HC Deb 09 December 1993 vol 234 cc478-80
13. Mr. Austin Mitchell

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when she next hopes to meet the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations to discuss the state of the industry.

Mr. Jack

I expect to meet the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations next week as part of my preparation for the December Council of Fisheries Ministers.

Mr. Mitchell

I am delighted to hear that the Minister's next meeting with the NFFO will not be in court, like the previous one. I hope that he will allow us to divert him from his wicked ways, now that the judges have given him the opportunity—which he should have taken ages ago—to rethink his position on the days-at-sea limitation. Is it not sensible to improve the decommissioning scheme, rather than making sulky noises about scrapping it; to impose the type of conservation measures that the NFFO has agreed and urged on the Minister, and to try to reduce the industry in that way; and, as a third step, to reduce the piratical Spanish fishing that is going on in our waters and conserve the catches effectively that way?

Mr. Jack

On one point, the hon. Gentleman and I can jointly tread the path of righteousness, and that is on the subject of the Spanish. I have taken up the issue of enforcement on Spanish fishing in our waters, as the hon. Gentleman knows, with Commissioner Paleokrassas. We raised the subject of Spanish and Portuguese accession vehemently and robustly at the most recent Fisheries Council. However, the hon. Gentleman ought to study carefully the judgment in the recent case brought by the NFFO. It has brought uncertainty to the industry. The losers will be the fish. The judge made it clear that all parties concerned had an interest in the conservation and preservation of fish stocks under pressure. I am considering all aspects of that judgment for guidance on the matter as we proceed.

Mr. Harris

I strongly support all the arguments that were made by the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell). Especially I ask, when does my hon. Friend expect to make a statement in the light of the setback that his policy undoubtedly received as a result of the recent court case? There is uncertainty, as he said. Surely he is not contemplating allowing that uncertainty to continue for possibly two years, now that the High Court has referred the matter to the European Court. Surely he should consider the policies that have been suggested by the fishermen and accept them.

Mr. Jack

My hon. Friend does a singular service to the fishing communities that he represents in asking that question. I have to say to him, in all seriousness, that he knows as well as I do that we still have our community effort reduction targets to meet. I am considering carefully how we may go forward from that, but I understand the points that my hon. Friend makes about uncertainty. Had the action not been brought, we could have ended much of that uncertainty. Now we must think again and I hope that it will not be too long before I can respond to my hon. Friend's question.

Mr. Salmond

Does the Minister note that I also endorse the arguments that were made by the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell), which must make that something of an historic compromise in the fishing industry? Will the Minister have the grace to admit that it was not the fish that lost the court case; it was him? Would it not be the height of petulance to dump decommissioning as a reaction to his reverse in court? Would not a better course of action be to dump the days-at-sea legislation which is unwanted, and to keep decommissioning and expand it, because that is wanted?

Mr. Jack

May I point out to the hon. Member—who also represents Scottish fishing interests extremely professionally—that the judgment did not decide winners or losers. The judgment turned on the fact that the court in the United Kingdom felt unable to decide on the issue and referred it to the European Court. I understand the hon. Member's argument. He knows that applications have been received under the existing decommissioning scheme, and those are progressing. I will take his views into account, and those of other hon. Members who have mentioned that argument. As I said a moment ago in reply to the question by my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris), I hope that it will not be too long before we can make the position clear.

Mr. John Townend

Does my hon. Friend agree that as a result of the judgment, restrictions on days at sea are dead for at least two years, and that he should move forward in co-operation with the industry on conservation measures and net sizes, so that the uncertainty is removed?

Mr. Jack

I spent most of the summer and early autumn talking to the industry and trying to establish a better dialogue on many of the matters that lie at the heart of my hon. Friend's question. That question raised many issues and, as I said in response to other questions, I hope that we can make our position clear in the next few days.

Mr. Kirkwood

Does the Minister accept that, whatever else the court judgment did not do, it did not rule out the continuation of the decommissioning scheme? Will he make an early announcement to extend that scheme, in order to earn the reputation that he seeks to achieve as the friend of the fish?

Mr. Jack

I thank the hon. Gentleman, at least for calling me the fisherman's friend. I am sure that my friends in Fleetwood would be glad to hear that. However, the clear message from the court case was that both sides agreed about the need to take the presure off the stocks under the greatest strain. The case also revealed that there was no final outcome. I am considering what the hon. Gentleman and others have said and, as I have said, I hope that we shall be able to make our position on the matter clear in the next few days.