| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, as this is the Report stage I shall intervene briefly, anticipating what I understand will be the Minister's answer. It seems to me that the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, has made a formidable case and I ask the noble Viscount to consider the matter further with a view to fixing an appropriate maximum for someone in the position of a master of a ship.
6 p.m.
Lord Murray of Epping Forest: My Lords, the danger is that a proposition such as that contained in the Bill might make the law look silly. Nobody wants that to happen, particularly if nobody believes that at the end of the road effect is going to be given to that massive, indeed draconian, fine. It is right that a strong signal should be sent to all concerned and that we should concentrate the minds of all concerned on the consequences of their actions or inactions. However, a fine of a £¼ million is out of all proportion to either the responsibility of the master or his ability to pay. As my noble friend said, it is the owner who is responsible for managing the ship and for the performance of the ship and its crew. The master is an employee. He is certainly an extremely important employee, but his role is subsidiary to that of the owner. If the purpose is to concentrate the mind of the owner, surely to goodness £50,000 is quite adequate for that purpose.
I understand that the Minister has been known to express doubts as to whether magistrates would levy such a fine. I understand that he has pointed out that such a fine would quite possibly be changed on appeal.
But if there are doubts in his mind, that underlines the fact that the threat of a potential fine of £¼ million is totally unrealistic. It is much more realistic and sensible to follow the course proposed in the amendment.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, at present either the ship's owner or its master can be prosecuted for a discharge of oil in harbour waters. As we have heard, this amendment would prevent the prosecution of a master.
As I have said already in correspondence with the noble Lord, at meetings and on the Floor of the House, our general policy, where possible, is to seek to impose penalties on the owners and operators of ships rather than on ships' masters. That should encourage shipping companies to instruct their crews to comply with regulations dealing with pollution prevention and to allow them sufficient time to do so.
However, there are occasions when it is appropriate and justified to prosecute a master. It is quite possible that a ship's crew will choose to discharge waste illegally, even when a shipowner has taken all reasonable steps to prevent that. In the case of foreign ships, it may not always be possible directly to prosecute the shipowner. In such circumstances and, indeed, in some others I see no reason why the master should escape prosecution. It is extremely important that we recognise the power of the master. He is ultimately the man responsible on the spot and I do not believe that in any of our discussions about this we should lose sight of that fact. The court will of course take account of the means of the offender when fixing the level of the fine.
The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, described the Government's approach to giving information to magistrates about oil pollution offences. We are doing that in two ways. Clause 7 provides for increases to the maximum fines which magistrates may impose for illegal discharges. We wish to see also increases in the actual fines which magistrates impose. I have written to the Magistrates' Association offering to provide magistrates with information to help them to assess what level of fines would act as a deterrent to polluters. The association has agreed that I should do so by writing an article for its journal The Magistrate.
The increases about which we have heard are long overdue. The one point that I should like to make in relation to the matters raised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, and other noble Lords is that in the case of the fine for oil pollution the maximum has not been increased since 1971, and in 1971 the maximum fine was higher in real terms than that which is now proposed. Therefore, if we cast our minds back to when the fines were introduced originally, the fines, including those for masters, were higher than those which we propose now. That must be an important factor in our considerations.
I feel very strongly indeed that we should still have powers to prosecute a master where appropriate. I am very firm about that. However, strong sentiments have been expressed in the House about the level of the fine. While I can give no undertaking in any form that I shall make any changes on Third Reading, I undertake to look
once again at this issue in consultation with other government departments which have considerable experience on the matter of fines. With that, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. I am glad that he is prepared to reflect on the amount of the fine. The debates that we have had on this matter have certainly stimulated the Minister to consult on these matters. I am glad that he will do so. Certainly we shall need to return to this matter on Third Reading.
There is something to be said in favour of the proposition that a master should not be excluded entirely. I concede that. But the essence of the matter is the amount of the fine. The Minister said--and I believe that it is not a good argument--that because in 1971 the maximum was established at £50,000, it is right to increase it in relation to the different financial circumstances which prevail today, so that in real terms it can be compared with the fine as it was then. That is an extremely theoretical approach because the truth of the matter is that in some instances the courts have not even come within reach of a fine of £50,000. Therefore, to increase the fine in line with inflation in order to adopt a theoretical position does not make a lot of sense.
We must look at what is the experience of the courts. The Minister is absolutely right to say that the courts have not taken a sufficiently strong view about those matters, particularly with regard to owners. We support the Minister's view that the courts should be guided in the direction of recognising more than they have in the past how serious are some of those offences.
But at the end of the day, I want to thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, and my noble friend Lord Murray for their interventions because I feel that we may have begun to persuade the Minister. I have a feeling that the Minister is already half-persuaded, although I accept that he has given no undertakings. It may be that the debate on Third Reading will bring forward a more positive result. In those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 11 [Ships receiving trans-shipped fish]:
Lord Berkeley moved Amendment No. 20:
The noble Lord said: My Lords, we now turn to Clause 11 and klondykers. This amendment is designed again to seek out information from the Government about the progress of the implementation of the proposals in relation to klondykers. It is based on Recommendation 77 of the Donaldson Report and the recommendation contained therein that the system should be in place by the winter of 1997.
It provides powers to link the issue of fish transhipment licences to klondykers with certain safety and pollution prevention criteria. Since the Donaldson Report was published in 1994, the klondykers' pollution has continued and the Shetland Islands Council has reported at least six oil pollution incidents between that
In Committee the Minister stated that, as soon as the Bill became law, they would take forward consultation on the klondyker regulations with the aim of enforcing them for the winter of 1997. On that basis the amendment as set down fits very nicely, but can the Minister inform the House about progress that has been made on consultation and tell us whether the Government are on programme for the enforcement to start by the end of 1997? I beg to move.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, the amendment has flaws in it such as those which I described and which I believe in all fairness the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, accepted as regards a previous amendment that attempted to include deadlines for the Secretary of State to produce draft regulations. As in that circumstance, the Government's commitment to the issue goes without saying. As I announced in Committee, we intend to act quickly after full consultation with interested parties. Indeed, I can tell the noble Lord that the target remains the same. We hope to have klondyker regulations in place by the winter of 1997. It is extremely important that we pursue that target with vigour. I can assure the noble Lord that that is our aim.
As I said earlier, I do not know of any precedent for a provision of the kind suggested. Of course, the amendment would only require the Secretary of State to make regulations by a certain date, not bring them into force at any particular time. Therefore, with the assurance of the Government's commitment on the issue, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Page 12, line 33, leave out ("may") and insert ("shall, by 31st December 1997,").
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page