Council of Fisheries Ministers

HC Deb 22 December 1982 vol 34 cc949-54 3.30 pm

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Peter Walker)

With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement on the meeting of the Council of Fisheries Ministers yesterday in Brussels. I represented the United Kingdom, together with my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Minister of State.

The nine member States were agreed on a package of measures for a revised common fisheries policy. No changes to this package were proposed or discussed. The Commission had clarified to Denmark some of the administrative measures involved in the package and had also arranged for a possible allocation of mackerel in the North Sea, which would become available from Norway and the Faroes. The Danish Government decided to refer this package to the relevant committee of their Parliament with the Government's strong recommendation for acceptance.

To the bitter disappointment of the entire Community, the minority Danish Government were at yesterday's meeting unable to gain the agreement of that committee. The Danish Government have undertaken to continue to seek to persuade the committee to accept the agreement, and the Council has affirmed that it remains open to Denmark to signify before 30 December that the package is acceptable.

The Council then proceeded to consider what national measures would be needed in the event of the Danish Government failing to accept the agreement before 30 December. The Commission made a declaration as to the manner in which it would authorise national measures, following notification by member States in order to protect stocks in accordance with provisions based upon the latest formal Commission proposals.

The Commission made an unequivocal statement as to the right and obligation of all member States, in the unique circumstances of fisheries, to protect this vital resource, and the Commissioner stated that this would apply to all of the proposals on conservation, access and quotas. Hon. Members may have heard the President of the Commission, Mr. Thorn, confirm this morning that these measures would be effective and legal.

As far as the United Kingdom is concerned, I signed this morning orders which will make these proposals part of our national law, and I have notified the Commission. They will be laid before the House so that they will come into effect if necessary on 1 January. Agreement was reached on an interim package of structural measures, which I know will be welcomed by our industry.

I can only express the hope that Denmark will approve this agreement before the end of the year and will take note of the warning given to them by their Prime Minister that their failure to agree will leave the Danish fishing industry in a worse, and not better, position.

Mr. Bruce Millan (Glasgow, Craigton)

I repeat what has been said before from the Opposition Benches. We consider that the package that has been agreed by the Minister to be completely unacceptable. We shall want to debate early in the new year the debacle of the negotiations in the past three and a half years. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman can assure us that that debate will take place, this time in Government time.

Is the Minister aware that his repeated protestations that the fishermen in the United Kingdom were satisfied with the agreement now look even more hollow, given some of the developments over the past few weeks? For example, the Scottish Fishing Federation has almost broken up. It is in almost total disarray. There have been repeated statements by fishermen's representatives in different parts of the United Kingdom that they are extremely unhappy with the agreement that the right hon. Gentleman has reached.

Is it not a fact that the fishermen were willing to accept the agreement for the want of anything better and because they believed that at least it would produce an element of certainty as from 1 January 1983? However, whatever has happened, there will be no certainty as from 1 January 1983, as the Secretary of State for Scotland was frank enough to acknowledge in a statement reported in one of today's newspapers.

Is the Minister aware that we cannot make a judgment about the national measures until the details are available? I understand that the orders will not be laid until tommorrow. Despite what he has said about the legality of the measures, there must still be some doubt about them until they are tested, if they are tested in the European Court. I give the right hon. Gentleman the assurance that we shall support any measures that are aken by him to protect our fishing stocks. I hope that when the measures come into operation they will be stringently enforced. Will the right hon. Gentleman give the assurance that the enforcement will be exclusively a matter for the United Kingdom Government, because there is a suggestion in at least one newspaper report this morning that the enforcement may be shared between the United Kingdom Government and other Governments? That should be clarified.

There are three other matters that I hope the right hon. Gentleman will clarify. First, despite promises that no further concessions would be made to Denmark, concessions have been made over the past few weeks. Will the right hon. Gentleman give us an assurance that those concessions will be withdrawn and will not be renewed? Secondly, what will happen to the third country agreements, particularly with Norway and the Faroes, given that there is not a completely agreed common fisheries policy? Thirdly, what will happen to the EC restructuring package in those circumstances? In his statement the right hon. Gentleman referred to interim measures, but we want to know what the overall position will be.

Despite his continued blusterings at the Dispatch Box, the right hon. Gentleman has produced for the end of the year a sorry mess and he has completely failed to bring about an assured future for our fishing industry.

Mr. Walker

As usual, the Opposition spokesman is deeply distressed that there is an agreement that all the leaders of the fishing industry require. His phrases were rather pathetic. I hope that his remarks about the Scottish Fishing Federation will be examined by Scottish fishermen, including those in disagreement. If he has any knowledge of that disagreement, he will know that it is not even remotely connected with what has been agreed between the nine member States. It is rather sad that the right hon. Gentleman has to use that argument to try to produce a pathetic illustration of the state of the fishing industry. That shows his ignorance of the fishing industry.

With regard to the legality of the situation, it is the view of the Commission and of nine member States that the national measures are legal. As far as I know, the Danish Government have not disputed the legality of the national measures that we are taking. It is significant that at yesterday's meeting there was no view from the Danish Government that any of the measures that were being discussed contained any element of illegality. The only statements that were quoted in the press this morning were from certain Danish fishermen, who gave their interpretation. If they seek the advice of their Government and Minister they will get a different view.

No concessions of any description will be made by the United Kingdom Government that affect the United Kingdom fishing industry. The concessions discussed come primarily from agreements with Norway and elsewhere. They will all be left out of the proposed national measures. That is why the Danish Prime Minister strongly advised the Danish fishing industry and the Danish Parliament that it is in the interests of Denmark to accede to the agreement that is on offer now rather than to one based on what was proposed on 30 October and imposed by national measures.

Restructuring will be discussed in the new year. There is a great deal of work to be done. The proposals agreed yesterday apply to 1983. The ideal basis of restructuring is an agreed common fisheries policy. I hope that that will be agreed before the end of the year. Whether there will be a debate is not a matter for me. I gather that there will be a debate, which I shall welcome warmly, soon after we return from the recess.

Sir Michael Shaw (Scarborough)

Is my right hon. Friend aware that, contrary to what has been said, the industry appreciates fully what he and his colleagues have done to protect the vital interests and future of the fishing industry? Confidence in the future was being built up by the forthcoming agreement. Can my right hon. Friend confirm that there is no reason for a lack of confidence due to any delay that there may be in reaching a final agreement that will, I am sure, be to the advantage of every member of the Community?

Mr. Walker

Yes, Sir. Plainly the leaders of the fishing industry were with me yesterday and shared my disappointment that no agreement was reached. It is unique that 10 Governments in Europe are agreed on a package and one Opposition party in one member State is preventing it from taking place. I hope that that will be swiftly altered and then the fishing industry can be confident of the future.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell (Down, South)

Is it not disgraceful to the House of Commons that it has fallen to Denmark and the Danish Parliament to set us an example of how to defend in the Common Market the interests of their own people?

Mr. Walker

The right hon. Gentleman should recall that the Danish Government, including the Prime Minister, are recommending that the agreement is in the interests of the Danish people and fishing industry. The right hon. Gentleman will find that his only allies are the Danish Socialist party.

Mr. J. Grimond (Orkney and Shetland)

Is the Minister aware that I regret the dispute with Denmark, a country of which my constituency, for a long and distinguished period in its history, was a part? Whatever we may think of the agreement, we are glad that the Minister has stuck to his guns. We hope that he has sufficient guns to stick to, and that there will be an adequate number of fishery cruisers to enforce the agreement.

Will the Secretary of State reiterate that any trouble with Denmark will not hold up undertakings given by the Secretary of State for Scotland and himself that they are ready to discuss management schemes with the various fishing associations in Scotland?

Mr. Walker

Yes, Sir. I confirm that the undertakings given by my right hon. Friend will continue and that those discussions will take place. I also would regret any friction in the extremely good relationship with Denmark. The Danish Government are completely in line with European policy.

There has been some mention of guns and gunboats in the press. I do not believe that there is, and I certainly would not like to see, any friction between the United Kingdom and Denmark. To be fair to the Danish Fisheries Minister, he made it clear at the Council of Ministers meeting yesterday that he would deplore any act by Danish fishermen that violated the traditional fishing rights of other countries of the Community, and he would strongly advise any Danish fishermen not to embark upon any such course. He did not question the legality of the national measures that we were discussing yesterday.

Mr. John Townend (Bridlington)

Is my right hon. Friend aware that there will be relief in fishing ports such as Bridlington at his determination and that of his colleagues to enforce national measures? Can he reassure the industry that if Danish boats endeavour to fish within the 12-mile limit the orders that he is placing before the House and the means of protection will be adequate to enable us to arrest and prosecute the trawlers?

Mr. Walker

Yes, Sir.

Mr. Douglas Jay (Battersea, North)

Should it not also be made clear that the main responsibility for the position rests with the right hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath) and the right hon. and learned Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon) who in 1972—

Mr. Nigel Spearing (Newham, South)

Where are they?

Mr. Jay

—signed a Treaty of Accession which gave other EC members the right to fish up to the beaches of this country after 31 December 1982?

Mr. Walker

I remind the right hon. Gentleman that he was a supporter of a Government who decided to renegotiate the terms of membership of the Common Market, and in deciding the basis of that renegotiation they decided not to include fishing.

Mr. Robert Maclennan (Caithness and Sutherland)

Does the Minister accept that one of the most disturbing aspects of the failure to reach a unanimous decision is that it means that the national measures depend upon national policing and are not under-pinned by Community policing? I disagree wholly with what the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan) said about that matter. What steps is the Minister prepared to take to deal with the national measures? Will the Commission statement that all members were obliged to protect the resources apply to the Danes with regard to landings in Denmark?

Mr. Walker

Yes, Sir. Further, one of the good features is that the enforcement regulation was agreed earlier in the year by Denmark and comes into operation on 1 January. Therefore, all the rights of Commission officers to inspect documents and board boats to ensure compliance will take place in respect of Denmark from 1 January next year.

Mr. Robert Hughes (Aberdeen, North)

Does the Secretary of State realise that the reason why we are in this mess today is that he failed to heed our warnings earlier in the year about the length of time between fishery meetings and the way in which he was being fobbed off? How does he intend to patrol the coastline to carry out conservation measures? How can Denmark, having refused to sign the agreement, have any control over its fishermen's actions?

Mr. Walker

There was no lack of frequency of fisheries meetings. Agreement was reached by nine member countries earlier in the year. There has been no delay in having fisheries meetings to try to persuade the other member country to agree. Yesterday we succeeded in persuading the other member Government to agree to the package. I hope that between now and the end of the year the Opposition will use any influence they may have with the Social Democrats in Denmark.

Plainly I cannot speak for the Danish Government about Danish enforcement measures. As the Danish Minister made it clear that he would deplore any illegal action by his fishermen, there is no reason why he should not take the same national measures as other member countries.

Sir Anthony Meyer (Flint, West)

Is my right hon. Friend aware that it is precisely because of the great skill that he showed in negotiating that we have an agreed fisheries policy which will be supported by everyone? If he has now to resort to national measures, he will have the support not merely of the whole House but of international opinion generally. Will he bear in mind that the object of the operation is to enable a friendly Danish Government to apply an agreement that they would like to apply? Will he do what he can to stop the dirty end of Fleet Street from indulging in its favourite sport of whipping up ill will against our friends and allies?

Mr. Walker

The Danish Government have agreed to the package. The main Opposition party in the Danish Parliament will not agree at the moment. I hope that, after considering further the disadvantages to the Danish industry of not doing so, it will agree before the end of the year.

Mr. Spearing

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food will know that article 100 of the Treaty of Accession of this country and Denmark to the EC states that, unless there is agreement before 31 December, regulation 2141 of October 1970 and article 2, which give rights to fish up to the beach, come into force. The Minister has referred to other regulations, but he did not state the number. Do those later regulations supersede regulation 2141? If so, will he give the number of the regulation?

Mr. Walker

Knowing the fascinating, intellectual interest that the hon. Gentleman takes in this subject, I am sure that he will be well aware that we secured agreement on 30 May 1980 that article 103 of the Treaty of Accession—which allows for access limitation to follow those set out in articles 100 and 101—would be applied consistently, and particularly with annex 7 of The Hague agreements, which speak of the need to regulate fishing activity in a coastal belt. The theoretical possibility of equal access from 1 January 1983 has therefore been overtaken by the agreement of the Council to take action to protect coastal fisheries from that date.

Mr. Teddy Taylor (Southend, East)

Despite the Minister's previous splendid endeavours, quotas and bans on certain types of fish, such as herring, were flagrantly broken not only by the Danes but by other member States. Will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that sufficient additional policing will be available after 1 January to ensure that they are not broken? Will he also give us a clear assurance that, irrespective of any decision taken by the European Court, the Government will stand by their national agreements and prevent foreign vessels from fishing up to our beaches?

Mr. Walker

We have always given the assurance that there will be no fishing up to our beaches. In addition, we shall certainly guarantee proper enforcement.

Mr. Mark Hughes (Durham)

Will the right hon. Gentleman accept that neither an unequivocal statement from the Commission nor a statement in the press or on the radio by Mr. Gaston Thorn has legal validity? Will he therefore confirm that there are legal doubts about the ability of the Danish Government, and/or a Danish fisherman to prosecute a British fishery protection vessel in the European Court if an arrest is made?

Will the right hon. Gentleman accept that his views about the disarray of the Scottish Fishing Federation are totally unfounded? Will he also accept that when the Opposition pray against the orders we shall do so not because we disagree with the need for national measures, but to ensure that they are adequately debated in the House? Will the right hon. Gentleman make arrangements with the Leader of the House for a debate on the whole package at the earliest possible opportunity?

Mr. Walker

I am very much in favour of a debate at the earliest opportunity. I should warmly welcome it and, indeed, pray for it.

In response to the hon. Gentleman's remarks about the Scottish Fishing Federation, I repeat that it is a monstrous suggestion that any divisiveness has been caused by the agreement. I followed closely the disagreements and the reasons given by several members for quitting the federation. It is monstrous that Opposition Members should try to whip up feeling. It is extraordinary that the Labour Party should presumably wish to encourage Danish fishermen by constantly suggesting that there is some legal doubt. I accept the legal view of nine member Governments and of the Commission.