HC Deb 01 May 1967 vol 746 cc96-8
Mr. Paget

On a point of order. I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely, the seizure on the high seas of a British trawler by an Icelandic ship of war". The facts as reported by the B.B.C. are as follows: the British trawler was arrested in Icelandic coastal waters. She said that she had drifted there while trying to extract what she believed to be a mine from her nets. That is as it may be. But she was brought into harbour and from there she later at night made her escape. She escaped successfully outside the territorial limits before her absence was discovered and a pursuit was commenced. She was not reached until she had travelled 80 miles upon the high seas.

At that point, in my submission, any arrest became quite illegal and an infringement——

Mr. Speaker

Order. The hon. and learned Member is arguing the merits of the issue which he is raising.

Mr. Paget

With respect, Mr. Speaker, to found my application I have to establish the responsibility of Her Majesty's Government. To do that I seek to show that this was a British ship, under the British flag, on the high seas, and entitled to the protection of the British Fleet.

If I may quote some words from Lauterpacht on this subject, they are: Further than this, ships whilst flying the British flag are considered as though they were floating portions of the flag State"— that is, Britain.

So this action is, in fact, an invasion of British territory for which Her Majesty's Government are responsible.

So far as the possible raising of the doctrine of hot pursuit is concerned, that applies only where the pursued——

Mr. Speaker

Order. With respect, the hon. and learned Gentleman is arguing the merits of the issue that he will raise if he is fortunate enough to have his application granted under Standing Order No. 9. He must address himself to the particular issues always raised when an hon. Gentleman seeks to mov' a Motion under Standing Order No. 9.

Mr. Paget

In that case Mr. Speaker, I will not take it further than to say that in this case, on international law, this was a British ship upon the high seas, clear of national waters, and not subject to hot pursuit since the pursuit did not start until it was clear of national waters.

There can be no question that this is definite, there can be no question that it is urgent and there can be no question that it is of public importance and that it is a matter for which Her Majesty's Government are responsible. Indeed, when we provide Her Majesty with funds for the Navy we do so expressly for the better preservation of our trade and protection of our vessels upon the high seas.

I urgently say that if Standing Order No. 9 has any meaning at all, both upon the precedents and upon its own words, it must cover this case. This is a case of a private right subject to a public infringement in a matter in which the individual is entitled to public protection. I submit that it is exactly the kind of case for which Standing Order No. 9 is devised. If the Standing Order has any meaning at all it must cover this case.

Mr. Speaker

The hon. and learned Gentleman asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely, the seizure on the high seas of a British trawler by an Icelandic ship of war. I am grateful to the hon. and learned Gentleman for giving me some measure of prior notice of his intention, as this has enabled me to refresh my memory on the precedents.

I find that this is not the first occasion on which the arrest of a trawler by a foreign Government has been raised in the House. I find that on 9th April, 1923, the Speaker of the day declined to accept such a Motion on the ground that some new action on the part of a foreign Government."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th April, 1923; Vol. 163, c. 877.] which involved matters of territorial waters and fishing rights was a continuing matter and that the arrest of the fishing trawler did not justify the application under Standing Order No. 9.

I do not think, therefore, that I can today hold this incident to fall within the category of what my distinguished predecessor, Mr. Speaker Peel, called, in words which have often been quoted, "an occurrence of some sudden emergency either in home or foreign affairs."

In consequence, I do not consider that the House ought to allow the Motion.

Mr. Paget

Further to the point of order——

Mr. Speaker

I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman will accept the fact that the Speaker has given consideration to this matter.

Mr. Paget

Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. In the 1923 case, the issue then was whether the territorial waters claimed extended for three or six miles, which was a continuing dispute. This is an entirely different case, because the incident was outside territorial waters, and there is no dispute——

Mr. Speaker

Order. The hon. and learned Gentleman is doing what I hope the House would deprecate. This is a difficult decision that the Chair has to make from time to time. I hope that the House will accept it.