HC Deb 28 November 2000 vol 357 cc196-202WH

12 noon

Mr. Andrew George (St. Ives)

I am delighted to have the opportunity to debate such an important matter. It is important to several hon. Members with coastal constituencies. I shall focus on three matters that are of concern to many hon. Members with inshore fishing interests in their constituencies: the future and possible extension of the six and 12-mile limits; some issues concerning the work of the sea fisheries committees; and, the protection of low-impact fishing methods, which are often a feature of the traditional inshore fishing industry.

I shall refer to three reports, of which I am sure the Minister is aware. The report of the Agriculture Committee, on sea fishing, contained several recommendations on inshore fishing. The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds produced a report this summer entitled, "Managing EC Inshore Fisheries: Time for Change". Also, in its document "1888–2000 and Beyond", the Association of Sea Fisheries Committees of England and Wales raised important matters relating to the committees' powers.

Clearly, the future of inshore fisheries is important to coastal areas. It is important to maintain a healthy fishing industry and healthy fish stocks and to set high marine conservation standards. I do not consider those aims to be in conflict. In fact, they converge and are mutually supportive.

The rules for inshore fisheries are based on the original derogations when the United Kingdom joined the European Community and were renewed in 1982 for a further 20 years, subject to a mid-term review in 1992. As we know, the UK accepted the principle of equal access to fishing grounds on entering the EC in 1973, but was granted a 10-year derogation allowing national control of coastal waters. It might be worth reminding ourselves of article 100 of the treaty of accession, which states: Member States of the Community are authorised…to restrict fishing in waters under their sovereignty or jurisdiction, situated within a limit of six nautical miles, calculated from the base lines of the coastal Member State, to vessels which fish traditionally in those waters and which operate from ports in that geographical coastal area. It also refers to member states not adopting provisions dealing with conditions for fishing in those waters which are less restrictive than those applied in practice at the time of accession. That is important. The treaty has generally been considered a success and there has been a wish for the derogation to continue. It is important that Britain should retain some direct control over fishing activity within the six-mile zone. However, it is an important principle and it should apply throughout the EU.

What opportunities exist to extend that limit? The European Parliament debated proposals to extend it to 24 nautical miles and I would be interested to hear whether the Minister thinks that that is attainable or realistic. I accept that a wide range of foreign vessels would have historic rights within such a zone, but a lack of progress in establishing regional fishery management under the common fisheries policy would lead to much UK support for such an approach.

Rather than simply proceeding with a temporary derogation, why should we not make the restriction permanent? It is usually assumed that that would require a change to the treaty of Rome. A year ago, following my discussions with representatives of the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, the society took legal advice, which suggested that a change would be feasible without amending the treaty. However, if a change were required, the chances of success would be slim—effectively, it would mean changing one of the basic objectives of the European Community.

The reasoning behind the legal opinion was that the access restriction was created to protect regions considered to be particularly vulnerable because of their high dependence on fishing. However, as long as the restriction does not involve discrimination between member states on the basis of nationality alone, it is not obvious why it would contravene the provisions of the treaty of Rome. Indeed, it is highly unlikely that the restrictions would have been permitted if they had been considered to be in contravention of the treaty.

I would welcome the Minister's views on whether, instead of extending the derogation, we could negotiate a permanent settlement. It is worth putting on record that the purpose of the derogation was not and is not to keep foreigners out, or to allow the nation state to do what the hell it likes within those limits, but to protect traditional access and allow adjacent coastal fishing. That theme should be updated to provide sustainable fishing management.

On the future of inshore regulatory bodies, particularly the sea fisheries committees, the reports of the Agriculture Select Committee and the Association of Sea Fisheries Committees both recommend a wide-ranging review of the powers of those committees. As the reports point out, the 1888 legislation was drafted in different circumstances and, despite subsequent attempts to bolt on additional powers, much of the present legislation is still based on the inappropriate language of the Victorian era.

