§ 6.26 p.m.
EARL FERRERSMy Lords, I beg to move that the Dumping at Sea Bill be now read a second time. This Bill represents the culmination of about two years' work and discussion on the subject. If it is approved by Parliament, the Bill will underline the conviction of the United Kingdom that everything possible should be done to preserve and improve the marine environment. It would enable the Government to ratify the Oslo and London Conventions, which are designed to ensure that adequate control is exercised on an international basis over dumping at sea.
Since 1966 the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, and, on a smaller scale, the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland, have operated voluntary arrangements, with the cooperation of industry and others, to control dumping of waste at sea. Under this system Departments agree with applicants suitable methods for the disposal of waste materials and the areas of disposal, in the light of criteria which have regard to the characteristics, degree of toxicity and general effect of the wastes upon the sea. The former Minister of Agriculture made it clear when announcing our signature of the Oslo Convention, which is called the Convention for the Prevention of Marine Pollution by 1263 Dumping from Ships and Aircraft, that we have kept the operation of the voluntary arrangements under examination in consultation with representatives of industry and others. All the indications are that the arrangements have been successful in protecting both the fisheries and the sea itself around our coasts.
The legislation proposed in this Bill would enable control to be exercised over loading in the United Kingdom and its territorial eaters of any substance or material for dumping at sea, and it would regulate dumping by United Kingdom vessels or aircraft anywhere in the world. Our proposals would, of course, have the greatest effect in the North-East Atlantic, to which United Kingdom dumping is largely confined, and where we also happen to have major fishing interests. The controlled waters for dumping purposes will be regarded as bounded on the landward side by high water mark. Of course only a small proportion of the total wastes find their way into the sea by dumping. Broadly speaking, one can say that wastes which our society produces can be burned, with emission to the atmosphere, or treated in some way, or deposited on land, or discharged to inland or coastal waters, or dumped at sea. Each of these methods may have its advantages or disadvantages for different types of waste; but what is becoming increasingly clear is that we cannot allow waste to be disposed of in any of these ways without proper planning or control of undesirable pollution. As the gracious Speech indicated, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment will be bringing forward separate legislation for the protection of the environment, which will, among other things, lay on the waste disposal authorities the duty of surveying the wastes which arise in their areas and of preparing comprehensive plans for their disposal.
Where it is appropriate sea disposal may feature in such plans as one of the methods to be employed. This Bill is not designed to cover such matters as oil discharges, the disposal of garbage or the tank washings of bulk carriers, all of which are covered by the new IMCO Convention. Indeed, careful attention has been given to avoiding the possibility of the overlapping of functions and responsi 1264 bilities between different organisations. On the other hand, the Bill covers the operations of vessels which are specifically designed to dispose of waste at sea as part of their normal operations; for example, dredgers and incinerator vessels.
The two dumping Conventions to which I referred set out in some detail the obligations which each country that signs then accepts. Under the Bill there will be a general prohibition on dumping into the sea, except by licence, from British ships. Provision is also made for prohibiting loading in the United Kingdom of any substance or material for dumping at sea without licence into ships or aircraft of other States. The United Kingdom authority would, however, be able to recognise licences issued by the licensing authorities of other Convention States in respect of substances or articles loaded in those States into British ships or aircraft. There will also be a general prohibition, except by licence, upon the dumping into United Kingdom territorial waters of substances or articles wherever they are loaded. The licensing authority, as it refers to the United Kingdom, means the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food for waste loaded in England and Wales; the Secretary of State for Scotland for waste loaded in Scotland; the Ministry of Development, Northern Ireland, for waste loaded in Northern Ireland; and the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food for waste loaded outside the United Kingdom into British vessels.
It is our intention to make the arrangements as flexible as possible. Therefore, the Bill will permit the granting of a licence to an applicant if he is a vessel owner, probably working as a dumping contractor, or if he is a company whose activities lead to the production of waste. As your Lordships will know, it is seldom appropriate for measures applicable to civilian vessels or aircraft to be applied to military aircraft or warships, but it is our intention that the prohibitions on harmful dumping will be applicable to military vessels and aircraft through administrative means as far as that is possible.
I do not think it is necessary to go into great detail on how examinations of substances will be conducted before a licence is granted. I should like to assure your Lordships, however, that, as under 1265 the present voluntary arrangements, before a licence is issued the materials concerned will be examined or considered by scientists and, if necessary, laboratory tests will be carried out to ensure that no harm to fish would arise, or that persistent substances which might find their way into the food chain would not be dumped.
