§ 8. Mr. Austin Mitchell (Great Grimsby)When he next proposes to meet the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations to discuss the regulation of fishing. [47163]
§ The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Elliot Morley)Frequent meetings are held with the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations on a wide range of fisheries issues. No firm date has been set for a future meeting, but I last met them on Monday of this week.
§ Mr. MitchellI know that my hon. Friend makes unprecedented efforts to keep in touch with the industry and, in particular, to come to its natural home in Grimsby and consult the industry there. At the same time, he is imposing an unprecedented diet of change and now the possibility of charges on the hard pressed industry. Will he undertake, first, to introduce changes and charges only by consent and after consultation and, secondly, to impose no more restrictions or charges on the British industry than its European competitors face? We need a genuinely level fishing ground where regulations are not imposed and enforced in this country while they are blithely ignored across Europe.
§ Mr. MorleyMy hon. Friend knows as well as I do that, when we came to power over a year ago, we inherited a fishing industry in utter shambles. That is why a great many changes in regulations and procedures have been introduced. It is correct to say that, as part of a comprehensive spending review, we have been considering all options, including whether there is a case for charges. That is an academic exercise, and we have made available to the industry the results. I assure my hon. Friend that proposals will not come forward without full and proper consultation with the industry and without taking into account what other European countries are doing in relation to such things as charges.
§ Mr. John Townend (East Yorkshire)Is the Minister aware of the great disappointment that, under the proposed regulations, Bridlington will not be a designated port? Is he aware that the reasons that he gave me in his letter of 17 June—that there were no auction facilities and no fisheries office—are not acceptable? It is not acceptable that such decisions are made for bureaucratic convenience. My fishermen see this as further evidence that this is a Government of deregulation and I hope that he will reconsider that decision.
Even more worrying to my fishermen is the fear that in future the regulations for designated ports might be extended to those dealing with pelagic varieties, which would severely affect Bridlington. Can the Minister give an assurance that there will be no extension?
§ Mr. MorleyDesignated ports have been introduced to try to improve fisheries enforcement. Whether we like it 511 or not, there is a problem of enforcement and blackfish. This is a national issue for which we are responsible. In addition to the reasons given in the letter to which the hon. Gentleman referred, Bridlington was not included because of the number of over-20 m boats which operate from there. We have received representations from Bridlington and they will be considered as part of the consultation exercise. However, I emphasise that the restriction applies only to over-20 m vessels and it simply requires them to give only four hours notice on their way to port or in port to give us the option of having a seafish inspector on the quayside to ensure that everything is in order.
§ Mr. Andrew George (St. Ives)What assurance can the Minister give the House that Britain's 6 and 12 mile fishing limits can be protected after the reform of the common fisheries policy in 2002?
§ Mr. MorleyI can certainly assure the hon. Gentleman that we take the issue seriously. The 6 and 12 mile limits are a derogation from the common fisheries policy and must be renewed by a majority vote in the Council of Ministers. However, the value of the 6 and 12 mile limits has already been emphasised in a letter to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister from the President of the Commission. I am confident that the value of the 6 and 12 mile limits, which other countries also acknowledge, means that they will continue after 2002. That certainly will not be part of the conspiracy theories against Europe that we have heard today in the House.
§ Mr. Bob Blizzard (Waveney)Fishermen in my constituency feel that my hon. Friend has done well since the election in his support for the fishing industry, but they never stop telling me that the fishing regulations are just not enforced as strictly by some European countries as they are by Britain. Does my hon. Friend agree and, if so, what steps is he taking, and what steps can he take, to ensure a level fishing ground—words taken out of my mouth earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell)?
§ Mr. MorleyI can assure my hon. Friend that his fishermen are right to be concerned that measures are not enforced equally and fairly by all member states. It was for that reason that, under our presidency, we introduced a new draft directive which addresses the issues of enforcement and control, common definitions and common standards of enforcement, which all member states at the Council of Ministers agreed was important and should be introduced. I am confident that those issues will be properly addressed.
§ Mrs. Margaret Ewing (Moray)Has the Minister given consideration to the implications of the EU working time directive, particularly for the catching sector? Given the complexities of the implementation of the directive and how it will affect that vital sector, particularly in my area, is it the Government's recommendation that the catching sector should be excluded?
§ Mr. MorleyMAFF accepts that the working time directive is not appropriate for the working pattern of 512 share fishermen. We have had representations from fishermen's organisations and they have raised the issue with the Department of Trade and Industry.
§ Mr. Patrick Nicholls (Teignbridge)What confidence can the fishing industry have in the Minister's willingness to stand up in Europe to oppose further regulations such as the working time directive, the extension of logbook regulations and species recording when he is unilaterally planning, without reference to Europe, to introduce designated landing ports? Is it not time that he stopped contributing to the blizzard of overregulation that fishermen must undergo and did something positive, in Europe and in this country, to oppose it?
§ Mr. MorleyThis is about national competence and the Government accepting our responsibility for the problem of over-landings and black fish. We had to introduce regulations such as designated ports because of the utter failure of the previous Administration to tackle the issue.