The UN Law of the Sea Convention (Hansard, 10 November 1982)

§ Lord Kennet
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, Mr. Rumsfeld saw my right honourable friend the Prime Minister and a number of other Ministers concerned with UNLOSC on 25th October. He explained the American position towards the convention. We said that no decision had yet been taken by the United Kingdom on signature, but the views of our allies would be taken into account.

§ Lord Kennet
My Lords, while not wishing to press the Government to a premature decision or to disclose anything they should not disclose, can they go so far as to say that they will not publicly state their intention not to sign this convention before discussing the matter at least in this House, and the House of Commons if convenient, and that they wiill not associate themselves with any American declaration of intention not to sign until there has been parliamentary debate?

§ Lord Belstead
My Lords, we are still examining the texts which have emerged from the conference in the light of our national interests and the views of other governments. No decision has yet been taken as to whether or not to sign the convention. So far as debate in your Lordships' House is concerned, that, of course, would be a matter for the usual channels.

§ Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos
My Lords, the Minsiter must agree that he has said at that Box several times recently that he and his colleagues have been studying these texts for a very long time. Are they not able to reach a conclusion? Can he be specific about the reasons of Her Majesty's Government for not signing this convention? Is it not the case that 15 months ago the Government appeared to be very favourable towards signing this convention, and took the view that it was advantageous to a great maritime nation like Britain to be involved in a convention of this kind? Since then, the Government's ardour has become extremely dampened. Can the noble Lord tell the House what are the Government's reasons for not moving, like the other 130 countries which have ratified it, towards signing the convention?

§ Lord Belstead
My Lords, the lack of consensus within the conference is the reason why the United Kingdom abstained on the vote on the adoption of the convention. So far as our final decision as to whether or not to sign is concerned, as I say, we are still studying the text.

§ Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos
My Lords, with great respect, given the time that has elapsed since the texts were available to Her Majesty's Govenment, can the noble Lord tell the House when the Govenment are likely to make a judgment on this and inform Parliament accordingly?

§ Lord Belstead
My Lords, I think the noble Lord is being, perhaps uncharacteristically, a little harsh so far as the period of time is concerned. The last session of the conference was held in New York on 22nd to 24th September. It was on that occassion that the British Government tried very hard indeed to get an area of agreement between the Group of 77 nations and the main mining nations, particularly on the difficult questions of transfer of technology and opportunities for mining companies to get licences when the independent seabed authority is set up, and indeed on the question of the review conference, which is another difficult matter so far as mining under the convention is concerned. On all those three points the United Kingdom was not successful in being able to get a consensus. With respect to the noble Lord, that was not so very long ago, and we have only had since that moment to sit down and think what our final decision on the convention should be. That is what we are still doing at the present time.

§ Lord Gisborough
My Lords, can the noble Lord say whether it is true that, under the convention, a situation could arise with regard to profits on mining of the seabed in which some of those profits could be allocated to such people as the IRA and so on?

§ Lord Belstead
; No, my Lords, I do not think the answer to that could possibly be "yes". I would go further. There is no question of the IRA being able to participate in the benefits of the convention. They could not meet the necessary criteria.

§ Lord Kennet
My Lords, in view of the fact that this is a turning point in the history of mankind, and in view of the manifest insufficiency of the interim agreement concerning arrangements relating to polymetallic nodules, which any signatory can leave with three months' notice, can the Government please give some undertaking that they will not state their intention not to sign in a way which will surprise the world?

§ Lord Belstead
My Lords, the question of debate on this subject, which has, incidentally, been the subject of more than one parliamentary Question in your Lordships' House, is entirely a matter for the usual channels in this House.

§ Lord Kaldor
My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord this? Some of us are not quite clear about it from his remarks. Is this one of the matters on which the Government would normally wish to consult 231 Parliament before coming to a firm decision, or is it one of the matters on which the Government, having made a decision, would inform Parliament?

§ Lord Belstead
My Lords, a matter of this kind is entirely a matter for the House and not for the Government. If any of your Lordships wish to raise the matter in debate the Government must stand ready to reply, as indeed I have stood ready to reply on behalf of the Government to Questions which have already been asked.

Viscount St. Davids
My Lords, while it would seem to most people that there might well be a bias on the part of the Government to follow the ideas of the United States in this matter, will the noble Lord and his friends do what they can to move in the directions suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Kennet? There are a great many matters to be dealt with in this extremely complicated situation which one would very much like to hear argued on the Floor of this House.

§ Lord Belstead
My Lords, let us be quite clear. There is very little doubt that the clauses in the convention on mining the seabed could be very disadvantageous to this country, although there are other clauses, such as those concerning the freedom of navigation, that would help us.
Whether your Lordships will wish to debate this subject at greater length is entirely a matter for your Lordships' House.