The Bill provides that licences will be given by the licensing authorities having regard to the need to protect the marine environment and the living resources which it supports from any adverse consequences of dumping. Clearly, the principal means by which we shall be enabled to determine the effects of granting a licence for the disposal of any particular cargo or substances into the sea will be through monitoring. This is essentially of two different sorts. First, there is what may be termed background monitoring—that is, regular measurement of pollutant concentrations so that a view can be taken of trends over any given period. Secondly, there is monitoring to ascertain pollutant levels, frequently against a given standard, to judge the effectiveness of a system of control. There are also the short-term studies, which probably should not be regarded as monitoring in the broadest sense, which are designed to identify the effects of a particular disposal or set of disposals.
Both the Oslo and London Conventions provided specifically for work of this nature to be undertaken. There is no need for the Bill to make specific provision for monitoring since it is undertaken under general powers, but I can assure your Lordships that we shall continue, through the appropriate laboratories, to play our full part in both national and regional monitoring programmes as we have done in the past. It will be by these means that we shall obtain the necessary guidelines for our actions in granting licences to dispose of waste.
The working of the voluntary arrangements to which I have referred has satisfied us that there have been very few significant attempts at evasion of the terms of the administrative provisions. On the other hand, now that these arrangements are to become subject to a Statute we must obviously provide for enforcement. The Bill proposes, therefore, that the inspectors who are author 1266 ised by the Ministers will be given power to secure the necessary information about materials and vessels, or premises, so that the terms of any "dumping" licences will be seen to be observed. I should like to explain one point which may have occurred to some of your Lordships, and that is that the Oslo Convention provides that contracting parties will promote, within the appropriate international bodies, measures to protect the sea against oil, other noxious cargoes, and radioactive substances. There is a comparable article in the London Convention which is coupled with a prohibition on the disposal at sea of high level radioactive matter. Disposal of radioactive wastes is covered by the Radioactive Substances Act 1960, under which licences to dump are agreed jointly between the Secretary of State for the Environment and the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. The United Kingdom also plays a major part in international discussions in the International Atomic Energy Agency and the Nuclear Energy Agency, which make recommendation on these matters. Nevertheless, a licence would be required under this Bill to ensure that the substance or article was eligible for dumping at sea in accordance with the annexes of the Conventions irrespective of its radioactive content. I hasten to add that we have in fact never disposed of high level radioactive wastes in the sea.
There is another point which I should like to mention, and it refers to the question of confidentiality of information about the dumping of materials. As the Royal: Commission on Environmental Pollution has said, it is important to do everything possible to ensure that the public is in a position to know what is being done on its behalf by those authorities responsible for waste disposal. Under the arrangements envisaged by the Preparatory Committee for the Oslo Commission, regular reports would be made by contracting parties to the Commission on the licences which have been granted for disposal of wastes by dumping. We will make available to the public on request the same information. We shall also work very closely with waste disposal authorities whose main task will be to maintain an oversight of disposals on land. We shall also maintain our existing liaison with local sea fisheries committees where their interests are affected by the issue of 1267 a licence under the arrangements proposed in the Bill.
May I now turn to the Bill itself. Clauses 1 and 2 are extremely important. Clause 1 provides that without a licence no material can be dumped, by any means, in our territorial waters; all dumping from British ships and aircraft into the sea is prohibited except for discharges which are incidental to their normal operation; and no vessel, of any nationality, can load waste in the United Kingdom for its disposal in the sea. The penalties for breach of these conditions are also described in the clause. There is provision for exemption for disposal of ships' cargoes where that is necessary to safeguard the safety of a ship or people's lives. Clause 2 would allow the granting of licences where the substances in effect conform to the provisions set out in the annexes to the two Conventions. The responsibilities for granting of licences are shared between the Secretary of State for Scotland, the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Ministry of Development, Northern Ireland. Licences will only be granted subject to such conditions as are adjudged necessary in the light of the best scientific advice to ensure that the resources of the sea are not put at risk. The clause would also empower the authorities to charge a fee for the administrative costs of giving a licence.
Clause 3 enables those who apply for licences to dump, but who are aggrieved either by a proposed refusal or by the conditions which are to be imposed, to be heard by an independent committee. This would also apply if a licence were to be revoked. This committee would give the appropriate Minister its advice, so that he could reach a final decision. Our experience in the operation of the voluntary control arrangements suggests that it is possible for a licensing authority to negotiate arrangements which are acceptable to the would-be dumper and which would not harm the marine environment. But if the situation were to arise where such an agreement could not be achieved, then this clause would ensure that an independent view would be obtained.
