ACCESS TO BRITISH FISHERIES (Hansard, 10 December 1976)

§ Mr. Bishop
I beg to move, in page 3, line 1, leave out 'for fishing by such boats'

Mr. Deputy Speaker
With this amendment we may also take the second Government amendment.

§ Mr. Bishop
These amendments give effect to two assurances which have already been given.

§ Mr. Grimond
I thank the Minister for tabling these amendments, which meet my point and also that raised by the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell).

§ Sir John Gilmour
The Opposition are happy to accept the amendment.

§ Mr. James Johnson
May I, on behalf of what might be described as my hon. Friends behind me, echo the laudable sentiments that have already been expressed. We have all enjoyed being together in these fishing discussions and in seeking to do the best we can for our fishermen.

Mr. Deputy Speaker
It appears that the hon. Friends behind the hon. Gentleman have all gone fishing.

§ Mr. Bishop
We have had a useful and interesting debate in Committee and on Report, and I am grateful to hon. Members both for the constructive suggestions they have made and for their evident concern to avoid delaying the passage of the Bill.
I am sure we are all agreed that the Bill is an essential measure which we should aim to pass into law as quickly as possible. It will enable British fishery limits to be extended to 200 miles, and the target date for extension is 1st January. The other member States of the EEC are also due to extend on that date as a result of a decision taken by the Council of Ministers on 30th October—a decision for which Her Majesty's Government pressed very strongly. Not only we but also Norway and Canada will be extending fishery limits to 200 miles at that time. It is important, therefore, that we should have the power to protect the fish stocks around our coasts from a large-scale increase in fishing effort which could otherwise take place as a result of the fishing boats of some countries being diverted from their traditional grounds.
In line with the consensus on coastal State jurisdiction reached at the United Nations Law of the Sea Conference, the Bill will give Ministers wide powers 917 to regulate access to British fishery limits and the fishing carried on within those limits. It does so largely by building upon existing enactments, widening and adapting them to the changed circumstances which will obtain from next year. It is largely an enabling and flexible measure, designed so that any necessary conservation and effort control measures may be introduced in the light of scientific advice and, eventually, a revised common fisheries policy.
As I have said, the Bill will enable Ministers to control access to waters within British fishery limits for foreign vessels and to require them to fish under licence, subject to a wide range of conditions, many of which have been spelt out. A number of hon. Members have, however, expressed understandable impatience that it does not go further and impose some form of wide exclusive coastal belt.
I thought that my right hon. Friend the Minister dealt with that matter in a sympathetic way. We are aware of the strong feelings which have been expressed on this matter in all parts of the House. We are, however, bound in this respect by our Community obligations and also, I should emphasise, by the need to avoid prejudicing sensitive negotiations on access to our waters for fishermen in whose waters our own deep sea fleets wish to continue fishing.
Substantial parts of the fishing industry have a strong interest in continuing to fish off Norway, for example, where valuable catches of the species of fish traditionally favoured by our own consumers may be taken. The Bill will enable us to implement whatever agreements on fishing rights are reached with third countries and whatever agreement is reached on a revised common fisheries policy.
One other function of the Bill, which should not be overlooked, is that it substantially increases the fines for most offences under the relevant enactments. The new penalties provided should constitute a very real deterrent to illegal fishing and breaches of conservation rules.
We are all anxious to see the powers in the Bill enacted at the earliest opportunity. I wish to pay tribute to hon. Members on all sides of the House for their co-operation, which has made possible the speedy passage of this measure.

§ Mr. Hurd
We support the Bill because we appreciate the need for it and also the urgency of the situation. It can be described as a revolutionary Bill. Since the need is clear, we have done our best to help its passage.
It is a Bill which sets out a framework—in other words, it is the beginning rather than the end of the matter. The Government will need to show a great deal of skill and vigour in putting the right things in that framework. The Ministers who have taken part in today's proceedings show that they understand that situation.
I should not repeat any of the arguments about the common fisheries policy which we have already discussed fully. We agree to leave on one side for a little while the question of British fishing in Icelandic waters.
I hope that the Minister will comment on the subject of fishing inside the 200 miles by third party non-Community countries. That is extremely relevant to the provisions of the Bill.
Although I have tried to probe the matter on several occasions, there is still some uncertainty about the fishing that is engaged in by Soviet and East European trawlers. We know that we have agreed that the Commission should negotiate on behalf of these countries and that the negotiations have begun, but we also know that the Soviet Union has not hitherto been willing to discuss or negotiate anything with the European Commission. Perhaps we may have a little more information about that.
We read in the papers today, as part of Mr. Gundelach's Press conference, that the Commission is to propose a cut of about 50 per cent. to 55 per cent. from 1st January in catches taken by Russian and East European countries in EEC waters. That is the proposal if no agreement has been reached with the Community by 1st January.
On the basis of the information that we now have, I am assuming that there will be no agreement between the Community and the East European countries by that date. Do the Government propose to apply to East European catches the 50 per cent. to 55 per cent. cut referred to by the Commissioner? That 919 is a practical point of great interest, especially off south-western shores. I hope that the Minister will add a little to the not very copious store of information that has been supplied by the Government during the past few days.

§ Mr. McNamara
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it would be helpful to know how much the Eastern European countries catch?

§ Mr. Hurd
I suspect that that information would be difficult to obtain, but I agree with the hon. Gentleman.
My right hon. and hon. Friends feel obliged to state that great vigilance should be continued in respect of protection and enforcement. That is a subject in the safe hands of my hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall). We are not happy about the rsources that are available or the arrangements being made. It would not be appropriate to pursue the matter in detail on Third Reading, but it is clearly something that the House will feel bound to pursue on the various occasions that it is open to it to do so.

§ Mr. McNamara
It is not my intention to delay the House for long, especially as I was absent on Second Reading, although my absence was for good reasons. It seems that the great attraction of Second Reading has not been a feature of Third Reading. Perhaps those who were present on Second Reading have good reason to be absent on this occasion.
It was important that we should have a debate on the 50-mile limit so that my right hon. Friend could be strengthened in his knowledge of the feeling throughout the country and our partners in the EEC might be aware of the degree of interest, keenness and anger that is felt at times among the fishing community about the Commission's apparent failure to appreciate the problem that is facing the British fishing industry.
Secondly, and arising from the original amendments of the right hon. Members for Crosby (Mr. Page), Down, South (Mr. Powell) and Orkney and Shestland (Mr. Grimond), I hope that the Minister will be able to do as he said and introduce amendments in another place that will enable the policy that is evolving to be 920 examined more carefully and more fully by the House in the application of the practical detail. I am sure the Minister will appreciate that it is not merely a matter of laying down policy guidelines in an industry such as fishing. It is the practical application that is paramount, be it limiting the size of nets or the provision of scientific data. These are the matters that make it a fascinating industry and one that rapidly changes.
Given the changes that are taking place, it is important that the House should be able to consider the regulations that the Government are introducing, whether they involve quotas, limits or species. It is important that the House should be able to debate them not on the basis that we might have a debate on fishing in Committee or on the odd chance that a Member might come up with a Private Member's motion or something happens after 10 o'clock at night, but following a positive response from the Government in bringing regulations before the House that require its affirmative support.
We do not know what will happen to third countries, and we do not even know what will happen to our own country, but it is of the utmost importance that we have constant statements from the Government on exactly what is happening and on what the Government think should happen. We have had rumours and counter-rumours on Iceland and in respect of negotiations with the EEC. Such rumours can cause only alarm and dismay. They can only upset morale where perhaps there is no reason for that. We understand that Ministers who are negotiating feel that they must not reveal their hand, but occasionally they must understand that, much as they may deserve to be trusted by the industry, the industry itself needs a little trust from them so that it may know what is going on.

§ Mr. Wall
We have conferred great powers on the Government by means of the Bill. I hope they will ensure that the orders they make in future are fully discussed and debated in the House.
The industrial problems now facing the industry have been debated during the various stages of the Bill, especially in respect of Iceland. We have debated the problems of the third parties and, above 921 all, Norway, a country that has been mentioned more on Third Reading than at any other stage in the Bill's passage.
A matter that is perhaps most important of all and foremost in our minds at present is our relations with the EEC. We must rely entirely on the Government in the forthcoming negotiations while the Government have to some extent to rely on the EEC. I hope that the Minister will take strength from our debates and bear in mind the suggestions that he should impose a time limit. The negotiations must be brought to a head in the not too distant future, otherwise the interim arrangements will go on and on until they become part of the status quo. I hope that the Government will realise the great anxiety and strength of feeling throughout the industry and will take action to allay the anxiety as soon as possible.

§ Mr. James Johnson
Speaking as chairman of the all-party Fisheries Committee and as one who has sat here on two successive Fridays listening to almost all the debate, I would not like the Minister to think that it is only the Opposition who have anxieties about the situation. There will be problems in the fishing industry for years to come. Naturally there will be a void when we reach the new year, and we shall have to be careful about that. Even more important, we have to look at what will happen with third nations. We think we know where we stand with our EEC partners because we have a legal contract. Where do we stand with Cuba and Panama, let alone the Soviet Union, which catches well over 800,000 tons, or Norway, which catches a little less? We must know a lot more about this.
The Government need to be ever vigilant, particularly in the phasing-out operation. Since we have not debated an amendment dealing with the situation over the next 12 months, it is important that the Government should tell us about the phasing out of these third nations which do not have the legal status enjoyed by our sister States.
There is no body of men who work under such dangerous and hazardous conditions as the fishermen in the Arctic and North-East North Sea. We feel that whatever we can do for these men who 922 go down to the sea in such dangerous conditions will never be enough.

§ Mr. Henderson
My hon. Friends and I support the Bill with mixed feelings. We are relieved and delighted that the Government have at last taken some action. We still have some suspicions and apprehensions about the future because we have not settled the issue of our exclusive limits. We look with great concern to the transitional arrangements which the Government are to negotiate and bring into effect. We fear that those arrangements might become permanent. This is particularly so if the arrangements are to be in the form of some kind of quota régime. If that is to be the case, we need a much more unified system of recording and checking catches than existed under the old quota régime of the North-East Atlantic Fisheries Convention. We—and the fishermen—would have to be satisfied about the system before we would be willing to accept a quota régime.
I hope that the Government will regard the debate on the amendment dealing with the 50-mile limit as a warning shot across their bows. Let there be no doubt that their effigies will hang from the yard-arms of many fishing vessels if they return to this House and tell us that they have failed to get a 50-mile limit.

§ Mr. McNamara
It will be the cat o' nine tails for them.

§ Mr. Henderson
There is one being prepared now for the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland. The finishing touches are being put to it. I hope that it will not be necessary to add the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Minister of State to what will be an undistinguished band.
We have a first-class fishing fleet in Scotland which is well-equipped and crewed by skilful, capable and hardy fishermen. They deserve better than they have so far had from the Government and the EEC. I hope that the suggestion I made about time limits will he followed up and that we shall have regular progress reports. We were heartened by the Minister's robust and vigorous attitude—

§ Mr. James Johnson
Sharkish.

§ Mr. Henderson
The hon. Member is an expert on sharks. The Minister impressed us by his attitude today. He should realise that when he goes to the negotiations he will carry with him not only our good will but our strong support and encouragement.

§ Mr. Bishop
I appreciate all the comments that have been made in this Third Reading debate. I take the point made by the hon. Member for Mid-Oxon (Mr. Hurd). As for his question about the estimates of catch, I refer him to EEC Document R2227/76, which might provide him with some useful bedtime reading. As regards his natural concern about negotiations with third countries, I refer him to our debate last week and particularly to the reply given by my right hon. Friend.
I am grateful for the point made by the hon. Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) about enforcement and his comments concerning the vessels. We shall keep this under review. I recognise the concern of my hon. Friends the Members for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Johnson) and Kingston upon Hull, Central (Mr. McNamara). Their concern was echoed by the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. Henderson).
My right hon. Friend and I and the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland will be in Brussels early next week, following up some of the points which have been put today. My right hon. Friend's speech, which will be vigorous, will indicate the mood that we shall be in. I pay tribute to hon. Members for slogging at it today and last Friday, dealing with these important matters. Finally, I echo the tribute paid to the industry by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, West. We are fighting for an industry that is vital to our country.
In the time that I have had special responsibility for the fishing industry within the Ministry, it has been a great pleasure to go round so many fishing ports, see so many hon. Members and get to know the men involved in the industry.
We want to ensure that the Bill, which I hope will soon come back from the Lords, will provide the powers and the 924 framework whereby we can ensure, as far as possible, a more viable industry.