§ Mr. AndersonI beg to move amendment No. 14, in page 2, line 31, after 'activities', insert
'means activities for the purposes of further scientific investigation which do not cause damage to the Antarctic environment or dependent or associated ecosystems and'.
Mr. Deputy SpeakerWith this it will be convenient to take the following amendments: No. 23, in page 3, line 16, clause 3, after 'damage', insert
to the Antarctic environment or dependent or associated ecosystems'.No. 34, in page 4, line 28, clause 7, at end add'and especially if there is any risk of environmental damage'.No. 36, in page 4, line 36, clause 8, at end add'among whom shall be individuals nominated by either or both national or international organisations which have standing in the field of environmental protection.'
§ Mr. AndersonThe lead amendment, No. 14, attempts narrowly to redefine "prospecting". The House will recall that the essence of the Bill is to allow only prospecting and to set out a new series of procedures before any country or licensee can proceed to the next stages of development and exploitation of any mineral resources that may be found. We are seeking to redefine prospecting and to distinguish it from existing scientific research. The key word is "further". We seek to limit prospecting to scientific investigations. Thus, prospectors would be able to undertake only activities that have a sound and purely scientific basis and are of a nature that is not damaging to the Antarctic environment.
"Damage" is to be interpreted according to the convention, and is defined in article 1(15) of the convention: 90
'Damage to the Antarctic environment or dependent or associated ecosystems' means any impact on the living or non-living components of that environment or those ecosystems, including harm to atmospheric, marine or terrestrial life beyond, that which is negligible or which has been assessed and judged to be acceptable pursuant to this Convention.We accept that, even under the limits of current scientific investigations, there can be grey areas. We are not always certain exactly who pays for the scientific investigations and what their motives are in so paying. We have discussed definitions in Committee, however, and we have made it clear that there should be definitions of what is permitted and what is prohibited. In our judgment, the Bill should be self-contained. Any definition should arise from the convention and not from definitions in other domestic legislation in the United Kingdom.Amendment No. 23 widens the definition of damage to include damage to the environment and ecosystems. We seek to move away from the purely commercial definition of damage, such as loss of profits, in this peculiarly sensitive area.
§ Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow)Are the Government in a position to give the House any scientific advice on this issue? Is it their view that the ecosystem will necessarily be damaged in all circumstances if minerals are found? As I understand it, there has been mining at Spitzbergen for decades without great effect on the ecosystem there. I shall be interested to know the facts that are available to the Minister.
§ Mr. Peter Hardy (Wentworth)I shall take a little longer than my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), partly because two of the amendments, Nos. 34 and 36, stand in my name. I tabled those amendments and others because I share the view expressed by Greenpeace, that the Bill is fatally flawed. I deeply regret that the British position is not the one that has been adopted by France and Australia. I am delighted that France and Australia have taken what I believe is the only independent position that the civilised world could take.
If the House had been debating the extension of the deserts 25 years ago, I believe that it would have taken the same attitude as it appears to be taking to the Antarctic this evening. If, 15 years ago, the House had been talking about the destruction of tropical forests, it would probably have taken the same attitude as many hon. Members are taking to the Antarctic now. In the past three or four decades we have seen the destruction of large parts of our planet with consequences that only now are beginning to be accepted. Indeed, the summit meeting could find agreement only by suggesting that there should be research before it is too late. That is the position on global warming. We have had sufficient experience over the past two or three generations to understand that we should approach ecosystems as large, substantial, attractive and important as that of the Antarctic with rather more sensitivity than the Government have displayed.
I do not always agree with every organisation in the environment lobby, but in this instance I agree wholeheartedly with Greenpeace. I deeply regret that the Government must stand high on the list of the culpable. The Government have reacted far too late to past despoliation and they should be a great deal more careful before they run the risk of seeing an important part of our planet destroyed. I know that the Minister made some relevant comments in Committee, but I hope that he will 91 spell out on Report—[Interruption.] I note that the Minister is amused. I am glad that he finds this issue amusing. He should understand that some of us find it an extremely serious matter.
I ask the Minister to respond to the latest batch of questions which Greenpeace has sent to hon. Members. For example, who will ensure compliance with the convention? Who will ensure compliance with the convention in the area of the Antarctic whose ownership is disputed by the United Kingdom, Chile and Argentina? Do we supervise the Chileans? Do the Argentines supervise us? Who will accept responsibility? If development follows the arrangement that is before us, someone will have to accept responsibility to ensure that devastation does not take place.
§ Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover)How can we trust the Government when they have given away Hong Kong?
§ Mr. HardyMy hon. Friend is right. I remind the Minister that I am accustomed to hearing fine-sounding words from denizens of the Government Front Bench, but I am still angry that on 16 January, when I stood on King's Cross station applauding the Prime Minister—
§ Mr. SkinnerDid my hon. Friend do that?
§ Mr. HardyI did. I know that my hon. Friend will be surprised. I stood on King's Cross station on the centenary of the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds. Those who were gathered there were addressed by the Prime Minister, who made the most heartening speech. She called for the protection of hills, wetlands, the coast, lakes, rivers and hedgerows. I left that meeting to come to the House to present, with all-party support and with the blessing of every conservation body in Britain, a Bill to protect our significant hedgerows. A Government Whip blocked that Bill.
§ Mr. SkinnerMy hon. Friend has told us that he went all the way to King's Cross to cheer the Prime Minister. Is that the same Prime Minister who supported the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Act 1988, a Bill that we tried to stop night after night? We argued that it would destroy an area in which lovely little birds—
§ Mr. SkinnerI am talking about a Bill that will damage the environment at Felixstowe. That environment will be destroyed by the Government, who pushed the Bill through. I say to my hon. Friend: judge people by what they do, not by what they say.
§ Mr. HardyMy hon. Friend must recognise that I was brought up as nonconformist and I always rejoice when the sinner comes to repentence. I thought that the right hon. Lady had done so. I was heartened because I thought that it gave hope for Antarctica as well as for the English hedgerows. Imagine my distress when the Government blocked that Bill; imagine my anger when I wrote to the right hon. Lady saying that she had blocked that Bill, which was presented on the very day that she had called for hedgerows to be protected. One passage from her reply will ever stick in my mind. She said that we have to think 92 about other things as well as conservation—as though she had not always thought about things other than conservation.
8 pm
My hon. Friend the Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) was with me on that memorable occasion and shared my pleasure at the right hon. Lady's speech and my disappointment when my Bill was blocked. I speak today from an experience that makes me intensely suspicious of the Government's attitude—a suspicion increasingly shared in Britain by all the green organisations. They are right to be suspicious, as they are right to ask questions. The Minister will be aware of the questions posed by Greenpeace in its latest missive to hon. Members, and I trust that when he replies he will give answers which, although they might reassure trusting, docile Conservative Members, will also be sufficiently powerful to persuade my hon. Friends and I.
The Government say, "We will ban exploration and ban exploitation, but we will not stop prospecting." That is ridiculous. The Minister may have read cowboy books or watched western films when he was a little boy. He may imagine that a prospector is a hoary old man riding on a mule with a backpack of beans and dried bacon, hoping to extract a few bits of rock with a hammer and a shovel and so discover gold.
§ Mr. Tony Banks (Newham, North-West)Sounds like Nicholas Ridley.
§ Mr. HardyThat description applies to a number of Conservative Ministers.
Modern prospecting is a different kettle of fish. Prospectors have high academic qualifications; they have some understanding of the use of explosives; they can drill—
§ Mr. SkinnerYuppie prospectors.
§ Mr. HardyThey are indeed the yuppie prospectors that my hon. Friend conjures up in his mind.
We are not talking about people with little hammers who chip off bits of rock; we are talking about people who could easily perpetrate an enormous amount of damage to an area, which our colleagues in Australia and France believe, as I do, should be a world reserve, and not subject to destruction by whatever interest group thinks that it can play ducks and drakes with an administration that does not have a record of constancy.
I want to know whether the Minister will answer all the questions posed by Greenpeace. How will we avoid the worst implementers of legislation being those with responsibility for implementation? Will the least competent administrations in the world be relied upon to interpret the regulations to protect Antarctica? Will we leave that attractive and important area to the mercy of the incompetent, the greedy, the feckless and the irresponsible? Will we leave it to those interests that have already destroyed the tropical forests and allowed the deserts to expand at an astonishing rate over the past 30 years?
Someone has to be concerned about the environment, because life must survive on this planet for a long time. I do not know whether it is appropriate to discuss the ecology of Antarctica on this group of amendments, or whether I should leave it until we discuss the next group.
§ Mr. HardyThe hon. Gentleman prefers me not to mention the subject at all. If you think that it should be left until the next debate, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall be happy to comply with your wishes.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) mentioned another reason for speaking in this debate—the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Act 1988. Every Conservative Member voted to break an international commitment—
Mr. Deputy SpeakerOrder. The hon. Gentleman can talk about ecosystems in Antarctica, but not Felixstowe.
§ Mr. Bob Cryer (Bradford, South)On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I wish to raise the citing of examples in passing during a speech. The Bill involves the administration of an area. If the Government support a particular system and a particular piece of legislation, surely it is necessary to point out their inconsistencies in previous legislation to show that they cannot be trusted.
Mr. Deputy SpeakerOf course it is in order for hon. Members to draw analogies, but it is not in order for them to give a detailed description of them. I was advising the hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) against doing that.
§ Mr. HardyI am happy to accept your advice, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My only reason for referring to the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Act was as a lead to discussing the Ramsar convention, an international agreement to which Britain was a principal signatory. To comply with the terms of that convention, Britain identified three or four sites in the British Isles that it pledged to the remainder of the world would be protected unless it be necessary to do otherwise because of the most grave and serious national predicament or interest. We selected the Orwell estuary for permanent protection, and said that it could never be touched other than in the most dire national extremity. Along came some people, aided and abetted by a few Conservative Members who smelt the possibility of making a bit of money, and the Ramsar convention went through the window, just as the Prime Minister's commitment to the British countryside went through the window.
The Government must understand that growing numbers of people in Britain, and throughout our planet, want them to act with a little more wisdom than thay have shown in this legislation. I refer the House to a letter to hon. Members from Sir Peter Scott. I received my copy this morning. I do not know which political party Sir Peter supports, but I know that for many years—as some Conservative Members will appreciate—he has played a more active part than any other living human being in promoting the conservation of our planet. He has a particular knowledge of Antarctica, so the House should be aware of the letter written by that distinguished, experienced British citizen, who has given great international service. Sir Peter said:
Many assurances have been given that this is an `environmental bill'. However its primary concern is minerals exploitation, not the environment and its effect will be to facilitate the exploitation and almost inevitable despoliation of Antarctica.Concern for the protection of the environment is increasing both nationally and globally. Both Australia and France have declared that they will not sign CRAMRA, rather they would like to see Antarctica designated as a `Wilderness Park' I applaud their bold initiative and sincerely 94 believe that a Wilderness Park, with a permanent moratorium on minerals exploitation, is the only way to ensure that the Antarctic wilderness is really protected. Having been lo the Antarctic five times, including visits to my father's huts and to the South Pole, I have first hand knowledge of the potential vulnerability of the area.I refer also to some very interesting comments in a book by Sir Edmund Hillary. Like Sir Peter Scott, he is a distinguished person who is familiar with the most far-flung corners of our planet.
§ Mr. CryerMy hon. Friend quoted Sir Peter Scott's remark that he is so dissatisfied with the Bill that he urges right hon. and hon. Members to vote against it. If we are really concerned about environmental protection, we must take Sir Peter's recommendation seriously into account.
§ Mr. HardyI hope that we shall act on Sir Peter's advice. Such advice from a man of Sir Peter's standing should be taken seriously. I have served on a number of national and international conservation bodies over a long period, so I have met Sir Peter occasionally and know of his record. I am aware of no other occasion on which he has given such advice. When such advice comes from a man who in the past has stood away from party politics, it should be taken very seriously.
I also take seriously the advice of Sir Edmund Hillary. I remind right hon. and hon. Members of his contribution in flying the British flag at the summit of Mount Everest in coronation year, and of crossing Antarctica. Sir Edmund Hillary writes about his visit to McMurdo sound in 1982, when the talk was about mineral resources and krill farming. There was very little talk in the relevant circles about protecting the environment and an area of the world that he acknowledges as superbly beautiful. Sir Edmund Hillary comments in his book "Ecology 2000" that he dreads the thought of drilling and of the risk that Lt would pose to the Antarctic. He dreads the inevitable risk of inadequate supervision and of the lack of any control or protection of the environment. Sir Edmund Hillary observes that such activities would destroy a significant part of our environmental inheritance.
In his book, Sir Edmund reminds us that the water in Antarctica has been frozen for 200,000 years. He notes that the pockets of air trapped in that water contain half the level of carbon dioxide that is to be found in the air that we currently breathe. There are many lessons to be learned from Antarctica.
No one is suggesting that we should ignore the lessons that Antarctica can teach us. The Opposition amendments merely seek to ensure that Antarctica will not be destroyed or at least disfigured before those lessons can be learned. I have no objection to the scientific establishments in Antarctica that have fulfilled a useful role there for some time, for their activities are quite a different matter from unleashing the forces of commercial exploitation. It is that which we fear most. The fear of commercial exploitation and of the consequences that it could bring led me to table my two amendments.
Amendment No. 34 would amend clause 7 by adding at the end the words
and especially if there is any risk of environmental damage.That amendment is perfectly reasonable. It represents a compromise. I do not like the Bill at all, but the Government could at least make a gesture to people who are concerned about the environment by adding the words that I suggest, as a way of reassuring environmentalists and of warning off the greedy whose depredations we fear.95 Amendment No. 36 to clause 8 is also wholly reasonable. If there is to be an advisory committee, as there should be, the individuals who comprise it should be capable of giving proper advice. They should not necessarily be members of the Conservative party. Far too many Conservative placemen who have been appointed to such advisory bodies in recent years believe that their job is to tell the Government what they want to hear. The advisory committee should instead be comprised of individuals who are prepared to eschew lickspittling.
§ Mr. Elliot Morley (Glanford and Scunthorpe)Is my hon. Friend aware that the governors of the Nature Conservancy Council, which is supposed to be responsible for protecting nature, have appointed a master of foxhounds? How can we have confidence in the Government when they allow an appointment such as that?
§ Mr. HardyMy hon. Friend speaks with considerable knowledge of such matters, as the Minister said. Perhaps we should not tread on the topic of quangos. In 1979, the Government declared that they would abolish quangos but then decided that if they could not beat them, they should join them. Governments should be able to obtain independent advice from people who know what they are talking about—not from people who seek to please the Government with comfortable words.
§ Ms. Dawn Primarolo (Bristol, South)Does my hon. Friend agree that all the undertakings that were made to prevent the exploitation of Alaska did not stop the Exxon disaster earlier this year? Even though promises and undertakings about environmental protection, consultation, and emergency action to clear up pollution were given, they proved worthless. A disaster occurred because the companies operating in Alaska are there not for any philanthropic reasons connected with understanding the environment but to exploit and destroy it. Does my hon. Friend acknowledge that, although his amendments are important, companies would ignore such provisions and continue to destroy the environment?
§ Mr. HardyYes, my hon. Friend is right. But if the Government use their majority, as they will, to ensure that the Bill becomes law, the least that we can do is to incorporate in the legislation a damage limitation—if only so that should such a tragedy occur in Antarctica, we shall be able to say, "We told you so." That would give further encouragement to those who already recognise that the Government's service to the environment is grossly unsatisfactory.
§ Ms. PrimaroloThe company that markets Exxon products in this country is Esso. Its current advertising campaign, which features a barrage balloon, promotes unleaded petrol and uses the phrase "Caring for your future". Yet both Exxon and Esso have shown that they do not care at all about our future but only about their own profits.
§ Mr. HardyMy hon. Friend may be unaware that I am particularly concerned about environmental matters. For the past three years, I have served as chairman of the Council of Europe's environment committee. During that 96 time, the committee has taken a number of initiatives with regard to marine pollution. It is sad that calls from my committee, from the European Parliament, and from committees of other national legislatures are ignored.
The scale of that disdain was shown in Alaska. The part of Alaska in which the oil spillage occurred is remote, difficult to reach and a long way from centres skilled in harbour and coastal protection. If that part of Alaska is far from the reservoirs of support, how far away from them is a part of the world a good deal south of the Antarctic circle? There would be no guarantee, which is why it is essential that those people should at least be in a position to tell the Government what is needed. We should be able to exercise a very critical role if the Government ignore the resulting evidence; the Government, of course, might find it possible to appoint to the committee people who would be prepared to speak out should their advice be ignored, but we need to be sure that that advice will be tendered and officially and formally received.
In the absence of such advisers, the Government would be able to say, "We did not know; we were not told." I should like to remove any possibility of such an excuse: hence the amendment, which I hope my hon. Friends will support unless the Government are prepared to accept it. I do not consider it unreasonable, although my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South (Ms. Primarolo) was somewhat critical because her hostility to the Bill is more root and branch.
§ Mr. SkinnerDuring the economic summit, the Prime Minister has been gallivanting around Europe, spending taxpayers' money and indulging in parties and binges. Apparently, between bouts of sipping claret and Beaujolais, all those countries got together and decided to set up a 10-point plan for the environment. I find it a bit odd that the same Government, headed by the same Prime Minister, should not be prepared to accept my hon. Friend's amendment.
My hon. Friend should remind the Minister that he may not be in his job much longer. There is going to be a big reshuffle, and he has not been sparking on every plug, has he? He has a chance of being kicked out. The course that should appeal to him is to adopt the 10-point plan and accept my hon. Friend's amendment. To do otherwise would be hypocritical, in view of all the great plans that were made at the summit.
§ Mr. HardyThe 10-point plan seems very strong on investigation and very weak on action. We have seen a good deal of investigation. I have been making speeches in the House for 15 years about the need to protect the environment, and on occasion after occasion have presented evidence to justify my arguments. In a small way I have contributed to the pursuit of the learning in which the Government have now agreed to engage. It is a form of paradox. The other day—I think that this is relevant, Mr. Deputy Speaker—I attended a meeting with Lech Walesa, and I asked him a question.
§ Mr. SkinnerHe is a Catholic shop steward.
§ Mr. HardyMy hon. Friend's description, although less than generous, may be reasonably accurate.
I asked Lech Walesa, "Are you familiar with a development that we watch in western Europe? Are you familiar with the phenomenon of western leaders visiting your country and saying one thing there and something 97 entirely different when they return to their own countries?" Lech Walesa does not speak English, but he stuck his thumb up and gave me a broad grin. Over the headphones I heard the interpreter say, "Mr. Walesa says yes, and now he is going to talk about paradoxes as well."
§ Mr. HardyI shall now return—in a southerly direction—to the appropriate latitude, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I could not resist the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), who was, to some extent, leading me astray; I now return to relevance. I could not, however, overlook the fact that we were discussing a strange paradox. The Paris summit has been celebrating the French revolution: I only wish that it had met 200 years earlier for, as I am sure some of my hon. Friends will agree, I think that 1789 would have been a more appropriate date for such a gathering than 1989.
§ Mr. Tony BanksThey might have chopped her head off.
§ Mr. HardyThe House is being offered reasonable amendments. If the Government wish to retain any vestige of consistency between their words and their actions, they have no alternative but to take a generous attitude. I do not think that I need say more; the case that we have advanced is utterly convincing, and I trust that the Minister's reply will be acceptable to us.
§ Mr. MorleyI wish to concentrate exclusively on amendment No. 14, which deals with the definition of exploration. Clause 2 of the Bill provides that
'prospecting activities' includes field observations".There is no problem there; field observations are not particularly damaging, although if large numbers of people set up bases in the area that in itself could be damaging. We discussed that in Committee. As it stands, the Bill does not appear to limit the number of people who can take part in any kind of prospecting expedition in the Antarctic, with all the associated problems of waste and disturbance."Prospecting activities", says clause 2, also include
geological, geochemical and geophysical investigations".Those are likely to involve the use of drilling rigs. The Bill lays down certain conditions, stating that such activities do not include, for example,drilling to depths exceeding 25 metres or such other depth as the Commission may determine for particular circumstances".That would be helpful in certain circumstances, because drilling also involves the risk of dirt and waste and the possible danger of blow-outs, problems associated with the control of machines and the disturbance caused by mud that is used for cooling the machinery—although I imagine that it would not be very difficult to cool machinery in the Antarctic.
§ Mr. Jeremy Corbyn (Islington, North)My hon. Friend has made a fair point. Cooling material in the Antarctic might not be much of a problem, as for the most part the air is very cold anyway. Is he aware, however, of a serious problem that has occurred in some of the scientific stations 98 there? If fire breaks out, it is extremely difficult to extinguish it. All the water has, of course, turned to ice, and other forms of fire-fighting equipment are very difficult to use in such extreme temperatures. That is yet another reason for caution. Where fires have broken out in some scientific stations, it has been impossible to put them out and the entire station has had to be allowed to burn out, with considerable consequent pollution.
§ Mr. MorleyI am grateful to my hon. Friend, whose knowledge of the Antarctic is considerable. He has raised an important point. I understand that there has been only one large-scale fire in the Antarctic, but in the event of one we would not know what the effects would be, and fighting it would be extremely difficult, especially if it were associated with an oil rig blow-out. Those are difficult to extinguish even in the most favourable circumstances, and the possibilities in the Antarctic make one shudder.
According to clause 2, prospecting activities also include
the use of remote sensing techniques and the collection of samples".I am willing to be corrected by the Minister if I am wrong, but I suspect that the use of remote sensing techniques will involve the kind of geological survey that entails setting off an explosive charge. Sensors will be used to read the shock waves and to gain an idea of the geology of the area. I imagine that the Minister would feel somewhat anxious about any proposal to prospect for oil in this country and to set up explosive charges in, for example, Hyde Park for the purposes of establishing the geology of the area.The Bill permits companies to set up explosive charges without defining or controlling what that will do. My hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) told us that the ice build-up on the continental shelf is hundreds of thousands of years old. Explosive charges used for geophysical investigations could cause immense permanent irreversible damage and the history locked within the ice would be destroyed forever. The Bill does not contain adequate safeguards against that.
8.30 pm
The Bill defines prospecting activity as "the collection of samples". I give it credit for dealing with
dredging or excavation otherwise than for the purpose of obtaining small-scale samplesI should like a definition of "small-scale". Dredging of the seabed can cause enormous damage of which we may not be aware. We know that the Antarctic seas are an important source of krill and shrimp and therefore the beginning of an important food chain. I am not sure that we understand the possible scientific impact of dredging along the seabed and disturbing it. The Minister may say that the Bill quite clearly deals with "obtaining small-scale samples", but I should like to know the definition of small-scale and how the operations will be defined and controlled.The Minister should consider amendment No. 14 very carefully. In Committee it was quite clear that there was no difference between the two sides of the House in terms of protecting the sensitive and unique ecology of the Antarctic. I see no reason why the Government cannot accept the amendment. Bearing in mind the fact that the Bill deals with companies under United Kingdom control, the amendment would limit activities for the purpose of investigation to those which did not damage the Antarctic environment. That puts the responsibility on the 99 companies or individuals who apply for a licence to prospect. The pressure would be on those individuals or companies to demonstrate successfully that their prospecting would not destroy or damage the environment.
There are further safeguards in later amendments, but amendment No. 14 goes to the root of the problem by putting the onus of the people who want to go to Antarctica. It will be up to them to demonstrate that they will cause no damage. I believe that that would be difficult, and that the Government will therefore oppose the amendment, but if we are truly serious about preserving the ecology of the Antarctic, we must accept the amendment and make it clear that people who wish to exploit it must bear the responsibility of demonstrating that whatever they do will not cause ecological damage.
§ Mr. Peter Griffiths (Portsmouth, North)I have listened with considerable interest to the arguments of Opposition Members in support of the amendments. Broadly speaking, I sympathise with the amendments, but there is a distinction between them and what Opposition Members have said about them. The amendments seek to make more certain the controls which are obviously necessary if scientific research continues and a process of prospecting is carried out under strict licensing, which surely must be better than a process carried out without those provisions.
In Committee, the Minister assured us that the Government accepted their responsibilities and would ensure that they would be exercised effectively by the commission. However, hon. Gentleman ought not to give the impression that there is something undesirable about scientific exploration of the Antarctic or of prospecting there. We have had years of statements that there is untold wealth in the Antarctic which could be exploited. As long as we are not sure that just what is there, where it is and what would be the difficulties of seeking to exploit it, we shall hear comments such as those reported to have been made by one political leader: "There is gold in the Antarctic and we want our share".
I do not know whether that is a fair interpretation of what that leader said, but it may represent the attitude of poor Third-world countries which find it much more difficult than relatively wealthy nations to take an objective view of preserving a wilderness and rejecting the opportunity for economic exploitation. If we are asking them to take an attitude similar to ours, we shall have to tell them that scientific exploration and careful prospecting is giving them the information that they require.
§ Mr. MorleyThere is a clear difference between scientific exploration and prospecting, which goes to the heart of the debate. Opposition Members do not object to scientific exploration, although there should be safeguards. The hon. Gentleman says that we need to know what is in Antarctica and that, until we know, there will always be pressure for exploration. There may be some truth in that, but surely the best way of finding out is through various scientific institutions and organisations rather than prospecting, which will be led mainly by multinational corporations which are in it for their own gain rather than for scientific knowledge or for the greater good of the entire community.
§ Mr. GriffithsI thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, and I do not disagree with him. Obviously, commercial prospecting is carried out with an eye to some future advantage. But that applies to prospecting whether or not it is licensed. Because there are human frailties and the desire to take advantage of whatever wealth there may be, and perhaps not all countries will take the same view as the Government have taken in the Bill, we need to write in safeguards. I suggest that Opposition Members, in addressing their amendments, should not talk about oil rig blow-outs as the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) did. Nothing in the Bill would permit an oil rig to drill for oil, or a blow-out. Such comments are unhelpful because they refer to something which the Bill would never permit.
§ Mr. Tony BanksI shall pick up a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) in his excellent speech. I always knew that my hon. Friend was a great supporter of green issues, but I did not realise that he was quite as green as he reveals himself to be. He was very green if he cheered the Prime Minister and believed what she said about her sudden conversion to environmental issues. In my opinion, the Prime Minister is about as environmentally friendly as bubonic plague.
§ Mr. HardyIn my own defence, I got off one platform and got on another, because my train arrived at King's Cross. I was there as a member of the council of the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, although I had no part whatsoever in the invitation that was extended to the right hon. Lady to address that gathering.
§ Mr. BanksI realise that my hon. Friend has far more good sense than to want to have the Prime Minister there.
§ Dame Elaine Kellett-BowmanWill the hon. Gentleman give way?
§ Mr. BanksI will give way to the hon. Lady. I always look forward to her highly constructive, intelligent and perceptive remarks.
§ Dame Elaine Kellett-BowmanThank you very much. I have in my possession a letter from my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister welcoming the formation of the Conservative Conservation Society, which was written in the middle 1970s. My right hon. Friend is by no means a new convert to this concept. As she is a scientist, she knows a great deal more about it than most hon. Members here today.
§ Mr. BanksI accept what the hon. Lady says. If the Prime Minister wants to support the Conservative Conservation Society, that is a good thing. Personally, I would be happy to see the Prime Minister stuffed, mounted, put in a glass case and left in a museum, and I look forward politically to that day. The Prime Minister's wandering into King's Cross station was in itself an event—not only because she was there for the anniversary of the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, but because that was the closest she has been to a British Rail train for a long time. She does not like travelling on trains and had not travelled on one since February 1987.
101 It merely goes to show that the Prime Minister is not the best source to quote when talking about the environment or the sincerity with which she holds views about the environment, in which we have suddenly found her so interested. Like many other Conservative Members, she realises that there are votes here. They are green if they believe that we are so green as to believe that the conversion of the Prime Minister or the Conservative party is genuine.
Through the Bill, the Conservative Government are once again supporting the interests of the great mineral developers and prospectors. That is what the Bill is all about. We shall come later to the philosophy behind the Bill, but I will point out now that the Minister is saying in effect that there will be exploitation of the Antarctic. Rather than trying to stop that happening, he says that we should try to regulate that exploitation. He says, "Let us have it exploited, but let us do it on our terms."
Amendment No. 14 seeks to probe how genuine the Government and the Minister are about protecting the Antarctic. If one looks at clause 2(2), one realises that the definitions of "prospecting activities" come from existing mining legislation in this country and not from definitions within the terms of the convention. That is why we are so worried and why we seek to limit the definitions and terminology in clause 2. We want to be certain that there will be genuine protection for the environment.
Amendment No. 14 is specific, referring to
activities for the purposes of further scientific investigation which do not cause damage to the Antarctic environment or dependent or associated ecosystems".That seems perfectly reasonable and I wait with great interest to hear what the Minister will say about the amendment if he is not prepared to accept it.So much evil is being done in the world at present under the guise of scientific investigation. One thinks, for example, of the Japanese, who, in the so-called interests of science and scientific whaling, are proposing to slaughter 300 minke whales to find out how large the minke whale population is. I can tell them straight away that it will be 300 less than when their ships started slaughtering the whales. What is happening there—
§ Mr. BanksWhat is happening there is precisely what will happen in the Antarctic in the name of scientific investigation. There will be commercial exploitation, or a movement towards it, precisely as the Japanese are doing now in whaling. I will say one thing for the Government and Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food: he is doing his best to prevent the Japanese from getting away with that blatant commercial exploitation of whales under the guise of scientific investigation. All we are saying is that we do not want the same to happen in the Antarctic.
8.45 pm
As my hon. Friend the Member of Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) said, field observations are acceptable within limits. However, geological, geochemical and geophysical investigations require far more tightening of definitions in the Bill. I am not a scientist or a geologist, but I know that, because the Bill is drafted so slackly and imprecisely, all sorts of activities may be carried out. I am assured that we shall vote against the Bill 102 on Third Reading, but if we are attempting to make the unacceptable remotely acceptable, the amendment must be carried.
Clause 2(2) says that prospecting does not include
drilling to depths exceeding 25 metres or such other depth as the Commission may determine for particular circumstances".What circumstances are meant? The Bill is imprecise. If somebody said that he wanted to go to a depth lower than 25 m, he would need only to ask the commission and the commission could determine that he could do precisely that.Clause 2(2) also excludes
dredging or excavation otherwise than for the purpose of obtaining small-scale samples.An enormous amount of damage can be done to the ecosystem by the use of dredgers to obtain small-scale samples. Clause 2 does not set a limit on the size of dredgers, the scale of dredging or the scale of excavation.Given what we have said earlier about the Prime Minister and her failure to match her actions to her words—one judges politicians not by what they say, but by what they do—we do not believe that the Prime Minister or the Government are genuine in their concern for the environment. We believe that they are paying lip service to the issue because they realise suddenly that it threatens their electoral position. Nothing concentrates the minds of politicians more that the thought of losing votes. We are not prepared to accept the Bill as it stands. We wish to tighten up the definitions in precisely the way that amendment No. 14 seeks to do.
§ Mr. CorbynAmendment No. 14 and several others go to the heart of the Bill. We are not talking about an end to all scientific exploration in the Antarctic, as the Minister and Conservative Members know. We are talking about an extension of those activities which will become part of prospecting activities and also about the damage to the environment already being done by a lack of control over many of the scientific experiments carried out in the Antarctic.
I have here an excellent report, produced by the Greenpeace Antarctic expedition of 1987–88, on the conditions that it found at each of the bases it visited in the Antarctic. I wish that amendment No. 14 had been in operation some years before, because the damage being caused by irresponsible expeditions, which leave behind fuel drums and rubbish, which incinerate waste instead of taking it home and which are not sufficiently monitored, calls into question the commitment of many of the signatory nations to the treaty to preserving the environment as it is, never mind to averting the dangers that will flow inextricably from allowing any prospecting and thus, at a further stage, exploration for minerals in the Antarctic.
§ Mr. Tony BanksI have here an article from The Observer of 9 July which bears the legend:
Rescue or rape for the last wilderness?It makes the precise point that my hon. Friend is making. It talks about Britain's abandoned base at Port Lockroy which had been broken into and from which coal had been stolen. It turned out that it was gentoo penguins which had stolen anthracite nuts to make their nests. The anthracite nuts did not hurt the gentoo penguins, but they might have taken something else that could have caused enormous damage to the penguin colony.
§ Mr. CorbynMy hon. Friend makes an important and valuable point. No nation comes out of the Greenpeace report very well. That report contains examples of dangerous scrap metal, food waste and glass being left behind. On occasions, there has been incineration and if a large amount of plastic is included, dioxins are given off and pollution occurs. There is also at least one example of sewage being pumped raw into the sea from a base. Even when the sewage is chemically treated before being pumped out, the danger to the environment is still serious.
Tragically, we are not dealing with an unpolluted place, but with a place that has already suffered some pollution and exploitation. We should cast our minds back into the history of European habitation of the Antarctic. In 1775, Captain Cook returned, having announced his discovery of the land mass of the Antarctic, as far as it was known then. By 1800—only 25 years later—17 ships were killing whales and seals in the Antarctic and had killed 122,000 seals. Only 22 years later, during the Weddell expedition to the Antarctic, 1.2 million seals had been killed, the fur seal population had become almost extinct, and the elephant seal population was damaged. The whaling industry then went in and carried out its carnage. The Antarctic has already suffered the most appalling carnage.
My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) mentioned penguins. He was perfectly right to do so because the sealing companies that went to the Antarctic to exploit the fur seal and the elephant seal used to boil penguins alive because they found them combustible. They destroyed those animals to provide themselves with oil. The carnage of wildlife in that period was appalling, and the carnage would continue today if the wildlife was still there to be exploited in such large numbers and if such activities were not controlled.
§ Mr. BanksI have just remembered a pathetic scene that I saw on television. Penguins were herded up a ramp and had to jump into a vat where they were being rendered down for oil. It was absolutely disgusting. The people who did that were the forerunner of the companies that the Bill would allow to run riot in the Antarctic. Having seen what was done in the past, and knowing what is done now, I am not prepared to let such companies into the Antarctic in the future.
§ Mr. CorbynMy hon. Friend is perfectly right. Considerable damage was done to the environment in that period. When the whaling industry did its damage to the environment, it was only international pressure—not Government action—and pressure from ordinary people, like the many hon. Members who are concerned about such matters, that in the end forced the International Whaling Commission to put a ban on whaling. My hon. Friends have already pointed out the corruption of that system by so-called "scientific whaling", which even today threatens certain species of whale.
I wish that the House were being televised now. Many people outside the House would be horrified that the House was about to agree a badly drafted Bill which will allow not only further exploration but prospecting for minerals in the Antarctic. I firmly believe that there can be only one reason for looking for various minerals and hydrocarbons in the Antarctic, and that is to exploit them at a later date for commercial purposes. We shall be saying that in one area of the world, which we know has a fragile ecosystem and an environment fraught with danger, 104 because we allow the exploitation of minerals, we are prepared to allow prospecting, with all its implicit dangers, to go ahead, too.
I hope that the Government will at least give us credit for tabling amendments seeking a proper environmental investigation before any further "scientific" explorations for minerals take place because I believe that the damage from such explorations will be enormous.
We are dealing with a dry continent and with a fragile place that has no human habitation on most of its land mass. My hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) said that ice remains there many thousands of years. A proper examination of that ice would allow us all to learn something about the history of this planet and from that, we could begin to look at some of the horrors of what we are doing to the planet. It is not a question of regarding every place on the planet as a potential place where the free market can let rip. We should look at the planet with a view to protecting it, because in so doing we are protecting our own lives and those of everybody and everything else.
The Bill is fundamentally and badly flawed. Although the Government say that they are concerned about protecting the environment, they are simply opening the way for its commercial exploitation. The Government continue to say that it is reasonable to allow people to look for minerals. In debates on later amendments and on Third Reading, we shall point out the fundamental change that the Bill would bring about.
The Antarctic treaty, which was willingly signed by a number of nations, went an awfully long way towards protecting the Antarctic. It made it a zone of peace. It stopped military overflying and the potential for nuclear testing. It stopped the area being used as a military base and allowed scientific exploration if the published results were circulated among all the signatory nations. That was an enormous step forward. However, I doubt whether all the information has been made available to all the signatory nations. Much of the scientific exploration there could rapidly become commercial exploration for minerals.
I am looking for an Antarctic protection Bill from the Government which would limit and control any signs of exploration, which would ensure that all the results were published and that the exploration did not relate merely to commercial purposes.
The crucial point of the amendment is that such information is supposed to be of a scientific nature. It is supposed to be published and circulated. There is supposed to be close co-operation between all the signatory nations. However, the Greenpeace survey of the Antarctic has suggested that that co-operation is not as close as it might be. The Bill simply allows those who have been granted a licence—from earlier debates, we know that they could be multinational companies or anybody—to maintain commercial secrecy about what they have discovered. Instead of the principle that the Antarctic should be a place of common heritage and common knowledge, it will become a place of commercial venture and commercial knowledge. Nobody can tell me that any oil company, mining company or anybody else will put in the money that is required for exploring the Antarctic for gold, coal, manganese or hydrocarbons, if they do not believe that they will ultimately be granted an exploration licence for the Antarctic.
105 I realise that some of my amendments have not been selected and therefore cannot be debated directly, but I hope that we can have a strict licensing regime with the genuine circulation and publication of all scientific and other information relating to the Antarctic. Above all, I should like a declaration such as the Australians have made, that we consider the Antarctic to be the common heritage of the whole world, not just a few nations or companies, and that it will be protected for ever.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth referred to what Sir Peter Scott said about these matters. He said that we should leave well alone and he is right. Any exploration in Antarctica will cause damage. Recently a ship carrying diesel fuel to a base in the Antarctic suffered a spillage. It was very difficult to find out what had happened. What would happen if there was a major accident involving an explosion, or spillage of chemicals—they are required in exploration work—or a seismic test explosion went wrong in a volcanic area? No one knows what would happen. Supplies could not be rushed in to deal with what might be an appalling catastrophe. Such an accident might be caused by the ignorance of Members of Parliament here, thousands of miles from Antarctica. It might be a result of our blind stupidity in allowing exploration to go ahead in the full knowledge of the great danger that that might pose to the continent.
I hope that the Government will be prepared to accept the amendment as part of an environmental protection regime for the Antarctic and as part of the turning point in our attitudes towards all wildernesses. We should learn what we can from Antarctica and see it for what it is. Similarly, we should learn what we can from the rain forests instead of chopping them down to supply a little hardwood to make garden seats. We should learn from Antarctica, and we might gain more than all the temporary wealth that might arise from exploring for gold, manganese, coal or oil.
This amendment goes to the heart of the Bill and I hope that the House will accept it.
§ 9 pm
§ Mr. CryerI want to refer to amendments Nos. 34 and 36, because the criticisms by the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Griffiths) were unfair. The amendment moved by my hon. Friend (Mr. Hardy) seeks to exercise supervision and jurisdiction over the Secretary of State. My hon. Friend demonstrated his great interest and expertise in this subject when he moved the amendment.
The Minister seeks to give the House assurances today, but he may not hold his office much longer because there is about to be a reshuffle and he may be pushed on somewhere else during the kaleidoscope of plotting in which the Prime Minister is currently engaged. She wants to keep herself surrounded by friends and supporters so that she is not stabbed in the back before the next general election and replaced by the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine).
§ Mr. SkinnerThat is a diplomatic illness.
§ Mr. CryerMy hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) describes that as a diplomatic illness, and it may arise as a result of the machinations in Cabinet. We cannot guarantee that the Under-Secretary of State for 106 Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs will still hold his office after the reshuffle, no matter how earnest and honest he considers his entreaties and assurances today.
Amendment No. 34 would add the words:
and especially if there is any risk of environmental damageto the end of clause 7. That qualifies the directions which the Secretary of State may give to persons or licensees. That qualification is sensible, especially if there is a risk of environmental damage.No doubt the Minister will cavil and object to some of the comments of Opposition Members to the effect that the Bill gives sufficient leeway for the multinationals to exploit the Antarctic which we want to keep as a wilderness. The Antarctic should be a preservation area so that the damage that has been wreaked by unchecked and uncontrolled multinationals elsewhere on our planet is not repeated in Antarctica.
§ Mr. SkinnerIt should be a multinational-free zone.
§ Mr. CryerMy hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover is quite right.
Amendment No. 34 adds that qualification and ensures that the Secretary of State has that attitude at the forefront of his mind when giving directions.
We must also consider the powerful multinational companies which have representatives in this place and down the Corridor. I was once a member of a Cabinet sub-committee which dealt with the mining of manganese nodules. There was much concern about obtaining important minerals and there was a north-south dialogue in which the deprived countries claimed that the minerals should be shared more equally among the nations on our planet.
§ Mr. SkinnerIs this a Cabinet secret?
§ Mr. CryerIt may well be.
During our discussions, a Member of the House of Lords who died several years ago said, "I saw Peter in the Corridor and Peter said to me, 'We are anxious about the decision over the mining of manganese nodules because we are uncertain about our investments'." The Peter concerned was Peter Carrington, who was chairman of Rio Tinto-Zinc. There was a direct input into the Cabinet sub-committee, but that was rejected by the other sub-committee members. None the less, there are influences at work in the corridors of power. We want to make sure that the Secretary of State is bound by legislation that he cannot edge round because people are getting hold of his elbow in the corridors of power and saying, "Look here, old boy, what about allowing a bit of excavation and exploration? It will be only preliminary, of course." Those people are ready to seize mineral rights and plunder them for profit, because that is the main motivation of the multinationals.
Clause 8(1) would allow the Secretary of State to
appoint as inspectors to discharge such functions as may be prescribedpeople who appear to him to be appropriately qualified for the purpose. Amendment No. 36 says:'among whom shall be individuals nominated by either or both national or international organisations which have standing in the field of environmental protection.'.That ensures that the Secretary of State's absolute position under the legislation is qualified. Surely that is not unreasonable. The Minister may say that this is United Kingdom legislation and ask whether it is reasonable for 107 a Government to be subject to nominations by national or international organisations, but they are already subject to that sort of thing in a variety of ways.No doubt the Minister is a supporter of the European Economic Community and the Government have to accept nominations from the EEC. They make nominations to the EEC and the present Commissioner, the former Member for Richmond, Yorks, Sir Leon Brittan, was nominated by the Prime Minister as a reward for services rendered. It is not uncommon for nominations to be made by other bodies to this country and by this country to other bodies. There is nothing extraordinary in saying that the Government should have to appoint among the inspectors and advisers people of standing in the world of environmental protection. The Government should not merely accept that—they should welcome it because it will ensure that whatever the view of the Minister, who may well be in favour of the clause—
§ Mr. SkinnerHere today and gone tomorrow.
§ Mr. CryerAs my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover says, the Minister may be here today and gone tomorrow. The amendment would provide some certainty for the future and would realise the purpose of my hon. Friends by ensuring environmental protection.
§ Mr. HardyMy hon. Friend may like to refer to other examples. We are not suggesting that people should come here from abroad, command enormous salaries and immediately become captains of large sections of British industry. The powers to do that exist. The Government appointed an American citizen to head coal and steel and Canadian citizens have been appointed to head other great national industries. By now some of them may be helping to run the National Health Service. We are talking not about that sort of example, but about the precedents have been well established by the present Administration.
§ Mr. CryerI am grateful to my hon. Friend. There is the important qualification that these persons must be nominated by national or international organisations with standing in the world of environmental protection. That will bind the Secretary of State so that he will have to have that sort of nomination in mind and make those appointments. It will ensure that there cannot be any back-door dealing, with the multinationals putting suitable people forward. That is the Government's record. They have been ruthless in appointing placemen and women to virtually every body in the country. They kicked out of the National Health Service people who were of any independent sort of mind and, of course, they booted out immediately anybody with a Labour pedigree and appointed their own hacks.
I have strong suspicions that when the advisory group is appointed it will contain the representatives of capital and the multinationals so that they can edge round the restrictions in the legislation.
§ Mr. SkinnerThe Sultan of Brunei could make nominations.
§ Mr. CryerI am receiving some helpful suggestions from my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover, who will bear with me when I say that the sad record of the Government is of appointing lickspittle sycophants to positions of importance, whereas they should be appointing people of independence. Anyone who shows any independence of mind is kicked out and replaced by some wooden-headed, blank-faced, blank-minded, incompetent sycophant, whose strings can then be pulled. One example is the management of British Rail, who have created the present conflict because of the determination of the Government.
§ Mr. Tony BanksThe same applies to the Cabinet.
§ Mr. CryerThe Cabinet's record of complete subservience to the Prime Minister and its lack of any sign of independent thought makes it even more important that amendment No. 36 should be carried. [Interruption.] I hope that the hon. Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman), who as usual is trying to break the democratic rules of Parliament with continual disgraceful shouts and disdainful sneers from a sedentary position, will reconsider her antagonism and decide to vote for the amendment.
I support all the amendments, but amendments Nos. 34 and 36 suit me especially because they are modest, conformist improvements to the legislation. I suspect that the Minister will be determined to oppose them, but I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) will have at least one token vote on this set of amendments, because they are important. We too often complain about the actions of Ministers, but Ministers are given power by this legislative body. We should qualify and contain that power if we are concerned about this issue.
§ Mr. CorbynI am sure that it was a slip of the tongue by my hon. Friend, but many Opposition Members strongly and seriously oppose what the Bill is doing to a vital area of the world. There will be no token votes—they will be serious votes in favour of a scheme to protect the Antarctic rather than to pave the way for its commercial exploitation.
§ Mr. CryerMy hon. Friend makes a good point, but he has misunderstood what I said earlier. I was not saying that it was a token vote in the sense of a vote being a token—I meant that we would probably not vote on every amendment. The amendment on which we vote will encapsulate all the amendments, including the ones on which we do not vote. Our vote will represent a token of support for all the amendments, even though we choose to vote only on, for instance, amendment No. 14. If my hon. Friends so desire, I shall be happy to vote on all the amendments. We shall have to see how things work out.
If, however, the Minister is reasonable and he says that he will accept the amendments, obviously a vote will not be necessary. There will not then be any accusations about the Government being an elective dictatorship and bringing in the rather seedy collection of estate agents and merchant bankers who constitute the Conservative majority here today to wend their way through the Lobby and trample on every decent amendment. My guess, however, is that they will do just that. We intend to ensure that all the amendments are treated with the seriousness 109 they deserve, and we shall attempt to ensure that they qualify and control the Secretary of State's future activities.
§ Mr. James Wallace (Orkney and Shetland)The hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) said that amendment No. 14 was a probing one to test the Government's real intention with regard to the Bill. Having listened to the analysis of amendment No. 36 given by the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer), I could say the same of that amendment.
Amendment No. 36 should commend itself to the Government, although the Opposition parties would prefer no such Bill to be before the House. I cannot see anything wrong with amendment No. 36 as it would ensure that there was some confidence in the inspectors and observers to be appointed. The notes on manpower in the Bill show that the observers and inspectors will not be appointed for some years and are likely to be appointed
on an ad hoc basisIf the Bill reaches the statute book, those inspectors and observers will have an important job to do, and if their work met with international approval, their hands would be greatly strengthened.9.15 pm
The Government have had a problem trying to sell the Bill because no Opposition Member believes that it will end at prospecting—that is the first step. One does not have boreholes at Sellafield or Dounreay unless, ultimately, one hopes to dispose of nuclear waste in them. Companies will have to invest considerable sums of money if they want to undertake any operation in Antarctica. Do the Government genuinely believe that they will be content to invest all that money purely for the purpose of prospecting? What activities does the Minister expect to be undertaken in Antarctica? Surely he accepts that companies would be unwilling to stop if they found that mineral wealth in the region could be exploited later.
It is easy to say that the Bill is just about prospecting, but prospecting involves considerable engineering work. The hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) has spoken of the report that has already been compiled on existing installations and operations in Antarctica. Those installations do not live up to the highest standards of cleanliness, tidiness and environmental integrity. If we are to embark on further major engineering operations, albeit prospecting operations, that involve fuel and mud it is clear that further damage could be done to the environment.
