§ 10. Mr. Laurance Reedasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress has been made towards resolving the fisheries dispute with Iceland.
§ 40. Mr. James Johnsonasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement regarding the continuing discussions with Iceland upon its territorial fishing limits; and when the Icelandic Foreign Minister is returning to London for renewed talks.
§ Mr. Anthony RoyleAs I told the House in reply to the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. James Johnson) on 26th May, discussions were held with Icelandic Ministers on 24th-25th May concerning an interim arrangement for British fishing off Iceland after 1st September. These discussions are to continue on 19th-20th June in London. The fundamental issue of the legality of the Icelandic extension of fisheries jurisdiction has been referred to the International Court of Justice, but no pleadings have yet been filed.—[Vol. 837, c. 522–3.]
§ Mr. ReedIf the Icelandic Government are so confident that their claim is justifiable, why will they not wait until the international Law of the Sea conference next year and put forward their view there, since the conference has been formed for the purpose of allowing equitable distribution of sea resources between countries? Or do they know that their claim is bogus?
§ Mr. RoyleThe conference, planned for 1973, will in our view be the natural forum for the discussion of questions of jurisdiction over the high seas, including fisheries. We are keeping our wider interests in that conference in mind in our attitude towards this dispute, but I cannot answer for the views of the Icelandic Government and it is not for me to do so.
§ Mr. JohnsonFollowing the talks last month, does the hon. Gentleman feel able to confirm that both sides will enter the 987 talks this coming month with a genuine desire for a genuine settlement to avoid a confrontation on 1st September? With this in mind, will the hon. Gentleman constantly bear in mind that all sections of our industry from top to bottom want him to say two things? The first is that we do not accept the domestic jurisdiction of Iceland up to a 50-mile limit. The second is that we must have our men and boats looked after in the event of anything happening after 1st September.
§ Mr. RoyleI am glad the hon. Gentleman has made plain the views of those who are interested. Various propositions have been put forward for the continuance of fishing between 12 and 50 miles off Iceland from 1st September until the dispute is resolved. I cannot go into the details but they would involve some restrictions on the scale of British fishing in those waters without prejudice to the views of either side on the legality of the Icelandic extension to 50 miles. As I said on 6th March, I cannot say that we should in no circumstances resort to naval protection for our fishing vessels.
§ 13. Mr. Wallasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the case submitted to the International Court of Justice regarding the fishing limits dispute with Iceland.
§ Mr. Anthony RoyleOn14th April we filed with the International Court an application asking the court to declare that Iceland's claim to extend fisheries jurisdiction to 50 miles was without foundation in international law and was therefore invalid; and that matters of this kind should be regulated by international, not unilateral, arrangements.
The Icelandic Government have since denied that the court has any jurisdiction in this matter and have indicated that they will not take part in the proceedings. But this does not prevent the court from hearing the case and giving a decision on the merits.
§ Mr. WallCan my hon. Friend say when he expects the court to hear this case and, in the event of British fishing being interrupted on the high seas, whether it will be possible to obtain an injunction from that court?
§ Mr. RoyleI cannot yet give my hon. Friend the exact date. We shall in due 988 course file a memorial which will set out our case in detail. The time limit for filing has yet to be determined by the court. After filing the memorial and any subsequent written pleading the court may require, there will no doubt be oral argument at The Hague.
§ Mr. Scott-HopkinsCan my hon. Friend say what will happen in September if the court decides that the Icelandic action is illegal and Iceland refuses to accept that? Can my hon. Friend give an assurance that our fishermen will be adequately protected in what will obviously be a very difficult and dangerous situation?
§ Mr. RoyleAs to the assurance asked for in the latter part of that supplementary question, I indicated the Government's view on this in answer to an earlier Question. As for default, the statute of the court provides procedure whereby the court may hear the case in default of appearance of one of the parties to the dispute. We propose to invoke the procedure.
§ Mr. James JohnsonCan the hon. Gentleman confirm that of the countries of the North East Atlantic fisheries conference, any one of the 14 others besides ourselves would support the case we would take to the court?
§ Mr. MaclennanCan the hon. Gentleman say whether, in the light of the statement made by the Iceland Government about possible action in the autumn, Her Majesty's Government would consider going to the court to seek interim measures of protection?
§ Mr. RoyleI think we must see how things proceed. We have had the negotiations in London recently and more negotiations will take place later this month. I think it would be wiser for hon. Members, on both sides, to wait to see how matters proceed over the next few weeks.