| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): Order. The hon. Gentleman is quite right. Hon. Members will either listen to the debate or leave the Chamber.
Jeremy Corbyn: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
I was explaining that the Sahrawi refugees live in refugee camps in Algeria. They have created an effective and sustainable community. Illiteracy has largely been conquered and there are good education and health services. That is thanks to the support of Algeria, yes, but also because of a great deal of aid from the UN, the European Union and our Department for International Development.
The refugees' dream and hope is to return to Western Sahara. Part of the arrangements surrounding the 1991 ceasefire was that the United Nations, through its organisation MINURSO—United Nations Mission for the Referendum in Western Sahara—would arrange for a referendum to be held on the basis of the 1974 census so that all the Sahrawi people could vote on whether they wished to achieve the independence to which they are entitled under the terms of international law. Tragically, the referendum has never been held because of disputes about the electoral roll and, I believe, Moroccan intransigence. The situation remains in a degree of stalemate.
Law is very much on the side of the Sahrawi people. The issue has been taken to the International Court of Justice. The Sahrawi claim, put by the Polisario, for the
17 Mar 2006 : Column 1782
independence of Western Sahara is endorsed by a large number of countries and, especially, the African Union. It is worth mentioning that it is the only example in Africa of a border dispute involving an African country and what it claims is part of its territory—the Western Sahara—in which the African Union supports the independence movement. The situation is thus unique.
My hon. Friend the Minister is aware of many of those issues because he is a former Foreign Office Minister. He is well aware of the concern and support of many of us for the Sahrawi people and what we believe to be their legitimate claim. The arrangements that are made for agreements between international bodies such as the United Nations and the European Union, and representatives of the Sahrawi people, are thus highly significant. I therefore want to bring to the attention of the House and the Minister the fishing agreement between the European Union and Morocco.
Morocco, like any other country in the world, is entitled to conclude a fishing agreement with the European Union—about that there is no dispute. However, it is not entitled to conclude a fishing agreement that includes the waters to the south of the recognised border between Morocco and what I shall term for the benefit of this contribution "the occupied territories"—Western Sahara—which makes up a significant part of the coastline. The waters are rich in fish, and the area is also rich in minerals and phosphates, which is part of the reason behind Morocco's determination to hang on to its illegal occupation.
The purpose of the debate is to draw the attention of the House and the Minister to the agreement that is about to be ratified by the European Union and to ask what the British position will be. Let me quote from a group called Fish Elsewhere. In answer to the question:
"The legal opinion then discusses under what circumstances would EU vessels be legally allowed to fish in the Western Sahara. It concludes that it would only be legal providing it was not 'carried out in disregard of the interests and of the wishes of the local population'. The legal opinion states that it 'cannot be prejudged that Morocco will not comply with its obligations under international law vis-à-vis the people of Western Sahara', hence we cannot be sure that the Agreement would be illegal."
There is thus an area of debate and discussion. Fish Elsewhere has done a great deal to draw the attention of EU member states to the situation.
I understand that the Minister cannot comment on the foreign policy implications of the situation because he is a Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Minister—I would not expect him to be able to do that—but will he inform the House what position the British Government intend to take? The EU is divided. France and Spain strongly support a fishing agreement and Morocco's claim that it has the right to fish in the waters off Western Sahara, but a number of other countries are very doubtful about the legality of the matter and do not want the EU to conclude an "illegal" agreement that would then be challenged in the International Court of Justice. Many of them also have a great deal of sympathy with the plight of the Sahrawi people.
I go back to the legal opinion that I just read out, which talked about the local people. Ever since the expulsion of the Polisario from Western Sahara in the
17 Mar 2006 : Column 1783
1970s, a large number of Moroccan settlers have been moved in. It could be argued that those settlers are the local people. I would argue that although they are obviously resident there, the legality of that residence is in question, and the local people are those who were expelled and who now occupy the refugee camps in Algeria.
Will the Minister indicate to the House that the British Government are prepared to vote against the EU-Morocco fishing agreement if it includes the waters off the Western Sahara—those of the Sahrawi people? Will he do his best to ensure that as many other countries as possible vote accordingly?
There is an issue here of simple human justice. An area of land, which under the decolonisation procedures should have become a newly independent territory, was occupied. Since then the Polisario Front has kept the people together, campaigned for justice and the right of return, and gained a lot of international support. If we condone that occupation by agreeing to Morocco's "right" to fish the waters off the Western Sahara, we are condoning the occupation and the illegality of what Morocco is doing. The people who stand to gain from that are a number of extremely large, powerful fishing companies, particularly in France and Spain, and those who stand to lose are the poor people who have lived out all these years in the refugee camps in Western Sahara. I hope that when he comes to reply the Minister will be able to offer some assurance on these matters.
I would like to quote from a letter to me from my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud who, like me, takes a very close interest in matters concerning Western Sahara and is a strong supporters of the Sahrawi people. He says:
"I am deeply concerned at the implications of this agreement. It flies in the face of the pressure that the UN has been applying over the years to try to resolve the situation in the Western Sahara. I am appalled that narrow EU fishing interests have been prioritised over the wider rights of the Saharawis and this gives a green light for Morocco to carry on with its illegal occupation of land and waters. What safeguards have been put in place to ensure that over fishing does not take place thus removing a potential source of revenue for a future independent Western Sahara? Surely the EU realises the sensitivity of this issue and should not put narrow economic interests above its long held political view in support of the UN that a referendum should be held on the future of the territory."
To put it simply, I hope that this EU fishing agreement does not go ahead in so far as it takes away the fishing area of the Western Sahara people. I hope that we get a very strong declaration of support for a UN-organised referendum so that the people of the Western Sahara can, once and for all, decide their own future. If they wish to live in an independent country, in what was formerly a Spanish colony, it is their right to do so. That is a right enshrined in international law, and above all it is our duty to try to support that right within international law.
2.43 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr. Ben Bradshaw):
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member
17 Mar 2006 : Column 1784
for Islington, North (Jeremy Corbyn) on the commitment that he has shown on this issue over many years. He has an interest not only in Western Sahara but, for the purposes of this debate, in any potential impact of the EU-Morocco fisheries agreement on that part of the world.
May I start by apologising to my hon. Friend for the fact that, as he acknowledged, many of the points that he raised are the responsibility of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office? I know that he held discussions with the Minister for the Middle East, my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells), back in the autumn, and he may want to renew that contact now. I shall certainly make sure that the concerns that he has raised today that are relevant to the Foreign Office are communicated to my hon. Friend.
The proposed new fisheries partnership agreement between the EU and Morocco is due to come into force in May 2006 for a period of four years. It is made under the provisions of the European common fisheries policy and, as my hon. Friend said, the Commission has competence to negotiate such agreements on behalf of the EU. The agreement has yet to come before the Agriculture and Fisheries Council for adoption, and we are still waiting for an opinion from the European Parliament. If they have not already done so, I urge my hon. Friends the Members for Islington, North and for Stroud (Mr. Drew), who has a deep interest, to raise their concerns with Members of the European Parliament, who have a role to play in these matters.
From a purely fisheries perspective, the agreement reflects the new fisheries partnership approach based on the Fisheries Council's reforms of 2004 in respect of such agreements. For example, article 6 of the protocol to the agreement provides for more than a third of the EU's financial contribution to be used for the implementation of a national fisheries policy based on responsible fishing and on the sustainable exploitation of fisheries resources. That reflects the improvements to such third-party agreements in terms of their transparency and sustainability that were championed by the United Kingdom in particular. The agreement is based on the scientific assessment of stocks in Moroccan waters and consequently excludes fishing possibilities for cephalopods and shellfish, which have been over-exploited.
In addition to the fisheries aspects of the agreement, my hon. Friend has raised its potential effect on the disputed status of Western Sahara. I give my hon. Friend and the House the following assurance. The UK Government would not support an agreement if we felt that it would prejudice the question of the status of Western Sahara. The delimitation of the agreement is identical to that of the previous EU-Morocco fisheries agreement, which expired in 1999. The UK Government's position remains the same: the status of Western Sahara should be dealt with under the United Nations process. We regard the sovereignty of Western Sahara as undetermined, pending UN efforts to find a solution and we fully support that UN process.
17 Mar 2006 : Column 1785
As my hon. Friend also said, the European Commission has recently produced legal advice that suggests that there is nothing in the draft fisheries agreement that is inconsistent with international law governing the status of Western Sahara. The Fisheries Council will clearly want to explore that advice further when discussing the draft agreement. The UK Government are considering the Commission's advice in discussion with other member states who, like us, have been seeking reassurance on the matter, and we have placed a reserve on our position.
I am aware of concerns expressed by War on Want and others that few Sahrawis will benefit from the agreement because of the structure of the fishing industry in the areas concerned. The Commission has expressed the view that the Western Sahara people will benefit from the agreement, but I have asked the Commission to study and respond to War on Want's evidence as a matter of urgency.
Morocco is obliged under international law to ensure that in non-self-governing territories such as Western Sahara economic activity does not adversely affect the people. It is clear in paragraph 24 of the letter of 29 January 2002 from the UN's legal advisers to the Security Council that the exploitation of the resources of
17 Mar 2006 : Column 1786
such territories must be conducted for the benefit of the peoples of those territories on their behalf or in consultation with their representatives.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |