HL Deb 12 December 1977 vol 387 cc1857-66

2.58 p.m.

Lord STRABOLGI

My Lords, I beg to move that the Fishing Vessels (Acquisition and Improvement) (Grants) (Variation) Scheme 1977, which was laid before this House on 24th November, be approved. The scheme before the House today contains only one substantive provision: that is to extend for a further year the existing arrangements under which the White Fish Authority and the Herring Industry Board may make grants towards the capital costs incurred in the construction of new fishing vessels and the improvement of existing ones. These grants are financed by the Exchequer and, since March 1975, have been paid at a standard rate of 25 per cent. of approved costs of all eligible projects. The arrangements themselves have remained substantially unchanged since 1967.

Noble Lords will be aware of the many problems facing the industry today by reason of the extension of fisheries limits and the uncertainties in the Common Fisheries Policy both as to access to waters and to conservation. It might be argued that prudence would demand a stop to the building of fishing vessels at the present time. Past experience has shown that an arbitrary step of that kind can cause real social and economic hardships, particularly where many self-employed people are involved. Moreover, there would be an unfortunate impact on shipbuilding yards. In practice, the fishing industry is showing no tendency to invest in a grossly expansionist fashion. No large distant-water vessels are under construction or on order. New building has been at a relatively modest level in recent years and, of course, the statutory authorities are also required, as part of the scheme before us today, to examine every grant application in terms of economic viability and in relation to the overall needs of the industry. At the moment, both authorities are restricting aid to modernisation and such construction as will replace vessels lost to fishing for various reasons. So I think that there is little risk of imprudent investment being encouraged by this scheme.

I should like to mention one special point. As your Lordships know, new vessel safety regulations are being introduced gradually with the express purpose of safeguarding the lives of those who go to sea. In some cases, there have to be modifications to the vessels after the safety checks have been carried out. The cost of these modifications is subject to aid under this scheme, which thus constitutes substantial Government assistance towards the safety of lives at sea. Expenditure under the scheme during the current financial year is expected to amount to about £5½ million, and the Government are making provision for comparable expenditure in 1978–79. Noble Lords will appreciate that such a level of expenditure means that, despite the many uncertainties which exist, the industry's own contribution towards its future efficiency is running at nearly £17 million a year. Clearly, the availability of grant is an important investment consideration for the industry. However, until the future structural requirements become clear, we think it inappropriate to eater into any long-term commitments. For this reason, we propose to continue recent practice and extend the arrangements for a single year only; that is, until the end of 1978. My Lords, I beg to move.

Moved, That the Fishing Vessels (Acquisition and Improvement) (Grants) (Variation) Scheme 1977, laid before the House on 24th November, be approved—(Lord Strabolgi.)

3.2 p.m.

Lord CAMPBELL of CROY

My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, for explaining briefly the reason for this order. I would say straight away that I advise the House to agree with this order, since it continues the present scheme for another year. It is timely, though, to consider very briefly the position of the British fishing industry today. It was almost exactly a year ago, on 16th December, that we had the Second Reading of the Fishery Limits Bill, and we managed to get it through both Houses before Christmas last year, in order that our fishing limits should be extended from 12 miles to 200 miles at the same time as the other principal maritime nations were extending theirs to 200 miles. It had been clear for some time beforehand—and the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, and I had been discussing it in this House—that the consensus that had been reached at the Law of the Sea Conference would lead to such a move even though the convention itself had not been signed.

Of course, it was the chief maritime countries acting together; Iceland had been trying to beat the pistol by unilaterally extending, and getting the advantages of doing so, before the other countries agreed to do it together. The United Kingdom industry has had to change and adapt during these recent years, as a result of the proposed change in fishing limits. We have lost a lot of traditional fishing in waters near the coasts of other countries, some in distant areas. But we still have important fishing—for example, off Norway, the Faroes and in the Barents Sea—which is not in the EEC's 200-mile zone.

In the past year, since that Act came into force, Russia, Poland and other countries outside the EEC which had fishing boats operating in the EEC zone have had either to move out of the EEC zone or to fish there by special agreement. But the British industry is still facing one great uncertainty, because the regime within the EEC zone has not yet been finally decided. The Ministers met only last week and it is clear that little progress has been made. The device has been used of "stopping the clock", as it is called, so that they resume on 16th January, but they still regard it as 47th December, with the same chairman and the same arrangements.

But no matter what the device, it is important that agreement should be reached and it should be an agreement which is satisfactory from the point of view of conservation. The EEC common policy, formulated when there were only six Members and when fishing limits were 12 miles, clearly has to be changed. There are difficulties because, to put it crudely, there are too many fishermen chasing a decreasing number of fish. Unless we are careful with effective conservation measures the EEC zone could be left with little or no fish at all.

So I would put four points to the Government. First, conservation is essential and the coastal State has the most important interest. We therefore support the view which has been taken by the Government, that there should be what is described as a dominant preference up to 50 miles within the EEC zone to be the property of the coastal State. The second point is that a quota system, by itself, has fallen into disrepute. It is not trusted by the fishermen and there have been mistakes and misunderstandings during the past months. I said that a year ago and I reinforce it now. All experience since shows that a quota system alone will not be observed and will not be trusted.

The third point is that industrial fishing should not be allowed to destroy quantities of edible fish, and by that I mean fish which could be destined for human consumption. So I would urge the Government to retain what is called the Norway pout box; that is to say, an area where fishing for pout by industrial methods is forbidden, because so many edible white fish are killed at the same time and not used for human consumption. By-catches—that is to say, the accidental catching of one species of fish when the intention is to catch another—must be carefully controlled.

The fourth point is that the Government should resist proposals which do not take account of the fact that about 60 per cent. of the present stocks of fish are in United Kingdom waters of the EEC 200-mile zone, and that the United Kingdom has lost more fishing elsewhere in other parts of the world, in more distant waters, than any other member of the EEC. The fishing industry is now united in a way in which it has never been in the past. In the past its interests have diverged. Distant water fleets have been interested in fishing as close as possible to the shores of other countries. Inshore fleets have had the opposite view and have wanted to keep foreigners away from our shores, particularly in sensitive areas. But now all parts of the industry are united and the Government will get full support from this Bench and, I am sure, from Parliament as a whole, if they work with care and consideration in negotiations with our EEC partners and take a robust attitude on the points which I have mentioned.

3.9 p.m.

Lord GLENKINGLAS

My Lords, I wonder whether I may add just a word or two to what my noble friend Lord Campbell so admirably said about the fishing industry as a whole. I welcome this order in so far as I hope that the bulk of it is meant to improve safety and, perhaps, to improve existing ships. Both of these objectives are at all times, but particularly at the present time, very valuable. With some knowledge of the Scottish inshore and middle distance fleets, I think it exceedingly unlikely that anybody in his senses would build new ships at the moment. The Minister suggested that there was possibly a lot of work for shipyards, but I rather hope that that does not happen, because only too often over the last 20 or 25 years I have seen valuable grants and subsidies given to fishermen who went to sea, found that the competition was too great and, thereafter, were in considerable financial difficulty. The situation today is certainly extremely grave, and I hope that both the White Fish Authority and the Herring Industry Board will look very carefully at any applications for new boats in relation to the number of fishermen who are chasing a very rapidly declining number of fish.

I agree wholeheartedly with what my noble friend said about quotas. I hope he is right—I have not the current knowledge to argue with him—that all fishermen are now acting as one single body. However, as a result of reading a certain amount of comment in the Press, I notice that the extremely efficient and go-ahead fishermen on the East Coast of Scotland tend to rush around, whenever they find there are no fish in their area, to the West Coast. I gather that a certain number of fishermen are also arriving in Cornwall and catching what the fishermen there thought were their fish. If all fishermen are working very closely together, that is fine. However, I am absolutely certain that if a lot of new vessels are added to the already very competitive and very much over-stocked number of fishing boats, the situation will be dangerous. I hope that the Minister will take note of this point.

Lord SHINWELL

My Lords, although the observations in detail presented by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, might be more appropriate to a general debate on the plight of the fishing industry, and in particular its future because of restrictions which have been imposed in recent months and years, nevertheless, many of his questions appear to be most pertinent and to demand an answer. When orders of this kind are presented to your Lordships' House, very often one is baffled because very little detail is furnished. One hesitates to intervene because one is not fully acquainted with the subject. However, I happen to have some knowledge of the fishing industry. Perhaps I might explain that many years ago I assisted in the organisation, for trade union purposes, of the fishing industry. Therefore I know a little about it.

What baffles me this afternoon about the presentation of this order is what might be regarded as a simple point, and it is this. It is my understanding—although I am open to correction—that as a result of the restrictions that have been imposed and because of the difficulties that appear to have emerged on account of the operations of the EEC in this context, not so many fishing trawlers are employed as were in operation a few years ago. One concludes from what I have just said, if I am correct in my understanding, that there are many trawlers disemployed. If that be so, one finds it difficult to understand why the Government should be spending grants to the tune, as I understand it from what my noble friend Lord Strabolgi said in his opening observations, of rather more than £5 million.

May I ask whether these grants are for the purpose of providing new vessels, or for restructuring old vessels, and whether inshore shipping vessels are brought into consideration when grants of this kind are made? Is it necessary to provide grants of this kind when so many trawlers are not operating at all? Are we just spending money as a kind of gesture to the shipping industry because of the plight in which it finds itself? If it is a kind of charitable dispensation, I understand it. If it is a gesture in order to mollify those employed in the fishing industry, either the employers or the employees, I understand it. But let us get the facts of the case and try to understand why we spend money. After all, we have a right to ask about expenditure, particularly when there are demands for a reduction in public expenditure. Perhaps I may be corrected in some of my observations if I have failed to understand what it is all about, but if I am even remotely correct in my observations I think that an answer would be desirable.

3.16 p.m.

Lord STRABOLGI

My Lords, I am grateful to the three noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. I agree fully with the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, that this is a very important matter. He was quite right to extend the debate from the order which we have been considering. The noble Lord, Lord Glenkinglas, was perfectly right, also, when he said that the situation is extremely grave. I agree, too, with my noble friend Lord Shinwell that this is one of the most pertinent of problems and questions which is before us today.

I should like to say a few words on the general situation which has been raised, very properly, by these three noble Lords. Before doing so, however, may I answer the point made by my noble friend Lord Shinwell. The main reason for the order is because investment in new vessels has been at a relatively low level for three to four years, reflecting general uncertainties about future fishing opportunities and economic stringency. However, the improvement of existing vessels, especially as regards safety provisions, is a major justification for the continuation of the capital grants scheme.

With regard to the general situation, as noble Lords are aware, my right honourable friends the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Secretary of State for Scotland attended a special three-day meeting of the Council of Fishery Ministers in Brussels from 5th to 7th December. The Council had before it a number of proposals from the Commission on the Common Fisheries Policy, including proposals of quotas, access and conservation. My right honourable friends have already stated in another place, and I can repeat today, that the United Kingdom could not accept the quota and access proposals and that the conservation proposals were inadequate, although they had some good features.

With regard to conservation, the Government have once again emphasised to the rest of the Community that a comprehensive and fully effective programme of measures would be an essential part of a future Common Fisheries Policy. There may now be a somewhat greater readiness than heretofore among our EEC partners to recognise this point. However, it remains the Government's policy that a Community conservation policy, which must include measures to allow coastal Member States to safeguard the stocks within their sovereignty or jurisdiction, cannot be adopted separately from decisions on access and quotas.

The question of the division of resources is more difficult. The basis of our position is well known. The United Kingdom is the Member State which has lost most in distant waters and contributes most to the fish stocks in the waters of Member States. But the present Commission proposals do not take proper account of these factors and in the view of Her Majesty's Government these must be changed. I am glad to say that at the Council meeting on the 5th to 7th December there appeared to be a more widespread recognition that any quotas need to take account of distant water losses, and the general position of the United Kingdom appeared to be better understood, although our contribution is not fully recognised even now. The crucial questions of access and coastal preference were not fully discussed, but the Government's position on these points remains unchanged.

The Council has agreed to "stop the clock" and to meet again on 16th January, and the Commission has undertaken in the meantime to reconsider its present proposals. The Council also agreed that existing conservation measures should continue unchanged until 31st January. These include the standstill on fishing effort adopted during 1977 and all other measures, whether they are Community measures or national measures. This is important because it means that the present North Sea herring ban and Norway pout box will continue.

The Government have three important objectives for the revised Common Fisheries Policy. These are: to permit the industry, with good management, to adapt itself to the new situation arising from the move to the 200-mile limit; to effectively conserve and manage the fish stocks, to enable them to form a continuing economic asset for the industry and the nation; and to effectively manage fishing effort and enforce the regulations. In particular, the Government consider it essential that the revised CFP should adequately reflect the contribution made by the United Kingdom's resources to the Community total and the scale of our losses of fishing opportunities in distant waters. With regard to the proposed zones, we have made proposals to meet these requirements. Lastly, in May 1976 we proposed a variable coastal belt out to 50 miles; and in June this year we indicated our willingness to consider an alternative solution based on an eventually exclusive 12-mile coastal belt with a significant degree of coastal preference in our 12–50 mile belt.

The Commission's proposals take no account of these access requirements and, with the exception of the Irish Republic, other Member States have not been willing to discuss these proposals. We have also made proposals in regard to quotas. The Commission has analysed the losses suffered by Member States in third country waters and has shown that the largest quantitative losses have been experienced by the United Kingdom. The United Kingdom has lost some 250,000 tonnes of fish and is seeking compensatory quota allocations of the species that it has lost.

The Government consider that it is desirable to adopt Community conservation measures where possible in order to protect stocks throughout all waters under the jurisdiction or sovereignty of the Member States. Nevertheless, the Government attach great importance to maintaining their powers to introduce non-discriminatory conservation measures on a national basis when the Community is unwilling or unable to adopt the necessary measures. The alternative would be to leave stocks unprotected in the absence of any measures.

The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, mentioned directed fishing. We attach great importance to two specific conservation measures: the ban on directed fishing for herring in the North Sea and the Celtic Sea and the prohibition on direct fishing for Norway pout, as the noble Lord mentioned, in a box off the North-East coast of Scotland.

It may be asked, what is our policy for the North Sea herring? Our position on this is clear. We agree with the recommendations of the scientists that an extended prohibition on herring fishing in the North Sea is essential if the depleted stocks are to be preserved. The Government are firmly committed to an extended ban for the whole of next year. The existing prohibition has been carried forward to 31st January, as I said, pending further consideration by Ministers at the EEC Council in the middle of the month, at which the United Kingdom will continue to pursue the line which it has taken during the many meetings this year. I hope that that has made clear the Government's attitude on this very important matter.

On Question, Motion agreed to.