HL Deb 22 December 1982 vol 437 cc1127-32

3.41 p.m.

The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Earl Ferrers)

My Lords, it might be for the convenience of your Lordships if I were to repeat a Statement which is being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture. The Statement is as follows:

"With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a Statement on the meeting of the Council of Fisheries Ministers which met yesterday in Brussels. I represented the United Kingdom, together with my right honourable friends the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Minister of State.

"The nine member states were agreed on a package of measures for a revised Common Fisheries Policy. No changes to this package were proposed or discussed.

"The Commission had clarified to Denmark some of the administrative measures involved in the package and had also arranged for a possible allocation of mackerel in the North Sea which would become available from Norway and the Faroes.

"The Danish Government decided to refer this package to the relevant committee of their Parliament with the Government's strong recommendation for acceptance.

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

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

"The Commission made an unequivocal statement as to the right and obligation of all member states, in the unique circumstances of fisheries, to protect this vital resource, and the Commissioner stated that this would apply to all of the proposals on conservation, access and quotas.

"Honourable members may have heard the President of the Commission, Mr. Thorn, confirm this morning that these measures would be effective and legal.

"As far as the United Kingdom is concerned, I signed this morning orders which will make these proposals part of our national law, and I have notified the Commission. They will be laid before the House so that they will come into effect if necessary on 1st January.

"Agreement was reached on an interim package of structural measures which I know will be welcomed by our industry.

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

My Lords, that concludes the Statement.

Lord John-Mackie

My Lords, we are obliged to the noble Earl for repeating that Statement, a very disappointing one creating an unfortunate situation. It appears that it is more a Danish problem than anything else, although of course it affects all the other members of the EEC. It is certainly unsettling the fishing industry, particularly in Scotland. While I am not too conversant with the situation there, I understand that the Federation is having great difficulty with its members and that some of them are not very happy and are thinking of resigning, if they have not already done so. It is therefore a situation which is upsetting the fishing industry very much indeed.

May I ask the Minister to say what steps the Government are likely to take—I hope he will find it possible to answer this—to stop the Danes? Whatever else we do, I hope the Government will try to avoid any action that might lead to violence: we do not want a repeat of what happened with Iceland a few years, ago. No doubt the orders, which I gather the Minister signed today, indicate more what might be done. I feel it is very important not to close the door. Although the Statement suggests that what the other members will do now is to wait until 30th December, I wonder whether there is any indication that there might be a further meeting—I appreciate that, with Christmas and the New Year, it is not easy to arrange meetings—should the Danes wish to have such a meeting?

It is interesting to note that in the second paragraph of the Statement it is said: No changes to this package were proposed or discussed". And the following paragraph says: …also arranged for a possible allocation of mackerel in the North Sea which would become available from Norway and the Faroes". That seems to be a change, and perhaps the Minister would explain that. Could he also provide some information about what is meant by, an interim package of structural measures"? Whenever I hear the word "structural" I feel it means a reduction in the size of the industry. That applies to most industries the moment the word "structural" is used. Perhaps the noble Earl will answer those questions. As I say, we are all very disappointed over what has happened. I like the Danes, I have been to Denmark several times and I used to have a Danish farm manager. I should hate to think that we would ever get to the stage of almost open warfare with them.

Lord Mackie of Benshie

I normally agree entirely with my noble kinsman, my Lords, but on this occasion I must disagree; I think we should stand absolutely firm on the measures proposed and agreed by the other nine nations. I must remind the House that the Danes, by their industrial and fishing policy, are responsible for more of the depletions of stocks in the North Sea than any other single nation. Furthermore, the Shetland fishermen are very restive about the Shetland box and the concessions that have already been made there, and in my view all the concessions that should have been made have been made. It is up to the Danish Government to be sensible and for their committees to follow the advice of their Government, and I hope and trust that our Government will stand totally firm on the very large concessions that have already been made, which affect very largely the livelihood, in particular, of the Shetland fishermen. I agree with my noble kinsman in asking for clarification of the third paragraph of the Statement. May we be given more details of any possible allocations? And as for the paragraph which refers to, an interim package of structural measures", may we be told a little more of what the structural measures are?

Earl Ferrers

My Lords, I am grateful to the two noble Lords for the modest welcome they gave to the Statement. I thought the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, was somewhat unfair to his noble kinsman when he said he disagreed with him. I did not know that the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, had said there should be any alteration; I thought he was merely asking questions. But, then, Cain did kill Abel and I am not quite certain whether that was happening on this occasion.

However, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, that in some ways this is a disappointing Statement, because we had all hoped that there would be an agreement. It is one of the curious quirks of democracy, and indeed one of the quirks of the European Community, that in this particular case the parties of a member state which are not in government are in fact in a position to frustrate an agreement to which the Governments of all the member states wish to accede. This is the Danish problem which they have to get over. It was the Danish fisheries minister, and indeed the Danish Prime Minister, who tried to persuade the respective parliamentary committee of the Danish Parliament to accede to the proposal, and it was that parliamentary committee that refused to do so. As the Statement explained, the option has been left open for them to agree up to the 30th December. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, that the uncertainty is undoubtedly upsetting, and we should wish to see that uncertainty halted as soon as possible.

The noble Lord asked what was going to happen, and he hoped that there would not be violence. I entirely agree with him in hoping that there will not be violence, and I do not believe that there will be, or that there need be. But I would remind the noble Lord that if in fact national measures come into effect as from 1st January, and if fishing vessels of other countries that are not so entitled, as would then be the case, fish in our national waters, they will be liable to be approached, to be fined £50,000, and to have their gear confiscated.

The noble Lord, quite reasonably, said—and on this his noble kinsman agreed with him, which was encouraging—that he would like to know why in the second paragraph of the Statement it was stated that, No changes to this package were proposed or discussed while the third paragraph added that: The Commission had clarified…some of the administrative measures …and had…arranged for a possible allocation of mackerel… I think that that needs explaining. The position is that the package, which the member states were invited to agree, was drawn up on 26th October. That package has not been altered, but there are other arrangements, such as apply in Norway and the Faroes, which are outside the package, are renegotiated every year, can be altered, and on this occasion have been altered.

Both noble Lords also asked what were the "structural measures". The "structural measures" refer to a limited amount of money which the European Commission can give following individual applications from member states. Individual fishing owners, or fleet owners, can apply to the European Commission for help and an advance, and that is outside any grant aid that might be applicable to any member state. It is that to which the "structural measures" refer. Apart from that, I would join both noble Lords in hoping that the situation will shortly be resolved.

Lord Kennet

My Lords, I wish to ask only two questions. Can the Deputy Leader of the House tell us anything about the meaning of the phrase "laid before the House" in the Statement? The Statement said that the national measures, will be laid before the House"— the House of Commons, of course— so that they will come into effect if necessary on 1st January". Must we assume that they will not in effect be laid before this House, since we rise in an hour or two from now, but that the House of Commons will tomorrow have an opportunity to object, if it wishes? What is the parliamentary situation about those national measures? I am taking it for granted that our national measures correspond precisely to what we would have done had the Community regime been able to come into effect. I think that the noble Earl has already said that.

I come to my final question. Is the Deputy Leader of the House in a position to tell us whether the Danish fishing fleets are likely to do what their Government tell them, or what their Opposition tell them?

Earl Ferrers

My Lords, the position with regard to the orders being laid before the House is that in fact they will be laid before both Houses of Parliament. They can be laid during the Recess. They will be subject to negative resolution procedure, which means that they can be prayed against within, I think, 40 days. But they will become operative as from 1st January.

With regard to the types of national measures, they will be as near as possible the same as they would had there been a Community régime. For obvious reasons, which I think we need not go into now, because there is not a Community regime there may be individual circumstances which may make it impossible for them to be absolutely identical. With regard to the noble Lord's invitation for me to speculate on what the Danish fishermen may do, whether they will follow the advice of their Government or their Opposition, all I would say to the noble Lord is that fishermen of all nationalities are a fairly individual species of people and I would not like to speculate any more than would the noble Lord on what they would do. What I can do is to tell him that if they did that which they should not do, they will meet with a certain response.

Lord Boothby

While thanking the noble Earl for his reply, may I ask him to bear in mind that British sea power was built up on our fishing industry in the reign of Henry VIII and has been sustained by it ever since. As one who has fought for the fishing industry in both Houses of Parliament for over half a century, may I also thank Her Majesty's Government and, particularly, the Secretaries of State for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, and for Scotland, for the courage, patience, coolness and skill with which they have conducted these arduous, lengthy and difficult negotiations. It is not our fault that they have broken down.

Finally, may I ask the noble Earl one question. Will he give us an unequivocal assurance that no foreign fishing vessel will be allowed to fish in British waters without the permission of Her Majesty's Government until we reach an agreed settlement; that we have the necessary forces in the air and at sea to ensure that this is so; and that, if necessary, we will not hesitate to use them?

Having said that, of course, we must all join in the fervent hope expressed from both sides that we can still reach agreement with these recalcitrant Danes—of whom I am one, because I am myself of Danish origin—and that they may still come to their senses and agree to these terms before Christmas.

Earl Ferrers

My Lords, I am greatly appreciative of what the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, has said. As he mentioned, he has been involved with the fishing industry for a great many years. I myself have had the privilege of hearing him campaign in Parliament on behalf of the fishing industry. To hear him say that this was a successful agreement and to commend my right honourable friend for (I think his words were) the courage, patience, coolness and skill of his negotiation are praises which I greatly appreciate, and I will see that they are passed on to my right honourable friend. I would only add, in parentheses, that none of them applies to me, because I have not been personally involved in the negotiations.

The noble Lord said he hoped that no foreign vessel would be seen to fish in British waters. I can tell him that if, in fact, the common fisheries policy as we would hope to see it does not come into operation by January 1st, then there will be national measures. Under those national measures the Danish fishermen may not fish within 12 miles of British shores, and, if they do so, we will see that those waters are appropriately protected.

When the noble Lord referred to the recalcitrant Danes, that is an observation upon which I would not wish to comment other than to say that I think they have their own particular problems. The fisheries minister did say that if this proposition were placed in Parliament over the heads of the Parliamentary Committee, they might well find that their Government might fall; and he said that this is not an issue upon which they are prepared to fall. It is the exercise of democracy in one particular member state which has its unfortunate repercussions in others. That is not a unique phenomenon. It is one which, as members of the Community, we all have to try corporately to overcome.