| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: I would like to echo the assurances of the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, that the Opposition parties, in tabling some amendments to the Bill--a large number of amendments in fact--desire only to strengthen the Bill and to back it and not in any way to hinder it or to harm it.
The question of marine environmental high risk areas is a slightly complicated one because of the difficulties between the national and international jurisdictions. However, at this stage I would like to hear what the Minister has to say, so that we can, if necessary, take what he says on board and see what we have to say in reply in support of these amendments.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport (Viscount Goschen): I would certainly like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, for the spirit in which this amendment was introduced. I entirely understand that his intention, and that of other noble Lords, is during this special Committee stage to probe the assumptions which lie behind the Government's thinking on the Bill.
The issue that the noble Lord has raised is one of considerable importance and the main issues were identified by the two noble Lords who have spoken. Perhaps I could give the Government's thinking on the issue of marine environmental high risk areas.
As we know, these MEHRAs, for short, were proposed in the excellent report, of which we have heard a great deal, from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson. He recommended, as we know, the identification of a number of areas around the coast where high environmental sensitivity coincided with a significant risk from shipping. In his view, such areas should constitute no more than 10 per cent. of UK waters, and their purpose should be to inform mariners of key areas of particular risk and environmental sensitivity.
We certainly agree that there are areas around our coast where ships should take extra care. We have already put in place a number of mandatory routeing measures agreed through the International Maritime
Organization and indeed a number of voluntary measures agreed with the shipping industry following the loss of the "Braer".Originally, those mandatory routeing measures were based solely on safety considerations. However, a recent amendment to the SOLAS Convention allows the introduction of such measures for environmental reasons. The important consideration is that, if we wish to place restrictions on the movement of vessels, we can only do so through the IMO. It is essential that we respect the right of innocent passage or transit passage. We already have the necessary statutory powers to apply and enforce IMO adopted routeing measures. That is one of the key points in considering the amendment--that we already have that power.
Work is taking place on developing the criteria that will allow us to take forward the proposals of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, in some locations as an advisory measure and in others perhaps as mandatory restrictions. We have also examined the effectiveness of many of the existing routeing measures around our coast, particularly through radar surveys. I will say a word or two about that in a moment to indicate how the present arrangements are working.
The work of developing the criteria takes two forms. The first involves consideration of the environmental importance and sensitivity of areas around our coasts. This is being undertaken in consultation with our statutory advisers and with other interested bodies, including the RSPB. This work also involves assessment of the implications of key European directives and of work within the EU on defining environmentally sensitive areas. The work is continuing, but final agreement on the environmental criteria is still some way off.
The second area of work relates to improving our knowledge of shipping movements and the risk from such movements around our coast. Working with the industries involved--the shipping industry, the ports and offshore industries--we built up a clear picture of the extensive pattern of shipping routes around the coast. Where possible, this information has been augmented by local radar surveys, which we feel have been an important tool in ascertaining the degree to which the areas are respected.
Our initial view is that the majority of the potential conflict areas around the coast where there is existing extensive shipping traffic have already been identified and appropriate IMO routeing measures are already in place. For example, IMO routeing measures apply round the Scilly Isles and there is an area to be avoided around the Smalls off the South Wales coast, both areas identified by the noble and learned Lord as potential MEHRAs. Our recent radar surveys show a high level of compliance with these measures and clearly demonstrate the success of such IMO measures, which, although originally adopted for primarily safety reasons, also serve to protect the local environment. We now need to consider locations where there may be low levels of shipping movement but a high level of sensitivity.
The important point that I am seeking to make in response to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, is, on the one hand, the degree to which we feel the existing areas are being respected and, on the other hand, the conditions with regard to our existing statutory powers. We need no such power to advise mariners of the sensitive nature of particular stretches of coastline or of particular sea areas. However, if we wish to restrict movements off such coastlines or through such sea areas, we will need to consider the question of interference with rights of innocent passage and refer the matter to the IMO.
There are a number of other provisions to which the amendment refers. Essentially, I have sought to give the background to the Government's thinking behind such areas. We share the noble Lord's intent but we consider that the proposed amendment is premature and likely to raise conflicts with international law. As a coastal state we cannot take many of the measures he envisages without prior international agreement. We believe the approach we are adopting will in time yield the results that we all desire.
I hope that gives the background to the Government's thinking on this issue. It is for that reason that I feel it would not be appropriate to accept the amendment. Nonetheless, it has given us a good opportunity to test the areas of assumption surrounding marine environmental high risk areas.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Clinton-Davis: I do not know whether any other noble Lords wish to speak on this matter but I think not. I thank the Minister for that response which is helpful but perhaps I can probe just a little further. He spoke about action being taken in the IMO and in the European Union. Could he give the Committee some indication of the response that has been elicited to the initiative that has been promulgated by the Government in this connection? There is also a commitment, as I understand it, to public consultation in this matter, something which was requested in the Donaldson report, and maybe the Minister would give us some idea of how and with whom you go about consulting on questions of the establishment of MEHRAs as far as the British public is concerned.
The very important issue was raised in paragraph 14.131 of the report about the risk of head-on collisions between vessels proceeding in different directions at different distances off headlands which specify ships going in different directions, and one might have the problems of ships' paths crossing, thereby creating an even greater risk than if one did not, in fact, proceed in the way that we all support. The Minister should answer that point.
As far as the progress that the Minister is making is concerned, is he able to establish at this stage any sort of timetable for the discussions and action to be taken within the IMO and within the European Union? Has the Commission given its support for the concept and for the Government's ideas in this connection? If not, what are the problems as far as he can see? Certainly, receiving the support of DG VII in this context would
be extremely useful, but there are other member states to be considered as well. Is the Minister able to give us any indication of the results so far of discussions which he may have had with other member states of the European Union which would be directly affected by this idea?
Viscount Goschen: There are a number of additional points which the noble Lord raised. First, as he mentioned, we have had discussions in the IMO and in the European Union with regard to these areas. There has been a positive reaction within the IMO. There is an understanding of the need to get measures adopted by the IMO so that one would not be in breach of the international law in this area.
With regard to the European issues, marine environmentally sensitive areas is the name for the particular type of area under discussion within the EU. The proposals for this type of area are not yet clear and, despite the announcement in March that the Commission would be urgently seeking information from member states to enable designation of these areas, no such request has been received by the UK. We are not delaying consideration of MEHRAs until such time as EC proposals are clearer. We are already considering, together with the statutory environmental advisers and other interested groups, the development of possible criteria for the establishment of MEHRAs.
The noble Lord asked about consultation. As I suggested at that time, not only the statutory advisers, but the shipping industry, the ports and the offshore industries will clearly have to be other parties, and they have been involved in building up the picture of movements around the coast.
The noble Lord also asked about having a specified limit offshore and about vessels meeting each other head on. Clearly such a situation would be intolerable and if we felt that there was a risk of that happening or if the special circumstances we have set up would make the problem worse, a solution would have to be devised. One thinks of a slightly different situation where vessels are under more stringent control. Under the Channel navigation information system there is a routeing arrangement depending on which side of the road you drive, as it where, to ensure that vessels do not collide head-on.
This area of policy, covering areas to be avoided or mandatory routeing measures, is a key one. We have given the proposals which were put forward by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, considerable attention. That is reflected by the international negotiations that we have had with regard to these areas.
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page