HL Deb 20 May 1993 vol 545 cc1916-26

7.1 p.m.

Lord Brabazon of Tara

My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.

Given my previous ministerial and government responsibilities for shipping matters, it probably comes as no surprise to your Lordships that I am particularly pleased to introduce the Bill to this House. I should first like to congratulate my honourable friend the Member for Hertfordshire South-West, Mr. Richard Page, on having successfully steered this Bill through another place. I now bring it before your Lordships' House for approval.

At first blush the Bill looks formidable, but not for the first time appearances are deceptive. Like all good ideas, the underlying aims of the Bill are simple. Essentially it seeks: to unify control of ship registration in the United Kingdom under a registrar general who will be appointed by and be responsible to the Secretary of State; to move the detailed ship registration law from primary to secondary legislation; to make provision for bareboat chartering onto the UK register; and to pave the way for the long overdue consolidation of merchant shipping legislation.

It would be a mistake for anyone to think that this measure was drafted in a vacuum and without regard to real need. It has as its genesis some of the recommendations of the working party which, during the course of 1990 under the joint chairmanship of the then Secretary of State for Transport and the then President of the General Council of British Shipping (now my noble friends Lord Parkinson and Lord Sterling), considered the most appropriate non-fiscal means of assisting the future development of the British flag.

The concepts covered in this Bill therefore take account not only of present requirements but, so far as one is able to plan ahead, future needs also. At the present time merchant ship registration is undertaken by HM Customs and Excise at some 14 regional centres up and down the country. The procedures applied are in line with the precepts laid down by our predecessors in the 1894 Merchant Shipping Act. It is a tribute to their foresight that the system that they fashioned 100 years ago has survived the passage of time. It would be pleasant to think that what we are doing today will similarly survive the next 100 years. But I doubt it. Whether we like it or not, technological and political developments nowadays sometimes force us to make rapid changes. That pressure is more likely to accelerate than to diminish in the years ahead. Thus, when moving toward unification of overall control of ship registration as proposed in Clause 1 of the Bill, the opportunity will be taken to bring merchant shipping registration into line with the computerised system already in place with the Fishing Vessel Register established under the 1988 Merchant Shipping Act and currently being put in place for the Small Ships Register which was established under the 1983 Merchant Shipping Act.

I would not expect such a modest reordering of the system of registration itself to bring in its wake massive benefits. Nevertheless, I expect improvements to flow from this development. The degree of uniformity in administration will be welcome to those who need to use the registers. The intended process of periodic re-registration of merchant ships should also enable a more accurate register to be kept, which is an essential requirement for all whose livelihood is connected with our merchant fleet.

However, I hasten to explain that it is not the intention to computerise all records. Only those relating to ships still operating will be embraced by the new technology. Therefore, the huge leather-bound volumes recording the fortunes of merchant ships of the past—the famous, the not so famous and even occasionally, but only very occasionally, the infamous —will be preserved for posterity.

I am all too well aware that not only this House but Parliament as a whole takes its responsibilities seriously. That is no more evident than in relation to matters of new domestic law. It is unfortunate that the pressures of time, coupled with the needs of modern government, do not permit us the luxury of fully debating on the Floor of this House all the new measures required to meet the needs of modern society. That is a fact of life which we have to face and to which we must adapt or be disadvantaged.

Like its sister industry, aviation, a good deal of British shipping is concerned with international trade. But unlike aviation, shipping has a much longer history. Consequently, it is still working with the legislative system that it has inherited from the past. I mentioned earlier that the provisions of the 1894 Merchant Shipping Act still applied to merchant ship registration. But even that Act was a consolidation of previous merchant shipping legislation. In fact I understand that there have been 33 Merchant Shipping Acts since 1894.

There is a limit to how long we can expect a modern industry to operate in that way. Changes sometimes need to be made rapidly to respond to commercial and political pressures. British aviation has prospered under a system whereby the detail of day-to-day regulation is found not in primary legislation but in secondary legislation. This Bill proposes to treat shipping in the same way as its younger sibling. I fully support that.

Many noble Lords who spoke in the debate initiated a few weeks ago by the noble Lord, Lord Greenway, rightly paid tribute to the reputation of the British flag. The noble Lord has asked me to say that he is sorry not to be able to be in the House this evening but he wishes the Bill well. Many noble Lords may be surprised that as of today there is no avenue by which a British shipowner can charter a ship to meet a temporary need and operate it under the British flag. The reason is simple. That facility, known as either demise chartering or bareboat chartering, is not currently provided for in our legislation. That is despite the fact that it is widely used by many of our maritime competitors. Leasing is a facility that is used from time to time in the aviation industry. Many consider that it would be a useful adjunct in the shipping industry too. Accordingly, the Bill makes provision for bareboat chartering-in to the UK register.

Before your Lordships express misgivings about the move, I hasten to assure noble Lords that such ships, whatever the length of the charter period, will have to comply with the requirements of UK shipping regulation as it applies to ships which have their primary registration under the red ensign. There will be no exceptions to that requirement. I know that my noble friend the Minister for Aviation and Shipping has made it clear—no doubt he will wish to repeat it this evening—that 'the Government will countenance no dilution of present standards. There is nothing in this Bill which has or is intended to have that effect.

Since the last consolidation of merchant shipping legislation in 1894 and despite the many pressures on Parliament in the interim, time has nonetheless been found to enact many measures relating to various aspects of merchant shipping. The moment has therefore now come to consider a fresh consolidation. This is the final thrust of this Bill. As noble Lords will see from the schedules, it is long overdue.

I began my introduction by describing the Bill as a simple measure. I end my comments by reinforcing that thought. I know that merchant shipping arouses the interest of many Members of this House. The comments made in the debate some three weeks ago bear witness to that. I do not wish to understate the importance of the Bill, but it is not intended to address all the concerns of the industry. It is a sharply focused measure concerned substantively only with ship registration. This can easily be confirmed by a quick glance through the clauses.

Of the 10 clauses in the Bill the first six replace the existing legislative provisions relating to registration of ships, while the seventh expands the scope of registration to embrace bareboat charters.

Clause 1 creates a central register under the overall control of the registrar general and provides that a register may, as necessary, be subdivided. Clause 2 sets out the criteria for entitlement to register a British ship and identifies those circumstances in which registration may be refused or revoked.

Clause 3 provides for the making and laying of regulations in connection with ship registration. Clause 4 identifies offences relating to a ship's British connection. Clause 5 restates those supplementary provisions currently in Part II of the Merchant Shipping Act 1988 relating to fishing vessels. Clause 6, together with Schedule 1, sets out the private law provisions (for instance, law on mortgages) for registered ships. Clause 7 contains an entirely new provision which allows ships registered elsewhere to be bareboat chartered and temporarily registered under the Red Ensign by those persons qualified to register British ships.

Clauses 8 to 10 contain supplementary and pre-consolidation provisions. Clause 8 introduces Schedules 2 to 5, which deal respectively with amendments consequential on the Act (Clause 2); what is a British ship and with a British flag (Clause 3); with amendments to facilitate or are otherwise desirable in connection with consolidation (Schedule 4) and with repeals (Schedule 5). Clause 9 contains details of interpretation. Finally, Clause 10 makes the necessary provisions for citation, commencement and extent. I would point out that notes on clauses will, I hope, be available shortly.

The Bill is very much a technical measure. It is a measure which both sides of the industry want. It is a measure which has rightly attracted cross-party support in Parliament and I am pleased to see that the Labour Party's 1993–94 Parliamentary Strategy, when referring to its document Full Steam Ahead, says that it will press for the implementation of the Merchant Shipping (Registration etc.) Bill.

Everyone that I have spoken to is keen to see it in place as soon as possible. I therefore have no hesitation in commending it to the House.

Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Brabazon of Tara.)

7.12 p.m.

Lord Amherst of Hackney

My Lords, I understand that the British shipping industry welcomes this legislation because of its acceptance on to the British register of foreign-owned tonnage that is bareboat chartered to a British company. That will undoubtedly make it possible for some tonnage to appear on the British register that otherwise would not have done so.

