| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Nick Herbert accordingly presented a Bill to exempt small and medium-sized enterprises from regulation; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 16 June, and to be printed [Bill 140].
7 Mar 2006 : Column 736
Merchant Shipping (Pollution) Bill [Lords] (Programme)
4.12 pm
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Dr. Stephen Ladyman): I beg to move,
That the Order of 25th January 2006 (Merchant Shipping (Pollution) Bill [Lords] (Programme)) be varied as follows:
2. Proceedings on consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion two hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion for this Order.
Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion three hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion for this Order.
Given the expedient way that we dealt with this Bill in Committee, I have no doubt that we can do equally well in the two hours that we have allowed for the small number of amendments selected, and the hour for Third Reading.
4.13 pm
Mr. Julian Brazier (Canterbury) (Con): I share the Minister's confidence, but want to put on the record that it is an extraordinary testimony to the Government's control-freak tendencies that we should have a programme motion when there is so little business to get through. However, I do not oppose it.
Question put and agreed to.
7 Mar 2006 : Column 737
Orders of the Day
Merchant Shipping (Pollution) Bill [Lords]
As amended in the Committee, considered
'The Secretary of State shall publish and lay before Parliament annually a report listing breaches of Annex VI of the MARPOL Convention that have taken place in United Kingdom waters and the action that was taken in respect of those breaches.'.—[Paul Rowen.]
Brought up, and read the First time.
4.13 pm
Paul Rowen (Rochdale) (LD): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 5, in page 3, line 2, clause 2, after 'ships)', insert
'and any subsequent review of Annex VI agreed by the International Maritime Organisation subject to an order in Council laid before and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.'.
Paul Rowen: Annex VI of the MARPOL convention extends pollution control of shipping to include air pollution for the first time. Although it is admitted that pollution from ships is small compared with other sources—with 4 per cent. of sulphur dioxide emissions and 7 per cent. of nitrogen oxide emissions—it nevertheless has a significant effect on our environment.
Aside from the Malacca straits, the waters around the UK are the busiest in the world. It is predicted that by 2020, the size of the merchant fleet will have doubled and the size of ships is steadily increasing. It is also estimated that the provisions contained in the annex will save £3 million a year in damage to buildings and structures from SO 2 emissions, and the reduction in ozone emissions will result in 20 fewer deaths and savings of £26 million a year.
4.15 pm
I am pleased, therefore, to see in the draft copies of the secondary legislation that have been placed in the Library the adoption of the North sea as an SO 2 emission control area. That will involve more stringent controls on sulphur emissions, with a reduction to 1.5 per cent., compared to 4.5 per cent. in other areas. Those controls were discussed and agreed by the Marine Environment Protection Committee at its 53rd session in July 2005. Given past concerns on pollution in the North sea, and the fact that air pollution knows no boundaries, I am pleased to see those limits adopted.
Some 23 states have already adopted the annex and I hope that more will do so. All UK ships have to have an international air pollution prevention certificate and other ships in UK waters that have adopted the annex must also have one. The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that there is an annual reporting mechanism for
7 Mar 2006 : Column 738
breaches of the convention and action is taken. I know that concerns have been expressed in previous debates about flagships that have not adopted the annex, and while I appreciate that we cannot control those breaches, we need to ensure that appropriate action is taken against all ships that have signed up to the agreement but do not meet its controls. The new clause seeks to introduce a regular reporting mechanism so that Members can see what progress is being made in what is a first for shipping—the introduction of controls on air pollution.
Mr. Julian Brazier (Canterbury) (Con): The official Opposition have little problem with new clause 1. The MARPOL convention is a cornerstone of international maritime regulations and we welcome being provided with more information on it. We should remember that shipping is arguably the greenest method of transport. In ball-park terms, goods going by sea in a typical bulk carrier cause one tenth the emissions of CO 2 of an equivalent crate of goods going by land. Abiding by the MARPOL convention will make that difference even greater.
The publication of the report will add an incentive to ensure inspections are carried out regularly and will essentially name and shame any offenders. I hope that the convention will also encourage shipping companies to follow the example I gave on Second Reading of P&O's The Pride of Kent—I approve of the name, as I am sure does the Minister, given that he represents South Thanet—which has seen its sulphur emissions slashed to zero and its nitrogen oxide emissions down by four fifths since the introduction of a newly invented water scrubber. The more technology is encouraged in this area, the faster we will see our emissions fall.
As far as I can tell, the hon. Member for Rochdale (Paul Rowen) has got into a bit of a muddle with amendment No. 5. The intention is to ensure that revisions to the treaty cannot be incorporated without an Order in Council following a debate in the House. That is not, in fact, what the amendment would do.
The advice that I have been given is that the amendment would allow the Government to amend the treaty without recourse to a full Bill. I see the Minister nods in agreement. When even the Government who proposed the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill, which is designed to bypass parliamentary scrutiny on a range of issues, do not require further extra parliamentary powers on this issue, I am strongly disinclined to give such a power. I cannot believe that that is what the hon. Gentleman intended, and I am certain that he will not want to press the amendment to a vote.
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Dr. Stephen Ladyman): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Rochdale (Paul Rowen) for his interest in the Bill, and I assure him that I understand what he is trying to get at. The Government take every bit as seriously as he does the need to enforce the national legislation that implements the MARPOL convention and its annexes.
We take any breach of the MARPOL convention very seriously. Of course, when we find that someone has breached the convention, we prosecute them, and information on all successful prosecutions are put on the Maritime and Coastguard Agency's website. What the
7 Mar 2006 : Column 739
hon. Gentleman is asking the Government to do in the new clause represents a disproportionate response—we are already doing what he suggests. It would be much more efficient if those people who were interested in such information simply referred to the MCA website, where successful prosecution are always listed. Of course, unsuccessful prosecutions, where they do occur, would not be listed there. However, since 1997, no such prosecution has been unsuccessful. With the reassurance that the information is put in the public domain, that we take all breaches seriously and that we will ensure that they continue to be put in the public domain, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will agree that making another report to Parliament would not be a good use of resources and therefore that he will be happy to withdraw the motion.
The hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier), who is my parliamentary constituency neighbour, was absolutely right about amendment No. 5. I obviously do not know what was in the mind of the hon. Member for Rochdale when he proposed the amendment, but it would make it unnecessary for us to introduce primary legislation to implement any future revision of annex VI of the MARPOL convention. I certainly do not want to quarrel with his aim in any way at all—I certainly would not want that to be done by primary legislation—but he is probably not aware that, by virtue of clause 2, an entry for the protocol that adds annex VI to MARPOL is inserted in the list of agreements covered by section 128(1) of the Merchant Shipping Act 1995. Consequently, the amendment is redundant, because the Bill—in combination with the 1995 Act—will achieve the required effect. I hope therefore that the hon. Gentleman will be happy not to press the amendment to a vote.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |