| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Steen: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Steen: Is my right hon. Friend aware of another letter from Jacques Santer to the Spanish Government in which he said that any country that did not want to land fish in another country did not have to do so?
Mr. Curry: I assure my hon. Friend that I was going to refer to that letter.
We have to be careful about the first of the proposed conditions--that 50 per cent. of a catch should be landed in the UK--and must ask to what extent it will affect British fishermen, because Scottish pelagic fleets land in Holland and Norway, and English east coast vessels land in Holland. There is no point trying to introduce measures that are designed to catch quota hoppers but end up causing difficulty for our own vessels. Also, as my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Mr. Steen) said, products can be shipped practically straight from the dockside on refrigerated lorries to onward overseas destinations, thus bringing precious little local benefit.
As for starting journeys from the UK, I wonder what practical impact that would have. I suspect that many quota hoppers would simply clock in at Milford Haven as they went past and that that would count as having started their journey from the UK. If the conditions are to be more rigorous, and if there is to be more substance to them, the Parliamentary Secretary will no doubt spell it out when he responds to the debate.
The only condition that might yield some interest is the residence requirement--I suspect that it is intended to give British vessels a let-out. If it stood alone, it might produce some useful pressure but, even then, verification and control present obvious difficulties.
Do the Government envisage further conditions--for example, a requirement that vessels be inspected as they leave fishing grounds when they are under British registration? The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) asked the relevant question whether the Government intend to reinforce the proposals with decommissioning measures aimed at quota hoppers, thus introducing the carrot and the stick.
I am concerned about the legality of what is proposed. When in government, we had the experience of trying to deal with the problem by introducing legislation but then running foul of international law in doing so. That is bound to be a preoccupation.
We have a tale of several letters. The Prime Minister set out measures to demonstrate that quotas
Jacques Santer's response was very guarded. He stated:
Even that letter, however, got Mr. Santer into a certain amount of trouble. This brings us to the third letter--that from the Spanish Foreign Minister, Mr. Abel Matutes, to Mr. Santer on 19 June. It comprises five pages of fairly indignant protest. For example, he stated:
I hold no brief for the Spanish. We faced the same difficulties, and the Minister will come back to the House with the next batch of measures before long, but I am entitled to share the view of the fishing industry that the Government's proposals are likely to come under intense legal scrutiny and could well fall foul of the treaty as interpreted by the European Court of Justice. That would take us back to square one.
I seriously doubt that the Government's proposals have the legs to finish the course, but I hope that they do. I do not want the Government to fail. We have tried to crack the problem for many years, and I have bitter experience of trying to make things work.
Does it matter if the proposals do not work? Yes, it does. First, it matters because we have all been looking for a way to enshrine the spirit of the 1983 agreement by adding nationality criteria to beneficial ownership--in other words, to reconcile the treaty provisions on free trade and the movement of people and capital with the concept of fishing for the benefit of coastal communities in the flag state.
Secondly, it matters because the new multi-annual guidance programme, or fleet limitation exercise, is upon us. It is crucial that it should take account of the problem of quota hoppers, and I want to know from the Parliamentary Secretary whether he intends to proceed with it if it is demonstrated that the formula will not deliver the benefits he seeks from it. It is a complicated MAGP, and I look forward to his coming back to the House and explaining how he will make effort control and days at sea work. If that is the route that he goes down, it will be a trip down a nostalgic byway, which many hon. Members will remember, having been through that debate before.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Elliot Morley):
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) for providing the House with this opportunity to discuss in depth the issue of flag- of-convenience vessels, together with the Government's action to address the issue. He is right to say that, in the past, we have made common cause in arguing that we should have more time for debating fisheries. Fishing is an important industry in this country and there are many hon. Members from fishing areas who want to make their points.
I sympathise with the hon. Gentleman's constituents and also with his comments about the effects on exports of the high pound. That is an issue for my colleagues in the Treasury, but they are well aware of the effects on exports of the high pound and of high inflation. It is ironic that the pound is so high, because people see this country as having sound fiscal management under the present Government. Nevertheless, there were measures in the Budget designed to reduce the pound's value, although it may be some time before they take effect, and I know that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor is aware of the issue.
The importance of this subject is borne out by the large number of hon. Members who have participated in the debate. We heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, Central (Mr. Doran), who has made a welcome return to the House. We value his knowledge, especially of the processing sector, and the fact that he plays an active role as secretary of the all-party fisheries group. The hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry) outlined the previous Government's position. He was fair, albeit somewhat selective in his use of historical quotes. My hon. Friend the Member for Ayr (Mrs. Osborne) made a maiden speech which was witty, informative and, with offers of racing tips and accommodation for golf tournaments, extremely generous. We welcome her valuable contribution to the debate.
The hon. Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill) is always consistent in debates such as this--he may be consistently wrong, but he is certainly consistent and he is a long-standing contributor. He made an important point about equal access. I am on record as saying that equal access is not valid in relation to the modern common fisheries policy; in addition, it is not now relevant, given that relative stability has now been accepted by the Commission and all the other member states. We should move away from it, and the review in 2002 will give us an opportunity to do so. I, too, have been consistent and I have not changed my position on equal access.
My hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Mr. Blizzard) was one of the first Members of Parliament I saw as Fisheries Minister, which shows that he is a great champion of his fishing port. I take his comments on behalf of his fishermen very seriously indeed.
I shall try to respond to the points raised in the debate, but that will be difficult to do in just 10 minutes.
"are contributing substantial economic benefits to populations dependent on fisheries . . . in the flag states".
He asked the Commission to
"look constructively at and give its opinions on any draft UK measures"
in respect of the three conditions.
"With regard to the measures designed to get economic benefits for populations dependent on fisheries and related industries I should clarify that such measures may imply"--
that is a curious word in this context--
"requirements to be met on an alternative basis and concerning, inter alia",
and he then mentioned the three conditions. He signed off by saying that the Commission
"remain ready to further clarify our view on possible measures which your Government may envisage in this respect."
If that is a sort of "come hither" message, it does not seem to burn with the unrequited passion attributed to it.
"during the IGC the Commission representative supported my country's position, presented in various memoranda, where we stressed among other things that to place any restriction on the activity of any Community-registered vessel, such as an obligation to unload or for the crew to reside in the flag country, was incompatible with the Treaty and with jurisprudence. In the meeting of 30 September 1996, the Commission representative stated that he followed the line agreed in the College of Commissioners. Moreover, even the British request for amendments to the Treaty was expressly based on the impossibility of introducing the desired restrictions with the existing acquis communautaire."
The Spanish Minister gave a detailed analysis of the judgment of the European Court of Justice in the Jaderow case, one of the celebrated cases in fisheries history. He continued:
"From this it follows that a member state, on fixing the way in which it will use its quota, in accordance with Art 5 part 2 of Regulation 170/83, cannot demand that catches or parts thereof should be unloaded in its own ports."
He quoted extensively from the judgment and argued that any conditions with which the British Prime Minister returned from Amsterdam would be very difficult to reconcile with European law. Jacques Santer then replied in the terms presented to the House by the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan and my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes. That seems to leave a very thin thread linking the proposed measures with effective control of quota hoppers.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |