Common Fisheries Policy (Hansard, 9 December 1976)

§ 6. Mr. Wall
asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the progress of negotiations for an exclusive British fisheries limit.

§ 9. Mr. Henderson
asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he is satisfied with the progress of renegotiation of the common fisheries policy.

§ 10. Mr. Mudd
asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the state of his negotiations with the EEC Council of Ministers concerning the internal régime of the common fisheries policy.

§ Mr. John Silkin
The Commission made formal proposals to the Council in September. In important respects these are completely unacceptable. We will continue to press for adequate recognition of United Kingdom interests in the future common fisheries policy, which will again be discussed at a Council meeting devoted to fishery issues on 14th December.

§ Mr. Wall
I recognise the right hon. Gentleman's difficulties, but is he aware that the industry is becoming increasingly concerned at the lack of progress? Will he confirm that in legislation now passing through the House he has the power to impose an exclusive 50-mile British fisheries limit? Does he propose to use those powers?

§ Mr. Silkin
I am very much aware of and deeply sympathetic with the problems of the fishing industry. I think I carry the hon. Gentleman with me when I say that it is vital to have the necessary powers. As for the 50-mile limit as an exclusive zone, the powers lie within the Bill. When talking about 50 miles, we must not forget that it cannot be 50 miles right the way round, as that would take us into France, overland. There must be a median limit. If the hon. Gentleman looks again at the proposals of 4th May of my right hon. Friend the then Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, he will see that while the basis of those proposals 609 may not have been a 50-mile limit, throughout, they did protect our own fishing industry.

§ Mr. Henderson
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the continued dragging out of these negotiations is a source of concern and uncertainty for the whole fishing industry? From his knowledge of the way in which the negotiations are proceeding, is he able to give us an indication of the time scale he has in mind for reaching a successful conclusion in terms of our own interests in this matter? Does he feel that the time may be approaching when we should set a deadline, when we shall expect to have an agreement or shall have to take unilateral action?

§ Mr. Silkin
I am extremely concerned about the urgency of this matter. I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's point about time. Time is going by and in the meantime we have not settled these negotiations. The hon. Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) kindly pointed out that there are certain difficulties in respect of the negotiations. We started, for example, with the original Treaty of Accession and the limits laid down within it. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I shall do my best, as forcefully as possible, to ensure that the United Kingdom's position is fully understood, realised and taken into account as speedily as possible.

§ Mr. Mudd
Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that there is a growing fear on the part of the Cornish inshore fishing industry that there is nothing to preclude either Soviet or East European fishing interests seeking to set up operating companies registered in the United Kingdom, in which event they will be able to fish legally, notwithstanding any British decision on a fishing limit?

§ Mr. Silkin
I freely confess to the House that that is a proposition to which I was not directing my mind. I thought it would be difficult enough to get us into a situation in which we would be able to deal with the Eastern European countries by themselves, but I shall look into the matter.

§ Mr. McNamara
Is my right hon. Friend aware that the chairman of the Opposition's Fisheries Committee stated at the time of accession that he was 610 perfectly satisfied with the arrangements made for the fishing industry? Is he also aware that I and my colleagues from Hull have an amendment tabled for tomorrow's Bill that will provide for a 50-mile limit around the country, making provision for the median line to which my right hon. Friend referred? Does he appreciate that the best demonstration he could give the British fishing industry of the Government's intentions would be to clasp our amendment to his bosom?

§ Mr. Silkin
I was aware of my hon. Friend's first point. I listened closely to the splendid reassurances that were given when we were debating the issue. On his second point, I think it would be of advantage if my hon. Friend were again to look at what my right hon. Friend the then Minister of State said on 4th May. If he studies it carefully, he will find that there is not all that much difference between us.

§ Mr. Grimond
I welcome the firmness of the Minister's statement about the urgency of this matter and hope that he will remain firm, but will he make it clear that there is nothing in the Treaty of Rome that entitles members of the EEC to fish up to one another's shore s? Is he in concert with the Irish, who have made their position clear and who equally have a deep interest in maintaining a 50-mile limit?

§ Mr. Silkin
On inshore fishing, the Irish problem and our own problem are very much related. I agree with what the right hon. Gentleman says about the Treaty of Rome. What worried me was the Treaty of Accession.

§ Mr. Jopling
Does the right hon. Gentleman understand that around the country there is a great deal of feeling, especially in fishing communities, that he does not fully understand the fears of those communities? Is he aware that they fear that he does not fully understand their position in the course of these negotiations? Does he understand that there is even greater fear that having established an exclusive zone within the 200-mile limit it will then be impossible to police it as he has not yet fully got down to the important matter of policing? Does he understand that it is no use having an exclusive zone unless we can enforce it?

§ Mr. Silkin
I deal first with the hon. Gentleman's last point. I am sorry that he missed the Second Reading of the Fishery Limits Bill. Had he been present he might have had some reassurance. On his first point, I hope that the fishing communities understand that I share and understand their fears. Indeed, I understood their fears at the time of the Treaty of Accession.