Clause 4 provides for the appointment by licensing authorities of enforcement officers, and it describes their powers of inspection to enforce the Act. Clause 1268 is an enabling clause, and it is designed to empower the United Kingdom to participate in any procedures which may be agreed by contracting parties to a convention for joint enforcement and inspection. The reciprocal arrangements which might be negotiated could well follow the lines of those which have been successfully operated in relation, for instance, to fishing vessels by members of the North-East Atlantic Fisheries Convention. Under this, inspecting vessels fly a specific flag which depicts their internationally recognised authority to board and inspect fishing vessels of countries which are parties to the Convention. Under Clause 5 Ministers would set out in Orders to be laid before Parliament details of any procedures which had been negotiated, the country or countries who would be parties to any such arrangement, and the foreign officers who would be empowered to enforce the arrangements on British vessels.
The Government regard this enabling power as important if we are to be able to play our part in any future arrangements which might be agreed with other countries for additional enforcement measures to be taken. Of course, before we negotiated any such procedures we should undertake consultations with United. Kingdom shipping interests and any others who might be affected. I should like to emphasise that the clause is designed to enable the United Kingdom to play its full part in the development of the reciprocal procedures in the Conventions. There is no implication that we consider flag States themselves incapable of enforcing the Conventions—indeed, we have every confidence that this will be the basic method of enforcement—but we see the clause as providing the necessary ability to play our part in any supplementary arrangements which may come about. If these are developed, they would constitute a useful means by which those countries which have agreed the procedures would, as it were, pool their resources for a specific purpose. This seems to us to be a sensible and practicable arrangement, and we believe it is right to make provision for it.
Clause 6 provides for penalties where an inspector is obstructed in attempting to carry out his duties. Clause 9 provides for the application of the enforcement powers to Crown land which is in the possession of third parties. Clause 10 deals with the financial arrangements 1269 in the Bill, and it will enable the United Kingdom to meet the relatively small costs arising from payment of membership fees of international conventions dealing with dumping and the cost of fees for the representations committees and salaries of staff engaged upon work arising from this legislation. Clause 12 provides that the power of Ministers to make Orders under the Bill is to be exercised by Statutory Instrument. Clause 13 makes the important provision to enable the legislation to be applied by Order in Council to the Channel Islands, the Isle of Man or any colony should the authorities there so wish.
My Lords, I trust that this description of the major parts of the Bill will make clear the Government's intentions behind it, and I trust that your Lordships will give the Bill a Second Reading. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
§ Moved, That the Bill be now read 23. —(Earl Ferrers.)
§ 6.45 p.m.
§ BARONESS WHITEMy Lords, I think the noble Earl is having a pretty long innings this afternoon, but at least he is bringing before your Lordships' House matters which are generally welcome in so far as the legislation is concerned. Certainly we on this side of the House warmly welcome this particular Bill. I think perhaps it would be appropriate for me to say how glad we were to see, in the final act in the London Convention, the very proper compliments paid to the Government of the United Kingdom for taking the initiative in calling this large international conference, and perhaps in particular to Dr. Holgate, who was chosen as chairman of the conference and who undoubtedly contributed greatly to its success. It followed, of course, the Oslo Convention, which was on a narrower geographical basis, and from which we would naturally look to benefit; but it is encouraging that, at long last, many other nations in the world are taking seriously this matter of the pollution of the marine environment. As the noble Earl mentioned, there has recently been concluded in London another conference on the prevention of pollution by ships, under the aegis of IMCO and I would suppose that this is to be followed in due course by another Bill; so we shall certainly have ample 1270 opportunities to consider these matters in legislative form.
I was particularly glad that the noble Earl emphasised Clause 5, because what worries one somewhat is that, apart from the reciprocal arrangements which we are able to make with certain of our neighbouring territories, there is no real provision, I think, for international supervision of these matters; and while we can control not only our own territorial waters but British vessels and all other vessels loaded in this country, of course, the moment one gets outside the territorial waters, theoretically, at least, we have far less ability to control it. As I said, geographically we are fortunately placed, but there are other countries in the world for which this may be a quite serious problem, and I would assume that when the time comes to discuss the law of the sea one may come up against some very tricky questions, not only over fisheries but over dumping limits as well.
