1. Will the Counsel General make a statement on the legal implications for Wales of withdrawing from the 1964 London fisheries convention? OAQ(5)0045(CG)[W]

Members will understand that if I make assessments of the legal implications for Wales of any matter, those assessments are legally privileged.

I’m grateful to the Counsel General for his usual caution in these matters. However, perhaps I can tempt him by saying that I don’t think there are any legal obligations, but there are strong political obligations for Michael Gove’s decision. My understanding is that, in fact, the London fisheries convention is probably overtaken by our relationship with the common fisheries policy and what’s happened since then in joining the European Union. But what concerns me is that we have Michael Gove deciding to symbolically pull out of an international obligation that relates to a devolved matter, so perhaps I can ask the Counsel General whether he agrees with me that fisheries are devolved, that Wales and the Welsh Government is responsible for fisheries protection in Wales, and for what will happen when we leave the European Union as regards quotas, sharing of quotas, negotiations around that. And in the light of the fact that, yesterday, Boris Johnson told my colleague Jonathan Edwards that the Joint Ministerial Committee, the JMC, will now decide upon these matters, is he of the view, therefore, that Wales will be able to exercise a veto regarding further nefarious moves by Michael Gove?

Well, thank you for the supplementary question. Like the Member, I’ve also since this announcement experienced troubled and sleepless nights over this particular issue. It’s worth noting, of course, that the 1964 fisheries convention came well before the joining of the European Economic Community, now the EU, and also, what that convention actually says. Article 2 of it recognises exclusive territorial jurisdiction within a six-mile coastal belt, but it made provision for signatory states to fish within six to 12 miles, with conditions, and then went on in article 4 to provide that fishing vessels of signatory states were not to direct their fishing towards stocks of fish or fishing grounds substantially different from those they have habitually exploited, and that the coastal state has the power to enforce that rule. So, the convention sits alongside—and, in fact, is overtaken by—the common fisheries policy, which allows European vessels access, between 12 and 200 miles, and makes provision for specified member states to fishing grounds within six to 12 nautical miles.

Now, the specific nature of the Welsh fishing industry, consisting of mainly small vessels: there may be certain attractions to that within the 12-mile limit. However, that will be a matter that’s appropriate for the Minister with policy responsibility for the matter. It wouldn’t be appropriate for me to discuss that aspect further, but I can, of course, express the serious concern that the Member himself raises, that in what is now a clearly devolved area, officials were only notified on 30 June that an announcement would be made on 2 July, despite a marine and fisheries working group of the four administrations being held on 26 June. That issue of consultation and engagement is clearly a matter of some concern on an area that does specifically relate to a devolved area, and a matter where Government has been engaged. So, there are concerns there, and concerns, I suppose, about the statements that are being made almost off the cuff, so to speak, and there is certainly a lack of clarity as to what the UK Government’s position is on some of these areas.

It is of course the case that the United Kingdom is the signatory of the 1964 treaty, and therefore it is the UK Minister who will take the decision to withdraw from it, but I do agree with the implication of Simon Thomas’s question, that as fishing is a devolved matter, there ought to have been some consideration for the views of this Assembly and the Welsh Government. But I do hope that the Welsh Government will take the view that the recovery of our waters, or control over the 6 to 12-mile limit, is going to be vitally important to the development of the Welsh fishing industry in the future, and it would be rather ridiculous if, in the rest of the United Kingdom, we were to have repatriated control but not in the case of Wales. Quite how that would work I don’t know, because the EU fishermen would still have the right to Welsh waters to that extent, and that would certainly militate significantly against the advantages for Welsh fishermen of being able to have an exclusive zone, which would otherwise be imperilled if we still continued to be a member of the 1964 treaty.

Some of those are very valid points. Of course, they are out of context in the sense that, of course, the UK fishing industry as a whole is very dependent also on access to many other waters. And that, of course, some of the limitations that exist, and the 1964 convention in particular, came into force in order to also recognise historic rights—sometimes rights that went back over several hundred years. Someone made the comment a while back that, of course, fish don’t carry passports. Of course, one of the purposes to the conventions of the common fisheries policy was actually the protection of stocks—the legal protection of fishing stocks—for the benefit of all. So, there are many complications, and I think it would be a grave mistake to look at the legal aspects of this solely within the context of individual interests, because individual interests are very much also affected by a broader collective interest.