§ 2.40 p.m.
§ The Earl of KIMBERLEYMy 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 plans they have for policing the maritime areas likely to come under British jurisdiction with the introduction of the 200-mile exclusive economic zone envisaged in the Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea.
§ Lord WINTERBOTTOMMy Lords, the arrangements for protecting the offshore interests of the United Kingdom which were referred to by my noble friend the Lord Privy Seal during the debate last May on the Defence Estimates would apply to the policing of any United Kingdom economic zone.
§ The Earl of KIMBERLEYMy Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that Answer. Would it be possible for him to be a little more explicit and give us a few more details as to what has happened now, and what happened in the Defence Estimates of March this year?
§ Lord WINTERBOTTOMYes, my Lords; by a happy accident, the extension of the economic zone to 200 miles, 1414 which is supported by Her Majesty's Government, coincides somewhat fortuitously but happily with the requirement to protect the offshore installations of the United Kingdom. The facilities which will be available when the five ships mentioned in answer to the noble Earl's previous Question, will be operation in 1977, are such that by that time we should have 20 ships and four aircraft supervising the general area. It may be of interest to the House to know that the intention is that there will be four Nimrods providing the "eyes"; 20 ships consisting of eight coastal mine-sweepers and one fast patrol boat provided by the Royal Navy; three inshore and three offshore patrol vessels, provided by the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, and five offshore patrol vessels provided by the Royal Navy, which have been mentioned earlier.
§ Lord SHINWELLMy Lords, while it is possible to police in a naval fashion or an air force fashion the offshore installations of the North Sea, when it comes to the much wider consideration of the 200-mile exclusive economic zone envisaged for conference decision—if there is ever a decision of that kind—can my noble friend say whether we have the naval Forces capable of dealing with that situation? Is he aware our naval Forces are weaker now than at any time since before the First World War?
§ Lord WINTERBOTTOMMy Lords, I think the important point is to be able to identify a threat in advance, which can be done by the four Nimrods which are to be allocated to this role. There-after, not only will the 20 ships I mentioned be available, but also there will be other Forces of the Royal Navy in that area which will not be useless.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROYMy Lords, as the Law of the Sea Conference is considering some very important matters such as a régime for mining the very valuable metals at the bottom of the deep ocean, and also rights of innocent passage, may I ask whether the Government are confident that the Conference will soon reach a conclusion in the sense of the consensus that exists for a 200-mile zone? If not, will the Government them selves try to promote an international agreement on a fishing zone, since this is a very urgent matter for the fishing 1415 industry? This could be done and could be consistent with the concept of a 200-mile zone.
§ Lord WINTERBOTTOMMy Lords, may I answer formally on this matter? My right honourable friend the Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs made clear before the April Conference in Geneva on the Law of the Sea that Her Majesty's Government want a Convention embracing all the main issues and commanding wide support. We have sought a compromise to this end. First, we endorsed at an early stage the growing demand for a 200-mile economic zone. This we now strongly support; but we want to see freedom of navigation over-flight within this zone. We cannot accept a zone within which the rights of the coastal States are so extensive as to make it virtually a territorial sea. I used the word "com promise" earlier in this statement; compromises are not always easy to achieve.
§ Lord BALFOUR of INCHRYEMy Lords, have the Government considered the use of dirigibles for this patrol work? They are economic to run, have a long endurance and have been used success fully for similar work in wars.
§ Lord WINTERBOTTOMMy Lords, I will draw this very interesting suggestion to the attention of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State.
Viscount ST. DAVIDSMy Lords, is the noble Lord aware that what is important, in these matters of how much water our sovereignty extends to, is the question of how we control that area? Is he aware—and I am sure he is—that the original three-mile limit was simply the limit to which gunfire would carry from the coast? Therefore, it was the area which could be controlled. Will he press upon his colleagues the fact that it is most important that we ask for sovereignty over those areas that we can control by modern methods, and not over those areas which we cannot control?
§ Lord WINTERBOTTOMMy Lords, sovereignty is one thing and control is another. This is subject to the negotiations now proceeding.
§ Lord MOYNEMy Lords, are the Government considering co-operation 1416 with the French, Irish and other Governments whose interests in a 200-mile limit would overlap with ours.
§ Lord WINTERBOTTOMMy Lords, we are working with other interested nations on a regional conference involving Holland, Norway, West Germany, Belgium, Denmark, France and Britain to explore what basis for international peacetime co-operation may exist. Discussions between these nations will include the resources available to each country to combat malicious or accidental damage to offshore installations. I believe that we are the host to this conference which is reconvening next month.
Viscount ST. DAVIDSMy Lords, a moment ago the noble Lord said sovereignty is one thing and control is another. While agreeing with him, may I ask whether he is aware that sovereignty without control merely makes one a figure of fun?