Merchant Shipping Pollution Bill [HL]

moved Amendment No. 3: "Page 2, line 1, leave out subsection (4)." The noble Lord said: This amendment is in a similar vein. To make certain that the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, does not get too unhappy, it is a probing amendment, to find out what is behind the powers of making an Order in Council and of course the particular aspects that this order will have regarding the supplementary protocol. First, we were informed in the Explanatory Notes that the precise wording of the order would be available before the Bill’s Committee stage. We have not had that yet, although the Minister did say that she had put something in the Library. Is that indeed the case? Is there a copy in the Library? It would have been helpful if a copy could have been sent to me and other noble Lords involved in the Bill before today. I was informed by the department that it was usual for the ratification of such international treaties to be passed by an Order in Council. However, that does not of course mean that we should not test and probe the mechanics behind the process and the precise nature of subsection (4). That subsection appears to add a number of important supplementary provisions to the nature of the order not least in creating a mechanism—as set out in paragraph (b)—necessary should the international regime change at some point in future. That is what we have just talked about. I should be grateful if the Minister could assist us with the answers to a couple of questions that we have in that regard. Why, if we are only just ratifying the supplementary fund, is it necessary—as I described just now—to have provisions in this order that would take into account future changes in the international pollution regime? What changes do the Government envisage in the next few years? That is the obvious question. Furthermore, I have the concern that future changes will be accommodated through an Order in Council rather than be subject to the usual process of parliamentary scrutiny. That is the issue that we have just talked about. What assurance can the Minister give us that that process will not be abused, and how will Parliament be informed of any changes? Paragraph (c) provides for an order to create summary offences punishable by a term of two years’ imprisonment. I would welcome further details of when such an offence would be committed, and the circumstances that would attract a two-year sentence. Would there be a sliding scale, dependent on the seriousness of the offence? Paragraph (d) tells us that the provisions made by the order would apply beyond the territorial sea. How would that enforcement scheme be likely to work outside UK waters? What jurisdiction would the UK court have to seek the conviction of an offender whose offence occurred in international waters? Finally, I would welcome an explanation of paragraph (e), which provides for an order to make provision that applies to, or affects the interests of, the Crown. What interests of the Crown, for example, would be taken into consideration, and how would it affect the nature of the order if the Crown were involved? I would be most grateful if the Minister could shed some light on those issues. I beg to move.