New clause

HC Deb 09 June 1998 vol 313 cc933-79

Lords amendment: after clause 1, to insert the following new clause—Quota-hopping— (". This Act shall come into force only when each House of Parliament has come to a resolution on a motion tabled by a Minister of the Crown considering the legal protection for British fishermen afforded by the Treaty of Amsterdam on the issue of quota-hopping.")

7.4 pm

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Doug Henderson)

I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.

The amendment would prevent the United Kingdom from ratifying the treaty of Amsterdam until such time as both Houses of Parliament had come to a resolution on a motion concerning the Amsterdam treaty and quota hopping. The Government cannot accept that amendment.

The House will recognise that, if the amendment were passed, it would delay ratification of the treaty of Amsterdam by the United Kingdom. Indeed, in the light of the Opposition's apparent willingness to rely on the voting rights of hereditary peers, it might delay it much longer than the House might initially suppose.

The House will also recognise that such delay would prevent British citizens from getting the benefits of the Amsterdam treaty provisions. It would prevent confirmation of the distinctive United Kingdom arrangements for border controls, now included in the treaty. It would prevent the important new provisions on foreign and defence policy from coming into being, which are highly advantageous to the United Kingdom; we believe that international co-operation on foreign policy is important, founded on a North Atlantic Treaty Organisation defence capability. It would prevent important progress on environmental protection. It would prevent important progress on tackling unemployment through the European Union. Even if the amendment were passed, it would do nothing to help us to find a solution to the problems of the fishing industry.

Mr. William Cash (Stone)

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that, in fact, the House of Lords has been extremely temperate—in my view, far too temperate—in its treatment of the Bill? It is a little on the thin side for us to have only one amendment as a result of all the consideration of the Bill in the House of Lords. Had the accusations that have been made against the House of Lords been justified, I should have expected—I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will agree—many more amendments. I regret the fact that there are not more.

Mr. Henderson

The hon. Gentleman is free to regret what he wishes in the House, and if he wishes to regret the inactivity of another place, that is up to him. I do not think that there has been inactivity. I think that the Members of another place have considered the issues surrounding the Bill and, in most cases, have reached a considered view, which would be acceptable to the vast majority of Members of this House and of the people of the United Kingdom. One must commend them on that. There is a difference of view on whether a deal on quota hopping should be a reason to delay the Bill; we can now debate that. In general, however, the other place has dealt with these matters in a reasonable way.

Mr. John Gummer (Suffolk, Coastal)

The hon. Gentleman knows that I am not antagonistic to the European Union, so I do not think it unreasonable to ask him the following question. Is it not true that most of the problem concerning the amendment arises because of the direct promises made by the Prime Minister on what he was going to gain in the discussions that led to the Amsterdam treaty? This is not something that should divide pro-Europeans and anti-Europeans; it is a fact that the Prime Minister promised that he would deliver something, and he has not delivered it. The amendment suggests only that, until he delivers what he promised, we should not deliver what he said he would not sign up to until he had delivered it. That is the issue before the House; the recital of stuff about the environment has nothing to do with it.

Mr. Henderson

The Prime Minister committed the British Government to tackling the important and serious problem of quota hopping, and he has done so in a practical and realistic way. I shall return specifically to the points that the right hon. Gentleman raised. If I happen to omit some of them, I know that he can intervene again.

The Government share the genuine concerns of the fishing industry in relation to the issue of quota hopping. That, I believe, will be demonstrated in the comments that I am about to make.

The difference between this Government and the previous Government is that, rather than talk and harangue about the fishing industry, we have been prepared to act firmly in defence of British fishing interests. The Conservatives claim that they would not have signed the Amsterdam treaty unless they had secured a deal on the quota hopping protocol, which they tabled. They have made much of that protocol—in fact, its signing increasingly became the centrepiece of the Conservative position on the European Union in the build-up to the general election.

The protocol was tabled in autumn 1996. If the previous Government considered the protocol to be so important and so central to their approach to the European Union—and particularly the treaty of Amsterdam—why did the German Government not know about it? When my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and I visited Germany about a week after the general election, we raised the matter with Klaus Kinkel, the German Foreign Minister. He was unaware not only of the contents of the protocol but of its existence. If the Conservative Government of the day had had any hope of progressing the matter, they would have needed the support and understanding of the German Foreign Minister.

The Conservatives were winding up their efforts in the spring of 1997, but the problems with quota hopping did not begin then—as every fisherman in the United Kingdom knows. On 2 April 1985, during the debate on the accession of Spain and Portugal to the European Union, the then Prime Minister, Mrs. Thatcher, told the House: There will be no detriment to our fishing industry, no reductions in the important quotas available to British fishermen and no new access for Spanish fishing boats to the North Sea fishing grounds."—[Official Report, 2 April 1985; Vol. 76, c. 1061.] The Government of the day believed that they had secured sufficient protection for the British fishing industry, and that quota hopping would not be a problem. However, the European courts told the Conservative Government in 1991 that there was a problem. Why did they wait another six years—until 1997—before beginning to tackle the issue seriously? In the absence of any cogent argument in support of the delay, it appears that the Conservative position was an empty gesture—a panic attack by a demoralised and directionless Government—and was not deliverable. I put it to the Opposition that they knew 12 months ago that the protocol was not deliverable.

We have faced the issue realistically and put a firm and practical case for the British fishing industry and British fishing communities.

Mr. John Townend (East Yorkshire)

How much extra fish will be produced for British fishing boats as a result of the Government's negotiations at Amsterdam?

Mr. Henderson

That is an interesting speculation, and it would be dishonest of me to say that I know the answer. We are in the process of concluding the agreement, which must obviously be tested before any fisherman in Britain can say whether the deal has had a beneficial result. I encourage the hon. Gentleman to ask more serious questions in future.

7.15 pm

Dr. Norman A. Godman (Greenock and Inverclyde)

My hon. Friend referred to the incompetence of the then Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher, in her dealings with European Union member states on the fishing industry issue. I remind him that her predecessor used the United Kingdom fishing industry as a bargaining counter in his negotiations with the then European Economic Community. That is where the root of the problem lies: in his desperate efforts to get into Europe, he sacrificed our fishing communities to the demands of the utterly disgraceful common fisheries policy.

Mr. Henderson

I am aware of my hon. Friend's keen interest in and knowledge of the fishing industry, and I am guided by him on the history of the issue. I assure him that the Government are determined to negotiate seriously and competently, to secure a good deal for the British fishing industry.

We began the process last June with an exchange of letters between the Prime Minister and the President of the Commission, setting out the practical way forward. The exchange records the Commission's interpretation of how a member state may, within the rules of the single market, require an economic link between fishing activity and fishing communities. Since Amsterdam, we have taken that process forward systematically. We issued a consultation document last July, and, on 4 July, Government officials met representatives of the United Kingdom industry to discuss implementation. Following that meeting, fishermen's organisations submitted detailed written comments on the discussion paper. The National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations and other fishermen's organisations have been fully involved throughout the process of preparing the economic link licence conditions.

After several other meetings between officials and industry representatives, we submitted draft proposals to the European Commission incorporating contributions from the United Kingdom fishing industry. Those draft proposals were copied to all United Kingdom industry representatives. Following revision of the draft proposals, a new version of the United Kingdom proposals was submitted to the Commission in April. A copy of the proposals was placed in the Library on 12 May 1998 and sent to all United Kingdom industry representatives.

The proposals require all vessels to comply with one of the following criteria. First, vessels must land 50 per cent. of their catch of quota species in the United Kingdom; secondly, 50 per cent. of the crew must be resident in United Kingdom coastal areas; thirdly, there must be a certain level of operational expenditure in United Kingdom coastal areas; or, fourthly, they must demonstrate that other measures will provide sufficient economic benefit to populations in the United Kingdom that are dependent on fishing and related industries. The last condition implies a mixture of the first three.

Mrs. Angela Browning (Tiverton and Honiton)

How many quota hoppers have been removed from the British register?

Mr. Henderson

The hon. Lady will understand that there are continual changes. However, changes have not been made to this agreement, because it is not yet concluded. I tried to explain to the House that, following the issue of draft proposals, there was extensive consultation with fishing interests, particularly fishermen. Therefore, the Government were well aware of the perceived implications of the proposals for the fishing industry, and fishermen had the opportunity to put their comments to Commission officials. It is not possible now to see how effective the proposals have been, because they are not yet in place.

Mr. David Curry (Skipton and Ripon)

What does the Minister mean by the phrase "a certain level of operational expenditure"? What has happened to the visiting condition?

Mr. Henderson

There are many ways of classifying operational expenditure. They are included in the consultative document that was given to the fishing interests, which have responded in great detail. Refitting boats and dealing with equipment, which is one way of demonstrating an economic link to British fishing communities, is covered. The industry was satisfied that that was effective. It is not content, however, with everything that is being said, and there is still a certain amount of to-ing and fro-ing, but it is behind the mandate that the British Government now have and on which we are negotiating with Commission officials. This substantial package of measures will be effective and compatible with the treaty.

The process of putting substance into the exchange of letters between ourselves and the Commission is important. Apart from meetings with the fishing industry, many meetings have been held with Commission officials. Since last June, Government officials and officials from Brussels have held formal consultations with the Commission on seven occasions. Only last week, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food discussed progress with Commissioner Bonino. The Commission has said that it will soon be in a position to respond.

Mr. Patrick Nicholls (Teignbridge)

Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Henderson

I have been very generous in giving way, but I am tempted yet again.

Mr. Nicholls

The Minister may regret that, but we shall see.

The Minister mentioned the Government's proposals, which are being considered by the Commission. If a deal is done, and another exchange of correspondence takes place, can he guarantee—I stress that word—that they will not be successfully challenged before the European Court?

Mr. Henderson

I am glad that I gave way, because I can remind the hon. Gentleman that I have already said that we believe that our proposals will be practical and effective, which means that they will be consistent with European law. That is how real progress can be achieved.

Those measures will ensure that real economic links exist between the United Kingdom's fishing fleet and our coastal communities, that there is a significant improvement on the current situation, when many vessels bring little or no benefit to the United Kingdom, and that vessels that fail to maintain an economic link with the United Kingdom will be unable to fish United Kingdom quota species until they are able to demonstrate that satisfactory economic links have been established.

We shall continue to press the case for our fishing industry and our fishing communities, until a fair and acceptable agreement is reached. That is how real progress can be made, which is why we ask the House to reject the Lords amendment.

Mr. Michael Howard (Folkestone and Hythe)

The debate affords hon. Members their only opportunity to reconsider the Bill giving effect to the treaty of Amsterdam. The fact that there will be only one such opportunity speaks volumes for the restraint shown by the other place in its consideration of the Bill, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) said.

Furthermore, the fact that the only such opportunity relates to quota hopping—with which the Government failed to deal at Amsterdam—reflects, first, the importance that we attach to the fishing industry and the contribution that it makes to our national life, and, secondly, the damage done to the industry by the Government's failure to defend it at Amsterdam and the extent to which that failure represents a breach of promises made by Ministers, from the Prime Minister down, before the election. On that subject, as on so many others, the gap between pre-election promises and post-election performance amounts to a large fracture of the trust to which the Prime Minister used to refer so frequently.

Mr. Mike Gapes (Ilford, South)

Given the right hon. and learned Gentleman's remarks about trust, does he still advocate a referendum on the Amsterdam treaty?

Mr. Howard

As we have consistently made clear, the problem of the referendum is for the Government, not for the Opposition. The Government have offered referendums on everything under the sun—a mayor for London, devolution for Wales and for Scotland and regional bodies in England. If the Government are to offer referendums on those things, they certainly should do so on the treaty.

To keep my speech within manageable proportions, I promise not refer to a single promise made by a Labour party spokesman more than a year before the election. I begin with promises made to a Standing Committee by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. I am astonished that he is not present but, on reflection and given the extent to which he went on the record before the election and the extremity of the embarrassment he would suffer if he were in the Chamber, perhaps his absence is not such a surprise.

My hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill), who is, of course, in his place, mentioned those promises in the fishing debate of 9 July 1997, so they should not be unfamiliar to Labour Members, even though the Parliamentary Secretary is too embarrassed to attend th debate because he might be reminded of them. Referring to the common resource aspect of the common fisheries policy, the Parliamentary Secretary said: We must deal with that issue and remove that term from the CFP … We believe that the CFP should be radically reformed to allow us far greater autonomy and national control of fishing waters within our country's limits."—[Official Report, European Standing Committee A, 23 July 1996; c. 24–25.] Those words were uttered less than a year before he assumed his responsibilities for making good those pledges, and less than a year before the intergovernmental conference which provided the opportunity for making them good—yet, as we know, nothing was done.

The Parliamentary Secretary was by no means the only offender. The Foreign Secretary referred specifically to quota hopping at a meeting that he held with fishing interests in Inverness in March 1997, only weeks before the election and the IGC. His remarks were quoted in Fishing News and drawn to the House's attention in the July fishing debate by the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond), so they, too, will be familiar to Ministers.

The Foreign Secretary said: A Labour Government would have more chance of getting the treaty changes at the intergovernmental conference to end quota hopping than would the present Government, because it has a better relationship with the European Union and fewer disputes to resolve. That may represent one of the first examples of the fantasies to which the Foreign Secretary has since become increasingly prone, but we were never able to discover what chance the Government had of getting those treaty changes, because, despite the brave and bold words of the Prime Minister, they never even tried.

The Prime Minister said: We certainly have not ruled out holding up IGC business in order to get the right changes to fishing policy in the British interest … where Britain's interests are at stake, we are perfectly prepared to be isolated. Of course we are. That was days before the election, yet, far from holding up IGC business to get the right changes, he made no effort whatever to get them. Why? In his own words, there was not a single member state that supported the … treaty protocol".—[Official Report, 18 June 1997; Vol. 296, c. 320.] That treaty protocol was proposed by the previous Government.

Mr. Gummer

Whatever side one may be on in those discussions, is it not a remarkable failure of the Prime Minister to claim that he could do that, but then not even attempt to do it? Many of us suspected that he could not have done it in the first place. Before the election, he was going to do it, but he has not even tried after the election.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin)

Order. The right hon. Gentleman has an awful habit of making a meal of it when he intervenes. He cannot do that.

Mr. Howard

I am sure that you will agree, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that it is a very appetising meal.

I agree with my right hon. Friend: it is remarkable for the Prime Minister to make those promises and then do nothing to fulfil them, but that is entirely characteristic of him. Like so many other promises that the Prime Minister made before the election, it was a promise for the voting, not for the keeping. The loser from the Prime Minister's attitude has been Britain's fishing industry.

The common fisheries policy was expressly designed to ensure that national fishing fleets would be given fair access to Europe's fish stocks. Quota hopping, which now accounts for more than 20 per cent. of the tonnage of Britain's offshore fleet, is clearly frustrating that purpose. The previous Government were committed to a successful future for the British fishing fleet, and were determined to address this issue at the intergovernmental conference.

Dr. George Turner (North-West Norfolk)

I have listened with interest, because I was not in the House during the previous Parliament. What improvements were made between 1991 and 1997? As I understand it, the problem was clearly identified in 1991. What progress was made in those six years that can be contrasted with that made in the past 13 months?

7.30 pm

Mr. Howard

I shall tell the hon. Gentleman exactly what happened. The problem was apparent much earlier than 1991: it became apparent in the 1980s. The Government of the time passed the Merchant Shipping Act 1988, which was specifically and expressly designed to deal with the problem. In 1991, the European Court of Justice ruled in the Factortame judgment that the 1988 Act was inconsistent with the treaty. The then Government did what any sensible Government would do: they put the matter on the agenda of the next intergovernmental conference. To put right that judgment of the European Court of Justice, it was necessary to raise the matter at the intergovernmental conference and to change the treaty.

It is no good Labour Members suggesting that we should not have done that. Just before the election, they were saying that they supported the previous Government's view in their press release and their proposals to the IGC. They even said that they would have made those proposals somewhat stronger. It does not lie in the mouth of the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk (Dr. Turner) or other Labour Members to criticise the actions of the previous Government. They would have gone even further in the proposals to the IGC.

Mr. Doug Henderson

It is strange that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is not even able to say, in response to that point, that, at all the various Council meetings between 1991 and 1997, the Conservative Government were not able to raise the issue of quota hopping. Why did they not introduce a decommissioning scheme during those six years as an alternative way for fishing owners in difficulty to deal with the issue, rather than selling their quota to foreign owners?

Mr. Howard

I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman is in some difficulty, deserted as he is by the Minister responsible for fisheries. It is not surprising that he puts such questions to me. The answer is simple: we did introduce a decommissioning scheme. We spent £53 million on a decommissioning scheme. I do not blame the hon. Gentleman for not knowing that: he should not have been left alone by the Minister to deal with these questions. There it is: he has my sympathy, although it may not be enough on this occasion.

In July 1996, we tabled a protocol—[Interruption.] Ah, relief is at hand. A hasty telephone call from the Whip, and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture arrives. I fear that it is too late for me to remind him of all those embarrassing remarks and promises that he made before the election, but perhaps some of my right hon. and hon. Friends will make good that deficiency as we proceed.

Dr. Godman

As an Opposition MP at the time, I supported the Merchant Shipping Bill as it went through the House, even though I predicted that it was highly probable that it would be challenged at the European Court of Justice. Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman concede that the Conservative Government who were put out of office in May 1997 were bedevilled for years by their failure to meet the requirements of the European Union's multi-annual guidance programme?

Mr. Howard

Any difficulties that may have arisen on that programme were not specifically to do with that Government. Any British Government in power at that time would have had to deal with those difficulties. The solution to those problems and to the difficulties that we have previously discussed—this is, after all, a debate about quota hopping—was to be found in the 10-point package that the previous Government proposed. Quota hopping was only part of the package, the aims of which were: to insist that the six and 12-mile limits were not negotiable; to give fishermen more say in policy; to give a further £12 million to decommissioning—the issue that the Minister so ill-advisedly raised—to exempt small vessels from regulations; to press technical conservation measures; to give agency status to MAFF fisheries laboratories; and to reject the idea of a single European fleet managed and policed from Brussels.

The previous Government were clear about the priority that we attached to those issues, in particular to the quota-hopping protocol. My right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) said: The IGC won't come to a successful conclusion until we are satisfied that among our other objectives the problem of quota hopping is resolved satisfactorily. That was our approach. By contrast, the present Government did not even try. Instead of a treaty amendment, the Prime Minister settled for a letter that has no binding legal effect whatever. The Prime Minister must have known that it has no legal effect. Indeed, it does not claim to do more than clarify the existing legal position.

The Spanish Government have made it clear—this is an interesting point in view of the intervention from the hon. Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman)—that, if they feel that their rights are being weakened in any way by action based on that letter, they will turn again to the European Court of Justice. One year on from this celebrated exchange of correspondence, it has yet to lead to any result. What we saw on this issue at Amsterdam was nothing short of surrender.

The Prime Minister broke his promises, tossed aside his pledges and failed to fight for Britain's fishermen. That is why I invite the House to reject the Government motion and to agree with the Lords in their amendment to the Bill.

Mr. Austin Mitchell (Great Grimsby)

That was an interesting exercise in exculpation from the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard)—an apologia for a Government who, for 18 years, did little for fishing except stand by and watch it be restructured by bankruptcy and liquidation. To hear an ex-Minister say that, if the previous Government had not got what they wanted in Amsterdam they would have wrecked the entire conference—

Mr. Howard

No.

Mr. Mitchell

That was the implication to be drawn from what was said.

Mr. Howard

We are not producing a new statement. The then Prime Minister made it absolutely clear before the intergovernmental conference. This is not a new invention: it is consistent with what we were saying at the time.

Mr. Mitchell

It is a fairy story to suggest that the Conservative Government, had they been lucky enough to retain office after the election, would have gone to such lengths as wrecking the conference to get anything done about quota hopping. It is fantasy, and we all know it. The right hon. and learned Gentleman insults the intelligence of the House by bleating on about that.

Mr. Howard

If it is fantasy, why did the present Prime Minister say, just days before the election, that he intended to do precisely the same thing?

Mr. Mitchell

He did not say that. The statement came from the former Prime Minister, who had always gone to European Councils bleating on about what he and his Government were going to do, how they were going to fight for Britain—

Mr. Howard

rose—

Mr. Mitchell

The right hon. and learned Gentleman should let me finish my sentence before he interrupts.

The Conservative Government bleated about what they were going to do, but they came back with their tail between their legs because they had done nothing.

Mr. Howard

I am reluctant to interrupt the hon. Gentleman's stream of invective, but he must get his facts right. Just days before the election, the present Prime Minister said: We certainly have not ruled out holding up IGC business in order to get the right changes to fishing policy in the British interests … Where Britain's interests are at stake, we are perfectly prepared to be isolated. Of course we are. The present Prime Minister said that just before the election, when he was trying to persuade people to vote for him, and that there was absolutely no difference whatever between his party's position on the issue and that of the then Government.

Mr. Mitchell

"We have not ruled it out" does not mean "We have ruled it in". There was no unequivocal statement from Labour at that stage to the effect that we would wreck the conference in the way that the then Prime Minister argued he would. Those are the facts, and it is no use arguing about it now. The right hon. and learned Gentleman and I both know what happened.

Later in my speech I shall deal with the position in which we ended up. We were let down by the conference and, in my view, we were not firm enough, but there was no commitment, of the kind that the right hon. and learned Gentleman implies, to wreck the conference—and it would have had to be that way for us to get anywhere on this issue. That apologia for 18 years of Tory failure in fishing policy will not hold water. It is simply incredible, even in relation to the arguments about the Merchant Shipping Act 1988, which came eight years too late.

For eight years, Members representing fishing constituencies had been warning that there was a growing problem—that quota hoppers were taking over the British fleet. Owners of British vessels who were going bankrupt and unable to make a return were being forced to sell their licences, and the Europeans were buying them. The Government did nothing while the cancer grew on the fishing industry until it became ineradicable. To say now that the previous Government tried to do something about it is just another of the incredible claims in the right hon. and learned Gentleman's speech.

Mrs. Teresa Gorman (Billericay)

We have just listened to a panoply of excuses as to why the Government, now they have the power to do so, are not prepared to cut out the cancer. The hon. Gentleman should be asking the Government why they now suffer from inertia.

Mr. Mitchell

The hon. Lady and I rarely disagree, and I take no pleasure in disagreeing with her now, but nothing can be done about the problem until we can close the door. We cannot close the door without changing the treaty of Rome and the condition that businesses can be established in any European country. Until something is done about that, it will be impossible to tackle the basic issue.

I agree that the measures that we are proposing are not adequate. I agree that they are fig leaves, and I shall continue to say so in the course of my speech—although I would rather do so on my terms than on the hon. Lady's. However, that does not affect the basic issue. We could not have made that basic change without putting a spanner in the works of the conference, which no new incoming Government would do. Indeed, the outgoing Government would not have done so, either.

Mr. Crispin Blunt (Reigate)

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Mitchell

No. I must move on.

The British fishing industry has suffered for years from the exchange of party political point scoring, which has done nothing for it. Each side of the House has said, "We are tougher than you are on Europe," and has then given way to Europe. Each side has done nothing for the fishing industry and has let it decline, always sacrificing it to other interests and issues that are considered more important at the time. Fishing Ministers have been pathetic. It is not their fault, but that of the Government, who always have other priorities and do not regard fishing as important. That is the real problem.

The Lords amendment states: This Act shall come into force only when … the legal protection of British fishermen afforded by the Treaty of Amsterdam on the issue of quota-hopping is considered. That is easily dealt with. There is no legal protection against quota hopping in the treaty of Amsterdam. It is a half-baked amendment. It was the only one that the Lords could get through, and, frankly, it is useless. What is the use of asking us to consider the protection offered by a treaty against quota hopping, when the treaty makes no mention of quota hopping or any protection? There was an exchange of letters and that was all. Frankly, it is a pathetic amendment, and we are wasting the time of the House discussing it.

Sir Teddy Taylor (Rochford and Southend, East)

Whether the previous Government were useless or the present Government are useless—I am not experienced enough to judge that—does the hon. Gentleman not agree that the only effective way of achieving anything on this vital issue is to say that the treaty does not go through until something is done? Although it is not mentioned in the treaty, the hon. Gentleman knows that that can be achieved in other Councils. Does he agree that, if he wants to get something done—as he clearly does—no matter which Government are in power, the right thing to do is to follow the course of action preferred by the Lords and say that the treaty cannot come into force until something is done about fishing?

7.45 pm

Mr. Mitchell

I wish that we had the power to say that. It is a footling, pointless treaty, and it was the outcome of a footling, pointless summit that achieved no agreement. Brave hopes were held out as to what it would achieve, and in the end they came to nothing except a half-baked compromise. It is a pathetic, lame, limping treaty, but we have passed it. I did not vote for it and I do not support it, but it has been passed and the Government will accept it whatever we say. Theoretically, the hon. Gentleman is perfectly correct, but for practical purposes he is wrong, and that is about all I can say.

The amendment raises two issues. The first is the effect of the treaty, and of other treaties—I tried to include them in the debate by tabling an amendment—on the common fisheries policy. The common fisheries policy is based on the principle of equal access to a common resource in which we have national quotas, but only as an interim measure.

The treaty of Corfu, which we also have to take into account, says, in relation to the accession of Finland and Sweden: the arrangements for access laid down … shall apply only during a transitional period, the end of which shall be marked by the date of implementation of the Community fishing permit system". In other words, the treaty of Corfu presupposes the end of the common fisheries policy and the advent of what must be a European fleet—a Community fishing permit system. It is there in the treaty.

My understanding is that the Spanish managed to secure a comparatively small wording change to the treaty that was not noticed by the Foreign Office. We are committed by that treaty to a scheme which I have never heard of and know nothing about but which is due to come in from 2003, providing for a Community fishing permit system. The former Minister, the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr. Davis), said: The Finnish and Swedish accessions do not in any way prejudice the outcome of the eventual revision of the CFP basic regulation. However, that is not what the Corfu treaty says.

I want to know from my hon. Friend the Minister who is right on the issue. What are we to make of the treaty of Corfu? What does it mean? My hon. Friend has written to me and I am grateful for his explanation, as I find the issues difficult to follow. He is a good friend, and in a sense a good educator, on these matters, which are extremely complex. In his letter to Fishing News on 1 May 1998, my hon. Friend writes: There is no proposal to create a single European fishing fleet administered from Brussels. If there were to be one, this Government would oppose it. He is absolutely right; so would I.

The letter continues: The system of quotas on relative stability will be reviewed by the end of 2002. But it does not expire then and will continue unaltered unless the Council decides otherwise. However, the treaty of Corfu says not, so who is correct? Can the derogations that we have be superior to a treaty that we have also signed saying that there will be a fishing permit system? That is the nature of the question.

I am therefore asking my hon. Friend what will happen on the issue. I hope that he will turn his attention to it in his reply. The question hanging over fishing, on which my he may leap to his feet to put me right, has been much discussed in Fishing News, which is a major part of my reading. I do not like The Guardian very much any more, so I compensate by reading Fishing News obsessively—and very educational and good reading it is, too. I need the alternative view to be put.

I turn, finally, to the problem of quota hoppers and access. The principle of equal access to a common resource was, as my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman) said, given away by the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath), when he was Prime Minister, with no regard to the interests of British fishing industry. It is practically impossible to push the Sisyphean stone back up the hill, because we are tied by that principle. We cannot manage or control our own fishery grounds, because everyone has equal access to a common resource. Even Luxembourg and Austria can set up their own fishing fleets and have equal access to a common resource.

The problem is that of stopping quota hoppers. If we cannot—if there is no power legally to do so—we will not be able to close the door to any more. The British fishing industry is encountering more difficulty. English fishing particularly is very difficult. English fishermen are not making adequate returns; prices have not risen to support increased costs; and fishermen are handicapped by small quotas and the weight of restriction that is growing around their necks. That means that they will be in financial difficulty, that there will be more temptation to sell, and that quota hoppers will play an increasing part in most ports.

The industry will be wondering what it can do, and will perhaps conclude that it should keep the quota hoppers because at least they bring some economic activity to the ports. It will say that, since there are no Grimsby or Lowestoft vessels, it will have to have quota hoppers. If we can close the door, we can do something about the problem. If we cannot, we will be cutting off our nose to spite our face.

The Amsterdam exchange of letters did not achieve very much. It was just a fairly typical Euro-con. Proposals that had been hanging around and discussed for many months were taken up. They sounded as though they would achieve something, and were given to a new Prime Minister—who I think was not well briefed by the Foreign Office, since it does not have any expertise on such issues and lets us down perpetually. Neither side of the argument would have disrupted the conference—certainly not an incoming Government—to get their way on quota hopping, so the Prime Minister seized on the proposals as a way out. He arrived at Northolt airport holding a piece of paper, which said something like "No quota hoppers in our time"—and nothing happened.

That is a fairly typical Euro-con: a paper is presented, giving hope, but nothing happens and the issue is forgotten. Lord Whitty, Labour's Front-Bench spokesman on the issue in another place, gave a very honest view when he said that not much was achieved, that we could not achieve very much, that the situation was impossible, and that the Prime Minister was offered a deal that was rehashed from an earlier scheme.

The situation is a mess, but it is no use trying to deal with it by tabling an amendment such as that before us. That is pathetic. Nor is it adequate to try to deal with it through the restrictions that we are introducing. I am sympathetic to what my hon. Friend the Minister is trying to do, which is to require 50 per cent. of the landings in UK ports or 50 per cent. of crews to be of British origin.

I notice that advertisements are already appearing in the newspapers—certainly in Lowestoft—so that Dutch-owned vessels can have a 50 per cent. British crew and be exempt from the regulations. Other factors have been mentioned, such as operational spending in UK coastal areas and benefits to areas dependent on fishing.

We must decide—I know that my hon. Friend will consult the industry closely on the matter, because he has to—whether it is worth pursuing such measures, or whether they will create more difficulties for the remaining British vessels than they will for the quota hoppers whom they are meant to threaten. Life may be made marginally more difficult for quota hoppers at the expense of making life very much more difficult for British vessels.

There are certainly worries in Grimsby. Vessels from there are accustomed to landing where prices are high. It is a matter of routine to land in places such as Holland and Denmark. If such vessels are to be restricted, and their activities shackled, perhaps the game is not worth the candle. I hope that my hon. Friend will consider that very seriously.

One cannot talk to all fishermen. A Member of Parliament is like a cushion: he bears the impression of whoever last sat on him. Fishermen are accustomed to putting their case in strong language. They have said to me, "It's over. We have fought the fight; we have not got anywhere. We have done our best. We required something more basic than we have been able to achieve. Let's give up, gi'over and stop trying to close the stable door after the horse has bolted." That is perhaps a typical British approach to the European Union. We always play the game, and we always lose. It is a question of inevitability.

The only way out is to withdraw from the common fisheries policy altogether. It has been a disaster; it has done the country no good; it has been ruinous for the industry. If the Government say that we cannot do that because we must be nice to Europe and cannot rock the boat because it would harm our relationship with the EU, it is incumbent on them to do more for fishing. Fishing cannot be the sacrificial victim to any Government's superior loyalty to Europe.

I do not want the fishing industry to be in such a position. It is incumbent on the Government to stop the imposition of charges that is being considered; to stop the petty harassment; and to stop deluging the industry with new policies and new requirements with which it cannot keep up. The fishing industry is now a small-boat industry, run by people who are at sea and who do not have the professional backing and support in order to cope.

The producers' organisations should be given the finance and the power to buy and manage their own quotas, and we should ensure that the measures imposed are applied in Europe as well as to British vessels. A level playing field—perhaps a level fishing ground is a more appropriate expression—would be acceptable. Requirements cannot be imposed unilaterally on the British fleet. Catches cannot be vigorously inspected, and efforts to deal with black fish cannot be made in this country if nothing happens in Europe.

A skipper landing in Boulogne, for instance, said that he had great difficulty finding anyone to accept his log sheets. In Britain, they grab them from him and rush away to check them with a view to initiating a prosecution if any dereliction of duty is discovered. In France and Holland, nobody is interested; controls are not enforced. Until there is equal enforcement, the fishing industry cannot and will not put up with the mass of requirements.

I know that my hon. Friend will fight for fishing and for the national management regime that the National Federation of Fishermens Organisations and the Scottish Fishermens Federation have put to him. But he must fight for, help and support the industry more vigorously if fishing will otherwise be sacrificed to the Government's overall European aspirations.

Mr. Gummer

I declare an interest as the voluntary chairman of the Marine Stewardship Council and as the Member for a constituency with 74 miles of coastline and a large number of fishermen.

I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell), not least because, when I was at the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, I spent a great deal of time trying to persuade him to fight against the dock labour scheme, which was one of the two great factors destroying the port of Grimsby. He complains about the previous Government not standing up for anything and mewling and puking, but he let his fishermen down every day because he never broke the party line on the dock labour scheme. He could have made a huge difference to the fishing industry when he was given the challenge. I find it difficult to accept his complaints about the current Government or the previous one when I remember how hard I tried to get him on my side to help to bring about a change that really mattered.

Mr. Mitchell

rose—

8 pm

Mr. Gummer

I shall be pleased to give way to the hon. Gentleman, but I want to finish my point so that he can be even ruder to me.

There was a chance of securing a joint operation to exempt the fishing ports from the dock labour scheme before the system was abolished, but I never received any support from the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Mitchell

That is wishful thinking, not an accurate representation of the facts. The ending of the dock labour scheme was not proposed while the right hon. Gentleman was at the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. The proposal came out of the blue. I am subject to his correction, but I do not remember him even mentioning it to me as a cause of Grimsby's problems.

Mr. Gummer

The hon. Gentleman may read Fishing News, but he has not read the statements that I made in his constituency about the need to change the dock labour scheme, even if only for the fishing industry. The hon. Gentleman is an assiduous constituency Member and I know why he made no comment on the issue—he knew that his general management committee and the Labour party would not have supported him. I find his comments about how tough he would be difficult to take.

The debate is not about our views on the fishing industry or our attitude to the European Union; it is about what the Government promised and what they delivered. I hope that my hon. Friends will keep the battle on that issue. It does not matter what industry we are talking about—it could be the baking industry or the leather industry. The fishing industry was led to believe one thing before the election and got a wholly different policy after the election.

The Prime Minister was particularly keen on talking about trust. Trust is about not just not saying the wrong thing, but not giving the wrong impression. In a famous interview and subsequently, he made it clear in the most charming and reassuring way that he would be tougher in the intergovernmental conference than my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major). The argument went on and on. When he got there, he was not even as tough as my right hon. Friend. He did not raise the matter as he had said he would. The problem was not that he raised the matter and failed; he did not raise it. Regardless of whether we are pro or anti-Europe, keen on fishing or not, that was a betrayal of a clear promise.

We are talking not about a Euro-con, but a Prime Minister con—a Blair con. I notice that Ministers are being very quiet, because they know that what I am saying is true. It was a con in two ways: first in what the Prime Minister and other current Ministers said before the election, given what happened afterwards; and, secondly, in the Prime Minister's suggestion of what the letter meant.

We all know about letters in such circumstances. I am not as rude about them as some of my right hon. and hon. Friends. Often, the Commission can make it easier to sort out a difficult point. However, the fisheries problem could not be sorted out in that way. It is an issue of considerable difficulty, because there is a conflict between the basic principles of the common fisheries policy, which shared out the fishing opportunities by countries, and the basic principle of the treaty of Rome, which talks about common resources, which are not shared out in that way—and rightly so, because we need a single market, which the Conservatives, particularly my right hon. and noble Friend Lady Thatcher, so strongly promoted. That means that we cannot have a protectionist system that gives particular access to certain nationalities.

That conflict cannot be removed in the Council of Ministers; it has to be dealt with at an IGC. The Minister who opened the debate asked why the previous Government did not raise such matters in Council meetings. That shows that he has not got the point. We could have raised the issue in Council meetings until we were blue in the face and had all 15 member states on our side, but the problem lies at the heart of the treaties to which we have all adhered, and is difficult to solve. It cannot be solved outside an IGC. The Government were wrong to say before the general election that they would solve it at the IGC, then tamely going along after the election with a piece of paper.

Dr. George Turner

I am listening to the right hon. Gentleman carefully, and would like to understand. I appreciate that an event may happen only once every six years or so, but presumably the preparation starts much earlier. A Government arrive at the conference knowing that they have a task in hand, with a certain number of countries backing them and others still to persuade. How many countries were going to support the previous Government at the IGC?

Mr. Gummer

As a former Prime Minister said, even when one is on one's own, one fights for that which is in Britain's interests. The present Prime Minister said that he would do the same. We can bandy words about who should say this, who did that and whether we or the current Government could have done more, but the fundamental issue of the amendment is that the Government promised to do something that they have not done. That is wrong and should be highlighted. That is why I disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr. Cash), who said that the amendment was of no use. It is of considerable use, because it has enabled us to discuss this key issue in the House. The Government promised to do something. Not only did they not deliver that, but they pretended that they had delivered it, hoping that people would be conned. The hon. Member for Great Grimsby knows that calling the issue a Euro-con merely diverts attention from the terminological inexactitude of his Prime Minister.

Mr. Cash

My right hon. Friend will know that I never object to strictures—certainly not from right hon. Gentlemen; we have got used to those. I do not disagree with his fundamental point that the Prime Minister has let down the fishing industry and his party by failing to carry out his promises. My concern was that the amendment was insubstantial and that, given its majority, the House of Lords could have passed many other amendments on other issues.

Mr. Gummer

I am glad my hon. Friend and I agree on at least one interpretation of the matter, which is that it gives us the opportunity to have this discussion. We ought to concentrate it on the area in which we have an important point, because we are asked to complete the agreement on the Amsterdam treaty.

As hon. Members will know, I am in favour of the treaty. I am happy with it. It is a good treaty. I do not object to it in any way—

Mr. Cash

Why did you vote against it, then?

Mr. Gummer

Because we were given to understand that the treaty would have more in it, and I can tell my hon. Friend what those two things were.

First, the treaty was supposed to provide the basis for the adhesion of new countries to the European Union. In fact, it did not face up to any of those issues. It made none of the decisions that it was supposed to make. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) has made that point again and again.

Secondly, the treaty did nothing about the fisheries problem, although the Government had promised that it would. The hon. Member for Great Grimsby suggests that the Government knew all along that they could do nothing about that, and in doing so he is telling us what we always believed—that, before the election, people were prepared to promise anything, even that which they knew they could not carry through.

It is the hon. Member for Great Grimsby who is making the really deep attack on his own Prime Minister. He is saying that, when the question was put to him, the Prime Minister should not have said: We certainly have not ruled out holding up IGC business in order to get the right changes to fishing policy in the British interest", as he did on "The World at One" on 14 April 1997. Instead, the right hon. Gentleman should have said, "We know there is no point holding that out as a hope to the fishing industry, because we have no intention of doing it." He must have known that he had no intention of doing it, because immediately after the election he did not do it.

Not only did the Prime Minister not try to do that, but he gave no sign of having mastered the brief or understood what it really meant. Therefore, the first reason why I want the House to pass the amendment is that I want it to stand as a permanent memorial to the fact that the Prime Minister says what is convenient to him at the time, rather than what is true.

From a Prime Minister who claimed to believe in trust, that was one of the first examples of what has now become a regular activity—giving the impression of one thing while meaning precisely the opposite. As my mother always said, to give such an impression is the same as telling a lie. Just because someone has left an impression, without actually saying the word that he can be caught out on, that does not mean that he is any less guilty, especially if he claims to be a man in whom trust may properly be reposed.

The second issue that the amendment brings forward is the problem of the fishing industry as a whole. As the voluntary chairman of the Marine Stewardship Council, I can say that the real problem about quota hopping, or any other argument about fish stocks and the like, is that we do not have enough fish.

If we read accounts from the 19th century, we realise that there was a huge harvest of fish out there then. A good example is to be found in the autobiography of a man who became an archbishop, who had earlier sailed as a cabin boy on a big boat that went to the Baltic. Apparently the boat had to stay in port for three days there, because so thick were the shoals of fish that it could not get out.

That was common in a world in which the fishermen had none of the modern techniques. They had no directional finders to tell them exactly where the boat was, nor did they have the kind of radar that showed them where the fish were. Fishing was a much more haphazard activity then. Nowadays, we often know so much that the fish do not have a hope.

That is true of all the fishing industries in Europe—and not only there. To those of my hon. Friends who do not want to me talk about Europe, I can say that it applies elsewhere in the world, too. All over the world, from the South China seas to the Falkland Islands, we are in severe danger of losing all our fish stocks.

8.15 pm

Sir Crispin Tickell is the chairman of the Government panel on sustainable development, and in his first report to the previous Government, among other things that one would expect him to put in a list of priorities, he put a surprising item. He pointed out that the most imminent ecological disaster is the loss of our fish stocks. That applies not only to Europe but to the whole world.

One of the problems is that every fisherman is concerned to get his share, irrespective of other people's share. One understands that; every fisherman needs his own future, and is sometimes less concerned about the future of his children and grandchildren. Overfishing is a real problem, to which we need to find an answer not only in Europe but throughout the world.

It seems to me that we do not solve that problem by constantly suggesting "solutions" such as those put forward by the hon. Member for Great Grimsby. The truth is that we have too few fish and too many fishermen after them, both in Europe and in the rest of the world. We need to return to a more sustainable fishing system, and in Europe that has to be done through the Community and the Council of Ministers. However, it cannot be done there effectively unless changes have first been made to create an atmosphere in which it can be done. The Government's failure to do that means that they are very much in error.

The third issue is that of quota hoppers. I have always thought that "quota hopping" is a rather nice phrase. Using it is rather like using the word "foetus" instead of the word "baby". If we want people to believe that it is all right to destroy babies, we can call them foetuses and get rid of them. That is how that sort of terminology operates. Similarly, using the term "quota hoppers" seems to suggest that nobody bought the quotas.

People put forward all sorts of arguments about why the quotas were sold, but one of our big problems is the fact that quotas—in large part, if not entirely—were bought by somebody. To say that quota hoppers can easily be stopped is to make the whole issue much less complicated than it really is.

Fishermen sold their quotas and received money for them. Those who paid for them—rightly in terms of the law, but wrongly in terms of the share-out that we had expected to take place—expect to be able to carry them through. I hope that, when we talk about quota hopping, we realise that the issue is more complicated than it seems.

That is why the only place in which it can be dealt with is the intergovernmental conference. The present Government should not have misled this country if they had no intention of doing what they said they would. The hon. Member for Great Grimsby said that the former Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon, would not have held up the IGC. My reply is simply that I cannot point to one occasion during his period as Prime Minister when my right hon. Friend promised to do something and did not carry it out; yet, in one year of the present Prime Minister, hardly a week has passed without something happening that is the exact opposite of what was promised.

Mr. Mitchell

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Gummer

I ought to be coming to an end.

It is necessary to have a common fisheries policy. The complaint about the fisheries policy is that the policy is wrong, not that it is common. Fisheries policy has always been common; even the 12-mile limit was shared with some of our neighbours over a long period. Fish do not come along with flags on their fins. Fish and fisheries have to be organised on a common basis. Where that has not happened, stocks are fished out because people think, "If I don't get the fish, my neighbour will." The system must be common. The common fisheries policy is wrong because the policy is wrong, but the commonality is right.

I always remember that, when I was a Minister responsible for fisheries, the fishermen used to tell me, "Don't ever renegotiate the common fisheries policy," because my late lamented right hon. Friend, the Scottish Minister Alick Buchanan-Smith, had negotiated not only the fair sharing out of the fish stocks, but an extra amount for us because we were no longer allowed to fish off Iceland. It was heralded at the time as a great deal. Every time we were negotiating, the one thing the fisheries industry said was that we should not renegotiate the deal because we would never get the same proportion again.

If we are to solve the problems, we must first be honest with the fishing industry. That means that we must find a way of restricting effort across Europe until fishing stocks recover. We must become more sustainable. We must realise that the policy must be a common fisheries policy, but we must recognise also that the present policy does not work. It must be revised fundamentally without reducing the shares—not least our share in the UK.

Some of us are in favour of the EU, enthusiastic about the concept of solving the problems on a common basis, and—above all—concerned about the environment. We have come here to debate the amendment—useless as my hon. Friend the Member for Stone thinks it to be—because, without question, it puts its finger on the fact that the Government, the Minister with responsibility for fisheries and the Prime Minister appear to have fundamentally changed their position since before the election.

When it was a question of getting votes, Labour Members said that they would stand up for change at the IGC and would hold it up. Today, we are asked to pass the results of the IGC, and to hope for the best on fishing. That is not what the Government promised, and they know it. That is why the Minister they put up to argue the case has no record or form on the issue, and why the Minister responsible for fisheries did not move the motion. If he had done so, he would have had to explain why his position before the election was much tougher than now. If the Minister is to wind up, he might explain his rudeness to the House in not being here when my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe started his speech and made some good comments. It would be good for the House to know why the Minister was not here.

The Government are running away from the fact that they told us before the general election something that they changed entirely afterwards—once they had the fishing votes in their pockets.

Dr. Godman

It is always a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer). He is a fair-minded fellow, so I am sure that he will forgive me if I remind the House that, when he was Fisheries Minister, he presided over a massive cock-up over the decommissioning scheme for which the Public Accounts Committee criticised his Department—using more elegant language. Fishermen from the smaller fishing communities say that the Humberside trawler companies ripped off the scheme that the right hon. Gentleman so badly managed with his inept colleagues and officials.

I share the anger and cynicism of my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell). I have been around the industry all my life. I was born and raised in a fishing community. My brother Leslie is the skipper of a freezer trawler which is fishing up in the Arctic at this very moment. My mother was a fishergirl and my father was a fisherman, so I know something of the industry.

The Government of which the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal was a member betrayed the fishing communities, so much so that the Scottish secessionists—who, characteristically, are absent from such an important debate—are now telling fishing communities in Scotland that the way forward is an independent Scotland and a renegotiation of the common fisheries policy for Scotland. They are leading the fishing communities up a blind alley—we know that—but they are not here to defend themselves against these charges. In their way, what they say is characterised by the same smugness and hypocrisy that we have heard from the Conservatives today.

During my life in and around the industry, successive Administrations have betrayed the interests of our fishing industry. One or two hon. Members in the Chamber at present know that. The United Kingdom-Icelandic fisheries dispute—popularly known as the cod wars—is an example. In the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s, Conservative Governments and Labour Governments betrayed our fishermen. I recall the negotiations offered to us by the Icelandic Government. A Labour Foreign Minister—now the noble Lord Hattersley—did not do our fishermen any good in the negotiations. In that regard, he was as inept as negotiators representing Tory Governments and the Ministry.

A Tory Prime Minister used our fishing communities as a bargaining counter—a pawn—to gain access to the then European Economic Community. On the basis of what happened to my brother, cousins, uncles and others, I can say that the industry was betrayed by the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal. I am trying to be fair-minded, and Labour Governments do not have a much better record.

Let us have honesty from both sides of the House. We are talking about the treatment of the industry and our communities—whether it is Hull, Grimsby, Lowestoft, Yarmouth or any of the communities closer to my constituency. I am the honorary chairman of the Clyde Fishermen's Association, a small fishing vessel owners' association. Those people are struggling to make a living.

As the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal said, quota hopping is a complicated problem. He was right to say that there are too many fishermen chasing too few fish, and he was right also to say that we cannot leave the management of fishing to the fishermen. It is a disaster to leave it to the bureaucrats in Brussels.

My hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby is right to say that the kernel of the serious problem bedevilling our fishing industry and communities is the common fisheries policy. How do we change that? Do we go down the secessionist road in Scotland and kid people that we can renegotiate the CFP on the basis of an independent Scotland? That is rubbish.

We must ensure that, from now on, we negotiate in a tough-minded way on behalf of our communities. I say to Ministers—I have said this to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food—that there can be no enlargement of the EU without reform of the common agricultural policy and the common fisheries policy. Some of the applicant nations are maritime nations. If there is no reform of the CFP, they will be allowed to fish in our waters.

My hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby described the fish as a common resource. I would say that a reformed CFP must take cognisance of the interests of local fishermen, and privilege must be given to locally based fishermen against the interests of the big boys—the nomadic fishermen from Holland, Spain or, dare I say it, the north-east of Scotland. We recently argued that we should not allow the purse seine trawlers and others to fish off the west coast of Scotland with their twin prawn trawls. We must protect local communities. The common fisheries policy must be radically reformed before enlargement can take place.

Mr. Menzies Campbell (North-East Fife)

May I say how much I support what the hon. Gentleman has said about the fate of the smaller fishing vessels, in particular those based in village fishing communities, of which there are a number in my constituency? Whatever happens, the pressure is finally taken out on those at the bottom of the chain of effort. As he rightly said, something must be done to protect those communities, many of which have no economic basis other than fishing.

8.30 pm

Dr. Godman

The hon. and learned Gentleman is absolutely right. We have only to think of Anstruther—I think that it is known locally as Anster—Pittenweem and St. Monans. We are talking not only about fishermen and their families, but about fishing boat builders, who have largely disappeared from the hon. and learned Gentleman's constituency. They were superb builders of wooden fishing boats—I speak as a shipwright, so I know what I am talking about. Millers of St. Monans has gone, for example. Like the fishermen, those engaged in the ancillary activities are also deprived of a decent livelihood because of the rotten common fisheries policy.

It is one thing to talk about equality of access, but we have to start to talk in terms of regional preference and regional—not necessarily national—management schemes, to take account of the needs of the more remote communities where there are few economic alternatives, such as the communities in Shetland, Orkney, on the west coast of Scotland and, indeed, in the south-west and other areas of England. Ministers have to do much better than their predecessors, both Labour and Conservative, whose record left a lot to be desired.

How will the measures that were outlined be policed? How can we ensure that 50 per cent. of the catch of so-called quota hoppers will be landed in Scarborough, Hull, Grimsby, Lowestoft or Aberdeen?

Mr. Menzies Campbell

Or Anstruther.

Dr. Godman

The quota hoppers would not get into Anstruther; unfortunately, they are too big.

The Minister talks about expenditure, but are we to expect from what he says that some of the vessels will undergo annual refits in our shipyards rather than in shipyards in their own countries? Somehow I doubt that they will, although I would love to see it. Refits are an essential and integral element of the annual expenditure incurred by trawler owners.

The key question is the power of the fisheries policemen—I should say policewomen, too. Again, our record is not great. We could learn from the Norwegians, for example, who police their fisheries very powerfully—it is a reckless skipper who sails to Norway from Scotland or England without having all his papers in order. My hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby talks about the toughness of our inspectors, but he should take a trip on a British vessel fishing in Norwegian waters—people dare not break the law there, because, if they are caught, they are never allowed back into those waters. That is the toughness I want.

Tough policing will be needed if the Minister is to convince our deeply disillusioned fishing communities that, unlike previous Administrations, the Government mean business and will both protect and promote the interests of our sadly neglected fishing communities. Nothing less will do.

Mr. Townend

In these debates, I respect hon. Members on both sides of the House who speak for the fishing industry and their constituents. I agree with much of what the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) said. He was right to say that the common fisheries policy has been a disaster, particularly for British fishermen, including those in my constituency. I tell my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) that, if the common fisheries policy had worked, there would not be a shortage of fish. The whole purpose of quotas was to conserve fish so that each year the stocks, and therefore the quotas, would increase.

Britain has done particularly badly. I agree with the hon. Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman) that my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath) was responsible for that, but responsibility also lay with the late Lord Wilson, who missed a great opportunity—when he renegotiated Britain's terms of membership of the European Community after the referendum, he ignored fishing. The fishing industry has not been well treated by any Government. I will not be popular among my hon. Friends for saying that, but we should be honest.

Britain suffered particularly because our waters provide 60 per cent. of the European Union's fish—the industry sometimes says 80 per cent.—yet the common fisheries policy gives us a quota of only 31 per cent. Even that deal, which in no circumstances could be considered good for this country, is being extensively undermined by quota hopping. If no action is taken, the national quota will, each year, diminish progressively as more and more foreigners buy our boats.

By 1997—the most up-to-date figures I could get-46 per cent. of hake, 44 per cent. of plaice, 29 per cent. of monkfish and 20 per cent. of sole was taken by quota hoppers. That is a significant amount of fish. Quota hopping is undermining the principle of relative stability that was established in 1983, when the intention was that quotas were for the fishermen of the individual countries.

Some of the criticism of the previous Government has been unfair. Baroness Thatcher introduced the Merchant Shipping Act 1988, which some Labour Members supported, to protect the British fishing industry. The House passed that Act but, regrettably, the will of the House was overruled by the European Court. That decision stopped the House passing legislation to protect our fishermen, which, more than anything else, made me realise how much independence we had surrendered to Brussels and how, if we did not start to pull power back, the House would become nothing more than a glorified county council or provincial assembly.

The previous Government realised that, because of the court's decision, the industry could not be protected without a treaty change. The former Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major), made a commitment before and at the general election last year that he would refrain from signing the Amsterdam treaty unless a change was incorporated to deal with the problem of quota hopping.

At the election, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal said, the current Prime Minister followed whatever the Conservatives said—on spending, tax, a referendum for Europe, or fishing. He was so frightened that he would not win that he followed us in all things—we have heard this evening what he said at the time. However, not only the Prime Minister but Labour candidates throughout the country, including those in fishing constituencies, said, "You will be safe with Labour. Labour will protect your interests. We won't accept the Amsterdam treaty without looking after you." As a result, the Conservatives lost nearly every major fishing port, apart from Brixham and Bridlington, which is in my constituency.

Sir Richard Body (Boston and Skegness)

And Boston.

Mr. Townend

I do not want to argue with my hon. Friend about the definition of "major".

When it came to decision time, what did the Government do? They forgot all about the comments made by Fisheries Ministers and the Prime Minister, and signed the Amsterdam treaty without achieving anything concrete for our fishermen. As is usual in Europe, it was fudge and weasel words, and nothing was delivered. After one year in power, new Labour has betrayed British fishermen.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Elliot Morley)

Don't be daft.

Mr. Townend

I asked the hon. Gentleman how much fish we will get if he is successful in the negotiations. He said that he did not know, but read out the various options. None of them would give an extra tonne of fish to British fishing boats. That proves another thing. Before the election, Labour Members were keen to say that, if they were elected they would be able to get a better deal out of Europe. They said: "We're more pro-European. We'll cosy up to them and get satisfaction through co-operation." What did all that cosying up, co-operation, giving in and signing the Amsterdam treaty without any conditions achieve for British fishermen? Nothing.

The only way in which any Government will get satisfaction on quota hoppers is at a treaty negotiation. The only way they will get it is to play it like the French do. Not only have the Government got to threaten to use the veto; if necessary, they have got to use it where an overwhelmingly important national interest is at stake.

I have represented Bridlington for many years, and I believe that fishing is an overwhelming national interest. I also believe that, when my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon, the former Prime Minister, said that he would veto Amsterdam if he had to, he would have been prepared to do so. Once the other states knew that he was prepared to use it, they would have been prepared to do a deal.

We have only to look at the way in which the French work. It was 13 to one over the appointment of the governor of the new European central bank, but the French exercised their veto and got an agreement that after four years their man would be in. Whether our Government are Conservative or Labour, they should be prepared to fight just as strongly and just as fiercely for British interests and for the interests of British fishermen.

Mr. Morley

It is difficult to criticise the hon. Gentleman when he is being so honest about the failings of past Conservative Governments, but he knows as well as I do that the Conservative Government could have used their veto on the accession of Finland, Austria and Sweden when the Spanish threatened to use their veto and, indeed, got accelerated full fishing access to Community waters through doing so. Will he remind the House what that Government did at that time?

Mr. Townend

We get this time and again. I agree that we could have vetoed many things, but the simple fact is that that is not the question. My right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal is right—you are the Government and you are responsible for the fishing industry today. It does not matter what we should have done or might have done: you have failed in the past year.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst)

Order. The hon. Gentleman must remember that he is speaking through the Chair—and I have no responsibility for these matters.

Mr. Townend

I beg your pardon, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Minister and the Labour Government are responsible, but time after time and in Question Time after Question Time as we hold the Executive to account, they never answer our questions. They seem to think that they can refuse to be held to account by harking back to what happened under the previous Government. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal said, this debate is about the commitment that the present Minister and Prime Minister gave at the election.

Most people do not realise the extent of quota hopping—I sometimes wonder whether the Minister realises, although he must. I understand that 26 per cent. of fishing tonnage on the United Kingdom register is now owned by quota hoppers, and that £100 million of fish landings are being lost every year. By and large, quota hoppers do not take advantage of the decommissioning schemes, so the proportion of our fish taken by quota hoppers is increasing all the time.

I listened with interest to the hon. Member for Great Grimsby—I nearly called him my hon. Friend because I agree with him so much as a neighbouring fishing Member—and, like him, I am afraid that I am pessimistic. Unless the Government change their attitude, the outlook for British fishing is very bleak, as I think the hon. Member for Greenock and Inverclyde would agree.

In the early years of the next century there will be no British fishing industry; it will be a European industry with permits issued from Brussels and boats fishing up to the beaches. What a terrible end that will be to tradition in a maritime country—in our islands, surrounded by sea—whose history and prosperity have been linked with the sea; what a terrible end it will be given the faith that we and the British people have had in the men who go to sea in small boats to fish. It is a terrible prospect, and the Government should start thinking about their responsibilities to the fishing industry. They should forget what has gone on before and think about their responsibilities to ensure that in 2003 and 2004 we still have a viable, large British fishing industry.

8.45 pm

Dr. George Turner

I have been told that, in time, hon. Members become like their constituents. Listening to the passion with which those who represent fishing communities speak in the House, I recognise the fisherman I have had to deal with more recently in King's Lynn. Fishing is an industry and an occupation that has suffered much in past decades.

I ask the House to look a little more dispassionately at what is on our agenda. As one who has come into contact with Members of the other place in Joint Committees, I looked with interest to see why the amendment was before us. The role of the other House is under question, so I assumed that the amendment was the result of the more learned Members of that place discovering something about the consequences of Amsterdam of which this House has been ignorant for some months.

My inquiries and the information provided in the debate tonight seem to show that there is no such reason, and that we are discussing what was reported to the House as the outcome of the Amsterdam discussions several months ago. I conclude that Members of the other place have been airing their party political prejudices rather than their learnedness about the treaty. It is regrettable that the unelected Members of the other House are behaving in what way, particularly at a rather sensitive time in their history.

As a new Member, I am always sensitive to whether I am defending the party manifesto on which I was elected. I have, however, become accustomed to the fact that, when the Opposition cannot find us at fault because of our manifesto, they selectively quote what might or might not have been said in whatever time period they want to go back to. Of course, if parties do not adjust their positions as they approach the electorate and make clear promises, something is wrong with our political process.

There would be something wrong indeed if, by quoting selectively, it were not possible to show some inconsistencies. Parties have to develop policies. I see the role of opposition as we study Bills, and I see Opposition parties shifting their role even within the time that it takes a Bill to go through a Standing Committee.

Sir Teddy Taylor

In view of the confusion, I accept absolutely the important points that the hon. Gentleman makes. Can he give us some indication of the impression that fishermen in his constituency had of our likely position on the issue in Amsterdam? While he and I may not have understood, what did his fishermen think? I think that he knows pretty well.

Dr. Turner

I was coming to that very point. My hon. Friend the Minister visited my constituency when he was still in opposition and got what was described to me as a warm reception because he would not promise the fishermen what they wanted. However, his reputation since the election is that he has done more in his period in office than the last Government did in a decade. Fishermen are not satisfied—I do not believe that they ever will be, given what has happened to them over the past decade—but that is what has occurred in my constituency.

I should be interested to know whether I should be reading our manifesto to ensure that no commitment has been broken, but the words that have been cited seem at the very least ambiguous. Apparently we said that we had not ruled something out. That is an interesting pledge to be accused of breaking. We said that we were prepared to be tough at international discussions. Conservative Members have told us that the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major), would have been really tough, but when I was a member of the public rather than a Member of the House, I saw that Prime Minister barely in control of his Cabinet and certainly not in control of his party; yet he is the man who would have been the tough man of Europe at the intergovernmental conference. Frankly, I do not believe a word of it.

Mr. Blunt

The hon. Gentleman's predecessor and I worked in the Foreign Office for, respectively, the former Foreign Secretary and my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major). The language used about the intergovernmental conference and the need for a deal on quota hopping was absolute. It left no room for manoeuvre. On the issue of qualified majority voting, for example, Sir Malcolm Rifkind made it quite clear that he would not prejudice the entire treaty if QMV was extended in one area, although he could not foresee that happening. That was a bolt hole. There was no such bolt hole for the Government's position on quota hopping. The treaty would not have happened without a deal on quota hopping under a Conservative Government.

Dr. Turner

I wonder which Conservative Government that would have been, Deputy Speaker. Two Conservative parties fought the last election, and it is not clear which of them would have been in control if the electorate had unfortunately re-elected the Conservatives.

There is a long-standing tradition when it comes to international debate or defending the country internationally; Opposition parties support the Government wherever possible. The Prime Minister's words—he did not rule things out, and he was prepared to defend what the former Prime Minister said in the interests of our fishing industry—were rather carefully chosen and entirely appropriate to that circumstance.

Earlier, in interventions, Deputy Speaker, I asked exactly what preparation had been made. I have had to take over negotiations from others, both in my own job and in union matters. Before taking on a job, people do not sell themselves out or say even before they have arrived that they will give in. They have to assess the hand they have been given, just as any Prime Minister—or a Cabinet Minister assessing his Department—must realistically assess the hand that he has been given with which to negotiate with an IGC that has been waiting for the best part of a decade to raise the issue.

This evening, however, Deputy Speaker, what have I been told about that hand?

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, and I do not want to be pernickety, but the form of address for which he is searching is "Mr. Deputy Speaker".

Dr. Turner

I am sorry, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

The hand that the Government inherited meant that no other member state was prepared to vote with us or support us. Clearly, the national interest should predominate. I understand why people talk emotionally about the overwhelming national interest or the importance to their constituency, but the quota issue is biological. Fish do not come with national labels on them. We cannot look to national interest alone to solve an international problem. International agreement was desirable.

In considering what the Prime Minister brought back for the House to debate, I thought that there was much to be gained if the arrangements he described were brought into force. There would be economic gain for the fishing communities under the economic licensing conditions of options A, B, C and D, which have been referred to and which I shall not repeat. In the modest time I have been here, I have found myself regularly frustrated about the time it takes to develop matters.

Mr. Christopher Gill (Ludlow)

Realising that the common fisheries policy is collective might help the hon. Gentleman to understand the difficulties of agreeing anything practical in the European Community. It contrasts with the experience of, shall we say, Norway, which determines its own fishing policy, or of the south Atlantic, in which the Government of the Falkland Islands determine their own policy. Both are extremely successful fisheries, and they are in sharp contrast with what happens with the collective, which cannot reach a proper decision.

Dr. Turner

I read a Library research paper on the history of this matter with considerable interest. I gained the clear impression that we need to proceed with an element of agreement, rather than by assuming that we can simply assert national or constituency interest. Strong economic links were of benefit. I understand that fishermen are disappointed, but that is because of what happened before the Government were elected. I have read that paper, and I have looked back to the failure in the 1980s of the then Government to enact a law that stood the test of European law. The catalogue of disasters falls nowhere short of failure and neglect. The Opposition came naked into the Chamber this evening to try to bury their past neglect, raise false accusations and pretend that life is simple when it is not.

Local fishermen have asked me how long the process will take. I have been told that quota hopping accounts for 25 per cent. of tonnage. I should like clarification on that point, because I have also been told that it accounts for only 10 per cent. of the catch. Other figures have been used. What is the figure, and what is happening about it? When will we get a conclusion to what have been described as fairly protracted discussions?

Mr. David Heath (Somerton and Frome)

It is a privilege to speak after so many hon. Members with greater knowledge of the fishing industry than I have. I was particularly taken by the contributions of the hon. Members for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman) and for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell). Neither is now here. Presumably they have gone for a fish-and-chip supper, but no doubt they will appear later.

The hon. Member for Great Grimsby properly exposed the great paradox of the debate. The problems of the fishing industry and quota hopping are real issues that should detain the House, and are proper matters for debate. However, this debate is on the pretext of an entirely bogus Lords amendment. It is bogus because of its implications for the Amsterdam Bill. It has been bogus in respect of the positions of the Government and of the official Opposition.

The amendment cannot achieve the changes to the common fisheries policy that many of us would like, if for no other reason than the fact that the Amsterdam treaty does not deal with fishing policy. It is outside the scope of the treaty signed in Amsterdam. Perhaps it should not have been, but it was. To their credit, hon. Members have not attempted to talk to the Lords amendment but have given their views about the CFP and what happened in the negotiations. The only effect of accepting the amendment would be to delay ratification of the Amsterdam treaty.

9 pm

There have been arguments about the Amsterdam treaty. We have had endless discussions about what the Amsterdam Bill might imply for our country. Most suggestions from both sides of the argument rather overstated the case. It is a modest Bill that achieves modest results, but what it does achieve is largely benign, in my view and in that of the majority of the House, as has been tested. To delay ratification by spurious argument about what can be achieved is bogus.

Mr. Gummer

I understand the hon. Gentleman's argument and am not at all antagonistic to the Amsterdam treaty. It is not that we are seeking to hold up the treaty, but that the Prime Minister said that he would not sign it unless he had at least tried—

Mr. Morley

He did not say that.

Mr. Gummer

If the Minister means that the Prime Minister was going to sign it without even trying, he has made an even more fundamental attack on the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister gave the country the impression that he would fight for the fishermen at the time of the treaty. He did not. How else can we bring that home to him?

Mr. Heath

The right hon. Gentleman makes the point that I was trying to make in my own way. There needs to be an argument about the CFP and the Government's negotiating position, but the Lords amendment does not achieve that objective except through the process of having this debate. I think that that is what the right hon. Gentleman is saying. If so, he is in agreement with my point that the amendment will not secure the changes that we seek in the CFP, but is an opportunity for the House to debate the matter once more. We are taking advantage of that.

The problem with the Government's position largely concerns the position that they adopted on return from Amsterdam. They claimed a great victory and said that they had solved all the world's problems at a stroke. They overplayed the roles played by the Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary.

Mr. Howard

It was an overblown hoo-hah.

Mr. Heath

The right hon. and learned Gentleman suggests that a bit of hoo-hah was involved. There was an awful lot of hoo-hah. Hoo-hah, overblown, tarantara, call it what one will, that is what we got on the return from Amsterdam.

In fact, there was nothing like that sort of success—it was a modest negotiation with modest results. On fishing, all the Prime Minister brought back was a piece of paper—a fig leaf to cover his embarrassment about his lack of progress on an important negotiating issue.

Mr. Cash

Does the hon. Gentleman remember that part of the tarantara and the hoo-hah was the Foreign Secretary having to come to the House and admit that the Government had been completely outflanked in the negotiations by the Spanish, which led to a leader in The Times and a great deal of adverse comment from hon. Members on both sides of the House?

Mr. Heath

The hon. Gentleman will remember, from the hours of debate that we shared, several areas in which the Government's performance was less impressive than the advance publicity had suggested—Gibraltar comes to mind as an example.

However, the Government brought back the piece of paper. I do not believe that it has any legally binding consequences. Although it might have elucidated the legal position to an extent, it will be of value only if it is not successfully challenged by the Spanish or by any other nation's fishing fleet. If that is true, we want to know what the Government have done over the past 12 months and what they are doing now to put into practice the principles encompassed by that piece of paper.

