to be dictated to by the Commission in Brussels. The Minister's performance was just not good enough.

Quotas are central to the common fisheries policy which came into operation in January 1983. For the policy to remain intact it is vital that the agreed quotas are enforced. The policy relies on member states to direct enforcement resources in their own sectors and to ensure that their quotas, mesh sizes and other factors are adhered to. So far the enforcement policy has left a lot to be desired, although improvements are being made in some areas.

One key problem has been the lack of political will in some EEC countries to ensure that enforcement works. To be fair, the United Kingdom has led the way in improving enforcement within the community. Also, satisfactory strides have been made nationally on enforcement. However, many people in the industry feel bitter at the way that other EEC countries have not stuck to the rules whereas the United Kingdom has. That has been costly to our industry in fishing opportunities and jobs.

As the right hon. Gentleman has pointed out, Spain and Portugal are now part of the common fisheries policy. Spain alone has a huge fleet of about 17,000 vessels. There is concern and doubt in the industry as to whether Spain will implement adequate control and enforcement regulations. There is still concern over the phasing out of the Nimrods and about whether the three smaller civilian planes, which are slower and less powerful, will 'De able to fulfil the same function as the Nimrods. Would it not have been better to review that change after experience with the Spanish and Portuguese fleets?

To date there has been a lot of abuse by the Spanish of the common fisheries policy. They have been using undersized nets and have been fishing in areas where they do not have quotas. The general impression in the industry is that the Spanish fleet is aggressive and undisciplined. Does the Minister believe that the EEC and the inspectorate are truly ready for this massive increase in the EEC fleet through the accession of Spain and Portugal to the Community?

The Minister of State, the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer), made great play in Fishing News on 3 January and in other publications of the way in which he intends to restrict the number of Spanish vessels in British waters to 150 at any given time. I do not dispute that the Minister is keen and enthusiastic to ensure that the Spanish adhere to the rules now that they are part of the common fisheries policy. Essentially, the system that the Minister of State has proposed involves monitoring the number of Spanish vessels in British waters and sending the information to the EEC Commission. I am not sure what the Commission will do with the information. I understand that Ireland and France will also participate in the scheme. That all seems laudable, but I do not think that the scheme goes nearly far enough for the whole common fisheries policy. There is considerable scepticism in the industry about the effectiveness of policing and enforcement in the various EEC countries.

Mr. Austin Mitchell (Great Grimsby)

Does my hon. Friend accept that there is a need for action in another commercial area? British fishermen who are desperate for jobs are often employed by Spanish firms, many fishing from Spain, and do not get paid. If they protest about their conditions and lack of pay, they are often left to pay their own fares home and are in a desperate plight. There is a need for commercial discipline of Spanish fishing firms.

Mr. Randall

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that matter. It all comes under the heading of flags of convenience and quota hopping. I do not want to develop it in my speech, but as a representative of Hull, which is a major fishing centre, as every hon. Member knows, I have had experience of fishermen who have been exploited by Spanish companies. They have been on vessels with inadequate safety equipment. Hatches have been sealed. The fishermen have not had food or medical equipment. Log books have not been kept up to date. Their accommodation has been infested by cockroaches. They have had to suffer appalling conditions. Unfortunately, the companies have been able to get away with it. I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman has introduced new measures which were reported in a written answer on, I think, 9 December and which will address the problem. I appreciate what the Minister has done, but I do not think it goes far enough. I hope that eventually we will have primary legislation on the matter.

More effective enforcement policies are required. We need to build up the confidence of fishermen in the various EEC countries in the enforcement arrangements which, above all, must be seen to be fair. At the moment people in the industry tell me that the Commission fails miserably to provide any feedback on how well the enforcement scheme is working. The Minister should tell us whether he knows in detail how well enforcement arrangements are working in other EEC countries.

Also, will the Minister tell us whether he formally—I stress the word "formally"—receives information from the Commission about the abuse of the common fisheries policy by other EEC countries? If so, will he arrange for copies of that information to be placed in the House of Commons Library?

Mr. Jopling

I appreciate what the hon. Gentleman has been saying on enforcement. Is he aware that, within the first 10 days of Spain's accession to the Community, our fishery protection officers arrested a Spanish vessel, which has been fined £15,000? Will he join me in congratulating our officers on their prompt action so soon after Spanish accession?

Mr. Randall

Of course I congratulate the authorities on achieving that. The point I am making is that, first, there is little confidence in the industry in the working of the scheme. Secondly, the Minister must provide feedback to the industry on how the scheme is working. That does not exist and it is an important point. I hope that the Minister will take it up when he has meetings with the Commission.

Is the question of specific details of abuse by various EEC countries always on the agenda for ministerial meetings on fishing matters, and, if not, why not? Surely the matter is worth serious and regular consideration by Ministers. I understand that the new EEC inspectorate has been successful in flushing out a number of cases of abuse, and the one to which the Minister referred is a good example. Why is that sort of information not made more public?

Is the Minister satisfied that sufficient penalties have been applied to those countries that have constantly abused the policy? Has he considered reminding the Commission of the range of penalties that might be applied to offenders, such as the withdrawal of FEOGA grants or even quota reductions?

As the industry feels that there is not sufficient feedback of information from the Commission on how well the common fisheries policy is working, will the Minister raise that matter with the Commission to see what improvements can be made?

I believe that it is important for this House to discuss the issues in the Community papers before us. The time available for this debate has been too short—due, as we all know, to the Home Secretary's statement. However, there is a broader range of more worrying issues to do with the operation of the common fisheries policy that need to be considered by the House. Accordingly, I hope that it will not be too long before we have a half-day debate on the general state of the fishing industry in this country.

6.2 pm

Sir Walter Clegg (Wyre)

I listened with interest to the speech of the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Randall). I believe that it is the first time that he has spoken from the Opposition Front Bench, and I welcome him to his new position. There have been all sorts, shapes and sizes of Opposition spokesmen——

Mr. John Home Robertson (East Lothian)

And Ministers.

Sir Walter Clegg

Indeed. I hope that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West enjoys his new position.

This is a useful debate, although it is highly technical. Reading through the papers has been like threading through a minefield. There is certainly a great deal of gobbledegook per square inch. Perhaps for future debates we could consider producing a summary of the papers, which would be of great help in saving the time of hon. Members.

I was pleased to hear my right hon. Friend the Minister say that enforcement is to be improved. Many hon. Members have always maintained that enforcement is the key to a successful policy. Indeed, I am almost sorry about the arrangement that a Community inspector should not inspect a country without the participation of that country's inspectorate. Although there may be drawbacks on sovereignty, if an inspectorate could go where it wanted, when it wanted, that would have a salutary effect, especially if some of our fishing inspectors were allowed to inspect other countries.

I am pleased that klondiking is to be tackled to reduce the amount of fish being transferred in that way. I also think that the hon. Gentleman's suggestion about reports from the Commission on the effectiveness of enforcement would be helpful. After all, we cannot judge the success of the operation without that.

My right hon. Friend dealt with the quotas for the coming year. I am primarily concerned with area VI, which has had an increase in sole quotas that should prove helpful. Often fishermen think that the technical advice given by scientists is over-optimistic. Although there may be a quota, the fish may not be available to be caught. Perhaps the system should include taking account of what the fishermen say about the size of stocks as well as what the scientists say.

Since the common fisheries policy began, and especially since the withdrawal of Iceland, the English fleet has suffered severely. The picture in Fleetwood, Hull and Grimsby is one of almost total despair for the old, long-distance Icelandic trawlers. We are having to rely more on inshore fishermen to provide the markets with fish.

Although this matter is not entirely within the control of my right hon. Friend, the fishing communities in England are at some disadvantage compared with those in Scotland, who have the Highlands and Islands Development Board to help them. Perhaps the time has come for some regional help for the English fishing communities that have been so badly hit by the Icelandic withdrawal. Indeed, for Fleetwood the past year has been simply a matter of hanging on. I greatly admire those who are still operating the inshore fleet. They have faced enormous difficulties with quotas, the weather, increased overheads and many other problems.

Mr. Barry Henderson (Fife, North-East)

The Minister who is to reply to the debate represents a constituency in the Highlands and Islands Development Board area. Those of us who are close to that area feel strongly about some of the unfortunate positions that arise as a result of the board's activities. I have heard rumours that the board and the Sea Fish Industry Authority are now beginning to get their act together. Until now, the two organisations appear to have been following different fishing policies.

Sir Walter Clegg

I had not realised that the southern Scots were as badly off as the northern English. I look forward to what the Minister has to say when he replies to the debate.

The documentation refers to a reduction in the size of the Spanish fleet, which we all agree is essential, and to decommissioning proposals. Decommissioning grants have been available in this country, and many owners have been able to recoup some of their losses. What worries me is that those who have suffered most from the diminution of our fishing areas because of the withdrawal of Iceland are not the owners but the men who sail in the vessels. Quite frankly, their redundancy payments system is a shambles. I know that that is not a direct responsibility of my right hon. Friend, but as a sponsoring Minister he should be aware that there is considerable bitterness and concern about that matter.

Dr. Norman A. Godman (Greenock and Port Glasgow)

The hon. Gentleman said that the redundancy payments scheme is a shambles. My brother, who worked for a trawler firm in Hull for about 18 years, received as redundancy pay the princely sum of £385.

Mr. Austin Mitchell

That is better than most get.

Sir Walter Clegg

I was about to say just what the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) said. That man was luckier than many of the others, partly due to the conditions of service of fishermen. I am concerned to hear that cases are still before tribunals and that appeals are in progress. Obviously we cannot comment on those. However, I believe that for the future of the fishing industry fishermen must know where they stand on redundancy. The sooner that is put right, the better.

Like the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West I hope that we shall have a further debate in the not-too-distant future on the general state of the fishing industry because the matters that we are discussing today are highly technical which, to a certain extent, limits the debate.

The common fisheries policy is working better than most people thought it would. I hope that my right hon. Friend will continue to press for enforcement. That is the key. The more enforcement we get, the better the fishermen will accept the situation. The closing of fisheries and the reduction of quotas inflicts great hardship on the fishermen because they cannot earn a living while the fishery is closed. There is an increasing desire to look at conservation, which was perhaps not the case 20 or 30 years ago. The importance of it is now realised. Therefore, enforcement in preserving the stocks is important.

6.12 pm

Mr. Donald Stewart (Western Isles)

I sympathise with the hon. Member for Wyre (Sir W. Clegg) about the hard days that have come to the Fleetwood fleet and other ports such as Hull and Grimsby. I was used to seeing the Fleetwood trawlers coming into my home port of Stornoway on their way to and from the fishing ground. They brought a certain amount of trade to the town. The local traders regret the disappearance of the fleets.

The hon. Member for Wyre is right to seek assistance for his local inshore fishermen. However, the fact that the Highlands and Islands Development Board does not offer help to fishermen in parts of Scotland, as the hon. Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Henderson) said, is due not to any animosity against the fishermen but to the fact that the board's remit is confined to a certain area of Scotland.

In a previous fisheries debate a Conservative Member accused me of having only tales of woe and prophecies of doom. I am willing and glad to concede that today the Minister has given us grounds for satisfaction. I am sure that the fishermen, who are inevitably interested in the industry, will welcome that.

The mechanisms for enforcing protection are extremely welcome. That has been a weak link in the chain Many of our own fishermen have kept to the rules, but those of other countries have not. Some fishermen used to say that the protection was only against honest men who would not break the rules anyway and that the others simply ignored it. The present mechanisms are a welcome improvement.

I particularly welcome the way in which the by-catch of 18 per cent. in the Norway pout fishery has been reversed. I agree that that is a considerable achievement. Once that was conceded it appeared that it would be difficult to reverse it. There was no reason at that time for extending the 10 per cent. We all know that in certain fisheries it is impossible to catch 100 per cent. of a species, but we must allow a by-catch. Fishermen were willing to allow 10 per cent., but what is the point of 18 per cent.? It might now be said that they could have 25 per cent. for the destruction of perfectly good fish for human consumption. Therefore, I congratulate the Minister on the return to 10 per cent. and I hope that that will be set in concrete for the future.

One of the great disappointments that has created anger and incredulity in the fishing industry is the concession of 40 per cent. of the North sea herring allocated to Norway. All the evidence is that there is a historic performance, according to the Scottish Fishermen's Federation, of a level of 7 per cent. Now they will get 50,000 out of 200,000 tonnes in the EEC waters, which is effectively in British waters.

