Fishing and Cockle Industry (Essex) (Hansard, 22 June 1998)

§ Mr. David Amess

(Southend, West): This time two weeks ago, I had the privilege to lead a small delegation to Brussels to meet Commissioner Emma Bonino. The purpose of the meeting was to ascertain exactly where the buck stops.

Following meetings with local fishermen and cocklers, there was clearly some concern as to where ultimate responsibility lay. I mean it in good faith when I say that I am not pointing the accusing finger. I am trying to be the honest broker. I would say that Miss Bonino received us most courteously. She made no disparaging remarks about Her Majesty's Government since 1 May 1997, or about the previous Government. However, I should tell the Minister that, on a number of issues that we raised, Miss Bonino shook her head and said, "These matters are the responsibility of the national Government."

I wish to run through the issues tonight. I ask the Minister to reflect on them. If he does not have time tonight to respond to them in detail, perhaps he will write to me. I simply want to know whether, in the Minister's judgment, the issues that I raise tonight are his responsibility or those of the Commission. I told Miss Bonino that I would send her a copy of the Hansard of this debate, and she said that she would read it and reflect on what the Minister says.

As we all know, fishing is mentioned in the Domesday book. In the delegation, I was delighted to have with me a representative of local fishermen, Mr. Paul Gilson, and a representative of the local cocklers, Councillor Tony Meddle—not a councillor of Southend borough council, but a town councillor. Both gentlemen acquitted themselves extremely well during the meeting with Miss Bonino. I am delighted to see in the Chamber tonight my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Mrs. Laing), my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) and the hon. Members for Colchester (Mr. Russell) and for Plymouth, Sutton (Mrs. Gilroy).

The main message to the Minister tonight is that there are plans to amend the common fisheries policy. A questionnaire that may have been instigated by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food was directed to local fishermen, following a delegation that I took to Brussels with—this is a delicate matter—the previous Member for Castle Point. I congratulate all the fishermen, especially those in Southend, on their involvement, and on their valuable suggestions and proposals.

To the fishermen, the main thrust of the meeting with Commissioner Bonino was the regional management of stocks. Local fishermen have voiced their concerns to me on several occasions about the problems of stock conservation in their area. They feel that, ever since the inception of the common fisheries policy, the inshore fleet has been treated unfairly, especially since the majority of the United Kingdom's track record for sole was established by the inshore fleet in the south east. MAFF scientists have said that what the inshore fishermen take is insignificant. In the example of Gallidoro, at one stage, one man owned as much sole as the whole of the non-sector, which is pretty extraordinary.

815 Fishermen have claimed that, over the years, attempts were made by the Kent and Essex sea fisheries committee to correct that alleged injustice. They have come up with a plan for the regional management of fish stocks as an alternative to the CFP. Two weeks ago, in Brussels, we presented that to Commissioner Bonino. She said that, as far as she was concerned, anything inside the six-mile limit was entirely the responsibility of national Governments. Will the Minister clarify that point, and say whether he accepts what Miss Bonino said?

Local fishermen in Southend are keen to have a greater role on this issue. They see article 17(1)(a) and (b) of the new regulations as the way forward. The article states: Member States may take measures for the conservation and management of stocks in the case of strictly local stocks which are of interest solely to the fishermen of the Member State concerned, or in the form of conditions or detailed arrangements designed to limit the catches by technical measures supplementing those laid down in the Community legislation on fisheries, or going beyond the minimum requirements laid down in the said legislation, provided that such measures apply solely to the fishermen of the Member State concerned, are compatible with Community law, and are in conformity with the Common Fisheries Policy. The upshot is that Commissioner Bonino thinks it entirely possible, without our passing fresh legislation, for us to embark on the regional management of stocks.

Our local fishermen are honest, hard-working people, and their main objective is the preservation of stocks. They want the fish to come to them, rather than vice versa. At the moment they are suffering poor catches because the fish are not in their area. They are also the victims of the continuing conflict between vessels of under and over 10 m—between small and large boats, in other words. The boats in Southend are under 17 m.

Will the Minister encourage and endorse voluntary agreements between member states—Commissioner Bonino said that that was within his power—to conserve fish stocks? Will he support local Southend fishermen in fostering links with their European competitors?

The main issue to do with dredging, as the hon. Member for Colchester will know, concerns the impact of increased silting on fish stocks. Local fishermen tell me that it is having an adverse impact on the size of fish and on boats' ability to catch them. Will the Minister undertake scientific investigations into the impact of increased silting on fish stocks? No doubt he will tell me that they are already under way, but I am not sure that the investigations cover everything that the fishermen want analysed. Everything that I have said so far is supported by the "NFFO News".

As the Minister knows, the tradition of cockling in Leigh goes back more than 150 years. Cockling emerged from the business of fishing for mussels. My hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson), who is unfortunately away at the Council of Europe, has given me a useful document in which tribute is paid to the sterling work of the cocklers during the second world war. It recounts how, on 31 May 1940, a flotilla of six cockle boats —Defender, Letitia, Renown, Endeavour, Reliance and Resolute—left Southend to take part in Operation Dynamo. Over eight hours, those boats embarked 1,200 troops from beyond Dunkirk jetty, transferring them to larger ships offshore.

