HC Deb 25 June 2001 vol 370 cc484-90

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. McNulty.]

10 pm

Mr. Archy Kirkwood (Roxburgh and Berwickshire)

I am very pleased to have the opportunity to raise this subject. I hope that the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs will agree that, after the hiatus of the election, now is a very appropriate time for the House to return to the EU North sea cod recovery programme, which is especially important to our coastal communities. I am sure that I speak for many hon. Members who represent fishing interests in welcoming his reappointment to his important role as Fisheries Minister, which was greeted with relief. The prospect of a new and inexperienced Member being given such a technically difficult role at this especially sensitive time would have caused understandable concern. We are pleased to see him on the Front Bench this evening.

The purpose of this debate is twofold. First, will the Under-Secretary give the House a progress report on the current state of the cod recovery plan and the negotiations that surround it? Secondly, we would all be grateful if he could try to provide a somewhat better understanding of what was meant by Commissioner Fischler when he recently declared that the European Union white fish effort would have to be reduced by some 40 to 50 per cent. That statement, which was reported in the general and fishing press, has caused a great deal of alarm in our coastal communities. Any reassurance and explanation of the context of the statement would be very welcome.

Before I deal with some of the detailed aspects of the cod recovery programme, let me say that I am pretty certain that I am expressing the views of many hon. Members when I say that there is a palpable sense of anger and foreboding in our fishing ports—especially the small village-based industries around our coasts. Every week that passes and every new issue of Fishing News brings more frustration for the catching sector of the North sea fleet. For example, early in May, it was reported that the Republic of Ireland had been allocated through its national development plan for fisheries another £20 million for decommissioning and other purposes, including the development of shore-based facilities in ports.

If the arithmetic of my local fishermen is correct, the EU funds available to the Irish fleet in the period 2000–06 total some £75 million. That contrasts with the £6 million for decommissioning that is going to the English fleet and the £25 million allocated to the Scots fleet for the same purpose. On decommissioning, will the Under-Secretary respond to concerns about the fact that the scheme that has been announced is unlikely to be available much before the end of the current financial year? It will not be available to under-10 m boats and it may also be of most financial benefit in practice to Anglo-Spanish boats sailing out of ports such as Ayr. Alternatively, and equally perversely, it may involve payouts to Peterhead skippers whose boats are registered in that port but who never land fish there.

To make matters worse, we have heard the recent European Union announcements on the allocation of FIFG—financial instrument of fisheries grant—fisheries guidance funds for diversification out of the catching sector. The announcements showed that Spain was getting more in one year—more than 1 million ecu—than the UK was getting in the entire six years of the programme—some 225,000 ecu. Our fishermen are aggrieved not just about the direct effects of the efforts to protect stocks, but about the apparent unfairness of the way in which their interests are being protected by European Union common fisheries policy regimes. If the Minister can reassure me about any of those perceptions of unfairness, which were repeated to me numerous times on the doorsteps of fishermen, skippers and crewmen during the election campaign, I shall pass that on to skippers in ports such as Eyemouth, who believe that their interests are not being protected relative to those of their opposite numbers in EU sister states.

There is a clear feeling that greater involvement of skippers and crews should be taken into account when policy is formulated; that more regional control of fisheries management should be devolved back to local areas—parts of the North sea are a good example of that; and that the bankruptcy of fishermen and fishing catching sector enterprises should not be a deliberate tool of policy, which might, by default, be the case soon if left untouched.

Mr. Menzies Campbell (North-East Fife)

I spent part of the day with representatives of fishing interests—in particular, with those who are concerned about the 10-metre-and-under sector—in Pittenweem in my constituency. My hon. Friend's comments about anxiety were reflected in what I heard this afternoon.

Mr. Kirkwood

That does not surprise me. Places such as Anstruther and Pittenweem are coastal villages that form an important part of the industry. They are being affected directly and indirectly by some of the negotiations on the cod recovery plan.

The first thing worth noting about the plan is that the notion of closing principal spawning grounds for cod was thought to be a good idea just after I was elected in 1983. That was promoted by skippers and others who were knowledgable about the industry on the Berwickshire coast. If that was the case 20 years ago, it cannot be argued that it is a great new idea that has just been dreamed up by scientists. At the time, the scientists said that it could not, or would not, help. That is another example of why skippers do not fully trust the scientific advice that they are given.

As I understand it, the cod recovery plan contains three main elements, all of which try to protect cod stocks in the North sea. The first is quota cuts that affect cod and, in parenthesis, other species with a cod by-catch, which is important for the Scottish industry The second element is nursery closures in the North sea and the west of Scotland. The third relates to gear modifications.

