§ 28. Mr. James Johnsonasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement regarding the latest situation in the Icelandic fisheries limits dispute.
§ Mr. Anthony RoyleThe proposals which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and the Prime Minister of Iceland worked out during their meetings on 15th and 16th October provide for an interim agreement which would last for two years and which would be consistent with a catch by British fishermen of around 130,000 tons of fish a year in the disputed area. This represents a substantial sacrifice by our industry. I am glad to note that the Icelandic Prime Minister has given the proposals his own full support.
§ Mr. JohnsonThis should never have been made a party issue in this House. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that all sections of the industry—skippers, unions and all the others—have leaned over backwards to make concessions to get down to this tonnage figure? Therefore, can he assure us that at the London talks there will be genuine bargaining on both sides and that our fleet will be enabled to make this catch in the light of the "boxes", in the light of the times of the year and in the light of the size of the vessels, if and when we get this agreement settled?
§ Mr. RoyleI am quite satisfied that that will happen, and I confirm the hon. Gentleman's remarks. He and many of his colleagues on both sides of the House representing fishing ports have been immensely helpful during all the discussions over the last few months. As he knows, the industry has been consulted at all stages of the Downing Street talks and the proposals that emerged from them were made with the industry's concurrence. It is not for me to comment on Iceland's internal political affairs, but there seems to be a good chance that the Icelandic Government as a whole will accept these proposals, and a decision could be taken very soon.
§ Mr. CroslandThe Minister talked correctly about the industry's concurrence, but does he realise that that concurrence, expressed through official 1254 channels, coincides with a great deal of anxiety in the fishing ports among skippers, crews and the general public? If this agreement is, as I hope, accepted by the Icelandic Government and as a consequence of it there is severe hardship and unemployment in the ports of Grimsby and Hull, will the Government stand ready to compensate those places for this agreement to which we have reluctantly assented in the general national interest?
§ Mr. RoyleI agree with much of what the right hon. Gentleman said in the earlier part of his question. The degree of restriction on total fishing off Iceland which we are prepared to accept as part of the package has the full agreement of the British fishing industry as I have already said. In our view it is unlikely to have much, if any, effect on levels of employment as other areas will be available to ships not fishing off Iceland. But, of course, I shall take into account the point made by the right hon. Gentleman.
§ Mr. Scott-HopkinsI think everybody will breathe a sigh of relief if this agreement is made between our two countries. Can my hon. Friend say what progress is being made towards the Conference on the Law of the Sea next year? Will it be held and, if so, where? Secondly, can he say what is the position as regards fishing off the Norwegian-Greenland coasts, particularly in relation to the Russians and the Japanese who seem to be invading every area within the Northern Hemisphere?
§ Mr. RoylePreparations for the Conference on the Law of the Sea are well under way, although no final decision has yet been taken on where it will be held. I should like notice of the question about Norway.