---

Lord Clinton-Davis: I apologise to the Committee for raising a slightly separate issue at this stage, but I wanted to deal with MEHRAs directly and I want to come now to something which is connected with them, but where, in some instances, the Government are in a position to take action without international agreement.

When we are talking about seeking to mitigate damage through oil pollution, we are also considering questions of enhancing the efficacy of navigational aids, a critically important matter in this context. Then there

25 Nov 1996 : Column CWH7

is the question of the provision of tug escorts for laden tankers when entering a terminal inside a MEHRA. Perhaps the Minister would like to say something about those two issues.

Connected with that last point is the issue of the provision of emergency tugs for salvage on stand-by. This is an issue which came into sharp focus in the "Sea Empress" case and Ministers are awaiting the final report on that matter. Clearly there is a need to be able to reassure the Committee about the provision of emergency tugs in that context because this should not have to await a final report which could take a very long time.

The fourth point I would make is in connection with ship reporting requirements. These are matters on which I hope the Minister would wish to address the Committee, although they are not strictly identified with the issue that we are discussing, which is, of course, very much part and parcel of the thinking behind the MEHRAs as well.

As far as I understand it, the Government would not require international agreement in advance for the question of dealing with improved navigational aids, tug escorts or emergency tugs for salvage. Perhaps the Minister would like to comment on those points.

Viscount Goschen: Again the noble Lord has raised a number of important issues. I believe the noble Lord mentioned transponders--

Lord Clinton-Davis: I did not actually use that word.

Viscount Goshen: Perhaps it was at an earlier stage in his remarks because I distinctly recall that word being used although perhaps not in the most recent intervention. Ship identification is clearly one of the major issues when one talks about enforcement and getting the maximum safety benefits. We strongly support the mandatory installation of transponders on vessels. We have been pushing for that on an international basis within IMO very strongly. A trial is already taking place involving a number of vessels carrying transponders and that will produce considerable results.

With regard to tugs, this was indeed an area which came into the spotlight following the "Sea Empress" incident. I shall not be discussing the precise circumstances of that at this stage because, as the noble Lord mentioned, we are awaiting the report from the Marine Accident Investigation Branch. On the wider issue, there is certainly a place for tugs as an effective supplement to those that are already available, when the Government themselves take action.

Noble Lords will know we are now in the third year of the tug trial. For two years we have had two tugs in the winter months, one in Dover and one in the north of Scotland, and they have proved very valuable. That has provided a great deal of information on their use. They are an expensive approach and we have to make sure that the Government's money is spent in the best way possible and that we gain maximum value. In the third year of this trial there is also a tug in the south-west

25 Nov 1996 : Column CWH8

approaches. Again, we shall continue to examine the work that these vessels are put to, the efficiency with which they work, and the efficacy of their operation.

The third point the noble Lord raised was about reporting systems. We are in discussion with the French on a reporting system in the Dover Strait. Other voluntary reporting systems are in place, and whether they should be made mandatory will be considered in each location.

The important point that comes out of a lot of our discussions this afternoon is the question of identification. Apart from anything else transponders--again identified by the noble and learned Lord--are very important and we want to improve the identification of vessels.

Lord Clinton-Davis: I thank the Minister for those very helpful responses to the points which I made. I am very interested in the Dover Strait separation scheme because I was responsible, as the Minister at least, for the introduction of that scheme. We would like to consider what the Minister has said in rather more detail, but in thanking him, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 2 [Powers of intervention where shipping accident threatens pollution]:

4 p.m.

Lord Clinton-Davis moved Amendment No. 3:

Page 3, line 38, after ("waters),") insert--
("(a) in subsection (1)(a) for "an accident has occurred to or in a ship" there is substituted "a vessel is wrecked, damaged or in distress", and
(b)").

