| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister. In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Berkeley moved Amendment No. 11:
The noble Lord said: My Lords, if adopted, Amendment No. 11 would require the Secretary of State to produce draft regulations on waste management plans by no later than 1st July 1998. The history of this matter goes back to Recommendation 27 of the Donaldson Report. It suggested that the Government should place a statutory obligation on port and terminal operators to provide reception facilities and encourage them to consult and to set up a system of certification. The Government's response can be summarised by saying that the matter was under consideration.
In Committee, the Minister suggested (at col. CWH 17 of the Official Report) that the Government's response should be to bring forward plans on a voluntary basis. They did not want to bind themselves or be overprescriptive. The Minister said:
The Department of Transport announced in January 1996 its intention to require ports and harbours to produce waste management plans as part of the 18 new measures to reduce discharges of waste from ships. In the announcement the department recognised that at the moment the provision of such port reception facilities is haphazard and that research by the MSA had shown that where the facilities existed they could be hard to find and were poorly publicised. The department also stated that the problems would be addressed by the strict application of a waste management planning process. However, the Bill as drafted states:
In the intervening period, some ports and harbours, including some of the ports owned by the ABP group, have voluntarily produced waste management plans. However, I am informed that the MSA currently does not propose to assess the adequacy of those plans. What is the point of producing plans if no one is to look
The Government may say that the ports are responding favourably to a voluntary initiative so they should be given more time to see what happens. Our amendment would give them more time, but it would be a fixed amount of time. The Government need to decide which government agency should be responsible for assessing the adequacy of the plans. Is it to be the MSA; is it to be the Maritime Pollution Action Group; or should it be the Environment Agency? We must ensure that any such plan does not make British ports less competitive, although I believe that such an argument can be overemphasised. We would need to see evidence that British ports would be less competitive if this happened.
Finally, perhaps the Minister can help the House by telling us how much the production of these plans would cost. As my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis said in connection with an earlier amendment, there is not only the cost of making the plans; there is also the cost of the clean up when things go wrong.
It is important that consultation on these plans should be as wide as possible. I am convinced that all ports should produce draft waste management plans. If there are no waste management plans, there can be no assessment. That is the purpose of the amendment. It requires the Secretary of State to produce draft regulations on a fixed timescale. The timescale of 1st July 1998 seems appropriate. I beg to move.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, this is an area in which we need to have a degree of uniformity. That can be produced only by regulations. There is considerable variation between ports. The more these matters are left to voluntary and unregulated plans, the less likely it is that there will be a fairly uniform code of practice. It is clear that not every port will need to have exactly the same regulations. However, there should be a general standard which can be relied on by everyone who has to deal with this matter. For that we need draft regulations to be produced fairly soon. Without regulations it is likely that there will be no resources. Resources are needed. If one has regulations, one has enforcement, and resources have to be produced. That is a good reason for supporting the amendment.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, there has certainly been good progress made on waste management plans. It was an important part of the package of 18 measures which I announced to combat the problem of illegal discharges. I believe that one major side effect was to draw attention to the issue of illegal, deliberate discharges. Waste management plans are a significant part of the approach. I do not believe that there is a great deal of difference between any of us who have spoken on the issue today.
As regards the amendment itself, I do not believe that it is necessary because the Government are already committed to making regulations on port waste management plans. I have stated on a number of occasions that we intend to make these regulations as quickly as possible and practicable.
However, we need to allow sufficient time to take account of the lessons learnt from the voluntary planning regime introduced last year. The amendment is undesirable because it would restrict the time available to do this.
It is important to note that the concept of port waste management planning is relatively new. I am anxious, therefore, to ensure that we learn the necessary lessons in the light of the experience gained from the current voluntary regime before we make regulations.
As I stated in Committee, a sub-group of the Maritime Pollution Advisory Group is reviewing the port waste management plans which have been produced so far. That is in answer to the specific question of the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley. Following consideration by the full group, my department will consult more widely on draft guidelines on the preparation and content of port waste management plans. These guidelines will be based on the best practices used in the guidelines produced so far.
It is of course better to make effective regulations after due consideration rather than to make bad regulations quickly. However, I certainly hope that we will be in a position to make draft regulations well before the date which the noble Lord gave of July 1998.
To the best of my knowledge there is no precedent for a provision of the type proposed by this amendment. It would also be ineffective. It would only require the Secretary of State to produce draft regulations by a set date, not to bring them into force. In fact, what I propose is for regulations to be brought forward as soon as possible following consultation on these new arrangements on the voluntary regime and for regulations--not just draft regulations--to be made as soon as possible. Getting the draft regulations in place is a key part of that.
As I have already said, we are committed to making these regulations just as soon as it is sensible and practicable to do so. I hope that the House will accept that, based on the experience that has been gained since we announced that this was due to be part of our policy, a great deal has changed. I commend the ports industry, environmental bodies and others in the waste management business who have been involved in this process for the hard work that has been put into reaching the position that we have today. The Government accept that it is an important part of policy to make sure that waste management plans are right and we are committed to that. For those reasons I hope that the noble Lord will not feel it necessary to include the specific provision that he has mentioned.
Lord Berkeley: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the Minister for his remarks about the progress which the Government are making in encouraging ports to
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Berkeley moved Amendment No. 12:
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment for the convenience of the House I should also like to speak to Amendments Nos. 13, 14 and 16. Amendment No. 12 is designed to replace what one may interpret as a slightly nebulous statement to the effect that,
Many groups with which we have had discussions have emphasised as have others--and I support this--that there should be a power on the face of the Bill to allow, not require, a departmental officer to require the discharge of waste from ships in port where the officer has reasonable cause to consider it appropriate. At the moment the drafting of the Bill includes just enabling powers. These powers would allow a departmental officer to detain a ship which does not comply with this request. Again, as the Bill is currently drafted, they are just enabling powers.
I believe that it is extremely important that these powers should be there for cases where the departmental officer has reasonable cause to believe that something untoward could happen. This amendment does not aim to put a universal requirement for mandatory discharge on the face of the Bill because I believe that would be unacceptable. Obviously, there needs to be much thought and consultation before such regulations are drafted.
It is important to focus on exceptional cases because it is in such cases that things can go wrong. As an example of an exceptional case one might consider a vessel which has made an illegal discharge in the past--we shall be discussing later today whether there will be records of such illegal discharges, but let us assume that that is known--and a vessel which is proposing to leave port with full waste tanks.
I believe that the judgment and discretion to use these new powers should rest with the MSA inspectors themselves. They have shown that they have used judgment and discretion in the exercise of their existing port state control powers. One would assume that these powers would not be very different.
It is very important that, if a ship comes into a UK port fully laden with waste and refuses to discharge, the port state control inspectors should have the power to require discharge to reception facilities if they think fit.
I now move to the imposition of charges. I believe that I have covered Amendments Nos. 12 and 13. I shall not be moving Amendment No. 14. Amendment No. 16 will enable the Secretary of State to implement regulations which make it a requirement for ports to implement an inclusive fee system rather than simply just giving them the option to do so. I am speaking to this amendment for the convenience of the House. I shall continue and then the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, can make his comments afterwards. It is extremely important that that facility exists.
There has been much argument about whether an inclusive fee system is the most appropriate for all ports. There have been discussions about whether such a system would make British ports uncompetitive. However, for waste such as garbage and non-cargo oily wastes it should be possible to enable the Secretary of State to require ports to implement an inclusive fee system rather than merely giving them the option if, as a result of consultation with the environmental groups and the industry, that is thought desirable. I beg to move.
Page 5, line 12, at beginning insert--
("( ) The Secretary of State shall produce draft regulations on waste management plans no later than 1st July 1998.").
"we need a system which enables plans to be properly scrutinised".--[Official Report, 25/11/96; col. CWH 17.]
However, the plans first need to be produced. The amendment therefore sets out a timescale for draft plans to be produced. I emphasise the word "draft".
"The regulations may make provision requiring a harbour authority for a harbour in the United Kingdom".
Therefore, the Bill does not require; it simply says "may".
5.15 p.m.
Page 6, leave out lines 37 and 38 and insert ("The master of a ship shall--").
"The regulations may make provision requiring the master of a ship",
with
"The master of a ship shall if reasonably required to do so by a Departmental officer or in such other circumstances ... to deposit any waste carried by the ship [in] prescribed ... facilities".
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page