On a point of order, Mr. Murton. This morning we shall be discussing the Fishery Limits Bill, which deals with the 200-mile limit. It appears from this morning's Press that Mr. Gundelach has reached provisional agreement with Iceland. That is bound to affect the debates that we are having and the attitudes that hon. Members will take. I wonder whether it will be possible for the Minister to make a statement on the possible repercussions affecting the fishing industry.

If, in fact, any statement which may be made is relevant to any matter under discussion in any of the amendments, that will be in order, if the Minister so desires.

Further to that point of order, Mr. Murton. I assure the hon. Member for North Fylde (Mr. Clegg) that some hon. Members on the Government side of the House, particularly myself, will be raising this matter and will make sure that during the course of the debate the Minister is asked to make a statement on those lines.

Further to that point of order, Mr. Murton. Are you aware that what we have is an expectation and a hope rather than a firm promise from Iceland, and that the news has originated from the Commissioners and not from the Icelandic Government?

Further to that point of order, Mr. Murton. Are we not counting our red herrings before they have been hatched? The report in the Press is very tentative, and depends on agreement with Iceland. That will not be easy to obtain.

Further to that point of order, Mr. Murton. It might be helpful if I told the House that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food will be dealing with one of the major debates on the 50-mile exclusive zone. I shall draw my right hon. Friend's attention to what has been said.

I beg to move Amendment No. 1, in page 1, line 10, leave out from 'Council' to 'declare' in line 12.

Perhaps on this first amendment a general remark will be permitted. It appears from the Order Paper that no hon. Member present would demur at the fact that the remaining stages of the Bill may also be taken today. It follows that no account will be able to be taken today of Report. Indeed, there will not be a Report stage, since no amendments will be made. Therefore, no account will be able to be taken of any arguments put to the Government during discussion in Committee, even though they may be of substance.

Fortunately, however, we are in the advantage of having a second House. I am not making a political point; I am simply making a technical or procedural point. That means that the Government will have the opportunity of considering points made by hon. Members during this Committee stage. I would take the liberty of asking the Ministers in charge of the Bill whether they will bear that in mind in listening to the arguments which are put and in the formulation of any response which they may think proper to make. This is a case in which we cannot, at any rate, make use of the other place.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the other place will be considering the Bill after the ministerial meeting on 14th December? I think it will be discussed on 17th December. Therefore, the other place will have an added advantage of perhaps being able to take many of our points even further.

The hon. Gentleman strengthens the case that I am putting to the Minister to keep an open mind as far as possible and realise that the Government are not up against the clock in reconsidering points which may be brought out during the course of this Committee stage.

The purpose of the amendment is simple. It is not exactly a probing amendment, but I begin by probing.

As the Bill stands, it makes it possible for the Government to extend the fishery limits for the purpose of implementing either an international agreement or an arbitral award, or otherwise. That would appear to be comprehensive and to cover all possible circumstances. As the House generally is desirous that in no way should the power of the Government to act under this clause be limited, we should like to have a possible anxiety removed.

The anxiety is that, in accordance with what I understand is a rule of interpretation, the words "or otherwise" might be understood to be coloured or limited by the preceding references to an international agreement or arbitral award; so that, if these words remained in the clause, we would not be conferring what we wanted to confer—a power on Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom suo motu, if we thought fit ourselves to extend fishing limits, and that we should be able to do so in default of or in the absence of any international agreement or arbitral award.

I fear that the very fact that these words have been put in will lead to the interpretation that the power is not intended to be an unlimited one and that the words "or otherwise" will be taken to cover something that is neither pre- cisely an international agreement nor precisely an arbitral award, but which nevertheless is of the same kind.

I hope that the Minister will be able to reassure the Committee that the power which is being taken is unlimited and unfettered, and can be used, if necessary, quite unilaterally by the United Kingdom. But, even if that is the assurance which the hon. Gentleman is about to give, I must say to him that his Bill would be a better and clearer one without the words that I propose to leave out.

I take the right hon. Gentleman's first point. We want to make progress on the Bill. I can assure the House that the Government will be as flexible as possible in dealing with the matters raised in the various debates and that, if necessary, we shall decide what further action to take.

The right hon. Gentleman's amendment would have no practical effect, because the words that it seeks to delete do not limit in any way Her Majesty's power to specify a line to which British fishery limits may extend. I think that that was one of the assurances sought by the right hon. Gentleman. The words are important since they give an indication to those in other countries, as well as here, of what the power will be used for.

We are obliged under international law to agree the boundaries of our fishery limits with other countries whose fishery limits adjoin our own. In many cases, the line agreed will be not a strict geographical median line but the result of a negotiation or arbitration, taking account of factors such as the trend of the nearest coastline. It is also a common practice to agree a straightened or "area-compensated" median line rather than to follow every turn in the coastline.

Although the Bill provides for a median line to operate where limits cannot extend to 200 miles and where no other line has been specified, the line may be changed later following agreement with our neighbours.

I emphasise what I said earlier. It is important that the words in question should be retained so that other countries have some idea about our intentions. It may be a presentational matter as much as anything, but it is important, nevertheless.

Leaving the words in the clause will not restrict or inhibit our power. The words "or otherwise" are there, in any case.

Following that explanation, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will ask leave to withdraw his amendment.

I want first to emphasise what the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) said in his opening remarks. I am glad to have the Minister's reassurance. This Bill is urgent, because of the Icelandic situation. However, it goes a great deal further than simply dealing with that situation. We have been left little time for consultations with associations, and so forth, about this Committee stage. I appreciate the reasons, but I hope that the Minister will follow up his promise, consider what is said today and, if necessary, table amendments in another place.

As for the amendment, despite the Minister's argument and although he made out a case for including the words sought to be left out, in my view it is much better drafting to leave them out. I cannot see that they add very much. There may be all sorts of other reasons for altering the limits besides international agreements. We are not specifying all those. I was unimpressed by the Minister's argument for keeping in the words.

It is a principle of drafting that if, at the end of a phrase, the words "or otherwise" are added, the phrase itself may be taken as being limited; that is to say, that the word "otherwise" refers to the preceding words—in this case

"any international agreement or the arbitral award of an international body",

and that, therefore, this might be a limitation.

I am much obliged for the support of the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond).

As for what the Minister said, I am, I hope reverently, reminded of the words

"The Lord giveth, and the Lord taketh away."

First, the Minister said that the words were unnecessary, and imposed no limitation. But he went on to a fairly lengthy exposition of what other countries were expecting of us, and arrangements into which we might enter in consequence of which we might prescribe lines other than the median line. I cannot see how the provision in subsection (3), which permits a line other than the median line to be prescribed, is inhibited if the words which I propose to leave out are not there.

Then the hon. Gentleman said that people in other countries read our statutes with great care. They read them rather like they might read a leading article in The Times, imagining that it is official. The statutes of Parliament are not compiled or drafted for the purpose of conveying information and assurances to other countries. We maintain a Diplomatic Service and other channels to do that. We do not need to put words into a statute to convey reassurances to other countries.

These are the laws by which the subjects within the jurisdiction will be bound. We ought to have regard to that and to that only, and to simplicity and clarity in that context, when we legislate

I am obliged to the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland for his professional endorsement of my proposition that the words "or otherwise" thus written are liable to be taken as restrictive, and there was nothing in the Ministers gloss to indicate that he had the notion that we would not be restricted to limits agreed internationally or imposed by an arbitral award

Therefore, I ask the Minister to have a second bite at this. He said quite firmly that the acceptance of this amendment would in no way limit or alter the effect of the Bill, that it would do no harm, and that it would not change the meaning. This is the first amendment that we are considering. I hope that the Minister will show willing and indicate that he will take into account what the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland and I have said before this Bill is disposed of in another place.

The point made by the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell)—that I have said that the amendment would have no practical effect because the words that it seeks to delete do not in any way limit Her Majesty's power to specify the line, and so on—is a point equally in my favour for saying that the words should be retained. Because words appear in a Bill, it does not necessarily mean that in all cases they should remain there. I have made the point—the Committee generally will appreciate the force of what I have said—that, under international law, we are obliged to agree the boundaries of fisheries limits either by consent or by arbitral award. These are two of the factors which we believe justify subsection (2).

As I understood it, the Minister said that, under international law, we are obliged to extend boundaries only as a result of international agreement. Otherwise I see no point in what he said. I thought that the countries of the European Economic Community were severally extending their boundaries, no doubt in cahoots among themselves but not as a result of international agreement

The right hon. Gentleman interrupted me just as I was coming to the point that he made. The subsection provides that

"Her Majesty may by Order in Council, for the purpose of implementing any international agreement"

—that would be one of the most frequent reasons for the clause coming into effect—

"or the arbitral award of an international body".

We anticipate that these may possibly be the most frequent occasions when this will happen. We also have the safeguard of putting in "or otherwise". The first two categories give substance to the subsection, need for clarity. I thtink that the retention of those words clarifies the clause.

The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) referred to the need for clarity. I think that the retention of those words clarifies the clause.

I hope that, with that explanation, the Committee will see fit to leave the clause as it is. I think that it helps to specify the major situations in which Her Majesty may, by Order in Council, make these orders.

I beg to move Amendment No. 2, in page 1, line 22, leave out

'Subject to section 10(2)(b) below'.

With this we may take the following amendments:

No. 34, in Clause 8, page 6, leave out lines 12 to 14.

No. 35, in page 7, line 1, leave out Clause 10.

This is a paving amendment to a proposal in Amendment No 35 to delete Clause 10 and consequently to delete the interpretation of "enactment" on page 6, line 12, which hangs together with Clause 10, as I understand it.

As I intimated in correspondence with the Secretary of State, these amendments belong in a somewhat wider context. It is the policy of Her Majesty's Government—a policy which was being implemented at an earlier hour this morning in an even more thinly-attended Chamber—that the law in Northern Ireland should, as far as and whenever possible, be identical with the law in the rest of the United Kingdom. That is sometimes inhibited by the fact that over periods in the past the making of the law in Northern Ireland, though mostly broadly in line with the law in the rest of the United Kingdom, has proceeded by way of a different series of statutes. But I understand that it is the Government's policy—it is certainly a policy that is warmly approved by my hon. Friends and myself—that we should avoid any differentiation between the law in Northern Ireland and that in the United Kingdom and that, wherever possible, common statutes should be passed by the House of Commons for the whole of the United Kingdom, or at any rate, statutes which include Northern Ireland.

After that general background I come to the relative minutiae of Clause 10. It is difficult to see what would be the difference in the law as applied to Northern Ireland in the absence of Clause 10.

There is a reference in one of the schedules to a specific Northern Ireland statute, but I should have thought that that reference was self-explanatory and valid in itself without any explanation in the interpretation clause—Clause 8. The best endeavours of my hon. Friends and myself have not enabled us to perceive where the law of Northern Ireland so differs from that in the rest of the United Kingdom that the provisions of Clause 10 are necessary to achieve our common purpose. Therefore, I invite the Minister of State to clarify the position for Northern Ireland Members so that we can consider our attitude on the amendments.

The effect of the amendment would be to delete the definition of "enactment" as including an enactment of the Parliament of Northern Ireland and a measure of the Northern Ireland Assembly. It is standard practice to make express division where references to enactments are to include matters other than the legislation of the United Kingdom. This is the practice relating to Northern Ireland legislation of local origin. I am speaking now to Amendment No. 2. So uniform is the practice that to depart from it would create the impression that Northern Ireland legislation was not intended to be included. I take it that is not what the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) would want. I do not dissent from the general principle that Northern Ireland should not be treated any differently from the rest of the United Kingdom.

The effect of Amendment No. 35 would be to remove Clause 10. I should like to explain the purpose of the clause, which is three fold.

First, it explicity extends the provisions of the Bill to Northern Ireland. That is necessary in order to remove any doubt about that fact.

Secondly, there is an exception to this rule in respect of the repeal of Section 13(1) and certain dependent words in Section 13(3) of the Sea Fisheries Act 1968. Section 13(1) is still needed in Northern Ireland, and the Bill accordingly implements that provision.

The third function of Clause 10 is to preserve the status quo in water in each end of the land boundary separating Northern Ireland from the Irish Republic. The reason is that the present arrangements for access to fisheries in waters adjacent both to Northern Ireland and to the Irish Republic are for the time being satisfactory, although no boundary lines have ever been established separating Northern Ireland's jurisdiction from that of the Irish Republic out to 12 miles. In particular, there is an informal arrangement for each country's vessels to have access to the other's waters.

I hope that I have satisfactorily explained or at least clarified the reason why special provision has been made for Northern Ireland and that the right hon. Member for Down, South will feel able to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Most of us on the Opposition side of the House will have considerable sympathy with the point of principle raised by the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) that we should make every effort to avoid the kind of specific extension clause that we see in Clause 10. If it is necessary—it was not entirely clear from what the Minister said why it is necessary—to retain in force Section 13 of the Sea Fisheries Act 1968 for Northern Ireland, would it not be better to say so and to put it in that form? Equally, if it is necessary to make specific provision for fishery limits in the waters adjacent to both Northern Ireland and the Republic, would it not be better to put it in a straightforward way, so that the necessary Northern Ireland limitations are contained in the Bill? Would not that be preferable to the much more general form, which appears to indicate that it is necessary in some way to extend the provisions of the Bill to Northern Ireland by a specific clause?

It seems to me that if it is necessary to include these practical points affecting Northern Ireland, it would be better to turn the whole thing the other way round than have a specific clause covering Northern Ireland.

I am obliged to the Minister of State for his initial exposé of some of what lies behind Clause 10. However, it is obvious from his exposé that it is quite big stuff and that it covers matters which would not have been suspected by the House from anything we have yet been told about the Bill.

Let me take the Minister of State's points in order. First, I accept, on the question of the definition of "enactment", that it is necessary to avoid any doubt as to whether reference to "enactment" as an Act of the United Kingdom Parliament includes an enactment of the former Parliament of Northern Ireland. However, the reason for proposing to delete that definition here is that the only relevant place where "enactment" occurs, so far as I had understood, was in Clause 10. In a sense, therefore, the second of the three amendments was regarded as consequential upon the third amendment.

If in United Kingdom legislation we shall always have something in the definition clause to explain that by "enactment" we include an enactment of Northern Ireland, or special exceptions wherever we do not, I suggest that we take the opportunity in some convenient piece of legislation to put that on the record, as it were, on the statute book as a standing matter of interpretation, just as very many definitions are covered for good and all by the Interpretation Acts. That is my smallest point.

My second point is that the Minister of State said that it was necessary to make it explicitly clear that the Bill applied to Northern Ireland. I have no objection to a clause at the end of the Bill setting out application and extent and saying that it applies to Northern Ireland. However, it is difficult from reading Clause 1(1) to imagine that this Bill will not apply to Northern Ireland. The Bill says that subject to following provisions, British fishery limits shall extend to the specified distance

"from the baselines from which the breadth of the territorial sea adjacent to the United Kingdom, the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man is measured."

If that does not apply to Northern Ireland as it applies to the rest of the coastline of the United Kingdom, I do not know what does. It is rather shaking for us to be told that references to the United Kingdom will not mean the United Kingdom, or that references to the coast of the United Kingdom will not include the whole of that coast unless specific and ad hoc provision is made to secure that result.

I come, then, to Clause 10(1). The Minister said that we have to include an exception from the extension to Northern Ireland of a repeal of an Act which does not extend to Northern Ireland. I simply do not believe that the effect of Section 13 of the Sea Fisheries Act on the Bill as it stands would be in any way prejudiced by anyone mistakenly thinking that it could apply to Northern Ireland. What the possible point could be of the mumbo-jumbo of saying that a section which covers Great Britain does not apply to Northern Ireland is beyond me to imagine. This seems to me to be one of those draftsmen's cat's cradles which, however, can have significant political side effects.

That brings me to the fourth and major point. The Minister of State lifted quite a significant corner of a curtain here. He said that the Government want to preserve the present position on fishery limits off that part of the United Kingdom which is Northern Ireland because, he said, the status quo there depended upon informal arrangements which the Government want to continue.

I very much doubt whether any hon. Member who studied the Bill or who attended the Second Reading debate was aware that part of the definition of British fishery limits as a result of this Bill was not going to be what appeared in the Bill but the continuance of a status quo based upon informal arrangements. These informal arrangements, which I confess I had not realised were quite so informal as they are, are arrangements whereby the Irish Republic gives special facilities in its waters not to British fishing vessels, not to fishing vessels of the United Kingdom as such, but to fishing vessels registered in Northern Ireland.

In fact, the status quo and the informal arrangements are part of the continuing determined political campaign by the Irish Republic to assert that Northern Ireland is juridically part of the Irish Republic, as is claimed in the constitution of the Irish Republic. So, when the Minister of State lightly talks about maintaining the status quo which is based on informal agreement, he means retaining a status quo which informally concedes the claim by the Irish Republic that there are two classes of citizens of the United Kingdom, those who are connected with Northern Ireland and those who are not, and which secures different fishing rights to those two different classes.

This is part of the continuing proposition advanced by the Irish Republic that the whole of the island of Ireland should be, and juridically is, part of the Irish Republic—a claim which I believe is repudiated not only by hon. Friends and myself. But if this is a status quo which is based upon informal arrangements, do we understand from it that any extensions of fishery limits which will be made by order under the Bill will not apply where those informal arrangements are to be undisturbed?

Does this mean that all the provisions about licensing, and the rest, are not to apply to the waters around Northern Ireland in which the status quo, based upon informal arrangements, is to continue? Are the licensing and conservation arrangements and the provision of certain limits for certain purposes to apply to the waters around Northern Ireland as they apply to the waters around the rest of the United Kingdom?

The Minister of State has certainly shown that Clause 10 needs debating, and not simply as a private matter of local interest to Northern Ireland and Northern Ireland Members. It affects the rights of fishermen whose boats are registered in other parts of the United Kingdom. It is an integral part of the British fishery limits policy.

Therefore, the Minister of State, having opened up, as it were, part of the debate, ought not to leave the matter as it is but ought to explain exactly, first of all, what is the present position on the waters around Northern Ireland; secondly, how, if at all, that will be altered under the Bill by orders made under the Bill; and, thirdly, if it is to be altered differently from the alteration that will take place elsewhere, what is the justification for that.

Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell), I was not aware that the neighbourhood agreements that exist between Northern Ireland and the Republic were as totally informal as they seem to be. It appears to me that the agreements that have been reached have no statutory ground whatsoever. If that is so, the Minister has a clear duty, as my right hon. Friend said, to explain precisely what the position is, especially as in my constituency in the Foyle area we have the salmon fishery problem. This area is controlled by a cross-border body. This appears to be muddying the coastal waters even further than is normally the case across international boundaries.

If these boundaries have never been agreed, it appears that across the international boundary, on both sides, there is now a grey area where no one fishing in the territorial seas is very clear as to whose piece of water he is on at a given moment. While this could very well have been veiled over when the limits were three, six or 12 miles, it is quite impossible for this hazy area to continue in an ever-expanding angle out to 200 miles.

It is not only Northern Ireland that will now be affected. Scotland and England will be affected by the agreements reached between Northern Ireland and the Republic, which are now to be called in question because of the new limits for the United Kingdom as a whole.

There is another point, on which my right hon. Friend did not touch today although he mentioned it on Second Reading. That is the fact that the Bill talks not only about fishery limits but about economic boundaries and economic limits. With all the present hullabaloo about oil exploration and the possibilities of other minerals being brought out from underneath the sea bed, perhaps the Minister would be good enough to let us know precisely when the economic limit is to be decided between Northern Ireland and the Republic.

I appreciate the strength of feeling of the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) and his hon. Friend the Member for Londonderry (Mr. Ross) on this matter. I have said that the third function of Clause 10 is to preserve the status quo in waters at each end of the land boundary separating Northern Ireland from the Republic. The reason is that the present arrangements for access to fisheries, and so on, are for the moment satisfactory. We could put a lot more into the Bill or take a lot out of it. However, there are situations in which, as far as possible, one would seek to maintain the status quo and, at the same time, seek powers from the House to make changes.

As I see it, the position is that the purpose of Clause 10, which is thought by some to be unnecessary, is to extend the provisions of the Bill to Northern Ireland, apart from the repeals of Section 13 of the 1968 Act, and to avoid committing the United Kingdom to drawing a median line with the Irish Republic at either end of the land boundary, where it meets Lough Foyle on the north coast of Ireland and Carlingford Lough on the west coast.

Section 13 has been superseded in England and Wales by the Powers of Criminal Courts Act 1973 but that Act does not extend to Northern Ireland. Therefore, Section 13 (1) is still needed there, although we are repealing it for England and Wales.

11.45 a.m.

As I have said, the first amendment is a matter of standard practice, and I still suggest that Clause 10 should be retained.

In general, the Bill is to give us powers. Obviously we cannot change every situation immediately, especially without discussion, perhaps, in some areas. The Bill maintains the status quo but gives powers to take action in the future. Clause 10(3) gives power to vary the boundary line should it be desirable to specify, and we are taking that power. That is what it is all about.

Therefore, with that assurance I hope that the right hon. Member will ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

I am obliged to the Minister of State for his second attempt. My colleague and I will certainly study the contents of his two answers, which he was good enough to recognise are obviously of great significance and importance to us.

I appreciate that Clause 10, like other parts of the Bill, apparently, as we have learned this morning, both gives and takes, in the sense that, if I have it right, Clause 10(2) preserve a situation but Clause 10(3) enables that situation to be altered. It is a curious way of doing it, since in Clause 1 we start by defining British fishery limits, but we say that from those limits the waters specified in Clause 10 are an exception. Then in Clause 10 we give power to treat those specified waters as if they were not so specified in Clause 10.

I can see that the Minister of State is entitled to claim that in Clause 10 we are dealing with interim or transitional provisions. It has been useful to have that clearly established, because it certainly did not appear to the layman upon the face of the clause. However, we are still in some difficulty in understanding two points that have arisen.

The first point is the difficulty about the median line. Why is there any diffi- culty that arises over a median line at either end of the junction of the coast of Northern Ireland with the coast of the Republic? One would have thought—there may be reasons to the contrary—that there was every advantage in that being defined and agreed, and that there were obvious dangers and disadvantages in such a median line being a matter of informal understanding, which justified the Minister of State in saying that apart from such an understanding there are no boundary limits in those waters. That, surely, is an unsatisfactory position, especially in the new era into which in these matters we are moving.

Secondly, it would seem undesirable that there should be any variation or difference in the sort of powers that the Government will exercise over territorial waters—British fishery waters—in any part of the fishery waters surrounding the United Kingdom. When I say that, there is in my mind no desire that any such licensing should diminish any traditional rights which the citizens of the Irish Republic have been enjoying to fish in British waters, provided, of course, that a reasonable arrangement continues. However, surely it is desirable that as soon as possible we should bring about a situation in which licensing, orders and prohibitions under Clause 3 apply equally to all boats registered in the United Kingdom and to all the fishery waters of the United Kingdom.

I hope that the Minister of State will accept that this debate on Clause 10 is really the beginning of a process. It is the beginning of a process in which hon. Members will have a duty to interest themselves—I am glad to see signs of assent from the Treasury Bench—and of which the end result will be that the fishery waters of the United Kingdom will be properly defined by statute in all cases and that the powers as to prohibition and licensing will apply equally and in the same way in all parts of those waters. I am taking into account the fact that different areas will be designated differently but that as a matter of statute law these provisions will apply in the same way to all boats and fishing originating from the United Kingdom.

If the Minister of State can confirm—as he has already indicated silently—that this is what the Government envisage, I think the past half hour or so of debate will not have been wasted.

I appreciate the points made by the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell): I hope that he will accept that we cannot at this stage of the Bill, and in the short time that we have, make a lot of changes, but the Bill leaves it open to us to make changes in future. We will note what the right hon. Gentleman has said.

In view of the assurances that have been given, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

I beg to move Amendment No. 3, in page 1, line 25, at end add—

'(6) No Order in Council shall be made under subsection (2) unless a draft thereof has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament'.

With this we may take the following amendments:

I have moved the amendment on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Page), who regrets that he cannot be in the House today because of a long-standing engagement. My right hon. Friend is Chairman of the formidable body known as the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments, and he gives great care and attention to every measure that comes before the House to see that the legislation that Parliament is passing permits Parliament to have a say in the secondary legislation that flows from each measure.

As hon. Members will see, the effect of this series of amendments is that in Clauses 1, 2 and 3 the House is offered a choice between the affirmative procedure and the negative procedure. Clauses 1, 2 and 3 permit the Minister to make orders without reference to Parliament and without parliamentary check. I note that Amendment No. 16, in the name of the Minister, does at least allow Parliament the negative procedure in respect of orders made under Clause 2. I cannot see why, if the Government have gone that far, they should not agree to extend it to Clauses 1 and 3, which are important. There can be no doubt that the question of limits has aroused great controversy in the House whenever the House has been able to consider it. The regulations in Clause 3 dealing with sea fishing are matters of the utmost concern to every hon. Member who has a fishing port in his constituency.

I do not intend to labour the point, because it is an old battle which Back Bench Members fight time and time again to enable us to control the delegated legislation which flows from Acts. I think the Government should go much further than they have done and apply the negative procedure—which at least give us an opportunity for discussion—to Clauses 1 and 3 as well as to Clause 2.

I support the case put forward by the hon. Member for North Fylde (Mr. Clegg). We appreciate that the Government have partly seen the force of the contentions expressed in amendments which appear on the Amendment Paper, but the hon. Member for North Fylde is right in saying that there may be, and often will be, matters in orders made under other clauses—particularly under the very important Clause 3 —which could call—and I emphasise "could"—for parliamentary scrutiny and debate.

Orders made under Clause 3 could directly and totally affect the livelihood of fishermen. While I am not suggesting that the Government would intend to do so, the orders could act in an arbitrary and unreasonable manner. In such cases the House should retain the ultimate power of control. This is a power which it is much easier for Governments to concede nowadays than it used to be 20 years ago, when this sort of amendment was a regular feature of Committee stage debates. What happens now—and we all understand this—is that in all but the rarest cases, when an order is prayable, we go through the procedure that results in a non-dividable debate taking place in Committee upstairs so that the Government can expose the reasoning behind orders or Statutory Instruments.

I do not pretend that I think that state of affairs is satisfactory. The House still has to improve on what is really a shabby procedure, as it has come to be over the past 20 years, but it helps our argument today in that, if the Minister of State concedes—as I hope he will—that there is a case for the negative procedure applying not only with Clause 1 but also with Clause 3, he will not be in trouble with his Whips' Office and the Leader of the House for having landed them with immense stretches of parliamentary time, because all that this will mean is that on some occasions when it is highly desirable to secure the compliance and understanding of people in the fishing industry there will be an opportunity for the reasons and the background to be explored and expounded. I hope that the Minister of State will show himself to be flexible beyond the point which his amendment indicates.

I support what has been said by the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) and the hon. Member for North Fylde (Mr. Clegg). It seems that in any type of legislation where powers are given for regulations to be made we should, as a general principle, have those regulations debated before the House or in Committee upstairs and that only on special occasions should it be possible for orders to be made without a proper explanation for people to understand what is being done and for the Government to justify their action.

I welcome what the Minister has done, but Ministers should as a general principle look with more care at the types of procedure used when dealing with Statutory Instruments. It should be the exception rather than the rule that regulations do not come before the House or a Committee upstairs. I urge my hon. Friend—I thank him for the indication he has given—to consider whether further progress can be made on this issue when considering the Bill in another place.

I, too, urge the Government to look again at the concessions which they are prepared to make in this area. As the Minister of State said, this is a Bill which gives powers. We all accept that the powers required by the Government are very substantial because of the negotiations in which they are involved and because of the practical needs of the situation, but we should not let our support for that basic principle of the Bill blind us to the fact that these powers are substantial.

We are dealing with an almost revolutionary change in this sector of our national life. There will be quite rapid changes in directions which cannot easily be foreseen. It must therefore be right for Parliament to keep under its supervision and control the exercise of those powers.

12 noon

The Minister indicated by the amendment he tabled that he accepted that argument for Clause 2. The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell), following my hon. Friend the Member for North Fylde (Mr. Clegg), argued cogently that the same importance attached to orders which might be made under Clause 3.

Under Clause 1(2), which is also covered by the amendments tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Page),

"Her Majesty may, by Order in Council … declare that British fishery limits extend to such other line as may be specified in the Order."

That is a very large decision to be made simply by order without provision for parliamentary control. It involves the alteration of the whole basis of the Bill from 200 miles to another figure. There is a very strong case for accepting one or other of the suggestions made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Crosby in respect of Clause 1.

I ask the Minister to look again to see whether he can be more forthcoming about the provision for parliamentary control.

I take the spirit of the Committee on this matter. As the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) said, we are dealing with matters which will be subject to change, on which the House of Commons will naturally wish to put a point of view.

I should like to comment briefly on some of the amendments, for the convenience of the Committee. The effect of Amendment No. 3 would be to make Orders in Council under Clause 1(2) subject to the affirmative procedure, and the effect of Amendment No. 4—which,I take it, is an alternative—would be to make them subject to the negative procedure

While I am generally in agreement that the House of Commons should have the opportunity of discussing orders regulating sea fishing, whether within our own fishery limits or in respect of British vessels wherever they may be, I do not think that Orders in Council made under Clause 1(2) fall into quite the same category.

The power to specify British fishery limits by Order in Council has been provided because there are few areas where it is geographically possible for us to extend right out to 200 miles. Elsewhere we are obliged under international law to agree our boundaries with other countries whose fishery limits adjoin our own. In some cases, for example, the line agreed will not be a strict geographical median line but will be possibly a straightened line compensated so that the areas of sea on each side of it remain the same.

I accept that that is the purpose of putting this provision for variation in Clause 1, but the power which the Government are taking is far wider than that. They could use it to change the 200-mile basis to something quite different.

I accept that, but the House of Commons will have the opportunity of considering the general policy in relation to these matters.

Government Amendment No. 16 recognises the feeling expressed by the Committee in some of these amendments. Amendment No. 16 adds another subsection to Clause 2 with the result that orders made under the clause will be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament. The orders in question are made under subsections (1) and (4) of Clause 2. Amendment No. 16 carries out the intention of right hon. and hon. Members in putting forward Amendments Nos. 6, 11 and 32. I believe that this is a neater way of achieving that result. It was because of our wish to accept the spirit of Amendments Nos. 6, 11 and 32 that Amendment No. 16 was tabled.

I recognise that this is a change from the present procedure. I pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) for all the work he does. I understand the feeling that in this instance, instead of the Government merely laying orders, matters should be available for debate. We therefore suggest that the negative resolution procedure should apply.

I am sure that the Committee will be obliged to the Minister for the concessions he has made. I strongly support what was said by the hon. Member for North Fylde (Mr. Clegg).

I wish to refer to the procedure under Clause 3. I shall come to argue the pros and cons of licensing in due course, but the licensing system could make or break the fishing limits policy. It could totally depopulate islands in my constituency in certain circumstances. It is, therefore, vital that the House of Commons should have some control over orders made under Clause 3.

I understand that the Minister is prepared to give that control, but what he says applies not only to Amendment No. 16, but to Clauses 1, 2 and 3, and I understand that he will make the negative procedure apply also to those clauses. I find that extremely unsatisfactory, but at least it is something. I am not quite clear what the Minister has given. I am not certain that that was what he said. It is vital for certain communities, before their livelihood is put in jeopardy, that there should be an opportunity to raise the matter in the House of Commons.

We should be absolutely clear about what the Minister of State said. I understood him to be standing by his Amendment No. 16, in which case the negative procedure will be conceded for orders made under Clause 2, but there will be no negative or affirmative procedure for any other orders made under the Bill. The Minister accidentally suggested that his amendment would satisfy the object of the other amendments, but as it stands it does not do that.

If the Minister is saying that he will go further at another stage and accept the effect either of the amendments in the name of the right hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) or of the much neater amendment that bears the number 32, no doubt the Committee would be satisfied, but he will not be able to satisfy the Committee by leaving matters as they stand with his Amendment No. 16.

Certain words fell from the hon. Gentleman that should not fall from a Minister. He said that the House would be able to debate the general policy. "General policy" is no help for the islands represented by the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond). One cannot simply say that the House of Commons can debate the general policy but cannot consider its translation into specific law, whether by way of statute or by orders made under a statute. The whole purpose of the possibility of Prayers against an order or of the affirmative resolution procedure is that it enables the House of Commons to be the judge of the way in which an agreed policy is being applied specifically. I hope that the Minister of State will not use again his argument that we can dispense with the affirmative or negative procedure provided that we have been allowed an opportunity of considering the general policy behind what the Government intend to do.

I support the view expressed by the right hon. Members for Down, South (Mr. Powell) and for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond). Licensing and quotas are fundamental matters for fishing communities, even more so now that they are partially controlled by the EEC. It is essential for Members of Parliament representing fishing constituencies to have the right to put before the House of Commons or the Committee their views on matters which affect the livelihood of their constituents.

The Committee is not quite clear about what the Minister said. The expression of view on both sides of the Committee was that Clause 3 should be included under the affirmative or negative procedure. Is that correct?

I understand the Minister's position to be that he sticks by his Amendment No. 16 and does not propose to go any further. That is a deplorable decision.

We have already discussed the effect of the words "or otherwise" in Clause 1(2). It has been argued by the Minister that those words give the Government very broad powers. The House of Commons should have some say, because it is at present vitally concerned with fishing limits and will be so concerned in future.

When we get down to the nitty-gritty of, Clause 3, it can be seen by looking at it in what way the livelihood of fishermen can be affected. For example, the new Section 4(4) states:

"An order under this section, if made with the consent of the Treasury given for the purposes of this subsection, may authorise the making of a charge for a licence under this section."

That will impose what is virtually a tax on fishermen which the House of Commons would be unable to discuss as a specific matter.

The new Section 4(2) of the 1967 Act states:

"(2) Such an order may provide for exceptions from the general prohibition and may apply to fishing generally in the specified area or to fishing for sea fish of a specified description, by a specified method or during a specified season of the year or other specified period."

All of us who have anything to do with fishing know how fierce the arguments can be about fishing methods—for instance, about the purse seine nets used off the South-West Coast. All these matters are the nitty-gritty, the practical things which will have an effect on fishermen. I cannot see why the Government

are being stubborn. If they cannot do anything about it today, I beg them to take the matter away and at a later stage give Parliament the power it requires. We see too much of Executive control and we are giving the Executive under the Bill, as unamended, vast powers over the lives of part of our community. It is time that Parliament stopped doing this and made the Executive accountable to Parliament.

Perhaps the Committee was not quite as sensitive to what I hoped I had said as I would have wished. By tabling Amendment No. 16 the Government have admitted the importance of changing the procedure whereby the House of Commons has an opportunity of debate.

My general comment on debating policy generally was in reply to the comment of one hon. Member that the House of Commons would not have an opportunity to debate policy. There will be occasions when policy debates will and must take place following the vital changes that will come about in the next few months.

When I was propounding Amendment No. 16 I was dealing with Amendments Nos. 6, 11 and 32, which ask for a change in procedure. Amendment No. 16 was intended to tidy up what was intended by those amendments. Amendments Nos. 19 and 20 to Clause 3 seek to make orders under Clause 3 subject to, on the one hand, the affirmative resolution procedure and, on the other hand the negative resolution procedure There are other technical aspects concerning other amendments.

I hope that the Committee will accept Amendment No. 16 in my name. It meets the spirit of the three amendments I have referred to. I accept the spirit of the feeling of the Committee on this matter and recognise the strength of that feeling. I am prepared to consider all the other amendments before later stages of the Bill.

I thank the Minister for what he has said, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

I beg to move Amendment No. 7, in page 2, line 5, at end insert:

'Provided that no such order may be made in respect of any area within 50 miles of the baselines from which fishery limits are measured for the purposes of subsection (1) of section 1 of this Act'.

With this amendment we are taking the following amendments:

In moving this amendment to refuse licences within 50 miles to boats of any country other than the United Kingdom, I am urging the Government to make use of their powers to save the entire near-water fishing industry from extinction.

Despite continual warning from scientists and fishermen that the fish stocks round our shores are at a dangerously low level, the North-East Atlantic Fisheries Convention has continued for various political reasons to allocate quotas which are far too large. The total of these quotas, plus the fact that the quotas are often exceeded, has meant that the total fish caught in the North-East Atlantic in recent years has far exceeded the safety level and many species are now in grave danger.

Everyone who is connected in any way with the fishing industry agrees that quotas have not worked and have failed to guard our fish stocks, yet the EEC Commission goes blindly on advocating quotas. To save ourselves from the madness of the Commission, we must create a 50-mile band round our shores now. If we are to leave any fish for succeeding generations of fishermen, action must be taken within the next few days.

The fishermen of Scotland are absolutely appalled at the lack of action

by the Government up till now. All of them know that, come 1st January, boats of many nations which have been pushed out of other waters will come crowding into the British 200-mile zone.

There is not now sufficient time left—I believe that we have only some 12 negotiating days left—to negotiate with those countries, and they will fish full-out in our waters until they are stopped. The EEC Commission is in no position to license the boats of the EEC countries by the end of this year. It is worth bearing in mind that the EEC had no common fisheries policy until it cobbled one up prior to Britain's accession, and very little work has been done on the common fisheries policy since Britain acceded to the treaty. It is important that we show our partners in the Commission that we in Britain mean business on this matter.

If the fishing industry had not been such a Cinderella in the House of Commons, the Government of the day who took us into the Common Market and the right hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath), the right hon. and learned Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon) and the hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) would not have been allowed to trade away the fishing industry without making adequate provisions for an exclusive band for our own boats.

Oh, yes, they would.

It really is not surprising that, at the first possible opportunity after that event, the fishing communities of Scotland got rid of their old Members of Parliament and have tried a new breed called the Scottish National Party. It is interesting to note that there is not one amendment on the Amendment Paper today emanating from the official Opposition and designed to create a 50-mile band. This will not go unnoticed in the few remaining fishing constituencies which still return Conservative Members of Parliament.

The Minister had better recognise that the fishing industry has never before been so united as it is now in its determination to get a 50-mile band. It does not grudge our EEC partners reasonable licensing, and I would say that British fishermen are even generous in that they are prepared to let our EEC partners have a fair degree of licensing in the outer 150-mile band, but they are determined that none shall go to anyone other than our own people in the inner 50 miles.

Our fishermen are not selfish men. They are realistic men who know that, if any foreign fishing fleet is allowed into the 50-mile band, any hope of conservation goes out of the door. Only our fleet has made any real attempt at keeping the NEAFC quotas, and it can give instance after instance of foreign vessels exceeding their quotas and of illegal fishing.

If our men have no faith in our fishery protection service adequately to police the activities of foreign boats within what has been the 12-mile band, it is small wonder that they now demand that no foreigners should be allowed to come inside a 50-mile band.

Fishermen in my constituency are in touch with me every weekend in life and are asking me to pass on to the Minister their absolute determination to retreat no further. They give a clear warning that, unless they get 50 miles now, they will not co-operate further with the Government. They will recognise no quotas and they will recognise no bans until the Government come to their senses.

Our men seek only the well-being of the industry and the opportunity to play a full part in helping the economy of the country to recover. It is high time that the Government realised that Scotland can no longer be bought and sold for English gold, nor can our fishing industry now be bought by green pounds from Brussels. Fifty miles is the lowest price that our fishermen will accept. I therefore—

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. In talking about English gold, does he appreciate that the expenditure per capita in Scotland is £200 a head more than in England? It seems to me that the English gold is going north of the border very rapidly.

The hon. Gentleman is anticipating the devolution debate.

If what the hon. Member for North Fylde (Mr. Clegg) says is correct, he is making a very strong argument for allowing Scotland to go its own way. It is something that very many Scotsmen will be pleased to hear.

I urge the Government to spell out clearly their intention and to create an exclusive band of 50 miles. I ask the Committee to accept the amendment.

During the Second Reading debate the Secretary of State referred to the clause and said something about the principles on which he might designate countries, allowing them to fish in certain areas. I am not entirely clear as to the difference between Clause 2(1) and Clause 2(6), because Clause 2(6) would also seem to empower the Secretary of State to allow fishing boats from countries other than the United Kingdom to fish in certain waters. It may be that many of my remarks should and will be addressed at a later stage to subsection (6), but the point I wish to make at the moment is that there are, of course, very ancient historical rights concerning fishing in different parts of the North Sea.

The fishing of the waters round Shetland has undergone very many changes. It used to be chiefly fished by the Dutch, who taught the Shetlanders to fish. The Shetlanders in turn taught the Faroese. The Swedes had a church on Unst because they settled there in order to carry on the ling fishing. Now there are enormous new fleets from the countries of Eastern Europe and from Norway, which have been fishing for some time in different parts of the North Sea.

I hope that at some stage in our deliberations today the Secretary of State will spell out further what he began to say on Second Reading, so that we may know what he has in mind about those countries which may be given special advantages.

Before I start my speech, I think that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State wishes to say something to the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond).

I should like first to make a correction which has nothing to do with the Bill. I am not the Secretary of State. I did not want the title. I thought that perhaps my office might be distinguished a little more if I were to retain the title of Minister.

I intervene at this stage because what the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) has said is relevant to Amendment No. 15 in the names of my hon. Friends. I think it arises out of a rather mistaken view of what is intended and what the history is. Perhaps it is better to get that out of the way and then to deal with the main point of substance made by the hon. Member for Banff (Mr. Watt).

Subsection (6) is merely a repeat of Section 6(6) of the Sea Fisheries Act 1968. Its purpose is to allow scientific vessels to do research, as they do in all the waters of the world. They can be of great benefit to us, incidentally, because they can trace the movement of fish, the quantity of fish and so on. Unless we had the subsection in the Bill, the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea would be unable to continue what is extremely valuable work.

I think the Committee will accept that there is considerable value in having an impartial international body to advise on conservation measures. That is the only reason why it is included, and it has no bearing or validity on the question of historic rights.

I am sure that we are indebted to my right hon. Friend for the points he has made in explanation. I now turn to the amendment moved by the hon. Member for Banff (Mr. Watt), which is in almost identical terms to the amendment in the names of my hon. Friends and myself.

We are most grateful that my right hon. Friend has taken this opportunity, during the Committee stage of the Bill, to reply on this most important amendment. I think it is true to say that, although we have had references to and mutterings and questions about the 50-mile limit over the past six to nine months, this is the first occasion on which we have been able to have a debate upon the particular issue in clear and succinct terms, without its being overshadowed by or taken as part and parcel with some other subject. We are able on this occasion to discuss the 50-mile limit and its implications. It is of tremendous importance to the industry and to the House, and we are glad that my right hon. Friend recognises its significance.

The real concern in relation to this matter of the 50-mile limit arose when my right hon. Friend the then Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, who is now Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection, made a statement to the Council of Ministers in which he said that there were to be two major elements in any successful fisheries policy—a satisfactory coastal regime and a workable quota system. Having laid down these two principles, with which no one would disagree, he went on to explain the policy to be followed by Her Majesty's Government, which seemed to fail in any way to meet those two principles.

It seemed to those of us concerned in the industry that the proposals being made by the Foreign Office at that time looked very nice on paper and might give a reasonable amount of scope for negotiating and bargaining, but that when it came to the nitty-gritty and the practical effect of those policies they would be bound to fail. We felt that in their failure they would lead to a rundown in the British fishing industry which would affect not only the inshore fleets but also the middle-distance fleets and the distant-water fleets, which are themselves at the present moment undergoing a tremendous transformation as a result of actions taken by third party countries not governed by the EEC.

In looking at this matter of the 50-mile limit, therefore, we were looking not merely at isolated fishing communities but at an enormous industry throughout the country. It is concerned not merely with the people who put the nets over the sides of the ships but with the people who build the ships, with the people who supply the ancillary industries and with a most important part of our food industry. Indeed, the frozen fish industry is but the core, the centre, of an enormous frozen food industry dealing with vegetables, fruits and so on, which can exist in many areas only because we have the continuous processing of fish, using the enormous plant and facilities which are available.

It is important, therefore, that people should be able to see that when we are talking about a 50-mile limit we are not merely talking about something which is narrow, selfish and confined to just one small section of the community which may or may not have a loud-mouthed lobby in the House of Commons. We are looking, in fact, at the whole question of the supply of food in the United Kingdom, and many other jobs and much other employment are involved. They will all be at risk when, on 14th December, the negotiations take place in Brussels. It is against that background that we must examine what my right hon. Friend said to the Council of Ministers in Brussels. We want a clear indication of the present position.

12.30 p.m.

What is being said is further underlined by yesterday's statement about the Icelandic negotiations. The Commission seems to promise something, to give a nod or a wink, saying yesterday that we shall have 12 vessels fishing in Icelandic waters and lifting our hopes, when we know that that matter must go through the Icelandic Parliament, its Foreign Affairs Committee and the Icelandic Government. That is the position, whatever the negotiating skills of Mr. Gundelach and no matter how much we are assured he has a grasp of our problem. If he has not grasped it by now he must be thick, because people have been putting it to him for a long time. But it is a question of finding the solution as well as grasping the problem. We were glad to learn earlier that my right hon. Friend may refer to the Icelandic matter when answering this debate. We should like some more concrete information.

My right hon. Friend the then Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs began at Brussels by saying:

"The British fishing industries ask for a 100 mile limit. We have told them that a belt of that size is unobtainable and I do not even ask for it today for this is not a propaganda exercise."

That is a good way to start negotiations—throwing away one's ace. He then said:

"the 12 mile exclusive zone which the Commission proposes will not meet our needs. We have been looking at the key areas for us beyond 12 miles and have found many of them are within 35 miles and all within 50 miles. Even in this band not all areas are equally important."

My right hon. Friend next argued that we wanted a variable belt system. My constituents, fishermen throughout the country and the industry as a whole cannot understand the variable belt argument. If some areas between 12 and 35 miles are not worth having—and that was the basis of my right hon. Friend's argument in Brussels, that we might have 12 to 35 miles in certain places and 12 to 50 miles in others—they ask why we should not claim them anyway. The EEC will not want them, and therefore we can have an area which is clearly definable and easy to police. That would remove many of the problems arising from our present position. We are trying to look at what my right hon. Friend then said in as logical a manner as possible. We think that he was wrong to say that he would not accept a 100-mile negotiating position. To throw that away at the start was to throw away his strongest card.

What are the arguments for a 50-mile limit? Apart from the apparent lack of logic in my right hon. Friend's statement, there are four main reasons—policing, conservation, compensation and preservation. It is easier and more understandable to have 50 miles from a base line rather than a dog's-tooth arrangement around our coast. Even if we have quotas, licensing or a combination of both, which is probably the best method, there would be such a multitude of ships within the 50-mile limit that it would become very difficult to police. Therefore, it is far better to have a straightforward 50-mile limit.

Everyone, including the Government and the official Opposition, agrees that it is impossible to find all the countries in the world, or even within the North-East Atlantic, agreeing on a proper way to enforce the terms of quota agreements. We say that, if the resources, the spawning grounds and the conservation areas are within 50 miles, that area must be controlled, policed and organised by the coastal State which, under the Commission's proposals, will have the responsibility for policing it. If a country is to have responsibility for policing, if it is to enforce the law, it should at least control the law and the operation that is taking place. Therefore, for conservation reasons it is vital that we control the 50-mile limit.

I come next to the question of compensation. Over the past two years the deep-sea fleet has suffered a tremendous number of blows. Whatever temporary agreement we may reach with Iceland, Norway, Russia or Greenland, the shape of our fishing fleet will alter. The size of vessels, the area they fish, the methods of fishing and the number of men employed will change. This is a structural alteration in the British fishing industry. If we are to have any regard for social and economic policy within the Community, there must be proper compensation for the men employed and the firms involved. They will be presented with many problems in readjusting themselves. Their ability to do so, and the ability of those concerned on land to meet the new challenges, will be improved by our having a 50-mile exclusive limit and not variable bands, which may change from time to time.

Preservation is tied up with the matter of conservation. I want to preserve a great tradition, important jobs and important communities in our islands. The depopulation that has gone on in the rural areas—not only in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland—has happened because of lost job opportunities. The fishing for the inshore fleets and middle-water fleets in some of the more isolated areas has represented an important source of income, sometimes supplemented by farming. It has kept many isolated communities going. The ability to earn a living in the more remote parts is important in general social terms, apart from anything else.

It is also important to preserve jobs for fishermen in many of the small fishing ports in more urban areas—seaside resorts and so on—where we must maintain the mixture in the economic base. In large and great ports such as Hull, Grimsby and Fleetwood, the fishing industry makes a most important contribution to the whole economy of the region, being responsible for tens of thousands of jobs.

That is the basis of our argument for the 50-mile limit. It is why we feel that the statements made in the past have been a cause of considerable concern in many of the fishing areas—though not of panic, because fishermen do not panic. This is why we believe that the Government should be pressing urgently for a 50-mile limit exclusive to British fishermen. If Amendment No. 15 will not suffice, I hope that my right hon. Friend will find the correct wording to ensure that British boats rather than those of any other country are in those waters.

I am pleased to be called to speak following the remarks of the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, Central (Mr. McNamara). His comments about the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) were entirely in order and, if anything, were slightly understated. The right hon. Gentleman caused dismay in the fishing community when he was responsible for these negotiations. I must also include in those comments the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland—the hon. Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Brown)—who has braved the wrath of the House to come here today. He was quoted some months ago as believing that the industry had not a hope in hell of obtaining a 50-mile limit. I am willing to give way to him if he wishes to amend that statement I do not know whether he still stands by it.

Not only am I willing to stand by that statement, with the qualification that I made at the time; I must tell the hon. Gentleman that the hon. Member for Banff (Mr. Watt) was present when I said it, and he will confirm that it was part of an excellent speech.

The Minister condemns himself out of his own mouth. I thought that if the Minister had not said that, this would be an ideal opportunity for him to tell the House that that was the case. I admire his bravery, if not his wisdom.

The crux of this Bill is the issue of a 50-mile limit, which is the reason for the intense concern in all parts of the House on this issue. Whether the fishing industry lives or dies relates to the question whether we can keep our control over at least 50 miles of our waters. This limit is wanted for very good reasons, primarily for conservation purposes. Scottish fishermen have a good record of conserving their own fish stocks. We have seen fishermen from other countries coming into our waters, using industrial fishing methods and destroying many of the stocks, just as they destroy the stocks in their own grounds.

There are three possibilities open to us if we wish to practise conservation. One is to have exclusive control of limits and to determine the way in which the fishing effort is maintained within those limits. The second is the application of quotas. to which I shall come a little later. The third is a combination of the two.

Fishermen in North-East Scotland have no confidence in the international quota arrangements, nor have they any faith in the way in which they have operated in the past. Most of the fish caught by them is for human consumption only, and must be checked, weighed and measured when landed. Our fishermen know that many of the other countries that fish for industrial purposes and pulp their catch will find it easy to escape any form of check or control, in terms of quantity. If the Minister wishes to have a quota régime the alternative of a 50-mile limit will be totally unacceptable to the fishermen of Scotland, and probably to fishermen in other parts of the United Kingdom.

Fishermen laugh cynically at the way in which other countries deal with quotas. From 1st January we shall probably face a shambles. The British Fishing Federation has already said that, thanks to the EEC, we are in a mess. Its spokesman said:

" If there is no internal EEC agreement, the principles of the present common fisheries policy still apply. That means that after 1st January EEC vessels will be able to fish up to six miles off our coasts in places."

The hon. Gentleman will be the first to recognise that the federation is crying "wolf". My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) and I, at the time of the original accession and referendum, frequently asked the federation to state its position. It was happy to have the North Sea as an EEC lake.

That was a useful intervention. The federation may be crying "wolf", but certainly the wolves are already on Danish and other vessels heading for our fishing grounds. Unless we reach some agreement fairly quickly, a chaotic situation could arise.

The situation is particularly serious in respect of herring. The Chairman of the Herring Fishing Board, Dr. Lyon Dean, was quoted in the Aberdeen Press and Journal on Wednesday 8th December as saying:

"In the North Sea there should be no fishing for herring …"

His point was that stocks had been depleted by the amount of over-fishing. He was asked whether the situation had reached critical proportions, and replied:

"This is what I have been trying to say, that the situation in the North Sea is critical today."

Dr. Lyon Dean agreed that it would justify taking unilateral action to protect herring stocks.

That is an extremely serious statement for the Chairman of the Herring Industry Board to make. If Ministers know Dr. Lyon Dean they will appreciate how deeply he feels about this issue and will realise that he felt it necessary to issue that warning to the Government and to those concerned in the EEC.

12.45 p.m.

Originally the Herring Industry Board asked for a 100-mile limit. The board, in its annual report for the year ended 31st December, said, on page 8:

"In the Board's view a revised common fisheries policy must make provision for a coastal state preference, acknowledgment of which is becoming increasingly recognised as an important element in the current arrangements for conservation of overexploited fish stocks. As has already been indicated, the United Kingdom fishing industry feel that this could be achieved, at least in part, by the application within the Community of the exclusive economic zone principle; with the proviso that, for this purpose, the inner 100 miles should be reserved to the coastal state,"

That was a measured pronouncement by the board that is concerned with the whole of the herring fishing industry in the United Kingdom. I repeat that it took the considered view that the inner 100 miles should be so reserved. We have called for such a move on many occasions.

In welcoming the Minister to this debate and to the discussions, we hold him in no way to blame for the errors and omissions of those who have gone before, and we look to him to bring some much-needed vitality and determination to obtain proper rights for our fishermen. He will know, if he has read the debates and answers given by his ministerial colleagues, that we have constantly been fobbed off on the subject of limits. The unfortunate Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food—he is unfortunate because I am about to quote him—said, on 25th February, when dealing with comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Banff and myself:

"The hon. Member for Banff (Mr. Watt) and his colleagues have repeatedly suggested that we should take unilateral action, but he knows from the example of the Icelandic situation, in which Iceland took unilateral action and went to 200 miles by last October, that this does not give a certainty on which to base future policy proposals … if countries proceed unilaterally, chaos ensues.—[Official Report, Fifth Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c., 25th February 1976; c. 31.]

We are now discussing a Bill that will give us the right to take unilateral action. I welcome that change of heart by the Minister of State. He is no longer saying that we must wait until the Law of the Sea Conference concludes its interminable discussions. It would have been better for the fishing industry if this Bill had been introduced a year ago, which would have shown a lead on our part in taking action.

The hon. Gentleman should be fair and have regard to the changed circumstances. We were then in a situation in which we were seeking an extension of the Icelandic Agreement, which expired on 15th November last year. We were critical, as indeed was the House, of the unilateral action taken by the Icelanders, but we said that it would be better to await the Law of the Sea Conference in April to see how things went. Since then the situation has changed because other countries, including the United States and Canada, have declared their intention to go for 200 miles. We have waited until the Community has agreed to go for 200 miles. I think that the hon. Gentleman will recognise that if were not taking this action now, after waiting for the Law of the Sea Conference and getting the Community to act in concert with us, our fishermen would have been put at a disadvantage in that they would have already been in the waters that we are now seeking to include in the British fisheries limit. However, the hon. Gentleman is talking about a different situation.

rose——

I give way to the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Johnson).

My hon. Friend the Minister has taken the words out of my mouth, but as we are both allies today in a common cause—namely, the 50-miles extension—I say to him, because he is not a flat-earther and he knows that the world is not static, that we are now in changing circumstances.

We are every day in changing circumstances, as the hon. Gentleman will recall. In the interim, more and more stocks have been destroyed. I am sorry that the Minister of State has left the Chamber, because I wanted to respond to his remarks. What he has said today makes it quite clear that the Government's judgment on how to deal with the Icelandic situation was totally miscast from the beginning. As we are now saying that we shall go to 200 miles, why was all the effort expended in trying to coerce Iceland?

The hon. Gentleman is good at catching big fish himself. Perhaps this big fish will have a word with him. I am sorry that he was not present during Second Reading of the Fishery Limits Bill. No doubt he had more important things to do. Had he been present he would have heard what I hope was a fairly well reasoned argument on my part on the question why the 200-mile limit, or the proposal for it, has come now and could not have come earlier, and why it followed, as a matter of logic, the chain reaction following the Icelandic unilateral choice of 200 miles.

The Minister is entitled to put forward his own interpretation. I should dearly have liked to question him last Friday, but many of us, especially from the North of Scotland, have constituency engagements on a Friday. We wondered why the Government decided that the Bill should receive a Second Reading on a Friday. Perhaps that was done because they knew it would be difficult for some of us to attend and participate.

It is Friday today.

Yes, and a great number of changes have had to be made to many arrangements so that some of us could be present. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman has nothing to do on a Friday in his constituency, but some of us have to work on a Friday in our constituencies.

The Minister is putting a particular gloss on the situation, but the Bill recognises that we have to take unilateral action. That is what it is. Let us not conceal from the world that this is unilateral action, although perhaps it is unilateral action on an EEC basis. It seems that that is all right although it it is wrong to take unilateral action to protect individual interests. That is what the Minister is saying today. That is the changed circumstance.

If the hon. Gentleman is to take that line of argument, he should in fairness reply to what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs said, namely, that if the EEC will not agree to go out, we are going to go out anyway. Let us have all the facts.

If the Foreign Secretary is saying that we are going to go out, I am delighted. If the Minister tells us today, in response to the debate, that we are are going to go out, again I am delighted. I do not think we can continue much longer on the present basis. I asked the right hon. Gentleman about this issue yesterday at Question Time. I asked him whether the time had not come for us to state a deadline, beyond which we would have to make it clear to the EEC that we should take unilateral action. I did not expect him to respond immediately, off the cuff. However, I have written to him on the subject and asked him to consider whether, as a new circumstance, he should tell the EEC "Here is the date. If I do not get an agreement that is fair for our fishermen by this date, the pressure in the House of Commons and throughout the country will be such that I shall be forced to take unilateral action in terms of the powers conferred on me by legislation".

It is my impression of the Common Market—I have some rather unfavourable impressions—that it responds to deadlines. If necessary, people should go there and negotiate constantly against a deadline. After all, the EEC has the device of stopping the clock—a procedure that would hardly commend itself in this Chamber. That is the device that is used in order to reach agreement.

The right hon. Gentleman must recognise that it is felt that the fishing limit negotiations have been going on for far too long. Unless he can assure us that we are likely to get a better deal by letting them stretch out, we hope that he will take the initiative and say that we must give a reasonable period—whatever period he suggests—and that when the end of that period is reached, if we have not arrived at an agreement that is fair and reasonable and takes account of our interests, the Government will have to ask the House of Commons to support them in exercising their powers under this measure—in other words, take unilateral action. That is something that the Minister must consider carefully and seriously.

The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, Central spoke not only of the people who go to sea but the thousands who are in jobs on shore—for example, in processing and distribution. Their jobs depend just as much as the fishermen's on achieving control of these waters and the stock in them. The Minister will have our full support if he says today that there is a limit to his patience with the EEC countries and asks us whether he will have the backing of the House if he tells those countries that we must have the 50-miles limit within a certain period or we shall take action ourselves.

The longer the debate proceeds, the more it is obvious that not only is this the most important item on the agenda but that it is as important as the 200-mile limit, which, of course, the Bill is all about. Therefore, I thank my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food for taking part in the debate. No doubt my right hon. Friend can sense the feel- ing of the House. He faces a most unusual alliance of the Hull Members en toute force and the Scottish National Party, plus all the other Members that I can see in the Chamber who have shown that they are members of the alliance by their assent or their verbal contributions.

When a Minister goes to an international conference and stands up for his people and his nation and is a hardliner, he is termed a hawk. I am sure that my right hon. Friend will be far more than hawkish next week on our behalf. I believe that he will be sharkish. I hope that he will devour all the smaller fish in the EEC pond.

And have a whale of a time.

There is no doubt that, with the waters around us and the size of our fleet, we are by far the biggest nation inside the Nine when it comes to dealing with these issues. Although we have heard about the Soviet Union catching about 800,000 tons of fish in these waters and the Norwegians not being far behind, there is no doubt that our fleet, given the opportunity could catch up to 1¼ million tons of fish. This would make an enormous contribution to our social life, about which my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, Central (Mr. McNamara) spoke so movingly. There are other people who work in the fishing industry besides the fishermen. There are social communities involved. I know that the full support of all hon. Members will be behind the Minister when he is sharkish in Brussels or Luxembourg next week.

1.0 p.m.

I am advised that the Community does not in any way infringe our sovereignty in these matters. However, it prohibits any discrimination of other member States in these waters. We now find that because of this so-called "equality of excess" our partners, whether they be Dutch or Danish, are saying that they must be allowed in, because we have entered into an agreement, and thus Ministers have sworn away our rights by signing bits of paper.

The hon. Member for Banff (Mr. Watt) spoke of the ownership of fish in these waters and used the word "academic". This matter is of academic interest to his constituents, as it is to mine. The fishermen are realistic about the matter. They merely want to catch fish. I have met some of my constituents to discuss the ownership of fish. They said that to claim ownership of fish in the waters about our shores was about as sensible as our European partners coming here and claiming ownership of land in East Yorkshire.

I accept that one of the main objectives of the fisheries policy is conservation. We do not want other fleets coming here and fishing out the whole of our stocks. Our fishing fleets have contracted. In the 1960s and the 1970s there were 130 vessels sailing out of Hull. There are now probably half that number, and if the contraction continues we shall be down to 20 or less. There must be a fair share of the catch between member States.

I, like other hon. Memebrs, have little or no faith in the catch quota system. I do not believe that the flag States play the game when they attempt to monitor their catches. The coastal State is the authority which should monitor catches and should be the judge in the last instance.

There has been a contraction in the fleet in Hull, Fleetwood, Grimsby, Aberdeen and elsewhere. We cannot be accused of having an excess capacity in fleet fishing. That is why we want to keep foreign vessels out of these 50 miles. That is why we should have the 12-mile limit extended to 50 miles so that we have a band of waters about our shores. There were comments this morning about having variable bands, but there is not much logic in having this wavy line. If we do not want to fix a certain line because there are areas inside it which may have little or no fish, why should other nations fish there any more than ours? There should be some definition which looks logical that can be determined and can be easy to police, such as the six-mile limit was in the old days or the 12-mile limit later.

The system of quotas has been openly and cynically abused by our sister nations, particularly the Danes. That is why we cannot depend upon our partners in the EEC. We must take action to safeguard our people. This happens in other nations. The United States of America and Canada feel that, as coastal States, they are the ones who should monitor, safeguard and enforce law and order within their limits.

Indisputable evidence from the Norwegian fishery protection organisation and from our own fishery protection people show that there is cheating to the ninth degree. That is why we want an exclusive economic zone, which we alone could look after.

The industry itself in the past wanted a 100-mile limit, but now it knows that this is just not on. We are now all convinced of the need for having at least a 50-mile limit. I still believe in the EEC as an institution, but fears have been mounting as the months and years pass that the Common Fishery Policy is one of the weakest parts of it. We must change that. I do not see why people should give up the ghost and think that it is impossible to change it. Therefore, on 14th December we shall all be of one mind in wanting the Minister to do his best for our constituents. There is, no other industry in which people are so united. We shall extend our limits on New Year's morning. This applies to the whole of the Community. Time is of the essence now.

If we do not get something next week or before New Year's morning, we shall feel exceedingly shaky about the future. If we go into the new year without it, other fleets will get entrenched. We must get something definite in 1977. Possession is more than nine parts of the law: it is 10 parts of the law with these people. My right hon. Friend knows that we all speak most solemnly and seriously about the situation.

I have two questions to ask about Iceland, a topic that was raised earlier.

Inspired leaks may have come out of the Community yesterday; I do not know. Mr. Gundelach's name in particular has been mentioned. Are we to have something definite happening in the new year, not merely about the EEC and the 50-mile exclusive zone but also about Iceland? I speak as a constituency Member along with my two colleagues from Hull. Are we to have an interim agreement or a long-term settlement?

Many people in Hull and Fleetwood fear that Iceland will make a unilateral statement and that she will be in a position to tell us what is negotiable or not. I would be aghast if that were so and if Mr. Gundelach and his colleagues have not been able to get an agreement which is suitable and helpful to our people.

We have heard it whispered that the 24 Hull vessels fishing off Iceland—which means almost twice that number going backwards and forwards to the banks—are to be reduced to 12. Is that correct? It would mean that, if and when we get a settlement, the existing number of 48 vessels at work would become 24.

Iceland is one of the third country members which in 1977–78 could be in a position to withhold fishing about her shores to us. Yet Iceland will be in a position to come into the so-called EEC fishpond and have a share, however small, in Community stocks. That would be quite monstrous. I hope that the Minister will set his face firmly against such a situation next week.

I would first refer to the point dealt with by the Minister in his brief intervention. The right hon. Gentleman made it clear that the intention of subsection (6), in particular in respect of the words "special provision", is a very narrow one indeed and relates not to commercial fishing but to boats that are sent on special errands of international importance.

I wish to put to the Minister a proposition which would save our returning to this point. I hope that the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) will agree, since we both tabled amendments on this matter. My suggestion is that the Bill ought to contain a definition of what is meant by "special provision", which should not be beyond the power of the draftsman to excogitate. It could be put somewhere in the interpretation clause and would remove misunderstanding about the meaning of the subsection, to which, I concede, there can be no objection.

The Minister will appreciate that at the moment, "special provision" conveys no meaning to any ordinary reader of the Bill and appears to be in contradiction or overlap with the remaining parts of the clause. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will be able to dispose of that.

I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman has an important contribution to make on the major point. We are not differing in principle on this matter. I shall certainly look into this and see what can be done.

I am much obliged. In that case I shall not move my later amendment. Perhaps the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland will not move his, either.

On the main point, I was delighted to hear the admirable and cogent speech of the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, Central (Mr. McNamara), with its demonstration of the widespread effects of anything which influences our fishing industry. I would only add that there is a considerable and growing export potential behind some aspects of the fishing industry. Many other considerations are of relevance to Northern Ireland, with its high and problematical unemployment.

There will be no difference of opinion between us. But we are not merely talking about the fishing industry this morning; we are talking about a great sector of the economy of the United Kingdom. What we are concerned with in the debate is the attitude of the Minister. The purpose of the amendments is to provide the Minister with weapons that he can use because some of us, at any rate, have formed the opinion that he is minded to use those weapons.

To a far-reaching extent, we feel that the pass has been sold on the matter of the exclusive control of the essential waters around these islands. The pass that has partially passed out of our control in the previous formulation of our position has got to be won back. That is what these amendments are about.

The theory of a variable zone, ranging up to 50 miles from the coast and including the key areas, is illogical in itself. As has been pointed out, it is an invitation, inside the framework of the EEC, for us to lose the essential battle for what we have to have.

There is no reason to suppose that the areas which were key areas at one time and in one period will be key areas in the future. After all, the long-term background to this debate is the immense change that has taken place in the location, movement, and so on, of the fishing stocks. It is therefore intolerable that we should be bound to a specific pattern which appears to correspond to the key areas just at this moment. If it be such, the key areas will be renegotiated and renegotiated, and the variable zone will be varied. We would rather have this matter settled once and for all. We do not want to be dragged back, or attempt to drag others back, to the negotiating table, year by year. We want to have certainty, and certainty means that we have to have exclusive control over a defined limit that is the same the whole way round the coast of these islands.

The Minister has to find the means of regaining a bargaining position that will enable him to end up at the close of the day, with a definable, logical, permanent fishing zone that will include all the waters of which we can reasonably require control for the future in order to secure the conservation and re-creation of the stocks that are essential to this country.

As I said on Second Reading—I received the Minister's assent—we must exercise the power that we intend to give ourselves by the Bill. One does not necessarily use that power by going up and knocking on the front door. It is not for this House to be concerned with the tactical stages through which it may be desirable to go to reach the conclusion. It is for us unitedly to tell the Government what that conclusion has got to be, so that the Minister can say to the rest of the world that he has a House of Commons that is not going to accept less than an exclusive 50-mile fishing zone.

They can play it as they please. The stages of the negotiation can be designed so as to secure that result most effectively and with least loss in other directions. But the Minister must go from this Chamber this afternoon—I am sure that he will do so—with the certainty that there is behind him a united House of Commons, and a House of Commons expressing interests other than mere fishery interests—a House of Commons that is determined to have nothing less than a 50-mile permanent and exclusive zone for this country.

I want to echo the points that have been made in the cogent speeches to which we have listened. There has been very little difference of opinion between all the hon. Members who have spoken in this debate, and in Fleetwood we view the necessity for a 50-mile limit with the same degree of concern as that which has been expressed by other hon. Members.

I wish to take up one or two comments of the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, Central (Mr. MacNamara) which appealed to me. He spoke about the deep-sea fleet and the affliction of uncertainty from which it is suffering. The sooner we get some certainty into the situation the better. Apropos that, I hope that the Minister will be able to comment on Mr. Gundelach's statement on two counts. First, has some agreement been reached with Iceland that is subject to the approval of the Icelandic Parliament? The second is more relevant to this debate, namely, whether the EEC proposes to limit the catches of third countries to 50 per cent. during the coming year, to start with. That would help.

I return to the main problem of the 50-mile limit. Both inshore and deep-sea fishermen in the port of Fleetwood are resolved on this matter. As the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) said, we want the Minister to go to the negotiations in the full knowledge that there is deep determination in this country to get what we want. In last week's debate, the right hon. Member for Down, South and I both said that there were powerful weapons that this country could use in the negotiations. However, as the right hon. Gentleman has just said, the way that these powers and arguments are used is tactically a matter for the Government to decide. We want the Government to know that we are united in what we want and that we hope this will give the Government a stronger bargaining position than that which would exist if they had a divided House behind them.

I intervene only briefly because most of the arguments have been advanced already on this and previous occasions. In addition, I have had opportunities on the European scene to discuss some of the arguments about the fishing industry. I wish, however, to repeat one or two of the remarks of other hon. Members, and first I deal with some of the references by Mr. Gundelach to the British fishing industry.

I treat with a considerable degree of scepticism anything that the British Trawlers Federation says about the fishing industry. A great deal of the bad advice about Iceland which the Government have acted upon in the past came from that industry. However, everyone with any knowledge of that industry knows that it is one of the most reactionary, backward and investment-lacking industries in the country with some of the worst working conditions. This is evidenced by the terrible accident and death records——

Rubbish.

I am sure that the hon. Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) will be able to prove that I am wrong with figures, and then no doubt we shall hear more from him about the facts. He and I debated these matters during the period of the referendum, when we discussed the problems of entering the Common Market. Constantly I warned of what would happen to the fishing industry. I did so on television and in public debate with him, but not one word came from him about these problems. There was some talk of possible vetoes, but anyone who read the treaty and the conditions being offered at that time knows that it was almost inevitable that this debate would have to occur on the problems arising from it.

The hon. Gentleman said that there was not one word from me about this and that I talked about vetoes. That at least is one word.

The veto does not apply. That intervention shows the hon. Gentleman's ignorance about the conditions which obtained at the time of the referendum and about the problems which in his mind exist at the moment. If he still believes that the veto has a part to play in this, I can only advise him to read the record and see what the problem is. It is not a matter of the veto. We are left with certain circumstances, like it or not, which arise out of the decision at the time of the referendum. That is now past history. We are part of the Community, and it is not conceivable that we shall leave the Com- munity. The only argument that we are left to deal with here is whether the parameters allow us in this decision-making to argue the case for an exclusive zone.

A number of hon. Members have said that the Minister should be assured that this House demands an exclusive area. My experience of the Community in the last 18 months as a Member of the European Parliament leads me to believe that it is highly unlikely that that position will be brought about. There will have to be an agreement between all the nations on the policy to be pursued.

Let us have the facts clear. We have a delegation which at the moment is discussing the fishing agreement. The present agreement means that we can continue until 1982 with a 12-mile limit but that it will be up to the breach after that. Clearly certain factors have now changed, though not in any legal sense because the Law of the Sea Conference has not yet reached any conclusions. But the arguments which I put forward in support of the case of the Icelanders are those which we are using now to justify our case. It is on record that I predicted that we would be bound to do that. It was part of the nonsense of our position at that time. However, that is all history.

The argument now is whether the Minister can achieve an exclusive limit in the Community negotiations. I do not think he can. It will require the agreement of all the Community nations. Unless we are prepared to say to the Community "If you do not do this, we shall stop the clock. We shall leave the Community. We shall not agree to anything unless you accept the position." the matter can only deteriorate, and for a number of reasons. I do not think that the Government can accept that position.

This is a very important statement. Are we being told that in no circumstances will our partners in the EEC accept any change which obviously is to our benefit?

I am not in a position to say what they will agree, any more than the Minister is. I merely give my opinion from my 18 months' experience that it seems highly unlikely that all the nations in the Community will agree to an exclusive limit of 50 miles round our coasts.

Let me give one small but practicable example. Denmark gets major quantities of her fish, albeit for industrial purposes, from waters round our coast. Is it conceivable that the Danish Government will agree voluntarily to any exclusion of their fishermen from that water? We have to remember that the majority of Danish people are employed in some capacity in fishing. It is not possible for Denmark to agree to that.

It is essential for us to understand that all the nations have to agree. This is not a matter of a majority decision. We all have to agree. The veto argument comes into play only when we are dealing with a new policy. In fishing there was already a policy before we entered the Community.

I return to the exclusive limit. I have always been convinced that to deal with conservation it was necessary to agree to the principle—a view to which the United Nations is beginning to come in the Law of the Sea Conference—of a coastal State having exclusive control over its area. That is why I thought Iceland was justified in her action. I am in no doubt about that and about its importance to conservation.

But that is not the argument. I think that we are all convinced about that, though many in the Community are not. The argument is whether we can convince other members of the Community to accept an exclusive limit of 50 miles round our coasts. I have given my own opinion as one who has tried to argue these matters in the European Parliament with politicians of the respective countries involved, and they would not accept the principle.

I have referred to the amendment as being a compromise. We could have exclusive conservation zones where the State concerned would have the power to stop any fishing beyond a certain limit if it felt that that was a direct threat to the conservation of fish stocks. The main fear of our fishermen is that fish stocks will continue to decline whatever quotas may be decided. However, the main fear of other Community nations is that 60 per cent. of Europe's fish is caught round our coasts and that they may be excluded from those areas.

There are two main objectives in any agreement. One needs the wisdom of Solomon to know what will come out of the negotiations. But I hope that my right hon. Friend is able to say what will be the legal position. As I understand it, when the Bill comes into force we shall have a 200-mile limit. Presumably the 12-mile limit will continue and whatever we do beyond the 12 miles will be determined by any new fishing policy that is agreed.

1.30 p.m.

If we do not have a fishing policy, what will happen? I presume that the coastal State—Britain—will take on the rôle of conserving fish stocks in that area. I presume that Britain will continue to say that certain ships shall not fish in that area if conservation stocks are threatened. It is easier to deal with third party countries in this respect than EEC countries. But what is the position of Community nations' ships which fish in those waters? Do we say that they shall no longer fish in that area beyond 12 miles or up to whatever range it may be within the 200-miles? Do we actively discriminate against them? If we discriminate against Community countries' ships, we shall be in breach of the Treaty of Rome. If so, we have no law unless we impose one and let other Common Market nations take us to the International Court.

I predict that no agreement will be reached in the Community by 1st January. What do we do in the period between now and when the Community reaches a decision? If we have the power and are prepared to exercise it in discriminating against other Community nations' vessels in that area, we shall establish an important precedent and our fishermen are unlikely to say that we should give it up. If we enforce an almost unilateral position within Community waters, we shall establish an exclusive zone and in negotiations it will be difficult to get our fishermen to accept that we must give it up because no agreement has been reached between the Common Market countries.

I have always been impressed by Mr. Gundelach's abilities. Some of the criticisms made by the trawling industry about that Commissioner are unfair, because he is in an extremely difficult position. We were not able to force our view on Iceland. Therefore, why should we think that, without the blessing of the Royal Navy—God knows what it did for us—he should be able to get the Icelandic Government to accept any agreement? It is amazing that we should express surprise that the Icelandic Parliament will not accept our terms. Parliaments either accept or reject what is put before them. That is an important political process in any democratic country.

The criticisms of Mr. Gundelach are not warranted. He is doing his best. If when Mr. Gundelach comes back, he says "I have negotiated for you on behalf of the Community"—not on behalf of Britain—"an agreement under the terms of which Community ships will have a presence in Icelandic waters", he will no doubt tell my right hon. Friend "Surely you cannot expect me to accept an exclusive zone Icelandic argument for Britain against the rest of the Common Market nations." It will be difficult to get any agreement because of the soundness of that argument.

I am somewhat pessimistic. My pessimism has been confirmed by my experience of 18 months in the Common Market. Whatever we might feel about exclusive zones, that is the reality of the situation. We are now in the Community. We must live with the reality. I hope that a compromise might be reached on an exclusive conservation area that will satisfy the various nations in the Community.

No doubt the British Fishing Federation and the Government will take note of the views expressed by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott). However, I expect that the Government will continue to take their advice primarily from the British Fishing Federation and not from the hon. Member.

The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East referred to the power of the veto. There is no negative veto, but it has been shown by others in the EEC that the veto may be used on one area in agriculture in order to obtain what is wanted in another area. Sometimes horse trading rather than logic seems to be predominant in negotiations in the EEC.

The Government's negotiations over the Icelandic dispute were not markedly successful. I make no complaint, because they were in a difficult position. But it is more likely that the EEC negotiations will have greater success, because they will have more leverage than the Government had. Therefore, from that point of view we are better served by being in the Common Market than out of it.

I turn now to the question of the 50-mile exclusive zone, which is the subject of the amendments. If these amendments were tabled to ensure this discussion—it has been very good and interesting—or, as the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) said, to give the Minister a weapon, they have my full support. However, if they were tabled with a view to altering the Bill, I suggest that they are unnecessary.

I remind the Committee that on 8th December, in the First Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, when we discussed fisheries, I asked the Minister of State whether, under this Bill, it would be possible to introduce a 50-mile exclusive limit, to which he replied "yes".

Only yesterday, as the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food will recall, I asked him if he had these powers, and he said:

"I think I carry the hon. Gentleman with me when I say that it is vital to have the necessary powers. As for the 50-mile limit as an exclusive zone, the powers lie within the Bill."—[Official Report, 9th December 1976;Vol. 922, c. 608.]

The Minister has the powers. The question is: on what grounds will he use them?

We are delighted to see the Minister here. I am cognisant of the reasonable and co-operative way in which he addresses himself to difficulties affecting the fishing industry.

Two points arise from the amendments. The first concerns access and the second concerns control.

I remind the Committee that the industry started by asking for a 100-mile exclusive limit and that it then went for a 50-mile exclusive limit when the Government refused to consider 100 miles. That was logical, as it could be seen on a chart and be easily patrolled. However, I understand that the Government have proposed a variable or zigzag limit.

The hon. Members for Kingston upon Hull, Central (Mr. McNamara), East (Mr. Prescott), West (Mr. Johnson) and I are particularly concerned about the North-East Coast, off Yorkshire. The Government's proposal is for a 50-mile limit from the North of Scotland to Flamborough Head, near our constituencies, then suddenly cutting back to 12 miles. How we shall manage to patrol an area extending out 50 miles and then coming straight back to 12 miles I do not know.

The 12-mile limit from Flamborough Head to Portland Bill is unacceptable. I accept that it cannot be 50 miles the whole way, for reasons which have been given—the median line, and so on. However, I suggest that a 50-mile limit at Flamborough Head tapering to 12 miles at the Thames Estuary would be more sensible. This is, of course, a local issue, but I hope that the Minister will give it serious consideration. Whatever the industry and the Government may think, the Community is still thinking of 12 miles plus quotas.

That brings me to the question of control. As I said on Second Reading, I understand the methods recommended or adopted by the United Nations Law of the Sea Conference that the coastal State would decide the total allowable catch, that it would then decide its own capacity and subtract one figure from the other, permitting the remainder to go to third parties. That seems a sensible suggestion, and one which fits our requirements.

However, I understand that the EEC system is different. Let me quote from a letter I have received on the subject. It says:

"The Commission's approach is to set a total allowable catch (TAC) for each species in the light of scientific advice, to deduct from it anything allowed to third country vessels and to add anything available to EEC vessels in third country waters. This provides the amount of that species available to Community vessels in all waters. A small percentage—as little as 5 per cent. has been mentioned—is then deducted to provide a Community "reserve" from which would be met the special needs of fishermen in "the northern regions of the UK" and in Ireland. The balance is then distributed on the basis of fishing activity in some past reference period."

I should like to start with a reference to what I heard for the first time in a radio broadcast this morning, which was an account of what Mr. Gundelach may or may not have said. Perhaps he has said it for all I know, but I have no official indication on that. My honest advice to the Committee is the same advice as I gave a week ago on Second Reading. Mr. Gundelach is doing his best to negotiate this delicate job. Let us leave him alone. I wish sometimes—thank heaven this does not apply to hon. Members—that people outside the House of Commons were a little more patient. They seem to bite before something has taken place instead of waiting for the result. I know that I have not been able to give a definite statement to the Committee, but I have no information whatever on the subject.

Let me now deal with Amendments Nos. 7 and 8. The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) had it absolutely right when he said that what the House of Commons said would be taken note of outside the House. I am grateful for the strength of feeling that has been demonstrated here today. It is helpful in negotiations such as this that those with whom one is negotiating should know what the House of Commons—by that I mean all parties—thinks. There has been remarkable unanimity, for which I am grateful.

On the objectives, I see no difference of feeling whatever between the objectives stated in the amendments and those stated by my hon. Friends who represent the various parts of Kingston upon Hull or by any other hon. Member who has spoken today. The statement by my right hon. Friend the then Minister of State on 4th May clearly contained exactly the same objective. Whether we proceed by means of zig-zag lines or by a 50-mile area up to the median, which may be more tidy on a map, it is the objective which is important, and we must keep to that.

If I have a criticism of the amendment and if I advise the Committee to resist it, it is in two respects, not on the principle. I have a criticism of the timing and in respect of difficulties which would be implicit in the amendment were it to be carried.

Let me deal first with the timing. The powers of the Bill are immense and I think that the Committee has understood that. The Bill gives powers to regulate, to license, to use a quota system, to use what I have become more and more convinced is the better way of doing what must be done. All these things are implicit in the powers of the Bill. In addition, it allows the coastal State—that is ourselves—to decide which areas may or may not be fished, to decide which vessels may fish and which may not, which species may be fished for and which may not. These are the powers which it seems to me we need. Should we therefore at this stage decide here and now to impose a 50-mile exclusive limit?

The timing is wrong for another reason. I am not in any way going against the objective of negotiations which will need to be done. Amendments Nos. 7 and 8 have the same effect, so it does not really matter whether the argument comes from Hull, Banff or Aberdeenshire, East. The same problem exists.

The fishermen of Britain sail into Norwegian waters. They used to sail in Icelandic waters, and one hopes that they will return to Icelandic waters. Let us take Norway as an example. Out of Norway comes each year 100,000 tons of cod and 50,000 tons of haddock. I have had a strong national briefing about the eating habits of the Scots. I understand that whereas cod and chips are perhaps more popular in England, haddock and chips are the number one priority in the constituencies of Banff and Aberdeenshire, East. If we are to preserve 100,000 tons of cod and 50,000 tons of haddock, it may be that in our own exclusive zone we may have to give something in return.

Does the Minister recognise that, conversely, the Norwegian fishing fleet takes 36·2 per cent. of its total catch from the waters around our shores?

That is precisely the point to which I was coming. What is interesting about it is the sort of fish that primarily is taken. Haddock and cod are very important to us, whether we are English or Scots or from Northern Ireland. However, I have looked up Norway pout, which is the enormous attraction, I gather, to our Scandinavian friends. The scientific name of this fish is Trisopterus Esmarkii. It was once known to fishermen as "Archbishop Makarios".

Collins' "Guide to Sea Fishes" gives the following account of Norway pout:

"Lower jaw protruding, with a small barbel, eyes large, diameter greater than its snout length. Norway pout are usually sexually mature at the age of 2 years; however, off the Shetlands and the Moray Firth a proportion of the 1-year-old fish are sexually mature. This is the most abundant species in the Cod group and, although they are not suitable for human consumption on account of their small size, they are indirectly of great importance to the fishing industry as they are eaten by haddock, whiting, cod and hake. They themselves feed on euphausians and small fishes. They are mainly caught in trawls by the Danes"—and by the Norwegians—"and are processed into fishmeal."

I am delighted by the Minister's display of erudition on different species of fish. Will he come to the question of herring, which is a much more serious matter for many of the fishermen of our North-East Coast?

It is not as serious as the matter of what could be lost to Scottish as well as English fishermen in regard to the haddock fisheries.

I have looked into this matter at some length. The hon. Gentleman might perhaps talk to his own people about this. They are important. They are part of a negotiation that we might have with third countries. As to our EEC partners, on the same point of an exclusive zone, the House of Commons has very often registered its view about the phasing out of historic rights. I have no positive objection to that. What I am talking about is the negotiations that may be necessary. Merely to have an exclusive zone without any such negotiations would mean that we are eating perhaps rather peculiar fish.

My right hon. Friend may have made a slip of the tongue. He may not have meant it, but he said "This is important when we come to the question of negotiations with third parties." Did he mean "we" as being Her Majesty's Government or "we" as being the EEC Commission?

I meant it in the sense of Her Majesty's Government in this country. A negotiation, whoever conducted it, that gave us nothing would be totally valueless, so of course I meant us. This is our fishing industry. My hon. Friend made a very strong and moving plea for the industry, and not only for the people who fish but whose livelihood depends upon the various activities on the high seas. There is here something that needs to be negotiated.

The trouble with these amendments is that they are entirely exclusive. I have looked into this matter hard. They would not permit one to come to an agreement with a third country at all. It would have to be either British ships or none at all. For the reasons that I have given, this would not be the most desirable way of doing it. For the reasons that I have tried to give, this will be a question of timing. We have the powers to achieve our objectives.

I am enormously impressed by the strength of feeling in the House of Commons. Perhaps I have been impressed because it so much mirrors my own feelings, which are at one with the House on this matter. I believe that that strength and that impression will go way beyond the bounds of Westminster and be heard further afield. I am grateful that it is so. At the same time, I recommend to the Committee that the passing of amendments which are not effective and which would give the reverse effect to what one would wish is not as effective as giving a strength of feeling, which I regard as the mandate that the House of Commons will have given to me.

The Minister wanted to speak when he did because he wished specifically to reply to right hon. and hon. Members who have spoken in the debate and who, for reasons that we all understand, may wish to leave the House before long. I make no complaint about that. However, I hope that with the permission of the House the Minister will be given a few more minutes in order to answer one or two points that have arisen from the debate and that he has not covered.

I think that we are all delighted that the Minister has been able to be present. He has listened to a very sober and tightly argued debate about the revision of the common fisheries policy. There have been questions about the negotiations on Icelandic waters, but the debate has really been about the revision of the CFP. The Minister has emphasised, rightly, that this is a negotiation in which he is aiming at an agreement. That might seem a cliché or a platitude, were it not for some impression in some of the remarks of the hon. Member for Banff (Mr. Watt) and the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. Henderson), representing the Scottish National Party, that it did not seem to them particularly to matter whether there was agreement or whether it was done unilaterally. That seems a rather unrealistic point of view.

Whatever may be the difficulties in 1977, there can be no doubt that we can operate successfully in this matter only by agreement. A situation in which all kinds of local fishing disputes broke out as foreign fishermen tried to assert historic rights and we tried to impose the provisions of the Bill would not be a satisfactory situation in which to conduct the affairs of the industry. I do not think that the constituents of those two hon. Members would bless them if that was the position that was arrived at. It may be arrived at. The whole effort of agreement may collapse. It may be necessary to act unilaterally. However, let us not deceive ourselves that that could be a satisfactory outcome or a satisfactory substitute for agreement.

I do not think that there is any dissent on this matter between my hon. Friend the Member for Banff (Mr. Watt) and myself, on the one hand, and the hon. Gentleman on the other. What we are saying is that it may be the only resort left to us if we do not get a satisfactory answer the other way. The hon. Gentleman must face the fact that we may not get a satisfactory answer the other way. What would he recommend doing in those circumstances?

That is an entirely fair question. I was really thinking more of some of the remarks that the hon. Member for Banff let slip. We are talking about a negotiation and, as we did on Second Reading, about bargaining strength. The Opposition have been worried for some time about the run-down of our bargaining strength. We have been critical of the conduct of the Minister's predecessor in the preliminaries to these negotiations. From the Government Benches we have constantly reaffirmed the 50-mile negotiating objective.

2.0 p.m.

The question is whether passing the amendment would enable the House to add to the Minister's bargaining strength. It does not add to his powers, because, as he made clear and as my hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) established at Question Time yesterday, the powers in the Bill are wide and give the Minister full power to act in the spirit of the amendment should he decide that that is necessary. The amendment does not add to the Minister's power. It seeks to strengthen his bargaining position by restricting his powers but, as the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) said, the tactical playing of his bargaining hand is not something that the House can lay down for the Minister; it is something that he must work out for himself and tell us about—and that he has fairly done.

Having listened to the right hon. Gentleman, I do not feel that we shall strengthen his bargaining hand by passing the amendment. Indeed, we may impede him if, at this stage, we restrict the powers available to him and prevent him from concluding as good a bargain as might otherwise be open to him. That is my view of the amendment.

There is, however, the point raised by the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, East, with some force by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott), and by my hon. Friends the Members for North Fylde (Mr. Clegg) and Haltemprice. What is to happen after 1st January if, as seems likely, it is not possible to reach a definitive agreement in the negotiations to which the Minister is going next week? I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will deal further with that matter, because that is the practical issue that is worrying people more than any other, and the reason for the somewhat explosive statement issued yesterday.

What is to happen after 1st January in our relationship vis-à-vis the boats of our Community partners? On Second Reading the Minister referred to proposals from the Commission for a régime for 1977. He said quite fairly, a week ago, that he had not had time to study the proposals, but added that if

"we believe they"—

that is, the Commission's proposals—

"fall short of the measures we think necessary then it is our own measures that we shall impose as we are perfectly entitled to do in default of the agreement."—[Official Report, 3rd December 1976; Vol. 921, c. 1353.]

That was the point with which the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East was dealing, and I think that it requires a little elaboration by the Minister.

The Opposition agree with the Minister's statement last Friday, that if there is no agreement inside the Community next week on a matter that is clearly vital, to so many people—as so much of this debate has vividly illustrated—it will not be tolerable from the point of view of this country that temporary arrangements should be imposed upon us. Therefore, the right hon. Gentleman would be entitled, to use his own words, to impose our own measures, as we are entitled to do in default of agreement.

I do not want to urge the right hon. Gentleman to say anything that will make his task next week more difficult, but, in order that people may know a little more clearly where they will stand in a situation that is only three weeks away, I hope that the Minister will say a little more about what is the nub of the matter.

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Mid-Oxon (Mr. Hurd), as I have been to everyone who has spoken in this debate, for the views that have been expressed. They have been very helpful to the position that we all want to adopt.

The hon. Member for Mid-Oxon raised one point that has been brought up before. I thought the Committee might notice that I had not dealt with it as fully as I had with other things, simply because this is part and parcel of the general position. What I told the House on Second Reading was, as I saw it, the plain unvarnished truth, which is that 1st January is very nearly upon us. I said at the time that the Commission had left itself woefully little time in which to reach an agreement. We are now a week on from that position. I cannot therefore say that, suddenly, on 1st January, the sun will shine on all mankind. I do not believe it and, anyway, 1st January is a Saturday and we have the weekend, and so on, but the orders that will flow from this measure, assuming that it gets the Royal Assent, will come after 1st January, and one may have a difficult period then.

I stand by every word of what I said on Second Reading. We were then dealing with what conservation measures there might be. Since then I have seen the Commission's proposals, and to my mind they are not satisfactory in a number of respects. Therefore, I stick by what I said then. If there is an interregnum because the Commission's proposals have not been accepted and are not acceptable, we shall have to impose our own. I ask the Committee not to ask me to say what will happen on 1st, 2nd or 3rd January. It must take its place in what will be a difficult and ragged period.

I regret that the right hon. Gentleman has been unable to give the House, the industry, our EEC partners and the world at large a clearer indication of the way in which he intends to go about his negotiations in the forthcoming weeks, but I am sure he will agree that it has been useful to have this debate. I therefore beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

We now come to Amendments Nos. 13 and 14.

In view of what was said earlier, I should not want to pursue Amendment No. 14 if it is clear that an undertaking has been given that the true intention of the subsection will be made clear in the final Act.

Is that assurance forthcoming?

Yes. I give that assurance.

I put down an amendment to the first words in the clause, which provide that Ministers "may by order designate". I proposed to add "annually". What we were worried about was whether, if we once gave permission, that permission would carry on indefinitely and that a country which received that permission might feel that it built up a historic right in a comparatively short time. We should like an assurance from the Minister that it may be that the orders will not last for as long as a year. If that is the case, it will allay our fears.

We are discussing the control of access. I understand that under Community law one member of the Community can set up firms in the national territory of any other member of the Community. Presumably foreign trawling firms could be set up in this country under Community law. I should like confirmation that United Kingdom regulations will apply to foreign trawling firms which decide to come to this country, and that Community law and the provisions of the Bill will apply to those firms.

When the EEC has completed its negotiations, it will make an allocation of quotas to third parties outside the EEC. Some which are fishing now within the 200-mile limit will not receive quotas. Is it intended that there shall be a phasing-out period for those fishermen, or will their rights simply be extinguished when the Community has made up its mind about the quotas for the various cuuntries?

There are historic rights which are enjoyed, mostly by members of the Community but I think I am right in saying not exclusively, within the 6- to 12-mile limit. After the enactment of this legislation those rights will presumably remain, but, once the EEC has decided on the quota system and the allocation of quotas within the 200-mile limit, will those rights automatically be phased out and taken in with the new quotas given to members of the Community inside the 200-mile limit, apart from any exclusive limit we may have?

I appreciate the reasons for hon. Members being unable to move amendments. The amendments were not of great significance, but I appreciate the difficulties of hon. Members in even being here on a Friday—none more so t han mine.

The answer to the question asked by the hon. Member for Fife, East (Sir J. Gilmour) is "Yes". They are not permanent arrangements, in the sense that any agreement for a fixed period may require to be revoked. We cannot read into this a permament arrangement until the end of time. The powers are adequate to deal with that. It would be wrong to anticipate what may happen, because we have not seen the form of any agreements, but I give the hon. Gentleman that assurance.

The hon. Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) raised an interesting matter. I hate using the word "foreigners". The hon. Gentleman asked whether outside interests, on becoming established in this country as a fishing firm, would be able to get round any of the regulations. To the best of my knowledge, it is the first time that that point has been raised. We shall consider it carefully.

As a first reaction, I think that that would be a bit too obvious and that any country would require to take measures. I am aware that what is happening in the United States is probably the background to the question which has been asked.

I cannot give any detailed information on the question of phasing out immediately. The obvious intention is to phase out as quickly as possible those countries which we have already indicated should be phased out. We are at one in the intention. The timing and how long it will take are matters on which we shall later have to report to the House of Commons.

I beg to move Amendment No. 18, in page 3, leave out lines 27 to 32 and insert:

'(2) Such an order may apply to fishing generally in the specified area or to fishing—

(a) for a specified description of sea fish;

(b) by a specified method;

(c) during a specified season of the year or other period; or

(d) in the case of an order under subsection (1)(a), by fishing boats registered in a specified country,

and whether the order is general or limited in scope it may provide for exceptions from the prohibition contained in it'.

We are happy to accept the amendment, which puts into effect the earlier expressions of opinion that it is desirable to ensure that the House of Commons shall have the opportunity to debate these complicated orders so that we know exactly what is their effect.

The orders are subject to the annulment procedure.

I beg to move Amendment No. 23, in page 4, line 10, at end insert—

'and detailing any method of fishing at present held to be illegal or which may be declared illegal in future by any Order laid before Parliament'.

According to Clause 3(5)(d), the method of sea fishing can be defined, but no definition is given of methods which may not be used. What implication has this on the ban which the United Kingdom put on the drift netting of salmon? Does it have any bearing on the discussions that we have had from time to time on the question whether beam trawling should be allowed? Would it not be desirable for the Minister not only to be able to define the methods that can be adopted, but also to specify the methods that are illegal or will become illegal?

I appreciate the concern that is often expressed by hon. Members, especially those who represent fishing areas—as does the hon. Member for Fife, East (Sir J. Gilmour)—about the control of methods that may be used in exercising primarily the control of fishing. Control of the methods that may be used is currently exercised mainly by means of orders made under Section 5 of the Sea Fish (Conservation) Act 1967. This will continue to be the case. In addition, further and more detailed control may be exercised by including the appropriate conditions on the licences issued under what will be the new Section 4 of that Act, contained in Clause 3 of the Bill.

These conditions may permit fishing by one method or two methods only, or they may permit fishing by any method with specific exemptions. The possibilities of control are, therefore, comprehensively catered for, and this will continue to be the case under the new Section 4 contained in Clause 3 of the Bill.

If the proposed amendment were accepted, licences would have to contain not only conditions relating to fishing methods but also details of any other prohibitions contained in orders. That would involve unnecessary duplication and could lead to licences having to be withdrawn and re-issued if a new order was made.

The second part of the amendment, requiring licences to contain details of any methods that may be declared illegal in future, is, as the hon. Gentleman will see, plainly unworkable. Quite apart from the propriety of following such a course, it is in any case impossible to predict what conservation methods will be needed as the stock situation develops.

The powers contained in the 1967 Act and the new clause in the Bill are entirely adequate to enable Ministers to regulate methods used for fishing.

With that assurance of maintaining the status quo and providing all the powers for which the hon. Gentleman asked, I hope that he will see fit to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

I beg to move Amendment No. 28, in page 4, line 40, at end insert

'but the said licensing powers shall not be used to introduce a system of general licensing of boats or skippers'.

The powers of Clause 3 are drawn widely precisely to enable Ministers to introduce whatever measures may be necessary in order to conserve the fish stocks on which the industry depends.

I do not think it is possible at this stage to predict precisely, as the right hon. Gentleman may have in mind—I am not sure that it was his intention—what measures will be necessary, or the degree to which regulation by means of licensing will need to be developed.

This is partly because we do not know how the fish stock situation will develop—although we certainly intend to do better than in the past—and partly because truly effective conservation measures can be worked out only on an international basis. In our case, that means within the Community.

It is certainly not the intention at present to require all fishing by all boats to be carried out only under licence from 1st January, nor do we have plans for a system for licensing skippers.

The amendment might introduce an unwanted element of rigidity into the clause, and the right hon. Gentleman, I am sure, would not wish that. We are with the right hon. Gentleman entirely in wanting all the powers that a Ministry can use to ensure that there is no general licensing of fishing, whatever that may mean. We want to be able to use the powers we have, with no restrictions, so that we can act on this very important matter, including conservation.

The right hon. Gentleman has made a useful comment, and we take his point, but I think the Committee would be well advised to leave the clause as it is, giving the Minister power to act, although, of course, being very sensitive to the views that have been expressed.

In view of the assurance that it is not the intention to introduce a general system of licensing, and that the Minister appreciates the possible reactions upon small communities, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

We are discussing the licensing of both British and foreign fishing vessels. It has been estimated that within the 50-mile limit from our shores there are 2½ million tons of fish which could be caught in any one year. It has also been estimated that within the 12-mile limit there are 1·1 million tons.

The Committee will agree that the capacity of the United Kingdom industry could rise to between 1½ million and 2 million tons a year. That is one reason why the 50-mile limit is popular on both sides of the Committee. It ensures that we can catch up to our full capacity.

The Committee should also realise that there is an excessive catching capacity within the EEC, and that it now catches about 60 per cent. of its total catch within what, under the Bill, will become the British pond—the British 200-mile exclusive limit. Therefore, it is clear from the figures I have given that the British industry needs protection, and it could be provided under the clause.

2.30 p.m.

I repeat a point of view expressed by hon. Members on both sides of the House on Second Reading, that catch quotas as defined by the EEC are wholly unsatisfactory. The only acceptable quotas are the effort quotas imposed by the Icelandic Government on us—that is, the number of ships to be allowed in a certain area and the period for which they may be there. Those quotas can easily be policed and maintained, and they are fair. I hope that only such quotas will be tolerable to the Committee.

I do not disagree with the hon. Gentleman. We are all concerned to see that quotas or effort limitation—whatever method is used—shall be effective in addition to looking after the interests of the industry and conservation.

I beg to move Amendment No. 37, in page 5, line 30, at end insert—

'(4) At the end of section 10 of the Sea Fisheries (Scotland) Amendment Act 1885 (powers of sea fishery officers) there are added the words "and section 10 of that Act shall apply for the purposes of this Act as if for any reference to section 8 or 9 of that Act there were substituted a reference to this section"

The clause allows the Minister to provide money for the protection of our fishing vessels within the 200-mile limit. The question has been raised whether the EEC should set up a fisheries protection squadron for EEC waters. I do not think that that would be acceptable. It would be rather like asking Paris gendarmes to help control the traffic in London or London bobbies to control the traffic in Paris. It has also been suggested that a modification of such a scheme, with EEC fishery protection vessels policing the vessels of other EEC member countries fishing within the 200-mile British limits, might be acceptable.

I believe that neither suggestion would be acceptable to third parties such as the USSR. We are debating this legislation because the USSR and other countries recognise only national legislation and not EEC legislation as such. That leads me to the conclusion that the money mentioned in the clause will be given to assist British fishery protection vessels.

I repeat what has been said many times in defence and fishery debates, that the two types of ship we are now building for this purpose and for oil rig defence are not wholly suitable. They are too slow, at 16 knots, and have no helicopters. There is nothing between these very slow policemen on the beat and Nimrod aircraft, which cover a vast area of sea. There must be something between the two. The need is for a 25-knot vessel which can bring quick-reaction forces to bear when they are needed. In wartime these vesesls could be fitted with missiles and be a useful addition to the Royal Navy.

When we are discussing fishery and oil rig protection, all the normal maritime duties of an island race, we should consider whether it would be advantageous from the point of view of the Government and the taxpayer, and of doing the job properly, to have a maritime agency to carry out those jobs as well as other essential matters, such as air-sea rescue, the protection of the environment against oil spillage and so on. I hope that the Government will give careful consideration to the suggestion of a maritime agency or an extended coastguard for this purpose. If they need vessels and men, they will find that there are now plenty of trawlers laid up in Hull and plenty of trawlermen out of work who would be only too willing to take on these responsibilities.

The hon. Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) is right to take this opportunity of again stressing the vital importance of protection in all forms. I wholly agree with all that he said. I do not want to repeat it, but I want to make two small additional points.

First, we are glad that there is now a helicopter stationed in Shetland in connection with fishery protection, and we would urge that there should be more. Secondly, are we certain that the interests of Scotland are being protected? I notice that it is the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food who

"may, with the approval of the Treasury, incur expenditure".

I hope that the Secretary of State for Scotland is not being forgotten and that he has adequate powers, no doubt under some other measure, to look after the protection of fisheries in Scotland.

Yes; it is out of a different Vote.

I beg to move Amendment No. 36, in page 9, line 10, at end insert

'and/or forfeiture of any fishing instrument used, or sea fish taken, in contravention, or found in the possession of a person contravening, any byelaws'.

I was asked to table the amendment by certain fishery interests in England which thought that the penalties provided in the schedule were not adequate. They said that a £1,000 fine sounded a lot but that the value of catches was so great that it would not be a sufficient deterrent. I make no defence of the wording of the amendment, which is complicated. I have an idea that the amendment is unnecessary anyway, because I think that the authorities would have the power to confiscate gear and possibly the catch as well. I should be grateful to be reassured that the penalties are adequate.

The amendment would add considerably to the penalties which courts may impose for the contravention of byelaws made by local sea fishery committees in pursuance of their powers under the Sea Fisheries Regulation Act 1966. Those byelaws have effect out to three miles off the coast of England and Wales and relate to the species of fish which may be caught and the method by which they may be caught. These are traditionally the fishing grounds of the smaller vessels. I do not think that it would be appropriate to apply harsher penalties than those set out in the Bill for contraventions.

The schedule proposes an increase in the maximum summary fine to £1,000 for byelaw offences. That is up to 20 times the present maximum. I am content that the new level of fines will prove to be an adequate deterrent. The fines which may at present be imposed are £50 for the first offence, £150 for the second offence and then £300 or three months' imprisonment, and so on. The suggested amounts are much larger penalties, and we should have in mind the comments made by the hon. Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) about enforcement. If enforcement is effective, it is another deterrent.

Have the fines been discussed with our EEC partners and, above all, with Norway and Iceland, which are not members of the EEC? It seems that our vessels get caned when they are caught fishing off Iceland but that our penalties are much lower. Have the penalties been discussed with other major fishing nations?

I have no information on that matter, but throughout the Bill there has been a drastic increase in penalties in general. We must look at Schedule 1 against that background. I stress the point about enforcement, which is important, because until one catches those concerned one cannot take action against them.

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Can the Minister help me over what is said on page 14, in paragraph 20, line 26, concerning the distance of six nautical miles? The figure should surely be 12 rather than six miles.

I can give the assurance that the hon. Gentleman seeks. The effect of the change is to retain the status quo.

I beg to move, in page 3, line 1, leave out

'for fishing by such boats'

With this amendment we may also take the second Government amendment.

These amendments give effect to two assurances which have already been given.

I thank the Minister for tabling these amendments, which meet my point and also that raised by the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell).

The Opposition are happy to accept the amendment.

May I, on behalf of what might be described as my hon. Friends behind me, echo the laudable sentiments that have already been expressed. We have all enjoyed being together in these fishing discussions and in seeking to do the best we can for our fishermen.

It appears that the hon. Friends behind the hon. Gentleman have all gone fishing.

We have had a useful and interesting debate in Committee and on Report, and I am grateful to hon. Members both for the constructive suggestions they have made and for their evident concern to avoid delaying the passage of the Bill.

I am sure we are all agreed that the Bill is an essential measure which we should aim to pass into law as quickly as possible. It will enable British fishery limits to be extended to 200 miles, and the target date for extension is 1st January. The other member States of the EEC are also due to extend on that date as a result of a decision taken by the Council of Ministers on 30th October—a decision for which Her Majesty's Government pressed very strongly. Not only we but also Norway and Canada will be extending fishery limits to 200 miles at that time. It is important, therefore, that we should have the power to protect the fish stocks around our coasts from a large-scale increase in fishing effort which could otherwise take place as a result of the fishing boats of some countries being diverted from their traditional grounds.

In line with the consensus on coastal State jurisdiction reached at the United Nations Law of the Sea Conference, the Bill will give Ministers wide powers to regulate access to British fishery limits and the fishing carried on within those limits. It does so largely by building upon existing enactments, widening and adapting them to the changed circumstances which will obtain from next year. It is largely an enabling and flexible measure, designed so that any necessary conservation and effort control measures may be introduced in the light of scientific advice and, eventually, a revised common fisheries policy.

As I have said, the Bill will enable Ministers to control access to waters within British fishery limits for foreign vessels and to require them to fish under licence, subject to a wide range of conditions, many of which have been spelt out. A number of hon. Members have, however, expressed understandable impatience that it does not go further and impose some form of wide exclusive coastal belt.

I thought that my right hon. Friend the Minister dealt with that matter in a sympathetic way. We are aware of the strong feelings which have been expressed on this matter in all parts of the House. We are, however, bound in this respect by our Community obligations and also, I should emphasise, by the need to avoid prejudicing sensitive negotiations on access to our waters for fishermen in whose waters our own deep sea fleets wish to continue fishing.

Substantial parts of the fishing industry have a strong interest in continuing to fish off Norway, for example, where valuable catches of the species of fish traditionally favoured by our own consumers may be taken. The Bill will enable us to implement whatever agreements on fishing rights are reached with third countries and whatever agreement is reached on a revised common fisheries policy.

One other function of the Bill, which should not be overlooked, is that it substantially increases the fines for most offences under the relevant enactments. The new penalties provided should constitute a very real deterrent to illegal fishing and breaches of conservation rules.

We are all anxious to see the powers in the Bill enacted at the earliest opportunity. I wish to pay tribute to hon. Members on all sides of the House for their co-operation, which has made possible the speedy passage of this measure.

We support the Bill because we appreciate the need for it and also the urgency of the situation. It can be described as a revolutionary Bill. Since the need is clear, we have done our best to help its passage.

It is a Bill which sets out a framework—in other words, it is the beginning rather than the end of the matter. The Government will need to show a great deal of skill and vigour in putting the right things in that framework. The Ministers who have taken part in today's proceedings show that they understand that situation.

I should not repeat any of the arguments about the common fisheries policy which we have already discussed fully. We agree to leave on one side for a little while the question of British fishing in Icelandic waters.

I hope that the Minister will comment on the subject of fishing inside the 200 miles by third party non-Community countries. That is extremely relevant to the provisions of the Bill.

Although I have tried to probe the matter on several occasions, there is still some uncertainty about the fishing that is engaged in by Soviet and East European trawlers. We know that we have agreed that the Commission should negotiate on behalf of these countries and that the negotiations have begun, but we also know that the Soviet Union has not hitherto been willing to discuss or negotiate anything with the European Commission. Perhaps we may have a little more information about that.

We read in the papers today, as part of Mr. Gundelach's Press conference, that the Commission is to propose a cut of about 50 per cent. to 55 per cent. from 1st January in catches taken by Russian and East European countries in EEC waters. That is the proposal if no agreement has been reached with the Community by 1st January.

On the basis of the information that we now have, I am assuming that there will be no agreement between the Community and the East European countries by that date. Do the Government propose to apply to East European catches the 50 per cent. to 55 per cent. cut referred to by the Commissioner? That is a practical point of great interest, especially off south-western shores. I hope that the Minister will add a little to the not very copious store of information that has been supplied by the Government during the past few days.

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it would be helpful to know how much the Eastern European countries catch?

I suspect that that information would be difficult to obtain, but I agree with the hon. Gentleman.

My right hon. and hon. Friends feel obliged to state that great vigilance should be continued in respect of protection and enforcement. That is a subject in the safe hands of my hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall). We are not happy about the rsources that are available or the arrangements being made. It would not be appropriate to pursue the matter in detail on Third Reading, but it is clearly something that the House will feel bound to pursue on the various occasions that it is open to it to do so.

It is not my intention to delay the House for long, especially as I was absent on Second Reading, although my absence was for good reasons. It seems that the great attraction of Second Reading has not been a feature of Third Reading. Perhaps those who were present on Second Reading have good reason to be absent on this occasion.

It was important that we should have a debate on the 50-mile limit so that my right hon. Friend could be strengthened in his knowledge of the feeling throughout the country and our partners in the EEC might be aware of the degree of interest, keenness and anger that is felt at times among the fishing community about the Commission's apparent failure to appreciate the problem that is facing the British fishing industry.

Secondly, and arising from the original amendments of the right hon. Members for Crosby (Mr. Page), Down, South (Mr. Powell) and Orkney and Shestland (Mr. Grimond), I hope that the Minister will be able to do as he said and introduce amendments in another place that will enable the policy that is evolving to be examined more carefully and more fully by the House in the application of the practical detail. I am sure the Minister will appreciate that it is not merely a matter of laying down policy guidelines in an industry such as fishing. It is the practical application that is paramount, be it limiting the size of nets or the provision of scientific data. These are the matters that make it a fascinating industry and one that rapidly changes.

Given the changes that are taking place, it is important that the House should be able to consider the regulations that the Government are introducing, whether they involve quotas, limits or species. It is important that the House should be able to debate them not on the basis that we might have a debate on fishing in Committee or on the odd chance that a Member might come up with a Private Member's motion or something happens after 10 o'clock at night, but following a positive response from the Government in bringing regulations before the House that require its affirmative support.

We do not know what will happen to third countries, and we do not even know what will happen to our own country, but it is of the utmost importance that we have constant statements from the Government on exactly what is happening and on what the Government think should happen. We have had rumours and counter-rumours on Iceland and in respect of negotiations with the EEC. Such rumours can cause only alarm and dismay. They can only upset morale where perhaps there is no reason for that. We understand that Ministers who are negotiating feel that they must not reveal their hand, but occasionally they must understand that, much as they may deserve to be trusted by the industry, the industry itself needs a little trust from them so that it may know what is going on.

We have conferred great powers on the Government by means of the Bill. I hope they will ensure that the orders they make in future are fully discussed and debated in the House.

The industrial problems now facing the industry have been debated during the various stages of the Bill, especially in respect of Iceland. We have debated the problems of the third parties and, above all, Norway, a country that has been mentioned more on Third Reading than at any other stage in the Bill's passage.

A matter that is perhaps most important of all and foremost in our minds at present is our relations with the EEC. We must rely entirely on the Government in the forthcoming negotiations while the Government have to some extent to rely on the EEC. I hope that the Minister will take strength from our debates and bear in mind the suggestions that he should impose a time limit. The negotiations must be brought to a head in the not too distant future, otherwise the interim arrangements will go on and on until they become part of the status quo. I hope that the Government will realise the great anxiety and strength of feeling throughout the industry and will take action to allay the anxiety as soon as possible.

Speaking as chairman of the all-party Fisheries Committee and as one who has sat here on two successive Fridays listening to almost all the debate, I would not like the Minister to think that it is only the Opposition who have anxieties about the situation. There will be problems in the fishing industry for years to come. Naturally there will be a void when we reach the new year, and we shall have to be careful about that. Even more important, we have to look at what will happen with third nations. We think we know where we stand with our EEC partners because we have a legal contract. Where do we stand with Cuba and Panama, let alone the Soviet Union, which catches well over 800,000 tons, or Norway, which catches a little less? We must know a lot more about this.

The Government need to be ever vigilant, particularly in the phasing-out operation. Since we have not debated an amendment dealing with the situation over the next 12 months, it is important that the Government should tell us about the phasing out of these third nations which do not have the legal status enjoyed by our sister States.

There is no body of men who work under such dangerous and hazardous conditions as the fishermen in the Arctic and North-East North Sea. We feel that whatever we can do for these men who go down to the sea in such dangerous conditions will never be enough.

My hon. Friends and I support the Bill with mixed feelings. We are relieved and delighted that the Government have at last taken some action. We still have some suspicions and apprehensions about the future because we have not settled the issue of our exclusive limits. We look with great concern to the transitional arrangements which the Government are to negotiate and bring into effect. We fear that those arrangements might become permanent. This is particularly so if the arrangements are to be in the form of some kind of quota régime. If that is to be the case, we need a much more unified system of recording and checking catches than existed under the old quota régime of the North-East Atlantic Fisheries Convention. We—and the fishermen—would have to be satisfied about the system before we would be willing to accept a quota régime.

I hope that the Government will regard the debate on the amendment dealing with the 50-mile limit as a warning shot across their bows. Let there be no doubt that their effigies will hang from the yard-arms of many fishing vessels if they return to this House and tell us that they have failed to get a 50-mile limit.

It will be the cat o' nine tails for them.

There is one being prepared now for the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland. The finishing touches are being put to it. I hope that it will not be necessary to add the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Minister of State to what will be an undistinguished band.

We have a first-class fishing fleet in Scotland which is well-equipped and crewed by skilful, capable and hardy fishermen. They deserve better than they have so far had from the Government and the EEC. I hope that the suggestion I made about time limits will he followed up and that we shall have regular progress reports. We were heartened by the Minister's robust and vigorous attitude—

Sharkish.

The hon. Member is an expert on sharks. The Minister impressed us by his attitude today. He should realise that when he goes to the negotiations he will carry with him not only our good will but our strong support and encouragement.

I appreciate all the comments that have been made in this Third Reading debate. I take the point made by the hon. Member for Mid-Oxon (Mr. Hurd). As for his question about the estimates of catch, I refer him to EEC Document R2227/76, which might provide him with some useful bedtime reading. As regards his natural concern about negotiations with third countries, I refer him to our debate last week and particularly to the reply given by my right hon. Friend.

I am grateful for the point made by the hon. Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) about enforcement and his comments concerning the vessels. We shall keep this under review. I recognise the concern of my hon. Friends the Members for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Johnson) and Kingston upon Hull, Central (Mr. McNamara). Their concern was echoed by the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. Henderson).

My right hon. Friend and I and the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland will be in Brussels early next week, following up some of the points which have been put today. My right hon. Friend's speech, which will be vigorous, will indicate the mood that we shall be in. I pay tribute to hon. Members for slogging at it today and last Friday, dealing with these important matters. Finally, I echo the tribute paid to the industry by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, West. We are fighting for an industry that is vital to our country.

In the time that I have had special responsibility for the fishing industry within the Ministry, it has been a great pleasure to go round so many fishing ports, see so many hon. Members and get to know the men involved in the industry.

We want to ensure that the Bill, which I hope will soon come back from the Lords, will provide the powers and the framework whereby we can ensure, as far as possible, a more viable industry.

With the permission of the House, I propose to put together the Questions on the seven remaining motions relating to Statutory Instruments.

Since February 1974 there have been four Ministers of Transport and three Under-Secretaries of State. The Minister for Sport and Drought, primarily wearing his sporting hat, has also been involved. The speed of change going on in the Ministries is such that it is pretty safe to welcome the present Under-Secretary of State on the first occasion on which he has had the good fortune and privilege to be involved in a debate on cycling.

My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young) is probably still cycling fast to get here this afternoon. He raised a number of important points in the Adjournment debate on Friday 11th July. It seems that the last debate on Friday is set aside for cycling.

In answer to a Question on 27th October the Minister assured the House that although only 11 lines of the Government Green Paper on Transport were devoted to cycling out of many hundreds of pages, cyclists could take heart because the Minister himself learned to ride a bicycle in my own constituency of Liverpool, Wavertree. In fact, I hear that the Minister was a cycling enthusiast in his youth. Perhaps this new appointment will give him the opportunity to revive his interest and say where his heart really lies.

But it is not the mere 11 lines in the orange Green Paper which disappoint the cyclist Members of this House and makes the cyclist Members of the other place extremely depressed; it is rather, that all Members feel let down.

In the Adjournment debate on cyclists on 11th July 1975 the Minister of State, Department of Environment said:

"My only regret is that we do not have more time to discuss it. … I am sure that we can return to the subject on other occasions when we shall have more time to deploy the various points that have been raised."—[Official Report, 11th July 1975; Vol. 895, c. 1024.]

But here we are, 18 months later, with approximately the same amount of time we had on 11th July and not so much as a whiff of interest from the Government during the last 18 months other than the rather inconspicuous 11 lines in the Green Paper. I hope that the Minister will be able to do better than the Minister for Sport and Drought.

I am a 10-mile-a-day man. I cycle in London and in Liverpool, but my bicycle tends to get stolen up there, so I have stopped cycling quite as much in that part of the country. Cycling offers the quickest, cheapest, most convenient and easiest-to-park form of transport in the heavily congested urban areas. It also keeps one fairly slim!

The Green Paper has a number of very commendable stated objectives, yet contradictory approaches are taken to meet those objectives. Let us take those objectives and test them against the case for cycling. Referring to efficiency, the Green Paper states that the aim is to maintain a safe and efficient transport system which provides good transport facilities at the lowest cost in terms of resources needed.

Bicycles fulfil such conditions better than any other form of transport. The resource cost for bicycle manufacture is at most one-fifth of any other transport, and the operating costs 95 per cent. Less. Cycling is the most efficient form of transport for appropriate urban journeys, because it has the highest average speed. The Minister will be familiar with the fact that the average urban traffic speed is 11 m.p.h. Those who are enthusiastic cyclists can achieve 15 or even 20 m.p.h.

Cycling has, of course, the highest fuel economy. By the year 2000, it is estimated that 33 per cent. of the population will be without a car. For short journeys, the bicycle provides one with a 24-hour door-to-door service virtually free and available to all sections and classes of the community and not just the better-off. The bicycle is virtually noiseless and, even taking into account additional food consumption by the cyclist, does the equivalent of 1,600 passenger miles per gallon of petrol.

Under the objective "Social Policy", the Green Paper reads:

"to give high priority to the social wefare aspects of transport, and in particular to the public transport needs of those without access to a car."

Under the policy objective "Environment", it reads:

"to protect and relieve the community from the unwarrantable impact of transport on the environment."

Under the objective "Resources" it reads:

"to secure the efficient use of scarce resources, notably energy."

Under "Public Expenditure" it reads:

"to recognise the need to restrain public expenditure, and in particular to confine subsidy to areas of greatest need."

Paragraph II.3 of the Green Paper says of bicycles—and it is one of the few passages to mention them—

"Real encouragement of their use for journeys to work in crowded city centres would need to be accompanied by … sometimes costly segregation measures."

In his thinking about this, I hope that the Minister will consider why segregation needs to be so costly and whether, in crowded city centres, it could not be done quite cheaply. Segregation for London's buses is already going ahead fast, even outside this House, in Parliament Square. I should like the Minister to consider how much that little right turn for buses must have cost the ratepayers of London—and one wonders to what effect.

Over the country as a whole, £5 million from the transport budget, which I am told is nearly £2,400 million in 1975–76, would go a long way towards covering all the work necessary to make cycling safer and more attractive.

Successive Ministers have sheltered under the inactivity of local authorities as an excuse for doing nothing. Knowing the new Minister's interest in cycling, I hope that he will consider advising local authorities on the merits of introducing cycling lanes. These need be only about a quarter of the size of our present bus lanes and would be a real incentive for cyclists to commute to and from work. This, in turn, would give a boost to our cycle industry, which is showing real signs of recovery. Cycle lanes need not necessarily be on the sides of roads. There is a lot of unused space in the centres of roads. That might be a way of dealing with this matter.

In the previous debate the Minister dealt with safety, and I should like to comment on this aspect of cycling. He said that cycling was much the most dangerous method of travel. The reason is very simple; it is that motor cars knock cyclists about. The motor car, not the cyclist, is the danger. Just as there would be far fewer accidents in total in city areas if all private traffic were banned, and if there were really efficient and speedy public transport arrangements augmented by taxis and bicycles, would not life be happier and healthier there? Perhaps the Minister will consider the possibility of banning the motor car and closing his ears to the yells from the motor car lobby. I ask him to consider how much more pleasant life in city centres would be if there were car-free zones, where bicycles could move freely and where we could have a first-rate public transport system as there is in some Common Market countries, and an efficient taxi system.

The Minister probably knows how pleasant it is to walk round St. James's Park on a Sunday when there are no motor cars about. I am sure that a few cyclists would not offend if they were there. The Minister must realise that pedestrians are safe if there are cyclists about. They get severely injured by motor cars. Of the 4,755 cycling deaths which took place in 1973, 80 per cent. occurred in urban areas. These could be drastically cut if car-free zones in city areas were adopted.

I need not mention the health aspects of cycling, but I am quite sure there would be greater efficiency at work and a happier atmosphere at home if more commuters had the opportunity of getting a bit of fresh air in their lungs. We know that those most prone to heart deaths are those who take no daily exercise.

If the Minister is concerned about the health of the nation, there is something he can do, and he will not only get the thanks of both Houses; he will go down as a name in history as advancing the rights of minorities and, in so doing, prolonging the life of the urban dwellers of the nation.

Our cities are grossly overcrowded. We all know this. They are choc-a-bloc with vehicles. The only way that we are going to de-snarl our city centres and make urban life more pleasant is by encouraging alternative forms of transport.

I have nothing against the motor car. On the contrary, it is remarkable scientific achievement, but it can make urban life and living unpleasant.

Surely the Minister must realise the voting potential of the 18 million cyclists in Britain. Will he please give them a message of hope today?

We cyclists must indeed be grateful to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Mr. Steen) for raising this matter today. As I indicated, I am personally interested in this matter. I cycle from time to time, though not as much as I used to do. I walk rather more, instead.

I think that cycling should be considered both for its own sake and from the point of view of relieving city congestion. The hon. Gentleman pointed out that we have had a number of debates on cycling. The last one was in July 1975. At that time the Government were urged by the hon. Gentleman and by his hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young) to make a positive approach to the subject. I claim that the Government have always done that. Indeed, I contradict what the hon. Gentleman said about action since that debate. We have taken not only our habitually positive attitude towards cycling but particular steps to try to help the cyclist.

No doubt the hon. Gentleman will explain exactly what those positive, encouraging steps were, so that the whole House may hear them.

The hon. Gentleman, who is somewhat short of an audience, anticipated my thoughts. I was about to indicate precisely where we had helped the cyclist in those few months since the last debate on this subject.

Eighteen months.

Yes, 18 months, but a very short time in the history of the cycle.

First, we have co-operated with the city of Portsmouth in preparing and bringing into effect a network of cycle routes. That scheme included the point made by the hon. Gentleman about using the middle as opposed to either side of the road. We appreciate the council's willingness to allow the Department's team to work with it and to assist in monitoring the scheme. The project achieved modest, but not great, popularity among cyclists. There were criticisms, and the council eventually decided that the experiment could not be continued for more than six months. I fully recognise that this is a matter for local decision, and I accept that decision entirely. However, I hope that I shall not be misunderstood when I say that I regret the terminating of that experiment. I am sure that it was nothing to do with the fact that the council was Conservative-controlled.

We should not regard the ending of the Portsmouth experiment as a serious setback. Others are in the offing, and the Department is playing a full part in their preparation. For example, the Department is working with the Peterborough Council on a system of cycle routes. I understand that this will start about the middle of next year. I hope that it will be a great success.

The Department is also in touch with the Wandsworth Council, which is hoping to create better cycling conditions in the area of Balham as soon as practicable. That is very much an inner city area, though perhaps a fringe inner city area, of the kind that the hon. Gentleman was most concerned about, from what he said. We are giving as much help as we can in the preparations. However, they will inevitably take time and cost a little money.

It is interesting to hear what the hon. Gentleman is doing to encourage some local authorities, but is there not a case for him to send advice to the pressurised industrial areas to explain that there is this unit in the Department which would be interested to co-operate with them, so as to give them some encouragement?

The hon. Member talks about pressurised industrial areas. Middlesbrough is such an area, and the Department is involved in a scheme there. Milton Keynes, which is slightly different, is another area in which the Department is involved.

The Department of Transport is not only willing to give all reasonable help within its manpower resources to local authorities who are prepared to undertake cycle schemes; it is prepared to go further, and positively to encourage people to undertake such schemes.

That takes money.

The hon. Member has put his finger on the point. We are talking essentially about local authority money, so, while the Department may be anxious to spend its own money, it cannot spend other people's quite so readily. This is a matter, as I indicated in the case of Portsmouth, where one must rely essentially on local autonomy. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman, who is undoubtedly no Stalinist, would not want to impose on people a huge bureaucracy which forced them to do locally that which they would not want to do of their own accord.

We have been actively seeking out authorities which want to do something for cyclists and positively to encourage them, albeit within the restraints that we all face, to take positive measures. One issue which, curiously enough, the hon. Gentleman did not raise, came up in the debate in July 1975. We were urged to take action in places for which the Department is directly responsible, such as the Royal Parks. At that time the cycle route in Richmond Park was introduced.

Since then we have created a route in Hyde Park, which is close to the heart of London and which may be close to the heart of the hon. Member, but, I fear, is not close to his route from Earls Court to Westminster. I understand that Baroness Birk inaugurated this splendid new cycle route through Hyde Park. No doubt she gave it a flying start, and we shall certainly monitor the position to see whether it becomes congested, whether there are too many accidents and so on.

The Government therefore have a positive record to show—a record of advice and active participation in local schemes and of instituting our own schemes.

Let me nevertheless add two cautions. There are snags in doing too much for cyclists. There is a difficulty in creating cycle lanes. Often there is not enough room for them in inner city areas. Their creation there will often add to congestion. They may take only a small amount of room, perhaps a quarter that of a bus lane, but road space is narrowly restricted.

Here again we take a positive attitude. Cyclists can use with-flow bus lanes unless a local traffic order prohibits them. I am not aware of such prohibitions generally being enforced. Therefore, it is perfectly legal and proper for cyclists to use these lanes, although they should keep their eyes open and perhaps even have eyes in the backs of their heads.

The adjustment of traffic lights to help cyclists is another point which has been raised many times in our debates. The problem there is the conflict with the interests of the pedestrian. Any spare time on traffic lights should be given to pedestrians rather than used in favour of cyclists. I think that the hon. Gentleman would agree that the pedestrian is even more vulnerable than the cyclist in today's modern traffic conditions.

Segregated cycle tracks are another much-vaunted solution to the problem. Again, these pose difficulties—for example, in providing crossings over traffic junctions, and so on, without incurring considerable expense.

Finally, perhaps I may say that we do not see cycling and extra provision for the cyclist—although we want it for its own sake—as necessarily a big part of the answer to traffic congestion in towns, which must essentially be dealt with by other means.

Perhaps the Minister will consider my suggestion—I have always felt that it makes a lot of sense—that in the inner part of the inner city areas we should actually close down access to the motor car and provide really efficient public bus services and an efficient taxi service. That has been done in other capitals, I understand, with pedestrian streets, and so on, and it makes living in the centre of big cities so much more pleasant and access so much easier.

I entirely agree. We encourage local authorities to undertake sensible pedestrianisation schemes and sensible schemes to ban lorries and to ban traffic in large volumes. Essentially, although that can be done, it operates best in limited areas and particular parts of the central areas, and not the whole areas. Even so, it is interesting to see the areas that are particularly good from a cycling point of view, such as Cambridge. Cambridge has a tradition of cycling. The fact that is was well designed from a cycling point of view and in addition had the sort of measures about which the hon. Gentleman spoke has meant that 21 per cent. of working people cycle to work in Cambridge. That is well above the national average.

We are sympathetic. We shall take on board the points that the hon. Gentleman has mentioned. I shall personally continue to take an interest in cycling, as will my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.