| Home Page |
Column 479
House of Commons
Thursday 18 July 1991
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. Speaker-- in the Chair ]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
London Underground (Safety Measures) Bill
[Lords] (By Order) Order for Third Reading read.
To be read the Third time on Wednesday 24 July.
King's Cross Railways Bill
(By Order)
Order for consideration, as amended, read.
To be considered on Wednesday 24 July.
East Coast Main Line (Safety) Bill
(By Order) Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [13 May], That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Debate further adjourned till Wednesday 24 July.
King's Cross Railways Bill
Motion made,
That the Promoters of the King's Cross Railways Bill shall have leave to suspend proceedings thereon in order to proceed with the Bill, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that the Agents for the Bill give notice to the Clerks in the Private Bill Office not later than the day before the close of the present Session of their intention to suspend further proceedings and that all Fees due on the Bill up to that date be paid ;
That on the fifth day on which the House sits in the next Session the Bill shall be presented to the House ;
That there shall be deposited with the Bill a declaration signed by the Agents for the Bill, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill at the last stage of its proceedings in this House in the present Session ;
That the Bill shall be laid upon the Table of the House by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office on the next meeting of the House after the day on which the Bill has been presented and, when so laid, shall be read the first and second time (and shall be recorded in the Journal of this House as having been so read) and, having been amended by the Committee in the present Session, shall be ordered to lie upon the Table ;
That no further Fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which Fees have already been incurred during the present Session ;
That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House.-- [The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.]
Column 480
Oral Answers to Questions
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
EC Food Directives
1. Sir Michael McNair-Wilson : To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food which traditional British foods are affected by EC directives.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. David Curry) : I have always argued very firmly in Brussels against burdening the food industry with unnecessary bureaucratic rules.
Sir Michael McNair-Wilson : Will my hon. Friend resist any further regulations from the Community that might interfere with the traditional names of favourite English foods? May we have an assurance that well-known English foods, using their generic names, such as Cheddar cheese, York ham or Devon or Cornish cream will not be brought within the regulations and that he will resist any attempt to change those names? Will he also defend the British kipper from any suggestion that the wisest cure constitutes a health risk?
Mr. Curry : The answer to the first part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question is that at the meeting of the Agriculture Council in Luxembourg last month, when I represented the United Kingdom, I gave a considerable peroration on precisely that subject. It is wholly unnecessary and perfectly silly that generic names should be included in any bureaucratic regulations. There are a very limited number of cases in which that sort of special protection could be afforded any sort of justice. We shall certainly resist that.
As for the kipper, I share my hon. Friend's predilection for that delicacy. I see no reason why any food should be interfered with, other than on health grounds, and there are no health grounds whatever to get in the way of the good old British kipper.
Mr. Pike : Does the Minister agree that it is daft that we should be spending so much time in Europe discussing, for example whether an Eccles cake has to come from Eccles? Does he further agree that it would be damaging if the directive were approved in its present form because it would restrict innovation and prevent the trade in, and export of, good British food? We should be making sure that consumers get what they want and at a good quality and that we are able to export good quality British food.
Mr. Cormack : Was my hon. Friend's peroration successful? If not, will he repeat it until it is?
Mr. Curry : The line-up comprises six states that prefer the original proposals and six states that support the alternatives that the United Kingdom has put forward. At present, it is a case of an irresistible force meeting an immovable object--we are part of the immovable object and we intend not to be moved on the subject.
Column 481
Animal Welfare
2. Mr. David Evans : To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what action he is taking to improve standards of animal welfare in the EC.
14. Mr. Burns : To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what action he is taking to improve standards of animal welfare in the EC.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. David Maclean) : We are pressing for the adoption of comprehensive Community rules setting high welfare standards for animals on farms, during transport, and at slaughter. In particular, we are seeking to have the United Kingdom's high welfare standards adopted on a Communitywide basis.
Mr. Evans : I thank the Minister for that reply. Will he assure me that animals with a militant tendency or left-wing views or which do not pay their community charge-- [Interruption.] --will not receive any protection? Will he also give an assurance that the Government and our European partners will give adequate protection to the Leader of the Opposition-- [Interruption.] --so that he does not end up before the election, as he will after it, in the knacker's yard?
Mr. Speaker : Order. That is well wide of animal welfare.
Mr. Maclean : I suspect that many animals would not behave like some Opposition Members.
Mr. Hardy : Does the Minister accept that his words and those of his right hon. Friend offering substantial support for the cause of animal welfare in Europe enjoy substantial public support? However, does he also accept that there is now significant doubt about whether the principle expressed in those words will be matched by action in the Community, especially in view of the fate of a motion to protect the smaller cetaceans, on which the Ministry does not appear to have acted accordingly to the Secretary of State's words.
Mr. Maclean : I entirely reject the last part of the hon. Gentleman's question. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State was able to secure substantial protection for whales. He also managed to keep the motion to protect small cetaceans on the agenda of the international whaling conference. The British Government will stand by everything that we have said about the protection of animals. We are arguing strenuously in Europe for that and it would help very much if the Opposition would support us rather than carping in the House and trying to undermine our position at every opportunity.
Mr. Burns : I am sure that your failure to call me earlier was not personal, Mr. Speaker, although it has happened twice in the past few months.
Mr. Speaker : It was not personal.
Mr. Burns : Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I congratulate my hon. Friend on the action that his Department took last year to stop the use of crates for the production of veal and I urge him to use all his influence to prevent that obnoxious practice in the rest of Europe. In
Column 482
the meantime, will he urge all consumers of veal in Britain to boycott mainland continental veal until that reprehensible system is ended?Mr. Maclean : My hon. Friend makes a good point and highlights the difficulty of Britain taking unilateral action, as we rightly did last year, to ban veal crates because we believe that they are cruel. The net result has been that most veal eaten in this country is now imported--and produced under the very system that we outlawed in Britain. That is why we are arguing strenuously to have our high welfare standards on veal incorporated throughout the European Community. I strongly support the campaign of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals to draw to British consumers' attention the fact that very little veal in this country is produced under humane systems and that if they want humanely produced veal they must seek it out in the shops, where they will find that humanely produced veal is nearly all British.
Mr. Tony Banks : I entirely endorse what the Minister says and I am glad that he is prepared to endorse the RSPCA's campaign, but how can consumers know that they are buying humanely produced veal unless the supermarkets and butcher shops tell them? I think that people should avoid veal altogether, because they cannot know whether the veal cattle have been exported from this country and kept in the crates that the Government have banned here--a ban supported by the Labour party.
Mr. Maclean : The hon. Gentleman raises an intriguing point. We can have a proper solution to this, and consumers will have the right to know exactly what they are eating, only when we have a Europewide solution and proper marking. We must also not forget that shops and supermarkets are the only places where consumers would know where the veal was produced, because some supermarkets are marking their veal as humanely produced in Britain or are selling small quantities of imported humanely produced veal. The problem lies in restaurants and cafeterias, some of which are not far from this Chamber, where veal may be on the menu, but we have not a clue where it has come from nor how it has been produced.
Sir Peter Emery : Will my hon. Friend tell the House exactly what measures he will be able to take concerning the export of live horses other than for breeding, as the practice of exporting horses purely for slaughter is obnoxious and unnecessary?
Mr. Maclean : We shall continue with the action that we have been taking since that issue first came on the agenda. We believe that the minimum values rules operated in this country are an excellent means of protecting horses. We do not want to have to resume the export of live horses and ponies. We shall continue to resist that strenuously and argue to that effect in Europe. Our policy will not change.
Dr. David Clark : Has the Minister seen the report by scientists commissioned by Greenpeace into French drift nets being used in the same fishery as our Cornish fishermen went to earlier this week? Is he aware that the scientists monitored three common dolphins and two striped dolphins that had been caught in the unacceptably
Column 483
long drift nets? The Minister knows that the suffering of dolphins and porpoises is completely unacceptable to the British people, so what does he intend to do about it?Mr. Maclean : Of course we are concerned about allegations from Greenpeace or anyone else of dolphins being caught in drift nets. I understand that as of this afternoon, in the first three days of fishing no dolphins have been caught. We shall monitor the position carefully, and we must find a Europeanwide solution to the problem. If the hon. Gentleman has any evidence, he should bring it before us.
Meadow and Pasture Land
3. Ms. Quin : To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on his Department's policy towards traditional meadow and pasture land.
Mr. Curry : The environmentally sensitive areas scheme provides protection and enhancement of meadow and pasture land. We are consulting on how to strengthen that programme.
Ms. Quin : Has the Minister read the recent report of the Royal Society for Nature Conservation which gives details about the alarming loss of traditional meadows and pasture land, with their wealth of wild flowers? Will he discuss the report's recommendations with its authors? Will he give a guarantee that those meadows and traditional pastures outside the areas of protected status will be retained for the future?
Mr. Curry : I have read the report and note that it is supportive of the environmentally sensitive area principle. The hon. Lady will know that, as part of the environmentally sensitive area consultations, we are talking about the creation of new meadow land. She will also know that, in the countryside premium under the set-aside scheme, there is specific provision for the creation of grass land and meadow land, and in the new countryside stewardship scheme there are at least two or three categories that are eligible for aid and which affect grassland--for example, limestone in river bottoms. We are extremely concerned to maintain those traditional grass lands. The thrust of our policy is to enhance the environment. We shall certainly be in contact with the authors of the report to see whether they have any suggestions, as, clearly, we are pushing in the same direction and have exactly the same preoccupations.
Sir Dudley Smith : Is my hon. Friend aware that the Warwickshire nature conservation trust has taken 50 acres of excellent pasture land and meadows into its care to look after it for the community and is also seeking further tracts of land? Does he agree that that example should be copied by other counties up and down the country?
Mr. Curry : It is an example which should be copied by all organisations in a position to take action. There is widespread concern to ensure that the traditional countryside is preserved. That does not have to be to the detriment of effective and efficient agriculture--the two are perfectly compatible and there is no reason why we cannot pursue them in harness.
Column 484
CAP
4. Mr. Moss : To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what he next expects to discuss in the EC Agricultural Council proposals for reform of the common agricultural policy.
6. Mr. David Nicholson : To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the latest developments in negotiations over the common agricultural policy.
9. Mr. Evennett : To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received concerning the latest proposals for the reform of the common agricultural policy from the European Commission.
The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. John Gummer) : I expect the next discussion in the Agriculture Council to take place on 23 and 24 September. I will then place on record again our opposition to those parts of the MacSharry plan that discriminate against British agriculture, northern agriculture, specialist agriculture, efficient agriculture, the interests of the consumer, European agricultural ability to compete with the rest of the world, and use the reform not to reform agriculture itself, but to put forward Mr. MacSharry's personal views.
Mr. Moss : When my right hon. Friend next meets Mr. MacSharry, will he extend an invitation to him to meet my fen arable farmers in north-east Cambridgeshire--preferably under tight security--to explain to them the Irish logic of his proposals? His suggestions mean that they will be expected to take a cut of 35 per cent. for their cereal prices without any compensation, whereas small farmers in Ireland, Greece, Germany and France will be adequately compensated. Does my right hon. Friend agree that those are the economics of the madhouse and that the livelihoods of my constituents would be decimated to protect the incomes of less efficient farmers in Europe?
Mr. Gummer : Clearly, those proposals are not acceptable, because they discriminate against successful farmers in the United Kingdom and in other countries. The proposals were best summed up in the editorial in The Sun, which stated that the scheme, which was designed to control costs in the future, involved spending an extra £4 billion now. The Sun comments :
"More savings like that and we are all ruined."
Mr. David Nicholson : My right hon. Friend deserves congratulations and encouragement on maintaining his resistence to proposals which, by imposing an upper limit of 90 head for the beef and suckler cow premium and 750 head in the less-favoured areas for the ewe premium, will greatly damage farmers in my constituency, in Somerset and in the rest of the south-west. When will the European Community start trying to raise the standards in France, Germany and the Mediterranean countries to the standards of efficiency and structure which prevail in Britain, rather than penalising British farmers?
Mr. Gummer : My hon. Friend is quite right to point out that the plans before us would uniquely discriminate against those producing sheepmeat in the United Kingdom. They would be particularly damaging to farmers in Wales, Scotland and the Lake district. No group of farmers deserve discrimination, but that group of
Column 485
farmers is particularly vulnerable. We have sought to help it through special measures, but it is now suggested that that group should be uniquely discriminated against. That must not happen.Mr. Evennett : Does my right hon. Friend agree that those ridiculous proposals would mean an increase of nearly 20 per cent. to the taxpayer and would do very little to affect the price of bread to our constituents? My hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, North-East (Mr. Moss) has spoken about the 35 per cent. cut in the cereal price. If that became operational, would it be followed by a 35 per cent. reduction in the price of bread to my constituents in Erith and Crayford?
Mr. Gummer : The standard loaf, at a price of 65p, uses wheat worth 8.5p--that is the payment to the farmer. If the cost of the standard loaf were cut by 10 per cent.--one newspaper has suggested that that would be the result of the proposals--the payment to the farmer would have to be reduced to 2p, which is clearly impossible. It has been suggested that the MacSharry package would be helpful to the consumer, but that is not so. All the evidence is that the discrimination would result in higher rather than lower prices.
Mr. William Ross : Is the Minister aware that in his initial response he said no so often, so firmly and with such good reason that I thought that he had joined the Unionist party? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the term "extensive" farming is simply another name for low-level, inefficient production, which would fly in the face of all that we have done in this country for many years? Does he also agree that one does not make the less efficient viable by crucifying the efficient? In the GATT negotiations, will he bear it in mind that we cannot open our doors to all the surpluses of the world, which would destroy all that we have laboured for in this country for so many years? Those who have food surpluses should have a duty to world agriculture.
Mr. Gummer : The hon. Gentleman will not lead me down the dangerous path of discussing internal Unionist politics. I am one of those who wish that the Unionist party would sometimes say something other than no.
We in the European Community have proposed in the GATT round a proposition that would be extremely difficult for our farmers to bear, but which would be bearable at the pace at which we have put it forward. I believe that other countries should recognise what a very important offer we have made. I do not believe that it is possible for the European Community to move far from that proposition, because it would then not be possible to bear. Our farmers deserve that other countries should recognise what is on offer and take it. We need a GATT agreement if we are to obtain the extra world trade that we all seek--that is, an agreement that can be borne by those who produce the food and look after the land.
Mr. Alex Carlile : Does the Minister accept that his answer to the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, North-East (Mr. Moss) ought to be widely welcomed by all the farming unions in Wales? Will he confirm that he regards Welsh sheep farmers, whom he helpfully mentioned a few moments ago, as a specialist sector particularly worthy of support? Does he agree that one aspect that ought to receive attention is the establishment
Column 486
of European Community standard abattoirs available to specialist sheep farmers in Wales to enable them to sell their dead produce abroad?Mr. Gummer : I am sure that the hon. and learned Gentleman will agree with me that it will be much easier to achieve movement on abattoirs and European standards now that, at long last, we have got the standards. We have been very much held up by the length of the negotiations. We hope now to move as soon as possible on that front. Newspaper reports that suggest that there are those who think that Welsh farmers would benefit from Mr. MacSharry's proposals, must be based on very slim knowledge of what those proposals mean. The report to which some newspapers have referred says precisely the opposite. It points out that under the present headage limits, Welsh farmers would suffer very considerably, particularly those in central Wales.
Dr. David Clark : May I assure the Minister that the Labour party shares the view that the MacSharry proposals, including the proposal to increase the cost of the common agricultural policy, will be unacceptable to the British people? Does he appreciate that although it is all very well for him to get excited and tell us what he is against, the House has a right to ask what he is in favour of? Does he not think that he would be taken more seriously by the farmers and taxpayers of Britain if he tabled his own counter-proposals and built on the environmental proposals in the MacSharry plan? If he did that, he would begin to determine the scope of the debate instead of allowing other people to dominate it.
