| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Madam Speaker: That may be an issue that has very little to do with the Chair, but a good deal to do with the
Government. However, I will look at the points of order that have been raised concerning the issues that were dealt with last night.
Mr. Dalyell: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker: I have already taken a point of order from you, Mr. Dalyell. Please resume your seat.
Mr. Nick St. Aubyn (Guildford): On a point of order, Madam Speaker. When you are considering the complicated events of last night, will you bear it in mind that, during our proceedings, Mr. Deputy Speaker advised us that we were debating a committal motion, and not a continuation motion? With the greatest respect, that would seem to be somewhat at variance with your thoughts this afternoon, which make a great deal more sense to me--
Madam Speaker: Order. They are not at all at variance. It was a committal motion last night.
Madam Speaker: So you should. What is your point of order to me?
Mr. St. Aubyn: My point of order is that you have just told the House that the Bill was not committed to the Select Committee.
Madam Speaker: It was committed to a Select Committee. It was not committed to a Standing Committee under Standing Order No. 63, but stands referred to the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs Committee. Perhaps hon. Members should listen clearly to what I have to say and refer to the Official Report tomorrow.
Mr. Dalyell: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I hesitate to cross you, but are you prepared to issue a Speaker's certificate to any motion or item of business that is abstract, as this is a matter of considerable consequence to Scottish Members of Parliament?
Madam Speaker: The answer is no. Abstract is a term of art, and I have a very wide vocabulary.
Scottish Adjacent Waters Boundaries (Amendment)
3.41 pm
Mr. Archy Kirkwood (Roxburgh and Berwickshire): I beg to move,
- That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require the Government to consult interested parties on whether to designate the coastal waters off Berwickshire as Scottish internal waters and to report to Parliament; and for connected purposes.
The Bill, if enacted later this Session, would require the Secretary of State for Scotland to reopen the formal process of consultation with fishing and other interested parties, and report back to Parliament. It may be unusual to introduce a parliamentary Bill for this purpose, but I believe that that is the only option open to Ministers--I note with satisfaction that the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland is in his place--if local people in Berwickshire, and the Scottish Fishermen's Federation, are to have a meaningful chance to have their views considered and heard properly.
The Scottish Adjacent Waters Boundary Order 1999 was introduced to create a Scottish zone within British fishery limits. Scots law for sea fisheries applies within the zone created by the order. The order was an integral part, and inevitable consequence, of the overall political settlement enshrined in the Scotland Act 1998. It sets out the boundaries by listing the necessary Ordnance Survey co-ordinates in schedules attached to the order. It was debated in Committee on Tuesday 23 March 1999.
I fully accept that it is not a trifling matter to seek to revisit a statutory instrument properly laid and debated by the House so soon after it has been implemented. Nor do I make any charge against Ministers who, I am sure, acted in good faith at the time. However, they were advising interested parties, including local Members of Parliament, that there was no cause for any concern in the boundary changes and that there would be no practical difficulties for the fishing industry.
Ministers believed that they got a good settlement for Scotland in the totality of coastline classification as waters adjacent to Scotland, and I agree with that judgment. I certainly agree with the judgment as it relates to the national Scottish position, but I believe that the consultation process--in so far as it was carried out on the local situation--was flawed, and flawed in particular in relation to the Berwickshire bank.
I further believe that the Standing Committee was not in full possession of all the principles and facts used internationally in deciding boundary questions between competing jurisdictions. Moreover, because of a lack of adequate notification, the Committee could not possibly have known of the strength of local feeling against the proposals.
I should like now to deal very briefly, in turn, with each of those matters--the first of which is the defect in the consultation system used. The Eyemouth and District
Fishermen's Association and the Scottish Fishermen's Federation are very angry that the order was made without any of the usual consultations that are held between the Scottish Office and fishermen's organisations. When, for example, the Scottish Office undertook a review of controls of inshore fishing in Scotland, numerous organisations were personally contacted. The Government maintained, however, that the arrangements in the order involved nothing very significant, and that that had been pointed out by the former Scottish Office Minister, the hon. Member for Central Fife (Mr. McLeish), who, in Standing Committee, said:
My hon. Friend the Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Sir R. Smith), who was a Committee member when it considered the order, said that he was unaware that there had been no consultation with the Scottish fishing industry. He has subsequently asked the Government to reconsider the order and review the east coast boundary.
In the Standing Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) was not alone in expressing concern about the implications of what the Committee was being asked to decide. He said:
Secondly, there are also important questions of international law. The Secretary of State for Scotland has argued that median lines are the commonly accepted approach, used internationally, to determining boundaries. On further investigation, however, and with the help of the Library, I have discovered that the main court in adjudicating disputes on maritime boundaries--the International Court of Justice--has never accepted that equidistance should be an absolute rule. Indeed, in the recent dispute on which it adjudicated--between Denmark, Holland and Germany--it was established that the overriding principle should be equitable settlement, rather than strict geometric equidistance.
Significantly, equitable settlement allows for resource and historic use considerations to be taken into account. Therefore, if a truly equitable settlement is to be reached in this case, a proper statutory period of consultation must now occur.
The third, and final, issue is the order's impact on the local fishing industry. Berwickshire fishermen believe that the new boundary will result in administrative and legal problems--for example, Scottish fishermen accused of an offence in the zone south of the new boundary would be tried in an English court. Apart from considerable time, trouble and expense, an English lawyer would have to be hired, as the vessel's Scottish lawyer would have no right of appearance in an English court.
The order creates the absurd situation of there being two quite distinct jurisdiction boundaries in the sea area east of Scotland and England, off the coast of my constituency. Consequently, fishing vessels operating between those lines, if fishing, would be in England, whereas they would be in Scotland if engaged in non-fishing activities. That is exactly the type of nonsensical situation that Standing Committee members, when considering the order, wished to be assured would be avoided.
Berwickshire fishermen certainly believe that the boundary has always--for at least the past century--been at Marshall meadows. Conventionally, the sea boundary went due east from that point, and, 30 years ago, that was confirmed by the definition of the oil fields' location.
The purpose of the Bill, therefore, is to try to reflect the view of local people and of fishermen's organisations that the issue is serious and that it will not go away. If it is not addressed now, it could produce difficult situations in the future. If it is not dealt with in a constructive and conciliatory manner, the sense of betrayal that local people feel will grow.
Fishermen in Scotland are looking to the Secretary of State to engage in meaningful, fresh consultation. This ten-minute Bill would allow for fishermen's demands to be considered and addressed, and I commend it to the House.
"I fear that hon. Members are reading a bit too much complexity into the matter and suggesting that there is something either sinister or cynical about the measure."--[Official Report, Third Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation, 23 March 1999; c. 14.]
Additionally, the Secretary of State for Scotland, in his letter to the Scottish Fishermen's Federation, dated 13 July, said:
"decisions on the location of these"--
boundaries--
"are matters solely for the UK Government".
He went on to say that
"the location of the boundary line has no substantive impact on the rights of Scottish fishermen to operate throughout UK waters."
Fishermen's organisations, and the fishermen who fish off the Berwickshire bank, do not agree with those propositions.
"I retain a certain nervousness. I want to be sure that the principles that he"--
the Minister--
"describes have been applied correctly and that, if they prove to have been in error, it is recognised that we shall have to return to the issue, if necessary with a modified order."--[Official Report, Third Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation, 23 March 1999; c. 11.]
Therefore, in common with other hon. Members in the Standing Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed was totally unaware that the Government had failed to consult properly any of the fishermen's organisations.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |