Wreck Removal Convention Bill

Lord MacKenzie of Culkein Excerpts

Friday 13th May 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord MacKenzie of Culkein]

My Lords, I am delighted to be able to speak in this Second Reading of the Wreck Removal Convention Bill and I warmly support it. I take the opportunity to congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell of Beeston, on taking charge of the Bill in this House.

Coming from a family that includes past and presently serving merchant marine officers, not to mention four generations of lighthouse keepers, I have an interest in this legislation. Indeed, I asked questions of the previous Government on the progress, or lack of progress, in the implementation and ratification of the Nairobi convention.

The Bill should not be contentious. It will allow the UK Government to ratify the international convention on wrecks. At present, there are no uniform international rules under which coastal states have a proper legal basis to remove, or have removed, shipwrecks which are a hazard to navigation and/or the environment. The convention, when it comes into force, will fill that gap.

I am strongly of the view that there can be little or no argument against the need for the relevant UK authorities responsible for dealing with shipwrecks to take action, where safety of navigation is at stake, outside our territorial waters. The Bill will resolve that present lack of legal clarity in recovering costs where wrecks occur between the 12-mile territorial limit and the 200-mile pollution control zone. It does that by giving the Secretary of State power to deal with wrecks up to the 200-mile limit.

Secondly, and importantly, is the convention requirement that all vessels of more than 300 tonnes, with a very few exceptions, will be required to have wreck removal insurance cover or some other security in place. That is not an added-on cost to reputable shipping companies—by far the vast majority—which will already have insurance in place. But we all know that, at present, there is always a possibility that owners of some vessels will not have the necessary insurance cover. We need only to see the poor state of some of the ships detained by the Maritime and Coastguard Agency that are reportedly referred to as “rust buckets”, and to see the poor crewing—sometimes crews are not paid—to realise that wreck recovery insurance must be compulsory. It is only right that, as proposed, ships without wreck removal cover in place are not allowed to enter or leave a United Kingdom port.

The convention will also allow direct action for recovery from the insurer of a wreck of the costs incurred by general lighthouse or other authority in marking or, as set out in Articles 7, 8 and 9 of the convention, recovering wrecks. There have been occasions in the past when the relevant protection and indemnity club uses a device to reimburse the owner of the wreck only—I emphasise only—if that owner meets the cost to the lighthouse or other appropriate authority in the first instance. That so-called “paid to be paid” rule may be thought of as a clever device on the part of the insurer to avoid it paying up when a ship owner, who might own just a single vessel, does not have the funds or the desire to remove that vessel, particularly if it is a non-UK-registered ship. Thus the costs of marking and, if necessary, recovery have to be met from the General Lighthouse Fund. Like others, I do not think that that is acceptable, and I hope that the convention, by making insurance compulsory and allowing authorities to go direct to the insurer, will resolve that matter.

I understand that some shipping interests, as has already been said, are concerned that the convention may have the effect of increasing costs to the General Lighthouse Fund and thus lead to higher light dues. I do not think that that will be the case because, as the noble Lord, Greenway, said, the General Lighthouse Authority has been doing its statutory job of marking wrecks that are a danger to navigation for a long time—something like 150 years. It has that considerable knowledge and the expertise to make decisions about marking and the removal of wrecks, if necessary. It is right that it should continue to provide a seamless service rather than have multiagency involvement.

The costs to the GLF where incurred at present—again this has been said in the debate—represent a fairly small proportion of the overall costs of provision of safety of navigation in our waters. If the convention comes into force, there should be fewer costs not recoverable given the new rules on insurance and strict liability. I hope, therefore, that it should be possible to reduce quite significantly the reserve for wreck recovery, which I think stands at some £5 million in the GLF. That, I should have thought, will be some relief to the light-dues payer.

It is right, too, that where the General Lighthouse Authority recovers containers washed overboard or other detritus that might now be defined as a wreck in the convention, it should be able to recover these costs. I do not think that it can be some relief to my noble friend Lord Berkeley that GLA ships will be chasing yellow ducks round the ocean, even though that might technically be defined as a wreck. I hope therefore that the Bill has a smooth passage through this House. It will allow the United Kingdom to ratify the convention which is a necessary contribution to safety and will clarify a number of areas of responsibility in matters of safety in navigation and in the protection of our precious maritime environment.

In conclusion, I will pick up on a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Greenway, about whether the Nairobi convention was originally included in the Marine Navigation Bill. Other important matters are included in the Bill. Perhaps the Minister can tell us whether it is the Government's intention to bring forward these matters as soon as parliamentary time is available. The remaining matters in the Marine Navigation Bill are unlikely to be contentious or time-consuming and I hope that they, too, can be brought forward.