LAW OF THE SEA CONFERENCE

HL Deb 19 May 1976 vol 370 cc1423-55

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 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 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, 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 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 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.

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 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 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 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 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 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.

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.

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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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.

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— 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 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 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 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 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 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. 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.

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 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 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.