HC Deb 24 February 1994 vol 238 cc418-20
4. Mr. McFall

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if she will make a statement on the progress of the scheme for decommissioning fishing vessels.

Mr. Jack

The results of the 1993 fishing vessels decommissioning scheme have provided a 10 per cent. contribution towards the achievement of our multi-annual guidance programme reduction target.

Mr. McFall

The Minister will appreciate the increasing frustration of British fishermen at what they see as the Government's wholly discriminatory policy and interpretation of the rules. The fact that the French fishermen, who took violent action, received £30 million in state aid from their Government only reinforces that frustration. When will the Minister live up to the promise that he made after the 2 December High Court ruling, discuss the implications with both the EC Commissioner and the industry and come back to the House with an improved decommissioning scheme?

Mr. Jack

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. I was interested by the comments of the secretary of our own National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations, who denounced the French Government's payment of aid. He said that it was not what the fishing industry required. He did not consider it to be the right way forward.

If the hon. Gentleman had been present at our last Question Time, he would have heard me report to the House that I had had a discussion with Commissioner Paleokrassas about those very matters. We are now embarking on discussions with the industry: one has already taken place north of the border with the Scottish federation, and another will take place early next month with the NFFO, when we shall discuss technical conservation and other measures to help us achieve our targets.

Mr. John Townend

Does my hon. Friend agree that a decommissioning scheme alone will not solve the problem of the shortage of fish and that it is now even more vital to agree technical measures, including net sizes? Will my hon. Friend report to the House what progress is being made in discussions with the industry on such measures?

Mr. Jack

My hon. Friend is right to point out that the way in which to achieve the multi-annual guidance programme capacity reduction target is to adopt such measures as licence aggregation. The fishing industry, both north and south of the border, has done a good deal of useful work in presenting proposals for technical conservation measures. I assure my hon. Friend that we will take those proposals seriously. As I said a moment ago, we shall be meeting fishermen's representatives early in March to discuss a possible way forward.

Mr. John D. Taylor

How many fishing vessels have been taken out as a result of the decommissioning scheme? How many additional vessels have joined the British fleet during the same period? As the Minister is now adopting a positive attitude to decommissioning schemes, will he consider a further expansion of the present scheme?

Mr. Jack

On 21 September, I announced that 142 vessels had been successful. Of those, 137 have proceeded with decommissioning. I cannot tell the right hon. Gentleman exactly how many new vessels have joined the fleet during that time. I should point out that, to complete the criteria for payment for decommissioning, a vessel must be so disabled—as the order puts it—that it cannot fish; in other words, it must be dismantled. I am sorry, but I cannot at this moment tell the right hon. Gentleman precisely how many vessels have been dismantled.

Mr. Hicks

May I impress on my hon. Friend the urgent importance of introducing a programme based on technical conservation measures? Is that not really the way forward? Will my hon. Friend assure the House that there is no suggestion of returning to the draconian limitations of days at sea?

Mr. Jack

The reduction in effort targets cannot all be achieved by technical conservation measures. We are at a very early stage in evaluating the worth of the package that the industry has put forward. Technical conservation causes some pain to fishermen because, effectively, it means lower catch rates. My hon. Friend knows that our other efforts to reduce fishing capacity catch levels through days at sea are now the subject of a case in the European Court. We obviously await the outcome of that to assist us in our further thoughts for fishing policy.

Mr. Morley

Does the Minister agree that, no matter what the outcome of the case in the European Court, or his discussions on technical measures and efforts at limitation, decommissioning will always be a central part of any scheme to reduce capacity of our fishing fleet? That being the case, will the Minister use the £750,000 underspend of the first round of decommissioning to consider as quickly as possible those applicants who were not successful? Secondly, will the Minister make it clear to the industry when fishermen can apply for the second round so that they can plan for the future, rather than being in abeyance, as they are at present, and racked by uncertainty?

Mr. Jack

The hon. Gentleman will know from debates that we had in the House before Christmas that I certainly did not rule out decommissioning making its contribution towards effort reduction. He has asked me a number of parliamentary questions and sent me letters on the subject of the underspend. I hope that the assurances that I have given him in reply to those, showing that I see no good reason why that money not should not take its place in any successor schemes, will provide assurance on that subject.

Finally, the hon. Gentleman asked me about applications for future decommissioning. It was always going to be the case that we would want to consider the final outcome of the first tranche because, as the hon. Gentleman will know, we have sectoral targets for the multi-annual guidance programme and I want to ensure that in any future arrangements whatever resources we deploy in that area are deployed as effectively as possible.