§ 2.45 p.m.
§ Lord KennetMy Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
§ The Question was as follows:
§ To ask Her Majesty's Government what they are doing about a possible multilateral fisheries agreement in the South Atlantic.
§ Baroness YoungMy Lords, we continue to work actively for the establishment of a multilaterally-based fisheries conservation and management regime in the area around the Falkland Islands.
§ Lord KennetMy Lords, can the Government tell the House what advice they have sought, and from whom, about when the different existing fish stocks in that area will be irremediably damaged by the present free-for-all?
§ Baroness YoungMy Lords, we are actively developing our multilateral approach. We are working urgently to ensure that we have as full and complete a picture as possible of fishing activity around the Falklands and its long-term implications for fish stocks.
Lord Campbell of CroyMy Lords, is my noble friend aware that this must be about the only part of the world where there is now not a fisheries limit and a conservation regime? If the proposals for multilateral agreement do not make progress, will my noble friend consider introducing a 200-mile limit? Can my noble friend confirm that the Argentine Government are not likely to raise trouble over this, because there are reports that they are aware how much the Argentine fishing fleets would benefit?
§ Baroness YoungMy Lords, the answer to the first part of my noble friend's question is of course, yes. We are very well aware of the situation; we have been aware of it for some time, and we have listened to representations from a number of sources. The answer 485 to my noble friend's second question is that our consideration of a multilateral régime is still a hypothetical matter. In answer to my noble friend's third question about Argentine reactions, I believe that many people in Argentina understand that action to conserve and manage fisheries in the South-west Atlantic would be in the interests of all, for serious questions of conservation are involved. Beyond that I cannot comment.
§ Lord Cledwyn of PenrhosMy Lords, can the noble Baroness not go a little further and tell the House whether there is any reaction whatever from the Argentine Government following the indication of Her Majesty's Government that we would welcome the participation of the Argentine in multilateral talks? Secondly, is it not a fact that large foreign deep-sea trawlers are fishing Falkland waters extensively? What view do the Government take of this? Is this developing in a way which is endangering the fishing stocks, and is it a matter of concern to the Government and the people of the Falklands?
§ Baroness YoungMy Lords, in answer to the first part of the noble Lord's question, I think that it would be wrong for me to go into details on the whole matter of our multilateral proposals. In answer to his second question, we are of course aware that a great many vessels are fishing around the Falklands, and it is for that reason and for other reasons which have been made known that we are actively pursuing this multilateral proposal.
§ Lord Davies of LeekMy Lords, can the noble Baroness tell me whether whaling will be brought into these multilateral agreements, because the modern factory ships are conducting a devastating spoliation of the whaling industry?
§ Baroness YoungMy Lords, I do not think that anyone is concerned with whaling around the Falklands.
§ Lord Buxton of AlsaMy Lords, can my noble friend say whether the Government understand that the conservation of wildlife is a very vital economic and social issue, and not just a scientific and aesthetic one? Is it appreciated that, if the present operations continue, the wildlife that will attract and provide the potential for tourism—the penguins, the sealions, the fur seals, and so on—will all starve to death and be unable to feed their young, and there will then be no potential at all for tourism?
§ Baroness YoungMy Lords, yes. Of course I understand the point that has been made by my noble friend, who is such an expert on this subject. It is for that reason that we are urgently pursuing our multilateral approach. I can confirm that a study is being undertaken to pool information available from all sources, and it is being pursued as a matter of urgency. We need to understand as well as we can how stocks are being affected by current levels of fishing activity.
§ Lord Cledwyn of PenrhosMy Lords, beyond telling us that the Government are pursuing the multilateral 486 talks the noble Baroness has been unable so tar to answer my question about the progress that has been made in these multilateral talks. If the matter is one of sensitivity then I feel sure that the House will be prepared to accept that. But could the noble Baroness be a little more explicit and tell us that Her Majesty's Government are in fact making attempts to get the multilateral talks going? Is she in a position to tell us whether any approaches have been made to the Argentine with a view to getting them to take part in them?
§ Baroness YoungMy Lords, the noble Lord has asked an important question. As he himself has said, this is a sensitive matter and I think it would not be appropriate for me to go into it in the House today. I can give the noble Lord an assurance, and I can give the House an assurance, that the Government are urgently pursuing this matter. We are aware of the strong feelings, not only of your Lordships' House but of another place and of outside conservation interests; but, as the noble Lord will appreciate, it is a sensitive question and it needs to be handled carefully.
Baroness VickersMy Lords, may I ask my noble friend how many British ships are fishing in the area?
§ Baroness YoungMy Lords, to the best of my knowledge there are no British ships fishing in the Falklands waters.
§ Lord KennetMy Lords, would the noble Baroness not agree that it is really no good the Government continuing to stonewall on this matter? If there is a delicate situation in the Government's pursuit of this multilateral agreement, can the Government please tell us with what countries they are pursuing the multilateral agreement? If not, why not? Can they say whether the multilateral agreement will be modelled on any of the many existing multilateral fisheries agreements in the world? If they cannot answer those two simple questions, why not?
§ Baroness YoungMy Lords, in the first place, we are not stonewalling. In the second place, it is self-evident that to be workable a multilateral regime should include as many as possible of the nations with an interest in fishing in the South-West Atlantic. In the third place, in regard to the question of other areas, there are of course waters where fishing regimes are in force without heavy policing, but these are areas over which sovereignty is not contested.
Lord Campbell of CroyMy Lords, is my noble friend aware, with reference to the point raised by my noble friend Lady Vickers, that these fisheries are not now really for British fleets, which are no longer equipped for very distant waters, but that if a fisheries regime were developed it would bring considerable finance and employment to the islanders, and not only the Falkland Islands but South Georgia?
§ Baroness YoungMy Lords, I take entirely the point that my noble friend makes.
§ Lord Elwyn-JonesMy Lords, can the noble Baroness say who is doing the fishing now? Apparently 487 we are not, and we cannot therefore be blamed. Does this not give additional strength to us in securing an agreement, if possible? Who is—I was going to use the ugly phrase "the nigger in the woodpile", but that is a very unfashionable observation.
§ Baroness YoungMy Lords, in order of activity, the main countries fishing round the Falklands are the Soviet Union, Poland, Spain and Japan. The others, in alphabetical order, are Argentina, although not in the Falkland Islands protection zone, Brazil, Bulgaria, Denmark, the Federal Republic of Germany, Finland, the German Democratic Republic, Italy, Norway, Sweden, Taiwan and Urguay.