HL Deb 15 November 2001 vol 628 cc751-8

8.11 p.m.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Whitty) rose to move, That the scheme laid before the House on 15th October be approved [6th Report from the Joint Committee].

The noble Lord said: My Lords, under this scheme, we will be making available £6 million in decommissioning grants to English fishermen. I should like briefly to highlight the key aspects of the scheme. These have been the subject of full consideration with industry representatives.

Applications are now open to over 10-metre vessels with a category A licence and at least 75 recorded days at sea in each of the past two years. Vessels also have to be at least 10 years old. The scheme operates on a competitive tender basis with bids ranked on a pound per gross tonne basis.

Successful applicants will be allowed to dispose of or transfer their fish quota entitlements to another vessel owner or to a producers' organisation. They will have up to three years to complete the transfer. There are differing views within the industry on the transfer of quota, but we feel that this option is the most practical and best value for money.

The principal method of disposal of decommissioned vessels will be scrapping. However, we recognise this country's proud maritime heritage and I am pleased to say that the rules of the scheme do make provision for the preservation of vessels of particular heritage significance.

The closing date for applications is 16th November 2001 and successful applicants will be expected to have decommissioned their vessels and surrendered all licences and entitlements before 27th February 2002. We will also aim to let applicants know the results of their application as soon as possible after the closing date so that they can have the maximum amount of time to arrange for the disposal of their vessel.

The scheme is a key part of a £22.5 million package of aid which we are making available to the English fishing industry in recognition of the difficulties currently facing the fishing industry. I commend the scheme to the House.

Moved, That the scheme laid before the House on 15th October be approved [6th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Whitty.)

Lord Greaves

My Lords, from these Benches we offer our broad support for the scheme. It is virtually inevitable that a scheme of this kind has been put in place, given that we have too few fish being chased by too many boats. As a result, major cuts have been made to fishing quotas. However, we look forward to seeing the results of research looking into alternatives to decommissioning which DEFRA has commissioned at the University of Portsmouth. In particular, we hope to find out whether in the future other means of effort reduction in the industry might be possible. Perhaps the Minister will be able to comment on this point.

A further concern that has been expressed relates to the tight deadlines which have been set for the receipt of applications. The Minister has told the House that the final date for applications is tomorrow, 16th November. Furthermore, decommissioning and the surrender of licences has to take place by 27th February next year. Can the Minister comment on whether sufficient applications have been received to take up the funding available in the scheme? Could a measure of flexibility be built into the system if it proves difficult to complete decommissioning and surrender of quotas by 27th February 2002?

A further point of concern is whether the effort towards fleet reduction is genuinely being shared evenly around all the appropriate areas of the European Union or whether in fact the effort is falling unduly on to fishermen in this country because here the scheme is being enforced with rigour. Perhaps the Minister can tell noble Lords what evidence the Government will produce in due course to demonstrate that similar decommissioning schemes are being put in place throughout the relevant areas of the European Union.

Finally, concerns have been expressed about the trade in quotas, to which the Minister briefly referred. It is feared that quotas for traditional fishing areas could be lost. I refer in particular to certain parts of the South West which have been badly affected. The economic and social effects on communities go rather further than the narrow terms of the statutory instrument. Perhaps the Minister could outline for noble Lords measures the Government intend to introduce to provide support for such communities.

Lord Glentoran

My Lords, Members on this side of the House understand the reasons for bringing forward this instrument. We, too, wish to achieve the key objective; namely, the preservation of fish stocks for the future. However, I have a few points of concern.

First, I wish to comment on the general performance of the common fisheries policy. I am not confident that it is doing its job adequately, any more than is the common agricultural policy. Along with the leader of the Cornish fishermen, mentioned by my honourable friend in another place, I am rather cynical about the political process involved in agreeing to the cuts in quotas. Those negotiations appear to allow every Minister concerned to return declaring that they have done better than anyone could have expected.

Today I had sight of a report on Spanish fishermen, who fortunately were caught out by a Conservative MEP, Mr Struan Stevenson. The fishermen had attempted to switch moneys destined to help towards decommissioning into fleet reconstruction. I apologise to the Minister that I have not been able to pass the report on to him, but I received it myself only about 10 minutes ago. As I have said, we do not have much confidence in the process, but equally there is little that we can do about it.

A second area of particular concern is that it appears that English fishermen have come off worst in this round. From the base numbers, it seems that Scottish fishermen have certainly fared better. I regret that I do not have the exact figures to hand, although I have tried to secure them. The reception given to the scheme in Northern Ireland suggests that those fishermen were rather happy with the terms they were offered. I suspect that they, too, fared rather better than the English. The same applies to the Welsh. Earlier I warned the Minister that I would ask a question about the differing national levels of quotas. I seek an assurance that fishermen in England have not come off worse than their counterparts elsewhere in the kingdom.

Perhaps I may join the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, in expressing concern about the time-scale for decommissioning and getting rid of fishing boats. The Minister will know that the price of scrap metal is extremely low. To complete all the tasks by 27th February 2002 appears very demanding. I, too, ask the Minister to consider whether any flexibility could be allowed as regards that part of the scheme.

Lastly, I should say that this morning I was interviewed by Radio Cornwall. The interviewer told me that a group of local tunny fishermen simply did not know what to do. They had not received adequate responses to questions they had put to department officials. They did not know whether to keep their ships and apply for the licences—which I understand from a M AFT release dated 19th March 2001 are now being given out again—or to apply for grants to join this decommissioning scheme. I look forward to the Minister's response.

Lord Pearson of Rannoch

My Lords, this is another sad day for the British fishing industry and for those who wish to live their lives within it. Before we joined the European Union and the common fisheries policy, the United Kingdom used to own some 80 per cent of the fish which swam in EU waters. Now we are reduced to landing some 25 per cent of the permitted EU catch.

Can the Minister say whether progress has been made on altering the perfectly crazy system by which the European Union attempts to practise conservation by limiting the amount of fish landed in port as opposed to limiting the amount of fish brought up in nets? After all, most of the fish are dead when they come up in nets. Presumably, that is a fact of which the bureaucrats who designed the common fisheries policy were not aware. It is doing enormous damage, so is there any chance of moving away from the system of limiting the fish landed in port towards one of keeping the fish that are caught?

Is there any progress on other technical measures such as altering the mesh, which I understand has scientific support and has been tried elsewhere?

Against that background, have the fishing industry and fishing communities been made aware by Her Majesty's Government that the present CFP comes to an end in 2002, next year, when the derogations that have allowed us national quotas will come to an end and the real common fisheries policy—which is equal access for all members, controlled by our good friend the Commission—will be asserted? In asking the question, I am not so interested in the six and 12-mile limits—I understand that they may come back our way—but I am interested in the 200-mile limit. which is what we used to have and is where most of the fish will be. How will that limit be managed when the derogations expire? If the Minister cannot answer that question at the moment, can he assure the House that the industry is being made aware of this dismal future?

I join other noble Lords in asking the Minister what the other countries are doing. Are they decommissioning to the same extent? Can the Minister supply figures particularly for Spain, the Netherlands and Ireland? I ask about Spain because the last time I looked at this matter was some time ago, when the United Kingdom was giving, I think, some £14 million more annually to Spain—with which to build new ships to come and take what used to be our fish —than we were to our own fisherman to decommission.

What is the position with Spain? Is it true that the European Union is giving Spain some colossal figure—I heard mention of £100 million—in compensation for the fish that Spain will no longer be able to take from Morocco under the third country deal?

I hope that I have not asked the Minister too many questions. The common fisheries policy is one of the worst aspects of our membership of the European Union; it is indefensible. Perhaps the noble Lord will confirm that it is irreparable because the vote to put it onto any kind of sensible footing simply cannot be mustered in Brussels? Is that the situation, or am I being too pessimistic? Can the Minister put me right on these points?

Lord Willoughby de Broke

My Lords, I may have misunderstood the Minister—in which case I apologise for wasting the time of the House—but I understood him to say that when these vessels are decommissioned the quota is transferred to other owners or other vessels. Is that correct? If so, it would seem that we are not getting anywhere with the issue of catching fewer fish because the same amount of fish will presumably be caught by other vessels which may have been modernised. We are just decommissioning the boats, as I understand it, while allowing the same amount of fish to be caught under the quota licences. That is my only question. I hope that the Minister is able to answer it.

Lord Whitty

My Lords, I have been asked a number of detailed questions, not all of which I can respond to. As regards the queries of the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, it is true that the Government have commissioned research into alternatives to decommissioning to meet the combined effects of the need to conserve stocks and its economic impact on the fishing industry and fishing areas. It is to be hoped that we can look at some alternatives in that area.

The noble Lords, Lord Greaves and Lord Glentoran, raised the question of meeting the deadlines, particularly the February one, under this procedure. There has been considerable discussion with the industry; therefore the owners will know that the scheme is about to come into operation. As to the February deadline, it is a February deadline because we have to spend the money by March. We are exploring with those affected ways in which we can address their concerns about their ability to meet the timetable, obviously subject to safeguarding public expenditure. We recognise that there may need to be some flexibility in that.

The issue of the relative enforcement of the scheme in the UK and other states was raised. The noble Lord, Lord Pearson, also referred to this in some respects. Clearly all member states are subject to EU limits. Action is taken against member states who do not meet their obligations. As to the question of enforcement as such, a recent Commission report provides a comprehensive and detailed overview of monitoring and surveying standards within the Community in each member state. In its recent Green Paper, which leads into the review of the common fisheries policy, the Commission sets out a number of ideas for strengthening fisheries control which include joint inspections, harmonisation of penalties and administrative penalties. The Government will play a constructive role in that as part of our general approach to the review of fisheries policy.

I do not entirely dissent from the view of the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, that the common fisheries policy is one of the least effective parts of our membership of the European Union. As he knows, I do not often agree with him on European Union matters, but clearly there are serious problems with the fisheries policy. Our objectives in the review are intended to address environmental and other issues and to integrate those concerns into fisheries management.

The industry is well aware of the timetable for the review. The noble Lord, Lord Pearson, was not entirely accurate when he said that the present CFP provisions will expire in 2002. It is not true that the current CFP, with its relative stability—even if it does have its drawbacks—will lapse automatically at the end of 2002. It will be for member states to decide by QMV whether changes are needed. If no changes are agreed among member states, then, with the exception of the restrictions on access within six and 12 miles to which the noble Lord also referred, all existing provisions would apply automatically beyond 2002. So we are not approaching a sudden abyss where people do not know what is beyond. I cannot give the noble Lord the figures on the size of commissioning commitments—indeed, no one will have them at this point under this scheme for any of the countries in the EU. I shall see whether there is any useful information that I can provide on that front.

Lord Pearson of Rannoch

My Lords, it would be much more useful if the noble Lord would make sure that the industry is aware of the position—although, of course, I should be interested in having a copy of anything that he has to say. There is considerable doubt as to what will happen in 2002, particularly with regard to the 200-mile limit.

Lord Whitty

My Lords, I accept that there has been misleading speculation, but the legal and constitutional situation is as I have stated.

The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, raised a point about the fishing areas. The £22.5 million package for English fisheries is part of a total of, I think, £65 million which is provided in England, Scotland. Wales and Northern Ireland for support for the fisheries areas and fisheries restructuring. So the £6 million scheme for English fisheries on decommissioning is but a small part of the total support that we are giving to fisheries and fisheries areas.

The noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, raised a question on the relative position of England and Scotland. Decisions on decommissioning schemes are largely devolved matters within the overall framework. Therefore, decisions are subject to the decisions of the Scottish Executive and the Northern Ireland Executive. The Welsh have not gone for one in this case.

It is correct to say that there is a significant difference between the amount of money provided for the scheme in Scotland and in England: £25 million is provided in Scotland and £6 million in England. Although there are as many boats in England as there are in Scotland, more Scottish boats are directly affected by the current problems with white fish stocks; Scottish boats also have a significantly larger average size and therefore cost more to decommission. So to take out the same percentage of the English cod fleet as the Scottish cod fleet less funding would be needed. Roughly speaking, in terms of the types of boats involved and their size, the capacity ratio of Scottish to English boats is nearly 4:1; therefore £25 million to £6 million is not seriously out in proportionate terms. Another £5 million is involved under the scheme for Northern Ireland—-which again is broadly proportionate taking account of the size of the fleet.

The noble Lord raised the issue of Cornwall and the tunny fishermen. This is a complicated area. There are relatively few involved. The tunny fishermen were taken out of the industry by the changes in regulations in regard to nets. They can return with less substantial driftnets under the new regulations. They are eligible to apply for decommissioning under the present scheme if they feel that the fact that they can no longer use driftnets has driven them out of the tunny fish fields. What I have said about flexibility of approach in terms of a deadline would apply in this case as well. We do not expect to see significant problems in relation to the deadline. We are discussing it with representatives of the industry in Cornwall, as we are elsewhere.

Lord Pearson of Rannoch

My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, he was good enough to say—but I should be glad if he would confirm—that he would write to us about some of the questions that he has not been able to answer this evening. He made a remarkable stab at doing so.

But the question remains as to whether there has been any progress on abandoning the system of trying to practise conservation by the amount of fish that are brought up on deck, most of which are dead. In other words, has there been any progress towards abandoning the wickedly destructive environmental policy of discards? Can the Minister give any figures relating to what Spain, the Netherlands and Ireland are up to? What is the amount of compensation that Spain is receiving for being graciously pleased no longer to take the fish from Morocco in the way it has taken so many of ours?

Lord Glentoran

My Lords, perhaps I can help the Minister. I believe that I have the last figure referred to. It is 197 million euros.

Lord Whitty

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord. I am not sure whether the figure matches precisely what the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, is asking. It is not that I doubt the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, but I shall check the relativities compared with the total expenditure on Spain and on the United Kingdom.

So far as concerns the measures for landing fish and how we count landing, we constantly review the best ways in which we can manage the quota. We are constantly examining ways in which to lessen the problem of discards. But there is no specific progress to report. I commend the scheme to the House.

On Question, Motion agreed to.