Fish Conservation Policy (Hansard, 23 February 1994)

§ The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne
My Lords, the suspension of days at sea controls, which would have ensured value for money from our decommissioning expenditure, means that the Government need to review other elements of their conservation package. However, payments will be made under the 1993 decommissioning scheme, and if further schemes go ahead, the balance of the original £ 25 million remains available for future financial years.

§ The Earl of Kinnoull
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply. I am grateful to him for agreeing that the decommissioning scheme is of critical importance to both the conservation policy and the severe financial hardship of many fishermen. Will my noble friend tell us how much extra money will be needed above the £ 25 million to meet our commitment to the EC to reduce our fishing fleet level capacity by 1996? Secondly, will he undertake to look now into ways in which to improve the present scheme so that the fishermen will benefit now rather than later?

§ The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne
My Lords, decommissioning needs to be complemented by days at sea controls to ensure conservation benefits and value for money. Suspension of days at sea policy has broken that link. The Government need to consider whether decommissioning can proceed in that situation. It is certainly difficult to justify an increase in decommissioning expenditure when value-for-money safeguards are no longer available. The Government and the industry are concerned to conserve fish stocks. The package of measures originally proposed by the Government, together with some adjustment to the days at sea restrictions to meet interested concerns, would have achieved that end. We regret that we cannot move forward in that way until the European Court has pronounced.

§ The Earl of Radnor
My Lords, does my noble friend recall that whenever this question is to be reviewed, decommissioning must be first considered? Does he agree that the alternative to decommissioning is really to do nothing in particular to save fish stocks? Changing net sizes and so on would be merely to play 632 with the problem. Therefore, does my noble friend agree that the only answer available to the Government at the moment is an enhanced decommissioning scheme now?

§ The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne
My Lords, perhaps I may draw the attention of my noble friend to what other member states are trying to achieve. We are still in the early stages of the 1993– 96 programme. Like the United Kingdom, other member states are still developing their package of measures. The multi-annual guidance programme system deliberately allows member states a fair measure of flexibility. Most— and this is relevant to my noble friend's point— will rely on decommissioning, but the Dutch will depend mainly on days at sea. The Commission is closely monitoring the progress of those measures and the Government support them in that.

§ Lord Gallacher
My Lords, when a judicial review is referred by the English courts to the European Court of Justice, and when the subject of judicial review is the implementation by the British Government of policies in pursuit of objectives proposed by the European Community, is there not a very strong case for a fast-track approach by the European Court of Justice in dealing with that reference? Have any overtures of that kind been made to the European Court and in particular, have they been made on this occasion with regard to fish?

§ The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne
My Lords, expedition in this context is a relative term. However, the Government persuaded the domestic court to include a request for expedition in its order referring certain questions to the European Court of Justice. We hope that the court in Luxembourg will now recognise the need for a ruling within a reasonable timescale. When I say "a reasonable timescale", that may be one or two years.

Lord Campbell of Croy
My Lords, because Britain and Ireland were the only EU countries not to have a major decommissioning scheme, have not British fishermen, confined to harbour for long periods, been exasperated to see foreigners fishing all the year round, while not visualising the fact that many foreign fishermen are unemployed or already in other occupations because of decommissioning? May not this British exercise of subsidiarity have been misplaced, as it would have looked fairer to our fishing communities if all EU fishermen had been treated in the same way?

§ The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne
My Lords, the reduction of the fleet will inevitably mean fewer jobs. The Government have every sympathy with fishermen and their families. However, unless the fishing effort is reduced, stocks will inevitably collapse and the jobs of all fishermen will be at risk.

§ Lord Mackie of Benshie
My Lords, while there is no question that decommissioning and the ability to trade quotas will very largely reduce the number of fishermen fishing with net in modern trawlers, have the Government considered how they could help the employment situation in fishing communities? For example, have they considered allowing the free landing 633 of fish caught by the long-line system which always fetched extra money in the market? If that was allowed, it would greatly help the unemployment situation and would not cause the same damage to stocks.

§ The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne
My Lords, as I stated earlier, the Government's basic aim is to conserve stocks. That is the only way to safeguard the fishing communities and the jobs that depend on fishing. The noble Lord made an extremely interesting point about long-line fishing; but, equally, he also referred to the immense value of the modern-day trawler and all its technical equipment.

§ Lard Sanderson of Bowden
My Lords, in view of the fact that some people would like to see an increase in the decommissioning funds available, can my noble friend tell the House exactly how the present decommissioning cash has been used in connection with the scheme?

§ The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne
My Lords, as regards the year 1993, we currently have a shortfall of £ 750,000. However, we shall not know the full result until 1st March 1994.

§ Lord Geddes
My Lords, I should like to congratulate my noble friend on his impeccable use of English grammar in the answers that he has given, which is unlike that printed in the Question on the Order Paper. Does he not consider that this House of all places ought to set an example in that context?

§ The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne
My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend for pointing out that mistake. However, I am not directly responsible for the printing of the Order Paper.