ICELANDIC FISHERIES (EEC NEGOTIATIONS) (Hansard, 21 December 1976)

§ The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Dr. David Owen)
With permission, Mr. Speaker, I will make a statement on the special Foreign Minister's Council which met yesterday to continue the discussion of fisheries begun in the previous Council on 13th December.
On behalf of the Commission, Mr. Gundelach gave a progress report on the state of negotiations with third countries. He deeply regretted that he had so far been unable to reach agreement with the 469 Icelandic Government on arrangements which would permit the resumption of British fishing in Icelandic waters from 1st January. He hoped and would continue to work for a positive decision by the Icelandic Government as soon as possible in January; but he indicated that this might not be possible until the Icelandic Parliament had reconvened on 24th January. The Council agreed that Mr. Gundelach's report gave great cause for concern. Further negotiations will be held in January.
Against this background the Council decided that it would not be possible to reach agreement on the interim measures for an internal fisheries regime suggested by the Commission until greater clarity emerged as to how much fish would be available both inside and outside the waters of member States. The Council therefore agreed that there should be a standstill arrangement for the month of January, without prejudice to the position of any member State on the content of a future fisheries régime.
The text of the Council's declaration is being circulated in the Official Report. It provides that member States will restrain their catches in January 1977 to within the quantity taken in January 1976 and that existing conservation measures will remain unchanged during the short standstill period. This one-month standstill is consistent with the need to consult on the detail of non-discriminatory conservation measures which will be necessary either as part of a Community agreement or prior to reaching agreement.

§ Mr. John Davies
Without any reflection on the Minister of State himself, the House will be interested to know, first, why he is making the statement and not the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State has taken this matter hitherto. Its importance, one would think, would have commanded his making the statement today.
Secondly, does the Minister of State realise that his statement will cause consternation and dissatisfaction throughout the country? The fact is that the arrangements which have been entered into and the standstill arrangements to which he has now referred have been caused by the extraordinary dilatoriness of the Government in getting to grips with this problem. They have been pressed by both 470 sides of the House and the country to get on with the discussion, and they have allowed a situation to arise where they are faced with carrying out a most difficult arrangement for a single month. They know that that is practically impossible.
They have reached what appears to everyone to be an unsatisfactory arrangement. We have a standstill arrangement that seems to be the worst of all possible worlds. Does not the Minister realise that? He may say that it creates no precedent, but it does and he knows it. The arrangement reduces us to a catch limitation. If he has any arguments that prove otherwise, he must put them to the House. As he knows, the industry and the country asked for other means of defining limitations. Does it not make nonsense of the requirement to add to the conservation measures and the need to monitor the system?
His statement does not reassure us. Is there the least likelihood that after the long period necessary to reach an agreement which undoubtedly stretches before us our trawler industry will be in a situation to undertake the terms of such an agreement when it is reached?

§ Dr. Owen
The right hon. Member has made an intemperate statement and has not asked a single question. I do not know to whom he has been talking, but we have had consultations with the industry in Brussels at all stages of the negotiations. Although the industry is not satisfied with the whole of the outcome of the negotiations, it is well aware that we have not prejudiced the future. We have not reduced our freedom to take non-discriminatory conservation measures. We have been able to get the Community together during January through the crucial period in the hope of getting a settlement with Iceland.
We have not reached a breakdown situation either with the Community or with Iceland. The Community is accepting a voluntary standstill. It is exactly the same arrangement as that currently operated by Norway with the Community. The right hon. Member should discuss this matter more deeply with the industry.
The right hon. Member made allegations about my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. My right hon. Friend is renowned in the House for his care 471 for his constituency, but he has had to balance two major national issues—fishing and Rhodesia. I have been in constant touch with him throughout the negotiations. The right hon. Gentleman should withdraw his imputation.

§ Mr. Grimond
Will the Minister make it clear to his colleagues in Europe that while our fishermen are in favour of conservation, the present system of quotas is unacceptable? Will he bear in mind that it is essential to fix the national limit at 50 miles? The incidents in Scottish waters between Scottish and French fishermen make that even more necessary. Will he set a date by which Britain will insist on a 50-mile limit?

§ Dr. Owen
The right hon. Member is correct to say that a policy of conservation measures is essential to protect our fishing stock. It is essential that before we reach agreement we do not curtail our freedom to do so in a nondiscriminatory manner. We shall agree, as we did in The Hague agreement in October, to consult the Commission. One of the reasons that we had to sit until 2 o'clock this morning during the negotiations was that we insisted on the right to have non-discriminatory conservation measures—if necessary on a national basis. The industry attaches great importance to this and this was a major agreement. Under the standstill The Hague agreement has not been prejudiced.

§ Mr. Robert Hughes
Does the Minister mean that the standstill arrangement does nothing to prejudice the future of our coastal limits or conservation policy? Does the arrangement include the possibility of unilateral action by the Government if necessary?

§ Dr. Owen
We can certainly be sure of that. One of the reasons we were not prepared to agree to the interim arrangement was that it made no allowance for a coastal conservation regime. Even in the interim arrangements we felt that there was no exception for the position of the United Kingdom Government and the Irish Government and the need for some form of coastal belts. That was one of the reasons we did not reach agreement last night.

§ Mr. Wall
Is not the situation the worst of both worlds since we are not to be allowed to fish in Icelandic waters 472 and the EEC vessels are to be allowed to fish in ours? Will the Minister comment on the report that we were offered about 300,000 tonnes when the capacity of the British industry to catch fish in its own waters is well over 1 million tonnes? If there is no satisfactory solution, is the Minister prepared to introduce nondiscriminatory legislation to control our 200-mile zone on 1st January?

§ Dr. Owen
The hon. Gentleman is probably referring to the 300,000 tonnes of demersal fish caught last year and about 600,000 tonnes caught in 1975. To have accepted the Commission's proposals would have left us with about half of our demersal fish catch. I forcefully stressed that point in the discussions.

§ Mr. James Johnson
The Minister of State should be thanked for coming so soon to the House, and I do not agree with the comments of the right hon. Member for Knutsford (Mr. Davies). Is the Minister aware that delay in reaching an agreement is causing dismay to our fishermen? Is he aware that if we do not get the settlement, about 60 vessels will be laid up on the Humber alone, which will leave idle 15,000 men on deck and five times more on shore?
On the question of unilateral action, does he not agree that the EEC is the sole guardian of the fate of all our fishermen, their wives and families? Has any policy been worked out in the event that he may have to exclude Iceland from our waters and exclude Icelandic fish from EEC markets on the mainland of Europe?

§ Dr. Owen
My hon. Friend is right to be dismayed about the delay, which is a source of unhappiness and dissatisfaction to me. We all hoped that our trawlermen would be able to fish in Icelandic waters after 1st January. This is not a breakdown. We shall now have to resume patient negotiations in the hope that when the Icelandic Parliament reassembles, we shall reach an agreement. This is a negotiation between the Commission and Iceland. It is not wise to threaten or to ascribe blame. I am not unhopeful that we shall be able to reach an agreement.

§ Mr. Powell
Does the Minister agree that these events illustrate how difficult it is when negotiations are conducted on behalf of the disparate and to some 473 extent conflicting interests of the members of the Community?
Will he make clear whether the standstill arrangement means that we are restricted still to control of our 12-mile limit, or whether we are to exercise a wider control within the 200-mile limit, which we hope to establish on 1st January?

§ Dr. Owen
On the last part of the right hon. Gentleman's question, we shall be exercising control within the full 200-mile limit. He is right to draw attention to the difficulty of reaching an agreement on an issue such as this. The common fisheries policy was adopted prior to the entry of the United Kingdom and Ireland to the Community. One of the major reasons why Norway decided not to join the Community was this policy. I regret that decision. We are bedevilled by conditions that were accepted by the Community prior to our entry.

§ Mr. Clegg
Is the Minister aware that in the port of Fleetwood there will be a great gloom at this statement because it is not at all certain where the vessels will fish after 1st January? May I ask the Minister two questions? First, will he encourage Mr. Gundelach to use the full powers given to him by the EEC regime, which are very extensive and which would enable an import ban? Will the Minister also say whether those vessels which were fishing off Iceland last year will be restricted in any way within our 200-mile limit because of the standstill?

§ Dr. Owen
Mr. Gundelach and, perhaps more important, the Council of Foreign Ministers last night have made clear that the whole future of EEC-Iceland relations will be affected by the outcome of the negotiations. The hon. Gentleman is right to draw attention to this. There is more to this than simply a matter of fish. We must recognise that this is important to maintain Community solidarity. Of course, some of the fish that the Icelanders would want in exchange for allowing us to fish for cod are in fact in other member countries' waters.

§ Mr. McNamara
Is my right hon. Friend aware that it does not behove members of our Front Bench to talk about a policy having been cobbled up 474 before we entered the Common Market when we did not seek to renegotiate it ourselves at the time of the referendum? What are to be the prospects for Humberside? What alternatives does my right hon. Friend have for my constituents and those of my hon. Friends from Humberside in terms of employment in industry?
What will the Commission do about preserving jobs in areas of very high unemployment? Is my right hon. Friend aware that the union is concerned and is thinking about other forms of retaliatory action? Why the heck does the Commission keep on promising the middle of December, the 1st January and midJanuary? When shall we get the right to fish—1984?

§ Dr. Owen
I appreciate my hon. Friend's dismay and frustration. If I faced the constituency problems that he faces. I should very well understand it. I had a discussion this morning with the Minister of State at the Department of Employment who is dealing with this matter and who is in constant touch with the industry over the longer-term structural measures on decasualisation. My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the regional and social problems. I end by saying that I do not think that my hon. Friend should give up hope of our reaching some settlement with Iceland for fishing after the end of January. Certainly that is still my hope and it is my intention to do everything possible to reach agreement.

§ Mr. Buchanan-Smith
While I regret the delay in getting a solution to the Icelandic problem, will the right hon. Gentleman acknowledge the tremendous restraint and self-discipline shown by our own fishermen in relation to Iceland and, more recently, the inshore fishermen in relation to haddock quotas, a restraint which shows that our fishermen appreciate that conservation is necessary? This compares very favourably with the action of certain French fishermen in the waters off Shetland recently. Will the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that he will use this example in order to press for British fishing industry exclusive zones? It is exclusive zones first and foremost that we need for our industry.

§ Dr. Owen
I quite agree with the hon. Gentleman in paying great attention, once again, to the importance of conservation. 475 He rightly commented favourably on the record of British fishermen, who understand the need for conservation. This is a major issue. Allied to conservation is enforcement. It is the combination that we think is best preserved by some coastal conservation régime which involves coastal belts.

§ Mr. Prescott
I welcome the Minister's statement, which highlights the considerable difficulties which arise in this matter, particularly from past decisions. It is somewhat hypocritical for some hon. Members who played a part in those decisions now to be in considerable difficulties, as was the right hon. Member for Knutsford (Mr. Davies), when suggesting that we should be more intransigent. The logic of that argument is to send in the Royal Navy. Have we not learned that lesson after the Iceland affair? Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the decision that he has reached has established the principle of an exclusive conservation control, even if only for this one month? It may be that we can build on that if we get some form of exclusive control agreed by the Community.

§ Dr. Owen
I shall certainly be able to discuss conservation measures during this month and I have exercised the right to be able to introduce conservation measures from 1st February, even were they to be disagreed to, which I hope they will not. My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the overall problems between Iceland, the United Kingdom and, more importantly, the Community. It is my belief that a sensible agreement freely entered into and negotiated between Iceland and the Community is in the interests of both the Community and Iceland. That is the point that needs to be brought home to the Icelandic people.

§ Mr. Watt
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this agreement will lead to all-out fishing during the month of January by all EEC boats? How does he propose to monitor the catch that is pro- posed to the same level as it was last year? Will he not now give a date by which he will say that if no agreement is reached, we shall declare a 50-mile limit unilaterally?

