Antarctica (Hansard, 16 January 1991)

§ 1. Mr. McMaster
To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he has had any discussions with the Government of Australia on Antarctica.

7. Mr. John P. Smith
To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he plans any discussions with the Australian Government on Antarctica.

§ The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones)
We have had no formal discussions with the Government of Australia on Antarctica since 30 October 1990 and there are no plans at present for such discussions. Officials from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and from other Departments informally discussed our respective Antarctica policies with their Australian counterparts in the margins of the recent 1 1 th special consultative meeting of Antarctica treaty parties in Vina del Mar, Chile.

§ Mr. McMaster
Is the Minister aware that the Australian Foreign Minister is fast losing patience with the British Government's refusal to agree to a mining ban? Will he think again, talk to the Australian Government, and support their plans to stop exploitation of Antarctica's minerals?

§ Mr. Garel-Jones
With respect to the hon. Gentleman, that is not an accurate reflection of the case. At the Vina del Mar meeting, only eight countries supported the Australian-New Zealand position in support of a total ban, whereas 18 did not. The British Government's policy is to deal first with the immediate threats to the environment and at the same time to seek a consensus among the treaty parties on a way to deal with the minerals issue.

Mr. John P. Smith
The Minister and the House will be aware of the link between research in Antarctica and the excellent work of the National Environmental Research Council based in Barry Dock in my constituency. Are we 834 to assume that in the same way as the Government decided to close that centre of excellence, they intend to oppose a mining ban in Antarctica and to continue to allow the dishonourable situation in which Japan will be allowed to undermine any future compromise, such as a moratorium?

§ Mr. Garel-Jones
The reverse is true. As I pointed out to the hon. Member for Paisley, South (Mr. McMaster), the majority of the parties to the treaty do not support a total ban and the British Government's objective is to find a compromise that will enable that issue to be dealt with at the same time as we confront the more immediate threats to the environment.

§ Mr. Colvin
Is Australia party to the Antarctic treaty? I understood that under that system the consensus decisions reached over the past 30 years have led to Antarctica becoming the most environmentally protected continent in the world.

§ Mr. Garel-Jones
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Australia is party to the treaty and my hon. Friend is also right to suggest that one reason why the Government are so anxious to preserve the consensus basis of the treaty is that, as a result of it, Antarctica, which is already designated a special conservation area, is probably the most protected continent on earth. We intend to underscore that and to introduce even stronger environmental protection.

§ Mr. Summerson
Does my hon. Friend agree that if the minerals convention is not ratified, that will put at risk the entire Antarctic treaty system? If that happens, the whole continent will be open to exploitation by all the countries of the world.

§ Mr. Garel-Jones
We know of no company in Britain or anywhere else in the world that has any intention to explore for minerals or hydrocarbons in Antarctica. My hon. Friend is right to the extent that the convention on the regulation of Antarctic mineral resource activities, which was orignally agreed by consensus by all the parties to the treaty, is unlikely to be ratified because two of the claimant countries—Australia and France—have declined to do so. We therefore consider it a priority to find a compromise that will allow the minerals issue, even though it does not pose a current threat, to be dealt with at the same time as the more immediate threat to Antarctica's environment.

§ Mr. Foulkes
Does the Minister recall that at the previous Question Time he said that if no consensus existed round CRAMRA now he would take the lead in trying to find another consensus? Will he see Senator Gareth Evans, the Australian Foreign Minister, when he is in the United Kingdom next week and talk to him about this matter? As the American delegation leader in Chile said that the minerals convention is now dead, will the British Government come to terms with that and, at Madrid in April, join the growing clamour to close the door on all mineral and oil prospecting in what is nature's last unspoilt wilderness?

§ Mr. Garel-Jones
First, Antarctica can rightly claim to be an unspoilt wilderness because of the consensus that has existed among Antarctic treaty parties for the past 30 years. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will be seeing the Australian senator when he comes to the United Kingdom and I should certainly be prepared to do so if 835 asked. However, I stress again to the hon. Gentleman that the United Kingdom suggested the protocol, which involves protection against tourism, waste disposal, marine pollution and species and habitat protection—all moves to protect the threat that we know exists to Antarctica. Britain led the way by saying that by the time we agree on those matters in Bonn later this year we expect the minerals issue to be decided. As the hon. Gentleman suggests, and as I pointed out in a letter to him on 19 December, we are working to find a bridge between the two opposing views among Antarctic treaty parties.

§ Mr. Dunn
Has any British company—or indeed any company—expressed an interest in exploring for minerals and hydrocarbons in Antarctica?

§ Mr. Garel-Jones
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that question. He has written to me on a number of occasions and has taken a close interest in the matter. The most important thing that we have to understand is that there is a range of threats to the environment in Antarctica and those threats are being dealt with on the basis of a British protocol. We have also set down a timetable to ensure that by the time we meet in Bonn a compromise is found to deal with the minerals issue. As my hon. Friend underlined, we know of no company, either in Britain or anywhere else, that has any plans at this moment to explore for minerals in Antarctica.