HL Deb 08 March 1955 vol 191 cc814-24

5.5 p.m.

Order of the Day far the Third Reading read.

THE EARL OF HOME

My Lords, I have it in command from Her Majesty to signify to the House that Her Majesty, having been informed of the purpose of the Oil in Navigable Waters Bill, has consented to place the interests of the Crown at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.

THE PAYMASTER GENERAL (THE EARL OF SELKIRK)

My Lords, in moving that this Bill be read a third time, I think I can say that we have come to a fairly complete measure of agreement except in regard to one clause which I promised I would look at. The clause, though not unimportant in its way, is not part of the main structure of the Bill—in fact, as I have said, it was added because the dock and harbour authorities desired it. However, when we came to analyse the authorities' reasons we found that among the most important reasons was the prevention of fire. That, strictly speaking, is a side issue to this Bill and does not affect the main purpose, which is the prevention of pollution. By and large, those oils which burn have not the persistent quality that characterises the heavier oils, particularly the crude oils, which give us such difficulty. It is clear, therefore, that one of the reasons which moved the dock and harbour authorities in this matter had nothing to do with the spilling of oil in open waters, where the danger from fire would be nil and where the lighter oils, because they would evaporate quickly, would not cause persistent pollution.

I have been into this question. We have been in touch with all the major harbours in this country to ascertain what they do in regard to this matter. I think it is fair to say that no systematic method has been devised for getting rid of oil which has spilt, leaked or escaped. What is necessary is to get to it before it starts to dissipate. I think I can say that practically nothing can be done in this respect where running water is concerned. The next step is to isolate the oil. This can be done against the side of the harbour if there is a harbour, or, of course, it can be done with booms. I understand that for this purpose Sunderland has an electrically operated boom to prevent oil from getting into the river. In Liverpool one of the docks has a spillway in each corner into which oil can be spilled off, in whichever direction the water happens to be flowing at the time.

Having isolated the oil, the third point is to dispose of it. This is done sometimes, I believe, by manual filling into drums or receptacles, as the case may be. Sometimes there is a cleaning vessel which uses suction hoses to draw it up. But when those are not enough, straw, or even sawdust, is thrown on to the surface of the oil and is then dragged ashore and burnt. These are all pretty makeshift arrangements, but it is fair to say that it is unlikely that any harbour which is not a statutory harbour would be able to take any action at all. I go further, and say that a large number of statutory harbours themselves would not be in a position to take action.

There are (and this is a point I should like the noble Lord to note) a large number of statutory harbours—I think the figure is about 350—which means to say that the provision will extend to pretty small harbours round the coast. Even in the bigger harbours it would be possible to take action only in a fairly confined part of the harbour. I say this with hesitation in the presence of the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, but I believe that, over a large part of the statutory area of the Port of London itself, because of the flow of the river and that kind of thing, probably little action could be taken to prevent the oil from being dissipated. We have insisted that notice be given to the harbour master in every case in which practical action can be taken, and I think the clause covers also many cases where that will not be practicable.

I have looked at this matter again, and I cannot see that any useful purpose would be served by extending the requirements of notification over a wider area—merely imposing an obligation to meet a statutory requirement which, in fact, they would know would serve no purpose at all. If I may say so, I think that this is the wrong angle from which to approach this Bill. We know perfectly well that, if persistent oils get into the water, there is nothing that can be done about it. The whole point of this Bill is to prevent the oil from getting into the sea. That is the important point, and that is the point on which the value of this Bill will stand or fall. If it fails to do this, then it will serve no useful purpose, because cleaning up after pollution, with all the warning in the world, can do very little good indeed. I have been into all that, and I am afraid that I cannot take the matter any further.

In conclusion, I should like to thank noble Lords from all sides of the House who have made most helpful criticisms which have enabled us materially to strengthen this Bill. It is their wish, as indeed it is ours, that the Bill will be copied by all countries in the world who are in possession of merchant navies. I think we are laying a foundation stone which will not only free our own territorial waters of pollution but will eventually free all the waters of the seven seas. I beg to move that the Bill be read a third time.

