Sir John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con): I am almost
seduced by Opposition amendment 1. It is an admirable idea that
we should land more of our own fish in our own ports, but I am probably not
going to make it to their Lobby, because they lack ambition—why only 65%? We
heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Moray (Mr Douglas Ross) that
the Norwegians and the Icelandics, who have had control of their own fisheries
for much longer or never surrendered them, have much higher percentages than
that. These are small, prosperous countries that took their destiny in their
own hands, and they have a much finer fishing industry than ours—crippled as it
has been for too many years by the common fisheries policy.
So full marks to the Opposition for wanting, for once, to
go in the right direction, but let us have a bit more passion and ambition,
because it is a disgrace that, after all these years in the common fisheries
policy, the overwhelming majority of our fish is taken by others, and
it is a disgrace that this great fishing nation imports fish to feed ourselves.
I want to see a much higher percentage than amendment 1 suggests, because I
think we need the food for ourselves or we would be very good at processing it
and adding value to it. I do not just want fresh fish for our tables; I also
want to see us putting in those extra factories and processing plants in our
coastal communities so that they can produce excellent fish preparations or
derivatives of fish for our own purposes and for wider export around the rest
of the world. This is crucial.
I am afraid that I am not seduced by amendment 2 either.
While I and the Government, and I think everyone in this House, think that
sustainability of our fishery will be most important, I do not think it is the
only aim, or even the prime aim. It is a very important aim that we want to use
our fishery to feed ourselves and others, and to produce much better jobs, more
paid employment and factory processing. It is very important, as others have
said, that we look after the wider marine environment —not just the fish
stocks, but the environment in which the fish and others are swimming.
I think we need to have multiple aims, and I think that
is what the Government are setting out. The Government are very much in favour
of sustainability, so when we wait—desperately worried—on these negotiations, I
say, “Please, Government, do not give our fish away again!” That mistake has
been made too often—in the original negotiations to go into the European
Economic Community and in annual negotiations thereafter. Let us hope that
our fish is not given away in those negotiations. If we cannot fish enough of
it in the short term, because we still do not have the boats and the capacity,
let us leave it in the sea and rebuild our stocks more quickly, while we get
that extra capacity. I would like to hear and see more from the Minister and
the wider Government on how we are going to support the acquisition of much
more capacity.
Should we not be helping fishermen and fisherwomen
commission new boats from British yards, and have that combined shipbuilding
capability and the fishing capability, leading on to the production capability?
Many of our industries were badly damaged or demolished by our presence in the
European Union. This is a prime example of an industry that was crippled. The
scope for much greater prosperity for our coastal communities could be added to
by the right schemes to get more boats, and by the right schemes such as
enterprise zones that allow us to go right up the value chain and produce the
best fish dishes in the world.