As the noble Earl rightly said, one cannot read the Bill intelligently without reading the Convention. I am, I must admit, disturbed by the fact that the Convention makes it plain that the term "dumping" does not include the disposal of sea wastes or other matter incidental to the normal operations of ships. That will in fact be dealt with under the new IMCO Convention. However, there is another omission which I think many of us find disturbing, and that is that the Convention does not cover the disposal of waste or other matter related to the exploration, exploitation and associated off-shore processing of sea-bed mineral resources. This may be regarded as looking ahead. I recognise this is not dumping, but if one is concerned for the marine environment it is a problem which has begun to disturb many of us greatly, and I think it is not unfair to refer to the matter on this occasion. I am advised that the impact of seabed exploitation on the question of pollution could be very serious indeed. I do not know whether there is any likelihood of it happening within the vicinity of the United Kingdom—what one hears of it at the moment, of course, is taking place in other parts of the world—but I am advised that very highly toxic chemicals can easily be released in such circumstances. It would be comforting to know 1271 that some action is being taken to deal with this matter, which, as I say, is specifically excluded from the provisions of the London Convention.
I should like to ask the noble Earl one or two questions about the administration which is proposed. In Scotland one has a combined administration and the Secretary of State is the source of authority; but in England and Wales I understand that it will be the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries. One can appreciate that historically this is a natural evolution; but I was looking at a transcription of a speech made at Lancaster House a year ago by Mr. Peter Walker, then Minister of the Environment, in which he said:
We must have a total approach to waste disposal. If we do not put waste in the sea it has to go somewhere else—somewhere on or under land. For this reason a nation needs comprehensive controls and an integrated management policy.The Department of the Environment provides the opportunity for the latter in Britain; but the provisions of this Bill are not going to be enforced by the Department of the Environment. I was wondering whether adequate thought had been given to this point. One can perfectly understand the historical progression whereby it would remain with the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries which has been responsible for the voluntary arrangements which seem to have worked satisfactorily since 1966. Nevertheless, as we are undertaking legislation it will be interesting to know what consideration has been given to this aspect of it.I should like to know also about the situation in Wales where the Secretary of State for Wales has certain functions even in relation to agriculture. But it is not included in any generic term of "Secretary of State"; it is the Minister who is specifically referred to. I hope that the noble Earl will be able to tell us something of the Government's thinking on this matter. Another point worries me. It is the provision in Clause 3, which is understandable enough as far as it goes, that the licensing authority has the duty to notify an applicant or a holder of a licence who, if he feels aggrieved, has the opportunity to make representations, and there will be advice from an independent committee. That 1272 is fine so far as it goes. I should like to know what would be the position of any authority that might conceivably be concerned.
I was thinking of this when looking at the Report, graphically named Out of Sight, Out of Mind, which is the Report on the disposal of sludge in Liverpool Bay. It was very encouraging to those of us acquainted with the areas bordering on Liverpool Bay to be told that the dangers that some of us apprehended are far less than we thought possible. It seems to me that there are circumstances in which a local authority might feel they had an interest in the dumping of materials which might conceivably, through the action of tide or current, affect the shore, and that the authority ought to be in a position to make some representations if so desired. It is just conceivable that an amenity society might wish to make representations. I am not clear what would be the position of such persons and I should be grateful if the noble Earl could enlighten me. There is probably a simple explanation but I was not too sure about it.
May I return for a moment to the Convention itself. The noble Earl referred in passing to the fact that there are various categories of substances, some of which, those under Annexe 1, I am happy to learn are not in any circumstances to be dumped at sea. These include such materials as mercury, cadmium and, particularly, persistent plastics and other persistent materials as well as the high-level radioactive waste to which the noble Earl referred. This I find extremely reassuring. There is also a prohibition on the dumping of any material produced for biological or chemical warfare. Then there is the next category, the less toxic one, for which nevertheless a special permit is required, and there is a third category where general permission may be given and where the effects are not likely to be seriously deleterious.
I wonder whether there is any substance not included in Annex 1 but referred to in Article IV which, under our arrangements, may addtionally be prohibited. May I remind the noble Earl that Article IV, paragraph 3, reads:
No provision of this Convention is to be interpreted as preventing a Contracting Party 1273 from prohibiting, insofar as that Party is concerned, the dumping of wastes or other matter not mentioned in Annexe I.I have to refer to this now although it may seem to be a Committee point, because the convention itself is not part of the Bill. Therefore it seems to me appropriate to ask this question at this stage rather than later. If the noble Earl does not have the information immediately to hand, perhaps he may care to write to me about it.I have put some questions which come to mind in studying this Bill, but I would repeat that in general terms we warmly welcome it. We feel that this is really an important step in the right direction and that it should help us and the other contracting parties to ensure, in the terms of the Convention itself, that we can effectively control sources of pollution and that we will
take all practicable steps to prevent the pollution of the sea by the dumping of waste and other matter that is liable to create hazards to human health, to harm living resources and marine life, to damage amenities or to interfere with other legitimate uses of the sea.I should not wish to delay any longer the successful passage of this legislation.
