E.E.C. FISHERY REGULATIONS AND UNITED KINGDOM LIMITS

HL Deb 12 May 1971 vol 318 cc1145-84

6.36 p.m.

LORD BOOTHBYrose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are aware that the fishery regulations recently adopted by the six countries of the European Economic Community, and approved by the Council for Europe, would constitute a grave threat to the inshore fishing industry of the United Kingdom, if they were to be accepted by Her Majesty's Government: and whether instructions will be given to our negotiators in Brussels that the present fishery limits of the United Kingdom cannot be changed. The noble Lord said: My Lords, at long last I rise to ask the Unstarred Question standing in my name. This is for me a difficult speech, and it will not be a long one.

was a member of Churchill's original United Europe Committee, formed in 1946; I then became a founder member of the European Movement, which flowed from that, and I was a delegate to the Consultative Assembly of the Council of Europe from 1949 to 1957. This, as I have frequently said to your Lordships' House, was, in my submission, the time to create a United States of Western Europe, under British leadership and on our own terms. We could have done it, we had about fifteen years to do it. They were all longing for it. But we turned it down; we turned everything down. Bevin turned down the Iron and Steel Community; Eden turned down the European Defence Community. Our last chance was when we refused to take part in the negotiations at Messina and Brussels which resulted in the Treaty of Rome; and if we had taken part in those negotiations we should not find ourselves in the situation in which we are to-day. In short my Lords, we missed the tide. I have said this often in your Lordships' House; and I say it to-day, I hope, for the last time. I do not for a moment delude myself that the Common Market, in its present form, is what we might once have had. It is not. To begin with, it has no political content. But we have missed the tide, and Shakespeare was quite right when he said: There is a tide in the affairs of men, Which, taken at the flood, leads on to fortune.

If you miss it, you have "had it". And we have "had" that one, my Lords.

I want now to turn to the direct question which I am asking Her Majesty's Government. The story of the inshore fishing industry in this country since the war has been one of our few real success stories. We built up a great fleet of fishing vessels after the war, diesel-engined dual-purpose craft, averaging about 70 feet in length, and convertible from drift nets to seine nets. Both these can be converted overnight, the seine net for the white fish, the drift net for the herring. These are surface nets, they do not go down to the bottom, they have got a 77 millimetre mesh, and all the immature fish escape. We built up that fleet with the aid of grant-and-loan schemes amounting to approximately £60 million, which was very cheap at the price. Then, after an immense struggle, came the final triumph in 1964, when our present fishery limits were established, after intensive negotiations and final agreement with Europe. They are 3-, 6 and 12-mile limits. In certain specified areas— the Moray Firth is one of them— certain foreign trawlers with a tradition of long usage are allowed to fish between the 6 and 12-mile limits, and that has done no harm; but, apart from that, our coastal waters are completely protected. They are also protected by stringent conservation measures, which are strictly observed by our own fishermen.

The inshore fishing landings since 1964 have doubled in value right round the coasts, and more than doubled in value in Scotland. The herring fishing landings in Scotland alone have gone up in value from £2 to £4 million. There is a shortage of herring, and herring are in great demand not only in this country but also on the Continent of Europe. The United Kingdom is now a net exporter of fish to the Six, mainly of herring, turbot, haddock, plaice, sole and shell-fish caught inshore. What happened? After we made our last application to join the Common Market in November of last year, an E.E.C. fisheries policy was rushed through and approved by the Council for Europe, and became operative on February 1. The three great fishing nations were all affected by this— ourselves, Norway and Eire. Were we consulted about these regulations? Not for a moment. They were pushed through by the Six in their own interests, and the object was obvious. Their own inshore fisheries are fished out. There is nothing left, and they want to get into our inshore fishery grounds— the Minches, the Moray Firth, the Firths of Clyde and Forth, Morecambe Bay and Cardigan Bay, and the shell-fish industry of Devon and Cornwall. All these parts of our coasts would be badly hit, as well as the Isle of Man.

I must go through for a moment Article 2 of these fishery regulations, which says: Member States shall ensure in particular equality of access to and exploitation of fishing grounds situated in their territorial waters for all fishing vessels flying the flag of one of the Member States. In other words any trawler, with destructive fishing gear, with beam nets, and what are called multiple tickler chains which go right down to the bottom of the sea, would have the right within five years to fish right up to our beaches. Then Article 4 says: Access to certain fishing zones situated within a limit of three nautical miles may and I emphasise that word— be limited to certain types of fishing for a period not exceeding five years to the local population established beside these zones it that population depends primarily on inshore fishing. That is to be decided by the Council of Brussels, on which we would have a minority vote. In Article 5, there is a reference to conservation measures, which may or may not be taken by the Council.

The object is quite clear— to get into our inshore fishing waters, which are now among the most prolific fishery grounds in the world. And what do we get in return? Absolutely nothing. Ostend and Dieppe, which were prosperous up to the war, are now fished out, and all the inshore fishing grounds on the Continent of Europe, except for the farming of oysters in Brittany, are completely fished out. So we get nothing back. It would be an absolute tragedy if our inshore fishing fleets were to be destroyed. I wish that the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, the Leader of the House, were here, because his father would have been supporting me to-day in what I have been saying. The drifters were indispensable to the Grand Fleet during the First World War and equally indispensable to the Royal Navy in the last World War.

I say to your Lordships that although the numbers involved may not sound so tremendous, the fishing industry, especially in Scotland, which would be the hardest hit, is a way of life, part of our prosperity, part of our existence. If the inshore fishing industry were to be destroyed, it would be the greatest disaster that has happened to Scotland, to the Highlands and Islands, since the clearances last century. We cannot stand it. Under these regulations it is certain there will be an invasion by large Continental trawlers, with heavy horse-power and small mesh nets— 50 mm. as against our own 70 mm. There was a pointer at Fleetwood this year. A fleet of Dutch trawlers, working heavy beam trawls and tickler chains, was sent over to work the sole fishery in Morecambe Bay, which used to be a great annual fishery for our inshore men— just outside the 12-mile limit. They scraped the bottom of the sea, and our own fishermen got nothing. One fisherman said that one drifter could have landed all the sole they got. And what happened to these sole? Were they imported into this country? Not at all— the whole catch was transported to Holland. That is what would happen if we accepted these regulations. All our conservation measures would go.

I think that Her Majesty's Government must be very tough on this issue. To us in this country it is more important than New Zealand butter or Caribbean sugar, because it affects the livelihood of these little fishing communities all round our coasts, which play so great a part in the national life. There are about 20,000 inshore fishermen, and to every one of them there are four people engaged in processing and packaging. Anybody who has been to Devon and Cornwall, and to the North of Scotland, knows the extent to which these fishing communities are part and parcel of our national life. Upon them depends a great part of our prosperity. We cannot depend entirely on the tourist industry, mainly because of the climate. The fishing communities have been doing so well for the last 2 or 3 years. I have lived among them for nearly 50 years, and for 34 years was Member in another place for East Aberdeenshire. They are part of our national life in Scotland, on the West coast, on the Isle of Man and in Southern Ireland.

I say that we must insist on two things. Fishery policy must be the subject of separate negotiations with the Six, if and after we join the Common Market. Mean-while, there can be no concessions of any kind. The present regulations are totally unacceptable, and our existing fishery limits must be maintained at all costs. They have been agreed with the Europeans and have been enormously successful, and I see no reason whatsoever for changing them. This is a fight for survival. We have the fish, because we have a longer coastline, and because we have preserved our stocks. They want them. At present they buy from us quite substantially, but they will not do so when they can help themselves, and in the end they will ruin our inshore fishing industry, as they have ruined their own, and with it, as I have said, a way of life in this country which we cannot sacrifice.

There was an article in the Financial Times the other day which said: Lord Boothby is emotional on this subject. Well, I do not deny that. I am emotional on this subject, because it lies very close to my heart. But the end of the article was a give-away sentence, which read as follows:

With the exception of the Netherlands, the members of the Six are net importers of fish and are likely to be good customers of the U.K."—

and here is the rub— if they do not come and catch it all themselves, that is.

That is precisely what would happen. As I have said, these regulations as they stand are totally unacceptable. With the accession of the United Kingdom, Norway and Ireland to the Common Market, if we get in, the fishing industry would be completely transformed. To begin with, instead of being an importing industry it would become an exporting industry. In my submission it would be intolerable— it has been and is intolerable— that fishery regulations of the Common Market should be drawn up and drafted without any consultation whatsoever with the three countries mainly concerned with fisheries, Norway, Ireland and ourselves. We have not been asked about any of these regulations: the Six, have done it entirely in their own interest.

I say to your Lordships— and I have no doubt about this in my mind— that the acceptance of these regulations in their present form would need lead to the destruction of the inshore fishing industries of all three countries— the United Kingdom, Eire and Norway. That in my opinion is too heavy a price to pay for entry into the Common Market. I would only add that I believe that if Her Majesty's Government stand absolutely firm on this issue they will find that the French, the Belgians and the Dutch will not press them too hard, because they have not so much at stake. They have no inshore fishing industries of their own of any great importance; and they have no right to ask us to sacrifice our own inshore fishing industry in order to enter the Common Market.

LORD SHINWELL

Before the noble Lord sits down, did I understand him to say that what he is asking is that, if and when we are in the Common Market, negotiations on this subject should take place? Would it not, after we are in, remain subject to the decision of the other members of the Community? Is there any guarantee that the interests of the inshore fishermen would be protected? Or does he mean that negotiations should take place immediately, before there is any question of entering into the Common Market?

LORD BOOTHBY

What I really meant to say was that we should say to the members of the Common Market here and now that these regulations are not negotiable; that we stand by our present fishery limits, and they are not negotiable. Then later on there might at some stage he some discussion within the Common Market about fishing regulations, in which Eire, ourselves and Norway would take part, but without committing ourselves in advance in any way. I say that these regulations are totally unacceptable in their present form.

6.54 p.m.

LORD HOY

My Lords, I am sure we are all indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, for enabling us to discuss this subject this afternoon. Like the noble Lord, I was at Strasbourg a long time ago. Indeed, the first time I spoke at the Council of Europe was in 1950, when I suggested that the subject of fishing should be put on to the agenda. I remember the look of scorn I got from M. Spaak, who had no enthusiasm for it. But by persistence we had it put on the agenda. Ever since then (and even before then) I have been associated with this industry. In my own constituency, which I had the privilege of serving for over a quarter of a century, we had the second largest fishing industry in Scotland.

This proposal creates great difficulties, because the fishing grounds of this country have been preserved. We could have over-fished; this was available to us, and the temptation was great in the immediate post-war years. But this we resisted, and instead we built up our fishing fleets. It should be remembered that when we are discussing the fishing industry many people immediately think of the distant water fleet. There are three sections of the fishing industry, as I see it: the distant water fleet, the middle water fleet and inshore fishing. It is the inshore fishing that is going to be attacked by these proposals.

I understand, although I do not know, that there are contained within the E.E.C. regulations certain safeguards. I would expect that if there are, the Minister who is to reply to the debate will be able to spell them out, so that we can make a judgment with the facts before us and not reach any blind decision. As to the fear of our own fishermen, I think it is a natural fear. I was glad that my noble friend Lord Shinwell raised the point of when discussions could take place, because I want to put on record my own view, that to go in and then discuss will be too late.

During my time as Minister at the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food many weeks of the year were devoted to doing one thing; that is, seeking to bring about international agreements to preserve the fishing grounds of every country. There are some common fishing grounds, and what we had to seek to do together was to prevent over-fishing and ruining the grounds for ever. Indeed, we have the classic example of salmon fishing. There was no more voluble section of the community than your Lordships' House when it was felt that the salmon rights were being threatened. We should be proud that Britain took the lead in getting so far as we did in preserving salmon fishing. Perhaps we can give that kind of lead internationally; but we must take steps to preserve our rights.

I cannot countenance the argument that this is an expendable industry. Indeed, I resent it when somebody says. "You only represent one per cent. of the gross national product." You can call it what you like. What it really represents is thousands of human beings, who, if they lose these fishing grounds, will be losing their livelihood. A social problem which might well prove insurmountable will then be created round the whole of our coast. I think of parts of my own country, Scotland— and I have travelled to every fishing port in that country a dozen times over during my work— of Wales and England where, if this industry is taken away, there is nothing to put in its place. So it is important before we make these decisions that we find out what to do.

I should have thought that, even from the point of view of the European Economic Community, what they might well say to Britain is: "We want you in, and for the time being we do not want to interfere in any way with your fishing grounds. You have preserved them. It may well be that after you have been with us for a time we shall have to discuss certain fishing matters and see whether we can bring about a united policy. I do not think we are going to convince the fishermen of our own country that it is going to be good for them to give up their grounds at this time. Tonight I think we all agree on this.

Secondly, there is an ever-growing part of the industry attached to us which we should not overlook: The shellfish industry. This has been growing by leaps and hounds, and production of shellfish is to-day standing at an all-time high record. It is always very tempting to somebody just on the other side of the Channel to come and share the proceeds. Even in to-day's paper there is reference to a French vessel that has just been arrested. I cannot say more about that, but quite obviously, if it has come here for a purpose it has been for the purpose that we are discussing in your Lordships' House this evening. This industry can prove of tremendous benefit; it is capable of tremendous development and the provision of good livelihood to people who have no other opportunity of earning one. For all these purposes we have to be extremely careful.

I do not go all the way with the noble Lord, Lord Boothby. It is true when he says that this subject is more important than either New Zealand lamb or Caribbean sugar. But it is equally important to them that their needs should be attended to, and we are indebted—

LORD BOOTHBY

My Lords, if I may interrupt the noble Lord for a moment, I said that it was more important to us in this country.

LORD HOY

Certainly. I agree with this. But it does not make the other two less important. They were very good friends to us, especially New Zealand. So it is important before we decide what we are going to do that we have some specific assurance about the industry which belongs to us. We have cultivated it, we have preserved it. Do not let us, by some simple error, get rid of it.

7.3 p.m.

VISCOUNT THURSO

My Lords, I count it a privilege to take part in a debate on this subject, and to follow in the footsteps of the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, whose footsteps I once followed round the harbours of East Aberdeen-shire, and where, in those harbours, from the Brochers and the Blue Mogganers I learned a great deal about the importance of the in-shore fishing industry. It is a curious fact that, except in wartime or times of grave national difficulty, we in this country have always undervalued our primary producers. We have always tried to push our miners, our farmers and our fishermen as far down the pay scale as we can and to pretend that they are expendable.

Perhaps this is because of the strange national characteristic that we are perfectly willing to pay for our luxuries, but we expect to get our necessities free. Harsh though this attitude is, and unfair though it has been towards our primary producers, it has made for very high productivity and it is this high productivity and efficiency which must not be under-valued and thrown away. Have no doubt, my Lords, that there is grave concern in the fishing industry about the Common Market fishing regulations; but at the same time have no doubt that this concern is not the whining of an inefficient industry begging for protection, but rather the clear-headed representations of a hard-working and efficient industry, justly seeking the conservation of their means of livelihood and the establishment of conditions in which any country's fishing industry will be assured of a future.

I myself do not believe that the countries of the Community are either idiots or rogues and vagabonds. Nor do I believe that Her Majesty's Government think that this is so; otherwise, I am sure they would not be showing so much enthusiasm for joining them. I believe that the countries of the Common Market can be negotiated with sensibly over mattes of conservation, and it is the conservation side of the fishing industry's requirements which must be kept to the fore by the Government during their negotiations in Brussels, both now and in the future.

As I understand it, individual nations within the Common Market will retain power to control and regulate the way in which fishing is carried out within their own fishery areas. This means that each nation will be able to regulate the size of boat, the type of gear and even the times of fishing which conservation of its own fish stocks might seem to require. Even the three-mile limit, as we have already been told, will not immediately disappear, although it is proposed to abolish it after a delay period of five years. This means that the vision which some people would have us see, of immediately upon entry to the Common Market foreign trawlers scraping our shoreline bare of all fish life is unrealistic. Nevertheless, there is still cause for concern for conservation, concern for the preservation of an industry of which we can justly be more publicly proud than we are— concern for safeguarding the quality of our national menu, the fish and chips of Old England!

This concern must be felt and shown by Her Majesty's Government both now and continuing into the future. If Britain, Norway and Eire enter the Community, this will certainly alter the political balance of the Community. It will certainly alter the attitude towards conservation of fish stocks, towards the three miles limit and towards selective methods of fishing. It is, therefore, up to the Government to realise the role which they must play in the negotiations now and in the future. In this connection, I am astonished that there has not been more effort before this stage has been reached to co-ordinate with Norway and to seek with Eire to achieve a sensible and agreed bargaining position.

The fishermen of Britain are great people. They have done, are doing and can go on doing into the future a great job for this country. The fishing industry is a great industry which is doing a better job for this country than we are often prepared to recognise. It need not fear competition on a fair and sensible basis from the countries of the Common Market; but it is our responsibility to make sure that the basis upon which we negotiate is fair and, above all, sensible. Our fishing industry must not be regarded as a pawn to be sacrificed in the chess game of Common Market negotiations, but as a king to be guarded.

The primary producers of this country have so often received rough treatment that, like the beaten child, they are apt to throw up an arm in defence at any loud noise. Too often, they are quite right, and too often they receive the swinging slap that they expected. In this case, however, I hope the Government will prove them wrong. Nevertheless, I would say to the fishing industry that it must expect some change if we do go into the Common Market. Although there has always been suspicion of change, change in fishing methods and regulations has not always been disastrous. I can remember when the line fishermen thought the seine netters were the bogey and were going to ruin the entire inshore fishing industry. Nobody nowadays would seriously suggest that we should go back to the fishing methods of the early part of the century. Indeed, the whole strength of our industry depends upon the bright young skippers who know how to use their fish loops and echo-sounders and how to harness electronics in the hunting of the wild fish.

However, so long as fishing consists of preying on a wild population, so long will sensible conservation be vital in ensuring a continuance of the industry. Short-term greed must be resisted at all costs. By this I mean the sort of stupidity and greed that killed the whaling industry. Our own fishermen have not always been guiltless in this respect, and indeed I believe that the inshore fishermen of Scotland fear some of the English trawlers every bit as much as they fear the Belgians or the Danes. If, therefore, the Government can show that our own industry is prepared to exercise sensible restraint in the interests of conservation of fish stocks this will do much to persuade sensible people in the Community to our way of thinking. What we must avoid above all else is giving the impression that the European Common Market policy on fisheries is a signal for a "free-for-all", when every nation will jostle to get in on the act of scraping the ocean bare of fish life in the shortest possible time. This means that the Common Market itself must demonstrate that any regulations it imposes are enforceable and will be firmly enforced. I understand there is concern at the moment that agreements over a close time for herring in the North Sea are not being strictly honoured. If this is true, then it must give cause for grave concern.

We must think also of our fish processing and fish handling industries ashore.

Anybody who knows anything about fishing knows that, however efficient the catching side of the industry is, the industry as a whole will not be healthy unless the handling side is healthy also. Would it, for instance, be possible to ensure that within the Common Market regulations fish caught inside a country's territorial waters should be landed in the ports of that country? This would go a long way towards allaying the fear that foreign boats would be coming into our shores, scooping up our fish, and then carting them oft to foreign markets for handling and processing. It would also be a sensible organisation of labour in a fishing industry. Unnecessary steaming time without fishing is always wasteful, and surely it would be in the interests of the Common Market as a whole to organise the Common Market fishery policy upon an economical basis.

I realise that a suggestion of this kind, which might appeal to our inshore fishermen and our inshore fishing ports, might not appeal so much to our middle-distance and deep-sea trawler fleets, and the industries around the ports from which they sail. Nevertheless, what we are concerned with to-day is the inshore fishing industry. This is our quality fishing industry. What we are concerned with to-day is those fish stocks over which we can rightly claim to have a responsibility for the exercise of conservation control.

I therefore urge Her Majesty's Government to show a bold face in the negotiations for a sensible fishing policy, both now and in the future; to argue what is clearly right, that regulations are necessary in the interests of conservation, and that these must be enforceable and strictly enforced; to keep in close touch with other countries who are also candidates to join the Common Market, and whose interests in a healthy fishing industry are every bit as great as ours; to seek the support of these countries for such policies as may be of particular interest to us, while at the same time offering them support for sensible policies which may be of particular interest to them. In short, my Lords, I hope that Her Majesty's Government will give a lead, not only in the present negotiations but in the future if we do join the Market, so as to ensure that the Community itself enjoys a healthy fishing industry, of which our own fishing industry, and our own inshore fishing industry, should form a vital and a major part.

7.15 p.m.

LORD WISE

My Lords, after two late Sittings, and I understand the prospect of an even later one to-morrow, I do not wish to detain your Lordships very tong; but I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, for raising this question and should like to express my complete support for and whole-hearted agreement with all that he has said. I have knowledge of the inshore fishing industry only around the East Anglian coast, but I am certain that the views held by the people working within the industry in that area concur completely on this matter with those of the industry around most of the shores of Britain. Among the inshore fishermen from the Wash right round to Lowestoft I know there is considerable apprehension, and to my mind an understandable and completely justified apprehension, of the possible disastrous consequences to their livelihood if we enter the Common Market under the present fishery regulations of the Six countries.

Over the past decade, and I think certainly since the limit was extended to twelve miles and the better conservation regulations were brought in, the prospects of the industry have greatly improved; it has again become thriving and prosperous. As the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, said, it provides full-time employment for some 20,000 men, and for each working fisherman a further four workers are needed in the processing, grading, packing and distribution of their catches. A considerable number of people also are employed in other ancillary work connected with the industry. This is tremendously important to areas such as East Anglia with its low employment potential and low wage earning level.

We have the largest coastline of any individual European country and we land now, I believe, a greater quantity of fish than any other country does, some of it with a high export value; and our policy is now beginning to pay and show dividends. It is no wonder that the Continental countries, having denuded their own grounds, are looking eagerly towards ours. Who can blame them? But what would be the effects on our industry of the ensuing general "free-for-all" if we entered a large Community under the recently adopted regulations? Conditions would certainly be chaotic in our fishing ports and harbours. Facilities are inadequate even now for our own needs. How much more so would they become with the intrusion of the Continental boats, which would be perfectly entitled to all our port facilities! We should lose our export market, for the French and Belgians would simply come over and help themselves. But, above all, if the Continentals are allowed to fish right up to our coastline, with their powerful boats, heavy trawls and small-mesh nets, they would rapidly fish out all our fine and well-preserved breeding grounds, most or all of which lie within the 12-mile limit.

I believe it is estimated that within five years our vital and abundant breeding grounds, which have been so painstakingly built up, would be totally devastated. This would surely mean economic ruin for the inshore fishing industry and the communities which depend upon it, and also, eventually, scarce and expensive fish for the British housewife to buy. My Lords, this must not happen. This progressive and rapidly expanding industry, for which Government aid is still rightly forthcoming— perhaps, as we have understood this afternoon, in smaller quantities— must not be sacrificed to facilitate negotiations and agreement upon wider issues. I earnestly implore Her Majesty's Government to take heed of the remarks made by the the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, and to act upon them.

7.20 p.m.

THE EARL OF CROMARTIE

My Lords, those of us who are concerned with the grave threat which may face one of our principal industries if we enter the Common Market must be grateful to my noble friend Lord Boothby for initiating this debate. It is quite understandable that so many men and women in Scotland— and I think in England, too— are bitterly opposed to entry when in their view they can foresee the destruction of this great industry, together with others such as certain areas of farming, sacrificed for the benefit of others where the possible benefits may be more obvious.

