The Channel and Irish Sea Fisheries

HC Deb 28 November 1986 vol 106 cc601-10

2.5 pm

Mr. Anthony Nelson (Chichester)

I welcome this opportunity to debate the closure of the Channel and Irish sea fisheries, and I express my gratitude to my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food for rearranging a busy programme so that he could answer this debate. It is a reflection of the gravity which he, too, attaches to the plight of many fishermen that he has found the time to be present this afternoon.

On 22 November, a prohibition on the fishing of cod was introduced for the area between New Romney and Fishguard. At a stroke, this has banned the livelihood of hundreds of fishermen, especially those who operate inshore in the eastern Channel, not least my constitutents who fish in the Selsey and Emsworth areas, who were quick to approach me on this issue and who visited me in the House this week. As the Minister will know, several of my constituents formed part of a large delegation which lobbied Parliament yesterday. When I received those delegates, there was no disguising the irate atmosphere and their belief that they had been treated regrettably, in that the period of notice before the prohibition was introduced was extremely short, and that they had been deprived of their livelihoods. There was no doubting the importance that they all attached to the separate delegation to the Minister, led by my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Mr. Bowden), of fishermen from the Sussex area.

The European Community's fisheries conservation policy centres on a system of total allowable catches which are fixed annually and from which the United Kindom is allocated national quotas for the various stocks. With the agreement and the participation of representatives of the fishing industry, fisheries departments attempt to manage the quotas so that fishermen can enjoy fishing opportunities for as much of the year as possible without exceeding the annual allocation. For the majority of stocks in the Channel and the Irish sea, especially sole and plaice, they have so far succeeded in those objectives, although it has necessitated the suspension of fishing from time to time in line with by-monthly seasonal quota targets.

In the case of Channel and Irish sea cod, for which the annual quota is about 1,330 tonnes, there was no restriction on fishing in previous years, and until the end of September 1986 there had been no overshoot in the seasonal targets. I am told by the Ministry that because of good weather in October and early November, together with an unexpected abundance of cod, mainly codling, there was an abnormally high catch and, as a result, the United Kingdom quota was exhausted. The overshoot when the prohibition came into force was about 100 tonnes. Fishermen and the Ministry dispute the weather conditions that prevailed then. Most of the fishermen off the Sussex coast contend that the conditions were appalling and allowed only a short period of fishing, but earlier in the summer the weather was reasonably good. The Minister has already recognised that the quota has curtailed opportunities for many fishermen, especially those who operate inshore in the eastern Channel.

I appreciate the importance that the Minister attaches to observance of national quotas in the interests of long-term conservation of fish stocks. The European Commission has now apparently confirmed the closure by regulation which applies to all United Kingdom vessels, whether or not they are operated by commercial fishermen. That also means that anglers are bound by the prohibition. With the exception of the Republic of Ireland the other member states which have a cod quota in this area were obliged to close their fisheries at an earlier stage this year. I understand that the Republic of Ireland was not able to accede to requests that have so far been made to it for a quota swap which would have enabled my right hon. Friend to extend the United Kingdom fishery.

The problem and plight of the Sussex and Channel fishermen can be summed up no better than by a letter which I have received from a constituent earlier this week. He says: I do not normally involve myself in protests of any kind but feel I have to write to you now regarding a matter of decision, taken by others which affects me personally, putting not only myself but hundreds of other people as well in serious financial trouble without our fishing business… I only learnt of this decision '—to ban the fishing of cod in the eastern English Channel'—by chance through a report by the media network, and this ban takes effect from midnight tonight. I am a full time (not a part time) fisherman, registered since 1974 and always fished from my home village of Selsey. I have no other source of income to fall back on as I am fully committed with my time and money to fishing. 'Somebody' has made a decision which is going to help ruin a lot of people who rely on fishing for their living, without any prior warning or consultation with those who it will affect. Coupled with an already disastrous season so far due to weather, a lot of people will not have built up any cash reserves to 'ride' this latest ban until the new year. Being an individual and self employed I do not have any 'big voice' or 'organisation' to look after my interest when things go wrong, and normally do not want or need them. What I do not want, need or expect is for 'some…gentlemen'…with the stroke of their pens, taking my living away from me, least of all without showing the basic courtesy of discussing it or at least warning me in advance so that I might, if possible, prepare alternative arrangements for myself. If there is a need for conservation of a species in this area then I am quite sure that the people who made this decision were aware some time ago of what decisions they would need to make. These decisions could not have resulted from recent fishing activities as this has been severely limited by continuous bad weather for the past few weeks. I myself have only managed six days fishing since 17th October, my vessel pinned down in Chichester Harbour sheltering for most of the time. Fishing in this local area is governed by seasonal patterns. Cod being a species that mainly arrives in any quantity inshore by late autumn and departs again by January. To date we have lost most of our cod fishing this year to bad weather. A species which is relied upon by a lot of people to help see us through a long winter. This year has been an exceptional year with a large showing of immature codling being evident for most of the year. I have avoided catching these small fish with selective use of my 'trammel' nets with larger meshes. The market value of these small fish is very low. Unfortunately…a number of larger craft have been engaged in a continuous effort to catch large quantities of these small fish, making their money by sheer weight of catch, almost all being small but still legal codling. A lot of fish being consigned to fish meal plants. The authorities should have acted much sooner to bring to a halt this wasteful slaughter of these young fish, which if left to grow would provide a valuable crop in the future. Those fishermen involved cannot really be blamed. The catch is legal and they have 'cashed in' on a bonus bounty. What does seem criminal to me is the pathetic minimum measure of a legally caught codling, twelve inches total length, a fish of less than one pound in weight and worth about 12–15p on the market. These are rapid growing fish which would reach considerable size and weight in a few short years. A large cod would exceed 30 lbs and be worth 50–60p per lb on the same market, as indeed would similar fish of over 4 lbs in weight. I consider it a short term gain and madness for this situation to remain unchecked in the future. With the present arrangement, the fishery will be reopened and there will be another mad rush to fill the boxes again, until another stop is enforced on us. Nobody knows where they stand, or is able to plan ahead. No business can plan or survive in that atmosphere. The 'trammel' nets used by most of us along this part of the coast are not selective in the species they catch, although small fish can be avoided by using suitable sized mesh netting. Most cod brought to the surface are dead or die before removal from the net. A cod ban is a fishing ban, unless we wish to keep other species and throw back dead cod, to be wasted. They would form some 85 per cent. of total catch for fish this time of year. Where is the conservation in that legal option? These people who make such decisions are completely out of touch with the realities of needs of small communities to survive, and this 'heavy hand' of 'big brother' does nothing to enhance relations between ordinary people and this organisation. Applying this 'blanket ban' is like 'killing the dog to get rid of the fleas.' They can distance themselves from the effects of their actions to satisfy various statistics. The letter continues in that vein. I make no apology for reading it at length, because my right hon. Friend the Minister of State will be the first to understand that when the livelihood of individual constituents is affected and they write in such a vein they have a right to be represented clearly in this House, in the way in which they have written to their Member of Parliament.

The problems that have been described in my constituent's letter go beyond that. The problem of lack of notice is difficult to resolve, and this grievance is felt widely by other fishermen. Many of them also encounter serious problems over paying for their investment in gear and over decisions that they should now take about invesment in gear for the spring fishing season. Are they to extend themselves further by borrowing money for fishing gear, only to find that a ban is suddenly introduced when shoals of fish come into the Channel in which they are active? Moreover, 70 per cent. of the boats in this area are small. They are not nomadic trawler vessels that are able to follow shoals of fish, thereby ensuring that the fish are not caught in the same area. Trawler vessels are not susceptible to a ban, as my constituents have been.

The weather was bad during the first few days when the Sussex fishermen were able to go out. However, further along the coast, as the cod migrated down from the North sea in July and August, the fishing conditions were very good. It is very difficult to manage any total allowable catch or any quota system on a fair basis to all concerned, but this ban has had a disproportionate effect on the livelihood and interests of my constituents and other Sussex fishermen. However, those fishing further along the coast earlier in the year had some fairly rich pickings.

It is not sufficient just to quote and emphasise the problems as my constituents have asked me to do. I seek my right hon. Friend's comments on certain solutions that have been put to me. First, there should be a transfer of quota from the North sea area, where the quota for cod fishing is overestimated and is likely to be under fished. That is area 4C. Why cannot that deficit or shortfall be transferred to the Sussex coast, area 7D?

Secondly, my constituents and others have put it to me that there may be a case for raising the minimum size of cod that can be caught from 12in. I appreciate that this has implications for mesh nets and for other parts of the equipment of inshore fishermen and trawler fleets. However, with an eye to conservation and to the need to try to prevent a repetition, this suggestion is worth considering.

Thirdly, fishermen have also put to me the case for registering boats under 10m, thereby enabling catches to be logged. I understand that vessels over 10m have to be registered. Their catches are logged and form part of the statistics that are used by the Ministry when ascertaining whether the quotas have been exceeded. Their assumptions are based on the extent to which cod and other species have been landed by inshore fishermen and anglers. My fishermen dispute whether these assumptions and estimates are correct and would like to know the estimate of the catch by small fishermen used to assess whether the quota target has been exceeded.

Fourthly, a number of fishermen have put to me the case for better management of the total allowable catch in order to allow for the migration of fish. They say that this was a freak season and that there has not been one like it for about seven years. They face the absurd situation that they have been denied their livelihoods because they cannot go out to fish, while just offshore the fish are teeming. There are plenty of cod in the Channel at present. Many of them are well above the minimum size and many are slightly above it. There is a market for the cod and because there are such large stocks—in the view of the fishermen because of migration from the North sea—the fishermen feel that the ban imposed on them is unreasonable.

I understand that there is some scientific dispute about whether it can be proved that the stocks of fish have come down from the North sea. My right hon. Friend may say that the fish will go back there. However, if there has been such movement of fish and if the area is under-fished in one part, surely it is reasonable and pragmatic for us to transfer some of the under-utilised quota elsewhere.

Fifthly, it is not surprising to hear the fishermen say that in future years they want a bigger quota, especially of cod, to protect the inshore fishermen. Following discussions with my right hon. Friend, and in view of the consideration and the sympathetic replies that he has given to me, I appreciate the difficulties of implementing any of these changes. However, at the very least we should approach the Republic of Ireland to see whether there is a case for some swap arrangement for the quota. The Republic of Ireland has not yet banned the fishing of cod and may have some under-fished quota at its disposal. Surely, in a co-operative way we could try to resolve the problem to the benefit of local fishermen, and that could be done if the Republic of Ireland was prepared to allow some sort of swap arrangement.

I hope that my right hon. Friend is in no doubt about the immediate deprivation and the plight of the fishermen along the Sussex coast. They are in serious difficulties and the fall in their livelihoods comes at the worst possible time, about a month before Christmas. The burden of the ban is disproportionately borne by them.

Fish is the staple diet of many families on Fridays. My hon. Friends may have noticed that fried cod fillets are on the menu of the Refreshment Department of the House. If my right hon. Friend can give me a favourable reply to the debate, I shall be more than happy to stand him a fried cod fillet steak later today. I hope that he will not regard that as an improper offer. I shall close with that conciliatory gesture. I look forward to hearing what my right hon. Friend has to say and the extent to which he feels able to alleviate this serious and immediate problem. I know that the problem is shared by the constituents of many other hon. Members in the area, not least my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) who is in his place today and who, like me, yesterday met a large number of constituents to discuss this matter.

2.23 pm

The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. John Selwyn Gummer)

I am sure that the House will be keen to acknowldege how important it is that my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr. Nelson) has taken the opportunity afforded to him to raise this important matter, because nothing is more important than the occasions on which Government actions directly affect the lives of constituents.

By the case that he presented, my hon. Friend has shown how closely he is in touch with his fishing constituents. I am sure that he will agree that the same must be said of my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Mr. Bowden), who brought to me a delegation of leaders in the fishing industry on the south coast. We must also pay tribute to those other hon. Members, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins), who met their constituents at a large meeting of fishermen who came to the House of Commons yesterday.

I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester realises that I take my responsibilities very seriously in deciding when fishing may continue and when it should stop. The common fisheries policy, which is an outstanding success, has shared out the stocks available among the countries that fish in these crowded waters, so that fishing can be protected for the future. It is only because we wish to save the livelihoods of those fishermen and their sons that we are trying to protect the stock from overfishing.

My hon. Friend the Member for Chichester has raised a serious matter. He will recall that we could not take the measures that should have been adopted for herring and that, as a result, herring was almost extinct in certain parts of the waters around this island. That cannot be allowed to happen again, and that is why we must take severe measures. The arrangements are just as my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester described them. The total allowable catch is shared proportionately among those nations that have historic rights to fish.

It is fair to say that following the negotiations on the common fisheries policy, the United Kingdom had to accept that we were very properly treated in the share that we obtained. Although it is not too large, we have a perfectly reasonable share. The problem is that the arrangements mean that the pressure on stocks has grown considerably. Cod is a particularly difficult stock. We arranged a total allowable catch that was much lower than the industry wanted, but it was still too high for the real demands of conservation. The problem is that in strictly scientific terms, we already allow too much fishing. Indeed, the United Kingdom was prepared to go further than other countries with restrictions, not least because we believed that to adopt a harder line now would save opportunities for the future.

Nevertheless, the Community as a whole set a TAC that was higher than we thought advisable but to which we now work. Consequently, when there is overfishing, we are in a serious position. It cannot just be passed over. It is not a question of getting near the target, because we have taken more cod than is within our quota.

There is a problem, because Britain has been the leader in the conservation battle in the European Community. It was we who insisted upon an inspectorate, because we began to believe that some countries were not as good at maintaining the rules as we were. We now have a Community inspectorate that has done sterling work. Because of the Government's demands and the pressures that we applied in the European Community, there are, this year, additional powers so that we can stop some of the scandalous abuse of the rules by other countries, although I am happy to say, not by Britain.

We have done much to improve conservation, and consequently I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester will understand when I say that I cannot take measures that would leave Britain open to the accusation of being in favour of conservation for others but not for ourselves. The decision to close the fishery had to be taken.

My hon. Friend's constituent wrote an appealing and understandable letter which showed just how hard these decisions are on individuals. But I hope that his constituent will accept that I had no other choice. We had overfished. It was not merely that we might do so. My hon. Friend will probably say, "Why the blazes didn't you know beforehand? Why were you not able to make a decision earlier, or to warn people earlier?" I must remind him of his constituent's letter, which refers to the way in which stocks change rapidly, the migration of fish producing huge changes. When these changes take place, we have to move quickly.

This is the first time that we have been in the present position. I must say to my hon. Friend that we cannot criticise entirely those——

It being half-past Two o'clock, the Motion for the Adjournment lapsed, without Question put.

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

Mr. Gummer

We must accept that a remarkable change took place in October, and the experience of my hon. Friend's constituent was different from the general. The figures are clear. In October 1985, less than 30 tonnes of cod were fished. This October, 90 tonnes of cod were fished. We are talking about a huge change in a short period.

Mr. Terence Higgins (Worthing)

My right hon. Friend is talking about the overall position, and no one is disputing the need for conservation. The crucial issue is whether the arrangements are fair between those who are fishing some distance offshore and the important group of fishermen, from our point of view, who are using boats that are less than 10 m in length. Nothing that my right hon. Friend has said so far has been addressed to that. I hope that he will consider carefully the position of those who until now have not taken the fish to which he has been referring. As I understand it, the fish have been taken almost entirely by those fishing further away.

Mr. Gummer

My right hon. Friend is right to say I hat, and I apologise for not yet having reached that issue. I want to approach it carefully.

In the curious and archaic practice of having to sit down and then stand up again on the Adjournment, I read out the wrong figures. I shall correct myself immediately. The total catch in October of this year was 150 tonnes compared with 60 tonnes last year.

I shall addres myself now to those who did the catching, and I understand the concern of my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing. Faced with such a change, I think that he will understand what would normally happen. If 60 tonnes are taken from 150, there is sufficient tonnage for the fishery to remain open. Most of the fishing takes place at this time, as it has not heretofore, by the smaller inshore boats which cannot go out very far. The men who work from these boats wait for the fish to migrate, which is aided by the bad weather. It is curious that these boats are not able to leave shore for part of the time because of bad weather and that the bad weather helps to drive the fish into an area where they can be caught from the small boats. That is the mix.

Until very shortly before imposing the ban we expected the normal pattern to continue, which would mean enough fish for eveeryone. We have always taken the view—I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends will agree with me that it is the right one—that the worst decision to take would be to close a fishery in advance of the quota being exhausted, when the fish are still there, in the hope that at some later stage it will be possible to reopen the fishery, when perhaps the fish are not there. That is a position in which fishermen have found themselves caught in the past and I was not prepared to let that happen again. That is why the decision was made at such a late stage. We could not have known beforehand how close to the quota we were runing.

The ban falls unevenly because of the pattern of fishing. The larger boats have profited from the presence of cod up to now because they have been able to take the larger catches. It is only at this stage of the year—this is especially so for those fishing off Worthing and other ports along that stretch of the couth coast—that the smaller boats can participate. This fishing involves few men, few boats and few ports, but each man is dependent commercially upon his catch. I am particularly concerned because they have not had a fair deal up to now. It is not a question of me being able to say, "You have fished well for the rest of the year and, if you have not put aside a certain amount in case things went wrong, you should have." I cannot say that because they have not fished better during the earlier part of the year. Therefore, I take very seriously what was said by my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing and my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester.

To try to meet this concern I could not hold off the closure of the fishery, because that would have broken the rules. It would have invited the Commission to take action, which would have been wrong, and it would have made it extremely difficult for me to stand up in the fisheries Council next Wednesday and continue our policy on conservation, which is so important to the United Kingdom.

We tried to turn to the one country which had not up to then closed its fisheries. The French had, the Belgians had and the Dutch had because they had all run out of quota, much earlier than us. The only country that had not, as my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester said, was the Republic of Ireland. We approached that country to see whether it had any fish that we could swap; whether we could give it some of our fish from another area and, in exchange, it could help us with the cod in the area concerned. It said that it was impossible because it was running very close to quota.

We could not do anything ourselves, because to move cod from one area to another is contrary to the rules. It is not contrary to the rules for some bureaucratic reason, but for a good reason because the quotas are divided specifically on scientific grounds. It is important where one picks the fish. Once one allowed that, some unscrupulous Government might easily move from one to another and juggle the books in such a way that we would find it more and more difficult to see whether they were keeping the rules at all. It is terribly important that this is transparent, that nobody fiddles and that the conservation rules that we need so much are kept. That prohibits us from making the changes mentioned by my hon. Friend and which others have pressed upon me.

Once the fishery was closed I felt it right to go back to the Republic of Ireland and ask, in the light of its latest figures, whether there was any possibility of it accommodating us. I am pleased to say that even as I speak a note has been passed to me saying that the Republic of Ireland has agreed to a quota swap whereby we will have 200 tonnes of cod from the Channel. That will mean, given that some of it will immediately be used up because we have already overfished, that we will be able to reopen the fishery and lift the ban with effect from Tuesday 2 December. That should enable my right hon. and hon. Friend's constituents to continue to fish in that urgent and important period between now and Christmas.

Mr. Nelson

That major announcement will be received with great joy by my Selsey and Emsworth fishermen and by the constituents of my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) and other colleagues along the south coast. I am absolutely delighted. I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the speed and persuasion that he has deployed in wresting this swap for us. It will bring much needed alleviation of a plight that would otherwise have been severe for so many. It is good news indeed.

Mr. Gummer

I thank my hon. Friend. I should like to pay tribute to my officials who have spent a great deal of time on this matter. It involves not only persuasion but finding some other area that can be swapped. We do not wish to see a series of these Adjournment debates in which other people ask where the fish that they once had have gone and why the Irish are taking them and not us. I am sure that my hon. Friend will understand that the chain is more complicated than it appears on the surface.

I should like to refer to a serious factor in the discussion. We have acted throughout with the utmost probity and we have tried to maintain the important responsibilities that arise from being part of the Community's common fisheries policy. That policy works extremely well, and increasingly so, yet this has come to my notice. There was an attempt to make political capital on this matter, which I deeply deplore. This should be said in the Chamber, which at the moment does not contain any representatives of the Social Democratic party or a single representative of the Liberal party. The press was informed by the prospective Liberal candidate for Arundel—I hardly dare to say this, but it is so serious a matter—that he had every sympathy with the fishermen who will defy the ban and risk £50,000 fines, and with fisheries inspectors who may not impose the ban.

Mr. Nelson

Disgraceful.

Mr. Gummer

It is conservation that we are talking about, the saving of fish for future generations, yet someone, for party political advantage—one can hardly say other—has encouraged people to break the laws of conservation and, indeed, has encouraged servants of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to turn a blind eye to the conservation rules. That has been done in a grubby attempt to gain votes.

That is wholly unacceptable, particularly as it is in a document that contains suggestions that the decisions were made arbitrarily. There is nothing arbitrary about them. This matter is about the protection of people's livelihood in future, not just now, next year or the year afterwards. I could have made party political decisions that would have been comfortable for now but that would have been dishonest with regard to the future.

I hope very much that anybody who has received or publicised the document will ask, as I shall ask the official Liberal spokesman on fisheries—who is not present now, but I shall ask him when he returns from his weekend—whether he will dissociate himself publicly front that attempt to undermine conservation rules that are for the benefit of the whole nation, all fishermen and the European Community, an organisation which, in this area at least, has shown itself extremely effective in providing a system that protects the fish not only for people now but for their sons and grandsons.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at eighteen minutes to Three o'clock.