§ 6.42 p.m.
§ LORD WILLIS rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what progress has been made in the negotiations with Iceland on fishery limits. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the Unstarred Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. Before I go any further I ought to explain, and frankly confess, that I am not an expert on fisheries. I am not an expert fisherman; the nearest I ever came to catching fish was with tiddlers from a pond, although I can lay some claim to the championship of South Tottenham as a fish and chip eater. The reason why I put down this Unstarred Question stems directly from a visit I made to Iceland, where a play of mine was being performed in Reykjavik. It had a little success. I do not claim any credit for the play; I think people went to it because it was called Hot Summer Night and in Iceland that had a certain attraction. The point that interested and began eventually to intrigue me was that everywhere I went when I talked to various people in all walks of life, actors, cleaners in the hotel. Members of Parliament, novelists, and sculptors, came up to me and said, "What are you going to do and what is your attitude about the fishery limits?" It was as if everybody in this country when you went to a party said, "What do you think about the decline in the mining industry?" It was rapidly forced upon me that fishery limits and fishing is the way of life in Iceland. It is as essential and as important to everybody in Iceland as many other things are to us. It is a nation that lives on the back of fish. As I went into the matter and began 1251 to talk to various Members of Parliament and other people I became convinced that Iceland had a strong case. I made a promise that I would put that case to the British Parliament, which is why I am on my feet at this moment.
§ We ought to begin by thinking a little about the background of the situation. First we should remember that Iceland is an outpost of Western Europe. It is a nation with a total of 208,000 people. That is about the size of the population of Southampton, is twice the size of that of Gateshead or, let us put it this way: you could fill Tottenham Hotspur's ground four times with the total population of Iceland. I learned when I was there, and we shall all learn, that a nation is not measured by the size of its population. The special character of Iceland, which I came to admire when I was there. has been forged in two fires: history and tradition on the one hand, and economic need on the other. The history is familiar to many of your Lordships. These are the Viking forefathers who scoured the world in their longships and who were immortalised in their heroic sagas, sagas which are to Icelandic children what Mother Goose and Cinderella are to ours. To-day they still learn in these sagas of nobility and courage, the urge for adventure, chivalry, and so forth.
§ When you remember that that nation depends utterly on what they can harvest from the wild seas around their shores, you begin to understand why these sagas are important. These sagas give them a philosophy; they create standards of courage and behaviour; they promote these standards. When you remember that fishing in the circumstances in which they fish, and in which our deep sea fishermen fish, has the highest mortality rate, much higher than mining or anything else, then you will understand why they need, and feel the need for, the philosophy that lies behind their sagas. Linked with this there is a fierce independence. They separated after a long time from their Danish kings, and their Parliament is probably the oldest in Europe and one of the oldest in the world. They have a great tradition of democracy and independence. That is something of the past, and it is important to understand it in this present situation.
1252§ The other great factor is the economic one. Iceland is a lovely, beautiful but bleak and barren island. About 85 to 90 per cent. of the land is unproductive. Apart from fishing, the rearing of livestock is the only other key industry, but that is very small and is not capable of expansion to any marked degree. They have no minerals or fuel resources of their own. So we come back inevitably to fish. No other nation, no other country in the world, is as dependent upon fish as is the Icelandic nation. Fish and fish products represent between 80 and 90 per cent. of their exports, as against, in our case, something like one-third of 1 per cent. I believe that is so; I cannot be sure of our figures, but certainly the percentage is very small. With these exports the Icelanders are able to buy those things which they cannot grow for themselves or produce on their own barren land: food, minerals, fuels, machines, and so on. In other words, fish is their lifeblood. Without it Iceland will die and, as the Speaker of their Parliament said to me, "For us it is a matter of life and death". And I have become convinced, in talking to them, that this is truly the case.
§ No doubt the waters around Iceland are rich in fish: cod, haddock, herring, plaice, halibut and many other kinds of fish. It is as though Nature intended to compensate for the poorness of the land by enriching the ocean surrounding the shore. The reason for this is that Iceland rests on a platform, a form of Continental Shelf, and in these shallow under-water terraces there are ideal conditions for spawning. They are the best nursery grounds in Europe, if not in the world. The result is that fishermen from all over the Continent, if not from all over the world, are attracted to these waters. Between 15 and 20 per cent. of fish eaten in Europe comes from this area.
§ Because of the island's utter dependence on fish the Icelandic Government has always naturally been concerned about the degree and amount of fishing in its waters. Fishing limits of one sort or another have always been in force. Over the years, going back probably more than 100 years, the limits have been as much as 32 miles, coming down to three miles, in 1901. Iceland was not in favour of the three-mile limit then, but the Agreement was made by 1253 Denmark, which at that time ruled Iceland, at least so far as her foreign affairs were concerned. Nevertheless, that Agreement for the three-mile limit remained in force until 1951 when the now independent Iceland Government withdrew from it.
§ Why did they withdraw? Because there was already a tremendous danger of over-fishing. There was a vast increase in the number of ships, the size of ships and the methods of fishing which combined to create this danger. And this state of affairs, my Lords, has continued up to the present day and is responsible for creating the present difficulties. Instead of 300 to 500 ton trawlers, we find modern vessels of 1,000 to 1,200 tons, and 4,000-ton factory trawlers, going into these waters—factory trawlers that can stay there for months on end, with electronic gear and other instruments. These vessels have quadrupled—sometimes even more than quadrupled—productivity in fishing. They suck up whole catches from the ocean like vacuum cleaners, young and old fish alike. The result is that we have now very seriously the problem of over-fishing.
§ The Icelandic Government, which as I have indicated depends entirely on fishing as the country's basic industry, decided in 1948 that it ought to extend the fishery limits to 12 miles, in order to try to safeguard some of the island's national life-blood. In 1958, after 10 years of talk at the United Nations, the Icelandic Government imposed a 12-mile limit because it felt it could not go on talking any longer. This has done a great deal to preserve stocks. But in the last years there has still been a worsening of the situation, again due to over-fishing, because Japanese factory ships, other factory ships and other 1,000-ton trawlers are going in there and over-fishing these terraces and this Continental Shelf.
§ This can be seen from the figures. The herring catch has dropped dramatically. In 1965 it was something like 800,000 tons plus; five years later it had dropped down to 50,000 tons—one-sixteenth of what it was. The herring are just not there. They are not being allowed or given the time to spawn. The haddock catch fell by one-half between 1965 and 1969, and there are already danger signals with cod, which is the most important 1254 fish of all from the point of view of Iceland and of this country. The total mortality of cod, mainly due to over-fishing, is over 70 per cent. per annum. They are dying—being caught—faster than they can breed or spawn; and that is the grave danger point, not only for Iceland but also for this country. There now exists a real danger of permanent damage to these very important fisheries. This would affect not just Iceland but all fishing nations, because it is no use having the right to fish within a three-mile limit or a 12-mile limit if there are no fish left to catch. That is basically the problem. This is the background of the Icelandic decision to extend the limits to 50 miles. It is a policy of conservation; it is a policy which I have come to believe is in the interests of all the nations that use these fishing grounds. This is the only way the Icelanders can protect the spawning grounds for themselves and for everyone else, and prevent these rich waters from being turned into the oceanic equivalent of the great American dust bowls. That is what is happening.
§ It has been argued, and is still being argued, that the Icelandic Government is wrong; that this proposal is against international law and that it should be put to the International Court at The Hague. My Lords, there is no basic law on this issue, at we all know. The United Nations is still trying to get one; in fact a Conference on the Law of the Sea is to be held next year. But the Icelandic Government, with the experience of 1948 to 1958 behind it, is not disposed to go on talking; and I must say that in these circumstances I do not altogether blame it.
§ The second point that has to be said about this is that many nations have wider limits. Argentine, Brazil, Chile, Peru and other nations in South America have 200-mile fishing limits; Canada has a 100-mile pollution limit and sometimes an 80-mile fishing limit on her shores. Ghana and India have fishing limits of over 100 miles. So there is nothing extraordinary in Iceland's suggesting the limit should be 50 miles. What is more, the 50 miles almost exactly coincides with the Continental Shelf on which Iceland rests, and the shape of the continental belt follows almost exactly the shape of the Icelandic coastline. So there is a 1255 very strong case for saying that this is really part of the Icelandic territorial waters.
§ It has been said that it is wrong to make this unilateral decision, but I believe that if they had stayed to talk any more, while at the end of that talk we might have reached agreement, there would have been no cod, haddock, plaice or herring to catch because they would all have died while we had been talking. Iceland has indicated that within this 50-mile limit she recognises that there is a special case for West German fishermen, and for British fishermen above all, and that she is prepared to talk in genuine terms to British fishermen and to West German fishermen about the special rights within that 50-mile limit in our traditional fishing grounds. I believe that we can accept this assurance and go ahead with those talks. I found no anti-British feeling in Iceland; on the contrary, if anything I found it the other way: a great respect and a liking for this country.
§ My Lords, I promised—and I have done it—that I would put the Icelandic case before the British Parliament. I have tried to do so very quickly; I have done so inadequately but as best I can. My own view is that it is a very strong case and one I would go along with. I only hope that as these discussions go on we can avoid the absurdities of the so-called "cod war" of 1958. As I indicated, we are dealing with a country of 200,000 people. It has no army; it has no navy; it has no air force. I believe it has 200 policemen and five protection vessels. Those protection vessels are armed with guns, none of which has ever been fired in anger. I am reliably informed that it is very doubtful whether anybody on board knows actually how to fire those guns.
§ So I hope we shall not again come to the situation that we had in 1958 when the British Navy was escorting our vessels through the Icelandic territorial limits. Because, when we come down to it, in the last analysis deep sea fishing, which, as I have indicated, is a most dangerous pursuit, relies very much on the support of friendly nations. Any one of our vessels that gets into trouble, whether it is 51 miles from the Icelandic coast or 20 miles from the Icelandic coast, needs to put into an Icelandic harbour. It needs 1256 the support of Icelandic hospitals for its sick. It needs the support of Iceland, sometimes, for its food or repairs. No country can hope to fish indefinitely and illegally outside another country without the help of that particular country in some way or another. So Iceland is not relying on armed might in this dispute but essentially on two things: on a moral right, which I think exists very strongly, and on common sense to see this issue through.
§ My Lords, I realise that our fishermen have a very strong case because they have been fishing for generations in those traditional fishing grounds. I do not think there is any question of their being barred from those grounds, certainly not immediately. There is a strong basis for talking to conserve those grounds, but I think the talk must come on the basis of the Icelandic Government's behaving and acting as it wants to, as the custodian of this very rich fishing ground. And after we have agreed that it is the custodian, then let us talk about other rights. My Lords, on that basis I beg to ask the Question.
§ 6.58 p.m.
§ LORD BOOTHBYMy Lords, before the noble Baroness replies, may I say one word in warm support of what the noble Lord, Lord Willis, has just said. I think the Icelanders have a very strong case. There is only one answer to the fishing problem at the moment, which applies to the whole of the North Sea and far beyond, and that is conservation. I hope that before the next 10 years are out we shall have devised extensive conservation measures in Europe: larger meshes, less ruthless and destructive methods of fishing, and so forth.
I wish the Government had been a little tougher in the negotiations over the Common Market. But they have a good enough standing agreement at the moment on the limits that we have. I am satisfied with them, provided that—and the noble Baroness has given us an assurance on this—at the end of ten years the arrangements which have been negotiated cannot be altered without our consent. In my view there is no doubt about that, but at the same time I think that our limits may have to be extended before 10 years are out, and that 1257 measures will have to be brought in to prevent, as the noble Lord, Lord Willis, said, the wholesale murder of fish by modern destructive methods of fishing—and they are very destructive indeed, with these great trawlers with their small meshes and their beam trawls which scrape the bottom and murder the fish population. If these methods are not changed I fear that within a decade the fish problem will become almost insoluble. I feel that the Icelanders are absolutely within their rights in demanding this limit of protection, with some advantages for our trawlers, in the general concern for conservation of fish which is essential if we are to maintain the fish supplies in the future that we have enjoyed in the past.
§ 7.1 p.m.
§ BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIEMy Lords, we are indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Willis, for raising what is an immensely important subject, both to Iceland and to this country. I must say that I was very surprised that the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, should support him quite so wholeheartedly, for reasons which I hope to show and which I think will prove that he has gone back on a great deal of his honourable past when representing a part of Scotland so dependent upon fishing.
Perhaps we should first be clear what it is we are discussing. The noble Lord, Lord Willis—and I can understand it well—was immensely attracted by that very beautiful, almost romantic country, and he sought to tell us that Iceland was wholly dependent upon fish. I think perhaps he forgets (if I may put it this way) her hydro-electric schemes and her geo-thermal resources; and it may be that he has forgotten the fact that Iceland is only 75 dollars below the United Kingdom in her gross national product. That does not come only from fishing but from these great natural resources of which I have spoken. If we turn to the question of fisheries alone, of which I can claim that I know a certain amount, having represented the major fishing port in Scotland for 20 years in another place, I think it is right that we should be quite clear what are the arrangements, both internationally between Iceland and ourselves and on the whole question of conservation. which I agree is absolutely vital to all our interests.