The reports recommend the extension of the limit to 12 nautical miles. The Minister may ask why, but the offshore limit of other statutory bodies and conservation agencies, including that set by the Welsh Assembly, extends to 12 nautical miles. Those species that are economically important are managed to a six-mile limit, but are not confined to that limit. In fact, the prosecution of those species outside the six-mile limit has an impact on the industry within the limit.

Fishery management reasons for the extension of the jurisdiction to 12 nautical miles are not restricted to shellfish, which are often a major preoccupation of sea fisheries committees. Moreover, given that the committees have a wealth of experience of shellfish management, their knowledge could be well applied outside the six-mile limit into the 12-mile limit. The committees are also proposing that, to regulate the inshore area, article 46 of EC regulation 850/98 must be amended so that all national and byelaw regulations apply to all vessels fishing from within 12-nautical mile base lines. For example, around the Cornish coast, prosecutions cannot be undertaken for catches of lobsters that are v-notched but caught by foreign vessels outside the six-mile limit. It seems absurd that national and local byelaws that apply to nation state vessels do not apply to foreign vessels that have rights to fish up to the six-mile limit and within the 12-mile limit. I support the sea fisheries committees' proposal that those regulations should be extended.

Stronger and clearer enforcement powers are required. At present, there is a weakness in the legislation mainly because it was based originally on the Sea Fisheries Regulation Act 1888. The Act refers to taking from the fishery, rather than landing in the fishery. The officers of the sea fisheries committees have found it difficult to pursue such matters, although they have good circumstantial evidence to show that fishermen have not only taken, but landed, fish that was caught illegally or fish that was of an illegal size. Given that the language used in the original Act still applies today, it makes matters difficult. The position needs some clarification.

I am sure that the Minister knows that the sea fisheries committees are concerned about the landward limit of the fisheries districts and that that should be redefined.

Mr. Matthew Taylor (Truro and St. Austell)

I strongly agree with my hon. Friend about the issues that he is raising. They illustrate the need for the reform of the common fisheries policy. The local controls of the communities involved in fishing those fisheries need to be strengthened. He is suggesting several changes that the Government can make and there is a need for wider renegotiation of the common fisheries policy. My hon. Friend is illustrating the fact that, given the chance, the communities that have an interest in the policy know how to make it work and want to be involved.

Mr. George

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention. I agree that a review should be undertaken of the common fisheries policy, whereby, as far as possible, responsibility for such management decisions is delegated to the nation states. Furthermore, sea fisheries committees have the local knowledge about inshore fishing. They are on the spot and far better placed to ensure that the regulations are applied properly.

As for the landward limit of the sea fisheries districts, current legislation refers to the adjacent coast. In several areas around the coast, fishermen who are alleged to have been fishing illegally are known to have taken their fish across the road because, although only a few metres inland, it is beyond the area that may be considered in law to be within the sea fisheries committee district. As a result, the committee is unable to pursue what it believes to be an illegal landing. That is a small detail, but it shows the general need for a Government overview of the role and powers of sea fisheries committees. Consolidation, in a coastal fisheries Act, may be required to update and expand the powers of sea fisheries committees.

If regional fisheries management were introduced, as Liberal Democrats want, the sea fisheries committees should be involved in any review. It could bring the sea fisheries committees back to the original intention of the derogation and accession treaty, which referred to coastal ports in fishing regions. For example, at Padstow in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) there is a successful lobster hatchery, which will release 80,000 juveniles per annum. If there were a failure in fisheries in other parts of the country, boats from Yorkshire and elsewhere—we are not opposed to boats from Yorkshire visiting our area—could plunder the stock that was so carefully produced on the Cornish coast because the sea fisheries committees would have no control. They can release juveniles, but have no further control.

I am aware of the time, Mr. Gale, and the Minister knows my views on these matters. We have corresponded about the bass fishery and the controls on pair trawlers. The decline in bass stocks is having a significant impact on recreational fishermen and bass longliners, who are very successful around the coast of Cornwall. The Minister should consider ways of supporting low-impact fishing methods, such as bass longlining, and protecting them from the plundering of stocks, particularly when they are on the verge of collapse, as with bass and mackerel.

I have repeated the arguments so many times that I need not go through them here. The Minister knows that we need to protect, promote and secure the future of low-impact fisheries. I hope that this debate and further discussions will provide an opportunity during the next two years to take the issue by the scruff of the neck by protecting the future of inshore fisheries, making permanent the six-mile and 12-mile delineations, updating and strengthening the sea fisheries committees and protecting low-impact fishing methods.

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

First, I congratulate the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. George) on securing this opportunity to discuss the inshore fishing fleet and its needs. The issues are important and, as the hon. Gentleman knows, I place great value on the important contribution made by our inshore fleet. It is the largest in the UK fishing fleet, in terms of the number of vessels.

I shall refer to the Agriculture Committee's thoughtful report on fisheries, which the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food treated seriously, and the reports of the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds and the Association of Sea Fisheries Committees of England and Wales. The inshore sector is important and we try to help it by underpinning additional stocks and swapping quota for them when there is a shortage of fish to ensure that we avoid early closure of fisheries.

We have been active in ensuring that the rules and regulations covering the inshore fleet are kept to a minimum because we recognise its localised nature and the level of investment. Having said that, we recognise that the inshore fleet, in common with the whole fishing industry, is a dynamic structure. A great deal of investment has gone into the inshore fleet. A considerable amount has been invested in new vessels, which has led to an increase in fishing efforts and we must be aware of that. It puts more pressure on the quota and we must try to manage that in the same way that we manage the quota generally.

To safeguard against further increases in effort in the inshore fleet, as the hon. Gentleman will probably be aware, we announced additional restrictions on the licensing of inshore vessels, which will apply from 1 January 2001. I said at the time of the announcement that any surplus on underpinned quota allocations for the under-l0-metre fleet could be used to acquire additional quota for those vessels. Where EU regulations allow, we shall make greater use of the provisions on end-of-year quota flexibility to borrow quota from the following year or to bank surplus quota for future use—banking and borrowing. That means that we can manage a fishery and eliminate the risk of early closures, which we are trying to do.

We have also taken steps to support the handline mackerel fishery in the south-west, a matter that I know is of particular interest to the hon. Gentleman and to my hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Ms Atherton). Since 1998, the guaranteed annual quota of vessels prosecuting this fishery has been significantly enhanced and we have made every effort to obtain extra fish through swaps where necessary. As a result of that action, we have been successful in keeping the fishery open to the end of the year and we are confident that this year will be no exception. That takes pressure off the handline sector.

The hon. Gentleman has made a good case for taking low-impact and sustainable fisheries such as the handline mackerel fishery out of quota management restrictions altogether. I sympathise with the case that he has made, but we have to take into account issues of which I know that he will be aware that relate to controlling efforts. If we are to take a fishery out of quota control, we must be careful to ensure that other fishing boats from all over the region or even nationally do not come into that fishery or immediately there will be trouble in relation to quota management. We must think about the matter and discuss it with the European Union. It is also important for member states to accommodate the needs of such fisheries within the framework of the current quota system—a view that was endorsed in a recent report from the industry working group on quota trading and related issues.

As the hon. Gentleman said, the 2002 review is coming up and I see no reason why we cannot explore a range of issues, including low-impact fisheries. It would be helpful if other member states that have similar low-impact fisheries shared an interest in the matter. If they recognise that there is a case to pursue, it will make progress more likely. I am willing to do that and see what opportunities there are.

The ASFC report "1888–2000 and Beyond" is also very important. I discussed it with the ASFC when I attended its 100th annual statutory meeting in July, which I was pleased to do. It is a good report and it raises a range of issues that we need to take into account. At the meeting, I also promised to send a copy of the association's report to the European Union Commission. It has been welcomed as making a useful contribution to the on-going debate on the review of the common fisheries policy, which will be concluded in 2002.

The report argues for a thorough overhaul of the legislation governing the work of the sea fisheries committees and for an extension of the committees' jurisdiction from the existing six-mile limit to 12 miles. The hon. Member for St. Ives made a good case and argued the advantages for that succinctly. I sympathise with the report's recommendation that there is a need for a legislative overhaul. There is no doubt that that is necessary. There is much in the sea fisheries committee model that is still valid and the committees have an important role to play in the management of inshore fisheries, successfully balancing all the local interests concerned and paying proper weight to environmental responsibilities.

The overhaul should include measures such as reviewing the landward limits, which the hon. Gentleman mentioned. One of the great strengths of the sea fisheries committees is that they comprise local people who understand local issues. Such involvement is important for sustainable management.

The legislation under which the committees operate is long standing and was originally designed for different circumstances. There is a strong argument for reviewing it. As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, however, securing parliamentary time for legislation is not easy. While I cannot make any promises, I can assure him that we take the matter seriously within the Department and that we will promote it in our bids for future legislation.

One or two aspects of the ASFC report need to be clarified, such as responsibility within the six and 12-mile limits. At present, responsibility extends to six miles. Going up to 12 miles will involve a range of new enforcements and significant financial obligations. If the ASFC wants to share that responsibility, there is the risk of duplication and confusion of powers. That is not to say that we cannot consider the matter. I have made it clear that I want to make some improvements.

We are making progress with the introduction of a restrictive licensing scheme for shellfish. Discussions in the UK conservation group are well advanced and I particularly welcome the active part that the sea fisheries committees have played. I hope to issue a consultation paper on the first stage of a restrictive licensing scheme shortly. Much of the inshore sector awaits that paper with keen interest.

I shall also want to monitor closely the operation of the first stage with a view to identifying ways in which an extension of SFC statutory powers could enable us to apply a more detailed scheme that takes full account of local circumstances and can be administered by the sea fisheries committees themselves. Even without primary legislation, I see a strengthened role for them, particularly on shellfish management and licensing. I want to explore that with them and the consultation paper will provide an obvious opportunity.

Mr. Andrew George

In relation to sea fish and shellfish licensing, would the responsibilities of the sea fisheries committees extend beyond the six-mile limit? Although I cannot speak for them, I understand that if they sought an extension of their powers to that area, they would do so in co-operation with the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the fisheries protection squadron.

Mr. Morley

We will certainly have to take into account licensing and how it would apply between the six and 12-mile limits, but as the hon. Gentleman pointed out, other vessels, both UK and non-UK, have historic fishing rights. I am confident that the six and 12-mile limits will continue when they come up for renewal and review in 2002. They are important for us and for other countries. I do not detect any desire in the Council of Ministers to take the provision away. All of us in the EU recognise the strong arguments for protecting localised management and localised fisheries. I have no fears about that matter.

I accept that it would offer greater certainty and stability for the industry if, instead of having to agree the renewal of six and 12-mile limits from time to time, we could establish them as a permanent feature of the common fisheries policy. That will certainly be one of our negotiating objectives and we will discuss it with other member states to try to guarantee that security for our inshore fleet. An extension beyond those limits has been discussed at the European Parliament and it voted for an extension to 24 miles. I am willing to support any possibility of such an extension, although it would depend also on general support and on whether the extension would be meaningful. If a 24-mile extension is made, but people continue to have historical fishing rights, would it mean anything?

I feel strongly about the bass fishery. Conservation measures should be strengthened and we are discussing that matter with those involved in pair trawling in Scotland, for example. We are also holding discussions with the French in relation to joint studies to introduce stronger conservation measures. I undertake that we will take that process forward as quickly as possible.