The Earl of Dalkeith (Edinburgh, North)I beg to move Amendment No. 11, in page 13, line 37, at the end to insert:
(4) Nothing in section 1 of this Act as applied to tidal waters by section 8 of this Act or in section 22 of the principal Act as applied to tidal waters by section 29 thereof shall apply to discharges of oil or mixtures containing oil which are subject to the provisions of the Oil in Navigable Waters Acts 1955 and 1963.This is the same Amendment as I moved in Committee. It was designed primarily to try to sort out the complications which arise as a result of two pieces of legislation which overlap. In Committee, I received some fairly unsatisfactory answers from the Under-Secretary of State in his rejection of my Amendment, but I did not at that time press him too hard because I realised that the complications were rather far-reaching and that it would take him and his advisers some time to sort them out and to understand how difficult was this problem. I have tabled this Amendment again in the hope that in the interval he has had time to reflect on it and the wisdom of accepting it.This is a matter which closely concerns not only the Secretary of State for Scotland, but the Minister of Transport, the Law Officers and, indeed, the Foreign Office. I am rather disappointed that none of the Ministers of those Departments is able to be here this afternoon, not only to hear the arguments which I put forward, but to support them, because I am sure that had they been in their seats they would have supported my case.
First, the Minister of Transport has considerable responsibility for shipping legislation throughout the United Kingdom. We are legislating for or against shipping, however one likes to put it, throughout the United Kingdom. Yet the right hon. Gentleman is not with us. Secondly, there is the Foreign Secretary, who must presumably have some interest in international conventions and agreements. I am sure that he would have very grave doubts about the wisdom of Scotland breaking international agreements unilaterally, which is what we are doing, and going behind the legislation produced as a result of those agreements 1334 in the form of the oil in Navigable Water Acts, of 1955 and 1963.
One might normally have expected that a Law Officer would be with us because this is a matter which involves not only Scottish law but international law. It is a disadvantage to the House and a pity that we should be deprived on an occasion like this of the valuable services of both a Lord Advocate and a Solicitor-General simply because of the inability of the Government to provide seats in the House of Commons for them. No doubt we shall continue to suffer from their absence in view of the lessons which the Government have, doubtless, learned from Leyton and Nuneaton.
§ Mr. Deputy-SpeakerOrder. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will relate his remarks to the Amendment.
The Earl of DalkeithI will go on to other points, Dr. King.
I suggest that it would be very useful if we had a Law Officer with us. I would even go so far as to say that it would have been better if we had had an English Law Officer rather than none at all. We on this side are fortunate in having an adviser present.
The Minister of Transport is sorely missed. It is a most regrettable absence, because I feel that he would have had considerable sympathy for my Amendment. I should like to know from the Under-Secretary of State whether he has consulted the Minister of Transport on this matter and, if so, whether his right hon. Friend has given his unqualified approval for Scotland to go ahead in this way and to do what is being done, which is violating an international agreement designed to apply to the whole of the United Kingdom.
6.0 p.m.
Perhaps the hon. Gentleman might also say whether the Prime Minister is fully acquainted with what is going on. The Prime Minister is responsible for co-ordinating the activities of various Government Departments and Ministries and here we have an example of two Government Departments proceeding in diametrically opposite directions—the Ministry of Transport, on the one hand, and the Scottish Office on the other hand. It is a serious matter.
1335 Since the Committee stage I have looked carefully at the Government's reasons for not accepting the Amendment. In my view, none of those reasons for opposing it is valid. First, it was suggested that acceptance of the Amendment would involve a change in Government policy. I simply cannot agree with that. It would certainly seem to me that for the United Kingdom as a whole rather than in the exceptional cases covered by the Forth and Solway Orders, it would be non-acceptance of the Amendment which would involve a change in policy on the part of the Government. The Government's policy for the United Kingdom as a whole has always been clear ever since the Government ratified the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution of the Sea by Oil on 6th May, 1955. Furthermore, the Government confirmed their policy in ratifying the 1962 Convention on 28th August, 1963.
That, surely, is a clear indication that it was the Government's intention to respect those international agreements, which were embodied in the Oil in Navigable Waters Acts, 1955 and 1963, and that shipping would be subject to the same rules in this country as in other countries which were signatories to the same agreement and conventions. It therefore follows that if the Government are to be consistent in their policy, they should accept the Amendment.
The other main argument for rejecting the Amendment was that it would weaken this legislation. Various hon. Members suggested that it would be a waste of time cleaning the upper reaches of rivers if shipping was allowed to pollute the lower reaches without being prevented from so doing. If this was so I would have sympathy for that point of view—