Merchant Shipping and Maritime Security Bill [H.L.]

HL Deb 13 January 1997 vol 577 cc20-82

3.45 p.m.

Report received.

Lord Clinton-Davis moved Amendment No. 1: After Clause 1, insert the following new clause— MARINE ENVIRONMENTAL HIGH RISK AREAS (".—(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations make such provision as appropriate in relation to—

1. (a) the identification of marine environmental high risk areas in the territorial seas and pollution zone of the United Kingdom; and
2. (b) the introduction of necessary measures to safeguard

1. (i) maritime safety, and
2. (ii) the environment of marine environmental high risk areas from pollution by matter from ships, offshore installations or submarine pipelines.

whilst respecting rights of transit passage in international straits and freedom of navigation. (2) In making the regulations and subsequent identification of marine environmental high risk areas, the Secretary of State shall inform the International Maritime Organisation of—

1. (a) the identity of such sites;
2. (b) the significance of such sites for recognised ecological, sociological or scientific reasons and the vulnerability to damage by shipping activities; and
3. (c) the necessary measures to safeguard safety and the environment.

(3) In making and applying any regulations under subsection (1), the Secretary of State shall publish by placing on a public register—

1. (a) the identity and boundaries of sites designated as marine environmental high risk areas;
2. (b) the ecological, scientific, environmental or sociological features of any marine environmental high risk area;
3. (c) the vulnerability of any marine environmental high risk area to pollution from shipping; and
4. (d) the measures taken to minimise the risk of harm to features defined in paragraph (b).

(4) It shall be the duty of the Secretary of State maintaining a register under this section—

1. (a) to secure that the register is available, at all reasonable times, for inspection by the public free of charge;
2. (b) to afford members of the public facilities for obtaining copies of the documents kept in the register, on the payment of reasonable charges;
3. (c) to supply members of the public with copies of the documents kept in the register, on payment of a reasonable charge for copying, not more than two months following receipt of written request for such documents; and
4. (d) to ensure that all documents arising under subsection (3)(a) to (d) are placed on the register within two weeks of their being brought into existence.

(5) It shall be the duty of the Secretary of State to make regulations under subsection (1) above within two years of the entering into force of this Act.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, as we indicated on Second Reading and in Committee, we very much welcome Recommendation 59 of the report of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, and Clause 1 of the Bill, which goes towards the establishment of marine environmental high risk areas (MEHRAs)—one of a number of unhappy acronyms which appear in our political life today—related to a limited number of areas of peculiarly high sensitivity which are at risk from some shipping operations.

Important recommendations were made in the report as to how those ideas might be progressed. The report identified some examples of possible MEHRAs. Interestingly enough, they included Skomer, off Pembrokeshire, which is very close to the area where the "Sea Empress" was grounded. As yet, the Government have not indicated when and to what areas the enabling powers to permit the designation of MEHRAs are to be put in place. Perhaps the Minister can throw a little more light on that important issue.

This debate enables the Government also to clarify their position in relation to certain obscurities which still appear to persist. In Committee the Minister asserted that, if we wish to place restrictions on the movement of vessels, we can only do so through the IMO".—[Official Report, 25/11/96; col. CWH4.]

With respect, that does not appear to be wholly right. First, the committee's report specifically asserted that: There is no need for the Government to wait for international agreement before promulgating MEHRAs in UK waters".

There is an apparent contradiction between the stance of the Minister and the point of view represented in the report. I am perfectly prepared to concede that I may be wrong about that. However, there appears to be an ambiguous position. Perhaps the Minister will comment upon it.

Restriction on the movement of ships is but one of a number of management measures which can be deployed within MEHRAs to reduce pollution risks from shipping. I shall not go through the whole list, but one can think in terms of improved aids for navigation; using tugs to escort laden tankers to terminals; oil spill contingency planning, and so forth. In my view, none of those would require the approval of the IMO, although in making progress in this and the whole international area it would be desirable to secure maximum consensus on the principle. The point is that the United Kingdom could act unilaterally over such areas in relation to its own seas.

We appreciate that similar thinking to that set out in Clause 1 is proceeding at European Union level. There, such areas are referred to by a different but not altogether happy acronym, MESA—a marine environmentally sensitive area.

I do not believe that the two things are absolutely identical—a MESA and a MEHRA. However, they are designed to serve a similar purpose. We believe, as does the Marine Conservation Society, that two years after this Bill has been enacted and comes into force, which would seem to represent an appropriate period to assess what progress has been made at European Union level, it would be right to require the Secretary of State to make the requisite regulations in order to designate MEHRAs. That is set out in subsection (5) of the proposed new clause.

If the European Union proposals were then agreed, it would follow in any event that the situation would have to be legislated upon by subordinate legislation. However, if not, the suggestion made in the Donaldson Report could be followed by finalising the relevant criteria. I believe that those are also under discussion by the Government and those MEHRAs to be put in place should be identified.

This amendment has widespread support from a large number of influential and important NGOs. I shall not mention them all but something like 15 have communicated with the Opposition on these matters.

Before I sit down, I wish to do what I should have done at the very beginning; that is, to thank the Minister for the great courtesy which he has extended to Members of this House during the Recess following points raised in Committee. It is characteristic of this Minister and I thank him. He has seen a number of your Lordships personally during the Recess, including myself. That is the right kind of stance for a Minister to take. He has clearly listened carefully and has acted, as the House will discover later, on a number of representations that were made. I am sure that other noble Lords will join with me in believing that that is an appropriate listening and acting stance on the part of the Minister. We thank him very much for doing that. I beg to move.

Lord Beaumont of Whitley

My Lords, I too join with the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, in thanking the Minister for his consideration in advising us on progress from time to time during the Recess and for his willingness to listen.

With regard to this amendment, in Committee the Minister said: We are not delaying consideration of MEHRAs until such time as EC proposals are clearer. We are already considering, together with the statutory environmental advisers and other interested groups, the development of possible criteria for the establishment of MEHRAs.'— [Official Report, 25/11/96; col. CWH6.] That seems to show that it is possible to proceed with those measures without necessarily waiting for international agreement.

Obviously, the matter must eventually go to the IMO for identification and endorsement in particularly sensitive sea areas, but as a matter of urgency the UK must identify MEHRAs and introduce measures to safeguard their future. I have pleasure in supporting the amendment.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport (Viscount Goschen)

My Lords, I thank the two noble Lords who have spoken on this amendment for their kind words relating to the handling of this Bill. As has been said on many occasions, not least on Second Reading and again in Committee, the Bill has received widespread support around the House and, indeed, outside it. That has enabled us to take forward our considerations in a very constructive manner indeed.

The amendment proposes to give powers to the Secretary of State to designate marine environmental high risk areas—MEHRAs. In the course of my remarks I hope that I shall give considerable support to the thinking behind the aims of the amendment although I have some specific difficulties with it. They are much the same as those to which I alluded in Committee but perhaps for the convenience of the House, I should give the reasons why I am not able to accept this amendment.

There are three principal reasons why the Government cannot support this amendment. First, we already have powers to implement the definition of MEHRAs which was proposed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, in his excellent report of which we have heard a great deal. Secondly, this amendment, which appears to go beyond the proposal made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, is partly inconsistent with international law. That is a point which the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, made and perhaps I may touch on that later in my remarks. Thirdly, it is premature as work on new measures to protect environmentally sensitive areas is being carried forward by the International Maritime Organisation and the European Commission.

The Government have considerable sympathy with the principle behind the noble and learned Lord's proposal for MEHRAs. In the Government's response to his report, we accepted that there are areas of the UK coast where mariners need to operate with extreme care and vigilance for the sake of the marine environment. MEHRAs are one mechanism which could be used to bring these areas to the attention of masters and crew.

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, proposed that in the first instance MEHRAs should be protected by giving masters non-statutory guidance about their existence. That can be achieved without legislation. If that non-statutory approach did not lead to a change in behaviour, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, recommended that consideration should be given to a number of different routeing measures. Each of these measures can be implemented using existing powers, although the agreement at the International Maritime Organisation may be needed for specific mandatory measures. I believe that that is really the key to the issue which the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, highlighted in his remarks. If a MEHRA were simply to advise mariners there would be no need to refer to the IMO. However, as well as a mandatory routeing measure, it may be necessary to achieve agreement if the restriction applied as a condition to entry into a particular port. However, any restriction of right of innocent passage in territorial waters or in adjacent high seas must be adopted by the IMO.

The IMO also endorsed the voluntary routeing measures for laden oil tankers through the Fair Isle channel, which were agreed with the Chamber of Shipping following the "Braer" incident. Radar surveys show that, with the IMO endorsement, there is a high degree of compliance with these voluntary routeing measures.

I must emphasise that progress is being made on MEHRAs. We are currently taking action to make use of the powers that are available to us. In consultation with the Department of the Environment and the Joint Nature Conservancy Councils, we are developing criteria for the designation of environmentally sensitive areas around the UK coast. We are also developing the Seaway Code which will give important information to mariners. This was another proposal made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson. The Seaway Code could include information relating to MEHRAs.

The definition of a MEHRA in the noble Lord's amendment does appear to go further than the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, recommended. It allows a wide discretion for measures which may be taken to protect an area. We already have some powers to protect specific areas; for example by tightening the regulations on what can be discharged or, in some circumstances, banning certain discharges altogether.

We are, for instance, seeking international agreement to have the seas around the UK declared a special area for the purposes of discharges of oil from ships. That would effectively ban all oil discharges from all but the smallest of ships. Should that proposal be accepted by the IMO, we already have legislative power to implement it.

In my introduction I said that elements of the proposal were inconsistent with international law. The amendment would give wide powers to take measures within the territorial sea and the United Kingdom's pollution zone. However, under the law of the sea, measures may only be taken in the pollution zone which are consistent with existing international law or which have been agreed by the International Maritime Organisation. It would not be sufficient simply to inform the IMO, as envisaged by the amendment.

I also said that the amendment was premature. There is growing international awareness on the need to protect individual sea areas. The IMO is developing a range of measures to protect sensitive areas. It already has a designation of particularly sensitive sea areas, or PSSAs. The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, was concerned about the number of acronyms around the subject; and, indeed, there is another for him to deal with. The European Commission has undertaken to develop a similar concept called marine environmentally sensitive areas, or MESAs, to which I believe the noble Lord also referred. In his report, the noble and learned Lord highlighted the confusion that would be caused if too many different areas were identified. Clearly, given the international nature of shipping and ship routeing, any measures that we introduce should be consistent with the other work being undertaken internationally. We must also guard against taking steps which may be quickly overtaken by other measures taken either by the IMO or in Europe.

To summarise, we already have considerable powers to provide protection to environmentally sensitive areas. Those powers are being used, and will continue to be used, to safeguard our coastline. I should stress that we are developing the concept of MEHRAs, which can be implemented within our existing powers. Where we do not have powers, we are constrained by international law on what can be done unilaterally. We are taking full part in international debate on measures which could be introduced. Until those measures are developed, further legislative provisions would, I suggest, be premature.

I seek the indulgence of the House for having given a somewhat long and detailed explanation of our policy with regard to MEHRAs. However, I believe it most important that the matter should be put into context. For that reason, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.

4 p.m.

Lord Clinton-Davis

My Lords, the Minister has no cause to apologise to the House for the lengthy explanation that he has given; indeed, he has provided us with a good deal of useful information. We support the progress that has been made thus far. However, I am a little troubled about the delay in identifying the environmental criteria. When we debated the matter on the last occasion, I believe that the Minister said that agreement on those criteria was still some way off. With the leave of the House, perhaps he could reflect on that point before he concludes. Can he tell us how far from agreement the Government are as regards the environmental criteria? What stage have the present consultations reached in that respect? In other words, are they near to fruition; if not, when is that point likely to be reached?

I turn now to my understanding of the identification of MEHRAs. The Minister was absolutely right to refer to the PSSAs—the identification of particularly sensitive sea areas—where the IMO agreed the relevant criteria as long ago as 1991. They were needed for recognised ecological, sociological or scientific reasons and because such sites were very vulnerable to maritime activities. But under the IMO definition, such criteria can also be used by national administrations to identify sensitive areas within their territorial waters. I believe that the Minister accedes to that point, but he is also saying that a voluntary approach should be applied initially. I am not against that. However, I should like to know what sort of period the Minister would regard as an appropriate testing time to show the efficacy of a voluntary system?

We know that accidents at sea last year were particularly serious. Consequently, I do not want to be in a position of blaming anyone—whether it be this Minister, a Labour Minister or, indeed, myself—for a situation which may occur because we have not accelerated the need to give consideration to such issues. However, I concede that the Minister is probably right at this point in saying that it would be better to try out a voluntary system. Subject only to the point that I raised regarding the consultation process, I propose in due course to withdraw the amendment.

Viscount Goschen

My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should like to thank the noble Lord for the approach that he has taken to his amendment. I believe that we are at one as regards the need, first, to have proper information available to masters and, secondly, to ensure that those areas about which we are particularly concerned are followed through properly in that respect. That was the reason why we decided to have the comprehensive radar surveys. We wanted to see how well the voluntary measures which are in place at present were being observed. I am happy to say that they have been observed rather more diligently than perhaps was at first thought.

I turn now to the timing. Although it is an on-going matter, I believe that it is one of some urgency. It is important for government to undertake their consultations quickly. I understand that meetings will be taking place within the next few weeks between officials from my department and from other government departments, together with representatives of outside interested bodies. Therefore, there is progress. I hope that in a very few months we shall see more progress.

Indeed, if there is more progress to report, I shall of course be happy to come back to the House and inform your Lordships accordingly.

Lord Clinton-Davis

My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 2 [Powers of intervention where shipping accident threatens pollution]:

Viscount Goschen moved Amendment No. 2: Page 3, line 35, leave out ("In").

The noble Viscount said: My Lords, in moving the amendment it may be for the convenience of the House if I speak also to Amendments Nos. 3, 7, 51 and 55, together with Amendments Nos. 4, 5, 6 and 8 tabled in the name of noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis. We now have before us a large group of amendments but they are closely related. They are some of the most important that we shall consider during today's deliberations.

Amendments Nos. 2, 3 and 7 would further widen the intervention powers conferred by Section 137 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1995. They provide for the implementation of one of the interim recommendations made by the Marine Accident Investigation Branch as regards the grounding and salvage of the "Sea Empress". They will also make a further change to Section 137 to ensure that the use of the powers is not unduly circumscribed.

Section 137 of the 1995 Act gives the Secretary of State power to give directions and to take other action where there is a threat of pollution following a maritime casualty. Currently, directions may be given to the owner, master or salvor of a ship. The MAIB has recommended that this power be widened to allow directions to be given to harbour authorities, harbour masters and pilots. We have consulted interested parties. The MAIB's proposals have met with considerable support. The amendments, therefore, provide for such implementation.

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, also earlier recommended such a widening of the intervention powers. In addition, he proposed extending the powers of direction to cargo owners. However, the consultation exercise showed little support for a power to direct cargo owners or other cargo interests. We are discussing a complex and difficult matter. I should like to tell the House that we have not ruled out future action in the area, if it should prove desirable and practicable after a longer examination. I believe however that it would be premature to make any amendment to the intervention powers in that regard at this stage.

I should like to stress that these new powers will not alter our preference to work through co-operation rather than coercion. As set out in the national contingency plan, it is our normal practice to seek to agree the course of action to be pursued with all affected parties. Only in cases of extreme urgency would we give a direction which went further than this without prior consultation. Our intention is that, in general, we would use the powers to require salvage plans to be submitted for agreement by the Secretary of State's senior representative. However, as I have said, we would have the power to intervene where the situation warranted it.

In addition to implementing the MAIB recommendation, Government Amendment No. 7 makes a further change to the intervention powers. In Committee, the noble Lords, Lord Clinton-Davis and Lord Beaumont of Whitley, raised the issue of the circumstances in which the powers can be exercised. I undertook to check that the current drafting of Section 137 does not leave any loopholes, taking account of the provisions of international law.

We have concluded that the best means of avoiding loopholes is to adopt the language used in the 1969 Intervention Convention and in the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. This would ensure that the powers conferred by the 1995 Act are as wide as they can be without contravening the provisions of international law. In particular, it would ensure that the powers can be used in respect of a ship which, for whatever reason, is drifting without power. I know that was one of the concerns of the Committee.

The noble Lords, Lord Clinton-Davis and Lord Berkeley, have tabled Amendment No. 8 which has much the same intention as Amendment No. 7. However, for the reasons I have given, I prefer the wording in the Government amendment. I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment as I believe the Government amendment achieves much the same aim.

Amendment No. 5 seeks to implement the MAIB's recommendation. However, it is less precise than that tabled by the Government. For example, it provides no definition of the term "pilot". I trust that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw that amendment.

I now turn to the national contingency plan. There is some overlap between the Government's Amendment No. 51 and Amendment No. 4 which stands in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis. Both amendments seek to put the national contingency plan on a statutory footing, as recommended by the Marine Accident Investigation Branch. The Government Amendment No. 51 would do this by making the preparation, review and implementation of the plan one of the statutory functions of the Secretary of State in relation to marine pollution. The Marine Accident Investigation Branch made its recommendation because it considered that there would be benefit in clarifying the status of the plan. In particular, it believed that the plan should be given formal recognition under the Merchant Shipping Act 1995. We agree that this would make the plan more authoritative. The noble Lord's amendment, on the other hand, would put the plan on a statutory footing in just one situation. For that reason I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to agree that the Government amendment is the more effective one.

I should like to take this opportunity to announce that I have asked the Coastguard Agency to initiate a review of the national contingency plan in the light of several recent developments. The revised plan will take account of a number of factors. First, it will reflect the legislative changes made by this Bill, should it be enacted.

Secondly, it recognises the changes brought about by local government reorganisation in England, Scotland and Wales and the establishment of the Environment Agency and the Scottish Environment Agency. Thirdly, the revision will have regard to the proposed regulations to implement the International Convention on Oil Pollution Preparedness, Response and Co-operation.

Finally, it will take account of the lessons learnt by the agency during the "Sea Empress" incident, in particular those set out in the Marine Pollution Control Unit's report on the clean-up operation, which was published last week. In addition, the scope and nature of the review may need to be reconsidered in the light of any relevant recommendations made by the Marine Accident Investigation Branch, whose report is due early this year; or by the "Sea Empress" Environmental Evaluation Committee, which is due to report in September.

The revised plan will be submitted to the Secretary of State for his approval. The review process will involve consultations with interested parties. In particular, the agency will consult other government departments, representatives of local authorities in England, Scotland and Wales, representatives of harbour authorities, operators of oil terminals, the International Salvage Union and the British Tugowners Association.

The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, has also tabled Amendment No. 6 which seeks to implement the third of the MAIB's interim recommendations. The MAIB recommended that we should review the powers of the Marine Pollution Control Unit promptly to charter equipment in the event of a pollution incident. Amendment No. 6 would seem to be an attempt to implement this recommendation. However, it would not achieve the desired end. The amendment would simply give the Secretary of State power to give directions to the Marine Pollution Control Unit. As that body acts on behalf of the Secretary of State, this power would not be necessary. As recommended by the MAIB, we are reviewing the MPCU's powers. However, we do not believe that any amendment to the 1995 Act is needed.

Finally, I should like to mention the issue of the Pilotage Act 1987, which was discussed in Committee. I believe this point was stressed by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley. The noble Lord was concerned that a direction to a pilot might result in his inadvertently committing another offence. The noble Lord asked for reassurance on that point. There is an offence under Section 21 of the 1987 Act if a pilot, through breach of his duty, causes damage or loss of life. However, if a direction is given to a pilot under the new power provided by Amendment No. 7, the pilot's duty would then be to comply with the direction. Only if he performed this new duty in a manner which is contrary to Section 21 of the Pilotage Act—for example, by negligently causing further damage while under the influence of alcohol— would he commit an offence under that section.

I hope that the House will welcome the Government's amendments, which give further breadth to the Government's intervention powers, and that it will recognise the sentiments that I have expressed in the course of the discussion on these amendments. I hope that noble Lords opposite will feel that the Government's amendments achieve the aims that they seek. I beg to move.

Lord Clinton-Davis

My Lords, once again I thank the Minister for his explanation of the Government's amendments and for his comments on amendments that I and my noble friend have tabled. The debate gives us the opportunity not only to consider the amendments but also to reflect on the interim report to which the Minister has already referred. Many of the issues involved in the "Sea Empress" incident have entered the public domain, but perhaps not always in altogether praiseworthy circumstances.

There has been an extensive programme on the BBC on this matter. The programme sought to articulate certain anxieties regarding the system that is deployed by the Government at the present time. Other agencies of the media have also dwelt at some length on these matters. Therefore there must be considerable public concern about the situation. I do not propose to adopt those criticisms because I believe we should await the findings of the final report. However, I propose to ask the Minister certain questions that have been posed. I shall not reach any conclusions as that would be wrong for two reasons. First, these are leaked reports and the final report may not comply with the criticisms raised. We do not know. Secondly, where people or organisations have been criticised it is right that the Minister should have an opportunity to consult with those bodies to give them an opportunity to offer any rebuttal of the criticisms. That is done in the course of all forms of inquiry; and I believe that there is no reason for us to depart from it on this occasion. However, for the reasons that I have already adduced, it is important that we should proceed with the publication of the report at the earliest possible opportunity to dispel some of the criticisms made and/or to ensure that necessary action is taken at the earliest opportunity.

In a letter to me on 19th December, the Minister said: We are consulting interested parties about the interesting proposals that Lord Donaldson and the MAIB have made regarding the widening of the Secretary of State's intervention powers. If, following this consultation exercise, the Government considers that amendments to the Bill are appropriate, these will be brought forward in the New Year. A consultation paper was offered. Have we reached the final stage of the consultations? Are any further amendments likely to be introduced in another place? The Minister indicates negatively. I was not quite sure of the position in the light of that comment. I compliment the Government on undertaking that exercise. I believe that it was appropriate that there should be as full consultation as possible. Although the period was short—the consultation document went out in, I think, early December; only a few weeks were given for parties to respond—there was a sense of urgency on the part of those consultees and the Government have now come forward with their amendments to the Bill.

First, I wish to deal with some of the statements made in the leaked report. I wish to emphasise this. I do not adopt the criticisms in referring to this matter.

Viscount Goschen

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his constructive and responsible attitude and the remarks he made at the beginning of his intervention on the subject. However, when I respond it is unlikely that I shall be able to answer specific points if they relate to parts of the document that were issued in confidence to those named parties affected. As the statement by the chief inspector said, to do so would be to breach natural justice. I know that the noble Lord will not refer to specific parties in the remarks that he will make. However, we are at present in the middle of an investigation of all the issues. It is clearly in everyone's interest for the investigation to be completed and the report issued as soon as possible. I join with the noble Lord wholeheartedly on that. However, I believe that we should constrain our discussions in particular as regards what is supposed to have been said in a leaked report which forms part of an ongoing investigation.

Lord Clinton-Davis

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for those observations. I hope that I shall not cause any embarrassment by the questions that I pose. But I start with what was a grave reflection on an individual where action was taken, not by the Government but by the Milford Haven port authority. While the investigation was proceeding, it suspended the pilot who was on board the vessel in what I believe was a wholly unforgivable and premature way. Subsequently, the pilot was reinstated following a further investigation. That is not the way to ensure good relations which are essential between pilots and the port authorities.

I say now as I said earlier that I am the president of the United Kingdom Pilots (Marine) Association. It is a responsible body; I could not be the president otherwise. The fact is that it was a reckless thing to do and I hope that it will not be repeated by any other harbour authorities in any situation which might arise in the future. I say no more about it. However, I hope the Minister will recognise that in the light of what occurred that is a justifiable criticism and does not reflect in any way adversely upon the Government.

There will be government reaction or reaction from others about some of the other matters raised. One matter requires the Government to offer some response now. The Minister has been in touch with NUMAST, the officers' union, about the question of tugs. What the Minister said in effect—he will correct me if I misrepresent the position in any way whatsoever—is that one has to have some regard to the cost involved in using tugs. The question is: how many tugs do you use? How many do you have available? I do not raise now the question whether it would have been appropriate to have more tugs available, and whether in any future situation we shall have to apply to a Mongolian restaurant for translation purposes as was done here with a Chinese takeaway. However, if the Minister says that there are cost implications, as obviously there are, will he explain to the House the cost of using the present tugs available, and what the cost might be if that situation were accelerated? It is presumably a fairly simple calculation, although in these situations things are not always as simple as that. Also, does the Minister agree that in the past year tugs chartered from companies were deployed on 80 occasions?

It is important to relate the cost also to the cost of not having the tugs available. It is always a difficult factor to measure; but concerning environmental matters we are required to recognise not only the costs of preventing damage to the environment but also the costs of not doing so.

There is an immediate problem. Whether the leaked report is right or wrong is important and worrying, and does not brook delay. The problem relates to the value of the navigational charts which exist in that and other areas. It is said that the navigational charts around the mouth of the harbour were outdated and inadequate. Without commenting on whether that is a justifiable charge, I wish to hear from the Minister whether action is being taken to ensure that navigational charts in sensitive areas in the first place are brought up to date. Perhaps he will comment not on the specifics of the Milford Haven situation but on the action that the Government are taking in a more general way. Information relating to tides is very important. I hope that the Government will be able to assure the House that they are doing their best to ensure that around our coasts accurate information relating to tides is provided.

I understand the Minister's situation. I have suffered myself from what has been called "salvage by committee". It is very difficult because so many interests are involved. One has the sense that if one does not consult while such situations are going on, people with a pecuniary or other interest will feel that they have not been treated fairly. On the other hand, it is very important to ensure that the swiftest possible and most direct action and responsibility is taken when such situations arise. I do not cast blame on the Government even if they are ultimately found to be responsible in some way or another in the final report. I know the pressures that are on the Minister. I know that mistakes can be made by any government. These are largely regulatory matters. Therefore, except where there has been an action taken deliberately (I do not say at this stage that it happened in this case) to take avoiding action or action which might mitigate a disaster on a political basis, I do not criticise the Government. I want to make that very clear.

I repeat: I believe that wider lessons can be learnt than will be available from consideration of the reports that will be made available to us. I have said on many occasions, having consulted the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, that I believe it would have been right—I still believe that it may be right, and it is not too late—to reconvene the committee to see whether any wider lessons can be learnt. I put that point to the Minister once again. I am sorry that I have taken so long, but it is important to comment on some of these matters.

I now turn to the amendments. Amendments Nos. 7 and 8 seek to define the circumstances that trigger intervention. They are comparable in seeking to define an accident. They are not exactly similar but the objects are clearly the same. I suggest that Amendment No. 8 adds certain important components; namely, the loss or impairment of propulsion, navigational facilities or power on board a ship". The Minister said that that is outside the definition that has been internationally approved. Certainly existing provisions were inadequate in terms of a dangerous situation such as that of the "Braer" where a vessel was incapacitated but not yet damaged.

The Minister said that the Government take their position from Article 221 of the UNCLOS intervention convention of 1969. He thereby recognises the inadequacy of the existing law. That is why his amendments are before the House today. However, while that definition would probably encompass a systems failure on board, there remain difficulties in the requirement of an imminent threat of material damage to the vessel or to cargo. But when damage is imminent, may it not be too late to intervene? Therefore we suggest expanding the definition of "occurrence" to extend, as in Amendment No. 8, to, the loss or impairment of propulsion, navigational facilities or power on board a ship"; and we would remove the word "imminent". I understand that the Minister feels that he has gone so far as he can under international law. However, I submit that in domestic legislation we are not obliged to follow in precisely the same terms the form of a convention. I further submit that the requirement regarding the word "imminent" is necessary. It drastically reduces the possibility of taking effective action if there is no possibility of that until the last possible moment.

We await the Minister's response to this matter. It is possible that guidance will be issued following the lines of our amendment. I suggest that the Minister might take that idea on board. However, if there is any doubt and he is reluctant to do so, I suggest that our amendment is needed to ensure greater effectiveness and safety of the intervention that is proposed. The suggestions we have made provide in this respect a more secure way of dealing with the matter than that proposed by the Minister.

The Minister dealt with the other amendments. We sought in Amendment No. 4 to clarify the status of the Marine Pollution Control Unit's national contingency plan by giving it formal recognition in the Act. The Minister does not want to do so at this stage.

4.30 p.m.

Viscount Goschen

My Lords, indeed I do. Another amendment in my name whose number I need to check effectively does the same thing.

Lord Clinton-Davis

My Lords, I am obliged to the Minister.

The question that we raise in relation to pilots was effectively dealt with in the Minister's remarks. I am grateful to him for following up the debates that we had in Committee.

This has been a useful debate. The Minister might like to comment on just one other point. Are the Government proposing to remove winter-only tug charterers at Dover, Stornoway and Falmouth? If so, why? In what way would that be an advantage? If the Minister says that there are no such plans, I shall be delighted. However, that was reported in the press and that is the reason I pursue the matter.

Baroness Thomas of Walliswood

My Lords, I had intended to remain silent during this debate because I did not take part in previous debates on the Bill. However, the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, raised a point that I should like to support.

I accept the Minister's comment about the inappropriateness of a long discussion of a leaked report, particularly if we are to have a chance to discuss the report once it is published. I should like a reassurance that tide tables and navigational charts are kept continuously under review.

Lord Donaldson of Lymington

My Lords, I join in the welcome that was given to government Amendment No. 7. It is essential that the power should extend to harbour authorities and harbourmasters, and also to pilots. Let me make it clear that, although I suggested that it should extend to cargo owners, I am not in the least bit troubled by the fact that that has not been done—not least because in most pollution cases, the pollutant is oil. Most oil is carried for the oil majors, who in their own interests in terms of public relations and other more financial matters will co-operate to the full. I just thought that in terms of comprehensiveness it would be no bad idea. However, as I say, I am not in the least troubled by that omission.

I am a little troubled by the general remarks made by the Minister that it did not follow that intervention powers would be used in every case—I agree that they would not necessarily be used in every case—and that it was the intention to continue with co-operation. I wholly support that. A large number of people are involved in these incidents each of whom has expertise, and co-operation is essential. However, the bottom line is that the Secretary of State, through his official on the spot, is responsible whether he intervenes or whether he does not intervene. He is either responsible because he did not intervene or responsible because he did do so. But what is absolutely clear is that that official cannot stand by while arguments are taking up valuable time. He cannot stand by and concur in the form of not exercising intervention powers in a plan with which he is not in total agreement. If he is not in total agreement, he simply has to intervene. There are no two ways about it.

At one stage I gently enquired, in a quite different case, whether intervention powers were contemplated and I was told that they were contemplated. But I gained the impression, which may be wrong, that the exercise of intervention powers was thought to involve some formality—some drafting or drawing up of documents. I hope that is not the correct view. I see that the Minister agrees that that is not the correct view and I am delighted.

There have been various references to keeping charts and tide tables up to date. Obviously that is important. But there is a limit to the extent to which charts can be corrected. The shingle bank which is not far from where I live is, I am told by the Southampton Port Authority, permanently on the move. One cannot produce charts every six months. Tide tables are at best a very crude guide to how much water there will be under the keel at any particular time, since the depth of water depends on atmospheric considerations of one kind or another.

The plain answer surely is that it is desirable that major changes should be recorded on charts but subject to that it is for masters of ships to allow a wide margin before they try to plot a course and if they want up-to-date and precise information to communicate with the harbour authority, who will undoubtedly have tide gauges and other means of giving him more precise information.

Apart from that, the only very minor point that I want to mention—I am sure that there is very good reason for it—concerns the definition of "pilot". I had always understood that traditionally the master had the conduct of his vessel—he was responsible for it—and the pilot was his adviser. It may very well be that this is taken from a succession of pilotry definitions, in which case I have nothing further to say about it. Indeed, I have nothing further to say about it anyway because we must get this Bill through and no doubt everyone will know what is meant by a "pilot", even if this is not a very good description.

Lord Clinton-Davis

My Lords, perhaps I may just ask the Minister another question. I am sorry but I forgot to put the point. In the review that is to be undertaken of the national contingency plan, will the national wildlife contingency plan which is currently in preparation by country conservation agencies in association with the MCPU be taken into account?

4.45 p.m.

Viscount Goschen

My Lords, this has been a fascinating debate which has ranged widely, as do the amendments.

I turn to the general points made by the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, first with regard to the "Sea Empress". He was absolutely true to his word and did not engage in anything that would be inappropriate, given the draft nature of the report about which we have heard. I shall repeat again: clearly, it is in everyone's interests that the investigation is completed and the report issued as soon as possible. But what I find particularly distressing about the events over the weekend and the reportage of a leaked document is not only that the document was leaked and issued to those affected in confidence but also that it is in draft and this is very much part of the investigative procedure. The MAIB interviews witnesses, takes a great deal of information into account and then puts its report to those who are affected directly for comment. That is the opportunity quite rightly for those who are affected to make representations. If the MAIB does not accept them, it is for them to submit alternative texts.

I draw your Lordships' attention to a statement issued by the chief inspector on Friday. It reads: Under the statutory procedures covering marine accidents I am required to consult those whose reputations may be adversely affected by my report into a marine accident. This procedure is essential to ensure fairness and to allow those involved to comment on the accuracy of my findings. Until I have had an opportunity to consider any comments I receive from the individuals concerned my report cannot be finalised. I stand ready to consider modifying my findings in the light of any new points which may be put to me by the individuals I have consulted. The draft report on the SEA EMPRESS has been circulated in confidence under these procedures. I very much regret that this confidence has not been honoured. It is unfair to those involved with the incident to assume that any material said to come from the draft will, in fact, represent the eventual findings and recommendations of my final report". I do not want to go on about this matter unduly but that puts the picture in its completeness.

The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, made a number of points more generally. The first was about the issue of tugs and a letter which I wrote to NUMAST. I do not have a copy of the letter in front of me but I know the correspondence to which he refers. We are in agreement in saying that tugs were an expensive outlay and any such very considerable expense has to be justified. It has to be weighed up against potential benefits and other options of how money can be spent on combating marine pollution and saving lives. That, essentially, is what I have always maintained and what I said in my correspondence with NUMAST.

The noble Lord asked about the cost of the tugs. In round terms—there are contractual details here—the cost is some £3 million per year now for three tugs, bearing in mind that these are for the winter period only. So it is approximately £1 million per tug per winter period. Those are the sums about which we are talking. They are very considerable sums indeed when put against other search and rescue assets.

The noble Lord concluded by asking me whether I had any proposals to remove the tugs. Clearly, when one is spending very considerable amounts of taxpayers' money, one has to be absolutely convinced that they are good value for money and they are achieving their aim. I have nothing at the moment to suggest that that is not the case. Very shortly a technical report will be published detailing what the tugs were tasked to do in their first two trial periods of operation. One has to recall that only three years ago there were no government paid-for tugs of any kind around the coast. To my understanding, this kind of very large salvage tug had never been chartered on a stand-by basis by the Government at all. So this is new territory that we have gone into. We have spent a great deal of money on this and I believe it is right that the lists should be analysed very properly. But I do not think there is anything between the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, and me on that subject. Certainly, he should not read anything into any correspondence with NUMAST which indicates anything other than that. The tugs have been extremely useful and have demonstrated their ability as a valuable asset.

The noble Lord also asked me about wider lessons to be learnt from the "Sea Empress" incident. The priority is now for the MAIB investigation to be completed, for the comments to be taken into account and for the report to be published. There is the environmental investigation as well. I am absolutely with the noble Lord. All the lessons to be learnt must be taken fully into account. Should there appear to be any need to re-examine any of the conclusions put forward by previous statements on maritime policy or indeed by the conclusions of the noble and learned Lord's report, clearly we shall have to look at that, if any of the recommendations from the inquiries into the "Sea Empress" showed that way. I can give the House a firm undertaking that the Government will take the recommendations of the Marine Accident and Investigation Branch extremely seriously. It is right that we learn all the lessons that are available from the report.

The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, returned to the amendments which deal with the definition of "accident". He is quite right in that we have gone as far as we can within our international obligations in coming up with a definition which we firmly believe enables us to react in a proper manner where there is the threat that we have established. For that reason, I prefer our amendment to that of the noble Lord. My advice is that the government amendment would cover ships drifting without power where there is a threat of pollution as defined in the amendment. But Amendment No. 8 could prevent the UK from acceding to the 1982 Law of the Sea Convention.

On the question of tides and charts, the problem was dealt with extremely thoroughly by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, in terms of the changing nature of the seabed and the effects of the atmospheric conditions on any specific day on tides and the amount of water available for navigation. The Hydrographic Office has a good reputation for its work. My understanding is that it was not sent a copy of the MAIB's draft report. One has to draw one's own conclusions from that. It is not for me to make specific statements on that until the report is with Ministers and published.

Lord Clinton-Davis

My Lords, perhaps the Minister will give way. In relation to the question of hydrography, how many, if any, hydrography vessels are in the ownership of the department or any other agency? Is it that the department charters hydrography vessels? Is the Minister satisfied that sufficient is being done in that respect to ensure that appropriate research is being conducted and accurate information given to those who are working in ships and to those who own them?

Viscount Goschen

My Lords, in the general round of things and not referring specifically to the incident in question, I have not been aware of any such problems. In regular meetings with shipowners, fishermen and others who rely on charts around the UK coast, I have not been made aware of such problems. With regard to the detail of the chartering of vessels and so forth, I shall be more than happy to write to the noble Lord.

Turning to a point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, with regard to my statement in relation to co-operation, it is our view that these matters work best through co-operation. However, there is to be a review of the national contingency plan. What I said about intervention powers in general is that we would use powers to require salvage plans to be submitted for agreement by the Secretary of State's senior representative. Therefore there could well be an intervention that stopped short of intervening directly to take overall command of an incident. However, those powers are available where necessary.

Lord Donaldson of Lymington

My Lords, that addresses a point which troubles me. If there is a distinction to be made between taking overall powers and intervening in specific respects, we shall find ourselves in difficulties. Surely the Secretary of State's representative must be able to say: "I have heard what you say. I have considered it, but I do not agree. It would be better if we did this". He should not have to use intervention powers to achieve that. If there is the slightest reluctance on the part of people who have power, such as harbour authorities and so forth, to go along with the Secretary of State's chosen route, then he merely says, "This is what we are going to do".

Viscount Goschen

My Lords, I do not believe there is very much between myself and the noble and learned Lord on this point. Perhaps I have not explained myself sufficiently clearly. I agree that where the Secretary of State's senior representative felt that in the case of disagreement with advice that had been given and the taking of overall command where there was good reason to do so, he should be able to do that and, indeed, is able to do that.

The noble and learned Lord pressed me on another point and inquired whether there was some great bureaucratic chain that had to be followed or whether the procedure could be followed rapidly. I am pleased to reassure him that it can be done rapidly and there is not a great long process to be undertaken where the situation demands it and where it can be so justified.

The final point the noble and learned Lord asked me was in regard to the definition of "pilot". I understand—I am subject to correction—that that has been directly taken from previous legislation. I hope that answers the questions put forward.

Lord Clinton-Davis

My Lords, I intervened after the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, to ask whether the national wildlife contingency plan was to be taken into account in the review of the national contingency plan itself.

Viscount Goschen

My Lords, the answer is yes. I hope that with that single word answer the noble Lord is satisfied and the House will feel able to accept Amendment No. 2.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Viscount Goschen moved Amendment No. 3: Page 3, line 38, after ("waters)") insert ("is amended in accordance with subsections (1A) to (1C). (1A)").

The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 2. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to. [Amendments Nos. 4 to 6 not moved.]

Viscount Goschen moved Amendment No. 7: Page 3, line 41, at end insert— ("(IB) In subsection (2)— (a) after sub-paragraph (b) there is inserted— (bb) to any pilot of the ship, or"; and (b) at the end there is inserted "or (d) where the ship is in waters which are regulated or managed by a harbour authority—

1. (i) to the harbour master, or
2. (ii) to the harbour authority."

(1C) In subsection (9)— (a) for the definition of "accident" there is substituted— "accident" means a collision of ships, stranding or other incident of navigation, or other occurrence on board a ship or external to it resulting in material damage or imminent threat of material damage to a ship or cargo;"; and. (b) after the definition of "owner" there is inserted— "pilot" means any person not belonging to a ship who has the conduct of the ship;".").

The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I spoke to this with Amendment No. 2. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Amendment No. 8 not moved.]

Clause 5 [Waste reception facilities at harbours]:

Lord Clinton-Davis moved Amendment No. 9: Page 4, line 38, after ("may") insert (", after consulting interested bodies,").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I can be perhaps uncharacteristically short in moving Amendment No. 9. The question that arises here relates to the nature of consultation that will be taken into account. I do not need to adumbrate upon that further. The Minister has engaged in a good deal of consultation, but we are here talking of the actual process and how those situations will emerge and develop. I beg to move.

Viscount Goschen

My Lords, perhaps I may give a similarly brief response. A major plank of the Government's policy is to consult with interested parties on a wide range of measures. However, Amendment No. 9 duplicates existing provisions. There is already a requirement for the Secretary of State to consult interested organisations. The requirement is given in Section 306(4) of the Merchant Shipping Act 1995, as amended by paragraph 14(5) of Schedule 6 to the Bill, and therefore Amendment No. 9 is unnecessary. I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw it.

Lord Clinton-Davis

My Lords, unhesitatingly I rise to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Clinton-Davis moved Amendment No. 10: Page 5, line 11, at end insert— (" () No order may be made under this section or any of sections 130B to 130D unless a draft of it has been laid before and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, in this context is there any reason why the affirmative resolution procedure should not be applied? I beg to move.

5 p.m.

Viscount Goschen

My Lords, the noble Lord has made the shortest speech to an amendment that I have yet heard. I regret that my answer, clear as it will be, will take a fraction longer. The intention of the amendment would appear to be to make all regulations on port waste reception facilities subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. That would unnecessarily delay the making of regulations on waste management planning. It is important that the regulations are made as quickly as practicable. Our intention is that the regulations would evolve as the Government and the industry gain more experience of the practicalities of the measures we are introducing. Once the first regulations—

Lord Simon of Glaisdale

My Lords, can the noble Viscount explain why matters would be delayed if there were an affirmative resolution?

Viscount Goschen

My Lords, my understanding is that time has to be found in both Houses of Parliament for matters to be debated. Hence the delay that might well occur.

Once the first regulations had been made we would intend to keep them up to date with technical amendments. It would therefore be inappropriate and unnecessarily time-consuming for all such amendments to be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. Furthermore, the drafting of the amendment is flawed because it would conflict with existing provisions on the procedure for making regulations.

For those reasons, I hope the noble Lord will agree with me that the current arrangements in the Bill are more appropriate.

Lord Clinton-Davis

My Lords, I am little puzzled. I could understand if the Minister were to say that for a particular class of draft regulation it would not be appropriate to follow this procedure. However, he excludes them all.

Viscount Goschen

My Lords, in the interest of brevity, I did not go on to describe the procedures for this section of the Bill in terms of the fact that both affirmative and negative resolution procedures are used.

New Section 130D(3) and (4) would apply both affirmative and negative resolution procedures to different parts of Clause 5, depending on the nature of the regulations. The noble Lord's amendment would add a conflicting provision to Section 130A and, if it were to be adopted, would add ambiguity. It is not very clear which of the conflicting provisions would apply. Different procedures are used for different parts of the Bill. That is essentially the answer to the noble Lord's question.

Lord Clinton-Davis

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister. In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Berkeley moved Amendment No. 11: Page 5, line 12, at beginning insert— ("() The Secretary of State shall produce draft regulations on waste management plans no later than 1st July 1998.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, if adopted, Amendment No. 11 would require the Secretary of State to produce draft regulations on waste management plans by no later than 1st July 1998. The history of this matter goes back to Recommendation 27 of the Donaldson Report. It suggested that the Government should place a statutory obligation on port and terminal operators to provide reception facilities and encourage them to consult and to set up a system of certification. The Government's response can be summarised by saying that the matter was under consideration.

In Committee, the Minister suggested (at col. CWH 17 of the Official Report) that the Government's response should be to bring forward plans on a voluntary basis. They did not want to bind themselves or be overprescriptive. The Minister said: we need a system which enables plans to be properly scrutinised".—[Official Report, 25/11/96; col. CWH 17.]

However, the plans first need to be produced. The amendment therefore sets out a timescale for draft plans to be produced. I emphasise the word "draft".

The Department of Transport announced in January 1996 its intention to require ports and harbours to produce waste management plans as part of the 18 new measures to reduce discharges of waste from ships. In the announcement the department recognised that at the moment the provision of such port reception facilities is haphazard and that research by the MSA had shown that where the facilities existed they could be hard to find and were poorly publicised. The department also stated that the problems would be addressed by the strict application of a waste management planning process. However, the Bill as drafted states: The regulations may make provision requiring a harbour authority for a harbour in the United Kingdom".

Therefore, the Bill does not require; it simply says "may".

In the intervening period, some ports and harbours, including some of the ports owned by the ABP group, have voluntarily produced waste management plans. However, I am informed that the MSA currently does not propose to assess the adequacy of those plans. What is the point of producing plans if no one is to look at them? Scrutiny could be through a sub-group of the Maritime Pollution Action Group, which comprises a number of different organisations, but it does not deliver the system of certification of all the waste reception facilities as called for in Recommendation 27 of the Donaldson Report.

The Government may say that the ports are responding favourably to a voluntary initiative so they should be given more time to see what happens. Our amendment would give them more time, but it would be a fixed amount of time. The Government need to decide which government agency should be responsible for assessing the adequacy of the plans. Is it to be the MSA; is it to be the Maritime Pollution Action Group; or should it be the Environment Agency? We must ensure that any such plan does not make British ports less competitive, although I believe that such an argument can be overemphasised. We would need to see evidence that British ports would be less competitive if this happened.

Finally, perhaps the Minister can help the House by telling us how much the production of these plans would cost. As my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis said in connection with an earlier amendment, there is not only the cost of making the plans; there is also the cost of the clean up when things go wrong.

It is important that consultation on these plans should be as wide as possible. I am convinced that all ports should produce draft waste management plans. If there are no waste management plans, there can be no assessment. That is the purpose of the amendment. It requires the Secretary of State to produce draft regulations on a fixed timescale. The timescale of 1st July 1998 seems appropriate. I beg to move.

Lord Beaumont of Whitley

My Lords, this is an area in which we need to have a degree of uniformity. That can be produced only by regulations. There is considerable variation between ports. The more these matters are left to voluntary and unregulated plans, the less likely it is that there will be a fairly uniform code of practice. It is clear that not every port will need to have exactly the same regulations. However, there should be a general standard which can be relied on by everyone who has to deal with this matter. For that we need draft regulations to be produced fairly soon. Without regulations it is likely that there will be no resources. Resources are needed. If one has regulations, one has enforcement, and resources have to be produced. That is a good reason for supporting the amendment.

Viscount Goschen

My Lords, there has certainly been good progress made on waste management plans. It was an important part of the package of 18 measures which I announced to combat the problem of illegal discharges. I believe that one major side effect was to draw attention to the issue of illegal, deliberate discharges. Waste management plans are a significant part of the approach. I do not believe that there is a great deal of difference between any of us who have spoken on the issue today.

As regards the amendment itself, I do not believe that it is necessary because the Government are already committed to making regulations on port waste management plans. I have stated on a number of occasions that we intend to make these regulations as quickly as possible and practicable.

However, we need to allow sufficient time to take account of the lessons learnt from the voluntary planning regime introduced last year. The amendment is undesirable because it would restrict the time available to do this.

It is important to note that the concept of port waste management planning is relatively new. I am anxious, therefore, to ensure that we learn the necessary lessons in the light of the experience gained from the current voluntary regime before we make regulations.

As I stated in Committee, a sub-group of the Maritime Pollution Advisory Group is reviewing the port waste management plans which have been produced so far. That is in answer to the specific question of the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley. Following consideration by the full group, my department will consult more widely on draft guidelines on the preparation and content of port waste management plans. These guidelines will be based on the best practices used in the guidelines produced so far.

It is of course better to make effective regulations after due consideration rather than to make bad regulations quickly. However, I certainly hope that we will be in a position to make draft regulations well before the date which the noble Lord gave of July 1998.

To the best of my knowledge there is no precedent for a provision of the type proposed by this amendment. It would also be ineffective. It would only require the Secretary of State to produce draft regulations by a set date, not to bring them into force. In fact, what I propose is for regulations to be brought forward as soon as possible following consultation on these new arrangements on the voluntary regime and for regulations—not just draft regulations—to be made as soon as possible. Getting the draft regulations in place is a key part of that.

As I have already said, we are committed to making these regulations just as soon as it is sensible and practicable to do so. I hope that the House will accept that, based on the experience that has been gained since we announced that this was due to be part of our policy, a great deal has changed. I commend the ports industry, environmental bodies and others in the waste management business who have been involved in this process for the hard work that has been put into reaching the position that we have today. The Government accept that it is an important part of policy to make sure that waste management plans are right and we are committed to that. For those reasons I hope that the noble Lord will not feel it necessary to include the specific provision that he has mentioned.

5.15 p.m.

Lord Berkeley

My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the Minister for his remarks about the progress which the Government are making in encouraging ports to produce these plans. It is extremely good news that he hopes to beat the date that has been inserted in the amendment for the production of a draft. It is obvious that the amendment is not in a form which could enter the statute book because, as the noble Viscount has rightly said, it is to some extent meaningless. The regulations may come in and it is good to hear that so much consultation is going on. I am sure that it will continue in the future. I believe that we have had a very useful debate on this issue. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Berkeley moved Amendment No. 12: Page 6, leave out lines 37 and 38 and insert ("The master of a ship shall—").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment for the convenience of the House I should also like to speak to Amendments Nos. 13, 14 and 16. Amendment No. 12 is designed to replace what one may interpret as a slightly nebulous statement to the effect that, 'The regulations may make provision requiring the master of a ship",

with The master of a ship shall if reasonably required to do so by a Departmental officer or in such other circumstances … to deposit any waste carried by the ship [in] prescribed … facilities".

Many groups with which we have had discussions have emphasised as have others—and I support this— that there should be a power on the face of the Bill to allow, not require, a departmental officer to require the discharge of waste from ships in port where the officer has reasonable cause to consider it appropriate. At the moment the drafting of the Bill includes just enabling powers. These powers would allow a departmental officer to detain a ship which does not comply with this request. Again, as the Bill is currently drafted, they are just enabling powers.

I believe that it is extremely important that these powers should be there for cases where the departmental officer has reasonable cause to believe that something untoward could happen. This amendment does not aim to put a universal requirement for mandatory discharge on the face of the Bill because I believe that would be unacceptable. Obviously, there needs to be much thought and consultation before such regulations are drafted.

It is important to focus on exceptional cases because it is in such cases that things can go wrong. As an example of an exceptional case one might consider a vessel which has made an illegal discharge in the past— we shall be discussing later today whether there will be records of such illegal discharges, but let us assume that that is known—and a vessel which is proposing to leave port with full waste tanks.

I believe that the judgment and discretion to use these new powers should rest with the MSA inspectors themselves. They have shown that they have used judgment and discretion in the exercise of their existing port state control powers. One would assume that these powers would not be very different.

It is very important that, if a ship comes into a UK port fully laden with waste and refuses to discharge, the port state control inspectors should have the power to require discharge to reception facilities if they think fit.

I now move to the imposition of charges. I believe that I have covered Amendments Nos. 12 and 13. I shall not be moving Amendment No. 14. Amendment No. 16 will enable the Secretary of State to implement regulations which make it a requirement for ports to implement an inclusive fee system rather than simply just giving them the option to do so. I am speaking to this amendment for the convenience of the House. I shall continue and then the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, can make his comments afterwards. It is extremely important that that facility exists.

There has been much argument about whether an inclusive fee system is the most appropriate for all ports. There have been discussions about whether such a system would make British ports uncompetitive. However, for waste such as garbage and non-cargo oily wastes it should be possible to enable the Secretary of State to require ports to implement an inclusive fee system rather than merely giving them the option if, as a result of consultation with the environmental groups and the industry, that is thought desirable. I beg to move.

Lord Beaumont of Whitley

My Lords, I entirely agree with all that the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, has said on the earlier amendments. I shall limit my remarks to Amendment No. 16 which stands in my name. Although I understood the noble Lord to be in general support of it, I note that he has not put his name to it.

Amendment No. 16 allows regulations requiring the use of inclusive fee systems. The text of new subsection (4)(a) in the Bill as it stands will allow regulations prohibiting charging for reception facilities. The implication is that the regulations could require that reception facilities must be provided completely free of charge by harbour authorities. We do not believe that prohibiting charges is in the best interests of the environment. We would prefer that the use of reception facilities was charged for, but that the charges were included in the harbour dues that vessels pay automatically when entering port. That is known as the inclusive fee system.

The logic behind it is that vessel owners are more likely to use something that they have already paid for. The system was recommended in the Donaldson Report at Recommendation 27C. Furthermore, in January 1996 the Government stated that they, will seek powers to allow for the voluntary [inclusive fee system] regime to be made mandatory, should this appear to be necessary". Our amendment therefore intends to avoid regulations which would require completely free use of reception facilities. Instead, we propose regulations that would require the introduction of an inclusive fee system. We acknowledge that the inclusive fee system is probably most appropriate for garbage and non-cargo oily wastes. Oily waste from cargo tanks is likely to be more voluminous and specialised and would therefore cost more than an inclusive fee system could cope with easily. Those differences in approach for different types of waste could easily be taken into account when the regulations are drafted.

The Government may state that the Bill as it stands allows for regulations requiring an inclusive fee system. However, we consider that any text prohibiting charges for the use of reception facilities clearly rules out the inclusive fee system. That is because the inclusive fee system still involves a charge, albeit included in harbour dues.

The ports industry is known to be opposed to the inclusive fee system because it considers that it would create more administration for it since the industry would generally have to reimburse waste contractors out of their dues. In addition, the industry fears that it could make UK ports unattractive when compared with countries which do not use such an inclusive fee system. We acknowledge that more administration would be involved, but believe that the inclusive fee system is likely to be introduced anyway on a North Sea-wide basis in the medium term. We do not foresee that it will make UK ports more unattractive. When we come to Amendment No. 16, I hope that the Government will be prepared to accept it.

Viscount Goschen

My Lords, we have had an interesting discussion on the issues raised by Amendments Nos. 12, 13, 14 and 16 to which the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, has just spoken.

Noble Lords clearly support the purpose of our proposals in new Section 130C(2) and wish them to be brought into effect as soon as possible. The new powers would allow the Secretary of State to make regulations requiring ships to discharge waste into port waste reception facilities. Discharge would be required either in such circumstances as prescribed in the regulations or when directed to do so by a port state control inspector. The issue of the enforcement of compliance is raised again in Amendment No. 15, which follows this group.

The powers could be a useful addition to existing powers to enforce pollution regulations. Clearly, no ship should be allowed to leave port if it is carrying too much waste on board. However, a power to require waste to be discharged would provide only part of the answer. It would not stop ships from discharging into the sea before they entered port. We have to be careful about producing a system which might unintentionally bring about such a reaction from unscrupulous owners or masters.

It is also vitally important that we do not act too hastily. The new powers would need to be used carefully. We have repeatedly stated that we will consult fully on these regulations, as we have already consulted on the other elements of the Bill. This is necessary to ensure that the benefits and costs are proportionate, and that the practical difficulties of mandatory discharge are fully addressed. We also need to make sure that the regulations are consistent with international law and our treaty obligations.

Our first priority remains to develop regulations on waste management planning to improve the provision of port waste reception facilities. The planning process will ensure that ships which regularly visit a port should be consulted about the adequacy of the facilities in that port. It would be far better to encourage ship operators to use facilities than to attempt to force them to do so. But, if encouragement does not achieve the results that we are committed to, we are fully ready to consider making mandatory discharge regulations under this power, as I have already made clear.

The amendment would remove a number of safeguards which Clause 5 provides for the regulations: for example, Clause 5 currently requires that there should be full consultation with interested parties and that the regulations would need to be approved by both Houses. It also stipulates the offences for non-compliance with the regulations. The amendments would have the effect of exempting mandatory discharge from these provisions. I doubt whether that is the intention.

Amendment No. 13 would add the words "by regulations" after "prescribed". This is unnecessary because the term "prescribe" is defined in new Section 130E as meaning "prescribe by regulations". That is merely a technical point but, as I have said, there is a difficulty with this amendment with regard to consultation.

I turn now to Amendment No. 16, to which the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, spoke. The Bill allows for regulations to prevent direct charges from being levied for the use of waste reception facilities. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, pointed out that mariners are more likely to use port waste reception facilities if direct charges are not imposed when the facilities are used.

This amendment would require port authorities to include charges for waste reception facilities in harbour dues. Although we expect that many port authorities might choose to recover costs in this way, it is not the only means available to them. For example, some port authorities might choose to recover costs through fixed term contracts with port users. The costs of some facilities may also be recovered through profits made by recycling waste materials. The legislation should recognise the need for operational and commercial decisions by individual ports.

The Bill achieves the same results as this amendment by providing for regulations which, if made, would prohibit direct charges. The intention behind Amendment No. 16, which was tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, is already covered by the terms of the Bill. There is additional flexibility for such charging systems as fixed term contracts to be employed. The Bill allows, but does not compel, port authorities to recover those costs through harbour dues if they so choose. We believe that this is a far more effective and flexible mechanism which recognises the commercial decisions that port authorities must take about the operation of their business.

To sum up the final amendment in this group, there is very little between the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, and me on the issue of direct charging. I have given the Government's overall view on that subject. However, I hope that the noble Lord will agree that the Bill already contains what he requires while providing additional flexibility to port operators. With those words, I hope that both noble Lords will feel able to withdraw the amendments that they have tabled.

5.30 p.m.

Lord Berkeley

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation of Amendment No 12. He has given me a good deal of comfort that in many ways the Government's heart is in the right place, as we have heard throughout this debate. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendments Nos. 13 and 14 not moved.]

Lord Berkeley moved Amendment No. 15: Page 6, line 44, at end insert— ("() The Departmental Officer may order the detention of a ship which fails to deposit waste as required by subsection (2) until such time as the master of the ship shall comply with the initial request.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I shall not detain the House long on Amendment No. 15. The amendment seeks to put into words what the Minister said in a recent letter addressed to my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis. He said that the best way to ensure that ships complied with waste requirements was to prevent them from leaving harbour. In regard to the requirement to comply with the requirement to discharge waste, he said that the best deterrent for a ship operator was the threat that the ship could be detained in port and therefore prevented from trading until the waste had been discharged. That is the purpose of the amendment. I beg to move.

Viscount Goschen

My Lords, this amendment has much the same intention as the Government's Amendment No. 50 which adds a new paragraph 13A to Schedule 6. Both amendments will enable a port state control inspector to delay the departure of a vessel until the master has complied with the requirement to discharge waste. However, the government amendment would achieve this by extending the existing powers to prohibition notices which would ensure consistency with other enforcement measures and also ensure that the master had recourse to existing rights to refer the notice to arbitration, which is an important safeguard, if he considered that the power had been used unreasonably. The noble Lord's amendment creates a wholly new power of detention which is not fully defined in legislation. I suggest that is neither justified nor desirable.

This is another case of great minds thinking remarkably alike. I hope that the noble Lord will express a preference for the Government's amendment, Amendment No. 50, and seek leave to withdraw Amendment No. 15.

Lord Berkeley

My Lords, I am very pleased that the Minister has taken his own advice and drafted a suitable amendment. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Beaumont of Whitley had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 16: Page 7, line 5, leave out ("prohibiting the imposition") and insert ("requiring the inclusion in harbour dues").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I listened with interest to what the Minister had to say. I will go away and work it out on the back of an envelope. In the meantime, I do not propose to move my amendment.

[Amendment No. 16 not moved.]

Lord Berkeley moved Amendment No. 17: After Clause 6, insert the following new clause— REGISTER OF COMPLIANCE OF VESSELS WITH STATUTORY PROVISION (".—(1) It shall be the duty of the Secretary of State to maintain a register containing—

1. (a) any documents produced under section 257(2)(a) or copied under section 257(2)(b) of the 1995 Act;
2. (b) any improvement notices served under section 261 of the 1995 Act;
3. (c) any prohibition notice served under section 262 of the 1995 Act;
4. (d) all other relevant or consequent documents associated with the serving of prohibition or improvement notices under section 261 and 262 of the 1995 Act;
5. (e) written details of any offences committed under sections 131, 139 or 266 of the 1995 Act; and
6. (f) written details of fines imposed for offences under sections 131 or 139 of the 1995 Act.

(2) It shall be the duty of the Secretary of State maintaining a register under this section—

1. (a) to secure that the register is available, at all reasonable times, for inspection by the public free of charge;
2. (b) to afford members of the public facilities for obtaining copies of the documents kept in the register on the payment of reasonable charges;
3. (c) to supply members of the public with copies of the documents kept in the register on payment of a reasonable charge for copying, not more than two months following receipt of a written request for such documents; and
4. (d) to ensure that all documents mentioned in subsection (1) are placed on the register within two weeks of their being brought into existence.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 17 is concerned with a register of compliance of vessels with statutory provisions. This matter was discussed at some length at Committee stage. I apologise to the House for returning to it. There is a need to revisit the question of public accountability and public availability of records. This stems from the fact that it is desirable that pollution regulation in the shipping industry is brought into line with that of land-based industry in terms of access to environmental information. The pollution regulation of land-based industry is already open to public scrutiny by virtue of a number of public registers set up under the Water Act 1989, the Water Resources Act 1991, the Environmental Protection Act 1990 and other Acts and regulations. All enforcement and prohibition notices served on offenders by the Environment Agency under the system of integrated pollution control are available on a public register, as will be the new notices to be served on premises and companies to secure improvements in water pollution control.

I do not accept the argument of the Government that marine industrial pollution should be the subject of any less public scrutiny than land-based pollution. Of course, the problem is that enforcement and prohibition notices are not geographically limited and a vessel on which an enforcement notice may be served will probably be a danger to the marine environment wherever it may be in the world. However, it is desirable to have a register and that improvements in ship practices to meet international standards should not be limited by geography. Despite what was said by the Minister during Committee, it is arguable that the Government could not legitimately refuse to publish inspected garbage records if required to do so by an individual under the terms of the EU's Freedom of Access to Environmental Information Directive (90/313). The refusal to support the proposed public register does not sit well with the Government's own code of practice on access to government information. It would be interesting to learn how the information could be refused if requested under the Environmental Information Regulations 1992.

I am sure that the Minister would not take it unkindly if I questioned his statement that the documents contained in such a register could be open to misinterpretation. I suggest that that is hardly a legitimate reason for refusing to set up the register. That is certainly not a valid exemption under the EC directive. I suggest to the Government that the setting up of such a register and making available such information would be a progressive action. It would bring the matter into line with the register and information available for land-based pollution. It would also comply with EU directives. I believe that this is a very positive step. I suggest that it would not cost a great deal of money. I do not know whether the Minister has an estimate of the possible cost. I believe that this is a very important matter to be considered. I beg to move.

Viscount Goschen

My Lords, as ever, I am grateful for helpful advice from the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley. We had an interesting discussion on this issue in Committee. I have looked again at the arguments that have been put forward. I maintain that we have gone to considerable lengths to publicise offences where they occur. That is a much better method of giving the matter publicity as a deterrent effect, which is what we are all concerned about, and entails a considerably smaller bureaucracy than the cost of maintaining a comprehensive register. This amendment would entail considerable additional cost and bureaucracy without providing any significant benefits to safety or pollution prevention.

We already publicise serious cases of safety and pollution offences. On one occasion we circulated to the media full colour aerial photographs of a vessel discharging wastes into the sea. Such publicity makes it clear which ships have been found to be substandard or to be operating illegally. Publicity of this type affects the choices made by cargo interests of the vessels that they charter and encourages ship operators to behave responsibly. For such publicity to be effective, it needs to be precisely targeted on serious safety and pollution offences.

The register of offences proposed in this amendment would not be targeted in this way. It would have the effect of obscuring serious safety and pollution offences by a mass of information about less important incidents, including offences which had been committed accidentally. It would also be available only to those who go looking for it rather than the approach we have taken which is to be rather more proactive. We believe that we can achieve a greater impact by providing information which can be published in the specialist press. That way it is quickly and effectively brought to the attention of cargo owners and others involved in transportation by sea.

We must maintain a sense of proportion over this issue. We shall continue to target resources on publicising serious offences. A register such as the one that has been suggested would be bureaucratic and costly. It would divert resources from where they are most needed, while providing little or no tangible environmental or safety benefit. Surely what we have to do with the resources that are at our disposal, without making the whole process unduly bureaucratic and complicated, is to make the maximum use of the resources that are available.

Lord Berkeley

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. Will he give us some idea of the cost of this bureaucratic organisation that he has mentioned several times? It does not need to be particularly bureaucratic or costly. It would be useful if he could also give the House some information about the cost of operating the equivalent land-based public registers that I mentioned earlier. Will he also explain the difference between the land and the marine approach?

Viscount Goschen

My Lords, I do not have figures to reply to the questions that the noble Lord asked. Working up figures is in itself an expense on bureaucracy. The noble Lord has asked why one approach is taken for land-based pollution and another for marine-based pollution. Without making an obvious point, the answer is that ships can travel, discharge oil and commit offences in a wide variety of states and jurisdictions. So such a register maintained in the UK alone would have little real effect because it could in no way be comprehensive, apart, I suppose, for vessels that trade only within UK waters.

