| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, perhaps my noble friend will allow me to intervene. I did not make that comment. I quoted a remark made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I stand corrected. With two such notable neighbours on the Privy Council Benches, it is important for me not to confuse their remarks by attributing one to the other. No doubt my noble friend endorsed the remark. Suffice it to say that the Bill examines a wide variety of areas of shipping policy all addressed to producing a safer and more pollution-free environment.
The first point is that shipping is an important business in the United Kingdom. We are an island nation and, as we heard, 95 per cent. or thereabouts of our goods arrive and depart by sea. It is therefore of key economic importance to the competitiveness of industry to have and be served by a strong shipping sector.
There was little in the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, with which I disagree, but we must be careful about talking down the shipping industry in the United Kingdom. It has proved itself to be highly competitive. We are world leaders in a number of sectors. We should consider the container sector, the crew sector, the ferry sector; and there is a wide variety of expertise in high-tech shipping in the ports industry here. We do very well. Of course, we recognise changing world circumstances and the tendency towards flagging out, but that does not alter the fact that a great deal of effort is put in by the United Kingdom shipping
industry, which is often represented by the Chamber of Shipping, promoting the industry and recognising its ability to compete.As was pointed out by the noble Lords, Lord Murray of Epping Forest and Lord Clinton-Davis, there are a number of unfair subsidies faced by British shipping. To go into the wider arena, one area of our policy must be that in our response to Commission documents when we are discussing shipping in Europe we must stand firm against unfair state subsidies.
The other area in which there can be significant unfairness--and one searches for an expression other than "level playing field", but I believe we understand what that means in the circumstances--is over sub-standard shipping. That is why the Government put so much effort into port state control and working within the International Maritime Organization to attempt to level the unfair advantage. First, there are the safety and anti-pollution benefits; and, secondly, there is the competitive angle.
At the beginning of my remarks I wish to endorse what was said by my noble friend Lord Caithness: one cannot legislate against accidents. But we all realise that we must put into place the best framework that we can to try to prevent accidents and pollution where possible. However, I certainly endorse what my noble friend said about the impossibility of legislating against accidents.
To conclude my introduction to the wider issues of shipping, which were dwelt on at length by the noble Lords, Lord Clinton-Davis and Lord Murray, we do not believe in following some of our European neighbours into an ever-spiralling level of state subsidies. We believe we should keep up the pressure on sub-standard shipping through port state control, by putting funding into training and by raising the number of cadets coming into the industry. The schemes that we have had--the Government's assistance for training schemes and the development of the certificated seafarers scheme--have been a great success. That targeting has produced benefits in terms of the number of cadets coming into the industry from the low point in the mid-1980s. We have also sought to deregulate and remove any reasons that shipowners might have to flag out, but keeping our tight safety regime.
The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, asked about the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. The Government consider that the long-term interests of the UK will be best served by accession to the United Nations' convention. The timing of our accession remains under review. A number of uncertainties with regard to fisheries and related issues mean that now is not an appropriate time to accede.
The pollution exclusion zone was established by order earlier this year. It affords us the means to provide full protection within the zone. That was one of the noble Lord's associated points. The international convention and the Law of the Sea Convention both confirm the right of coastal states to take measures beyond the territorial sea following a shipping casualty to protect the coastline from a serious threat of pollution. In those circumstances, therefore, a temporary exclusion zone established under the power provided by Clause 1 would
be binding on all ships, UK or foreign. In all other cases, an exclusion zone beyond territorial waters would be binding on UK ships only.The provisions of the Bill and UK powers are not affected by the fact that the UK is not yet a party to the Law of the Sea Convention. The terms of the convention are widely regarded as customary and international law.
The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, and a number of other noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, questioned the name of the klondykers. It just appears to have happened. Presumably there is something of a gold rush fever about heading for transhipment licences. In that connection, the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, asked why insurance is not a prescribed requirement for holding a licence. Clause 11 provides for transhipment activities to be suspended if insurance requirements are not met. I hope that that will meet his point.
When Clause 15 is enacted, we shall first look at its application to klondykers. Certainly, there have been considerable problems with uninsured klondykers, including a number of the vessels in the area around the Shetland Islands, to which the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, alluded.
The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, asked why Recommendation 102 on the definition of a port had not been implemented. The purpose of the recommendation was to enable detention in a port but the Bill goes wider. The amendments made in Schedule 1, in particular to Sections 95 and 284 of the Merchant Shipping Act, allow detention anywhere in our territorial waters. By that means the Bill goes considerably beyond what was recommended.
The noble Lord, Lord Perry, talked at some length about port state control, which we clearly believe is a very important factor in our ability to control substandard shipping. He felt that there was a tendency to target good ships. That is not the case. Of course we shall still inspect some good ships, but the clear emphasis must be on seeking out those which are substandard. Our inspectors are required to make professional judgments and commercial matters would not enter into their decisions on the actions that must be taken when they find a substandard ship. So the policy is to target vessels and that means making the best use of the port state control resources at our disposal.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, mentioned a number of points with regard to the intervention powers. As we heard, under Section 137 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1995 the Secretary of State has overriding authority to direct operations following a shipping casualty if it is necessary to minimise pollution. The powers of the Secretary of State in relation to marine pollution are exercised by the marine pollution control unit of the Coastguard Agency. As stated in the national contingency plan, the MPCU's normal approach to a marine emergency is to consult the owner, master, salvor and insurer of the ship in order to agree the course of action to be pursued. In most cases there will not be cause to use the Secretary of State's statutory powers of intervention; but, rather like the office boy and the boss, to which the noble and
learned Lord alluded, they are there as a powerful reserve. We must also take into consideration the speed at which consultation can take place and so forth. Nonetheless, the intervention powers are there. They are extremely powerful.I listened carefully to what the noble and learned Lord said about what he considered to be two omissions from the ability of the Secretary of State to direct. As we heard, the Dangerous Vessels Act 1985 gives harbour masters the power to exclude dangerous vessels. However, the Secretary of State can countermand the direction of the harbour master if he considers that it is necessary to provide a ship with a safe haven. Intervention powers can also be used to override a harbour master's power if the Secretary of State considers that it is necessary to prevent pollution. Nonetheless, I shall certainly consider very carefully the noble and learned Lord's suggestion that even with those powers there is a gap. We shall consider between now and another stage whether there is a gap and whether it can be plugged. I welcome that suggestion from the noble and learned Lord.
Much the same is true about the question of cargo interests. The noble and learned Lord made a proposal to the effect that the Secretary of State's intervention powers should be extended to enable directions to be given to cargo interests. That met with considerable interest around the House. I certainly agree that it needs to be given further thought, just with the proviso that we need to guard against any possible conflict between the proposed power and current international law. But, again, it is certainly worth considering.
On the subject of insurance, the noble and learned Lord evinced concern that if Clause 15 were enacted as currently drafted, shipowners could have insurance documentation with no substantive backing--just a paper policy with nothing behind it. The intention behind Clause 15 is to enable the Secretary of State to specify the types of insurance or other security that would be acceptable. But we shall look to see how we could provide for effective--I stress that word--insurance, addressing the point about dubious contracts, without trying to do the impossible, which would be to try to become the world's policeman on the matter. That clearly is not something we could do. But, again, we shall consider the problem very carefully.
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page