Sea Fisheries

HC Deb 26 October 1987 vol 121 cc121-41 10.24 pm

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

I beg to move, That the Fishing Vessels (Acquisition and Improvement) (Grants) Scheme 1987 (S.I., 1987, No. 1135) dated 1 July 1987, a copy of which was laid before this House on 3 July, be approved. Perhaps it would be for the convenience of the House if the following motions were considered at the same time: That the Fishing Vessels (Financial Assistance) Scheme 1987 (S.I., 1987, No. 1136) dated 1 July 1987, a copy of which was laid before this House on 3 July, be approved. That the Fish Farming (Financial Assistance) Scheme 1987 (S.I., 1987, No. 1134) dated 1 July 1987, a copy of which was laid before this House on 3 July, be approved.

Mr. Speaker

Is it the wish of the House that the three statutory instruments be taken together?

Hon. Members

Yes.

Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover)

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker—a genuine point of order.

Mr. Speaker

Order. I cannot deal with matters over which I have absolutely no responsibility. I cannot get the Chancellor to come here this evening. The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) is now merely taking time out of the debate in which many hon. Members who have fishing interests wish to take part.

Mr. Neil Kinnock (Islwyn)

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. We once again arrive at a situation in which the Chair is placed in an extremely invidious position by, sometimes, the action, or, more frequently, the inaction or cowardice of the Government.

For some days past, as you well know, Mr. Speaker, various efforts have been made by the Opposition to ensure that the Government, in the person of the Chancellor, come before the elected House of Commons to make a statement to the nation on the Government's position with regard to the implications for the real economy of the collapse of the stock exchange. True to form, the Chancellor has evaded all responsibilities. If we arrive at a position on a Monday night in which you are continually bombarded by points of order from both sides of the House—Hansard will show that earlier today and this evening contributions were made from both sides of the House—it is directly a consequence of the failure of the Government in a democracy to make themselves at least answerable, if not properly accountable, to the House of Commons.

The force of what has been said today from both sides of the House means that in the course of tomorrow the Chancellor of the Exchequer has the responsibility of coming before the House to explain the Government's view on two issues. The first concerns the response in terms of interest rates and other matters over which the Government have influence and responsibility. In such matters the Government should at least account for themselves to the House. Secondly, the Govenment should explain their view on the flotation of BP shares and the privatisation issue. This is of interest not only to would-be purchasers of those shares but to the economy in general, the whole future of investment, and to the structure and possibility of our success.

In these matters it is essential—not only in respect of your position, Mr. Speaker, as the neutral observer and keeper of order, but for the whole country — for the Government to be responsive, if not responsible.

Mr. Speaker

Order. The right hon. Gentleman has made his point and I am certain that it will have been noted by the Leader of the House who is on the Front Bench. I call Mr. Gummer.

Mr. John Maxton (Glasgow, Cathcart)

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker

Order. I cannot take any more points of order on this topic.

Mr. Maxton

On another point of order, Mr. Speaker. During previous points of order I understand that you asked whether it would he for the convenience of the House to take the three fisheries instruments together in one debate lasting one and a half hours. I had great difficulty in hearing your remarks. The House did not have an opportunity to decide, so I think that it should be given another opportunity to say whether it wishes to do that.

If the normal conventions concerning statements are not to be obeyed, why should we agree to the convention of taking three statutory instruments together?

Mr. Speaker

I understood that it was for the convenience of the House to take the three instruments together. I put the Question and received consent. I again call Mr. Gummer.

Mr. Gummer

The three measures are necessary to bring Community regulations into effect in the United Kingdom and to enable us to benefit from Community funding. It is therefore sensible for the House to take the three together.

In terms of expenditure, the fishing vessels grants scheme is the most important. The scheme will enable the Fisheries Ministers to grant-aid the construction and modernisation of fishing vessels with the objective of bringing our fishing fleet up to date. Our stocks are limited and we cannot always fish to capacity. For that reason we have to be careful that modernisation of the fleet does not significantly increase fishing capacity.

The new scheme involves a higher rate of grant than its predecessor for vessels less than 33 m in length. The grant will be 30 per cent., the maximum allowed by the scheme, rather than the 25 per cent. in the earlier scheme. The United Kingdom pressed strongly for this higher rate at the Fisheries Council meeting last December to compensate for the reduction from 25 per cent. to 20 per cent. in the available grant from Community funds.

I am glad to say that we won that fight and it is a great help to the English, Scottish and Welsh fleets. I am happy to say that we were also successful in maintaining at 50 per cent. the overall maximum grant in most areas.

The scheme also provides that financial assistance should be given only to vessels which are constructed or modernised in member states. I am sure that the provision will be welcomed by our boat builders, who face stiff opposition from subsidised yards in non-EC countries.

It would be possible to go through the detailed provisions and answer in advance the questions that hon. Members will no doubt wish to ask, but it may be for the convenience of the House if I restrain myself and answer at the end, with the House's permission, the matters raised in the debate.

I should, however, illustrate the scale of financial aid that has been available over the three years from 1984 to 1986. United Kingdom fishermen benefited from about £23.5 million in grants and almost £11.5 million in loans, plus £22.5 million of Community funding. The new scheme will allow the process to continue and will allow fishermen to plan ahead with confidence.

The objective of the second instrument is to encourage vessel owners to investigate new fishing opportunities. I am anxious that our industry should be given every encouragement to explore the potential of new fishing grounds, especially in the south Atlantic. I am, therefore, pleased to be able to report that several companies have either applied for assistance or have indicated their intention to do so. The grants are restricted to vessels of 18 m and over. The Community will pay 20 per cent. of the approved cost of exploratory voyages and we shall contribute 10 per cent.

The Council regulations also provide member states with the option of continuing to pay grants for the decommissioning or laying-up of fishing vessels, but we shall not be carrying on with those measures in the UK.

The final instrument provides fish farmers in Great Britain with a national grant rate of up to 10 per cent. to enable them to qualify for Community aid under Council regulation 4028/86.

