HC Deb 22 May 1973 vol 857 cc209-11
22. Mr. Judd

asked the Minister of State for Defence whether he will make a statement on his plans to increase the size of the Royal Navy fishery protection fleet.

Mr. Buck

The increase of 50 per cent. in the effort deployed by the Services on coastal fishery protection announced by my hon. Friend the then Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Navy on 20th January 1972 has now been put into effect.

As regards other fishery protection duties, Royal Navy ships are available as necessary to protect British fishing vessels following their lawful pursuits on the high seas.—[Vol. 829, c. 651–2.]

Mr. Judd

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that reply concerning the protection of fishery activities around Britain's immediate coastline, but may I ask him to turn his attention to a specific point? In the wider area, if the Icelandic dispute is seen as symptomatic of the kind of problem which may increasingly arise in future, with acute world pressure on resources in the sea, may I ask whether he is convinced that the Navy has at its disposal sufficient ships of the right type for handling this kind of situation?

Mr. Buck

Heaven forbid that there should be another Icelandic situation of this kind. I am convinced that the Royal Navy has a wide range of capabilities which will enable it to deal with any situation which may reasonably be foreseen.

Mr. Luce

Moving from Iceland to Sussex, may I ask my hon. Friend to bear in mind that twice in the last fortnight reports have been made of Belgian beam trawlers fishing within the six-mile limit off the Sussex coast and that up to £400-worth of damage to the equipment of inshore fishermen in Arundel and Shoreham and in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Mr. Bowden) has been caused allegedly by these beam trawlers? Does he therefore accept that the best form of prevention is some means of regular naval fishery protection patrolling in these waters? Will he undertake to provide this kind of patrol off the Sussex coast in the height of the season?

Mr. Buck

I have looked into the problem mentioned by my hon. Friend. It is possible that there is some confusion here as certain craft have been bought from the Continent and are now being operated under the British flag. There could be an element of confusion whether the situation is quite as bad as is suggested. However, I will look into the matter further and do everything I can to help my hon. Friend's constituents.

Mr. James Johnson

I believe that the deep-sea fleet is satisfied with the measures so far taken in this extraordinary event off the Icelandic banks. However, as regards East Yorkshire, I do not think the inshore fleet is so happy about the number of vessels that we possess for guarding against the poaching of herring and other fish off the Yorkshire and East Anglican coast by Belgian, Dutch or other nations' ships.

Mr. Buck

The "ton" class vessels which operate in these coastal waters—I have spent some time on them, as I suspect the hon. Gentleman has, too—are very effective. We would obviously like more, but I am convinced that the degree of protection afforded around our coasts is very good. I think that the hon. Member for Portsmouth, West (Mr. Judd), who has paid a recent visit to one of these craft. will probably agree about that.

Mr. Wall

While congratulating my hon. Friend on the degree of naval protection afforded off Iceland, may I ask him to bear in mind a report that a British frigate protected a West German trawler? Will he seek the co-operation of the German Navy in the protection of our vessels on the high seas?

Mr. Buck

Matters of further co-operation with continental countries is a matter for my right hon. Friend, but seafaring people should co-operate all the way through in these waters. That should be the spirit that prevails rather than a spirit of belligerency.