FINANCE (Hansard, 10 December 1976)

§ Mr. Wall
The clause allows the Minister to provide money for the protection of our fishing vessels within the 200-mile limit. The question has been raised whether the EEC should set up a fisheries protection squadron for EEC waters. I do not think that that would be acceptable. It would be rather like asking Paris gendarmes to help control the traffic in London or London bobbies to control the traffic in Paris. It has also been suggested that a modification of such a scheme, with EEC fishery protection vessels policing the vessels of other EEC member countries fishing within the 200-mile British limits, might be acceptable.
I believe that neither suggestion would be acceptable to third parties such as the USSR. We are debating this legislation because the USSR and other countries recognise only national legislation and not EEC legislation as such. That leads me to the conclusion that the money mentioned in the clause will be given to assist British fishery protection vessels.
I repeat what has been said many times in defence and fishery debates, that the two types of ship we are now building for this purpose and for oil rig defence are not wholly suitable. They are too slow, at 16 knots, and have no helicopters. There is nothing between these very slow policemen on the beat and Nimrod aircraft, which cover a vast area of sea. There must be something between the two. The need is for a 25-knot vessel which can bring quick-reaction forces to bear when they are needed. In wartime these vesesls could be fitted with missiles and be a useful addition to the Royal Navy.
When we are discussing fishery and oil rig protection, all the normal maritime duties of an island race, we should consider whether it would be advantageous from the point of view of the Government 913 and the taxpayer, and of doing the job properly, to have a maritime agency to carry out those jobs as well as other essential matters, such as air-sea rescue, the protection of the environment against oil spillage and so on. I hope that the Government will give careful consideration to the suggestion of a maritime agency or an extended coastguard for this purpose. If they need vessels and men, they will find that there are now plenty of trawlers laid up in Hull and plenty of trawlermen out of work who would be only too willing to take on these responsibilities.

§ Mr. Grimond
The hon. Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) is right to take this opportunity of again stressing the vital importance of protection in all forms. I wholly agree with all that he said. I do not want to repeat it, but I want to make two small additional points.
First, we are glad that there is now a helicopter stationed in Shetland in connection with fishery protection, and we would urge that there should be more. Secondly, are we certain that the interests of Scotland are being protected? I notice that it is the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food who may, with the approval of the Treasury, incur expenditure". I hope that the Secretary of State for Scotland is not being forgotten and that he has adequate powers, no doubt under some other measure, to look after the protection of fisheries in Scotland.

§ Mr. Hugh D. Brown
Yes; it is out of a different Vote.