| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Berkeley had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 6:
The noble Lord said: I do not think there is any need to detain the Committee too long on this amendment because this comes under the same grouping of amendments which we have just been discussing. I believe the best thing is for me not to speak any further on this and not to move it. I shall not move the amendment.
[Amendments Nos. 7 to 30 not moved.]
Lord Clinton-Davis moved Amendment No. 31:
The noble Lord said: This is simply a drafting amendment. The amendment stands in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley. Amendment No. 31 speaks for itself. I beg to move.
Viscount Goschen: I was interested to hear the explanation of the amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, but they may be misconceived as to my understanding they reproduce provisions already included in the Bill. Clause 5 of the Bill provides the Secretary of State with the power to make regulations on charges for the use of waste reception facilities. Clause 5(4) provides that the regulations may prohibit charging for facilities or may place restrictions on such charges. It is this power which could be used to require port waste reception facilities to be free at the point of use.
Clause 5(1) allows harbour authorities to impose charges for waste reception facilities as part of ship, passenger and goods dues. The amendment by the noble Lord would achieve the same effect as the existing Clause 5(4). It does this by amending, and so removing, the power for harbour authorities to impose charges as part of other dues. The amendment, I would therefore suggest, is unnecessary. It also inadvertently removes an important element of the Bill.
These are just matters of drafting. I think that on further consideration we would probably reach agreement, or I hope the noble Lord would come around to my way of thinking.
Lord Clinton-Davis: I am not always prepared to do that but on this occasion I am persuaded that I should. Therefore I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley moved Amendment No. 33:
The noble Lord said: These amendments follow the same pattern as originally proposed. The amendment states that the regulations may,
We have to some extent discussed the arguments. I beg to move.
Viscount Goschen: We have already been round this course and this amendment has been covered in previous discussions. If I am not right, perhaps I could have a further opportunity to talk to the noble Lord at a later stage. With that, I trust that he will be content to withdraw the amendment, but there might be matters that we can discuss between the various stages of the Bill.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: I agree with the Minister that we have covered the principle of this already. I possibly should not even have moved the amendment, and I beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Berkeley moved Amendment No. 34:
The noble Lord said: To some extent this has been covered already. It is important that consideration is given to the ports to enable them to have an inclusive fee system to include the charging for waste disposal. In discussion with the RSPB, it is highly unlikely that any harbour authority would ever choose to implement an inclusive fee system voluntarily because they usually subcontract the work of waste disposal to others. We are aware that the Government are keen to avoid using enabling powers on an inclusive fee basis until they have seen whether the waste management plans are making a difference to the reception facilities, but it is something that will need to be looked at in the future when we have heard a little more from the Minister about how he proposes to take this forward. I beg to move.
Viscount Goschen: This amendment was spoken to in a group that tackled similar issues. I trust that the noble Lord and the Committee will take my answer to that as being addressed to the whole group of amendments.
Lord Berkeley: I am happy with the Minister's answer and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Berkeley moved Amendment No. 35:
The noble Lord said: This is an additional small section to be added, requiring the Secretary of State to consult the relevant harbour authorities and the representative of the waste disposal industry about the waste disposal. I believe that we have discussed this before at some length. I beg to move.
Viscount Goschen: We have discussed consultation in various guises but I am not sure that we have discussed the provisions specifically relating to the amendment. The important matter from the Government's point of view is that we are always keen to ensure full and adequate consultation with interested parties. But I believe that, as drafted, the noble Lord's amendment would in part be unnecessary and in part be inappropriate. The amendments are unnecessary, because we have a policy to consult interested bodies before making regulations. The Government will of course consult far more bodies than those listed in the amendment. For example, we consulted about 40 non-governmental organisations in developing the current proposals on waste management plans, and, as we heard and as I read out, they included a great list from as many bodies as could be interested.
The amendment is inappropriate because it would force consultation in some circumstances where it really is not necessary. The new Section 130C(2) includes a power for a departmental officer to direct the master of a ship to deposit waste, and that is something that was talked about earlier. Nonetheless, there is a duty in the Act to consult and so I believe that this is already covered, and I feel that therefore the arguments that have been expressed about the consultation before hold good. We feel it is important to consult wherever possible, but our consultation actually goes wider than what is proposed here.
Lord Berkeley: I am very grateful to the Minister for that explanation and on that basis I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley moved Amendment No. 36:
The noble Lord said: The purpose of the amendment is to increase the fine for failure to comply with the requirements under regulations relating to the provision and charging for waste reception facilities and the preparation of waste management plans. Section 130B(1) of the proposed new Chapter 1A of the 1995 Act sets out that, for example, a port authority that did not prepare a satisfactory waste management plan could only be fined a maximum of £5,000. In view of the potential seriousness of oil pollution, even of a single, deliberate discharge incident, and the potential for plans to reduce this pollution, we consider that the maximum fine should be increased to £50,000 in line with those fines for offences under Clauses 1, 10 and 15.
Accidents involving oil tankers such as the "Braer" and "Sea Empress" can have a serious impact on wildlife and local economies. However, in the context of shipping, it is estimated that more oil enters the sea from deliberate legal and illegal discharges. Between September 1995 and January 1996, the RSPB tells me that over 3,000 birds were affected by deliberate discharges of oily waste, and most of those can be attributed to just four incidents, including one within 20 miles of Flamborough Head, a key area for seabirds. As a result of this incident, 1,400 oiled birds were found on the Yorkshire coast, almost as many birds as were recovered after the "Braer". In all four cases, the source could not be confirmed but it is likely to have been a ship in each case.
Port operators have argued that surveys carried out by the Marine Safety Agency show that waste reception facilities are available and therefore responsibility for deliberate discharges lies solely with ship operators. We believe that the MSA surveys fail adequately to address the issue of facilities having the right capacity and being easy to use, and these factors are bound to influence the master's decision on waste disposal when under time or financial pressures. The increase refers to a maximum level. Therefore magistrates would be able to take into account the seriousness of the offence as well as the size of the operator involved. I beg to move.
Page 4, line 44, leave out ("and") and insert--
("(1A) The Secretary of State shall by regulations make such provision as he considers appropriate in relation to").
Page 6, line 31, leave out ("regulations may make provision enabling") and insert ("Secretary of State may by regulations make provision requiring").
Page 6, leave out lines 37 to 44 and insert--
("(2) The Secretary of State shall--
(a) make provision requiring the master of a ship,--
(i) if reasonably required to do so by a Departmental officer, or
(ii) in such other circumstances as may be required,
to deposit any waste carried by the ship, or any prescribed description of such waste, in waste reception facilities provided at a harbour in the United Kingdom, and
(b) order the detention of a ship which fails to deposit waste as required under paragraph (a) until such time as the master of the ship complies with the initial request.").
"make provision requiring the master of a ship,--
(i) if reasonably required to do so by a Departmental officer, or
(ii) in such other circumstances as may be required, to deposit any waste carried by the ship".
This amendment of ours is designed to tighten up the measure. It states:
"The Secretary of State shall--
(a) make provision requiring the master of a ship"
to do the necessary things.
Page 7, line 21, leave out ("enabling") and insert ("requiring").
4.45 p.m.
Page 7, line 35, at end insert--
("(11) Before exercising the powers conferred by this section the Secretary of State shall consult the relevant harbour authority and such bodies as represent the waste disposal industry.").
Page 7, line 39, leave out ("the statutory maximum") and insert ("£50,000").
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page