§ The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Sir Alec Douglas-Home)With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I wish to make a statement.
The House will recall that during the ministerial talks on 27th and 28th November we suggested to the Icelandic Government that an interim settlement to our dispute about fisheries jurisdiction might be based on the reduction of the actual fishing effort by British vessels in the disputed waters. Full details of the negotiations have been given to the House, and the principal documents are available in the Library.
34 When I saw the Icelandic Foreign Minister at the meeting of the North Atlantic Council on 6th and 8th December, he said we had been talking of a total catch reduction of the order of 25 per cent. and asked me whether I could let him have a combination of effort limitation and area limitation having that effect. After consultations I provided him with a proposal, the effort limitation part of which would have in itself provided a 25 per cent. reduction in the 1971 level of catch, combined with restrictions on areas from which we normally take some 9 per cent. of our catch. I said that if the Icelandic Government were prepared to conclude an interim arrangement on this basis we would still be prepared to incorporate in any agreement our willingness not to fish in the proposed Icelandic nondiscriminatory conservation areas and, on a seasonal basis, small areas where there were concentrations of fixed gear.
I had had no reply to these proposals when harassment of our trawlers was resumed. On 29th December I sent the Icelandic Foreign Minister a message reminding him of the serious view we took of such interference with our vessels. I said that I hoped he would shortly be able to let us have a date for the resumption of negotiations and that there would meanwhile be no further harassment.
I regret to tell the House that the situation on the fishing grounds continued to deteriorate. Finally, on 19th January, six weeks after I had responded to Mr. Agustsson's request for effort limitation proposals, Her Majesty's Ambassador in Reykjavik was informed that the proposals had been discussed by the Icelandic Government which concluded that they were not acceptable and that a resumption of negotiations would not therefore be helpful, although the Icelandic Government would be ready to discuss new proposals. This message was accompanied by a memorandum restating the earlier Icelandic proposals, and commenting on their effect. I instructed Her Majesty's Ambassador in Reykjavik to see the Icelandic Foreign Minister and record my surprise that an offer which corresponded exactly with the request that he had himself put forward should have received this response. Her Majesty's Ambassador carried out these instructions this morning. In doing so he set out once more our view of the attempts 35 which the Icelandic Government have made to secure their objectives by the use of force in defiance of an interim order by the International Court of Justice and the responsibility which they bear for the dangerous situation which exists on the fishing grounds.
At the same time we recognise that there is room for doubt about the precise effect of either the British or the Icelandic proposals, and, in view of the Icelandic Government's expressed readiness to consider new proposals, I have suggested that discussions be resumed at an early date with the task of devising an arrangement which could reasonably be expected to leave us with 75 per cent. of our 1971 catch. I made it clear that our efforts to solve the dispute by the due process of law before the International Court of Justice would continue.
After consultations with the industry the Government have provided increased civilian support to our trawlermen and are ready to implement further measures if necessary. I should like to take this occasion to pay tribute to the exemplary behaviour of the commanders of our support vessels and of the skippers, officers and crews of British trawlers operating in extremely trying conditions. We will persevere in getting them a fair deal.
§ Mr. CroslandMay I first warmly endorse the tribute that the Foreign Secretary has paid to the skippers and crews of our trawlers? To say that they are operating under extremely trying conditions is something of an understatement. Conditions are extremely dangerous and are now nearly intolerable, as can be seen from the explosive reaction by the trawlermen at the end of last week at Grimsby, Hull and the other fishing ports. May I warmly welcome the statement that the Government are actively studying further measures by which they might give support, because it must be clear that the most immediate priority is to protect the trawlers from harassment. As I have said before in the House, there will be a serious loss of life if the harassment continues.
The sending of the tug "Statesman" has aroused some scepticism in the fishing ports, as the Foreign Secretary knows. I am prepared to reserve judgment on it, but is it not a curious and undignified feature that the "Statesman", intended 36 to protect our trawlers, is under Liberian registration? Will the Foreign Secretary explain how this comes to be the case?
As to the main part of the statement, the central point, if I read it correctly, is the apparent refusal of the Icelandic Government to continue negotiations for an interim settlement. The right hon. Gentleman quotes the Icelandic Government as saying that the resumption of negotiations would not be very helpful. In spite of this extraordinarily curt and cold reaction, the Foreign Secretary can count on the support of the Opposition in his attempt to resume negotiations because at the end of the day we want a peaceful settlement. If his attempt to resume negotiations fails and if we are faced, as we shall be, with a "cod war" likely to last over a year until after the Law of the Sea Conference, we shall then face a completely new situation in which the House will have to reconsider once again the question of full naval protection.
§ Sir Alec Douglas-HomeI am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for his comments. Our first task is, as he says, to protect our fishing boats from harassment. I believe the best way to do so as of today, because the situation may change tomorrow, is to send the support ship "Statesman". It is registered under the Liberian flag but it is chartered by a company in this country and we are acting in this strictly in accordance with the international rules of seamanship. This vessel was the only one which we had available at short notice. It can be replaced but if necessary, of course, the Navy will have to intervene. I believe this course of action to be the best at present, however. We have unequivocally condemned the Icelandic Government's behaviour. They have refused to take part in the proceedings at the International Court. They are trying to achieve their object by force, and I find it hard to believe that a responsible Western European Government and a NATO ally should behave in this way. We are behaving strictly in accordance with international law.
Mr. W. H. K. BakerWhat is the position with regard to West Germany and its vessels off Iceland? What co-operation is there with West Germany? Will my right hon. Friend not agree that the overriding essential requirement is a just and equitable settlement achieved as soon as 37 possible and will he say what support the industry will be given next before the Navy is called in? There is a great deal of what I believe to be justifiable uneasiness at the present state of affairs off Iceland.
§ Sir Alec Douglas-HomeOur cooperation with the Germans is very close, and we shall continue to keep in the closest touch with them and to act together where possible. We are proceeding in consultation with, and with the agreement of, the industry, and up to today it has approved the action we have taken. We will if necessary send the Navy to the support of our vessels, but I think that everybody in the industry is conscious of how dangerous it would be to start another "cod war". There may be no alternative but we must try to avoid it if we can.
§ Mr. GrimondWe welcome the Foreign Secretary's attempt to secure a negotiated agreement with the Icelandic authorities, and we regret their rejection of these attempts. Will he tell us more about the tug? To whom does it belong? Who has chartered it? What is the nationality of the crew, and what is its job? Are there no British naval vessels capable of doing the job?
§ Sir Alec Douglas-HomeYes, there are British naval vessels capable of doing the job, but once we begin to use the Navy for protection that is the beginning of what, for short, I would call a "cod war". The vessel, which is under the Liberian flag, is chartered; but it is chartered, controlled, crewed and captained by Britons. The task of the vessel is to interpose itself between the Icelandic gunboats and the British vessels and to protect them as best it can. It is very well suited for this task, according to the information we have. If necessary the Navy will have to be used.
§ Mr. James JohnsonI accept completely the Minister's good faith and sincerity in all his actions. Is he aware, however, that there is not a single skipper or deckhand sailing out of the Humber who is not sad, to put it politely, about the stagnation of the Government's policy in this matter? Is he aware that even if these men last out in the 21 hours of darkness in the Arctic day over the next six weeks until better weather comes, they will still be in exactly the same position if nothing is done? So they want to 38 know what the Government intend to do. Either the skippers will come out, as they have threatened by cable today, which would be a concession to Iceland and an acceptance of the 50-mile limit, or if they stay and if the Navy does not go in to protect them, that is also a de facto concession under international law to the Icelandic case.
§ Sir Alec Douglas-HomeThe House can understand the position of the skippers. As the right hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Crosland) said, they are being subjected to horrible harassment by the Icelandic gunboats. It is very difficult for them to take the appropriate decision themselves. All we can do is to keep in the closest touch with the industry, which we are doing from day to day. The industry has supported the decision that we are taking. We will, if necessary, send the Navy in——
§ Mr. George CunninghamWhen?
§ Sir Alec Douglas-Home—and we have warned the Icelandic Government that we will send the Navy in if necessary. The hon. Member asks when we will do this. The answer must be: when the industry and the Government together are agreed that the right moment has come.
§ Mr. WellbelovedIs it not quite disgraceful in the face of a blatant attempt to hound British seafarers off the high seas that all that this pathetic Government can do is to send a foreign-owned tug to try to maintain the interest of one of the greatest seafaring nations in the world? Will the Foreign Secretary recall that at least the policemen sent to Anguilla took their truncheons with them?
§ Sir Alec Douglas-HomeMay I recall to the hon. Gentleman that when the British policemen took their truncheons to Anguilla the peace was kept and the operation was successful? I hope that we shall not have to resort to naval intervention, but it may come. The hon. Gentleman talks about "this pathetic Government", but I do not know that his own party if it were in Government now would take any different position. We are in consultation with the industry, which has agreed with our policy. We had better stick to that for the moment.
§ Mr. McNamaraIs the right hon. Gentleman aware that a lot of this prospective 39 cutlass-rattling that we are hearing this afternoon is giving part of the game to the Icelandic Government? Does he agree that we should seek, as far as possible, the support of a civilian peacekeeping force on the lines that the industry owners, Government and the unions have agreed upon?
Following from that, a number of points arise. The first is this. If the "Statesman" should prove successful, will there be sufficient vessels to shadow the five Icelandic gunboats? Secondly, if the men's earnings are adversely affected by the policy being adopted, can the Government give them a guarantee, even in these times of high settlings, that their wages will be protected?
I return to the Liberian vessel. I am surprised we have not got one on the Beira patrol. If, as we understand is the case, the charterers are responsible for the safety and security of the crew what happens if a Liberian ship under charter to Her Majesty's Government is involved in an incident with an Icelandic gunboat? Who deals with the incident first, the Liberian Government or the British Government? Is it not pathetic that the best that we can do is to charter from a flag of convenience one little tug with which to protect our fishermen?
§ Sir Alec Douglas-HomeThere are other vessels, but we had to take action speedily and this was the vessel best suited for the purpose nearest at hand. Although the vessel technically sails under the Liberian flag it is controlled and managed in this country and is British crewed. We are in touch with the Liberian Government about this. I see no reason why this vessel should not act in the capacity in which it has been sent.