HL Deb 09 March 1981 vol 418 cc4-6

2.43 p.m.

Lord Kennet

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

The Question was as follows:

To ask Her Majesty's Government what action they intend to take, if possible in concert with other Commonwealth Governments, in view of the United States decision to block further progress on the convention, the fruit of seven years' work by the United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea, which meets this week for its sixth, and intendly last, session.

The Earl of Avon

My Lords, the United Kingdom delegation to the Tenth Session of The Law of the Sea Conference will continue to work towards the conclusion of an acceptable convention as soon as possible and will consult with other delegations as appropriate on how this objective can best be met.

Lord Kennet

My Lords, in view of the fact that seven years' work has been put into the draft treaty by 140 nations and that it is not only deep sea mining which is at stake but everything which is done at sea; in view of the obvious damage to British interests if it does not come into effect; and in view of the fact that the Commonwealth groups consist of both developed and undeveloped nations and that the leadership of the undeveloped nations in this conference seems to have devolved upon Singapore, a Commonwealth country, would the Government go one step further and now give to the House, in public, a favourable "Aye" to the idea of a Commonwealth initiative, to be mounted in the first place by Canada, Britain and Singapore, to bring the new American Administration to its senses after what appears to be a beginner's blunder?

The Earl of Avon

My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for his earlier remarks, I cannot go along at all with his final sentence. Since the recent press statement by the United States Government, Her Majesty's Government have not had time for formal consultations about the convention with other Commowealth Governments as a group, but the United Kingdom delegation will be sounding out other delegations at the conference, including those Commonwealth countries, for their views. I am sure that what the noble Lord said in his earlier remarks will be taken into account. Equally, may I remind him that the conference started only today?

Lord Ritchie-Calder

My Lords, is the Minister aware that the United States' action, which was unquestionably taken at the behest of the deep sea mining interests, has certainly postponed indefinitely, and probably destroyed, the possibility of setting up the International Seabed Authority, which authority was to administer the licensing and management of the seabed mineral reserves? Is the Minister also aware of the implications for the Deep Sea Mining ironically called (Temporary Provisions) Bill which your Lordships passed through this House, which purports to license the exploration and exploitation—

Several noble Lords: Reading!

Lord Ritchie-Calder

—of the quite unmeasurable wealth of the seabed and which admits that it has no terms of reference? The Bill states explicitly that it is not claiming these rights. It is simply an acknowledgment that anybody else has sovereignty.

Several noble Lords: Order!

Lord Ritchie-Calder

The question I want to put—

Several noble Lords

Hear, hear!

Lord Ritchie-Calder

—is this: will the Minister remind his right honourable colleague the Secretary of State for Industry, who is sponsoring the Bill, that in this process he is making himself an accessory before the fact in the biggest smash-and-grab in history since the 1855 Berlin Convention which carved up Africa?

The Earl of Avon

My Lords, I think that a great deal is being based upon the press statement which was made only on 3rd March last. The United States' statement does not mean that the United States will block all progress on the convention. We hope that negotiations on outstanding problems can continue.

Lord Brockway

My Lords, in his Answer the Minister said that the Government will seek "as soon as possible" the conclusion of an acceptable convention. Does that mean that the Government will not demand that the conclusion be reached at the forthcoming meeting? Do the Government understand the anger that there is among the third world countries because of this American proposal, and may not this anger prevent a settlement of the North-South dialogue at the Summit meeting in Mexico? Furthermore, in view of this controversial situation would the Government withdraw the Bill now being considered in another place which would give to the Secretary of State power to hand over to a consortium of multinational companies the right to exploit and explore the hard minerals of the sea bed "? Would not this make the oceans of the world not a heritage of mankind but the monopoly of a few tycoons?

The Earl of Avon

My Lords, as I said in an earlier reply, this conference is meeting again today. At the moment we do not know how the countries are going to react and it would be unwise to prejudge that at the moment. Her Majesty's Government are firmly committed to the achievement of a comprehensive Law of the Sea Convention which fully safeguards our defence, economic and commercial interests. We hope to see early agreement on these negotiations.

Baroness Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe

My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that his last answer has given some pleasure to this side of the House, because we on this side were rather disturbed by the levity displayed by the other side, even by the Front Bench, about the very serious matters which were being raised, involving the future prosperity of this country and of most other parts of the world?

The Earl of Avon

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her support. I hope there was no levity on my face. I was trying to listen.