Sea Fish (Conservation) Bill (Hansard, 8 June 1992)

§ Madam Speaker
Before I call the Minister of State to move the Second Reading, I must inform the House that I have selected the amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond).

§ The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. David Curry)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
There are two big issues in fisheries policy. The first is the conservation of fish stocks; the second is the structure and capacity of the fleet. They are, of course, linked, but they are not interchangeable.
The need for conservation is addressed by technical measures such as mesh size, the kind of gear used and how it is rigged. However, technical conservation poses real problems of surveillance. There is cheating and far too much discarding. There is therefore a need to deal not just with the size of fish taken out of the seas, but to limit the number of fish removed. Quotas control only what is landed. The overwhelming need is to reduce total fish mortality. Hence the necessary complement of technical conservation is effort control. That is what the Bill is about.
The second problem is fleet structure. That problem is tackled by decommissioning and measures to tax the aggregation of capacity. It is also tackled by measures to permit more economic operation of the industry by introducing a greater element of market forces—notably by means of the trade in licences.
Underpinning both aspects of policy is the licensing of vessels. There is no point in curbing fishing activity by over-10 m boats if the under-10 m fleet can simply expand without real check. That is why, despite the heavy administrative and manpower costs involved, I have accepted the argument of the fishing organisations that licensing should extend to the entire fleet. That will give us a valuable new instrument of management, which is essential if we are to make effort control and decommissioning work for the benefit of the industry.
There is a parallel approach, which is tackling the effort and the capacity. That parallel approach is at the heart of the Government's policy. It translates into five related groups of actions. They depend both on Community and unilateral decision making, so it is entirely right that this debate should cover wider Community fishing policy as well as the specific and limited question concerned with the Second Reading.
Those five elements are decommissioning, improving the operation of market forces, the extension of licensing, technical conservation, and effort control. Many details, 41 notably the details involved in decommissioning and in effort control, are subject to consultation. That consultation remains entirely valid, because all that the Bill does is to empower fisheries Ministers to attach a condition to a licence. The details of that are still subject to consultation, which is an extremely valuable exercise for fisheries departments. Indeed, I extended the period so that the organisations had time to call their members together to give a considered response.

§ Mr. James Wallace (Orkney and Shetland)
The Minister suggests that he is merely empowering, but it is a major power being put into the hands of the Executive. If the Bill is passed, what arrangements will be made to allow the House properly to consider any condition that the Minister would wish to attach to a licence before the conditions became current?

§ Mr. Curry
I will reflect on the hon. Gentleman's point. He will be aware that the conditions currently attached to licences, which are fixed from time to time, are not debated in the House. He will also be aware that 3,800 vessels will have licence conditions attached to them. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would not wish to debate the fate of 3,800 vessels. However, he may remain confident that the consultation exercise with the industry is of great importance and is essential to the effective working of the measure.

§ Mr. David Harris (St. Ives)
Will my hon. Friend confirm that there will be no follow-up by way of detailed regulations—that he may use that power by imposing conditions on licences, but that it will not be like the normal procedures of the House whereby an enabling Bill is followed by detailed regulations to implement a power?

§ Mr. Curry
The power that the Bill would confer would enable fisheries Ministers to attach further conditions to a licence. My hon. Friend will know from his experience in the fisheries sector and from his constituency interest that a licence already bears a significant weight of conditions to it. Indeed, that is one of the principal instruments of control. The European Community is looking to provide some overall framework on a Community level so that we can have more discipline relating to licences. My hon. Friend is correct in his surmise that that power would enable me to make conditions which would be issued to each vessel in the over-10 m fleet and would then condition the days at sea on which it operated.

§ Mr. John D. Taylor (Strangford)
rose—

§ Mr. Robert Hughes (Aberdeen, North)
rose—

§ Mr. Curry
I will give way, but the House wishes me to make progress.

§ Mr. Taylor
On giving such powers to the Minister and how they will be implemented in practice, what role will the House have in approving new regulations? For example, with the limit on the days of fishing, at what stage will the House have a say if that limit is introduced?

§ Mr. Curry
The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that, in the whole fisheries sector, limits are imposed by means of regulations which come from Brussels or from the House. The purpose of bringing the measure to the House is that, although one could look to Brussels to provide the power to make such an attachment, I would 42 prefer to have the powers directly from the House so that Ministers may be responsible for the decisions that they take. That seems entirely reasonable.

§ Mr. Hughes
Will the Minister clarify what he means by licence conditions? He almost gave the impression—I assume that he did not mean to do so—that there would be different days-at-sea regulations or limits for each vessel. Presumably he was saying that they would apply to all vessels, not boat by boat.

§ Mr. Curry
I shall refer to the details in a while, but it is certainly not our intention to apply a flat rate condition which is identical for every boat. One of the reasons is that we may face the possibility of segmented multi-annual guidance programme targets from the European Community which would vary according to the type of fishery. We therefore have to maintain flexibility to be able to relate the days at sea in a subsequent phase to the actual fisheries in which we find ourselves involved.

§ Mr. George Foulkes (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley)
Will the Minister give way?

§ Mr. Curry
I will give way once more on this point and then I must make progress. We have not yet discussed the details of effort control.

§ Mr. Foulkes
I agree with the Minister on flexibility. Will he give an assurance that such flexibility will include taking account of the fact that Clyde fishermen already do not fish at the weekend and that conservation is therefore being practised by Clyde fishermen?

§ Mr. Curry
I should make it absolutely clear that our intention is to apply the possibilities with maximum flexibility. The 135-day limit already applies to about 450 boats, unless they have the gear option. We shall be looking to be more flexible in the way the limit is applied. I would not wish to take into account merely what the hon. Gentleman has said. Certain fishing communities— because of religious conviction, for example—refrain from fishing on certain occasions. I wish to be able to take that point into consideration by introducing maximum flexibility. I recognise the particular character of the fishing industry and it is not our intention to cut across it.
I shall now deal with the vessel decommissioning scheme because it is part of the twin policies and we should look at matters in the round. As the House will know, fisheries Ministers are prepared to make up to £25 million available for a cash-limited decommissioning scheme to help the industry to bring effort and capacity more into balance with fish stocks. The scheme will aim to target fishing effort, which is defined as days at sea in 1991 multiplied by vessel capacity units, to get the best value for public money. Only seaworthy vessels over 10 m holding valid fishing licences will be eligible to apply. The licences will be permanently extinguished before any grant is paid. Given the criticisms of decommissioning which have been levelled in the past, it is important to make it absolutely clear that when a boat is decommissioned that boat ceases to be part of the licensed fleet. There can be no equivocation about that. To stop idle vessels being reintroduced for the sake of decommissioning grant, we have suggested that only vessels which fished for 100 days in 1991 and in subsequent years should be eligible. The grant may not be paid on vessels which have changed ownership after 1 January 1992.
43 Community regulations currently require decommissioning grant at a standard rate per tonne. We are pressing the Commission to propose an amendment to the Council regulation which would give us more flexibility to get better value for money. Departments are also considering whether the rate of grant should be determined by tender. That would be one way of getting more value for money. No decommissioning money will be paid until effort control and reduction arrangements are in place. Subject to those arrangements, payments will run over two financial years: 1993–94 and 1994–95.
The second leg of the policy is to improve the operation of market forces. We are keen to allow the industry greater flexibility to manage quotas and to use market forces to rationalise its operations. For instance, we are aware of concern about restrictions placed on quota swaps by producer organisations and we propose to lift those restrictions. The greater flexibility should enable the industry to maximise quota uptake and make annual end of year reallocations of quotas unnecessary. As the House will know, towards the end of autumn every year fisheries departments usually redistribute unused quota between the producer organisations. A mechanism will be provided whereby the organisations can redistribute the quotas, so the market and not the Ministry will deal with the problem.
We also propose to introduce further flexibility by changing the method of calculating quota allocations to allow producer organisations to buy out the track records of member vessels. This will allow producer organisation members to benefit from the removal of old, inefficient vessels.

§ Mr. Alex Salmond (Banff and Buchan)
Will the Minister give way?

§ Mr. Curry
I will give way after the next two paragraphs.
The industry also needs to be able to transfer and aggregate licences. The existing rules already allow that, but they have introduced new penalties—20 per cent. for aggregation and transfers. We have consulted the industry and in the light of its comments we shall be prepared to make adjustments. 1 hope that the industry will fully exploit that liberalisation. The more we can get from liberalisation and decommissioning, the less dependent we shall be on effort control, so I hope that the industry will look to the market force element as well as to decommissioning to obtain the maximum from the policy. It obviously makes sense to do so.

§ Mr. Salmond
Will the Minister explain why he made the decommissioning scheme—which has general support in the House although there is disappointment at the level of funding—contingent on acceptance of his pet project of transferable quotas, which is extremely controversial in the fishing industry? Why was not decommissioning of capacity allowed to stand in its own right?

§ Mr. Curry
The proposal before the House is not for individual transferable quotas in the sense in which they operate in places such as Iceland and New Zealand. It is a limited introduction of transferability and market forces. It is not ITQs as they operate in some other fisheries. The hon. Gentleman should also bear in mind that producer 44 organisations have said that they would like greater flexibility. I appreciate that it depends which producer organisation one consults. In Scotland the producer organisations play a particularly important role in the industry.
Transferable quotas are not my pet project. However, it is clear that market forces should play a greater role in the industry. My proposal is something which the industry has said that it wants in order to make the system more efficient.

§ Mr. Brian Wilson (Cunninghame, North)
I wish to pursue this point. I find the Minister's terminology a little disturbing when he talks about old, clapped-out vessels. If the effect of market forces is essentially to close down a fishing industry in one community and allow the quota to disappear into one where fishing is more powerful and capital intensive, is that an acceptable price to pay?

§ Mr. Curry
If I were introducing absolutely freely tradeable quotas so that, for instance, quotas from the north-east coast of Scotland could be bought by Humberside or vice versa, I might appreciate the hon. Gentleman's anxiety. But we are talking about trading within the producer organisations. No one will be obliged to sell. No one will compel people to sell. We are introducing what the producer organisations have asked for.
I will try to get through another chunk, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and move to the third leg of the policy, which is the extension of restrictive licensing to vessels under 10 metres. The whole House will welcome it because the fishing industry asked for it. I was initially reluctant because of some of the administrative and manpower effort that would be involved, but I was convinced that it was the right policy. Therefore, we intend to implement licensing of, in effect, the whole fleet.
The 10 m and under-10 m fleet has expanded. We have seen the development of so-called "rule beaters"—vessels constructed by the building yards within 1 mm of whatever set of rules happens to apply. It is important that the benefits of effort control and decommissioning are not undermined by further expansion in the sector. The extension of restrictive licensing will therefore apply to all vessels fishing for profit from 1 January 1993. That will be done by means of a statutory instrument which will of, course, be placed before the House.

§ Mr. Roger Moate (Faversham)
I apologise for interrupting my hon. Friend and thank him for his courtesy in giving way. His responses are most helpful in this type of debate. Will he make the position clear on the under-10 m vessels? Is he saying by implication that the days-at-sea regulations will apply to under-10 m vessels—the inshore fleet—or does the Bill provide that the regulations can so apply at some time in the future? His answer is important.

§ Mr. Curry
My hon. Friend asked three questions and I shall be precise in my reply. The Bill gives me the power to extend days at sea to the under-10 m fleet, but I do not intend to do so unless it proves necessary because we must build up the information about the behaviour of the under-10 m fleet.
There are two reasons for licensing. The first is to put a ring fence round the industry. That will prevent the effort expanding and people bumping out of the over-10 m fleet 45 into the under-10 m fleet. The second reason is to enable us to build up information. I make it clear that at present we do not intend to apply either decommissioning or effort control to the under-10 m fleet.

§ Mr. Barry Field (Isle of Wight)
Will my hon. Friend be kind enough to expand on that? Will licensing be extended to pot fishing for lobster and crab? As he knows, on occasions I have brought delegations of people worried about the amateur nature of such fishing and the unmarked buoys for pots around the south coast which lead to an enormous number of yachts getting ropes around their propellers as well as great antagonism among professional fishermen.

§ Mr. Curry
The possibility of applying the rules to all vessels licensed within the fleet will exist, but it would be physically impossible, even if I wished to do so, to extend the provisions to a further 7,000 vessels in addition to the 3,800 vessels to which the rules will already apply. The smaller vessels can therefore rest certain that we have neither the means nor the inclination to extend the effort control provisions to vessels below 10 m. Virtually everyone demanded that we should extend licensing to create an effective licensing system which applied to the whole fleet. That part of the package has been widely welcomed.
I must also make it clear that the licence for vessels under 10 m will be a simple permit to fish. We do not intend that such licences will have the complexity of licences for the more powerful fishing vessels, which differentiate between stocks and so on. Of course, the licences will be subject to prohibition orders. We intend to monitor fishing activity data through a sampling regime and may introduce additional controls if they are justified.
To allow market forces to operate more effectively, the new licences will be tradeable between vessels but only within the under-10 m category. The aim is to include all genuine fishermen, but not to give potentially valuable licences to non-fishermen, so we shall ask for evidence of fishing for profit in 1991. We shall give careful consideration to difficult cases such as people who have entered into a financial commitment to buy a vessel—the so-called pipeline cases—or people with replacement vessels. Where there is an obvious wrinkle, we shall be flexible and sensible so as not to exclude people who find themselves in genuine difficulty.
The technical conservation measures, as the House will know, are rules on the type of gear that fishermen can use. They are essential especially to ensure that juvenile fish can escape capture and survive to maturity and reasonable, marketable size. I pay tribute to the pioneering work that the United Kingdom industry has done to popularise some technical conservation measures and, for example, its work on trialling, which has been an extremely useful collaboration. There is certainly a long way still to go on technical conservation. We have a significant agenda which we should like to see accepted at European level. We shall continue to work closely with the industry.
We have agreed significant new Community measures, which came into force on 1 June. They include an increase in the minimum mesh size in the North sea and west of Scotland to 100 mm, with the option to use a square mesh panel of 90 mm. That represents the first Community recognition of the importance of square mesh panels on a Community-wide basis. We have also increased the 46 minimum mesh size to 80 mm in the Irish sea, as the industry wanted, and introduced a uniform mesh size of 40 mm for pelagic species.
The measures also include a restriction on the use of grading machines to reduce waste of fish by discarding and restrictions on the length of drift nets to 2.5 km in most cases for European Community vessels, wherever they fish, to prevent the development of practices which have done so much harm in the south Pacific and elsewhere.
For practical reasons, a decision was taken last month to defer bringing a few of the new rules into force until January 1993 so as to allow fishermen time to acquire new gear not immediately available on the market. Some United Kingdom fishermen will be helped by that sensible adjustment of the plans.

§ Mr. Foulkes
The Minister has received representations from the Scottish Fishermen's Federation to delay the one-net rule until January next year. I understand that when members of the federation met officials they were told that there could not be a delay and they want to meet with the Minister and the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland. Has the Minister agreed to that meeting and what consideration is he giving to their representations?

§ Mr. Curry
I know that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, who is sitting beside me, has met Scottish fishermen to discuss the issue and I know that he intends to cover the matter in his reply to the debate.

§ Mr. Menzies Campbell (Fife, North-East)
rose —

§ Mr. Salmond
Would it be—

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris)
Order. To which hon. Gentleman is the Minister giving way? It is not clear.

§ Mr. Curry
Perhaps I should give the other one a chance, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

§ Mr. Campbell
I am grateful for the Minister's felicitous reference to me as "the other one". The one-net rule is of particular significance in those ports which have concentrated on prawn fishing. In my constituency, fishermen are concerned that the one-net rule may have significant consequences for the future of the fishing industry in East Neuk in Fife. There is anxiety that the imposition of the one-net rule may drive those who concentrate on prawn fishing to seek white fish as an alternative, which appears to run contrary to the type of conservation measures to which the Minister has referred.

§ Mr. Curry
I know that the industry was anxious to have a one-net rule and we would like one to be more generalised throughout the European Community. The problem in Scotland is that the fishing industry was concerned about discards in the nephrops fisheries. I know that the industry has made representations to my hon. Friend and he has heard what they have had to say. The Community rule can be altered only by Community agreement, but my hon. Friend intends to deal with that subject when he winds up. I shall allow one more intervention; then I must get on.

§ Mr. Salmond
In fairness to fishing organisations, can the Minister confirm that support for the one-net rule has been contingent on by-catch changes to allow it to operate effectively? Given that it is being imposed as a unilateral measure, does he accept that there is nothing to stop the 47 Government attempting to get an agreement to the by-catch changes throughout Europe before the one-net rule is imposed on 1 January next year?

§ Mr. Curry
We have to be careful that the changes in the rules do not undermine the essential conservation purpose of the measure. In answer to the last three interventions, I said that the measure has been mentioned by Scottish fishermen to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland He has been listening to what they have said and he will answer the hon. Gentleman's question when he concludes the debate.
I was about to tackle the unilateral measures. Following consultation with the industry, we introduced further national measures. They include restoring the minimum landing size for whiting to 27 cms because the Community had reduced it to 23 cms. I was delighted to be able to announce that the Irish Government had simultaneously introduced the 27 cm minimum landing size for whiting in their fishery. I had discussions with the Irish Minister on Friday about how we could co-operate further in the Irish sea, as it is a vunerable stretch of water and it would make a great deal of sense if we could introduce maximum co-operation in the way in which it is managed.
We have introduced a one-net rule for all licensed vessels. We also introduced compulsory square mesh panels in the Irish sea and south-west of Scotland, where the minimum mesh size is 80 mm. We imposed the square mesh panel on all United Kingdom nephrops fisheries and the package includes anti-ballooning provisions. We have also introduced a ban on twin and multi-rig trawls in all nephrops fisheries except the Fladen ground. There has been a significant advance in technical conservation measures, which form an essential piece of the panoply of fisheries measures.
We regard effort control as essential if we are to tackle the fundamental problem of fishing mortality. We need to take new direct measures to control and reduce fishing effort. That is the only part of the package which requires primary legislation. We have the power to do everything else, which is why other measures do not feature in the Bill. It is an essential part because there will be no decoupling between it and the decommissioning scheme.
We plan to freeze fishing effort for all vessels of more than 10 m at the 1991 level in 1993, with the option of reducing it in the years after that. The size of reduction will depend on the sort of multi-annual guidance programme targets and how they are defined in Brussels, on the final outcome of those negotiations and on the impact of other measures in the package. We believe that the only practical way to control fishing effort is to control the time that vessels spend at sea. The existing licensing provisions in the Sea Fish (Conservation) Act 1967 already allow us to limit time spent fishing, but it is simply not possible to monitor how much fishing takes place during each trip. Clause 1(2) and 1(3) of the Bill will enable Ministers to restrict the time that licensed vessels spend at sea by imposing a new condition in sea fishing licences. It will also enable them to determine, by way of licence conditions, what time at sea will mean. Our intention is to restrict days at sea and the licence conditions will set down how they will be defined, notified and controlled.
48 The Bill also contains a number of other measures which will ensure that the new time-at-sea restrictions can be properly enforced and that the penalties for not observing licence limitations and conditions act as real deterrents to would-be offenders. It will give us broader powers to require information from fishermen by enabling us to require the provision of non-statistical information. For the first time, it enables us to say in what form we require the information and does the same in relation to trans-shipment licences. The provision will enable us to ensure that we have all the information necessary to enforce the new time-at-sea restrictions.
The Bill also allows Ministers to revoke or to suspend licences when licence limitations and conditions, including time-at-sea restrictions, are breached. Clause 2(3) does the same in relation to trans-shipment licences. The provision will for the first time enable Ministers to withdraw or suspend licences as a penalty. We shall no longer be dependent on long-drawn-out court proceedings and inadequate fines to stop or deter over-fishing. We shall be able to take action once a breach has taken place and consider revoking as well as suspending licences. We need severe penalties when fish conservation is at stake.
When I visit fishing communities I am frequently asked when I shall be able to impose some real penalties. Far too often, fishermen seem to get off extremely lightly when convicted of a fishing offence, and the fine is a fraction of the profit gained from the infringement.

§ Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours (Workington)
rose—

§ Mr. Curry
I have one more clause to deal with and then I shall give way.
The Bill increases the maximum penalty on summary conviction for breach of a licence condition from £5,000 to £50,000. That will bring the maximum penalty for breaching a time-at-sea restriction into line with the maximum penalty for fishing without a licence or exceeding quota limits.
The Bill will come into force one month after Royal Assent. It applies in Northern Ireland and may be applied in the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man by Order in Council.

Several Hon. Members
rose—

§ Mr. Curry
I shall give way to those hon. Members who wish to intervene.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. It would help enormously if the Minister would say which hon. Gentleman he is giving way to because four seem to wish to intervene.

§ Mr. Curry
I intended to continue my generosity by giving way to all of them, but I will start with the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace).

§ Mr. Wallace
I am grateful to the Minister. He is being generous and it is helpful to the debate if we may clarify matters. He said that the Bill will provide definitions as to what constitutes a day at sea. The Minister must be aware of the concern that vessels are counted as spending days at sea if they are returning to a home port having discharged their fish or travelling to a port for repairs. Is he minded to make special provision to cover those situations? The proposed restrictions have given rise to much ill feeling in the industry.

§ Mr. Curry
We have to accommodate a whole series of conditions. We must decide how to deal with the case that the hon. Gentleman mentioned. That is one purpose of the consultation. We must deal also with vessels which have already been affected by a tie-up in 1991, or which have taken the gear option. How are we to accommodate those circumstances in the days-at-sea rule? We must take into account also vessels which opt to tie up at an overseas port, because under Community rules we cannot oblige them to tie up in a British port. We must establish a track record for vessels in certain classes which are fishing for non-TAC stocks. It is not part of my purpose to gloss over the difficulties of the exercise, but we have consulted and we are collecting information to work out the most sensible way of overcoming some of the difficulties that we shall encounter.
I repeat that it is not our purpose to apply the rules unreasonably, or in a way that is more restrictive than necessary. It is not our purpose either to deprive fishermen of legitimate days at sea, but to establish a genuine track record when they are involved in fishing. We will go to great lengths to get that right.

§ Mr. Keith Mans (Wyre)
My hon. Friend indicated the need for effort control in this country. Can he say why our Community partners do not feel that the same need exists in their countries?

§ Mr. Curry
It is by no means clear that our Community partners will not feel that way. We all face multi-annual guidance programme targets, and we do not yet know what they will be. We have not received any official notification of the latest proposed targets. The Dutch operate effort controls covering virtually the whole of their fleet. That measure was recommended by the Advisory Committee for Fisheries Management of the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea. If TACs and quotas do not work, there must be some limitation on effort.
The body which governs New England fisheries is also examining the possibility of introducing effort control. On Friday, I was speaking to my French opposite number, who said that if France is confronted by a MAGP target of a certain size it will have to consider effort control. We are introducing it because we believe that it will provide us with the flexibility to apply targets that are best suited to British fisheries. It is certainly possible that other Community members will want to go down the same route. The Dutch have already led the way in respect of virtually the whole of their fishery.

§ Mr. Campbell-Savours
Has the Minister's attention been drawn to the hostility of fishermen in the north of England, particularly in relation to the days-at-sea provision? They say that if a proper decommissioning scheme had been introduced and adequately funded, the new provisions would not be necessary. The fishermen argue, "Why should a farmer have set-aside money for setting aside his land when a fisherman is not given set-aside money for decommissioning his boat?" What is the reason for the Government's inconsistency?

§ Mr. Curry
There is a great difference between the two. A farmer who is told to set aside land—the Community now has what is in practice a compulsory set-aside scheme— is being told that he may not use the land that is his own asset to produce that which we know he could have 50 produced had he used that land. The fisherman is not being told that he may not catch his quota: the purpose of the measure is not to prevent him doing so out of a common resource. That is the difference between the two.
How many hundreds of millions of pounds would the hon. Gentleman have us spend on a decommissioning scheme? The French Government have just spent £15 million—somewhat less than we plan to spend on a decommissioning scheme. They say that there is no possibility of yet another decommissioning scheme, and that other methods would have to be used. Decommissioning is a necessary element in the programme, but it will not by itself deliver.

§ Mr. Robert Hicks (Cornwall, South-East)
I want to press my hon. Friend on the important question of the equivalent action which may or may not be taken by our Community partners. I represent a constituency in the south-west which is vulnerable to the fishing activities of certain of our Community partners. We are worried that Britain could be taking what could prove, in certain circumstances, very restrictive action, but that no comparable action will be taken by our partners. What tangible evidence can I offer my fishermen in Looe or Polperro that we are not alone in taking action to introduce a package of conservation measures throughout the Community?

§ Mr. Curry
My hon. Friend can tell them two things. He can say that we are doing this because the United Kingdom has the biggest investment of all the Community fishing countries in the health of the stock, and to protect the futures of British fishermen catching British stocks. We have 89 per cent. of the haddock, and 46 per cent. of the cod. It is our stocks that are at risk, so it is essential that we preserve them.
My hon. Friend can tell his fishermen also that other countries will have to decide how to meet their MAGP targets. We want ours defined in terms of fishing effort because we think that that will give us greater flexibility. I believe that other countries will find themselves moving in the same direction. A number of Ministers told me that decommissioning can only go some of the way. If the Community's proposed targets are eventually agreed, I can think of no country that could meet them by decommissioning alone. I am sure that that will be understood by our fishermen.

§ Mr. Eddie McGrady (South Down)
The Minister indicated that the Bill applies to Northern Ireland. Has he entered into full and proper consultation with fish producers in Northern Ireland? If so, how did they react? They are totally opposed to the broad concept of the Bill.
Every time the Minister is pressed to answer a question, he does so with a latitude that is not contained in the Bill. We must deal with the legislation that is before us. For example, 1991 will serve as the base year for the days-at-sea rule. Will the Minister clearly indicate what latitude he will give in variations from the norm in respect of any particular vessel? I understood the Minister to say that the rule will be applied on a vessel-to-vessel basis. Will he give a firm undertaking that variations from the 1991 norm will be taken into account?

§ Mr. Curry
Let me reassure the hon. Gentleman. We chose 1991 as the base because that is the year for the next phase of the MAGP targets. However, I made it clear that 51 if, for example, a fisherman was affected by circumstances beyond his control in 1991—such as breakdowns—we would take them into consideration. It is not our intention that 1991 should be treated in every single respect with absolute biblical certainty in respect of days at sea. Where a case is shown for flexibility, we will allow it.
Perhaps I should make it clear that it is our intention to establish an appeals procedure so that fishermen can explain the reasons for an unusually low track record in 1991, where this was due to circumstances beyond their control. The appeals tribunal will be independent of MAFF officials and will be able to advise Ministers that they should make an adjustment to the recommended days at sea.

§ Mr. Michael Brown (Brigg and Cleethorpes)
I pick up the points made by my hon. Friends the Members for Wyre (Mr. Mans) and for Cornwall, South-East (Mr. Hicks) in contrasting the situation in this country with that in the rest of the Community. The Minister's contention is that other countries—he quoted France—will have to consider effort control along those lines. He said that in France, for example, only a £15 million decommissioning scheme had been proposed. I wonder whether my hon. Friend is being entirely fair. Several other countries in the European Community are relying much more heavily on decommissioning schemes than either France or ourselves.

§ Mr. Curry
Let me be clear. I thought that the House was anxious to pursue the principles of subsidiarity, by which I mean that we should be able to implement, by methods that are most appropriate to our conditions, general rules laid down by Brussels. Therefore, it is perfectly sensible that we should apply measures that are most appropriate to our fisheries and conserve our stocks for our fishermen. It is our stocks and our industry which are at risk, and the essential purpose is to conserve them.
Everyone will receive a MAGP target and nobody will be able to escape it. They will all have to meet it. Some countries have already had a decommissioning scheme. The French scheme has finished—it took about 75,000 kilowatts out of the French fleet, and that is reckoned to be equivalent to about 7.5 per cent. We aim that our decommissioning scheme will take upwards of 5 per cent. out of our fleet, depending on whether we can apply it with the type of flexibility that we want.
It will be for other member states to decide how they meet the target. We have decided that the best interests of conservation are served by meeting the target through a mixture of decommissioning, technical conservation and this Bill.

§ Mr. Austin Mitchell (Great Grimsby)
rose—

§ Mr. Curry
I shall give way just one more time because I am in danger of beating the record of giving way in the course of a debate. I am not sure whether that is good or bad, but I have tried to be generous.

§ Mr. Mitchell
The Minister should go for the record. I wish to follow up the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) about compensation. My hon. Friend referred to decommissioning, but why will there be no compensation if, in future, the number of days at sea is limited as a result of Government policy? If farmland is set aside, the farmer receives 52 compensation. If the time during which a fisherman can go to sea, and therefore the time during which he is able to produce is limited, why should he not receive compensation in the same way? The crew is paid on a share-fishing basis, so they need the revenue. The whole economics of a fisherman's enterprise are affected by such a limitation, but the Minister says that the intention is to reduce his catches because that time limitation is a conservation measure.
Why is the fisherman not compensated in the same way as the farmer? I do not see any provision for that in the Bill, although there is a provision to allocate £4 million to administer the scheme, which is only half the £8 million that the Government will contribute to the decommissioning scheme. The administration is fairly expensive, but there is no provision for compensation to fishermen.

§ Mr. Curry
First, let me correct the hon. Gentleman's second point. It is one of the great canards that the Government will contribute only 8 million to the scheme. Let me make it absolutely clear. Because of the way in which the Fontainebleau mechanism works, at least £20 million of British taxpayers' money will go to the £25 million scheme. The French scheme received £3 million of French taxpayers' money. Our scheme will be bigger and better than that operated in France because we shall allocate £20 million to it. I wish to put that on the record because it is frequently said that that is not the case. I can supply the hon. Gentleman with all the algebra to prove that that is so.
On compensation, it is not our intention that a fisherman should fall short of his legitimate quota because of the restrictions. We want to stop the discard and to control fish mortality. If it came to the point where it appeared that the quota could not be fulfilled, we would obviously wish to discuss with Brussels the possibility of relaxing the quota to enable it to be fulfilled. Tackling the problem of fish mortality is at the heart of the Bill.
I have been on my feet for a long time, so I should press on and cover the elements of the Bill which deal with scrutiny and the mid-term review. We operate within the framework of Community legislation, so I shall consider the main issues covered by that.
The Community is currently in the process of the mid-term review of the common agricultural policy. A copy of the Commission report forming the basis for the review is before the House. Subject to the European Court of Justice confirming the view of its Advocate General, we expect relative stability, which guarantees our fishermen a fixed share of fishing opportunities, to be maintained. We also expect the restrictions on access in the 0 to 12-mile zones and in the Shetland box, which are specifically subject to review, to be confirmed for the next 10 years. It seems likely, therefore, that no major changes of principle or to the framwork of the CFP will be made.
We are working for improvements in its implementation. Effort controls, such as we are introducing in the United Kingdom and which I have described earlier, will be an important element. We expect to see better enforcement and I have discussed enforcement with my French and Irish colleagues. It will be a theme of our presidency to try to ensure that we have better and more uniform enforcement, and further conservation measures will be introduced to reduce discards. Later this year, the 53 Commission will, we expect, make proposals for specific new legislation on this and other topics. Those proposals will be subject to scrutiny by the House in the usual way.
The measures are designed to preserve stocks for British fishermen. They are designed to recognise the importance of fisheries in the United Kingdom for national needs. We shall have to meet our targets—as other countries will have to meet theirs—and we want to have policies in place to meet to them in a way that best guarantees the future of our fishing communities and the jobs which depend upon them.
Fishing is not an industry that one should condemn to long-term decline. We are committed to taking those necessarily tough decisions which will give it a secure base for reconstruction and modernisation. However, it all begins with conservation. No fish equals no future. Without the natural resource, there is nothing—but with a properly managed resource there is a future that is as individualistic and challenging as that of any trade in the world. It is our duty and intention to safeguard that future. The Bill is part of that endeavour and I commend it to the House.

§ Mr. Elliot Morley (Glanford and Scunthorpe)
There is no doubt that everyone in the House accepts the need for sensible and effective conservation measures to deal with the problems that our fisheries have faced for some years. The tragedy of the Bill is that it does not cover adequately the problem of conservation: in fact, it should be entitled the sea fish crisis management Bill. That is the Government's approach to a problem that is largely of their own making.
I find it incredible that the Minister talks of a market approach when he refers to a policy that will dictate the number of days that an individual fisherman can spend at sea. It is just like telling a large supermarket that it can open on two days a week only as part of a management policy. The Bill approaches the problem of overcapacity in our fleet not from the point of view of the market, but from a bureaucratic and strict management viewpoint.
The Bill fails to deal with overcapacity. The real problem with our fishing fleet is that there are too many boats chasing too few fish. We have discussed that for many years and hon. Members from both sides have recognised that problem and consistently argued for a sensible decommissioning scheme as the basis for dealing with it. After many years of debate, the Government have finally introduced a decommissioning scheme. What a scheme it is. It is a minnow, a real tiddler of a scheme when compared with the size of the problem. Only £25 million will be provided, and on the figures that I have seen, the capacity of the fleet will be reduced not by 5 per cent.£not a great amount itself—but by about 3 per cent. With such a small amount being provided, the sums available to individual fishermen may be so small that the scheme will have a low take-up and it will fail to attract those people who need reasonable compensation for them to leave the industry. In many cases, they were encouraged to invest in that industry by enlarging their vessels or building new vessels. They now find that they are being restricted in terms of the number of days fishing needed to be viable.
The Bill imposes tie-up conditions on our fleet, while fishermen in other member states, which have used proper decommissioning schemes, will be free to fish when our 54 fishermen are discriminated against. That is neither fair nor reasonable. Although I have listened carefully to the Minister, the fact remains that many other member states have reached their targets through other methods, which means that they do not have to suffer the restrictions to be imposed on our fishing fleets.
The Bill threatens the financial viability of some of our most energetic and efficient fleets and contains no choices. Under decommissioning schemes, people can choose whether to opt in or opt out. This measure will apply to every fisherman, whether he wants to put in a great deal of time or invest large sums in his boats.
There is no guarantee that the Bill is a genuine conservation measure. It may restrict fishermen to remaining in port at certain times of the year, but they might put even more effort into fishing on the days when they can fish, for example, by increasing their crews on those days.
The Bill also has safety implications. We have debated in the past the problem of fishermen being held up in port because of engine breakdowns through no fault of their own. They may run out of days allocated for fishing and may therefore be tempted to go to sea in unsuitable weather to keep up their track records. Those issues must be considered carefully.

§ Mr. Curry
May I make it clear to the hon. Gentleman, first, that we shall apply the measure flexibly. In the event of bad weather or similar circumstances, as with the eight-day tie-up and the 135-day tie-up, we shall not penalise fishermen. Secondly, I assure the hon. Gentleman that in the event of extraordinarily bad weather over a sustained period so that a fisherman cannot fish during his full allocation of days at sea, that amount will not be deducted from his following year's allocation.

§ Mr. Morley
I am grateful for that categorical assurance, which will be well received by those concerned.

§ Ms. Marjorie Mowlam (Redcar)
Does my hon. Friend share my doubts about the Minister's commitment? For example, the two 10-m boats at Redcar have to push off from the beach because we have no harbour pier. Is the Minister really saying that, in the event of bad weather at Redcar, he will give my two fishermen that assurance? Will the Department be that flexible?

§ Mr. Morley
That assurance has been given and is now on the official record. My hon. Friend the Member for Redcar (Ms. Mowlam) is a doughty fighter for her fishing constituents—[Interruption.] Two are as important as any other number. She will ensure that that point is brought to their attention, and I am sure that other hon. Members from fishing ports will take note of the Minister's assurance.
The administration of the scheme is incredibly bureaucratic and its implementation will involve much extra expenditure. The Bill entails an extra expenditure of £4.4 million. I presume that that is for extra staffing, inspectors and administration. I wonder whether that sum could be better used by adding it to the 30 per cent. contribution that the Government must make to find a meaningful decommissioning scheme.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman (Lancaster)
Will the hon. Gentleman kindly press the Minister about how localised a storm must be? It seems that there will be total chaos.

§ Mr. Morley
For those who fish for a living, long periods of bad weather mean that they cannot get out to sea to pursue their legitimate activity. For them, the matter is fairly straightforward. We are aware of the problems that can be caused by bad weather, which is experienced by all fishermen from time to time. But there can be prolonged periods of bad weather. I am glad that the Minister has recognised that there can be such exceptionally bad circumstances and that he has assured us that fishermen will not be penalised because of them.
My hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) spoke about financial assistance. When we debate the fishing industry and the agricultural sector, it is always the agricultural sector that receives financial support. The answer to over-capacity within the common agricultural policy is set-aside and support payments for farmers. The solution for over-capacity in the fishing industry is compulsory tie-up with no compensation whatever, but only restrictions on fishermen's rights to work. The Secretary of State returned from Brussels with an agreement on the CAP, which he hailed as a great success and which has involved much extra taxpayers' money. If the Minister considers it a great success to negotiate extra contributions from taxpayers for agricultural support, why cannot we have a similar success for the fishing industry? It would not involve an excessive amount of taxpayers' money but would ensure a stable and sustainable fishing industry.

§ Mr. Stuart Randall (Kingston upon Hull, West)
Does my hon. Friend agree that the difference is that the set-aside system helps farmers and leaves them in a viable position, but the Government's proposals will make many fishing fleets financially non-viable and knock them out of business altogether?

