HL Deb 10 June 1974 vol 352 cc293-301

6.5 p.m.

THE MINISTER OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRY (LORD BESWICK)

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.

Moved, that the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Beswick.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

House in Committee accordingly.

[The Lord Nugent of Guildford in the Chair.]

Clauses 1 to 11 agreed to.

Clause 12 [Restrictions on tankers sailing front United Kingdom ports.]

LORD BESWICK moved Amendment No. 1: Page 14, line 29, leave out (" a tanker construction certificate or")

The noble Lord said

The clearance of outward bound tankers will be effected by customs officers who are not able to determine whether a foreign tanker would qualify for a tanker construction certificate. The information required is not that which would he at the disposal of a customs officer. Such cases therefore will need to be referred to the Secretary of State and dealt with by the Department of Trade. They will have the necessary information or access to the information. Subsection (2) provides that leave to sail shall be granted if the Secretary of State is satisfied that a tanker will qualify. I beg to move.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD BESWICK moved Amendment No. 2:

Page 14, line 33, leave out from the beginning to"may be") in line 40 and insert— (" (2) Where an application is made for leave to sail to be issued to an oil tanker, then—

  1. (a) if the tanker is registered in the United Kingdom, the Secretary of State may issue it with leave to sail where he considers it appropriate to do so;
  2. (b) if the tanker is not registered in the United Kingdom, the Secretary of State—
    1. (i) shall issue it with leave to sail if he is satisfied that it would qualify for the issue of a tanker construction certificate if it were a United Kingdom oil tanker; and
    2. (ii) may, if he is not so satisfied, issue it with leave to sail where he considers it appropriate to do so.
(3) Leave to sail issued under paragraph (a) or (b)(ii) of subsection (2) above")

The noble Lord said

The purpose of this Amendment is simply to remove what I think the Committee will agree is an ambiguity in the present text. The substance of subsections (2) and (3) remains unchanged, but the wording In any other case leaves a certain amount of ambiguity which will be removed by the Amendment. I beg to move.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 12, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 13 agreed to.

Clause 14 [Foreign action affecting shipping]

On Question, Whether Clause 14 shall stand part of the Bill?

6.9 p.m.

LORD SHINWELL

As I understand it, Clause 14 relates to any threat to British shipping interests. It appears to me that the clause requires further definition. Perhaps my noble friend Lord Beswick could inform the Committee what is meant by a threat to British shipping interests by a foreign Power. Does it refer, for example, to flag discrimination? If it does—and flag discrimination undoubtedly is a threat to British shipping interests—then the clause seems to require further definition. It might be advisable either to provide for it in the regulations—and even the regulations should be more definitive—or perhaps some other form of words could be used.

Let us take an example. Let us assume that an intermediate cargo liner is trading regularly between a British port and a port in India, loading cargo in a British port and discharging it at a port in India, and then is ready to operate and accept a cargo for despatch to a British port. But let us assume that the Indian Government intervene, as they could, on behalf of Indian shipping interests and so arrange matters as to prevent the cargo being loaded on the British vessel, preferring that it should be loaded on a registered Indian vessel which intends to call at a British port. That is an example of what is meant in shipping circles by flag discrimination. It is only one example; there are several others. There is nothing in the clause itself—it is simply a series of words and references—which indicates what kind of example the Government have in mind, and I think that perhaps it might be desirable if my noble friend could give some indication of what the Government are thinking.

LORD BESWICK

I am bound to say that I thought the clause was self-explanatory, but I can see from what my noble friend says that it is not. I wonder whether he will allow me to consider the example he gives and either write to him or deal with it on the next stage of the Bill. 1 am not able to say as of now (though, of course, I may be in a better position in a moment) exactly how the example which he gave would be covered. I can say now, however, that the wording to which he referred and which, as he rightly says, is quite lengthy is drawn broadly so that it will cover precisely the kind of possibility that he has in mind, and the specific examples would be dealt with as the orders are introduced under the powers granted by this clause.

LORD SHINWELL

With great respect, it seems to me, if I may say so, that that is not altogether satisfactory. Perhaps I may be permitted to read the preamble to Clause 14, which says: The Secretary of State may exercise the powers conferred by this section if he is satisfied that a foreign government,"— and let us assume the Government of India, although it may be of Burma, the United States, or the Soviet Union— or any agency or authority of a foreign government, have adopted, or propose to adopt, measures or practices concerning or affecting the carriage of goods by sea which— (a) are damaging or threaten to damage the shipping or trading interests of the United Kingdom,...". What do the Government mean by that? What is a threat to British shipping interests? What does it mean? It means, to my understanding, one of the various forms of flag discrimination. I leave out flags of convenience because that is another story—an important one, but it is not injected into this legislation, and for a good reason. I am anxious to content myself with anything that my noble friend Lord Beswick says, but I think there ought to be an answer of some kind, and if we cannot have it now perhaps we could have it on Report stage.

LORD BESWICK

Certainly, having briefed myself appropriately, I would deal with it on Report stage, but I understand the whole point of this is that it is designed to cover a very wide area, and if you try to insert* in this clause specific cases then you are, as my noble friend will know, immediately limiting the power. Once you try to define you limit your powers. The powers here are of necessity broad. The possibilities of threats could conceivably be wide, as my noble friend says, but if a threat arises then it can be dealt with by the order which is introduced, given the powers of this clause. However, I shall study what my noble friend has said, and I will certainly try to deal with it more satisfactorily on Report stage if he feels I have not dealt with it satisfactorily already. Similarly, let me make this offer to him. If he has particular cases in mind where he thinks some more specific reference should be made to threats, then, again, I should be glad to consult with him to see what we can do on Report stage.

Clause 14 agreed to.

Clause 15 [Parliamentary control of orders under Part III]:

6.16 p.m.

LORD BESWICK moved Amendment No. 3: Page 18, line 34, leave out (" or giving ").

The noble Lord said: This is a minor drafting Amendment. Under Clause 15(2) an order under Clause 14(3) (which enables the Secretary of State, by order, to make provision protecting United Kingdom shipping interests where foreign Governments adopt measures which damage those interests) has to be approved by Parliament before it can take effect. In cases of urgency an order can be immediately made, but ceases to have effect unless it gets Parliamentary approval within 28 days. In that connection Clause 15(2) preserves the validity of anything done under such an order in case it should not get that approval, and it also preserves the power to make a new order in such a case. In preserving that power the present text of the Bill speaks of making"or giving"a new order. The words I have quoted,"or giving ", are obviously not suitable in this context, and the Amendment removes them. I beg to move.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 15, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 16 and 17 agreed to.

Clause 18 [Commissioners of Northern Lighthouses]:

On Question, Whether Clause 18 shall stand part of the Bill?

LORD SHINWELL

My noble friend will recall that on the Second Reading of this Bill I referred to the need for some penal court or organisation to which seamen who are accused of committing an offence aboard ship might be permitted to state their case, because otherwise we are leaving the decision as to whether an offence has been committed aboard ship while the ship is at sea entirely to the master of the vessel. I say nothing disrespectful of master mariners or ships' officers in general. I must not, in particular, because one of my grandsons happens to be a master mariner sailing on a China Steam Navigation vessel at present; but, in any event, I have a high regard for ships' officers. But it sometimes happens that they are inclined to go off the deep end, because of some misdemeanour committed by a member of the ship's crew. This is often resented and causes trouble aboard ship.

For example, take a minor case of drunkenness, not when a seaman joins the vessel but in a foreign port. He goes ashore, as seamen are permitted to do, and he or a number of the crew buy some liquor, come back aboard the vessel and then, when the ship proceeds to sea, they have a little jollification as a result of which the Master reprimands them and they are threatened with a fine or even with imprisonment. Something in the nature of an appeal is essential. In the course of the Second Reading debate I suggested that there might be an arrangement provided through the regulations to enable a seaman to appeal to the Mercantile Marine Superintendent at the Board of Trade office; that is, the shipping office in a port. He should be permitted to do that. The Marine Superintendent would deal with the matter and the man could be represented either legally or by one of his colleagues, or he could represent himself and put his case. The men must have some kind of safeguard.

I do not condone misdemeanours of the kind which I suspect are under review in this legislation, but there are occasions, as I know from my knowledge of seafaring men over a long period of time, when cases of this kind occur, when the Master is rather brusque, rough or harsh—perhaps too harsh—as a result of which there is trouble aboard ship. I should like my noble friend to give me an assurance that some kind of appeal would be made available.

LORD BESWICK

I think my noble friend is addressing himself to matters which arise under Clause 19 and not under Clause 18.

LORD SHINWELL

I beg your Lordships' pardon.

LORD BESWICK

Could we put ourselves in order by agreeing to Clause 18? Then I will remember what my noble friend has said and reply to it on Clause 19.

Clause 18 agreed to.

Clause 19 [Offences by seamen]:

On Question, Whether Clause 19 shall stand part of the Bill?

LORD BESWICK

I remember that my noble friend raised this question on Second Reading. I thought I made it clear—but obviously I have not—that a right of appeal would lie under Section 35 of the 1970 Act, and I should have hoped that that would satisfy my noble friend. As he rightly said, there is the Mercantile Marine Office Superintendent, and this Bill does not in any way restrict the right of appeal to that office under Section 35 of the 1970 Act.

LORD SHINWELL

Can my noble friend say whether in consultations with the Navigating Officers' Union and the National Union of Seamen agreement has been reached about this matter of the right of appeal?

LORD BESWICK

To the best of my knowledge there has been no disagreement about this matter, but I will make certain that I am right there. I think I am right in saying that there is satisfaction on this point. Of course, if it is a matter on which it is thought that appeal procedures are not satisfactory, then, as I have said, there will be the fullest possible consultations and we shall have to consider the matter. But to the best of my knowledge there has been no complaint about this matter.

Clause 19 agreed to.

Remaining clauses agreed to.

Schedule 1 agreed to.

Schedule 2 [Oil Tankers]:

6.25 p.m.

LORD BESWICK moved Amendment No. 4:

Page 23, line 44, leave out from ("Secretary of State ") to the end of line 45.
The noble Lord said

I wonder whether it would be convenient to speak to Amendments Nos. 4 and 5 together. Between them these two Amendments make suitable provision as to fees for the surveys and inspections and the issue of certificates under Part II of the Bill. There is nothing new in the charging of fees for such surveys and inspections, but we are creating in Part II of the Bill the need for further surveys and inspections, and this Amendment will give the power so to do. There is no mention of any scale of fees. The actual rates will be subject to fees regulations which will have to be laid before the House and will be subject to the Negative Resolution procedure. I beg to move.

LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL

This is probably a resuscitation of a small piece of the old Clause 17, the demise of which I mourned during the Second Reading debate. There are a couple of questions which arise out of it. Does the new paragraph 6 mean that the Government intend to take powers to regulate charges made by these authorised organisations? That is the main question, but there is a small question of drafting which I do not quite understand. I am not quite clear why we have to use the wording,"persons appointed by such organisations ". Surely it is the organisations which are to be paid the fees and not the individual agents who are working for them. I may be quite wrong about this point and I am not a legal draftsman, but it may be worth clarifying this point if the noble Lord is able to do so.

LORD BESWICK

Yes, the noble Lord is quite right. The omission of Clause 17 was rather more complete than was intended and the second Amendment that I shall move restores the power which should never have been taken away in the first place. He asked me about the fees to be charged by the persons or organisations appointed, and I can assure him that the fees will be the subject of consultation in the first place, but they will be subject to a regulation laid before the House by the Secretary of State. The fees will be fixed by the Secretary of State and either House will have the right to pray against those regulations. The noble Lord asked me about the actual wording. He means, I imagine, sub-paragraph (c)——

LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL

Yes.

LORD BESWICK

—"... issued by persons appointed by organisations authorised under paragraph 1". The point here, as the noble Lord knows, is that weare considering the delegation to various organisations and this is a power which may or may not be used. As lie rightly said, it is possible that organisations will mostly be involved, but conceivably there might be a case where a person is involved and then the fees will be payable to that person.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD BESWICK: I beg to move Amendment No. 5.

Amendment moved—

Page 25, line 23, at end insert—

("Fees

6. Oil tanker construction rules—

  1. (a) may, with the approval of the Treasury, prescribe the fees payable in respect of surveys and inspections carried out, and certificates issued, under the rules;
  2. (b) shall, subject to sub-paragraph (c) below, provide for all fees payable under the rules to be paid to the Secretary of State; and
  3. (c) may, in the case of surveys and inspections carried out, and certificates issued, by persons appointed by organisations authorised under paragraph 1 above, provide for fees to be payable to those persons or organisations.").—(Lord Beswick.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Schedule 2, as amended, agreed to.

Remaining Schedules agreed to.

House resumed: Bill reported with the Amendments.