Merchant Shipping (Pollution) Bill [HL]

My Lords, I welcome the opportunity to speak from these Benches on this small but important piece of legislation. We support any measures that are designed to tackle the horrific environmental, social and economic effects of marine pollution. Oil slicks are no respecters of international waters and so, effectively, what we have before us today is an international Bill designed to bring the UK into line with efforts to tackle the appalling effects of oil spillages. Additionally, in the Bill, as the Minister said, there are measures designed to reduce the pollution emitted from shipping. Again, we support the intent behind such legislation. That said, there are important and pressing questions arising from the Bill, which I shall highlight today. Recent figures from the International Tanker Owners Pollution Federation show that the number of oil spillages has reduced by around one-third since the 1970s. Significantly, incidents classified as large spills have reduced dramatically. That has been much to do with better crew training and by the introduction of double-skinned hulls. Most spills from tankers result from routine operations such as loading, discharging and bunkering, which normally occur in ports or oil terminals. The majority of those operational spills are very small, with some 91 per cent involving quantities of less than seven tonnes. Accidents involving collisions and groundings generally give rise to much larger spills with almost one-fifth involving quantities in excess of 700 tonnes. Of course, no two oil spillages are the same. The composition of the oil, the location of the spill—far out at sea or near land—and the weather conditions are all relevant. When such a disaster does happen, as we all know, its impact is truly horrendous. Who can forget the awful images following the sinking of the ““Prestige”” off the Spanish coast a couple of years ago or, closer to home, the ““Sea Empress”” in Milford Haven in 1996, the   ““Braer”” off the Shetland Islands in 1993, or, as the Minister said, the ““Torrey Canyon”” in 1967? Such incidents do not only have an impact in the short term; they can have a lasting effect for many years, indeed decades. The cost to maritime life, as we so dramatically saw with the ““Exxon Valdez”” incident, can be horrific and the cost to those people who depend on the sea and its surrounds can be equally disastrous. Fishermen, local hoteliers, restaurant owners and others along the Portuguese and north Spanish coast were all adversely affected, I remember well, following the sinking of the ““Prestige”” in 2002. Arising directly from this disaster and others in recent years, it was found that the existing structures in place to pay for the clean up and provide compensation were inadequate. Part of the problem, we are told, was the delay in providing such compensation given that the total cost of damage arising from an incident may not be known for many years. Indeed, to date, only 15 per cent of the total amount claimed following the ““Prestige”” disaster has actually been paid. For that reason, many felt that the existing structures were unable to cope and that a new fund was set up. However, perhaps for one moment I may play devil’s advocate. Surely, rather than creating a new fund it would have been better to have reformed the existing one—the International Oil Pollution Compensation Fund. What thought was actually given to reforming this fund, speeding up its mechanisms and increasing its financial worth—which, we have heard, is inadequate—so that it was able adequately to cover the increasing costs of modern oil spills? Moving on to the new fund itself, we are told that it would make available an additional £440 million or so—the Minister increased that figure—and that that amount would be made available by the major oil importers internationally, rather than falling on national budgets. Would the money be collected now and kept in a central pot or would it be collected only in the event of a spill and distributed when claims for compensation had been assessed and validated? If that is the case, I cannot see how the administration of this new fund differs dramatically from that of the old one. Indeed, there appears to be no guarantee that the fund will be able to compensate adequately and quickly. Will the Minister comment on that? What would happen in the event of two simultaneous major oil spills—would there be enough money in the fund to cover such circumstances? We are told that the supplementary fund would provide £440 million—although I stand corrected after what the Minister said today—on top of the £162 million in the existing scheme. However, when we are dealing with a major oil spillage with a cost of clean-up and compensation that may run into billions, one wonders whether the amount is actually sufficient. I would also be interested to learn what response the Government received to their consultation paper issued in December last year from the British shipping industry, notably the major oil importers. In particular, has the Bill before us today changed in any way following that consultation? A three-month consultation period does not appear terribly long in the great scheme of things. I hope that the department was not simply going through the motions. I now turn to the crucial matter in this Bill; namely, the number of participating countries that have signed up to the new fund. The Minister mentioned that there are existing members and others will join later this year. The remaining countries of the EU will join over the course of the next year or so and I learnt from the department that both Canada and Australia are likely to join shortly. However, what about the large number of countries that have neither signed up nor have any plans to do so? We have a large number of flag of convenience—or open register—countries, including those with significant registered tonnage, that are party to the old fund regime but not to the new one. I am learning that the world of international maritime legislation moves as fast as a slow boat to China and that countries are not going to sign up overnight, but with such notable absentees, surely the whole scheme could be undermined. Indeed, the two countries with the largest registered tonnage—Panama and Liberia—are notable by their absence. What would happen if a major oil spill occurred either in the waters of a country that had not signed up to the fund or to a vessel registered in one of the absent countries? What action are the UK Government taking either unilaterally or through the vestiges of the EU or the International Maritime Organisation to encourage more states to sign up to the supplementary fund? Also, why has the UK’s own ratification taken so   long, since the protocol was adopted by the International Maritime Organisation in May 2003 and the European Council decision that urged member states to ratify the fund by June 2004? There may be technical reasons for this delay and I appreciate that the department consultated, but I would welcome the Minister’s explanation for the delay. As the Minister said, the Bill will also allow for further legislation relating to the pollution compensation regime to be passed through secondary legislation, subject to affirmative resolution. We are also told that the Government are currently conducting a review of existing instruments to,"““redress the balance of financial contributions between the shipping and oil industries and to provide for a number of administrative amendments which may otherwise threaten the operation and effectiveness of the international regime””." If the Minister cannot answer me today, I would be grateful if he would write to me to answer further questions that I have and explain further details of this review, its intent and its time frame. I would also be interested to learn why and which existing pieces of legislation,"““threaten the operation and effectiveness of the international regime””." As the Minister said, the Bill also includes measures designed to tackle air pollution from shipping by introducing the process required to ratify Annex VI of the MARPOL Convention. We support such a measure but I wonder about the reasons for the delay in the UK’s ratification process given that the convention was originally agreed to in September 1997. Perhaps the Minister can shed some light on that. Will he also provide full details of each MARPOL annex and the proposed draft regulations relating to Annex VI and confirm that they will be available by Committee stage? I would also be interested to learn whether the Government have consulted the British shipping industry on this measure. If they have not, will the Minister give an assurance today that they will do so? We have been told that secondary legislation is being prepared to allow the ratification of Annex IV. What is the time frame for ratification of this particular annex? I make the same point that I made earlier about the supplementary fund. It is all very well for the UK, a handful of other wealthy European countries, the United States and Canada signing up to these international treaties, but if we do not have those countries with large registered tonnages, the whole thing is effectively worthless. Air pollution is obviously no respecter of international borders. Therefore, there is a danger of older, more polluting vessels simply being registered in countries not signed up to such conventions, rather like the trade in old passenger planes being recycled for use in the third world because they do not meet strict European or American air pollution regulations. I would therefore be grateful if the Minister could tell me exactly which countries have signed up to each particular MARPOL annex and what steps the UK Government are taking to encourage more to join. As I mentioned, we are happy to support the legislation before us today. However we have one criticism, which is that we think the Bill is rather reactionary in nature, dealing with the worst effects of an oil spill after it has happened. Although we are all agreed that anything that assists and speeds up the nature of conservation is to be welcomed, that does not of course stop the incident from happening in the first place. Surely such measures as are outlined in the Bill would sit more comfortably with a more proactive and preventive approach from the Government. Perhaps the Minister would therefore like to outline the Government’s strategy for stopping such incidents happening in the first place. There was talk some time ago of banning single-skinned tankers from entering EU waters. Do the Government still support such a measure, and if so, at what stage are the negotiations and discussions? We support the intent of this Bill. We can support it here at Second Reading and we will support it during the Committee stage. However, as I have tried to outline today, there are a whole host of questions and issues the Bill raises. I hope as the Bill moves through this House some of those questions will be answered.