SCOTTISH FISHING WATERS (PROTECTION) (Hansard, 17 July 1961)

§ Mr. James H. Hoy (Edinburgh, Leith)

I seek to raise with the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland a question of which I gave notice to the House on 20th June, namely, the protection of Scottish fishing waters. I shall not suggest for a moment that this is a new subject, because if one cares to look up the records one will find that it has been raised over many years and on many occasions by different Members both in this House and in another place.

On 21st February, 1907, Lord Balfour of Burleigh asked the representative of the Scottish Office, in another place, whether it was the case that certain persons recently convicted in the Sheriff Court at Elgin for illegal trawling in the Moray Firth, and imprisoned in default of payment of fines, had been released without the payment of the fines, and if so, whether he could, without detriment to the public interest, give any explanation of the reasons which led to their release, and to ask His Majesty's Government whether they would state what policy they intended to pursue in future regarding trawling in the Moray Firth That very adequately sums up what this is all about tonight.

On that occasion the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, replying to the debate which ensued, said: On behalf of the Scottish Office I am allowed to say that this matter is continuing to receive the attention of the Secretary of State for Scotland. … Fifty-four years have now passed and I assume that successive Secretaries of State have continued to give the matter attention, because so far nothing has happened.

There was a much more vehement debate in this House in 1908, in Committee of Supply, when the then Member for Wick Burghs moved to reduce the vote by £100 and initiated a debate on fishing in Moray Firth. He protested against the unsatisfactory state of the law and the inaction of the Scottish Office. It is interesting to recall that 1024 on that occasion he was supported by one Major Anstruther-Gray, who then represented St. Andrews Burghs. The gallant major of that day was a very outspoken Member. He said that the condition of Moray Firth was absolutely deplorable and he wanted to know whether the foreign fishermen were legally or illegally fishing in those waters. He said that what was wanted was a little backbone in the Administration of Scotland. All this flabby work would not do. He did not think that they should have a decision by the Judges of the High Court of Scotland upset by a telegram from England. The debate was replied to by the then Foreign Secretary, Sir Edward Grey, and by the Secretary of State for Scotland, Mr. Sinclair. They both made it clear that they did not want to enforce the law and so offend certain foreign Powers with interests in these waters.

It is perfectly clear that these foreign countries still have interests in fishing in these areas. The White Fish Authority's Report, which has just been published, makes it clear that, in the Moray Firth and the Firth of Clyde, in contravention of the Trawling in Prohibited Areas (Prevention) Act, 1909, these trawlers are continuing to fish. In 1960, 12 Belgian trawlers were seen on 38 occasions in the Moray Firth, while 49 trawlers were observed on 128 occasions in the Firth of Clyde.

If the Under-Secretary of State seems to have a little trouble in following these figures, let me, in confirmation of them, point out that they were given by the Secretary of State in reply to a Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) on 13th June. The right hon. Gentleman stated that in the Firth of Clyde, 49 trawlers were observed oil 128 occasions, and that they included 43 French trawlers which were observed on 109 occasions.

From all this, it arises that, while the Act does not specifically prohibit foreign trawlers entering these areas, fishing there obviously goes on, and it is at this point that the trouble arises. The Act which lays down the law about these areas is—unless I am incorrect—the Herring Fisheries (Scotland) Act, 1889. Sections 6 and 7, and the Schedule to that Act, combined with the byelaw passed in 1892, prohibit all fishing of certain specified 1025 types in the Firth of Clyde and the Moray Firth.

Let us be frank. I do not think that the Under-Secretary of State will deny that, as a matter of policy, the Government have decided that the laws on this matter should not be enforced against foreigners. Indeed, in the early case which I have mentioned, where the law was enforced, and the decision was upheld by a bench of Scottish judges, the Government issued an instruction to withhold the penalties of the law and allowed the men concerned to go free.

It is because the Act is not being enforced that the trouble is arising. The Act does not lay down that foreigners shall not be allowed to fish in the area, but it prevents them from landing fish in this country. The consequence is that, while our trawlers are not allowed into the area, foreign trawlers can go in, catch fish and take it to some other country for landing. This has two bad effects. First, it causes great friction among our own fisher folk, who resent the fact that foreign trawlers can fish in these waters and take their catches away, and that there is no means of checking them. Secondly, many fishermen say that immature and small fish are being caught, that the fishing grounds are being destroyed, and that this has grave consequences on our own fleets.

I do not think that even the Under-Secretary of State will deny that that sort of thing is taking place today, and that it is creating so much trouble in the area. The Minch still works under the ordinary three-mile limit. Under the Sea Fisheries Regulations (Scotland) Act, 1895, the Fishery Board may enforce a limit up to 13 miles, but no action has been taken to do this because we do not want to offend other countries. That is the simple reason for it.

We are faced with a new position today, because in the past few months certain changes have taken place in fishery limits throughout the world. One has only to think of the Norwegian Agreement, where a 6-mile limit was in force, and the 12-mile limit is to come into operation in October, 1970. Iceland has extended her fishery limits to 12 miles, and the Faroes, which we were discussing on Friday, have extended their limits from four to six miles. and during certain periods of the 1026 year and in certain areas, from six to 12 miles. British fishermen are debarred from those areas.

What British fishermen do not understand is why, in view of the action taken against us by those countries, we go to the other extreme and debar our fishermen from going into certain areas but appear to welcome foreigners. It seems ludicrous that this should continue.

As the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs reported in 1907 that this was under consideration and continual examination by the Secretary of State for Scotland, I can only hope that after a period of fifty-four years the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland will be able to tell us something about the action the Government now propose to take in this matter.

§ The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Gilmour Leburn)

I am not quite sure what I am to be allowed to say tonight, but I should like to congratulate the hon. Gentleman the Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Hoy) on the researches that he has made into this subject.

The hon. Member has covered very fully some of the old Acts, but perhaps I might repeat the position, although I think that he clearly understands it. The hon. Gentleman quoted the Herring Fishery (Scotland) Act, 1889, under which no one may trawl within three miles. Under the same Act no one may trawl within the Firth of Clyde. Also, that Act enabled the Fishery Board for Scotland—it is now the Secretary of State for Scotland—to make a byelaw prohibiting trawling in the Moray Forth. Such a byelaw was made in 1892.

The hon. Gentleman then went on to quote the Trawling in Prohibited Areas (Prevention) Act, 1909, which says that a foreign trawler observed trawling in an area prohibited to British trawlers may not land fish in the United Kingdom within an ensuing period of two months. I think that the hon. Gentleman knows that if the Department's protection cruisers observe a vessel of that kind trawling they report the matter to the Department, which, in turn, circulates Customs officers to see that these vessels do not land fish within a period of two months.

1027 That is the legal position. The hon. Gentleman then went on to quote the famous case in 1906 but here, no matter what happened in the law courts, I think that it is well known that the Government of the day subsequently decided not to enforce the byelaw against foreign trawlers, and that they did so on grounds of international law.

The hon. Gentleman quoted certain authorities on this matter, including the hon. Member for St. Andrews Burghs, and perhaps I might quote what the then Financial Secretary to the Treasury said in reply to a Parliamentary Question. He said: The Act of Parliament as interpreted by the High Court of Justiciary is contrary to international law. The practice of not proceeding against foreign trawlers operating in the Moray Firth or in the Firth of Clyde, to which similar statutory provisions apply, was thus instituted a long time ago by a Liberal Government and has been followed ever since by all Governments irrespective of party. Whether that satisfies the hon. Member or not I do not know, but I now want to turn to two other matters.

I think that the hon. Member would like me to say something about the Government's general policy and about conservation, particularly in regard to the foreign trawlers fishing in these areas. The question of policy—i.e., Whether we should seek to extend our territorial limits, or exclusive fishery jurisdiction, further than three miles, either in a limited way, say, to the Moray Firth or Clyde, or, in a more general way, round the whole coast is obviously a very big problem. It affects not only the interests of our fishermen who fish off our own coasts and those who fish elsewhere, but it also affects defence and strategic questions and our concerns as a major maritime nation.

Undoubtedly, the climate of international opinion and practice on this subject has changed very much in recent years. Factors which had not arisen even ten years ago have to be taken into account. Views as to what international law does or should permit differ widely. As the House knows, Her Majesty's Government and other like-minded Governments have made great efforts in 1028 the past few years to arrive at a generally agreed international settlement on the territorial sea and fishery limits. We achieved a great deal at the Geneva Law of the Sea Conference, in 1958, but that conference left outstanding the important question of the breadth of the territorial sea and of exclusive fishery limits.

