Merchant Shipping (Pollution) Bill [HL]

My Lords, I have spoken in many shipping debates with the noble Lord, and at one time I was a parliamentary under-secretary responsible for companies, aviation and shipping. I look back to those days with some degree of pleasure, but also apprehension because we had a large number of shipping incidents and casualties at that time, as I am sure noble Lords will recognise. I also served as the chairman and then the president of the Advisory Committee on Protection of the Sea—or ACOPS. That body has long been involved in the principal issues involved in this Bill. I am glad to say that I was also ensconced with NUMAST and the European Union in relation to transport issues. In more recent times, ACOPS has played a major role in determining long-term trends affecting operational and accidental discharges at sea, and seeing how control and prevention measures can be affected. What ACOPS has established beyond reasonable doubt is that human error is by far the most significant element in pollution incidents. That is borne out by the annual reports which ACOPS has published, and which are relied on by the Maritime and Coastguard Agency. In no way do I seek to undermine the record for   constant vigilance about the handling and transportation of oil around British coastlines, but the facts speak for themselves. Internationally, during the 1970s, there were on average 25.2 per cent tanker spills of more than 700 tonnes. That is what I was referring to earlier. The average decreased to 9.3 per cent in the 1980s, 7.8 per cent in the 1990s and, so far, in this century, the figure is reduced to 3.8 per cent per annum. As a result of the mandatory phasing out of single-hull tankers and the implementation of a regulation banning the carriage of heavy grade oil in single-hull trawlers of more than 5,000 dead-weight tonnes, the situation will probably be much improved. There is no room for complacency, however, as the following amply demonstrates. Port state control inspection shows that one in 12   foreign vessels inspected in the United Kingdom is   unseaworthy, and has to be detained. That is unforgivable. Across Europe the position is even worse: almost three-quarters of ships inspected suffer severe deficiencies. Moreover, the United Kingdom Marine Accident Investigation Branch deals annually with about 1,500 accident and incident reports. Recently the UK MAIB has found"““a worrying number of merchant ships involved in collisions or near-misses””." This is utterly unacceptable. Only a few days ago, a container ship and a general cargo ship collided in the Channel. We have not heard about that in this debate, but it was immensely damaging to the shipping industry. That is why I have argued for eternal vigilance. Human issues remain the primary cause for concern. Fatigue; unsafe manning; the falsification of work records; the failure, all too often, to provide a dedicated lookout on the bridge: these can all be dealt with, yet they continue to be a plague that blights too much of our shipping industry. It follows that when the Bill is fully implemented the provisions that ensure adequate arrangements for the future protection of our marine and coastal industries are vital. Also, the UK will be able to participate fully in any future changes in the international regime governing oil spill compensation and address the issue of atmospheric emissions from ships. Before I turn to the Bill itself, there is an important issue I should mention. There is, unfortunately, a marked decline in Britain’s maritime skills. This was emphasised a fortnight or so ago by a Government report that Britain’s officer skills base is likely to be halved over the next 15 years. What are we doing to address this problem? How will we ensure far greater investment in British maritime training? These questions must be answered, not only by all sections of the industry, but also by Government. The view often rehearsed by environmental groups is that the shipping industry has been used as a ““waste management system””, burning the dirtiest fuel and failing to ask questions about environmental cost. In other words, what they often do represents a good way of getting rid of residual fuel oil. Improved control of emissions from ships should be part and parcel of the battle against acid rain, which affects nature in northern Europe and health and property in southern Europe. Its effects are indivisible. It is therefore high time that Annex VI of the MARPOL Convention should apply. Indeed, there is real hope, following the second reading of Europe’s marine fuels legislation, that even more stringent European controls will be enacted in the future. Uncertainty as to the best way of achieving emissions from ships continues to reign. There is a patchwork of regulation, and equally a patchwork of solutions. The tanker ““Prestige””, which has been referred to in this debate—registered, I stress, in the Bahamas—sank off Spain in November 2002. Seventy-seven thousand tonnes of fuel oil were spilt, affecting areas from Vigo in Spain to Brest in France. Our Dover coast was also affected. As I pointed out in an intervention, only 15 per cent of claims have so far been met internationally, leaving the Spanish and French Governments to meet the remaining 85 per cent. That is totally unsatisfactory. The ““Prestige””, and other incidents, point the way to taking a vessel casualty to a safe haven and ensuring that salvage is undertaken in conditions of relative safety. We are not only talking about ships, but about people who sail in them, and about coastal communities that may be affected. They must not be forgotten in this debate.