I have a feeling that that will not satisfy the noble Lord, but I hope that he thinks that we take this issue seriously and that we feel the best way of achieving it is to use the resources on generating publicity. As a final serious point, for any register to be maintained it would have to be done properly. One could not have a slap-dash, haphazard attempt at doing so, at minimal cost. It would have to be maintained with scrupulous accuracy and that in itself takes resources.

Lord Berkeley

My Lords, I listened carefully to what the Minister said, and I am grateful to him for his replies. I shall study them carefully, and may wish to revisit the matter. However, at present, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Beaumont of Whitley moved Amendment No. 18: After Clause 6, insert the following new clause— INSPECTION AND REGISTER OF OIL RECORDS (".—(1) It shall be the duty of port state control inspectors to make copies of all oil record books inspected. (2) It shall be the duty of the Secretary of State to maintain a public register containing—

1. (a) any such copies made under subsection (1) above; and
2. (b) any written record of any reports to any harbour authority made under section 136 of the 1995 Act.

(3) It shall be the duty of the Secretary of State in relation to any register under subsection (2) above—

1. (a) to secure that the register is available, at all reasonable times, for inspection by the public free of charge;
2. (b) to afford members of the public facilities for obtaining copies of the documents kept in the Register, on the payment of reasonable charges;
3. (c) to supply members of the public with copies of the documents kept in the register, on payment of a reasonable charge for copying, not more than two months following receipt of written request for such documents; and
4. (d) to ensure that all documents defined in subsection (2) are placed on the register within two weeks of their being brought into existence.

(4) In this section, 'oil record book' means any book having been issued to, and completed by, all visiting ships under regulation 10 of the Merchant Shipping (Prevention of Oil Pollution) Regulations 1996 or under any relevant international convention.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is an amendment to insert an extra clause on oil record books and freedom of access to information. Oil record books are now to be provided to ships under the Merchant Shipping (Prevention of Oil Pollution) Regulations 1996. Ships are required to record a range of information about ballasting, discharging and disposing of oil residues. Harbour authorities have the power, but not the duty, to inspect them.

To be effective, those oil record books need to be inspected and made available in a public register to allow the legitimate scrutiny of ships' environmental records. Ships subject to those requirements are in port for some duration, easily giving adequate time for that inspection and copying to be undertaken. It is also required under the 1995 Act that any discharges of oil into harbours are reported to the harbour authority. That information, together with the copies of the oil record books, should be kept in a public register and so be subject to legitimate public scrutiny. The combination of requiring records to be kept, along with the prospect of public scrutiny, would secure a greater use of port reception facilities for oil by visiting ships.

The pollution regulation of the shipping industry is thus brought into line with land-based industry in terms of access to environmental information, which is immensely important. The pollution regulation of land-based industry is already open to public scrutiny by virtue of a number of public registers set up under the Water Act 1989, the Water Resources Act 1991, the Environmental Protection Act 1990 and other Acts and regulations.

We do not accept the Government's arguments that marine industrial pollution should be open to any less public scrutiny than land-based pollution. Furthermore, it is arguable that the Government could not legitimately refuse to publish inspected garbage records if required to do so by an individual under the terms of the Freedom of Access to Environmental Information Directive 90/313 EEC, nor does the refusal to support the proposed public registers sit well with the Government's own code of practice on access to government information.

It would be far more progressive were the government to set up a public register and thereby make the information accessible far more effectively and at a lower cost than would be the case if the legal machinations of applying the EEC directives had to be dealt with for each request. Without public registers there will be greater, not less, bureaucratic impact. I beg to move.

5.45 p.m.

Lord Berkeley

My Lords, I shall not detain the House long over this amendment because it is similar to Amendment No. 17 to which I have just spoken. However, it gives me the opportunity to say that the content of this amendment in terms of freedom of information and freedom of access to environmental information directive from the European Community covers the same ground. When the Minister responds, perhaps he could answer the question which I posed just now, which applies equally to this amendment: how could the Government legitimately refuse to publish this information under the EEC freedom of access to environmental information directive?

Viscount Goschen

My Lords, the arguments with regard to this amendment have many similarities with the arguments to do with the previous amendment. They are to do with the bureaucracy of setting up formal registers. The Government's commitment to reducing pollution from vessels, be it accidental or deliberate, is without question. A large part of the Bill is to do with that very aim. We all have the same aim.

The amendment would require port state control inspectors to make copies of all oil record books inspected. Noble Lords will be aware that port state control inspectors carry out the majority of their work whilst on board ships. They do not generally have access to copying facilities while on board. It would be needlessly costly and time-consuming to remove all oil record books from the ship for them to be copied and then returned. It could also be contrary to our international obligations that port state control inspections should not cause undue delay for ships. It would not be justified to delay ships while copies are made of oil record books, unless those record books suggested that there had been a breach of oil discharge regulations.

The amendment is also of questionable benefit. As with other amendments proposing registers of information, it would require voluminous information to be collated at considerable cost. It would be much more effective to use the information selectively to publicise ships which are found to be substandard or deliberately causing marine pollution. That remains our policy.

Many of the suggestions that have been put forward by noble Lords from all sides of the House have been picked up, and we have come forward with amendments to implement them. So I have no dogmatic opposition to the intention behind the proposals that have been put forward. My concern is one of practicality. I do not want to saddle the industry or the Government with additional bureaucracy unless it can be shown that that would have major benefits in terms of reducing pollution.

The government view is that a register such as this one, or the one proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, on the previous amendment, would not have the effect of achieving major reductions in pollution and would not be justified. For those reasons, which are similar to the ones I used on the previous amendment, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.

Lord Clinton-Davis

My Lords, before the Minister sits down, will he respond to the point about the application of the freedom of access to information directive? Is my noble friend right about the interpretation of that directive? If not, perhaps the Minister will explain why. I have some sort of interest in the directive because I introduced it.

Viscount Goschen

My Lords, any document introduced by the noble Lord must be of considerable quality indeed. I am sure that the House will join me in that opinion.

The warmest words aside, I regret that I cannot answer either noble Lord who posed that question. I must take specific advice on that matter. Once I have done so, I shall be happy to write to the noble Lords and copy the letter—

Lord Clinton-Davis

My Lords, before the Minister sits down, will he assure the House that such correspondence will be placed in the Library and will be available well before the Third Reading?

Viscount Goschen: My Lords, yes.

Lord Beaumont of Whitley

My Lords, I do not entirely accept the Minister's arguments, particularly in view of his present inability to answer the question posed by the noble Lords, Lord Berkeley and Lord Clinton-Davis. When we have the answer I shall decide whether to proceed with the matter on Third Reading. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Clinton-Davis moved Amendment No. 19: Before Clause 7, insert the following new clause— OFFENCE UNDER SECTION 131 OF 1995 ACT (". In section 131(l)(a) of the 1995 Act the words "or master" shall be omitted.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, in Committee we had an interesting debate about the substance of this amendment. The Minister indicated that he would look again at the matter. He wrote to me on 19th December stating: Our policy is to seek to prosecute the owners and operators of ships rather than the crew. We believe that this will help to ensure that shipping companies instruct their crews to comply with regulations on pollution prevention and allow them sufficient time to do so. As regards the failure to comply with the requirement to discharge waste, the best deterrent for ship operators is the threat that the ship could be detained in port and thereby prevented from trading until the waste has been discharged".

I believe that there was also another letter but I cannot now remember. At all events, as regards the Bill the Minister was not moved to support the idea that a different regime should apply to masters as distinct from ship owners.

I agree with the Minister that the offences that we are considering are serious. It is important that the courts should take a more serious view of such acts and omissions. They need to be tough on offenders, but the evidence thus far is that they are not. Neither Parliament nor the Government can or should try to dictate to the courts, but at the end of the day the Minister is entitled to seek to guide them. It must be only a matter of guidance and perhaps the Minister will be able to tell the House about the actions that he has taken in that regard.

The issue between us is simply whether it is practicable to impose a penalty of £250,000 on a master against the background of the courts' actions thus far and whether it is right to give a signal to the courts that masters and owners should be dealt with on a similar basis. Of course, one recognises that once a conviction has been brought in a court must carry out an examination of means when it is contemplating a financial penalty.

We are considering the situation affecting magistrates' courts, the courts of summary jurisdiction, and not the Crown Courts where quite different powers apply. However, because we are dealing with a situation in which foreign ships may be involved and may seek to leave with some rapidity, it follows that in most cases, if not in all, thus far such trials have taken place in the magistrates' courts. The practical reason for that is that the trials need to take place quickly.

As a lawyer, I wish to see the courts given reasonable powers; powers that they will be inclined to exercise not necessarily as regards maxima but powers which on the face of an Act are reasonable. However, our experience is that in almost every instance it is inconceivable that a master of a ship will be capable of paying such a maximum fine and that no maxima of this kind, or even of £50,000, have been imposed in any case of which I know. Again, the Minister may be able to say that I am wrong and may be able to point to precedents in that regard, but I think not.

The reasonableness and the practicability of penalties that can be imposed represent very important criteria when it comes to sentencing. I believe that it is right that courts should take into account the fact that a master holds an extremely responsible position on a ship and that he has the ultimate responsibility for the day-to-day operations of that ship. However, he is responsible to the owner, who is his employer, and therefore has vicarious liability, and the Act does not distinguish between deliberate or accidental discharge.

If the Minister does not wish to remove the master from liability—we are not saying that he should be removed from liability but that the penalty should be limited to £50,000—perhaps he will consider an alternative if he does not agree with the figure of £50,000. We are seeking to strike a balance between what is practicable and what kind of signal should be sent to the courts by legislation. We also wish to recognise that there is a fundamental difference as regards the master who may be under very serious pressure from an irresponsible owner to take actions which may land him in trouble.

The Minister has been most kind and has seen me and discussed the matter with me. I am not sure that I was able to persuade him, but we will see in a moment. I would ask him to think again seriously about it. It is not a question of not wanting to be tough on masters who commit irresponsible acts or omissions, but the fact is that it seems that in no circumstances are the courts likely to impose a fine of this kind. I beg to move.

Lord Simon of Glaisdale

My Lords, as this is the Report stage I shall intervene briefly, anticipating what I understand will be the Minister's answer. It seems to me that the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, has made a formidable case and I ask the noble Viscount to consider the matter further with a view to fixing an appropriate maximum for someone in the position of a master of a ship.

6 p.m.

Lord Murray of Epping Forest

My Lords, the danger is that a proposition such as that contained in the Bill might make the law look silly. Nobody wants that to happen, particularly if nobody believes that at the end of the road effect is going to be given to that massive, indeed draconian, fine. It is right that a strong signal should be sent to all concerned and that we should concentrate the minds of all concerned on the consequences of their actions or inactions. However, a fine of a £j million is out of all proportion to either the responsibility of the master or his ability to pay. As my noble friend said, it is the owner who is responsible for managing the ship and for the performance of the ship and its crew. The master is an employee. He is certainly an extremely important employee, but his role is subsidiary to that of the owner. If the purpose is to concentrate the mind of the owner, surely to goodness £50,000 is quite adequate for that purpose.

I understand that the Minister has been known to express doubts as to whether magistrates would levy such a fine. I understand that he has pointed out that such a fine would quite possibly be changed on appeal.

But if there are doubts in his mind, that underlines the fact that the threat of a potential fine of £j million is totally unrealistic. It is much more realistic and sensible to follow the course proposed in the amendment.

Viscount Goschen

My Lords, at present either the ship's owner or its master can be prosecuted for a discharge of oil in harbour waters. As we have heard, this amendment would prevent the prosecution of a master.

As I have said already in correspondence with the noble Lord, at meetings and on the Floor of the House, our general policy, where possible, is to seek to impose penalties on the owners and operators of ships rather than on ships' masters. That should encourage shipping companies to instruct their crews to comply with regulations dealing with pollution prevention and to allow them sufficient time to do so.

However, there are occasions when it is appropriate and justified to prosecute a master. It is quite possible that a ship's crew will choose to discharge waste illegally, even when a shipowner has taken all reasonable steps to prevent that. In the case of foreign ships, it may not always be possible directly to prosecute the shipowner. In such circumstances and, indeed, in some others I see no reason why the master should escape prosecution. It is extremely important that we recognise the power of the master. He is ultimately the man responsible on the spot and I do not believe that in any of our discussions about this we should lose sight of that fact. The court will of course take account of the means of the offender when fixing the level of the fine.

The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, described the Government's approach to giving information to magistrates about oil pollution offences. We are doing that in two ways. Clause 7 provides for increases to the maximum fines which magistrates may impose for illegal discharges. We wish to see also increases in the actual fines which magistrates impose. I have written to the Magistrates' Association offering to provide magistrates with information to help them to assess what level of fines would act as a deterrent to polluters. The association has agreed that I should do so by writing an article for its journal The Magistrate.

The increases about which we have heard are long overdue. The one point that I should like to make in relation to the matters raised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, and other noble Lords is that in the case of the fine for oil pollution the maximum has not been increased since 1971, and in 1971 the maximum fine was higher in real terms than that which is now proposed. Therefore, if we cast our minds back to when the fines were introduced originally, the fines, including those for masters, were higher than those which we propose now. That must be an important factor in our considerations.

I feel very strongly indeed that we should still have powers to prosecute a master where appropriate. I am very firm about that. However, strong sentiments have been expressed in the House about the level of the fine. While I can give no undertaking in any form that I shall make any changes on Third Reading, I undertake to look once again at this issue in consultation with other government departments which have considerable experience on the matter of fines. With that, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.

Lord Clinton-Davis

My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. I am glad that he is prepared to reflect on the amount of the fine. The debates that we have had on this matter have certainly stimulated the Minister to consult on these matters. I am glad that he will do so. Certainly we shall need to return to this matter on Third Reading.

There is something to be said in favour of the proposition that a master should not be excluded entirely. I concede that. But the essence of the matter is the amount of the fine. The Minister said—and I believe that it is not a good argument—that because in 1971 the maximum was established at £50,000, it is right to increase it in relation to the different financial circumstances which prevail today, so that in real terms it can be compared with the fine as it was then. That is an extremely theoretical approach because the truth of the matter is that in some instances the courts have not even come within reach of a fine of £50,000. Therefore, to increase the fine in line with inflation in order to adopt a theoretical position does not make a lot of sense.

We must look at what is the experience of the courts. The Minister is absolutely right to say that the courts have not taken a sufficiently strong view about those matters, particularly with regard to owners. We support the Minister's view that the courts should be guided in the direction of recognising more than they have in the past how serious are some of those offences.

But at the end of the day, I want to thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, and my noble friend Lord Murray for their interventions because I feel that we may have begun to persuade the Minister. I have a feeling that the Minister is already half-persuaded, although I accept that he has given no undertakings. It may be that the debate on Third Reading will bring forward a more positive result. In those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 11 [Ships receiving trans-shipped fish]:

Lord Berkeley moved Amendment No. 20: Page 12, line 33, leave out ("may") and insert ("shall, by 31st December 1997,").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, we now turn to Clause 11 and klondykers. This amendment is designed again to seek out information from the Government about the progress of the implementation of the proposals in relation to klondykers. It is based on Recommendation 77 of the Donaldson Report and the recommendation contained therein that the system should be in place by the winter of 1997.

It provides powers to link the issue of fish transhipment licences to klondykers with certain safety and pollution prevention criteria. Since the Donaldson Report was published in 1994, the klondykers' pollution has continued and the Shetland Islands Council has reported at least six oil pollution incidents between that date and the present involving klondykers at Lerwick. Five of those incidents were quite small, but one was relatively serious and took place in bad weather.

In Committee the Minister stated that, as soon as the Bill became law, they would take forward consultation on the klondyker regulations with the aim of enforcing them for the winter of 1997. On that basis the amendment as set down fits very nicely, but can the Minister inform the House about progress that has been made on consultation and tell us whether the Government are on programme for the enforcement to start by the end of 1997? I beg to move.

Viscount Goschen

My Lords, the amendment has flaws in it such as those which I described and which I believe in all fairness the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, accepted as regards a previous amendment that attempted to include deadlines for the Secretary of State to produce draft regulations. As in that circumstance, the Government's commitment to the issue goes without saying. As I announced in Committee, we intend to act quickly after full consultation with interested parties. Indeed, I can tell the noble Lord that the target remains the same. We hope to have klondyker regulations in place by the winter of 1997. It is extremely important that we pursue that target with vigour. I can assure the noble Lord that that is our aim.

As I said earlier, I do not know of any precedent for a provision of the kind suggested. Of course, the amendment would only require the Secretary of State to make regulations by a certain date, not bring them into force at any particular time. Therefore, with the assurance of the Government's commitment on the issue, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.

Lord Berkeley

My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister for giving us the good news as regards progress on the klondykers. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Beaumont of Whitley moved Amendment No. 21: Page 13, line 25, at end insert— (" () No new trans-shipment licence shall be issued until— (a) any fines and inspection fees have been settled; and (b) the contravention specified in the notice under subsection (2) has been remedied.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment follows the argument which has been put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, and upon which the Minister has been most helpful. As we know, one of the problems with klondykers is that the threat of monetary fines is unlikely to be sufficient to deter some of them from evading such requirements. That is possibly because they do not pay the fines.

Experience in Shetland has shown that certain klondykers—for example, the "Borodinskoye Polye" and the "Pionersk"—have a poor record of paying what they owe, at least regarding clean-up bills. It is considered that fines should be supplemented with a threat that no further transhipment licence will be issued unless fines have been settled and sub-standard features have been rectified. I believe that that is the only way of policing the situation. I beg to move.

Lord Berkeley

My Lords, in rising to express my support for the amendment, I have nothing further to add to what the noble Lord has said, save to congratulate him on his excellent Polish.

Viscount Goschen

My Lords, clearly the linguistic skills of the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, are without parallel in this House. I have considered carefully the noble Lord's proposal that no new licences should be issued to klondykers until any fines and fees have been paid and the contravention put right. I am not persuaded that the amendment is necessary.

If a new licence for a particular ship were issued before any fines and inspection fees had been settled and the contraventions specified in the prohibition notice had been remedied, the prohibition notice already in force would also override the new licence. The notice would not be revoked until the contravention had been remedied. That would be done after an inspection, for which fees are payable in advance. I hope therefore that the noble Lord will feel that the point he is pursuing, with such ability in foreign tongues, is already covered.

Lord Beaumont of Whitley

My Lords, I believe that that is probably the case. However, I shall read carefully what has been said. It seems to me that what the noble Viscount said means that the point is already covered. Therefore, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

6.15 p.m.

Viscount Goschen moved Amendment No. 22: Page 13, line 37, leave out ("the statutory maximum") and insert ("£50,000").

The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I have considered carefully the representations made by the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, in Committee to raise the financial penalties for klondykers contravening the requirements of their transhipment licences. I believe that this significant increase in the level of fines to be imposed on those contravening those requirements is justified, from the current statutory maximum of £5,000 to £50,000, and that it will act as a positive deterrent against future bad practices. I commend the amendment to the House. I beg to move.

Lord Clinton-Davis

My Lords, I should like to thank the Minister for considering what we said in such a positive fashion. We are most grateful to him. Indeed, it is possible that the increased sum of £50,000 may have a sentiment in another direction—namely, in relation to the earlier amendment that we discussed.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Viscount Goschen moved Amendment No. 23: After Clause 11, insert the following new clause— PREPARATION OF PLANS UNDER INTERNATIONAL CONVENTION ON OIL POLLUTION PREPAREDNESS, RESPONSE AND CO-OPERATION (". In section 128 of the 1995 Act (prevention of pollution from ships etc.) after subsection (3) there is inserted— (3A) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1) above, an Order in pursuance of paragraph (d) of that subsection may also in particular include provision imposing on local authorities responsibilities in relation to the preparation, review and implementation of any plans required by the agreement mentioned in that paragraph."").

The noble Viscount said: My Lords, in moving the above amendment, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 54. The Government have introduced these amendments to clarify existing powers to regulate contingency planning for oil spills. They would allow regulations to be made to give local authorities a statutory duty to maintain contingency plans for responding to oil spills.

The first amendment would amend Section 128 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1995. The section allows the Government to make regulations to implement a number of international conventions, including the International Convention on Oil Pollution Preparedness, Response and Co-operation 1990. This convention, known as the OPRC Convention, requires states to maintain an integral oil spill response capability. The convention stipulates that states should have an oil spill planning regime which co-ordinates the roles of the state, ports, oil terminals and offshore installations.

However, as with most international conventions, it does not explicitly mention the role of local authorities. In the UK, local authorities have traditionally taken a voluntary role to clean up beaches which have been affected by maritime oil spills. Amendment No. 23 would make clear that this voluntary role could be made into a statutory duty by regulations made under Section 128. At the moment, it is unclear whether Section 128 could be used for that purpose because local authorities are not explicitly mentioned in the OPRC Convention.

In June of last year, we consulted interested organisations about the issue. This was prompted both by the need to establish how best to implement the OPRC Convention, and also to help consider the action which should be taken following the recommendations of the inquiry of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, into pollution from merchant shipping. The inquiry recommended that local authorities and harbour authorities should have statutory duties for the planning and response tasks that they already voluntarily undertake.

We are not yet in a position to take a decision on whether local authorities should have a statutory duty for their role in oil pollution contingency planning. The response from the consultation exercise has not been conclusive. We will therefore consider the point further, in consultation with local authorities and others, and in concert with the review of the national contingency plan which I described earlier. I believe that full consultation is essential because, as we are all agreed, an effective response to oil spills requires the co-operation of all parties involved.

However, we did not want to pass up this opportunity pending the outcome of the consultation. If it is concluded that local authorities should be given a statutory duty, the amendments would give us powers to include that duty in regulations made under Section 128. The powers would not be used until the review had been completed.

There is also the consequential amendment to Clause 29 (Amendment No. 54) which would ensure that the new powers relating to oil pollution preparedness and response may be exercised from the day on which the Act is passed. I beg to move.

Lord Clinton-Davis

My Lords, we welcome this amendment. However, I wish to ask the Minister one or two questions. Will local authority contingency plans be subject to the approval of the MPCU? As regards Amendment No. 54 to Clause 29, will the requirement to prepare contingency plans also apply to harbour authorities and oil handling facilities? I may have missed something the Minister said, but can he be a little more specific on the timing as regards the introduction of this requirement? I think he said something about when the review was completed, after the passage of the Bill. Can he give some indication how long the review will take? I welcome full consultation and I applaud what he suggests in that regard, but perhaps he can be more specific on that. If he cannot respond tonight, perhaps he will write to me about the matter. It would be better if he could reply this evening as that may mean that we do not have to revisit the matter at the next stage of the Bill.

Lord Simon of Glaisdale

My Lords, I have one small drafting point to raise. The proposed new clause states: Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1)". That is a useful drafting device but it can be misleading if it is used when it is not required, and it also then acts as a precedent. It might be required if the clause went on to say "shall in particular", although even that would be arguable. But as it is permissive, I cannot see how it can possibly be, Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1)". All I ask is that the noble Viscount should consider the matter with the draftsman and satisfy himself that those words are necessary.

Viscount Goschen

My Lords, I am pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, did not have any particular difficulties with the explanations given as regards the history of consulting local authorities on this subject, the importance of consulting fully and reaching a decision at the end of that process. As I said, the initial consultation did not produce a firm result. It is important that it dovetails with the review of the national contingency plan. The noble Lord asked me two specific questions about approval by the MPCU and about oil handling at terminals and the like. My understanding is that the answer to both those questions is in the affirmative.

I trembled when I heard the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, refer to detailed drafting issues, on which he is infinitely more experienced than I. I have difficulty in venturing an opinion, and my opinion on the subject may not coincide with his. However, I am advised that new Section 128(3A) is needed because Section 128(1) gives general powers to implement conventions. This provision clarifies its extent. I do not know whether that detailed explanation meets with the approval of the noble and learned Lord! Perhaps he will indicate whether that is the case. I sincerely hope it does.

Lord Simon of Glaisdale

My Lords, all I ask is that the matter should be looked at again in the light of what I said.

Viscount Goschen

My Lords, I have asked for advice on the points that the noble and learned Lord made. I have been advised that it is necessary to take the action I have described. I hope it will meet with the approval of the noble and learned Lord if we accept this amendment tonight, but if on further examination a problem arises between now and Third Reading, I undertake to remedy it. I hope that approach meets with the approval of the noble and learned Lord.

Lord Simon of Glaisdale

My Lords, will the noble Viscount consider arranging a meeting at which the matter can be discussed with the draftsman and I can express my point rather better than I think I have this afternoon?

Viscount Goschen

My Lords, with the leave of the House, I do not believe there is anything wrong with the noble and learned Lord's explanation of his point. However, I do not know whether the same can be said of my explanation. Certainly I can arrange a meeting. Would it meet with the noble and learned Lord's approval if we accepted this amendment this evening, held the meeting subsequently, and if there was a problem we could return to the matter on Third Reading and amend the amendment? I hope that would be acceptable to the House.

Lord Simon of Glaisdale

My Lords, that seems to be entirely appropriate.

Viscount Goschen

My Lords, with the leave of the House, I suggest that we take that course of action on the understanding that I shall arrange a meeting with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, and any other noble Lord who wishes to attend.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 12 [Funding of maritime services]:

Lord Greenway

My Lords, to save time, I shall not move this or the following group of amendments for reasons which will become clear when we discuss the two following groups of Government amendments.

[Amendment No. 24 not moved.]

Schedule 2 [Funding of maritime services]:

[Amendments Nos. 25 and 26 not moved.]

Viscount Goschen moved Amendment No. 27: Page 27, line 20, at end insert ("or Part VIII").

The noble Viscount said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 27 it may be for the convenience of the House if I speak also to Amendments Nos. 30 and 33 to 38. This group of amendments represents a package of revised proposals for the contingent treatment of the General Lighthouse Fund in Schedule 2. At the Committee stage I envisaged that we would seek to improve these provisions. I am pleased to inform the House that as a result of meetings that have occurred in the intervening period with the general lighthouse authorities, and with great assistance from the noble Lords, Lord Greenway, Lord Clinton-Davis and others, we have produced a group of amendments which to a considerable extent, I trust, bring us to a common position and allay the concerns that the general lighthouse authorities expressed at earlier stages of the Bill. I thank most sincerely those who have been involved in this matter. I also thank the general lighthouse authorities for the constructive attitude they have adopted to finding solutions to the concerns they have voiced.

At Second Reading concerns were expressed that the measures proposed in this Bill as published would permit the Secretary of State too wide a power to amend the operation of the General Lighthouse Fund. Fears were expressed that there were wide-ranging implications for the operation of both the GLF and indeed the general lighthouse authorities themselves. I have given extensive assurances both in the House and in correspondence that there is, and never was, any intention to interfere with the operation of the general lighthouse authorities.

We recognise the way in which the General Lighthouse Fund is managed. We are content with the current arrangements. We see the GLF as likely to remain the main source of future funding for the main activities of the general lighthouse authorities unless and only in so far as the fund became incompatible with Community or international obligations. I am happy to repeat those assurances this evening.

A package of measures has been brought forward some of which have complexities associated with them. Therefore I shall attempt to describe in a little detail the effect of each and how it works.

I focus my remarks in particular on Amendment No. 30 which considerably tightens the test which must be satisfied before the whole arrangement could be operated, and on Amendment No. 33 which removes from the Bill a provision which might have permitted abolition of the GLF in certain circumstances. The arrangement therefore envisaged in this group of amendment is that the general lighthouse authority powers and duties remain unchanged, but in certain circumstances its single source of funding, the General Lighthouse Fund, would be replaced by dual funding, in part from the GLF and in part from arrangements which

would result from a Community or international agreement. The amendments maintain the position, on which I have previously given assurances, that there would be no powers in the Bill permitting changes to the statutory operations of the GLAs. I know that that prospect, has they had interpreted it, has caused them concern and I am happy to repeat that assurance in precise terms.

The Bill as published provided in Schedule 2, paragraph 3, that if it appeared to the Secretary of State that light dues under Section 205 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1995 could no longer be levied because they had or would become incompatible with a Community or international obligation, then the Secretary of State could make regulations to make appropriate adjustments to the coverage provided by the General Lighthouse Fund.

Amendment No. 30 substitutes a much more explicit test in paragraph 3, which must be satisfied before the operation of the GLF might be changed. The element of judgment formerly accorded to the Secretary of State has been withdrawn. Instead, the test proposed in Amendment No. 30 would require the existence of a European Community obligation, or of an international agreement which included the Republic of Ireland and at least one other country, before changes could be made to the current funding arrangements for the GLAs. The reference to the Republic of Ireland is significant as of course it has direct interest in the operations of the Commissioners of Irish Lights, which are funded from the GLF.

Further, the reference to GLA activities has been made more explicitly operational, referring to lighthouses, buoys and beacons, so making clear that other expenditures of the GLAs would continue to be funded from the GLF, even if the contingency envisaged in paragraph 3 were activated.

An international agreement on user charges does not yet exist, and our point at the October Transport Council of last year was to seek practical studies of how an equitable charging system should be developed. In particular, we see the need for mature maritime nations such as those in Europe to take a view on this, as there is evidence elsewhere in the world of the development of such systems, which might in time come to affect our ships. We therefore see a twin track, developing the basis of the principles but also a practical mechanism.

Amendment No. 30 defines precisely the circumstances in which such a mechanism could be introduced in the UK, while the remaining amendments in the group describe the mechanical effects on the GLF. But it is worth repeating at this stage that if the tests set out in the revised text of paragraph 3(1) are not met, the Secretary of State cannot act. The new powers are strictly contingent on satisfying the tests set out, and the regulations envisaged in paragraph 3 must themselves be subjected to the affirmative resolution procedure by virtue of paragraph 15 of Schedule 2.

I turn now to Amendment No. 27. There was earlier discussion on the definition of "maritime functions" in Schedule 2. This amendment clarifies that, for the purposes of Schedule 2, paragraph 2, functions conferred under Part VIII of the Merchant Shipping Act 1995, that is everything to do with lighthouses, cannot be "maritime functions" as defined. Therefore regulations under paragraph 2 cannot impose Secretary of State charges in respect of any Part VIII functions. The only way in which those functions can be addressed is by regulations made under paragraph 3 of the schedule, and only then provided that the conditions mentioned in sub-paragraph (1) of paragraph 3 can be met. The effect is to reinforce the strict test required for paragraph 3 regulations, and incidentally this amendment meets a point raised in an amendment previously proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Greenway.

Amendment No. 33 deletes from the Bill a power to abolish the GLF. This results from the narrowing of potential effects on lighthouse business, as envisaged by Amendment No. 30. Their expenditure potentially affected is more closely defined and cannot amount to the total of their spending. So it follows that in the circumstances envisaged by Amendment No. 30, there must be dual funding, first from the GLF for much, perhaps most, of GLA spending, with international agreement funding restricted to particular services. That being so, there is no need, even contingently, to take powers to abolish the GLF, and since the issue has caused some concern I am happy to remove the provision from the Bill by Amendment No. 33.

In Amendment No. 34, we set out in more detail the financial mechanics which would need to be put in place if we made regulations under paragraph 3 of the schedule. The amendment replaces the existing wording of Schedule 2 paragraph 12(b) with more explicit provisions allowing the system of dual funding to operate in the circumstances I have described. All present GLA expenditure would be covered, but from a combination of sources. The GLF could fund many existing GLA activities, act as a pension fund and receive income from asset sales and investments. The new international or EU agreement could pay for certain activities now funded from the GLF, but only if paragraph 3 could be activated. The replacement for paragraph 12(b) allows a strictly consequential transfer of parts of the duty of funding, at present solely on the GLF, to the new international source of funding, while leaving the rest of the GLF in place. The next sub-paragraph allows for the related splitting of receipts between the GLF and the international agreement via the Consolidated Fund. The next sub-paragraph allows for the first time for the Secretary of State to pay money to the GLF, so permitting the accounts to be balanced.

The new paragraph 12(bb) does not conflict with more general provision in paragraph 14 of the schedule, which requires payments in consequence of regulations to be made into the Consolidated Fund. The intention in the revised paragraph 12 is to provide a self-contained financial mechanism to allow for the particular financial consequences of making regulations under paragraph 3. Paragraph 14, as your Lordships will recognise, applies more broadly to the charges in Schedule 2, to which the contingent nature of paragraph 3 charges does not apply. So we do not see any need to amend paragraph 14 by a cross reference to the new paragraph.

I hope that the House will agree that the revised wording, though perhaps complex, meets earlier criticisms that the paragraph as published was rather too broadly sweeping.

Amendment No. 35 is a drafting amendment in consequence of Amendment No. 36. Amendment No. 36 deletes from paragraph 12(c) a reference to the general lighthouse authorities. Having made the whole system more explicit, and in particular defining more closely which GLA activities might be affected by paragraph 3 regulations, and also having made more explicit by Amendment No. 34 the financial transaction envisaged, we accept that there is no longer a need to refer even contingently to the general lighthouse authorities in paragraph 12(c).

In the same spirit Amendment No. 37 tightens the circumstances in which the powers of the Secretary of State might be exercised by regulation. In making amendments and repeals consequential upon paragraph 3 of the schedule, it is no longer necessary to allow the Secretary of State the judgment about whether such consequences are "appropriate". As part of the drafting of regulations, it will be necessary for him to demonstrate that they are "necessary" or "expedient" consequences of the decision to make regulations envisaged in paragraph 3.

Lastly, Amendment No. 38 is a drafting amendment in consequence of the changes envisaged in Amendment No. 34.

In summary, this group of amendments does three things. First, it tightens the tests which the Secretary of State must satisfy in producing regulations under paragraph 3 of Schedule 2. Secondly, it restricts to certain operational activities of the GLAs the scope of expenditure over which paragraph 3 regulations might have effect and therefore makes explicit the need to continue the General Lighthouse Fund to cover other expenditures. Thirdly, it seeks to make the whole operation more explicitly mechanical, and thereby underlines assurances previously given on the limited and restricted nature of the powers now sought. I commend this group of amendments to the House.

I hope that the House will forgive me for providing a very long and detailed explanation of the purpose of this package of amendments. I wanted an opportunity to repeat assurances that I have given before and to stress that in the opinion of the Government—I hope that we shall hear the opinion of the GLAs as well and that of noble Lords who have received their advice—it constitutes an appropriate response to the issue of the contingent effect of a European or other agreement on the issue of light dues.

Lord Greenway

My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister for that very lengthy explanation of an extremely complex batch of amendments. Perhaps I might take up a point made at the outset of our proceedings this afternoon by the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis. The Minister and his department were extremely helpful during the Recess. I had meetings with him, and the Government also talked to the general lighthouse authorities. As a result of those discussions we now have the set of amendments read out by the Minister which go a long way towards allaying the fears that were originally in the minds of the general lighthouse authorities at an earlier stage of the Bill. I express my thanks to the Minister for what he was able to do to help our case.

Perhaps I may make a few remarks on behalf of the general lighthouse authorities, as, I know, will other noble Lords. I know that the authorities are greatly gratified by assurances given by the Minister that their functions are not to be unduly tampered with and that the General Lighthouse Fund will continue to exist in its present form. We are also extremely pleased that the Secretary of State's previous wide discretion has to a great extent been removed in regard to making new regulations under Community or international obligations.

As the Minister said, relations over the years between the general lighthouse authorities and the department have been extremely good. We have a system that works very well. Our expertise is widely regarded throughout Europe. Anything which might have disrupted that good working arrangement would have been a shame. In the course of our deliberations we have come up with a measure that allays those fears.

I also point out how important it is for the general lighthouse authorities to maintain this particular means of funding. It gives them the most important freedom to plan ahead. That is not always possible with other countries where lighthouse and buoyage functions are centrally funded. It is an enormous plus point so far as our operation is concerned. We certainly want to see it preserved.

I do not intend to go into detail. The Minister gave a very adequate explanation of what is proposed. It has certainly taken the place of the amendments that I originally tabled. I do not ask for any more. However, there is just a niggling fear on the part of the lighthouse authorities that the General Lighthouse Fund could be marginalised if any international obligation were to trigger a disproportionate reduction by setting up an alternative fund which would deal not only with the international obligation but also with the existing responsibilities of the General Lighthouse Fund. I know what the Minister said, and the thrust of the other amendments allays many of those fears. However, a further possible assurance might bear repetition by the Minister and would go a long way towards getting rid of that final niggling point.

I repeat my broad welcome for these amendments. I thank the Minister for his efforts and those of his officials in relation to this matter.

6.45 p.m.

Lord Cochrane of Cults

My Lords, I echo the words of the noble Lord, Lord Greenway, who has immense experience in this field, in congratulating my noble friend on the great improvements that he has achieved. I welcome them and am glad that all the matters under dispute, which were of great anxiety, have now been disposed of so elegantly and with such good will. Accordingly, my noble friend is greatly to be congratulated on his achievement.

Lord Cooke of Islandreagh

My Lords, I wish to join with noble Lords who have just spoken in congratulating the noble Viscount the Minister on the manner in which he has handled Schedule 2. When the schedule was first printed it started alarm bells ringing in Trinity House, the Northern Lighthouse Board and the Commissioners of Irish Lights. It was difficult to understand how the provision was ever thought up. It threatened the core of the GLAs' operations, their method of funding and fund management. It is therefore a matter of relief that the Minister tackled the problem after the Committee stage. All of us who had to deal with it, and with the Minister, thank him most sincerely for the great attention he paid to the representations. He has very cleverly managed this group of amendments. They tie the whole matter up and completely change the meaning of Schedule 2.

The Minister has improved the situation with Amendments Nos. 31 and 34. Amendment No. 31 allows the GLAs to collect funds for other purposes than light dues. Amendment No. 34 deals with a mechanism of financing which could be useful outside the main purpose of the schedule in dealing with international agreements. The GLAs are a resource of marine skills and experience which is becoming increasingly scarce. That is because of the much reduced opportunities for young people to enter into a marine career as a result, I am sorry to say, of the decline of the British merchant fleet. It could therefore become advantageous, and perhaps economic, for related work around these coasts to be undertaken by the GLAs. These two amendments make that possible.

I assure the House that the GLAs welcome the amendments and thank the Minister for the trouble he has taken. I have specific instructions from the Commissioners of Irish Lights to express their gratitude to the Minister for the way the matter has been handled.

The Earl of Caithness

My Lords, I was among those who were not particularly against Schedule 2 at the beginning. The wording of my noble friend's amendment is nevertheless an improvement.

However, where does that leave us in regard to charging for certain activities for which the GLAs do not presently charge? It is money that cannot presently be recouped. Do we have to wait for an international agreement with three or more countries; or, with the help of this Bill, can my noble friend introduce regulations to allow all charges to be made where costs are incurred and for which charges are not recouped at the moment?

I should also like to pay tribute at this stage to the noble Lord, Lord Greenway, for the enormous amount of work that I know he has done and reiterate the respect with which he is held not only in this House but outside for his knowledge of these matters. It is greatly due to him that we have the changes that are before us.

Lord Clinton-Davis

My Lords, the noble Earl has just asked the question that I intended to put. I look forward to the Minister's answer. I should like to join noble Lords who complimented the Minister on the way in which he has listened to the representations that have been made. I am not sure that I entirely follow his explanation but it seemed basically all right to me. It seemed to be on the right lines. But I shall ponder that and, after several sleepless nights, hope to come to the conclusion that he was absolutely right.

I join the noble Earl in complimenting the noble Lord, Lord Greenway. He conducted a formidable and diplomatic campaign which has had the desired results. It is an example that I hope will be followed in many other respects.

Viscount Goschen

My Lords, I am very grateful indeed for the kind words of many noble Lords this afternoon. It was never our intention to bring forward any proposals that would cause the general lighthouse authorities particular alarm. I have sought to reassure them. I am very pleased indeed that this package of measures, which addresses their specific concerns, does just that.

The noble Lord, Lord Greenway, inquired whether any response that we would make to an international agreement would be proportionate. I can give him that assurance. That is certainly our intention and not to go beyond that. I hope that that gives additional assurance to the noble Lord, the House and indeed the general lighthouse authorities.

I was grateful for the view of my noble friend Lord Caithness that these proposals represented an improvement. I say that very genuinely indeed. Essentially, they allow what was originally envisaged by this schedule but they do so with added protection for the GLF. So in essence everybody is happy.

The point raised by my noble friend about wider charging is quite right. During our discussions on the Bill we have concentrated on the GLF side of things. But there are provisions in the Bill to charge for a number of counter-pollution services. It is our clear aim to seek international agreement for that. Our clear preference would be to take this forward on a multilateral approach. I certainly understand very clearly what would be the effects on the competitiveness not just of UK shipping but also of industry in the UK in a wider sense if charges were raised unilaterally. I certainly take that strong point made by my noble friend. We should certainly have to consider any implications for the competitiveness not only of UK ports and shipowners based in UK ports but also of exporters and importers using those ports. Certainly, I can assure the House that the Government would not introduce charges unilaterally without first carrying out a full evaluation of compliance costs for business and the adverse effects on competitiveness. Again, I re-emphasise that our preferred approach remains to achieve international agreement and we are making every effort to achieve that.

Again, I should like to thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this discussion, especially those who have entered into the arena on the issue of charging of lights. I mention in particular the noble Lord, Lord Greenway, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, the noble Lord, Lord Cooke of Islandreagh, my noble friend Lord Cochrane and, of course, my noble friend Lord Caithness who contributed to this debate. I am very pleased that we now have an agreed solution. I commend the amendment to the House.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Amendments Nos. 28 and 29 not moved.]

Viscount Goschen moved Amendment No. 30: Page 27, leave out lines 27 to 36 and insert— ("3.—(l)If—

1. (a) any Community obligation, or
2. (b) any international agreement made between any three or more countries including the Republic of Ireland and ratified by the United Kingdom,

requires the United Kingdom to provide for any of the costs incurred by general lighthouse authorities in respect of lighthouses, buoys and beacons to be recovered otherwise than by means of the levying of general light dues in accordance with section 205 (as it has effect on the commencement of this Schedule), regulations under this Schedule may make provision imposing charges for the purposes of recovering all or any part of the costs so incurred. (2) In this paragraph "buoys and beacons" includes equipment which is intended as an aid to the navigation of ships and, subject to that, expressions used in this paragraph and in Part VIII of this Act have the same meaning as in that Part.").

The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment with a previous group. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Viscount Goschen moved Amendment No. 31: Page 29, line 36, at end insert— ("(2) Regulations made under this Schedule by virtue of sub-paragraph (1) above may in particular confer on general lighthouse authorities functions relating to the collection and recovery of charges.").

The noble Viscount said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I shall speak at the same time to Amendment No. 39. The Government have considered the best way to collect any new maritime charges. The GLAs currently undertake the collection of light dues, as we heard. They have developed a most efficient collection system which involves a collection contract with the Institute of Chartered Shipbrokers. This might be utilised to collect any other charges.

Amendment No. 31 would permit the GLAs to collect any new charges under Schedule 2. Amendment No. 39 would permit the Secretary of State to pay for this service. But I stress that any such arrangement between the Secretary of State and the GLAs would be voluntary and therefore by agreement. It seems sensible to make provision for what could be, in the event of a new charging regime coming forward, an effective and indeed cost-effective means of collection. I beg to move.

Lord Greenway

My Lords, if the matters that we have been discussing could be referred to as the lottery, I feel that this provision could be called the bonus. It is something which was not foreseen in our initial discussions. It is a provision that the Government have brought forward only recently. I say only that it is most welcome and I thank the Government very much for it.

Viscount Goschen

My Lords, I am always more than happy to hear such sentiments. I commend the amendment to the House.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

The Deputy Speaker (Viscount Allenby of Megiddo)

My Lords, before calling Amendment No. 32, I should advise the House that if this amendment be agreed to I cannot call Amendments Nos. 33 to 38.

[Amendment No. 32 not moved.]

Viscount Goschen moved Amendments Nos. 33 to 38: Page 30, leave out line 7. Page 30, leave out lines 8 to 10 and insert— ("(b) provide for payments which, apart from the regulations, would fall to be made out of the General Lighthouse Fund to be made by the Secretary of State out of money provided by Parliament, (bb) provide for amounts which, apart from the regulations, would fall to be paid into the General Lighthouse Fund (other than general light dues levied in accordance with section 205) to be paid by the Secretary of State into the Consolidated Fund, (bc) provide for the payment out of money provided by Parliament into the General Lighthouse Fund of amounts representing the whole or part of any charges imposed by virtue of paragraph 3, and"). Page 30, line 12, at end insert ("or"). Page 30, line 13, leave out ("or general lighthouse authorities"). Page 30, line 14, leave out ("appropriate") and insert ("necessary or expedient"). Page 30, line 16, leave out ("(a) or (b)") and insert ("(b), (bb) or (be)").

The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I have already spoken to Amendments Nos. 33 to 38 with the group relating to Amendment No. 27. I beg to move these amendments en bloc.

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Viscount Goschen moved Amendment No. 39: Page 30, line 16, at end insert— ("12A. If regulations under this Schedule make any provision by virtue of paragraph 9(2) above, regulations under this Schedule may also provide for the making by the Secretary of State to each general lighthouse authority out of money provided by Parliament of payments in respect of expenses incurred by that authority in connection with the collection or recovery of charges.").

The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 31, to the pleasure of the noble Lord, Lord Greenway. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

7 p.m.

Lord Simon of Glaisdale moved Amendment No. 40: Page 30, line 24, leave out ("with the consent of the Treasury").

The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this amendment raises a point that I raised in Committee. As the noble Viscount with his habitual accuracy and honesty pointed out, I have raised it on other occasions as well. However, I do not apologise for raising it again.

The paragraph says that: Any sums received in consequence of regulations under this Schedule"—

that is, from the General Lighthouse Fund— shall be paid into the Consolidated Fund".

Subsection 15(1) states: Regulations under the Schedule shall be made by the Secretary of State with the consent of the Treasury".

The point is that in this context the consent of the Treasury does not have to be expressly stated. The general background is that in 1975 the Renton Committee remarked on the prolixity of the statute book. Within a few years the statute book (which was then in three volumes) had grown to five volumes and contained no more general statutes—in fact, it contained less. As a result of that the format was changed. That was highly inconvenient because the new format did not fit the bookshelves that had been made for the old one. However, it enabled the volumes to be reduced once again from five to three. But within a few years they were back again at five in a larger format.

The amendment refers to those six words only, but they occur again and again in statute after statute and cumulatively involve a fantastic waste of material, time and money. The first question I ask the noble Viscount is: if those words are omitted, what difference does he think it would make? Does he think that the Treasury should not in any event be consulted when the question arises of transferring funds to the Consolidated Fund?

I have two specific reasons for raising this matter again in the context of this Bill. The first is that in Committee we had the wise counsel of the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, who has had experience in many offices where he served with uniform distinction and in the office which is responsible for this Bill. He bore out that the Treasury would be concerned in this sort of transaction whether or not the words appeared in the statute. He bore out that there is a department or body of officials in the Treasury which is in close liaison with every government department and in close touch and almost daily communication with it. The noble Earl went on to say, "and very valuable that is, too".

That is my first reason; that it leads to a great waste and the words are entirely unnecessary. The second is that it seems appropriate to raise the point in connection with a merchant shipping Bill. On two occasions in the past in the context of merchant shipping legislation official obduracy has, in the end, yielded to common sense and reason.

The first occasion that will occur to your Lordships was when the ascertainment of longitude arose. Latitude was early found to be ascertainable; but for centuries longitude could not be ascertained with any accuracy.

As a result, there was great loss of life and materials. So much so that in the event the Admiralty offered a large sum to anybody who could solve the problem of finding how to ascertain a ship's longitude. It was an obscure provincial clockmaker who found the answer by devising what is the predecessor of the present nautical chronometer. But that was not acceptable to officialdom. It took decades before they finally gave way to the great saving of life and materials.

The second occasion that will occur to your Lordships was the loading line on vessels. Merchant vessels were frequently overloaded by greedy owners and charterers with the result again of loss of life and materials. Samuel Plimsoll proposed the loading line. Was that acceptable to officialdom? No, it was not. Time after time in Bill after Bill he urged what is now called "the Plimsoll line". In the end he lost his temper on the Floor of the House of Commons. I do not propose to lose my temper on this occasion, though it is extremely irksome to have the same stonewalling answer put forward.

With those two examples, plus the testimony of the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, I raise the matter again and I end as I began. Can the noble Viscount really stand at the Dispatch Box keeping a straight face and assure your Lordships that money can be transferred into the Consolidated Fund other than with the consent of the Treasury? I beg to move.

Lord Clinton-Davis

My Lords, I have only a few words for the Minister: go on, upset the Treasury a bit; accept the advice that has been given; it makes sense. The whole thing is otiose to requirements. It may be that the current Chancellor of the Exchequer fears that he may be cut out of any consultation with his colleagues; that might be the real reason for the inclusion of the words.

Viscount Goschen

My Lords, there are those who say that compared with solving the problems of navigation, changing the mind of the Treasury would be an extremely simple task. However, we have not heard that argument from anyone in the House today.

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, has come back to his guns on his impressive campaign for deleting these words from all Bills, and particularly he has taken the opportunity of this Bill to wage his battle. I am advised that the need for an express requirement for Treasury consent or Treasury approval arises whenever Parliament, by placing a responsibility on a departmental Minister, might otherwise appear to reduce the authority of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in matters of finance. Granting the Secretary of State for Transport the power to make decisions on the levying of fees and charges clearly falls into that category.

I would be more than slightly surprised if the noble and learned Lord stood up and said that I had entirely convinced him and that he would now retire from the fray a happy man. I do not suppose he will do that, but perhaps he will accept that this is not necessarily the choicest battleground on which to conduct his final campaign.

Lord Simon of Glaisdale

My Lords, I am grateful to those noble Lords who have spoken. The noble Viscount is quite right. I am not satisfied. I have heard those words before. It is not one of those vintages that improves with being laid down or with age. He did not answer my question. Does he really think that if these words were not there the fund could be transferred to the Consolidated Fund other than with the consent of the Treasury? No doubt he did not answer that question because he did not feel he had sufficient command of his features to give the answer that is implied in his brief. If so, I sympathise with him. I am sorry but I shall not stop. However, on this occasion, as we want to get on, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendments Nos. 41 and 42 not moved.]

Clause 15 [Compulsory insurance]:

Lord Clinton-Davis moved Amendment No. 43: Page 17, line 45, at end insert— "Illegality of insurance contracts or other security providing indemnity for fines and other criminal penalties Insurance or security against fines or other penalties, 192B. Any insurance contract or other security which purports to indemnify a shipowner in respect of a fine or other penalty imposed by or under this Act shall be illegal and unenforceable."").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment relates to insurance indemnifying a shipowner for a fine or other penalty imposed in the Bill. We believe that there are grounds for saying that that should be illegal and unenforceable. I do not propose to go over the entire ground because as I understand it from the Minister, he is consulting with insurers about the matter. He has indicated that he is not satisfied with the position. I am grateful to him for responding to the debate which I initiated in Committee. I recognise that it is not an easy matter; it is a highly complex and international one. Fines for which shipowners are indemnified generally relate to foreign situations. It is right that discussions should also take place in international fora.

It is my understanding that under common law a plaintiff cannot maintain an action for indemnification for a fine or other punishment imposed for the commission of a crime and that probably insurance for such loss would be unenforceable or void. It is doubtful whether under English law a shipowner could recover through an action based on an indemnity which was provided under its club's liability cover if the club refused to pay. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, dealt with this matter in his report. He and his colleagues cast some doubt whether the practice was in all circumstances undesirable. I do not propose to go into that at the moment. The issue of compulsory insurance is high on the IMO agenda. I wish the Minister success in being able to move that forward.

I did not intend—the Minister knows this because we had discussions the other day—to push the matter further forward at this stage beyond giving the Minister an opportunity to tell us what is happening in the IMO and what the Government are doing. I beg to move.

7.15 p.m.

Viscount Goschen

My Lords, as the noble Lord knows, I have considerable sympathy with the intention behind the amendment. We too should be concerned if insurance cover were available for fines imposed under the Merchant Shipping Act. However, the provision proposed is unnecessary and unworkable.

It is unnecessary because existing UK legislation already excludes from insurance cover any loss attributable to the misconduct of the shipowner. I understand that most other maritime states have equivalent legislation. As a result, we have been given assurances that all major marine insurers do not provide cover for fines arising from wilful or reckless acts or misconduct on the part of the shipowner.

The amendment is unworkable because of the international nature of the shipping and insurance industries. This means that UK legislation is not applicable to the vast majority of insurance contracts between shipowners and marine insurers. My officials are therefore pursuing this important matter at an international level, through the International Maritime Organisation. I was pleased that the noble Lord felt that that was an appropriate forum to push this issue.

As a result of proposals put forward by the UK last year, the IMO has established a correspondence group on marine insurance. One of the issues which the group is considering is what are acceptable conditions of cover. We shall strongly argue to this group that insurance should not cover fines. The specific issue of insurance cover for fines is to be discussed later this year by the relevant IMO committees, including the legal committee and the marine environment protection committee. We shall play an active role in these discussions.

I hope that this work within the IMO will help us to work towards the elimination of any practices within the insurance industry which might harm the effectiveness of enforcement action carried out by governments. In particular, I believe it is unacceptable if insurance cover reduces the deterrent effect of fines. That would run counter to our policy of taking tough measures to combat marine pollution. We shall therefore press for the elimination of any practices which could have this result.

Broadly, the noble Lord and I are of much the same mind in believing that the international forum is where this has to be solved. I am grateful to him for giving us the opportunity to discuss this important issue, but I hope that he can now withdraw the amendment.

Lord Clinton-Davis

My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. I hope that the signals he has given will be important in the discussions that take place within the IMO and other fora. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 21 [Retention of documents by Registrar General]:

Lord Clinton-Davis moved Amendment No. 44: Page 19, line 41, at end insert— ("(5) The Secretary of State shall ensure that the Registrar General of Shipping and Seamen records and preserves all documents transmitted to him for a period of at least 85 years.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, the purpose of this amendment is to ensure that records are available to deal with the arbitration, accident investigation and welfare needs of seafarers for the natural life of those seafarers. The figure of 85 allows for a person of 100 years of age who first went to sea at 15 years of age. The records of the seafarer would then be available in the vast majority of cases not only until he or she passed away but until any claims in respect of that person through the next of kin might be pursued. I have no doubt that the Government would not wish to abuse an open-ended clause such as that offered by Clause 21. However, without any crystal ball to hand, we feel that the individual has a right to know that his or her records will be available to him or her whenever required. Such a clause might assist the registrar general in his arduous task and reduce the amount of recording and preserving without prejudicing the individual.

The cases that have demonstrated a need for access to documents that may become important over time concern, for example, asbestosis, where it is not possible within even a normally reasonable period of time to ascertain that someone has contracted the disease. It might take 30 years. There is a social interest in these matters as well but I think that is dealt with in the next amendment.

The Minister was good enough to discuss this matter with me. I understand that he is prepared to discuss the matter further with those concerned. If that is his reply, I shall be delighted. I beg to move.

Viscount Goschen

My Lords, Clause 21 replaces the requirement for the registrar general to record and preserve all documents transmitted to him with a requirement to hold all such documents as required by the Secretary of State. The recording and preserving of all documents is an onerous task. In practice, the majority of records are infrequently accessed. This clause reduces the burden of document storage and subsequent cost to the department by allowing the Secretary of State to limit the period of storage.

I do not believe that an amendment on the face of the Bill is necessary. There would be no question of material being lost which is either of interest to historians and archivists or which can be of use or of interest regarding the career records of seamen. To allay any fears about this I am happy to give an undertaking that relevant parties, including such bodies as RMT and UMAST—those concerned with representing seafarers—would be consulted, and also those with an interest in historic archives when the criteria are drawn up for what is retained and what is destroyed or passed on to other bodies. Documents which are no longer of use to the Registrar General will be made available to the Public Record Office or other institutions, provided that there are no constraints with regard to confidentiality. I hope that that meets the test that the noble Lord set me.

Lord Clinton-Davis

My Lords, the Minister is meeting most of the tests this evening. I am very grateful to him for that undertaking. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendment No. 45 not moved.]

Schedule 4 [Amendments of Part III of Aviation and Maritime Security Act 1990]:

Viscount Goschen moved Amendment No. 46: Page 58, line 47, at end insert— ("Inspection of ships and harbour areas 6A. In section 36(2) (powers of authorised person on inspection of ships or harbour areas), in paragraph (c), for "or the occupier of the land" there is substituted "the occupier of the land or any harbour operator".").

The noble Viscount said: My Lords, the proposed amendment is intended to rectify a simple omission from the changes we propose to make to the Aviation and Maritime Security Act 1990. The harbour operator concept, which forms the basis for some of the other amendments proposed in this schedule and agreed in Committee, needs also to be recognised in relation to the inspections carried out by government security inspectors. The amendment will place all harbour operators on an equal footing with harbour authorities, shipowners and other relevant recipients of directions in respect of supplying information required by an inspector. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 24 [Piracy]:

Lord Berkeley moved Amendment No. 47: Page 21, line 37, at end insert ("and (b) those provisions shall apply equally to the territorial waters of the United Kingdom.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I shall not detain the House very long with this amendment. It is to seek clarification from the Government about the applicability of the piracy legislation. The Government have taken a major step forward by importing the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and the Aviation and Maritime Security Act 1990 into the Merchant Shipping Act. But the drafting has led to some doubt about the definition of territorial waters. This amendment is intended to seek clarification of that. We do not have a piracy problem at the moment in the United Kingdom. This measure will allow the United Kingdom to send firm signals of its intent around the world.

At Committee stage the Minister explained that there is no need to state the scope because it is covered by the Aviation and Maritime Security Act 1990. But the part of that Act imported into Schedule 4 speaks only of harbour areas. I suspect that the intention is that it covers all areas of British territorial waters. I shall be very grateful if the Minister can clarify that and confirm that the Government intend to take action through the courts wherever piracy occurs within UK territorial waters. I beg to move.

Viscount Goschen

My Lords, as we all agreed during Committee stage, piracy is a significant problem in many parts of the world. It is not something that went out with sailing ships; indeed, the situation is the reverse of that. There are many areas of the world where the seas are unsafe and horrendous incidents have taken place involving heavily armed gangsters effectively attacking merchant vessels. So piracy is important and we recognise that.

However, I do not believe that there is the loophole which the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, is concerned about. I explained in Committee that under international law piracy means illegal acts taken on the high seas. By definition, it does not apply within a state's territorial sea and the ordinary criminal law applies there. If it takes place at home it is within territorial waters and it is not piracy. Therefore, there is no need to extend the provision.

The Aviation and Maritime Security Act 1990 provides a wide range of powers to control illegal acts in the territorial sea. I believe that the two together cover every possible situation so I do not believe that this amendment is necessary.

Lord Berkeley

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that explanation. I shall study his remarks carefully. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Schedule 6 [Minor and consequential amendments]:

Viscount Goschen moved Amendment No. 48: Page 61, line 6, at end insert— ("The Supreme Court Act 1981 (c. 54) 1A. In section 20 of the Supreme Court Act 1981 (Admiralty jurisdiction of High Court), in subsection (5)(b) for "International Oil Compensation Fund 1984" there is substituted "International Oil Pollution Compensation Fund 1992".").

The noble Viscount said: My Lords, this is a technical amendment which will correct a minor error in the Merchant Shipping Act 1995. The amendment will delete an erroneous reference to the International Oil Compensation Fund 1984 and substitute the correct reference, which is the International Oil Pollution Compensation Fund 1992. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Viscount Goschen moved Amendment No. 49: Page 61, line 14, at end insert— ("2A.—(1) With respect to applications made after the commencement of this paragraph, section 158 of the 1995 Act (limitation actions), including that section as set out in Schedule 4 to that Act, is amended as follows. (2) In subsection (2)—

1. (a) for the words "and is entitled to limit it" there is substituted "but has not found that he is not entitled to limit it", and
2. (b) for "the limit of the liability" there is substituted "the limit which would apply to the applicant's liability if he were entitled to limit it".

(3) After subsection (2) there is inserted— "(2A) Where—

1. (a) a distribution is made under subsection (2)(b) above without the court having found that the applicant is entitled to limit his liability, and
2. (b) the court subsequently finds that the applicant is not so entitled,

the making of the distribution is not to be regarded as affecting the applicant's liability in excess of the amount distributed."").

The noble Viscount said: My Lords, this is a technical amendment to the legislation on compensation following oil spills by tankers. Section 158 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1995 implements provisions of the International Convention on the Civil Liability for Oil Pollution Damage. This amendment seeks to ensure that the Act implements the convention as closely as possible. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Viscount Goschen moved Amendment No. 50: Page 62, line 2, at end insert— ("13A. In section 261 (improvement notices), in subsection (4)(a), after "130" there is inserted "130A"").

The noble Viscount said: My Lords, this is a small but important amendment which adds teeth to Clause 5. It relates to a discussion that we had some hours ago at the beginning of the consideration of the Report stage of the Bill and to an amendment laid by noble Lords opposite. I said that there was a government amendment that had broadly the same purpose and, lo and behold, we discover it at the end of the Bill.

The clause contains enabling powers for the Secretary of State to place a requirement on a ship's master to discharge waste in port in specified circumstances. As the clause is currently drafted, we could enforce such a requirement in just one manner: by making non-compliance an offence. This is somewhat inflexible. It would mean that, if a port state control inspector's persuasive powers failed to ensure compliance, he would have no option but to bring a prosecution. This rigidity is not consistent with the general approach adopted in the Merchant Shipping Act 1995 in relation to other offences.

Generally, the Act provides my department's inspectors with a more comprehensive armoury of enforcement powers. In particular, a common means that we use to ensure compliance with the statutory requirements laid down under the 1995 Act is the power to serve improvement and prohibition notices.

We have concluded that port state control inspectors' powers should be enhanced and made more flexible. This can be achieved by giving them the ability to issue improvement and prohibition notices. This would be the effect of this amendment. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Viscount Goschen moved Amendment No. 51: Page 62, line 2, at end insert— ("13B. In section 293 (functions of Secretary of State in relation to marine pollution), in subsection (2), before sub-paragraph (a), there is inserted— (za) the preparation, review and implementation of a national plan setting out arrangements for responding to incidents which cause or may cause marine pollution with a view to preventing such pollution or reducing or minimising its effects;"").

The noble Viscount said: My Lords, this amendment was spoken to with Amendment No. 2. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Greenway moved Amendment No. 52: Page 62, line 26, leave out ("or Schedule 11 A").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment refers to consultation. While I admit that it probably seeks to go further than the Government would wish in making the general lighthouse authorities statutory consultees under the Bill, there is slight sensitivity on the part of those authorities as regards consultation. When this Bill was in preparation the Government had the usual consultations with those who might be affected. However, in the great hurry to put the Bill together one or two items were slipped in at the last moment which were not consulted upon and which have caused us all so much extra work. The Minister apologised for that omission and I have taken that apology in good faith. I am now merely seeking to see whether the Minister is prepared from the Dispatch Box to give some sort of assurance that in future, especially when we are dealing with any type of international agreement, the lighthouse authorities will be properly consulted before we go ahead. I beg to move.

Viscount Goschen

My Lords, I understand fully the sensitivities which the noble Lord, Lord Greenway, elucidated when speaking to his amendments, Amendments Nos. 52 and 53. It is the Government's policy to consult as widely as possible and in as much detail as possible. A great deal of what we have discussed during this Report stage has centred on consultation with the various authorities, bodies and individuals concerned. Consultation is a major plank of the way we approach legislation and when bringing forward proposals of almost any sort.

We published a draft consultation paper last February and took account of the responses to it in the draft Bill that we published last June. The replies to that consultation in turn influenced the form of the Bill which was introduced last autumn. I have acknowledged that consultation on the provisions in Schedule 2, relating to light dues, was not all that it should have been. I am happy to repeat that and to apologise again to the House for the lack of consultation on that specific issue. However, that was not due to any lack of willingness on our part to consult but more to a late change in our understanding of what the existing legislation allowed. I believe that that point and the Government's good intentions have now been accepted.

I am happy to assure the House that there will be continuing consultation with the GLAs as work towards an international agreement proceeds both on technical issues and on methods of collection—and, indeed, on any other issues with which the GLAs are properly involved and on which they need properly to be consulted. I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Greenway, that I do not want to do anything which causes him—or, indeed, myself—any extra work. It is in all of our interests to consult as widely and as fully as possible. However, for the reasons that have been given on many occasions, I do not believe that statutory consultation is necessary to achieve that aim. With that assurance, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

Lord Greenway

My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister, first, for pointing out that there was no misintention in the Government not consulting on certain issues in the first place and, secondly, for his assurance that full consultation will be undertaken in any future deliberations. On that basis, I am happy to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendment No. 53 not moved.]

Clause 29 [Short title, interpretation and commencement]:

Viscount Goschen moved Amendment No. 54: Page 23, line 33, after ("11,") insert ("(Preparation of plans under International Convention on Oil Pollution Preparedness, Response and Co-operation)").

The noble Viscount said: My Lords, this amendment was spoken to with Amendment No. 23. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Viscount Goschen moved Amendment No. 55: Page 23, line 33, after ("Schedule 2") insert ("and paragraph 13A of Schedule 6").

The noble Viscount said: My Lords, this amendment was spoken to with the group of amendments considered with Amendment No. 2.1 beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.