HC Deb 24 April 1987 vol 114 cc962-70

Motion made and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn—[Mr. Peter Lloyd.]

2.32 pm
Mr. James Wallace (Orkney and Shetland)

It will come as no surprise to the Minister that I raise the subject of the licensing arrangements for the north Norway cod fishery to highlight the plight of my constituent, Mr. Russell Smith, who is the skipper of the fishing vessel Vega, which has not been granted a licence for that fishery.

The Minister and his Department have received many representations on this subject from hon. Members, and from the industry, locally and nationally. The reason for the volume of those representations and for my pursuing the matter on an Adjournment debate is that the refusal to grant a licence to the Vega for that fishery has been widely seen as unjust and likely to cause further undue hardship to its skipper and crew. It is often inevitable when licences are to be granted that there will be disappointments, but in this case a combination of circumstances has put Mr. Smith in a highly unusual position. That is why, after meetings and many representations, I want to make one further plea to the Minister to reconsider his decision.

First, I wish to discuss the purchase of the vessel. The Vega was formerly known as the Arctic Reiver, and was purchased from a company based on Humberside on 30 June 1986. An application for all external water licences went to the local fisheries office in Lerwick in May and was passed on to the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries in Scotland through the Edinburgh office on 29 May 1986. I am advised in a letter of 20 May from the agents acting for Mr. Smith that it was said that they had a client who intended to acquire a vessel and that they were inquiring what the position would be about external water licences. I have been advised and informed by the agents acting for Mr. Smith and by Mr. Smith himself that subsequent conversations between the agents and the Department's officials were of a tenor that did not lead them to believe that licences would not be issued. More specifically, it was indicated that the Arctic Reiver would be treated in the same way as its sister vessel, the Arctic Challenger. The Arctic Reiver became the Vega and it has not been treated in the same way as the Arctic Challenger because it does not have a licence whereas its sister ship has.

I know and appreciate that the Minister and his office have never accepted that a guarantee was given. I accept that no letter was written in which there was a cast-iron guarantee. However, in the light of the conversations that took place with officials from the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries, Mr. Smith went ahead and made a substantial capital investment in purchasing the vessel and investing a sizeable sum to fit out the boat, to renew certain equipment and to make it capable of fishing in north Norwegian waters. It is a relevant fact that Mr. Smith, on the strength of the conversations with the Department, went ahead with the investment.

Secondly, I believe that the Vega is unique in being the only vessel of its type which has not been awarded a licence. The allocation was decided in England through the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, and in Scotland licences were granted by the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries to the Aberdeen vessels which fished in north Norwegian waters last year. I am informed that 15 out of 16 comparable stern trawlers have been given licences and that it is only the Vega which has been excluded. The exclusion is extraordinary because of all the vessels concerned it is the one that is geographically most conveniently suited for fishing in Norwegian waters.

The Minister has argued that there were other disappointed applicants, some of whom were perceived by him and his officials to be capable of fishing in the area. Many of the other applicants came from the traditional inshore white fish fleet and there is a question mark, at the very least, over whether they could have fished as far north as the area that is presently under discussion. Many of them were also pelagic vessels, and this year their fishing opportunities have increased elsewhere. It is fair to record also that, according to my information, there would be no objection in Shetland, at any rate to the knowledge of the Scottish Fishermen's Federation, from among the other unsuccessful applicants if the Vega were to be granted a licence.

The claim has been made by Ministry officials that there are four English-based stern trawlers capable of fishing in north Norwegian waters which have not been granted licences. A further vessel, the Margaret Jane, has fished in north Norwegian waters. It did so from 1983 to 1985, but it has been refused a licence for this year.

Following the undertaking of some research, it is my information that of the vessels that have been named as being comparable to the Vega, the Boltby Queen is a vessel that can hold only about 1,000 boxes of fish in a relatively small hold. It is accepted that it is a large stern trawler, but it is submitted that it is not suitable for making lengthy trips to north Norwegian waters because of the limited size of its hold.

I understand that the St. Patrick is being purchased by the Marr group and has now been renamed the Gavina. It has received an external waters licence for fishing off north Norway. The Arcomine is understood to be a 95 ft beam trawler currently based in Brixham. Consequently, the vessel is much more suited to fishing in southern and central North sea waters and would be totally unsuited to fishing the distant waters of north Norway.

The case of the Portelois may be comparable. It is accepted that it could possibly be capable of fishing off north Norway. It has not received a licence. There was a question about whether it was a member of the main English Producer Organisation, which I understand was the organisation through which English licences were allocated. The Margaret Jane, which, it is suggested, fished from 1983 to 1985, no longer has a licence. It is a 65 ft Scarborough-based inshore vessel. There is some doubt about whether a vessel of that capability and size managed to fish in north Norway during the years in question.

Those vessels were alleged not to have received a licence. Of greater importance, is there comparability between the Vega and its sister ship, the Arctic Challenger? As I stated earlier, assurances were certainly given that there would be comparable treatment. That has not happened. The Arctic Challenger has received a licence. It is also fair to point out that, even if the Vega were to be included in a Scottish allocation and given the average allocation which would apply, it would be less than what the Arctic Challenger is receiving as its slice of the much larger English quota.

In many respects, the matter goes back to what have been said to be historical rights. The English quota is considerably larger —about three times larger—than the Scottish quota. That is based on historical preference. In this case, the historical issue is in its proper sense. Over many years, particularly through the 1970s, the fish-producing organisation in Humberside managed an overwhelming part of the north Norwegian cod quota.

It is said that one of the reasons for the Vega not receiving a licence is that it has no record of fishing in north Norway waters. The record of the Aberdeen vessels that have been awarded licences amounts to only one year. Compared with the traditions on Humberside, that can scarcely be said to be historic. The Arctic Challenger, the sister ship, has had a fishing record that is similar to that of the Vega. Prior to this year. it has never fished in north Norway waters. It stayed on Humberside, and the Vega went to Shetland. The Arctic Challenger received a licence, but the Vega did not. Again, it would appear that historic rights have been used in different ways on different occasions.

It is of particular concern that such historical rights might, in a sense, be frozen. I should be grateful if the Minister will state whether, if a vessel has not received a licence this year, the fact that it has not managed to build up any historical rights will he used against it in any future year.

I draw the Minister's attention to the circumstances of an English vessel, the MV Arctic Ranger. I am informed that that vessel is substantially Norwegian owned, but it has a United Kingdom external waters licence. Ironically enough, the licence came from the vessel that my constituent, Mr. Smith, sold before buying the Vega. His personal external water licence was transferred. Whereas the wholly United Kingdom-owned Vega has not been granted a licence for north Norwegian waters, a Norwegian-owned vessel has obtained one. It will he interesting to hear how that anomaly can possibly be justified.

I have referred to circumstances that I believe amount to injustice. It is also important to point out that they will cause hardship, not least to Mr. Smith and his crew. Mr. Smith has supplied the Minister with correspondence containing detailed figures to show how the lack of such a fishing opportunity in north Norway waters will imperil the viability of his boat. His returns from fishing North sea haddock and North sea cod will not only fail to provide a reasonable level of income for his 15-man crew but will not generate sufficient income to meet loan repayments, interest charges, maintenance and every-day overhead costs. The north Norway cod fishery would make all the difference to the viability of the boat.

Even if the Minister felt that in order to be fair to the Aberdeen vessels that have received an allocation that allocation should be no less than last year, the balance left in the Scottish quota would make a significant difference to Mr. Smith's fishing enterprise. Unless prospects improve, Mr. Smith feels that he may well be forced to sell the vessel. Perhaps the Minister could tell us about the prospects for 1988 and what the size of the quota is likely to be for Scottish vessels. Perhaps he can also say how the concept of historic rights will be applied.

It would be useful if the Minister could say something about other possible opportunities, not least for fishing off Spitzbergen, because I understand that the European Commission has now produced draft proposals for an allocation of the United Kingdom quota for the Spitzbergen fishery. The Minister might be able to say how and when he expects that to be allocated. He might also say something about opportunities in the Faroese quota.

I appreciate that in the past the Minister has given this matter considerable and detailed attention. I am grateful to him for meeting me to discuss it. In the light of those discussions he was quite prepared to think again about the matter but I respectfully suggest to him, having thought about it again, that he has come to the wrong conclusion again. Some of the reasons given, not least the comparison with other vessels, show a failure to appreciate the lack of comparability, despite indications to the contrary, about the sister ship the Arctic Challenger. The wrong conclusion was reached.

In correspondence with the Minister, Mr. Smith has gone as far as to point out that his life's work as a fisherman is invested in this boat and to be forced to try to sell it would cut very deep. I hope that in response to the debate the Minister will be able to say something positive, preferably about this year's licensing. Failing that, perhaps he can say something about future licences and alternative prospects for 1987. Even if in the light of the information given today about the other vessels he wishes to reconsider again and not give an immediate response, that would certainly be preferable to an outright refusal. A wholly negative response would be a considerable disappointment to many people.

If the Vega is allowed to fish in the north Norwegian waters, it will land valuable supplies of fish at Shetland and help the community in general through support for the processing industry. It will be a great disappointment to many people and, above all, to the skipper and crew if the Minister gives a negative response because it is their livelihoods that are at stake.

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

The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) has put the case for his constituent, Mr. Smith, very clearly. The matter of the fishing licence for the north Norway fishery is obviously of great concern to him and, as the hon. Gentleman said, he and I have exchanged correspondence on this matter and also met to discuss it.

This debate has a little bit to do with the pressure that the hon. Gentleman has put on, but it also has a little to do with the Orkney and Shetland Movement's prospective candidate in the northern isles. I note with interest that he is to receive the backing of the Scottish National party, conditional on guarantees of his support in pressing the separatist cause. One of the policies of the Orkney and Shetland Movement is local control over fishing. Clearly the SNP must be content to support that happening in the waters around the northern isles. Such local control would mean that fishermen elsewhere in Scotland may be excluded.

I wonder if the Scottish National party in the homeland of Scottish fishing in Banff and Buchan and Moray and East Angus has explained to the fishermen in Arbroath, Peterhead, Fraserburgh and Lossiemouth that they are in bed, so to speak, with a partner who might exclude these fishermen from these important waters. I wager that the SNP has not explained that, but I am sure that my hon. Friends will ensure that their fishing constituents are aware of the likely impact on their fishing opportunities of this odd alliance between the SNP and the Orkney and Shetland Movement.

May I give a little of the background to the question of north Norwegian waters and the reasons for the current management and licensing measures in force in that area. The House knows that the European Community has fishing agreements with a number of third countries, which essentially provide for the exchange of fishing opportunities in each other's zones. Of all the fisheries agreements, the one negotiated annually with Norway is the most important from our point of view. This is because many of the important stocks of the North sea are managed jointly, and the two parties therefore agree on the annual total allowable catch for these stocks and the proportion of each stock which is due to each party.

Since the needs of the fishing fleets of the Community and Norway are different, a series of transfers between the two parties are then agreed. These exchanges cover both joint stocks and those which are managed exclusively by one party. The agreement also provides for access by each party's fishing vessels to the waters of the other party. Norway's interest lies mainly in the pelagic and industrial species in the North sea and off the west coast of Scotland, while the Community seeks additional white fish opportunities in the Norwegian sector of the North sea and in northern Norwegian waters. It is these latter opportunities which have been of particular interest to the owners of the Vega.

For some years before 1986, fishing in the north Norwegian grounds was undertaken exclusively by English-based vessels, under management arrangements made by the Humberside-based Fish Producers Organisation. When, last year, the five Aberdeen stern trawlers sought access to these waters, officials of the Fisheries Departments reached what I believe was a very fair agreement on the allocation of the United Kingdom's cod quota between the Scottish and English vessels. In effect, the FPO vessels were allowed a 75 per cent. share of the cod quota, while the remaining 25 per cent. share was allocated to the Aberdeen vessels. The actual figures were 5,520 metric tonnes and 1,840 tonnes respectively. I should perhaps explain that, although there are other stocks available to the United Kingdom in these northern Norwegian waters, these species are taken primarily as by-catches in the cod fishery. It is the cod stock which makes the long haul to these grounds viable for individual vessels.

The interest shown by the Aberdeen vessels was unexpected and, bearing in mind the fact that the Humberside FPO had a fisheries management plan geared to ensure that their vessels fully utilised the United Kingdom's north Norway cod quota in 1986, some form of management and licensing control was clearly necessary. Fishing in the area was taking place, however, before final agreement on the division of the cod quota was reached and, in the event, the Aberdeen vessels had almost taken the entire 25 per cent. Scottish share when the allocations were announced. There was no opportunity, therefore, to accommodate additional requests for licenses for the north Norway fishery which were received during 1986.

The agreement reached by my officials and those from the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food was considered to be an ad hoc one. As is often the case with the fishing industry an individual fish stock can move rapidly from a position where our quotas are under-utilised to one where the quotas may be fully taken during the year. This reflects the entrepreneurial spirit of the fishing industry. In any event, the officials of both Departments made it clear to relevant industry organisations that the licensing arrangements for all the distant water fisheries would be reviewed for 1987.

An important factor in these considerations was, of course, the actual level of opportunities available to the United Kingdom fleet for 1987. In the case of the north Norwegian fishery, the principal point of interest was an increase in the cod quota from 7,360 to 9,370 tonnes. What was never in dispute was the need for continued licensing and management controls. The improvement in catch rates in the north Norway fishery in 1986; the regrettable decline in catching opportunities in 1987 for some of the main North sea white fish stocks, particularly cod and haddock; and the need to allocate fishing opportunities so that the fishery was economically viable for the participating vessels—all militated against a free-for-all fishery.

The fear that increased effort in the north Norwegian cod fishery would lead to the United Kingdom quota being taken early in the year meant that agreement on a distribution of the quota and on the appropriate management arrangements was essential; and this agreement has clearly stimulated a major debate about the respective merits of the various claims for renewed access or new access to the fishery. There can be no doubt that the north Norway fishery has in recent years been fished almost exclusively by English-based vessels. Conversely, it is also a fact that until last year the quotas available to United Kingdom vessels in north Norway waters had been under-utilised and the Aberdeen-based vessels had every right to look to these waters for additional catching opportunities, as they did last year. In all the circumstances, it was finally agreed that the United Kingdom cod quota for 1987 should be split on the basis of 7,270 tonnes for FPO vessels and 2,100 tonnes for Scottish-based vessels. Again, I believe that this was a fair and equitable split of the cod quota.

That brings me to the management and licensing arrangements in force for this year in Scotland. As hon. Members will have noted from the figures I have given, the Scottish share of the cod quota was increased from 1,840 tonnes to 2,100 tonnes. When I came to consider the most appropriate way to manage the Scottish allocation, there were pertinent factors to take into account. They included the fact that the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries in Scotland had received at tha time more than 30 applications from vessel owners interested in fishing in north Norway; the share of the cod quota available to Scottish vessels; and, not least, the fact that the Aberdeen-based vessels had taken the initiative in seeking authority to fish in north Norway last year and had invested in appropriate fishing gear to enable them to do so. In all the circumstances, I concluded that there was insufficient scope to increase the number of vessels participating in the fishery.

Responsibility for the management measure relevant to the English industry rests with my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. I understand, however, that he has deemed it appropriate to continue with the arrangements which have been in force for the past few years—the delegation of management of the English quota to the Fish Producers Organisation.

