EUROPEAN COMMUNITY (FISHERIES POLICY) (Hansard, 21 July 1976)

§ The Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Roy Hattersley)
Fisheries was one of a number of questions discussed at the July Foreign Affairs Council. Heads of State and Government meeting on 12th and 13th July had instructed Foreign Ministers to consider making a Declaration of Intent on the extension of Community fishing limits to 200 miles. Yesterday's Comcil considered a draft declaration and amended it in a number of ways.
The text which was provisionally approved committed the Community to decide the appropriates procedures for the extension of fishing limits to 200 miles by 1st October at the latest.
The declaration represents an acceptance by member States that a general extension to 200 miles is inevitable and that the Community must plan its policies in the light of these new circumstances.

§ Mr. Pym
We are grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for that information because, following the meeting yesterday, there has been a degree of uncertainty. The Minister referred to a declaration, but I do not think that it has actually been made. If it has not been made, will he say when it will be made, and will he say when the Minister will return to the subject of fisheries policy, particularly in relation to the division of waters within the Community, which is clearly an area about which industry and all hon. Members are mostly concerned? Does he agree that the conservation regime, to be fully effective, must be enforced by each country within its own waters and not be a Community responsibility?

§ Mr. Hattersley
The declaration is provisional because after the decision was taken yesterday one country asked for clarification about the distinction between resources in the sea—fish —and resources on the sea bed. I have no doubt that that legal distinction can be made easily and that the provisional declaration will soon be made substantive.
The right hon. Gentleman asked me two further questions. We must proceed with great speed to decide how the waters within the common fisheries pool are divided between member States, but the extension to 200 miles and a Community declaration on that must be the first step. The fact that we made substantial progress yesterday on that issue opens the way for a faster determination of national waters within the CFP. I agree that all fisheries policies are dependent on proper conservation regimes and that those regimes can be properly policed only by the countries around whose shores the appropriate waters lie. That is our policy and that is what we shall press for.

§ Mr. Powell
I appreciate that the allocation of time is a matter for the Lord President. Does the Minister of State not agree, however, that it is now extremely urgent that the House should have a full-scale debate on the whole ambit of the fisheries policy, in regard both to the EEC and to the CFP within it?

§ Mr. Hattersley
In many ways I would welcome such a debate. As the right hon. Gentleman said, the allocation of time is a matter for my right hon. Friend. 1795 However, I have no doubt that the policies now being pursued by Her Majesty's Government will obtain the approval of the whole House, and I think that it would strengthen our hand within the Community if we were able to say, when next we argued this case with force, as we shall, that we were supported by a unanimous House of Commons.

§ Mr. Prescott
I welcome the Government's conversion to the principle of unilaterally establishing a 200-mile limit in advance of a decision to that effect by the Law of the Sea Conference. May we be sure that the price for an acceptable fishing policy will not involve giving over the right to exploit mineral wealth which lies beyond the Community's waters beyond 200 miles and to the new proposed limits of the Continental Shelf?

§ Mr. Hattersley
My hon. Friend can be reassured about that. The decisions we wish to obtain in the revision and improvement of the CFP are self-evidently right and reasonable. I think that he can rely upon the Government to argue our case for improving the CFP on its own merit without feeling obliged to hand over other things in order to secure that improvement.

§ Mr. Grimond
The urgent and vital matter now must be the allocation of waters within the 200-mile limit. In this regard the Scottish industry demands that it must have a 50-mile limit at least. Is that the Government's policy?

§ Mr. Hattersley
The Government's policy is to obtain the best possible deal for the fishing industry within the revision of the CFP. It is no good hon. Members arguing with that. The hard facts are that the Government are faced with a CFP which exists in its present form, because the declaration was signed and accepted by the previous Government a few days before we entered the Community. We cannot change that situation by veto or by refusing to accept it. We can only improve it by negotiation. I agree that we have to negotiate with as much toughness, determination and speed as possible, but that is something we must do within the realities of the situation. Those realities were left to us by our predecessors.

§ Mr. Watt
The extension to 200 miles makes this whole matter an entirely different ball game. Is the Minister of State aware that Scottish fishermen are already so militant that they are determined that they will change the face of European politics before they will accept a sell-out by the Government?

§ Mr. Hattersley
I agree that the extension to 200 miles ought to change the nature of the CFP. That is what we have been arguing for in Brussels for the last two years. I only half agree with the hon. Gentleman about the Scottish fishermen. I have found them determined to obtain an improvement in the CFP to meet their needs, but I have also found them deeply reasonable, understanding of the position we are in, and enthusiastic in their support for what the Government are doing.

§ Mr. Robert Hughes
Since my hon. Friend has asked the House to give him strong backing in his negotiations, will he bear in mind that on every occasion that we have debated fisheries there has been common agreement in the House that nothing less than 50 miles will do? It is not much good asking us to back him if he then goes to the Community and does not argue the case. Will he make it clear to the Opposition that perhaps their synthetic indignation might carry more weight if they agreed to pair in order to allow my right hon. Friend to go to conduct the negotiations?

§ Mr. Hattersley
I am grateful for my hon. Friend's final suggestion. We shall be able to test the Opposition's enthusiasm on these matters when I try to go to continue the negotiations next Tuesday. On my hon. Friend's first point, of course the Government accept that there are substantial areas of the British coast around which we need a 50-mile exclusive zone. But were we to attempt to obtain 50 miles of exclusive fishing all round the coast of the United Kingdom, I believe that the negotiations would fail, and I do not believe that we would in that way preserve the best interests of the British fishing industry.

§ Mr. Wall
Is the Minister of State aware that we pressed for renegotiation of the CFP before the conclusion of the referendum? Was an exclusive zone discussed at the recent talks? If not, when 1797 will this question be discussed in Brussels?

§ Mr. Hattersley
I am not aware that any great pressure existed immediately before the referendum. Still less am I aware of any such pressure before the last Government signed the Treaty of Accession. That was when the pass was sold and that was when the hon. Gentleman should have exercised his wrath.

§ Mr. Jay
Does my right hon. Friend regard the common fisheries policy as one of the benefits to this country of EEC membership?

§ Mr. Hattersley
I have always told my right hon. Friend that his speeches would have a great deal more force if he were prepared to balance the disadvantages against the advantages. I believe that we can and shall obtain substantial improvements in the policy. When those improvements are obtained, we shall at least be able to describe fisheries as one of the areas in which Community membership has been of no disadvantage to the British industry.

§ Mr. John Davies
Does the right hon. Gentleman not realise that his remarks about selling the pass are sheer hypocrisy? Is not the truth of the matter that if there were any subject that warranted renegotiation in the form in which the Government undertook it some time ago, it would have been fisheries? Does the fact that they did not so renegotiate show that the pass has not been sold, and is it not hypocrisy to pretend that it has been?

§ Mr. Hattersley
I understand why the right hon. Gentleman says that. In the words of a famous phrase "He would, wouldn't he?". Unfortunately, it does not correspond with the facts. The simple matter of allowing the Community access to British fishing waters, not up to 12 miles but up to the beaches in the West of Scotland, the East of England and all other parts of our coastline was determined and agreed a few days before the right hon. Gentleman's party signed the Treaty of Accession. That is when the mistake was made.

§ Mr. Sproat
Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that, while the fishing industry is opposed to the whole of his 1798 variable limits plan, one part of that plan which must be altered before October is the 12-mile limit which we understand from a report in The Scotsman is proposed for the West Coast of Scotland? Does he realise that this would be utterly unacceptable?

§ Mr. Hattersley
I am aware of the plan published in The Scotsman, but I am not aware that it is the plan that the Government have put to the Community. Indeed, I told the Opposition spokesman on these matters that, while I had seen the plan, I did not endorse it as the Government's negotiating position.

§ Mr. Henderson
Is it not futile to apportion blame between Labour and Conservative Governments over the fiasco of the common fisheries policy since both are equally to blame? The right hon. Gentleman asks for all-party support on this issue. Is he aware that my hon. Friends and I would he prepared to give him support provided that he is prepared to say now that he will stick to 50 miles and not an inch less?

§ Mr. Hattersley
I agree that we need to make improvements for the future rather than recriminate about the past. We are at one on that. I hope that the House will support the Government in our determination to get the best possible deal for the British fishing industry. I also hope that all parties—those which have been in government, the party in government and those who have no conceivable prospect of being in government—will understand the realities of the situation. We have to obtain the good will and co-operation of our colleagues in the Community. The rules do not allow us to go it alone. To obtain that good will and co-operation we have to make reasonable proposals which have some chance of acceptance.

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. I propose to call three hon. Members to put short questions before the Prime Minister's statement.

§ Mr. Alexander Fletcher
In reaching agreement in principle, were any conditions applied which might prejudice the renegotiation of the common fisheries, policy within the Community?

§ Mr. Hattersley
No.

§ Mr. Brotherton
As the right hon. Gentleman is unable to assure us that he will press for a 50-mile limit, will he ensure that the Foreign Secretary makes that clear in Grimsby so that the people there will know that he is not really interested in the fishing industry on the Humber?

§ Mr. Hattersley
I suspect that the people of Grimsby and the surrounding areas make their own shrewd appreciation of those who represent their views and those who want to make cheap political points.

§ Mr. Clegg
As the Icelandic agreement runs out in December, is there not an urgent need for the common fisheries policy to be settled by early autumn if possible?

§ Mr. Hattersley
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. It is imperative that we achieve unanimity in the Community on a general fishing policy so that a relationship with Iceland can be reached by December in order to avoid all the difficulties and embarrassments that we have suffered in the past. The Community is aware of this need and the real achievement of yesterday was that we injected some urgency into the Community's consideration of these matters. That was real progress.