Merchant Shipping and Fishing Vessels (Port Waste Reception Facilities) Regulations 2003 (Hansard, 4 July 2003)

§ Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton
rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 19th June be approved [24th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. I am very pleased to introduce the Merchant Shipping and Fishing Vessels (Port Waste Reception Facilities) Regulations 2003, which will help to protect the marine environment. Ships generate waste—of various kinds—in the course of their voyages. They have to dispose of that waste. If ships cannot rely on being able to discharge their waste at a reception facility in port, they may resort to discharging their waste at sea. Therefore, one sure way of reducing pollution of seas and coasts is to make certain that waste reception facilities are available in ports, and that they are easy to use and cost effective.
This is not a new idea; it has been widely recognised within the international community of maritime states for some years. The provision of adequate waste reception facilities in ports is one of the requirements of the International Convention on the Prevention of Pollution by Ships (MARPOL 73/78).
The United Kingdom introduced its own legislation several years ago to put this principle into effect in the Merchant Shipping (Port Waste Reception Facilities) Regulations 1997 (SI 1997 No. 3018), which successfully govern the UK′s existing port waste management planning regime. The UK′s existing regulations apply to all United Kingdom ports, using the term "port" to apply to all ports, harbours, terminals, marinas, piers and jetties. The UK′s waste reception regime is based on plans that are based, in turn, on consultation.
Subsequently, a proposal for European Community legislation was also initiated. The UK played a very active role in developing the EC measure—Directive 2000/59/EC on port reception facilities for ship-generated waste and cargo residues—which was published in the official journal of the European Communities on 28th December 2000. These regulations transpose the EC directive. In addition, because the UK′s regime has worked well since its inception, the regulations are designed to retain most of the elements of the existing UK regime which are consistent with the directive.
1146 The directive introduces three significant new requirements in addition to those already in the UK′s regime. The first additional requirement is for ships to provide notification, prior to their entry into port., of the waste that they will discharge at that port, including information about types and quantities of waste. The second requirement is for ships to deliver their waste to port reception facilities before leaving port. There is, none the less, provision for ships to keep their waste on board and proceed to the next port of call if they have sufficient dedicated storage capacity for the waste which has been, and will be, accumulated during the voyage.
The third significant additional requirement is for a mandatory fee to be collected from ships in respect of the costs of port reception facilities for ship-generated waste, with a charging system that is designed so that it provides no incentive to ships to discharge their waste into the sea. The directive also makes other consequential or minor changes. I commend these regulations to the House.

§ Baroness Byford
My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing the new regulations on merchant shipping waste reception facilities, which obviously we support. We welcome any measure that reduces pollution at sea. I have a few questions for the noble Baroness. If, however, she would prefer to answer some of them in writing, that would be perfectly acceptable.
First, Regulation 4 refers to, ships normally using the harbour or terminal". Is there any way in which "normal" is defined? Obviously, some ships will come in occasionally and some will come in on a regular basis. Is there any guidance on that?
Secondly, the Minister said that these were EU measures, which I accept; that is fine. Will they he implemented in a similar fashion? In other words, will each of the European ports have the same system and charge fees to enhance these new regulations, or is there discretion within each member state to decide to apply and finance the requirement in whatever way it considers relevant to its state?
Thirdly, can the Minister confirm that the "significant contribution" towards the cost of such facilities under Regulation 14 will be kept to a minimum? Further, will that contribution vary in each port within the UK? I understand from the regulation that that may depend on the amount of waste discharged, but will there be a sliding scale? How will that be achieved? Again, that is not defined in the regulation. These are small, but important points.
The regulations make it clear that the charges should be kept to a minimum since a modest charge would lessen the risk of dumping at sea. What form of risk assessment has been undertaken of that? Unfortunately any charge is likely to encourage dumping at sea, which is the last thing anyone wants.
1147 Regulation 14(2) states that the charge, may take into account the category, type and size of the ship". I should be grateful for further clarification on that. Regulation 21(4) refers to the unreasonable detention of a ship if it has abused the regulations in any way. Again, is there any quantifiable language to cover the use of the word "unreasonable"? A definition would be of help to us.
I understand that the costs are to be small, but can the Minister say whether the costs charged to the harbour will go towards paying the Maritime and Coastguard Agency′s monitoring and enforcement unit, which I understand may incur additional costs of around £43,000, or will that sum be sponsored directly by the Government, so that the charges levied on ships entering the port will be relevant only to the facilities being provided by the individual port? Again, that point is not made clear in the regulations.
As I have said, these are only small points, but they are important. If the Minister is not able to respond to them all at this point, I shall be happy for her to write to me.

§ Baroness Harris of Richmond
My Lords, I rise simply to say that noble Lords on the Liberal Democrat Benches agree with the regulations.

§ Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton
My Lords, I shall seek to respond to all the questions put to me by the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, but I shall of course write to her on any points that I do not cover.
The compliance costs to industry seem likely to be small, assuming that the 154,000 arrivals into UK ports in 2001 may be taken as a guide for future years. The Department for Transport estimates that the costs of these processes may be in the order of £500,000 per annum; that is, representing a cost of £3 per arrival—around 0.1 per cent of the average costs to a ship.
The increased costs will be met from the fees charged and no additional taxpayers′ money will be spent. All EC ports will apply the directive, but there will be variations between states because these are allowed under the terms of the directive.
The noble Baroness asked about the "reasonable" or "unreasonable" detention of a vessel. That is a matter which ultimately would have to be addressed by the courts. The term "normal" is not defined; it is a term that is normally assessed against reasonable behaviour. However, I appreciate that it may need a little further clarification.
There will be administrative costs to the harbour authority and terminal operator. Nevertheless, all the indications suggest that the new provisions stemming from the directive will place only a small additional compliance cost on the UK ports industry. As regards the detailed point put to me by the noble Baroness about enforcement costs and the Coastguard Agency, I shall write to her.
1148 I thank both noble Baronesses. I commend the regulations to the House.