HC Deb 20 July 1971 vol 821 cc1408-18

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Monro.]

10.50 p.m.

Mr. Kevin McNamara (Kingston upon Hull, North)

It was on Saturday, 12th June, at the close of the Icelandic elections that the Hull Daily Mail scooped the nationals, all of which followed, with the story that the new Icelandic Government were seeking to extend Iceland's fishing limits to 50 miles, and last Wednesday it was formally announced at the opening of the new Icelandic Parliament that by 1st September, 1972, Iceland intended to do just that—and to extend her pollution limit to 50 miles, thus following the example of Canada. This would, in effect, deprive our most successful and best vessels of the whole of the Icelandic continental shelf.

This statement by the Icelandic Government brought an immediate and angry reaction from the whole industry : from the fishermen and their union, to which I belong ; from the trawler owners and the merchants ; from Fleetwood, 62.2 per cent. of whose total catch in 1970 came from Icelandic waters ; from Grimsby with 41.1 per cent. ; and from Hull, where 25 per cent. of last year's catch of demersal fish was caught in Icelandic waters. To give a more homely touch to the figures and examples, 15 of the 17 vessels docking in Hull from Monday to Thursday of this week will be bringing catches from Icelandic waters.

It is, therefore, a grave matter, and the mere suggestion of it was enough to set alarm bells ringing throughout the whole industry. Last week's confirmation presents a very grievous threat to the whole industry. Indeed, the Director-General of the British Trawler Federation, Mr. Austin Laing, a man not given to over-statement, said in a letter to me today : I cannot adequately express the seriousness with which I regard this matter. It is a grave threat to the whole fishing industry, not just to the fishermen but to all the ancillary industries—fish processing, transport and distribution—as well as a threat to the price of food and to sources of supply of an important protein. It could not have come at a worse time for the industry, in investment terms, because grant has already been cut, the subsidy is still to be announced, the E.E.C. negotiations hang over the future of the whole industry, and there is not enough investment at the moment in new vessels.

We on the Humberside have sad but brave memories of the last cod war—brave because of the courage and enterprise shown by our fishermen, sad because, through N.A.T.O. pressure and international cajolery and blackmail, we were sold down the river. We do not want that to happen again, and we want a vigorous response from the Government to this threat.

Article 5 of the Icelandic Agreement on Fishery Limits, accepted in March, 1961, states : The Icelandic Government will give to the United Kingdom Government six months' notice of any proposed extension of these limits and, in the case of a dispute in relation to such extension, the matter will at the request of either party, be referred to the International Court of Justice. The Agreement will be registered with the Secretary-General of the United Nations in accordance with Article 102 of the United Nations Charter". I believe that there is a similar sort of treaty with the West German Government. We are not yet certain what communication will come from the Icelandic Government to Her Majesty's Government. But the key question is whether the Icelandic Government are repudiating this agreement. Is Iceland refusing to accept the jurisdiction of the International Court in respect of a dispute on her fishery limits? If she has not repudiated and has not given reasons for her action, does she intend merely to give six months' notice, as the original agreement of 1961 provides?

Informed opinion in the fishing industry seems to think that Iceland will do none of these things, that she will avoid the odium and danger of merely repudiating the agreement, and will seek to avoid the legal risks of taking the matter to the International Court of Justice, but that she will follow instead the same course of action as she took in the past. By a system of bribery, blackmail and cajolery, by persuading the United States to come to her aid by offering the United States the continued use of Keflavik Airport, something which was in jeopardy in the early 1960's as well, in return for a higher rent, and by extracting from the United States Government a promise to bring pressure on the United Kingdom and on West Germany, she hopes in that way that she will be able to get acceptance of the 50-mile limit.

Informed opinion also considers that the Icelandic Government will not seek to repudiate the agreement but will instead try to suggest fresh discussions to make way for a fresh agreement, replacing the 1961 agreement and thus avoiding again the odium of it, and that in some way she will put a mantle of respectability upon such negotiations by talking about conservation and the need to preserve fish stocks—all very laudable aims.

But in its statement of 15th June, 1971, the British Trawlers' Federation said : The British Fishing Industry has repeatedly stated its willingness to participate in any scheme of fishing effort limitation that is internationally negotiated for the purpose of ensuring the effective conservation of fish stocks. We remain ready to negotiate and operate such a scheme for the waters around Iceland as well as elsewhere. We hope that any fears in Iceland about the stocks in that region will be removed by travelling along the road of effective international conservation measures rather than that of unilateral expropriation. But if Iceland enters into negotiations on a new agreement the sort of line that we think she will take is, "We are doing this to conserve stocks. But you have always fished here and you have an interest here. We will give you a licence to fish within these limits." But after a time she will reduce the number of licences or the amount of fish which can be taken from those waters, and gradually, bit by bit, ease the British fleet out of those rich and lucrative waters. If Iceland embarked upon negotiations for such an agreement and obtained it, she would have gained what she wanted, a 50-mile limit, quite effectively in a few short years.

A further point of vital importance is that what Iceland does today the other northern fishing nations seem to do tomorrow. If Iceland were successful, it might well be that Faroes, Greenland, Norway and Canada, which already has a 100-mile pollution limit, would follow suit. They may well do this. Even though Greenland and Faroes are at present part of the Kingdom of Denmark, they would certainly use this as a good excuse for staying out of the E.E.C. rather than entering. Also, if Iceland were successful, Norway would certainly follow suit. In other words, the loss of Icelandic waters would mean not only a loss of Icelandic grounds in which to fish but also a loss of other areas. This is of intimate concern not only to Britain but to all the fishing nations of Eastern and Western Europe, the Communist Powers and the non-Communist Powers. I hope that the Government will seek their aid in protesting against any unilateral action by the Icelandic Government.

I have indicated the heavy dependence of the British fishing fleet upon the Icelandic waters. If we were to lose those, we would become dependent upon other waters, places where our vessels could not go or where the waters are already overfished, and that in turn would bring about this restriction on fishing. For the fishing industry and the ancillary industries—the boat building industry, the trawler building industry : we have small specialised yards building very specialised boats—there would be a great threat. It is impossible to say what the ripple effects would be.

One respect in which Iceland is vulnerable is that she exports about 20 per cent. of her goods to Britain and a little under 10 per cent. to West Germany ; that is 30 per cent. of her goods. Without going to the excesses that we had in the past in the cod war, it would be possible for the British Government effectively to close our shores to imports from Iceland if she were to adopt this policy. For a time Iceland might look elsewhere. She has lucrative markets in the U.S.A. and she has good markets perhaps in the Eastern bloc. For the extra fish that she got from the extended limits she would have to look to Britain and Western Europe. This would be a powerful way of restraining her.

This is a matter of great importance to Iceland. It is a small country 90 per cent. of whose economy is based on fish. I am not seeking to bully Iceland. However, she has entered into an international agreement and she should abide by it. I object to great nations using their wealth and power to bully others. On the other side, such standards apply equally to small countries using their size and vulnerability for a similar purpose of blackmail.

The Government should, first, state categorically that they stand by the letter and spirit of the 1961 Agreement and that, if Iceland seeks to change it, she must follow the procedure laid down therein. Second, the Government should not enter into any discussions about conservation unless they are in an international context and they should refer any other question to the 1973 Law of the Sea Conference. Third, they should not sell the fishing industry down the river again for a doubtful N.A.T.O. advantage in Keflavik Airport. Fourth, they should prepare to make a vigorous response to this suggestion from Iceland and defend our interests by retaliatory action against Iceland where she is vulnerable. This is an important matter to us and I hope that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will be able to give comfort and support to our fishing industry.

11.3 p.m.

Mr. Patrick Wall (Haltemprice)

As one who was personally involved in the old cod war in Iceland I could not agree with the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) that the fishing industry was sold down the river. The Royal Navy protected our ships fishing off Iceland for nearly two years. The result was a satisfactory compromise, in that the Icelandic Government agreed to go to the International Court at The Hague in the event of any further change of limits.

What we want to know from the Foreign Office tonight is whether its information is that the Icelandic Government intend to maintain this international agreement or whether this is merely a preliminary skirmish for the Law of the Sea Conference to be held in 1973—or whether they intend to take unilateral action.

Both sides of the House agree that this is not a conservation measure. The Icelandic Government expect that their own vessels will fish inside the 50 miles. The effect, not only on the Humber ports but on the distant water industry of Britain, will be very serious, particularly as this will deny us all except the three main fishing grounds off the Icelandic coast—north-west of Stalberg, east of Langanes, and the Hari Kari Bank. These are just on the limits and so will be difficult to fish. Indeed, I understand that it will be impossible to fish even these banks if the limits are extended.

I remind the House that the population of Iceland is smaller than the population of Hull. Hull is only one of Britain's major fishing ports. As the hon. Gentleman said, if Iceland is allowed to get away with this, where will it stop?

I think that we should remember that if we enter the Common Market the rule is that other E.F.T.A. partners who do not come in with us will have bilateral negotiations with the enlarged Community, and one of the instances of a bilateral negotiation with Iceland would be frozen fillets. I hope it will be clear to the Icelandic Government that we can bar their fish from coming into this country if they take such unilateral action. I hope this will not be necessary. I hope for a clear statement from the Government that they will not tolerate any unilateral action, although we must accept the legal consequences of either country going to the Hague Court, which is the obvious way of settling the dispute.

11.6 p.m.

Mr. James Johnson (Kingston-upon-Hull, West)

I am glad that the Minister has allowed me a few minutes out of the time left to him to reply to the debate.

The whole of the deep-water fishing industry of Hull is in my constituency, including all the ancillary activities such as ship repairing, filleting, fish auctions and cold stores. Hence any action by the Icelandic Government will hit our people hard, particularly our union members. My union, the General and Municipal Workers Union, has sent letters to many Members of Parliament. I am sure that I need not emphasis how we feel in Hull about this matter.

I have heard the words "blackmail" and "cajolery" mentioned. I do not wish to panic my constituents at the moment. We must look at the situation coolly, and choose words carefully, for the workers not only in Hull but in Reykjavik are listening.

The position is clear. The North-East Atlantic is being over-fished, and so is the North-West Atlantic. Here is Iceland a small nation, 92 per cent. dependent upon fishing for its economic base, while up to 40 per cent. of the fish that are landed in Hull Dock and Grimsby too, are caught in these Icelandic waters. The Left-wing coalition Government recently elected got 32 seats against 28 of the Opposition. As Secretary of the Anglo-Icelandic Parliamentary Committee, I saw the Icelandic Ambassador yesterday. He was courteous and we had a long talk about the matter. I have a copy of the only document to come to London from Reykjavik officially to the ambassador, and it states : The Fisheries Agreements with the United Kingdom and the German Federal Republic shall be terminated and a resolution be made about an extension of the fishery limits up to 50 nautical miles from the base lines, effective not later than 1st September, 1972. If Iceland does this, de facto there is a danger of a similar slide elsewhere. Already the Argentinians are talking about a 250-mile limit and the Canadians are talking of 100 miles. The Prime Minister of Icleand said on 16th July—interviewed by the newspaper Morgenblatt : We are a small nation. This is essential for our survival. The Foreign Minister said on 17th July : We will consult the United Kingdom and West Germany. We will consult them in the spirit of good will. We are fairly sure that our problems will be understood. He stated that Iceland is sending a strong delegation to the Law of the Sea Conference in 1973. It is significant to note that nowhere is there mention of an appeal to the International Court at The Hague—with six months' notice being given as agreed in the 1961 Treaty. All I hope is that they will appreciate that if they take unilateral action they will be taking on two large nations—the United Kingdom and West Germany.

I fully expect that the Government will, as in the "cod war", protect our vessels in any dispute. I shall listen to the Minister with great attention. I also hope that we have joint consultations, because this is vital. I trust that the two Governments must and will get together and' that wiser counsels will prevail, leading to a solution to this difficult problem.

11.10 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Anthony Royle)

This has been an important if short debate and I am grateful to the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara), the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. James Johnson), and my hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) for their views and for giving me the opportunity to explain the views of Her Majesty's Government on this important matter. There is widespread admiration for the work which the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West and my hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice have done for many years for the fishing industry.

The policy statement by the new Icelandic Government cannot be regarded as a formal communication to us as provided for in the 1961 Agreement. The Icelandic Government have not, therefore, given us formal notice that they wish to extend their fisheries jurisdiction in accordance with the Agreement. Nor have ther declared their intention to denounce it unilaterally ; on the contrary, both the Icelandic Prime Minister and his Foreign Secretary have told the Press that they intend to open discussions with us. I cannot, of course, predict when such discussions may take place, nor what proposals may be advanced. But I repeat, as the House has been frequently told, that we should regard any extension of Iceland's fishing limits beyond 12 miles as contrary to international law.

The 1961 Agreement cannot be unilaterally terminated and it states quite clearly that Iceland shall give us six months' notice of any extension of her fisheries jurisdiction. It also states that either we or the Icelandic Government may ask for any dispute relating to the extensions to be referred to the International Court of Justice.

Any decision to refer this matter to the International Court could be taken only in the light of the circumstances obtaining at the time. We are, of course, considering the various possibilities, but I cannot at this stage forecast how we might act in various hypothetical situations.

The natural forum for the discussion of all questions of jurisdiction over the high seas, including fisheries jurisdiction, will be the United Nations Law of the Sea Conference, planned for 1973. Preparatory work for the conference is being undertaken by the United Nations Sea Bed Committee, currently in session at Geneva. I am encouraged to see that Iceland has sent a strong delegation to the present session of this Committee and I note that it intends there to raise the question of its fishing limits.

However, quite apart from our rights under the 1961 Agreement, I very much regret that the Icelandic Government is contemplating action which affects all maritime nations to a greater or lesser extent at a time when the United Nations are looking at these issues in the broad international context.

The Icelandic Government statement refers to an Agreement with the United Kingdom on a subject which affects our vital interests in a manner which is bound to give rise to concern in this country. We therefore thought it necessary to place our views on record and the British Ambassador in Reykjavik accordingly delivered an aide-memoire to the Icelandic Foreign Ministry on 17th July. The main purpose of this aide-memoire was to express regret that the statement had been issued without prior consultation with, or advance warning to, Her Majesty's Government. It was also to draw the attention of the Icelandic Government to the provisions of the 1961 Agreement and to reserve our rights under the Agreement. At the same time, our embassy in Reykjavik will continue to emphasise to all circles of Icelandic opinion the deep concern felt in this country at the step proposed by the new Government and the importance of the Icelandic fishing grounds to our fishing industry.

The proposed 50-mile limit would include virtually all the fishing grounds in the Icelandic area, and the exclusion of our vessels from them would deprive us of between one-fifth and one-quarter of all British landings of such species as cod, haddock and plaice. The effect on our fishing industry as a whole and on supplies and prices would be serious, but for the distant water section of the fleet it would be calamitous, as between 40 per cent. and 60 per cent. of its catch comes from grounds which would be lost. Only to a very limited extent could the loss be made good by switching to other grounds. Most of these are already fully exploited and others are beyond the range of most of our vessels which now fish in Icelandic waters, a point underlined by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North. For these reasons I can give an assurance tonight that we will do our utmost to safeguard the interests of our fishing industry.

The argument that is often advanced to justify extension of fishery limits is the need to conserve fish stocks. This matter was mentioned by all three speakers tonight. This is an argument we have never accepted, believing that when conservation measures are needed they should be taken by international agreement. The United Kingdom has repeatedly expressed its readiness to participate with other countries concerned in the negotiations of any schemes of catch limitation that may be necessary in Icelandic waters or elsewhere.

The condition of the Icelandic cod and haddock stocks was considered by the North-East Atlantic Fisheries Commission as recently as last May, but in the light of the latest scientific evidence the Commission concluded that no further measures were necessary at the present time. The matter will be examined afresh when the results of further scientific work which was put in hand become available.

I must also refer to the question of pollution, which again was raised by hon. Members. The Icelandic Government's policy statement of 14th July also described the Government's intention to enact a zone of jurisdiction for 100 miles for protection against pollution. In this country we are especially strongly aware of the hazards of marine pollution. It is not my place in this debate to describe the action which the Government have taken, and will be taking, to remove the risk of pollution by collision and other incidents in the crowded waters off our shores. But I should at least affirm that we do not consider unilateral assertions of this kind to be the right way to set about dealing with this problem.

The problem of pollution is one which should be solved multilaterally, on the basis of full and urgent discussion through existing international organisations. A number of international conferences are to be convened on this very topic during the next two years. Iceland will have an opportunity to contribute to international discussion on the question of pollution, as on the question of fisheries jurisdiction. It is in this way, and not by assertions of jurisdiction over wide areas of the high seas, that Iceland should seek a solution to her own pollution problem.

We naturally hope that the Icelandic Government will come to the conclusion that the right course is to proceed in the way prescribed in the 1961 Agreement and not by purporting to terminate the Agreement by unilateral action. We naturally expect that a country with so long a tradition of respect of the rule of law, since the establishment of the first Icelandic Parliament and code of laws in 930 A.D., will adhere to its international legal obligations.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at eighteen minutes past Eleven o'clock.