Previous Section Home Page

Column 567

great deal of planning. The general feeling is that the incentive for that would perhaps be thought to come from the Department or from the marine pollution control unit. There is no such demand and they are quite satisfied that the present arrangements work well. I will comment briefly on the other amendments tabled by my hon. Friend. Amendment No. 5 adds promotion to the concept. There would no point in the Secretary of State's having the functions that he has if they were not automatically promoted as such using existing procedures. Local authority training already provides a ready platform for promotion, and an important part of the MPCU's function is to prepare for marine spills by making contingency plans to deal with oil pollution. I emphasise to my hon. Friend that that is covered by the wording of the existing clause. I understand that these are probing amendments because that has been the nature of the debate ; I merely wish to assure my hon. Friend that I do not think that they are a necessary addition to the spirit of the Bill. Similarly, with regard to amendment No. 6, I do not think that I have heard it mentioned specifically, but it may be clear that the MPCU is already responsible for the preparation and maintenance of the national contingency plan, which was developed by the Government in consultation with all the necessary interested parties, including shipping and local authority interests.

The MPCU sets out the arrangements for dealing with pollution arising from spillages of oil and other hazardous substances from ships into the marine environment. I could outline to the House at length the fundamentals of the plan, but, quite frankly, I do not intend to do so in view of the time. I simply say to my hon. Friend that, as he would expect, it comprehensively deals with all the issues.

My hon. Friend the Member for Swindon said that one must be prepared to anticipate, but when one is dealing with disasters what is likely to happen is not easy to anticipate. That point was also made by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms Walley). Lastly, I will refer to the publication of the annual report. With the establishment of the Coastguard Agency, which incorporates the MPCU and the coastguard, we move on from the past arrangements whereby the MPCU's activities, including key performance indicators, targets and results were published in the annual report of the now-defunct marine emergencies organisation.

Within the Coastguard Agency, we will now publish a business plan, a framework document, a corporate plan and a charter standard statement for the agency so that, in effect, the work of the MPCU is under the spotlight as it has never been before. There will be a more comprehensive look at the work of the unit than was available under the old arrangements. I hope that my hon. Friend will accept that there is no need for a separate annual report.

As any fair and objective observer would agree, the hon. Member for Stoke- on-Trent, North, has been conscientious in pressing many of these matters. My hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris) paid a perfectly handsome and deserved tribute to the work that she has done. However, in my view, the hon. Lady missed the target in her reference to Lord Donaldson. My hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives was right to say that we wanted a thorough report from Lord Donaldson which went wider than merely describing what happened in the incident. Accidents are by definition sui generis-- they never recur in exactly the same way.


Column 568

11.45am

It is important, and the hon. Lady was among those who properly pressed for this, that we looked at some of the ramifications of Braer and some of the issues to which it gave rise in connection with the practice and anticipation of the emergency arrangements. We could then determine whether any future action was required. I merely say--in the interests of time, I will not detain the House--that the timing of the report was, therefore, for Lord Donaldson. The Government applied no pressure to him in terms of bringing forward an early report because to do so would have been massively counter-productive. I was surprised by the hon. Lady's comments. Ms Walley rose

Mr. Norris : I suspect that the hon. Lady may wish to reiterate her earlier point and ask for an assurance that all action will be taken in one Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives said that that was a matter for us to consider after we see what arrangements Lord Donaldson comes up with.

Ms Walley rose

Hon. Members : Give way.

Mr. Norris : Given the urgings from the hon. Lady's gallant hon. Friends who are here massed for the exciting proceedings that are yet to follow, I will of course give way.

Ms Walley : I simply wish to make it clear to House that of course we need a comprehensive inquiry and comprehensive legislation to follow it. I would be the first to agree with that, and I have called for it. The point that I sought to make was that concerns were expressed at the time that the Government should ensure that the inquiry could be as wide as possible, given the important consequences and long-term implications of the Braer disaster. I simply wish to put that straight for the record.