I see little sign of progress, but perhaps the Minister will be able to advise me of the progress that has been made over the past 12 months. Many of us who have examined the proposals see advantages in the scheme promoted, but we also see that it is full of loopholes; it is capable of considerable abuse, and might not be successful in achieving its objectives.

The question is: will the so-called economic linkage mean anything in practice? I do not represent a fishing constituency—my constituents catch nothing larger than elvers—but I am not remotely surprised that those who do represent fishing communities and who know what fishermen think of the proposals are extremely disappointed with the results of the negotiations. It is characteristic of the Government to over-hype and over-spin their achievements, which might be why, a couple of weeks ago, the European Parliament was not prepared to congratulate the Government on their exercise of the European Union presidency—MEPs recognise when they are being sold a pup in terms of media spin.

Hyperbole is not the sole province of the Government—the Conservative position is equally suspect. We heard the Conservatives' pre-election claims for what they were going to do in the intergovernmental conference; they were equally extravagant, yet there was no real preparation other than the preparation of the protocol, and there was no assembling of the essential coalition needed to achieve anything. The previous Government's sole negotiating position was apparently that they would walk away if they did not get their way. We had seen that many times before—a swing from puerile petulance to supine acquiescence when they did not get their own way. No hill was ever reached by the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) that he did not march his army halfway up and then march it down again.

If we want to see the results of the previous Government's policy in action, we need only look at the progress on the lifting of the beef ban. Nothing was achieved, simply because their only tactic was a spoiling tactic of not negotiating, but making things difficult for the people whose support we actually required. There is nothing more struthious in character than the Conservatives facing a problem in Europe—their position is to hide their heads in the sand and hope that the problem will go away; but it will not go away. What is needed is negotiation, which requires active engagement.

Sensible Conservative Members know that some of the demands expressed before the election were impossible. We heard the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) virtually admit that he had not expected any better a result from the IGC than that which was achieved by the current Government.

The previous Government failed the fishing industry in every possible way for many years, and the present Government are perhaps doing marginally better, but that is to damn with faint praise. No wonder that fishermen despair of all politicians who promised them a new deal for the fishing industry. All Governments since the late 1960s or early 1970s have failed the industry.

We return to the proposition before us and the possibility of delaying or wrecking the Amsterdam treaty. I believe that the treaty is a modest enough vehicle. We have rehearsed the arguments time and again. The treaty makes little progress on the key areas of reform needed in the European Union—on the common agricultural policy, the common fisheries policy, the structural funds and so on. It edges us marginally in the right direction on subsidiarity, openness, transparency and accountability.

Those are modest but necessary objectives. It would be foolish for the House to reject that modest progress by accepting the Lords amendment. The tragedy is that, if the amendment were accepted, it would not bring about the fundamental reform of the common fisheries policy that we believe is necessary. By 2002, we must be able to renegotiate not just the terms of the intergovernmental conference, but the treaties on which the common fisheries policy is based and move towards a system of regional management that will benefit the fishermen in Scotland, Cornwall and East Anglia. If we do not do that, we shall have signally failed the fishing industry yet again.

We shall not achieve our objectives by making things difficult for others who are trying to achieve the same reforms in the EU. We must have constructive engagement with our partner nations in the EU. I therefore urge the House to reject the Lords amendment and to proceed with ratification of the Amsterdam treaty at the earliest opportunity.

Sir Richard Body

If that was the official speech of the Liberal Democrat party, I hope that copies of it will be made available to every fisherman. I know what fishermen will then think of the Liberal Democrat party.

The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) used the word "bogus" four times with reference to the debate and the Opposition. There is nothing bogus about our views. Does he not realise that British fishermen are deeply disillusioned? In this debate, we speak on their behalf and articulate their fears about the future. It is important that we should highlight how appallingly they have been let down by the Amsterdam treaty. I have good reason to know that my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major), the former Prime Minister, decided to insert the condition that, if there were no changes in relation to quota hopping, he would veto the treaty. That is what he promised me, my colleagues, the fishing industry and the country.

We know that that undertaking was outbid by the present Prime Minister, and that nothing has been achieved. The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome should know that fishermen's disillusionment is extremely serious, and that the fishing industry is a fraction of the size that it was 20 years ago.

Mr. David Heath

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Sir Richard Body

I shall give way if the hon. Gentleman wishes, but I am trying to be brief.

The industry passes from father to son. Every one of the fishermen in my constituency has a son who is a fisherman and most of them have grandsons and great-grandsons who are fishermen, but fishermen's sons are not coming into the industry now. They feel that there is no hope for it. That is a great tragedy, because, once we lose their expertise, the industry will disappear, quite apart from the fish.

Mr. Heath

There was nothing whatever in what I said that could be construed in any way other than expressing disappointment that the fishing industry finds itself in the parlous state it does and stating the need for change, to give people in the industry a future.

Sir Richard Body

We do not want to deal too much with the Liberal Democrat view on the matter. At any time, including at the general election, Liberal Democrats have been the worst offenders—they have been the strongest defenders of the common fisheries policy.

Mr. Heath

No, never.

Sir Richard Body

Yes, they have. They are not among those of us who believe that the common fisheries policy is so fundamentally flawed that we should dispense with it altogether. If the hon. Gentleman believes that a communal policy is necessary, he should talk to the fishermen of Iceland or Norway. If he spoke to Norwegian fishermen, he would be assured that fishing was one of the reasons why every one of them voted in the referendum against entry into the European Union.

9.15 pm

As the hon. Member for Greenock and lnverclyde (Dr. Godman) pointed out, if any ship from any part of the European Union fishes in the waters of Norway, it never dares to do so again because of what happens to it. That is the only policy that will replenish our fishing stocks, which are falling day by day.

One purpose—although calling it a purpose is pushing things a little too far—of the debate is to urge the Government to take action at the next intergovernmental conference, which may not be very far ahead because we must make constitutional changes to enable the Community to be enlarged. When the Community is enlarged, there will be more fishing fleets. Fleets from the Baltic states will have the same rights to come into our waters as those from Spain, which will be untenable.

We have every good reason now to press for a fundamental change in the common fisheries policy—if not to end it, which may be asking too much, then certainly to end the principle of equal access. It may be difficult for the Government to make that change, because, after all, it was an earlier Labour Administration who gave way on equal access in 1976. However, that is history, and I shall not go into that. We must now consider the future, which for our fishing industry will be nil unless there is a fundamental change to the common fisheries policy. The fishermen of this country expect the Government to do something about that policy and to redeem the promises that they so dismally failed to keep a year ago.

Miss Anne McIntosh (Vale of York)

I have always considered myself to be a fisherman's friend, so I support the Lords amendment. I consider it a major defect of the treaty of Amsterdam that quota hopping was not addressed, and that alone is a reason to delay the treaty taking effect until the provisions in the amendment have been fulfilled.

The problem before us is that, while British fishermen have felt that it is in their economic interests to sell their quota, quota hopping works against British fishing interests. The problem of quota hopping can be resolved only by an amendment to the original treaty of Rome, and I understand that some countries achieved that through the treaty of Maastricht. In the run-up to the general election last year, the Prime Minister promised to consider holding up the IGC business in order to get the right changes to fishing policy in the British interest. He failed to fulfil that promise and stand up for British fishing interests.

I do not want to appear presumptuous, but perhaps I could give Ministers friendly advice on how to negotiate a fisheries protocol and how to win friends and influence people in the European Union. The British presidency this year and Britain's negotiations in the IGC last year have been marked by a failure to stand up for British interests.

I give just two examples. By signing the social chapter, the Government have damaged our flexible labour market, to the specific detriment of small and medium businesses in this country. By failing to negotiate the fisheries protocol to protect our vital national fishing interests, they have let down one of the country's strategic industries.

I emphasise that, in my view, withdrawal from the common fisheries policy is not an option. We need a common European fisheries policy. Fish are a vital commodity and resource but, regrettably, do not swim around wearing a Union Jack. They cross frontiers—they do not respect national boundaries—so we need a common fisheries policy.

However, we need a fisheries policy that is better enforced in other member states. If anything, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in this country is over-enthusiastic in enforcing the common fisheries policy. I ask the Government tonight: is that true of other member states? Until recently, Spain did not even have fisheries inspectors to inspect catches. I shall not mention the issue of under-sized catches being landed in Spain and other countries.

As my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) said, we need a sustainable, properly policed fisheries policy, and to protect future fish stocks there should be no over-fishing anywhere in the European Union.

In negotiations, we should take a leaf out of the Spanish book. Spain would not rely on an exchange of letters between its Prime Minister and the President of the Commission, Jacques Santer. I seek an assurance from Ministers that the deal that the Minister of State described, which is set out in an exchange of letters, amounts to a legal agreement which would stand up to scrutiny before the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg. In my view, it does not. The provisions set out in that exchange of letters relate to percentages, and in my view a link with nationality would be open to legal challenge before the European Court of Justice, exactly as the Merchant Shipping Act 1988 was. In other words, it would be open to legal challenge on grounds of non-discrimination on grounds of nationality, under article 6 of the treaty; on the right of establishment, under article 52 of the treaty; and on the right to participate in companies, under article 221 of the treaty.

In any event, the so-called deal does nothing to prevent overseas fishermen from buying British quota, and it does not remove the quota hoppers from the United Kingdom register. In my view, British fishermen cannot rely on it.

In conclusion, I reject the negotiating tactic employed by the present Government, and I commend the Lords amendment to the House.

Mr. Gill

The Minister who opened the debate said that the Prime Minister was committed to the Government tackling the problems of quota hopping, and that they had faced up to those problems in a positive way. The Conservative case tonight is that the Prime Minister did not tackle that problem; more to the point, he squandered the only practical opportunity to do so that has been available to the Westminster Parliament for a long time.

Mr. Morley

indicated dissent.

Mr. Gill

The Minister is nodding—

Mr. Morley

I am shaking my head.

Mr. Gill

I beg the hon. Gentleman's pardon. Shortly, I shall make some remarks about some of the things that he has said.

The Prime Minister missed that opportunity, and those of us who study the machinations of the European Community appreciate that only in limited windows of opportunity can one get any satisfaction on such major issues. As some hon. Members have been at pains to point out, sometimes very strong-arm tactics must be used—indeed, have been used by other countries—to get satisfaction on issues that concern us. Conservative Members' complaint tonight is that the Prime Minister has failed to use any form of strength.

It was rather galling to hear the Minister say that the Conservative solutions to the quota hopping problem were not deliverable. We have no means of knowing whether the Government's proposals—if they had any—were deliverable, because they did not press them. In another place, the noble Lord Whitty said: This is a record of failure to tell the truth to the fishing communities and the public …It is time we stopped posturing on this and told the truth to the fishing communities."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 14 May 1998; Vol. 589, c. 1189.] I agree entirely with that message. I agree whole-heartedly with Lord Whitty when he says that we should tell the truth. The hon. Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman), who has just re-entered the Chamber, also appealed for honesty.

I departed from Lord Whitty's comments when he ascribed all the ills of the British fishing industry to the previous Administration. In truth, the problems have not arisen simply in the past 18 years: they have existed ever since we joined the European Community. To this day, Ministers refuse to acknowledge that the basic tenet of the common fisheries policy is equal access to the common resource without discrimination. By dint of the accession treaties signed in Corfu, that is now part of the acquis communautaire.

How did the Fisheries Minister respond? In a letter to Fishing News on 1 May 1998, the Minister said: The present restrictions on access within the six and 12 mile limits expire on 31 December 2002. I must give credit where it is due: we have managed to convert the Minister to that view and he is correct in that belief. He goes on to say: We are confident of their renewal". Perhaps the Minister will tell us by what token he believes that that derogation will be renewed. The same letter to Fishing News records: The system of quotas and relative stability will be reviewed by the end of 2002. But it does not expire then and will continue unaltered unless the Council decides otherwise. There is clearly great confusion in the minds of Ministers if they do not understand that derogations run out in 2002—of that there is no doubt.

To demonstrate conclusively that the Minister does not understand that point, I remind him of an answer that he gave me at Question Time earlier in the year, when he said: the principle of relative stability takes precedence over the issue of common access."—[Official Report, 30 April 1993; Vol. 311, c. 440.] How can that be? Will the Minister explain tonight why he believes that a derogation is superior to a treaty commitment? Who has advised the Minister that that is the case? What motive lies behind the Minister's interpretation? More to the point, what evidence can he produce to substantiate his claim? Right hon. and hon. Members are entitled to know the answer to that question, and British fishermen will also be very interested in that answer.

Mr. Oliver Letwin (West Dorset)

My hon. Friend displays great perceptiveness and his usual intimate knowledge of the subject. Does not the House need to know what trades the Minister is prepared to make in order to extend the derogation?

Mr. Gill

My hon. Friend asks a very pertinent question. In the world of horse trading—that is what goes on in Brussels—something must be given in order to obtain a benefit. That is another question that the Minister might answer when he sums up this evening. What will he trade to ensure that the six and 12-mile limit derogation is extended, and to ensure the continuation of relative stability?

Mr. Nicholls

We have had an interesting and, in some ways, sombre debate. There have been 11 speeches, nine from Back Benchers: most were extremely impressive; some—especially that of the hon. Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman), which I shall not for a moment try to match—were made from the basis of knowledge of the fishing industry; one, to which I shall refer in a moment, was positively odd, but even a serious debate deserves its lighter moments.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) was right to say that the key point is not how we feel about Europe—on one level, it is not even how we feel about fish. The key point is how people feel about their politicians and would-be leaders who say one thing—unequivocally, unambiguously and straightforwardly—and then do not simply fail in their objectives, which is a common lot of politicians in a fallen world, but do not even attempt to deliver.

9.30 pm

This is a sorry business, and wholly typical of the Prime Minister. He believes that he discharges the functions of his office by smiling his way around the capitals of Europe, and that such a performance amounts to statesmanship. He is aided and abetted by the Foreign Secretary, a man who is so lamentably unfit for his job that the only task that he performs for the Government is to make the Prime Minister look good by comparison. When people with that attitude are in charge of the nation's destiny, it is necessary to hold a debate such as this.

We have heard the usual criticism that the amendment may not be particularly well drafted. That does not matter. The amendment is perfectly straightforward: it has enabled the House to shine the harshest possible light on what the Prime Minister did, and to have this debate. People who take an interest in those matters can look at Hansard next week, next year and in perpetuity and understand what has been done. The amendment has performed a most valuable function, because, as I shall show in a moment, the way in which the Prime Minister handled the negotiations and set out his stall violated all the norms of intellectual honesty. There are other ways of describing that sort of behaviour outside the House, but that will do for my purposes this evening.

We have heard much about the common fisheries policy, and hon. Members will have their views about what an ideal CFP would be. Where nations share the seas, there has to be a fisheries policy. A working title might be the CFP, but it is not our job to debate what the contents of an ideal CFP might be. It is sufficient for our purposes to say that, over the years, the CFP has not done British fishermen any good. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal said, it has not done much good for the fish, either.

If time permitted, we could debate the CFP, but that is not the point. The one thing that should be common ground between hon. Members is that quota hopping cannot possibly be right, whatever our views on Europe, fish or the CFP. Foreign-owned and foreign-crewed ships take catches out of the United Kingdom allocation and land them abroad—behaving in that way is simply untenable. It was noticeable that hon. Members on both sides of the House have not said a good word about the Government in practice, but one can say that quota hopping is simply unacceptable.

What are the facts? They are clear, and profoundly uncomfortable for Labour. Any Government can be accused retrospectively of not spotting difficulties, but that is too easy. People do not expect a Government to spot every devious turn of events that could bring about a certain situation, but they expect them to react properly when a problem is perceived. The idea that the previous Government did not react properly, quickly and decisively to quota hopping is completely at variance with the facts. The facts are that we said that we would act, and we did. The Labour Opposition said that they would act, and they did not. They did not fail—which is what we would have expected—because they did not even try.

The previous Government's record on quota hopping was honourable. First, we tried to impose on owners licence conditions on the loading and crewing of their ships. Secondly, through the Merchant Shipping Act 1988, we tried to limit the ownership of vessels to British nationals and British companies. That was the right thing to do, and my recollection is that it was so obviously the right thing to do that the House did not even divide on Second Reading. Labour Members have suggested that it was a dreadful Act: not a bit of it. The House was not even divided.

In due course, we had the indignity of legislation passed by this sovereign House of Parliament being struck down by the foreign European court. That is what happened in the Factortame judgment, and the indignity did not end there. In 1996, a further judgment of the European Court of Justice required United Kingdom domestic courts to assess the compensation that must be paid to Spanish fishermen for the money that they were done out of by not being able to pillage our fishing grounds when the 1988 Act was in force.

That is the measure of the problem. Faced with the Act being struck down, there is nothing to suggest that the previous Government did not react properly. They tried to see what could be negotiated, and they came to the conclusion pretty quickly that, if anything were to be done, it would have to be by an alteration to the treaty. That was our position throughout, and why we acted as we did.

The suggestion by the Minister of State that our European friends and partners did not realise that we wanted the treaty to be altered is lamentable and laughable. We made it clear throughout: my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) could not have made it more clear. He said: The IGC won't come to a successful conclusion until we are satisfied that among our other objectives the problem of quota hopping is resolved satisfactorily. The previous year, Lady Trumpington said in the other place: we have notified the IGC, the Commission and other member states that we shall be tabling proposals to deal with the problem of quota hopping… they will take the form of a protocol to the treaty".—[Official Report, House of Lords, 17 June 1996; Vol. 573, c. 82.] We went ahead and tabled those proposals. The Minister of State thinks that it backs up his argument to say that a German Minister may not have done his homework properly. At least he can smile: I give him credit for that.

Mr. Doug Henderson

The hon. Gentleman does not seem to realise that the starting point of a negotiation is that the other side understands what one is trying to do. How could the previous Government get an agreement with Klaus Kinkel if he had not heard of the protocol and did not know what they wanted to negotiate in the first place?

Mr. Nicholls

The hon. Gentleman repeats the point that was put to him because it was thought to be a relatively simple one that he could wrestle with on the Floor of the House. The idea that we sprung this protocol on our partners at the last minute and that they did not know what was afoot is quite frankly wrong.

The Minister also argued that it was not feasible for us to put our foot down at Amsterdam and say, "We shall not shift until this matter is dealt with." Was that really not feasible? It was not only the Conservative Government who thought that it was feasible: the Opposition also thought so.

I accept that this confusion is not the fault of the Fisheries Minister: he is merely a Parliamentary Secretary, and he does not lay down policy. He does what he is told and, if he forgets what he is told, it appears on his messenger. He has previously said that my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry)—who was in charge of negotiations at that time—had said that quota hopping would be "pursued vigorously" at the IGC, and that Labour supported that approach. The then Leader of the Opposition thought that it was feasible. He said: we certainly have not ruled out holding up IGC business in order to get the right changes to fishing policy in the British interest… where Britain's interests are at stake, we are perfectly prepared to be isolated. Of course we are. That is what the Prime Minister said.

Every debate should have some light relief, and the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk (Dr. Turner) said that the Prime Minister did not really mean what he said and that in fact he meant the precise opposite, but he wanted to be nice to the Prime Minister of the day. That is a fair precis of the position. The then Leader of the Opposition said emphatically, "We will back the Government on this. It is a feasible policy and if we go to Amsterdam, let there be no doubt. We will be every bit as tough."

So what did tough-talking Tony manage to achieve when he got there? Did he put his foot down and say, "No. I am sorry. I said it, and my word is my bond"? When the Prime Minister offers that, one should always take his bond.

What actually happened was that there was an exchange of correspondence. In the new, friendly, communautaire arrangements, a "Dear Tony" and "Dear Jacques" exchange of correspondence was produced triumphantly in June last year, although the Prime Minister had made it absolutely clear that there would be a seamless thread between his desire and that of the Conservative party to stand up for British interests. Basically, that exchange of correspondence does no more than state what people already understood the position to be.

Just in case there should be any doubt that it should be legally binding—this is the answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh) and the substance of my question to the Minister of State—and just to make sure that the Prime Minister's humiliation was complete, Jacques Santer pointed out in the exchange of correspondence that it was not binding. He said that he agreed with the proposition about the economic link, adding, however: On the other hand, any requirement of an economic link which exceeds those limits cannot be justified by the system of national quotas. He went on to make that point, too. Even at that time, flaccid, useless and impotent though that exchange of correspondence was, the Spanish were still serving notice that, if anything were done to build on that agreement, it would be open to challenge.

Where are we now? We have been told that some new proposals have been worked out, so where are they? Aficionados of such matters will have to find an obscure parliamentary question of 12 May saying in effect, "These things are in the pipeline. We are waiting for Europe to tell us whether we can do what we want."

The Spaniards have already said what they think about that. They have raised "grave reservations and doubts" about the revised version of the United Kingdom proposals. They are concerned that visits to ports have been dropped from the range of options for providing an economic link with a fishing area. They have criticised the "disproportionate" way in which landings and residency have been set out, and in a host of other ways they have made it abundantly clear that there is not the slightest doubt that, when they are in a position to do so, they will refer the matter to the European Court of Justice.

One does not have to be a very good lawyer—which is why even the Prime Minister should realise it—to know that anything that safeguards the British position must be to the detriment of somebody else, and the only way in which that detriment or fairness to British interests—whichever way one looks at it—can be enshrined in a way that ensures that it cannot be subject to legal challenge is through a protocol to the treaty.

So where are we tonight? The Prime Minister set out a position clearly and unequivocally, and he has gone back on it. The only point we need to know—I accept that it is of academic interest only—is whether the Prime Minister always intended to break his word or whether it was an idea that he had afterwards. Was it that, in the end, he simply did not have the courage to go to Europe and be a little Britainer? Was it that, despite everything he said, he simply could not contemplate the idea of having to walk across a European stage safe in the knowledge that the only people who were on his side were his own fishermen and the people in his own country? In other words, did he always intend to break his word, or was it something that he decided to do because he thought that the fishermen simply were not worth the candle?

Tonight, we are witnessing a depressing display from the Government, who have taken one position and are now saying something entirely different. We are about to see the Minister—whom I like and get on with—stand at the Dispatch Box and disown his own words or distinguish them in such a way that will make him look knavish or foolish or both. My hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill) pointed out that we have not even begun to address what will happen in 2002 when the derogations come to an end. What we have seen tonight and what we shall hear from the Government is shabby and squalid—and they should be ashamed of themselves.

9.45 pm

Mr. Morley

First, may I apologise to the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard)? I assure him and the House that I meant no discourtesy in not being present to hear his opening comments. I was involved in interviews for the chairs of the new Regional Development Agencies in order to ensure a rural dimension to the appointments. I was very grateful to be asked by my hon. Friend the Minister for the Regions, Regeneration and Planning to participate in that exercise. I had hoped to be present for the beginning of the debate, and I apologise for the fact that my timing was slightly wrong.

In this debate, we have heard nothing but a rewrite of the history of the fishing industry and a verbal airbrushing of what has happened. This Government inherited a complete and utter shambles of a fishing industry after 18 years of the Conservative party's stewardship. Claims that the protocol proposed by the previous Government would have solved the issue of quota hopping have been nothing but ludicrous. To suggest in any way that Labour in opposition made false claims is both fatuous and insulting. I shall deal with those points in due course.

I turn to some of the excellent speeches in the debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell), who has more experience of fishing than many in the House, spoke with great authority on the subject.

Mr. Mitchell

Hear, hear.

Mr. Morley

I am pleased to have my hon. Friend's support on that if on nothing else.

My hon. Friend was absolutely right to say that the amendment is meaningless and totally pointless. He asked questions on several points. As an avid reader of Fishing News, he will know that I have set out some of the answers in correspondence. I should like to reassure him on the Corfu agreement and European Union fishing permits. EU fishing permits already exist in some fisheries; there is nothing new about that. I assure him that fishing permits would not replace member states' roles in licensing their national fishing fleets. That would occur only if a majority voted to introduce a permit scheme.

There is no proposal to introduce such a permit scheme, and the United Kingdom Government would not support any such proposal. I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend that equal enforcement and control is essential in the European Union. He will know that, under our presidency, we brought forward a paper on enforcement and control, which was unanimously supported as a basis for improving enforcement and control across all European member states. That is going ahead.

The right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) was very imaginative in finding a new reason for the previous Government's failures in the fishing industry. It appears that all the fishing industry's problems were due to the dock labour scheme—a most interesting concept.

I certainly agree with the right hon. Gentleman's points about sustainability. He made very serious points, particularly given his role on the Marine Stewardship Council. None the less, he is not in a position to lecture this Government on sustainability when the Government of whom he was a member failed to make any progress whatever in reducing fleet over-capacity against targets set by the EU.

The right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal said that there was not one example of the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major), the former Prime Minister, making a promise and not delivering on it. I thought that that was a quite incredible statement. The right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal seems to have forgotten that his Administration promised that their policy of non-co-operation with the EU would bring about an end to the beef ban. The right hon. Member for Huntingdon told the House that the period of non-co-operation had been a huge success, a great victory, and that the beef ban would be lifted in November 1996. Given their success in the campaign of non-co-operation, what on earth makes Conservative Members think that they would have been more successful in a campaign to try to amend the agreement reached at the intergovernmental conference, which would have required the support of all member states, as each had a veto in that negotiation?

My hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman) also has great knowledge and experience of the fishing industry. He humiliated the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal by pointing out his mishandling of the decommissioning scheme. That money should have helped the whole industry to restructure, but instead it went to a small number of trawler companies. I accept his case for common fisheries policy reform when the European Union is enlarged. No new member state that does not have quota or an historical track record of fishing in our waters will get access to any of our quota-controlled stocks. I also accept his point about the need for the regional dimension to be strengthened.

Dr. Godman

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his compliment. The fishing industries of the Irish republic and the United Kingdom are still suffering terribly from the disgraceful conduct of Spanish trawler owners and skippers, who sweep the seas clean and will try any kind of fiddle to dodge their obligations.

Mr. Morley

I assure my hon. Friend that we shall not tolerate the rules being broken. We have made that clear several times. We recently conducted prosecutions in the cases of 14 Spanish-owned UK vessels, which resulted in fines totalling £1 million for transgressions.

The hon. Member for East Yorkshire (Mr. Townend) was honest in his comments about the failures of previous Conservative Administrations. I know of his longstanding interest in fisheries. My hon. Friend the Member for North-West Norfolk (Dr. Turner) is a new Member, but he already has a proud record of standing up for his fishing communities. 1 noted the support that his inshore fishermen gave him in the recent debate about razor clams. He was right about quota hoppers. I assure him that we are in the final stages of producing a document about quota hopping and economic links. I shall say more about that in a moment.

The only issue on which I agree with the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) is that the amendment is bogus. The hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Sir R. Body) spoke about his inshore fleet. He knows of my support for the inshore industry and his fishermen. He is wrong to say that the amendment is not bogus.

The hon. Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh)— a Conservative Member—gave advice on how the Government could win friends and influence the European Union, which I found incredible. The rift between Tory Members of the European Parliament and the rest of the Conservative party must be even greater than I had thought.

The hon. Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill) is a regular contributor to these debates. I cannot go into detail about all his points in the time available. As another avid reader of Fishing News, he will know that I have spelt out the Government's position on six and 12-mile limits and relative stability, and that the Commission has supported that and written letters making the same points as I have made.

