HC Deb 20 April 1971 vol 815 cc1141-50

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Humphrey Atkins.]

1.20 a.m.

Mr. Patrick Wolrige-Gordon (Aberdeenshire, East)

The Government must be well aware by now, not only through their own obvious sagacity but because of the strenuous efforts made by many of my hon. Friends, like the hon. Member for Fife, East (Sir J. Gilmour) and others still in the Chamber at this late hour, of the very great threat posed to our inshore fishing industry by the E.E.C. fishing policy. The chief issue of that policy which concerns us lies in its concept that the nationals of any country in E.E.C. should be free to fish up to the beach in the territorial waters of every other country in the E.E.C.

Taken by itself—and I will deal with the qualifications later—the effect of that policy is to rape at the point of a treaty the treasured and personal possessions of a great country. It will ruin our inshore fishing industry, because it will devour the seed corn. Men without the time to study the issue competently ask why our inshore industry cannot compete. They little know that our inshore fishing industry is currently one of the finest in the world. Britons, apparently unable these days to find many men prepared to work for the sake of service and self-satisfaction in a job well done, have little concept of the driving power of energy and go available in this country, unless they have sampled the enterprise of the inshore industry.

With its every asset held in common, with leadership given to him who commands it best, to the extent of son in command of father and brother in command of brother, the industry has a camaraderie and a genius of which this country and the world need not less but more. So it is not the power to compete which is in question; it is the ground on which to play the game. We could not hope to distinguish between Aberdeen and Celtic or Arsenal and Leeds if we put all Europe's footballers on our grounds at the same time. That is what is proposed with her fishermen: it is nonsense.

There are qualifications. Discrimination is still possible for certain types of fishing for a period of five years from the start of the regulations if the local population essentially lives off fishing. Individual countries can make legal dispositions and administrative rulings which apply to everybody, including their own nationals. As Dr. Mansholt pointed out to me in a letter dated 25th January, the Community regulations do not mention any delimitation of territorial limits. I must say that I enjoy the phrase "delimitation of limits". Nevertheless, I do not believe that the present apprehension among our inshore fishermen about our inshore waters is anything but well conceived, which is why I asked for and am grateful to have obtained this debate.

There is, of course, much more to the E.E.C. policy than the obliteration of limits and the hard-won agreement of Europe of 1964. The grading of fish, which can involve as many as 10 different grades for any one kind of fish, will take an army of inspectors. The common price system could be particularly damaging to the more distant and smaller fishing harbours, because the idea is that when there is a glut, supplies are withdrawn from the market. But, inevitably, they will be those supplies furthest from the market, and almost certainly the best quality fish, too.

Judging by reports from the White Fish Authority, the Community seems to think that compensation from its funds in such a case would be the best possible consolation. This type of thinking, I believe, we must reject.

This is a particularly important and successful industry in Scotland. It involves some 2,500 boats directly employing 8,000 men. In 1969 they landed £10 million worth of demersal fish, £3½ million worth of shellfish and £3 million worth of herring.

On this achievement has been built a massive framework, particularly throughout the north of the country, of canning and processing plants, of distributive machinery and, of course, the economy of many large and small towns and villages. Yesterday the chairman of the Herring Industry Board estimated that 100,00 jobs could be put in jeopardy by the implementation of this policy.

Take away that industry's opportunity to prosper and there will be another clearance. I do not say that to be alarmist in any sense. But what else is there? The only alternative to the clearances in the last century were fishing settlements on the coast. The men and women in this industry are fine people. They will not want to sit and smoulder at the table of a Community official. They will go where there is the work and opportunity.

I wonder whether the Government have yet made any study of a possible alternative should this industry go. I hope that they will never need to do so. That is why I want the Government to come out against this policy now and to reaffirm the sanctity and integrity of our territorial limits. If they want to build a united Europe—I believe that most of us here want that—the ruin of the fisherman is a poor way to start. Moreover, Europe might reflect that if it persists in this policy it will cost it money, too. It may get gold in the short term, but it will not last.

I hope that we do not have to worry about the momentum of the negotiations, either. It took 100 years before Scotland was content to unite with England. I do not believe that there is any need to rush unions of this kind until the British people have been satisfied on this and every other point.

The temptation for the Government is, of course, the soft sell: "Come in first and we will discuss it later when we are friends and are all in the Community together". If the Government fall for that I shall not be able to support them: I do not believe that I am making an unreasonable request, even to those who believe most ardently in the Common Market.

British democracy has been built on its genius for giving a fair deal both to the majority and to the minority. That is how it has achieved its fantastic political stability. But can we yet really be sure that Europe also applies that lesson? The inshore fishermen are a case in point. I ask the House to support them, too.

1.29 a.m.

Mr. Gavin Strang (Edinburgh, East)

I am grateful for the opportunity to take part in the debate. I congratulate the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. Wolrige-Gordon) on the splendid way that he has argued the case.

This is an issue of grave concern to many of my constituents. As the hon. Gentleman said, their whole livelihood is at stake. If our territorial limits are not safeguarded, the Scottish inshore fishing industry, as we know it, will be finished. The concern of the fishermen arises basically from the fact that they see themselves, quite rightly, as a relatively small proportion of the electorate, and they feel that any Government might be tempted to sacrifice their interests. I do not doubt the sincerity of the Government in their desire to obtain satisfactory terms for the fishermen. That is not at issue. At issue is the fact that the Government will have to pay a price for entry into the Community, and it may be that, when the chips are shown, they will be prepared to pay this price, and it would be too high.

In the few moments available to me I will make only two points. First, when the E.E.C. was last in the news and when the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster was in Europe making Press statements, he listed three critical areas—the financial contribution, New Zealand and sugar. My fishermen would like to know why fisheries policy was not also listed. It cannot be that the Community's fisheries policy would be less detrimental to the fishermen than the agricultural policy would be to the New Zealanders, for the fisheries policy would be disastrous. It cannot be that the Common Market countries have indicated that they are likely to give way on this issue. After all, why did they anxiously push through their fisheries policy and wish to get it all tied up? Why not wait until we are in the E.E.C. before concluding the final details of that policy?

Secondly, the British Government have recently said that they reserve their position. This might seem reasonable, but on this issue we have a right to expect them to go further. They could have said that the territorial limits were not negotiable. It is not unreasonable to ask the Government to give that assurance. To say that they reserve their position is not helpful and does not mean much to our fishermen.

I do not have time to add to these comments. I trust that the Under-Secretary will answer these two important questions.

1.33 a.m.

Mr. Ernle Money (Ipswich)

I appreciate the sincere and real concern that has been shown by hon. Members, particularly hon. Members with fishing constituencies, over this question. I hope the Minister will take comfort from the fact that there are adequate safeguards inherent in the situation. Those safeguards were admirably summarised in a letter to The Times yesterday by one of the joint editors of the Common Market Law Reports dealing specifically with the two main objections which have been raised tonight and on other occasions—those of regionalism and ecology.

Immediately one accepts the fact that hon. Members who represent fishing communities cannot be concerned with the broad issue of imports from the point of view of the E.E.C., though at present the Community is an importer of fish and, indeed, in 1969 imported 500,000 tons of fish.

The concern which has been expressed relates to the free access policy of the Treaty of Rome in connection with the protection of local fishing interests and inshore fishing. I will briefly refer to the two matters which are principally raised. First, on the question of local fishing, there is already written into the common fisheries policy for the Breton fishermen and others, as a transitional measure, the three-mile belt. The Commission is at present considering an extension of this and the possibility of making this provision permanent. There is clearly scope, as one of the editors of the Common Market Law Reports suggests, for an extension along these lines.

