Fishing Industry

HC Deb 09 February 2000 vol 344 cc69-90WH

11 am

Mr. Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham)

I am very pleased to have secured this debate on the fishing industry after several months of putting in for it. It might not have been necessary if the House had had a full day's debate on the whole subject of the fishing industry on 13 December. In the few hours allotted to us at that stage, it was noticeable that no Conservative or Labour Back Bencher representing a coastal constituency was given the opportunity to express his or her views.

I want to examine at the fishing industry today on two levels: first, the complete failure of the common fisheries policy, its devastating impact on the British fishing industry and its total failure as a conservation measure; and secondly, and more important for me, the trickle-down effect of that failure on small fishermen, particularly those in my constituency of East Worthing and Shoreham, and its impact on non-pressure stocks such as sea bass, which is causing problems off the Sussex coast. Again, it might not have been necessary for me to raise these issues if the Minister, who I am glad is here today, had agreed to meet a delegation of fishermen from my constituency, but he has declined to do so on two occasions.

The common fisheries policy has failed, first, to treat British fishermen equitably. There is no level playing field, or whatever the marine equivalent of a level playing field is, in Europe. However, the industry is still important for the United Kingdom. According to the latest figures, it still has 7,800 vessels, catching 980,000-odd tonnes of fish, with a value of £620 million. It employs 18,600 people directly, and gives work to 3,000 fishmongers and a great many more people in supporting industries.

Recent common fisheries policy developments have been singularly unfair to the United Kingdom. The total allowable catch cuts proposed by the European Commission at the end of last year are substantial. The cost to the UK fishing industry is likely to be £88 million, out of a total industry of £622 million. That is about 14 per cent. of the catch in value terms. Inevitably, that will lead to more decommissioning of boats and job losses. Yet there never seems to be the same impact on other EU fishing fleets. Cuts by other member states have equalled those in the UK numerically, but not as a percentage of national fleets. Thus, some other member states, mainly Spain and Portugal, have cut their industries by a smaller proportion, yet received support grants for having been judged to have complied.

The UK gets a particularly poor deal from grants. The United Kingdom was the fifth largest recipient of FIFG grants between 1994 and 1997, receiving 173 million ecus, compared with Portugal receiving 248 million ecus, France 267 million ecus and Spain a massive 1,163 million ecus. It seems that still we have that problem, and the Minister is still proving unsuccessful in standing up to the Treasury. One of the reasons for the disparity is that the Treasury is unwilling to allow MAFF to apply for the multi-annual guidance programme grants awarded for decommissioning, because of the Fontainebleau agreement, which requires 71 per cent. of moneys granted to be removed from the national rebate. That has implications for the modernisation of the UK fleet, which is now much older than the equivalents in Spain and Portugal, for example, and becoming less efficient. Effectively, the United Kingdom has paid £100 million towards the upgrading of the Spanish fleet, while our own is being increasingly decommissioned.

In recent quota cuts, the Minister failed to stand up for Britain by invoking the Hague preference for North sea cod. That would have given the UK an additional 4,350 tonnes to catch. The Hague preference exists to give sensitive regions extra quota when TACs fall, but the Minister failed to play that card for Britain. The United Kingdom continues to get a poor deal from quota hopping, which always hits the headlines. Despite plenty of hot air from the Government, foreign-owned vessels fishing UK quotas still account for around 25 per cent. of the tonnage of the UK fleet. We increasingly see other ways being found around the restrictions, such as foreign vessels unloading their catches at UK ports straight on to freezer lorries destined for home port markets on the continent.

England also faces added competition because the Scottish Parliament now has its own Scottish Fisheries Minister, with powers to discriminate against English, Welsh and Northern Irish vessels operating in the Scottish zone. The Scottish fishermen have a Minister arguing solely for their interests, while England loses out. We have nobody to speak out against the excesses of Scottish vessels, which now come as far south as the south coast of England.

Another problem facing the UK industry is that of safety grants, another disgraceful example of the way in which the UK fishing industry is operating with one hand tied behind its back. MAFF's decision to axe safety grants was a disgrace. The interminable delay in reinstating them does no credit to the Government and speaks volumes about the place of fishermen's safety in the Minister's priorities.

The industry is now faced with the working time directive regulations, ignored by most European fishermen, under which the courts can decide whether or not the directive should be applied, despite the Minister's assurances. As with so many things, regulation weighs particularly heavily on the smaller operators, as the larger commercial operators can afford to take advantage of the increased regulatory burden to force uncompetitive practices on the smaller competition.

It is little wonder, therefore, that the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations recently called for the Minister's resignation. Its chief executive went on record recently as saying: On practically every major front, the industry is being forced onto the back foot. It is intolerable that the Minister has asserted that the fishing industry is doing well under the present Government. Nothing could be further from the truth. The catalogue of failure, fudge and callous indifference clearly shows that the interests of the industry in England, Wales and Northern Ireland have taken a back seat. The second failure of the common fisheries policy is on conservation, where it has failed dismally. Last November's announcement about cuts in the TAC, understandably described as massive, was surely an admission that the CFP is not working as a conservation measure. The cuts recommended were indeed massive: for cod 47 per cent. in the North sea and 69 per cent. in the Irish sea; for haddock 26 per cent. in the North sea and 40 per cent. in the Irish sea. Those were pretty desperate measures, as the cuts are usually capped at 40 per cent. for any one year. We are told that cod and haddock levels are at their lowest for 30 years, which is hardly a vindication of the CFP or a mark of its success.

The truth is that the CFP has no role as a conservation or environmental measure, because British fish stocks were particularly healthy prior to our joining the EEC. The whole approach to conservation in the CFP is completely wrong. Quotas do not reduce the amount of fish caught. Instead, boats trawl again and again to find the catch for which they have a quota to fill. They are more likely to catch non-quota stocks and then throw them back into the sea dead, including many juvenile specimens. It has been estimated that possibly 30 per cent. of fish stocks have been thrown back. A MAFF study conducted a few years ago near my constituency, off Brighton, showed that the survival rates of fish thrown back into the sea can be as low as 40 per cent. The coley example is a good one, because there is a small quota available for coley, which breed prolifically in the North sea. However, apparently annually some 80,000 tonnes have been dumped back into the sea to die and pollute the oceans.

Throwing dead fish back into the sea totally undermines any attempts at conservation of our fishing stocks. It is ironic, therefore, that, as from 1 January this year, the minimum landing sizes for 11 species of sea fish—including brill, turbot, dab, and black and red sea bream—were abolished, allowing the legal landing of postage stamp sized fish, which are particularly popular in foreign markets.

Fishing News, not surprisingly, says: Reducing or scrapping MLS sizes is an act of stupidity and no British fishermen wanted to see any reduction in MLS sizes. We have been calling for increased MLS sizes for so many years that we now see MAFF paying lip service to the EU. The upshot of all this is the creation of a climate of environmental failure and a dog eat dog mentality among United Kingdom and European fishermen—or, perhaps, dogfish eat dogfish—between Scottish and English fishermen and, now, between larger commercial fishermen and smaller operators, often fishing off-beach, as is the case in Worthing. Alas, it is my fishermen in Worthing and Shoreham who are, as it were, the last dogfish on the menu and whose very existence is at stake. Already, only the last vestiges of a fishing fleet remain there.

Let me say something about the local situation. Sea bass in particular have caused great problems among my fishermen, who brought the matter to my attention last summer. At that time, for the second season running, the livelihoods of Worthing fishermen have been threatened by larger fishing boats which come along the coast—particularly from Newhaven, in East Sussex—and scoop up large quantities of fish using nets slung between a pair of trawlers.

Pair trawling is a real problem. Two trawlers operate typically 200 yds apart. Up to six pairs have been operating in the area during the season, and they have started the season early. They drag heavy steel wire lines in water as shallow as 20 ft. Heavy weights are attached to hold down the gear, which are in contact with the sea bed. Heavy wire sweeps herd fish into the nets with a funnel effect, and heavy chains and rubber bobbins scrape along the sea bed, overturning boulders, smashing rocks and uprooting kelp beds, which provide feeding grounds for bass and other fish and where small species such as crabs hide in the dark.

Often, after the pair of trawlers have been along, there are no fish for other fishermen. The fragile kelp beds, which have been deteriorating off Worthing for the last 15 years, are now virtually gone. It is said that they were deteriorating in any event, but dragging heavy gear along the sea bed cannot help the position.

Mr. Peter Bottomley (Worthing, West)

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for going out with the fishermen of Worthing and Shoreham, and maintaining contact with them. When I was the Minister in the Northern Ireland Office responsible for agriculture, we did a fair amount of research in Strangford lough on the effects of dredging. I suspect that the results we obtained were the same as those found in the near coastal waters of the south coast and elsewhere. The practice is very damaging, and I will support any recommendation that my hon. Friend makes to the Minister that it should happen way offshore, if it happens at all.

Mr. Loughton

My hon. Friend knows the position in Worthing as well as I do. I have seen photographs taken 10 or 15 years ago, and compared them with those taken by divers over the past few years. There is very little left—which is especially galling for Worthing, given that, arguably, its name is derived from the Saxon word for seaweed. Worthing has had problems with seaweed for many years: it has made a mess on the beach, and in summer it stinks. However, although the stink has gone, the fish will go as well because of the lack of seaweed.

Another problem with pair trawlers is that they have been coming closer and closer to shore. Some have come as close as 50 yds from the end of the pier, causing a danger to swimmers. As local fishermen will testify, after pair trawlers have hauled in their gear, vast amounts of small bream and whiting can often be seen floating dead or dying on the surface, feeding the seagulls. That does no good to anyone, apart from the seagulls.

I acknowledge that, as it stands, the practice is entirely legal, as long as it is restricted to boats of less than 14 m in length using a net mesh of 90 mm or more, and provided that the boats do not come within a quarter of a mile of the shoreline. Pair trawling is perfectly legitimate, and is not restricted under European Union legislation. I do not suggest that the fishermen operating out of Newhaven—whom I have also met—are flouting the regulations. I believe, however, that the practice is damaging the fish for everyone, and is weighing unduly on small fishermen who are restricted in terms of the distances that they can travel.

Pair trawling is an increasingly effective way of fishing. The amount of sea bass caught in that way has increased by 500 per cent. over the past two years. In 1997–98, 43.3 tonnes were landed; in 1998–99, the amount had increased to 216.2 tonnes. Because of that enormous increase, a number of full-time commercial boats are now fishing for bass. The number has increased substantially over the past five or six years.

My fishermen in Worthing and Shoreham are very aggrieved that some of the best bass fishing grounds of Sussex are being systematically denuded. Since working with them, I have received letters of support from all over the country—from as far afield as Glamorgan, Somerset, Cornwall and Nottinghamshire. I have been out to see the pair trawlers, and I have been out with the conventional fishermen as well.

The response from the pair trawlermen is understandable, and in many respects I sympathise with them. They are caught by the common fisheries policy like everyone else. Because of the lack of pressure stocks and the decreasing quotas for cod, sole and plaice, they are having to look for alternative catches, and the position is worsening. They are having to look further afield for new species that are not covered by the quotas and the TACs. I was recently told that a colony of scallops had appeared in an area that the men do not usually fish; they scooped them up and moved on, leaving no scallops behind.

The problem in Worthing is that shoals of bass come close to the shore and are easy prey for the pair trawlers. Bass is rather a lucrative catch. The trawlers plough up and down all day long and then fill their nets. The Sussex fishery is typical of the eastern channel. A variety of species arrive season by season—for instance, Dover sole, turbot, brill, cod and mackerel. Now, as I have said, trawlers are coming down from as far away as Scotland to take advantage of the position, because of pressures in the North sea. The sea bass stocks, which are not covered by quotas, are inevitably coming under pressure, as evidenced by the catch limits per week being imposed on boats.

A fisherman from Somerset wrote to me about the problem of pair trawling. According to him: Pair trawling is not a sustainable method of fishing a relatively small sea or arguably any sea area, particularly for one of the less numerous species of fish albeit one with a culinary price on its head which has the unfortunate habit of forming very dense shoals when spawning and is therefore easy prey for these high tech vessels. Sea anglers and artisan fishermen as well as the knock on effect on the local tourist trade pay for the consequences of this overfishing. The letter also mentions the MAFF report on offshore bass fishing, which was issued last year. It is the result of a pilot study, and is entitled "MO802". According to another letter: The Report which was conducted during the winter of 1998–99, clearly shows that this fishery has become a recruitment fishery which is relying on each new year class of fish as soon as they enter the adult stocks. The catches consist predominantly of small adults in their lst/2nd year of spawning. Very few fish were present in the widely sampled catches that exceeded ten years of age in a species that normally lives in excess of twenty five plus years and does not successfully spawn until aged six/seven years. One of the most serious problems affecting the state of world fish stocks is the level of spawning stock biomass for each species. I am sure that you, as a scientist, appreciate that, Dr. Clark. Only mature fish can spawn, and thus contribute to the replenishment of stocks. World fisheries, however, are now increasingly targeting fish that are immature or only recently mature. Those fish have had little or no opportunity to spawn, and cannot contribute to the long-term health and survival of the stock. The plight of the sea bass is a prime example of the problem.

We have to look only at MAFF's consultation document on the subject, which was produced last October, to highlight the problems. Again, I quote: When the adult bass return inshore in spring, following spawning, they supplement the summer fishery, but these fish are now perceived to be returning in much reduced numbers. As a consequence, effort on juvenile bass may be intensifying, thus undermining the current conservation package aimed at protecting these fish. It goes on: the trends in the Fishery are worrying. They may indicate that the offshore stock is depleted and that the depletion is already affecting the Inshore Fishery. That is serious. Pair trawlers are doing, and have the potential to do further, large-scale, long-term damage to the future of sea bass around our shores. In Ireland and the United States, pair fishing has been banned as not sustainable and harmful to quotations. The influence on south coast and south-west fisheries needs to be properly looked at before it is too late here as well.

What is the Minister doing about it? He has twice refused to meet a delegation of fishermen from my constituency, who are suffering from the problem, but who will not give up because their livelihoods are at stake. His actions are just encouraging pair fishermen. I went to see them last summer and tried to broker a gentleman's agreement, whereby they would respect certain lines of demarcation. Initially, they were keen to do that, but when word got round that the Minister was not taking the case seriously and refused to meet my fishermen, they got back to me and said, "If the Minister does not think that it is a problem, we will carry on and take as many fish out as we can." An unhelpful state of affairs has resulted.

The Minister keeps deferring to the Sussex sea fisheries committee, which operates out of Newhaven—from where those very boats come. It constantly denies that there is any such problem, which flies in the face of the evidence. It claims that pair fishermen are using gear that is designed to skip over the ground, rather than carve through it. That is patently not the case, as anyone who has seen photographs of the gear that they use will know.

The complacency on the boats coming too close to shore is worrying because swimmers were endangered last year. The chief fisheries officer of the Sussex sea fisheries committee is quoted in the paper as issuing the advice: anyone who swims near a trawler should know to avoid it. That is hardly helpful advice in the circumstances. We still have a tourist trade and sandy beaches in Worthing and we do not want to discourage tourists in that way.

Worthing fishermen have few options. Some boats target cod in the summer, but they have now moved a long way offshore, on to wrecks in deep water, and are accessible only to a few larger boats. If the quota for cod is exhausted and a blanket ban put on in summer, what can those few boats do for the season? There is a problem. The common fisheries policy and fish stocks covered by quotas are one thing, but the effect on non-pressure stocks should not he overlooked. The livelihoods of many small and part-time fishermen in and around my constituency are seriously threatened. The whole tradition of fishing long associated with places such as Shoreham and Worthing could disappear. Clearly, we have a problem in Worthing and in the UK as a whole; it is no good pretending that everything is rosy.

It is not for me to say what the UK Government's policy should be, but, clearly, the CFP has failed and is failing large vessels, and its trickle-down effect means life or death for my fishermen. Carrying on the way we are will end in the wide-scale demise of the Europe-wide fishing industry, particularly the British fishing industry, which poses a serious threat to the long-term sustainability of fish stocks and the health of marine varieties that depend on them.

We need to regain greater control over our national fishing waters. The 2002 review of the CFP and the potential expiry of derogation is an opportunity to thrash out a proper long-term sustainable policy once and for all. I, for one, would favour the permanent extension of national and local management to 12 miles, empowering EU member states actively to manage the fisheries themselves, sensitive to local needs and circumstances and with sustainable social and environmental safeguards. That is the view that the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds took. We can learn much from Norway—it manages its fishing industry without the necessity to dump dead fish and it uses complex and technological monitoring mechanisms and zonal management.

The CFP is a perfect example of everything that is wrong with the EU. It is rigid, centrally applied and has no flexibility. When dealing with a natural resource such as fish stocks, a large degree of flexibility is needed both over time and between areas. The Commission has imposed the quota system from Scandinavia to Gibraltar with no diversity; hence it is failing in all areas. Instead of promoting flexibility, the Commission has introduced a permit system that will take effect from the end of 2002, whereby all vessels that fish outside the six or 12-mile limit will be part of an EU fleet under the Commission's control. That does not bode well for UK fishermen.

The last vestiges of the fishing industry in Worthing are in crisis. It is a microcosm of the desperate state of the UK fishing industry as a whole and it is getting worse. In the interests of the UK fishing industry and the sustainability of European fishing stocks as a whole, that decline must be urgently reversed. That cannot be achieved by a Government who constantly try to con people into believing that they have never had it so good.

We need a Minister to stand up for British fishermen and to take a lead in Europe with radical reform of the CFP, starting with the extension of the derogation to national Governments of control of the 12-mile limit, rather than taking the soft option of caving in every time. We need to hear his proposals for 2002 very quickly. We need a Minister who will stand up to the hoarding mentality of the Treasury, while grants to UK boats that desperately need modernisation and extra safety measures are effectively closed off.

We need a Minister who will have the good sense to acknowledge the plight of smaller fishermen such as those in my constituency, who will be prepared to listen to their views and their experiences at first hand and include them in the whole equation when discussing the fishing industry. I urge the Minister again to receive a delegation of Worthing fishermen, or to come down to Worthing to meet them.

11.27 am

Mrs. Joan Humble (Blackpool, North and Fleetwood)

I congratulate the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Mr. Loughton) on securing the debate. I was one of the many Members who were not fortunate enough to be called when we had our annual fisheries debate last year, so I welcome the opportunity to take part in today's debate. However, I shall not repeat the speech that I had prepared for that occasion because it concentrated on the proposals on quota cuts for this year and things have moved on. Instead, I would like to concentrate on the proposals that were recently agreed in Brussels to close part of the Irish sea fishery, which will have a serious effect on the fishing industry in Fleetwood.

As the Minister is aware, Fleetwood lost its distant water trawler fleet in the cod wars with Iceland in the 1970s, but successfully built a flourishing inshore fleet. Unfortunately, that fleet has gone down from about 70 vessels to 20, so there are serious concerns about its viability. We need not only measures to ensure that it continues in the short term, but measures to secure its long-term future.

The cuts in quota that have been agreed for this year because of the parlous state of fish stocks will make it difficult for Fleetwood fishermen to sustain their industry. Therefore, they were especially concerned when they learned of proposals to close part of the Irish sea fishing ground.

My local fish producers organisation well understands the need for conservation of fish stocks and spawning grounds. It also recognises that the Irish sea as a whole is suffering from over-capacity. Fleetwood has been trying very hard to ensure that it does have a sustainable fishing industry.

Fishermen are remarkably resourceful people and the fishermen of Fleetwood are certainly among their number. They have invested locally and they work closely with the local authority. The catchers have been working with the producers and auctioneers in the market, with everyone pulling together to ensure that the fishing industry remains. Fleetwood owes its birth to fishing. Even though not so many people are now employed in that industry, it is still part of their heritage and they want to keep it going. They are working hard to ensure that it does.

The producer organisation has proposed various conservation measures and is looking forward to the opportunities presented by the review of the common fisheries policy in the run-up to 2002 to ensure that this country, and indeed Europe, has a viable fishing industry. The fishermen would support a total ban on fishing in the Irish sea to protect spawning stock of cod and juveniles, but they are bewildered why beamers from Ireland, Holland and Belgium are to be allowed in to fish. Beam trawlers are large vessels and they are moving ever closer to the 12-mile limit. Fishermen from the Fleetwood inshore fleet tell me that beamers regularly come inside that limit and that they have reported the sightings to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. I urge them to continue to report such incidents because, clearly, policing the 12-mile limit is at issue.

As the Minister is aware, trawlers in the beamer fleet take by-catches of cod. Boxes of codling are offered for sale to merchants in Fleetwood, so fishermen from those trawlers are coming ashore. My local fishermen tell me that some of the by-catch from those larger vessels is more than the total catch of the small inshore fleet—what is seen as a by-catch for larger vessels is their livelihood, which adds to their concern.

I read with interest an article in Fishing News on 4 February in which the Minister explained the background to some of the recent measures taken by the Council of Ministers. It is an excellent article and outlines the issues in detail. I noted, in particular, that the background to the debate was: to protect the immature cod which will spawn this year during February, March and April; to maintain those fisheries that would not conflict with the spawning cod; to impress on the Commission and the UK industry that the industry's involvement in the process was essential if a realistic plan was to be developed. I agree entirely with what my hon. Friend said in the article. I want all that to happen. My fishermen and I agree that immature cod have to be protected and want their fishery to be maintained during the time that the cod are to be protected. They also want to work closely with the Commission and the Government to produce a realistic plan.

I hope that my hon. Friend will respond positively to this debate and let me know how these fishermen can become actively involved in the Irish sea cod recovery plan. Without fish, there will be no fishermen. That is why Fleetwood fishermen are realistic about the problem.

Representatives of the local producer organisation and Fish Forum are to attend a meeting in Belfast next Wednesday, when the matter will be discussed further. My hon. Friend the Minister is aware that interesting moves are afoot to study a regionally based plan for the Irish sea. That fishery concerns not merely men from Fleetwood but people from Northern Ireland and Eire, as well as other European countries. At last, they are talking to each other constructively and I want that constructive dialogue to be maintained.

In the meantime, Fleetwood fishermen would certainly welcome an opportunity for MAFF scientists to accompany them on one or two of their inshore vessels on short trips to those grounds to monitor fishing activity and take samples of the fish caught. They also want the opportunity to accompany MAFF survey vessels on their observations. I often find myself in the difficult position of, on the one hand, listening to and reading accounts from scientists of what is going on, and on the other, listening to fishermen who have fished those waters for 20 or 30 years, and I find that their accounts do not always marry up.

It is important that scientists and fishermen study carefully the data that scientists are collecting, as well as taking into account fishermen's knowledge based on their own enterprise. We need to ensure that quotas are properly allocated, based on the availability of the stock. If scientists and fishermen disagree, the industry will not work together as we would all welcome.

My hon. Friend the Minister has agreed to meet with some of my fishermen. He has visited Fleetwood on two occasions, I think, and he impressed local fishermen with his profound knowledge of fish, the fishing industry and his commitment to their long-term sustainable future. Having met them, he knows that they are people who express their opinions forcefully. They will express their concerns to him at the meeting that we hope to have next week. They very much welcome the opportunity to meet him to discuss the issue. The Irish sea is the only fishing ground for Fleetwood's small inshore fleet. If it is closed, they will have nowhere else to go. They need to consider carefully how conservation will give them a long-term future, but also what measures can be taken now to ensure that they will be in a position to take advantage of that future when that is being discussed as part of the wider debate on the CAP.

Fishermen understand the need for conservation and for quotas. They understand that scientists have a role to play in advising on the state of the fish stocks. They want to take an active part in the process. My local producer organisation recently appointed new officers to lead it and it is determined that the voice of Fleetwood will be heard when the fishing industry is discussing its future, and that it will be a positive voice because they want the industry to succeed in Fleetwood and elsewhere.

11.38 am

Mr. Christopher Gill (Ludlow)

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Mr. Loughton) on obtaining this important debate and compliment him on the cogency and fluency with which he put his case.

I am pleased to see the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss), the shadow fisheries Minister in their places. I have always found the Parliamentary Secretary to be unfailingly courteous in dealing with these matters. Within the constraints imposed upon him by his stewardship of a pernicious and unworkable regime, he has always been unfailingly helpful.

I have never understood how a person with the hon. Gentleman's strong views on animal welfare has been able to reconcile those views with support for the common fisheries policy, which positively encourages wanton destruction of precious marine life. Nevertheless, the fact remains that the hon. Gentleman and the Labour party condone the CAP, which, as we all know, results in more than half of all the fish that are caught being dumped back dead into the sea. That is all done, as we know, in the name of conservation.

What is even more extraordinary is that there has not been a squeak out of the animal welfare lobbyists on the subject. They are very busy opposing fox hunting and fur farming, but, when it comes to the utterly unnecessary and totally immoral destruction of millions of fish, there is not a peep. Every day of every week, thousands upon thousands of perfectly saleable fish are needlessly discarded, but the animal welfarists remain strangely—and suspiciously—silent. Here is an open-and-shut case of wanton destruction of animal life, but they have absolutely nothing to say. Hon. Members might like to ponder why that is. They might even conclude, as I do, that the motivation of those self-styled champions of animal rights is purely political.

As I am on the subject of political motivation, I should return to the Minister himself. The hon. Gentleman might resent being called a communist—

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

It is not very new Labour.

Mr. Gill

There is, however, no escaping the fact that the Minister and his Government colleagues are supporting a collectivist policy. How else would one describe a regime that, from the centre, tells fishermen what they may catch, in which sea areas, in which quantities, and even—from last year—at which ports they may land them, and, in some cases, between which hours that landing may be made?

The Minister and the Labour party are totally committed to that policy. They are the ones who condone the evil regime. They are the ones who are responsible for what can only be described as an environmental outrage. They are the ones who have acquiesced in the scrapping of the minimum landing size on the 11 species that were mentioned, quite accurately, by my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham. They are the ones who, far from reducing the sand eel total allowable catch, are party to its being increased.

Mr. Morley

indicated dissent.

Mr. Gill

Before the Minister intervenes, I should say that I recognise that there is now a closed area for sand eels. However, as he will know, that area has been created for the sake of the birds. In the modern idiom, the whole of the policy is for the birds. The policy is certainly not for the sake of fish or for the good of fishermen.

Mr. Morley

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Gill

If the Minister will let me finish on this subject, I shall gladly give way.

I should like the Minister to listen to what a Scottish fisherman has to say on the subject. In a letter to Fishing News, published on 17 December, Mr. George Stephen, of St. Combs, in Scotland, had this to say: From midnight on 31 December I will be subject to constant satellite surveillance … Why? What have I done to warrant this electronic tagging? I am not a paedophile, drug dealer, murderer, gun runner or released IRA terrorist, neither do I cruise Clapham Common, trade in porn or smuggle booze. Nor am I a burglar, mortgage swindler or an illegal immigrant. My crime? I am a fisherman, a so-called 'enemy of the environment'! In 30 years at sea I have never caught a whale, destroyed a dolphin, killed a seal or dumped nuclear waste, but I have been forced by the EU to dump hundreds of tonnes of edible fish in the name of 'euro-conservation' CFP style.

Mr. Morley

The hon. Gentleman is making a speech in his usual robust style. However, I should like to clarify a couple of issues. First—and we have been through this before—the vast majority of fish that are dumped are dumped because of the nature of fishing itself and the fact that they are immature or non-target species. Nevertheless, that is not an excuse for the extent of dumping. It is a technical conservation issue that must be tackled, and we are doing that.

As for closed areas for sand eels, science on the impact of sand eel catches on birds was used to justify the closure. However, there is no doubt that the closure has had benefits for migrating salmon and other commercial food stock species. Moreover, it was the United Kingdom that argued for a limit on sand eel catches. Although I concede that that limit was far too high and that I should like to revisit the issue to obtain such reductions, we shall have to have science to back our arguments.

The impact on the sea beds is part of the science—

Dr. Michael Clark (in the Chair)

Order. You are making an intervention, Mr. Morley, and I should be very grateful if you could keep it intervention length. You will have a chance to sum up later.

Mr. Morley

Thank you, Dr. Clark.

Mr. Gill

I shall be only too happy to respond to that intervention, Dr. Clark. One of my complaints about the common fisheries policy is that, for 25 years, we have known that there is a problem, and that, for 25 years, Ministers—people who have gone before the current Minister—have been saying that something needs to be done. The Minister and I have crossed swords on many occasions when I have explained to him that the prospect of reforming the common fisheries policy in any radical or meaningful way is impossible. He and I know that it requires unanimity; otherwise, or that, if the changes are proposed and are passed under qualified majority voting, at least one nation—I suspect the Spaniards—will take the European Union to court on the ground that there has been discrimination.

The Minister also did not tell the Chamber that the outcome of the Government's representations on sand eels to the Council of Ministers was that the sand eel total allowable catch was increased from 1 million tonnes to 1,020,000 tonnes. However, anyone with the least knowledge of fishing and fish stocks realises the importance of sand eels as a feedstock for fisheries.

The fact that the European Union has increased the sand eel TAC is mind-boggling. Currently, the sand eel catch is less than half of the approved catch limit. The estimate is that, in 1999, 430,000 tonnes of sand eels were caught. Moreover, the catch has been decreasing by about 100,000 tonnes for each of the past three years. Why on earth Ministers decided that they needed to increase the sand eel TAC is a matter that the Minister will perhaps deal with in his slightly longer intervention at the end of the debate.

I do not think that you were in the Chair, Mr. Jones, when I read extracts from a letter by Mr. George Stephen, of Aberdeenshire, but I do not think that I need to say more about that letter—the gentleman said it all. The common fisheries policy is devoid of any semblance of common sense and is entirely hostile to the environment that it purports to sustain. Indeed, the policy is hostile to that most precious of infinitely renewable resources—the fish themselves—that it purports to conserve. The policy is entirely bereft of any sense of morality.

The greatest scandal, however, is that the CFP continues to be supported by politicians—people such as hon. Members in the Chamber now. There can be no excuse for that situation. Thanks to the tireless efforts of Save Britain's Fish, there is no longer ignorance about the facts of the common fisheries policy—how it originated, how it works, and what it will inevitably lead to. We carry on down that path at our own peril. Furthermore, the guilt of destroying one of nature's most priceless assets will be on our shoulders.

I should like the Chamber to know exactly where the Conservative party now stands on these issues—[Interruption.] I shall make it abundantly clear, without a shadow of a doubt, and hope that I shall not embarrass my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Cambridgeshire. On 15 December 1998, the previous shadow fisheries Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls), said: We have to bring fisheries policy back under national control"—[Official Report, 15 December 1998; Vol. 322, c. 845.]. He echoed the words of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), who stated as long ago as 1997:

There are several areas where the EU is exercising powers which could be devolved to the member states. Another candidate for repatriation is fisheries policy … Fishing grounds out to 200 miles or the median line could be brought back under national control, with sensible bilateral agreements and recognition of the historic rights of other countries. The last word must go the Leader of the Opposition, my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague), who, in a letter to Mr. George Wiseman of Fraserburgh, dated 9 March 1999, stated: I do not believe the current CFP arrangements are working … Our aim has therefore been set out unequivocally … our approach will succeed in regaining national control of our own fishing waters. That is unequivocal. That is where we stand, and where we shall fight. We shall stand up for a vital British interest. We shall fight to retain what remains of a once-proud industry, and we shall take back control of our own waters out to 200 miles or the median line.

I applaud that outbreak of common sense. I rejoice in the fact that my party now has a policy which is distinct from that of the Labour party and the other Opposition parties. I further rejoice that the Conservative party is now on the right side of the argument. I welcome this renunciation of collectivism.

I challenge the European integrationists and the proponents of the common fisheries policy—some of whom are present in the Chamber this morning—to explain what distinguishes this collectivist policy from communism. [Laughter.] The hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. George) laughs, but he will have an opportunity to answer the question. I have posed it to many others, and they have all failed to answer. I shall be delighted to hear what the hon. Gentleman has to say.

One of the consequences of collectivisation is that what everybody owns, nobody owns. A regime that denies individual fishermen any sense of ownership is the absolute enemy of conservation. The Chamber will be grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham for his graphic description of how the common fisheries policy is failing the fishing industry, failing the nation and prejudicing the very existence of the fish themselves.

11.53 am

Mr. Andrew George (St. Ives)

I congratulate the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Mr. Loughton) on an eloquent and thoughtful speech, and on securing the debate. He rightly pointed out that the annual fishing debate—the pre-eminent opportunity for us to review the state of the industry—was so severely curtailed that we had little debate at all. I ask the Government's business managers to ensure that next year's debate provides an adequate opportunity.

The substance of the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham's speech was local, but it has resonance around the coast of the British Isles in relation to local, coastal and low-impact fisheries and their impact on other economies in the area, including tourism. The hon. Gentleman referred to the failure of the common fisheries policy, as did the hon. Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill). I do not think that any Member here would condone or support, as the hon. Member for Ludlow put it, the common fisheries policy in its present form. I and members of my party—and other hon. Members—have criticised the common fisheries policy for being an almost complete failure on almost every count. When I came into the House in May 1997, that was the situation I found, and we must deal with that situation.

The hon. Member for Ludlow claims that it is a collectivist policy, and that the Minister therefore must be a communist. If so, the previous Tory Government were, for 18 years, communists also.

Mr. Gill

I do not think that the hon. Gentleman should be allowed to get away with that. I said that the Minister would probably resent it if I called him a communist

Mr. George

I am sure that the hon. Member for Ludlow would resent that, too, but that is the inevitable conclusion that one must draw from the hon. Gentleman calling anyone responsible for trying to manage the common fisheries policy in government a communist or a collectivist. As the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham pointed out, there are serious issues to address, such as conservation and quota management.

I wish to refer to safety and to minimum landing sizes, and I agree with the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham about the working time directive. He will find that the Liberal Democrats strongly opposed the introduction of the working time directive into the industry in its present form, but we failed to secure the support of Conservative Members when we tabled a motion in the House just over a year ago.

Mr. Loughton

I was a member of the European Standing Committee which debated the working time directive, and the Conservative members did vote against it.

Mr. George

I accept that, but the motion tabled in the annual debate in 1998 emphasised that the directive should not be imposed on the fishing industry in the proposed form. The fact is that we failed to secure the support of Conservative Members at that stage.

The hon. Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) referred to the impact of the annual cut in quotas, and how substantial the cuts have been. All hon. Members have been struck by how severe the cuts have had to be this year. We have called on the Minister to say whether the Government have had further opportunity to consider the possibility of introducing multi-annual quotas. We cannot simply go on limping from one year to the next with the 11th-hour brinkmanship over the setting of quotas. We do not know two weeks before the commencement of the next fishing year what the quotas will be. There is some indication of quotas, but clearly that is not good enough.

I have enormous sympathy with the substantive point that the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham raised about the damage done to the inshore fishery in the Worthing area, and I was interested in his comments about Worthing and seaweed. In my part of the country, seaweed was seen in the past as a great resource and the kelp industry was an important part of the local economy. Perhaps if there is a lot of seaweed, especially kelp, in the area, the hon. Gentleman should encourage some of his constituents to consider that as a potential economic development opportunity.

On the Cornish coast around my constituency, we have similar problems, although the problems created by pair trawlers beyond the 12-mile limit are a matter of great concern. The Minister knows my criticisms of the way in which the Government introduced the 15 tonnes per month rule at a very late stage, when we were previously looking at five tonnes per week. As far as the bass longliners in Cornwall are concerned, that has meant unwelcome continued fishing opportunities for pair trawlers, whereas the five tonne per week limit would have curtailed some of those fishing opportunities. Line-caught bass around the Cornish coast is an economically viable industry. Low-impact fisheries are economically viable and they should be encouraged, not damaged by pair trawlers, which, by the ratio of catch per person employed, do not have the same beneficial impact on the local economy. Therefore, I encourage the Minister to monitor the impact of the 15 tonnes per month limit and to consider withdrawing it to protect the bass stocks and encourage low-impact fishing around our coast.

The hon. Gentleman may also be interested to learn that I have disagreed with the hon. Member for Totnes (Mr. Steen) about the damage done by certain types of fishing methods, such as scallop dredgers, in inshore areas. I have argued that they have damaged important fishing grounds, especially crab and lobster grounds, but the hon. Gentleman has strongly argued in favour of continued freedom for scallop dredgers. Attitudes to the issue depend on local circumstances and the concerns of the local fishing fleet.

I shall be interested in the Minister's response to the points raised by the hon. Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood on the closing down of part of the Irish sea. The industry has agreed with the broad thrust of local management agreements, and it will be interesting to see whether the way in which the closure will be achieved will be altered under the devolved regional management plan proposed for the area. The industry in Cornwall has long argued for seasonally closed areas and satellite surveillance, because responsible fishermen recognise that if they are to follow the rules, other fishermen must also, and they need effective policing to ensure that. Therefore, I can tell the hon. Member for Ludlow that many fishermen welcome the introduction of satellite surveillance to ensure that their conformity to the rules does not put them at a disadvantage.

I was also interested in the hon. Gentleman's clarification of Tory party policy on the common fisheries policy. It will be interesting to hear in a moment whether the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss) concurs.

Mr. Gill

Our policy is better than yours.

Mr. George

The hon. Gentleman's policy is for the birds, because policies have to be achievable in the real world. The Liberal Democrats have long argued for a radical reform of the CFP, which involves decentralisation, along the lines proposed for the Irish sea, to regional management boards, which would include scientists and fishermen. That would give fishermen some say over fishing policy in their areas. With power comes responsibility, and the fishermen recognise that. If we could achieve that through reform of the CFP in future, it would be very welcome.

The Minister has reassured me that we are reasonably confident of maintaining the six and 12-mile limits and relative stability beyond 2002, but we need further reassurance that the Minister is fighting hard to achieve, as far as possible, a regional fishing policy along the lines proposed by the industry. I know that the Minister has shown some sympathy for the proposal.

I share the concerns of other hon. Members who have raised the issue of minimum landing sizes today. I appreciate that criticisms of discards made by the hon. Member for Ludlow and others have also been made vociferously by the industry, but it is now saying that discards are better than scrapping the minimum landing sizes altogether. I believe that the fishing industry in this country is responsible, and there is little or no market for juvenile and undersized fish in this country. Therefore the scrapping of minimum landing sizes will probably have little impact in the UK. However, the danger is that it will give a green light to irresponsible fishermen who may target juvenile fish because there is a market for them in other parts of Europe.

I look to the Minister for some reassurance that action will he taken, because a reformed CFP should contain more robust mechanisms to ensure that the rules are enforced evenly across Europe. The Minister will know that many British fishermen have little faith that their conformity with the rules is matched in other countries.

Fishing safety is an issue of great concern. I know that the Minister is not directly responsible for that, but the Deputy Prime Minister held out the prospect of reinstating the fishing safety grants for six months. Only a couple of weeks ago, after he had let the fishing industry down, he criticised fishermen for their irresponsible and cavalier attitude to fishing safety. That is not good enough, and it has not gone down well with the fishing industry that the Minister who claimed that he would be responsible for reintroducing fishing safety grants has taken that attitude. We have recently seen tragic loss of life in the fishing industry, and in my own constituency in 18 months we have lost 11 men to the sea. That is an issue of grave concern, because no other industry has such a record of tragedy and loss of life. I look to the Minister for some reassurance that the issue will be a top priority for the Ministry.

12.10 pm

Mr. Malcolm Moss (North-East Cambridgeshire)

May I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Mr. Loughton) on his success in securing this debate? May I also compliment him on making a competent and cogently argued case? It contained many points to which I will, I hope, give the Minister enough time to respond. We never seem to have enough time for our fishing debates. It has already been alluded to several times that our annual debate was very short and very few Back Benchers managed to contribute to it. One would encourage Back-Bench colleagues to put in for more fishing debates in this environment.

I support my hon. Friend's plea for action on the sea bass problem. I have had several letters from around our coast, but particularly the approaches in the channel, showing that this is now a very serious problem. My hon. Friend referred to last year's offshore bass fishery report, which confirmed that the bass targeted by the pair trawlers were shoaling bass which were about to spawn. Given that evidence, one wonders why little if no action has been taken since that report came out. It is also in direct conflict with Labour's charter for anglers. Under the heading of sea angling, Labour said that it would introduce a coastal planning policy that would recognise important areas of sports fishing and closed areas for spawning and preserving breeding stocks. We have not seen much of that policy; perhaps the Minister will tell us why the Government have been a bit dilatory in coming forward with it.

I want to give the Minister plenty of time to respond to the very important points that have been made this morning. However, I also want to give him the opportunity to answer the six-point indictment from the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations which recently called for the hon. Gentleman's resignation. This must be the first time that such a body has called for a Minister's resignation. [Interruption.] The Minister has had plenty of time to answer the main points that were put in Fishing News and in the federation's press release. Perhaps this morning he will begin to answer some of the key criticisms that have been made. First of those was his failure at the European Commission meeting to invoke the Hague preference for cod in the North sea. It is a critical aspect of fishing in that area. As my hon. Friend pointed out, it could have meant an additional 4,350 tonnes which, in pounds and pence, represents £6 million to the industry. That cod was clearly traded off for some other priority. It would be helpful to know why the Minister did not invoke the Hague preference and what other deals were done as a result.

The federation believes that the Commission's plan for Irish sea cod will fail to build on the industry's proposals to protect the spawning cod. It will also fail to secure vital haddock fishing during the main season. The federation points out that British vessels will have to be tied up or undertake expensive conversion to remain in business.

On fleet modernisation, the usual point is made that there is a continuing decline in the British fishing industry, and that nothing has come from the Government in the way of grant aid for decommissioning or scrap and build.

Safety has been debated both in the Chamber and on the Floor of the House, and promises were made. On 11 June 1999, the Deputy Prime Minister wrote to Barrie Deas of the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations regarding the decision of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to close the national fishing vessel equipment scheme. The right hon. Gentleman said: We share that concern, which is why, speaking for Government as a whole, I have made clear that the fishing vessel safety equipment grants would continue. He has not repeated that position, speaking for the Government as a whole, but he wrote on 2 November saying that the problem was that since he wrote on 11 June, there had been devolution. He continued: MAFF's previous regulations which covered this scheme are no longer valid. Nor can they simply be restored, either for the UK or England alone, because of what the regulations' text actually provides … In light of this, it makes sense to draw a line under the previous scheme, and to consider whether to introduce a grant scheme for this purpose in the future. The key word in that is "whether", whereas in his earlier letter, the right hon. Gentleman had more or less confirmed that the scheme would be reintroduced.

Finally, the federation believes that the Government's enthusiasm for the working time directive has led to the interests and concerns of the fishing industry being brushed aside. If applied to the industry, the working time rules will mean that most vessels will be unable to operate in a viable way. I add to that list the fact that the Minister, who supports minimum landing sizes—or used to—failed totally to hold his corner at the meeting. As a result, the issue of minimum landing sizes—which the federation and most people looking at the industry believe to be a key ingredient of all conservation measures—has been swept aside for certain species.

I rest my case there. I have not spoken for very long, but the Minister has many questions to answer and I hope that, in the time available, he will do just that.

12.16 pm

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

There have been some very good contributions in this debate, and I add my congratulations to the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Mr. Loughton) for the way in which he made his case. I do not agree with all the points that he made, as I will explain in a moment, and I shall deal head on with the local issues that he raised.

It is true that the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations has called for my resignation. Calls for fisheries Ministers to resign are not unusual; it is an occupational hazard. I have been around the industry for a very long time, and if the hon. Gentleman would like to talk to those of his right hon. and hon. Friends who have held this post, he will find that a call for one's resignation, in the context of the history of the relationship between fisheries Ministers and the industry is pretty small beer, frankly. I recognise that there are genuine frustrations and concerns in the fishing industry. If it makes fishermen feel better to call for my resignation, I am not one to complain.

I have never said that the industry has never had it so good. Although some parts are clearly having a very difficult time, it would be wrong to think that all sectors are on their knees. However, I do not want to gloss over the problems that the industry faces, and I will deal with them.

As this debate was secured by the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham, I should like to deal with his points before dealing with the general issues. I accept the points that have been made about the time available for fisheries debates. That is a fair comment, although I think that it was helpful to have a three-hour debate on the Select Committee report on fisheries. That extra debate gave many hon. Members the chance to speak.

I accept the need to look after the inshore sector. I am very keen on the inshore sector—I have introduced a consultation document for inshore fishermen which deals with how they can protect their interests. I have increased the underpinning of certain stocks for the inshore sector. As for quota hoppers, one benefit of the new economic link regulations was that some of those vessels actually gave back all their quota—50 tonnes of sole—directly to the inshore sector to assist it. So I understand the sector's needs; I am keen to support it and want to do more.

I did not accept the hon. Gentleman's request to bring a delegation of local fishermen to see me, and I should like to explain why. Generally speaking, I am only too pleased to meet hon. Members and fishermen to discuss their problems. The hon. Gentleman would have been only too welcome if he had stopped me in the Lobby to discuss the matter in more detail. Indeed, some of his hon. Friends have no qualms about discussing fish with me whether I want to hear them or not. I offer him that courtesy; we are all constituency Members and I want to help all hon. Members to deal with constituency issues.

However, I did not feel it appropriate to meet the hon. Gentleman's delegation on the particular issue on which he requested the meeting. The matter is dealt with by the sea fish committees. I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman's fishermen are concerned about pair trawling, which may damage kelp beds and disturb the inshore fleet and even sea angling. As soon as the hon. Gentleman wrote to me, I raised this serious matter with the Ministry's sea fisheries inspectorate and the Sussex sea fish committee. Both bodies assured me that pair teams working off Worthing respect the committee byelaw that puts a maximum length of 14m on vessels within the SFC district. The teams also used larger meshes than local single trawls did, which is also regulated by the byelaw. I am keen to see people using larger meshes than required because it is good for conservation.

I was further informed that there was no evidence that the pair trawlers were damaging what remained of the kelp beds. The hon. Gentleman referred to problems with the gear being used. The SFC is dealing with that and I would be reluctant to trespass on areas that are the responsibility of local sea fish committees. I favour devolution and regional management, and the sea fish committees are an important part of that. My responsibility as a Minister is simply to confirm that byelaws made by SFCs are made after due consultation. Operation of the byelaws is a matter for the committees, which represent a range of interests in their regions.

If I met a delegation that wanted to raise the type of complaint identified—quite legitimately —by the hon. Gentleman, I can guarantee that the hon. Member who represents the interests of the pair trawlers would also demand to see me. The pair trawlers have a very different tale to tell on this matter, and I should have to try to arbitrate in a local dispute that is the responsibility of the sea fish committee.

I was concerned to hear the hon. Gentleman say that pair trawlers are using the fact that this is a matter for the SFC as an excuse to do nothing. I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman is trying to reach an agreement, but that role lies with the SFC. In at least one part of the country, there has been an example of what happens when an SFC cannot achieve agreement locally. In that event, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has to take over by introducing temporary byelaws and taking a role in local regional management. I do not believe that we should do so. Inshore management should be a matter for the committees, involving local fishermen and other people.

That is why I felt it inappropriate to become involved in the dispute on which the hon. Gentleman wrote to me.

Mr. Moss

Will the Minister explain why agreement was given for a massive increase—500 per cent.—in the sea bass catch?

Mr. Morley

I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman is right in referring to an increase in the sea bass catch as there is no quota on sea bass, which is a non-pressure stock. We have, in fact, introduced measures to restrict the catch of sea bass.

I shall try quickly to cover the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) and the hon. Members for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss) and for Ludlow (Mr. Gill). Funds have been made available for decommissioning, and funds remain available for a small decommissioning scheme, which we may have to introduce as part of our multi-annual guidance programme. By and large, we have achieved our MAGP target for the bulk of our fleet, so we do not have to decommission. I am glad about that. Although we have sometimes had to decommission, that does not resolve the problem, and unbalanced decommissioning can cause particular problems in ports around the country.

We had a detailed debate on fleet modernisation, and I do not think that it would do any good for the inshore fishermen represented by the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham if the Government used public funds to modernise vessels so that they were more efficient and could increase their catches. In some cases, we would be giving people money to build vessels that they could not sustain on their normal catches. That does no one good, including fishermen.

Mr. Loughton

I entirely agree that that would do no one any good. Why, in that case, are we giving £100 million of United Kingdom taxpayers' money to Spanish fishermen to do exactly that? May I remind the Minister that the problem is generally one of pair trawling, and, as the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. George) said, that also affects other parts of the country. Will the Minister meet my fishermen on the subject of the damage that pair trawling is doing, even if he meets those represented by other hon. Members at the same time? That is the point I should like him to consider. Expansion in the industry is making it exceedingly efficient and effective, and that is having a detrimental knock-on effect on people such as my fishermen.

Mr. Morley

I want to help the hon. Gentleman. That was not the point that he put in his original letter. If he and his inshore fishermen wish to see me about an issue for which I have policy responsibility—pair trawling may be such an issue—I shall of course consider his request sympathetically, as I would for any hon. Member. He may wish to ponder on what request he wants to make.

Time is short, but I shall try to deal quickly with points made about the Hague preference. In the Fisheries Council of the European Union, I must negotiate in the best interests of our country. Our national interest relates not only to the North sea, but to the English channel, the waters off the south-west and the Irish sea. The future of the Hague preference is also an issue for consideration. We do not have an automatic right to impose the Hague preference, but can do so only with the Commission's support once it has gone through the Council of Ministers. Four member states objected in the most recent negotiation.

We must focus on the benefits. We have managed to negotiate a quota of 34,360 tonnes of North sea cod for this year. As the actual catch in 1999 was 33,357 tonnes, we have managed to negotiate a quota larger than the amount caught last year. Yet all science suggests that cod stocks are in poorer shape this year than they were last year. I should tell the hon. Member for Ludlow that that has nothing to do with the common fisheries policy, but has more to do with cod breeding cycles and rising sea temperatures.

All countries that are not in the CFP also apply quotas. The CFP can of course be criticised—it is not perfect, and the Government have never said that it is. However, there must be an alternative to quota management. Every other country uses quota management, and Norway employs a discard policy that involves ships landing their discards, although the authorities in Norway have told me how difficult it is to enforce that policy.

I do not have time to go through all the points raised this morning. If hon. Members feel that I have not touched on particular burning issues, I ask them to write to me. My hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood raised several important points, and I shall take them seriously. She is bringing a delegation to see me, and I hope to discuss those points in more detail then.

In conclusion, important issues have been raised, and we must tackle them properly. I was not convinced by what the hon. Member for Ludlow said about Conservative policy. Recognising historical rights is tricky—

Mr. Barry Jones (in the Chair)

Order. We must now move to the next debate.