| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Clinton-Davis: While my noble friend Lord Berkeley ponders his position, I should correct a matter for the record and declare an interest. I am president of UK Pilots (Marine). As I am also president of the British Airline Pilots Association, I am master of both the air and the sea! Perhaps I am up in the air and all at sea at one and the same time.
Viscount Goschen: The noble Lord is chairman of a great many organisations and president of a few others as well. We certainly welcome his expertise in pilotage matters. We are all agreed that we would not want an unfortunate circumstance to arise whereby a pilot might inadvertently contravene some other legislation.
Lord Berkeley: I am extremely grateful to my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis for clarifying my rather stupid mistakes earlier. I am grateful to the Minister for his commitment to look at this matter again. On that basis I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 10, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 11 [Ships receiving trans-shipped fish]:
Lord Clinton-Davis moved Amendment No. 44:
The noble Lord said: The amendment would put into immediate effect the requirements to be met for the issue of fish transhipment licences. I want to probe the Minister on this matter. We felt that this was perhaps the best way of doing so. How soon could action be taken in the circumstances that are envisaged in the clause?
Pollution caused by klondykers--notably in Shetland but also elsewhere in the United Kingdom--is a serious and continuing problem. The Minister could provide the power to make regulations. That is an important matter.
At Second Reading the noble Viscount said that this clause
We welcome that assurance but we feel that the requirements that he has in mind should not be delayed. The timetable for the regulations is extremely important. I appreciate that we are in the tail-end of this Parliament and it may be difficult for the Minister to come forward with suitable regulations. However, if the Bill is enacted--whichever party is successful in the general election--this will be a matter of great moment. I hope that the new Government will be encouraged to provide the regulations at an early stage. Therefore, I hope the Minister can give us some idea of his timetabling because it is, to my mind, a very important issue.
The Minister may well say there should be enabling powers at this stage to allow greater flexibility through secondary legislation. If, in fact, he were to consider a counter argument it would be this and it would be contained in Amendment No. 52. Guidance could be
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: I see that Amendment No. 44 is grouped with Amendments Nos. 45 and 46 and with a number of others, but the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, has dealt with only the first one. Was that his intention?
Lord Clinton-Davis: I am so sorry. I should have said that I thought it would be for the convenience of the Committee to deal with this grouping as suggested, but I can move only the first of the amendments, which is Amendment No. 44.
Viscount Goschen: As ever, the noble Lord has raised the important issue of klondykers which has proved to be a catalyst for the Government bringing forward a number of measures in the Bill. I am just making sure that we have the ungrouped grouping correct and that we are looking at the right amendment.
The principal point that the noble Lord asked me about was when we would take regulations forward. As I recall, there was also the point about flexibility versus prescription. Certainly, as soon as the Bill receives Royal Assent and becomes law we will take forward consultation on klondyker regulations with the aim of enforcing them for the winter of 1997. That short timescale shows the urgency with which we consider these issues and the importance we attach to them.
A number of other amendments in this group touch on a very similar subject. I shall not speak to them now as I understand that they have been decoupled. We want to give the maximum flexibility for bringing forward regulations which have the best possible effect. We also want to make sure that they are as powerful as possible and that we have taken into account issues raised during consultation. For that reason we do not want to bind our hands unduly on this matter. However, a couple of points which the noble Lord raised apply to the group as a whole, so if the noble Lord would care to withdraw this amendment we might continue the discussion with regard to the rest of the group and I can give him a rather more full answer.
Lord Clinton-Davis: I am perfectly prepared to do that. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley moved Amendment No. 45:
The noble Lord said: I did not notice the decoupling, but I am very happy to speak to Amendments Nos. 45, 46, 48, 50 to 55 and 57. The amendments deal with the issue of licences to klondykers and seek to transform the existing enabling powers into a requirement on the face of the Bill and to add the threat of not issuing further licences as an additional incentive to comply.
We dealt with a certain amount of this in the last debate, and we know that klondykers are foreign-flagged fish factory ships which collect fish for processing from fishing vessels in UK waters subject to a transhipment licence. Clause 11 provides enabling powers to link the issuing of fish transhipment licences to klondykers to certain safety and pollution prevention criteria. This is based on Recommendation No. 77 of the Donaldson report. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, advised that the system should be in place by the winter of 1994/95. The interim step of providing enabling powers further delays the implementation of that important measure.
Since the Donaldson report was published in May 1994, klondykers have continued to pollute UK waters. For example, the Shetland Islands Council has reported at least six oil pollution incidents involving klondykers at Lerwick between May 1994 and the present. Five of them were relatively small, but in one case bad weather led to the vessel sinking and causing a spill of bunker oil.
The threat of monetary fines is unlikely to be sufficient to deter some klondykers from evading those requirements. That is because experience in Shetland has shown that certain klondykers (for example, the "Borodinskoye Polye" and the "Pionersk") have a poor record of paying what they owe, at least regarding clean-up bills. Fines should be supplemented with a threat that no further transhipment licence will be issued unless and until fines have been settled and sub-standard features have been rectified. That seems to me to be only commonsense.
We also believe that adequate insurance should be an additional prerequisite for the holding of a transhipment licence. That is in line with Recommendation 77 of the Donaldson report. For this reason, the amendment to Clause 11, page 12, line 41, introducing the requirement for adequate insurance should also be supported. It addresses the issue of the level and type of insurance required and removes the interim step of the enabling powers provided under Clause 15. Enabling powers are sufficient for other forms of shipping, but not for these. I beg to move.
Viscount Goschen: The rest of this group of amendments relates to the very important issue of klondykers. The Government have long recognised the importance of having proper control over these vessels and the dire effect that can occur when that is lost. I have seen myself at first hand the effects of accidents involving klondykers in Shetland.
I have listened to the noble Lord's proposals very carefully and to the debate on the previous amendment which was closely linked in many respects. I hope that my arguments will show that the specific provisions of the amendments tabled by the two noble Lords are not
Our approach in the clause is, first, to set out safety standards in the strongest possible terms by giving them the force of legislation, and secondly, to provide the toughest possible enforcement mechanism to help us to implement these standards as vigorously as we can.
First, I see no case specifically for removing the definition of "transhipment licence". In fact, that was the subject of Amendment No. 44 which was spoken to separately. The provision is needed in order to make clear that it is klondykers in possession of such licences to which the provisions of Clause 11 apply.
Secondly, it would not be helpful to set out safety standards in any form other than regulations. We are taking in primary legislation a power to intervene to a substantial degree in commercial activities and to create new offences. It is right that the details of what we propose should be subject to parliamentary scrutiny, rather than being left entirely to the Secretary of State. This is the principle which applies to other maritime safety standards and to the insurance requirements which may be introduced under Clause 15 and which are referred to in this clause.
Thirdly, it would not be right to require the Secretary of State to cover all the aspects referred to. We shall certainly bring forward regulations if the clause is enacted as drafted, according to the timescale which I elucidated to the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis--that is, essentially, as soon as possible. We cannot be sure at this stage exactly what they will cover. Indeed, we would want to consult on them to make them as effective as possible. Again, we return to an argument rather similar to one we have heard in response to previous amendments: that we do not want unduly to constrain our flexibility.
Fourthly, with regard to Amendment No. 55, I am not sure that it entirely makes sense. It would add a requirement to new Section 100G(4) that if a transhipment licence is revoked, no new licence would be issued until any fines and inspection fees had been settled and the contraventions specified in the prohibition notice had been remedied. Normally the klondykers transhipment licence will not be withdrawn from ships which are subject to a notice under Clause 11. The effect of the Clause 11 notice is to over-ride the transhipment licence. The Clause 11 notice would not be withdrawn until the defects had been remedied. This is, essentially, already provided for. However, we have at present no requirement that detention notices are not lifted until all fines and fees have been paid, and such a requirement may very well be sensible. That is the area which the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, highlighted. If I may, I will take that back and consider further whether an amendment is required on this issue. At the very least, I shall write to the noble Lord explaining our reasoning.
For those reasons, I hope that the noble Lord will accept where we are coming from with regard to regulations concerning klondykers and will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Page 12, leave out lines 25 to 28.
"provides for transhipment activities to be suspended if insurance requirements are not met".--[Official Report, 7/11/96; col. 774.]
6 p.m.
Page 12, line 29, leave out ("may") and insert ("shall").
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page