| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Viscount Goschen: The issues concerning waste reception facilities are indeed important ones. The proposals that I put forward as part of the package of 18 measures have been widely welcomed.
The clause, as currently drafted, provides enabling powers for the Secretary of State to draw up regulations to improve the provision and use of port waste reception facilities. We are convinced that enabling powers are by far the best way to proceed. They would give sufficient flexibility to determine the most appropriate regulations, and to ensure that these regulations can be swiftly amended to keep them up to date.
In this instance, flexibility is essential because we are bringing forward new concepts which have not previously been introduced in legislation. We are, of course, building on the recommendations made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, and in many respects we are going further than his recommendations.
We held a wide-ranging consultation exercise of relevant organisations, including the ports and shipping industries, through, for example, the Chamber of Shipping, the British Tug Owners Association and the Royal Yachting Association; with waste disposal contractors and local authority associations; environmental organisations such as the RSPB and the WWF; and the Advisory Committee on the Protection of the Sea, of which the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, is chairman. We also conducted a considerable amount of research into the facilities currently provided by ports.
As a result of this consultation and research we have brought forward the clauses in the Bill. What is not yet obvious is exactly how the regulations should be framed. A large number of ports have now produced their own waste management plans on a voluntary basis. We know that others are in the pipeline. I suggest that we need to learn all the lessons that we can from these plans.
As I mentioned, in January I announced a package of 18 new measures to combat deliberate discharges from ships, and the Bill includes legislation to implement a number of these measures in relation to waste reception facilities, as we have heard.
Another of the measures I announced was the formation of a Maritime Pollution Advisory Group chaired by officials of my department. This group brings together a large number of organisations with an interest in pollution from ships. Its purpose is to find solutions to the problems caused to the environment by the operation of ships. A sub-group of members from the advisory group will meet in the next few weeks to review the plans which have been produced so far, and to identify examples of good practice. That is essentially the answer to the question posed by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley.
The adequacy of the plans received so far will be examined by the Maritime Pollution Advisory Group of officials and organisations, and we will use that information to determine the best regulations to be brought forward under our enabling powers. We are considering an approval process and the Bill makes some provision for this. At the moment, as the Committee will know, the plans are voluntary.
There is a further reason for seeking enabling powers. Both the IMO and the European Commission are considering proposals for international measures on port waste reception facilities. As a result of the work we have undertaken, the United Kingdom is taking a leading role in several aspects of this debate. We must bear in mind that we do not yet know what form any eventual international instruments might take, and for that reason the clause introduces enabling powers. This would allow the regulations to be amended to take account of any international instruments.
The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, concentrated on a provision in Amendment No. 15 concerning marinas, and I believe that I can give an answer that will fully satisfy the noble Lord. Amendment No. 15 would add the term "marinas" to the definition of terminal in new Clause 130B(3) in Clause 5. It is difficult to see how a marina could be classed as a terminal, but the existing clause is sufficiently wide to ensure that all genuine terminals are brought within the scope of the definition. Clause 5 defines a terminal as:
- "any terminal, jetty, pier, floating structure or other works within a harbour at which ships can obtain shelter or ship and unship goods or passengers".
4.30 p.m.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: I am most grateful to the Minister for all those details and for explaining what is happening and may be about to happen. However, I must say I did not manage to extract from his answer any serious objection to the amendment I put forward. He spoke at one moment about flexibility. It seems to me that what we have in the amendment allows for flexibility. He spoke about following the international arrangements which may be agreed, but under our amendments there is absolutely no reason why the Secretary of State should not follow the international arrangements. He also spoke about the need to amend and there is no reason, it seems to me, if our amendment is passed, why he should not amend. I am far from clear what the real objection is to this amendment going on the face of the Bill.
Viscount Goschen: Perhaps I may intervene a second time to assist the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, and the Committee on the point about flexibility. The amendments as proposed would reduce much of the flexibility that is essential for these new proposals to work successfully. The Bill lists a number of measures which might be included in regulations. The amendments proposed by the noble Lord would require that each and every one should be included, regardless of the effect that this would have. I can certainly understand why the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, has tabled this group of amendments, and I understand from his remarks that he accepts the thrust of what we are doing to improve the marine environment through control of waste management, and that he has an understandable desire to see the regulations introduced as quickly as possible. I would like to reassure the Committee that we have every intention of making regulations as quickly as possible and practicable. I have previously said that we will quickly introduce regulations on waste management plans first. The need for, and the extent of, regulations on charging and the use of facilities will be considered next.
That, essentially, is the reason for not wanting to follow the amendments which have been put down by the noble Lord. We have introduced a voluntary scheme at the moment and we are in the early stages of that scheme. We do not wish to be over-prescriptive at this stage, but there is not very much between us in terms of intent.
Lord Berkeley: I am grateful for the Minister's explanation in response to some of the remarks I made. Perhaps he can help me with his argument that enabling powers are the best way to proceed because they introduce more flexibility. Is that the way that the requirements for environmental impact assessment on construction projects were introduced into legislation? Is it the way that railway safety cases came in under the Health and Safety at Work Act, and perhaps air safety? Is there a precedent here which I, being comparatively new to this place, do not know too much about? I have a funny feeling that the Minister is perhaps being rather cautious on this issue.
I was also amused to hear that the 100 to 140 out of 350 ports which have submitted their plans are defined as a large number of ports. That is well under 50 per cent. I am very pleased to hear that the plans will be examined by the safety panel. Could the Minister let us know what is the approval process for this? Which agency will undertake the approval process, and--a question which everyone has to ask on these occasions--who will pay for the agencies' work on these things? Will there be any extra funding for it?
Lastly, would it be possible for the Minister to respond to my question about the consultation that the Government have had with other member states across the North Sea? I noted what he said about consultation with IMO and other organisations, but I am concerned specifically with Recommendations 27(d) and (f) of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson.
Viscount Goschen: The answer to the latter point is that we are actively working through the medium of the North Sea Conference, discussing provisions with other member states.
Ministers are cautious animals by definition, and where their caution eludes them they often find themselves at the wrong end of judicial processes. That is not the reason here. Clearly, we are all agreed that getting waste management plans right is the important issue. We decided to bring them forward on a voluntary basis, and we have also decided to enshrine the further developments in the Bill to give us powers to bring forward regulations. We do not want to bind ourselves over-prescriptively on what the nature of those regulations will be.
The noble Lord asked a number of questions about the approval process. That matter is still under consideration. We certainly need to get that right. We do not want a system which is over-bureaucratic, but on the other hand we need a system which enables plans to be properly scrutinised.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: The noble Viscount says that he does not want to be over-prescriptive about what the regulations should be, but it does not seem to me that there is anything in our amendments as they stand which would ensure that it was over-prescriptive. The noble Viscount says he wants to ensure that the regulations are the most appropriate ones--that is probably what it amounts to--and all we are seeking to do here is to make certain that he actually does produce these regulations.
I have heard everything that the noble Viscount has said. I must say that I have not actually come across an argument against the amendments as they are tabled, only against what the noble Viscount, the Minister, seems to think is the spirit behind them. This is not against the amendments as they are tabled, only against what the Minister seems to think is the spirit behind them. This is not a moment to go further into this. I am sure that I and the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, and the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, will take this away and think about it and see what we can mine out of the words of the Minister between now and the next stage. In the meantime I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 5 not moved.]
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page