§ Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn. —[Mr. McLoughlin.]
12.17 am§ Dr. Robert Spink (Castle Point)It is a privilege for me to speak tonight on behalf of the Essex fishermen and, in particular, 50 Essex fishing boats.
The boats operate essentially as a non-sector organisation and that results in some disadvantages compared with the generally more powerful producer organisations which operate from Britain's major fishing ports. The south-east has a strong fishing tradition and is now essentially a sole fishery, but other species are available and are fished from time to time. As the boats are non-sector, the fishermen receive their monthly quotas direct from the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and therefore cannot develop any overall catch marketing strategy.
Another key disadvantage concerns decommissioning. Producer organisations retain their track record following decommissioning. But if a non-sector, south-east boat is decommissioned, its track record is submerged into the whole of the United Kingdom fleet. As things currently stand, the south-east would therefore lose that track record.
I turn to the topical question of the common fisheries policy, which was agreed in 1982. Its laudable key objectives were, first, to meet and protect the needs of coastal communities, fishermen and fisheries-related industries and, secondly, to protect and conserve sea fish stocks. Since the CFP's introduction, fishermen and fish-related industries of the south-east have been badly let down. The CFP is simply not working in their favour, and they feel betrayed by it.
As for conservation, fish stocks continue to be greatly threatened and damaged. Some have been effectively wiped out. One example is that North sea plaice have been devastated, removing one of the opportunities for south-east fishermen. Quota hoppers take 44 per cent. of plaice, which the 1982 agreement had clearly earmarked for the British industry. So there we have it—irrefutable evidence that the CFP is not meeting its key objectives. In a nutshell, most of the damage has been caused to fish stocks by foreign fishing operations.
Non-sector fishermen were delighted that my hon. Friend the Minister visited Leigh and Castle Point to listen carefully to their concerns. I am therefore delighted that he has found time in his busy schedule to reply to this debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Basildon (Mr. Amess), who has done so much behind the scenes to help Essex fishermen, my right hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon) and I met the Minister with local fishermen. The fishermen demanded action to resolve the problem of quota hopping. We see in today's news that the Minister is taking just that action. I congratulate him on his firm and just stand to reverse the law with a protocol in the revised Maastricht treaty.
Under Government proposals, it should be possible to limit the allocation of quotas to fishing boats that are owned by businesses operating in the United Kingdom, that have a crew made up of UK residents and that land a proportion of their catch into the UK for the benefit of 728 the UK processing industry. Those measures would effectively end quota hopping—and not a moment too soon.
Twenty-two per cent. of total UK tonnage of our offshore fleet is owned and operated by foreign interests. I know how much distress that causes to my hon. Friend the Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen), who has been such a stalwart fighter on behalf of his fishermen. The European Court of Justice has enfranchised the quota hoppers, and that cannot be right, as it was never the intention of the 1982 agreement that the British quota should be taken by foreign vessels. We should think carefully before sticking doggedly to an agreement that clearly fails to be in the interests of the people of the UK. One thing I do know: we have an excellent champion in my hon. Friend the Minister, and we congratulate him on tackling quota hopping and on meeting and listening carefully to our local fishermen.
My hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and I ask the Government to go further if possible. We ask them, first, to improve quota management arrangements for the non-sector industry and, secondly, to secure exemption from quota for very small, traditionally built fishing boats. I know that the Minister may have in mind a figure of about 8 m. My local fishermen would prefer the exemption to apply to any boat below 10 m. There is a debate there and no doubt the Minister will listen carefully to what we say. Thirdly, I ask the Government to consider ways in which to enable a non-sector area to retain its track record after decommissioning, as the producer organisations currently do.
Perhaps more specifically for Leigh and Canvey, we ask the Minister to limit licences so that specific south-east fishing specialisations such as the cockle fishing industry can be protected, and to ensure that the European Union, in redistributing our own money to us under the PESCA fund, does so fairly for the benefit of Southend and Canvey. The PESCA fund gives help to communities affected by the decline of fishing industries. I understand that about £400,000 has been made available: it has been set aside for competitive bids between the Southend and King's Lynn travel-to-work areas. The fund should be used to provide the necessary hygiene, ice-making and fish-handling equipment and infrastructure at the point of landing, not only in Leigh and on Two Tree island, but on Canvey island.
Some 250 families in our area are dependent on the fishing industry. My hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and I are doing all that we can to assist those families; we know that their jobs are badly threatened by the current situation. We also know that my hon. Friend the Minister is fighting on their behalf. The families are a small, but worthy, honourable and loyal community. They are led by good people such as Mr. Godbold and Dave Spurgeon of the Little Haven Fishermen's Association. They deserve a better deal than that currently afforded them by the common fisheries policy. They are shrewd people. They know that Labour's shallow sham of a European policy would fail them miserably, on fishing as elsewhere.
The Labour party leader said that he would never be isolated in Europe, but our fishermen demand just that: they want isolation from the European vessels, particularly from the quota hoppers. Labour's European policy would finish off our fishing industry. A Labour Government would surrender to their European socialist brothers. They would run up the white flag on every one of our fishing boats. They 729 would have plenty of white flags to use after they had broken up the United Kingdom and destroyed the Union Jack. The white flag would be the new Labour Union Jack. But it should not come to that.
§ Mr. Elliot Morley (Glanford and Scunthorpe)I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman has introduced party politics, because he knows that many of the measures that he has been advocating tonight have been supported by the Opposition. That is particularly true of the calls for greater control over our own waters and giving inshore boats—which often fish in selective, environmentally friendly ways—some positive help in terms of quota allocation. Whether the hon. Gentleman likes it or not, many of the reforms can be brought about only through the European Union and the Commission. The way to do that is to argue constructively, seek allies and advance progressively—not to stand on the sidelines without participating in the debate.
§ Dr. SpinkAs we would all expect, the hon. Gentleman comes forward with warm words. But my constituents, particularly my fishermen, all know that the Labour party's instincts are to surrender everything to a federal Europe, not to protect and defend Great Britain—the Conservative party's instincts.
My hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and I support my hon. Friend the Minister in seeking tough reforms of the CFP. The Government's policy of reform is absolutely correct and they are to be congratulated on it. But if progress with Europe is not made to the advantage of our fishing communities, we cannot stand by and let them sink—we cannot desert them. We may ultimately have to consider the example of the Norwegians who, outside the CFP, have a workable system based on national control within their own 200-mile limit. We could then apply our own conservation regime and control all vessels that fish our waters. That would require a special derogation from the free movement provisions of the treaty of Rome—notably article 52—at the current intergovernmental conference. I am delighted that that is high on the Government's list of priorities.
We all know that there is a serious question mark over the quality and stringency of control of some fishing boats. There is simply no effective catch data verification or control by some member nations. That cannot be allowed to continue.
The CFP rules are becoming more and more complex and are effectively criminalising an honourable group of British workers. That cannot be allowed to continue. We could maintain sensible co-operation with Europe, but a policy of equal access may simply prove unworkable. Europe itself is not working. What could be more senseless than paying huge subsidies to produce and store food, then destroy it, or to risk life to catch good fish, only to throw it overboard, polluting our seas? We need strong Conservative leadership and common sense that puts Britain first—the sort of leadership that my hon. Friends the Minister and the Members for South Hams and for Basildon have given on this fishing issue.
On 20 August, the excellent Canvey Island Times reported my hon. Friend the Minister's visit to our town. It stated: 730
Leigh and Canvey fishermen said they were pleased with their meeting with the Minister".They told me so as well. They trust the Minister. They trust the Government to defend their interests. They trust our instincts. Their trust is well placed.
§ Mr. David Amess (Basildon)I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Dr. Spink) on allowing us the opportunity to debate these important matters. There is little doubt that he has been a champion of the local fishing industry. On 27 March I had the opportunity to raise this subject in another Adjournment debate. As a result, my hon. Friend the Minister agreed to attend what has been proved to be an historic meeting, which took place in July at Beambridge yacht club. My right hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon), my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point and I were present, together with my hon. Friend the Minister.
My hon. Friend the Minister met a whole number of people and many famous families whose livelihoods depend on the cockle industry and on fishing generally. He learnt at first hand just how important fishing is to our particular part of Essex. Many of those fishermen have done much for this country, especially during the second world war.
It was a delight to myself and other colleagues that my hon. Friend the Minister attended the meeting bearing gifts. He listened very carefully to what the representatives had to say, and I believe that on every count he met their wishes. There is just one outstanding subject. He will recall looking at the Thames estuary and listening carefully to the points about the need for some extra funding for dredging the estuary. I wonder whether he has had time to consider that further.
Obviously, Conservative Members are very concerned about proposals to reduce the United Kingdom catch. My hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point was entirely right in what he said about the Labour party's stance on this issue. There is great duplicity on the subject. I very much hope that at the November meeting Britain will hold its ground and give no truck to the bureaucratic nightmare of a regional fishing policy, as advocated by the Liberal Democrats. The proposals would mean a veritable jungle of committees and bureaucracy, overseen by Brussels, with Britain allowed no say in the running of our industry.
My hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point and I hope to visit Europe before Christmas to meet the Fisheries Commissioner.
§ Mr. Anthony Steen (South Hams)It is a waste of time.
§ Mr. AmessI do not accept that. My hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point and myself intend to meet the lady, and we shall do our very best to put the case firmly. I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for what he has done so far and for what he will do in future.
§ Mr. Anthony Steen (South Hams)I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Dr. Spink) for allowing me to make a few chosen comments in this 731 excellent Adjournment debate. I congratulate him on the quality of his speech, and, of course, my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon on his excellent contribution, which we have come to expect from him. I speak from experience of the second largest fishing port in England and Wales, which is in Brixham in my constituency and, fortunately, shares well in the £500 million-worth of fish landed in this country each year.
Unfortunately, whether in the south-east or the south-west, millions of pounds are lost through quota hoppers. Of the UK's 20,000 fishermen, 4,000 are Dutch and Spanish. That may seem double Dutch—it is certainly hard to understand. It is by far the single most important issue for UK fishermen—it remains central to the common fisheries policy for all fishermen, whether they come from the south-east or the south-west. Quotas were given to individual countries by the European Union and were never intended to be tradeable commodities.
The UK fishing industry leads the way with technical conservation methods and in general has a good record of compliance with EU regulations, but every time Spanish fishermen are caught breaking the rules by trawling with the wrong net size or landing undersized fish while flying the red ensign, it is the British fishermen's reputation that is tarnished.
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Minister of State and the Minister for Agriculture for their unstinting commitment to resolving the quota-hopping problem once and for all. I thank the Minister of State personally for coming to my constituency several times—he is always most welcome.
If Commissioner Bonino is not minded to help, we shall have to refuse to renew the common fisheries policy when it expires in the year 2002. Will the Minister say whether it is correct that if the fisheries policy is not renegotiated and in place by 2002, the position reverts to what it was pre-1973? Other countries are pinching nearly half of our fish quota. If the European Courts mean anything, they must ensure that justice is done and that our quota is handed back to us—and handed back fast.
§ Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Tony Baldry)I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Dr. Spink) decided to focus attention on the concerns of the fishing industry in the south-east, because it gives me the opportunity to report to the House on the talks and meetings that I have had with fishermen from the area in recent months. If, in the time available, I cannot respond in detail to the various points raised by him and my hon. Friends the Members for Basildon (Mr. Amess) and for South Hams (Mr. Steen), I shall of course write to them.
My hon. Friend the Member for Basildon was successful in securing a debate in March in which he set out the problems facing Essex and Thames estuary fishermen in particular. In that debate, he invited me to visit Leigh-on-Sea. I am pleased that I was able to take up his kind offer. In July I was pleased to meet my right hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon) and my hon. Friends the Members for 732 Basildon and for Castle Point. I was also able to combine that visit with a long-standing invitation to meet the inshore fishermen of Aldeburgh.
I found both visits extremely valuable, as they enabled me to have an additional insight into the operation of the non-sector fleets. I shall explain to the House in more detail what I mean by non-sector fleets and the problems that local fishermen have to face. Of course, I am determined to continue to meet fishermen from around the country. Indeed, in the coming months I shall have further talks with fishermen at ports as far apart as Harwich and Rye.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point will know, and as I have made clear many times, my only concern is to secure the best possible deal for UK fishermen. That should be apparent from the outcome of yesterday's Fisheries Council in Luxembourg. A great deal of time was spent discussing technical conservation measures and the Commission's proposals for further reducing the size of our fleet. I made it clear that I could only accept conservation measures that were sensible and realistic and would command the respect of the UK fishermen. I also left fellow Fisheries Ministers in no doubt that I could not accept any further compulsory reduction in our fleet unless and until there was satisfactory progress on the issue of quota hoppers.
We have tabled our proposals before the intergovernmental conference and, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister emphasised to other Heads of Government recently in Dublin, the national quota system in the common fisheries policy is designed to balance the need for fish conservation with a secure benefit for a member state's fishing community. There is a burning sense of injustice in Britain not only among fishermen but among people in general that the system of national quotas is being systematically undermined. We are determined to put that right.
As my hon. Friend the Member for South Hams said, it is crazy that nearly a fifth of the quota designated for UK fishermen is being taken by foreign owners of foreign vessels that are foreign crewed and foreign skippered. It is a crazy situation, and it cannot be allowed to continue. Even more crazy—as my hon. Friend the Member for South Hams said—is that those vessels are purportedly flying our flag, masquerading as UK fishermen when they are anything but UK fishermen. They are not even landing their catch in the UK, and bring no economic benefit to us whatsoever.
I think that all hon. Members agree that the common fisheries policy is far from perfect. As the House knows, however, the answer is not to run away from it but to work for improvement to make the policy effective and fair. I am determined to do that. Fish are a common resource that do not respect national boundaries. We conserve that resource by working together within a common framework.
We are determined to maintain the restrictions on fishing within our six and 12-mile limits. Those restrictions are effective and fully supported by the UK industry. Under the CFP, only UK vessels can fish within six miles of our shore, and that includes most of the inshore fishing industry in the south-east.
There are also restrictions on access by foreign vessels within our six to 12-mile limits, so that, off 733 Essex for example, only French and Belgian vessels—because of historic rights to access—can fish within those limits alongside our own fishermen. We are fully committed to maintaining the restrictions on access by foreign vessels within our six and 12-mile limits.
I am conscious that fishermen in Essex and the south-east are facing a difficult and challenging future. I am also aware that there is continuing unease about the way in which our quota management arrangements work. As I made clear to the House last March, we have sought to operate arrangements that are fair and equitable and to encourage fishermen, through producers' organisations, to take on daily responsibility for the management of quota allocations.
Over the past eight years, many fishermen have opted to join or form producers' organisations. There are now 19 such organisations, and together they account for more than 90 per cent. of the uptake of our quotas. They also represent some 60 per cent. of our over 10 m fleet, and a much bigger proportion of those vessels that actively target quota stocks.
At the same time, I realise and fully appreciate that the majority of fishermen from the south-east are not covered by the network of producers' organizations—that they are non-sector fishermen. When I visited Leigh-on-Sea in July, some fishermen expressed considerable interest in setting up a producers' organisation to manage quota allocations and to market fish caught by Thames estuary fishermen. I welcome that, and I am pleased to learn that initial approaches by local fishermen in Essex who want to form a producers' organisation have been made to the Ministry. I can assure the House that we shall do everything we can within the framework of the European Community's marketing regulations to advise those fishermen and to assist that initiative.
I must also emphasise that we have taken important steps over the years, and that we will continue to do so, to safeguard the position of those who continue to operate as non-sector fishermen. First, monthly catch limits are set in consultation with representatives of non-sector fishermen, and every human effort is made to keep fisheries open throughout the year.
Secondly, producers' organisations that want to manage quota allocations must do so for all fish stocks. That means that, in managing the non-sector allocations, the fisheries department is able to focus exclusively on the interests of fishermen who are not members of producers' organisations. Officials in my Department are continually seeking to protect the interests of non-sector fishermen, and to ensure that those interests are looked after fairly.
Thirdly, we have introduced underpinning for stocks of particular interest to non-sector fishermen, including North sea sole and cod. Those arrangements have operated for the past two years, and this year, for example, they have resulted in non-sector fishermen receiving an extra 691 tonnes of cod, which is equivalent to 38 per cent. of their allocation.
From my discussion with fishermen, there was a clear desire that the arrangements for underpinning should be 734 extended to other fish stocks. The quota management arrangements for 1997 are due to be discussed in Edinburgh at the beginning of November with representatives of all sides of the industry. I intend to propose that underpinning should be extended to North sea whiting and plaice, which are the remaining two quota stocks of particular interest to Thames estuary fishermen.
Underpinning also operates for the under 10 m fleet. For the past three years, those fishermen have received a guaranteed share of the UK's quota irrespective of whether they have been able to catch their full entitlement. There may, for example, have been bad weather or fish stocks may have failed to turn up on inshore grounds.
To further safeguard the interests of the inshore fleet, we amended our licensing rules earlier this year to check the future growth in the number of powerful vessels just under the 10 m limit. I am also pleased to report that, so far this year, it has not been necessary to close any fishery to the small inshore fleet, including the North sea sole fishery. I hope that I have demonstrated that within the tight quota constraints set by the Community and the need to take effective measures to conserve fish stocks, the interests of south-east fishermen are not being overlooked. I am determined to ensure that they are treated fairly.
May I reassure my hon. Friend that the track records of decommissioned vessels in the membership of producer organisations are not, in fact, retained by the POs. The track records of all decommissioned vessels, irrespective of the group to which they belong, are shared among the remainder of the fishing fleet. Thus when a PO vessel is decommissioned, the non-sector is able to benefit from its track record. Indeed, I am told that, over the years, this arrangement has generally favoured the non-sector because it has obtained a share of the usually larger track records of decommissioned PO boats.
In our consultations on the present decommissioning scheme, we invited comments on the proposal that fishermen should be allowed to retain the track record from decommissioned vessels, with a percentage of those track records being set aside for the non-sector. I have to say that, alas, the consultation exercise revealed little support for this proposal from fishermen in the south-east or from any part of the industry, including the non-sector, with the result that it was not included in the final scheme. However, as I made clear at Leigh-on-Sea, I am always ready to listen to further representations. I appreciate the frustrations of the non-sector and of Essex and south-east fishermen in particular. If we have any future decommissioning round and if the fishermen wish to put forward further proposals, I shall be very happy to consider them.
I fully appreciate the importance of the sole fishery to fishermen within the Thames estuary. Last year, sole accounted for just under one third of the value of the total fish landed into Essex ports. The remainder of their earnings comes from other stocks such as cod, bass, plaice, sprats, skate and rays. Such diversification 735 is essential; fishermen must avoid becoming over-dependent on a single stock.
My hon. Friend referred to the possibility of exempting inshore fishermen from the constraints of quota management. Within the present discussions in the Community on the next round of decommissioning, there is much talk about exempting coastal fishing boats—some Fisheries Ministers yesterday gave figures as high as 14 m—from the constraints of quota management. That will have to be discussed within the whole context of future fisheries management.
I fully understand the frustrations of, for example, Aldeburgh fishermen. Although they are fishing just off the Suffolk coast and can go out only when the weather 736 conditions are fine, they are caught up in the same quota management conditions as large North sea trawlers are.
In respect of my hon. Friend's concern about financial assistance, I am pleased to tell the House that £400,000—
§ The motion having been made after Ten o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
§ Adjourned accordingly at twelve minutes to One o'clock.