| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Dr. Ladyman: I am always impressed by the ingenuity that hon. Members use to secure an opportunity to make a specific point that is completely irrelevant to the business on the Order Paper. The hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) should be proud of the ingenuity that he has shown on this occasion, but I do not think that he seriously believes that the Government would use the Bill to put the European directive on the statute book. I am fairly sure that he knows that we could not, even if we were minded to do so. However, he has taken the opportunity to make some important points about the failings and weaknesses of the directive, and I share his view on those.
I assure the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Rochdale (Paul Rowen) that the Government are wholly committed to the IMO and to having maritime agreements agreed internationally. We made that clear during our presidency of the EU in the last six months of 2005, and we are continuing to do so now, as we assist Austria on maritime issues during its presidency—for obvious reasons, Austria's resources in relation to maritime issues are limited. We have made clear our belief that such agreements should only be agreed internationally.
A few weeks ago, when I attended a ministerial conference in Copenhagen, I found unanimity among the maritime nations of Europe on the necessity of such agreements being not regional, but international. One of the pleasures and honours that I have had in the past 10 months as a Minister has been meeting the Shipping Ministers of pretty much every partner state in the European Union. I have found absolute unanimity on that point—complete agreement that we should not impose restrictions on our European fleet that would make it uncompetitive, that we should seek
7 Mar 2006 : Column 743
international agreement wherever possible, and that only in the most extraordinary circumstances should we impose in the Union an agreement that has not been agreed by the rest of the international maritime sector.
To put our view on the record, the powers in clause 1 are restricted to the implementation of the supplementary fund protocol and the implementation of instruments that revise or replace the civil liability convention, the international oil pollution compensation fund convention, or the supplementary fund protocol. Each of those instruments was adopted through the IMO and it is inconceivable that they would be amended other than through the IMO. There is therefore no need for the suggested definition of an international agreement in amendment No. 1.
Amendment No. 2 would provide that an Order in Council would only make provision in accordance with an international agreement. Combined with amendment No. 1, that would mean an international agreement adopted by the IMO. I hope that I have already made it clear that there is no scope in clause 1 to give effect to anything other than an international agreement and that such agreements will inevitably be adopted by the IMO.
I hope that I have given the hon. Member for Canterbury the specific reassurance that he seeks. More generally, I assure him that I share his concern that the European maritime sector should remain competitive and that maritime issues should be dealt with through the IMO and not unilaterally.
Mr. Brazier: I am happy to beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.38 pm
Dr. Ladyman: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
I thank the House and the Opposition parties for the constructive and helpful way in which they have approached the Bill. It was deliberately made a short and focused Bill to speed its passage through Parliament. The whole House agrees that we urgently need the protection of the legislation. Once it is on the statute book, it will improve greatly the compensation available for oil pollution and give us powers to introduce measures to reduce air pollution from ships.
The international oil pollution compensation fund currently provides up to £168 million of compensation, but, unfortunately, in the case of major incidents such as the Prestige, that amount is not always sufficient. During our consideration of the Bill, the hon. Members for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) and for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr. Goodwill), for example, noted that compensation payments in respect of the Prestige were for a long time limited to just 15 per cent. of the amount claimed. The IOPC funds have now arranged for payments to be increased to about 30 per cent. of the amount claimed, but, unfortunately, there is no more money available and we know that those claims will never be paid in full.
Even when the overall costs of an incident do not exceed the limit of the IOPC fund, full payment of claims has often been delayed until the full extent of the
7 Mar 2006 : Column 744
damage is known and the final costs of an incident can be accurately assessed. Depending on the incident, that process could take months or even years. We experienced such delays following both the Braer and the Sea Empress incidents. With the Bill, I hope that we will not have to face such a situation again.
In Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Great Yarmouth (Mr. Wright) drew our attention to an incident that occurred some years ago. The Eleni V ran aground in May 1978, spilling 5,000 tonnes of persistent oil, which affected shellfish areas and recreational beaches. I understand that the local authorities incurred considerable costs in responding to the incident and payment of compensation was delayed for three or four years. The IOPC fund entered into force five months after the incident. Had it been in force, I suspect that those claims would have been settled much more quickly. That incident demonstrates the importance of implementing such instruments as quickly as practicable. A delay of months, or just weeks, can have serious consequences, so I am grateful for the support and co-operation that we have received from both sides of the House as the Bill has progressed.
The Government intend to accede to the protocol as soon as possible. We have drafted the Order in Council that will be used to implement the supplementary fund protocol under clause 1. An advanced draft of the Order in Council was sent to all Members who attended Second Reading. Copies were also placed in the Library. The draft order is now undergoing final checks, which will be completed in the very near future so that the order is ready by the time that the Bill receives Royal Assent. I repeat my grateful thanks to the House for its co-operation and commend the Bill's Third Reading to the House.
4.42 pm
Mr. Brazier: 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
7 Mar 2006 : Column 745
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.
4.47 pm
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |