I am grateful to the hon. Member for Rochdale (Paul Rowen) for his interest in the Bill, and I assure him that I understand what he is trying to get at. The Government take every bit as seriously as he does the need to enforce the national legislation that implements the MARPOL convention and its annexes.
We take any breach of the MARPOL convention very seriously. Of course, when we find that someone has breached the convention, we prosecute them, and information on all successful prosecutions are put on the Maritime and Coastguard Agency’s website. What the hon. Gentleman is asking the Government to do in the new clause represents a disproportionate response—we are already doing what he suggests. It would be much more efficient if those people who were interested in such information simply referred to the MCA website, where successful prosecution are always listed. Of course, unsuccessful prosecutions, where they do occur, would not be listed there. However, since 1997, no such prosecution has been unsuccessful. With the reassurance that the information is put in the public domain, that we take all breaches seriously and that we will ensure that they continue to be put in the public domain, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will agree that making another report to Parliament would not be a good use of resources and therefore that he will be happy to withdraw the motion.
The hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier), who is my parliamentary constituency neighbour, was absolutely right about amendment No. 5. I obviously do not know what was in the mind of the hon. Member for Rochdale when he proposed the amendment, but it would make it unnecessary for us to introduce primary legislation to implement any future revision of annex VI of the MARPOL convention. I certainly do not want to quarrel with his aim in any way at all—I certainly would not want that to be done by primary legislation—but he is probably not aware that, by virtue of clause 2, an entry for the protocol that adds annex VI to MARPOL is inserted in the list of agreements covered by section 128(1) of the Merchant Shipping Act 1995. Consequently, the amendment is redundant, because the Bill—in combination with the 1995 Act—will achieve the required effect. I hope therefore that the hon. Gentleman will be happy not to press the amendment to a vote.
Merchant Shipping (Pollution) Bill [Lords]
Proceeding contribution from
Stephen Ladyman
(Labour)
in the House of Commons on Tuesday, 7 March 2006.
It occurred during Debate on bills on Merchant Shipping (Pollution) Bill (HL).
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
443 c738-9 Session
2005-06Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-01-26 16:40:14 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_305431
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_305431
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_305431