HL Deb 19 February 1981 vol 417 cc840-50

7.29 p.m.

Report received.

Clause 1 [Prohibition of unlicensed deep sea mining]:

Lord Ritchie-Calder moved Amendment No. 1:

Page 3, line 4, at end insert— ("(8) Nothing in this section shall involve the need for a licence in respect of bona fide scientific research, including taking samples of the deep sea bed, provided that the Secretary of State is satisfied that such research will not adversely affect the marine environment.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 1. I hope that the Minister will accept this amendment in the spirit in which it is intended. It is intended to remove what I think is an unintentional flaw in the Bill. This Bill is designed to permit, as we all know, commercial exploration and commercial exploitation. It is preoccupied with licensing and protecting the licensees, who will be the large consortia which are poised and impatiently waiting to go into the deep oceans to recover the hard minerals—that is, the ferro-manganese nodules which cobble the seabed. We were reminded by the noble Lord, Lord Errol, in the Second Reading debate that costly knowhow is involved in exploration and in eventual exploitation.

The consortia are naturally anxious to ensure the provision of "in quiet enjoyment" of the claims for which they are seeking licences and also for protection of their special know-how, from if you like, industrial espionage. Thus, in Clause 13 we have penalties on any person who discloses information which has been "received in pursuance of this Act". Even with the amendments tabled by the Minister, the penalties are still very strict, with fines and imprisonment.

Clause 1 enacts the prohibition of unlicensed exploration for, or recovery of, the hard mineral resources from the deep seabed. I submit that this is a catch-all clause that the Government probably never intended, and it will, in fact, discourage bona fide scientific research as distinct from commercial exploitation.

Last week there was a meeting in Luxembourg of an independent group of lawyers, scientists, economists and environmentalists from seven countries, who are scrutinising the effects of the Bill which is now going through Parliament in this country, and of those which have gone through the United States and the Federal Republic of Germany, and which possibly will come forward in France, Italy and probably Japan. They are studying what effect these unilateral Bills will have on the Law of the Sea Conference which is about to resume in New York. I was present at these discussions, where regret was expressed that the British draft, which we are looking at now, not only fails to provide for a reserach programme, but effectively constrains the exchange of scientific knowledge.

I would remind your Lordships that the only genuflexion—no, it is not a genuflexion but just a curt nod—to the scientific implications is Clause 5, which makes it incumbent on licensees to protect (so far as reasonably practical) marine creatures, plants and other organisms and their habitats from the harmful effects of their activities. That "so far as reasonably practical" begs a great many questions since our ignorance about the ocean ecosystem is profound. Scientific research is desperately needed because we are tampering with our last resource—the oceans. Scientific research is more than sampling deep sea minerals or, though of paramount importance, studying marine life. It includes mapping, or taking of geophysical, geochemical, oceanographic or atmospheric measurements or random samplings of the deep seabed.

As the Bill now stands, it would put in legal jeopardy any British scientist who engaged in so-called "unlicensed activities" or who published bona fide non-commercial information which might impinge on the "exploration" activities of the consortia. I am quite sure that that was not intended and I am also quite sure—I am certain that the Minister will assure me—that the penalties would not be invoked; but as long as the jeopardy exists it will—and I repeat this —discourage genuine research and discourage British scientists, who would, as citizens, be subject to the Bill, from involving themselves in surveys and deep sea experiments.

I would remind the Minister that Public Law 96–283, which the United States Congress passed last June and which is the prototype for the national Bill, such as the one with which we are now dealing, is quite explicit. In spelling out the prohibitions, such as this Bill does, in Section 101 it explicitly excludes from the licensing requirements: Scientific research, including that concerning hard minerals", and goes on: "mapping et cetera".

I might also point out that the administrator under that Act—it would be the Secretary of State under ours—has the power to require environmental assessments and is enjoined to support a programme of ocean Research. This Bill—and I regret it—makes no such provisions, but at least it should not positively discourage scientific research, nor appear to penalise British scientists who might participate in marine Research. I beg to move.