1258 My Lords, on February 15 of this year the Icelandic Parliament unanimously approved a resolution which formally resolved that the Government should extend the limits from 12 miles to 50 miles not later than September 1 of this year. The same resolution called on the Government to explain once more to ourselves and the Germans that the 1961 Agreements—and I stress "Agreements"—on fishery limits could apply no longer, and that they wished to continue their attempts to reach agreement with us on the difficulties caused by their proposed extension. On February 24 of this year our Ambassador in Reykjavik was handed an aide-mémoire stating the Icelandic Government's decision to issue regulations providing for the 50-mile fishing limit to become effective on September 1. The same aide-mémoire also stated that the Icelandic Government considered—and I hope the House will note this—that the provisions of the 1961 Agreement were no longer applicable and were consequently terminated.
British and Icelandic officials have met both in London and in Reykjavik during the past few months to discuss ways of reconciling our interests. We have stated very clearly and on several occasions that we cannot accept any extension of Iceland's fishing limits beyond 12 miles as being compatible with international law. We have also insisted on our right under the 1961 Agreement to refer any dispute to the International Court; and we have made it clear that the Agreement is still in force and cannot be ended unilaterally. It is perfectly true that the Icelandic Government suggested that British vessels might continue to fish, subject to certain unspecified conditions, in certain limited areas for a limited period of time after Iceland had extended her limits to 50 miles. But to negotiate an arrangement on this basis would have been to concede Iceland's right to control the waters out to 50 miles and to jeopardise our future fishing, not only in those waters but elsewhere.
At this time, my Lords, the positions of the two sides appear to be irreconcilable. But we have tried to explain to the Icelandic Government that this is not necessarily the case. We understand, of course, Iceland's considerable economic dependence on fisheries resources, and it is just because of this that we are 1259 ready to recognise that Iceland should have a preferential claim to the resources of the fisheries round her coast. But preference is one thing and monopoly is quite another. We in this country cannot accept that the reasonable needs of Iceland can justify the extinction of our right to continue to fish in areas of the high seas where we have fished for 100 years or more. We have said in particular that the proposed 50-mile limit would include virtually all the fishing grounds in the Icelandic area. The exclusion of our vessels from them would deprive us of between one-fifth and one-quarter of all British landings of such species as cod, haddock and plaice. Between 40 per cent. and 60 per cent. of the catch of the distant water section of our fleet comes from grounds that would be lost. It is our contention that both the Icelandic and the British interests in these waters, as well as the interests of those other States which have traditionally fished in the region, can be accommodated by means of internationally agreed conservation measures.
As noble Lords will probably know, I am one of the keenest Members of your Lordships' House in favour of the conservation of our fishery stocks, but noble Lords will also recall that the international organisation that is responsible for fishery conservation in the Icelandic area is the North-East Atlantic Fisheries Commission. All the States which have traditionally fished in this area, including the United Kingdom and Iceland, take part in regular annual meetings of the Commission. It was decided at the last meeting of the Commission, in May, 1971, that the condition of the Icelandic cod and haddock stocks was not such as to warrant any special conservation measures. This conclusion was reached on the basis of the latest available scientific advice, which had been agreed internationally by the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea.
Of course if there are any important changes in the present pattern of fishing, or if there is any new scientific evidence of a decline in the stocks, it will be open to the Icelandic Government, or to any other Government, to raise the question again with the Commission. But we are quite clear that the need to conserve fish stocks cannot be held to justify 1260 the extension of national fishing limits. Where conservation measures are needed they should be taken by international agreement, and in this case through the North-East Atlantic Fisheries Commission. However, my Lords, the existence of an international Commission dealing with fisheries conservation does not inhibit any Government from entering into more restricted discussions involving two or three Governments. For example, there are some types of conservation measures, such as catch limitation, which the North Atlantic Fisheries Commission is not yet empowered to recommend to member Governments, though it is expected that it will shortly be given those powers.
A catch limitation scheme agreed between those few States which traditionally fish in the Icelandic area, and subsequently endorsed by the other members of the Commission, might well be very helpful to the Icelandic situation. We have told the Icelandic Government that we would in principle be ready to negotiate such a scheme, and we could undertake for our own part to limit our catch to the average of the years 1960–69 on the basis that Iceland did not seek to extend her limits beyond 12 miles. We could probably work out the details of such a scheme in such a way as to allow some room for expansion of the Icelandic fishing industry, in recognition, of course, of the special dependence of the Icelandic fleet upon these waters. At the same time the scheme would protect our own essential interests. With this in mind we have sought at all stages the advice of the British Trawlers' Federation, and the Federation was represented during our discussions with the Icelandic Government. Moreover, the possibility of review in the event of a decline in fish stocks backed by positive scientific evidence would always be open. A catch limitation scheme of this kind could attract, surely, the support of all those States who fish in the waters around Iceland, and surely could therefore give Iceland firm guarantees of a kind which unilateral extension of limits in the face of international law could hardly be expected to provide.
We cannot abandon our position that any agreement with Iceland on fisheries conservation must be on the basis that Iceland does not intend to extend limits beyond 12 miles. It is true that a few 1261 States have claimed fisheries jurisdiction beyond 12 miles in recent years, but we have consistently maintained that all such claims are contrary to international law. We recognise, of course, that the question of any special position a coastal State may have, or ought to have, as regards fisheries in adjacent areas of the high seas is one which requires further international consideration. But I submit to your Lordships that the natural forum for any international discussion of this subject, and, indeed, of all questions touching on jurisdiction over the high seas, will be the United Nations Law of the Sea Conference planned for 1973. Preparatory work for this conference is being undertaken by the United Nations Sea Bed Committee and it is at present holding its spring session in New York. That is why we very much regret that the Icelandic Government is considering its own action, which affects all maritime nations to a greater or lesser extent, at a time when the United Nations are looking at these issues in an international context.
I have mentioned our right under the 1961 Agreement between the United Kingdom and Iceland to refer to the International Court any dispute relating to the extension of Icelandic fishing limits beyond 12 miles. Recourse to judicial settlement, in international as in municipal law, is a perfectly amicable means of resolving a dispute when bilateral negotiation seems to offer no immediate prospect of agreement. It is indeed one of the methods which are described as "pacific settlement of disputes" which are enjoined on Iceland and ourselves by Article 33 of the United Nations Charter. I suggest to your Lordships that it is particularly suitable when there is a formal agreement between the two parties which expressly provides for reference to the Court in just such a situation. At this moment in time I am not in a position to tell your Lordships that any decision to refer the dispute to the International Court has been taken, although this option is urgently under study and I can say that a decision is imminent. There is no reason why reference to the Court need necessarily inhibit either party from continuing informal discussions outside the Court in the hope of achieving an agreed solution. Indeed, if we do decide to refer this matter to the Court, we shall hope to conclude interim arrangements to safeguard our fishing in 1262 these waters while the case is before the Court. We have friendly relations with Iceland over a wide variety of matters, and of course we hope that differences on fisheries will not affect those matters at all.
The existence of an agreement between the two Governments providing for reference to the International Court is one feature of the present situation which renders it different from what was called "the cod war" in 1958–61. I hope, therefore, that we can avoid becoming involved in another "cod war" over Iceland's plans to extend her limits from 12 to 50 miles. Can we not discuss, whether inside or outside the courts? Is it not a very much better way of trying to resolve our differences? But I must in this debate make quite clear that we have vital interests to defend in the waters around Iceland and there are very important issues of principle at stake. Therefore we cannot rule out any procedure which may be necessary to preserve those interests and to safeguard those principles.
My Lords, I hope that what I have said is enough to show that there are many difficulties in this complex issue, but also to show the British Government's determination to protect our own interests, while at the same time trying to achieve a solution which will help the very genuine preoccupations of the Icelandic Government. I regret very much that I have not been able to give a more encouraging account to your Lordships to-night or to make any firm announcement at this moment on future policy, because the discussions between ourselves and the Iceland Government are delicate and complex. I would only say that, as fellow-Europeans, both of us heirs to a Nordic tradition, it surely is possible for us together to achieve an agreed and lasting solution.
§ Lotus BOOTHBYMy Lords, before the noble Baroness resumes her seat. may I ask her a short question? All these endless committees and commissions, the North East Atlantic, the NATO commissions and everything else, have so far produced absolutely no effective measures at all for the conservation of fish, which is, as the noble Baroness agrees, so vital. As they have not done so, is it not rather natural for the Icelandic Government to take unilateral 1263 action to protect its own fisheries, because no effective agreement has yet been reached by any international organisation that I have ever heard of, although there are about six of them?
§ BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIEMy Lords, I really must refute that suggestion from the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, and I am surprised that he has suddenly abandoned his fishermen to take the other view. It is a fact that of the 15 members of the North-East Atlantic Fisheries Commission there are four, including Iceland, which have not yet ratified; but all of them have given notice that they intend to do so.
§ LORD BOOTHBYMy Lords, I would only say in reply to the noble Baroness, finally, that I have not abandoned my fishermen, because none of them fishes near Iceland.