§ 3.43 p.m.
§ The MINISTER of STATE, SCOTTISH OFFICE (Lord Kirkhill)My Lords, with the leave of the House, I will now repeat a Statement being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland in answer to a Private Notice Question on the decision by the Faroese Government to close to British trawlers, without notice, part of the fishing grounds in which only recently agreement was reached. The Statement is as follows:
§ "The closure of these fishing grounds is contrary to our understanding of the provisional agreement recently reached between the European Commission and 1440 the Faroese authorities. We have therefore taken the matter up as a matter of urgency with the Commission and with the Commission and with the Faroese authorities and expressed our serious concern at this development."
§ My Lords, that is the end of the Statement.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROYMy Lords, we thank the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, for repeating the Statement made in another place, though we on this Bench are sorry to learn of the action which has been taken by the Faroese Government. This will be a matter of great anxiety to a section of the Scottish fishing industry based on Aberdeen. The noble Lord himself will know of this, as he was a distinguished Lord Provost of that City. A considerable proportion of the larger vessels from Aberdeen have traditionally fished in the waters off the Faroes, and that has been continued by agreements which have been reached in friendly negotiations. I am sure that the noble Lord the Leader of the House w ill remember negotiations of that kind in the past. Unfortunately, the sudden closure of grounds off the Faroes could have damaging effects not only on the trawlers based on Aberdeen, but also on jobs in the ancillary industries and services which work with the fishing industry in that area.
Does the noble Lord agree that fishing agreements of this kind should be clear and unambiguous? I understand that there is an issue of interpretation here. Also, does he agree that, having been freely arrived at, they should be altered only by agreement of all parties—for example, for urgent reasons of conservation—and that, if they are abrogated or changed abruptly by one party, this will threaten the fishing industries of almost every country in the world, because their future stability will depend upon such arrangements?
§ Lord MACKIE of BENSHIEMy Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord for repeating the Statement, and I hope that he will somewhat amplify it. Can he say how much of the area agreed is affected by this sudden closure, and have the Faroese given any technical reason for closing it? As it was an 1441 agreement with the Commission, I hope the noble Lord will be able to assure us that the Faroese have not acted in this way because we in Britain appear to be not in agreement with our Commission partners, and have failed to reach agreement. I shall be interested to know whether that has anything to do with it.
§ Lord KIRKHILLMy Lords, may I first respond to the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, and say on behalf of the Government that I indeed agree with almost every point which he made. Of course, I confirm that the United Kingdom's fishing effort in the Faroes mainly comprises Aberdeen boats and is mainly concentrated on cod and haddock fishing. These grounds are therefore of particular importance to our boats, and there can be no question of that. Meantime, the Government are in close contact with Brussels about what is regarded as a very serious position.
In response to the points put to me by the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, I might amplify my comments—if this would be of help to him—by indicating that the EEC Commission are operating under a mandate from the Council of Ministers. At the moment, there is a provisional agreement which has still to be ratified by the Council of Ministers. The Faroese Government have, however, now indicated in a Telex sent to the Commission on 10th February that they intend to close from today, 15th February, an area formerly known as Box One—the Faroe Islands are now ringed, but previously there was a boxing arrangement—at the North end of the Faroese Archipelago, which forms part of a band encircling the Faroese Islands, within which fishing for cod and haddock is controlled and the major part of the United Kingdom's fishing effort in the Faroes is concentrated. In this connection, the Faroese indicated that it might be necessary, in certain seasons or at certain times, to introduce non-discriminatory conservation measures, but they indicated that due advance warning would be given. It is at this point that there is a difference of interpretation between the Faroese Government and the British Government, and it is on this that the Government are continuing to make representations.
§ Lord MACKIE of BENSHIEMy Lords, is the difference in interpretation on the length of time, if they sent a Telex on 10th February stating that they intended to close the area now, or is it on the fact that there is no reason for closure?
§ Lord KIRKHILLMy Lords, I should perhaps again amplify the point by saying that, although I referred to this Government—and, certainly, we hold our own view—it is an agreement between the Faroese Government and the EEC. I do not think that the question of interpretation at all turns on the difference between the 10th and the 15th. It is a question of whether or not they can say "No" to fishing at the North end of the Archipelago within what is already an agreed ringed area.