Law of the Sea Conference (Hansard, 27 November 1974)

§ 7. Mr. Henderson
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement on the progress made at the Law of the Sea Conference.

§ 24. Mr. Luard
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement on the progress of the negotiations at the Law of the Sea Conference in Caracas and on his proposals for the next session of the conference at Geneva.

§ 28. Mr. Wall
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement regarding British proposals at the forthcoming resumption of the Law of the Sea Conference in Vienna.

§ Mr. Ennals
No decisions were made at Caracas, but a considerable amount of essential preparation was accomplished for the future negotiations and there was encouraging momentum towards agreement on a new convention. We are now undertaking wide international consultations with a view to the next session, which will begin in Geneva in March 1975. We intend to hold a further seminar at Church House on 30th January 1975 to give all interested parties in this country an opportunity to express their views.

§ Mr. Henderson
Will the Minister accept that his proposal to have a proper exchange of information will be warmly welcomed by all who are interested in the progress of this conference? Will he also accept, however, that the restrictions on, for example, herring quotas are causing considerable concern about the future of the fishing industry in Scotland, and that there is an urgent need for an immediate increase in our limits to 50 miles in order to protect and conserve stocks? Will he be prepared to take unilateral action in the event of this conference failing to achieve what we all hope it will achieve?

§ Mr. Ennals
I am afraid I cannot give the hon. Gentleman that assurance. At the conference we took a favourable 421 attitude towards the extension of limits—in fact, up to 200 miles from base lines. That attitude was generally accepted throughout the conference. We take a very strong view against unilateral action by countries. In the last two days I have had discussions with the Minister of Fisheries from Norway, who has proposals for trawler-free zones around Northern Norway. One of our main arguments is that such actions should not be taken unilaterally, but only by agreement.

§ Mr. Luard
Does my hon. Friend agree that what, basically, happened at Caracas was a very ambitious extension of jurisdiction over marine resources by the coastal States largely at the expense of the non-coastal States and other States? If there is ever to be agreement on a new law of the sea, must it not win the good will, consent and co-operation of the non-coastal States, the shelf-locked States and the States with very short coastlines? Will my right hon. Friend accept that the best way that we and other coastal States could bring this about would be to agree to some measure of revenue sharing within our own 200-mile zone, which would to some extent make good to those other States the resources that have been taken away from them by the coastal States?

§ Mr. Ennals
There are two halves to my hon. Friend's question. I agree that we shall get a satisfactory convention only if it is internationally agreed, and that must entail the acceptance of developing countries and those that are disadvantaged either through being landlocked or geographically disadvantaged.
But taking international law as it exists, it is our view that the new convention should reaffirm what we consider to be the present position under existing international law—that a coastal State has sovereign rights for the exploitation of sea bed resources to the edge of the continental margin
I cannot reveal any negotiating positions. It is clear that if there is to be agreement there may be issues on which we have to give if other countries are prepared to give. Basically, one of our main concerns is that the international authority which will be responsible for areas beyond national jurisdiction should be able to provide resources which can help developing countries.

§ Mr. Kilfedder
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the deep alarm felt by our fishermen at the over-fishing by foreign vessels of the seas around Britain and Northern Ireland? Does he agree that if a decision is not made soon this Government will have to act unilaterally in defence of our fishing rights?

§ Mr. Ennals
I am conscious that there is a great deal of concern, which I share, about over-fishing. There will be discussions in Bergen in the North-East Atlantic Fishery Commission to seek new catch agreements which will help to limit over-fishing by certain countries—including some which have newly come into fishing areas—which is causing damage that will eventually have a long-term effect upon the fishing interests of this country, including Scotland.

§ Mr. James Johnson
When we discuss these matters at international and United Nations levels, do we not move into a nebulous world of make-believe? May I, therefore, ask my right hon. Friend to come nearer home? Will he bend his best efforts towards getting a common fisheries policy in the EEC, which is much more important to fishermen in Scotland, Wales and elsewhere, including the coast of Yorkshire?

§ Mr. Ennals
It is all very well for my hon. Friend to say that we must try to get agreements that affect the European situation. As many of the countries which fish in our waters, or waters close to our shore, are not European, and as we have problems of pollution, and so on, it is essential that our main effort should be to secure a widely accepted international agreement. I accept my hon. Friend's view that if there is a change in fishery limits, as I have little doubt there will be, it will have an effect upon the common fisheries policy of the EEC. But we must consider that matter as soon as we know where international decisions lie.

§ Sir John Gilmour
Was any progress made on the special problem of migratory fish which breed in fresh water and can be caught in large quantities at sea?

§ Mr. Ennals
That was one of the issues which was taken very seriously at Caracas. In my opening speech at the conference I laid particular stress upon the question of migratory fish. There is 423 a general agreement—not yet written into a convention—that the place of breeding gives, in a sense, the nationality and the passport of such migratory fish.