Law of the Sea Conference (Hansard, 5 May 1982)

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

§ The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Belstead)
My Lords, the conference adopted the draft Convention on the Law of the Sea and related documents at the end of its Eleventh Session in New York on 30th April. Unfortunately, it was not possible, despite intensive efforts in which the United Kingdom participated, to reach a consensus on the deep sea mining provisions and the texts were therefore put to a vote. One hundred and thirty countries voted in favour of the convention, four opposed it and 17 abstained, including six members of the European Community and most members of the Eastern European Group. The United Kingdom delegation abstained, in keeping with our long-held view that, to be of maximum value, the convention should be generally accepted.

§ Lord Brockway
My Lords, would not the Minister agree that this is a disastrous outcome? Is it not the case that in March 1981 all Governments agreed to finalise the convention, including the United Kingdom and the United States of America when it was under the Carter Administration? Is it not the fact that under the Reagan Administration there have now been introduced the amendments which have caused this decision? Why on the final convention did the United Kingdom not take the attitude it took in March 1981?

§ Lord Belstead
My Lords, I do not agree with the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, that this is a disastrous outcome. We are now in the position where a text has been adopted. The convention will be open for signature in the autumn, and then for ratification afterwards. We shall be looking very carefully at the texts to see what line the United Kingdom should follow in the future. So far as the merits of the convention are concerned, although consensus could not be achieved on the deep sea mining texts, the convention does contain a number of provisions which could be of benefit to us.

§ Lord Caradon
My Lords, would the Minister not agree that the reactionary attitude taken by the present Administration in the United States has led to this breakdown after more than a decade of consistent and agreed negotiations? Is it not therefore particularly distressing to us in this country that our delegation should in the end have abstained on a matter in which we should have been taking a positive and constructive part throughout?

§ Lord Belstead
My Lords, I have explained why we have abstained. So far as the attitude of Her Majesty's Government is concerned for the future, that is to say signature and ratification, the attitude of the United States and indeed of other Governments will be an important factor which we shall have to take into account in reaching our decisions.

§ Lord Elwyn-Jones
My Lords, in the meantime, will compliance with the convention be expected from the diverse countries concerned, or is it to be a free-for-all?

§ Lord Belstead
My Lords, in the meantime, the convention does not come into effect until it is ratified.

§ Lord Elwyn-Jones
Is it to be a jungle, my Lords, a free-for-all, with exploitation of the seabed by whoever gets to it first? Is that the state of affairs with which we are landed?

§ Lord Belstead
Not entirely, my Lords. Among the texts adopted on 30th April was a resolution to protect the preliminary investments made by Western and other countries in the period before the coming into force of the convention. We shall be examining our future policy on deep sea mining in the light of that resolution.

§ Lord Wynne-Jones
My Lords, does the Minister agree that the position in regard to this convention resembles the position in regard to an earlier convention about endangered species? Was it not our failure to ratify that earlier convention that made it extremely difficult for this country to take action on endangered species? This country should be taking a lead, because the whole of the development of the oceans is something in which we are vitally interested. Would the Minister agree that it should be done—in fact, it must be done—under proper international control?

§ Lord Belstead
My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord that there are aspects of the convention as it stands which are very much of interest to Her Majesty's Government. In addition to provisions about the continental shelf and the right of navigation, there are indeed environmental provisions relating, for instance, to the rights of coastal states to take action against people who pollute, and provisions for the conduct of marine scientific research. I repeat, however, that we must now look very carefully at the texts, which are not yet in a composite form—when they are, they will be put in the Libraries of both Houses—before we decide what our policy should now be.

Earl De La Warr
My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the long-term wealth of the world will depend on the existing mining companies, who have all the expertise, being given sufficient protection to encourage them to invest their money? Does he agree that there may be no other way of exploiting that wealth unless this protection is given to these great companies?

§ Lord Belstead
It is important, my Lords, because of the point raised in my noble friend's question, that the resolution to which I referred was adopted as part of the texts on 30th April, to protect preliminary investments made by Western and other countries in the period before the coming into force of the convention.

§ Lord Brockway
My Lords, is it not a fact that the Governments of the United States, United Kingdom and West Germany all passed legislation some time ago for their own deep sea mining? Is the noble Lord aware that the Soviet Union has now done the same? Is there not a great danger, unless the convention is signed, that there will be confrontation between the West and the East regarding the oceans of the world? Does that not deny the United Nations commitment, supported so eloquently by the Bishops' 1158 Bench in this House, that the oceans should be the common heritage of mankind?

§ Lord Belstead
My Lords, I am aware that the countries which the noble Lord mentioned have passed legislation, as have we; we have passed the Deep Sea Mining (Temporary Provisions) Act 1981. Having said that, we do not accept that interim national legislation or any agreements concerning interim arrangements made with other countries having similar legislation are contrary to international law. I am advised that the legislation we have enacted and any agreement which is reached with other countries also having deep sea mining legislation would not challenge the principle that the mineral resources of the deep seabed are the common heritage of mankind.