DUMPING AT SEA BILL (Hansard, 17 June 1974)

§ LORD BESWICK
My Lords, I have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen and His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales that they, having been informed of the purport of the Dumping at Sea Bill. have consented to place their prerogative and interest, so far as they are affected on behalf of the Crown, the Duchy of Lancaster and the Duchy of Cornwall, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.

§ LORD WELLS-PESTELL
My Lords. I apologise for not being in your Lordships' House when I should have been. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time, and I hope your Lordships will feel that I can take this matter briefly as we have already been through it very carefully. I should like to take this opportunity of telling your Lordships that I regret that I misinformed the noble Lord, Lord Elton, and in consequence your Lordships' House, on whether the appropriate clauses would be subject to an Affirmative or Negative Resolution procedure. My recollection is that I told the noble Lord, Lord Elton, that they would be subject to the Negative Resolution procedure but, in point of fact, an Order will be laid before Parliament and will be subject to scrutiny in the normal way, and no further Parliamentary procedure will be required. I have written to the noble Lord, Lord Elton, pointing 761 this out, but I take this opportunity of informing your Lordships as many of you would not otherwise know that there was a correction. My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.

§ LORD ELTON
My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord for his explanatory letter and statement. My question was simply intended to obtain an elucidation which has now been received and for which I thank him. I thank him also for clarifying the question which I asked him at Committee stage about the effects of giving powers to British enforcement officers under Clauses 7 to 10, which I understand are limited to the occasions upon which a British enforcement officer is acting in his capacity as an officer. However, having said "Thank you" in regard to those two points, I would raise the further microscopic and miniscule point of the strange intrusion of a closing bracket without a corresponding and symmetrical opening bracket in Clause 13(2)(a).

§ LORD LLOYD OF KILGERRAN
My Lords, I have nothing, either microscopic or miniscule, to raise at this stage. All I wish to do is to thank the noble Lord for the clear and frank way in which he has presented the matter, and to presume to congratulate him on the way in which he has dealt with the Amendments in this Bill.

§ LORD WELLS-PESTELL
My Lords, if I may first deal with the second point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Elton, the reason why this subsection has not been put right is that this Bill went through your Lordships' House without amendment. But perhaps I may inform the noble Lord and the House generally that in line 17 on page 13 there should be a bracket after the word "proceedings" and before the word "other", so that the part in brackets reads "other than proceedings for the recovery of a fine". This has been noted and will be put right when the Bill is printed afresh. With regard to the second matter raised by the noble Lord, Lord Elton, subsection (4) of Clause 5 sets out the limitations imposed upon the British enforcement officer which are set out more or less fully in the matters referred to on page 7. 762 I should also like to take this opportunity of thanking the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, to whom I have always want to refer as the "noble and learned Lord" but am not allowed to do so, for his very generous comments and observations.

§ LORD ELTON
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his further explanation, which I am glad to say will give meaning to Clause 13. May I join with those on other Benches in thanking him for his able and swift despatch of this Bill.