I hope that that will also be bombed out like the Norway pout by-catch of 18 per cent. because the fishermen believe that the Commission arrived at the negotiation determined to meet the Norwegians at all costs. It seems to me that the Norwegians do better outside the Common Market than the United Kingdom is doing as a member. One wonders what was the quid pro quo that allowed a TAC of that level to the Norwegians.

The reduction in cod quota is also a disappointment and the increase in the haddock quota does not compensate for that. However, I agree that we must listen to the scientific evidence. There is no use carrying on if the stocks cannot take the strain. One ray of hope is that when those stocks are fished with some restraint the recovery can be amazingly prolific in a short time.

Another matter that should be dealt with without delay to avoid uncertainty is the pelagic fisheries. A fleet of trawlers was allowed into those fisheries in 1985. I am sorry that the Ministry did not take immediate action to withdraw the licences because the precious stock still depends on strict adherence to the rules. I hope that that will be borne in mind. I welcome the report that we have had today.

6.17 pm

Mr. Barry Henderson (Fife, North-East)

From what has been said so far, I think that the House will agree with the Minister's assessment that this year's settlement is satisfactory. It was encouraging to hear the right hon. Member for the Western Isles (Mr. Stewart) and the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Randall) agree with that in general. From my point of view, the most satisfactory aspect was the maintenance of the pout box and our not agreeing to the Commission's proposal to liberalise the human consumption by-catch. On behalf of the fishermen in the east of Scotland, I thank my right hon. Friend the Minister and his hon. Friends for their efforts. This is one of the most satisfactory features of the agreement in the Council of Ministers. I hope that this is the last time that this proposal comes from the Commission. I trust that it will not be resurrected.

I am glad that my right hon. Friend immediately recognised, as did the Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food after the Fisheries Council, the widespread dissatisfaction with the European Community's deal with Norway. I am not against Norway. I like Norway and the Norwegians. Some of my best friends are in the Norwegian Government. I met the Hoyre Stortingruppe about 15 years ago, and many of them are now in the Norwegian Government. I do not want to see any bad blood between Norway and the Community, Norway and Britain and particularly Norway and Scotland. However, I think that we can enhance our relations with Norway by making a more satisfactory arrangement than has been concluded this year. It has not been as bad as it might have been because herring has not yet recovered its proper place in the fish markets. It is still a weak market, and I hope that it will not be too long before it returns in strength.

I hope that two things can be achieved—a stronger herring market, and more satisfactory arrangements with Norway on herring. Perhaps to that end my right hon. Friend will encourage the Commission to undertake an education programme whereby officials might visit some of the fishing communities interested in the arrangement with Norway in particular to see whether, before next year, they can better understand our concerns.

There has been considerable disappointment at the sudden and substantial reduction in the cod TAC. It is hardly compensated for by the increase allowed for haddock. I say that for two reasons. The first is the price consideration. The price of cod is about 50 per cent. higher than the price of haddock, which is an important consideration for the fishermen. What is more, too many of the haddock being caught are of the smaller variety. There is not a market for that, and too much of the fish is going into intervention. Just as we have all agreed that it would be a bad thing to have more human consumption fish picked up at by-catches of the pout box, it would be unfortunate if too much small haddock fit for human consumption did not find a market.

A related matter, which is not part of this year's Council, is mesh sizes. There is much controversy about what should happen, particularly for commercial species, and about the direction in which to go. I urge my right hon. Friend the Minister to give further consideration to the compromise proposals that I understand have been submitted by the Scottish Fishermen's Federation, on this and on small haddock. It should be one of the objectives of an effective marketing regime that one should seek to balance supply and demand. If, as is likely, there is a healthy fishing industry in the coming years, it will be enhanced by a more satisfactory balancing of these supply and demand considerations.

6.23 pm

Mr. Robert Maclennan (Caithness and Sutherland)

I have a great deal of sympathy with the point made by the hon. Member for Wyre (Sir W. Clegg) about the complexity of the matters that we are considering. In future, will the Minister do himself greater justice by bringing more light and shade to the debate, so that we can applaud his achievements and see more clearly his failures, by not giving us quite such an extensive tour d'horizon as he did, breaking down into consideration of the problems of megrim and pollock, blue whiting, area VI and so on? I am always grateful for amplification from the Minister when the points at issue are difficult. However, in a debate such as this, most of the matters could be published in advance in the simplified form suggested by the hon. Member for Wyre. We could then concentrate on the issue with which the House wants to grapple.

I said that the Minister might not have done himself justice by his approach tonight. Therefore, I express my satisfaction with the outcome of the negotiations on the Norway pout box. That was clearly an aberration of a most unacceptable kind, raising the by-catch from 10 to 18 per cent. There was unanimity in the fishing industries and across the House that this had to be brought to an end. This is something for which the Minister deserves great credit. I hope that we can take some comfort from what he has said about the unlikelihood of this matter ever being raised again in the same way.

Having dealt with light, I must turn now to the shade of the Minister's speech. The darkest corner of the negotiations on which he has reported are the arrangements with Norway on North sea herring. That is unacceptable and quite extraordinary. The idea that the Norwegians should receive 40 per cent. of central and northern North sea herring TACs is fantastically inequitable. It cannot be justified for this year, but even more disturbing is the policy that, because the final arrangements for herring have not been agreed, that might conceivably be used as a baseline for a permanent regime. I hope that the Minister will give us a categorical assurance that he intends to be trenchant and robust in rejecting any such notion.

I do not know how the 40 per cent. was arrived at, but it is worrying that the permanent regime may be based on historical considerations of Norway's catches in particular years. The Minister and the Government must not allow a historic base to be taken from a time when the Norwegians were substantially overfishing and there was a threat to stocks from that overfishing.

I move on from the inequity of the present position to the way in which it was arrived at. The Minister properly drew attention to his anxieties about how the Commission had initialled the agreement, despite the notifications that had been given by Britain and France about the unacceptability of what was proposed. We all share his concern, but it is important that we learn something more of how this can be avoided in the future.

Did the Commission act in defiance of the views of member states because of the deadline on the accession of the Iberian countries and the desirability of getting agreement on the whole package from the beginning of the year? If so the Government's approach, and that of the House, should be that these matters cannot properly be left so late in negotiations that the Commission has the freedom to sell the pass. I hope that the Minister will say something about the manner in which the Government intend to defend our interests in formulating a permanent arrangement.

The hon. Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Henderson) spoke about a matter that was not decided at the Council but is to be considered in March—minimum mesh size. It is of particular importance to the Scottish fleet that an increase should not be proposed and that the compromise should be set at the 85 mm mark. That is about the best that we can hope for, so I hope that the Government will deal with that matter with considerable force.

The pelagic fishing review is the background to some of the matters that we have been discussing today. There is considerable anxiety among Scottish fishermen, in particular that the increase in the number of freezer trawlers with licences will adversely affect the pelagic fleet. I do not know how the Minister proposes to reverse the embarrassment that has been caused. I hope that it is not too late. It has been suggested that those three licences should be withdrawn. Certainly, the present position is most unsatisfactory.

In November, we were told that the outcome of the pelagic review would be announced before the end of the year, but we are still waiting. Can the Minister give us the expected date of the completion of the review?

Dr. Godman

Does the hon. Gentleman know what is likely to happen to the crews of those three vessels if their licences are removed?

Mr. Maclennan

I can only reply by putting another question. What will happen to the crews of those vessels that have been unable to obtain precious stock licences and what will happen to the fishermen whose catches are substantially reduced because of the occurrence of overcatching? Incomes are dropping, which has led to redundancies in several inshore ports. It is not much good robbing Peter to pay Paul. If that is what the Minister has done by granting licences to the three freezer vessels, he was unwise. I believe that it was not done deliberately, but it is a mess which has a continuing consequence for the inshore fleet. It is not a mess that will go away. I hope that the Minister recognises that fact.

I wish to discuss the reduction in cod TACs and the compensatory increases—as the Minister put it—in haddock. If the reduction in cod were based on unassailable scientific evidence, it could not be resisted. However, the Minister cannot argue that the increases in haddock will offset that reduction. Further pressure could be placed upon those who already catch haddock, because of the possible adverse effect on haddock prices. That underlines the difficulties with which the industry has to contend.

I do not quarrel with the Minister's overall assessment of the package and the state of the industry this year. However, it is a fragile industry with great ups and downs and it is subject to considerable hazards. The most tragic example of that occurred off the coast of my constituency during the recess when the Bon Ami sank with all hands on board. That event raises the matter of safety measures in the Minch and in the north-west and the appropriateness of locating helicopter safety services in Stornoway in the constituency of the right hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Stewart). I hope that the Government are already considering such measures.

The country owes a great deal to the fishing industry. The Government's stewardship to ensure adequate returns is important not only for the future of fishing and of consumers, but for those fragile communities where our fleet is largely based. This year, I believe that the Minister has presented a fair account of the conclusion of an agreement which, I am pleased to say, was reached early in the year, giving some certainty as to prospects for the year ahead.

6.34 pm

Mr. Alexander Pollock (Moray)

Following a period of conventional silence on this and related subjects, I am grateful for the chance of catching your eye, Mr. Speaker, at the start of 1986. I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend the new Secretary of State for Scotland will take as much interest in fishing matters as did his predecessor. He will be warmly welcomed if he takes the opportunity to acquaint himself at first hand with the enormous contribution that Scotland makes to the industry, especially in the north-east.

While debating the European fishing agreement of 1986, we should remember the general state of the fishing industry. The latest figures issued in November by the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland showed that the Scottish fishing fleet made an operating profit of £27.7 million from a total income of £182.3 million, which is a considerable improvement on the three previous years.

Regarding the 1986 average, I commend the Government on reaching political agreement before the new year for the second year in succession. It suggests a deeper political commitment among the member states, which must be warmly welcomed. I trust that a similar momentum can be maintained in other matters as they fall due for review.

Perhaps the most impressive achievement to emerge from the Council has been the successful resistance to the Commission's proposal for an increase in the Norway pout by-catch derogation. The Minister made clear his satisfaction about that outcome.

The matter of enforcement has been raised by several hon. Members. I, too, was concerned when the news came last August of the Government's plans to introduce radical changes in the arrangements for fishery protection and surveillance. A major Nimrod base lies at Kinloss in my constituency. My fishing constituents are especially aware of that service's contribution to the effective policing of those who seek to evade the rules. Last September a photograph from a Nimrod cost a Basque trawler skipper a fine of about £35,000 for illegal fishing off the west coast of Scotland. I hope that the Minister can reassure us that careful consideration is being given by the Department to the effectiveness of any alternative arrangements.

As the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) reminded us, 1985 was a tragic year for all those who exact their trade from the sea. The loss, just before Christmas, of the crew of the Banff-registered Bon Ami came two months after the disappearance of the Macduff fishing vessel, Ocean Harvest, when four men were lost. It must be our hope that 1986 will be kinder to our fishermen and their families, to whom we all owe such a large debt.

6.38 pm

Dr. Norman A. Godman (Greenock and Port Glasgow)

I echo the sentiments expressed by the hon. Member for Moray (Mr. Pollock). I have been associated with the fishing industry for many years. Fearsome hazards are placed upon those who follow that trade, and I am pleased to associate myself with the hon. Gentleman's remarks. This is the first time that I have followed the hon. Gentleman in a fisheries debate, but I am sure that it will not be the last.

I offer a brief contribution to what I believe to be a too brief debate on an industry that is so important to Scotland, and especially to the more remote maritime communities. We have an interesting collection of documents, which I would call a mixed catch.

The fears of the fishing communities aroused by the accession of Spain to the European Community have been considerably diminished. The grant aid offered for the decommissioning of Spanish fishing vessels is a most sensible measure, because the Spanish fishing fleet must be severely reduced to a level where it poses no threat to the viability of the fishing stocks that those vessels will harvest over the next decade or two. Extra capacity must be reduced before a new common fisheries policy is negotiated in the 1990s.

Mr. Austin Mitchell

I echo my hon. Friend's remarks about the need to take Spanish vessels out of commission. It is good that they are receiving a far better decommissioning grant than our vessels did when our fleet was being run down. At the same time, it is wrong that the Spanish industry receives a 50 per cent. grant for new construction, whereas ours receives a 25 per cent. grant.

