| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, once again I appreciate the Minister's intervention, with the leave of the House. I believe the assertion that he has made about the department maintaining a careful watch on the situation and ensuring that, if my apprehensions were to be fulfilled in any way, then action would be considered. I do not believe that I can ask for anything more. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Viscount Goschen moved Amendment No. 3:
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, in moving this amendment it may be for the convenience of the House if I speak to Amendments Nos. 10 and 11 at the same time. They are all minor technical amendments. Amendment No. 3 is consequential on earlier amendments to Clause 2 made in your Lordships' House. It broadens subsection (6)(b) of Clause 2 so that it refers to the whole of Section 137 rather than Section 137(1) alone. Subsection (1) is no longer the only subsection amended in Clause 2.
Amendment No. 10 corrects a drafting error in Clause 25. As currently drafted, there is a reference to a section where there should be a reference to a subsection. In order to avoid ambiguity, the amendment will substitute the correct reference.
Amendment No. 11 is a simple correction to the commencement provisions of the Bill. It adds Clause 29, which deals with the extent and application of the Bill, to the clauses which come into force immediately on Royal Assent. I beg to move.
On Question amendment agreed to.
Clause 5 [Waste reception facilities at harbours]:
Lord Berkeley moved Amendment No. 4:
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment stands in my name and those of my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis and the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley. It may be for the convenience of the House if I speak also to Amendments Nos. 5, 6 and 16.
We have covered many of the issues raised in these amendments at earlier stages, but it is perhaps worth pointing out that Amendment No. 4 seeks to give a departmental officer the power, on the face of the Bill, to require the discharge of waste from ships in ports where that officer has reasonable cause to consider it necessary. Currently, the Bill includes that only as an enabling power.
To some extent, the amendment reflects what the Minister said on Report when considering a similar amendment. The noble Viscount said:
In conclusion on Amendment No. 4 and Amendment No. 5, which is consequential upon it, perhaps I should point out that the provisions are also in line with a statement made by the Minister in a recent letter to my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis in which the noble Viscount stated:
I turn now to Amendment No. 6, which seeks to delete the reference to arbitration and compensation. That would be replaced by making the power subject to Section 261 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1995, which includes provision for the detention of the ship by the serving of a prohibition notice, as well as including provisions for arbitration and compensation. Again, I believe that the amendment incorporates comments made by the Minister on Report, particularly on the question of arbitration. The addition of new Section 130C(2) to Schedule 6 makes it explicit that the arbitration and compensation procedures which already apply to other improvement and prohibition notices under Section 261 would also apply to this additional power. It could be argued that that has already been achieved by the Minister's amendment to Schedule 6, adding new Section 130A, but I believe that the specific mention of Section 130C(2) eliminates any uncertainty.
The Minister and others have commented on the desirability of achieving the use of waste reception facilities through persuasion and consultation. I am sure that all noble Lords would agree that that is a desirable objective when dealing with the whole industry, but we must accept that it is unrealistic when dealing with the small number of operators who repeatedly and deliberately commit offences. It is the behaviour of unscrupulous operators--who will probably not be influenced by waste management plans or the introduction of the inclusive fee systems--which we shall be discussing in a moment, on which we must concentrate.
We share the concern that any unilateral increase in pollution control powers which would make British ports less competitive would be undesirable. However,
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, the package of amendments to which the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, has just spoken has the same intention as a number of amendments which were tabled at Report and on Committee. They would seek to remove the flexibility in the Bill to make regulations on the discharge of waste from ships.
As I explained at Report stage, it is vitally important that we do not act too hastily on this issue. If we impose requirements on ships which are too onerous, there is a danger that some shipowners may be tempted to discharge their waste into the sea in order to avoid disproportionate costs, as the noble Lord acknowledged in his introduction. None of us wants to see that. The Bill therefore provides enabling powers which could be used following full consultation with all interested bodies. The noble Lord quoted back at me my own remarks at an earlier stage--that is always a powerful tool to use--when I said that that was only part of the answer. Yes, it is a part--and it is a part that we can use through the enabling powers. The crucial question is whether it should be an enabling power or whether the flexibility should be removed.
It is important that the provisions on discharge of wastes from ships are considered as elements of an overall strategy. We should not impose any one measure without considering the effect it will have on the others. In particular, we should be careful not to require shipowners to discharge wastes into port reception facilities until we are sure that those facilities are adequate. That is why we intend to take action first on waste management plans. We have had very good debates on that subject at earlier stages.
The concept of requiring ships to discharge wastes is a relatively new one. Although claims have been made about the effectiveness of such a strategy, it is unproven and risks greater damage to the environment. We are determined to proceed prudently and with the benefit of consultation and the experience gained from waste management planning.
The amendments would also remove a number of safeguards which Clause 5 provides for the regulations. For example, Clause 5 currently requires that there should be full consultation with interested parties and that the regulations would need to be approved by both Houses. It also stipulates the offences for non-compliance with the regulations. The noble Lord's amendments would have the effect of exempting mandatory discharge from these provisions.
The noble Lord has proposed that we should delete lines 18 to 25. That would have the effect of removing provisions relating to arbitration and the payment of compensation by the Secretary of State if the arbitrator finds that a direction was unreasonable. While I do not
Again, as with so many of our discussions on this Bill, I do not believe that the noble Lord and I are far apart. It is a question of flexibility. If we are to introduce such regulations, I would prefer to do so after we have pursued full consultation and with the additional safeguards that are built into the Bill as it stands. I do not believe that the noble Lord strongly disagrees with those arguments. Although it is a great presumption to anticipate the noble Lord's words, I anticipate that his desire is more a determination to take the measure forward. Our determinations are shown by the Bill as a whole. I hope that with that explanation the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Page 4, line 26, leave out ("137(1)") and insert ("137").
Page 7, leave out lines 10 and 11 and insert ("The master of a ship shall--").
"The powers could be a useful addition to existing powers to enforce pollution regulations ... a power to require waste to be discharged would provide only part of the answer".--[Official Report, 13/1/97; col. 46.]
Perhaps I may turn that round the other way and say that the power therefore provides part of the answer. The amendment does not aim to put a universal requirement for mandatory discharge on the face of the Bill because we acknowledge that much more thought and consultation is required before such regulations may be drafted. However--this comment applies to all the amendments to which I am speaking--we are concerned about the exceptional cases. An exceptional case could be that of a vessel which has made an illegal discharge in the past and which is proposing to leave a port with a full waste tank.
"As regards a failure to comply with the requirement to discharge waste, the best deterrent for ship operators is the threat that the ship could be detained in port, and therefore prevented from trading, until the waste has been discharged".
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page