HC Deb 21 May 1981 vol 5 cc530-48

12.4 am

The Under-Secretary of State for Trade (Mr. Reginald Eyre)

I beg to move, That this House takes note of European Community Documents Nos. 8480/80 (draft Directive concerning the enforcement, in respect of shipping using Community ports, of international standards for shipping safety and pollution prevention) and 8479/80 (Communication concerning a plan to combat oil pollution of the sea) and the updated explanatory memoranda of 18 May 1981; and welcomes the Government's intention to continue to work to improve the standards, of maritime safety and to combat oil pollution. The two Community documents which are before the House cover an area of considerable public interest—that of maritime safety and the prevention of pollution—and the Government believe that it is right that the House should have an opportunity to debate them before they are presented to the Council of Ministers for further consideration. As we stated in our latest explanatory memoranda, not all the proposals in the documents are nearing the point of decision. Moreover, as I shall explain, certain recent developments may mean that the form and content of the draft directive on port State enforcement may be changed substantially before the Community takes action in this field.

However, despite these uncertainties, it will be helpful to have the views of hon. Members on the issues raised by the documents, and we shall certainly give full weight to their consideration in pursuing these important questions further in the Community.

Ever since the "Torrey Canyon" grounding in 1967 the issues of maritime safety and the prevention of pollution have attracted major public concern not only in the United Kingdom but in the European Community and, indeed, in the wider international field. This has resulted in a great intensification of effort over the past 10 years to improve standards of maritime safety and to limit the potential for pollution. During that period, the Intergovernmental Maritime Consultative Organisation, known as IMCO, has, for example, instigated work upon, and successfully brought into being, a number of important and relevant conventions. The Government have been fully involved in this process, and it is a matter of pride that we have ratified every outstanding convention and protocol. We are the first country, indeed, to have already done so.

Mr John Prescott (Kingston upon Hull, East)

I am interested in what the Minister said about the ratification of conventions, and especially ILO conventions. From a study that I did up to 1976 for the European Parliament, it is clear that the European nations had implemented only half the ILO conventions. 'Greece had the worst record, and Britain was only midway. The ratification of conventions by national States is not so good and honourable as the Minister suggests.

Mr Eyre

That research was conducted some time ago. Considerable progress may have been made since then. A large number of States have ratified many of the conventions. Progress is being made in that area of international co-operation.

However, it was the grounding of the "Amoco Cadiz" off the Brittany coast in 1978 which brought a number of issues sharply into focus and gave a fresh impetus to efforts to deal with the problem of substandard or defective vessels, in particular the problems and risks created by the movement of large tankers in the congested waters around Europe. Broadly, there were two issues which attracted attention above others. One was the need to reinforce and supplement the responsibilities of flag States for the safety of ships by the creation of a complimentary system of effective port State enforcement. The other issue was the ready availability of the information needed to deal successfully with a potential tanker casualty or the aftermath of a major disaster like the "Amoco Cadiz". These are essentially the matters covered by the Community documents before us.

In view of the hazards which faced all the European coastal and port States, it was natural and right that the European Community should feel that it had an important and useful role to play in the fields of port State enforcement and the exchange of information. At its meeting in Copenhagen in April 1978, the European Council therefore agreed that the Community should make the prevention and combating of marine pollution, particularly from hydrocarbons, a major objective. Following this lead, the Council of Ministers in June adopted a resolution setting up an action programme of the European communities on the control and reduction of pollution caused by oil spills at sea. The need for action was further reaffirmed by the European Council meeting in July, which declared that it deemed it necessary to take further measures to increase the safety of maritime traffic and reaffirmed the necessity for member States to intensify their efforts to prevent and control pollution of the sea.

In response to the call for action, the Commission set in hand a number of studies as a result of which it was able in July 1980 to submit to the Council the two documents in question.

I do not propose to take up the time of the House by describing the contents of the documents in detail. I assume that any hon. Member interested in this subject will know the main features of the directive and the decision. I want to take up what have appeared to be some of the more contentious points and explain how our views have evolved and to inform the House of the position that has been reached.

First, I should like to deal with document No. 8480/80. This is a proposal for a Council directive concerning the enforcement, in respect of shipping using Community ports, of international standards for shipping safety and pollution prevention. It is perhaps the more far reaching of the two documents since it represents no less than an ambitious and praiseworthy attempt by the Commission to draw up a comprehensive regime for the enforcement within the Community of international shipping standards on the part of port States. A number of the provisions of the directive are technical and concern the applicability of conventions. In essence, however, the directive envisages the establishment throughout the Community of a uniform enforcement procedure. It seeks to introduce a checklist relating to safety and other certificates and proposes the development of a common, possibly computerised, information system covering all vessels which have or are likely to call at a Community port. Finally, it is proposed that member States should undertake a specific quantum of port State activity with a view to identifying, inspecting and rectifying all substandard ships of whatever nationality.

In participating in the discussion of the Commission's proposals, we have made it clear that we are strongly in favour of more effective port State enforcement and that we believe that a co-ordinated regional approach could represent a significant and valuable step forward in tackling the problem of the substandard vessel. I should add, perhaps, that the United Kingdom is already carrying out in large measure the main enforcement provisions envisaged in the directive and in that respect we are certainly wholly behind the Commission's broad objectives. Our marine survey service is fully alive to the risks to life and to the pollution of our waters which arise because of the continued operation of defective and substandard vessels. In recent years we have substantially increased our efforts as a port State. In 1980, for example about 1,300 foreign registered vessels were inspected in our ports, compared with 615 foreign registered vessels in 1979.

I emphasise, because some misunderstandings have arisen, that we have no objection in principle to the Community playing its part in this field to ensure that member States co-operate as port States and that an effective system of control is operated within the waters of the nine maritime members. We welcome the attention which has been and is being given to these matters by the Council and the Commission. However, as a country experienced in port State enforcement, we have a number of reservations about the Commission's proposals largely from a practical point of view and both we and other member States were concerned about the wider implications of the extension of Community competence, notably in relation to the work of IMCO.

Mr Clinton Davis (Hackney, Central)

When enhancing the port States enforcement, does the Minister feel that the present manpower available within the surveyor's branch of the Department is sufficient for those increased activities? If not, what steps are being taken to increase the number of people available and perhaps include many masters who are at present redundant as a result of the recession?

Mr. Eyre

I emphasise that the strength of the marine survey office has been fully maintained. There are 250 marine survey officers operating, which is the same number as in the past year or two. By making the most efficient use of their services we have been able to increase the number of surveys carried out.

Our principal reservation about the system of enforcement proposed by the Commission related to the emphasis placed on the checking of the validity of safety certificates and the requirement for a master, on arrival, to lodge a declaration about those certificates, with the competent authorities in the port State. It is not that we place no value on safety certificates, but our experience is that they are not an infallible guide to the actual state of a vessel. Indeed the great majority of ships worldwide—90 per cent. or so—on which deficiencies are detected are found to have valid certificates.

We felt, therefore, that the main thrust of the directive should be on the detection of vessels which might be substandard. We also questioned whether any advantage would be gained from requiring a master to complete yet another form, which would add nothing to the validity of the certificates already in his possession.

Mr Prescott

The Minister makes an interesting point about the 90 per cent. of vessels that are found to have a valid certificate. Presumably he is referring to the safety certificate of the vessel, but most vessels are lost because on incompetence. That is particularly true of flags of convenience vessels.

I understand the hon. Gentleman's argument about other countries, but how does he hope to deal with the safety standards and certification of countries for which the House has some responsibility? I am thinking particularly of the Cayman Islands, which is a growing flag of convenience territory, and apparently we are not imposing safety controls on those islands, even though their vessels fly a British flag.

Mr Eyre

The hon. Gentleman is going wide of the subject under discussion, but I emphasise that the enhanced system of port State inspection that I have described, together with international agreement to influence the standards of inspection, will go a long way towards dealing with the problem that the hon. Gentleman has in mind.

Essentially, we saw the marine surveys issue as a question of the use of resources. Our conclusion was that to use our highly trained manpower simply to check certifcates on each foreign registered vessel would not represent an effective use of time and effort—and could even result in some substandard ships which are currently detected escaping the net because of the distraction of surveyors by other tasks.

On the second point, our concern over competence, in essence, is that the creation or extension of competence in matters falling within IMCO' s area of responsibility would not be desirable or helpful to the Community. The expression of a single Community position could tend to restrict the range of technical opinions expressed in, and possibly the quality of, technical debates. IMCO is a special body in that respect, because it is principally concerned with matters of great technical complexity and works chiefly through the pooling of experience and knowledge on the widest possible basis.

The representation of a Community view by a single spokesman could also lead to suggestions on the part of other maritime States that there was no need for more than one member State to be represented on the Council of the organisation, that is IMCO, as against the four who have seats at present. The operation of the Community as a single entity could tend to encourage the emergence of other regional groupings leading to a politicisation of an essentially technical body.

We know that both the Commission and certain other member States are aware of the problem which could arise over competence. It is recognised that it is a problem which requires solution if work in the Community is to proceed smoothly and effectively. We are hopeful that, as has already been managed in other fields, an acceptable answer can be found which will allow the Community to develop its role in the enforcement of maritime safety standards while at the same time allowing the member States to play a full and active part in IMCO.

Right hon. and hon. Members may have noticed that I have been using the past tense. This is because, to a large extent, the work in the Community on the directive has been overtaken by another major parallel development. The House may be aware that in December 1980, on the initiative of the French Government, a meeting of Ministers responsible for maritime safety in 13 countries of Western Europe was held in Paris in order to devise ways of improving the safety of shipping and the prevention of pollution. The countries represented included the nine Community maritime member States plus Greece, which has since, of course, become a member, Spain, Portugal, Norway and Sweden. IMCO, the International Labour Organisation and the European Commission were also represented at a high level. One of the major points of agreement at the meeting was that it was necessary to increase the effectiveness of port State enforcement.

A working group was therefore established under the chairmanship of the Netherlands Government to study ways in which this might be achieved, bearing in mind the possibility of building on both the present directive and the existing memorandum of understanding between certain maritime authorities on the maintenance of standards on merchant ships, normally called the Hague memorandum.

This working group, on which the United Kingdom is represented together with the other Community maritime States and the Commission, is now in the process of carrying out its study. I am glad to say that it is making good progress and is due to report on 1 July. As a result, it is likely that the difficulties which we foresaw in the operation of the directive will prove capable of practical solution.

Because of the importance of this work in The Hague, by common consent, the substantive discussion of the proposed directive in Brussels has been suspended, although the progress of The Hague group is being regularly monitored and points of particular Community interest discussed.

Because of the timetable set at the Paris meeting, the Transport Council will not, therefore, take a decision on the existing directive on port State enforcement at its meeting on 18 June. The Council is expected to be in a position to issue a statement, taking note of the work being carried out in The Hague and looking forward to the possibility of the Community taking appropriate future action based on the results. It is difficult at this stage to say precisely what that action might be, but it is reasonable to suppose that it will involve the replacement of the directive in its present form since a new and strengthened basis for Community action will be available.

I wish to turn now to the other document No. 8479/80, entitled "Commission Communication to the Council concerning the Plan to Combat Oil Pollution of the See. This document outlines a series of measures undertaken by the Commission within the framework of the "action programme" drawn up by the Council of Ministers in June 1978. These measures include work on a range of subjects connected with the combating of oil pollution, as well as the adoption of a Commission decision setting up an advisory committee on the control and reduction of pollution caused by oil discharged at sea. However, the main feature of the document is a proposal for a Council decision establishing a Community information system for the prevention and combating of oil pollution of the sea. This system consists of three main elements, which are described in the three annexes to the proposed decision.

Annex I is described as a "Permanent Inventory of Staff, Equipment and Products for Combating Oil Pollution of the Sea", backed up by a compendium of national and regional contingency plans. In effect, this is a list of the resources available at Government level in the various member States for immediate response relating to pollution incidents. In our own case, the Department's marine pollution control unit performs this task and already has close contacts with other counter-pollution agencies under the aegis of the 1969 Bonn agreement for co-operation in dealing with pollution of the North Sea by oil. However, the value of a Community initiative in contingency planning is recognised. As a result of the discussions relating to this proposal, we believe that, subject to a few technical matters still to be settled, we will be able to contribute positively to the operations of the system.

Mr Clinton Davis

I am not sure whether it is an appropriate time, but will the Minister say what consultations have taken place at ministerial level with the shipowners and trade unions about both the proposed directives? What are the ministerial responses, since both shipowners and trade unions have a vested interest in safety?

Mr. Eyre

I assure the hon. Gentleman that during the prolonged period of consideration the Department has been careful to supply all possible information to shipowners and unions. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Department desires to take account of representations made to it on all such matters. It has been very willing to receive opinions relevant to the considerations.

Mr Clinton Davis

I did not ask that question. I am aware that the Department has been in touch with officials. What ministerial discussions have taken place about these important matters which involve political decisions, particularly as to the role of the EEC? Have any such discussions taken place? If not, why not?

Mr. Eyre

The hon. Gentleman said that it might not be an opportune time to give a precise and detailed reply. I have tried to emphasise the readiness of the Department and Ministers to receive opinions and to discuss the issues. I do not have personal conduct of such detailed matters. The responsibility lies with the Minister responsible for shipping, who sits in another place. I shall be glad to write to the hon. Member about the detailed information.

Annex II is described as a "Compendium of Hydrocarbon Properties" and is in effect a data bank of information about the properties and behaviour of oils under certain conditions. This will provide a valuable source of information about the behaviour of oil and oil products in a variety of circumstances—possibly, relating to incidents—a field which has not previously attracted enough attention. Here too, as a result of our discussions on the proposal, we will be able to agree on a system which will include details of methods of testing oil in water as well as possible uses of mixtures of solid matter containing water and oil recovered from the sea or along the coast.

It has not been possible to make the same degree of progress on the third annex. This is described as an "oil tanker file" and would contain specific information about tankers likely to call at Community ports, including details of age, tonnage, ownership, physical characteristics and certification.

The main problem over this proposal is that much of the information which it is proposed to gather would be in the same form as other information which would be supplied under article 8 of the draft directive on port State enforcement. In our view and that of other member States, this subject requires a good deal of further work, possibly both within the Hague working group framework as well as within the Community. We shall co-operate energetically in this work.

Against this background, the Council Presidency decided earlier this year that the best way to make progress would be to proceed with those elements of the information system on which agreement could easily be reached—the contingency plans and the compendia of resources and the properties of oils in annex II; and a decision incorporating these elements will be submitted to the Environment Council on 11 June. As for the oil tanker file, it is envisaged that a statement will be made at that meeting to the effect that a decision will be made after the council has taken note of the outcome of the work in The Hague.

The Government support these initiatives and welcome the wide degree of agreement reached on the proposals for information systems on the availability of counter-pollution resources and equipment and on a compendium of hydrocarbon properties, which in our view represent a useful advance in the continuing fight against oil pollution of the sea. I assure the House that we shall continue to play a full part in the work going on in The Hague and in Brussels with the aim of reaching agreement, in future, on information systems covering oil tankers and other kinds of shipping.

I have summarised the issues relating to the two documents. I look forward to hearing the views of hon. Members.

12.31 am
Mr. Clinton Davis (Hackney, Central)

It is a great pity that a debate as important as this to the shipping industry—a vital industry in Britain—should take place at this time and under these circumstances.

Mr John Garrett (Norwich, South)

I gather that the debate is not only about the shipping industry but about Britain's coastal environment.

Mr Davis

If my hon. Friend will be patient, I shall deal with that matter.

I know that, ordinarily, many hon. Members would have wished to participate in the debate. Be that as it may, the choice is either to debate it at this sort of time or debate it upstairs with relatively few people present—although I suppose that, in the event, there would be more present than there are now. There can be no doubt that if we are to maintain a merchant fleet of importance—and it is important that we should—it is a condition precedent that we maintain the highest standards of safety. We must lead the way in garnering respect for IMCO by ratifying, implementing and then enforcing IMCO requirements.

I welcome the concern expressed by the Commission for more effective action in both areas covered by the draft directives, for increasing harmonisation, for a more uniform approach and for tougher and more urgent measures to enforce action against substandard ships, and to take swifter and more effective action to deal with oil pollution and the resulting damage and dangers to the environment.

It is regrettable that more time has not been given by the Commission for consultation with appropriate interests at national level. I shall come in a moment to the question of consultation with Ministers. In preparing such detailed schemes, it is vital that the Commission should recognise the availability of expertise vested in persons and organisations on both sides of industry and of others involved in environmental protection before it produces such schemes.

One of the other matters that the Minister did not mention, but which is important, is that although it is necessary to launch an attack upon substandard ships, we must also launch an attack on substandard ports. It would be all too easy, if there was a difference in view—[Interruption.] Does the Minister wish to intervene? Perhaps I should give way to the Chief Whip; he is conversing with the Minister. I am trying to get across a point of view and to put it on the record because these matters are important. If there is a substantial disparity in the standards employed at different ports the objectives designed by the Commission, and supported at least in principle by the Minister, will not be accomplished.

I recognise that the Government are concerned about substandard shipping. I pay tribute to the steps that were taken to step up the investigation of foreign vessels in British ports in 1980. The Minister was right to draw attention to that. I also recognise that the Government, like their predecessors, have given full support to IMCO. Nevertheless, I detected a faint whiff of complacency in the Minister's brief about the Government's approach to these matters. I do not blame this Minister. He is not responsible for shipping—he is a spokesman in this House—but I inferred from what he said that Ministers think that there is little to learn from the experience of others, and that they think that they are doing a grand job.

There is an awful lot to learn. As a former Minister in the Department, I pay tribute to the work of the officials, particularly in the unit that was formed to deal with pollution. I believe that great advances have been made. But I hope that the hon. Gentleman will convey to the Minister responsible that this is an area in which no degree of complacency is tolerable.

Essentially, my anxiety about the Government's approach in dealing with the shipping industry—and my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Garrett) will agree that the safety of ships is vital if we are to wage effective war against pollution—is that they have failed to address themselves to the source of the problem. It is unreal, as the UNCTAD secretariat has argued, to consider substandard ships without considering the underlying causes—substandard management and substandard marine administration. Therefore, control by port States is unlikely to be effective unless it is backed by flag States which are able to control the managers and the owners. In States where there is no economic link with the vessels, that substandard administration appears to be almost inevitable.

The backcloth to this is that the casualities at sea in 1978 and 1979 reached unprecendented and horrifying levels. Paragraph 7a of the explanatory memorandum directs attention to that. In terms of gross tonnes, 71 per cent. of the losses sustained were by flag of convenience ships and Greek ships. As the proportion of world shipping has moved in the direction of flags of convenience, the record has become progressively worse. As Liberia announces a tightening up of its registry, unscrupulous owners transfer to the Panamanian flag. I predict chat if more effective action is taken by Panama to increase standards there will be a move to other flags of convenience. Not that Liberia has much to boast about. While its fleet is considerably younger than the world average, its casualty rate is well above that of every Western European country apart from Spain and Greece; and it is fair to observe that 64 per cent. of the Spanish fleet comprises, fishing vessels.

Mr Prescott

My hon. Friend is making a powerful point. Can he relate it to the statistic produced by the Minister, that 90 per cent. of these vessels have valid certification, so that it may be a waste of time to inspect forms? If the Minister's attention were concentrated on the fleets to which my hon. Friend is referring which, while representing 34 per cent. of world tonnage, are responsible for 70 per cent. of the losses, that would be an effective use of the limited manpower that he has at his disposal.

Mr Davis

My hon. Friend has a substantial point. We know that flag of convenience and Greek vessels are causing the greatest problems, and obviously resources should be concentrated on them. It is a question not of being discriminatory, but of facing up to the realities. Insurance companies have done that in respect of cargoes. They have found that the incidence of casualties makes it necessary to load the premiums for the cargoes carried by vessels of certain flag of convenience countries.

The example of Greece merits further comment, not least because Greece is now a member of the EEC and will undoubtedly have an important voice in maritime matters. Greece, both before and after her accession to the Community, has been concerned to attract Greek shipowners back to the Greek flag. It has been doing, it by preaching the message which the Greek Minister of Shipping recently preached in London. What he was saying, in effect, was, "Relax shipping regulations." He called for a cut in the EEC shipping role. He said that what he wanted to promote was the principles of "free and fair competition".

Is what is being done under the Greek flag free and fair competition? There is, for example, a legal requirement that 75 per cent. of Greek ships' crews should be Greek, but this is widely ignored, as is the law that non-Greeks serving on Greek vessels should be paid the Greek collective agreement rate. Greek owners are now concluding bilateral agreements with unions in developing countries to provide crew members for Greek ships, despite opposition from the Greek seafarers' federation and the ITF. Greece is particularly slow in providing deficiency reports to IMCO. Is all that free and fair, and is it unrelated to the appalling casualty rate which is suffered by Greek ships? I believe that such fleets, even where new vessels are in operation with the most modern technology, so often have such inadequate qualities of seamanship available that they represent a grave danger to the lives of seafarers not only on the ships themselves but on ships with which they may be in collision and also to the environment and to coastal States.

I believe also that the disgraceful casualty record to which I have referred results principally from the pressure to cut costs at any price—postponing repairs, employing improperly qualified seafarers, failing to use radar, failing to use inert gas systems in tankers and failing to use other safety equipment. This is not just my word: it is the word of the Nautical Institute, which has added to the comments made by the MMSA in this country and of other trade unions. The Nautical Institute has said that shipping nations are cutting corners on safety. Those criticisms, I believe, are highly authoritative and should not 'under any circumstances' be taken lightly.

The Government's response to this problem is pathetically inadequate. The previous Minister with responsibility for shipping replied to a question that I asked on 16 July about the Government's policy concerning flags of convenience. He said: There is no generally agreed definition of a flag of convenience. This description is applied by some Governments to the British flag. Along with most other OECD countries, Her Majesty's Government agree on the need for effective action against substandard ships, but strongly oppose any measures that would reduce competition with international shipping and raise the cost of international trade."—[Official Report, 16 July 1980; Vol. 988, c. 547–8.] It is patently absurd to equate the British flag with a flag of convenience, but in any event should our concern about flags of convenience relate simply to substandard ships, which was the whole emphasis of the Minister's speech, important though that aspect is?

How do the losses in tonnage sustained by flag of convenience countries betoken a real interest in shipping safety? Companies in, and Governments of, genuine maritime countries provide substantial and costly training facilities. Flag of convenience countries provide none. Is that fair competition? Does a casual approach towards the certification of officers and ratings illustrate a concern on the part of flag of convenience countries for improving standards in this field? Is that fair competition?

We must face the fact that the only reason that shipowners register under flags of convenience is to avoid obligations—taxation, training and qualification, recognition of trade unions and the rights won by free trade unions—and, above all, to be able to adopt a permissive attitude to international legislative requirements. That is why shipowners do it. That, in essence, represents the whole case against the flag of convenience. Yet at UNCTAD next week, when proposals to phase out flags of convenience will be on the agenda, Her Majesty's Government will, by implication, follow a line which is deeply inimical to everything they say about enhancing safety standards.

The Government are to oppose proposals that have been made by the UNCTAD secretariat. Against that background, I certainly support the measures to increase port State enforcement, although I believe that much more is needed than has been suggested by the Government. Even if the Government remain inert and unresponsive to the challenge posed by flags of convenience, let us examine for a moment what they will do within these limitations.

May I say in parenthesis that I read an article in Lloyd's List the other day to the effect that a new and possibly sinister development is taking place in London. A lawyer, Mr. Richard Dresner, is proposing to flog off flags of convenience over the counter in London by using some sort of legal device. I spoke to him on the telephone to tell him that I would mention his name. It is a rather extraordinary proposal. He is reported as saying that recognised flags of convenience countries, such as Panama and Liberia, are now becoming much more particular about their requirements and are trying to go up-market and become more respectable. This is leaving room in the market place for a wider and more streamlined service to owners. This is the gap he is aiming for. He is planning to sell flag of convenience registrations over the counter. I suppose that there is every prospect that we shall find Tesco's doing that in the near future.

This is a matter of which the Minister should take note. I do not expect him to reply to it tonight, but I should be happy to pass the information to him. I hope that he will be able to tell me in correspondence whether the Department has been aware of this and, if so, what action it plans to take to avoid facilitating the registration of flags of convenience in London, as is proposed by this gentleman.

While, therefore, I support action to attack substandard ships, I have an anxiety, which has been expressed by the Minister, about enhancing EEC competence in this area. If we were to support these initiatives, would it necessarily vest the EEC with sole authority to speak for member States at the international forum involved? If the answer is "Yes", I believe that the penalties could be severe indeed.

As I see it, the risks are that there would be an encouragement of the growth of regionalism, with an increased threat that debates would become, as the Minister says, unnecessarily politicised. There has been a danger of that in the past. At IMCO it has been a danger that member States, in their desire to secure higher standards of safety, have united to overcome. That is a risk that we have to take seriously. I also agree that individual nations' expertise, especially in technical areas, might be reduced or not taken full advantage of. Delay in decision making while an agreed stance is worked out would be undesirable. There might also be a search for the lowest common denominator so as to arrive at an agreed position. That would be undesirable, too.

All of these are serious risks, and the question I pose to the Minister is: Is it possible to say to the EEC "Must you assume responsibility, must you assume this greater competence, or is it possible to qualify that if we were to go along the route being suggested?" I very much support the inter-governmental consultation that are taking place and are designed to secure similar objectives to those set out in the proposed directives, without our having to risk paying the penalties to which I have referred. Another great advantage of these discussions is that they include countries that are not within the EEC. Sweden, Norway and Spain all have a vital role to play in enforcing port State jurisdiction and in co-operating in the fight against pollution of our seas.

I understand that the objectives are to procure a European ship information system, the enforcement of provisions of internationally agreed conventions and protocals that are currently in force, the extension of The Hague memorandum of understanding of 1978, which included only Belgium, Denmark, France, West Germany, the Nederlands, Sweden, Norway and the United Kingdom, the extension of the Bonn agreement and the exchange of essential information to deal with pollution incidents. All these matters are currently being considered, and rightly so. If an agreement can be reached, it will have these great benefits and it will avoid the risk of the EEC speaking with one voice in the relevant international forums which, as I and the Minister have indicated, seems to be a great disqualification. Secondly, it will avoid unnecessary bureaucracy from Brussels, which might so easily duplicate the work of national marine authorities.

The nations must address themselves to a number of serious matters, which seem hitherto to have been avoided, or at least not the subject of sufficient consultation. I find the issue of check lists somewhat worrying. I should not find it especially impressive if it were a requirement that check lists had to be completed by a master, who clearly would have a vested interest. We must know what form the inspection is to take. My own view is that it may be unwise to have a prescribed list beyond following the IMCO procedures for the control of ships, which were set out in 1975. These give a very good and comprehensive guide.

Are there to be random checks? If so, what percentage of checks are to be undertaken within the ports? How are we to safeguard ships that are regularly trading in and out of European ports? Will they have to be subjected to regular inspections, too? How are the inspections to be paid for? If they are to be paid for by the shipowner, is there a danger that there will be an incentive to find something wrong so as to recover the cost of the inspection?

That is a view that worries the owners; and that is an issue to which we must address our minds.

Given the desire to make port State enforcement a reality, I turn to the complement of the marine surveyors. I do not share the Minister's view that with the enhanced interest in these matters we should be satisfied that the present complement within our own surveyors' branch will suffice. I am not happy about the suggestion made in the European documents that we should devolve responsibility to the classification societies. These are important duties and that suggestion ignores the pressures that are imposed on classification societies. There is the danger that if one society imposes standards that are too high an owner may move to another where standards might be less rigid. If the society is to be the Government's agent, I still believe that that will be unsatisfactory. There will be an interest, a relationship behind it all, of a professional organisation advising a client and I do not believe that that is the most desirable state of affairs.

What is the alternative? Should not the relevant maritime States be thinking about the creation of a central surveying service together with a central agency for the training of surveyors? Is that feasible? If not, why not? Will not these increased duties require a substantial increase in the number of qualified surveyors? What help can we get from the nautical educational and research facilities in Europe, particularly in the United Kingdom? They are now under severe strain as a result of the Government cutbacks in education services.

I cite the Cardiff ship simulator as an example. It is an advanced British project, dedicated to training and research into the human element, above all, relating to accidents. Pump-priming funds are much needed. Is the Department doing anything to assist? Does not the Department have certain research funds which could be made at least partially available to assist the Cardiff project in that respect? I have discussed the project with the Cardiff people. The simulator is an unrivalled research tool for studies into vital matters such as collision avoidance strategies and human performance under stress conditions.

Such a project needs Government help. Successful research programmes in that area could have invaluable benefits for our shipping industry and those serving in it. I ask the Minister, not necessarily to reply to that point tonight, but to let me know what is his Department's response.

What steps are being taken to increase rather than as appears likely, to diminish the surveyors' branch of marine division? As we are in the midst of a recession, could we not use masters and other officers who are currently redundant? Is there not a much greater need for consultation with seafarers, through their recognised trade unions, not only with officials of the Department of Trade, but, I stress, with Ministers? I am advised that consultations with Ministers are hopelessly inadequate now. They have not taken place over the policy implications of these proposals, although I am advised that there have been discussions with officials over the technical details, where it is wholly appropriate that experts should be involved. That is a matter of some concern. I hope that it will be rectified later.

In summary on this part of the matter, I believe that the control and elimination of substandard shipping can be effectively carried out only by a flag State with which the shipowner has a genuine economic link. The deterioriation of the Greek register can be said to be caused by the attempt to compete with flags of convenience. The alternative of port State control can achieve some reduction in the worst excesses caused by the flag of convenience phenomenon, but that would still be controlling the symptom rather than the disease.

The all too likely situation, in which a few States enforce flag State control over their ships and port State control over flag of convenience and other fleets, would unfairly place the responsibility, and the expense, of ensuring the safety of the seas and the conditions of seafarers, on those countries. Phasing out flags of convenience and the elimination of substandard ships are not incompatible. Those are complimentary objectives, and I am sad that the Government do not see it in this way.

I turn briefly to the proposed decision for establishing a Community information system. The Minister has described what that would involve. I shall not re hearse those points again. I agree with his summation of what is involved. There are considerable difficulties in providing a permanent inventory of staff, equipment and products for combating oil pollution and in providing a compendium of the properties of hydrocarbons and so on, which he described. There are acute difficulties, because to make them valuable and useful they must be kept up to date. That is where the problem lies.

I am not opposed to the idea of a data bank relating to tankers. That may be more relevant to the port State enforcement system, which the Minister referred to. It is not impossible to do that. It may be difficult, but, after all, it is possible to have a register of aircraft. For example, when the SAS or another body is mobilised because an aircraft has been hijacked, a plan is available. At present I believe that there is a difficulty about obtaining plans of vessels and tankers. We should give some attention to that. It will be interesting to hear what the Minister says in winding up the debate.

Substantial strides have been made in dealing with the threat to the environment as a result of oil pollution since the "Amoco Cadiz" disaster. I experienced many problems. Although we had a great problem with the "Eleni V", which was a hulk, and difficult to anchor in order to get rid of the oil, the Department could claim great credit for the success of dealing with the "Christos Bitas". I pay tribute to the officials and to others in the industry who were involved in that remarkable exercise.

The threat remains. My hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South is entitled to be deeply concerned about it. I shall listen with interest to the points that he makes. It is imperative that no one within the EEC or anywhere else should act unilaterally, outside the decisions of IMCO. When that happens, a grave danger arises. Within those parameters, and subject to avoiding the conferring of enhanced competence on the EEC, I welcome the interest that the Commission has taken in seeking to step up action in the fight against pollution to combat the effects of pollution and to try to harmonise efforts in these respects.

It may not have got the answer absolutely right. I prefer to take the avenue that is being considered by intergovernmental consultations. The matter is urgent. I hope that the Minister will report to the House in the not-toodistant future to the effect that real action will be taken.

May I say in conclusion that I very much appreciate the assistance and the advice that I have been given about the draft directives by the seafaring unions and by the General Council of British Shipping. I have consulted them and I am most grateful to them for their positive response.

1.2 am

Mr. Edward du Cann (Taunton)

I shall make only a short speech. I have listened to the whole of this interesting and important debate. There is one simple constructive point that I wish to make for the consideration of the House. There is substantial, latent public anxiety about safety at sea. Therefore, it is right that, whatever the time of day, the House should devote considerable attention to the matter.

I do not always agree with the hon. Member for Hackney, Central (Mr. Davis). Therefore, it is a particular pleasure to say that I was very much in accord with him when he said that a powerful, important and numerous British merchant fleet was significant to the British economy. I concurred with him again when he said that the United Kingdom had a duty to set high safety standards. Furthermore, but by no means least, I share his impatience to see that there is a continuous drive forward. He did the House a service when he suggested a series of constructive proposals.

Nevertheless, I could not help but be impressed by the catalogue of development to which my hon. Friend the Minister referred. Those who know my hon. Friend well have great confidence in his abilities and in his determination. I am glad to have the opportunity to express those sentiments publicly on behalf of my hon. Friends and myself.

There was one subject that was not mentioned by the Minister or by the hon. Member for Hackney, Central. That was a most significant aspect of safety—the need to have adequate charting. It is known in the House that I have an enthusiasm and particular interest in the subject. I could quote statistics in some detail and at some length. I forbear to do so tonight. I could talk about the way in which the draught of ships has altered over the years. I could talk about the way in which the size of shipping has altered. I could talk about the sea lanes and about the new routes. I could tell the House stories about the way in which wrecks have been known to shift. I could quote figures for the number of wrecks around the British Isles, and so on.

I shall quote only one statistic. In my view, it is a disgrace that we as a maritime nation have surveyed to modern standards only one-third of the Continental Shelf area around the United Kingdom.

I could speak of the age of the hydrographic fleet, its shortage of ships, its shortage of money and so on. I have done that before and I dare say I shall do it again in this House. I merely say that, if we are considering safety, we cannot ignore the fact that we badly need to make a much greater hydrographic effort around our own shores. That should be the responsibility not only of the Royal Navy, with its devoted team of seamen and surveyors, who are incomparable and who have rightly an unrivalled reputation in the world, but in part of the commercial departments in the United Kingdom.

Sooner or later—and as sure as the fact that we are here in this House tonight—there will be a tragic accident due to the fact that the waters round our shores are inadequately charted. Here is something that we could avoid if we had the will and the determination. I make no apology whatever for raising again in this House the need to ensure that adequate funds are available for hydrography in the United Kingdom.

1.7 am

Mr. John Garrett (Norwich, South)

I wish to intervene briefly in the debate in the interests of the county that I represent, its coasts and its wildlife. I recognise the great importance of saving human life at sea. My hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, Central (Mr. Davis) has already dealt with many of the safety considerations set out in the documents before the House. I wish to address myself to a single rather narrow point.

I welcome the EEC documents as a modest development on policy in the area of combating oil pollution at sea. At least they are a statement of intent. The British Government have been tardy in dealing with marine oil pollution. Their response has been inadequate compared with that of other European maritime countries, and they urgently need to develop policy in this area.

I shall refer to the dreadful risk to which the Norfolk coast is exposed. It is a coast which provides one of the finest habitats in Western Europe for marine bird life—an irreplaceable national asset. As we have heard, the EEC documents propose a set of procedures by which member States could identify sub-standard vessels visiting their ports and could require the owners of those ships to remedy those deficiencies before leaving port. The documents propose a Community information system to provide data for contingency measures for dealing with oil pollution, on the properties of hydrocarbons, and on oil tankers.

It struck me that the Minister's welcome tonight was rather warmer than the explanatory memoranda would lead one to believe. As far as I understood those memoranda, they supported, up to a point, the Commission's objectives on port State enforcement, although it is said that they could conflict with the Intergovernmental Maritime Consultative Organisation and undermine that body's effectiveness.

I recognise that the Minister tonight said that there had been further developments in this field, which to some extent deals with that question. Of course it speaks of difficulties in finding sufficient qualified manpower to implement the proposal, and on the information system it again refers to limited manpower and also to a tanker register being considered by industry interests—that is, the oil companies themselves—which does not seem to me to be a satisfactory way of dealing with it.

The European environmental bureau has described these proposals as only a fraction of what is needed in terms of tanker safety and pollution control and has said that action is needed in addition on routing, mandatory pilotage in some areas, regular checks on the integrity of large bulk carriers and mandatory procedures for inert gas systems and safety, navigation and communications equipment.

A few months ago I sponsored the showing in the House of Commons cinema of an excellent film called "Oil on troubled waters" made by Anglia TV, a company with an incomparable record of concern about environmental issues, which reflects a general concern about those issues throughout East Anglia.

That film showed the progress being made in Sweden with the development of a procedure for tagging oil cargoes with metal particles so as to enable the source of spills and dumping to be uniquely indentified. It showed extensive air surveillance of shipping lanes by Swedish pollution control authorities and their development of side-looking airborne radar and infra-red line scanning cameras to spot ships discharging oil. It showed the efforts being made by the French authorities to intercept rogue vessels in the Channel. It explained the terrible consequences of the substandard ships that ply the waters off our coasts. It also showed, I am sorry to say, the complacent attitude of our Department of Trade as regards matching these measures.

This was exemplified by the then Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit)—the predecessor of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. Eyre), who is now sitting on the Government Front Bench—saying that he did not want to get into a punch-up with the oil companies. I found that surprising from a Minister whose only political ability as far as I could see was to indulge in punch-ups.

To hear Anglia TV tell the story and to compare it with the Minister's bland speech tonight was most educative. I thought that Britain was indicted by that programme. I later put down questions on the matter, only to be told that the Minister considered tagging oil too difficult to be worth while and that the Government had no plans to introduce side-looking radar and infra-red cameras for spotting the discharge of oil into the sea.

In the last two years there have been two major oil-spill incidents off the Norfolk coast which have taught us a lot about the competence of the Department of Trade in these matters. On 8 May 1978 the "Eleni V" was involved in a collision off the Norfolk coast. My hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, Central (Mr. Davis) will remember it well. The incident showed poor planning by the Department of Trade and inadequate consultation with the local authorities. The Department of Trade sent 20 vessels to spray dispersant on an oil slick of heavy fuel oil when it knew that these dispersants are ineffective on such oil and make beach-cleaning much more difficult. 'Three years later the claims arising from the incident are still being heard in the courts.

I believe that the proposed information system on contingency planning could have taught us something m the "Eleni V" incident.

Mr Clinton Davis

My hon. Friend is perfectly fair to make these criticisms and I of course was cross-examined by a Select Committee on the issue, but I reject absolutely the suggestion that we did not have consultations with the local authorities. The consultation was painstaking and detailed, but however much we went into consultation in those circumstances certain vested interests would always urge that the consultations were inadequate. I reject that criticism outright.

Mr Garrett

I take my hon. Friend's rebuttal of what I said. I only know that since then the Department has been very badly thought of in Norfolk as a result of what the inhabitants of that county think about inadequate consultation.

The second incident happened this year and told me something about the workings of the Department of Trade. On 30 January this year the German roll-on roll-off ferry the "Ems" sank off the Norfolk coast. It released a light oil slick of 7 miles by 1 mile, which was dispersed by four vessels hired by the Department of Trade.