Mr. George Foulkes (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley)

Is the Minister aware that grants are available under the FEOGA scheme for fish farms in the west of Scotland and that Kyle and Carrick, Cunninghame and other coastal areas can get 40 per cent. grants—which is a helpful level—but Cumnock and Doon Valley can get grants of only 25 per cent., even though that is an area of high unemployment?

Will the Minister review the level of FEOGA grants—

Mr. Austin Mitchell (Great Grimsby)

My hon. Friend is being optimistic.

Mr. Foulkes

My hon. Friend may wonder how fish farming can be carried out in Cumnock and Doon Valley, which is landlocked. I assure him and the Minister, who, I suspect, has fished a loch or two in his time, that it is possible, and a major scheme in my constituency could go ahead if the higher rate of grant were available. Will the Minister give me an undertaking — I have known the right hon. Gentleman for many years and would accept his personal undertaking — that he will examine whether grant levels could be reviewed in the light of the anomaly that has arisen? A landlocked council has been able to carry out such activities; that may not have been envisaged when the scheme was introduced.

Mr. Gummer

I should like to have known the hon. Gentleman long enough for him not to make the mistake of suggesting that I have cast a fly in any loch anywhere. I have no intention of giving the undertaking for which he asked, because the Community suggested that certain areas needed particular help. I understood that the Opposition were keen on such policies. Therefore, efforts have been made to give that extra help to certain parts of Scotland and not to other parts. My experience of extra help is that those who do not get it are all too ready to complain that it is not spread to them.

There is no doubt in my holding out any hope to the hon. Gentleman that we could change the areas that are covered. They have been agreed and it would be difficult to reopen the consideration. A great deal of negotiating was done to ensure that part of Scotland was helped, and I am sure that he would want at least some of Scotland to get extra help. I cannot suggest that we should be likely to bring in the whole of Scotland or even that part with which the hon. Gentleman has such close affinity.

Mr. Foulkes

Is the Minister aware — and, if not, will he consult his hon. Friend the Minister of State, the hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale (Mr. Lang), who will confirm it — that the Cumnock and Sanquhar travel-to-work area has the highest unemployment in the country? It is in that area that the project is envisaged. The reason that Cumnock and Sanquhar was not included was a genuine oversight — a misunderstanding — and I do not blame the Minister. I merely ask him, in his present benevolent mood, to agree to re-examine the matter.

The Minister and I both understand the intricacies and difficulties of the European community, and we know that it is very difficult to reopen such issues. But the Minister must realise that if issues are important enough, we expect Ministers to take them up within the Community. All I ask tonight is that the Minister does not dismiss the matter out of hand at 10.34 pm, but agrees to take it away, have a look at it and let me know whether it is possible to review the position.

Mr. Gummer

I am anxious not to mislead either the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) or his constituents. I therefore do not wish to give any undertaking this evening that might lead the hon. Gentleman's constituents to believe that there was any realistic possibility of the lines being redrawn.

It would also be churlish of me not to say to the hon. Gentleman that, as he has raised the matter, I shall examine it, as he would expect me to. However, I hope that he will not place too much upon that promise. The results of our negotiations were not results of decisions idly reached. They were hard-fought and long-run, and, although I should be happy to be found wrong, I doubt that it would be possible to redraw those lines.

Several Hon. Members

rose—

Mr. Gummer

I am happy to give way, but may I make one short comment first?

One of the purposes of debating instruments such as these is, ideally, for the Minister to make a short speech at the beginning, allow hon. Members to put their points, and then — with the House's permission — answer those points later, rather than a series of interruptions taking place. I realise that such instruments give rise to a good many individual, local problems, rather than more widespread issues.

Mr. Alec Salmond (Banff and Buchan)

I recall that, in 1976, European Commission policy identified the whole of Scotland as a sensitive area, particularly dependent on the fishing industry. It actually identified north Britain, but I think that that meant Scotland. The Minister's negotiations in Europe seen to have taken us from the whole of Scotland being identified as a sensitive area to just some of Scotland being so identified.

Mr. Gummer

I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman has followed the negotiations with the care with which he suggests that he did. If he had done so, he would realise that no part of England, Wales or Scotland was included in the original proposals. It was only through a strenuous fight on behalf of Scotland by the then Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, our hon. Friends in Scotland and myself that we achieved our end. Far from being a diminution, it represents a considerable increase in the area covered.

In those discussions I was bound to say to many of my colleagues that, when we had won what we sought, we would end up with those who were not included feeling that they had been left out. Not only fishermen in other parts of Scotland, but many English fishermen, some of them from areas of higher unemployment than the parts to which we refer, feel that they, too, are disadvantaged.

There is a problem whenever special help is to be given to special areas. I am perfectly prepared to support the giving of such help, but I warn the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) to tread carefully. Many parts of the United Kingdom could put up very good cases, and some of them are not in the middle of a land mass.

Mr. James Wallace (Orkney and Shetland)

This matter is capable of solution. I fail to understand how grants for seagoing vessels could possibly he made available to anyone who lives in a landlocked area.

Mr. Foulkes

Perhaps the Minister will confirm that differential rates of grant apply to sea-going vessels but that that part which relates to fish farming sets a maximum of 10 per cent., with no differential area being designated anywhere in the United Kingdom.

Mr. Gummer

Sometimes it is better to allow hon. Members to dig the hole that they have set out to dig rather than to underline their digging of it.

The hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) suggested that his landlocked constituency should be considered, even though it is not one of the great sea fishing centres of our nation. The hon. Gentleman has admitted that part of his constituency does not lie on the coast, and it can hardly be said to qualify for fishing vessel grants. I restrained myself from making that point, in case there are representatives of the hon. Gentleman's local newspaper in the Press Gallery. I have decided to think about it, but I doubt whether that will lead me to do something about the landlocked part of the hon. Gentleman's constituency.

These measures have specific effects in particular parts of the country, those that lie on the coast. During the debates hon. Members will naturally wish to raise particular points and I shall be very happy to answer them.

This package of three schemes will enable our sea fish and fish farming industries to continue the important process of modernisation and development. They are mainly concerned with traditional fishing, but for the first time there is an extension into the fish farming area called, in European Community lingo, aquaculture. We ought to be pleased about that, because an increasing part of the market for fish is now provided by fish farmers, and the United Kingdom has increasing expertise in that area.

It is important that the United Kingdom should benefit from the significant levels of financial aid that are available from Community funds. Agreement to these measures will enable us to do so. The schemes form an important part of our fisheries policy, and I commend them to the House for approval.

10.43 pm

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

These orders deal with financial support for the fishing industry in Great Britain. That was the subject of Sir Gordon Downey's recent report, to which I shall refer in a few minutes.

I welcome this opportunity to debate and comment on the proposals. Although we welcome the orders, we do not do so unreservedly, and I shall outline some of my reservations, criticisms and disappointments in what I promise will be a brief speech. As always, I shall try to be an honestly awkward critic.

All right hon. and hon. Members want to protect and promote the interests of this indigenous industry. The same is true of the increasingly important fish farming industry, and the Minister was right to emphasise the importance of the third order that relates to fish farming. The statutory instrument that deals with financial assistance for exploratory voyages and joint ventures is the least vital of the three, although, in its modest way, it may have some significance for the owners of larger vessels. How many vessel owners have sought such assistance in the recent past? I look forward to some enlightenment from the Minister on that point.

This is a useful if modest measure. It may encourage owners of larger vessels to undertake voyages to catch species of fish that are as yet not commercially viable. As a measure it may be more widely used by owners in other EEC fishing nations in the Mediterranean basin and off the west coast of Africa.

The statutory instrument that is of major importance to our fishermen is the one that deals with grants for the modernisation and renewal of vessels. This is a particularly important instrument for fishermen who own and crew ageing vessels, or who own boats that urgently require modernisation. It is right and proper that priority should be given to the replacement or modernisation of such vessels. Typically, a new vessel is far more productive than one of similar overall length that was built 20 or 30 years ago. Recently, in Stornoway, which is in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald), who I am sure will try to catch your eye tonight, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I spoke to the skipper of a small fishing boat that was built for his father in 1947. I have no doubt that that skipper would be delighted to replace his elderly vessel with a new one if he could afford it, but we must remember that new vessels are astoundingly expensive.

I welcome statutory instrument No. 1135, but I urge the Government to reduce the time that a fisherman applicant must endure before he receives approval to go ahead with his order. That is important for the fisherman and for the small shipyards that build these vessels.

It is argued that these measures assist with the reconciliation between fishing capacity and fishing opportunities. Having said that — we are dealing with financial support for the industry — I must point out that I am deeply disappointed with the Government's decision to discontinue the decommissioning scheme. Some 225 vessels were decommissioned over a period of three years at a net cost to the United Kingdom of just over £15 million. In his report, "Financial Support for the Fishing Industry in Great Britain", which was published in July, Sir Gordon Downey said: Over half of the expenditure was incurred on 15 large freezer trawlers. Two of these trawlers were brought back into the industry temporarily for the minimum period to qualify for decommissioning grants averaging over £½ million. Ten of the boats were subsequently sold for sums ranging up to £900,000. None was scrapped. On 30 April 1987, after the NAO had completed their investigations, the Minister of State for Fisheries announced in a Parliamentary written reply that"— he— would not continue with the scheme for decommissioning.". That is a matter for major regret. An abuse of the decommissioning scheme occurred when those trawler owners received that amount of money, but that legal abuse should not have led to its abrogation.

We must maintain a modest decommissioning scheme that cannot be abused by the larger trawler companies. There is no other sensible way to restructure — in plain English, to reduce—the size of the fleet. A restructuring of the fleet cannot be achieved by our licensing scheme because those licences are gaining in financial value month by month. I believe that the Government must think again about their decision to decommission the decommissioning scheme.

Incidentally, why were trawler company fishermen never given a decommissioning grant? The nation has paid for the decommissioning of large trawlers but not their crews. Skippers, mates, deckhands, engineers, cooks et al were simply slotted into the dole queues with precious little, if any, redundancy pay. For 19 years my brother Leslie worked as a deckhand and, latterly, as a mate and skipper for one of those firms and, when it decided he was surplus to requirements, it gave him the princely sum of £551.

Mr. Austin Mitchell

He was lucky. Most people got nothing.

Dr. Godman

As my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) said, he was luckier than some but he certainly was not lucky to work for 19 years in what must be the most dangerous industrial occupation in the United Kingdom and receive that sort of squalid sum when his services were dispensed with. The trawler companies were given financial assistance by the state to build and decommission their vessels. Their employees got next to nothing or nothing for their years of hard work and loyalty.

I shall refer to fish farming and statutory instrument No. 1134. Naturally, I am delighted that the state gives assistance to that growing industry. There are exciting developments taking place throughout the whole of the United Kingdom's fish farming industry. In Scotland fish farming is one of the fastest growing industries. In that context, Scotland ought one day to overtake Norway as the principal fish farming industrial nation in the north Atlantic. I was in Norway recently visiting fish farms and, although it has a good lead over us, I believe that we have one supreme marketing advantage: Scottish salmon. Recent estimates by the Scottish Development Agency and others suggest that farmed salmon production could treble over the next few years. At this moment the industry in Scotland employs over 1,000 people in full-time and part-time work in what are remote communities. It is essential that the development of the industry is carefully controlled. Greater scope must be given for local involvement and the statutory instrument must pave the way for that. Other industries such as tourism and fishing must not be harmed by an expansion of marine fish farming. Fishermen, for their part, have no desire to impede the development of fish farming, but it must be sensibly controlled. A sympathetic account has to be taken of fishing activities be they static or mobile.

I know that lighting and marking regulations are spelled out when the Crown Estate Commissioners issue leases for fish farms, and I know that that advice is buttressed by advice obtained from the Department of Transport and the lighthouse boards. Nevertheless, we need to demand that the monitoring of lights and marker buoys be rigorous and efficient. I should like to ask the Minister, for answer if not this evening, certainly in the near future, which state agency is responsible for that inspection work and whether it has the resources to perform the work effectively? Have maps been produced recently by the Ministry of Agriculture, fisheries and Food and the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland which denote carefully the marine fish farms?

I have to express a word of criticism regarding those somewhat shadowy figures, the eight or nine Crown Estate Commissioners. They have astoundingly wide powers over fish farming. They alone control access to much of the foreshore and to all of the seabed out to territorial limits. For example, fish farmers who wish to anchor sea cages off the shore must obtain permission from the commissioners. There is widespread concern, especially in the Highlands and Islands of Scotland, over the commissioners' apparent reluctance sensibly and realistically to consult local authorities and communities on the development of land and seabed under Crown Estate ownership. The present system is not good enough for these powerful men, the commissoners, are too shadowy. I do not believe that they are best equipped to act as planning authorities or arbitrators when there are problems and conflicts over coastal amenities or the maritime environment. Perhaps the time is drawing near when we seek the amendment of the Crown Estate Act 1961.

These statutory instruments must be examined in respect of their expected and unexpected consequences, and that is the argument that I have advanced. I welcome the instruments, but I have serious reservations.

10.55 pm

Mr. Kenneth Warren (Hastings and Rye)

It is with sadness that I report that this day we have had to bury in my constituency a "boy ashore". I refer to Mr. James Read, a fisherman who was killed in the hurricane last week. I am sure that the House will join me in sending to his faily its condolences at this difficult time. A man ashore died and the entire fleet had to remain ashore while a force 12-plus gale was blowing. I am sure that all East Sussex Members recognised the circumstances when they heard that the Newhaven lifeboat had set sail to rescue the crew of a French trawler during the gale.

I hope that the House will approve the two fishing vessels schemes. The European Community conservation regime has helped fishermen all along the south coast and brought more men into the fishing fleet. We have a growing and prosperous fleet and we have a good and sound programme of conservation. Young men are coming forward and they are welcome in an increasingly prosperous industry.

I am glad that my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food referred to the Falklands, but sad that it has taken so long to get to grips with this great opportunity. It is regrettable that the Foreign Office took so long to understand that which was available to us not so far away from the Falkland doorstep.

The measures before us require an investment of more than £32,000, but who will make the accompanying judgments, and what will be the effect of the other conditions that are involved? I should like to know more about the time that will be taken to agree that grants should be available.

It continues to be thought that those in Scotland and Northern Ireland are at a greater disadvantage than others elsewhere in the United Kingdom. Those in Scotland and Northern Ireland will receive grants of 40 per cent., while those elsewhere will receive grants of 25 per cent. We in the south-east have pockets of high unemployment, such as that in Hastings and Rye, of 12 to 14 per cent. Why should we be considered to be less disadvantaged than others elsewhere in the United Kingdom? There is stupidity in the continuing desire to perpetuate an assistance policy that bears no relation to the reality of unemployment and employment opportunities in various areas.

I am pleased that grants are available. I declare an interest, in that I have a boat, which I hope will not need rebuilding for some time. Mr. Phillip in Rye will be delighted to hear his name mentioned in the House, but he is the last person serving the Hastings and Rye area who can build the ships that we need to go to sea. Such people must not be disadvantaged simply because of where they live and a decision made far off in Brussels.

The available science and technology to establish where fish are is not up to scratch and would not be accepted elsewhere. There is no sensible sample and analysis system to determine what is going on. Dover sole and plaice come from Hastings and Rye, not Dover, and it is desperately disappointing that the Government have allowed shingle dredging off the south coast where we believe plaice and sole spawn. We do not have the analysis necessary to establish whether they spawn there, and it is silly to make rapid judgments without the necessary scientific data, but we must judge whether it is better to have the shingle or the fish.

The Government's fishery advisers maintain that it is no easy matter to determine the problems, but I should like to know what the Government are prepared to do to preserve an industry which is now so vigorous.

11.1 pm

Mr. James Wallace (Orkney and Shetland)

We, too, pay tribute to the constituent of the hon. Member for Hastings and Rye (Mr. Warren) who died in the gales and extend our sympathy to his family. It is ironic that an onshore fisherman was killed, as those of us who represent fishing constituencies know about the hazards that those who go to sea face regularly.

The schemes under debate have been given a general, although tempered, welcome. The Government are no longer to continue with the decommissioning grants, some 225 of which were awarded. I wonder whether that is fewer than was expected. When restrictive licensing of pressure stocks was introduced, many people who sought a licence bought old vessels of low catching capacity for the equivalent of the decommissioning grant and used the licence on a much more modern vessel of much greater catching capacity. Interaction between decommissioning grant and the restrictive system of licensing may well have served to increase the fleet's catching capacity. Did the Government expect greater take-up of the grant? Perhaps the Minister can explain the decision to discontinue it.

As to the rate of grant, it is undoubted that, where some areas are to be preferred to others, grievances will be expressed in areas which do not qualify for higher grant. I am exceedingly grateful that my constituency is designated as part of the west of Scotland for this purpose. We shall go along with that if it means that we shall obtain an additional rate of grant.

The fact that the whole of the east coast of Britain has been excluded should not blind us to the fact that the prosperity and health of the fishing industry differs in various parts of the east coast. Undoubtedly, there has been improvement, and the Minister said at Question Time last week that he had been to Peterhead, so he will know that the industry there has, in recent months, been relatively prosperous. The same could not be said of a place such as Amble, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith). Obviously, there are pockets where an additional rate of grant would have been most welcome. We hope that the provision is not set in stone for all time, and that, if possible, other means of assistance to these hard pressed areas might be forthcoming.

Mr. Matthew Taylor (Truro)

Does my hon. Friend agree that a further problem of the grant system at present is that it has prevented the smallest yards — those that can only assemble one boat at a time—from laying up a second boat after one is finished before a new order comes in if they are to get a grant for it. That has meant that, on more than one occasion, when they have not had replacement orders to take on after their current work, they have been forced to lay off their work force and lose their skilled people.

I can think of an example in Mevagissey in which the boatbuilder, despite having a high reputation. has a gap in his order hook and may well therefore lose the skilled men who allow him to continue the business.

Mr. Wallace

I sympathise with my hon. Friend's point. These grant condtions are often complex and the rules are strictly enforced. I am sure that my hon. Friend's point will not be lost on the Minister.

A further point about the differentiation of grants is that there is a lower rate of grant for larger vessels in sensitive areas than elsewhere. We are, of course, receiving a larger rate of grant from the European Community. However, it has been said that, whereas the grant that comes from our own Sea Fish Industry Authority tends to be paid promptly, the grant from the European Community is often long delayed. Thus, some of the advantage of a higher rate of grant is diminished by the fact that interest payments must be paid over a longer period of time. I would appreciate it if the Minister would take that into account and see whether the process could be speeded up.

Mr. Gummer

I hope that the hon. Gentleman agrees that it was sensible, in so far as we could, to help the smaller boats especially, because they were the ones directly affected by the economic circumstances of the areas concerned. There is a real problem for large boats that come from areas that may be disadvantaged themselves, but the boat may be a profitable one competing with areas that are equally disadvantaged. So we felt that we should help the smaller boats as far as we could — boats from smaller communities in which the economic reasons for this differentiation were obvious. I hope that the hon. Gentleman agrees that that was the right balance to strike. It was a difficult decision to make, but it seemed important for an area such as the hon. Gentleman's own.

Mr. Wallace

I was certainly not trying to dispute that point. I accept that there was a difficult judgment to make and a balance to strike. The fact that there has not been a great outcry from the industry suggests that the balance cannot be far from right — although it has not satisfied everyone. With regard to delayed payments, and the interest payments that accrue, the advantage of the higher rate of European grant is not as great as would appear to judge from the cold figures. Whilst we have these higher rates of grant, we shall increasingly find, now and in the coming months, a level of frustration among applicants, as the number of applications will clearly outstrip the amount of money that is available for new boat construction. When the new measures were first announced, the spokesman for the Ministry said that he did not anticipate any shortage of cash; however, as the House will remember, the Prime Minister replied to a question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie) as follows: there is an unprecedented demand for grants, and we have had to have a system of priorities."—[Official Report, 22 October 1987; Vol. 120, c. 920.] I now turn to the priorities that have been put in place. I doubt whether anyone would object to the fact that, in cases where someone's boat has been wrecked or lost, that should be the top priority. Priority has also been given to boats over the age of 15 years, especially when there has been a withdrawal from the fleet. The third priority relates to skippers under the age of 40 who have been putting up a substantial and specified part of the capital for the new boat.

For many younger skippers and partnerships an increasing number of financial re-arrangements have been made so that the skipper has the required percentage. From talking to officials in the Sea Fish Industry Authority I understand that this priority is coming under scrutiny. It would be regrettable if this disappeared without any provision being made to encourage and facilitate younger men who along with their partners want to buy their own vessel. It would be regrettable if a financial barrier were placed in the way of younger men who want to come into fishing, and I should be grateful to the Minister if he could tell us whether this priority will stay in place. If it has to go or be revised, perhaps he can tell us if there will be some means of encouraging younger men who want to skipper their own vessels.

It is fair to say that the system used for the payment of grants and the grant level are not necessarily the best means of trying to restructure the fleet. A vessel over the age of 15 years that has been withdrawn will undoubtedly be replaced by a vessel of a much greater catching capacity. It is clear that the licensing system should take account of the need to keep the size of the fleet under control. It would be a matter for regret if the effective catching capacity were to be controlled by a limit on the amount of cash made available.

Perhaps the Minister will tell us how much will be made available next year. It is £7.5 million this year. If he could tell us that that amount will be increased next year, it might give some ray of hope to those who are waiting. The grants for new build should help to modernise the fleet and should help new young people coming into the industry.

I shall now speak about fish farming. The measure before us is welcome. As the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) said, this industry has taken off in a big way in Scotland and has more potential to fulfil, particularly as we look to other possible species in farming, such as halibut and turbot. The importance of marketing will also increase and we need to make sure that our fish farmers will not be undercut by the dumping in our market of farmed products from countries such as Norway.

I endorse what the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow said about the Crown Estate Commissioners. Over many centuries the Highlands and Islands of Scotland suffered from the problem of absentee landlords. The feeling there is that we have the latest instalment in that long-running saga. There is a feeling in many areas of insensitivity and lack of consultation with local authorities. In my constituency there is considerable antagonism about the level of rents. It is felt that the lower rental rates which were in force for some to time to take account of the fact that the industry was developing have not been extended to parts of Scotland, such as the Western Isles and my constituency, where the development of the industry is still much more recent than in other parts of Scotland.

Above all, the rents must take account of the fact that in the remoter island areas the transport costs, not only for exporting the finished products but for bringing in the necessary materials and foodstuffs, place an exceptional additional burden on those engaged in fish farming. The Crown Estate Commissioners have not taken that into account nearly enough in setting the level of rent. Obviously that is outwith the scope of this debate and the Minister can do nothing about it by way of these measures. We welcome what has been given, but it would be a tragedy if much of what has been given by the Government under this measure were taken away by the Crown Estate Commissioners in ever increasing levels of rent.

11.15 pm

Mr. David Harris (St. Ives)

I say at the outset that I believe that all hon. Members welcome these schemes and that what I am about to say in no way diminishes my support for them. The Fishing Vessels (Acquisition and Improvement) (Grants) Scheme 1987 once again perpetuates an injustice against many fishermen, certainly in England and certainly the fishermen I represent. I could not help smiling wryly when the debate began with an outburst of indignation from some Scottish Opposition Members who, for the first time, although on fish farming, realised that their constituents were going to suffer in precisely the same way as my constituents who are fishermen, and fishermen in most parts of England, have suffered over the years. One only has to look at this scheme to see the measure of that injustice. For vessels under 24 m the maximum possible rate of grant in the west of Scotland and Northern Ireland will be 65 per cent. For all other regions it will be 50 per cent. —a differential or bonus of 15 per cent. to Scottish fishermen. For vessels over 24 m and up to 33 m, for the west of Scotland and Northern Ireland the maximum rate of grant will be 55 per cent. For other regions it will be 50 per cent., a smaller differential, but nevertheless a differential.

Mr. Salmond

Perhaps I can help the hon. Gentleman. The point that I made in the intervention earlier was that 10 years ago one might have believed that the European Commission was willing to designate the whole of Scotland as a priority area, but at present my constituency and other constituencies on the east coast of Scotland are not so designated. I am not sure what point the hon. Gentleman is making. Is he saying that the European Commission is somehow biased towards Scotland and against his constituency in England?

Mr. Harris

If the hon. Gentleman will wait just a minute, I will come to that point. The genesis of this injustice lies in The Hague agreement of 1976. The right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen), when he was Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, was the Minister at the Hague meeting that drew up this agreement to give extra aid to preferential areas which were perceived by the Commission to have a vital dependence on fishing. What was never said from that day to this was how on earth those areas were chosen or on what criteria.

With great respect to my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, it is not good enough for him to say that this was all to do with the Commission. If the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) looked at Hansard of 2 November 1976, column 1214, he would see that my predecessor, Mr. John Nott, as he was then, challenged the right hon. Member for Devonport, who was making a statement about the conclusion of the meeting of the Fisheries Council in The Hague, and asked him what the consequence of this was for regions that did not have that preferential treatment, and on what basis were those regions with the preferential treatment chosen. The right hon. Member for Devonport shuffled it all off on to the Commission. The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan will have to look at column 1215 for that.

The basis of the rationale, or the criteria, for the preferential treatment for, in those days, the whole of Scotland—it excluded most of England—has never been explained. As the Minister said, the Hague agreement referred to northern parts of Britain, not actually to Scotland. But what was the basis for it? Can the Minister explain why the fishermen who are the constituents of the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) should get 15 per cent. more grant than fishermen from the other end of the country? I defy my right hon. Friend to give a logical reason for it. Is it on the basis of unemployment? If it is, I can tell him that west Cornwall has far higher unemployment. Is it based on dependence on fisheries? Both communities depend very much on fishing, and many parts of my constituency are far more dependent on fishing than is most of Scotland. There is no rational basis for this, except one: the crude political decision of the time. If my right hon. Friend knows of a better reason, I hope that he will enlighten me.

The system is unjust, and not only in relation to this matter. It goes right the way through fishing policy. It affected limits; in my part of the country we have six-mile limits, whereas in Scotland there are 12-mile limits. It also affects the allocation of grants. I firmly believe that many Scottish fishermen stand a much better chance of getting a grant in the first place than do fishermen from other areas. In addition, of course, they get higher grants. I say good luck to them, but I believe that the system is crazy and I propose a simple answer which I think will satisfy the whole House. Let us remove the differentials and the bonus and let all our fishermen have exactly the same grant. I will maintain that that is the correct position until someone tells the House and, more importantly, the fishermen of Cornwall, why they get a lower grant than do the fishermen in parts of Scotland.

11.21 pm

Mr. Austin Mitchell (Great Grimsby)

The issue here is not only the differential but the fact that so much of the money has gone to Scotland in any case. If the measure does anything, I hope that it will work better for the English industry than did the previous measure. About three quarters of the money must have gone to Scotland. Although no one begrudges the modernisation of the industry in Scotland there are aging vessels in England and there is a greater need now for modernising the English industry. That is especially so in Grimsby, where many of our vessels are 25-year-old or 35-year-old seine netter wooden vessels, which need modernisation and replacement. The base of the industry in Grimsby must be broadened. We need vessels to replace the British United Trawlers CAT class vessels which were decommissioned two years ago, which had the all-year-round, all-round Britain catching capacity that is necessary to keep the port going throughout the winter. For that, we need improved finances.

The crucial aspect of this measure is how much money is made available to provide the grants. It appears that the sums provided will be inadequate to cope with the need for modernisation and replacement. Because of that inadequacy, an order of priorities has been established. Clearly, we need priorities, but many deserving cases do not fit within those priorities.

In Grimsby, skipper John Hancock has a valid case for a new vessel, but the grant has been tied to the decommissioning of his old vessel. Because he will not do that, he cannot get a grant. There must be such rationing if the sums provided are as inadequate as they are. They should be increased substantially. John Hancock is entitled to a new vessel and should have priority. It would be to his benefit and to the benefit of Grimsby generally.

Grants alone are not enough to help with the process of modernisation. They must be supplemented by loans. At the current rate of interest, it is difficult to raise the money to buy fishing vessels, which are extremely expensive these days. Our competitors in Belgium, Holland and France are provided with subsidised loans to build or replace fishing vessels. That should happen here if we are to help people to modernise the industry in the way that it needs.

Even big firms have not been able to justify the commercial decision, at current rates of interest, to provide new vessels for the industry with the result that there has been a substantial shrinkage in Grimsby and that has meant that vessels have not been replaced. Those are the main points. The measures are unexceptionable, and necessary. The problem, and the test of the Government's good will, is the provision of the funds on the necessary scale to allow the industry to modernise — certainly in Grimsby—in the way that it must.

11.25 pm

Mr. Robert Key (Salisbury)

Notwithstanding the existence of the River Avon Navigation Act, by which Salisbury was connected to the Solent, I want to concentrate on the fish farming scheme. The scheme gives enormous discretion to Ministers, who must decide whether something is desirable. It extends to agriculture and structural works in coastal areas and covers the breeding, rearing or cultivation of fish, and that includes shellfish and molluscs. That is very significant.

There are about 500 fish farms in this country. More than 20 are in my constituency, and the biggest river-based fish farm in Europe is in my constituency. There are many problems associated with fish farming. Many are concerned with water abstraction and discharge control. In some cases water authorities restrict the abstraction that they allow to about 40 per cent. of the flow of a river. In my constituency one fish farm takes 70 per cent. of the flow of the river and might increase that figure. Most fish farms are much smaller than that. They would take anything from 25 tonnes of fish a year, whereas the very big fish farms take about 1,000 tonnes a year, and that is big business. I am pleased that the Government are moving towards water abstraction licensing as well as discharge control.

Nearly all the river based sites for fish farming, particularly in the south of England are now used up. Does it make sense to produce grants for fish farms when there is considerable doubt about disease and environmental impact? My right hon. Friend the Minister may have no intention of giving grants to fish farms on rivers in the south of England, but may intend to concentrate on coastal sites. In that case, will he concentrate on salmon and possibly turbot, or will he concentrate on prawns, lobsters, freshwater crayfish and so on? We must pay more attention to fish farming, because it is such a big business.

One aspect that particularly worries me is disease control. It is all very well being delighted at the fact that this is the fastest growing growth area in the agriculture industry, if not in the whole economy in Scotland, but disease control is a big problem. There has been a great deal of discussion and misapprehension about the use of antibiotics. When people talk about antibiotics in general in relation to fish farming, they are probably really talking about anti-microbial compounds, not just antibiotics. There has been a great deal of emotional discussion of those issues.

One of the things that concerns me most about disease control is that by unwittingly licensing many of the traditional low-cost compounds used in fish farming for disease control the Government or the European Community are mistakenly removing the professional discretion of vets. We must be very careful about that. Vets have a great input and their voices should be heard more than they are heard at present.

Another aspect of the burgeoning industry of fish farming that worries me is fish movement control — the movement of fry in particular. I wrote to my right hon. Friend the Minister before I knew that we were to debate this subject today. He will recall that I wrote to him about the regional water authorities that used to have to licence the movement of fish in advance. I understand that the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food now does that licensing. In fact, it is retrospective. After one has done it, one has to write and say that one has done so, rather than get permission in the first place. That does not seem to be a frightfully sensible way of carrying out fish movement and disease control. I hope that my right hon. Friend will have a clear view on the national water authorities' role in fish farming and fish disease control.

There is no doubt that fish farming is generally misunderstood. There are about 500 fish farms and about 5 million anglers. Most of the time they are at loggerheads in southern England about the same stretches of water. Much blame is heaped on fish farmers, which may not be justified. I am delighted that there is a joint effort between my right hon. Friend's Ministry, the Freshwater Biological Association, the National Environment Research Council and, indeed, the Wessex water authority to study River Avon course fishing stocks and the reasons for their decline. The report will he published early next year.

This year the Select Committee on the Environment produced an enormous weight of evidence against fish farming, particularly with regard to environmental impact and pollution, with scarcely a peep out of the fish farming lobby to justify what it was doing in economic terms or, indeed, to answer the many questions that were quite rightly posed and to which there are answers.

We are faced with fish farming, which is big business and big money. It also has a big environmental impact. People are worried about it. Before dishing out too many grants to river-based fish farms, I hope that my right hon. Friend will do his best to make sure that we use this unique opportunity to get it right.

11.31 pm

Mr. Calum A. Macdonald (Western Isles)

Like other hon. Members, I welcome the statutory instruments in so far as they represent additional and much-needed investment in fishing and fish farming, but like other hon. Members I also find them deficient in that they do not go nearly far enough. Various major problems are unanswered. I appreciate that time for the debate is short, so I shall shortly focus on one statutory instrument, No. 1134 on fish farming. Before I do so, however, I should say that statutory instrument No. 1135 refers to assistance to fishing vessels. I welcome the weighting of support for smaller vessels and also the European Commission's weighting for west coast vessels specifically. Before vessel owners can take advantage of the weighting, they need to get a grant in the first place. Skippers in my constituency have found it difficult to get assistance from the EC through FEOGA grants. One skipper has been turned down twice, despite the fact that, outwardly, everything about his application seemed to merit an award from the European Commission. Part of the problem is that it is difficult to get from the European Commission some explanation of why an application is turned down — in fact, it gives no explanation whatsoever. Therefore, it is difficult for a skipper to know what to do in reprocessing his application for a more favourable verdict. I ask the Minister to look into the matter and to try to persuade the European Commission to be more open in the reasons behind its verdicts.

It has been said that fish farming is a booming industry, particularly in the Highlands and Islands. It has created over 1,000 primary jobs. Added to that, other jobs have been created downstream in processing industries and fish farm services. In 1986, the value of salmon farm production was equivalent to the entire west coast commercial fish landings, which gives some idea of the importance of this new industry to the west coast.

This year the cash value of salmon production is expected to be about £60 million and next year £100 million—equivalent to almost half the total value of the Scottish commercial fish landings. The developments in shellfish farming and the progress in connection with species such as halibut, make for an exciting new growth area. A major new economic force is emerging in the Highlands and Islands.

The figures of 1,000 jobs and £100 million cash value are significant anywhere in Scotland, but they are particularly significant in remote peripheral areas such as the Highlands and Islands, traditionally a fragile community with an underdeveloped economy. Any Government assistance to maintain progress is welcome. I welcome the order, but its good intentions are undermined by the activities of the Crown Estate Commissioners who propose to raise rents to £36 per tonne for fish farms in my constituency and to £40 per tonne for fish farms on the mainland.

The average 1988 production of 25,000 tonnes means that receipts to the crown Estate Commissioners will he between £900,000 and £1 million from the Highlands and Islands alone.

Under pressure, the Crown Estate Commissioners have agreed to plough back some receipts into the fish industry, but so far they have agreed to put back only about £100,000. Meanwhile it is spending about £4.3 million on the maintainence, improvement and repairs of Windsor park and other properties in London. That is not good enough. These feelings were made clear in my constituency recently by those patronisingly referred to by the commissioners as tenants.

The fish farmers in my constituency, and in the Highlands and Islands generally, are not tenants and do not think of themselves sa such. They are not servants but adventurous and hardworking entrepreneurs. They already pay the full range of taxes that businesses are expected to pay and yet they are also taxed by the Crown Estate Commissioners. The difference between the receipts which the commissioners take from them and the investment that they put hack in constitutes the profits which are being ploughed back into London properties.

I cannot see the justification for that. It is beyond the understanding of fish farmers in the Highlands and Islands. Can the Ministry justify fish farmers paying rents in excess of investment? Until that injustice is remedied, the statutory instruments will not do much good.

My hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) has already said that the problem calls into question the status of the Crown Estate as landlord of the fish farms in the Highlands and Islands. The role of the Crown Estate should be examined. The Government may not be willing to be so radical, but they should at least agree that the £1 million that the Crown Estate intends to extract from fish farms in the Highlands and Islands ought to be ploughed back into fish farming in that area. There is no justification for it to go anywhere else. Investment is needed in research, training and infrastructure works such as piers and roads. Unless that money is ploughed back, the statutory instruments will not do much good.

11.41 pm

Mr. Nicholas Bennett (Pembroke)

I am pleased to welcome the instruments. My constituency has fishing interests in trawlers and a number of fish farms. My right hon. Friend the Minister of State visited Milford Haven shortly after the general election and saw the increased number of trawlers plying from that port in the Celtic sea and further out.

The trawler owners' association — the indigenous owners in Milford Haven — has recently increased the number of working trawlers to seven, and there is a possibility of two more. That is especially important in a town which has 30 per cent. unemployment.

Recent developments by Seacon, which has just taken control of the Milford Haven Dock Company, will lead to the refurbishment of the ice-making factory at the docks, and that will also help the fishing industry.

I should like my right hon. Friend to look again at a matter that the Ministry has considered in the past 18 months. There is worry about the flags of convenience that are used by Spanish ships in Milford Haven. The common fisheries policy in January 1985 virtually excluded Spanish ships from their traditional grounds, but after Spain's accession to the EC in January 1986 a number of licences were granted. However, although some ships register in the United Kingdom and have United Kingdom captains, the number of crew who are British or nationals of other EC states is nowhere near the 75 per cent. that the law requires. The limits are still being flouted.

Fish farming in my constituency is centred on the river Cleddau, and I recently visited a number of farms. There are still pollution problems and I should like to know whether statutory instrument No. 1134 will cover assistance to deal with that problem.

11.43 pm

Mr. Gummer

With the leave of the House, I shall reply to the debate. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Mr. Warren) for reminding the House of the considerable danger that is part of the fishing industry. I associate the Government with his remarks about the late Mr. Read.

The problem raised on both sides of the House is the difficulty of being fair between the various parts of the industry. I remind hon. Members that many parts of the country where there is high unemployment may, at the same time, have very profitable fishing industries. The connection is not always easy to draw. A hinterland may have high unemployment, but a profitable fishing industry; or there may be problems in both respects. None of us find it easy to decide where extra help should go.

I hope that the debate has convinced the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) that he was wholly wrong to attack me for being anti-Scots, for it has suggested to my English friends that I have done too well by the Scots. But it is probably a good idea to be attacked by both sides. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will take what I have said in the spirit in which it was meant. We find it extremely difficult to draw the distinctions, and I believe that we must accept that the Commission has tried to give special help to parts of the country with special difficulties. However, I hope that no one will go away with the idea that this is anything but a very blunt instrument, and I have taken very seriously what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris).

The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) spoke of his sadness about the decommissioning grants. I merely say to him that, with the amount of money available and the arrangements that had been made, it seemed better to put the money into the restructuring of the fleet through the replacement of older boats, particularly those whose age now gives cause for real alarm on safety grounds. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will also agree that we cannot ask people to receive grants for new boats when we also allow them to keep old boats.

I must tell the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) that we have to use the grants in such a way as not to increase the capacity to catch when there is no increase in the opportunity to do so. The gentleman to whom he referred must accept that the purpose of the grants is to modernise the fleet, but not to expand it beyond the opportunities that are there for it. Otherwise, those who are already in the business will have every right to complain about the use of Government and European Community money. I do not think that that complaint was reasonable.

We examine the problems of fish farming extremely carefully. The European Community makes the decisions, but we have to see that the requests that reach Brussels are within the terms of the arrangements. We insist that there is a discharge consent from water authorities in England and Wales, river purification boards in Scotland and the Department of the Environment at the Northern Ireland Office, where necessary. We start from the assumption that we must ensure that the fish farms that ask for help are doing their business in a way that is environmentally acceptable.

I accept that there are different problems in different parts of the country. What obtains for rivers in the crowded south-east may not obtain for rivers in the rest of the country. The problems of marine fish farming are clearly different from those of river fish farming. We are considering the matter very carefully, and, as I promised my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) in recent correspondence, I am taking particular note of the issues that he has raised with me, in common with neighbouring Members. I hope that we shall be able to satisfy him on those points, or else make changes that will in themselves satisfy him.

My hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye mentioned the fallibility of science, and in particular the problems of dredging. The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food examined those matters very carefully. It was not done quickly, and it would be unfair to call it a rapid judgment. My hon. Friend shakes his head, but it took a long time: indeed, the industry complained that I took too long over it. I did so on purpose, because I wished to obtain the right answer. In order to protect the fishing interests our decision excludes dredgers from those areas to which they might most want to go. That shows the high priority we give to the fishing interests. It would be unfair to suggest that the Government have not taken into account the evidence that was given to us. However, we have to take into account the best evidence that is available. One may say that science is fallible, but surely one does not therefore say that we ought to accept any view rather than the scientific view.

The same problem has arisen over the total allowable catch and estimating future fish stocks. We are not always right, but it is better to take the best evidence that is available than to disregard it and to say that it is so often wrong that we shall not take it seriously.

I understand my hon. Friend's point about Dover sole being largely caught in Hastings and Rye, but I hope that he will accept that fish do not belong to any place or to anyone. They move very rapidly, and we have to try to ensure that they are shared out fairly.

As for the points put to me by my hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett), we are taking action on flags of convenience. I hope that very soon he will see the alterations in our arrangements that will ensure that those ships which claim to be British ships are in fact British ships and that therefore those ships that take fish under British quotas are properly taking them. I understand the very considerable anger that is felt when it is found that fish that have been fairly shared out among members of the European Community are taken by other than British nationals.

I shall look into the points that have been made by the hon. Member for the Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald) about the Crown Estate. As I am not directly responsible for it, he will not expect me to answer him directly now, but I shall take his points into account. I shall continue to discuss with the Commission the FEOGA grants and the arrangements to which he rightly drew attention—as did other hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland. The present system gives rise to considerable difficulties. We have been seeking to encourage a new system that we believe would be better, but so far without success.

As for the point raised by the hon. Member for Great Grimsby, I believe that it is better to try to share the £50 million than—

It being one and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the Motion, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business).

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved, That the Fishing Vessels (Acquisition and Improvement) (Grants) Scheme 1987 (S.I., 1987, No. 1135), dated 1st July 1987, a copy of which was laid before this House on 3rd July, be approved.

c141
1. SEA FISHERIES 33 words
c141
2. FISHERIES 33 words