| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should like to thank the noble Lord for the approach that he has taken to his amendment. I believe that we are at one as regards the need, first, to have proper information available to masters and, secondly, to ensure that those areas about which we are particularly concerned are followed through properly in that respect. That was the reason why we decided to have the comprehensive radar surveys. We wanted to see how well the voluntary measures which are in place at present were being observed. I am happy to say that they have been observed rather more diligently than perhaps was at first thought.
I turn now to the timing. Although it is an on-going matter, I believe that it is one of some urgency. It is important for government to undertake their consultations quickly. I understand that meetings will be taking place within the next few weeks between officials from my department and from other government departments, together with representatives of outside interested bodies. Therefore, there is progress. I hope that in a very few months we shall see more progress.
Indeed, if there is more progress to report, I shall of course be happy to come back to the House and inform your Lordships accordingly.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 2 [Powers of intervention where shipping accident threatens pollution]:
Viscount Goschen moved Amendment No. 2:
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, in moving the amendment it may be for the convenience of the House if I speak also to Amendments Nos. 3, 7, 51 and 55, together with Amendments Nos. 4, 5, 6 and 8 tabled in the name of noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis. We now have before us a large group of amendments but they are closely related. They are some of the most important that we shall consider during today's deliberations.
Amendments Nos. 2, 3 and 7 would further widen the intervention powers conferred by Section 137 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1995. They provide for the implementation of one of the interim recommendations made by the Marine Accident Investigation Branch as regards the grounding and salvage of the "Sea Empress". They will also make a further change to Section 137 to ensure that the use of the powers is not unduly circumscribed.
Section 137 of the 1995 Act gives the Secretary of State power to give directions and to take other action where there is a threat of pollution following a maritime casualty. Currently, directions may be given to the owner, master or salvor of a ship. The MAIB has recommended that this power be widened to allow directions to be given to harbour authorities, harbour masters and pilots. We have consulted interested parties. The MAIB's proposals have met with considerable support. The amendments, therefore, provide for such implementation.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, also earlier recommended such a widening of the intervention powers. In addition, he proposed extending the powers of direction to cargo owners. However, the consultation exercise showed little support for a power to direct cargo owners or other cargo interests. We are discussing a complex and difficult matter. I should like to tell the House that we have not ruled out future action in the area, if it should prove desirable and practicable after a longer examination. I believe however that it would be premature to make any amendment to the intervention powers in that regard at this stage.
I should like to stress that these new powers will not alter our preference to work through co-operation rather than coercion. As set out in the national contingency plan, it is our normal practice to seek to agree the course of action to be pursued with all affected parties. Only in cases of extreme urgency would we give a direction which went further than this without prior consultation. Our intention is that, in general, we would use the powers to require salvage plans to be submitted for
In addition to implementing the MAIB recommendation, Government Amendment No. 7 makes a further change to the intervention powers. In Committee, the noble Lords, Lord Clinton-Davis and Lord Beaumont of Whitley, raised the issue of the circumstances in which the powers can be exercised. I undertook to check that the current drafting of Section 137 does not leave any loopholes, taking account of the provisions of international law.
We have concluded that the best means of avoiding loopholes is to adopt the language used in the 1969 Intervention Convention and in the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. This would ensure that the powers conferred by the 1995 Act are as wide as they can be without contravening the provisions of international law. In particular, it would ensure that the powers can be used in respect of a ship which, for whatever reason, is drifting without power. I know that was one of the concerns of the Committee.
The noble Lords, Lord Clinton-Davis and Lord Berkeley, have tabled Amendment No. 8 which has much the same intention as Amendment No. 7. However, for the reasons I have given, I prefer the wording in the Government amendment. I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment as I believe the Government amendment achieves much the same aim.
Amendment No. 5 seeks to implement the MAIB's recommendation. However, it is less precise than that tabled by the Government. For example, it provides no definition of the term "pilot". I trust that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw that amendment.
I now turn to the national contingency plan. There is some overlap between the Government's Amendment No. 51 and Amendment No. 4 which stands in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis. Both amendments seek to put the national contingency plan on a statutory footing, as recommended by the Marine Accident Investigation Branch. The Government Amendment No. 51 would do this by making the preparation, review and implementation of the plan one of the statutory functions of the Secretary of State in relation to marine pollution. The Marine Accident Investigation Branch made its recommendation because it considered that there would be benefit in clarifying the status of the plan. In particular, it believed that the plan should be given formal recognition under the Merchant Shipping Act 1995. We agree that this would make the plan more authoritative. The noble Lord's amendment, on the other hand, would put the plan on a statutory footing in just one situation. For that reason I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to agree that the Government amendment is the more effective one.
I should like to take this opportunity to announce that I have asked the Coastguard Agency to initiate a review of the national contingency plan in the light of several recent developments. The revised plan will take account of a number of factors. First, it will reflect the legislative changes made by this Bill, should it be enacted.
Finally, it will take account of the lessons learnt by the agency during the "Sea Empress" incident, in particular those set out in the Marine Pollution Control Unit's report on the clean-up operation, which was published last week. In addition, the scope and nature of the review may need to be reconsidered in the light of any relevant recommendations made by the Marine Accident Investigation Branch, whose report is due early this year; or by the "Sea Empress" Environmental Evaluation Committee, which is due to report in September.
The revised plan will be submitted to the Secretary of State for his approval. The review process will involve consultations with interested parties. In particular, the agency will consult other government departments, representatives of local authorities in England, Scotland and Wales, representatives of harbour authorities, operators of oil terminals, the International Salvage Union and the British Tugowners Association.
The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, has also tabled Amendment No. 6 which seeks to implement the third of the MAIB's interim recommendations. The MAIB recommended that we should review the powers of the Marine Pollution Control Unit promptly to charter equipment in the event of a pollution incident. Amendment No. 6 would seem to be an attempt to implement this recommendation. However, it would not achieve the desired end. The amendment would simply give the Secretary of State power to give directions to the Marine Pollution Control Unit. As that body acts on behalf of the Secretary of State, this power would not be necessary. As recommended by the MAIB, we are reviewing the MPCU's powers. However, we do not believe that any amendment to the 1995 Act is needed.
Finally, I should like to mention the issue of the Pilotage Act 1987, which was discussed in Committee. I believe this point was stressed by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley. The noble Lord was concerned that a direction to a pilot might result in his inadvertently committing another offence. The noble Lord asked for reassurance on that point. There is an offence under Section 21 of the 1987 Act if a pilot, through breach of his duty, causes damage or loss of life. However, if a direction is given to a pilot under the new power provided by Amendment No. 7, the pilot's duty would then be to comply with the direction. Only if he performed this new duty in a manner which is contrary to Section 21 of the Pilotage Act--for example, by negligently causing further damage while under the influence of alcohol--would he commit an offence under that section.
I hope that the House will welcome the Government's amendments, which give further breadth to the Government's intervention powers, and that it will recognise the sentiments that I have expressed in the course of the discussion on these amendments. I hope
Page 3, line 35, leave out ("In").
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page