Fisheries Council (Hansard, 27 October 1982)

§ The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Peter Walker)
With permission, Mr. Speaker, I shall make a statement on the outcome of the meeting of the Fisheries Council in Luxembourg on 25 and 26 October. At the meeting, I represented the United Kingdom, together with my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Minister of State in my Department.
I am pleased to report to the House that nine members of the Council reached agreement on a common fisheries policy, based upon final proposals from the Commission which included important gains for the United Kingdom. In the case of Denmark, final agreement is dependent upon the approval of its Government and Parliament, which is to be sought within the next 10 days. Should that approval not be forthcoming, we and the other eight Governments of the Community expect to implement the regime as between ourselves on the basis of national measures approved by the Commission. We hope, however, that the Danish Government, who currently guard the important responsibility of the Presidency of the Community, will gain the approval of their Parliament to this common policy.
The Commission's final proposals showed significant improvements over the proposals that I previously reported to the House. There were increases in the total quotas for the United Kingdom in both absolute and proportionate terms. Improved quotas were obtained for North Sea cod, west coast haddock, saithe and the very important west coast herring. The Commission rejected the demands of Denmark to obtain licences in the Shetland box, but the final Commission proposals made an amendment to the boundaries of the box which reduced its size by 6 per cent. The House should know that in the most recent year for which complete data are available, 34,000 tonnes of fish were landed by Shetland fishermen but only 92 tonnes were caught by them in this area. The Shetlanders can of course continue to fish there in future.
The House will know that I have always undertaken that I would only approve an agreement that had the approval of the British fishing industry. When the Commission's final proposals were made I met the leaders of the three fishing industry organisations and all three asked me to accept these final proposals.
The quotas that we have obtained compare favourably with even the best level of fishing in recent years and are far in excess of the average levels. On the question of access to our coastal areas, I am pleased to inform the House that we have succeeded in reducing or eradicating historic rights within our 12-mile limit over 73 per cent. of our coastline where these rights currently exist. We have obtained a significant improvement not just in the post-accession position but in the pre-accession position. We have also obtained rights in the coastal waters of other member States of critical importance to our fishermen, with particularly important rights in the coastal waters of Ireland and Heligoland.
On conservation, the package gives us a new regime on a permanent basis which meets our needs, including the vital Norway pout box. Our national measures will now be implemented by the Community. This will be, for the first time, backed by an effective control system based on 1052 the United Kingdom proposals. A combination of these conservation and control measures will secure for the British fishing industry the prospect of improvements in fish stocks instead of the decline in stocks which it has suffered in the past. An advantageous system of scrapping, modernisation and construction grants will also now be provided. If, as I hope, the agreement is approved by all 10 member countries within the next 10 days, we shall have at last achieved for the fishing industry a firm foundation for the future with an agreement that has its approval.
These new measures, if finally approved, will of course not operate until next January. As the House will be aware, I have been considering the current financial position of the fishing industry. Whilst I am pleased to inform the House that in the first eight months of this year there has been a 16 per cent. improvement in the industry's receipts compared with a similar period in 1981, there have also been additional costs, particularly for fuel. I have therefore decided that it is important to provide further aid to the industry for 1982 to see that it is in a viable position to take advantage of the opportunities that the common fisheries policy will provide Aid of £15 million will be provided, and I shall give the details Ito the House at the earliest opportunity.

§ Mr. Norman Buchan (Renfrewshire, West)
I am afraid that about the only thing on which I can congratulate the Minister is his new expertise in sublety in a most dishonest presentation of what has been achieved.
Are the Government satisfied with the extraordinary proposal that if agreement is not forthcoming from the Danes the other nine, members of the Community will go ahead without them? Is that any different from the veto proposition to which we have objected from the moment of entry to the Common Market? Is it not only another form of veto? Will the Minister seriously think again? If we can operate a national policy with the blessing of the EEC, is there any reason why we should not activate national policies without it?
Does the Minister recall that at the time of the election the Prime Minister promised that there would be an extensive further area of preference? That is now camouflaged in the curious wording: On the question of access to our coastal areas, I am pleased to inform the House that we have succeeded in reducing or eradicating historic rights within our 12-mile limit over 73 per cent. of our coastline. Does that mean that within the 12-mile limit 73 per cent. of the present level of fishing by Common Market countries is no longer to occur? What does the statement mean? Have we not retreated from the position supported by the whole House of a 50-mile preference to one of only a 12-mile preference and a six-mile exclusive? Is it not a complete surrender?
The Shetland box has been further eroded by 6 per cent., with the curious comment by the Minister that that does not matter because only 92 tonnes of recent fishing by Shetland fishermen came from those waters. But is there not another important aspect here—conservation arid preservation—which has gone by the board? We are told that that is compensated for by quotas. However, there are already anxieties in Scottish waters about the level of some of the total allowable catches. They are not satisfactory and are already too high. They have been characterised as "paper" fish. Does riot that mean that that can lead only to further overfishing in British waters?
1053 Why has the Secretary of State, in this last syllable of recorded time, come up with £15 million of aid to the industry? Why now, when the industry has been crying out for aid all this year? Is not the real reason that the Government want to say to the House that the fishermen's organisations have supported the deal? He said that those organisations asked the Government to accept the deal. That was done with a pistol to the organisations' heads. [HON. MEMBERS :"Oh."] I shall tell Conservative Members what the fishermen's organisations say. The National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations said that it is a poor and inadequate deal.

§ Mr. Albert McQuarrie (Aberdeenshire, East)
What about the Scottish Fishermen's Federation?

§ Mr. Buchan
I shall deal with that in a moment. The federation representatives said that they were faced with a "Catch 22" situation. It was made crystal clear to them that if they did not accept and if we had to go it alone, they would not have the protection that the present deal gives. Is it not an indictment of the Government that they could not give the British fishermen adequate protection if we were to go it alone?
The national federation said that it was compelled to accept the deal with "considerable reservations and reluctance". When I talked to the Scottish Fishermen's Federation I asked whether it was saying that it accepted the deal under duress. It replied, "Yes". The truth is that the deal is not simply a surrender. It is a final endorsement of continual surrender. Such surrender is almost a national policy for this Government.

§ Mr. Walker
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising those points and for making the accusation that £15 million of aid was provided to British fishermen to buy their agreement to the package. At the beginning of this week I saw the leaders of the fishing industry. I told them that this week I would announce £15 million of national aid. I said that that aid would be provided whether or not the package was agreed or they agreed to it. Therefore, I suggest that the hon. Gentleman withdraws his accusation.
With regard to whether the deal is the same as the vote that was taken on the common agricultural policy, of course it is not. With regard to national measures approved by the Commission, such action has been taken in fishing measures over many years, including during the period of office of the previous Government. Therefore, that is normal practice. We shall not impose in Danish waters measures that will affect them in their own waters. The deal will safeguard the waters of the other nine member States.
The statement is clear about access. At present other countries have historic rights in the six to 12-mile limit around our coastline. We also have important historic rights in six to 12-mile areas on the coastlines of other countries, which are essential to our fishermen. In 73 per cent. of the former areas the position is either improved or eradicated, as the statement says. Therefore, in terms of our coastal area we have a better position than at any time in history, as a result of the agreement.

§ Mr. John Prescott (Kingston upon Hull, East)
Before entry.

§ Mr. Walker
Indeed. With his fishing interests, the hon. Gentleman will be pleased to know that the provisions are better than the ones that we had before entry. I am sure that he will applaud that.
The hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West regretted the 6 per cent. reduction in the Shetland box. That is remarkable, coming from someone who, when I last made a statement, said that the Shetland box was useless. I am glad to know that he thinks that the 94 per cent. that we have retained is of immense importance.
With regard to overfishing, I am glad to say that we have obtained extra total allowable catch proposals for fishing stocks such as haddock and cod as a result of agreements on TACs with the Norwegian Government.

§ Mr. Buchan
I must make another intervention. The intemperate nature of the Secretary of State's reply suggests the inadequacy of his case. I wish to wipe out the comment that he made about me when he referred to the Shetland box. It was untrue. I said no such thing.
Has not the right hon. Gentleman admitted that my diagnosis of the sleight of hand about the 73 per cent. of protection inside the 12-mile limit was right and that the initial formulation of his paper was wrong? If an aid offer in the week when the fishermen have been compelled to accept an otherwise bad deal is not bribery and corruption, I do not know what is. Is it not simply the truth that, not having got a 200-mile zone, which we would have outside the Common Market—

§ Mr. McQuarrie
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it right that an hon. Member should accuse a Minister of bribery and corruption?

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. The hon. Gentleman was making a general observation. I am sure that he would not seek to make any imputation on the honour of the Secretary of State. I know that he will make that clear.

§ Mr. Buchan
My observation was accurate, but metaphorical. The Government have now retreated from the previous position agreed by the House for 50 miles dominant preference to a six-mile exclusive zone and only six miles of dominant preference. It is a shoddy, shabby deal. I am ashamed that the British Government should put it before the House without giving us the opportunity to vote on it before it was agreed in Brussels.

§ Mr. Walker
The tone of the hon. Gentleman's remarks was insulting to the leaders of the fishing industry. He is saying that the three organisations, which had the freedom to tell me that they did not accept this package, decided to back it. He quoted what fishing leaders have said. I was present last night when 40 fishing leaders, including the leaders of all the main national organisations, not only thanked Ministers for what they had achieved but warmly applauded it.

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. I propose to allow 20 minutes for questions on the statement. We shall not debate the matter today. If questions are succinct, many more hon. Members will be able to ask questions.

§ Mr. J. Grimond (Orkney and Shetland)
If the Danes do not accept the deal, will the proposals be enforced against them? Does not the slice of the Shetland box contain a high proportion of prime fish for human consumption and are not most of the fish that are caught 1055 landed in Shetland itself? If so, will the Secretary of State take that into account when he considers the licences for fishing off Shetland, which have caused some concern? I also wish to ask about the historic rights that are to be reduced or eradicated. Are the rights that are claimed off the coast of Northumberland to be reduced?

§ Mr. Walker
With regard to the Shetland box, the square that has been eliminated from the original proposals is an area where there is a major concentration of Danish fishing for industrial purposes. The Danes are entitled to carry out that fishing in the area. I gave the last figures that are available in records on fishing by the Shetlanders in that area. The fishing in that locality will be able to continue as before.
There is no change in those arrangements. Obviously, I should like to have kept the box in. However, the supervision of licensing arrangements that existed for fishing for edible fish will not be in that category although they will be in the rest of the Shetland box.
The improvement that we have made with regard to the 12-mile limit north of the Minch, which did not exist before, is of considerable importance to Shetland fishermen. Scottish fishermen very much wanted that change.
The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) will know that the proposals for a substantial increase in the west herring stock is of considerable importance to 14 quite important boats in the Shetland Islands. One of the reasons why Scottish fishermen accepted the change in the box was the substantial improvement in quotas for their purposes.
There has been an improvement on one stretch of the Northumberland coast; the existing position remains for the rest of the coast.

§ Mr. Donald Stewart (Western Isles)
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a settlement of the common fisheries policy on the terms that he has announced is nothing but abject surrender? Is he aware that at an earlier stage even some of his hon. Friends were demanding a 50-mile preference zone and a 12-mile exclusion zone? Does he agree that that has gone by the board? Does he further agree that on the terms that he has announced it will be impossible to maintain a viable fishing industry, even at the level of recent years? Is he aware that that has normally been within a 200-mile limit and that British fishermen are now being confined to less than 5 per cent. of their own waters?
Is the Minister aware that he could have announced the financial aid, that the industry so badly needed, earlier? Does he agree that it is now only a bribe—which is what it was intended to be—and a funeral grant?

§ Mr. Walker
I am pleased that the leaders of the Scottish fishing industry are better informed than the leader of the Scottish National Party. They are well aware that they have gained substantial improvements in the coastal zone and quotas. Perhaps of prime importance for Scottish fishermen is that for the first time they have an effective system of control that will enable stocks to improve rather than decline. It is for a combination of these valid reasons that Scottish fishermen supported the agreement.

§ Sir Patrick Wall (Haltemprice)
The House will wish to congratulate my right hon. Friend and the Minister of 1056 State on a successful fight that has brought us within an ace of a common fisheries policy that is acceptable to the industry. I understand that 73 per cent. of the six to 12-mile zone will be reserved for British fishermen. What percentage of water outside the 12-mile limit will be available to British fishermen? How will those waters be controlled to prevent foreigners exceeding quotas as they have done in the past? On behalf of the distant water ports I hope that a good proportion of the support to be given to the industry will be given to distant water fishing vessels, whose numbers have been decimated by the 200-mile limit.

§ Mr. Walker
I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I also thank him for thanking my right hon. Friend the Minister of State who, for the past three and a half years, has played a major part in obtaining the agreement. With regard to the six to 12-mile limit, I repeat what I said clearly in my statement. We have reduced or eradicated historic rights within the 12-mile limit over 73 per cent. of our coastline. That is of considerable importance to British fishermen.
With regard to fishing outside that area, the preference is obtained on the basis by which quotas are granted. It is therefore of immerse importance to the area represented by my hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice (Sir. P. Wall). It is important that we have retained, as a quota, 47 per cent. of the North Sea cod stock. I hope that that will assist my hon. Friends constituents.

§ Mr. James Johnson (Kingston upon Hull, West)
Any Minister who answers questions about EEC affairs has my deepest sympathy. Nevertheless, the right hon. Gentleman's statement was curious and puzzling. The Minister says that he has not merely the support but the assent of the leaders of the industry. Is he aware that that is not so in Hull? I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman met Tom Boyd or others, but they believe that this arrangement will be the demise and death knell and of our port of Hull. Is he aware that I therefore object to what he said earlier?
The £15 million is inadequate and should be doubled. I make a plea for the distant water fleet. The Minister knows as well as I that we have big boats of 90 metres that have been modernised but have never been to sea. They are lying in West Hull docks. Last time round, he gave us £53,000 per boat. Never mind the lads on the deck and the unions—our leaders expected rather more this time.

§ Mr. Walker
I am aware of the hon. Gentleman's interest in the problems of the long distance fishing fleet. Both he and the hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan) know how that fleet was halved in the five years before I became Minister.
With regard to aid, the quotas that some Opposition Members describe as inadequate are substantially better than the catches for the 1973–78 period. During the five years of the previous Administration there was £13.9 million of special aid for the fishing industry. So far, under the present Government £58 million has been given in aid. The aid that I am announcing this week is itself more than was given during the entire period of the previous Government.

§ Sir Walter Clegg (North Fylde)
Is my right hon. Friend aware that only today I spoke on the telephone to a fisherman who was at the talks, who told me that he was 1057 highly impressed by the way in which the Minister and his team and officials have handled the negotiations? No one can say that my right hon. Friend had an easy hand to play.
I understood my right hon. Friend to say that money additional to the £15 million would be available for restructuring. Presumably it is to come from the EEC. Does he agree that that is what we now need as we have a base from which restructuring can take place?

§ Mr. Walker
Yes. The importance of knowing the quotas that the British fishing industry will be able to fish with security is that it enables Governments to decide on restructuring policies that make sense for the future requirements of the industry. In this package the Commission's restructuring proposals will be worth 250 million ECUs. That is an important contribution.

§ Mr. Robert Hughes (Aberdeen, North)
Does the Minister agree that he has done his case no good by the way in which he has glossed it and pretended that the fishermen asked him to accept the settlement? Is he aware that fishermen in Aberdeen say that they accepted the agreement with considerable reservations and doubts? It would have been better if he had been honest with the House and said that the agreement was the best he could get, that he was sorry but that we must accept it.

§ Mr. Walker
Opposition Members have constantly pressed me to say whether, if the leaders of the fishing industry had rejected an agreement, I would also have rejected it. I always undertook to say "Yes" to that. When I called in the leaders of the industry yesterday to discuss the final terms that were available I told them that it was up to them to decide whether to accept them. [Interruption.] Until now, the Opposition have wanted the industry to have the final say. Now that the industry has had the final say, the Opposition do not like it.

§ Mr. Robert Maclennan (Caithness and Sutherland)
Will the Minister answer the question of the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) about the steps that will be taken to enforce the agreement against the Danes if they do not accept it within 10 days? Can the Minister tell us anything about the relative increase in the British quota? What domestic steps will he take to increase the vigorous policing that will be necessary?

§ Mr. Walker
The regulation that provides for enforcement and inspection by the Commission will come into effect on 1 January, whether the Danes agree or not. That is an important step forward. We expect the Commission to approve measures that we take to protect our quotas and the 12-mile limit and to give us the legal right to enforce the proposals.

§ Mr. Albert McQuarrie (Aberdeenshire, East)
Despite what the hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan) said, can my right hon. Friend tell the House whether Mr. Willie Hay, the president of the Scottish Fishermen's Federation, a Member of the British Empire—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—and an outstanding leader of the fishing industry, asked my right hon. Friend to accept the agreement? He was speaking on behalf of the federation and the Scottish pelagic fleet, whose quota has been increased considerably.

§ Mr. Walker
The entire executive committee of the Scottish fishing organisation came to Luxembourg. When 1058 the final proposals were made by the Commission, the executive committee asked for time to discuss them. A full meeting took place and the committee members said that they wished me to accept the package.

§ Mr. Austin Mitchell (Grimsby)
In his specious and devious statement, the Minister has announced the selling of the birthright of the British fishing industry, not for a mess of pottage but for a pottage of paper fish. Will the Minister confirm that an agreement by majority vote is not a settlement, because it can be altered by majority vote? His statement that the fishing organisations asked him to accept the final proposals conceals the disgraceful blackmailing of the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations by holding a pistol to its head. If the Minister had had the guts to use the tactics and blackmail against the French and the Danes that he used against the British industry, we should have obtained a much better settlement.

§ Mr. Walker
The hon. Gentleman's remarks are even worse than his book. The hon. Gentleman insulted the leaders of the NFFO, but the president of that organisation, at the end of proceedings yesterday evening, thanked me for all that we had achieved.

§ Sir Peter Mills (Devon, West)
I congratulate my right hon. Friends the Minister and the Minister of State. However, will they bear it in mind that the Opposition's reaction shows that the deal must be good? In the southwest of England fishermen are worried about Spanish entry into the Common Market and fishing by Spanish boats off our shores. How will the agreement deal with that? Will my right hon. Friend have talks with the Ministry of Defence to ensure that we have adequate planes and ships to deal with policing?

§ Mr. Walker
We shall ensure that the surveillance services continue at a high standard. In view of the size of the Spanish fleet it was important for us to reach an agreement among the Ten before we negotiated with the Spaniards.

§ Mr. Hugh D. Brown (Glasgow, Provan)
Will the Minister accept that at least some hon. Members appreciate the almost impossible task of satisfying all the fishermen in Britain all the time, especially the Scottish fishermen? However, does he recognise that there is anxiety about how long the agreement will last? Will he take on board the priority of the enforcement policies which, with good management, could ensure more fish for all fishermen?

§ Mr. Walker
I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's important questions. Now that we have better quotas than for some years past, it is important to enforce them and to know for how long they will last. It will be 20 years before the next major review, so the agreement is long-term. For the first time we have a regulation, proposed by the United Kingdom, that empowers the Commission to inspect and to certify that each member country complies with the agreement.

§ Sir Michael Shaw (Scarborough)
Is my right hon. Friend aware that he is to be congratulated not only on the hard, tough and successful negotiations that he and his colleagues carried out in the Common Market, but on his straightforward and honest statement today? In addition to the security that must be felt by the British fishing industry, which knows that the way ahead has now been 1059 laid down clearly, will the available money be used in ports such as Scarborough to help not only the boats but the facilities through which they operate?

§ Mr. Walker
The facilities at Scarborough can be considered constructively. The importance of a firm agreement, with quotas and access proposals better than we have enjoyed for a long time, is that we can now decide sensibly about capital investment to the benefit of the entire industry.

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. I shall call one further hon. Member from each side, and then the Opposition Front Bench.

§ Mr. Gavin Strang (Edinburgh, East)
Is the Minister aware that the reduction in the Shetland box is only the latest in a string of concessions that he has made during the past two years? Is that concession supported by the leaders of the Shetland fishermen, some of whom were in Luxembourg, and can the Minister confirm that a future settlement will be voted upon in the House before Christmas?

§ Mr. Walker
Regulations to implement the agreement will be put to the House in the normal way. I should prefer a major debate on the matter in the House, because I wish to discuss, in more detail than I have been able during the past 10 years, the Hague agreements. The Shetland island fishermen whom I met yesterday disagreed about the 6 per cent. reduction in their box.

§ Mr. Kenneth Warren (Hastings)
Will my right hon. Friend accept that the South-East fisheries districts and many of the inshore fisheries districts along the south coast will welcome his announcement today? Will he also accept that the proposals represent the practical solution for which we have been waiting since our entry into the Common Market? My right hon. Friend began with the position of fishing up to the sea shore. In view of the temptations that the results will provide to foreign fisherman, what does he expect the Commission to do in foreign ports to ensure that policing is correctly carried out?

§ Mr. Walker
The Commission will set up an inspectorate, which has been warmly welcomed by our fishermen. For the South-East, which has an important fishing industry, nothing is more important than proper enforcement and control.

§ Mr. Mark Hughes (Durham)
Why, given the unanimous and frequently expressed view of the House, has the Minister accepted changes that are contrary to everything on which the House has voted? They are contrary to the terms upon which his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister went to the polls in May 1979, when she demanded an extensive further area of preference. Why does the Minister deny to the House what he has allowed to the Danish Parliament—an opportunity to vote on the quality of the proposals before he accepts them?

§ Mr. Walker
I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman has such a short memory. I remind the House that there was a debate in July when the proposals—[Interruption.]

§ Mr. Walker
It was in the right hon. Gentleman's time, so there is even more reason for him to remember it. In July the House approved the measures that were then available, and I am glad to say that we now have better measures.