§ 6.58 p.m.
EARL FERRERSMy Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for the welcome she has given to this Bill and for all that she said about it. I think it is a positive step forward in an area with which we as a nation are only just begining to become involved. Suddenly we have discovered that there are many toxic substances which must be disposed of. Some of these are manufactured; some of them are deposited naturally in the environment anyway. The quantity of lead and mercury already in the sea is absolutely enormous; it is only in concentrated quantities that they become dangerous and even lethal. This Bill, which is the result of the two Conventions we have been discussing, is really a major step forward in deciding what shall be dumped and where. The noble Baroness rightly asked about the application of the Bill to minerals on the sea bed. This is something of a far wider nature that almost certainly will be discussed at the Law of the Sea Conference. It is possible that matters emanating from that Conference may give rise to legislation. The noble Baroness was also concerned about Clause 5 which is the enabling 1274 clause. The sole purpose of this particular clause is to enable us in consultation with other Convention States to agree upon, for instance, a method by which international ships could be inspected. Ships may be able to fly a specific flag giving them international recognition. This kind of thing does not arise immediately out of the Bill or the Convention, but if in the course of conversations and discussions over the next year it is found that this is desirable, it could be put into effect without having to bring a Bill before Parliament.
The noble Baroness posed the query why the Department of the Environment was not particularly involved. This Bill comes under the auspices of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, because it is the protection of the marine environment and all that that conjures up. There is close liaison with the Department of the Environment which will be involved with more general legislation over the disposal of waste.
§ BARONESS WHITEMy Lords, may I interrupt the noble Earl? He may not feel able to say more at this stage, but he will appreciate that we shall shortly be coming to a Bill dealing, for example, with estuaries and tidal waters. In the Bill now before us we are going far beyond safeguarding fish and therefore it seemed to me that there was quite a strong case for having what Mr. Peter Walker was himself asking for, which was centralised control.
EARL FERRERSMy Lords, I accept that entirely, but I feel that the real point is that although there is general concern over the disposal of waste, in this instance it is what is dumped into the sea and what will affect the animals therein which comes under the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. I take the point of the noble Baroness that there is, or should be, overall consultation and agreement. I can assure her that there is this full consultation between both Departments. The noble Baroness said that she would have liked a little explanation about Clause 3 in case local authorities might wish to complain about a licence, or make representations. The whole purpose of this clause is that if a dumper, or a proposed dumper, wished to get a licence and the licensing authority determined that he should not have one, or that there should be certain restrictions 1275 on the licence which aggrieve the dumper, he should have the right to go before a committee—consisting, probably, of three people, one of whom will he a scientist —to put his case; the committee may then report to the Minister and guide him on his final decision. That is the purpose of the clause, in order to try to give some kind of protection to any party who may feel aggrieved.
§ LORD WYNNE-JONESMy Lords, does that mean that the clause, which refers to representations being made, refers only to representations to be made by a person to whom a licence has been refused? Does it mean that there is no possibility of anyone else making a representation? Surely there may be cases where a local authority or some other body would wish to make representations against a licence being granted.
EARL FERRERSMy Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Wynne-Jones, is absolutely correct. This committee would consider objections only from the proposed dumper. At the moment there is close liaison between the fisheries people, the people who dump into the sea and the Ministry. As I explained earlier, there are voluntary arrangements which have worked well and satisfactorily. If the local authorities have any desire to put forward a point of view to the Ministry and the enforcement officers, they are at liberty to do so. What we are proposing is that the principle which has gone behind the voluntary arrangements should be put into legal form. If someone feels that he has been unfairly refused a licence or unfair restrictions will be put on him, then he may complain. It is not the purpose of Clause 3 to allow a licence to be proposed and then to be subject to complaint or interference from outside parties. My Lords, I will look at the various points which the noble Baroness has made. I am grateful for what she has said and the welcome which she has given to the Bill. I hope that I have answered the majority of the points that she made.
§ LORD WYNNE-JONESMy Lords, before the noble Earl sits down, may I ask him this? In the Preamble it is stated that the total cost is likely to be less than £10,000 a year. Does that mean that the whole of the Inspectorate is already in existence? Will there be no 1276 additional Inspectorate? Because £10,000 will not go very far for an Inspectorate.
EARL FERRERSThe noble Lord, Lord Wynne-Jones, was not in his place when explained that there will be a fee charged for licences and the fees are designed to cover the cost.
§ On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.