HC Deb 07 April 1971 vol 815 cc615-39

Lords Amendment No. 1: In page 5, line 27, at end insert new Clause "A":

"A.—(1) The powers conferred by this section shall be exercisable where—

  1. (a) an accident has occurred to or in a ship, and
  2. (b) in the opinion of the Secretary of State oil from the ship will or may cause pollution on a large scale in the United Kingdom or in the water in or adjacent to the United Kingdom up to the seaward limits of territorial waters, and
  3. (c) in the opinion of the Secretary of State the use of the powers conferred by this section is urgently needed.

(2) For the purpose of preventing or reducing oil pollution, or the risk of oil pollution, the Secretary of State may give directions as respects the ship or its cargo—

  1. (a) to the owner of the ship, or to any person in possession of the ship, or
  2. (b) to the master of the ship, or
  3. (c) to any salvor in possession of the ship, or to any person who is the servant or 616 agent of any salvor in possession of the ship, and who is in charge of the salvage operation.

(3) Directions under subsection (2) above may require the person to whom they are given to take, or refrain from taking, any action of any kind whatsoever, and without prejudice to the generality of the preceding provisions of this subsection the directions may require—

  1. (a) that the ship is to be, or is not to be, moved, or is to be moved to a specified place, or is to be removed from a specified area or locality, or
  2. (b) that the ship is not to be moved to a specified place or area, or over a specified route, or
  3. (c) that any oil or other cargo is to be, or is not to be, unloaded or discharged, or
  4. (d) that specified salvage measures are to be, or are not to be, taken.

(4) If in the opinion of the Secretary of State the powers conferred by subsection (2) above are, or have proved to be, inadequate for the purpose, the Secretary of State may, for the purpose of preventing or reducing oil pollution, or the risk of oil pollution, take, as respects the ship or its cargo, any action of any kind whatsoever, and without prejudice to the generality of the preceding provisions of this subsection the Secretary of State may—

  1. (a) take any such action as he has power to require to be taken by a direction under this section,
  2. (b) undertake operations for the sinking or destruction of the ship, or any part of it, of a kind which is not within the means of any person to whom he can give directions,
  3. (c) undertake operations which involve the taking over of control of the ship.

(5) The powers of the Secretary of State under subsection (4) above shall also be exercisable by such persons as may be authorised in that behalf by the Secretary of State.

(6) Every person concerned with compliance with directions given, or with action taken, under this section shall use his best endeavours to avoid any risk to human life.

(7) If the person to whom a direction is duly given under this section contravenes, or fails to comply with, any requirement of the direction, he shall be guilty of an offence under this section.

(8) In proceedings for an offence under subsection (7) above, it shall be a defence for the accused to prove that he has used all due diligence to ensure compliance with the direction or that he had reasonable cause for believing that compliance with the direction would have involved a serious risk to human life.

(9) If a person wilfully obstructs any person who is acting in compliance with a direction under this section, or who is acting under subsection (4) or (5) of this section, the first mentioned person shall be guilty of an offence under this section.

(10) No direction under this section shall apply to a ship—

  1. (a) which is not a ship registered in the United Kingdom, and
  2. (b) which is for the time being outside the territorial waters of the United Kingdom,
and no action shall be taken under subsection (4) or (5) above as respects any such ship.

(11) No direction under this section shall apply to any vessel of Her Majesty's Navy, or to any Government ship, and no action shall be taken under subsection (4) or (5) above as respects any such vessel or ship.

In this subsection "Government ship" has the same meaning as in section 80 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1906.

(12) A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable—

  1. (a) on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £50,000,
  2. (b) on conviction on indictment to a fine.

(13) The provisions of this section are without prejudice to any rights of powers of Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom exercisable apart from this section whether tinder international law or otherwise.

(14) Schedule (shipping casualties) to this Act shall have effect for supplementing this section and this section is in that Schedule referred to as "the principal section".

(15) In this section, unless the context otherwise requires— accident" includes the loss, stranding, abandonment of or damage to a ship, specified", in relation to a direction under this section, means specified by the direction.

Read a Second time.

11.47 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Anthony Grant)

I beg to move, as an Amendment to the Lords Amendment, to leave out subsection (10) and insert— (10) Her Majesty may by Order in Council provide that this section and Schedule (shipping casualties) to this Act, together with any other provisions of this Act shall apply to a ship—

  1. (a) which is not a ship registered in the United Kingdom, and
  2. (b) which is for the time being outside the territorial waters of the United Kingdom, in such cases and circumstances as may be specified in the Order, and subject to such exceptions, adaptations and modifications, if any, as may be so specified.
An Order in Council under this subsection may contain such transitional and other consequential provisions as appear to Her Majesty to be expedient. (10A) Except as provided by an Order in Council under subsection (10) above, no direction under this section shall apply to a ship which is not registered in the United Kingdom and which is for the time being outside the territorial waters of the United Kingdom, and no action shall he taken under subsection (4) or (5) above as respects any such ship. I think it would be convenient to take, with this Amendment, Lords Amendments Nos. 3 and 4.

The Government welcome this new Clause and the associated Schedule which give the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry powers either to direct the owners or salvors of a damaged ship within our territorial waters to take action to avoid pollution or to take action himself if necessary. This was not a matter which either the Government or, I believe, our predecessors had in mind when the Bill was first prepared, but the incident involving the tanker "Pacific Glory" late last year highlighted our vulnerability and the need for the Government to have additional powers. These the new Clause provides, and I am sure they are a valuable addition to the powers available to the Government in combating oil pollution.

It may assist the House if I explain the effect of the new Clause and the Schedule. The new Clause will give the Government power, backed by criminal sanctions, to deal with threats of large-scale oil pollution arising from shipping casualties where the ship in question is within our jurisdiction; that is to say, a ship registered in the United Kingdom or a foreign ship within our territorial or internal waters. In such a case the Clause will ensure that action which the Government consider appropriate is taken and that a defence, subject to certain safeguards, is provided if action is taken which damages the property or interests of a ship owner or other person affected in circumstances which might otherwise give rise to a civil claim against the Government.

The major emphasis of the Clause is upon a power to give directions to ship owners and salvors. Under subsections (1), (2) and (3) the Secretary of State may give directions where oil has escaped or been discharged as a result of an accident, or is likely to do so, and, in his opinion, pollution on a large scale can be expected to result therefrom. The directions must relate to the ship or its cargo; otherwise they may be unlimited in scope, but subsection (3) gives examples of actions which may be required.

Under subsections (4) and (5) the Secretary of State may, if he thinks that the powers to give directions are inadequate for the purpose of preventing or reducing oil pollution or the risk of it, himself take any action for that purpose. Examples of such actions are given, including actions which could not properly be the subject of directions. Subsection (6) requires every person concerned with compliance with a direction or with action under the Clause to use his best endeavour to avoid any risk to human life. Failure to comply with directions and wilful obstruction of a person carrying out the direction or taking action under the Clause are prescribed as punishable in this country as a breach of the 1955 Act, which will, under Clause 1, mean a fine within a maximum of £50,000 on summary conviction or a fine without limit on conviction on indictment. The Government regard it as appropriate that the fines should be similar, for a discharge of oil as a result of one of these offences is essentially the same as deliberate discharge.

12 midnight.

Moreover, there could be the same need for quick procedures before a magistrate before the master or salvor of a ship left our jurisdiction. A defence is provided in subsection (8) for a person accused of a contravention of, or a failure to comply with, a direction if he proves that he used all due diligence to ensure compliance with the direction or he had reasonable cause for believing that compliance would have involved a serious risk to human life.

Subsection (10) in the Lords Amendment confines the effect of the Clause to ships which are within United Kingdom jurisdiction. Subsection (13) makes it clear that the Clause does not affect our rights in international law, and subsection (11) exempts naval and other Government ships. The remaining subsections are explanatory.

I will not go into the Schedule in any great detail, although I shall be glad to deal with any points which hon. Gentlemen wish to raise. Briefly, it provides an important safeguard for the owners of the ship and the cargo and any other persons who may suffer damage as a result of unreasonable action under the Clause. The Title is also altered, in Lords Amendment No. 4, because the new Clause and Schedule go beyond the Long Title of the Bill.

The Clause as a whole gives the Government extensive powers, which we believe are necessary and valuable, but they would not have helped us in the case of the recent "Panther" accident, about which we were all concerned. Even if the Bill had been in force, because the "Panther" lay outside our territorial waters the position would not have been covered.

The position which arose in the early stages of that accident, with the attempts by the first salvor on the scene to prevent other salvage tugs from rendering assistance in the efforts to refloat the ship, illustrates the kind of thing which this Clause of the Lords Amendment is designed to avoid when a stricken ship lies within our jurisdiction. But it does not deal with foreign ships outside our jurisdiction. Hence the Amendment to the Lords Amendment which I have tabled.

I think that the House will agree that the purpose of the Amendment is a timely and worth-while one. It is to ensure beyond all doubt that the Government will have power to deal with foreign ships which may meet with an accident and give rise to the danger of oil pollution of our waters and beaches from a point outside our territorial waters. We should not want any shadow of doubt to remain that we lack powers to deal with any future cases similar to the "Panther". Accordingly, the Amendment will enable an Order in Council to be made authorising the Secretary of State to give directions and to take action in such cases.

The new subsection (10) introduced by this Amendment will enable the Government, by Order in Council, to apply all or any of the provisions of the new Clause and the related Schedule to ships on the high seas which are not registered in the United Kingdom.

The Order can be made to apply to those ships in such cases and circumstances as may be specified in the Order. For example, it could be applied, in the light of experience, to oil tankers of a certain size or when in specified areas, such as the English Channel.

The new Clause in its entirety may not be suitable for application to foreign ships on the high seas. For instance, the application of the criminal penalties might not be appropriate, so my Amendment enables the Order to make the application subject to exceptions, adaptations and modifications. There is, therefore, a wide degree of necessary flexibility, and the Order will be subject to the annulment procedure. I hope this Amendment will commend itself to the House as a measure enabling us to deal with the type of situation we have been confronted with in the last few days.

In conclusion, I emphasise that it will he the Government's intention in the first instance in any such disaster to proceed by way of consultation both with the owners of the ship and its cargo and also with any salvors involved. We shall do so not only because they have legitimate interests which must be respected but because they may have expert knowledge, not available to the Government, of which we should want to take full advantage. But we may not always be able to rely on co-operation, and the new Clause and my Amendment provide us with valuable reserve powers to protect our reasonable interests from damage or threat of damage.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Robert Grant-Ferris)

I should inform the House that a question of Privilege is involved in the Lords Amendment.

Mr. Roy Mason (Barnsley)

We cannot allow this Amendment to go through without debate. The Minister has not only made a major addition to the Bill in the other place but has introduced, at the eleventh hour, a new provision which empowers the Government to deal with the "Panther"-type incident, where there is a stranding which threatens pollution to our coastline, irrespective of the nationality of the vessel, beyond our own territorial waters. That is a step along the path which we have been pressing the Minister to take, and, of course, we welcome the new Clause and Schedule and the Amendment.

In Committee four new Clauses were added to the Bill—it was virtually a new Bill—and now we have the major Lords Amendment and the Amendment to it. It reminds me of the Christmas tree Bills passing through the various stages in Congress and the Senate. It is not the best way of introducing legislation. Because of the protracted progress of the Bill everyone seems to be hanging on to it all sorts of Amendments en route.

We welcome the new Clause, the Schedule and the new Amendment, but they fall short of really being effective. They give power to a coastal State to take action against a ship which has been involved in a collision, accident or stranding and is threatening coastal pollution.

That brings me to my first query on the major Amendment, new Clause A, which states: The powers conferred by this section shall be exercisable where…in the opinion of the Secretary of State oil from the ship will or may cause pollution on a large scale…". Why are the words "on a large scale" included? Why restrict the Government's powers? What does "large scale" mean? The Secretary of State will have to determine this before there is a leakage from a stranded ship and will be hesitant to act before a leakage occurs. Why not omit the words "large scale" and leave it at "will or may cause pollution"? Surely that would be an improvement, would be welcomed by us and would cut out ambiguity and give the Secretary of State better and more positive powers.

The Lords Amendment does not cover methane tankers, vessels carrying high explosives and so on. Why not? In view of the many Amendments made to the Bill, surely the Government could have tackled that subject as well. There is danger to life, both on the vessels and on the coast line, if there is stranding near a built-up area. These vessels could be highly dangerous shipping casualties. It would have been worth while including an Amendment to cover them as well.

All of us who have taken an interest in the progress of the Bill have come to realise that, under pressure, the Government are stepping up their powers to intervene where there are shipping accidents or casualties both inside and outside territorial waters. That is positive progress. There has been a series of Parliamentary debates and a great deal of pressure has been exerted on the Government by the Opposition. Unfortunately, during this period there has been a series of collisions and deaths and threats of polluted beaches. Fortunately, the Government are now on the move.

It is time the Government spelt out the growing dangers in the English Channel, the likelihood of more accidents and more collisions and certainly the growing possibilities of coastal pollution. I hope they will consider our charter for Channel safety and especially the question of having such a charter discussed with our European neighbours.

In view of the Press publicity emanating from his Department, I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman has not made any mention of taking the initiative with his European colleagues with a view to determining that the whole of the Channel shall be controlled, and all the ships going through it. Recently, I.M.C.O.—the Inter-governmental Maritime Consultative Organisation—met in London, yet the hon. Gentleman made no mention of that. One would have thought that he would have mentioned the possibility of a regional conference of Channel coastline countries on Channel safety. We have pressed the Government time and again to try to establish a regional agreement with France, Belgium and the Netherlands in order to be able to control the whole of the English Channel.

As long ago as 3rd December, 1970, in Committee on the Bill, I moved a new Clause on the regulation of navigation. I said then: My final point concerns the establishment of a regional agreement under I.M.C.O. The Intergovernmental Maritime Consultative Organisation informs me that it is quite feasible for a group of nations to establish a regional agreement if they wish to… I should have thought that the nations of Western Europe and Britain, who are the biggest sufferers"— from oil pollution, strandings and collisions in the Channel— could get together. Why should we not have a regional conference and establish a regional agreement, with special anti-collision or separation rules for these tankers—or, if necessary, the right-o-way technique that I have indicated that I should like to see? All this is feasible and, since we are the major sufferers from oil pollution, I should have thought that it was incumbent upon the Government to take the initiative by calling this Western European conference, so that we could establish a regional agreement. I.M.C.O. would then be able to inform other maritime nations of that regional agreement and our new coastal laws. If we can establish a regional agreement within I.M.C.O., this Clause will give us the necessary legal power to act immediately."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee D, 3rd December, 1970; c. 122.] In his reply, the hon. Gentleman said: Powers restricted to territorial waters would be of only marginal benefit".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee D, 3rd December, 1970; c. 123.] He poured cold water on the general proposition. We raised it again at Question Time on 13th January, and again on the Report stage of the Bill.

12.15 a.m.

We must look at the problem of shipping casualties in the Channel as a whole. We have to consider also the dangers, and their cost, the growing size of oil tankers, the frightening danger of oil pollution, the terrible cost to the local authorities, holiday-makers, the tourist trade, the environment, and the terrible cost to the Government if we have a major spillage.

Already, there are 100 200,000-ton tankers at sea. There are 200 more at the design stage or being built, and there is even a 500,000-ton tanker being built in Japan. Western Europe is importing more than 500 million tons of oil a year, the tonnage is increasing annually, and most of it is coming through the Channel.

In our coastal waters, in the North Sea south of Aberdeen, in the Irish Sea and in the English Channel, 60 per cent. of the world's collisions are taking place. Speaking of tankers alone, we expect at least 10 collisions or strandings in the Channel each year. At any time, it could be a 100,000-ton oil tanker split open from a collision or a stranding and swamping the French or the southern English coast with oil pollution.

We consider that to make the Channel much safer there should be the following agreement between France, Belgium, the Netherlands and Her Majesty's Government. First, we should Europeanise the Channel. By that I mean that we should extend our legal jurisdiction to the median line, and France, Belgium and the Netherlands should do likewise, the whole Channel thus becoming territorial waters. This is not new. It is not something which we cannot achieve. We did it by the Continental Shelf Act in the whole of the North Sea. Indeed, we have parcelled off the whole of the sea bed, and oil rigs can now establish themselves anywhere out to the median line from our English North Sea coastline. If we can do that for exploration and exploitation, we can do it for safety at sea.

Second, we could extend the two-way flow system and make it compulsory. Third, we could extend the range of the pilotage area and make it compulsory to have pilots on board dangerous vessels and the large tankers. Fourth, we could establish a priority system for wreck removal. It is a tragic reflection upon the Government that, in spite of many collisions and accidents and the growing dangers in the Channel, as long as three months ago the "Texaco Caribbean", the "Brandenberg", and recently the "Nikki" all sank, all are still hazardous wrecks and have not yet been removed.

Fifth, having established control of the Channel, the Channel countries would have power to develop proper surveillance and policing procedures and also coordinate aid and sea rescue services.

Control of the Channel and, therefore, of all the ships which go through it must ultimately come about. It is time that serious consideration was given to this proposal. It would be regarded as a special regional agreement in the interests of safety at sea, and I.M.C.O. would be responsible for letting all maritime nations know of its existence. Within such an agreement, we could determine the assembly and departure points at each end of the two-way flow system. We could enforce our anti-collision rules. When there were strandings and accidents, the salvors, the bounty hunters of the seas, would come under the control of our salvage rules. With compulsory pilotage of large oil tankers, especially flags of convenience vessels, we should be able to check upon the numbers and the quality of the certificated officers who man these ships.

Other safety ideas could be tried out and incorporated into law for Channel safety. A special lights identification signal for the super-tankers could be tried out. We could experiment with the anti-collision calculator, designed by Captain Stevenson and his shipping consultants on shipboard management systems. We could extend the use of the Racon beam danger signal—indicating danger points—as it is now being used on the Varne lightship guarding the three wrecks.

The possibilities of making the Channel much safer are obvious, provided that we can establish international recognition for this type of regional agreement with other Continental Channel countries.

The new Clause and the Amendment of the hon. Member, helpful though they are, do not basically tackle the problem of shipping casualties in the Channel. They provide powers after the accidents; we want powers to prevent the accidents taking place. That is the difference between us. Therefore, we await the day when we have a Minister and a Government with sufficient imagination to see the goal and the prize of a safe seaway. If we use our initiative to press more strongly for a charter for a safe Channel many of our fears about accidents in the Straits will quickly disappear.

Mr. Peter Rees (Dover)

It is right that in a fortnight that has seen the grounding of the "Panther" on the Goodwin Sands and the blowing up of the wrecks on Varne, with oil slicks appearing off the coast from Pegwell Bay to St. Margarets, we should be considering this Bill and the Amendments. I welcome the Bill and both the Lords Amendments and the Government Amendment.

But the question still to be asked is: does the Bill go far enough, and are the penalties stiff enough? The Bill is not designed to meet an abstract situation, and it is right to test it against the background of an actual situation—the grounding of the "Panther" last week. It is right to start our consideration from the basis that the Straits of Dover is one of the busiest thoroughfares in the world. At any given time there are about 200 ships in the Straits, and of those some at least will be tankers carrying 20,000 or more tons of oil.

More important, only a small part of the Straits lies within French or British territorial waters. Many ships are clearly not competently handled, particularly those sailing under flags of convenience. I do not want to prejudice the course of Liberian justice—I understand that my hon. Friend is pressing for an inquiry into the grounding of the "Panther"—but it is right to make it known publicly that—as far as I know—the radar was not operative at the time of the accident and the navigational aids were not effective.

The first message received from the ship, at 2.30 on Tuesday, merely said: Aground. Anyone near me? What is my position? Unknown. Approximately East Goodwins. Visibility very bad. At first no leaking. No assistance. I appreciate the delicacy of this privileged occasion, but this raises a prima facie case of negligence against the skipper. Unfortunately, this is not untypical of the handling of other ships in the Straits in the past few months. As a result we have had five cliff-hanging days.

I want to praise the measures taken by the local authorities. They responded very well to the crisis. I also want to mention the measures taken by my hon. Friend's Department. I pay tribute to the naval personnel employed in it. They were obviously quite on top of the situation. Their mobilised gates to break up the oil slicks, and the low toxicity detergents they had, were well-designed for this kind of emergency.

We were particularly relieved that the 20,000 tons or more of oil were not spilled on the Kentish coast. We sympathise with our Belgian friends at the fact that the ship should now be in a leaking condition off Flushing. But still the question remains: were the Department of Trade and Industry and the local authorities unduly circumscribed by the legal framework in which they were acting? Will the Bill, with the Amendments, put it right? For instance, could tankers have been brought more quickly to pump off the oil and lighten the ship? More particularly, why was one tug allowed to monopolise the field when there were another two standing by and when Captain Stuart, the Hammond's deep-sea pilot, who had been put aboard after the incident, had recommended that three tugs should be allowed to try to pull it off? Maybe they would not have succeeded, but maybe we should have been spared the five cliff-hanging days.

Against that background I have five questions for my hon. Friend. First, does the Bill give the Minister adequate powers to take control if a similar incident occurs in territorial waters or outside? Second, could he declare, in conjunction with the French, the whole Channel a prohibited zone and—I lift the words, obviously, from the 1955 Act—therefore insist that all tankers at least travelling in that zone should carry a pilot? Third, does the Bill empower the Minister to order a tanker to a scene of disaster whether within or outside territorial waters to pump oil out of a threatened ship, whether that ship be registered in Britain or not? Fourth, does the Bill empower him to over-ride the law of salvage and order a ship's captain and its owners to accept assistance from tugs available if he considers it necessary to pull the ship off a sand-bank, such as occurred in the "Panther" incident? Fifth, does the Bill extend the power of local authorities on land? Is it sensible to divide the responsibility at the three-fathoms mark between local authorities and the Department of Trade and Industry?

In the age of the motor car and oil-fired central heating, and with a voracious consumption of oil for industrial purposes, we all accept the need for large-scale transporation of oil. But the risks seems so great and the consequences of negligence so catastrophic to this country and its coasts that I, and, I am sure, many others, want to be reassured on the questions I have raised. I hope very much that my hon. Friend will be able to give us that reassurance in tonight's debate.

Mr. John Prescott (Kingston upon Hull, East)

I shall not repeat what my right hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason) has said, because we agree on a considerable amount of the charter that we have discussed, and have come to the conclusions before us as being the only way to tackle the problem. But I should like to take the opportunity, in the limited time available at this hour of the morning, to outline a problem I have constantly pursued both in Committee and on other legislation whether the point has been relevant.

I welcome the new Clause, because it is an advance on the old one; it improves it considerably. It goes some way to meeting some of our arguments in Committee about some of the problems arising from pollution which the Bill is designed to meet. It recognises the very real problem, emphasised by the Minister's statement, that a great deal of the pollution occurs outside our territorial waters.

One of the shipowners, Lord Geddes, told the Select Committee on Science and Technology investigating the "Torrey Canyon" incident that it was just a maverick incident and would not happen again. But we have seen in the past 12 months or so that that is far from true. Such incidents are happening with ever-increasing regularity. We have found that the accidents or collisions which have been occurring and causing pollution have been of ships belonging to other nations and not of British ships. Therefore, the degree of control is limited.

12.30 a.m.

Oil pollution can be caused not only as a result of discharging by oil tanker night-slickers, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, I think called them, but from sinkings. Many of the oil slicks to which the hon. and learned Member for Dover (Mr. Peter Rees) referred came from wrecks at the bottom of the sea, with the oil seeping out, or directly from the collisions or groundings of tankers like the "Panther".

The Bill gives the Minister extra powers. It gives him power to make judgments and to place Britain's interests firmly in the fore and to try to prevent many of the problems highlighted by the "Panther" incident and particularly problems arising from groundings on the Goodwin Sands and delay involved in tackling the problem. There is also the very sorry spectacle of salvage people exercising what has been considered to be their traditional right to salvage, although they are more concerned with the profit motive than with protecting Britain's beaches from pollution. The Minister has gone a long way to meeting some of the problems brought to his attention. I therefore congratulate him on going some way to acquire the power necessary to tackle this problem.

The next logical step is to deal with the problem of making gentlemen's agreements and then finding that they are not sufficient and Governments have to sign conventions, introduce fresh legislation and acquire sanctions and devise a deterrent system in the hope of preventing pollution, particularly from oil in navigable waters.

The Bill is a very good step forward and I welcome it. But it is primarily concerned with controlling United Kingdom ships in United Kingdom waters and deals with the situation which arises when there is a direct threat of pollution through a collision. Should not that control be extended to outside territorial waters and to vessels flying other countries' flags? This raises the whole issue of sovereignty of the high seas, but it is the only way to solve the problem.

The Bill deals with the trouble once it has occurred. Various measures which have been passed in this House have gone a long way to improving the techniques for dealing with pollution. But we are beginning to realise some of the problems inherent in that. A heavier substance can be put on oil floating on water to make it sink to the bottom of the sea, but that causes problems for the development of plant life and fish. This fact was brought to light in Hull where we tried to deal with a very small quantity of oil—only 200 tons—but created problems in the Humber. A small patch of oil can cause damage out of all proportion to its size. In the Humber, we found that oil pollution could not be dealt with by traditional methods because it presented a threat to the grass and other bank-strengthening plants, and so a number of polluted areas had to be left untreated.

The Bill does not go far enough, for it is still concerned with what is to be done when the problem has arisen. We have read in the Press that the Government intend to adopt some of the proposals which we suggested to them in Committee. One of those suggestions was the Europeanisation of the Channel so that we could deal with the problem where it occurs, so that countries bordering the Channel could agree that vessels plying this busy waterway should observe minimum standards. My right hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley made a clear case for the comprehensive charter which we believe to be the answer to the problem. Recent incidents tend to confirm that our approach is right.

In the last few years, and especially in the last few months, we have had the "Torrey Canyon", the "Pacific Glory", the "Texaco Caribbean", the "Brandenburg" and, more recently, the "Trinity Navigator", which ran aground at Bury Head, and the "Panther". They all had a common feature. Many were carrying oil and many were involved in collisions which resulted in deaths, and in total they have greatly contributed to much of the pollution and blooding of our beaches, particularly along the South Coast. But what they all have in common—and I mention those examples only because they are probably still fresh in the minds of hon. Members—is that they were all Liberian spiv ships. They all flew that flag of a country where shipping operators may buy a licence and an accommodation address and sovereignty for a few pieces of blooded silver.

The "Panther", the most recent example, proved a lesson which we should learn and from which we should condition how we progress towards a solution of this problem. The "Panther" incident showed that some of the large tankers—and the "Panther" is not large as modern tankers go—cause grave navigational problems.

That incident also proved that we have no power to board these vessels. I welcome the proposal that the Minister should have power by Order in Council to board a vessel and deal with any problem at the outset. It will be a great pleasure to ask the Minister Questions and not be told that the Government have no power to act. This new power will prevent the tug freebooting fraternity from scrapping over valuable cargo which is causing grave pollution problems in our waters.

The "Panther" incident also revealed that in these collisions and groundings there is almost always a serious navigational error. In revealing comments, the hon. and learned Member for Dover vividly explained the sort of messages which shore authorities were receiving about the ship's authorities not knowing where the ship was.

Many other vessels did not know their positions when they grounded. This is a reflection on the equipment and the competency of the certificated officers. It shows that the Liberian Government does not automatically hold inquiries into such incidents, as we do. Liberia represents one of the fastest-growing tanker nations, with over 36 per cent. of world tanker tonnage. Her percentage of accidents far exceeds that of other maritime nations. The flags of convenience vessels are floating bombs, manned by men from all parts of the world, lacking proper training and internationally recognised certificates of navigational competency.

These ships strike terror, and I use that word advisedly, into the hearts of those who man our lightships. They sit there, waiting, knowing that the vessels will come down the waterway, not heeding the recognised navigational signals, ploughing on, the quickest way there for the quickest return. Many members of my union are on the ferries that ply across the Channel. If one of these ships hits a ferry all hell will be let loose.

The only way to control this, the busiest waterway in the world, is for the countries on either side of it to get together and establish minimum standards. They should see that vessels which use the Channel have the best equipment and the most competent people to take them safely through. It should be pointed out that no vessel will be allowed to use the Channel unless it recognises these standards. Countries like Liberia are not prepared to sign Conventions. They have done so in some cases, but the Brussels Convention has not been signed by Liberia. We cannot wait for these countries to do something. It might be argued that if vessels observed traditional standards there would be no economic incentive to register in Liberia.

We must recognise the situation and control it and ban the fire bombs coming down the Channel which have no regard for our standards. This has to be done in British interests. It is essential for the safety of seafarers and mariners.

12.45 a.m.

Mr. Albert Booth (Barrow-in-Furness)

The Lords Amendment and the Government Amendment give power to the Secretary of State to give directions to masters or owners of vessels, after an accident has occurred, to prevent or reduce oil pollution of the sea and of our beaches. I believe that the power to direct masters and owners for this purpose should not be confined to instances when an accident has occurred but should be applied also to enable the Secretary of State to give directions to prevent an accident from occurring and, in particular, an accident which would result in pollution of the sea by oil.

One could adduce a great many reasons why such powers should be taken. Tonight, I confine myself to three. First, the Secretary of State should take power to give directions to masters or owners of tankers because, with the development of the giant tanker, there has come about the special problem of manœuvrability limits. A large tanker today commonly travels between one-half and three-quarters of a mile in the original direction of its course in order to make a 90-degree turn. It can travel between one-half and three-quarters of a mile at right angles to its original course in making a 180-degree turn and it can take six minutes to do that.

Therefore, the officer in charge of one of these large oil tankers has to take a decision at least six minutes before he would have to be in a position, at 180 degrees of his original course, to avoid an accident or collision, and he has to make that decision while he still has between one-half and three-quarters of a mile of seaway at right angles to his course, port or starboard. The need for a decision of that nature did not arise before the development of these giant vessels. It requires recognition in our legislation.

In the case of a 25,000-ton tanker—and my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) has shown that we may well have to consider even much larger vessels—a crash stop brought about by putting the engines full astern at a normal service speed of between 15 and 16 knots can still require two sea miles to bring the vessel to a standstill. Those two sea miles would be covered under these conditions, with engines going full astern, in 10 minutes.

Therefore, if the only way of averting collision is by running the propeller full astern and making a crash stop, the decision must be taken 2 miles before reaching the point where the vessel must be brought to a standstill. This would be a fearful restriction on manœuvrability if the ship were under rudder control for the whole 10 minutes and the whole of the two miles, but the situation is considerably worse because the ship loses rudder effect shortly after the engines are put full astern. The momentum of the ship, which carries it ahead while the engine is running full astern, ensures that the captain or the officer of the watch cannot, by rudder, control the direction of the ship. Very frequently, the ship stops after having gone through 90 degrees with no rudder control whatever.

If, to maintain rudder control, it is necessary to stop the engines and not run them astern, the officer of the watch can maintain rudder control for about two-thirds of the stopping distance, but the stopping distance then goes up to six miles. What chance of avoiding an accident, under normal conditions of manœuvrability, would one give to a vessel if it needed six miles to pull up, even with rudder control? Here, however, we are considering vessels which will be travelling at least two miles without rudder control. The first reason, therefore, why I believe that such powers should be taken concerning large vessels carrying huge quantities of oil is that special problems of manœuvrability are posed.

My second reason is that these vessels pose the necessity of far greater reliance on navigational equipment than has ever been known in seafaring. This stems in part from the problem of manœuvrability, but it is also related to a problem of scale. One can build bigger and bigger ships, one can build ships twice as big, but one cannot make a man on board one of them see twice as far.

It is also the case that the larger oil tanker has a higher economic speed, which means that the officer on watch or the master needs to know his exact position with a greater degree of accuracy. Therefore, he must have a greater dependence on navigational equipment. Recent accidents have given rise to doubts about whether navigational equipment was working accurately, or about the competence of those manning the bridge at the time to use navigational equipment properly. Even putting the most generous interpretation on the circumstances of recent large tanker accidents and groundings, one is forced to the prima facie conclusion at least that the navigational equipment on the ship was faulty or inaccurate or that the people manning the bridge at the time were not using it properly.

It must be obvious, in the special circumstances of the large number of tankers passing through the English Channel and the north-east approaches, that the Secretary of State needs the power at least to check that vessels going through these waterways have navigational equipment of an adequate standard maintained at a proper level, and that men competent to use the equipment properly are on the bridges of those vessels.

My last reason for saying that these wider powers are needed in a form which enables the Secretary of State to exercise them before vessels are involved in accidents as opposed to after, concerns the peculiar pilotage problems posed by larger vessels. Because they are so much larger, the amount of the waterways that they can use is obviously more restricted by the nature of their draughts. The English Channel being relatively shallow, it places considerable restrictions on the possible navigation lanes open to vessels. In the circumstances, it is more necessary than ever before in seafaring to ensure that on the bridge of each vessel there is a man with a highly specialised knowledge of the navigational problems of the waterways through which the ship is passing. In itself, that is not sufficient, although the Secretary of State should have power to insist that there is a pilot on board all the time if there is any danger of collision and the spillage of oil.

The powers have to go further. They have to enable the Secretary of State to ensure not only that the pout is on board but that he is on board with accurate navigational equipment at his disposal and, furthermore, with specific knowledge of the handling characteristics of the ship that he has boarded. While it is reasonable to expect any pilot, by virtue of his qualification to ply his trade, to know all the peculiarities of the water in which he operates, it cannot be assumed automatically that any pilot will know the handling characteristics of any vessel that he may board. In view of the grave limitations of the manoeuvrability of these large tankers, my right hon. Friend has done the House a great service in referring to the necessity for collision calculators to which pilots should have access on board vessels.

For the three reasons of manoeuvrability, the pilotage requirements, and greater reliance on navigational equipment, if the Secretary of State is to deal fully with this problem he must take powers to direct ships and their owners in advance of collisions taking place. Such a move would have the virtue of reducing the pollution of our seas and shores. It would have the greater virtue of reducing the risk of loss of life and injury to seamen which is inherent in the conditions in which these ships now operate.

For evidence of the magnitude of this problem one has only to turn to the statistics of casualty rates which now prevail on the high seas. An analysis of the casualty returns over the past few years indicates that about 15 per cent. of the total world shipping over 500 gross tons is involved annually in groundings, collisions and contact damage—three out of every 20 vessels on the high seas. In view of the high proportion of those vessels going through the English Channel and its north-east approaches, it must be conceded that this power which the Minister is taking, welcome as it is, does not go far enough.

Mr. Anthony Grant

With the permission of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I should like to reply briefly to some of the points which have been made. Many of those points constitute a general broad debate on shipping at large rather than refer to the Amendment. Nevertheless, I welcome the observations which have been made.

The right hon. Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason) raised one specific query about the use of the words "large scale" in subsection (1)(b). These wards have been inserted to keep the possibility of Government interference with shipping operations within bounds. This is in the general interest of the worldwide operations of British shipping. Also, the Secretary of State will be able to judge what is "large scale". After all, it is only large-scale pollution, not just isolated small drops, with which we should be concerned. It is very much in our interests as a shipping nation to make the powers on that basis.

The question of general shipping interests leads me to the point raised by the hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Booth). A general power of direction, even where there had not been an accident, would afford an international precedent which might be used to the detriment of British shipping elsewhere in the world. Therefore, whereas I welcome the comments which have been made, I ask right hon. and hon. Gentlement opposite to live in the real world and to bear in mind that we rely enormously upon our shipping industry. It contributes tremendously to our invisible exports and has a considerable effect on our balance of payments. We are one of the leading maritime nations of the world. We go all over the world with our shipping. We must, therefore, be extremely careful that generally anything we do does not necessarily mean that we shall be retaliated against in some way in another part of the world. I utter this caution very seriously.

The right hon. Member for Barnsley mentioned extending this proposal to other dangerous cargoes. I fully recognise that oil is not the only polluting or, indeed, dangerous substance which is carried; but this is a different matter which we have very much in mind and are urgently considering. The problems are different and it would not be appropriate in this Bill to deal with this particular problem. The right hon. Gentleman may rest assured that we are looking at this matter extremely urgently.

The right hon. Gentleman sought to take considerable credit for what we have done. I could say that he has been saying what we have already been doing, but at this time of the night the last thing I want to do is to indulge in one-upmanship, because I believe that fundamentally we all want to achieve the same result.

We have already been getting on with many of the proposals which the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends have recommended. We have recently been taking a number of initiatives. We had the successful I.M.C.O. meeting last month at which we managed to get agreement, on our initiative, to the Channel separation scheme becoming compulsory. We have an agreement for it to be extended further down the Channel and, very important, we have got the agreement of the I.M.C.O. countries to have discussions with the neighbouring countries—France, Belgium and Holland—on detailed methods of control of the Channel. As a result of that meeting I have invited those nations to an early meeting to discuss this subject in detail, which is entirely in accordance with the right hon. Gentleman's argument.

Mr. Mason

Can the hon. Gentleman give any indication when the meeting between the Channel countries is likely to take place?

Mr. Grant

I cannot give an exact date, but we have sent out the invitations and we hope that the meeting will take place at an early date.

The right hon. Gentleman referred to the danger to shipping, and it is dangerous, but it might help to put matters in perspective to tell the House—and it may come as rather a surprise to hon. Members—that in recent years there has been a slight but welcome fall in the number of collisions in the Dover Straits. This has happened following the introduction of the voluntary separation scheme.

My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dover (Mr. Peter Rees), who is very much concerned with the problem and has put great pressure on me in his concern for his constituents, asked whether the Bill was adequate to empower the Secretary of State to deal with incidents in international waters and, if not, whether my right hon. Friend planned to extend control over international waters such as the Dover Straits. The answer lies in my Amendment to the Lords Amendment. We do not rule out the possibility of extending territorial waters but, again, this is a matter which is being discussed at the law of the sea conference in Geneva. I ask the House to recognise the need to move cautiously because of the possible dangers to our own shipping elsewhere. It would require the agreement of the French, the Belgians and the Dutch.

My hon. and learned Friend referred, as did the right hon. Gentleman, to compulsory pilotage. This, too, is a matter which we shall consider in international circles and discuss with neighbouring countries. It would require international agreement. Nevertheless, we shall discuss it. I only make the passing comment that the "Trinity Navigator", which went aground, was seeking to pick up a pilot at Brixham, the "Panther" was also trying to pick up a pilot at Dover, and the "Pacific Glory" had a pilot on board.

My hon. and learned Friend asked whether the Bill empowers the Secretary of State to bring a tanker to the scene of disaster in order to pump out the oil. The answer is that it does. Subsections (3)(c) and (4)(a) of Lords Amendment No. 1 will, I think, satisfy him on that score.

My hon. and learned Friend asked whether we feel that the Bill gives local authorities adequate power to deal with oil pollution up to the three fathom mark. The answer is that this is the responsibility of the Department for the Environment, which is concerned with these matters. My Department, which is responsible for dealing with oil while it is at sea, co-operates closely in the work of the Department for the Environment and I have no reason to suppose that any difficulties or clashes will arise on this issue.

Mr. Peter Rees

Will my hon. Friend deal with the law of salvage, and say how far the Bill will enable him to over-ride the wishes of the ship's captain and owners and compel them to take on the services of one or more tugs?

Mr. Grant

The law of salvage generally is complex since it has been built up over centuries. This is a matter which we will be able to consider in the conference on the law of the sea. I do not think this matter need concern my hon. and learned Friend for, when he studies my Amendment, he will find that, in spite of the law of salvage as it stands, there are these reserve powers for the Secretary of State to take action. I think that he will find these powers adequate.

I commend this provision to the House since they will be valuable reserve powers for us to possess. The fact that we are now passing this Bill through the House will mean that we shall be one of the first countries in the world to pass such legislation. This is a further indication of the initiative which we are taking and is another example to the world that Britain is treating this problem with the utmost seriousness.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords Amendment, as amended, agreed to.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir R. Grant-Ferris)

As the House is willing to waive its privilege, I will see that an entry is made in the Journal to that effect.

Remaining Lords Amendments agreed to [Special Entry].