§ Dr. Owen
I agree with the hon. Gentleman. It will be difficult. Restraint 476 must be shown by all Community members, but a prccedure for notifying catches has been agreed in the interim for that month. Any catches will be offset against any agreed quota levels that might be negotiated over the next few months. If there is gross over-fishing, it will be difficult to control. Fortunately, the month of January is one in which this problem does not usually emerge so strongly.

§ Mr. Nott
Surely there has to be an element of discrimination in the settlement. There is now discrimination within the 12-mile limit in favour of this country. I think that the Minister is aware-he knows the South-West well—that quotas are not the answer off the South-West Coast. Will he give an undertaking now that he will on no account agree to any final arrangement within the Community that puts this country or parts of this country in a worse position than Ireland?

§ Dr. Owen
I certainly confirm that throughout these negotiations we have been determined to preserve the position of this country as against that of any other member of the Community and, of course, against that of Ireland, although we have worked together in close contact with the Irish throughout the negotiations. I know the South-West well. It has gained substantially from the agreement on third parties. As a result of the Community action, we shall now be reducing very substantially, for instance, the considerably increased mackerel catch which the Soviet Union has built up over the last few years. That will make more pelagic fish and more mackerel available to the United Kingdom and it will allow the Commission to make some reallocations. Our main problem lies with the cod and demersal fish.

§ Mr. Jay
Will my right hon. Friend also inform the right hon. Member for Knutsford (Mr. Davies) that Norway and a number of other countries outside the EEC now have a very fair chance of achieving a 200-mile exclusive fishing zone?

§ Dr. Owen
I think that it is in Norway's interests to enter into negotiations with the Community about fishing in each other's territories on the basis of reciprocity and enabling some measures of quota control but also preserving their rights to introduce conservation measures.
477 I think that Norway has had to recognise that it, too, must take account of the overall Community fishing pool.

§ Mr. Warren
While the right hon. Gentleman calls for patience and restraint in this House our fishermen are losing their jobs. Is it not time that the Government took the stand that they can take under the Treaty of Rome—that is, to ban the import of Icelandic cod until the Icelanders reach agreement with us?

§ Dr. Owen
We do not intend to designate Iceland as a country that is permitted to fish within our limits until there is progress with negotiations. I think that that is a reasonable and sensible action during the present period. As to any other action taken by the Government that would exacerbate conditions between the Icelanders and people here, it is important that we try to keep down the temperature and reach a negotiated settlement at the end of this month.

§ Mr. Mark Hughes
Does my right hon. Friend accept that the motion agreed in the European Parliament on the requirement for an interim fishing policy has been to a large extent accepted by the decisions for the next month—that is, quotas, limitations of capacity and the ability of the coastal States to control essential conservation measures—and that, to that extent, those Conservative Members who voted for it are endorsing the agreement to which my right hon. Friend has been party within the last 24 hours?

§ Dr. Owen
I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and also for the interest shown on both sides by Members of the European Parliament over this difficult issue, particularly the support given for the right to take conservation measures, if need be, on a unilateral basis to protect fishing stocks. This is an essential requirement unless one has an overall agreement on common fishing policy.

§ Sir John Hall
As one of the few, if not the only Member, who have been actively engaged in the fishing industry, I am dismayed by the Minister's statement. The laying up of deep-sea trawlers in ports like Grimsby, for example, goes much further than the effect of unemployment on the crews themselves. It is felt widely throughout the town. Is the Minister aware that measures may be 478 needed to tide this and other ports over a difficult time? Has he considered the fact that retaliatory measures may be taken against the Icelanders—for example, there may be a refusal to land Icelandic fish? What does he propose to do about that?

