Lords Sitting of 2 July 1969

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR On the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Blackburn.

HALFPENNIES AND MILK PRICES
LORD WAKEFIELD OF KENDAL: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are satisfied that the banks have available for issue the necessary number of halfpennies so long as the Ministry of Food Prices Order requires halfpennies to be included in the maximum price of milk.]
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, the banks ceased to issue halfpennies at the end of June. This was announced on April 1 so that retailers thus affected could make the necessary arrangements.
LORD WAKEFIELD OF KENDAL: My Lords, while thanking the noble Baroness for that disappointing reply, may I ask whether she could please say how the public are going to manage if halfpennies are not available? Because as she will see included in the Question, it is a fact that the Ministry of Food Prices Order requires halfpennies to be included in the maximum price of milk. How will people manage if there are no halfpennies about?
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, I am sure the noble Lord will appreciate that the halfpenny will not completely disappear in this short period. I had the pleasure of hearing the discussion of some of the noble Lord's colleagues at the Dairymen's Conference, and I seem to recall that they were talking about the collection of money by the roundsmen once a week. I gathered that they were not always paid once a week, so the question of the halfpenny would not come into it. Therefore it really does not affect
554
such a large number of customers as perhaps has been thought.
LORD WAKEFIELD OF KENDAL: My Lords, would not the noble Baroness agree that it is maladministration to seek to withdraw currency while that currency is statutorily required to be still in use?
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, my right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food was concerned that any increases should not take place earlier than was absolutely essential. His concern, of course, is for the customer.
LORD WAKEFIELD OF KENDAL: My Lords, could the noble Baroness give an assurance that half-crowns and sixpences will not be withdrawn prematurely in the same way that these halfpennies have been?
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, the halfpenny is not being withdrawn prematurely. The retailers were given due warning to have the halfpennies ready. After all, the period is only a little over three weeks.
LORD FRASER or LONSDALE: My Lords, would not the best plan be to put up the price of milk by one halfpenny and give it to the farmers?
LORD BLYTON: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that, inasmuch as the halfpenny is going to be abolished people who sell goods have put the halfpenny on the price, to make it level, rather than reduced it by a halfpenny?
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, I should hope that that practice will not take place in any large number of stores. As your Lordships will remember, we expressed in this House the opinion that retailers would not do this. I am happy to tell my noble friend that I have heard of some people who are selling cigarettes (though perhaps one should not suggest that everybody should buy these) at a halfpenny less.
LORD BLYTON: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the brewers, the Conservative's friends, have put a halfpenny on beer?
LORD KILBRACKEN: My Lords, would it not be better to reduce the price

555
by a halfpenny and give it to the housewife?
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, that is not for me to say. But no doubt when my right honourable friend considers the prices, all these points are taken into account. This, I would say, is what my right honourable friend had in mind in not increasing the price, or suggesting an increase, too soon.
BARONESS HORSBRUGH: My Lords, would not the noble Baroness agree that, if there is a halfpenny extra charge, whether you pay by the day or by the week, which happens to be seven days, it will still involve the odd halfpenny?
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, by sheer mathematical calculation, it depends upon how many pints you buy.

SEA-BED NATURE RESERVES
2.48 p.m.
LORD WAKEFIELD OF KENDAL: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what steps are being taken to create nature reserves on suitable parts of the sea-bed.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE, FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (LORD CHALFONT): None, my Lords. Sub-littoral conservation is a complex problem involving scientific, legal and practical considerations. The Natural Environment Research Council, advised by its Nature Conservancy and Oceanography and Fisheries Committees, has the matter under active consideration. The noble Lord will know that I hope to deal with this matter in its broader aspects when I reply to an Unstarred Question later to-day.
LORD WAKEFIELD OF KENDAL: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for that disappointing reply, may I ask whether he is aware that other maritime countries have created nature reserves on their littoral? Does he not think it highly desirable that in this industrialised country, where our littoral
556
is used so extensively, there should be preserved nature reserves where most valuable research and other work of that kind could go forward in a way that is impossible now? The Government are really dragging their heels quite unnecessarily in this matter.
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, I shall hope to demonstrate to the noble Lord, in the course of the debate this afternoon (and perhaps I may take this opportunity to correct an unfortunate slip that I made, because, of course, we are debating this afternoon not an Unstarred Question but a Motion), that the Government are not dragging their feet on this question. I have said that the matter is under consideration, and we shall certainly take note of what the noble Lord has said.
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER: My Lords, when the noble Lord comes to reply to the Motion later to-day, could he perhaps make it a little more clear what is meant by nature reserves on beds? This is not perfectly clear to all of us.

PLANNING OF MOTORWAY ROUTES
2.43 p.m.
LORD INGLEWOOD: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what advice has been given to their agents or consulting engineers, when planning the line of new motorways, either to follow alongside the line of existing railways, where feasible, so avoiding the severance of farm land, or to prefer a line at some distance from an existing railway line.]
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR SCOTLAND (LORD HUGHES): My Lords, no specific advice is given regarding the selection of the line of new motorways in relation to that of railways, but general advice is given that severance of agricultural land shall be minimised. Liaison procedures have also been established with the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to ensure that at an early stage of route planning the agricultural implications are fully taken into

557
account. In Scotland there is similar cooperation between the Development and Agricultural Departments.
LORD INGLEWOOD: My Lords, in thanking the noble Lord for that reply, may I ask whether he would agree that in many cases it would be a great saving in agricultural land if the line of the new road or motorway followed close to an existing railway line, instead of just a short distance away, so severing a very large number of fields, and causing great damage to a large number of farms? We do see examples of that.
LORD HUGHES: Yes, my Lords; but we have to take into account what is the purpose of having a motorway. In planning motorways it is essential to provide an alignment which will reduce driving monotony to a minimum. This is best achieved by avoiding long straights, and by fitting the road to the landscape, which factors are only exceptionally compatible with existing railway routing. Having regard to the fact that fatigue can be a very great factor in road accidents, it would be a mistake in the creation of these new motorways to plan them in such a way that we intensify the risk of accidents rather than minimise them.
LORD LINDGREN: My Lords, while congratulating my noble friend on his last answer, may I ask whether he would not agree that the civil engineering problems of road construction are totally different from those of railway construction? Rail construction took place in the 1840s and 1850s, and we are now dealing with roads in the 1960s.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I find it difficult to disagree with any of those remarks.
LORD INGLEWOOD: My Lords, while I find it difficult to disagree with what the noble Lord has said in reply to my last question, would he not find it difficult to disagree with me that while it is a great advantage to be able to move about, and have better communications, it is even more vital for this country to have enough to eat?
LORD HUGHES: Yes, my Lords, but we have to remember that we must take all of these things into account. As my
558
noble friend has said, a line chosen for a railway may in many cases be totally unsuitable for a motorway.
LORD GISBOROUGH: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that certain planning committees are allowing individual houses to be built on old railway lines, and that one house completely wrecks the whole line for future use as a road? Is the noble Lord satisfied with this procedure?
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I am not so aware; I doubt whether this is the case in Scotland, but it could be.

ST. JAMES'S PARK FOUNTAINS
2.46 p.m.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government why the fountains on the lake in St. James's Park are not working.]
BARONESS LLEWELYN-DAVIES OF HASTOE: My Lords, half of the cascade at the Buckingham Palace end of the lake in St. James's Park is temporarily out of action while repairs are being carried out to the pump. Otherwise the fountains have been working for the usual period each day. Arrangements have now been made for the times of operation to be altered and the hours extended for the rest of the summer.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that very helpful Answer. May I make two points with regard to that?
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: No.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: My Lords, may I ask the noble Baroness whether she is aware of two cogent reasons for keeping the fountains going as continuously as possible: first, for the benefit of amenity in hot weather; and, secondly. that unless the fountains are kept working the water will not be oxygenated sufficiently in hot weather to keep the fish life alive in a stationary pool of water of that kind, which would be greatly to the detriment of everybody.
BARONESS LLEWELYN-DAVIES OF HASTOE: My Lords, I am indeed aware of the problem of oxygenation of water for the fish, and this is a large part of the reason why we have the fountains. The second reason is, of course, decorative. I regret that I did not hear the first part of the noble Lord's question.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that she has answered my two questions?

BUSINESS
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, at a convenient moment after half-past three my noble friend the Leader of the House will be making a Statement on the Five-Power Conference held recently in Canberra.
ESSEX RIVER AND SOUTH ESSEX WATER BILL
Read 2a, and committed to a Select Committee.
WORCESTERSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL BILL [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

PUBLICATION OF PROCEEDINGS IN PARLIAMENT
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (LORD SHACKLETON): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the Lord Donovan be appointed a member of the Joint Committee on the Publication of Proceedings in Parliament in place of the Lord Pearce.—(Lord Shackleton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

MARINE SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
2.49 p.m.
LORD WILBERFORCE LORD WILBERFORCE rose to call attention to the Report on Marine Science and Technology (Cmnd. 3992) and to the need to establish an international régime for the exploration and exploitation of the resources of the sea-
560
bed and for the protection of the marine environment; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am sure your Lordships are fully aware of the fact that I owe the privilege of initiating this debate purely to the happenstance of my geographical location in this House, and not to any expertise in marine science and technology. I am happy to see from the list of speakers that I shall be followed by noble Lords who can speak on these subjects with much greater authority than I can, and I am particularly grateful that the debate is to be replied to in due course by the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, and also by the noble Lord the Leader of the House.
Among the various subjects we discuss here, it did not seem inappropriate to have a debate on the sea because, whatever roles our detractors may say we have lost in the world, or whatever roles we really have lost, I do not believe it can be denied that we are and must remain essentially a maritime nation. The sea is in our blood. Contact with it brings out the best in us in peace and in war—perhaps also in debate—and for that reason this subject seemed not inappropriate. That is well brought out in the preface to the Report, Cmnd. 3992, which has been written by the right honourable gentleman the Lord President of the Council; and I feel sure your Lordships would like to recognise the value of that preface and the value of the modestly anonymous work of the Working Party, which is the body of the Report. We are indeed greatly indebted to. Sir Solly Zuckerman and his colleagues for having put together in so succinct and intelligible a way the facts about the various aspects of scientific research and scientific work which enable us to express an opinion as to the value of that work and whether it ought to be extended or carried further.
Of course, the subject is a large one. Apart from the fact that the sea covers about 75 per cent. of the surface of our globe, the whole subject of the sea involves a great range of functional variety. Think of what the sea is. It is a means of transport and communication, a common highway. It is a great fishing reserve. It is an area in which military or defence activity may be carried out in peace as well as in war. It is a receptacle, probably the world's largest potential receptacle, for waste. It is a mine both as regards the sea-bed and the subsoil of

561
the sea-bed and as regards the waters above the sea-bed. It is an area, probably the largest area, for scientific research. It is a vast biological environment of fauna and flora. So obviously we cannot deal, even in one debate, still less can one speaker deal, with all the aspects of this matter; and I shall be leaving many of those topics entirely aside.
There are broadly two in which I have a special interest and on which I shall be speaking. First, as an international lawyer I have an interest in the developments now taking place towards the establishment of a régime—by which I mean a legal régime—which will govern activities on or under the sea-bed. Secondly, as an individual I share, I am sure with all your Lordships and with a very great number of people in this country, a concern for the preservation of the environment, which in this context means the marine environment, against disturbance and contamination. Of course, this subject has to do with pollution; it includes pollution but is a wider subject than pollution.
Passing to a régime for the sea-bed, I would say that it is of course nothing new that immense resources exist there in the bed and under it. That intrepid navigator Captain Nemo said just about a hundred years ago, in 1870, this:
"There exist at the bottom of the sea mines of zinc, iron, silver and gold the working of which would most certainly be practicable."
Your Lordships may remember that the Nautilus ran on electricity, not on oil, and the possibility of extracting oil had not at that time been thought of. But it is true to say that in the last ten years Jules Verne's imagination has really begun to be transformed into reality, not only in connection with lunar flight, as one knows very well, but in connection with exploring the sea. There has developed, and is developing, an astonishing new technology about which noble Lords will have read in the Report and of which visible evidence could have been seen, and I think was seen, by many of those here in the Exhibition which took place at Brighton recently. That enables us now to measure quantitatively, for the first time, some of the resources which can be got.
Other speakers later will be raising the question which arises directly out of the
562
Report: whether we in this country, having opted out of the space race, are spending enough money and using enough men on the development of this new technology. I am not directly entering into that subject, except formally to raise the question whether we are doing so, in order that the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, may be able to reply on it. I am simply assuming what I should think to be an incontestable fact, that ocean technology will continue, with us or without us—I hope with us—to develop at an increasing speed. The point I want to make, the main and really the only point, is that this increasing speed of technical development requires to be matched by the development of rules of law.
A landmark (if the metaphor is not inappropriate) in the political and legal world was the speech in November, 1967, to the United Nations of the Maltese Ambassador, Dr. Pardo, since which nothing can be the same in this subject again. In a three and a half hour oration he painted a picture of vast, unexplored, but exploitable, resources of food and minerals available on a scale which would put an end to world poverty and starvation; which, if correctly exploited by the use of licence fees, would transform the United Nations from a near-bankrupt institution to one whose financial problems would be over and which would have ample funds for beneficent activities of all sorts. And—this is the really climatic part of his speech—he established the claim to equal participation in these riches for all nations alike, rich and poor, coastal and landlocked, technically developed and technically undeveloped. From that there is no going back, and I do not think we should want there to be. It is no longer practical politics to permit the sea and its resources to be pre-empted by the super-Powers, by the rich nations, by the coastal States or any section of the international community. I think that our Government fully understand this and are trying to get others to understand it, too.
So far as the pure economics are concerned, the exuberant thoughts of the Pardo speech have to some extent now given way to more sober realities. It has been realised that there is not a vast marine Eldorado waiting to be collected to-morrow. The realities of the situation

563
have been examined and reported on by the United Nations, ad hoc Committee on the uses of the sea-bed, and I venture to commend this report to your Lordships, especially to any who might think of the United Nations and its organs as either a political "talking shop" or a collection of starry-eyed visionaries. It is in fact a remarkably businesslike, practical document and an essential preliminary to any international understanding. In fact, it has superseded a good deal of what is in the Report, Cmnd. 3992, which, though issued in April, 1969, from internal evidence seems to have been completed considerably earlier.
This United Nations document brings out, if I may summarise it very crudely and briefly, that at the present time and in the short-term foreseeable future—and it is speaking only of the deep sea and not of the Continental Shelf and not of territorial waters—as regards the deep sea the only extraction which can be regarded as an economic proposition is that of hydrocarbons; and that even as regards hydrocarbons the alternative resources and reserves currently available to the world are so great that, regarded globally, the contribution from the sea can be considered as only marginal. In addition, it is only obtainable at a price which is four times greater than normal terrestrial exploitation.
I said "regarded globally", because one must recognise that individual countries with no cheap resources or reserves of their own, may be willing, in spite of the cost differential, for security reasons, commercial reasons or prestige reasons, to exploit sea-bed oil which advanced countries such as the United States of America or ourselves would not think worth while. Apart from hydrocarbons and oil, the only other visible resource of which one can speak in practical terms consists of the manganese nodules, which I think by now are familiar to the intelligent public, which can be made by beneficiation to yield nickel and copper.
My Lords, those are the broad findings which I believe are soundly based, but we must beware of drawing the wrong conclusions from them. It may be that Ambassador Pardo's speech when delivered was excessively enthusiastic, but We must not now rush into an excess of
564
scepticism or do nothing, and I believe that view is shared by Her Majesty's Government.
I venture to submit that there is a case for pressing on now with the construction of a sea-bed régime, and that case can be rested on four points. First, there is the exponential increase in technology in this field, which just about doubles every nine years. Even at the present time, leases for the mining of phosphorite deposits have been granted at depths exceeding 1,000 metres, 50 miles from the coast. Secondly, there is the prospect of a decade of ocean development. This has been proposed by the United States and in principle accepted by the United Nations Committee; and obviously if it gets under way in the 1970s it will accelerate discovery and correspondingly stimulate appetites. After all, one has only to think how little time ago it was that Alaska was regarded as a waste land covered by ice and snow—and look where we are now!
Thirdly, my Lords, it must surely be right to try to set up a régime at a time of relative peace and quietude. If every day the United States, Russia, Germany, France, Australia and ourselves were discovering valuable areas under the sea, the prospect of getting any sort of order and any regulated self-denial would not be a very cheerful one. One can imagine the vested interests. One knows how easy it is to obstruct this national action; one knows how long and slow is the process of getting agreement, even where there is not any particular obstructive desire. We ought now, surely, to prevent the repetition in the sea of the great African grabs of the 19th century, before it happens and not after.
Fourthly—and this is perhaps the most important point—the discussion of these problems in the United Nations has shown a great and widespread desire to reach agreement now. The ad hoc Committee, to whose Report I referred a little time ago, has now become a Standing Committee and such a degree of agreement has been reached on basic principles that the possibility of actually advising and agreeing upon a régime at the next Assembly of the United Nations is a very real one. I believe that the time is now—now, or in the next few months, or at least in the next year or

565
two. I believe that Her Majesty's Government share this view in general and I hope that they will be encouraged to persist in it.
I have studied with great interest the contributions made by the United Kingdom representatives to the discussions of the United Nations' ad hoc Committee on the Sea-Bed. I hope I may be allowed to say that I find those quite admirable, well-briefed, practical and progressive. In this subject the United Kingdom has really taken the lead, as it should do, and it has found its ideas gaining very wide support. So far as I am concerned, this is certainly not a debate of criticism; it is one of encouragement to the Government to maintain an existing initiative and one in which perhaps we can hope to make a few practical suggestions to carry the work further.
What point have we actually reached at the present time? I should like noble Lords to realise how much has already been achieved and how much common ground there is; and I state this under three headings. First, there is the general background of international law as it applies to the use of the sea. It is quite a mistake—and I am quite sure my noble and learned friend Lord McNair will agree with this—to regard the situation as one of a legal vacuum or one of anarchy. In this respect the sea is quite different from outer space or the celestial bodies. There are general laws and rules as to the freedom of the seas—freedom of access, freedom of navigation, plus a great variety of conventional arrangements as regards fishing, conservation and pollution. As regards resources, I think one can say that the law is that anybody can take what he finds—findings are keepings—but that nobody can acquire an exclusive right over any area of the sea-bed. This is important, since it means that nobody can rely on security of tenure sufficient to justify the huge capital expenditure involved in extracting these resources. So the existing law works against capital investment, and conversely any addition to the law will aid capital investment. The position then is that the law exists but is incomplete and there is a clear need to strengthen it.
Secondly, we have the developed law of the Continental Shelf. I am not enter-
566
ing into this in any detail but it is part of the background. This started, as your Lordships know, from the Truman Declaration in 1945 and it is largely as laid down in the Geneva Convention of 1958, which gives exclusive rights of exploitation of the sea-bed and subsoil—not property, of course—to the coastal State. Those of your Lordships who wish to meditate upon the Continental Shelf during the rest of my remarks will find a most interesting plan at the end of the Command Paper which shows the technical division between the Continental Shelf, the Continental Slope, the Continental Rise and the deep sea-bed. The 1958 Convention has not been universally adopted: there are a number of important States outside it. In itself it is not free of difficulty of interpretation, but this year the International Court of Justice, in its judgment in the case involving Germany, Denmark and Holland, has recently made a most important contribution, which I like to think was largely inspired by the British judge, towards enlarging the law on this subject.
It is said—if I can summarise a long judgment very shortly—that the general law about the Continental Shelf as stated in the 1958 Convention is in line with general customary international law, so it does apply all over the world, and. it has re-stated the nature, the legal and geographical nature, of the Continental Shelf in terms of the prolongation or continuity of the land in a new and intelligible way. The point of that—and I need not go into the legal technicalities any further—is to show that the question of limits as between the Continental Shelf, which nations can exploit, and the deep sea, which at the moment is unregulated, difficult thought it may appear, need not and ought not to hold up progress. To support that I may quote one perhaps typical statement which was made in one of the United Nations discussions. The representative of Thailand said, on March 26:
"The formulation of principles should not be delayed by the search for a precise delimitation of the area concerned".
I am sure that is right.
Thirdly, there is wide agreement that there is an area of the sea-bed and ocean floor and the subsoil underlying the high seas which lies beyond the limits of national jurisdiction; that no State may

567
claim or exercise sovereignty over this area or appropriate it by use or occupation, and that there should be agreed as soon as practicable an international régime governing the exploration and exploitation of the resources of this area. This is agreed and it represents an established common basis. The question now is where do we go from there? What is the régime that we want? What sort of régime stands a reasonable chance of getting acceptance in the international world, and what sort of régime will actually work?
I venture to offer one or two suggestions. I am afraid that to make them brief they must sound a little dogmatic, but I think I can say that they broadly represent a good deal of expert legal thinking in this country. I believe that the United Kingdom can best use its influence, which is undoubted, by advocating a régime which is practical, not too ambitious to start with, and which can be geared to actual practical measures that can now be taken with some prospect of success. Thus I personally would not be in favour of any complete internationalisation of the sea-bed. I do not think it would work. I do not think that any body of men could be found to make it work, and I do not believe that any such system would gain acceptance. It seems clear that we must start by accepting nation States as the operational units. No doubt the actual work of exploring and exploiting will be done by large international commercial groups or consortia, but these should get access to the resources through States by whom and by whose law they can be controlled. In this way, on the one hand the less powerful States, those with less resources, would be given an opportunity of participation, since they, either individually or in groups, would be able to employ the big companies and through them to do the work; and on the other side the big companies themselves would get what is vitally important to them: security of tenure over a period sufficient to recover the heavy costs of exploration.
Then I would suggest that there ought to be provided an internationally administered licensing system, administered under some organ of the United Nations, to which States would apply for permission to explore and exploit particular areas. This is the job that international
568
officials can do; they cannot own, but they can supervise. And there is a good precedent for this which has proved very workable in practice in the I.T.U., which allocates radio frequencies for which States apply and which decides between conflicting claims. These are very much more limited in range and far more the subject of possibly conflicting claims than any application for working the sea-bed is likely to be. The areas granted by this authority should, as I see it, be limited according to conditions, according to a formula laid down in the treaty, both in area and in time. There should be no question of creating territorial rights in any area, but only areas of temporary rights, such as Australia gives in relation to areas of its coasts. The authority would be given as little discretion as possible so as to avoid international arguing about it. As to the allocation, there should be a formula, possibly a grid system, according to which requests are granted or refused.
I have not time to offer detailed alternatives, but there are many expert bodies working out possible models. Perhaps I may mention two with which I have a personal connection. There is the Parliamentary Group for World Government, which has a committee under the chairmanship of Mr. Maurice Bathurst, Q.C., which is working actively on this subject; and the International Law Association has an international committee presided over by Professor Johnson, of London University. From these and other sources I am sure that Her Majesty's Government will get material from which to choose.
Then the licensing authority—and this is what I meant when I spoke of gearing it to immediate practical tasks—ought to be given extensive powers of inspection and control. It should receive and register particulars of work done and research carried out and be able to ensure that the operating States do nothing which threatens the safety of navigation, which pollutes the sea, or which disturbs the environment—for example, by heating or by seismic action. The need for some strong safeguard of this kind is well underlined by the report of the Economic and Technical Sub-Committee of the United Nations Committee, which says:
"The potential ill-effects of mineral exploitation in waters beyond the limits of national jurisdiction are little understood at

569
this stage and will require both further study and caution in undertaking exploitation."
I would regard this part of the régime as important in itself, and separately important as part of a process of strengthening what would otherwise be a rather weak international body. Because if and so far as it successfully deals with these practical matters and gets the confidence of the international community, its authority can spill over and extend into wider spheres. It is only perhaps here that I would venture to have a little criticism of the United Kingdom position. As I have read the report, our spokesman said at one stage that this régime
"should take into account the need for conservation of the resources of the sea-bed and the need to limit pollution arising from their exploitation."
I think that that language, though it may not fully reflect the thought, is a little too weak. One should do more than "take into account" conservation; there must be machinery for securing it. And the need to limit pollution requires stronger words.
Finally, one word, which really is only one word, on the defence aspect. I cannot pursue this subject in detail because of time and because I am not qualified to do so, but I have studied with some care the reports of the Eighteen-Nation Disarmament Committee at Geneva and it looks as if there is a possibility of agreement on such matters as listening devices, the placing of nuclear submarines and so on, on which I know Her Majesty's Government is working hard.
When I put down this Motion I had intended to say something, in fact a good deal, about environment generally and about pollution, but I have had to limit my remarks on those two subjects, and I do so to two very summary points. First, on the environment—and on this matter I am relating what I say to the Report (Cmnd. 3992)—I believe there is coming to be, certainly in this country, a wide recognition of the value of preservation of the environment as a value in itself, not one dependent merely on economic considerations or even on human interests such as food supply (though of course it is always helpful in practice to be able to appeal to utilitarian motives as well) but as something for which we, the human race, are responsible. This, I think, was well recognised in the debate which we had in this House a little time
570
ago on the Antarctic Treaty and the Bill bringing it into effect.
It is in this respect that the Report, I would suggest (and I should not think that there is much disagreement about it) needs to be supplemented. It is a scientists' document, concerned with the co-ordination of scientific activities. In paragraph 143 it suggests, no doubt wisely, the setting up of a new advisory committee on marine technology, which would be a scientists' body, to identify, as they say, economically promising projects. One wants to ask, where does environment come in here? It is, I am afraid, a common pattern: technology first, economics second, environment and amenity nowhere. The same is true in Annex B, which deals with international aspects of marine science—it starts at page 43—and which, confining itself to science, suggests four fields, (a), (b), (c) and (d) for joint effort. The preservation of the marine environment is given a passing nod on page 46 under subparagraph (e), where it is said that I.M.C.O., the Intergovernmental Marine Consultative Organisation, provides a forum for the discussion of regulatory aspects of navigation and pollution.
I would venture to say that that is not good enough. In this field more than discussion is needed, and indeed I.M.C.O. provides it. It is much more than a forum for discussion, as the Government well know, because they give good support to I.M.C.O. What we need in this field of the preservation of environmental values is a legal framework and an agency of enforcement.
As regards a legal framework, the lawyers have really, for once, "done their stuff". They have done their thinking, they have produced results, and they are well ahead, if not of official thinking, at any rate of official action. I would give as an example the excellent document about the law of environment, produced by the David Davies Institute, which contains most practical and concrete suggestions. I have already made my point as regards an enforcement agency. There are plenty of bodies working—the Report brings that out well enough as regards the United Kingdom—all too many of them; and I have a document in which two pages of foolscap do nothing but list the acronyme, as I think they are called, of international

571
bodies interested in pollution. Give me one that can act!
Secondly and lastly, on the specific subject of oil pollution, since this Motion was put down this matter has been discussed in another place in a three-hour debate on June 16, and I have no doubt that other noble Lords will be dealing with it. All I want to say is that there are a number of draft international Conventions on the stocks as to which, after the "Torrey Canyon", Her Majesty's Government have taken an initiative, and which are due to be considered later this year. I should welcome, and I expect that other noble Lords would welcome, any indication which Her Majesty's Government may give of their attitude with regard to these Conventions. There is no doubt that the public are greatly concerned about the whole subject of pollution. They are anxious to see that effective action is taken internationally, and they are anxious to know that official policy with regard to it is adequately tough.
It is time that the curtain raiser withdrew and left the scene for the main actors. I am grateful for the opportunity of introducing this subject, and I formally beg to move my Motion for Papers.
3.25 p.m.
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, I make no apology for saying that I think this is a fascinating and extremely important subject for debate, and I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce, for having put down this Motion to-day. I think that your Lordships will, like myself, have recognised from his speech the many qualities that have earned the noble Lord such distinction as an international lawyer, and the fact that I say this does not arise entirely from his kindly remarks about the performance of Her Majesty's Government in this field. He has been constructive his analysis has been penetrating, and where he has felt that criticism is necessary he has been critical. We welcome this, and I am sure that all your Lordships will welcome the opportunity of debating a question that is important now and, I think, will become even more important in the years to come, As Chairman of the Executive Council of the International Law Association Lord Wilberforce is particularly well
572
placed to speak on this matter with authority, and it is with authority that he has spoken.
We have, both in your Lordships' House and in another place, had all too few occasions for looking at these problems of the sea-bed in a broad and comprehensive way. We have, it is true, because of certain events that have taken place, had occasion to consider at some length the question of pollution, and we have looked at certain other specific aspects of the sea-bed. But I think I am right in saying that this House has not recently been able to take a broad view of the subject as a whole, and of its significance for this country. I believe that your Lordships will agree with me that the noble Lord, Lord Wilberforce, has covered most of the obvious and most of the important aspects that bear upon this problem. In my immediate reply to the noble Lord I propose, with his leave and with the indulgence of the House, to concentrate on the aspects of the problem which he has raised which have a particularly international flavour. My noble friend the Leader of the House, who has a wide, personal experience of this whole problem, intends to intervene in the later stages of the debate, and he tells me that he will deal with the more specific scientific and technical aspects of the whole subject of marine science and technology. So I shall concentrate on the international aspects as I think, in my position, is right and proper.
My Lords, I start from the proposition that this country's fundamental interests, for as far ahead as we can see, will depend, as the noble Lord has said, on the wise use and conservation of the resources of the sea and of the sea-bed. What has been called our "moat defensible" is no longer confined to the English Channel, and we cannot concern ourselves only with the surface of the seas, as we have done in the past with some honour. To-day, what happens under the sea, anywhere in the world, can also directly affect the people of these Islands. The bottom of the sea is vital to our defence interests, for example, and to those of the Alliance to which we belong, particularly in the important context of defending ourselves against potential submarine threats.
On another level, the sea-bed's potential resources, as our finds of North

573
Sea gas have recently reminded us, are vital to our economic future. The Continental Shelf, to which the noble Lord made frequent reference, already yields 17 per cent.—a very considerable proportion—of the world's proved oil production; and marine technology, as the noble Lord said, is advancing so rapidly (as he said, it has an exponential curve) that in two or three years time it may be technically possible to exploit on a commercial basis oil and gas at depths of more than 200 metres; that is to say, well beyond the confines of the Continental Shelf. So there is a clear and obvious British interest in promoting the well-balanced development of our marine science and technology.
The sea-bed is one of those "new frontier" subjects where we still have a very great deal to learn. There has been an explosion of international interest in the subject during the past year or so. But we are all—scientists, industrialists, lawyers and Governments—confronted by a whole spectrum of new facts and ideas. by much which is unknown but which I think we can already recognise as one of the most exciting areas yet to be developed for the benefit of mankind. I think it is not too much or too exaggerated to say that the world under the sea offers us, if we are prepared to recognise it, a new dimension for the future of mankind.
I believe, as I have said, that the protection of what the noble Lord, Lord Wilberforce, called the "total marine environment"—and that means, as he has pointed out, more than just the seas around our own shores—is a fundamental British interest, whether we look at this problem purely nationally, within a European or a Commonwealth context, or even in a wider framework, the framework of the gulf that exists, and is growing, between the industrial and the developing societies of the world. Even now there is a need for more food in the world, and this need will become more acute, and may become crucial, as populations inevitably exhaust the food resources of the dry land. This is no new concept, but I think it is worth underlining.
Then there is, as the noble Lord has said, the problem of pollution. If what I have said about the potential resources of the sea is true then we need to keep the
574
sea—and our coastline—clean; we need to preserve and expand our fisheries; we need to ensure that the oceans and the ocean floor are not polluted through man's shortsightedness. We must recognise that the ocean depths are something more than just a dumping ground. But to protect the sea-bed—if we want to protect it—means (and the noble Lord, Lord Wilberforce, has made this very clear) extending effective methods of international co-operation; and this demands, as he has rightly said, that we have to formulate internationally accepted rules.
It is very much in Britain's interest to try to bring this about, and we are very well placed to do so. As the noble Lord said (perhaps I should ask for the indulgence of your Lordships in referring so often to his opening speech, it covered the subject so cogently and so comprehensively that I find I shall have to refer to it time and again in my reply), we are a maritime nation; the high seas will always be our business, and I think we can claim that we are taking a full and active part in this effort. We have always, after all, been ready to play our full part in countering any physical threat to the freedom of the high seas. On another level we have over the centuries played a leading part in charting the high seas, and to-day the Hydrographer of the Royal Navy is recognised internationally as the leading charting authority in the world.
Not only this: succesive British Governments, of whatever complexion, have sought to uphold the principle of the rule of law at sea, and this is a principle that has served us well. When it is generally observed, we all know where we are. Successful international transactions of any kind—the whole exercise of future policy—depend upon acceptance of this concept, and so, I think it not too much to say, does the peace of the world.
For all these reasons it is a basic objective of the policy of Her Majesty's Government to support efforts to achieve international agreement on arrangements by which the sea-bed beyond the limits of national jurisdiction can be preserved for man's peaceful use. Over the years, I think I can claim, we have played a prominent part in the development of the law of the sea and of international law relating to, for example (and the

575
noble Lord mentioned this) outer space and Antarctica. So it is consistent with our traditions and, more expediently, with the assessment of our interests that the United Kingdom should play a leading part in the search for what the noble Lord has called "an international régime" (a phrase that is now current in international debate) covering all aspects of the sea-bed.
Perhaps here I should emphasise that serious international thinking about these matters is in itself a very recent development. Many countries have only just begun to accept and to realise the importance of this subject, and they have only just begun to form their views about it; so the importance of debates at the United Nations and elsewhere is obvious. I think that, as the noble Lord, Lord Wilberforce, has mentioned it at some length, it is enough if I recall to your Lordships that it was in December, 1967, following the important initiative of Malta, to which he made reference, that the General Assembly established a committee of 35 States to study the peaceful use of the sea-bed beyond the limits of national jurisdiction.
When the committee met, in August of last year, in Rio de Janeiro the United Kingdom, acting on behalf of the Western European group and a number of other countries, presented a set of principles for the peaceful uses of the sea-bed. At the United Nations General Assembly last autumn, the Foreign Secretary, in his main speech, called for progress on the sea-bed discussions because, as he then said:
"… in ten years' time the question of the use of the sea-bed may have grown to be one of the major questions affecting either human prosperity or human security."
I think it would be difficult to put the matter in a higher and more important context than that.
Within the past few months the whole pace of this international debate about the sea-bed has quickened still further. The United Kingdom proposed the inclusion of the sea-bed item on the agenda of the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference in January. At the United Nations Sea-Bed Committee meeting in March, it was the United Kingdom that began to develop a comprehensive philosophy about an international régime,
576
especially as regards the exploitation and exploration of the sea-bed. Now, as the noble Lord pointed out, very briefly, towards the end of his speech, the question of arms control on the sea-bed has emerged as one of the main subjects under discussion at the Eighteen-Nation Disarmament Committee at Geneva. I think it fair to say that the United Kingdom has played a full and a leading part in the work that has already been done in clarifying the issues involved, and I shall hope to demonstrate this briefly in what I have to say in the next few minutes.
On this question of arms control we look forward very much to contributing to the efforts that the E.N.D.C. will make when it reconvenes on July 3—to-morrow. The United Nations Sea-Bed Committee is due to hold a further meeting in New York in August, and there too it will be our aim to make further progress in defining the principles that will form the basis of a sea-bed régime. I have reminded your Lordships of this calendar of international debate, which may on the face of it seem rather routine, because I believe that it shows, first of all, how international interest has suddenly developed. I should like also to suggest that it demonstrates the way in which this country has been among the leaders of opinion in the development of international thinking on sea-bed questions. So far from dragging our feet on this question, as some people are pleased to suggest, I think it right to claim that we have taken the lead. Our aim is to continue to do so, and to bring a constructive influence to bear on international opinion.
There are, in my view—and this is clearly a view shared by the noble Lord, Lord Wilberforce—three main areas on which we should concentrate. The first is what is called exploration and exploitation; that is to say, the finding of, and the using of in the best way possible, the natural resources of the sea and the seabed. Secondly, there is the question of arms control and its linked problems of defence and security. Thirdly, there is the problem of pollution. I should like, first, to say a few words about the sort of international régime which the Government would like to see governing this question of exploring and exploiting the resources of the sea-bed. Obviously, the

577
first step, as in any problem of this kind, is to reach some kind of international agreement on the principles which we should have to apply to any such régime.
At the meeting at Rio of the United Nations Sea-Bed Committee, about which I talked a few moments ago, a number of African, Asian and Latin American delegations tabled a set of principles which were very ambitious, but which seemed to us to ignore the crucial question of a precise boundary for the sea-bed beyond the limits of national jurisdiction. On the other hand, we put forward a set of principles, which we think were more modest—as the noble Lord indicated he thought they should be—but which we hope are much more likely to command a consensus at the United Nations General Assembly.
An agreement on the principles that we put forward would, we think, be a significant advance. Once they were adopted, the next stage would be to work out at the United Nations the specific criteria which the régime should meet. Obviously, part of the sea-bed lies beyond the limits of national jurisdiction. I do not think anybody will disagree with that as an opening proposition. So we favour the establishment, as quickly as possible, of an international régime which would govern the peaceful exploration and exploitation of that area—that is to say, the area which lies beyond national jurisdiction, whatever it may be.
What criteria, then, would this régime need to satisfy if it were to promote international co-operation in exploiting the resources of the sea-bed for the benefit of mankind? It must, of course, be international. We have put forward our own ideas at the United Nations, and we think it would need to offer a balance of advantage to all States, including the land-locked States; those States which have no coastline of their own. We believe it should take into special consideration the interests and needs of the developing countries. We believe that it must provide a firm and continuing basis not only for exploring and exploiting the resources of the sea-bed, but also for scientific research. So it must be both effective—that goes without saying—and impartial.
578
But at the same time—and this may seem in some ways to be in conflict with its being effective and impartial—it should involve as few restrictions as possible, because otherwise it might hinder, rather than foster, development. We believe that it should take into account the need for conserving and protecting the resources of the sea and of the seabed; the need to limit pollution arising from their exploitation; and, of course, in all this—and this, perhaps, simply underlines the complication of these problems—the need, at the same time, to avoid any interference with the freedom of navigation on the high seas. Finally—and this is a point to which the noble Lord made reference—one of the aims of the régime must be to limit international conflicts, so it must have effective provision for the settlement of disputes.
These, then, are the kinds of criteria that we should like to see adopted, but if we are to be realistic about this, and if, for example, we are to judge by our experience of the Continental Shelf negotiations, the process will take some years. We cannot expect any of this to be settled overnight, but we want to get on with it as quickly as we possibly can, and I hope that we shall be able to make some progress at the United Nations in August. The next step after establishing, these principles—and this will entail a long period of patient international negotiation and consultation—will be to establish this régime, and to establish it firmly and juridically by means of an international agreement or a series of international agreements.
As I hinted a moment ago, a very important and enormously complex question is what area this international régime is to cover. I have already said that, under international law as it now exists, there is an area of the sea-bed beyond national jurisdiction. But it would be foolish to pretend that anybody has yet arrived at any agreement about where that limit lies, or even about where it should lie. We do not yet have enough knowledge to define that limit precisely by means of lines drawn on charts; and, indeed, I have to say that Her Majesty's Government have not yet made up their minds on this question. Like other members of the United Nations, we are considering the merits and disadvantages of

