§ Mr. Adleyasked the Secretary of State for Trade, pursuant to his Department's review of contingency measures to deal with accidents at sea causing oil pollution, why he indicates that the only standby facility is seaborne, rather than airborne; and what steps are being taken to create a helicopter-borne capability which could deal with the pollution by transferring equipment to ships in the area.
§ Mr. John SmithAs the review makes clear, work is continuing on a fuller assessment of the potential for using aircraft to spray oil dispersant.
Ministry of Defence helicopters are available to transfer salvage equipment to stricken tankers, and were so used during the "Christos Bitas" operation.
Because of limits on the weight that can be carried by helicopters and the size of most dispersant spraying vessels, it will only exceptionally be feasible to envisage equipping, or resupplying, them by helicopter at sea.
§ Mr. Adleyasked the Secretary of State for Trade if he is aware of any technology which enables oil to be removed from the sea in sea conditions in excess of force 3; and what advantage his Department would see in such technology.
§ Mr. Clinton DavisWe fully recognise the ecological benefits of recovering, rather than dispersing, oil. It is for that reason that the Warren Spring laboratory is devoting a major part of its research and development effort to devising a system capable of recovering oil in the often turbulent waters around our coasts. The Warren Spring laboratory has evaluated several of the more promising items of equipment available on the market, but we are not aware of any system that is currently on offer which has demonstrated a capability consistently to recover worthwhile quantities of oil in such conditions.
§ Mr. Adleyasked the Secretary of State for Trade how many letters he has received from members of the public, and interested bodies, concerning methods of dealing with oil pollution at sea.
766W
§ Mr. Clinton DavisSo far this year, we have received rather more than 100 letters from hon. Members and of the order of 300 letters from the general public on this broad subject.
§ Mr. Adleyasked the Secretary of State for Trade if he will make a statement on the differences proposed by his Department, and the measures proposed by the EEC Commission, to deal with oil pollution at sea.
§ Mr. Clinton DavisThe EEC Commission is currently undertaking a number of preliminary studies aimed at identifying any gaps in the arrangements for dealing with oil pollution at sea which might appropriately be filled by Community action. The Commission may in due course put forward proposals on the basis of these studies.
§ Mr. Adleyasked the Secretary of State for Trade (1) if he is yet able to announce the name of the person who is to be the head of the contingencies planning and operations unit, to take charge of operations to deal with pollution at sea, as announced by him on 2nd August;
(2) if he has yet fully established the contingencies planning and operations unit within his Department, to take charge of operations to deal with pollution at sea; and if he will make a statement.
§ Mr. Clinton DavisAs my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade informed my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Mr. Gould) on 20th November, he has appointed Rear-Admiral M. L. Stacey to be director of the new marine pollution control unit in the marine division of my Department. He also announced that Captain Ralph Maybourn, a director of BP Tanker Company, will serve part-time as a special adviser to the unit. The staffing of the unit will be completed as quickly as practicable.
§ Mr. Adleyasked the Secretary of State for Trade what account he is taking of international obligations both (a) within and (b) outwith British international waters in preparing legislation to make the owners of oil responsible for all costs arising from its spillage at sea; and if he will make a statement.
767W
§ Mr. John SmithThe United Kingdom has already ratified both the 1969 international convention, which makes shipowners strictly liable, within certain monetary limits, for oil pollution damage from ships carrying bulk oil cargoes, and the 1971 convention, which establishes an international fund, financed by the major oil importers in contracting States, to provide, from mid-February 1979, supplementary compensation up to an aggregate limit of £19½ million per incident. Whilst these compensation arrangements are restricted to damage caused to the United Kingdom and its territorial sea, they extend also the cost of reasonable measures to prevent or minimise such damage, wherever those measures are taken.
§ Mr. Adleyasked the Secretary of State for Trade if he endorses, as a general principle, the philosophy that "the polluter pays"; and how he interprets this, in practical terms, in relation to pollution created by oil spills at sea.
§ Mr. John SmithYes. The present system of liability and compensation for marine oil pollution damage involves both shipowners and oil companies, the former under the Merchant Shipping (Oil Pollution) Act 1971 and the latter under the Merchant Shipping Act 1974. These Acts implement two international conventions, of 1969 and 1971 respectively.
§ Mr. Adleyasked the Secretary of State for Trade whether the joint exercise with the Department of Defence, aimed at improving preparedness in dealing with oil pollution at sea as announced on 2nd August, has yet been arranged at the Joint Service Maritime Headquarters.
§ Mr. Clinton DavisWhile such an exercise has not yet been arranged, the "Christos Bitas" operation provided an opportunity for close and fruitful collaboration between my Department and the Joint Service Maritime Headquarters at Plymouth, the results of which are being carefully studied.