Orders of the Day — Merchant Shipping (Pollution) Bill [Lords]

House of Commons, 7 March 2006.

New Clause 1 — Report on breaches of annex vi

Paul Rowen (Liberal Democrat, Rochdale)

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Alan Haselhurst (Deputy Speaker, Saffron Walden)

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 5, in page 3, line 2, clause 2, after 'ships)', insert

'and any subsequent review of Annex VI agreed by the International Maritime Organisation subject to an order in Council laid before and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.'.

Paul Rowen (Liberal Democrat, Rochdale)

Annex VI of the MARPOL convention extends pollution control of shipping to include air pollution for the first time. Although it is admitted that pollution from ships is small compared with other sources—with 4 per cent. of sulphur dioxide emissions and 7 per cent. of nitrogen oxide emissions—it nevertheless has a significant effect on our environment.

Aside from the Malacca straits, the waters around the UK are the busiest in the world. It is predicted that by 2020, the size of the merchant fleet will have doubled and the size of ships is steadily increasing. It is also estimated that the provisions contained in the annex will save £3 million a year in damage to buildings and structures from SO 2 emissions, and the reduction in ozone emissions will result in 20 fewer deaths and savings of £26 million a year.

I am pleased, therefore, to see in the draft copies of the secondary legislation that have been placed in the Library the adoption of the North sea as an SO 2 emission control area. That will involve more stringent controls on sulphur emissions, with a reduction to 1.5 per cent., compared to 4.5 per cent. in other areas. Those controls were discussed and agreed by the Marine Environment Protection Committee at its 53rd session in July 2005. Given past concerns on pollution in the North sea, and the fact that air pollution knows no boundaries, I am pleased to see those limits adopted.

Some 23 states have already adopted the annex and I hope that more will do so. All UK ships have to have an international air pollution prevention certificate and other ships in UK waters that have adopted the annex must also have one. The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that there is an annual reporting mechanism for breaches of the convention and action is taken. I know that concerns have been expressed in previous debates about flagships that have not adopted the annex, and while I appreciate that we cannot control those breaches, we need to ensure that appropriate action is taken against all ships that have signed up to the agreement but do not meet its controls. The new clause seeks to introduce a regular reporting mechanism so that Members can see what progress is being made in what is a first for shipping—the introduction of controls on air pollution.

Julian Brazier (Conservative, Canterbury)

The official Opposition have little problem with new clause 1. The MARPOL convention is a cornerstone of international maritime regulations and we welcome being provided with more information on it. We should remember that shipping is arguably the greenest method of transport. In ball-park terms, goods going by sea in a typical bulk carrier cause one tenth the emissions of CO 2 of an equivalent crate of goods going by land. Abiding by the MARPOL convention will make that difference even greater.

The publication of the report will add an incentive to ensure inspections are carried out regularly and will essentially name and shame any offenders. I hope that the convention will also encourage shipping companies to follow the example I gave on Second Reading of P&O's The Pride of Kent—I approve of the name, as I am sure does the Minister, given that he represents South Thanet—which has seen its sulphur emissions slashed to zero and its nitrogen oxide emissions down by four fifths since the introduction of a newly invented water scrubber. The more technology is encouraged in this area, the faster we will see our emissions fall.

As far as I can tell, the hon. Member for Rochdale (Paul Rowen) has got into a bit of a muddle with amendment No. 5. The intention is to ensure that revisions to the treaty cannot be incorporated without an Order in Council following a debate in the House. That is not, in fact, what the amendment would do.

The advice that I have been given is that the amendment would allow the Government to amend the treaty without recourse to a full Bill. I see the Minister nods in agreement. When even the Government who proposed the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill, which is designed to bypass parliamentary scrutiny on a range of issues, do not require further extra parliamentary powers on this issue, I am strongly disinclined to give such a power. I cannot believe that that is what the hon. Gentleman intended, and I am certain that he will not want to press the amendment to a vote.

Stephen Ladyman (Labour, South Thanet)

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Rochdale (Paul Rowen) for his interest in the Bill, and I assure him that I understand what he is trying to get at. The Government take every bit as seriously as he does the need to enforce the national legislation that implements the MARPOL convention and its annexes.

We take any breach of the MARPOL convention very seriously. Of course, when we find that someone has breached the convention, we prosecute them, and information on all successful prosecutions are put on the Maritime and Coastguard Agency's website. What the hon. Gentleman is asking the Government to do in the new clause represents a disproportionate response—we are already doing what he suggests. It would be much more efficient if those people who were interested in such information simply referred to the MCA website, where successful prosecution are always listed. Of course, unsuccessful prosecutions, where they do occur, would not be listed there. However, since 1997, no such prosecution has been unsuccessful. With the reassurance that the information is put in the public domain, that we take all breaches seriously and that we will ensure that they continue to be put in the public domain, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will agree that making another report to Parliament would not be a good use of resources and therefore that he will be happy to withdraw the motion.

The hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier), who is my parliamentary constituency neighbour, was absolutely right about amendment No. 5. I obviously do not know what was in the mind of the hon. Member for Rochdale when he proposed the amendment, but it would make it unnecessary for us to introduce primary legislation to implement any future revision of annex VI of the MARPOL convention. I certainly do not want to quarrel with his aim in any way at all—I certainly would not want that to be done by primary legislation—but he is probably not aware that, by virtue of clause 2, an entry for the protocol that adds annex VI to MARPOL is inserted in the list of agreements covered by section 128(1) of the Merchant Shipping Act 1995. Consequently, the amendment is redundant, because the Bill—in combination with the 1995 Act—will achieve the required effect. I hope therefore that the hon. Gentleman will be happy not to press the amendment to a vote.

Paul Rowen (Liberal Democrat, Rochdale)

I should like to respond to a couple of the points that have been made. The Minister rightly says that successful cases are published. My noble Friend Lord Bradshaw quoted some statistics when speaking in the other place to show that there were about 500 instances of pollution from ships in UK waters last year, yet only 10 of them went to court. Obviously, we are dealing with a new issue—airborne emissions, which have not been subject to controls previously. I will happily withdraw the motion, following the Minister's assurance, but in proposing the new clause, I was seeking to ensure that there would be some measurement of the extent of pollution and the number of pollution cases that were successfully brought to a conclusion.

With regard to amendment No. 5, the National Environment Protection Council at its 53rd session in July last year agreed that there would be a review of the nitrogen oxide technical code of annex VI, with a view to taking account of revisions and improvements in technology, further to reduce emissions from ships, including particulate matter, and to look at extending emission controls to ships adopting fuels alternative to diesel. That will result in a report in 2007, and as the Minister says that he already has the enabling legislation to let a revision be adopted after that report, I am happy to beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 1 — Power to give effect to revisions of the international arrangements relating to compensation for oil pollution from ships

Julian Brazier (Conservative, Canterbury)

I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 1, line 9, at end insert—

'(c) "international agreement" means any agreement adopted by the International Maritime Organisation.'.

Alan Haselhurst (Deputy Speaker, Saffron Walden)

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 2, in page 2, line 26, at end insert—

'(e) make such provision only in concordance with an international agreement.'.

Julian Brazier (Conservative, Canterbury)

When the sacred chickens failed to eat their grain and give Appius Claudius Pulcher the omens he desired when commanding the Roman fleet against the Carthaginians, he had them thrown into the sea, proclaiming, "Let them drink if they will not eat." I say that not just to suggest that he might have made a good new Labour Cabinet Minister, but to remind people that discharges of one kind of another go back a long way.

The amendments are intended to prevent the use of the wide powers delegated to the Minister by Orders in Council under the Bill to incorporate EU directive 2005/35/EC into British law, or indeed to prevent future Governments from having the ability to incorporate into law by secondary legislation any international treaty that does not enjoy the blessing of the International Maritime Organisation.

There are two issues. First, the directive is highly dangerous to our maritime interests. Secondly, the Conservatives, and much of the shipping industry, from the British Chamber of Shipping to the unions, are strongly opposed to the development of regional agreements instead of proper, IMO-approved international ones. I am aware that the Government are themselves suspicious of the directive, and I am sure that I will receive reassurances in a moment from the Minister that the Government have no intention of adopting it. The amendments are intended to ensure, however, that no future Government—we may have a less maritime-friendly Minister in post at some point—can misuse the term "international agreement" to apply to an agreement between member states of the EU alone.

Philip Hollobone (Conservative, Kettering)

I am glad my hon. Friend has tabled these amendments. Is not the danger of the EU directive that it introduces the concept of serious negligence? Conservatives believe that people should not be prosecuted for something that they did not intend to do.

Julian Brazier (Conservative, Canterbury)

Indeed. My hon. Friend is exactly right and echoes the lengthy debate we had on that matter in Committee. We are not allowed to cover exactly the same ground on Report, and Mr. Deputy Speaker would rightly restrain me from doing so, but my hon. Friend is right to say that one of the problems with the directive is that it suggests that criminal sanctions should be brought against people guilty neither of intentional discharge nor of reckless disregard in that matter.

