§ 2. Mr. Austin Mitchellasked the Secretary of State for Trade if he will make a statement on the recent United Nations Conference on Trade and Development conference in Geneva concerning flags of convenience.
§ 15. Mr. Hooleyasked the Secretary of State for Trade if he will make a statement on the conclusions of the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development conference held in Geneva in May 1981, with particular reference to proposals for phasing out flags of convenience.
§ 20. Mr. Clinton Davisasked the Secretary of State for Trade if he will make a statement on the outcome of the recent United Nations Conference on shipping held in Geneva with particular reference to open registry shipping.
§ The Under-Secretary of State for Trade (Mr. Reginald Eyre)As my noble Friend Lord Trefgarne said in another place on 24 June, the special session of the UNCTAD committee on shipping to discuss. open registries was attended by a United Kingdom delegation, including advisers from the General Council a British Shipping and the National Union of Seamen.
A resolution was passed calling for an international convention imposing economic requirements for ship registration on all States. These requirements might be enforced by the closure of ports to the shipping of non-complying countries. The Government are opposed to States being forced to surrender their national Sovereignty in this area and by such means. Either of these steps would establish precedents dangerous to the trading opportunities of the British fleet, and hence of the jobs which depend upon them. For these reasons the great majority of Western countries, including the United Kingdom, voted against this resolution.
§ Mr. MitchellThe Minister is saying that we are leading the industrialised world in opposing the phasing out of flags of convenience, and thereby finding ourselves in opposition not only to the wishes of the Third world—which finds the flags of convenience a form of exploitation —but—
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. The hon. Gentleman must put his remarks in an interrogatory form.
§ Mr. MitchellDoes the Minister accept that we are taking a position opposed to the wishes of the Third world, to the interests of our merchant seamen and to the interests of fair international competition?
§ Mr. EyreThe hon. Gentleman has profoundly misunderstood the position. Considerable efforts were made to achieve a consensus solution, which would have avoided the difficulties. I assure him that the proposals have serious implications for the employment of British seamen.
§ Mr. HooleyDoes not the Minister realise that in the se days, when not only highly pollutant cargoes such as huge quantities of oil, but dangerous chemicals and radioactive waste traverse the high seas, we need higher not tower, standards of safety and navigation? Is he aware that by promoting flags of convenience rather than curbing them, he is acting disastrously against the interests of Britain?
§ Mr. EyreThe Government stronly support international agreement aimed at high safety standards both socially and environmentally. The developing countries' proposal made it clear that the cost of the improved safety and social standards would be too high for them. Therefore, their proposal endangered the principles that the hon. Gentleman was enunciating.
§ Mr. Clinton DavisIs not the hon. Gentleman misstating the reality of what happened at UNCTAD? Is not the reality that the Government did not want to phase out flags of convenience because they are prepared to accept the permissive attitude adopted by other countries towards international standards and because they are hostile to any trade unionism practised on flag of 561 convenience ships? Why do not the Government come clean? Why do not they do what a previous Conservative Government did at IMCO in 1959 and oppose flags of convenience actively?
§ Mr. EyreThe hon. Gentleman has misunderstood the situation. The Government are intent on the maintenance of high international standards in the way that I have described. One-third of the tonnage on the United Kingdom register is foreign-owned. It would be extremely serious to risk that tonnage and the jobs of British seamen that go with it.
§ Mr. Archie HamiltonDoes my hon. Friend agree that one of the reasons why British owners choose to go under flags of convenience is that exorbitant and uncompetitive rates are asked of them by the National Union of Seamen?
§ Mr. EyreI understand what my hon. Friend says. British ships that are affected by non-competitive rates are sold and they leave the British register, to our disadvantage.
§ Mr. AdleyDoes my hon. Friend agree that there is a conflict between the point that has been made by my hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Mr. Hamilton) and the rather flamboyant contributions that have been made from the Opposition? If it is possible, will my hon. Friend work towards a situation where flags of convenience are no longer allowed? Does he agree that in the long run they are not upholding standards of safety and good behaviour at sea?
§ Mr. EyreIt is far from true that all open registry ships are dangerous or that all others are safe. The British Government are working for high standards by way of international agreement. In some respects the debate about open registry ships is not relevant to the maintenance of high standards.