Merchant Shipping (Pollution) Bill [HL]

My Lords, we are now getting into another issue. I agree with what the noble Lord said, but the majority of power stations around the world are not nuclear. That is a brutal reality. We need to be aware that some of these issues are not straightforward. The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, made particular reference to the human aspects. When men go to sea in ships they put their lives at risk if the conditions go wrong. We need to keep that in the back of our minds. It is particularly relevant to the ““Prestige”” disaster, which was an unfolding story. It was not, as so often occurs, an instant disaster because of particular weather conditions that ran the ship ashore; it unfolded over three or four days. It was an old single-skin ship, fully laden, going northwards past Spain. The crew realised that they were in trouble. They sailed towards Spain, hoping to be able to make a landfall and, if necessary, offload the ship. They were prevented from going ashore and forced out into the deep water again, where the ship broke up and sank. Three or four weeks later the oil started to come ashore. Whatever the subsequent cost to those onshore—it was undoubtedly high even though there are funds set up under earlier conventions and now under the Bill to enhance that situation—it would have been much cheaper and made better economics for them to accept that ship ashore, place booms around it and contain any leakage until they had emptied it, even though that might have been an expensive business. One of my concerns about the establishment of these funds is that in such a situation there may be a temptation for a country to say, ““Well, if we accept this ship on our shore and unload it we will have to pay the bill, whereas if it goes back out and sinks in deep water then the international fund will pay the bill””. I have the greatest sympathy for the people who have to deal with such difficult decisions and we have the great benefit today of looking at the ““Prestige”” disaster with hindsight. However, I hope to receive an assurance from the Minister that such a situation would not arise and that, if an emergency of the ““Prestige”” type were to occur in future, the recipient country would be able to call on the fund. Although there had not been a disaster, action would have been taken to prevent one, which would be a proper use of the funds. I am not clear from either the Bill or what I have read about the background that such a situation would be covered. This is a welcome upgrading of the existing legislation and conventions that govern these matters at sea. It has to be hoped that the funds provided for the foreseeable future at any rate will be adequate. Ships get bigger and disasters therefore inevitably become greater. I can envisage the time, as the Government have clearly have had the foresight to do, when some change might be required. That will be dealt with in future through secondary legislation by positive resolution, so it will be properly considered by both Houses of Parliament, which is welcome. It must also be welcomed that an expedited procedure for such regulatory improvement exists in the Bill. I am glad that the Bill is here. It will lead to an improved situation. We have had a good debate around many issues, and many questions have been raised by my noble friend Lord Hanningfield and other noble Lords. If the Government are unable to answer them immediately it does not matter, because they always have the opportunity to write afterwards. I am sure that we will all look forward to lots of interesting correspondence and interesting debates on the Bill at later stages.