Lords Sitting of 19 May 1976

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Chelmsford):
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

THE LORD BISHOP OF CARLISLE
Henry David, Lord Bishop of Carlisle—Was (in the usual manner) introduced between the Lord Bishop of Rochester and the Lord Bishop of Wakefield.

QUEEN ELIZABETH MILITARY HOSPITAL, WOOLWICH
2.36 p.m.
Lord BOURNE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what progress has been made in the construction of the new Queen Elizabeth Military Hospital at Woolwich.
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, on latest forecasts the construction of the new Queen Elizabeth Military Hospital at Woolwich will be completed by the end of the year. The forecast completion date for stage II of the project, which includes staff quarters and a training school, is the early summer of 1978. The new hospital should be in operational use by May, 1977.
Lord BOURNE: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord very much for his reply, which gives only dates and figures. May I ask a further question, which I hope is connected, with regard to the specialists and consultants who have always been a strength of medical excellence to Queen Alexandra's Military Hospital at Millbank? It is for that reason that Millbank has always regarded itself as somewhat special. At present, specialists and consultants are only a mile away in Harley Street or at the London teaching hospitals. Will they go to Woolwich, which is nine miles away?
1388
I should like the noble Lord to assure me on that point.
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, in these days of modern transportation nine miles is not a great distance. I understand very well what the noble Lord is saying, because I, too, have been through the mill at Millbank—no pun was intended, and I should have said that I have been serviced at Millbank—and I know the importance which they attach to their relationship with Westminster Hospital and its research facilities. Good doctors —and the doctors at Millbank are very good—are interested in research into medical problems. Obviously there are regrets that the close links between Millbank and Westminster Hospital are being severed, but the new hospital at Woolwich will be an extremely good one. The sum of £2½ million will be saved in running costs per year, and the new installation at Woolwich may become as important as the present one at Millbank.
Lord BOURNE: My Lords, the noble Lord has said that the hospital "may become as important "I should like to be assured that it will become as important. And is the new Queen Elizabeth Hospital at Woolwich, which is nearing completion, likely in future to be any more than the Cambridge at Aldershot so far as specialists and consultants are concerned?
Lord WINTER BOTTOM: My Lords, as I understand it, the range of work to be carried out at the new Woolwich Hospital Hospital will be very wide indeed: military, psychiatric; and 20 per cent. of the patients will be civilians. This will give to the medical staff facilities to stretch their expertise in a new, modern and what I understand to be an extremely well laid out hospital.
Lord INGLEWOOD: My Lords, the noble Lord said that in these days of modern transport, nine miles is not very far, but to go nine miles by car from the middle of London to Woolwich and back means that one must add at least an hour cacti way to the time spent at the hospital. For busy men of great eminence this is a very big factor.
Lord WALLACE of COSLANY: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the Greenwich and Bexley Area Health

1389
Authority were told originally that 200 surplus beds at this new hospital would be allocated to them by agreement with the Department of Health and Social Security? The figure has fluctuated violently, mainly downwards. The Authority is in a very difficult position regarding planning because, for economy reasons, it has been asked to revise its resources. Until we know definitely where we are, this situation will cause still further confusion.
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, this is a quite small area of confusion. The intention is clear, that there should be collaboration between the military hospital and the civilian authorities. It is a modern hospital, and when the operation is ready to begin I am certain that a proper balance between civilian and military needs will be struck. I believe that it is a question of 465 beds, and we are talking about only a slight fluctuation of this figure.
Lord WALLACE of COSLANY:: My Lords, I am afraid that the answer given by my noble friend is quite unclear. The original figure was 200; it is now in the region of 70, and I understand it is quite possible that in the not too distant future it will be nil. We want to get on with our reorganisation.
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, there is a joint committee which will settle this matter.

NAMIBIAN DEATH SENTENCES
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will ask the United Nations Security Council to declare illegal death sentences passed upon two male members, and sentences of imprisonment (for seven and five years) passed on two female members, of the South West Africa People's Organisation by the Supreme Court of Namibia, in view of the fact that the United Nations have declared South African occupation of that territory illegal.
The MINISTER of STATE, FOREIGN and COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (Lord Goronwy-Roberts): My Lords, I do not think that this would be the best way to help these people at this stage, but we strongly support the United Nations Secretary-General in the message which he has sent to the South African Prime Minister. Furthermore, the chairman of the European Council of Ministers has, on behalf of the Nine, also sent a strongappeal for clemency on humanitarian grounds. We are urgently considering with our Ambassador in Cape Town the possibility of taking similar action ourselves. Our Ambassador has reported that procedures are available to the accused for appeal to higher authorities against conviction and sentence.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, while welcoming all the proposals which the Minister has indicated, is not the Security Council the appropriate body to deal with this in view of the fact that it has declined to recognise the South African occupation of Namibia? So far as my noble friend's reference to an appeal is concerned, is he aware that an appeal has been refused, and is he also aware that none of the prisoners has been charged with assassination? One man was giving a lift. The two women, who were nurses, were only donating money. Will not this prosecution kill any idea that there may be a solution to the problem in Namibia?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, to take the last point first, certainly I agree—and Her Majesty's Government agree—that excessive action, even in regard to proven acts of terrorism where-ever they occur, could have far-reaching, adverse effects on the efforts now being made to achieve a political solution in this area, and my noble friend has made a valid point. The other points which my noble friend has raised relate to our view of the Security Council's view of legality in South-West Africa, now known as Namibia. We have our differences over the Security Council's interpretation of the South African position there. However, we accept that South Africa is the de facto Administration. Therefore, we deal with it—we hope practically and, therefore, more rewardingly in cases of this kind—for that reason. Turning to the position regarding appeal, I can only

1391
repeat what I have just said. Our Ambassador in Cape Town has reported that procedures are available to the accused for appeal to higher authorities against conviction and sentence. While in no way impugning the reports in the Press—indeed, I pay tribute to the comprehensive nature of certain reports that I have seen in the Press—I would repeat that we are assured that there are means of appeal in this case. My noble friend's final point related to the charges. I do not wish to be drawn into a discussion of the merits of the case. In a case like this, we are concerned, I hope, with the best thing to do in the interests of both humanity and political practicability.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, while welcoming the assurances given by the Minister, may I ask him whether he is aware that the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions, the Methodist Church in this country and the World Council of Churches have all protested against these death sentences, and will Her Majesty's Government, as indicated, continue to press that these people shall be reprieved?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, we welcome the intervention of those bodies and officials in what is essentially an appeal for clemency without arguing the legalities of this poignant matter. I would add personally—and I am sure that my noble friend would, too—the name of his Grace the Archbishop who has similarly intervened.

UN COMMITTEE ON DISARMAMENT: GAS WEAPONS
2.48 p.m.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what progress has been made at the United Nations Disarmament Conference at Geneva on the proposal to prohibit, with provision for verifications, the production and stockpiling of gas weapons.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I assume that the noble Lord is referring to the proposal made by the United States' delegate to the Conference of the Committee on Disarmament on 13th April. We expect this to be discussed when the Conference resumes on 22nd June.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, could the Minister add to that Answer? Is it not the case that this is now the most serious effort to reach a solution to this problem? Has not the United States Congress Committee held up further payments until a solution is reached, and is it not now entirely a matter of the technique of verification?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, this is very much a matter of proper verification, as I have repeatedly stressed from this Box, and I am delighted that my noble friend joins me in stressing the importance of verification. Without verification there can be no meaningful disarmament. I will not comment for the moment on my noble friend's interpretation of certain representations made by other countries. For what it is worth, I would only add that my own disarming presence is expected at this meeting on 22nd June.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, has not a very great advance been made towards the solution of verification by the agreement which has been reached between the United States and the USSR for the verification of peaceful nuclear tests, and is it not possible, as the Pugwash scientists have suggested, that verification can now be made not only in the plant but some long distance away, by testing water and air for any experiments that are made?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I would not dissent from what my noble friend has said, especially towards the end of his intervention just now. On the technical aspects, my noble friend is substantially but not totally correct. As to the advance in the techniques of verification, I am aware that a certain advance has been made and that there is the possibility of making nationally based verification techniques effective and, therefore, more acceptable internationally. But as a "hard-liner" on techniques—though not, I hope, on policy—I remain healthily

1393
sceptical that we are within reach of the essence of true verification. This is not to argue in any hostile manner with those who discuss with us on these matters in Geneva, because it is of equal concern to East and West Europe, and indeed to the whole world, that verification is seen to be effective as well as heard to be an argumentative possibility in conference.

QUEEN ALEXANDRA'S MILITARY HOSPITAL SITE
2.50 p.m.
Lord BOURNE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether the Trustees of the Tate Gallery intend to use the site of the Queen Alexandra's Military Hospital as additional space for housing its growing collection, as stated by the Prime Minister on 8th July 1969.
The MINISTER of STATE, DEPARTMENT of EDUCATION and SCIENCE (Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge): My Lords, I am aware that the Trustees of the Tate Gallery hope to use the premises of the military hospital. I intend to find resources to make this move possible, as soon as the economic situation permits. The Trustees also have plans, when funds can be made available, for a new building on the site. I am sorry that in present circumstances I cannot say when that will be possible.
Baroness LEE of ASHERIDGE: My Lords, I understand that the Trustees of the Tate Gallery will be able to take over the old hospital building by August of next year in order to relieve the very serious congestion, and then I hope that, before too long, they will have a new building in its place. Will the Minister say whether I have understood this situation correctly from the Answer that was given to the earlier Question and, also, from the Answer to this Question?
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: My Lords, my noble friend has described the situation accurately. There is one imponderable; that is, that
1394
we are awaiting a survey from the Department of the Environment of the cost of doing what is necessary to the military hospital. Clearly, if this cost were either very large or very small, the speed with which this could be done would vary.
Lord SEGAL: My Lords, can my noble friend say whether it is intended ultimately to utilise the hospital buildings on both sides of the Tate Gallery?
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: My Lords, I do not think I can answer that question. I have been there recently, but I have only been round the hospital buildings on one side of the Tate Gallery; so I am afraid I am not in a position to give an answer about the other side, but I will write to the noble Lord.
Lord BOURNE: My Lords, I should like to say to the noble Lord the Minister that the correct answer to that question is, No, and I should also like to ask a question. May I suggest that the noble Baroness, Lady Lee of Asheridge, described the intention of the Trustees quite accurately, but she did not say when it is likely to be a fact, because Millbank is 70 years old, and in my opinion it ought not to be knocked down without good reason?
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: My Lords, I am not quite clear what the noble Lord means. I understand that the evacuation of the hospital by the military medical personnel will be in 1977, and from that moment the hospital building will become available to the Tate Gallery. If the noble Lord is saying that that is a very good thing and they should be allowed to use it but not allowed to pull it down and build something else until it is worn out, I should not like to comment on that. The proposition of firm plans for rebuilding a vast new structure here is possible but is not at the moment being contemplated, although we all hope to see it contemplated in due course; however, "due course" might be so long that the present building will need to be replaced anyhow.
Lord BOURNE: My Lords, in other words the noble Lord the Minister is saying that he cannot guarantee that the

1395
Millbank hospital will be destroyed. In that case, may I ask whether it was wise for the medical men of the Army to move to Woolwich?
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: My Lords, I give no guarantees of any kind, nor do I offer any criticism of the wisdom of the medical men of the Army.

THE LAYFIELD REPORT
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, with the leave of the House, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m. my noble friend Lady Birk will repeat a Statement being made in another place on the Layfield Report on Local Government Finance.

LAW OF THE SEA CONFERENCE
2.55 p.m.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY Lord CAMPBELL of CROY rose to call attention to the importance to the United Kingdom of the subjects under negotiation at the recent session in New York of the United Nations Law of the Sea Conference, in particular the urgency for the British fishing industry of the proposals for Exclusive Economic Zones, and to the need for early agreement on rights of navigation, prevention of pollution and an effective international réegime for deep-sea mining; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper and to call attention to the importance to the United Kingdom of the subjects being negotiated at the United Nations Law of the Sea Conference. A two-month session in New York ended less than two weeks ago and this is a good moment to assess the situation.
This series of negotiations has spread over two years with previous sessions at Caracas and Geneva. I believe it is a serious attempt to reach new agreements on every maritime subject of any international significance. This is an ambitious intention; it is also admirable that the world community is exhibiting the will to bring order to an area where hitherto there has been only a limited amount of
1396
accepted law, much disagreement in practice and some huge gaps to be filled in.
The principal point I am making in raising this subject today is the extreme urgency of some of the items on the agenda compared with others, and the need to take agreed action on those items first rather than to wait for everything to be settled and for one single Convention to be signed, with all the i's dotted. As my Motion makes clear, the most urgent subject is the new system of coastal zones which is proposed and virtually agreed, and its effects on the world's fishing industries. Other fishing nations besides Britain are impatient, but for no country is this more urgent and important than for the United Kingdom. My aim is to impress this on the Government today, and if Ministers are already fully convinced of this then I hope that this debate will strengthen their arm in the negotiations.
I would remind your Lordships that the Conference is proceeding in an unusual manner, unprecedented I believe in international negotiations. No less than 156 countries—the 144 Members of the United Nations and another dozen who, being divided countries or for some other reason are not members but are members of its Specialised Agencies—are taking part. The whole world is involved, including countries with no coastline. They are working in three committees and in bilateral negotiations and in group discussions, striving to reach a consensus on all subjects. For this purpose—and again I think this is unprecedented—a Single Negotiating Text (already being freely referred to as the SNT) was produced at the last session at Geneva and now a new version of that, issued on the 6th May, the day before the last session ended, has been circulated with modifications. It is a completely informal document and has no authority. It is regarded as a helpful basis for negotiation but it is also exceedingly long. It reflects the vast area of subjects in which the Conference is engaged.
Despite its name, I must emphasise that this is not a legal Conference. Its tasks are to work out practical systems and regimes for the future which will be supported by the force of law, but it needs the experts on shipping or fishing

1397
or deep sea mining—the people who know the business—and the diplomats to carry out the negotiations. For example, the measures against pollution, and the rights of innocent passage for vessels are subjects which will be supported, we hope, in the future by law. I would remind your Lordships of the principal matters which this ambitious and unique conference has before it, and at the same time divide them conveniently into the three committees.
The first committee is dealing with a regime for deep-sea mining, for controlling the winning of valuable substances from the seabed beyond the Continental Shelves, and beyond the coastal zones—in fact, in the international parts of the seas and the oceans. This follows the unanimous declaration by the members of the United Nations sonic years ago that the seabed beyond any points of coastal States' jurisdiction and the substances therein were the heritage of all mankind. This committee, therefore, is making provision for a new activity. The technology is now ready to mine these substances from the deep waters of the oceans, but it is possessed only by a few of the countries.
My Lords, the second committee is dealing with the coastal zones, and this is the most urgent part of the conference agenda. There has been agreement already that the territorial waters should be extended from three miles to 12 miles, and also that a new concept should be brought in of an Exclusive Economic Zone of 200 miles. This committee is also dealing with the Continental Shelves and, in dealing with these coastal zones, with an associated matter of the rights of passage through those coastal zones, especially through straits which have been accepted previously as international. Here, the question of warships and over-flying by civil and military aircraft is included. The third committee is dealing with the protection of the seas from pollution, with modern scientific research, and the transfer of marine technology between countries—and that broadly means to the underdeveloped countries. In addition, an important system is being worked out for settling disputes when they later arise.
My Lords, the first question which is prompted on hearing that list is whether the conference is attempting too much.
All these matters need codifying or restatement in law acceptable to the majority of nations. Therefore, my reply would be: no, it is not attempting too much. World agreement on these subjects, even though we may not think all the results the best conclusions, will be a massive advance, but it may prove wrong to try to do all this in one convention, in a single instrument. The sheer complexity of the subjects has made it difficult for the Press and public to follow or to recognise the significance for our future in Britain of the matters being discussed. Therefore, I emphasise that the principle of the 200 mile economic zones and the new fishing conservation measures within them is now agreed, together with the territorial limits of 12 miles. Their entry into effect must not be delayed by months or years while haggling continues over some of the other items.
For example, arrangements are being considered for regulating scientific research, as I mentioned, and here there is considerable disagreement. Underdeveloped countries suspect that this may be a euphemism for espionage, or in any case that part of it which consists of the monitoring of the activities of other countries, not necessarily themselves. We should leave the subject of that research, and other subjects if they prove too difficult, for a later convention if necessary. We should not allow that to hold up urgent measures on fisheries, on which there is agreement in principle now.
Britain has vital interests in other subjects before the conference. Besides being a major fishing nation, we depend on overseas trade. We are a major shipping nation. Half our food and raw materials have to come from abroad. I am glad my noble friend Lord Inchcape is on the list of speakers in this debate, as he speaks with great authority from his present position in the shipping industry. The freedom of the seas and the trade routes are crucial for Britain, likewise the passage of our warships and military aircraft, and those of our allies, to protect that trade and to carry out our defence obligations. Then there is the management of the Continental Shelf which has become of great importance in the last few years, because we find it is rich in gas and oil resources. We intend to acquire the technologies for extracting those substances, and to be able to use them to

1399
our advantage to help other countries with their offshore oil and gas on other Continental Shelves in due course. We have an interest there. We have a special interest in avoiding pollution, particularly in reaching new rules and precautions to prevent oil slicks, to protect beaches and wild life around our own shores. We are concerned with navigation and traffic rules in congested places, especially the English Channel. We must reach agreements which will help to prevent collisions and accidents.
As an industrial maritime nation, deep-sea mining is of special interest to British industry, and it is ready to play its part in consortia with other companies which are already being formed to win metals from the floors of the oceans. The particular ones of which I would remind your Lordships are nickel, copper, cobalt and manganese. It is in the general interest of the United Kingdom to settle all these matters soon, but the outstandingly urgent item is the new system and its effect on fisheries. It is essential for the British fishing industry that the new system of conservation of fish stocks should be introduced by the maritime nations together at an early date. Agreement in principle upon the coastal economic zone of 200 miles has already been reached, but no starting date has yet been fixed. The next session of the conference has been arranged for 2nd August. In the meantime, I suggest that every week that passes should be used by the British Government in negotiation and preparation for the new expected system.
The world's fishing fleets have been reducing fish stocks alarmingly, despite attempted measures at conservation. Notably, Soviet trawlers have been sweeping up fish around our shores, though outside the present 12-mile fishing limit. No doubt the Soviet Union needs this extra valuable protein in view of her own food problems arising from the bad harvests she has had. But when the coastal States are responsible for conservation within the new 200-mile zones, there will be much more control of what is happening. Fishing by other countries within the zones will be arranged only by agreement. In the past, most of the fish landed by British boats for Britain's housewives has been caught near the shores of other countries. The interests
1400
of the larger trawlers which caught those fish a long distance away had to be reconciled with those of our inshore boats.
Like other nations, in future we must expect to have to catch more in our own home waters once the new system of economic zones is started. To be fair, therefore, the 200-mile zone should be put into effect at the same time by the maritime nations. Iceland's offence has been to beat the pistol. The other fishing countries have waited to act together, not seeking unfair advantage. Their forbearance, including that of Britain, should not be frustrated now by delays caused by attempts at horse trading at the conference by nations which are landlocked or have few marine interests. If necessary, an agreement on coastal zones among the world's nations concerned should be put into effect at an early date, leaving the other conference subjects to be dealt with in a later convention.
My Lords, the agreed action on 200-mile zones should also bring a welcome end to the cod war. This dispute with Iceland has been worrying to NATO and has become dangerous. The British trawler-men and Servicemen involved deserve the highest praise for their exertions in trying circumstances, and for their commendable restraint. They have a disagreeable and unenviable task. Here I reject as despicable the criticism of the Royal Navy by the chairman of the Scottish National Party, Mr. Woolfe. In a letter to the Prime Minister, as reported in the Press last week, he accused the Navy of deliberate acts of aggression, including trying to ram Icelandic patrol boats. He obviously knows little about our frigates; they are not vessels to be used in such a way. The Navy, and the RAF in their Nimrods, are carrying out their difficult duties to help our fishermen and to protect our food supplies until the new conservation system that I have been describing is put into effect by agreement. I hope that the Prime Minister will reply to that letter and to the SNP in no uncertain terms, in repudiating these allegations against the Navy of uncivilised aggression, and indeed, to borrow an expression from the Foreign Secretary, and perhaps using it in more appropriate circumstances, he could describe them as codswallop".
At the same time, the Government should be making every effort both to end

1401
the unhappy dispute with Iceland and to get the new system of economic zones brought into effect as soon as possible. The British fishing industry has known that radical changes were coming. The three-year agreement which was made with Iceland when Iceland claimed 50 miles gave the industry a certain amount of time while the Law of the Sea Conference was working out a new system, and the industry has been using that time. It has been designing new vessels and equipment suitable for fishing nearer home. Recently there has been uncertainty, however, as to what fishing grounds would be left to it and this has been holding up investment and reducing its activities. The interests of the distant water fleet and the inshore fleet of Britain have in the past diverged. The inshoremen have, naturally, wanted the limits to be pushed out to 12 miles and then further. But that was against the interests of our distant water fleet, who were fishing up to 12 miles from Norway, the Faroes and Iceland. Now those interests are coming together with the new regime which will cover home waters.
When the 200 miles economic zones are put into effect, the EEC's common fishery policy, which was based on a completely different system, must be changed. There must be an exclusive United Kingdom fishing limit within the EEC's 200 miles economic zone. Within the EEC the British Government must urgently negotiate that United Kingdom fishing zone. The combined British fishing industry, distant water and inshore and others, has proposed, earlier this year, that the zone should be 100 miles, and it seems extraordinary that the Government should already have abandoned that proposal before the negotiations were under way. Only a few days ago a Minister appeared to open the British bidding with considerably less.
The advantage when the 200 miles EEC zone comes in is that, of course, vessels of other countries will fish only with special permission, and particularly the Russian and Polish fishing fleets, which at the moment are catching so many of the fish round our coasts. What was virtually a 10-year standstill agreement was arranged when Britain joined the EEC, which carries us until the beginning of 1983. May I make that clear, because
1402
it is often spoken of as 1982. That continued the 12 mile system virtually as it was before we joined the EEC. Of course we could not have claimed more than that, because, as I have said, it would have gone against the interests of our distant water fleet if we had claimed more than 12 miles before the new system had been worked out.
The noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-Roberts, has shown in previous debates that he recognises how important these negotiations are. I hope he will convince his colleagues, if that is necessary, that this is a matter for strong and firm negotiation with our EEC partners. We are the largest EEC fishing nation providing fish for human consumption. The industry can continue and it can flourish, though no longer able to catch as much in its traditional distant waters, but it can do this provided there is scope in the North Sea and round these Islands. The Government in their own White Paper, Food from our Own Resources, pointed out how important it is that we should make the most of our own sources of protein; and again we want to make sure, if possible, that we can provide our food without putting a strain on our balance of payments.
The fishermen and their communities perform a strenuous and tough job in peacetime in catching fish in very difficult conditions. And, as your Lordships know, in wartime they quickly become the men who man many of our vessels in the Navy, and particularly minesweepers and minelayers. They are indeed the salt of the sea. There are also tens of thousands of jobs in the processing industry and in transport and distribution, and these would be in jeopardy if the industry were to find itself being reduced to nothing.
The fishing industry has foreseen these changes and is adjusting itself to them. But I should point out that the housewife and the consumer will also be affected. In the new system there will be less cod available in Britain, and it is not easy to change the habits and tastes of many years. I hope that the skills in this country of advertising and marketing will be usefully engaged in presenting the merits of other fish, such as blue whiting, which can be caught by deeper trawling round our shores. But when the new system comes in we must recognise that

1403
we are not going to have the supplies of cod to which we have been used in the past.
Britain is not alone in these difficulties concerning the fishing industry. The United States, Canada and Norway, to name only three, have made it clear that they are preparing to act together in giving effect to the agreement, now in consensus form, for a 200 miles economic zone. They are making it clear that they intend to act next year. The United States has passed domestic legislation with a date of March 1977 for its effect. I urge Her Majesty's Government to prepare now, in concert with those other countries, other fishing and maritime nations, to press for separation from the rest of the proposed Convention of this part of what has been negotiated, if there would otherwise be delay.
The United Kingdom also has great interest in the proposals for the international authority to regulate deep sea mining beyond the coastal zones and the Continental Shelves, and beyond any single nation's control or responsibility. I am advised that it will be about five years before it will be possible to carry out this mining commercially. I remind your Lordships that it is in the form of manganese nodules that the most valuable substances exist, and that nickel is perhaps the most important. In due course, we understand, it will be cheaper to mine these metals from the bed of the ocean than mining on land, though both can be carried on together. However, if the financing proposals are vague, and if production could at any moment be reduced by a world authority without much notice, that will be a disincentive to the investment on an enormous scale that will be necessary to start this mining in an effective way.
The world needs these metals, and the industrialised countries have a preference for the kind of authority which they think is necessary. They see an authority which would carry out licensing and general control, and would offer incentives to encourage private or national enterprises to carry out the mining. The consortia are already preparing for this, and they can make a contribution for the world community in producing these substances which are in demand. They have already accepted that a percentage of revenues
1404
should be put aside to help underdeveloped countries. Then the underdeveloped countries themselves have a different view. They see an authority on a much larger scale, exercising tight controls, and carrying out all, or most, of the mining itself. They are also concerned that the economies of certain countries which are producers of some of the substances—for example, copper and cobalt—could be damaged by the additional competitive source.
The latest version of the Single Negotiating Text is, I am glad to say, nearer to the views of the industrial countries and therefore nearer to Britain's views. The alternative extreme of a scheme for a vast bureaucratic authority would be a formula for leaving the nodules on the seabed. But the financial arrangements are still so vague that more needs to be done here if there is to be confidence before this mining, which is so important to the world as a whole, can be started on any major scale. The view of the British and United States' experts, I understand, is that the fears about producer countries' economies can be allayed. The effects are not likely to be very damaging. Commodity agreements, in accordance with the usual system which we know, can cater for this, especially if the authority itself can take part in those agreements, as is now proposed.
The United States are most concerned to start mining soon, and they have made it clear that they are prepared that the production of these metals should be limited for a period of years to start with if that will reassure producing countries. They have also accepted the idea of a fund for adjustments where damage might be suffered by those countries. Here again, a number of underdeveloped countries have the power to delay the whole Convention if there is continued argument about this subject, and we must not allow that to hold up the more urgent matters connected with fishing. In a speech on the 8th April, Dr. Kissinger, the United States Secretary of State, declared that he hoped that international agreement would be concluded on the mining of deep sea metals, but if it were not, the United States can, and will, proceed to explore and mine on their own. So the United States have certainly made it clear, and put down a marker, that they cannot sit back and allow inordinate delay to occur.
I should like to say a word or two about pollution. Here Conventions to improve the situation have been negotiated separately from this Conference over the years, and regionally, and the process is continuing. The particular service which the UN Conference can perform is to place responsibility more clearly, where a vessel is involved, as between the owners and the flag State and the coastal or port States. Then there is the control of dumping of wastes in the oceans. The trouble which we have had most in Britain has been with oil, and most of the oil slicks have been caused by the offence of washing out tanks by oil tankers at sea. There are now technical methods of avoiding this, and discharging oil residues at ports, and this should eventually be enforced.
We are also concerned with the whole question of accidents. Here, when detergents are used—and sometimes they have to be used—I must point out that they can be as lethal, if not more lethal, to fish and wild life and to their food as the oil leak itself. I know that the noble Baroness, Lady White, would have wished to expand on this side on which she has done so much herself, and made such a contribution in promoting measures to prevent pollution. But, as your Lordships may have heard, today she is involved in a phone-in on metrication, as she has recently been the deputy chairman of the Metrication Board. I am sure that we would all wish her well in that arduous and difficult duty.
The British delegation have clearly worked hard at New York in their negotiations behind the scenes, and the SNT now is nearer to Britain's views and our vital interests. The August session should be used to secure action. Dr. Kissinger has stated that he himself will be leading the American delegation in August. The British Government should now be working all out, in discussion with other countries, to obtain definitive results at that session. The deep seabed is the last unexplored and untamed part of this planet. The seas and oceans are increasingly becoming the sources of food and energy. They are also providing, raw materials which are almost inexhaustible. They are increasingly being used for transporting these substances—on the surface or by pipeline. Britain must now press hard, with like-minded countries,
1406
for action on the urgent matters which have now been agreed in principle. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
3.27 p.m.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I am sure that we all welcome the opportunity which the Motion moved by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, gives us to debate once more this important issue. Certainly, speaking for myself, I hope I am not being monotonous in paying my genuine respects for another well-informed and balanced speech, from which we can all benefit in every quarter of the House. I would go so far as to say that he has covered practically the whole field. Looking out for one or two deep seabed zones which he might have left out, I do not think I could identify a single one. That speech will bear rereading and study after this debate as a source of information and balanced judgment on what is a complex and important subject for this country.
The present Motion calls attention, and quite rightly in my opinion, to the need for urgent progress on a number of key issues. I take particular note of the powerful argument which the noble Lord advanced in favour of detaching from the generality of the subject matter of this important Conference certain exceptionally urgent issues, which conceivably some countries—and in the case of the coastal zone it is an urgent matter—particularly the maritime States, might agree to implement ahead of the implementation of the complete package. I take note of it with some considerable sympathy. I am not in a position to say that that personal sympathy extends to more rarefied and responsible levels of Her Majesty's Government, but I am quite certain that this needs careful study to see whether we could conceivably do something like this in concert with other countries at this Conference without upsetting the emerging consensus. Some countries might take alarm and say that the industrial West are endeavouring to settle what is important to them, pushing to the head of the queue and leaving very important matters of more concern to developing countries to the end of the queue. But as I say, this is a matter for serious and responsible study and I welcome the comprehensiveness and cogency with which the noble Lord advanced this proposition.

