Merchant Shipping (Pollution) Bill [HL]

My Lords, the Merchant Shipping (Pollution) Bill seems to be fairly uncontroversial and to be welcomed to the statute book in due course. Unlike the Road Safety Bill that we discussed last week, I have received no lobby material on this Bill. That probably constitutes a form of bill of health. Marine accidents, oil pollution of seawater and of the air by marine engine emissions are all unwelcome and have to be dealt with at an international level. Therefore, it will be necessary for many countries to sign up to the two agreements contained in the Bill. Will the noble Baroness who will reply to the debate please tell us which other countries will be the co-signatories? Oil contamination will always be a difficult crisis to solve on the shore and in the water but at least there will be available greater sources of funding to carry out most of the work. However, I presume that while the beaches and coast will be cleaned up, there will not necessarily be compensation for the tourism and hospitality value lost because of the pollution and its aftermath. I refer to the belief that the place is permanently polluted. It seems to me as though the liability fund and the MARPOL agreements are in place. I believe that the supplementary fund, and its £600 million, is new and is derived from oil importers rather than shippers. I believe that Annex VI of MARPOL is also new. It is good to see the maritime industry getting its act together on pollution. It is a great pity that no such international co-operation is forthcoming on air pollution by civil aircraft. The Bill is not about civil aircraft but it shows that progress regarding pollution can be made. I suppose the difference is that the pollution caused by civil aircraft is not as obvious as an oil spill; that is, with the exception of pollution caused by an air crash and traffic jams on airport approach roads. My noble friend Lord Bradshaw rightly drew our attention to the question of the adequacy of the funds. It would certainly be unfortunate not to have to hand sufficient funds to deal with a pollution incident, most of which are accidental. He also drew our attention to the danger of dumping rubbish overboard—that is, precisely, jetsam—rather than in the port where, admittedly, greater cost is incurred for disposing of rubbish—a curious problem caused by higher environmental standards. My noble friend also referred to the Bill’s lack of teeth in dealing with ships that are outwith the schemes, going so far as to mention sanctions for recalcitrant owners. As regards tankers flagged by nations outwith the scheme, can I presume, like my noble friend, that it will still be possible for oil pollution to occur without a compensation system being in place? I refer to resorting to extensive legal action in that regard. The noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, drew attention to the widest economic effect of an oil spill beyond the obvious clean-up work. He also questioned the ability of the funds to deal with several incidents in a year. The noble Lord, Lord Greenway, reminded us that the sea is polluted by seepage from land sources as well as from oil tankers and offshore installations. He informed me at least of the scale of marine emissions, mentioning the reality of engines of 100,000 horse power capacity. The noble Lord mentioned the benefits of shore power in Los Angeles for container ships. As someone who lives beside Scotland’s largest coal-fired power station, it occurs to me that wherever electricity is used in Scotland, it is generated near me. Unless the authorities in the Los Angeles area have a very green source of electricity, I wonder whether they are not simply transferring the problem from the port to somewhere else. The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, reminded us of the ubiquity of human error as opposed to equipment failure. He also mentioned the very poor state of some vessels currently being operated and the difficulty of doing anything about that. He complained about the decline in the UK’s complement of Merchant Navy officers and seamen. The noble Viscount, Lord Simon, reflected on a career at sea that he might have pursued and reminded us of the biological effect of water ballast from alien environments. I note that the Bill does not by any means deal with all forms of sea pollution. For example, the Norwegians complain about radio-active isotopes being found in the fjords, having escaped from Sellafield. The Bill seems to be a step in the right direction. I hope that many countries will sign up to the supplementary fund and to MARPOL. Clause 3 is a useful clarification of the claim period—a generous three years and, I hope, a realistic period in which to establish how much damage has been done by oil pollution and how much its clean-up will cost. We on these Benches wish the Bill well. We look forward to the Grand Committee procedure.