Lord Kilmarnock

My Lords, as my name is attached to this amendment perhaps I could say a few words on it. From reading the Bill and from listening to what the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie-Calder, has said, it seems to me that he is quite correctly giving the Government the benefit of the doubt here. I think that it is almost certain that the Government, inadvertently, have failed to allow for this important research activity. As the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie-Calder, pointed out, the comparable American law to which this Bill bears many affinities, specifically excludes scientific research from the licence requirement. I was simply impressed by the moderation with which the noble Lord moved the amendment, and I have no doubt that the Minister will be able to assure me that the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie-Calder, is correct and that, in fact, this was an inadvertency which the Government will see their way to taking the necessary steps to remedy.

Lord Lovell-Davis

My Lords, in taking over from my noble friend Lord Kennet, who is prevented from being on the Front Bench this evening, I share the concern of my noble friend Lord Ritchie-Calder that nothing in the Bill should in any way restrict or inhibit scientific research in the deep sea. It may be that the noble Earl, Lord Gowrie, can assure us that the definition of "exploration" in the Bill clearly limits it to an economic purpose and in no way affects scientific research. I hope that the noble Earl will be able to do so. Certainly this needs to be made absolutely clear. In that respect at least I am glad that my noble friend has put forward his amendment. It, or some other refinement, may have to be considered if the Bill, in fact, could affect scientific research.

Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran

My Lords, very briefly, I share the anxieties of the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie-Calder, and agree with almost everything he said. But what surprises me a little is that, although nothing should prevent bona fide research in these areas, the amendment goes on to say that: provided that the Secretary of State is satisfied that such research will not adversely affect the marine environment". If we are saying at the beginning of the amendment that there is no need for a licence and that bona fide research alone is to be conducted, I for my part, in my general ignorance of these matters, cannot understand why the Secretary of State should be brought into this matter at all.

Lord Ritchie-Calder

My Lords, by leave of the House, I had to include that because it was my deference to the Government that at least they would recognise that there was a need for an environmental impact—a recognition. I did not know any other way of doing it. It is purely my inadequacy in drafting.

The Earl of Gowrie

My Lords, Lord Ritchie-Calder's proposed amendment to Clause 1 characteristically combines his interest in scientific pursuits and his concern for the wellbeing of the marine environment, which of course the Government share. The Bill as at present before the House in our view meets the noble Lord's first concern: his concern that genuine marine scientific research should not be hampered by the need to be licensed. Clause 1 of the Bill prohibits exploration or exploitation without a licence and the definitions of these terms which are set out in Clause 17 make it abundantly clear that they relate to the commercial exploration or exploitation of a particular area.

Genuine marine scientific research will not be affected at all by the passage of the Bill. If that is accepted, this means that I cannot meet the second of Lord Ritchie-Calder's objectives, which would enable the Secretary of State to allow marine scientific research only when he is satisfied that it would not adversely affect the marine environment. I think that this was the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran. Much research under this description would be right outside the authority of this Bill, and indeed right beyond the authority of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Industry. It might relate to fisheries, oceanography, or to any one of a number of sciences outside the scope of this Act and outside my right honourable friend's ability to regulate.

The Bill relates to deep seabed exploration and mining, and contains adequate provisions to enable the Secretary of State to control these in the interests of the marine environment by including such terms and conditions as he thinks fit when issuing licences (that is in Clause 2(3)), when varying or revoking a licence (that is in Clause 6(1)(a)(ii)), and in making regulations (that is in Clause 12 and in paragraph 5 of the Schedule). It is for these reasons rather than from any lack of sympathy for Lord Ritchie-Calder's objectives that I could not advise the House to accept his amendment.

On Question, amendment negatived.

Clause 2 [Exploration and exploitation licences]:

7.43 p.m.

The Earl of Gowrie moved Amendment No. 2:

Page 3, line 22, at end insert— ("( ) relating to the safety, health or welfare of persons employed in the licensed operations or in the ancillary operations;").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, I undertook to consider at the Committee stage the amendment put down at that time by the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran. As a result of these considerations I have tabled this Government amendment. It is indeed difficult to overstate the case for safety provisions, particularly when we are dealing with a new industry as we are in this case. Therefore, in addition to the existing reference to safety in the regulations, I agree that there should be a specific reference to safety matters in the terms and conditions of licences.

Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran's proposed words have been replaced by the rather more general words "safety, health or welfare" which are, I believe, broad enough to cover any of the matters which were mentioned when we discussed this in Committee. The other two amendments which flow from this change are in Clause 6, where safety, health or welfare are spelt out as conditions for varying or revoking a licence, and also in paragraph 3 of the schedule specifying that regulations may be made on all these matters. I beg to move.

Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran

My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Gowrie, and his advisers for having considered the amendments that I introduced at the Committee stage in regard to the safety of personnel. At that stage I disclosed an interest, that I am chairman of the Institute of Sports Medicine. I would not have raised these matters had I not in that capacity been closely concerned with postgraduate research in the prevention and treatment of soft tissue injuries arising inter alia when persons indulge in underwater swimming and diving, whether for business reasons or for leisure activities.

In connection with this research in soft tissue injuries a fellowship has been founded at New Hall, Cambridge. The fellow is Dr. Sylvia Lackman, who has opened a clinic under Sir John Butterfield at the new Addenbrookes Hospital. During the last two years of her activities there a large bank of useful information has been discovered by the treatment of about 1,000 sportsmen and sportswomen attending the University of Cambridge. This bank of information is quite unique, and it displays that there are hazards relating to persons doing underwater diving and swimming which were not known hitherto until these kinds of injury were highlighted by the activities of North Sea oil exploration. If noble Lords want to know anything about the difficulties arising from underwater swimming and diving they have only to consult Mr. Fryers, who does such excellent work for us in the Printed Paper Office nearby. He was a diver in the Royal Navy.

Coming to the words in the proposed amendment introduced by the Government, I wondered whether the words relating to safety, health or welfare are quite adequate to protect from harmful effects persons who are concerned with these underwater activities. Should not the wording be more specific, and refer to the protection from harmful effects arising? I do not want to be accused of entering into any kind of semantics with the noble Earl on this matter, but I am a little doubtful whether the general words "safety, health or welfare" are adequate for the purposes of the Secretary of State to consider before he grants a licence. However, in the circumstances I must express my gratitude to the noble Earl, and I may come back to this matter at a later stage if I can think of an improvement.

Lord Lovell-Davis

My Lords, at the Committee stage of the Bill the support of noble Lords on these Benches was offered to the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, when he moved his amendment to ensure that companies given licences should assume direct responsibility for the safety, health or welfare of the personnel they employed on underwater operations. Consequently, we too are pleased that the Minister, on giving the matter the consideration he promised, has decided to make the Bill specific in the matter of safety, health or welfare, by this addition to subsection (3).

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Amendment No. 3 not moved.]

Clause 5 [Protection of the marine environment]:

7.48 p.m.

Lord Ritchie-Calder moved Amendment No. 4:

Page 5, line 12, at end insert— ("(3) The Secretary of State in negotiations with reciprocating countries shall seek to establish areas of the deep sea bed where no activity requiring a licence under section 1 of this Act shall take place.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I regard this amendment as crucially important. It would be a sign of grace and enlightenment if the Government would concede the point which it tries to make. I stress again, as I have done often enough in this House, the extent of our ignorance about the seabed. We know more about the surface of the moon than we do about the bottom of the sea. The extent of our ignorance about the effects on the water column and the marine life it sustains, or what the effects would be through the disturbance of deep sea mining, we just do not know. What the disturbance will produce is pure guesswork.

We shall be bringing up in the dredges or the suction pumps not only nodules, the things they are after, but substances and forms of life including unpredictable bacteria which have never before intruded upon the surface waters and upon the food bearing layers. The activity might interfere with other aspects of the ecosystem, including the peremptory exchanges of bottom waters and surface waters with unpredictable thermal factors.

Some preliminary work has been done, intended no doubt to be reassuring, but it does not reassure the distinguished marine scientists with whom I have discussed the subject. It is supposed to be reassuring, for example, that the plume of disturbance—that is, the movement of pollutents from the mining operations—will be dissipated within 100 miles of the operations. I call them pollutents just as I would call smoke from a chimney stack pollutents. We do not know the nature of that plume. It may be harmless in its constitution, but we just do not know.

It therefore behoves us to monitor the effects of the on-going operations, and the operators have, very properly, been enjoined to limit the harmful effects "so far as reasonably practicable". For something to be reasonably practicable must involve acquired knowledge, and that means objective scientific research; not just monitoring and sampling on the site of the zone of the actual activities (which in any case is being muddied, and so the observations are being muddied) but research in a control area in which observations can be compared.

The amendment proposes that in negotiation with the reciprocating countries there shall be a section or sections of the seabed from which no activity requiring a licence to explore or exploit hard minerals will take place. It is simply a question of setting aside areas for observation. This is not a great self-sacrificing ordinance being imposed on the consortia; the part of the Pacific where there is the greatest concentration of nodules in which the highest content of economic minerals are to be found covers an area about the size of China. It is desirable that a comparable area—comparable, that is, with the mining area—shall be designated as a stable reference area and that would be reserved for scientific research.

The Minister is no doubt aware that this has been set out clearly in United States Public Law No. 96283 in Section 109 where the American Secretary of State, shall, in co-operation with the Administrator of the United States Licensing System, negotiate with the reciprocating nations for the purpose of establishing such international reference areas ". But the United States Secretary of State is specifically debarred from unilaterally establishing such an area. I am asking that this Bill should take note of that enlightened provision and, by multilateral agreement—by agreement between the reciprocating states—secure the existence of stable reference areas. The reciprocating countries would in this case he acting as trustees because such safeguarded areas could be embodied in the United Nations Law of the Sea as part of the provision for scientific research and the protection of the environment. I cannot see that there should be any difficulty about accepting the amendment. It would not impose any hardship or restriction on the licensing of areas. It would simply say that certain areas should not he licensed because we want to protect them.

Lord Lovell-Davis

My Lords, the amendment raises for the first time in the consideration of the Bill the novel and interesting idea of designating areas of the deep seabed which would be protected from the depredations of mining activity, and it has much to commend it to the House, to the reciprocating countries and to the world as a whole. Scientific research in the deep sea has been going on for some time, but as technology improves it has a long way to go yet. As science advances we must have undefiled areas for it to explore and, as my noble friend Lord Ritchie-Calder said, there is in the United States Act a section along similar lines referring to stable reference areas. If we too open the way for protective measures, no doubt it will prove easier to gain the co-operation of other reciprocating countries in achieving the end which my noble friend seeks through the amendment, which I support.

The Earl of Gowrie

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie-Calder, for raising this matter of what are referred to as stable reference areas and for describing them so clearly, and I should like to consider the matter further. On a preliminary look, we feel the bill as drafted would enable the Secretary of State to honour any internationally agreed reference areas and refuse to issue licences in respect of them, but I acknowledge that it makes no special provision for that purpose.

The form, perhaps more than the content, of the amendment causes me some disquiet. For example, it might be unwise to select and agree such areas without detailed topographical or other knowledge of the seabed, which, as the noble Lord pointed out, we do not really have. The amendment refers to no activity taking place in such an area, but it might be preferable to allow at least exploration to take place there, and then, on the basis of data obtained, select and agree internationally an area in which exploitation should not be authorised.

On the basis that there are no difficulties of principle with the spirit of the amendment, I hope the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw it, on the understanding that the Government will consider tabling a suitable amendment to meet the intent behind his amendment for Third Reading. Or if that were not to prove possible in the time available, perhaps the House might allow me to ask my right honourable friend the Secretary of State to table such an amendment in another place.

Lord Ritchie-Calder

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for those remarks and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

7.57 p.m.

Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 5:

After Clause 5, insert the following new clause:

("Granting of licence

.—(1) In determining whether to grant an exploration or exploitation licence the Secretary of State shall have regard to the need to protect (so far as reasonably practicable) persons from any harmful effects which might result from any activities to be authorised by the licence; and the Secretary of State shall consider any representations made to him concerning such effects including those likely to result in soft tissue injuries.

(2) Without prejudice to section 2(3) above, any exploration or exploitation licence granted by the Secretary of State shall contain such terms and conditions as he considers necessary or expedient to avoid or minimise any such harmful effects.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, Clause 5, with which the House has just been concerned, has as its title in the margin, "Protection of the marine environment", strong words showing how necessary it is to protect marine creatures, plants and other organisms and their habitat from any harmful effects which might result from any activities authorised by licences. I felt some surprise that nothing appeared in the Bill about the safety or protection of persons, and I therefore wished to introduce Amendment No. 5, to deal with the protection of persons. Indeed, that was the title I had ascribed to this proposal when I submitted it in the usual way.

However, I see from the Marshalled List that the title ascribed to it is, "Granting of licence". That is a mistake and the clause should have been entitled, "Protection of persons". However, having regard to the fact that the Minister introduced Amendment No. 2, which the House has accepted, I will not move this proposed new clause.

