COMMONS AMENDMENTS (Hansard, 23 July 1971)

§ LORD DRUMALBYN

My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with Commons in their Amendments Nos. 5, 6, 7 and 8, which I will, with permission, deal with together. The first is simply a drafting Amendment. As to the others, noble Lords will recall that as a result of the strong expression of opinions by both Government Members and Opposition, the Government decided to raise the maximum penalty for illegal discharge of oil and other related offences in the Oil in Navigable Waters Bill, now an Act, from £5,000 to £50,000. It was also argued in another place that the penalties under this Bill of £15,000 for failure to have the requisite certificate of insurance, and of £200 for failure to produce the certificate, were inadequate. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, argued it in this place, too. As a result of the views expressed, the Government undertook to look at the level of fines. The Government had, of course, to consider the penalties in the Bill in the light of penalties relating to other offences over a wide field. While stressing that the offence of failing to have insurance cover 1309 must be distinct from the offence of deliberately discharging oil in the sea, the Government were able to accept an Amendment raising the fines in the Bill to £35,000 from £15,000, and to £400 from £200. These are the maximum limits and would be imposed only in the most extreme cases.

We have also attempted to make the punishment fit the crime more closely in another way: the serious offence of not having a certificate in force, and thus not being adequately insured, will now carry the high penalty of £35,000 on summary conviction, or an unlimited penalty for conviction on indictment. That is Amendment No. 6. The more technical offences of not carrying a valid certificate, or of not producing it on demand, will now carry the penalty of £400 on summary conviction. Only the master will be liable in either case, since there would not be the danger, as there would be with the first offence, that claimants for large amounts might find the shipowner uninsured. However, the ship may be detained if it attempts to leave port in contravention of any requirement under this subsection—that is, if it does not have a certificate or is not carrying it. My Lords, these are the effects of Amendments Nos. 7 and 8.