§ 2. Mr. HarrisTo ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many fishing vessels have taken the gear option as opposed to the tied option.
§ The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. David Curry)One hundred and eighty-five vessels have taken the gear option while 258 have elected to tie up.
§ Mr. HarrisAlthough I accept that the gear option is not always practical for many boats in Scotland, does my hon. Friend agree that the number that have taken the alternative route and are tying up is gratifying? Will he 810 accept the congratulations of the House on having fought so hard to ensure that that option was made available in the first place?
§ Mr. CurryMy hon. Friend will know that when we entered the Council we faced proposals that included the 120 mm mesh size, a 10-day tie-up and no gear option. We had to fight very hard to get the tie-up limited to eight days and to get the gear option. I am pleased that that has been taken up by about one third of the Scottish fleet. We knew that it would not be appropriate for a large number of vessels and we did not pretend that that was other than the case. However, I hope that it is proving effective for those vessels that can take advantage of it. Tie-up is certainly the preferable option where it will work.
§ Mr. SalmondDoes the Minister accept that the boats have not elected to tie up but have been forced to tie up? Will he confirm that more Scottish boats are now affected by the regulation than boats in the rest of the European Community put together? Has the Secretary of State for Scotland spoken to the hon. Gentleman about his conduct during the tie-up debate and is the hon. Gentleman now able to apologise to Scotland's fishing communities or, better still, to signal a change of policy?
§ Mr. CurryThe hon. Gentleman says that more Scottish boats are affected than other boats. That is true. The stocks affected are those that are fished predominantly by Scottish fishermen. The rules stated that the boats affected were those with 40 per cent. of cod and haddock in their total catch in areas IV and VI which are fished predominantly by Scottish boats, and those with more than 100 tonnes. The action is imposed by the Community. It is not something which we have dreamt up. In fact, we mitigated that measure. We are acting to conserve stocks for the Scottish fishing industry. That was our sole reason for acting. Had we not done that in respect of stocks of haddock, of which we have 80-odd per cent. of the catch, and stocks of cod, of which we have 50-odd per cent. of the catch, we would have been remiss in our duties.
In the debate, I explained to the hon. Gentleman and to the fishing industry the facts behind the decision and the importance of making it stick. I have no apologies to make about the thoughts that I expressed during that debate, because I was simply expressing the truth. The fishing industry preferred to have the truth presented bluntly than to have it wrapped up in silken phrases that mean nothing.
§ Mr. David PorterThe tie-up rule clearly means "Thou shalt not fish." Is my hon. Friend aware that in some cases it means "Thou shalt not earn a living"? The fishermen on some boats that are affected claim that they cannot get other work, such as standby and diving support work. Will my hon. Friend undertake to look into that matter?
§ Mr. CurryIn so far as I can assist, I shall certainly do so. The regulation was imposed upon us by the Community because of concern about stocks. We agreed that the stocks were in a serious condition. We did not say, "There is no problem" or "Let us pretend that the problem does not exist." We sought to obtain the most sensible application of a rule that we had to observe. Having obtained it, we are obliged to enforce that rule, or we will end up next year with an even more inflexible rule from Brussels. It would be in no one's interests if that happened.
811 I shall look at the cases that my hon. Friend can bring before me, but I cannot alter the rules that we are obliged to follow.