| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Berkeley: My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister for giving us the good news as regards progress on the klondykers. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley moved Amendment No. 21:
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment follows the argument which has been put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, and upon which the Minister has been most helpful. As we know, one of the problems with klondykers is that the threat of monetary fines is unlikely to be sufficient to deter some of them from evading such requirements. That is possibly because they do not pay the fines.
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. It is
Lord Berkeley: My Lords, in rising to express my support for the amendment, I have nothing further to add to what the noble Lord has said, save to congratulate him on his excellent Polish.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, clearly the linguistic skills of the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, are without parallel in this House. I have considered carefully the noble Lord's proposal that no new licences should be issued to klondykers until any fines and fees have been paid and the contravention put right. I am not persuaded that the amendment is necessary.
If a new licence for a particular ship were issued before any fines and inspection fees had been settled and the contraventions specified in the prohibition notice had been remedied, the prohibition notice already in force would also override the new licence. The notice would not be revoked until the contravention had been remedied. That would be done after an inspection, for which fees are payable in advance. I hope therefore that the noble Lord will feel that the point he is pursuing, with such ability in foreign tongues, is already covered.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, I believe that that is probably the case. However, I shall read carefully what has been said. It seems to me that what the noble Viscount said means that the point is already covered. Therefore, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Viscount Goschen moved Amendment No. 22:
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I have considered carefully the representations made by the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, in Committee to raise the financial penalties for klondykers contravening the requirements of their transhipment licences. I believe that this significant increase in the level of fines to be imposed on those contravening those requirements is justified, from the current statutory maximum of £5,000 to £50,000, and that it will act as a positive deterrent against future bad practices. I commend the amendment to the House. I beg to move.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I should like to thank the Minister for considering what we said in such a positive fashion. We are most grateful to him. Indeed, it is possible that the increased sum of £50,000 may have a sentiment in another direction--namely, in relation to the earlier amendment that we discussed.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Viscount Goschen moved Amendment No. 23:
Page 13, line 25, at end insert--
(" ( ) No new trans-shipment licence shall be issued until--
(a) any fines and inspection fees have been settled; and
(b) the contravention specified in the notice under subsection (2) has been remedied.").
6.15 p.m.
Page 13, line 37, leave out ("the statutory maximum") and insert ("£50,000").
After Clause 11, insert the following new clause--
(". In section 128 of the 1995 Act (prevention of pollution from ships etc.) after subsection (3) there is inserted--
"(3A) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1) above, an Order in pursuance of paragraph (d) of that subsection may also in particular include provision imposing on local authorities responsibilities in relation to the preparation, review and implementation of any plans required by the agreement mentioned in that paragraph."").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, in moving the above amendment, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 54. The Government have introduced these amendments to clarify existing powers to regulate contingency planning for oil spills. They would allow regulations to be made to give local authorities a statutory duty to maintain contingency plans for responding to oil spills.
The first amendment would amend Section 128 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1995. The section allows the Government to make regulations to implement a number of international conventions, including the International Convention on Oil Pollution Preparedness, Response and Co-operation 1990. This convention, known as the OPRC Convention, requires states to maintain an integral oil spill response capability. The convention stipulates that states should have an oil spill planning regime which co-ordinates the roles of the state, ports, oil terminals and offshore installations.
However, as with most international conventions, it does not explicitly mention the role of local authorities. In the UK, local authorities have traditionally taken a voluntary role to clean up beaches which have been affected by maritime oil spills. Amendment No. 23 would make clear that this voluntary role could be made into a statutory duty by regulations made under Section 128. At the moment, it is unclear whether Section 128 could be used for that purpose because local authorities are not explicitly mentioned in the OPRC Convention.
In June of last year, we consulted interested organisations about the issue. This was prompted both by the need to establish how best to implement the OPRC Convention, and also to help consider the action which should be taken following the recommendations of the inquiry of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, into pollution from merchant shipping. The inquiry recommended that local authorities and harbour authorities should have statutory duties for the planning and response tasks that they already voluntarily undertake.
We are not yet in a position to take a decision on whether local authorities should have a statutory duty for their role in oil pollution contingency planning. The response from the consultation exercise has not been conclusive. We will therefore consider the point further, in consultation with local authorities and others, and in concert with the review of the national contingency plan which I described earlier. I believe that full consultation
However, we did not want to pass up this opportunity pending the outcome of the consultation. If it is concluded that local authorities should be given a statutory duty, the amendments would give us powers to include that duty in regulations made under Section 128. The powers would not be used until the review had been completed.
There is also the consequential amendment to Clause 29 (Amendment No. 54) which would ensure that the new powers relating to oil pollution preparedness and response may be exercised from the day on which the Act is passed. I beg to move.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, we welcome this amendment. However, I wish to ask the Minister one or two questions. Will local authority contingency plans be subject to the approval of the MPCU? As regards Amendment No. 54 to Clause 29, will the requirement to prepare contingency plans also apply to harbour authorities and oil handling facilities? I may have missed something the Minister said, but can he be a little more specific on the timing as regards the introduction of this requirement? I think he said something about when the review was completed, after the passage of the Bill. Can he give some indication how long the review will take? I welcome full consultation and I applaud what he suggests in that regard, but perhaps he can be more specific on that. If he cannot respond tonight, perhaps he will write to me about the matter. It would be better if he could reply this evening as that may mean that we do not have to revisit the matter at the next stage of the Bill.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, I have one small drafting point to raise. The proposed new clause states:
"Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1)".
That is a useful drafting device but it can be misleading if it is used when it is not required, and it also then acts as a precedent. It might be required if the clause went on to say "shall in particular", although even that would be arguable. But as it is permissive, I cannot see how it can possibly be,
"Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1)".
All I ask is that the noble Viscount should consider the matter with the draftsman and satisfy himself that those words are necessary.
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page