Falklands Fishery: Protection (Hansard, 28 July 1988)

§ The Minister of State for Defence Procurement (Lord Trefgarne)
My Lords, yes, responsibility for the protection of the Falklands fishery rests with the Falkland Islands Government, who deploy two vessels and one aircraft to patrol the fishery. Monitoring of catches and fish stocks is undertaken by their scientific advisers, the Renewable Resources Assessment Group of Imperial College.

§ Lord Boyd-Carpenter
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer. Can he confirm that this immensely important source of the islands' wealth and well-being, to which the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, has drawn attention, is safeguarded, and that if necessary the Royal Navy is present to help?

§ Lord Trefgarne
My Lords, as I have explained, responsibility for policing the zone rests with the Falkland Islands Government. While I have no reason to believe that the present arrangements will not be entirely satisfactory, if the Falkland Islands Government wanted further assistance that could be considered.

§ Lord Shackleton
My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that, although it is 10 years too late and we should have set it up many years ago, the zone has been a great success? Can he say something about the findings of the Imperial College study on the success of the conservation measures? Whereas he may not wish to refer to the backing of the Royal Navy, we all know that the Royal Navy is there.

§ Lord Trefgarne
My Lords, the Renewable Resources Assessment Group from Imperial College which is advising the Falkland Islands Government in this matter is advising also on the number of licences that it is appropriate to issue season by season, and has recommended that a slightly smaller number be issued this year as compared with last year. I am clear that that results from the groups' views on the conservation aspect of the matter, with which it is clearly satisfied.

§ Lord Orr-Ewing
My Lords, will my noble friend indicate what other countries are fishing extensively in this area? Until recently the Soviets were very active with extensive fisheries and fishing. While it may have been just outside the restricted Falklands 381 fisheries area, in regard to the conservation principle and the preservation of future fishing it is surely important to get international agreement not only within the boundaries but just outside as well.

§ Lord Trefgarne
My Lords, the main fishing grounds are inside the zone to which I have referred. As for the countries concerned, in the second season, the one which began earlier this year, 145 licences were issued—which is an increase on 1987 —to companies from the United Kingdom and the Falkland Islands, Spain, Portugal, Italy, Greece, Norway, Poland, Japan and South Korea.

§ Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos
My Lords, will the noble Lord confirm that the success of the zone to which he and my noble friend have referred is reflected in increased revenue for the Falkland Islands, which we all welcome? Can he tell the House the size of that increase and to what extent it may influence government aid, both military and non-military, to the islands?

§ Lord Trefgarne
My Lords, the revenue to the Falkland Islands Government for 1987–88 is estimated at £1865 million. This does not include the joint venture premiums payable by the Stanley Fisheries Company Ltd. Against that must be set the estimated enforcement and scientific costs, which are of the region of £6 million for 1988–89. There is clearly a substantial new revenue for the Falkland islands Government which they did not have before. Our aid as such to the Falkland Islands is now at a comparatively low level. Indeed, I think it is zero for this year.

§ Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos
My Lords, can the noble Lord go a little further? Is he really saying that military and non-military aid to the Falklands from this country is zero? Is that what he is saying?

§ Lord Trefgarne
My Lords, no. We do not have military aid as such, but as the noble Lord will be aware, we have a garrison down there which costs something of the order of £100 million.

§ Lord Shackleton
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for those figures. Does he agree that this effectively triples the revenue that is open to the Falkland Islands? Does he not also agree that considerable congratulations are due both to his department and indeed to the Falkland Islands Government on putting in a very complex system and operating it apparently so wisely and successfully? In the light of that, will he now consider the other part of our recommendations and extend the limit to the generally internationally accepted level of 200 miles, which despite what some people say will not cost a great deal and will yield further revenue?

§ Lord Trefgarne
My Lords, the noble Lord is quite right. This has, roughly speaking, trebled the income of the Falkland Islands Government, which is clearly to be very much welcomed. As he may be aware, they have commissioned a study on how to take advantage of this new income. I understand that the report is to be with them shortly; in fact they may 382 already have just received it and they will no doubt he acting upon it in due course.
As for extending the zone as the noble Lord suggests, there is an undoubted entitlement to extend the zone to 200 miles, but the limit was established at 150 miles for conservation reasons. It is a conservation measure and not a political or military measure. That was the consideration which persuaded us that 150 miles was the right radius.

§ Lord Shackleton
My Lords, the last thing I wish to suggest to the noble Lord is that he is concealing the basic reasons, but does he not agree that political considerations are the main reason? Does he not also agree that the Government have made every effort to talk to the Argentines but that they have refused to talk and co-operate as everyone would desire? In the light of that, will he now give further consideration to extending the zone to the internationally accepted limit? We might also take in South Georgia on the way, which is being hoovered up by the Russians.

§ Lord Trefgarne
My Lords, I cannot agree that this was other than a conservation measure. The Falklands intermediate conservation zone was established for conservation reasons and for no other. That consideration persuaded us that 150 miles was the right limit. It encompassed the fishing grounds and had no other significance. That is the reason it will be left at that radius for the time being.

§ Lord Boyd-Carpenter
My Lords, is my noble friend saying that, for the purposes of conservation, 150 miles is better than 200 miles? if so, can he explain how that is?

§ Lord Trefgarne
My Lords, the conservation arguments suggested a limit of 150 miles for this zone. It was a conservation zone. It was not established for any other purpose. It was therefore right to set it at the limit which conservation considerations thought right.

§ Lord Craigton
My Lords, is my noble friend aware that, although this is a very satisfactory position, as has been said on both sides of the House, it will not continue unless there is more scientific information about the fisheries in the area? Is he further aware that approaches are already being made to private enterprise interested in the fishing industry to subsidise the provision of more scientific information on why the fish are there and on how to keep them there so that we know what is happening?

§ Lord Trefgarne
My Lords, my noble friend puts his finger on a very important point already touched on by the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton. That is why the Renewable Resources Assessment Group has been asked to do its work. And as I mentioned earlier, some £6 million is being spent annually on that work.

§ Lord Mowbray and Stourton
My Lords, arising from what the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, said, do I understand that South Georgia and Thule are not included in the fisheries protection?

§ Lord Trefgarne
My Lords, South Georgia is certainly not included in this zone. There is a convention on the conservation of Antarctic marine living resources which covers South Georgia waters. We are concerned to hear that, as is the case, not all the conservation measure which that organisation has in mind are being fully met. We intend to raise this when the convention meets again in October.

§ Lord Shackleton
My Lords, I do not wish to press this subject indefinitely although I could go on for hours. However, will the noble Lord accept the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter? We all agree that the measures were introduced for conservation purposes. We doubt whether reducing the area to be considered to 150 miles adds to the conservation.

§ Lord Trefgarne
My Lords, equally I do not think extending the zone to 200 miles would add to conservation. That is why we decided upon the 150-mile limit.