§ Dr. Owen
The Icelanders are well aware of the situation. They know that there is no prospect of Icelandic fish being landed in any major port in this country in the next few weeks and months. Obviously, there is considerable feeling. I am not unaware of the problems as I represent an old-established fishing port myself. The Barbican in Plymouth has had a fishing industry for many centuries. I am therefore aware of the difficulties facing people and the threats to their jobs and livelihoods. We shall try to do everything we can to safeguard the situation in the short term, and to achieve a long-term settlement, and bring about the de-casualisation of jobs.

§ Mr. Speaker
I appeal to the House. More than 40 hon. Members and six Privy Councillors wish to take part in the main debate today. Therefore, I hope that anyone whom I call who has had his question already asked will not put it again, and that those who do ask questions will be brief.

§ Mr. Scott-Hopkins
Does the Minister accept that this is a shockingly bad matter for the middle-water and inshore fleets? What is happening about the later agreement with the Russians, Poles and East Germans as far as fishing within our 200 miles is concerned? The European Parliament would have been much strengthened in this matter if Labour Members had voted for the 50-mile exclusive zone.

§ Dr. Owen
The important thing is the external arrangements for the Community as from 1st January. Countries which have no reciprocal fish to offer us will cease fishing completely. The reduction in Soviet fishing starts from 1st January. This is ongoing and that is why the Community is still pursuing an external fishing policy and has agreed to a standstill for one month. There has been no agreement of an interim or final nature. I fail to understand the hon. Member's dismay. The industry is not totally happy with the situation, but it does hot share his dismay.

§ Mr. Crouch
Will the Minister accept that up to now in this crisis with Iceland fishing the concern has come mainly from those with a constituency interest, and none of those hon. Members has failed to support the industry and to do everything possible to help the fisherman? But, as a result of questions today, that concern has now spread far wider. It is the concern of us all as it is virtually a crisis and catastrophe in one of the most important but small industries.

§ Dr. Owen
The hon. Member is right to draw attention to the concern felt throughout the House on this issue. There is concern about the problems of fishing in many other Community countries as well. Owing to the Community conservation measures and the introduction of the 200-mile limit, there are fewer fish to go around. Many countries are fishing in other people's waters. What we need is an honourable solution, preferably within the framework of the Community, and that is what I am trying to achieve. The Secretary of State has made it clear to the Community on a number of occasions that he regards this as a major issue of policy.

§ Mr. Marten
Was not one of the reasons for joining the EEC the claim that by pooling our sovereignty we should have a much stronger voice with nine countries than we should as one lone country? Yet we have all been defeated, for the next month at least, by little Iceland.

§ Dr. Owen
The hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten) must be given his due. He has reason to chuckle, perhaps. But this is a serious issue, as he knows, and in making the decision to enter the EEC we had to take that decision across a whole broad range of policies. It does not lie in the mouth of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Knutsford (Mr. Davies) to make party political capital of the fact that the Government find themselves in difficulties about fishing policy. I will accept a lot, but I will not accept that.

§ Mr. John Davies
Then would the Minister kindly explain why this question of fishing was not a matter for renegotiation by his Government, and why. M. Lardinois made a statement the other 480 day purporting to say that the whole fishing industry was up for grabs, and he has not grabbed it? What possible defence does the Minister have against these charges?

§ Dr. Owen
We are trying to use the extension of the 200-mile limit as a basis for re-opening many fundamental questions. There is a legal argument here about the basis on which we can do that. If the right hon. Gentleman looks at his party's record of negotiation he will see that no reservation was made on the 200-mile limit. This is a matter best discussed in the Community and not through legalistic interpretations of treaties. It should be done in a spirit of give and take and the realisation that this is a matter of considerable importance.

§ Mr. Small
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I understand that you said that six Privy Councillors and 40 other Members have written to you asking to speak in today's debate. Surely this is against the traditions of the House, as the implication is that no one else will be able to catch your eye. I can see that I shall have to adopt Japanese tactics or I shall suffer from loss of face. I hope that you will publish a list of those who have indicated a wish to speak.

§ Mr. Speaker
More than 40 hon. Members and six Privy Councillors have indicated that they hope to catch my eye. I have no doubt at all that there are others who nourish the same hope in their bosoms.