Merchant Shipping Pollution Bill [HL]

The draft regulations are now in the Library of both Houses. They are at a fairly advanced stage. I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, for the fact that he has not seen them and I will ensure that he and other Members of the Committee are sent a copy. Perhaps I may take a little time to explain the reasoning behind this section of the Bill and some, if not all, of the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, may well be answered in my contribution. I am grateful to the noble Lord for his suggestion on this part of the Bill. However, we believe that subsection (4) is an important part of the Bill and we would want it to remain. It provides Parliament with an indication of the types of provision the Government would want to make under the general power in Clause 1(2). It is not an exclusive list of possibilities, but it makes reference to a number of important provisions. I am told by my officials that this is the way in which transport Bills on the marine environment are often laid out. They may not be laid out in the way we are used to seeing in other transport Bills, but they go from the general right to the particular. As I said, it is not an exclusive list of possibilities—for example, paragraph (a) states that an order may require contributions to be paid to an international fund. This is of course on the basis of the international compensation regime. However, it does concern the payment of moneys by industry and we therefore believe that we should be absolutely transparent about our intentions in this respect. Industry knows that through this legislation it will be called on to make payments and we want to make that as clear as possible in the Bill. Another important provision is contained at paragraph (b), referred to by the noble Lord. We would draw his attention to the proposed government amendments which modify this paragraph to clarify that any subordinate legislation would be made by order by the Secretary of State. I will revert to these amendments later, but the purpose of this provision is to enable the Government to make further legislation, if required, so as to give full effect to the Supplementary Fund Protocol or future instruments relating to the oil pollution compensation regime, after they have been implemented in the UK, without affecting the fundamental principles of the instrument concerned. This might be necessary, for example, to alter the limits of liability or compensation contained in the instruments. These can be revised without changing the entire instrument and the Government would wish to be able to implement such changes as soon as possible. This procedure was used in respect of the existing fund convention to increase the limits under that fund from £110 million to £166 million. Similar provisions exist in primary legislation relating to a number of international maritime instruments and, as in this Bill, they often also include provisions of an administrative nature—for example, the power to create offences. I hope to have more detail about the offences mentioned by the noble Lord. It seems to me that once Parliament has agreed to the UK becoming a party to an international treaty it makes sense to ensure that we have procedures in place to allow for full implementation of that instrument, including the ability to modify our arrangements either in the light of experience or, as I suggested earlier, in response to a change in limits that does not involve a revision of the instrument itself. This is the case with other maritime treaties, as my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davies mentioned, that have been enacted in the UK legislation, such as the International Convention on Limitation for Liability for Maritime Claims, the Athens convention relating to liability for passenger death or injury and, in due course, the Hazardous and Noxious Substances Convention, albeit this has yet to enter into force in the UK. The noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, asked me a number of detailed questions about this part of the Bill. He asked me why changes are needed to the regime when we are only just seeking power to ratify the Supplementary Fund Protocol. The regime has developed throughout its 26 years to adapt to modern needs. We must reflect the same in the future. I repeat that we need to ensure that the government of the day can provide the best protection for our coastal communities and that that protection is provided as quickly as possible. The noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, queried the application to territorial waters and its provision with respect to the Crown. Subsection (4)(e) is a standard provision. We do not expect the Bill to affect the Crown, but if it does, we would be able to make any necessary legislative changes. The provisions in the Bill will not apply to Crown ships. The convention applies outside territorial seas so that compensation is available in the event of a spill in those areas. The noble Lord raised the issue of offences in subsection (4)(c). Sentencing will be for the court and will take account of the circumstances and seriousness of the offence. If there is anything of detail I have not covered in response to the noble Lord’s questions, I will write to him and send a copy to all Members of the Committee. I hope that with that explanation, he will feel able to withdraw his amendment.