EXPLORATION AND EXPLOITATION LICENCES

HC Deb 13 July 1981 vol 8 cc804-34

Dr. John Cunningham (Whitehaven)

I beg to move amendment No. 3, in page 3, line 10, leave out 'subsection (4)' and insert 'subsections (4) and (4A)'.

Mr. Speaker

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 10, in page 3, line 47, at end insert— '(4A) An exploration or an exploitation licence shall not be granted unless the person applying for the licence specifies two sites, one of which may be licensed, the other to be safeguarded for the use of such organisation as may be set up following international agreement to a Convention arising from the United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea; if no such organisation is set up within twenty years of the passing of this Act the latter site may be offered back to the original applicant'.

Dr. Cunningham

Amendment No. 3 is a technical drafting amendment. Amendment No. 10 is of greater substance. It is important, because it is at the heart of one of the principles involved in the Bill—the licensing of deep sea mining. It is also close to one of the major differences between the Government and the Opposition—the position of the "Group of 77" Third world countries, which consists now of more than 130 countries, although it retains the name "Group of 77".

These two important issues are at the heart of the discussions about the United Nations conference on the Law of the Sea and what we hope will be an international convention resulting from those discussions. The issue as set out in amendment No. 10 is important. There is nothing in the proposed legislation to prevent Western industrial nations, or, to be more accurate, consortia from those nations, from taking unlimited numbers of licences to mine the deep ocean bed for nodules.

In those circumstances, all the best sites could be pre-empted by such consortia before any United Nations treaty was concluded and before—I emphasise this—even giving the opportunity for Third world countries to participate. As the House understands, they are not able to participate now because they do not have the technology or the financial ability to put together industrial consortia; in most cases they have neither of those things.

The amendment seeks to prevent the pre-emption of the best commercial and industrial opportunities by requiring each applicant to specify two sites when a licence is applied for, one of which will be allocated to the applicant and the other of which will be banked or reserved for allocation at a later date, under, one hopes, an agreed United Nations treaty when such a treaty is concluded. On the other hand if no treaty is concluded, the amendment provides for the return of the licensed area to the applicant.

3.45 pm

It is common ground between the Government and the Opposition that it is in the best interests of the United Kingdom that such an international regime should be established and that such a treaty should be concluded. That has been the Government's position throughout our discussions, and I understand that it remains so. It is certainly the Opposition's stance. So there is a good deal more at stake in what is being discussed than simply deep sea mining licences, because anything that might jeopardise, delay or prevent the conclusion of such a treaty would jeopardise many of our interests well beyond those of deep sea mining.

It is also important to recognise that not only the United Kingdom but the United States, the Federal Republic of Germany and, we understand, several other Western industrial nations intend to proceed with licensing based on national legislation, and there are already signs that widespread reciprocal arrangements will be reached. This matter was discussed in detail in Committee.

I have already said that the Group of 77 cannot, for the most part, participate in licensing arrangements, whether under the legislation of the United Kingdom or under that of any other country. I cannot stress too strongly the fact that we feel that there is danger in proceeding in this way, not only with this legislation but with legislation that is so generous and so lacking in control of licensing opportunities in terms of the numbers of licences.

I must be fair to the Government and say that there are a number of ways in which they will seek to control activities, but we are talking specifically about the unlimited number of licences that may be applied for and allocated. This kind of approach could damage the prospects of reaching agreement. This point was stressed repeatedly on Second Reading and it was raised in Committee.

During the Committee sittings at which evidence was taken, under the experimental procedure, representatives of the British companies involved in the Kennecott consortium made it clear that they would be prepared to accept the kind of requirement that is set out in the amendment if they had to do so. I am not trying to suggest that they were wholeheartedly in favour of it. My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Hooley) chuckles. I assure him that one sometimes got the impression in Committee that these large, powerful and influential transnational companies were somehow defenceless in the face of a parliamentary Committee. We all know that nothing could be further from the truth. To be fair to them, they conceded that point.

It is worth emphasising that, because in earlier deliberations the Minister and his hon. Friends had stressed that we should beware of producing legislation that included more onerous conditions than those included in the legislation of other countries. It was feared that that would prevent British companies from applying for licences in Britain and might drive them to apply for licences elsewhere.

It is on record that the representatives of the British companies involved did not feel that that would occur if the suggested provision were included. They said that they could live with it. That is worth bearing in mind. I was about to say that those gentlemen made it clear that they were almost desperate for the umbrella of security given by a British Government licence. However, perhaps "desperate" is too strong a word. They have made it clear that they are keen to have the protection and respectability of a licence issued by the British Government. There was nothing in their evidence—which I have re-read—to suggest that if the provision were added to the legislation they would apply for licences elsewhere. Therefore, we need a better argument than that for rejection.

We have come back to this issue on Report because it lies at the heart of the Bill's proposals and is central to the interests of the Group of 77 and the discussions that have been taking place. I understand the Government's argument. In a sense, I advanced that argument in Committee. The Government do not want to show their hand or to give away negotiating positions. It may well be that the Government feel that they will be able to concede the point during the final discussions or during the next round of discussions on what a regime should entail under the United Nations' proposals. That point may be conceded as a quid pro quo for other guarantees or conditions. I understand that.

We were told that it was for that reason—among others—that other countries have not included such a provision in their legislation. Since they have not done so, neither should we. However, the contrary of that argument is worth considering. If we were seen to be generous, magnanimous and careful of the interests of the underdeveloped countries, instead of the hard-faced commercial attitude that is seemingly being presented in our activities with the so-called group of like-minded countries that could lead to the agreement that we want.

For once, it would benefit us if Britain were seen to be taking a lead. All too often in our dealings with the Third world we tag along behind the United States of America. I stress that as the legislation stands there is no limit to the number of licences for which a company or organisation may apply. There is nothing in the Bill to allow the Secretary of State to refuse to grant more licences because of the number of licences already granted.

There is nothing in the commercial attitude that has been displayed that will prevent companies, or dissuade them, from pursuing such matters if, after exploration, it appears that there are great commercial advantages to be gained. That is a matter of some dispute, and I do not say that it will automatically happen. However, if it occurs, the scramble for more and more licences is likely to gain momentum. That is another reason for introducing the amendment.

It is envisaged that licences will run for 20 years. That is a long time in terms of commercial world developments or arguments about international regimes. Many companies could have a great number of licences that last for a long time, to the detriment of the interests of Third world nations. In Committee, the Under-Secretary of State, with some generosity, said that he would like to go away and think about the matter. The hon. Gentleman pointed out that until shortly before our consideration in Committee the amendment had been starred. I took his point. He had not had much time to form a definitive view on behalf of the Government. However, he has now had several weeks in which to consider the implications of the points made on Second Reading and in Committee. If he cannot accept the amendment in its entirety I hope that he will give us an assurance that the Government will enter into the spirit of the amendment and that some appropriate alteration will be made to the legislation.

Mr. T. H. H. Skeet (Bedford)

I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will not accept the amendment, because there are good reasons for rejecting it. Some people are afraid because many licences can be granted. An applicant may apply for several licences if it so desires, but one difficulty is that it will have to provide sufficient funds for the development work. That will be extremely costly, particularly over the years.

The Secretary of State has tabled amendment No. 8, requiring any exploration or exploitation of the hard mineral resources of the licensed area to be diligently carried out. If the exploration or exploitation of the resources is not diligently carried out there is a chance that the licence will be revoked. Therefore, the Third world is protected.

I have just picked up from my post a copy of a publication from the Overseas Development Institute, which states: Also, even if exploitation were to occur in the international seabed area, it is doubtful whether the parallel system would bring significant benefit to the LDCs. Under the parallel system, the Enterprise is placed in direct competition with transnational firms, and it is by no means certain that it will be equipped with adequate financial and technological resources to compete effectively. If the ODI has concluded that the parallel system of development will not benefit the Third world, why should it be adopted in this legislation?

It is to be observed that clause 18(3) means that as soon as the treaty comes into operation—on the assumption that it has been ratified by the necessary number of countries—the Secretary of State can lay an order revoking the Act. There would then be the distinct possibility that all the provisions contained in the draft treaty would operate. I should have thought that that was the necessary safeguard for the Third world.

4 pm

Annex III article 8 details the reservation of sites for parallel development. One site will be reserved for the applicant and another for those that will be developing on behalf of the Third world, which will be the Enterprise. Unfortunately, linked with this there are a number of other matters in article 151 of the draft treaty, dealing with production ceilings, and in another article dealing with the transfer of technology. It should be borne in mind that production ceilings and the transfer of technology are dependent upon parallel development, and therefore it is premature to suggest at this stage that this subsection should be included in the Bill.

The hon. Member for Whitehaven (Dr. Cunningham) said that on 28 June 1980 the United States of America made no provision for this matter in its legislation, and there was no such provision in subsequent West German legislation. The hon. Gentleman's argument is that if we adopt a reasonable attitude America and other countries will alter their legislation. However, it must be recognised that the Americans have stood up against the convention and possibly have prevented its ratification in Caracas this year because they are not certain about the provisions for the International Sea Bed Authority and about some of the provisions for the Enterprise. If that is the hard line that they are taking they will not modify their legislation, and neither will the West Germans. If that is an indication of what the French, Japanese and Italians will do, we shall probably be the only country to include such a provision.

The argument that the hon. Member for Whitehaven now puts forward is that private enterprise will accept the clause, if obliged to do so by the Government, because there is no alternative and because it is law-abiding. But it will do so only with the greatest reluctance, because it can see no practical advantages. The Overseas Development Institute, to which I referred earlier, has already indicated that this is rather a pointless exercise.

