HC Deb 28 February 1961 vol 635 cc1381-8
The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. Edward Heath)

With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I wish to make a statement on the proposed settlement of the fishery dispute with Iceland.

As the House will have learnt from the announcement made last night, Her Majesty's Government and the Government of Iceland have reached agreement on proposals for a settlement of the dispute on fishery limits.

The proposed settlement has been placed before the Icelandic Parliament. If it is approved we shall proceed as soon as possible to an Exchange of Notes between the two Governments which will conclude the settlement.

The main provisions of the proposed settlement are that there should be a transitional period of three years during which British vessels would be able to continue to fish in certain areas and at certain seasons of the year in the zone between six and twelve miles off Iceland. In addition, provision is made for certain modifications in favour of Iceland of the base-lines from which the twelve-mile fishery zone is measured. These modifications are explicity stated to relate solely to the delimitation of that zone. After the three-year transitional period Her Majesty's Government will no longer object to the twelve-mile fishery zone around Iceland. In order to secure stability in the future, the Icelandic Government will undertake to give six months' notice of any proposals to extend their fishery jurisdiction further. They will also agree that any dispute arising from such a proposal shall, at the request of either party, be referred to the International Court of Justice.

The Exchange of Notes will be registered with the United Nations and the settlement will be without prejudice to the rights of Her Majesty's Government under international law towards third parties.

My right honourable Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and I recognise that a settlement on the basis proposed would entail the exclusion of the distant water section of the British fishing industry from fishing grounds which are of great importance to them. Nevertheless, the representatives of all sections of the fishing industry have informed my right honourable Friend that they are prepared to support a settlement of the dispute on this basis.

Mr. de Freitas

Does the right hon. Gentleman realise how disappointing this is to the fishing industry? Does he not realise that the area of international fishing grounds from which our fishermen are to be excluded is very nearly 10,000 square miles—an enormous area? Could not the Government at least have got the same time concession that we have from Norway, and should not the Lord Privy Seal, when he comes here to make an announcement like this, have a note of apology in his voice when he announces what is really surrender?

Mr. Heath

This dispute has been in existence for nearly two and a half years. The fishing industry has exercised the greatest restraint over these past months and I think that the whole country is very grateful to it for doing so.

I mentioned in my statement that this was disappointing, and the industry yesterday afternoon expressed to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food that it is keenly disappointed about the shortness of the transitional period and the severity of the restrictions on fishing. Nevertheless, after long discussions with the Icelandic Government we believed that it was right to reach this agreement. We recognised the immense importance of the fishing industry to Iceland as a country, and Iceland, as one of our N.A.T.O. allies, is a country with whom we wish to resume friendly relations. We very much hope that these proposals will lead to that.

Mr. Wall

Does my right hon. Friend recognise that the real essence of the agreement is that the limit should not at a later date be extended from twelve miles? Can he give an undertaking that the announcement means that the limit will remain at twelve miles?

Mr. Heath

The proposal is quite clear. If any extension is proposed, six months' notice will be given, and in the event of a difference it can, at the request of either party, be taken to the International Court of Justice. We hope that in future that will prevent any disputes of a kind similar to that which we have had over the past years.

Mr. Grimond

It is quite clear that this is only a three-year agreement and that at the end of that period Iceland may ask for a further extension which she has to take to the International Court. It is by no means a permanent settlement. Will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that these three years are used to try to get international agreement on the whole subject of fishing rights in the North Sea, especially with a view to conserving stocks, because if trawlers using these grounds go to other grounds at the end of three years the situation may be very serious?

Mr. Heath

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman has not realised that the agreement is not a three-year agreement. The length of the interim period during which we have certain fishing rights between six miles and twelve miles lasts for three years, but the other features of the agreement and the arrangement that six months' notice shall be given of a proposed change, or that it should go to the International Court of Justice, is part of a permanent agreement which we hope will be approved by the Icelandic Parliament.

As regards the overall matters which the hon. Gentleman raised, we endeavoured to reach agreement at Geneva two years ago.

Mr. Fell

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the fishing industry, which has been very tolerant over these last months, will be very upset about the inconclusiveness even of this agreement? If we are to wait three years and then get a demand for the fishing limits to be raised to fifteen miles, or whatever it is, it can hardly be called even an agreement, except an agreement to extend fishing limits again in three years' time.

Mr. Heath

I do not think that my hon. Friend has any justification for the last part of his remarks. This is an agreement, or proposed settlement, which has several features, and I think that they must be studied together. I understand that many parts of the fishing industry will be upset, and that is why Her Majesty's Government are grateful that its representatives have said that they will support the proposals.

Mr. Hoy

Is it not a fact that the base-line measurement has been altered and that at the end of three years a new base line will be considerably different in measurement from the present twelve-mile line? Indeed, it might extend into the Continental Shelf.

Secondly, does the right hon. Gentleman agree that this is a blow to the British fishing industry and that, taken in conjunction with the agreement with Norway and the one which is still to be negotiated on the Faroes, this will mean further considerable depletion of fishing grounds for the British fishing fleet?

In view of that, what action are the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Secretary of State for Scotland taking to meet what must be new demands from the British fishing industry? In that respect, I mean demands not only from the British Trawlers' Federation, but from the men engaged in this industry, represented through their trade union.

Mr. Heath

The changes in the base line to which I referred in my statement affect four base lines. As I have said in the last part of my statement, this, together with the other provisions, makes a great difference to the British fishing industry, but the hon. Gentleman and the House will remember that there is now before the House the White Fish and Herring Industries Bill, Clause 1 of which enables the Government to extend facilities to the distant water fleet.

Lady Tweedsmuir

Will my right hon. Friend say whether negotiations are still in progress with certain Western European countries on a general limitations agreement, and whether his right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food will now give an urgent decision on the Fleck Committee's Report?

Mr. Heath

I am sure that my right hon. Friend has noticed the last part of my hon. Friend's statement. As far as Western Europe and Norway are concerned, I believe that various countries have been considering some form of arrangement or conference, but there are no negotiations going on at present.

Captain Hewitson

Is the Minister aware that, in spite of his statement that various sections of the fishing industry have agreed to the new proposals, there is general dismay running through the whole of the distant water trawler sections? This new settlement does not mean twelve miles on the contour of the coast; it is twelve miles from point to point, which, in reality, will bar our fishing fleet from going within sixty miles of sections of the coast of Iceland.

Is the Minister not using this political expediency as a sop to N.A.T.O., to soft pedal in certain sections of Iceland whether or not American bases should stay there, or whether there should be Soviet rocket bases in Iceland, and whether Iceland should stay in N.A.T.O. or come out?

Is the Minister also aware that three years from now we may got claims from Iceland for the whole of the Atlantic Shelf—that is, to the 100 fathom line—which would mean that 100 miles of fishing grounds are debarred from our people and, with the six months' notice, it could go to the International Court and a decision be awarded against us? A port like Kingston-upon-Hull, where fishing is the livelihood, can face very serious unemployment in three or four years from now.

Mr. Speaker

Order. There is a limit to this process. I am allowed only to permit questions about a statement. Perhaps this could take the form of a question and come to an end.

Captain Hewitson

I am sorry if I have transgressed, Mr. Speaker. I will probably have an opportunity at another time to put 'the point forward.

I would like to say to the Minister—[HON. MEMBERS: "Speech."1 I would not like to say it, but I should like the Minister to think about it and reply to it. Is the Minister aware of the dismay felt at this shocking settlement and that fishermen would rather go into Atlantic waters with gunboat protection than sit down to this shabby agreement, which will help to put them out of work?

Mr. Heath

I have acknowledged the keen disappointment of the whole industry about the nature of the agreement and we know that they would have preferred a different one, and a better one. However, in the circumstances they are prepared to support it and we are grateful to the industry for that. We believe that the industry, as well as others in the country, wish to see an end to this dispute and I hope that these proposals, which have still to be accepted by the Icelandic Parliament, will bring about that settlement.

Mr. de Freitas

In view of the urgent need for discussing the full implications of the surrender, will the Lord Privy Seal ask the Leader of the House whether there can be a debate very soon?

Mr. Heath

We cannot agree that this is a surrender. This is a proposed arrangement which has taken a very long time to negotiate in a very difficult situation. I always understood that the hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr. de Freitas) and his hon. Friends opposite wished to see an end to this long-standing dispute between our two countries. We have put forward proposals which have taken special cognisance of the position of Iceland as a country. At the same time, we have tried to preserve the interests of our fishermen to the greatest possible extent. We believe that they appreciate this and the provisions which are being made about any future dispute.

The question of a debate is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House.

Mr. G. Brown

The Minister did not answer the last point. The Leader of the House is sitting in his place. Many hon. Members and many people outside the House, regard this settlement not as the honourable end of a long series of negotiations, but as an attempt to give up something for which the Government have said that they were fighting all this time. I ask the Leader of the House: should not the House have a chance to discuss the consequences of this? This affects a very vital industry in a very vital way.

Mr. Speaker

Order. I understood that the right hon. Gentleman was rising to ask a question about procedure only. It would not be fair to other hon. Members for me to allow him to raise other topics.

Mr. Brown

The point of procedure, Sir, was that I was asking the Leader of the House, in view of the very important considerations involved, whether he would not rise and tell us that we may have an opportunity to debate this matter and to discuss its implications.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. R. A. Butler)

I cannot give any answer immediately, but I will give consideration to the views which have been expressed by the Opposition. No doubt the Opposition will give consideration to the possibility of finding time on a Supply Day. In any case, I cannot be expected to give an immediate decision. I hope that it is understood that I appreciate the importance of the subject.