I do not intend to delve into the gains (or otherwise) which could arise from entry into the Common Market. The viewpoint depends upon whether the speaker is pro or anti the Common Market, but I wish briefly to follow and support what the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, has said. One could be excused for thinking that the Cameron Report— and I refer to the Regulations for Inshore Fisheries published in 1970— was a propaganda pamphlet for entry into the Common Market. As an example, I will take a few of the propositions expounded in this Report.

I will take the recommendations concerning the Regulations and compare them with the views expressed by practical fishermen of my own county, which also equate with the views of the other fishing areas concerned. I consider these observations to be of particular importance as they have been made by practical and knowledgeable people engaged in the fishing industry and not by theorists who one (perhaps unkindly) feels had before them the fact that they should not say anything that might possibly cast any shadow on the advisability of Common Market entry for Scotland as well as England. We see in this Report the intent to remove the three-mile limit— if not straightaway, then in the near future, and the playing down of the shellfish industry, which is of particular importance to the Western Highlands and Islands, not to mention Orkney and Shetland, and increasingly significant to their economy, especially as supplies from Continental sources are rapidly drying up, or rather being dredged up.

Conservation has to a great extent been played down in this Report. It has been mentioned before, but there is no doubt that these conclusions were based on findings by some scientists and are not in accordance with the views of the fishermen, and my county council had no access to the alleged evidence of these scientists. There is also the suggestion that the only fish worth conserving is the immature plaice. That is certainly not agreed to by people who know about it, and it should be extended to include sprats, all shellfish and herring.

In paragraphs 64 to 66 it is said that the existing regulations governing methods of fishing cannot be justified on grounds of conservation, and that none of the methods employed in inshore waters at present, including purse seining and pair trawling are in themselves more injurious to stocks than any other. This, I think it will be agreed, is palpable nonsense. The present three-mile limit is achieving some conservation and accordingly the existing regulations with regard to the three-mile limit should be retained. If the existing laws were being observed it is agreed that none of the legal methods employed in inshore waters at present is more injurious to stocks than the others. There is the observation, too, that otter trawling is illegal within the three-mile limit, but that the statutory provisions are not being observed or enforced.

The Report also states that a general prohibition on seining and trawling have failed to achieve their initial purpose. Line fishing and ground netting are now of minor importance in the context of the industry. That is stated in paragraph 103. The view of practical fishermen as well as those who wish to keep our people in the land of their birth is that the prohibitions on seining and trawling have not been a complete failure. While agreeing that line fishing and ground netting are now of minor importance, nevertheless they are still important to the localities where they are practised, and due consideration should be given to such methods in the areas where they are still pursued.

Now we come to a series of what I can only describe as pernicious suggestions. The Report says that the continuance of the present prohibitions against the use of the otter trawl and seine net within inshore waters is no longer justified for the protection of the particular and local interests of ground net, creel, small line or hand line fishermen, even in selected areas. The continuation of prohibitions within inshore waters was, and is, completely justified in order to protect local interests. In short, this recommendation is an open invitation to foreign trawlers to despoil our breeding grounds.

The Report also mentions that commercial fishing should not be restricted in the interests of sea angling; but if the three-mile limit were retained there would be no conflict between the interests of sea angling and commercial fishing. In paragraphs 195 and 196 it is suggested that all existing restrictions on the operation of seiners and trawlers should be removed. This again is an open invitation to foreign trawlers to destroy our fishing beds as they have already destroyed their own.

The final paragraph to which I wish to refer is to the effect that the possibilities exist for the United Kingdom to join the European Economic Community, that the European Economic Community will adopt a common fisheries policy, that such a policy will provide for equality of access to waters within the national fishery limits. Noble Lords who have spoken have given us clearly to understand what that would mean. But here we have read the "give away" line— or the punch line if you prefer it— and all concerned are totally opposed to throwing open national fishery limits to all members of the European Economic Community. It is surely unbelievable that such a suggestion should be made without any word of some protective agreement.

If we can swallow that, we can swallow anything. It is a charter to destroy our still goad fishing grounds. There are still some 2,500 inshore fishing boats in Scotland, employing about 8,000 men; and, as we have been told, they are small family concerns whose work has a much wider effect on a great many more people. In 1969, the Scottish landings of 4.1 million cwt. were valued at £15.6 million, so that the inshore fishermen contributed some two-thirds of the total Scottish catch. Add to this the shellfish industry catch for the same period of 0.4 million cwt. valued at £3.6 million, together with herring £3.2 million, a total for the inshore and herring fishing fleets of £16.8 million— not to be laughed at when you think of the size of the population of Scotland. Could this have been accomplished without the 12-mile limit which virtually closes the Minch and Clyde Estuary to foreign trawlers, while the fishing grounds of the Moray Firth are also closed up to 12 miles. Is this great industry which holds so many of our people together to be sacrificed to "pie in the sky" which may or may not benefit some commercial interests in the South but will be of little advantage to Scotland and her people, unless the Government see that there are built-in and cast iron safeguards?

7.31 p.m.

LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE

My Lords, I am glad to support my noble friend Lord Boothby in asking this Question as regards these totally unacceptable, and I think impertinent, proposals: unacceptable in their substance and impertinent in the way they were put forward, without any consultations with ourselves or Norway even while our application was lying on the table. My noble friend Lord Boothby deployed with great skill the devastating effects on our own inshore fishermen and fisheries. But it was the noble Lord, Lord Hoy, who first mentioned the steps Great Britain has taken, and laudably taken, in the past in the way of preservation of salmon in the High Seas. It is likely, unless there is international action, that in 20 or 25 years the salmon may become an almost extinct fish in our seas. We in this country can be proud that we have been in the van of conservation of salmon, and for that successive Governments can take credit. Our Salmon and Migratory Trout (Prohibition of Fishing) Order 1971 and our Salmon and Trout (Sea Fishing) Licensing Order 1971 have both helped, and are helping, to preserve in the way of conservation.

I wish I could go as far as the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, in feeling content that these regulations as at present drafted— and they are so badly drafted that they are capable of several interpretations— would prevent, possibly within five years, the right of any foreigner to come and fish right up to our shores. Her Majesty's Government have admitted— I have no doubt the Minister to-night will repeat that admission— that the position is unsatisfactory. Mr. Buchanan-Smith in another place said: I have already said, as have Government colleagues of mine, that we find the Community's fisheries policy unsatisfactory. This is precisely why we are taking the matter up with the Community."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, 5/5/71, col. 1369.] That really does not go far enough— taking it up with the E.E.C., being unsatisfied. I wonder whether the Government appreciate that the great body of the British electorate are still undecided as to whether or not to support our entry into the E.E.C., and that, when they see the threat to one of our traditional industries countered only by the argument, "We accept that everything is not quite as it should be", it is bound to have a very bad effect upon those who are anxious that we should join the Community.

What we want, my Lords, is a firm assurance now that our 12-mile limit will remain for our fishermen, and will be under the control of our own Government, and that our Conservation Orders will not be interfered with, now or at any time in the future, by the laws of the Community. Furthermore, I think we must ask the Government whether this can rank as a "must", like sugar, like dairy products, like financial questions, all of which Her Majesty's Government have said must be guaranteed to be satisfactorily settled as part of the terms of our admission to the Community. I heard Mr. Rippon say recently on the radio that there were comparatively few outstanding matters, but he added— and I quote his words: The number may be few but the importance of each matter is great". I believe that to this country the importance of the fisheries is as great as the importance of the other interests and industries we are endeavouring to protect. May we please have an assurance to-night that the Government will rank fishings as important; that they will not leave the matter, as I think the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, was willing to do, to be negotiated after entry, but will regard it as something to be decided positively before entry?

VISCOUNT THURSO

My Lords, I did not say, "Leave it until after we get in", but "Negotiate both now and in the future". My point was that we should not merely negotiate now, and leave it at that, but should negotiate now and keep the importance of this subject in mind even if we do go in.

LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE

My Lords, splitting words with a Liberal is often a difficult thing; very often the words can be made to go several different ways. All I would say is something quite simple; let us get this matter settled fairly, and in our favour, before we go into the Common Market and as one of the conditions of acceptance of terms. I wonder if the Government realise the exasperation of a great body of public opinion at the long-protracted negotiations; and in putting forward the case for our fisheries, our fishings and our fishermen we remember that in these long negotiations too long and too often have we heard what I might call the drummer boy having to beat retreat. Now I see that the Commanding Officer is to go over to the front next week. My Lords, let it be either a clear victory for our essential interests, or let him sound the Last Post.

7.39 p.m.

LORD KENNET

My Lords, it was, of course, extraordinarily silly of the Community countries to adopt these regulations while there were four applicants waiting for entry and without consulting them. It was almost as though somebody had done it on purpose to support the anti-marketeers in this country and the other three applicants, in order to make adherence more difficult. But let us be charitable and say that it was a mistake which failed to be noticed by those with enough political nous to realise that it was an important matter. Having said that, I must add that I think some noble Lords have been somewhat apocalyptic in their assessment of the gravity of the situation. The fishing industry, many noble Lords have said, is a fine industry; and so it is. They are fine men; and so they are: they are useful to all of us, and have their families to keep. I hope that what I am about to say will not be taken as going against any of that. To keep a sense of proportion, my noble friend Lord Hoy implied that the inshore fishing industry was one per cent. of the gross national product. I am no expert in these matters, but I have seen it asserted that the entire British fishing industry is one-quarter of one per cent. of the G.N.P.

LORD HOY

My Lords, I was using the figure for the industry as a whole. All I was seeking to convey— and I was not asserting it was one per cent., or even a quarter of one per cent.— was that whether it is one, or a quarter of one, what it does represent is thousands of human beings.

LORD KENNET

Yes, my Lords; of course that is so. If we take it that the entire fishing industry is one-quarter of one per cent. of our G.N.P., it follows that the inshore fishing industry is a fraction of that. I do not know if the noble Marquess will be able to tell us what it is when compared with the distant-waters and middle-waters fishing.

A matter that has been hardly touched on at all is the fact that not only is there a provision in the Common Market Regulation for national protection to continue, but that it is already used by France. The French inshore fisheries are now protected as well as they were before the Regulation came into effect. It is true that this is only supposed to last for five years, and is due to be phased out over that period. Once again, I do not know whether this is true or not— and probably nobody knows— but it is fairly commonly assumed that that five years is only a pious hope, and that it is likely to be renewed, and that the distance up to which the protection operates, three miles, might be extended after— or before— the end of the five-year concession period. What has been done for France can be done for others, and I want to come back to this point in a moment.

We have been considering all the time the dangers which face this country when foreign fishing boats come over to our inshore waters. I do not know, but I should think that probably we shall be a far greater danger to Norway and Denmark than the French or Germans will be to us. Our distant waters fleet will have the right to fish right into the shore of Norway, right into the shore of Greenland, and right into the shore of the Faroes, which at present it does not have. I think I am right in believing that it would dearly like to have this, because these are exceptionally rich fishing grounds, as is exemplified by the fact that the Norwegian fishing haul every year is greater than that of all the six countries in the Common Market put together.

Let us not think that it is only we who are likely to suffer from marauding foreigners; the Norwegians and the Greenlanders are likely to suffer from marauding Britons. I am assuming now that we join the Common Market without a revision of this Regulation, and I think we should have a revision. If we join without a revision we should also share in the Community Fund of £7 million a year which bolsters the fishing industry; it will no doubt be more when four more countries join. and that will be a benefit to Britain's fishermen. It will give us the right to land our catches in any Continental port, which I think is not so at the moment, and fish prices are higher on the Continent than they are here.

Above all, Article 5 of the Regulation provides, perfectly clearly, for a régime to prevent over-fishing in territorial waters, for the conservation of the fish. It specifies that this control can be exercised by means of species, that is to say that nobody is to catch such-and-such a type of fish; it can be exercised by means of area; that is to say nobody is to fish between such-and-such points on the map: it can be exercised by seasons; there can be a closed season, whatever is appropriate: and it can also be exercised by means of methods, that is to say the regulating body can say that the mesh must be 77 millimetres or more. It can take any such method as that and prescribe or proscribe it according to the agreed wisdom.

It seems that there are two political points here which ought to be pressed. First, this is one of the very rare occasions where we have a community of interest with France. They are suffering under this Regulation. They do not like it, and they have an exemption from a large part of it. We can see that we too shall suffer, and we should like to have an exemption— which may not be precisely the same as the French one. France and this country together want an exemption of some sort or another. What a marvellous opportunity to make common cause with France, for once, against the others in the negotiations, instead of making common cause with the others against the French.

Secondly, and the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, mentioned this, I do not know, and none of us knows, what the Government have been doing about talking to Norway and Denmark about this. If it is troublesome for us, it is much more troublesome for them. They have far more at stake in this fishing business than we do, and I think we ought to stand together in whatever position we can devise in the remainder of the negotiations. I believe that not only in relation to fisheries, but in virtually every other marine matter, the whole concept of territorial waters, national protected zones, free zones, high seas and deep seas, and all the rest of these ancient legalistic distinctions, are rapidly becoming out of date, and that we have to have internationally run régimes for this or that aspect of marine activity. Fishery is very much a case in point.

Why should we not get a Fisheries Community? A European Fishing Community, if you like, in which the Ten (that is to say, the Six plus four applicants) would have a fully international régime which would lay down, and enforce, conservation measures not only in territorial waters but in the high seas too, because they are going to be fished out as well if we go on at this rate; a régime which will say what types of fish can be caught, by what means, at what times of the year in every part of European waters, and waters between European countries and up to Greenland. This is the obvious solution. Let us propose that now to the others. I do not presume to advise the Government how much weight to put behind it, but if we could get together with Norway, Denmark, to a lesser extent Eire, and above all France, to propose a logical system in the interests of all the countries concerned, I think we could turn our present embarrassment about this rather absurd matter—absurd politically on the other side; they were absurd in Brussels— into a positive advantage.

7.48 p.m.

LORD LOVAT

My Lords, the hour is late, and I have noticed that out of the first eight speakers six have been Scotsmen, but I will make no apology if I can engage your attention for a few minutes to speak on inshore fishing with particular reference to the crofter counties of the Highlands. We have an inshore fishing fleet of some 2,500 boats, which give employment to a further 24,000 shore workers providing gear, tackle, packing the fish, and so on. This is a considerable body of men whose livelihood depends on the harvest of the sea. They have no alternative occupation, and on the seaboard of the Atlantic shore, and in the Western Isles, as you full well know, there has been grave unemployment for a great number of years. The Harris tweed industry has fallen apart recently; the unemployment rate in the Isles runs as high as 18 to 20 per cent., and fishing is their trade.

As the noble Lord, Lord Boothby said, they are great seamen. They have played a tremendous part in two world wars in the Royal Naval Reserve. They are the old pride of the Highlands, and no Highlander could fail to support them at this time in their need. They are going to go under if the Cameron Report is adopted, and one cannot distinguish between the Cameron Report and the E.E.C. fisheries policy which reduces the twelve-mile limit. The Highland problem, like an Arabian Night's tale, goes on until dawn breaks, but surely the time has not come when instead of taking one step forward we have to go two back again. This is our problem in the north. Something is advocated which is good, then it is all taken away again by a paternal Government who does not really know our local problems.

As the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, has already said, getting the 12-mile limit was an enormous success, and an enormous achievement. I would like to read what I think is a very charming letter in the bad old days before the 12-mile limit was imposed. Nothing could be more direct or more simply written, with a Homeric quality of a bygone day, written by an old Scots Guardsman who lives in Ardnamurchan, Lord Ronnie Macdonald of Glen Uig. One of his near neighbours is the brother of the ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer, lain Macleod, who is also an inshore fisherman. The letter: In the twenties I well remember as a boy going to the fishing with my uncle Angus Macpherson, who had worked the family boat for 50 years before me. The inshore fishing from Arisaig to Moidart and Ardnamurchan was well known for its cod. Long lines with 600 hooks were used. The codling were very plentiful. In the late twenties the steam trawlers from the English ports began to appear. By the mid-thirties the cod was so scarce that all the small boats had given up. I tried myself in the fifties with 500 hooks— in 3 days, four codling. The trawlers had taken their toll. I think that very charming, simple letter describes the problem of the inshore fishermen. Since 1964 the Minches and the Western Isles have built up a very splendid fish stock. In the small town of Mallaig, which is well-known to me for two reasons— it happens to be on the estate I know best, and I also helped to form the Mallaig Harbour Trust— £750,000 has already been spent to promote the fish industry. It is the biggest herring port in the United Kingdom, and we are going to do further extensions. There are Norwegian skippers who, after a drop of "the hard" are openly boasting that they are going to clear the Minches. It is a well-known fact that bottom trawling can disturb herring so much that the shoals leave the area. I am sure anyone who is acquainted with the fishing business will tell you that fishing story. And white fish only take two years longer.

Someone has said, I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Hoy, that one of the greatest successes since the inshore limit was imposed has been the prawn fishing— scampi to the Englishman and prawns to the Highlander. Prawns are caught in creels and this, of course, serves one very admirable purpose, in that the large prawn or scampi cannot pass through the mesh of the net or withy basket— so the little ones go away to get bigger, and the big ones are caught, and make a great deal of money when they are sold. Many of them go for export. An Inverness county councillor made a point at the last meeting of the council that there are 2,000 creels between the Isle of Eriskay through the long island to the Sound of Harris, including Benbecula, and if a big drifter comes in at night all these creels are simply swept away. There is no argument about this. The scampi fishing, which has been built up through the closure of the Minches, could be destroyed quickly. But it took a long time to establish. I do hope your Lordships will remember these things, because I have a nasty feeling that people will look the other way when it comes to the crunch.

The Cameron Report has recommended so many extraordinary things that it really has shaken the Highland fishermen. Mind you, it is a majority Report, in the sense that it was an East coast report dealing with people on the West coast. When I say "majority Report" the people on the West coast only want a minority of the sea, and I hope noble Lords will appreciate the importance of that little bit of three-mile water. It was said that bigger boats should be used. The definition of "inshore fisherman" is one who uses an 80 ft. boat or less. I would take issue with Lord Kennet— who has left the Chamber— when he said that one can go up into the Faroes or fish in Norway.

Of course an inshore fisherman cannot fish in the Faroes; he is at considerable risk if he leaves the 12-miles limit. And the depopulation is so great in the Western Highlands that one could not find a crew either to man the boat or to afford the boat. These boats have still to be paid for. The most terrifying thing is that they have to be paid for on grant and loan, and, if there are to be only five years in which to recast entirely the fishing problems of the west, all these men are going to go bankrupt.

I have talked about the Highland problem. Perhaps Lord Cameron was thinking the brave old days when strong arms drove the birlinns of Clan Donald trawling through the Western seas. This is no longer possible. The townships are depopulated and the men are all going away. It is only the fishing that has saved the situation in the West. This is extraordinary muddle-headed thinking on the part of Lord Cameron. I am sure it was not Lord Cameron who did the thinking, he is simply giving his name to a Report. I have the highest admiration for Lord Cameron. Have any of his Committee gone out prawn fishing on a dark night? I am sure they have not. To talk about protection in certain areas is equally absurd. With wireless you know exactly where a fishery cruiser is, and it is "talked" up and down the Western Isles. It has been going on for 25 years. How can you sneak round a corner and catch a vessel encroaching on nursery areas or fishing inside a sea loch when everybody knows where the fishery trawler is before the poaching begins?

So there are tremendous holes through which you could drive a horse and cart. I do hope that, if a blind eye is turned on this very splendid breed of men I have been describing, in their struggle with a very hostile climate, with a very difficult shore and the worst of the weather, at least they will be given a chance of a 10-year rather than a five-year extension to be able to pay off their boats. Even this is a brutal decision, because they will be out of work once the inshore fishing ban is lifted, I am quite sure of that. I would also suggest (your Lorships may think this a very naïve suggestion, but I am not ashamed of making it) that further consideration be given at this point of time to the demands of the Avoch, Hopeman, Scalpay, Eriskay, Kyle, Mallaig, Skye and Wester Ross communities, or that all forms of fishing on the Sabbath day be prohibited on the West Coast. I do not think there is any harm in trying to preserve the Highland Sabbath.

If I may be allowed to put forward one last personal request, shared by the Inverness County Council Study and Development Group, of which I am the chairman, I would ask whether steps can be taken drastically to reduce the wholesale destruction of immature fish of all kinds in firths, estuaries and inshore waters. The bulk of these catches are being turned into meal and dog meat. In my opinion, this has been the most extraordinary, unforgivable crime, and when one talks to the Department of Agriculture, or to "Ag. and Fish", or to the Highlands and Islands Development Board, you get only a soft-pedalled answer couched in such terms as, "We are studying the situation. We of course know that the young herring go in cycles. They will come back again, and you must not be too worried if you have not seen any for four or five years." That, of course, is nonsense. The young herring have been killed out everywhere except around the Scottish coast; and it is inexcusable if we do not work our sea food properly. I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, wished to put this message across when he initiated this debate. I hope that he will forgive me for being rather parochial in my remarks, but I am not in least ashamed of making them.

My Lords, I am sorry that I have taken up so much of your Lordships' valuable time, but I will end on a note which may sound slightly "offbeat". It has been said that every subject under the sun has at one time or another been discussed in this august Chamber. I wonder if Coel Mhor, the classic music of the Highland bagpipe, has ever been given a hearing. They say, wrongly, that it takes seven generations to make a piper, and that the seventh son of a seventh son sometimes has the second sight. This is not in fact correct, but it is true to say that in the last 200 years there have been very few great pibrochs or laments corn-posed. Such a one of the old vintage bears the charming title, Scarce of fishing. May I express the hope that the outcome of your Lordships' deliberations this afternoon will not necessitate urgent chanter practice.

8.2 p.m.

LORD STRANGE

My Lords, I should like to join the fishermen all round the coast in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, for initiating this very necessary debate. I have not got my long boots on, or my Guernsey, but I also am very keen on the fishing, and interested in it. I am speaking about the Isle of Man. Your Lordships know that the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands are not part of the British Isles, but we are, and always have been, very great friends with the British Isles. In two wars we had the record of having more freely enlisted men per head of population than anywhere else in the British Empire; and our friendship goes on to-day. But what is going to happen to us is that if Her Majesty's Government go into the Common Market, we shall be certainly, I think, driven into it; and so will our friends and neighbours across the "ditch" from us, Southern Ireland. They will be driven in, too, and the result to both of us will be pure disaster.

My Lords, I want to speak briefly. I may stop for a few minutes to scratch my head; but you must not worry— I shall go on again. There have been so many excellent speeches that I have to work out what has been said and what has not been said, because I should hate to say anything which has been said already. My Lords, the Isle of Man has always been famous for its kippers, partly because of the way we cure them but also for the excellence of the herrings. If the Common Market "big stuff" got in among those herrings, as the noble Lord, Lord Lovat, mentioned, they would purse-net them all night and bale them out. All day they could have their big trawling shots, echo sound them where they are at the bottom and trawl them out all day and all night. I think there are still enough herrings in the North Sea and along the surrounding coasts of Norway to feed the whole population, but there are certainly not enough to feed their livestock and their pets also. Unless due care is taken, the herring can be, and they probably will be, exterminated.

Our other fishery, my Lords, which is of great importance to the Island, is the scallop. The scallop fish is important. The scallops in the Isle of Man are called tanrogans in their largest and mature size, and in the smaller, half-size they are called "queenies". Until recently, there was no market for queenies, the growing scallops, but it has suddenly become a great dish and very popular in Paris and elsewhere. They are very good; I have eaten them myself. So now our local fishermen, with their dredges, are concentrating on catching both the tanrogans, the mature scallop, and also the queenies. Recently there has been an enlargement of our fishing craft, and a boat is quite able to lug along a dredge of two-ten bars— that is to say, 20 feet in two parts— scooping the bottom, dredging the bottom, into the chain net, and then on into the ordinary net, because the scallops swim as they chip-propel themselves up and get caught.

That will probably be all right so far as the Isle of Man is concerned, because our intelligent Government, the House of Keys, lay down a breeding session when fishing is stopped, and that gives the scallops a chance to get a move on. But suppose the Common Market fishermen come in. I will put it in this way. I have often read historians talking about the kitchen midden folk, who apparently lived on shellfish. They made large piles of the empty shells, and when the fishing was done they moved on. It was known where they had been from the piles of shells they left behind when they had fished out their available grounds. I do not think the Isle of Man will become kitchen midden folk if we go into the Common Market, because the Common Market fishermen take everything. Everything that comes up in the trawl, or everything that comes up in the drag, goes into the boat. They are exceedingly efficient people. Theirs is an exceedingly well-run business, and when they go ashore there is a market for everything. There is a market for starfish; there is a market for everything you can think of. I do not think there is a market for old boots, but for practically everything you can think of there is a market. We have not got the same markets. Most of the stuff we do not want just goes overboard. So we will be competing with highly efficient people.

There is an important point which has not been made yet in this debate. The point is that if these fishermen should come in and clean us up, which they would do— I suppose in three years they would have the place dry, and we would not even be kitchen midden folk: they would have the shells, and do something with those— the price of fish would go down, because they would manufacture them very well (they freeze them at once, and they can them very well over there) and we should be buying the fish over here instead of catching them from our own shores. They would be cheap to the housewife— there is no doubt about that— during the three-year period while we were fished out. That would bring down the price of the deep-trawled fish. It would bring the price down, and it does not have to drop very much to make deep trawling unprofitable. Therefore, whichever way you look at it we come out on the wrong side the whole time.

My Lords, I am thinking now not only of the Isle of Man, which has "had it" if these people come in. I am thinking also of the Southern Ireland coast. The people in Southern Ireland literally live with the fishing, as the noble Lord, Lord Lovat, was saying about the Hebrides. It would be disaster if they have to let them in. I think, as has been said, that fishermen are wonderful people, and I do not think that wonderful people would ever take anything quite lying down. I know long before the war, when people used to go down from the country and take a cottage, that when they started to put out a lobster pot or two it was possible they were spoiling one man's livelihood. He probably did not go very far; he probably had a rowing boat and not very large territory, with perhaps only half a dozen pots. It did happen that they found that their hands were sore when they pulled up their pots in the morning. On examination they found that razor blades had been threaded down the line. I do not think that the inshore fishermen are going to take this kindly. I do not think that the Southern Irish are going to take this kindly. I think that these people will have to count their fishing fleets carefully and that, after each visit to Southern Ireland, they may find fewer and fewer ships coming back.

I will conclude by saying one thing which I believe with great sincerity. I do not think that the Palace of Westminster has the right to give away the sovereignty of our coastline and to give away the rights of the Isle of Man and of Southern Ireland, without having a free vote of all Members, those on both sides of the passage and those on these Benches, on the Common Market.

8.10 p.m.

THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN

My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, for raising this matter and asking this Question. We all know of his great interest in this subject and of the tremendous work that he has put in for the fishermen, particularly in his own area, over the past 30 years—

LORD BOOTHBY

Fifty years!

THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN

My Lords, I beg the noble Lord's pardon. I should like also to express my thanks to him for being so patient about his Question, which I think he has now put off no fewer than twice, if not three times. But he must feel that, in the end, he has put it at a very apt moment in our negotiations with the Common Market countries. I should also like to thank all other noble Lords who have spoken in this short debate this evening. They have shown most expert knowledge. I learned a great deal myself, and I can assure them that I will read their speeches very carefully to-morrow and I will make certain that their remarks are passed on to my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Duchy.

I am grateful for this opportunity to make it clear to the House that the Government attach great importance to this problem. There is great concern felt by Her Majesty's Government about the E.E.C.'s common fisheries policy and about the effect which, in particular, its provisions dealing with fishery limits would have on the British inshore fishing fleet. The immediacy of our concern is demonstrated, I feel, by the fact that only eleven days after the present Government took office and as part of his speech opening this Government's negotiations with the Community, on June 30 last year, the then Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster reserved our position on fisheries. This was long before the present public concern emerged on this matter, and indeed the same day as the Community themselves decided to revive their proposals to have a common fisheries policy. That there should be a fisheries policy is implicit in the Treaty of Rome: there had been proposals some years earlier, but until then, they had lain dormant. I am sure that noble Lords would not suggest that in these circumstances the Government has been slow in acting to protect our interests.

Throughout the summer and autumn of last year, we watched the Community's policy beginning to take shape; in the end, we handed over a formal note to the Community expressing the hope that in view of the great fisheries interests of the United Kingdom and indeed the other applicant countries, the Six would defer any final decisions on the shape of their fisheries policy until the negotiations for enlargement had been concluded. Unfortunately, as we know, from Great Britain's point of view, the Community decided to press ahead to formulate the policy.

The two basic documents— dealing with structure and marketing— were finalised on October 20 and published on October 27. They also agreed to complete the details of the policy to bring it into effect among themselves on February 1, 1971. This they have in large part achieved, and to date over twenty subordinate regulations have emerged to fill in the picture of the policy they have created. As early as December last year, my right honourable friend, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, said in another place that he was satisfied we would have to raise this matter again in some detail with the Community. Since then and as an essential preliminary to this course, we have been studying the situation as it has emerged to enable Her Majesty's Government to take an overall view of how it might affect Britain's interests. Noble Lords to-day have given us many graphic illustrations of the type of situation which can be foreseen.

We must first see how the policy operates in a Community of Six; we must then sec how it might operate in a Community of Ten. We have, after all, pointed out to them that conditions would be very different in an enlarged Community— which would be overall a net exporter of certain types of fish, whereas the present Community is a large net importer of all types of fish. It is therefore, as I am sure the noble Lord will accept, in no one's best interests, least of all the fishermen, that this problem should receive an inadequate or cursory examination. I must, however, repeat to the noble Lord that we are in no way committed by the provisions of the Community's present fisheries policy. As I said just now, the policy falls into two parts— dealing with the structure of the industry and with the regulation of marketing. This latter is a most complex provision, governing the organisation of fishermen, the methods, conditions and prices on sale of fish and the rules concerning international trade in fish and fish products.

As noble Lords to-day have naturally devoted their attention to the other half of the policy, that dealing with structure, I would not wish to embark on a lengthy discussion of the marketing provisions here but I would say that some knowledge of them is necessary in order to obtain an overall view of how this policy will affect our fishing industry if we join the Community. I should therefore like to dwell on this for a few moments.

The Community's intention is that the sale of fish shall be conducted largely through the agency of organisations set up and maintained by the fishermen themselves. All the fish of the major species placed on the market would be graded according to quality and size, and, according to the species and its grade classification, the fish would then be subject to a minimum price. These minimum (or withdrawal) prices are to be determined annually by the Community on the basis of average prices obtained at representative markets throughout the Community during the three previous years. The Community do not at present envisage any regional variations in the minimum prices. All fish not sold at or above these prices would be withdrawn from the market by the producers' organisations and sold for fishmeal, or to some other outlet other than for human consumption, and the fishermen would receive compensation to the level of the withdrawal price, largely from central community funds, although a proportion of the money would have to be raised from the fishermen members of the producer organisation by way of levies.

LORD STRANGE

My Lords, may I interrupt? These are the fish which are left behind for our inshore fishermen to catch. They are not the foreign fish; they have gone.

THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN

My Lords, these are all the fish. I take the noble Lord's point; but this applies to all fish, ours and foreign. Not all the foreign fish have gone.

It would not be compulsory for fishermen to join producers' organisations— the Community hopes to have made membership sufficiently attractive that no-one will wish to choose otherwise. The details of this policy are still being finalised by the Community— it is in this sphere that most of the subordinate regulations (and as I have said before, they are many) have appeared so far; some still have to come, and the Six are now in the process of setting up the machinery to operate these provisions. The marketing policy also contains the rules governing international trade in fish, and as last year, British exports of herrings alone exceeded £4 million in value, I think the House would agree that it is right that we should be concerned also with these aspects of the policy. The basic idea of these provisions is similar to that applied already for trade in agricultural products— that imports must obey reference prices so that internal markets may not be disturbed by cheap imports. Exports may also receive subsidies from central Community funds in order that they might compete at the prevailing world prices.

However, I must now turn to the question of fishery limits, the problem which has vexed us all for so long, which recently has obtained so much public attention, and on which the noble Lord has concentrated to-day. The E.E.C. has agreed that vessels of all member countries should have equal rights of access to fish in the waters of all other member countries. This does not mean complete freedom to fish, as has so often been assumed. Member countries may, and indeed are expected to, retain their own domestic regulations as they see fit. It has already been pointed out by noble Lords that the French are operating a ban on beam trawling within their fishery limits, and the Germans have recently introduced a limitation on the horsepower of vessels which may fish for shellfish within their limits. In addition, countries make new regulations to cope with any increase in quantity or alteration in the pattern of fishing effort— exactly as they would have done before entry to the E.E.C. In the case of salmon, for example (mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Balerno), at the present time fishing for salmon is a private right in Scotland out to three miles; and beyond three miles fishing is prohibited for everybody, including British nationals. This situation will not be changed even were the United Kingdom to accept the E.E.C. fisheries policy as it stands.

However, in retaining domestic legislation countries may not discriminate purely and simply against vessels of other member countries. The Community does not intend this policy as a licence to fish out each others waters, which, if one looks at this rationally, would be a very absurd thing to do. Indeed, there is provision for the Community itself to make regulations to prevent overfishing— a point which the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, referred to under Article 5. It is clear that the Community itself sees the continuation of national but nondiscriminatory, regulations as being the primary means of preventing overfishing from taking place in the inshore waters of Community members.

The question of the Norwegian Government was raised by the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso. As the House will know, the Norwegian Government put forward in Brussels on May 4 a compromise proposal to cover their special difficulties. Its essential point is that fishing within member States' fishery limits should be restricted to enterprises established in the coastal State. There has not been time for the Community to give a considered reaction. The Norwegians have given a copy of their proposal to Her Majesty's Government. Her Majesty's Government think that it is a constructive proposal and are already studying it with care.

However, having said all this, I do not wish to give the impression that we in the Government are unconcerned about the problem facing the British inshore fishermen. Total landings by British vessels of all sizes in 1970 were worth some £75 million, of which some £29 million or 39 per cent., was taken by the inshore fleet. In Scotland, as the noble Lord has pointed out, the importance of the inshore fleet is even more apparent: total Scottish landings last year were £27 million: and the inshore fleet's share was £19 million— some 70 per cent. The inshore fleet in 1970 directly employed 13,651 men in Great Britain, of whom some 7,731 were in Scotland.

LORD KENNET

May I seek clarification on that point from the noble Lord? Does this mean that the proportion of G.N.P. represented by the inshore fleet in Britain is 39 per cent. of one quarter of one per cent.? I think it is.

THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN

I am not sure that I can answer the noble Lord off hand. May I let him know?

LORD HOY

We know that this means a great many human beings.

THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN

That is what I was going on to say: we must never forget that this is a human problem. Noble Lords should note that I have been referring to direct employment: the figures would be much greater if indirect employment and ancillary operations were taken into account as well. It is therefore a great human problem.

The Government do not underestimate the importance of this sector of the industry; it is doing a wonderful job, and thriving into the bargain. A large proportion of its catch is taken from within our fishery limits, which were extended to 12 miles as a result of action by the last Conservative Administration and finalised in the 1964 European Fisheries Convention. Noble Lords will realise that we should be extremely unwilling therefore to give up these hard fought-for gains. However, it has been pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, and it is well worth repeating, that several individual European countries enjoy historic rights to fish up to six miles from our coastline along considerable stretches of our coast. Of the present member countries of the Community, France, Belgium and Germany all have considerable rights in this belt between 6 and 12 miles from our shores. It is important to be clear that there have been foreign vessels fishing peacefully and legally within our 12-mile limit for many years.

As I have said, the Government have been for some considerable time well aware of the problems which would arise for our inshore fishermen, and indeed for all connected with the industry— and the noble Lord rightly pointed out that there are many jobs dependent on the continued prosperity of the fleet— if the Community's present policy of common access were o apply to Britain. We have therefore been studying the whole of this policy as it would affect our industry. Officials, both from Whitehall and from Scotland, have had several rounds of useful consultations in Brussels, and have also made contact in several other European capitals. The Government have been digesting and considering carefully the information which has been so obtained. We are now moving to the stage of deciding what points we shall need to take up with the Six.

LORD LOVAT

If I may interrupt the noble Marquis in his statement, may I ask if he will give us some idea of the most important point I made in my speech— the destruction of immature fish, which have been taken away in Klondikers to be ground into meal and oil, from fish nurseries in this country because there are none on the other side?

THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN

I am very glad the noble Lord has mentioned this point. This is in fact one of the topics that we shall be taking up with the Six. It is for this reason, as well as the point I made at the beginning of my reply, that I am pleased we have had an opportunity of discussing this subject to-day. We do not wish to hide the facts of the position from noble Lords or from the fishing industry— quite the reverse. We are always willing to receive representations on this important subject. Noble Lords will be aware that my right honourable friend the Chancellor has received deputations from the inshore fishermen and my noble friend Lady Tweedsmuir of Belhevie received a delegation of Members of the other House who wanted to discuss this matter. Since then officials have been in frequent contact with the fishermen's associations, and the Under-Secretary of State at the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food met Scottish inshore fishermen only last Friday.

My Lords, we are very anxious that this debate is well understood and that noble Lords are well informed. We have had official translations made of all the regulations, and they have been circulated to the fishermen's associations and other bodies, such as the White Fish Authority and the Herring Industry Board. It may be of interest to noble Lords to know that copies have been placed in the Library for the convenience of Members of your Lordships House. I repeat that I share the concern which is widely felt about the Community's fishing policy. The Government are aware of the problem, both as an economic and also as a human problem. We are convinced that it is a matter which will have to be raised in detail with the Six.

I mentioned earlier that we were conducting a detailed examination. Since this is still continuing, it is not possible to say precisely what we shall raise with the Six, or in what form. Noble Lords will, I think, agree that in such negotiations it would be unwise on the part of any Government to declare its hand in advance. To do so would be contrary to our practice. Indeed it might prove harmful to the fishing industry, and that is the last thing we should desire. We welcome the most helpful suggestions that have been made in this debate. They will be taken seriously into account by the Government and I thank the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, for raising this matter.

LORD KENNET

My Lords, whatever we do, shall we do it with Norway?

LORD BOOTHBY

And shall we do something?

LORD KENNET

My Lords, would it be possible to have an answer to my question? I am not pressing the Government to say what line they are going to take. It is simply a factual question; whatever the line is, will it be coordinated with Norway, or will it be taken quite alone, without any preliminary contact with Norway?

THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN

My Lords, I remained seated only because I was not certain whether the procedure on an Unstarred Question enabled me to speak again. But I think I may assure the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, that we shall be in contact with the Norwegians.