At the second conference, in 1960, despite the sacrifices involved for our own fishing industry, we supported the United States-Canadian proposal for a 6-mile territorial sea and 12-mile fishery limit, subject to the continuance of historic fishing rights in the outer six miles for a ten-year period. That proposal narrowly failed to secure the necessary majority. Since then we have been seeking to resolve our differences with other countries off whose coasts we fish, and have made agreements with Norway and Iceland.

All those developments obviously have a great bearing on the policy we should adopt towards fishery limits off the United Kingdom coast. I know that there is a substantial body of opinion which holds, for reasons which seem to it to be cogent and some of which have been well stated by the hon. Member this evening, that we ought now to follow precedents set by other countries and extend the breadth of our fishery limits beyond three miles.

There are many other considerations to be taken into account. There are other areas elsewhere—and I am sure that the hon. Members knows this very well—of importance to our deep-sea fishing interests where limits have not so far been extended beyond three miles. We must keep that in mind, and also the repercussions which any action on our part might have on our general naval and maritime interests. The question of fishery limits, moreover, cannot be viewed in isolation from other questions affecting our fishing industry, such as conservation and the trade in fish. All these matters require very careful consideration and we must always keep in mind the desirability of collaborating with the other fishing countries with which we are most closely associated.

Turning to the other very important point, the protection of our fish stocks, we must here keep a sense of proportion regarding the effect on the stocks of 1029 excluding foreign trawlers from the Moray Firth and from the Firth of Clyde. The number of foreign trawlers at present operating in these areas is not large, and I must tell the hon. Gentleman that for once I did not have any trouble with his figures, even if I appeared to do so.

As the hon. Member stated, in 1960, 12 foreign trawlers were observed on 38 occasions in the Moray Firth and 49 on 128 occasions in the Clyde. This gives a total of 166 fishing days. Since these trawlers are not allowed to land their fish in this country we do not know exactly how much they caught, but if we assume that their catch was roughly the quantity per day taken by a modern Aberdeen trawler—about two tons—we get a total of about 330 tons taken during the year by foreign trawlers from these waters. By comparison, our own seiners landed at Moray Firth and Clyde ports, in 1960, about 34,000 tons of fish. Not all of that, admittedly, would be taken from the two areas in question, but it gives some measure for comparison.

I think that the figures demonstrate that the operations of foreign vessels in these areas are not likely to have affected our catch very greatly. Having said that, however, it is not to suggest that the desire of our own fishermen that foreign trawlers should be excluded is unreasonable. I clearly understand the hon. Gentleman's point that it must be very irritating and galling for our own fishermen to see them fishing in these waters in which they themselves cannot fish.

This is very understandable, particularly in view of the situation with which we are confronted off other countries. Undoubtedly, if we did extend our fishery limits our inshore fishermen would derive benefits. The point I would make, however, is that if one is thinking in terms of protecting the stocks, it does not really make sense to rely solely on the prohibition of certain forms of fishing within certain areas.

What happens to the stocks around the United Kingdom coast depends on fishing not only there, but all over the North Sea and other areas nearby, since the fish migrate. Effective protection of 1030 the stocks can be achieved only by international conservation measures which it is one of the fundamental aims of our policy to promote. The 1946 Over-Fishing Convention prescribes minimum sizes of mesh which may be used and minimum sizes of fish which may be landed. The North-East Atlantic Convention of 1959, which we took the lead in promoting, but which has not yet been ratified by all the signatories and has not yet came into force, will make possible more comprehensive measures—such as close seasons, closed areas, and limitation of fishing effort.

We are very conscious that the 1946 Convention had limitations and loopholes and that under cover of these a large amount of fishing with small meshed nets is going on which can be most damaging to stocks. We have made certain proposals to the Permanent Commission set up under the 1946 Convention with the object of securing an improvement in this respect, and we shall spare no effort to achieve more effective conservation measures than now exist.

I think that I have covered most of the points which the hon. Gentleman raised. The questions at issue are not simple and cannot be rashly or hastily determined, even after fifty-four years. We are, as has been stated on several recent occasions in the House, keeping United Kingdom policy on fishery limits under review, and I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I have listened very carefully to what he has said.

This discussion has been useful in bringing out once more the factors to which we must obviously give attention. If I cannot be more specific at present about what our future policy on fishery limits may be it is not because we do not realise the urgency or importance of this matter. I can assure the hon. Member that we do realise its importance and urgency. It is one on which strong views are obviously held, for very proper reasons, and we shall treat the matter with the care and seriousness which it deserves.