Merchant Shipping (Pollution) Bill [HL]

My Lords, I thank noble Lords for those comments. The points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, in his amendment are most timely. This week the state parties to the International Oil Pollution Compensation (IOPC) Fund are meeting to discuss the review of the regime. The current review of the international oil pollution compensation regime began in 2001. The supplementary fund protocol, referred to in the Bill, was born out of the early stages of that review. A number of other issues are still under consideration. We expect a decision by the assembly of the IOPC Fund later this week with regard to whether or not the underlying treaties are to be revised. If there is agreement to revise the regime, the purposes would include addressing the balance of financial responsibility between the shipowner and the oil receiver and amending a number of technical issues in the interpretation of the fund that have arisen over the years. It is expected that there would then be a series of meetings to consider the detail of the reforms, including the definition of ““ship”” and what constitutes a viable quorum, as rightly noted by the noble Lord. It would also be necessary to agree a draft text of the treaty. Agreement of a revised international treaty can be a long process and even in this case, with a limited number of issues for revision, can be expected to take at least a couple of years. Any draft instrument would then need to be adopted by the diplomatic conference of the International Maritime Organisation. If there is agreement this week to revise the regime, an optimistic estimate would be three to four years to agree new instruments. This is not the first review of the international oil compensation regime and I do not expect it to be the last. As noble Lords will know, the regime has been around for more than 25 years and we hope that it will continue for many more. In order to continue with full vigour, the regime needs to evolve. From time to time amendments will inevitably be required in the light of experience. Therefore, Clause 1(2)(b) of the Bill makes provision for the UK to ratify future instruments governing liability and compensation for oil pollution, if they are adopted following a review of the regime. Of course, such further changes would be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure, as we have provided for in Clause 1(6)(a). I hope that that information assists the noble Lord and the House. I now turn to address the second point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield. The Government agree that the UK should use its best endeavours to encourage other states to join the supplementary fund protocol. I am happy to repeat today that the Government’s intention is to ratify the supplementary fund protocol as soon as possible after the Bill receives Royal Assent, if that is the will of Parliament. Once the UK has ratified the supplementary fund protocol, we will be in a better position to encourage other states to join, and that is our intention. Until we have ratified and brought the protocol into force, it is difficult to bring pressure to bear on other states to do the same. Should the House agree, and should the other place go through its procedure, ratification could take place by the end of February and the bringing into force of the protocol by May of next year, at which point we could look other states in the eye and ask them what point they have reached as regards ratification. The Government are a strong supporter of the international oil pollution compensation regime and believe that wide participation in the Supplementary Fund Protocol will both strengthen the regime and ensure its continued international status. Broad international membership of the supplementary fund will also benefit our oil industry as contributions for compensation in the event of a major oil spill will be spread across a greater number of oil receivers. I assure noble Lords that the Government fully intend to take opportunities, on the back of UK ratification, to encourage other states to join the Supplementary Fund Protocol, as the noble Lord encourages us to do. However, the Government believe that it would be more appropriate to do so through bilateral meetings and discussion at the International Maritime Organisation rather than by pre-published action plans. We intend to remind our European colleagues that we are all required by a European Council decision of March 2004 to ratify the Supplementary Fund Protocol as soon as possible. We will urge member states to fulfil their obligations under that decision. We will also work very closely with our Austrian colleagues, who will take the chair of the European Union in January. We will work with them particularly closely on maritime issues. We will use that close working relationship to remind our European Union colleagues of the obligations that they are under. We will be able to check also on the progress of our international colleagues beyond the European Union family with other IOPC states at the meeting that they will hold next spring, on the assumption, of course, that we ourselves have ratified at that stage. I hope that the action we are taking is enough to reassure the noble Lord and that he will agree that it is not necessary to include his amendment in primary legislation.