579
the various possibilities and discussing them internationally. We have to balance all the considerations—legal, as the noble Lord has very carefully pointed out; commercial, which I think would probably find approval among noble Lords opposite, as well as among noble Lords behind me; and military—and "balance" is, I believe, the correct word here. We must bear in mind, as in all international affairs, what is reasonable and what is negotiable.
Let us remember that we ourselves have a very substantial Continental margin, which not all States have, and whatever limits we finally agree to must be seen to be fair. We are very conscious of the concept, which the noble Lord put forward this afternoon, of the Continental Shelf as a geological or geomorphological—which is perhaps the more accurate term—continuation of the land mass. As the International Court of Justice said in its recent North Sea case, to which the noble Lord referred, the jurisdiction of the coastal State exists by virtue of its sovereignty over the land mass, for the very reason that the Continental Shelf is a natural prolongation of its land territory into and under the sea.
We have taken very careful note of these factors, but in balancing them all I have to say that we are not yet really ready to come down firmly in favour of any specific proposal. One reason for this—and this is, I think, an important argument—is that we believe there is a very strong link between the position of this limit, and the nature of any international régime which may be established outside that limit. Responsible Governments can hardly be expected to decide upon what is acceptable in a régime until they know what area that régime is likely to cover. It is for this reason that our representatives in the United Nations have urged that Organisation to begin now to focus urgently on the principles of an international régime. As soon as they have reached some kind of success on that, we can then go forward and make progress on the two problems together, because we believe them to be inextricably linked.
Many kinds of international régime can of course be envisaged, and we are expecting soon to receive from the Secret-
580
ary General of the United Nations a paper on possible forms of international machinery. There will of course be all kinds of ideas about such problems as how to apportion any revenues raised by licences or royalties, but I should like to make it clear that, like the noble Lord, Lord Wilberforce, Her Majesty's Government do not believe that the difficult and dangerous task of exploiting the deep-sea bed is likely to produce any quick or easy profit. We should like to see the benefits of sea-bed exploitation used, for example, for financing marine scientific research projects, such as the programme of the Inter-Governmental Oceanographic Commission; and for financing items like the food-from-the-sea programmes, because, as I have said before, we believe that in all this the interests and the needs of the developing countries must be a special concern. This is the kind of idea that we mean to discuss in New York.
What is clear to us is that a free-for-all, a "carve-up" of the sea-bed—or what the noble Lord called "a marine Eldorado"—would not be to anybody's advantage. The cost of exploring and exploiting the sea-bed at great depths is very high, and any kind of free-for-all would hardly be likely to encourage rational development of the sea-bed resources. It would be utterly in contradiction to this objective of intelligently developing these resources that any State, super-State or otherwise, should claim exclusive sovereignty or jurisdiction over areas of the sea-bed beyond their agreed national limits. Nor, in my view, could such an idea be reconciled with the age-old concept that we have always defended and endorsed—the concept of the freedom of the high seas.
I should like to turn for a moment, my Lords, to the second area of concern, separate but interconnected: the question of arms control on the sea-bed. This raises quite different problems and, as the noble Lord, Lord Wilberforce, said, it is being pursued at this moment in a forum of its own—that is to say, the Eighteen-Nation Disarmament Committee in Geneva. In our view, although the questions are conseptually and intellectually closely connected we ought to keep the discussions of these questions as separate as possible from the discussions of an international régime. There is no reason, in our view, to delay agreement

581
on arms control while an international consensus is being sought on an international régime. Nor is there any reason why progress on a régime should not go forward, whatever may be the difficulties in the arms control discussions in Geneva. From the discussions that have been going on in Geneva there already seems to be an encouraging measure of agreement about recognising the fact that the deep-sea-bed should not become a new arena for the arms race. The task on which the Committee in Geneva is now embarked is to transform this general objective, this pious statement of principles, into precise and acceptable treaty language, and this is what the E.N.D.C.—the Disarmament Committee in Geneva—is doing.
We must not, I think, underestimate the difficulty and complexity of this task. Many of the people who are taking part in this kind of negotiation—as was the case, for example, when we were negotiating the non-proliferation treaty—have important defence interests of their own which they cannot afford to compromise. There is one, of course, which particularly affects this country (I mentioned it at the beginning of my remarks), and that is the need to ensure that we are constantly protected against potential submarine threat. It is also important—and this again is a point that I have mentioned before—that the freedom of the high seas should not be prejudiced. But I still believe that, in spite of the difficulties and complications, if the political will is there, international agreement on appropriate arms control arrangements under the sea should be possible. This is what we should like to see brought about—subject, of course, to the basic requirement that any agreement of this sort is consistent with safeguarding our own vital defence interests.
There are two main problems that have emerged in the course of the disarmament negotiations on this question. The first is: what kind of military activities on the sea-bed should be banned? The second is: what area of the sea-bed should be subject to this kind of arms control arrangement? Obviously, these subjects are closely linked, and it will be possible finally to agree on the one only when we are ready to agree on the other. Both these concepts are in fact the basis of the two sets of proposals on this subject which have been
582
presented to the Eighteen-Nation Committee during its recent discussions. One is a draft treaty tabled by the Soviet Union, and the other is a draft treaty tabled by the United States—a familiar enough situation in discussions which go on in Geneva.
One of the proposals which is common to both treaties, and which Her Majesty's Government support, is the proposal to ban the emplacement or the fixing on the sea-bed of nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction. This may seem to noble Lords a simple enough concept, but in the kind of explosion of military technology which is going on at the moment this may turn out to be an urgent problem—more urgent, perhaps, than many people yet realise. It seems to me that this is a fundamental objective on which there should be no dispute. And the right approach is that we should look first at what specific military activities ought to be banned on the sea-bed and then at the arms control area to see how this might be defined. My own view, and the view of the Government, is that the Soviet proposal for complete demilitarisation of the sea-bed is unrealistic. It is not the first time. I fear, that I have had to say this about arms control proposals put forward by the Soviet Union: nor, I fear, will it be the last. It is difficult to be sure exactly what is meant by this proposal and indeed, in my view, it would be impossible in any case to verify it. Even if there were an agreement for the complete demilitarisation of the sea-bed, how could one conceivably police or verify such an agreement?
There is another point here—and although this may sound like special pleading, I think it is right to plead it. If there were complete demilitarisation of the sea-bed, it might make it impossible for the West to use the sea-bed in a number of ways which are perhaps of greater importance to us than to those proposing complete demilitarisation. I am thinking in particular of the kind of measures that we might want to take to counter potential submarine threats. I think I need go no further into this subject than that. We look forward to continuing these discussions in Geneva in July, and I believe that, given the political will, a solution is possible.
As regards the other aspect of the problem that I mentioned, what area of the

583
sea-bed should be subject to these arms control arrangements, whatever they might be, there are two proposals, generally speaking, which have been put forward. The Russians have suggested that arms control arrangements should apply outside a 12-mile coastal zone, while the Americans say that they should apply outside a 3-mile coastal zone. I think it will perhaps be no surprise to your Lordships if I say simply that we are at the moment studying these different proposals. Just as in the case of the international régime, we have not yet come to a conclusion over the kind of limits that should be applied; and I think it right that this matter should be very carefully weighed. It is a matter of such persistent and comprehensive importance.
Finally, I should like to deal briefly—as briefly as I possibly can on such an important matter—with the third aspect of the problem, perhaps the one of the most immediate concern to us—the subject of pollution. We have had recently some dramatic examples of the threat that can be presented to us by marine pollution. The "Torrey Canyon" disaster and, on a different scale, the recent chemical pollution of the River Rhine have not only underlined this menace but have shown how urgent it is that we should formulate some kind of effective international action and plan to control this very dangerous side effect of technical advance. It is a very wide problem, and I hope to try to answer any particular points that may be made about it when I come to wind up the debate. I am sure that my noble friend the Leader of the House, who has had very close experience of this problem, will take up any particular questions that noble Lords may wish to ask.
I should, however, mention briefly two matters of major international importance in this field: the North Sea Agreement on Oil Pollution and the work of the Intergovernmental Maritime Consultative Organisation, IMCO, and the part that the Government play in those. Your Lordships will appreciate that in the narrow waters that surround our coast, a large oil slick is likely to affect more than one country. Obviously, therefore, there is an overriding need for Britain and her neighbours to establish a framework for international co-operation in
584
this as in other fields and to establish some kind of machinery for exchanging information. I should have liked to deal with this a great deal longer, but as I have already spoken for quite long enough, if not too long, perhaps with the indulgence of the House I may leave this problem to be dealt with later, either by my noble friend the Leader of the House or by me when I come to reply, by leave, to this debate.
From what I have said, I hope that your Lordships will recognise that as a country with a highly vulnerable coast line, with a major shipping industry and with various other interests that we have to safeguard, our attitude on all these issues requires careful consideration. I think it would be premature for the Government to take a decision before all these problems have been carefully and closely examined. The international interest in this subject is a comparatively new phenomenon. There are those, as always, who have been ahead of the field in this question, who have been interested in it, who have been pointing to its potential and warning against it dangers for years. But it is true to say that as an international problem this is a new problem. It is a new frontier issue in which we are facing all kinds of problems on new facts and areas about which we have insufficient information. I can assure your Lordships that our aim in the international debate on this subject will be to get agreement on a broad international basis and to take the lead in formulating some kind of concept, some kind of philosophy and a set of rules for dealing with these various problems.
My Lords, I hope that in this opening intervention I have succeeded in focusing attention—and in this I trust I can be regarded as having worked almost in harness with the noble Lord, Lord Wilberforce—on the three principal problems of the sea-bed. First, we must ensure that the potential wealth of food, minerals and other resources that lie beneath the sea are used fully and fairly for the benefit of mankind. That is the first requirement. Second, we must ensure that these resources—and, as the noble Lord said, the natural amenities that are sometimes forgotten—are not eroded and destroyed by pollution and by thoughtless and shortsighted use. But perhaps most important of all—and this is

585
the aspect that interests me most—we must ensure that the sea-bed is not allowed to become yet another pawn in the dangerous game of international power politics. The Government intend to play a full part in realising all these aims.

FAR EAST DEFENCE: THE FIVE-POWER CONFERENCE
4.6 p.m.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, with permission, I should like to repeat a Statement that is being made by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Defence in another place on the Five-Power Conference on Far Eastern Defence. The Statement is as follows:
"The Five-Power Conference took place at Canberra on 19th and 20th June, 1969. Honourable Members will already have seen the communiqué issued at the end of the Conference and will be aware that it was primarily concerned with practical arrangements for defence co-operation in the area during the period of our run-down and after our withdrawal from our mainland bases in South East Asia by December 31, 1971.
"Malaysia and Singapore reiterated that the defence of their two countries was indivisible and the Conference welcomed the substantial progress made by these two countries and the decisions they have taken to develop their own defence capability. The steps taken by these two Commonwealth countries formed an indispensable background to the work of the Conference as indeed did the decisions announced earlier this year by Australia and New Zealand to maintain forces in the area after our withdrawal.
"The Conference approved the work already done by the three Advisory Working Groups during the past year, set them a programme of further work and instituted a new Joint Service Advisory Working Group to deal particularly with matters which affected more than one of the Services.
"One particular area of importance on which agreement was reached was that of air defence where the Government of Malaysia announced that it had decided to purchase British mobile radar equipment which will enable the
586
present Royal Air Force station at Western Hill to be closed in September, 1971. The new Malaysian radar will form an important component in the integrated system for the air defence of Malaysia and Singapore in which the other four Commonwealth countries will participate and for which Australia offered to provide the first Air Defence Commander.
"Among other practical matters agreed in principle were the establishment of a Commonwealth Jungle Warfare Centre, arrangements for the 1970 major exercise in which all five countries will participate, and training arrangements for all three Services. The next Five-Power Conference will take place some time after the major exercise planned for 1970.
"The Conference took place on the basic understanding that the United Kingdom maintained its decision to withdraw its Forces from the area by the end of 1971. Very considerable progress has been made in the practical steps that need to be taken by the other four Commonwealth countries to establish defence co-operation within the area. The Conference was further evidence of the determination to work together for peace and security and firm foundations have been laid for continuing development. Indeed, the amount of progress that has been made during the past 18 months is remarkable."
4.9 p.m.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I am sure that your Lordships are grateful to the noble Lord the Leader of the House for repeating that Statement. I am glad to note the progress that has been made in these important discussions in Canberra. Nevertheless, I cannot refrain from voicing our opinion here that these arrangements would have far greater substance were it not for the purely arbitrary decision of the Government to withdraw our own Forces from this area by a purely arbitrary date. There would have been more meaning to these arrangements if we were a full party to them and if in fact there was an assurance of continuing a British military presence in the area, albeit a modest one—provided that it was the wish of the other parties involved—after 1971.
May I put four specific questions to the noble Lord? The first concerns the

587
proposal to establish a Commonwealth jungle warfare centre. I am glad to see that this decision has been taken. Could he tell us where that centre will be established and what the United Kingdom participation in it will be? Second, there are the training arrangements. Will the British be a full party to the proposed co-operative training arrangements? Third, there is the future of the Commonwealth Brigade based at Terendak. Could the noble Lord let us know what the future of that base is likely to be? Fourth, there has been comment in the Press, and I should be very glad to hear anything that the noble Lord can tell us about how many British Servicemen will be remaining in the area after 1971 if the Government's proposals for withdrawal are carried out. Various figures have been quoted and I should like to know whether the noble Lord can give us an estimate of the number and what their role will be.
LORD GLADWYN: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friends on these Benches I should like to associate myself with what the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, said at the beginning of his questions about the generally satisfactory nature of this Statement. We should like, however, to draw the inference that it substantiates the line which, on behalf of the Liberal Party, I took up in this House early in 1965; namely, that we should do everything we could to give physical support to Malaysia against attack, and indeed against internal subversion, subject to the early announcement of a decision to evacuate our base at Singapore, and subject also to a resolve on our part not to get bogged down in any expensive and interminable jungle war. Recent internal events in Malaysia seem to have validated these conclusions. I would only ask the Government whether they do not think that the findings of the Five-Power Conference have made it increasingly improbable that any successor Government that may be tempted to do so will be able, even if they were willing, to reactivate the Singapore base.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, we had the usual ritual reaction from the noble Earl and we wait with interest for the Conservative policy for continuing a modest presence in the Far East. No doubt they will give us more information
588
on that. But I am very happy to answer, so far as I can, the specific questions put by the noble Earl. First, the training centre is at Ulu Tiram, which I think is in Jahore. This will be a centre in which the British will be playing a very full part and will be sharing their responsibilities with the other countries. On the particular point of the number of British Service men who will be in the area, I may say that in total there will be under 100, and half of which will be at the jungle warfare centre. Some of these will be directly engaged as instructional staff and some will be engaged, presumably, in providing support services in the same way that we have British Service personnel at Ganda. On the future of Terendak, I understand that under the Agreement this is to be handed over to the Malaysian Forces, but if there is any further information which the noble Earl wants on that subject I shall certainly be happy to get it for him.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his answer to my supplementary questions. Could he give me one further piece of information? Will the Service personnel who will be remaining in the area after 1971, according to the Government's plans, be drawn from all three Services?
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I cannot answer that point in detail. They will obviously be mainly Army because they will be mainly concerned with the jungle school. There are also plans for exercising not merely the Army and the Air Force but also the Navy, and it may well be that there will be limited—the total number is going to be very small—numbers of representatives of the other Services. But the main component will be at the jungle school. I think more than half of the 100 will be instructional staff.
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord where the Australian and New Zealand ground forces will go if it is not to Terendak?
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I am sorry, but I am afraid I do not know. Presumably the Air Forces will be at Butterworth, but I do not know the answer. If I am able to get the information for the noble Lord I will, but I do not think that there is time for the message to pass.

MARINE SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
4.16 p.m.
Debate resumed.
THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH: My Lords, I think it is time that we put on our diving suits again and got back on to the sea-bed. At the outset, I should like to thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce, for giving us the opportunity of discussing these matters. I have spent the last few days in a sea of documents and in that sense have indeed only just surfaced. For some time now, my noble friend Lord Jellicoe and I have felt that the resources of the ocean were an appropriate subject for your Lordships to debate, for we have never previously discussed these matters. I was very glad to give way to the noble and learned Lord in order that his Motion should go forward.
Some eight years ago, as a Back-Bencher sitting on the other side of the House I had the honour to move a Motion on space research and exploration. It was, I think, the first and only occasion on which your Lordships had a full debate on the subject, and it seemed right to my noble friend Lord Jellicoe and myself that we should at some time also have a debate on ocean space. I am very glad, therefore, to support the noble and learned Lord this afternoon, and on the whole I agree very much with his general thesis that an international regime should be established for the exploration and exploitation of the marine environment.
I also agree very much with what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont. There are no great differences between us on these international matters. But in my view our top priority in this country should be to put our own House in the best possible order first and to see that we are making a great effort in all these fields on a national basis. This done, we should be to put our own house in the play our part within the international marine community.
My Lords, my noble friend and I have keenly awaited the publication of this Report. It is a useful document even if it has taken a year to publish it. I should also like to pay tribute to Sir Zolly Zuckerman and the members of
590
the Working Party who produced the Report and congratulate them on bringing together all these very different aspects of marine science. None the less, I have not, of course, failed to note that in some quarters the Report has been described as somewhat negative and complacent.
The Report covers a broad spectrum which includes not only fisheries but also mineral resources and, as they describe it, inshore oceanography. Whether on these Benches we can agree with the Lord President of the Council, in his introduction to the Report, that work in marine science and technology is in general well-balanced and that there are no major fields in which our efforts are significantly inadequate, is another matter, and I hope that noble Lords have been able to absorb this point. The fact that we are, I think, spending some £25 to £30 million on space activities and only £13·4 million on all projects concerning the sea-bed may make your Lordships wonder whether our oceanic effort has sufficient priority, considering that the commercial development of the sea-bed may well, as I say, be the more rewarding in the immediate future from the point of view both of the development of general equipment for the harvesting of the sea for food purposes and for the exploitation of its mineral resources.
I will not go into details of the vast mineral and nutritional wealth available. They are well known and both noble Lords have already mentioned some of them. They are also well and concisely described in the chapter entitled "Seven-tenths of the Globe" in the book of the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie-Calder, Man and the Cosmos, which I read over the week-end. I am glad to see that the noble Lord is to speak this afternoon.
Certainly we on this side of the House are happy that the Government's survey, which should stimulate informed discussion, has at last come out. We are interested, too, that the new Advisory Committee will consider how marine research, undertaken for defence purposes, can he applied with economic advantage in the civil field. I hope that my noble friend Lord Jellicoe will have something to say on this.
In regard to the conclusions and the recommendations of the Working Party, I agree that in the case of fisheries increased supplies of food from the sea

591
could be obtained in the ways indicated—that is to say, among other things, by better management of existing fisheries; greater efficiency and improved methods of detection, catching and forecasting; the development of new fisheries; the greater exploitation of shell fish; the development of industrial fishing and of the processing of fish into fishmeal and oil.
In regard to fishmeal or fish flour, I have seen the excellent research work being done, for example, in Pakistan. None the less, this research has not yet been fully applied or exploited to the extent necessary to feed the hundreds of millions on the Indian sub-continent, although the scientific problems have been solved. I agree that continuing or additional research and development will be required but, as the Report says, the extent to which economic gains can be realised depends in some cases on international conservation arrangements. This is an aspect with which both noble Lords who have spoken are particularly concerned.
In regard to mineral resources, I agree that a geological and geophysical survey of the United Kingdom Continental Shelf is imperative and that the work of the Institute of Geological Sciences should be speeded up by spending more money on deep profiling geophysical work by specialised agencies. I hope, therefore, that the Mineral Resources Consultative Committee are giving this their immediate attention. Problems concerning the protection of the coast and pollution control—the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, mentioned recent examples—are also matters of great urgency, and I hope that my noble friend Lord Jellicoe, who is Chairman of the Advisory Committee on Oil Pollution in the Sea, will deal with this subject.
I agree, too, that there would be advantages in co-ordinating on a national and, indeed, on an international basis the foreseeable needs for new marine instrumentation and equipment to enable manufacturers to estimate the potential demand, particularly as regards dredgers, submersibles, power tools, visual aids and diving equipment. This is stated in the Report. I think we must accept that the Ministry of Technology, in co-operation with other Departments, is at present the right Ministry to undertake this co-
592
ordination and that the Natural Environment Research Council is also now the right body, through its Oceanographic and Fisheries Committee and its Geology and Geophysical Committee, to coordinate other features of this work. But at the same time, speaking personally, I wonder whether there would not be advantages in having one national ocean-space authority, in the same way as we on these Benches have advocated the establishment of a single national space administration.
The Report admits that an area not yet adequately co-ordinated is the commercial application of Government research, particularly in instrumentation and equipment. Whether the kind of Advisory Committee on Marine Technology which has been set up, consisting of representatives of the Ministry of Technology, the Navy Department and the NERC, as well as representatives from other Departments as required, will be able to achieve the best possible co-ordination, I am not certain. I think it is generally admitted that co-ordination is by no means as good as the Report implies at all levels, even perhaps in science, which is very good in this country. We lead in science in these matters. All the different aspects of marine science and the various institutes and units concerned with them seem to me to have got a little lost in the NERC, which of course is the responsibility not of the Ministry of Technology but of the Department of Education and Science. Should these units not be grouped together on their own in a separate organisation, which would coordinate both science and technology, connected with oceans? Moreover, in technology, as opposed to basic research, co-ordination seems even less effective, with the result, I am told, that certain sectors of industry despair of any real Government support for progress. Our whole effort is, I believe, too fragmented.
The question as to whether there should be industrial representation on the Advisory Committee on Marine Technology was discussed in the Subcommittee of the Select Committee in another place, and the Chairman, Mr. Charnley, gave some convincing reasons why there was no representation at present. But whether or not industry should be represented on this Committee, I feel that somehow private enterprise

593
should be more involved and that the National Institute of Oceanography, for example, may perhaps in the past have kept industry out for too long. Although in many ways I think that this Institute is doing first-class work—I have seen it myself and I know that they manufacture and export certain equipment—this is a small amount in comparison with their total expenditure and I feel that the Institute might be more commercially minded.
I know, of course, that the Construction Industry Research and Information Association (CIRIA) has begun very useful work in identifying the research programmes that would be best suited to foreseeable developments in diving technology and underwater engineering; and from their studies the gaps and shortcomings have become quickly evident. I know, too, that as a result of the report of the Programmes Analysis Unit of the Ministry of Technology, a contract has recently been placed with Hawker-Siddeley Dynamics to do a systems analysis study of the whole British fisheries industry—and something certainly urgently requires doing to put the industry right commercially. Our own fisheries' science and technology is second to none, and the Industrial Development Unit of the White Fish Authority is in some ways unique—they are doing an excellent job—but the rest of the field in oceanology seems a long way behind in terms of commercially viable exploitation, apart from oil and gas, sea transport, sand and gravel.
Another contract has been given, I believe, to Cammell Laird to study the requirements for underwater tools which are needed in connection with their underwater crawler, the prototype of which I saw at the recent exhibition in Brighton, mentioned by the noble Lord. I also understand that the Natural Environment Research Council is shortly due to give a further contract to Wimpey for a long-term geological survey of the Northern Irish Sea. If this is placed, it will permit Wimpey, in conjunction with N.R.D.C.—the National Research and Development Corporation—to develop equipment for drilling and coring economically for geological survey processes. I shall be interested to know whether the noble Lord can tell me if this contract has yet been approved.
594
But there are very many gaps still to be filled, and I think the Committee on Marine Technology must be well aware of this. I feel that the time has come for more research and development contracts to be placed with industry itself; for, apart from a few firms such as those I have mentioned, industry really has not yet "got it's feet wet". The Committee on Marine Technology is, unfortunately, without any teeth, apart from persuasion, and all finance depends on the individual Ministry likely to be most concerned. This Committee needs real authority, like I believe the National Centre for the Exploitation of the Oceans has, or aims to have, in France—a Centre which I gather is likely to be established in Brest.
Incidentally, I was interested to hear that in the new French Government which recently came into office science and technology are to go together under one Ministry. This may be of interest to your Lordships, who will recall that in our debate, some two years ago, on the organisation of science and technology in this country, the majority of the speakers were in favour of such a solution, and were opposed to the division of responsibility between the Ministry of Technology and the Department of Education and Science, which looks after the Research Councils, including NERC. I think I am right in saying that French officials studied your Lordships' debate with some care and that it may well have influenced their present decision.
So far as the commercial exploitation of the sea is concerned, I believe that we do need in this country something like the French Centre. This would not mean abandoning what we already have, but only bringing as much as possible under a common and, one would hope, logical leadership. My own view is that the creation of an Authority, rather than a Co-ordinating Advisory Committee, would achieve such co-ordination more effectively and give a greater impetus to the work.
With regard to international cooperation, this has been so ably dealt with by the two noble Lords who have already spoken that I do not propose to say much about it, except that I recognise what the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea has done ever since 1902 to encourage research connected with exploration; and there are other organisations, too. I think that

595
someone should mention the Geophysical Year, sponsored by UNESCO, in which H.M.S. "Discovery" played such an important part in the Indian Ocean, and which triggered off most valuable research. But the powers of these specialist international organisations are limited, as indeed are the Agencies of the United Nations, whose Assembly none the less adopted in 1966 a useful resolution calling on the Secretary-General to prepare a survey of what was already being done at present to harness the resources of the sea.
Surveys are all very well, my Lords—we have had international surveys, and national surveys—but what we require now is action. As is stated in the Bow Group's Report by Laurence Reed, the American effort in the field is over 20 times the size of the combined efforts of the United Kingdom, Germany and France, and unless European countries are prepared to pool their resources, one more area of advanced technology may be foreclosed. However, as I say, do let us get our own national effort in order first. Those of us who attended the Exhibition at Brighton were deeply impressed by the efforts of British industry in manufacturing equipment which is exported to a number of other countries in the world. I was particularly interested in one small firm, employing only six or seven people, which sells highly sophisticated and delicate instrumentation in which the United States, U.S.S.R. and, I think, Japan (which is very far ahead in these fields) showed considerable interest.
I am sure that with further development money, perhaps provided through the N.R.D.C. or any new authority which might be established, there is a great deal more that we could do. Of course I realise that money is not the only need, and that the availability of suitably qualified staff is the first requirement which it is often difficult to meet. I think that Dr. Deakin admitted to the Select Committee of another place that he needed some 30 to 40 more scientists to meet the necessary requirements at the moment. In general, I agree with a recent editorial in the New Scientist that the Government's Report holds little to comfort those who feel that the country has already failed to secure the benefits which should accrue
596
to a technologically advanced maritime nation, and that this country is in fact faced with an inescapable take-over of its last great natural asset—a Continental Shelf about three times the area of the land. The current North Sea Gas advantage is undoubtedly dominated by American technology and investment, and I agree that the Report gives industry few incentives to tool up for the next likely phase of exploitation, which will be the move into the Irish Sea and other Western and Southern areas of our Continental Shelf.
In conclusion, my Lords, I should like to ask the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, who has a great interest in this subject (I read his article in the excellent volume produced by Dr. Deakin), why there has been such a long delay in producing a Report which I believe was already written in its original form over a year ago. There seems to be no recognition of the real urgency of the problem. How is it that this great maritime nation has allowed things to slide in this way? I hope that we shall press on with engineering applications, and that the Minister of Technology (for whom I have considerable admiration), ably assisted, I should hope, by the noble Lord the Leader of the House, will take an active dead in prosecuting a truly energetic programme in support of industry in order to enable it to produce commercially the kind of advanced equipment which is so urgently needed.
4.38 p.m.
THE LORD BISHOP OF NORWICH: My Lords, I should like to echo what has already been said and thank the noble Lord, Lord Wilberforce, for initiating this debate and the manner in which he introduced it, and not least for one particular phrase which he used in the concluding portion of his speech, in which he spoke of the "preservation of the environment as of value in itself". I hope that the House will accept my apologies for the fact that immediately after I have spoken I must leave to undertake a long-standing preaching engagement. I trust that I may have the indulgence of your Lordships for not being present, as I should otherwise be, for the remainder of the debate, and particularly to listen to the replies of the noble Lords, Lord Chalfont and Lord Wilberforce.

597
Many of your Lordships will remember that the subject of the resources of the ocean beds was referred to in more than one speech in the debate of January of last year on a Motion moved by the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie-Calder, on the subject of the United Nations and the Special Agencies. Tribute was then paid, as it has again been paid to-day, to the initiative taken by Dr. Pardo, Leader of the Maltese Delegation to the United Nations, urging that the deep ocean floor should be conserved exclusively for peaceful purposes and as a common heritage of mankind. One of the points that I wish to make particularly is to express the hope that these phrases will be kept continuously in mind as the ultimate goal.
I was glad to hear the latter of these phrases used in Lord Chalfont's speech. Dr. Pardo was responsible for alerting us to these dangers, which concern three of the major aspects which have been referred to in this debate: first, the danger of the ocean floor contributing a gratuitous bonus for the developed countries as against the underdeveloped and for States with coastlines as against the land-locked States; secondly, the danger of marine pollution, and, thirdly, the military danger. Unless the resources of the ocean deeps are safeguarded in the direction proposed by Dr. Pardo, the consequences for the future could be very serious indeed.
The situation in which we find ourselves was accurately described by U Thant, Secretary-General of the United Nations. In his speech in Central Hall, Westminster, on April 25 of this year he said:
"It is our dilemma that, short of some fearsome and imminent threat of disaster, a dramatic change in the attitude of Governments to international order is unlikely, especially where their own interests or sovereignty are vitally concerned. In the present state of affairs Governments tend to cite the attitude of others as a good reason for making no concessions themselves. To that extent sectional interests continue to dominate over the common good. It, is a dangerous fact, which should not be forgotten, that on the international scene we still live in a state of perpetual insecurity comparable to the condition of a country where no central authority, no police force and no enforceable code of law are yet consistently functioning".
Commenting on this speech, the Foreign Secretary said:
"If you want to live in a peaceful world, you have to pay a fair rent for it—a sus-
598
tained and humane and informed interest in the welfare of your neighbour. And your neighbour is mankind".
My reason for participating in the debate this afternoon is that I believe ocean space offers a remarkable opportunity for breaking through the system which U Thant mentioned whereby sectional interests continue to dominate over the common good. I am not alone in this. It was a great encouragement when the Commonwealth Prime Ministers who met in London from January 7 to 15 stated that:
"They considered that the area of the seabed and ocean floor beyond the limits of present national jurisdiction, for which a precise definition should be sought, should be accorded a special legal status as part of the common heritage of mankind."
The phrase "common heritage of man kind" was the one used by Dr. Pardo. It is a striking phrase, akin to that used by President Johnson when he described this last great area of the surface of the planet which has not yet been nationalised as a common legacy of mankind.
The problem is to achieve, as Senator Pell of Rhode Island has proposed:
"a reasonable legal order for the extra-national area of the ocean".
It was to this problem that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce, and the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, were addressing themselves. Are we likely to achieve this special legal status called for by the Commonwealth Prime Ministers, or the "reasonable legal order" of Senator Pell, if we have as its parents the Governments described by U Thant? The arguments of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce, as I understand them, are that in practice advance can only be made by the recent progress of international law; and indeed one can appreciate the force of that statement. Where one feels uneasy is that over the past year the debates at the United Nations and elsewhere have all too often provided expression of national interests overruling the interests of humanity as a whole.
One major difficulty in assigning any area or any resources of the earth as "a common heritage of mankind" is, as U Thant implied, that no means have yet been devised to attach a legal meaning to this concept. There is no universally

599
agreed instrument by which such a heritage can be protected, nor any agreed régime developed for administering such resources so that mankind as a whole will enjoy the benefits. Yet the world community is slowly becoming conscious of its existence. Nothing can stop its eventual self-realisation. The importance of ocean space is that we should use its administration and management and exploitation to encourage this process.
I would, with some diffidence and as in no way an expert in such matters, venture to suggest that the trusteeship principle might well prove the most suitable for the administration of ocean space in the next decade or so, while man's sense of world citizenship is evolving. If Governments are not yet ready to declare unequivocally that the ocean floor subsoil is the property of mankind, surely they should be able to regard it as held in trust for mankind, and that any system of registering and licensing claims so as to give exploration and exploitation rights for a given period should be firmly linked with the populations of this planet, and not solely and simply to member-Governments of the United Nations. For those Governments cannot represent those peoples whose Governments are not members of United Nations—that is to say, about one-quarter of the human race.
If it is accepted that the trusteeship principle is the one to follow for an international régime which seeks to represent the interests of mankind as a whole, the key to it is that the régime shall be open not only to Governments but to other entities, such as multi-national corporations and professional bodies representing the science and technology which will unlock the secrets and resources of ocean space. The divine right of Governments must be punctured. After all, most Governments, as with the North Sea exploration, do not in fact undertake the exploration or exploitation themselves. They farm it out to those who can. For some reason it is thought easier to control human beings through their national systems of government than if you control them direct. This in practice is not always altogether true. Nowadays corporations can wear a multitude of national hats and shift from one to the other according to need. I am far from proposing that non-governmen-
600
tal agencies or even individuals should have exclusive representation in the proposed international régime for the area beyond the limits of national jurisdiction, but that they should be on a dual or tripartite footing with Governments in much the same way as has been achieved, to a certain extent, in the International Labour Organisation.
There is a second and fundamental point which I hope will be borne in mind, and this concerns the limits of the four various régimes in hydrospace: first, the superjacent waters; secondly, the deep ocean floor; thirdly the Continental Shelf, and fourthly, territorial waters. I believe there should be a certain hierarchy in these four régimes, with the largest taking the most important position and, in cases of dispute between them, having the prevailing voice. The reason I mention this is because superjacent water, that is to say the high seas, are already governed by that most historic of principles, the freedom of the seas.
The second régime of the deep ocean floor is the subject we are concerned with this afternoon; and a major issue is to define how far the régime of the ocean floor should be regarded as extending in a landward direction. I am sure that the limits of the Continental Shelf left open by the famous "exploitability loophole" in the Continental Shelf Convention of 1958 can best be settled if simultaneously a régime for the deep ocean floor is also agreed. The loophole afforded by the Convention defines the Continental Shelf as extending to a depth of 200 metres,
"or beyond that limit to where the depth of the superjacent waters admits of the exploitation of the natural resources of the said areas".
That definition has now clearly become inappropriate, if not ridiculous. It could, for instance, give Pitcairn Island rights of exploitation half way to Mexico, Alaska, New Zealand, Cape Horn, and the Ross Sea.
Unhappily, there has been an indication that some of the interested nations are claiming limits of sovereignty for the ocean floor beyond the Continental Shelf, as it has previously been regarded, to the Continental Slope, and even to the Continental Rise, areas which are roughly indicated in the diagram on the last page of the Report to which the noble and

601
learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce, himself referred. If the Continental Rise were included within the limits of the sovereignty of the country whose coasts were nearest, then 43 per cent. of the whole ocean floor would be subject to land-based national sovereignty. The essence of such a claim to sovereignty is based on an extremely primitive concept; namely, that of proximity. In an age when the one undoubted achievement of mankind has been to annihilate distance, the alibi of proximity for aggrandisement has become absurd. I am sure that in this century proximity is not a sound basis for extension of ownership.
The third fundamental point is that none of the treaties, conventions and agreements about ocean space, its exploitation and exploration, will be of much use if there are no sanctions. One of the reasons for the dislike by Governments of international régimes is usually that they are ineffective; but the reason for this is too often that Governments refuse to equip them with any means of enforcement. In this case, the proposal to do so has been made by Senator Pell, of Rhode Island. He has proposed in a resolution to the United States Senate, dated January 21, 1969, that there should be a seaguard to ensure the observance of the legal principles governing the activities of States in the exploration and exploitation of ocean space, principles which he would like to see incorporated in a declaration.
It has been said that the most effective sanction is "the withdrawal of right of participation" in the agency or institution concerned. That may well be the case, but in a situation as large as ocean space, with all its ramifications, the possibility of withdrawal to take part in some rival agency cannot be overlooked. The most practicable sanction and safeguard would appear to be provided by the opportunity now presenting itself by the concept of the creation of a "sea-guard", which could have the backing of public opinion. I mean the opportunity which we now have to set up much tougher anti-pollution measures. On the crest of the oil slick, as it were, the public should clamour for really effective measures of inspection and control; and even for steps to create an international code of law governing criminal activities in ocean space, and appropriate tribunals to deal with them. The present agree-
602
ments, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce, has already pointed out, are at present, I understand, inadequate. The creation of a "seaguard" may well be easier to secure than was the creation of a United Nations' Emergency Force such as was used in Sinai, the Congo and Cyprus. Its milieu will be international to start with. I hope that Her Majesty's Government will propose at the United Nations the formation of such a body, and that they will in any case state that they would permit their nationals to serve in such a body, if it was decided to create it.
I should like to end by referring briefly to future activities in this country in connection with marine science and technology—and here may I express my whole admiration for the Report to which the noble and learned Lord,]Lord Wilberforce, has called our attention. For a great maritime nation it is disturbing to think that only £13,430,000 was spent in 1967-68. The second Report of the United States Congress on Marine Resources and Engineering Development, giving figures for the comparable period in the United States, shows an expenditure of 438 million dollars, with an estimated budget for 1969 of 516 million dollars. Of course the United States is a bigger and much wealthier country, and military security claims about a third of the United States' marine science budget. Nevertheless, our own effort, although of high quality, seems very modest indeed.
I can appreciate the Government's reluctance to find more money for marine science and development when money is so short elsewhere, and where a further allocation for this purpose would need to be set against, for instance, the claims of education, of the social services or of overseas aid. But one of the difficulties in this whole field is the lack of awareness among ordinary people of the importance of the new perspective which is now unfolding, since, for the first time, the sea is going to become something more than a highway. I would suggest that, without much extra expense, the Government could do a lot to encourage the study of marine science and technology throughout the educational system. Here, par excellence, is a world theme and something which students would not complain about as being irrelevant to the times in which we live. There

