Fishing Industry (Hansard, 27 January 1994)

§ 6. Mr. McFall
To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when she last met representatives of the United Kingdom fishing industry to discuss conservation measures.

§ Mr. Jack
Conservation measures were discussed with the industry on 14 December, in the context of a meeting to discuss the agenda for the December Fisheries Council.

§ Mr. McFall
How will the Minister meet the legally binding requirements of the multi-annual guidance programme now that his iniquitous tie-up scheme has been sent to the European Court of Justice? Does he not realise that a properly funded and sensible decommissioning scheme is necessary? Will he therefore reply to the Scottish fishermen who produced a document on alternative conservation which they sent to him in September and on which they are still awaiting a reply? Will he delay any decisions until meaningful consultation has taken place with the industry?

§ Mr. Jack
I very much welcome the tone of the hon. Gentleman's question because he is right to emphasise the importance of meaningful discussion with the industry. I did not rule out a role for decommissioning in our plans, but the House agreed that, to be effective, decommissioning required an element of effort control and, clearly, days at sea was part of our original plan. We still have the benefits of licence aggregation which forms part of our policy and, following a meeting with Commissioner Paleokrassas, I am considering the role that technical conservation measures can play. I assure the hon. Gentleman that I shall discuss that with the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations and the Scottish Fishermen's Federation.

§ Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
Will my hon. Friend confirm that it is his Department's policy not to close 410 fisheries unless it is absolutely necessary? Will he join me in condemning those who take a short-term view of fish stocks? Does he agree that there is no point in allowing boats to overfish today if it means the end of the entire industry tomorrow?

§ Mr. Jack
My hon. Friend puts his finger on an important point. A full scientific assessment was certainly part of our discussions at the December Fisheries Council to determine the overall allowable catch and quota, not only for our fishermen but for those of other Community countries. It is important in terms of day-by-day, month-by-month quota management to take into account the long-term implications, because if too much fish is taken in the short term, there will, as my hon. Friend says, be none left in the long.

§ Mr. Austin Mitchell
I hope that the Minister will now accept that he was warned by hon. Members on both sides of the House not to go down that road of days at sea limitations and that, having gone down that dead-end street, the responsibility is his for curing the industry's problem by introducing a more effective and more generous decommissioning scheme to limit effort and by introducing a wider range of conservation measures in consultation with the industry. Has not the time come to stop dithering and to get on with introducing competition?

§ Mr. Jack
The hon. Member will know that my style has always been to try to talk with the industry. The hon. Gentleman says that it is our job to sort out the industry. To put it simply, unless there is dialogue and partnership, no edicts from me will sort out the fundamental problem of too much fishing capacity in relation to the quantities of fish in the sea. There has to be a responsible attitude on both sides of the equation. I give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that I will continue to discuss with the industry other ways of conserving fish and reducing effort, and technical conservation measures will be among them.