However, the legislation does not recognise the importance of maintaining London as a maritime centre of the world. It takes no account of the complex web of shipping services that exist in this country, in spite of our national flag merchant fleet having declined to 33rd in world ranking. The Government appear to believe that all those services will continue to prosper without encouragement. That is not so.

This legislation could provide some much needed impetus to the maritime services industries if the bareboat provision in Clause 7 were extended to additionally incorporate vessels managed by a British company. In this country, as I am sure your Lordships are aware, we have some of the largest ship management companies in the world. More often than not, once the physical management is secured in this country, the commercial management follows suit.

Bringing new business to the United Kingdom requires imaginative and flexible thinking. We must surely be ready to provide a home for the 26 million or so tonnes deadweight of Hong Kong tonnage that is likely to be seeking one after 1997. At the time of the recent debate on the merchant navy in your Lordships' House attention was drawn to the call from the Baltic Exchange—of which I am a member —for a British open register for just that purpose. Such a register would be without any restrictions and would, we believe, bring untold benefit to all of our many maritime service industries.

The suggestion of the inclusion of British managed tonnage is only a step half-way towards the open register; but at least it would be a step in the right direction and bring some immediate benefit to the service sector of the industry. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, can consider such an amendment to the Bill.

7.14 p.m.

Lord Clinton-Davis

My Lords, first, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, for the balanced explanation of the Bill that he proffered to the House, and for being prepared to carry it through the House. I welcomed also his comforting words in regard to the attitude of the Government, which will no doubt be confirmed by the Minister, regarding the provisions for ensuring that there is no dilution of standards by reason of the incorporation of bareboat chartering in the provisions of the Bill.

However, it is fair to add that this Bill was substantially improved by a number of amendments that were tabled quite late in the day by Mr. Richard Page on behalf of the Government, and also by the perseverance of my honourable friend Joan Walley, in particular in dealing with the question of the register of British ships being available for inspection and, most particularly, for removing, eventually with the support of Mr. Page and the Committee, the original Clause 8 which dealt with British ships bareboat chartered out to foreign charterers. That exclusion from the Bill was certainly worth while.

Other amendments were also dealt with. But this is not truly a Private Member's Bill; it is a government Bill. I say at the outset that I make no criticism whatever of the noble Lord or of Mr. Richard Page for accepting the responsibility for introducing and carrying the Bill through Parliament, but it is an example of thoroughly bad parliamentary management on the part of the Government. For that the Government's business managers, rather than departmental Ministers, are seriously at fault, though this has happened before in connection with the Department of Transport. In the last Session of Parliament I had reason to complain about a government Bill being carried through the House in this way. It may be that the department should exercise a little more clout in seeking to ensure that there is a place for its legislation.

The fact of the matter—the Minister knows it well —is that there was ample time for the Government to have proceeded with the Bill in the proper way. They could have introduced it in this House. It is not a controversial measure in party political terms and we were not exactly overwhelmed with business earlier in the Session. I want to know from the Minister why that choice was not taken.

It is objectionable that this course should be followed in view of all the constraints on debates that take place when we have a Bill dealt with in this way —no fault of the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, at all. The Bill is not as simple as he chose to suggest. The trouble is that it is complex and is exposed to all the opaque procedures that affect Private Member's Bills. Time becomes of the essence. Because of its significance in principle—the noble Lord did not go to town in stressing how important it was as the Minister did in another place on 12th May, to which I shall allude later on—the choice that lies before the House is either to scrutinise the Bill properly, deploying all the proper procedures with the risk that we may lose the Bill altogether, or to substantially constrain the duty of this House as well as another place to scrutinise the legislation properly. Then, to add insult to injury, I am sure that the Government would have no hesitation in casting blame for the loss of the Bill if the Opposition and perhaps other noble Lords were to opt to ensure that Parliament did its job properly.

Therefore we have a Catch 22 position. The result was no Second Reading in another place. That was not simply my complaint or the complaint of Opposition Members in another place. It was a complaint made by one of the Government's own Back-Benchers, Mr. David Harris, the Member of Parliament for St. Ives, and can be seen very plainly at col. 4 of the Hansard report of the Committee stage proceedings in another place. In addition, substantial amendments were introduced by the promoter very late in the day and clearly at the instigation of the Department of Transport. It appears from that that the department had not done its job properly. No blame attaches to Mr. Richard Page in that regard. There was also a truncated Committee stage, because the Committees in another place dealing with Bills of this kind meet only on a Wednesday morning. Furthermore, there was no Report stage.

If we in this place attempted, and attempted successfully, to amend the Bill I understand that we would be told that the Bill would be lost as it would have to go back to another place for further scrutiny and there is no time for that. Perhaps the Minister or the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, will confirm that that is a correct view. That is a situation which ought never to occur, particularly when we are dealing with matters of considerable significance to our merchant fleet. For this situation the Government's business managers are wholly responsible.

Nevertheless, I want to make it clear that, despite this difficulty, I believe that the Bill is susceptible of amendment. I would be prepared, provided the Minister. is prepared himself tonight to give far more precise undertakings about certain issues than have been given in another place, to forgo the need for a Committee and Report stage for the Bill. I would ask him to be precise about this. What I am particularly concerned with is legislation to ratify IMO conventions, in particular the convention of 1989 dealing with salvage. I ask him to give a clear undertaking that the provision will be forthcoming early in the next Session of Parliament and that, if necessary, the Government will at the same time incorporate other IMO conventions which are ripe for legislation.

I believe that I am offering the Minister a fair deal. The noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, smiles ruefully. I cannot see anything wrong with that. The Government say that the legislation is ready but that they have not had time for it. Well, they certainly have time in the next Session of Parliament. This ought not to be done by way of Private Members' Bills. If the Minister says, "Very well. I am not prepared to give that undertaking. I am not prepared to go further than the Minister dealing with the matter in another place did when he said that the matter would be dealt with at the earliest opportunity". I want to be fair to the Minister. It was Mr. Steven Norris, who said: I hope that you will allow me to give the hon. Members for Midlothian and for Stoke-on-Trent, North an undertaking that we shall seek an early legislative opportunity to incorporate the terms of the convention".—[Official Report, Commons Standing Committee D, 31/3/93; col. 91.] That is not specific enough. We want the Government to be tied down to this matter.

It is important. I am sure that the Minister would not in any way countenance the view that the ILO conventions to which I have referred are unimportant. The Minister in another place has said that it is only because of the lack of legislative time that they have not been brought forward. There it is. If the Minister is not disposed to go that way, then I say categorically that I must do my duty on behalf of the Opposition and ensure that the matter is debated in Committee. If need be I will ensure that the matter is brought forward.

There is no doubt that the Bill is susceptible of amendment. I have been given that assurance in this House by the powers that be who help us to adjudicate on these matters. That being the case, I believe that the Minister should give proper attention to the matter. It is within his right to say that he rejects my proposition entirely and that he is not interested in entering into anything more specific than what Mr. Norris was prepared to say in another place. I am equally entitled to ensure that the Bill is properly considered and that a proper amendment to this effect is given attention to.

If I may say so with respect to Mr. Page, his response to an amendment to that effect—Amendment No. 37 as it was —was somewhat misleading, although I am sure not deliberately. He suggested that the incorporation of the requirement that the amendment in question would have had would diminish standards applying to the British fleet. That is wrong. The amendment would have enabled the registrar to take the issues affecting adherence to the conventions into account before the due legal processes dealing with ratification would have been complete. I cannot see how that would diminish standards. Indeed, I believe that the reverse is the case. But there are other amendments that I would have wished to introduce which I am certainly prepared to forego if the Minister is prepared to recognise that what I am seeking to do is perfectly fair.

The noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, was right in saying that the Bill arose from the joint report of the General Council of British Shipping, as it then was, and the Department of Transport entitled British Shipping: Challenges and Opportunities. It was a valuable document. It would have been even more valuable if the GCBS and the Department of Transport had been prepared to enable the shipping trade unions to enter into those deliberations. They are important bodies which have always exercised a considerable degree of responsibility. NUMAST would have been more than anxious to make a contribution. There are also bodies representing the fishermen which might have been taken into account. However, I do not want to diminish the importance of the document.

