| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Clinton-Davis: I thank the Minister for that. Again, I am not convinced about the practical application in the way the Minister has described. But he is to have discussions and that is all important. I hope we will be able to have discussions before we come
back to the Report stage of the Bill, so that he will be able to inform us--perhaps not finally, but at least as to the discussions he has had up to that point.The master is in a position of considerable power. However, I like to feel that penalties are realistic. To give a court powers to impose what in almost every case one can think of is an impossible penalty as a maximum is in a way to degrade the penalty. Perhaps the Minister will think about this again. I do not ask him to give a commitment but to think about it again. There may be a case for drawing a distinction between the position of the master and the position of the owner. It is perhaps a different thing when we are talking about a maximum which is far less, but now we are reaching into the realms of £250,000 and I do not think the court should be given the wrong signals. That is the point I am making here.
Viscount Goschen: I re-emphasise the point that the right signals are given; namely, that the increase in the maximum is a considerable sum indeed. A number of parties could be liable. We have discussed the role of the owner. With regard to an individual I re-emphasise two points: first, the master's means would have to be taken into account. Secondly, as regards the matter going to appeal, I understand there have been instances some time ago where substantial fines were imposed on individuals, which were subsequently overturned on appeal. I know that the noble Lord is much better versed in these legal matters than I am, but they are important points to consider.
Lord Clinton-Davis: We ought to stop this debate because the Minister is coming round to my point of view, I suspect. I do not want to deter him from that but I think he is not quite ready for it. If we are talking about the decision of the magistrates' court being overturned because of its over-zealousness in imposing fines on the master hitherto, how much more likely is it--given that one tends to over-react perhaps--that the court may be misled in some respect? As regards the question of means, that again seems to suggest how impossible it would be in almost every example one could think of for a master to be capable of discharging a penalty of such substance.
I do not ask the Minister to rise again. He has indicated that he will deal with the question of insurance through consultation. I ask him simply if he--a nod will suffice--will think again about the point I have made as to the disparity of responsibility in terms of fines between the master and the owner. I do not ask him to give us any commitment that he will move in the direction that I have indicated. However, I should like him to think again about it. Perhaps I could meet him to discuss it.
5.45 p.m.
Viscount Goschen: I am thinking almost all of the time, but I should be more than happy to meet the noble Lord. If he felt that there would be value in that, my door would be open. One would have to be careful about sending the wrong message again to the court. What we
are saying here is that those who are responsible for pollution should know what the consequences are, and the consequences would be serious indeed. Of course, however, the court always aims to match the penalty to the offence committed and to the means of the defendant to pay. That, I promise is my final intervention on the point.
Lord Clinton-Davis: I thank the Minister again. I say in conclusion on this point that, as a lawyer, I prefer fines. I take the Minister's point absolutely. I do not want to see courts taking an humane attitude about serious acts of pollution or other acts of degradation as regards maritime affairs. I do not want that at all, but I want to be practical. That is the plea I make as regards further discussions or consultations that he will undertake.
Schedule 1 [Amendments of Merchant Shipping Act 1995 relating to inspection and detention of ships]:
Viscount Goschen moved Amendment No. 40:
The noble Viscount said: The purpose of the amendment is to correct a reference in Schedule 1 dealing with inspection and detention from "a foreign ship" to "a qualifying foreign ship". The distinction is necessary when referring to ships which are entitled to exercise the right of innocent and transit passage. The term "qualifying foreign ship" is defined in Schedule 6 of the Bill. I hope that the Committee will accept my explanation. This is very much a matter of drafting. I hope the Committee will feel able to accept the amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 10 [Power to require ships to be moved]:
Viscount Goschen moved Amendment No. 41:
The noble Viscount said: In moving Amendment No. 41 it may be for the convenience of the Committee if I also address Amendment No. 42. We have introduced these amendments to clarify that the powers to direct ships to be moved on cannot be used to direct a UK ship to leave UK waters. That, of course, would not be appropriate. These amendments make explicit that the power provided by Clause 10 would not be exercised to issue such a direction. It would still be possible, however, for the Secretary of State to direct a UK ship to be moved to, or to be removed from, a specific part
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Viscount Goschen moved Amendment No. 42:
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Berkeley moved Amendment No. 43:
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 43 stands in the name of my noble friends Lord Clinton-Davis and Lord Beaumont of Whitley. As the Minister has said, Clause 10 allows the Secretary of State--for safety reasons or to prevent pollution--to remove ships anywhere, unless they are UK ships, if they are likely to cause, or are causing a hazard, or are causing pollution. This conjures up visions of the Secretary of State, or perhaps even the Minister, in a helicopter with a hard hat on, or perched on the end of a cliff, taking charge, as he did so impressively at the time of the "Sea Empress" disaster. There is one point here which concerns me. It is perhaps rather small but nonetheless extremely important. The Secretary of State has given himself the power to take any such action as may be required to be taken under his direction. That also includes, presumably, calling on a pilot to move a ship.
It is important of course that there should be pilots available to assist in the movement of ships. However, it is not impossible that the Secretary of State in issuing directions could require a pilot to take actions which could cause him to breach the duties of a pilot and to breach the requirements of legislation. As I am sure the Committee knows, my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis is, I believe, President of the British Airline Pilots Association, so he is, of course, a great expert on this matter. It is important that some form of immunity be granted to pilots to make sure that, when they are acting legally for the Secretary of State, they are not acting illegally under the terms of some other measure. This amendment has been drafted in the hope that the Minister will at least consider it and perhaps come up with something better. At least I hope he will respond to what I believe is a serious problem for the pilots. I beg to move.
Viscount Goschen: The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, has identified the need to have powerful intervention powers but not to allow those powers to be taken too far in some circumstances. It is certainly not our intention that the power to move ships on should inadvertently cause pilots to contravene Section 21 of the Pilotage Act 1967. We do not believe that this could happen. However, we are prepared to consider the issue because it is an important point. We may table a Government amendment to clarify the situation at a later stage if on additional reflection we consider that an amendment is necessary.
With the assurance that we recognise the point behind the noble Lord's amendment, I ask him to withdraw it. We shall consider it to see whether we can come up with something that covers the point.
Page 26, line 43, after ("a") insert ("qualifying").
Page 10, line 21, leave out from beginning to ("give") in line 22 and insert ("Subject to subsection (2A) below, the Secretary of State may, for any one or more of the purposes specified in subsection (3) below,").
Page 10, line 30, at end insert--
("(2A) The power of the Secretary of State under subsection (2)(a) above to require a ship to be removed from United Kingdom waters is not exercisable in relation to a United Kingdom ship.").
Page 11, line 9, at end insert--
("( ) Where the services of a pilot are required to move the ship, nothing in this Act shall cause the pilot to contravene the requirements of section 21(1) of the Pilotage Act 1987.").
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page