§ 3.38 p.m.
§ THE MINISTER OF STATE, FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE)My Lords, it may be convenient if I now make a Statement on the discussions which have taken place in Reykjavik on the intention of the Icelandic Government to extend their fishing limits to 50 miles. The Statement is as follows:
"Her Majesty's Government deeply regret that it proved impossible to reach agreement on an interim arrangement at the talks in Reykjavik this week. These talks were a continuation of Ministerial talks held in London in May and June. At every stage we have made genuine efforts to meet Icelandic concern about the conservation of fish stocks.
"We have also been willing to recognise a degree of preferential treatment to Iceland as the coastal State. We have put forward a number of proposals designed to limit the catch of British trawlers without asking for a corresponding limitation from Ice- 364 landic vessels. Indeed the final offer made this week could have had the effect of reducing the British catch by as much as 30 per cent. of the 1971 figure. I am sorry to say that even this proved unacceptable.
"The first proposal made by the Icelandic Government this week would have had the effect of reducing our catch by about 80 per cent. No British Government could tolerate such a proposal.
"At the final stage of the discussions the Icelandic Government suggested that they might be able to put forward further proposals which would be less restrictive but which included the right to exclusive fishing for Icelandic vessels in certain areas and full enforcement powers. They were not, however, willing to agree to our suggestion that experts should proceed to an immediate examination of this proposal.
"We remain ready to consider any further Icelandic proposals for interim arrangements, but meanwhile we have preserved all our rights in the area outside the present 12-mile limit. The Icelandic Government intend to issue regulations on July 14 to extend their limits to 50 miles. Her Majesty's Government propose to make an immediate application to the International Court for an indication of interim measures to be observed by both parties, pending a definitive solution of this dispute."
That is the Statement, my Lords.
§ LORD KENNETMy Lords, on behalf of the whole House may I welcome the noble Baroness back, after what must have been arduous and difficult negotiations, and congratulate her personally on having conducted them in a manner a great deal better than some other business that is going on in Reykjavik at the moment.
I have one or two points to put to the Government. They are now taking us into a major row with one of our allies. This row is so major that it has become necessary to threaten the use of naval force. This would be to prevent the arrest of ships in a part of the sea which the Icelandic Government are arguing is a protected fishing zone and which we shall claim, when it happens in September, is part of the high seas. Should the Government not remember that we have 365 already ourselves taken the right unilaterally to arrest ships in part of the sea which all nations have agreed is the high seas? That is under the Merchant Shipping (Prevention of Oil Pollution) Act.
This is the age of creeping national jurisdiction. This was begun unilaterally by the United States in 1945, when they annexed their Continental Shelf, and has been carried on by Canada, Latin America, West Africa and Indian Ocean countries. Moreover, the Icelandic Government have already demanded that NATO forces leave the base at Keflavik. There is a strong Communist element in that Government. If the Soviet Union were to obtain the use of Iceland as an unsinkable aircraft carrier and as a submarine base in the North Atlantic, this would be an extremely serious matter. The Government must have good reasons to run these grave risks. At the moment, Parliament and the public in this country are in a complete fog on these issues. Iceland demands a 50-mile limit because of a possible reduction in fish catches and therefore in fish stocks. What is the evidence of that reduction? Is it connected with the increased technical capabilities and range of the fishing fleets and so on? What proportion of all the fish in the North Atlantic is caught by us, and what proportion is caught by other countries, including Russia? What proportion of the fish caught within 50 miles is caught by us and what proportion by other countries?
EARL JELLICOEMy Lords, I hesitate to interrupt the noble Lord but I should remind him that the Companion to the Standing Orders says that Ministerial Statements are made for the information of the House and although brief comments and questions for clarification are allowed, such Statements should not be made the occasion for an immediate debate. With diffidence I would suggest that the noble Lord is straying a little beyond that rule.
§ LORD KENNETMy Lords, I accept instantly what the Leader of the House has said, and with the utmost confidence that all other noble Lords will accept it on other occasions. If I had been allowed to finish my improper battery of questions I should have terminated with this question: will the Government please publish a White Paper on this issue as 366 soon as possible, owing to its extreme complexity and gravity?
§ LORD WADEMy Lords, may I join in thanking the noble Baroness for repeating the Statement; I should also like to support the congratulations conveyed to her. I have only one short question, but I would preface it by saying that we all appreciate how serious a matter this is for the British fishing industry. Can the noble Baroness give any indication as to how long the proceedings before the International Court are likely to take?
§ BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIEMy Lords, I thank both noble Lords for welcoming me back to this House. It was indeed an extremely interesting although difficult series of negotiations. First of all, I should like to say to the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, that we have not threatened naval force. We have said that we cannot rule out the use of the Navy, but we hope that it will never come to this. Nor, so far as I am aware, have naval forces specifically been asked to leave Keflavik which is another question.
On the point about the actual proportion of the stocks taken by various countries, I should be happier if the noble Lord would put down a specific question. He referred to Russia. It is true that she has factory ships such as we do not possess. The noble Lord asked whether the Government would publish a White Paper. I shall certainly bring this request to the attention of my right honourable friend but I would say both to the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, and to the noble Lord, Lord Wade, that we are still ready to continue negotiations, despite the issue of the regulations by the Icelandic Government and despite our application before the International Court. We understand that there is a possibility that the Icelandic Government might give us specific proposals. This was not the case at the last round of negotiations; but if they did we should, of course consider them carefully. On the question of the International Court, we have not yet finally devised the questions which we shall put to it, but we shall ask for interim measures that should be observed by both parties. We should hope to produce this before the end of the month, and we should certainly get a decision within two or three weeks.
§ LORD HOYMy Lords, may I ask the noble Baroness whether it is not a fact that the decision of Iceland to break this agreement means that she is breaking an agreement which was signed by Great Britain and Iceland herself? That she is breaking it unilaterally is the thing we deprecate. May I ask the noble Baroness how long she thinks it will be before the Government are able to take this matter to the International Court and what the consequences will be—because the present Agreement, which was signed by both countries, was taken to the International Court? Secondly I would ask the noble Baroness to bear in mind also how important this section of the fishing industry is not only to the fleets on the Humber, at Hull and at Grimsby, and to the vessels at Fleetwood, but also to a certain section of the fishing industry in Aberdeen. May we have an assurance that, in these consultations, before any decisions are arrived at, Her Majesty's Government will at least call in not only the trawler industry, as represented by the trawler owners, but the trade unions, which are representative of thousands of workers whose livelihood depends on this industry?
§ BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIEMy Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Hoy, is perfectly right in saying that we signed an Agreement between Iceland and this country in 1961. It was agreed that if any change was to be made, after six months' notice, it should be by agreement and that if no agreement could be reached then the case should go before the International Court at The Hague. We have lodged our application before the Court. What we are now seeking to do is to ask for a decision on interim arrangements until the final decision is taken, which may not be for about another two years.
I realise of course—and this is the whole point of the negotiations—the immense importance to the fishing industry in this country of the Icelandic Government's proposal unilaterally to extend the 12-mile limit to 50 miles. The fishermen of this country have had historic rights for fishing off Iceland for about 300 years. Therefore we agreed in London to set aside the question of the ultimate jurisdiction and to try to come together to produce an interim arrangement. I hope very much that in the 368 course of these consultations the Icelandic Government will be able to put forward further proposals. I have always understood that Iceland was a country which had an especial respect for law, whether international or domestic. I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Hoy, that, while we did not have representatives of the trade unions with us, I received a delegation headed by Mr. Jack Jones and heard his views some time before we left for Reykjavik.
§ LORD HOYMy Lords, may I go a little further on this matter? I do not want to enter into a dispute with Iceland, which I had the pleasure of visiting just over two years ago and where I received great hospitality and friendship. But in a dispute of this kind it must be quite apparent just how much it affects trade unionists of this country as well as trawler owners. That is all I want to emphasise.
§ BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIEMy Lords, I think it is evident that we realise the damage the proposed extension would cause the fishing industry from the fact that we could not accept the proposal for reducing the catch by 80 per cent. Nor can we accept further proposals which might prejudice the case before the International Court.
§ LORD BOOTHBYMy Lords, while joining in the congratulations that have been extended to the noble Baroness on the success of her mission—or, rather, perhaps, on the failure of her mission; but she certainly put up a strong fight—I would ask her to bear in mind that, while the 50-mile limit is quite obviously over the odds, the conservation of fishing in the North Sea is becoming a matter of desperate urgency. I wonder whether she could hold out some hope that negotiations between ourselves and Iceland could be resumed before the matter goes to The Hague Tribunal and that the Icelandic Government might put forward some fresh proposals which would allow our own trawlers some traditional rights within the 50-mile limit of their waters.
§ BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIEMy Lords, as sometimes happen between allies of long standing, while the Icelandic Government are issuing the regulation to extend the limits tomorrow, and while we are applying to 369 the International Court for an interim arrangement (which we must do because of the time factor involved), we have both said that we are always willing to consider any further measures between us.
§ LORD KENNETMy Lords, are we going alone to The Hague, or are there other countries which also consider that the proposed 50-mile limit is wrong?
§ BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIEMy Lords, I understand that the German Government have in fact tiled an application before the International Court.