HL Deb 09 March 1976 vol 368 cc1244-63

4.41 p.m.

Lord CAMPBELL of CROY rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will make a Statement on the aims and policy to be adopted by the British delegation at the Law of the Sea Conference due to start in New York in mid-March, subject to any requirements of protecting the United Kingdom's negotiating position. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I hope that the Government will welcome this as an opportunity of stating publicly some of their principal aims. This is a timely moment because it is a few days before the Law of the Sea Conference resumes at its forthcoming session in New York. I am personally grateful that the noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-Roberts, is to reply to this debate. I know that he returned only yesterday from the United States. I hope he is not suffering from jet-lag. I know that he has had a busy week or more on the other side of the Atlantic.

This House has taken a special interest in this subject and has found time for debates at various stages. There was one only three weeks ago which, although it was restricted to a certain part of the subject matter of the Conference, none the less enabled noble Lords to give their views and make suggestions to the Government. From this Bench we have urged the Government to play an influential part at the Conference. We have urged them to spare no effort to achieve fair and practical agreements on such matters as the proposed 200 mile economic zone, a 12 mile territorial sea, and a sensible international regime for the oceans and waters beyond the continental shelves and the economic zones.

The character and methods of the Conference are somewhat strange. There are some 140 countries—the membership of the United Nations—trying to arrive at a consensus of agreement. This has been untidy. The membership includes landlocked countries, and some countries which have a very small direct interest in the subjects of the Conference. Therefore, there is bound to be a temptation for them to join groups and to gain some bargaining leverage—a familiar United Nations scene. This means that settlements could be delayed until some nations are satisfied, or receive assurances, on other issues.

The previous sessions at Caracas and then at Geneva last summer have produced some general agreement on certain important matters, but, so far as I know, no definitive measures or changes have yet been made in international law. What is described as a "single negotiating text" has been circulated to all the delegations. I believe that much can be found wrong with that text, both in the acceptability of the new proposals in it and also in its drafting in places; but it constitutes a basis for discussion and a common denominator for reference purposes. I would not advocate this as a way of formulating international law or carrying out the world's business, but it is the system being used and we, as a country, must adapt ourselves to it in order to get the best results.

No doubt the three Committees will again come into session at the beginning of the resumed Conference: one on the international authority to bring in a regime beyond the continental shelves and economic zones; the second on the various forms of coastal zones; and the third dealing with pollution, research, and related matters. I submit that the results of this Law of the Sea Conference are more important for Britain than for any other country in the world. Most of the subjects involved directly affect us for five principal reasons. First, we are a fishing nation with special and urgent problems; secondly, we are also a leading shipping nation with a very large proportion of overseas trade. Freedom of passage for our vessels in every part of the globe is crucial for us. Similarly, from the defence viewpoint, to protect our interests and to support our alliances, we uphold the rights of innocent movement of warships and aircraft. Fourthly, our continental shelf is very extensive in relation to our land area. Furthermore, it has proved already to be rich in oil and gas. Fifthly, we have to import large quantities of metals and ores. It is in our interest to open up the alternative sources on the ocean's floors.

The United Kingdom upholds the rule of law, and British Governments have aimed, and will no doubt continue to aim, for international agreement on new arrangements. Britannia has shed her former majesty over the seas, but she must use her trident to point the way for others, and indeed even to do some prodding when negotiation slows down. Determined and skilful diplomacy is required, for the maritime nations are in a minority among the participants at the Conference. The world's fishing, shipping, and industrialised countries can be outvoted by the rest, including the landlocked States, if matters are forced to an issue.

The most urgent subject for Britain, as I said in the last debate three weeks ago, is fishing. It is directly connected with the 200-mile economic zone, which is agreed in principle by the large majority at the Conference. The Government will no doubt be pressing for action on this, and will assume that necessary progress will be made made in New York to authorise it.

I recognise that the Government may not wish to say more than that today. From this Bench, however, we can look further. Whether or not the general agreement already reached on a 200 mile economic zone is translated into some instrument during the next two months, it is clear that about 20 countries, including the United States, Canada, and other leading maritime nations, will, after the New York session, wish to put the 200 mile zone into effect together, in concert, by agreement, not unilaterally. This economic zone is not an exclusive fishing limit. It is an area in which the coastal State is responsible for conservation arrangements. It can be seen that the unilateral action already taken by Iceland claiming 200 miles for fishing limits is completely out of step with what is proposed. On the general agreement now reached on the economic zone the British Government must be ready to join in international action by the maritime countries of the kind I have suggested. That was the way in which the fishing limits were effectively extended to 12 miles and recognised in international law in the early 1960s.

In particular, the British Government must work out, with the other members of the EEC, arrangements round our shores. The proposal recently made by the EEC Commission for a 12-mile exclusive fishing limit, though appearing to perpetuate the satisfactory situation in the past, is not appropriate for the future; it should be much greater. This is because many of the larger British trawlers will no longer be able to fish in distant waters and will be augmenting the catching strength in our home waters. Furthermore, confidence in quota systems has been eroded among our fishermen; there is no assurance that quotas will be observed or that they can be enforced and there is no system for the allocation of quotas which does not appear to be arbitrary. I would add, however, that the Commission's proposal at least torpedoes the scare story, mischieviously spread by the SNP, that EEC boats would be fishing up to our beaches. Of course that was nonsense. This was impossible, anyway, before 1938 because of the 10-year agreement, and it is now clear from these minimum proposals put forward by the Commission that the principle of an exclusive fishing zone is accepted as continuing thereafter.

There is another sense in which the Government must be ready for a 200-mile economic zone. Britain will be faced with the task of administering and policing a very large area of sea around our shores; for example, there will be the controls over fishing and pollution to be managed. I wonder whether the Government recognise the size of the problem and the amount of work that will be involved. I would point to the fact that five vessels have been ordered —they are of the Jura type, I believe—to carry out this kind of work in connection with both fishing and protection of our oil installations. However, others have pointed out, and I agree with them, that these boats are much too slow. We believe that more will be needed and that it will also be necessary to have faster vessels to get to the scene quickly when there are incidents or complaints. I recognise that the emphasis is now on capacity to stay at sea for three weeks or so, but there will be other needs and I draw the attention of the Government to these now.

As stated in our last debate, a multitude of Departments and agencies are at present involved in the maritime management of Britain's affairs. In the debate which the noble Baroness, Lady White, introduced—she stepped in when the noble Lord, Lord Henley, became prey to 'flu—it was pointed out by a number of speakers that co-ordination and supervision was required, and I suggested that this was a task not necessarily for one Department but for a senior Minister, who would supervise and co-ordinate the many activities of these numerous bodies.

I will not go into the details of the matters to be raised at the Conference, but I will mention three other main points: pollution, freedom of passage and the proposed international authority.

On pollution, the Conference is naturally concentrating on the coastal States' interest. I believe that the Conference should be aiming to build on the international conventions which have already been agreed. The question which arises is: who enforces the agreed principles? The flag State should be responsible for its own shipping. That is the country which can most easily carry out the necessary discipline and enforce the penalties, but there are doubts among many at the Conference as to whether some of the flag-of-convenience States can take on those responsibilities. Thus, the coastal State and the port State appear to be being brought in as well. Of course, vessels are accountable and vulnerable when in port; that is the time when action can be taken and inquiries made, but I urge the Government not to allow the flag State to escape from its responsibilities, or to be relieved of the basic task of disciplining its own fleets.

I come next to freedom of navigation and innocent movement. Here Britain has a vital interest and Britain, I understand, has taken a leading part in putting forward the concept of transit passage. We can look at this from the points of view of, first, the strategic considerations, with which we are much concerned, and, secondly, the interests of coastal States. On the question of strategic considerations, we want the Conference to accept that warships and even submerged submarines have the right to go through international straits, even though the territorial seas are to be expanded to 12 miles. Then, as regards the coastal States' interest, we in the Channel at Dover have very acute problems in dealing with shipping traffic and the dangers of pollution. Thus, we are in a position to see both sides of this difficult problem and I hope that the British delegation will continue to promote the concept of innocent passage—transit passage, as it is now being called in the document that has been circulated—and that it will achieve satisfactory provisions, recognising that these must contain an element of compromise.

On my third point, the oceans and seas beyond the economic zones and continental shelves, the Conference has before it proposals for an international authority which are too grandiose and top heavy. If they were carried out, it would be like setting up another United Nations with an assembly, a council, two commissions and a judicial tribunal besides a body to carry out the deep sea operations. Apart from anything else, the expense of contributing to that kind of organisation would be excessive. What is needed is a body which will be the world authority and have the last word, and which will carry out licensing and also be in charge of the proposed funds because the United Nations has by declaration stated that the resources of the seabed beyond the continental shelves constitute a heritage of mankind.

It now appears that technological advance in deep sea mining is ahead of progress towards international agreement. The consortia which we are getting together for these operations consist of several industrial nations and they will be able to start economic deep sea mining before a regime is agreed and ready. The world needs the metals, especially nickle; and the United Kingdom in particular, being an importer of many of the substances which we know are available in the nodules on the seabed, has a special interest. The research and development which are taking place now at high cost will falter if the prospects recede of putting them to use for the benefit of the world as a whole.

Then there is the argument about the area of the continental shelf where it extends beyond the 200-mile economic zone. My understanding of the British view, to which I subscribe, is that the resources of the seabed where they are in the continental shelf beyond the economic zone, should be under the control of the coastal State. The argument which appears still to be settled is about whether there should be any contribution to the international authority related to the successful extraction of substances from that part of the continental shelf. That is the kind of matter which should not hold up the setting up of an international regime. It is clear that many of the underdeveloped countries and landlocked States intend to link agreement on this kind of matter with other issues before the Conference. A situation may, therefore, arise where those countries are causing delay to the conclusion of formalities where agreement has been reached, and that they may be causing this delay for purely bargaining purposes related to separate matters in which they may have a very indirect interest.

It is accepted that the results must be in the form of one or more packages. Most nations taking part must accept that concessions will have to be made both by industrial maritime nations and by the others. But there is a limit to the amount of time that can be allowed to pass. I am certain that the United States and other industrial countries will become impatient if agreement, which has been reached, appears to be being held up unnecessarily because of horse trading. I hope that the Government will make it clear that there is a limit to the time that Britain can wait, if delay is caused by a group of countries with little direct interest and little capacity themselves to participate in the marine activities concerned.

To sum up, my Lords, the principal aims which I suggest the Government should be observing are, first, a 12-mile territorial sea, and, secondly, a 200-mile economic zone. Both of these are now virtually agreed, and I hope that it will be possible for them to be put into effect after this coming session. Thirdly, there is the unimpeded passage of straits with the necessary safeguards for the coastal States. There must also be improved arrangements made to prevent and control pollution; and progress towards the creation of a realistic international régime, supervising seabed resources beyond the continental shelf and economic zones. Finally, there is also need of a system for settling disputes, because it is disappointing that there has been scant agreement so far on that important part of the proposed changes in international law.

Personally, I wish the official delegation well in the coming two months. I extend these wishes to its new full-time leader, Mr. Donald Logan, who has succeeded Sir Roger Jackling. I wish to pay a tribute to the work which Sir Roger Jackling has done, until very recently, in leading in this field, which is so important to Britain. Furthermore, I give my good wishes to any Ministers who attend parts of the Conference. I understand that one or two may do so for particular subjects. There is bound to be much gruelling labour ahead for the delegation. The results, if successful, and if not too slow in coming, will be more significant for this country than for any other.

5.3 p.m.

Lord PAGET of NORTHAMPTON

My Lords, we are all grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, for having raised this subject. I propose to be very brief. I was tempted to speak by only one observation which the noble Lord made, and with which I profoundly agree: this is not the way to make international law. In the old days international law had two main sources: the work of the great Jurists, such as Grotius, and the treaties of responsible Powers. When the laws of the sea were made, they were made by the naval Powers coming to agreement with each other. The naval Powers were responsible for the order of the sea, for the maintenance of their freedom, for the suppression and control of piracy. They were the proper people to consider the order of the sea.

Unfortunately, in the past 30 years we have watched a terrible deterioration in public order, which has been largely the result of the creation of the United Nations. There has been the introduction of the idea that power and responsibility shall be divorced. In the old days we should have dealt with these very necessary problems: problems of the conservation of the whale, of the cod, of the herring; problems of the use of free passage between the naval Powers, America, Russia, ourselves, the French: Powers with the capacity to implement an order that is arranged. That order would have been imposed on those who themselves did not take the responsibility for maintaining order by maintaining a naval power which always had a world and international responsibility.

But now the great Powers find themselves inhibited from asserting any kind of order. The United Nations has come into being. It is a body where the majority is not a majority of people, not a majority of power, not a majority of wealth, but a majority of States. And the majority of those States are simply fascist or military dictatorships. Two-thirds of the members of the United Nations are one-Party or military States, and opposition is legal in the countries of less than a quarter of the members of the United Nations. Yet is is that kind of State which proceeds to take over the assertion of law. At this Law of the Sea Conference it is not the responsible, it is not the interested, who will control. It is those who arc most adept in log rolling; those who can get votes for their particular interest by promising support for wholly irrelevant interests in quite different directions from other people who are there.

The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, was right when he said that this is not the way to make international law. The other difficulty that has come from this inhibition of the great naval Powers, who used to be very successfully responsible for a world order over many centuries, is the lack of self-confidence. That is illustrated, almost pitiably illustrated, by our performance in the Icelandic dispute, in which a tiny Power, with a few gunboats, is defying the decision of the World Court, defying by a mere assertion what has always been recognised as international law, and attacking and injuring our ships on their lawful occasions, doing what they have always done for generation after generation. We have this inhibition. It may come from atomic power which one cannot use, and it may be spread over naval power which one cannot use. One is too big and too strong.

It is no longer decent to assert one's rights, or to say to these quite lawless piratical gunboats: "If you do this again, you will be arrested, and if you resist arrest, you will be sunk." One will not establish any kind of order on the sea unless somebody is to say that to pirates, and who from this Law of the Sea Conference is to be that person? Even if an agreement and order are obtained, one has no enforceable power. One does not touch the newly assumed right of defying the law as one is small. Indeed, today it requires some courage to raise a nervous, quiet voice, just occasionally, to assert the rights of the strong against the weak. This is the kind of condition to which we have come, and I myself hope that we shall get back to some form of sanity; to some sort of recognition that in the international sphere power ought once again to be linked with responsibility and responsibility with power.

5.10 p.m.

Baroness WHITE

My Lords, I must apologise for not having put my name down on the list of speakers. I was not sure whether I could be here, and, though I am fairly well familiar with the background, I have not had time to study the current situation with the closeness it deserves. But I am very anxious, because of the small number of names on the list, that Her Majesty's Government should be under no illusions about the importance which many of us attach to this subject of the Law of the Sea Con- ference and its resumption. I am afraid I do not share the atavistic philosophy of my noble friend, but he has touched upon some of the consequences of modern development and I should like to emphasise just one aspect of this, which is the attitude of certain States towards research if, as we expect, we have an agreement on a 200-mile exclusive economic zone. This may seem to be a relatively minor aspect when so many other matters are to be discussed at New York, but it may be one of increasing importance.

When for various reasons countries feel it necessary to impose prohibitions, and certainly restrictions, on scientific research, I think we can lose considerably in the progress of mankind in these matters. There are some countries which take research to be not disinterested but always in the economic interests of someone. They consider that that someone should be themselves, and that they should not be required to allow research to be undertaken in their waters unless they can see some quite specific benefits accruing to their own economy. There are others which, perhaps for good reasons, associate research with espionage and resist it on those grounds, whether or not there is evidence to support this assumption. I am not for one moment denying that they may on occasion be perfectly right in their assumption; but I know that there is considerable anxiety among our own scientific workers, and others in the world, at the restrictions which may follow any agreement on exclusive economic zones unless some protective measures are taken in the interests of scientific progress. In the view of many of us it should not be left to the exclusive decision of the coastal State as to whether or no certain scientific matters should be pursued. It appears to me there should be some kind of international surveillance. This has been obtained in other spheres—atomic energy, for example —and I hope very much that some constructive propositions may be put forward by Her Majesty's Government and others in this matter.

The only other point I should like to make on the very many important topics touched on by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, with whom I agreed on almost everything I heard him say, is that we should not underestimate the speed with which technology is advancing in the matter of the exploitation of mineral wealth not just on the surface of the seabed but possibly within the seabed. It so happens that today I was speaking with a person associated with one of our large oil companies who said it was ironic that they were drilling for oil through a very thick seam of coal. It seems to me plain that before very long we shall be seeking to exploit the mineral resources of not just the seabed but the earth below the ocean. This is something which, again, we have a very strong interest in seeing properly regulated, so far as possible, from the outset, so that we do not find ourselves in a disadvantageous position by attempting to be law-abiding ourselves when others may not be.

I do not entirely agree with the analysis of the Icelandic situation, possibly because I am much concerned about the conservation of fish as well as about keeping the law, but I feel this is an area where we must be very much on our guard not to be overtaken by events and to show adequate foresight for our undoubted interests.

5.15 p.m.