1407
As he said, it is only right to draw attention both to the urgency of this matter and to the progress which the Conference has made since its inception. In three sessions of eight to ten weeks, nearly 150 nations, representing every kind of geographical situation, maritime interest and state of development, have succeeded in producing a preliminary draft of a convention, a convention which is to have legal force and not remain just a pious political slogan, if that term is not mutually contradictory; the SNT, as the noble Lord described it, and his approval for the deficiencies of the SNT exceeded even his denunciation of the excesses of the SNP, and once more I join hands with him on that basis. I agree that it is so far still a negotiating paper—it is not at this stage a legal document—but I would say that it is very much on the way to being, with future adjustments and changes, a document of legal force.
This is a complex subject of major political and economic importance. The range of interests represented is vast and as we have heard, some of the issues break new ground in international law. It would therefore be wrong and certainly unfair to complain about unjustifiable delays. This really got off the table in 1973 at the United Nations and it got off the ground in 1974, which is quite good going as conferences go. Besides, the Conference has decided to proceed by consensus. What alternative is there? This is, after all, a matter on which we seek an international regime in every possible direction and it must proceed by consensus. Consensus takes longer to achieve but the result of it is more likely to be respected.
At the recent New York session, the Conference went though the entire preliminary draft of over 200 pages and much of it emerged with little or no change, and therefore with enhanced status. The New York session has bought us closer to the achievement of a generally acceptable Law of the Sea Convention, although, I agree, the progress was not as rapid as we had hoped in our more optimistic moments. Once more I join the noble Lord in emphasising the urgency of this matter. Indeed, to complete this great undertaking it will be necessary to have a renewed sense of urgency and we hope that this will be shown at the next session, which follows very closely on the
1408
end of the third session.
First on the noble Lord's list of issues was the question of fisheries. At the New York session the Government continued to support the line that coastal States should have sovereign rights over fisheries in an economic zone of up to 200 miles. We were very early in this field. I will not say that we were alone in taking the initiative on this, but certainly the fairly general acceptance of a zone of 200 miles owes much to the early support for it by this country. The Government consider that this is the most effective way to protect the varied interests which this country has in different aspects of fisheries. These include the interests of the consumer in obtaining supplies, whether one's fish and chips is composed of cod or some other fish, and the interests of the industry in having access to stocks, and this involved the question of employment both in the fishing fleet and, as the noble Lord reminded us, in the ancillary industries which loom very large indeed in the economy of areas like Humberside and Scotland. It is in the interest of both the fishing industry and the consuming public in the United Kingdom that we should secure jurisdiction under international law over the fish resources around our coasts and we say, with a great many other countries, that 200 miles seems to be the sensible and practicable limit for that purpose.
My noble friend Lord Strabolgi in an admirable speech on 13th May made very clear the strength of the Government's support for this principle of a 200 mile EEZ. He also made it clear that the Government believe that it is vital, if the United Kingdom is to gain proper benefit from such a zone, to secure an agreed modification of the common fisheries policy. Discussions on this are of course proceeding in Brussels and they have been proceeding for some time.
I will not go into this matter further this afternoon; it is not the core of the subject we are discussing, but it is important that within the internationally agreed réegime we should, with our partners in the Community, agree a common fisheries policy which is fair to everybody, but—I emphasise this, as I think the noble Lord did—fully and practically cognisant of the fact that the United Kingdom is, after all, the leading fisheries country within the Community so far

1409
as domestic consumption is concerned, and I am not too sure about manufacturing purposes as well. I am sure—and the noble Lord advanced this example—that he is right on this. I can assure him that we have sustained and shall sustain our point of view on this matter, in conference with our partners in the Community, with fairness and due robustness. It is of fundamental importance to this country that, having agreed with the international community to a workable régime, we should, within the Community, achieve a fair and equitable arrangement with our partners. We are determined to get it and I believe we shall.
The next issue mentioned by Lord Campbell concerned rights of navigation and overflight. We have a two-fold interest in preserving the right of merchant shipping to move freely. Over 98 per cent. of the United Kingdom trade, by weight, is carried by sea and in 1974—this is a very significant and interesting fact—the British merchant fleet earned over £1,500 million in invisible exports. That, taken as a gross figure, yields a net figure of considerable importance to our invisible earnings which is invariably to the advantage of this country. Indeed, one may say that our invisible earnings more often than not come to the aid of our visible earnings and in some months they top up most impressively an increasingly effective performance by our people.
Furthermore, our defence interests require the ability to deploy effectively the forces both of our own Navy and those of our allies, particularly in NATO. This is a legitimate and essential requirement. It is therefore important that the United Kingdom retain the right of innocent passage through the territorial sea, the present high seas freedoms of navigation and overflight beyond the territorial sea, and the right of unimpeded passage for ships and aircraft through international straits and through archipelagos. Accordingly, at the New York session we continued to support a maximum breadth for the territorial sea of 12 nautical miles and to advocate, with our allies, the right of innocent passage for all ships through territorial sea without permission or notification. We also advocated the creation of a special régime for passage through international straits.
In most cases, that is the existing position, but it is necessary to safeguard
1410
the virtues of the past and to see that they are extended to the future so as to ensure passage through international straits which would include a right of overflight, unlike over the territorial sea, where no such right exists, and a right of submerged transit. Again, no such right exists in the territorial sea. I have included that passage because I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, will wish to examine it and, when he does, he will receive some assurance on various quite vital points which he has stressed on this occasion and on other occasions outside the House.
We also continued to argue that the waters of the economic zone should be regarded as having the status of the high seas for the purposes of navigation and overflight and other important high seas freedoms compatible with the coastal State's rights over resources, and that the freedoms of navigation and overflight over the high seas should not be impaired. I have drafted this paragraph with some care and have perhaps sacrificed a little audible clarity in the interests of recorded precision. I would ask those of your Lordships who are particularly interested in these points to study what I have just said when it appears tomorrow in the Official Report.
We also have a great interest in reducing and controlling marine pollution, which is the next issue mentioned in this excellently drafted Motion. The Government have therefore continued to press for a regime designed to reduce and control marine pollution from all sources, while not placing unnecessary restrictions on the free movement of shipping, particularly merchant shipping, and naturally we are continuing to take practical action to supplement the work of the Law of the Sea Conference.
A good deal of work on pollution and protection has been, and is, going on outside the area of the particular conference which we are discussing. For example, last November we ratified the London Dumping Convention, setting up a world-wide régime on the dumping of wastes at sea. On 2nd April we ratified the Compensation Fund Convention providing for a scheme for compensation in the event of oil tankers causing pollution through discharge of oil. And the Conference on Civil Liability for Offshore Oil Producers will meet again in London

1411
either before or after the next session of the Law of the Sea Conference, when we hope agreement will be reached to cover liability for pollution from oil production operations in the North Sea. This is a separate but massive question which needs to be dealt with.
The next issue mentioned in the Motion is seabed mining. I am sure that noble Lords will know about the strange potato sized nodules which are found on the deep seabed and which are rich in different metals. I have been handed such a nodule or something which is so described. I am not in a position to dispute that description, never having met a nodule until this afternoon. I shall not introduce it to your Lordships except to say that anybody who is particularly interested may, on application, have a free look at this particular one. I should hasten to add that my noble friend Lord Kirkhill has reminded me that he also has a nodule at home, so that there are two chances for noble Lords to make the acquaintance of a nodule.
The economics of seabed mining are still uncertain, and likely to remain so until seabed mining begins on a commercial scale. So, until that time and until the financial arrangements in the new convention have been finalised, I do not believe that we can usefully carry this particular point far. That does not mean that I dissent from the description which the noble Lord gave of the more than tentative and more than unilateral suggestions now being discussed with a fair amount of agreement about how the riches of the deep seabed should be explored. I believe that there is a growing agreement that there should be some sort of two-fold approach, with the designation of twin zones, of which one would be a general zone which would be made available for national or private exploration and exploitation and another equal zone would be, as it were, banked by the international authority, hopefully for exploitation in the interests of the world as a whole and in the interests of underdeveloped and poor countries.
These metals about which we have heard so much are metals which are vital to modern industry and the United Kingdom, like many other industrialised countries, is completely dependent on the inputs of some, though not all, of them.
1412
So it is an interest of the United Kingdom—and a legitimate one—that the resources of the seabed should be properly exploited and organised in an equitable way, Moreover, there are British companies which are interested in acquiring and developing the technology which will enable them to take part in actual exploitation of these nodules. They are very keen, despite the tremendous depths at which the nodules are located and the enormous technical problems of mining them on a commercial basis. Nevertheless, it is cheering to think that there are British firms and British experts, at all levels, who are looking forward with avidity to this unique and novel challenge, I hope, and I believe, that the international organisation of the exploitation of the deep seabed will give proper opportunity to that kind of expertise, including British.
Apart from the importance of developing these resources, this part of the Conference' work is vital to the future relationship of rich and poor countries. The resources of the seabed have been described by the United Nations General Assembly, as we have heard, as the common heritage of mankind. The Government see the Conference as the means of giving practical expression to that concept by creating a régime in which all activities in the area for the exploitation of deep seabed resources will be under the general supervision of an international authority, and exploitation will take place in an orderly and rational way for the benefit of all, especially the developing countries.
It is true that the detail of the régime is one of the most difficult issues before the Conference, but the Government have already helped to find compromises in previous sessions of the Conference, promoting agreement between developed and developing countries. I am glad to say that encouraging progress in this area was made at the New York session. Whereas the text issued at the end of the Geneva session—the third Session—was not acceptable to a number of nations, including our own, that issued at the end of the New York session, while certainly not perfect, is much more satisfactory and certainly can provide a sound basis for future negotiations.
There is no doubt about the will of this country, and cognate countries, to do

1413
everything that is practical to organise their resources and those of the untapped world—land and sea—so as to help the underdeveloped countries. There is no doubt about the good will. At Kingston, at the special session last September, and now in the work of this Conference this has been proved abundantly. But it is a matter of hard common sense that they cannot do this unless they are able to organise their own resources and manpower in such a way as to produce at the maximum their contribution to the general progress of the world, including developed and developing countries.
It is not a matter of the crude transfer of technology from one country to another; it is a matter of the development of technology, especially where it is already advanced in terms of manpower as well as of money and of institutions. It is a matter of development and then a matter of the transfer of its results and of its example—that means the transfer of education. But that is a matter which could very well be explored in a major debate. I wanted to give an indication of how we see this rather simplistically discussed matter of the transfer of technologies as between the so-called rich and the so-called poor.
I would mention another issue which is of major importance for United Kingdom interests. Everybody realises the vital importance to our economy of oil, which is now being produced from under the North Sea. This is expected to satisfy our requirements for oil by 1980. But all the oil so far discovered will not last for more than a few decades. To the West of Scotland, and in other areas around our coast, there are geological structures in the Continental Shelf which could well contain oil; I put it very conservatively. Some of these areas off the West of Scotland lie well beyond the 200 miles limit from the mainland. At that point it becomes a United Kingdom concern, does it not? It is now beyond argument that over 200 miles it becomes less of a national than an international concern.
In September 1974 we designated, under the Continental Shelf Act 1964, a considerable area of our shelf in this region, although not all of the area to which we consider existing international law entitles
1414
us. We believe that we enjoy these rights under existing international law, including the Continental Shelf Convention, adopted by the First United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea in 1958, and also under customary international law as enunciated by the International Court of Justice in their judgment of 1969 on the North Sea Continental Shelf cases.
But not all States share this view. That is why we attach such importance to getting in the Convention a satisfactory definition of the outer edge of the margin of the Continental Shelf; and that, I think, we consider to be the limit of our rights under present law. At New York, together with a number of other States with broad margins, we proposed a definition of the outer edge of the margin, which would result in a precise limit to coastal State jurisdiction, while at the same time maintaining our sovereignty over the natural resources of the Continental Shelf to the margin. While the new text does not contain a precise definition of the outer edge of the continental margin, the chairman said that he was sympathetic to the need for one and suggested that the point should be pursued further at the next session. It undoubtedly will be so pursued.
I think that I have now said enough to carry the debate forward a little, responding to the request of the noble Lord that we state, so far as we can, what the rate and extent of progress has been, and to give an indication of the policies of Her Majesty's Government on the major points of discussion which the noble Lord mentioned in his Motion and developed in his speech. With the consent of the House, I shall intervene towards the end of the debate. I know that there are a number of questions which exercise the interest and curiosity of noble Lords. There are points which are certainly of great importance; for instance, our attitude to the question of landlocked and gravely disadvantaged States. If I have not touched on some of these questions, then it is quite deliberate, because I thought that at this stage I should respond to the admirable speech to which we have listened, and that I should then listen very carefully and do my best at the end of the debate to respond to points of inquiry or comments which your Lordships may make. If, from time to time, I have to

1415
leave the Chamber it will be for only a couple of minutes, or even for only a few seconds, and it will be for quite legitimate reasons connected with public policy. I hope that any noble Lord who may be on his feet, delivering what I have no doubt will be a tremendous philippic, will not take my momentary absence on such occasions as being in any way discourteous.

THE LAYFIELD REPORT
3.59 p.m.
The PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY of STATE, DEPARTMENT of the ENVIRONMENT (Baroness Birk): My Lords, with the leave of the House I should like to repeat a Statement which is being made by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment in another place. His words are as follows:
" The report of the Committee of Inquiry into Local Government Finance —the Layfield Committee—is published this afternoon. Copies are available in the Vote Office.
" The Committee were appointed in the summer of 1974 by my predecessor together with my right honourable friends the Secretary of State for Wales and the then Secretary of State for Scotland. Their terms of reference were to review the whole system of local government finance in England, Scotland and Wales, and to make recommendations'. The Committee presented their report in March of this year.
" This is, as the Committee points out, the first comprehensive review of local government finance since 1914. It was therefore bound to be a major undertaking and we are grateful to Mr. Frank Layfield, QC, and his colleagues on the Committee for completing their work within 21 months of their first meeting. This is a tribute to the intensive work put in by the members of the Committee.
" The report itself runs to nearly 500 pages, and I will not attempt to summarise it in a short Statement. Nor will the House expect me to announce today any decisions on the Committee's recommendations. The
1416
Government will want first to hear the views of local government, of other interested parties and, of course, of both Houses. Secondly, the Committee have provided not a single clear-cut list of recommendations, but a fundamental analysis of the present state of local government finance. They conclude that the design of a system of local finance must depend on the view taken about what the whole relationship between central and local government should be. Thirdly, as the Committee themselves acknowledge, and I quote:
The detailed implications of our recommendations would require very much more time to explore than was available to us '
" To take one conspicuous example, the proposal for a local income tax is indeed complex. The report recommends that, if much greater freedom of action were to be given to local authorities a local income tax should be introduced so as to reduce their dependence on Government grants. I must stress that the Committee envisaged local income tax as a supplement to the rates and not as a substitute for the rates. This proposal obviously requires very careful consideration.
" We propose to press ahead urgently with our consultations and studies. My right honourable friends and I will be discussing the report with the Consultative Councils on Local Government Finance and with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities. Naturally, we could not possibly write to all the vast number of other parties with an interest in local government finance. But we are anxious to obtain the widest possible knowledge of public and professional opinion. I would therefore urge any interested organisations or individuals—including, of course, right honourable and honourable Members—to send us their comments.
" I fully appreciate how complex are the issues raised in the report of the Layfield Committee and that local authority associations and others are already occupied with preparing comments on other important documents such as the Transport Policy Review. Nevertheless, we should press on urgently with the consideration of the Layfield Report and I think that interested parties ought to be able to come to a view on the issues raised

1417
within the next six months. So I must ask that comments be submitted by the end of November.
" Progress thereafter will depend on the outcome of our consultations, but we shall aim to come to decisions and to report to the House as soon as possible.
4.p.m.
Lord SANDFORD: My Lords, we are of course grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, for repeating this Statement, and even more grateful to Mr. Frank Layfield and my noble friend Lord Ridley, who was a member of his Committee, and their colleagues, for undertaking and completing such an arduous task. The noble Baroness will be aware that there has been a serious leak, about which there is concern, in the two months during which this report has been in the hands of the Government, but my noble friend Lord Ridley has down a Question for Written Answer about that and I will leave him to press that matter now if he wishes to do so.
Of course, we shall look forward very much to a debate on this topic, and it will be interesting to know as soon as possible —though I know the noble Baroness cannot tell us now—whether the Government propose to find time for that before or after the Recess. What we are dealing with here is not just a matter of financial adjustments but something which goes to the heart of the fundamental relationship between central and local government. When we come to the debate there will be protestations from all sides about the importance of independence and autonomy for local government, but what we shall want to know from the noble Baroness is whether the Government propose to translate that into practice or whether we shall continue, as we have for too long in the past, a situation where central Government pay the piper and call the tune—a state of affairs which prevails under, for instance, the Community Land Act, where central Government find all the money and local government does their bidding. This is the issue which our debate must try to settle.
4.5 p.m.
Lord BANKS: My Lords, I should like to join in thanking the noble Baroness
1418
for repeating the Statement made in another place, and also in thanking Mr. Layfield and his Committee for their considerable labours. I am sure that we in this House are all glad that this important report is now published. We on these Benches will study it very carefully and will form our conclusions on its proposals. It deals with a system of finance which has been in crying need of reform for some considerable time. We welcome the recognition of the fact that if the local authorities are to have greater freedom of action then additional sources of revenue for local government must be found, and I am glad that in this connection local income tax is suggested, even although its operation may be, as the Statement insists, quite complex.
I am glad, too, that the burden on the rates is also to be reduced, which is another recommendation. I understand that the report recommends that the rates should be applied to capital values of both property and land. 1 should myself have preferred to see them levied on the site value alone. There must clearly be the fullest consultation, as is proposed in the Statement; yet I hope that legislation will not be too long delayed, and I wonder whether the noble Baroness can tell us if the Government have any target date for that. I would ask that we should have a debate on the report in this House as soon as it can be conveniently arranged.
4.7 p.m.
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, perhaps I may answer the points made by the two Front Bench speakers opposite. The noble Lord, Lord Sandford, asked me about the question of a debate before or after the Recess. The question of a debate in either House of Parliament is a matter for the House itself, to be arranged through the usual channels. As to whether these recommendations will be translated into practice, in the report the Government have been given, I think noble Lords will agree, a thorough analysis of the complex problems of local government finance. Our concern must be to develop solutions which protect our democratic structure and the growing partnership between local and central government in the provision of services and the control of expenditure, and naturally we will want to take the views of local authorities and the public before

1419
coming to a decision on the report. Therefore, the translation into practice must depend on this timetable.
The noble Lord, Lord Banks, said—and this was the whole object in the Government's setting up of the Committee—that there was crying need for reform in local government finance, and he referred to the need for additional forms of revenue. I think his views were summed up when he spoke in the debate on local government on the 5th May, in col. 539, when he referred to the financing of local government. I can assure him that there will be the fullest consultation. So far as concerns legislation not being too long delayed, it of course depends on what decisions the Government come to as a result of the consultations and their own considerations; but, as the Layfield Committee itself points out, there are some areas of its recommendations which could be implemented quite quickly whereas others will take considerable time. If indeed the Government come down in favour of some form of local income tax—and they have not as yet had the opportunity to study this completely—as Layfield itself says, it would take at least five years before there could be any implementation of this proposal. The point that both noble Lords raised about rates takes us into more detailed fields. Perhaps I could make it clear and emphasise that the Committee themselves welcomed both the retention of the rating system, as such, together with a form of local income tax.
Viscount RIDLEY: My Lords, as a member of this Committee, I should like to add my thanks to the noble Baroness for the Statement and to say how much we welcome the publication of the report. I would ask her if she would note the date. This was signed on 9th March—and here we are at 19th May which is too long a gap. The Government will also know that during this gap the whole matter appeared in considerable and accurate detail in The Times. I hope that the Minister is aware that this leak has been greatly resented by members of the Committee among other people. They feel themselves to some extent under suspicion at this moment. While I do not wish to cast any aspersions on The Times, they perhaps have cause for congratulation rather than anything else.
1420
I hope that the Minister will promise a full and searching inquiry into what happened. This leak is just as fishy as the debate we are interrupting at this moment. I hope that we will be able to stop this sort of thing from happening in the future.
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, may I reply to the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, as he is a member of the Committee and is present in the House, to convey to him personally the appreciation of the Government for the work that has been done by the Committee, for the expedition with which it was done and also, as I am aware, for his own considerable contribution to that. The big gap to which he referred is not really such a big gap in terms of printing and publishing. These things take time. It was, in some ways, quite a short time because, as we are all aware, it is a very substantial report. It also means correcting, setting up proofs, galleys and so on.
So far as the leak is concerned, I share—as do the Government through my right honourable friend the Secretary of State—the concern of the noble Viscount and his feelings and the resentment felt by the Committee. I should like him to assure Mr. Layfield and the Committee that certainly on the part of the Government there is no feeling at all that this in any way could be attributed to the Committee or any member of it. We are undertaking currently a full and searching inquiry into how the leak occurred. On how successful we shall be, I cannot give any promises, but this is not in the future; this is under way now. All I would say is that from all sorts of past experience, I am sure that we all are aware that directly any publication, any piece of paper appears, or even any word drops from the lips or pen of one person, it gets into the arena of perhaps a risk of public disclosure. Nevertheless, I can assure him that every care was taken in my Department and I should like to assure him on behalf of the officials within the Department of the really personal regret and anxiety that this should have happened. It is not something that we have treated lightly or where we are not aware of the consequences and the feelings of the Committee.
Viscount AMORY: My Lords, I am sure that everybody connected with local

1421
government would want to join in the tributes that have been paid to this very able and authoritative Committee on their labours. Their report is full of meat and I am sure that everybody in local government will want to study the proposals with the greatest care in the world. I should like to exonerate my noble friend Lord Ridley from any leak at all. I wrote to him about two months ago to ask him if he could tell me what was going to be in the Layfield Report. He wrote back a very polite letter making no comment on the Layfield Report itself but sending me a package of oat cakes that he strongly recommended
Lord LEATHERLAND: My Lords, I would ask my noble friend whether she is aware that we view with satisfaction her assurance that this leak is going to be inquired into. I say that as an old newspaper man who always used to be on the look-out for the advance story. The second point is this. Will the Government announce a decision on this fundamental question of local income tax as soon as possible so that we can all give it consideration? At the moment it is just thrown out theoretically and many of the very grave difficulties associated with it have not been explored. Thirdly, may I ask my noble friend whether she would draw the attention of her Department to the paper on rating and its future which I presented at the annual conference of the Rating Association 15 years ago? I think that she will find there the whole problem examined most carefully and a solution put forward in more simple terms than in the Layfield Report.
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, I will pass on to my right honourable friend what has been said about the leakage. On the question of local income tax which my noble friend says has been theoretically put forward, the Layfield Committee have put forward their proposals backed up by a tremendous amount of evidence and thought. It is something of such vital concern to the whole of our local government and central Government financial and taxation system, that I am certain that my noble friend (while I share his desire for expedition in this matter) would not want it to be dealt with except very thoroughly for it is going to have long and far-reaching effects. All I can tell him is
1422
that the reason I gave for the need to have all the consultations in by the end of November is so that we can speed things up. As for the last point, the moment that I return to my Department I shall get his paper, read it myself and certainly see that everyone concerned sees it. If only we had known about it before we might have avoided all this.
Lord BROOKE of CUMNOR: My Lords, I am not one of those who had the advantage of a surreptitious advance look at this extremely important report, but, as a former Minister for Local Government, I should clearly like to express my profound thanks to Frank Layfield and to all the members of his Committee, not least my noble friend Lord Ridley. Is the noble Baroness aware that, although she correctly said that this was the first major public inquiry into local government finance for 60 years or so, a tremendous amount of work has been done, to my certain knowledge, under different Governments, inside Government Departments, among local authority associations, in academic circles and so on. In so far as I have been acquinted with those, most of them came to the final conclusion that, although there were interesting possibilities of change, the changes likely to accrue would be for the worse and not for the better. That is why it is very exciting to people like myself to know that we are going to have the advantage of reading a thorough-going report on this subject which, although it does not seem to have very definite recommendations, has nevertheless given us some hope that there may be solutions which will be for the better and not for the worse.
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, for his comments because we are all very much aware of the amount of work that he has undertaken in this field during his distinguished career. I am quite sure that the Layfield Committee were able to lean very heavily on the various inquiries and work done in the past. The point about its being a first review is that it is the first comprehensive review in this area since 1914, but this by no means implies that all the other work done by the noble Lord and others has either been overlooked or forgotten.

LAW OF THE SEA CONFERENCE
4.20 p.m.
Debate resumed.
Lord RITCHIE-CALDER: My Lords, now we can get back to the Law of the Sea and I want to thank the Opposition for giving us this opportunity to discuss this very critical subject and particularly to thank the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, for his excellent presentation. I am not saying that patronisingly; I am grateful for the conciseness and precision with which he presented it. I want to anticipate the maiden speech of the noble Earl, Lord Strathmore, mainly because I was born in Strathmore and therefore I owe him that much loyalty that I ought to defer in my presentation to him.
This is a very important subject. I keep on saying it, and I do not expect your Lordships to pay attention to all my hyperboles. What we are discussing in terms of the sea is one of the most critical questions which confronts the w hole of mankind, and not just in the usual glib terms of pious utterance. Recently in the harbour of Nassau, I saw the entire navy of the Bahamas. It consisted of six motor launches to police the waters of 700 islands. One launch had been damaged, having run aground on an uncharted shoal. It was an ironic commentary on the vociferous ambitions of the coastal States to add another 200 miles of ocean to their responsibilities. When they get their 12 miles territorial sea and 200 miles Exclusive Economic Zone, how are they going to exercise their jurisdiction? Apart from protecting their property—that is to say, their living and non-living resources of the EEZ; and that requires a large marine constabulary—they will also have acquired a very heavy commitment. They will have to ensure the safety of navigation, and that includes the updating of charts—which have not been updated in the case of the Bahamas—for which few of them have the hydrographic facilities. They have to protect navigational aids and other installations, cables and pipelines. They have to conserve living resources and permit free passage for migrant fishes, not just the ones they catch. They have to prevent pollution. They have to prevent the transport of slaves, piracy, illicit traffic in narcotic drugs and psycho-tropic substances, and they have to
1424
prevent unauthorised broadcasting. If those proposals in the new, revised Single Negotiating Text are accepted, the coastal State, in conformity with the Convention, would have the power to board, inspect, arrest and try.
My Lords, I think of those six motor launches in Nassau and I think of the limitations of the British Jura Class ships which your Lordships have already discussed. I think of all the less developed coastal States trying to provide the ships and the men for such operations. They would not even be able to detect the intruders let alone intercept them or indulge, as is provided for in the text, in "hot pursuit".
The USA, with its surveillance satellites and air patrols might be able to do this; but what of other countries—and I say this advisedly—including our own? When I was a boy and I asked for a bigger helping than I could swallow, my mother used to tell me that my eye was bigger than my belly. In this case, the belly is bigger than the eye. They will not be able to oversee what they have on their plate, nor will they be able to digest what they have on their plate. It is quite a plateful. The jurisdiction of the coastal States will be increased to 77 million square miles. It can be more because it is proposed that where the margin of the Continental Shelf, which has been accepted as the seaward extension of the coastal States, exceeds 200 miles, that increment will also go to the coastal State with the possible—not yet definable—proviso that the benefits of the fringe will be shared with the International Seabed Authority.
Your Lordships will recall, as the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, has reminded us, how all this started with the high (or deep) purpose that the ocean bed beyond the limits of national jurisdiction should be considered "the common heritage of all mankind". All nations, including the Russians, have given lip-service to this, so it is the built-in principle of negotiations. When it was proposed at the United Nations on 1st November 1967 by Ambassador Arvid Pardo of Malta, the limits of the Shelf were then defined as the 200 metres isobath—that is to say, water-depth—which made the area of "the common heritage" at that time 340 million square miles. But that

1425
was not satisfactory because some adroit lawyers, seeing further ahead than the oil drillers did at that time—and, after all, oil is what the Continental Shelf is all about—had slipped in the following:
"…or beyond that limit to where the depths of the superjacent waters admits of the exploitation of the natural resources".
That open end was what the United Nations Seabed Committee and the Law of the Sea Conference was supposed to close. Mankind, which is concerned with people and not nations, and with posterity and not personal expediency—has come off very badly in the deal so far. The 340 million square miles has, at best, shrunk. I say "at best" because there are many more claims coming. It has been reduced to 288 million square miles.
The delegates of the Law of the Sea Conference talked devoutly about their country's "legitimate interests". But what they are trying to do is to legitimise avarice. They have discovered the wealth of the oceans, not just off-shore oil but trillions of tons of ferro-manganese nodules which cobble millions of square miles of the ocean bed. Those nodules were first dredged up by HMS "Challenger" a century ago. I thought my noble friend on the Front Bench was going to tell us that this was a plastic bomb; and, indeed, in terms of international relations this is a plastic bomb. The nodules contain nickel, copper, and cobalt and other metallic elements. Incidentally, apropos of what was said, the manganese nodules were not only found at the bottom of the deeps of the world, they were also found in Scottish lochs, which proves that we were ahead of our time. They remained curiosities in geological museums until 1957 and 1958. That was the period of the International Geophysical Year, when scientists of 100 nations combined and the most extensive and intensive scientific study and exploration of our planet was carried out.
The first recognition of the potential economic value of these nodules came from the scientists of the Scripps Institute of Oceanography at California engaged in the IGY. They dredged up large quantities from the Tuamoto Escarpment just East of Tahiti. The nodules were rich in cobalt. Further surveys and sampling with instruments and cameras revealed the extent of the deposits in the Pacific,
1426
Atlantic and Indian Oceans. The concentrations and composition of the nodules varies from area to area. An assay from a deposit about 1,000 miles North of Samoa has shown 1·9 per cent. of nickel, 2·3 per cent. of copper, 0·2 per cent. of cobalt and 36 per cent. of manganese.
If we take—and I am entitled to take it on authority—1·4 per cent. of nickel as an economic proportion, a million tons of nodules would yield 28 million pounds of nickel. A conservative estimate of the nodule-mining operations ten years hence—and I emphasise that this is a conservative estimate—is put at 10 million tons of nodules recovered, which would mean 280 million pounds of nickel, which is one-sixth of the present production capacity of all land mined nickel. In ten years we could be recovering the equivalent of one-sixth what we are now producing from land mined nickel. In addition, we have of course the hot brines and the whole of this fascinating area in which, from the rifts in the volcanic regions and indeed from the splits in the tectonic plates, we are identifying there vast submarine liquid minerals, if I may put it that way.
Mr. Henry Kissinger is surely right when he says that the United States is many years ahead in the technology of deep sea mining. The United States ought to be, considering the vast appropriations which have gone into military research and development concerned with the under-water nuclear deterrent strategy, not to mention the 140 million dollars which the CIA put into Howard Hughes' nodule mining venture and its equipment, which brought up not only nodules but half a Soviet submarine. Regrettably, so far as the CIA was concerned, it was the wrong tack. To safeguard those deposits, the Law of the Sea Conference is considering the setting up of an international seabed authority. It would manage and distribute benefits for the common good, so that less developed countries, including the landlocked countries, would share in the proceeds.
The authority would have an operational arm called, "The Enterprise". I wonder whether the British National Enterprise Board was entirely coincidental. The Enterprise would have a mandate to explore and exploit where necessary. The less developed countries are all for The

1427
Enterprise, but they cannot see clearly or are blind to the fact that their insistence on a 200-mile limit will exclude The Enterprise from a huge area of potential development so that they will not have the disinterested service of The Enterprise in exploring and exploiting their adjoining waters.
The revised single negotiating text, which goes to the next session in August, is a compendium of proposals made at Caracas, at New York, at Geneva and again at the recent meeting in New York. The first single negotiating text at Geneva was a Houdini device by the President, Ambassador Shirley Amerasinghè of Sri Lanka, to extricate the conference from the knots in which it had tied itself. None of the proposals had been voted upon, but it was hoped that the Governments would consider the crucial principles and options and instruct their delegations. But, next time round, a month ago in New York, they were haggling again. Just to take one committee, the Second or legal Committee, in which the 200-mile limit and so on was discussed, there were over 1,000 amendments. But in all those amendments the question of the Exclusive Economic Zone and the demand for it remained unabated.
How could it be abated? The United States Congress had already pre-empted the issue by passing an Act expropriating the zone, operating from next May. Iceland had taken unilateral action; and Britain, while resisting that action, had, as my noble friend on the Front Bench has pointed out, nevertheless endorsed in the Conference the 200-mile limit. Ambassador Amerasinghè again instructed the chairmen of committees after the New York meeting, to produce an updated Single Negotiated Text, hoping that this would be as near an agreed final instrument as would ensure that Governments could reach a "yes" or "no" position on the essential principles and the items involved, so that an agreed draft could go forward for voting upon and signing at Caracas next year, prepared for the August meeting in New York.
As a procedural device to prevent the Conference from disbanding in disarray—and I can assure your Lordships, as one of those who were there, that it was very near to that point—this second revised negotiating draft was very adroit, but it
1428
could not reconcile the diversities and differences involved. As has been pointed out, there was a deadlock on the machinery for the settlement of disputes, which is absolutely cardinal to the whole of the discussion going on. It went right across the board in all the committees. There was no way in which they would agree about settlement machinery. So Ambassador Amerasinghè produced his own text as a basis for further negotiation, and I commend it to those who are interested.
In the meantime, Mr. Henry Kissinger, in his own characteristic way, had attempted to break the log jam. It was force majeure. Outside the Conference, he underlined the specific things in the single negotiated text which he would be prepared to go along with, in the name of the United States. If any of your Lordships doubt the importance of these deep sea nodules your doubts are not shared by Mr. Henry Kissinger. He called the seabed issue, "the most complex and vital issue to be decided". He said:
" If the seabed is not the subject of international agreement, the United States can and will proceed to explore and mine on its own."
And, after all, he was talking to an already sensitised audience, in the sense that they have already declared their intention in relation to the 200-mile limit, so no one would ignore that kind of statement. But he had the grace to say—and obviously an international relations man like myself could not but recognise this—that this would eventually lead to
" a race to carve out deep sea domains of exploitation which will escalate into economic warfare, endanger the freedom of navigation and lead to trials of strength and military confrontations."
He rejected the idea of access to the seabed resources being confined to an international authority, but suggested an oceanic mixed economy. He backed the proposal that a free enterprise contractor, seeking a concession, would submit two sites of exploitation to the international seabed authority. The authority would select one of those sites to be mined by the Enterprise or—and I do not know what this means—to be made available to the developing countries, who, from the discussions, obviously would not have the resources to carry out that kind of operation. The other site would be mined by the free enterprise contractor.

1429
Mr. Kissinger recognised the concern of the less developed countries about the threat of seabed minerals—and it is a real threat—to their land-based natural resources. He offered a temporary limitation—he was making a gesture; the United States make this kind of gesture, because they think they have the muscle to do so—for a period to be written into the treaty on the production of seabed minerals. This would be based on the projected or predicted 6 per cent. a year growth of the world nickel market. This limitation would have the effect of limiting other minerals as well, because they are all bound together in the nodules. After the limitation period of the treaty, the extraction would be governed by market forces.
A matter that is of very profound concern—and I follow the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, in this—is the question of the urgencies and the priorities. But there are other matters as well. There is the question of attitude, and that is what is fouling up the Conference. I do not want to be entirely cynical, but this House was content to pass a Bill attaching the island of Rockall to, "our Kingdom of Scotland". I believe it was attached to the parish of Lewis.
Lord CAMPBELL OF CROY: My Lords, will the noble Lord give way? The choice was between Ross and Cromarty and Inverness. It was attached to Inverness.
Lord RITCHIE-CALDER: Yes, my Lords. It was attached to Inverness, which happens to be considerably more than 200 miles from the island of Rockall which, incidentally, is well over the 200-mile limit, even from the island of Lewis. Rockall is a pinnacle of rock and, as I said, is well over 200 miles West of the Hebrides. I have heard—and it does not take much checking to establish this—that there is something called the Rockall Deep between the Hebrides and Rockall, which I would argue proves that Rockall is not part of our Continental Shelf. It is not even part of our 200-mile limit. But Rockall, that pinnacle, marks a Continental Shelf of its own, which is at least as big as Wales.
Rockall, when last heard of—we used to know it from the gale warnings on the
1430
BBC—was uninhabited, and indeed uninhabitable, but it is now a far-flung outpost of our submarine empire. Is Rockall to be the base line for our economic zone; that is, are we to have it as the marker for our Western claims and 200 miles beyond that as well? Can we establish our claim to the Continental Shelf? If you look at the Single Negotiating Text you will find very sinister implications, so far as that is concerned, because Article 128 of Part II of that Text states explicitly:
" Rocks which cannot sustain human habitation or economic life of their own shall have no exclusive economic zone or continental shelf."
That would certainly apply to Rockall.
I cite this as the kind of game which nations are now playing all the way around the shores, which encourages the kind of cynicism that is bedevilling and delaying the imperative decisions which have to be made. And, my Lords, they are imperative! There is no question that what we are now trembling on the edge of is a whole series of absolutely vital decisions for the human race. I am not talking about nationalities. I am talking about the interests of mankind itself, because here we have issues way beyond anything which we can negotiate quietly over a coffee table. This is not something which we can allow to go by default. As has been pointed out with some gratification by one speaker here, we now have sitting on the sidelines a whole series of multi-national corporations, British and others, who are just raring to go. In fact, they are not only multi-national corporations; they are consortia of multi-national corporations.
As regards the methods by which these minerals are extracted from the sea, I shall take the example of pollution. If we are to extract these minerals from the ocean bed, it will be the equivalent of opencast mining. It will be done by dredging, scratching and scraping. We have no idea what will be the effect of this disturbance of the seabed at that depth. It may not be bad, I do not know—nobody knows. But if you bring up the sediments of the seabed, even from 16,000 feet as they are doing at this moment by hydraulic suction, by vacuum cleaner—somebody was talking disparagingly about fishing by vacuum cleaner; this will be mining by vacuum cleaner—you bring up not only the cold waters; you bring up the seabed diatoms which have been born and bred in blackness. The moment they are exposed to the

1431
photons, the moment they become photosynthetic, they start multiplying and they multiply at a rate which is equivalent, to put it mildly, to a locust plague so far as the feedingstuffs of the surface animals are concerned. These are the kind of things that we are playing with. We have to take decisions, and not ten years from now when the problem is more manageable because we know more. What we must do now is take the precautions which prevent us from making irreversible mistakes.
4.47 p.m.
The Earl of STRATHMORE and KINGHORNE: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie-Calder, for the nice remarks he made about me at the beginning of his speech, and also about our native Angus. I find it very difficult to follow such an expert in this subject and other matters. The Motion which my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy has placed before your Lordships is on a subject in which I am deeply interested and about which I feel most strongly. That is why I am addressing your Lordships for the first time today. The seas covering the globe, and particularly those around our coasts, have always been a fascination to many, since to a great extent they hold the key to the state of our economy, our physical health and our safety, to mention but a few of the areas affected. People in all walks of life, not only those directly concerned, are now beginning to realise just how much importance must be attached to the Law of the Sea Conference.
First and foremost, it is of supreme importance to our fishing industry, indirectly in the future to the revenue from the marine mining industry around our coasts; and also, of course, to navigation, defence, trade and many other allied activities. It is therefore with great anticipation and hope that the outcome of the third session of the Conference is awaited which, as we have heard, ended in New York two weeks ago. I have not yet seen the latest Negotiating Text, but there must be some expectation that a satisfactory conclusion to the negotiations will be achieved by mid-September when the next session ends. However, it must be remembered that our negotiators face many difficulties, not least of which is the fact that a two-thirds majority vote is
1432
required on any proposal. Of the over 150 nations represented at the Conference, more than one-third represent landlocked, or what is known as geographically disadvantaged, States, such as Poland, Sweden and East Germany, which have only a fairly small portion of the Baltic between their coasts and their neighbours to the North. Nations such as these are obviously negotiating from a position of apparent weakness for the best fishing arrangements which they can possibly get. This could slow down progress, although it may not.
Despite this, it is encouraging to hear that some of the larger nations—notably the United States of America, Canada and Russia—have already accepted the principle of 200-mile Exclusive Economic Zones. It is also good to hear that the former nation has passed legislation claiming a 200-mile fishing limit which comes into force next year. The Conference is clearly moving towards the establishment of zones of 200 miles width, or the distance of the median line, whichever is the lesser, for its maritime members. It is envisaged that in these zones the countries concerned will have rights to everything under the seabed, particularly oil and gas: on the seabed, such as manganese nodules, about which we have heard so much this afternoon; in the sea itself—obviously fish—and on top of the sea, navigation. This is more than a worthwhile objective which I am sure the Conference will achieve.
What people who are not connected with the fishing industry are, I hope, now beginning to realise is the importance of this Conference to our own fishing industry. Straight away one thinks of the cod war and the extreme difficulties which our distant water fleet has experienced and the bravery with which it has carried on fishing, despite the unprovoked attacks of the Icelandic gunboats: and one admires the skill and determination of the Royal Navy who are doing such a difficult job so well. However, the cod war must not be allowed to cloud the other important issues nearer home which could seriously affect our fishing fleet in the future and exacerbate current difficulties.
Under the terms of the Treaties, the waters of Member States are treated as one or, as it is called, the "Community Pond". However, as I have already

1433
mentioned, under the Law of the Sea Conference each maritime State could have its own Exclusive Economic Zone of 200 miles width, if this is the limit approved. In the case of the United Kingdom, ours could be by far the largest of the EEC countries, as on our West coast our zone would stretch for 200 miles into the Atlantic, exclusive of Eire (but I rather hope not Rockall), while on the other coasts it would extend to the median line between neighbouring countries. This fact gives us a very good negotiating objective in our discussions with Member States of the EEC. At the time of our accession, it was agreed that for the United Kingdom a virtual standstill of fishing limits until 1983 would remain in force, the limits being approximately 12 miles wide. The larger concept of 200 miles is, as your Lordships have heard, now being seriously considered by some of the larger nations, and this trend is likely not only to be acceptable but to be extremely necessary. I am therefore hopeful that Her Majesty's Government will succeed in their attempts to negotiate for our country a far wider fishing limit than is at present in force.
Again I would stress that it is essential that an acceptable solution is achieved, otherwise our own fishing industry will sink into a worse state than it is in at the present time. Your Lordships will be aware of the extreme difficulties facing the industry, following the debate last week in your Lordships' House, from what has been said today and from what was said in two extensive debates which were held earlier this year in another place. I do not think that I could be accused in any way of being controversial when I say that I am sure that both sides of your Lordships' House are seeking ways to relieve the United Kingdom industry of its burdens—but, of course, not always by the same methods.
Turning to the difficulties facing the industry in more detail, as your Lordships know, our fishermen have had to try to absorb vastly increased costs of at least 25 per cent., while at the same time prices have risen only very slightly. Prices have almost certainly been affected by the level of fish imports, which could be the result of some members of the EEC exceeding their fish quotas. I do not know about this, but it is possible. Another serious problem is that competing
1434
seafaring nations, particularly those of the North-East Atlantic Fisheries Commission, have subsidised their fleets to a far greater extent than ours has been, which has placed our industry at a disadvantage. Overfishing in what will become the "Community Pond" is definitely taking its toll of fish stocks. The worst offenders are probably the industrial fishers from over the water who use fine mesh nets and literally hoover the seabed and take all the young stock.
With all these difficulties to contend with, it is not surprising that our industry views with horror the idea of a 12-mile limit, as has been suggested in Brussels, and it is not surprising that representations have been made to have the limit increased to 100 miles. Again, this would appear to be a good negotiating objective. I am sure that Her Majesty's Government will make every effort to achieve as large and as suitable a limit as possible, and after what I have heard this afternoon I feel much more confident about that. In passing, I would add that I am sure it would greatly help the fishing industry if another Law of the Sea seminar were arranged in London, perhaps after the next session of the Law of the Sea Conference, so that all members of our industry are kept fully informed of the latest developments. Your Lordships will remember that two excellent seminars were held before the two previous sessions.
The fishing industry is important to us not only economically but sociologically, and if it is treated fairly I do not think that we have much to fear about retaining healthy fish stocks, which could remain with us for very much longer than the minerals in or under the seabed, if they are removed. The minerals are of perhaps much more importance over the next 30 years. On the question of mineral rights in the EEZs, we in the United Kingdom and the signatories to the Continental Shelf Agreement appear to be in a very fortunate position as, except for bilateral negotiations with France, Norway and possibly Denmark over further mineral exploration areas, our rights remain much as they were. They remain unchanged. Therefore, we can look forward to a good deal of profitable activity, and we shall lose nothing as a result of that on the mineral side.

1435
In conclusion, may I stress, as have many other speakers, that although the minerals on and under the seabed around our shores are likely to be of estimable value over a period, they are unlikely to remain there for ever and ever. There is no reason, however, why our fish stocks should not be there for as long as we look after them, and I have high hopes that the United Nations Law of the Sea Conference will be the catalyst which will enable us to do just that.
4.59 p.m.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, it is my happy privilege to congratulate the noble Earl, Lord Strathmore, on his maiden speech. The whole House has been impressed by the ability with which he has put forward his case. I shall express some disagreement, but our future discussions on this and, I am quite sure, other subjects will be greatly extended by the contributions which the noble Earl will be making. On behalf of the whole House may I very sincerely congratulate the noble Earl. Also I want to express my appreciation to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, for initiating this debate. This is a very complex subject, and I was deeply impressed, as I am sure other noble Lords must have been, by the way in which the noble Lord was able to deal with such clarity with this comprehensive subject so that all of us could understand it.
I welcome the speech which was made by my noble friend Lord Goronwy-Roberts for its appreciation of the association of developing countries with a solution to this problem. I do not think he went far enough in meeting their demands, but I appreciated the degree to which he accepted them. We have had a memorable speech from my noble friend Lord Ritchie-Calder. I always find in his writings and in his speeches more understanding of the future of mankind in regard to technological developments than that of any other writer or any other speaker. What he does, as he has done this afternoon, is to interpret those developments with deep principles of human rights and of human solidarity. I hope that the speech which he has delivered this afternoon will be read with great care by those who are responsible for the policy of our Government.
1436
I want to refer only briefly to three of the many subjects which have been discussed by the Law of the Sea Conference in New York. With the endorsement of all of us, the United Nations has declared that the seas are the common heritage of all mankind. I emphasise the word, "all", because one third of the nations of the world have no frontiers which face the seas. They have been termed "landlocked" and I was not surprised that my noble friend Lord Slater, when I asked a question on this subject the other day, asked what "landlocked" meant. I am not surprised, because the Leader of the Conservative Party, Mrs. Margaret Thatcher, referred in a speech the other day to the Soviet Union as "landlocked". The Soviet Union has on the West, North and the East thousands of miles of frontiers with the sea coast. Therefore, I am not in the least surprised that my noble friend Lord Slater should have been a little bewildered as to the term " landlocked". I think one can define it in this way: the landlocked countries of the world—one third—are those territories whose frontiers do not touch the sea coast. They are also described as the countries of States geographically disadvantaged.
At the Conference in New York those territories have been putting forward certain demands. They have asked first that they should have rights in the economic zones of 200 miles allotted to the sea coastal nations. They are asking, second, that they should have rights of access to the sea even though they have no coastal frontiers. There is already a precedent in this direction. Hungary and Czechoslovakia, though they have no sea coasts, own ships and those ships have the right of access through Poland and Bulgaria. I want to suggest that the European Economic Community should extend to the landlocked territories in Europe similar access to the coast.
Thirdly, the landlocked countries are asking for a share of the revenues from the exploitation of minerals and other resources on the seabed. The sea is the common heritage of all mankind. Would it therefore be right that the revenues obtained from the exploitation of minerals under the sea should be available only for territories with sea coasts? I should like to ask the Minister, in his reply tonight, to say whether the British representative at the New York Conference

1437
supported the landlocked territories in making those demands.
The second subject to which I want to refer is the problem of the exploitation of the rich minerals which are under the seabed. It has been agreed that there shall be an international authority of supervision. At the first gathering of the Law of the Sea Conference, the United States of America proposed that licences should be issued by the international authority for the exploitation of these minerals. Inevitably, that would have meant that the right would have been exercised by large multinational companies for their profit. I was very interested to hear the Minister say that there had been advances in this country in technology in those directions. I think it is true that of the three multinational companies which have now developed to the degree that they could exploit these mineral resources, two are American and only one is British, and that that British company has very large American associations. This proposal would mean that the seas, which we declare are the common heritage of mankind, would be exploited by multinational companies largely based in America—some based here—for their profit rather than for the welfare of the whole of mankind.
At the first Law of the Sea Conference, the developing nations of the Third World proposed that instead of multinational companies having the right to exploit these minerals, the new international authority gathering together the necessary technical experts, should itself develop the minerals under the sea for the benefit of the whole of mankind. As a result of the Third World putting forward that proposal, new suggestions have been made at the recent Conference in New York.
Dr. Kissinger, on behalf of the United States of America, has proposed that half of the areas for mineral exploitation should be reserved and that during that reservation, perhaps for 20 years, technicians from the developing world should be trained so that they might be able to benefit. There is the further proposal which came before the New York Conference, that the international authority itself should develop at least half of the
1438
mineral areas. These proposals are to go to a postponed Conference to be held in August. I should like to ask Her Majesty's Government to tell us, in the reply which they make today, what their attitude will be towards these proposals.

The third subject to which I want to refer is that of unilateral action by States before decisions have been reached by the Conference on the Law of the Sea. At Geneva in 1975, an appeal was made that no nation should take unilateral action before decisions were reached. What has happened? It is not only Iceland; action has either been taken, or indication has been given that action will be taken, by more than a dozen countries in the world. Peru, the United States of America, Norway and Canada have indicated that they will act unilaterally in this sphere. I have been asked by a noble Lord who cannot be present and who is interested in the South-West of Britain, as I am, to put this question: what Government action is being taken about the median line between ourselves and the French? It appears that the French are even claiming the Channel Islands. This is another indication of unilateral action taken by nations irrespective of worldwide decisions.
Britain will be claiming the 200 mile limit to which the noble Earl, Lord Strathmore and Kinghorne, referred. I take the view that the demand by nations for as much as a 200-mile limit is itself a repudiation of the common heritage of the seas for all mankind. I hope that the time will come when we shall not only regard the seas as the common heritage of mankind but also the natural minerals of the world. I hope the Government will do nothing which will hamper the realisation of the day when the seas and the natural resources of the world are used not for individual nations, not for any sectional interests, but for the benefit of all mankind.
5.15 p.m.
Lord VERNON: My Lords, I should like to add my congratulations to the noble Earl, Lord Strathmore and King-horne, on his admirable and clearly presented maiden speech. I have been prompted to take part in this debate by reason of my membership of one of your Lordships' sub-committees which

1439
scrutinises European legislation, including legislation on the fishing industry. The more one studies this subject, and the more experts in the field to whom one listens, the more confused one becomes on what exactly is the fishing policy of Her Majesty's Government. With the greatest respect to the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, having read his speech last week in reply to the Unstarred Question of the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, I am afraid I am still not clear.
As I am the first to admit, the subject is excessively complicated, and our membership of the Community increases the difficulties of the Government. Nevertheless, I do not think that we can continue to drift indefinitely when other countries are taking unilateral action. That way lies ruin for our fishermen, and a lack of home-produced protein for our tables. On this I am afraid I cannot follow the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, much as I admire his principles. It would be very nice if we could all agree at the Law of the Sea Conference, but experience of international conferences is that one very often does not get agreement. There comes a point when, if other countries take such action, and if we are going to protect our fishing industry, we must follow suit.
For this reason, I personally hope that the Government will take early action to bring to an end the disastrous cod war with Iceland. It is in complete contradiction with our acceptance of the principle of the 200-mile limit, and I do not believe it does any good to anyone to continue with this struggle once other major maritime Powers such as the United States of America and Norway have followed the Icelandic example, and have said they will declare 200-mile Exclusive Economic Zones. The sooner we do the same and adapt our fishing industry to the changes that will be necessary, the better for all concerned. Of course, we must discuss all this with our partners in the Community; and I welcomed what the noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-Roberts, said about taking a robust stand as regards our interests. I personally feel a 50-mile exclusive zone would probably be acceptable to our industry, although it might not be prepared to admit that. What frightens me rather—and here I go along with the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy—is the Government opening the bidding, so to
1440
speak, with a 50-mile limit, because when one starts with 50 miles the chances are that one will end up with considerably less.
I now want to come on to two specific points, the first of which is to do with herring quotas. I do not want to go over again the ground covered by the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, last week, but I was a little disturbed at what I thought was Government acquiescence in the 6 per cent. quota of North Sea herring for the United Kingdom. The acquiescence was on the grounds, as I understood it, that the quota was based on the previous 5 years' catch. On the face of it that might seem fair. But during the previous 5 years we have been catching a large proportion of our fish off Iceland and other such areas, and when the 200-mile limit comes into force, as it is almost certain to do before long, we shall forgo 30 per cent. of our total fishing catch from those distant waters and 65 per cent. of our cod catch. It seems to me only equitable in these circumstances that we should obtain a higher share than 6 per cent., when Denmark is getting 60 per cent. I do hope that the Government will take an early opportunity of challenging this quota.
The second point I want to make concerns the use of the large purse seiner and the future of the inshore fishing industry. I asked a Question the other day about these purse seiners, which suck in literally hundreds of tons of fish in a single net, and I was told that the Government were also concerned; at least they were concerned, quite rightly, about the effects on fish stocks. But there is another aspect, and that is the effect on the lives and livelihood of thousands of fishermen round our coasts who have been catching fish by traditional means and see their way of life threatened by the purse seiner.
Looked at from the purely economic point of view, these big ships are the most efficient way of catching fish; nobody can dispute that. But economics is not everything, and one has got to take into account the social effect if a local industry is going to be destroyed—often in areas of high unemployment. If the local industry is protected at the expense of the purse seiner it is not, I think, going to affect the price of fish in the shops, certainly if mackerel is anything to go by. The price of mackerel at the quayside is 3p a lb. whether it has been landed by

1441
a purse seiner or by a traditional boat. And, of course, that same mackerel is then sold in the shops for 28p a lb. or sometimes a great deal above, which is a discrepancy I find difficult to understand, but that is by the way. So this is a field where I believe early Government action is called for. I know that the Government are looking at the purse seiners, but we cannot afford to wait and watch the Russians and the Norwegians and the Poles and everybody else sucking in huge quantities of our fish.
That brings me finally to the letter in The Times last Saturday, written by Mr. Michael Allaby. Mr. Allaby pointed out the difficulties and disadvantages of the quota system and suggested that the simplest approach might be to limit the size of vessels allowed to fish within a series of bands at particular distances from the shore. Since only the smallest vessels would be allowed to work inshore, it would preserve the existing structure of the industry, an important point, bearing in mind that the inshore fishing industry provides over 50 per cent. of total United Kingdom landings and that the boats are, as I have said, based mainly in areas of high unemployment. Such an approach would have the added advantage that the crews of the smaller boats know the fishing grounds intimately and are aware of the dangers of over-fishing, which cannot always he said for the purse seiners. The dangers of over-fishing are obvious to the local fishermen, if only because a decline of stocks is going to affect their jobs. I mention this because it seems to me that the suggestion put forward deserves Government consideration. I have not mentioned it in advance to the noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-Roberts, and I cannot very well expect him to comment on it, but I would ask him to look into it to see whether this is in fact a practical suggestion.
5.26 p.m.
The Earl of INCHCAPE: My Lords, may I also add my congratulations to the noble Earl, Lord Strathmore, on his admirable maiden speech. This I am very pleased to do as another native of Angus who was only recently also a maiden speaker.
The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, could not have timed his Motion
1442
better for, while as vice-president of the General Council of British Shipping and chairman of a major British shipping company I am particularly interested in the Law of the Sea Conference, it is a subject which should interest all of us; because its success or failure is a matter of profound importance to a country like ours, which, as my noble friend has reminded us, has such a large stake in international shipping, fishing, overseas trade, oil exploration, deep-sea mining and, of course, defence. I do not claim to have made a detailed study of the text that emerged from the recent New York session, and I doubt whether many noble Lords have done so. Perhaps that is as well. It is too easy to be so busy looking at the trees that one misses the wood, or perhaps, in this sea context, I should say that it is too easy to look at individual waves and forget the great currents of the ocean.
At heart the Law of the Sea Conference is, I suspect, a struggle about resources, but the scope of the Conference is very wide indeed. Shipping has been drawn into the debate, and the old concepts of the freedom of the High Seas and the right of innocent passage have been extensively and exhaustively discussed. I am told that during the debate in New York a single article on "innocent passage" attracted speeches from over eighty delegates. After that noble Lords may be surprised to hear me say that the existing international law on the subject, whatever its theoretical defects, has worked perfectly well in practice. The master of an ocean liner or a tanker or a tramp does not need an international lawyer at his elbow on the bridge, and normally he need not worry whether he is inside or outside territorial waters. As for the contiguous zone, he has probably never heard of it. This is because the law at sea is basically international, and rightly so. If each country had its own collision regulations there would soon be chaos. It would be equally absurd for each of the 100-odd coastal States to have its own rules and regulations about design, construction, equipment or manning, or indeed any other issue which can be resolved in an international Convention.
Even the emotive problem of pollution should be, and has been, resolved internationally, and for this much of the credit goes to successive British Governments. Accidents will still happen—for example, the recent break-up of a Spanish

1443
tanker off Corunna—but there is international agreement on the action that a coastal State can take in such an emergency. There is also in force a Convention on compensation, and a further Convention providing for a supplementary fund is not far behind. Meanwhile, I am proud to say that the shipping and oil industries have voluntary schemes which are almost worldwide.
Equally important, as my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy stated, the problem of tank washing has now been tackled internationally, and here too there are Conventions which, though not yet in force, would soon be, if shipowners had their way. Meanwhile, the International Chamber of Shipping, has just brought out a voluntary Code to see that as many as possible of the latest Convention's provisions are brought into effect without delay. I apologise for this digression into the murky waters of pollution, but too often those who should know better imply that wider coastal State powers are necessary to deal with pollution. They are not: indeed, they would be a hindrance, and if any noble Lord has doubts on the subject I shall be delighted to explain further—but not this afternoon.
Noble Lords may well ask why the freedom of the seas is not as well appreciated abroad as it is in this country, and in your Lordships' House. I think that part of the answer lies in the great conglomeration of subjects being dealt with at the Law of the Sea Conference. Those States which want to control fishing and mining out to 200 miles are tempted to support their case by arguing that up to 200 miles they should control everything, including ships. Your Lordships can see that the argument is a false one. It is also an unnecessary one, because there is already wide agreement at the Conference on giving coastal States rights over resources up to 200 miles, as has been clearly stated this afternoon. But above all, it is a dangerous argument. If the freedom of the High Seas or the right of innocent passage is whittled away, this country, and the world also, will be the loser. For example, the Government attach tremendous importance to the right of transit passage for warships in straits: merchant ships have traditionally enjoyed greater rights than warships, and if their rights are reduced it will be even
1444
harder to sustain the right of transit for warships.
Some of the controls suggested sound so reasonable—for example, the idea that coastal States should be able to prohibit the passage of nuclear powered ships. Such ships are rarities indeed today, but in 50 or 100 years' time they may be the rule, and if coastal States could prohibit them they would, in effect, be able to close their waters to all passing ships.
My Lords, I could give other examples. Suffice it to say that on these crucial issues Her Majesty's Government must stand firm, and I am pleased to hear the assurance of the noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-Roberts, that they would. Whatever our position ashore or in the air, this country is still a leader among the nations in everything to do with the sea and with its law. We may have only one vote, no more than the newest Member of the United Nations; but we have influence, and I trust that we will use it, in season and out, to promote those concepts which we, as a maritime nation, know to be right and to be in the general world interest.
5.35 p.m.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I begin by paying what I think everybody would wish me to do, a well-deserved compliment to the speaker who has just sat down, the noble Earl, Lord Inchcape, who, with his knowledge and indeed record of service in this area, deserves the closest attention in this and any other assembly; and I agree in particular with what he said towards the end of his well considered and well delivered speech. It is true that this country wields considerable influence, perhaps particularly in this field of international discussion and negotiation. It is one of 150 countries at any international gathering of this kind, and therefore must not be expected to be able to lay down definitively and finally any rule of any law to which the rest of the 150 countries automatically defer. Sometimes some of us are in danger of assuming that this is the position. I much prefer the way the noble Earl put it: that we should exercise our undoubted influence in discussion arising from very considerable experience and pretty considerable research in the technologies related to fishing, shipbuilding too, and indeed hydrology and related subjects.

1445
The other speech which I am sure we were delighted to hear was a maiden speech by the noble Earl, Lord Strathmore and Kinghorne. It seems to me that the Earls are coming into their own this afternoon. It is a great pleasure to be able in more than formal terms to congratulate the noble Earl on his speech, and to express most sincerely the hope that he will contribute frequently, and as forcefully, to our discussions in the future.
To turn to the content of the debate, which was given such a good introduction, I say once more, by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, who covered the field so well and so comprehensively, the House will acquit me of diffuseness if I move from one specific point to another, because the value of a winding-up speech is that one is expected to pay attention to outstanding points as presented by successive speakers. There are one or two points which have emerged clearly out of this very useful debate. One is a recognition that there is a growing and already widespread consensus among the nations of the world in favour of a 200-mile limit to the EEZ. I think that that has come out pretty generally from the speeches this afternoon. It certainly has come out of the discussions in the three sessions already held under the aegis of the Conference, and it is well to remember that those discussions were not just plenary; they were very close and detailed discussions in the three specialised committees.
It is not without considerable thought preceding the Conference that most of the countries of the world—practically all of them—have come down in favour of the 200-mile limit. However, this takes me to one of the points made in the very impressive speech by my noble friend Lord Ritchie-Calder, in which he quite rightly called to our attention the undoubted fact that the extension of the economic zone carries with it for certainly some countries—and not the very smallest, but indeed medium sized countries—practical difficulties of resources for controlling, patrolling, and generally exercising jurisdiction over such an enlarged coastal zone.
It is salutary that he should have reminded us of that concomitant difficulty with what is the generally accepted principle of expansion of national jurisdiction. This is the way of nationalism—
1446
that it reaches out for everything it can get, regardless of whether, in the event, it is able to use and control it properly. The best we can do in a world which is still full of intensely nationalistic units, let us face it, is to strive, if I may say so, in a British way to achieve the best possible working compromise we can in such a world, and the Law of the Sea is not an exception to that.
The second general point that was made was general agreement that there should be an international authority exercising general but real supervision over what happens during the exploitation of the deep seabed. There are various views about how this should be done. There is the view that everything outside the agreed coastal zone—what I might call the national zone—should be committed to the care and development of an international authority (what one might call the internationalisation of the deep seabed and its riches) and a share—
Lord BROCKWAY: I intervene simply to say that I only wish that were true, my Lords.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I am not at the moment saying that I wish it were true or not. I am hoping to present the view held by a number of people in very many parts of the world, notably by my noble friend, that this is how it should be done. At the extreme end from that there are people who think that one cannot do it in any way like that; that the only way to do it is to chop it up and hand it over to private enterprise, and I do not use the term in any pejorative way. Once more, externally as internally, Her Majesty's Government—and I do not think that we vary greatly across the Floor of the House on this—see perhaps that, for a world which contains very varied views on how to do this, the compromise of the mixed economy may offer a practical way to proceed. I will not go in any detail into the various proposals which are now being discussed and canvassed. Broadly speaking, Her Majesty's Government feel that the most practical and effectively equitable way of proceeding in this matter is to combine an apportunity of national and private exploitation with the segregation—the creation of a bank in one way or

1447
the other—of something like one half of the area and resources in the international, non-national, non-private sense. Beyond that I would not be disposed to go because these questions are matters for discussion —of finding what the highest common factor of agreement and of practicality is—and beyond stating the general British position in those terms, I do not think I ought to go further into that particular question.
I return to a point which was made by Lord Campbell, namely, that we should seriously consider perhaps detaching certain elements in this very complex subject which are perhaps susceptible of separate solution—that is, agreement: there are no solutions without agreement in any part of this—and then proceeding with those urgently (because they are urgent and I agree with the noble Lord that they are urgent) pending the putting together of a final package. We should of course prefer to have a package agreement covering all the relevant questions, but if it proves impossible to reach agreement on certain areas under discussion, then the noble Lord's suggestion is an attractive and interesting one and one which I am sure Her Majesty's Government would not wish to discard outright. I am bound however to sound a cautionary note— and I am sure that the noble Lord will join me in this—by saying that there are undoubted difficulties about detaching certain aspects of this very complex and interrelated subject. One could go into some detail but I will give the House one example of what I have in mind because it will lead me on to the next point that I wish to make arising from the debate.
It might be possible to proceed with the generally accepted solution, by agreement, of the coastal zone, 200 miles. There are however at least 50 States—in fact, at the last count there were 52—who describe themselves as landlocked or geographically disadvantaged and who have very much to say about their interest in coastal waters. I put it rather crudely, but there it is. With that example of the intervening break of special objection and interest, even on the consensual point like the 200-mile limit, we face a very substantial special interest which will have to be discussed and negotiated. Even on that point, something that is generally agreed, nevertheless in moves an objection or a
1448
special interest supported by one-third of the world—or one-third of the Conference, anyway; 52 out of 150—and there are other considerations that arise. But I repeat that I find this attractive and interesting. I have to stress the difficulties, and I know that the noble Lord could himself put the undoubted difficulties much better than I could.
That brings me to the next point, which is that of the landlocked and geographically disadvantaged; that is, those who are not quite landlocked but because of the shortness of their coasts—for example, Poland; I think that was the instance of the second category given by my noble friend—feel that this is all very well but it is all for those who have coastlines. "What about us?" they ask. Anxious as I am to agree with my noble friend Lord Brockway on every conceivable subject, I fear that on this point I have to sound, in his terminology, slightly reactionary. The British delegation at New York supported the right of States, including the landlocked and the geographically disadvantaged, to own and operate ships on the oceans of the world. Also, in relation to the international seabed area, the British Government believe that activities in that area should be conducted for the benefit of all States, including the landlocked.
Where we differ is, most importantly, on the question of access by landlocked States to what will be the natural resources in the Exclusive Economic Zones of coastal States. As my noble friend Lord Ritchie-Calder reminded us, prominent among those who support the 200-mile limit and national control over those resources are the least developed and the poorest of those States taking part in this Conference. There lies the difficulty. The purpose of my noble friend Lord Brockway is to help the poor and the least developed. In many cases, they happen to be the landlocked and the geographically disadvantaged, yet there are others which are as poor or even poorer which are not landlocked and which have coasts. No doubt they are looking forward to exploiting for their own benefit the resources of their 200-mile limit.
I go a little further and ask, where is the basic equity of this demand that the landlocked should have this kind of claim on the resources of the coastal? Will it be

1449
counterparted by a similar claim by the coastal on certain physical amenities or resources found only in the landlocked? I would have said that sauce for the goose must be sauce for the gander, but there must be a better proverb than that for this case. Perhaps fish from the coastal States will be counterparted by trout from the mountain streams of the landlocked countries. There are fish farms in landlocked lakes which coastal States may not have. Will they have a claim on access to and exploitation of those landlocked tarns and lakes? Although it was sustained by a third of the membership of the Conference, I do not believe that, philosophically or in equity, this is a claim that can truly be sustained. That is the view of the British Government and, I have no doubt, of others, some landlocked and some coastal.
Before I leave my noble friend Lord Brockway—something which I always do with reluctance—he asked a very pertinent question on behalf of another of my noble friends about the median line between us and France. The question of the boundary line between the Continental Shelves of the United Kingdom and France has, with the agreement of both, been submitted to a court of arbitration. The court is now considering the question and is expected to produce its answer in the course of the next few months or, certainly, the next year. I suggest that this is the way in which mature States should behave.
This takes me to the point that the SNT—and here my noble friend Lord Ritchie-Calder made a very important point—is on the way to getting an agreed system of settlement of disputes. I emphasise that it is on the way. I cannot guarantee that it will get there. We are certainly pushing this as hard as we can but, where nationalistic interests are involved, it is extremely difficult to get countries to agree to internationally imposed solutions. I believe that our own country is as ready as any to submit its differences to independent arbitration and to abide by the decisions. We are not blameless, but I do not feel that we are the most blameworthy in this matter. We shall certainly press for this, and I do not feel that I am being unduly optimistic. I believe that a strong sense of urgency is growing up about the need for a definitive system of decision on disputes because there are now so many
1450
disputes. There is that between us and France. It is an extremely important one which bears on the future of our own and their oil resources, which some say may even exceed those which we are now extracting in so hopeful a fashion. I shall not go too far into that this afternoon. We could have quarrelled endlessly on this point, but we have not done so and have submitted it to a court of arbitration. That will be that.
This is linked with all manner of disputes and differences between countries. The question of Rockall has again been raised by my noble friend Lord Ritchie-Calder. The Government attach importance to the principle that no distinction should be made between islands and other types of land territory. Any attempt to draw such a distinction runs the risk of manufacturing anomalies and artificialities. We are not the only State to possess small islands as part of our territory; we should not be the only State to give them up. We agree that there should be a method of deciding what belongs where. There may be a basis in the SNT—the noble Lord quoted from it but I have not been able during the course of the debate to study that part of the SNT in the light of what he said—but any island has a destination in those terms. Any Continental Shelf must belong somewhere and, if it is not inhabited, what is one to do? What relationship or historical test is to be applied? We believe that we have a conclusive historical, legal and practical case on Rockall. This is not the time to argue it, but that is what we believe. If it is necessary to go into it, we shall do so with our friends and neighbours, who may have their own views. Let us see how we get on.
The next point which I should like briefly to deal with was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy. He asked whether we could replace our loss in the cod catch with the blue whiting. It is a fact that, if we are to be able to supply the fish which the consumers need in the future, we shall have to make changes in our pattern of fishing, not only by catching blue whiting but also by catching other pelagic species—that is, species which, unlike cod, swim near the surface. These include mackerel and blue ling. We are fully aware of this, and we have, in fact, given considerable help to the industry to examine ways to exploit these alternative resources. For instance, last year we

1451
sponsored several voyages of research by research fishing vessels owned by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, to look into the possibilities of catching blue whiting.
One noble Lord asked why the Government dropped their insistence on a 100-mile exclusive belt for British fishermen. As my noble friend Lord Strabolgi told the House last week, in looking at the key areas for British fishermen outside 12 miles, we have found that many of these key areas lie within 35 miles and all lie within 50 miles. In the Government's view, an exclusive belt of 100 miles is a somewhat unrealistic goal, although I know that it is what the industry itself has called for. In our view it is, for the reasons I have stated, in any case not necessary. I do not think that that answer will please all our friends in the fisheries fraternity, but I think that upon reflection and study it will be found to meet their doubts and anxieties.
I now close with a reference to a very useful and thoughtful suggestion made by the noble Earl, Lord Strathmore and Kinghorne. He recalled the very effective seminars which were organised by the then Minister of State dealing with this matter, Mr. Ennals, who has somewhat enlarged his coastal zone since. I note with great sympathy the suggestion that there should be a seminar at the appropriate time. I think the noble Earl suggested that it should be at the end of the next session of the Conference, but that is a detail we can discuss. I take note of his suggestion that there should be a similar seminar. These seminars, which were very effective, attracted a very wide range of experience and expertise on both sides of the industry and even, I understand, from elements engaged in accountancy, from the seats of learning, and not least from the Departments of Government which are concerned with these matters and which hold a tremendous amount of knowledge and, indeed, of dedication, in relation to these questions. I will convey the suggestion of the noble Earl to the Under-Secretary in the Foreign Office who deals particularly with this area, and I shall add my own personal benediction to it.
I have taken rather a long time to deal with the specific points and with three of the outstanding general questions which seem to me to emerge from the debate.
1452
It has been most useful to take part in, and to listen to, a debate on this subject, initiated by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy. None of these debates can be final or definitive in themselves, but they carry us forward in our thinking and in our assessment of both the difficulties and the opportunities with which we are confronted. They also make us think very soberly not only of the advantages, and of how to organise the advantages, but also of the dangers—the environmental dangers—of which we have heard once more this afternoon from my noble friend Lord Ritchie-Calder. So as we do our best with our neighbours, with our friends in the world, to develop a reasonable, accepted, durable Law of the Sea, we must constantly study the implications of our use of the sea, both as to the advantages and, indeed, the dangers.
6.5 p.m.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, I most warmly congratulate my noble friend Lord Strathmore and Kinghorne upon his maiden speech during the debate. It was a most memorable maiden speech with which he himself should be very pleased. I have known before today of his deep interest in this subject and of his great concern for the future prosperity of the fishing industry. He spoke with great assurance and ease, and his points have clearly been noted by the Government, as the noble Lord has just confirmed. We can assure my noble friend that we shall look forward with pleasure to his future contributions in your Lordships' House.
I also wish to thank all other noble Lords who have taken part in the debate. It has been pointed out that this was a timely moment to have the debate, just a few days after the important session in New York. I again reiterate that it is the fishing industry, among the British interest, which has the most at stake and, unfortunately, the most to lose at present if things were to go wrong. The future of that industry goes up and down. It has a short cycle in its fortunes. I remember that between 1970 and 1973 the British inshore fishing industry had a period which was more prosperous than it had ever known, and that was with the 12 miles limit and, indeed, six miles for certain individual European countries where they traditionally fished along certain stretches.

1453
However, over-fishing and other factors have since then changed the situation. There are too many countries fishing in the same seas and they have much more efficient catching power, as was brought out by my noble friend Lord Vernon when he spoke. That means that we need urgently the fresh conservation system which the Conference is seeking to bring in.
I am especially grateful to the Government spokesman, the noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-Roberts, for having taken so much trouble in his opening statement to have given us an assessment from the Government's viewpoint of the results of the last session of the Conference, and for having replied to so many points, including points which I raised. The noble Lord has gone even further, because he tells us that he has brought with him a nodule. I note that it is still in its box, and I was going to ask him, though he need not reply now unless he so wishes, whether he will place it in the Library. Usually one asks for Papers to be placed in the Library, but I have no doubt that the nodule can be taken out of its box, unless there is some reason for not doing so, because we are not sure that it is really there as we can see only the box. Can the noble Lord guarantee, for instance, that it has not been fished up from a zone where radioactive waste has been dumped? That is the kind of question which illustrates the type of subjects which the Conference has been dealing with.

I am also grateful to the noble Lord for his statement of the view of the Government and his references to particular parts of it which are carefully considered wording, and we will, as invited, study those in Hansard in due course. I recognise what the noble Lord said just now about the negotiating difficulties when there are 52 landlocked and disadvantaged States, as they describe them, which do not see the economic zones in exactly the same way as countries which have long coast lines on important seas or oceans. But I believe that it is a challenge to diplomacy, and to British diplomacy in particular, to he able to deal with the problem urgently. None the less, given that situation, we must remember that the major maritime countries are in agreement with us on this matter. There would be great difficulty if we were to find ourselves in disagreement with the
1454
United States, or Canada, or even with our European colleagues on this question. But that is not so, and I do not think it should be impossible for diplomacy to overcome the differences between these two groups, given that the maritime nations are of the same view.
I should especially like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie-Calder, for having taken part in this debate. His scientific knowledge of the seas, his close contact with this Conference and his presence, I think, at New York, at this session, enabled him to give us a first-hand account of the position which has been reached on deep-sea mining, the work of Committee 1. Indeed, if I may say so, he put flesh on the bones of what I had said on that subject; but he also, I think, made that flesh creep to some extent when speaking of the completely unknown and unpredictable effects of dredging hitherto inaccessible deep floors of the ocean. Jules Verne still apparently knows as much as the scientists on this subject.
I should also like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, who always joins in these debates. We find ourselves taking part in debates on these subjects. He, as usual, spoke with sincerity and with that determination which I believe has characterised so much that he has contributed in public life—that we should be furthering the cause of mankind as a whole as well as the interests of our individual countries. Of course he is right that, where deep-sea mining is concerned, I do not think there need be the conflict that some see. The whole world will benefit from the dredging up, as the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie-Calder, described it, of these nodules and the valuable metals they contain, but only a few countries have the expertise to do it, and if they are held back then no one will gain. I believe it should be possible to agree, without too much delay, upon a regime, an authority, with suitable powers, which would operate in the best interests of both groups of nations, the industrialised few and the many more underdeveloped countries which also should benefit from these activities.
My noble friend Lord Vernon described to us the anxieties of the inshore fishermen, and in that added to what other Members had said in passing. My noble friend Lord Inchcape confirmed my hopes that

1455
he would be speaking on the shipping industry, with his expert knowledge on that subject, and he expanded on the effects of the proposals being considered by the Conference on shipping and on measures to prevent and overcome pollution. I trust that the Government will take into account the comments which he made in a concise speech which was very much to the point. This afternoon, my Lords, I believe has demonstrated how your Lordships' House is able to bring to bear on a subject like this great resources of special knowledge, and very strong opinions. With that, I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

SUPPLEMENTARY BENEFITS BILL [H.L.]
Reported from the Joint Committee with Amendments, and recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House; Bill to be printed as amended.