Illegal Immigrants (Criminal Sanctions) Bill

Debate between Sheryll Murray and David Nuttall

Friday 4th March 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Nuttall]

I do not want to get into a debate about polling, but polls, as Lord Ashcroft frequently says, are not meant to be a prediction of the future. They ask people what they think of something at a particular time. The poll in question asked people not for a prediction, but for their thoughts on the measures. To that extent, it must be accurate to say that 86% of those who were asked said, “Yes, we think that the measures are sensible.”

[Mrs Sheryll Murray (South East Cornwall) (Con)]

Could my hon. Friend give an indication of the number of people polled?

Fisheries Policy

Debate between Sheryll Murray and David Nuttall

Thursday 3rd December 2015 Westminster Hall

[Mr David Nuttall (in the Chair)]

Before I call Mrs Sheryll Murray to move the motion, one or two Members have said that it is a little warm in Westminster Hall this afternoon. If any gentleman Members wish to remove their jackets, they may do so.

[Mrs Sheryll Murray (South East Cornwall) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered fisheries policy.

First, I thank the hon. Member for South Down (Ms Ritchie) for making the case for this debate to the Backbench Business Committee. She is a strong voice for her fishing industry. I thank the Committee for allowing time for this debate, although it would have been good if we could have held it in the main Chamber, as we usually do.

I ask Members to spare a moment to pay tribute to those brave fishermen and women who put to sea, sometimes in the most dangerous conditions, to bring a fry to our table. I would also like the House to remember those who, over the past year, paid the ultimate price in the course of their daily work and did not return to their families. My heart goes out to their loved ones. From my own experience, I know how they feel. I also pay tribute to all the maritime rescue services, including the Royal National Lifeboat Institution, the coastguard and the National Coastwatch Institution, and those maritime charities that help our seafarers and fishermen in times of need, including the Fishermen’s Mission.

I have been involved in fishing for many years. As an observer of—and, since 2010, a participant in—these debates, I have noticed that we hear the same message each year from all over the UK: fishermen are struggling to survive and the fleet is getting smaller. While no one would question the need to manage our fish stocks responsibly, the system of management first introduced in 1983—the total allowable catch and quotas system—has been an absolute disaster for fish stocks, fishermen and the UK industry. Various tweaks and changes over the years have made things no more credible.

The European Commission’s proposals this year seem to fly in the face of the sensible conservation of some stocks in the south-west. One example is Dover sole in area VIIe. A 44% TAC increase is advised by the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea, but article 4 of Council of the European Union regulation No. 509/2007 limits any increase or reduction of that stock to 15%, because that stock is subject to a management plan. That flies in the face of the demersal landing obligation. We would need an uplift of around 30%, or to have fishermen tied to the quay, if we were to take account of the ICES advice. In the light of the introduction in 2016 of the demersal landing obligation for Dover sole, among other stocks, there can be no justification for restricting the TAC increase to the 15% laid down in the regulation. I urge the Minister to make that point to the Fisheries Council in a couple of weeks.

I also ask the Minister to look at channel plaice in areas VIId and VIIe. In area VIIe—the western channel part of the stock—the advice corresponds to a 20% increase in catches because of growing biomass, which is well above the maximum sustainable yield, and falling fishing mortality. Area VIId, which is the eastern channel part of the stock, is similarly growing in biomass, with fishing mortality falling steadily over years. Under the maximum sustainable yield approach, the increase in catches could be up to 202%—yes, 202%—with biomass falling by just 4%. The Commission very recently agreed an in-year increase in the 2015 TAC for the stock, which provided the UK with an immediate 30% increase for the final quarter. Given the impending introduction of the demersal landing obligation, I hope the Minister supported the French in their endeavours to maximise the increase in the TAC and quota for plaice in areas VIId and VIIe in 2016. Indeed, I hope he may have some good news on the stock.

I am also looking for reassurance from the Minister that he will totally oppose the Commission’s proposal to reduce the TAC for haddock in area VIIa by 52%, given that ICES has advised that it could be increased by 400%. Turning to other stocks in area VII, there is no new advice for pollock, and the advice for monk is the same as last year, but the Commission have proposed a cut in pollock of 20% and in monk of 11.9%. I urge the Minister to secure at least a roll-over of the TAC from last year.

Given how the Commission puts the proposals in place, I wonder whether the Minister, who I know is hard-working, is being constrained by the European legislation under which he has to operate. In October 2014, he said on his web blog:

“Another feature of the reform is that there will be a ban on discarding healthy fish back into the sea. Instead, we will help fishermen manage the realities of the marine environment allowing flexibilities between the quotas they have. So if a fisherman catches more haddock than he expected, rather than having to throw the catch overboard, he can count it against quotas he has for other species, like whiting or cod, so that he can land the fish he has caught. He will also be able to borrow some quota from the following year if needed and there will be an uplift in the amount that he can catch to take account of the fact that fish are no longer being discarded.”

Is he prepared to share with us today the precise size of that uplift for each species? Furthermore, is it right to encourage year-on-year borrowing? Could that not result in next year’s quota being used up prematurely?

Sea bass is a concern for my hon. Friend the Member for Southend West (Sir David Amess), who has not been able to get to this debate because of other duties. On 30 March last year, the National Federation of Fishermen’s Organisations published an article on its website that stated:

“The Federation accepts that some remedial measures are inevitable, although we do not agree that the 80% reduction in fishing mortality, suggested by an MSY approach, would be deliverable, necessary or appropriate. We support a balanced package of measures, including all fisheries which impact the bass stocks, applied in a fair and proportionate way.”

The Commission’s factsheet said:

“Sea bass is a special case: real management measures for sea bass were only put in place in January 2015 and catch limits were only put in place in June 2015. The Commission is therefore building on the measures taken in 2015 to halt the dramatic decline in this important stock. Today’s proposal includes a complete fishing ban for commercial vessels and recreational anglers in the first half of 2016. For the second half of 2016, the Commission is proposing a monthly one tonne catch limit”—

that almost halves the quota for my Looe fishermen—

“and a one fish bag limit for recreational anglers.”

The Minister confirmed in a recent answer to my written parliamentary question that the UK response to those proposals is being considered in advance of negotiations at the December Fisheries Council meeting. Can he share with the House today what that response will be?

Finally, I wish the Minister well in his negotiations. I know he will do his best for Cornish and UK fishermen. However, having seen the industry suffer under the common fisheries policy, first as someone connected with the industry and, from 2010, as a Member of Parliament, I have to say that enough is enough. On the 12-mile limit, there is a case for ending access rights. We see from the regulations that France has access to 15 areas in UK territorial waters. Ireland has access to two areas, Germany to six, the Netherlands to three and Belgium to five for a variety of species. The UK gains access to two areas in German waters and one area in French waters. This is not fair.

Affordable Homes Bill

Debate between Sheryll Murray and David Nuttall

Friday 5th September 2014 Commons Chamber

[Sheryll Murray]

I am confused because I thought that this Bill was the Affordable Homes Bill, but all I have heard is “bedroom tax, bedroom tax, bedroom tax”. It is actually a spare room subsidy. Does my hon. Friend agree?

[Mr Nuttall]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and we have not heard much this morning about the second part of the Bill. One or two Members have touched on it, but we have heard little about the part that deals with the review of affordable housing. I shall certainly be touching on it, after I have dealt with the first part of the Bill, which contains the proposed changes to housing benefit.

I accept, as does anyone who has looked at the issue, that the changes to housing benefit resulting from the removal of the spare room subsidy have been controversial. There is no doubt about that. We have to ask ourselves why the Government had to take tough, difficult decisions to try to control the level of public spending. The answer is quite simple. We as a country simply could not continue spending money that we did not have. The coalition Government inherited a situation in which £1 in every £4 had to be borrowed. In other words, the books were not being balanced. The scale of the problem is demonstrated by the fact that, even now, after four years of a Government who have been doing all they can to try to rein in public spending, we as a country are still years from having completely dealt with the deficit and being in a position to balance the books. That position required the Government to look at areas of expenditure like the welfare budget.

Deep Sea Mining Bill

Debate between Sheryll Murray and David Nuttall

Friday 24th January 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy), who speaks from the Opposition Front Bench. She raised an interesting point about what would happen to the proceeds of mineral exploitation, and it deserves further consideration because the situation is not as straightforward as it was with North sea oil. We should examine exactly how this country will be able to benefit. Are we going to benefit directly, or jointly with other countries across the globe?

I rise to support the Bill. I supported it on Second Reading, and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall (Sheryll Murray) for piloting it through to Third Reading. To do that once is quite an achievement, but to do it twice is particularly remarkable, and she should be congratulated on that, and on succeeding in the ballot twice.

[Sheryll Murray]

My hon. Friend may be interested to know that the reason I believe I was selected twice was because I used the same number twice: 336. Our first fishing boat which we had brand-new was FY 336. I do not want anybody to steal that number in future ballots.

[Mr Nuttall]

When I enter the ballot next year, if I get into the Lobby before my hon. Friend, I will specifically not choose 336, and I will urge all Members on both sides of the House to try to avoid that number because it has obviously brought my hon. Friend great success. I know it is particularly poignant for her.

The deep sea bed is one of the last unexplored areas of our world. In previous centuries mankind has gone off exploring the world in pretty much an unregulated and uncontrolled manner, but that is not the way the modern world operates. It is right that in the 21st century before mankind goes digging around on the deep sea bed causing who knows what sort of damage, a framework needs to be put in place to ensure that the exploration is carried out in a carefully controlled manner and causes as little damage as possible to the delicate ecosystems of the deep sea bed. The plethora of international agreements and our own domestic legislation seek to do that.

There is a danger, however, that in putting together our own domestic legislation, we put in place licence conditions that companies see as too onerous, too complicated and too prescriptive, and consequently those companies will not come to the UK to obtain their licence approval; they will go to countries whose legislation is, perhaps, less prescriptive than ours.

[Sheryll Murray]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. Does he also agree that there is the potential of companies moving their whole operations from the UK to other countries?

[Mr Nuttall]

There is that risk if exploration companies decide and form the opinion that our legislative framework is too onerous, prescriptive and complicated. I hope that that is not the case. Certainly, it would not have my support or the support of the Government or anyone in the House if we felt that it was the case. There is a delicate balance to be struck between trying to protect the environment, maximising revenues and encouraging exploration for the benefit of mankind. They are all worthy things to do, and the Bill in its own way seeks to strike that careful balance. It is not an easy task to pull off, because if we go too far in one direction, we will upset something else. There is a balance to be struck between mankind exploiting for the benefit of us all the resources that are in the deep sea in the other parts of the world and protecting the environment that is down there. I sincerely hope that this Bill will receive its Third Reading and that when it reaches the other place, it will have a speedy passage. I wish it well.

Deep Sea Mining Bill

Debate between Sheryll Murray and David Nuttall

Friday 6th September 2013 Commons Chamber

[Sheryll Murray]

We are seeing a shortage of some metals, and the deep sea provides the opportunity to gather metals that are needed, particularly rare earths.

The UK is well placed to influence how deep-sea mining is taken forward, what standards should apply and how to minimise the impact on the environment. In 2012, the UK sponsored its first application to the International Seabed Authority for a UK company to explore for polymetallic nodules in the deep sea in the Pacific ocean, as my hon. Friend mentioned. The application was agreed and a contract was signed between the ISA and the UK company. In 2013, the UK sponsored another application from the same company. That still has to be considered by the ISA council, but the UK Government was able to sponsor and issue a licence to that company under the 1981Act.

[Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)]

My hon. Friend makes a persuasive case for her Bill, but as she admits that an application has already been made under the existing Act and we have been able to proceed, why is it thought necessary to amend the Act?

[Sheryll Murray]

The 1981 Act predates our signing up to the United Nations convention on the law of the sea, so it is vital that we make these amendments to it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sheryll Murray]

That is right, and of course this Government want to minimise bureaucracy as much as possible.

[Mr Nuttall]

As my hon. Friend will be aware, the United States of America has not signed or ratified the agreement, so will she explain the position of a company incorporated in the USA? Would it not have to apply to the international body?

[Sheryll Murray]

I know that Secretary of State Clinton and the United States Administration were, as recently as 2012, very keen to sign up to UNCLOS. It is not for me to make a judgment on that—it is up to the USA—but perhaps the Minister will expand on it later.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sheryll Murray]

I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s intervention. I think the whole House will know how interested he is in the global maritime environment. However, he may be unaware—I am sure my hon. Friend the Minister will expand on this—that a lot of the environmental requirements will be covered in the wording of the contract with the International Seabed Authority, so we do not to include that in legislation.

[Mr Nuttall]

If I may assist my hon. Friend, I think that section 5 of the 1981 Act is pertinent to the point the hon. Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner) raised. It says:

“In determining whether to grant an exploration or exploitation licence the Secretary of State shall have regard to the need to protect…marine creatures, plants and other organisms…from any harmful effects which might result from any activities to be authorised by the licence”.

[Sheryll Murray]

That is very helpful. I am sure my hon. Friend can reassure the hon. Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner) when he speaks.

Another important provision in the Bill widens the scope of minerals for which licences can be granted. The 1981 Act is limited to one type—polymetallic nodules—and the Bill widens the definition to all mineral resources. In recent years, there has been a growing interest in polymetallic sulphides and cobalt-rich crusts. There are now agreed international regulations for the exploration of such minerals. In future, other mineral types could be discovered or become commercially viable for deep-sea mining. UK-registered firms should be able to take part in exploration and possible exploitation of such resources, as much as companies from any other state.

Sea-bed mining has enormous potential. Scientists know that lying on the surface of the sea bed at great depths are valuable new sources of nickel, copper, cobalt, manganese, which was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley), who is not in his place, and rare earth elements in the form of polymetallic nodules. Such metals are vital to new materials technology. Nickel is used in superalloys; cobalt and manganese are used in energy storage technology; and rare earth elements, which are strategically important, are used in low-carbon technology, lasers, superconductors and many telecoms applications.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sheryll Murray]

Companies in countries that are not signatories to UNCLOS would have to find a host that was a signatory to make an application for them.

There are large quantities of these metals. Whether it is because of increased demand, shrinking supply or both, metal prices have increased notably in recent years. As was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Charlie Elphicke), rare earth elements, which have a particularly limited number of land-based sources, are attracting great interest. Those factors led to the emergence of the first serious commercial interest in deep-sea mining only a couple of years ago. A UK-registered company is now following up that interest.

An event to celebrate the granting of an exploration contract by the ISA to the UK was held at the Excel centre on 11 March this year. I was very pleased that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister was able to attend. At that event, he spoke of the potential benefits to the UK and of the supply chain jobs that would probably be created in areas such as Portsmouth, Southampton, Plymouth, Bristol, Liverpool, Newcastle, Aberdeen and—I hope this is the case—Cornwall. Jobs are likely to be created in areas such as engineering, high-tech remote underwater vehicles and ship stabilisation. He said that that activity was estimated to be worth up to £40 billion to our economy over the next 30 years.

Many people from my constituency work in Plymouth. I want to ensure that we have the necessary legislation in place to make the most of these new opportunities. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Oliver Colvile), who cannot be here today, for sponsoring the Bill.

[Mr Nuttall]

I am interested to hear that there have been developments in this field this year. Will my hon. Friend tell the House whether she has received any direct representations since the publication of the Bill?

[Sheryll Murray]

I have received one e-mail requesting a meeting from WWF, which is very friendly towards the Bill and is working to progress it. I have also written to my local press and contacted the local media explaining the Bill and its economic benefits, and they have all seen it as a move towards the future by the United Kingdom.

The Prime Minister has welcomed the fact that more than 80 UK companies have been identified as having the relative expertise for the UK contractor to work with them. He also welcomed the industry workshop event that was arranged to follow the ceremony celebrating the granting of the contract.

One immediate example of the benefits to the United Kingdom was the announcement at that event of environmental work planned by the UK contractor. It has assembled a team of six world-class scientists, including one from the National Oceanography Centre in Southampton, which I am sure will please the hon. Member for Brent North, and one from the Natural History museum. They will work alongside the company in an environmental survey expedition to study the taxonomy of deep-sea organisms, of which little is currently known. That is a good reflection of the expertise we have in this country, and it is important for UK scientists to work at the cutting edge of science.

The importance of the new industry is clear, but what exactly is deep-sea mining and what does it involve? By deep-sea mining we mean the deep sea, not anywhere near any coastal settlements. In fact, we mean at least 200 nautical miles out to sea. Of course, the UK does not have a complete 200-mile limit. I cannot really envisage any deep-sea mining taking place in the channel, but we have a median line there because the channel is fewer than 200 nautical miles wide.

The contract held by the UK company for the exploration of polymetallic nodules is for an area in the mid-Pacific, in the Clarion-Clipperton zone. It is important to emphasise that deep-sea mining is not fracking, nor does it involve many of the techniques associated with land-based mining. Specifically, deep-sea mining for polymetallic nodules does not involve the excavation of any rubble or the use of explosives.

[Mr Nuttall]

Although my hon. Friend says that it does not involve any excavation, as I read the Bill, it does not exclude that possibility. Will she confirm that it would be possible if a company wished to do it?

[Sheryll Murray]

I will come on to that, but I can inform my hon. Friend that I was referring specifically to polymetallic nodules, the harvesting of which does not involve the use of explosives. The nodules lie on the sea bed, or are partially embedded in sediment on the sea bed. Techniques to mine them are likely to involve scooping or vacuuming them up from the sea bed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Nuttall]

I read those comments, although I am sure that with the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt)—a predecessor of mine in Bury North—at the Dispatch Box this morning we have no need to fear, as the Bill will be handled with the utmost care.

Some important economic issues are at stake. It would be easy for an individual or company wanting to exploit the resources of the seabed to relocate to the jurisdiction they thought most favourable to them. Like my hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall, who so ably proposed the Bill this morning, I want our country to be the world leader in this industry. Despite the fact that it has been 32 years since the original Act was passed, we can still describe it as being in its infancy, and this nascent industry has great potential for the future.

[Sheryll Murray]

Does my hon. Friend agree that this country has always been a world leader in oceanographic studies, and that we should support those institutions through this Bill?

[Mr Nuttall]

It is true that this nation has been a world leader in exploring the world. As an island nation we have an affinity with the sea and a natural interest in deep-sea matters, exploring the seas and fishing—as my hon. Friend knows only too well. It is important that we continue that tradition, and I see the Bill as an opportunity to do just that. But there are risks, as my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) suggests, in that it would be all too easy for us to try to cover every environmental risk and make the terms of the licences so onerous that we would not only fail to attract companies from overseas to our jurisdiction, and thereby benefit economically from their success, but drive away British companies from our jurisdiction. They would look at our legislation and think, “We might as well relocate our company to some other jurisdiction.”

More than 160 other countries have signed up to the UN convention, so companies would have plenty of choice. It would be easy to shop around the world for a legislative environment that was more economically advantageous than ours. We must therefore exercise great care when examining this legislation.

On the face of it, this Bill is rather dull, and to a casual observer it could appear uninteresting. However, it is one that could open up the high seas—or, more accurately, our deepest oceans—to what could turn out to be the 21st century equivalent of the 19th-century gold rush. It is like the Klondike. The ocean depths contain some of the last unexplored areas on our planet. The Bill seeks to update the existing statute, which, as we have heard, dates back to 1981. It perhaps needs to be explained why an Act passed 32 years ago as a temporary measure is now not only being amended, but turned into a permanent fixture. Indeed, the original Act was so clearly intended to be a temporary measure that its official title included the words “Temporary Provisions”, while section 18(3) made provision for the Secretary of State to repeal it.

[Sheryll Murray]

Does my hon. Friend agree that that could have been because discussions were taking place about the UNCLOS agreement? It was always the intention of the House to introduce further legislation in line with UNCLOS, but that has never happened.

[Mr Nuttall]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Indeed, I was coming on to say that my understanding was precisely the same. The 1981 Act set out to regulate mining on the sea bed in the farthest and deepest oceans of the world. The reason it was required was that it had been discovered that valuable hard mineral resources, known as manganese or polymetallic nodules, existed on the seabed, as we have heard, and United Kingdom companies, among others, were interested in mining them.

[Mr Nuttall]

I cannot give any assurances about that; it is not for me to do that. I know that the hon. Gentleman is concerned about environmental protection, and quite rightly too, but I venture to submit that if the Bill is not made friendly towards companies, there is a danger that they will go and seek some other jurisdiction with a lot fewer environmental protections than in this country. There is a danger in going too far the other way. We have to strike the right balance on these matters, and I believe the Bill attempts to do that.

United Kingdom companies at that time were among those interested in mining polymetallic nodules. The idea behind the 1981 Act was to provide a statutory framework for the development of a nascent industry. As my hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall said, it was passed in the full knowledge that negotiations were taking place at the United Nations. As we have heard, unfortunately, things did not proceed quite as fast as parliamentarians at the time thought they might. That might be due to a difficulty with the technology. Indeed, it is interesting to consider that man was able to send rockets and put men on the moon, the satellite of our planet, back in the 1960s, yet it has proved to be technologically much more difficult to travel to the depths of our planet.

A United Nations conference on the law of the sea had for several years been working towards an agreement on establishing an international system for regulating the exploitation of the mineral resources of our oceans. It was hoped that when a satisfactory agreement had been reached and had entered into force, the international arrangements would supersede the national provisions contained in the 1981 Act. It was for that reason that the legislation was sold to the House as a temporary measure. The Government of the day anticipated that there would be no need for any national legislation once the United Nations convention came into force.

The Government of the day were understandably keen to improve the security and availability of future supplies of vital raw materials for our UK industries. The UK was, and still is, heavily dependent on a small number of countries for supplies of minerals that are critical raw materials for our manufacturing industries. The possibility of securing our own supplies of minerals such as nickel, cobalt, copper or manganese from the sea bed was understandably regarded as a very welcome prospect indeed. Furthermore, the prospect of UK companies participating in the new industrial activity of sea-bed mining promised an economic opportunity for the benefit of the companies involved and the wider British economy.

The nodules that gave rise to that flurry of interest and activity were described at the time not as being like golf balls, as my hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall described them, but as like charred potatoes that varied in size and, where they occurred, were like a carpet on the sea bed in a single layer. We do not yet fully understand how and why the nodules form, but it is clear that they apparently require the undisturbed conditions that are found only in the deepest areas of the ocean. Although the nodules were found in various parts of the ocean, only very few areas contained sufficiently rich deposits to justify the enormous costs of establishing commercial mining operations. The deposits of nodules are beyond the limits of national jurisdictions and were consequently treated as resources of the high seas, which any nation could attempt to recover.

It is perhaps worth considering what exactly it is envisaged will be mined as a result of the Bill. There are essentially three types of minerals involved. First are the polymetallic nodules, which contain manganese, copper, cobalt and nickel. As my hon. Friend mentioned, they either occur on the surface or are partially buried, and are discovered at depths of 3,000 to 6,000 metres—in other words, some 4 miles deep, so we are not talking about something that one can undertake lightly. It is estimated that the global reserves of deep-sea manganese nodules are in the order of 10 billion tonnes. Those of greatest economic interest are made up, on average, of about 30% manganese, 1.5% nickel, 1.5% copper and 0.3% cobalt. However, I understand that the presence of traces of other, rare earth elements might also attract interest in these resources, particularly as the supply of such metals from land-based resources is reducing.

Secondly, there are polymetallic sulphides, which are sulphide deposits found at water depths of up to 3,700 metres in mid-ocean ridges, back-arc rifts and sea-mounts. They often carry high concentrations of copper, zinc and lead, in addition to gold and silver. That is what gave me the idea that there could be a 21st century Klondike in the deep sea. Thirdly, there are ferromanganese crusts, in which cobalt-rich iron-manganese forms on the sea floor. These, too, could lead to mining activity.

Before I began to research the Bill, the letters “ISA” had always stood for “individual savings account”. Now, when I see them, I think of the International Seabed Authority. That new body was established under the United Nations convention on the law of the sea, and it plays a pivotal role in deep-sea mining. The authority has stated that the areas of exploration have not advanced much since 1981. They still mainly comprise the Clarion-Clipperton fracture zone in the equatorial north Pacific ocean, south and south-east of Hawaii, and the central Indian basin in the Indian ocean. Exploration for polymetallic sulphides is also taking place in the south-west Indian ridge and in the mid-Atlantic ridge.

Unsurprisingly, in view of the potential economic importance of those resources, there has been considerable international interest in, and concern about, the nature of their exploitation. In 1967 and 1970, that concern was formalised in two resolutions of the United Nations. The first sought to impose a complete moratorium on deep-sea mining until international arrangements had come into force. The second was a declaration of principle stating that the sea bed beyond the limits of national jurisdiction, and its resources, were the common heritage of mankind.

A United Nations conference on the law of the sea was convened in 1973 to negotiate an international system of regulation for sea-bed mining. No agreement was reached by the time of the passage of the 1981 Act, even though the conference had met regularly since 1973 and made some progress on developing an international regime. The negotiations were sufficiently advanced, however, for it to be fairly clear that any convention emanating from the talks would contain complex provisions for operations by private companies and by an international sea-bed authority. Incidentally, the negotiations apparently stalled because the United States decided to carry out a full review of its policy on the law of the sea, and therefore decided not to play an active role in those negotiations.

Those uncertainties demonstrated the problems that would face Governments and mining companies until an international convention could be agreed and ratified. Because of those uncertainties, the United Kingdom Government of the day considered it necessary to pass the 1981 Act as an interim measure to give the UK mining industry a firm basis for proceeding, pending an international agreement being reached.

[Sheryll Murray]

Does my hon. Friend agree that we had to pass an Act of Parliament even though we were a member of the European economic area because the competency lay with the member state? Because the European Economic Community was not a nation, it could not have that same recognition.

[Mr Nuttall]

I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend for bringing up the matter of the European Union. I was wondering whether we might be able to touch on that. She is absolutely right to suggest that the EU plays an important role in this matter. I understand that it has taken it upon itself to become a signatory to the convention, which demonstrates just how it can behave as though it were a single European state. It is clearly positioning itself so that, one day, it will be able to take over the organisation of and responsibility for passing legislation such as this. She might think that that is of little consequence, but she has highlighted a real fear. There is a danger that, if the European Union continues on the path that it appears to be taking, this will be yet another area over which this House will have no competence whatever.

As I was saying, the Government of the day considered the 1981 Bill necessary, because of all the uncertainty, in order to allow British companies to proceed with some certainty, notwithstanding the involvement of the European Community at that time.

I should point out that the 1981 Bill was by no means uncontroversial. Indeed, it divided the House on Second Reading and Third Reading. One concern that was raised at the time was that people wondered why it was necessary to introduce legislation at all, given the progress that was being made on securing an international agreement. Concern was expressed that, if the United Kingdom passed unilateral legislation, it could jeopardise the wider international treaty negotiations.

The answer was that that Government were keen to pass an interim measure because the text of the draft convention available at the time contained a provision for the convention not to become effective until 60 states had ratified it. That was the threshold set in the draft agreement. It was therefore clear that, even if agreement were reached fairly soon after the Bill had reached the statute book, it was likely that several years would pass before 60 states had ratified the treaty.

The Government of the day were absolutely right to predict that it would take several years to bring together that number of signatories. Indeed, although international agreement was reached the year after the Bill became law and the convention was signed on 10 December 1982 at Montego Bay in Jamaica, it was not until some 12 years later on 16 November 1994—one year after Guyana had become the 60th nation to ratify the convention—that it actually came into force. Members might wonder why it was signed at Montego Bay. The answer is that that is where the headquarters of what is now the International Seabed Authority are situated.

Another concern expressed at the time was that the delays and uncertainties in the international arrangements left the developing deep-sea mining industry in a difficult and uncertain position. The industry was in its infancy and had to carry out costly development work before being ready to embark on commercial operations. Understandably, mining companies were not prepared to invest the huge sums required to undertake this development work without a reasonably stable legal framework in which to operate. If the 1981 Act had never been passed, the Government feared that mining companies would allow their development programmes to run down, and if they did run down, there was no guarantee that they would ever be built up again.

A further reason why legislation was required was that the companies that had pioneered the development of sea-bed mining had already expended considerable efforts on prospecting large areas of the ocean floor. They wanted to secure their claims to potential areas of exploration and exploitation—the areas that they had identified as worthy of further investigation, particularly when other countries were already pressing ahead with their own national legislation.

The key concern was, of course, ensuring that the exploitation of the valuable mineral resources did not result in damage being caused to the marine environment. As already mentioned this morning, section 5 of the 1981 Act provided for protection of the marine environment, which was a central part of the legislation at that time, and it is the one section, incidentally, of the Act that is hardly altered at all by my hon. Friend’s Bill.

Of course, the whole purpose of the present Bill is to amend the 1981 Act. Although on the face of it, this Bill is very short, I venture to suggest that it is deceptively short. There are only two clauses, but the real meat lies in the schedule, which extends to no fewer than 12 paragraphs containing 11 separate sets of amendments over six pages.

The first of the amendments to the 1981 Act is designed to substitute proposed new subsections (1) and (2) in section 1 of the 1981 Act. That Act presently prohibits anyone covered by the section from undertaking mining activities in the deep sea without a licence. There are essentially two types of licence: exploration licences and exploitation licences. The provisions apply to UK nationals, Scottish firms or anybody incorporated under UK law and resident in any part of the UK. That is the 1981 definition, and I shall deal later with how the Bill proposes to extend it.

The crucial change is made to the description of what might be mined. The 1981 Act referred to “hard mineral resources”, but it is now proposed to change that to “mineral resource”, which is defined in amended subsection (6) as

“a solid, liquid or gaseous…resource”.

That definition is obviously much wider than the previous one, which was very specifically defined as meaning

“deposits of nodules containing…quantities”

of

“at least one of the following elements…manganese, nickel, cobalt, copper, phosphorous and molybdenum”

in “quantities greater than trace”. The new definition will allow several different explorers to start prospecting for different minerals at the same time in the same area.

In view of the much wider definition, I wonder what will be the likely increase in the number of explorers who will now need to seek a licence. I am sure that, when we hear from him, the Minister will want to reassure us that the Government have in place sufficient resources to enable them to deal with what I hope will be sudden rush of applicants wanting to take advantage of the opportunities provided once the Bill has passed through here and the other place.

The crucial definitions in amended section 2 introduce references to the International Seabed Authority and to what the provisions refer to as a “corresponding contract”, defined as

“a contract…granted by the Authority to the licensee”

either to explore or exploit mineral resources in a given licensed area. As has been said, this is very much a twin-track approach. It is no good a company only obtaining a licence from the UK, as it must at the same time ensure that it has a contract from the International Seabed Authority.

There is also a requirement to pay a fee to the Government, so we need not think that there will necessarily be a cost to the UK Government, although I express the hope that any fee does not put off potential applicants. As I said earlier, there is a real danger that if we do not establish a friendly regime for exploration companies, they will simply go elsewhere. Nevertheless, the requirement to pay a fee is retained. Proposed new subsection (3) of section 2 makes it clear to applicants that double authorisation is required by specifying that a licence granted by the Secretary of State under the UK legislation shall

“not come into force before the date on which a corresponding contract comes into force.”

It will thus not be sufficient for any individual or company to obtain just a licence.

Proposed new subsection (3A) sets out a minimum list of terms and conditions that a licence may include. I add, although the hon. Member for Brent North is no longer in his place, that this subsection could provide the means and the mechanism by which any further environmental protection that the Government felt necessary in any particular case could be dealt with—without any necessity to amend the Bill in Committee or on Report.

Proposed new subsection (5) provides that where a person has been

“granted an exploration licence, the Secretary of State may not grant an exploitation licence which relates to any part of the licensed area”

or to

“any of the mineral resources to which that licence relates”

to anyone other than

“the holder of the exploration licence”

without their “written consent”.

Of course, that immediately poses the question why, when an exploitation licence can be granted only to someone who has an exploration licence, anyone would want to go prospecting on the patch of someone else. I thought that that could happen only if they had in mind a joint venture agreement with the holder of the exploration licence and cut a deal with them.

The amended section 8 adds two new subsections to reflect the fact that under the terms of the 1994 agreement, there is a requirement for judicial and arbitration decisions to be recognised. This area was not covered at all in the 1981 Act. Sections 9 and 10 of the 1981 Act are then removed. Perhaps worthy of note is just how much debate and discussion took place around the two clauses when the Bill was debated back in 1981. Hours and hours were spent considering them, and we now discover, 32 years later, that neither the deep-sea mining levy nor the deep-sea mining fund have, in fact, ever operated at all.

The schedule then makes provision for the list of definitions to be extended to take into account the new structures and terms introduced by the 1994 agreement. Finally, it removes the reference to the 1981 Act as a temporary measure and it removes the provisions that allowed the Secretary of State to repeal it. I assume that it is the intention of my hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall for this legislation to become permanent.