§ 2.43 p.m.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROYMy Lords, 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 what further actions they have taken since the debate on 19th March, in concert with local authorities and industry, to put a stop to pollution of the North Sea by the deliberate release of tankers' ballast.
§ Lord STRABOLGIMy Lords, as I informed your Lordships in the debate on 19th March, we have asked for a report by the end of the month on the efficacy of the measures already introduced to deter the unnecessary and unlawful discharge of oily ballast water by some tankers coming to load crude oil at the Sullom Voe terminal. We have additionally asked the Nature Conservancy Council to monitor, and report on, oil pollution damage in the area to wildlife and the beaches. We shall consider whether there is a need for any further action in the light of those reports.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROYMy Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that reply. Are the Government using aircraft, including the RAF, for monitoring and policing? In particular, are the Government using, or considering the possibility of using, infra-red equipment installed on aircraft which can detect rogue tankers at night when perpetrating ballast offences? I understand that that has been successfully used by the United States Coastguard, and acts as a deterrent.
§ Lord STRABOLGIMy Lords, yes. As I said in the debate, tankers en route to Sullom Voe are now being required to advise the terminal of their exact position and route when north of latitude 58° 20' North. Aerial surveillance over the route is being maintained, and the Warren Springs Laboratory is developing an all-weather 24-hour per day airborne capability to detect oil on the sea using a combination of infra-red sensors and radar.
§ Lord SHINWELLMy Lords, although recognising what a nuisance this pollution can be, is my noble friend not aware that these ships—whether they be tankers or some other vessels—must release their ballast somewhere? If they release their ballast a long way from their destination, it could create very awkward consequences, because it may affect the navigation of the vessel. Is my noble friend aware of that? Ought not this matter to be taken up with the General Council of Shipping and its international counterpart in order to see whether or not some arrangement can be reached? There are technical difficulties which must be understood.
§ Lord STRABOLGIMy Lords, this, of course, is what we have been working on for several months; in fact, for several years. The problems, to which my noble friend has drawn attention, are covered by international law. At Sullom Voe we are awaiting a water-reception facility, which will be in use by the summer. However, the absence of those facilities does not justify discharging oily ballast at sea. It is perfectly possible to avoid that by proper operating procedures.
As I said in the debate last week, the international oil companies and BNOC are considering invoking sanctions against individual ships' masters who will not co-operate. I would point out that the penalties are very high and the Government will not hesitate to prosecute. There is a penalty of £50,000 on the owner or the master on summary conviction, and an unlimited fine when convicted on indictment.
§ The Earl of LAUDERDALEMy Lords, can the noble Lord add to the previous information which he gave the House and tell us when the studies at the Warren Springs Laboratory will be com- 1466 pleted? In the meantime would it not be useful if we borrowed some of the equipment being used by the United States Coastguard while waiting for our own to be made ready?
§ Lord STRABOLGIMy Lords, very full contingency plans for operation at Sullom Voe exist, and this is not the occasion to go into them. I would remind the House that the pollution at the end of December was the result of an accident to the "Esso Bernicia" and not a result of discharging oil at sea.
§ The Earl of LAUDERDALEMy Lords, can the noble Lord say when the equipment, of which he spoke earlier, will be available?
§ Lord STRABOLGIMy Lords, not without notice.
§ Lord BROCKWAYMy Lords, can the Minister say whether or not this matter is being urgently considered by the Law of the Sea Conference, which is now in session?
§ Lord STRABOLGIYes, my Lords, it is. As I said in the debate, we are considering with that Conference an Informal Composite Negotiating Text which would authorise any State to prosecute foreign ships for discharges in contravention of applicable international discharge standards on the high seas. Furthermore, the question of a 12-mile limit is one of the factors being weighed by Ministers in their current consideration of the problem. In answer to both my noble friends, I would say that the Government take this very seriously.
§ Lord NORTHFIELDMy Lords, is it not the case that we do not have to go quite as far as the United States for experience? Are not the French using aircraft surveillance with infra-red equipment? Are we co-operating with the French in using this equipment, particularly in the English Channel?
§ Lord STRABOLGIMy Lords, I think that that is a different question, but there is very close international co-operation over all these matters, and there is an improved routeing scheme which is at present being formulated to ensure that 1467 tankers are kept as far away from the shore as possible.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROYMy Lords, in relation to the question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, did it not emerge from our debate last week, first, that it is important that the oil should continue to flow through Sullom Voe?—because about half the oil from the British sector is likely to pass through that terminal within a year or two. Secondly, if the amount of pollution around the shores of the North of Scotland, Orkney and Shetland becomes much worse than it is now, there will be a public outcry for the closure of that terminal.
§ Lord STRABOLGIMy Lords, I agree. We are doing our utmost to ensure that there will be no pollution in future so that the terminal does not have to close.
§ Lord PARGITERMy Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether or not equipment exists which ships could fit which will effectively separate the oil from the water, and then the water can be freely discharged?
§ Lord STRABOLGIMy Lords, that will be done at the terminal when the installation is ready.
Viscount ST. DAVIDSMy Lords, is not the main trouble that discharging oily water ballast at sea is extremely cheap, whereas getting rid of it by pumping it into barges or shore facilities is comparatively expensive? Would not the easiest way to get rid of this nuisance be to make it cheaper and easier to discharge it on shore, possibly by subsidy, and possibly by taking some standard sum from oil tanker owners to balance up the expense?
§ Lord STRABOLGIMy Lords, I am sure that that is something that will be considered. As I said earlier, the international oil companies are considering invoking sanctions against tanker owners who go in for this disgusting practice.