| Constitutional Arrangements
|
|
Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow): Neither my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland nor the Minister will be astonished that I want to ask about progress on the protection of the Darwin mounds. That is an important nursery for fish, and I want to know whether there been an infringement by Spanish trawlers or others? What is the medium-term outlook after the six-month protection that the Government rightly put in place? Mr. Bradshaw: As far as I am aware, there has been no infringement, but I shall certainly look into the matter and write to my hon. Friend about it. We are grateful to him for his role in helping to secure such an important conservation measure. It is an example of politicians, conservationists and the Commission working well together to achieve an important conservationist goal. In response to the second part of my hon. Friend's question, I am confident that we can put such protection on a permanent footing after the six-month temporary protection measure has lapsed. Column Number: 008 Mr. Peter Duncan (Galloway and Upper Nithsdale): I thank the Minister for giving us advance notice of his statement, although it may be regarded as more significant for what it did not say than for what it did say. I seek clarification on a few issues. The Minister acknowledged the degree of uncertainty in parts of the scientific analysis, but he will be aware that there is always uncertainty about the science. What additional steps have been taken this year to resolve some of the scientific difficulties? Does he agree that a clear area in which there is no scientific dubiety is that of industrial fishing? Can I have his assurance that, when there is clear scientific evidence of damaged stocks, action will be forthcoming this year? Will the Minister consider the Commission's announcement on 11 November, in which it stated that it had begun formal infringement proceedings against the United Kingdom for an alleged failure to enforce fisheries rules? What do his Department and the Government plan to do in response to that allegation? Does he consider that the Commission has grounds for the allegations, or are they groundless? Does he agree that it is a case of the Commission softening up the UK fisheries sector for another killer blow at the December 2003 Council? The Minister said that we need to find ways to exploit the more healthy stocks when that can be done without jeopardising recovery. Has he consulted the industry and prepared a detailed case for decoupling cod and other white fish species? If so, when did he do so, and has he briefed the UK Members of the European Parliament's fisheries committee on his findings? Mr. Bradshaw: A considerable amount has been done this year by the Labour Government to bring together the science and the industry for the first time. When I was appointed, I said that I did not want to be a Minister who spent his whole time trying to be an arbiter between the industry and the science. This year, we have invested £1 million in bringing the industry closer to the scientists. That involved putting scientists on trawlers, a measure for which trawlermen have called for some time. Indeed, some trawlermen have been put on science ships, which was an eye-opener for them. As for the hon. Gentleman's point about industrial fishing, that has been one of the projects in which we have invested considerable sums. Research has been undertaken to try to stand up our belief that it is damaging, a view that I share with him. We continue to make that point at European level, and we are winning allies to our cause. If the hon. Gentleman has read the ICES advice this year, I am sure that he has noticed the strong recommendation for a reduction in industrial fishing. We will certainly argue for that at the December Council. I have not yet had a chance to study the full details of the Commission's document on infringement proceedings for enforcement, which was made public only yesterday. We shall study that closely, as we take enforcement extremely seriously. We have one of the Column Number: 009 highest spends on enforcement and some of the highest penalties for fishermen and others who are found to be breaking the rules in the whole European Union. Illegality cannot be condoned; enforcement has to be part of a proper, sustainable fisheries policy, and I shall carefully examine the allegations and details in the Commission's document.We are already undertaking a review of our enforcement, and we want to ensure that a fisheries policy is not only sustainable but enforceable. The hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale (Mr. Duncan) will forgive me if I do not give an off-the-cuff response to the Commission's document now. We have two months to formulate our official response, which will be made public in good time. This is not a softening-up exercise by the Commission: the hon. Gentleman is expressing typical Tory Europhobia—if he does not mind my saying so. The Commission is just doing its job, which it would do in exactly the same way for other countries. In fact, in the past 24 hours or so, Spain has received a piece of paper with even tougher recommendations. I hold regular talks and, recently, I had talks with Alex Smith and his industry colleagues when I was in Scotland visiting Peterhead. My Scottish colleague, Ross Finnie, has had discussions on the paper to which the hon. Gentleman referred. It is in all our interests to bring together whatever evidence we have between now and the December Council to support our argument that there should be an element of decoupling between cod and the other stocks that are healthy. Mr. Malcolm Savidge (Aberdeen, North): Will my hon. Friend seek, in close co-operation with colleagues in Government and the Scottish Executive, to ensure a long-term sustainable future for both catching and processing in the north and the north-east of Scotland? Will he also seek to ensure that decommissioning schemes take due account of the needs of employees, as well as owners? Mr. Bradshaw: Yes. I will be pleased to do both of those things. I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend for raising the processing industry. All too often, fisheries debates are dominated by the catching industry, which is of course terribly important. However, even in the catching industry, many areas—such as prawns, shellfish and pelagic fish—are doing extremely well. They are profitable and bring a lot of money to constituencies, such as that of my hon. Friend and those of other Members. The processing industry is booming. When I visited Hull and the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Savidge) recently, I saw that it was doing extremely well, although it is based largely on imported fish. The processing industry has also played a central role in the consultation linked to the Prime Minister's strategy unit report. Fisheries debates should not be all doom and gloom, and we should not talk our fishing industry down. There is a great and profitable future for our fishing industry, but it must be based on sustainability. Column Number: 010 Angus Robertson (Moray): I am pleased that we are able to speak about this important issue when many people in our fishing communities are concerned about it, but I must first welcome the new shadow Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale. I put on the record our commiserations on the fact that his party got rid of the permanent seat for the shadow Secretary of State for Scotland in the shadow Cabinet on the very day that he was promoted to the post. As the Minister has recently visited Peterhead and other fishing communities, he will have taken on board the fact that people are worried that they are being misled in thinking that a medium or long-term future exists at all for the fishing industry. If measures that allow a medium or long-term future for the industry are not agreed, we will see significant unemployment and an economic downturn in those communities. Does the Minister agree that it is absurd and dangerous to run a fishery as if only one stock mattered? Some 80 per cent. of Scotland's fishing industry is not cod, and cod represents only 15 per cent. of the landing of the Scottish fleet. Did the Minister have the opportunity to hear the radio debate involving David Griffith, the general secretary of ICES, and my hon. Friend the Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond)? The ICES spokesman said that it should be manageable in theory to decouple cod stocks from other fish. He said that that is much the better solution. Do the Government agree, and what are they going to do to bring that about at the December Fisheries Council? One important issue that the Minister did not bring up but which is of supreme importance to the industry is what is happening to the fisheries industry with regard to the intergovernmental conference of the European Union, which is set to decide, also in December, on the draft constitution for the EU. Yesterday, the Foreign Secretary pledged that the Government would seek to expunge or radically alter the energy chapters in the constitution. What effort will the Government make to do the same for its fishing chapters? Are they going to seek to amend or withdraw those dangerous provisions? The Minister talked with great confidence about the No. 10 strategy unit report—many Committee members took part in the unit's investigation and gave evidence—but he will forgive the disbelief in fishing communities that that will provide the answer, given that the unit decided to come north of Peterhead to Inverness and other communities only after myself and my friend Margaret Ewing, the Member of the Scottish Parliament for Moray, made the effort to tell it that that might be a good idea. Will the Minister take this opportunity to put it on the record that this Government still think that fishing is not expendable and is more important than that?
|
| |
| ©Parliamentary copyright 2003 | Prepared 12 November 2003 |
