OIL IN NAVIGABLE WATERS BILL [H.L.]

HL Deb 01 February 1955 vol 190 cc821-900

3.29 p.m.

Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.

Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Earl of Selkirk.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

House in Committee accordingly.

[The EARL OF DROGHEDA in the Chair]

Clause 1:

Discharge of certain oils into prohibited sea areas

1.—(1) If any oil to which this section applies is discharged from a British ship registered in the United Kingdom into a part of the sea which, in relation to that ship, is a prohibited sea area, or if any mixture containing oil to which this section applies is discharged from such a ship into such a part of the sea with the consequence that the oil in the mixture fouls the surface of the sea, the owner or master of the ship shall, subject to the provisions of this Act, be guilty of art offence under this section.

LORD HURCOMB moved, in subsection (1), to leave out with the consequence that the oil in the mixture fouls the surface of the sea.

The noble Lord said: In moving this Amendment to omit these words, nothing would be, further from my wish than to place British shipowners, to whom alone this clause refers, in any position of difficulty. Nevertheless, I feel that if these words are retained they will create an extremely difficult position in regard to the onus of proof of any offence having been committed. Under Clause 4 (5) it is to be a conclusive defence against any charge of pollution if the oil contained in the mixture is less than one hundred parts in a million parts of the mixture. If any discharge of oil in excess of that proportion has to be proved to have been, in fact, a fouling of the surface of the sea, I find it rather difficult to understand how successful proceedings are ever likely to be brought. The owner is protected also under Clause 4 against liability for any accident or leakage which he could not reasonably control or for anything which had to be done by reason of damage or danger.

I should have thought that it ought to be presumed that any deliberate discharge of oil in excess of the proportions specified in Clause 4 (5) was to be taken as a pollution of the sea; not that someone or other would have to prove whether there was an actual pollution of the surface of the sea or some portion of the sea not defined in the particular circumstances. For that reason I feel that these words are likely to go a long way towards reducing the efficacy of the clause. I should like to say again that I appreciate, as do all those who share my interest in this matter, the extremely far-sighted and generous way in which our own shipowners have approached the whole problem. Nevertheless, I cannot think that the words as they stand, and, in particular, the phrase "with the consequence," are going to make for efficient compliance with what is intended. I know that the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, will point out that the words occurred in the Convention itself, which talks about "any oily mixture the oil in which fouls the surface of the sea," but that is merely a descriptive phrase. It is quite another matter when one comes to drawing up the language of a Statute.

Amendment moved— Page 1, line 18, leave out ("with the consequence that the oil in the mixture fouls the surface of the sea").—(Lord Hurcomb.)

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

I think that in a Bill of this character it is necessary always to remember the international nature of what we are here handling. The noble Lord passes off a little lightly the fact that the words appear in the Convention, and says that they are descriptive. I think the Convention is written in language which closely approaches the language used in a Statute; it is not written in broad and general phrases, and I think it is perfectly clear. I will read the beginning of Article III: Subject to the provisions of Articles IV and V, the discharge from any tanker, being a ship to which the Convention applies, within any of the prohibited zones referred to in Annex A to the Convention in relation to tankers, of—

1. (a) oil;
2. (b) any oily mixture the oil in which fouls the surface of the sea,

shall be prohibited. The noble Lord says he does not want to see our shipowners placed in a position any more difficult than that of the shipowners of other countries, but I would emphasise that that must be the effect of the Amendment with which he is dealing.

I appreciate that he is concerned with the question of proof. He suggests that proof of pollution should be anything which amounts to more than one hundred parts of oil in one million parts of the mixture. Let me make this clear first of all. If anyone puts undiluted oil in the sea, that is an offence, as the noble Lord will see clearly in the first part of Clause 1. But if anyone puts in a mixture of oil and water, the noble Lord has in mind that a sample would have to be taken away and analysed before an offence could be established. We feel that that is not a possible course for the prosecution here. There are two ways in which proof can be obtained: first, there is visual evidence that fouling has taken place; and secondly, the evidence of the records. I think it is fair to say that if the records show certain facts, it would be a fair and proper presumption that fouling had taken place. I do not think that there should be undue difficulty in establishing whether there has been an offence or not. When all is said and done, if there has been no fouling of the surface (I am dealing here with high seas and not territorial waters) I do not think there is any great cause for anxiety. We have here ample grounds on which a prosecution could be brought and I do not think we should put our shipowners in a more disadvantageous position than foreign shipowners. For that reason I hope that the noble Lord will be able to withdraw his Amendment.

LORD WINSTER

I do not feel able to support this Amendment, in spite of what the noble Lord, Lord Hurcomb, has said. I think it is undesirable to remove words which appear in the International Convention. It appears to me that the effect of the Amendment would be to prevent British ships from discharging any oil, no matter how small a quantity, in prohibited areas. For example, a small quantity of lubricating oil which may be pumped out from the bilges would constitute an offence, as would also the pumping out of a small amount of residue oils from the separators. For this reason I think the effect of the Amendment would be unfortunate, and I hope it will be resisted.

EARL JOWITT

I have listened to this debate and taken in all I can from it. I want to ask about the meaning of the words "fouling the surface of the sea" because Clause 1 (1) plainly presupposes that there is some oil which fouls the surface of the sea and some which does not. I may be completely wrong, but I should have thought that any oil discharged into the sea operates in the same way; that is to say, it forms a slight film on the top of the water. I do not know, and I put it by way of interrogation. If a ship discharges a lot of oil at sea there is a large area covered by a film of oil, and if a ship discharges a little, there is a small area. I should have thought that any discharge of oil must foul the surface of the sea. I think that is what the noble Lord, Lord Hurcomb, meant when he said that the use of the phrase in the Convention was descriptive. Is it possible to imagine a discharge which does not foul the surface?

And what is the real effect of Clause 4 (5) to which reference has been made, which says that the mixture must be one hundred in a million parts? I think it all depends on how much is discharged. That seems to me to be muddled thinking. If I discharge 20 million gallons, even if the proportion of oil is very slight, it will have a damaging effect. I do not think that what you want to discover is the percentage of oil in the water, but the amount of oil which is discharged. Do I make my meaning plain to the noble Earl? If so, I shall be glad if between now and the next stage he will look into this clause and see whether there is not some point in what the noble Lord, Lord Hurcomb, said. It is fallacious to argue from the Convention, because the Convention describes what oil always must do, and this clause seems to me to presuppose that sometimes oil fouls the surfaces and sometimes it does not. For that reason I have a little difficulty in following the discussion.

THE EARL OF ILCHESTER

I rise to support my noble friend Lord Hurcomb, because I think this is an important matter. Before doing so, may I ask the Committee to allow me to make my apologies for not being here on Second Reading? On that day I was in the doctor's hands and I was not allowed to come. I have been concerned about this business of oil pollution for over twenty years. I have at times worked very hard on it. I first brought the matter to your Lordships' notice in 1933, when we had an interesting debate on the whole subject. We asked the Government then to bring it to the notice of foreign countries and also to give help in the matter, but they did not like the idea and nothing happened. Four years later, in 1937, I raised the subject again. I think the Government were a little more inclined then to deal with it, because other countries had begun to realise that they were getting a good deal of oil round their coasts. They were then kinder to us. I am not going to say more than a few words, but I was asked by the Trustees of the British Museum to bring this matter forward. We have reached the point when we all feel that this problem is international, and until we get Complete powers to deal with it—and even now we have not got them, though we have a voluntary understanding with a number of countries which have accepted the recent Convention—it will continue.

I do not think it is realised what the effect of oil is. Oil is a film, as the noble Earl in charge of the Bill has said, which floats on the top of the water. But it does not stop there; it goes down.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

No.

THE EARL OF ILCHESTER

I am sorry, but I must stick to that: I have the authority of the Government chemist for it. It does not always go down, but it does at times. Why deal with this problem as being only one of oil on top of the water, when it also goes down? I feel that that should be remembered. We are told—I have not seen the experiment carried out—that six quarts of oil will cover a square mile of the water surface. But there is the oil below the surface which, gets washed up on to the beaches—what we call the tanker bottom stuff, which is thrown out of the tank and goes down. But this other stuff goes down too. It gets on to the mudbank and destroys the small sea weeds on which the tiny, almost unobservable, fish live; and the moment there is no food for these tiny fish, which are the food of the bigger fish, the bigger fish go away. That is why this matter is important. I sincerely hope that the noble Earl will reconsider that point, because I believe that we are going only halfway in dealing with the film on the top of the water.

LORD HURCOMB

I ought perhaps to have said that I appreciated that, as the clause is drafted, any quantity of oil discharged as oil would be taken as fouling the surface of the sea: it is only when there is the mixture that this particular phrase applies. I hope that is right—in fact, I am sure it must be, because the noble Earl has said so. Nevertheless, when one considers that all the accidental and necessary discharges of this mixture are already protected, and that the discharge of any mixture which does not contain more than a certain proportion of oil would also not constitute an offence, I wonder whether it would not be reasonable to alter the incidence of the onus of proof, which seems to be quite burdensome on any authority wishing to enforce the intention of the Bill as it stands. Therefore, I hope that, before the Report stage, the noble Earl will look at this point again.

I would only add this. The noble Earl referred to the effect in relation to foreign shipowners. As I have said over and over again, I appreciate that our own shipowners have led the world in this matter and are entitled to the gratitude of everyone on that account. But I also know that this Bill, particularly the way in which it is drafted, is being closely studied by many other European countries who are looking for a model. I hope that nothing in the Bill will be so expressed as to give loopholes to people who are not so interested as our shipowners and our own Government in preventing pollution. I suggest that we ought not to leave a large number of unreasonable loopholes in the drafting of this Bill which will be greedily seized upon by people in other countries who would, perhaps, be quite ready to knock a few holes in the Convention if they could. I shall be prepared to withdraw the Amendment on the understanding that the noble Earl will have another look at this matter.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

Before the noble Lord withdraws the Amendment, perhaps I might reply to the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, and the noble Earl, Lord Ilchester. I agree with noble Lords that we want to be careful in this Bill because, in a sense, it is a forerunner that may become the model for Bills in other countries. At the same time, I hesitate to go beyond the Convention in a matter which has a strong practical element. I think it is important that that should be appreciated. The noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, asked when oil did not foul the surface. In spite of what the noble Earl, Lord Ilchester, has said, I still contend that oil normally floats on the top; and that, without doubt, constitutes fouling the surface. On the other hand, it must be clear to shipowners that they can discharge their oily ballast water, after they have cleaned it, into the sea. That may have a trace of oil, something of the order of 100 parts in 1 million, and in that sense technically would include some measure of oil. But I am given to understand that that will not foul the surface.

The noble and learned Earl asked what fouling is, and I would say that it is what can be seen visually; anybody can see when the surface is fouled. The noble Lord, Lord Hurcomb, said that there are many safeguards, so that any accidental discharge is covered. With respect, it is not correct to say that any accidental discharge is covered. All that is covered are certain discharges which may take place, and which we consider are proper as safeguards by a careful master for his ship. I will look at this point again, but I must make it clear that we are hesitant to go beyond the International Convention, which we feel meets the case that we have in mind here. I hope the noble Lord will now withdraw the Amendment.

LORD HURCOMB

I shall be glad to withdraw the Amendment if the question of where the onus of proof rests, and how it can be discharged, can be looked at again.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

Certainly.

LORD HURCOMB

Then I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

On Question: Whether Clause 1 shall stand part of the Bill?

3.49 p.m.

VISCOUNT RUNCIMAN OF DOX-FORD

Before we leave this clause I desire to raise one point on it. Before doing so, I should make two apologies to your Lordships: first, for not having been able to be here, like the noble Earl, Lord Ilchester, on the Second Reading of the Bill; and secondly—if indeed, "apology" is the right word—to declare my interest in the matter, in that anybody whose business is the management of ships must necessarily be at least a potential criminal in this matter, however hard he may try not to be. The point I want to raise is this. Your Lordships will see that subsection (2) of Clause 1 gives the Minister power, in effect, to add a new oil to those already defined by the subsection. That is a very proper power. It is always conceivable that some new persistent oil, of which we are at present unaware, may appear and it is right that the Minister should be able to deal with it. But this power is given in advance of any subsequent Convention, and the Minister has the power, as I apprehend, to prevent British ships from discharging such oils in any waters to which the present Convention applies.

I did not put down an Amendment on this point because I do not think it is the intention of the wording to empower the Minister to compel British ships to keep other people's doorsteps clean. When we discussed this matter certain countries showed much less apprehension than our own about the quantity of oil that was going about the world, and about the effect of it. It would be unfortunate from two points of view if the effect of this clause was that the Minister imposed regulations which prohibited British ships from discharging oil in waters in which the ships of other flags were perfectly free to discharge it. I have two reasons for saying that. The first is that I think it would not be fair, and the second is that I believe the cause which we all have at heart would not be helped, and might even be hampered, if this country were thought to be the general cleaner-up of other people's doorsteps.

One of the ways in which we are most likely to get certain countries, who hitherto have been rather reluctant to act and take some steps, is the sheer beastliness of their own coastlines. I do not think it would be helpful if the powers under this clause were used to make British ships keep other people's coastlines clean when they do not want to do it themselves. I should be grateful if the noble Earl could assure us that, until such time as the discharge of a new persistent oil is prohibited internationally, the prohibition of its discharge by British ships should be confined to those sea areas which are important in relation to the protection of the coasts and territorial waters of the United Kingdom. We recognise that the Minister can, and indeed should, impose more stringent regulations where United Kingdom waters are concerned than perhaps the Convention requires, and I should like to know that any powers he may have will be used only for the protection of this country.

LORD WINSTER

I should like to support what the noble Viscount has just said. I did not raise the point myself, as it was not the subject of an Amendment, but I think there is great force in the argument that these powers which the Minister is taking might result in placing greater restrictions upon British shipowners than are placed upon ships belonging to other nations. I do not think that the fact that we have taken such a lead in this matter and have fought so hard for the principles involved in the Bill is any reason why British shipowners should be placed at a disadvantage with their competitors.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

The noble Viscount is quite correct in this matter. At the top of page 2 of the Bill we have defined the oils to which Clause 1 applies, and, envisaging possibly the use of new oils, we have taken powers to extend the clause to those new oils if this should arise. I am happy to give the undertaking for which the noble Viscount asks, because I think it is fair and proper that it should be given. Unless the discharge of new types of persistent oil is prohibited by a new Convention to which the United Kingdom is party, then this power, which goes beyond the existing definition of oils and is outside the scope of the present Convention, will be used only to protect the coasts of this country and will not be imposed on British ships in other parts of the world. I hope that will meet the point.

VISCOUNT RUNCIMAN OF DOXFORD

I am very grateful.

LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH

Before we part with this clause, I should like to ask the noble Earl whether he would also give the Committee an assurance. Subsection (3) says: … the Minister may make exceptions from the operation of subsection (1) of this section, either absolutely or subject to any prescribed conditions. … I want the noble Earl to give your Lordships an assurance that the exceptions which are envisaged will not be extra to the exceptions that are already in the existing Convention—in other words, that the Minister will not go outside the exceptions in the present Convention in fulfilment of his powers under subsection (3) of Clause 1.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

The noble Lord has not given me notice of this question, and I am afraid that I have not a full answer to it at the moment, but I will see that he receives one. So far as I am aware, this provision is to meet certain cases of ships which, for one reason or another, cannot comply with the general regulations. I am given to understand that it will be rarely used, but I will see that the noble Lord has a fuller reply at a later date.

Clause 1 agreed to.

Clauses 2 and 3 agreed to.

Clause 4:

Special defences under ss. 1 and 3

4 —(1) Where a person is charged with an offence under section one of this Act, or is charged with an offence under the last preceding section as the owner or master of a vessel, it shall be a defence to prove that the oil or mixture in question was discharged for the purpose of securing the safety of the vessel, or of preventing damage to the vessel or her cargo, or of saving life.

(2) Where a person is charged as mentioned in the preceding subsection, it shall also be a defence to prove—

1. (a) that the oil or mixture escaped in consequence of damage to the vessel, and that after the damage occurred all reasonable steps were taken for preventing, or (if it could not be prevented) for stopping or reducing, the escape of the oil or mixture, or
2. (b) that the oil or mixture escaped by reason of leakage, that the leakage was not due to any want of reasonable care, and that after the escape was discovered all reasonable steps were taken for stopping or reducing it.

(4) Without prejudice to the last preceding subsection, it shall be a defence for the occupier of a place on land, who is charged with an offence under the last preceding section, to prove that the discharge was caused by the act of a person who was in that place without the permission (express or implied) of the occupier.

3.57 p.m.

LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH moved, in subsection (1), after the second "the" to insert "discharge of the". The noble Lord said: It may appear at first sight that the first and second Amendments in my name (and if your Lordships will permit me I should like to deal with them together) are little more than drafting. But they are of some importance. Subsection (1) of Clause 4 says that … .it shall be a defence to prove that the oil or mixture in question was discharged for the purpose of securing the safety of the vessel, or of preventing damage to the vessel or her cargo, or of saving life. For any of those causes, or to those ends, oil may be discharged. But the clause does not say whether it was reasonable that it should be discharged, or whether there was any other way of serving those ends. Therefore, I thought it would be proper to tighten the subsection a little by making it read: … it shall be a defence to prove that the discharge of the oil or mixture in question was reasonably necessary for the purpose of securing the safety of the vessel, or of preventing damage to the vessel or her cargo, or of saving life. I believe that this is a reasonable Amendment. Therefore, without any further remarks from me, I beg to move it.

Amendment moved— Page 4, line 34, after ("the") insert ("discharge of the").—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

The noble Lord is perfectly right. It is a defence to show that the discharge of oil is to save life—with which I do not think anyone would disagree—to secure the safety of the vessel, or to prevent damage to cargo. What the noble Lord has in mind, I think, is that a lot of oil might be discharged to save a small amount of cargo. I say, quite frankly, that that is a possible interpretation. But I do not think there can be any question about saving life or the vessel. Your Lordships will observe that I have an Amendment on the Paper which I think meets fully the point which the noble Lord has in mind. I hope the noble Lord will withdraw his Amendment and let me move my Amendment, which covers exactly that point. My Amendment reads: Provided that a defence under this subsection shall not have effect if the court is satisfied that the discharge of the oil or mixture was not necessary for the purpose alleged in the defence or was not a reasonable step to take in the circumstances.

EARL JOWITT

What is the difference between these two Amendments? I have some difficulty in following it. The Amendment of my noble friend Lord Lucas of Chilworth seems to me rather easier to read, but what does it all come to? Is it the question of the onus of proof, or what is the difference between the two? They cover very much the same ground. I have had some difficulty in finding out what the difference is. I think it is the onus of proof, is it not?

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

I am not prepared to say that there is very much in it. We thought that the Amendment which we have here was more satisfactory. I have not been into the matter in great detail because I thought my Amendment would meet the point; but I will go into it to see whether there is any real difference if the noble and learned Earl would prefer that.

EARL JOWITT

I thought that the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, would read more easily, but I do not attach much importance to the distinction. I think that, if there is a difference of substance—and I doubt whether there is—it turns on a question of the onus of proof. It is rather confusing.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

There is one point which could be made on this. The Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, might suggest that it was unreasonable to save life in some circumstances. That would not be a possible interpretation under the Amendment standing in my name, Amendment No. 4. That is one point.

EARL JOWITT

May I point out one thing?—perhaps the noble Earl will consider it.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

Yes.

EARL JOWITT

As this clause is drafted, the question is simply what the intention was. If a man can honestly say "I did it for one of these objects; that is why I opened the cock to discharge the oil," that is a defence, as the clause is drafted.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

Yes.

EARL JOWITT

Obviously, that is not enough, because there may be other means of doing it, or there may be a question of excessive amount or what you will; and so we want to bring in some element of reasonable necessity. Both Amendments are designed to do that and both achieve it. I am inclined to think that under the Amendment of my noble friend Lord Lucas of Chilworth the onus would be on the person who was accused to show that what he had done was done with the object which is specified and was not to an extent or of a nature which was not reasonably necessary. I think the onus would be on him. With regard to the noble Earl's Amendment, I am inclined to think, though the point is rather obscure, that the onus would be on the prosecution to establish that the discharge was not necessary. I think that is the main difference between the two Amendments. If the noble Earl will look at this matter between now and the next stage, I am certain that my noble friend Lord Lucas of Chilworth will be quite happy to withdraw his Amendment.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

I shall be glad to do that.

LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH

My noble and learned Leader has put his finger on the point. All the way through this Bill, where any offence has been committed, the wording is that "it shall be a defence to prove …" In a number of the further subsections in various clauses of this Bill as printed that is the precise wording. All of a sudden, the noble Earl now brings in a different form of words. We find that he does precisely the same thing in a later Amendment, which I will point out to him when we come to it. Having adopted the principle that it shall be a defence to prove this, that and the other, why not stick to it? As my noble and learned Leader says, it could be said that the burden of proof was altered. The noble Earl's Amendment says: … a defence under this subsection shall not have effect if the court is satisfied that the discharge of the oil … and so on. If the court is not satisfied at any point, it will not convict or it will not discharge—it has to be satisfied. As my noble and learned Leader has said, it is confusing to have the context altered all of a sudden. If the noble Earl will then not move his Amendment and will look into the matter and see what better wording can be mutually agreed upon before the next stage of the Bill, I will withdraw my Amendment.

4.5 p.m.

VISCOUNT HAILSHAM

I do not want to detain your Lordships, but may I say a few simple words in favour of the course proposed by my noble friend? In the first place, the noble and learned Earl must be quite right about the burden of proof and, with due respect to him, I do not think it is a very difficult point. The position, as the draft stands at the moment, is that a special defence is created if certain things are proved—namely, that a particular discharge is for one or other of two purposes specified in the clause. Then the new proviso about to be proposed by my noble friend says that that defence will stand but not if the prosecution can prove either that the discharge was not necessary or that it was not reasonable. That is one difference between the draft of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, and that of my noble friend.

There is another respect in which I should have thought that my noble friend's draft was manifestly superior. Both under the draft and under his Amendment it would not be a defence unless the discharge could be shown to be "necessary for the purpose"—or "reasonably necessary," according to the version proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth. But it might so turn out, as I think my noble friend has in mind, that, although necessary or reasonably necessary for one of the two specified purposes, the discharge was not reasonable at all—as, for instance, in the example he gave of a great quantity of oil discharged for the purpose of saving a relatively small quantity of cargo. It might turn out to be the case that it was reasonably necessary for that purpose, but was not a reasonable thing to do. That difficulty would be covered and vanquished by my noble friend's Amendment but it would not be covered by the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth. Therefore, at least in that second respect, and I think in both, I feel that my noble friend's Amendment is better than that which the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, has in mind.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

I am grateful to the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, for what he has said, because I have now had the opportunity of looking at this point. I think what he has said is right. The point is simply this: that in my Amendment the reasonableness of the discharge must be tested not only by whether it achieves its purpose—for example, the saving of a negligible amount of cargo —but also by whether it is a reasonable action when measured against that purpose. I think that is the reason why probably it is the better Amendment to adopt, if the Committee will agree to it.

LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH

I willingly accept the noble Earl's explanation. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

I beg to move this Amendment.

Amendment moved— Page 4, line 37, at end insert ("Provided that a defence under this subsection shall not have effect if the court is satisfied that the discharge of the oil or mixture was not necessary for the purpose alleged in the defence or was not a reasonable step to take in the circumstances").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH

Again, this Amendment is not of great importance, but I think it helps, especially now that the noble Earl has persuaded me to accept his other Amendment. I think it is reasonable to put in "as soon as practicable." I do not think I need amplify the point. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 4, line 41, after ("that") insert ("as soon as practicable").—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)

LORD WINSTER

I do not feel quite certain that this Amendment is necessary, because under the Bill the person charged with the offence will be required to prove that all reasonable steps were taken. I should have thought that the words "all reasonable steps" covered the words "as soon as practicable."

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

I find myself in full agreement with what the noble Lord, Lord Winster, has said. I do not think that the words which the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, wishes to add will in fact alter the meaning of this clause at all. But if he wishes to make it abundantly clear, or if he feels that there is any doubt about it, I have no objection to those words being included. I feel that "all reasonable steps" does not just mean taking steps at some indefinite period in the future; it obviously means taking timely steps. I am quite happy to leave it to the noble Lord. The wording adds nothing to the meaning, but I am quite willing for it to be inserted.

LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH

I am advised that it would help. If the noble Earl has no objection and it will not in any way operate against the principles of the Bill, then I accept his offer to include it.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

4.10 p.m.

THE EARL OF ILCHESTER

This is only a small point, but I believe that it may make the case a little stronger if we add "or any lack of repair." Those are perfectly straightforward words. So far as I see the Bill at present, it is not always straightforward; but I know how difficult these things are. I set no store by these words, but it seemed to me that their insertion might help. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 5, line 3, after ("care") insert ("or any lack of repair,").—(The Earl of Ilchester.)

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

I am bound to say that I agree with the noble Earl that this is a complicated Bill; I certainly shall not contend that it is a simple one. In Clause 4 (2) we have provided defences: in the first place, in the case of a ship which is damaged, say, by heavy seas or by collision; and, in the second place, under paragraph (b) (which is the point of the noble Earl) where a leak occurs. Even in the best found ships sometimes a leak occurs. That is not a matter which the master can necessarily prevent straight away. In a sense, I suppose it could be argued that if a leak occurs at any time, it is due to some lack of repair. I think, therefore, that the noble Earl's Amendment, if accepted, would mean that a master would be liable, although there would not be any fault on his part for which he would in fact be to blame. I think it is not dissimilar, for instance, to the puncture of a car tyre. Even people who keep their tyres in very good condition sometimes have a puncture, and I do not think the driver of the car could necessarily be held to have his car in bad repair because he has a puncture. I think that is a fairly reasonable analogy. I would, however, point out that the words at the bottom of the page make quite clear that in a case where this happens, after the escape is discovered all reasonable steps must be taken for stopping or reducing it. In those circumstances, I think that the noble Earl is going a little far in his Amendment. This paragraph merely covers the case where a leak occurs in some way or another for which the master is not at fault. I should therefore be grateful if the noble Earl could withdraw his Amendment.

LORD WINSTER

I feel sure that difficulties would arise if this Amendment were accepted. Surely, it would be most unfair on a master to prevent him from using a defence because of a leakage of oil due to lack of repair. I can foresee many and long legal arguments arising as a result of such words. If the lack of repair were due to neglect that would be one thing; but it can and does frequently happen that leaks arise, for instance, as a result of heavy weather damage, or the fracturing of an oil pipe, and in such a case it would be most unreasonable to prevent a master from using the circumstances as part of his defence.

THE EARL OF ILCHESTER

I am quite prepared to withdraw my Amendment if the noble Earl thinks the Bill is better without it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD LUCAS OF CHELWORTH

The reasons for my moving this Amendment are precisely the same as they were in regard to the previous Amendment which contains the same words. As I assume that the noble Earl is going to give me the same reply, I will say no more than that I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 5, line 3, after ("that") insert ("as soon as practicable.").—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH

The same remark applies to this Amendment. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 5, line 10, after ("that") insert ("as soon as practicable")—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

4.15 p.m.

VISCOUNT HAILSHAM moved, after subsection (3) to insert: (4) Where a person is charged with an offence under the last preceding section as the occupier of a place an land from which a mixture containing oil is alleged to have been discharged, it shall be a defence to prove that—

1. (a) the mixture was an effluent from an oil refinery or installation; and
2. (b) it was not reasonably practicable to dispose of such effluent otherwise than by discharge directly or indirectly into waters to which the last preceding section applies; and
3. (c) all reasonably practicable steps have been taken to reduce to a minimum the proportion of oil so discharged."

The noble Viscount said: This is a slightly more complicated Amendment, and although I will try to be as brief as possible, I hope the Committee will forgive me if I try to explain the circumstances which have led me to move it. May I say at the outset to my noble friend Lord Selkirk that, although this is an Amendment which I can confidently recommend to the Committee, those with whom I have been in consultation are well aware that there will be many other opportunities, either here or in another place, to move Amendments with the same object. Therefore, if it gives rise to discussion between now and the time when the Bill ultimately reaches the Statute Book, it will more than satisfy their desires at present.

The Committee have heard that this Bill as a whole is designed to give effect to a Convention, and originally, I understand, it was drafted so as to apply only to ships on the sea or in waters to which the Convent ion applied. But it was thought advisable at a later stage so to enlarge the Bill that it repealed and re-enacted with amendments the Oil in Navigable Waters Act, 1922, which has now been in force for some time and to which the Convention did not apply. So the terms of the enlarged Bill came to affect not merely the masters and owners of ships on the sea but also the great oil installations and refineries of this country which, since 1922, have grown up so as to constitute one of our major industries.

The great oil companies who own these refineries, all the substantial installations in connection with which are either on, or discharge into, waters to which Clause 3 of this Bill applies, are concerned about one aspect of the matter to which the enlarged Bill has drawn their attention. They are advised—and since I can modestly say that I did not give any advice at all to them, may I say that perhaps the advice is right—that as the Bill stands it will be an offence for any person to whom Clause 3, which we have now passed, applies (that is, amongst others, any owner of an oil installation or refinery) to discharge into the waters to which Clause 3 applies (that is to say, navigable waters or waters to which ocean-going ships have access) any quantity of oil, however small. To take an extreme instance, even a mixture with 20 or 30 parts of oil to the million would still constitute an offence.

The special defence which is open to a master of a sea-going ship is not open to someone who is charged with an offence under Clause 3–that is to say, the conclusive presumption in favour of the owner or master of a ship that a mixture of oil and water in which the oil does not exceed one hundred parts per million, is not presumed to be fouling the surface of the sea—is not available to the owners of refineries. Secondly, although the special defence which relates to the escape of oil is open to the owners of refineries, that, so they are advised, means only accidental escape; and if, in the course of its ordinary business, the refinery discharges into one of these navigable rivers or ship canals water in which there is an admixture of oil at all, and that is not an escape or not an accidental escape, then the special defence would not be open to them. So much for the legal position under the Bill as drafted.

The great oil companies are very much concerned because they are advised by their technicians that, if that be the law, they are, on every day of the week, committing an offence, because, so I am told, it is technically impossible to maintain an oil refinery or installation of any size unless some tiny quantity of oil is contained in the effluent which comes down and is discharged in every case into one of these waters. The quantity of the oil content is ordinarily extremely low. The amount of oil which affords conclusive presumption to the master of a vessel is one hundred parts in one million. I have seen a bottle containing a mixture of that proportion—it is invisible to the naked eye. But the effluent from these refineries even at the moment—and the matter is constantly being improved—is ordinarily very much of the order of twenty parts to one million, which is five times as clean. The companies are therefore very much concerned to assure the Committee that nothing is further from their mind than that they should discharge into any navigable water any noticeable quantity of oil at all. Indeed they are constantly concerned with the improvement of their methods of cleaning.

As matters stand at present, it is quite impossible to ensure only a chemically pure sample of water getting into navigable waters. That means that all the great oil companies of the land—five or six of the largest—concerned with one of the greatest industries which have arisen in recent years (refining something like £25 million or £30 million worth of oil a year—possibly more) are day by day deliberately doing that which under this Bill—and indeed, I am told, under the Act of 1922, though that is to some extent obsolescent—would be an offence. And none of the special defences would be available. It is true, of course, that they have the practical safeguard that under one of the later clauses of the Bill proceedings for a criminal offence under it can be instituted only on the fiat of some Minister of the Crown or one of the appropriate boards of authority, and therefore there is to some extent a practical safeguard against frivolous prosecutions in this matter. But those who are concerned with the matter think, and I am bound to agree, that this is not a satisfactory situation. It is not satisfactory that even a technical offence should be committed when everybody knows that the business as a whole is going to continue, and indeed, cannot continue except in circumstances in which samples of water which are not chemically pure of oil will continue to be discharged into waters to which Clause 3 applies.

In those circumstances it occurred to me that the correct course was to move an Amendment in this sense. I do press upon my noble friend this view: of course no one wants to weaken the safeguards of this Act, but in truth and in fact one does not increase respect for law by drafting it in such a way that perfectly responsible people are, even technically, committing offences under it. That is one of the very things which undermines respect for law, and it should not be beyond the wit of the Parliamentary draftsmen to devise some form of words to safeguard these great concerns in the legitimate conduct of their business, concerned as they are, day by day, to increase the purity of their effluent and to make quite sure that it does no harm. They are, in fact, already producing an effluent which is more than twice as pure as the average effluent discharged in the United States of America.

My own feeling is that the Committee ought to be satisfied with this particular Amendment. It gives a very narrow defence to people who are charged with offences under Clause 3 in respect of an oil refinery or installation, and who have taken all reasonable steps to reduce to a minimum the proportion of oil discharged, and it adds the additional safeguard that they have to prove that they could not get rid of it in any other way and that it was not reasonably practical to dispose of it otherwise than by discharging it into waters to which the Act applies. They therefore have to comply with three separate stringent conditions. I should have hoped, therefore, that the Committee would think I had done enough to make it extremely difficult for an oil company to escape in any case where it was not reasonably entitled to escape. There have been precedents for similar forms of words in this Bill, and I also had as models the Alkali Act, 1906, and the Rivers (Prevention of Pollution) Act, 1951. I have tried to adapt the form of words there used to this Statute, to which it seemed to me they were analogous. If my noble friend Lord Selkirk feels that any other methods of safe guarding these concerns is more suitable, or if he requires more time for consideration, or desires to consult with the concerns involved, or with myself, on this matter I shall be happy to accede to any request he may make. In the meantime I feel it my duty to move the Amendment, which I now beg to do.

Amendment moved— Page 5, line 11, at end insert the said subsection—(Viscount Hailsham.)

VISCOUNT WAVERLEY

I hope my noble friend will take time to consider this Amendment because it is undoubtedly concerned with a matter that might require very special consideration and remedial action. I am thinking at the moment merely of what might be the state of affairs if, over a substantial period of time, effluents, containing even a small proportion of deleterious matter, were permitted to flow into our inland waters, like the Thames or Southampton Water. I do not for a moment suggest that the interests of these great concerns who have shown themselves to be very public-spirited in such matters as this should not be fully safeguarded; but I do suggest that this is a matter which might well be taken further into consideration.

4.28 p.m.

LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH

I would add my plea to that of the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley. The noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, made a very strong case in a reasonable and restrained manner, but it is a serious matter, because the real point is not the percentage content of oil in the effluent; it is the gallonage of the effluent that can be a nuisance. The noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, has given us a picture of what Southampton Water could be like in years to come. The millions of gallons of effluent pumped out of the refinery at Fawley might make Southampton Water and Cowes Roads prohibitive for anything but the largest ships, and ruin the amenities of those who use the beaches of that delightful stretch of our coastline for their recreation and pleasure. This matter requires serious consideration.

I hope that the noble Earl in charge of the Bill will undertake to give it that consideration, to consult with all the authorities whom it may be proper to consult and perhaps to bring forward a practical suggestion; because I do not like the wording the noble Viscount suggests. His three paragraphs, (a), (b) and (c), are negative rather than positive, and I should prefer something positive rather than negative. I think this can be a matter of consideration by all of us who are interested in the Bill. I hope that Her Majesty's Government will be able to find some way, as the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, has said, of meeting industrial interests which mean so much to the economy of this country, and also the point of view of those who are seeking to safeguard the ordinary citizen in the enjoyment of the amenities of our coast line.

THE EARL OF ILCHESTER

May I also express the hope that this matter will be considered carefully? It is a very important point. I have been on a fishery board for over forty years, and the number of offences which have been occurring the whole time has been lamentable. I do not always blame people, for often the source of the trouble cannot be discovered. There has been trouble in Poole Harbour, but no one knows where the oil is coming from. The authorities of two installations in the neighbourhood are most anxious to find that out, but so far they have not been able to discover the source. That, of course, is only a small matter. But the moment you begin giving exemptions to big installations, such as these refineries, we have to be very careful. It is a fishery matter, of course, but it affects other interests as well. It affects the beaches and the people who use them, and we must be very careful of our grounds when we seek to get the right wording and the right method for dealing with the matter.

4.32 p.m.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

My Lords, I confess quite frankly that the point which the noble Viscount raises is one of at least some theoretical difficulty. I should like to take the opportunity of thanking him for the way he has moved his Amendment and for emphasising that he does not wish to weaken the main purpose of the Bill. I must point out that the Bill does nothing more, so far as this matter is concerned, than restate the law which has existed since 1922. That means that the position has not been changed, so far as oil refineries are concerned, for thirty-three years. There has been no change in the law, but it is true that a very large number of new refineries have been built. It is not really a hardship, I suggest, and it should not be a hardship, to continue the law as it exists at the present time.

The noble Viscount has gone back to, I think, 1951, to the Rivers (Prevention of Pollution) Act, to find the terms for his Amendment. But the 1951 Act covered effluents from industry generally. I say it with some hesitation, but I think the effluents of industry generally do not have the persistent qualities of oil. Most effluents from industry, I think it is fair to say, sink, dissolve and become dissipated. Oil is quite different. In general, it floats; and, far from dissipating it may become cumulative in its polluting effects. Indeed, in the opinion of some experts—I do not say that this is necessarily correct but it is their opinion—it has an almost indefinite existence. It is for this reason that not only is it necessary to prevent pollution but it is also so very difficult to dissipate pollution once it has taken place.

A very small effluent—and I would emphasise this point—does not constitute just a technical offence because of its volume. I am grateful to the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, for bringing up this point. Though the proportion may be small in volume, the oily material which comes from a very large refinery, running continuously day and night, into perhaps a relatively small area, is a matter of substance. I recognise frankly that, in our present state of knowledge, the oil refineries may not be able to produce an effluent which has no trace of oil in it. I am prepared to admit that in the present state of our knowledge an effluent cannot be produced from such refineries which is entirely free from oil. I am therefore anxious not to put an impossible burden on the oil companies, for we recognise the very important rôle they play in industry in this country. On the other hand, we must ensure that the areas in the vicinity of refineries are as fully protected from the possibilities of pollution as modern science and technology can make them. That is the problem which we want to examine so far as we can.

As to the noble Viscount's Amendment, there are, as I see it, two points of difficulty. First, take the question of examining whether it sets a sufficiently exacting standard for the oil companies to prove that all reasonably practicable steps have been taken. This is a highly technical subject and, frankly, I do not suppose that anyone knows very much about it except the oil companies. It would therefore present very considerable difficulty to anyone seeking to prosecute to find any evidence either to prove or disprove that all reasonably practicable steps had been taken.

My second objection to the Amendment is that, even supposing the oil companies do the maximum which is reasonably practicable in some directions, they need not in any way be concerned with the amount of pollution which may take place. I think it is essential that what they do should be related in some way to the amount of oil pollution. Oil companies might have first-class plant for disposing of effluent but, none the less, cumulative pollution might be taking place because the effluent was not being washed away. I think those are points which have to be met. I shall, however, be glad to look at this Amendment further to see whether we can find something which is fair to the people who may suffer from pollution and also fair to the oil companies. We want to be sure, first, that the oil companies are under sufficient pressure to produce the most effective way of disposing of their effluent and, secondly, that the efficiency of this method is related to the measure of cumulative pollution which may conceivably take place. If the noble Viscount will be good enough to withdraw his Amendment, I shall be glad to give every opportunity for trying to find something which meets the points I have tried to explain.

VISCOUNT HAILSHAM

Before I comply with the noble Earl's request—which I have undertaken in substance to do, and which I am about to do—perhaps your Lordships would like me to answer shortly some of the points made, if only to reassure some noble Lords about some of the anxieties which have been expressed. It appears from what my noble friend has said that we are all agreed, first, about the state of the law and, secondly, about the nature of the problem. In the third place, I think we are all agreed about the necessity for the maintenance of this very considerable industry which has grown up in our midst in the last thirty years. It would be a tragic thing, both from the economic point of view and also, I think, for strategic reasons, if the industry were rendered impossible. No one, I imagine, suggests that that should happen.

In the long run, I respectfully submit, it is intolerable to put any people in the position of going on, day after day, committing an offence—and knowing that it is an offence—in the ordinary course of their business. Therefore, the law has to be altered. It is true, as the noble Earl has said, that the law has remained substantially the same since 1922; but when that Act was drafted there was not much of a refining industry in this country, and, substantially, the problem did not exist at all. The law, therefore, must be altered in some way. I agree that it is a much more substantial question than ought to be dealt with at this short notice on an Amendment by myself.

As regards what the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, has said, he is, of course, quite right. One has to consider very carefully the possible effects of large quantities of deleterious matter entering our navigable waters, and I agree with the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, that one must consider the total quantity from all sources and not merely the quantity from one source. If I may say so—and this may do much to reassure the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth—it may well be that the quantity is not increasing but decreasing from time to time, as the technical efficiency of the refineries gradually progresses with new research. What is being proposed is not to increase the quantity of deleterious matter, or to do anything to prevent further improvements; it is, in fact, to legalise what is being done illegally now, with suitable safeguards for all concerned. Therefore, having regard to my noble friend's offer to consider this matter with those perhaps more technically qualified than I am to discuss the various methods by which this can be done, and with the hope that we may find a solution that will satisfy all concerned, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment now.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

4.41 p.m.

LORD HURCOMB moved to leave out subsection (4). The noble Lord said: In moving the omission of subsection (4), I should not like it to be thought that I, any more than any other noble Lord, am in favour of making people guilty of an offence which cannot be prevented Nevertheless, it is somewhat disturbing to think that it is necessary to provide a defence for the occupiers of premises from which these deleterious discharges can take place who may find trespassers and unauthorised people getting into their premises and interfering with their plant in such a way that an offence is committed. One would have thought that the risks were very small and that, if that did happen, there would be no great hardship in leaving the penalty on the owners and occupiers of the premises, as that would certainly stimulate them to take every possible precaution to safeguard their premises. If that is not done and, for purposes which are not very obvious, some unauthorised person does succeed in allowing oil to escape, apparently so far as this Bill is concerned he cannot be subject to prosecution. Perhaps this is a minor point, because he would probably be a man of straw from whom no particular damages could ever be recovered, and I do not regard that as the most serious aspect of the matter. I should, however, like some explanation from the noble Earl about why it is thought necessary to insert a provision of this kind against a contingency which must be rather remote but which, if it happened, ought to carry some sort of penalty upon the people able to compensate for the damage which has been done. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 5, line 12, leave out subsection (4).—(Lord Hurcomb.)

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

I do not think this matter is so mysterious. We are now dealing with territorial waters, and there is a liability on anybody who permits any oil to be discharged within territorial waters, without regard to the measure of dilution of the oil. This clause safeguards a man who has an oil plant on land from the results of an action by a trespasser for which he can have absolutely no responsibility whatsoever. It seems to me elementary justice that the owner should not be liable for the action of a man who may do something which the owner cannot in any way be held to control. The noble Lord has raised the interesting question of whether the trespasser himself could be made liable. I shall be very glad to consider this point, although it is obscure and pretty difficult. I think the point the noble Lord has in mind is that these land installations may not be adequately fenced or protected against the intrusion of a trespasser. He goes on to say that that will be the case unless the owners are made liable criminally for the actions of a trespasser when he goes on to their land.

LORD HURCOMB

I do not go so far as that. I said that if there is any real risk that these premises are open to invasion, perhaps a penalty put on the owner would stop any gap that might have been left.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

These premises are expensive, and include some of the most expensive plant in the country. In the majority of the cases they contain plant where the danger of fire is considerable, and I think that any normal proprietor takes good care to see that un-authorised people do not come into their premises at all. My feeling about this is that it is just and proper that a man should not be liable for the action of a trespasser. I do not think that there is any danger that this will happen very often, but we consider it right and proper to cover this contingency. I do not think there is any more to it than that.

LORD WINSTER

May I ask the noble Lord this question? Subsection (3) says … it shall be a defence to prove that the escape of the oil or mixture was not due to any want of reasonable care. … Does that not cover the escape of oil due to the presence of an unauthorised person on the land, over whose movements and actions the occupier has no means of control? It seems to me that perhaps this point in subsection (4) is covered by subsection (3).

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

Perhaps I could look at this matter more carefully, as it may be that the noble Lord's point is met here.

LORD HURCOMB

I do not want to press this Amendment, but perhaps the noble Earl will consider whether in such cases the actual offender ought not to be liable to special penalties under this Bill. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK moved, after subsection (4) to insert: (5) Where any oil, or mixture containing oil, is discharged in consequence of the exercise of any power conferred by sections five hundred and thirty to five hundred and thirty-two of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894 (which relate to the removal of wrecks by harbour, conservancy and lighthouse authorities), and apart from this subsection the authority exercising the power, or a person employed by or acting on behalf of the authority, would be guilty of an offence under section one of this Act, or under the last preceding section, in respect of that discharge, the authority or person shall not be convicted of that offence unless it is shown that they or he failed to take such steps (if any) as were reasonable in the circumstances for preventing, stopping or reducing the discharge.

The noble Earl said: This Amendment is a necessary protection for authorities who are charged with the statutory duty of removing wrecks. These include harbour authorities, Trinity House and Northern Lights. Where it is necessary to remove a wreck, it is obvious that in some cases this may involve discharge of oil from the wreck, although every precaution may be taken. Those who remove the wreck cannot claim protection under Clause 4 (1), because their action is not to save life or to secure the safety of the vessel: it is to secure the safety of other vessels. Therefore, we feel that this clause is necessary in order to safeguard these authorities from being criminally prosecuted under the Bill. I would point out, however, that at the end of the clause it is made clear that those responsible must take such steps as are reasonable to prevent the discharge of oil. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 5, line 16, at end insert the said subsection.—(The Earl of Selkirk.)

LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH

This is the other case of the two which I mentioned earlier to the noble Earl, where he has rather altered the context regarding the burden of proof. The last few lines of his Amendment reads: the authority or person shall not be convicted of that offence unless it is shown that they or he failed to take such steps (if any) as were reasonable in the circumstances for preventing, stopping or reducing the discharge. Before it was a defence; now the burden of proof is on the prosecution. Does the noble Earl not think that, if he is going to allocate the burden of proof in this way, and in the way which is alongside the Amendment which the Committee accepted from him, in lieu of mine, it had better go right through the Bill? Should he not do the same thing in every case? It seems to me to be quite wrong in all these cases to alter the sense of where the burden of proof lies, and to alter it in the Amendments and not in the context of the Bill. Would he at the same time consider—he has been so generous in accepting three Amendments from me—whether the words I have used previously, and which he has accepted, "as soon as practicable," should not be inserted, so that the subsection would read: … to take such steps (if any) as soon as practicable as were reasonable in the circumstances for preventing, stopping or reducing the discharge. I should like the noble Earl to consider my point about the burden of proof, and also to consider, as he has accepted the appropriateness of having "as soon as practicable" in Clause 4 (2) and (3), whether he would not accept those words I here, too.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

I will, of course, look at this matter to see whether there are any points which need further consideration. But these people are in a rather different position. They are carrying out their statutory duty of removing wrecks. If they are in a slightly different position, I should not have thought there was anything unusual about it. I will also look at the other point of the noble Lord, although I am not convinced that it is necessary to do this. In a way, the question of speed does not arise. What is required is to prevent the discharge of oil. When these people start dealing with a wreck, it is not necessarily a question of working at speed; they may have to take it to pieces; when they do that the oil tanks may discharge oil.

LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH

All I am asking is that the noble Earl will consider whether the words "as soon as practicable" would not be an additional safeguard.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

I will look into that.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 5 [Equipment in ships to prevent oil pollution]:

LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH moved, in subsection (2), to leave out the first "may" and insert "shall." The noble Lord said: I should like the noble Earl in charge of the Bill to consider whether or not in Clause 5 (2), at line 31, the word "may" should not be altered to "shall." The reasons I advance are these. In the second line of that subsection it says: … where any regulations made thereunder require ships to be fitted with equipment of a prescribed description the regulations may"— and that is the word "may" that I suggest should be altered to "shall"— provide that equipment of that description"— and that means the precribed description— shall not be installed in a ship to which the regulations apply unless it is of a type tested and approved by a person appointed by the Minister. It is really a narrow point. I would repeat that the regulations which the Minister makes stipulate that the equipment should be "of a prescribed description"; it does not matter about equipment of any other description. It does not matter if, for instance, the Minister wants experiments made. But if the Minister wants equipment of a prescribed pattern, in common sense that should be of a pattern that has been type tested and proved to be efficient. Therefore, in view of the importance of this particular clause, I think we could with propriety alter the word "may" to "shall." That is my point, and I should like the noble Earl to consider it. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 5, line 31, leave out ("may") and insert ("shall").—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

I do not think this Amendment is really as simple as the noble Lord suggests. What he is doing is placing a mandatory provision on the Minister. One difficulty is that there are a great many different types of equipment which are required, and some of them can be type tested and some cannot. I will give an example of the sort of equipment which cannot be type tested, namely, various equipment to prevent leakage of oil into the bilges of a ship. It depends on the type of engine and the general set-up in the engine room. I do not think it would be practicable to set up one type which would meet all cases. While I know that the noble Lord wants the Minister to use his powers—and he will use those powers—the effect of the Amendment would be rather clumsy, and it might, indeed, achieve results which the noble Lord would not want. It may amount to this: that if any equipment was of a sort that could not be type tested, then the Minister could not prescribe it.

LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH

Yes, he could.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

If the noble Lord reads it carefully, I am sure he will find that he could not. That is just one of the clumsy results that might flow from this Amendment. The Minister intends to use his power, where it is appropriate, to adopt type testing, and I think he must be given a measure of discretion. I hope the noble Lord will not press this Amendment, because I am sure we have the same thing in mind here.

LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH

If the noble Earl gives me that assurance, then I will willingly withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 5 agreed to.

Clause 6 [Penalties for offences under ss. 1, 3 and 5]:

4.58 p.m.

LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH moved to add to the first paragraph of the clause: "or imprisonment or both:". The noble Lord said: When the noble Viscount, Lord Runciman of Doxford, made his observations on Clause 1 of the Bill, I think he opened by saying that the Bill appeared to put all shipowners in the category of criminals. Therefore I do not anticipate that I shall get much sympathy from him in the Amendment that I am now moving, because what I propose to do is to increase the penalties. I suggest to your Lordships that this is an important matter. Here we are trying to clean up, so far as we can, something that has been a social scourge for a number of years. Clause 6 of the Bill sets out various penalties for offences under Clauses 1 and 3. Clause 1 deals only with British registered ships and thus confines itself to domestic masters, owners and crews, but Clause 3 embraces all ships in territorial waters. Clause 6 of the Bill provides: A person guilty of an offence under section one or section three of this Act, or under the last preceding section, shall, on conviction on indictment, or on summary conviction, be liable to a fine. Then it goes on to say: Provided that an offence shall not by virtue of this section be punishable on summary conviction by a fine exceeding one thousand pounds.

On indictment it is a fine only of an unstated amount which can be imposed—it may be less than £1,000 and may be a very small sum. There is nothing in that part of Clause 6 which gives any indication of the seriousness with which the Government treat this matter. I have put in the words, "imprisonment or both," and I have done so because I think the courts should have this discretion. For a very bad case I think there should be imprisonment. Of course, you cannot imprison a shipping company, but you can the master. If a shipping company were found guilty, then I presume it would have to be a monetary fine. This was the way in which I thought I would suggest that the penalty should be increased: say, on summary conviction, a fine of £1,000 or imprisonment not exceeding twelve months or both.

I shall listen attentively to any counter argument which the noble Earl makes. In Clause 7, a penalty of imprisonment is imposed for failing to keep proper records, so the principle of imprisonment is accepted as a penalty. I expect the noble Lord, Lord Winster, may have some observations to make upon this Amendment, and I shall listen with respect to what he has to say. I have put down the Amendment really to test the feeling of the Committee as to whether your Lordships feel that the penalties expressed in this clause fit the crime. If your Lordships are satisfied that they do, then I have not a lot to say, but I thought it only proper to put down an Amendment of this description to sense the feeling of your Lordships. With those words, I beg to move the first of my Amendments.

Amendment moved— Page 6, line 13, at end insert ("or imprisonment or both:").—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)

LORD WINSTER

I quite appreciate the motive which has animated my noble friend Lord Lucas of Chilworth in putting down this Amendment. He was quite right in anticipating that I have some arguments about it to put before him and, of course, before the Government. I feel that to add imprisonment to the penalties which can be imposed under the proposed legislation might react seriously to the detriment of ship masters. Those who represent the interests of Merchant Navy officers have had experience of British ship masters being arrested on flimsy charges and being imprisoned in foreign countries. The conditions in some of those prisons are indescribable. We have also had experience of the difficulties in making legal representations on behalf of a ship master who has been charged, and in some cases it has been found necessary to invoke the assistance of Government Departments to try to help the accused person through diplomatic channels. It is one thing having sentence passed or imposed after what we know as English justice has been done, but it is quite another thing when a master is arrested and put into prison in a foreign country under legal procedures which are absolutely alien to our own conceptions of justice. If we put the proposed provision into our legislation it may not only react unfavourably upon officers of the British Merchant Navy, but such provision may well also be copied by other countries to our detriment. It is for those reasons that I venture to express my doubts of the advisability of the Amendment which my noble friend has moved.

VISCOUNT RUNCIMAN OF DOXFORD

I should like to support what the noble Lord, Lord Winster, has said on this point. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, was good enough to say that, criminal as shipowners might be in this matter, it would be exceedingly difficult to imprison them in bulk. I think there is no doubt that this penalty would, if it were ever inflicted, be bound to fall primarily on ship masters. I should like to endorse what the noble Lord, Lord Winster, has said about the possible effects of this Bill if, as I think the noble Lord, Lord Hurcomb, suggested, it becomes a model for other countries. I am inclined to think that if a penalty of imprisonment is included here, it will be used rather more indiscriminately abroad than it would be likely to be at home. After all, I take it that the object of these penalties is, so far as possible, to prevent the offence. I speak with less knowledge of ship masters than does Lord Winster, but I doubt whether the threat of imprisonment is the most effective detriment on a ship master, who would almost certainly consider it unjust.

Fining is probably both easier to do and less liable to abuse abroad and, I suspect, in practice more efficient. It is almost certainly more efficient in the case of a shipowner, because he does not put oil—an expensive commodity—in the sea just for the amusement of gumming up sea birds. It is obvious that the real reason he does it is either through gross carelessness—for which I think a fine is the right penalty—or in the hopes of "getting away with it" to save money in another direction. I think, therefore, that a swingeing fine is much more likely to be the proper penalty, one which does fit the crime, than an attempt to imprison a large and probably, in this case, a wholly innocent body of shareholders.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

I do not think there is anything I need add to what has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Winster, and the noble Viscount, Lord Runciman of Doxford, on this subject. I think a system of imprisonment which would necessarily operate against a limited class of person is in itself slightly objectionable, particularly when that class of people are masters of our merchant ships. But I think it is unnecessary, even if it is undesirable, because we have put very heavy penalties indeed in this Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, suggested that the Government were not quite serious in their penalties, but they are very heavy indeed.

LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH

I did not say that. I said that the Government treated the whole matter with great seriousness.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

I am sorry if I misunderstood the noble Lord, and I withdraw that remark. What I would point out is this. It is true that, under Clause 7, there is one case in which imprisonment is included in this Bill. That is where an entry is made which, to the master's knowledge, is false or misleading in any material particular. That is quite a different type of offence. The issues which have been raised are quite decisive. This is an international Bill and a Bill which, as has already been stated, we hope to be a model. Anything which encourages any general system of imprisoning merchant captains in foreign ports is to be discouraged in every way. I think it is quite unnecessary in this Bill. I believe that, with these arguments, the noble Lord will be willing to withdraw his Amendment.

5.10 p.m.

LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH

Yes. The Amendment has served its object. I thought perhaps that what has been said would be said. With respect, I pay great attention to what the noble Lord, Lord Winster, has said, speaking as he does with great authority and knowledge of merchant officers and seamen. I would not accept altogether that the pace and temper of British justice in every phase should be set by foreign countries and the fear of reprisal: I think that would be a very dangerous principle. A great deal of argument is possible over this particular case, but if it is suggested that, for fear of what their countries would do to our nationals there, we should do away with many penalties in this country which might be inflicted upon foreign nationals—if British justice is in the future to be set on that line, it will be pretty poor.

There is great force in the arguments advanced by the noble Lord, Lord Winster. The noble Viscount, Lord Runciman of Doxford, said that he thought the proper deterrent in these cases was a very heavy fine. I agree with him, but I do not think he really appreciates the nuisance that oil pollution has been in this country in recent years. Some of our coast line has been disfigured. I am not going to level the charge of being guilty in that respect against British shipowners, but somebody has been responsible; somebody has polluted the water with oil. Therefore, if I withdraw this Amendment, I may take the noble Viscount, Lord Runciman of Doxford, at his word; and on the Report stage I may seek to increase the monetary penalties, because, although I know the noble Viscount would plead the poverty-striken nature of shipping companies and say that £1,000 would be a very heavy fine, I do not think he would find much support.

What I should like to ask the noble Earl in charge of the Bill to tell the House is why the first paragraph of this clause says: A person guilty of an offence … shall, on conviction on indictment, or on summary conviction, be liable to a fine. It does not state any maximum or any amount at all. Why? Surely it is only right—I have seen it in a good deal of legislation with which I have had to deal—that Parliament should give the Judiciary some indication of the severity of the fine or the severity of the offence. Would the noble Earl tell me why, on summary conviction, the maximum fine is £1,000, yet about conviction on indictment it says nothing as to what the fine shall be, except that there shall be one? If the noble Earl can tell me the answer to that, I will withdraw this Amendment.

VISCOUNT RUNCIMAN OF DOX-FORD

If I may for a moment, before the noble Earl replies, say this, I do not think the noble Lord is quite fair in accusing me of indifference in this matter. That is what I understood him to do. I hope that I misunderstood him.

LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH

The noble Viscount completely misunderstood me. I said that we cannot be indifferent to a matter which has resulted, in the last few years, in a lot of our coastline being polluted with oil.

VISCOUNT RUNCIMAN OF DOXFORD

I absolutely agree with the noble Lord—indeed, some of us have gone to some trouble to try to mitigate that nuisance as best we may. The only other thing I want to say is that I was not advocating that shipowners should be let off lightly. If found guilty, they should be extremely severely dealt with; and, even if they did regard £1,000 as a lot of money, as my own conscience is pretty clear on the matter I should not have the slightest objection to those fines being levied on someone else.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

The noble Lord has asked me for some information. This provision for an unlimited fine is unsual, but it has been used on a number of occasions, apart from the Merchant Shipping Acts. There are various precedents, among others, in addition to the Merchant Shipping Acts, the Merchandise Marks Act, 1887, the Forgery Act, 1913, the Mental Deficiency Act, 1913, the Larcency Act, 1916, and the Criminal Justice Act, 1948. These are cases where this particular form of punishment has been provided. It has been done deliberately and purposely so that the court should be able to exercise its discretion. I do not think I need say anything more.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 6 agreed to.

Clause 7 [Keeping of records of matters relating to oil]:

5.18 p.m.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

This is really a drafting Amendment. I think it is quite clear, in the sense that subsection (5) is clearly intended to provide penalties for subsection (4), as drafted. It will provide penalties for (4) (a), but not for (4)(b), (c) and (d). This Amendment covers that point. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 7, line 30, leave out from ("person") to ("he") in line 31 and insert ("fails to comply with any requirements imposed by or under this section,".—(The Earl of Selkirk.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH

moved in subsection (5), after "one hundred pounds" to insert: or imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months or both;

The noble Lord said: May I ask the noble Earl briefly whether he is of opinion that the arguments he advanced previously as to the inclusion of imprisonment hold good in this particular regard? The clause reads: If any person required to keep records under this section fails to keep them or to make proper entries therein, he shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding one hundred pounds; I seek to insert: or imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months or both. Subsection (5) goes on: and if any such person makes an entry in the records which is to his knowledge false or misleading in any material particular, he shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding two hundred pounds, or imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months, or both.

When it is a record "which is to his knowledge false or misleading in any material particular," the penalty already provided is a fine not exceeding £200, or imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months, or both; but when the conviction is a result of a failure to keep records "or to make proper entries therein," it is just a fine of £100 without the option of imprisonment. If the noble Earl thinks that the argument he advanced previously holds good in this particular case I will not press this Amendment, but it seems to me to be somewhat inconsistent that in the same clause, for the same class of offence, one has a very light monetary fine and then a slightly heavier monetary fine plus imprisonment. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 7, line 33, after ("pounds") insert ("or imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months or both;").—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

With great respect I do not think it is the same class of offence at all. For instance, the first offence dealt with is for failing to keep records in the right form. That is purely a technical offence and, as such, may be due to carelessness. But when we come to the second part, a person is making entries which he knows to be false and misleading, which clearly includes an element of evil intent. There is a whole difference in the world between evil intent and carelessness. That, I think, amply covers the point which the noble Lord has in mind. There is the international aspect, but I think to a large extent this is a technical offence which should be treated on quite a different scale.

LORD WINSTER

I should like to ask the noble Earl whether he considers that these fines are sufficient, having regard to the gravity of the offences, which really go to the very heart of the matter with which we are endeavouring to deal. Would the noble Earl consider the matter between now and the Report Stage, when he may be able to tell us whether he thinks these penalties are adequate?

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

Let me accept Lord Winster's proposal, speaking, as he does, with authority in this matter. But I should have thought that, in regard to the keeping of entries in a book, a fine of £100 was probably adequate. The moment you have an element of deliberate intention to deceive, the matter passes into a different category; but with regard to the keeping of records I should have thought, superficially, that a £100 fine was adequate. But I will certainly look at it.

LORD WINSTER

I have in mind particularly the second category.

EARL JOWITT

For a mere technical failure, it is obviously adequate; but suppose that a man says that he is not going to keep records at all; that he is going to disregard this clause altogether. There you have the element of intention quite deliberate—he does not make records. That is a very serious matter, and in that connection I should have thought that a fine of £100 would be quite inadequate.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

I readily accept what the noble and learned Earl has said, and I will look at it again.

LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH

Whilst the noble Earl is doing that, may I ask him to consider this point? This is not quite so simple a matter as he has suggested—a fine of £100 merely for failing to keep records. For what purposes are the records to be kept? Upon that depends the whole structure of this Bill—whether or not proper records are being kept while the ship is at sea. The Bill depends upon proper records being kept, because there will not be any visual aids—such as policemen with motor-boats floating all over the ocean. The only way one will be able to decide whether, in all the circumstances, a discharge of oil was proper will be according to the records. So this is not merely a matter of making a lot of entries on a piece of paper. I support the noble Lord, Lord Winster, in requesting that the noble Earl should look at this matter again. We may have consultations, but, whilst I am going to withdraw this Amendment, as I said previously I shall very likely reconsider the whole question now that I have not pressed the question of imprisonment, of whether in all the circumstances the fines provided are adequate. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

This is a consequential Amendment to Amendment No. 15. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 7, line 33 leave out ("such").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

This, too, is consequential. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 7, line 34, leave out ("the records") and insert ("any records kept under this section").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 7, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 8 [Facilities in harbours for disposal of oil residues]:

5.25 p.m.

LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH moved, in subsection (5), to leave out "may" and insert "shall" [direct]. The noble Lord said: Again, I want to try to persuade the noble Earl that, in all the circumstances, it would be as well to substitute "shall" for "may." I think the circumstances in Clause 8 subsection (5) are different from those we were discussing previously. Subsection (5) says: Where in the case of any harbour it appears to the Minister, after"— I stress the word "after"— consultation with the harbour authority and with any organisation appearing to him to be representative of owners of British ships registered in tie United Kingdom"— so it is after consultation with the harbour authority, after consultation with the shipowners and any organisation representative of owners of British ships registered in the United Kingdom—

1. "(a) if the harbour has oil reception facilities, that those facilities are inadequate, or
2. (b) if the harbour has no such facilities"—

so if the Minister has come to either of those two conclusions, after proper consultation with all the appropriate authorities— the Minister may direct the harbour authority to provide, or arrange for the provision of, such oil reception facilities as may be specified in the directions. I seek to move to leave out "may" and to insert "shall." I think there should be a mandatory duty upon the Minister, after he has taken all proper consultative steps, and if he comes to the conclusion that it is necessary that oil reception facilities should be in that harbour, or that the harbour has not adequate oil reception facilities, to direct the harbour authority to provide, or direct the harbour authority to arrange for someone else to provide, those proper and adequate facilities.

I think that this is one of the most important clauses in the whole of the Bill, and I hope that the noble Earl will see the force of my argument. I am reinforced in this opinion because, if the noble Earl will turn to Resolution 6 of the Convention, he will see these words: That pending the coming into operation of the present Convention, Governments should take immediate steps, whether by legislation or otherwise"— to do the particular things that I have suggested here. This is a very serious matter, because it is in harbours where a lot of this nuisance arises. I think that after the safeguards at the beginning of subsection (5), of proper consultation with shipowners and harbour authorities, where the Minister then comes to this conclusion we should say that it is mandatory on him to direct the harbour authority to provide such oil reception facilities or to make arrangements for other folk to do so. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 8, line 42, leave out ("may") and insert ("shall").—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

I entirely appreciate the noble Lord's purposes in moving this Amendment, and I can assure him that it is the intention of the Minister to see that these facilities are provided. The only thing that I would say is that in putting it in the way he has, he is, if I may say so, putting the Minister in a straitjacket, and I should like to explain why that is my opinion. There are many different ways in which these facilities may be provided. They may be provided by the harbour authority, they may be provided by the shipowners in some cases, or they may be provided by the oil interests in others; but I should like to draw the noble Lord's attention to the effect of the word "shall" which here becomes mandatory. This means that as soon as this clause in fact becomes operative the Minister is obliged to give a direction to the harbour authority if they have not already provided reception facilities. Though he is obliged to give a direction to the harbour authority, he can give any direction which he likes; he can, for instance, give a direction that the facilities shall consist of one oil drum—although that is an absurd example. The real point here is that it is necessary for the Minister to have a certain amount of elbow room and to ensure provision of the facilities. I can assure the noble Lord that the Minister will not hesitate to use his powers if he finds it necessary to do so, and I very much hope the noble Lord will find it possible to withdraw his Amendment.

LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH

If cannot altogether agree with the noble Earl. I am not putting the Minister in any straitjacket. I am not imposing upon him the responsibility that, the moment this Bill become an Act, he has to take this action. I would refer the noble Earl to the first few words of subsection (5): Where in the case of any harbour it appears to the Minister, after consultation with the harbour authority and with any organisation appearing to him to be representative of owners of British ships it then appears to him that it is essential that the oil facilities should be provided, or that existing facilities are not adequate, then I say he shall direct the harbour authority either to provide them or to see that other people provide them. There is plenty of elbow room, because if it does not appear to the Minister that the situation is of sufficient consequence, he will not make the direction. If the Minister is so convinced that it is necessary, and if he is going to do it, then why burke at having a mandatory direction? I am afraid we are going to whittle down a lot of the effectiveness. I am hoping to tighten this subsection and I believe the noble Lord's safeguard lies in the well-drafted first sentence: If it appears to the Minister, after consultation". That surely gives all the latitude that is wanted. I would ask the noble Earl to look at it again, for this is entirely different from the last case and it is not putting the Minister in any straitjacket, nor confining him; it is giving him freedom. But we say that after he has made up his mind one way or the other, he shall act.

LORD WINSTER

I would support the strengthening of this clause for a reason which has not been mentioned. In the course of a debate on another subject, I called attention to the necessity, in view of the nature of modern weapons, of providing much more ample alternative port facilities in this country than we at present enjoy, especially in regard to deliveries of oil. It is of the greatest importance that the Minister should have full power and should exercise it to provide us with as many alternative ports of delivery for oil as is feasible.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

I appreciate the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Winster, but of course the Minister cannot, by this power, direct the establishment of a port for delivery of oil. The Bill says only that facilities should be available at certain ports for oil residue. I will certainly look at the matter again, but I believe that when the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, looks into it he will find that his Amendment imposes pretty narrow limits for the Minister's action. I feel the correct way would be to stimulate a Minister by Parliamentary action if necessary, rather than by putting mandatory regulations of this character in the Bill.

LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH

As the noble Earl undertakes to look at the matter again, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

5.36 p.m.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK moved, after subsection (5) to insert: (6) For the purposes of the last preceding subsection it shall be assumed that there is no need for oil reception facilities in a harbour to be capable of receiving ballast water which contains oil and has not been subjected to a process for separating the oil from the water, and the Minister shall exercise his powers under that subsection accordingly.

The noble Earl said: The purpose of this clause is to make clear what are the responsibilities of the master of the ship and of the harbour. The master of the ship has the responsibility of reducing the bulk of the oily residue so far as he can, and, when he has done that, it is a harbour's responsibility to provide facilities to take it. If we were to take it in the other way, that a dry cargo ship could go in without bothering to separate oil and water at all, then the size of tanking to be maintained by the harbour on shore would be very considerable and would greatly add to the burden of what a port authority has to provide. For that reason I ask the Committee to accept this Amendment. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 8, line 44, at end insert the said subsection.—(The Earl of Selkirk.)

LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH

I hope the noble Earl will forgive me, but this Amendment is completely and utterly unintelligible to me. I expect it is my fault, but what the noble Earl has now said has not shed one ray of light upon it for me. Subsection (5) says that the Minister has to satisfy himself that there are all reception facilities in a harbour and that those facilities, if they are there, are adequate. If, after consultation with the appropriate authorities, he decides one or the other, he may or shall give directions. Then the noble Earl asks to put in another subsection to follow subsection (5) in which he says: For the purposes of the last preceding subsection it shall be assumed that there is no need for oil reception facilities in a harbour to be capable of receiving ballast water which contains oil and has not been subjected to a process for separating the oil from the water, and the Minister shall exercise his powers under that subsection accordingly. What does he do? Where do they put the water and oil—into the sea or where? The noble Earl has not put this Amendment down for fun, but I wish he would tell me precisely what it means. The noble Viscount, Lord Runciman of Doxford, and the noble Lord, Lord Winster, are experts in these matters, but we on this side have been puzzled and can make neither head nor tail of this.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

I should be only too glad to have some of the shipping experts to deal with it. I dealt with it fully on Second Reading and I am extremely sorry the noble Lord did not understand it, but I believe it was intelligible to those who knew about the matters concerned. I do not want to go into great detail, but the procedure behind the whole Bill is unintelligible unless this point is understood. The oily residue in a ship is separated from the ballast water by various processes of filtration or draining and is put into what is known as a slop tank. It is the content of the slop tank which is put into the facilities of the harbour, while the remainder—virtually clean water—is let out into the sea. That is the procedure for tankers and dry cargo ships. I am saying that the whole of the oily ballast, all the water in a dry cargo ship, need not be tanked. The reception facilities should not be of such a size as to be able to take the whole of the oily ballast water, because such a requirement would necessitate very large tankage space. Instead, they need only take the residue which it is the business of the master to reduce so far as he possibly can. That is the extent of the obligation which this Bill puts on to the harbour authorities. I hope I have explained the situation. It is really quite simple in principle.

EARL JOWITT

I would just ask the noble Earl whether he will have this point looked at by the draftsmen. It is a pure question of drafting. I quite understand what the noble Earl wants to do, but I venture to suggest that the Amendment has got into rather an involved state. I confess that, reading it without expert knowledge, I was unable to understand what it was. I think that what is needed is that the draftsmen should look at it again. Draftsmen are really highly skilled people, and I am sure they can put this matter right. It may be that they will make it a little longer. It may even mean putting a full stop into the sentence—which would not be a bad thing at all. Indeed, it may even mean two full stops to ensure that he who runs and reads and who addresses his mind intelligently to this Amendment may understand it. I have tried to apply my mind intelligently to it, but I confess that I find great difficulty in understanding the Amendment. That may be because I have not got expert technical knowledge. It may be because the language is obscure. I suspect it is a bit of both.

I do not know whether the shipowners have been trying their hand here at drafting. If they have, then I suggest that they make just as bad a job of it as lawyers would make if they tried to run ships—and I cannot say more than that. Ship-owners should supply the technical knowledge which is wanted, and then leave the work of drafting to lawyers. I am certain that if this Amendment is looked at again the draftsmen can put it into rather simpler form so that the ordinary intelligent person may understand it. At the present moment, judging from my personal standard, I do not think it is easy to, understand.

5.42 p.m.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

I am very willing to accede to the noble and learned Earl's request. I will certainly have this Amendment looked at again, and will have the wording carefully vetted to see whether it cannot be improved. No doubt it can. Of course, I have myself been thinking largely in terms of this sort for some time, and no doubt that is why the Amendment did not seem to me personally to present any difficulty. But no doubt it does present difficulty to other people, and I am grateful to the noble Earl for drawing my attention to this aspect of it.

LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH

My Lords, I am sorry that the noble Earl was rather upset. He did raise this matter on Second Reading, and I understood him perfectly then. But may I say, with respect, that, in my opinion, this Amendment does not interpret what he then said. If only they would get a few punctuation marks in the draftsmen's department and not so much ballast water, I think they would easily be able to make this matter intelligible to ordinary people. As the noble Earl knows, I am not objecting to what he is seeking to do, but I think it should be made intelligible.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

I am grateful to the noble Lords opposite who have just spoken. I hope they will allow the Amendment to go through now, and I will have the wording looked at with a view to an improvement later.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

5.43 p.m.

LORD HURCOMB moved to leave out subsection (6). The noble Lord said: In moving the omission of this subsection it is not my intention to impose additional obligations upon harbour authorities, but rather to draw attention to what seems to me to be a serious gap in the scheme of the Bill, because harbour authorities will be under no obligation, and the Minister will have no power to require them, to provide facilities in connection with tankers. I understand that the reason for that, as the noble Earl said on the Second Reading, is that the Minister has received assurances from the oil companies that at all their installations they mean to provide adequate facilities. Nevertheless, even if they do so, one would have thought that there would be some advantage in the Minister having the necessary power to require them to do so, if the facilities were not in his opinion adequate.

It has, I think, been generally accepted by your Lordships that this Bill is likely to be a model for the legislation of other countries, and that has peculiar force here, as it does not follow in the least that because our oil companies have given adequate assurances to our Minister, the oil companies of the world in other countries will have done the same to the Governments of those other countries. The Bill is adequate at first sight, but I think that, when one looks into it more deeply, there is a gap, in that no one is to be under any kind of obligation under this Bill to provide facilities in connection with tankers; and tankers, of course, are the major source of the trouble which the Bill and the Convention are designed to cure. Having said that, I am free to admit that I think the proposal merely to omit the subsection would not put the clause in the final form in which I think it should be left. But the point seems to me to be one of real substance, and I hope the noble Earl will not content himself with merely saying again that he has received proper assurances from our own oil companies who, like our shipowners, have shown themselves thoroughly enlightened in this matter. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 9, line 1, leave out subsection (6).—(Lord Hurcomb.)

LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH

Before the noble Earl replies, may I reinforce what the noble Lord, Lord Hurcomb, has said. I had it in mind originally to put down a similar kind of Amendment, but then, I thought that perhaps it would be preferable to raise the matters which I wanted to raise on the Motion that the clause stand part of the Bill. I want to ask the noble Earl this question: Where does the coverage come in for oil companies or oil tankers under this whole clause? As the noble Lord, Lord Hurcomb, has said. oil tankers form a very large part of the shipping that will be affected by this Bill. If I had to make an accusation—if I may put it that way—regarding past troubles, it would be that oil tankers have been far more prone than the ordinary dry-cargo ships to pollute the waters round these coasts. When a clause is put in a Bill to say that, notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (4) of this clause, oil reception facilities need not be given to tankers, where does the Resolution of the Convention come in?

Resolution 4 of the Convention reads: That (1) adequate facilities should be provided at repair ports for the reception of oil residues from tankers and dry-cargo ships, and (2) unless reception facilities for oil residues are provided by other bodies, the oil companies concerned should as soon as possible provide reception facilities at oil-loading terminals for which they are responsible and at which such facilities are not yet adequate, in particular at those oil-loading terminals from which crude oil is shipped. I cannot understand why there should be this (if I may use the expression) "let out," that the requirements of tankers shall be disregarded by the Minister in exercising his powers under the list preceding subsection, a subsection about which I had something to say, particularly with regard to mandatory power being given to the Minister. I think that needs some explanation, and if the noble Earl cannot satisfy us on this side of the House, I feel that we shall have to deal with this matter severely upon the next stage of the Bill. If the noble Earl's reply to Lord Hurcomb is that the Government have received assurances from the oil companies that they are going to provide all these facilities, et cetera, et cetera, then what harm is there in putting it into the Bill?

The other argument I would advance is that we cannot pass legislation on promises from prospective offending parties. If we are going to base law in this country on such a flimsy proposition all I would say is: why not trust everyone? Why have any legislation, or any penalties in any legislation? I am not saying that the oil companies' tankers are any worse than the ships of anybody else, but they are a source, and will be a growing source, of pollution around our coast unless everything is done to prevent it; and I think it is showing special favour to let oil tankers and oil companies out of the provisions like this.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

I think there is a fundamental misunderstanding here. In the first place I see there are four Amendments to subsection (6) on the Order Paper and I should have thought these would come before the question of whether the Clause shall stand part of the Bill I say that only because I may have to repeat to the noble Earl, Lord Ilchester, some of the arguments I am using now. There is a substantial difference between tankers and all other kinds of ships in which the receiving authority has a close interest. The noble Lord asks what coverage there is here. It is that every oil company provides facilities for its own tankers, and if they are guilty of a criminal offence they are subject to perhaps unlimited liability. That is a fundamental difference between dry cargo ships and oil tankers. When a dry cargo ship comes into harbour, it has no direct connection with the harbour authority, although it is true that there are customs and payment of dues and that kind of thing. But tankers have a close connection with the oil loading and receiving ports. The harbour authorities are not normally the receiving and loading authorities for tankers; that work is done by the oil companies themselves. Therefore, it seems to me perfectly clear that the oil companies themselves must be responsible for providing their own facilities in their own interests. If a dry cargo ship falls foul of the criminal law, that does not matter in the least to the harbour authority; but if a tanker falls foul of the law, it is of considerable concern to the oil company. That is the fundamental distinction.

I thought the noble Lord referred a little unfortunately to promises as "flimsy propositions." I think it is a pity to use these words as lightly as that. But the noble Lord can be reassured that here it is in the very real interest of the oil companies to see that their own tankers do not run foul of the criminal law. I should acid that the oil companies have voluntarily given full assurances that these facilities will be provided. I can give the noble Lord, Lord Hurcomb, that absolute assurance. The assurances have been freely given, and we have accepted them and believe that they will be fully carried out. That is the reason why it seems to me unnecessary to take these additional powers in regard to harbour authorities. We believe that from a practical point of view this will fully meet what the noble Lord has in mind. For that reason I hope the noble Lord will withdraw his Amendment.

LORD HURCOMB

I accept all that the noble Earl has said: but does it not perhaps prove too much? If it was so obviously in the interests of every oil company to provide these facilities for their tankers, why has it not been done in the past and why is it not being done all over the world now?

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

With the greatest respect to the noble Lord, I would point out that this is a new law arising out of a new Convention which wits only signed in April of last year, and to me that seems to put things on an entirely different basis.

LORD HURCOMB

I agree that there is some alteration in the circumstances; nevertheless I feel that a gap is left and that it would do no harm to the oil companies, who have given these satisfactory assurances so far as we are concerned, if the terms of legislation did not leave this obvious hole, which might be repeated in other countries where the oil companies may not be willing to give such assurances and where they may find the balance of their interests does not altogether lie in the direction of providing them. I am bound to say that I do not think the answer on behalf, of the Government is conclusive to the point I have raised, and I hope it may be considered at some further stage. I have no doubt it will before the Bill takes final shape and passes into law.

LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH

Before the noble Lord withdraws his Amendment, will the noble Earl answer this question? He seems to have based his argument on privately-owned tankers, because he talked about the oil companies and their own tankers. What about the free-lance tankers, of which there are legion? If a free-lance tanker puts into a harbour to empty its bilge, what happens then? It is all right for Ford and Esso tankers, but what about the hundred-and-one other tankers on the high seas who may go into a harbour for some distressment, or assumed distressment? Are we going to say that they cannot use any of these facilities? I may be wrong, but I think the noble Earl has discussed this matter on the assumption that all tankers are owned by oil companies. That is not correct. I do not want the noble Earl to answer me now. Perhaps he will give consideration to this point, as I can assure him very serious consideration will have to be given to it before the Bill has finished its journey through Parliament and arrives at the Statute Book.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

I think there need be no confusion about this matter at all. It is true that free-lance tankers may go to oil depôts, and these depôts have to provide facilities for other tankers as well as their own. Indeed, if they did not provide for other tankers, these tankers would not come at all. It is essential in the companies' own interests to provide these facilities. I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Hurcomb, that criminal law in respect of oil discharged on the high seas has never existed before. This is an entirely new situation. I am informed that free tankers are normally on charter to oil companies, so that the oil companies are probably liable if they are guilty of a criminal offence. But this is not the obvious hole in the arrangements of this Bill. The obvious hole is quite a different one, and the noble Lord, Lord Hurcomb, knows it quite well. The hole is whether facilities of this character will be provided at the loading points of oil companies overseas. That is a hole which we cannot fill by this Bill. We are entirely dependent on the oil companies meeting that responsibility themselves. That is the difficulty. Frankly, I have no anxiety about what is to be provided in this country, but I have anxiety about what will be provided overseas. From the practical angle, the situation in this country is satisfactory.

On Question, Amendment negatived.

LORD HURCOMB

I was prepared to withdraw the Amendment.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

The facilities dealt with in the next Amendment can be provided by harbour authorities, but the Minister need not use his powers. Just as there is a direct connection between an oil company and a tanker, so there is a direct connection between a repair yard and a ship undergoing repair. We regard the disposal of oil from a ship undergoing repair as part and parcel of the repair bill. I think this is a proper and right Amendment, substantially for the reasons, though rather differently grounded, which I have given previously. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 9, line 5, after first ("tankers") insert ("or for the reception of oil residues discharged for the purpose of enabling a vessel to undergo repairs;").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)

LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH

I am not going to weary your Lordships by reiterating my objections, but I have the same objections to this Amendment and to other Amendments of a like nature. I am not going to challenge it now, but I shall give it consideration between now and the next stage of the Bill.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE EARL OF ILCHESTER moved, in subsection (6), after "by tankers" to insert, "other than coastwise tankers;". The noble Earl said: From what the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, has just said, I conclude that he is not going to be kind in this matter. When I read the Bill through, I looked on this as a definite gap, as my noble friend Lord Hurcomb did, and I wrote to the Association of Sea Fisheries, with which I am no longer in such close touch as I used to be, to find out whether they had anything they wanted to put down. Perhaps I may read what the Secretary says: In that clause, harbour authorities are relieved of any responsibility for making oil reception facilities available to tankers. The Association feel that whilst it may be impracticable to provide such facilities for ocean tankers, some provision should be made for the proper disposal of oil residues from coastwise tankers as these vessels may rarely go far enough from the coast to discharge such waste safely into the sea. The noble Earl says that that facility has to be provided in the harbour. But has he thought out what is going to happen with foreign tankers? They are allowed to come in, and they have voluntarily promised not to dump their stuff within fifty miles. Will they have facilities? Otherwise, you are bound to have this oil floating about. No doubt the point will be fully discussed when the matter is gone into further, as I understand it will be, from what was said to the noble Lord, Lord Hurcomb. But there are several points of this sort which need careful consideration, and I hope that, even if my Amendment is not accepted, this question will be fully gone into. There are two different things: there are ocean tankers and the small tankers which creep up the coast. The latter cannot be expected to go out fifty miles; they never go out fifty miles, and indeed, some of them do not go out of the three miles limit. Perhaps the noble Earl can answer one question which is slightly different: What is the position of the old Act? There were certain penalties under the old Act. Have they all been done away with? I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 9, line 5, at end insert ("other than coastwise tankers").—(The Earl of Ilchester.)

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

Perhaps I can answer first the last question which the noble Earl put. The 1922 Act is being substantially re-enacted. The penalties are much higher, of course, but I think the noble Earl can take it that the 1922 Act is substantially re-enacted, although it applies only to territorial waters. This Bill goes much further in that respect. The noble Earl raised the question of distinguishing between coastwise and ocean tankers, and I find it difficult to make a sharp distinction between the two, except this: that I suppose coastwise tankers will not normally be carrying crude oil; they will be carrying some form of refined oil.

THE EARL OF ILCHESTER

They carry crude oil, I understand.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

Coastwise tankers?

THE EARL OF ILCHESTER

I think so. Companies shift their stuff from big tankers into small tankers. I am not certain, but that is my view. The small tankers ship their stuff and then go and deliver it in the small harbours. It is in those small harbours where you will get trouble. My fishery people are insistent that we are going to have a lot of stuff thrown overboard even in the three miles limit.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

I am not going to argue about it, but I find it difficult to believe that small blobs of crude oil are delivered all round the country. My information is that coastal tankers never carry crude oil, which is only sent straight to the refineries. However, I do not want to press that point. The question at issue is really this: that tankers always go to tanker depôts; they do not use the ordinary port facilities. They must go to places fitted with pipes and the normal facilities that they require. The connection between the reception depôt and the tanker is close enough to make it essential for them to provide the facilities. If these tankers put oil overboard—and they would have to go out to sea 100 miles, not 50 miles—

THE EARL OF ILCHESTER

Under this new Bill.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

Yes, under the Bill.

THE EARL OF ILCHESTER

But you have voluntary arrangements with other countries.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

Now it is going to be 100 miles, and it will cost a lot of money to steam all that further. I think these facilities will actually meet the requirements. The noble Earl mentioned the delivery of small quantities of oil to outlying places. Even there there is no particular reason why facilities should not be provided. What happens is that the tanker delivers oil at some remote place, say, on the Shetland Isles, and in place of oil takes in water. The tanker will discharge that when it gets back to the depôt. Therefore, there will be no cause to make any discharge whatever in the outlying places. It is a little complicated, but I hope I have made it plain.

THE EARL OF ILCHESTER

I understand the point.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

I hope the noble Earl will not press this Amendment. I think the matter is covered. In many respects, dealing with coastal tankers is much easier than dealing with ocean tankers, because the heavy crude oil is a much more difficult substance with which to deal than the refined oil. I believe that the arrangement with the coastal tankers will work quite satisfactorily. I hope the noble Earl will be able to withdraw his Amendment.

THE EARL OF ILCHESTER

I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

This Amendment is consequential on Amendment No. 22. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 9, line 5, at end insert ("and the reception of oil residues discharged for the said purpose").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)

LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH

I again reserve the right to return to this matter. I object to this Amendment and also to the next one. I think the noble Earl who has just spoken has made a good case, and we may have to consider the whole of this clause in the light of what the noble Earl had to say.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 8, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 9 agreed to.

Clause 10:

Duty to report discharges of oil into waters of harbours

10.—(1) If any oil or mixture containing oil—

1. (a) is discharged from a vessel into the waters of a harbour in the United Kingdom 876 for the purposes of securing the safety of the vessel, or of preventing damage to the vessel or her cargo, or of saving life, or
2. (b) is found to be escaping, or to have escaped, into any such waters from a vessel in consequence of damage to the vessel, or by reason of leakage,

the owner or master of the vessel shall forthwith report the occurrence to the harbour master, and, if he fails to do so, shall be guilty of an offence under this section: Provided that if the harbour has no harbour master the report shall be made to the harbour authority, and if the harbour has neither a harbour master nor a harbour authority this section shall not apply.

(3) A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding one hundred pounds.

6.12 p.m.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

The purpose of this clause is to create a duty on masters to inform the harbour authorities when they have had legitimately to discharge oil. We think that it is sufficient for the harbour master to know either that the oil was deliberately discharged for the purpose of saving life or the safety of the vessel or its contents or, alternatively, that the escape arose in consequence of damage. It accordingly becomes unnecessary to continue the existence of subsection (2) of Clause 10, which your Lordships will see in a subsequent Amendment I am moving to leave out. For the moment, I should like to move the Amendment which says that, in the event of a legitimate discharge of oil, the master of the vessel must inform the harbour master that that discharge has taken place. The purpose of that is to enable the harbour master, so far as it lies in his power, to take immediate action to remedy it. That is the object of the Amendment, and I think it is sufficient to achieve that object. This Amendment is required by the harbour authorities of this country. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 10, line 15, after ("master") insert ("stating whether it falls within paragraph (a) or (b) of this subsection,").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)

LORD WINSTER

I welcome this Amendment, and the subsequent Amendment which will be moved by the noble Earl, from the point of view that they clarify the duties of the master in these matters, and to some extent the following Amendment certainly limits his responsibility. But there is this question I should like to put to the noble Earl. Is it considered that, between them, paragraphs (a) and (b) cover every circumstance in which oil may escape from a ship into the sea, because if that is so I should have thought the clause could have been simplified? Or, on the other hand, is it considered that there are certain cases other than those specified under which oil may escape into the sea, and that if they were not covered by paragraphs (a) and (b) there would be no obligation upon the master to report the occurrence to the harbour authorities? I am sure the noble Earl will believe that I am not seeking to raise any vexatious points, but only trying to make clear what is the responsibility of the master in all cases of escape of oil from his ship into the sea.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

I think I can answer the noble Lord's point. The two cases here, we believe, cover all legitimate escapes of oil. So far as I am aware, we have not put a statutory obligation upon a man to report a criminal outlet of oil, I feel that it would be useless to put that in. If a man criminally lets the oil go out, we have not required him to report it, and I think it would be quite useless to attempt to make him do so. What we have said is that, so far as the escape is legitimate, he is under a duty to report it.

LORD WINSTER

If somebody other than the master causes a criminal escape of oil into the sea, is the master not called upon to report that?

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

I am not clear what the noble Lord has in mind. So far as I am aware, the master is liable for any escape from his ship; and if he is not liable the owners are. I think it is impossible to conceive an illegitimate escape of oil from a ship which would not involve the master. I say that with hesitation, but I think I am right.

LORD WINSTER

I should have thought it would have been simpler to place on the master the responsibility of reporting any leakage of oil from his ship into the sea which comes to his notice.

VISCOUNT RUNCIMAN OF DOXFORD

With great respect, that is almost like saying that every motorist must report at the next police station every time he exceeds 30 m.p.h in a built-up area.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH moved, in the proviso to subsection (1), to leave out "this section shall not apply" and insert "the local sanitary authority." The noble Lord said: This Amendment seeks to make it obligatory, when a report is necessary, that a report shall be made. The proviso to subsection (1) says: Provided that if the harbour has no harbour master the report shall be made to the harbour authority, and if the harbour has neither a harbour master nor a harbour authority this section shall not apply.

I seek to leave out, "this section shall not apply," and to insert, "the local sanitary authority." That was the nearest authority that I could think of, and if the noble Earl has a better authority, I am quite willing to concede it to him. But it is essential that the report should be made to somebody, because there could be a great deal of evasion, whether it was a legitimate or an illegitimate escape of oil. Whether or not both have to be reported, it should be necessary to report it to somebody.

In this Bill there is no definition of a "harbour." We rely, I suppose, upon the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894. We have a definition in the interpretation clause of "harbour master," but not of "harbour." In the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, the definition of "harbour" reads as follows: 'Harbour' includes harbours properly so called, whether natural or artificial, estuaries, navigable rivers, piers, jetties, and other works in or at which ships can obtain shelter, or ship and unship goods or passengers;". Oil can be discharged in an estuary with great damage to other shipping, and to the banks and shores of that estuary, but, because there is no harbour authority or harbour master, no report need be made, according to the Bill as drafted. So that that subsection does not apply, I cannot think that that is correct. A report should be made always, in every regard, to somebody, and if there is not a harbour master or a harbour authority, then I think it should be made to the local sanitary authority, who would in all cases, I suppose, be the rural district council. The noble Earl may say: "Well, of course it may be a job to find where the rural district council lives." My experience has been that it is very difficult to find where some of the harbour masters live. This is a small Amendment. I think it is a very necessary one to tighten the clause and to prevent evasion. I hope the noble Earl will accept it. I beg to move.

Amendment moved, Page 10, line 19, leave out ("this section shall not apply") and insert ("the local sanitary authority.")—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)

6.21 p.m.

LORD BURDEN

May I say a word ,or two in support of this Amendment put forward by my noble friend Lord Lucas of Chilworth? It will not be going outside the scope of this Bill to report matters to the local sanitary authority. I have just remembered that, for instance, Boston, in Lincolnshire, is a dock authority. It has had a dock or a quay, and has been a harbour authority since 1882. There is a dock and harbour master there, so that in that instance the ship's master would be reporting to an officer of the local authority. I am sure that my noble friend Lord Lucas of Chilworth is aware, by the quoting of that definition of a harbour which is not included, as he rightly points out, in this Bill, that there are quite a number of wharves on navigable rivers at which ships can discharge or load. There are no harbour masters covering places of that kind. Therefore I would suggest that this Amendment is most important, because oil discharged into rivers which are navigable may do all kinds of damage to property and things of that kind. I hope the noble Earl will accept the Amendment.

THE EARL OF ILCHESTER

May I ask the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, whether he will accept three extra words—"or the police"?

LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH

Yes; I will accept that.

THE EARL OF ILCHESTER

The great thing is celerity in these matters. It will not be easy to find the sanitary officer, and I think the police may be much more useful.

LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH

If it is acceptable to your Lordships, I will accept that Amendment to my Amendment with the greatest of pleasure.

LORD WINSTER

If there is neither a harbour master nor a harbour authority, it cannot be a very large harbour. Nevertheless, there appears to be something of a gap here: under this clause as it stands there could be a discharge of oil from a ship into the sea or estuary and there would be no obligation upon the master to report the matter. I feel that it is essential that provision should be made for a report to go in to somebody. Whether or not it should be the local sanitary authority I am not quite clear, but I do not think that my noble friend Lord Lucas of Chilworth insists upon that point. The local sanitary authority is not always easily found or accessible. Of course, the ship might be under orders which precluded the master from making a very extensive search for the sanitary authority. Nevertheless, I do not feel that there can be very great difficulty in making proper provision for a report to be made, once the principle is accepted that it should not be possible for a discharge of oil into the sea or estuary to take place without a report being made.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

I want to ask this question. What is the object of a report being made to somebody? I should have thought, if I may say so with great respect to the noble Lord, Lord Winster, that there were too many reports made to somebody with little object. I ask, therefore, what is the object of it?

LORD WINSTER

Might I ask the noble Earl, what is the object of paragraphs (a) and (b)?

LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH

What is the object of making a report to a harbour master or harbour authority?

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

It is to enable the harbour authority, who are on the spot, to take immediate remedial action. That is the sole object of this clause. The noble Lord, Lord Winster, is absolutely right. The definition of a harbour is so wide that it may include practically everything except the open sea. It can be absolutely anywhere, in certain circumstances. It is anywhere where a ship can shelter, which means simply that it is lying on a lee shore, I suppose. What is the use of telling either the police or the sanitary authority in some isolated place, or some place where they would obviously be quite incapable of taking any immediate action? That is the question I am asking. I do not see the point of this Amendment.

I may say with great respect that there are quite considerable practical difficulties about this Amendment. Would the noble Lord expect every master of a ship to know the name of the borough, urban or rural district council which happened to be in the closest proximity to the shore where he happened to be? It is a considerable task. Does he suggest that that information should be put into the North Sea Pilot?—because that is where it would have to be. And what about the foreigner? How would a foreigner find out who was the local district council? What about our ships when they go to distant ports? Are they to know what the local unit of government is, whatever it may be, to whom they have to report? We have to be a little careful about putting in this provision. If the noble Lord can establish some useful purpose why it should be done, I shall be glad to consider it, but how is a ship to get in touch with the local sanitary officer? How is the ship's master to go ashore and do it? The noble Lord, Lord Burden, instanced the case of places upstream where it would be comparatively easy to do so. In cases like that there would be some pier master—for a harbour authority includes a pier master. The situation may arise where there is not even a pier master, which means that we are getting down to a pretty primitive state.

LORD BURDEN

I had in mind a coal wharf, where a ship of small tonnage unloads or loads. If trouble arises, would the Bill provide for a report being made to the pier master?

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

Yes.

LORD BURDEN

He is not the harbour master.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

Yes; that is included. If the noble Lord looks at the interpretation clause, he will find that "harbour master" includes "pier master." That is there already. The point is there is nobody to whom to report; a fortiori there is no one who could take immediate action. The difficulty is this. We are not opposed to doing what is useful in this case, but the Amendment does not seem to serve any useful purpose. We see that there would be considerable difficulties in carrying it out. I think it is putting on our merchant captains a burden which I have difficulty in believing they could adequately carry out. Everyone knows who a harbour master is—there is no difficulty at all about that—but I am doubtful whether any useful purpose can be served and whether this proposal is a practical proposition. If the noble Lord thinks it is, I will discuss it with him.

LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH

The noble Earl is putting up all these difficulties. First of all, this applies only in the United Kingdom; it does not apply to foreigners. The noble Earl is wobbling his head. This does not affect our skippers in foreign ports. The noble Earl asked me the question: What benefit would my Amendment bestow? The benefit is that remedial action will be taken more quickly than if there were nobody at all to report to. I should have thought that the noble Earl would have jumped at this, because what we want to do is to stop the shores of our coasts from being polluted by oil. They can be polluted everywhere, yet nobody has to report except where there is a harbour master or a harbour authority.

I have agreed to accept the addition suggested by the noble Earl, Lord Ilchester. I suggested the sanitary authority because I thought it was their responsibility to clear up the foreshore; that is the only reason why I put in those words. The local sanitary authority is usually the rural district council, and if any pollution comes to the foreshore it is usually the local council's responsibility for clearing it up. I thought they were the appropriate authority. However, I am quite happy to put in the police. Lord Selkirk cannot tell me that the master of a ship cannot find the local policeman—I am not going to receive that reply. When one talks about finding pier masters or harbour masters, what the noble Earl should do is to sail up the river at Lymington and try to find the piermaster at Buckler's Hard. I can tell him where to find the piermaster—though I do not think the piermaster at Buckler's Hard would thank me for doing so. If one went along to the appropriate place to find him, he would not be found there.

The noble Earl has been very patient with us in trying to improve this Bill—that I agree. But I think this is one of the most common-sense Amendments that we have before us, and I do not think he should try to refuse it merely for the sake of refusing it. If the Government are really sincere in trying to prevent oil pollution around our shores, surely they are not going to agree that about 85 per cent. of the coast line of our country can be polluted with oil yet nobody has to report anything to anybody. If the noble Earl likes to think about it between now and the next stage I shall be perfectly happy, but I can assure him that I shall come back to this matter at the next stage, and perhaps take an action which I do not propose to take this afternoon.

LORD WINSTER

I should like to ask the noble Earl, with respect, if he does not think that he is labouring the point of immediate action rather too much. There are consequences of an escape of oil into the sea which it is most desirable to deal with as promptly as possible, but it is well worth while dealing with them, even if immediate action cannot be taken. It is not really analogous to an outbreak of fire when, with a fire alarm, the fire brigade is called out. Even if immediate action cannot be taken, I think it is desirable that remedial action should be taken as soon as possible, and that can be done only if a report is made to some authority. If I may say so, I thought the suggestion of the police to be a most worthwhile suggestion.

LORD BURDEN

I should just like to raise this point for my own information. It is true that, as I read the definition section, the term "harbour master" includes a dock master or pier master, but there is a limitation. The limitation reads: and any person specially appointed by a harbour authority for the purpose of enforcing the provisions of this Act … The pier master may not be appointed by the harbour authority: he may be an employee of a private wharf at which coal or other things may be shipped or discharged; and, as I read that definition, he does not come within its scope. I ask that question merely for information.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

If I may deal with those two points, I think that whoever owns the harbour probably appoints the pier master, but I do not know and I do not think it is worth arguing about.

LORD BURDEN

I do not think that the noble Earl has appreciated my point. There are small wharves, some distance from the sea, where small ships are discharged and where there is no harbour authority.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

Yes, but I take it that whoever owns the wharf appoints somebody.

LORD BURDEN

That is not the harbour authority.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

I think it is in this respect. I think the harbour authority would be the person who owns the facilities. However, I do not think it is really relevant to the issue.

LORD BURDEN

Will you look at it?

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

Yes, I will look at it. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Winster, that perhaps I am rather overlabouring this question of immediate action, but unless action were taken pretty quickly I should think it would be too late, because the whole thing would be stretched out too far; and in isolated cases I should doubt whether the police would have the facilities to take any action. That is one feeling I have. Unless one is somewhere near a harbour or a port and can get a launch round, in circumstances where it can be got round, it will be difficult. I should have thought that the ship would normally run into the port for shelter, but if there is no harbour near enough to go to there is probably no facility at all that can be made use of. However, I will bear the point in mind.

LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH

With that assurance, I will withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

This Amendment is consequential on a former Amendment. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 10, line 21, leave out subsection (2).—(The Earl of Selkirk.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 10, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 11 [Powers of inspection]:

On Question, Whether Clause 11 shall stand part of the Bill?

LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH

Before we pass this clause, may I ask the noble Earl whether he can give me this information? This clause covers the powers of inspection. I read it most carefully and I came to the conclusion that it covered inspection of all ships, not only United Kingdom registered ships. When I read Clause 14, however, a doubt arose in my mind. Would the noble Earl be good enough to tell the Committee whether the powers of inspection under Clause 11 apply to all ships, whatever flag they fly and wherever they are registered?

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

I have considerable sympathy with the noble Lord. This is a complicated matter. There are two quite separate areas. There is the area of British territorial waters in which we, by an Act of Parliament here, can do what we like to any ship, and there is the Convention area outside in which we can do nothing except to another Convention ship. That is the position as it stands. The noble Lord is perfectly right. So far as we are concerned, inspection in harbour, that is to say in our own territorial waters, can be carried out by our own inspectors. May I put it in this way to make it quite clear? Clause 5 deals with equipment, and Clause 7 deals with the keeping of records. Those requirements can be imposed under Clause 14 (2) by an Order-in-Council in regard to foreign ships while they are in territorial waters.

Under Clause 18, such regulations may be enforced through the making of an Order-in-Council permitting persons to go on any ships of countries which have accepted the Convention and to examine records. It is confined to ships of those countries. Of course, in regard to the ordinary matter of keeping records and making examinations, so far as territorial waters are concerned it can be done in the ordinary way without difficulty. But I think the noble Lord may rest assured that, so far as Convention ships are concerned, we have effective powers of inspection, not only for what they do in our territorial waters but also for what they do in the Convention area, which is further extended.

LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH

But in territorial waters there is inspection of all ships?

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

Yes.

Clause 11 agreed to.

Clause 12:

Prosecutions

12.—(1) In respect of any of the following offences, that is to say,—

1. (a) any offence under section three of this Act which is alleged to have been committed by the discharge of oil, or a mixture containing oil, into the waters of a harbour,
886
2. (b) any offence under section seven of this Act relating to the keeping of records of the transfer of oil within a harbour,
3. (c) any offence in relation to a harbour under section nine or section ten of this Act, and
4. (d) any offence under the last preceding section in respect of failure to comply with a requirement of a harbour master, or in respect of obstruction of a harbour master acting in the exercise of any power conferred by virtue of that section,

no proceedings shall be brought in England or Wales except by or with the consent of the Attorney General, or by the harbour authority:

Provided that the Minister, or a person authorised by any general or special directions of the Minister, may bring proceedings for such an offence if the harbour is one which has no harbour authority, or if the alleged offence is under section three of this Act and relates to the discharge of oil or a mixture containing oil from a vessel.

6.40 p.m.

THE EARL OF ILCHESTER moved, in subsection (1), immediately before the proviso to insert: or a person authorised by any general or special directions of the Minister:

The noble Earl said: I put this Amendment down because my noble friend Lord Hurcomb is to move an Amendment on behalf of the river boards, and I should have expected to succeed him. First, may I ask why the Attorney General has been brought into this matter? We have always had the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries or, as with this Bill, the Minister of Transport, as the person responsible. Perhaps when the noble Earl speaks in reply, he will tell us why the Attorney General is now brought in The purpose of my Amendment is to give power to the Minister to appoint anybody he may choose to help him in carrying out the provisions of the Bill. I may be wrong, but I cannot see that there is anything here to give power to the Minister to appoint whomsoever he chooses. The Fishery Association is most anxious for the chief fishery officer to be given power to prosecute when the harbour authorities will not do so. I am afraid it often happens that the harbour authority are reluctant because they know full well that if they prosecute or consider prosecutions, ships will go elsewhere. Therefore, it is sometimes almost impossible to get them to move; at least, that is so with some smaller harbours. The purpose of the Amendment is simply to give the Minister power to appoint people who can assist him to see that the provisions are carried out. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 12, line 24, at end insert the said words. —(The Earl of Ilchester.)

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

Perhaps the noble Earl is more interested in the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Hurcomb, which is coming presently. I think the noble Earl's Amendment here is misconceived, because there is a very limited range of points for which power of prosecution is given. I have here a list, but these deal almost entirely with the harbour master and the harbour authority, concerning oil in the harbour, records of transfer of oil, informing the harbour master of legitimate discharge, transfer of oil at night time, obstructing the harbour master in the exercise of his duty, and so on. None of those are matters in which a river board or the fishery commissioners would be interested; so this is not really the place in the Bill where the noble Earl should raise his Amendment.

THE EARL OF ILCHESTER

I did not put the Amendment there; that was done by the Paper Office. I should have thought it should come after the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Hurcomb, but it was left to the Paper Office to decide where it was to be put.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

On the other point raised by the noble Earl, I think it is common form to include the Attorney General when any authority is required to prosecute. In the circumstances, perhaps the noble Earl would withdraw his Amendment.

THE EARL OF ILCHESTER

I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment in favour of the Amendment to be moved by the noble Lord, Lord Hurcomb.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD HURCOMB moved, after subsection (2) to insert: (3) Notwithstanding anything in the foregoing provisions of this section a river board may bring proceedings for any offence under section three of this Act if the offence is alleged to have taken place in waters within their jurisdiction and whether or not those waters are in a harbour having a harbour authority.

The noble Lord said: At this late hour I will endeavour to put my point in two or three sentences, and I hope I shall not, by doing so, do injustice to my case. This Amendment is moved at the request of the River Boards Association, whose responsibilities and responsible character are well known to your Lordships. The Association have, I believe, been in correspondence with the Minister, and I understand that the Minister has said that where river boards have any jurisdiction outside a harbour, he will use his powers of giving directions and will specify river boards as people entitled to take action. They feel, however, that they should be given the same status inside the area of a harbour. Their view, as the noble Earl, Lord Ilchester, has indicated, is that there may be cases where they would wish to take action and even to stimulate a harbour authority which was not going as far as the river board thought desirable in the way of preventing pollution. It seems to me that it would be a support to the Minister and to the general enforcement of the law if responsible bodies of this kind, who have a real interest in the prevention of pollution, were entitled to take action as a matter of right. If the Association can be given that, either by an Amendment to the Bill itself or by an assurance that the Minister will include the Association among the people whom he will authorise to take proceedings, not only outside a harbour area, but inside a harbour area, then the main point will be met. I hope it may be favourably considered.

If I am not anticipating what the noble Earl may wish to say on a later Amendment, may I say that it would, at any rate to a layman, be very convenient if there could be stated in a few lines just what waters come within these various powers; in particular, does "the sea" include a harbour, and does "a harbour," for the purposes of this Bill, include a dock and a dry dock? A good many people, even experts, seem to be in some state of doubt about what these various expressions mean, just as they are in some degree of doubt about the meaning of "ship" and "vessel," terms used in different clauses of the Bill. If the noble Earl can go this step further to meet the River Boards Association, then he will not, I am sure, be causing any administrative complications, but he will be assisting the enforcement of the Bill. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 12, line 35, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Hurcomb.)

LORD BURDEN

I should like to speak in support of this Amendment. First, I have to declare an interest, as I have the honour to be a Vice-President of the River Boards Association, although I have had no communication with them on this subject. May I ask the Minister, if he cannot at this stage accept the Amendment, whether between now and the Report stage he will be prepared to receive one or two people from the River Boards Association to discuss these matters and see whether some solution can be reached?

LORD WINSTER

May I ask whether there is not some possibility of overlapping between the various authorities mentioned in this Amendment?

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

The noble Lord, Lord Hurcomb, made what I consider was the major point here, that a river board should have the right to prosecute for offences in harbour areas. I will readily repeat an assurance which the Minister has given, that the powers which the river boards have under the 1922 Act (I believe there was an Order issued in 1950) will be repeated on exactly the same basis. They will have complete power to prosecute over the whole area under their jurisdiction, except in the harbour. The noble Lord, Lord Winster, has made the point that we do not want excessive overlapping.

The whole structure of this Bill is to make harbour authorities responsible for what happens in their areas. I think it is right to do that. They are the people, for instance, who have to be informed if there is any night oiling and they are the people who inspect records if they wish to do so. It would be rather a pity to provide for some other body of people to come in, thereby creating some obscurity as to the responsibility which harbour authorities have in this matter. Frankly, therefore, we are most reluctant to authorise river boards to prosecute in harbour areas. It is the harbour authorities, we feel, who should be responsible for prosecuting, where necessary, within their area. The noble Earl, Lord Ilchester, suggested that harbour authorities would be reluctant to prosecute good customers. As I understand the purpose of the Bill, it is for that reason that the Minister has retained for himself the right to prosecute in cases in harbour areas. I hope that that will meet the point the noble Earl has in mind.

The noble Lord, Lord Hurcomb, asked me a number of severe conundrums. He asked me where harbours began and where harbours ended. I have always understood that in most places that was fairly well-known. Lord Hurcomb has great experience in these matters, but I have always understood that in individual harbours the frontiers were fairly well known. However, I may be wrong and I am only too willing to be corrected. If I can help the noble Lord to establish any particular frontier, I shall be only too delighted to do so. But I shall be glad if he will withdraw his Amendment now because I think it is not in the interests of the structure of the Bill to give river boards authority to prosecute in harbour areas.

LORD HURCOMB

As regards the definition of "harbour," I am not asking the noble Earl to define the difference between open sea and harbour, but there is a question whether the expression "harbour" includes dock and dry dock for the purposes of the Bill. I gather that it is on that matter that there is some doubt. With regard to the other points, I would be the last to suggest that any harbour board, great or small, would be in dereliction of its duty, but I am assured by the River Boards Association that there have been cases—and not ancient cases, either—in which harbour authorities have not taken action and in which the river board would have thought it desirable to do so. They act, of course, not from trade or industrial reasons, in the main, but with a view to the protection of the fisheries and all the marine life on which the success of the fisheries depends.

There is also the question which I think arose in the course of discussions a little while ago, whether oil discharged into some of these small places where there is no regular harbour authority may not be seeping up an estuary, up tidal reaches and into marshes and places of that sort, thereby damaging the natural life and the interest of the fisheries. I hope, therefore, that if the noble Earl is not willing to accept the Amendment now, he will, at any rate, consider the request made by the noble Lord, Lord Burden, and be ready to discuss further with the River Boards Association the merits of their case. Normally, I would agree that one does not want overlapping authorities. But where there is an entirely different interest, and an approach to the circumstances from a slightly different point of view, I should have thought that it might assist in the enforcement of the restrictions imposed by the Bill and not in any way complicate the administration. If the noble Earl would agree to look into the matter and discuss it further with the River Boards Association, that would meet my point and also, I think, that of the noble Earl, Lord Ilchester, and I would then withdraw the Amendment.

THE EARL OF ILCHESTER

I should like to say that I speak for the fishery boards and my point is quite separate from the other. We are very anxious about this question because we often cannot get the harbour people to deal with the matter. There was a very bad case in 1947. There was oil all over the place at Weymouth, and it came into Portland harbour and right down by the lagoon, and there was a terrible mess. We could not get anyone to deal with it. The matter was finally reported and it was then discovered that the harbour authorities knew all about it. The ship concerned, a foreign vessel, had been there before and had been ordered out of the harbour. It really was a disgraceful case. But there are the difficulties. I could produce several more cases if I wished to, but I am not going to do so at this late hour.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

I shall be very willing to accept what the noble Lord has said, and I will examine the position. I think that most noble Lords who have spoken—particularly Lord Ilchester—rather overlook the fact that the Minister will have power himself to prosecute. If a man can make a good case to the Minister, the Minister will indubitably use his power, even under the Bill as it is drafted now. But, as I say, I will readily give the assurance for which I have been asked.

THE EARL OF ILCHESTER

I am very glad to hear that. The noble Earl did not answer my point as to why the Attorney General was suddenly brought in.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

I said it was common form that when permission was required for any prosecution one of the people who would give it would be the Attorney General.

LORD HURCOMB

In the circumstances and in view of the assurance that the noble Earl has given, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave withdrawn.

Clause 12 agreed to.

Clauses 13 to 15 agreed to.

Clause 16:

Application of Act to Crown

16.—(1) The provisions of this Act do not apply to vessels of Her Majesty's navy, nor to Government ships in the service of the Admiralty while employed for the purposes of Her Majesty's navy.

6.56 p.m.

LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH moved to leave out subsection (1). The noble Lord said: I am sorry that at this late hour what I consider to be one of the more important Amendments is now to engage the attention of your Lordships. I will be as brief as I possibly can, because I went over all this ground on Second Reading. Clause 16 (1) of the Bill gives the Crown complete immunity as far as ships of Her Majesty's Navy are concerned. In Resolution 2 of the Convention it was clearly stated That the Governments of countries which accept the present Convention should also, by legislation or otherwise, apply the provisions of the Convention so far as is reasonable and practicable to all classes of sea-going ships registered in their territories or belonging to them to which the provisions of the Convention do not apply, that is to say, warships and other unregistered ships, ships used for the time being as naval auxiliaries, ships of under 500 tons gross tonnage, and ships for the time being engaged in the whaling industry.

I know there is no division of opinion between Her Majesty's Government and myself that the individual who suffers loss or damage through oil pollution should have redress. The difficulty both of us are finding is to figure out a way of giving it. I would tell the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, who is going to reply, that I do not intend to press this Amendment, but I have put it down so that he can state either a case for making the Amendment or, if he has found it, a method of giving me what I want—and, incidentally, what he wants. Then we will consider it and perhaps return to the subject at some future stage.

Following the Crown Proceedings Act of 1947, introduced into your Lordships' House by the noble and learned Earl who leads the Opposition and who unfortunately cannot be here at the present moment, there is no question of the rights of the individual against the Crown; but in this case the individual has to find out whom to sue. If the master or owner of any ship covered by this Bill is found guilty of an offence under the Act, any private individual, company or firm who has suffered loss can sue for damages in the courts against the party who has been found guilty. If a shipping company is found guilty, they can be sued for loss through damage. If a local authority have to clean up the foreshore because of pollution and incur costs, they can sue. If a private individual has suffered loss to property or damage to person by oil pollution, he can sue. Oil pollution has been an outstanding nuisance to seaside resorts from the point of view of amenity, and on the Pembrokeshire coast, on the Isle of Wight and along the South Coast it is very bad. It is necessary that to the ordinary citizen redress should be a practical proposition.

I am aware that, as the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, said on Second Reading, the Admiralty do not wish to evade their responsibilities; and through court martial procedure or Admiralty Regulations they can punish the culprit. But frankly, I am not interested in punishing the culprit; I am interested in the right of the ordinary citizen to get damages for loss sustained through the action of the culprit, and that is a very different thing. It is no solace to those who suffer damage to know that the skipper of one of Her Majesty's ships whose negligence has contributed to oil pollution has received punishment. That is not the point at all. How does the private citizen find out whom to sue when guilt has been established? I think it is only right that a local authority which has heavy responsibility—and in recent years some local authorities have been put to considerable expense in cleaning up foreshores for which they are responsible—should be compensated. I went over the whole case on Second Reading and the noble Earl was very sympathetic. We have now the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Defence to give us the answer, so I will conclude my remarks by moving the Amendment.

Amendment moved— Page 14, line 16, leave out subsection (1)—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)

7.5 p.m.

LORD CARRINGTON

As I understand it, the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, is so concerned about the whole matter of oil pollution that he feels that the Royal Navy should be included in the provisions of this Bill. I think all of us, speaking generally, would agree with him that this problem of oil pollution is a very serious one, and not least would the Admiralty agree. I hope, however, to show the noble Lord that, for a number of reasons, it would be wrong to include warships and Royal Fleet auxiliaries in the provisions of this Bill.

The basic point is, I think, that we ought not to impose statutory limitations of this kind on the activities of the Royal Navy which may restrict its operational efficiency and freedom of action. If Her Majesty's ships and their auxiliaries were made subject to the Bill we should be doing this in two main ways. We should be making it an automatic criminal offence for one of Her Majesty's ships to discharge any oil in waters covered by the Bill, and we should be making it compulsory for the Royal Navy to fit separating equipment in Her Majesty's ships.

The Royal Navy does not wish to discharge oil at sea for good operational reasons, as well as for those underlying this Bill. Nevertheless, Fleet refuelling at sea, which is an operation peculiar to navies, is absolutely essential to the operation of the Fleet in peace as well as in war. It is a manœuvre which the Royal Navy must be free to carry out as operations require and in any kind of weather. Moreover, it is an operation which, with the best will in the world, may involve some accidental spillage of oil. We cannot afford to make this a criminal offence. Nor can we, as Clause 9 of the Bill would require, make Her Majesty's ships always liable to give previous notice of the intention to transfer oil between the hours of sunset and sunrise in any harbour in the United Kingdom. In emergency, such transfers may be essential with no warning at all.

The second problem arises on the compulsory fitting of separating equipment, which the Minister may impose by regulation under Clause 5 of the Bill. A warship is a finely balanced combination of seaworthiness and fighting efficiency, and one of the problems which confronts those who design new warships and modernise old ones is how to fit them with the mass of equipment which modern war demands. We cannot afford to make it absolutely compulsory for a particular piece of equipment, and a large one at that, to be fitted. If we do so, it may mean that some essential fighting quality may be reduced. Nevertheless, every effort will be made in the design of ships to incorporate the necessary equipment to ensure that pollution does not take place.

Having said that, I may add that already the Admiralty have announced their intention of applying to their ships, by means of Admiralty Instructions, regulations comparable to those that will be imposed on merchant shipping, subject only to such exceptions as may be imposed by operational necessity. In enforcing their regulations, of course, the Admiralty will have it in mind that the Fleet is an example which will be watched not only by the merchant ships of all countries, but also by other navies. Contravention of these regulations will be an offence against the Naval Discipline Act and subject to trial by court-martial, the proceedings of which will be in public. Civilian personnel of the Navy will be dealt with by administrative action.

I would emphasise that it is not an unheard of thing that the Royal Navy and its auxiliaries should be exempt from certain international regulations. For example, the international regulations for safety at sea are not statutorily imposed on the Navy. It is as well to note, too, that the exemption of Admiralty ships was accepted by the United Kingdom Committee on Oil Pollution, and also by the International Conference, which in its turn excluded naval auxiliaries, as well as warships. As your Lordships know, that Conference has led to this Bill.

The particular point to which the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, drew attention was the difficulty of a citizen getting redress for any injury which he may suffer. I think the answer to that, as the noble Lord admits, is that the citizen can proceed against the Admiralty for damages. He would be able to adduce in support of his case the fact that an Admiralty servant had been punished, and he would know that because the proceedings of the court-martial would have been made public. In view of the assurance that I have given on behalf of the Admiralty, and with the knowledge of the good record of the Navy in this particular matter, I would ask the noble Lord to withdraw the Amendment.

7.11 p.m.

LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, for that statement. At least it clarifies the position, and we can now study it. However, there is one point I should like to make and one question I should like to ask. The noble Lord said that the International Convention excluded warships, which is what I said. But it did go on to recommend in Resolution No. 2–I read it out—that Governments who were signatories to the Convention should bring under their own legislation the ships that were excluded by the Convention. I should like to ask the noble Lord this question: Would he agree with me that naval shore establishments might fall into a different category from ships—that naval shore establishments, dockyards, are not excluded? I am told—I do not want to make any insinuations or accusations—that one of the most polluted foreshores and beaches in this country is at Ryde, in the Isle of Wight, which has suffered greatly. It is a moot point as to whether the foreshore of Ryde is polluted by some of the merchant vessels that anchor in Cowes Roads before going up Southampton Water, or by carelessness in Portsmouth dockyard, which, as the noble Lord knows, is just the other side of the Solent. If the noble Lord can tell me whether a dockyard comes under precisely the same law as a harbour or a shore establishment, as laid down in this Bill, he will go a long way to satisfy those who have been unfortunate victims in the past.

LORD CARRINGTON

The two points which the noble Lord raised are, first of all, the question of the Convention and the Resolution that countries, by their own legislation, should bring warships under the general provisions of any Act such as this. If he looks it up he will find, in point of fact, that it was by legislation or other means. I think the assurance that I have given the noble Lord, that the Admiralty intend to issue their own instructions, is evidence that we intend to follow that Resolution. On the second point, I think the Admiralty dockyards are excluded from the provisions of this Bill, and for exactly the same reasons that I gave in my original answer to the noble Lord—that of the overriding operational necessity which must guide us in these matters. However, I can give the noble Lord the assurance that the Admiralty do intend to keep in step with the Ministry of Transport. I hesitate to jump in on this matter, but I should have thought that the Admiralty dockyards were, by and large, better equipped in this respect, and have been so equipped for several years, than the majority of port authorities. The Admiralty certainly intend to go hand in hand with the Ministry of Transport in this matter, and there is no intention of neglecting this aspect.

LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH

Again, I thank the noble Lord. I will now consult with my colleagues, and if we feel that the answer requires a little more amplification, we will return to the matter on another stage of the Bill. If the noble Lord does not see anything appear on the Order Paper on the further stages of the Bill he will know that, by his concise and charming answer, he has given us complete satisfaction on this Amendment. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 16 agreed to.

Clause 17 [Provisions as to Isle of Man, Channel Islands, colonies and dependencies]:

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

This is really a drafting Amendment, saying the same thing in what is considered to be a more accurate form. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 14, line 31, at beginning insert— (1) Her Majesty may by Order in Council direct that my of the provisions of this Act specified in the Order (including any enactments for the time being in force amending or substituted for those provisions) shall extend, with such exceptions and modifications, if any, as may be specified in the Order, to the Isle of Man, any of the Channel Islands, or any colony. (2) The Foreign Jurisdiction Act, 1890, shall have effect as if the provisions of this Act were included among the enactments which, by virtue of section five of that Act, may be extended by Order in Council to foreign countries in which for the time being Her Majesty has jurisdiction."—(The Earl of Selkirk.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

This is a consequential Amendment. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 14, line 36, leave out from ("any") to end of line 7 on page 15 and insert ("country or territory specified in the Order, being a country or territory to which the provisions of this Act can be extended by virtue of either of the preceding subsections.")—(The Earl of Selkirk.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 17, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 18 to 20 agreed to.

Clause 21 [Interpretation]:

7.17 p.m.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

I understand that there is sometimes confusion between a geographical mile and a nautical mile. This Amendment is to avoid such confusion and is in general line with the Convention of last year. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 16, line 21, at end insert— ("'mile' means a nautical mile, that is to say, a distance of six thousand and eighty feet;").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

This Amendment is to make it clear that "sea" includes creeks and inlets. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 16, line 38, at end insert ("'sea' includes any estuary or arm of the sea;").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

This Amendment is to make it clear that tankers do not include vessels used for carrying oil in containers. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 16, line 42, at end insert ("in bulk;").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

This is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 17, line 5, leave out subsection (3) and insert— ("(3) Any reference in this Act to the discharge of oil or a mixture containing oil, or to its being discharged, from a vessel, place or thing, except where the reference is to its being discharged for a specified purpose, includes a reference to the escape of the oil or mixture, or (as the case may be) to its escaping, from that vessel, place or thing.")—(The Earl of Selkirk.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

This is a consequential Amendment. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 17, line 10, leave out ("or escape").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

This Amendment limits the definition of "harbour authority" by excluding a lighting authority. We do not think a lighting authority needs to have the power of prosecution. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 17, line 21, at end insert— Provided that the definition of 'harbour authority' in that Act shall apply for the purposes of this Act as if the reference to lighting a harbour were omitted."—(The Earl of Selkirk.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 21, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 22 agreed to.

Clause 23 [Repeal and savings]:

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

I do not think that this Amendment is more than drafting. Its intention is to make it abundantly clear that nothing in this Bill prevents any existing remedy, whether criminal or civil, from being used for cases of pollution by oil. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 19, line 6, leave out line 6 and insert ("or shall derogate from any right of action or other remedy (whether civil or criminal) in proceedings instituted otherwise than under this Act.")—(The Earl of Selkirk.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 23, as amended, agreed to.

Remaining clause and Schedule agreed to.

House resumed.

House adjourned at twenty minutes past seven o'clock.