§ 2.56 p.m.
§ LORD HOYMy Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question of which I have given Private Notice—namely:
Whether Her Majesty's Government will make a Statement regarding the latest incidents in the Icelandic fisheries dispute when the Icelandic gunboat "Tyr" fired three live shells at the Hull trawler "Macbeth", and made a boarding attempt upon the trawler "Lord Alexander".
§ BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIEMy Lords, the incidents to which the noble Lord refers occurred between 2100 and 2200 G.M.T. on Monday, May 14. 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 "Thor's" guns 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 sho intended to board. The trawler "Macbeth" then interposed herself between the "Tyr" and the "Lord Alexander", thereby frustrating "Tyr's" 819 attempts 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 May 7 my right honourable friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary said in another place 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 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 ground, they will damage, perhaps irrevocably, the prospects of reaching an interim agreement. Her Majesty's Government's policy remains that of reaching a solution that is fair and satisfactory to both countries.
§ LORD HOYMy Lords, we are grateful to the noble Baroness for her Answer, although in certain parts I find it a little difficult to understand. If in fact the "Thor's" guns were manned, as the Statement says, before reaching the trawlers, and two shots were fired—and the noble Baroness admits that one was very near—what would have been the position supposing it had hit the trawler? Would that have been regarded as an attack, or would it have been excused from being an attack simply because it was only a near-miss? If all these things happened, what is going to constitute the protection for the fleet; or what is going to be regarded as provocation? The noble Baroness said that,
It was therefore not necessary to use the Royal Navy as the fishing industry as a whole has not yet requested naval protection.I should like her to explain what she means by "as a whole". Does she mean the fishing industry as represented by the trawler owners? Is the position that those who sail in the trawlers have in fact asked for protection while it is the remaining part of the industry that has not asked for protection? Secondly, I am 820 grateful to the noble Baroness for saying how the fleet has behaved in such a considerate manner in face of this latest provocation from the Icelandic Government.
§ BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIEMy Lords, I understand that many of the Icelandic gunboats do have their guns manned. It is not at all clear, from the reports we have had, that the two shots which were fired were more than warning shots. So far as the request for naval protection is concerned, as I understand it the skippers would like naval protection; the owners and the deckhands, those who sail in the trawlers, do not at present want such protection. It is therefore not the considered view of the industry as a whole that they would like naval protection now. I can only say that when we left them, the Icelandic Government said that they would consider our proposals carefully. We do not think that these actions are in any way a good prelude to further negotiations.
§ LORD HOYMy Lords, may I ask the noble Baroness one further question? If in fact protection is required by the British, fishing fleet, in the event of Icelandic gunboats shelling our fishing Peet, is the Navy in a position to be called upon to act very quickly indeed?
§ BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIEYes, my Lords.
§ LORD SHINWELLMy Lords, may I ask the noble Baroness whether she is aware that from some quarters has come a suggestion that the reason for the Government's reluctance to take drastic action is because we have not got a spare frigate to send? Is there any truth in those allegations?
§ BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIENo, my Lords.
§ LORD SHINWELLMy Lords, if the noble Baroness says No, would she be kind enough to explain this negative reply? Is there a frigate available to send?
§ BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIEYes, my Lords more than one frigate.
§ LORD BLYTONMy Lords, is the Minister aware that we all appreciate the tolerance with which she has conducted negotiations with the Icelandic 821 Government? Is she further aware that those of us who live among the trawler people who go to Iceland to fish know that they are far from happy about the hazardous way in which they have to earn their living in the Icelandic waters? As we have the International Court behind us, is it not time that we said to Iceland: "We have been kicked around long enough. It has now got to stop."?
§ BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR or BELHELVIEMy Lords, this is what we have said, both before and during negotiations, and now. We think that it is extraordinary that two old allies, two members of NATO, cannot reach agreement. We believe that we have leaned over backwards in putting forward proposals which could be acceptable to the Icelanders; and the Icelanders, I regret to say, have not moved an inch.
§ LORD BLYTONMy Lords, would not the noble Baroness think that in the present circumstances, after months and months of tolerance, if we put two frigates there—forget the tugs; they are not much use—we could negotiate far better from strength than from weakness?
§ BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIEMy Lords, I would not say that the tugs are of no use. I understand that the trawlermen themselves, and all concerned, have paid tribute to the very good seamanship and support and protection of the tugs. But, as I said, if there is an armed attack, the Navy is ready.
§ LORD SHEPHERDMy Lords, the noble Baroness's Statement does not refer to any official protest by Her Majesty's Government to the Government of Iceland as a consequence of the incident yesterday. Can she say whether official representations are being made? Does the noble Baroness also appreciate, taking the warning made by the Foreign Secretary and also the noble Baroness's Statements here, that if an incident of this sort occurs which could, if a shot had been accurate, cause damage and possible loss of life, and one does not react forcefully or introduce a more clear presence of British naval forces, the Government of Iceland may well feel that Her Majesty's Government do not intend to fulfil their pledge to the fishing fleet? 822 Can the noble Baroness make clear that she has made official representations to the Government of Iceland, and also make it quite clear that we are not prepared to stomach this state of affairs any longer, and that if another incident of this nature should arise then the British Navy will be put in?
§ BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIEMy Lords, it always takes time to find out the exact facts, which, of course, are disputed in some respects by the Icelandic Government. Our Ambassador in Iceland has been instructed to register a very firm protest on this matter. I think the difficulty in all these incidents is to find out whether it is a warning shot or a real shot. I think I should like to leave it in the way it was described by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State in another place?
§ LORD PARGITERMy Lords, apart from the reference to the International Court, would it not be advisable to ask the United Nations to get a mediation team to act in this matter between the two countries?
§ BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR or BELHELVIEMy Lords, I do not think so. We are still, happily, in consultation with each other.
§ LORD PARGITERHappily?
THE EARL OF BALFOURMy Lords, may I ask my noble friend one question? Is it true that our trawlers were fishing in a conservation area?
§ BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIENo, my Lords, it is not so. This particular area was designated by Iceland, when she purported to increase to 50 miles her conservation area. But the North-East Atlantic Fisheries Commission has twice refused Icelandic requests to declare this area a conservation area, and its refusal has been on scientific advice. Therefore, our trawlers have an absolue right to fish there.
§ LORD SEGALMy Lords, since both the Icelandic gunboats and the British trawlers now appear to be acting in groups, would it not be advisable for some shadowing presence, short of active intervention, to be exercised in the background by the British Navy?
§ BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIEMy Lords, we have frigates outside the 50-mile limit. They have an absolute right to sail within the 50-mile limit, but in order to try to reduce tension in the area they have not yet done so. We have in fact got three tugs, which are very successful, on the grounds; and another one, a more powerful one, is to join the fleet in the middle of June.