Mr. Norris : In so far as that is a modestly uncontentious statement, I do not have a great deal of difficulty in agreeing with it. I wish to emphasise, because the hon. Lady asked a specific question, that I understand that Lord Donaldson's report will be published in May, as my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives said, although I repeat that that is a matter for Lord Donaldson. When he does so, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will reflect on what he says. Clearly, I cannot anticipate any of the conclusions that my right hon. Friend may reach and I know that the hon. Lady would not expect me to. With that, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham for instigating a useful debate, but I ask him to consider withdrawing the motion.

Mr. Merchant : I will be brief, because I know that the House wishes to consider other business. We have had a thorough debate on the amendments, for which I am grateful. I noted my hon. Friend the Minister's remarks about our self-congratulations being similar to those of the old Soviet Communist party. I am also mindful of the rather permanent fate that awaited those who began to slip into dissension, as there were indications that I was possibly becoming a dissenter. I take the point, but I will take the risk of thanking the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms Walley) for her supportive words.


Column 569

I listened carefully to my hon. Friends the Members for Swindon (Mr. Coombs) and for Southport (Mr. Banks) and I understand the reservations that they expressed. I also felt suitably chided by my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives. I listened carefully to my hon. Friend the Minister and, in his usual persuasive and knowledgeable way, he dealt with the underlying concern that prompted my amendments and the new clause. I am, therefore, happy to leave matters in his hands and I am sure that he and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will in that spirit ensure that the Bill is rigorously enforced when it passes through the House. I am sure that they will bear in mind the various points that I raised and which gave rise to my amendments. I do not in any way wish to cause the Bill to pass through stormy waters at this stage because, as I said, it is an excellent step forward. I do not want to minimise its effect in any way and, for that reason, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion. Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New clause 3

Extension of rights of Fund by subrogation

.--(1) In section 8 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1974 (Acquisition by International Fund of rights of recipients of payments made by the Fund in cases of oil pollution damage)

(a) for subsection (1), there shall be inserted the following subsection

"(1) In respect of any sum paid by the Fund as compensation for pollution damage the Fund shall acquire by subrogation any rights in respect of the damage which the recipient has (or but for the payment would have) against any other person," ; and

(b) subsection (3) shall be omitted.

(2) The amendments made by subsection (1) above apply in relation to payments made by the Fund after this section comes into force.'--[ Ms Walley. ]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Ms Walley : I beg to move, That the clause be now read a Second time.

Madam Deputy Speaker : With this it will be convenient to consider the following amendments : No. 8, in schedule 3, page 16, line 41, at end insert


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1974 c. 43.                 |Merchant Shipping Act 1974.|Section 8(3).'                                         

No. 9, in schedule 3, page 16, line 42, column 3, at beginning insert


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                                  |In Schedule 4, paragraph 21(b).'                                 

Ms Walley : I move the new clause with some pleasure and sincerely hope that it is supported by the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris) and the Minister responsible for shipping.

This morning, we have heard a lot about many different shipping incidents that resulted in improvements in ship safety and prevented similar disasters. We have heard references to the Torrey Canyon disaster. The Bill was introduced by the hon. Member for St. Ives and is not part of the Government's legislative programme. The new clause and amendments were tabled because of the Braer disaster in the Shetlands. Everyone involved thought that no matter what damage was done and the extent to which


Column 570

it could be cleared up--we were relieved that so much of it was cleared up--we should learn from the experience and ensure that necessary changes were made at the first opportunity, including ratification of the IMO conventions.

I should like to think that what we are doing here today is the latest in a long line of improvements. I am thinking especially of a disaster that took place 82 years ago today. While I am speaking, Ball Green primary school in my constituency is holding a remembrance service because so many lives were lost when the Titanic sank on her maiden voyage from Southampton to New York. The fact that those primary school pupils are learning the lessons of that historic disaster makes it even more important for us to learn from history and from what happened in the Braer disaster. For that reason, I am pleased to bring the new clause and amendments to the attention of the House.

The new clause is largely technical and is designed to help the International Oil Pollution Fund to continue to pay compensation quickly to the victims of oil spillages. It removes an inconsistency between the practice of the fund and domestic legislation, by giving the fund the right to recover any compensation that it pays when it is not legally obliged to do so.

It is vital that victims of oil spillages receive compensation as promptly as possible, as it helps to safeguard local communities and jobs from the economic effects of an incident--that is what happened with the communities in the Shetlands. The fund recognises the fact that it is vital and endeavours to minimise delay in the payment of compensation. It does not wait for proof of liability from the shipowner or other parties, which could take months or years. Neither does the fund wait for shipowners or others to pay compensation up to the limit of their liability before it makes payments.

Unfortunately, the fund's commendable policy of paying victims rapidly could, in certain circumstances, give rise to difficulties in recovering the money from liable parties. The new clause would remove that possibility and has arisen as a result of our constructive debate in Committee, when the Government recognised that further improvements could be made to the Bill.

It may be helpful to the House if I explain the legislative background. Compensation for damage caused by oil spills from laden tankers is governed by two international conventions--the 1969 international convention on civil liability for oil pollution damage and the 1971 international convention on the establishment of an international fund for oil pollution damage.

The 1969 convention governs the liability of tanker owners for such damage. The convention lays down the principle of strict liability for tanker owners and imposes a system of compulsory liability insurance. Shipowners are normally entitled to limit their liability. The extent of the limit is linked to the tonnage of the ship. For example, the limit on the liability of an owner of a 50,000 tonne ship is about £6.3 million. After the entry into force of the 1992 protocol to the 1969 liability convention, the limit will be about £20.8 million.

The 1971 convention provides a regime for compensating victims when the compensation available under the 1969 civil liability convention is inadequate.

There are rare circumstances in which the compensation available from shipowners may not be adequate. They are exempt from liability when the damage results from an act of war or a grave natural disaster, when it is wholly caused


Column 571

by sabotage perpetrated by a third party or when it is wholly caused by the failure of authorities to maintain navigational aids. Shipowners may also be unable to meet their financial obligations, although the requirement for compulsory insurance for laden oil tankers should make that unlikely.

The fund is most often called into play when it is clear that the cost of compensation is, or is expected to be, greater than the limit on the shipowner's liability. The precise division of financial responsibility between the fund, the shipowner and any other liable parties may not be clear immediately following an oil spillage. However, victims cannot usually wait for that to be resolved. Compensation for lost income is often needed quickly if further economic hardship is to be avoided. That is the important point and it is why the fund developed the practice of paying compensation before the question of liability had been resolved. That practice was important in compensating salmon farmers in the Shetlands, for example, and we must appreciate its importance.

The wording of the 1971 convention gives the fund the right of subrogation. When the fund compensates victims for oil pollution damage, it obtains the right to reclaim compensation from the shipowner if it is proved that he or she is liable. However, there is some ambiguity about when the right may be exercised. The 1971 convention could be interpreted to mean that the fund can subrogate the rights of claimants only if payment was made after the fund's liability had been established. The new clause makes it clear that the right can be exercised irrespective of when the payment was made.

After the Braer incident, the fund acted very quickly to compensate victims of the resulting pollution. It was under no legal obligation to act so quickly. Fortunately, in that case, it was able to obtain an undertaking from the shipowner, but that may not always be the case.

For that reason, we want to ensure that the safeguards will be available. If we are to ensure that the fund can continue to act in such a way, the ambiguity that I described must be resolved and we now have an opportunity to do so. The new clause will achieve that and reaffirm our commitment to the marine environment and compensation for the victims of oil pollution and I commend it to the House.

Mr. Harris : I warmly welcome the new clause tabled by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North. As she said, she drew our attention to the problem in the Standing Committee and I am glad that she has tabled the new clause to deal with it.

I hope that the House will feel able to adopt the new clause. The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North mentioned the Braer disaster and the workings of the fund in regard to that tragedy. I understand that the fund has paid out no less than £26 million to deal with the consequences of that disaster, and I welcome the hon. Lady's brief words on the subject.