I welcome the hon. Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) in his first Front-Bench outing in a debate, but I was disappointed by his attempt to cover his lack of knowledge of the fishing industry with personal abuse of the Prime Minister. The House deserves better than that.

The Conservatives were slow to react in government in the early 1980s to the emergence of quota hopping, with foreign-owned vessels registering in the UK and fishing our quota. They introduced an amendment to the Merchant Shipping Act 1988, but Labour Members pointed out that the amendment was contrary to the Single European Act that the Conservatives had introduced. Indeed, in the Factortame case the European Court overruled it.

The Conservatives had several opportunities to deal with quota hopping. They could have dealt with it during the negotiations on Spanish and Portuguese accession in 1985, but the then Government did not even mention it at that time. They could also have raised it on the occasion of Swedish, Finnish and Austrian accession—but again, while Spain threatened to use its veto to get advantages for its fishing industry, the Conservatives did nothing, apart from agreeing to the Spanish demands as they were made.

After 18 years, the Conservatives' answer was to introduce a protocol at the IGC. Everyone who had followed the debate, whether inside or outside the fishing industry, knew that that was an utterly bogus suggestion. First, even if the protocol had been carried, it would not have removed one quota hopper from the list; it would not have made the slightest difference. Secondly, not one of the 14 other member states supported the then Government's position, and every one of those 14 had a veto. Yet the Conservatives seem to think that they could have made progress on that basis.

It is true that at that time, in opposition, we were following the debate about the IGC and the protocol, and we made it clear that we did not rule out a future Labour Government's withholding their support at the IGC if we felt that we could make progress on that basis. However, in government it did not take us long to realise that that route was a complete dead end, and that there was no point in wasting time on something that could not be achieved.

Mr. Howard

If that was such an obvious dead end, why did the Prime Minister say, days before the election: we are perfectly prepared to be isolated. Of course we are"?

Mr. Morley

I have made it clear that that was said in opposition. It would have been wrong then to rule out any option. I repeat that when, in government, we had a chance to see what the situation was, it was clear that there was no possibility of achieving support for the protocol. In the letter, we promised that the Labour Government would deal with quota hopping as a high priority. We have delivered on that promise—so much so that France and Belgium are already modelling an economic link for licence conditions based on our proposals. The matter is in its final stage, and we shall make the details public in the near future.

The Tory Administration were a failure in their attempts to deal with those issues. They failed in their original fisheries policy, and they failed to modify it when they had the opportunity, with Spanish and Portuguese accession. They failed to ensure that the economic circumstances of the United Kingdom fishing industry made it profitable and secure for our fishermen to hold on to their quotas.

It was the Conservative Government who encouraged fishermen to sell their licences, because no decommissioning scheme was available. They also ignored repeated requests by Labour Members to introduce one. The Conservatives—not the Labour Government and not the Labour party—must take responsibility for the fact that there are quota hoppers on the register now.

The Conservatives also failed to recognise that the United Kingdom regulations would be challenged before the European Court of Justice. They left government with a potential 30 per cent. cut across the board in prospect for every fishing boat in this country. We have managed to resolve that situation and bring some stability to the fishing industry, as the previous Government failed to do. The last word on the Tory Government's record is the fact that the fishing industry voted out just about every Tory Member who represented a fishing port—and their record is no better now than it was then.

Question put, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment:—

The House divided: Ayes 330, Noes 134.

Division No. 298]	[9.58 pm
AYES
Abbott, Ms Diane	Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Ainger, Nick	Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)	Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
	Ashton, Joe
Alexander, Douglas	Atherton, Ms Candy
Allan, Richard	Atkins, Charlotte
Allen, Graham	Austin, John

Baker, Norman	Dismore, Andrew
Ballard, Jackie	Dobson, Rt Hon Frank
Banks, Tony	Donohoe, Brian H
Barron, Kevin	Doran, Frank
Battle, John	Drew, David
Bayley, Hugh	Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)
Beard, Nigel	Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)
Begg, Miss Anne	Edwards, Huw
Beith, Rt Hon A J	Efford, Clive
Bell, Martin (Tatton)	Ellman, Mrs Louise
Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)	Ennis, Jeff
Bennett, Andrew F	Etherington, Bill
Benton, Joe	Field, Rt Hon Frank
Berry, Roger	Fisher, Mark
Betts, Clive	Fitzpatrick, Jim
Blizzard, Bob	Fitzsimons, Lorna
Blunkett, Rt Hon David	Flint, Caroline
Boateng, Paul	Flynn, Paul
Borrow, David	Follett, Barbara
Bradley, Keith (Withington)	Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Brake, Tom	Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)
Brand, Dr Peter	Foster, Michael J (Worcester)
Brinton, Mrs Helen	Fyfe, Maria
Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)	Gapes, Mike
Brown, Russell (Dumfries)	Gardiner, Barry
Browne, Desmond	George, Andrew (St Ives)
Buck, Ms Karen	George, Bruce (Walsall S)
Burgon, Colin	Gerrard, Neil
Burnett, John	Gibson, Dr Ian
Burstow, Paul	Gilroy, Mrs Linda
Butler, Mrs Christine	Godman, Dr Norman A
Byers, Stephen	Godsiff, Roger
Cable, Dr Vincent	Goggins, Paul
Cabom, Richard	Golding, Mrs Llin
Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)	Gordon, Mrs Eileen
Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)	Gorrie, Donald
Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife)	Grant, Bernie
Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)	Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)
Canavan, Dennis	Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Caplin, Ivor	Grocott, Bruce
Casale, Roger	Grogan, John
Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)	Gunnell, John
Chaytor, David	Hain, Peter
Chisholm, Malcolm	Hall, Patrick (Bedford)
Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)	Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)
Clark, Dr Lynda(Edinburgh Pentlands)	Hancock, Mike
	Hanson, David
Clark, Paul (Gillingham)	Harris, Dr Evan
Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)	Heal, Mrs Sylvia
Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)	Healey, John
Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)	Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)
Coaker, Vernon	Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)
Coffey, Ms Ann	Hepburn, Stephen
Cohen, Harry	Heppell, John
Coleman, Iain	Hesford, Stephen
Colman, Tony	Hill, Keith
Corbett, Robin	Hinchliffe, David
Cotter, Brian	Hodge, Ms Margaret
Cox, Tom	Hoey, Kate
Cranston, Ross	Home Robertson, John
Crausby, David	Hoon, Geoffrey
Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)	Hope, Phil
Cryer, John (Hornchurch)	Hopkins, Kelvin
Cummings, John	Howarth, Alan (Newport E)
Cunliffe, Lawrence	Howells, Dr Kim
Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)	Hoyle, Lindsay
Dalyell, Tam	Humble, Mrs Joan
Darvill, Keith	Hurst, Alan
Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)	Hutton, John
Davidson, Ian	Iddon, Dr Brian
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)	Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)
Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)	Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)
Davies, Rt Hon Ron (Caerphilly)	Jamieson, David
Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)	Jenkins, Brian
Dawson, Hilton	Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)
Denham, John	Johnson, Miss Melanie

(Welwyn Hatfield)	Plaskitt, James
Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)	Pond, Chris
Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)	Pope, Greg
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)	Pound, Stephen
Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)	Powell, Sir Raymond
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)	Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)	Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Keeble, Ms Sally	Prosser, Gwyn
Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)	Quin, Ms Joyce
Kemp, Fraser	Quinn, Lawrie
Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)	Rapson, Syd
Kilfoyle, Peter	Raynsford, Nick
King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)	Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)
King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)	Reid, Dr John (Hamilton N)
Kumar, DrAshok	Rendel, David
Ladyman, Dr Stephen	Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)
Lawrence, Ms Jackie	Rogers, Allan
Laxton, Bob	Rooney, Terry
Lepper, David	Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Leslie, Christopher	Rowlands, Ted
Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)	Ruane, Chris
Lewis, Terry (Worsley)	Ruddock, Ms Joan
Liddell, Mrs Helen	Russell, Bob (Colchester)
Linton, Martin	Salter, Martin
Livingstone, Ken	Sanders, Adrian
Livsey, Richard	Savidge, Malcolm
Llwyd, Elfyn	Sedgemore, Brian
Love, Andrew	Shaw, Jonathan
McAllion, John	Sheerman, Barry
McAvoy, Thomas	Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)
McCabe, Steve	Singh, Marsha
McCartney, Robert (N Down)	Skinner, Dennis
McDonagh, Siobhain	Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)
McDonnell, John	Smith, Angela (Basildon)
McGuire, Mrs Anne	Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)
Mclsaac, Shona
Mackinlay, Andrew	Smith, John (Glamorgan)
McNamara, Kevin	Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)
McNulty, Tony	Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)
MacShane, Denis	Snape, Peter
McWalter, Tony	Soley, Clive
McWilliam, John	Southworth, Ms Helen
Mahon, Mrs Alice	Spellar, John
Mallaber, Judy	Squire, Ms Rachel
Mandelson, Peter	Starkey, Dr Phyllis
Marek, Dr John	Stevenson, George
Marshall-Andrews, Robert	Stewart, David (Inverness E)
Meacher, Rt Hon Michael	Stewart, Ian (Eccles)
Meale, Alan	Stinchcombe, Paul
Merron, Gillian	Stott, Roger
Michael, Alun	Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin
Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)	Straw, Rt Hon Jack
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)	Stringer, Graham
Milburn, Alan	Stunell, Andrew
Mitchell, Austin	Sutcliffe, Gerry
Moffatt, Laura	Swinney, John
Moonie, Dr Lewis	Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)
Moran, Ms Margaret	Taylor, Matthew (Truro)
Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)	Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)
Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)	Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)
Morley, Elliot	Timms, Stephen
Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)	Tipping, Paddy
Mullin, Chris	Tonge, Dr Jenny
Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)	Touhig, Don
Norris, Dan	Trickett, Jon
Oaten, Mark	Truswell, Paul
O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)	Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)
O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)	Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)
O'Hara, Eddie	Twigg, Derek (Halton)
Olner, Bill	Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)
O'Neill, Martin	Tyler, Paul
Palmer, Dr Nick	Vaz, Keith
Pearson, Ian	Vis, Dr Rudi
Perham, Ms Linda	Wallace, James
Pickthall, Colin	Walley, Ms Joan
Pike, Peter L	Watts, David

White, Brian	Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)
Whitehead, Dr Alan	Wise, Audrey
Wicks, Malcolm	Wood, Mike
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)	Woolas, Phil
	Worthington, Tony
	Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)	Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)
Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)
Willis, Phil	Tellers for the Ayes:
Wills, Michael	Mr. Jim Dowd and
Winnick, David	Mr. Kevin Hughes.

NOES
Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)	Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas
Amess, David	Horam, John
Arbuthnot, James	Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)	Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)
Baldry, Tony	Hunter, Andrew
Beggs, Roy	Jack, Rt Hon Michael
Bercow, John	Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Beresford, Sir Paul	Jenkin, Bernard
Blunt, Crispin	Key, Robert
Body, Sir Richard	King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)
Boswell, Tim	Kirkbride, Miss Julie
Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)	Laing, Mrs Eleanor
Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia	Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Brady, Graham	Lansley, Andrew
Brazier, Julian	Leigh, Edward
Brooke, Rt Hon Peter	Letwin, Oliver
Browning, Mrs Angela	Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)
Bums, Simon	Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Butterfill, John	Loughton, Tim
Cash, William	Luff, Peter
Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)	MacGregor, Rt Hon John
	McIntosh, Miss Anne
Chope, Christopher	MacKay, Andrew
Clappison, James	Maclean, Rt Hon David
Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Kensington)	McLoughlin, Patrick
Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)	Malins, Humfrey
	Maples, John
Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey	Mates, Michael
Collins, Tim	Maude, Rt Hon Francis
Colvin, Michael	Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian
Cran, James	May, Mrs Theresa
Curry, Rt Hon David	Moss, Malcolm
Davies, Quentin (Grantham)	Nicholls, Patrick
Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)	Norman, Archie
Day, Stephen	Page, Richard
Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen	Paice, James
Duncan, Alan	Paterson, Owen
Duncan Smith, Iain	Pickles, Eric
Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter	Prior, David
Evans, Nigel	Randall, John
Faber, David	Redwood, Rt Hon John
Fabricant, Michael	Robathan, Andrew
Fallon, Michael	Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)
Flight, Howard	Ross, William (E Lond'y)
Forth, Rt Hon Eric	Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)
Fox, Dr Liam	Ruffley, David
Fraser, Christopher	St Aubyn, Nick
Gale, Roger	Sayeed, Jonathan
Garnier, Edward	Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)
Gibb, Nick	Soames, Nicholas
Gill, Christopher	Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Gray, James	Swayne, Desmond
Green, Damian	Syms, Robert
Greenway, John	Tapsell, Sir Peter
Grieve, Dominic	Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)
Gummer, Rt Hon John	Taylor, John M (Solihull)
Hague, Rt Hon William	Taylor, Sir Teddy
Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie	Townend, John
Hammond, Philip	Tredinnick, David
Hawkins, Nick	Trend, Michael
Hayes, John	Tyrie, Andrew
Heald, Oliver	Walter, Robert
Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David	Wardle, Charles

Waterson, Nigel	Woodward, Shaun
Wells, Bowen	Yeo, Tim
Whittingdale, John	Young, Rt Hon Sir George
Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann
Wilkinson, John	Tellers for the Noes:
Willetts, David	Sir David Madel and
Wilshire, David	Mrs. Caroline Spelman.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Lords amendment disagreed to.

Committee appointed to draw up Reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to their amendment to the Bill: Mr. Doug Henderson, Mr. Denis MacShane, Sir David Madel, Mr. Patrick Nicholls and Mr. Greg Pope; Mr. Doug Henderson to be Chairman of the Committee; and Three to be the quorum of the Committee.—[Jane Kennedy.]

To withdraw immediately.

Reasons for disagreeing to the Lords amendment reported, and agreed to; to be communicated to the Lords.