The changes envisaged in the Bill are to be welcomed. I do not want to see the Bill lost. Furthermore, it is right that the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, introduced a note of proportionality into the debate. It was quite absurd for Mr. Anthony Nelson, representing the Treasury, in speaking on the Finance (No.2) Bill on 12th May, to say that this was a very important Bill which would come before the House of Lords. It is important, but it is not that important. It certainly will not rescue the British fleet from its appalling predicament.

That view was taken very strongly by Mr. Peter Luff, a Conservative Back-Bencher, speaking in the Committee stage on the Bill on 31st March. He said: I share the regret of the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North that the Budget did not do more to assist the British shipping industry … as long as other measures are not forthcoming, the Bill presents the only opportunity that hon. Members have to help the British shipping industry and safeguard employment in that industry. The bareboat chartering in and chartering out provisions are little more than sticking plaster solutions to a fundamental injury that has been suffered by the British merchant fleet".—[Official Report, Commons Standing Committee D, 31/3/93; col. 84.] That pretty well sums it up. The British merchant fleet is dying and it needs more than sticking plaster to put it together. While the Bill is to be welcomed, it is no substitute for a coherent shipping policy on the part of the Government which has been singularly lacking over the past 14 years.

7.28 p.m.

The Earl of Caithness

My Lords, I should like to take this opportunity to congratulate my noble friend Lord Brabazon on introducing the Bill—which he has already explained was originally introduced in another place by my honourable friend Richard Page, the Member for Hertfordshire, South West—and on arranging for its Second Reading in this House today.

My noble friend is, of course, fully seized of the importance of the Bill to our shipping industry, having himself served as both Minister for Shipping and, more recently, as government spokesman on shipping matters in this House when he was Minister for Aviation. I am sure that your Lordships will see that this in itself is an excellent recommendation for the Bill which he is now taking forward.

The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, criticised the Bill for being a Private Member's Bill. That is up to the business managers. The Bill is undoubtedly widely welcomed within the shipping industry, and this is an excellent opportunity to get a useful piece of legislation on to the statute book if the noble Lord will permit it so to do.

The noble Lord also complained about the lack of discussion. It is worth bearing in mind that more time has already been spent discussing this Bill than some European Community countries spent debating the whole of their Maastricht legislation.

I know also that your Lordships care greatly for matters maritime and especially for the health of our merchant navy, as evidenced by the wide-ranging debate initiated three weeks ago by the noble Lord, Lord Greenway. The House will have been sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, did not take part in that debate.

Lord Clinton-Davis

My Lords, I do not know whether that was a genuine note of apology or a snide remark, but, as the noble Earl knows perfectly well, I was not able to be here and the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, dealt with the matter perfectly well on behalf of the Opposition.

The Earl of Caithness

My Lords, I can assure the noble Lord that his noble friend Lord Carmichael did exceedingly well on behalf of the Opposition. I look forward to discussing transport matters with him more often. That does not alter the fact that the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, was missed.

In that debate, I paid tribute to the contribution that the merchant navy makes both to the economy and to our defence and praised it for being efficient, well-managed and innovative. More importantly, I explained that the Government's goal is to create the framework in which British shipping can continue to develop into the competitive industry that we all recognise is so vital to the nation.

To a large extent, the creation of a symmetrical framework can be achieved only on an international scale. For example, as I have said before, the Government are committed to ensuring that British shipping is able to operate in free and fair competition with foreign vessels by rolling back the state aids and subsidies offered by other countries which serve to distort the competitive balance.

I noted again what the noble Lord, Lord Amherst of Hackney, with his great experience, said with regard to the open register. I can reassure him that his point was noted originally when he spoke in the important debate initiated by the noble Lord, Lord Greenway. I noted it again tonight and will discuss it with my right honourable friend the Secretary of State.

Similarly, we are also working with our international partners to encourage high operational standards in shipping worldwide with the aim of reducing unfair competition from substandard vessels which, by failing to meet IMO-agreed safety standards, are able to undercut those that do comply. This will reduce the cost differential between flags with high standards, such as our own, and those flags with a less distinguished record in this field.

However, although these are very important aims and although success in increasing competition in the international arena will be of considerable benefit to British shipping, there are certain narrower domestic measures which can and should be taken to help improve the efficient working of our shipping industry. The Bill which my noble friend Lord Brabazon has introduced today represents one such measure.

I am sure that your Lordships will agree that my noble friend has spoken most lucidly about the purpose of the Bill —both what it does and why it is necessary. My noble friend was right to emphasise the straightforward and technical nature of the measure and the fact that the shipping industry itself was partly responsible for recommending the speeding-up and simplification of registration procedures which will be effected by enactment of the measures. I am sure that the House will agree that, where possible, we should respect the needs of the industry in these challenging times.

Again, I can confirm to the House that it is not a question of altering and lowering the safety standards; quite the reverse. My noble friend was right when forecasting that I would wish to repeat that the Government will countenance no dilution of present standards. Indeed, given your Lordships' understandable anxiety about shipping safety, expressed most recently in the debate to which I have referred, I should like to add my assurance to that already given by my noble friend Lord Brabazon. I feel that it is necessary to underline here that the same safety standards will apply to all vessels operating under the UK flag, regardless of whether they are owned by the operator or are used by him under a bareboat charter.

My noble friend conveyed the desirability to both industry and government of introducing flexibility into ship registration requirements. I am sure that your Lordships will also see the value of tidying up and paving the way for consolidation of shipping law dating back over a hundred years.

I shall now turn to the offer that I could not refuse put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis. He described it as a fair deal. I think others may have a different term for it. I shall certainly not do a deal with the noble Lord over the Floor of the House. That would be totally wrong and contrary to the procedures of this place where such negotiations are undertaken by the business managers.

However, on the subject of the ratification of the salvage convention, the noble Lord is second to me in his keenness to ratify the convention. We are extremely anxious that this and other measures should be ratified. It cannot be dealt with as Private Member's legislation because, as it involves ratification of an international treaty, it can only be submitted as a government Bill. However, I reiterate to the noble Lord the commitment given in another place by my honourable friend Mr. Norris that we shall seek to bring forward legislation to allow ratification of the salvage convention at the earliest possible opportunity. The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, cannot expect me to pre-empt the Queen's Speech or to go further than that tonight pr on another occasion. I simply reiterate that it is extremely important that we proceed with the ratification of the salvage convention and we shall seek an early opportunity to introduce appropriate legislation.

Returning to the Bill before us now, I hope that all Members of the House will lend their full support to it. It is a small but important measure. Certainly, those who are involved with the future of British shipping cannot do anything but give it a speedy passage and fair wind.

7.37 p.m.

Lord Brabazon of Tara

My Lords, I am most grateful to noble Lords who have taken part in the debate. I welcome the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Amherst of Hackney, his enthusiasm for the Bill as regards bareboat chartering and his evident desire to see the Bill go further than it does. From the flavour of the debate that he has heard, including the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, he will realise that it would be difficult to include such measures as he proposes—for example, an open register—in a Private Member's Bill. I am certain that, if the Government were to take that course, it would have to be a government Bill. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, will endorse that remark.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, for his kind words about the Bill. He was critical of the fact that it is a Private Member's Bill. That is largely a matter for another place and for my honourable friend who won a place in the ballot and chose this piece of legislation. I can only reiterate that I am pleased to be able to bring it before your Lordships. I can tell the noble Lord, having consulted the Commons Committee Hansard, that the Bill had a total of six-and-a-half hours' debate in Committee, which is not a bad record for a Bill such as this. The noble Lord must concede that it has had a fair airing.

The noble Lord asked my noble friend to make a firm commitment on the ratification of the salvage convention. I hope that the noble Lord will be satisfied with what my noble friend said. I was interested to hear my noble friend say that, because it involved the ratification of an international treaty, we could not include it in a Private Member's Bill. Perhaps that answers a point in any case.

I do not claim nor did I claim in my opening remarks, that the Bill will rescue the British fleet, to use the phrase used, I believe, by the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, but I hope that it will go some way to helping the British merchant fleet. For that reason I commend it to the House.

On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.