HL Deb 17 May 1993 vol 545 cc1578-84

5.45 p.m.

Viscount Goschen rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 14th April be approved [26th Report from the Joint Committee].

The noble Viscount said: My Lords, in speaking to the order I should like to speak also to the Merchant Shipping (Prevention of Oil Pollution) (Amendment) Order 1993.

These two orders are necessary to amend the Merchant Shipping (Prevention of Oil Pollution) Order 1983 and the Merchant Shipping (Prevention of Pollution by Garbage) Order 1988 and to incorporate respectively MEPC Resolutions 14(20), 42(30), 47(31), 51(32), 52(32) and 48(31) made by the Marine Environment Protection Committee of the International Maritime Organisation. The orders will implement amendments to the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships 1973 and its Protocol of 1978, to which the United Kingdom is a signatory, and will enable amending regulations to be made to diminish the threat of pollution of the sea by oil and garbage.

A great deal of concern has been expressed about the effect on the marine environment of the operational discharge of oil into the sea from ships. The MEPC has acted upon this issue and Resolution 51(32) halves the permitted rate of discharge for oil from tankers to 30 litres per nautical mile. For discharges from the machinery spaces of all ships the maximum permitted discharge of oily mixture is substantially reduced from 100 parts per million to 15 parts per million.

This leads me to Resolution MEPC 42(30), which makes the Antarctic Sea below 60° south a special area for the purposes of Annex 1 of the MARPOL Convention. The effect of pollution on the delicate ecology of Antarctica has been of concern for several years and under this amendment the discharge of oil or oily mixture into the sea in the Antarctic area below 60° south will be prohibited. It will be the responsibility of the Government of a party to the convention, at whose ports ships depart en route to or arrive from the Antarctic region, to ensure that adequate reception facilities for oil and oily mixture are available. It will be the responsibility of flag states to ensure that before entering the Antarctic special area vessels registered with them are fitted with tanks of sufficient capacity on board for the retention of oil and oily mixtures.

A fundamental change to the design and construction of oil tankers to prevent or minimise oil pollution in the event of collision or stranding have been agreed at the IMO. Resolution MEPC 52(32) requires all oil tankers of 600 tons deadweight and above, for which a building contract is in place on or after 6th July 1993, or which will undergo a major conversion after that date, or which will be completed after 6th July 1996, to be built to new standards. Oil tankers more than 5,000 tons deadweight must have double hulls or be constructed to an approved, alternative design which will ensure at least the same level of protection against oil pollution in the event of collision or stranding. Oil tankers of between 600 and 5,000 tons deadweight must have double bottoms. Any alternative form of construction to that described in the resolution would require approval in principle by the IMO. While there is no proposal currently at MEPC to limit the size of tankers, the resolution does include revised calculations to limit the size and arrangement of individual cargo oil tanks.

It will be several years before these safeguards are in widespread use and, therefore, the IMO has also considered measures to enhance the safety of existing oil tankers. The same resolution requires that crude oil tankers of 20,000 tons deadweight and above and product carriers of 30,000 tons deadweight and above shall be subject to a more stringent programme of inspections. Such tankers more than 5 years of age shall have on board a complete file of the survey reports and structural work carried out, accompanied by a condition evaluation report. In addition, a phase-out/conversion schedule is introduced for tankers above a certain age. An oil tanker which is 25 or more years old must either meet the rules for new ships or have protective double bottom or wing tanks. If these conditions are met, or other operational or structural arrangements are made which can be shown to provide an equivalent level of protection, the requirement to comply with the regulations for new ships is deferred until the vessel is 30 years old.

Despite the improvements in tanker construction to prevent oil spills, it is accepted that accidental discharges of oil will continue to occur. The damage caused by oil spills may be compounded by ill-considered actions by those on the scene immediately after the event. To minimise this risk, Resolution MEPC 47 (31) requires that every oil tanker of 150 gross tonnage and above and every ship, other than an oil tanker, of 400 gross tonnage and above shall carry on board an oil pollution emergency plan, written in the working language of the master and officers. The plan must include procedures for reporting an oil pollution incident and a detailed description of the action to be taken immediately by persons on board to reduce or control the discharge of oil. For UK registered ships, these plans will be subject to approval on behalf of the Secretary of State.

The amendment to confirm Antarctica as a special area for the purposes of restricting garbage disposal under Annex V of MARPOL is contained in the second order before the House. Strictly limited discharge of food wastes is permissible within a special area but MEPC have resolved that the Antarctic area should be regarded as an exceptional case and Resolution MEPC 42 (30) prohibits the dumping of garbage of any kind into the seas of the Antarctic special area. Again ships entering the special area must ensure that they have sufficient capacity to store garbage while operating in the area and to conclude arrangements to discharge it at a reception facility outside the special area.