Lord RITCHIE-CALDER

My Lords, I apologise for intervening in this debate but, following my noble friend and reacting considerably to what my other noble friend had to say, I feel compelled to intervene on a subject to which I have given something like eight years' very close attention. I am not going to give my eight years' experience to your Lordships, but I am going to underline very strongly the fact that the most dangerous aspects of the law of the sea eventualities are what my noble friend Lady White has been saying. I have said it before—that is one of the reasons why I was not going to speak—but it is true that we know less about the bottom of the sea than we know about the hind side of the moon. We know less about what are going to be the possible effects on the ecosystem of all the things we are talking about than we know about practically anything. The reason is very simple, and it is because we have not systematically determined these things. We think we know. We talk very dramatically about the bottom of the sea, but one thing is true; that is, that unless we have access both to the economic zone and to the 12-mile limit—and, regrettably, one aspect of our marine ecology has already been lost—and access to the estuarine areas as well, then we are going to have a disaster at sea, because we are going to produce such effects on the eco-system that it will be tantamount to a catastrophe.

The other thing which is manifest is what the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, very effectively demonstrated; that is, the reality of the ocean bed as a source of minerals. I agree with him entirely, and with my noble friend Lady White, that the technology of getting these materials has gone far beyond the limits of our portion, because obviously we do not know what we will do if we start disturbing the ocean bed, we do not know what we will do if we start creating situations in which all kinds of catastrophic possibilities are released. This is because we do not have the knowledge, and if we cannot have the access to that knowledge, if the countries do not agree—and my noble friend Lady White has pointed out why many of them, with some justification, feel inhibited—then they, like the rest of us, are going to be the victims of the situation. There is only one answer, and with all apologies to the noble Lord, Lord Paget, it must be international and it must be the United Nations in some kind of metamorphosis or extension. There must be an international authority dealing with the research and development on whom everybody can rely; that is to say, this is not a system of espionage; this is not the multinational corporations—I am quoting now the reactions of coastal States—going in to look for resources which they will then deceptively persuade the countries to exploit. This is the kind of thing we can do only by international organisation. I am not talking about control—that derives from it—but the fact is that I have no real confidence, if I may say so to my noble friend the Minister, that we are going to get very much out of the next round of the Law of the Sea Conference. What is clear, and what cannot be escaped, is that we are going to have the 200-mile economic zone and the 12-mile limit, because if they do not specify it, then people will take it anyway.

Beyond that, I think that we have to go to another line in which by very careful work—and I am talking now from some insight—which has been done in the education (I hate to use the term) of the developing countries as to what they are taking on and what the hazards are, then we might get a satisfactory solution the next time round. Unless we do, we are in great trouble. It is not just that I see disappearing our common heritage by the extension of the zones, but that there is inherent in all this a myopia which is quite terrifying. I would say to my noble friend Lord Paget that that myopia is not confined to the less-developed countries.

5.21 p.m.

Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS

My Lords, the House always listens with attention and respect to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, particularly on this subject on which he is a master. Today he has deployed that very considerable knowledge with great skill and with responsibility. He was joined in this short but very useful and timely debate by three other Members of your Lordships' House to whom I, at least, listened with great pleasure for varying reasons. We had the candid isolationism of my noble friend, Lord Paget. I rarely agree with him, but I always enjoy him. Then we had what I thought was a notable speech from my noble friend Lady White, drawing on a good deal of experience and knowledge in this field to which I should like to refer before I finally sit down. Finally, there was a contribution, informed and scholarly as we would expect, from my noble friend Lord Ritchie-Calder who struck a note of warning as well as of hope in these matters.

The principal overall objective of the Government in the next session of the Conference will be to continue to work for widespread agreement on a Convention which will be generally acceptable to all States. As noble Lords rightly pointed out, there will have to be a certain degree of compromise arising from consultations not only with the Conference itself, but on the margin. The aim is to get a general Convention generally accepted. At the close of the Geneva session of the Conference an Informal Single Negotiating Text was produced at the request of the Conference. This represented a very big step forward. There are, as we have heard, a number of amendments which this country would wish to see to this document, some of them drafting and some of them amendments of content; but we have decided, in the interests of making progress, to accept it as the main focus of negotiations at the New York session which is to begin next week. This is the first point that the noble Lord made and I immediately respond to it in those terms.

In informal contacts between the sessions, we have urged other Governments to do the same. We see the best prospect of progress in the further refinement of their texts by the chairmen of the main Committees, following a series of informal consultations. We hope that this will lead to the adoption by the Conference of an amended version of the Single Negotiating Text so that it becomes the basic text for the final negotiating phase embodying a substantial measure of agreement on the substantive questions it covers.

On individual issues, our principle objectives include that of assuring our jurisdiction over the resources of our continental shelf, principally oil and gas, as far as the outer edge of the continental margin. At least a third of the States at the Conference have a similar obective and this is supported in the terms of the Single Negotiating Text. Not all States share this view and to assist this objective we are considering possible schemes for sharing with the international community a proportion of the revenue derived from exploitation of the hydrocarbon resources which lie between the 200-mile limit and the outer edge of the margin. This concept is provided for in the Single Negotiating Text, but I hasten to give the assurance that we could not consider any revenue sharing within the 200-mile limit. It is a readiness to consider revenue sharing arrangements between the 200-mile limit and the outer edge of the margin.

Thirdly, to take the noble Lord's points in turn, we support proposals for a 200-mile exclusive economic zone as part of the overall Convention. This enjoys the support of the great majority of States at the Conference. Within the zone the coastal State would have sovereign rights over fisheries within the 200-mile EEZ. Our support is conditional on a satisfactory régime for fisheries, and also on maintenance of high seas freedoms, particularly of navigation, over flight and communication within the zones. We have opposed unilateral extensions of fisheries limits in advance of the outcome of the Conference. The actual fisheries régime to apply within the United Kingdom zone in relation to our EEC partners would depend on what emerges from discussions now taking place in Brussels on the modification of the Common Fisheries Policy in the light of the new (as we hope and expect) 200 mile zones.

There are other fields in which our readiness to agree to extensions of coastal State jurisdiction is conditional on adequate safeguards for our interests in freedom of navigation and over flight. To this end, we shall be seeking agreement to a maximum breadth of 12 miles for the territorial sea. This, too, commands widespread support at the Conference. We seek to couple this with the maintenance and clarification of the right of innocent passage through the territorial sea and with the establishment of a right of unimpeded passage for all ships and aircraft through straits used for international navigation. The noble Lord rightly attached importance to this point. Similarly, recognition of the new concept of an archipelagic State must be subject to preservation of rights of passage through archipelagos. Proposals along these lines promoted by the British delegation enjoy broadly based support at the Conference and are substantially incorporated in the Single Negotiating Text.

Returning to pollution, we have put forward proposals on marine pollution, designed to make an effective contribution to controlling such pollution, particularly from ships, about which many coastal States are especially concerned, while not causing unreasonable interference with the legitimate interests of shipping. On vessel source pollution, we believe that rules should in general he internationally agreed and the primary responsibility for ensuring compliance, under internationally agreed regulations, must remain with the flag States. But we have now accepted that a State may also exercise a significant role in the enforcement of such regulations in respect of vessels which are voluntarily in its ports. In addition, recognising the legitimate interests of the State off whose coasts a ship is passing. we have proposed that the coastal State may require a ship suspected of having infringed an internationally agreed regulation, to give information about its destination and State of registration, so that the incident can be properly investigated. The Single Negotiating Text does not fully reflect our position or that of other States which share our interests. We shall be holding discussions with these States seeking to co-ordinate our approach on this issue at the forthcoming session.

On the régime for the exploitation of deep seabed minerals from the area beyond the limits of national jurisdiction, the Single Negotiating Text is less satisfactory than on other issues. This is a much more difficult and complicated issue. Our principal aim will be to ensure that there is in the Convention an obligation on the Authority which is to be established to administer the international seabed régime, to promote and encourage the development of seabed minerals, perhaps through joint ventures between the Authority and State or States or companies—and some States are their own companies—which may wish to engage in seabed mining. In addition, recognising the broad support for the Authority itself having a direct operating role, we shall be prepared in New York to examine the practical implications of this, in parallel with operations conducted by States or their companies. I know there are two broad schools of thought on this: that the sea should be explored and exploited. by an Authority, a kind of internationalisation of the whole thing. On the other hand, there is a school of thought which insists that companies—and there are not very many of them specialising in this field—and States should be drawn in as units of exploratory and exploitative effort. We are poised to look at any proposal which combines the principle of internationalisation with the best use of available skills and enterprise in this field.

Some developing countries fear that any exploitation of minerals from the seabed would have serious implications for the economies of those developing countries because they depend for the bulk of their export earnings on these minerals. They wish to write into the Convention powers for the Authority to control seabed mining so as to minimise these effects. They fear the competition of the sea with the mineral output of the land. We understand these concerns but believe that they should be catered for by world-wide arrangements concerning the commodities in question, taking, into account production from all sources, including the seabed. We are used to international commodity agreements regarding traditional foodstuffs and indeed some raw materials. These arrangements are among the most effective international arrangements of which we have experience.

I see no reason why we should not use that experience and those procedures to make the effective exploitation of the resources of the seabed a contributory part of the extractive industry of those countries which at the moment depend for their livelihood, in some cases almost entirely, on their Own minerals. We must avoid separating the industrial use or the sea from that of the land, otherwise we may set up a new competition which may, without our being conscious of it, impair the economies of some countries which most need help at this time.

I have not gone into full details about our negotiating position at New York. I know from Lord Campbell of Croy's speech that he and the House will not expect me to do so in advance of the actual negotiations. I would repeat that, as we have made clear, there are issues on which we cannot compromise, but we shall be most actively pursuing at New York a real consensus, based on a package of agreements on individual issues, to form the framework of a new Law of the Sea Convention which will be generally respected and observed.

Referring to the five Jura class vessels which are on order for policing both fisheries, oil and gas installations the noble Lord asked for assurances. The Government have examined carefully the requirements which will be needed for such vessels and we believe the specifications of these vessels currently on order will satisfy the requirements. Regarding the settlement of disputes, the Government will be working for a compulsory procedure for settlement of disputes as an integral part of any new Convention. This links with my noble friend's plea for an international authority to engage in this new, challenging and potentially rewarding human activity. My noble friend Lord Paget is right that there is no authority unless there is assention, and we shall be working for a compulsory procedure of settlement of disputes in relation to the setting up of an international authority.

Lord PAGET of NORTHAMPTON

My Lords, will my noble friend tell me whom it is proposed shall enforce that authority? Will it be the great Powers, which have the means to enforce it, or the United Nations, which has not?

Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS

My Lords, my noble friend is asking me to anticipate the detailed procedures of the conference. In setting up an international authority and tying to it a compulsory process of settlement of disputes, the Conference will of course study the question of sanction and its application. I would not anticipate precisely how they will agree to organise that, except to demur somewhat at this early stage at what my noble friend suggested; that is, that it should lie in the power of the traditional enforcing countries. I believe that day is past and that today it is a question of assembling the consensual power of all the participants in an international agreement of this sort; otherwise there can be no power at all.

My noble friend Lady White, during her most attractive speech, raised a number of points. I was delighted that she drew to our attention, for instance, the important question of marine scientific research. The Conference will be working towards the achievement of a regime permitting the maximum freedom for marine scientific research, consistent, of course, with sovereign rights which will be enjoyed by a coastal State, regarding the resources of its economic zone and continental shelf. The noble Baroness and I—and, I am sure, also the Government—would go a little further than that. There is absolutely no reason at all why research should not be as wide as possible, even penetrating into the territorial sea—though that, of course, would need to be by arrangement with the sovereign Power. But the point is made, and is part of our attitude at the Conference, that, in common with the other arrangements I have mentioned. there should be the maximum freedom for research. My noble friend also struck the right note at the beginning of her speech when she said that, despite the comparative brevity of this debate, nobody should assume that the question is an unimportant one. This was reinforced by all those who have taken part, notably by my noble friend Lord Ritchie-Calder.

Progress in these massive questions, which throw up so many complicated and difficult issues, must necessarily be gradual. That does not mean we can afford to be slow, and, of course, progress has not been slow; it has been gradual. We are now approaching the fourth session, and these questions will not be settled finally at that session, which is to take place between the 15th March and the 5th May. There may well be another session this year, following which, back in Caracas, we may have the Convention session, where a Convention will finally be accepted and ratified by all countries. A good deal turns on this: not only the tapping of valuable resources for the human race, but also the codification of a system of exploitation, of sharing and of the settlement of disputes which, as we know from recent experience, can affect profoundly the relationship between States. I cordially welcome everything that was said by the noble Lord in asking this Question, and I equally welcome the contributions made by my noble friends to a debate which I believe will bear fruitful re-reading tomorrow and which has been, at least to me, very pleasing to listen to this afternoon.