HC Deb 11 November 1969 vol 791 cc199-206

4.14 p.m.

The Attorney General (Sir Elwyn Jones)

With permission, I should like to make a statement.

I am glad to be able to inform the House that agreement has been reached between the Governments of the United Kingdom and France and the owners and time charterers of the "Torrey Canyon" for the settlement of claims made by the two Governments for the damage, loss and expense incurred as a result of the escape of oil from the vessel after it stranded on the Seven Stones in March, 1967. These claims have been the subject of proceedings instituted in Singa pore by the United Kingdom Government, and in Rotterdam by the French Government.

There has been full co-operation between the United Kingdom and French Governments throughout this matter, and the two Governments have acted at every stage in joint consultation.

The owners and time charterers have agreed to pay the sum of £3 million in full and final settlement of the claims of the two Governments, between whom this sum is to be shared equally. The settlement is also in satisfaction of any liability for damage sustained by the States of Guernsey. The United Kingdom Government have already substantially reimbursed those local authorities and other public and dock authorities in this country who sustained loss and expense as a consequence of the stranding, and the Government's payments to them have formed part of the claim for damages which has now been settled.

The owners denied liability and challenged the quantification of damages which the Governments estimated at about £6 million. The sum of £3 million is thus virtually half of the maximum sum that might have been recovered if we had succeeded on every issue. The owners claimed to be entitled to limit their liability for damages to a sum based on the tonnage of the ship. Had this succeeded, the total amount available for all the claimants would have been only about £3/4 million—and even that sum would have been available only if we had succeeded in establishing liability.

Throughout the negotiations the Government have been anxious to protect the legal rights of private persons who may have suffered damage to their property directly attributable to the pollution. Private claimants would undoubtedly face formidable difficulties, both legal and practical, in trying at their own expense to establish claims against the owners and charterers, almost certainly in foreign courts.

Accordingly, I am pleased to be able to say that the owners have, in addition to settlement of the public claims, agreed to offer ex gratia a measure of compensation to individuals and firms whose property was damaged or who incurred expense in protecting it from damage, where their damage or expenditure has not been the subject of insurance recovery or financial relief from other sources.

Claimants who can establish that they have incurred expense in ridding their property of pollution, or in protecting it from pollution, or who have suffered loss directly attributable to pollution of their property, should, if they wish to take advantage of this offer, get in touch with the owners' solicitors, Messrs. Ince & Co., of 10 and 11 Lime Street, London, E.C.3. They will then be supplied with claim forms which should be completed and returned to those solicitors by, at latest, 11th May next year. These claimants may expect to be offered compensation on a basis comparable to that negotiated by the two Governments.

The owners have agreed to make available a sum up to a total of £25,000 for the purpose of compensating these claimants in both countries. This sum, on the basis of the information available to the two Governments, should be sufficent for that purpose, but if the cost of settling these claims exceeds this sum the two Governments have agreed to indemify the owners against any excess in their respective countries. For this reason the settlement of United Kingdom claims will require the Treasury Solicitor's approval.

Should any legal liability to British residents arise which falls outside the scope of these provisions—which I think is extremely unlikely—the Government and the owners have agreed to share it equally between them.

I am satisfied that, having regard to the uncertainties, inevitable delays, and expense of litigation, which would have had to be conducted abroad, the complex and unique points of law involved in establishing legal liability, and, finally, the difficulties involved in quantifying and proving damages, this settlement is eminently fair and satisfactory to all parties.

Sir P. Rawlinson

I appreciate that in any compromise or settlement the claimant get less than the sum claimed, and presumably this is acceptable only because of doubts and difficulties over liability. Allowing for the owners' settlement, what will be the consequence to public funds? Will it be £3 million, or in excess of £3 million?

Secondly, of the £12,750 for private claimants, is the Attorney-General satisfied that that will meet the bulk of them, or will there be a further claim on public funds in respect of them?

Thirdly, what steps are Her Majesty's Government taking to implement the recommendation of the Select Committee to obtain an agreed policy on compensation for loss and damage arising from oil spillage, which should then be incorporated into international law and thus in future avoid these difficulties over legal liability which have proven so expensive for the taxpayer?

The Attorney-General

So far as the Government are concerned, in this country public funds will benefit to the tune of £1½ million from this settlement. We do not anticipate any additional expenditure in respect of compensation to private claimants who may be entitled to claim under the scheme. But, as I have said, if it proves to be insufficient, the owners and the Government will share the liability to the extent indicated in the statement that I have mentioned. But we think that £25,000 ought to more than cover the likely claims.

With regard to the right hon. and learned Gentleman's last question, he will probably know that at this very moment aninternational diplomatic conference is taking place in Brussels, where the creation of a convention to improve greatly the position of coastal States is being considered. A convention to improve the rights and powers of coastal States to takeaction to forestall pollution in the event of a casualty is being considered, together with a further convention on liability for damages arising from oil pollution. The present position is clearly unsatisfactory, and it is because of the unsatisfactory nature of the present law that this matter has had to be dealt with on a compromise basis.

Mr. Pardoe

A very important precedent has clearly been set by the agreement. Can the Attorney-General tell us what is the shortfall between what has been won for this country by the agreement and the total cost to public funds of the "Torrey Canyon" episode? Is he satisfied that the law of this country, leaving aside international law for the moment, places sufficient liability for the damages from oil pollution on the polluters? Will he introduce legislation to make sure that pollution does not pay?

The Attorney-General

The last question is essentially one for international settlement and international convention, and that the Government have actively pursued. Within 12 days of the "Torrey Canyon" disaster a special meeting of I.M.C.O.—the Inter-Governmental Maritime Consultative Organisation—was summoned to deal with the very problem raised by the hon. Gentleman, who has a great interest in this matter.

The shortfall, as he describes it, is about £1½1/2 million. But, as I have said, if the case had gone to trial in Singapore and in due course, perhaps four, five, six, or seven years from now, had found its way into the Privy Council, there would have been considerable difficulties. I must not exaggerate the matter, otherwise the solicitors acting on the other side may be accused of having sold the pass for their clients. But there would have been real difficulties in the matter, and accordingly, the state of the law being what it is, I, along with counsel and the Treasury Solicitor acting for the Government in this matter, was most ready and willing to commend this settlement to the Government.

Mr. Arthur Lewis

My right hon. and learned Friend said in his statement that we made a claim for £6 million and eventually £3 million was the agreed settlement. Then, in answer to the right hon. and learned Member for Epsom (Sir P. Rawlinson), he said that the cost to the Government would be £1½ million. If we requested £ 6 million and are getting only half that amount, how can my right hon. and learned Friend tally up those amounts?

The Attorney-General

Either my hon. Friend's customary speed and clarity of mind have deserted him on this occasion, or perhaps momentarily I did not make myself clear—

Mr. Arthur Lewis

It is always the latter.

The Attorney-General

That may be, but let us not quarrel, we brothers of West Ham.

The position is that, as I said, £3 million is shared between the two Govern. ments. The sum of £6 million was the totality of the claim of the British and French Governments. Half of £3 million, as my hon. Friend will readily recognise, is £½½1/2 million.

Mr. Wingfield Digby

While I recognise that the settlement is probably satisfactory in the somewhat difficult circumstances of this case, and hope that it will not be a precedent and that I.M.C.O. will be able to reach a solution, will the Attorney-General say that the Government, now less inhibited, will take a fresh look at the recommendations of the Select Committee, reached after much thought, and try to give rather straighter answers to some of the recommendations, particularly recommendations (6), (13) and (18)?

The Attorney-General

The House debated the Select Committee's Report, and the Government have published a White Paper. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we have taken a principal role in the international field. Lord Devlin is leading the British delegation in the conference in Brussels. I must emphasise that in this problem international action is absolutely vital. The stranding took place on the high seas, not within our territorial waters, and that gave rise to difficult problems, as the hon. Gentleman can imagine.

Mr. Emery

Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman consider the question of compensation to local authorities, both county and lower bodies? There is still some feeling that they have not been fully compensated, and that certain costs are still falling on the ratepayers. Does the settlement mean that local authorities in the South-West will be able to go to the Government in the hope of having further considered any other claims they may have in the matter?

The Attorney-General

The Government payments from central funds to local authorities amounted to nearly 80 percent. of their total net expenditure. The hon. Gentleman's question should perhaps be addressed to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government.

Sir H. Legge-Bourke

As Chairman of the Select Committee that dealt with the question of coastal pollution in the light of the "Torrey Canyon" wreck, may I say how glad I am that the outcome has been as favourable as it has been. But may Ialso ask this for the future: will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give an assurance that the Government will now seriously reconsider the evidence given to the Select Committee by Captain Dickson and Mr. Holdsworth, of Shell, and Sir Solly Zuckerman and others about the need to amend the law of salvage?

The Attorney-General

We will certainly look at that point. May I reply to the courtesy of the hon. Gentleman by saying how grateful I was for the help he was personally willing to give during the course of this litigation.