Merchant Shipping (Pollution) Bill [Lords]

Indeed. My hon. Friend is exactly right and echoes the lengthy debate we had on that matter in Committee. We are not allowed to cover exactly the same ground on Report, and Mr. Deputy Speaker would rightly restrain me from doing so, but my hon. Friend is right to say that one of the problems with the directive is that it suggests that criminal sanctions should be brought against people guilty neither of intentional discharge nor of reckless disregard in that matter. For the benefit of Members unaware of issues behind the amendments, I may say that the European Commission passed the directive last year, and it seeks to criminalise the accidental discharge of oil in the way mentioned by my hon. Friend in cases of ““serious negligence””. That term is so far undefined in law but major shipping companies fear it will be interpreted strictly, as has already started to happen in France, where it has already been incorporated into law. The consequences of including it in UK law would be grave. Hans van Rooij, president of the International Salvage Union, representing the salvage boats that act as the last line of defence against the kind of catastrophic pollution for which the Bill seeks to compensate, said:"““If a directive introduces the ‘serious negligence’ concept, salvers will have no choice but to seek immunity before intervening in the waters of EU states with a reputation for aggressive behaviour in maritime accident situations.””" That is surely an unintended consequence. The directive would have a serious negative effect on rescue efforts when ships sink in EU waters and create considerably more pollution in the event of an accident than the Bill will ever prevent. It would also undermine the Government’s effort to recruit and retain merchant seamen. Indeed, a joint press release from a coalition of interested parties, which includes the largest cargo and tanker firms, Lloyd’s of London and the International Salvage Union, declared:"““The Directive already has had a detrimental effect on the morale of seamen, and this will have adverse implications for the retention and recruitment of high quality crews.””" The directive is particularly worrying because it involves one region unilaterally making maritime law without reference to the rest of the world, which is our second objection. One of the most impressive changes to the international shipping regime in the past 50 years has been the international nature of the laws and treaties implemented by flag states around the world. There is broad agreement that, if we want to criminalise or discourage certain activities, the correct forum in which to do so is the International Maritime Organisation and that the correct method is a genuinely international treaty. The directive affects only the European Union, and consultation has taken place only within the European Union. Both the UK and the European Union are lobbying hard to persuade the United States to stop acting unilaterally and to join major international treaties, but I fear that we would have no credibility in such lobbying if we were to act unilaterally, which is why we support the amendment. We would like reassurance that the Bill cannot be used to slip that unpopular directive or some part of it through the back door. We would also like to know whether the only use of the royal prerogative permitted by the Bill is to implement genuinely international treaties—in other words, treaties approved by the IMO.