603
cannot be a shadow of doubt that the exploration and exploitation of ocean space is going to be a major concern for the 21st century. We should prepare for this now. The Oceanology International 69 Conference at Brighton last February was a pointer to what is happening. We need to encourage our young people to become interested in this field.
I am sure that this country has a significant contribution to make, and I was delighted to hear that Professor Bishop, of University College, London, is to take a party of a hundred or so sixth-formers for a fortnight's course in Malta this summer to arouse their interest in these matters. In California they estimate that some 4,000 technical job openings will develop over the next five years as a result of developments in marine science. I hope that Her Majesty's Government will consider what more they can do to encourage throughout the educational system here a greater awareness of the opportunities which will now unfold in marine science and technology. Side by side with this, one must welcome and extend the emergence of fields of study which are concerned not simply with the scientific and technical aspects of the ocean deeps, but with some understanding of the possibilities and prospects which can result from this vast proportion of the world's surface being held in trusteeship as an extra-national entity.
4.58 p.m.
LORD RITCHIE-CALDER: My Lords. I want to thank the noble and learned Lord for giving us the opportunity to have this debate, which is one for which many of us have been looking for a very long time: and I thank him also for the excellent way in which he introduced it and set the scene for it. If I deal cursorily with the Report on Marine Science and Technology it is because I am afraid I must say, having waited for so long for it, it is an extremely disappointing document. What I mean by that is that the details, the assembly and the information it gives may be very satisfactory—in fact, I will quote from it—but the whole approach seems to me to be singularly unimaginative, singularly pre-Pardo, if I may say so, in the sense that it does not really recognise what has happened in the public debate which has gone on since then; and of course, as
604
has been said by the right reverend Prelate, the amount of financial resources for this day and age is quite inadequate.
As the right reverend Prelate has said, £13½ million and a staff, as I will say, of 700 qualified scientists in eight different sectors, including defence, bear a reflection upon the concern of a country with a naval history of over a thousand years and which is celebrating, with proper pride I hope, the centenary of the "Challenger", the research ship which first revealed the wealth with which I presently propose to deal. I have no use for "keeping up with the Joneses" and I am not suggesting that money alone represents the contribution which we ought to be making. In fact I would support the right reverend Prelate in reinforcing what is much more a science in the popular meaning of the word. I would remind your Lordships, as he has done, that in this instance the United States of America are providing a fund for sea enterprises running at well over 500 million dollars. The National Council for Marine Resources and Engineering Development, which was established in 1966 under the chairmanship of the Vice-President, gives it a status equivalent to that of the Manhattan project which produced the atomic bomb.
Paragraph 138 of the Report on Marine Science and Technology, while rejecting, and properly rejecting, the comparison because of the disproportionate wealth, points out that within the Federal organisation, as distinct from the activities of the States which also have marine facilities, there are twenty-four bureaux in eleven Federal agencies and thirty-three sub-committees of Congress, apart from activities in the universities and now a large industrial interest. There is no question whatever that the American activities, which are large at this moment, will increase enormously. There is already abundant evidence that the great corporations—Lockheed, Boeing, Westinghouse, General Dynamics, et cetera—are going into deep sea technology in a big way. This is their entrenchment against the time when outer space will lose its glamour and its appropriations. After the "space spectacular" on July 20, when the world, very appropriately, will applaud the first man on the Moon, and when they have brought back 25

605
kilograms of Moon matter, people ungratefully will say, "So what? What are we getting for our 40,000 million dollars?" That will be the time when they will have to look at inner space and recognise the potentialities of their own planet. That, with a great deal of prescience, the great corporations are now doing.
I am personally concerned with two problems with which I will not deal exhaustively. One, with which I am much concerned, is the pollution of the sea as part of the destruction of our environment, and the other is the demilitarisation of the sea bed. I am not going to deal extensively with either, beyond, in the first instance, recommending your Lordships to read an impressive publication by Miss Sibthorpe, Oceanic Pollution: A Survey and Some Suggestions for Control. That publication says most of the things I should want to say.
With all deference to my noble friend the Minister, I wish to say that when we are talking about the demilitarisation of the sea-bed and the difficulties about it, we should not just look very hard at the "nit picking" of this issue—and it is very considerably "nit picking"—but realise that much of what we hear in terms of objection to demilitarisation of the sea-bed, which we presume has not yet been militarised, is fraught with the greatest dangers to international relations and also provides a pretext for delaying the possibilities of a newer régime for that five-sevenths of the world, the drowned world beneath the sea, which does not belong to anybody or rather belongs to everybody, to the whole of mankind. I say that with deference, because I listened with interest to his argument and I sympathise in the difficulties in discussions in Geneva. I ask your Lordships, however, seriously to consider that at every stage all kinds of reasons are given to us why great imaginative ideas—and this is a great imaginative idea of how in fact we can now determine the fate of five-sevenths of the world—cannot be carried out. We should not be diverted by arguments which are, if I may say so, the archaic arguments of defence.
When we had the debate on the United Nations on January 25, 1968, the noble Lord, Lord Caradon, said:
"This debate will be remembered as the sea-bed debate".
606
Since then, arising out of the initiative of Ambassador Pardo of Malta, this issue has unquestionably become a major world preoccupation, which has excited the imagination of young people and which has raised all kinds of issues which they themselves are raising about the constipation of world politics. It has fired the imagination of the young and it is a matter which now has fired the imagination of the United Nations. They were queueing up to get on the committee to deal with the procedure, and their interest is unabated.
We have had in these debates what I consider to be one of the most encouraging series of arguments and elaborations in detail, without the usual position-taking or the reduction of positions, which gives to me, at least, an enormous amount of encouragement in my direct concern with the United Nations. I am glad that our Government and our delegation have contributed considerably to that thinking and to the liberation of a great deal of thought. There has been, as the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, has to-day conceded, a degree of reticence on our part which he has explained; but, on the whole, our contributions have been helpful.
There is a most interesting book—we seem to be giving a lot of "commercials" to-day, including the noble Earl, Lord Bessborough, who mentioned my book—which is coming out next week, written by Tony Loftas. It is called The Last Resource. That is what we are talking about—the last resource. In a world where the population is multiplying and will be at least 7,000 million by the year 2000—double what it is to-day—the demand for food and materials will make the use of the neglected resources of the sea absolutely imperative. We could, and must, enhance our supplies of protein from the seas, and I am glad that the Report on Marine Science and Technology shows the initiative which our marine biologists and our fisheries are taking in this matter. I am particularly interested in paragraph 40 on the "modification of the environment" (in terms of marine biology) which says that
"fish and shell-fish represent only a fraction of the biological resources of the ocean. There are other possibilities of modifying natural processes so as to increase significantly the population of desirable species. This might

607
be done, for example, by decreasing predators, by increasing the food supply of fish, or ameliorating environmental conditions".
I was interested in the references to the way in which the heated water released by coastal power stations
"has advanced sufficiently during recent years to make it possible to develop an industry"—
that is a fish industry—
"capable of substantially supplementing the supplies of prime fish, for example sole and turbot and shell-fish".
Some of us have contended for a long time that we could have sea-nurseries, sea-pastures, sea-ranches and sea stud farms. Some of us have also been arguing that the siting of power stations, intelligently done, around the coasts of this country and in other parts of the world—particularly nuclear power stations—would help to achieve this by increasing the temperature. A high temperature in many cases is an embarrassment, but in this case it would be significantly useful for the increase in food supply.
I also welcome the awareness which the Report shows of the possibilities of the seaweed industry. I know that we all usually snigger when we talk about seaweed as a source of food, but even in my young days, in an enlightened part of Scotland we used to eat seaweed which we called caller dulse. I have certainly seen in Japan and elsewhere the enormous use to which seaweed can be put, and which is shown in the Report. I remember a seaweed party given by the Japanese where everything was nicely packaged and palatable—that is, if you like your crisps black, green or brown, flavoured with iodine and with salt already built in.
Your Lordships will notice the Report says that,
"the utilisation of seaweed is not limited by any lack of scientific knowledge".
That applies to a great deal more than seaweed. As the noble Lord, Lord Blackett, has pointed out many times, if we only use the knowledge we already have we shall get on very much faster. In most instances we are not waiting for new knowledge, but just failing to apply the knowledge we have. It is not lack of knowledge, it is lack of intention. With our marine biological knowledge, husbandry of fish and sea creatures—including my own favourite, the dugong
608
or manatee, the sea cow or mermaid, which is a very substantial hunk of protein—and by using the ingenuity of food technologists in overcoming our notorious and irrational food habits, the seas would provide a very substantial increment to the world's food supplies.
I should like, however, to direct your Lordships' attention to the question of the mineral resources of the sea. The noble Earl, Lord Bessborough, has paid me the compliment of citing my book, Man and the Cosmos, but I would warn him that in doing so he may be accused, as I have been, and Ambassador Pardo has been, of condoning exaggerations. It has been suggested, indeed with some justification, that there are exaggerations in the measurements of this matter. But he can console himself, as I always do, that whatever quantities we are talking about they are immense and cover a vast range of minerals apart from the hydrocarbons which have given us the wealth of the North Sea and which we now know also probably exist at the bottom of the deep sea.
Mention has been made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce, of the manganese nodules which are to be found on the floor of the deeps. I would remind your Lordships that this is a misleading term because these are not just manganese; the manganese is responsible for attracting the ions of other minerals. These nodules were first brought to the surface in the 1870s by the research vessel "Challenger" which dredged them up from the deep parts of the Atlantic, Pacific and Indian Oceans. From the turn of the century, when the "Albatross" expedition found that the nodules covered an area of the Eastern Pacific larger than the United States, little deep-sea dredging for minerals was done until the International Geophysical Year. We know from studies now going on, not sufficiently in accuracy or in detail, but certainly in terms of expense, that these minerals incorporate, according to locality, iron oxides, silicon dioxide, aluminium, calcium, magnesium, nickel, copper, cobalt, zinc and molybdenum.
Since the International Geophysical Year a great deal more work has been done in the study of the ocean floors, which has disclosed more and different kinds of mineral potentials, including

609
some very interesting discoveries in the Indian Ocean project, in which we took part, and in which Dr. Swallow discovered some very remarkable phenomena in the Red Sea which are now showing the way to great possible mineral resources.
I must say—and I say this with some desperation—that I get very impatient with those who say that deep-sea technology capable of dealing with the recovery of these resources is a long way away. It is true that such resources are economic only if they are accessible and recoverable. I would remind your Lordships how recently Continental Shelf oil, like that in the North. Sea, was regarded as inaccessible and uneconomic, and how avidly, with the development of sea-rigs, the oil interest went after them, chasing out further and further to sea. We have already had the example of Mohole, the United States project to bore through the boundary layer between the Earth's crust and the mantle. A specially designed ship was used to conduct drilling in 3,000 feet of water in Southern California to a depth of 1,000 feet into the ocean floor. This was not an unsuccessful operation; it was called off for reasons which have nothing to do with science and technology but a good deal to do with corruption. But the experiment is there on the record and there to be repeated if necessary.
If it were necessary for any reason, against the wishes of my noble friend Lord Chalfont, to put missile silos into the sea-bed, or to recover a mineral in short supply, believe me we should see a crash programme which in a very short time would make the exploitation of the sea-bed economically feasible. In any event, recovery of the mineral wealth of the sea does not necessarily imply boring a great depth. After all, the "Challenger" showed that the nodules could be dredged, and one can imagine all sorts of ways by which, under the guidance of telemetring and deep sea television, recovery could become possible.
Because I am convinced that in terms of technology the lime calibration of change has been reduced from decades to years, and to a few years at that, I am obsessed—and I urge your Lordships to share my obsession—by the urgency for establishing a new régime of the deep seas. We must have safeguards immediately against wildcat exploitation and expropriation, and against reckless pollution
610
of the waters of the sea by misguided mining operations.
I cannot speak on the law with the authority of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce, but what some of us are asking for, as the right reverend Prelate has done, is someone to get the lawyers to face up to a very simple phrase, "the common heritage of mankind". That must be given legal substance. We mean all mankind, not nations, not Governments. We need a legal spell-out of what we said in the Preamble of the Charter of the United Nations: "We, the people"—not "We, the High Contracting Parties", not the Governments, but "We, the people".
We already have the law of the sea, the right of free passage on the surface and in the supra-adjacent waters above the sea-bed. We already have the principle of territorial waters, and we already have the Convention of the Continental Shelf. But I say that in this deep sea matter we are dealing with another concept which, as the right reverend Prelate properly said, is not international, it is extra-national. It is that area in which no nation, by extension of its continental claims or its coastal claims or sovereign rights, can expropriate what belongs to everybody and to nobody. This is a property we are talking about, not a common property, I insist, in the sense of a free-for-all; it is in trust, or should be, for all mankind, and I suggest to your Lordships and to my noble friends on the Front Bench that this is where we must stand. We have to stand for the fact that we must define it as a trusteeship for all mankind.
This concept is not readily acceptable by those who want to grab or claim what is called "flag state" status, which implies that a State for itself or for its citizens can lay claim to exclusive jurisdiction over a sea-bed area. If it succeeded, this would bring the area under the laws of the flag State of the discovering expedition. This would be like the Klondykers staking their claims and getting, if necessary, military protection for their expropriation. I ask the lawyers to give their minds to the concept of extra-national law to be applied to those areas beyond national jurisdiction and not covered by the Convention of the Continental Shelf.

611
This concept should not he an extension of the present international law to cover contingencies further out. We have seen how, under the Continental Shelf Convention, coastal nations (and this applies to ourselves) have been able to claim as an extension of their sovereignty, an extension of their coast frontiers, submerged formations. Beyond the Shelf—that is the edge of the Continent—there is the Slope, which falls below 1½ degrees gradient from an average to between 3 degrees and 6 degrees. There is an excellent illustration of this (and another noble Lord has commended it) in the Report on Marine Science and Technology. Beyond the Shelf, there is the Slope; beyond the Slope there is the Rise.
If I may just draw your Lordships' attention to where we are getting to in this "smash-and-grab", I would point out that the Rise is a recent invention—I believe it was invented by Columbia University. The Rise is in fact the spill-away from the edge of the Slope, and it continues down deep in the ocean floor or Abyssal Plain. While there may be some justification (in fact we, as a nation, have ourselves justified it) in the idea of the Shelf and the Slope, I, for one, find the Rise—which, as I say, is only a recent invention—quite intolerable. This consists of the alluvial deposits spilling off to the Abyssal Plain, and presumably it one could prove that Placer Gold washed out of Californian land deposits could be found a thousand miles from the coast, that would justify the claim that this was part of the continental nation. My own preference is a conception of law which starts at the sea bottom, in the depths beyond international jurisdiction, and that we extend that law until it comes into conflict with the Continental Shelf claims, instead of the other way round. The effect of this would be to make us apply our minds legally to this paramount question of common property, the paramount question of trusteeship.
My Lords, I had much more to say, but I will not detain your Lordships because the right reverend Prelate has said so much with which I thoroughly agree, and can endorse to the hilt, that I feel that I can end on this note. I do ask Her Majesty's Government to realise—as indeed they have said they realise—the enormous urgency of this question; to
612
keep this out of mischief and to see that we are not stuck with (and this has been referred to) the parallel of the grab in the 1880s at the Congress of Berlin, when the powerful nations—those who could—just carved up Africa as we are in danger of carving this up.
I ask the Government to keep one further point in mind. I am extremely uneasy at the plausible solutions that some people are working out as to how this can be divided up. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce, referred to a grid system. I am not going to get into an argument about that; but if anybody is contemplating "two acres and a sea cow" at the bottom of the sea, then I say "Let us think again". You cannot in fact do this, by saying simply that the area of the sea is everybody's but also 124 nations are to have an allocation—because they are going to lose out anyhow. This would be the story of the Homesteading Act in the United States. We should have exactly the same problems multiplied at the bottom of the sea as we already have in definitions on the land.
Please let us think right through: this is a great opportunity, as the right reverend Prelate has said, to break out of the restrictions of our thinking, both in terms of what is possible in the way of development, which I do not want to discourage, except under proper safeguards against destruction of the environment; but let us think through to something which is now an opportunity for us, and for another generation, to break out of the straitjacket of our national thinking.
5.25 p.m.
LORD WAKEFIELD OF KENDAL: My Lords, I should like to join with other noble Lords in paying tribute to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce, for introducing this debate, and also in the tributes that have been paid to Sir Solly Zuckerman and his colleagues for their work and industry in producing such an informative Report, though I must agree with the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie-Calder, that it is disappointing in the attitude of mind disclosed.
The Motion for the subject under discussion has been widely drawn, and rightly so; but it is such a vast subject, and one on which so much can be said, that I find it difficult to decide where best

613
to try to make a contribution. As the international situation has been well covered by earlier speakers, possibly the best I can do is to give support to the noble Earl, Lord Bessborough, in what he said about concentrating on putting our own house in order, and draw attention to areas where I feel there is a serious deficiency in our national underwater efforts; namely, in the narrow but important field of developing and producing hardware and equipment for use on the sea-bed and in the marine environment.
Before I do this, however, I should tell your Lordships that I am a director of a diving company, and I am also President of the British Sub Aqua Club, which is the national body recognised by the Government as responsible for amateur and recreational under-water diving activities. The growth of the British Sub Aqua Club has been very rapid, and it now has over 10,000 active dieing members. The Club's training syllabus is recognised as being the finest in the world and is officially recommended by the Royal Navy. The syllabus is followed and extensively copied by countries all over the world.
Among our divers in membership of the Club there are some highly qualified people, with an extensive knowledge of such subjects as engineering, chemistry, biology, and many other sciences. They are full of enthusiasm and energy, and they are, moreover, highly skilled. I feel that, somehow or other, far more could be done than has been done or is being done by the Government and industry to give these people greater opportunity to use their scientific knowledge and diving skill to the national advantage. If we in the United Kingdom do not do it quite soon, I am quite sure that other countries will make great efforts to entice them away. Also, through the British Sub Aqua Club projects could be provided for examination and report. By giving members of the Club a specific job to do, with a worthwhile purpose, we should undoubtedly make their recreational diving more enjoyable and at the same time add to our knowledge of the sea-bed. I greatly hope that the Government will look further into this suggestion.
I should also like to suggest that the Ministry of Defence include underwater
614
diving in the approved syllabus of training for the Combined Cadet Force. Increasingly the question is asked as to whether, with so many other things to do in school, Cadet Force training is really worth while. I cannot think of anything more worth while for discipline and team work, and for interesting the young in marine science and technology, than to include in the Cadet Force syllabus training in underwater diving. It is in this connection, of course, that the British Sub Aqua Club could give invaluable assistance. I hope that the Ministry of Defence will pursue this suggestion with vigour, because I firmly believe that if they do it will considerably assist in increasing interest in Cadet Force work in schools, as well as in making the young aware of the huge undeveloped potential of the sea-bed.
In his foreword to the Report on Marine Science and Technology the Lord President of the Council says:
"There are no major fields in which our efforts are significantly inadequate."
This statement, I much regret to say, is not in accordance with the facts. While paying well deserved tribute to the outstanding work of the Royal Navy in the development of diving technique and to the work of our scientists in oceanography and marine biology, and to such organisations as the White Fish Authority, there is undoubtedly a feeling of frustration around and about because we are not making use of the knowledge available and are steadily falling behind America in the development and production of hardware and equipment which could be so valuable to us in two ways. On the one hand, it would save us buying this equipment from overseas and, on the other, a substantial export trade could be built up.
What then is wrong, and what can be done to put matters right? We have the inventors, the engineers and the skills needed to produce the tools and equipment required, but there is, I fear, a lamentable lack of progress. I think the reason is a failure by Government to place the necessary development contracts for the hardware and equipment it is known will be needed. I think that the reason for this sorry state of affairs is that our British underwater effort is so heavily fragmented—as indeed the noble Earl, Lord Bessborough, has already said—among some 15 to 20

615
Government Departments and agencies that nobody seems able and willing to make up their minds to place the necessary contracts.
The White Paper recognises this shortcoming and to meet it a new inter-Departmental committee has been set up. But while this committee deliberates America forges ahead; and the reason why America forges ahead is because in 1966 Congress passed the Marine Resources and Development Act, which, if I understand the position correctly, does exactly what is needed in the United Kingdom by giving an organisational framework to provide a strong policy which gives unity and momentum to their programmes and enables the necessary development contracts to be placed with industry. If the United States of America can do this why cannot we in the United Kingdom do it? The answer is given to us by the Lord President of the Council in his foreword in the White Paper, where he says:
"Because of the diversity of interests in marine science and technology, it would be impracticable to make the whole of this field the responsibility of one Minister and one Department."
If it is practicable in America (and quite recently in France) where results are produced for all to see, why is it impracticable here where results are so badly needed? Why cannot a much more determined effort be made to develop and produce manned submersibles; fixed and mobile bottom structures; propulsion devices; instruments and tools for underwater working; vision systems with remote control; life support systems and long endurance power systems, to name but some of the underwater hardware and equipment that is now so badly needed and in such short supply? This is the kind of engineering activity in which this country excels and where there are rich dividends to be reaped, particularly in the export field, quite quickly if only the Government will set about the task with energy and enthusiasm and place the appropriate contracts, as they do in America and in France.
As I see the position, there must be a basic reorganisation so that responsibility can be pinpointed for the placing of development contracts for this much needed equipment and hardware, otherwise we shall continue to fall further
616
behind our overseas competitors in the race for the supply of the tools needed to exploit the huge potential of the sea-bed and marine environment.
I conclude by quoting from a recent editorial in Hydrospace about what is happening in the United States of America:
"The 'Glomer Challenger' is a good example of the way in which these activities can be gelled, and serves to emphasise, again, the huge technology gap which Britain must attempt to bridge. 'Glomer Challenger' is a drilling ship (none yet built in Britain) for research (none used for research in Britain) employing satellite navigation (not developed in Britain) and dynamic positioning based on sea floor beacons (not developed in Britain), using a new type of drill pipe (not available in Britain) and automatic pipe racking equipment (not made in Britain) to drill and take cores several hundred feet below the sea floor in up to 20,000 feet of water (not contemplated in Britain)."
Do the Government now really seriously suggest—and I now again quote the Lord President of the Council in his statement—that:
"There are no major fields in which our efforts are significantly inadequate."?
Is it not now abundantly clear that this statement is quite misleading and indeed untrue? If the Government are now prepared to admit this fact and that immediate and urgent action is in hand or about to be put in hand to remedy the present unsatisfactory state of affairs, then this debate will not have been in vain.
5.37 p.m.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I must apologise for adopting the unusual course of intervening halfway through a debate which has been so ably opened by the noble Lord, Lord Wilberforce, and my noble friend Lord Chalfont, but it became apparent to me—as I think it did to the noble Earl, Lord Bessborough—that we were in certain difficulties. This seems to happen with so many of our debates: however narrow one makes them, they always seem to get wider and wider, and I think it is desirable to take two branches of the same subject together—the international aspects of it and the scientific and technical aspects.
As the debate got nearer I found it almost impossible to refrain from taking part in it since, as with the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, and the noble Earl, Lord Bessborough, this is a subject in which

617
I have been deeply interested and, indeed, to some extent I "have been here already". My noble friend Lord Moyle has just reminded me that I asked him to put down a Question in the Commons back in 1947, about oceanography. I must correct the noble Earl, Lord Bess-borough, at least in general if not in detail, by reminding him that the first debate on space in your Lordships' House was, I think, conducted by the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, the noble Lord, Lord St. Oswald, and myself in the course of a debate on the Air Estimates. I cannot remember who was answering it—probably it was the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, who did not like it a bit.
But we of course have been discussing oceanography, and it is a subject in which I have been deeply interested for a long while. Unfortunately nobody is likely to mention any book I wrote, in the way that my noble friend Lord Ritchie-Calder gets his books mentioned, but I did write a biography of Nansen, who was above all one of the fathers of oceanography. It is not insignificant that Nansen was one of the greatest internationalists of his age, and this is a subject which peculiarly lends itself to international co-operation and raises fundamental questions of international law.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich, as a former Director of the Scott Polar Research Institute and a geologist of great distinction, is well aware of the efforts which some of us have made in the past to bring international institutions into the Antarctic, and certainly into the sea. Speaking as one who has also participated in some of the work of the David Davies Foundation, I believe that this, above all, is an area of activity which has international implications at every point, whether it is in preserving the environment, in exploiting the resources of the sea, or in avoiding the use of this medium for military purposes. The international aspect comes up at every point. Therefore it was unavoidable and right that we should discuss the whole question of the use of marine science and technology in an international context.
None the less, I propose this afternoon, in the few remarks which I intend to make, to concentrate rather more on the area in which the noble Earl, Lord Bess-
618
borough, and the noble Lord, Lord Wakefield of Kendal, were interested, rather than on the international field which has been brilliantly covered by the noble Lord, Lord Wilberforce, and my noble friend Lord Chalfont. Perhaps it is easier for me to say this than it is for my noble friend Lord Chalfont, but I have a feeling that when my noble friend Lord Ritchie-Calder reads what Lord Chalfont said he will be a little more hopeful. There is a great unwillingness among many of us to recognise that things ever improve. There tends to be an assumption, which I detected a little in the speech of my noble friend Lord Ritchie-Calder, that the worst is happening and will go on happening. I take a slightly more optimistic view, and I think that striking advances have been made recently. It is a pity they were not made earlier, and it may well be that in this area, as in others, it is possible to say that they were too little and too late. But I do not believe that they really are too little or too late. And, speaking as one who has observed, rather than as one who has taken part in, this aspect of Government activity I think that Her Majesty's Government have given a very good lead in the international field.
Let me now turn to the Report. I think that noble Lords expected something more than the Report set out to be. Practically any Government Report is called smug or inadequate or wrong, or something or other. But I must stress—and I should especially like to put this to my noble friend Lord Ritchie-Calder—that this is essentially a Report within Government. In effect, it is part of the consideration given to the subject by a Working Party. It is an example of the type of thinking within Government, rather than externally, which this Government have been particularly good at fostering and we decided to publish it. The reason why it took so long is that a great deal of re-writing had to be done, not to cover up errors, but to put the Report into a more readable and suitably arranged form. I now see that the noble Lord, Lord St. Oswald, my space friend, is here. Not only is this Report very good but it is the first of its kind.
When I was in Opposition I used to ask Questions on this subject, but nobody ever suggested producing such a comprehensive document as this. I agree that in certain respects the Report is already out

619
of date; but events are marching on. However, it is a satisfactory account of a great deal more progress than many people realised was going on. I hope noble Lords will agree with me that, although this may be only a modest description, we should be gratified to find how much is going on, notwithstanding the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Wakefield of Kendal, with which I shall deal in a moment. But I would stress that the Government were under no obligation to publish this Report. It could have been brought out in more of a hurry, but this would have required more civil servants, and one of my jobs, as Minister responsible for the Civil Service, is to keep down the numbers of civil servants; and the more that is published the more people are required to produce it.
Let me now deal with the question of the right co-ordination for programmes of research and development. This is dealt with very fully in the Report in paragraphs 138 onwards, together with the reasons why it is considered that the Government's preferred solution is the best one. Here, again, there is a frequent unwillingness to recognise that very real advances have been made since the setting up of the Natural Environment Research Council. When it took over a number of institutions with different disciplines, and responsibility for financing the Marine Biological Associations, many of the laboratories had been unable, for various reasons, to achieve significant growth in comparison with other sectors of civil science.
NERC created for the first time an opportunity for one body to promote a co-ordinated programme of research into all aspects of oceanography, including the sea-bed and its resources and to make good the deficiencies which resulted in the past from the absence of co-ordinating machinery. In creating the Natural Environment Research Council, one object of the Government was to give to this area of research the advantages of being supported by a council similar to those long established ones, such as the Medical Research Council and the Agricultural Research Council. I believe that the achievements of the NERC in promoting research already demonstrate that research councils are responsible in
620
their approach, and are responsible in their reactions to national need.
I should like to take up the argument about the unity between science and technology. Where oceanography is concerned, there is probably a unity between science and research technology, but the technology of exploitation is an entirely different matter. I ask the noble Lord, Lord Wakefield of Kendal, in particular, to consider this. It is simply no good trying to put everything together into one basket. These are totally different areas, and it is difficult to see how there can be unity between science which is progressing—and I include research technology in this—and technology which has so far been very little involved in the oceans, except in the exploitation of oil and gas.
This is a field where science must lead on the research side, and the other problems which noble Lords have raised are not going to be solved by setting up a sort of super-agency. Indeed, I would go so far as to say—this is a personal opinion, but with my other responsibilities I have to look a great deal at the machinery of government—that this is, in fact, a better organisation than that in the United States, and on the whole it is yielding better results. One may say that the results are too modest—this is governed by the amount of resources which the Government devote to them—but I believe that we now have the right machinery. It is yielding results and I am impressed—I think the noble Earl, Lord Bessborough, will support what I am saying, because he put his suggestion forward in a moderate way—by the fact that there is so much enthusiasm. Whether the basic organisation is right—and the noble Earl questions that—things are happening, and there is a great deal of energy and devotion going into this field. I really do not think we do justice to ourselves in attacking our structure.
Here, I should also like to draw attention to the fact that there has been a quite significant increase—a much more significant increase than we have had in previous years—in spending in the marine science field, particularly on marine science and research technology. Indeed, if one looks at sea-bed geology one sees that over a period of two years expenditure has doubled; and one finds this in a number of areas. In total, there is likely to be an increase between

621
1967–68 and the Estimates for 1969–70 of over 50 per cent. The expenditure will have gone up—and this is in the areas within the responsibility of the Natural Environment Research Council—from under £2 million to something approaching £3½ million. That is just one indication of the Natural Environment Research Council's efforts.
My Lords, there is a great deal of very interesting material from a scientific point of view that one could talk about. There are some quite encouraging and exciting developments in the work in this field and I agree with noble Lords that one has the feeling that we are still really only scratching at the surface—the upper surface, rather—of the sea-bed. But the reputation of British scientists in this field, especially of the marine biologists, is very high indeed. I hesitate to talk about Britain's leading the world, because I think that somehow this is an inappropriate phrase in scientific matters; and I think my noble friend would agree. But I should be very sorry to think that we were falling behind the rest of the world. I would only say again on this how much energy is being devoted to the effort; and it is interesting to see the extent to which bodies like the National Institute of Oceanography are extending their contacts into other areas. In fact, the National Institute of Oceanography is always ready to help and give advice to any commercial organisation trying to develop hardware for use in the ocean. I find it difficult to see how being commercially minded, in the sense that some noble Lords have used that phrase, would improve the quality of the research, which is of world-wide repute.
It is interesting, if I may say so to the noble Lord, whose interest in Sub Aqua I have known for long and strongly approve of, that the Institute of Geological Scientists have used skin divers, both members of their own staff and in collaboration with the British Sub Aqua Club, for some very detailed geological mapping off the Scottish coast—although, of course, the technique is not applicable to other than very small areas. I think this is the sort of development we wish to see, and, of course, the Government have supported a number of under-water expeditions. The Services, too, have provided help. I remember, as Air Force Minister, helping to authorise the flying
622
out of equipment to Malta to help with such activities. So I hope that the noble Lord, who speaks with great vigour—and we appreciate it—will accept that there is a great deal of active sympathy, support and action. The Mineral Resources Consultative Committee have recently expressed satisfaction with the programme of the Institute of Geological Science for the Continental Shelf, including the deep seismic profiling.
My Lords, let me say just one thing on the Committee on Marine Technology, which is an important development and which has helped to close a gap. We have the two basic NERC Committees, and now this new Committee which has been set up. These three bodies cover the whole area and they are co-ordinated by Sir Solly Zuckerman's Council. This Committee is closely involved with industry, both directly and through the N.R.D.C. A representative of the National Research Development Corporation attends all meetings of the Committee, and representatives of industry also attend when appropriate. The National Research Development Corporation have placed a considerable number of contracts for marine projects with industry. Of the 19 contracts they have placed, 14 have been with industry. The Committee has set up a number of working parties and has authorised surveys to explore particular branches of marine technology, and industry is helping with these. The Ministry of Technology has placed contracts on behalf of the Committee for various studies of problems in marine technology, and some have been with industry, notably a contract (and I think it was the noble Earl, Lord Bessborough, who referred to this), for the study of underwater tools for use with sea-bed vehicles and other submersibles, which has been placed with Cammell Laird.
The noble Lord, Lord Wakefield of Kendal, gave us a very gloomy picture by taking one particular type of development and using it to suggest that we were totally failing across the board. The particular point to which he was referring is concerned with the American commitment to deep oilfield drilling. We recognise that this is an advanced technology, but there are other areas where we are at least as ahead, if not further ahead. In such fields as advance high-powered sites, scan sonar, such as the

623
National Institute of Oceanography's geological long-range inclined Asdic, we are probably second to none. We have technological tools which are relevant to our problems and programmes.
There was also a question about drilling in the Irish Sea. A short pilot programme of drilling by Wimpey was completed last week. This was designed to determine the contractor's capability to drill through superficial deposits—clay, silt, sand—into the underlying rock. The results are now being studied by the I.G.S. Continental Shelf Unit in relation to a proposal for a considerably expanded programme.
I should have liked to go on further in this area, because there is a great deal that I could say. We were told about French developments. We are well aware of the French Oceanographic Centre at Brest, and we are of course working closely with French scientists there, because this is an international field and when the Centre becomes operational we shall no doubt arrange joint scientific programmes. We have been examining the possibility. But there is no evidence that marine science being developed by the French is any more effective than our own. It may be—I do not know. But I find this sort of assertion, or imputation, that we are always slipping behind compared with everybody else—
THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH: My Lords, will the noble Lord permit me to interrupt him for one moment? repeated, I think more than twice, that I thought our science was the best in the world. I think that, individually, what we are doing with specific projects is as good as anyone is doing. But I was critical of the co-ordination, and of a certain sliding away in some cases.
LORD SHACKLETON: I think the noble Earl is being unduly pessimistic. I do not think he has produced the evidence for this, and I certainly have not heard any. There will always be certain people who will grumble and there will always be points of this kind made. This is a good thing: it keeps us up to the mark. It persuades the Government not to sit back; and they will need, indeed, to think very carefully and thoroughly on these matters.
My Lords, I do not think that I can leave this debate without referring to
624
the desperate problem and threat of pollution. I may have misinterpreted the noble Lord, Lord Wilberforce, but I think he was perhaps a little unfair in suggesting that preserving the environment was relegated to the latter part of the Report. I am not sure whether this is what he meant to say. He will see what this Report was intended for. I find it difficult to think of it in terms of being divided up; because large parts of the Report are concerned directly (according to the appropriate subjects they are discussing) with the question of preserving the environment. The fact that the Working Party on Marine Technology has no specific mandate to deal with the problem of marine environment seems to me really to have nothing to do with it. It does not mean that there is not machinery. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Wilberforce, that the need exists. Those of us who have been active in this field. like my noble friends Lord Ritchie-Calder and Lady Wootton (who is at present sitting on the Woolsack) feel deeply that protection of the environment is of crucial importance. It is interesting how often we come back in debates to the protection of the environment. At least, we are doing so much more often in the House of Lords than was the case ten or twenty years ago.
One of the organisations to which I should like to pay tribute is the one of which the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, is Chairman. That is the Advisory Committee on Oil Pollution. If noble Lords can bear to read this weighty tome, the product of the meeting in Rome last October over which he presided, they will find a great deal of very valuable information. At this conference there were experts, both governmental and non-governmental, including the chief scientific adviser to the British Government, and the conference went through the matter in great detail. I believe that this is an invaluable document for all Governments—but all Governments must read it; and individuals must read it. I should not like to claim that Her Majesty's Government had read this as closely as they should; but I can assure noble Lords that one thing this debate will have achieved is that it will be studied, even more carefully. I can certainly tell the House that it is being studied by the Natural Environment Research Council.

625
But this Advisory Committee—and perhaps at this point, since I am praising it, I should declare my interest and say that I was the noble Earl's predecessor—is a very striking example of voluntary activity. It started originally from almost ornithological interests and the admirable Miss Berkeley Smith created so much of this institution. It has become a very powerful body. It is worth noting, for those who think that matters do not improve, the statement at the end of the Report where they say that as a result of the clean seas code which this Advisory Committee played a large part in bringing about, the discharge of oil in tanker washings has been diminished by some 80 per cent.; that is, the quantity of persistent oil. So I think we can feel that in this area also progress is being made. Whether it is being made fast enough depends on the vigilance and energy of ordinary citizens, and particularly those of us in a position to bring influence to bear.
I must again apologise for breaking further away from the international side; but I hope that the noble Earl, Lord Bessborough, will feel that I have answered some of his points. I only hope that if by any chance he gets into Government, his Government will do as well as this one in this field.
6.5 p.m.
LORD IRONSIDE: My Lords, I think that Lord Wilberforce's Motion has given us an important opportunity of discussing a matter which is going to be of major significance to the nation in terms of growth and future prosperity, and I am grateful to him for having introduced it. I cannot speak with the same authority as he on international law, but I should like to say some words about it. I am conscious that a degree of emotion is being exhibited about the ownership of the sea bottom and that this is providing a seed bed for international controversy which could become hotter as the years go by. I am encouraged by what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce, said about progress at the United Nations. I do not think anyone can at the moment predict what the final pattern of agreement will be about the rights to be exercised by nations under the deep-sea waters, but stances are already being assumed and traditional rights publicised so that people will not
626
miss any trick whatsoever. The 1958 law on the Continental Shelf, ratified in 1964, is, I think, a step towards legalising the national rights; but the pace of development is increasing and the denizens of the newly-found deeps, although not actually planting flags of possession on every ocean ridge they reach, are laying down marker buoys and other devices and generally making themselves at home.
They are steadily going deeper. Oil companies are not expecting to be operating off-shore production facilities below 600 metres until after 1980; but the Royal Navy experimental target is 1,200 feet and the working depth will be 600 to 800 feet by 1972. So we go on, down the Continental Slope, down the rise (if I may use such a phrase) to the abyssal plain of the ocean depth. The more security they give themselves, commercially and morally, the harder they will resist outside encroachment on their activities in which they have invested money, lives and materials. Hence, there is, I believe, some urgency in getting to grips with the problem of ocean rights and of keeping ahead of technological developments which will quicken their pace as the years go by. That point was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Wilberforce; but the point I want to make is that I do not think we should delay technological development while the matter of international law is discussed at the United Nations over a very much longer period. The maritime nations of the world have had great experience in formulating international law and I hope that our national interests can be internationally extended in a way that is related to the importance that we have always attached to maritime affairs.
An oceanic régime is evolving and the pattern will not necessarily be set by the technologically advanced or the maritime countries with large resources. As has been said by one well-known oil company legal adviser, "Even if we lack technologists, the smaller and developing countries usually have no shortage of politicians and legal brains, and coming to terms will mean coming to terms on legal grounds as much as on anything else". Quasi-sovereign rights are, I understand, at present exercised, and these will almost certainly be extended to the so-called geological boundaries of the

627
Continental Shelf. Beyond that, rights need to be defined and our own national interests must be protected within the international framework of a working convention.
The point is that scientific research is probing to much greater depths than those at present being commercially exploited. I can see a sort of scientific gesticulation calling us down to the sea-bed. You might compare it to the second half of a perfect military salute. After the scientists have taken us the long way up into space in the last decade, they are now calling us to go the short way down to the sea-bed for the next, where they are convinced that the rewards are likely to be better and nearer to hand.
My Lords, this is where I come to the White Paper which endeavours to describe developments in this country in the marine field. The Minister hopes that the Report will stimulate informed discussion of future activities and policy. This I am sure it will do, as I find it impossible to identify from it a clear-cut programme or a list of national priorities. Yet, basically, the 16 or so Government organisations, including seven Ministries, can point to work of some merit, very often based on years, and in some cases generations and centuries of experience and tradition. This, so far as it goes, is typical of the high standard set by establishments and institutes which we have come to expect, and in oceanology most of these have been there a long time. One cannot point to the new disciplines, as in space, and all the "-ics" and "-ologies" and "-ographies" are pretty well known and established.
I think the main points contained in the Report are that marine science is progressing satisfactorily, and I believe that everybody would largely agree with this view. But there is a need to evolve better working arrangements with industry to exploit the situation. The Report sees the Ministry of Technology as the leading Ministry with its Advisory Committee on Marine Technology—C.M.T.—being used as a sort of Development Council. As with space, my Lords, the Government view still appears to be that it is impossible to give responsibility to one Ministry or organisation. Yet if one looks at the way oceanology is organised
628
in other maritime countries, one sees how they are coming to grips with the situation and how they are instituting national programmes which define objectives.
Take, for example, France and the United States. In France, as my noble friend Lord Bessborough said, there is the top-level body known as C.N.E.X.O., responsible to the Prime Minister, with power to co-ordinate and programme the work of Ministries. It can also place contracts with industry where necessary; and as the noble Lord, Lord Wakefield said, in the United States there is a similar body, chaired by the Vice-President, known as the National Council on Marine Resources and Engineering Development. The Report of the complementary body, the Commission of Marine Science and Engineering Resources, has now recommended that a Federal agency be formed, similar to NASA, which might be known as the National Ocean and Atmospheric Agency, with broad goals as follows: the development of necessary technology to make possible productive work for sustained periods at depths to 2,000 feet, and the development of a technical capability sufficient to allow useful access to depths to 20,000 feet—which comprises more than 98 per cent. of the world's ocean floor space.
The second recommendation of the Commission to which I wish to draw attention has perhaps been somewhat overlooked, but is considered now to be more important immediately. It is the formation of a National Advisory Committee on Oceans which would help to shape national goals and objectives in respect of commitments, capabilities and long-range interests of both the private and public sectors as well as ensuring an effective flow of information between the two. It is interesting to note that the 15 proposed members of NACO (as it is called) would be selected from both Government and industry, with particular reference to the fact that the great majority of members should be thoroughly experienced in industrial programmes for the exploitation of the sea. Big words, my Lords, and big money, because in United States eyes oceanology is in the realm of big science. National projects have also been enumerated, but I think it still remains to be seen how much of the Commission's recommendations are implemented, and when.

629
It seems to me, my Lords, that in this respect the White Paper Report does not go far enough. It refers to the roles of the various Government establishments involved, with particular reference to the part played by the Natural Environment Research Council. It seems to me that the Committee for Marine Technology will have only the power to review and advise, without being able to implement any particular schemes which are seen to be necessary towards achieving economic goals. I am sorry to see that there is no recommendation to co-opt on to the C.M.T. people from industry, though I think, in view of what the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, has just said, there may he a possibility that people from industry will after all, be co-opted on to this Committee.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Lord? I am not sure that this would be the right solution. It is very important, of course, that the Committee should have direct links with industry, but I am not even sure whether all of industry would like it, especially when one comes into the contracting fields. But I heartily agree with the noble Lord that there must be the closest relation, whatever the machinery should be.
LORD IRONSIDE: Well, my Lords, I think that the co-opting of people from industry is important. It would be sensible especially in view of the fact that the C.M.T., as I read it, would be involved in the carrying out of detailed technical and economic assessments, and that further work is needed in conjunction with industry to establish what the Government can do to promote the development of equipment for sea-bed operations. This, I think, comes fairly close to the recommendations of the American Commission when they talk about NACO, the National Advisory Committee for Oceans.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, if I may interrupt the noble Lord once more, again to try to be helpful, I think it might be rather a good thing—though I cannot promise it—if at some stage we have a report on the work of this Committee and how long it will take to process. This will enable us to judge better how it functions.
LORD IRONSIDE: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Lord. The development of tools of the trade in all respects which are needed for man to work at depth is where British industry is most concerned. And here I must declare an interest, as I am concerned with a company which has received a development contract for developing equipment for use under the sea. Without the tools of the trade we shall not be in the best position to exploit the underwater environment of the sea-bed. Dredgers, submersibles, power tools, visual aids and diving equipment—some of the things mentioned by my noble friend, Lord Bessborough—in addition to all the support facilities, are all things which would be needed, and markets for these pieces of equipment are undoubtedly developing.
I was glad to have had the opportunity of visiting the Oceanology 1969 Exhibition at Brighton and to have seen the extent of world-wide industrial interest in oceanology. I particularly noted there the large number of United States firms taking part and the extent to which clearly the United States Government is involved in supporting its own industry. If any of your Lordships travelled to Brighton during the week of the Exhibition (which was February 18 to 21) you would probably not have failed to notice the pretty female assistants handing out United States Government publicity material on every fast train. My impression was that the range of industrial goods being offered was largely based on land adaptations, and I felt that British marine expertise could be mobilised in the development of products and facilities which would fully meet the future needs of marine operators. Oceanology 1969 followed the successful Greenwich seminar of October, 1968, and the Harwell Conference of 1967, and I think that all of these should now have brought home to us just what is at stake in oceanology.
My Lords, I am glad to see that the Ministry of Technology have placed a contract with the Construction Industry Research and Information Association to outline what development work needs to be carried out for firms to be able to compete in the expanding industrial markets of underwater engineering. When this study report is available, at the end of 1969, I hope that the Government will give

631
it wide circulation in industry and will act without delay on those parts of it which concern their own Departments—for example, the Royal Navy, in particular, which holds the key to so much of the technology associated with the marine environment.
As the White Paper says, the Ministry of Defence Navy Department is preeminent in its experience of practical operations at sea, and this would not be so if it were not backed by extensive research and development facilities for such things as hull design, propulsion, underwater detection, hydrography and diving. Diving is now, of course, one of the most important factors in the advance of underwater engineering, and the Royal Navy has progressed in saturation diving using oxygen/helium mixtures which allow diving engineers and technicians to go to 600 feet. This is a depth which covers the Continental Shelf in the main. Diving probably offers the best prospects at present of getting to grips with underwater engineering and exploitation of the sea-bed; and, without going into detail, let me draw attention to the words in the White Paper about diving. They are not taken out of context, but are part of the paragraph which draws attention to what is needed in the way of diving development. It says:
"The need for rapid progress is so great."
Because defence and commercial needs overlap, they could be satisfied more quickly and economically by a joint programme of research and development. No research and development seems to be cheap, but the present outlay of £100,000 per annum, plus the cost of running H.M.S. "Reclaim" and experimental trials at £150,000, seem small in relation to the benefits to be obtained. A further contribution of about £l00,000 per annum is the least considered necessary to provide a significant boost to diving developments, subject to the availability of staff and diving volunteers.
It would appear that progress in this field can be predicted now some way ahead but is only to be made by increasing the efforts substantially above a critical threshold, and I hope that the Government will do all they can to promote activity in this particular field. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, could say what plans the Government
632
have for continuing with deep diving developments after the seven-year extension of H.M.S. "Reclaim" is complete. However, as some attention has been drawn to whether suitable staff and diving volunteers are available, may I also ask the noble Lord what in fact the situation is in respect of divers in the United Kingdom at the present moment? I am not referring to the divers mentioned by my noble friend Lord Wakefield of Kendal, when he said that there are 10,000 shallow water divers, but to the divers who have completed long, specialised courses and are experts in the field. I should also like to ask the noble Lord whether there is any indication of a "diving-drain". Clearly diving expertise is needed in the United States and the wage rates must be very high for this sort of expertise. Diving volunteers are trained at great expense by the Royal Navy and they are obviously of great value to industry, and one would hope that their services can be of value to the country when they leave the Navy.
At this point, I should like to mention a proposal which is being advanced in one quarter for a nautical professional body. Many anomalies are to be found to-day in marine training and qualifications, when compared with other professions. With the development of oceanology, which involves a wide range of operations at sea, I think that this is an appropriate moment to draw attention to the proposal. The Marine Society has suggested that there would be advantages for the whole of the shipping industry if the marine vocation was to be organised along professional lines in the future. They suggest also that existing training and qualifications need to be brought up to date, if the marine vocation is to flourish in a technological age, and that only an authoritative professional body can accomplish this.
I do not want to go into details, but the desire for such a body must come from within nautical circles and there is evidence that this is occurring now. The Navy League, I am told, are extremely interested and so is the Company of Master Mariners. Other professional bodies are already involved, as assessors, for example, which suggests that there is a need for a responsible standard-setting nautical body to be established. Many aspects are involved, all directed

633
towards achieving high standards of competence and safety at sea and now, for that matter, under the sea as well. Most professions have been encouraged by the Government to set acceptable standards and are governed to a degree by Acts of Parliament. It seems to me that the standards for diving operations and practices are not governed other than in the Royal Navy and, from what we have heard from my noble friend Lord Wakefield of Kendal, in the British Sub Aqua Club as well. The Royal Navy sets a supreme example in this respect. If the Government can give encouragement at this stage for a professional body, provided the statutory requirements for safety at sea are not in any way prejudiced, I am sure that it will be welcome and I hope that we shall observe progress.
Lastly, I should like to emphasise that there is a wide range of ocean-based industries. I cannot mention them all, but there are those which exploit the resources and those which supply the capital equipment needs. British firms are in an excellent position to provide goods, services and consultancy. The main areas of interest are detailed in the White Paper. Marine technology, I think, will be a rewarding field and we must not neglect it.
6.26 p.m.
LORD MITCHISON: My Lords, I can promise at least to be short. May I begin by warmly and sincerely thanking the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce, for what respectfully think was a brilliant speech. Though in one sense the lawyers have done their job, they have not quite completed it. There are, if I remember rightly, three South American countries which still claim that their territorial waters extend for 200 miles, and they can make out a sort of case. We stick to the three-mile limit, and that is because a Dutchman called Binkerhock in about 1700 thought that that was as far as one could fire a gun. Guns are a bit out of date, Binkerhock is a bit out of date, and possibly the whole question of territorial waters must be looked at in another light.
When people look back to this age we are living in now—if we are not all blown to bits by that lime—I think they will say that there were two outstanding world problems: first, the problem of
634
the rich nations and the poor nations, of the gap that widens every day; and the second, closely connected with the first, the simple problem of feeding the world.
Towards these two problems, the subject we are talking about to-day seems to me to be the kind of thing that can make the most suitable contribution, and therefore I hope that those who read the records of this debate will feel that not only British lawyers and scientists but British citizens as a whole ought to feel that the Government and all who work in this field have done a great deal in a comparatively short space of time for the benefit of mankind. I hope that we are going to keep to this.
It seems to me nonsense, if I may respectfully say so, to expect to solve the problems of the ocean on any other than an international basis, as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich said in the course of his speech and as did my noble friend Lord Ritchie-Calder. I think that any other method is bound to break on the rocks sooner or later. It has to be solved on an international basis, and I mean an international basis covering questions of sovereignty, of ownership and of control.
From that, it seems to me to follow that we have to have a national agency of some sort—a national corporation, call it what you will—to deal with the economics of the matter as well as to control operations. I hope that private industry will not be used for any other purpose than doing work for which it is properly paid and which will be as well done as it has been done, for instance, in the North Sea, and that the result will come to the Government of the day for the benefit ultimately not just of the people of this country but also of the rest of the world.
Dr. Pardo, who was mentioned to-day by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wiberforce—he will be amused to hear that he has made me read a lot of papers—has said that this would be the best contribution we could make towards the problem of the rich nations and the poor nations, and that when we get to the stage of dealing with that it will have to be done through the United Nations and by the Governments of the world. I very much doubt whether there is much room for other organisations trying to

635
do it. I am not saying or suggesting that Government Departments or Government agencies should do drilling in the North Sea; I am suggesting that they should control the economics of the matter, just as they will have to control the final disposal of the financial resources for the benefit of mankind.
I agree that, as my noble friend the Leader of the House said, this is primarily an international matter; I think it is bound to be. But there is one thing that has struck me very much, listening as I have all through this debate, and it is that the Prime Minister was quite right when at Scarborough (not the last time, but the time before) he foreshadowed distinctly a Ministry of Science. He did not say so in so many words—nobody can accuse him of having broken his word about it—but the impression that I had from his speech was that there was going to be a Ministry of Science. I think this is most necessary, and I agree with noble Lords who have said so. I do not intend for a moment to minimise the extremely competent efforts of my noble friend Lord Chalfont and of the other Ministers who serve the Foreign Office, but this is not really the kind of matter which can be dealt with properly through the Foreign Office.
There are suggestions—some by the Working Party, and some by the Lord President of the Council in the White Paper—that there should be methods of co-ordinating existing bodies. What we want is Occam's Razor here. Occam did not believe in multiplying entities unnecessarily. There is a staggering list of bodies trying to deal with this subject and it has reached a stage where it certainly needs a responsible Cabinet Minister in this country to deal not only with this aspect of science, but, I hope, with other aspects, too. It is the kind of thing which the Foreign Office, which has existed for many, many years—it is the oldest Department of State—is nowadays wholly unable to deal with. I say that bluntly, frankly and sincerely, and I hope that my noble friend Lord Chalfont will not think for a minute that I am minimising the competence or importance of the Foreign Office as such. I am merely suggesting a consti-
636
tutional change, remembering that at the moment we have a Commission studying the Constitution and we have a long Report about the Civil Service which is also being put into operation. I hope that out of all this effort we shall get a proper Ministry of Science.
6.33 p.m.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I should like to join with those noble Lords who have congratulated the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce, on introducing this Motion this afternoon. I am glad he has done so, because it has given those of us who, like me, are personally interested in this topic an opportunity of expressing our views. I am glad, too, because, as has been underlined by many speakers in this debate, this is clearly a matter of much international importance. I should like to touch on just one aspect of this question. I think it is true to say that our civilisation to-day is running a race with famine, and the better exploitation of what the seas can provide in the way of food is one of the ways in which that race can be won.
This matter is also one of great national importance. I recently received the interesting Report of the Stratton Commission—the Report of the United States Commission on marine science engineering and resources—to which my noble friend, Lord Ironside, referred in his well-informed speech. That Report starts with words that I should like to quote. It says, right at the introduction:
"How fully and wisely United States uses the sea in the decades ahead will affect profoundly its security, its economy, its ability to meet the increasing demands for food and raw materials, its position of influence in the world's community and the quality of the environment in which its people live."
I entirely agree with those words: and what goes for the United States in this respect goes too for us. But, that having been said, I would agree with the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, that this is a difficult debate, because it is really two debates wrapped up in one: it is a debate partly about our own national effort in this sphere and partly about the scope of international action.
I should like first to turn to our national effort in this field (Cmnd. Paper 3992), and straight away I wish to give credit where credit is due and congratulate the Government on setting up this Working Party. It was very much needed, because there is an enormous dispersion of activity in this whole field.

637
As I see it, two schools of thought have emerged in our debate this afternoon. There are those who have been restrainedly enthusiastic about this Report; and there are others (the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie-Calder was one) who belong to a rather less enthusiastic school of thought. I must say that I am with the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie-Calder, in that respect. Despite the excuse which the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, offered, and which I accept, it is a pity that this Report was so long delayed. It is a pity, also, that it was anonymous. It would be useful to know who contributed to this Report. In most Reports of this nature we know the members of the Working Party, and it is odd that we do not know them in this case.
It is also a pity that the tone here is basically so complacent. I should like to take one example (perhaps an unfair one) of that. Your Lordships will find in paragraph 50 of the Report of the Working Party the sentence:
"The scope for industry to develop new techniques of off-shore oil and gas exploration and production appears to be limited."
That may well be so. But I well remember reading four or five years ago a remarkable lecture given by the then senior director of Shell, Mr. Loudon. Shell, of course, are quite a well-informed company in this particular field, and Mr. Loudon was a reasonably senior and well-informed representative of the oil industry at the time. He said that he foresaw within a decade or so complete underwater oilfields, with everything to gather, separate, measure and store the oil located on the ocean floor itself. That hardly squares with this sentence in the Report of the Working Party.
In sum, my Lords, I think the Working Party have done a very conscientious piece of work, and we are all indebted to them for bringing together this material, but I personally feel that it is fair to say that, although they have rifled through very conscientiously a great deal of straw and stacked it in a reasonably convenient form for all of us, they have not really produced a coherent brick, or told us how that coherent brick could be produced. As my noble friend Lord Ironside said, from this Report of the Working Party we do not get any coherent national plan, or even the glimmering of one, and no real sense
638
of national priorities in this whole field. But perhaps one should not be too unkind about what is, after all, only a first effort. I was glad to hear the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, half promise that we should soon get a Report from the Committee on Marine Technology. I think we should all welcome that very much: and I should welcome, too, a more up-to-date review of the whole field within measurable time, which we could then perhaps debate again.
That said, so far as priorities are concerned I would agree with what is said in the introduction of the Report: that so far as our national effort is concerned it is probably right to give priority at the present time to three fields; namely, fisheries, mineral resources and in-shore oceanography. I would ask the noble Lord who is to reply one question—I apologise for not having given him previous notice of it—about our mineral resources. The Report draws attention to the urgent need for a geological and geophysical survey of the whole of the United Kingdom's share of the Continental Shelf. What is being done about that and when will that report be available?
This debate has not, I think, been a Party political one. A number of themes seem to have emerged on the national effort and a common strand has been the need for greater involvement in this whole business of ocean science, of industry, of our Defence Departments and of the universities. So far as industry is concerned, I agree with what my noble friends Lord Bessborough and Lord Wakefield have said. I think that there is a clear need for greater involvement.
I am concerned at the evidence of the backwardness of our industrial approach to these matters. Let me give examples: the fact that so much of our North Sea gas effort has been dependent upon alien technologies, or at least their application; the fact that so many of the rigs have not been built in the United Kingdom and so much of the diving effort., in which in many ways we are pre-eminent, in a purely scientific way has not been United Kingdom effort; the fact that the great pipe-laying activities are being conducted by American firms. I was also concerned—without, I hope, being unduly nationalistic—to see that the licences to work alluvial tin (this is alluvial tin on the Shelf at St. Ives Bay) have been

639
granted to a South African company and that an American company has recently prospected the whole coast of Cornwall for submarine tin alluvials out to the 100 ft. line. It is distressing that this sort of effort is not being made by British companies.
How can this greater involvement of British industry in this exciting new frontier area of science be achieved? I have nothing very novel to offer, but it seems to me that it can be best achieved by "the mixture as before," but a good deal more of it. More development contracts should be placed with industry. I am glad to hear that 14 contracts have now been placed with industry. So far as the closer association of industry with the work of the Committee on Marine Technology is concerned, I should like to reserve judgment on the Government's apparent feeling that there is no place for permanent representation of industry on that Committee. I should have thought that permanent representation was probably desirable.
Another aspect of our industrial effort on which I should like briefly to touch, is the need for greater concentration. Here I must declare an interest, as I am connected with a company involved in the marine equipment field. One reads in paragraph 126 of the Working Party's Report the sentence:
"Because of the limited market for marine instruments, however, there may be a need to concentrate our efforts in a relatively few centres".
I am inclined to agree. It seems to me that our effort industrially is unduly dispersed here. We need a less dispersed ant: stronger industrial base, and I hope that this can come through the efforts of industry itself.
With regard to the greater involvement of the Ministry of Defence and the Defence Department, I would entirely endorse what my noble friends have said about the pioneering work which the Royal Navy are doing in this sphere. I would ask the Government a question on one point. In the short time which I served with the Admiralty I became very conscious of the enormous importance of oceanography to the national defence effort and, indeed, of its civilian applications. I was glad to see that during my year there the Admiralty Board estab-
640
lished a special committee to concern itself at a high level with the defence applications of oceanography. I hope that the noble Lord will be able to confirm that that committee of the Admiralty Board, which was a very senior one, is functioning and functioning with energy; and the point I would press the Government on is the need for the release of information from the Navy Department to industry. A good deal is said about the advantages of this in the Working Party's Report. I very much hope that in this sphere, where it is so easy to wrap things up in a security blanket, the Ministry of Defence and the Service Departments are being as free as they can be with the release of information which can be of very real value to industry.
Next, my Lords, the involvement of the universities with the ocean sciences. In the Report which my noble friend Lord Ironside mentioned, the Report of the Stratton Commission on Marine Science, heavy emphasis is laid on the need to secure a wide, academic base for marine science in the United States. I am very surprised that so little emphasis is placed on this in the Report of the Working Party. There is only one short paragraph on it. I am surprised, since I believe that our academic base is inadequate. So far as I know, in British universities at the present time there are only four courses on oceanography. That compares with 65 courses in the United States universities and colleges on science and marine engineering. This is one of the areas where the brain-drain is telling on our already limited resources. I am sure that more attention needs to be paid to this matter, and I hope that a very conscious effort will be made by the Department concerned, and by the Government to involve our universities, and similar institutions as deeply as possible in the ocean sciences. There are many ways in which that can be done.
Finally, the question of organisation. As has been said by my noble friends, our effort here is dispersed over 14 Government Departments, and Government institutions of various kinds. There is a committee structure of almost Byzantine complexity. The Working Party seemed to believe that, despite this, the structure was adequate. The Government, too, seem to believe that the present structure

641
is the best of all possible structures in the best of all possible worlds. On these questions of Governmental organisation, outsiders should never be too dogmatic, but I doubt whether this present extraordinarily complicated structure is the right one. Clearly our national effort in the ocean sciences needs to be adequately financed. But for the very reason that our resources here are limited it is all the more important that our effort should be adequately focused. I doubt myself whether this is the case at the present time.
My instinct in this respect is buttressed by what one knows about the organisation of these matters abroad. In the United States there is a National Council of Marine Sciences directly under the Vice-President. Alongside this there is the very high-level Commission of Marine Science and Engineering Resources under the President of the Ford Foundation. And that Commission has proposed in a report to the President that there should be established in the United States a National Oceanic and Atmospheric Agency. Given that, and given the French experience, I question whether our own highly complicated organisation is in fact the right one. I accept that this is above all an interdisciplinary field, and that therefore there is need for bringing in many departments and to have some form of interdepartmental structure. But I myself see no reason at all (and I think this is the point which the noble Lord, Lord Mitchison. was making) why all this should not he brought together under one responsible Minister. And, so long as this Government lasts, I hope very much that that Minister could be the noble Lord. Lord Shackleton, given his great interest in these matters.
I turn now, briefly and in conclusion, having dealt summarily with our national effort, to one or two aspects on the international plane. First, given the emphasis which the Government have placed on European technology, I was surprised to find little or no mention in the Working Party's Report about how co-operation on the ocean sciences with our neighbours in Western Europe could be developed. There is the barest mention of this. I should have thought that there were areas here which would lend themselves to co-operation on a European basis.
642
In any event, there is clearly in the ocean sciences scope for the widest possible international collaboration. In this respect, I should like to say straight away that I found myself in very considerable agreement with everything that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce, said, and with a great deal that fell from the lips of the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont. I would agree that we need as soon as possible to establish a realistic international régime for the oceans; and I hope that the restrained optimism which the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, expressed about the progress of the Eighteen-Nations Disarmament Committee will in fact be justified. But this is an urgent flatter, and it really is urgent that international action should be effective to avoid what I think the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie-Calder, said was the imminent danger of a "free-for-all" in ocean space.
There are two particular matters on which I should like just to touch. The first concerns pollution. I readily acknowledge here the help which I received as the Chairman of the British Committee on the Pollution of the Seas by Oil from the Government and from a great range of Government Departments in the preparation of the non-Governmental Conference which was held in Rome last October. I very much hope that there will be a very active follow-up to the recommendations of that Conference by Her Majesty's Government and by the other Governments concerned. Because, so far as oil pollution is concerned, it really is urgent to get international action to prevent the wilful dumping of the oil, which is still being dumped around the oceans of the world—one million tons at least—quite unnecessarily. It is equally urgent to get effective international action to reduce the incidence of accidents involving oil discharge and, when they do occur, to mitigate their effects.
But there are two other areas of international action about which I should like to ask. The noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, referred to the North Sea Convention governing oil pollution. I was very glad to see that that Convention has been signed. It will, however, become fully effective only if the French Government adhere to it: and I hope the noble Lord may be able to tell us, in winding up, that the adherence of the

643
French Government to that Convention has been secured.
Secondly, while I am dealing with the question of pollution, I should like to voice the personal opinion that behind the problem of oil lies an even greater danger of pollution of the oceans; that is, pollution by agents other than oil. I am thinking above all here of the increasing tendency for dangerous cargoes to be carried around the oceans of the world, and the probability, unless international rules governing those cargoes are established and enforced, that there may well be within a matter of a few years an international catastrophe at sea which would make the "Torrey Canyon" incident a very small matter indeed. I know that this is already engaging Her Majesty's Government's attention. I hope that the work they are doing in this sphere will be the prelude to a further international convention covering dangerous cargoes of this kind.
My Lords, so much for the international sphere, which I think is one of extreme importance here. May I say just this, in conclusion? The noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, referred in his remarks to the interest of myself and other noble Lords in space. Granted, But may I also recall the words which that wise man, Sir Frederick Brundrett, used the other day—namely:
"It does not seem very sensible that man will have landed on the Moon before he has done more with the sea on his own planet than ruffle the surface."
Very true. But other nations are now beginning to do more than ruffle the surface of the waters on this planet: they are making very great national efforts. I hope that we shall, as a maritime nation—and we are very little, my Lords, if we do not remain a maritime nation—be among the non-rufflers, and that we shall remain very much in the forefront among the nations of the world in the exploration and the exploitation of the oceans of this world. I hope too that we shall remain, not in a parochial, not in a chauvinistic or unduly nationalistic way, a leading nation in the search for a proper international organisation in this very important new frontier of science.
6.58 p.m.
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, I want to be as brief as possible in asking your
644
leave to speak again in this debate. I shall be so brief that I shall not in fact have time to take up all the very interesting points that have been made in this debate. I hope noble Lords will accept that these points will be taken account of, and that in any initiatives or any negotiations that we may take part in, especially in the international fields although also on questions of national organisation, those points will be very carefully borne in mind.
Perhaps I may begin by mentioning a point made by my noble friend Lord Ritchie-Calder in the course of his interesting speech. He mentioned, as indeed did the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, the question of the possibility of a sea grab the new form of colonialism in dealing with the sea-bed. Perhaps this danger has been over-emphasised. As I hope I made clear in my earlier remarks, we are, with other countries which are members of the United Nations, doing all that we can to ensure that the question of the sea-bed is dealt with in a civilised international way. Although my noble friend Lord Shackleton took issue with the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie-Calder, in one respect I feel that I must take a few seconds to take issue with him in another respect. That was when he said that in regard to the question of the demilitarisation of the sea-bed we should not be put off by considerations of defence, which, if I understood him aright, he thought were rather tiresome.
LORD RITCHIE-CALDER: My Lords, I said "pretext".
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, I take the noble Lord's point that it was the pretext of defence, but of course considerations of defence are not simply pretexts. We have to consider the security of this country in any international negotiations or discussions in which we take part. Of course, we should like to see an effective system of arms control to cover the sea-bed, but this can only be by international agreement, like most agreements on armaments and arms control; and while we are negotiating those agreements I believe it right that we, like other countries, should take proper account of the security and the defence of these Islands. I can assure my noble friend that we shall not use these matters as excuses or pretexts, but I can assure him and the whole House that in this

645
kind of international negotiation we shall quite definitely keep in the front of our minds the need for international agreement and the need for national security.
My Lords, I shall deal briefly, and perhaps not in any kind of logical order, with some of the major points that were made. Perhaps I may first mention again the point made by my noble friend Lord Mitchison and also by the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, when he made his interesting and constructive speech. I refer to the idea that one Minister might be responsible for all aspects of the subject that we have been discussing this afternoon. Of course we have considered this possibility carefully, and noble Lords will have noted that Part IV of the Report which we are debating deals with the question of co-ordination. I think it is enough to say, as the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, has accepted, that this matter covers such a wide range of subjects and disciplines, and is dealt with by so many Departments, that it is unlikely that any one Minister could do any more in this field than spend most of his time and most of the time of his officials getting briefed by other Government Departments.
We have looked at this, and the noble Earl will know that in some respects we have tried to achieve this co-ordination by means of advisory committees and instruments of co-ordination. Up to now it is our conviction (although if experience shows it to be inadequate we shall look at the question again) that that kind of instrument is a more refined and effective instrument for dealing with coordination than the simple and perhaps superficially attractive idea of putting a Minister in charge of the whole operation. I quite agree with the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, that if we were to have such a Minister, I can think of no better than the noble Lord the Leader of the House. But it is our conviction at the moment that even his unique services are not required in this particular field.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, if I may interrupt the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, for a second, I think he was rather putting words into my mouth. I accepted the fact that this was an inter-disciplinary subject if ever there was one, and therefore I agreed with him that it necessarily embraced the work of many Depart-
646
ments; but I do not think that means that one Minister is incapable of grasping it and giving a focus to the national effort. Indeed, just because it does embrace so many Departments I think there is a great deal to be said for one person trying to bring the whole thing together. Even in this Government I think a Minister worth his salt—and I am quite prepared to admit that there are many Ministers worth their salt in the present Government—would be capable of doing this.
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, I take the noble Lord's point, and I hope that I was not guilty of putting words into his mouth—certainly it is not necessary. I will of course take note of what he said, and I am quite sure that my noble friend the Leader of the House will bear it in mind in the particular work that he is doing at the moment.
Perhaps I may refer briefly to the questions raised by the noble Lord, Lord Ironside, who was kind enough to give me notice of some of the questions he would ask. I am afraid that despite his courtesy in that respect I cannot give him a very satisfactory answer, especially in regard to the training of divers in the Royal Navy. Again, I shall take careful note of what he said about the importance of this particular expertise in the Royal Navy. I know he will agree from his own experience that the Royal Navy is recognised as one of the leading authorities in the world on the training of divers and in experimental diving. I cannot give him any detailed figures about this; I can only say that the Royal Navy trains a substantial number of divers every year, and I hope they will continue to play an important part and take the lead in this important branch of Naval skills.
LORD IRONSIDE: My Lords, if I may interrupt the noble Lord for one moment I should like to ask whether he has any indication of a "diving-drain" or anything of that nature. When these people are trained in the Royal Navy they are trained to a high degree, and after they leave the Service there does not seem to be any sort of record showing where they go, what they do or whether they ever keep in touch with diving circles.
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, I am sure that this is a problem, and. of course, it is a problem that covers other

647
trades and other forms of expertise in the Services. Once a man has left the Service, trained as comprehensively as he may be in any skill, it is difficult to keep track of him. I am afraid I cannot give the noble Lord a clear answer about that. I certainly have no information about what he calls a "divers-drain", which sounds rather peculiar, but I think I can see exactly what he means in this particular context. I cannot give him any definite information about that, but if I should be able to get any I will certainly let him have it.
The noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, asked about reports from the Committee on Marine Technology. There is indeed to be an Annual Report from this Committee and we are expecting the first Report shortly. I cannot give any precise date, but it should appear quite soon.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, does that mean that the Report will be published?
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, I understand that the Report will be published, and that it will be published soon. With regard to the noble Earl's question about prospecting and surveying for mineral resources, I can assure him that this work is being carried out, but again I can give no date as to the appearance of any results. Before dealing with his main point, perhaps I may jump to his comment about the question of pollution by substances other than oil. As he says, we are taking an active part in the international investigations which are going on into that problem, which we recognise as being one of great importance.
Perhaps it might here be appropriate to mention and to pay a tribute to the work of the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, in that international conference of which we have heard a certain amount this afternoon—the one held in Rome last October, of which the noble Earl was Chairman. The Conference studied, as he will know better than any of us, the whole matter of pollution in great detail, and as my noble friend the Leader of the House has said, that Report is an invaluable document for all Governments. Perhaps I might take the opportunity here to pay a tribute not only to
648
the noble Earl's work as Chairman of this Committee but also to the work of his distinguished predecessor.
My Lords, I should have liked to deal at greater length with the subject of pollution. We have not really had time, even in this quite long and interesting debate, to cover it fully, but as the noble Earl has said, there is now an Agreement that was signed on June 9 as a result of the impetus given to the consideration of this matter by the "Torrey Canyon" affair. The Agreement was signed by the United Kingdom, the Federal Republic of Germany, France, Belgium, Norway, Sweden and Denmark. The Netherlands also took part in these negotiations and we hope that they will become party to the Agreement in the near future.
It might be of interest for noble Lords to know (although this will be no news to the noble Earl opposite) that this Agreement requires the contracting States to request their aircraft and shipping to report all major oil slicks. States which receive these reports are obliged to circulate details to all other contracting States. They will also keep the oil slick under surveillance and continue to report its size, speed and direction of movement. If a country whose coasts are threatened finds its own resources inadequate and asks for assistance, its neighbours will use their best endeavours to help. Finally, the contracting parties have also undertaken to exchange information about new ways in which oil pollution may be avoided and new and effective measures to deal with this great problem. I hope, therefore, noble Lords will agree that this kind of international agreement represents a useful step forward in what we recognise as being the extremely urgent and important problem of dealing with pollution of the marine environment by oil.
As I hinted earlier in my opening remarks, I hope your Lordships will recognise that this, for us, is a very delicate and difficult problem. We are a country with a coastline highly vulnerable to this kind of pollution. We have a major shipping industry, and we are—and this is particularly relevant to this kind of problem—a centre of the marine insurance market. Therefore our attitude on these issues requires very careful consideration, and I hope noble Lords will not expect attitudes and decisions to be

649
taken more quickly than they can be taken as a result of careful examination of all these issues. I can assure your Lordships that our aim at any international conference or any international discussions about this matter will be to obtain agreement on a broad international basis, but agreement that will lead to some effective way of dealing with this menace.
May I now deal quickly with a few other points.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, if the noble Lord is turning from pollution, may I ask him this question? My attention was distracted, or I allowed my attention to be distracted for a moment. I do not know if he mentioned whether it had been possible to receive French adherence to the North Seas Convention?
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, if by the North Seas Convention—the noble Earl knows I am not a great expert on this—he means the agreement signed in June, the one to which I referred and of which I gave an outline, I can say that France is a signatory of that Convention and therefore one might expect that she will adhere to its provisions.
Mention was made by the right reverend Prelate (who seems to have deserted us, but he said he would have to) that there had been a report by Senator Clayborn Pell of the United States on the question of ocean space. I might say, for the Official Record, that we have indeed read these proposals with great interest. But of course this is a proposal of an independent private citizen, however distinguished, and clearly we cannot enter into bilateral discussions with him at a time when we are carrying on a study of this problem in a United Nations Committee. However, I can say that we have looked at Senator Pell's proposals with great interest.
Perhaps this leads logically to certain other proposals which have been put forward and which were mentioned, although by implication only, both by the noble Earl, Lord Bessborough, and the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe. It is this idea that in some way the question of what is called ocean space or the sea-bed might become a European matter. It may well be that their attention to this particular
650
problem was seized, as indeed mine was, by an extremely interesting Bow Group pamphlet on the subject, produced by Mr. Lawrence Reid and called Ocean Space, Europe's New Frontier. I think we must welcome publications such as this, from whatever source, because the points that he raises in it are new and far-reaching. It is an excellent thing that people should now be considering seriously and asking questions about the sort of problems he has brought up. But I think that some of the ideas may not be entirely practicable. Some of them indeed are already being pursued or are in being. But when he suggests that European sea space should have one European boundary, and not several national boundaries, I think that is not at the moment in the field of practical politics. I agree that we should certainly co-operate with other European countries in this matter, as in all other matters of technology, and so far as that goes, in economy, politics and defence.
I think I may suitably end by saying that, not for the first time, I have been struck in this debate by the wide range of experience and interest that has been shown. We have covered a very wide field, and there have emerged, as I said earlier, three points on which there has been a remarkable degree of unanimity. It is on those that I should like to place emphasis in closing. First, there is the very real need for progress towards international agreement on what Lord Wilberforce and others have called an international régime, especially a régime to govern the exploration and exploitation of sea-bed resources beyond the limits of national jurisdiction. We need, I think, to give open and precise definition of where those limits should be. Secondly, there is the need to progress towards international agreement on arms control measures of the sea-bed, and to agree once more on the limits at which they should apply. And, third, there is the need to progress towards international action to prevent and control pollution of the sea. Whatever may be our differences of emphasis and differences of opinion about the organisation of our national effort, I believe that we can at least reach consensus on those points.
So far as the last point, our own national effort, is concerned, I take the

651
point that there are those who believe that we are not going far enough or fast enough. My own view is that, both m organising our national resources and in helping to organise international discussions and negotiations about these things, we are taking a robust and active and leading part. My noble friend the Leader of the House has already produced a spirited enough defence of the record of this Government and there is no need for me to embroider it. I would simply say that while supporting him fully in that defence I realise that this debate has provided the Government with some very valuable pointers to those areas to which we need to pay still more attention—matters such as research, where we must press even harder for international cooperation and where the rapid advances of marine technology are creating new challenges which we must meet; to our society and our opportunities. But I believe we are doing this. As I say, it may be that some noble Lords think we are not doing it fast enough.
Perhaps we might take as our inspiration for the future the words of Oliver Wendell Holmes, which seem particularly appropriate to this particular debate:
"We must sail sometimes with the wind and sometimes against it, but we must sail and not drift or lie at anchor."
I believe that that is what we are doing. The sea-bed, the whole marine environment to which Lord Wilberforce introduced us in his fascinating and brilliant opening speech this afternoon, presents us with a challenge, in terms of promoting our knowledge, our techniques of international co-operation, our economic prospects and, as I have said with some emphasis, our safety and national security. Over the centuries the sea has been good to this country. We have lived by it; we have come to understand it; we have come to respect its ways and to recognise how much more we have to learn about it.
I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Wilberforce, for having given us the opportunity to have this short rebate. I am most grateful to other noble Lords who have spoken in the debate for the way in which they have treated this whole subject as a new dimension—the whole
652
question of the sea in its modern context. I believe that if we explore and develop it wisely, certainly as we in the Government intend to do, this area holds great promise for the future, not only of this country but the whole of mankind.
7.21 p.m.
LORD WILBERFORCE: My Lords, I described myself as a "curtain raiser", and after the responsible and authoritative speeches which have been made I do not propose to treat the House even to an epilogue. The message which has emerged on the importance of setting up an international régime can be summed up in three words, as to which I think there is general agreement—urgency, universality and idealism. Urgency has been underlined by a number of speakers, and nobody has dissented from it. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich, the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie-Calder, the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, and the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, in his final speech, have accepted the urgency of reaching agreement.
Universality has been stressed by everybody; and the valuable point was made, added to what I said in opening, that any régime must be open to everybody, member of the United Nations or not. I think that is an important point. As to idealism, as the right reverend Prelate said, the unique character of this problem gives an opportunity to the world and the common good for a breakthrough from sectional interests, and it gives us some chance to eliminate the rich-poor gap. Lawyers often tend to underestimate—I quite accept that—the constructive force of idealism; and if the argument is that the immediate rather prosaic steps which I advocated should be taken, should be guided by that spirit, then I can only say that I entirely agree with the thought.
My Lords, in conclusion I should like to thank those noble Lords on both Front Benches for the kind encouragement they gave me in moving this Motion and introducing this debate, which for me has been a great privilege. Finally, I formally ask leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

LATE NIGHT REFRESHMENT HOUSES BILL [H.L.]
Reported from the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills without amendment, and recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House.
WELLAND AND NENE (EMPINGHAM RESERVOIR) AND MID-NORTHAMPTONSHIRE WATER BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and referred to the Examiners.
ARCHITECTS REGISTRATION (AMENDMENT) BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.
AGE OF MAJORITY (SCOTLAND) BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to, with Amendments.

WHITGIFT CHARITIES BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to, with Amendments: the said Amendments considered and agreed to.
House adjourned at twenty-four minutes past seven o'clock.