My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.

My Lords, the remarks made in another place by my honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade, to which the noble Baroness's Question refers, were concerned with examining who carried out passenger searching measures in other countries rather than with how they were financed. My honourable friend has now announced that he will be reviewing during the next few months both the organisation and financing of aviation security in the United Kingdom. I expect that during the course of the review my honourable friend will have regard to the system in other countries.

My Lords, the Minister has got himself into a muddle. Is he aware that I am not referring at all to the charges, expenses or financial side? Is he further aware that it was nearly three months ago, on 8th December, that Mr. lain Sproat in another place said he had decided to look again at the ways in which other countries deal with these matters? I am asking the Minister whether we can have a Statement as to the way in which other countries deal with these matters. That is nothing at all to do with what we do or with the amounts charged.

My Lords, I am not sure that the Answer that I gave was at variance with the Question tabled by the noble Baroness, as she implies. The position is as I have described it: my honourable friend is considering these matters and will doubtless make a Statement in due course.

My Lords, I know. However, is the Minister aware that his Answer is considerably at variance with the Question that I have asked? This is a perfectly serious Question. Is the noble Lord aware that many of us in this House are interested as to the methods which other countries use to finance the security charges? I am asking him whether he will make a general Statement on that matter. If not, when does he expect to be able to do so?

My Lords, with respect to the noble Baroness, the Question on the Order Paper does not refer specifically to how these matters are financed but to how they deal with the airport security levy. That is a slightly different matter.

My Lords, regarding airport security, which is mentioned in this Question, may I ask the noble Lord whether he was satisfied with what happened at Stansted Airport last night?

Yes, my Lords.

My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that as it took place in Essex, he must be satisfied?

My Lords, may I ask the Minister this question, and could he give me a straight answer? Have the Government not yet found out how other countries deal with this matter of security charges? If not, when does he expect that he will be able to make a general Statement? I am not asking for a final report.

My Lords, as the noble Baroness will know, there are a large number of Governments with whom we have to consult on these matters. I cannot give the noble Baroness an undertaking when this will be complete; but I can say from my recent and comparatively short experience in the Foreign Office that consulting other Governments is sometimes a very long-winded process.

My Lords, would not the noble Lord be well advised to surrender to the noble Baroness?

My Lords, the snag is that I cannot quite think how to do that!

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.

My Lords, I understand that the department to which the noble Baroness refers is not now to close. Although the Westminster Hospital Medical School had decided to withdraw funding from the department, saving about £30,000 a year as a result, funding from private sources has been obtained which will allow the department and the research programme to continue until at least March 1983. The department's commitment to patient services at the Westminster Children's Hospital will continue, as before, to be funded under the National Health Service.

My Lords, although we are all grateful to know that the department have obtained sufficient funds to carry on for one year, does not the noble Lord the Minister agree that it is absolutely impossible to continue sophisticated, highly-specialised research in a unit which has taken 16 years to set up, on the basis of one year's expectation of life? Will he not look at this again and appreciate the point of view of the staff in this matter? I noticed that the noble Lord the Minister himself referred to only one year. On the continuation of the work, may I point out to the noble Lord the Minister—

No!

My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord the Minister whether he is aware that this department has a great international reputation, that it works for patients from all over the world, and 90 per cent. of the work on vitamin B.12 comes from patients outside the hospital, many from outside this country? Is the Minister satisfied—

Oh!

Is the Minister aware of how many lives are to be put at risk for the sake of £30,000 a year?

My Lords, I am not certain I can answer all those supplementaries at once. I should first point out that in fact the whole of medical research started with private finance and there is nothing dis-honourable in private finance assisting a continuing part of it.

Secondly, I should point out that the Government did not withdraw funds from the department. Government funding of the department's service commitment through the National Health Service started 10 years ago and is currently running at about £80,000 a year. There is no proposal to discontinue that. It covers the normal pathological work done by the department for the Westminster Children's Hospital. Perhaps the noble Baroness should be reminded that the other funds start from the Government and go to the University Grants Committee; from there they go to the universities and, in particular, London University; from there they go to the constituent parts of the university and, in particular, the Westminster Hospital Medical School. From there they go to various departments, including the department the noble Baroness is interested in, and it really is for the medical school to decide its priorities.

It is also quite correct that the university should review from time to time its priorities on research because events change the need for priorities. Research is going on elsewhere into vitamin B.12 deficiency and there are plenty of National Health Service hospitals quite capable of doing the diagnostic pathological services which lie at the heart of the matter.

My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that, prior to the National Health Service, the whole question of private medical research was hampered tremendously because of the lack of organisation and the lack of funds?—in short, it was hit or miss. Is he also aware that, in the case of the Westminster Hospital, the really dedicated men and women there feel terribly unhappy that their lease of life might be 12 months at the outside? Is this not merely an absurdity but also a disgraceful threat to the dedicated men and women working in research in this field?

My Lords, it is not unusual for a programme of research to run over a limited time. The Medical Research Council acknowledges this by making many of its grants for a limited five-year duration. As to the 12 months' funding at present in view, this will no doubt be used by the institution in question to see whether the programme is worth extending further and, if it is, how much it should be extended further.

My Lords, the noble Lord the Minister kindly told me that there were other National Health Service hospitals where this work was being carried out. Is he aware that the general information is that this is an unique piece of research concerning pernicious anaemia, some forms of blindness and cancer? Will he tell the House where else this work is being carried on?

My Lords, there are three other centres which can provide excellent cover for any detailed work required in this field. I am given to understand that St. Bartholomew's, the Royal Free and Northwick Park Hospitals may be cited in this connection.

As to the first part of the noble Baroness's response, it is a very highly specialised area indeed which is being examined, within the area of vitamin B.12 deficiency. It is certainly true that references are made there from elsewhere in the world, but the numbers are not so enormous as I think the noble Baroness fears. I cannot quantify them. The point I am most anxious to make is that the future of this research has been guaranteed for a further 12 months, which is a matter of satisfaction to those who feel that it is very important; and those 12 months can be put to good use.

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.

Yes, my Lords, the Spanish authorities have increased payments due from British social security pensioners resident in the territory of Spain (including the Canary Islands) who have chosen to join the Spanish Health Service Scheme. The increase was from 1,982 pesetas per month in 1979 to 2,559 pesetas in 1980 and 4,331 pesetas in 1981. The ability of British pensioners to participate in the scheme derives from a protocol to the Convention on Social Security between the United Kingdom and Spain signed in 1974. The terms of the protocol, which is on health care, are not reciprocal but they do provide for British pensioners to pay at a rate fixed by the Spanish Government, which has discretion in this matter.

My Lords, I am grateful for the information which the noble Lord has given, most of which is in my Question. May I ask whether there was any discussion at all about the size of this increase? Is it a fact that the Spanish pensioners resident in this country will also have to pay this amount of money each month—about £25 per month—in order to get health service care?

My Lords, the noble Lord asked whether I was aware, and I said I was; and he asked about the document under which this was done, and I replied. The matter has indeed been taken up with the Spanish authorities. They tell us that the increases are needed to meet rising costs and to bring the contributions nearer to those paid by those Spanish pensioners who have not made sufficient payments to their health scheme to qualify for free medical benefits. In fact those Spanish pensioners at present pay 360 pesetas a month more than do ours. As to Spanish nationals resident in the United Kingdom, they are of course beneficiaries under our health scheme without charge.

My Lords, in view of the final part of the noble Lord's answer, is not the bargaining power of Her Majesty's Government very considerable in this matter? Is it not possible for something to be done? May I also ask: what will be the position if Spain joins the European Community? Will there be complete reciprocity on these matters then?

My Lords, as to bargaining power, we have in fact achieved some progress. We have reached agreement with the Spanish authorities that separate contributions will not be required unless both husband and wife are entitled to separate social security pensions. This concession will cover not merely a wife without any pension entitlement in her own right, but also one with a pension which is less than her husband's.

As to the accession to the European Community, the European Community's social security regulations co-ordinate the member states' legislation on social security cash and health benefits. People who meet the social security conditions prescribed in the regulations, and who are insured in one member state but live in another, are entitled to receive benefits under the legislation of the member state in which they live as if they were insured there. These provisions will apply to Spain, when Spain joins the Community. This means that United Kingdom nationals who are in receipt of a United Kingdom state retirement pension, will be entitled to medical care under the Spanish health care scheme without contribution, on the same terms and conditions as those applying to insured Spanish nationals.

My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord, but may I ask him one other question? Am Ito gather from his previous answer, when he said that some progress had been made in negotiations, that the negotiations are a continuing process and that he is still endeavouring to get some amelioration of this excessive charge?

My Lords, I believe so. In what form I could not say. But I do not think that we are content with things as they are.

My Lords, 1 beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.

My Lords, representations were made to the United States Administration during the visit to Washington of my right honourable friend the Prime Minister in February 1981. A Bill has been introduced into the House of Representatives, which is intended to abolish the requirement for visas for visitors from certain countries, including the United Kingdom. The subject is also under consideration in the Senate. We are in frequent touch with the United States authorities on this matter.

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that rather encouraging reply. I wonder, though, whether he will consider consulting with our nine European Community partners on this point, with a view to making a joint approach to the American Administration to encourage the passing through the Congress of this Bill, which would certainly improve relations between the United States and European nations, all of whom, I believe, would qualify under the Non-Immigrant Visa Waiver Bill.

Certainly, my Lords, there is a good deal of interest in the European Community in this matter. Indeed, I can tell my noble friend that the subject has been discussed informally within the political co-operation machinery. But, of course, action now rests with the United States authorities.

My Lords, can my noble friend say whether or not any member of the Community other than ourselves has made the representations which, apparently, have brought about quite a happy response, as he has announced to my noble friend Lord Bethell?

My Lords, I could not answer that question without notice. I am not certain, anyway, whether we would necessarily be aware of representations made between two other Governments.

My Lords, it may be for the convenience of your Lordships if I inform the House that the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, will not ask his Unstarred Question which is on the Order Paper for Wednesday of this week. I should also inform the House that dinner will be available tomorrow, Tuesday, at the usual time.

My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. The Bill is designed to enable the United Kingdom to ratify the International Convention against the Taking of Hostages. It is, I believe, non-controversial; and I hope that it will therefore be welcomed by your Lordships.

The convention was opened for signature at the United Nations in New York in December 1979 and signed by the United Kingdom at that time. It will come into force when 22 states have ratified it. Eleven ratifications and six accessions, making 17 in all out of the required 22, have already been deposited. Twenty-nine other states have signed, but not yet ratified, the convention. Because we wish to mark our firm opposition to the taking of hostages and to take all appropriate steps to discourage and prevent it, we should be ready to add our ratification to the convention and therefore help to bring the convention into force.

Under the convention—to put its fundamental principle very briefly—whenever a person seizes or detains and threatens to kill, injure or continue to detain a person in order to obtain something from someone, this constitutes the offence of hostage taking. The convention requires that, in such a case wherever it occurs, a state shall either submit the case for prosecution in its courts, or extradite the person for trial in another country which requests his extradition. Usually, where the events occurred abroad extradition will be the more practical and appropriate action. But the aim of the convention is to ensure, as far as possible, that the perpetrator of such an offence does not find a safe haven in another country, but will be either extradited or prosecuted.

I need not recall the many instances all over the world of the taking of hostages as part of campaigns of political terrorism. In the light of the seizure and subsequent release in Italy of General Dozier, no one needs reminding of the inhuman menace of terrorism. But it is not only a remote possibility affecting other countries; the successful resolution of the Tanzanian aircraft hijack this weekend and the events of the Iranian Embassy siege in London in May 1980 are to the forefront of our minds. The British Ambassador in Montevideo, Mr. Geoffrey Jackson, was held as a hostage for eight months. The convention seeks to combat such terrorist acts. Like the convention, however, the Bill is not limited to taking of hostages for purposes connected with political terrorism. It applies equally to the taking of a hostage falling within its scope for the purpose of private gain or in pursuit of some private object.

This convention is only the most recent in a series designed to deal with specific problems. In 1970, the Hague Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Seizure of Aircraft, usually known as the Convention on Hijacking, was adopted by an international conference. The following year the Montreal Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Civil Aviation was similarly adopted. Legislation was enacted shortly afterwards to give effect to these conventions. Within the United Nations, the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Crimes against Internationally Protected Persons was adopted in 1973 and we enacted legislation to give effect to it in 1978. All of these followed the principle I have referred to above; namely, that the offenders should either be extradited or prosecuted.

The present Bill is the latest in this series. It follows very largely the earlier legislation, and I therefore do not think I need comment further on it in general terms. After this brief account of the background, it may be useful if I outline the main provisions of the Bill.

The Title draws attention to the link with the international convention. Clause 1 defines the offence of taking hostages. A person convicted of the offence is liable to imprisonment for life. Clause 2 provides that the consent of the Attorney-General in England and Wales, and the Attorney-General for Northern Ireland in that Province, shall be required for a prosecution. It also provides for the jurisdiction of the courts in Scotland. Finally, it adds the offence of taking hostages as defined for the purposes of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1978. This means that it will become one of the offences under that Act which are tried under special procedures appropriate for the trial of terrorist offences. Clause 3 deals with the extradition of offenders accused of an offence as defined in the Bill. Subsection (1) provides appropriate amendments to the extradition Act 1870, which provides for agreements with foreign countries, and the Fugitive Offenders Act 1967, which applies a similar procedure for Commonwealth countries and dependent territories. Subsection (2) provides for the extradition in this particular case of the taking of hostages in other countries.

Clause 4 is designed to give effect to Article 9 of the convention. Under that article, to put the matter very briefly, a contracting state should not grant extradition if there are grounds for believing that the request is for the purpose of prosecuting or punishing a person on account of his race, religion, ethnic origin or political opinion or if a person concerned may be disadvantaged for one of those reasons because he is unable to communicate with the state entitled to exercise rights of protection. But it is necessary in this Bill to deal with the case where a person might be disadvantaged at his trial by reason of the impossibility of effecting communications between him and the appropriate authorities of the state entitled to exercise rights of protection in relation to him. Therefore, this clause inserts a clause in the Fugitive Offenders Act 1967 making it possible to refuse to transfer a prisoner in such a case.

Clause 5 provides for the application to the Channel Islands, Isle of Man and Colonies of this Act. Clause 6 gives the short title and provides for a date of entry into force to be set by Order in Council. I am naturally willing to give a fuller explanation of any particular matter which may exercise your Lordships, but in the meantime I beg to move.

My Lords, the House will, I know, want to express its gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, for the very clear way in which he has explained the objects of the Bill. I should like to welcome it on behalf of my noble friends and also on behalf of noble friends in the SDP. It is indeed gratifying to find Her Majesty's Government among the forerunners of those who are ratifying an international convention. It is in marked contrast to the way in which the Government have been dragging their heels over the European Convention on Human Rights.

After the events of this weekend it is, of course, an appropriate afternoon upon which to be debating this Bill. I do not propose to make any comment about those events, tempting though it might be, partly because of the fact that some four people have been arrested and partly because it is a matter which is sub judice and might amount outside the House to a contempt of court if one were to comment upon it. I do of course appreciate that in recent months a convention has grown up that if a case is sufficiently notorious the media may flagrantly disregard the rules about contempt of court with complete impunity. All I need say, and I hope it will be thought proper to say it, is that I am sure your Lordships will agree that all those who took part at Stansted Airport ought to be congratulated upon the firmness and determination which was shown.

The effect of the Bill will depend upon the extent to which ratification on accession becomes widespread. There will inevitably be the cowboy states who will refuse to have any sort of agreement with the objects of the Bill and who may from time to time provide harbour for hostage takers. But the more that the countries of at least the civilised world can join together to deal with this menace the more effective the steps will be. Therefore, the only matter I would like to ask the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, about is this: it is right, is it not, that among the countries which have so far ratified or acceded to this convention there are very few among the European Community (my information is only Germany and ourselves, but there may he another) and, similarly, only very few states which are members of the British Commonwealth? Could the noble Lord indicate that Her Majesty's Government are going to use all their influence with our partners in Europe and with our partners in the Commonwealth to get the maximum degree of ratification or accession to the treaty in order that it can be made as effective as possible?

My Lords, I think few people have been more pressing than have I on Governments to proceed against offenders against international order and particularly against those acting for assassin states, but I am anxious about some of the provisions of Clause 1. I am sure it is my neglect that I did not come across the Bill earlier and give the Government earlier notice, and I hope that they will forgive me. Clause I says:

"A person, whatever his nationality, who, in the United Kingdom or elsewhere, without lawful excuse, …".

So far as the United Kingdom is concerned, that presents no difficulty at all. It is an offence against the common law and the sentence is unlimited. But when one comes to "elsewhere, without lawful excuse" one needs a little clarification.

Is "lawful excuse" the orders of his Government? If it is, then any Libyan, to take an example, walks out. He is authorised by his Government. If it is not, then one may be up against very considerable problems. Our own military law authorises a commanding general occupying enemy territory to take hostages to provide for the security of his forces. If that is not the law now it certainly was until very recently, and I would certainly regard it as a very necessary provision. It is virtually impossible when defending an occupying force for the officer who is responsible for the lives of his troops not to take hostages. We certainly did so in the last war. I would not be happy to see somebody take advantage of this Bill when it becomes an Act to try to indict some of our own soldiers who took very necessary wartime action.

Therefore I would ask the Government to say what "without lawful excuse" means. Is it the command of the accused's prince, his Government, the person to whom he owes authority, or is it not? If it is his own law under which he did it, are we not going to exclude a good many of the worst people that we want to get hold of? If it is not, are there not going to be some considerable difficulties ahead? Before we go a little further with this Bill, will the Government consider these difficulties with care?

My Lords, first may I thank the Minister for the way in which he has presented the Bill and for the information which he has given. While it may appear fortuitous that the Bill is before your Lordships' House today, the events of the weekend have shown yet again the diversity and the many forms of such happenings. The events over the years, both here and abroad, have been such as to give public confidence and assurance and are bound to warn potential offenders of the dwindling hopes of success if they attempt such outrages here in Great Britain or, indeed, elsewhere.

We welcome the Bill, as there appears to be no adequate legislation at present which does the task intended by this measure. As we all know, terrorism knows no frontiers and has grown in recent years to what might aptly be termed a terrifying extent. Over many years, the rather cruder procedure of the hijacking of aircraft in flight has grown more sophisticated and the forms of terrorism have taken other aspects as well —on land, as shown by various sieges and events in this country. In these situations, the people concerned have had made very clear to them, in their saner moments, that society will not tolerate such grave offences against humanity.

Possibly the most important aspect of the Bill is that it is required to implement our national obligations under the international convention, which was opened for signature in New York in December 1979. That was over two years ago and there is still much progress to be made in ratification, as the noble Lord the Minister may have indicated by the figures he gave us a few moments ago. We know that until there is full signature and ratification by member states, until we are all parties to the convention, there can be no effective or preventive measures, nationally or internationally. It is essential to take all the steps we can to see that the procedure is made watertight and effective, and the sooner nations do that the better for all concerned.

The crime being dealt with by the Bill is a most serious one. The situations detailed in Clause 1 appear to cover every situation where the taking of hostages is involved, and so far mankind has experienced all these situations in some form. But as we know, there seems to be no limit to the diversity and inventiveness of those involved. We have seen that no matter how powerful nations may be in terms of weapons, techniques and resources, they are often powerless when faced with such situations, where any action could result in injury to or the death of people. This is unacceptable and there is unbearable suspense created in the minds of hostages, relatives and those who care about the hostages' wellbeing. A terrible price is exacted in the terror of innocent people, and therefore the penalities in the Bill seem to be reasonable.

Throughout the world, peoples of many nations have sacrificed much, even life itself, to bring about the initiation or extension of democracy and the right of free speech. Any pressure of this sort on nations to change their minds, or to change their reactions to individuals, is quite unacceptable. As we all know, the nations of the world are faced with the most difficult situations, from which the most serious consequences may arise if individuals and countries are held to ransom. Therefore the penalties must be appropriate, and the sentence must be not only to punish but also to deter and ensure that offenders are unable to be at large to repeat their crimes or to encourage others. The events of the past weekend are reassuring. For some time Britain has developed procedures which make it clear what hijackers may expect here. We must also seek to ensure safety for passengers, and especially for British travellers elsewhere in the world. Hence ratification of the convention and the carrying out of the regulations all over the world is vital and should be brought about as early as possible.

But of course, laws alone cannot ensure safety; and the manner in which they are carried out is vital, too. The understanding of motives, the psychology, patience and perseverance of those dealing with these problems are also matters of great consequence. In this, Britain is setting a lead in restoring confidence in the British character and tradition for fairness and firmness in the face of provocation.

The noble Lord the Minister has already given figures on how many countries have ratified the agreement and how many have signed it. Can he tell us whether there are any major countries which have not done so to date, and whether any have indicated that they may refuse to agree to sign the convention, or to ratify? May I ask him also what kind of liaison there is between countries with regard to the exchange of experience and information regarding techniques for dealing with these incidents? These are very important matters, because having power to take action when an event happens on your own soil is all very well, but having the know-how to deal with it successfully so that the risk to life and property is minimised is also a considerable factor.

Clause 3 mentions extradition procedures, even when there is no agreement. Is the Minister satisfied that Clause 3 is adequate for dealing with situations where there are no extradition procedures between us and other countries? While some nations, perhaps even one or two, may delay or even refuse to ratify the convention, there will be provided destinations for hijackers and kidnappers and the great danger to our citizens and others will still exist.

I believe that this Bill is timely. I hope that we shall not only get it through this House and the other place in the minimum amount of time, but also that we shall be assured that other countries who at the moment may be providing havens for those concerned will be encouraged to come into line and provide the maximum co-operation in dealing with this great international problem.

My Lords, I am grateful for the kind and constructive remarks of support which have been given to the general provisions of this Bill. Perhaps I could deal with just one or two of the points which have been raised during the course of the debate. The question was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, and underlined by the noble Lord, Lord Bishopston, of signature, ratification and indeed accession to this convention. I hesitate to read out a long list of the countries which have signed, ratified or acceded, but if noble Lords wish, I should be glad to send them a list of the countries which have done so. As I said, 17 states have already ratified or acceded to the convention and they are drawn from almost all parts of the world, including the Federal Republic of Germany, Sweden, Norway, Iceland, Chile, the Bahamas, Barbados, Trinidad, Tobago, Egypt, Kenya and the Philippines. Apart from Eastern Europe, which I am sorry to say is not represented, this shows a wide geographical distribution. The number of signatories, that is to say countries which have signed the convention but have not yet ratified it, include the United States, Canada, Italy and New Zealand as well as a large number of countries in other parts of the world.

The noble Lord, Lord Paget of Northampton, asked me about "lawful excuse". Lawful excuse is a justification in law where the taking of hostages occurs. A Government could not authorise such acts abroad. As to the laws in time of war, which the noble Lord, Lord Paget of Northampton, mentioned, certainly that is a very important and relevant point. In fact, it is rather a complex legal point and, if the noble Lord will allow me, I will take some careful advice on that matter and write to him as soon as I can.

The noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, referred to events over the last weekend. We are all happy that the hijacking at Stansted ended safely. Incidentally, the hijackers are now in police custody. Charges are likely to be brought, and in these circumstances I hope your Lordships will agree that it would not be right for me to comment further on any aspects of the matter.

My Lords, if I might ask the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, just one more question, is our rule that we do not extradite for offences which have a political basis, affected by this Bill?

My Lords, I was seeking to take advice on this very point earlier this morning. Like the previous point raised by the noble Lord, it proved to be a particularly complex one and perhaps 1 can include a reference to that second question when I write to the noble Lord.

The noble Lord, Lord Bishopston, asked me two questions about Clause 3 and about the exchange of experience in these matters. Again, I do not have that information immediately before me but perhaps the noble Lord will allow me to write to him with a full explanation of the position on those two points. I do not believe it will be necessary for me to make any further general comments. I hope that the answers I have given and the undertakings I have made in respect of corresponding with various noble Lords will enable your Lordships to give this Bill a Second Reading. I beg to move.

My Lords, I beg to move that the draft European Communities (Definition of Treaties) (ECSC Decision of 7th December 1981 on Supplementary Revenue) Order 1982, laid before your Lordships on 11th February 1982, be approved.

The order specifies as a Community treaty the decision taken by the Council of Ministers on 7th December 1981 to allocate supplementary revenue to the 1981 budget of the European Coal and Steel Community. If the House approves this order, it will formally define the decision as a Community treaty under Section 1 of the European Communities Act 1972, thereby permitting the necessary sum to be paid to the ECSC as provided for in Section 2(3) of the Act. I am sure that noble Lords will be acquainted with this procedure for allocating supplementary revenue to the ECSC, since it has been used three times in recent years in respect of the 1978, 1979 and 1980 ECSC budgets. In 1980 and 1981 the steel industries of the ECSC had two very bad years and they are still faced with weak demand, large surpluses of capacity and heavy expenditure associated with restructuring and capacity closures. There have been massive redundancies which in this country have been on an unprecedented scale. The difficulties can be particularly acute where an affected steelworks is the major or only employer in its locality.

Under Article 56 of the Treaty of Paris, the Community can already work in two directions to mitigate these social problems. First, it provides readaptation grants. These cover about half the cost of approved schemes of member Governments for providing income support for redundant ECSC steelworkers. Noble Lords will wish to know that under the Iron and Steel Employees Readaptation Benefits Scheme, known as ISERBS, which is the British scheme, we have become a major beneficiary of such Community grants, to a total of £103 million to date. ISERBS provides enhanced unemployment benefits; for substantial periods it makes up the earnings of those in new employment to 90 per cent. of previous steel earnings where necessary; it gives training allowances approximating to previous take-home pay; or it provides additional pension benefits.

Secondly, the Community provides reconversion loans towards the cost of projects providing alternative employment in steel closure areas, in many cases with the benefit of interest rebates financed from the ECSC budget. Again, the United Kingdom is a major beneficiary; projects in the United Kingdom accounted for 48 per cent. of the reconversion loans and 36 per cent. of the interest rebates approved between 1975 and 1980. These have helped provide jobs for 17,000 workers in that period, while loans for the United Kingdom agreed in 1981 were worth £92 million for projects expected to create 7,000 jobs.

Because of the difficulties of the steel industry throughout the Community in the last two years the Council of Ministers decided that special steps were needed to help alleviate the heavy social consequences. At their meeting on 24th June 1981 they adopted the special social measure which is intended to cover the period up to the end of 1984. It comprises Community aid towards expenditure by member Governments for two specific purposes. The first is early retirement (including severance pay) linked to specific schemes for restructuring—that is, permanent capacity closure—in their steel industries. The second is short-time working, again with the specific linkage to restructuring.

The 50 million ECUs of which our contribution will be part represents the first part of the programme for the 1981 budget. The balance for 1981 is likely to be found by the transfer of 62 million ECUs from the general budget of the EEC to the ECSC budget. This has been discussed in the Council of Ministers and a final decison is expected shortly. A further 100 million ECUs is to be made available for the period 1982 to 1984. The distribution of this sum over the three years and the method of financing remain to be considered on the basis of proposals to be formulated by the Commission.

In our case the measure will take the form of a partial reimbursement by the Community to the United Kingdom for the large sums spent in financing early retirement and severance pay in the BSC made necessary by the very large number of redundancies in the corporation. Our revised applications under the measure now relate to expenditure totalling £258 million in respect of 37,000 redundant BSC steelworkers, previously employed on making ECSC steel products, in the two financial years April 1979 to March 1981, and to a further 17,500 in the present financial year.

We are confident that the United Kingdom will gain a net financial advantage from the measure. The Commission has already notified us that we are to receive back 19.3 million ECUs of the first tranche of 50 million ECUs against our contribution of less than 9 million ECUs. At present we expect to be a major net beneficiary from subsequent tranches.

Noble Lords will have noted that the Government's applications under the measure have related to costs incurred with regard to the BSC. At the time of these applications no comparable expenditure had been incurred by the Government in respect of the private sector of the steel industry. However, as noble Lords know, there now exists the scheme of assistance to the private sector which my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Industry announced in his Statement on 14th December last. If it were found to be appropriate that we should apply to the Commission for a contribution towards the aid given by the Government in respect of that scheme also, then we should do so. However, this does not mean that steelworkers in the private sector companies who are made redundant as a result of closures cannot benefit under the ISERBS scheme. Provided they have been engaged in the production of ECSC steel products, they are eligible for ISERBS.

The United Kingdom is required to contribute towards the first 50 million ECUs of the cost, a sum which, as I have explained, we shall more than recover in benefits. I am confident that the proposed contribution is fully justified, and accordingly I seek approval for the draft Order in Council. I beg to move.

My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Lord for having explained the purport of the draft Order in Council and some of the reasons that lie behind it.

Before I come to deal directly with the order and some of the surrounding circumstances, I should like to consider the way in which it is proposed to deal with this item in this House. The consideration of this Order in Council first appeared on your Lordships' Order Paper on Friday. It is quite true that, through the usual channels, those of us who have the responsibility or the pleasure of sitting on the Front Bench, received it slightly earlier on Thursday, but, so far as ordinary Members of the House are concerned, your Lordships would not have seen it on the Order Paper until Friday, which means that the great majority of your Lordships may not have seen it until first post today.

I have had occasion before to complain about the lack of notice that is given before important questions of this kind are discussed and I raise the point once again. It is simply not good enough that an order of this kind, however innocuous it may appear on the face of it, should be taken at such short notice. As your Lordships will perceive, there are issues of considerable importance raised by it and your Lordships do not very often have the opportunity of having a debate in any event upon the activities, purposes and policies of the European Coal and Steel Community. I therefore venture to express the hope once again that the Chief Whip will ensure in future that we do get adequate notice so that we can study the implications of orders of this kind which raise quite important matters upon which the House and the public are entitled to be informed.

Having said that, I immediately acquit the noble Lord, Lord Cullen of Ashbourne, of any personal responsibility in this matter. As is well known in the House, the noble Lord always treats this House with the greatest possible courtesy. It is just that I would hope—and I express the hope moderately for me—that the usual channels will take this on board and see that we do get at any rate a week before matters of this kind are brought before the House. That is, more particularly so in circumstances when the order has not yet been considered by another place, which, of course, suits my book very well indeed, because were I minded to ask the House to reject this order they could not say then, "Well, of course, it has been approved by another place and therefore who are you in the House of Lords to object to it?" In fact, I am almost tempted to do so because of the example I could give to another place—if they saw fit to follow the example of your Lordships, were they so minded—to reject the order.

My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord would be kind enough to give way since he has mentioned me by name? Perhaps I could explain that no discourtesy was intended to the House or to any of your Lordships who may be interested in this particular order. In fact, what happens with this sort of business is that it does go out on the advance notice which goes to all the parties. Had there been any complaint about the short notice we would, of course, have done something to meet the noble Lord then. But I quite take the noble Lord's point and I will consider what can be done about it in the future, without, of course, making any commitments because this is the sort of thing that happens at times in all Administrations.

My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord and accept his assurance in the spirit in which it was given. I now come to the order itself and more particularly to the Eleventh Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments which reported on this matter. I quote from HL 85 for the Session 1981–82 where at paragraph 3 the Joint Select Committee says:

"That the Committee draw the special attention of both Houses to the above instrument on the ground that it requires elucidation. The Order would declare the Decision of the Representatives of the Members of the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC) of 7th December 1981 to be a Community Treaty as defined in the European Communities Act 1972".

One wonders why the Eleventh Report referred to it in those terms bearing in mind, as the noble Lord, Lord Cullen of Ashbourne, indicated in the course of his speech, that the three preceding Orders in Council have followed the identical procedure. I am reluctant to think for one moment that the Joint Select Committee overlooked the three previous occasions. It may well be that they look askance at them and that on this occasion they asked the reason why.

On the face of it—I shall refer to the Act of 1972 in due course—it would appear that it is not necessary in any way to have a treaty for this purpose. Section 2 of the European Communities Act 1972 gives general power for any Government to issue instruments in whatever form in order to enforce the provisions that are from time to time made by the European Community, whether they are made by decision or whether they are made by regulation. In fact the House very often considers such statutory instruments which are not graced with the title of a treaty.

At any rate the Department of Trade gave an explanation of this which is reproduced at page 7 of the Eleventh Report. I quote:

"This Committee have asked for a supplementary memorandum in amplification of paragraph 9 of that previously submitted. They ask why an Order in Council, instead of a simple resolution of Parliament, is necessary to authorise payment of the supplementary contribution to the ECSC 1980 budget required by the Decision mentioned in the title of the Order".

They go on to say:

"Under article 4 of the Decision, Member States are required to take all necessary measures to ensure that the obligations created by the Decision are implemented".

They go on to point out in the explanation, by quoting from Section 2(3) that a treaty is necessary. But of course all it does really is to prove the opposite because Section 2(3) provides:

"There shall be charged on and issued out of the Consolidated Fund or, if so determined by the Treasury, the National Loans Fund the amounts required to meet any Community obligation to make payments to any of the Communities or member States".

It does not need a treaty. Indeed, the explanation submitted by the Department of Trade merely says at the end:

"It is thought preferable"—

Note the words, "thought preferable"—

"to seek authority under the European Communities Act 1972 for any payments which arise out of a Community obligation rather than to rely on any other machinery which might be available".

They then go on to say:

"The same procedure has been followed in relation to supplementary contributions to the ECSC budget for 1978 and 1979".

So it is merely preferable: it is not really necessary.

I wonder why? I wonder what the real reason is for this to be made a treaty obligation. Might the answer be that if it is made a treaty obligation it comes out of the Foreign Office vote, which is notoriously more amenable to matters of this kind than the Department of Industry? Can that be a reason? The House is entitled to know the real reason rather than to be told, as is put down, that it is preferable. I deal with technicalities which, of course, it is the function of this House to deal with, to make quite sure that everything is done in due and proper fashion.

I now turn to the order itself and its purport, which, of course, refers back to the decision, which is in Command 8490. If one turns to Command 8490, one finds that the contribution made from the United Kingdom for 1981 amounted to 8,667,513 ECUs, which at the current rate of conversion into the pound at 0.5367, totals about £4,680,000. So it is ultimately £4,680,000 about which we are talking.

When matters of money are being discussed in your Lordships' House, there is sometimes a danger of discussing them from two different attitudes. If the expenditure is something of which in particular the party opposite approves—such as the net contribution to the European Communities, or the cost of the Community institutions—we are immediately informed on this side of the House, somewhat dismissively, that after all the expenditure amounts to only 0.23 per cent. of the GDP and, therefore, does not matter very much. If I may say so, that is one way in which the party opposite tends to look at expenditure of that kind. It minimises it by percentage in relation to the gross domestic product.

What a different attitude exists when there arises the question of the provision of kidney machines, which at a cost of £30,000 save people's lives; or when it comes to putting 6p on the amount required for the National Health Service, when doctors have to choose among children as to which ones shall live and which ones shall be left to die. There is a totally different attitude then.

Therefore today we are dealing with a sum of £5 million. The noble Lord, Lord Cullen, pointed out—I think somewhat disingenuously—that we received more than this back in respect of the payments that were made. That is not strictly true because, when determining the total refunds to this country, there have to be taken into account the amounts already paid into the ECSC budget by individual member states. The amount with which we are concerned here is a payment to supplement the proceeds of levies that are made on each member state.

So when determining how much net benefit remains due to this country, we would have to take into account not merely the £5 million odd that is contributed by this supplementary payment, but also the contributions that have been made by way of levy on the coal and steel industries, which in 1978 amounted to —and I am now translating ECUs into pounds—£84 million; in 1979, £97 million; in 1980, £114 million; in 1981, £87.5 million; and in 1982 it is projected at some £140 million, plus a further supplementary payment that will, as the noble Lord indicated, be made during 1982. Therefore, before one assesses benefit, one has to take into account not only this £5 million, but the other contributions that are made by levy by all the European states.

It may well be that this country benefits from them. There is a very good reason why this country should benefit from them; because, of course, it has agreed to reduce its capacity by a far greater amount than any of the other countries in Europe, except perhaps for Denmark, which has only a very small industry and a capacity of only about 1.1 million tonnes production.

The question that I have to ask the noble Lord is this: Why is it that in 1980 to 1984 Britain, already having a capacity ultilisation lower than that of any other country in Europe to the extent of 40 per cent. of its capacity—the lowest capacity utilisation in the whole of Europe—has agreed to cut its steel capacity in 1984 by a further 8.5 per cent., as against Germany decreasing hers by something under 0.5 per cent., with a natural increase in capacity in the case of Italy and Holland, and as against an average decrease over the whole EEC of something like 3.5 per cent. over the same period? The question I want to ask the noble Lord is: Why should it be agreed that the United Kingdom, which already has the lowest capacity utilisation of the lot, should decrease its capacity still further?

We are grateful in one way for this having brought out the fact that, far from the troubles in the steel industry being uniquely the result of the workings of the nationalised industry in the United Kingdom, the problem has, of course, been shared all over Europe and that all Europe's steel plants have been suffering on roughly the same scale and for the same reasons as those in the United Kingdom. In fact, as the noble Lord is aware, the British Government have already agreed with Viscount Davignon, the commissioner in charge of the rundown or reorganisation—you can choose whichever words you like—that all subsidies should be phased out by the end of 1985. The noble Lord is also aware that in the case of Belgium and France the Commission is already winking its eye and is already tolerating the fact that subsidies are continuing to be paid. Why then is there this acquiescence by the British Government in the wishes of the Commission? Why is it that we are so astonishingly pliable regarding the reduction of our capacity to a far greater extent than any other country in Europe?

Could it be that this is part of the deliberate rundown, part of the policy aiming at privatisation assuming, by sheer reduction of capacity, that British Steel ultimately gets into a profitable condition when it can then be "flogged" off, presumably on the same lines as Amersham International was "flogged" off. Can it be that the plan is deliberately to run down the British Steel industry to a point where it is conveniently profitable to "flog" it off to their friends—the friends of the opposite party opposite—at a fraction of its capital cost? These are matters that require some answers.

One might ask as to why is it that there should be all this distress in the steel industry in Europe anyway, and in this country in particular. The official excuse by Viscount Davignon, which is echoed by his "Little Sir Echos" in the other place and here, is, of course, that there is no demand or that there is a lack of demand for steel, although, incidentially, exports seems to have held up remarkably well if one consults the latest statistics produced by the British Steel Corporation. Is there no demand for hospitals in this country? Is there no demand for schools in this country? Is there no demand for the products that use steel? The answer is that of course there is demand. It is only the deflationary policies that have been followed by this Government that have deliberately depressed the demand in any event. So much so that production has not only dropped in the steel industry, which is by no means unique in this respect, but in manufacturing industry generally.

What a devastating indictment it is of the system as a whole, not only in this country but throughout Europe, that it should be said—and I am quoting from Commission Decision No. 1836/8l/ECSC at page 13 of the Official Journal of 4th July 1981, where it has a preamble to the latest series of steps that it has to take towards what is euphemistically termed the rationalisation of the industry—

"Whereas the steel market continues to be seriously affected by the deterioration of the economic situation; whereas, in order to create economic conditions favourable to the indispensable restructuring of the iron and steel industry, immediate action with regard to the sales prices of steel is absolutely necessary; whereas urgent implementation of such action is becoming increasingly essential in this period of crisis;".

Period of crisis? This was not one of the things we were promised at the time we entered into the European Coal and Steel Community, into the EEC. There was no vista of this at all.

Now what we have in Europe, followed to a greater extent, and to an inexplicably greater extent in this country, is a policy first of all of shoving up prices by, as Viscount Davignon hopes, and I am sure the British Government agree because they always agree, between 40 per cent. and 50 per cent. in the foreseeable future to 1984, and to a further slimming down of the steel industry.

There is no case for the rejection of this order as it stands, because of course it produces a comparatively small but nevertheless significant financial benefit to this country. Many of us could find very good use for this if we had control even of the small benefit that is received. But that does not mitigate the indictment which we on this side of the House make, that the whole manner in which the ECSC works ought to be probed to a far greater degree than is apparently at present possible, either in another place or in this House, and that we should view with dismay the efforts that are being made to slim down an industry here for the ultimate profit of people who want to make a quick buck, in the same way that those who subscribed for Amersham made their quick buck.

My Lords, I want to add just a few points to the remarkable explanatory speech, laced with knowledge of the subject and indeed of the industry, made by my noble friend Lord Bruce of Donington. I think that this order, just a few words on the Order Paper of your Lordships' House, can spell a dramatic effect on the commerce and industry of all our nation.

It was quite right when the noble Lord, Lord Cullen, said that part of this order we must welcome, particularly the point that he mentioned—and it is probably the most vital of all—that it might help those who are trained and are skilled craftsmen, and who for a number of years of their lives have made steel for the commerce and industry of this country. They were not found wanting in 1940 when steel was urgently needed for the defence of this nation, but they were callously dismissed by the Prime Minister of this country and her Government when they thought that there were a couple of million pounds to be saved because of a downturn in the steel industry.

Born and bred in this particular area, may I say to your Lordships, that there is a feeling among the steelmen, as there was among the colliers before the war, that you can give your best for this nation but that, when it suits the purposes of a Tory Government, they just spit in your face. That is the feeling. Noble Lords ought not to depend on the two or three minute newsreels of the BBC showing strikes and demonstrations, but should perhaps visit, look, and talk to people who had to gain their knowledge and their experience of all that is involved in making steel, and the other additions that flow from the making of steel, when you could only work in front of a furnace since 1911 for 6 hours. That did not have to be negotiated; it was volunteered by the owners and the employers because of the rate that they were burning and slaying men who worked in front of the furnaces. It is all these things that get passed down from family to family in these particular areas.

I thought that I should like to compliment the noble Lord, Lord Cullen, for selecting one aspect of the order which might make some contribution to alleviating the social effects. That is something that I find very fine to say in your Lordships' House when one is discussing and debating a complicated issue like this. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Cullen, for the few moments he spoke on that aspect. But, as I have said, there are other aspects, and I am tempted to go on for a long time, which I shall not do. But I beg your Lordships to try to realise just how much our nation depends on two industries. The seats we are sitting on, the clothes we are wearing, the tables we are leaning on, our civil and military aircraft, every hospital, every school, every university, every piece of equipment provided for the skilled hands of our doctors and our surgeons, all start with miners digging coal and steelmen providing steel.

What I am terribly anxious about is whether through this order there could be a possibility of our British steel—as my noble friend Lord Bruce of Donington has said—passing into other, non-British, hands. We do not of course call them "foreign hands"; we call them multinational. I raised, for example, the issue of Hoover in this House, where British workmen in the late 1920s and early 1930s worked for five or six weeks for absolutely nothing, and accepted massive reductions in their pay to keep their skills going which could be handed on to their sons, and from their sons to their sons. But, when the capitalist side, the money-grubbing side, thought that there were a few million bucks to be lost, they were dismissed, and the history of their contribution to Hoover was entertained for about a week or two and then they were finished. That might not be terribly serious for the future of our nation, but, if, when the Government are talking about British coal or steel—and remember, it is a coal and steel order about which we are speaking— they carelessly place them in jeopardy, then that would be one of the most serious crimes any Government could commit. Therefore I say to noble Lords opposite, particularly those on the Front Bench, that they should check out what has been said by my noble friend Lord Bruce and myself. They should talk with steelmen of every calibre, from those who work before the furnaces to the great metallurgists. They will then realise that we must see to it that in no way—if that is the sly intention of the order—do hands other than British hands, responsible to the British Parliament, control the steel of our nation.

My Lords, I wish at the outset to thank the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, for the courteous things he said to me and, like my noble friend the Chief Whip, to apologise for any discourtesy he might have thought there was in the short notice given in relation to the order. ft was certainly not intended in that way at all.

The debate has ranged quite widely and, to return to the order we are discussing and the suggestion of Lord Bruce that I might have been rather disingenuous in referring to the 9 million ECUs which we contribute for this social aspect and the fact that we get back about 19 million, perhaps I may put that in perspective. The total United Kingdom contribution, including the £4.9 million which we are discussing today and the levy on United Kingdom production of coal and steel in 1981, comes to just over £19 million. The benefits which we receive are readaptation grants for redundant United Kingdom coal and steel works of £40 million, interest rate subsidies on reconversion levels of over £10 million (payments over five years) and ECSC research grants of £6 million, giving a total of £56 million, sums which add up in a very beneficial way to this country.

The noble Lord, Lord Bruce, asked why we had to have a treaty and not a statutory instrument or some other method. This is a technical matter which I cannot pretend to understand, but I gather the position is that it is a requirement of the European Communities Act 1972 that the transfer of money shall be made by means of a treaty with the Communities. That calls for an Order in Council, because only the Privy Council can approve treaties. If a transfer of funds from the Community is involved, a treaty is required by the terms of the European Communities Act. In any case, the money comes from the Consolidated Fund and is backed by the Department of Industry, not the Foreign Office. Payment is made by treaty, not by statutory instrument, because the legal advice we are given is that was the intention of Parliament in the European Communities Act 1972. I hope that that explanation satisfies the noble Lord.

My Lords, I am back to the explanation given by the Department of Industry in a reply to the observations of the Joint Select Committee. The reply was not that it was essential but that it was preferable, and it is that word I am querying. If it is only preferable, why has this somewhat cumbersome way of doing it been adopted?

I am sure the noble Lord realises that I cannot answer him at this moment, my Lords; maybe some answer will strangely come to me while I am speaking.

The noble Lord rather suggested that the steel industry was being run down, but I do not think that is the case at all. The steel industry is beginning, at long last, after tremendous restructuring, to run up and it is very much hoped that the BSC will break even in 1982–83. That is not running down an industry but very much the reverse. We have, unhappily, made huge numbers of people redundant and capacity has been reduced, all of it in agreement with our EEC partners, but we are doing all that with a view not to running down the steel industry but the very reverse.

My Lords, when I was talking about running down the industry I meant decreasing production; I was not referring to profitability. Is the noble Lord saying that it is now the policy of the Government, through the British Steel Corporation, significantly to increase steel production over the coming years?

I did not say that, my Lords. In fact, the closure of plants is not just something that is happening in this country; it is an EEC move. An interesting fact regarding the price of steel—the noble Lord mentioned the 40 per cent. increase—is that the price of steel today on average is back to about what it was in 1979; the 40 per cent. increase which has taken place only brings us back to just about the level in 1979. The price of our steel is still below that of America and Japan. I think I have answered all the points that were raised. If I have missed any, I will write to the noble Lords concerned.

rose to move, That this House takes note of the recommendations of the Eighth Report of the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution on Oil Pollution of the Sea (Cmnd. 8358) and the reports of the European Communities Committee on the Action Plan for the Mediterranean (30th Report, 1980–81 H.L. 200) and Marine Pollution (31st Report, 1980–81 H.L. 201).

The noble Lord said: My Lords, we are here dealing with three reports on pollution of the sea. The subjects of the reports are interconnected and it makes good sense that they should all be considered together. The report of the Royal Commission is the result of a searching investigation into the whole subject of oil pollution under the able chairmanship of Sir Hans Kornberg, and I am glad that two distinguished members of the commission are to speak in this debate, the noble Baroness, Lady White, and the no be Lord, Lord Nathan. The other two reports are from the Select Committee on the European Communities; they are on particular matters affecting Europe and I am delighted that my noble friend Lord Cranbrook, who was in the chair of the sub-committee which examined those EEC plans, is also to speak in this debate. I again declare an interest: for several years I have worked with one of the large oil companies. Another interest, not pecuniary, is that I have been regarded for most of my life, in Scotland at least, as a naturalist and something of a pundit on birds. I hope that means that 1 can form judgments with a reasonable sense of proportion.

The Royal Commission report contains a prodigious amount of relevant information, and it also has wise advice. For anyone seeking enlightenment or help with finding solutions I strongly commend the Royal Commission's contribution. The subjects include sources of pollution, compensation, methods of tackling spills and the related equipment; also the complex, but vital, matter of determining and arranging beforehand the placing of responsibilities in all situations that are likely to arise. In the time available today I propose to address myself only to some of the principal topics requiring discussion and decision. In Appendix 2 to the commission's report it is recorded that evidence was given by me, among others. I was glad to have the privilege of being invited to make a very modest contribution in that way.

Why must we as a country take very seriously the recommendations in the report? The answer, I believe, is that there is no other country in the world which has so much at stake. There can be very serious effects on our long and exposed coastline and on wildlife, such as damage to amenity, local tourism and the fishing industry. I know that the commission pointed out that not many fish are killed by oil, but unfortunately the taint which continues and the distrust of consumers cause damage to fishermen.

The mutilation and death of wild birds can occur many miles from land, as well as on the coast, depending on their movements and concentrations. The outraged reaction of most of the British public when they hear of the plight of oiled birds is fully justified. Their plumage loses its insulating and waterproofing properties and the birds become helpless and unable to resist death from exposure.

Another reason why we in Britain must be especially concerned is that we are now in the first league of oil-producing countries. We are an oil nation, and most of our oilfields are below the sea. Although the first oil from the North Sea sea started to flow less than seven years ago, we are now self-sufficient. We need that oil—it is an important clement in our economy, and we are now being, reminded of that almost daily when the question of changes of price is being discussed.

That leads to a further reason for our concern as a country. Oil in tankers is being carried in vast quantities through our home waters not far from our coasts. Recently many of the tankers have been very large. Our islands are close to the routes taken by oil supplies to other European countries. Indeed, tankers passing our shores, not calling at United Kingdom ports, have caused much of the pollution around our shore in recent years. Therefore it is very much in our national interest not only to devise the best possible systems for preventing pollution, and dealing with it if it occurs within our own jurisdiction, but also to procure international agreements which will be effective.

The report deals with the whole world, but I intend to concentrate on threats to the British Isles and the seas around them. The report helps to put the facts into perspective. It confirms that about 60 per cent of the oil in our seas arrives from sources on land. That is a high percentage, and it should be kept in mind. At the same time, the commission does not find that that gives rise to any serious problem, owing to the circumstances of individual emissions, dispersal and absorption. Twenty per cent. of the oil comes from tankers, and the remaining 20 per cent. from miscellaneous sources, including other shipping and offshore oil.

I should like to consider first our own North Sea oil. Small quantities of oily material are discarded from platforms and rigs at sea in normal working operations. The commission affirms that no harm is caused by that and that it is negligible. What then are the risks of serious pollution from offshore oil operations? First, there is the risk from pipelines, from damage or corrosion. There has been only one significant incident so far in the United Kingdom sector of the North Sea, and that, the House will remember, was two years ago when a pipe connecting the Thistle and Dunlin fields was damaged by a heavy anchor. Although there was a considerable leak, no oil came ashore; it was far out to sea. When such incidents occur, the flow in the pipes should be cut off very quickly; this is part of modern technology.

The second way in which risks of pollution arise is through mishaps when tankers are taking on oil, or transferring oil at sea or at terminals. This may happen because there is faulty equipment—for example, hoses—or inefficient procedure. It should be noted that the spill which occurred at our biggest oil terminal, at Sullom Voe in the Shetland Isles, did not involve North Sea oil. It involved the "Esso Bernicia" at the end of 1978, and the spill was from her own bunker oil. The accident was caused by a fault in one of the tugs, which caught fire and therefore had to disengage. As a result, the tanker hit the jetty, and her fuel caused the large spill.

Fortunately, nothing has so far occurred in the United Kingdom sector concerning the third category of risk, which I now come to—the blow-out, causing an uncontrolled flow from a well into the sea until the operation of tapping can be carried out. Against this dreaded offshore accident every precaution is taken; it is a calamity for the industry and for the company concerned. The event may never happen on our continental shelf—and I hope that it will not. However, because it is the most serious of these risks, we must be fully prepared for it. The Norwegians have had one experience. Because that was far out to sea the coasts were not affected. A blow-out caused the largest ever oil spill in the world. That was in 1979 at the Ixtoc Well in the Gulf of Mexico.

In Britain we cannot fail to be concerned about oilfields near our coastline. We now have one only a dozen miles from Sutherland—the Beatrice Field, within the Moray Firth. It recently started producing oil, which flows by pipeline to a terminal on land nearby. I cannot overemphasise the care needed to avoid a spill there. The effects on the surrounding shores of the firth could be very serious. As more blocks nearer our coastlines are licensed for exploration, and later as oilfield development plans are approved there, special care should be exercised to reduce to the minimum risks of spills.

I turn now to tankers. They cause about half the oil pollution from sources at sea. The gravest threat to beaches arises from the possibility of major accidents. The "Torrey Canyon" and the "Amoco Cadiz" spilled huge quantities of oil and gave grim warnings to us all about damage that may be inflicted on the environment. These accidents are caused by human and mechanical errors. They should not happen, but, as with blow-outs, we must be prepared for them.

I draw attention to one factor which qualifies my statement about human error: the incomplete state of the charts of seas around our shores. I support with vigour the Royal Commission's plea that the Government should make more resources available to enable the programme of hydrographic survey to be carried out more quickly. This survey work has historically been performed by the Admiralty, and then the Ministry of Defence. However, all kinds of shipping have been able to use the products and so benefit. Now, in the 1980s it is needed not so much for naval ships as for mammoth tankers and bulk carriers, the draught of which is such that they may be scraping the bottom where in the past ships have not needed to worry. The departments with responsibilities for shipping, safety and pollution of our coasts should press for their interests in this, and be prepared to contribute resources in addition to those of the Ministry of Defence.

Serious accidents to tankers also occur in harbours. In 1979 the "Betelgeuse" suffered a fire and explosion in Bantry Bay, with the tragic loss of 51 lives. One of the causes was excessive stress owing to incorrect positioning of ballast. A few months later another tanker broke in two at Rotterdam, a fracture having been caused by oil being pumped out of the centre tanks while the tanks fore and aft were left full. In the "Betelgeuse" case there was no calculating instrument to control cargo and ballast distribution and check stresses. in the Rotterdam case the ship did have a calculator but it was not being used, apparently because its instructions were in Norwegian, a language which could not be understood by the captain, or the crew, who were Chinese. There were no casualties, fortunately, and no fire in that case, probably because the vessel possessed an inert gas system. That safety precaution had been absent in the case of the "Betelgeuse".

Spills are also the unwelcome trademarks of inadequate tankers with slovenly practices and crews. What, my Lords, is a substandard tanker— an expression often used nowadays? I can best convey what is meant by the following example. In January 1980, while a certain tanker was being loaded with North Sea oil at a British terminal, members of its crew were found to be smoking on deck. Loading was suspended and matches and lighters were confiscated. When loading was resumed, a spill of 200 gallons of oil occurred. Loading was again suspended until it had been cleaned up. It was then discovered that the vessel was overloaded by more than 3,000 tons. The cause was supposed to be ballast, described as segregated. When the ballast was examined, however, it was found to contain a substantial amount of oil. The master asked for permission to discharge this into the harbour, which was of course refused; and 3,000 tons of oil had to be pumped out of the ship again.

On inspection by the Department of Trade the following defects were then found: one lifeboat engine would not start, but in the attempt to start it a small fire started instead; the gas-tight covers of emergency lights were open; and oil was leaking from a deck hatch. On the day after leaving harbour, an explosion occurred in the tanker's engine room and she then drifted at sea for three days out of control. That tanker, the "Scenic", had a record of similar incidents elsewhere in the world. It is not surprising that among those concerned with that incident in this country the vessel has been referred to as the "Obscenic". I do not think I need say more to illustrate the kinds of deplorable practice and low standards which must be eliminated. Until this can be achieved internationally, we must at least try to keep such vessels away from our ports and coasts.

My Lords, I have been speaking of accidents, mishaps, errors and leaks. The discharges from tankers requiring even more of our attention and vigilance are those effected at sea on purpose. Such deliberate discharges, known also as "operational", have in the past been normal practice on the high seas, for example, in order to wash out ballast tanks or to empty ballast at sea before loading. The results have been oily water and slicks. Near coasts these can cause bad pollution. Recently there have been international efforts to reduce and eventually bring to an end these practices. I would remind your Lordships that among the methods that have been adopted for recent internatonal agreements are those called "load on top", "crude oil washing" and "segregated ballast tanks ". There are also facilities at ports for oily ballast to be transferred ashore.

The 1973 Convention of Marine Pollution, known as MARPOL, is to come into effect soon, and that will constitute a substantial advance in international co-operation in preventing pollution from ships. Nonetheless, because of the loss of time and the inconvenience which can sometimes be caused to ships if they are to carry out the correct procedures, there is a temptation to masters to release oily ballast hoping not to be identified. If an area becomes polluted by one such incident or a larger spill, it has been known for other, passing tankers then to carry out such ballast operations in that area knowing that they are likely not to be identified. We had a case of that in Northern Scotland three years ago, your Lordships will remember. That kind of conduct I can only describe as diabolical.

Man, however, cannot be blamed for all the oil in the sea. Oil slicks are also formed, in a few parts of the world, from natural sources; for example, by seepage from deposits below the sea bed. This does not happen, however, anywhere near our coasts. Indeed, oil pollution of the sea is comparatively recent and was virtually unknown until the last 60 years or so. If I may divert the House for a moment, in the time of Samuel Taylor Coleridge, his Ancient Mariner was astounded and awestruck to see that:

"the water, like a witch's oils, burnt green and blue and white".

Today's mariner would simply presume that he had sailed into an oil slick. It is a melancholy thought, too, that the nightmare world of fantasy in which,

"slimy things did crawl, with legs, upon the slimy sea,"

would immediately be recognisable now as a flock of stricken sea-birds caught on the oily surface.

As for catching the culprits, the ships causing such horrors, it is striking a high average (to borrow again from Coleridge) if one "stoppeth one of three". What about detention and enforcement? Too many spills are still unattributable. Surveillance and monitoring have nonetheless had an improving effect. I agree with the Royal Commission that trying to maintain a 24-hour watch everywhere would not be worthwhile or practicable, because almost the same result can be achieved if it is made known that several agencies and systems, including aircraft and equipment such as infra-red devices which can see at night, are in use. This is the principle which disciplines drivers on the roads when they see a notice "Police radar in operation". They slow down if they are speeding, although they know that the monitoring cannot be 100 per cent. effective.

Official photographs taken from the air of vessels in relation to slicks have already had a salutory effect in deterring masters who previously were less than scrupulous in these matters. The result has been fewer ballast incidents. A captain does not know when an aircraft may appear from nowhere and within a minute or two record his offence. Besides the special surveillance aircraft, I suggest the Government should make it clear that their RAF Nimrod aircraft, which spend most of their flying time over the seas round our shores, are very well equipped to report and record tankers' actions.

Sometimes it is difficult to bring transgressing ships to book. However, the full weight of public opinion in this country will rightly be aroused against masters and owners who try to get away with acts which place our coasts and wildlife in jeopardy. That is one sanction against offenders which they should not underestimate. Experience has shown that formal enforcement is more successful if carried out through the port at which a ship calls or is lying rather than through the flag state. The trend towards international adoption of the port-state jurisdiction is something to be welcomed.

A very important recommendation of the Royal Commission is that the United Kingdom territorial sea should be extended from three miles to 12 miles. This has been agreed at the United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea. It would extend the jurisdiction for prosecution under United Kingdom law and would enable our Government to intervene up to 12 miles in shipping incidents threatening our coasts. The Government have started preparing the legislation, anticipating, in the same way as we did over fishing limits, what has been agreed and will be in a convention. I would ask the Government to bring in the legislation if they can in the next Session. I cannot foresee that there will be any opposition in Parliament, and little of the Government's parliamentary time is likely to be taken up.

Probably the most important subject in the commission's report is that of organisation for dealing with major incidents. Three years ago, the Marine Pollution Control Unit was established in the Department of Trade. Theirs is the responsibility for preparations and for collecting the expertise and also for quick and sensible action when an emergency occurs. The commission suggest that this unit should be strengthened and they suggest how Government departments should take on various responsibilities. There is not time to consider now the pros and cons of those proposals. Whether one agrees or not with the proposals, these responsibilities need to be allocated, decisions need to be taken. When crises occur, with the best intentions the wrong actions sometimes are taken.

At an international conference recently I heard a scientist state that because of the spraying of marshes in Brittany after the "Amoco Cadiz" incident, those marshes will take a hundred years to recover instead of 15 years if they had been left alone. Nearer home, after the "Eleni V" had been crippled by collision at sea, quantities of dispersant were sprayed, although no effect could be caused on the very heavy fuel oil which was spilled in that case. It simply made the situation worse. The trouble is that Government, central or local, have felt that they must be seen to be doing something in an emergency. That is a natural reaction. In future, public confidence should be built up to the extent that decisions can be taken soon —and everybody will know that they are being taken—with expert knowledge and without the need for flamboyant, visible action which may be misguided. Dispersants in certain circumstances can be as harmful as oil, and sometimes even more harmful.

My noble friend Lord Cranbrook will speak on the two Select Committee reports. On the 30th Report, I hope the Government will be more forthcoming in their interest and contribution to the Mediterranean Plan. In Report No. 31, the Select Committee (of which I am a member) advised caution on establishing an EEC centre for data, for example, on tankers liable to pollute. The classification societies, such as Lloyd's Register, can already provide all the information that could possibly be needed. In addition there is Mardata International Computer system. There seems no need to make a central inventory of all the equipment owned by member countries. This should be limited to such help as can be applied to neighbour countries and be made available.

My Lords, I hope that I have shown that oil is important to this country and that prevention of pollution is important, too. We are still one of the world's leading shipping nations. If the Government have been waiting for the Royal Commission Report they can now proceed with confidence to secure, first, a fully effective organisation to protect our coastal areas and to handle emergencies and, secondly, international agreement and co-operation to reduce pollu- tion. No other country has a greater interest in pursuing these aims. My Lords, I beg to move.

Moved, That this House takes note of the recommendations of the Eighth Report of the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution on Oil Pollution of the Sea (Cmnd. 8358) and the Reports of the European Communities Committee on the Action Plan for the Mediterranean (30th Report, 1980–81 H.L. 200) and Marine Pollution (31st Report, 1980–81 H.L. 201). —(Lord Campbell of Croy.)

My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, for having introduced this subject. The Royal Commission, as lie said, has performed an important service in producing in the Eighth Report a very comprehensive report of over 300 pages. It is timely that we are considering the reports of the Select Committee on European Communities and we are indebted to its chairman and members for their deliberations, and we are glad to see the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, here for his contribution later. The first report was issued in 1971, over a decade ago, and it may be appropriate to say that a lot of dirty, oily, slimy water has passed under our bridges since then. In fact, we are dealing with a problem of many decades but the sophistication of our shipping industry has made matters worse, to some extent, as time has gone by, because our precautionary measures have not matched the pace of science.

The noble Lord made reference to some of the changes, the load-on-top system and the crude oil washing, which is an improvement on the old system of dumping at sea; and now there are provisions for discharge when getting to port. The report reminds me of the "Torrey Canyon" disaster of 1967 because I had the experience, as a Member of the other place, of being a member of the subcommittee of the Select Committee on Science and Technology dealing with the "Torrey Canyon" at that time. One had the experience of flying over the "Torrey Canyon ", of helicoptering round the beaches and coasts of Devon and Cornwall and being aware of the problems of accessability facing the local authorities having to clean up the beaches. That is of great importance to them. We also interviewed many local authorities and the people concerned with the design of ships and the procedures of shipping. Later on, as Minister of State with responsibility for fisheries, one was concerned with the "Amoco Cadiz" and the "Eleni V" of 1978.

I mention these points because our attention has been concentrated on the problems of oil pollution and marine pollution for some years. If I were to put into brief summary some of the things I should want to say or the impression I want to leave, it is that there has been a lot of work done in getting information for the eight reports (and the Eighth Report is the document we are discussing today) and also in getting the recommendations of the Select Committee on the European Communities which have given us very sane advice and good recommendations. The main question to the Minister is what the Government think of the present situation and what action will be taken to carry out the recommendations. I believe we are also helped in this report—and some of us individually have had submissions from them, as I am sure has the Minister —by the General Council of British Shipping and also the Association of County Councils; because all these authorities are intimately concerned.

I was interested in the summary and conclusions, having read much of the report beforehand on which they were based, and it seems that this report seeks to put the problem of pollution into perspective. The effects of oil pollution at sea are widespread, affecting fish, wildlife, sea birds, animals and beaches with the possibility of chronic oil pollution of the sea, with short-term or longer-term effects.

While it is reassuring to know that there may be no long-term or permanent effects on the marine environment, we should realise that even short-term effects can lead to suffering and death for birds and for wildlife generally. It is interesting to know that most of the oil reaching the sea comes from discharges from the land—and I believe the noble Lord made this point. About 60 per cent. of the discharge is from land areas, including effluent from rivers and by direct deposition of hydrocarbons in the atmosphere, originating, for example, from motor vehicle exhausts and so on.

At the same time, while there is this maximum amount of pollution coming from land areas, it does not in any way minimise the seriousness of the matter of marine pollution which concerns us at this time. Tank operations seem to account for 20 per cent. of the accidental or deliberate discharge at sea, and the rest from general shipping operations. The effect on our beaches, on our public amenities and the environment, can be serious. They seriously affect tourism as well. I am sure many noble Lords have seen the effects of oil pollution around our beaches. There are problems in getting rid of all this dirt and muck within a short time when there are visitors and holiday bookings have been taken, and so on. These are considerable difficulties.

There seems to be, according to the report, some satisfaction about discharges of the land-based sources of oil, controlled, as they are by the Control of Pollution Act 1974. But there is the other problem which I hope the Minister mentions when he speaks—the problem of waste effluent discharge from our coasts. There is need for greater co-operation between Government and water authorities.

I wonder whether the Minister will say later to what extent the Government and local authorities' cuts and restraints will affect the prospects for improvements and for dispersal of some of these problems. I have in mind particularly the problems of Merseyside where much of the pollution around the coast is man-made. Crude sewerage is there and it affects the environment to a large extent. That aspect may not be covered by this report; but it is still a very serious problem which needs to be dealt with by the local authorities—one hopes with help, financially and with other resources—from the Government.

The noble Lord, Lord Campbell, has mentioned offshore oil development. It is accepted that this must result in some operational discharges of oil—accidental of course—when pipelines and offshore storage facilities are damaged. I should like the Minister to say what action is likely to be taken to prevent blowouts when large quantities of oils are released into the sea.

There is the concern expresssed by the Royal Com mission about the protection of pipelines and the use of large sea tankers for storing oil in hostile conditions in the North Sea. I wonder whether the Minister can say also whether the sale of BNOC's assets will mean less control if profits to be made by the new owners after privatisation are probably to be the main criterion. One may wonder whether some of these important aspects with which we are concerned may not have the kind of attention and action which they deserve. Will this be a matter for control when licensing takes place?

It is rather interesting when one considers the number of incidents—and they are relatively few although serious when they do happen—like the "Torrey Canyon", the "Amoco Cadiz" and other disasters to which reference is made in the report. Of course, hundreds of vessels go through the English Channel at night and at other times and about which we hear very little when nothing serious happens. Enforcement is a very difficult problem, and the report refers to the need for traffic lanes—a matter which is also referred to by the Chamber of Shipping.

Regarding the report in other aspects concerning costs of marine oil pollution and compensation, I notice that the local authorities and the shipping interests are interested here because it is recognised that the existing limits for compensation under the two conventions are unsatisfactory because of inflation. Surely this is another matter of concern to the Government.

Under the same heading, there are considerable costs to local authorities incurred on these occasions and indeed in keeping the safeguards and precautions going all the year round in case of spillages at any time around their coasts. It may well be that present restraints in the form of cutbacks may affect the kinds of precautions which ought to be maintained at all times. One wonders whether the necessary financial and other resources will be found to clean up the beaches, and so on. I said earlier, tourism is a very important aspect which should cause us concern.

The other aspects include the discharges of offshore oil operations. The noble Lord has made reference to that and I shall not go into it further except that it is very important that we should maintain high standards in our vessels: maintenance, operational conditions and safeguards and crew competence. I thought the reference to crew competence was an important aspect because on occasions when thousands of tonnes of crude oil are being carried by these vessels, sometimes the safety precautions are not all that they should be. We can possibly anticipate at some time the worst possible situation where a vessel is blown up with a considerable explosion. Certainly new problems would be before us on those occasions.

The report's recommendations seem reasonable about the aspect of discharges from offshore operations. One always wonders whether even more enforcement can be carried out, and how soon it can be made much more effective. Regarding substandard ships, the noble Lord made reference to problems of enforcement. No matter how sensitive and how considerate we are as a nation in dealing with some of these problems, one gets the main query about the effectiveness of enforcement by other countries and internationally, and whether the checks and inspections are really adequate.

Mention has been made about the 12-mile limit with the recommendation that territorial limits should be extended to the 12-mile limit as in some other countries. The Minister might let us have his views on that. One aspect which has been touched on already, and which is fundamental to the report, is the hydrographic mapping. One thinks back in the past few years of the recognition that many of these maps are grossly out of date and hardly give any real indication of the state of the seabed, so there are inherent dangers to our shipping around our coasts.

The Chamber of Shipping are not very happy about having forbidden areas. This means that we shall have to do something more very soon, although the cost could be quite significant—if that is the better word to use—but the amount invested for up-to-date maps may certainly be a very good investment indeed when one considers the consequences of not having them. Traffic separation schemes are advocated—the "rule of the road". One issue which concerned me and my colleagues all those years ago was the need for us not only to have traffic lanes, but also to have some knowledge of what cargoes were being carried and what action should be taken about the toxic and other effects in the case of spillage. The knowledge about any hazardous cargoes is something which should be concerning us at the present time.

The Select Committee on the European Communities' report—which I think is extremely helpful and gets down to the main issues of the Royal Commission's report—spotlights the main areas of concern by its studies since the "Amoco Cadiz" disaster in March 1978. They point out two main proposals: a communication from the Commission concerning the combating of pollution, and measures for enforcement in respect of shipping, safety and pollution prevention. They also deal with the policy implications. The value of the Community system depends on the extent of the effectiveness of the action taken. It is important that there should not only be general agreement between countries as to what needs to be done, but some way of ensuring that the recommendations which are generally accepted are carried out, because without that there is no safeguard whatsoever.

Paragraph 13 of the report refers to the small number of incidents—half a dozen a year—and reference has been made to this. But of course there is continual and widespread discharge affecting the local areas. This really is a continuing problem despite the headline-making disasters to which we have made reference. Many local areas can be affected by discharge around our coasts and beaches. The fact that some of us had to see some of these beaches by helicopter because the cliffs were so steep and access from the sea was almost impossible, shows the problem of trying to deal with spillages once they have come inland into the areas where people often bathe or go on foot.

So the Select Committee also questioned other things, such as the wisdom of keeping a comprehensive list of various pieces of equipment available "around the shores of Brussels", as the report puts it. One can well imagine the usefulness of that, particularly at weekends when many of these accidents happen. For example, the "Torrey Canyon" disaster occurred at a weekend and very often the list of equipment which is needed is not readily available just when it is needed. It would he far better for there to be a national register and also regional registers—maybe even at county level as well—so that greater access to them is available when the need arises. It is vital to know these factors and especially details of the cargoes of vessels and how to deal with them in case of spillage. I believe there is very good reason for the committee to be concerned about the duplication of Community action. There is always the problem of having gaps which are not attended to by anyone and, on the other hand, the possibility of work being duplicated by authorities nationally and internationally as well. These are some of the main points for consideration.

The report indicates that the machinery for dealing with oil spills is inadequate. There are many government departments concerned; local and national authorities, often with conflicting interests, are also involved and are especially concerned with cleaning operations. The report is, I think rightly, wide-ranging on these national and international aspects. I believe all the information that we surely need is already available in order to come to very sensible conclusions on this report, but there are certain occasions when some aspects are referred to committees. That may be justified, but, generally speaking, if we have more and more reports we then await their reports before more action is taken. Action should be taken urgently.

As I have said, I believe that much work has been done, but there is much more to be done in the coordination of effort and as regards what has to be done and who will have to do it. The Royal Commission has performed a valuable service in producing this report and the Select Committee has also performed a valuable service in summarising the main conclusions. In their reply I hope the Government will indicate to the House and to the country what action has to be taken in readiness for any other eventuality which may come along.

My Lords, as a member of the Royal Commission, I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, for introducing this debate, not only because it gives an opportunity for discussion of the report but also because the noble Lord himself has great knowledge in the field.

I had the honour to serve on the Royal Commission throughout its study of marine oil pollution and I shall confine myself to that report. During our study a number of incidents occurred, one of which, in part, I witnessed. I thought it might be helpful to your Lordships if 1 confined myself to that, which focuses attention on certain of the matters on which we reported and recommended, rather than to have a more wide-ranging review.

A product tanker, the "Tarpenbek" of about some 1,700 dead weight tonnes, was involved in a collision off Selsey Bill while carrying a variety of lubricating oils. Virtually no oil was spilled on the collision and the cargo tanks were not ruptured. The state of the wind, sea and tide made it not only dangerous to life to attempt to transfer the cargo of oil but, if that had been attempted, there was severe risk of some spillage which could have severely affected fishery, ecological and amenity interests—for example, Selsey Bill itself (where inshore are the nursery grounds for much of the sole found in the Channel), Pagham, Chichester and Langstone harbours, which are great conservation centres, and the popular beaches, of course, in the area.

The "Tarpenbek" capsized, again virtually without leakage of oil, and this made it all the more urgent and necessary to seek a sheltered haven where the oil could be transferred in calm waters with far less risk to life and less risk of pollution. Sandown Bay at the east of the Isle of Wight was selected, and the inverted "Tarpenbek" was towed there. Thereupon the local authorities—South Wight Borough Council and the Isle of Wight County Council, as well as hoteliers—sought a High Court injunction to remove her from the bay. The application was rejected on terms as to anti-pollution measures to be taken. In due course the oil from all tanks was pumped out without spillage while she was inverted and, after some difficulty she was then turned upright ("parbuckled" is, I believe, the technical word) and the remaining cargo oil pumped out. During this whole operation no cargo oil escaped, but a small amount of bunker diesel did.

I sailed out and was able to see this remarkable operation and to witness the presence of only small quantities of diesel on the sea, which were being effectively sprayed by two aircraft— one of which, incidentally, unfortunately crashed at the foot of Culver Cliff. However, the pilot was not hurt and he jumped out and swam ashore. Skill, coupled with good luck, made this an outstandingly successful operation.

We recommend in our report the designation of sheltered havens. If designation is coupled with a power for the Department of Trade to bring stricken vessels there, the corollary must be that the department, in consultation with local and other interests, must initially bear the cost of preventive measures such as booms, and carry out the pay for any clean-up operations. Claims for compensation should be met centrally and should not be a burden on the local authority. The claims, with the risk of failure in making them, the cost of the claims and the cost of delays in recovery of the claims from shipowners or insurers must, in our view, and certainly in mine, be borne accordingly.

In the case of the "Tarpenbek" the initial pollution risk was severe, endangering East and West Sussex, Hampshire and the Isle of Wight. Therefore it would have been quite inequitable that the costs should have been borne by the Isle of Wight alone and that they should have suffered the risk and the cost of making the claim and the cost of the delay, which is so often experienced in obtaining recompense.

The risk which originally existed, of severe pollution affecting areas of high nature conservation interest and amenity, raised a further issue, to which we also refer. Areas such as Pagham Harbour, Chichester Harbour and Langstone, are enjoyed by a great number and variety of people who come specially to visit them, as well indeed as those who live locally. If such areas are damaged by oil pollution there can in general be no claim for compensation. Wild birds and fish are generally not the subject of ownership and their loss cannot therefore generally form the basis of a claim; nor generally can the loss of amenity. Further, such losses will probably never be quantifiable in terms of money. Yet there is no doubt that a loss has been suffered by the community.

In the United States some attempt has been made to address these problems, under which the Federal Government would claim as parens patriae on behalf of the community for damage to environmental resources. In this country, from mediaeval times, the Crown has acted in that capacity—for instance, in the case of charities—and still does, through the Attorney General. If, as will usually be the case, the damage is not readily quantifiable, there is ground for considering a claim for general damages.

If one of us were unfortunate enough to leave this building and be run over by a car and have both legs broken, we should, in principle, be entitled to claim for the specific medical and other expenses which we incurred—which are called special damages—and general damages for loss and pain and suffering. These general damages are for assessment by the court; general damages are also awarded in libel cases. The idea of general damages is, therefore, well embedded in our law.

It seems to me that there are strong grounds for securing that the community, no less than the individual, is entitled to compensation for damage which it has suffered. Of course, this proposition does not relate to oil pollution alone. For example, it would apply to chemical pollution or, possibly, the effects of a great explosion, such as occurred at Flixborough, or the widespread and enduring pollution such as occurred at Seveso in Italy. Nevertheless, I raise it in this debate, as we have in our report, as one requiring study by an expert group. It represents a gap in our law which recent developments have made far more relevant than hitherto and of great concern.

One objection which has been raised is as to the destination of the compensation received. Compensation is not a penalty. The answer must depend on circumstances. But it is easy to envisage that, in some circumstances, it could be applied to reinstate the area affected and, in others, to substitute another area. This, likewise, is clearly a matter for study, but not, I suggest, a ground for rejection.

I refer finally to the extension of the territorial sea to 12 miles, which has already been raised by both of the previous speakers. It appears that the Government, after some hesitation, have now accepted that this is desirable. This is not surprising, since over 100 states, including major maritime nations such as Japan, the USSR, France and Italy, already claim territorial seas of 12 miles or more. In the context of oil pollution, an extension from the existing three miles to 12 would have several advantages. ft would extend the area in which offences committed by foreign vessels would be subject to prosecution under our law and compensation for oil pollution could be claimed. Most important, however, as the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, mentioned, would be the extended area in which the United Kingdom would have power to intervene in shipping incidents which pose a pollution threat to our shores, to which I shall refer further in a moment.

At one time, it seemed that the Law of the Sea Convention which specifically provides for such extension might come into force quite shortly, and in those circumstances it was obviously preferable that we should await that event and make the extension pursuant to the convention. Now, however, the timing of its adoption has become much more uncertain. It is clearly desirable that the Government should act now. At the same time, it is important that the Government should resolve to exercise effectively their powers of intervention within territorial waters when a real risk of oil pollution off the coast is threatened.

I have in mind the case of the "Athina B", which occurred while we were in the course of our study. It was a ship of some 3,500 deadweight tonnes, which got into difficulties in bad weather about a mile off Shoreham Harbour. The offer of assistance from a tug was rejected by the master. I understand that the coastguard reported that, if no action were taken, the ship would be driven on to Brighton beach within six hours. This happened as predicted. There was no intervention by the authorities. She was carrying about 300 tonnes of bunker fuel, her cargo being pumice. By good fortune, no oil was spilled on the beach. But, had the tanks been ruptured, very severe damage could have been caused to one of our major beaches. It may be said that this ship was exercising her right of innocent passage through territorial waters. Innocent, it certainly was. But the passage from close inshore on to Brighton beach scarcely comes within the ancient rights of freedom of the seas. It is essential that extension of the territorial sea should be combined with a determination to exercise within proper limits the rights of intervention which exist.

I have touched upon a number of matters—sheltered havens, compensation for environmental damage and extension of the territorial sea. I should be very grateful if the noble Lord the Minister could give the House some guidance as to Government policy in relation to them.

My Lords, I should like to add my voice to those of the noble Lords who have spoken before me in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, for initiating this debate. At the same time, I should like to pay tribute to the work which the noble Lord has done in this field, and to say for my own personal reasons how pleased I am to be able to speak in the debate introduced by him. I should also like to join other noble Lords in acknowledging the contribution made by the members of the Royal Commission in producing the report which is the principal subject of today's debate.

I am sure that most readers of the report will be reassured, as I was, that the commission found that the risks of long-lasting damage to the marine environment through oil pollution were insubstantial. None-theless, the visible growth of offshore oil exploration and production, along with the continuing increase in shipping traffic, on the one hand, and industrial waste, on the other, give rise to widespread and understandable concern. I believe, also, that in certain circumstances, such as when oil is combined with another pollutant such as herbicide or sprays, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, significant damage can still be done. I am sure, therefore, that the efforts on the part of the Government and other interested parties will not be reduced on the grounds that the potential harm is insignificant or transitory. As the report observed, moreover, the short-term consequences of oil pollution can be, and are, serious—I think that the report used the word "offensive" in one context—and the very visibility of the effects will ensure that public interest remains at a very high level.

The detailed recommendations of the Royal Commissions' report have been generally welcomed by your Lordships' House, and it is to be hoped that they will be put into effect as quickly as possible, with those relating to preventive measures and the improvement of safety in offshore installations and ships an obvious priority. Since the noble Lords who have spoken before me have already covered so effectively the principal points of the Royal Commission's report, as well as those of the Select Committee reports, I should like to pick up just one point arising from the commission's report, although not, perhaps, one strictly within its own terms of reference.

The problem of establishing compensation for environmental damage was raised in the report and has already been highlighted by the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, who spoke before me. I believe that your Lordships' House should strongly support the commission's recommendation that an expert body be set up to consider the way in which environmental damage might, in some way, be assessed, quantified and thereby compensated in specific instances of pollution. But I feel that, even if the expert body was successful in devising an acceptable system of compensation, there might still be more that could, and should, be done.

For instance, the commission reported that in 1979, of the reported unattributable incidents of oil pollution, less than 10 per cent. involved spillages of more than one tonne, and that the clean-up costs incurred by local authorities in respect of these unattributable spills were generally insignificant. Nevertheless, I suspect that unattributable spills, reported and unreported, each one small by the standards of a major disaster but still causing substantial amounts of pollution and damage, account for a significant proportion of the unquantifiable loss to the environment and people's enjoyment of it. But by the very nature of the loss and of the unidentifiable causes of it, it is difficult to know whom to compensate, by how much and at whose expense. Nonetheless, I believe that if the true impact of pollution on the marine environment and the coastline is being considered we should at least make an attempt to solve this equation, full of unknowns.

In trying to identify where financial support was most needed, I was struck by the various references made in the report to research. Both the Royal Society and the NERC gave evidence that oil should not be accorded a high priority in research expenditure. The NERC was shown to allocate only 2 per cent. of its marine research budget in one year to projects specifically concerned with oil pollution. It is possible even for the layman to see how other pollutants, such as radioactive waste and toxic heavy metals, can be so much more dangerous and harmful and, hence, why research into these pollutants should be accorded a higher priority. But when, for instance, there is no effective dispersant for heavy fuel oils such as that spilled by the "Eleni V" off the coast of Norfolk in 1978, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, it is tempting to feel that there may be scope for increased research if resources were available. If, by some chance, this has not been the case in the past there is some possibility of it being so in the future, particularly if the National Maritime Institute, which I believe has been a significant contributor to research on pollution generally, becomes another guinea pig in the Government's privatisation programme.

I believe therefore that there is likely to be plenty of scope for funds being usefully employed in increased research both directly in connection with the prevention and the mitigation of oil pollution and indirectly, perhaps, in connection with the preservation of species which are vulnerable to the effects of pollution. Looking at the broadest aspect of the unquantifiable damage to the environment which pollution can cause, I believe that increased expenditure in many other indirectly related spheres—the preservation of the coastline, for instance—could be justified.

It seems to me, therefore, that while the commission rejected the idea of establishing a fund to assist local authorities with the costs of dealing with unattributable spills, there may be a case for establishing a rather different fund which might, less directly, compensate for the effects of pollution. If it could be financed by formal levies on the oil and shipping industries, then its funding would clearly be assured. But it might even be possible to set the fund up on a voluntary basis, with the major oil and shipping companies supporting it—not as an admission of any negligence or specific instance of pollution but as an acknowledgment that their activities carry an inevitable cost for the marine environment. They might, perhaps, effectively be consolidating and, one would hope, increasing the individual contributions to research or environmental causes that each company currently makes. It might be said that many commercial enterprises put a lot into the sea, in one sense. This might be one way of putting a little bit back in another. I hope that this suggestion does not seem too idealistic. It is clearly vital that any proposal such as this should in no way jeopardise or delay a more satisfactory system of compensation for specific, attributable instances of pollution or any of the other principal recommendations made by the commission.

It emerged from the report that in some instances there was not always satisfactory co-ordination between different Government departments. The Government have, I believe, recently given assurances that maritime policy generally will be properly co-ordinated. I am sure that your Lordships' House would wish, notwithstanding the reassuring general conclusions of the Royal Commission, the Government to act swiftly, wherever possible, concerning the report's recommendations. At the same time, I hope that some way might be found for those whose commercial operations do insidiously harm the marine environment to make a balancing contribution to the environment's wealth.

My Lords, I had the pleasure of listening to the maiden speech of the noble Viscount, Lord Chandos, after which, as the convention is, one said that one hoped he would be heard frequently in this House. I am sure that the speech which he has made this afternoon fully establishes him as a very welcome recruit to those of us who are concerned with the matters we are now debating.

As a member of the Royal Commission during the study of the report which is the main subject of this debate but now as no longer a member of that commission, perhaps it comes appropriately from me to express my appreciation of the work done not only by my colleagues but also by our chairman, Sir Hans Kornberg. Although it is unusual to mention a civil servant by name, I should like to say how grateful all of us who were members of the Royal Commission have been to Mr. Lionel Rutterford, the secretary to the commission. In fact, four of the eight reports produced in the last decade by the Royal Commission on Pollution were very largely his work, in the sense of the drafting, and a great deal of the official work which had to be done in order to produce them was also carried out by him. Without Mr. Rutterford, certainly the reports would have been less acceptable than I hope they have proved.

On a more melancholy note, one of our colleagues, Dr. Alfred Spinks, the chairman of ACARD, has died within the last few weeks, as has Lord Ritchie-Calder, the chairman of the advisory committee on pollution of the sea— and also Ruth Sharpe, one of the founders of that organisation, for whom a memorial service was held a few weeks ago in St. Margarets. They will all be very much missed by those of us who are concerned with these matters.

As the report has 95 recommendations and conclusions, it would be unreasonable to expect the Minister to deal comprehensively with them. However, it would be comforting if after much laborious work, usually for no material reward, members of Royal Commissions could hope for some positive and helpful action within a reasonable time. That indeed would be their best reward. As a member of the Royal Commission for some seven years, I have been struck by the way in which during the preparation of our reports one receives ample assistance from the departments concerned. But after the report has been delivered the dialogue then ceases. All that one sometimes receives is a rather thin white paper from the department, usually on a highly selective basis. Otherwise, if it is a standing Royal Commission, all that happens is that the chairman from time to time writes a plaintive note to the department asking when we are to hear the results of their consideration of our recommendations. With certain reports—I have in mind, for example, the fifth report of the Royal Commission on Pollution which dealt with atmospheric pollution and the relationship of the Alkali Inspectorate to it—one may wait for five or six years for a response. So we have to fall back on Parliamentary occasions such as this, and we are very much indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, for initiating today's debate.

Therefore I hope very much that when he replies the Minister will bear these thoughts in mind. Some of us have given a great deal of time and effort to the preparation of certain of these reports. As I have already said, it can be very disappointing if then one has a most dilatory response from the department concerned. In fact, I have often thought that it would be far more useful to discuss lengthy and technical reports, such as the one we are currently reviewing, in a Committee context rather than on the Floor of this House, but that may be too difficult a constitutional conundrum. Therefore, we must hope on this occasion for a constructive and reasonably comprehensive reply from the Minister to the number of points which have already been raised during this debate.

Clearly, one of the major issues in the report is the recommendation, over which the commission wrestled for many weeks, as to the present division of control in major emergencies—in particular, the division between a sea-based and land-based response. We felt that this division should cease and that the Marine Pollution Control Unit should have increased responsibilities. I hope very much that on this major recommendation at least, the Minister will be able to give us a substantive reply. We would welcome further news about the extension of United Kingdom territorial waters to 12 miles, which has been referred to by a number of speakers. There was a welcome statement made in July, but I hope that the Minister will now be able to bring us up to date.

We would also be glad to know just where the Government now stand on port state jurisdiction. There was a consensus on guidelines recently in Brussels, but I am not quite sure how far that really takes us or what the Government hope to do about it. It is clear to any of us who study these matters that one cannot expect to have adequate control over near shore incidents (and some of them are not accidental at all, and this has been made very clear, but are quite deliberate) unless we have extended territorial waters and some effective port state control. One would also be happy to learn that there may have been some consideration of what might be done about substandard ships. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, gave one illustration which, had it not been serious, would have been ludicrous. I have come armed with another. It is a description contained in the advisory committee's 1980 annual report, which I would recommend to any Members of your Lordships' House who are interested in these matters, because it gives an international oversight of the various incidents which occurred in the year under review.

The "Christos Bitas" foundered off the Welsh coast. It was under charter to one of our most reputable oil firms; one must suppose "sight unseen", because how they could possibly have chartered a ship in this condition boggles the mind. It is quite true that once the incident had occurred, they did everything with great speed and efficiency to try to put matters right. They were, fortunately, aided by the weather and were able to off-load a considerable proportion of the oil. The vessel was Greek registered and the Greek Government did for once undertake an investigation, although the full results were not published—but these are obtainable by other means.

The state of this ship, which was carrying a large cargo of oil, indicated the following defects. First, the ship's main radar—a 19-year old model—was not working. The second radar broke down about five hours before the ship grounded. The radio direction finder had not been adjusted for four years and its margin of error had grown so wide that it was not used. The ship's gyro compass was working, but the repeaters on the bridge were not, and so the man on the bridge could not rely on them. The distance run indicator dial on the bridge was not working. The ship did not carry a Decca Navigator system, but relied instead on another system which was not so accurate in European waters.

Despite this ineffective equipment—and here we come to another point, which is the quality and training of the crew—the ship might well have cleared the rocks were it not for the master's behaviour. Although his radar had broken down and his visibility was restricted by fog, the captain did not order any reduction in speed. He did not sound the appropriate signals to warn other vessels of his presence, not did he post adequate look-outs. Although the ship's echo sounder was working, the master did not make use of it. And so on—I could go on for another paragraph or two.

That man is still free, so far as we know, to sail the oceans of the world, completely unrestricted. The ship was ultimately towed away and sunk in a deep part of the Atlantic Ocean. This is a recent instance of our combined international and national efforts being utterly ineffective to prevent a ship in that state, and subject to no adequate inspection, sailing the seas. And a man obviously unsuited to be in charge of it is still going scot-free without restriction, possibly to repeat the follies, but one hopes not, of that particular incident. If anyone thinks that some of us are given to making undue complaint, that is just one of the incidents which should convince the indifferent that we have something to complain about.

I hope very much that if the Government have been able to consider any way in which this matter of substandard ships can be more effectively dealt with, they will enlighten us. I will not comment on another gap in our navigational aids—the hydrographic survey—because this has been debated in this House on a number of occasions. I hope very much, and possibly the Minister can reply specifically to this, that the Government do not have in mind anything in the nature of what we understand are some of their intentions in regard to Ordnance Surveys. The hydrographic work depends very much for its ultimate effectiveness on inter-governmental co-operation, and I hope there is no intention of a privatisation exercise so far as this is concerned.

Unless we can make progress in these matters, it will remain very difficult to deal with those vessels which ignore their social and legal obligations not to dis-charge oil or oily water which subsequently finds its way ashore. I am very conscious that the Royal Commission was unable to propose a solution to the difficulties which have worried local authorities over a number of years; the problem touched upon by the noble Viscount, Lord Chandos, of non-attributable spills, where one cannot identify the sinner and where the "polluter pays" principle cannot be effectively exercised. I recognise that this is a very difficult problem, and although we in the Royal Commission ultimately agreed, as one of our 95 recommendations that we could really find no solution, I will only say that out of 95 recommendations one does not take equal satisfaction in all of them and this was one that I found rather more difficult to accept than most of the others.

I am also very glad that other noble Lords have found as interesting as I have the proposition that some way should be found of obtaining compensation for damage to amenity. I was particularly glad that the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, with his considerable legal experience, touched on this and suggested ways in which this intractable problem might be solved. I hope that on this occasion at least, the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, will be able to deal with the European aspects of this matter. I believe that there has been a considerable amount of work done in Brussels in the past few years on the subject of pollution by hydrocarbons, and that there have been a number of studies, among those mentioned, one of them by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, on the provision of a data base of relevant information. I share his satisfaction that they have decided that commercial institutions already have a great deal of the necessary information at their disposal and it would be really foolish to duplicate effort in obtaining it by other means.

There are studies in hand on methods of monitoring, which the Minister might enlighten us on. As I understand it, there is to be a study in the United Kingdom and the Netherlands some time this year. We are also gratified to learn that the Government themselves have been taking action on designating locations in this country for disposal of the oily waste in vast quantities which can be the result of a major spill. There are a number of other points which one could raise, but I hope we shall be receiving from the Minister quite specific answers to the ones already emphasised in this debate.

My Lords, it is a privilege for me to follow the noble Baroness, Lady White, with her very wide experience in this environmental field, as a member of the Royal Commission on Pollution responsible for the Eighth Report and also of course as chairman of the Select Committee on European Communities. I hope my noble colleague, if I may call her that, will not accuse me of an indiscretion if I reveal that the date of the debate tonight is a sign of a slight weakening of her negotiating powers, but your Lordships will agree that it is an honour to have her present on St. David's Day and hope that she manages to get away to join in whatever festivities there are for the Welsh tribes this evening.

It has also been a great privilege to follow the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, whose own expertise in the field is unmatched, and whose treatment of the topic was illuminating in the extreme. I join my congratulations to the Royal Commission for an extremely important report. I speak personally from my strong concern for biological conservation and also, to some extent, in my capacity as chairman of the sub-committee of the Select Committee on European Communities responsible for the two additional reports that are the subject of tonight's debate.

As a biologist, I was surprised when I read the Eighth Report to realise what a very large proportion of marine oil pollution was land derived. According to the global figures published in the report, only 40 per cent. by weight of the polluting oil derives from seaborne sources. When I look at Table 2.2 in the report, I find that in United Kingdom waters of the annual input of petroleum hydrocarbons to the sea of some 50,000 to 56,000 tonnes, some 31,000 to 41,000 tonnes, which is 62 to 73 per cent., derive from land-based sources. If we add those deriving from atmospheric sources, 8,000 to 9,000 tonnes, this leaves only 11,000 tonnes, or 20 per cent. by weight, attributable to accidental and non-accidental discharges in the sea where United Kingdom waters are concerned.

The report of the Royal Commission points out that there have been progressive reductions in oil pollution from land-based sources which are commendable. The figures appear to give hope for an ultimate reduction of pollution from these sources—that is, chronic pollution from land-derived sources—to tolerable environmental levels. This reduction will be possible only with the introduction of Part II of the Control of Pollution Act, and I join with other noble Lords in welcoming the fact that this is now to be brought into effect. We must recognise the problems of aged installations which are discussed in paragraph 5.11 of the report. I personally as a conservationist hope the water authorities will nonetheless act with progressive firmness to ensure that this source of marine oil pollution gradually withers away to acceptable levels.

Although this figure of something between 60 and 70 per cent. of the marine oil pollution derives from the land, as other noble Lords have pointed out, the residual 20 per cent. of the total annual tonnage of oil pollution that originates from marine sources can cause very serious damage to wildlife and amenity. The Royal Commission report, not unfairly, stresses the localised nature of this damage on shore. The report also summarises evidence, of interest to biologists, showing that the wildlife, by which I mean living marine organisms, plant and animal, can recover within a comparatively short time varying from a couple of years to 10 years. On the other hand, the original communities of wild plants and creatures may not be restored in their full complement. The Royal Commission makes comparison in this case with spontaneous population fluctuations which occur as a result of natural environmental events. This is dealt with in paragraphs 3.75 to 3.80. I hope this argument will not lead to complacency. If it does it is a dangerous argument. It is an argument that is clearly applicable to any kind of local pollution accident; anyone can say it merely parallels natural disasters, such as volcano or tidal wave and so on. But I do not believe this argument can be built on constructively in conservation terms. All environments, except the most chronically polluted, show some capacity to recover after a crisis.

I would tend to turn this argument around. I would like to record my opinion that populations of organisms which are known to be susceptible to large natural perturbations in numbers must be regarded as especially vulnerable to the added risk of pollution accidents. In the environment of these creatures pollution is an extra imponderable in a delicate balance. This argument must be applied to many of the more susceptible kinds of marine wildlife, and in particular to birds, notably the auks.

From this standpoint, I especially welcome the recommendations of the Royal Commission's report for consultation with relevant conservation bodies in an attempt to designate areas where on environmental grounds oil exploration and development should be excluded. One must be realistic and perhaps admit that the possibilities of achieving such agreement may be slim, but I would like to ask my noble friend whether he can assure me that the Government would be prepared to go into discussions with an open mind.

I also welcome the suggestion that formalised and thorough environmental impact assessments should be prepared by operators or marine oil extraction. 1 would not follow the Commission in limiting the sites which are to be subject to such assessment to those which are within 50 kilometres of the shore. More and more nowadays is known about the circulation of waters in the North Sea and the North-West Atlantic, and the movements of the pelagic marine creatures that live in them. It is clear that no part of those seas can be treated as a self-contained area. In the ultimate view, all are one ocean. Environmental impact assessments should cover all potentially polluting operations whatever their actual distance from a coastline.

I am not a lawyer, but I recognise clearly that the distance from the coastline does affect the legal standing in many cases. In particular it affects the jurisdictive capacity of the local authorities as development controllers and planners. It is, therefore, appropriate—and in this respect 1 firmly agree with the Royal Commission report—that national bodies rather than local bodies should adjudicate on marine environmentaly issues. From the Government side that would naturally be the Nature Conservancy Council. However, 1 note with interest that the Royal Commission report also recommends that there should be consultation with non-Governmental organisations. As regards the structure of our non-governmental conservation organisations it is a fact that, on the voluntary side in this country, a great deal of regionalism exists. The strongest bodies tend to be the county naturalist trusts. Therefore, some form of co-ordination between them is necessary in order to ensure that their voice is properly heard. I believe that involvement in the problems of marine environment requires a national liaison body of some kind. I should have thought that the Royal Society for Nature Conservation could perhaps play that role. I hope that the Nature Conservancy Council will make attempts to identify and to encourage an appropriate liaison committee in which certainly all the coastal counties, and probably all the county naturalist trusts, would wish to be involved.

One other point of particular concern that I wish to raise is the effect of dispersants of oil on marine life. They are dealt with in paragraphs 9.16 to 9.24 of the report. These dispersants themselves are, as the report recognises, pollutants. They can be as poisonous to sensitive aquatic organisms as the oil itself. As has been recognised by noble Lords who have spoken before me this evening, there can be a danger of overenthusiastic application of remedial measures including the application of dispersants in cleansing operations which are aimed at only superficial effects. There is strong pressure, for instance, from tourist industries to clean up the beaches visibly and superficially. This may not be the best long-term action and may not be wholly beneficial for the living organisms in the coastal regions.

The Royal Commission is satisfied that the testing requirements for dispersants are adequate, but I believe that vigilance is needed and I would back the noble Viscount, Lord Chandos, in urging that research in this, as in other fields, should be pursued.

As a non-lawyer, I am a little worried when I hear the term "compensation" bandied about. I recognise fully that there must be some mechanism for defrayment of the financial costs involved, for instance, in cleaning up by local authorities. But I wish to utter a warning that this financial compensation may be totally inadequate to restore the living resources of the environment after an oil spill accident. As regards cleaning up the Royal Commission notes in paragraphs 10.26 to 10.29: that there arc varied "arbitrary and capricious" local authority holdings of clean-up resources.

I understand that there have been recent developments at the Department of the Environment—to which my noble friend on the Front Bench will perhaps be referring—which may lead to greater co-ordination and to improvements in the holdings of resources for the cleansing of beaches. Central Government clearly have a role to play in this respect. In response to the Community document COM(80)361 our question was: What role precisely should the European Community play in attempting to solve the many problems that arise from oil pollution? One of the features of the Royal Commission report is the listing of the plethora of international treaties, conventions, agreements and so on that already exist. Is it really necessary that the European Community should apply yet another tier? Personally, I think that it is, and I speak for your Lordships' Select Committee who arc firmly convinced that the capacity of the European Community to legislate effectively in these fields gives an added dimension and added strength to the Community environment and, on the whole, it should be welcomed.

Our 31st Report replies to a Commission document which envisages a strong role for the Community, a role particularly in providing a central co-ordinating point. The Community intends to provide a permanent inventory of staff, equipment and products for combating hydrocarbon pollution of the sea, and an up-to-date compendium of national regional contingency plans. Secondly, the Commission also envisages that there will be a centralised compendium of hydrocarbon properties; and thirdly, that there will be a centralised oil tanker file containing information on the identity of tankers, their owners, their operators, structural features and so on. So the Commission in the document which your Lordships' Select Committee examined envisages a three-pronged approach to the problem.

I understand that the Council of Environment Ministers on 3rd December 1981 adopted a decision which will effectively establish the first two—that is, an information system which will enable the Commission to collect information on the means of combating oil pollution and on national and regional contingency plans; and also on the properties and the behaviour of hydrocarbon oils under various conditions. I understand—perhaps my noble friend will be able to make a fuller statement about this—that the third prong, the proposal for the information file on oil tankers, is being treated separately. I also understand that an essential element of this agreement is that the Commission will report to the Council and to the European Parliament on the operation of the system at two-yearly intervals. Your Lordships' Select Committee were worried that the Commission would, in this field, be duplicating the activities of existing organisations and thereby, at unnecessary expense, be doing work that others were already doing.

It was the feeling of your Lordships' Select Committee that Community action would be sufficient if it were to ensure that member states all had adequate plans for dealing with pollution. There was a strong feeling among members of the committee, which echoes the words of the report of the Royal Commission, that information dealing with oil spills is most useful if it is held locally and available locally at disperse stations, where there is a recognised danger of oil spills, rather than at a central facility which—as 1 think the noble Baroness, Lady White, mentioned just now—on an off day might find itself closed in Brussels. The committee certainly believed that the effectiveness of any system set up by the European Community should be tested, and I think that the committee would welcome the proposal that there should be regular monitoring and retrospection every two years.

The 30th Report dealt with an action plan for the Mediterranean. Apart from the fact that this broadly concerns the topic of pollution, including oil pollution, the link with this afternoon's debate is admittedly somewhat tenuous. Nonetheless, this is a point on which your Lordships' Select Committee have strong feelings. The explanatory memorandum, which was received by the Select Committee, appeared to oppose the Commission's proposals from principle rather than on a pragmatic basis. Members of your Lordships' Select Committee felt that the subject of the environmental protection of the Mediterranean was a matter of concern to all member states of the Community and not merely to those which have a Mediterranean coastline. Indeed, as I said earlier, in the end all seas are one. Your Lordships' Committee saw a danger in building up a North-South polarisation within the Community, which would surely be objectionable. Your Lordships' Committee felt that the Mediterranean is a natural area of interest for the European Community and that the European Community should support the less prosperous nations of the Mediterranean region in their endeavours to control the growing pollution of this important, more or less land-locked, sea.

What was asked was an increase in contribution to the action plan for the Mediterranean from the European Community, an increase that would raise it from a comparatively token level to a substantial level of some 27 per cent. of the total budget. The reason for this increase being necessary is the withdrawal of the UNEP from support of this programme. The UNEP had announced, in its original involvement, that it would ultimately be withdrawing from this programme in the hope that the action plan would subsequently be self-sustaining. It seemed to Members of your Lordships' Committee natural that the European Community should play a significant part in this area of its interest, should support the action plan financially and, in supporting it financially, should thereby gain a powerful voice in the management of that action plan, ensuring that the spending is properly directed and that the objectives are worthwhile.

I hope that my noble friend Lord Trefgarne will be able to make some sort of statement clarifying the position of Her Majesty's Government on this issue. I understand that, in fact, the sum has been voted by the European Parliament and that the item now stands in full in the European budget. I have tried to pull together comments on three particular reports and, in due course, I look forward to hearing the reply, from my noble friend on the Front Bench.

My Lords, I shall not detain your Lordships for many minutes. Indeed, as someone who is rather naive on these matters compared with the great knowledge possessed by many who have taken part in this Royal Commission and who have contributed to this debate, there is just one point that I wish to make. Immediately, I must express an interest, inasmuch as I am a ratepayer in the county of Hampshire, along whose shoreline pass many ships from many nations. The point arises as to who should pay for what. As I see it, I think that prophylactic measures to prevent pollution along coastlines are a very proper form of expenditure for a local authority. That is the first point that I would make.

Secondly, of course, we must look for the fullest possible international agreement on anti-pollution disciplines. Then comes the question, what should he demanded and expected of a local authority in the event of these disciplines not being maintained?—of, say, a ship discharging her oil, emptying her bilges, in home waters, and then sailing on with no one knowing the cause of the pollution. If I am not mistaken, I think that the Royal Commission seemed to draw a distinction between, on the one hand, who should pay for pollution brought about by a single incident, where the origin of that pollution was known, and who should pay for a small oil slick which, perchance, happens through wind and tide to land up on particular beaches or a particular part of the coastline. As I understand it, that becomes the responsibility of the local authority. This seems to me to be rather hard on the ratepayer, and I wonder whether it is fair and proper that such a responsibility should rest upon the ratepayers.

This leads one inexorably to the question, if it is not the ratepayer, who should pay? I believe that the Royal Commission gave consideration to whether some national fund should be set up which could be treated like an insurance fund, where insurance assessors would go down and view the damage caused, and agreement could be reached with them as to how much could be drawn on the fund in order to repair the damage caused by the pollution. That is one way in which one could envisage a solution—a national fund. Of course, better still, there could be a fund in the European Community covering all the shores of the Community. However, having had some experience of these matters, having lived and worked for four years in the Commission in Brussels, I should not like to put too much money on that being agreed too soon by 10 nations.

Therefore, I would suggest to Her Majesty's Government and in particular to my noble friend Lord Trefgarne, who is to reply, that steps be taken to set up some form of national fund which could be drawn upon, in agreement between the local authority concerned and whoever is responsible for the fund—which would presumably be the Department of the Environment—in the event of unforseen pollution from goodness knows where. There is too much pollution around not to have this sort of safeguard.

My Lords, owing to an error in the channels of communication, I am afraid that my name did not go on the list of speakers, although, in fact, I had been intending to speak for some time. Therefore, I beg your Lordships' pardon for that error; I do not think that it was anyone's fault in particular. However, I am grateful for an opportunity to speak in this debate on behalf of my party. I am grateful to the Royal Commission, its chairman and its members, and I am grateful to the committee of the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook. Above all, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, for having initiated the debate.

The function of the Royal Commission has been to give us the whole background to the problem and also to make a number of recommendations, with almost all of which I certainly agree and I hope that the Government will be able to put them into operation. We were very reassured to read what they had to say about the long-term ecological effects of oil pollution in the sea, but I was not really surprised to hear the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, uttering some words of caution on this matter. He of course is an expert, and I have no specialist knowledge whatsoever, but it seemed to me that there was a slight blandness in some of the references to the damage that might be done. In these matters it is certainly a good thing to take more precautions rather than less.

There are just two areas where it seems to me that it is worthwhile my inserting a slight political input from these Benches into what is proposed, in the hope that the Government will take them aboard and pay some attention to them. On the whole, and particularly on the first one, I very much agree with the remarks of the noble Viscount, Lord Chandos. His speech was a valuable input into the course of this debate, and one reason why my speech will be much shorter than it might otherwise have been.

There are two places in the recommendations of the Royal Commission where they discuss the possibility of setting up funds to deal with pollution, or to deal with some of the costs of pollution, and come down in thinking that to set up such a fund would not be justified in practice. One is Recommendation No. 17, where they say:

"A scheme to recover the overhead costs of clean-up arrangements from tanker owners or the oil industry, while attractive in principle, would not be justified in practice".

The other one is Recommendation No. 20, where they say:

"The establishment of a fund to meet local costs for dealing with unattributable spills, while attractive in principle, would not be justified in practice".

I suspect that those are two recommendations which should be looked at again. Certainly if there was any doubt as to whether such funds should be set up, I think the balance of decision should go on the side of setting them up. The "polluter pays" principle is one which we have accepted very largely in this country and in the European Community, and it is an important and valuable one to continue to uphold.

There are also the problems that there are always more costs and more problems arising from incidents such as we have been discussing than actually end up in the final bill. I think there would be no hardship, and there would be no injustice done, if we were to try to see that the industry as a whole—some of whose practices we have heard really terrible examples of tonight, although I know that the enormous majority of operators are responsible—was made to foot the bill, and preferably to set up the funds which would deal with it. We are often being told that we should allow industries to run and to police their own operations. The setting up of such funds is a good way of ensuring that they do.

Another recommendation made by the Royal Commission where in this case I would probably agree with them, but where I want to come down on the same principle, is when they talk in Recommendation 63 about control in port areas and talk about the vigour with which the port authority is prepared to prosecute offenders. I know how difficult it is in some of these cases to find and bring to book offenders, but I think that that recommendation should run the whole way through our treatment of this report. Where there really are these cowboys, they should be corralled.

That was one of the two matters 1 wanted to comment on. The second was in dealing with the reports of the sub-committee, both of which by their nature deal with the European dimension. Again from these Benches I would say that if we have a choice as to whether matters should be dealt with nationally or by the Community, we would have a slight preference for seeing that the Community at any rate was fully considered. This is particularly so in this field where not all members of the Community are as responsible as we are.

One of the horror stories we heard this evening was of a Greek ship, and, with Greece in the Community, there are obviously nations which are weaker as well as others which are stronger in their attitude to these matters. I should like to see the European dimension brought in as much as possible. In some cases it is not a question of either or, it is a question of both, and I could not quite follow some of the arguments that were going on about whether the information should be kept in data banks in the Community or locally.

In these days one of the things we are progressing with extremely fast is the quick transfer of information. On the question of the duplication of data banks, I see absolutely no reason, and I should not have thought that there was any reason, why the data banks should not be kept both at Brussels and locally. This would be an advantage. If, as someone suggested, there is a problem in case someone at Brussels, or wherever it is, should close down over the weekend when the data bank is not available, the more places in which this information is available the better.

Those were the two points I wanted to make: that we should try to be as tough as possible in trying to see that these incidents do not happen, but also try to bring home to the offenders the results if they do happen, and that we must emphasise the European dimension. Lastly, T should like to ask the Minister one question about the signing of the convention on the civil liabilities from oil pollution damage from offshore installations. As I understand it, the Government have not yet signed this nor have any Governments done so, and I would hope that that is something which could be done as soon as possible.

We cannot be too careful in these matters. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, quoted some very apposite verses of Coleridge who, as he said, quite clearly must have seen a major oil disaster before writing The Ancient Mariner. But the problems of dealing with these disasters were probably better noticed by Lewis Carroll.

My Lords, I am sure the House will be grateful to my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy for enabling us to consider once more the serious and important topic of oil pollution of the sea. It is a subject to which your Lordships have turned your attention on several occasions in recent years, but the documents which are the subject of today's debate provide us with a welcome opportunity to review the position across a broad front. Before commenting on the main issues raised by the documents and responding to points made in the debate, I wish to add my tribute to that of the noble Baroness, Lady White, to the late Lord Ritchie-Calder, whose death has deprived us of an eminent, authoritative and expert spokesman on a great range of issues. Knowing his keen interest in these matters, I feel especially sad that he has been denied the opportunity to participate today.

The task have of responding to the debate is not an easy one. First, the scope of the subject matter is extensive; secondly, the fact that we have three documents of a rather different nature before the House, although all related to the theme of oil pollution, presents some difficulty; and thirdly, although an early debate on the report of the Royal Commission is valuable—and I assure your Lordships that I have taken careful note of the comments and suggestions—the Government are still at the stage of formulating their views on many of the detailed proposals in this major document. I shall be as comprehensive as possible, but I must be selective for fear of detaining your Lordships far into the night. I propose to deal with each of the documents in turn, responding to as many of the points raised as I can, and if I do not succeed in covering everything, perhaps I may be allowed to write to the noble Lords concerned. In any event, I doubt whether this will be the last occasion on which the House considers this topic.

Before embarking on the body of my remarks, I wish to deal with a matter which was raised by a number of noble Lords; namely, the suggestion that national or possibly EEC funds should be made available to help local authorities to deal with particular pieces of coastline affected by serious oil pollution, especially where the polluter could not be traced. Unattributable spills are almost always small in scale and pose relatively few problems. United Kingdom local authorities spend a total of only £100,000 or so per annum dealing with them, and the Royal Commission has in effect recommended against special funding to deal with them.

Although local authority associations have argued in a similar vein to noble Lords, I should be very surprised if local authorities could not cope from their own resources, with the help of the special, though small, allowance which is in any case made in the rate support grant settlement for coastal authorities, including, I imagine, Hampshire, which particularly concerned my noble friend Lord Soames. Otherwise they may like to consider taking out private insurance. The premiums should not be large in relation to the relatively small costs involved and the extent of the risk. Major spills are of course another matter; the polluter should always be traceable and then of course can be called upon to pay.

Incidentally, I would mention that while I was at the Department of Trade, up to September of last year, I spent a good deal of time thinking about how we could track down the rogues in these matters, and a good deal of research is being done into detecting tankers which pump their bilges out as they sail past my noble friend's property, for instance, so they can be subsequently apprehended and prosecuted. Quite a lot of progress has been made in that area.

I will now deal in sequence with the documents we are considering; first, the Select Committee report entitled Action Plan for the Mediterranean. We in the United Kingdom have fully supported the efforts of the United Nations Environment Programme Secretariat in planning the Regional Seas Programme. Both this and previous Administrations have regarded it as an excellent example of that organisation's catalytic role. Provision to assist and encourage a group of nations to come together to develop plans of mutual interest strikes us as an excellent and appropriate use of what is called the UNEP Fund. The Mediterranean action plan is the first plan prepared under the programme. In the few years of its existence it has been very successful. From the technical and environmental point of view, it illustrates the merits of a regional approach. It also has great political merit; I wonder where else representatives of states of such diverse interest as Israel and Libya have sat down together? I understand that only Albania does not participate. Indeed, as many of your Lordships will know, the Albanians do not care to participate in any international meetings. I am told, however—and here I digress—that at certain meetings a place is always assigned to them. At one such event in recent years, a murmur of interest went round when someone was seen to take their place. Apparently it was merely a novice delegate from another country who was lost and needed a rest.

The period of UNEP's financial support for the action plan has come to an end, and Her Majesty's Government do not support the proposal that the European Community should help to bridge the gap. But there is no anomaly. UNEP funds are provided on the understanding that participant countries will take on the burden after the first few years. In this case, the only Community countries involved are France, Italy and Greece. For the EEC as such to contribute to this plan could set a precedent for Community contributions where this would be even less appropriate. Moreover, a Community contribution would not increase the total sum of money available for such plans. It would simply reduce the participating states' liability, including the liability of states which are not Com- munity members—hardly an appropriate use of Community funds. Finally, there is the consideration that in pursuit of our overall aim of a rationalisation of the Community budget, we and our Community colleagues are scrutinising every proposal for new expenditure with great care. Of course, I appreciate that the Mediterranean is dear to the hearts of many north as well as south Europeans, but the primary responsibility for safeguarding its future must surely lie with the Mediterranean nations themselves.

I now turn to the Select Committee's report, Marine Pollution. This deals with one of two proposals submitted by the Commission of the European Communities to the Council in response to the declarations made by the European Council in 1978 following the grounding of the "Amoco Cadiz" in March of that year. It will be noted from the report that the two proposals have already been discussed in another place, in a debate on shipping standards and prevention of oil pollution last May. While not wishing to go into the particular details on the individual proposals, the House may wish to be aware of the developments which have taken place since that debate and since the publication of the Select Committee's report.

First, the Council of European Environment Ministers has now approved a decision establishing what is called the Community Information System for the Control and Reduction of Pollution caused by Hydrocarbons Discharged at Sea. This Council decision will enable the Commission to collect and make available to the competent authorities in the member states information on the means of combating such pollution, on national and regional contingency plans, and on the properties and behaviour of oils under certain conditions. Member states will forward to the Commission the information in question before the end of this year and subsequently every January. The preparation of the first United Kingdom contribution is now in hand.

Your Lordships will note that the decision does not provide for the so-called "oil tanker file", which formed the final element of the Commission's original proposal and which would have set out specific information about tankers likely to call at Community ports, including details of age, tonnage, ownership, physical characteristics and certification. The main problem is that the file would have duplicated to a large extent proposals for an information system forming part of another Commission initiative in this field—a draft directive on the enforcement, in respect of shipping using Community ports, of international standards for shipping safety and pollution prevention. This draft directive was submitted by the Commission to the Council in July 1980, but its consideration was overtaken by the major initiative taken by the French Government in 1980 in convening a meeting in Paris of the Ministers responsible for maritime safety in 13 countries of Western Europe for the purpose of devising concrete proposals for improving the safety of shipping and the prevention of pollution.

As a result of that first meeting, in which the EEC Commission participated, proposals were drawn up for a harmonised and co-ordinated system for the inspection of foreign ships calling at European ports, for the purpose of detecting those which failed to meet the standards laid down in international con- ventions, securing the rectification of deficiencies and discouraging the operation of such vessels. These proposals were adopted at the second ministerial conference held in Paris on 26th January 1982, in the form of a Memorandum of Understanding on Port State Control, which will come into effect on 1st July 1982. It was my honourable friend Mr. Sproat, the present Parliamentary Under-Secretary at the Department of Trade, who attended that meeting on behalf of Her Majesty's Government.

The House will note that the countries which have signed the memorandum include the nine Community maritime member states, plus Spain, Portugal, Norway, Sweden and Finland. The Commission also played an active part in the conference and will be represented on the committee which is to be set up to monitor the operation of the new scheme.

As part of these arrangements it is envisaged that an information system will be established to exchange the results of inspections. An interim scheme is already being devised, based upon a computer operated by the French Ministry of the Sea. But studies are also in hand to develop a more permanent and convenient arrangement, which may form the basis of an information network operating between all the European maritime Administrations.

In approving the new scheme, the Government have made it clear that they will be ready to implement the new inspection system immediately, and in full, from the date of operation; and that they expect to achieve in 1982 a volume of inspections very close to the total prescribed for the United Kingdom by the memorandum, even though formally that is not required until the end of an initial 3-year period. They have also made clear their support for the development of an efficient computerised information system as soon as possible. We consider that the new arrangements together with the measures taken by the Community in the fight against maritime oil pollution will make a significant contribution to the safety of life at sea and to the continuing efforts to prevent pollution of the seas around the coasts of Europe.

1 now turn to the document which has provided the main stimulus for this evening's debate, the eighth report by the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution on oil pollution of the sea. This was published last October and has rightly attracted much public attention. 1 should like at the outset to join my noble friend and other noble Lords in paying tribute to the members of the Royal Commission and their supporting staff for the evident thoroughness of their work. The report is an impressive and authoritative analysis of the problem and as such has won not only praise here, but admiration in other countries, too. I would certainly like to think that its impact will be widely felt, since much of what the Commission says is of general application.

A report of this size and complexity requires time for study and reflection, and I know that the House would not expect me at this stage to set out the Government's considered views on it. Some noble Lords have asked that I should do that this evening, but I regret that I shall not be able to oblige them. The process of consultation which we set in hand immediately following the report's publication in October is only now being completed, and many of the recommendations in the report propose changes in resources and organisation which will take time to evaluate and agree. But I undertake that the Government's response will be formulated and published as quickly as possible.

Although this evening I can give no more than a preliminary reaction, the report highlights a number of important aspects of marine pollution. I should like to offer some general observations and to take the opportunity to outline briefly what the Government have already done, or are doing, to tackle the problem. I want to give due prominence to the latter—what we are doing—because it is too frequently assumed that the Government, the oil industry and the shipowners are indifferent to marine pollution and are unwilling to take action. The Royal Commission report is itself evidence that that is not so. What the Commission is concerned about—and rightly—is how all the parties involved can do more to control and reduce the nuisance of pollution and to eliminate its repugnant effects.

One great service which the Royal Commission has performed is to place the seriousness of the problem in its proper perspective. Its analysis, backed by expert evidence, is clearly set out in Chapters II and III, and I trust that these findings will be given as full and careful attention as the rest of the report. It would not be profitable to repeat all that the Commission has to say on the subject, but there are two points which are worth mentioning on this occasion because of the way in which they help to define the nature and character of the response which is required. The points are as follows.

First, operational discharges from ships, which apart from accidental spillages, represent perhaps the worst instances of marine pollution, have been greatly reduced in recent years through the adoption of environmentally acceptable techniques, such as "load on top", crude oil washing, and the use of segregated ballast tanks. Secondly, there is the fact that oil pollution from ships or other sources does not constitute an overwhelming or permanent threat to the marine environment or to man.

I should not wish to be misunderstood on that. I am not making a case for complacently accepting the present state of affairs. Too many vessels continue to discharge carelessly and often illegally, The local effects of oil spillages are, of course, very serious. I find it as unacceptable as do your Lordships that large numbers of sea birds should be killed, especially in winter, by the thoughtless or callous actions of ships' masters, and I have great sympathy for those local authorities which are confronted with the problem of cleaning the coastline. The Government accept the need for further action. But there is still reassurance to be drawn from the fact that we are dealing with a problem, not a crisis. It is a problem which the Government believe can be reduced to manageable and acceptable proportions by a combination of international co-operation and domestic measures. This is very much in line with the Royal Commission's own thinking.

I should like to illustrate the direction of the Government's approach, linking it where appropriate to the conclusions of the Royal Commission, under a number of broad headings. First, there is international action We are glad that the Royal Commission recognised the important contribution made by international organisations, especially IMCO, through the formulation and negotiation of international agreements on the prevention of pollution and on the maintenance of safety standards. Her Majesty's Government have played a full and leading part in this work, and we are doing all that we can to ensure that the latest pollution convention, MARPOL 73/78, comes into force as soon as possible. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, raised that matter. Among other things, the convention lays down new and more rigorous technical requirements, extends the powers of port states to enforce standards and requirements, and expands reporting and documentation procedures. In the expectation that the level of international ratification required will soon be achieved, the Department of Trade is already drafting regulations to ensure that this country is ready to apply the new requirements and standards from the very first day of operation.

Secondly, there is the question of application of standards. I have referred to the progress which has been achieved in Western Europe in evolving a new, harmonised scheme of port state control. In this way a basis has been laid for more effective regional co-operation to tackle the problem of the substandard ship, whatever flag it may fly. The concerted efforts of the Western European states should not only prove a severe discouragement to the unscrupulous and irresponsible owner, but will give other flag states an incentive to ratify and apply the conventions.

Thirdly, there is the competence of crews. Many marine casualties are attributable to the human factor, and there is general recognition of the need to concentrate accident and pollution prevention on the human element and to secure high standards of training and competence. As the Royal Commission noted in its report, the IMCO convention on standards of training, certification and watchkeeping lays down special requirements for the training and qualification of tanker crews. The United Kingdom has ratified that convention, and regulations implementing its requirements are in force, or in the course of preparation.

Fourthly, there is safety of navigation. We have taken careful note of the proposals made by the Royal Commission which relate to the safety of navigation, and we are giving them urgent attention. I would just mention in this connection that in December we implemented an EEC Directive on deep sea pilotage. We are taking a most active part, together with the other members, in the work of the North Sea Pilotage Commission. The Government arc fully aware of the need to bring charts of United Kingdom waters up to the highest standards of accuracy that modern hydro-graphic techniques have made possible. A number of noble Lords have raised this point. This is particularly important in those hitherto quiet sea areas which are now heavily used by tanker traffic from Sullom Voe, especially west of the Outer Hebrides and in the Minches. This work is going ahead well, and should be completed at the end of next year. I had ministerial responsibility for civil hydrography, and I fully appreciate its high importance. As always, there are difficult problems because of limited resources, but I can assure your Lordships that the Ministry of Defence and the Department of Trade are working in the closest cooperation.

The fifth important aspect now is jurisdiction. The Government agree with the Royal Commission that if polluters are to be deterred it is important to ensure that, where possible, we are able to take action ourselves under our own anti-pollution legislation. As many noble Lords have mentioned, the Government have set in train the necessary preparations for legislation to extend our territorial limits from three to 12 miles, and we hope that it will be possible to introduce legislation in the context of the results emerging from the United Nations Law of the Sea Conference.

On the question of detection and prosecution, which has been raised by a number of noble Lords, together with the extension of our territorial jurisdiction the Government would like to see an improvement in the detection and prosecution of offenders. There is, I would stress, no lack of will on the part of either the department or the harbour authorities to bring offenders to book; but there are many problems in detecting offences, securing evidence and bringing successful prosecutions. r referred earlier to the question of increased detection.

The Government have noted what the Royal Commission have had to say on this subject, and two particular aspects will be actively considered. The first is the possibility of using the most modern techniques of aerial surveillance, including the practicability of employing advanced equipment such as infra-red line scanning and side-looking airborne radar. Secondly, we shall also look seriously at ways of overcoming the problem of prosecuting foreign owners in United Kingdom courts. This is a difficult area, as recognised by the Royal Commission. We are also conscious that your Lordships would be the last to suggest that we should adopt arbitrary procedures which would be at variance with our normal standards of justice, but we shall be examining the possibilities very carefully.

On the question of compensation, the Government attach great importance to the question of compensation to victims for damage suffered as a result of spills of oil at sea. it is clearly right that the arrangements for providing compensation should be speedy and effective, and that they should reflect clean-up costs running into many millions of pounds that can arise following a major tanker spill. It is for these reasons that the United Kingdom has been participating actively and constructively in the negotiations now in progress under the auspices of IMCO to renegotiate the two international conventions relevant in this field and to bring into effect, as soon as possible, improvements in both their levels of compensation and scope of coverage.

My Lords, I come now to the organisation of cleanup operations, referred to by more than one noble Lord this evening. The Royal Commission have paid substantial attention to the way in which counter-pollution operations are organised within central and local government, and I will not attempt to rehearse everything they have suggested. Suffice it to say that they express broad satisfaction with the arrangements for operations at sea under the direction of the department's Marine Pollution Control Unit, but express concern about the absence of a similar structure for clean-up operations on shore. Indeed, they go further and propose a single responsibility exercised by the MPCU for all clean-up operations, with, on the one hand, statutory powers of direction over local authorities and, on the other hand, central Government meeting all the exceptional costs of the incident.

My Lords, such a brief summary illustrates how fundamental are the questions raised by the Royal Commission's recommendations. They go beyond the immediate questions of how best to organise counter-pollution operations—and these are difficult enough. They reach into the whole area of relationships between central and local government, local autonomy and so on. I make no excuse for saying that these issues, in particular, demand very careful consideration in the light of a whole range of factors, including what has been said in this House today. I hope I may be forgiven if I do not hazard an opinion at this stage on when or what Government conclusions are likely to emerge.

My Lords, may I deal finally with one or two of the specific points which have been raised and which I do not think I have covered so far. First, the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, referred to the question of sheltered havens. Although the Secretary of State for Trade has powers to direct ships to sheltered havens, his legal powers vis-á-vis harbour authorities are less clear-cut. This issue is being considered interdepartmentally within the Government, and so is the question of guaranteed compensation for damages arising from the use of an area as a sheltered haven, although this, too, is not without its difficulties; but it certainly forms part of the overall consideration of the Royal Commission's report, to which I have referred.

The noble Lord, Lord Nathan, again, the noble Viscount, Lord Chandos, and I think at least one other noble Lord asked about general damage arising from environmental losses, particularly in the context of No. 19 of the Royal Commission's conclusions. The question of the scope of damages following an oil spill is a matter on which the Government are still consulting with the interests concerned. Under the present arrangements the concept of compensatable damage is not defined; it is left to the courts of the countries suffering pollution to interpret them. In most countries the concept of damages has been the subject of some development over the years, and no doubt it will continue to evolve in the future. Although existing international compensation schemes will allow for this, the present indications are that the international community is not receptive to any significant extension of the scope of compensatable damage at present. Even so, we must clearly re-examine the possibilities, maybe through an expert group, as the Royal Commission suggests.

The noble Lord, Lord Bishopston, and my noble friend Lord Cranbrook mentioned the question of pollution from land-based sources. The noble Lord, Lord Bishopston, rightly drew attention to the extent to which there is coastal pollution from land-based sources, and he was inquiring whether the water authorities are being encouraged to tackle the serious problems involved, perhaps with special assistance from the Government; and my noble friend Lord Cranbrook mentioned the same subject from a slightly different viewpoint. My Lords, the progressive implementation of Part II of the Control of Pollution Act which was announced by my noble friend Lord Avon on 15th February will be a great help in this context. It will extend the powers available to water authorities for the control of discharges both to estuaries and direct to coastal waters, and I am sure that we can look to a general improvement over time, not least in relation to Merseyside, which was particularly in the mind of the noble Lord. The Government will do what they can to assist the water authorities with this work, though, as I have said so often from this Box, I fear public funds are limited and the work will doubtless have to be phased.

Finally, my noble friend Lord Cranbrook referred to the question of resources specifically for beach cleaning. Local authorities themselves decide what clean-up resources to hold, taking account of many factors, including the degree of risk to their coastline and the nature and extent of that coastline. It is therefore not surprising that the level of local provision varies around the coast. The equipment held by the Department of the Environment provides a back-up to these local resources, but the Government have standing arrangements with the oil companies and, indeed, other Governments to supplement local authority and DoE resources in case of need; for example, when there is a major catastrophe.

My Lords, may I say again, in conclusion, how much I have valued this debate. The points made by your Lordships have been noted and will certainly be studied, and they will be taken carefully into account in the Government's consideration and formulation of their response. Although, as I have said, I cannot at this stage give a date when that response will be forthcoming, I will end, if I may, by repeating the undertaking which I gave earlier, that it is our firm intention that it should be as soon as possible.

My Lords, I should like to thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. They have raised matters which I could not because I could deal only with some of the main subjects in these reports. I am particularly grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, and the noble Viscount, Lord Chandos, for example, for speaking on questions of compensation. The noble Viscount, Lord Chandos, and my noble friend Lord Soames spoke about unattributable spills, and also, in the case of Lord Soames, the possibility of a European scheme and fund to provide compensation. Although the Royal Commission did not come out in favour of that, I believe that we can consider these matters in future now that we seem to be winning the battle against deliberate operational discharges from tankers at sea. I was glad to hear my noble friend Lord Trefgarne confirm that there has been a great reduction in those.

As the noble Baroness, Lady White, informed us one of the matters with which the Royal Commission has wrestled for long periods was that of the allocation of responsibility among Government departments and local authorities, particularly when dealing with emergencies and major incidents. That does not surprise me at all and I am sure it does not surprise other noble Lords, because it is an exceeding complex but very important issue. I can do no more than draw attention to the importance of settling that matter. I draw attention to the need for preparations being so clearly made that public confidence will be widely won, so that in future decisions will be taken quickly and they will be correct decisions and the Government and local authorities will not go out and do something just because they feel that they have to be seen to be doing something, very often the wrong thing.

I am grateful particularly to my noble friend Lord Trefgarne. He told us as much as he was able to tell us today. The report, a very voluminous one with many comments and recommendations, was published only in October. He recognised clearly that action is required, for example, on the recommendation concerning the speeding up of the hydrographical survey and also the extension of the territorial sea from three miles to 12 miles.

I hope that on these matters, and also on our recommendations and comments of the Royal Commission, my noble friend will pursue within the Government the points that we have raised in your Lordships' House today.