Merchant Shipping (Pollution) Bill [HL]

My Lords, marine Bills do not often come before Parliament, and it is with an almost complete lack of up-to-date knowledge that I dare to speak today. I say ““up-to-date”” because I never returned to sea after taking my Master’s Certificate of Competency in the late 1960s, and ceased hands-on involvement a few years later. However, former colleagues have been extremely kind in filling me in on what happens nowadays, and for that I thank them. In those days, we had experienced, well qualified and dedicated officers and crew, who would look after the safety of the ship and other seafarers before themselves. Nowadays, in many instances, the opposite applies. The Bill before us is excellent, as far as it goes. There are other forms of marine pollution, however, about which most people are ignorant. Some affect this country, others do not. Some would consider them minor, but in totality they can be fairly major. I ask your indulgence if I mention some of them. An empty bulk carrier or oil tanker arriving at a port to load a cargo will, in order to reach that port, have taken on some water ballast. That ballast regularly contains marine life alien to that port and country and will be discharged when approaching the loading port. The implications are not to be sneezed at. I am led to believe that last summer, at low tide in Williamstown, Australia, hundreds of north Japanese sea-star crowded onto the piles and sea bottom, no doubt demolishing the mussels that normally grow there. Port Philip Bay, on which Melbourne is situated, now has about 156 exotics. And what about the thoughtless throwing away of plastic bags, string and nets, which can and do end up around the necks of seals and dolphins? I quote part of an e-mail that I received from a former colleague:"““My considered opinion is that most marine pollution is caused by the ever increasing under manning of ships and the employment of third rate and cheap seamen. Any engineer worth his salt—and those that aren’t—will simply bypass the oily water separators because they haven’t got the time to stand by its operation. Provided schedules are maintained, most ship owners couldn’t care less about pollution””." I would add to that, ““unless the ship owner is fined””. Vancouver reduced its oil-spill response costs a couple of years ago from $11 million a year to $3 million by employing people to put string seals on all outboard valves when the ship arrived in port. Consequently, any spillage will break the string seal, and the offending ship is fined. What a simple method. The noble Lord, Lord Greenway, has already said that west coast USA and Canadian ports, among others, are supplying power to ships—which, in turn, can turn their supplies off—in order to reduce greenhouse emissions in their ports. There is the problem of oil discharged from ships finding its way to the bottom of the sea, leading to the destruction of living organisms. I would love to give further examples of pollution that have been provided to me, but at least I have referred to some that might provide food for thought. Oil pollution is not the only   pollution emanating from ships. It would be marvellous if the compensation fund was not necessary, but it is and, therefore, I support the Bill.