Fisheries

§ Madam Speaker

I have selected the amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition.

There is great pressure to speak in the debate, so I have imposed a 10-minute limit on all Back-Bench speeches. I plead with Front Benchers to keep in mind the number of hon. Members who I know wish to speak.

§ The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Michael Forsyth)

I beg to move,

That this House takes note of the unnumbered Explanatory Memorandum, submitted by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on 8th December 1995, relating to the fixing of total allowable catches for 1996 and certain conditions under which they may be fished; and supports the Government's intention to negotiate the best possible fishing opportunities for British fishermen consistent with scientific advice and the need to sustain the stocks for the benefit of future generations of fishermen. On Thursday the Fisheries Ministers of the European Union will meet to decide the 1996 quotas for fish stocks. Today's debate allows the House to consider these matters and to scrutinise the relevant documents, which are set out in the Order Paper. Already this year the House has had a number of debates on fisheries. Earlier in the year and again in October, it considered proposals for limiting fishing effort in waters west of the United Kingdom. More recently my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) succeeded in raising his concerns about the common fisheries policy in an Adjournment debate.

The main focus for today's debate are the proposals which the Council of Fisheries Ministers will consider later this week in Brussels to determine the fishing opportunities for the various fleets of the Community next year. I am delighted to have this opportunity to open the debate. As I made plain when I attended the meeting of the Council of Fisheries Ministers in October when the final critical decisions were taken on the arrangements for western waters, I attach great importance to the prospects for the industry which is so important to remote communities, not just in Scotland but around the whole coastline of the United Kingdom.

I was brought up in Arbroath on the north-east coast of Scotland and I well recall the vibrancy of the harbour and the fish market, and the community spirit that was encapsulated in the local fishing fleet. It is a great sadness to me personally to see how the industry has changed over the past 20 years. Looking back only 10 or 15 years, one 1349 sees that the volume of the main white fish landings in the United Kingdom was little short of twice the volume that we can expect next year.

If there is to be a single measure of the success of the European common fisheries policy it should be the health of our fish stocks. On that, plainly, the jury is still out. Some 60 per cent. of those stocks are considered by the scientists to be at risk biologically. That means that the stocks are below or at about the lowest level which has been seen over the 30 years during which they have been subject to close scientific monitoring. That statistic tells its own story about the performance of the common fisheries policy.

Some hon. Members may argue that the state of the stocks is not as bad as the scientists advise. There may be some truth in that because fishery science is not an exact science. At the Council we shall certainly take into account the views of the fishermen in pressing for changes to the Commission's proposals, but I do not think that anyone can dispute the overall conclusion that our stocks are not in the same healthy state as they were 10 or 15 years ago.

§ Mr. Christopher Gill (Ludlow)

Does my right hon. Friend accept that the fundamental problem with the common fisheries policy is the principle of equal access to the common resource? Does he agree that that works very much to the detriment of the British fishing industry? Will he assure the House that the Government will go to the intergovernmental conference next year determined to see this written out of the regulations? Will they serve notice now on our European partners that that is our bottom line?

§ Mr. Forsyth

I have considerable sympathy with what my hon. Friend says. I think his point is that the idea of equal access to a common resource is more of an aspiration than a reality. In practice the principle of relative stability, for example, has been contrary to that. I assure my hon. Friend that the Minister of State will fight hard for British interests at the Council meeting, as he has always done in the past.

§ Mr. Gill

I thank my right hon. Friend for giving way again. I listened with interest to his answer but I should like to press him on the point. Will he serve notice now on our European partners that we will accept nothing less than a writing out of the fisheries regulations all the references to equal access to a common resource?

§ Mr. Forsyth

We have never had equal access and we have no intention of accepting that principle. I hope that that helps my hon. Friend to some degree.

§ Mr. John Wilkinson (Ruislip-Northwood)

I am most grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way—he has been most courteous as usual. Is not the fundamental problem that fisheries policy is subject to qualified majority voting? For the British, who have maritime interests just like the Icelanders and Norwegians, of paramount national importance is the fact that land-locked countries such as Luxembourg and Austria, and Mediterranean countries too, can have a vote on our Atlantic fisheries, which is clearly preposterous.

§ Mr. Forsyth

I read with interest my hon. Friend's comments in the Adjournment debate that he secured some weeks ago. I can say to him only that there are, 1350 of course, deficiencies in the common fisheries policy, but that, at the end of the day, we simply must find a means whereby we can meet the requirements to conserve stocks. Whatever the system, whether we are out of the CFP or not, we will have to proceed by negotiation and agreement. There is the opportunity for my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to achieve a good deal for Britain's fishermen. I am sure that he will take that opportunity when it comes.

§ Mr. Tony Marlow (Northampton, North)

While my right hon. Friend is giving way, it is probably helpful if he gets interventions out of the way at the same time. My hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill) talked about the intergovernmental conference. I do not think that anyone in the House finds the common fisheries policy satisfactory. Will my right hon. Friend give the House an undertaking that the Government will consider putting the problems of that policy before the IGC?

§ Mr. Forsyth

I am not sure what my hon. Friend is seeking to get me to do. If he is suggesting that we should seek to amend the treaty, with his own knowledge of these matters, he will know how difficult that would be to achieve, and I will deal with that later. Of course, there is the opportunity by regulation—which, as has been pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood, requires agreement by qualified majority voting—for us to achieve the forms and changes. I hope that I will take those opportunities, as will my hon. Friend the Minister of State as the negotiations proceed.

There is only one answer to our predicament: the need for more effective conservation. Fishing activity is the single biggest factor in deciding the fish mortality level. We must collectively face up to the need to reduce fishing's impact on fish stocks. The need to limit fishing activity's scope was recognised many years ago, long before the United Kingdom joined the European Economic Community, and well before the common fisheries policy was agreed. In the 1960s, the establishment of the North-East Atlantic Fisheries Commission brought together the countries in this part of the world to co-operate on fish stocks conservation. That commission, not the European Commission, brought together Fisheries Ministers, with the benefit of scientific advice, to decide total allowable catches for the main stocks of interest to the commercial fishing fleets.

§ Dr. Norman A. Godman (Greenock and Port Glasgow)

If the Secretary of State is not going to campaign for radical common fisheries policy reform by way, for example, of greater emphasis on regional and national management of local fisheries stocks, will he give the House an assurance that he will campaign for far tougher policing on fishing grounds? What discussions has he had recently with Norwegian authorities in terms of tougher policing, the doubling of fines, the confiscation of licences and the banning sine die of vessels caught fishing illegally?

§ Mr. Forsyth

I agree with the hon. Gentleman that it is important that we have effective enforcement. We are spending some £26 million on that and my hon. Friend the Minister is anxious to improve our performance in that matter. The hon. Gentleman makes an important point.

§ Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow)

On the scientific aspects of the matter, what will be done to induce Poland, Japan and Korea to become signatories to the United Nations conference on straddling fish stocks and highly migratory fish stocks, an important resolution that we have agreed and that they have not?

