HC Deb 22 December 1971 vol 828 cc1497-8
13. Mr. Strang

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what further representations he has received from the inshore fishing industry regarding the Common Market negotiations; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith

I have discussed this question fully with representatives of the industry at several recent meetings. After their last discussion on 15th December the representatives said they were satisfied with the outcome of the negotiations and with the assurance of further consultation which I gave.

Mr. Strang

While undoubtedly many fishermen are relieved that the length of our shore protected by the 12-mile limit is substantially better than they originally feared, is the hon. Gentleman aware that there is a great deal of apprehension about the position at the end of the 10-year period? That concern was sharply increased by the disgraceful refusal of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster in the debate last week to tell us precisely what the legal position is as regards the end of the 10-year period. Is it the case that at the end of 10 years the prevailing policy will be the common fisheries policy and that notwithstanding what comes out of the review other European countries will be able to veto all the proposals we might put forward for the retention of the 12-mile limit?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith

The review procedure we have agreed for the end of the initial period is one that is open and will have full regard to the social, economic and conservation aspects of the fishing industry round our coasts at that time. I would emphasise what my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster said absolutely clearly in the debate at the end of the last week: that what will happen in practice is that no future Government could possibly be forced into arrangements which in their judgment failed to safeguard our vital fishing interests.

Mr. Edward Taylor

But if no satisfactory agreement is arrived at after 10 years, what limits do we apply off Britain?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith

That is a matter to be agreed at the end of the 10-year period. It is absolutely clear that in practice—and I call in aid none less than the Leader of the Opposition when he spoke about the constitutional aspects of the Community—it is far more important to examine the way in which the community works and operates when it becomes a living constitution. It was on that basis that my right hon. and learned Friend was quite rightly able to give the full assurances he gave the House a week ago,

Mr. Ross

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the feeling is that as far as they go they might be all right but only for 10 years? What we are concerned about is the position after 10 years—not the scope of the review but the legal position thereafter. When there is no agreement at that time, does power of veto rest not with Britain but with the others who may wish to return to the unrestricted limits?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith

I never expect to persuade the right hon. Gentleman of this, because I know that he was not looking for success in the negotiations—

Mr. Ross

The Government did not get it.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith

The matter has been fully explained and discussed with the fishing industry which accepts the position that in practical terms—and it is practice that counts—its interests are safeguarded at the end of 10 years. As my right hon. and learned Friend said very clearly at the end of last week, if agreement cannot be reached in such a vital matter as this, as in any other vital matter, it calls in question the future of the Community itself.