Merchant Shipping (Pollution) Bill [Lords]

I, too, am pleased that we are reaching the end of the legislative process for the Bill and I, in turn, congratulate the Minister on the way in which he has handled the proceedings. He was always open with us in Committee and during the earlier stages. Like any good mariner after a long voyage, I am pleased to see the lighthouse ahead and know that the journey is nearly over—and that we have not had any spillage during the process, accidental or otherwise. Without wishing to introduce a sour note, it is a pity that we have missed another opportunity to slip the Harbours Bill into port as well. It is uncontentious and both sides would have welcomed it. I hope that we will hear from the Minister shortly that the Government intend to schedule a little time for it. That said, it is important that the Bill is passed into law as soon as possible, and I am delighted to hear that that will happen. The crash in the Suez canal just last week involving a Liberian tanker—it was a relatively small affair compared with the incident that the Minister mentioned, but, nevertheless, involved the spillage of 3,000 tonnes of crude oil—emphasises the urgency of the matter. The two treaties ratified by the Bill are the product of many years of careful negotiating. They have been agreed by the International Maritime Organisation and, although one is not compulsory, have the blessing of the international community as a whole. For the international law of the seas properly to work, it is essential that all such treaties are agreed to at as wide an international level as possible and that regions do not splinter off and agree their own rules, as we discussed earlier in relation to the amendments. I was glad to receive the assurances from the Minister. There are some areas in which the Government could have been proactive. We hope that there will be a little action before long on getting the large shipping registers to sign up to the supplementary fund protocol, which is the main subject of the Bill and something on which we spent time in Committee. Conservative Members are pleased that the Government have heeded the calls that we made in Committee and those of environment groups such as the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds for the introduction of marine environmental high-risk areas, which were recommended 13 years ago by Lord Donaldson. It is one thing to use supplementary funds to provide compensation after an oil spill, but it is much better to prevent a spill in the first place, especially in sensitive areas. Redirecting ships away from areas of outstanding beauty or environmental significance is a sensible way of achieving that. I disappointed that the announcement on the MEHRAs made them merely advisory. I hope that the Government intend to consult relevant interested parties and, after a suitable period, find out how well the scheme is working. Given the effort that was put into establishing the areas, it would be a tragedy if they were simply ignored by the ships that were most likely to cause a disaster. Putting those small points aside, I am pleased to support the Bill. The statistics that have been cited throughout our debates need no repeating. Although major oil spills are thankfully very rare, when they do happen they cause untold and often irreversible damage to the environment, wildlife and economy of an affected area. The supplementary fund will of course be used very rarely, but when it is used, it will be needed precisely because the scale of the disaster will be so big. The incorporation of the latest stage of the MARPOL convention into British law will reduce emissions from ships, especially harmful nitrous oxides. That will make what is already the cleanest major form of transportation even cleaner and help the UK to hit its emissions targets. The Government have had the support of the Opposition throughout the Bill’s passage. I commend the Bill to the House, and, once again, urge the Government to find time for consideration of the Harbours Bill.