MARINE SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

HL Deb 02 July 1969 vol 303 cc559-85

2.49 p.m.

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- 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 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 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 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 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 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- 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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, 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 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.

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 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- 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 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 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 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 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 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.