§ 18. Mr. Wallasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he is aware of the growing concern at the scale of fines awarded in foreign courts against British trawlers alleged to be poaching, on flimsy evidence, and in particular of the Norwegian out-of-court settlement known as forelegging; and if he will discuss these matters with the Minister of State for Foreign Affairs in an attempt to obtain an agreement on an international standard of adjudication and punishment.
§ Mr. HoyI think that current concern in the industry is less with the levels of fines imposed, which have not lately changed, than with other features such as delay in releasing an arrested vessel. The Norwegian practice to which the hon. 1261 Member refers is optional and not imposed. The Government assist in particular cases where appropriate. Internationally agreed standards of judicial procedure are laid down in the European Convention on Human Rights to which the principal countries off whose coasts we fish are party.
§ Mr. WallDoes not the Minister agree that some of the evidence offered against British trawlers recently is very flimsy—for example, that of people in open boats, without sufficient instrumentation? Again, there was the offer at the court of a settlement of £3,000, backed by a court order of £10,000. Could not the Minister discuss this matter with the Governments concerned so that we can arrive at a common standard? The present situation leads to international friction.
§ Mr. HoyThis process of forelegging is a matter for the option of the owner concerned. As to the methods used in the courts of other countries and the submission of evidence, I do not think that we should seek to interfere with the rights of those courts and their administration of justice, because we would very much resent it if they attempted to interfere with ours.
§ Mr. Hector HughesDoes the Minister realise that this is of the utmost importance to the business of fishermen and to fish consumers? Will he take steps, either through the United Nations or the Court of International Justice, to see that the traditional law is observed in the cases referred to in the Question?
§ Mr. HoyYes, I can assure my hon. and learned Friend that we are aware of the importance of this matter. That is why I said, in the concluding part of my original Answer, that we are a party to the European Convention on Human Rights and, if we feel strongly enough about a case, action will be taken.
§ Mr. Scott-HopkinsWill the hon. Gentleman take steps to consult his colleagues at the Foreign Office to see whether some common term can be arrived at after consultations with the countries concerned? Is he aware that this is an important matter?
§ Mr. HoyIndeed it is important, and we frequently do have consultations if we think that any of our people have been 1262 dealt with unfairly. But even the hon. Gentleman would not, I think, suggest that we should have the right to interfere with the administration of justice in another country. That would be resented, just as we should resent any interference in this country.
§ Mr. Scott-HopkinsIs the hon. Gentleman aware that I am asking that consultations be started with the Foreign Office and with the countries concerned? I am not asking him to interfere.
§ Mr. HoyIf in fact human rights were infringed we should take it up immediately. I have taken up these matters in a personal capacity before. If we felt there was a case of people being unfairly dealt with, the House may be assured that I should be the first to raise it with the Foreign Office and with whoever was concerned.