Tankers (Hansard, 8 February 1993)

§ 4. Mr. Wallace
To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has made since 5 January to the International Maritime Organisation, regarding the safe routing of tankers in British coastal waters; and if he will make a statement.

§ The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. John MacGregor)
Since 5 January, three meetings have been held at which International Maritime Organisation officials were present. In addition, there has been a substantial discussion at the emergency Transport and Environment Council in Brussels. We expect shortly the Commission's communication on marine safety, for which we have been urgently pressing. I hope that this will be discussed at the next two Transport Council meetings, which may lead to further representations to the IMO.

§ Mr. Wallace
Can the Secretary of State clarify the position that emerged after last Thursday's meeting, which was chaired by his Department and involved a number of bodies involved in shipping? Can he confirm whether it is intended that the Pentland Firth and the Fair Isle Channel will become a no-go area? The Braer may have been observing the voluntary ban within a 10-mile radius from Shetland. The key is not necessarily a ban but proper monitoring of shipping using those channels. What 669 assessment has been made of radar surveillance in British coastal waters? Will the right hon. Gentleman take forward these proposals to the IMO?

§ Mr. MacGregor
I am willing to listen to various suggestions that we might wish to take to the IMO, including the outcome of Lord Donaldson's inquiry. As a result of last Thursday's meeting between tanker owners and operators and my Department, provisions are being drawn up for a code of voluntary restrictions on tankers operating in sensitive areas such as the two that the hon. Gentleman mentioned. It will be a voluntary code, because to have a compulsory code it is essential to work through the IMO, which is why I have always stressed the need to reach agreement in the IMO. Radar surveillance all round our coast would be extremely expensive. We must, therefore, carefully consider the cost benefits. If one tries to introduce directions as a result of monitoring it could have implications for international law.

§ Mr. Adley
In welcoming the announcement that my right hon. Friend made about the meeting last Thursday, may I ask him to press on with his discussions with our Community partners? Does he agree that the Community is in a very strong position to exercise significant influence in the IMO and, as member Governments are likely to be more responsive to environmental concerns than a rather remote body such as the IMO, is not it a good opportunity to take our policy further?

§ Mr. MacGregor
That is the point. If we are to get agreement on further measures at IMO level, which has never proved particularly easy or quick, the more agreement we achieve in the European Community on measures that could be urged there, the better. That has been the purpose of our discussions. I am sure that my hon. Friend will have noticed that the United Kingdom took a leading part in those discussions in January, as it did when it was president in the previous six months. Indeed, we were commended for the action that we took during the Braer incident.

§ Mr. Prescott
Although the House will welcome the Secretary of State's statement about moving towards some statutory control of the routings of vessels through that area, does he accept that the problem is that rogue operators and rogue ships take no notice of statutory enforcement or codes and that the only effective measure that they recognise is the possibility of getting caught? First, has he approached Norway and Russia about asking such ships to deposit their route movements with them when they pick up their cargoes? Secondly, it is nonsense to suggest that we have to wait for the IMO to get radar coverage in that area. Radar coverage is absolutely essential and the Government should decide to implement it now as the best form of deterrent.

§ Mr. MacGregor
The hon. Gentleman was not listening. I did not suggest that we needed IMO approval to have radar surveillance. I said that it involved substantial costs and that we should consider the cost benefits of implementing it all round the country. The hon. Gentleman was wrong on the first point, but, on the second, I agree that the tightening of port state controls, including the issue to which he referred, is certainly one of the most effective ways to bring pressure to bear on substandard ships. That is why we have given it high priority in the United Kingdom, where 30 per cent. of 670 ships are now subjected to port state control—that is way above the target—and where the number of ships detained has increased substantially in recent years. I agree that it is important to target more and that is an issue which we wish to take up internationally.

§ Mr. Peter Bottomley
There will be a general welcome for getting in place as many voluntary measures as possible, but does my right hon. Friend agree that to achieve the reduction there must be risk assessment? Would not it be a good idea to have radar surveillance in some of the most environmentally sensitive areas and the video recording of movements so that experts can consider what should be part of the voluntary agreement and what we should be asking for on a statutory basis later?

§ Mr. MacGregor
I see the point of it when there are benefits to be gained for the cost of putting such a system in place. That is why we have it in the Dover straits, where there are significant benefits. My hon. Friend's second point can be considered in the context of the Donaldson inquiry, although, even in that case, there could be implications for international law if one wanted to follow up the surveillance with positive measures.

§ Mr. Macdonald
Does the Secretary of State agree that there is little benefit in removing tankers from the Minches if the new rule takes them within four miles of the coastline of the Outer Hebrides? Will he therefore urgently consider surveying a new route 40 to 50 miles from the coastline?

§ Mr. MacGregor
The question of alternative routes, especially in extremely bad weather such as that during the Braer incident, is very much part of the arrangements that might be made and I shall certainly ensure that the hon. Gentleman's suggestion is considered.