From the first week of November to the first week of March, increasing numbers of oiled birds were washed ashore, coated in medium or heavy fuel oil of a type not carried by the "Ems". In all, a 20-mile section of coast was affected. Some 1,500 birds were found on the coast from Hunstanton to the Suffolk border. Estimates were that up to 10 times that number could have been affected and have perished at sea. My information from local sources was that the only explanation for the phenomenon could be that at least one tanker was taking advantage of the "Ems" incident to discharge oily ballast at the site of the wreck to conceal the source of the pollution.

When the incident was at its height, I rang the Minister's private office to find out what action was being taken. I was informed that he was not responsible for action in that field, and that he merely answered questions in the House on the subject, so I should address my questions to his noble Friend, the other Under-Secretary of State. I then rang that Minister's private office, only to be told that he was abroad and that nobody at ministerial level was in charge of the area of oil pollution. At a time when thousands of birds were being killed, there was no one around with ministerial responsibility, at least as far as I was aware. As far as I know, no action was taken. I do not find that at all reassuring. Neither private office attempted to contact me again on the issue.

The Department later revealed in answer to a question that I put down that, by chance, a tanker had been observed discharging ballast at the site of the wreck of the "Ems" but had made off under cover of darkness. One would think that at least any tanker unloading in Britain would have to provide proof of where it discharged its oily ballast before taking on another load of product.

In the past nine years, 46,000 sea birds have been oiled to death around our coasts, the majority as a result of the discharge of cargo tanker residues. We do not keep ships far enough away from our coasts, we do not insist on high enough standards when they come into port and we do not ensure that ports are safe enough. Every foreign-owned tanker visiting an American port faces a tough inspection, but we have no complete inspection of tankers in our ports. In a random survey by the Health and Safety Executive, one tanker in three was found to have safety faults. I am told by wildlife bodies that Britain has a poor record on port State controls. The Department of Trade exists to favour shipping interests, yet it also has the responsibility for acting against them on pollution, which is a hopeless conflict of interests.

The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds said in its report, Marine Oil Pollution and Birds, after 70 years of failure by government and industry, the United Kingdom is placed in a position where the risks of catastrophic environmental damage due to oil pollution are greater than at any time in the past. It pointed out that in 1973 the convention for the prevention of pollution from ships sought the achievement, certainly by the end of the decade, of complete elimination of intentional marine pollution by oil…and the minimisation of accidental spills. It said: there is not the remotest prospect of this objective being achieved by 1980: indeed the terms of the convention have been revised of late making it improbable the objective will be achieved by the year 2000. The Norfolk coast is a wildlife and landscape heritage that is under constant threat. It has the most delicate ecology. The proposals in the EEC documents may go a little way towards protecting it, but much more has to be done. We need total tanker inspection by port States, as proposed here, an information system for pooling experience and the best operational practice, as proposed in the documents. We also have to ask ourselves whether we have the machinery of government and the will to prevent a catastrophe which sooner or later will engulf our beaches and bird life in a terrible black tide.

1.18 am
Mr. Eyre

There is a limit on the time available to us, and I shall refer first to the comments of my right hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann), who expressed deep concern about the issues involved. He went on to raise on safety grounds the need for accurate charting. I appreciate the nautical experience on which his views are based. I assure him that serious attention will be given to the points that he has made. I am most grateful to him for his comments.

The hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Garrett) expressed his concern—I accept it as being firmly based—for the Norfolk coast and for environmental matters. I am afraid that there is no time tonight to answer all the misrepresentations and inaccuracies contained in the television programme to which he referred. I refute the incorrect implications in his brief and inaccurate account of telephone calls. I have noted his comments.

Mr John Garrett

In what way was my account of the telephone calls inaccurate?

Mr. Eyre

Because of the implication that no Minister was available to deal with the hon. Gentleman. There was a misunderstanding between the offices, especially with the office that replied to the hon. Gentleman about my noble Friend. I have discussed that with the hon. Gentleman and he knows that, on a matter concerning pollution, when and if my noble Friend has to be abroad, I am available in the House or in the Department and willing to deal with the matter. I ask him to accept that a secretary who might answer a telephone during lunchtime would not be a proper source of information on a matter of this sort.

Mr Garrett

What the Minister says may be true from his point of view, but that does not make what I said inaccurate in any way. I should like him to withdraw that remark. I described what happened.

Mr Eyre

I do not want to differ unduly with the hon. Gentleman. If he feels unhappy about the use of the word "inaccurate", I shall withdraw it with pleasure. I emphasise that the impression he gave was not correct.

Mr Garrett

It was the impresssion I got.

Mr Eyre

The impresion that the hon. Gentleman got was not correct. He knows that my noble Friend and I are deeply concerned about these matters. I assure the hon. Gentleman that a Minister is available and would be glad to speak to the hon. Gentleman personally about difficulties should they occur at any time.

I have noted carefully the hon. Gentleman's comments. I hope that he acknowledges that progress is being made under the proposals we have discussed. I assure him of the great concern of Ministers in the Department of Trade who are responsible for these important maritime pollution matters. We are working extremely hard to bring about improvements. Great progress has been made—I think that the hon. Member for Hackney, Central (Mr. Davis) will concur with that view—and we are intent on maintaining it. We share the concern of the hon. Member for Norwich, South about environmental and coastal matters.

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Hackney, Central for his speech. When he has had an opportunity to read my speech he will find answers to many of the points that he has raised which come directly within the terms of the two documents. I have noted carefully his other points. I appreciate the general comments ranging across the two documents. I shall be glad to write to him, as he suggested, about any other outstanding matters which fall outside the two documents.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved, That this House takes note of European Community Documents Nos. 8480/80 (draft Directive concerning the enforcement, in respect of shipping using Community ports, of international standards for shipping safety and pollution prevention) and 8479/80 (Communication concerning a plan to combat oil pollution of the sea) and the updated explanatory memoranda of 18 May 1981; and welcomes the Government's intention to continue to work to improve the standards of maritime safety and to combat oil pollution.