Much of the argument which is based on the fact the Vega came from England—if if she had stayed there, as her sister ship did, she might have got part of the English quota—is irrelevant. The way in which we operate the system is to divide the total United Kingdom quota into an English quota and a Scottish quota. My right hon. Friend the Minister of State deals with his quota in his way and I deal with mine in my way. We have a well-tried system to look after our fisheries. He looks after his and I look after mine, which is sensible.

Everyone will understand that my right hon. Friend wishes to increase the opportunities for Humberside, which is why the Fish Producers Organisation was given the quota. He is not alone in that. I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to a speech made on Humberside by the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan), which is reported in Fishing News on 27 March. He said: Nowhere is the need for stability more keenly needed than here in Humberside. The catching sector has taken cruel punishment for international changes that were beyond its control.'' He said that the Humber was the right place to exploit recovering North sea stock.

The hon. Gentleman suggests that we should not split the stocks between Scotland and England, giving roughly three quarters to Humberside boats and roughly one quarter to Scottish boats, based on the historic interests of our fishermen. Some may say that all the fisheries should come under the control of one United Kingdom Department and that there should be no sharing out, first between Scotland and England and then among the individual fisheries in those countries. I do not know how many friends such a proposal would attract in the Scottish fishing industry, but the alliance is proposing exactly that, if it ever establishes a Scottish Assembly.

The Second report of the SDP-Liberal alliance joint commission on constitutional reform says that the post of Secretary of State for Scotland will disappear, since all of the functions of Government which can be sensibly administered separately for Scotland will come under the responsibility of the Scottish Parliament. It says that the increasing impact of European Community rules will militate against fragmenting consideration of industrial and economic problems, and continues: This applies with even greater force to agriculture and fisheries and it rules out the complete devolution of these functions to a Scottish Parliament.'' The office of Secretary of State would, of course, be abolished and I should not have the privilege of addressing you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My Department would disappear and be taken into an enlarged MAFF. I do not know whether the Scottish agriculture and fishery industries have had that explained to them. I suspect that they have not. Indeed, I saw a recent publication from the alliance telling Scottish farmers that Scottish agriculture would be dealt with in Edinburgh. Clearly, the candidate in question was ignorant of the alliance parties' report.

Mr. Wallace

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. MacKay

I have only two minutes left and I have a number of points to deal with, but I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Wallace

It would have been better if the Minister had come to those points earlier, rather than trying to make political capital. The document said that these matters would not be "completely devolved". That leaves considerable room for the devolution of agriculture and fisheries matters, and, in the case of fisheries, for regional management.

Mr. MacKay

We know now: the alliance parties change things as they go along, as my right hon. Friend the Minister of State said last night in the agriculture debate.

I did not have enough fish in hand to divide them six ways instead of five. If I had divided them six ways by including the Vega and therefore excluded all other applicants, the fish received by the Aberdeen vessels would have been less than would have been received last year, and that would have been unfair.

The Council of Fisheries Ministers has agreed on a Community quota for the Svalbard cod stock and Ministers are now considering how to divide that up. I reaffirm the decision that I gave the hon. Gentleman when we met — that there are not sufficient and compelling reasons to alter the management and licensing arrangements for this year's north Norway fishery, but the Vega will be taken into account when next year's arrangements for fishing in northern Norway are considered. What happens this year will not be set in concrete. We shall consider next year's arrangements and the Vega at the appropriate time.

On a slightly better note, a recent article in the Shetland Times states that the MV Vega has earned £760,000 in the seven months following its first landings at the end of July last year. Another edition of the Shetland Times—I am a devoted reader, as will have become clear to the hon. Gentleman — carried another article on 17 April reporting that Mr. Smith recently broke the Shetland record for a single landing of monkfish, which grossed £24,140. His total catch from the same trip was valued at £41,780. Mr. Smith's skill as a fisherman is clearly shown by those figures and I hope that the assurances that I have given that he will be considered when we consider the allocation of next year's fishing will come as an encouragement to him.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at two minutes past Three o'clock.