HL Deb 22 May 1979 vol 400 cc224-6

2.46 p.m.

Lord BROCKWAY

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.

The Question was as follows:

To ask Her Majesty's Government what were the conclusions of the Law of the Sea Conference which ended at Geneva on 27th April 1979.

Lord TREFGARNE

My Lords, I hope this Answer is more comprehensible to the noble Lord than the previous one. It was decided in Geneva to include, in a revised negotiating text, a number of provisions on certain key subjects which enjoyed broad support, thus bringing a convention nearer. But on deep seabed mining, and some other topics, important questions remain to be satisfactorily resolved. The Eighth Session resumes in New York from 19th July to 24th August.

Lord BROCKWAY

My Lords, may I congratulate and welcome the Minister on his first reply in his post to Questions. May I ask him this: was there not general agreement at the recent conference on most issues promising a solution at the revised conference in New York in July? Was not the most controversial question that of seabed mining? Would the Government indicate to us their view of the two unresolved problems: the financing of the international authority, and the transference of technology to it?

Lord TREFGARNE

My Lords, the noble Lord is quite right. One of the major issues which remains to be resolved is the question of the deep seabed régime and the mining that will take place there. The noble Lord raised, first, the financing of the mining operations. This matter really has yet to be resolved satisfactorily, but I hope that progress will be made at the resumed conference in July and August.

On the question of the transfer of resources, certainly some progress was made on that, and I shall tell the noble Lord of it now. The United Kingdom made one particular proposal which was very widely accepted; this was to offer training facilities for the personnel from developing countries so that they can assist in the operations when they come to pass. We certainly believe that the transfer of some technology is necessary so that when the convention comes into force the mining operations can begin as soon as possible.

Lord RITCHIE-CALDER

My Lords, could the noble Lord tell the House what the attitude of the British Government is going to be if in fact the United States takes unilateral action and sanctions deep-sea mining before the Law of the Sea comes into force?

Lord TREFGARNE

My Lords, the Government are following the progress of legislation in the United States on this matter, but, as the noble Lord will know, the legislation has some way to go in the American Congress. I think that there are two measures going through, one in the Senate and one in the House of Representatives, neither of which has made much progress so far. We are certainly watching the position closely, but we have not yet reached any decision ourselves as to what we would do in similar circumstances.

Lord BROCKWAY

My Lords, can the Minister confirm whether at the conference the United States delegate indicated that the United States would be taking unilateral action by authorising private companies to exploit seabeds? Even though they said that they would conform with an international convention, would not this give American companies an unfair advantage over other companies in advancing their proposals?

Lord TREFGARNE

My Lords, I am not aware of the suggestions about the position of the United States Government in this matter. I do not think that I can do more than repeat the position as I understand it; namely, that any activities of this nature would in the United States require legislation, just as they do here, and so far the legislation has not passed the American Congress.