Dr. Godman

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for mentioning what can only be described as an absurd anomaly. The decommissioning grant is about £400 per gross registered tonne. It is absurd that the Spanish should be awarded the type of new build grant that my hon. Friend mentioned.

The hon. Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Henderson) claims that he is not anti-Norwegian. I am sure that we all readily accept that. I should like to claim that I am not anti-Spanish when talking about Spanish fishing activities. I shall quote Mr. Boyd Gordon, who I believed was a former senior official in the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland, but somehow he is still around.

When answering a question put to him by the hon. Member for Fife, North-East in the Scottish Affairs Committee's investigation of the fisheries protection services, Mr. Boyd Gordon had this to say about the Spanish fishing fleet in Scottish waters: At the moment, they can have 16 vessels at any time in Area VI— that is the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea area which comprises waters partly off Scotland and partly off England. Under the accession arrangements, I think that that number is going up to 25. But there will be strict control of the number of Spanish vessels, especially now. The problem with Spain is to make sure that no more than the 16 or 25 are in your waters at the one time. They are notorious law-breakers in that regard, and we regularly find unlicensed Spanish vessels fishing off the West Coast—not in any great numbers; but we certainly find Spanish vessels that should not be there. Spanish fishing must be subjected to close surveillance. However, the fears about their activities are being reduced.

Agreement has been reached between the EEC and Norway. Like some of my hon. Friends and some Conservative Members, I find it disturbing that that concordat gives Norway an incredibly high percentage —some 40 per cent.—of the central northern North sea herring total allowable catch. Surely the Norwegians are not entitled to such a share of a stock which is still recovering. Is the Minister satisfied with the quality of the negotiators acting on behalf of British fishing interests? Is he satisfied about their understanding of the needs of the United Kingdom fishing industry? Members of the Scottish Fishermen's Federation are deeply dissatisfied with the Community's role in this affair.

I join the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) in expressing anxiety about the increase in the minimum mesh size from 80 mm to 90 mm. I understand that, unexpectedly, that has been extended to the west of Scotland. If true, it will take effect from 1 January 1987. The introduction of such a minimum size will have serious effects on the whiting fisheries harvested by small vessels from ports on the east and west coasts of Scotland. The question should and will be asked whether the Minister will seek a derogation to 80 mm in respect of the whiting fishery.

The quality of the enforcement of the common fisheries policy is important, because the management of fishing —I can say this because I come from a fishing family—is too important a subject to be left to fishermen. As has been correctly said, the stewardship must rest with the Government. If the fishermen see that the enforcement system to which they and others are subject is reasonable and fair, they will play by the rules.

When I was on a fairly large fishing vessel five years ago fishing out of a United Kingdom port—I had better not tell the House which one—the skipper when he was fishing off Shetland ordered the crew to insert a small mesh net inside the belly of the trawl net. I asked him why he did that, because not even the Norway pout could get through such a tiny mesh—I could not get my little finger through—and he said, "I will obey the rules when others obey them and when they are fair and square." The improvements in enforcement are to be welcomed.

The consequence of the regulation which allows penal or administrative action to be taken against owners and charterers as well as skippers over irregularities under the regulations may help to reduce some of the dreadful exploitation to which British fishermen have been subjected by Spanish fishing interests. That will go a long way towards dissuading skippers from fishing where they should not fish. Similarly, the need for member states to verify log book entries is a most welcome development.

We have a mixed bag of documents. As the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland said, they contain shade and light, but nevertheless there are some positive aspects to them. In general, I welcome the documents.

6.48 pm

Mr. David Harris (St. Ives)

I shall concentrate on the subject which is uppermost in the minds of the fishermen of south-west England—the Spanish question. My area is closer to Spain than any other part of the United Kingdom. The Fishing News of 3 January carried the headline: We are ready for the Spanish. I wish that were true.

I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend and to the Minister of State. They have done splendid work in this matter. I seek further reassurances, for the reason that my right hon. Friend gave when he mentioned the recent arrest of a Spanish trawler.

Our fishery protection boats can go almost 200 miles off Land's End and pick up Spanish trawlers carrying out illegal fishing almost at will. There is a huge problem there and nobody knows the extent of illegal fishing. I look to my hon. Friend with some confidence to intensify our enforcement efforts, because I am certain that the Spaniards will not enforce conservation measures on their own fishermen.

6.51 pm

Mr. Austin Mitchell (Great Grimsby)

The Minister has hauled in a big catch for us and I shall try to be brief. I want to concentrate on cod because Grimsby is a cod port. It is geared to cod: its vessels are appropriate for cod but not for much else. Anyway, there is not much else for the fishermen to catch. The haddock is further north in Scottish waters and it is expensive and difficult for us to catch it. For the Grimsby fishermen, it is cod or nothing. This year the cod catch has been down substantially and it has been a tough struggle to land even the quota. We have had great difficulties, with vessels carrying on long into the winter and making much more frequent and later trips. Prices have improved, but they have not risen sufficiently to compensate for the drop in the catch.

Moreover, the cut in the North sea cod quota in these measures will be a bitter blow for Grimsby because, while it is a 30 per cent. cut in quota, it is a 17 per cent. cut on this year's catch. The industry is already hard hit and facing difficulties. It is not generating enough revenue for reinvestment in new vessels to replace our aging fleet. I accept that the cut is based on scientific advice, but could not something have been done to protect Grimsby? It may be a matter of squeezing more for Grimsby from elsewhere, particularly from the Scots who have done far better out of this than we have, and who always have the alternative of haddock, which Grimsby does not have to the same degree, or perhaps it is a matter of providing some compensation for the loss of the CAT class vessels, which have now been laid up. They made a vital contribution to the fish throughput for the port but were not part of our sectoral quota. To maintain the quantity of fish coming in, Grimsby needs some compensation for the loss of those vessels.

If there is to be a cut in the cod quota, it is imperative that the Minister should press for special measures of conservation, because such measures are necessary for the cod stocks. In particular, he should press for an increase in the mesh sizes so that we can provide for proper conservation. I know that mesh sizes are to be increased from January next year, but that is a long time away and there is a welter of derogations and exceptions for that. We shall face difficulties even then, because there will be extra costs for re-equipping and there is a need for compensation for fishermen for the fall in catches. We need those conservation measures and we also need seasonal restrictions on fishing in spawning areas. In some cases there should be an absolute ban on fishing in spawning areas. We must rebuild the cod stocks if Grimsby is to have a viable future.

There is another essential matter. It is right and fair that there should be compensation for Grimsby fishermen for the loss of earnings, which will now hit them because the cod quota is down so substantially. It is, after all, a cod quota cut as a consequence of Government decisions and Government agreement. It is not the fault of the fishermen, but it will affect their earnings severely. It is a peculiar regional problem for the English ports, and particularly for the premier English fishing ports such as Grimsby.

Fishing has always been a poor relation, yet the treaty of Rome said it should be treated in the same way as agriculture. It never has been. Last year the Minister gave £16.9 million in compensation to specific geographical areas such as Durham, north Yorkshire and Northumberland to help hill farmers who had had to contend with bad weather and poor harvests. The same principle should apply to the fishermen in the English ports, particularly in Grimsby which has been affected and will continue to be affected by the disastrous drop in the cod catches. It is confined to a specific geographical area and will have severe consequences for the profitability of the industry. Fishing should qualify for special help, as did hill farmers, and on the same scale, or the fishing industry will be in difficulties.

I should like to comment briefly on a couple of other aspects of importance to Grimsby. The first concerns guide prices, about which the Minister said little. The increase in guide prices is pathetic. They are being edged up by a low figure in each review, in this case by 6 per cent. Such guide prices have no relevance to the costs of catching fish and to the costs of keeping the industry going. The whole guide price system was based on the French market, not on the English market. In other words, red fish and dace do not sell for much in this country but are priced quite highly in France because they are prized there. Cod is important in this country, but brings a far lower price in France because it is not so important there. The system is geared to French needs and not to ours.

Grimsby used to have its autonomous withdrawal system, with prices two to three times higher than the official withdrawal prices, but the withdrawal system collapsed three years ago and now there is no base to the market, except for the withdrawal prices based on the guide prices. If we are to raise the roof, we need to raise the floor as well. The guide prices should be increased to provide a firm base for a viable market and they need to relate to the costs of catching fish.

In the matter of control, the CFP system of policing has never been satisfactory. Thirteen inspectors is a pathetic and inadequate figure. Answers to parliamentary questions that I put down soon after the inspectors started to operate showed that the 13 spent most of their time in this country policing the most law-abiding part of the system rather than policing our continental competitors who are less strict in their observance of the rules. If the CFP is to be accepted, it has to be fair and impress equal consequences on all. In this country there is a feeling that everybody else is getting away with cheating, with inadequate supervision, with catches that are beyond the limits, because they are not adequately controlled by this police force. There is traditionally close collusion between the fisheries inspectorate and the local fishing industry in continental ports which certainly does not exist in English ports. I do not know about Scottish ports.

Three or four years ago my wife made a film about illegal Dutch fishing at a time when there was a ban on herring. In the Dutch ports they were landing herring. She immediately went to the local fishery inspector and said, "We should like to film you dealing with this problem of herring." First, he said it was mackerel and that it was nothing to do with him. Then he flatly refused to attend to the matter because he said that he would end up in the dock. That is the sort of warm relationship that exists there. The inspectors are the people who are policing the system, but European inspectors cannot operate if national controls are not effective and adequate.

What is proposed is totally inadequate. The catching fleet has been more than doubled with the accession of Spain and Portugal, but we have not doubled the number of inspectors for the control of a nation which traditionally cheats and does not observe regulations. The system must be enforceable.

My main point is a simple straightforward one about the needs of the Grimsby fishing industry. The Government's policy has been one of letting market forces prevail, and market forces have been running down an industry which vitally needs investment if it is to survive. Grimsby has a good future because, with proper conservation, the stocks will build up and we shall have a prosperous future. We have to survive to be able to inherit and to catch that future, and we need special help from the Government. We do not want the Minister to stand by and say, "We can do nothing; it is all down to market forces." Unless we get special help, we shall not survive to catch that adequate future.

It is vital that the industry be concentrated in centres of excellence like Grimsby, which has the facilities, the landing and the ice and food processing, all of which forms an excellent nucleus for the expansion of the fishing industry, but it needs help if it is to survive. There is no point in the Government standing by and saying, "There is nothing we can do."

7 pm

Mr. John Home Robertson (East Lothian)

This has been a useful debate on an extremely important industry. We are grateful to the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food for the details that he gave when he introduced these documents. Fishing is an important industry throughout the United Kingdom. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Randall) that we ought to have a further opportunity in the near future to discuss the affairs of the fishing industry.

I should like to refer to a point that was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) and by the hon. Members for Moray (Mr. Pollock) and for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) concerning the tragic loss of life in the Scottish fishing fleet in recent months. This is a matter of great concern throughout the country, particularly in the fishing communities. I have fishing communities in my constituency, so I am aware of this great concern. The House is to have an opportunity to debate fishing fleet safety when the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. McQuarrie) introduces his private Member's Bill next month. I welcome his initiative, and I have no doubt that he will receive widespread support.

I ask the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mr. McKay), to say something tonight about the apparent serious lack of helicopter cover to deal with emergencies off the northwest coast of Scotland. This is a matter of immediate concern, and it would be useful if the Under-Secretary of State could say something about it.

Other aspects have been mentioned in the debate. I share the satisfaction of all right hon. and hon. Members who have spoken about the ending of the outrageous derogation from the by-catch limit in the Danish industrial fishery in the North sea. I pay tribute to the Scottish Fishermen's Federation for its efforts to demonstrate the harmful effects of that derogation on whitefish stocks in the North sea. That point was referred to by, among others, the right hon. Member for the Western Isles (Mr. Stewart). It caused concern during the time that the derogation took effect. The 10 per cent. limit should never have been increased to 18 per cent., and I sincerely hope that we shall hear no more about it. I congratulate the Minister on having ensured its demise this year.

I wish to refer to two detailed points on the new restrictions that are to come into effect. Everybody recognises the need to conserve stocks on the basis of scientific evidence. However, it is important that restrictions should be phased gradually, wherever possible, in order to protect not only those who fish for these species of fish but those on shore who trade in and process the fish. We remember the almost complete destruction not only of the offshore herring catching fleet but of the onshore herring processing industry in this country when there was a complete ban on herring fishing around our coasts.

The first detailed point that I want to raise on these documents is the increase in mesh size from 80 mm to 90 mm for the demersal fishery in the North sea and off the west coast of Scotland. That point was referred to by the hon. Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Henderson). It could create serious difficulties for a number of small fishing vessels which rely upon the whiting fishery in those waters. Is it really necessary to impose these restrictions? In future, would it be possible for further restrictions to be phased and for fair warning to be given of them? The Minister must recognise the difficulties that restrictions create for a number of small fishing vessels and their crews.

My second detailed point, which has already been referred to by the hon. Member for Fife, North-East and by my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell), is the substantial cut of 31,000 tonnes in the British share of the total allowable catch for cod in the North sea. That is a substantial volume of fish. It will create difficulties not only for fishermen but for onshore processors and traders. In future will the Government try to avoid such drastic fluctuations in the total allowable catch and similar restrictions?

One of the key points in the debate concerns the Norwegian share of the herring total allowable catch in the North sea. We have heard about the Minister's dissatisfaction over the Norwegians having got away with 40 per cent. of that valuable fishery. The Government seem to have been completely outmanoeuvred. The conduct of the European Commission in general and of M. Simonet in particular in negotiating that deal raises serious questions. Representations have been made by a number of people. The Scottish Fishermen's Federation has said: We were very angry indeed at the unbelievably high percentage share (40 per cent.) of the Central and Northern North Sea Herring TAC allocated to Norway as part of the EEC/ Norway Fisheries Agreement for 1986 negotiated by the Commission and ratified by the Fish Council in December last, inasmuch as we do not believe the Norwegians to be entitled to such a high share of this recovering stock and, moreover, we fear very much for the precedent which this One-Year Deal may have set in the context of the need for both Norway and the Community to settle a substantive agreement on the future share-out of North Sea Herring. The federation goes on to express its lack of confidence in the Commission's negotiations with Norway. I understand that the Minister is not satisfied with them. The federation suggests that in future there should be an independent element in the negotiations. I understand that representatives of the Scottish Fishermens Federation were present during the negotiations, and its observation was: The Commission seemed hell-bent on achieving a deal with Norway at all costs and, in so doing, behaved in a cavalier fashion in proceeding to a settlement after paying little or no regard to the positions put to them by the Officials of the various Member States. The Scottish Fishermen's Federation has an axe to grind, but I notice that its views seem to be confirmed by a more independent source, Agro-Europe, in its fish report of December 1985, which referred to thinly veiled accusations that Simonet might just be paying more attention to the needs of the whitefish fishing industry in his native France rather than to those of British herring fishermen. It was even suggested by some industry representatives that Simonet was trying to keep the French sweet in the hope of avoiding too heavy demands from Paris on matters relating to the Spanish fleet after accession. It has happened. It must not be allowed to happen again.

I join the hon. Members for Wyre (Sir W. Clegg) and for Moray and other hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby, in appealing for effective enforcement of the agreed restrictions throughout the European Community. We have heard a certain amount about the Inspectorate of Inspectorates. We have even heard about the Minister of State's computer. But there is a legitimate sense of outrage among British fishermen that the effective controls that are applied to them are not matched by controls over the fleets of other European Community nations. The Spanish got themselves a bad reputation, even before joining the European Community. The hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris) pointed out that a Spanish vessel managed to get itself arrested only days after Spain's accession to the European Community. That does not seem to demonstrate good intentions on Spain's part.

I see from a banner headline in Fishing News of 3 January 1986 that the Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer), has said: 'We're ready for the Spanish'". I am not sure that the Minister of State is a particularly convincing figure as a latter-day Drake trying to see off the Spanish armada, but we wash him and his officials well in dealing with this clear threat.

The industry and the House expect the Government to enforce the fishing restrictions upon vessels of all nations that come within our waters. Like the hon. Member for Wyre, I want not just private reporting through the Minister's famous computer. It would be useful if we could have a public account of the conduct of the respective fishing fleets in European waters—not only around Britain, but elsewhere—and of the enforcement measures which may have been taken.

I repeat the appeal of my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, West, at the beginning of the debate, that more time should be made available at an early date to discuss this extremely important industry.

7.10 pm

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. John MacKay)

We have had a most interesting and informative debate on the European Community documents recommended by the Select Committee for consideration by the House. As is usual in these debates, we have ranged widely over many other aspects of United Kingdom and Community fisheries policy. I am grateful to the many hon. Members who have contributed to the debate and to those who cut their speeches short to allow everyone who wished to speak the opportunity to say a few words. I fully recognise that the fishing industry is an important element in many of our constituencies.

As each year passes since the common fisheries policy was introduced in 1983, we see more and more clearly that the deal that we negotiated then has been good for this country and for our fishing industry. The CFF' has provided the stability which fishermen need in order to plan ahead. The developing arrangements for the conservation of stocks, the annual allocations of total allowable catches and national quotas, and the improved procedures for control and enforcement have all helped to provide improved opportunities for the fishermen and to safeguard their long-term interests.

In 1985 the CFP was extended to cover the accession of Spain and Portugal to the Community. I know that some of our fishermen were apprehensive about this enlargement of the Community, but, as my right hon. Friend noted at the start of today's debate, the arrangements have been agreed without too much trauma, and I do not think that there is any need for the industry to feel threatened by the changes that have taken place.

There has been a broad recognition in the House today of the fact that the arrangements that we negotiated for TACs and quotas in 1986 are very satisfactory for the United Kingdom industry. Some aspects of the overall package are not ideal, notably the provision for Norwegian catches of North sea herring, but the arrangements have generally been given a warm welcome by the industry itself.

In particular, mention has been made today of the successful resistance that we mounted to the Commission's proposal for a further derogation allowing an 18 per cent. by-catch of white fish in the industrial fishery for Norway pout. This was regarded by the fishing industry as being the major issue of 1985, and it is very gratifying for Fishery Ministers to come to the House and report that we have achieved what the industry wanted. I am sure that my right hon. Friend has noted the thanks and appreciation of all hon. Members who spoke, in particular the right hon. Member for the Western Isles (Mr. Stewart) who said that it was very good for my right hon. Friend to be able to come to the Dispatch Box with real grounds for satisfaction.

I would just mention the performance of the industry in 1985. The value of the fish landed up to 31 October 1985 was £260 million, compared with £245 million for the corresponding period of 1984. My hon. Friend the Member for Moray (Mr. Pollock) highlighted the position of the Scottish fleet, which plays such an important part in the economy of his constituency.

One of the problems which most Members have mentioned is that of North sea cod. I fully appreciate the problem, especially as it affects Grimsby, mentioned by the hon. Members for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell), and for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Randall), and by other hon. Members. The scientific advice on the need for the reduction of the TAC was very firm indeed. The figure recommended by the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea was, in fact, 130,000 tonnes, so that by settling for 170,000 tonnes we are already taking certain risks in order to mitigate the impact on fishermen. The new quota will not necessarily restrict fishermen's activities this year, because, if the scientists are right, the cod will unfortunately be that much less abundant.

The hon. Member for Great Grimsby mentioned that the quota of 107,530 tonnes in 1985 was not caught. Although all the figures are not in, we consider that about 90,000 tonnes was caught. The main problem is a very poor 1984 year class. Of course, if surveys during the year produce evidence that the original assessment was substantially wrong the advice will no doubt be reviewed, but it would be wrong of me to hold out any hope that we are likely to see any increase later in the year as a result of the scientists' advice.

Many Members mentioned the control of Spanish fishing. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris) is perhaps nearer the problem than any of the rest of us. I assure the House that every effort is being made to ensure the effective control of Spanish fishing in the waters round our coast, following Spain's accession to the Community. A majority of the Spanish fleet operates outside Community waters under agreements with third countries. The number of vessels allowed to fish at any one time in Community waters will be strictly limited. The House can be assured, by the catching and fining of a Spanish vessel so early this year, that we take the whole matter very seriously indeed.

With Spain inside the Community, Spanish vessels will be subject to the full range of existing Community conservation and control measures, including logbooks and landing declarations. We will most assuredly enforce these measures in our waters, and we can expect an improvement in enforcement at the Spanish end under the supervision of the Community's Inspectorate of Inspectorates.

Mr. Harris

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way—I did try to limit my speech to two minutes. May I ask whether he has had any indication at all of when the number of inspectors will be increased to 21, because this is crucial? I know that my right hon. Friend has been pressing very hard on this.

Mr. MacKay

I cannot give my hon. Friend a date for it, but the Council has endorsed the Commission's proposals for an increase in the complement of inspectors in 1986 from 13 to 21, and we hope that this will be done as soon as possible.

While I am speaking about control and enforcement, may I say that, as the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West freely recognised, we have led the way on enforcement in the Community and we think that a lot of progress has been made. Had I time, I would give the House the evidence on which I base that statement; for example, the catch limits closed down 46 fisheries in 1984 and 52 fisheries in 1985, not just in this country, but throughout the Community, which shows that member states are increasingly taking action to manage the fisheries so that quotas are not exhausted before the end of the year.

I was asked about the possibility of reporting this. The Commission will report on control arrangements early this year. My right hon. Friend, I think, referred to that. We have asked the Commission to study whether there should be some system of penalty on compensation when a member state exceeds a quota. We have listened with interest to these points and will see what we can do about publishing these various papers when they come to us.

A few quick words on quota hopping. From 1 January 1986, all licences contain new conditions aimed at ensuring that vessels wishing to fish against United Kingdom quotas have a real economic link with the United Kingdom. Licensed vessels need to be registered under part IV of the Merchant Shipping Act 1894, normally operate from the United Kingdom, the Isle of Man or the Channel Islands, be crewed by at least 75 per cent. British or European Community nationals, excluding Spanish, Portuguese or Greek nationals, under the transitional arrangements, be resident in the United Kingdom and have all the crew contributing to United Kingdom national insurance or the equivalent Isle of Man or Channel Islands schemes. As a further deterrent, western hake was designated a pressure stock, which will restrict access to the fishery.

I have little time left in which to deal with the Norwegian point. My right hon. Friend explained that the agreement with Norway involved an explicit transfer from the Community to Norway of North sea herring for 1986 to balance the rest of the agreement. In addition, the agreement does not just concern North sea herring, but covers a wide range of important fish stocks and assures vital access to Norwegian grounds for our whitefish fleet. I am happy to give an assurance that the Government cannot accept that the decision to allocate 40 per cent. of the herring in the central and northern North sea to Norway in 1986 sets any kind of precedent for the longer-term share out. My right hon. Friend has continually made it clear that he was not at all pleased with the way in which the negotiations were conducted by the Commission. He has made that clear to the Commission. We very much hope that a repeat of the situation will not happen this year.

I have only sufficient time to mention one very serious point which it would be remiss of me not to mention. I was asked by three hon. Members about the safety of fishing vessels in the light of the tragic loss of the Bon Ami off the north-west coast of Scotland at the end of last year. At present my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport has responsibility for safety, and his Department is conducting the shipping investigation. I cannot say more than that. However, I assure hon. Members that his Department and the Fisheries Departments view the incident with great seriousness.

Last year we finished on the successful note of scrapping the proposals for the Norway pout by-catch derogation, together with an agreement on tax and quotas for the main fish stocks in 1986. This year the industry will undoubtedly have to face certain difficulties and problems, including the unfortunate but necessary reduction in quota in North sea cod. There are opportunities for the industry to continue to prosper, and I am sure that it will seize them.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved. That this House takes note of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food's unnumbered explanatory memoranda dated 10th December 1985 on 1986 total allowable catches and quotas, on modifications to the proposed 1986 total allowable catches and quotas and on the fisheries agreement for 1986 between the European Community and Norway, of European Community Documents Nos. 9284/85 on amendments to Regulation 2057/82 establishing certain control measures for fishing activities by vessels of Member States, 8662/85 on the allocation of flat rate quantities of hake, horse mackerel and blue whiting to Spain, and 10047/85 on 1986 fish guide prices; and welcomes and approves the provisional agreement reached on these arrangements for 1986 with the improvements obtained for the United Kingdom fishing industry.