During the early hours of 1 June, Letitia's rudder was smashed, and it was taken in tow. Renown broke down, and made fast to the end of Letitia's tow. Half an hour 816 later, it hit a mine, and her crew—Frank Osborne, Leslie Osborne and Harry Noakes, who were cousins, and Harold Graham Porter, a young naval rating from Birmingham—were lost.

At a ceremony 32 years later, where my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East gave the address, Leigh established a public memorial to the brave men who took part at Dunkirk and to those who lost their lives, to complement the plaques in St. Clement's church, Leigh, and the Methodist church, New road—thanks to the generosity of the donors to the appeal launched 10 months previously. The memorial, in fibre-glass bronze, remains in the beautiful church. It was designed and executed by Cyril Smith of Leigh Hill, and stands on a Cornish granite plinth. The sub-base was supplied by S. Stibbard and Sons.

I have mentioned that because some people have the impression that hon. Members mention fishermen or cocklers out of selfishness, but the Minister would not dispute that fishermen and cocklers were responsible for brave acts in the second world war, not only in my constituency, but in others. The families of the people I have mentioned are still cockling and fishing in my constituency, and this morning I was privileged to be aboard Renown, where I spoke to local cockle men who gave me examples of exactly what goes on and what their difficulties are.

At the end of the last century, 21 boats in Leigh-on-Sea were cockling. The suction dredge, colloquially known as the "hoover", was introduced in the 1970s. At the meeting on 9 June, Councillor Tony Meddle spoke to Commissioner Bonino. I praise the attempts of local cocklers to conserve their stocks—they have realised that spat falls have declined, so they have fallen in with the policies of the Kent and Essex sea fisheries committee to try to conserve stocks.

Last year, local cocklers were permitted to fish for only three days a week. This year, that has been reduced to two days, during five months of the year. The KESFC has allowed for flexibility, and the days can be taken at the cocklers' discretion, depending on weather conditions and other such factors. Under the Thames Estuary Cockle Fishery Order 1993, permitted landings are limited to 500 baskets per fishing period.

Councillor Meddle raised the subject silting with Miss Bonino in the hope that we might get money from Europe to pay for the dredging of Leigh creek. Will the Minister seriously consider authorising a scientific study into the impact of increased silting on cockle stocks? Given that Southend sadly has increasingly high unemployment—much higher than in other parts of Essex—will he back another Department's attempt to get us European money under stage 2?

The issuing of licences and temporary licences is the responsibility of the KESFC. I urge that organisation to take into account the necessity for local stock conservation when issuing licences.

I am very worried about the future of the industry, which is uncertain. I am concerned about the high level of unemployment. The local cockle industry is of fundamental importance to the local economy. It is a real joy to go down to old Leigh and see people from, in particular, the east end of London enjoying their shellfish, especially cockles. The industry employs more than 817 100 people. It is seasonal, in the summer months, but it is a great tradition. It is important that we keep the cockle industry alive.

I want to underline the present position. Since the introduction of the new suction techniques, the industry is 3 per cent. more efficient than it was last year, but the level of cockle stock has not increased by 3 per cent.

I do not want to introduce a sour note into the debate, but a rather misleading leaflet has been issued by politicians—not of my party. That leaflet is factually incorrect. The two parties involved in it have somehow given the impression that they did not vote to increase restrictions on fishing for cockles on the foreshore from 300 m to 400 m. but they jolly well did. The restriction relates to the months from July to September. I will not dwell too long on the matter, but it does not add much to the debate. The headline, "Cockle war in Southend", is absolutely ridiculous, and again does not add much to the debate.

Perhaps on another occasion the Minister might consider the issue of cockle licences. Local cockle men are concerned that they cannot automatically pass on their licences if they have an accident or, for whatever reason, can no longer fish for cockles. They want to be able to pass on their licences to other members of their families, rather than the licence being sold out with the family. Cockling in Leigh is very much a family-oriented business. During the general election campaign last year, it seemed that every other house I called on had someone related to a cockier. They feel that, historically, licences have remained within families living in Leigh, and that that should continue.

A 1992 document entitled "Thames Cockle Fishery" contains two points dealing with hygiene legislation, which local cocklers warned about in 1992. They believe that our European partners are not as tough in enforcing regulations as we are. Last week, I sat on a Committee talking about regulations, on which most hon. Members seemed to feel that we were tough but other European countries were not. The document predicted that if the situation was not contained, vessels from all parts of the UK would move in to take cockles from the Thames estuary. Now, in 1998, we are seeing the impact of the change, exactly as was predicted in 1992.

Today there have been two completely different emotional subjects, one discussed in the House and one played out in France. Although some may say that cockling and fishing are not of significance tonight, they are very important to my constituency, and also in Kent. I am aware that my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier), who cannot be here tonight, has been working closely with cocklers. It is an issue of desperate importance. I hope that the Minister will tell us where the buck stops.

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

Although this issue may not be as great as others that have been discussed tonight or as that being played out in France, it is very important. The hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess) is right to raise it on behalf of his constituents. I congratulate him on securing this 818 Adjournment debate, and on the constructive way in which he put his case. I hope that I can answer most of his questions. However, if he feels that I have missed any of the points he made, he could write to me about them or any other issue, and I should be only too happy to give him a detailed response.

I stress that the Government are a strong supporter of inshore fisheries, which are important because they maintain a large number of jobs. They often have a low impact on stocks, and we want to give them as much support as we possibly can. The hon. Gentleman referred to Mrs. Bonino, who will read the report of this debate. She is a formidable Commissioner, and I want to put on record our gratitude for the assistance that she has given the Government in dealing with the many problems in the fishing industry that we have had to tackle.

I can give the hon. Gentleman a detailed answer to his question about who has responsibility for this fishery. The common fisheries policy covers the totality of fisheries in the European Union, but there is an element of flexibility for national measures. As the hon. Gentleman rightly says, we have total control over the six-mile limit, which is an exclusive fisheries zone for United Kingdom vessels. Within the six-mile limit, it is possible for the sea fisheries committees, such as the Kent and Essex SFC, to make local byelaws to regulate fishing activity within their districts. Most committees have adopted regulations to help conserve stocks.

The byelaws may impose more rigorous requirements than Community legislation, but they must not undermine Community legislation by setting lower standards. Generally speaking, that does not happen, because the fishermen in those areas are keen to apply high standards. United Kingdom Fisheries Departments may adopt national measures for the regulation of fishing activity by UK-registered vessels wherever they fish, but such measures cannot apply to vessels from other member states outside the six-mile and 12-mile zones.

I appreciate that, in return for adopting more rigorous conservation measures, inshore fishermen want to be exempt from quota management. I have had a number of representations on that. I regret to say that that is not a realistic aim. Under Community rules, all landings made by UK fishing vessels must count against quota. The same applies in other member states. That will certainly remain the position until 2002, and even then it is likely that there will still be some form of TACs and quota system as part of relative stability, which is important to the UK industry.

The challenge is to find a way of marrying the aspirations of the inshore fleet with the overriding obligation to conserve stocks. The hon. Gentleman mentioned regional management. I am attracted by that approach, and the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations and the Scottish Fishermen's Federation have recently produced a joint position paper, which I am discussing with them.

My officials have also met the hon. Gentleman's local fishermen to discuss ways of achieving greater flexibility in the Kent and Essex SFC area. Voluntary arrangements can be made, and we are willing to talk to the Commission and to his local fishermen about the measures that they want and that can be operated within the rules. MAFF officials are already exploring such measures with them.

819 I understand the concerns of the inshore fishery about sole. It is true that there is a small total allowable catch because of increased activity in the fishery, coupled with reductions in the quota because of pressure on stocks. We have tried to secure additional fish for the inshore fleet through underpinning and international swaps. As a result, an extra 32 tonnes of North sea sole are being made available to the inshore fleet, which is an increase of more than 20 per cent. on the quota that it might otherwise have received. We try to take into account the sector's particular problems.

I also understand the hon. Gentleman's points about the impact of dredging. He is right to say that we insist on research into that impact. We have also acted on fishermen's concerns about recent proposals by ARC Marine to undertake core sampling on Maplin sands as part of a review of applications made previously by Civil and Marine.

We have reaffirmed to ARC Marine the concern that the Ministry expressed previously about the disturbance that dredging was likely to cause to crustacea beds and fish spawning in that area. We shall continue to oppose the issue of any production licence by the Crown unless measures can be agreed that will minimise the impact on particular inshore fisheries. We are always willing to consider the inshore fleet's concern; if necessary, of course, the provision exists to undertake research into the impact of dredging.

820 The hon. Gentleman also mentioned European grants in relation to dredging. That is a more complicated matter, about which I shall have to write to him, as I cannot deal with it in the two minutes that remain.

The final and most important matter is cockles. I share the hon. Gentleman's concern about the Essex cockle fishery. The Kent and Essex sea fisheries committee has a key role to play in its management. The fact remains, however, that it has been a very bad two years for recruitment to the cockle industry. The Kent and Essex sea fisheries committee has taken action to conserve stocks. I support that action; the committee has acted in a responsible way.

It is difficult when the revocation of temporary licences and limiting the number of days that the cockle fishermen can fish are involved. However, unless effective action is taken to deal with the serious problem of recruitment, there will be no cockle fishery, so such action has to be undertaken to ensure that there are sustainable stocks for future fishermen. I very much hope that the sea fisheries committee is successful. Indeed, it has been successful in its management, and local fishermen—the hon. Gentleman's constituents—will benefit from increased prosperity through a sustainable and well-managed fishery.