The noble Lord said: I beg to move the amendment standing in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley. The reason for our seeking to introduce this amendment, or discuss it at least, is that Clause 2 extends the powers of intervention which were operable under Section 137 of the 1995 Act in cases in which,

"oil from the ship will or may cause pollution on a large scale in the United Kingdom or in United Kingdom waters",

to cases in which oil from a ship will or may cause significant pollution in the UK, UK waters or a part of the sea specified by virtue of Section 129(2)(b).

A number of points were raised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, on Second Reading which need to be addressed. The first point was the extent of the jurisdiction. I agree with him that this should be to the maximum permitted by international law. The second was the definition of the triggering circumstances--that is to say where,

"an accident has occurred to or in a ship".

Is that sufficient? Are the triggering circumstances sufficient?

The question I want to add to that, which the noble and learned Lord asked, is this: is it enough to limit the jurisdiction to where

"an accident has occurred to or in a ship"?

25 Nov 1996 : Column CWH9

Would that cover the situation where a ship is incapacitated due to some malfunctioning of equipment or is in a dangerous navigational situation? The definition does not follow either that adopted for Clause 1 or those used in the international instruments, so perhaps the Minister can elucidate on that point.

The second question relates to the words "maritime casualty". That is the trigger that is used in Article 221 of UNCLOS and the 1969 convention, and is defined as:

"A collision of vessels stranding, or other incident of navigation, or other occurrence on board a vessel or external to it, resulting in material damage or imminent threat of material damage to a vessel or cargo".

Clearly, the intention must be to cover all situations which constitute a sufficient danger if action is not taken. Is the Minister satisfied that that is adequately covered? I beg to move.

Viscount Goschen: The amendment that the noble Lord has put forward specifies and attempts to address or change the circumstances in which the Secretary of State's powers of intervention may be used. The whole issue surrounding the powers of intervention was raised by a number of noble Lords at Second Reading and by the noble and learned Lord, who had concerns about the breadth of the intervention powers and about whether they went far enough, and about whether the Secretary of State had all the powers that he needed at his disposal.

At that stage, I said that we would take the noble and learned Lord's suggestion carefully and that we would go back and examine it. That is indeed what has happened.

One change since we last met to discuss the Bill at Second Reading has been the production of some interim recommendations from the Marine Accident Investigation Branch. I have written to all noble Lords who participated in that debate to draw those recommendations to their attention. Perhaps I may quickly say what they were. It is not necessary at this stage to take that any further, but one of them is relevant to the noble and learned Lord's concerns.

The specific recommendations relate, first, to the statutory status of the national contingency plan; secondly, to the power to give directions to harbour authorities, harbour masters and pilots under Section 137 of the Merchant Shipping Act in regard to vessels which pose, or are, a pollution threat; thirdly, to the need to review the Marine Pollution Control Unit's powers or capability to charter equipment, including vessels and aircraft, quickly in the event of a pollution incident.

The specific effect of the noble Lord's amendment is to address the circumstances where intervention can take place. Currently, the Act allows the powers to be used when,

"an accident has occurred to or in a ship".

The noble Lord's amendment would instead allow the powers to be used when a vessel is wrecked, damaged or in distress. I believe that the intention behind the noble Lord's amendment is already in part included in the 1995 Act. Section 137(9) provides a definition of the term "accident" and this is the key point. It defines

25 Nov 1996 : Column CWH10

"accident" as including the loss, stranding, abandonment of, or damage to, a ship. We would certainly consider that this definition of "accident" would probably include all the circumstances given in this amendment. I will, however, undertake to consider whether the powers are fully adequate for ships which are in distress, and we will look at the detail of that to see if there are any loopholes.

One final point is that the definition of when the intervention powers can be used will, in any event, need to be carefully worded in order to be consistent with international law. In particular, it will need to be consistent with the Law of the Sea and the International Convention 1969. With the undertaking that we will look at this further to see whether there is any outstanding loophole, I hope that the noble Lord will welcome what I have said and that we might return to this issue at a later stage.

---