LAW OF THE SEA CONFERENCE

HL Deb 19 May 1976 vol 370 cc1395-415

2.55 p.m.

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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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, 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.

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 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 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 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 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. 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 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 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 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.