The second matter concerns ecology. It was a matter touched on specifically by Lord Cameron and his Committee when they said that the question was one of …controlling intensity of exploitation on the high seas. But I do not think that this is something which this country will find insuperable in the event, as I believe it will be, of a successful application for entry to the Common Market. My reason for believing this is dealt with in paragraph 259 of the Cameron Report in these terms: As we understand the proposals, national regulations would continue in operation but would apply to all Community vessels exactly as they apply to a state's own vessels. In those circumstances, there is no reason why such terms should not be applied broadly, not only to visiting fishing vessels but to our own, and if it is a question of applying the inviolability of the inshore area to any fishing vessels, then, mutatis mutandis, that can apply to both sides.

I conclude with the second heading of this as dealt with in the letter in The Times: The second objection is ecological. This is both more serious and more easily met. For the Common Fisheries Policy merely requires national treatment, and does not prevent member states regulating all fishing, so long as the regulation is non-discriminatory. Norway, for instance, is contemplating an absolute ban on all trawling within Norwegian waters in order to preserve young, deep-living herring from capture. There is no reason at all why the conservation measures which have been so successfully taken by the present applicant countries should not continue to be applied—even more sternly, if necessary—when we are in the Common Market. In this we can expect the support of the E.E.C. Commission, which is even now fighting hard, supported by Holland and Germany, against the French and Belgian refusal to comply with the North Sea herring conservation measures agreed within the North East Atlantic Fisheries Commission. One appreciates the concern, but I do not believe that this is something which in the long run will prove to be insuperable.

1.38 a.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Home Affairs and Agriculture, Scottish Office (Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith)

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. Wolrige-Gordon) on being fortunate enough to be able to raise this subject this evening. It is a point of interest that although the matter has caused concern to hon. Members over a considerable period this is the first occasion when it has been positively debated here, though it has been raised at Question Time and in other ways.

My other general comment is on the fact that no fewer than three hon. Members have taken part in the Adjournment debate, and that, quite apart from that the number of hon. Members who have been prepared to stay behind for this debate at a very late hour, demonstrates the great concern and interest of many hon. Members from many scattered constituencies, not only in Scotland but in England. This demonstrates how important a topic we believe this to be.

I certainly personally acknowledge how important the subject is. I have inshore fishermen in my constituency, and I am in close personal touch with them. I met them in January last, and discussed with them at first hand their apprehensions in relation to the common fishing policies of the Common Market.

I would like to re-emphasise the Government's concern, and our 100 per cent. awareness that this is a concern that spreads throughout the fishing industry and particularly its inshore sections. The concern of the Government is best demonstrated if I could go over the sequence of events of the past nine months leading up to the situation today.

The House is right to recall that it was on 30th June last year that the E.E.C. decided to revive its proposals for a common fisheries policy. These proposals are implicit in the Treaty of Rome but had lain dormant for some years. On 30th June last year the Council of Ministers instructed the Commission to produce the necessary regulations as quickly as possible. On the same day that action was taken by the Common Market, this Government opened its negotiations. My right hon. Friend, who is now the Chancellor of the Exchequer, on that same day reserved Britain's position.

It is important that the House should recognise at what an early stage the Government took action in relation to the fisheries policies of the Common Market. This was one of the first actions of the Government when we came into power. We took this action long before there was any general measure of public concern over the question of fisheries policy. Also, it demonstrated our immediate recognition that the interests of our fishing industry would have to be looked after in the light of the development of the common fisheries policy.

During the autumn of last year we watched very carefully as the common fisheries policy developed, and at the end of the period of this development we lodged a formal note with the Community which expressed the hope that, in view of the great fishing interests of the United Kingdom and of our co-applicant countries, the Six would defer any final decisions on the common fisheries policies until negotiations on enlargement had been concluded. Unfortunately, the Six decided to proceed. On 20th October they produced two basic documents, one on structure and one on marketing. These were brought into effect on 1st February this year and now have largely been achieved through 20 subordinate regulations which they brought in.

