DEMILITARISATION OF THE SEA-BEDS (Hansard, 11 June 1969)

§ LORD BROCKWAY
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.

§ THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (LORD SHACKLETON)
My Lords, the question of arms control on the sea-bed is one of the main subjects under discussion in the Eighteen-Nation Disarmament Committee at Geneva. Both the Soviet Union and the United States have tabled draft treaties, and when the Committee resumes work in early July, after its present short recess, one of its most important tasks will be to try to reach agreement on this subject. Useful progress has already been made in clarifying the issues involved.
My right honourable friend the Minister of State with special responsibility for disarmament matters, Mr. Mulley, in his address to the Eighteen-Nation Disarmament Committee on April 17, affirmed Her Majesty's Government's support for the proposal, which is common to both the Soviet and the United States' draft treaties, to ban the emplacement or fixing on the sea-bed of nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction. He also told the Committee of our readiness to consider on their merits other proposals for specific bans which might be 637 put forward, and stressed our wish to see early and substantial progress on this question.

§ LORD BROCKWAY
My Lords, while very sincerely welcoming that full reply, may I ask my noble friend whether the difference in the Committee was not between the proposal of America that the ban should be only on nuclear weapons and the proposal of the U.S.S.R. that it should apply to all military weapons on the sea-bed? Could my noble friend tell me, according to the statements made at the Conference, whether it is a fact that of the 18 nations 14 supported the proposal for the abolition of all military weapons on the sea-bed, against 4? What is the attitude of the British Government towards the proposal for the absolute abolition of all military equipment on the sea-bed?

§ LORD SHACKLETON
My Lords, I do not think my noble friend is quite aware of how the proceedings of the Eighteen-Nation Disarmament Committee work. Ultimately they seek to arrive at proposals, which are then put forward to the United Nations. To that extent, the process is continuing. There will obviously be all sorts of attempts to arrive at an agreed proposal. I think it would be a mistake for me to comment in detail on differences between particular points of view or, indeed, to start counting heads in a body in which votes do not take place. Therefore, I hope my noble friend will not press me.
I should add that the Soviet representative has made it clear that the Soviet Government do not consider that their draft treaty would preclude activities which have military application, such as oceanography, hydrography, salvage, navigational aids and communication. I could go into much greater detail with my noble friend on this matter, but I think things are going along fairly well, and let us hope that agreement will be reached.

§ LORD BROCKWAY
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply.

THE LORD BISHOP OF NORWICH
My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord the Leader of the House whether the Government, who I understood supported Dr. Pardoe's resolution at the United Nations, which embraces military as well as other 638 interests in regarding the deep sea as the common heritage of mankind, will persistently pursue and advocate that resolution?

§ LORD SHACKLETON
My Lords, that really is another question. There is no change of Government policy in relation to the sea-bed, but the Question put by my noble friend Lord Brockway relates specifically to the subject of demilitarisation.

§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY
My Lords, supposing this proposal is accepted, will it mean that nations who sign whatever document is agreed upon will find it impossible to protect their ports and other key positions in case of war by underwater methods? As the noble Lord will know, that has been a large part of what has been done in the past for the protection of ports.

§ LORD SHACKLETON
My Lords, again there is no question of anybody signing at this moment. We have not reached that stage. This is essentially a preparatory process which we hope will lead to definite proposals going forward, and all these considerations are taken into account. Indeed, both the draft Soviet Treaty, and the draft United States Treaty have regard to territorial limits. This question of complete demilitarisation is a very tricky one. One could have anti-submarine protection devices which in this sense are comparable to radar. Nobody would suggest that one should not have radar devices. These are the very matters which are being discussed and threshed out at Geneva. That is a good place to do it. I do not wish to stop people from asking questions, but it is difficult for me, so to speak, to intervene in the negotiations which are shortly to take place. The noble Marquess's point is a valid one.