HL Deb 10 June 1974 vol 352 cc301-16

6.31 p.m.

LORD WELLS-PESTELL

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.

Moved, that the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord WellsPestell.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

House in Committee accordingly.

[The Baroness Emmet of Amberley in the Chair.]

Clause 1 [Restrictions on dumping in the sea]:

On Question, Whether Clause I shall stand part of the Bill?

LORD AVEBURY

May I refer briefly to an aspect of Clause 1, which received attention in another place on Second Reading and also in Standing Committee? I had an opportunity of discussing it briefly with the Minister of State and drawing his attention to an aspect of the wording of Clause 1(2), which still causes me a little anxiety in spite of the explanations which he gave. He said in column 1496 on March 22 in another place that the Bill— ... does not cover the procedures for giving consents to discharges through pipelines, which will be dealt with at length in another measure. But then Mr. Peter Rees suggested that pipelines might be regarded as covered by the words—

... a structure on land, constructed or adapted wholly or mainly for the purpose of depositing solids in the sea. The Minister held that since pipelines discharged liquids, then almost by definition they are not caught by the provisions of this Bill. During the Committee stage, the matter was discussed further when both Mr. Rees and the Minister appeared to overlook the definition of marine structure in the Bill, which certainly does not include pipelines.

To summarise the position, one needs a licence to dump solids or liquids from

... a vehicle, ship, aircraft, hovercraft or marine structure...", where"marine structure"means a platform or other man-made structure at sea, and also for the dumping of solids only from a structure on land, constructed or adapted wholly or mainly for the purpose of depositing solids at sea.

The point I put to Mr. Norman Buchan was that if one had solid wastes to dispose of which could readily be put into suspension in water, one could dispose of them through a pipeline. Examples which occurred to me were wastes which arose from the china clay operations in Cornwall, or surplus ash from power stations (although the bulk of that ash is now sold by the C.E.G.B. as a construction material, there may still be some left over), and other kinds of mining waste arising from the operations of the National Coal Board. It might be convenient to dispose of these wastes by suspending them in water and taking them by pipeline out to sea. The purpose of the pipeline would then obviously be to deposit the solids in the sea. It is the purpose of the structure which brings it within the definition of Clause itself. If it is possible for the effluent 1(2) and not the nature of the effluent to be in liquid form, while the purpose is still to dispose of a waste which was originally solid, then surely it must be coarse, and I would suggest to the Minister there should be an enabler"between this Bill and the further legislation dealing specifically with pipelines, which was referred to by the Minister in another place. I suggested to him that this could very readily be dealt with by adding the words"other than a pipeline"after the end of Clause 1(2). I did not put this down as an Amendment because I was given to understand that the legal advice in the Department was to the effect that it was unnecessary; but on further reflection it seemed to be worth raising this point in your Lordships' House, just to make absolutely certain that there is no overlap between this Bill and other legislation going through concurrently.

LORD WELLS-PESTELL

I understand that this matter has been gone into very thoroughly, as the noble Lord said, and a good deal of consideration has been given to this particular point. As I understand it, the solid matters to which the noble Lord refers can become liquid matters. It is held to be outside the scope of this particular Bill. I do not know whether the noble Lord is prepared to leave it there or whether he would like me to give him an assurance that in the light of his comments and observations we can look at it to see whether something ought to be done. However, my information is that it is not required in this particular Bill: it is not part of it.

LORD ELTON

I should also like to intervene at this stage, if I may, to refer to a matter about which there was a great deal of discussion during Committee stage in another place, about the effect of subsection (3) as it stands. The effect is to exclude from control by this Bill the act of throwing garbage overboard from a ship. Any of your Lordships who have had occasion to spend much of their time on the coasts—particularly the Channel coast, at times when the local authorities have not been engaged in collecting garbage off the beach--will have cause to know what a really astonishing amount of rubbish now collects on some of our beautiful coastline. The chief cause is the increased use of plastic containers and plastic objects of all kinds. These do not sink and neither do they dissolve. They accumulate until they are disposed of by the hand of man. I accept that clearly the regulation of this activity would be a very difficult matter and, equally, it would not be suitable to include such a regulation in this Bill unless there were to be considerable additions to the machinery provided. But it is also clear that the obligations of Her Majesty's Government, which have been assumed by the signature of the Oslo Convention and the signature and ratification of the London Convention and also by our membership of the Intergovernmental Maritime Consultative Organisation (usually called IMCO) include that of controlling this common and increasing nuisance.

My purpose in intervening at this point is simply to secure from the noble Lord an acknowledgement of the obligation to control this nuisance and an undertaking that it will be fulfilled in the future by some other means. If not, it should be included in this Bill. It is a problem which can only get worse until it is tackled, and the sooner it is tackled the better it will be for everybody.

LORD WELLS-PESTELL

I am much obliged to the noble Lord for his comments and observations, because we have considerable sympathy with what he said. But I must point out to your Lordships that this Bill is concerned with dumping at sea, and the matter raised by the noble Lord does not really come within its scope and function because the kind of discharge of garbage to which the noble Lord has referred is regarded as part of the normal operation of a vessel. I do not deny that such a normal operation can put into the sea a good deal of unnecessary material, but I think the noble Lord has put his finger on the matter in referring to the Inter-governmental Maritime Consultative Organisation, which is known as IMCO. This is a matter for their concern, it is their responsibility. As the noble Lord knows, this functions under the United Nations, and we are satisfied that, being their responsibility, this is a matter which they ought to deal with, and we ought not to seek to put it in this Bill and complicate it even further.

LORD ELTON

May I press this further by referring to the fairly clear undertakings given by the Secretary of State at the Committee stage in another place on May 7. I am not allowed to quote his words, but he gave honourable Members the impression that he was to sponsor early legislation on this matter. This is a concern of both Houses, and I wish to bring it to the notice of this Committee. Would the noble Lord be prepared to follow the Secretary of State in that undertaking?

LORD WELLS-PESTELL

My understanding is that this Bill has been through the other place. If I remember rightly, it started in this House under the last Government and received its First Reading in the other place. It has been through the other place and now takes the final hurdle here. I do not think that it would he fair of me to lead the noble Lord to believe that one can entertain this with a view to including it in the Bill.

LORD ELTON

That I accept.

Clause 1 agreed to.

Clause 2 [Licences]:

6.41 p.m.

LORD AVEBURYmoved Amendment No. 1:

Page 4, line 8, at end insert—

  1. "(e) may contain limits on the areas within which and the times at which dumping is permitted;
  2. (f) shall specify any other conditions which the licensing authority thinks fit."

The noble Lord said

This Amendment, enables the licensing authority to limit permission for dumping at stated areas and times. Paragraph (d) of this subsection may be wide enough in scope to cover the restrictions I have in mind, but it is not clear whether the words: may make different provision as to different descriptions of substances or articles include different provisions regarding the limits on the times and areas where the materials or solids may be dumped.

We have been advised that some parts of the sea, or sea-bed, may be more susceptible to damage by dumping than others, and also that at certain times of the year this may be more hazardous to marine organisms, depending on their life cycle. The spread of material which is dumped will depend on tidal, wind induced and other currents. Combinations of these may take the material from a perfectly safe place into a sensitive area such as the coastline itself from which the material ought to be excluded. I believe that the parties to the Oslo Convention must have had something like this in mind when they provided in Article 11 that each contracting party shall keep records of the dates, places and methods of dumping. The parties to the Convention would not have thought it worth while to record that information unless they felt it was of importance in licensing. This matter should be spelt out in the sun-section we are looking at. I beg to move.

LORD WELLS-PESTELL

I am grateful for what the noble Lord has said. I do not think there is much between us, if there is anything at all. I hope that I will be able to convince the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, and your Lordships, that the Amendment is unnecessary because it seeks to do what is already provided for in this clause. The Amendment would add to the list at Clause 2(7) a provision which would specify precisely where and when dumping may take place, and a general power to specify any other conditions which a licensing authority may think necessary.

But I should like to draw attention to an earlier provision in the Bill, in Clause 2(1). This empowers a licensing authority to include in a licence any condition so long as that condition seems to the licensing authority to be necessary or expedient for the protection of the marine environment and the living resources it supports. I would have thought that met precisely what the noble Lord has in mind. I appreciate that Clause 2(7) specifies certain points to be included in a licence, but this is merely to provide a detailed indication of the facts which should be stated in it. The subsection does not relate to conditions of licences as such. As I have said, the noble Lord will find these are already covered by Clause 2(1).

The noble Lord has referred to the Oslo Agreement and I should explain that under the voluntary dumping arrangements, conditions are set out which are relevant to the nature of the waste and the dumping area. This practice will continue. We have been doing it, as the noble Lord knows, for some considerable time. Such conditions would specify the dumping area and any restrictions on times of dumping, the speed of the ship, and, as necessary, the initial dilution, the manner of discharge—for example into the wake of the vessel to ensure rapid dispersion, the procedures for washing of tanks in which the waste was contained. There are many possible permutations of conditions since these are tailored to the specific waste and would include, for example, when it is relevant to do so, post-operational monitoring.

It was for this reason that Clause 2(1) was drawn up in the precise terms one finds in the Bill. I do not think I can say anything more that would be useful. I can only hope that I have in some measure satisfied the noble Lord, and that he will not feel it necessary to press his Amendment.

LORD AVEBURY

I entirely take the point that the noble Lord made, that the power to impose conditions in granting the licence is given to the licensing authority in Clause 2(1). It is merely a question whether that should be spelt out in Clause 2(7), which refers to a document which will be issued to the applicant telling him precisely what he can do. If the licensing authority is to impose conditions such as the noble Lord mentioned—and this is what I had in mind in my suggested paragraph (f)—matters like the speed of the vessel, whether the material is to be discharged into the wake of the vessel, and so on, in addition to the specific matters that I have covered in paragraph (e). then it is best if those could be spelled out in the licence document. Then there would be no possible ambiguity in interpreting that document by the applicant or by anyone who wishes to see whether it is properly enforced—and this is equally important later when we come to the disclosure provisions. Also the international authority could then see we were doing what was laid down in the Oslo Convention and would ensure that the restrictions on times and places which we had agreed to impose, where appropriate, were contained in the licence document.

LORD ELTON

May I support that in one particular point. Under Clause 2(1) the licensing authority is required to specify matters which concern the preservation of the marine environment and living resources. There is room for it to differ in its interpretation from the inter- pretation set upon that matter by the Oslo Convention and also the London Convention (in which Article 6 closely follows Article 11 of the Oslo Convention). Under Clause 4 all these matters have to be kept on record by the licensing authority, and, as Her Majesty's Government are required to report thereupon to international bodies, I would have thought it prudent for skippers of dumping ships to know precisely where and how they are undertaking to dump the material so that Her Majesty's Government are certain that what they are reporting has happened and is correct.

LORD WELLS-PESTELL

I take the point that both noble Lords have made. There is a danger in trying to write into a clause something one hopes will be completely and entirely comprehensive. The danger is that when one does that one so often leaves out or limits what one can do. I should have thought that the clauses referred to by the noble Lords, Lord Avebury and Lord Elton, are sufficiently worded so as to enable the authority to put in what is considered necessary. I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Elton, that Clause 2(7) specifies what must be on the licence—and it means, of course, the authority can then determine what must go on the licence without restriction: whereas Clause 2(1) merely sets out the conditions of the licence. This is not a matter which has escaped us. We have spoken about this a good deal, and I should not have thought that the provision would be improved by what has been suggested.

LORD AVEBURY

I accept that the noble Lord thinks, as at present advised, that the licence may include a complete description of all the conditions which are imposed by Clause 2(1). Subject to consultation with my noble friend on what we may do at a later stage, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 2 agreed to.

Clause 3 [Right to make representations]:

6.52 p.m.

LORD AVEBURY moved Amendment No. 2:

Page 5, line 2, leave out (" authority ") and insert ("Minister ").
The noble Lord said

I am not sure whether it might not be for the convenience of the Committee if this group of Amendments were taken together because, as I recall when I put them down, they all relate to the same point. Under Clause 3 it is the duty of the licensing authority to draw up, and from time to time revise, a panel of persons especially qualified, in the authority's opinion, to be members of a committee of appeal. The point I am hoping we might discuss briefly is whether it is appropriate for the licensing authority itself to draw up the panel of persons from which will be constituted the appeal committee. It strikes me as a rather curious procedure. Therefore, what I have suggested here is that those persons who appear on the panel shall be identified by the Minister, and not by the body against which the appeal is to he heard, so that there can be some independence. I am not suggesting that the licensing authority would draw up a list of stooges who would he likely to endorse any decisions it had made, but from the point of view of appearances it would be better if the appointment of persons to such a panel was undertaken by somebody other than the committee itself.

LORD WELLS-PESTELL

If I understand the noble Lord correctly, he is taking all these Amendments together now. This is a matter which has exercised our minds because, as the noble Lord said, these Amendments have the effect of giving the Minister responsibility for taking certain actions under this clause. The Amendments would make the Minister responsible for deciding who should be on the panel from which will be drawn members of the committee. It might be of interest to your Lordships to know that this procedure was agreed with the Council on Tribunals. People will be invited to form the panel, from which the committees will be drawn, on recommendation to the appropriate authorities from representatives of the industry. It is the intention, if it has not already been done, for the various bodies concerned with this particular matter to nominate persons for the panel. But I should like to draw your Lordships' attention to the Interpretation clause of the Bill, which is Clause 12, at page 10. This makes it clear that the Bill already provides that the licensing authority will be the Minister in relation to waste loaded for dumping in England and Wales. It goes on to specify that the Secretary of State for Scotland will be similarly responsible in relation to Scotland, and the Department of the Environment, Northern Ireland, will be responsible in that area. I do not think there is anything between us in the matter of who should have the responsibility; it is a question of terminology.

I should mention that these Amendments would in practice make the Minister of Agriculture responsible for the establishment of panels and the constitution of committees throughout the Uited Kingdom. We should thus be runing into grave difficulties because this would of course mean that the Secretary of State for Scotland in the circumstances would have no standing; and at the present moment the position in Northern Ireland is far from clear. I do not know—and I say that because I really do not know—whether it would be the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland who would be concerned. Having regard to the position of Scotland, it seems that the appropriate person should be the Secretary of State for Scotland. Having regard to the situation in Northern Ireland, I think again it is right and proper that it should he the Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland which is involved, and so far as England and Wales are concerned the person responsible should be the Minister of Agriculture himself. I hope that in the light of these words the noble Lord will feel that this explanation is quite reasonable, having regard to what is involved, and will feel that what is stated in the Bill itself, particularly in Clause 12, is probably right in the circumstances.

LORD AVEBURY

I understand from the explanation given by the Minister that I have not achieved the object which I aimed at in drafting this Amendment, which was to ensure that the members of the panel were appointed in every case by somebody different from the licensing authority. Obviously I shall have to rethink this matter in the light of what the noble Lord has said about the Council on Tribunals—and I should be grateful if I might be in touch with him later about the advice they have given. But it would appear he satisfied them that there is no conflict here between the licensing authority in the capacity of licensing authority and in its capacity as the person who appoints the members of the appeal committee. I should like to consider that advice before deciding whether to take the matter further on another stage. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 3 agreed to.

Clause 4 [Publicity]:

6.59 p.m.

LORD AVEBURY moved Amendment No. 6: Page 6, line 10, after ("Act") insert ("the required information, sample analysis and a copy of the licence itself ").

The noble Lord said

What I am seeking to do by this Amendment—and perhaps we might take the remaining two Amendments with No. 6, because they are all concerned with the same point—is to ensure that as much information as possible is given to the public. The information which I have set out here is the information which is required by the licensing authority itself under Clause 2(5) and any analysis of samples which the licensing authority may have requested and which is permitted by the same clause. If one looks at the records which the licensing authority is obliged to compile and keep available for public inspection as laid down in Clause 4(1), one finds that only the"notified particulars"which have an assigned meaning are particularly mentioned there. But obviously the licensing authority has a great deal more information at its disposal—or would have if it had decided to exercise those powers laid down in Clause 2(5).