It is almost impossible to argue against cuts in the cod quota, which has not been fulfilled in recent years. However, significant cuts have been made in the haddock, whiting and nephrops quota as a result of the by-catch issue. Those cuts most affect the industry in Scotland, and give rise to various questions. What progress has been made to restore the 2001 nephrops quota? That is an important, although perhaps premature, question, and I should like to hear the Minister's response. In conjunction with that, will there be a similar cut in the nephrops quota this year? Is there any intelligence on that and what is the Minister's feeling about it? Finally, what measures will the Government put in place to ensure that the fleet remains viable in the light of a round of expected severe quota cuts in December? Those important questions are at the forefront of local skippers' minds.

Closures in the North sea and on the west coast of Scotland were based on areas of maximum catch during the spawning season. It was assumed that that would reduce the take of spawning female fish. How successful have those closures been? It should be possible to gain a preliminary idea of the scientific assessment of the data. Are scientific data available? If they are, will the Minister share them with us? If they are not, will he give us an idea of when they might become available? Will the closures be repeated, as expected, in 2002? If so, is it likely that those areas that were closed this year will be closed again?

What measures will be put in place to stop boats diverting to other fishing grounds—for example, the juvenile haddock grounds in the North sea? That question is particularly important for the fishermen in Eyemouth, in my constituency, who now fish for nephrops and are deeply worried that fishing effort will be diverted from the closed cod grounds to the haddock and whiting grounds and that effort will be further diverted to nephrops. Although subject to a quota, the stock of nephrops has not been particularly challenged, but it might be if diverted effort continues uncontrolled.

Finally, technical measures represent an important, third strand to the cod recovery plan negotiations. The debate about technical measures is continuing. The Commission's publicly stated position is that 120 mm mesh would be acceptable. However, I think that the Commission would be prepared to accept a 110 mm derogation for the first year. The French, because of their juvenile hake fishery, and the Scots, because of their whiting fishery, would prefer to advance no further than allowing a mesh size of 110 mm at present. However, as the Minister will know, I understand that the Norwegians, with whom key North sea stocks are shared, currently want a mesh size of nothing less than 135 mm.

If no agreement is reached between the Commission and Norway, the Norwegians could institute a 135 mm mesh size unilaterally in their waters. So will the Minister say something about the outcome of the crucially important EU-Norway round of the discussions, as those bilateral negotiations are of essential importance to those of my constituents who fish.

Do the Government envisage a substantial loss of whiting with the 120 mm net? If so, what will they do about any such loss? Finally, on technical measures, how will the problem of carrying two nets—one for EU waters and another for Norwegian waters—be addressed in future? Those are some of the issues that arise as a direct consequence of the continuing negotiations on the technical measures in the plan.

The catching and onshore processing sectors in my constituency are very pessimistic about the future. The Commission's plans for next year are still not clear; nor is it clear how long the current exercise will continue, but what happens if the cod stocks do not recover? That is the key question. It is not too early to start thinking about that quintessentially important question now, because the consequences will be immense if we get into the position that the Canadians were in with their North Atlantic white fish fishery. As we know, those grounds are still not yet open.

No one who knows anything about this difficult problem thinks that its resolution will be easy. I do not envy the Minister's task; he has to reconcile all sorts of interests, but I know that he will do the best that he can. However, the House must understand that, if we are to provide any hope at all for those of our constituents who go down to the sea in ships and do business in great waters, the Minister needs to address himself urgently to some of those questions, and it would be of considerable assistance if he could answer some of them during this debate.

10.14 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr. Elliot Morley)

I congratulate the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) on the way in which he has made his case. He raised a number of pertinent points about the cod recovery plan, which I understand are of concern to his fishermen, his constituents and other hon. Members who are present. I can update the hon. Gentleman on the cod recovery programme, as details have only just been agreed and are not yet widely known. I am happy to go through those points in this debate so that the hon. Gentleman is aware of the latest situation.

I shall start by dealing with the subsidies announced by the Irish Government. It is of course for member states to decide how to apply FIFG—financial instrument of fisheries grant—money. I fear that the Irish proposals will result in a rerun of what happened in this country in the 1980s, when an awful lot of money was made available to the United Kingdom fleet for modernisation and building. That led to significantly increased capacity, and we then spent the 1990s using public money to decommission the fleet.

Given the pressure on fish stocks and the fact that, as I understand it, one justification given by the Irish Government is the exploitation of deep-water species, about which the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea advice is not good, I have some concerns about just where the boats will go. However, that is a matter for the Irish Government. I would not wish to interfere in their policy, apart from saying that I do not believe that using public funds to increase catching power and capacity is a good use of such funds. There are other areas in the UK and European fishing fleets to which money should go.

I understand the hon. Gentleman's point about decommissioning. I certainly hope that we can reach a conclusion on the matter before the end of the financial year. He will appreciate that we have to consult the industry on the shape of the decommissioning scheme, but I certainly hope that the proposals can be implemented as quickly as possible so that fishermen know exactly what is on offer and can make decisions accordingly.

Agreement with Norway has been reached in the 2001 negotiations on the cod recovery programme. I shall run through what is in that agreement. Although the negotiations have been difficult generally speaking, there is a problem with cod stocks, as the hon. Gentleman emphasised fairly. No one disputes that, and we must take action on it. We in the UK have to explain to the Commission the problems of a mixed fishery. There is of course logic in going for a bigger mesh size in a cod fishery. Indeed, in the cod fisheries in Norwegian, Faroese and Icelandic waters, a 135 mm mesh size is not unusual. However, that would be much more difficult to introduce in a mixed fishery in the North sea. We have had to emphasise that point to the Commission on a number of occasions, shall we say, but we have made some progress.

The diamond mesh size is to be increased from 100 to 120 mm, with no square mesh panel required in the North sea. All species caught within that mesh size can be retained, subject to quota availability. The present 100 mm beam trawl fishery for plaice is to increase to 120 mm. For one year until 31 December 2002, the 110 mm diamond mesh fishing will be allowed in the European Community area of the North sea—our mixed fishery zone—with a 90 mm square mesh panel, as we have at the present time.

The target fishery will be 50 per cent, of any mix of haddock, whiting, plaice, sole, lemon sole, skate, ray, anglerfish or monkfish, in which a 25 per cent, cod by-catch will be allowed. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be aware that the original proposal was for 15 per cent. We argued strongly that, by comparison with the normal by-catch in the fishery, that was not realistic for the UK. The last thing we wanted was increasing discards as a result of setting an unrealistic by-catch percentage. Although we understand that 25 per cent, is tough for the industry, it is certainly more manageable than the 15 per cent, originally suggested.

The nephrops fishery mesh size becomes 80 mm, which is already applied in many cases. The 80 mm otter trawl fishery in the southern North sea remains. All 80 mm otter trawls must incorporate a square mesh panel and a 140 mm diamond mesh in the cover of the net, as is currently applied in the Irish sea.

Sorting grids will be mandatory for the 32 mm pandalus shrimp fishery. The UK twine thickness standard of 8 mm single or 5 mm double has been adopted as part of the agreement. For static gear, the EC mesh size for cod increases from 120 mm to 140 mm; Norway will retain 148 mm in its own fishery.

The House might be interested to learn that, in connection with the controversy about industrial fishing, Norway has agreed to close an area on the Bergen Bank to all industrial fishing for Norway pout, blue whiting and sand eel, because significant quantities of juvenile haddock and whiting have recently been taken in those catches. I am sure that that will be welcomed by our industry, which has frequently expressed concern about the impact of industrial fishing.

After being a lone voice on the subject of industrial fishing, I am pleased to find other countries taking an interest. I emphasise that the Danish Government have been highly co-operative and have shared information and technical knowledge with the UK on those issues.

Mr. Alex Salmond (Banff and Buchan)

The Minister's voice might have been a lone one in EU councils, but it certainly has not been in the House. I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his reappointment as Fisheries Minister: he is the pole star in the changing world of the Government ranks. Will he address two points relating to the deal that has been struck? First, there is the issue of closed areas diverting effort into other fisheries; it is not only a question of mesh size. Again, I commend the strategy of a tie-up scheme. This year's voluntary tie-up probably saved 10 million juvenile haddock, but I have strong doubts whether a voluntary tie-up will be available again.

Secondly, will the Minister address the issue, which I know he understands, of slow-pulling highly selective fisheries, such as the seine-net fishery? Whatever mesh size is agreed in whichever area, some fishing boats that pursue the most select fishery might be disadvantaged. It would be an irony if such boats were pushed out of the equation, because they are surely the ones that we want in terms of selective fishery doing less damage to fish stocks. I should like to see some recognition that the Minister is fishing for the seine-net position within the overall deal.

