FISHERIES (INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENTS) (Hansard, 29 April 1963)

§ The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. Edward Heath)
With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I wish to make a statement on international fishery agreements.
In recent years, international fishery problems have increased substantially in gravity and in complexity. The most serious are those of access to fishing grounds and of access to markets. These are aggravated as fishing fleets increase in size, speed and catching power.
Many of the international agreements regarding fisheries, and our related legislation, are very old and many of their 716 provisions are, consequently, obsolete. There is, therefore, an urgent need to examine the whole complex of fishery problems afresh.
At the Law of the Sea Conferences of 1958 and 1960, Her Majesty's Government gave their full support to attempts to reach international agreement on the extent of the territorial seas and fisheries jurisdiction. These attempts to settle one aspect of the problem in isolation, however, failed.
Again, at the time of the Brussels negotiations, Her Majesty's Government made clear their interest in the settlement of common fishery problems on a European basis. Although the negotiations were not concluded, our objective remains to secure a reasonable livelihood for fishermen and stable markets in Western Europe.
Her Majesty's Government believe that these questions and the special problems of fisheries must be looked at as a whole and can best be settled by discussion. We are, therefore, inviting those countries affected, the members of the European Free Trade Association and the European Economic Community, Iceland, the Irish Republic and Spain, to a conference in the autumn.
We propose that this conference should consider the questions of trade in fish and access to fishing grounds. We hope by this means to arrive at an equitable settlement on a European basis which will have regard to the interests of all sections of the fishing industry. During these discussions, we shall bear in mind the interests of Commonwealth countries and will consult them where they are affected.
These fishing problems have been aggravated in recent years by the progressive restriction of areas of the high seas on which nations of the world can exercise their right of fishing. In particular, the countries off whose coasts lie many of the principal fishing grounds in the North Atlantic area have claimed an extension of their fishery jurisdiction.
These extensions, which have imposed heavy sacrifices on the British deep-sea fishing fleets, have obliged Her Majesty's Government to consider whether the interests of the United Kingdom fishing industry, taken as a whole, can be reconciled with the continuation of the traditional three-mile limit around the coasts 717 of the United Kingdom. While giving full weight to the legitimate interests of our friends and allies, our conclusion is that, in the present state of international law, we would be justified in no longer denying to British fishermen some extension of their exclusive rights in their own coastal waters.
In order, therefore, to regain our freedom of action regarding the extent of our fishery limits in the light of the discussions I have already described, we have decided to give notice of our intention to terminate our participation in the North Sea Fisheries Convention of 1882 with effect from 15th May, 1964; and also the Fisheries Regulations of 1843, made under the Anglo-French Fishery Convention of 1839, with effect from 24th June, 1964. This was done on 26th April. From 24th June, 1964, we shall then be free to take such action as we consider desirable.
Her Majesty's Government hope that this initiative will enable those countries concerned to achieve a satisfactory settlement of these complex problems.

§ Mr. Peart
The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that we on this side have pressed over and over again for a reexamination of this problem along the lines suggested. Can he say why the conference should be in the autumn? Why wait until then? Is there to be an election, or what is the reason? The matter is urgent. Each country concerned has pressed its views. They are well-known. Why could not there be a conference in June or July? There may, perhaps, be a reason, but I hope that the Lord Privy Seal will give a satisfactory answer.
The right hon. Gentleman has said that we shall consult the Commonwealth. Why could not Canada be invited to this conference? The problem affects all the Atlantic community, so why should not Canada be a participant at the conference instead of only being consulted?
I agree that we can no longer deny to British fishermen some extension of their exclusive rights, but does the right hon. Gentleman recall that we pressed this on the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when dealing with inshore fishermen's rights on a controversial Bill in Committee not very long ago?
718 The right hon. Gentleman has said that we shall be free to take such action as we consider desirable. What action does he mean? Are we likely to have a further statement now? Can the right hon. Gentleman be precise?
Finally, will the right hon. Gentleman take it that, in general, we support this approach?

§ Mr. Heath
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his whole-hearted and warm support.
First, on the timing, we have proposed the autumn because that will give us barely three months' preparation for a very important conference about immensely complex matters, Indeed, I suspect that some countries will suggest that there is difficulty about a conference as early as the autumn. We shall urge that it should take place then, but I do not think that it would be practicable to hold it earlier.
As regards Canada, all the Commonwealth countries were consulted about this matter before we gave notification on 26th April. The grouping of the countries comprises those concerned with the North-Eastern Atlantic area, and we feel that this is the best basis on which to hold this particular conference.
The hon. Gentleman asked, with reference to the last paragraph of my statement, what action is proposed. I do not think that he has quite understood the conception which lies behind the statement. It is that we are regaining our liberty of action. What we wish to do is to achieve a settlement with the other countries concerned over the whole of this area, and it will be in the light of that settlement that we shall have to decide what action to take.

§ Mr. Grimond
Will the right hon. Gentleman answer three questions? First, is he aware that the question of limits is of crucial importance to Scottish inshore fishermen and that there are special problems in relation to certain parts of the Scottish fishing grounds, for instance, the Minch, the Moray Firth—which is being fished by foreign trawlers, in defiance, many people think, of the Scottish courts—and certain areas around Shetland? Will he assure the House that people from Scotland who are familiar with these areas and their problems will be at the projected conference?
719 Secondly, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is a large Russian fleet almost permanently fishing in the North Sea, largely for herring, though there is no reason to suppose that the Russians will confine themselves to herring? Would it not be as well to ask them to the conference, or, if that would not be suitable, to open negotiations with the Russians in other ways?
Thirdly, will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that, apart from limits, which are extremely important, the preservation of stocks and some control of over-fishing and of catching of immature fish are also extremely important? Can he assure us that the conference will devote its attention to this subject?

§ Mr. Heath
We realise the crucial nature of this matter to the Scottish inshore fishing industry, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland will, of course, be closely concerned with the representation of the Government when the conference is arranged.
The question of Russian activities can, I think, be discussed at the conference, which, as the right hon. Gentleman has suggested, can decide what is the best means of dealing with this problem.
Countries can raise at the conference questions of conservation and other matters which I did not mention specifically in my statement, but some of them are already covered in that part of the Geneva Convention on which agreement was reached at the two previous Law of the Sea Conferences. If further action is required, then it can be discussed.

§ Mr. Prior
Is my right hon. Friend aware that his statement will be welcomed as being a firm and statesmanlike initiative by Her Majesty's British Government. Will he, in dealing with the points which are to be discussed, realise the importance which British fishermen will attach to Russia in this respect, and also, as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) pointed out, conservation? At the same time, will it be possible to discuss the rights of establishment which the British fishing industry may have in other countries, similar to the rights which foreigners have in British markets?

§ Mr. Heath
Yes, Sir. All these subjects are suitable for discussion if we are to obtain an overall settlement.

§ Mr. Hector Hughes
As one who has been recommending a conference of this kind for a long time, may I say that I welcome the Minister's conversion at long last to the idea? But are not the terms of reference which he has announced far too narrow? Will the representatives who will attend the conference be high-powered representatives of the various fishing nations which will be represented? Will the right hon. Gentleman be a little clearer about the terms of reference and about the status of the people who will constitute the conference?
May I also say that I support the suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Peart) that the timing of the conference is far too late? Will the right hon. Gentleman revise it and arrange for the conference to take place long before the General Election in the autumn?

§ Mr. Heath
I am glad to have the hon. and learned Gentleman's support. When making the statement I was not endeavouring, obviously, to set out precise terms of reference for the conference. Having issued the invitation and set out the broad proposals to the countries I mentioned, it is now a matter to be discussed through diplomatic channels as to the exact ground which they would wish the conference to cover. I was not intending to exclude matters by indicating the broad ones we wished to include.
As for the timing, I must ask the House to consider the very great deal of work required to be done by the various countries if we are to have a successful conference in the autumn. I am quite certain, from my experience in these matters, that it is not possible to have a conference of this kind earlier.

§ Mr. Wall
While welcoming the Government's initiative in this matter, which can only be settled by international agreement, may I ask my hon. Friend two questions? Will our own delegation at this conference start from the basis of six miles? Is that what my hon. Friend has in mind? Secondly, will he consider methods of inspection of net size, to prevent over-fishing?

§ Mr. Heath
I do not think that my hon. Friend will expect me to reveal our negotiating position as early as this. His 721 second point is certainly one of the matters on conservation which could be included.

§ Sir J. Duncan
First, will the object of the conference be to delineate certain fishing limits, not to interfere with international limits for other purposes? Secondly, I should like to reinforce the importance, particularly to the Scottish fishing fleet, of trying to arrange that Russia should be brought into the conference somehow.

§ Mr. Heath
I fully appreciate that point. It is obvious that a conference of this kind cannot entirely avoid discussion of other forms of limits.

§ Mr. Speaker
We cannot debate this now. We could not do so even if there were not many Members desiring to speak in the ensuing debate for whom there will not be time.