Law of the Sea Conference (Hansard, 13 October 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 approved the recommendations of the drafting committee, but there were no substantive amendments to the texts adopted on 30th April. It was agreed that the final session of the conference should be held in December in Jamaica. We regret the continuing absence of consensus on the convention.

§ Lord Brockway
My Lords, while I thank the Minister, can he confirm that it is the case that approximately 140 nations of the 150 have now indicated that they will support the convention, when only 60 are necessary for it? Can he state whether the Government support the attitude of the United States of America, which opposes the establishment of an international authority and any provision of technological or computer training to the authority? Is not the American attitude a denial of the United Nations statement that the oceans should become the heritage of mankind and does it not mean instead that they will become the vested interest of the heritage of the multinationals?

§ Lord Belstead
My Lords, I confirm that, so far as we can see, there will be nations sufficient to ratify the convention. But, of course, that is a matter for the nations concerned when they have seen and studied the final texts, when signature of the treaty and then of the convention has taken place and when, finally, the moment comes when states must decide whether they ratify or whether they do not. The noble Lord asked me about the attitude of the United States. As I said in an answer which I gave to the noble Lord on 20th July, we continue to remain in close touch with all our major allies on this difficult subject and we have done our best to try to achieve a compromise. For instance, at the September session of the United Nations Law of the Sea Conference proposals for amendments were seriously discussed, in the hope that they might be acceptable to both the Americans and the Group of 77. But I am afraid to say that the latter refused to consider any substantive amendments at this stage. Therefore, we are left with a difficult situation as to what our own attitude should be with regard to signature and ratification of the convention.

§ Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos
My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Lord for his reply, but I think that we would also appreciate a rather more precise definition of Her Majesty's Government's view. He has indicated what is the United States view. He will recall that when he answered questions on this subject in May he sought to explain why we did not ratify the draft convention in April. He will also recall that at that time a number of noble Lords sought to find out precisely why Her Majesty's Government were not following the other members of, for example, the European Economic Community who ratified the treaty. There was some fear at the time that we were rather slavishly following the United States without adequate cause. I think that many of us wish to be reassured about that. Can the noble Lord say whether the objection is about deep sea mining, or indeed what objection there is to the United Kingdom's ratifying the convention?

§ Lord Belstead
My Lords, of course, the main problem arises on the deep sea mining texts. There is absolutely no question about that. So far as the European Community is concerned, I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, would not mind my just saying that, of course, the majority of European Community member states actually abstained in the vote on 30th April, and that included the United Kingdom. So when the United Kingdom is taken to task for its abstention, where were the majority of European Community states? The reason why this abstention occurred is that states are deeply worried that there is not a consensus—a consensus which many of us sought in discussion during the September meeting of UNLOSC to reach. So the position which the United Kingdom is in is that we are now examining the texts which have emerged from the conference, in the light of all our national interests and the views oldie Governments. But no decision has yet been taken as to whether or not we will sign the convention.

§ Lord Gladwyn
My Lords, is it a fact, as I think was reported in the press in September, that we and the United States and other countries are about to go ahead with the exploitation of the seabed ourselves, pending any arrangements which may be subsequently concluded in the Law of the Sea Convention?

§ Lord Belstead
My Lords, we, the United States, the Federal Republic of Germany and France are encouraging our companies to resolve any disagreement which they may have as a result of the overlapping of prospective exploration sites by means of private negotiation and arbitration procedures. But there is nothing in this arrangement which conflicts with the convention or any resolution of the conference. I assure the noble Lord that it does not in way prejudice the decision which the United Kingdom Government must take about the signature of the convention.

§ Lord Brockway
My Lords, may I ask—

Viscount St. Davids
My Lords, would the noble Lord agree that the seabed should be the common inheritance of mankind but that nevertheless it would be very wrong if we now took any action which prevented mankind from enjoying that inheritance through locking it up in conventions which make sure that the seabed is never enjoyed by anybody?

§ Lord Belstead
My Lords, that is why we are now thinking seriously about what our next step should be.