EUROPEAN COMMUNITY COUNCIL OF MINISTERS (FISHERIES) (Hansard, 22 June 1978)

§ The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. John Silkin)
With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to report to the House on the outcome of the Council of Fisheries Ministers held in Luxembourg on 20th and 21st June.
I represented the United Kingdom at this meeting, together with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland.
In a discussion on revising the common fisheries policy, I again emphasised the political and economic importance of the fishing industry in the United Kingdom and the strength and unanimity of feeling expressed in this House during the debate on 15th June. I regret to say that. despite the willingness the United Kingdom has 718 shown to be flexible in the search for an agreement, the other members of the Community showed no readiness to depart from the position they had adopted at the Council meeting last January, and consequently no progress could be made.
The Council also discussed two issues of immediate importance. It agreed to roll forward for July the present reciprocal fishing arrangements with third countries subject, however, to a quota arrangement at Northern Norway which will help to ensure that the United Kingdom maintains its share of the cod and haddock catches in that area and that over-fishing by other countries will be contained.
The Council, however, failed to agree on a Commission proposal to introduce a ban on further catches of herring to the west of Scotland. There is clear, independent, scientific advice that this stock, which is of the highest importance for the future of our herring industry, is in danger. The Government will therefore now have to consider urgently what must be done to protect it.
I informed the Council that Her Majesty's Government would now have to decide, in the light of the Community's failure to take the necessary decisions, on what further action we needed to take in accordance with our rights and obligations as the coastal State, to protect and conserve the fish stocks in United Kingdom waters.

§ Mr. Peyton
First, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is aware of the Opposition's complete agreement with him—[Interruption.]—in resisting proposals which are wholly unacceptable, ill-founded and intrusive? May I also express to him our regret that the Commission does not yet seem to have recognised the primary importance of conservation?
I should like then to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, in view of the fact that the failure to agree was predictable—indeed, he predicted it himself—he is aware that there will be some disappointment that he has not come here today already prepared with definite measures of conservation—[Interruption.]—with the intention of putting them into force at once.
But, despite the barracking of his hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer)—a little silence from 719 him would be so rewarding—may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he will undertake to come to the House of Commons next week and announce measures such as those which we recommended to him last week to conserve fish stocks and also to make it quite clear that these will be put into effect immediately?

§ Mr. Silkin
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for the agreement which he signifies to the stand that I took in Luxembourg. It was in accordance with our debate on 15th June, when all of us, I think, agreed that it would be a matter of some surprise to me if there were not those around the Council table who thought that the agreement would not be as lasting as in fact it may be. I think that it is lasting, and I hope, therefore, that I speak for the whole House and the country.
On the question of conservation, as I said to the House before, obviously it is better to get conservation measures that embrace the whole Community. Indeed, if we could get agreement beyond the Community and have, for example, reciprocal arrangements among Norway, Iceland, the Community, ourselves and all other countries, it would be better. For that reason I was hoping that we might get some Community conservation measures. Unfortunately that failed. In fact the Commission tried, but the member States refused to allow the herring conservation measure to go forward.
It is not a question of not knowing what should be done. We know pretty well exactly what should be done. But we have to follow a certain procedure, and the right hon. Gentleman must be aware of that. We shall follow that procedure and we shall announce to the House at the earliest possible moment what conservation measures we intend to adopt after we have followed the correct procedures. I promise the right hon. Gentleman that we shall do it as soon as we possibly can. Obviously I am covering myself a little because I have to wait until I hear what reply I get after seeking the Commission's approval in Brussels.

§ Mr. Peyton
I really must press the Minister on this matter. He cannot plead 720 surprise. He knew for an absolute certainty that no agreement would be forthcoming in Luxembourg. We now repeat the question that we put to him last week —will he undertake quite clearly to come to the House of Commons next week with prepared measures and then put them into immediate effect?

§ Mr. Silkin
I thought that the right hon. Gentleman understood what I said, but clearly he did not. I did predict that there would not be an agreement. Both he and I agreed on 15th June that if we could get an agreement that served our national honour and our interests we would be glad to get it. What I did not know—and I said that to him at the time—was that conservation measures were not necessarily part of that agreement on the common fisheries policy. The Commission was prepared to and, in effect, did introduce proposals on conservation, but I did not know until the last moment whether those measures would be accepted by the rest of the Council. It is better to have a Community conservation measure because it is more extensive than a national one.
In the light of that I still say that I would have had to go through the same procedures even had I known that the talks would fail. I have to go through the procedures because I want to ensure that the measures are effective. The House will be informed at the earliest possible opportunity, and I assure the right hon. Gentleman that there will be no delay.

Several Hon. Members
rose—

§ Mr. Speaker
May I ask for crisp questions if possible?

§ Mr. McNamara
Is my right hon. Friend aware that we all applaud the zealousness of the converts on the Opposition Benches in supporting the vigorous stand that he has made to protect our fishing industry? I urge him, however, to beware of the zealousness of the converts because sometimes in their keenness they can make fatal errors.
On the question of third parties' relationships and the improved situation for the United Kingdom in Norwegian waters, can my right hon. Friend explain to the House in more detail how he sees it rolling on after July and taking in other countries?

§ Mr. Silkin
Mindful of what you said about crisp questions, Mr. Speaker, I reply that the basis is that in September last year we agreed with the Commission, the French and the Germans to a division of cod in Norwegian waters, which gave us 70 per cent. of that cod. By the end of the year there had been over-fishing by our two partners and as a result we did not even get our quota. This year there has been no quota. Large and very powerful French and German vessels have been fishing ahead of ours. Therefore we were afraid of over-fishing in those waters and in consequence that was the basis of the agreement. Until the end of July we shall get the proportion, based on the 1977 agreement, which is the highest amount, and the French and German quotas will drop down in that period. That should enable our fishermen to fish the full amounts and at the same time it will contain the fishing of the French and Germans.

§ Mr. Powell
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that support for his dogged defence of British interests and rights, despite the weak bargaining hand that he inherited, is felt far beyond the fishing industry itself? Now that he has been obliged to take over the responsibility for herring conservation in the waters around these islands, will he administer and organise it in such a way that he can preserve, by the very small allocations which are necessary, the skiff fisheries in areas such as Mourne, and the important and special industries which depend upon them?

§ Mr. Silkin
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for what he has said. I will do my best, and I know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland stands ready in his field to bring in Scottish conservation measures. The right hon. Gentleman knows that he has always had my sympathy about Mourne. I have always said that there might come a time when we would need to do this.

§ Mr. James Johnson
I urge my right hon. Friend to ignore the petty and bad-tempered comments from the Opposition Front Bench. Is he aware of the deep satisfaction of all hon. Members representing fishing ports in all parts of the House for the firm stand that he has taken against the callous and cynical demands of our continental partners for 722 so-called equal shares of stocks in our waters?
I thank my right hon. Friend for the work that he has done for the deep-sea fleet in Norwegian waters. This may have resulted in only 6,000 or 7,000 tonnes, but in Hull we are thankful for small mercies.
Is it correct, as Mr. Gundelach has said —although I do not accept it—that the United Kingdom demands this week would give our fishing people 100 per cent. of the stocks in the 200-mile belt by 1982?

§ Mr. Silkin
I saw that comment in a written statement which differed from the oral statement that Mr. Gundelach had made to the Council. Of course I am bound to say that it is true in one or two species, although the statement that he made gave the impression that it is true in all species. It is true of cod, plaice and herring.
Germany, Denmark, France, Holland and Belgium together contribute precisely 20 per cent. of the fish resources of the Community, and according to the Commission's proposals they take out 70 per cent. I thought that in suggesting a mere 100 per cent. I was being rather modest.

§ Mr. Grimond
While wholly supporting the Minister in his admirable fight in Brussels, may I ask him whether the conservation measures that he is considering must be of a general nature for all boats and types of fish, or whether they are variable? Is he aware that it is not only the fish that must be considered—important though it is to conserve them—but the industry, and in particular the fishing communities that depend entirely upon fishing? Will he ensure that any such measures do enable these communities to continue their livelihood?

§ Mr. Silkin
As the right hon. Gentleman knows, that lies very much within the field of responsibility of the Secretary of State for Scotland. Of course very painful decisions will have to be taken. The industry, including the Scottish industry, has assured me that although it may suffer very much—and I think it will suffer much more from the West of Scotland herring closure than the industry of any other country—it is not only prepared to do it, but it wants to see conservation measures. That is why 723 I say again, the sooner we can do it the sooner we will do it.

§ Mr. Jay
Does my right hon. Friend regard the common fisheries policy as one of the benefits of EEC membership for which the Conservatives voted?

§ Mr. Silkin
I do not want to try to make out an examination list of the benefits of our membership of the EEC, but I suppose that if I were to do so I would not necessarily regard the common fisheries policy as coming at the head of the list.

§ Mr. Donald Stewart
Is the Minister aware that he has the full appreciation of SNP Members on his strenuous fight on behalf of our fishermen? Is he also aware that the fishermen in the West back the judgment about the risk to the herring stock, although they themselves will suffer most in terms of employment and earnings? If a ban is imposed. will he consult his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland about exemption for those boats that practise conservation by the use of drift nets?

§ Mr. Silkin
This is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, but I wish to emphasise that there will be difficulties. So far as it is possible to mitigate them we want to do so, but I am afraid that we may be in for something of a difficulty in this and in other matters, some even in England.

Several Hon. Members
rose—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. I hope to call those hon. Members who have been rising to their feet, if they are brief.

§ Mr. Spearing
Although conservation is clearly an important matter, may I ask my right hon. Friend to confirm that a matter of importance to the United Kingdom is the proportion of catch which is ultimately made available to us? Does he agree that, although he is justifiably supported on conservation matters by those who approved the common fisheries policy, no such arguments can be said to apply in respect of catch because that was not part of the policy? Therefore, those people cannot talk about protecting the industry as such.

§ Mr. Silkin
The common fisheries policy is always being quoted to me by 724 other members of the Community. They say that they are in favour of it, and dispute the question of catch with me. I regret to say that they appear to dispute the question of conservation, otherwise the conservation measures that now exist would all be Community measures. However, not one is a Community measure: they are all national measures.

§ Sir J. Langford-Holt
If unilateral action on conservation becomes necessary, the right hon. Gentleman clearly will have the support of the House. But are we not in some respects in danger in this argument? Was it not the unilateral conservation policy that led us into near conflict with Iceland about three years ago? The right hon. Gentleman spoke of the necessity of reaching agreement with Iceland.

§ Mr. Silkin
I wish slightly to correct the first part of the hon. Gentleman's remarks. Unilateral conservation measures will not become necessary: they are necessary. I think that the whole House understands that. On the subject of Iceland, that dispute took place some time ago before the Commission was empowered to act on behalf of the Community in negotiations with Iceland. The Icelanders at that time based their case on two fundamental points. The first was conservation, and the other involved the existence of 200-mile limits, which they pointed out were their waters and nobody else's.

§ Mr. Spriggs
Will my right hon. Friend confirm that there are no grounds for making reciprocal agreements on fishing rights with Community countries?

§ Mr. Silkin
Under the Treaty of Accession, the basis, I understand, is that there shall be equal fishing opportunities in all member States for Community's vessels, whether they come from Germany, Denmark, Holland, Luxembourg, Italy or even the United Kingdom. I sometimes think that that point of view in respect of some of our northern neighbours is sometimes more honoured in the breach than in the observance.

§ Mr. Buchanan-Smith
I appreciate the urgency and necessity of conservation measures. However, does the right hon. Gentleman acknowledge that the bringing in of specific measures, such as the ban on herring fishing on the West coast of Scotland, will lead to diversion of 725 effort elsewhere? Does he not agree that what is needed is a comprehensive scheme of conservation which takes account of the repercussions of individual measures dealing with the conservation of fishing both in terms of species and of certain areas around our coasts?

§ Mr. Silkin
I agree with the hon. Gentleman, but the point I made in the debate that took place a week ago was that I have certain guidelines, and both my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and I must keep to them. We must first—that is the law—seek the approval of the Commission. Even if the Commission does not give us its approval we can still go ahead, but we must seek its approval. That takes a certain amount of time.
The second consideration is that the conservation measures must be in accordance with the scientific evidence. That is not always available.
The third point is that the measures must be necessary. That I would agree in every case, and so would the hon. Gentleman. The final point is that they must be non-discriminatory. One sometimes hears arguments that measures are discriminatory against another member of the Community. It is curious that in most of the measures which the United Kingdom has taken unilaterally I would have thought that the United Kingdom had suffered more than other countries. That point has never yet been taken.

§ Mr. Raphael Tuck
Is my right hon. Friend aware that he deserves the congratulations and thanks of the whole House and country for the superb stand he has taken in Europe? Indeed, he is one of the best Ministers of Agriculture we have ever had. Does he agree that in view of the fact that our waters contain between 50 and 60 per cent. of the EEC's total fish catch, the EEC's offer to us of only 30 per cent. of the total fish catch is contemptuous and derisory?

§ Mr. Silkin
I do not know about "contemptuous and derisory". It may be just a fault in mathematics. At any rate, we have a few months to see whether that is the case.

§ Mr. Clegg
Did the Minister point out to the other Ministers the impact of the 726 possible accession of Spain and Portugal on the common fisheries policy? I do not see how one can bring those countries into the EEC and continue with the CFP as it is.

§ Mr. Silkin
I pointed that out in the Council and more specifically, and in another city altogether, to one particular Minister of that Council.

§ Mr. Watt
Does the Minister recognise that SNP Members wish him a pleasant and fruitful journey to Norway later in the month? We hope that he will manage to negotiate some decent reciprocal fishing rights. Will he take with him as compulsory bed-time reading the report of the Expenditure Committee on the fishing industry? Does he agree that if he were to implement the recommendations in that report, the next generation might have some fish to catch, whereas if we listen to what the EEC says, we shall have only paper fish to talk about?

§ Mr. Silkin
I invariably take the report of that Committee with me to bed. It is now the sole topic of conversation in my household. That is not to say that I do not think there is a great deal in the report with which I find myself in agreement.