§ 2.58 p.m.
Lord ORAMMy Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time. The object of the Bill is to enable the United Kingdom to ratify the 1974 International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea. I should like, first, to set out the background to the Convention, which is the fifth of its kind. In 1974, at the initiative of the United Kingdom, a conference of the members of the Inter-Governmental Maritime Consultative Organisation, which is the United Nations agency concerned with maritime affairs, was held in London. This conference led to the 1974 Convention being signed by 67 States, including all the world's leading maritime nations.
As this country played a leading rôle in events leading up to the Convention, we should do all in our power to bring the Convention into force as soon as possible by ratifying it through the passage of this Bill. The United Kingdom as one of the world's leading shipping nations—currently ranked third by the tonnage of its fleet—is very influential within IMCO, and it is important that we continue this rôle by being among the first to ratify the Convention. To date, four countries have ratified, and we must not delay much longer.
The sense of urgency I believe is strengthened if one considers the factors which led to the Convention being signed 1044 in 1974, and which contributed to the United Kingdom calling for the Conference that produced the Convention. First, there was the wish to implement by incorporation into a new Convention all the amendments which had been made to the 1960 Convention that had not yet been brought into force. Some of these amendments date from 1966. Yet, in spite of the fact that these amendments had been drafted for so long, and, indeed, in spite of all the work they entailed on the part of IMCO staff and member Governments, they were still not in force on account of the number of positive acceptances needed by countries before they could be incorporated in the Convention. In consequence, improvements in safety were being allowed to lag behind the recognised need for them. Secondly, apart from the implementation of past amendments, it was clearly necessary to quicken the speed at which amendments in the future come into force. This led to the agreement at the 1974 SOLAS Conference of an accelerated amendment procedure to prevent delays in future.
Safety of life at sea is in its very nature an international problem. We therefore attach great importance to the work of IMCO, which is the only United Nations specialist agency in this country. A substandard ship is a hazard both to itself and to others wherever it is sailing. It is therefore imperative that steps to improve shipping safety should so far as possible be taken internationally through the co-operation of the world's shipping nations. The United Kingdom is committed to this course of action, and ratifying the SOLAS Convention represents a vital contribution on our part to strengthening the international regulation of shipping safety.
The coming into force of the Convention, and the prospect of its continuing evolution through its built-in amendment procedures, will strengthen the credibility of international regulation-making in maritime matters. Recent events, such as the spate of tanker incidents off the coast of the United States of America, have contributed to a trend towards the unilateral regulation of shipping in the United States, and a number of Bills are now before the United States Congress which might well lead to the United States adopting safety standards at variance with international regulations. 1045 There is no doubt that one of the main factors making for unilateralism is the alleged slowness of international regulation, and its failure to keep pace with new situations. SOLAS 1974 is designed to meet this, and its coming into force as soon as possible is therefore vital. For make no doubt about it, my Lords, if Conventions of this sort are not brought into force, the trend towards unilateralism in these matters will grow. This would greatly complicate the problems of the shipping industry of a major maritime country like ours, which sets great store by international agreements. We should be much handicapped by having to comply with a variety of national rules.
Having described the background to the Convention, I should like to turn briefly to the Bill, which seeks to implement the provisions of the Convention so far as this country is concerned. The IMCO text of the Convention was laid before Parliament last April. The Convention will come into force 12 months from the date on which at least 25 States, whose combined merchant fleets amount to at least 50 per cent. of the world's gross tonnage, have become parties to it. To date, as I have said, four countries have ratified. Ratification by the United Kingdom will not in itself bring the Convention into force, but it will undoubtedly help and permit us to take the initiative with other countries regarding this.
As I have already said, the 1974 Convention will replace the 1960 Convention, which in turn replaced the 1948 Convention. This latter Convention was put into effect in this country by the Merchant Shipping (Safety Convention) Act 1949. The 1960 Convention in its turn was put into effect by the Merchant Shipping Act 1964, which, among other things, changed the references in the 1949 Act to the 1948 Convention into references to the 1960 Convention. This Bill does the same thing in terms of the 1974 Convention in that it translates the references to the 1960 Convention which appear in the 1949 and 1964 Acts into references to the 1974 Convention.
Provision for making these existing Statutes apply to the 1974 Convention is contained in Clause 1 of the Bill. This simple legislative change will go a long way towards allowing us to implement the requirements of the Convention. This is 1046 because the powers derived from the 1949 and 1964 Acts are sufficiently wide to make rules on most matters covered by the 1974 Convention, including many of the new measures introduced by it.
However, there are a number of new items introduced by the Convention where existing powers are inadequate, and I should like to mention these areas briefly. First, the Convention in the part dealing with fire safety establishes new requirements affecting the oil fuel used in machinery. Among other things, it provides for the prohibition of the use of oil fuel below specified flash-point levels. Powers to make regulations on these matters are at present inadequate to meet the requirements of the Convention. Accordingly, subsection (4) of Clause 1 makes minor amendments to the 1949 and 1964 Acts to enable the appropriate rules to be made.
Secondly, the Convention, in the part dealing with the carriage of grain, which has been substantially revised, extends the type of grain, subject to regulation, to include processed as well as natural forms. As your Lordships may be aware, grain is considered a dangerous cargo; movements at sea cause it to shift easily, jeopardising the vessel's stability. Processed grain, which can differ greatly in composition and appearance from natural grain, may in some circumstances be equally hazardous. With the extension of coverage to include processed grain brought about by the Convention, it is desirable to clarify the scope of our powers to include natural and processed grain, and this is done by subsection (5)(a) of Clause 1.
Thirdly, and also in relation to the carriage of grain, the Convention calls for the issuing of documents of authorisation to ships carrying grain which are loaded in accordance with the new regulations. Our existing powers under the 1949 Act to issue such documents are confined to ships where the cargo of grain exceeds one-third of the ship's registered tonnage. It is now desired to extend the power to issue certificates to all ships carrying grain, regardless of the volume of the cargo in relation to the size of ship. This is provided for by the amendment in subsection (5)(b) of Clause 1 of the existing definition of a "ship carrying a cargo of grain".
1047 The fourth area where new additional powers are needed to implement the requirements of the Convention concerns nuclear ships. Nuclear ships were covered for the first time in the 1960 SOLAS Convention. However, we ratified that Convention at a time when the building of nuclear ships was still under debate. We therefore reserved our position on nuclear ships. We made clear that while we fully accepted the requirements relating to nuclear ships, we would implement them only as soon as it became necessary to do so. More recently, one or two ships have been built which meet the Convention's definition of a ship provided with a nuclear power plant and, though they are still very few in number, it is desirable that we take powers to regulate them. Clause 2 provides for these powers. The regulations required by the Convention will be exacting. For instance, nuclear ships are to be surveyed at least annually; special regard is to be paid to the safety of the reactor installation and to radiation hazards, and special control is to be exercised on nuclear ships before entering and while in port. New nuclear passenger and cargo ship safety certificates are to be created and issued to nuclear ships complying with Convention requirements.
I should like next to turn to Clause 3 which deals with future amendments to the Convention. I mentioned at the outset the background to the Conference which drew up the Convention and its desire to make the amendment of SOLAS Conventions more rapid. Provision for this is contained in Article VIII of the 1976 Convention. The details are fairly complex, and they vary according to what part of the Convention is being amended. I will not go into all the complexities but they are designed to make the amendment procedure much quicker than hitherto, consistent with the fullest possible consultation between contracting Governments. Under the amendment provisions, a Government would not be bound to accept or bring into force any amendment to which it objected; so there is no question of a loss of national sovereignty. Furthermore, under Clause 3 implementation by the United Kingdom of amendments would be made by means of Orders in Council subject to Affirmative Resolution of both Houses of Parliament. There is, therefore, provision for the fullest 1048 Parliamentary scrutiny of future amendments.
In conclusion, I should like to stress the urgency with which the Government view this measure. To encourage other countries to ratify in sufficient numbers to bring the Convention into force and thereby maintain the prestige and effectiveness of international co-operation in safety at sea is, as I am sure your Lordships will agree, reason enough for welcoming this Bill. But beyond that, I believe that we have an obligation to all those who go to sea—whether they serve in the Merchant Navy or are passengers—to ensure that safety standards of the highest order are promoted and enforced. I know that both sides of the shipping industry in this country—both the shipowners and the seafarers—support this measure and are anxious to see the Bill become law. We have a duty not to let them down in this matter and, for this reason, I believe that the Bill will be welcomed both here and in another place. I beg to move.
§ Moved, That the Bill be now read 2ª.—(Lord Oram.)
§ 3.16 p.m.