Mr. Morley

To deal with the latter point first, I have sympathy with the argument about the nature of fishing and its selectivity. I do not think that proper attention has yet been paid to the way in which different fishing techniques have differing impacts on fish stocks. I had a private discussion with Commissioner Franz Fischler on that very point. I emphasised that, in addressing the recovery plans, we should not adopt a one-club approach. The main strategy is to reduce effort and fleet size. That has a role, but we should take a more sophisticated approach to recovery plans and consider the range of fishing techniques and their different impacts. I have a lot of sympathy with the hon. Gentleman's point, but we have more work to do in terms of quantifying the argument and convincing the Commission to take it on board.

The hon. Gentleman knows where I stand on the issue of tie-up grants. My mind is not closed to any approach, but I remain to be persuaded that the large sum of money that would be involved in a tie-up represents good value for money, or that the policy would have the effect we want. It might be regarded as a short-term solution to a long-term problem. There are several points on which we still need to be convinced.

On the cod recovery plan, I must emphasise that the 110 mm fishery is important in relation to mixed fishery. I know that the industry is worried about how long it will be continued. The original proposal is that it would be for one year only—2002. However, we have agreed with the Norwegians that it will be reviewed at the end of that year—it will not be for one year, and then finished. The review will enable us to consider the impact of the 110 mm mixed fishery. We have also agreed that that review will include proper consideration of the fishery's socio-economic impact. That examination, carried out over the course of the year, will help negotiations on future cod recovery plans.

There is no doubt that larger mesh sizes are the right approach, but we have to take the socio-economic impact into account and carry the fishing industry with us. The industry is willing to be co-operative. The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire pointed out that cod recovery, closed areas and spawning were under discussion 20 years ago. However, we are now making progress because there has been a fundamental shift in attitude in the fishing industry. It recognises that there are severe problems with many fish stocks, including nearly all commercial stocks, and accepts that conservation action has to be taken. It has therefore participated in discussions.

As a Minister, I have tried to ensure that the fishing industry has been involved in all discussions at every stage. Its input has been invaluable; its experience and participation have been sensible and mature and have shaped the development of the cod recovery programme. It has certainly helped us to convince the Commission that its original proposals on technical measures were not workable; not only would they have a dramatic impact on fishermen, but they would not necessarily achieve the conservation outcomes that the Commission, the industry and we all want. We have therefore made a bit of progress and now have the opportunity to discuss with the industry the future stages of technical measures and the impact of the 110 mm and 120 mm mesh sizes; we can try to evaluate the application of the 120 mm mesh, how it works and its effects on the industry.

Information has been collected on by-catch figures for the nephrops fishery in the North sea. From our figures, it appears that the white fish by-catch is low in that fishery, which will allow us to argue for the 10 per cent, reinstatement that was part of the agreement that we reached last year. We have also been waiting for the ICES advice on North sea stocks; it has just come out and is promising for nephrops stocks, which seem to be in pretty good shape in the North sea—we want to try to keep them that way. However, there is a problem. The main difficulty is the Commission's determination to restrict any fishery that may have a potential cod by-catch. The fact that we have been collecting figures to present our case will be helpful in the fishery negotiations that we will be having on nephrops stocks.

The hon. Gentleman asked about the success of the closed areas on spawning. As he will appreciate, it is too early to say at this stage, as the hatched eggs are in planktonic form, so the success of spawning cannot be measured until the autumn of next year. However, when we have those figures, they will give us an indication of the success of the closed areas. Both the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) made a point about diversion to other grounds, which is an issue that we recognise. It is partly in the hands of the industry itself, which well knows the impact of diversion and concentration on particular areas, recognising that in this year's recovery programme. We shall discuss the matter with the industry and shall try to tackle it.

Finally, the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire spoke about the two-net rule, which will be applied as part of the outcome of the Norwegian talks. I do not think that it will be problem; carrying two nets is already allowed under Norwegian regulations, so there should not be a problem for vessels carrying two nets—one can be used in the Norwegian zone for directed cod fishery and one for mixed fishery in the North sea.

In conclusion, the issues are complex and the negotiations difficult. We are facing serious problems with cod stocks in the North sea and a range of other white fish stocks. We are determined to deal with those problems and make progress, and we want to do that with the full involvement of fishermen and the full engagement of the industry; we want to involve them in discussions and take their views into account. We can make progress, improve the position and move towards a sustainable fishing industry, which is the objective of the industry, the Government and all those who represent fishing communities.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-nine minutes past Ten o'clock.