Merchant Shipping (Convention Relating to the Carriage of Passengers and their Luggage by Sea) Order 2014

Debate between Lord Rosser and Lord Greenway

Wednesday 7th May 2014 Grand Committee

[Lord Greenway (CB)]

My Lords, I think the Minister was perhaps a bit premature in thanking noble Lords who are taking part in a rather rare maritime exercise in the House. I do not want to disabuse her, but I was not going to say anything at all. This order is a natural follow-on from what has happened before. I have no problems with it at all. The UK Chamber of Shipping also had no problems with it, so it is generally to be welcomed.

We have been fortunate in this country in that we have not had a major accident with a passenger ship since the “Herald of Free Enterprise” some 27 years ago. That was responsible for beefing up the amounts of compensation that can be paid to passengers for loss of life and luggage in those circumstances. Let us hope that that record continues although, as the Minister said, we are still suffering from these problems. We saw one in South Korea the other day, and the unfortunate incident with the “Costa Concordia” was another example. I welcome this order and wish it well.

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

My Lords, I am in the same position as the Minister. Debates on maritime matters are all too rare. I do not think the Minister was expressing the view that she is a particular expert in this field, and I would certainly not claim to be. That may become horribly evident in the contribution I have to make.

As the Minister said, this order amends the Merchant Shipping Act 1995 in the light of our ratification of the International Maritime Organisation’s 2002 protocol to the Athens Convention 1974 relating to the carriage of passengers and their luggage by sea. Ratifying the 2002 protocol ensures that UK-flagged passenger vessels can be issued with correct international certification and enables the protocol to be extended to the overseas territories and Crown dependencies, should they so wish. When the order was discussed in the other place a question was asked about what the Government’s accountability and jurisdiction would be if ships that are not UK-based, but are part of the Red Ensign group, chose to opt into these rules. It would be helpful if the Minister could clarify that point.

As the Minister said, the key provisions of the protocol have already been introduced into EU law—I think from the end of 2012—and implemented by the UK, but this order is needed to ratify the protocol, which came into force internationally on 23 April and incorporates the international elements. The 2002 protocol applies to international carriage only, but the order ensures the application of the Athens convention to domestic journeys within the UK, the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man. The 2002 protocol increases the liability limits for carriers that have been applicable in the event of accidents involving loss of life or personal injury and also requires carriers to maintain compulsory insurance on a strict liability basis, as well as providing claimants with the right to take direct action against the insurer. Under the order, the new limit of liability is, I think, the 400,000 special drawing rights. The Minister said that a special drawing right is currently equal to approximately 92 pence. It certainly fluctuates marginally since earlier in the year when it was being debated in the House of Commons the figure was given as approximately 93 pence.

The Government have also said that the further policy objective of the order is to revoke some redundant legislation. It would be helpful if the Minister could spell out which legislation is being revoked, bearing in mind that the Government’s objective appears to be that, for every new order introduced, two should be revoked. I am not clear what the two orders are that are being revoked.

The Explanatory Memorandum states in paragraph 10 that, although,

“external stakeholders were invited to contribute to the IA, the available evidence base continues to have a number of limitations”.

It then goes on to say:

“Given the significant uncertainties surrounding the impacts of this measure”,

relating to,

“the number of Overseas Territories and Crown Dependencies that … choose to ratify the … Protocol … and the limitations of the available evidence base, it has not been possible to monetise any of the costs and benefits in this IA”.

At least, that is my understanding of what it says. Yet when the order was discussed in the other place, the Minister described it as “short and highly technical”. I have always construed the reference to “highly technical” to mean “incomprehensible”. He said that not least because the,

“key provisions of the 2002 protocol have already been introduced into European Union law … and … implemented in the UK”.

The Minister in the other place said that the order therefore had,

“little practical effect on UK shipowners”.—[Official Report, Commons, Second Delegated Legislation Committee, 30/4/14; col. 3.]

I simply ask which is the correct version—that the order is short and highly technical with little practical effect on UK ship owners, as per the Minister in the House of Commons, or that, due to the significant uncertainties surrounding the impacts of the measure and the limitations of the available evidence base, as per the Explanatory Memorandum, monetising any of the costs and benefits of the order in the impact assessment is not possible and, by inference, would represent something of a voyage of discovery. Perhaps the Minister could indicate which horse of those alternatives she is backing, or, alternatively, say why what would appear to be two somewhat different views on the clarity and scope of this order are in fact saying precisely the same thing.

A further issue raised in the House of Commons was about the ships to which this order applies. In his response, the Government Minister said that,

“the classification of ships is determined by the area in which they operate and not necessarily the gross tonnage”.—[Official Report, Commons, Second Delegated Legislation Committee, 30/4/14; col. 8.]

However, because he was unable at that particular moment to give a definition of classification A and B vessels as referred to in the impact assessment, he undertook to write to the Committee. Can the Minister here provide that information and say whether the provisions of this order might be extended to other classes of ships?

A further question raised in the other place was about what steps the department was taking to ensure that information about the impact of the order was made available to ship owners and their passengers and customers. It would be helpful if the Minister could say what is happening on that issue. Of course, the answer to that may depend on whether she agrees with the Minister in the House of Commons that it is short and technical with little practical impact or with the Explanatory Memorandum, which appears to suggest otherwise. Finally, the Minister in the other place said that he was concerned to reduce the costs of the legislation around sulphur for UK shipping and, in particular, for the UK ferry industry. He went on to say that he had,

“asked the IMO to undertake an early review of the 2020 regulations”.—[Official Report, Commons, Second Delegated Legislation Committee, 30/4/14; col. 8.]

What exactly are the Government pressing for in that review?

We welcome the objectives of this order but would appreciate responses to the points to which I have referred.

Wreck Removal Convention Bill

Debate between Lord Rosser and Lord Greenway

Friday 10th June 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Greenway]

I very much agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Mackenzie, has just said. Having debated these matters with the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, for many years, we all know where his concerns lie, particularly in regard to expenses put on the ship owner through the payment of light dues.

The convention is quite clear, as has been said, in that it will require ships over 300 gross tonnes to carry wreck removal insurance and the onus of wreck removal is firmly placed on the registered owners of those ships. The instances where a ship might fall through the net, so to speak, will be very much reduced in future. As has been said, I think the possible cost to the General Lighthouse Fund will certainly be lower.

As far as I can make out, the amendments limit the options open to the Secretary of State, compared with what he has today. The Secretary of State and his representative—SOSREP—are well known to the general lighthouse authorities. They have worked together over many years and those authorities have been marking and removing smaller wrecks for 150-odd years, so they have some experience in this matter. It would be wrong to try to bypass that experience by getting the Government to appoint independent salvers to do a job; for example, they would not necessarily have the experience of marking the wreck in the first place. There is an argument for maintaining continuity in dealing with the marking of wrecks and their possible removal by one source that is used to dealing with them.

The memorandum of understanding was mentioned by the noble Earl, Lord Caithness. That is certainly something where I think many of these concerns can be thrashed out. I echo what the noble Earl said in asking the Minister whether he can give us an update on how that is proceeding. As I said before, there is already close co-operation between the Government’s representative and the general lighthouse authorities. The harbour authorities are perhaps slightly different. Some of the smaller ones would not have the necessary vessels to cope with removing a wreck, but there is absolutely no question of the general lighthouse authorities using this Bill to extend their fleet with newer and larger ships. I think that that is a red herring.

I emphasise that the cost to the General Lighthouse Fund, over quite a number of years of removing wrecks, is very small. I have a figure of 0.004 per cent, and that went up to 3.2 per cent only as a result of the one-off exercise of the removal of the German First World War U-boat from the Dover Strait, when the Government required Trinity House to do that and it had to appoint separate salvage contractors.

I will mention one final point. The point of the Secretary of State being able under the Bill to direct harbour authorities or general lighthouse authorities to remove a default wreck is so that they can recover their costs. Without that direction, which in effect makes them agents of the state, they cannot recover them. That is an important point.

[Lord Rosser]

My Lords, I will make only one or two comments about the amendments tabled by my noble friend Lord Berkeley. I do so in the context of repeating that we welcome the Bill.

My noble friend raised again the issue of the possible high level of costs that might have to be borne in the event that, contrary to requirements, a ship is not insured, the insurance does not cover the full costs or there is a lengthy delay in the insurance money being paid after the costs have been incurred. I sense from what my noble friend said that this could be an issue particularly for some harbour authorities because of their financial reserves. I am aware that in the Second Reading debate, the Minister said that the Government were of the opinion that the provisions of the Bill would ensure that the risks of a shortfall in expenditure would be significantly less for bodies such as harbour authorities than they are now. The Minister referred later in the debate to a memorandum of understanding between the respective parties that would be agreed prior to the entry into force of the International Maritime Organisation's International Convention on the Removal of Wrecks.

There have been discussions already between my noble friend Lord Berkeley, the Minister and the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell of Beeston. I am sure that those discussions have been both appreciated and useful. I simply ask the Minister and the noble Baroness whether there is scope for further discussions with my noble friend Lord Berkeley on the issue that he has raised, and in particular whether any wording could be incorporated in the memorandum of understanding that might at least mitigate or lessen the concerns that have been expressed on this issue by my noble friend.