We had great advantage in having a preliminary analysis before the Bill was considered in Committee. In answer to one of my questions in Committee, Mr. Wood, of the Foreign Office, said that the two issues to which Mr. Skeet referred—the banking system and the production ceilings—are not in the legislation, but they are in the convention. However, nothing in the legislation will preclude the operation of those two provisions from the moment that the convention comes into effect. Under the arrangements made at the conference for the protection of interim investments, the banking system could become partially applicable in advance of the convention because companies could voluntarily submit a site to be banked by the future authority."—[Official Report, Special Standing Committee, 2 June 1981, c. 64.] That is a clear indication why we should wait for the convention to go through and be accepted. That is also the advantage of a Special Standing Committee.

In a memorandum submitted to the Special Standing Committee on 4 June 1981, Mr. Roderick Ogley of the University of Sussex said that it would be impracticable to include these provisions now. He linked site banking with production policy and made a comment which I think is a complete answer to the hon. Gentleman. He said: It will be particularly difficult for sites issued under national legislation to comply with conditions (a) and (c), if by the time they are issued the Convention has not been adopted."—(Official Report, Special Standing Committee, 4 June 1981, c. 150.] We should frame the legislation on the evidence, which I find is against what the hon. Gentleman recommends.

The parallel development—the reservation of one site for the benefit of the Enterprise—is twinned with the transfer of technology. This will have to wait until the convention has decided what it wants. The amendment is certainly premature, as my hon. Friend the Minister observed on 11 June, as reported at column 182 of the Official Report of the Committee proceedings.

On the other side of the bargain there is the ticklish question of the transfer of technology. Will it simply be over the counter and mandatory, having to be given to any country that wants it, or will it be provided on purely commercial terms? It is doubtful whether it will go through as simply as some people suggest.

Parallel development has big disadvantages. The Enterprise, operating under the International Sea Bed Authority, will select the best sites. Is that fair to the private sector? We may draw a comparison with the previous Government's suggestion that the British National Oil Corporation should have prime sites while the private sector should remain outside. What Labour suggested nationally it now suggests internationally. That would be a great disadvantage to the private sector.

The hon. Member will have received from RTZ a letter explaining one or two likely unfair results. At page two of its letter of 16 June to the hon. Gentleman the company says: There is a considerable body of opinion which holds that the conditions of access are onerous enough to ensure that by proper use of financial incentives the 'reserved' side of the parallel system is the only one that will attract investment.

It is absurd that while sites that could be developed for the Third world are being reserved the Enterprise has no technology or money, while the private firms are available in consortia, with all the money, expertise and technology. They want to produce the nickel, chrome, copper and manganese for the benefit of mankind, but they may be prevented by an enormous international bureaucracy. In those circumstances it would be unwise to make the amendment.

Mr. Frank Hooley (Sheffield, Heeley)

Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon), I was prevented from taking part in the Committee stage of the Bill—assuming that I had been selected—by the fact that I was on the Committee considering the Finance Bill. Therefore, I make no apology for entering the argument at a late stage. I should have been delighted to be involved earlier.

The Bill is dangerous and provocative. It could have implications for this country's interests going far beyond the deep sea mining with which it purports to concern itself.

We are dealing now with a subsection proposed during the hearing of evidence by the Special Standing Committee before its detailed consideration of the Bill. I have not read the Official Report of all the Committee's proceedings but I have read with great interest the preliminary evidence, because I believe that the taking of evidence by Special Standing Committees is a valuable practice and I am delighted that it was employed for this Bill. I pay tribute to the Government for having allowed it on this occasion—because it has given us much background information—information that was valuable to the Committee when it considered the Bill in detail and is valuable to the House on Report.

The objection that many of us have to the Bill is that it could imperil the successful conclusion of the great international treaty that the United Nations has been battling to produce since, I think, 1973. The amendment endeavours to soften the impact of the Bill by at least making a bow in the direction of the international obligations of Britain, and the obligations that we may have to assume if the United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea successfully concludes its labours. It is unlucky that the change in the American Administration nine months ago has held up its conclusion. There was every hope that the virtually agreed negotiating text would be ratified, possibly in August or later this year. That has been blocked by the attitude of the new American Government.

It is therefore all the more important that if we adopt the Bill—and I shall vote against it—we include in it the provision in amendment No. 10. It acknowledges the existence of the international interest and the possibility that, if the legislation is passed, there will be some way to fit into it, whatever the United Nations may eventually legislate when the convention is successfully concluded within the next 12 months.

The treaty under discussion will be the greatest ever arrived at. It will be the most comprehensive, far-reaching, and, in many respects, the most important to which Britain has ever put its signature. I hope that when it is concluded Britain will not only sign it but will ratify what is provided in it. It contains a whole new concept in international law, namely, the international exploitation of the natural resources of the planet.

I do not know of any other arrangement that proposes such an international body. I am not talking about a private multinational company. Many of them are involved in exploiting the resources of the earth. I am talking about a genuine international body which, some years hence, may grub up metal ores which could prove extremely valuable. That is a new principle. Hitherto it has been left to the RTZs, the Kennecotts, and so on—with token authority from national Governments—to grab whatever was available and to sell it at a handsome profit for their shareholders.

I was amused when the hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Skeet) said that the multinationals would operate on behalf of mankind. They have never done that. They operate on behalf of their shareholders and for their own profits. That is exactly what they propose to do in deep sea mining. The creation of an International Sea Bed Authority is designed to provide some offset to the rapacity of the multinationals operating under the authority of certain Western Governments.

It has been argued that we must not include the amendment because neither the Americans nor the Germans have a similar provision in their legislation. I have never heard such a weak argument. There is a powerful objection to the legislation of both the United States and West Germany. The same objection applies to the Bill. As my hon. Friend the Member for Whitehaven (Dr. Cunningham) said, most countries regard this legislation as a threat to the whole principle of the law of the sea conference. They argue with considerable cogency that the Western industrial. States wish to pre-empt the eventual provisions of the convention.

We are providing only a cloak of legality, because there are serious questions about how we can enforce our authority if the multinationals come into conflict with some other country or body Let us suppose that they mine the deep sea bed under the provisions of the Bill and run into the ships or equipment of some other country that is doing likewise. Who decides what is lawful? How do we defend their operations, having given them a licence to operate under the Bill?

4.15 pm

If the amendment is accepted it will be a gesture to the international community to show that we do not intend to give indiscriminate authority to multinationals to mine anywhere. It will show that we hope that the United Nations conference on the law of the sea will carry its labours to a successful conclusion and that we intend to become a party to whatever agreement emerges. It will show that we recognise the principle of an International Sea Bed Authority—indeed, the Bill suggests that certain areas should be allocated for its operations. It will show that we are attempting to put some limitation upon the activities of the multinationals that we purport to authorise under the Bill. For all those reasons the amendment is desirable, although I am opposed in principle to the Bill.

We shall have an opportunity to discuss the other implications of the Bill when we reach the other amendments, and also on Third Reading. I hope that the amendment is accepted by the Government. If it is not, it will be one more reason for voting against the Bill on Third Reading.

Mr. Robert Sheldon

Like my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Hooley), I wish to speak in favour of the amendment proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Whitehaven (Dr. Cunningham).

We are dealing essentially with a political decision. We must consider other countries that do not have a particular stake in the freedom of the seas and the extraction of the minerals that lie beneath them, yet have a stake because they occupy their share of this planet. Therefore, they have a claim to its resources. That is a newish principle, but it is becoming generally accepted. Many of us hope to see it resulting from the United Nations conference on the law of the sea.

It is regrettable that the Americans withdrew from the negotiations, pending a full review. Because of that, we have had to wait for the conclusion of the convention. A great argument is taking place in America about whether they want an agreement, yet both sides of the House take that agreement for granted. The Americans fear over-regulation and that they will be denied what they call free access to the oceans.

Free access to common heritage is not something about which we can be wholly happy. Many of us are uneasy, because we feel that this is not merely a delaying tactic while the new Administration starts its examination but a policy that is basically opposed to the ends that many of us take for granted.

Mr. Skeet

The right hon. Gentleman referred to the Group of 77 being given access to the oceans of the world. Is he aware that the draft treaty precludes that in many ways, because the exclusive economic zone extends to 200 miles and the continental shelf, covered by a separate part of the treaty, covers a large part of the natural resources of the globe in any event?

Mr. Sheldon

I do not deny that. There is not access to all the oceans of the world. We are aware of the arguments that led to a sensible conclusion being reached. The Bill refers to the greater part of the oceans.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Whitehaven said, there is nothing to prevent a vast number of licences from being obtained to mine the nodules. It may be that the fears of the Third world will be justified and that all the best sites and the most attractive prospects will be taken by Western countries. It may be that there will be little left for generations that come to an agreement of a sort that we have been unable so far to obtain.

The amendment seeks to limit the takeover of the oceans by the West. Whatever we say about the freedom of the seas we must be under no misapprehension that the developing countries regard the actions that will follow Bills of this sort as a new form of imperialism. They see it as a new way in which the resources of the planet will be carved up among the wealthy countries of the West. There will be great anger as they see some of the especially valuable resources taken for the advantage of one group of nations. There may be benefits about which we know nothing to be discovered under the sea—benefits that will automatically accrue to the nations that have political weight and financial muscle. The countries that caused so much distress as they occupied the land mass of the world in their colonising period are likely to occupy large portions of the sea as well.

We regard it as a form of generosity whereby large firms that are Western orientated extract useful and valuable minerals for the benefit of the world. That is purely a Western orientated view and not one that is shared by many other countries. The West sees itself as a group of technologically advanced countries creating the basis of wealth. Other countries do not see it in that light.

In a number of respects the developing countries are right, and what we are doing can be shown to be wholly selfish. For example, United States legislation insists that the processing of the nodules must take place in the United States. The nodules might be collected somewhere near a developing country. That does not matter. They will have to be processed in the United States. The ships that carry the nodules will have to be United States ships. They will have to sail under the United States flag. Processing costs are a major portion of the total cost.

Let us consider the two major forms of extraction. I understand that some plants extract the three metals of nickel, cobalt and copper. There are other plants that extract those three metals and manganese. I believe that there is provision for a third process that takes seven metals—the four that I have mentioned and molybdenum, vanadium and zinc. Processing represents the major cost. The developing countries will be denied a share in the processing from United States mining ventures.

If the costs are expressed in percentages, mining represents about 20 per cent., transport 15 per cent. and processing about 65 per cent. Two-thirds of the cost is incurred in the country where the nodules are processed. These elements are being denied to the developing countries. I am grateful to the marine resources project at Manchester university for drawing these matters to my attention.

We must remember that the capital costs are large. We are talking about billions of pounds. Capital costs are roughly the same as costs in the processing sector and amount to nearly 70 per cent. As I said, about 70 per cent. of all the billions of pounds lie in processing. The developing countries are being denied the advantage to be gained from processing.

We are discussing a major new industry which may operate to the advantage of a number of third countries. Their possible proximity to the sites may allow them to take advantage of the industry. They are bound to express a direct and close interest. Surely there should be a wish to involve these countries in the development of resources that are near to them, but even that is being denied them.

These are matters that may be decided in the earliest stages of technology. The future of many industries of the nineteenth century was decided by certain arrangements that were made towards the end of the eighteenth century—for example, the development of the steam engine. In the same way, we can decide how these matters before us will be handled for many years to come. There are long-term implications. It will be a business of about £4 billion to £8 billion that will produce about 3 million tonnes a year. It will bring a number of advantages, especially in terms of key minerals.

It is important to let the developing countries know that they have a stake in the business. The amendment seeks to make that clear and is worthy of support.

Mr. MacGregor

In most of their remarks the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Hooley) and the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) went much wider than the specific amendment and dealt with some of the principles and general issues involved in the Bill. I make no complaint about that because I understand that neither of them was able to participate in our discussions, even on Second Reading, because of their involvement with the Finance Bill. They were certainly unable to participate in Committee. I understand that they wanted to place their arguments on record.

I hope that the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Gentleman will understand that many of the matters to which they referred were taken up on Second Reading and that they were rehearsed on many occasions in Committee. I shall attempt to deal with some of the wider issues on Third Reading if I am able to catch the eye of the Chair.

The Government have always made it clear that they regard the Bill as a temporary measure. Indeed, two of the words in the title are "Temporary Provisions". We have made it clear that we wish to see the convention come into force, and we hope that it will be supported. We have made it clear also that we hope that the convention will overtake the Bill.

I have given a considerable number of assurances during the Bill's passage through the House. The Government want the treaty, and so do the mining companies. They made it clear in their evidence before the Special Standing Committee that the Bill will be only an interim and provisional measure of protection for them. It will never amount to complete protection. They regard the coming into force of a treaty as a desirable development.

I shall focus on the narrow issues raised by the amendment. I said in Committee that I would reconsider the issue before Report, although I added: I must make it clear that this is not a commitment to include such a provision in the Bill. I have explained why I think that it would be difficult to enshrine such a provision in the legislation."—[Official Report, Special Standing Committee;11 June 1981, c. 158.] 4.30 pm

I shall look at the background before coming to the amendment. The present draft negotiating text of the convention envisages a parallel system of development under which there is an exchange for assured access to the mineral resources of half of the area of the deep sea bed. The industrialised countries and their mining companies are expected to facilitate mining operations by the international body, the Enterprise, in the other half of the area.

The draft convention provides three principal methods for that: first, the provision of finance by Government grants and loans and by contractual payments by mining companies; secondly, the transfer of technology—which has been mentioned by a number of hon. Members—on fair and reasonable terms and conditions from mining companies to the international Enterprise; thirdly, the provision of a prospected mine site for every commercial project to be banked for development by the international Enterprise or by developing countries. That is the subject of the amendment. The crucial point is that, as yet, various aspects of those proposals are still to be agreed by all participants al the UNCLOS. Therefore, it would be premature to write any similar provisions into what is, after all, our interim legislation.

Before I come to three main reasons that I must give to the hon. Member for Whitehaven (Dr. Cunningham) on why I still come to the conclusion that it would not be right to include this provision in the Bill, I shall refer to one point that he made when he talked about what he regarded as the danger of an unlimited number of licences.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Mr. Skeet) for what he said, not only on this matter but for the many good points that he has made both in this debate and earlier in our proceedings, when he has put his long experience and knowledge to good use.

On this issue, my hon. Friend said that amendment No. 8—which I shall move later and which we discussed in Committee, and which originated from a proposal by the hon. Member for Whitehaven—would go a long way towards ensuring that there was not an unlimited number of licences. We shall discuss that amendment later, and I shall be able to give the reasons then, but it is relevant to note that in the context of this amendment because it helps to deal with the hon. Member's fear.

There are three compelling reasons why I and the Government believe that it would be inappropriate to include provisions for banking sites in the Bill, as distinct from in the convention, as proposed in amendment No. 10. I made this point in Committee. One reason is that it would make licensing under our Bill much more onerous for applicants than the arrangements under the laws of the other countries that have so far passed similar legislation—the United States and the Federal Republic of Germany.

The hon. Member for Heeley described that as a thin argument. I do not believe that it is. The main reason why we are anxious to have the Bill now is to give our mining companies the opportunity to apply for licences under British legislation, as they wish to do, all other things being equal. It at least gives them the opportunity to do so. Some of the advantages of doing so were thoroughly gone over in Special Standing Committee and in Committee.

If those companies find that they have to undertake certain conditions which they regard as onerous at this stage of the development and which do not apply in the American and German legislation, that will be a clear disincentive to them to do it under the United Kingdom legislation. In Special Standing Committee the hon. Member for Whitehaven said that that matter was raised with the mining companies and that they said that they could live with the banking of licences. The expression live with the banking of licences was his own phrase in his question to Mr. Moncrieff: Could you live with the banking of licences? to which Mr. Moncrieff replied Yes.

The important point is that the whole of that section of questioning was not about the Bill but about the treaty. In the question that led on to the later question, the hon. Member for Whitehaven said: Both those issues"— that was the transfer of technology and the banking of licences— are mentioned in your appendix 3 as points that you regard as being against your interests. They may well be, but are you really implying that the consortia would make those points absolute sticking points on any convention? Mr. Moncrieff replied: I was not implying that".—[Official Report, Special Standing Committee, 4 June 1981; c. 144.] He went on to give an answer.

The hon. Member for Whitehaven talked about "on any convention". As he was asking the question in the context of the convention it was clearly in the minds of those who were answering on behalf of the mining companies that he was dealing with the banking of licences in a convention and not in interim legislation in one nation State alone.

Dr. Cunningham

That is a pretty fine point.

Mr. MacGregor

It is not a pretty fine point. It is an important point for the mining companies. It is perhaps unfortunate that they cannot now speak for themselves. It is clear from the process of questioning that that is what they meant.

Dr. John Cunningham

It is a fine point. Everyone was at pains to say during the discussions and the evidence, as well as on the deliberations on the Bill, that it was his intention to produce as smooth as possible a transition from the proposed legislation to a convention and international treaty. If that was in the minds of the companies, and if it is in the mind of the Government, I cannot see how one thing could be a sticking point on the legislation but not on the treaty.

Mr. MacGregor

Certainly it was designed to have a smoother transition. That is not to say that when the arrangements for banking of licences have not yet been agreed in the draft convention we should push them into the Bill when they do not exist in any other legislation that is meant to lead to the ultimate convention. That was the context in which the mining companies said the they could "live with it".

That leads me on to the second point. Even if the amendments were accepted, by making this gesture of good will—it is a gesture, as Opposition Members have said—that would not assure our licensees of continuity of investment and smooth development when the international regime came into force. The crucial point is that to get that continuity of investment those companies may have to rely on the wider preliminary investment protection, which we discussed at length in Committee. There is as yet no provision in the draft UNCLOS text for preliminary investment protection. That is the crucial point about continuity and smooth development.

That leads me on to my third point, which is important. The hon. Member for Whitehaven in part conceded that in Committee. If that provision were in the Bill it would prejudice our negotiating hard at UNCLOS when we negotiate the preliminary investment protection arrangement, which is of such importance to the mining companies. The hon. Member said: That point would be accepted by almost all Committee members, any politician or negotiator, and certainly by any former trade union official. Because of the trade-off—the situation of give and take in negotiations—the British Government might wish to keep some matters in reserve."—[Official Report, Special Standing Committee,11 June 1981; c. 155.] That was a fair point then and is a fair point for me to make now. Banking sites for the Enterprise are an important part of what might be offered to obtain adequate arrangements for that preliminary investment protection, which is so important in the negotiations, and for a smooth transition from national interim licensing to the treaty regime.

Mr. Robert Sheldon

It is clear that before the legislation was introduced we had the United States and West German legislation and there were discussions between the three countries concerned. I am not sure what form those discussions took. Was the banking of licences discussed?

Mr. MacGregor

I am not aware of the precise answer to that question, because, as the right hon. Member will know, our legislation has come a good deal later than the original American legislation. The crucial point is that the whole question of banking has not been fully sorted out in the draft convention. It will be an important part of the discussion of preliminary investment protection, which is to take place at the conference.

We had a fairly long discussion about this proposal in Committee. We have been able to go over the most important points again today. As I explained in Committee, I am not out of sympathy with the ultimate intention behind the amendments. Indeed, in the right circumstances, which I have spelt out, as part of an effective preliminary investment protection arrangement, already agreed and applying internationally in advance of the treaty coming into force and operated by the preparatory commission—a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford in Committee—as part of an eventual treaty regime, such banking arrangements could be generally helpful.

I am satisfied that the Bill in its present form will enable the Secretary of State to allow for a site banking arrangement within his discretion to grant licences in pursuance of clause 2(2) to comply with any preliminary investment protection arrangement that may be agreed at UNCLOS, and that that could apply whether or not a treaty is in prospect or, indeed, as the hon. Member for Whitehaven said, if, as we all hope will not be the case, no treaty eventually comes.

I hope that that is a clear indication of our sympathy with the ultimate intention of the amendments, but for the practical and important reasons that I have given I ask the House to reject them.

Dr. John Cunningham

I listened carefully to what the Minister said towards the end of his remarks. It is always difficult to gauge precisely what is being said, and we are not allowed action replays, which may be an advantage at times. However, I am not convinced that we should not force the amendment to a Division. The matter is of great importance to Third world countries and also to us, in the sense that our approach to the law of the sea conference and to deep sea mining opportunities will be judged by what we do in this legislation.

Amendment No. 8 offers some hope, but it does not enable the Secretary of State to limit the number of licences. It enables him only to impose a condition on licences. It would in some circumstances allow revocation or termination of licences, but it would not enable the Secretary of State to refuse a licence in the first place. It would, first, have to become apparent after consideration of a company's operations that it was not fulfilling a condition of the licence. Although the amendment is welcome, it does not resolve the fundamental problem.

The hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Skeet) implied that if the banking of licences were in force the Enterprise would dominate the situation by picking the best sites. That is nonsense. The Enterprise is not yet in existence, and may not be for many years, which is one of our fundamental concerns. The Government argued that one reason for proceeding is that agreement on a convention may be a long way off, which is all the more reason to be careful what we do in the interim. However, it is the companies that know the circumstances on the sea bed, and in the foreseeable future they alone will have that knowledge, even though Governments will have the right to information. The Enterprise will have none of that information, so the argument that it would be in a dominant position if the condition were included is not well based. Therefore, at a later stage I shall wish to divide the House on amendment No. 10.

However, I beg to ask leave to withdraw amendment No. 3.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

4.45 pm

Dr. John Cunningham

I beg to move amendment No. 6, in page 3, line 26, at end insert— '(b) relating to the arrangements to be made with regard to the recognition of bona fide trade unions for collective bargaining'.

We are concerned that one condition for the issue of a licence is that recognition be granted to trade unions for collective and wage bargaining and other purposes. The amendment seeks to ensure that the opportunity exists.

If deep sea mining takes place, it will, first and foremost, be in the northern mid-Pacific—the so-called Clarion-Clipperton zone—many thousands of miles from the United Kingdom. Numerous vessels may be operating under United Kingdom licences in the area. They will be a long way from their home base and from trade union activity in the United Kingdom.

Experience in the North Sea leads us to conclude that many difficulties would be overcome from the beginning if trade union recognition could be granted. Matters that undoubtedly will arise can be more effectively dealt with if there is a guarantee that trade unions whose members are recruited for these operations have a right to represent those members in negotiations, discussions and disputes concerning wages and conditions, developments on board vessels, health and safety, and so on, which may be of grave importance. I am referring not only to wages. We should remember conditions in the British sector of the North Sea.

The Government are bound to say that when the North Sea development negotiations were taking place the Labour Government did not include such provisions, but that is not a good argument for refusing the proposal. It would be interesting if the Government only took action that the previous Administration considered right or sensible.

In diving safety, for instance, we have seen how disputes can arise, drag on and be aggravated through refusal to recognise bona fide trade union representatives, who should be party to discussions, and the North Sea operations are comparatively close to the United Kingdom. It will be much more difficult for trade union officials to become involved in negotiations on vessels thousands of miles away if employers frustrate their attempts to represent their people.

The amendment seeks to give people who have joined trade unions—I emphasise that—the statutory right to recognition for those trade unions. It is not to enforce a closed shop or to force people into trade unions in the first place. It is to guarantee that once they have decided for themselves that it is in their interests to belong to a trade union organisation, no employer will be able to refuse that organisation the right to represent them in whatever circumstances may crop up. I emphasise again that it is not just a matter of talking about money. The other issues are as important, if not more important, in many respects.

We know all too well how difficult, serious and, indeed, deadly some of the problems can be. One thinks, for example, of the "Alexander L. Keilland" affair in which some of my constituents lost their lives. These matters are very near and dear to the hearts of trade unions, as no doubt they are to employers. I know, of course, that those who will be involved in the consortia will not be careless of these matters. Nevertheless, our experience leads us to conclude that trade union involvement from the beginning—the involvement of the people doing the day-to-day work on these vessels—will lead to greater safety, greater improvement in working practices and probably smoother operation, which in themselves will be of major benefit not only to the men but to the organisation for which they are working.

Already some other countries grant this kind of right. I understand that in Norway, Denmark and Canada this recognition right may be granted in certain circumstances. Indeed, I understand that in Norwegian operations there must be workers' representatives on each rig, platform or vessel before it can operate. That is the point that I am trying to drive home. The involvement of trade unions on that kind of basis can make a major contribution to the operation.

I understand from what the Under-Secretary said in Committee that only ships will be involved in these operations, or, to put it another way, that there will be no designation of the vessels as anything other than ships, so far as he could tell. The experience of the National Union of Seamen certainly shows that in the communities which exist on vessels far from home the self-discipline of the work force in belonging to a union and exerting a force for good in these circumstances may have a major impact. I ask the Minister to recognise that point. Perhaps he already does. I ask him to recognise this approach, of which the National Union of Seamen in particular may be proud and which it seeks to foster and develop.

We know that the vessels will be expensive and will involve a great deal of capital investment. They are unlikely ever to return to the United Kingdom, if indeed they originate here. They will probably be serviced from the west coast of the United States. In view of the capital involved they will probably spend only very short periods in port, except for major refits or if things go seriously wrong. The opportunity for the people working on them to contact others or for others to contact them will therefore be limited. It goes 'without saying that it will not be easy for trade union representatives, at the drop of a hat, to leave Britain and fly off, as they would have to, to the west coast of America to try to help in difficult circumstances—disputes or, worse, strikes if they were to occur. One reason for the amendment is therefore to avoid disputes about recognition. Union recognition itself can he a source of dispute, argument and debate. Its acceptance as part of one of many conditions of the licence would be beneficial in that regard.

We had a brief discussion on this in Committee. The Under-Secretary indicated then, as he indicated on a previous amendment, that he did not feel that this condition should be imposed, because it would place more onerous conditions upon people operating under British licences. I am bound to say that the kind of conditions that the Americans have already enacted with reference to vessels in other respects are far more onerous than this. I refer to provisions which ensure the use of American flag vessels by people operating under American licences. I think that the Minister knows the point well. The condition that we seek pales into insignificance when compared with that. That argument is therefore no basis for rejecting our proposal.

I also emphasise that we are not seeking to ensure that everyone must be a member of a trade union before the licence is granted or that such a guarantee should be given. I think that there was some misunderstanding of our argument in Committee on that point. We simply seek a condition of the licence.

I hope that I have gone some way towards meeting the Under-Secretary's point in Committee that even if he were willing to accept such a proposal it would not have been at the point in the Bill that we then proposed. We have changed the reference point to cover that. We now propose that the amendment should be made to clause 2 in relation to the conditions applying to licences. Immediately before the point at which the amendment would occur clause 2 provides: An exploration or an exploitation licence shall be granted for such period as the Secretary of State thinks fit and shall contain such terms and conditions as he thinks fit and, in particular…may include terms and conditions". This is one of the terms and conditions that we think he "may" impose. We have therefore gone a considerable way in retabling the amendment to meet the objections that the Government felt were important in Committee.

I hope that the Government will now accept the amendment and concede this very important point.

Mr. Robert Sheldon

My hon. Friend the Member for Whitehaven (Dr. Cunningham) was very moderate in his explanation of the amendment. The amendment merely enables the Government to impose these terms and conditions. I tabled an amendment on the question of safety, to leave out "may" and insert "shall", so that on all matters of safety those concerned would not have the option of including "such terms and conditions" but would be compelled to do so. I should like to see the matter pursued further in regard to trade union activity. As the only amendment that we have before us deals with the permission to include terms and conditions relating to trade union matters, I should have thought that the Minister would have no difficulty whatever in accepting it.

5 pm

We are dealing not only with the deep sea and the dangers and problems of divers but with the need to control matters at a distance. My hon. Friend was right in suggesting that we need legislation so that some control can be exercised over distances of thousands of miles. That control should also be clarified in advance so that we know the conditions.

Legislation relating to the United States and Germany already exists, in addition to this Bill. There are, as we know, reciprocal recognition and taxation provisions, all fitting together. The fact that there are three bodies of similar legislation suggests either that we are complying with the United States and the German legislation which preceded ours or—as I suspect is much more likely—that discussions took place before any of the legislation was proposed.

What representations did the United Kingdom Government make? If discussions took place before the legislation it would be useful to know whether we are complying with the United States and German legislation. Again, if there were such discussions—I feel sure that there must have been—before any of the legislation was drafted, what representations did the British Government make, for example, about trade unions and their introduction into matters of safety, and so on?

I am concerned that many of these matters are left to the Foreign Office, which has a lofty approach and tries to ensure that there are smooth international agreements, working in the best diplomatic tradition. We have seen sell-outs in the past. The Foreign Office cannot raise its head in pride in dealing with this matter when attention is drawn to the billions of pounds of North Sea oil that it squandered by its attempt to ensure that there was smooth international co-operation.

I am concerned that we may see a repetition of the pattern of the past. I should like to be assured that the Minister is not prepared to allow the Foreign Office to prevail and that he will seek to impose the views of his Department concerning trade unions and their right to be included in the terms and conditions.

Mr. Dick Douglas (Dunfermline)

Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon), I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Whitehaven (Dr. Cunningham) has been very moderate in his approach.

I at once declare an interest, as a member of the Amalgamated Union of Engineering Workers. I base my argument for trade union representation on the technology that is involved in deep sea mining. In deep sea mining, once the zone for exploration has been discovered, one moves quickly into exploitation. The technology for exploitation is large, complicated, and highly individualistic in terms of the skills involved, and therefore there is a strong case for integrating the skills.

The operations are carried out at considerable depths, and a substantial piece of capital equipment has to go on to the sea bed. The placing of that equipment on the sea bed is extremely complicated. The gaining of the nodules from the sea bed is also complicated, as is the loading of the tankers or bulk carriers. The need to integrate the process in labour terms is considerable. Therefore, if there are no trade unions or trade union-type organisations on board already there will be a need almost to create them.

I am arguing that the United Kingdom licensees should accept that need immediately. Perhaps the Under-Secretary will tell us that there is no need to impose these terribly onerous conditions on our companies, but I should imagine that where United States companies are involved the relevant American seamen's organisations will be in there from the start. If that is not the case I should like to have some indication of the position from the Under-Secretary. If Norwegian companies are involved I should think that it would go almost without saying that Norwegian seamen's organisations will be there from the start.

I cannot see how that sort of arrangement could be regarded as detrimental in any way, and the Under-Secretary would have to go a long way to persuade me otherwise. I am sure that it will be for the benefit of United Kingdom organisations, given that they are operating far from their home ports, and given also that they are operating a new type of technology.

We have here an almost continuous mining process on a shift system, and I should have thought that it was essential that the people involved should have confidence in the health and safety provisions and should have confidence over and above mere individual representation in a consortium. The organisations concerned ought to recognise that the people operating the complicated capital equipment would feel much safer and more secure if they could call on the resources of the trade union experts back home when considering how to operate difficult processes.

The Under-Secretary is usually forthcoming, and we are not imposing a condition on him that he must include in the licence. We are simply proposing that he may include it. He has some discretion. I hope that in regard to the United Kingdom licensees he will give great consideration to this aspect before any licence is granted.

Mr. John Prescott (Kingston upon Hull, East)

Like some of my hon. Friends, I was unable to take part in the Committee proceedings on this important Bill because of parliamentary duties. I have a great interest in the Bill, particularly with regard to safety at sea, partly because of my background as a sponsored member of the National Union of Seamen and partly because of the important differences between rich and poor, which seem to polarise further beyond the 200 miles.

It is interesting to note that we are discussing a subject similar to a matter that we discussed last week. That issue—flags of convenience and the question whether the Third world will have a chance to be able to develop its shipping fleets—also splits the world between the rich and the poor. The Government were prepared to support the flags of convenience line, and in the matter of freedom of trade they supported the "no coercion argument", which inevitably means poorer working conditions and standards for those employed on these vessels. I shall not repeat what we said, though the issues at the heart of the argument about mineral rights in the deep sea mining areas are similar.

I am pleased to have been associated with a number of Labour Members in a report on this matter, which we produced a few years ago. We went into all the essential principles and naturally, as Socialists, we approached the matter on a Socialist basis. We supported the idea of an international authority. We recognised that the wealth beyond the 200-mile limit should be available to mankind. Therefore we wanted a means of finding an international mechanism so that the rich did not get richer and the poor did not get poorer—that is all too evidently how the world is run today.

For us, the principle is clear. We support the international agencies and I feel that the Bill, like the American or German legislation, is a means to enable companies to put pressure on the international authorities to come to an agreement on the companies' terms. If that fails, they have the right to go out unilaterally to plunder this wealth which is available only to those developed nations that have the necessary technology.

There is an important and essential principle involved here, and I wish to identify myself with my colleagues who have spoken to that effect, not only here but in Committee. The amendment concerns employment rights. Clause 2 lays down conditions which may influence the Secretary of State when he issues a licence. It specifies the types of conditions to be imposed on those who seek to have licences under the authority of the Secretary of State.

In clause 2(3)(a) one can see the various matters to which those specific conditions apply. In our amendment we are concerned to put in a new paragraph (b), which is directly concerned with the recognition of the rights of employees to organise for some of the advantages mentioned by my hon. Friends. It follows from the first condition, which is concerned with the safety, health and welfare of the seamen but which does not recognise or accept that trade union recognition is one of the conditions essential to the rights of those employed in deep sea mining.

In the categories of health, safety and welfare, the rights of the employees and the benefits they gain are determined by the organisation that represents them and the type of men who will be on board to represent their colleagues, to see that conditions laid down by the Secretary of State on the other side of the world are enforced. That is the important part that trade union organisations play in this matter.

The conditions that the United Kingdom lays down in licences regarding the health, safety and welfare of the seamen will be crucial. What is more important is the nature of enforcement. I notice that in Committee the argument was whether one should simply leave the flag standard to determine what conditions may apply on ships which, although given a licence, may not be British ships.

Unfortunately, because we do not have a convention about these matters, or, indeed, about the law of the sea itself, we are not able to look to the United Nations to determine what minimum standards should apply. As the debate last week showed, all too often the standards imposed by the flag are not observed. It is one thing to recognise an international convention; it is another to see that it is observed and carried out. There is considerable evidence to show that that is so—it is true of British flags as well. We gave some evidence last week of British flags being flown by ships that have no trade union recognition. The British flag is used as a flag of convenience and the vessel is registered in the Cayman Islands. I dealt with that aspect last week.

5.15 pm

In Committee the Minister seemed to shelter behind the issue of the flag standard. Presumably he thinks that all nations that observe standards will see that they are implemented and that Panama and Liberia have enforcement agencies comparable to those of the traditional maritime countries of Norway and Great Britain. Unfortunately, that is not true. In many cases flag of convenience vessels do not even visit places such as Panama and Liberia for inspection. That is where the term "flag of convenience" comes from; it is convenient to register under that flag and for operators to do whatever they like, no matter what they say they will do, particularly as regards safety, health, welfare and trade union recognition.

As we showed in last week's debate, the flag of convenience system leads to deplorable conditions and high incidences of deaths, accidents and losses of vessels. All that results from the lack of proper enforcement agencies. The enforcement of whatever standards are determined is crucial.

Enforcement of discipline on board ships and legislation and safety provisions are normally the responsibility of the Department of Trade. Conditions on production or exploration oil rigs are the responsibility of the Department of Energy. I hope that the Minister will tell us which Department will be responsible for deep sea mining vessels. The Department of Energy is the sponsoring Department, but I am not sure whether the marine activity will come under the Department of Trade. If so, that Department will be responsible for safety, health, welfare and trade union recognition.

We can be sure that the Health and Safety Commission will not be responsible. That is unfortunate, because a number of Labour Members feel strongly about that matter and supported the minority report of the Burgoyne committee, which suggested that the scope of the commission should be extended to energy matters, and, in my opinion, to trade matters. That will not apply to deep sea mining operations, because whether the Department of Trade or the Department of Energy is responsible, civil servants in both Departments have been strong enough, even under the Labour Government, to resist the extension of the powers of the HSC.

We were fortunate enough to get responsibility for health and safety in agriculture and mining transferred to the commission, but we failed to do that for energy and trade. We are concerned about safety, and we claim that trade union recognition is an important factor in that regard. A Financial Times survey earlier this year considered the accident and death records of mining, agriculture, marine and North Sea operations since the formation of the HSC. It was interesting to note that all those areas reduced accidents and deaths and that the two Departments that did not do so were the Departments of Energy and Trade. That reflects on how we organise controls on the enforcement of safety standards.

Seamen tend to think of welfare as being covered by the seamen's missions, but there is a lot more to it than merely looking after the spiritual well-being of our seafarers. Conditions of employment, leave arrangements, weekend work, uniform provision, working rosters, accommodation and so on are all concerned with men living in close confines for a considerable time. Normal matters of tension in a place of work may seem small in other circumstances, but they have a great propensity for becoming a considerable grievance when it is difficult for men to get away from their place of work and when they live with the problem day in and day out.

That is the atmosphere in which industrial relations have to be conducted in a marine operation. It is therefore crucial to seek means by which a grievance can find a legitimate outlet before there is an explosion over an issue that may seem small, but that can have considerable effects. That is why it is important, as my hon. Friend the Member of Whitehaven (Dr. Cunningham) pointed out, to maintain the continuity of the industry and the role that trade unions play in that process. Trade union representation is crucial to good shipboard relations and the carrying out of work operation at sea. All these are matters of collective agreement.

It is true that the old shipping Acts, going back to the Merchant Shipping Act 1894, with which I had to live and which I detested, were changed following the 1966 seamen's strike, which brought me to the House. I thank God that they have been changed. A captain is no longer the lord and master and able to do what the heck he likes. There are now checks and controls over powers aboard a vessel. The old Acts defined how much butter, sugar and margarine must be given to a seafarer. This was necessary because without trade union recognition the employer found ways to cut corners. In the early days the House laid down conditions. Today the seafaring unions agree those conditions by collective negotiation and bargaining.

The trade unions are strong in the seafaring industry. The industry has a closed shop agreement. The amendment that we are discussing does not ask for a closed shop agreement, but I believe that one is needed. That is not only my view. The Conservative Government's Trade Union and Labour Relations Act 1974 tried to outlaw the closed shop. Even that Government had to recognise, however, that in two areas the closed shop was essential, namely, Equity for actors and the National Union of Seamen for seafarers. A special provision was made to exempt those two organisations, because the Tory Government recognised the essential nature of the closed shop operation.

The amendment debated in Committee related to clause 8, dealing with foreign discriminatory action. However, the Minister addressed himself to the principle rather than to the limited area of the amendment. The hon. Gentleman argued that these conditions could not be imposed because ships of other countries were also involved. That is true. The ship may be Panamanian or Liberian. I do not consider that the Minister should adopt two standards for safety, health and welfare, depending upon whether the Panamanian or Liberian authorities impose such standards on a ship of a flag given a licence by the Minister. One standard should be enforced. That is not guaranteed by the flag State. All too often there can be evidence of cheap labour and no taxation agreements. This works predictably to the disadvantage of British labour.

My hon. Friends the Members for Dunfermline (Mr. Douglas) and for Whitehaven have referred to what happens in other countries and to the trade union clauses in Norwegian and French legislation. We can be certain that enforcement by those countries will ensure that minimum standards are imposed. All too often, however, the drift is towards flags of convenience where such standards are not applied.

The amendment is not concerned with British trade unions. It relates to bona fide trade unions. We recognise French and Norwegian standards in the North Sea. Matters can work to our disadvantage. Three or four weeks ago a British holder rig, organised by my union, went from the North Sea to Irish waters. All the British labour was kicked off the ship because the Irish argued that in Irish waters they wanted Irish conditions and labour. That is also the situation that we face with Norway, France and the United States. When it comes to the silly British, everything goes in British waters, to the disadvantage of British labour. This situation is no longer acceptable. We shall not tolerate it much longer. Discussions are already taking place with the Government to overcome the problems.

Another argument deployed in Committee was, according to the Minister, much more fundamental. The hon. Gentleman argued that we would be putting into our legislation a statutory requirement for recognition of trade unions at the place of work. I hear much from trade unions about past and present Tory Governments discussing the possibility of a statutory requirement offering the opportunity not to belong to a trade union. Leaving that aside, it must be stated in defence of the amendment that under clause 2 the Secretary of State has to take into account only those conditions that he thinks fit. That permits a great deal of latitude over interpretation.

The amendment seeks only arrangements regarding the recognition of trade unions. This can be simply the right of access. One cannot simply go to the factory gate and ask a worker if he will join a union. One has to get out into the North Sea and the Pacific to attend to grievances and to ask a worker whether he wants to belong to a union. It should not be made tougher for a man to join a union because he happens to be located in mid-Pacific rather than in Blackburn. There is enough prejudice from employers without making it geographically almost impossible for a man to exercise his right to belong to a trade union.

The amendment, while not requiring a closed shop, recognises the difficulties. It asserts that trade unions should be given the right to convince workers that they should join a trade union. Access is vital. I do not believe that the answers given by the Minister in Committee on 18 June against the mid-Pacific argument are very convincing. The hon. Gentleman argued that there was nothing different about the shipping industry.

The essential difference is that the shipping industry is a closed shop. If there is a problem anywhere in the world, the owners have to ask for a trade union representative to be sent to solve the problem. Those representatives are sent at the owners' expense, because the owners recognise the importance of maintaining stability and confidence in relationships on board. The Minister does not appear to be aware that the essential difference is that we maintain a closed shop. I believe that the closed shop argument, endorsed by the Tory Government as an essential principle in a marine-working atmosphere, should be recognised by guaranteeing rights of access.

No obstacle should be put in the way of trade union recognition. We are not seeking the guarantee of the closed shop. ft may be thought that this is simply a matter of approaching companies and asking for trade union recognition. The good industrial relations that exist in seafaring are maintained by the closed shop. Where the closed shop is not recognised, as in the North Sea, there has been continual hostility to the rights of trade unions to organise. It took four or five years before the North Sea oil trade unions could obtain recognition of access.

This proposal applies in limited circumstances and is not satisfactory. At least, however, it is a step forward. The diving support operations refuse to accept trade union recognition. I give warning that a number of Opposition Members have got together with the North Sea oil trade unions, and that we shall do all that we can—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill)

Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not go too specifically into North Sea matters. Will he relate his arguments to the clause under discussion?

5.30 pm

Mr. Prescott

I am merely warning the Minister that when ships go out into the Pacific with men working on them we will find the same difficulties of access as we have experienced in the North Sea. I use the North Sea as an example. I shall not pursue the matter, but if it is in order for the Minister to use shipping as an example to support his case I should have thought that it was legitimate for me to say that the same principle does not work in another marine atmosphere where there is not a closed shop. That is the essential point that I have been trying to get over.

This difficulty of access is crucial. If the Minister accepts the amendment he will not have a great deal to swallow. He will merely be recognising that the trade unions have a role to play. I hope that he will demonstrate to the House that he does not intend to put obstacles in the way of the trade unions. No one suggests that he should force people to join trade unions, but I hope that he will not make it more difficult for trade unions to organise in this area. If he accepts this amendment, he will show that the Government believe in people's trade union rights and that they should be available whether people are working ashore or out in the mid-Pacific. That is the principle involved in the amendment, and I hope that the Minister will accept it.

Mr. MacGregor

This amendment is in some respects more modest in scope than the one that we discussed in Committee, which was to make trade union recognition compulsory in certain circumstances—a principle which was rejected by the Committee. However, the amendment is wider in other respects because the amendment we discussed in Committee applied only where clause 8 was operated, whereas this one applies to all deep sea mining. That is why I say that in other respects this amendment is a good deal wider.

While I was listening to the debate—and especially to the remarks of the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott), to the effect that the amendment had been moved to meet a point that I made in Committee—I began to wonder whether I had been right to hand him the peg on which to hang another opportunity to raise this issue.

I deal first with a very important point which the hon. Gentleman made at the beginning of his remarks, when he said that the amendment was modest. It is that it relates to a clause which places no obligation on the Secretary of State to take action. The relevant words are "may be". In response to that, I might point out that if there were never an attempt to introduce a provision along these lines it would be a mere cosmetic—a public relations exercise—which I imagine no Opposition Member would wish to see. Presumably, since he is trying to put the provision into the Bill, it is intended that it should be operated at some time and, therefore, that at some point there should be an attempt by some Secretary of State to impose statutory recognition. It is in that sense, therefore, that I consider the amendment.

In the interests of progress, because I know that there is a very long and onerous Bill to be dealt with later and because we have already debated this matter, I think that I can be brief. But I intend to be brief only because I can put succinctly the points which concern me about the amendment and the reason why I advise the House not to accept it.

The most important argument is whether there should be statutory recogntion. We must get this clear. I recognise, of course, that Opposition Members probably will not agree with me. There is a great difference of view between us. But we are not discussing putting obstacles in the way of trade unions operating on these vessels. We are not even discussing whether trade unions should be represented. As the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East said, because a closed shop has operated for so long it is extremely likely that there will be full trade union recognition. Here, we are discussing whether a provision for union recognition should appear in the statute as a requirement by law or should be a matter for negotiation between managements and their employees in the normal way. That is the key issue about union recognition in the amendment.

I have to tell the House that in the Government's view it is not appropriate to have statutory recognition, through legislation, in this case and in no other. There are no comparable provisions in other United Kingdom legislation, and Opposition Members have advanced only two reasons why we should make a special exception in this case.

One was the argument by the hon. Member for Whitehaven (Dr. Cunningham) that many of these operations are taking place far away in the Pacific ocean. However, a lot of other shipping operations take place in the Pacific ocean. I concede that by the nature of their work these ships will have to operate for some time without coming to port.

The other argument was that by the hon. Member for Dunfermline (Mr. Douglas) that new technological implications here made statutory recognition desirable.

In my view neither argument is sufficiently strong to make the case that deep sea mining alone should involve statutory recognition and that the normal processes which apply in every other area of activity should not apply here.

The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East said very fairly that owners recognised the importance of trade unions and their representatives being concerned in safety and other matters, including disputes, in far-off shipping and that at their own expense they flew out union organisers to help deal with them. If that applies now it is obviously in the interests of managements to do the same with deep sea mining. Therefore, I do not think that the case for making this one exception in law has been made.

The other argument, which is not as important as that compelling one, relates to a matter which I raised in Committee. There could be problems in deciding what such a clause meant in terms of the representation of workers on foreign ships. It is clear that in a number of instances foreign ships will be involved in deep sea mining. At the moment they may be only American ships, because only American ships are available to carry out the operations. But that may change over a period.

Foreign ships will clearly be involved. However, this is not the sort of question that we would expect to regulate on board a foreign ship. There is a difficulty about the principle, as we would not wish to encourage foreign Governments to intervene in such matters on British vessels.

Mr. Robert Sheldon

This might be a suitable time to ask the Minister what discussions took place between the United Kingdom Government and the other Governments prior to their legislation.

Mr. MacGregor

It had been my intention to deal with that later but since the right hon. Gentleman has raised the matter I shall deal with it now.

The joint discussions which have taken place so far on deep sea mining have been in what has been discribed as the "like-minded group", just as the Group of 77 discussed various matters affecting what they regarded as their common interests. That is quite a normal process in these convention negotiations. That is where the joint discussions have been taking place so far, and the question of trade union recognition or statutory recognition was never discussed in that forum.

I come back to the point that I was trying to make when the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) intervened. He made the point that he would now be discussing with Ministers the wider questions of foreign vessels, and so on. However, this Bill, dealing with only one area of shipping activities, is not appropriate for the insertion of that kind of much wider issue, bearing in mind that so many other considerations are involved in it.

Mr. Prescott

Is the Minister saying that if the Americans, who have a condition about trade union recognition on their ships, were to operate in our area, with our licences and with trade union recognition, we should recognise the trade union rights on board that ship, but that if they chartered a British ship in a bare-boat charter and put American workers on it, and they had a clause for trade union recognition, he would also have to recognise that?

Mr. MacGregor

I am simply saying that we do not believe it to be right to impose statutory recognition in this Bill, because it does not operate in any other British legislation.

I make one brief remark about the very important matter of safety, which a number of right hon. and hon. Members raised. I recognise the force of all that they said in that respect. However, I feel that the Bill contains adequate provisions in a large number of clauses to deal with safety, health and welfare matters. I refer to clause 2, where it is a specific item of licence terms and conditions, to clause 6, where it is raised again in the variation and revocation of licences, to clause 11, on inspectors, to clause 12, on the regulations and orders, and to the schedule. The matter is raised in all those provisions to provide for the safety, health and welfare of persons employed in any licensed or ancillary operations.

Mr. Robert Sheldon

The Under-Secretary will know that an amendment stands in my name to provide that such a licence shall include terms and conditions". For various reasons, that amendment was not selected. As the Minister seems to be arguing in favour of that amendment, will he seek to introduce it at a later stage?

Mr. MacGregor

There is no later stage. I was coming to that matter. It seems right in our view that the discretion should be left to the Secretary of State, as in the Bill, and that he "may" introduce terms and conditions relating to all the items that are listed. We understand how important safety, health and welfare are, and the fact that they are mentioned so often in the Bill shows the importance that we attach to them. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that safety will be a major consideration in the licences.

One other matter was raised by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East, who asked which Department would be responsible for dealing with these matters. Marine activities will continue to be covered by the Department of Trade, although specific matters that are allocated in the Bill to the Department of Industry, such as the appointment of inspectors, will be the responsibility of that Department. However, as I said in Committee, in looking to the people whom we shall appoint as inspectors we shall consider a wide range of experience and expertise, and clearly there will be co-ordination between Departments on this aspect for which the Department of Industry is responsible.

We could debate this issue for a considerable time, but because of what I have said, particularly about the principle of statutory recognition, as distinct from negotiations for trade union recognition between management and employees, I cannot recommend my hon. Friends to accept the amendment.

Dr. John Cunningham

I am sorry that the Under-Secretary takes that view. He is being used to propagate the Government's strong anti-union views. We have moved a considerable way in changing the amendment, and I thought that we had gone far enough to convince the Under-Secretary that it was worth accepting. I am sorry that he feels unable to do so.

The Under-Secretary should know—it is a matter to which my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) drew his attention—that many unions have a large interest in the matter. We are not just talking about one or even two unions, but about BALPA, the NUS, the MNAOA, the ASTMS, the Radio and Electronic Officers Union and the Transport and General Workers Union. All those unions are determined that the enormous problems that are faced by their members in offshore activities should be ended. They have formed an inter-union offshore committee to co-ordinate their activities and deal with the problems in the interests of their members. One way or another, they will seek to ensure that their members' interests, safety and welfare are safeguarded.

My hon. Friend also said that on a number of recent occasions British subjects who were employed—he mentioned the subject with special reference to rigs—have been summarily dismissed and moved off vessels because of the attitudes that have been taken by the Governments in whose waters the vessels were operating. It is a classic case of the importance of people in such circumstances having effective representation. It is an inescapable feature of seafaring life that people in such circumstances, often a long way from home, living in closed communities and having to work together, have problems that are often magnified out of all proportion. Those problems nevertheless have to be dealt with, and trade unions can make an important contribution in dealing with them.

There are many good reasons why the amendment should be accepted. It would not make union recognition obligatory. The Under-Secretary asked whether we expected it to be used. Some employers, of course, will concede the point from the beginning, as they have in the past. However, some will refuse access, as they have for many years, and they will refuse to recognise the legitimate rights of seafarers and others to be represented by trade unions. It is for that reason that we shall press the amendment. It is not just a matter of those concerned being a long way from home. The other matters that we have mentioned also arise. I feel as strongly as do my right hon. and hon. Friends about the matter, and we shall press the amendment to a vote.

5.45 pm

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 112, Noes 180.

Division No. 261]	[5.45 pm
AYES
Allaun, Frank	Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Archer, Rt Hon Peter	Dixon, Donald
Atkinson, N.(H'gey,)	Dormand, Jack
Bennett, Andrew(St'kp't N)	Douglas, Dick
Booth, Rt Hon Albert	Dubs, Alfred
Boothroyd, Miss Betty	Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.
Bray, Dr Jeremy	Eadie, Alex
Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)	Eastham, Ken
Buchan, Norman	Edwards, R. (W'hampt'n S E)
Callaghan, Jim (Midd't'n & P)	Ellis, R. (NE D'bysh're)
Campbell, Ian	English, Michael
Campbell-Savours, Dale	Evans, loan (Aberdare)
Clark, Dr David (S Shields)	Ewing, Harry
Cocks, RtHon M. (B'stol S)	Faulds, Andrew
Coleman, Donald	Fitch, Alan
Cowans, Harry	Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Craigen, J. M.	Foster, Derek
Crowther, J. S.	Garrett, John (Norwich S)
Cunningham, Dr J. (W'h'n)	George, Bruce
Dalyell, Tam	Golding, John
Deakins, Eric	Graham, Ted

Grant, John (Islington C)	Rees, Rt Hon M (Leeds S)
Hamilton, W. W. (C'tral Fife)	Richardson, Jo
Hardy, Peter	Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter	Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)
Home Robertson, John	Robertson, George
Homewood, William	Rooker, J. W.
Hooley, Frank	Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)
Howell, Rt Hon D.	Sever, John
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)	Sheerman, Barry
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas	Sheldon, Rt Hon R.
John, Brynmor	Short, Mrs Renée
Jones, Rt Hon Alec (Rh'dda)	Silkin, Rt Hon J. (Deptford)
Kerr, Russell	Silverman, Julius
Kilroy-Silk, Robert	Skinner, Dennis
Lamond, James	Snape, Peter
Leighton, Ronald	Spearing, Nigel
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)	Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)
Litherland, Robert	Stoddart, David
Lyon, Alexander (York)	Stott, Roger
McCartney, Hugh	Strang, Gavin
McDonald, Dr Oonagh	Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)
McElhone, Frank	Thorne, Stan (Preston South)
McKay, Allen (Penistone)	Tinn, James
MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor	Wainwright, E.(Dearne V)
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)	Walker, Rt Hon H.(D caster)
Morris, Rt Hon C. (O'shaw)	Welsh, Michael
Morton, George	White, Frank R.
Newens, Stanley	Whitehead, Phillip
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon	Whitlock, William
O'Neill, Martin	Williams, Rt Hon A.(S'sea W)
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley	Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)
Palmer, Arthur	Winnick, David
Park, George	Woolmer, Kenneth
Pavitt, Laurie
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)	Tellers for the Ayes:
Prescott, John	Mr. James Hamilton and
Radice, Giles	Mr. Frank Haynes.

NOES
Alexander, Richard	Dykes, Hugh
Alton, David	Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
Atkins, Robert(Preston N)	Eggar, Tim
Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)	Fairgrieve, Russell
Beaumont-Dark, Anthony	Farr, John
Beith, A. J.	Fell, Anthony
Bendall, Vivian	Fisher, Sir Nigel
Bennett, Sir Frederic (T'bay)	Fletcher, A. (Ed'nb'gh N)
Benyon, Thomas (A'don)	Forman, Nigel
Benyon, W. (Buckingham)	Freud, Clement
Berry, Hon Anthony	Garel-Jones, Tristan
Best, Keith	Glyn, Dr Alan
Biggs-Davison, John	Goodhew, Victor
Blackburn, John	Goodlad, Alastair
Body, Richard	Gow, Ian
Boscawen, Hon Robert	Gray, Hamish
Braine, Sir Bernard	Greenway, Harry
Brinton, Tim	Griffiths, Peter Portsm'th N)
Brown, Michael(Brigg & Sc'n)	Grist, Ian
Bruce-Gardyne, John	Gummer, John Selwyn
Bryan, Sir Paul	Hamilton, Hon A.
Buck, Antony	Hampson, Dr Keith
Budgen, Nick	Hannam, John
Cadbury, Jocelyn	Haselhurst, Alan
Carlisle, John (Luton West)	Hawksley, Warren
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)	Hayhoe, Barney
Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (R'c'n)	Heddle, John
Chapman, Sydney	Henderson, Barry
Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th, S'n)	Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)	Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)	Holland, Philip (Carlton)
Clegg, Sir Walter	Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Cockeram, Eric	Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldf'd)
Colvin, Michael	Howells, Geraint
Cope, John	Hunt, David (Wirral)
Corrie, John	Hurd, Hon Douglas
Costain, Sir Albert	Jessel, Toby
Cranborne, Viscount	Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Crouch, David	Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Dean, Paul (North Somerset)	Kershaw, Anthony
Dunn, Robert (Dartford)	Kimball, Marcus

King, Rt Hon Tom	Rathbone, Tim
Kitson, Sir Timothy	Renton, Tim
Knight, Mrs Jill	Rhodes James, Robert
Lamont, Norman	Roberts, M. (Cardiff NW)
Latham, Michael	Rossi, Hugh
Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel	Rost, Peter
Lee, John	Sainsbury, Hon Timothy
Le Marchant, Spencer	Scott, Nicholas
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark	Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Lester, Jim (Beeston)	Shelton, William (Streatham)
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)	Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)	Shepherd, Richard
Luce, Richard	Silvester, Fred
Lyell, Nicholas	Skeet, T. H. H.
Macfarlane, Neil	Speed, Keith
MacGregor, John	Speller, Tony
McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)	Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)
Madel, David	Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Major, John	Sproat, Iain
Marlow, Tony	Stainton, Keith
Mates, Michael	Stanbrook, Ivor
Mather, Carol	Steel, Rt Hon David
Maude, Rt Hon Sir Angus	Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)
Mawhinney, Dr Brian	Stewart, A.(E Renfrewshire)
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin	Stradling Thomas, J.
Mellor, David	Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)
Mills, Iain (Meriden)	Tebbit, Norman
Mills, Peter (West Devon)	Thomas, Rt Hon Peter
Moate, Roger	Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)
Monro, Hector	Thornton, Malcolm
Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)	Townend, John (Bridlington)
Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)	Townsend, Cyril D, (B'heath)
Murphy, Christopher	Viggers, Peter
Myles, David	Waddington, David
Neale, Gerrard	Wainwright, R.(Colne V)
Neubert, Michael	Wakeham, John
Newton, Tony	Waldegrave, Hon William
Normanton, Tom	Ward, John
Onslow, Cranley	Warren, Kenneth
Osborn, John	Watson, John
Page, John (Harrow, West)	Wells, Bowen
Page, Rt Hon Sir G. (Crosby)	Wheeler, John
Page, Richard (SW Herts)	Whitney, Raymond
Parris, Matthew	Wickenden, Keith
Pattie, Geoffrey	Williams, D.(Montgomery)
Pawsey, James	Wolfson, Mark
Percival, Sir Ian	Young, Sir George (Acton)
Pollock, Alexander
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg	Tellers for the Noes:
Prior, Rt Hon James	Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
Proctor, K. Harvey	and Mr. Peter Brooke.

Question accordingly negatived.

Mr. MacGregor

I beg to move amendment No. 8, in page 3, line 39, at end add— '( ) requiring any exploration or exploitation of the hard mineral resources of the licenced area to be diligently carried out;'.

I gave a commitment to consider an amendment following points made by the Opposition in Committee, and this amendment fulfils that commitment. We have referred briefly to some of the aspects of it in an earlier debate today, so I can be brief now.

The amendment is intended to prevent companies from sterilising large areas of the deep sea bed by obtaining licences for several sites but carrying out little or no development work on them. Including diligence requirements in the list of possible terms and conditions for licences underlines the importance attached to this principle and shows that the Government intend to license only serious applicants who can be expected to make good use of their licences.

As I said in Committee, it is appropriate for diligence to be a condition of licences themselves rather than simply a ground for revoking a licence under clause 6, as the Opposition initially proposed. I recall that in Committee the hon. Member for Whitehaven (Dr. Cunningham) indicated his assent and broad agreement to that.

The licence will spell out the precise obligations, such as a programme of expenditure, so that the licensee knows what conditions he has to meet. Since breach of any of the terms and conditions of licences is a ground for revoking a licence under clause 6, the point of the original Opposition amendment is met.

As drafted, this amendment reflects closely the similar provision in the American Act, which states that The terms, conditions and restrictions of each licence and permit issued shall be designed to ensure diligent development. I add one further point. I made it in Committee, but it would be as well to get it on record now. When drawing up the conditions we shall need to take account of the expected rates of development work and commercial recovery so that we do not impose ludicrous and unnecessary burdens on licensees. But with that point in mind—obviously, it is essential to have it in mind—I am happy to accept the arguments put forward in Committee by the Opposition.

6 pm

Dr. John Cunningham

I am grateful to the Under-Secretary of State for the amendment. As he so clearly said, the Opposition raised this issue in Committee. I accept his points about the amendment's slight redrafting. It meets the point that we sought to cover, as it will prevent companies from sterilising large areas of the most attractive parts of the sea bed to prevent other countries or companies from exploiting them.

We are grateful to the Government for that concession and welcome the amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment proposed, No. 10, in page 3, line 47 at end insert— '(4A) An exploration or an exploitation licence shall not be granted unless the person applying for the licence specifies two sites, one of which may be licensed, the other to be safeguarded for the use of such organisation as may be set up following international agreement to a Convention arising from the United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea; if no such organisation is set up within twenty years of the passing of this Act the latter site may be offered back to the original applicant.'.—[Dr. John Cunningham.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 119, Noes 175.

Division No. 262]	[6.00 pm
AYES
Allaun, Frank	Deakins, Eric
Alton, David	Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Archer, Rt Hon Peter	Dixon, Donald
Atkinson, N.(H'gey,)	Dormand, Jack
Beith, A. J.	Douglas, Dick
Bennett, Andrew(St'kp't N)	Dubs, Alfred
Booth, Rt Hon Albert	Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.
Boothroyd, Miss Betty	Eadie, Alex
Bray, Dr Jeremy	Eastham, Ken
Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)	Edwards, R. (W'hampt'n S E)
Buchan, Norman	Ellis, R. (NE D'bysh're)
Callaghan, Jim (Midd't'n & P)	English, Michael
Campbell, Ian	Evans, loan (Aberdare)
Campbell-Savours, Dale	Ewing, Harry
Clark, Dr David (S Shields)	Faulds, Andrew
Cocks, RtHon M. (B'stol S)	Fitch, Alan
Cowans, Harry	Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Craigen, J. M.	Foster, Derek
Crowther, J. S.	Freud, Clement
Cunningham, Dr J. (W'h'n)	Garrett, John (Norwich S)
Dalyell, Tam	George, Bruce

Golding, John	Radice, Giles
Graham, Ted	Rees, Rt Hon M (Leeds S)
Grant, John (Islington C)	Richardson, Jo
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)	Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Hamilton, W. W. (C'tral Fife)	Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)
Hardy, Peter	Robertson, George
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter	Rooker, J. W.
Haynes, Frank	Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)
Healey, Rt Hon Denis	Sandelson, Neville
Home Robertson, John	Sever, John
Homewood, William	Sheerman, Barry
Hooley, Frank	Sheldon, Rt Hon R.
Howell, Rt Hon D.	Silkin, Rt Hon J. (Deptford)
Howells, Geraint	Silverman, Julius
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)	Skinner, Dennis
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas	Snape, Peter
John, Brynmor	Spearing, Nigel
Jones, Rt Hon Alec (Rh'dda)	Steel, Rt Hon David
Kerr, Russell	Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)
Kilroy-Silk, Robert	Stoddart, David
Lamond, James	Stott, Roger
Leighton, Ronald	Strang, Gavin
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)	Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)
Litherland, Robert	Thorne, Stan (Preston South)
McDonald, Dr Oonagh	Tinn, James
McElhone, Frank	Wainwright, E.(Dearne V)
McKay, Allen (Penistone)	Wainwright, R.(Colne V)
MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor	Walker, Rt Hon H.(D'caster)
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)	Welsh, Michael
Morris, Rt Hon C. (O'shaw)	White, Frank R.
Morton, George	Whitehead, Phillip
Newens, Stanley	Whitlock, William
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon	Williams, Rt Hon A.(S'sea W)
O'Neill, Martin	Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley	Winnick, David
Palmer, Arthur	Woolmer, Kenneth
Park, George
Pavitt, Laurie	Tellers for the Ayes:
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)	Mr. Hugh McCartney and
Prescott, John	Mr. Donald Coleman.

NOES
Alexander, Richard	Dunn, Robert (Dartford)
Atkins, Robert(Preston N)	Dykes, Hugh
Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)	Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
Beaumont-Dark, Anthony	Eggar, Tim
Bendall, Vivian	Fairgrieve, Russell
Bennett, Sir Frederic (T'bay)	Farr, John
Benyon, Thomas (A'don)	Fell, Anthony
Benyon, W. (Buckingham)	Fisher, Sir Nigel
Berry, Hon Anthony	Fletcher, A. (Ed'nb'gh N)
Best, Keith	Forman, Nigel
Biggs-Davison, John	Garel-Jones, Tristan
Blackburn, John	Glyn, Dr Alan
Braine, Sir Bernard	Goodhew, Victor
Brinton, Tim	Goodlad, Alastair
Brooke, Hon Peter	Gow, Ian
Brown, Michael(Brigg & Sc'n)	Gray, Hamish
Bruce-Gardyne, John	Greenway, Harry
Bryan, Sir Paul	Griffiths, Peter Portsm'th N)
Budgen, Nick	Grist, Ian
Butcher, John	Gummer, John Selwyn
Cadbury, Jocelyn	Hamilton, Hon A.
Carlisle, John (Luton West)	Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)	Hampson, Dr Keith
Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (R'c'n)	Hannam, John
Chapman, Sydney	Haselhurst, Alan
Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th, S'n)	Hastings, Stephen
Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)	Hawksley, Warren
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)	Hayhoe, Barney
Clegg, Sir Walter	Heddle, John
Cockeram, Eric	Henderson, Barry
Colvin, Michael	Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Cope, John	Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Corrie, John	Holland, Philip (Carlton)
Costain, Sir Albert	Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldfd)
Cranborne, Viscount	Hunt, David (Wirral)
Crouch, David	Jessel, Toby
Dean, Paul (North Somerset)	Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.	Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

Kershaw, Anthony	Rathbone, Tim
Kimball, Marcus	Renton, Tim
King, Rt Hon Tom	Rhodes James, Robert
Kitson, Sir Timothy	Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Knight, Mrs Jill	Roberts, M. (Cardiff NW)
Lamont, Norman	Rossi, Hugh
Latham, Michael	Rost, Peter
Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel	Sainsbury, Hon Timothy
Lee, John	Scott, Nicholas
Le Marchant, Spencer	Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark	Shelton, William (Streatham)
Lester, Jim (Beeston)	Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)	Shepherd, Richard
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)	Silvester, Fred
Luce, Richard	Skeet, T, H. H.
Lyell, Nicholas	Speed, Keith
Macfarlane, Neil	Speller, Tony
MacGregor, John	Spence, John
McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)	Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)
Madel, David	Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Major, John	Sproat, Iain
Marlow, Tony	Stainton, Keith
Mates, Michael	Stanbrook, Ivor
Mather, Carol	Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)
Maude, Rt Hon Sir Angus	Stewart, A.(E Renfrewshire)
Mawhinney, Dr Brian	Stradling Thomas, J.
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin	Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)
Mellor, David	Thomas, Rt Hon Peter
Mills, Iain (Meriden)	Thompson, Donald
Mills, Peter (West Devon)	Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)
Moate, Roger	Thornton, Malcolm
Monro, Hector	Townend, John (Bridlington)
Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)	Townsend, Cyril D, (B'heath)
Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)	Viggers, Peter
Murphy, Christopher	Waddington, David
Myles, David	Wakeham, John
Neale, Gerrard	Waldegrave, Hon William
Neubert, Michael	Ward, John
Normanton, Tom	Warren, Kenneth
Onslow, Cranley	Watson, John
Osborn, John	Wells, Bowen
Page, John (Harrow, West)	Wheeler, John
Page, Rt Hon Sir G. (Crosby)	Whitney, Raymond
Page, Richard (SW Herts)	Wickenden, Keith
Parris, Matthew	Williams, D.(Montgomery)
Pattie, Geoffrey	Wolfson, Mark
Pawsey, James	Young, Sir George (Acton)
Percival, Sir Ian
Pollock, Alexander	Tellers for the Noes:
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg	Mr. Robert Boscawen and
Prior, Rt Hon James	Mr. Tony Newton
Proctor, K. Harvey

Question accordingly negatived.