§ 3.55 p.m.
§ THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE)My Lords, with the permission of the House, I will repeat a statement which has just been made in another place by my right honourable friend the Lord Privy Seal, about the proposed settlement of the fishery dispute with Iceland. I will make the statement in my right honourable friend's own words:
"As the House will have learnt from the announcement made last night, Her Majesty's Government and 31 the Government of Iceland have reached agreement on proposals for a settlement of the dispute on fishery limits.
"The proposed settlement has been placed before the Icelandic Parliament. If it is approved we shall proceed as soon as possible to an Exchenge of Notes between the two Governments which will conclude the settlement.
"The main provisions of the proposed settlement are that there should be a transitional period of three years during which British vessels would be able to continue to fish in certain areas and at certain seasons of the year in the zone between six and twelve miles off Iceland. In addition, provision is made for certain modifications in favour of Iceland of the base-lines from which the twelve mile fishery zone is measured. These modifications are explicitly stated to relate solely to the delimitation of that zone. After the three-year transitional period Her Majesty's Government will no longer object to the twelve mile fishery zone around Iceland. In order to secure stability in the future, the Icelandic Government will undertake to give six months' notice of any proposals to extend their fishery jurisdiction further. They will also agree that any dispute arising from such a proposal shall, at the request of either party, be referred to the International Court of Justice.
"The Exchange of Notes will be registered with the United Nations and the settlement will be without prejudice to the rights of Her Majesty's Government under international law towards third parties.
"My right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and I recognise that a settlement on the basis proposed would entail the exclusion of the distant water section of the British fishing industry from fishing grounds which are of great importance to them. Nevertheless, the representatives of all sections of the fishing industry have informed my right honourable friend that they are prepared to support a settlement of the dispute on this basis."
§ 3.58 p.m.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGHMy Lords, we are much obliged to the noble Marquess for the statement which he has repeated to us here. I must say that I am very sorry about the agreement, from this point of view only: that the terms of it are not very favourable to us in this country. The last reference of the noble Marquess to acceptance by representatives of the fishing industry seemed to be on the basis of, as one representative of the industry says in the Yorkshire Post report, "At least now we know the worst." But we must all have a sense of relief from the fact that our fishermen will no longer find themselves in continuous danger, such as they have been going through for the last few years, even under the protection of the Royal Navy.
Perhaps the House will pardon me if I make one or two points to the noble Marquess on this statement. There seems to me to have been a steady inroad into the principles of international understanding (I do not know if it is a law) about territorial waters—a very appreciable inroad. I believe that we have an understanding with Norway which is different from the old recognised one, and I have been told to-day about the views of Canada, who have had some discussions with the United States of America.
Where exactly is this going to end? When will a British Government (whatever Government it may be at the time) finally have to make up their minds on the quid pro quo they get for yielding in this matter? Are we to continue to have foreign fishermen fishing on our inshore fishing beds? I do not suppose that our own inshore fishermen are always within the three-mile limit; there must be a good deal of inshore fishing that goes on outside the limit. But we have Norwegian, Russian and all kinds of fishermen on our coasts. If we give way on these matters, what do we get in return? This is a question of foreign policy as well as trade policy, and that is why I put it to the noble Marquess. If it is to be a question of giving up what are in some cases distant fishing grounds first developed by British industry, and in some cases first discovered by British industry, what do we get in return? Are you going to allow all 33 foreign fishermen still to fish anywhere outside the three-mile limit of this country?
May I ask—because I am quite ignorant upon the connection between the two matters of this particular fishery territorial limit and the more general questions—exactly what is in mind about the Exchange of Notes? The statement says:
The Exchange of Notes when registered will be without prejudice to the rights of Her Majesty's Government under international law towards third parties".Who are the third parties? Is this something entirely confined to fishing? Is it something to do with the general interpretation of territorial waters law? Could either the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack or the noble Viscount the Leader of the House give me some legal advice on this matter? What is involved? What are the relationships? In any case, if it is only for fishing, how does the third party matter arise? I am sure that the Foreign Office representative, the Foreign Office having made the agreement, will be able to tell us all about it in general but let us have the legal position as well, so that we may know where we are. I may ask one or two more questions, but that is enough to go on with.
§ THE EARL OF SWINTONMy Lords, before the noble Marquess answers I should like to put one point, so that he may include it in his answer. Is it not a fact that we are substantially, and probably actually, the only country which still maintains the validity of the three-mile limit? If that is so, then does not that mean that the three-mile limit has really gone by the board in international law and would not be upheld in the International Court? If that be so, or if it has any near relation to the truth, then is it -not about time, as the noble Viscount the Leader of the Opposition has suggested, that we reconsidered our whole position, accepted the fact and decided whether it was not in our own interests to say: "All right; the three-mile limit was accepted tacitly for many years in international law, but that has now gone by the board". If we are not to be allowed to enjoy the benefits outside the three-mile limit or within a twelve-mile limit in other countries, then ought we not to exclude other countries, except by some 34 mutual arrangements to our mutual advantage, from coming within the twelve-mile limit of our shores?
§ 4.6 p.m.
LORD REAMy Lords, before the noble Marquess answers, may I offer him a crumb of comfort from these Benches? This has been a protracted dispute with Iceland for a long time; it has engendered, I am afraid, great bitterness, and I think we all very much welcome this agreement which seems to be coming about. The situation has at times given the impression of a large country seeming to bully a small one, or of a small country taking unfair advantage of being a small country. Anyhow, that is all wiped out now, and it seems that, by a generous gesture on our part, this dispute has been settled. I agree with the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, that perhaps the noble Marquess should consult with his noble friend the Foreign Secretary to see whether we could not, through the United Nations or some other channel, try to get some form of "drill" for the future, in case such awkward positions should arise again, particularly in regard to the limits of fishing.
§ LORD CONESFORDMy Lords, may I put one more supplementary question? As I understood the original statement, it contemplated the Government of Iceland making claims in the future beyond the twelve-mile limit. Could Her Majesty's Government say what would be the legal basis of such a claim?
§ THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEMy Lords, I am obliged to the noble Viscount the Leader of the Opposition for the extreme moderation with which he has approached this problem. I think it is perfectly clear to your Lordships that this is not yet an agreement but a proposed agreement. It is at the moment being debated in the Althing and it will have to receive the approval of the Icelandic Parliament. For our part, we are glad that this long and difficult negotiation has at last come in sight of solution. As your Lordships will remember, we have been negotiating this since June of two years ago, although, as the noble Lord, Lord Rea, has said, we are now nearing a solution. I do not think it is necessary to remind your Lordships of our relationship with the Icelanders, 35 who are, after all, our N.A.T.O. Allies. We are also aware of how very dependent the whole economy of Iceland is on the fishing industry, and naturally that is something that Her Majesty's Government have to take into account when reaching the settlement that we hope to make.
As regards the questions noble Lords have put to me, some of them, by their nature, would be extremely difficult for anybody not highly trained in legal matters to answer; but so far as I am able, I will answer the less technically legal ones. The noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, asked me about territorial waters. This agreement, as I think is expressed in the statement, has no effect whatsoever on ordinary territorial waters under International Law: it is applied specifically to this case, and to this case alone. The noble Earl, Lord Swinton, raised the question of the validity of the three-mile limit. This is, indeed, a potentially legal pitfall into which I am not going to risk slipping. I will take note of what the noble Earl has said, and I will pass his observations on to my right honourable friend; but I do not propose to comment on them at this Dispatch Box now. I am afraid that I must use the same sort of reserve in regard to the question put by the noble Lord, Lord Conesford.
I think the important thing out of all this is that we can hope to resume the old friendly relations that we had with the Icelandic people before; and I think we should pay a tribute to the fishing industry as a whole, which has behaved throughout this with great restraint and reasonableness. Only last night my right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture had a long discussion with all the representatives of the fishing industry and, as noble Lords are well aware, although they expressed disappointment that the transitional period should be so short, they did, in fact, agree to support Her Majesty's Government on a solution on the basis that we have worked out.
§ THE EARL OF SWINTONMy Lords, I should like just to put this point to my noble friend. I was not trying to involve him in any legal pitfall: I was asking him a quite simple question on foreign policy. We should all, I think, accept that the best that can be done has been 36 done by making this agreement; and certainly we should all echo our appreciation of the very reasonable attitude of our fishing industry and the help they have given to the Government in this matter. But what I put to my noble friend (and I do not say that he can answer it now) is not so much a legal question as a matter of fact. As it is quite impossible to insist in any court, national or international, against any country that there should be only a three-mile limit, has not the time come when we should reconsider whether we should not adopt a twelve-mile limit for our own country?
§ THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEMy Lords, I did not for one moment suspect that my noble friend was in any way setting a trap for me, and I am sorry if I gave that impression, but I must adhere to what I said. This question is a legal question, and a very complicated one at that, so I must insist that my noble friend accept my original answer.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGHMy Lords, I raised this question as well as the noble Earl, and I am not at all satisfied with the answer so far. I do not want to prolong this discussion, but in the circumstances may I ask whether this agreement becomes ipso facto operational from the moment the Icelandic Parliament passes it? I suppose it does. When Parliament here approves it, are we to get a White Paper or merely a copy of the Treaty laid as a document? We should perhaps go further into the legal aspects raised by the noble Earl, Lord Swinton. We have not much information, and I have had no answer to my other question: what sort of quid pro quo have we got out of this Treaty? We are losing fishing grounds. The fishing industry have suffered heavy losses in the last few years during the dispute and, apparently, we are now getting an increased landing of Icelandic fish brought into Fleetwood. What is the quid pro quo for the agreement?
§ THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEMy Lords, the position is this. If this proposal receives the approval of the Icelandic Parliament, there will then be an Exchange of Notes between Her Majesty's Government and the Government of Iceland. Then, as I said in 37 my statement, these Notes will be registered with the United Nations. I should be pleased for your Lordships' convenience, and if your Lordships wish it, to have copies of those two Draft Notes from both Governments put in the Library. As regards the quid pro quo, the noble Viscount can probably answer that question as well as I can.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGHMy Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Marquess. It may be necessary to have a debate on this subject when the Paper is laid, and I think we need not discuss it further today. Perhaps in the meantime the Foreign Secretary, in consultation with the Minister of Agriculture and the Board of Trade, will look at the question of the quid pro quo and let us have a proper explanation.