| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
5.7 pm
Mr. Matthew Taylor (Truro): As the people in Cornwall are all too well aware, oil tanker accidents such as the Braer and the Sea Empress can have a devastating impact on marine wildlife and local economies, whose welfare is intrinsically linked. It is not just accidents: there is clear evidence that much oil enters the sea from deliberate legal and illegal discharges. Harsh experience has taught us that prevention is better than cure. For that reason, the Liberal Democrats broadly welcome the introduction of the Merchant Shipping and Maritime Security Bill.
One of my earliest memories is arriving at the beach at Godrevy, near where my parents live in Cornwall. Instead of holidaymakers and fishermen, the fire brigade and Army were there, clearing thousands of tonnes of oil from the sand and rocks, and dead birds littered the area. The scene was due to the loss of the Torrey Canyon, and I remember the horror of it even now: it was like a depiction of a third world war. I never wanted to see it again. Yet it has recurred around the world, most recently with the Braer and Sea Empress disasters.
That is why I welcome the Bill as an opportunity further to protect our marine environment and to introduce new safeguards aimed at reducing the risk of shipping-related pollution. It promotes the sustainable
development of our coastal communities while seeking to enhance the protection of the environment on which they rely. In the light of that, we wish to see the Bill on the statute book this side of an election. However, we also want the Bill's provisions to be tightened in some respects, for the benefit of the environment.
I should first like to draw the Minister's attention to one of the recommendations in Lord Donaldson's excellent report, "Safer Ships, Cleaner Seas", and subsequently mentioned in the other place both by Lord Beaumont--the Liberal Democrats' spokesperson on environmental matters--and by Lord Clinton-Davis. The recommendation is for the designation of marine environmental high risk areas--or MEHRAs, which have already been mentioned in this debate--which are comparatively limited and highly sensitive areas that are also at risk from shipping. The purpose of designating such areas would be to inform owners, masters, insurers and charterers of key significant areas, and it is expected that simply highlighting the areas could lead to changes in behaviour--for example, by vessels taking a wider berth.
The designation concept has received widespread support among environmental organisations. Sadly, the need for such action has been reinforced by the Sea Empress incident. Although the Donaldson report stated that the European Community and the International Maritime Organisation should be encouraged to act, it considered that individual states were best placed to designate MEHRAs. Therefore, the Donaldson report gives no reason for the UK not to act unilaterally to designate such areas.
The Government have argued that restrictions on the movement of vessels can be made only through the IMO. That is of course true of action in the pollution zone--out to 200 nautical miles--but it is possible for the United Kingdom to introduce restrictions in its own territorial waters without agreement from the organisation. Such routing measures are only one of several different types of ship management measures that could be implemented within such areas to reduce pollution risks. Use of tugs as escorts, contingency planning and navigation aids are other measures that could be deployed.
The Government have, moreover, said that they are not waiting for EU proposals on the designation of marine environmentally sensitive areas to come to fruition, which indicates that Ministers accept that the UK could act unilaterally. Would the identification of MEHRAs by the Government not complement rather than conflict with wider international developments? There is no reason why such areas should not subsequently be proposed as particularly sensitive sea areas--PSSAs--to the IMO.
Rather than succumbing to fears that those areas designated by the UK for environmental protection will be quickly overtaken by international action, as the Government suggest might happen, MEHRAs should be regarded as an opportunity for the UK to take the lead in the designation and protection of such sites and in promoting that concept at the international and European levels.
The Government's Transport Minister in the other place argued that powers already exist for measures to be taken to protect such areas. However, as we have not yet heard from the Department of Transport about measures that
might be under consideration or of the sites that might be identified, the House's reservations on the matter are understandable.
As we are all too well aware, ship routing continues to be reactive rather than proactive. The designation of a MEHRA provides an opportunity for the Government to be one step ahead in protecting our marine wildlife and in safeguarding the livelihoods of our coastal communities. I urge the Minister to consider the Government's position, because he would find it very hard to defend a lack of action if there were an accident in one of those potential designated areas because no action had been taken.
The second matter I should like to mention is the power to intervene in oil pollution incidents. During the Bill's passage, the Government have implemented an interim recommendation made by the marine accident investigation branch in its investigation into the Sea Empress, and I welcome that action. However, I am still concerned that the Secretary of State's power to intervene in such incidents is limited by the definition of an accident; and I refer particularly to the use of the word "imminent" as a condition of intervention. I contend that when damage is "imminent", it may well be too late to intervene.
The Government have defended their wording on the basis that removal of the word "imminent" is outside the definition that has been internationally approved. However, as I understand it, we are not obliged in domestic legislation to follow in precisely the same terms the form used in a convention. It seems pointless to implement an international convention designed to protect the marine environment if by so doing we increase the risk of damage to that environment. Let us ensure the effectiveness of any intervention by the removal of the hurdle presented by the current wording.
The third key issue that I should like to mention is that addressed by clause 5: the planning, provision and use of port waste reception facilities. I feel particularly strongly about that issue because I have seen all too clearly, as I have walked the coast around Cornwall, the problem caused by the lack of sufficient legislation. Although I welcome the Bill's provisions, there is still room to develop further the regulations on the preparation of waste management plans.
Currently, the Government of each party to the international convention for the prevention of pollution from ships of 1973 and its 1978 protocol must undertake themselves to provide, or to require ports to provide, adequate reception facilities for garbage from ships using their ports and terminals. As matters currently stand, it is voluntary for ports to provide waste facilities. I welcome the concept of waste management plans, which, if properly prepared, should lead to facilities that are both adequate and easy to use, and hence cut down on deliberate discharges into the sea--which then go on to litter our coastline. However, I am disappointed that the Bill provides only an enabling power.
I strongly believe that waste management plans must be mandatory to ensure that those ports and harbours that do not voluntarily draw up plans are required to do so.
The Department of Transport itself has acknowledged that
Although some scrutiny--which is a first, welcome step--is provided by a sub-group of the marine pollution action group, it is not an adequate assessment procedure. The Government argue that current developments in the EC and the IMO might require the alteration of any regulations that might be made, but they are again using potential international action as an excuse not to take any action now. Potential international action does not prevent the UK taking a lead and encouraging good practice.
The same principle applies to charging for waste reception facilities. Although recognising the need for some flexibility, Liberal Democrats support Lord Donaldson's recommendation that charges should be
Similarly--although not advocating a universal requirement for mandatory discharge of waste from ships--I believe that it could be beneficial to enable MSA inspectors to use such a power in exceptional circumstances, such as when a vessel that is known to have illegally dumped waste before proposes to leave port with full waste tanks. The effectiveness of such a deterrent was acknowledged by Viscount Goschen in a recent letter to Lord Beaumont, which stated:
Those costs can be considerable. In Cornwall, the county council quotes its expenditure on cleaning non-attributable ship-sourced waste on beaches as at least £20,000 per annum. Moreover, that figure is in addition to expenditure by the six district councils, which spend no less than £30,000 per annum. Even with that level of expenditure, however, many bays are left badly polluted, and an eyesore for both visitors and locals. In practice, unless a beach is regularly used for swimming, it is unlikely that it will receive any attention. However, anyone who enjoys or walks the coastline will see the results of pollution, and, if they come close to it, they will smell the results. We are at present spending literally hundreds of millions of pounds cleaning up the discharges from people who live in Cornwall. They are paying their water bills with considerable discontent, so why should they have to put up with shipowners saving small amounts of money by discharging their waste at sea rather than at port?
While on the issue of illegal discharges, I shall touch briefly on the proposed penalties. The Bill will allow for higher maximum penalties to be imposed by magistrates for illegal discharges of garbage, oily waste and chemical waste. As I understand it, although the Bill allows the maximum fine for illegal discharges of chemicals or oil to be set at £250,000, it is Government policy to use this maximum for oil while restricting the maximum fine for chemicals to only £25,000. In a letter to my colleague Lord Beaumont, the Minister justified this position on the basis that illegal discharges from chemical tankers are rarer than those from oil tankers and that chemical tankers have lower operating costs than oil tankers. However, the pollution consequences can be at least as bad.
In view of the potential for a discharge of chemicals seriously to damage the environment, would not it be appropriate for the Government to consider setting the same maximum fine for chemicals--it is only a maximum and does not necessarily have to be employed--at £250,000? I know of no other criminal activity of which it is believed that its rarity means that the punishment should be less. Surely it is a question of how bad the activity is. After all, we would not argue that burglary should be punished more severely than murder simply because burglary is more common.
Furthermore, I have been advised by the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds that aerial surveillance, as currently carried out by the marine pollution control unit, has a poor record in bringing offenders to justice. This is a key issue if we are to curtail irresponsible and environmentally detrimental behaviour. Is not it therefore appropriate that aerial surveillance be supplemented by waste auditing? This could take the form of checks of ship record books and the issuing of receipts for waste discharged in port. I suggest that the approach to waste auditing proposed by the Department of Transport should be more rigorous and that the Government should promote waste auditing in other North sea states.
"the provision of"--
port reception--
"facilities is haphazard",
and that
"research by the Marine Safety Agency (MSA) has shown that 'where they exist, they can be hard to find and poorly publicised'."
The Department also stated that the
"problems would be addressed by the strict application of a waste management planning process".
Subsequently, some ports and harbours have been voluntarily producing waste management plans, and the MSA has so far received between 100 and 140 such plans; but that is out of a total of 350 ports and harbours in the UK. Another cause for concern is that the MSA does not propose to assess the adequacy of those plans. It is all too easy to implement wholly inadequate plans, and thus undermine the effectiveness of the initiative. Lord Donaldson himself recognised that concern in his report by recommending the establishment of a certification system to ensure the adequacy of waste reception facilities.
"subsumed into standard port duties"
in the form of an inclusive fee. I do not believe that any other option can work effectively. Would it not be advantageous for the Secretary of State to have the power to require ports to use the inclusive fee system, if deemed appropriate, as one measure to reduce the deliberate discharge of waste? We should at least reserve the power to take action if it is shown--as I believe it will be--that other options simply are not working.
"As regards a failure to comply with a requirement to discharge waste, the best deterrent for ship operators is the threat that the ship could be detained in port, and therefore prevented from trading, until the waste has been discharged".
As both the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds and the Marine Conservation Society have argued, such a measure would not deter responsible ship operators from entering UK ports, and I think that they are right. Rather, such a measure is targeted at those whose operations threaten the UK coastline and our waters and add to the costs of those, such as local authorities, who are responsible for cleaning up.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |