moved Amendment No. 1:"After Clause 1, insert the following new clause—"
““UNITED KINGDOM: DUTY TO PROMOTE THE SUPPLEMENTARY FUND PROTOCOL
The United Kingdom shall unilaterally, and in partnership with organisations including the International Maritime Organisation and others as it sees fit, take all reasonable steps to promote the merits of the Supplementary Fund Protocol and to encourage other states to ratify the Protocol as soon as practical.””
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I hope to create an opportunity to raise a number of points regarding the Bill which Members on these Benches wish to see clarified. I should explain that, having taken advice from the Government Whips and the Public Bill Office, I have been informed that without laying an amendment I would be unable to raise any substantive issue about the actual content of the Bill. I have therefore utilised the prerogative of the Opposition because it is our duty to ensure that any legislation put before us is scrutinised to its fullest extent. On that last point I make no apology. I say that because in Committee I was criticised by the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, for seeking clarification on a series of points at that stage. I hope that he will not criticise me today. Like the noble Lord, Members on these Benches fully support the objectives of this short but highly important Bill. But I believe that the opportunity to probe a little further cannot simply be forfeited.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Crawley, for her exemplary conduct and the approach she has adopted towards this Bill, and for the kind assistance she has extended to me and to other Members of the Committee. It is to the letter written by the noble Baroness to Members of the Committee on 5 August last that I wish to address my remarks today. Again, I thank her very much indeed for the informative content of that letter. It went a long way towards addressing many of our original questions. However, I would be grateful for a little further comment on a number of related points
First, the noble Baroness has explained in commendable detail the terms of the review of the existing international regime and of the conventions which pose a threat to the effectiveness of the current operating structures. That is a practical and sensible move, and one that we all support. Can the Minister give us an update of where we are with the suggested reforms as detailed in her excellent letter and whether there was any movement over the summer in finalising those arrangements? Are we any closer to clarifying with our international partners the definition of a ““ship””, or to what would constitute a viable quorum? In particular, it would be helpful to learn more about the time-frame within which we may expect these reforms to be signed off and put into practice.
Secondly, concerns persist as to how other countries will be encouraged to sign up to the fund, the point addressed in the amendment. I understand that some states may choose not to join, but it is important that we make every effort to promote the benefits of membership. Indeed, the Minister mentioned that we will continue to promote the supplementary fund. My question about this is simple: how?
We have heard that, as a signatory, the UK will send a strong message to others. However, in essence I am looking for something slightly more substantive, although of course not for a moment do I doubt the Government’s intentions on this matter. I hope that real thought can be given to this point in the department and that perhaps an action plan outlining the ways in which the UK will actually seek to encourage other states to sign up could be produced. Simply to say that the UK will be adequately covered and protected because our near neighbours are parties to the regime is slightly to shirk from our international obligation to ensure that all nations, wherever they are, are adequately protected. So if the noble Baroness can provide an assurance that serious thought will be given to our role in encouraging other states to sign up, I think that we would be happy to let the matter rest.
I will not detain the House any longer lest I incur the wrath of the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, except to say that as I have mentioned before, we are happy to support the legislation. I hope that the noble Baroness will be able to provide us with the assurances we seek today. I beg to move.
Merchant Shipping (Pollution) Bill [HL]
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Hanningfield
(Conservative)
in the House of Lords on Monday, 17 October 2005.
It occurred during Debate on bills on Merchant Shipping (Pollution) Bill (HL)..
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
674 c576-7 Session
2005-06Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-21 14:15:09 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_267066
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_267066
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_267066