HC Deb 07 February 1961 vol 634 cc357-68

Motion made, and question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Chichester-Clark.]

10.24 p.m.

Mr. Patrick Wall (Haltemprice)

My object in raising the subject of fishing limits tonight is to put three points to the Government. First, I want them to appreciate that the spring fishing season off Iceland is about to start and, unless agreement is reached very soon, there will inevitably be further incidents. Second, I want the Government to appreciate that in any final agreement reached with the Icelandic Government we must ensure that there is no further extension of limits beyond the 12 miles. Third, I wish to ask what is the Government's view about the setting up of a Western European Fisheries Community.

May I now go into those three points in more detail? The House will recall that at the start of the Law of the Sea Conference in April last year the fishing industry put a voluntary ban on fishing within the 12-mile limit off the Icelandic coast. That voluntary ban is still being implemented. However, March is the start of the spring fishing season, and it is obvious to anyone who knows the fishing ports that the trawler skippers, whatever their orders from the owners, will go inside that limit and that there will be incidents. Naturally, we want to avoid them. A further point is that if agreement is not reached by next month we shall get close to the position of having a de facto agreement on a 12-mile limit, because by then the voluntary ban will have been in existence for a year. If no agreement can be reached by the middle of March, then the trawler skippers will expect naval protection, because they will be lawfully fishing on the high seas within the 12-mile limit. Unless they do carry on fishing there will be the danger of a de facto agreement on the 12-mile limit, as no written agreement has yet been concluded.

The next point that I wish to put to my hon. Friend is the most important of all. I am one of those who believe, after studying what was said at the two Conferences on the Law of the Sea, that a settlement of this problem with Iceland must come by agreeing gradually to implement the 12-mile limit over a period of years. If we study the Government's views and arguments at the two Law of the Sea Conferences there must inevitably be a final agreement on a phasing out period from 6 to 12 miles. The Fleck Committee, in considering the implications of a 12-mile limit off Iceland, said that this would mean a loss to the distant-water section of the industry of about 20 to 35 per cent. and, to the middlejwater section, a loss of about 50 per cent. of their catch. That would be extremely serious to the whole industry. The subsidies which will soon be available to the distant-water section are no compensation for this serious loss. In some ways they will aggravate the position, as it will mean that the middle-water vessels will be allowed to go to Iceland more than twice a year and, therefore, there will be more vessels, from both the distant and middle-water sections, fishing off Iceland.

The real point of my argument is to remind my hon. Friend that in 1948 the Icelandic Government passed in their Parliament a law concerning the scientific protection of the fishing banks of the coastal shelf. Article I of this law reads: The Ministry of Fisheries shall specify by regulations the limitations of the protected areas along the coasts of the country, within the boundaries of the coastal shelf, in which all fisheries are to be subject to Icelandic regulations and control. In other words, according to the law of Iceland, they claim jurisdiction up to the 100-fathom line.

Anyone who has troubled to go through the debates during the two Conferences on the Law of the Sea will have been struck by the point which was always made by the Icelandic representative that fishing limits are of special importance to Iceland because fishing is that country's only industry and that Iceland always asks to be treated as a special case. It may well be that, though they now wish to advance the special case argument to a 12-mile limit, equally it could be advanced at a later date to apply to the 100-fathom line.

This is not a question of conservation. The British industry has always tried to get agreement on conservation. The extension of the limit to 12 miles, and any possible problematic further extension, will merely give the Icelandic Government and industry a private fishing ground as their own vessels fish within those limits. It is in no way a conservation measure.

Therefore, it is of the utmost importance to the industry that any agreement—and we all want an agreement to be reached—must contain categorical assurances that the Icelandic Government will not in the next two or three years again plead a special case and request a move, or unilaterally make an attempt to move, their limits out to the 100 fathom line. That guarantee must be the basis of any agreement reached. It would be unfair to expect the industry to accept any agreement without having that point fully covered. It is absolutely fundamental, because the industry faces ruin if any further extension beyond 12 miles takes place.

It could well be said that one is asking for the impossible in asking a foreign Government to bind themselves for an indefinite period of time not to extend 'beyond certain limits, that is, beyond 12 miles. I do not believe that argument to be true, because, in my submission, the only real solution to these fishing limits disputes is to set up a Western European Fisheries Community.

That means that all the members of this community, all the Western European nations, would have similar fishing rights, similar landing rights, and similar selling rights. What exactly does that involve? As far as the Western European countries are concerned, Britain is the only large market for their fish, and it would mean, of course, that they would have equal rights with us to land fish and sell fish in this country, but, from our point of view, it would mean that we would have equal rights with Norwegian, Danish, Icelandic vessels to fish within the same limits as they are permitted to fish themselves. I would remind the House that at the moment it is not possible to sell our fish in Iceland or Norway. It is not allowed by law. Indeed, we are not allowed to make investment in Iceland, nor allowed to set up freezing plants or fishmeal plants in Norway. We should, therefore, have the advantage of being able to fish the same seas as the vessels of the other partners in the Western European Fisheries Community and we should be allowed to land our catches on their shores and they would have similar rights in Britain.

In brief, for I do not want to be very long, as other hon. Gentlemen want to speak in this very short debate, I would suggest that the advantages of a Western European Fisheries Community are three: that it is the only way in which we can really see an end to these fishery disputes; secondly, it will enable us to ensure proper provision for conservation, on the need for which all countries agree, and without which we shall fish out the seas of the world; thirdly, it would serve as a bridge between the Six and the Seven, because all the members of the community, as I see it, would be members already of either the Six or the Seven.

To sum up, we want friendship with Iceland. I am sure I speak for the Members representing the Humber ports when I say that we value our traditional friendship with Iceland, that we admire the Icelanders' independence, and like them, and that we want to go on being friendly with them. We are prepared to concede quite a lot, as I have indicated, to keep that traditional friendship, but we are not prepared to see the end of our industry, and any extension beyond the limit of 12 miles would mean the end of the British fishing industry. I would urge my hon. Friend to continue pressing for an agreement, and would emphasise that in that agreement there must be a categorical undertaking by the Icelandic Government not to plead a special case at a later date and further to extend the agreed limits.

Finally, I would ask my hon. Friend to express his view on the suggestion of a Western European Fisheries Community, about which, I have great hopes, and I believe that a similar view will be shared by hon. Members on both sides of the House.

10.34 p.m.

Mr. Stan Awbery (Bristol, Central)

It was in September, 1958, that this trouble with the Icelandic Government started. I raised the matter in the House by means of Questions on several occasions. I am not very much concerned whether the limit will be 3, 6 or 12 miles, but I am concerned with the conditions of the men who are employed in the industry.

More than thirty attempts have been made by the Icelandic people to board our trawlers, but on only two occasions have they succeeded, because of the presence of our protection vessels. On several occasions guns have been fired and the lives of our men are put in jeopardy each time they go into the area. I am very much concerned about the risk that these men are taking.

My accusation against the Government tonight is that they have failed to come to an agreement in three years. They stated in March, 1959, that they were anxious to come to an agreement with the Icelandic Government. The negotiations were urgent and they were prepared to meet and to discuss the problem, but nothing has been done since.

Mr. Wall

Does not the hon. Member agree that it takes two to make an agreement?

Mr. Awbery

The hon. Member may have that view.

At the end of March, 1959, because of the trouble, our trawlers in the area were divided into three packs and we had a protection vessel to protect each pack. That meant that the Government were responsible financially for keeping three or four protection vessels in the area, because the Government have failed to come to an agreement concerning the distance.

At the last meeting but one of the Conference on the Law of the Sea, a resolution for the 12-mile limit was put forward. Thirty-nine nations voted in favour of 12 miles, 38 voted against and 8 nations were neutral. Because there was not a substantial majority, the 12-mile limit could not be put into effect. Are we to go on indefinitely like this, putting our fishermen in a difficult position in the North Sea? Are not the risks taken by our fishermen great enough without taking risks of that character also?

What is the alternative to agreement? Will the Government ask for arbitration and agree to abide by the decision of the arbitrator, or are we to allow these men to go on their daily avocations taking these risks? We in this House are not near the danger. We are many miles away from it. If we were in the danger zone, there is no doubt that we would tackle the problem much faster than we are doing.

Up to the present, we have maintained the 3-mile limit. We have maintained that limit, not by agreement, but because of the force that we have at our disposal. If we did not have the force at our disposal, we could not maintain the 3-mile limit as we have done. We apparently intend to stick to this.

I ask the Government to give serious consideration to the problem and, if necessary, to make a compromise. The Panama Government have established a 12-mile limit, even outside the Canal zone. I know that complaint has been made. America states that she does not recognise the 12-mile limit of Panama. Nevertheless, the Panama Government have established it. Norway will be negotiating shortly with Denmark and Sweden to discuss this problem. Norway will extend her lmit to 6 miles on 1st April this year and will continue to extend it to 12 miles on 1st September. The Anglo-Danish agreement specifies 6 miles. All these agreements have been made.

Why cannot our Government come to an agreement with the Icelandic Government for a limit of 3 or 6 miles? Many nations are adapting themselves to the circumstances of the day and they are limiting their fishing areas. The Government should make another determined and sincere attempt to meet the Icelandic people and try to come to an agreement with them.

10.40 p.m.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. J. B. Godber)

I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) has had the opportunity of raising this important matter tonight. I listened with interest to all that he said, and with some concern, I must frankly say, to the remarks of the hon. Member for Bristol, Central (Mr. Awbery), to whose speech I will come in a moment.

I should like to assure my hon. Friend at once of the Government's very real concern about the difficulties facing our distant-water fishermen and the fishing industry as a whole in this very unfortunate dispute with Iceland. We are—and I want to place this on record—very grateful for the patience and restraint which the industry has shown. It has shown this patience and restraint over a long period, as the hon. Member for Bristol, Central reminded us. but particularly in recent months. Its attitude has done everything possible to try to create the right atmosphere for our discussions with the Icelandic Government on this matter.

My hon. Friend is of oourse aware, as I am sure the House is also, of the problems which confronted us after the breakdown of the second United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea last April. I will not go into them now. I would only say that we are continuing our efforts to achieve as large a measure as possible of international agreement on the breadth of fishery limits.

It is in our view essential that this matter should remain subject to the rule of international law, and until a new rule of law is established Her Majesty's Government cannot recognise unilateral extensions of limits as valid in international law. We have, however, since the Geneva Conference been prepared to take account of the United States-Canadian proposal whioh failed, and failed only by one vote, in adjusting our fishery relations with countries which claim or intend to claim unilaterally extended fishery jurisdiction. This, of course, we have already done in the case of Norway, and I am glad to say that we have succeeded there in securing an agreement which, we are satisfied, represents in the circumstances a reasonable compromise.

If we were to take the line which the hon. Member for Bristol, Central seemed to advocate—he was suggesting that because the Icelanders were taking up a certain position we must concede to them—that would be wholly wrong. We have responsibilities to our own fishermen, the very men for whom he claims to be speaking, and I do not believe that it would be to their benefit were we to give way.

With Iceland we have had long and difficult discussions. We have been aware all along that the negotiations would require considerable patience because of the political difficulties of the Icelandic Government and of the importance of fishing to their economy. We have always recognised that. But I must say quite frankly that our difficulties in these talks have been of the highest order. We could not get agreement even to the holding of talks until last August, and the talks themselves did not get started until October. Valuable time was therefore lost. The British fishing industry, however, adhered during this time to its decision to stay outside 12 miles while hope of useful discussions seemed likely.

Since the exchanges began last October these have involved numerous meetings of officials, and in December my noble Friend had a number of discussions with the Icelandic Foreign Minister in Paris and London. These discussions had narrowed the differences between the two sides, and we had reason to hope that agreement was in sight. But since Christmas I have to state that there has been little progress, despite considerable efforts on our part. We are pressing for a positive reply from the Icelandic Government within the next few days.

I fully understand, and indeed I share, the concern expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice over the delay in reaching a settlement, particularly in view of the imminence of the spring fishing to which he so rightly called attention. I realise how important this season is to our fishermen and the dangers that are likely to arise. I assure him that the Government for their part realise that it is imperative to get a settlement before the spring season starts, and we have left the Icelandic Government in no doubt of the serious situation which will arise if no settlement is reached by then.

But, as these discussions are still in progress, I am sure that the House will realise that I cannot very well comment on them in detail. I have, however, noted what my hon. Friend said about the importance which the industry attaches to really firm and binding assurances for the future in any agreement that is arrived at. I can assure the House that we recognise the particular importance of this matter to the industry and that we have had it in the forefront of our minds throughout the course of these discussions.

The gist of the problem which, with respect, I do not think the hon. Member for Bristol, Central fully faces, is the fact that we have to try to secure the future of our industry and we have to get a fair arrangement with the Icelanders if those men for Whom the hon. Member claims to be speaking are to be secure in their employment and to have satisfactorily remunerative jobs in their fishing and if we are to secure that our fishing industry as a whole gets a fair deal.

It is this anxiety to secure a truly long-term decision which is at the back of all our thoughts in these negotiations. The hon. Member for Bristol, Central sought to give certain figures of the voting at the United Nations Conference in Geneva. I remind him again that the really important vote was the one taken at the last Conference on the Canadian—American resolution and which failed, as I said earlier, by one vote to get a two-third majority.

Mr. Awbery

For what?

Mr. Godber

For 6 miles initially, phasing out to 12 miles later.

It is on that basis that we have concluded an agreement with the Norwegians and we are willing to conclude an agreement with the Icelanders too. If they are as forthcoming and reasonable on that basis we are willing to arrive at an agreement straight away. It is in the interest of those whom the hon. Member for Bristol, Central represents, just as much as that of the trawler owners or anyone else, that we should get an agreement as nearly on that basis as possible.

I was interested in what my hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice said about the concept of a Western European Fisheries Community. This matter was referred to a great deal in debate last week and I can only repeat what my right hon. Friend then said, namely that the ideas are extremely interesting and no doubt will be studied by all concerned. But in my view they do not offer any solution to our immediate problem with Iceland and it would be quite wrong to think that they did. I am sure that my hon. Friend was not suggesting that they did.

I hope that the House will be satisfied with my assurance that we are doing all we can to resolve this most difficult problem, and we have left the Icelanders in no doubt about the concern that we feel, and the fishing industry also feels, about getting a speedy solution. We believe that if we can get a reasonable arrangement now which will stand the test of time—and that is the importance of it to the industry—and which will be something the industry can really count on, we can achieve, with a certain amount of goodwill on both sides, something which will get rid of this unhappy dispute and which I believe will give us an opportunity of opening a new chapter in our relations with Iceland with which we have close ties of friendship.

I think that is what we have to seek to work for. I assure the House that my noble Friend is personally taking a close part in the discussions which I hope, and I am sure the House hopes, we shall be able to bring to a successful conclusion.

Mr. Awbery

If there is no agreement between the parties, is there any means of referring this to arbitration?

Mr. Godber

On various occasions We have offered to refer to arbitration; but, again, it takes two sides to agree to refer to arbitration.

10.50 p.m.

Mr. James Hoy (Edinburgh, Leith)

We on this side of the House hope that these negotiations will be successful. I would remind the House that the proposals put forward for a 6-mile limit, with a further extension of 6 miles over a phased period—remembering the rights of old countries like ours which have fished within 6 miles for many years—had the support not only of the Trawler Federation, but of the fishermen themselves.

The trawlermen, and indeed the officers and mates, thought that perhaps we had gone a little too far in making concessions, but they were prepared to go that distance, and that was the distance to which we went at the Law of the Sea Conference. That concession was made by the men engaged in the industry as well as by the British trawler owners.

It is true that, if we are to have agreement, we require agreement from Iceland as well as from this country. We have gone a considerable way towards making an agreement possible, as we did in the case of Norway with whom we have reached a satisfactory settlement. It has been open to the Icelandic Government to accept the position, but so far they have rejected it. One can only hope that they will see reason and that eventually we will get a long-term agreement on the plan that I had the privilege to outline on behalf of my hon. Friends last week during the debate on the Fleck Committee's Report.

I think that we must get a fairly wide settlement covering all the Western European nations. Perhaps we might enlist the support of America and Canada to try to find a real solution to this problem.

We appreciate only too well that this is something which affects Iceland's economy, but we must also realise that there are a considerable number of our people who earn a livelihood in the fishing industry, and they are as entitled as other people to have their interests safeguarded.

I hope that an amicable agreement will be reached. I hope that Iceland, with whom we have always been friendly and with whom we wish to remain friendly, will see our point of view. If, out of our friendship, we can make a lasting settlement, it will be of benefit to both countries.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at seven minutes to Eleven o'clock.