HL Deb 19 June 1963 vol 250 cc1274-7

2.38 p.m.

LORD ELTON

My Lords, before asking the Question which stands in my name, I wish to disclose a certain degree of personal interest, in that I am a non-executive director of a company one of whose subsidiaries manufactures incombustible materials for ships. I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.

[The Question was as follows:

To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they can now announce an approximate timetable for the ratification, with the necessary consequential legislation of the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea, which has already been accepted by the U.S.A., France, Norway and nine other countries but cannot come into force until after the deposit of fifteen acceptances; whether they are aware that if and when Britain ratifies the Convention it is likely that the remaining signatures required will be speedily forthcoming; and whether they can give an assurance that, with or without ratification, British standards in both passenger and cargo ships, with particular reference to structural fire protection, will not in any respect be lower than those of U.S.A., Russia and Germany.]

LORD CHESHAM

My Lords, the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea, 1960, will come into force twelve months after the date on which it has been accepted by the Governments of 15 countries, including 7 having each not less than one million gross tons of shipping. Thirteen countries have already accepted it, including 6 with over one million tons of shipping. It seems likely to come into force in the latter half of 1964. Domestic legislation to enforce the Convention should precede our ratification of it, but with the pressure there is in Parliamentary time I am not yet in a position to say when this legislation can be introduced. When the Convention come into force, ships of all nationalities may be required to comply with the standards it demands, if they visit countries that have ratified it. I have no information on whether the countries the noble Lord mentions will impose on their own shipping higher standards than the Convention requires.

LORD ELTON

My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for his Answer, may I ask whether he realises that the delay—and there certainly seems to be a considerable delay with no definite terminus ad quern—is harmful to British reputation abroad and to British planning at home? I would ask whether he recalls that, when the noble Lords opposite were in power, Britain was among the first of nations to ratify the similar Convention in 1948.

LORD CHESHAM

My Lords, I am aware of this position. I am also aware of the fact that legislation is required to give effect to our adherence to this Convention. I think that it would be an empty gesture to ratify this Convention without having the necessary power in law to enforce it in our country.

EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH

My Lords, what is the length of time the Government have had to consider this matter? Surely it is pretty considerable? Thirteen countries apparently have ratified, and I should have thought that a nation which, though perhaps not still the leading member, has had the reputation of being well in the leadership of this industry, ought to be the first to be able to give a lead to the rest of the world.

LORD CHESHAM

My Lords, I can only say that the Convention was arrived at as a result of a conference in 1960, and that laws vary from country to country. Other countries may not have required legislation, but in this country that is the prime requisite, for which it has not yet been possible to find the necessary Parliamentary time.

LORD SHEPHERD

My Lords, can the noble Lord say whether he expects this to be a lengthy piece of legislation or a Bill of one or two clauses? In this important question of safety, I should have thought that, in spite of the pressure upon it, Parliament could well have found time to pass this legislation.

LORD CHESHAM

My Lords, I believe that the legislation concerned will be somewhat complicated and detailed. There is also the question of drawing up the necessary detailed rules which will go with it.

LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH

My Lords, is not three years rather a long time for the Government, having considered this matter, still not to have come to a final conclusion or introduced legislation? Is it because they prefer legislation irrelevant to the needs of our time—such as the London Government Bill?

LORD HAWKE

The Shops and Offices Bill.

LORD CHESHAM

My Lords, I could have seen that one coming. I must agree that from 1960 until now seems a long time, but at the same time it is the responsibility of the Government to put through legislation in the order of priority in which they consider it should go.

EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH

My Lords, does it mean that the Government have really decided that they are not able to do this in their lifetime of office and are leaving it to some other Government to do?

LORD CHESHAM

No, my Lords; it certainly means nothing of the kind.

EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH

In practice it does.

LORD CHESHAM

My Lords, for the noble Earl's information, I think it has been said before that it is intended to ratify and adhere to this Convention as soon as the legislation can be put through.

EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH

At what date?

LORD ELTON

My Lords, would the noble Lord, agree that the Government's delay in this extremely important affair provides further evidence of what has been suggested in this House before now: that, what with shipping, the railways, canals, roads and road accidents on his plate, the Minister of Transport has really too much to do? Can it be that it is because he has been doing unusually well lately in respect of safety on the roads that he is doing so poorly now in respect of safety at sea?

LORD CHESHAM

No, my Lords.

EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH

Perhaps they are just tired.