Clause 8 (Hansard, 10 June 1985)

§ Dr. David Clark
I beg to move amendment No. 17, in page 9, line 19 at end insert 'and (c) shall consider any written representations from a person objecting to the issue of that licence'. As the Minister has reminded us, the control of pollution at sea caused by dumping and incineration is done, under the various conventions, by the issue of licences. Clause 8 lays down the criteria that a licensing authority must take into account when determining whether to issue a licence. Among the matters that the licensing authority has to take into account is the need to protect the marine environment, the living resources which it supports … and … to prevent interference with legitimate uses of the sea"— which I presume includes fishing and certain scientific activities. The clause also says that a licensing authority may have regard to such other matters as the authority considers relevant. We felt that a further condition should be for the right of written representation. There may be other people who have an interest in the granting or refusal of a licence, and it is only right that they should be able to make their representation in the same manner as with a land planning application. Obviously, I am not arguing that exactly the same criteria should apply to the maritime environment as to the land environment, but there is a principle that should be taken into account.
The House might be forgiven for imagining that the point is covered by schedule 3 to the Bill as schedule 3 is entitled "Licences — Right to make Representations, etc." But the right applies only to the licence holder or the would-be licence holder. That is how I read the schedule. Indeed, when it was put to the Minister in Committee, I think that that was also his reading of it.
Other interested parties should have the right to put their point of view, which would be considered together with other points of view and the other information taken into account by a licensing authority in determining whether to issue a licence.
Surely it is not too much to ask that, if someone believes that he has a legitimate interest which may be affected, he has the right to be heard. He may be a fisherman, a fish farmer whose living may depend on the susceptibilities of the quality of the water or tide, a shipper, a marine scientist or someone who wishes to challenge the scientific assertions on which the application is made.
The amendment speaks for itself and, therefore, I shall not go into great detail. Clearly, a matter of principle is involved, and in that spirit I move amendment No. 17.

§ Mr. MacGregor
This is an interesting amendment, and I shall attempt to speak as briefly to it as did the hon. Gentleman. I am glad to have the opportunity of explaining the Government's position on representations from the public, which the amendment allows.
Clause 8 already requires the licensing authority to consider certain matters and gives it power to consider any others which are relevant. The terminology may have led to some misunderstanding on the question of representa-tions. Indeed, we discussed this in Committee. Let us suppose that an individual or organisation has written in with relevant information of which the licensing authority 727 was unaware. The authority would not only have the power to consider the information, but would be positively irresponsible if it did not do so. Indeed, if the authority refused to consider it, an objector with sufficient interest would have grounds for seeking a judicial review of the authority's decision. The court might then find that the authority had acted unreasonably.
The legal position is, therefore, rather stronger than the bald provisions of the Bill seem to imply. There is virtually a duty and a sanction to ensure that the licensing authority considers well-founded objections. Why, then, do I not accept the amendment? There are many difficulties.
First, the amendment talks only about objections. In the context of the sort of controversial applications over which objections may arise, it is possible that other interests would express support for the application. An evenhanded provision would have required any well-founded view to be required. Secondly, the hon. Gentleman referred to schedule 3, but it gives certain rights to make representations after a licence has been issued, whereas the amendment talks about representations before a licence is issued.
Moreover, one often wants to deal with these matters speedily. To have a complex representational system, which would have to go beyond what is in the amendment, could delay many applications. As the hon. Gentleman knows, we have scientific and other advisers who advise us on these licences.
Finally, the Dumping at Sea Act 1974 has been on the statute book for 11 years. The absence of a provision on public representation has not been raised until now, nor was it commented on during consultations on the Bill. In Committee I was asked whether there was any evidence that the lack of such a provision had caused problems. I have examined that carefully and I have never received a complaint or an objection. Therefore, the area does not seem to be creating problems.
I am grateful for the short debate, and I hope that I have demonstrated that we are able to listen to objections, just as we can listen to other representations on an application.

§ Dr. David Clark
I am considerably reassured by the Minister's explanation. We accept his assurance that there is a duty on the licensing authority to take into account other viewpoints and, therefore, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

§ Mr. MacGregor
I beg to move amendment No. 18, in page 9, line 19 at end insert— '(1A) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1) above, where it appears to a licensing authority that an applicant for a licence has applied for the licence with a view to the disposal of the substances or articles to which it would relate, the authority, in determining whether to issue a licence, shall have regard to the practical availability of any alternative methods of dealing with them.'. The amendment places a duty on the licensing authority to consider the practical availability of alternatives to dumping. The key word is "practical", which also featured in the Opposition amendment and the dumping conventions, to which I shall refer shortly. The end result is that the authority will look at practical alternatives— it will not have regard to theoretical ones. I could have given several examples, but, as the hour is late, I shall give 728 only one, which relates to dredgings. For the most part, these are marine sediments and there is no practical alternative to the sea route.
The hon. Members for South Shields (Dr. Clark) and Pontypridd (Mr. John) will recognise that the amendment is a slightly changed version of one which they tabled in Committee, and which I undertook to consider. As I explained then, the duty to consider alternative means of disposal, treatment or elimination is a requirement under the conventions, and, as such, it is a factor that we always take into account where it is relevant, but I am happy to see it in the Bill.
In redrafting the hon. Gentlemen's amendment we have spelt out the circumstances where it will be relevant— when the purpose of the deposit is disposal. That is the extent of the convention's control, but we license deposits that are not made for disposal, such as piers or breakwaters. For those operations, alternatives are not relevant. The original amendment said, "where appropriate", but we have been a little more specific. I hope the hon. Gentleman will agree that this new, slightly improved version meets the point that the Opposition made in Committee.
The amendment strikes the right balance. There is now a duty, not just a power, to consider alternatives. We accept that it is sensible, but the licensing authority will have to regard to what is practical. This should help to ensure that waste disposal decisions take full account of the environment as a whole.

§ Dr. David Clark
I welcome the amendment, which will be a useful weapon in our armoury for the best practical environmental option approach that we are trying to follow with regard to sea dumping. The amendment will be much more important than may 'be suggested by the time that we have allocated to it this evening. I have already mentioned the fact that, in the eyes of others, Britain treats its surrounding seas differently from them. Often, we do so on the grounds of custom and ease. Customs must change with technology and science. Ease must be changed by considering alternative means of disposal.
The amendment, which states that the licensing authority shall have regard to the practical availability of any alternative methods of dealing with them", is a major step forward in changing our approach to the disposal of waste at sea and, in that sense, I welcome it.