[Amendment No. 5 not moved.]

Clause 6 [Variation and revocation of licences]:

The Earl of Gowrie moved Amendment No. 6: Page 5, line 17, after ("safety") insert ("health or welfare").

The noble Earl said: This amendment is consequential on my previous amendment, my Lords. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 13 [Disclosure of information]:

The Earl of Gowrie moved Amendment No. 7: Page 9, line 16, leave out from ("conviction") to ("to") in line 17.

The noble Earl said: My Lords, in Committee I agreed to reconsider the question of penalties for disclosure of information in the light of the concerns expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, which were supported by the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran. I have now brought before the House an amendment which I believe goes a long way towards meeting the noble Lord's concerns.

The amendments to Clause 13 are intended to meet two needs. First, they will bring the various penalties in the Bill into balance, in so far as this is practicable and desirable. Secondly, they will ensure that the various different cases of disclosing information will be dealt with appropriately.

As I, among others, pointed out in Committee, protection of information is a sensitive and complex affair, and the Bill has to protect a wide range of types of information and deal with possible cases of disclosure. I am grateful to noble Lords for drawing attention to these wide variations. What we need in the Bill is a set of penalties that will fairly and adequately safeguard all the information that is passed to the Government by licensees and licensed applicants, since in any new venture such as this we shall need to ask companies for a good deal of technical and financial information, and the companies must be assured that such valuable and sensitive information (in commercial terms) will be adequately protected.

What kind of information are we talking about, and what are the kind of disclosure offences with which we need to deal? There is a wide range. At one end of the range there are some rather insignificant cases, in which a person might disclose minor details about exploration activities; for instance, the dates of surveys and tests carried out. At the mining stage there might be disclosed the rate of recovery of the valuable nodules. In any subsequent action the circumstances and the effects of such disclosure would obviously be relevant in terms of assessing the seriousness of the case, but it is unlikely that for a relatively minor breach of trust of this kind anything more than a fine would be required as a penalty.

At the other end of the range we have serious cases that might not only involve breach of trust, but result in substantial financial gains for the offender, and cause very grave damage to the interests of the licensee. The kind of instance that we must be able to guard against is that involving an inspector or official with access to detailed technical data, perhaps concerning some innovatory process to be used by the licensee, who might sell such data to another party—perhaps one of the licensee's competitors. In a case such as that, a fine is surely inadequate and imprisonment can be the only appropriate penalty.

So, recognising the different types of cases, it seems right to amend the penalties, and therefore I propose to delete the imprisonment provision for the less serious cases that may be referred to a magistrates' court. But, given the kind of serious case that I have sketched, I believe that it would be quite inappropriate to remove altogether the possibility of imprisoning such a serious offender. Of course, retaining an imprisonment provision does not mean that it must necessarily be used, and with, I imagine, all other noble Lords, I hope that the Bill will not contribute to any further overcrowding of Her Majesty's prisons. Nevertheless, the sanction of imprisonment should surely be available for cases of great seriousness. I beg to move.

Lord Lovell-Davis

My Lords, my noble friend Lord Kennet will be particularly pleased by this Government amendment, as indeed I am, since, as the Minister has just pointed out, my noble friend at the Committee stage raised the matter of the inequality introduced into the Bill by following what the noble Earl the Minister described as "standard Home Office policy". Quite apart from the desirability of not creating further grounds for imprisonment, while accepting that it is necessary to safeguard certain information, the provision for imprisonment was, as I suspect the Minister himself began to feel during the Committee stage, rather more drastic than was necessary and did seem discriminatory. Its deletion is welcome.

Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran

My Lords, since the noble Earl the Minister was good enough to mention my name, I should like to say that I, too, am pleased with the amendment and shall support it.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

The Earl of Gowrie moved Amendment No. 8: Page 9, line 18, leave out ("or to both").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Amendment No. 9 not moved.]

The Schedule [Subject matter of regulations]:

The Earl of Gowrie moved Amendment No. 10: Page 13, line 8, after ("safety") insert ("health or welfare").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, this amendment is consequential. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Lyell

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do adjourn during pleasure until 8.15.

Moved accordingly and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

[The Sitting was suspended from 8.5 until 8.15 p.m.]