The other amendment on this second order designates the wider Caribbean a special area for the purposes of garbage disposal. The wider Caribbean area will be subject to similar restrictions applied to special areas which prohibits all garbage but pre-treated food waste from being discharged into the sea at a minimum distance from land. All other waste must be stored on board for disposal at a port reception facility.

In conclusion, we are satisfied that these amendments will contribute to the reduction of pollution at sea. I commend them to the House.

Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 14th April be approved [26th Report from the Joint Committee]. —(Viscount Goschen.)

Lord Clinton-Davis

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his explanation of these rather complicated provisions. I have given him notice of a number of questions which I propose to raise in the course of my remarks this evening.

There is no doubt at all that marine pollution remains an extremely serious problem although it is as well to recall in that context that something like 85 per cent. to 90 per cent. of marine pollution is land based. Those are the land based sources of marine pollution. However, we obviously approve any reasonable proposals designed to cope better with pollution of the sea and, indeed, the accords based upon IMO legislation are thoroughly to be welcomed.

However, one must say that the wheels of implementing international maritime legislation grind exceeding slow and we need to devise ways and means of hastening those procedures and implementing through our own legislation accords reached at the IMO and then to ensure that there is swifter implementation in practice.

Even though the amendments to the 1973 convention and the MARPOL Protocol of 1978 enable amending regulations to be made to mitigate further the threat of pollution at sea by oil and garbage, a great deal more time will elapse before the safeguards will be applied generally.

I am sure that the Minister will concede—indeed, the Minister in another place did so—that helpful though the draft statutory instruments are, and we welcome the enhancement of shipping and environmental standards nationally and internationally, one regrettable factor affecting the IMO legislative process lies in the fact that public opinion demands urgent action, particularly in the wake of certain catastrophes. Public opinion regards delay which invariably occurs as unconscionable. Therefore, demands are made for unilateral action by governments. I believe that unilateral action is usually, certainly if it is taken outside the competence of the IMO, inimical to the interests of a sensible regime emanating for world shipping. Law must be capable of enforcement to have value and unilateral action is likely to be the subject of legal challenge. Therefore, governments must seek ways and means of coping with those apparently conflicting interests; for example, interests which arose after the "Torrey Canyon", the "Amoco Cadiz", the "Herald of Free Enterprise" and, more recently, the "Braer" disaster.

On the whole, governments—certainly those of the leading shipping nations—succeed by galvanising the IMO into a speedy response and/or taking action which can be legitimately undertaken in their own territorial waters. It is sometimes argued with force that apart from delays, IMO procedures lead to the adoption of the lowest common denominator. However, the best is so often the enemy of the good and the alternative to that patient approach is simply that no legislation would be applied at all in countries where it is most in need.

It is clear that the two draft statutory instruments which we are considering are by no means the only instruments which Parliament will have to consider concerning IMO legislation. For example, there is the question of the ratification of the IMO convention on salvage, a point raised by my honourable friend Joan Walley in the corresponding debate which took place in another place on 5th May. When can we expect that legislation in another place and then in this House? I am not sure whether the Minister replied to that point in writing to my honourable friend but, in any event, in my view, the reply should be on the record.

These draft statutory instruments are about setting standards rather than enforcement. But I suggest that enforcement needs to be given a much higher priority than is the case at present and, specifically, as regards the evenness of international enforcement of the law. Ports of convenience are quite as dangerous as flags of convenience. There have been one or two cases in the very recent past where ships have been sent to sea after inspection when they had no business to be there at all.

Of course, we welcome improved programmes of inspection. We are aware that the IMO is in the course of concluding its work on inspection guidelines to cover detailed inspections of all ships so that the guidelines can be introduced in about 1995. Nevertheless, inadequate attention has been given to the point raised about implementation. Why should consideration not be given to introducing the notion—to be applied, it is to be hoped, in the European Community regarding environmental inspection—of the creation of a Community inspectorate of national member states' inspectorates? I believe that that would create a much greater evenness of implementation.

I am sure that further useful consideration of safety measures which are needed will emerge from the Donaldson inquiry into the "Braer" disaster. We eagerly await the report and we shall certainly co-operate with the Government in ensuring the swift passage into law of any legislation which may be required in consequence.

In a similar debate in another place on 5th May an interesting point was raised by Mr. Jim Wallace regarding the working language of officers and crew. Of course, the Minister was right to say that, ultimately, it is a matter for the master. But too many instances of confusion regarding language have arisen to enable that principle to be the only effective guiding principle. That issue is specifically raised in the regulations.

