| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, I too join with the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, in thanking the Minister for his consideration in advising us on progress from time to time during the Recess and for his willingness to listen.
With regard to this amendment, in Committee the Minister said:
- "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."--[Official Report, 25/11/96; col. CWH6.]
Obviously, the matter must eventually go to the IMO for identification and endorsement in particularly sensitive sea areas, but as a matter of urgency the UK must identify MEHRAs and introduce measures to safeguard their future. I have pleasure in supporting the amendment.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport (Viscount Goschen): My Lords, I thank the two noble Lords who have spoken on this amendment for their kind words relating to the handling of this Bill. As has been said on many occasions, not least on Second Reading and again in Committee, the Bill has received widespread support around the House and, indeed, outside it. That has enabled us to take forward our considerations in a very constructive manner indeed.
The amendment proposes to give powers to the Secretary of State to designate marine environmental high risk areas--MEHRAs. In the course of my remarks I hope that I shall give considerable support to the thinking behind the aims of the amendment although I have some specific difficulties with it. They are much the same as those to which I alluded in Committee but perhaps for the convenience of the House, I should give the reasons why I am not able to accept this amendment.
There are three principal reasons why the Government cannot support this amendment. First, we already have powers to implement the definition of MEHRAs which was proposed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, in his excellent report of which we have heard a great deal. Secondly, this amendment, which appears to go beyond the proposal made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, is partly inconsistent with international law. That is a point which
the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, made and perhaps I may touch on that later in my remarks. Thirdly, it is premature as work on new measures to protect environmentally sensitive areas is being carried forward by the International Maritime Organisation and the European Commission.The Government have considerable sympathy with the principle behind the noble and learned Lord's proposal for MEHRAs. In the Government's response to his report, we accepted that there are areas of the UK coast where mariners need to operate with extreme care and vigilance for the sake of the marine environment. MEHRAs are one mechanism which could be used to bring these areas to the attention of masters and crew.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, proposed that in the first instance MEHRAs should be protected by giving masters non-statutory guidance about their existence. That can be achieved without legislation. If that non-statutory approach did not lead to a change in behaviour, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, recommended that consideration should be given to a number of different routeing measures. Each of these measures can be implemented using existing powers, although the agreement at the International Maritime Organisation may be needed for specific mandatory measures. I believe that that is really the key to the issue which the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, highlighted in his remarks. If a MEHRA were simply to advise mariners there would be no need to refer to the IMO. However, as well as a mandatory routeing measure, it may be necessary to achieve agreement if the restriction applied as a condition to entry into a particular port. However, any restriction of right of innocent passage in territorial waters or in adjacent high seas must be adopted by the IMO.
The IMO also endorsed the voluntary routeing measures for laden oil tankers through the Fair Isle channel, which were agreed with the Chamber of Shipping following the "Braer" incident. Radar surveys show that, with the IMO endorsement, there is a high degree of compliance with these voluntary routeing measures.
I must emphasise that progress is being made on MEHRAs. We are currently taking action to make use of the powers that are available to us. In consultation with the Department of the Environment and the Joint Nature Conservancy Councils, we are developing criteria for the designation of environmentally sensitive areas around the UK coast. We are also developing the Seaway Code which will give important information to mariners. This was another proposal made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson. The Seaway Code could include information relating to MEHRAs.
The definition of a MEHRA in the noble Lord's amendment does appear to go further than the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, recommended. It allows a wide discretion for measures which may be taken to protect an area. We already have some powers to protect specific areas; for example by tightening the regulations on what can be discharged or, in some circumstances, banning certain discharges altogether.
We are, for instance, seeking international agreement to have the seas around the UK declared a special area for the purposes of discharges of oil from ships. That would effectively ban all oil discharges from all but the smallest of ships. Should that proposal be accepted by the IMO, we already have legislative power to implement it.
In my introduction I said that elements of the proposal were inconsistent with international law. The amendment would give wide powers to take measures within the territorial sea and the United Kingdom's pollution zone. However, under the law of the sea, measures may only be taken in the pollution zone which are consistent with existing international law or which have been agreed by the International Maritime Organisation. It would not be sufficient simply to inform the IMO, as envisaged by the amendment.
I also said that the amendment was premature. There is growing international awareness on the need to protect individual sea areas. The IMO is developing a range of measures to protect sensitive areas. It already has a designation of particularly sensitive sea areas, or PSSAs. The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, was concerned about the number of acronyms around the subject; and, indeed, there is another for him to deal with. The European Commission has undertaken to develop a similar concept called marine environmentally sensitive areas, or MESAs, to which I believe the noble Lord also referred. In his report, the noble and learned Lord highlighted the confusion that would be caused if too many different areas were identified. Clearly, given the international nature of shipping and ship routeing, any measures that we introduce should be consistent with the other work being undertaken internationally. We must also guard against taking steps which may be quickly overtaken by other measures taken either by the IMO or in Europe.
To summarise, we already have considerable powers to provide protection to environmentally sensitive areas. Those powers are being used, and will continue to be used, to safeguard our coastline. I should stress that we are developing the concept of MEHRAs, which can be implemented within our existing powers. Where we do not have powers, we are constrained by international law on what can be done unilaterally. We are taking full part in international debate on measures which could be introduced. Until those measures are developed, further legislative provisions would, I suggest, be premature.
I seek the indulgence of the House for having given a somewhat long and detailed explanation of our policy with regard to MEHRAs. However, I believe it most important that the matter should be put into context. For that reason, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
4 p.m.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, the Minister has no cause to apologise to the House for the lengthy explanation that he has given; indeed, he has provided us with a good deal of useful information. We support the progress that has been made thus far. However, I am a little troubled about the delay in identifying the
environmental criteria. When we debated the matter on the last occasion, I believe that the Minister said that agreement on those criteria was still some way off. With the leave of the House, perhaps he could reflect on that point before he concludes. Can he tell us how far from agreement the Government are as regards the environmental criteria? What stage have the present consultations reached in that respect? In other words, are they near to fruition; if not, when is that point likely to be reached?I turn now to my understanding of the identification of MEHRAs. The Minister was absolutely right to refer to the PSSAs--the identification of particularly sensitive sea areas--where the IMO agreed the relevant criteria as long ago as 1991. They were needed for recognised ecological, sociological or scientific reasons and because such sites were very vulnerable to maritime activities. But under the IMO definition, such criteria can also be used by national administrations to identify sensitive areas within their territorial waters. I believe that the Minister accedes to that point, but he is also saying that a voluntary approach should be applied initially. I am not against that. However, I should like to know what sort of period the Minister would regard as an appropriate testing time to show the efficacy of a voluntary system?
We know that accidents at sea last year were particularly serious. Consequently, I do not want to be in a position of blaming anyone--whether it be this Minister, a Labour Minister or, indeed, myself--for a situation which may occur because we have not accelerated the need to give consideration to such issues. However, I concede that the Minister is probably right at this point in saying that it would be better to try out a voluntary system. Subject only to the point that I raised regarding the consultation process, I propose in due course to withdraw the amendment.
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page