Fish Conservation (Hansard, 9 May 1991)

§ 3. Mr. Austin Mitchell
To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what proposals he has for improving conservation of fish stocks.

§ 7. Mr. Irvine
To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what proposals he intends to make to the July Council of Fisheries Ministers on the conservation of fish stocks.

§ Mr. Curry
We have already announced unilateral conservation action to apply from July. My immediate priority now is to achieve greater selectivity of gear on a Community-wide basis.

§ Mr. Mitchell
As we have a conservation crisis in the North sea in particular, a proper system of conservation would require a ban on industrial fishing, a ban on bream trawling and a ban on fishing in spawning grounds during the spawning season. It would also require a ban o n square mesh panels, a one-net rule and a series of such measures. Why is not the Minister developing a proper British conservation programme instead of sitting there like a Saudi kleptomaniac with a hands-off policy, waiting for the Commission to do it all by such daft measures as the eight-day lay-up?

§ Mr. Curry
The hon. Gentleman knows the facts. He cannot complain simultaneously that we are not introducing our own measures and that we are about to impose measures on the United Kingdom fleet because of the importance of the stocks that we must conserve. It is a difficult choice. We have not been afraid to take that choice. Many of the matters that the hon. Gentleman mentioned are in the United Kingdom proposals—for example, the single-net rule, which is applicable. Other measures can be proposed only by the Community. Where we have national scope, it must be within the framework of the Community rules. That is why we had to apply, for example, a 90 mm square mesh panel in a 90 mm net. We did not have the flexibility to go beyond that proposal. We have not hesitated to take those actions. Where we have taken those actions, they have hardly been greeted with overwhelming acclaim by the fishing industry.

§ Mr. Irvine
Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the main problems with the conservation of fish stocks is that, while the British Government play by the rules and take effective enforcement measures against our own fishermen, too many other European Governments do not properly apply the rules against their own fishermen? Will my hon. Friend take care at the Council meeting in July to make that point forcefully to his European counterparts?

§ Mr. Curry
Because of our desire to have effective conservation, we defended at the previous Council meeting, and will do so at future Council meetings, the basic idea that the common fisheries policy should be enforced by the member states in the waters that they control. We can impose that system on all vessels fishing in those waters. If that policy disintegrated and enforcement 812 were handed over to some centralised control, or if we were to slacken our enforcement, I fear that we would then have differentials.
Certain member states enforce rules strongly. The Dutch, for example, impose a tie-up on their own fishermen and are suggesting that the tie-up should become the principal instrument of Community conservation. We would have great difficulty with that, but we will certainly do our best to make sure that we get a proper level of enforcement. That is one respect in which the United Kingdom is acknowledged to be ahead of the field.

§ Mr. Wallace
I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will agree that the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food said last week on a visit to Scotland that fishermen had to take an initiative in conservation. Will he confirm that the Scottish Fishermen's Federation put to the Government a comprehensive conservation package almost two years ago, that the industry has also proposed a decommissioning scheme and that some sections of the industry have actually advocated that the industry make a contribution to a decommissioning scheme? Will the hon. Gentleman take this opportunity to clarify the confusion at the recent meeting between Scottish fishery leaders and Ministers on the Government's position on decommissioning and say whether the door is still open to some form of decommissioning scheme, possibly involving an industry contribution?

§ Mr. Curry
My right hon. Friend has made it absolutely clear that he is ready to examine any workable proposal for the industry that is based on an industry-funded scheme and would deliver long-term conservation gains. That is a perfectly clear statement. The hon. Gentleman said that the industry brought forward its proposals two years ago, which is true. Those proposals were based on 90 mm mesh with an 80 mm panel.
We tried to get those policies accepted in Brussels. but they were not acceptable. The Scottish Fishermen's Federation has now understood that. I understand that it recently introduced proposals, accepting that it should go further on the size of the square mesh panel, but that there are also other conditions. The industry is moving and recognises that it must move forward, and we welcome that fact. As I said, we are willing to look at a package of measures that will assist the industry, provided we get effective gains which would be in the interests of the fishermen. It is their futures that are at risk.

§ Sir Michael Shaw
Is my hon. Friend aware that fishermen in my constituency fully realise the need for conservation, but that, at the same time, they demand fairness in the enforcement of the restrictions on gear and quotas throughout the United Kingdom?

§ Mr. Curry
I appreciate the thrust of my hon. Friend's comments. Although our fishermen fish for different stocks in different vessels, we must ensure that they all play by the same rules. We can hardly complain about other people failing in this regard if we do not maintain effective enforcement around our own coasts. I am sure that my hon. Friend is aware that the enforcement authority in Scotland has now become an agency. I am extremely confident that that agency will make a great contribution to enforcement practices north of the border. We shall ensure that that is the case south of the border also.

§ Dr. Godman
The Minister said a moment ago that the eight-day tie-up was imposed upon him by the Fisheries Ministers Council. I must question the accuracy of that statement because Mr. Marin, the European Commissioner for Fisheries, said that that proposal came originally from the Minister's Department. Is not the truth of the matter the fact that the fleet is too big and has to be reduced and that the most humane and fair-minded way of doing that is by a decommissioning scheme?

§ Mr. Curry
No, it is not true that that scheme originated in my Department. It originated with the International Council for the Exploration of the Seas, which stated that there must be a 30 per cent. reduction in effort. The Commission translated that into a 10-day tie-up per month. We got that reduced to eight days, for various reasons, partly because we thought that it was excessive.
We must have effective effort control. We cannot dodge that issue. That is why it is important that we enforce the rules effectively this year and that fishermen obey them because, if they do not, there is a danger that we will be faced with an even more draconian scheme next year which, like everything else, will go through on majority voting. We are anxious to avoid that. That is why it is important to make the proposals work this year.

§ Mr. Morley
During these exchanges hon. Members have expressed the need to link conservation measures with a reduction of effort. I was recently in Brussels to talk to the fisheries directorate-general, which expressed great surprise at the fact that, of all the countries in Europe, this country has not taken the opportunity of using the EC funds that are available for decommissioning schemes in order to reduce that effort. I agree that we need a package of measures and that, on its own, decommissioning would not be adequate. However, will the Minister give the House the undertaking that he will make it a priority to discuss with the industry a total package on conservation and, above all, on effort limitation, which would involve fair compensation for the fishermen who have suffered so much as a result of the measures to reduce the pressure on fish stocks?

§ Mr. Curry
My right hon. Friend the Minister has already begun that debate with the fishing industry. We accept that we can put together a package of measures that will be of benefit to the industry, and it is essential that we do so because we are talking about the long-term future of the stocks.
On the capacity problem, may I point out to the hon. Gentleman what I am sure he already knows: when we finally receive the figures for the first guidance programme from Brussels, we will find that the United Kingdom is over target by much less than was originally suspected. We do not have any idea about the targets for the second programme and, until we have them, it is clearly a little premature to talk about how we can reach a target that does not yet exist. However, we have begun discussions on a sensible package of proposals and we shall pursue them.

Several Hon. Members
rose——

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. We have spent rather a long time on fishing, but I recognise its importance. We must now get on more rapidly in the interest of those hon. Members who have questions on the Order Paper.