§ 3.41 p.m.
§ Lord KENNETMy Lords, I beg leave to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
§ The Question was as follows:
§ To ask Her Majesty's Government whether a British national is occupying a wartime gun platform called "Sealand", seven miles off Harwich; whether he is or at any time has been holding a German national prisoner there; and whether they will make a Statement on the facts of the matter, and on their legal and political implications.
§ The MINISTER of STATE, FOREIGN and COMMONWEALTH OFFICE, (Lord Goronwy-Roberts)My Lords, a British national, Mr. Roy Bates, is living on a wartime gun platform called Rough's Tower, seven miles off Harwich. The gun platform remains the property of the British Crown, but it lies outside British territorial waters. In October 5 we were informed by the Embassy of the Federal Republic of Germany that a German national was believed to be held prisoner there. To the best of our knowledge the German national in question left Rough's Tower some time ago.
§ Lord KENNETMy Lords, is it not the case that what this time may be a harmless and colourful escapade could next time, in law, be a moderately dangerous act by an unfriendly foreign Power? What is the argument for not extending our territorial waters now to 12 miles, as has already been done by the majority of States in the world?
§ Lord GORONWY-ROBERTSMy Lords, United Kingdom territorial waters at present extend to three miles, but we support the text now under discussion at the United Nations Law of the Sea Conference, which would recognise the right of coastal States to declare a territorial zone of up to 12 miles in breadth as part of an internationally accepted régime for territorial waters. If the United Kingdom extended its limits from three to 12 miles—and I repeat that we would seek to do so within an international régime—Rough's Tower would be brought within them. I take; full note of what my noble friend has said about the possibilities of much more serious incidents on Rough's Tower than have so far proved to be the fact. I can assure him that my Department and others are watching the situation very carefully indeed.
§ Lord PARGITERMy Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether or not it is a fact that, if Crown property happens to be outside the three-mile limit, anyone can occupy it without let or hindrance?
§ Lord GORONWY-ROBERTSMy Lords, I think that the noble Lord is quite right. We have proprietorial rights to this platform. It was set up in 1942 for defence purposes by Departments acting for the Crown. It is now occupied by an individual who asserts a right to that platform by, I presume, occupation. The position has not yet been tested in the courts, but I can imagine that, if there was reason to do so, there would be ample grounds for the British Government to move in the matter and to assert what 6 they believe to be the position; namely, that this platform belongs to the Crown of the United Kingdom.
§ Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARY-LEBONEQuite seriously, my Lords, is not such an installation a danger to navigation and, so many years after the War, is it not time that it was sunk or demolished in some other way?
§ Lord GORONWY-ROBERTSMy Lords, that may well be so. I have no information about the possible dangers to navigation. So far such hazards have not proved to be present. But certainly the point which the noble and learned Lord has made is one to be very carefully considered. As I said, we are considering every aspect of the situation and I have no doubt that the point made by the noble and learned Lord is included.
§ Lord KENNETMy Lords, is it not the case that the British national on this tower has been reported in the Press as having taken actions which, if they had been committed in a place where there was jurisdiction, would have been crimes; but that as there is no jurisdiction on this tower no action has been taken to restrain him from capturing or kidnapping people and holding them to ransom?
§ Lord GORONWY-ROBERTSMy Lords, I think that the noble Lord puts the position fairly. I understand that in 1968 there was a case which, to some extent, was heard in Chelmsford. However, it could not be pursued since at the time of the incident then in question—which took place on Rough's Tower—the defendant was held to be outside the area of the court's geographical jurisdiction. What has been said this afternoon, of course, supports the case for an appraisal of the position on this installation, and I shall convey to my right honourable friends the feeling, which I think is general to the House, that, small and incidental as the position may be now, it should be reappraised and any necessary action taken.
Lord HAWKEMy Lords, will the Minister say whether or not the right of occupation varies in any way from that of any uninhabited island outside our territorial waters?
§ Lord GORONWY-ROBERTSMy Lords, I did not accept that view. I said that that was probably the view of the present occupant of this installation, and that if anybody occupied an actual island it might be very possible that after a lapse of years he would claim that by sheer occupation he had a right to that island. We do not accept that view. I merely quoted it as probably being the view of the present occupant of this installation.
§ Lord SEGALMy Lords, can my noble friend say whether or not the Government have explored the possibility of detaching this wartime gun platform from its present site and bringing it within the three-mile limit?
§ Lord GORONWY-ROBERTSMy Lords, my noble friend takes me into certain technical deeps. I am not in a position to pass judgment on the validity or the possibility of the very interesting proposal that he has made, but no doubt all Departments read Hansard.