| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Berkeley: I will not detain the Committee long in supporting the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley. It must be right to increase the maximum level of fine from £5,000, which, on the basis of some of the accidents we have seen in the last few years, is totally inappropriate, and I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say about this.
Viscount Goschen: The level of fines is of course an important issue when one is looking at the deterrent effect, and we had a good and full discussion at the Second Reading of the Bill on issues concerning fines for deliberate discharge, which was an area touched on by both the noble Lords who have spoken. In fact, we are considering here a fine for not producing the required plans.
I certainly can appreciate why this amendment has been tabled. We also consider marine pollution from ships to be a very serious offence and we would wish the penalties to be appropriate to the severity of that
offence. That is why the Bill also includes clauses to increase the fines for other types of pollution offences to which I referred earlier. We have to recognise that the maximum penalties for this offence need to be consistent with those imposed for other similar offences and we believe that the fines in the Bill achieve that.On a final point, I understand that if the case went to a Crown Court there would not be this maximum limit. In the spirit of the Moses Room procedures, and without any commitment, I undertake to consider this further. However, our view at the moment is certainly that the level of fines for the magistrates' court is an appropriate maximum.
Lord Donaldson of Lymington: In his considerations, would the Minister like to bear in mind that it is no answer to this problem simply to say that the magistrates have discretion, because if the magistrates are doing their job they will be considering what is the worst possible case we could have. Parliament has fixed whatever may be the fine for that level, and therefore they will scale it down accordingly? Putting it up to £50,000--I am not saying that is right or wrong--will have a knock-on effect all the way down. That may be intended or not, but it is no good saying that the magistrates have a discretion. I interpolate that point purely from a lawyer's point of view, rather than anybody interested in marine matters.
Viscount Goschen: I certainly welcome the legal advice from the noble and learned Lord, and that will constitute part of our considerations on this very important point.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: In the spirit of the Moses Room, which is presumably a spirit of wisdom, I certainly accept what the Minister says, particularly if he takes into account the argument just put forward. I therefore beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Clinton-Davis moved Amendment No. 37:
After Clause 5, insert the following new clause--
(".--(1) It shall be the duty of the master of every ship operating in areas defined in the Merchant Shipping (Prevention of Pollution) (Limits) Regulations 1996 to record, at entry into such areas, the volume, description and type of garbage on the ship at that time.
(2) It shall be the duty of the master of every ship to which subsection (1) applies to record each day--
(a) the daily volume, description and type of garbage arising from the normal operation of the ship;
(b) the volume, description and type of garbage placed into port reception facilities at named ports in the United Kingdom;
(c) the date and time of placing of such garbage into port reception facilities; and
(d) the disposal of any garbage from the ship by whatever other means, including the volumes of garbage so disposed, the method and date of disposal.
(3) It shall be the duty of the master of every ship to which subsection (1) applies to record, on leaving such areas, the volume, description and type of garbage on the ship at that time and to make this record available on request to relevant authorities in subsequent port states visited.
(4) It shall be the duty of each harbour authority--
(a) to inspect and make a copy of all such records kept under subsections (1) and (2) of all visiting ships; and
(b) to maintain a register containing copies of all records so inspected.
(5) It shall be the duty of each harbour authority maintaining a register under subsection (4)--
(a) to secure that the register is available, at all reasonable times, for inspection by the public free of charge;
(b) to afford members of the public facilities for obtaining copies of the documents kept in the register, on the payment of reasonable charges;
(c) to supply members of the public with copies of the documents kept in the register, on payment of a reasonable charge for copying, not more than two months following receipt of a written request for such documents; and
(d) to ensure that all documents defined in subsections (1) and (2) are placed on the register within two weeks of their being brought into existence.").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move the amendment standing in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley. We shall address not dissimilar provisions in subsequent debates on new clauses, but I turn specifically to this one. The background to this is that the Government, under the 1996 Merchant Shipping (Prevention of Pollution) (Limits) Regulations, took powers to protect and preserve the maritime environment to accord with Part XII of the International Law of the Sea Convention, to extend the area of the United Kingdom jurisdiction to 200 miles. We would suggest that, following the recommendation of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, Recommendation 24(b), it would be appropriate for all ships operating in the new area of control to be required to keep records of waste arising on board and its disposal. That would also be in accord with the IMO proposal to require ships to carry garbage record books, which, I understand, the Government have made a commitment to support. Perhaps the Minister would care to indicate whether I am right about that.
How do we go about doing this? There are two essential components. One is that one would need a public register; and, secondly, that that public register would be subject to scrutiny by the public. Otherwise there is no point having a public register. In my submission, that would enable greater use of port reception facilities to be made by visiting ships because there would be a clear incentive to comply, and indeed a deterrent would also be operative in this respect.
The pollution regulation of the shipping industry would then be brought into line with the requirements affecting the land-based industry. In that context we already have public scrutiny because there are a number of public registers which apply, for example, under the Water Act 1989, the Environmental Protection Act 1990, and indeed the rather specific examples that one could quote. I see no reason at all why the shipping industry should not be subject to the same requirements as land-based industries. If the Minister disagrees with that, perhaps he would give his reasons for saying so. I beg to move.
5 p.m.
Viscount Goschen: As I would expect to happen on many occasions in the detailed consideration of the Bill, the noble Lord and I are both seeking to achieve the same thing, which is the proper disposal of garbage from vessels. However, there are some points on this amendment against which I would argue strongly.
The noble Lord suggested that the amendment duplicates existing regulations and I suggest that other parts are inconsistent with international law. There are other arguments which I will come to in the course of my remarks.
The key point is that, while it is clear that this amendment would entail considerable costs, it is far from clear what the environmental benefits would be. Under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, measures beyond the territorial seas such as those proposed by this amendment would need to be agreed by the IMO.
It is highly unlikely that the IMO would agree to the proposed measures, as they are largely already provided for under international regulation. The IMO will reasonably fear that such national regulations could undermine the uniformity of the MARPOL Convention, which is its strength.
From 1997, MARPOL will require ships to have garbage record books, similar to the records proposed by the noble Lord. That is where the duplication I mentioned comes in. My department is preparing regulations to implement this new requirement under the existing power contained in Section 128 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1995.
The noble Lord's amendment would place a duty on harbour authorities to inspect garbage record books and to maintain a register of all record books inspected. It would also require harbour authorities to make the registers available to the public.
I would suggest that what we are talking about is a considerable bureaucracy and bureaucratic task. It would involve an immense amount of work for little benefit. The amendment would require all vessels to be inspected by a harbour authority. In busy ports, this would be a substantial undertaking and extremely costly.
It is also unclear what purpose it would serve. Vigorous enforcement action should be taken to ensure compliance with regulations on discharges from ships. The noble Lord and I are as one on that. That is why the MSA and the Coastguard Agency of my department undertake port state control inspections and aerial surveillance of shipping. Port state control inspectors can already inspect ships, including any documentation they are required to carry. The point is that the vast register of information envisaged by this amendment would add little to the enforcement of regulations but would carry with it a substantial cost.
When we are seeking to get the maximum credibility for any regulations concerning garbage, and in the atmosphere of deregulation in which we find ourselves, we should be extremely cautious before imposing substantial additional bureaucratic burdens on businesses before we are sure that there would be
commensurate considerable benefits attached. For those reasons--the point about duplication and also the fact that we believe that a considerable task would be required in the inspection and maintenance of these registers--I hope the noble Lord will think again and reconsider whether he feels that his amendments would produce the environmental benefits in comparison with their very high cost.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |