| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Donaldson of Lymington: On the latter point arising directly from the amendment, the Minister has referred to the definition of "accident" in Section 137(9). I rather incline to agree that the way forward, if any progress forward is needed, would be to add to the word "accident".
The point which worries me is that one of the most common causes of problems, to use a neutral word, is loss of propulsion, loss of propulsive power. I take the example of the "Canberra", which arrived off the Isle of Wight and suddenly found she had no engines--I do not think the "Canberra" would have said she was in distress because she had some fine anchors which she proceeded to put down. Nevertheless, those anchors might not have held and all sorts of things might have happened. I would have thought that the definition of accident ought to cover in one way or another loss or reduction in propulsion power.
Ships may not think they are in distress at that stage. In fact, it is a common experience that chief engineers invariably think they can repair their ships in time, and quite frequently they are wrong. Thus there will be no distress call from the ship, but nevertheless there should be extended powers to enable there to be some degree of intervention, if necessary.
Let me just say a word about extending Section 137 to cover directions to harbour authorities. I take it from what the Minister has said that, since I now find myself, rather surprisingly, on the same side as the Marine Accident Investigation Branch, with its added weight we may hope to see an extension to Section 137 at least to cover harbour authorities, harbour masters and pilots. That leaves only my cargo owners.
I rather gather that the Government's thinking may be that they have never had any problem with cargo owners and therefore there is no reason to include them as an additional category. I never understand this argument. If there is any possibility that one day they may meet an obdurate cargo owner, I cannot see the objection to including cargo owners. It is not insulting to cargo owners, and the very fact that cargo owners normally co-operate suggests that they would expect to be there. It would be a reserve power which probably would never be used. Prior to the "Sea Empress", had we
discussed this then, I should have been assured by the noble Viscount that there was never any trouble with harbour authorities and therefore there was no need to include harbour authorities, but I do not probe that for obvious reasons. I would be grateful if the Minister could deal with that point.
Viscount Goschen: I was very interested in what the noble and learned Lord had to say about the issue of loss or partial loss of propulsion systems because that is clearly an important issue and we want to ensure that our intervention powers are available in the widest circumstances that we feel are appropriate. We will certainly take that comment on board when we are looking at the definition of an accident.
The only other point to raise in that regard is that we want to encourage masters to be as realistic as possible and to report problems at as early a stage as possible. We have to think carefully about anything which might deter them from doing that at the earliest stage possible. Nonetheless, I certainly recognise the point with regard to the loss or partial loss of propulsion systems.
Finally, with regard to the powers to give directions to harbour authorities, I indicated at the Second Reading that we were looking very carefully at this. The noble and learned Lord supported by the Marine Accident Investigation Branch is an unstoppable combination, but we do believe that that suggestion has considerable weight. I hope that I will be able to inform your Lordships when we are closer to drafting specific proposals.
With regard to the interim recommendations as a whole, we are giving urgent thought to them. If the Government deem it appropriate to bring forward amendments to the Bill to give them weight, we will do so.
Lord Clinton-Davis: Once again, the Committee will be grateful to the Minister for those replies. Perhaps he could give us some indication whether he is proposing to come forward with amendments to the points he was alluding to earlier in time for the Report stage, which, as I understand it, will take place on 13th January. Will he be in a position to do that? If not, when does he hope to come forward with any such amendments?
Viscount Goschen: It is difficult to be precise about those things. It is also important that, if government are to seek a change in the law in this regard, particularly concerning harbour masters, we should consult the interested parties. It will be necessary to come up with workable proposals that are tightly drafted, when we have had the opportunity to consult with interested parties. However, I have given an indication that we recognise the power behind these arguments and, subject to being able to draft the necessary considerations and taking into account the views of interested parties, we would hope to come forward with amendments at a later stage of the Bill as early as practicable.
Lord Clinton-Davis: There is a distinction between those areas where it would be necessary to consult
widely--certainly we would not wish to discourage the Minister in any way from doing that--and the other areas dealing with the points made earlier in these discussions which would not require widespread consultation. It is with regard to those situations that I wish to put down a marker. We shall expect the Government to deal with them at a later stage, preferably before the Bill leaves your Lordships' House. It is important that since the Bill started here the Government have reacted in a positive way and it would be helpful if this could be achieved while the matter is still before your Lordships' House.
Viscount Goschen: Certainly we felt that it would be appropriate to consult on the harbour authorities provision that we discussed earlier today. On other measures that do not require consultation, if we felt that amendments were required we would bring them forward as urgently as possible and lay them in good time, wherever possible, for noble Lords to give them the consideration they deserve.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Clinton-Davis: I am most grateful. In those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 5 [Waste reception facilities at harbours]:
Lord Beaumont of Whitley moved Amendment No. 4:
The noble Lord said: This is the first of a number of amendments that are grouped together, Nos. 4, 5, 7 and 9 to 30. They all fall into much the same category and I propose to speak to Amendments Nos. 4 and 5.
The purpose of the amendments is to change the enabling powers for the introduction of waste management plans into a requirement on the face of the Bill. We welcome the concept of waste management plans and through this planning process port authorities will be required to assess the waste reception needs of the ships that use a port. These plans, if correctly prepared, should lead to facilities that are both adequate and easy to use, and hence cut down on deliberate discharges of waste straight into the sea. Sections 130A and 130B of the proposed new Chapter IA of the Merchant Shipping Act 1995 will give the Secretary of Sate an enabling power to require port authorities to develop waste management plans. However, we are disappointed that the Bill only provides an enabling power. Recommendation 27(c) in the Donaldson report calls for a system of certification to be set up to ensure that waste reception facilities are adequate.
Waste management plans need to be mandatory to ensure that those ports and harbours that are not drawing up plans voluntarily are required to do so and to help ensure that the resources are available for the assessment of the adequacy of such plans, as provided for by Section 130B(2)(b) of the Act. The Department of Transport announced its intention to require ports and
Since then some ports and harbours have been voluntarily producing waste management plans, and the MSA has so far received between 100 and 140 of these plans out of a total of around 350 ports and harbours in the UK. The MSA currently does not propose to assess the adequacy of these plans. There is a very considerable need to put on the face of the Bill, first of all, a demand that the facilities should be adequate because it is easy to put in facilities which are not adequate. No one sensible would do it, but these things do happen. Secondly, it is important that the Secretary of State may not, just by regulation, ask for these things but that he shall actually require them. I beg to move.
Lord Berkeley: I rise to support the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, on Amendments Nos. 4 and 5. I regret that he appears to have chosen not to speak to the grouping on the Marshalled List because all the amendments, Nos. 7 and 9 through 30, cover enforcements. I would like to cover all those amendments to try to save a little of the Committee's time.
This is all to do with what comes out of Recommendation 27 of the report of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson. But the proposal is to place a statutory obligation on port and terminal operators to provide reception facilities for waste and, as a first step, to encourage the operators on what has to be done, how incentives and disincentives are applied and the system of certification, and really then to widen it. I hope the Minister will consider again whether the statutory role is the right role because it is very important that we consider the effect on the harbour and shipping industries of doing something in this country when they might argue that across the North Sea, or even across the Atlantic, there are less high standards which could put them at a competitive disadvantage. It would be interesting if the Minister could let us know on Recommendation 27(f) what progress the Government are making on the North Sea so that so far as is practicable all European ports take a similar approach.
Some of the shipping interests may not think this is a very good idea, but I was pleased to read in a government response that the Chamber of Shipping, as well as the RSPB, both strongly supported the improvement to waste reception facilities. Certainly, we welcome the Bill as it stands but we would like to suggest that it does not go anything like far enough in the matter of the preparation of waste management plans. That is all we are talking about so far. It is the waste reception facilities at harbours and, under what
The noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, mentioned that the MSA has received between 100 and 140 of these plans out of a total of 350. It has been noted that the MSA does not propose to assess the adequacy of these plans. My question to the Minister is why? Is it due to lack of funding; because they do not feel like it; or they have not been told to? It would be helpful to know. I believe it is important that there is not only a statutory requirement, but that there is a timetable put into the statutory requirement. It is very easy to say that this should happen in the future and that we ought to bring in regulations in the future to make it happen, but they must be much more than just an enabling power.
Many organisations--the RSPB, the World Wildlife Fund--support the amendment and we certainly support it too. I would be very interested to hear the Minister's reasons for not going down the enforcement route proposed in the amendment.
Before I sit down, I would like to mention Amendment No. 15 and the proposal to include the word "marina" along with terminals, jetties and piers. That is a very important addition to the definitions in this chapter. I declare an interest in that I have a small boat, which I do not keep in a marina very often. Most small boat owners are responsible people, but I see no reason for excluding marinas and so on from the definitions in this chapter. I look forward to hearing the Minister on this subject.
Page 4, line 38, leave out from ("State") to end of line 40 and insert ("shall require--").
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page