§ Mr. Forsyth

The hon. Gentleman is raising a slightly different issue from that which we are discussing this afternoon, but he makes a crucial point: the importance of international co-operation in dealing with fish stocks and of recognising in this debate that fish do not recognise international boundaries. Despite that fact, I am sure that—with your indulgence, Madam Speaker—my hon. Friend the Minister of State will address the hon. Gentleman's question when he winds up the debate.

The proposals that Fisheries Ministers—

§ Mr. Alex Salmond (Banff and Buchan)

rose—

§ Mr. Forsyth

I shall give way, but for the last time.

§ Mr. Salmond

Many observers would accept the fact that Spain, from within the European Union, and Norway, negotiating from outside, seem to be remarkably more successful in achieving their fisheries objectives than are Her Majesty's Government. Can the Secretary of State explain why, and tell us what he intends to do about it?

§ Mr. Forsyth

As on so many subjects, such as the Scottish budget, I refute the hon. Gentleman's analysis. He lives in a world in which he believes what he wants to believe; he does not seem to take account of the facts.

The proposals—

§ Mr. Calum Macdonald (Western Isles)

rose—

§ Mr. Forsyth

I said that I was giving way for the last time, but as it is the hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald) who wishes to intervene, I shall make an exception. But this really is the last time.

§ Mr. Macdonald

With regard to the imbalance in enforcement between Spain and the United Kingdom, why is it justifiable and acceptable to the British Government that Spain has only 12 fisheries officers to police its regime, whereas we have more than 200?

§ Mr. Forsyth

The hon. Gentleman is not right about that.

§ Dr. Godman

He is.

§ Mr. Forsyth

He is not. The Spanish have been increasing the number of their fisheries officers—[HON. MEMBERS: "How many are there?"] However, I certainly share the hon. Gentleman's concern that that should be done, and my hon. Friend—[Interruption.] I do not know what Opposition Members are shouting about. They were the first to come forward and argue for Spanish accession, and I do not recall any of them saying anything about fishing during those debates.

The proposals that Fisheries Ministers will consider this week—

§ Rev. Ian Paisley (North Antrim)

If what the Secretary of State says is true, why does the European Community's own document inform us that the annual number of surveillance hours by Spain is 50, whereas for our country the figure is 4,800 hours?

§ Mr. Forsyth

Well—[Interruption.] Any advance on 50? I said that the numbers were increasing and I entirely agree about the importance of that development. Opposition Members' concern for the policing of fisheries interests is somewhat belated—I shall deal with that subject later.

The proposals that Fisheries Ministers will consider this week are, and have to be, based on the scientific advice received by the Advisory Committee on Fisheries Management. The United Kingdom plays a full part in contributing to that international scientific advice.

The advice that we received this year points to the need for major new restrictions on catches of herring and mackerel, and on the plaice fisheries in the North sea. The scientists have also advised that we should continue to restrict catches of the main round fish stocks—scod, haddock and whiting—throughout the seas around the United Kingdom.

The Commission has had to take account of that advice in developing its own proposals. For stocks that the Community manages jointly with Norway, there has been a series of bilateral negotiations, which were conducted toughly on both sides. The agreement reached in the early morning of 9 December provides for a two-year programme of phased cuts in the total allowable catch for herring, mackerel and plaice. The cuts in quota for those species next year will be about 30 per cent. The agreement also provides for broadly stable TACs for cod, haddock and saithe, but for a significant cut in the North sea whiting catch.

§ Mr. John Townend (Bridlington)

Will the Secretary of State give way?

§ Mr. Forsyth

I said that I would not give way again. I shall give way to my hon. Friend, but this really must be the last time, Madam Speaker.

§ Mr. Townend

I have some sympathy with my right hon. Friend; he cannot be blamed for the betrayal of the British fishing industry by the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath). Does my right hon. Friend accept that the common fisheries policy, as based on the representations of the scientists, proves that the fisheries policy has been an unmitigated disaster?

If the system had worked, we would have seen quotas increasing year on year. But when it dictates that tens of thousands of good fish be discarded back into the sea to die, there is something wrong with it. Surely the final nail must be when the House legislates to protect the British fishing industry, and is then taken to court and asked to pay £30 million in damages. That is surely the end.

§ Mr. Forsyth

It is not within the power of this House to legislate to put more fish in the sea. Our basic problem is that we are having to deal with too many people chasing too few fish. I do not think that the sort of comments which my hon. Friend the Member for Bridlington (Mr. Townend) has made about my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath) add to the debate or get us further forward in seeking to address the difficult problems. Whether we were in the CFP or not, the issue of stocks would have to be addressed, and I hope that we can turn our attention to that matter this afternoon. 1353 The other fishing opportunities which the Community has negotiated with third countries, such. as Iceland, the Faroes, Greenland, in the north-west Atlantic and north Norway offer our fishermen broadly the same opportunities as applied this year. Fisheries Ministers in the United Kingdom have maintained a close dialogue with the fishing industry throughout the run-up to the negotiations in the Council, and the Government will have regard to the advice that we have received from the industry.

We recognise that the cuts implied by the Commission's proposals entail sharp and large reductions in quotas and, in the short term, such swings must undermine confidence. We recognise that these cuts in quotas will have serious implications for fishermen's incomes, and all of us are sympathetic to their position. Some of the cuts will be offset by increases in prices, and that is apparent in the mackerel market at least.

My hon. Friend the Minister of State will be fighting hard to get the best deal possible for our fishermen, consistent with the need to protect the longer-term interests of the industry. I am also aware that hon. Members have a number of specific concerns on matters of particular interest to the fishermen in East Anglia, in the south-west of England and in Northern Ireland. My hon. Friend will of course address these.

The Government share the values of the British fishermen. We respect their qualities of independence, enterprise and self-reliance. We believe in minimising the burden of regulation by the state, and allowing fishermen as much freedom as possible within the constraints necessary to conserve fish stocks. We demonstrated that only days ago when we withdrew the obligation on fishermen to report in as they crossed the 4 deg. west line in the north of Scotland.

I am well aware that many fishermen do not believe that they have been well served by the Community's common fisheries policy. Most of them recognise that the CFP has not been successful in conserving fish stocks. They point to the burden of regulation under which they now work. They do not believe that that burden is being applied fairly throughout the Community. They feel that their fishing rights are increasingly insecure because they believe that the CFP is founded on a principle of equal access by all Community fishermen to fish stocks throughout the Community waters. My hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill) made that point.

I understand fishermen's fears, but we should not underestimate our success in maintaining relative stability, in limiting access to our territorial waters and in applying effective controls on Spanish access and fishing efforts in western waters. These are successes which we have achieved within the Community, and which cut across the principle of equal access.

Those who argue that we could deal with these threats to the rights of our fishermen by abandoning the CFP need to consider carefully the practicalities and the costs of that course. I am sure that my hon. Friends who advocate this do not want the UK to act in breach of treaty obligations entered into with the approval of the House. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh yes we do."] My hon. Friends are the first to argue for the rule of law.

Renegotiating the treaty to exclude fisheries from the scope of Community competence would be a monumental and probably impossible task. It would require unanimity 1354 and ratification by all member states, and that could be bought only at a huge price. We cannot assume that we would be successful in such a high-risk strategy. Reforming the CFP only requires changes in regulations by qualified majority voting. We also need to recognise the practical needs of managing fish stocks that we share with our neighbours, which means that some sort of common fisheries policy will still be needed.

§ Mr. Austin Mitchell (Great Grimsby)

Will the Secretary of State give way?

§ Mr. Forsyth

I have been generous in giving way, and Madam Speaker is keen that we make progress. I know that the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) does not share the view of Opposition Front-Bench Members on these matters.

It would be far more realistic and effective to work for improvements within the CFP, and that is our strategy. Those who argue that we should seek to co-operate behind the barriers of 200-mile fisheries limits must have forgotten the lessons learnt painfully during the early years of the North East Atlantic Fisheries Commission. The common fisheries policy offers us a substantial improvement on the voluntary and ineffective system epitomised by the North East Atlantic Fisheries Commission. Those who think that Norway offers us a model for managing our fisheries should study that model more closely before they assume that it could be easily or costlessly replicated here.

The fishing industry does not need bogus options. What is needed is the courage to face up to the real issues, and to recognise the practical realities and the real opportunities to improve the working of the common fisheries policy. That is why Fisheries Ministers have initiated a review of the CFP. This is a review not by the Commission, but by an independent British group. It has been drawn from the fishing industry, the processors, the scientists and the environmental interests. I understand that members of that independent group expect to report early next year. I look forward to seeing their findings, because there will be opportunities to carry forward changes to the CFP without waiting till the next major review, in 2002.

That is also why the Government have committed substantial sums—£53 million over five years—to decommissioning older fishing vessels, and reducing fishing capacity towards the targets which we have accepted in the multi-annual guidance programme. It is also why the Government have led the fight to resist the cumbersome and bureaucratic proposals that the Commission advances for fisheries management, most recently for regulating fishing efforts in western waters. My hon. Friend the Minister of State will be able to talk about some of those initiatives and opportunities later in the debate.

Underpinning all that work is a fundamental need to ensure that the fishermen and their representatives are drawn more closely into the process of managing their fisheries. That is something to which Fisheries Ministers in the United Kingdom are firmly committed.

I despair of the Opposition amendments. This month the Liberals are suggesting that we advance the next review of the CFP. Only last month, the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) saw no need for that in an Adjournment debate.

§ Mr. James Wallace (Orkney and Shetland)

indicated dissent.

§ Mr. Michael Forsyth

The hon. Gentleman shakes his head, but he said:

The common fisheries policy should comprise a host of other detailed matters. I welcome the review group and look forward with interest to the outcome. The year 2002 will come upon us sooner than we think, and we must begin to put in place the measures that we want to see by then."—[Official Report, 22 November 1995; Vol. 267, c. 585.] As for Labour, whose members pose as the fishermen's friend, what has it understood about fisheries policy? Nothing that I can see in the amendment. What has it to contribute to the reform of the CFP? Does not it recall its acquiescence in the 1986 Iberian Treaty of Accession? The hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) said:

We welcome the accession of Spain and Portugal. It is the right move for the Community and for Spain and Portugal. We welcome it because we recognise the merits of those two new democracies joining the rest of Europe and facing Europe's problems with us. He continued:

The Opposition do not welcome accession blindly, ignorantly or oblivious of the difficulties and anxieties."—[Official Report, 10 December 1985; Vol. 88, c. 883.] The Opposition seem all too keen to gainsay what the hon. Gentleman said then. That treaty provided for the special protection of the Irish box to end at the end of this year. If the Government had done nothing, the Spanish boats would have been free to enter the whole of the Irish box outside territorial waters. Do not the Opposition understand that the deal that we negotiated last year maintains some protection for these sensitive waters; that it maintains the exclusion of the Spanish from the North sea; that it caps Spanish fishing effort in the west at the levels provided for in their Act of Accession? There is no Spanish armada, and that is a measure of our success: not walking away from the CFP but improving it from within.

What of conservation? I do not recall much about that in the Labour party's last manifesto—(Interruption.] The hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) knows that there was nothing in it. Nor was there anything in the manifesto for the European Parliament, or in Labour's actions when in office during the 1970s. Indeed, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Dr. Strang) was a Minister at the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food at the time. I do not recall that he or his colleagues did much to assist the fishing industry then.

Of course we recognise the need for effective conservation. We have committed £53 million to decommissioning. We have pursued the difficult agenda of limiting fishing effort.

There is a difference between the amendments tabled by my hon. Friends and the Opposition Front-Bench amendment. My hon. Friends are motivated by conviction and a passionate concern to ensure that the Government fight for British interests. I am prepared to accept that some Labour Members are similarly motivated; but the amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition is in another league altogether. It seeks to criticise the Government for not getting a good enough deal for our fishermen, yet every time the Government put the UK's interests first and fight for them, Labour leaders are to be found lining up with their socialist friends on the continent to denounce Britain for standing alone. When the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East and his colleagues 1356 were in office, so afraid were they of standing up to our partners that they allowed Brussels to filch massive sums from the pockets of UK taxpayers. Only when Baroness Thatcher took office was a substantial rebate secured.

To be fair, a handful of Opposition Members could, in all sincerity, have put their names to the amendment—but they are not among those whose names appear on the Order Paper. The amendment has not been framed to keep the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) on side—far from it. It is simply a squalid exercise in synthetic patriotism by those whose sole objective is to try to entice some of my hon. Friends to withhold their support from the Government, so that the Opposition can hasten the day when they obtain power to deliver these islands, lock, stock and barrel, to the forces of federalism.

It is nauseating to see the party which for decades has clothed itself in the red flag now seeking to wrap itself in the Union flag; whereas in reality Labour would sail under a white flag and be forced to abandon our fishermen to the party's vision of an ever more integrated Europe.

I am the first to acknowledge the degree of concern among my hon. Friends. I must tell them and the communities they represent that we understand their anxieties, and that we have fought, and will always fight, for their right to fish the waters around our shores—consistent with maintaining adequate fish stocks. My hon. Friends' determination will command respect among the fishing communities of Britain, but I appeal to them not to risk compromising that respect by associating themselves with a bunch of sell-out merchants whose earlier crimes have already resulted in a sentence of 16 years on the Opposition Benches. Nothing in their behaviour suggests that they deserve any remission; indeed an extension of the sentence would seem to be the only answer.

The Minister of State will speak for the United Kingdom's fishermen. He will fight for their interests and for those of the United Kingdom generally. Let this House send out the clearest signal that we are united in our determination not just to get the best deal on quotas but to achieve a long-term solution which offers this vital industry the security that it deserves.

§ Dr. Gavin Strang (Edinburgh, East)

I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof: believes that the agreements of the Council of Fisheries Ministers, allowing Spanish fishing vessels into the Irish Box and allowing increased access for Spanish fishing vessels to the waters of the west of the United Kingdom, present an unacceptable threat to the long-term economic viability of fishing communities in England, Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland, and place unsustainable pressure upon the fish stocks in these already sensitive waters; recognises the failure of the United Kingdom Government to implement a decommissioning policy until 1993, and notes that Ministers only abandoned their unfair, unpopular and unworkable days-at-sea proposal after the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations challenged the Government in the European Court of Justice; concludes that the United Kingdom Government has not effectively represented in Europe the interests of the United Kingdom fishing industry, and has failed to implement in the United Kingdom a fisheries policy that is in the interests of the United Kingdom fishing industry; recognises that the over-riding priority of the Common Fisheries Policy must be the conservation of fish stocks, for only through healthy stocks can the fishing industry survive; believes that the Common Fisheries Policy in its present 1357 form does not adequately meet this priority; and calls on the United Kingdom Government to work in Europe to secure reforms of the Common Fisheries Policy to ensure the conservation and fair allocation of fish stocks throughout the European Union, with effective enforcement by all member states. The House will be aware that this is the major annual fisheries debate of the parliamentary year. It precedes the important December meeting of the Council of Fisheries Ministers, which is to agree total allowable catches, quotas and other changes to the workings of the common fisheries policy.

I welcome the Secretary of State for Scotland to our debate. I hope that there is nothing to be read into the fact that the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food left halfway through the Secretary of State's remarks. We shall assume that he had another engagement.

The Secretary of State referred to the 1992 Labour party manifesto. My hon. Friend the Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley), who will wind up for the Opposition, may refer to the fisheries document we issued, but I do not think that we should spend much time arguing about the 1992 manifestos. [Interruption.] There is a difference between a Government who win on their manifesto, and a party that loses on its manifesto. [Interruption.] Perhaps Conservative Members do not know the constitutional position. Oppositions are not bound by their manifestos; Governments are.

The Conservative party manifesto for 1992 states:

We are determined to see that the renegotiation of the Common Fisheries Policy protects the interest of UK fishermen and retains our share of the Community's fishing opportunities. Who in the House believes that the Government have delivered on that? Not a single fisherman in the country does. I have spoken to fishermen's leaders from Plymouth to Lerwick today, and they support the amendment standing in the name of Leader of the Opposition.

§ Mr. Phil Gallie (Ayr)

I do not believe that fishermen's federations, certainly in Scotland, support the Opposition's amendment, for one reason in particular. The debate is about total allowable catches. There is not one mention of them in the Opposition amendment. Would the hon. Gentleman like to explain that?

§ Dr. Strang

Yes, I will come to the issue of total allowable catches and quotas. I know that the Government would like the debate to be only about the quotas which are set every year, but it is not just about them. Everyone who knows about the protracted arguments and discussions that have taken place since the agreement last Christmas knows perfectly well that the arrangements which will come into force on 1 January 1996 are of crucial historic importance to our fishing industry, as I shall explain.

Right hon. and hon. Members who represent fishing constituencies will be well aware that the stocks in those waters are already under immense pressure and are crucial to our fishing industry. The priority must be to conserve our stocks. There should be less, not more, fishing effort in those areas.

As this is the right hon. Gentleman's first UK fisheries debate as Secretary of State for Scotland, may I draw his attention to the words of the then Minister of State, who is now Financial Secretary to the Treasury, on going into the negotiations in October 1993 on the question of additional Spanish access to the waters around our islands?

1358 Far from saying that increased access and effort was inevitable, the hon. Gentleman said that Spanish and Portuguese fishing activities should be confined as closely as possible to their historic patterns, and that there should be no access to the Irish box. He was quite right. Access to those waters should have been based on historic fishing activity. The fact is that the deal was a reflection of the Government's failure to represent the UK national interest in Europe.

The Government had had since 1985, when the Spanish terms of accession were agreed, to secure support in Europe for a just deal. In the event, the then Minister of State was not able to persuade a single other member state to refrain from voting in favour of the deal. It is true that, under the Spanish accession treaty, it was necessary to renegotiate the Irish box by the end of 1995, but we did not have to make arrangements for additional Spanish access to other waters around the UK by that deadline. Under the accession treaty, those arrangements did not have to be in place until 2002.

Ministers have still not adequately explained why the Government accepted that additional Spanish access should be effective from 1996 as opposed to 2002— [Interruption.]

§ Sir Teddy Taylor (Southend, East)

rose—

§ Dr. Strang

I heard the hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) make a sedentary intervention, but, as the hon. Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) is on his feet, I shall give way to him.

§ Sir Teddy Taylor

I do not wish to be unkind, because I like the hon. Gentleman very much—[HoN. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—I mean that sincerely. As no British Government, irrespective of which party is in power, have the right now to make decisions of that sort and say what will happen with regard to Spanish access, would it not be wiser to try to help the fishing industry out of this absurd constitutional mess rather than engage in political games? Does the hon. Gentleman realise that no fishermen, whether in Scotland or England, will be happy seeing their politicians slinging mud at each other when there is little that any British Government can now do?

§ Dr. Strang

I do not accept that there is little that any British Government can do, and nor will the fishermen's leaders. However, the hon. Gentleman's point has some merit. I agree that the fishermen's leaders, and fishermen who are watching this debate, do not want to see mud slinging, and I do not intend to sling mud, but I must explain what has happened in recent years.

§ Mr. Patrick Nicholls (Teignbridge)

Will the hon. Gentleman give way on that point?

§ Dr. Strang

I shall give way for the last time.

§ Mr. Nicholls

How on earth can the hon. Gentleman expect the fishermen or anyone in the House to take seriously his suggestion that something radical should be done, when, during the five years that he was a Fisheries Minister, at a time when we were not crippled by qualified majority voting, he achieved precisely nothing?

§ Dr. Strang

I was never a Fisheries Minister, but I accept collective responsibility for all the decisions of that Government.

§ Mr. Michael Forsyth

What were you, then?

§ Dr. Strang

I shall tell the Minister where I was. I was in the Department of Energy and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.

I do not want to spend much time discussing history, because, as the hon. Member for Southend, East rightly reminded the House, the fishermen are not looking for mud slinging. I remind the hon. Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) that that Labour Government did not take the crucial decisions on the common fisheries policy. Indeed, previous Ministers of Agriculture have criticised the Labour Government for not settling. The House will understand that the settlement came after the Conservative party came to power.

I wish to be fair. The decisions implicit in our entry into the European Community under the leadership of the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath) were important in relation to setting the stage for the common fisheries policy. But let us stick to the historical facts. The Government have not represented the interests of our fishing industry in Europe, and their record at home is just as bad.

In the past three years, four Ministers of Agriculture have each made their mark on our fishing industry without dealing with any of the problems facing the industry. First, the present Secretary of State for the Environment, the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer), was the mastermind of the unfair, unpopular and unworkable tie-up regime. The Government's tie-up regime was so iniquitous that the High Court referred it to the European Court of Justice. So this year, we had the demeaning spectacle of the UK Government fighting the UK fishing industry in the European courts.

On 17 October, the Minister of State, who is in his place, finally announced that the Government would not, after all, implement the tie-up regime. We welcomed that announcement. The Secretary of State for the Environment also deprived our industry of a decommissioning scheme for many years while other industries in Europe had that option. Five years ago, he said:

decommissioning is not the way to reduce the pressure on fish stocks".—[Official Report, 13 December 1990; Vol. 182, c. 1171.] The right hon. Gentleman was running scared, following the appalling mismanagement of the Government's previous scheme.

Finally, the Minister bowed to pressure—from the industry, from Members of Parliament representing fishing constituencies and from the official Opposition—and introduced a decommissioning scheme in 1993. Unfortunately, that scheme was so small that the Agriculture Select Committee concluded that the cuts achieved would

be more than offset by efficiency gains in the remainder of the fleet". Then we had the right hon. Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard) and her bright new dawn. She was going to listen to the industry. In July 1993, the Government invited the industry to submit conservation proposals for technical conservation measures. The industry co-operated, and submitted detailed proposals. Two and a half years later, not a word in response has been heard from the Government.

1360 Then we had the right hon. Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Waldegrave). It was he who negotiated the deal on Spanish access—and abstained on it, and came back and told the House what a great deal it was.

To the right hon. Gentleman's credit, however, he made one commendable commitment. In January 1995, as hon. Members will recall, the Labour party forced a debate to condemn the deal on Spanish access. To prevent a Government defeat in the House of Commons, the right hon. Gentleman announced that £28 million would be added to the £25 million that had already been allocated for decommissioning.

Decommissioning is not a panacea. It has an important part to play in reducing fishing effort to help conserve our fish stocks, but surely the Secretary of State for Scotland and his ministerial colleagues understand that it is unacceptable that we should be decommissioning vessels to facilitate additional fishing opportunities in waters around the UK for the fishing industry of one of our European partners—in this case, Spain.

I guess that that additional money provided for decommissioning made the vote in the House of Commons on 18 January 1995 one of the most expensive votes that the Government have ever had in the House of Commons.

Of course, the Government give with one hand and take away with the other. Our new Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the right hon. and learned Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg), slipped into this year's Budget the announcement that the Government are to refuse to launch in England the European Union grant schemes for fisheries processing and marketing, port facilities and aquaculture production. The Minister also scrapped the national fishing harbour grant scheme.

That is the Government's record. They have imposed unfair and unworkable regulations on our fishing industry. They have failed effectively to represent the industry in Europe. The real problems and issues that have confronted our fishing industry for many years remain unaddressed by the Government.

One outstanding matter is an obligation to cut our fleet. Like all other EU member states, the UK must cut its fleet capacity under the multi-annual guidance programme. The present round began in 1992 and must be completed in 1996. As a result of the Government's past failures, we are expected to cut our fleet by 19 per cent. from 1991 levels by the end of next year.

The European Commission estimates that, by the end of last year, we had reduced our fleet by only 5 per cent. The latest figures show that, by the end of next year, we shall have reduced our fleet by about 10 per cent. in total.

That leaves 9 per cent. of the fleet that the Minister is supposed to get rid of between now and the end of 1996. I address my remarks to the Minister of State, who will reply to the debate, although I can understand that he has slipped back a row or two. Will the Minister describe to us the way in which he proposes to find the extra 9 per cent. fleet reductions? Is he just waiting for our fishermen to go bankrupt? I hope that, when he winds up, the Minister of State will set out what he expects the consequences to be if the Government fail to meet the UK's requirement under the multi-annual guidance programme.

It is becoming clear that the current common fisheries policy is fundamentally flawed. Its priority must be the 1361 conservation of fish stocks, but that is not the priority. Across Europe, too many boats still chase too few fish—that is not controversial.

§ Mrs. Teresa Gorman (Billericay)

rose—

§ Dr. Strang

I did say that I had given way for the last time, but I will give way to the hon. Lady, so that she can make an intervention rather than interrupt me from a sedentary position.

§ Mrs. Gorman

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, where there is a common resource such as the fishing territory, there will always be exploitation? If he genuinely wants to prevent our fishing fleet from being cut still further, he should support the amendment tabled in my name and that of 17 of my colleagues. It calls for a 200-mile exclusive fishing zone around our coast where adequate, or to the median line, which would give our fishermen the equivalent of private territory in which to continue to ply their trade.

§ Dr. Strang

I think that the hon. Lady understands that the Opposition do not support the policy that I believe she espouses: withdrawal from the common fisheries policy, and possibly, withdrawal from the European Union itself. I should have thought that there was common ground on the subject of the additional Spanish access, and perhaps on other aspects of which I have been speaking this afternoon.

All member states have recognised the over-capacity, as has the UK fishing industry. As the Minister of State advised the House last month, nearly 60 per cent. of the main stocks in the waters we fish are at risk of biological collapse. The contentious issue is how to tackle the problem. The UK Government must take their share of the blame. Their recalcitrance over decommissioning, and the consequent failure to reduce pressure on stocks, will further hinder the chances of matching fishing effort to fish stocks.

Tonight we are debating proposals for next year's total allowable catches, which contain some heavy cuts which will be felt hard in various sectors of the UK fishing industry. There is particular concern at the effect of the cuts in North sea sole and plaice total allowable catches on our east coast industry. That is one problem that Ministers will face in the Fisheries Council later this week. My hon. Friend the Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe will address those matters in greater detail. It is not enough for the fishing industry across Europe to be hit by short-term annual attempts to rectify a long-term and worsening problem.

The common fisheries policy needs to be reformed, to make conservation the priority. There is clearly a need for a review of quota management.

§ Mr. David Wilshire (Spelthorne)

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

§ Dr. Strang

No, I will not.

The problem of discards has to be addressed; the need for conservation cannot be squared with the throwing back of dead fish. There is also a scientific aspect: total allowable catches and quotas should be based on scientific advice, and tempered by a political assessment of socio-economic needs. With that in mind, it makes no sense to cut the resources available to our scientists responsible for assessing the health of fish stocks.

1362 As the fiasco over the Government's tie-up regime made clear, fisheries policy cannot be reformed in the face of united opposition from the fishing industry. As I have said before of the common fisheries policy, the priority of conservation is far too often overridden by the drive to eliminate any preferential treatment of the various national fleets. Fishing industries in all member states must have absolute confidence that the management of their fisheries is carried out in their interests. The Labour party has been arguing for some time that there is a powerful case for greater national control for each member state within the framework of a reformed common fisheries policy.

§ The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Tony Baldry)

Will the hon. Gentleman explain to the House what he means by the phrase "the whole of national management"?

§ Dr. Strang

I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not suggesting that there is no prospect for reform of the common fisheries policy. I shall tell him what the phrase means, and in time I shall develop it further. It means that, in practice, we must move towards a system of management that is closer to our coastal waters and to our fishing communities. We suggest that that will mean greater involvement by national Governments. The hon. Gentleman may not understand what the phrase means, but the fishermen understand that we cannot go further down the same road.

The amendment is designed to advance the case of the fishing industry and the fishing communities throughout the United Kingdom. I appeal to all right hon. and hon. Members to support it.

§ Sir Edward Heath (Old Bexley and Sidcup)

Once again, the Government have devoted inadequate time to a debate on a very important subject. As a result, Madam Speaker, you are compelled to limit all speeches to 10 minutes until the wind-up. That gives those hon. Members who wish to do so little opportunity to discuss the subject seriously.

However, in my brief contribution I propose to deal with the abusive remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Bridlington (Mr. Townend), who ought to be ashamed of the way in which he degraded himself with his interruption. His comments follow the maniacal article by Christopher Booker, which appeared in yesterday's edition of the Daily Mail. The article's assertions are entirely false, and I shall deal with them now—although I shall have to go back in history further than other hon. Members have done so far in the debate.

Mr. Booker begins his article by referring to components of the "great fisheries disaster" of which he says:

the first, of course, being Sir Edward Heath, in 1972, signing away all the fish in Britain's waters as 'a common European resource'". There is no truth whatever in that statement. The principle was laid down by Act of Parliament, as were all principles. However, the policies to be followed were not laid down, and there was no common fisheries policy at that time—nor was one being discussed. That did not occur until 1983—10 years after I left office and my Government left power.

§ Mr. Nigel Spearing (Newham, South)

rose—

§ Sir Edward Heath

There is no time to allow interventions.

That is an entirely false statement about what happened at that time. Mr. Booker continues:

So secretively was this done (the House of Commons was kept in the dark) that Britain's desperate fishermen now openly accuse him of 'treason'". I make two points in response to that. First, my actions were not secretive; I have a record in my own papers. The principle was published, and it was open for debate in the House. We debated our proposed entry into the Community day after day in both Houses of Parliament. Anybody who knew about the principle and who wished to discuss it had an opportunity to do so. As the records show, the issue was not discussed by anyone because no one regarded it as objectionable. Therefore, it is a lie to say that we were secretive and held back information from the House.

Mr. Booker refers to fishermen now openly accusing me of treason. I take that assertion with a grain of salt. I was born by a fishing port. On my way to school, I would watch the fishermen coming into port, and I would stop to talk to them. There were no fishermen after the war; that had all finished. I then spent 15 years ocean racing, and for most of that time I captained British teams. [Laughter] It is no laughing matter; I had close contact with fishermen at that time. We could owe our lives to fishermen in certain circumstance; we knew that, and we maintained good relations with them. I am not a traitor to my country, although the hon. Member for Bridlington may think I am.

The policy formulation followed. We retained the 12-mile rule: six miles entirely for us and six miles for other fishermen. Under the negotiations, the latter six miles were limited to fishermen who were already fishing in those waters. So the countries with fishermen already there could keep them there. It was a perfectly workable arrangement that everyone accepted.

At the time, it suited us to keep the six-mile rule for other countries because our fishermen were getting a large amount of their catch in Icelandic waters, not in local waters. The bitter war over Icelandic fishing when we were in Government led to the stretch of Iceland and the matter was finally dealt with in 1976—after we left office—by the Hague agreement in which the stretch was extended to 200 miles for every country.

Now we are hearing glib suggestions that we should all go back to a 200-mile limit. Anyone can see that it is not workable today, as any fisherman will agree. The waters covering the European Union, the Mediterranean and the North sea overlap to such a large extent that we have to have an arrangement and the way to reach an arrange is through the European Union. That is what we are doing. The Government are quite right to pursue that endeavour and it can be achieved successfully.

The other argument concerns the amount of fishing that is possible. Any dispute between fishermen and those responsible should be sorted out by mutual discussion. The scientific adviser says that there ought to be some limitation. I heard fishermen say on television yesterday that there are masses of fish wherever they go. That can be sorted out without having an open row and suggestions that the fisheries policy should be abandoned. It is so unnecessary.

1364 After the Hague agreement in 1976, the first common fisheries policy was established in 1983 and has continued. People talk about the losses experienced by our fishermen as a result of the Government policy in 1970-73, but I have the figures that show the changes.

In 1970, the total catch by British vessels was 963,000 tonnes; in 1971 it was 964,000 tonnes; in 1972 it was 942,000 tonnes; in 1973 it was 998,000 tonnes and in 1974 it was 954,000 tonnes. Those figures are very similar and my Government were responsible for that power. It is why the article is false and the remarks by my hon. Friend the Member for Bridlington were abusive and I strongly object to them.

When we listen to the views of some of my hon. Friends today, we should note that there is a complete difference between the fishermen and the Euro-sceptics. Earlier today, a spokesman for the fishermen said that they wanted nothing whatever to do with Euro-sceptics. The fishermen value the European Union, and want a satisfactory arrangement within the European Union. The last thing they want to do is damage it.

§ Sir Richard Body (Holland with Boston)

My right hon. Friend has been speaking to the Spanish fishermen.

§ Sir Edward Heath

I quite realise that some of my hon. Friends want to damage it. They can laugh all over their faces, because they do not have to think responsibly about the effect on other people.

I want to say something to my hon. Friends who represent the fishing industry. There is an important vote tonight. It may be quite important, not because it will change the position, but because of its political effect on the Conservative party. That is quite plain.

Of course my hon. Friends must take notice of the fishermen in their constituencies, but I also remind them of the remark by Burke so many centuries ago that is often repeated in the House. The purpose and responsibility of a representative is to look after the interests of his constituents, but he must also consider the interests of the country and the community. That is the basis of our work here.

Every hon. Member owes his constituents not only his energy "but his judgment". Those were Burke's words. We can offer our fishermen our energy, but my hon. Friends have to make a judgment tonight as to whether it is an event and a matter that justifies their defeating the Government. That is the crucial question to be answered. I do not think that many of our constituents, other than fishermen, would agree with that course of action. Indeed, I do not think that fishermen want to destroy the Government. Therefore, I ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to give careful thought to what they will do at the end of the debate.

§ Mr. Calum Macdonald (Western Isles)

The Minister said that the key element is conservation, the key problem being too many boats and too many fishermen chasing too few fish. There is agreement on both sides of the House about the importance of conservation, and the key to successful conservation is enforcement.

If there is to be successful enforcement, there must be the perception of a level playing field, as it were, on which all the Community's fishing fleets operate. That is 1365 not the current perception. British fishermen feel that they are bearing the brunt of enforcement in achieving conservation. They feel that other fleets and other fishermen are escaping their fair share of responsibility. As a result, there is growing demand for withdrawal from the common fisheries rather than reform. I agree that withdrawal from the CFP is not practicable. It is not possible without withdrawal from the European Union. It is not, therefore, a serious option to be considered. But no one should underestimate the anger that is felt in fishing communities and which leads them to opt for withdrawal.

The Minister seemed to be asking for details to flesh out a package of reform. Most importantly, we need allies. It is striking that the Government seem to be isolated on fisheries policy year after year. They seem to be consistently outvoted when they argue their case with the other fisheries Ministers. It is not difficult to understand why the Government are consistently isolated. They are out of step on almost every other issue within the European Community. For example, they are out of step on the social chapter. As we have seen over the past couple of days, they are out of step on economic and monetary union. They are out of step also in discussions on foreign and security policies and moving them forward. It comes as no surprise, therefore, that the Government find themselves isolated on fisheries policy and unable to acquire the allies that are necessary if we are to defend British interests and obtain a fair deal for British fishermen.

The secretary of the Western Isles Fishermen's Association, which covers the Western Isles fleet, visited Madrid last week with a BBC television crew. He went to the big fish market there and found small, immature fish openly available for sale. He saw juvenile fish that should not have been landed. They should not have been for sale in any EU state. Apparently he saw hake only 4 in long. Whatever rules and regulations we write, they will mean nothing unless there is fair enforcement overall. If they mean nothing, the confidence of our fishing community will be undermined and eroded. As I said to the Secretary of State, the latest figures that I have show that there are only 12 fisheries officers in the whole of Spain.

§ Mr. Baldry

rose—

§ Mr. Macdonald

Perhaps the Minister has the latest figures.

§ Mr. Baldry

In fact, there are 30 fisheries inspectors working for the Spanish Ministry of Agriculture; in addition, some 240 fisheries inspectors work for the autonomous Spanish regions, and 300 civil guard personnel devote part of their duties to fisheries enforcement work. Spain has 31 patrol vessels of the Spanish naval marine unit. Some 106 vessels are operated by regional Governments and the marine civil guard—all on fisheries protection work—and there are six aerial surveillance helicopters, so that is quite a substantial input by the Spanish Government in enforcing their fisheries regulations.

§ Mr. Macdonald

In that case, how can such a vast force fail to notice four-inch long fish being sold in the main market of the capital city of Spain? The Minister cannot simply recite figures and say that the number of fisheries officers in Spain has increased from 14 to 30, 1366 compared with 200 in the UK, without also acknowledging that there is a real problem: the perceived lack of a level playing field, whereby British fishermen have to work within the rules, because of the very tight and efficient enforcement of the rules in the United Kingdom, while Spanish fishermen get away with landing juvenile fish and breaking the rules time and again. That reality underlies the fear in relation to Spanish access. The Minister must address that point, and he must get allies—this is the key point—in the Council of Fisheries Ministers to help him to do that if he is to satisfy British fishermen.

Another aspect which plagues, troubles and depresses British fishermen is the existence of the Spanish flagships, which are counted against the British register, and their impact on the whole decommissioning process. Some 28 per cent. of the UK-registered fleet of more than 10 metres are now Spanish owned; they are crewed by Spaniards and land their catches in Spain. That exceeds the amount by which Britain is supposed to reduce its overall fleet to meet the EC guidelines. The UK is required to decommission 19 per cent. to meet EC targets. Unless we do that, our fishermen cannot get any aid to help to rebuild and renew their fleet. Yet the Spanish-flagged element counting against the British fleet is far in excess of what we have to decommission.

Worse than that, hardly any of the Spanish-flagged vessels are decommissioning. They make a massive contribution to our perceived overcapacity and yet make no contribution whatever to the solution of decommissioning. Where is the level playing field? A disaster is looming, of which the Minister must be aware. If it is not causing him sleepless nights, we fear for the future of the British fishing industry. If the decommissioning target of 19 per cent. is met exclusively by the real British boats within the British fleet, by the end of the decommissioning process, almost half the British-registered fleet will be Spanish owned. I fear what the reaction in British fishing communities will be if that were to happen.

I ask the Minister, when he replies, to address himself specifically to that question, because those vessels are making a mockery of the common fisheries policy, the British Government and their protections. It is still going on. Spanish boats are still being added against the British register. I appreciate that the British Government tried to find a solution. They were warned at the time that it would fail and it did, because it went against EC guidelines. It is vital that the British Government address that problem and find a solution. I suggest that one possible solution would be to have a real linkage between boats that are registered in Britain and which have to operate economically in Britain—that is, establish some kind of economic linkage. For example, boats would have to make a proportion of their landings, say three quarters—

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris)

Order.

§ Mr. David Harris (St. Ives)

I sometimes think back with nostalgia to the rather cosy debates that we used to have a number of years ago, when only Members who represented fishing industries, like myself, took part. On the other hand, I warmly welcome the wider focus now given to the fishing industry, because we will begin to find a solution to the plight—that is the only word to 1367 describe it—of our fishermen and the difficulties that they face only through the concern of many hon. Members or, indeed, people in the country.

I do not suppose that there has ever been a debate on this subject in the history of the House in which a former Prime Minister has spoken, and I very much welcome the fact that my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath) has done so. I shall say a few words about his concluding remarks, because for all I know, they may have been aimed at me or, indeed, my colleagues who have the honour to represent fishing communities, and he was right to point out the precise dilemma that we face.

I do not want to vote against my Government tonight. I do not want to see my Government defeated. That would not be in the interests of my country or of the fishing industry. However, it is incumbent on people like myself to speak up for the industry and to fight for it, and in my years in the House that is what I have sought to do. One television interviewer said tonight, "Surely you want to be popular with your fishermen." I would like to be popular, but if one goes into politics one cannot always be popular, and at the end of the day one has to do what is right. What makes me despair is what has happened in recent years to our fishing industry and to the fishing industries of other countries.

That brings me to the amendment tabled by a number of my hon. Friends who are usually known as "Euro-sceptics". I welcome their interest in the fishing industry because it focuses attention on the difficulties of that industry. Having said that, I think that their amendment is misguided, particularly in the context of today's debate, because what the debate should be about is, of course, what will be before the Fisheries Ministers when they meet in Brussels on Thursday and Friday in relation to the setting of quotas for the coming year. That will affect in the immediate term the livelihood of fishermen in my constituency, because some pretty massive cuts are proposed for individual quotas and total allowable catches.

I refer to one of the reductions that the Commission proposes on species that are of direct concern to the fishermen of the south-west of England, and Cornwall in particular. I will not go into the precise details, but in the English channel a reduction of 41 per cent. is proposed for the allowable catch of sole. In the Bristol channel, a reduction of 27 per cent. is proposed. For plaice, a reduction of 34 per cent. is proposed. Those reductions follow on from reductions in previous years. What we are seeing, therefore, is cheating on a massive scale, because fishermen have to cheat to survive. They do not do it willingly; they loathe cheating, but that is the system that we now have. The problem is, what on earth can we do to change that system?