I assure the House that we have studied in great depth and extremely thoroughly what has emerged. But I emphasise, as I have done previously at Question Time, that we are in no way committed to the provisions of the common fisheries policy.

I now deal quickly with precisely what that policy means. It is important to have it on the record. Basically, the policy is in two parts, the first part of which relates to structure, and the second to the regulation of marketing.

In opening the debate my hon. Friend referred to marketing. I do not want to deal with that in detail tonight because in the short time available it is the question of fishing limits and the structural questions which are of most concern to hon. Members who have stayed here for the debate. On marketing, I am grateful for the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Mr. Money), who mentioned this topic briefly. It deals with questions of the organisation of fishermen, the methods, conditions and prices on sale of fish, questions of Government support, and the rules of international trade. They are of a very complex nature.

But what is much more important to us this evening and on which I want to dwell—I say this perfectly freely—is the question of fishing limits, which the Government find most worrying.

The E.E.C. has agreed that vessels of all member countries should have equal access to fish in the waters of all other member countries. But I emphasise—this has not been sufficiently said up till now—that this does not mean complete freedom to fish, as has so often been assumed, particularly by those who have chosen to criticise this policy without first examining it in depth. Member countries are free and, indeed, are expected to retain their domestic regulations as they see fit. In addition, member countries are free to make new regulations to deal with any increase in intensity of fishing or any alteration of the pattern of fishing effort, exactly as they can do at present before entry to the E.E.C. The only qualification I make is that in making these regulations they may not discriminate against vessels of other member countries.

Mr. Michael Clark Hutchison (Edinburgh, South)

That is the whole point.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith

I ask my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Clark Hutchison) to consider the practical implications of how the regulations have already been applied by members of the Common Market. For example, the French have banned double-beam trawling, which has had the effect of confining the waters there to the local fishermen. I discovered as recently as this weekend that the Germans have introduced regulations banning boats of over 200 h.p. from waters close inshore, which has had the effect, for certain reasons of which the Germans wish to take advantage, of preserving their inshore waters for their inshore fishermen.

Further, conservation is still important. The common fisheries policy is not intended as a licence for countries to fish out each others' waters. Indeed, the Community itself can make regulations to prevent over-fishing, even where a country is not concerned about a problem in its own waters.

Although what I have said about the application of the common fisheries policy might appear to indicate that the policy is not quite so drastic as some people would care to make out, I again emphasise that the Government are concerned about it. The inshore fishing industry is very important to Britain. My hon. Friend mentioned statistics in relation to employment and the value of the catches. The industry is proportionately more important in Scotland than it is South of the Border. We are aware of the indirect employment that the industry provides. We do not for a moment under-estimate the importance of this sector of the industry. It is doing a good job, and it is thriving into the bargain.

A large proportion of our catch is taken from within our fishery limits. It was a Conservative Government which extended the limits to 12 miles, as finalised in the 1964 European Fisheries Convention. We would be the very last to wish to give up those hard fought for gains. That is why we find the Common Market fisheries policy as it stands so unsatisfactory. However, we must bear in mind, in the interests of accuracy, that other individual European countries already enjoy historic rights to fish up to six miles from our coast along particular but considerable stretches of our coast. The French can fish for shellfish between 6 and 12 miles along much of our south and west coasts. The Belgians can fish for whitefish between 6 and 12 miles in the Moray Firth area.

In addition to the action that we have already taken, officials of my Department and of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food are in full consultation with the officials of the E.E.C. in Brussels. We have another contact with them on Thursday of this week.

I welcome this debate as clarifying what is happening. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster have already met inshore fishermen. I share the industry's concern as it has been expressed in the House tonight. The present fisheries policy of the E.E.C. is most unsatisfactory to us. This is why we are making it a matter for negotiation.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at eleven minutes to Two o'clock.