Mr. Gummer : I know that it is difficult for the hon. Gentleman, who is a long-time supporter of the Common Market safeguards committee and who hates the European Community, to come to the House and admit publicly that he does not understand how the European Community works. There is no way in which counter-proposals may be tabled.
My views have been made perfectly clear. The five basic points of reform that we want have been repeated time and again, both here and in the Agriculture Council, and they are gaining considerable support from my fellow Ministers of Agriculture. The one thing that this House has learnt over many months is that the Opposition spokesman on agriculture knows so little about the European Community that he finds it difficult to give advice to anyone.
Mr. Lord : Will my right hon. Friend confirm that a 35 per cent. reduction in support for cereal farmers is ludicrous and would be absolutely disastrous for them? Are not the negotiations on agriculture becoming a war of attrition and resulting in lower profits for our farmers? May I urge my right hon. Friend to come up with radical new proposals for reforming the common agricultural policy so that our farmers can see that they have a future in agriculture, instead of having to engage in a continuing battle against what seems to be a continuing decline?
Mr. Gummer : My hon. Friend must surely agree that it would be acceptable, particularly within the context of GATT, to reduce direct price support, so long as we are able to help farmers by means of more direct and money-saving ways at the same time. What is objectionable about the MacSharry proposal is that about 90 per cent. of farmers would not have the reduction. The
Column 487
reduction would therefore be borne, not only as to their own percentage but to cover that which ought to be carried by others, by the 10 per cent. who remain. What is wrong with the proposal is that the compensation goes to some but not to others and that the cut is borne largely by efficient farmers, many of whom are in the United Kingdom.Milk Marketing Board
5. Mr. Strang : To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is his policy towards the milk marketing board ; and if he will make a statement.
Mr. Gummer : I welcome the milk marketing board's decision to submit plans for transforming itself to co-operative status.
Mr. Strang : Does the Minister recognise that many of us dispute the view that the abandonment of the current milk marketing scheme would be in the overall interest of milk producers? Does he deny that for farms that are relatively remote from major population centres, any curtailment of the guarantees currently provided by the milk marketing board could be catastrophic?
Mr. Gummer : The milk marketing board proposes that it should make some changes, because it recognises the major problem--the hon. Gentleman must come to terms with it--that more than 35 per cent. of the liquid milk now bought is legally outside the scheme and that supermarkets, which are major selling agencies, can buy their milk from countries that are, naturally, outside the scheme. The milk marketing board is trying to produce a package that will better protect the producer and meet the needs of the consumer. If the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang) is opposed to the change and does not agree that the milk marketing board should seek what it believes to be the best answer, he is proposing a scheme in which he feels that he knows better than the board. I am not prepared to say that.
Mr. Conway : My right hon. Friend will know that the majority of Shropshire dairy farmers support the need for change and the view of the milk marketing board. Has my right hon. Friend read the letter in Farming News from the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark)? Is not it surprising that he is taking a more stick-in-the-mud attitude which will not help dairy farmers improve their incomes or businesses?
Mr. Gummer : My hon. Friend may have seen that the shadow Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food wrote in The House Magazine that he did not think that there should be changes in the milk marketing scheme. He, too, thinks that he knows better than the milk marketing board. I warn him directly that if the British people find that the milk marketing scheme falls about the ears of the producers because changes were not made in time, they will know who to blame for the disaster that would befall our milk producers. The hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) may laugh, but it is he who said that changes in the market should not be met by changes in the milk marketing scheme.
Mr. Skinner : Does the Minister agree that there is little that the milk marketing board can do for the two dairy farmers in Bolsover who have had to cease production
Column 488
because of the dioxin levels in the milk in that area? Will he guarantee that while he is arguing for the polluter to pay--we all accept that--somebody should compensate those farmers in the meantime if Coalite or any other polluter takes the matter to court? I suggest that some compensation should be paid and account should be taken of the 25 other farms that may be affected in the future.Mr. Gummer : The hon. Gentleman rightly brings to the attention of the House the plight of two dairy farmers, both of whom I have met on their farms. I know very well how seriously they are affected. I asked the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) whether I could visit those farmers since they are in his constituency and he kindly allowed me to do so.
The most important thing is that we are discussing with those farmers ways in which we can experiment on their farms to try to find the source of the pollution. During that time we shall be paying them for the facilities that they will provide and for the fact that they are keeping their animals for us and enabling us to do that research. The research will take about two or three months and, during that time, I hope that we shall be able to understand more closely how to proceed. The hon. Member for Bolsover has been kind enough to accept that this is a complex matter of fault and that we shall have to search for a long time before we find an answer. In the meantime, we shall be helping the farmers as far as we can.
Confectionery Industry
7. Mr. Gregory : To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he has any plans to make an official visit to York to discuss current confectionery industry issues.
Mr. Curry : I am always ready to discuss confectionery issues in York and elsewhere.
Mr. Gregory : Is my hon. Friend aware of the great concern in the city of York among the 6,500 employees in the confectionery industry about the problem of counterfeiting? While British products such as KitKat have become kit kit and kit kier, those jobs are at risk. Will he talk to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to ensure that there are adequate safeguards for good British products and that appropriate action is taken, especially in the middle east and the far east?
Mr. Curry : I appreciate my hon. Friend's concern about shady snacks in the souks, if I may put it like that. He will know that the protection of intellectual property which covers precisely that issue is an important element of the GATT talks. I shall certainly undertake to point out to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry the importance of the problem for the industry, which I know is important in my hon. Friend's constituency. I shall certainly do all that I can to prevent such a theft of jobs from the United Kingdom and from Yorkshire, to which I am particularly attached.
Fishing Industry
8. Mrs. Margaret Ewing : To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what recent representations he has received from representatives of the fishing industry on the question of a decommissioning scheme.
Column 489
Mr. Curry : I have made it clear that any decommissioning scheme must be part of an effective package of measures to conserve fish stocks and control fishery effort.Mrs. Ewing : Does the Minister accept in principle the need for a decommissioning scheme? If so, is he prepared to sit down with representatives of the Scottish fishing industry and, instead of passing the buck directly to them, discuss in detail the relative contributions that will be made by the Government, the European Community and the industry to a conservation package which would have the confidence of the industry, rather than the present arrangement of the eight-day tie-up, which puts lives and livelihoods at risk?
Mr. Curry : We are always ready to sit down with the
representatives of all United Kingdom industries, as we have demonstrated frequently in the past. We shall continue to do so.
Mr. Harris : Although I recognise the difficulties and pitfalls of a decommissioning scheme, will my hon. Friend nevertheless accept that the overwhelming desire of all hon. Members who represent fishing constituencies is that the Government should consider seriously the possibility of just such a scheme? Will my hon. Friend consider with great care the proposals put to the Government by the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations, because many of us believe that at least the outline of such a package is contained in that scheme?
Mr. Curry : Decommissioning as the sole response to the problem of overcapacity is something which we cannot accept. However, we can accept that decommissioning as part of a sensible package of effective control may have a role. Therefore, we shall discuss it with all aspects of the industry. I frequently meet representatives of the NFFO--as it happens, I met them this morning to discuss a different matter. We met the Scottish Fishermen's Federation in Brussels early last week in the margins of the Council. I shall continue to have the closest contact with those organisations and also with those representing other parts of the United Kingdom.
Mr. Robert Hughes : Does the Minister recollect that only a few moments ago the Secretary of State was ranting and railing at the House, telling us that we must accept all European solutions? As there is a European solution with decommissioning, as there is access to European Community money and given the fact that he has been much more conciliatory today, will he now push strongly in his discussions with the various bodies for a proper decommissioning scheme as part of the conservation measures? We would all welcome that.
Mr. Curry : The problem with the European scheme is that it regards decommissioning as being isolated from other conservation measures. I have made it clear that that is not a sensible approach, but we shall certainly consider it in the context of a more thorough approach to conservation. Certainly, we hope to advance that conservation matter at the next Fisheries Council in October. I repeat my promise to remain in contact with all the organisations involved.
Mr. Bellingham : The Minister will be aware that the Wash shell fishery in my constituency has its own peculiar problems, and the fishermen there are extremely grateful
| Next Section
| Home Page |