We are living in a world where multi-lingual crews are more often than not the order of the day. Safety is too often subordinated to profit and if there were more reliance on the high standards set by reputable flags rather than on the loose standards operated by flags of convenience, and indeed others, then the maritime nations of the world would be insisting on stricter guidelines and not adhering to the rather casual reply by the Minister in another place. In that debate the Minister said that the IMO was reviewing the International Convention on the Standards of Training, Certification and Watch-keeping in order to ensure that its provisions are adequate. Perhaps the Minister would be kind enough to indicate what is the timetable for that consideration and for any action that may follow.

I return now to the statutory instruments specifically. I should like to make one or two points. While the Government must ensure that they play a leading role in the IMO for tightening the regulations for preventing oil pollution at sea, the technical regulations set out in the first statutory instrument may well require a thorough review in the light of the report on the "Braer". Does the Minister agree with that view? Incidentally, how widespread is the ratification by the IMO—or, at least, by member states of the IMO—of the accords which are the subject of the regulations?

So far as concerns the statutory instrument on garbage, there was some discussion in the other place about the definition of the word "garbage". The annex of MARPOL defines the word as, all kinds of victual, domestic and operational waste generated during the normal operation of the ship". Accordingly, it would seem that that annex does not control the disposal of commercial waste. Is the Minister in accord with that view? While the regulations are clearly beneficial in implementing internationally agreed measures, they must not be allowed to be a substitute for the strict implementation of the prevention of waste measures by the United Kingdom in its role as a coastal and as a flag state. Does the Minister agree that it is in fact open for the United Kingdom to impose stricter measures than those agreed under MARPOL? Further, do the Government have any intention of so doing?

Finally, implementation of the measures agreed at the IMO should be as rapid as possible. Certainly, there is a great deal of room for improvement in that direction. But that should never be regarded as a substitute for the formulation of a consistent policy by the United Kingdom and by the UK operating as a member state of the European Community. That consistency is evidently lacking at present. It is lacking because of the wholly inadequate approach of the Government towards shipping policy generally. Perhaps we shall have a little more to say regarding that aspect during the debate on Thursday on the Merchant Shipping (Registration etc.) Bill.

Lord Shackleton

My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Viscount for referring to the provision in the order as regards the requirement in the Antarctic. However, can he say anything about how it will be enforced? The matter has been discussed in the Antarctic Treaty. Therefore, if he can give us any information on that aspect it would be most helpful. There is no doubt that there is a real problem and one which will grow steadily as tourist ships tend to go into the Antarctic.

Viscount Goschen

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, for his broadly favourable remarks this afternoon. He asked about the number of states which had ratified the International Conference on Salvage and the five annexes to MARPOL. For salvage the number is seven states. For Annexes I and II to MARPOL the figure is 74 states; for Annex III it is 52 states; for Annex IV, 43 states; and for Annex V, 57 states. The noble Lord also asked when the Government intend to ratify the salvage convention. I can only tell him that the Government have every intention of ratifying the convention at the earliest opportunity; but beyond that I cannot be more specific.

The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, further asked whether inspectorates should be established at IMO or EC level to ensure comparable standards of inspection. The European Court State Control Committee is aware of inconsistent standards being applied. Work to harmonise and to ensure comparable standards is now being undertaken. The UK has consistently exceeded the target level of 25 per cent. For inspections of foreign ships visiting UK ports the 1991–92 figure was just over 34 per cent., with 195 ships being detained. The International Maritime Organisation recently established a new subcommittee on flag-state implementation which will consider the enforcement of proper standards.

As regards the Donaldson inquiry, the Government have given a commitment to implement any findings that the noble and learned Lord recommends. As regards the question of the language of the oil pollution emergency plan, the requirements do not take the language of the crew into account. Crews of merchant ships work at all times to the instruction of the master and his certificated officers. Actions taken on board ship to control or reduce oil pollution are required to be taken by the master and his officers, assisted by the crew under their instructions.

The noble Lord also asked about the proposed timetable by the International Maritime Organisation for a review of the conventional standards of training, certification and watch-keeping. The IMO is aware of the urgent need for a review of the convention and is looking to put an accelerated programme in place. It is expected that work will commence in the Autumn of 1993 and be completed in June 1995.

The noble Lord asked whether the UK was prepared to take action independent of the IMO. The new requirements that have been agreed internationally at the IMO are broadly similar to those introduced by OPA 90, with the exception of the alternatives to the double-hull design. Therefore, the Government do not believe that action independent of the IMO on the issue is necessary. The noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, asked a question about enforcement in the Antarctic region. If I may, I should like to write to him on the matter. I commend the order to the House.

On Question, Motion agreed to.