| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, perhaps the Minister will give way. In relation to the question of hydrography, how many, if any, hydrography vessels are in the ownership of the department or any other agency? Is it that the department charters hydrography vessels? Is the Minister satisfied that sufficient is being done in that respect to ensure that appropriate research is being conducted and accurate information given to those who are working in ships and to those who own them?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, in the general round of things and not referring specifically to the incident in question, I have not been aware of any such problems. In regular meetings with shipowners, fishermen and others who rely on charts around the UK coast, I have not been made aware of such problems. With regard to the detail of the chartering of vessels and so forth, I shall be more than happy to write to the noble Lord.
Turning to a point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, with regard to my statement in relation to co-operation, it is our view that these matters work best through co-operation. However, there is to be a review of the national contingency plan. What I said about intervention powers in general is that we would use powers to require salvage plans to be submitted for agreement by the Secretary of State's senior representative. Therefore there could well be an intervention that stopped short of intervening directly to take overall command of an incident. However, those powers are available where necessary.
Lord Donaldson of Lymington: My Lords, that addresses a point which troubles me. If there is a distinction to be made between taking overall powers and intervening in specific respects, we shall find ourselves in difficulties. Surely the Secretary of State's representative must be able to say: "I have heard what you say. I have considered it, but I do not agree. It would be better if we did this". He should not have to use intervention powers to achieve that. If there is the slightest reluctance on the part of people who have power, such as harbour authorities and so forth, to go along with the Secretary of State's chosen route, then he merely says, "This is what we are going to do".
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I do not believe there is very much between myself and the noble and learned Lord on this point. Perhaps I have not explained myself sufficiently clearly. I agree that where the Secretary of State's senior representative felt that in the case of disagreement with advice that had been given and the taking of overall command where there was good reason to do so, he should be able to do that and, indeed, is able to do that.
The noble and learned Lord pressed me on another point and inquired whether there was some great bureaucratic chain that had to be followed or whether the procedure could be followed rapidly. I am pleased to reassure him that it can be done rapidly and there is not a great long process to be undertaken where the situation demands it and where it can be so justified.
The final point the noble and learned Lord asked me was in regard to the definition of "pilot". I understand--I am subject to correction--that that has been directly taken from previous legislation. I hope that answers the questions put forward.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I intervened after the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, to ask whether the national wildlife contingency plan was to be taken into account in the review of the national contingency plan itself.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, the answer is yes. I hope that with that single word answer the noble Lord is satisfied and the House will feel able to accept Amendment No. 2.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Viscount Goschen moved Amendment No. 3:
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 2. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 4 to 6 not moved.]
Viscount Goschen moved Amendment No. 7:
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I spoke to this with Amendment No. 2. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 5 [Waste reception facilities at harbours]:
Lord Clinton-Davis moved Amendment No. 9:
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I can be perhaps uncharacteristically short in moving Amendment No. 9. The question that arises here relates to the nature of consultation that will be taken into account. I do not need to adumbrate upon that further. The Minister has engaged in a good deal of consultation, but we are here talking of the actual process and how those situations will emerge and develop. I beg to move.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, perhaps I may give a similarly brief response. A major plank of the Government's policy is to consult with interested parties on a wide range of measures. However, Amendment No. 9 duplicates existing provisions. There is already a requirement for the Secretary of State to consult interested organisations. The requirement is given in Section 306(4) of the Merchant Shipping Act 1995, as amended by
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, unhesitatingly I rise to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Clinton-Davis moved Amendment No. 10:
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in this context is there any reason why the affirmative resolution procedure should not be applied? I beg to move.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, the noble Lord has made the shortest speech to an amendment that I have yet heard. I regret that my answer, clear as it will be, will take a fraction longer. The intention of the amendment would appear to be to make all regulations on port waste reception facilities subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. That would unnecessarily delay the making of regulations on waste management planning. It is important that the regulations are made as quickly as practicable. Our intention is that the regulations would evolve as the Government and the industry gain more experience of the practicalities of the measures we are introducing. Once the first regulations--
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, can the noble Viscount explain why matters would be delayed if there were an affirmative resolution?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, my understanding is that time has to be found in both Houses of Parliament for matters to be debated. Hence the delay that might well occur.
Once the first regulations had been made we would intend to keep them up to date with technical amendments. It would therefore be inappropriate and unnecessarily time-consuming for all such amendments to be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. Furthermore, the drafting of the amendment is flawed because it would conflict with existing provisions on the procedure for making regulations.
For those reasons, I hope the noble Lord will agree with me that the current arrangements in the Bill are more appropriate.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I am little puzzled. I could understand if the Minister were to say that for a particular class of draft regulation it would not be appropriate to follow this procedure. However, he excludes them all.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, in the interest of brevity, I did not go on to describe the procedures for this section of the Bill in terms of the fact that both affirmative and negative resolution procedures are used.
New Section 130D(3) and (4) would apply both affirmative and negative resolution procedures to different parts of Clause 5, depending on the nature of the regulations. The noble Lord's amendment would add a conflicting provision to Section 130A and, if it were to be adopted, would add ambiguity. It is not very clear which of the conflicting provisions would apply. Different procedures are used for different parts of the Bill. That is essentially the answer to the noble Lord's question.
Page 3, line 38, after ("waters)") insert ("is amended in accordance with subsections (1A) to (1C).
(1A)").
Page 3, line 41, at end insert--
("(1B) In subsection (2)--
(a) after sub-paragraph (b) there is inserted--
"(bb) to any pilot of the ship, or"; and
(b) at the end there is inserted "or
(d) where the ship is in waters which are regulated or managed by a harbour authority--
(i) to the harbour master, or
(ii) to the harbour authority."
(1C) In subsection (9)--
(a) for the definition of "accident" there is substituted--
""accident" means a collision of ships, stranding or other incident of navigation, or other occurrence on board a ship or external to it resulting in material damage or imminent threat of material damage to a ship or cargo;"; and.
(b) after the definition of "owner" there is inserted--
""pilot" means any person not belonging to a ship who has the conduct of the ship;".").
Page 4, line 38, after ("may") insert (", after consulting interested bodies,").
Page 5, line 11, at end insert--
(" ( ) No order may be made under this section or any of sections 130B to 130D unless a draft of it has been laid before and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.").
5 p.m.
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page