HC Deb 24 July 1978 vol 954 cc1120-4
4. Mr. Gow

asked the Secretary of State for Trade what further representation he has received about preventing oil pollution of United Kingdom coasts from tankers; and if he will make a statement.

28. Mr. James Johnson

asked the Secretary of State for Trade if he has any further statement to make regarding the implementation of the Merchant Shipping Bill.

30. Mr. Blenkinsop

asked the Secretary of State for Trade what current action he is taking to reduce the threat of oil pollution from tankers on United Kingdom coasts.

32. Mr. Prescott

asked the Secretary of State for Trade what legislative action he proposes to take to deal with the increasing incidence of oil tanker pollution.

Mr. Clinton Davis

I have received a number of representations expressing concern, which I fully share, about the effects of oil pollution. The Government will continue their efforts to develop and bring into effect practical internationally agreed measures to improve tanker safety and reduce oil pollution. Important provisions in this connection are included in the draft Merchant Shipping Bill, which was appended to the recently published White Paper on "Action on Safety and Pollution at Sea." The Government propose to introduce the Bill next Session. The Government will also inform the House of the results of their stock-taking of our contingency arrangements for dealing with oil spills.

Mr. Gow

What has happened to the Government's proposal to IMCO that there should be mandatory special training requirements for the masters, officers and crews of tankers? What do the Government propose to do about the rerouting of the present tanker routes around our coasts so as to ensure that, as far as possible, they are further from our coasts than they are at present?

Mr. Davis

As to the recent conference on training and certification of seafarers, I am glad to say that agreement was reached, and I hope that in the not too distant future it will be possible for this agreement to be ratified by a sufficient number of countries. We took our part in ensuring that that situation was attained.

The question of rerouting of tanker routes is under close investigation. We have, of course, reached agreement with the French Government as regards the Ushant and Casquets position. We hope that it will be possible for the rerouting and reporting-in arrangements to be implemented by 1st January 1979.

Mr. Johnson

Does my hon. Friend realise what a sad disappointment it was to all Members with port constituencies that the Government failed to find time for his Merchant Shipping Bill, which would have tackled many other issues apart from oil pollution, including, for example, the taking of liquor on board fishing vessels? Would my hon. Friend care to comment on that long-standing abuse and say what measures he hopes to take to cope with it?

Mr. Davis

I share my hon. Friend's disappointment because, as he well knows, we in the Department of Trade were most anxious to see the legislation implemented. But we have given a firm commitment that we stand by the terms of the Bill and we want to see it implemented next Session. The question of drink on board fishing vessels is a problem—it has been identified by inquiries as a problem in respect of a number of fatal accidents—and I hope that our measures will be acceptable to the House in due course of time.

Mr. Blenkinsop

Will my hon. Friend press forward with his attempt to get the 1973 international convention ratified, whether through the Merchant Shipping Bill or separately, and not be deterred by any blowing hot and cold on the Tory Benches, because it affects the safety of many of my seagoing constituents as well as the protection of our shores?

Mr. Davis

I am well aware of the need to ratify, and this is dealt with in the Merchant Shipping Bill. However, in view of the target date which has been established for ratification, it is not a matter which has to be dealt with at this moment. But we have made our commitment absolutely clear.

Mr. Prescott

My hon. Friend has noted the connection in his Bill between the requirement for compulsory pilotage, statutory safety controls, improvement of working conditions and certificates of the competency of seamen, all of which touch factors which have contributed to major pollution incidents. In view of the recent statement by the spokesman for the Opposition that they will not introduce the Bill, is my hon. Friend prepared to comment on whether that will weaken our fight against pollution?

Mr. Davis

The Opposition's view about it is purely theoretical since they will not have the opportunity to do it. But I note that the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. Nott), in his only foray into merchant shipping matters during the time he has held this Shadow office, made a very ill advised speech in which he contradicted himself by saying, on the one hand, that it was necessary to have the Bill and, on the other, that if, by some mischance, the Tories were elected, they would not have time to do it, thus indicating that he has both feet firmly planted in the air.

Mr. Nott

Will the Minister take it that in what he calls my speech I said no such thing? Is he aware that the Government have now been in office for four years and have had plenty of opportunity to introduce the Bill? Since there is no other non-partisan legislation before the House at the moment, is there not plenty of room for the Bill to be considered this Session? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that WC recognise the great importance of this Bill and we shall bring it in as soon as we possibly can, subject, of course, to major economic and other matters which are bound to take priority for an incoming Government?

Mr. Davis

The hon. Gentleman is sounding rather like his right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph); he has to reconsider the statements which he makes from time to time. What the hon. Gentleman is reported to have said is that the Bill would not receive priority under a future Tory Administration.

Mr. Adley

Will the Minister, for once, try to deal with the question of oil pollution and stop making party points? Is not his reference to an agreement with the French justification of the view that some of us have expressed that to wait indefinitely for IMCO and world-wide agreement on everything is tantamount to never getting the urgent agreement we need on some of these matters? Will he agree with me that, if the oil companies themselves are the source of the pollution, Governments ought to do their best to encourage the oil companies to provide a fund at the disposal of Governments or local authorities to clear up the mess which they are responsible for making?

Mr. Davis

I do not need to be lectured at by the hon. Member on the making of party points: he never fails to do that himself. I am trying to deal effectively with the question of oil pollution. This requires enforcement action through the agency of the Inter-Governmental Maritime Consultative Organisation, and that is what the French Government and we are doing in relation to the rerouting plans.

Mr. Anthony Grant

Is not the short answer to all this that the Minister has lost the battle within the Government's legislation committee and that this valuable Bill has simply been pushed to the back of the queue by the Minister's more strident colleagues who insisted on their own more absurd legislation?

Mr. Davis

We have a rather better record to claim credit for in this regard than do the Opposition and the hon. Gentleman's Department when he was in it. On the specific point which the hon. Gentleman raises, yes, we should have liked to do it, but there was urgent and necessary legislation, including constitutional Bills which had to be taken on the Floor, which took up the time of the House.