MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE (VISIT TO NORWAY) (Hansard, 7 July 1978)

§ The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. John Silkin)
With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement about my recent visit to Norway.
At the invitation of Mr. Jens Evensen, Minister for Law of the Sea Questions, I visited Norway over last weekend as a guest of the Royal Norwegian Government. In addition to my conversations 861 with Mr. Evensen, I met also the Norwegian Ministers of Fisheries, of Agriculture and of Foreign Affairs.
Britain and Norway are the major coastal States of the North Sea. We have a common interest in conserving the fish stocks in the waters under our sovereignty or jurisdiction, and in the maintenance of effective control and enforcement arrangements in these fisheries. I felt that the two countries could usefully appraise the position reached in international negotiations about the allocation and regulation of fishing opportunities, particularly in the North-East Atlantic.
I also wanted to confer with my Norwegian opposite numbers about the national conservation measures which I announced in my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley, West (Dr. Phipps) on 3rd July, and about other conservation measures which we are urgently considering.
We reviewed in a comprehensive way the consequences for the conservation and management of the fish stocks of the continuing absence of agreement within the EEC on a revision of the common fisheries policy.
It was no part of my remit to negotiate formally with Norway. But my opposite numbers and I had a valuable exchange of information and ideas on conservation and other aspects on fisheries. On many of these issues the views of Norwegian Ministers and of Her Majesty's Government were very close and we resolved to maintain the contact which we had established. In particular, we agreed that the two countries should work more closely together on fishery control and enforcement problems. This will now be followed up in the first place at expert level.

§ Mr. Peyton
I do not want to hurt the right hon. Gentleman's feelings, but was not his statement a bit thin? One wonders why he made it because he did not say very much.
We welcome any understanding he may have reached with the Norwegian Minister, for we have very much shared views with Norway, particularly on such questions as conservation, but will he give an assurance that he is satisfied that his visit to Norway did not have the effect 862 of further putting back a settlement which is vital to the British fishing industry? Has he talked to any individual members of the Community? For instance, it might have allayed misunderstanding had he called in at Copenhagen on his way back.
May I ask about the measures he has taken and now discussed with the Norweigan Minister? The measures he has announced seem somewhat meagre. Why has he not made any reference yet to the restriction of the gear carried by ships to single gear? Why has he made no mention yet of a general increase in mesh sizes? I hope he saw the reference in The Times yesterday to the debate in the European Parliament when one of his hon. Friend suggested that the measures he had taken discriminate against members of the Community. If this were so, it might seem rather provocative. Has the right hon. Gentleman appreciated the long-term effect on the British fishing fleet and our fishermen and on the stocks of fish by the prolonged stalemate? I am anxious to hear his views on that aspect.

§ Mr. Silkin
For a thin statement, it does seem to have elicited a great deal of verbiage. But the reason I made this statement was simply that in negotiations of this sort, when the whole country is involved and interested, I believe that, it is my duty to come to the House and be questioned as often as I can. I was in Oslo at the time when the conservation measures in the present batch were announced. For obvious reasons, I wanted to announce them as quickly as possible. Since I was in Oslo and the House had no opporiunity to question me on them, it seemed to me right that I should come back and give the House the opportunity to do so.
Furthermore, those measure were interlocked with the conservation and enforcement questions which we discussed with our Norwegian friends. One cannot isolate the North Sea and say that for one section under our sovereignty or jurisdiction we shall take such and such conservation measures, without realising that they will affect what happens in Norwegian waters, and vice versa.
This understanding on my part was matched by a great sympathy from the Norwegian Government. But as a result, instead of protesting—as some have—on 863 the effect which the ban on the west of Scotland herring may have on Norwegian fishermen, they were sympathetic, friendly, delighted that we had consulted them and wanted us to consult them even more.
I do not know what suspicions or other fears I need to allay. The right hon. Gentleman seems to have suggested I should have gone back to Denmark and said "By the way, our measures are concerned with stopping you carrying out industrial fishing in the Norway pout box because we think you are wrong to destroy fish for human consumption". As they already knew that, there was no point my telling ahem again.
The right hon. Gentleman seemed to be falling between two stools. On the one hand he appeared to be saying "Are you not going a bit too far and frightening all these poor chaps with your discriminatory measures?", and on the other hand asking "Why are you not doing more, because there are only four items?". We are doing them in batches as and when required.
I have a great deal of sympathy with the industry on the question of the single mesh size net per journey. There is a lot of sense in it, but equally I thought that as the conservation measures—this is more an enforcement measure than a conservation measure—will affect a wide expanse of sea, it would be better to talk it over with our Norwegian friends and obtain their technical advice and opinions before we took any action.
I have done that. They have made certain suggestions. I cannot answer for the technicalities, but I can answer for the politics. In politics their suggestions seemed to me to be right. I am having the technicalities examined, just as they are examining the technicalities of our basis. I assure the right hon. Gentleman that I have not forgotten those measures. The measures announced this week are the start and not the end of the national conservation measures on which we must engage.

§ Mr. Peyton
Although I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for the opportunities he affords us to ask him questions in the House, nevertheless we would be more grateful if he would attempt to answer some of them. There are two particular questions to which I should like 864 answers. First, will he assure the House that he is satisfied that the effect of his visit to Norway will not involve delay in an eventual settlement, which the industry very much needs? Secondly, can he say that none of the measures which he has taken is discriminatory, as was suggested by one of his hon. Friends yesterday in the European Parliament?

§ Mr. Silkin
On the second point we took the measures because, among other reasons, they were non-discriminatory. We examined them on that basis and we are satisfied that they are non-discriminatory.
On the first point, I do not understand how working out a proper conservation and enforcement basis of conservation with the other great partner in the North Sea can set back a fishing settlement. If anything, I should have thought that it might promote it.

§ Mr. Jay
In general would not my right hon. Friend be even happier if, in common with Norway, he were negotiating from a bargaining position involving a 200-mile exclusive fishing zone?

§ Mr. Silkin
It would make my life a little easier, but I do not know whether I should be happier.

§ Mr. Powell
In the context of the national conservation measures to which the right hon. Gentleman referred, is he aware that the fishermen in my constituency and the very many people who depend on them, directly or indirectly, are well aware of the Minister's close attention to their interests and are grateful for it? Can he at this stage confirm that he does not expect it to be necessary in the second half of this year to repeat the absolute ban on herring fishing in the Mourne grounds which was so harsh in its effect upon those for whom these are traditional waters?

§ Mr. Silkin
I have very much in mind the interests of the small fishing to which the right hon. Gentleman has referred. It is so small in its effect on genera] conservation and so very important in the lives of the people concerned that I am determined that, whatever happens, that fishing will continue.

§ Mr. Wall
Did the right hon. Gentleman discuss with the Norwegian Government the large quota they have given to 865 the Soviet Union and the relatively small quota available for distant water vessels from Hull and Grimsby? Will he answer the question of my right hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) about the herring ban? It has been suggested in the European Parliament that the ban does not apply to vessels from the Faroes and Norway. Can the Minister confirm whether this is so? In view of the many questions that still remain and the difficult future faced by the fishing industry, will the right hon. Gentleman try to initiate a debate before the end of the Session?

§ Mr. Silkin
The question of a debate is not one for me, but I very much appreciate debates, particularly because of the way in which the past two or three fishing debates have been conducted. Fishing agreements with the Soviet Union did not arise in our discussions, but we considered the herring ban and its effect on Norwegian fishing.
I have to tell the hon. Gentleman that the ban applies just as much to fishermen from Norway and the Faroes as to our own fishermen and those from other EEC member States. It would have seemed a very odd discrimination, and one that I would have found rather difficult in my well-known desire to uphold Community law if we had discriminated in favour of Norway and against our partners in the Community. My Norwegian opposite numbers understood very well and were very sympathetic with everything I said and they took it extremely well that we had consulted them.

§ Mr. Spearing
Did my right hon. Friend discuss in Norway the exact position of our conservation proposals with the EEC? Was he able to confirm that the extension of the pout box and the 70mm net regulations have not been formally accepted as notifications by the EEC, which has asked for further details concerning the west of Scotland and by-catches of protected species? Can he tell us whether he was able to inform the Norwegians of the exact position and whether the EEC has not yet accepted these notifications as formal?

§ Mr. Silkin
I discussed the proposals in detail, one by one—both the present 866 proposals and what we have in mind—with our Norwegian friends. That seemed vital as we are dealing with conservation in the whole of the North Sea. It is correct that the Commission may wish to have further information about certain measures, but I find it extraordinary that it could be maintained that there had been no notification.

§ Mr. Watt
Will the Minister accept that we on this Bench are delighted that he went to Norway? I am sure that he felt the wonderful spirit that pertains in a nation which has complete control over its 200-mile limits. Can he assure Scottish fishermen that they will have long-term access to the stocks of Norwegian fish which they have traditionally gone after and can he tell us whether he had time on his visit to see the new fishery protection fleet that Norway has built? Can we also look forward to the building of such a fleet? Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether he has noted the action of two French skippers who have appealed to the European Court of Justice against fines imposed on them by a British court? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that if these people are not prepared to accept British jurisdiction over the British economic zone, they had better stay out of our waters?

§ Mr. Silkin
On the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question, the Norwegians gave much reassurance about their desire that British fishermen should continue to fish in Norwegian waters, just as the Norwegians would like to fish in our waters. It is not just that the fish are needed. The political visits—if I may put it that way—of fishermen of both countries, even if we could get all the fish we wanted in our own zones, would be infinitely worth while. The Norwegians and ourselves share this feeling.
I am full of admiration for the Norwegian fishing fleet and the technological machinery that Norway uses to ascertain that people are not breaking its fishery regulations. The equipment is absolutely superb. We were shown everything and I was extremely interested in it. As I told the House, I am sending a team of experts to Bergen soon and I hope that we shall be able to work together in enforcement as well as on 867 conservation. The position is not too dissimilar from the action taken by two county police authorities that meet at the county border when they hear that a drunk is in charge of a fast car.
In regard to the action of the French following the arrest of a couple of French boats last year, I am still awaiting details on this matter and cannot therefore comment on it now.

§ Mr. Hoyle
Whether it is thought in some quarters that my right hon. Friend's visit to Norway was provocative or not, will he confirm that, as we would be the chief sufferers and as our interests are threatened in this connection, his main interest, as he has always shown, is to protect, within the straitjacket that we find ourselves in as members of the Common Market, the interests of our fishing industry?

§ Mr. Silkin
The interests of our fishing industry are the first requirement to be protected. The second requirement is the protection of the fish themselves. It is by working together in this enormous area of sea—probably the most valuable fishing area in the world—that the way ahead lies.

§ Mr. Kilfedder
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the fishermen in my constituency are gratified at the strong stand he has taken against other Common Market countries on this important subject? Does he understand that the traditional herring fishermen in my constituency were deeply upset by the licensing arrangements for herring fishing in the Manx fishing grounds? Will he ensure that all traditional herring fishermen are allowed to fish in that area because they 868 have a right to be there and some of the outsiders should not be there at all?

§ Mr. Silkin
We have raised this point in the Council of Ministers. We need to pursue the matter. I agree that the position around the Isle of Man is totally different.

§ Mr. Donald Stewart
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the EEC claim that his conservation measures on the west coast of Scotland are ultra vires because of previous agreements made between the EEC and the Norwegians? Will he continue to repel that claim? Is he giving any further thought to seeking exemption for the genuine drift net boats which fish on the west coast?

§ Mr. Silkin
As the right hon. Gentleman knows, I have a great deal of sympathy with the case of the small fishermen because I find it difficult to believe that their actions really hurt the aims of conservation. However, that is not a matter for me. As to whether applying the ban to the Norwegians was provocative, that was one good reason for my going to Norway and discussing the matter with my opposite numbers. Again, it is extraordinary, when we are trying to conserve the stock, to say that because the stock will go to Norway rather than to anyone else, we can allow it to go. That seems to be the reverse of conservation.