HL Deb 17 November 1983 vol 444 cc1380-2
Lord Lucas of Chilworth

My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.

The Lord Chancellor

My Lords, the Question is that the said Bill be now read a third time.

As many as are of that opinion will say, "Content"? To the contrary, "Not-Content"? The Contents have it.

There is an amendment—I am so sorry; I did not see that my noble friend wished to speak.

Lord Balfour of Inchrye

My Lords, I wish to ask the Minister one question. I refer to Clause 17 on page 8, the transitional modifications about licences. I would ask the Minister if he could kindly explain to me——

Lord Lucas of Chilworth

My Lords, I wonder whether my noble friend would give way. I think he is a little previous. Although I have two Motions on the Order Paper in my name, I have not yet come to that one. If my noble friend Lord Balfour would like to wait a very few minutes, I promise to give attention to what I know is worrying him.

On Question, Bill read a third time.

Clause 2 [Prohibition notices]:

Lord Lucas of Chilworth moved Amendment No. 1:

Page 2, line 40, after ("direct") insert ("(i)").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, with the leave of your Lordships and for the convenience of the House, I should like to speak at the same time to all the three amendments—Nos. 1, 2 and 3—which are in my name on the Order Paper, since they are in fact related. Amendment No. 2:Page 2, line 42, after ("served") insert (", or (ii) that the ship shall not go to sea, (or both of those things)"). Amendment No. 3: Page 5, line 38, leave out from ("unless") to end of line 41 and insert—

  1. ("(a) it appears to him that the direction given in pursuance of section 2(3)(d) above contained any such requirement as is mentioned in sub-paragraph (ii) of that provision; or
  2. (b) it appears to him that—
    1. (i) the inspector was of the opinion that there would be such a risk of injury or pollution as is referred to in the notice if the ship went to sea, and
    2. (ii) the effect of the direction given in pursuance of section 2(3)(d) above was to prohibit the departure of the ship unless the matters, or (as the case may be) the matters and contraventions, referred to in the direction were remedied.")
At the Report stage I accepted on behalf of the Government that Clause 5 of the Bill, as it then was, was too restrictive, in that it did not provide for a liability to pay compensation in the case of a prohibition notice which had the same effect as had that of a detention order issued under the Merchant Shipping Act of 1894, but where, in fact, the notice did not expressly prevent the departure of the ship. I accordingly gave my noble friend, Lord Mottistone, an undertaking that I would table an amendment at Third Reading.

As a result of the discussions we have had with the General Council of British Shipping, I have now tabled these associated amendments, Amendments 1 and 2 and Amendment 3. So far as concerns Amendment No. 3, which is the major amendment, that relates to Clause 5, which extends the liability to pay compensation in cases where it appears to the arbitrator that an alleged risk of serious injury or serious pollution would arise if the ship went to sea and the effect of the direction in the notice was to prevent the departure of the ship unless certain steps were taken. This, of course, relates the liability to pay compensation for the wrongful issue of a notice to the criteria which obtain for the issue of a detention order under the Merchant Shipping Act of 1894. Those are the Sections 459 and 460 to which the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone referred.

In looking at this, we found that it was necessary to make small adjustments to Clause 2, and the amendments here are to remove any doubt that there may be that the departure of a ship is a relevant activity which can be prohibited by a direction in a prohibition notice. The amendment accordingly makes specific provision for a notice to direct that a ship shall not go to sea. This is desirable, given that subsection (3)(a) of Clause 5 gives rise to a liability to pay compensation where a notice expressly prohibits the departure of the ship.

My Lords, all three of these amendments are technical. I think that my noble friend will accept that we have met in Amendment 3 the position he was so anxious to retain in this new Bill. My Lords, I beg to move Amendment 1.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Mottistone

My Lords, may I thank my noble friend very much for the care which he and his officials have taken to resolve this problem and, as far as is possible against the background of this otherwise helpful Bill, to leave the status quo in existence as far as it can be in relation to Sections 459 and 460 of the Merchant Shipping Acts 1894 with regard to compensation for invalid prohibition notices. I thank him very much and it is a happy resolution of a small and, as my noble friend says, technical point.

Lord Underbill

My Lords, may I say how pleased we on these Benches are that the discussions have proved so successful. I also wish to thank the Minister for the attention that he has paid to the matter. The amendments clarify points that the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, and I raised at the last stage of the Bill. We are happy that the Minister has acted in this way.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Lucas of Chilworth moved Amendment No. 2:

[Printed earlier: col. 1381.]

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 5 [Compensation in connection with invalid prohibition notices]:

Lord Lucas of Chilworth moved Amendment No. 3:

[Printed earlier: col. 1381.]

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

An amendment (privilege) made.

Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.