For the benefit of Members unaware of issues behind the amendments, I may say that the European Commission passed the directive last year, and it seeks to criminalise the accidental discharge of oil in the way mentioned by my hon. Friend in cases of "serious negligence". That term is so far undefined in law but major shipping companies fear it will be interpreted strictly, as has already started to happen in France, where it has already been incorporated into law. The consequences of including it in UK law would be grave. Hans van Rooij, president of the International Salvage Union, representing the salvage boats that act as the last line of defence against the kind of catastrophic pollution for which the Bill seeks to compensate, said:

"If a directive introduces the 'serious negligence' concept, salvers will have no choice but to seek immunity before intervening in the waters of EU states with a reputation for aggressive behaviour in maritime accident situations."

That is surely an unintended consequence.

The directive would have a serious negative effect on rescue efforts when ships sink in EU waters and create considerably more pollution in the event of an accident than the Bill will ever prevent. It would also undermine the Government's effort to recruit and retain merchant seamen. Indeed, a joint press release from a coalition of interested parties, which includes the largest cargo and tanker firms, Lloyd's of London and the International Salvage Union, declared:

"The Directive already has had a detrimental effect on the morale of seamen, and this will have adverse implications for the retention and recruitment of high quality crews."

The directive is particularly worrying because it involves one region unilaterally making maritime law without reference to the rest of the world, which is our second objection. One of the most impressive changes to the international shipping regime in the past 50 years has been the international nature of the laws and treaties implemented by flag states around the world. There is broad agreement that, if we want to criminalise or discourage certain activities, the correct forum in which to do so is the International Maritime Organisation and that the correct method is a genuinely international treaty.

The directive affects only the European Union, and consultation has taken place only within the European Union. Both the UK and the European Union are lobbying hard to persuade the United States to stop acting unilaterally and to join major international treaties, but I fear that we would have no credibility in such lobbying if we were to act unilaterally, which is why we support the amendment. We would like reassurance that the Bill cannot be used to slip that unpopular directive or some part of it through the back door.

We would also like to know whether the only use of the royal prerogative permitted by the Bill is to implement genuinely international treaties—in other words, treaties approved by the IMO.

Stephen Ladyman (Labour, South Thanet)

indicated assent.

Julian Brazier (Conservative, Canterbury)

I am grateful to the Minister for nodding, but he knows that I must put that point on the record in Hansard. I am aware that he swears that the legislation will not be used to implement the directive, and I believe him, but future Ministers will not necessarily share his scruples in similar situations, and the amendment would make it doubly certain that the porthole is locked and bolted.

As I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Hollobone), we are not against criminalising intentional discharge. Appius Claudius, to whom I referred earlier, was condemned to death for impiety. However, accidental discharge does not demand punishment or prohibition unless it is the result of deliberate recklessness, which is especially true of punishment or prohibition conducted by one part of the world without reference to the other maritime states. I commend the amendment to the House.

Paul Rowen (Liberal Democrat, Rochdale)

Britain has a proud maritime history. We were founder members of the IMO and have played a great part in the IMO's development and the adoption of many of the conventions that we now take for granted. I agree with the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) that in this particular case an EU directive, which is only a regional agreement, should not be allowed to take the place of any international agreement that may come into force. If there is such an EU directive, it should be subject to normal IMO procedures, which is the soundest way to ensure that unilateralism is not exercised by the US or other states. I hope that the Minister will support the amendment.

Stephen Ladyman (Labour, South Thanet)

I am always impressed by the ingenuity that hon. Members use to secure an opportunity to make a specific point that is completely irrelevant to the business on the Order Paper. The hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) should be proud of the ingenuity that he has shown on this occasion, but I do not think that he seriously believes that the Government would use the Bill to put the European directive on the statute book. I am fairly sure that he knows that we could not, even if we were minded to do so. However, he has taken the opportunity to make some important points about the failings and weaknesses of the directive, and I share his view on those.

I assure the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Rochdale (Paul Rowen) that the Government are wholly committed to the IMO and to having maritime agreements agreed internationally. We made that clear during our presidency of the EU in the last six months of 2005, and we are continuing to do so now, as we assist Austria on maritime issues during its presidency—for obvious reasons, Austria's resources in relation to maritime issues are limited. We have made clear our belief that such agreements should only be agreed internationally.

A few weeks ago, when I attended a ministerial conference in Copenhagen, I found unanimity among the maritime nations of Europe on the necessity of such agreements being not regional, but international. One of the pleasures and honours that I have had in the past 10 months as a Minister has been meeting the Shipping Ministers of pretty much every partner state in the European Union. I have found absolute unanimity on that point—complete agreement that we should not impose restrictions on our European fleet that would make it uncompetitive, that we should seek international agreement wherever possible, and that only in the most extraordinary circumstances should we impose in the Union an agreement that has not been agreed by the rest of the international maritime sector.

To put our view on the record, the powers in clause 1 are restricted to the implementation of the supplementary fund protocol and the implementation of instruments that revise or replace the civil liability convention, the international oil pollution compensation fund convention, or the supplementary fund protocol. Each of those instruments was adopted through the IMO and it is inconceivable that they would be amended other than through the IMO. There is therefore no need for the suggested definition of an international agreement in amendment No. 1.

Amendment No. 2 would provide that an Order in Council would only make provision in accordance with an international agreement. Combined with amendment No. 1, that would mean an international agreement adopted by the IMO. I hope that I have already made it clear that there is no scope in clause 1 to give effect to anything other than an international agreement and that such agreements will inevitably be adopted by the IMO.

I hope that I have given the hon. Member for Canterbury the specific reassurance that he seeks. More generally, I assure him that I share his concern that the European maritime sector should remain competitive and that maritime issues should be dealt with through the IMO and not unilaterally.

Julian Brazier (Conservative, Canterbury)

I am happy to beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Order for Third Reading read.

Stephen Ladyman (Labour, South Thanet)

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

I thank the House and the Opposition parties for the constructive and helpful way in which they have approached the Bill. It was deliberately made a short and focused Bill to speed its passage through Parliament. The whole House agrees that we urgently need the protection of the legislation. Once it is on the statute book, it will improve greatly the compensation available for oil pollution and give us powers to introduce measures to reduce air pollution from ships.

The international oil pollution compensation fund currently provides up to £168 million of compensation, but, unfortunately, in the case of major incidents such as the Prestige, that amount is not always sufficient. During our consideration of the Bill, the hon. Members for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) and for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr. Goodwill), for example, noted that compensation payments in respect of the Prestige were for a long time limited to just 15 per cent. of the amount claimed. The IOPC funds have now arranged for payments to be increased to about 30 per cent. of the amount claimed, but, unfortunately, there is no more money available and we know that those claims will never be paid in full.

Even when the overall costs of an incident do not exceed the limit of the IOPC fund, full payment of claims has often been delayed until the full extent of the damage is known and the final costs of an incident can be accurately assessed. Depending on the incident, that process could take months or even years. We experienced such delays following both the Braer and the Sea Empress incidents. With the Bill, I hope that we will not have to face such a situation again.

In Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Great Yarmouth (Mr. Wright) drew our attention to an incident that occurred some years ago. The Eleni V ran aground in May 1978, spilling 5,000 tonnes of persistent oil, which affected shellfish areas and recreational beaches. I understand that the local authorities incurred considerable costs in responding to the incident and payment of compensation was delayed for three or four years. The IOPC fund entered into force five months after the incident. Had it been in force, I suspect that those claims would have been settled much more quickly. That incident demonstrates the importance of implementing such instruments as quickly as practicable. A delay of months, or just weeks, can have serious consequences, so I am grateful for the support and co-operation that we have received from both sides of the House as the Bill has progressed.

The Government intend to accede to the protocol as soon as possible. We have drafted the Order in Council that will be used to implement the supplementary fund protocol under clause 1. An advanced draft of the Order in Council was sent to all Members who attended Second Reading. Copies were also placed in the Library. The draft order is now undergoing final checks, which will be completed in the very near future so that the order is ready by the time that the Bill receives Royal Assent. I repeat my grateful thanks to the House for its co-operation and commend the Bill's Third Reading to the House.

Julian Brazier (Conservative, Canterbury)

I, too, am pleased that we are reaching the end of the legislative process for the Bill and I, in turn, congratulate the Minister on the way in which he has handled the proceedings. He was always open with us in Committee and during the earlier stages. Like any good mariner after a long voyage, I am pleased to see the lighthouse ahead and know that the journey is nearly over—and that we have not had any spillage during the process, accidental or otherwise.

Without wishing to introduce a sour note, it is a pity that we have missed another opportunity to slip the Harbours Bill into port as well. It is uncontentious and both sides would have welcomed it. I hope that we will hear from the Minister shortly that the Government intend to schedule a little time for it. That said, it is important that the Bill is passed into law as soon as possible, and I am delighted to hear that that will happen. The crash in the Suez canal just last week involving a Liberian tanker—it was a relatively small affair compared with the incident that the Minister mentioned, but, nevertheless, involved the spillage of 3,000 tonnes of crude oil—emphasises the urgency of the matter.

The two treaties ratified by the Bill are the product of many years of careful negotiating. They have been agreed by the International Maritime Organisation and, although one is not compulsory, have the blessing of the international community as a whole. For the international law of the seas properly to work, it is essential that all such treaties are agreed to at as wide an international level as possible and that regions do not splinter off and agree their own rules, as we discussed earlier in relation to the amendments. I was glad to receive the assurances from the Minister.

There are some areas in which the Government could have been proactive. We hope that there will be a little action before long on getting the large shipping registers to sign up to the supplementary fund protocol, which is the main subject of the Bill and something on which we spent time in Committee.

Conservative Members are pleased that the Government have heeded the calls that we made in Committee and those of environment groups such as the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds for the introduction of marine environmental high-risk areas, which were recommended 13 years ago by Lord Donaldson. It is one thing to use supplementary funds to provide compensation after an oil spill, but it is much better to prevent a spill in the first place, especially in sensitive areas. Redirecting ships away from areas of outstanding beauty or environmental significance is a sensible way of achieving that.

I disappointed that the announcement on the MEHRAs made them merely advisory. I hope that the Government intend to consult relevant interested parties and, after a suitable period, find out how well the scheme is working. Given the effort that was put into establishing the areas, it would be a tragedy if they were simply ignored by the ships that were most likely to cause a disaster.

Putting those small points aside, I am pleased to support the Bill. The statistics that have been cited throughout our debates need no repeating. Although major oil spills are thankfully very rare, when they do happen they cause untold and often irreversible damage to the environment, wildlife and economy of an affected area. The supplementary fund will of course be used very rarely, but when it is used, it will be needed precisely because the scale of the disaster will be so big.

The incorporation of the latest stage of the MARPOL convention into British law will reduce emissions from ships, especially harmful nitrous oxides. That will make what is already the cleanest major form of transportation even cleaner and help the UK to hit its emissions targets.

The Government have had the support of the Opposition throughout the Bill's passage. I commend the Bill to the House, and, once again, urge the Government to find time for consideration of the Harbours Bill.

Paul Rowen (Liberal Democrat, Rochdale)

On behalf of the Liberal Democrats, I am pleased to support the Bill. I commend the work of the Minister in Committee and on the Floor of the House. Although the Bill is short, it will have an important and wide-reaching effect because it ratifies two important treaties and agreements on oil pollution and controls on air pollution by ships, which are being introduced for the first time.

The catalyst for the first aspect of the Bill was the Prestige disaster, and we heard in Committee about its catastrophic effect. Some 64,000 tonnes of oil were spilled and there was a bill of more than $1 billion. Our one worry about the supplementary allowance is that it would not have paid 100 per cent. of the cost of the Prestige disaster, but nevertheless we realise that we have come a long way since the Torrey Canyon disaster in 1967. Remarkable improvements have been made on both the amount of oil spilled each year in international waters and the way in which we have dealt with it. I remember my geology professor, Lord Energlyn, who advised Harold Wilson on how to deal with the Torrey Canyon disaster, talking about the technology used at the time, which included the use of Buccaneer bombers to disperse the oil. The way in which we deal with such disasters and the compensation arrangements available have come a long way since then. We support the provisions of the Bill that will help people much more than was the case in the past.

There are still legitimate worries about flags of convenience and the state of such fleets. It is estimated that at least one in 12 vessels that visit British ports are unseaworthy and that the figures for other ports are much higher. Nevertheless, with continuing pressure, more states will ratify the agreement. It is to be hoped that that will reduce some of the consequences that we had with the Prestige disaster.

I move on to the MARPOL index. It is a start in dealing for the first time with air pollution. It is limited, and the number of signatures to the convention is low. Like the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier), we look forward to hearing what the Government will do with regard to the ports Bill. We would have liked to see an opportunity to tackle air pollution of ships while in port. That is called cold ironing, and it already operates in Los Angeles and Vancouver. When the Bill is introduced, we hope to have an opportunity to consider that process as going one stage further in dealing with pollution, not only on the high seas but within UK ports.

I commend the Bill to the House in recognition of the work that will be done under its provisions.

Philip Hollobone (Conservative, Kettering)

I welcome the Bill. As the Minister said, a sharpened focus is no bad thing. Perhaps other Departments could draw a lesson from the way in which the Bill made its passage through Parliament. It chimes with the environmental concern of our times and, if it makes our planet a healthier place, that must be a good thing. I have enjoyed listening to the debates on the Bill. Perhaps for the first time in my brief time in the House, I can say that this is a Bill that I can wholeheartedly support.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.