§ Lord LYELLMy Lords, all of us on these Benches are most grateful for the very full explanation of this Bill given by the noble Lord, Lord Oram. Your Lordships will note that it is not a very large Bill, compared with the size of Bills with which the noble Lord, Lord Oram, and others of us have had to deal recently. Nevertheless, the noble Lord gave a very detailed explanation and, I think, a very reasonable one—because behind this fairly small Bill lie many important points, and almost all of them were brought out by the noble Lord.
We welcome the main purpose behind this Bill which, as the noble Lord said, is to ratify the 1974 Safety Convention. Its other purpose is to modify and update the Merchant Shipping Acts. It is to be hoped that ratification by the United Kingdom will encourage other maritime nations of the world to do likewise. For our part, we find it most interesting that a special Working Group from the Intergovernmental Maritime Consultative Organisation is continuing to seek a code for nuclear-powered ships and also—which is a point which has not yet arisen, I believe—nuclear-waste carrying ships. Clearly, nuclear power has a future both 1049 on land and at sea, but there are major problems and tiny, we hope, risks of radiation and pollution. It is most encouraging that the Working Group expects to complete the code by the end of 1979. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Oram, may be able to confirm that point, either now or at a later stage today.
I understand that the Working Group which is looking at this problem is making considerable progress. Certainly we are very pleased that it is taking such an interest in this important aspect of safety. So far as we can gather, there are about half a dozen nuclear-powered vessels operating in the world at present and, of course, that number is bound to rise.
Another point which was made clear in the Bill is that provisions are laid down concerning processed grain and bulk grain, when carried on board ship. The noble Lord, Lord Oram, mentioned problems of shifting grain. I understand there are also problems concerning fumes being given off by processed grain. Those fumes, of course, involve problems of safety, together with the low flashpoint of fuels and also of hydrocarbon cargoes, which the noble Lord mentioned. We believe that such cargoes require very clear and specific safety rules. It is encouraging that the United Kingdom, as a leading member of the IMCO, is showing the way to implementing the provisions of the 1974 SOLAS Conference. We have made various inquiries in connection with this Bill from organisations representing those who work in the Merchant Navy, among them the National Union of Seamen and organisations covering Merchant Navy and airline officers. These are just some of the organisations which represent seafarers and all those who work in the Merchant Navy, both afloat and on shore. Every organisation that has taken part in the talks, and is currently taking part in the Working Party, is of the opinion that the Conventions, and indeed the Bill before us this afternoon, are a team effort and, we hope, are uncontroversial.
My noble friend Lord Inchcape, who is to follow in the debate this afternoon, is, of course, President of the General Council of British Shipping and we look forward to hearing what he has to say to the House. For my part, I think that it is invidious to go on at length on a subject of which I have but cursory knowledge at 1050 the moment. Nevertheless, I hope that my noble friend Lord Inchcape and the House will permit me to encourage the passage of this Bill through your Lordships' House for two reasons.
First, in 1975 the United Kingdom had under its flag 3,700 ships, and it seems that their gross registered tonnage was of the order of 33.2 million tons. This indicates our position in the forefront of maritime trading nations. My second reason for welcoming this Bill is that as leaders of the world merchant fleet we should do everything possible to strengthen the IMCO, and to discourage the unilateral action by other members of the organisation, to which the noble Lord, Lord Oram, referred. We believe that this Bill goes a considerable way to tighten up various safety codes and codes of practice. We also believe that the United Kingdom wishes to fulfil its part in ratifying the 1974 SOLAS Convention, and to that extent all of us here welcome and support the Bill which is before us today.
§ 3.22 p.m.
§ The Earl of INCHCAPEMy Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Oram, for moving the Second Reading of this Bill. As chairman of a major shipping company, I must declare both an obvious interest and, indeed, a keen responsibility for the safety of ships. But it is in my capacity as President of the General Council of British Shipping that I should like to give your Lordships the views of British shipowners on this Bill.
I can confirm that British shipowners welcome this Bill, which will enable the United Kingdom to ratify the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea, 1974. Our shipping industry fully supported the concept promoted by Her Majesty's Government, through the Intergovernmental Maritime Consultative Organisation—IMCO—in 1974, known as the "Simple SOLAS" Conference, as has already been said. The Convention that was concluded by that conference consolidated all the previous amendments to the 1960 Safety Convention which had been adopted by IMCO, but which had not taken effect owing to the recognised deficiencies in the procedure for amending technical regulations in IMCO Conventions. As the noble Lord, Lord Oram, pointed out, a particularly important and 1051 welcome feature of the 1974 Safety Convention is that it embodies an accelerated amendment procedure, which should help to ensure that the 1974 Convention can be kept up to date.
The noble Lord referred to the current trend towards the introduction of unilateral regulations which are at variance with internationally agreed standards. This is a matter of extreme concern to the shipping industry, which, by virtue of its international nature, requires the widest possible international agreement on matters affecting the construction, design and equipment of ships. I would confirm that the spread of unilateral legislation, such as that to which the noble Lord referred, would be highly disruptive to the efficiency of the industry. It is to be hoped therefore that, as envisaged by the noble Lord, the early entry into force of the 1974 Convention will contain the spread of unilateralism.
As the noble Lord, Lord Oram, said, this Bill also includes the means whereby enabling effect can be given to the provisions of the regulations for nuclear ships in the 1974 Convention. Again, this is most welcome to the shipping industry. Prospects for the economic viability of nuclear propulsion have clearly increased in recent years. However, it is also clear that shipowners will not be able to introduce nuclear propulsion until and unless the international political climate permits. For this purpose, further provisions dealing with the safety and environmental aspects of this problem need to be developed, and to receive wide international acceptance. It is therefore satisfactory that these questions are under active consideration at IMCO, and this Bill will facilitate the implementation by Her Majesty's Government of such provisions as may be agreed internationally.
I would re-emphasise that the British shipping industry would welcome the earliest possible ratification of this Convention by our Government. As the noble Lord, Lord Oram, stated, to date only four States have so ratified this Convention, and experience suggests that, for a variety of reasons, ratification as required by 25 States, the combined merchant fleets of which constitute not less than 50 per cent. of the world gross tonnage, is unlikely to be achieved rapidly. I would therefore most strongly urge that 1052 Her Majesty's Government take every measure at their disposal—and these are still quite considerable—to try to persuade other Governments to ratify this Convention as soon as possible. In the field of maritime safety, the United Kingdom Government and our shipping industry, who collaborate most closely and effectively in this matter, are still in the vanguard. I am sure that your Lordships will agree with me that Her Majesty's Government should continue to give the world a lead in this very important field.
§ 3.27 p.m.
Lord ORAMMy Lords, I should like to thank warmly the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, and the noble Earl, Lord Inchcape, for the welcome which they have given to this Bill and for the informed comments which they have made upon it. The noble Lord, Lord Lyell, congratulated the two of us on the shortness of the Bill, and I think he was comparing it with the Patents Bill. Lying behind the Bill there is a document which is almost as formidable as the Patents Bill. But, fortunately, in terms of legislation, that need not worry us unduly in that, as I explained, this Bill is quite short and is comparatively simple.
The noble Lord, Lord Lyell, referred to dangerous cargoes which are dealt with in Chapter 7 of this document. Of course, powers already exist in legislation to deal with these dangerous cargoes and those powers are continued by the Bill which we are now considering. But I would confirm one point that he asked me about, that there is a Working Group of IMCO dealing with nuclear ships and I understand that it should complete its work quite shortly.
The noble Earl, Lord Inchcape, speaking, as he did, with his authority as President of the General Council of British Shipping, underlined the urgency which I attempted to outline to your Lordships, not least because we need ratification by 25 countries and, if we do our job as soon as we can, that will enable us to urge the others to go and do likewise. I think there is no need for me to add further to the debate, except once again to express my appreciation of the comments of those who have spoken.
Lord HAWKEMy Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, can he give us some examples of what is processed grain?
Lord ORAMMy Lords, I asked this question myself when I was inquiring into these matters, and was told that it is like little marbles. What the process is, I do not know. But it transforms the grain into tiny balls, which are equally capable of shifting as the seas become rough. But that kind of cargo is not covered by existing legislation. Just what the process is I would not know, but it transforms the grain into small balls.
Baroness WARD of NORTH TYNESIDEMy Lords, arising out of this very important question, could the noble Lord say whether the Government themselves are making any representations to the other countries which ought to support the Convention, or whether that is left to general organisations? Are the Government themselves taking any action to help on what is contained in the Bill?
Lord ORAMMy Lords, as I explained, the organisation that is responsible for this is IMCO. We are a leading and active member of that organisation, and it would be through that organisation that we should bring our influence to bear on other member countries.
§ On Question, Bill read 2ª, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.