ICELANDIC FISHERIES (Hansard, 16 May 1973)

§ The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Anthony Royle)
The incidents to which the hon. Member refers occurred between 2100 and 2200 Greenwich Mean Time on Monday 14th May. According to the information we have received, two Icelandic coastguard vessels, the "Thor "and the "Tyr", approached a group of 24 British trawlers off the North-East coast of Iceland. The guns of the "Thor" were manned before reaching the trawlers. Her cutting gear was streamed. The "Tyr" ordered the trawler "Lord Alexander" to stop or she would fire, and said that she intended to board.
The trawler "Macbeth" then interposed herself between the "Tyr" and the "Lord Alexander", thereby frustrating the attempts of "Tyr" to board the latter. At this point "Tyr" fired a shot which fell close to the "Macbeth". Later, "Tyr" fired another shot in the general direction of the main group of British trawlers. At no time did any British vessel attempt to ram any Icelandic vessel.
On 7th May my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs told the House that if there were an armed attack on a trawler which could not be repelled by the means we have there now, there would be no alternative but to send in the Navy. In this case, an Icelandic attempt to arrest a British trawler has been successfully repelled: and the two shots fired seem to have been warning shots, not an armed attack. It was therefore not necessary to 1508 use the Royal Navy and the fishing industry as a whole has not yet requested naval protection.
If the Icelandic Government continue such actions on the fishing grounds, they will damage, perhaps irrevocably, the prospects of reaching an interim agreement. Her Majesty's Government's policy remains that of reaching a solution fair and satisfactory to both countries.

§ Mr. Johnson
I thank the Minister for that answer. Does he agree that this is an escalation in the cod war? Further, does he agree that it is an uncivilised attack upon our fishermen going about their lawful business? Is he aware that I speak with the authority of the fish dock in Hull? Unless Her Majesty's Government give our fleet naval support within the 50-mile limit the skippers are unlikely to continue fishing in these waters. Tom Neilson of the Skippers Guild informs me that more and more cables are coming in from level-headed skippers saying, Will not go back without protection. His views are supported by Norman Coxon, the leader of the Fish Merchants Association on the docks. Furthermore, there may soon be a petition by the wives and families of fishermen in this position.
I cannot believe that Her Majesty's Government are waiting for a lead from the industry or from the Joint Action Committee. As this is the tenth time that the Minister has stood at the Govern-men's Dispatch Box and said that he will take action in these events—including the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs last Tuesday—why is it, now that three live shells have been fired at the "Macbeth", that our naval vessels cannot move in within the 50-mile limit? Perhaps we are being influenced by our German partners who are now not seen very much in these waters. Perhaps we are being influenced by our American or NATO partners, or perhaps even by the Chinese about international limits.

§ Mr. Royle
Obviously I listen carefully to any remarks made by the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Hull, West (Mr. James Johnson). The hon. Gentleman knows the fishing industry very well. He is constantly pressing, and rightly so, the case of his constituents. However, I cannot do 1509 more about the action which has been taken so far. I certainly rebut immediately any implication that we are taking orders from any other country. We take decisions ourselves in this country. As my right hon. Friend told the House, if there were an armed attack on a trawler which could not be repelled by the men who are there now, there would be no alternative but to send in the Navy. I repeat the assurance which my right hon. Friend gave the House.
We take account of the views of all sides of the industry and we have good machinery for joint consultation. Naturally, great weight is given to the views of the skippers, which were mentioned by the hon. Gentleman. The Government give great weight, in particular, to the views of the skippers on the grounds as well as the views of deck hands and owners.

Mr. W. H. K. Baker
Is it not a fact that the Icelandic Government, because of these latest incidents, appear to be doing their best to precipitate a major crisis? Can my hon. Friend confirm that sufficient Royal Navy forces are conveniently placed in the area should it be necessary for them to intervene if that grave decision has to be taken? Further, are they using all the kinds of eyes available to them to keep Her Majesty's Government informed exactly of what is taking place on the grounds?

§ Mr. Royle
Clearly the Government agree with my hon. Friend in that we regret an escalation of the situation on the fishing grounds. There are now two frigates near at hand, although not on the fishing grounds. Work has been done to devise means of rendering ineffective cutting gear employed by Icelandic vessels. It would not be appropriate to disclose farther details now.

§ Mr. Goronwy Roberts
Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the details which he has given of this latest incident deepen the apprehensions within the House and throughout the country that the situation is begining to get out of hand and that further incidents may take place which may make the situation irretrievable in its tragedy for both sides? Is he aware that it is the unanimous view of the House and the British people that the Iceland authorities' attitude is to be deplored in that they have continued to 1510 refuse to engage in realistic negotiations and have unilaterally abrogated the agreement of 1963 which was freely entered into? Is he aware that the Icelandic Government have rejected out of hand the sensible recommendations of the International Court of Justice? Will he, above all, undertake to keep in the closest consultation with both sides of the British fishing industry at every turn in this highly dangerous situation and to keep the House informed at every point in his negotiations?

§ Mr. Royle
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his remarks and for his support of the Government's policy. We intend to keep the House informed of developments in the situation and in the area generally. As I stressed earlier, our policy remains that of reaching a solution which is fair and satisfactory to both countries.

§ Captain W. Elliot
My hon. Friend referred to the means which we have at present to repel boarding attempts. Does my hon. Friend agree that if the Icelanders seriously step up their attempts to board our ships that will greatly increase the risk of serious injury or even of death to the people concerned? Will he bear that in mind?

§ Mr. Royle
Yes, of course I will.

§ Mr. George Cunningham
Does the Minister not agree that, whatever else might be said, the Government's method of handling this matter so far has been a total failure and that the incident which we are discussing would not have happened if their diplomacy had been sucessful? Is the Minister seriously saying that because this attack was repelled there is no need to send in the Navy? Does he realise that means that we are waiting for them sucessfully to sink a boat perhaps, and lose lives, before naval units are used? Does he agree that the defensive and protective use of naval units is nothing whatever to be ashamed of? Will he now say categorically to the Icelandic authorities that if there is one more attack we shall send out such naval units as are required to bring in an Icelandic gunboat to a British port?

§ Mr. Royle
I think that on reflection the hon. Gentleman will realise that he has grossly misinterpreted what I have 1511 been saying. I have said—and I repeat—that if there were an armed attack on British trawlers which could not be repelled by the means we have there now, there would be no alternative but to send in the Royal Navy.

§ Mr. Cunningham
Too late.

§ Mr. Royle
We also keep in close consultation with the leaders of the industry as a whole. This is an acceptable policy, I believe, to both sides of the House.

§ Dame Irene Ward
Will my hon. Friend accept from those of us representing fishing ports and interests that we prefer to be guided by our Government, who are acting in our interests, rather than perhaps by individuals who do not have the responsibility of our Government? All those connected with the fishing industry say that we are perfectly satisfied. I thank my hon. Friend very much for his reply to the intervention of the hon. Member for Islington, South-West (Mr. George Cunningham)—an intervention which was quite unnecessary.

§ Mr. Royle
I am grateful for the support of my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward). I know 1512 that she has great wisdom and experience in these matters.

§ Mr. Judd
Will the hon. Gentleman accept that there is a great deal of anxiety on both sides of the House and that the Government will have a great deal of constructive support in all the measures they feel necessary to protect life and limb in this very trickly situation? Will he agree that, whatever our immediate preoccupations with this crisis, it is symptomatic of the sort of problem that will arise increasingly in international affairs as the pressures on world resources increases in the next decade? How soon shall we hear in detail what the Government's thinking is about the policy they intend to put forward at the Conference on the International Law of the Sea next year at Santiago?

§ Mr. Royle
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that point, which is very important. He is correct in saying that the policies of the Conference on the International Law of the Sea will have a fundamental effect on developments in this area for many decades to come. We are now putting together our case and the line we shall take at the conference, and in due course we shall bring them before the House for discussion.