House of Commons Hansard Debates for 17 Feb 1992

Column 56

Mr. Nicholas Soames (Crawley) : My hon. Friend makes an extremely important point, and I wholly endorse what he said about the conservation of fish stocks. Is he aware--he will undoubtedly have seen this when he was there--that the Icelandic Government have instituted by far the most rigorous and impressive programme of conservation of fish stocks of any country which has those interests at heart? Will he draw the attention not only of my right hon. Friend the Minister but of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to that, because our fisheries- -as my hon. Friend knows--are coming under the same pressure, especially on the east coast?

Mr. Warren : I am very glad that I gave way to my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Mr. Soames), because he makes a very sound point. The conservation measures that we saw in Iceland were of a world calibre of leadership. The question that occurs to me is, what is the advantage to the Spaniards in terms of the European market of scouring the fish stocks of, for example, Iceland, when they will merely sell on into the same market in which the Icelanders are trying to sell? I hope that we shall stand up vigorously for the Icelanders having forgotten--I hope--the cod wars of the past, and that we shall regard them as allies in wanting to share the market. I know that a number of hon. Members want to contribute to the debate, so I shall conclude. I am conscious of the United Kingdom's identity of political interests with EFTA, especially with those of the northern tier of countries with which we share many common values. One advantage to the United Kingdom of such an extension would be that we would no longer be on the perimeter of the European Community--our centre of gravity would be more towards the centre of the combined interests of EFTA and the European Community. As we move towards agreement, another remarkable step forward will be that neutrality and the balance with those who want to form military alliances are no longer a division or a problem. Ireland has been the only neutral within the European Community, but we shall, within the agreement which is being negotiated, bring in the interests in neutrality of Austria, Sweden and Finland and also of Iceland. We have here not only a major trade opportunity but a major political opportunity of important dimensions to this country. As this agreement is being forged, may I ask my right hon. Friends and his colleagues in government--as they will be after the general election--to raise their eyes to new horizons and to consider the opportunities of incorporating the nations of eastern Europe as rapidly as possible into an economic zone, not merely the association agreements now being made? As chairman of the British-Russian parliamentary group, may I ask that the Commonwealth of Independent States is not forgotten, because we must offer it the possibility of being able to join the prosperity of western Europe as quickly as possible.

I am delighted to have had this opportunity to lend my support to the agreement which is commended to the House by my right hon. Friend.

5.38 pm

Mr. Denzil Davies (Llanelli) : Like the other hon. Members who have spoken, I welcome the draft agreement and hope that it will be accepted.

Column 57

I recollect the Minister saying that the countries of the European Free Trade Association would not have to bear the burden--perhaps those were not the words that he used--of the common agricultural policy. The thought crossed my mind that it was a very good agreement for EFTA and that perhaps we could consider applying for membership of EFTA so that we could have the benefit of not having to contribute to the CAP, but no doubt that is not possible.

I will raise two matters which are not connected. The first is the cohesion fund. The Minister did not deal with the matter thoroughly and was extremely brief, although it is important. The Minister said that the EFTA countries will contribute 500 million ecu in grants over five years to what is described in the jargon of the Community as a "cohesion fund". Perhaps that contribution is the danegeld that they have to pay for not being part of the common agricultural policy. The Minister then told us that Northern Ireland is the only region in the United Kingdom that will be able to benefit from the cohesion fund. The Republic of Ireland will also benefit, and we have no objection to either Northern Ireland or the Republic benefiting. I make no apology for mentioning Wales, because it is the poorest region in Britain. On European Community figures for last year, and taking the average as 100, gross domestic product per head for Wales is 85. Scotland is exactly 100. The north-west, the north-east, Yorkshire and Humberside are slightly higher. The south-west, the east midlands and the west midlands are all higher. Wales has the lowest GDP per head in the whole of Britain.

Wales is located in the west of Britain. The hon. Member for Hastings and Rye (Mr. Warren) said that the agreement shifted the centre of gravity of the Community. As a result of what has happened in eastern Europe over the past few years, the centre of gravity has moved eastwards and, as a result of this agreement, it is now moving slightly northwards. The western areas of Britain will suffer. The whole of Ireland will be compensated to some extent, whereas Wales and the other western parts of Britain are in danger of falling between two stools.

The same is true of the Maastricht agreement, which set up a cohesion fund and an infrastructure fund. Both are based on the same definition of the poorer regions of Britain.

Rev. Ian Paisley (Antrim, North) : Is it not a basic feature of the Maastricht agreement that Northern Ireland is excluded because it is part of the United Kingdom?

Mr. Davies : I hope that the Minister will answer that question. It has never been clear to me whether the rules that apply to the cohesion fund under the European economic area agreement also apply to the cohesion fund under the Maastricht agreement. I understood that the Maastricht agreement dealt merely with national GDP per head. As the United Kingdom's GDP per head is higher than 100, Northern Ireland and Wales are excluded. This cohesion fund may be slightly different. I am sorry that the Minister hardly dealt with that point. I hope that he will tell us why Northern Ireland was included--there is no objection to its inclusion--whereas Wales, for example, was not included. Is Northern Ireland included in the Maastricht cohesion fund? If it is, why is not Wales included? Perhaps Wales is included. We must deal with that matter because it is extremely important.

Column 58

It may take some time to attain economic and monetary union ; but, as we move towards it, the centralisation of currency and the fact that we shall not be able to control our own currency or, to a considerable extent, our public expenditure will mean that the areas on the periphery--which, if Ireland is to be an exception, will be mainly those in the west of Britain, especially Wales, the north-west of England and parts of the west of Scotland--will not get the attention or benefit that they deserve. I hope that the Minister will give us a more adequate and a clearer explanation of the cohesion funds when he winds up the debate.

The second matter may sound esoteric and may not seem to be connected with the first point. I refer to the legal opinion of the European Court on the original draft agreement. My hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, East (Ms. Quin)--I do not criticise her for this--spoke about legal niceties. That is one way in which to describe the matter, but I believe that the court's opinion goes far further than legal niceties. The court set out clearly its view about what the European Economic Community, or European union as it will be called, is all about. I understand that the European Parliament may wish to send back to the court even the cobbled-up compromise reached as a result of the court's condemnation of the original agreement. If that happens, we may again come into conflict not with the court, but with the way in which the court interprets the basic purposes of the European Economic Community or European union.

Paragraph 17 of the court's opinion says that it follows, among other things, from certain articles of the treaty that "that treaty"--that is, the treaty of Rome--

"aims to achieve economic integration leading to the establishment of an internal market and economic and monetary union."

The opinion refers to the original treaty of Rome to which we adhere as a result of a vote in the House on the royal prerogative in 1972. Let us be under no illusion. Despite all the things that we were told in 1972, adherence to the treaty meant adherence to economic and monetary union, and not merely to a free trade area. The opinion continues :

"Article 1 of the Single European Act makes it clear moreover that the objective of all the Community treaties is to contribute together to making concrete progress towards European unity."

The Single European Act was about European unity.

When one listened to some members of the Cabinet who now criticise the Act, it seemed as if the Act was just about the free movement of goods. Of course it was not. As the court has said and as the preamble to the Act says, the Act is about concrete progress towards "European unity".

The court also said :

"It follows from the foregoing that the provisions of the EEC Treaty on free movement"--

the free movement of goods--

"and competition, far from being an end in themselves, are only means for attaining those objectives."

That was the fundamental dilemma in respect of the EFTA-EC agreement. The court says that the articles on the free movement of goods and competition rules, and all the directives linked to them, must be interpreted on the basis that they lead to European unity. I do not know what European unity is. Nobody has defined it and nobody seems to have a clue what it is. Is it

Column 59

a federal or a confederal union? It is a serious matter that the court interprets directives on the basis of a goal called "European unity" which it is not prepared to define.

I digress a little by mentioning briefly the problem of Sunday trading. The Torfaen borough council case, which went to the European Court, was decided on the basis that any restriction on Sunday trading was a limitation on article 30 on the free movement of goods. I suppose that it is. If anyone closes a shop anywhere in the EC, it is a restriction on the free movement of goods. A sensible court which did not have a great goal of European union which it wanted to achieve would have said, "It is de minimis. Let us not bother about it." The European Court could not do that. In the court's view, a restriction under article 30 meant that the goal of European unity would somehow be affected. There was a nonsense decision. There is a fundamental question here about the nature of the Community. It is no good our going to Maastricht, or the Foreign Secretary managing to have the word "federal" removed from that treaty, if the fundamental proposition advanced by the court is that we are talking in the EC about progress towards European unity. I do not know what European unity means, and it is a strange court of law that says that everything must be interpreted in the light of European unity and does not have a clue what that means.

That brings me to my final point, which is that we appoint judges to the court. I have never believed that there is too much wrong with the way in which our system of justice operates, with the Lord Chancellor appointing judges to the courts of England and Wales. There may be a case for a small committee of senior judges to advise him, and I have an open mind on that. The European Court is an entirely different matter. It is a political court whose goal is European unity and which interprets directives and treaty agreements in accordance with that political goal.

One of these days, we will have to look at the views of those appointed. Apparently, one judge was appointed recently and another is about to be appointed. There is also the Advocate-General. In the United States, which has a similar constitution, judges are asked their views on matters such as federalism and jurisdiction of the court. Apparently, we do not ask the judges whom we appoint to the European Court their views on European unity. Do they have a clue what it means? Have they ever thought about it? Those are matters which, some say, we should discuss.

The problem with EFTA and the EC highlights that difficulty. It was the EC's legal people who eventually said that the matter had to go to the European Court because they could see that there was a fundamental conflict in the development of the Community. The Community cannot develop as a free trade area, including all those other countries--which the Government seem to want and about which we are all in agreement--if we have the court saying that everything must be geared towards European unity, whatever that may mean. We shall have to wait to see what happens with the cobbled-up agreement. Perhaps it will be all right. I do not know ; I suspect that it may not be all right. I repeat that this is not a legal nicety but a fundamental problem, to

Column 60

which the House will have to return before too long, concerning the development and eventual nature of the Community to which we belong. 5.52 pm

Mr. John Butterfill (Bournemouth, West) : I find myself in a slightly strange position. I am usually somewhat critical of the Commission and support the concept of redressing the democratic deficit. On this occasion, however, I support the position that the Commission has taken and am rather critical of that which the European Parliament has adopted.

We owe a debt of gratitude to Frans Andriessen, who has persisted with this matter despite having been obstructed by the European Parliament and the European Court. We need to take a broad view of these matters. We are talking about a dramatic development, in that the European economic area will comprise 19 European countries. Most important, it will take within itself a group of countries--primarily the Nordic countries--that have an enormous contribution to make to the concept and development of European democracy. The Nordic countries have one of the longest established democratic traditions in Europe. They have much to teach Europe about parliamentary democracy. We have made our own important contribution, but the more countries with such traditions we have in Europe, the better, and a step that will almost inevitably lead to the enlargement of the Community is extremely welcome.

It is rather sad that juridical minutiae seem to be preventing that from happening. It is not particularly edifying to see lawyers and the European Parliament arguing over such minute matters. The Commission itself believes that, under article 238, we could proceed as it had originally proposed. As I understand it, the only issue regarding the competence of the court was that the court felt that its competence would not extend throughout EFTA and that a compromise arrangement would therefore need to be made.

I hope that the arrangement that we have now reached will mean that the matter can now proceed quickly and that the St. Valentine's day decision will lead to a swift consummation of the love affair between the 19 nations of the European economic area. The draft treaty ought to be endorsed as quickly as possible. If 19 European Governments can agree that they wish to follow a particular course of action, it seems to me thoroughly undesirable that the institutions of the EC should seek to prevent them from doing so on purely technical grounds. It will be a sad reflection on the European Parliament if, the first time that it exercises its enlarged powers under the Maastricht treaty, it uses them so as to obstruct the agreement that has been worked out.

The agreement is enormously important to the whole European Community. In particular, in relation to Maastricht, the cohesion fund that has been established will mean that there will be considerable additional resources to help with the convergence of the economies of the European Community. The importance of that should not be underestimated. Inevitably, considerable problems will arise in achieving the degree of convergence envisaged under the Maastricht treaty, and, unless additional funding is available, that convergence could be long delayed.

Column 61

The creation of the EEA, with the additional funds that the wealthier countries from the northern fringe and Switzerland and Austria will bring, will help that process considerably. In that regard, can the Minister tell us the extent to which the cohesion fund as proposed will meet the likely level of contribution that would be required from the EFTA countries had they been applying now for full membership of the Community?

This marvellous opportunity should be grasped by the whole Community. If it is necessary to interpret treaties in more flexible ways, I hope that we shall do so, and I hope that the European Parliament, in particular, will not stand in our way. 5.57 pm

Sir Russell Johnston (Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber) : As always, I found the speech of the hon. Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Butterfill) most interesting. I do not know that I agree with him that the referral of the treaty on the EEA to the European Court was legally insignificant and a technicality--I shall return to that in a minute--but I strongly support the paean of praise that he uttered for Nordic democracy. As he will know, Nordic democracy is

non-confrontational, consensual and founded on proportional representation. I hope that we shall be infected with it very soon.

Mr. Ian Taylor : They have Conservative Governments in Nordic countries.

Sir Russell Johnston : Proportional representation does not preclude Conservative Governments.

The Liberal Democrats support the establishment of the European economic area, which, as several hon. Members have said, is clearly the prelude to the extension of the European Community. It also sounds the death knell of the alternative concept of a loose economic grouping, put forward by those who argued first against the establishment of the EC and then against moves to make it more effective by more effective integration.

EFTA was the only alternative to the European Community. That was why the British Government of the day, in their short-sighted fashion, were unwilling to work with the then six and took a leading role in establishing EFTA as the alternative. We abandoned that, along with Denmark and Ireland, in 1973, and it is now set to be wound up altogether. Therefore, we should recall the fact that those who took that "have our cake and eat it" attitude were wrong. Some, sadly, like the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies), are still wrong.

I will not prolong this short debate, as many hon. Members wish to speak. Three hours is an absurdly short time to examine such a width of issues with any thoroughness. The Minister himself called it the most ambitious agreement so far signed by the Community. That highlights the great difficulty facing the House in dealing collectively in the Chamber with European Community issues. The fourth report of the Trade and Industry Committee is full and detailed, and the Committee and its Chairman, the hon. Member for Hastings and Rye (Mr. Warren), from whom we have already heard, deserve much credit. However, the report is a year and a half old, and it has not been debated. In any event, the views of a Committee do

Column 62

not necessarily reflect the opinion of the House as a whole. The Government's reaction appeared in October 1990 and, to my knowledge, it has not been debated either.

I do not believe that such a procedure can be considered an adequate representation of Parliament's views on European Community negotiations or legislation. We should have full and suitably timed debates.

Mr. Warren : I am grateful to the hon. Member for referring to our report. However, I assure him that the report was unanimous, and included the full support of a member of the Liberal Democrats.

Sir Russell Johnston : I was not suggesting that it was not unanimous. As the hon. Member for Hastings and Rye said, the Committee was not divided, but that does not mean to say that that is always the case in Select Committees. If the principle is that it is adequate parliamentary consultation for a Committee to deal with an issue, I do not agree with that principle.

Mr. Warren indicated assent.

Sir Russell Johnston : Obviously the hon. Member for Hastings and Rye agrees with me about that. We need suitably timed debates that take place well in advance if we are to exert influence on the Minister before negotiations or Council of Ministers meetings. There is another alternative : that the House should no longer seek to duplicate what is done in the European Parliament, but should leave detailed representations to that body and confine itself to debates on general issues--while of course always retaining the right which any Member or group of Members have of raising specific matters with Ministers. The present position is neither one thing nor the other. There is a pretence of exercising influence without the reality.

However, across the piece, the Community has conducted a good negotiation, and the Committee has produced a good report. I suspect that the replies to this debate will be truncated because of the number of hon. Members who wish to participate. If the Minister cannot answer all my points, I would appreciate it if he would drop me a wee note.

As several hon. Members have said, the arrangements on fish represent an advance in terms of access on what exists under the common fisheries policy at present. However, as the existing CFP agreement relates to estimates of available fish, have those been changed? The previous agreement was based on what could be fished properly and safely on conservation grounds, but is that now to be extended? On what basis is it being carried out?

The hon. Members for Gateshead, East (Ms. Quin) and for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) referred to policing. If the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow is right--I think he is--there will be two levels of policing in fishing areas. There will be tighter control in Norwegian waters and less tight control elsewhere. That is very unsatisfactory, and the House and the Government, through the Council of Ministers, should do more about Community policing in Community waters.

The Minister referred to exclusion of fish species, and specifically mentioned salmon. Was he referring to wild salmon running in the sea, or did his comments include farmed salmon? The Minister will be aware that there has been a great deal of concern among fish farmers who produce salmon. That is an important industry in my

Column 63

constituency, especially in Lochaber, where Marine Harvest has just been put up for sale by Unilever. There is much employment in the industry in respect of processing in Fort William and in the farms on the west coast, where there is little alternative employment. The concern related to the blatant dumping of farmed salmon by Norway. There was much negotiation and to-ing and fro-ing about that, and I wonder whether that was affected by the agreement.

Recommendation 4 of the Trade and Industry Committee indicated that the creation of the EEA would provide an opportunity for further progress on discrimination against United Kingdom alcohol, which of course includes Scots whisky and related Scots whisky-based liqueurs. As the Government have said that they hoped that there would be opportunities for further progress, I should like to know what further progress has been achieved.

With regard to recommendation 7, I would like to know the up-to-date position on competitive public procurement. As hon. Members will be aware, our construction industry is currently under-used and could well have competitive opportunities opened up to it.

Recommendation 9 relates to the promotion of direct flights from United Kingdom regional airports, and what the DTI called "innovative fares". That will be most welcome if it happens. However, considering the current war of words between British Airways and Virgin Airways, and recalling the fate of Mr. Laker, who certainly went in for innovative fares, I confess to being somewhat sceptical about that. Perhaps the fact that Lord King went into a huff and stopped paying money to the Conservative party might give the Government a freer hand--who knows?

Finally, I do not believe that it is that helpful for the hon. Member for Hastings and Rye to make abusive remarks about the European Parliament, satisfying though that might be. It is always very satisfying to make abusive remarks, but the European Parliament was simply defending the position of the court, which EFTA sought to circumvent. It is not unreasonable that the Parliament should wish to be assured that the new arrangements will make the position of the courts secure.

In response to the right hon. Member for Llanelli, the court is in reality a federal court. In reaching the new agreement, I hope that there has been contact between the institutions--the Commission and the Council--and the court so that there will be no delay. I agree entirely with the hon. Member for Gateshead, East, that that would be most undesirable. I hope that the European Parliament will not hesitate about ratification.

Mr. Butterfill : I hear what the hon. Gentleman says, and I am sure that that is the technical position that the European Parliament has taken. However, in practice, surely it did not like the idea of a separate court with enhanced jurisdiction over a wider area. Surely it wanted to reinforce the position of the total competence over all Community matters of the European Court of Justice. That was a narrow-minded outlook, in view of the magnitude of the events that it was being asked to consider.

Sir Russell Johnston : I agree entirely with the definition that the hon. Member has spelt out. However, I do not

Column 64

agree that that was a small-minded approach. I do not see the point of having two separate courts, given the short life of the agreement between today and the eventual adhesion of most of the members involved in it, with the possible exception of Iceland and, later, Norway.

In conclusion I entirely agree that this is a great step forward for all Europe. It was slow in coming, but it is all the more welcome for that.

6.9 pm

Rev. Ian Paisley (Antrim, North) : There was a time when we were told that none of the EFTA countries would survive the Common Market. In fact, when this country had the opportunity of having a referendum, we were told that it would be the demise of those countries. One has only to look at the progress that EFTA has made, its balance sheet, and the eagerness of the EC now to make peace with it to realise that the prophets who prophesied doom were false prophets and that their prophecy was entirely wrong. We need to face up to that fact. It would be interesting to read the speeches of right hon. and hon. Members who were prepared at that time to read an obituary notice to EFTA and all its deeds. But EFTA still exists.

The widening of the European Community is to the good. I should rather see the EC widened than deepened, and I should like to see the possibility of it being a real European Community in which the whole of Europe is included. I am not arguing for federalism--everybody knows my views--but I am arguing for a unity amidst the diversity, and I am also urging for that interdependence which does not destroy independence. That is the way in which Europe should develop. The new cohesion fund has the same objective as the Maastricht cohesion fund--to help people in the less-favoured areas of the Community who need to be cushioned because of progress made toward more prosperity in the more prosperous parts of the European Community. One would have thought that the same ground rules would adhere to this cohesion fund and the Maastricht cohesion fund, but they do not. This cohesion fund seems to take into consideration objective 1 areas of the EC. The Maastricht fund does not do that. For example, Wales, which is an objective 2 area, is completely left out. I should have thought that all parts of the European Community which are to be hit, and hit hard economically by what is going on in Europe, should be included in the cohesion fund.

I am glad that Northern Ireland, the only United Kingdom objective 1 area in the Community, is included. However, I do not think that other parts of the United Kingdom which are equally entitled to help should have been excluded. However, in the Maastricht deal, Northern Ireland alone is an objective 1 area and it is excluded. Three Northern Ireland Members of the European Parliament met the Prime Minister and drew his attention to that subject. He has argued that the criterion is different, that we are dealing with the United Kingdom as a whole and that, therefore, the objective 1 argument does not come into it.

I do not know how one can have two agreements, one arguing on one set of principles and the other arguing on another set. If the objective of the European Community is to be achieved, objective 1 and 2 areas in the United Kingdom should be included. I trust that, even now, the

Column 65

Government will have second thoughts on this matter and I hope that the Minister will spell out exactly what the cohesion fund under this agreement will be in comparison with the cohesion fund under the Maastricht agreement.

The other matter which I should like the Minister to develop relates to fish. We are not getting the full story on fish. The measure deals with cod. I am not suggesting that the Minister is acting the cod, but someone is certainly not telling us the full facts. How much will United Kingdom fishermen benefit? May they have a firm figure?

I congratulate the Minister on the good document--one can read it. One cannot read the other documents that we are to discuss later. Perhaps it is another conspiracy of the Government to keep us from reading them. How can one read such documents? One cannot make them out. Even when I went back and said, "Give me another copy," the second one was almost as bad as the first. If I came from Aberdeen instead of Ballymena, I would go back even for a third copy that I could read.

The document tells us that the EC will have greater access to fishing grounds. It states :

"The EC share of the total allowable catch for North Norway cod will increase from 2.14 per cent. to 2.9 per cent."

It is said that we will do very well out of that because of the "two-thirds of the total."

Will the Minister tell us what the total is and what the term "two-thirds of the total" really means? The document goes on to refer to France and Germany and states :

"Norway will also grant the EC separate fixed quantities of cod to be allocated to Spain, Portugal and possibly Ireland".

Those countries never fish in those fishing grounds. We are told that that does not alter the treaty, but the document is making a change in what was tightly negotiated by all those countries which had an interest in fishing and which were attempting to safeguard their fishing grounds. We now have a new fishing arrangement that includes Spain, Portugal and possibly Ireland.

Ireland is mentioned in the paper as the Republic of Ireland. How does the Republic of Ireland come into it? The paper says "possibly Ireland". Perhaps Ireland is excluded. Knowing the Republic of Ireland, I know that, if there is anything going for nothing, it will be in on it, all right. I should have thought that it would be in on this deal.

We need to know what will happen to those fishing grounds. Why does this agreement interfere with already agreed principles on fishing? Is it because Spain and Portugal opposed the treaty and that they had to be bought off? Is this the way that they were bought off? The Minister should tell us the truth. Is there a real benefit to our fishermen? If there is, I welcome it, because we in the United Kingdom have had a raw deal on fishing.

One of the things that we need to tell Europe over and again is that there would be no large fishing grounds but for the United Kingdom. The United Kingdom has given liberally to Europe. We are often told that the British are little Englanders, but that is certainly not the case in respect of fishing, because we have given liberally to establish a common fishing policy. I ask the Minister to tell us exactly how much we are to benefit. The document states : "The Agreement can be expected to afford financial benefit to the UK by virtue of the increased opportunities for UK business as described above. Northern Ireland will be a beneficiary of the EFTA cohesion fund."

Column 66

Of course I welcome that, but other parts of the United Kingdom which suffer unemployment and an economic plight such as that of Northern Ireland should also be included in that cohesion fund. 6.19 pm

Dr. Norman A. Godman (Greenock and Port Glasgow) : The hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) said that years ago the EFTA countries were reluctant to associate with the European Community. I remind him that Norway voted against membership of the European Economic Community in the referendum because of the understandable fears of many Norwegians, particularly in fishing communities in the north of Norway, about the common fisheries policy. There is no doubt that attitudes have changed but there was a deep fear about the CFP and open access to northern Norwegian waters.

I see that the Minister is away for the moment. I welcome the agreement, but some elements of it give rise to some concern. In my brief speech I wish to ask some questions which could perhaps be relayed to the Minister.

My first question is about the free movement of persons. Paragraph 11 of the explanatory memorandum published by the Department of Trade and Industry says :

"The Agreement prohibits discrimination between EC and EFTA nationals in respect of employment".

The Minister spoke about self-employment and the creation of businesses. But the same paragraph also says :

"this embraces the right to accept offers of employment actually made, to stay in an EC or EFTA country for that purpose and to remain there afterwards."

I ask the question that I asked earlier : what is the position of immigrant workers long domiciled in European Community countries? I refer, for example, to the North African immigrant workers in France or those known as gastarbeiter in Germany? It seems that the EC countries have reached some sort of tacit agreement about such European Community residents. By that, I mean that such people will be confined to the countries in which they reside now.

We are talking about several millions of people. Tacitly or otherwise, the European Community has affixed to those people second class-status as citizens. I do not believe that they will be allowed to move around the 12 EC countries, let alone the EFTA countries. I would like an answer to that critical point. We talked about the problems of immigration into the European Community, but we also have a serious problem of migration of people such as I have described, many of whom have lived for years and years in, say, France or Germany. They seem to have second-class status as citizens. I promised to be brief, but I wish to ask some questions about fishing. I listened intently to the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston), who is knowledgeable on the subject--as, of course, he needs to be--and to the hon. Member for Antrim, North. I agree with the Minister that the agreement will benefit some of our distant water trawlers with regard to north Norway cod.

I should perhaps declare an interest here. I am not a fisherman myself, but I have a brother who is the mate of a big freezer trawler. He and his comrades will undoubtedly benefit from the agreement because that trawler is one of the few which has the capability to fish in such dangerous waters. For reasons of safety, not all the trawlers that one sees in Ulster or the Republic of Ireland

Column 67

should go out to those dangerous grounds. The same holds true for Icelandic waters, which are equally dangerous for small vessels. The Minister mentioned a figure of 6,000 tonnes for the amount of cod coming to United Kingdom fishermen. The hon. Member for Antrim, North asked the Minister to give us a definitive figure. I should like the same information. The information that I have been given is that the figure for 1993 is 1,600 tonnes. Is the latter figure the increase in the amount that our fishermen will be able to catch or is it the total catch figure for 1993? I know that it is not the Minister's responsibility, but the responsibility of the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and of the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries in Scotland. Does the figure refer to fish fillets or to whole fish as it comes over the side of the trawler? There is an important difference.

Paragraph 25 of the Minister's explanatory memorandum says : "Iceland will provide a small additional quantity of fish, the allocation of which is still to be determined."

Did I hear the Minister aright? Did he mention red fish when he talked about the unknown Icelandic allocation? If that is the case, I wonder whether perhaps the United Kingdom and Germany could do a swap of allocations of red fish and Norway cod. Traditionally, United Kingdom trawlers do not fish for red fish. Would there be any chance of an agreement between Germany and the United Kingdom?

Despite the Minister's eminently reasonable comments about cohesion in relation to access for Spanish vessels to fishing grounds, I still believe that to give Spanish and Portuguese vessels access to grounds that they have never fished before bodes ill for the mid-term review of the common fisheries policy. There is no doubt that the Spanish, with their huge, over -large fleet, will seek access to United Kingdom grounds, from which at present they are rightly and properly excluded. That exclusion must remain. Now that the Spanish have won a significant concession on grounds that are not traditional to them, they will be heartened about their bargaining position in the mid-term review of the CFP. If the common agricultural policy is important, especially to Conservative Members, I can tell the House that the CFP is very important to our fishing communities in Scotland and, of course, elsewhere.

I am worried about the agreement which allows Spanish vessels to fish in new waters, because it will strengthen the position of the Spanish when they come to negotiate the mid-term review. We are almost upon it--it is literally months away. Now that they have the agreement to fish, perhaps in Icelandic waters and certainly in Norwegian waters, they will say that the derogation given to the United Kingdom protecting our inshore waters should be examined. By the agreement, the United Kingdom is stirring up problems for our fishing industry in the mid-term review. I am aware that it is not the responsibility of the Minister, but it is the responsibility of Her Majesty's Government and he is the ministerial representative of the Front Bench now. We are heading into danger.

Mr. Butterfill : Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is possible to take the reverse view? The very fact that the

Column 68

Norwegians have been prepared to grant access will relieve some of the pressure on us to grant access in the review. It is entirely helpful that the EFTA countries are prepared, through the cohesion fund and fisheries extensions, to take some of the burden of introducing a level of convergence between the economies of the Community. The principal Spanish argument is an economic one. Spain says that it needs economic assistance. Whether that comes through the extension of fishing areas or other economic assistance is unimportant : the important principle is that the wealthier northern countries are giving more assistance to the poorer southern countries.

Dr. Godman : I am sure that the fact that the European Fisheries Commissioner, Mr. Marin, is Spanish has no bearing on what has happened. I trust the man that far. The Spanish will not catch much fish off northern Norway, but they have achieved a breakthrough in the negotiations between the European Community and third countries in terms of access to the waters of those third countries. That breakthrough is important to the Spanish Government and their negotiators, as will be seen when we come to the mid- term review. Everywhere, there are far too many fishermen chasing too few fish. We all know that, and we are arguing for a decommissioning scheme for our fleet, which is too big for the stocks upon which it exists. The Spanish must face up to the same problems. They must halve their distant water fleet instead of coming into our waters.

Policing of waters has already been mentioned. Scottish and English fishermen going into northern Norwegian waters to fish tell us that the policing is much tougher than anything that they encounter in the European Community. The Norwegian coastguard knows exactly where every foreign vessel is fishing. Boardings are frequent and the penalties for infringement of rules are savage. Licences are taken away and huge financial penalties are inflicted on miscreants. That has always been the case in Norwegian and Icelandic waters. The hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber is right : we are talking about two systems of policing.

I hope that I do not sound too chauvinistic when I say that the Spanish are among the worst when it comes to breaking rules on the catching of fish, not just in our waters but in Irish waters. They have a shocking record, but they will come adrift in Norwegian waters if they try such games with the Norwegian coastguard.

The Minister spoke about red fish, and I should like to know the precise figures on northern Norway cod. Paragraph 33 of the explanatory memorandum refers to the creation of

"An EEA Joint Parliamentary Committee, composed of MEPs and EFTA parliamentarians".

Was any thought given to placing on that committee of Members of Parliament from the 12 national legislatures of the European Community? If the purpose of that committee is to promote mutual understanding through dialogue and debate, I should have thought that Members of Parliament from EFTA countries would benefit enormously from meeting fellow Members of Parliament as we are the ones in the parliamentary front line when matters of this kind are debated. I hope that, as this relationship develops, Iceland and Norway will give up the barbarous activity of whaling. They do not need to catch whales--they are both affluent north Atlantic countries-- and I hope that, as a humane

Next Section

Home Page