Iceland (Fishery Limits) (Hansard, 6 August 1975)

§ 3. Mr. Beith
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Government of Iceland about the unilateral extension of that country's fishing limits.

§ 8. Mr. Henderson
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will seek a meeting with the Icelandic Minister of Foreign Affairs.

§ 20. Mr. Wall
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he is having with the Icelandic Government over the future extension of fishing limits.

§ The Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Roy Hattersley)
My right hon. Friend has no immediate plans to meet the Icelandic Foreign Minister, but as my right hon. Friend the Minister of State told the House on 21st July, we have been pressing the Icelandic Government for an early opening of negotiations on a renewed agreement on British fishing around Iceland. My right hon. Friend saw the Icelandic Prime Minister, Mr. Hallgrims-son, in Helsinki on 30th July, and took the opportunity to repeat to him that in our view it was very important that these negotiations should be started in good time.

§ Mr. Beith
Does not the emphasis placed on negotiations indicate that, however much we may disapprove of unilateral declarations of this kind, the British Government recognise that 200 miles is an appropriate area of sea to be regulated for fishing and other purposes by a coastal State? Is it not time that Britain made it clear that if the international agreement does not enable us to safeguard oar own waters—by a 480 similar 200 mile radius or by a median line, where appropriate—we would not want to sit back and see other countries making such declarations while our own fish resources were threatened?

§ Mr. Hattersley
There is no question of the Government's sitting back whilst our fishery resources and prospects are threatened. Equally, there is no question of the Government's making a unilateral declaration about a 200-mile limit, which in our view would be illegal and inappropriate to Britain's international posture over the years. I assure the hon. Gentleman that we recognise—as I believe that the Icelandic Government recognise—that we have a special interest in this matter and a special necessity to fish close to Icelandic coastal waters. I promise that we shall continue to press those interests very hard.

§ Mr. Henderson
Is the Minister aware that the Icelandic Minister for Foreign Affairs said that the fish stocks in the Iceland area could not longer sustain the effects resulting from fishing by foreign nationals? Does he accept that the herring resources off the west coast of Britain can no longer sustain fishing by foreign nationals? In his discussions with Iceland, will he attempt to secure an end of Iceland's right to fish for herring off the west coast?

§ Mr. Hattersley
The essential aspect of these negotiations is securing British rights to fish in, about and close to the Icelandic waters. The hon. Gentleman referred to what a Minister in the Icelandic Government said. That is an example of the substantial passions which have been raised in Iceland about this issue. Our job is to demonstrate over the next two months that substantial passions are also raised in Great Britain over the issue, and that we are determined that a solution fair to British fishermen should be obtained.

§ Mr. Wall
It is clear that traditional British fishing rights will be maintained until altered by international agreement. Is not the best answer for all nations who are allowed to do so by international law to extend the limit to 200 miles?

§ Mr. Hattersley
I am not sure that that is the answer to our immediate problems, which we seek to solve by direct negotiations with the Icelandic Government by 481 13th November. I assure the hon. Gentle-man that in the time at our disposal we shall continue to negotiate as toughly and as determinedly as we can, reminding the Government of Iceland that they have a vested interest in obtaining a satisfactory agreement, as have the British Government.

§ Mr. Luard
Is it not better to seek to separate, as far as we can, the general right of coastal States to make claims to 200-mile fishing zones—that is a right which seems likely to be claimed by a number of other countries in future—and our own specific rights in these waters? Is it not a fact that our rights should be covered by the original 1962 fishing agreement with Iceland and the subsequent arrangements made with that country? That should mean that regardless of a general zone of 200 miles we should make special arrangements for British fishing fleets.

§ Mr. Hattersley
I am sure that that is right. The Minister of State made clear on behalf of the Government at the Law of the Sea Conference that the 200-mile zone seems to us to be the basis on which agreement, both internationally and multi-laterally, will eventually be obtained. The discussions to which I refer today deal specifically with the bilateral fishing arrangements between two States. In those discussions we must persist with our determination in fishing much closer to Icelandic shores than 200 miles or, indeed, 50 miles.