§ Mr. Morley
Yes, I agree. If one wants to be totally ruthless in dealing with over-capacity, one way is to make those concerned bankrupt. That solution is not being applied to farmers through support payments—I do not argue that it should be—but it is certainly being applied to fishermen as a form of control.
The Bill leaves many technical questions unanswered. In all fairness, the Minister conceded that some difficulties needed to be looked at. I understand that the number of days at sea are based on 1991 levels. But what about those vessels that are currently less than 17 m and have a non-pressure stock licence and no record of the number of days that they have spent at sea? How will the number of days at sea be allocated to them?
The Minister mentioned flagships. There has been a large increase in the number of flagships operating from foreign ports, particularly Dutch beamers, and we all know of the Spanish problem. How can flagships that operate from foreign ports be affected? How can the regulations be enforced when those flagships have a fishing licence, in the same way as boats from Grimsby, Maryport or Tynemouth, while operating from Spain or France? Will the Minister have an inspector in every European port to ensure that they comply with the regulations? How will the rules be applied in those circumstances?
Compulsory tie-up in ports is a desperate solution to a desperate problem. It is an indictment of the Government that, after so many years, they have reached a stage where their only answer to the problem is compulsory tie-up. Their policy is also a form of back-door decommissioning, 56 allied with tradeable days at sea. It risks concentrating the amount of effort in the hands of a few companies. Moreover, further foreign fleets may operate under the British flag and buy up entitlement of days at sea. Those issues need to be considered carefully before we consider the Bill.
The Government cannot bring a Bill before the House in this way and expect our support. As part of the package we want a properly financed and effective decommissioning scheme for a permanent solution, not one with controls on a year-to-year basis. We want boats to be exported properly out of the EC zone. It depresses me that one of the solutions is seen as the scrapping of fishing boats because there is scope for exporting boats released from the fleet through decommissioning as part of an aid programme to developing countries. Not only would that permanently remove those boats from the European fleet, but it could become part of a meaningful and constructive aid package.
A proper package of conservation measures is needed, and we have supported some of the Minister's proposals—indeed, we have argued for them for a long time. We believe that there should be full consultation with the fishermen's organisations, so that we obtain their support, understanding and backing. We have long argued for an end to industrial fishing. The position is now so critical that our fishermen are being forced to tie up their boats in port compulsorily, and there is no longer a role for industrial fishing.
We must reinforce the concept of relative stability, particularly during the mid-term review of the common fisheries policy, and I welcome the Minister's comments on that. We must ensure that the preferential access to the 12-mile zone continues. I welcome the Minister's comments on that.
We must recognise the regional needs of fisheries around the coast. It is about time that we had a comprehensive coastal zone policy to meet the needs of our commercial fisheries when faced with competition and other coastal developments.
There must be proper enforcement procedures and we must ensure that other member states meet our standards. The Minister mentioned other countries. There are other, more constructive ways of reducing effort than making boats tie up in port. Has the Minister considered arguing in the European Community for fishermen who use large mesh to receive a special payment? That would reduce the catch of those fishermen, who would then receive compensation. In turn, that would result in larger fish being caught and there would be no discards. Fish stocks would slowly recover while the policy was implemented. The scheme would be costly, but if we can direct millions and millions of pounds towards the agricultural sector for agricultural restructuring, why cannot we afford modest payments for our fishing fleets around the coasts to ensure sustainable fisheries for the communities who rely on them? I have not heard the Minister advance that argument.
There is an argument for opposing the Bill outright, rather than amending it or pussyfooting around. In its present form, the Bill is unacceptable. Its proposals do not go far enough to deal with the fishing industry's problems. As the Minister rightly said, the fishing industry has been consulted on a series of measures and changes, some of which need careful consideration. The proposals include tradeability in terms of the days-at-sea limitations and 57 producer organisations. However, the deadline for consultation is not until 12 June, so the industry is still in a consultation period. But we are being asked, on 8 June, to pass a Bill that will give the Minister—no matter what he says—an open cheque to impose conditions on the fishing industry before the end of the consultation period. That is absolutely incredible—there should be more consideration of fishermen's views.
Ultimately, difficult and unpopular decisions about conservation may have to be made. The Minister acknowledged that fishermen have put forward proposals for a series of effective conservation measures, including square mesh, one-net rules, variations on by-catch, shellfish licensing and bans on twin and triple-rig prawn trawls. They deserve recognition for their proposals and should be given a guarantee that there will be full consultation until the deadline. We should not rush through the Bill before consultation is complete.

§ Mr. Curry
That is the most bogus of all the hon. Gentleman's remarks. The Bill is an enabling Bill to confer the relevant powers. I should have thought that the House would be pleased that the Government attach such a high priority to fisheries that they have brought forward this measure as one of the first of the new Session. It does not cut across the details of implementation. We have made it absolutely clear that the link between decommissioning, effort control and all the other measures is not negotiatable. We have made it equally clear that the details of how we apply that policy are open to the fullest discussion, which remains our position.

§ Mr. Morley
I cannot accept that argument. The Bill gives the Minister enormous powers of intervention. While we may agree with some aspects of the Bill, such as increased fines for fishermen who break the regulations, if, as the Minister said, there are to be links between decommissioning and effort control, it is all the more reason to have meaningful discussions with the fishermen about how to apply the policy. There is no excuse for presenting a Bill with such powers before the completion of the consultation period. 1 have drawn to the Minister's attention the fact that the Bill contains major problems which have yet to be resolved. Time should have been spent resolving those problems before the Bill was brought to the House.
The Bill is not part of a proper, rational or effective conservation scheme, but a panic measure. It is an insult to the industry and the House. It is essential for the Government to withdraw the Bill and to bring forward a measure containing the elements of which we have spoken to ensure a stable, sustainable industry in a form that will command all-party support. The Bill fails to do that. It is ill-thought-out and draconian, and the industry has not been given time to respond. Fishermen have not been properly consulted to ensure that the measure is effective, and works well for the good of the industry.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Before I call other hon. Members, I advise the House that, although Madam Speaker did not impose a 10-minute limit on speeches, I hope that hon. Members will show a degree of self discipline so that as many speakers as possible may be called.

§ Mr. David Harris (St. Ives)
No one in the House has greater admiration for my hon. Friend the Minister of State than 1 have. I served with him in the European Parliament and believe that he is a good fisheries Minister and a good friend of the fishing industry. My view is backed by the actions that he has taken in the interests of fishermen, not just in my constituency, but throughout the country. However, 1 have the greatest reservations about the Bill and cannot support it in the Lobby tonight. There are many reasons for that, some of which have been rehearsed by the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley). The Bill's defects have also been highlighted in the barrage of interventions to which my hon. Friend the Minister was subjected during his speech.
The measure will result in an administrative nightmare. I cannot see how, even with an increase of 60 man years, such a system can be enforced and policed around the coasts. There is no chance of implementing this measure in respect of the wretched boats that are on our register but are Spanish or Dutch-controlled, or flag-of-convenience vessels of other countries. There is no way in which they will be subjected to a days-at-sea limitation. For that reason alone, I believe that there is ground for not supporting the Bill.
It goes further than that, however. My hon. Friend the Minister made a point of saying that the Bill was merely an enabling measure. I was glad when the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) pounced on him; if he had not done so, 1 would have. Under cross-examination, my hon. Friend admitted that he, or his successors—he, of course, is a reasonable man, but his successors may be less reasonable—could impose any restriction that he or they pleased on days at sea without the matter returning to the House. I cannot agree with such a proposal: it is wrong and unrealistic. Moreover, action is to be taken unilaterally. Our fishermen will be subject to restrictions, whereas fishermen in most European countries probably will not.
It is not good enough for my hon. Friend the Minister to say, as he did earlier, that the aim is to protect our own interests and our own fish stocks. It is true that, in some areas and some species, we have the overwhelming bulk of the quotas, but I am told that, in area 7—the south-west of England—our quotas amount to just 10 per cent. of total allowable catches. I believe that fishermen from other countries will continue to fish while our boats are tied up, and politically that is not on: there will be uproar among our fishermen if it happens. I would not mind so much if this were a European measure, imposed in uniform terms and enforced across the Community. I do not believe, however, that it is right to impose such a measure when other fishermen are not subject to the same restrictions.
I was pleased to hear my hon. Friend's assurance that he would implement the measure flexibly, taking account of all the difficulties encountered by fishermen; but, with respect, I do not feel that he is in a position to give such a pledge. As my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman) pointed out, bad weather can be very localised. For example, there is a world of difference between the weather on the north coast of Cornwall and the weather on the south coast. I do not believe that it is beyond the wit of my hon. Friend, and his administrators in the Ministry, to take account of such factors in implementing the restrictions.
59 Many hon. Members will remember the difficulties that we all encountered when milk quotas were introduced—particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Cornwall, South-East (Mr. Hicks). Those quotas were fixed according to a baseline. Farmer after farmer came to tell us, "That baseline caused me particular disadvantage, because of such-and-such a set of circumstances." If we fix the 1991 baseline in this enabling legislation and the measures that flow from it, exactly the same will happen: fisherman after fisherman will come to us and say, "During 1991 my boat had to be laid up, and I could not go to sea for such-and-such a reason."
I was reassured to learn that an appeal system would be introduced, but I fear that that will add enormously to the administrative difficulties. I wonder whether my hon. Friend has considered what he is embarking on.

§ Mr. A. J. Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed)
Is it not an extraordinary move to establish an appeal system that has no statutory basis? No such system is included in the Bill.

§ Mr. Harris
That may be true, but I have great respect for my hon. Friend, and I am sure that he will set up such a system; indeed, he has given the House a pledge to that effect. I am merely saying that I expect the hearing and handling of such appeals to present enormous difficulties. After all, there will be a good many of them.
We all realise that conservation measures must be painful. I entirely agree with my hon. Friend in that regard, and I do not entirely accept the view of the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations—from which we have all received representations—that the legislation will sound the death knell of our fishing fleet. I do believe, however, that it will cause difficulties for many fishermen—certain types of fisherman. We should also remember that some of the fishermen on whom my hon. Friend intends to impose restrictions—I am not quite sure how, but they may be imposed on a geographical basis and involve a large number of boats—will probably not be fishing against quota in respect of some species. I wonder about the logic of that.
What really frightened me, however, was my hon. Friend's statement that the powers in the Bill would enable him—or, rather, his successors; he said that he would not use them—to extend the restrictions to all types of fishing boat, however small. Is that really sensible? Is it defensible? Is my hon. Friend really saying that small boats operating from coves such as Penberth, in my constituency, should be affected? The sea is practically flat there, and any little swell means that the fishermen cannot put to sea. Are they to face even the possibility of restrictions when they have to pick their fishing days with such care? It simply is not on. I beg my hon. Friend to reconsider.
I accept that measures must be introduced and that, if they are to work, they must be painful. I also believe, however, especially in the present climate of distrust and difficulty among our fishermen, that such measures must be seen to be as fair as possible. There must be equity between different types of fisherman, and, especially, between our fishermen and those of other countries.
I do not believe that the industry will wear this, and I think that it is right not to wear it. The Bill is already anathema to our fishermen, and—as I said earlier—it will not receive my support.

§ Mr. Robert Hughes: (Aberdeen, North)
I believe that all of us, except hon. Members who are new to debates such as this, are experiencing a sense of déjà vu. Here we are again, trying to marry conservation issues with stability in the fishing industry. I have sad news for new Members: in 12 months' time, we shall be back again, examining the whole package and trying to find out where we are. Yet all of us want stability.
New Members will note another recurring theme. The processing side of the industry will constantly say that its needs are never considered. I appreciate that view; all too often in our debates, the really important people neglected turn out to be the consumers—and the consumers can secure a decent deal for a wholesome and healthy food only if there are fish to be caught. It is a circular argument.
I make no apology for saying that we can never solve the problems, however we view them, unless we can bring about stability on the catching side. That is the side on which I wish to concentrate. On 2 June, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland—the hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro)—sent me a letter which was probably sent to every Scottish Member. The letter was intended to be helpful; it set out the various aspects of Government policy, and the various other issues pertaining to the industry allied to the Bill. I am sorry to have to say to the Minister that the last two sentences of the letter show breathtaking complacency. He said: These measures will give the United Kingdom the most comprehensive fisheries conservation and management policy in the European Community. They are based on the central recognition that conservation, capacity and effort controls have to he dealt with as complementary measures. No one would quarrel with the last sentence but, as is so often the case, alas, the rhetoric does not match up to the reality of the proposals.
The Government resisted, week in and week out in the House during the last Parliament, calls for a decent decommissioning scheme. Finally, in the pre-election scramble for votes the Government decided that they had better do something, so they brought forward proposals for discussion.

§ Mr. Salmond
Perhaps the most surprising aspect of the letter is that included among those who in the past had called for an adequately-funded decommissioning scheme was the hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro).

§ Mr. Hughes
I do not cast that in the Minister's face. Any Back Bencher who has become a Minister must have said something in the past which is then thrown in his face. The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) should not therefore be too hard on the Minister. Nevertheless, it is a good debating point, just like the Minister's final defence of acting unilaterally by invoking the well-liked principle of subsidiarity when it came to the European Commission.

§ Mr. Beith
Will the hon. Gentleman allow me to intervene?

§ Mr. Hughes
I am anxious not to give way too much, bearing in mind the strictures of the Chair about taking too long, since there is no 10-minute rule. This will be the last intervention that I shall allow.