Food and Environment Protection Bill [Lords] (Hansard, 10 June 1985)

§ Mr. MacGregor

In Committee, amendments were tabled by the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Mr. John) which would have re-enacted section 6 of the Dumping at Sea Act 1974. That section enables Ministers to make orders putting into effect any co-operative procedures between contracting parties to the London and Oslo conventions for enforcement of those conventions on the high seas. Since no such arrangements had been made since 1974, or seemed likely to be made, the provision was not included in the Bill because it seemed to be unnecessary. However, the hon. Member for Pontypridd argued in Committee — really in response to an invitation from me—that if the situation ever arose, he would prefer to see statutory provision that anticipated the likelihood of any arrangements of this kind so that it would not be necessary to have emergency or primary legislative provisions. I said that I had no strong feelings either way, but that, in the light of the hon. Gentleman's arguments, I was happy to concur.

The new clause meets that commitment, although the drafting is considerably changed from the 1974 Act both to fit in with the other provisions of the Bill and to make a number of technical changes and improvements. It gives us all the powers that we think might be needed in the event of enforcement procedures being agreed.

688 Government amendment No. 50 is consequential on the new clause on enforcement of the conventions. It excludes the Northern Ireland Office from making an order under the new clause. The clause concerns enforcement of the conventions outside United Kingdom territorial waters, and such matters are outside the jurisdiction of the Northern Ireland Office. Any orders made under the new clause would be made by the Minister and the Secretary of State.

It might be helpful if I added some further explanation. Both the conventions contain an agreement to co-operate in developing enforcement procedures, in particular on the high seas. Any orders made under this clause would specify the convention state or states with which we had agreed such procedures, and may confer on officers of such states any of the powers which British officers have for the purposes of enforcing part II of the Bill, with or without any modifications. Officers of the specified convention states could be empowered to enter British vessels on the high seas if they suspected there were substances or articles to be deposited on board. British officers' powers may be extended so that they could enter vessels of specified convention states on the high seas. British officers may enter any vessel inside United Kingdom waters under powers conferred in the Bill. It is not intended that any officers would be given powers of entry within another country's territorial waters. This will be made clear in the order.

All officers acting under the order would have the same rights and liabilities as British officers enforcing part II of the Bill—for example, they must be issued with, and must produce, evidence of their authority; they must carry out their functions at a reasonable hour; and they have the same protection from prosecution.

I spell this out only for the convenience of the House, because the issue may be academic. However, it is useful to add this provision to the Bill and to have powers to act for any such eventuality.

§ Dr. David Clark (South Shields)

The Opposition welcome the new clause and the subsequent consequential amendment. We are grateful for the way in which the Minister has taken on board what my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Mr. John) said so eloquently both on Second Reading and in detail in Committee. It has allowed us to adopt a bi-partisan approach to this aspect of the Bill.

The clause replaces in statute form section 6(1) of the Dumping at Sea Act. It appeared that the Bill repealed completely the Dumping at Sea Act, and the Opposition felt that by including a provision along the lines of the new clause people would be reassured that, although the Act was being repealed, we were in no way weakening it.

The whole House believes that we should not weaken our commitment to the principles of the Dumping at Sea Act, and there is considerable evidence to suggest that we should look closer at ways of developing the provisions of the Act to try to ensure that the seas that surround us, especially the North sea, are protected from the cumulative effects of pollution.

The Opposition regard section 6 of the Dumping at Sea Act as important. As the Minister explained, it was essentially an enabling provision. It permitted Her Majesty's Government to introduce agreements made under the conventions and to carry them forward into legislation by means of a statutory instrument. We have 689 felt that that was very much preferable to emergency or primary legislation. We have seen again and again how Governments have difficulties in providing time for the consideration of primary legislation, as the Minister knows from his experience of the Wildlife and Countryside Act and primary legislation enacting the Government's environmental policies as they affect agriculture.

As I understand it, the Government originally omitted the clause on the logic that, because it had not been used for the past 11 years or so, it would perhaps never be used. History may be used to judge what is likely to happen in the future, but on this occasion, I think that that was a false judgment. It may be that events are taking place which will result in agreements under the conventions, and we may wish to incorporate those into British law. I say that because the House knows of the growing unrest about the amount of pollution being unloaded into our seas, the North sea especially.

Our concern is justified because much pollution is cumulative. With modern science and technology, it means not only that the type of pollution is more complicated, but that our methods of testing are more complicated and sophisticated. Therefore, we are able to judge the effect of increasing dumping in the sea and, from that effect, we can make a judgement about the damage that it will cause to the marine environment or to the human environment which may depend on the seas. That was outlined clearly in the 10th report of the Royal Commission on environmental pollution. It drew attention to this problem, especially in the North sea.

The Government take a rather relaxed attitude—I do not say a non-vigilant attitude — about the North sea. With our fast rivers running into the sea and because of our topography, we tend to see the seas differently from our neighbours. Although Her Majesty's Government's attitude may be relaxed, that is not the view of many of our neighbours. Recently, the Dutch Minister of Transport described the North sea as the dustbin of the coastal straits. There is no doubt that Britain is probably the worst polluter of the North sea.

The clause would allow the encouragement of a convention agreement. As the Minister knows, there was a very important conference in Bremen in November 1984 when these problems of pollution and related aspects were discussed. Britain was somewhat isolated at the conference. One result is that, at the Government's invitation, a second conference is to be held in London towards the end of 1986. I hope that the Government will push for a joint agreement under the convention, which may call for legislation under this clause. Between now and 1986 the Council of Europe municipalities working group on marine pollution is to hold a major international conference under the auspices of the Tyne and Wear county council in the north-east of England. Some of the ground work to be carried out at that conference will be useful to the conference to be held in London in 1986.

We have argued all along for the inclusion of this clause, for two reasons. First, it would reassure people that, although we were repealing the Dumping at Sea Act 1974, we were not throwing away any of its principles. Secondly, we welcome it because we believe that there are great advantages in having enabling legislation of this kind, especially when we are dealing with an area where there is movement and a great deal of discussion and where 690 I hope that before too long there will be international agreement. We very much welcome the Government's flexibility on this point and the new clause.