The Minister should recognise that prospecting itself could lead to environmental harm. For that reason, I believe that amendment No. 14, moved by the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson), is important, as it restricts such prospecting to "further scientific investigation" coupled with the requirement that it does
not cause damage to the Antarctic environment or dependent or associated ecosystems.That amendment focuses the concern that has been expressed by many Opposition Members. The Minister must give a convincing reply.Amendment No. 23 deals with insurance. The loss and damage that should be covered must relate to environmental damage, not to the usual economic loss that is often associated with insurance claims. I hope that the Minister will take this opportunity to say what the Government have in mind for the conditions to be 110 attached to licences with respect to insurance. I note that clause 3(5) suggests that any requirement on the licensee will be discretionary. Do the Government intend to have a stipulation on insurance? Under clause 3(5)(b) the licensee must insure himself
to such extent as may be determined … under the licence".What do the Government have in mind regarding the extent of that insurance? The wording is rather vague. The Bill almost gives the Government a blank cheque to do what they like. It is important to know the Government's intentions.If we are talking about insurance, we are presupposing the possibility of some damage. For that reason, my party firmly believes that there should be no opportunity for such damage to take place and that is why we reject the drift of the Bill. We should be interested, however, to hear the Minister's detailed response to some of the points that I have made.
§ Mr. EggarWe have had a long and interesting discussion on this group of amendments. I shall start by referring back to the purpose of the Bill which, for the first time, regulates prospecting activity by United Kingdom nationals and entities. In addition, for the first time, it excludes exploration and development by such companies. There has been, particularly from hon. Members without the good fortune to have served on the Committee, confusion between prospecting, which the Bill covers" and exploration and development, which it explicitly excludes.
I shall, if it is convenient for the House, go through the various points made by hon. Members. I can tell the hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy), who is not in his place at the moment, that I shall certainly deal with the Government's response to the letters of Sir Peter Scott and Greenpeace. It may be more convenient for the House and more orderly if I do so on the next group of amendments.
The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) asked about the experience in Spitzbergen. It is true that there has been some mining in Spitzbergen for a number of decades. However, it was not prospecting, but development as defined under the terms of the covention. That development work has had some limited environmental impact but certainly has not caused the damage to the ecosystem to which the hon. Gentleman referred in his brief intervention.
The hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) asked a number of detailed questions. I shall try to deal with them now, and if the hon. Gentleman would like further clarification in writing, I shall be happy to give that. He asked about the size of any prospecting team. Size will be a key factor which the Secretary of State will have to take into account when he decides whether to give a licence.
The hon. Gentleman also asked about what he defined as seismic exploration. I am informed that, in practice nowadays, seismic exploration rarely uses explosives. The most frequently used technique is known as an air gun which is, effectively, a sound wave echo analysis. It may be of interest to the hon. Gentleman that explosives have already been used for scientific research under the Antarctic treaty system. I hope that I have been able to set his mind at rest. I assure the hon. Gentleman that no samples will be permitted which would be commercially valuable in themselves, so that method could not be used as a route to development through the back door. The 111 precise definiton of "small-scale", which was the hon. Gentleman's point, will be decided during the process of issuing a licence. The hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) raised the problem associated with existing scientific research and the despoliation of the environment which followed from that. He raised the issue of sewage. He should put this in perspective. He should imagine the sewage output of a colony of 100,000 gentoo penguins and compare that with the sewage ouput of, for example, a scientific research station of 10 individuals. He would then see that the two are relative and that a problem associated with sewage from the local inhabitants already exists—if one can describe penguins as inhabitants. It is true that the environmental effect of the issue of nutrients—if we can refer to penguin and human sewage in that way—is exactly the same. That is part of the regenerative cycle in Antarctica.
§ Mr. CorbynIt is not a fair analogy to describe what 12 scientists in a cabin might be eating and excreting and to compare it with 100,000 penguins' diet, which consists exclusively of fish. Fish becomes part of a natural cycle, but humans eat a variety of foods. Pollution levels in rivers and seas around this country show that there is a serious problem. Some of that sewage is partly treated; some of it does not degrade or decompose; some of it lies around in still water for a long time.
A small number of humans and all the rubbish that they produce can cause a great deal more damage—[Interruption.] I am not sure whether everyone is listening to this important point. The Minister should address his mind to the problems of large volumes of rubbish and of the incineration of plastics which pollute the air. His point was rather silly.
§ Mr. EggarI had no idea that the hon. Gentleman was so sensitive. I was just trying to put his remarks into context. He made his other points in Committee too, where I took considerable trouble to try to answer them. I assure him that we shall raise a number of them in the October meeting. They are not covered by Bill: they are covered under the terms of the Antarctic treaty.
The hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) discussed the definition of prospecting. That definition comes from article 1, paragraph 8, of the convention. It does not come from United Kingdom legislation. The purpose of the definition of prospecting in the Bill is to ensure that no entity in Antarctica will be able to licence any activity which will have any more effect on the environment than the sort of scientific research that is already going on and is covered by the Antarctic treaty.
The hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) referred to Opposition amendment No. 14. Perhaps it would help him if I explained why that amendment gives us some difficulty. The definition of prospecting in the Bill already reflects the definition in the convention. Scientific research within the meaning of the Antarctic treaty is expressly excluded by the convention. Defining prospecting activities in terms of scientific investigations, as his amendment does, would be incompatible with the convention and would cause serious confusion between 112 scientific investigation carried out under the Antarctic treaty and prospecting activity carried out under the convention.
The qualification that the amendment would introduce, relating to damage to the Antarctic environment, is unnecessary. The avoidance of such damage in relation to all Antarctic mineral activity is the purpose of the convention, article 4 of which provides in detail for assessing possible environmental impact. Clause 3(3) requires that the Secretary of State does not issue licences other than in accordance with the international obligations of the United Kingdom.
Similar points may be made about amendment No. 23, although the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) spoke specifically about insurance. It is highly likely that any licensee would insure himself against liability for environmental damage, and it is also likely that any licence would include a condition requiring him to insure. I hope that that answers the hon. Gentleman's point.
The hon. Member for Wentworth spoke to amendment No. 34. There will be an international obligation on this country under articles 2 and 4 of the convention to avoid the risk of environmental damage in Antarctica. The whole purpose of the Bill is to ratify the convention, so the amendment is not necessary.
§ Mr. DalyellIf, for one reason or another, the convention is not ratified, what do the Government estimate will be the ecological damage to Antarctica, given the circumstances that would then prevail?
§ Mr. EggarPotentially, it is extremely serious. At present no prospecting is being carried out because of a voluntary moratorium, pending the timely entry into force of the convention. If it becomes clear that the convention will not come into force, it will be only a matter of time before one country or another agrees to prospecting being carried out in an unregulated way. The consequences for the environment in Antarctica would be extremely serious. That is why the convention is so desirable and why we are moving rapidly to ratify it.
§ Ms. PrimaroloWill the Minister give way?
§ Mr. EggarWith respect, I am trying to deal with the points that have been made.
The hon. Member for Wentworth asked how the inspectors would be appointed. The Secretary of State and the Government are responsible for the appointment of inspectors. As the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland said, we intend to appoint inspectors in an ad hoc way. Clearly, the skills and experience required will vary depending on the type of prospecting activity to be inspected. The Secretary of State will take into account the skills that are necessary. I imagine that the qualifications or experience of environmental protection referred to in the amendment will be called for.
The hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) also expressed some anxiety about that point. If hon. Gentlemen are unhappy about the appointments that may be made by the Secretary of State, I remind them that any other party is entitled to appoint people to inspect prospecting activity that is licensed by the Government. If that does not satisfy them, the Commission that is set up under the convention can also appoint inspectors. There is 113 a three-tier system of appointment and even with the most vivid imagination no one could believe that all the inspectors would be flawed and would fail to take account of environmental protection.
With those remarks I hope that the hon. Member for Swansea, East will withdraw the amendment.
§ Mr. CryerOn a point of order, Mr. Speaker. We are considering a group of amendments and I understand that you will call at least the first one for a Division. Will the Division on amendment No. 36 be recorded in Hansard at the end of the debate, which would be convenient, or when it is put to the vote?
§ Mr. SpeakerIf there is a Division it will be taken when the amendment is put to the vote. I have just taken the Chair and I am considering whether that action is appropriate.
§ Mr. Corbynrose—
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. This is a Report stage, not a Committee. The hon. Member can speak only once.
§ Mr. CorbynWith the leave of the House—
§ Mr. SpeakerThe hon. Member does not have the leave of the House.
§ Mr. CorbynOn a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
§ Mr. SpeakerWhat is the point of order?
§ Mr. CorbynIt is simply this. The Minister did not answer the points put to him reasonably and legitimately, so I sought the leave of the House to find out more from him. The Minister gave way at one point when I asked about inspectors, and I wished to reply to what he said.
§ Mr. SpeakerIf the House does not give the hon. Gentleman leave to speak again, I am afraid that I cannot give it to him.
§ Question put, That the amendment be made:—
§ The House divided: Ayes 73, Noes 194.
115| Division No. 300] | [9.34 pm |
| AYES | |
| Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE) | Haynes, Frank |
| Beggs, Roy | Heffer, Eric S. |
| Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n & R'dish) | Hinchliffe, David |
| Brown, Gordon (D'mline E) | Home Robertson, John |
| Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E) | Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath) |
| Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon) | Howells, Geraint |
| Buckley, George J. | Illsley, Eric |
| Callaghan, Jim | Janner, Greville |
| Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE) | Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside) |
| Carlile, Alex (Mont'g) | Kennedy, Charles |
| Clelland, David | Livingstone, Ken |
| Cohen, Harry | Livsey, Richard |
| Cryer, Bob | Lofthouse, Geoffrey |
| Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l) | Loyden, Eddie |
| Dewar, Donald | McFall, John |
| Dixon, Don | McKay, Allen (Barnsley West) |
| Duffy, A. E. P. | Maclennan, Robert |
| Dunnachie, Jimmy | McWilliam, John |
| Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth | Madden, Max |
| Eadie, Alexander | Mallon, Seamus |
| Fisher, Mark | Maxton, John |
| Flynn, Paul | Meale, Alan |
| Fyfe, Maria | Michael, Alun |
| Golding, Mrs Llin | Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley) |
| Gordon, Mildred | Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute) |
| Graham, Thomas | Molyneaux, Rt Hon James |
| Hardy, Peter | Morley, Elliott |
| Mowlam, Marjorie | Spearing, Nigel |
| Mullin, Chris | Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck) |
| Nellist, Dave | Vaz, Keith |
| Parry, Robert | Wallace, James |
| Pike, Peter L. | Walley, Joan |
| Prescott, John | Wise, Mrs Audrey |
| Primarolo, Dawn | Young, David (Bolton SE) |
| Redmond, Martin | |
| Richardson, Jo | Tellers for the Ayes: |
| Skinner, Dennis | Mr. Tony Banks and |
| Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam) | Mr. Jeremy Corbyn. |
| Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S) |
| NOES | |
| Alison, Rt Hon Michael | Gow, Ian |
| Allason, Rupert | Greenway, Harry (Ealing N) |
| Amess, David | Greenway, John (Ryedale) |
| Amos, Alan | Gregory, Conal |
| Arbuthnot, James | Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N) |
| Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham) | Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn |
| Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove) | Hague, William |
| Ashby, David | Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom) |
| Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley) | Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr') |
| Batiste, Spencer | Harris, David |
| Beaumont-Dark, Anthony | Hawkins, Christopher |
| Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke) | Hayes, Jerry |
| Benyon, W. | Heathcoat-Amory, David |
| Bevan, David Gilroy | Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd) |
| Blackburn, Dr John G. | Hunt, David (Wirral W) |
| Boscawen, Hon Robert | Irvine, Michael |
| Boswell, Tim | Irving, Charles |
| Bottomley, Peter | Jackson, Robert |
| Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich) | Jessel, Toby |
| Bowis, John | Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey |
| Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard | Key, Robert |
| Brandon-Bravo, Martin | Kilfedder, James |
| Brazier, Julian | King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield) |
| Bright, Graham | Knapman, Roger |
| Brown, Michael (Brigg & Cl't's) | Knight, Greg (Derby North) |
| Budgen, Nicholas | Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston) |
| Burns, Simon | Knowles, Michael |
| Butcher, John | Latham, Michael |
| Butterfill, John | Lawrence, Ivan |
| Carrington, Matthew | Lee, John (Pendle) |
| Carttiss, Michael | Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh) |
| Cash, William | Lightbown, David |
| Channon, Rt Hon Paul | Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant) |
| Chapman, Sydney | Lloyd, Peter (Fareham) |
| Chope, Christopher | Lord, Michael |
| Churchill, Mr | Lyell, Sir Nicholas |
| Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe) | Macfarlane, Sir Neil |
| Coombs, Simon (Swindon) | Maclean, David |
| Cope, Rt Hon John | McLoughlin, Patrick |
| Couchman, James | McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael |
| Cran, James | Malins, Humfrey |
| Currie, Mrs Edwina | Mans, Keith |
| Davies, Q. (Stamf'd & Spald'g) | Maples, John |
| Davis, David (Boothferry) | Marshall, John (Hendon S) |
| Day, Stephen | Marshall, Michael (Arundel) |
| Devlin, Tim | Martin, David (Portsmouth S) |
| Dover, Den | Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin |
| Durant, Tony | Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick |
| Eggar, Tim | Miller, Sir Hal |
| Evennett, David | Mills, Iain |
| Fallon, Michael | Miscampbell, Norman |
| Favell, Tony | Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling) |
| Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey | Mitchell, Sir David |
| Fishburn, John Dudley | Monro, Sir Hector |
| Fookes, Dame Janet | Montgomery, Sir Fergus |
| Fowler, Rt Hon Norman | Morrison, Sir Charles |
| Fox, Sir Marcus | Moss, Malcolm |
| Franks, Cecil | Nelson, Anthony |
| Freeman, Roger | Nicholls, Patrick |
| French, Douglas | Nicholson, David (Taunton) |
| Gale, Roger | Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley |
| Gill, Christopher | Oppenheim, Phillip |
| Glyn, Dr Alan | Page, Richard |
| Goodhart, Sir Philip | Paice, James |
| Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles | Porter, Barry (Wirral S) |
| Gorman, Mrs Teresa | Porter, David (Waveney) |
| Portillo, Michael | Taylor, Ian (Esher) |
| Powell, William (Corby) | Taylor, John M (Solihull) |
| Price, Sir David | Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman |
| Raffan, Keith | Thompson, D. (Calder Valley) |
| Raison, Rt Hon Timothy | Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N) |
| Redwood, John | Thornton, Malcolm |
| Rhodes James, Robert | Thurnham, Peter |
| Riddick, Graham | Townend, John (Bridlington) |
| Roe, Mrs Marion | Trotter, Neville |
| Rost, Peter | Twinn, Dr Ian |
| Rowe, Andrew | Viggers, Peter |
| Sackville, Hon Tom | Waddington, Rt Hon David |
| Sayeed, Jonathan | Wakeham, Rt Hon John |
| Shaw, David (Dover) | Waller, Gary |
| Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb') | Walters, Sir Dennis |
| Shelton, Sir William | Ward, John |
| Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW) | Wardle, Charles (Bexhill) |
| Shepherd, Colin (Hereford) | Warren, Kenneth |
| Shersby, Michael | Watts, John |
| Skeet, Sir Trevor | Wells, Bowen |
| Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield) | Wheeler, John |
| Speed, Keith | Widdecombe, Ann |
| Spicer, Michael (S Worcs) | Wiggin, Jerry |
| Stanbrook, Ivor | Wilshire, David |
| Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John | Winterton, Mrs Ann |
| Stern, Michael | Winterton, Nicholas |
| Stevens, Lewis | Wood, Timothy |
| Stewart, Allan (Eastwood) | Woodcock, Dr. Mike |
| Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N) | Yeo, Tim |
| Stokes, Sir John | |
| Stradling Thomas, Sir John | Tellers for the Noes: |
| Sumberg, David | Mr. Alan Howarth and |
| Summerson, Hugo | Mr. Kenneth Carlisle. |
§ Question accordingly negatived.