LAW OF THE SEA CONFERENCE (Hansard, 14 July 1976)

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

§ The MINISTER of STATE, FOREIGN and COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (Lord Goronwy-Roberts)
My Lords, as I informed the House on 11th May, the fourth session of the Conference which ended on 7th May made satisfactory progress but did not reach the stage of conclusions. It was agreed that the Conference should reconvene on 2nd August.

§ Lord BROCKWAY
My Lords, while thanking my noble friend for that reply, in view of the fact that the Conference is meeting in August, may I ask whether it is desirable that the House should know what the proposals of the Government are on such questions as the limitation of fisheries, the economic zone, the passage of naval vessels through territorial canals, and particularly on the exploitation of minerals under the oceans by an international authority? Can my 304 noble friend give us any indication of the views of the Government on those matters?

§ Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS
Yes, indeed, my Lords. If my noble friend Lord Brockway will again read my statement in the debate on 19th May, he will find in that speech a full answer to all these questions.

§ The Earl of LAUDERDALE
My Lords, further to the answer of the noble Lord the Minister to the supplementary question of the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, could the noble Lord the Minister tell us whether the Conference dealt at all clearly with the principle of establishing the median line in narrow seas, and whether in particular this should be judged on the basis of geographical or geological proximity?

§ Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS
My Lords, no final conclusion was reached on that matter, any more than on a number of other pressing matters. However, some progress was made in discussing the modalities relating to that very important question, especially as to whether the geographical or geological criteria are more important. I should imagine—and I take a little chance on this—that a combination of both criteria will be found to be acceptable and necessary.

§ Lord SHINWELL
My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether it is true that, within the last two days, the subject has been discussed at the EEC, and that some decision was reached? Can my noble friend explain why this matter is being dealt with by the Law of the Sea Conference, while simultaneously, or at any rate at some time, it is being discussed by the EEC? Is there not some conflict here?

§ Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS
My Lords, I do not think so. Indeed, I see great virtue in there being discussions in the EEC between our partners and ourselves parallel to, and possibly in preparation for, the substantive discussions in the United Nations Law of the Sea Conference, particularly since we have an immediate and perhaps paramount interest in a reappraisal of the Common Fisheries Policy of the Community. It is a great advantage that we should constantly be discussing with our partners in Europe 305 not only the Common Fisheries Policy but also the issues raised in the Law of the Sea Conference.

Lord CAMPBELL of CROY
My Lords, while agreeing with what the noble Lord the Minister has just said, may I ask what further action the Government are now proposing to take on a statement of intent about a 200-mile fishing limit for the EEC, following the matter being raised at the Summit Meeting by the Prime Minister last week-end, in preparation for the general international agreement which is expected?

§ Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS
My Lords, as I have said on more than one previous occasion, in regard to the 200-mile zone relative to fishing, we would much prefer to act in concert with our partners in the Community. Of course, we shall not allow a situation to arise where there is disorderly over-exploitation of those seas. I feel confident that we shall be able to proceed in concert with our partners, and in due course, no doubt, the Prime Minister or the Foreign Secretary will make a Statement on this point in the other place, and, consequently, through me or one of my fellow Ministers, to this House.

§ The Earl of LAUDERDALE
My Lords, would the noble Lord the Minister clarify an answer he gave just now, when he thought that perhaps we would regard geological and geographical proximity as of equal merit, so to say? Can the noble Lord say whether that indicates a slight change in the Government's position, when a couple of years ago he went for geographical proximity?

§ Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS
No, my Lords; I gave it as my own small, personal view, that in the finality it may well be found that both geographical and geological criteria will have to be taken into account. I did not say that I or anyone else regarded them as of equal merit.

§ Lord RITCHIE-CALDER
My Lords, without referring me to the almanac of the main debate, following on the point of the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, about the exploitation of minerals, can the noble Lord the Minister tell me whether the British have made up their minds about 306 the international Enterprise, which is the operational arm of the International Seabed Committee?

§ The Earl of LAUDERDALE
Speak up!

§ Lord RITCHIE-CALDER
My Lords, the International Seabed Committee has an operational arm which is called the Enterprise. It is rather important if we are to decide what is to be done with the exploitation of the minerals.

§ Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS
My Lords, we are in support of the general effective oversight of the international authority of the seabed resources. We also support the principle of Enterprise, as my noble friend has described it. We seek to ensure that not only the prompt initiative of developed countries—which, after all, are probably the only ones likely to remain for some time in a technical position to exploit these resources—is safeguarded, but also that a comparable protection for the interests of developing countries is worked in. There is a very interesting American suggestion on this point, with which I will not detain the House at the moment, because I have been warned from all quarters that I must not connive at a mini-debate on this matter.

§ Lord SLATER
My Lords, is my noble friend aware that, in view of the Answer he gave in the first place to my noble friend Lord Brockway, referring him to a particular column of Hansard, and the statement he made with regard to these issues, the many questions which have been asked, and in view of the fact that this Conference is to continue in August, we seem as though we are batting against our own wicket in the questions which have been asked? We seem as though we are putting information into the mouths of those people who will attend the Conference, along with our representatives, knowing full well what Her Majesty's Government are seeking to achieve by doing so.

Several noble Lords
Speech!

§ Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS
My Lords, if that supplementary question is regarded by some noble Lords as a speech, it is a most acceptable and sensible speech. Indeed I am tempted not for the first time, to invite my noble 307 friend to take my place at this Box and to express in his inimitable way the common sense of the position. Let us see how we get on in the new session which starts on 2nd August.