HC Deb 12 December 1975 vol 902 cc822-8
The Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Roy Hattersley)

Yesterday, during a meeting of the NATO Ministerial Council in Brussels, the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs met the Icelandic Foreign Minister. The meeting began with my right hon. Friend making the strongest protest at the action taken by the Icelandic ship "Thor" in firing on an unarmed vessel off Iceland during yesterday afternoon.

The "Star Aquarius" and the "Star Polaris", both unarmed vessels chartered for the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, had entered Icelandic territorial waters to shelter from severe, weather as they have the right to do under customary international law. The civilian defence vessel "Lloydsman" joined "Star Aquarius" during the morning near the entrance to Seydisfjord.

The Icelandic coastguard vessel "Thor" came out of the fjord, signalled to the British ships to stop and attempted to arrest the "Star Aquarius". Collisions occurred. Three shots were fired by the Icelandic coastguard. No damage was done to the British vessels and there were no casualties.

My right hon. Friend reiterated to the Icelandic Foreign Minister Britain's continued wish to negotiate a settlement to this dispute. He reminded Mr. Agustsson of our willingness to negotiate anywhere and at any time and confirmed our willingness, if genuine negotiations are resumed, to reduce the total British catch in an effort to compromise with the Icelandic position.

The House will know that protection first by civilian vessels and then also by Royal Navy frigates has been provided to our trawlers because of attempts by the Icelandic gunboats to interfere with their legitimate fishing activities. It has been the constant endeavour of the Government to keep our response to harassment down to the minimum consistent with the continued ability of the trawlers to fish. We have endeavoured, and continue to endeavour, to do nothing which could render more difficult our task of reaching a negotiated settlement with Iceland. This continues to be our purpose. The shooting incident which occurred yesterday makes this task more difficult but we remain very ready to reach a compromise solution.

Mr. Maudling

This is an ugly and worrying situation. We are grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for making it clear that these British vessels were exercising normal rights under customary international law. In those circumstances, I am sure that the whole House will support the Government in protesting against the action taken.

I read on the tape that the Icelandic Government have put in a protest to the Security Council. Will the Minister tell us something about that?

On the broad situation, while I am sure that the Government will continue to be supported in any efforts to protect the legitimate interests of British fishermen and their legal rights, there is a growing concern that this matter is going off the rails altogether, and some new initiative should be taken to try to reach agreement with the Icelanders, who, as we all know, are not the easiest people with whom to reach agreement.

Have the Government considered the possibility of asking some distinguished and impartial international figure to act as a mediator between both sides?

Mr. Hattersley

I am grateful for the words of support with which the right hon. Gentleman began his question. The Government of Iceland have made a submission to the United Nations in a long and complicated, detailed document which is being considered in the Foreign Office. Our basic response to it will be the undoubted legality of our position, our right to fish in those waters and our duty to protect our fishermen while they are carrying out their lawful work.

I assure the right hon. Gentleman that we shall examine any possibility of bringing the dispute to a peaceful end, and we are thinking about the suggestion that a mediator might be employed. However, the difficulty of such a proposal is the Icelanders' traditional opposition to mediation and their insistence that the only way in which progress can be made is for us to accept their figure. If their position remains the same, I fear that a mediator could do little good.

Mr. James Johnson

Is my right hon. Friend aware that no sane person, inside or outside the House, would wish shooting to take place in this matter? We hope that the Foreign Secretary, whom we compliment on his work at the NATO Ministers' meeting, will achieve a settlement before the Law of the Sea Conference resumes in a few months.

Is my right hon. Friend further aware Mik Magnusson, an Icelandic coastguard officer, who was specifically interviewed this morning by the BBC, categorically said that the coastguards had no orders to fire on our unarmed vessels lawfully fishing on the high seas? Nevertheless, shots were exchanged. My constituents in Hull and the whole of the fishing industry are at a loss to understand how one can negotiate with a power which initially asked for a limit of 65,000 tons on the catch and would not budge off the floor—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. George Thomas)

Order. Will the hon. Gentleman ask a question? Other statements are to be made.

Mr. Johnson

—and now will no longer talk. What will be the Government's next steps?

Mr. Hattersley

It is very difficult to be precise in telling my hon. Friend what our next steps will be. Our continued position must be a willingness to negotiate, but until that willingness is reciprocated by the Government of Iceland it is difficult to see how this unhappy matter will come to an end. Like my hon. Friend, I heard the broadcast this morning in which a representative of the Icelandic coastguard said that orders to fire had not been issued. I only wish that the Government of Iceland could make their orders hold good with some of their coastguard skippers.

Mr. Thorpe

In order to assess the extent to which there are differences between this country and Iceland, will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that this country has no preconditions to starting negotiations? Does the same apply to Iceland? If not, on what preconditions is Iceland insisting?

Mr. Hattersley

We have no preconditions and never have imposed preconditions. In the last three sets of talks we did not even impose a precondition that Iceland would talk genuinely to us. Two sets were carried out in way which the right hon. Gentleman and I would not regard as being negotiations, but we are prepared to talk and will continue to do so. The Icelandic Government impose a simple precondition, and that is that we accept their offer of a maximum annual catch of 65,000 tons. Their invitation to us is not to negotiate but simply to accept the figure which they have arbitrarily offered.

Mr. Prescott

Does my right hon. Friend realise that we all deplore these developments in these hostile waters, which are a considerable danger to life and limb, but that it is almost an inevitable development of the pirouette of death if vessels are placed in circumstances of this kind? We do not believe that one death is worth 30,000 tons of fish. Will not my right hon. Friend concede the Icelandic case, as we shall do in six months' time when the Law of the Sea Conference recognises it? Has my right hon. Friend consulted the Spanish and Portuguese Governments about the safety of their seamen on board our protection vessels involved in this folly?

Mr. Hattersley

I say to my hon. Friend what I have said to him previously when he has asked similar questions. What he is asking the Government to do is to say to the fishermen of Hull, Fleetwood and Grimsby, "You have every legal right to fish in these waters. However, the Government of Iceland prefer that you should not exercise it. Therefore, we ask you to do what the Government of Iceland say—please go home and be unemployed." That does not seem to me a sensible or honourable position for the British Government to adopt.

Mr. Hal Miller

Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether his negotiating position is in any way strengthened by the likelihood that the fishing catch during these manoeuvres, which can only become increasingly serious and dangerous, will not exceed the amount set by the Icelanders? Does he accept that measures for the conservation of fishing stocks in Icelandic waters and in the North Sea are long overdue? How does he imagine holding on to his negotiating position when the Law of the Sea Conference is likely to accept the extended figure?

Mr. Hattersley

The hon. Gentleman is wrong in his first assertion. The evidence I have is that, under protection and with some difficulty, the British trawler fleet is now taking approximately the same catch as it would catch were it not being harassed by the Icelandic coastguard, despite the fact that we are observing all the rules of conservation and are not fishing in conservation areas. The point which I made to the Icelandic Foreign Minister a month ago is holding good—that we shall catch as much as we would wish to negotiate, but we would do it, and will do it, much to the detriment of good relations between the two countries and at an expense to Iceland's defence budget and ours, which no sensible person would want to contemplate.

On the second point, there is a total difference between a negotiation which establishes a fishing zone for every country in the world and allows one country to negotiate with another rights, if necessary reciprocal rights, within those zones and the unilateral announcement that a part of the high seas belongs to a country with no legal justification for making such an announcement.

Mr. Donald Stewart

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, whatever the legal aspects of the United Kingdom's case, there is a good deal of sympathy with the fishing communities in this country for the case of a nation such as Iceland Whose people's livelihood depends so much on fishing? Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that, despite the legal aspects, the crunch point is the point made by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott), that, as there is a strong likelihood, to put it no higher, that in a few months 200 miles will be the common limit, it is utterly unreasonable and irrational to be taking a strong line at this stage?

Mr. Hattersley

I must emphasise that, if a strong line has been taken, it has not been taken by the British Government. The British Government have simply responded to provocative act after provocative act and arbitrary declaration after arbitrary declaration. All we have done is to protect our legitimate rights. If that is a strong line, it is not an aggressive or bellicose line.

The hon. Gentleman is right in indicating that the Law of the Sea Conference will soon begin to meet again. I expect that its next meeting will begin in March. But that is not to say that in a few months the new system of national fishing boundaries will be determined. That may be a good way ahead. I do not believe we can begin our negotiations legitimately by saying, Putting the legalities aside … The British Government's duty is to support the legalities, and the law in this particular is on our side.

Mr. Spriggs

My right hon. Friend's statement only partially clarifies the position. What use is lie making of the machinery in the European Economic Community to bring about an agreement between Iceland and the nine Member States of the EEC in view of the fact that we have just learned a lesson on energy policy agreed between the nine members of the Community? Is it not wrong for Iceland and this country to revert to gunboat diplomacy—

Mr. Prescott

Would we send a gunboat against the United States?

Mr. Spriggs

—when we have learned over the centuries that gunboat diplomacy does not pay?

Mr. Hattersley

Intervention by the European Economic Community is one of the possibilities we are considering. I Should not like the House to place undue optimism on the prospects of such intervention succeeding, not least because of the Icelandic Foreign Minister's announcement last week that his tactics within the EEC were to reach agreement with EEC countries other than Great Britain so that we would be in an isolated position. We have to understand, from that frank account of his negotiating tactics, how difficult EEC intervention might be.

My hon. Friend asked me whether we thought it wise in these circumstances to resort to gunboat diplomacy. A seated intervention during the question asked whether we would send a gunboat against the United States if it declared a 200–mile limit. Let me make it clear that we have not sent a gunboat against anyone. Gunboats have been sent against us. We must bear that in mind.