Moved, that the Bill be now read 3a.—(The Earl of Selkirk.)

5.12 p.m.

LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH

My Lords, I feel that my first words must be of thanks to the noble Earl for the way in which he has piloted this Bill through your Lordships' House. It has been a highly technical subject which, if he will allow me to say so with respect, he has mastered remarkably well. His knowledge and the way in which he has dealt with the queries have also enabled us, who have the responsibility of providing Her Majesty's Government with as efficient an Opposition as we possibly can, to do better than we should otherwise have done. The noble Earl's thoroughness is well exemplified by what he has just said. Through circumstances outside his control, and also outside mine, but somehow manipulated by those wonderful but secret things called "usual channels," I could not take the action I at one time contemplated of asking your Lordships' opinion about an Amendment I had tabled but withdrew upon the Report stage. For some mysterious reason, we had to have the Third Reading to-day, the next sitting day after the Report stage. I suppose there was a reason for the hurry; perhaps it is because Her Majesty's Government want to get all their legislation through in as short a space of time as possible, because of a certain event which may come along, and this is a shadow which forecasts that.

I should not like an important Bill like this to fall into the category of what I think the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor has called "the slaughter of the innocents." That is why I readily acquiesced in having the Third Reading so early after the Report stage, because I should not like to hinder the Government in testing the opinion of the country as soon as they possibly can. However, it is indicative of the thoroughness of the noble Earl that he has in that short space of time gone to so much trouble to find out the reasons why Her Majesty's Government could not have accepted my Amendment had it been on the Marshalled List.

I think I agree with the noble Earl, because he is quite right when he says that sooner or later the pumping of oil on to the waters will have to be totally prohibited. That is the only way in which we shall ever solve the question of oil pollution. There is one thing that disturbs me, and the noble Earl on Second Reading said some things about it that were bold and true. He characterised this problem in this way [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 190, No. 6, Col. 330]: The problem which we are here facing is one of the scourges which arise as a by-product of the mechanisation of life which we now find necessary. He went on to say (Col. 331) that oil pollution has resulted in the spoiling of many of the amenities on parts of our coasts. I am given to understand that in some places it is often impossible to bathe, sunbathe, paddle, sit or even walk along the beaches without getting covered with a tarry substance. Nor does the nuisance end there, because this tarry substance is carried into houses and hotels, and causes great damage to carpets and furniture. That is the angle from which I have approached this problem. I believe that this problem is now one of the modern scourges. I know of miles of beaches which should be open to the pleasure and amenity of the mass of the people in this country but which are absolutely ruined by oil pollution.

I am afraid, however, that I sensed (I hope the noble Earl will not mind my saying this) that his valour diminished as the Bill went on. The effectiveness of this Bill, as he says, will be to the extent to which it gives a lead to the rest of the world. We are the first country to take this job in hand. Unless we show considerable courage in putting this Bill into operation, we shall not set any great example or persuade many people to follow our example. And, as I have said, I sense that, through the passage of this Bill, the noble Earl's resolution, or the resolution of those advising him, has diminished rather than increased. I hope I am wrong, but I have that feeling. I want to see the Ministry of Transport, whose job I take it it will be to enforce the provisions of this Bill when it becomes an Act of Parliament, really enforce them and not find ways and means of not enforcing them, as they have so successfully, in many cases, found reasons for not putting as many "teeth" into this Bill as we on this side should have liked. If our past experience of some of the legislation that has emanated from that Department is any guide, it may well fall into the same kind of disuse as many of the provisions of the Acts which we have been discussing in your Lordships' House that controlled. or tried to control, road traffic in this country.

But while Ministers come and Ministers go, Departments go on for ever, and I can assure the noble Earl that we on this side will use all our endeavours to see that the provisions of this Bill are strictly enforced; and we will ever be questioning Her Majesty's Government upon the effectiveness of the action they are taking. I do not think Her Majesty's Government can have the slightest objection to that, because, in the last analysis, this is not something that concerns ships and the mercantile marine. Oil is no trouble in this world until it gets to land, and get to land it will at some time or another. It is the ordinary common people of this country who, in the end, have to suffer all the hardships, the losses of personal property, of amenities and so on. They are the people who have to suffer. Therefore, I hope that the Government will see that, when this Bill gets on to the Statute Book, it will not simply go into a pigeon-hole to be forgotten, but that it will make some valuable contribution towards the relief of this scourge. May I end by again thanking the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, for his courtesy and for the trouble he has taken, and also for making this stage of the Bill not only non-Party but a very pleasant stage, so that the Bill leaves us as a credit to your Lordships' House.

5.20 p.m.

LORD WINSTER

My Lords, I should like to say a final word about this Bill, because it is a Bill in which the Merchant Navy Officers' Association have taken particular interest. Our general secretary was invited to serve at the Conference; and at its conclusion we organised an exhibition at which certain very gruesome and unpleasant exhibits were on view and to which we invited the Press and many representatives of shipping interests. I think that that exhibition served a useful purpose in bringing the facts of this matter home to a fairly wide circle of people connected with shipping. By coincidence, while the Bill was under discussion I noticed that there took place off the Danish coast a jettisoning of oil which covered the huge area of 772 square miles. I agree that that was due to an accident, but it happened to illustrate the purposes which we had in view, and I think it emphasised that the objective we must have in mind in this matter is a total prohibition of the discharging of persistent oil anywhere at sea.

The existing limitation is to specified zones. That is only making a start at the problem. As other nations become more progressive in their ideas on the subject we must go further. I understand that at the moment only twenty out of the forty-two nations represented at the Conference have signed, and that ours is the only country which has initiated legislation on the subject. We must go further, because otherwise, as my noble friend has said, it will become completely impossible to walk along our beaches. It is important for us to remember that our region in the North Sea lies completely outside any prohibited area, and also that once these oils are discharged they are indestructible and must come ashore somewhere. Unless we arrive at total prohibition we may find that our beaches, particularly in the South West of the country, will become completely impossible places. The importance of the matter is also illustrated by the fact that in the past fifteen years imports of oil have gone up from 1 million to 28 million tons. These figures illustrate the possible consequences of the dumping of oil.

In the course of the discussion of various Amendments, some question arose as to what is the frontier of a harbour. I was anxious to help the noble Earl, if I could, in regard to that matter. I have always regarded the bar as the frontier between the harbour and the open sea. Perhaps I may mention to the noble Earl that all good navigators make a practice of "closing the bar" before crossing the bar. When I was an assistant navigator the navigating officer and myself always had a final drink before the ship sailed and we had no more until she came into harbour again. I hope that definition and the little fact that goes with it may be of some assistance to the noble Earl, for those whose professions keep them ashore sometimes get into little difficulties about nautical definitions. As an instance of that, I think many of your Lordships will know a poem by Lord Tennyson in which he says: I hope to meet my Pilot face to face When I have crost the bar. Of course, that is exactly the moment when you see the pilot's back as he gets into his little boat to go home. That is one instance of how people whose avocations lie ashore may trip up. One certainly does not see the pilot face to face when one has crossed the bar. My Lords, it only remains for me to express to the noble Earl my appreciation of the great courtesy and the great care which he was good enough to show to any suggestion or comment on the Bill which I happened to make.

5.25 p.m.

EARL JOWITT

My Lords, I have one point that I should like to discuss with your Lordships, if only that it may be understood when this Bill goes to another place that the point is open and it is not to be thought that because we do not move it here we do not feel strongly about it—I refer to the point in regard to Clause 10. Owing to what I think was a misunderstanding—I acquit the noble Earl entirely of anything else—I did not move an Amendment when earlier in the Report stage we were discussing the point about the definition of a harbour. I then pointed out that it had repercussions on the effect of Clause 10, and I had intended to divide the House. But the noble Earl said (I have the OFFICIAL REPORT before me) that we would discuss the matter further. I therefore anticipated that there would be further discussion of the matter. In the meantime I had made my inquiries, and I am not satisfied at the present moment that something may not be done.

Other great experts can deal with other matters, but, quite frankly, I speak solely from the point of view of the birds. From my point of view, it is not true to say that there is no problem until oil gets to land. The 700 square miles of oil in the North Sea will destroy, in most cruel circumstances, many birds, and therefore I am anxious from that point of view—and it is only from that point of view that I speak. I think it would be foolish to make the Amendment which we suggested apply to territorial waters. I do not believe that in the open sea we can do much, but I do believe that there are around this country certain enclosed waters which are not harbours within the technical meaning of the term I believe there are some sea lochs in Scotland, about which the noble Earl knows much more than I do, which are not harbours. I see that the noble Earl has sent for the OFFICIAL REPORT. The quotation I had in mind is from Column 735, about half way down the page. We were then discussing this matter, and the noble Earl said: I suggest to the noble Lord that we should discuss this matter further. I am not making a complaint in the sense that I am suggesting that there has been any bad feeling or anything of that sort. I think this is a misunderstanding. In fact we have not had further discussions.

The point I want to make is this. I should have moved an Amendment then, and by the Rules of this House—it is the only Rule of Order we have to which we always adhere—we do not allow manuscript Amendments on Third Reading, so I could not put down a manuscript Amendment. Had I been able to do so I should have put down an Amendment to this effect: that with regard to an escape of oil—assuming it were an accident—in enclosed waters there should be notification to the police. If there is an escape of oil in enclosed waters which is not operated upon promptly by tide or wind, I am advised that it is possible to do something. I venture to think that in the near future much more will be able to be done than is done at the present time. I believe that this problem can be solved, or that the evil of it can be mitigated to a great extent if more attention is paid to it. I should have liked to move an Amendment requiring that notice must be given to the police of any escape of oil. I believe that if notice had to be given, then, as science and technique advances, prompt steps could be taken to try to eliminate this oil which otherwise will be a grave danger to birds nesting and breeding in that part of the world. I hope that when this Bill goes to another place, this matter will be further investigated. I hope it will not be said that we are all satisfied on this point, because I, at any rate, am not.

I should also like the question of requiring notice in the case of an escape of oil in enclosed waters to be further pursued. I have raised this matter now because it occurs to me that otherwise what might have been a mere slip-up might lead to the impression that I was completely satisfied with what had been done in the Bill in this regard. I hope that those in another place will consider whether or not there is any substance in this matter and whether it would not be right, in the case of an escape of oil in enclosed waters, to require that notice should be given to provide at least a chance of doing whatever may be possible.

5.31 p.m.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

My Lords, I should like to thank noble Lords for what they have said. I have carefully noted the observations of the noble and learned Earl, and I am sorry if there was any misunderstanding. I wrote to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, on the subject after making the fullest investigations possible, and I am sorry if the noble Earl feels that we have not gone as far as we might have done. As I have already said, I am extremely doubtful whether anything useful can be done on this point. I would underline what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Winster, because the importance of this Bill lies in whether or not it will be taken up overseas. We can do only our share; and only the total prohibition of oil pollution everywhere can make this Bill really effective. I do not agree with the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, that Her Majesty's Government can be accused of lack of courage. We have, after all, carried through, from nothing, a Report and an International Convention; and this Bill has been strengthened, not weakened, since it has been in this House. Clause 1, dealing with the discharge of certain oils into prohibited sea areas is strong, and the penalties have been strengthened. I do not feel, therefore, that the noble Lord is accurate in contending that there is the slightest weakening in Her Majesty's Government's intention to enforce the provisions of the Bill when it becomes an Act. I can assure the noble Lord that we have every intention of taking a lead, not only in legislation but in enforcement.

On Question, Bill read 3a.

An Amendment (privilege) made. Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

House adjourned at twenty-six minutes before six o'clock.