In their amendment, the Liberal Democrats ask for the review of the common fisheries policy to be brought forward. That may sound attractive, but unless the voting system is altered there will be a repetition of what happened on 23 December last year, when the United Kingdom was outvoted and the rest of the Community voted—under qualified majority voting—to allow 40 Spanish boats to fish in the waters of the former Irish box, where stocks were already under pressure. Where is the conservation in that? My friend—I regard him as my 1368 friend—the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace), the Liberal Democrats' agriculture and fisheries spokesman, is a sensible man. His party wants to abolish the veto altogether. I want to restore it, however, for the purposes of the review of the CFP.

For the past three days, people have been asking me, "How are you going to vote?" I am not sure how we are going to vote. I must face up to the dilemma posed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup: the balance between what I regard as in the national interest—maintaining the Government—against the importance of speaking up for the fishermen in my constituency. I make no secret of the fact that, together with my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cornwall (Mr. Hicks)—who, I am sure, shares my views entirely—and my hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Mr. Coe), I have spent a good deal of time talking to Ministers. We have presented them with a number of proposals, in particular on the central issue that should be debated here tonight—the reductions in quotas. I have received certain assurances, which I value very much, on what I believe will be the negotiating position of Her Majesty's Government when the Fisheries Council meets at the end of the week. I am fairly confident that, just before Christmas, we shall not be faced with reductions such as those that I mentioned earlier.

In my amendment—which, of course, has not been selected—I have asked my hon. Friends in the Government to negotiate changes upwards in the case of quotas which are not based on hard scientific evidence. The fishermen's organisations reckon that there is scope for that. I accept that in some instances cuts will have to be made, because the scientific evidence points irrefutably in that direction. I accept the conservation argument.

The hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald) mentioned fairness, and that is at the root of the fishermen's anger: they do not think that the system is fair. Let me give an example. I am glad to see that the Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is present. In the wake of the Budget, the Ministry decided to abolish harbour grants in England, but not in Scotland nor, I believe, in Wales. That is not fair.

§ Mr. Baldry

My hon. Friend is right. I have listened carefully to colleagues' views over the past few days, and my hon. Friend—along with my hon. Friends the Members for South Hams (Mr. Steen), for South-East Cornwall, for Falmouth and Camborne and for Wyre (Mr. Mans)—has made the importance of the harbour, marketing and processing grants to local fishing industry. I see the force of their case, especially their arguments that expectations had been raised about the giving of those grants earlier in the year. In the light of their representations, we have decided to reinstate the grants.

§ Mr. Harris

I am very grateful to my hon. Friend. The decision will be particularly welcome in Newlyn, where an application of long standing was being rejected because of the cuts.

All hon. Members on both sides of the House must find a way forward so that we can restore real confidence to the fishing industry. I wish that we could put aside party politics, and politics involving the future of Europe, and concentrate on achieving a solution. That is what our fishermen need and deserve.

§ Mr. James Wallace (Orkney and Shetland)

I share many of the sentiments expressed by the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris), whom it is my privilege and pleasure to follow in so many fisheries debates.

This debate has attracted a wider audience than usual. Despite all the media speculation, we would do the fishing industry a gross disservice if we did not spend some time focusing on issues of particular interest to that industry at the Council meeting that will take place on Thursday and Friday this week. As the hon. Member for St. Ives pointed out, there are to be considerable reductions in total allowable catches of a range of species, and that will have serious consequences for the industry as it plans for 1996 and the future.

As has been said, there is growing concern—there has always been concern, but it seems to be increasing annually—about the scientific basis on which some of the TACs are decided. Only a few years ago, the fishing industry was being told that the North sea whiting was a predatory fish, and that it would therefore be helpful to catch as many as possible. Dangled before the industry was the possibility of smaller mesh sizes and lower minimum landing sizes—which, in fairness to it, it resisted. In 1990, the TAC for whiting was 135,000 tonnes; although the fishermen were told to fish as much whiting as they could, the TAC has now been reduced to 67,000 tonnes. There is something wrong with that.

The Minister will be aware that the Scottish industry in particular would like the Hague preference to be invoked in respect of North sea whiting. Is that on the Government's agenda for Thursday's negotiations?

§ Mr. Baldry

Yes.

§ Mr. Wallace

I welcome that news. Let me add that, when the Hague preference has been invoked in the past, there has been a tendency to average it out rather than bringing it up to the full amount; the industry will be looking for the full amount.

Western mackerel is an important species in my constituency. In terms of quota allocation, tonnage and horsepower, 30 per cent. of the United Kingdom's pelagic fleet is based in Shetland, but what has happened to the TACs for western mackerel? In 1992, they were increased by 15 per cent., in 1993 by 10 per cent. and in 1994 by eight per cent. On the basis of those growing TACs, over the past two or three years and into next year, constituents of mine will have invested some £50 million in new vessels. That is an important business decision.

If a Japanese company had invested that amount in microchips, no doubt there would have been a press conference at the Scottish Office, with the Secretary of State cutting the first sod for the factory. It is a substantial investment, which has been made on the basis of what were originally growing TACs. However, they were reduced by 20 per cent. this year, and it is predicted that they will be reduced by 33 per cent. next year. That is no long-term basis for stability on which the industry can make serious investments.

It appears that this year Norway has gone forward by the lowest common denominator, on the basis that it sees opportunities in the Atlanto-Scandian herring negotiations. If he has time, will the Minister confirm that the United Kingdom—the European Union, indeed, but 1370 with the United Kingdom receiving a share—will seek a share-out of the winter herring, now known as the Atlanto-Scandian herring, in the waters to the north of Shetland? A premature allocation would be regrettable; it would be better if UK vessels were allowed to fish the stock as they have in the past.

We may well find that a substantial part of that stock can be caught in European Union waters, which would entitle the European Union and, in turn, the United Kingdom to a substantial share in the future. That would help to offset some of the disappointments and lost fishing opportunities that have resulted from the cuts in mackerel and herring TACs.

The hon. Member for St. Ives mentioned plaice. The reduction in plaice TACs has had a serious effect on the east coast, and there has been a knock-on effect because of the fewer opportunities for swaps. That applies not only to the east coast, but all around the channel ports and into the south-west. Those in the south-west fear that, if opportunities in regard to quota stocks of Bristol channel and North sea plaice are cut, many of the non-quota stocks fished by fishermen in the south-west will be under ever greater pressure. It is important to take that dimension into account.

I could go into many details, but I shall deal finally with the west coast nephrops precautionary total allowable catch, which was originally set at 16,000 tonnes. That TAC was based on very little scientific evidence. My understanding is that the scientists do not know when prawns spawn or how long they live: it is an inadequate science. Over the years the TAC was reduced to 12,600 tonnes on no more detailed or sophisticated scientific evidence than that for some time that was what was being landed. It appears that that amount was fished out early this year and it is thought that returning to 16,000 tonnes, which was satisfactory in the past, would give adequate fishing opportunity to those who fish the west coast nephrops. I ask the Minister to consider that in his negotiations later this week.

Underlying all these problems is the unsatisfactory nature of the TAC arrangements. There is no prop