---

Lord Clinton-Davis: It has been said that there was no extensive consultation and that this produced anxiety. Was there any consultation? If there was only limited consultation or no consultation, what is the explanation for that? After all, we rely in matters of this kind on the Minister's department to ensure that there is adequate consultation precisely to allay anxieties and, more than that, to ensure that the department--which does not have a monopoly of wisdom in these regards--is able to take advantage of the expertise and experience of those who ought to be properly consulted. The Minister owes the Committee a little more substantial explanation because we do not want this to become a precedent. I know it is not uncommon for mistakes to be made, but if that can be acknowledged we can move on.

I am not seeking to capitalise on this matter. It is just that under any government this sort of thing can occur and it is not good. It is not good for the practice of democracy. It is not good for Ministers themselves, who ought to have access to the view of people who are alive to the situation affecting their industry and, for that reason alone, ought to be consulted. I would ask the Minister, before this debate is concluded, whether he would enlarge a little on that point. It may well be that there is a perfectly good explanation, but the Committee is entitled to hear it.

5 p.m.

The Earl of Caithness: Before my noble friend replies, I would like to take up the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, and use the phrase used by the noble Lord, Lord Greenway--"feathers have been ruffled". I can understand that, particularly with regard to the shipping industry. My noble friend has given a very honest admission and has apologised to all those concerned. I hope we can move forward from that, and that the department has learned the lesson that consultation, particularly on an issue such as this, is advisable.

It seems that we share much common ground. We are all on common ground that the user should pay, which relates quite clearly to the shipping industry and the

26 Nov 1996 : Column CWH71

costs incurred as a result of its activities. The noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, said there are existing powers, and I know he is right, but the existing charging regime can be widened--for instance, to the leisure industry, which, in all equity, ought to pay its fair share for navigational aids.

I hope my noble friend will confirm, however, that the existing legislation is not broad enough, which is one of the reasons why we need items in this schedule. There are certain costs which are borne which we cannot claim back and which ought to be claimed back under the user pays principle.

Having said that, there is the downside which I mentioned at Second Reading, which takes me back to the preamble of the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, to his speech at Second Reading, which is that this will incur extra cost, if we are the only country to impose these costs, because it will impose costs on shipping and on our ports that perhaps our European partners will not impose. That will lead to a distortion of trade and extra costs.

On the question of Europe, having listened to what my noble friend says, it appears that the situation has moved forward quite markedly from what I remember with regard to an acceptance of the user pays principle. It is on this point that I believe that the Government are now right to include these provisions. I know that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, says that there is no agreement yet. But, having listened to what my noble friend said and noting the quite substantial improvement there has been in three or four years, this provision is worth keeping in the Bill because of the other matters which are set out in paragraph 3. That is the big "if" at the beginning which limits the Secretary of State's powers quite considerably, and then subparagraphs (a) and (b) follow on.

I do take note of the concern of the shipping industry, but I also feel that the explanation given by my noble friend has been a good one, worthy of merit.

Viscount Goschen: I would like to thank my noble friend Lord Caithness for his points with regard to the situation of charging and user pays.

My noble friend is quite right that we do need the additional powers given in this legislation to charge on a wider basis for a different set of services--for the counter-pollution and other services that are detailed in the Bill. We could not simply use existing legislation to achieve that, so my noble friend is right.

Secondly, I strongly acknowledge the point about unilateral action and the effect on competitiveness in this country. This country takes the competitiveness of UK industry extremely seriously. At Second Reading I went to considerable lengths to emphasise that our very firm preference is for action with regard to an international agreement, for the very reasons my noble friend raises. I am grateful to him for raising those points. It has enabled me to give that assurance a second time.

With regard to the consultation, I feel that the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, is perhaps going over old ground. I have sought to provide an honest explanation

26 Nov 1996 : Column CWH72

with regard to our then understanding of the European legislation and our change of view subsequent to the consultation exercise. That is the reason why there was no specific consultation on this measure, and I regret that. I regret the fact that, because of this change of view, no consultation occurred on that specific proposal, and indeed I made an apology to that effect at the Second Reading stage of your Lordships' consideration of the Bill. This was not so much an oversight as a change of view about what was and was not possible. That is the reason why we have come to the situation now; and I certainly regret that the lack of consultation has caused rather more feathers to be ruffled than I suspect would have been the case otherwise. There is nothing I can add to that. It is the policy of the Government to consult as widely as possible and gain as much detail as possible. Indeed, we covered that in earlier amendments when the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, was remarking on the level of consultation that the Government generally undertake.

I hope I have given an explanation of why the situation has occurred. I regret it. But I hope that with the assurances that I have been able to give, we can take the discussion on from there.

Lord Beaumont of Whitley: I would like to thank the Minister for the detailed explanations and also for the assurances that he has given. A number of those assurances are particularly welcome, including the one about pensions. I would like to take this matter away and look at it again. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendments Nos. 61 to 63 not moved.]

Lord Beaumont of Whitley moved Amendment No. 64:

Page 28, leave out lines 10 to 16 and insert--
("(4) In particular--
(a) regulations under paragraph 2(2)(a) above may not impose a charge in respect of a ship where no action has been or is being taken with a view to enforcing international shipping standards in the case of that ship;
(b) regulations under paragraph 2(2)(b) above may impose a charge in respect of a ship even though no action has been or is being taken with a view to preventing, reducing or minimising the effects of pollution from that ship; and
(c) regulations may provide that no charge is imposed in respect of a ship which does not exceed a prescribed tonnage or does not exceed a prescribed length.").

The noble Lord said: The purpose of this amendment is to ensure that charges in connection with port state control are not levied on the good ship or on ships that are not subject to port state inspection. Charges in connection with port state control should not be levied on ships which are either in the first place not selected for inspection or found on inspection to be in compliance with the international standards. Charges should only be levied on those ships found deficient. In particular, UK-flag ships are not subject to port state control in the UK but they are already subject to flag-state control for which charges are raised.

26 Nov 1996 : Column CWH73

I realise that if the good ships do not have to subsidise the bad ships that may keep them good, but there is no reason to think they will not keep good anyway. I beg to move.

Viscount Goschen: I have listened carefully to what the noble Lord had to say about this group of amendments and I understand the noble Lord was speaking to Amendment No. 64 on its own. The thrust behind the amendment would preclude charging in respect of which no action is being taken to enforce international shipping standards. Action would typically be a survey or an inspection, whether a UK ship under flag state control or a foreign ship under port state control. We do not feel that such a restriction would be appropriate. The shipping industry as a whole benefits from the application of international standards on safety and pollution, and it is right that the industry as a whole should pay. I emphasise that any charging regime would apply both to UK and foreign ships.

I am not sure that the noble Lord is quite right in what he says about UK ships already paying for flag state control. There are some fine differences to point out here. They would pay for surveys but it is my understanding that that would not be the case for ad hoc inspections. There is a technical point between us here. I should like to ascertain the definitive position for him. If he will allow, I shall write to him with those details and circulate that to Members of the Committee who have shown an interest because it is an important point. Essentially the Government believe that the industry as a whole benefits, so the industry as a whole should pay; otherwise one would simply be imposing a change to the fee regime.

I hope that the noble Lord will await my letter on the details of who pays what for what. We might take that matter up if the noble Lord is not satisfied with my explanation.

---