Mr. Norris : I am grateful to the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms Walley) for presenting some useful amendments that will, happily, set right an anomaly in the Bill. I agree entirely with her remarks and it is useful that the Bill should be improved in that way. I commend the new clause to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.


Column 572

Amendment made : No. 4, in clause 6, page 4, line 39, leave out an' and insert any'.

New schedule-- Extension of strict liability for oil pollution by ships --

Part I

Amendments of the 1971 Act--

1. After section 1 of the 1971 Act there shall be inserted the following section

"Liability for oil pollution in case of other ships.

1A.--(1) Where, as a result of any occurrence, any oil is discharged or escapes from a ship other than a ship to which section 1 of this Act applies (that is to say a ship carrying a cargo of persistent oil in bulk), then (except as otherwise provided by this Act) the owner of the ship shall be liable

(a) for any damage caused outside the ship in the area of the United Kingdom by contamination resulting from the discharge or escape ; and

(b) for the cost of any measures reasonably taken after the discharge or escape for the purpose of preventing or minimising any damage so caused in the area of the United Kingdom by contamination resulting from the discharge or escape ; and

(c) for any damage so caused in the area of the United Kingdom by any measures so taken.

(2) Where, as a result of any occurrence, there arises a grave and imminent threat caused outside a ship other than a ship to which section 1 of this Act applies by contamination resulting from a discharge or escape of oil from the ship, then (except as otherwise provided by this Act) the owner of the ship shall be liable (a) for the cost of any measures reasonably taken for the purpose of preventing or minimising any such damage in the area of the United Kingdom ; and

(b) for any damage caused outside the ship in the area of the United Kingdom by any measures so taken ;

and in the subsequent provisions of this Act any such threat is referred to as a relevant threat of contamination.

(3) Where

(a) as a result of any occurrence, a liability is incurred under this section by the owner of each of two or more ships, but (b) the damage or cost for which each of the owners would be liable cannot reasonably be separated from that for which the other or others would be liable,

each of the owners shall be liable, jointly with the other or others for the whole of the damage or cost for which the owners together would be liable under this section.

(4) The Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945 and, in Northern Ireland, the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act (Northern Ireland) 1948 shall apply in relation to any damage or cost for which a person is liable under this section but which is not due to his fault, as if it were due to his fault.

(5) In this section "ship" includes a vessel which is not sea-going."

2. After section 2 of the 1971 Act there shall be inserted the following section

"Exceptions from liability under section 1A.

2A. No liability shall be incurred by the owner of a ship under section 1A of this Act by reason of any discharge or escape of oil from the ship, or by reason of any relevant threat of contamination, if he proves that the discharge or escape, or (as the case may be) the threat of contamination

(a) resulted from an act of war, hostilities, civil war, insurrection or an exceptional, inevitable and irresistible natural phenomenon ; or

(b) was due wholly to anything done or omitted to be done by another person, not being a servant or agent of the owner, with intent to do damage ; or

(c) was due wholly to the negligence or wrongful act of a government or other authority in exercising its function of maintaining lights or other navigational aids for the maintenance of which it was responsible."

3. After section 3 of the 1971 Act there shall be inserted the following section


Column 573

"Restriction of liability for oil pollution.

3A.--(1) Where, as a result of any occurrence

(a) any oil is discharged or escapes from a ship to which section 1A of this Act applies, or

(b) there arises a relevant threat of contamination,

then, whether or not the owner of the ship in question incurs a liability under section 1A of this Act

(i) he shall not be liable otherwise than under that section for any such damage or cost as is mentioned in it, and

(ii) no person to whom this paragraph applies shall be liable for any such damage or cost unless it resulted from anything done or omitted to be done by him either with intent by him to cause any such damage or cost or recklessly and in the knowledge that any such damage or cost would probably result.

(2) Subsection (1)(ii) of this section applies to

(a) any servant or agent of the owner of the ship ;

(b) any person not falling within paragraph (a) above but employed or engaged in any capacity on board the ship or to perform any service for the ship ;

(c) any charterer of the ship (however described and including a bareboat charterer), and any manager or operator of the ship ; (d) any person performing salvage operations with the consent of the owner of the ship or on the instructions of a competent public authority ;

(e) any person taking any such measures as are mentioned in subsection (1)(b) or (2)(a) of section 1A of this Act ;

(f) any servant or agent of a person falling within paragraph (c), (d) or (e) above.

(3) The liability of the owner of a ship under section 1A of this Act for any impairment of the environment shall be taken to be a liability only in respect of

(a) any resulting loss of profits, and

(b) the cost of any reasonable measures of reinstatement actually taken or to be taken."

4. In section 9 (extinguishment of claims), after the words "section 1" there shall be inserted the words "or 1A".

5. In section 15 (liability for cost of preventive measures where section 1 does not apply)

(a) subsection (1) shall be omitted ; and

(b) in subsection (2), for the words "this section" there shall be substituted the words "section 1A of this Act".

Part II

Amendments of the 1971 Act as Amended by the 1988 Act--

1. After Section 1 of the 1971 Act there shall be inserted the following section

"Liability for oil pollution in case of other ships.

1A.--(1) Where, as a result of any occurrence, any oil is discharged or escapes from a ship other than a ship to which section 1 of this Act applies, then (except as otherwise provided by this Act) the owner of the ship shall be liable

(a) for any damage caused outside the ship in the area of the United Kingdom by contamination resulting from the discharge or escape ; and

(b) for the cost of any measures reasonably taken after the discharge or escape for the purpose of preventing or minimising any damage so caused in the area of the United Kingdom by contamination resulting from the discharge or escape ; and

(c) for any damage so caused in the area of the United Kingdom by any measures so taken.

(2) Where, as a result of any occurrence, there arises a grave and imminent threat of damage caused outside a ship other than a ship to which section 1 of this Act applies by contamination resulting from a discharge or escape of oil from the ship, then (except as otherwise provided by this Act) the owner of the ship shall be liable (a) for the cost of any measures reasonably taken for the purpose of preventing or minimising any such damage in the area of the United Kingdom ; and

(b) for any damage caused outside the ship in the area of the United Kingdom by any measures so taken ;

and in the subsequent provisions of this Act any such threat is referred to as a relevant threat of contamination.

(3) Where


Column 574

(a) as a result of any occurrence, a liability is incurred under this section by the owner of each of two or more ships, but (b) the damage or cost for which each of the owners would be liable cannot reasonably be separated from that for which the other or others would be liable,

each of the owners shall be liable, jointly with the other or others, for the whole of the damage or cost for which the owners together would be liable under this section.

(4) The Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945 and, in Northern Ireland, the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act (Northern Ireland) 1948 shall apply in relation to any damage or cost for which a person is liable under this section, but which is not due to his fault, as if it were due to his fault.

(5) In this section "ship" includes a vessel which is not sea-going."

2. In section 2 (exceptions from liability), after the words "section 1" there shall be inserted the words "or 1A".

3. In section 3 (restriction of liability)

(a) in subsection (1)

(i) for the words "to which section 1 of this Act applies" there shall be substituted the words "(whether one to which section 1 of this Act applies or one to which section 1A of this Act applies)" ; and

(ii) after the words "under section 1" there shall be substituted the words "or 1A" ; and

(b) in subsection (2)(e), after the words "section 1" there shall be inserted the words "or 1A".

4. In section 9 (extinguishment of claims), after the words "section 1" there shall be inserted the words "or 1A".

5. In section 15 (liability for cost of preventive measures where section 1 does not apply)

(a) subsections (1), (1A) and (1B) shall be omitted ; and (b) in subsection (2), for the words "this section" there shall be substituted the words "section 1A of this Act",

6. In section 20(1) (definitions), in the definition of "ship", after the word "ship" there shall by inserted the words "(subject to section 1A(5))".'.

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.


Next Section

  Home Page