HL Deb 22 January 1974 vol 348 cc1375-95

7.6 p.m.

EARL FERRERS

My Lords, I beg to move that this Report be now received.

Moved that the Report be now received.— (Earl Ferrers.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Clause 1 [Restrictions on dumping in the sea]:

LORD STOW HILL moved Amendment No. 1: Page 2, line 26, after ("satisfied") insert ("by the prosecution ").

The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, the object of this Amendment is to try to remove what is possibly a slight uncertainty in the language of Clause 1(5). I submit that the Amendment is not without importance because one is dealing here with a criminal provision in the Bill. Clause I, subject to a number of qualifications, forbids dumping at sea. When one looks at Clause 1(4), one finds that dumping, contrary to Clause 1. is a serious criminal offence. Serious criminal penalties are provided, and I have no complaint about that. Obviously it is a matter which requires the courts to be invested with serious powers of punishment.

Then one looks at subsection (5), and one finds that it provides certain defences for a person who has been charged with the offence of dumping contrary to Clause 1 of the Bill. The defences are these: he is not to be found guilty if the dumped material in question is (and I quote from line 19): for the purpose of securing the safety of a ship, aircraft, hovercraft or marine structure or of saving life: Then in paragraph (b) it says that he is to give notice of what he has done, but this is not relevant for the immediate purpose of my Amendment. Then when one looks at line 26 one finds that a qualification, a very important one, is introduced by the words, unless the court is satisfied that the dumping was not necessary for any of the purposes mentioned above and was not a reasonable step to take in the circumstances. I propose to insert after the word " satisfied " the words " by the prosecution ". It is always of great importance to know on whom 'the onus rests of establishing facts which create a crime, or which afford a defence to the crime which has been created.

Let us suppose that it is shown that a person has dumped material at sea contrary to Clause 1 and he wishes to avail himself of the defence in question. What has he to do and what answers are there to that defence? If one is considering the matter of onus, I submit that the subsection should operate as follows: if it is shown by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt in the first place that the person charged has dumped material contrary to Clause 1, then that is a matter which has to be proved in the ordinary way beyond any reasonable doubt by the prosecution. Then the person charged, wishing to avail himself of the defence, should be in this position. The onus would be on him to show, not beyond a reasonable doubt but on the balance of probabilities, that he had dumped the materials, for the purpose set out in paragraph (a) of subsection (5)—namely: the purpose of securing the safety of the ship, aircraft, hovercraft, or marine structure or of saving life". If he could show that, he would have surmounted the first step of the building up of the defence of which he wished to avail himself. Then one asks: how is the qualification to operate? I submit that the qualification, in theory, between the Crown and the subject should operate in the following way. If the accused person has shown, on the balance of probabilities, that he dumped the material, for example, to save life, it then should be for the Crown to show, beyond a reasonable doubt, that in point of fact the dumping was not necessary, and that it was not a reasonable thing to do in the circumstances.

My Lords, I submit the following as the right approach. Somebody in charge of a ship dumps material. He says, "I did it because I was in extremis. I thought I had to do this to save life." It is hardly fair, supposing he is telling the truth, to seek to apply to him a very nice judgment as to whether he was acting reasonably and whether what he did was necessary to save life. He is at the time, after all, in a state of extremities, and has perhaps to form a quick judgment in a matter of a few seconds, and one cannot expect him to weigh up very accurately the conflicting considerations which might urge him either to dump or not to dump. My Lords, that is how he should be; that is the position in which he should find himself.

The Crown might wish to say to the man advancing that defence, "No doubt you are telling the truth when you say you dumped this material to save life, but your behaviour was utterly unreasonable; it was quite unnecessary to dump this material for the purpose to which you refer. You behaved in a panicky and quite unjustified manner. Nobody can really justify your action, dumping a whole lot of material at sea, because you acted in a moment of panic, without reflection, in the belief that that was the best thing to do to save life. It was not necessary, and it was not even reasonable." I submit that, faced with a situation of that kind, the Crown, ex post facto, looking at what took place in a moment of crisis when the accused person dumped the material, should, if it wished to defeat the defence (the first step of which he had erected), take upon itself to show, beyond any reasonable doubt, both that the dumping of the material was not necessary and also that it was not a reasonable step to take in the circumstances.

I submit that that is the way the subsection ought to work if one wants to deal justice between the Crown and the subject. I know that the House will agree with me at once when I say that it is of the greatest importance that the wording of the subsection should make it clear whether or not it does work in that way. I should have thought, if I may respectfully say so, that something very like the wording that has been chosen, namely, "unless the court is satisfied", would produce that result. But it is not so. In my submission it does leave room for some uncertainty as to the precise effect of the subsection. Therefore, in order to remove that slight doubt, and to make it perfectly clear to the subject where he stands in the face of the criminal law of this country, I seek to insert, after "satisfied", the words, "by the prosecution", in order to make it clear beyond any controversy that if the Crown wish to defeat the defence, the first step of which has been erected, the Crown must show beyond any reasonable doubt that what was done by the accused person was neither necessary nor reasonable in the circumstances in which the accused acted.

My Lords, it is for that purpose, and for that purpose only, that I seek to insert these words. If the noble Earl feels that I have indicated at any rate some doubt, I hope he will be able to say that he will consider, with his advisers, whether my words would improve the wording of the subsection and whether it is not desirable, in the interests of achieving certainty, to insert either those words or some words like them. Possibly to achieve complete certainty one should insert the words, "unless the court is satisfied by the prosecution beyond any reasonable doubt." However, I think that those last words are not in fact necessary, and that the result for which I contend will be achieved by the insertion simply of the words, "by the prosecution." It is those words which I seek to insert by this Amendment. I beg to move.

7.16 p.m.

EARL FERRERS

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Stow Hill, for explaining his Amendment and the purpose behind it. Any remarks that I may have to make. I will make with due deference to the noble and learned Lord's ability and knowledge of the law courts and its procedures. He is of course quite right when he says that the Bill is designed to prevent dumping unless there are certain qualifications to permit it; in other words, unless there is a licence. The noble and learned Lord is also quite right when he says that subsection (4) lays down the penalties to which a person who dumps erroneously may be subjected. Subsection (5) then goes on to say that it is a defence to dump for various reasons—and the noble and learned Lord gave the reasons, such as if one's ship is in extremis, or if there is danger to life. It is up to the authorities to prosecute a person for having dumped illegally, and it is up to the person accused of dumping to show that in fact he has a defence under subsection (5) and that he was in fact dumping because he had no other option, because his ship was in danger or lives were in danger.

My Lords, if in fact he does that, then of course the court will acquit him. But I would suggest to the noble and learned Lord that the only reason, the court would not accept the defence would be if the prosecutor turned round and said, "Ah; but for this, that, or the other reason, it is my submission that the dumper has not shown that he has got a case under subsection (5)." In those circumstances the court may come down against the dumper. But of course it will be up to the prosecutor to make his case against the accused. I would have thought, with the greatest of respect to the noble and learned Lord, that it is almost axiomatic that it must be the prosecutor who would have to show that the case which the accused was trying to make out was not in fact satisfactory. I should have thought that the inclusion of the words which the noble and learned Lord has suggested was unnecessary because it will be up to the prosecuting counsel to show that the accused has not made his case.

But, having said that, I will look at the point which the noble and learned Lord has explained so carefully, and if what I have said is wrong, insufficient or inadequate, or should be altered in view of what the noble and learned Lord has said, I will certainly write to him about it.

LORD STOW HILL

My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Earl for what he has said. If he will be so kind as to consider the language, I shall be amply content. Having thanked him. I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 2 [Licences]:

7.21 p.m.

BARONESS WHITE moved Amendment No. 2:

Page 3, line 9, at end insert— ("Where a licence granted in pursuance of this section permits dumping within United Kingdom waters before issuing it the licensing authority shall obtain the agreement of any relevant regional water authority or of the Welsh National Water Development Authority as the case may be.")

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I beg to move the Amendment standing in my name on the Marshalled List. My reason for putting it down is that it seems to me there can be some confusion in the responsibility between the authorities covered in the Bill which is now before us and the authorities covered in the Bill which was before us until 20 minutes ago and will be before us very soon hereafter.

LORD MERRIVALE

My Lords, may I ask whether the noble Baroness will be speaking to Amendment No. 3 together with this Amendment? Will she move No. 3 separately and speak to it separately?

BARONESS WHITE

My Lords, I thought they should at any rate be put down as separate Amendments. If it is for the convenience of the House I will take them separately because they deal with separate points. The short point in Amendment No. 2 is that should a licence be granted under the Dumping at Sea Bill for the deposit of any substance or article in United Kingdom waters (which is provided for in Clause 1(1)(a)), then we shall have two different authorities controlling the condition of our waters, which include the tidal estuaries as well as the territorial waters of the coastline. This seems to me to be extremely unsatisfactory.

I am certain that the answer I shall receive from the Minister is that of course the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, or the Secretary of State for Scotland, as the case may be, is unlikely to grant any licences for dumping within United Kingdom waters of any substance which might be detrimental. That I entirely accept. The point is that legally they would be entitled so to do. Therefore, one has the situation potentially arising with the two Bills which are in front of your Lordships' House tonight that we shall have the responsibility placed upon the water authorities, or in Wales the Welsh National Water Development Authority, to control the quality of water, including the tidal estuaries, but there is no obligation of the licensing authority under the Dumping at Sea Bill to obtain their agreement as to what might be dumped in these waters. This seems to me to lead to a position where we have two authorities, both in a position to sanction dumping of effluent in the same water, but neither having any obligation to consult with the other. It seems to me that the obligation to obtain the consent of the water authority should rest with the authority in charge of the dumping at sea, because the number of occasions on which licences will be granted in these circumstances will probably be small and therefore the sensible course is ask the authority in charge of the smaller number of transactions to obtain the agreement of the authority which will be primarily in charge of the quality of these waters.

I cannot think that the situation as it now stands is satisfactory. Noble Lords who have been working on the Protection of the Environment Bill will appreciate that under Clause 24(3) of that Bill, the Dumping at Sea Bill (which is already called an Act, I may say, which slightly shocked me) will take precedence over the Protection of the Environment Bill. Therefore, the water authority would be absolutely helpless if permission were given to dump within territorial waters. It would have no redress that I can see, because in the Protection of the Environment Bill it is made perfectly plain that subsection (1) of Clause 24, which deals with discharges into rivers and coastal waters, shall not apply to any discharge which is from a vessel or is authorised by virtue of any provision of the Dumping at Sea Act 1974". I think I have made the point quite clearly. I repeat that if the Minister's answer is that it will not happen, then I am sorry to say that that is not the way one has to legislate, because it might.

EARL FERRERS

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for explaining her Amendment. I understand her concern that the water authorities should be consulted, because the Water Act has established major new authorities which have extremely important powers, including the powers which are proposed under the other Bill which is in front of your Lordships' House to which the noble Baroness referred. The powers in that Bill will be exercised in rivers, streams, estuaries and in coastal waters where discharges emanate from the shore; that is, through pipe-lines. On the other hand, this Bill provides for the exercise of quite distinct functions for a different set of authorities who have the essential scientific expertise to maintain oversight of control of—this is important—marine pollution. I absolutely accept the need for an integrated approach to the control of marine pollution, but one reaches the point where a decision has to be made as to who is to exercise the executive responsibility for any given function. Because close co-ordination in some circumstances is necessary—and I accept that it is—that does not necessarily lead to the conclusion that statutory provisions have to be made in each case for agreement to be given by another set of authorities.

What I suggest is required is not so much statutory provisions but a flexible administrative arrangement which can be agreed between all concerned to ensure that everybody knows exactly what is going on so far as they are affected. I can assure your Lordships that considerable thought was given to exactly how these arrangements should be made to work. On this basis, where a dumping took place within a defined area—near the coast, for instance—the neighbouring water authority would of course be kept in the picture. I am naturally aware that the Protection of the Environment Bill, which is before your Lordships' House, has different provisions. However, this Bill provides that the licensing authority, which is the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, will be enabled to give licences for dumping of various commodities. What I can tell the noble Baroness is that where this takes place within an area which is within the definition of a water authority, of course these people will be consulted and taken into account before the licence is ever issued. I can understand the noble Baroness's concern that water authorities should not find themselves ridden roughshod over. I do not believe there is any chance of that, because a licence will be issued in those cases where water authorities are concerned only after consultation with them. In the end the protection of the marine environment must be the responsibility of the Ministry of Agriculture because they are the people who have the scientific knowledge about it.

BARONESS WHITE

My Lords, with great respect, the river authorities have, too, and the water authorities are being made the authorities responsible for everything other than dumping licensed by the licensing authority under the Dumping at Sea Bill. It is the river authorities—I use the wrong expression because under the new legislation it will be the "water authorities" who take over in April. It is they who will be responsible for the quality of the tidal estuaries and the coastal waters. The responsibilities and expertise of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, which extend very largely to fish—that is their reason for being the Department concerned as opposed to the Department of the Environment—lie far more outside the territorial waters in the habitats of fish. What happens within the territorial waters and particularly in the great tidal estuaries like the Thames and the Humber, will be the responsibility of the water authorities. Therefore simply to say, "Of course, we do not need to bother to legislate for this", seems to me to be getting the priorities in these particular water areas quite out of perspective.

I am not speaking of the deep waters of the oceans; that is another matter. It seems to me that it is quite wrong to pass legislation to give the major responsibility—and the noble Earl cannot deny that the major responsibility for the tidal estuaries and the coastal waters will be so given—to the water authorities. There is no obligation whatsoever in the Dumping at Sea Bill for this consultation. The Minister says, "Of course it will happen". But, my Lords, it does not always happen and consultations between rival authorities, each of them having responsibility for the same water, do not always occur. The Ministries themselves are not necessarily very closely in communication on some of these matters. Still less are the local organisations necessarily closely in communication.

The Minister could have said that perhaps the Amendment is going a little far in saying that they must obtain agreement, but the least he should have said was that he would accept an Amendment which provided for obligatory consultation. I do not think that the number of occasions on which consent will be given for dumping in territorial waters and tidal estuaries under the Dumping at Sea Bill will be large. I should be surprised if it were. But I am informed that there are occasions even now where matter is dumped in the estuaries and where at present the river authorities have no knowledge of it. They are not consulted—they have no statutory right to be consulted—they have no locus standi. Possibly they can make complaints after the event but that is not a very sensible way of doing things; I am sure that the Minister will agree. Therefore, although I am prepared in the circumstances to ask leave to withdraw this Amendment, I give notice that I shall put down another Amendment at Third Reading which will provide for statutory consultations.

VISCOUNT SIMON

My Lords, before the noble Earl replies, I should like to say that I was rather surprised at the answer which he gave to the noble Baroness. He will recall the Committee stage, when we were discussing a similar problem about people who had to get permission from the Department of Trade and Industry as well as licences under this Bill, and I thought that the answer given then was, "Of course, if people have to get permission from some other body they have to get licences none the less". I do not see why the same should not apply to people who have to get permission from the water authorities. They have to get permission from them and also a licence from the licensing authority under this Bill. As I understand it, the noble Earl is now saying that the licensing authority will override the water authority, and that is the noble Baroness's difficulty. But why should not the position be the same as in the case of the people who have to get two licences, one from the licensing authority and one from the Department of Trade and Industry?

EARL FERRERS

My Lords, may I have the leave of the House to reply? This is not a Committee stage and one should not speak twice but may I have the leave of the House to clear up two points? With regard to the point made by the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, it is a fact that the need to get a licence under this Bill does not supersede the need to get any other licence which would have been required other than for this Bill. In other words, where there is an obligation to get a licence from the Department of Trade and Industry for the functions for which that Department is responsible, the need to get a licence under this Bill does not detract from the need to get a licence from the other Department. I think that that is slightly different from what the Amendment of the noble Baroness seeks which is that it should be statutorily put into the Bill that there should be consultation with the water authorities to ensure that they should be consulted over anything that is put within their territorial waters. The noble Baroness said, and quite rightly so, that not much would be placed within their territorial waters, but the Ministry of Agriculture is responsible for the control of pollution of the marine environment, and particularly in territorial waters where fish are of very great importance.

Water authorities do not have this responsibility over fish. The Ministry of Agriculture has the competence and expertise to know what type of things will pollute the water, to know what is likely to flow where and what the tides and currents do. That is the reason they have the particular expertise which is necessary to issue a licence to dump. I can assure the noble Baroness that there is no question that there would not be consultation, but I would say to her that if this is to be put into the Bill where are we going to stop? Why should it be only water authorities which should be consulted? What about the Sea Fisheries Committee or the harbour authorities or the Crown Estates Commissioners, all of whom have in various areas responsibilities for water contiguous to the shore? Once one starts to say that one shall consult with one specific body that automatically infers that one does not necessarily have to consult with another body.

The least that I can do is to look again at what the noble Baroness has said, and I shall do so and look at the points that she has made. But it is my belief at the moment that it is correct that this particular licence should be issued by the licensing authority and I can only repeat the assurance which I have given to the noble Baroness, that it will of course be done in consultation with those authorities which are the appropriate ones to be consulted in the nature of each specific licence.

LORD BALERNO

My Lords, I should like to support my noble friend and give him an argument which he has not used; that is, that it should be the Ministry of Agriculture's responsibility. Undoubtedly there will be, in the next ten years or so, a great extension of fish farming in the sea and that extension must be protected by the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries. Therefore, the question of any pollution of the sea will loom very large in their sphere of influence.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

7.40 p.m.

BARONESS WHITE moved Amendment No. 3:

Page 3, line 9, at end insert— (" () Where a licence granted in pursuance of this section permits the discharge of any trade effluent or sewage from land in Great Britain through a pipe in the sea outside controlled waters, the licensing authority shall satisfy itself that the applicant has obtained consent from the relevant water authority.")

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, it is a great pity that this is not the Committee stage as then I should have been able to answer the noble Lord, Lord Balerno.

Amendment No. 3 makes a somewhat different, though cognate point. This also refers to Clause 24(1)(a)(ii) of the Protection of the Environment Bill. Clause 24(3) again takes out of the jurisdiction of the water authorities the discharge of— any trade effluent or sewage effluent … from land in Great Britain through a pipe into the sea outside controlled waters … As I understand it, under the Dumping at Sea Bill that would come under the jurisdiction of the licensing authority. Thus, the point at which this discharge took place, which would be in waters outside the territorial waters, would have to be controlled by them. This is referred to in Clause 1(2) of the Dumping at Sea Bill: … a structure on land constructed or adapted wholly or mainly for the purpose of depositing solids in the sea.

At an earlier stage in our deliberations on this Bill I recall this was taken to include, for example, sewage sludge. It appears to me to be unsatisfactory that the authority which would normally be controlling effluent at one end of the pipe should not necessarily be consulted by the authority which controls the effluent at the other end of the pipe. Under the Protection of the Environment Bill it might be quite undesirable from the point of view of the authority that such sewage or trade effluent should be disposed of in this way at all. It may have quite different ideas as to what ought to be done with it, particularly in an age when reclamation and re-cycling, and the processing of sewage and other matter, is likely to become more and more important and our knowledge of the processes for dealing with it is likely to become more advanced and sophisticated.

Therefore it appears to me to be desirable that if we are to have these pipes for the disposal of sewage or trade effluent—and I am told that in the United States, for example, some of them extend for eight or ten miles into the sea—then we should make sure that the authorities at the two ends should each have their own responsibility. I do not see how the landward authority, so to speak, can exercise responsibility unless it grants a licence for its end of the discharge, leaving the licensing authority under the Dumping at Sea Bill to exercise its jurisdiction about the disposal of the matter into the waters of the sea. This Amendment therefore suggests that where, in the Dumping at Sea Bill, the licence is granted which permits the discharge of any trade effluent or sewage effluent … from land in Great Britain through a pipe into the sea outside controlled waters … the licensing authority concerned should satisfy itself that the applicant has obtained consent from the relevant water authority which would be responsible for land or for any discharge of this type of matter into waters other than the sea.

If this Amendment does not appeal to the Minister I should like to know how he would deal with this situation. It appears to me that one Department and one set of draftsmen have dealt with one Bill and others have dealt with the other Bill; thus there are these essential discrepancies between the two. I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Merrivale, is going to intervene, but I know that he has been in consultation with the C.B.I. on this matter and I know that they among other people are very much disturbed about this position. Therefore it seems incumbent upon us to attempt to meet the situation. I beg to move.

LORD MERRIVALE

I think this Amendment justifies certain fears that this Bill could be taken to cover effluent discharged by a pipeline to the sea. Clause 24(1), to which the noble Baroness referred—and I should like to include it for the Record—reads: Subject to subsections (2) and (3) of this section a person shall be guilty of an offence if he causes or knowingly permits—(a) any trade effluent or sewage effluent to be discharged … from land in Great Britain through a pipe into the sea outside controlled waters … unless the discharge is made with the consent in pursuance of section 27 of this Act of the water authority in whose area the discharge occurs …". A copy of the application for consent by the water authority must be sent to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food under Clause 29(1).

BARONESS WHITE

Would the noble Lord forgive me a moment? The Government are moving an Amendment to delete that.

LORD MERRIVALE

That is even worse. The point I am making is that I would have thought it preferable for this question of the discharge of effluent by pipeline to be covered solely by the Protection of the Environment Bill and not by the Bill which we are considering now.

Before the Government move any Amendment, when this application for consent is sent to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the Ministry then has the right to make representations about it. This arrangement of control by a single authority and a requirement to consult the Ministry is, I would have thought, totally satisfactory and should work well in practice. I would also think it undesirable for a person discharging effluent by pipeline into controlled waters or beyond those controlled waters to need to obtain both the licence from the Ministry and also the consent of the water authority. Dual responsibility for controlling such discharges would surely lead to unnecessary duplication of effort and possibly to some friction between the authorities concerned.

Bearing in mind the wording of the Amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady White, would my noble friend consider amending this Bill? From what the noble Baroness has just said, I have a horrible feeling that the Government would not, but it seems to me to be preferable that this question of controlling the discharge of effluent through pipelines, particularly outside controlled waters, should be covered by the Protection of the Environment Bill, as, in effect, laid down in Part II of that Act. I can only express great disquiet if what the noble Baroness says is true, that the Government are proposing to bring in under this Bill the question of trade effluents discharged through a pipeline rather than under the Protection of the Environment Bill.

EARL FERRERS

My Lords, I hope I shall be able to comfort both the noble Baroness and my noble friend, because I think they are under a misapprehension, although possibly an understandable one. All pipelines and what they discharge, and all licences to deal with pipelines, come under the Protection of the Environment Bill and not under this Bill. I think possibly one of the reasons why both the noble Baroness and my noble friend Lord Merrivale were a little concerned is because subsection (2) says that ߪ substances and articles are dumped in the sea for the purposes of this Act if they are permanently deposited in the sea from a vehicle, ship, aircraft, hovercraft or marine structure, or from a structure on land constructed or adapted wholly or mainly for the purpose of depositing solids in the sea. What emanates from a pipeline is not a solid, and the licensing authorities for pipelines are the water authorities. It does not come under this Bill at all and therefore I hope the noble Baroness will be content that all pipeline licensing comes under the Protection of the Environment Bill.

BARONESS WHITE

My Lords, I am delighted to hear it, and I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 3 [Right to make representations]:

EARL FERRERS moved Amendment No. 4: Page 5, line 33, at end insert ("and shall send him a copy of the committee's report").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, Clause 3 of the Bill provides for an applicant for a licence or a licence holder to make representations to the licensing authority about proposed decisions on licensing for dumping. The Minister can refer such matters to a committee which will hear the representations and report to him. The Minister has then to advise the person or the company making representations of his (the Minister's) decision, giving his reasons. This procedure has been developed with the help and advice of the Council on Tribunals. Since the Committee stage we have reviewed how the procedure would operate. In the light of further consultations with those who might be affected, the Government have concluded that the person making representations should have a copy of the report of the proceedings and the advice of the committee to the Minister, who will be able to refer directly to it in giving the reasons for his decision. This is in accordance with the practice recommended by the Council on Tribunals and I hope that your Lordships will accept this Amendment as an improvement to the Bill. I beg to move.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

EARL FERRERS moved Amendment No. 5:

After Clause 3, insert the following new clause:

Publicity

".—(1) A licensing authority shall compile and keep available for public inspection free of charge at reasonable hours the notifiable particulars of any dumping licensed by them under this Act, and shall furnish a copy of any such notifiable particulars to any person on payment of such reasonable sum as the authority may with the consent of the Treasury determine.

(2) In subsection (1) above "notifiable particulars" means particulars which Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom are required to notify to the international organisation."

The noble Earl said: My Lords, perhaps we might speak to Amendments Nos. 5 and 10 together. The noble Baroness will remember that during the Committee stage of the Bill she inquired whether a register of licences would be kept which would be open to inspection. The noble Baroness was concerned that local authorities and scientists should be able to establish the nature and the quantities of materials that were being dumped from the United Kingdom. I said at the time that we recognised that the public was entitled to have such information.

As signatories to the London and Oslo Conventions, the Government have accepted an obligation to notify to the Commissions set up to implement the Convene Lions, particulars relating to licences issued, and we believe it right that the public should have access to this information. This is the purpose of this Amendment, and I beg to move.

BARONESS WHITE

My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Earl very much and say that I am happy with the Amendment.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 4 [Enforcement of Act]:

7.53 p.m.

BARONESS WHITE moved Amendment No. 6: Page 6, line 26, after ("Kingdom") insert ("or in United Kingdom waters").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the point about this Amendment is that in the Bill as it now stands we have a definition of the places and things which are liable to inspection under this Bill, and under Clause 4(5)(b) these include ships in ports in the United Kingdom—that is to say, ships of any nationality, our own or other ships, provided they are in the port. But we have no authority to inspect such ships once they have left the port, even though they may be still in our territorial waters, which might include a tidal estuary. Therefore it seems to me that there is a gap in this legislation, and I have had representations made to me about this. It would surely be much more satisfactory if we were able to inspect a ship if it was in a tidal estuary, because it might very much affect the conditions in our own waters if such a ship was believed to be polluting the water, though apparently as the Bill stands we have no right to do anything about it.

If I am incorrect in this supposition in regard to the provision of Clause 4(5)(b), and this does not in fact detract from some other authority, some other legislation that would enable us to inspect a ship to see whether or not it was polluting our waters, then of course that would be perfectly satisfactory. But reading the Bill, and having had representations made to me about this, it seems to me that we ought to make quite certain we do not put ourselves into a position in which we might suffer damage and have no redress. I beg to move.

EARL FERRERS

My Lords, the noble Baroness has referred to an important point in this Amendment, and I would tell her that before the Bill was drafted we gave the most careful consideration as to what powers were appropriate for our inspectors in the supervision of their licensing arrangements which were to be made under the Bill. Obviously, a balance has to be struck. On the one hand, we have to ensure that the powers in Clause 4 are adequate for a British enforcement officer, who has reasonable cause to believe that substances are present, to inspect a vessel; on the other hand, we do not wish to provide stronger arrangements than are necessary, particularly having regard to the international repercussions which the conferment of over-weighty powers could have on our shipping interests. I suggest that this is very important.

Clause 4 provides for the appointment of British enforcement officers and gives them routine powers of inspection. They will be able to board British and foreign ships in our ports where there is reasonable cause to believe that a vessel has been loaded for dumping or has returned from dumping. These arrangements will enable licensing authorities to exercise general oversight over wastes which are loaded in this country. As the clause makes quite clear, British enforcement officers will have power to inspect British ships at sea, wherever they are. As the noble Baroness has made clear, her Amendment would give them power to inspect foreign vessels in United Kingdom waters. I believe that it would be quite wrong to embark on an extension of arrangements which are regarded as normal under international law as it exists and I think the Amendment proposed by the noble Baroness might have this effect. It would be entirely inappropriate to confer on inspectors powers to permit them to board and to inspect foreign vessels which are at sea, albeit within our own territorial waters.

It might be helpful if one were to consider this a little further. The essential point, it seems, is that it is extremely unlikely that a vessel of any other State which intended to undertake dumping would in fact enter our territorial waters to do so without a licence, since it would obviously be much easier and cheaper for it to dispose of its waste on the high seas. Therefore I suggest that the situation would be unlikely to arise. Another factor that has weighed heavily with us in considering what powers will be appropriate is that the 1958 Convention on the Territorial Sea and Contiguous Zone gives a ship the right of innocent passage for the purpose of transit through the territorial sea. I am advised that a passage is innocent so long as it is not prejudicial to the peace, good order or security of the State. Clearly, if a ship came into territorial waters to dump a whole lot of noxious substances within those territorial waters it would be prejudicial to the peace, good order or security of the State.

I believe that it is not necessary to take powers in this Bill to inspect foreign ships passing through our waters because, as I have said, the international repercussions of such a thing would clearly be undesirable. I hope that what I have said will persuade the noble Baroness that while I understand the reasoning behind her argument, the balance lies on the side that we should not put these powers into the Bill.

BARONESS WHITE

My Lords, I do not profess enough knowledge to argue against the noble Earl. Nevertheless, I rather hope that this might be looked at when it reaches another place. Mean- while, I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

EARL FERRERS moved Amendment No. 7: Page 7, line 2, leave out ("it to stop") and insert ("the person in charge to stop it").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is basically a drafting Amendment on a point to which the noble Baroness drew attention in Committee. The basis of it is that one cannot order a ship to stop; one has to order the person in charge of the ship to stop it. I beg to move.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 8 [Offences—general provisions]:

EARL FERRERS moved Amendment No. 8: Page 9, line 8, after ("again") insert ("and punished").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this also is basically a drafting Amendment. It brings the wording of the clause into line with precedent and makes it clear that a responsible person in a body corporate who has been found guilty of being party to an offence is liable to be punished. I beg to move.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 10 [Financial provisions]:

EARL FERRERS moved Amendment No. 9: Page 10, line 7, leave out from ("the") to end of line 10 and insert ("international organisations").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a drafting Amendment. When I moved Amendment No. 5 I spoke at the same time to Amendment No. 10, which is the next Amendment to be called. This defines international organisations, and therefore it is unnecessary to have the explanation in this part of the Bill; hence the Amendment. I beg to move.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 11 [Interpretation]:

EARL FERRERS

My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 10. This is consequential on Amendment No. 5.

Amendment moved—

Page 11, line 28, at end insert— (" " international organisations" means any organisation established in pursuance of Article XIV of the London Convention or Article 16 of the Oslo Convention and any similar organisation established in pursuance of a designated Convention; ").—(Earl Ferrers.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

EARL FERRERS

My Lords, Amendment No. 11 is also a drafting Amendment, to insert the revised title of the Department responsible for licensing of dumping in Northern Ireland. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 11, line 41, leave out ("Ministry of Development") and insert ("Department of the Environment").—(Earl Ferrers.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD DENHAM

My Lords, I beg to move the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 8.20 p.m.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

[The Sitting was suspended at 8.4 p.m. and resumed at 8.20 p.m.]