I am attempting to ensure that any information which is given to the licensing authority also passes into the public domain. I think that this would be in accordance with what we are doing in our domestic legislation. where there is far greater willingness on the part of the Government and the public authorities to ensure that the people know, for example, what is being put into the rivers. We should ensure that the same freedom of information is applied in this Bill relating to dumping at sea. I beg to move.

LORD WELLS-PESTELL

It might be helpful to your Lordships if I deal with the three Amendments, the first of which the noble Lord has moved. Under the proposed arrangements, the record of particulars notifiable to the Secretariat of the Oslo Commission would be made available for inspection by any member of the public. The particulars which will be available will be precisely those which other countries regard as necessary for them to assure themselves, within the context of the Oslo Commission, that the United Kingdom is meeting its obligations under the Convention. Perhaps I ought to acid that before a conclusion was reached in the international discussions on this very issue, very close examination was given to what data were necessary for this purpose. In fact, the"notifiable particulars"already cover the ground proposed by the Amendments. They are, in effect, a summary of the information upon which the decision to grant a licence was taken and the conditions under which the dumping operations should be carried out.

Contracting parties to the Oslo Convention will have to notify for each licence the quantity and nature of the waste authorised for dumping—whether it is solid, sludge or liquid—the chemical analysis of the waste and the production process from which it was derived: for example, treatment of sewage, pickling of steel or the manufacture of a particular chemical, the properties of waste, and I refer particularly to solubility, density, acidity or alkalinity, the geographical location of the dumping area, the depth of water, the distance from the nearest coast and the method of release into the sea and, as necessary, information on toxicity and biological properties. This information will be collated by the Secretariat of the Oslo Commission so that an overall view can be taken from all contracting parties of inputs into the seas in the North East Atlantic. This information will provide the basis for scientific monitoring programmes to be undertaken by the Oslo Commission to establish the effectiveness of the controls being applied.

The situation with dumping at sea differs from that for disposal on land or for discharge into rivers and estuaries where there is a constant discharge and a distinct effect. At sea the dilution dispersal of substances dumped is much more rapid. The internationally agreed criteria, which are set out in the annex to the dumping conventions and which no doubt the noble Lord has got with him upon which licence decisions are taken, take account of this and are so framed as to ensure that pollution will not result from the dumping. They are designed essentially to ensure that no damage will be done to fisheries resources and that persistent toxic substances do not find their way into the food chain.

As at present drafted, this clause provides that any member of the public should have access to the information which the United Kingdom is obliged to give to the Oslo Commission to show that the criteria in the Convention are being complied with. The information will be available for an individual licence, or for all of the licences for a period. It seems to the Government that the wording of this clause is widely enough drawn for anybody to satisfy himself on the possible effects of a single dumping licence, or all licences issued, and on the effectiveness of the implementation by the United Kingdom of the Oslo Convention.

I think, too, one has to bear in mind that in the main the licences as a whole (although I do not know about this) will be applied for by those who are to be responsible for the dumping and not necessarily by the people who are going to provide the waste. There is also, perhaps, this added difficulty. I can foresee that if one disclosed all the information which I assume—and it is an assumption on my part—that the noble Lord has in mind, we could run into difficulties, in that some firms, for trade reasons, for secrecy reasons, may not want their competitors to know what is being discharged by them. The responsibility, however, will be upon the authority to find out the nature of it in order that it can be disposed of in as near perfect circumstances as possible. I do not think I can take the argument any further than that. I can only hope that I have in some way satisfied the noble Lord.

LORD AVEBURY

The noble Lord rather tempts me in referring to the possible commercial implications of full disclosure of the chemical analysis of any waste, because he will recall that this matter was considered by the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution and that they took evidence from quite a large number of chemical firms who all said that they had no objection whatsoever to the analysis of effluent going into the rivers, since that is what the Royal Commission was looking at in that context, being divulged to the public. The same argument would obviously apply to commercial secrecy aspects of any wastes that there being dumped in the oceans. However, the noble Lord has certainly helped me a great deal in going into the definition of"notifiable particulars"and what it will contain, and it seems to me that the public will have as much information as they can reasonably require about what is being discharged. Therefore, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 4 agreed to.

Clause 5 [Enforcement of Act]:

On Question, Whether Clause 5 shall stand part of the Bill?

LORD ELTON

My noble friend Lord Ferrers drew attention at Second Reading to the change in the order of subsections (8) to (10) of the Bill as we had it in the last Parliament and as we have it now. If the present order seems to the noble Lord the Minister to be preferable to the old order I will not dispute the matter with him. But I should like to draw his attention to one small change which has possibly inadvertently crept into the terms of the Bill as a result of this. In the Bill as we had it before the Dissolution, it was specified that the powers now invested in a British enforcement officer under subsection (8) might only be expected to be exercised"in particular, in the course of any such examination or enquiry ". In referring to"any such examination"the subsection referred to the"boarding"and"examination"of suspected vessels by a British enforcement officer which under the old order were mentioned in subsections (8) and (9) and preceded this subsection. They now come after it and in the transposition we seem to have lost the sentence which limits the inquisitorial powers of the British enforcement officer to the occasions when he is pursuing his duties at sea. Will the noble Lord say whether or not this change, which amounts to a considerable extension of the powers of the officer, is intentional? I am prepared to elaborate the point a little more if it would be of service to the noble Lord while reinforcements are reaching him. But I am sure he takes the point that as the Bill now stands the British enforcement officer is given considerable powers at any time, and not merely when he is boarding ships at sea.

LORD WELLS-PESTELL

With regard to the first point raised by the noble Lord. Lord Elton, I gave an undertaking to his noble friend, the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, to look into the question of the order of subsections (8), (9) and (10). It is not a point which his noble friend was pressing. I have looked into this and am under the impression that I wrote to the noble Earl about it, but I have written to him on a number of points and perhaps I decided to leave it until to-day. We are advised by our legal advisers that this is really the right sequence and therefore we propose to leave it as it is. With regard to the second point raised by the noble Lord, I do not think that at this stage I can give a satisfactory answer. I was not aware—and it is no good my pre-tending that I was—that there had been some change in the construction of the clause to which he referred. I wonder whether he would let me look at it and write to him, meanwhile accepting it as it is set out?

LORD ELTON

By all means. I merely wish to ensure that the Government do not unintentionally give powers to those acting on their behalf.

Clause 5 agreed to.

Clauses 6 to 12 agreed to.

Clause 13 [Savings]:

On Question, whether Clause 13 shall stand part of the Bill?

LORD ELTON

This point is so small that I am almost embarrassed to raise it. But your Lordships will observe that on page 13 at line 18 there appears the closing of a parenthesis which has never been opened. I presume this is merely a printing error, but I suppose it is up to all of us to look for these minute points. If the noble Lord opposite cares to examine that point and deal with it as he thinks fit before Report stage, that is all that is required.

LORD WELLS-PESTELL

I am much obliged to the noble Lord. The closing of the parenthesis seems rather pointless, so we will look at this point and either put something in or take the bracket out.

Clause 13 agreed to.

Clause 14 [Orders]:

On Question, whether Clause 14 shall stand part of the Bill?

LORD ELTON

I wonder whether the noble Lord will kindly enlighten me on a point to which I probably ought to know the answer. Is the Negative Resolution procedure or the Affirmative Resolution procedure intended under this clause?

LORD WELLS-PESTELL

Before I reply to the noble Lord, I should like to say how grateful I am to him for giving me notice of these points. It is obviously a help to a Minister, and a help to your Lordships' House to get what I hope are accurate and reasonable replies. I understand that these matters will be dealt with by the Negative Resolution procedure. If I remember rightly, this relates to Clause 6 and to Clause 12(3). Clause 15, as the noble Lord, Lord Elton, will undoubtedly have seen, is a matter for an Order in Council. But in reply to the question which he has put to me, these orders will be dealt with by way of the Negative Resolution procedure.

Clause 14 agreed to.

Remaining clause agreed to.

House resumed: Bill reported without Amendment: Report received.