HL Deb 20 April 1989 vol 506 cc926-45

7 p.m.

Lord Glenarthur

My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be read a second time.

The main purpose of the Bill is to enable the United Kingdom to ratify the convention on the regulation of Antarctic mineral resource activities, adopted at Wellington on 2nd June 1988 and signed on behalf of the United Kingdom on 22nd March 1989. The Bill will prohibit mineral activities in Antarctica by British companies and nationals, except prospecting activities authorised by the United Kingdom Government or another contracting party to the minerals convention, and will enable the Secretary of State to grant licences for prospecting activities in accordance with the convention.

It may be helpful to your Lordships to consider the background against which the Bill is set. Although traces of a wide varie1y of hard rock minerals have been found in Antarctica, none has been found which would be economically exploitable, even if situated next door to markets for them. Public attention has focused more on Antarctica's potential hydrocarbon resources than on hard rock minerals. I should emphasise, however, that it is not known whether any hydrocarbon resources exist in economically exploitable quantities. If they do exist, they are probably located offshore where the technical problems of exploiting them would, in any case, be far greater than those currently being faced in the Arctic. While their exploitation is probably a long way off, the same may not be true of prospecting for them.

The Antarctic treaty makes no provision concerning the mineral resources of Antarctica. From the outset of the minerals convention negotiations, Britain has shared the view of its Antarctic treaty partners that it would be difficult, perhaps even impossible, to reach agreement to regulate minerals activity in the political circumstances peculiar to Antarctica once commercially viable quantities of minerals had been located.

Perhaps I may describe in detail some of the basic provisions of the convention. Its fundamental purpose is to prohibit the carrying out of any Antarctic mineral resource activity except in accordance with its provisions. The convention provides for three stages of mineral activity: prospecting, exploration and development. Prospecting is aimed at identifying areas of mineral resource potential and excludes deep dredging or excavations, or drilling to depths exceeding 25 metres. Exploration is aimed at the identification and evaluation of specific mineral resource occurrences or deposits. Development is aimed at the exploitation of specific mineral resource deposits.

The convention establishes two permanent institutions: a commission on which will be represented all Antarctic treaty consultative parties and other qualified states; and a scientific, technical and environmental advisory committee composed of all parties to the convention. If an area of the Antarctic is opened for exploration and development, the commission shall also establish a regulatory committee composed of 10 members of the commission, including the claimant or claimants (if any) whose territory is included in the area.

The operation of the convention is based crucially on a distinction between prospecting on the one hand and exploration and development on the other. Prospecting is defined so as to ensure that it should have no greater environmental impact than scientific research activity of a similar character. For that reason, prospecting is not subject to authorisation by the convention's institutions, although it must be carried out in accordance with the convention, including any relevant measure the commission may adopt. It is the responsibility of the prospector's state to ensure his compliance with the relevant provisions of the convention.

The convention recognises, however, that exploration and development give rise to potential environmental consequences of an altogether greater magnitude and provides for stringent environmental controls and operator liability. For that reason no exploration or development can begin until it is unanimously agreed that it should do so. The Bill before your Lordships, by providing only for prospecting, takes account of this crucial difference. I shall return to this point in due course.

Some may ask whether it was necessary to conclude the convention at all and whether its entry into force would give rise to another gold rush which might have unwelcome consequences for the fragile Antarctic environment. No one knows for sure whether or not there are economically exploitable mineral resources in Antarctica, but that is not to say that at some point in the future there may not be those who will wish to go there to find out. Given the existence of opposing views as to whether sovereignty can or cannot be exercised in the Antarctic, any unregulated search for minerals would certainly give rise to disputes which would threaten the peace in Antarctica and the maintenance of the Antarctic treaty. It was with this possible threat to the peace in mind, much more than any desire to exploit Antarctic minerals, that the Antarctic minerals convention was negotiated.

It would not be true to say, as has been said in some quarters, that it is the convention itself which will give rise to the risk of environmental damage in the one remaining area of the world which is generally regarded as pristine. On the contrary, it was the fear of the damaging consequences which would result from an unregulated scramble for minerals which prompted the Antarctic treaty consultative parties to negotiate the convention. Moreover the convention arrives at no conclusion as to whether Antarctic mineral activities are acceptable or not. Instead, it provides for an assessment to be made, case by case, as to whether they are acceptable and, if so, provides for their detailed regulation.

Had the convention not been negotiated, or were it not to enter into force, there is no guarantee that minerals activities in Antarctica would not take place. Such uncontrolled activity would have far graver consequences for the Antarctic environment than would be the case if the convention were given effect. Thus, it is not the convention which will give rise to temptation: it was the recognition of the possibility of temptation which gave rise to the convention.

It may be asked whether this Bill will benefit British industry. The convention provides a framework within which British industry can make decisions in the light of market forces leading to the prospect of benefiting from Antarctic minerals, but which will at the same time require industry to meet the full costs of their activity and of any environmental consequences. While UK industry continues to see no present commercial justification for minerals activity in Antarctica in the foreseeable future, it was consulted throughout the negotiation of the convention and I believe that the political factors which have led to the conclusion of the convention are well understood. The combination of generally low market prices for hard rock minerals and hydrocarbons, the high costs and logistic difficulties of operating in Antarctica, together with a paucity of reliable data, at present act as a deterrent to serious commercialinterest.

But the cornerstone of the Antarctic treaty system is foresight. What might be a matter of negligible interest now might well become important in years to come. It is therefore necessary to put a mechanism in place now designed to take account of a possible change of attitude in the future, either here or in other countries. While the likelihood of UK industry wishing to prospect for Antarctic minerals soon appears now to be remote, it would still be a sensible precaution, by taking the necessary legislative action now, to enable industry to do so if competitors in other countries show interest.

I should remind your Lordships that the Bill provides for only the relatively benign activity of prospecting. Exploration and commercial development are prohibited until such time as a separate protocol on liability has been negotiated. This protocol will set out detailed rules and procedures relating to the operator's liability for damage caused to the environment, elaborating upon the convention provisions on this matter which will apply to prospecting. These negotiations have not yet begun and are likely to take some years to complete. When completed the Government will return to Parliament with another Bill seeking to implement the liability protocol and to provide for exploration and development in accordance with the convention. Thus Parliament is not being asked at this stage to enact legislation enabling British operators to undertake mineral exploration and development in the Antarctic. That may come later.

I should refer to the matter of United Kingdom sovereignty over the British Antarctic territory. There are two particular points which I wish to make. They refer to possible revenues from Antarctic mineral activity and to the issue of Argentine and Chilean claims to parts of the British Antarctic territory.

It has been our objective throughout the negotiation of the convention to ensure that the UK, as a claimant state in Antarctica, should have the largest possible share of any benefits from minerals activity within the British Antarctic territory. The financial provisions of the convention require that the costs of operating the institutions of the convention are to be the first call on revenues resulting from mineral resource activities. If there is a surplus of revenue beyond that which is required to finance the minerals commission budget, the convention provides that: The commission shall ensure that the interests of the members of the regulatory committee, having the most direct interest in the matter in relation to the areas in question, are respected in any disposition of that surplus". The meaning of this provision in the convention, which your Lordships might be excused for viewing as somewhat opaque, is that in respect of any surplus deriving from mineral and hydrocarbon activity in the British Antarctic territory, the United Kingdom is one of the members of the regulatory committee, having the most direct interest", and whose, interests are (to be) respected in any disposition of that surplus". The same meaning is accorded to this provision by other claimants in respect of their claimed territories. Moreover, the convention provides that in the preparation of management schemes an important aspect is the question of: payments in the nature of or similar to taxes, royalties or payments in kind", from which of course we expect to benefit.

Secondly, the regulation of mineral activities through procedures which involve the relevant claimant state having a special role in relation to its claimed area causes a particular problem in the Antarctic peninsula where the UK, Argentina and Chile have over-lapping claims. For the minerals regime to work properly in that region it will be necessary for the three countries to work together, or at least to co-ordinate their individual actions. Both Argentina and Chile understand this and we agreed with them a common statement relating to future consultations which all three made on signature of the convention. I shall place a copy of the UK statement in the Library.

I now turn to the main provisions of the Bill. Clause 1 prohibits any activities in Antarctica for, or for purposes connected with, the exploration or exploitation of mineral resources, except for prospecting activities authorised by the United Kingdom Government or by another state party to the convention. Mineral activities going beyond prospecting will for the time being be prohibited altogether. As I have already said, this is because such further activities, called in the convention "exploration" and "development", cannot take place until a separate protocol on liability has been concluded, which will require separate primary legislation.

Clause 2 excepts from the prohibition in Clause 1 prospecting activities authorised by the United Kingdom Government or by another contracting party to the convention. The term "prospecting activities" is defined so as to reflect the definition of prospecting in the convention.

Clause 3 empowers the Secretary of State to grant licences for prospecting activities. It is chiefly through licence conditions that the Government will be able to secure compliance with the convention, including its environmental provisions, by licensees. A licence is not to be granted unless the Secretary of State is satisfied that the carrying on by the applicant of the activities authorised by the licence would be consistent with the international obligations of the United Kingdom. Thus the requirements of the convention must in each case be satisfied, as must any other international obligations binding on the United Kingdom, such as those arising under the Antarctic treaty.

Clause 4 regulates the transfer of licences and enables the Secretary of State to revoke, vary or suspend a licence for non-compliance with a licence condition or with regulations to be made under the Bill, or where necessary to comply with any international obligation of the United Kingdom. These are important powers which may in particular be needed in order to secure compliance with the convention, but otherwise a licensee will be able to invest in prospecting activities in the secure knowledge that his right to do so will not be interfered with.

Clause 5 obliges a licensee to indemnify the Government against any claims brought against them in respect of loss or damage arising out of the licensee's authorised activities.

Clauses 6 and 7 empower the Secretary of State to make regulations and give directions, and the Government will thus also be able by these means to ensure compliance with the requirements of the convention.

Clause 8 enables the Secretary of State to appoint inspectors for the purpose of the Bill.

Clauses 9 and 10 provide for a number of offences so that the Bill can be enforced.

Clause 12 and the schedule apply, as part of the law of the United Kingdom, certain convention provisions relating to strict liability for specified types of loss or damage, in particular damage to the environment.

Clauses 11, 13 and 15 to 20 deal with a number of supplemental matters, but I should like to say a few words in explanation of Clause 14. This clause empowers Her Majesty the Queen by Order in Council to confer on specified courts in England and Wales criminal or civil jurisdiction in respect of matters arising under the law of the British Antarctic territory. This clause is not directly related to the convention or its implementation, but it owes its inclusion to the prospect of mineral activities in the British Antarctic territory, however remote they may now appear.

There is at present very little risk of serious crime or need for civil litigation in the territory. But if mineral activities were to commence on any significant scale the risk would obviously increase. It would be impractical for a court actually sitting in the territory to deal with any but the most trivial cases. Alternative venues must therefore be found. The most obvious one is the Falkland Islands, and powers already exist in the British Settlements Acts to provide for its courts to try matters arising under territory law. But no powers exist to allow United Kingdom courts to do the same, and there may be circumstances in which this country would be the most appropriate forum. Clause 14 is designed to fill this gap in case the need should arise at some time in the future.

As I said, the main purpose of the Bill is to enable the United Kingdom to ratify the Antarctic Minerals Convention. The convention fills an important and long-awaited gap in the Antarctic treaty system, the continued success and stability of which will be secured by the convention's early entry into force.

Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Glenarthur.)

7.19 p.m.

Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos

My Lords, the House is grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, for his helpful explanatory speech. In my view this is a most significant Bill which, as noble Lords know, has its complexities. Behind it lies a great continent and many years of difficult discussion and negotiation. To begin to obtain international agreement on so sensitive a subject is in itself an important achievement.

Many people deserve congratulation for that, including officials of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. I should like to mention Mr. Christopher Beeby, the deputy secretary of New Zealand foreign affairs and the chairman of the meeting which negotiated the convention. The convention, which was adopted in Wellington on 2nd June last year, was opened for signature for one year on 25th November last. However, before it becomes operative, 16 ratifications or accessions are necessary, and that includes the United States and the Soviet Union. However, there are 20 possible ratifications and I should be grateful if the Minister would say a little more about that to us.

Presumably 16 ratifications are the minimum laid down by the convention. May we take it that all the governments concerned are likely to add their signatures? I note that 38 countries adhere to the Antarctic Treaty and that 22 of those are consultative parties under it. The latter are to be members of the commission set up by the convention. As the noble Lord explained to us, the other institutions are the advisory committee, the regulatory committee and the special meeting of parties. It is essential that those four institutions should work smoothly. The convention can succeed only if the parties to it wish it to do so.

The commission's work appears to be crucial in that it has the task of identifying an area of Antarctica as one within which applications for exploration and development rights may be considered. The so-called special meeting of parties referred to by the noble Lord will later also consider that. As we look at this Bill, we are all conscious that from the very outset, and certainly from 1959 when the 12 countries with an obvious interest in Antarctica met in Washington on the initiative of the United States, they were embarking on a major task. The Antarctic Treaty stemmed from that historic meeting, but the problem then—and it still lurks in the background—is that of sovereignty. The noble Lord touched on that in his speech. Nationalism, national pride, an aggressive foreign policy motivated by varying causes and also, one regrets to say, greed combine to make lasting solutions very hard to find.

Seven of the countries represented in Washington, including our own, had over a long period made claims to sovereignty in Antarctica and we recall that that factor asserted itself during the Falklands conflict. That problem was not resolved in Washington, and we must note that it has not been settled by this convention but sovereignty has been put on the shelf or, to coin a suitable phrase, in the freezer.

Article IV of the 1958 treaty says that neither the treaty nor the Acts which flow from it shall prejudice the position of countries which claim sovereignty or others not recognising such claims. However, we must acknowledge that that was a big step forward because it helped to reach agreement on other aspects of the treaty and it was then agreed that Antarctica should be demilitarised and used exclusively for peaceful purposes. Therefore, it is good to know that on this great continent there are to be no military bases or fortifications, no weapon testing, no nuclear explosions and no disposal of radioactive waste. On the other hand, a system of inspection was set up to ensure that the agreement is observed.

As the House knows, there are other constructive provisions in the treaty, but I repeat that it was an historic milestone for here is a vast uninhabited continent, with incalculable resources which presents a temptation to the greedy and to the megalomaniac, and history ancient and modern has not been short of such people. Mr. Beeby very properly commented that: the single most significant feature of the Treaty was that it very greatly reduced the potential for tension, rivalry, dispute and conflict that was inherent in the pre-existing situation". However, the treaty did not deal with resources and some countries, in particular New Zealand, have been increasingly concerned that a lack of internationally agreed regulations and discipline could end in disaster. Once again, the Falklands conflict pointed in that direction because it showed that a reckless and stupid leader like Galtieri could upset the delicate balance. Furthermore, a disorgansied scramble for minerals could not only damage the environment but also revive the sovereignty issue.

The convention with which we are concerned in this debate is clearly a compromise between the parties and, while I recognise the achievement, I still have a slight feeling of unease and I have some questions to put to the noble Lord in a moment.

Personally I should like all countries to agree to leave Antarctica alone and not to prospect and mine for minerals there. It is to New Zealand's great credit that it made that proposal early on in the negotiations. As the noble Lord knows, it did not receive much support for its proposal. I should be grateful if the noble Lord would comment on that and on the British Government's reaction to the New Zealand initiative.

The noble Lord has dealt with the distinction between prospecting and exploration and development. There is of course the commitment in the convention to the protection of the unique Antarctic environment and of its dependent and associated ecosystems, and we must hope that the safeguards which have been laid down in support of those will be respected, for there are perils such as damage to the environment as a result of such operations. The convention defines the: unqualified and unlimited obligation of the operator to take necessary and timely response action". All that is laudable but still leaves open the question of what action can be taken against a ruthless operator who refuses to observe the injunctions of the convention. Perhaps the noble Lord will also comment on that.

We must not be too euphoric. This Bill is very important but it does not give us the assurance that unregulated minerals exploitation will not take place. However, I hope that the British Government will now take the lead with New Zealand in Antarctic environmental protection. The Exxon oil spill in Alaska demonstrated the terrible impact of such accidents on polar regions. Should such an incident occur in the Antarctic, the inaccessibility of the continent would exacerbate the situation and there could be a huge ecological disaster. Can the Minister say whether he is satisfied that everything is being done to strengthen the environmental controls outlined in the convention?

Perhaps I may give some examples of stricter measures which could be included. First, mandatory environmental impact assessments should be carried out before a licence is issued. That is Clause 3(3). Secondly, a mandatory inspection system should be set up. Thirdly, there should be provision for private prosecution of an operator for failure to comply with the terms of the Bill when it becomes law or the convention. That is Clause 10(3) Fourthly, the statutory maximum fine of £2,000 for offences under this Bill seems to me to be inadequate and I believe that it should be increased. We must also be concerned about the difficulty of regulating multinational companies over this Bill and I should appreciate the Minister's comments upon that.

Ideally, Antarctica should be vested in the United Nations, but short of that we must welcome the convention. It takes the Antarctic treaty a substantial step forward and gives hope that the last great undamaged continent will remain stable and peaceful. We welcome the spirit of co-operation which made possible the convention and we support this Bill and will assist its passage throughout all its stages.

7.28 p.m.

Lord Buxton of Alsa

My Lords, noble Lords have already spoken on a wide range of issues and others will follow. With a reputation as a conservationist and as one who has been to the Antarctic, I believe that it would be wrong for a debate to take place without sufficient reference being made to the very strong feelings of conservationists led especially by my lifelong friend Sir Peter Scott. I: have no doubt that the conservationists would have the support of the vast majority of the public if the issue was put to them. I should like to reassure my noble friend Lord Glenarthur that I support the Bill; I believe it expedient that it should be introduced. Nevertheless, it would be unfair to disregard what is so widely felt by so many people.

I welcome the Bill because it probably provides the only hope of discouraging the worst excesses by the human race, such as Valdez experienced recently, in the last unspoiled part of our planet. Having seen the beauty of the Antarctic myself, I support the Bill without enthusiasm and accept it as recognition of man's inability to leave anything in the world free of exploitation. I recognise the ultimate horror that could occur ecologically there, as the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, said.

My instincts and sympathy are entirely with those who would like to see the Antarctic continent protected as a world park. Peter Scott has made many comments and public statements to that effect. Such a step is of course right in principle. We should hang our head in shame that we all belong to the most unprincipled and avaricious species in nature. Sadly, man is what he is at the present time. It is obvious when one reads all the papers that there is no hope, there is not a single chance, of getting universal agreement to the creation of a world park now.

I want to reassure people like Peter Scott and all those who support him that we are merely being pragmatic. We have to be pragmatic because I believe that the Antarctic may well become a natural world park one day. I emphasise "one day" because at times over the last 40 years it has been a lonely road for conservationists; yet today most people in the world are alert and exercised about all aspects of environment. I fear that it is due not so much to principle or conscience but to pure fright. Few worried overmuch about destruction of habitat, marine pollution, acid rain, and so on, but when the threat to the atmosphere hit the headlines and people suddenly realised that one day future generations might not be able to breathe, everyone was stopped dead in their tracks and wanted to know more.

The remarkable transformation in public attitudes over only 40 years has exceeded any conservationist's wildest expectations. Suddenly, conservation of environment and protection of habitat has become the in thing, a rolling world-wide movement. If human attitudes can change to that extent over the last 40 years, I predict greater change and yet more enlightment over the next 40 years. If the growth in enlightement or, if you prefer so to call it, just fright and fear increases at only the same rate, world opinion—the will of the masses in all parts of the globe—may conceivably forbid the exploitation of the Antarctic in the 21st century. World opinion needs time, but is consolidating fast. The Antarctic, as has already been said, is a very sensitive part of the globe and crass mismanagement could occur unless the nations in the convention are very careful.

Since I suspect that it may not be feasible, commercial or economic to mine mineral or get oil from the Antarctic possibly within 40 years or at the earliest 20 years, it seems to me likely that the world—as we so presumptuously call ourselves—may well have turned against fouling up the Antarctic before the exploiters start to operate. Governments may then be obliged to restrain the exploiters. The Bill at this point is therefore simply essential to provide some ground rules and control well in advance before any reckless or ill-conceived activities can occur in the meanwhile.

The more time that we allow to pass the more difficult it may become to provide ground rules and put controls and restraints into place. It will be much more difficult to introduce legislation after a country or industry has foolishly started activities. That could lead to the break-up of the convention, as has been said. We should then have the worst of all worlds. The Bill is the best step that can be taken at present. The Bill—I shall press this with my conservation colleagues elsewhere—in my view is not an exploiters' charter, but by introducing strict ground rules it may well discourage them.

Conservationists need and should never give up the campaign to preserve the Antarctic. They should see the Bill as a useful instrument through which to monitor the convention's success or otherwise, especially in supervising environmental impact effectiveness. I therefore commend the Bill to the conservation movement.

I congratulate the Government on taking this expedient step. I am delighted to add congratulations to those already expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos. However, I impress upon my noble friend that it will not be such an easy ride when we start talking about exploration and development. In view of the panic that may then be around the globe, it may possibly never happen.

7.35 p.m.

Lord Shackleton

My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, I have just come back from the celebration of the 25th anniversary of the founding of the European Space Agency. It is not so unrelated to the Antarctic as noble Lords may think. Indeed, when I initiated a debate over 30 years ago asking Her Majesty"s Government to sign the convention for the Antarctic treaty, we visualised it perhaps as an initial practice against the time when the problems of sovereignty in space would arise. I shall not follow that now, however.

The Bill is not simply about minerals; nor is it simply to prevent mineral development or to encourage it. It is to maintain the peace of the Antarctic. This is a crucial point. It was the original purpose of the Antarctic treaty.

When I initiated the debate 30 years ago in an Unstarred Question, we had more time. I am appalled to find that I spoke for 45 minutes on that occasion. I shall not follow the precedent that I then set. Indeed, when the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich introduced the Bill that gave effect to the Antarctic treaty the debate was long, with many noble Lords taking part, among them the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning.

The Bill is continuing the process that was developed in the setting up of the Antarctic treaty. Here was a continent in which shots had actually been fired and the Argentine, Chile and Britain had made overlapping claims. It seems an absolute miracle to have that treaty. My noble friend Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos paid tribute to the officials who have been responsible. I remember in those days people like Brian Roberts. This is being continued by officials like John Heap and others who know the Antarctic treaty and are themselves committed conservationists.

I am very glad that the noble Lord, Lord Buxton of Alsa, made that speech so that conservationists like my friend Peter Scott, whom I know is worried about the Bill, will recognise that it is far and away the best that can be achieved. I do not believe that it is possible—much as one would like to see it—to have the Antarctic as an area of total conservation. Unless there is agreement and a power to regulate, there are real dangers not just to the environment but to the peace envisaged and achieved through the Antarctic treaty.

The Antarctic treaty does not solve the problems of sovereignty; it gets round them. As to the experience of the operation of the Antarctic treaty and the co-operation achieved by countries such as the Argentine, the great majority of countries in the world, China, Russia, and many small countries, are signatories to the treaty. This development is a further contribution to peace.

Like the noble Lord, Lord Buxton of Alsa, I have been to the Antarctic. Three years ago I had the tremendous luck to go to McMurdo Sound and to see Scott's hut and my father's hut that the New Zealanders are trying to conserve. With American help I was able to go the South Pole and, above all, to see the incredible beauty of the Antarctic. The one thing that one would like to do is preserve it. Thirty years ago it was already threatened by tourists.

The Bill is only one measure. There will have to be other measures to regulate tourism in the Antarctic. I do not think we can regard this as the answer to the problems for ever, but it is a useful step in the right direction. I wish that noble Lords on all sides of the House could see how lovely it is. I prefer the Antarctic because I suffer from seasickness and there you do not have to undertake such an amount of sea travel. Now that you can fly to the Antarctic it is a tempting place for tourism. That business needs to be regulated also.

There are a number of legal points that will need to be looked at during the Committee stage. Perhaps the noble Lord may care to make some comment. We have had some very interesting comments from Lady Fox of the British Institute of International and Comparative Law as regards the extent to which some of these measures are secret or provide for secrecy even at the prospecting stage. As someone who has been involved in the minerals industry, I know that you do not keep mineral discoveries secret for very long whatever the secrecy laws have to say on the matter. I shall be grateful if the noble Lord will comment on this and also on the application of law within the English courts without comparable regulations. It may be that that particular proposal has been misunderstood.

There are similar points that I hope the noble Lord will refer to, since otherwise we shall have to have a fairly detailed Committee stage in order to consider them. When it comes to the conclusion of what views we should take, I say that this measure is a real contribution to peace. I believe that it was Dick Laws, the Director of the British Antarctic Survey, who called the Antarctic a continent for science. Everybody is now aware of the importance of that continent for science. I pay tribute to the Prime Minister herself, who has strongly supported— sometimes with others who are not so keen on Antarctic research—the research that is so valuable in that area and which has to continue. I do not believe that the Prime Minister has done that for any party political purposes.

The British Antarctic Survey carries out by far the most cost-effective and efficient research of any country in the world. We are pre-eminent in this and great tribute should be paid to the work. I should like to continue for the further 40 minutes that I had 30 years ago, but it not possible. I remember a colleague in the other place who travelled a great deal. He wanted to get his lecture printed so he used the whole of an adjournment debate in order to get Hansard to print it. He then brought the reprints of it. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, will remember that. I do not intend to do that.

I want to conclude my remarks by emphasising the importance of the agreements. I particularly wish to make a few remarks on the comments made by governments, including those who were consultative members and those who were not concerning the signing of this convention. I was particularly struck by the statement of Mr. Alberto Daverede, the Argentine representative and the head of the delegation. The British, the Chileans and the Argentines were all rivals in claiming the same area of the Antarctic. I do not believe that the British will ever make good their claims and I do not really mind. I want the British down there because they help to keep the peace.

Mr. Daverede said: Mr. Chairman, today we have come to the end of a long journey, having achieved the adoption of a Convention that constitutes a real challenge to the imagination. We are sure that the system established in the Convention will contribute to the strengthening of the Antarctic Treaty, to which it will be subordinated and of which system it will form an integral part. We believe that, as for other components of the Antarctic Treaty system, we have obtained by consensus"— I stress the word "consensus" because this is an agreement which could not have been achieved without consensus. Those who wish for more stringent measures endanger what has been achieved by consensus. Mr. Daverede continued: —"an instrument that respects the premises of that Treaty in its entirety, and that therefore it will result in being acceptable to all the States that make up the system, without prejudice to their juridical positions towards Antarctica". Bearing in mind that Argentina has passionate views about its Antarctic claims, that is a statement that deserves wide publicity. I am very glad to pay tribute to the Argentine delegation on this occasion.

There are many areas that we can talk about and particularly the question of publication of information which perhaps the Minister can briefly deal with. I commend this Bill to all noble Lords in all parts of the House as a most valuable contribution to peace as well as to conservation. I do not believe that anyone will go mining in the Antarctic. This is a pretty bureaucratic measure and it will be very difficult for people, under the rules and regulations, to see much attraction in mining in the Antarctic. I hope that, effectively, the Bill will achieve the result that the Antarctic is really a park of preservation and beauty.

7.46 p.m.

Lord Craigton

My Lords, my noble friend Lord Buxton spoke of those who object to this Bill. Some would like to see a complete ban on exploitation for any purpose of the Antarctic. Five times between 1972 and 1979 the Antarctic Treaty consultative powers tried but failed to agree to a moratorium on the exploitation of Antarctic minerals. I agree with my noble friend Lord Buxton because I too am a conservationist. I have been chairman of the All-Party Conservation Committee of both Houses for the past 17 years. I too am a friend of Peter Scott and we all feel the same way. My noble friend has expressed absolutely what we feel.

I agree entirely with the provisions of this Bill, which now limits prospecting for minerals so that we can know whether, if it has to be done, that it will be wise and safe to mine. My noble friend Lord Buxton spoke about the future. Who knows what the coming years may bring? Minerals from the Antarctic may benefit man but we must know whether the environmental risks will be acceptable. That we cannot know unless we have obtained the facts which this Bill will obtain for us. The noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, spoke of the "Exxon Valdez", which ran aground in Prince William Sound and fouled 16,000 square miles of water and 800 miles of shore. A lesson like that will help to ensure that the environmental impact assessment which I understand must accompany every application to prospect will include the immediate availability of disposal equipment. If I am wrong about that, I hope the Minister will tell me. I believe that that answers the question of the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn.

Given these risks, the convention is without doubt the strongest measure for environmental protection that has ever been included in an international agreement. If on any point there is no agreement by consensus then there is no decision at all. Unlike fishery agreements, where a harmful activity continues unless it is decided that it shall be modified or stopped, this activity cannot even start unless the promoters can show that their proposed actions will not cause significant environmental damage.

I now turn to the Bill. As the Minister said, the important provision is the prohibition of all Antarctic mineral mining activity by British interests except prospecting activity as authorised, as a member of the convention, by the Secretary of State, who must be satisfied that such prospecting will not injure the environment. Here, the vigilance of the non-government organisations, the voluntary bodies, will be essential in guiding the Minister. The representation on the convention itself of the non-government organisations is limited by Article 34 to observer status only, and then only to those NGOs which are international. I hope the Minister will assure us that, so far as is within his powers, our representation on the commission and advisory committee will press the claims of such as the Worldwide Fund for Nature and the ICBP.

This Bill and the convention concern only the mineral exploitation of the Antarctic. Considering the costs involved and the nature of the terrain, it is unlikely that mining, if it takes place at all, will happen for many years. The convention originates from the Antarctic treaty, which does not deal with resources, whether living or mineral. The treaty powers wisely saw the need for a closer control here than it gave them. So for the foreseeable future the world must rely on the Antarctic treaty which, while ignoring territorial claims—or putting them in the fridge, as the noble Lord said—now deals with environmental protection, telecommunications, meteorology, transport, tourism and protected areas. Furthermore, only members of the Antarctic treaty can be members of the convention.

So though the convention is essential to the protection of Antarctica, it is the Antarctic treaty that matters perhaps even more to the peoples of the world, and that includes us. Considering the importance to us of the Antarctic treaty I am surprised to find that Clause 14 of the Bill, a clause that in no way relates to the implementation of the Antarctic Minerals Convention, has been put in to achieve a minor tidying up of jurisdiction which has up to now been the responsibility of the Falkland Islands. I understand that the Antarctic treaty laws are due for revision. If that is so, Parliament should be able to consider such revision in its entirety, including Clause 14. Will this lessening now of a small measure of responsibility be understood by the Falkland Islanders?

It is not as though there will be an immediate flood of potential troublemakers into the area. Even the preparation of the environmental impact assessment and detailed arrangements for prospecting will take a considerable time. I can see no justification for introducing this irrelevant and minor provision into this important Bill at this time, unless of course the Minister can assure us that no other revision of the Antarctic treaty laws is necessary or intended within the next two or three years, in which case I gladly withdraw my objection.

7.53 p.m.

Lord Morris

My Lords, I congratulate the Government on their wisdom and expedition. The convention was drawn up in Wellington on 2nd June 1988 and was signed only recently by the Government. The time from signature to the drafting of the Bill shows what can be done where there is a political will. I congratulate the Government on the expedition with which they have brought the Bill to the House. It is none other than a domestication of a treaty obligation, and as such is extremely welcome. I cannot do better than support the points made by the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition, the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, and my noble friend Lord Buxton. In the short time available to me I should like to ask my noble friend two short questions which will no doubt do nothing other than demonstrate ignorance on my part but which might save time in Committee.

As I understand it, the South Orkney Islands are approximately 1 degree south of latitude 60 degrees south and presumably come within the ambit of the Bill and of the Antarctic treaty. I refer of course to Laurie Island, Powell Island, Coronation Island and Signy Island. Allied to that point I should like clarification with regard to the definition in the Bill of the term "Antarctica". I understand that the treaty obligation covers all land to the south of latitude 60 degrees south. However, the Bill itself speaks of, all areas of continental shelf which are adjacent to that continent or those islands". What precisely does that mean? It refers of course to the continent of Antarctica. Would this impinge on South Georgia? I do not think that it would but it might do.

I welcome the Bill and again congratulate the Government on the expedition with which they have brought it forward. I also congratulate the experts who have done everything they can to assist the Government in that excellent endeavour.

7.57 p.m.

Lord Glenarthur

My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords who have taken part in the debate for giving the Bill such a good welcome. It has been a useful debate and has highlighted a number of important points to which I shall return in a moment. Perhaps I may begin by apologising for going into the Bill at such length but I felt it was important to set the scene for it. I hope that noble Lords will have borne with me for that. I hope also that that explanation has given some reassurance about some of the intricacies and reasoning that lay behind it.

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, for his plaudits for those in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and in New Zealand who have done so much to take forward the whole process. I am grateful also to my noble friend Lord Buxton for his understanding of why the Bill is necessary and for his magnanimous endorsement to the conservationists of what the Bill is all about. I too am very much a conservationist and share much of the thought which lies behind his remarks. The noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, paid a sound tribute to the Antarctic survey, for which I am grateful as I am sure it will be, and to my right honourable friend the Prime Minister for the role that she has played.

The noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, and my noble friend Lord Craigton asked about the environmental impact assessment. This is a most important point. I can assure both noble Lords that environmental impact assessments will be required before any licence is given.

The noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, asked me about the New Zealand proposal for a world park. My noble friend Lord Buxton endorsed this as a possible solution to the problem. I agree that it is an interesting concept. I think that there are those who feel that perhaps such a suggestion was based more on emotion than on a rational or scientific approach. We do not accept that world park principles are necessarily irreconcilable with utilisation of Antarctic resouces. The purpose of the Antarctic Treaty system is to ensure that utilisation is pursued rationally. That is an important point. The Antarctic comes close to any practically conceivable world park, so far as any of us can possibly imagine.

As regards the important point about the environment and acidents, which is so very topical at present following the tragic accident in Alaska, there will always be a risk of such things happening. The convention requires that, technology and procedures are available to provide for safe operation and that there exists the capacity to respond effectively to accidents, particularly those with potential environmental effects". Both my noble friends Lord Buxton and Lord Craigton referred to that fact; indeed, they referred to it in the context of the accident in Alaska. There is always the human element to contend with in any accident. However, I think that the convention goes so far as it can to avoid environmentally damaging consequences.

Lord Shackleton

Perhaps the noble Lord will allow me to intervene. I hope that he will bear in mind the point I made that it is not only mining which is threatening the Antarctic. That is probably the least of the threats. Although this does not come under the Bill, recent accidents show what risks humanity creates and the dangers in the Antarctic. Therefore, I hope that some further action will be taken on the whole question of access to the Antarctic and to tourism. On that matter I do not believe that those who advocate not signing the convention make any contribution to the conservation of the Antarctic.

Lord Glenarthur

My Lords, I entirely take the noble Lord's point. I visited Christchurch about a year or so ago; I was given a thorough briefing there by the New Zealand authorities on the concerns they had about such matters. There are a whole range of different aspects which could have an impact. I think that the noble Lord is on to a very good point.

Perhaps I may clear up one point in connection with the idea of a world park—although it is not the same one—which was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn. The point dealt with the United Nations' control of Antarctica. I must say to the noble Lord that the Antarctic Treaty has worked effectively now for over a quarter of a century. United Nations' moves to replace the treaty might risk unravelling demilitarisation and nuclear control provisions. When it comes to UN resolutions, it is possible that they could be prejudicial to the good management of Antarctica. It is not the United Nations' role to oversee international treaties negotiated outside its ambit. We and the treaty partners have registered our common disapproval by taking the unusual step of not paticipating in successive UN General Assembly votes on the matter.

The noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, raised many points. One of them concerned the way in which ratification would come about. Assuming that by "ratification" he means entry into force, perhaps I may say to him that the treaty will enter into force when 16 out of the 20 consultative parties which participated in the adoption of the convention have ratified it. The 16 ratifications must include all those countries which assert claims to territorial sovereignty in Antarctica, together with the United States, and the Soviet Union. The 16 must also include five developing and 11 developed countries. Those who have signed so far are Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Denmark, Finland, the Republic of Korea, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, South Africa, Sweden, Uruguary, the USA, the USSR and the United Kingdom. The fact that the convention was adopted by consensus leads the Government to expect that other governments will sign in due course.

When the noble Lord asked whether everything possible was being done to strengthen environmental controls outlined in the convention, I can tell him that for the time being, and until the convention enters into force, nothing can be done under the convention itself. However, that is not to say that nothing can be done. Environmental impact assessments—which I have already mentioned—play an important part in the convention. Such assessments are also required under the Antarctic Treaty. The Government have prepared the first of such assessments in relation to proposals to build an air strip at Rothera, a British Antarctic survey station. The assessment has been circulated to all Antarctic Treaty consultative parties for comment and it has been made available to the NGOs for comment. The Government place considerable importance on those procedures and believe that further use of them by Antarctic Treaty governments will develop consciousness and experience in such provisions and procedures and will indirectly strengthen the environmental controls of the convention.

It has been suggested that the statutory maximum of a £2,000 fine is too low. Under Clause 10, that is the penalty for summary convictions—that is to say, minor cases. I hope that the noble Lord will be reassured if I tell him that in serious cases Clause 10 provides for unlimited fines for conviction on indictment. As regards countries, organisations or individuals transgressing the convention, and also in relation to the matter of regulating multinationals, perhaps I may say to the noble Lord, taking both topics together, that each minerals operator, including a multinational company, must have a sponsoring state under the convention. It is the responsibility of the sponsoring state—that is, the state with which the operator has a genuine connection through being subject to its jurisdiction and control—to ensure compliance under its law. The Bill provides the necessary licensing powers and criminal penalties to enable the United Kingdom to control its own operators and to deal with those who breach the convention.

The noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, who has enormous experience, both personally and through family history by virtue of his father's work, concentrated—rightly, to my mind—on the international aspects of the Bill and the reasons lying behind their importance. I very much endorse what he said in respect of the Bill. The noble Lord said that it was about keeping the peace; indeed, that is an all-important aspect of which we must not lose sight. He asked for clarification of the effect under our domestic law of measures adopted by institutions established by the convention. He also asked whether such measures would be accessible and published. Indeed, he referred to them as perhaps being secret, and I am most grateful to him for giving me notice of those points.

The Bill would not make such mesures automatically part of UK law, nor would it make breach of such a measure a criminal offence. No such offence is included in the list of offences created by the Bill under Clause 10. The Bill provides various means by which the Government may secure compliance with measures adopted under the convention which constitute international obligations of the United Kingdom. For example, if the minerals commission adopted a binding measure prohibiting prospecting activity in a particular area of Antarctica, the Secretary of State could give effect to it under our law in a number of ways. He could do so by means of regulations under Clause 6(1)(b); or he could incorporate the prohibition in a condition of a prospecting licence under Clause 3, or by varying an existing licence condition under Clause 4; or, especially in an urgent case, he could issue a direction under Clause 7. An offence would only be committed if there were then a failure to comply with the regulations, the licence condition or, as the case may be, the direction which implemented the commission measure by virtue of Clause 10(1)(d), (c) or (e) respectively. No offence would be committed if the commission measure had not been given effect in United Kingdom law in one of those ways. I hope that that information is useful to the noble Lord.

As regards publicity and accessibility to commission measures, none of course yet exists, but we envisage that they would be published by the Government and laid before Parliament as Command Papers. That is already the practice for measures adopted under the Antarctic treaty at meetings with consultative parties.

As to the scope of Clause 9 and the disclosure of information, the clause reflects the balance achieved between competing interests in the convention, especially in Article 16. The industrial interest was to ensure that commercially valuable information should not be disclosed, at least for an initial period, while environmentalists and others would like the greatest possible disclosure.

Clause 9 will protect potential or actual licensees from the disclosure of information supplied by them except in the circumstances set out in subsection (2). One of those is paragraph (d), which allows disclosure, in accordance with the convention or regulations made under Section 6". The convention requires a great deal of information to be supplied to the institutions, in particular the commission, and for such information to be made publicly available subject only to specific rules designed to protect commercially valuable information. That openness is obviously desirable and necessary if environmental effects are to be properly assessed.

Compliance with the convention will therefore lead to the disclosure of a great deal of useful information. Moreover, provided that regulations under Clause 6 are compatible with the convention, Clause 9(2)(d) will enable them to require or permit the disclosure of information where that is considered necessary or useful; for example, for environmental protection purposes. I hope that the noble Lord will be able to study those complex explanations. I should be delighted to clarify them if I can be of any further use to him.

My noble friend Lord Craigton questioned the inclusion of Clause 14 in the Bill, and asked for an assurance that no other revisions of the Antarctic treaty laws are necessary or intended within the next two or three years. I readily give such an assurance. Although the Antarctic treaty is open to review as from 1991, there is no obligation upon the parties to do so. Even if there were such a review, which is far from certain, we cannot yet predict whether there would need to be primary legislation to amend the Antarctic Treaty Act 1967. In those circumstances we thought it a sensible precaution to seek the powers provided in Clause 14. While I understand my noble friend's doubts, I hope that I explained in my earlier remarks the connection that Clause 14 has, if only indirectly, with the convention and the prospect of minerals activity in the British Antarctic territory. I also pointed out that the Falkland Islands will remain an alternative venue for the trial of cases arising under British Antarctic territory law. I hope that that will have allayed my noble friend's concerns.

My noble friend Lord Morris asked whether the South Orkney Islands fell within the ambit of the Bill and the convention, in the general welcome that he gave the Bill and his remarks about the speed with which it has come forward. The answer in short is, yes. He asked whether the definition of the Antarctic and the continental shelf would include South Georgia. The short answer to that is, no. I could elucidate further, but I had better not delay the progress of the next piece of business.

In summary, the Bill will enable the United Kingdom to ratify the Antractic minerals convention to fill a gap within the Antarctic treaty system and to fulfil our commitment to the treaty. Following careful consideration, the Government are convinced that the convention meets our interests in strengthening the Antarctic treaty system as the guarantor of peace and stability in the region. It will adequately provide for the orderly regulation of any minerals activity that may take place there and protect the unique Antarctic environment.

I am grateful for the welcome the Bill has received. I understand the concerns which have been expressed on every aspect of it. I shall study with care the remarks that have been made. Again, I am grateful for the endorsement the Bill has been given. I commend the Bill to the House.

On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.